A Progressive Belief: “Evil Conservatives” are Malevolent and are Our Only Real Enemy.

Devout progressives tend to believe that the purposely progressively unvirtuous (evil conservatives) are malevolent and are their only real enemy.

The unconscious logic supporting this belief goes like this, starting from the “Human beings are inherently and transcendentally noble” branch of the newthink worldview tree:

• Human beings are inherently and transcendentally noble.
• Our motives are inherently noble.
• We are progressively virtuous.
Progressive virtue is supremely important.
• Those who do not agree with us – the progressively unvirtuous – are either ignorant or purposely unvirtuous.
• The purposely progressively unvirtuous must be fought.
• The purposely progressively unvirtuous are malevolent and are our only real enemy.

 

Since newthinkers perceive people as inherently noble, they love everyone – except those who disagree with them. Because they believe that if something feels good, it’s okay, they tolerate anything – except that which contradicts the beliefs of their worldview.

…just as something must fill the psychological vacuum created by the perceived absence of God, so must something fill that created by the absence of the devil. Like Goldstein, The Enemy of the People in Orwell’s 1984, the evil conservatives fill that void in the newthink psyche.

Newthinkers reject the traditional concept of evil, just as they reject traditional notions of good. Both God and Satan are absent from their universe metaphor. But just as something must fill the psychological vacuum created by the perceived absence of God, so must something fill that created by the absence of the devil. Like Goldstein, The Enemy of the People in Orwell’s 1984, the evil conservatives fill that void in the newthink psyche. They are the bad actors in the newthink stage play. Since they consciously and openly contradict newthink’s beliefs, they are perceived by Progressive Crusaders as their only real enemy.

Traditional right-and-wrong morality clashes with most of newthink morality. When the progressive elite – the Enlightened – encounter the purposely unPV, progressive rage is often the result.

progressive rage n : intense anger and indignation of the progressive elite against those who are purposely progressively unvirtuous

Ronald Reagan’s 1983 denunciation of the Soviet Union as an evil empire created much progressive rage among the Enlightened, who never objected to the Soviet’s regular use of much more extreme language. “It was the worst presidential speech in American history, and I’ve seen them all,” said historian Henry Steele Commager*; The New Republic said it left the impression that the U.S. was contemplating holy war; New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis called it primitive and outrageous.**

English: Alaska Governor Sarah Palin on June 2...
English: Alaska Governor Sarah Palin on June 2, 2007. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A more recent example of progressive rage is the reaction of the Enlightened to the introduction of Alaska governor Sarah Palin into the national limelight during the 2008 presidential campaign, in which she and her family were criticized and ridiculed in the crudest possible manner. The Reagan Derangement Syndrome became the Bush Derangement Syndrome which has, at the time of this writing, become the Palin Derangement Syndrome. Powerful people like these, who consciously oppose political correctness and progressive virtue, attract progressive rage like lightning rods in a thunderstorm.

* Steven F. Hayward, The Age of Reagan, (Three Rivers Press, 2009), p. 288.

** Ibid, p. 288.

The Permanent Progressive War Against “Evil Conservatives”

Devout progressives believe, in the context of political correctness, that those who are progressively unvirtuous on purpose are evil. As former Democratic party chairman Howard Dean said, “In contradistinction to the Republicans, we don’t think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night.”*

While the term “evil conservative” is employed here merely to highlight how devout newthinkers view the purposely progressively unvirtuous, it is actually used by some progressives. Urbandictionary.com even offers a definition: “The Evil conservative is an exceedingly wicked person who gains in his or her personal career by advancing injustice and cruelty to a marginalized segment of society. These people are exceedingly cruel and heartless…”**

“Evil conservatives” are to newthinkers what evildoers were to traditional Americans. Just as traditional Americans believed that evildoers must be fought, so do progressives believe that “evil conservatives” must be fought.

