Primary

Why Liberals Love Islam

In my spare moments, which are few and far between, I have often imagined what the ideal socialist-communist utopia envisioned by Progressives and their ilk would be like and how it would function.

Over the years I have read various collectivist utopian novels, particularly those that envisioned ideal communist or socialist societies, and dismissed them as unrealistic fables whose authors had an agenda other than projecting their politics, short-changing their readers on the political and economic facets and means of their tales. Among many such novels, Edward Bellamy’s talky Looking Backward: 2000-1887, published in 1888, was the best of a literally unbelievable lot. The most significant and ominous thing about Bellamy’s novel is that for many years it was a best-seller, trailing behind Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Ben Hur. It helped to popularize socialism in the U.S.

British Fabian socialist H.G. Wells’ The Shape of Things to Come (1933) is of the Marxist utopian genre, in which a clique of airmen takes over an anarchical world when governments have collapsed after a world war and plague, and is more optimistic than his dystopian novel, The Time Machine (1895). Although Wells predicted some events in Shape of Things with startling accuracy, such as WWII and the U.S.’s war with Japan, the novel is unique in that the airmen’s dictatorship eradicates all religions, including Islam, the latter apparently without much fuss.

According to Marxist doctrine, or at least Friedrich Engels’ version of it, socialism, once it has converted everyone into cooperative manqués, would eventually morph into a fully communist state, with the state itself “withering away,” shedding the apparatus of government as a snake sheds its skin. This would happen because society at that point would be driven unconsciously by some Hegelian historical necessity. And then, somehow, beggaring examination of any causo-connections, things would all work out effortlessly.

A Marxist utopia would be classless, of course, having in its aggressive socialist stage extinguished by fair means and foul “plutocrats” and the bourgeoisie. A purely Marxist society would be egalitarian – “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

If food is needed, it would be produced. Somehow. It would be distributed without error or mix-up, somehow. Truly communist farmers would automatically grow an abundance of consumables, and truly communist truckers would distribute them to magical food collection points (“markets” having been abolished).

If steel is needed, somehow it would be produced, and fashioned somehow into a vast catalogue of utilitarian objects. Everything needed for the comfort and leisure of men, from clothing, kitchen ware, power, machines, medical services and so on, would be available – somehow.

But, produced by whom? Well, by the people, naturally, who would automatically fulfill every need. If you’re an average citizen of the stateless republic, you will not need to be told to report to the local steel mill to help turn out ingots and pigs. There would be no state agency or planner overseeing these matters, because the state will have withered away. No one would direct labor to the right places. No one would need to redirect or redistribute capital, either, because that cursed vehicle of the old times, capital, would no longer exist. You would just know that you’re needed, somewhere, somehow.

In fact, money would not exist. Money implies trade, which will have been abolished, as well. Everyone will go around empty-handed, but lack for nothing. Food, clothing, and shelter are all provided to you – somehow.

So, off you trot to the steel mill. Do you know anything about producing steel? Do you have the technical knowledge and the skills to perform the task? Who knows how it happened, but you just have them. That’s the glory of stateless communism. You’re a universal adept. You can do anything the collective requires you to do.

In the former era of universal socialism, many men had to be cajoled or compelled to do things. In the perfect stateless state of communism, they do things “voluntarily,” without prompting. You whistle while you work, as does everyone else, content to work without compensation.

And I could only conclude, in those spare moments, that the perfect communist state must be a society of automatons, all programmed and driven by “historical necessity” and “dialectical materialism,” and that you, the citizen of this stateless society, are but an insensate cipher, a pawn of some power that magically causes all other men to “do the right thing” in frictionless amity. You are a humanoid ant, a manqué, unburdened by a volitional consciousness.

Now, no liberal/leftist/Progressive who can read STOP signs and refrain from seasoning his salads with rat poison believes down, down deep, in such Marxist hokum. No, such a utopia conveniently remains a cloudy, shimmering fantasy in their minds, absent of clear details and particulars, never to be attained. Much destruction must occur first, and that is the primary obsession of the liberal/leftist/Progressives today, to destroy what exists. Of course, those mystical powers of historical necessity need a little help from them. They revel in destruction. Destruction makes them feel useful.

