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.
One of the standard responses to the original question, why do liberals, especially the liberal media-elite commentariat, why do they so automatically respond with such a knee-jerk uniformity and conformity to defend, support, excuse, justify and apologize for these Islamic terrorists? Well, the standard answer is that this simply is a matter, or solely a matter of typical, rather trite and hackneyed liberal “victimhood” and “victimology.” Well, I must agree somewhat, but I also maintain that this response is too easy, is just too convenient, in effect is somewhat superficial and not all that relevant and material; for I contend there is a much more fundamental and deeper etiology and casuology at play here.
There, like everything under God’ sun, is a reason for everything. In this particular case there is also a reason why ‘libs’ and ‘comie-libs’ and ‘commies’ etc., etc., possess such a seeming, visceral empathy for all enemies of America in general and these Islamic Jihadists in particular; which transcends the “enemy of my enemy is my friend (and ally)” and the typical politically-correct, intellectual masturbation and ideological nonsense of liberal victimhood and victimology, Instead I maintain there is a natural predilection and affinity of the former (libs qua commie libs) for the latter (Moslem Jihadists in particuar and left-wing terrorissts of any stripe in general).
Yet ironically these are two rather distinctly disparate groups which one would reasonably expect and assume under normal circumstances, would absolutely despise and detest each other, would literally be at each other’s throats with a passionate hatred verging upon violence and the actual spilling of blood. Yet while the latter wish to kill the former and have done so on numerous occasions (e.g. Daniel Pearl), they as typical mass-movement, true- believer, fanatics and zealots, simply employ them as “useful idiots.” In a word, when they are not killing them, they “play them like a fiddle.”
While the former (the liberal, media-elite), whether as a matter of a sense of phony guilt, or as a matter of a sense of solidarity with those whom they falsely reason have been innocent victims of American oppression, jingoism and imperialism, and thereby corporate rapine, pillage and plunder, and or cultural contamination and pollution through “ugly Americanism;” nevertheless they still manage to find ideological solidarity with the latter (Islamic terrorists). Which again, at first glance seems to be fundamentally incomprehensible, to be, in a word, a world gone upside down and topsy-turvy. It is literally as if the lamb takes great alacrity, solace and comfort in lying down with a very, very hungry lion who is very, very focused on his own hunger.
But in defense of this assertion of mine, let’s commit a little history here. The libs qua commie-libs qua commie-symps, etc., having been doing this for a rather longtime now, in fact, since Lincoln Steffens commented upon and praised the former Soviet Union in 1919: (“I have been over to the future. and it works.” And the reprinted version, “I have seen the future and it works.”) And also the New York Times in the early 30s in the reportage of Walter Duranty, a rather obsequious, sycophantic, pro-communist sympathizer and Stalinist-apologist who knowingly and purposefully misreported the Ukrainian Holocaust, also know as the Holodomor, of which at first, he denied its very existence, and then when it could no longer be denied or minimized, he then sloughed it off as a matter of faulty economic planning, mismanagement and policy.
Oh, where have I heard that line before (a thousand times over by American ‘libs’ and ‘commie-lib’ apologists)? But that was not enough for the New York Times which helped him earn a Pulitzer Prize only to learn that he had like a good, typical ‘commie-symp’ and true believer ideologue, that he had falsified many of his supporting and evidentiary documents. (There is more to this ugliness, but suffice it to say the “old grey lady” has consistently been a mouthpiece, supporter, promoter and apologist for communism and Marxism both here and abroad for almost a century to date.)
But to continue. This liberal solidarity with radical, anti-Americans combined with its long-standing history of Stalinist pro-apologia-ism for all socialist, communist and Marxist dictators, spans a wide spectrum of the usual true-believer suspects of the liberal-left, again both here in America and abroad, especially in Western Europe. For instance, when they immediately sided with the Arab nations surrounding Israel in the aftermath of the Six Day War. (By the way, Egypt and Syria were both quasi-socialist nations at the time; Egypt under Nasser and Syria under the Baathists.) As well as their giving aid and succor and their solidarity to every third world, screaming mee-mee, peasant thug, pseudo intellectual, Marxist tyrant and tinhorn dictator armed with an AK-47: from Castro and Che Guevera, to Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh, the Viet Cong, the Pathet Lao and the Khmer Rouge; to the Red Brigade and the Bader Meinhoff to the IRA and the Black Panthers to the Symbionese Liberation Army to the Sendero Luminoso.
