That was an odd moment. During a climate-change demonstration in Amsterdam where Greta Thunberg was speaking, a man invaded the stage and grabbed the microphone.A radical right-wing hateful about to give her some profane and obscenity-laced advice?Not at all. Just a dissatisfied green radical who apparently thought she was off-message. “I came here for a climate demonstration, not a political view,” he yelled before he was strong-armed off the stage.As the BBC tells the story, “chants of ‘Palestine will be free’ could be heard from the crowd. Earlier during the rally, an activist had her speech cut short by organizers after using the phrase, ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.’ Many Jewish groups say the slogan, used at demonstrations around the world, is a call for the destruction of Israel.”Watch it here.Now, it’s not that protest gatherings have never been hi-jacked before.What made it an odd moment was that Greta Thunberg, whose issue as we all know is climate-change, then joined in with the hi-jacking radicals and herself took up a pro-Hamas chant: “No climate justice on occupied land.” The Stockholm Syndrome, no doubt.Yet how easily she made the transition. How does she do that? Admittedly, one should not overthink it. Deep down, Ms. Thunberg seems superficial; she was likely swept up in the sheer, delicious spontaneity of the moment. Still, what does Israeli ‘occupation’ (or any occupation for that matter) have to do with climate justice? One must learn to think like the leftist Ms. Thunberg manifestly is, for whom seemingly disparate political ideologies are not as disconnected as we think. Here's the right/left difference.On the right, people tend to consider issues on their merits. You can therefore be an economic conservative, but a social liberal, favour more immigration but be against carbon taxes. Issues aren’t necessarily linked.Serious leftists don’t make such crude distinctions, however. According to the left's prevailing critical theory, everything is determined by how power is shared between groups. Therefore, everything is connected and the proper way to think may be deduced from first principles that presuppose a vast, systemic web of oppression and injustice.Thus 'empowered,' a person may believe climate change, Canada’s indigenous issues, the politics of sexual minorities, war in the Middle East (or anywhere else,) the supposed overpopulation of the planet, Christianity and the traditional family are simultaneously the cause and effect of social injustice (as the left defines it) and as Ms. Thunberg shows, are functionally interchangeable at a rally.None of this is accidental. Left-wing theorists are keenly aware of the value to them of making and maintaining these linkages. As one small example, take Washington, DC's activist Butterfly Lab. There's nothing special about it. It's just one of many left-wing organizations promoting a coordinated progressive view, a ‘deep narrative,’ so to speak. However their reasoning is typical. For example, the innocuous sounding ‘we all belong to each other’ means ‘someone else can determine your best interest in the name of a greater good.’ Or, ‘rights come with responsibilities’ which really means rights are no longer inalienable; they can now be doled out as privileges for ‘good behaviour.’ (That is, behaviour that aligns with the state/collective.’) In their 'deep narrative' of equity and inclusion, these folk even find a way to link their immigration advocacy with their attack on traditional marriage.If that's how the left thinks then, there's nothing at all odd about Greta Thunberg switching seamlessly from climate, to Gaza and back again. It's all one straight ticket that provides a facsimile of hope, the certainties of religious faith and a complete explanation for everything.The thing to keep in mind though, is that it is a facsimile.And, it is a fake. Whatever great thoughts Ms. Thunberg may entertain about the weather, there is nothing in critical theory that can ever make it a humane, reasonable and logical thing for men to break into a nursery and cut the heads off babies.What was really odd in Amsterdam was that so many people apparently thought there was.
That was an odd moment. During a climate-change demonstration in Amsterdam where Greta Thunberg was speaking, a man invaded the stage and grabbed the microphone.A radical right-wing hateful about to give her some profane and obscenity-laced advice?Not at all. Just a dissatisfied green radical who apparently thought she was off-message. “I came here for a climate demonstration, not a political view,” he yelled before he was strong-armed off the stage.As the BBC tells the story, “chants of ‘Palestine will be free’ could be heard from the crowd. Earlier during the rally, an activist had her speech cut short by organizers after using the phrase, ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.’ Many Jewish groups say the slogan, used at demonstrations around the world, is a call for the destruction of Israel.”Watch it here.Now, it’s not that protest gatherings have never been hi-jacked before.What made it an odd moment was that Greta Thunberg, whose issue as we all know is climate-change, then joined in with the hi-jacking radicals and herself took up a pro-Hamas chant: “No climate justice on occupied land.” The Stockholm Syndrome, no doubt.Yet how easily she made the transition. How does she do that? Admittedly, one should not overthink it. Deep down, Ms. Thunberg seems superficial; she was likely swept up in the sheer, delicious spontaneity of the moment. Still, what does Israeli ‘occupation’ (or any occupation for that matter) have to do with climate justice? One must learn to think like the leftist Ms. Thunberg manifestly is, for whom seemingly disparate political ideologies are not as disconnected as we think. Here's the right/left difference.On the right, people tend to consider issues on their merits. You can therefore be an economic conservative, but a social liberal, favour more immigration but be against carbon taxes. Issues aren’t necessarily linked.Serious leftists don’t make such crude distinctions, however. According to the left's prevailing critical theory, everything is determined by how power is shared between groups. Therefore, everything is connected and the proper way to think may be deduced from first principles that presuppose a vast, systemic web of oppression and injustice.Thus 'empowered,' a person may believe climate change, Canada’s indigenous issues, the politics of sexual minorities, war in the Middle East (or anywhere else,) the supposed overpopulation of the planet, Christianity and the traditional family are simultaneously the cause and effect of social injustice (as the left defines it) and as Ms. Thunberg shows, are functionally interchangeable at a rally.None of this is accidental. Left-wing theorists are keenly aware of the value to them of making and maintaining these linkages. As one small example, take Washington, DC's activist Butterfly Lab. There's nothing special about it. It's just one of many left-wing organizations promoting a coordinated progressive view, a ‘deep narrative,’ so to speak. However their reasoning is typical. For example, the innocuous sounding ‘we all belong to each other’ means ‘someone else can determine your best interest in the name of a greater good.’ Or, ‘rights come with responsibilities’ which really means rights are no longer inalienable; they can now be doled out as privileges for ‘good behaviour.’ (That is, behaviour that aligns with the state/collective.’) In their 'deep narrative' of equity and inclusion, these folk even find a way to link their immigration advocacy with their attack on traditional marriage.If that's how the left thinks then, there's nothing at all odd about Greta Thunberg switching seamlessly from climate, to Gaza and back again. It's all one straight ticket that provides a facsimile of hope, the certainties of religious faith and a complete explanation for everything.The thing to keep in mind though, is that it is a facsimile.And, it is a fake. Whatever great thoughts Ms. Thunberg may entertain about the weather, there is nothing in critical theory that can ever make it a humane, reasonable and logical thing for men to break into a nursery and cut the heads off babies.What was really odd in Amsterdam was that so many people apparently thought there was.
