August 06, 2010

The Compatibility of Western "Progressivism" with Islam

The previous entry It's Islam, Stupid! -- Redux got a couple of interesting comments. Let me summarize: Why do liberals, artists, atheists, homosexual activists, favour Islam over a traditional Christian society? Isn't that illogical? No it isn't. That would only be the case if one would assume that they were, in fact, into freedom. But that is not the case. They are into control, and that's exactly why those people are usually not into just one "progressive", politically correct cause, but into all of them. A leftist will be as well feminist, into "equal rights" for homosexuals, vegetarian- or veganism, teetotalism (which, funny enough, doesn't extent to drugs), "animal rights", the cult of man-made climate change, the choice to murder your unborn child, agnosticism or atheism, "progressive" pedagogy and art, gun control, anti-racism and a rabid egalitarianism, and and and... In fact, it is all about control, bullying and might. They want to see the separation of powers, so fundamental for the rule of law, abolished. They are their own lawmakers, judges and law enforcers, political correctness is their constitution. They are abhorred at the thought that anybody anywhere on this earth might have fun. Wholesome fun, above all. They'd ban heterosexual sex, if they could. They want people sick of body and soul, helpless and frightened.

And that is exactly what Islam wants as well. They are mutually compatible, and each faction think they can control the other and we are supposed to lean back and wait who wins.

I'd like to add that the mutual hatred of Jews fits perfectly well into all this. For to the rebels in the West against God and the Ten Commandments, the godless cult of Islam must appear as the perfect ally.

6 comments:

Universal Realist said...

So if both (liberals and Islam) want control but only one can have it. Do liberals really believe they will be able to control Islam?

Ducky's here said...

Liberals favor Islam over traditional Christian society?

Are you on dope?

The left doesn't favor either. What they opposed is jive poseurs passing themselves off as Islamic scholars. I want to see fundamentalists controlled or destroyed. Protestant fundies, Jewish fundies, Catholic fundies, Islamic fundies.

Western progressiveness is incompatible with all fundamentalism. Now go say hi to Pam Geller.

The_Editrix said...

Dear Ducky,

Never forget, different from Beak, I am not a liberal and I don't have the slightest compunctions about sending your next comment to cyber nirwana should it be as rude as this one. Or better: not impeccably polite. I neither need a resident assclown, nor a whipping boy, nor a court jester, nor a sounding board to show how clever I am and to keep my blog going.

Different from Beak, too, I have no desire to prove to you (or anybody) how liberal, enlightened, free from inhibitons and prejudices and how liberated I am. Or, for that, how conservative, Christian or traditional.

In a word: Fuck off.

Nora

fpb said...

My dear Ducky, I wonder if you realize the folly of someone like you claiming to judge who are "real" Muslim scholars and who are the poseurs. Please show me the PhD and years of research that have made you an expert in a religion that covers one billion people and 1400 years of history. If a dangerous (and deceptive) lunatic such as Al-Qaradawi turns out to be the most popular expositor of Islam, it is certainly not your place to decide that he is a "jive poseur passing himself off as an Islamic scholar", to use your remarkable expression. If the mighty Al-Azhar University routinely passes rulings that make one's hair stand on end, you are not qualified to tell them that they don't know their Ahadith from their Sira. To the contrary: they have the authority to inform you that you are an ignorant infidel who should keep his trap shut about things he has read of a couple of times in tendentious Western magazines. And they would be right to do so. Nothing could possibly be more indicative of your fantastic intellectual vanity than your claim to be able to perceive what is "fundamentalist" not even in one religion, but in all of them, and to decide that it should be suppressed. You are a fool who thinks himself wise because he has read a couple of bigger fools, and an ignoramus who thinks himself learned because he has delved in the deeper ignorance of more loquacious ignorami. Who are you - speaking as a Christian - to inform me of the nature of my faith and of my philosophy? Where do you get the learning to inform a Brahmin pandit about his? Or a Chinese professor of Taoist philosophy? But then humility is a Christian virtue, and you know nothing of it.

The_Editrix said...

Fabio, something about the background of this: Ducky is the tame assclown at the blog of a friend of mine. They share a love-hate relationship and the Duck is either the main topic of or quoted in an estimated 85% of all blog posts. Beakerkin (the blog owner) sees his own blogging as something he does for a limited circle of friends and the scrap between the Duck and Beak is quite entertaining at times, and while Ducky is by no means evil incarnate or the total idiot as portrayed by the Beak, Beak is neither the right-wing extremist Kahanist (in fact the is a flaming liberal) as which the Duck characterizes him.

However, the goal of my blog is a different one and I don't have a job for a court jester. Ducky is very knowledgeable about arts and I wouldn't mind picking his brains about arty topics, but they are rare at this blog. I don't mind antagonism, but I prefer it to be uttered in a manner that leaves room for discussion. Besides, bad manners bore me, at least in others. ;-)

So I'm afraid, we won't see here much of the Duck.

The_Editrix said...

Oh I forgot! Being the vile sycophant I am I have to add that I agree with the content of your comment as well.