In this installment of my exposé of the Left-Islam unholy alliance, I show how the Left’s demand for “reparations for the wrongs of colonialism” serves as its connection point with Islam, how it is fundamentally irrational, and how it truly precludes any possibility of permanent peace.
I do not give colonialism a moral clean bill of health; there were wrongs, injustices committed by the Western colonial powers, that is a matter of historical record. But then those powers did some good things as well to the peoples they ruled, and those peoples in turn were not always the innocents the Leftists portray them (see for example the article The fraud of primitive authenticity, by Spengler of Asia Times). And whatever the case, it is irrational to hold the West guilty and obliged to atone for its past deeds, for no good is served by that—not to the former colonized peoples, nor to the West itself, which by that attitude is driven to suicide through self-loathing. My theme here is the great distance between rationality and the Left’s view of identity politics.
[...]
In full on Our Children Are The Guarantors »
3 comments:
By chance I just now posted some hater-ridden drivel written by Dr. David Duke, posted at indymedia. I laugh.
I got spanked as a kid for telling my mother that 'great minds think alike" doesn't mean they think the same things but that they think the same way. The Left and the Right, so-called, not only think the same way, i.e. irrationally, they think the same dirty and evil things. Given that not one of them is my mother, I don't feel obligated to endure the punishments they visit upon my innocent self. Time is a'comin'....
Great catch, dag. Once again, it looks like the folks at Nazimedia aren't even trying to hide their true face.
Those terms, "Left" and "Right", are too general to be accurate. Each means something specific when referring to a particular area. For example, "Leftist" economics means support of some degree or other of state intervention in the economy for the welfare of the individual. "Leftist" foreign politics means a dovish position. "Rightist" domestic policy used to mean support for a monarchy, but rarely so now. Since each area has its own "Left/Right" split, you can have a individual who is "left-wing" in one area and "right-wing" in another. For example, I'm very "right of center" regarding foreign policy, but my view of economics is somewhere from "center" to "center-left".
Also, in the Left and Right themselves, the edges and the center have shifted over the last century. The Right of old used to be racist (and anti-Jewish), while the Left of old (in the West--the USA and Western Europe) used to stand for Western values. In our day, David Duke is considered to be Far Right, and Pat Buchanan is one of the remnants of the Old Right. The Left, on the other hand, has seen a shifting of its edges toward the mainstream, with what was once considered "Far Left" (Communist) opinions moving toward the core constituency, as a brief look at Daily Kos shows; it has also taken the torch from the Right of old in pursuing an illiberal agenda, hence the consonance of the opinions of Ken Livingstone and David Duke. As for the Old Left (the pre-1960's Left, of FDR and HST), there are a few holdouts, as well as a group of revivalists, those who are behind the Euston Manifesto.
What a tangled web we weave... just stand against the Islamic encroachment, no matter what you call yourself.
Cheers!
Post a Comment