The unconscious logic supporting this belief goes like this, starting from the “Human beings are inherently and transcendentally noble” branch of the newthink worldview tree:
• Human beings are inherently and transcendentally noble.
• Our motives are inherently noble.
• We are progressively virtuous.
Progressive virtue is supremely important.
• Those who do not agree with us – the progressively unvirtuous – are either ignorant or purposely unvirtuous.
• The purposely progressively unvirtuous must be fought.
WorldviewTree_p089
The unconscious logic branching out of this belief is:
• The purposely progressively unvirtuous are malevolent and are our only real enemy.
• It is our mission to prevent the purposely progressively unvirtuous from passing on their value system to the youth.
• It is our mission to undermine the purposely progressively unvirtuous’ value system through the media.
• It is our mission to marginalize religion, which helps pass down traditional values, by removing God from the public square.

 

Progressive Crusaders proactively battle those who purposely oppose any part of progressive culture. Preventing “evil conservatives” from passing on their value system to the youth is a high priority. For instance, the movement to use school vouchers to give parents school choice has been fought tooth and nail by progressives because it directly threatens their power domain and their influence on America’s youth. The progressive argument against vouchers is made by Danny Weil in his book School Vouchers and Privatization. He argues that the religious right attempts to influence public schools by removing books they find morally offensive, getting rid of sex education classes, preventing information about abortion or sexual orientation from being disseminated, and stopping evolution from being taught.*** Clearly, newthinkers see the fight against school choice as a cultural battle encompassing evolution, standards, sex education, abortion and sexual orientation. Progressive Crusaders want to control what children are taught on these subjects.

Another progressive battle is to marginalize religion, which helps pass down traditional values, by removing God from the public square. For instance, the Catholic church, one of America’s bastions of non-progressive culture, has endured attacks by Progressive Crusaders for decades. Philip Jenkins in his book, The New Anti-Catholicism, says that while anti-Catholicism used to spring mainly from right-wing xenophobia, it now emanates mainly from the left.**** Sinead O’Connor denounced Pope John Paul II on Saturday Night Live, tore up his photo, and told the audience to “fight the real enemy.”† Dramatist Tony Kushner wrote that, because of his silence on the murder of a young gay man, Matthew Shepard, “Pope John Paul II endorses murder.”†† And Methodist theologian Beverly Harrison called the Roman Catholic hierarchy “the pedophile capital of the world.”††† As newthink establishes itself, progressives increasingly focus on racial, gender and sexual identity politics. The Catholic church found itself defending traditional views on these subjects and thus became a target of Progressive Crusaders.

* Dennis Prager, “Understanding the Politics of the Left,” RealClearPolitics.com, July 21, 2009, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/21/understanding_the_politics_of_the_left.html, accessed June 30, 2011.

** Urbandictionary.com, http://www.urbandictionary.com/ define.php?term=evil+conservative, June 30, 2011.

*** Danny Weil, School Vouchers and Privatization, (ABC-CLIO, 2002), p. 68.

**** Philip Jenkins, The New Anti-Catholicism, (Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 20.

† Ibid., p. 82.

†† Tony Kushner, “Matthew’s Passion,” The Nation, November 9, 1998.

††† James R. Edwards, “Natural Born Sinners,” Christianity Today, November 14, 1994.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Designation Degradation

Recently “climate change” really did change — into a new progressive term: climate disruption. Remember back in the day when they used to call it global warming?

designation degradation n : the process by which progressive terms get discredited and replaced by new ones

Language is a prime arena of progressive deception. Progressives use words as if they were Kleenex, constantly discarding them and moving on to new ones. People may start seeing the inherent falsehood of a term, so “global warming” must be replaced with “climate change” or the latest iteration, “climate disruption.” Or the offensive nature of a progressive concept becomes clear, so “affirmative action” becomes “social justice.” Or a term may simply be sullied by being associated with progressive policies for too long; early 20th century progressives changed into “liberals” as their policies were discredited, then when the word’s associations had faded in the late 20th century, liberals went back to being “progressives.” It’s easy to predict that the word “progressive” will soon lose favor due to its association with progressives (or whatever they’ll be calling themselves next). The pattern of designation degradation is clear: as a term gets discredited, progressives simply make up a new one to take its place.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Hollywood’s Crusade: Undermine Religion, Fight Capitalism and Defame America While Coarsening the Culture and Promoting Violent Nihilism – Profitability is Optional

The entertainment industry – movies, music and television – is also used to spread newthink’s values and principles. Volumes could be written on this subject, but Hollywood’s bias toward cultural coarsening, anti-religion, anti-capitalism and anti-Americanism, and its addiction to violent nihilism, must be touched on.

