Islamist or Progressive? It's getting hard to tell the Difference
As
we are inundated with “it’s the gun” misdirection following last
weekend’s terror attack in Orlando, let’s look at what has recently come
to pass on the left for acceptable political action. After all, what
leftists hate to admit is that before one of their own engages in
violence, whether on a street in Chicago, or at a Republican campaign
event, or a nightclub in Orlando, myriad other deviations from
psychological-normal must have had to occur. Well-adjusted, intellectual
people do not default to violence to achieve their goals.
It’s hard to know where to start, but let’s start with an interesting confluence. The Orlando shooter was both a radicalized Muslim and a Democrat. Has anyone else noticed that it is getting increasingly difficult to tell the difference between the two in terms of methods and tactics in pursuit of their ideological goals? Perhaps it is not coincidental that leftists, who are practiced apologists for militant, violent Islamism, appear to have become increasingly open to the use of violence by their own street-level followers in advancement of their agenda of dismantling this country and its founding principles. That is, they are increasingly using violence as a tool to subvert our incompatible American culture in order to implant their own. Sound familiar to anyone aware of radical Islam? Have you also noticed how leftist members of academia, and even some politicians, are more comfortable musing about how their political opponents deserve to be tortured or killed for rejecting the goals of these fascists, who would murder them for disagreeing?
In a civilized culture, rational people refrain from even broaching a discussion of who should be imprisoned or killed for political disagreement. The left has begun to step more fully over that forbidden line, albeit much more recently than Islam and Sharia, and it should concern every American who has read a speck of history that leftists are becoming more comfortable both advocating and publicly ignoring acts of violence by their fellows against their opponents. History is replete with political movements which progressed from whispering of such things, to speaking openly of them, to then putting them into practice as soon as they believed they could do so safely, that is, without fear of retaliation. Even Hillary Clinton, whose sole redeeming quality used to be that she seemed to have some vague sense of American values, has spoken openly of how she will eradicate those Constitutional rights she and her followers simply cannot permit. She is promising a totalitarian dictatorship because she no longer fears punishment or rejection, and it is being applauded by like-minded zealots.
In an uncivilized culture, where coercion and violence are acceptable tools of governance, such talk is common among the mental defectives who have declared themselves the cultural and political winners. To them, their opponents are the literal embodiment of all of the propaganda they have ever been fed, even when they cannot see or identify a single person in their own experience who demonstrates in person what they claim to abhor. When the individual they seek to injure or kill is just an illusion they have imposed upon that fellow human being, practicing evil as only they have defined it, then everything they do can be justified to their theology/ideology. Welcome back to Germany in the late 30s, or ISIS at present, and Orlando last weekend.
Increasingly, both radical Islamists and radical Democrats appear to share the mindset that it is their right to injure or perhaps kill those who oppose them. They can’t admit this, of course, so they must offer up other excuses. The fault always lies with the victim or the weapon, but never with the radical who does the harm. After all, they rationalize, he or she was pushed to act, so any action they were forced to take was understandable, at least to the offended radical. They blame the woman who was raped, or the gun the killer used, but not their radical compatriot.
As if to prove this point, in response to the mass shooting in Orlando, Florida Imam Muhammad Musri equated the terrorist event with “mass shootings” generally, purposefully ignoring the ideology of the shooter. Similarly, uber-liberal Sally Kohn tweeted, “Every religion has sub-groups of intolerant extremism. You can’t tell me the problem is religion. The problem is intolerant extremism.”
Indeed. As an anti-American leftist, Ms. Kohn marinates in a cult of intolerant extremism in its unhinged rejection of all forms of disagreement. Adherents to her ideology, her secular religion of anti-American multiculturalism, are becoming more brazen and fearless in their verbal and physical attacks on those who express support for this country’s tradition of individual rather than collective rights, or support for a certain presidential candidate who says he will slow the left’s wreckage. It is her ideology of increasingly intolerant extremism, rooted deeply in her political party, that has led us to fear the ability of other Americans to do us harm. It is shared among millions of deluded liberals, who pretend that we can stuff this country as full as possible of incompatible cultures, traditions, values, languages and beliefs, or force any other cultural aberration upon an unwilling populace without national discussion or unity, and that violence and threats of death are appropriate methods of persuasion should we disagree.
As we have seen at recent political rallies and gatherings, leftists are increasingly adopting the Islamist perspective that violence against nonbelievers in the advancement of their intolerant extremism is perfectly acceptable, because their opponents deserve it for their apostasy. This often takes the form of actual physical violence, but it can also take the form of an entire police force, let’s say in San Jose, standing passively by while those citizens who support an accountable government are pursued, assaulted, and beaten by a radical mob with whom the local government shares its political beliefs. By refusing to intervene, the radical local establishment uses like-minded, violent leftists as a form of goon squad, carrying out the political punishment the politicians still don’t feel they can enforce against defenseless citizens. Not yet, anyway.
The hatemongers, whether religious or politically liberal, prefer we assume theirs is a religion or ideology of peace for as long as possible. However, as we see violence on the rise around the world and at home, practiced by those who share a hatred for an America which resists totalitarianism and servitude to radical ideologies, we do ourselves a disservice by not admitting that all radicals eventually resort to violence. They cannot otherwise convince nonbelievers to surrender all they have to the invaders. Eventually, should radicals get the war that comes from social overload and collapse, the war they always appear to seek, it will be necessary to deal with them as coldly as they deal with us. Pray that it isn’t necessary but prepare as if it will be. In the end, ideology is enforced or defended against only by those who can still defend themselves.