Why? Because as goofy and as improbable as this may seem to both liberals and conservatives alike, and again, I can anticipate much howling and popping of spastic liberal, kneecaps; they (the commie-libs and Jihadist terrorists) are on the same intellectual, philosophic and ideological wavelength. Allow me to explain:
Eric Hoffer defined this fanatical, true-believer, mass-movement, totalitarian, police-state spectrum in 1951. And I maintain he did so clearly, lucidly and with great accuracy and presence of mind. The point I wish to make here is that this spectrum he described and delineated has the liberal lefties and commies, i.e, the International Socialists, on the one extreme end of the spectrum; and the fascists, i.e., the National Socialists, on the other extreme end. Although they appear to be polar opposites, in actuality they are quite similar and share the very same spectrum.
In addition Hoffer assigned the autocratic, theocratic Muslim and Christian, true believer, mass-movement, fundamentalist, fanatical religious zealots historically to the center of this very same spectrum. Fortunately for us and the rest of the world, all of Christianity for the most part and with very little to no exception whatsoever has far transcended and gone far beyond that sort of solipsistic, self-righteous, true believer, religious fanaticism and I maintain has attained the most civilized, advanced and humane and compassionate and enlightened elevation of any religion in the annals of history. Unfortunately, much of Islam is for the most part still mired in the backwardness and primitivity, superstition and extreme religious intolerance of the seventh century.
(Now I anticipate that the liberals in their typical and de rigueur sophistic, moral relativist fashion will cite the IRA and Timothy McVeigh to disprove my thesis. Well, point not well taken. Even though the IRA consisted of Christians, of Catholics in particular; they were in fact Marxists, i.e, were international socialists whose cause was thoroughly more local and nationalistic than it was religious. The same could be said for McVeigh too. Both were thoroughly secular and not at all that religiously driven or motivated.)
There is yet another salient and seminal, defining feature to Hoffer’s thesis on these mass movements throughout the ages, but in particular of those utterly destructive and genocidal movements of the past century – simply stated, all of these positions on his true believer spectrum, from the very right, to the theocratic center, to the extreme far left – all of these loci are incredibly and extraordinarily – interchangeable.
I first read The True Believer in 1956 at the tender age of 11 and readily admit that I only understood it superficially and viscerally. I also admit, that as a product of the liberal, governmental, public-shool system; that I was rather ignorant, gullible and stupid, and intellectually, academically and scholastically ill-educated and woefully ill-served. And as piss-poor as those schools were then, they were vastly better than today’s.
(And yes, I also admit that some, nay, much of the fault lies with myself and especially with my parents: But neither I nor my parents were paid to educate our children and entrusted to manage our educational system, and or make phony claims that they were either well-educated professionals who made the even phonier claim that as such they possessed a special knowledge or ability to teach anyone, anything. Well, before one can profess to know how to teach anything, one must know something!
And these monumental, intellectual fools and professional clowns were [and still are] absolute monumental know-nothings and ignoramuses. And overall, they were also intellectual, academic and scholastic frauds, charlatans, louts, morons, cretins, imbeciles and idiots with bogus college and university degrees from bogus schools of education which only prove and certify what vast and monumental, intellectual, academic and scholastic know-nothing, loutish morons, cretins, imbeciles and idiots they truly were and still are. Save for a very few minor improvements here and there nothing has changed since my day over fifty years ago, other than we pay these worthless frauds and charlatans much, much better than they are truly worth. But enough of this digression. But to continue.)
Nevertheless I followed Hoffer and much of his writings for much of my early life and read many of his books and essays until my thirties at which point, after having finally, formally studied the Classics somewhat successfully; I turned my attention and intellectual pursuits to other writers and in particular, to the Great Books beyond the Classics, such as: Shakespeare, Dickens, Cervantes, Rabelais, Twain, Faulkner, Melville, Sartre, Camus, et al, just to name a few. I also at that time rediscovered Ayn Rand and immersed myself in her novels and essays with a passion. What I wish to say, is at that point in time, the midway locus of my life, I abandoned Hoffer. But not completely, for unbeknownst to my conscience mind, his ideas still stirred and sloshed about in my head. What occurred is a sort of epiphany for me. I readily confess and admit that I am rather slow on the uptake, but after only 20 years or so I pieced this one together and got it fairly quickly.
While I was in my senior year of college I had a course in Medieval Latin which proved to be one of my most intense, for you see, the more I did the more my professor pushed me, and the more she pushed me, the more I did – a truly rather delicious, vicious cycle in which I learned vastly much more than I would have normally have. (And by the way this occurred at least once and sometimes twice or more per semester, in all subjects, but mostly in my Greek, Latin and French course work.)
Consequently as part of my Medieval Latin course, I was compelled to read and study authors such as Ausonius whose Latin was grammatically and stylistically equal to the best and greatest of the Classical Romans (e.g., Vergil, Catullus, Cicero, Caesar, Tacitus, Petronius, Aurelius, et al) and just as difficult if not more so. However I was also forced to read the Latin of the early Christian converts who were essentially Germanic and Gothic barbarians whose Latin was godawful bad, in effect grammatically and stylistically “piss-poor.” In addition I did a paper on Fredericus Secundus, also known as Fredericus Barbarosus, literally, Freddy the Barbarian.
The reason he was called that is because of the rift between him (as the Holy Roman Emperor) and the Papacy. This conflict between vying claims to temporal supremacy, dominance and hegemony had its roots in the First Nicene Creed (in 325 A.D.) and the Emperor Constantine all the way to the Napoleonic period and in my estimation has not been fully resolved as of yet to this very day. For close to two millennia the Papacy has laid claim to both spiritual and temporal supremacy, and this struggle; first with the Roman Emperors, then with the Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire, then with the vernacular, Divine Right Kingship, nation states, lasted up to the Revolutionary and Napoleonic periods; and literally engulfed the temporal powers of Europe in internecine conflict, literally in rivers of blood, again, for almost two thousand years.
(If one scrutinizes the Papal Bulls and Encyclicals and the intent of the Ecumenical Councils of the past two hundred years, one will see that the Church has only gradually ceded temporal sovereignty and supremacy to secular, nation states. However this has been in name only for in the same breath the Church has reserved its right, power, prestige and natural prerogative to reassert its claim to both temporal and spiritual leadership, with its ultimate goal of complete and total sovereignty and supremacy of both over the secular powers that be. In truth, it does not cede nor yield this ages old issue entirely, but rather, simply defers it to another time and place of its own choosing.)
Well, as part of my research I was compelled to read (in the original Latin) a shitload of Papal Bulls and the diplomatic correspondence of Papal Nuncios amongst many other document sources. Not the easiest nor most satisfying of reading. But I was intrigued not so much by the content of the material which was quite germane toward the writing and research of my paper, but by something else which caught my eye. At first it seemed I had read the content and the intent of the epistolary and communiqués elsewhere but the precise knowledge of it was ineffable and somewhat nebulous. I also noticed, as in my study of Greek history, of Thouydides in particular, that there was a basic, underlying pattern, a basic blueprint which repeated itself over and over again, but was not necessarily, specifically germane to my study at hand, but yet also seemed to pertain to my many other studies and to my many life experiences in general as well.
The boiler plate nature of the rhetoric, the language and its style seemed eerily and uncannilly familiar. Again, the words might be different as well as the names and the particulars, but the blueprint itself was remarkably similar and familiar. But exactly what was it which piqued and aroused my curiosity so? What was the who, what, how and why of it all, I asked myself.
Well, I noticed the language of the Church was no different than the language of the modern day communists and Marxists, and the latter no different than the fascists. All three fell into the same language and fanatical true-believer, paradigms and patterns, the very same blueprint which Eric Hoffer had so accurately described. They were all interchangeable, just simply supply words like “capitalist” and “imperialist” for “Godless atheist” with “heretic” or “blasphemer” or “rightwing reactionary” and “corporatist” for “communist commissar” and “politburo” and “people’s autonomous republic” of this or that, etc., etc.. Again the boiler plate rhetoric and the titles and monikers were different, but the underlying templates were uncannilly and eerily similar – and incredibly, all were totally and completely interchangeable!
(Now I readily confess and admit that I am hard pressed to come up with many exempla which thirty years ago I could readily and easily supply. But that’s a long time go and memory is short and to be brutally honest, that’s just a mission for me which I abhor and detest; as far as I am concerned, it is nothing more than a form of tedious and dreary drudgery, and a monumental bore and outright waste of time. Instead I will let the so-called, supposed professionals, you know those battened hens in a coop and second and third-rate monks in ivory cloisters, carry my water for me and do the heavy lifting for me, and do so with a great deal of dull and insipid, not so magical pettifoggery to boot.
(For the sake of clarity here and so that you, my dear readers, who because of your worthless, substandard, liberal, governmental, statist and collectivist public-school education, just might not get the metaphor, I am of course speaking of academics and of so-called, supposed scholars. All of whom are woefully overpaid and underworked, and also extremely spoiled and pampered; and most of whom also do not speak in clear, precise, simple and direct language, in highly lucid English to be absolutely precise; but rather are subject to speaking in esoteric, arcane, undecipherable and incomprehensible tongues of bombastic gobble-dee-goop and highly pedantic gibberish.)
Well, to re-iterate and re-emphasize the point, the template fits; the reason why the libs qua commie-libs, et al, et al, are such constant and consistent Stalinist apologists, sympathizers, defenders and protectors of Moslem Jihadists and Islamo-fascist terrorists: is because, one, they both share the same ideological, fanatical, true-believer, mass movement, megalomaniacal totalitarian, police state, spectrum; and two, because libs qua commie libs et al, et al, have a natural affinity and predilection for such psychopathic, deranged bomb throwers and murderers. In sum, they are simply true believer, ideological soul-mates.
In addition there is also a certain degree of solidarity and psychotic and delusional hero worship which takes the form of “projection” and “transference.” (Yes I admit that I am not a “professional psychobabbler,” quack, quack; so I can’t say “transference” for a certainty; but I can say “projection,” that I am sure of.) So that this mindset manifests itself in psychotic and delusional thinking: “If only I could be as dedicated and devoted to my “cause” and intrepid and courageous enough to kill the enemies of the “people” and if necessary, myself in the process. Ohhh, if only I could be that brave!” And of course, do not discount the rationale of “the enemy of my enemy, is my friend (and ally)” either. For it is also a major contributing factor in this sort of delusional and psychotic, true-believer mindset as well.
One last point to further flesh out the true-believer, fanatical, mass movement, megalomaniacal totalitarian, police-state spectrum. I first intimated and inferred this in Hoffer’s writings, but it wasn’t fully revealed to me until after I had formally studied Greek history and in particular, the works of Thoucydides. In my study of history, I have concluded that there are only two, basic and essential, prototypical forms of political, social and economic governance in all of history. If one culls and separates out all of the convergence and conflation, crossover and overlap, and all of the extraneous forms and matter, one will see that there are only these two master, archetypical forms. Ironically, one is almost universal while the other is quite rare.
In fact the rare form of political, social and economic governance has only occurred twice in all of recorded history, and only on a limited basis while the other has appeared in one form or another as a universal and pandemic constant. The rarity is what Frances Fukuyama has phrased “liberal, democratic capitalism” and what I call liberal democratic/representative/republican, free enterprise/free market/entrepreneurial, enlightened capitalism (a mouthful, n’est-ce pas? I’ll stick with Fukuyama). Liberal, democratic, (enlightened) capitalism has only occurred twice; once in Athens and the Greek city-states of Greece proper and Asia Minor, and once in America and Western Europe to a lesser extent. That’s it. The rest fall under and comprise what I call and term “feudal socialism.”
As I see it there are essentially three forms of “feudal socialism.” The first is primitive feudal socialism which I have entitled “Pharaonic feudal socialism.” The use of the word pharoanic might appear to be somewhat misleading since I use it to describe societies and civilizations which are the most primitive imaginable while that of the Pharaohs was arguably one of the most advanced. But that is exactly the point, the Pharaohs represent the absolute zenith of the most primitive of societies; the Egyptians are in fact a culmination and end point of stone age society and as such represent a plateau which was never exceeded and transcended by them.
Likewise the Incas, Mayans and Aztecs would also be representative of primitive feudal socialism at its highest point, but essentially all of these societies, as complex, sophisticated and advanced as they appear, were all comparatively speaking quite primitive; they might be squarely rooted in the Bronze and Iron Ages, but their progression was still solidly arithmetic and their roots and overall ethos, their culture and epistemology and their thought and cognitive processes were still quite rooted in the Stone Age.
In fact feudal socialism itself begins squarely in the Stone Age with small tribes, clans and families living in caves, tents, yurts, communal long houses and raised, stilted houses on lakes. Language and the transmission of knowledge from one generation to another is vested and manifested solely through “orality” while science and technology are vested and revealed in primitive tool-making, animal husbandry and domestication, combined with rudimentary, scientific farming in addition to the ancient, paleo means of of hunter-gatherer activities (such as scavenging and the hunting of high-quality protein, as well as the gathering of low-quality protein, e.g., fruits, berries, edible seeds and grasses, grubs, worms, frogs, lizards, snakes, etc.). Art and human spirituality are also manifested in cave paintings, ritualized burials and funeral mounds and biers. Consequently I again maintain the Pharaohs represent the natural progression from and the absolute high point of the former Stone Age Societies.
Now as for the advanced civilizations of Mesopotamia and the other great river valley civilizations of India and China; they of course were contemporaneous with Egypt; but are more representative of the conflation and overlap of primitive feudal socialism with the dynamism and geometric progression of the more advanced Greek civilization of liberal, democratic, capitalism which followed them; with its economic, dynamic growth rate of geometric progression, and its equally dynamic growth in cultural and intellectual attainment, human progress and enlightenment. But India, China and Persia were ultimately quite resistant to Greek dynamism and civilization and have remained such for the most part, or at least throughout much of their societies, essentially feudal socialist enclaves even to this very day.
I am purposefully going to skip over the Hellenistic and Roman periods and jump directly over to the Middle Ages, also known as the Dark Ages, which begins roughly in the 5th century A.D. so that I might introduce the second form of feudal socialism which I have termed, “Medieval Moslem and Christian, Feudal Socialism.”
Albeit this form of feudal socialism appears to be much more advanced than Pharaonic feudal socialism; nevertheless I maintain, not by all that much. It has two distinct features, it is deeply rooted in Divine-Right Kingship, and a similar Moslem form of faith-based governance; and it is deeply rooted in religion, in particular, in a form of Judeo biblical and middle eastern religiosity as especially rooted and seen within mid-eastern and far-eastern influenced Manichaeism, Kabbalism, Mysticism, asceticism and Gnosticism as well as early Christian Arianism. Indeed there is scant little which is remotely secular in this form of feudal socialism. For it is a union of both religion and the state where, to paraphrase Will Durant (cause as usual I can’t quote anyone to save my life) “the word became more powerful than the sword.”
(And also in my view, once having been built upon this rock of superstition and orthodoxy, it became more powerful and compelling than pure reason, rationality, logic, science and empiricism. To wit “the word” became more subjective than objective.)