And then came President Barack Hussein Obama. He is a walking vehicle of historical necessity. Or so he thinks, and so think all his supporters and the various claques of liberal/left/Progressives in government and the MSM and advocacy groups. Like everyone else, Obama is imbued with a volitional consciousness, and chooses to do what he does. Which, except when he is on a golf course, is destroy. His purported vision of a transformed America is as chimerical and fantastic as any other collectivist’s. Down, down deep, he knows this.

Today’s liberal/left/Progressives, one suspects, must necessarily dread the dawn of true communism. In such a state, they would have nothing to do. They would be unemployed.

Now, Islam subscribes to a similar fantasy, too, and likewise is minus a clear program of how such a society would actually function and survive. This is the global caliphate that will have brought “peace” to everyone – that is the meaning of Islam being a “religion of peace,” in the same way that the United Nations is touted as an “instrument of peace,” “peace” being something that destructive organization has never accomplished. All men, but most particularly Muslims, will exist in a state of blissful, conflict-free comity.

Non-Muslims will behave themselves and be content with their status as subjugated dhimmis and kaffirs, obedient to the Islamic State and deferential to Muslims in all instances and encounters. They willingly pay the jizya, the Islamic “protection” tax. This impost, if one examines its fundamental purpose, is a literal tax on your existence; non-payment of it will be against Sharia law and cause your subsequent and swift non-existence. It is based on the premise that a Muslim is a first cause, superior to non-believers, and that your existence, as a dhimmi, is dependent on his existence; a curious metaphysics of morals, not dissimilar from the Mafia brand.

Moreover, terrorism and violent jihad will cease in the global Islamic state; this is what tongue-in-cheek, taqiyya-skilled Muslims mean when they say they don’t condone terrorism.

And, as in the liberal/left/Progressive’s fantasy world, things will happen and work will be done and no one will want for anything. Somehow. But, there’s a catch. The liberal/left/Progressive dreams of a post-industrial world that has inherited the standard of living and technological marvels which the industrial, capitalist world made possible, but without any of the repellent social mechanisms, such as trade, property rights, individual rights, and so on.

Islam’s perfect world, on the other hand, tests the imagination. One can project little more than an oligarchy of caliphs and sultans and muftis living luxuriously on the labor of their submissive populations, and answering to some Grand Vizier or Mufti or Caliph. As with the Catholic Pope (who will no longer exist), he will be regarded as Allah’s supreme representative on earth. One can’t see in an Islamic global régime oil tankers, high-speed trains, literature other than Islamic literature, art, advances in medicine, or even skyscrapers, except for the bizarre white elephants erected in Saudi Arabia and the various fiefdoms on the Persian Gulf.

Perhaps those skyscrapers won’t even exist, for they were erected with Sunni oil money (international jizya), and they might be blasted to hot atoms by Iranian (Shi’ite) nuclear missiles.

Unlike the liberal/left/Progressive fantasy world, however, which is expected to exist in perpetuity, Islam proclaims that Allah at one point will call it a day and send in his Twelfth Imam or the Mahdi to announce the end of all things, and to cause the sun to rise in the West. There will be weeping and wailing and the gnashing of teeth as “good” Muslims are segregated from “bad” Muslims and all dhimmis and infidels are sent immediately to hell. No one will be “left behind” because the earth will cease to exist.

And that is the gist of the equally delusional Islamic notion of utopia.

The “totalities” of the liberal/left/Progressive notion of utopia and those of Islam are fundamentally, and incontrovertibly, totalitarian. There is no other way of looking at either projected utopia, or, at least, no other way of treating the transitional phase between now and the attainment of those utopias, which is socialism birthing a perpetual heaven on earth on the one hand, and religiously imposed collectivism and some equally ambiguous but temporary heaven on earth, on the other.

Why do Progressives, liberals, and leftists love Islam? Why are Islamists not wholly reciprocal in that love, and only grudgingly tolerate them? Why do Progressives, liberals, and leftists refuse to identify Islamic doctrine as the cause of terrorist attacks, and demonstrate in their denials contorted states of mind once only attributable to schizophrenics and the mentally ill with multiple personalities?

John Rossomando, in his IPT article of May 24th, “Media Analysts Dodge Jihad Connection in Boston, London,” cites numerous examples of the behavior of politicians, commentators and pundits and how they received the news of the Boston Marathon bombing of April 15th and the broad daylight murder of a British soldier in London on May 22nd. Even though the one killer had shouted “Alluha Akbar!” while killing British Army drummer Lee Rigby, and ranted about Islam on camera, they will not blame Islam.

