A burning question for many of us conservatives (if not most), is the issue of why so many liberals, that is to say, why so many "commie-libs" qua "commie-symps" qua "commies" qua lefty, pinko Neo-Marxist, qua "New Age" Marxist qua fashionable-chic Marxist "radiclibs" — why so many of the former almost unanimously defend, excuse and apologize for Moslem Jihadists and Islamo-terrorists?
(Wow, how's that for a loaded and leading question?)
So far the answers offered toward that end appear to me to be somewhat tenuous and lacking, in a word, seem not to be intellectually, philosophically and polemically adequate nor accurate nor fully reasoned out nor rationally complete. So please allow me, dear readers, to offer and throw my worthless two cents into the fray.
But first this disclaimer. As much as I would like to flesh out my arguments in great, great depth and voluminous detail; nevertheless I must quote a former, fellow co-worker who said, "ain't got no time to jive baby." So nuff said pah-d-ners.
As I see it there are two very basic, seminal and central reasons, one which is quite simple and the other not.
First the rather simple reason: The enemy of my enemy, is my friend (and in this case, my ally too).
But the second is not all that simple and I suspect for many, especially without the slightest degree of explication, that it will either be a difficult pill to swallow which will be met with great, great gnashing of teeth and violent, knee-jerk paroxysm; or, rather will be a difficult set of ideas and arguments to follow, digest and or fully fathom. But again, dear readers, I humbly ask you to at least allow me the effort.
The second reason, simply stated: Liberals qua 'commie-libs' et al, et al; essentially are soul mates with these Moslem terrorists and Jihadists.
Now I can hear the roar of indignant howling and the popping of spastic, liberal kneecaps for miles and miles throughout the nation. Oh, for shame, for shame - how can I possibly say this? Answer: very easily.
I base this on the seminal work of Eric Hoffer, re his magnum opus "The True Believer" first published in 1951. I also base this observation and conclusion on my own personal knowledge of Classical history in particular as well as all of world history to date, as limited as that be; as well as upon four essential, sine qua non, historians and philosophers whom I group together as the underlying pillars of a Unified, Quantum Field, Theory of History, e.g., Thoucydides, Edward Gibbon, H. G. Wells and Ayn Rand. I.e., Thoucydides lays down the basic blueprint, Gibbon chronicles it, and H. G. Wells and Ayn Rand further explain and complete the blueprint.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jay
This entire article is founded on a ridiculous and dishonest premise.
Liberals do not defend terrorists. You listed no examples, probably because there are few if any solid examples. Sure, there's always some nutcase somewhere to say something, but a liberal defending a terrorist would be considered crazy and extreme.
It is a patent lie that liberals "almost unanimously defend, excuse and apologize for" Islamic terrorists. The statement is not even one percent factual.
Do liberals think everyone should have a fair trial and not a show trial? Yes, by and large, they do. But that is not the same thing as defending the terrorist or his actions. It is, in fact, defending the U.S. Constitution, an approach to justice that has made us a beacon to the world.
Do liberals oppose torturing terrorists? Yes, by and large. Torture is illegal, and nobody is above the law. This, too, is not the same thing as defending a terrorist or his actions.
So the next ten pages of your wild fantasies and loose associations are completely irrelevant. You are trying to explain a phenomenon which simply does not exist. You may as well write 10 pages about why Wal-Mart has the highest prices. Just because you can write 10 pages about it doesn't make it so.
As a side-note, it is beyond doubt that hard-right Republicans (who refer to themselves incorrectly as "conservatives") are the real, natural political allies of Islamic terrorists. The greater power the hard right has in the U.S., the more al Qaida influence grows in the world. American Islamophobia, torture and other abuses are teh greatest recruiting tools the terrorists have against us.
You are supporting terrorism with every vile lie you tell about Americans â€" including American liberals.
2 - Baronius
Irv, I'll bet that there's a really interesting article buried in there somewhere. But I couldn't find it, and that's your fault.
Somewhere around page 4 you wrote, "allow me to explain". And I realized that you wouldn't explain. If you wanted to, you would, but you'd rather not for whatever reason. So yes, Irv, I'll allow you to explain your very interesting thesis when you decide you want to. But I won't allow you to take up any more of my afternoon doing the exact opposite of explaining.
3 - Alan Kurtz
Irv, I'll address the substance of your article, but first I must (like Baronius in #3) object to its style. You deride "so-called, supposed scholars … most of whom do not speak in clear, precise, simple and direct language." Yet once again you've lavished upon us an overlong, overstuffed 11-page blog in a literary morass that itself pugnaciously defies being described as "clear, precise, simple and direct language." To communicate effectively on the Internet, you really ought to distill your thoughts, which are simply too discursive and digressive for this medium.
Apparently the gist of your piece is that liberals and jihadists "share the same ideological, fanatical, true-believer, mass movement, megalomaniacal totalitarian, police state, spectrum," which explains why liberals are "constant and consistent apologists" for Islamist terrorists.
Jay (comment #1) is correct that it would've been helpful for you to name some present-day examples of such misguided apologists. It does seem improbable that liberals in the United States (apart from anti-Semitic ideologues such as Amiri Baraka) have publicly defended terrorists--except, as Jay points out, to support their right to be tried under law for alleged crimes.
You charge that "Islamists look upon the liberals as 'useful idiots' to be tolerated so long as they are to be usefully exploited for the sake of the cause." You know this how, Irv? In what sense have Islamists usefully exploited liberal idiots? Again, a couple of examples would've been helpful here.
