United in Hate

United In Hate -- The Left's Romance With Tyranny and Terror is a book that examines the seamy underbelly of the radical Left which considers Western society and its values an anathema. Dr. Jamie Glazov, the Editor of FrontPage Magazine, methodically details the causational factors that have lead modern Leftists to adhere to the death and destruction mantra of tyrannical Islamic Jihadists.

I have not read the book nor could I find a wide-ranging review of the book in Amazon or elsewhere. But I've been preoccupied by this conundrum for some years. The question is: why do liberals court the destruction of the United States, democracy throughout the world, and risk the triumph of Mohammedism which brings with it the imposition of sharia law? is there a link between the leftists defense of Muslim terrorism and its support of communism?

I believe the link has to do with The Frankfurt School . Sometime ago, shortly after the 2006 election, I published this reply which contains a previous post of some years vintage:

This is a very important article which should be read with care not because it is new but because it is, just that, important. Indeed, I have been posting along the lines for years. I am, frankly, surprised that the author did not disclose that his entire thesis has already been laid out by Dr. Atkinson in his definitive treatment of The Frankfurt School .

Here's something I've published about a year ago which deals with a very issues contained in this article. I hope everyone earnestly looks at the piece. I intend to burden you further with other posts. Here is the first one which I think you will see is an attempt to grapple with the apparent contradiction of the left courting the ascendancy of sharia:

Why Liberals Refuse to Admit the Reality of Islamic Fascism

Posted by nathanbedford to Amos the Prophet; Reagan Man; JasonC

On News/Activism 08/16/2006 2:00:05 AM EDT · 43 of 110

A couple of days ago I published the following comments in response to a Mark Steyn column in which I tried to grapple with the why of it, why do liberals willfully turn their faces from the reality of the Islamic fascist threat and court a new dark age if we succumb to their medieval theology?

The rabbi and I both agree on the symptoms of the disease. I put the label "cultural Marxism" on the collection of symptoms which are crippling us in our efforts to fight this expert global, generational, war for existence. I also distinguish between the liberal elitists and their useful idiots, the latter class consisting of unwitting dupes who exhibit the same symptoms but for reasons that are passive rather than aggressive. The elites I see as driven by reckless ambition.

Here's my take:

All of this is a direct result of the lethal legacy of THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL which gave birth to cultural Marxism which renders the elites of the left incapable of dealing with Muslim terrorists as Muslims. This disease has infected Europe where it has spread on the continent and, as Melanie Phillips pointed out in her book, LONDONISTAN, even Great Britain suffers from a severe infection. In America, the virus is most obvious in the blue states. Nevertheless, we were only a few electoral votes in Florida and 60,000 popular votes in Ohio away from slipping down into the swamps of multiculturalism (Cultural Marxism). If that should happen, we will be hopelessly vulnerable to Muslim terrorism and perhaps even ultimate rule as a Muslim caliphate.

I am of the opinion that when Marc Steyn wrote the following it could have as aptly applied to The Cultural Marxism of the left:

"Absent a determination to throttle the ideology, we're about to witness the unraveling of the world."

We are in world war against 1.2 billion Muslims or some fanatical fraction thereof. They are maniacal, suicidal, and homicidal. They are not amenable to diplomacy, blandishment, reason, bribery or Western Enlightenment. It is a very formidable enemy.

To have any hope of winning a global, asymmetrical, and generational war with these people we must have our own house in order. We do not because we are undermined by the lethal legacy of THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL: Cultural Marxism.

Pan nationalism (which really means the absence of nationalism), anti-Americanism, feminism (anti-paternalism), atheism (anticlericalism), extreme environmentalism (especially extreme global warming), anti-racism (group victimology), homosexual activism (anti-family hatred), etc. are all excressences of Cultural Marxism. This doctrine was explicitly fashioned to break down the resistance of Western civilization to communism.

It was designed to pave the way for the acceptance of the Russian Revolution in Germany in the 1920s. In doing so it carved out areas against the Western culture which it saw as bulwarks against communism: the family, the Church, the school. Thus it was perfectly positioned at the time of the ostensible and apparent failure of communism at the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall to convert the left fully from an economic Marxism to a Cultural Marxism. That is what we have today.