Commentator Michelle Malkin [of Town Hall] was singled out in the Media Matters post for saying the videotaped attacker was “quoting chapter and verse, sura and verse, from the Quran the justification for beheading an innocent solider there, and of course they’ve targeted civilians as well.”…Michael Adebolajo said, “But we are forced by the Qur’an, in Sura At-Tawba, through many ayah in the Qu’ran, we must fight them as they fight us,” he says.

Media Matters also called Fox News “Islamophobic” in its coverage of the Lee Rigby murder. Media Matters is funded by billionaire George Soros, who has subsidized a number of anti-Western, anti-American Progressive and leftist blog sites that comport neatly with their Islamic counterparts, such as Al Jazeera.

The New York Times omitted reference to the attacker’s invocation of Allah, relegating it to page A7. ABC, NBC and CBS similarly omitted the Islamic reference.

Hours after Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s names became public [after the Boston bombing], The Atlantic‘s Megan Garber penned a column titled “The Boston Bombers Were Muslim: So?” in which she suggested pinning the Muslim label on them reduced them to being “caricatures” and “whitewashed” their humanity.

Rossomando notes in his article the history of how the MSM and others have shied away from blaming Islam for the terrorism, as well as statements by Islamic clerics who advocate the kind of jihad that Lee Rigby was the victim of.

By now, the reader may well have deduced for himself that the reason why the liberal/left/Progressives will not acknowledge that Islam is at the root of these terrorist attacks is that there is an unspoken, almost Freudian symbiosis felt by the liberal/left with Islam, that is, an unarticulated empathy for another totalitarian system. The Progressive Movement, spawned in the late 19th century, made great strides in the 20th with the steady passage of laws that increasingly robbed men of their freedom with arbitrary, fiat law and regulations, until today when there is hardly a human action or product that is not regulated or constrained. This “progress” covers a range of laws from the Income Tax Amendment to mandated nutritional information on food packaging and countless measures in between.

The Progressives – a.k.a. socialists – see Islam, with its head-to-foot regulation of Muslim behavior and existence, as a friend and ally that will help them to vanquish capitalism and Western civilization. That is their mutual end. “Moderate” Muslims assure us that Western precepts of law and freedom can be reconciled with Islam. They cannot. If Islam is doctrinally a totalitarian ideology, it cannot and will not be reconciled with individual rights. Capitalism and freedom do not sanction or advocate the forcible conquest of socialists and collectivists, unless the latter initiate force against the former. Islam and Progressivism do sanction and advocate the initiation of force.

Daniel Greenfield, in his May 24th FrontPage article, “Inside Every Liberal is a Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out,” emphasized this point:

There is a characteristic feature to tyranny. It isn’t the scowling faces of armed guards or the rusting metal of barbed wire fences. It isn’t the black cars of the secret police or the prison camps surrounded by wastelands of snow.

The defining characteristic of tyranny is the diversion of power from the people to the unelected elite. The elite can claim to be inspired by Allah or Marx; it can act in the name of racial purity or universal workers compensation or both. The details don’t matter, because in all instances, tyranny derives its justification from the superiority of the rulers and the inferiority of the people.

Oleg Atbashian, in his May 23rd FrontPage article, “Inside Every Liberal Is a Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out,” a companion article to Daniel Greenfield’s, also notes the empathetic symbiosis between secular statism and Islamic statism:

Progressive Chauvinism is marked by a strong belief in the divine right of their kind to hold all key positions in society for society’s own sake, forcing the “lessers” to comply with superior progressive ways. Believing that their condescension and pity towards the lower beings are a sign of benevolence and compassion, they ignite with righteous anger whenever those ingrates dare be displeased with their enlightened dominion.

The chauvinist attitude, of course, is not limited to the left, but it is characteristic of any expansionist totalitarian ideology throughout history. A force that rivals Progressive Chauvinism in today’s world is Islamic Supremacism – also known to its victims as the “religion of peace.” The attitude is almost identical: in the book of Islamic Supremacism the meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to Islam.

Islamic Supremacists similarly dream of an ideal, egalitarian society of the future – a global caliphate that will govern over a peaceful world populated by a Muslim majority, while the remaining non-believers would be too intimidated to oppose their Muslim superiors and prefer to pay the jizya – a special Muslim tax on non-believers, or “protection money”- as a condition that they be left in peace.

