Liberalism and Islam, again
I've seen this linked to in three different places, most notably OWD and Ponsdorf's personal site (Another Voice, see blogroll)
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/paradise_lost_why_the_left_lov.html
The venerable great-granddaddy of liberalism, Jean Jacques Rousseau provides the meat of this discourse on why the Left loves Islam, when Islam hates so much of what liberalism truly is all about. You all remember that--women's rights, gay rights, equal rights for people of the wrong skin color (and if you think Islam is free of that, try being a Circassian or Armenian or Kurd or just the wrong tribe in most of the Middle East). All that stuff that liberals are supposed to hate, Islam espouses. Yet the Left loves Islam.
"Several peoples, however, even in Europe and its neighborhood, have desired without success to preserve or restore the old system: but the spirit of Christianity has everywhere prevailed. The sacred cult has always remained or again become independent of the Sovereign, and there has been no necessary link between it and the body of the State. Mahomet held very sane views, and linked his political system well together; and, as long as the form of his government continued under the caliphs who succeeded him, that government was indeed one, and so far good."
The application today is:
"A racist, sexist, homophobic, power-mad society such as ours deserves to be taught a lesson! Even if the teacher is racist, sexist, homophobic, and power-mad, they aren't Western, Christian, or White! They aren't Dick Cheney! Power to the people!"
"The Liberal ultimately believes that the culture we have built, the triumph of Judeo-Christian values, is diseased and must be erased. If Islam can do their work for them, so be it. Islam, like the State under Marx, will ultimately wither away, and the paradise which predated Christ and Abraham can be restored. At least they like to think so."
"Much like Milton's fallen angels, they believe they have been dispossessed of their rightful station by a tyrannical spiritual entity, and they are determined to repossess their native seat-the fallen pastoral paradise promised them by Rousseau and Nietzsche-via the triumph of their Collective Will. This is their prime mover, their principle motivation. It is why they were so enraged at the loss of their political power, and why they hate the "usurper" George W. Bush; they were driven out before they could attain paradise. This concept-lifted from Christian doctrine-that History has an ultimate end in a Humanistic Eden cannot be overstressed; the Left is consumed with this. They feel that, by losing their political power, they have been cast into the Lake of Fire."
Absolutely true. Bolshevism was once described as a basically Christian heresy. The heresy being, of course, that one could coerce human beings into acting in a moral, unselfish manner. The corollary was that any means was acceptable to that end, which prevented the Bolsheviks from being able to discern between well-intentioned reformers and power-mad dogs like Stalin. Once you discard traditional morality, then the only real, effective check on the depravity of man is gone and you end up with the lowest common denominator.
The fundamental flaw, as I see it, is pride. Unable or unwilling to admit that they are not perfected already in their words, thoughts, and deeds, certain people must attack the Chruch as that which proclaims two inescapable truths, that all men are fundamentally flawed creatures, and that there is only one way of altering that situation. Incapable of facing that reality, they set themselves up as the new arbiters of what is right and wrong. But as the Evil One cannot create, but only distort and pervert what is already created, instead of a viable alternative, we end up with the contradictory self-loathing masochism (for what else does the decrying of Western Civilization itself mean?) and the self-centered Will to Power as the substitute ideology.
We see this evidenced in the shrill accusations the left hurls--if you say that this or that behavior is immoral, they will respond, 'but Mark Foley send smutty emails' or 'but George Bush is a liar' or 'but ad homenium is fun and easy and a substitute for actual thinking'.
Very interesting, and self-revealing.
Now, there is an alternate strain of Liberalism, one rooted in (Protestant) reformers driven by Christian compassion to attempt to better the lot of those less fortunate. I can argue methods with those people, but not ends. My issue is with the breed of Liberalism which is rooted in Marxian principles and has as its end the eradication of what we now call Western Civilization since the term Christendom has become passe.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/paradise_lost_why_the_left_lov.html
The venerable great-granddaddy of liberalism, Jean Jacques Rousseau provides the meat of this discourse on why the Left loves Islam, when Islam hates so much of what liberalism truly is all about. You all remember that--women's rights, gay rights, equal rights for people of the wrong skin color (and if you think Islam is free of that, try being a Circassian or Armenian or Kurd or just the wrong tribe in most of the Middle East). All that stuff that liberals are supposed to hate, Islam espouses. Yet the Left loves Islam.
"Several peoples, however, even in Europe and its neighborhood, have desired without success to preserve or restore the old system: but the spirit of Christianity has everywhere prevailed. The sacred cult has always remained or again become independent of the Sovereign, and there has been no necessary link between it and the body of the State. Mahomet held very sane views, and linked his political system well together; and, as long as the form of his government continued under the caliphs who succeeded him, that government was indeed one, and so far good."
