Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Trying to understand the liberal mindset

Ezra Levant explores "Why liberals downplay terrorism":
... Their first reflex is to deny that it’s terrorism at all ...
... The next liberal reflex is to deny that an attacker is Muslim.
... The third liberal reflex is to say a terrorist attack was just the act of a madman.
... The fourth liberal line of defence is to say the attacker is a lone wolf.

... That’s the liberal spin playbook: deny it’s terrorism, deny it’s Muslim, call it insanity, and finally call it a rogue act.

... But why? Why do liberals go to such lengths to revise the motives of terrorists, who are quite clear about their goals?  ... Why do liberals try to revise history, and whitewash the war against us?
Because ...
... liberals have abolished the ideas of good and evil as too judgmental. Terrorists? No, our enemies are actually victims themselves, you see. We are privileged. Society is to blame.
...Liberals cannot understand so much hate against us. So liberals sympathize. Liberals help find the answer. They join in. To justify the hate. 
In today's Van Sun there were more than a half dozen letters illustrating the liberal mindset.

And here's a doozy - a recent National Post article began with "It's been a tough week for Canadian Muslims" [h/t Blazing Cat Fur] [As an aside - the article referred to a mosque in Cold Lake that had been vandalized, to which my reaction was: "Cold Lake has a mosque?"]

Update (from the comments): Mark Steyn back in 2010 on "Crying Lone Wolf" and more recently with Breitbart on the same theme.


13 comments:

Anonymous said...

has anyone noticed the new talking point adopted by the media party "HOPE"
every headline now contains the word hope
my opinion we need intelligent leadership and a leader with a forward looking plan to deal with the problems today
Prime Minister Harper will get my vote
fhl

Anonymous said...

Don't forget this one..."Mental illness".During the funeral, CBC's Carol McNeil almost busted her gut trying to get anyone on the air to say they thought it was mental illness and not a terrorist act.First question from the CBC and media to John Kerry was..."Do you call it a terrorist act?" Media are obsessed with NOT admitting it was a terrorist act.

Anonymous said...

They also use the persons original name and not the Muslim name they adopt in the news reports.

Anonymous said...

Speaking with my younger members of my family, they are astonished that "Marc Lepine" was in fact Ghamil Gharbi.
The fifth position of Liberals is to sing kumbia.
The sixth is to proclaim the arrival of Justin, born on Christmas day, to lead us, wearing his nifty dish-dasha PJ's.
A Liberal is someone convinced a dog turd can be picked up from the clean end
JMO
I am Bubba Brown

Martin said...

It took but one week for the unity existing among all parties and observers of the terrorist attack on Parliament, to begin questioning if indeed a spade really is a spade.After many weeks absence, I tuned in CBC to see the P&P panel discussing exactly that question.
If shooting a defenceless soldier with a hunting rifle, then heading for Parliament isn't an act of terror, then I can't imagine what might be.
Read Mark Steyn's great comments on the "Amalgamated Union of Lone Wolves" to shed some light on the liberal inability to see clearly on this issue.

JR said...

There is no shortage of examples of liberal "thinking". That's testament to the degree to which the left/lib has captured the education system and dominate the media.

Anonymous said...

I am a mix of liberal on some issues and conservative on others (mostly economic). As someone who has studied the history of the Middle East I don't think you can simplify things into good vs. evil like far too many conservatives do. At the end of WWI when the Ottoman Empire broke up, Middle East was split up between Britain and France who treated the locals quite poorly. Likewise thousands of innocent civilians have lost their lives from American, British, and French involvement so their anger is quite understandable. Killing innocent civilians in terrorist attacks is never justified, but if we continue to bury our heads in the sand and think just continuously bombing the region will solve the problem, we are in for a rude awakening. I don't know what the solution is, but hostility towards Muslims will make things worse. Europe used to constantly be at war but over time as Europeans came to better understand each other you had more peaceful relations. I am all for tough border controls to keep out terrorist, but I don't support war unless attacked nor do I support further marginalizing our Muslim community.

JR said...

I agree that things can rarely ever be "simplified" into good vs. evil. There are always complicating factors as in this and many (all?) other situations involving Islamist inspired terror. The complicating factor being discussed here is the liberal propensity to be blind to undeniable evil - to deny, dissemble, obfuscate and deflect in the name of perverse political correctness and cultural relativism.

Were Hitler and his Nazis "evil"? Without question. It took overwhelming violence to defeat them. Was defeating them a "good" thing. Without question.

Also without question is that ISIS's evil is the current day equivalent of the Nazi brand of evil except that ISIS may be even worse - it is publicly proud of its barbarity while the Nazis tried to hide their worst atrocities. The kind of thinking that motivates ISIS's barbarity is not unique to ISIS. It is widespread. It is beyond doubt that the terrorists who attacked and killed our two soldiers last week were motivated by that ideology.

Liberal head-in-the-sand blindness to world-wide Islamism and its related evils is dangerous.

Alain said...