It’s hard to know where to start, but let’s start with an interesting confluence. The Orlando shooter was both a radicalized Muslim and a Democrat. Has anyone else noticed that it is getting increasingly difficult to tell the difference between the two in terms of methods and tactics in pursuit of their ideological goals? Perhaps it is not coincidental that leftists, who are practiced apologists for militant, violent Islamism, appear to have become increasingly open to the use of violence by their own street-level followers in advancement of their agenda of dismantling this country and its founding principles. That is, they are increasingly using violence as a tool to subvert our incompatible American culture in order to implant their own. Sound familiar to anyone aware of radical Islam? Have you also noticed how leftist members of academia, and even some politicians, are more comfortable musing about how their political opponents deserve to be tortured or killed for rejecting the goals of these fascists, who would murder them for disagreeing?
In a civilized culture, rational people refrain from even broaching a discussion of who should be imprisoned or killed for political disagreement. The left has begun to step more fully over that forbidden line, albeit much more recently than Islam and Sharia, and it should concern every American who has read a speck of history that leftists are becoming more comfortable both advocating and publicly ignoring acts of violence by their fellows against their opponents. History is replete with political movements which progressed from whispering of such things, to speaking openly of them, to then putting them into practice as soon as they believed they could do so safely, that is, without fear of retaliation. Even Hillary Clinton, whose sole redeeming quality used to be that she seemed to have some vague sense of American values, has spoken openly of how she will eradicate those Constitutional rights she and her followers simply cannot permit. She is promising a totalitarian dictatorship because she no longer fears punishment or rejection, and it is being applauded by like-minded zealots.
In an uncivilized culture, where coercion and violence are acceptable tools of governance, such talk is common among the mental defectives who have declared themselves the cultural and political winners. To them, their opponents are the literal embodiment of all of the propaganda they have ever been fed, even when they cannot see or identify a single person in their own experience who demonstrates in person what they claim to abhor. When the individual they seek to injure or kill is just an illusion they have imposed upon that fellow human being, practicing evil as only they have defined it, then everything they do can be justified to their theology/ideology. Welcome back to Germany in the late 30s, or ISIS at present, and Orlando last weekend.
Increasingly, both radical Islamists and radical Democrats appear to share the mindset that it is their right to injure or perhaps kill those who oppose them. They can’t admit this, of course, so they must offer up other excuses. The fault always lies with the victim or the weapon, but never with the radical who does the harm. After all, they rationalize, he or she was pushed to act, so any action they were forced to take was understandable, at least to the offended radical. They blame the woman who was raped, or the gun the killer used, but not their radical compatriot.
As if to prove this point, in response to the mass shooting in Orlando, Florida Imam Muhammad Musri equated the terrorist event with “mass shootings” generally, purposefully ignoring the ideology of the shooter. Similarly, uber-liberal Sally Kohn tweeted, “Every religion has sub-groups of intolerant extremism. You can’t tell me the problem is religion. The problem is intolerant extremism.”
Indeed. As an anti-American leftist, Ms. Kohn marinates in a cult of intolerant extremism in its unhinged rejection of all forms of disagreement. Adherents to her ideology, her secular religion of anti-American multiculturalism, are becoming more brazen and fearless in their verbal and physical attacks on those who express support for this country’s tradition of individual rather than collective rights, or support for a certain presidential candidate who says he will slow the left’s wreckage. It is her ideology of increasingly intolerant extremism, rooted deeply in her political party, that has led us to fear the ability of other Americans to do us harm. It is shared among millions of deluded liberals, who pretend that we can stuff this country as full as possible of incompatible cultures, traditions, values, languages and beliefs, or force any other cultural aberration upon an unwilling populace without national discussion or unity, and that violence and threats of death are appropriate methods of persuasion should we disagree.
As we have seen at recent political rallies and gatherings, leftists are increasingly adopting the Islamist perspective that violence against nonbelievers in the advancement of their intolerant extremism is perfectly acceptable, because their opponents deserve it for their apostasy. This often takes the form of actual physical violence, but it can also take the form of an entire police force, let’s say in San Jose, standing passively by while those citizens who support an accountable government are pursued, assaulted, and beaten by a radical mob with whom the local government shares its political beliefs. By refusing to intervene, the radical local establishment uses like-minded, violent leftists as a form of goon squad, carrying out the political punishment the politicians still don’t feel they can enforce against defenseless citizens. Not yet, anyway.
The hatemongers, whether religious or politically liberal, prefer we assume theirs is a religion or ideology of peace for as long as possible. However, as we see violence on the rise around the world and at home, practiced by those who share a hatred for an America which resists totalitarianism and servitude to radical ideologies, we do ourselves a disservice by not admitting that all radicals eventually resort to violence. They cannot otherwise convince nonbelievers to surrender all they have to the invaders. Eventually, should radicals get the war that comes from social overload and collapse, the war they always appear to seek, it will be necessary to deal with them as coldly as they deal with us. Pray that it isn’t necessary but prepare as if it will be. In the end, ideology is enforced or defended against only by those who can still defend themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment