Posted by:
Lot's Wife
(
)
Date: May 25, 2019 11:00PM
Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only one of those which remotely counts as a
> buzzword is "cultural Marxism", and that is a bit
> unfair, since many people involved in that do not
> know the end that they're being used for, let
> alone much about Marx. In many cases, they have
> picked up some of the ideas without realizing the
> ultimate consequences.
Ah, esoteric language known only to the cognoscenti and incapable of explanation in plain English. By definition you are uniquely expert in the ideology because you will neither explain your ideas nor provide sources. How very Mormon, an updated version of the Gadianton Robbers or the Masons. So we are left to trust your superior knowledge or to wonder why you can't share it without the requisite tokens and handshakes.
---------------
> If you actually read his manifesto instead of what
> was written about him, you will find he does not
> identify as Christian (despite Christchurch being
> chosen for its name.
Fine. Please substitute "white Westerner" for "Christian" in my comments if you so please. I think you'll find it does not change my meaning.
--------------
> * That a dangerous immigrant (the shooter) was not
> deported earlier despite warnings. Immigration
> checks should be more stringent on ALL peoples. No
> violent criminals. No war criminals. An option of
> returning tjem if they do not find gainful
> employment within a year.
Arguably good ideas. Also unlikely to prevent a tourist from achieving the same aim, but what the hell.
> * The NZ govt has failed to deal with Wahhabi
> infiltration. (Which is to Islam what Marxism is
> to politics).
Well, I guess if one is on the right and stuck in the 1950s Marxism would appear uniquely threatening. To people without such preconceptions, however, Marxism would seem no more threatening than fascism or other right-wing extremes.
------------
> Moderate Islam in NZ was becoming
> poisoned by this Islamofascist virus prior to the
> incident.
Yet again the non-sequitur. Why is it that an attack on Islam by a Caucasian Westerner immediately provokes in you and your fellow travelers a impulsive defensive need to criticize Islam? Wahhabi Islam played no role in the NZ atrocity and yet you feel it important to bring that into the discussion. Why?
-----------
> * The sexual and gender values Ardern espouses are
> directly opposed to those found in many forms of
> Islam, but Islam gets a free pass for things that
> Christians wouldn't.
Yes, liberal values are antithetical to Wahhabi and Deobandi Islam. So what? Those schools of Islam had nothing to do with the slaughter in NZ. And who exactly is giving "a free pass" to Saudi Arabia and the Taliban and ISIS and the Mullahs and Hezbollah and the others? Do you feel that the one billion Muslims who do not belong to those groups must atone for their crimes?
-----------
> * Wearing a headscarf is more to do with PR than
> solving problems.
Absolutely true. One of the greatest powers of elected leaders is their ability to employ symbolism in a way that influences politics. Churchill and FDR did that with their public speeches--all PR--and they helped their countries through the depression, respectively, and WWII. So Arden's wearing a headscarf in order to convey a message of solitary and support would seem perfectly appropriate--unless, of course, there is something about Muslims that renders gestures of support for them uniquely inappropriate.
-----------
> The values of the founder of Islam cannot be
> ignored. He makes Joseph Smkth look like a
> milquetoast.
Silly. Americans are not responsible for the demise of Native Americans; today's Germans need not apologize for Hitler; modern Japanese bear no guilt for the Nanjing Massacre. Whether JS was an evil man has no bearing on the morality of individual Mormons, and whether Mohammed was the embodiment of vice is irrelevant to modern Muslims, most of whom know next to nothing of the Prophet's life and most of his teachings. The notion of collective responsibility is a form of totalitarianism that has no place in modern society.
-----------------
> And Islam's love of [women], which involves FGM,
> gender segregation, varying degrees of face
> obacuration and [sic]
Again, the collective guilt. Islam's misogyny is limited to several nasty communities: it is a minority phenomenon. People demonstrating against the Iranian government in Teheran are responsible neither for that government's atrocities in Yemen nor for the FGM that occurs in Africa. There are people on this board, like you, who harbor the reactionary belief that all Muslims are guilty for the sins of their compatriots or co-religionists even if they have never met them or even heard of them. Those board members do not, however, apply the same standard to themselves.
-------------
> I don't term those kind of people "liberals".
> Proper liberalism involves freedom of expression,
> laisser faire economics, minimization of
> government control, and a lack of discrimination
> on the basis of one's birth characteristics...
Your characterization of true liberalism is accurate. But while on the one hand you intimate that "discrimination on the basis of one's birth characteristics" is wrong, on the other you do just that to the hundreds of millions of Muslims who have absolutely no sympathy for what you term Islamofascism. Why the double standard?
----------------
> Instead in their place, we find these
> pseudo-liberals want blanket censorship, a command
> economy, a police state, and the demonization of
> whites, males, heterosexuals, cisgenders and the
> like.
This is another pearl-clutching passage. Are there idiots who masquerade as liberals? Absolutely. But how many liberals desire "blanket censorship?" A "command economy?" A "police state?" In the modern world it is the RIGHT that represents more of a threat in the form of censorship of critical thought and the subordination of the police, intelligence agencies, and the judiciary to state control.
And the "demonization of whites, males, heterosexuals," etc? You have to reach pretty damn far to find enough of those so-called liberals to field a baseball team. The proportion of such "liberals" is a lot lower than the percentage of regular RfM posters who embody what in broader society would be considered appalling racism and misogyny.
--------------
> Why would [blame Jordan for Hitler?] Western civilization would > be unrecognizable, possibly non-existent, without
> Jewish influence. Some of our greatest writers,
> composers, philosophers and scientists have all
> been Jews. I have little time for the
> ultraorthodox Frummers, but I gather most Jews
> don't either.
And yet you treat Muslims as if they are collectively responsible for the atrocities of small extremist groups. By that standard, by your standard, you ARE guilty of the crimes of Western monsters. Nonsensical, I know, but that is your logic as expressed time and again in these threads.
------------
> I don't idolize Hitler any more
> than Chairman Mao (who murdered more people) or Ed
> Gein. Hitler was responsible for destroying
> Europe, and it has never fully recovered. Hitler
> did more for Communism than just about anyone else
> - he end up strengthening the Soviet Union to the
> point it became a superpower and took over half of
> Europe.
You see, there it is again: an unintentional revelation of your inner preoccupations. Just as charity to Muslims and a politician's gesture of solidarity with them trigger an impulsive need to criticize Islam, so too have you a hard time focusing on Hitler without putting him in the context of his contribution, as you see it, to your Marxist idee fixe. Why do you feel so defensive when confronted by discussion of Islam and Hitler? Why can't you discuss them on their own terms?
---------------
> The other half [of Europe] saw a resurgence of the
> hard left, and the infiltration of its ideas into
> academia, and the export of those ideas to the
> USA.
Well, there was a "resurgence of the hard left" in Europe after WWII--at least in France and Italy as evidenced by the elections of 1947 and 1948. But the Marshall Plan, which was designed to quash that communist sentiment, worked admirably. Over time Marxist sentiment weakened in Europe, dying almost completely after the collapse of the Soviet Union. So your argument hasn't been correct for decades.
As for the notion that communism "infiltrated. . . academia" in Europe and the US, that too was true for a few decades. But since the 1980s and early 1990s the tide has reversed. Again, you would have a hard time filling a baseball team with prominent professors who are communists as opposed to garden-variety progressives of one sort or another.
Your insistence that Marxism remains vital is atavistic; your concern on that score is blatantly unrealistic. Things haven't been as you suggest since the immediate post-war period.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2019 11:01PM by Lot's Wife.