After Effects of the Left's Marriage of Convenience with Radical Islam

I don't think that the left's alignment with radical Islam is a 'marriage of convenience'. I think that the ideology and the method of living are, in reality, completely similar. That's why they are aligned.

Both reject the existence and use of human reason in arriving at decisions. Both reject the ability and right of individual rationality to explore and examine the world and arrive at technological or other solutions to problems. [Though both are very willing to reap the benefits of mdoern technology despite their disdain for 'industry' and modernization.

Therefore, both reject the possibility and existence of objective truth. There is no such thing as an external reality, no such thing as a connection between yourself and the external world. All there is - are Words. The Words of the leftist pundits, the Words of Obama, the Words of the Koran, the Words of the imams. Nothing else has any legitimacy.

Both declare the inability of humans to reason and insist on the reliance of people on some metaphyical high authority which is moved out of the level of other human beings and cannot, absolutely must not, be challenged: government or a set of Perfect Leaders and god.

Criticize Obama and you are a racist; criticize Mohammed and you are a heretic.

Both set up authoritarian regimes, unelected (Obama's czars, Islam's imams) and unaccountable and with supreme powers. Both insist on their Words being completely accepted.

Both operate completely within the realm of subjective emotion and emotional narratives. The left insists that decisions are 'right' if they are 'deeply felt'. Islamism requires total emotional subjugation. Since Islamism denies that you have a mind, then, all that's left are your emotions and you are obliged to focus them on and only on, Islam.

Both reject individualism, the use of reason and thus, are collectivist and consider that all 'bits' in the population must be homogeneous and submissive. This need to homogenize the population requires repressive measures. Both are therefore, malicious, vindictive and vigilantic in repressing the population.

Both are utopian, considering that IF ONLY everyone would stop 'being different', THEN, the pure world of Eden would exist. This search for purity becomes an obsession. Both, therefore, are detached from the natural world and live almost totally in a fictive imaginary world of words.

As detached and alienated from the natural world, both are 'urban' dwellers, ie, they are not producers of the world's food, they are not ranchers or wheat growers; they are also not technological (the Middle East Oil is extracted and processed by the West's skills).

There's no difference between them.

Good analysis as usual ET.

What's with Bell dropping Sun news yesterday??

ET, You nailed it.

And the words of a fellow from Patmos echoes through the ages: In Principio erat Verbum (per Jerome's Vulgate).
I like the way, too, that Ezra's guest makes note of the fact that the candidate for the Marijuana Party was presently in jail - no doubt from the tyranny of the state ... or maybe selling to minors?

ET, that was ... AMAZING!!! For years I've been looking for a succinct explanation to why Leftism and Islamism was so similar. Now I understand. Thank YOU!!!

This is news? That commies and fanatics stick together like shite to an army blanket?

Both groups believe in magic.....after all, Mohammed's magic horse, on which he "rode to Heaven", was named Barak.

Coincidence? I think not.

O/T but reply to bluetech
There was a power outage in Toronto that affected Sun News studios. I guess the wind stopped blowing and the sun went down.

As detached and alienated from the natural world, both are 'urban' dwellers, ie, they are not producers of the world's food, they are not ranchers or wheat growers;...

Well no, I've known quite a few leftist farmers. Damn good farmers, too. Just had that leftist quirk...

Shows how much a sage, insulated from the world, knows...

The eco-cultists,the religious cult of a paedophile,the fairy dust and unicorn fart cultists of the left,the secularist of the commies cult...etc. Uhmmmmmmmmm,maybe Chris Hickock got it right about religion. We are all really just different tribes,except some of us get along together a ilttle better than most. Now I still want to know when are we sending our grovelling,white-guilt leftards over to help these mis-guided souls out.

A marriage where one parent beats and rapes the kids and the other is willfully blind to it because they'd have to quit watching Oprah all day and work for their keep.

You're thinking about it too hard, ET. You don't need rationaist philosophy to understand this.

