This piece was written by the author of Sigmund, Carl and Alfred, who has kindly agreed to crosspost on this site.
Yesterday’s elections had a lot to do with ideas that have been brewed in unsavory coffee pots in the Middle East- not events, but rather, the ideas.
First, let’s set the stage.
In the Middle East, political expression has taken on the ‘genocidal’ cast of the suicide bomber. That is to say that now, it is irrelevant who gets killed or what is damaged in the process of that ‘political expression’- as long as the will and the expressions are those of the suicide bomber and his supporters.
The vast majority of victims of suicide bombers today are Muslims. That reality has elicited little, if any condemnation from religious authorities. Their silence on the wholesale slaughter of innocent Muslims is not a by-product of religious reflection. Rather, it is a deliberate and quiet acknowledgment that genocide of all kinds for all reasons, is now a legitimate form of religious expression.
In Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Indonesia, for example, attacks on Shia Muslims are becoming more common, more violent and more acceptable. While a few thousand non Muslims were murdered by suicide bombers, there have been tens of thousands and as many as 100,000 Muslim victims of suicide bombers. As the ethnic cleansing of the Shia continues and remains ignored (and even encouraged) by Sunni clerics, it is only a matter of time before the Shia strike back. As unsavory a character as Shia leader Muqtada al Sadr is, he has kept his followers in check for the most part- so far.
Now, it is important to understand that the dysfunctional and murderous expressions of Islam we see today are not and have never been mainstream Islamic theology- they are, as we noted, religious dysfunction and political expression gone berserk.
An example of that displacement of reality can be found in a closer look at the hotel bombing in Jordan a few years ago. That murderous event was the first time a suicide bombings became a family affair- the couple that planned the attack on the hotel had been recently married. As both the bombers claimed to be ‘religious people,’ it was imperatrive that they marry. He could not be in her company otherwise. Shortly prior to the attack, they were married so that their ‘religiosity’ and religious proprieties would not come into question. In their perverted system of ethical priorities, killing innocents at a marriage celebration was a perfectly acceptable form of religious expression. The ethical dillema they faced was one of ‘religious appearances.
Clearly, their behavior was not a religious expression of Islam. In what is perhaps the greatest distortion of Islam (and radical adherents of other religions), there are a whole cadre of ‘born again’ Muslims that know little of their faith, but believe that the great service they give back to the ummah- the butcher and slaughter of innocents, somehow obviates them from the study and application of their faith and that somehow, their dysfunctions (more often that not, drinking,whoring, lying ‘in the name of Allah’ and engaging in criminal activity of all kinds against both Muslims and non Muslims) are less important and thus forgivable as merely minor infractions.
It is also important to understand how the dysfunction is applied and accepted across the board. One writer made a startling observation: Palestinian suicide bombers are usually recruited from families that are close knit and strongly bound. Al Qaeda’s suicide bombers usually come from less than perfect home environments and they often have erratic and checkered backgrounds, to say the least. They are misfits, in may ways. Nevertheless, both Palestinian and Al Qaeda suicide bombers see the destruction they rain down as religiously and politically justified.
The midterm elections have come and gone, and in their wake, we see a new kind of political expression and philosophy take hold. Many Democrat party supporters want to see their wills and ideologies imposed upon the nation before they want to see good government and American ideals upheld. This truth can be found on the extreme left and on the not so extreme left. They believe that America as we know her is fatally flawed and needs to be remade. They believe that the progress of this nation occurred despite ‘American ideals and not because of them. They also clearly believe that anyone adhering to those ideals is a potential threat- and if they get hurt in the process of the new American agenda, well, too bad. The leftist ‘new American agenda,’ like the ‘new and improved Islam’ must not only be tolerated- it must be endorsed by the political powers that be as the legitimate successors to the American ideals that preceded them.
That the leftist draw their inspiration from the Palestinian intifada is telling. By every measure, that effort has been an abysmal failure, resulting in even greater Palestinian disenfranchisement from reality. The attempt to make the revolt a religious exercise proved far more damaging to the Palestinians than it did to anyone else. The Palestinians didn’t really need a religiously and politically sanctioned intifada. What they needed was a real revolution. They needed a Gandhi or Martin Luther King to lead them from the path of self destruction to the path of self actualization. The Palestinians want a part of the that middle class pie- the freedom to succeed, the freedom to own property without the fear of Hamas or the PA taking it away and the freedom to not have to follow the party line, whatever that may be. They need what the religious and political establishments have to deny them- the freedom to succeed and to determine their own future.
The hard left Democrats aren’t much different than the Islamic extremists. This is not an extreme remark- rather, it is a reflection of the truth, unobscured. The idea of foisting ideologies on others in a free society is a new phenomena, one that finds it’s roots in repressive religious extremism.
The modern age came about as the result of the questioning and challenging of authority and widely held beliefs. Cultures and societies that repressed the questioning of authority, institutions and beliefs were left behind on the development index of human achievement. No decent schools, no decent hospitals and no decent education infrastructure can be found in any of those backward nations that rejected questioning the status quo.
Communism and fascism came about as the result of ideologies that would not tolerate dissent or challenges to their ideologies. While it is true that not all people desire to live in a democracy (usually, they do not understand democracy), it is also true that people want to participate and benefit in the blessings a modern society brings to the table. It is also true that there are few, if any instances, where non democratic states allow their citizens equal access to the benefits of technology.
The hard left Democrats have made know their disdain for anyone who disagrees with them (Jane Hamsher referred to her opposition of Joe Lieberman as time well spent fighting the ‘pig’) and make no apologies.
Attempt to engage many on the left in debate and conversation or attempt to question their beliefs, ideologies or institutions and you’ll be met with some of the most vile and vicious rhetoric of the day. The Dems needed Gandhi or MLK, to have really won the election. They settled for the ideologies and ethics of Hamas.
Welcome to the world of radical Democratism.