The American writer Lawrence Auster had a debate with his readers regarding the possibility of splitting the USA along ideological lines. According to reader Tim W, modern Left liberalism is a universal totalitarian ideology, not a “live and let live” concept. The goal of its adherents is a world government from which no one can escape. Leftists “need conservatives but conservatives don’t need leftists. To be blunt, they can’t let us go. We’d be happy to be rid of them, because to us they’re nothing but parasites and/or oppressors. But they can’t get rid of us because we do most of the work, pay most of the taxes, provide the stability and morality that allow their depravity to thrive with less damaging results. Furthermore, the white conservative population is the buffer protecting white liberals from the minorities.”- - - - - - - - -
A number of commentators questioned the viability of such a political division. Muslims believe not only that Islam is the best religion, but that it is the only true religion and that all people must be brought into its fold. Likewise, Leftists sincerely believe that Leftism is the only valid ideology, and that the whole world must be brought under its heel. Just like the very existence of self-governed communities outside of Islamic rule is considered an intolerable act of aggression by devout Muslims, so the existence of self-governed non-Leftist communities anywhere, at least if they happen to be white, is unacceptable to Leftist True Believers. They don’t just want to rule themselves; they want to rule everybody else as well.
In her book A God Who Hates, the Syrian-born ex-Muslim Wafa Sultan comments on the Islamic “culture of shouting and raiding.” She states that “My experience has been that two Muslims cannot talk together without their conversation turning into shouts within minutes, especially when they disagree with each other, and no good can come of that. When you talk to a Muslim, rationally, in a low calm voice, he has trouble understanding your point of view. He thinks you have lost the argument. A Muslim conversing with anyone else — Muslim or non-Muslim — cannot remember a single word the other person has said, any more than my mother could remember a single word of what the preacher in our local mosque said.”
Former Muslim Ali Sina notes that “there is very little difference between the Left and Islam. What is lacking in both these creeds is the adherence to the Golden Rule. Just as for Muslims, everything Islamic is a priori right and good and everything un-Islamic is a priori wrong and evil, for the Left, everything leftist is a priori oppressed and good.” Facts don’t matter. Lying about opponents and their intentions is so widespread “that it is considered to be normal.”
After it was revealed that much of the data regarding alleged man-made global warming was deliberately fabricated, which constitutes one of the largest and most expensive anti-scientific frauds in history, most of its Leftist backers continued as if nothing had happened. The fact that they had promoted outright lies and slimed their opponents based on these lies mattered little. They believe they had the right to do so, as long as their intentions were right. Muslims, too, are allowed to lie to further the spread of their ideology. This strategy is called taqiyya.
Just like Muslims, both national Socialists and international Socialists totally lack respect for Socratic Dialogue, the reasoned search for truth which has been a hallmark of Western culture at its best. This is why such a large percentage of Western converts to Islam are either neo-Nazis or Marxists: These groups already think a great deal like Muslims. Their creed is the Absolute Truth, which should rule the world and must be imposed on others by brute force if necessary. They consequently have no need for reasoned debate. Others should submit to their rule or be violently squashed. End of story.
Read the rest at Europe News.
10 comments:
From the complete article: Above all, opponents questioned whether the whole idea of “just wanting to be left alone” is defeatist and leaves the opponents with the initiative. Perhaps the battle cannot be won until we go on the offensive and take the ideological war to the enemy.
Given the Left’s voracious appetite for control, even “just wanting to be left alone” will soon be viewed as being against the “Public Good”. In his highly recommended exposé of the modern Liberal assault upon individualism, “The War on Freedom”, Daniel Greenfield (AKA Sultan Knish) writes:
As the new liberal narrative would have it, the only people who want the freedom to keep what they earn, write what they think, choose their own health care, elect their own leaders, read what they like and live lives apart from the great machinery of the state—are the White Male Oppressors, (who are simultaneously ignorant clinging to their religion and their guns and yet at the same time are part of a privileged elite). Freedom is clearly a bad thing, then. It’s a symptom of selfishness. And selfish people are the oppressors; the greedy ones who don’t want a welfare state, illegal aliens, impossibly priced products, inaccessible lifesaving medical procedures, recycling bins in every room of the house and all the other wonderful benefits of Socialism.
People who want to be free are no longer Americans. Certainly not Constitutionalists. Instead, paradoxically, they’re the new parasites, the people who refuse to be cogs in the great machine of socialism. The selfish Kulaks who hoard their wheat. The businessmen who make too much money. The hardworking housewife who won’t pay double for a “Green” labeled product. These are the worms in the apple of the socialist state. The people who refuse to contribute to what the government and the alliance of unions, left wing front groups and media pundits label as the Public Good.
Facts don’t matter. Lying about opponents and their intentions is so widespread “that it is considered to be normal.
It isn’t just that “facts don’t matter”. They pose insurmountable stumbling blocks to the Leftist agenda and, therefore, must be dispensed with. This is a core symptom of Liberalism’s Magical Thinking™.
A chief characteristic of Magical Thinking is rejection of the principles of science, eschewing the notion that all physical bodies and natural phenomenon are under the law of cause and effect; and that all such elements are discoverable via observation and testing. In Global Warming, careful science was abandoned by egotistical “scientists,” pawning a grand motif where sinful capitalistic man attacked the earth for greed, then was menaced by mother earth’s death.
Based solely on perception, the entire hysteria surrounding Global Warming assumes nearly religious proportions for the feelings-driven Left. All logic and reason must be checked at the door as a price of admission.
That’s why this ongoing struggle is likely to get ugly, because no compromise is possible.
