Posted on 08/15/2006 8:59:06 PM PDT by Reagan Man
Blind animus for President Bush is insufficient to explain liberals' refusal to acknowledge the reality of a cruel and imperialistic jihadist push worldwide. Nor is it simply liberals' unwillingness to work with Republicans and conservatives that render them incapable of serious and active participation in the War on Terror. It is that by so doing, liberals would be forced to upend the world view and social philosophies that have animated them since the early '60s.
At stake is their identity as individuals, what they do, what they believe, the need for their journals, indeed their sense of moral superiority and their hierarchy in society and policy making. Worse for them, their whole social milieu is dependent on maintaining the artificial and cocooned world they have created for themselves. The philosophic underpinnings of “their world” are frontally challenged by this new jihadist reality, one that cannot be controlled, maneuvered or finessed by their propositions of how life works. It is much more convenient to deny jihad’s eagerness to kill us all, including them, than to deconstruct the ersatz world they have built for themselves.
As with those in the mid-1800s unwilling to accept the transformation from an agricultural era to the new era of industrialization, most elitist liberals refuse to admit the reality of the new jihadist era since it makes irrelevant the entrenched ideas upon which they have grown rich and sassy for the last half century. At stake is their status. It is similar to the advent of the early automobile period when buggy-whip manufacturers would not reconcile themselves to a new reality rendering what they did outdated and unnecessary.
Jihadism is not a reaction to American, Israeli or Australian foreign policy. It is organic, a conventional and historic reading of the Koran as understood by many imams. Jihad is one of Islam’s authentic traditions, predating the birth of America and Israel. They seek to conquer, to create a global Islamic caliphate. Our survival depends on their defeat, total defeat. This will be accomplished not by the professional negotiators and liberal sociologists but by the force of an army, a courageous and unfettered military.
Those schooled in the liberal “it’s society’s fault” outlook when pontificating on domestic crime have for decades proclaimed “it’s America’s fault” when evaluating every atrocity found worldwide. Liberals “understand”!
To acknowledge the peculiarity of the jihadist reality undermines those in the “understanding” business. They are, now, antiquated and counterproductive, since it is not their assumptions that anymore matter but the generals and the fighting man. Liberals would rather deny truth than forfeit their heretofore prominent position at the decision table.
The fanciful and “smart” musings of Thomas Friedman and the New York Times set are valid only if jihadists are morphed into your routine troublemakers placate-able with a concession here and there. There is no serious place for liberal negotiators such as Judith Kipper and some of the smarmy know-it-alls at the Council of Foreign Relations unless the true unyielding nature and goal of Islamofascism is denied. Their journals, writings, royalties, and center of attention among the chattering class depends upon treating jihadism as something “to be reasoned with,” when it is clearly not.
Many of today’s powerful and boisterous liberals are wealthy and university schooled and consider themselves “the nice people,” sensitive, morally superior, smarter, and above such things as war. This is their identity, the passport to their social fraternity. They have constructed above-it-all lives, fashioning a sub-culture beyond the reach of life’s messiness. They live as if everything were predictable and within their control. Through negotiation, life is risk-free.
To acknowledge the true face of Islamofascism and its aims would mean having to concede the necessity of phone surveillance, tough interrogation, common sense profiling, a reliance on the CIA and a strong military -- all things they were taught to disdain. Better to deny reality than relinquish the badges and accoutrements of their internalized identity as “superior.” Besides, how un-cosmopolitan and un-transnational to be in the corner of America, especially when anti-Americanism is cool and fashionable, indeed today’s facile path to liberal “worldliness”.
Some of this crowd are, by nature, cowards and appeasers, brazen only when taking on people and institutions they know will never harm them, such as Bible-believing Christians, President Bush, and the American military. Ken Roth of Human Rights Watch, for example, and other “human rights” imposters have grown celebrated and well-funded by establishing a set of official guidelines for what is permissible for Western powers during war. But their central motivation is to emasculate the strength of the West to win an armed conflict.
Everything, if carried out by the forces of freedom, constitutes, in Roth’s view, a human rights violation. In an article he published two weeks ago, he unearthed an international law “interpretation” that made illegal just about anything Israel chose in defense of its territory and citizens -- as he has done all along in America’s War on Terror. His message to Israel and America: Lose.