Men are utterly, incorrigibly depraved, unable to attain salvation in the next world, or even any genuine happiness in this one by his own effort, but only through God's grace. There's only one way to have a fighting chance of being saved: admit your sinful nature; repent your sins---all of them; make amends for all the wicked things you have done and all the good things you have failed to do; and then accept Jesus Christ as your saviour, and devote yourself to Him Whose service is perfect freedom, and live your life and do things as He would have them done, not you. It's not that difficult to live as He would have you do if you're serious---His commands are all in the Law and the Prophets and the Gospels.

Of course, very few people indeed have a genuine desire to give up their sins, so they look for an easy way out. The Father of Lies has laid all sorts of traps for such people over the years.

Islam and the Church of Rome tell you you can buy your way into heaven by giving your money to the churches and mosques and Catholic and Muslim "charities," and making pilgrimages to Lourdes and Mecca, as if God had any more need of money than of a starship.

Socialism tells you you can build a fake heaven on earth, and get everything you think you want and never have to pay the bill; ye shall be as gods.

Atheism, meanwhile tells you there's no heaven or hell, so do whatever you like, because it won't matter in the end as long as you can stay a step ahead of the police.

Why do socialists and Islamists work together?Simple--they work for the same employer.

http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/07/islamic-sex-slave-marriages-egypt-and.html It is not all bad...provided you are not a woman.

Islamic feminism.

I think Kate's got it right: it's all about the COALITION.

The bottom line is, the political Left consists of a hodge-podge of independent grievance seeking cheerleaders. Each has the responsibility to bring their share of the collective vote to the polls. Yes, it's a marriage of convenience, because they all understand that without each other, no matter how much they may despise each other (ie blacks towards gays), they will stick together, else see the gravy train dry-up. NONE of these interest groups are self-sustaining! They all depend on government hand-outs or protections in one shape or another; with the MSM and Hollywood being the latest and greatest partner in the coalition now looking to the government for money and protection from the free market. It's as simple as that.

Politically speaking, in the USA, the straw that will tilt the balance towards the coalition for the foreseeable future is the Hispanic vote. The GOP MUST find a way to break this voting block into a group of individual voters, instead of a homogenous voting block similar to gays and blacks. If they cannot do this, the political tilt of the USA will be forever changed for the worse, all but guaranteeing the march towards economic chaos and the loss of Liberty.

Going forward, the KEY is to convince voters of all backgrounds that they are INDIVIDUALS with individual desires and needs. So long as the majority of folks see themselves as members of a particular group, they will be easily swayed by those aforementioned “cheerleaders” that insist they speak for the group, and have your best interests at heart.

Thank you ET for laying it out so clearly and correctly. I found the same thing but could never articulate it so well.

Dick Slater - sorry, but I don't agree with you.

I'm not using 'rationalist philosophy' (please define)or indeed any philosophy; I'm using my reason and empirical evidence of the beliefs and behaviour of these two lifestyles: Islamism and leftism.

Your second paragraph is a set of beliefs; there's no empirical or even rational evidence for any of it.

I do accept the existence of 'evil' in the world but I reject the term 'evil'. Instead, since we are material, finite morphologies (rather than conceptual images), we are fallible. We make both wilful and accidental errors; we are psychological which means that we have many emotions as well as reason. That means that we should not be so arrogant as to assume that we can make a utopian perfection.

I also reject your definition of atheism. I'm an atheist but I reject that it means that you can do whatever you like. Absolutely not. I admit that I'm always astonished by people coming up with such a strange definition of atheism, as amoral, irrational, empty people.

Atheism, in my view, rests on a bedrock of reason and thus, morality. Morality and reason and emotion can be fully and 'gracefully' linked.

The most basic and reasonable moral premise is The Golden Rule. You don't need a dominant metaphysical authority or fear of 'what happens afterwards' to be a moral person.

Modern liberals think they can use the Islamists to obtain power for life, the Islamists use the left to do the self same thing.