Re: Anon. I agree that history is an excellent teacher provided we look at it in its totality. The history of Islam is well documented. The meaning of Islam is also another clue, for it means submission. Islam spread through waging war on all who rejected its imperialist totalitarian ideology through acts of terrorism, beheadings, raping and pillage. Those who converted did it out of fear of death rather than having found a belief founded on love. Every country and place that the Muslims invaded experience the same death, violence and destruction. Muslims were carrying out colonial conquest long before the Europeans, and the Ottoman Empire you mention was another example. If one is honest one cannot deny that Islam has consistently demonstrated zero tolerance for any other ideology or belief and is the only "religion" that demands death for any Muslim who converts to another religion or simply rejects political and militant Islam.

I do find rather pointless joining in the "war on ISIS" when we tolerate and even fund other Muslim groups practising the same ideology with the same agenda such as Hamas, Hizbollah, Muslim Brotherhood etc. I find it also pointless as long as we continue allowing mass Muslim immigration when we are clearly incapable of discerning Muslims who sincerely reject political and militant Islam from those who embrace it. While we do have a small minority of Muslims here who reject it, we have a much larger number who embrace it or support it. So unless and until we are willing to deal with the mess in our own house, waging war abroad makes little sense in my view.

Anonymous said...

I guess we just have to wait till some Isis terrorist chops off the head of some Canadian child to call it terrorism.

Anonymous said...

JR - I fully agree that the heads of ISIS are evil people who need to be destroyed, but my point is to destroy the organization you need to cut off the source and when people feel there is no hope in their life they are more likely to join such organization. In the case of Nazi Germany, Hitler was evil and needed to be destroyed, but had the allies not imposed the harsh reparations under the Versailles Treaty and instead aided Germany in re-building, it's unlikely Hitler would have ever come to power. So I believe we need to learn from history to avoid repeating the same mistakes.

Alain - Most people do not blindly follow any religion just as most Christians in the West frequently do things the Bible prohibits such as adultery or pre-marital sex. In addition the prophet Mohammed referred to Christians and Jews as people of the book meaning he accepted that Abraham, Moses, and Jesus were prophets as well as the Old and New Testament were God's word and he was God's final messenger and the Koran the most updated version of God's word. During the Middle Ages Spain was Muslim and non-Muslims were free to practice their religion they just had to pay a non-believer's tax. In fact Spain had the largest Jewish population in Europe during this time as they didn't face execution like they did in Christian Europe. When Christians reconquered Spain, Muslims and Jews were had to either convert, leave, or be killed so it is not as though Christianity hasn't done similar bad things.

JR said...

Anon,
No doubt the Treaty of Versailles had a role to play in feeding the grievances that Hitler used to get into power. Though I don't know how that hindsight can be usefully applied in the current situation involving the threat to Western civilization posed by radical Islam (an Islam that Mohammed would recognize and approve of).

As for your rosy portrayal of Andalusian Spain, it would seem to be more of a myth than anything:
"The existence of a Muslim kingdom in Medieval Spain where different races and religions lived harmoniously in multicultural tolerance is one of today’s most widespread myths. University professors teach it. Journalists repeat it. Tourists visiting the Alhambra accept it. It has reached the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, which sings the virtues of the “pan-confessional humanism” of Andalusian Spain ..."

To deal with a threat we need to be realistic about it and not get sucked into warm, fuzzy myths that whitewash it. That kind of delusional thinking is useful only to the Islamists.

tao_taier said...

@JR

"... The fourth liberal line of defence is to say the attacker is a lone wolf."

Should say: '"the attacks are isolated incidents"'.

@Anon, October 30, 2014 at 2:19:00 PM

Western Conservatives essentially are classical liberals. Modern Liberals only push "social freedoms"(down our throats without refrain)far ahead&beyond of everything else. However, only economic freedom can lend itself to any or all other freedoms, not the other way around. I say, let people make fools of themselves from which we can figure how not to be.
It's self correcting. Control isn't an answer. Though I do believe in age appropriate parental censorship. Where as Modern Liberals push to subvert that with their own agendas.

I'm also a pro-Isreal/coldwar hawk and like John Bolton's foreign policy. Which puts off the isolationist 'neo-confederate Ronpaulians'.

I'm digressing.

@JR

"Christianity hasn't done similar bad things". That is NOT Christianity, neither did it reflect anything taught from the 'New Testament'. Which is also ignored or disregarded outright by muslims via abrogation of their own texts. (Who claim to inherit Judeo-Christanity for the sake of claiming non-Islamic religious sites.)
"Allah" is in no relation to the God of 'The Bible'.
"Allah" isn't described in the Koran because he was a pre-existing deity well know at the time it was written(Moon "god",From Arab-Mythology*), the difference laid in that he wanted to be exalted as the only "god".

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon-God_Allah

The keep editing that wiki to make seem like fiction, but seriously look it up if you want to be thoroughly creeped out by Islams origins. It's no wonder their "prophet" was a perverse marauding suicidal "lunatic". To say the least.