The application today is:
"A racist, sexist, homophobic, power-mad society such as ours deserves to be taught a lesson! Even if the teacher is racist, sexist, homophobic, and power-mad, they aren't Western, Christian, or White! They aren't Dick Cheney! Power to the people!"
"The Liberal ultimately believes that the culture we have built, the triumph of Judeo-Christian values, is diseased and must be erased. If Islam can do their work for them, so be it. Islam, like the State under Marx, will ultimately wither away, and the paradise which predated Christ and Abraham can be restored. At least they like to think so."
"Much like Milton's fallen angels, they believe they have been dispossessed of their rightful station by a tyrannical spiritual entity, and they are determined to repossess their native seat-the fallen pastoral paradise promised them by Rousseau and Nietzsche-via the triumph of their Collective Will. This is their prime mover, their principle motivation. It is why they were so enraged at the loss of their political power, and why they hate the "usurper" George W. Bush; they were driven out before they could attain paradise. This concept-lifted from Christian doctrine-that History has an ultimate end in a Humanistic Eden cannot be overstressed; the Left is consumed with this. They feel that, by losing their political power, they have been cast into the Lake of Fire."
Absolutely true. Bolshevism was once described as a basically Christian heresy. The heresy being, of course, that one could coerce human beings into acting in a moral, unselfish manner. The corollary was that any means was acceptable to that end, which prevented the Bolsheviks from being able to discern between well-intentioned reformers and power-mad dogs like Stalin. Once you discard traditional morality, then the only real, effective check on the depravity of man is gone and you end up with the lowest common denominator.
The fundamental flaw, as I see it, is pride. Unable or unwilling to admit that they are not perfected already in their words, thoughts, and deeds, certain people must attack the Chruch as that which proclaims two inescapable truths, that all men are fundamentally flawed creatures, and that there is only one way of altering that situation. Incapable of facing that reality, they set themselves up as the new arbiters of what is right and wrong. But as the Evil One cannot create, but only distort and pervert what is already created, instead of a viable alternative, we end up with the contradictory self-loathing masochism (for what else does the decrying of Western Civilization itself mean?) and the self-centered Will to Power as the substitute ideology.
We see this evidenced in the shrill accusations the left hurls--if you say that this or that behavior is immoral, they will respond, 'but Mark Foley send smutty emails' or 'but George Bush is a liar' or 'but ad homenium is fun and easy and a substitute for actual thinking'.
Very interesting, and self-revealing.
Now, there is an alternate strain of Liberalism, one rooted in (Protestant) reformers driven by Christian compassion to attempt to better the lot of those less fortunate. I can argue methods with those people, but not ends. My issue is with the breed of Liberalism which is rooted in Marxian principles and has as its end the eradication of what we now call Western Civilization since the term Christendom has become passe.
posted by Just A Decurion at 1/28/2007 12:29:00 PM
3 Comments:
The corollary was that any means was acceptable as an end to that end, which prevented the Bolsheviks from being able to discern between well-intentioned reformers and power-mad dogs like Stalin. Once you discard traditional morality, then the only real, effective check on the depravity of man is gone and you end up with the lowest common denominator.
Okay, that does it. When you get back from the sandpit, you are going to go into the prison ministry with me. I don't give a damn what church you go to............these are words from a true evangelist.
The fundamental flaw, as I see it, is pride. Unable or unwilling to admit that they are not perfected already in their words, thoughts, and deeds, certain people must attack the Chruch as that which proclaims two inescapable truths, that all men are fundamentally flawed creatures, and that there is only one way of altering that situation.
Remember that we had that discussion when you were in Texas last. You and I agreed that a modern Democrat would feel quite comfortable in the Sanhedrin of the days of Jesus.
Your comment about pride has a CEP of 0. Pride and narcissism are the main driving factors of the political left in this country. It was that way in the Sanhedrin, it is that way in Congress today, it is that way among all of the cultural and political left.
The problem is amongst us political and social conservatives is that we bicker too much amongst ourselves over principles, while our political/social opponents are absolutely united in their opposition to us. They don't care what the final political/social solution is as long as they are the people who implement it and can wield it to their own satisfaction.
Thats why they are such admirers of Saddam and Islam. They don't care about the ideology or religion. They like the raw power that these things represent..
As Jerry Pournelle says "Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western Civilization as it commits suicide."
I'm a liberal from about three definitions back. One who spent many hours arguing with a Marxist philosopher taught courses on the evils of communism, so I am sort of bemused by the apparent equating of liberalism and marxism. I think I know something about the philosophy and politics of Marx, bolshivism, and liberalism, and I think you guys are barking up the wrong tree.
Post a Comment
<< Home