The liberal (small l) enlightenment and the War against the West which brought it into being. Also use of words like “Islamophobia”. Could “Islamophobia” have been caused by Socialism infecting Islam?


I chanced on Brian Mickelthwait’s post on Samizdata about the wide and promiscuous use of this word by our masters and controllers in order to frighten us into losing our liberties to them (our masters) and I want to use it to flag certain things.

Brian found a nice post on “Metamagician and the Hellfire Club, a blog by Russell Blackford, an Australian writer and philosopher. If you go there, the text nicely illustrates the problem of understanding that exists between the secular liberal West and what our Masters call “Islam”, when I think that they think that they mean Moslems who are not “radical Islamists”, about what States ought to be allowed to do and legislate for and how, and on what philosophical grounds.

Waleed Aly (author of People like Us) is a secular Sunni Moslem and this is what Russell Blackford wishes he had said.#

My contention here is that “radical Islam” (Wahhabists aside) seems to be a rather modern infection, whose inception seems to post-date the invention of “Socialism”, which is to say, the advocacy of anihilating all the good done to all people of the world by Capitalism who have been fortunate enough to have come into contact with same (except for whoever could be a warlord, local or otherwise.) From the 17th Century during which Islam faced (and lost against John Sobieski in) its Teenage Crusading phase, until recently, inter-religional and intercultural flare-ups had been mercifully rare, and short-lived.

Churchill, in The River War, did highlight in a timely fashion Islam’s “local warlords’ ” still-abiding propensity to cause sharp local difficulties to the ordered life of modern or emerging nations and the efforts of British Civilisation to enlighten the lives of all people, but there was not some general alert, darkening the entire world. No, this seems to have happened recently. The efforts of American “Liberals” to side themselves with such people as “Truthers” , raises the possibility that Socialism may be pursuing a tactical direction allying itself with “radical Islam” so as to degrade the ability of the USA (The Last Best Hope) to resist assaults on the West from any angle.

I only raise this because the often simplest and most transparent explanations for things may be the true ones.  Could it be that the real mortal Enemy of Man, that is to say Socialism (initially defeated as in 1815, 1918, 1945 and 1989 – and progressively assaulting Man ever more virulently as Churchill’s “Strong Arms of Science” gain more benignity and strength) has mutated?  Has Socialism entered surreptitiously into the body of Islam, now a middle-aged philosophy and most probably therefore increasingly benign and relaxed towards others, especially “People of the Book”, in order to try again to bring about the Destruction of Man? I do not say this to let the Truthers off, for I think they are disgusting, ungrateful, leftist anti-western saddo turds and slimebats, oathbreakers and quislings, their souls like those of Animal Rights Terrorists foredoomed therefore to Wander Eternally After Death,  but the temporal coincidence of “radical Islam” and of Socialism’s fightback from impending disaster does interest me.

I just wonder if it’s not Islam’s fault after all, but it’s just unfortunately caught a nasty dose of a bad pre-Capitalist disease, that still hangs about despite reality and reason? Highly-educated populations like Polly Toynbee still vote for socialist/statist politicians, so we have clearly not got the vaccine right yet. 

About these ads

7 responses to “The liberal (small l) enlightenment and the War against the West which brought it into being. Also use of words like “Islamophobia”. Could “Islamophobia” have been caused by Socialism infecting Islam?

  1. What utter twaddle. What logic is this?

    “I hate socialism. I hate ‘truthers’. Ergo ‘truthers’ are socialists”

    Bollocks.

  2. That is a very interesting, illuminating and worthwhile comment. Could you please give me either a specific OR a general instance where I am wrong? I would value the instruction.

  3. ‘Truthers’ are “are disgusting, ungrateful, leftist anti-western saddo turds and slimebats, oathbreakers and quislings”

    Why is this? Because they suspect the state is behind a particularly infamous crime? Is this what you find beyond the pale? Is this a blasphemy in your particular church of libertarianism? It seems you’re happy to bang on about the state, except in big issues.

    In fact the ‘truthers’ you despise are generally libertarian in their outlook, which is why they are by and large supporting the only libertarian running for President – Ron Paul, who is fully against the wars you seem to support.

  4. No Western “liberal” (small “L”) State today, however much I hate statism, would collude in, let alone encompass, a plot to kill thousands of its, and other freindlies’, citizens, in order to prosecute, however roundaboutly, a political objective of whatever kind.

    Why don’t you just look at the jumping up and down in “Arab Street” (wherever that is) on the day of the event?

    I stand by what I say about “Truthers”. They are generally NOT libertarian in their outlook. No. If the LA disagrees sufficiently with my stance, and I was to bring it into disrepute, then my posts will be deleted. It’s time somebody stood up for ordinary people in the matter of 9/11, and this pretentious self-beating crud was exposed for what it is.

  5. A few Arab-looking people jumping up and down, and a refusal to question the government line, is that the best you can do?

    “It’s time somebody stood up for ordinary people in the matter of 9/11″

    How do you figure that one?

    And now the ‘truthers’ are “pretentious”, as well as everything else you’ve called them? I don’t really know who these people are that you’re talking about, and I’m not sure you do either.

  6. Here’s an article by Paul Craig Roberts, which touches on 9/11. I’m not attempting to prise you away from your view of 9/11, rather contradict your characterisation of ‘truthers’

    http://www.vdare.com/roberts/060207_epiphany.htm

  7. OK, I will go to it.