And the third form of feudal socialism is what I term and call “Modern Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist, Feudal Socialism.” This of course is the feudal socialism of the far left. It might be the most advanced form of feudal socialism but it still is feudal in nature and socialist in character, and as such is innately and inherently backward and primitive. It also is dependent upon an arithmetic progression which constitutes one of the many nails in its very own coffin. In addition, it shares a religiosity in common with the other forms of feudal socialism which is just as intense, just as zealous and intolerant, just as solipsistic and self-absorbed and self-centered, just as dogmatic and orthodox, and just as flawed and ruinous as any mass movement, true-believer religion; only here this religion is one based upon atheism, steeped in ignorance and agnosticism, intolerant secularism and moral relativism, nihilism and logical positivism, as well as social-scientific determinism and Social-Darwinism.
Well, feudal socialism in these three forms, is my addition to Eric Hoffer’s mass-movement, true believer, megalomaniacal, totalitarian spectrum. Moreover I maintain that those on “the left” are feudal socialists, which by logical necessity, means to say, they are not legitimate, intellectual, philosophic and epistemological progressives; for indeed if anything is true they are in fact quite the opposite, are in fact quite regressive and primitive reactionaries; for again, if anything is true they do not advance civilization and human progress one iota, but rather they arrest, diminish and retard it. I base this upon a lifetime’s observation of the left and upon a rather simple and straightforward premise, also based in historical fact:
If all their theory and ideas, once having been translated and actuated into actual policies and programs, create and ultimately impose a feudal-socialist form of governance, no matter how advanced and scientific they claim their form of feudal socialism be; but yet their feudal socialism eventually, inevitably and ultimately and ineluctably leads to tyranny; which I maintain is the natural progression, culmination and consequence of their true-beliver feudal socialist intentions: well then, no matter how one slices it, their tyranny by definition, in fact any tyranny whatsoever, must and will be retrograde, regressive and reactionary.
Which makes them a dangerous threat to all of us, for, sic tyrannus -so goes the tyrant. Again, very simply stated, the path from liberal-progressivism qua liberal-socialism qua socialism qua communism qua Marxism (whether full blown or Neo or New Age), as Hayek so clearly pointed out, is not only the “road to serfdom” but it is also a clear and direct path to tyranny, dictatorship and slavery, all of which go hand in hand.
And as one of America’s greatest philosophers and social commentators once said “iff dee shoe fitt, wear itt.” (I am of course speaking of and citing Archie Bunker here.) Or just as Lesbians must needs be, reveal and study their own “inner bitch,” so thusly liberal, lefty, media-elitists must also recognize and admit to their feudal socialist, primitivity and backwardness, as well as to their vacuous and vapid caveman ignorance to their very own elitist, left-wing biases and prejudices. But alas, the liberal-lefty-pinko boys and girls jess can’t help themselves. Cause it’s in their genes and I don’t mean “designer.” Let’s face facts, the libs and commie-libs et al, et al, ad nauseam; and the violent, mindless, Moslem Jihadists and Islamo-fascist terrorists ; are both rather primitive, backward, true believer, fanatical and zealous, megalomaniacal totalitarian, mass movement, feudal socialists.
So that again I must reassert and declare that there is a natural affinity between them, so that the liberal media-elite is fast to apologize for and defend the former – no matter how brutal they be and no matter how intensely the Islamo-fascists absolutely hate and wish to kill them. The liberals look upon the Jihadists as allies (again, the enemy of my enemy, is my friend and ally) while the 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. After that they are simply fair game for their fanatical, true believer, feudal socialist holy war.
And likewise, after the lefty, pinko feudal socialists have gained their utopian workers’ paradise, the former autocratic, totalitarian, true believer, theocratic fascists will become ripe for absolute, political repression and prime candidates for Gulags and extermination.
And what pray tell is a Gulag? Well it’s a place where lefties send the hopelessly intransigent and incorrigible and those who are determined and deemed to be totally impervious to “change” let lone “hope.” Or, to be blunt, simple and crude as possible; a Gulag is like a “cockroach motel” — you check in but you don’t check out. Vizsh-stay-ah-vooh?Powered by Sidelines