I am coming to the conclusion that the elites in the left are not purblind, not the misguided victims of their own worldview, but cynical high-stakes gamblers who risk plunging themselves and us into a new dark age if it will enhance their own chances to rule. Unless one believes that the top elitists on the left genuinely do not see the threat to Western civilization posed by a Muslim theocracy, there is no other plausible explanation. After all, Muslim fundamentalists stand for everything repugnant to the left-at least on a superficial level: the belief in God; rule by theocracy; the virtual enslavement of women; repudiation of the scientific method; superstition, etc. life in such a society should be utterly insupportable to leftists. Yet they undermine the war against terrorism at every turn, they oppose the Patriot Act, they oppose international telephone surveillance, they oppose vigorous interrogation, they oppose incarceration, to list just a few. Why?

How did Lenin behave as he was taking over power in Russia? He negotiated a sellout deal for peace through appeasement with imperial Germany. Mao behaved even more scurrilously. Because of biased reporting of it is commonly believed in America that it was the Communists in China, rather than the Nationalists who were believed to be corrupt and passive, who were aggressive in fighting the Japanese in World War II. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact Mao betrayed his nationalist allies quite often to the Japanese and otherwise exploited the war to defeat the Nationalists while virtually undertaking no action against the Japanese.

At the time, Mao was fully aware of the rape of Nanking and brutality which the Japanese had visited upon his people. He deliberately courted the defeat of China and subjected his fellow Chinese to further brutality in order to advance the interests of communism and especially his own personal lust for power. This was the pattern of Mao's life, Lenin's life, and Stalin's life.

I believe that the elitists on the left, not the useful idiots, are playing the same game.

Here is a second post, lengthy and old, along the same lines:

The contemporary Democratic Party has corrupted itself so far in its American self-loathing that it is in every sense at odds with the Constitution its elected members have sworn not only to abide by, but to protect.

I judge this observation to be very true but there is an underlying explanation which is very revealing of the psychic state of the Democrat party which offers us equally hope for it’s eventual healing and considerable alarm that it could ultimately be our nation's undoing. First a stipulation, I'm about to charge the Democrat party with a psychic state of mind which a critic might parallel to those open letters printed in mainstream newspapers just before our presidential elections which declare - no, which diagnose -the Republican candidate to be somehow mentally lacking. I confess I have absolutely no credentials to diagnose anyone's mental condition, much less the state of an entire political party. So I concede that what follows is my own prejudice.

Why has the modern Democratic Party "corrupted itself so far in its American self-loathing"? The author claims that the loathing has proceeded so far that members of the party act contrary to their sworn oaths. I'm not here to argue the truth of this proposition, I assume it to be so as do virtually all of the posters on these threads because the evidence, especially arising out of the war on terror, has become so pervasive that it can no longer be dismissed. Why do Democrats loathe America so much? Are they aware that they loathe America? Are they aware that they are violating their oaths to the Constitution because of their loathing?

If you are not a poster on these threads and you do not share our virtually universal opinion about Democrats, I invite you to read this thread which alleges that a former Democrat speaker of the House, a former Democrat president of the United States of America, and a sitting Democrat Senator have all, singly or as part of a conspiracy, treacherously undermined the national security of the United States to advance their party's electoral chances!

Kennedy-KGB collaboration

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1727448/posts

I have no doubt that these three Democrats at the very same time they were undermining their country's national security actually believed they were behaving patriotically. The author cites Hillary Clinton's earsplitting screech as evidence of this. For them, white had become black, up had become down, evil had become good and good, evil. The author describes this process of rationalization and ultimate distortion of reality as it occurred in Russia until every human instinct was perverted into its exact opposite meaning. I can recall writing notes to myself on a flight homeward from Moscow in which the single overwhelming reaction that I drew from what I saw was the utter, debased, cynicism of the Russians.

How ironic that the author cites the perverse cynicism of the Russians as part of his description, although not necessarily an explanation, of the debased state of the Democratic Party. But the Democrat party is more than debased, worse than merely cynical, it is in a psychic state in which it can do no other. The Democrats are entrapped and they can't get out. Rare are the David Horowitzs of the world who can break free. One author has described this syndrome as being in a "psychic cage."