As with the Nazis and Communists before, Roth and cohorts are using an elaborate set of legalities to outlaw and subdue those wishing to remain free when fighting those wishing to rule over them. They are outlawing our defense of ourselves. Many “enlightened” liberals wishing to control our fate quote him because it provides them the “moral” tools with which to stymie our efforts. This is made possible only by minimizing the true threat of jihadism and accusing America of being the creator of and fueling the jihadist movement. No doubt, CBS’s Mike Wallace, Ahmadinjad’s new admirer, falls in this category.
Anti-Semitism also plays a role. Those on the left not wishing the state of Israel well, and those who do not like Jews, are reluctant to side with the anti-jihadists. To do so, they must first cast them not as jihadists ideologically and theologically hell-bent on destroying the West and Christians but simply as an aggrieved group of Moslems whose grievances should be redressed and placated. I am sure that Father Coughlin and Charles Lindbergh loved America, but their dislike for Jews was overriding and made them declare that Hitler could be reasoned with.
Deliberate delusion born of self-interest; ignoring reality out of self-importance; the inability of relics “in the know” to renounce what is no longer true; selfishness over love of country: All of these are reprehensible character traits. When practiced by too many, a civilization dies.
Good article.
Thanks for posting.
This is so right on the target, perfect. I have lost most of my friends in this category because I dare challenge their quasi-religious self delusion on this, the most important issue of our time.
Because they hate America and everything about it.
It's so true-
"Deliberate delusion born of self-interest; ignoring reality out of self-importance"
Libs are still stuck in high school trying to get the most votes for Student Council, or the Miss Popularity award, it seems.
bump for later
Best article I have read in along while detaling what is happening to American common sense.
"They are outlawing our defense of ourselves. Many “enlightened” liberals wishing to control our fate quote him because it provides them the “moral” tools with which to stymie our efforts."
Defending America is too "messy". Perfect fit for the a**holes crying about the war in this country,
Great article. A keeper for my library. Thanks for posting. The Rabii really hits the nail on the head.
1) Afghanistan was a US Victory.
2) Iraq was a US Victory.
4) They are both part of the War On Terror.
so what we've been told that they are a religion of peace is wrong. (like I didn't know that already).
Who is this guy? He's pretty awesome.
They have lost the working man but the blue collar crowd has shrunk in size such that the Reagan Democrats are largely gone. The Union crowd called the Lace Curtain Liberal Artsy Fartsy Liberals. They have no idea of the real world.
They used to complain about America's support of brutal dictatorships just because they were anticommunist. It was a valid critique in my opinion. Bush has put forth a moral foreign policy promoting democracy. Well, these jerks hate this even worse than the support for Marcos or Batista.
While they call for understanding of other cultures (which I support), they will not evaluate those cultures based on widely accepted values or their ability to "get along" with others. Only America is to be tolerant, other countries have "legitimate grievances" and need not tolerate anyone disagreeing with them.
This is surely a screwball world.
When practiced by too many, a civilization dies.
Unfortunately, the psychosis documented here is practiced by a shade less than 50% of us. And growing. We will never solve the problem with these people around. They will deny the threat until the moment they are beheaded. To them, surrender is preferable to self-defense.
Yes, I think this is the problem--the "understanding" business. But the author fails to mention one of the worst offenders in the understanding business, the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber who was a resident of Israel. He embraced the "thou", the "other" as Muslim to the detriment of his own country.
He's "America's Rabbi"
http://www.caucusforamerica.com/site.about.php
I deliberately maintain positive relations with friends who are duped by the insanity of cultural elitists. I also never give an inch in my firm commitment to 2 programs that will resolve our current diffuculty. First that Islamofascists must be stopped dead in their tracks by any means necessary. Second, that a national mental health effort be mounted to heal liberals of their craziness.
My friends do not like being told they are nuts and in need of help. They each firmly belief, however, that conservatives and especially Christians are ignorant and morally inferior. In time they will understand that their hearts have been hardened against facing the truth. I want to be around when that happens to help them make the transition.
"Can a good Muslim be a good American? I forwarded that question to a friend that worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.
The following is his forwarded reply:
Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon God of Arabia.
Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)
Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).
Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.
Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).
Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannotco-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually - no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called 'Love' in The Quran's 99 excellent names.
Therefore after much study and deliberation.... perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country.
They obviously cannot beboth "good" Muslims and good Americans."
I like your numbering system.
It reminds me of Lot, who was willing to send his daughters out to be raped and murdered, in order to avoid a confrontation with the men who wanted to break in and rape his visitors, or when Abraham pretended Sarah was not his wife, willing to give her up to protect himself. Even if they were to face the truth, would they be willing to do anything about it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.