[goldstategop]

Liberals remain silent about Muslim violence. There are three reasons for this reaction from the Left: 1) liberals are materialist secularists who deny the existence of human evil; 2) Muslims are seen by the Left as the weaker party and hence excused when they resort to violence which then can be explained away as a response to oppression by the strong and rich West and 3) liberals live in fear of what Muslims could do them. In a word political correctness coupled with self-serving cowardice is the reason the Left has been AWOL in the defense of the West and of the Jews and Israel. And you can be sure the Left will continue to blame Western society for the next round of Muslim atrocities to come.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[paudio]

Since liberals like to use 'history', that is, the West has oppressed the poor Muslims for ages so that it's only understandable that now they are attacking the West, I'd like to go a bit far. Up to 14-15th century, the west was afraid of Muslims. They were afraid that Muslims would attack them. After all, many Christian centers (Egypt, part of Spain, and later, the mother of all, Constantinopel, the second Rome) were attacked, captured, and Islamized by Muslims. So, the fear as well as hatred are so deep in the mind of Westerners. Using the same logic as Liberals do today, can we blame the Westerners that they're not fond of Muslims? Or perhaps the West should ask those places that are Islam back?

[Dallas59]

The left feed on their own children.

[driftless]

Leftists are experts at ignoring the law of Occam's Razor. If someone came up to me and stuck a knife in my chest, I wouldn't blame the knife manufacturer. Leftists would. For liberals there is always the ulterior motive, the underlying reason, the root cause, etc. Leftists can never bring themselves to blame the direct perpetrator for a crime or crimes. In this case, and hundreds of others, it is Muslim fanatics. The left should admit it and deal with it. But they can't...because they're leftists.

[Loud Mime]

Prager Bump -

Do we have a Prager Ping list?

--- In fact, one way to describe the moral divide between conservatives and liberals is whom they blame for acts of evil committed against innocent people, especially when committed by non-whites and non-Westerners. Conservatives blame the perpetrators, and liberals blame either the victims' group or the circumstances. -----

Liberalism means pardoning the guilty and blaming someone else. Gee, just like the impeachment of bill clinton.

Hey, GS Gop...we might be neighbors; I'm four houses inside Orange County.

[Tolik]

Nailed It!
Moral Clarity BUMP !

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

[wolfcreek]

We have to respect the fact that, if the wind blows the wrong way, the Muslims might riot, blow things up and kill people. (minimal sarc)

[aimhigh]

And third, liberals tend to be afraid of the truly evil.

To a liberal, the only evil is to declare evil to be evil. Any enemy of Christianity is a friend to liberals.

[ncountylee]

black mobs murdered innocent Korean shopkeepers and burned sections of the city.

Heck...the Korean shopkeepers and the Post Office, welfare checks had to be picked up, stopped the riots.

[walford]

Terrorists, Soldiers – and Those In Between
...Individual terrorists may be irrational fanatics, but those who send them are not. The classic Clauswitzian objective of national demoralization is obtained by randomly murdering men, women and children. If they thought that such tactics would engender universal condemnation, they would not use them. But past reaction to terrorism has shown that they could expect a significant cadre of Westerners to reflexively absolve them of responsibility and instead blame those whom the victims represent. Thus, given such political rewards, civilians continue to be targeted...

[Billthedrill]

It is important to recognize that many on the left do not think in cogent arguments, but in an intellectual shorthand where everything is symbolic and nothing concrete. The model is a simple one - (1) the world consists of oppressing classes and oppressed classes, and (2) any inequity in the distribution of material goods is a result of oppression.

That's it - leftism in an easily-digested model that Marx would be ashamed of, but it saves an awful lot of thought on the part of those for whom thought is a chore and emotional commitment more satisfying. This model can be overlaid upon any social or political scenario whatever. You measure which fellow has the most marbles, and he's the bad guy, and the one with fewer is the good.

There is a corollary - that within this model of oppression absolutely anything is morally acceptable that is claimed to rectify it - for the oppressed nothing is condemned, for the oppressor, everything. This is not an intellectual model, it is an emotional model masquerading as one. Because of this it is immune from logical analysis - indeed, logic itself is twisted to accommodate it. To a dedicated postmodernist logic itself is an artifact of class oppression - I swear I am not making this up. This is religion, and its adherents believers.