There is no such thing as “moderate” socialism or Progressivism, either. “Moderate” Progressives are otherwise known as Republicans, who cannot but steadily give ground to the advancing, uncompromising, dyed-in-their-premises Progressives. These watered-down Progressives must yield ground to their more militant and consistent cousins because they cannot think of a single fundamental reason to hold it.

Young John F. Kennedy, touring Germany before WWII, expressed an admiration for the Nazi régime. Remember that “Nazi” was shorthand for “National Socialist.” The Daily Mail reported on a new book coming out that details JFK’s penchant for things totalitarian:

‘Fascism?’ wrote the youthful president-to-be in one. ‘The right thing for Germany.’ In another; ‘What are the evils of fascism compared to communism?’ And on August 21, 1937 – two years before the war that would claim 50 million lives broke out – he wrote: ‘The Germans really are too good – therefore people have ganged up on them to protect themselves.’

And in a line which seems directly plugged into the racial superiority line plugged by the Third Reich he wrote after travelling through the Rhineland: ‘The Nordic races certainly seem to be superior to the Romans.’

The future president’s praise is now embarrassing in hindsight – a few years later he fought in World War Two against the Nazis and his elder brother Lt. Joseph Patrick ‘Joe’ Kennedy, Jr.  was killed.

And when he became President, JFK formally introduced Fascism, or National Socialism, into the United States. Lyndon B. Johnson, his successor in office, pulled an Otto von Bismarck on the country, and introduced the full-scale welfare state.

Clare Lopez, in her May 24th Gatestone Institute article, “The New, Improved Axis of Jihad,” ends her discussion of how the various jihadist and supremacist organizations have reformed for a more aggressive and organized offensive against the West:

Reportedly, more than 2,000 targets “including public places, government buildings and military installations” already have been selected and cased. Separate but parallel reporting indicates that the “go” order may already have been transmitted from Tehran to the al-Qa’eda and Hizballah cells inside the U.S., placing them essentially on autopilot status. Of course, all of Kahlili’s published warnings have been passed in full detail to U.S. security agencies, but the threat from this Axis of Jihad remains critical and poses a serious threat to America’s homeland security.

Effective measures from America’s national security leadership are urgently needed. Those measures must begin with an honest acknowledgement of the precepts and objectives of the enemy threat —that is, as they are derived from the doctrine, law, and scriptures of Islam—and should include a comprehensive strategic counterjihad plan as complete as the Axis of Jihad’s plan.

The “honest acknowledgement” Lopez refers to is an acknowledgement that Islam is an ideology whose doctrine, laws, and scriptures are as antithetical to freedom – and indeed to life – as were the doctrines, laws, and precepts of Nazism and Communism. But politically correct mindsets in government have not only emasculated any effective measures against the Islamic onslaught, but also have emboldened the killers. States that sponsor terrorism must be ended, and that includes Iran and Saudi Arabia. Until then, Americans and Westerners will be at the mercy of their killers.

Islamic “culture” is root and branch antithetical to freedom. It requires submission not only of one’s physical body, but of one’s mind. Secular totalitarians who have bothered to examine the character and tenets of Islam see this and appreciate it. One could say that our wannabe overseers are so jealous of the totalitarian nature of Islam that they wish it well, and are eager to ally itself with a system that ultimately must eradicate them, too, along with non-believers, recalcitrant infidels, and apostates.

It is a jealousy sired by envy, as well, of the thoroughness with which Islam converts individuals into obedient, selfless serfs in mind and body, something which liberal/left/Progressives have found difficult to achieve in their best Marxist and fascist indoctrination and propaganda efforts.

  • Pepe Restrepo

    Great article, Edward. You hit the nail right on the head. We are being undermined right before are eyes. However, if we don’t have an offensive plan, we are lost. Just being against Islam is not a strategy. We need a strong and powerful Objectivism to lead the way. This is really the answer. But we need more Objectivist leaders offering a better view of life. In that way, independent thinkers will have an alternative to choose from. Islam is a death-ridden philosophy but it is gaining because there is little in the way of opposition. Islam provides answers to lonely and lost people. The big weakness of Objectivism is that it ignores the spiritual need of people to feel part of the universe, to feel in harmony with the forces that govern us. Right now, they are winning the war. We need creative thinkers and strategies so as to counteract them. And we need them Now!

