Sunday, October 12, 2014

Liberal Islamophiles

"We’re liberals! We’re liberals. We’re not crazy tea-baggers," Bill Maher protested after his televised argument with Ben Affleck about Islam.

 "We are not bigoted people. On the contrary, we’re trying to stand up for the principles of
liberalism!" Maher added. "I think we’re just saying we need to identify illiberalism wherever we find it in the world, and not forgive it because it comes from [a group] people perceive as a minority."

But despite Maher’s protests, the majority of liberals would agree with Affleck that criticizing Islam is racist. Liberals claim that the Islamic State is Un-Islamic. It would be more accurate to state that liberals are illiberal. Liberalism, even the form that was in common usage not too long ago, is as dead as Lenin.

Ben Affleck isn’t a liberal. He’s an enthusiast of revisionist Communist historian Howard Zinn. The modern liberal of today is uninterested in identifying “illiberalism” since he is an illiberal man of the left. The most significant difference between the two is not simply political, but psychological. Liberals used to think about issues. Leftists respond to ideological cues while operating on a purely tribal wavelength.

Affleck’s assertion that criticizing Islam is racist is impossible to argue with. It’s completely wrong on multiple levels, but it’s not an argument. It’s a denunciation. It doesn’t advance an argument; it rejects the argument and the arguer as illegitimate. And it’s an ideological cue telling everyone else to follow.

Leftists don’t debate issues. That would be a liberal thing to do. Instead they seek to affirm a consensus. The consensus is reinforced by in-group flattery which convinces members that they are empathetic and enlightened people, while those outside the consensus are subjected to constant contempt and abuse. The denunciation places the target outside the consensus. Calling Maher a “racist” makes him a Tea Party member no matter how much he clings to a liberal identification. It makes him an outsider.

The USSR was every bit as “illiberal” as ISIS, but critics of it were damned as “red-baiters” and McCarthyists. Now critics of Islam are denounced as racists even though Islam is not a race.

Why are Stalin and Mohammed part of the consensus, but their liberal critics weren’t? The answer tells us a good deal about what the consensus really is and what it isn’t.

The things that Maher and Harris criticize Islam for, a lack of freedom, sexism and homophobia are not part of the consensus. Not when the flagship party of liberalism was also the party of segregation, the leading members of the golden family of liberalism were serial abusers of women and Bill, Hillary and Obama were against gay marriage before they were for it. Islam is sexist, bigoted and totalitarian, but so was the Soviet Union. Their liberal defenders are utterly unconcerned, no matter how much they run their mouths about Republican racism and sexism.

Nearly every Muslim country locks up gay men, but so did nearly every Communist country.

Do you think that Ben Affleck is bothered by the fact that Doha and Dubai, whose film industries he has become entangled with, are built and run by slave labor? Or that homosexuality is criminalized? The same Hollywood leftists who put on their indignant faces over Proposition 8 shut up when they’re partying in one of the pleasure cities of the Gulf Muslims who do a lot more than refuse to recognize gay marriage. They’re not just hypocrites; they were never committed to gay rights.

Gays, feminists and Muslims are a means to the left. They are not the reason why the left does things.

The left builds coalitions of disruption with interest groups. It doesn’t care about those groups. It’s just using them to get what it really wants which is a totalitarian state in which the consensus can implement all of its horrible ideas without any interference. Muslims are the newest coalition member and their disruption skills are impressive. Just look at how they managed to turn the Bush Administration around.

That doesn’t mean that the left cares about Muslims. It would toss them under the bus before they could shout “Allah Akhbar” if it suited the consensus. The liberal defenders of Islam have chosen not to read the Koran. They know next to nothing about Islam except that it’s a minority group. And that’s how they like it. That way they can shout down any criticism with cries of “Racism” because they’re too lazy to even bother stringing enough letters together to shout “Islamophobe”. That’s how little they care.

All of this has as much to do with liberalism as Obama has to do with Andrew Jackson. There’s nothing liberal about the honor killing and the hijab, but there’s also nothing liberal about trying to turn America into a totalitarian state. Maher, who has been known to identify as a libertarian, doesn’t seem to have grasped that the liberals who defend Islam do so because they share its totalitarian mindset.

Lenin wasn’t fighting so that the peasants would have land, bread and peace. Today’s liberals aren’t fighting for equality of income, gender, race or any other kind. They are fighting to suppress any and all opposition to their policies by disrupting and destroying the existing American system at every level.

That’s exactly what Islam is doing.

Leftists don’t value equality, they value disruption. If they can disrupt by promoting equality, they will do it. If they can disrupt by promoting inequality, they will do that. If they can disrupt by promoting gay marriage, promoting Islamists, promoting the environment, promoting unregulated industry, promoting freedom of speech or promoting hate speech laws, they will do those things in order of opportunism.

Their underlying goal is to replace existing ideas and systems with their own. Anything that serves that purpose is good. Anything that maintains the existing order is bad.

The very concept of universal standards that Maher is appealing to is foreign to the modern liberal. He doesn’t believe that there is a universal standard. He views the world as tribally as a Taliban. He can’t see behaviors as good or evil in isolation, but only in relation to ideological cues. He derives his heroes and villains from the tribal affinities of the left, not from the things that they actually do.