Due to your disdain of clarity and characteristic infatuation with prolixity, I can't tell whether or not I agree with your argument, although I suspect I do. But I honestly don't understand whom you expect to reach with such badly written material.
4 - Dr Dreadful
Jay, in Irv's defence, this feature section is entitled "There, I Said It!" The idea of the feature is to give writers an outlet; a place to let off steam and generally get people's wild up. (Admittedly, most writers manage to do this in no more than a page or two, but Irv has a bigger head of steam than most.) There's no requirement for him or her to have a rational point, although obviously it makes their argument more effective if they do.
[edited]
5 - Alan Kurtz
There's no requirement for him or her to have a rational point …
Are you insinuating that Irvin F. Cohen wasn't trying to make a rational point here? If so, I think Irv himself would very much disagree with you. It may not be required for this feature, but that doesn't mean it's precluded. If a writer such as Mr. Cohen attempts to make a rational point in spite of your "rules," he or she ought to be held accountable to rational standards of discourse, whether you like it or not.
6 - Dr Dreadful
Are you insinuating that Irvin F. Cohen wasn't trying to make a rational point here?
I would never, ever do such a thing...
If a writer such as Mr. Cohen attempts to make a rational point in spite of your "rules," he or she ought to be held accountable to rational standards of discourse, whether you like it or not.
Naturally, Alan. That's what the comments space is for.
7 - Alan Kurtz
That's so typical (#6). Time after time in these threads, you say something and then coyly back off when called on it. You never stand up for what you plainly meant in the first place. You implied that Irvin F. Cohen was irrationally "letting off steam" to "get people's wild up." That's insulting. I happen to know he worked very hard on this article.
8 - Doug Hunter
I disagree with the premise and can sum up the apparent contradiction more fully and accurately in one sentence than the author did in 11 pages.
The left's morality often shifts much of the blame for a problem from the party most directly responsible for it to the party they believe can most easily solve it, leaving themselves open to critisim that they're siding with the former.
9 - Dr Dreadful
Alan, it's obvious that he did work hard. Steam engines generally do.
I'm also sure that Irv believes that he has a rational point. That doesn't mean he does.
In fact, as Jay pointed out, he offers no evidence to back up his assertion that liberals (etc) universally give aid and comfort to terrorists. The best he can do is to offer a few historical examples of Western leftists who expressed approval of communism; he then goes on to accuse hunter-gatherer societies, Pharaonic Egypt, the Roman Catholic Church and practically everyone else who has ever existed of being socialists.
Not exactly the epitome of a rational argument.
10 - Dr Dreadful
Doug, there are four regular BC commenters whom I consider to be the clearest thinkers on this site, and you're one of them. Your #8 deftly demonstrates why.
11 - Alan Kurtz
Wait, don't tell us! Let me guess the other three regular BC commenters whom you consider to be the clearest thinkers on this site: STM, Christopher Rose, and Dr Dreadful. Am I right?
12 - roger nowosielski
"Thucydides" still stares out like a sore thumb.
13 - roger nowosielski
Don't forget yours truly.
You're clearly being prejudiced here, Alan. Whether good ol' Irv worked hard or not is immaterial. Are we now in the business of awarding high grades for effort?
14 - Alan Kurtz
I'd like to think we could magnanimously give credit where it's due. Meaning, do not belittle someone for "irrationally blowing off steam" just because you fault his thought processes and contest his conclusions. Whether you approve of him or not, Roger, Mr. Cohen is a rational being, not a raving lunatic.
15 - Mark
To the heavy handed idiot who censored and deleted my comment on this thread -- which in no way violated the comment policy --
power trip much?
thanks for the reminder about why to avoid your domain
16 - Doug Hunter
#10 Thanks. I have a tendency to try and oversimplify things, works great for math and programming where I've made my living, not so much for complex human problems. Add in all the angry venting I do on here and I'm as surprised as Alan I make anyone's top four.
17 - Alan Kurtz
Mark (#15), that was no heavy-handed idiot. That was Dr Dreadful, one of the four clearest thinkers on this site.
18 - Dr Dreadful
Alan (11): Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
Mark (15): There was nothing objectionable about your comment. However, Chris deleted it as part of the "Thucydides" incident.
Both Alan and Roger know full well that the comments space is not the appropriate forum for editorial notes. We will be deleting all such comments as we see them, and unfortunately yours (along with a couple of mine) had to go because Roger's did.
19 - Ruvy
Irvin. Eleven pages? What are you writing - War & Peace? I can write the answer to your question in two sentences. Scratch a liberal, and you will find a fascistic butcher. Under the skin Wahhabi terrorists and liberals are blood brothers - so liberals adore them!
20 - roger nowosielski
Yes, Roger knows. But why the hell is everyone so sensitive about small shit?
21 - Jordan Richardson
Categorizing people is so easy, isn't it? Makes them easier to hate.
22 - roger nowosielski
Changing the topic, Jordan, you devil you, as though reasoning with good ol' Irv was a reasonable proposition.
23 - roger nowosielski
{Mr. Cohen is a rational being, not a raving lunatic."
It'a for him to prove and for me to find out.
24 - Doug Hunter
#21
Categorizing and stereotyping are the brains natural way of dealing with information overload and are very useful processes. It may make hate easier, but it also makes just about everything else easier as well... that the whole point. People generally argue against it when it's convenient for one of their favored groups and often in a very hypocritical manner even within the space of a single comment. Something like 'You can't stereotype groups... Republicans are always doing that' would be typical.
25 - Alan Kurtz
Roger (#23), he doesn't have to prove a damn thing to you. You're not the be all and end all that you flatter yourself to be.