Justthinkin - And who the Hell is Chris Hikock? I presume you're meaning Christopher Hitchens? Well he's dead and fast being forgotten, and Mr. Slater is still blaming the Roman Church for the world's problems. I should like to remind him that Hitler persecuted not just Jews, but Christians of all persuasions, who disagreed with him. That included Free Masons; something that always confused me. Guess he was an equal opportunity murderer.

well said ET

Great explanation from ET.
Reminds me of Hitler and the mufti. Are the left and the Muslims also working together because they agree on the extermination of the Jews?
It does seem that every left movement around the world hates (Canadian and American left would think that word extreme)the Jews.

Good analysis ET. I thought your observation "...both reject the possibility and existence of objective truth. There is no such thing as an external reality..." was especially interesting.

I would add that from the point of view of a person of faith, they both also seem to share in common a characteristic temporal "religiosity" -- something devoid of personal spirituality, other-worldly mysticism or eternal truths -- lacking "internal SPIRITUAL reality" as it were. They are pseudo-religious political ideologies based on a materialist earthly utopia achievable only through dictatorship or tyranny.

In other words, Islam and left Marxism lack objective truth in dealing with the real material world and lack a spiritual/mystical subjective consciousness in dealing with non-temporal eternal realities, often confusing the two.

Atheism, in my view, rests on a bedrock of reason and thus, morality.

All the officially atheist countries rested on that 'bedrock'.

100 million deaths later...

ricardo - yes, that's a nice way of putting it.

Both leftism and Islamism, since they reject the existence of the individual, and reject the existence of the human capacity for reason and the human experience of emotion, they also reject 'internal or personal spirituality'.

It's because of our capacity for both, and I emphasize both, individual reason and emotion, that we also have this innate capacity for personal spirituality, or, morality.

ET says:
Atheism, in my view, rests on a bedrock of reason and thus, morality.

That's only your view. Every atheist is free to put forth their own view, so Dick is correct in his characterization of Atheism.

Hey fiddle, there were 35 million casualties in the first world war when all were basically Christian. In the second world war there were 60 million casualties still primarily Christian as Stalin had reinstated the Russian Orthodox Church to inspire his war effort and Germany remained a Christian country.

Japan's religions of Shinto and Buddhism gave them a strong moral code, in their eyes, but did not prevent their total defeat and destruction. Mao swept away the state controlled religions and replaced them with his own communist cult with the death of millions.

In 1914 in Russia, there were 55,173 Russian Orthodox churches and 29,593 chapels, 112,629 priests and deacons, 550 monasteries and 475 convents with a total of 95,259 monks and nuns.

Yet this supposedly solid Christian country for hundreds of years just rolled over for Lenin and the Bolsheviks such that in just a couple of years Christianity just disappeared despite outnumbering the Communists by millions.

If religion is your "bedrock" of morality why did it, in this case Christianity, just collapse without a fight.

Islam has a strong "moral" code in sharia yet butchers its factions in constant shifting internecine war. Perhaps their moral code might satisfy you.

Our morality, as ET states, is in each of us with the "most basic and reasonable moral premise being The Golden Rule".

SDH - As I said, my definition of atheism is 'in my view'.

That also means that Dick is not 'correct in his characterization of atheism'. It's simply his view. After all, you surely aren't going to claim that because he is a Christian, then, his definition of atheism is 'correct'! It remains simply: his personal view. And I disagree with it.

Indiana H,you are exactly right.Why do you think that Sarah Palen was vilified ? That is what she preached and the left had to destroy her because they were terrified of her and her message and the GOP were dupes as they were too stupid to see what was happening.

Ironically, we'd never hear the end of it if Islamic voters were aligned with the political Right. I could imagine the criticisms now.

...That also means that Dick is not 'correct in his characterization of atheism'.

Of course he is. There are no central tenets of atheism, nor governing body, so every atheist is free to define their own moral codes or as Dick put it "...do whatever you like,..."

