Building the Case of the Left's Culpability

When posting "Of Political Entertainment and Slumber" a few days ago, on the ludicrous dithers and slithers taken by the U.S. Democrats, so as to convince the anti-war grassroots of the Democrat defeatist credentials, in an update I linked to the latest Works and Days article by Victor Davis Hanson "Defeat and Flight from Iraq". His comments and outline of the inevitable, long term, geopolitical consequences of white-flagging the Iraq war, are very ominous indeed.

Going through the entire article again I stumbled upon two 'angry' letters he received - otherwise known as hate mail - that are quite revealing. One is from a 23 year old postmodern who in a quite unreasonable tone, based on his exploits in Chinese, claims to be more capable of reasoning than the accomplished writer himself: it is of course typical of people in certain stage of development to make such miscalculations.

Both letters are from recent arrivals in the United States. In the one case his parents probably took considerable risk to illegally move from Mexico, so that their children would have better opportunities in the U.S. He's now a orthopedic who cannot spell, so that was probably the right career move on his part.

The 23 year old postmodern with Bush Derangement Syndrome, apart from the mastery of Chinese and his obvious accomplishments in Marxist Critical Theory, suffers from a whole lot besides, but that is not the point I'd like to make.

Both letters simply ooze envious hatred, for the author, towards white culture, for America in general, and by extension towards - what I would like to term by now, The White Patriarch paradigm: the archetypal Counter-Enlightenment Oppressor, the litany well known by regular readers of present pages: white, rich, powerful, Christian males and all they stand for.

That's when it hit me that - while these two crass examples are probably new Americans of Hispanic descent, and Europe has similar experiences with Muslims of any part of the Dar-al-Islam - these immigrants don't come to their adoptive country out of admiration for customs, people or culture, but out of sheer hatred with a view of milking it for what it is worth.

Their objective isn't integration into these societies as proud new citizens, taking thankful advantage of all the opportunities that free, liberal, Western societies have to offer, they come as conquerors who hate the people that made the West what it is today. If they didn't set out as such, I'm sure there are quite a few indigenous, postmodern adherents to Marx' and Rousseau's narratives of Oppressed versus Oppressor, to brief them on the subject.

If all this sounds like stating the politically incorrect obvious, then why - for crying out loud - are we pretending it isn't the case, convincing ourselves instead that immigrants come with all the good intentions? This, with the usual caveats and disclaimers about obvious heaps of well intentioned, sincere ...... etc.

Frontpage relays an article by Ed West in The Catholic Herald of 18th July, "Jihad Will Destroy Us If We Don't Act Now". It is an interview West had with Robert Spencer, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades)" and blogger on the recently censored Jihad Watch.

Contrary to the predictable prejudice from the multicultural Left, the author has a broad and thorough background studying Christian heritage, as well as Islamic scripture. He too noticed the reasons why the cooperation of broadly The Left and Radical Islamism in the Unholy Alliance isn't strange or even a coincidence!

While I call my argument of the Straight Red Line, based on the brilliant analysis of Stephen Hicks into recollection (here's the chart and here's a link to the first part of the series), in Spencer's words:

"There is a deep ideological affinity between the Left and the jihadists. Whenever the hard Left gained power they instituted a reign of terror in order to create what they envisage as a just society, brought about by force. Islamic law works in much the same way: utopia created by force."

What they share is of course - for starters - the subjectivist, primacy of consciousness base [1] of the Counter-Enlightenment, which basks in the cruel sun of Rousseau's and Marx' political justification of violence to bring about social change.

Spencer too mentions the numbers game - the disastrous demographics which the Left has reframed into the tired 'advancing geriatrics' excuse instead of facing the truth, viz. the exceedingly low birthrates, the result of problems created by Socialist policies: the gradual and deliberate destruction of the family as the operative unit, and other advancing forms of social engineering (see also Neo Totalitarianism (6): Liberty for Social Security and Chart II: The Subversion Program).

Spencer is spot on in his perception of the widening gap between on the one hand the persistent push of the postmodern multicultural elite for Western society's integration into an "Eurabian" culture (see recent remarks by a Dutch senior government minister to that avail), a goal shared and propagated by both the mainstream national political parties and the boys in Brussels, and on the other hand the actual situation in the streets of cities and towns all over the West, the growing discontent of the voters.

Any attempt of as much as naming the taboo, causes the mainstream to break out in knee-jerk apoplectic shock, recalling visions of Nazi Germany and pictures of the holocaust - which by the way doesn't keep the Left from currently developing nasty cases of unadulterated antisemitism, a reminder of the Collectivist common necessity of a scapegoat, to blame the negative effects of otherwise picture perfect policies on.

Psychologist Dr Sanity is also at work on above article by Victor Davis Hanson, but leaves the hate mail for what it is and moves on to a similar case of the Left's responsibility for Spenser's cataclysmic vista of civil war: in "Without a Blink" she observes correctly:

"Interesting to note that what 'gives the pre-modern fascist killers a pass' is the post-modern rhetoric and dogma of the left. It is precisely this inherently psychologically dysfunctional cognitive strategy that is able to shift, 'without a blink' from one subjective conviction to its exact opposite without a shred of self-awareness or mental dissonance."

She draws a comparison of Radical Islam with a malicious physical condition: likewise it "has manifested itself today and is spreading rapidly for pretty much the same reason, having been given an ideological carte blanche by the political Left ... with its political correctness and relativistic multicultural fantasies have managed to suppress and otherwise short-circuit the natural defense mechanisms of Western civilization."

"Radical Islamic ideology is itself an unexpected combination of several toxic memes ... which has been carefully synchronized with the failed totalitarian ideologies of the last century ... the remaining outposts of communism and socialism in the world are thriving in academic and "intellectual" circles in the West; together with the Islamic fanatics of the world, they have created a postmodern symphony whose cacophonous music only facilitates the descent into emotionalism, hysteria and murderous suicidality. Without a blink, the left switched from their lip-service championing human life and liberty to championing those whose main desire is to suppress it and bring all of humanity into submission."

A truly ugly picture is gradually emerging of how the role of Bezmenev's de-moral-ized generations that are currently in power, is costing the West its future, its culture and its freedom. The totalitarian Left to date has got away with 110 million victims. I - for one - have no intention of letting them add to that - Liberal moral hatred laws or not.