That’s why he wears a Che t-shirt while calling Rush Limbaugh unpatriotic for opposing Obama. Or why he thinks that liberal billionaires underwriting political campaigns is a good thing, but conservative billionaires doing it is bad for democracy. He has no concept of standards. He only understands power.

This isn’t liberalism. It’s a leftist Jihad that has displaced and hijacked liberalism. The modern liberal has nothing to do with liberalism and it’s useless to expect him to be upset by Islamic illiberalism.


Ivan Toney said...

Very insightful. Maybe the appeal of communism is the lust for power, and clothing oneself in a kind of self righteousness. The left requires no intellectual justification. If they, like the communists in the cultural revolution in china, kill 70 million people and cause the populations to revert to cannibalism (read about it, it happenned), that's just a speed bump that needent affect their ideology. I think leftism is a cult. I am a Christian, but I think communism is perhaps a kind of Christian heresy. It may be a Jewish heresy also, I don't know. BUt Daniels attempt to probe the psychology of Ben affect is probably as good a guess as anyone will make.

XisDshizL said...

“Liberals” are as illiberal as they come. From my computer’s dictionary:

Liberal: (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform.
Liberty: the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views.

This is why I call them Inverted Reality Morons. Up is down, black is white, tyranny is freedom. Pelosi declared that having the central government take over 1/6th of the economy with a health care mandate was “health care freedom”.

Anonymous said...

I understand what liberals get from Islam but I have a harder time understanding what Islamists get from liberals. Doesn't the obvious hypocrisy of alliance with leftists shake their faith in Allah? Shouldn't liberals be the number one target of Islamists? Instead you are safer in the Marxist institute than in a mosque. What does Jihad really serve?

Anonymous said...

People who psychologically identify as democrats do not seem to care when a democrat party plank directly contradicts a cherished belief. Thus my religiously and culturally devout Jewish and Israel supporting relatives are the most strident democrats and never deviate from any party line espoused by O. It seems that democrats have seamlessly transitioned with their party from a caring-for-the-poor liberalism to the totalitarian left without giving it two thoughts. Strange.

Andy Texan

Anonymous said...

A most pertinent article and subsequent remarks. The goal of the supposedly modern Left is the same old goal of kings and princes, tsars, mandarins and warlords, sultans and caliphs, despots all. A now proven pathway to wealth for the few is through political action in which the small people are meant to play only one role, foot soldiers against the "bourgeois."

Marx was not the first, for this tendency to take and give back little on the part of aristocracies and bureaucracies in today's world of a functional clerisy, is a centuries' old phenomenon. The only true and relatively modern concept is freedom for the individual. It is against this that so many so-called liberals rage, because they as illiberal liberals require others to obey them. How aristocratic. How despotic.

Norman Mailer once opined that the natural political state of man is fascism, and as few know clearly fascism under Mussolini was Italian socialism, as under the National Socialists it was a different -- translation, "same" -- sort of dictatorship.

The supposedly new Left is nothing but the old order raging against freedom of thought and opinion, in a losing battle by which accurate information is supposed to be suppressed by consensus statements, but emotional diatribe as by an illogic which is intended to obscure their one goal. That goal is being someone else's master.

The modern Left is nothing other than the new masters, which are the old masters trying to camouflage themselves while scooping up power and wealth. For this, as with Maher and Affleck, they will even try to consume one another with a lust for power and authority which is as old as the hills.

The true liberal is someone who is free, thinks freely, is open to debate and willing to learn. There are precious few liberals in positions of power today, and the media is all out to destroy them where they might raise some simple evidence of not being in lock step with the "agenda." That agenda is power, power and power.

Keep up the good work in your editorials.

Anonymous said...

History repeats itself in the darndest ways doesn't it? Without the crude use of physical terror..the gullible liberals are being taught what Stalin taught the idealist revolutionaries. "Its the Party, Stupid"

Anonymous said...

But to a liberal, all non-Western people and cultures and all socialist political systems are innately virtuous. To the liberal mind, all Western capitalists and modernity are the source of all evil and oppression in the world; regardless of whatever facts a study of world history would show. So the burqa is not demonstrative of oppression against women. You are just putting your jingoistic, Western values on another culture. Recently, and only recently, I am seeing burqa-clad women in America more and more. Just this past summer, during a heatwave, I saw a woman in a BLACK burqa. To me, that is no different than seeing a Southern plantation overseer walking around with a slave in chains.

King Western Man

thebronze said...

This may be one of THE BEST articles I've EVER read.

Anonymous said...

The pursuit of total power, by all means necessary, is the hallmark of the totalitarians.

Right now, this universal tyranny is short of one ingredient: mere humans are not quite disposable by all depopulating means, until the cloning industry is ready to replace them all by the worthless android and brainless drone.

Liberals/progressises love the prospects of The Eugenic Cloning Industry: production of the New Zombies will trigger the extermination of these Old-fashioned Humanoids..

Post a Comment