Replies

True, and it's all about an oppositional identity. For them, the people of the USA failed to adulate their pose of higher moral superiority. So they turned to the third world, borrowing the old and parternalistic noble savage paradigm. Third world suffering, at least as so far it could somehow be fitted to have been "caused" by America, was the new guilt object for the left, their understanding of these sufferers waived at us like they've found God. Essentially, a narcissism masked in charity.

Now they are confronted with Osama, rich terrorists, and thrid world people who hate their values more than they hate those of western conservatives. The left is in a funk because they cannot define the Islamist crisis into a rational anti-American construct, and then proclaim their special understanding of it. They tried, some early gasps being the September/October "root causes" arguments, meaning what they would hope the root causes would be. Osama's later videos stumped them.

Simply, they have nothing worthwhile to say, and since they cannot claim a special knowledge of foreign affairs anymore since the same are widely discussed now among all elements of the public. Additionally, they have nothing to say about religion, which makes them unable to address religion as a cause of political and military crises. Finally, since many lived in the New York kill zone target of the terrorists, they've shut up or changed their tune, or at least opened their minds.

Their are still some bleats. My favorite one is the repetitive "I'm being censored" when they mean "I'm being criticized." They haven't felt what they have been practicing against others - it's dumbfounding to them.

In a very real sense and by definition, liberalism/leftism is a cult. Requires the same slavish devotion to cult figures and a total disregard for reason, facts and rationality. Most of all, it requires the propensity for spiral-eyed hatred of anyone who dares disagree with them.

I like the way you put that.

*re-bump*

You are correct in cataloguing the Left's defects. It doesn't follow that they will dissolve into impotence or even see the error of their ways. History is full of examples of the bad guys winning. Alexander, Napoleon, Genghis, Stalin and Mao were not nice people.

Of course, in the long run, dysfunctional and amoral political movements consume themselves, but not before they have heaped a pile of skulls at the city gates.

It is necessary for men of goodwill not only to retain their sanity (i.e. reject the psychosis of the Left), but also to learn the arts of intellectual and physical conflict. The Left, for all its defects, is a formidable projector of ideas. Conservatives must either become better at this type of fighting than the Left, or go down in defeat. It isn't enough to be righteous to win.