ET

Good analysis. One thing though, both have an Image of a God they worship. For the left its their Marxist Philosopher Kings that are Infallible guides, with that portion of humanity being God unconsciously made by Man. For Islam a God of Blood that demands absolute obedience to Imams as an elite. Both hate Humanity.

No, SDH, you are quite incorrect.

First, there's the problem with your use of the term 'correct'. It means without errors, faults, being in agreement with a fact or truth.

Therefore, Dick's definition of atheism, since it is his personal viewpoint, is not in agreement with some external fact or truth. It remains his opinion and has nothing to do with 'being correct'.

Second, your definition of atheism aligns it with postmodernism, with subjective relativism where personal whim is the only 'governing body'.

I disagree. What you are ignoring is that I am defining atheism as a belief system and moral code that is aligned with the basic rationality and emotional 'spirituality' of the individual of our human species. That is, I am acknowledging the humans are endowed with the capacity for reason and for emotional compassion.

As such, the basic moral code or central tenet is 'The Golden Rule'.

The Golden Rule most definitely does not rest in the relativism of 'do whatever you like'.

The Golden Rule needs no 'governing body'; indeed, to insist on a governing body that defines such a basic moral code is to deny the basic humanity of our species.

spike 1

I agree. SP is the personification of the antithesis of the Progressive liberal view point. I am truly sad that she's not likely to run for public office again and thus sticking-it to the Left. I can't think of a better famous role model for my young daughters(and sons if I had any).

As you may remember, I was here for about a year touting a Newt Gingrich/Sarah Palin ticket for 2012. Unfortunately, Newt squandered his opportunity, as he was not disciplined enough to win the nomination that was clearly his to take. OT/ which I might add is MR's strongest asset IMO: Discipline. Anyways, I thought Newt and Sarah would be an awesome force, and I was quite pleased to learn that Newt was likely reading my comments at SDA and WAS leaning towards SP as his VP.lol

Unfortunately for us, a SP/MR ticket is about as likely as water mixing nicely with oil. SP being oil of course. I believe that SP would be the absolute best option for VP with her expertise in energy, and her ability to articulate the conservative POV. Both of which are weaknesses for MR. But, MR is a "steady as she goes" type of candidate, and isn't interested in the wild ride that a SP VP candidacy would surely bring. I think MR is content to let BO ride the political rollercoaster while he stays "steady as she goes". In the end, and I believe this to be so, this is likely the #1 best strategy for MR, the GOP, conservatism and the USA. Let BO destroy himself, and for Mitt not to inflict any wounds upon himself with so called "risky" political maneuvers.

Both reject the existence and use of human reason in arriving at decisions.

Typical ET inanity. Your whole crackpot "theory" is based on straw men, what in gawd's name are you blathering about? All your claims are unsubstantiated tripe. Examples, please.

The alliance between secular leftists, atheists and muslims is simple. They are all on the side of death. Jews and Christians are on the side of Life. The two sides don't get along.

...I am defining atheism as a belief system and moral code ...

Exactly who are you to define the moral code for all Atheists?

Regardless, this conversation is very off topic and this is my last comment on it. I mostly agree with your comments and enjoy your insights,
however, in this case you are quite wrong.

SDH - kindly read what I said. I've said, repeatedly, that my definition of atheism is MY view, my personal definition.

How can you therefore conclude that I'm defining a 'moral code for all atheists'? I've given you my definition of atheism, and how I consider that it is deeply moral, because it rests on the inherent individual capacity for reason and emotional bonding that is specific to our species.

This isn't off topic, because a major problem with leftism and Islamism is that both these ideologies reject the individual capacity for rational thought and thus, for personal morality. These two ideologies instead require the dissipation of the individual as having any agency, the rejection of individual reasoning and innate morality, and instead a mindless submission to a 'higher authoritarian force' - government or god.

This issue has become sidetracked by bringing religious theory into the discussion. Although I am neither atheist nor Christian, I am well aware that having a religious label or identity is not proof of behaving morally or correctly towards others. We are fortunate to live in a country with religious freedom, which means even those who are not religious are free to believe as they wish.

