Monday, June 15, 2009


In a very interesting article at the WSJ, Peter Berkowitz suggests a revolutionary idea: "If they can find time for feminist theory, they can find time for Edmund Burke." He correctly notes:
There is no legitimate intellectual justification for this omission. The exclusion of conservative ideas from the curriculum contravenes the requirements of a liberal education and an objective study of political science....

While ignoring conservatism, the political theory subfield regularly offers specialized courses in liberal theory and democratic theory; African-American political thought and feminist political theory; the social theory of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber and the neo-Marxist Frankfurt school; and numerous versions of postmodern political theory.

Dennis Praeger in an article from 2007 wrote:
Students at most universities are almost brainwashed into being leftist -- and the way they are taught to disagree with their political opponents is by using ad hominem attacks. Conservatives are described over and over as mean-spirited, war-loving, greedy, bigoted, racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, homophobic, sexist, intolerant and oblivious to human suffering.

Such ad hominem labels are the left's primary rhetorical weapons. So when leftist students are actually confronted with even one articulate conservative, many enter a world of cognitive dissonance. That is one reason why universities rarely invite conservatives to speak: they might change some students' minds.

Which brings me to the definition of the term "fascism". I am going to quote Jonah Goldberg, because I think his book Liberal Fascism is an absolute must-read to understand how the term "fascism" has become distorted by the political left. In fact, we see this distortion on a daily basis in the news today, because the left are particularly anxious to make sure that the use of the term is associated only with the political right. Goldberg's book is actually the countermeasure for this leftist ploy, because it, "rectif(ies) the misunderstanding of what fascism is and to highlight(s) the deep historical, ideological and emotional ties between progressivism (now called liberalism) and fascism:"
Definitions vary wildly among academics. I would argue that’s because they can’t bring themselves to place it squarely on the left side of the ideological spectrum and part of the “revolutionary tradition” starting with the French Revolution. So they come up with these sometimes goofy or unwieldy definitions. Some define it by what it isn’t. Other are simply descriptive, focusing on the “anatomy” of one fascist regime or regimes. One problem with that approach is that it is almost impossible to come up with a description of fascism that would exclude, say, Fidel Castro’s Cuba or Joseph Stalin’s Russia. That’s a dilemma when fascism is supposed to the diametrical opposite of Communism. Many simply ignore the problem and keep moving. Gilbert Allardyce, a prominent scholar of fascism, put it well when he said “Put simply, we have agreed to use the word without agreeing how to define it.”

I’ve got a long definition in the book, but a short one would be an instinctual religious impulse - usually gussied-up as a secular or modern ideology - that seeks to impose uniformity in thought and action throughout the entire society. All oars in a fascistic society must pull together. The personal is political because everything goes together. Political correctness is one name we give to such efforts in civil society.

Political correctness and its accompanying identity politics, with race and resentment are on display 24/7, particularly in the Age of Obama.

It wasn't that long ago that a firestorm of criticism erupted because of the use of the term Islamo-fascism. This criticism was led by leading news organizations in the U.S. , in spite of the obvious fact that the word precisely describes the threat of the religious fanatics of Islam.

Not surprisingly, the association of their religion with the term 'fascism' has angered many in the Muslim world, who see it as branding all Muslims as fascists.

"I think it's despicable," Middle East expert Juan Cole said sometime back. "Linking Islam… with a pejorative term such as fascism is extremely unfair. In fact, it is a form of racism."

Racist is, of course, a non-pejoritive term used to describe anyone who happens to disagree with Professor Cole and the leftist fascists whose only goal is the uniformity of thought and behavior in America. Calling others racist or sexist is trademark tactic to end the discussion.

I suggest my readers check the definition of 'racism'; but last time I looked, a religion was not synonymous with a race. Further, not connecting Islam with the likes of Bin Laden, Zawahiri, Ahmadinejad--and the Mullahs, and all the other jihadist thugs out there is a form of idiocy--not to mention it would probably offend their delicate sensibilities (and Cole wouldn't want to do that!). They see themselves and their millions of followers as the true believers of the religion.

Not linking the political aspirations of these Islamic fanatics to fascism is clearly a form of psychological denial. And not understanding how today's leftist ideology is all about fascism, is willful blindness.

Which brings me back to some fundamental questions that must be answered if America and Western Civilization are to withstand the onslaught of both leftist and Islamic fascism.

The questions are:
  • Why has the political left abandoned all pretense of the liberal tradition?

  • Why is it that they say one thing and do the opposite?

  • Why have they been able to delude themselves into thinking that they are "reality-based" and "progressive"?

  • Why have they struggled so fiercely and angrily to impede and undermine this country's ability to fight Islamofascism, while at the same time enabling the terrorists and their plotting?