  • Kyle Biodrowski

    I agree, Pepe.

    Islam should be attacked (irrationality in general should be attacked), but a better alternative needs to be provided if people are to abandon Islam (and other irrational philosophies). A void isn’t appealing to people so they cling to whatever philosophy happens to dominate a culture (even if the philosophy is poisonous).

    Objectivism’s promoters need to “get out there” and explain the benefits of adopting rational philosophy. Discussion of axioms, ideas, epistemology, art, and politics is all well and good in the proper context, but people want to know “what’s in it for them”. This is where the promoters need to focus.

  • DogmaelJones1

    Pepe: We don’t have an offensive plan because to adopt one would necessitate the government acknowledging that Islam is the enemy. Under Bush and Obama, the government has instead “reached out” to Islam as a friend, not as an enemy. Bush’s policy is the typical Republican approach to solving conflicts: compromise. Obama’s approach is pure nihilism and as coldly conscious a policy as, for example, his publically gorging himself on expensive foods while overseeing the elimination of Marines’ meals in Afghanistan.

  • Transpower

    This is Edward’s best column yet!

  • IceTrey

    Defeating Islam is easy. Instead of dropping bombs we just drop Levi’s, DVDs, X Boxes, etc. Hook the rank and file on consumerism and the jihadis will fade away from lack of support.

  • m1

    They already have tons of those stuff in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries (that support terrorists). You need to dry their money supply by stop buying their oil and achieving North American energy independence. Then, and only then, you can truly defeat them.

  • IceTrey

    Don’t be ridiculous. The US hardly buys any oil form the middle east and if we didn’t someone else would. Not to mention we don’t use oil to make electricity.

  • m1

    In 2012, the US imported 1.3 million bbl/day from Saudi Arabia and another 2 millions from the Persian Gulf. You can look it up at the EIA’s (Energy International Agency) official website.
    A drop in the consumption of 1.3 bbl/day would cause a deep cut in the Saudi budget which would only put the ruling family in more hot water.
    As for the use of energy, the US doesn’t use oil to generate electricity indeed BUT oil is used to power almost anything else (most cars and all planes and ships).

  • IceTrey

    So that’s 1/20th of what the US uses. Like I said before they will sell it to someone else.

  • speegster

    I realize I’m speaking into an echo chamber where my “progressive” outlook is hardly likely to resonate, but this is a typically simple-minded conservative take on the situation. What’s worse, it’s riddled with an unmerited smugness: look, I came up with the bluntly simplistic view that “socialism” = “Islam”, aren’t I smart!

    This is risible tar-brushing, confusing the unacceptably violent extremes of two ideologies to the complex interplay of worldviews to which most normal, sane people subscribe (including Muslims, socialists, conservatives and Christians).

    For a counterexample, look to Norway’s mass murderer Anders Breivik, who massacred 77 innocent people, mostly teenagers, in his fight against Islam and “cultural Marxism” – the exact two twin evils you cite here. By your (grade school) logic his acts therefore mean that anti-Islam and anti-Marxism are dangerous, terrorist worldviews.

    Your puerile and Manichean postulations are just adding to the problem buddy.

  • stone7

    Why the left sides with Islam? They only see politics.

    This is a great article, but I think it’s much simpler. The left, and the religious, won’t challenge Islam, because to do so would bring the discussion into the moral realm. The left exists in a moral vacuum. And once a moral discussion begins, the left evaporates, rather quickly. So too would the woman hating muslims evaporate. Try it. Try having a moral discussion with a leftist. Ask one to think in moral terms. And they will ask you, who’s morals. Because they see nothing moral, anywhere. They only see politics.

  • Willahelm Bailiff-Laurentius

    It is an interesting article, but I would like to point out some things (though I might be wrong, call me out on that):

    First, the idea that society would ‘somehow’ work under communism is missing the point (which you acknowledged) that we would all understand the necessity to be cooperative.

    Second, it is unfair on the left to paint them all as being anti-capitalists; it is perfectly possible to be left-wing and pro-capitalist.

    Third, I do not think that the left-wing and Islam are really connected by some deep, innate understanding that they agree in their worldviews.

  • Robin Orenbuch

    To defeat Islam: very simple, use their religion against them. Threaten to aerial spray all of their holy sites with emulsified hog byproducts if any non-Muslim is hurt in any terrorist attack., have pork jerky on every flight, and at every possible target. Bury dead pigs wherever they propose to build a mosque. According to the Koran, Allah can not accept any Muslims into heaven if they’re unclean this way. As far as the left goes, every socialist state is on the verge of insolvency and default. That problem will take care of itself, though we’ll have to go through a little hell until things readjust.

  • Conrad Zorblatt

    Nice analysis. However, the author failed to mention the fact that it is capitalism that supplies Islam with its main source of power (that being: the billions of dollars in oil revenue acquired by Saudi Arabia to use in funding worldwide Jihad/Propaganda). Socialist support of Islam is only half the story. If there were no oil companies in Saudi Arabia, there would be no money to fund Salafist ideology and all of the sheikhs would still be living in tents in the desert.

  • DogmaelJones1

    Conrad: It isn’t capitalism that sustains the medieval regime in Saudi Arabia (or in Qatar, or anywhere in the UAE), but oil fields and oil technology nationalized by the Arabs with the implicit sanction of Western governments. ARAMCO, or the Arab-American Oil Company, was formed with the complicit blessing of the U.S. government. The Standard Oil Company (now Exxon) was one of those companies whose existence was ossified by increasing government controls over major corporations, and it was a partner in this demi-fascist travesty. It and the U.S. government acquiesced in the face of the formation of OPEC. So, it really isn’t “capitalism” that sustains our dependency on Arab oil; it a policy of pragmatic fascism.

  • DogmaelJones1

    Speegster: Your argument would have more credibility if you refrained from name-calling. And my “grade school” logic has proven to be a better and more incisive observational tool than what passes for “higher” education today.

  • speegster

    Well actually no Dogmael – I did not engage in name-calling: I have no idea who the writer is is and have never met him. My post was not an ad hominem attack: I was in fact attacking his argumentation, which I found to be severely lacking in nuance and basic validity, and which I believe is fair game.

  • AshalBoga

    Then why not stop them?

  • ChrisU

    yes.

    unfounded dogmatic truths without any substantiated evidence are really dangerous.

    Glad that there is nothing at all like that in the Christian world-view.

  • writeby

    No one said there wasn’t. However–and it’s a big ‘however’…

    Islam is a conversion-by-conquest religion.

    Much like Judaism was thousand of years ago.

    Much like Christianity was during the Dark Ages.

    Religion, in any guise, must rely on converts; however, because religion relies on faith, rather than on reason, those converts many times must be conquered. Must be coerced. Must be forced–or frightened or shamed–into believing.

    And when two religions meet, there is no room for discussion, because no discussion can occur where the emotionalism of faith trumps the objectivity of reason.

    The only reason that Judaism and Christianity are no longer conversion-by-conquest religions is re: Judaism, because of Pax Romana; and re: Christianity, because of Summa Theologica (thanks to an Aristotelian Aquinas), its product, the Renaissance and the subsequent progression of human thought that became the Enlightenment. These tempered both religions, leaving them only to rely on fear or guilt to proselytize. (Indeed, if Christians and Jews actually *lived* their faiths as was done, respectively, in the Dark Ages and thousands of years ago, we’d all be living lives that would be nasty, brutish and short.)

    Islam, though, has had no such eras. No Aquinas. No Renaissance. No Enlightenment. They did face a choice, though, with their discovery of the writings of the Ancient Greeks, including Aristotle; however, they chose poorly (faith over reason). Thus Muslims–and the Mideast (with the exception being Israel)–remain in the Dark Ages.

    With automatic weapons, RPGs, jet fighters and atom bombs at their disposal, thanks to the West–particularly the U.S. presidents Truman and Eisenhower–allowing Mideast tribalists to nationalize Western companies’ oil drilling and production facilities, a wealth that reaped these tribalist lords and princes billions, if not trillions, of dollars.

    Conservatives, in the main, because they believe Christianity the source of the Declaration of Independence and the concept of rights (and all that followed, apparently, from invention and industrialization to scientific discovery and artistic achievement) have a vested, even if, perhaps, subconscious motivation to view Islam a “good faith hijacked by primitives.” But the fact is, *all* religions are primitive (philosophies (and, no, socialism is no more advanced, substituting State (or proletariat) for God and “brother love” (or some sort of supernatural conditioning of workers by machines (means of production) for faith)).

    Unless and until the Mideast (with Islam) goes through the fire (nuclear or intellectual) of a Renaissance and an Enlightenment (ironically, something like that having begun in the Arab world while Europe groveled on its belly during the Dark Ages, but which was shut down by Islamic religious leaders), we shall continue to see nothing but holy wars against the West follow in that religion’s wake (with the so called ‘moderate’ Muslims tacitly approving by remaining silent).

    Finally the reason Progressive Liberals love Islam is they both find their source in the same metaphysics, epistemology and ethics:

    The primacy of consciousness religious metaphysics of Neo-Platonic Idealism, the emotionalist religious epistemology of faith and the self-hating Judeo-Christian ethics of self-sacrifice make possible the irrational politics of a supernaturalist totalitarian socialism or a supernaturalist theocratic despotism.

  • ChrisU

    You’re right on many points.

    Except for the claim that the constitution was inspired by Christianity… that is completely false.

  • writeby

    Huh? I never said that. I said: “Conservatives … believe Christianity the source of the Declaration of Independence and the concept of rights … ”

    My point is that supernaturalism is the underlying philosophy of both (Progressive) liberals and conservatives, which is why neither acknowledges Islam as a threat.

  • Rick Laurent Feely

    The leftist anti-authoritarians in the US that I have known believe in small autonomous communities, not state marxism. Anarcho-syndicalism, while not my personal ideology, does address the practical realities of how things would work in production cooperatives. It does not mean that there is no organization or decision making, it means the decision-making is cooperative and democratic, and that profits are shared by those who create them. There are successful cooperative businesses, farms, housing and markets that exist and function. Most far leftists share the ideal with the far right that things should be run locally, voluntarily, and democratically. They just value profit-sharing, and prefer making decisions via a formal consensus process or Robert’s Rules. Many also believe that those who do not contribute in a community (the disabled and old might contribute in non-monetary ways, such as wisdom, counseling etc) people who don’t cooperate or contribute, are addressed by the community and perhaps told to leave. It’s very similar to the first human communities, anthropologically speaking. It’s also very similar to the values of Christ, who was a left wing radical.

    The only things leftists have in common with Islam is a suspicion of the American Christian Right, and of unregulated capitalism. I personally am not as far leftist as that, and I think the left is naive about Islam. Leftists in the US feel that Extreme Evangelical Protestant Right threatens personal freedom in the US, and that capitalism has gone down the wrong path skewed in favor of corporate welfare. Because of this, they suspect anyone the US Conservatives hate, is probably a victim of that hate, the way they are. In this particular instance, they are wrong about that – Islamists are even more hateful and anti-democratic, anti-woman, anti-religious freedom, and anti-LGBT than the Religious Right here.

    It’s sort of like having a big brother who abuses and beats you. You see this foreign guy at school your big brother also beats on. Because you don’t deserve to be beaten by big brother conservative, you assume that other guy doesn’t either. But in this case, the other guy is really a terrorist. Which means he should be stopped. But it still doesn’t mean you can trust your abusive brother.

    So I do think there a naivety on the left about Islamism. But that’s all it is.

  • Guest

    Rick, keep drinking up

  • Shelter Somerset

    The basis to left wing ideology, even during Lenin’s day, is that capitalism is inherently racist and misogynistic. Lenin preached this while exterminating millions of jews and Siberian natives and forcing women into hard labor. You hear those accusations today from, ironically, women and minorities who have benefited the most from the capitalist, free market system. There’s nothing you can do to change their minds. Empirical, objective evidence is not enough for them. They live off a religious like zeal for their ideology–which is one of the stronger commonalities they have with radical Islam. The strongest commonality is their hatred for the USA, the epitome, in their minds, of racism and sexism. Years past they were comical if not sad. Now that they are in charge of the federal government, it’s a dystopian novel come to life.

  • Rick Laurent Feely

    LOL! You’re the one wearing the veil here.

  • Kevin Kent

    I think the Left’s empathy for Islam is much simpler than this article puts forth. The Left’s empathy for Islam is the mutual hatred of Islam and the Left for the United States and its allies (the West, which, collectively, defeated Soviet ideology). The Left views the U.S. as an imperialist, murderous, unfair totalitarian regime. Islam views the U.S. in the same terms. Muslims kill in the name of Allah and justify it with grievances towards the West. The Left listens to those grievances and nods in agreement and thinks to itself, “Well, maybe I wouldn’t have murdered the ambassador, but I can see why they did.”