From what I have seen ET is not one of the militant atheists, the in-your-face kind. I appreciate and respect her views even if I do not always agree with everything. Personally I find those just as offensive as their equivalent in the religious community, both seeking to impose their views on me.

Sorry for not proof reading before clicking. I meant that I find the militant in-your-face theists just as offensive as their equivalent in the religious community.

The reason that Marxism lacks objective truth in dealing with the real material world is that it is descended from the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, who divorced reason from reality. Kant was followed by Hegel, who concocted all sorts of Scientology-like nonsense which somehow was accepted as "philosophy". Marx merely claimed he was standing Hegel on his feet, by emphasizing the materialistic rather than the idealistic (i.e., physical existence rather than man's conceptualizing of it, or alternately, emphasizing metaphysics rather than epistemology).

Our morality, as ET states, is in each of us with the "most basic and reasonable moral premise being The Golden Rule".

And the golden rule comes right out of scripture...

I know every other post ET loudly proclaims her 'atheism' the performance of which would lead some to believe she is a 'militant atheist'. The fact is ET is a theist. Her god is logic. Unfortunately she is not very good at it. If she were truly good at logic she would acknowledge not simply reason (The Second Person in the Christian Godhead) but Will (The First Person in the Christian Godhead) and Presence (The Third Person in the Christian Godhead) as well.

Unfortunately those who focus on Reason (a la ET) are not that much different than those who focus on Will (Muslims) and those who focus on Presence (Materialists). When a person puts all Three together (s)he has a much clearer understanding of objective reality than (s)he who worships only one Person of the Christian Godhead. You see this most clearly in the Muslim struggle for sainthood by killing anyone who gets in their way. Or ET's endless 'analysis' that leaves out most of the detail and almost all of the factors going into the reality that is the world we live in. For sake of brevity we will leave out the nonsense spewed by the envirowackies. They can't see the forest for the trees.

Nice try, Joe, but my analytic frame is triadic. You've never read Aristotle (though you declare that you have and call him, Popper, Hayek and others, "a bunch of materialist authors", as 'nitwits' - and declare that You, Joe, 'don't agree with them'.

Heh. But they work within a triadic analytic frame - and I certainly support that. My work acknowledges Aristotle (whom you disagree with) who is a triadic thinker, and Charles Peirce - whom you would never have read.

But, it's triadic, and uses the Aristotelian three categories of, as Peice calls them: Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness. Or, Will, Discreteness and Generalizing Continuity.

The triad is a basic analytic morphology; it's a function where x(f)=y. I use that as a basic analytic frame.

Joe, instead of trying to personally denigrate others, instead of trying to personally insult others, why don't you add to the argument?

You could have commented on the triad. You could have pointed out that in leftism and islamism, the category of Secondness (that individual materialization of Laws) is ignored and considered merely an expendable consumer item. People are expendable to the left and Islam.

You could have pointed out that the normative laws (Thirdness)are, in Aristotle and Peirce, evolving - and both leftism and Islamism, as utopians, reject this.

You could have pointed out that Will can't be abstracted from its moving into a particular morphology, and can't be, as it is in the left and islam, abstracted as a singular Force.

Instead, your choices are not to debate the issues, but, to personally insult others. That's your choice. Strange choice.

The Islamists, leftists, atheists, and all the other 'ists' all try to climb in the window, like thieves. They want to get to heaven through their own efforts.

If they were perfect, it would work...

When Christ was reading the riot act to the Pharisees He said it wasn't so bad they refused to Enter In, what was bad was preventing others from doing so.

Gonna be a lot of people with worse than millstones around their necks. Of course, a sin committed in ignorance is not a sin. So, hopefully, they're just ignorant.

I appreciate ET’s first post and believe she’s onto something, big time.

As for her “The most basic and reasonable moral premise is The Golden Rule. You don't need a dominant metaphysical authority or fear of 'what happens afterwards' to be a moral person”: I agree with the first assumption, but not, necessarily, the second.