Even if it were possible, how do you compromise with irrationality? This is the problem presented by Political Correctness and its unshakable belief that it is possible to pick up a turd by its clean end.
Something priceless about this essay is the quote from Wafa Sultan's book... I've seen that nonsense between ayrabs/mahoundians first hand, but those who haven't can get a pretty darn good idea how it is so by watching videos on MEMRI.org. The utter lack of logic, absence of factual evidence to back up any claims/conspiracy theories, failure to connect anything said to what's going to be said next are the rule for anything intended to resemble a debate between mahoundians. It's all there for everyone to see, provided you have the stomach for it.
In hoc signo vinces
To comprehend what has went on particularly over the last 30 years it must be realised that in the UK the right was as much a part of the neoliberal madness as the left, one way to test if someone can grasp neoliberal politics is their acknowledgment of this indeed the UK conservative party now reveal their brand of neoliberalism as "progressive" politics. The left and the right in the Uk were in reality part of the same neoliberal sum a power grab of a bureaucratic cabal. Conservatism is not a byword for criminality and fraud.
It is hard to coexist with people who think exactly opposite to what you think. But that's what we do in the civilized world. After all, we in America have the 2-party system, not the 1-party system. So, we must coexist. Dividing from your idealogical counterpart is useless and counter-productive, because ideology is not inherited. Children of communists may become conservatives and vice versa. It is like separating face from buttoks, because they are shameful. After all, buttoks are necessary too, but some people don't admit it.
The problem is, however, that both parties must agree on vital national interest. And I don't believe that Islam is a partisan problem.
Evan Sayet answers Fjordman's question in his own inimitable way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c&feature=related
In a word, his answer is "no".
There is indeed a gaping chasm between the two American parties, and it doesn't seem as if there's any use to still talk. The same is true for the Netherlands and for Europe by the way - there's just no coming together; talking to the left is like trying to debate a muslim - they both make use of the same tactic book rulebook, and then there is the shouting thing Wafat mentioned. Anyway - it's just impossible. The leftist planning and scheming just goes on relentless, without anyone taking notice of civic resistance.
Just think of the way the EU was forced upon us, and how our governments actually gave away our sovereignty..
Isn't it uncanny by the way that the conflict in the states is still over the same issues?
No doubt the blue parties will again say that an eventual war is about racism, just like the last time..
Now a man preaching what he thinks is a platitude is far more intolerant than a man preaching what he admits is a paradox. It was exactly because is seemed self-evident, to Moslems as to Bolshevists, that their simple creed was suitable to everybody, that they wished in that particular sweeping fashion to impose it on everybody--
Chesterton
4Symbols, a party that implements leftist policies can't be a right wing party. It's irrelevant how they rebrand themselves - in my country we have one right wing party, one center right, one center left and one leftist. They all like leftist policies so they're all to the left.
Ypp, I'm not interested in forming a polity with leftists. And you have a one party system - the GOP and the Democrats are the same people - both liberals. And tabula rasa is a stupid thing to build your country on - if what you say is true, why doesn't Cali become conservative tomorrow? Obviously, an ideology isn't inherited, but the emotional predispositions towards a certain type of ideology can be and the way the child is brought up changes how he will think. And no, liberals and leftists aren't needed.
Oh, and there isn't such thing as non-partisan politics. Everything is partisan. Non partisan politics means the Democrats winning in the US, for example. You must understand what a nation is and why governments are instituted. A nation is a group of people with a similar perceived ancestry, ethnicity, culture, moral values, art, language and religion. A nation institutes a government in order to protect it from enemies and enforce certain things and their consent to be governed comes out of those similarities. Even with a white European that is a socialist, I don't have the desire or need to consent to be governed by him.
"In her book A God Who Hates, the Syrian-born ex-Muslim Wafa Sultan comments on the Islamic “culture of shouting and raiding.” She states that “My experience has been that two Muslims cannot talk together without their conversation turning into shouts within minutes, especially when they disagree with each other, and no good can come of that. When you talk to a Muslim, rationally, in a low calm voice, he has trouble understanding your point of view. He thinks you have lost the argument. A Muslim conversing with anyone else — Muslim or non-Muslim — cannot remember a single word the other person has said, any more than my mother could remember a single word of what the preacher in our local mosque said.”
I have lived in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emerites, and Oman for nine years. I have never seen or heard any Arabs shouting at each other, nor have they attempted to shout down myself nor any other Westerners in a discussion. Shouting at another person is universally condemned as rude.
Perhaps Wafa Sultan does not know that Arabs are frequently Muslims.
Dear teacher.paris: I find your comments to be disingenuous and dishonest. The REASON that no Arabs Muslims were shouting you down was because you were SELF-CENSORING in submission to Sharia Law stringently enforced in Muslim majority countries that have already KILLED or ENSLAVED everyone who disagreed with Islam.
Want proof? Sneak a Bible into Saudi Arabia and start READING it aloud. Let's see how far you get before a MUSLIM is shouting you down, beating you up, prosecuting you for hate speech, and putting you to a speedy death sentence.
The greater Muslim world is full of examples of Muslims shouting each other down - except they often use violence while they are shouting. In Iran, the Muslim government beat, raped, and killed peaceful election protesters.
The greater Muslim world is also full of examples of Muslims shouting down non-Muslims. Look at all of the Christian churches that are burned down by Muslims.
Flying the planes into the World Trade Centers was the ultimate act of Muslims shouting down the West.
Your comments make you sound naive and stupid. Get a clue!
Post a Comment