That's author's thesis is that this psychic cage did not settle upon the psyches of Democrats by accident but was the deliberate, calculated contrivance of THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL which was established in Germany in 1923 with the funding of a millionaire, a George Soros like figure, to create the conditions to bring the Russian Revolution to Germany. He assembled a group of brilliant Jewish intellectuals and established what became known as The School for Social Research which identified those parts of society which acted to retard the coming of the glorious socialist Revolution. These intellectuals then set out systematically to "deconstruct" those impediments to communism: the family, the church, the school, the nation, capitalism, Western civilization. Coming to power in 1933, Hitler, who if nothing else could always recognize an enemy, suppressed the group as much for their Jewishness is for their philosophy which caused a kind of modern Frankfurt School diaspora into the rest of the Western world, primarily the United States and Britain. Here the refugees found remarkable influence, becoming associated with the OAS, Columbia school of journalism, Harvard, the State Department and etc. The cancer metastasized.

They took their ambitions to make the world ready for communism with them and by now they had invented some formidable weapons. To deconstruct the first impediment to communist revolution, the family, they attacked patriarchal authority and sought to substitute matriarchal authority. From there it is an easy jump to attack all authority. That was handy for the next cultural institution they wished to undermine, the church. We all know what happened here. Together, our church and our school construct for us our epistemology, what we know and how we know it. If we can destroy that, we have destroyed everything and left man soulless. The author quotes Dostoevsky:

Well, my fact is precisely that Russian liberalism is not an attack on the existing order of things, but an attack on the very essence of things, on the things themselves, not merely on their order, on the established order in Russia, but on Russia herself.

We are now very nearly at nihilism. So we see today in our universities, for example, abnignation of their whole purpose and the abandonment of the scientific method, logic, or historical actuality for a so-called "critical theory." Reality means nothing, everything is relative, utterly disposable. The author of the psychic cage describes how the universities were seduced and converted before they even realized what had happened to them. One might say the same for the National Council of Churches, for example.

This phenomenon has been described with many terms besides the critical theory such as, cultural Marxism, feminism, multiculturalism etc. and they all seem to fall under the rubric of "political correctness."

I think it is important to understand how insidious is the brainwashing which found its roots in The Frankfurt School and blossomed with the boomer generation. We in the West are beginning to understand, at least intellectually, a phenomenon of Islam, it's fanatical, anti-rational, murderous-suicidal tendencies. We're beginning to see that the phenomenon is not a matter of rational choice. Interestingly, the Germans make the same argument as they outlaw Scientology claiming that it is a cult which disarms the rational powers of its victims. The Germans ought to know about these things for they learned from the masters, Hitler and Goebbels. When you succeed in tearing away every prop that lets men know what he knows and believe what he believes, you have achieved what Dostoevsky has described-a psychic cage.

So this is how the modern Democratic Party got itself into its present fix, a soulless zombie. Contemporary political scientists might describe it more prosaically, a party without a core message and possessed only of a methodology and a very destructive methodology at that. I do not know whether this means that it is unlikely to get a message or that it's likely to take on any message. Is it likely in its cynicism and nihilism to turn upon itself and destroy itself or is it likely to become dangerous and aggressive? At least we know what we are dealing with and why. We know that we cannot persuade these people with logic. We must "un--deconstruct" the psychic cage, bolt by bolt and nut by nut so that the cult-mentality becomes open to human discourse.

By way of illustration, those of us who abhor abortion often scratch our heads at the obdurancy of its defenders. We have even described it as a sacramental act in some perverse religion in an effort to explain the otherwise inexplicable. We can make no logic in the face of its ghastliness. The left is untroubled by this even to the point of condoning partial-birth abortion or screaming hysterically at the apparition of posters bearing images of aborted fetuses. We are on different planets. We must understand that these people have not just smashed the order of things, they have smashed the things themselves-as Dostoevsky said. If abortion is not the destruction of the thing itself, what is it?

And so we now understand why Senator Kennedy could sell out his country's national security to advance his own march to the presidency.

The scary part of all this is that we are immersed in a war of survival against mindless, fundamentalist Islam while a political party which represents nearly half the electorate is dysfunctional.

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.