Yes, without “a dominant metaphysical authority”, many individuals are moral and do adhere to the Golden Rule, stated in the Judeo-Christian teaching as “Love thy neighbour as thyself”. However, first of all, no one alive today in the West lives in a culture fully unmoored from the Judeo-Christian dispensation. While reaping the benefits of living on the fast-dwindling moral capital of the past, the secularists are doing their best to achieve that result—beware of what you wish for—but it hasn’t yet been fully realized.

And has anyone else noticed the precipitous decline in both morals and civility in the past six decades, as the West has happily divested itself of any major adherence to deference to “a dominant metaphysical authority”? I certainly have. Unmoored from the idea of any power greater than one’s own inner god, the societies of the West, in general, are definitely becoming more self-referential and feral and much less altruistic.

And, if secular socialism finally triumphs, between that jackhammer and the juggernaut of militant Islam, there will be little room or tolerance for the Judeo-Christian idea of morality, justice and mercy, which are our obligations under a wise and loving God. By the time our increasingly, non-Christian and hedonistic society finally—if ever—gets it, it’ll be too late. Kyrie eleison.

As for her “The most basic and reasonable moral premise is The Golden Rule. You don't need a dominant metaphysical authority or fear of 'what happens afterwards' to be a moral person”

Well, it's kinda like people who do a good job out of the love of doing a good job. The rules are there to keep in line those who don't.

“The most basic and reasonable moral premise is The Golden Rule." Not true logically or otherwise. If it were so every Jew, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, secular humanist, animist would be adhering to it. Since almost none of them are adhering to it the 'moral premise' does not exist.

"You don't need a dominant metaphysical authority or fear of 'what happens afterwards' to be a moral person” Unfortunately for ET once again her logic is sorely lacking. Without a higher authority there can be no appeal to a given morality on the basis that this morality is better than that morality. Without the higher authority all morality is the same and we all get to pick and choose as we see fit. So while ET is busy adopting the Christian morality of 'do unto others' Mohammed down the street is adopting the Muslim morality of 'do unto others' and J Stalin is adopting the secular humanist version of 'do unto others'. Can you see the difference?

BTW 'what happens afterwards' is not really a part of the higher authority but nice try anyways.

lookout - the 'love thy neighbour as thyself' is a basic outline of the Golden Rule. I think the Rule is universal, part of the innate human condition, and can be more clearly outlined as: 'Treat others only as you consent to being treated in the same situation".

This quotation is from Harry Gensler's excellent book on Ethics. This moral standard is logical, consistent and if followed can deal with basic ethical problems of both Islamism and leftism.

The thing about Islamism, leftism, and other tribal (ie closed) belief systems is that they exclude many people from 'the tribe'. Their ethical behaviour is internal to the tribe (like a gang!) and doesn't apply to Others.

So, Islamism rejects as human beings, anyone who is not a follower of Islam.
Leftism does the same; it excludes people who are not dependent followers - such as conservatives, the independent, the entrepreneurs and so on.

Neither of them follow that Golden Rule because they are closed tribes. They both allow malice and harm to Others.

You refer to an 'inner god'. I, myself, don't accept the notion of an 'inner god'; that puts the individual on a pinnacle - that's very dangerous as Aristotle pointed out. Instead, my point is that we are all fallible versions of humanity and should acknowledge both our inadequacy as finite beings and our common, shared and non-tribal species-specific capacities for reasoning, logic and moral behaviour. [Is that what you refer to as 'inner god'?]

Since almost none of them are adhering to it the 'moral premise' does not exist.

Gee, I thought the sage didn't believe in what can't be 'proven' to exist. :)

Instead, my point is that we are all fallible versions of humanity and should acknowledge both our inadequacy as finite beings and our common, shared and non-tribal species-specific capacities for reasoning, logic and moral behaviour.

In other words, by the sage's definition, the Golden Rule doesn't exist except as an ideal similar to leftist philosophy that it's just that the right version of socialism hasn't yet been tried.