  • For all these questions, there is one unifying answer: Postmodernism.

    Reality, truth, reason, consistency, integrity and almost all the values of the Enlightenment that I discussed in this post have been abandoned--cheaply surrendered--by the intellectual elites of Western Civilization. (also discussed here , here and here for the interested)

    Victor Davis Hanson once made this observation aabout the Europeans:
    Europe boldly produces films about assassinating an American president, and routinely disparages the Church that gave the world the Sermon of the Mount, but it simply won’t stand up for an artist, a well-meaning Pope, or a ranting filmmaker when the mob closes in. The Europe that believes in everything turns out to believe in nothing.

    And his comments are descriptive as well of the political left, whose members long ago embraced postmodernism; and whose ideology is inculcated and force fed to several generations now in the very classrooms that Berkowitz writes about. Indeed, so pervasive is this leftist religion, that it has percolated down into the K-12 curriculum. And, in the Age of Obama, this fascist conformity of thought and behavior is proceeding apace.

    What the left is teaching our children is to believe in nothing.

    The left has essentially reached a philosophical endpoint in the postmodern intellectual journey they began early in the last century, and have arrived at the core nihilism that animates their entire belief system.

    Once reason has been rejected; and reason and reality set aside as a basis for human actions, all that is left are the intense feelings that are the twinkling stars of the postmodern emotional universe.

    Is it any wonder that the same people who aggressively champion gay rights one minute, will--when it is expedient--throw gays under the bus to score political points? But gays shouldn't feel slighted; they may not have recognized the truth yet, but their candidate is the perfect postmodern demagogue poster boy. He promises every group the moon and feels not the slightest twinge of remorse at the neverending political contradictions he utters.

    The question is, why should we expect anyone on the left--least of all their leaders--to behave reasonably? Reason plays no part in their ideology or thought processes, such as they are. Forgetting about the many Democrats who are as corrupt as any Republican they happen to be demonizing at the moment ( excellently documented by SC&A, by the way) is not simply a benign lapse on the part of the left; it is a perfectly acceptable tactic in a conflict where the only goal is power at any price. Full speed ahead; truth be damned.

    Or just consider this popular smear tactic at Think Progress Delusionally, used to discredit Norman Podhoretz. Someone should probably mention to these progressive champions of truth and logic that making an historical analogy is not the same thing as an ad hominem attack.

    Only people without a lick of insight, self-awareness, honesty, or even a rudimentary sense of humor could ignore or forget the rampant Bush=Hitler meme that dominated their side of the political spectrum for eight long years; and engage in the criticism of Podhoretz in such a self-righteous and ridiculous post. But, they don't need no stinkin' facts: they're from the left, and anyone who disagrees with them threatens their utopia of uniformity.

    The breathtaking hypocrisy simply boggles the mind; but it is all part and parcel of the postmodern rhetoric of leftist nothings.

    Postmodernism is nothing more than intellectual nihilism dressed up in academic robes. If someone ever wrote a history of psychological denial, the philosophy of postmodernism, which burst on the human scene about half a century ago, would undoubtedly have a special place.

    The use of postmodern rhetoric is usually a desperate attempt on the part of the person in denial when he recognizes that logic, reason, and reality actually argue against his beliefs or purposes. This strategy can often take the form of redefining or distorting language and ideas so that they conform to ones pre-existing attitudes and emotions.

    EXAMPLE: "Everything is relative anyway."

    EXAMPLE: "Objective truth does not exist"

    EXAMPLE: "Truth is relative and my feelings are just as important as your facts."

    EXAMPLE: "My reality is just as significant as yours"

    EXAMPLE: "Reality is an illusion."

    In the end, they all serve to facilitate today's left in their unwillingness to confront the evil that threatens civilization. Axis of Evil? Don't make them laugh. They are the anchors of the Axis of See-No-Evil. They would like you to believe that the only evil confronting the world is George Bush and have no problem equating George Bush and conservatives with fascism. But connecting Islam with fascism? Connecting their polices to fascism? That's really, really offensive. And mean. And, of course, racist.

    Projection, anyone?

    UPDATE: Gateway Pundit is correct: this is absolutely outrageous and completely insane. The left and their catamite media suck-ups are so heavily into denial and projection in the age of Obama, that they live in an alternate, fantasy universe. What did I just say above? They would like you to believe that the only evil confronting the world is George Bush and have no problem equating George Bush and conservatives with fascism. The problem is that they are the ones promoting a fascist ideology that demands complete uniformity of thought and behavior--it's no wonder that the idea of Islamic sharia appeals to them so much.

    UPDATE II: Boy, the enviro-fascists must be really PISSED!

    No comments: