Fidel Castro is once reputed to have said the following:
The universities are available only to those who share my revolutionary beliefs.
And Che Guevara once said, in a quote I am having some difficulty finding on Google at the moment, that a friend who disagreed with him on political matters was a friend no longer. Understand that most Leftists think this way. Oh, there are a few who share Voltaire’s Enlightenment views, and those are the handful whom I can respect. But most of them do not. Indeed, they view the concept of approval as a necessary condition and see its absence as active hate.
Homosexuals are a great case in point. I have a good friend who is homosexual, and he knows that I don’t care much for the practice, nor desire to hear about it over much. Furthermore, Milo Yiannopoulos, a Breitbart columnist of some stature, is a man whose writing impresses me and someone who I respect greatly, despite being famously overt with his homosexuality. A Leftist would assume that, because I disapprove of homosexuality to some extent, that I must therefore hate gays, and thus should hate these individuals because they are gay. Obviously I do not. I would give the shirt off my back to my friend, and I know he would do the same.
In other words, the Leftist subscribes to Che Guevara’s view that a man who disagrees with him politically is not a friend. 100% groupthink, mandated agreement is a necessary precondition to friendship, respect and, according to Castro, the right to even receive an education. For me, it is not. Friendship and respect transcend politics. Indeed, if someone agreed with me on everything, I would find that false, fake, and patronizing. It would not be friendship.
In a rather amusing incident, my best friend since Middle School and I got in a drag-it-out fight because I had insulted his girlfriend. She had eaten my junk food stash without permission, and I called her a number of vulgar things which could more or less be summed up as “you are really fat and ugly.” Obviously he was not pleased, regardless of what she did. I don’t remember much about the subsequent fight, but I do remember both of us laughing about it five minutes later because, during the course of the affair, I actually threw a chair at him. That proved to be so hilarious that we simply couldn’t stay mad at one another. Friends can have disagreements, even violent disagreements, and still remain friends.
I don’t approve of my gay friend’s homosexuality. But my approval is not necessary. Furthermore, I’m pretty sure he does not approve of my predisposition to fart excessively. And when I say excessively, I mean it. If I eat at Taco Bell, I can clear the restaurant in seconds. It’s that bad. Some of my friends find this funny. Others find it utterly vulgar and disgusting. But it doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things. They are my friends and my loyalty to them, and theirs to me, extends beyond such matters.
The Left cannot wrap their minds around this. When they see a cake baker who doesn’t want to provide his services to a gay ceremony, they see hate. I see disagreement. Yet the Left ignores gays being hanged, thrown off of buildings and tortured to death in other parts of the world, because the monsters doing this agree with the Left on most other substantial matters, like the destruction of America, Capitalism, the West, Christianity, White people, etc…
Agreement is friendship. Disagreement is hate. This is the Leftist Creed, excepting, of course, those Leftists who continue to adhere to Voltaire’s maxim (or, at least, the maxim commonly attributed to him):
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
However, such Leftists are becoming an endangered species in recent decades and even many on the supposed “Right-wing” have embraced the disagreement is hate narrative. I wonder if they realize that they are echoing the sentiments of one of history’s most psychopathic mass-murderers when they do this.