The argument that popular music has become gutterized barely needs to be made, it’s so obvious. The music industry sells promiscuity as much as music. The road from the Beach Boys singing “Wouldn’t It Be Nice” to Guns n’ Roses singing about panties around knees to the unquotable hip-hop lyrics of today is a long, strange trip indeed. Progressive musicians, who believe that privacy and modesty are unnatural anyway, have it all: they can tick off their parents, get the girl(s), and go for fame and fortune all in one fell swoop.

Hollywood Sign
Hollywood Sign (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In its early days, the American movie industry celebrated the major religions. Its annual top box office hit – Samson and Delilah, David and Bathsehba, The Robe, The Ten Commandments, and Ben Hur – was often based on the Bible.* The movies of that time, starring Bing Crosby, Pat O’Brien, Spencer Tracey and others were highly sympathetic to clergymen. But since the 1970s, Hollywood’s anti-religious bias has resulted in films too numerous to mention bashing Catholicism (Monsignor, The Godfather, Part III), Protestantism (Children of the Corn, The Handmaid’s Tale) and Judaism (Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask), Naked Tango). Most of Hollywood’s anti-religious films failed at the box office. As Michael Medved says in his book Hollywood vs. America, Hollywood’s apologists often argue that they are only creating these anti-religious films to give the American public what it wants. But this contention falls apart in the face of the financial Armageddon these flops have created for their backers. Yet still they are made. The hostility toward organized religion among Hollywood’s movers and shakers is so powerful that they must express it, even if it costs them millions.** Progressive Hollywood’s anger toward an absent God and contempt for organized religion, a pillar of traditional America, overcomes even their eye for profit.

Most of Hollywood’s anti-religious films failed at the box office… Yet still they are made.

Despite a Los Angeles entertainment culture of big-money deals and conspicuous opulence, Hollywood loves to bash business. A common theme in television has been corruption vs. honesty in business: 81% of the scripts dealing with this treated business as corrupt.*** Sleazy criminal-capitalists appear on screen ever more frequently: only 11% of feature films depicted businessmen negatively from 1945 to 1965, but in the two following decades, the rate zoomed to 67%.****

Hollywood’s anti-American public opinion management extends to a rewrite of the popular conception of American history. This is important, since many more Americans watch Hollywood movies than read history books. As Michael Medved says, Hollywood history nearly always indicts America, from our treatment of Native Americans (Dances with Wolves), our involvement in Latin America (Salvador), to the McCarthy era (The House on Carroll Street).†

The entertainment industry seems to be addicted to the depiction of violence. Prime-time television is much more violent than real life. The murder rate among television characters since 1955 is 1,000 times higher than among real-world victims.††  Hollywood’s newthink artists derive a great thrill from exploring violence and nihilism because they can jab their finger in the eye of traditional America and the Christian and Jewish heritages they’ve rejected. They can simultaneously be acclaimed by their peers as courageous, creative and edgy for work which is in reality easy-moneyed, predictable and sheep-like. Hollywood’s nihilism is essentially an angry gesture to their perception of God the absent father accompanied by an ego boost, a paycheck and a career enhancement.

The entertainment industry, as well as the educational system and the news media, reeducate the ignorant progressively unvirtuous in newthink beliefs, attitudes and conventions. Newthinkers view these benighted people just as members of western civilization viewed those from uncivilized cultures. Like many westerners of the 18th and 19th centuries, newthinkers possess a missionary zeal and an unquestioning certainty that their morality and virtue assignment are superior to that of any other culture.

Hollywood rejects traditional America — even more than profit or entertainment, that is its highest purpose.

In light of this, it’s clear that progressives don’t really believe in multiculturalism except in its superficial aspects or as a stratagem to undermine traditional culture. No foreign worldview is allowed to enter and threaten the heart and mind of newthink. Only trivial aspects of non-progressive cultures are tolerated in progressive culture, and they are remade to fit the progressive mold. All other cultures’ moralities, including traditional America’s, are rejected and replaced with political correctness and progressive virtue.  Hollywood rejects traditional America — even more than profit or entertainment, that is its highest purpose.

* Michael Medved, Hollywood vs. America, (HarperPerennial, 1993), pp. 50-51.
** Ibid., pp. 63-64.
*** S. Robert Lichter, Linda Lichter and Stanley Rothman, Watching America, (Prentice Hall Press, 1991), p. 146.
**** Michael Medved, Hollywood vs. America, (HarperPerennial, 1993), p. 222.
† Ibid., p. 225.
†† S. Robert Lichter, Linda Lichter and Stanley Rothman, Watching America, (Prentice Hall Press, 1991), p. 185.

Enhanced by Zemanta

From Reporters to Public Opinion Managers

The news media’s transformation from news reporters to public opinion managers is, like progressive education, part of the progressive mission to reeducate the progressively unvirtuous into newthink’s belief system. Have no doubt that journalists are overwhelmingly progressive: a study back in 1992, whose general conclusions have been replicated repeatedly, found that 89 percent of them voted for Bill Clinton, compared to 43 percent of the general population; only 7 percent voted for George H. W. Bush versus 37 percent of the general population.*

An example of the media’s public opinion management is the 1980s homeless crisis. In the 1980s, the nation’s homeless were estimated by network journalists to number as much as five million people* even though the best studies estimated the number to be between 230,000 and 600,000. Stories about homelessness were ubiquitous in the 1980s, and the media consistently laid responsibility at the White House door rather than on the behavior of the homeless themselves.** Robert Lichter of the nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs analyzed the media’s handling of the homeless story and concluded that 96% of the sources blamed political or social conditions for homelessness; only 4% blamed other factors, like substance abuse, mental illness, lack of skills or low motivation.*** But in the 1990s, the homeless seemed to magically disappear. In 1988, the New York Times ran 50 stories on the homeless, including five on page one; by 1998, they ran only 10 homeless stories, none of them on the front page.**** As Bernard Goldberg comments in his book Bias, homelessness seemed to begin when Reagan took the oath of office and end when Clinton took over.† Newthinkers believe that most antisocial behavior is caused by society, and they propagated that belief throughout America with their stories about the homeless. Associating the root causes of homelessness with a conservative president was just a bonus.

…in the 1990s, the homeless seemed to magically disappear.

But it’s not just what the media talk about; it’s also what they don’t talk about. Bernard Goldberg points out in his book Arrogance how the media often focuses on race; they continuously point out racial discrimination – as they should when it exists. But they don’t like to discuss other explanations for ethnic inequality and subcultural dysfunction – such as the connection between the lack of fathers and violent behavior in children††, or the link between poverty and personal behavior. William Galston, an assistant to President Clinton, pointed out that to avert poverty, one need only do three things: graduate from high school, get married before having a child, and wait until age 20 before having that child. Incredibly, those who do those three things end up in poverty only 8% of the time; those who don’t wind up poor 79% of the time. A high percentage of African-Americans are poor, and the media prefer to ascribe that to racial discrimination rather than discuss family factors.†††

Enhanced by Zemanta* Bernard Goldberg, Bias, (Perennial, 2003), p.  72.
** Ibid., p. 75.
*** Ibid., p. 75.
**** Ibid., p. 79.
† Ibid., pp. 78-79.
†† Wade F. Horn, Father Facts, (National Fatherhood Institute, 2002), p. 109.
††† Bernard Goldberg, Arrogance, (Warner Books, 2003), pp. 14-15.

Bringing the Benighted into the Light of Progressive Virtue with Progressive Education

Devout progressives believe that the benighted must be brought into the light of progressive virtue; those ignorant of political correctness must be reeducated.

The unconscious logic supporting this belief goes like this, starting from the “Human beings are inherently and transcendentally noble” branch of the newthink worldview tree:

• Human beings are inherently and transcendentally noble.
• Our motives are inherently noble.
• We are progressively virtuous.
Progressive virtue is supremely important.
• Those who do not agree with us – the progressively unvirtuous – are either ignorant or purposely unvirtuous.
• The ignorant progressively unvirtuous must be reeducated.

The unconscious logic branching out of this belief is:

• It is our mission to educate the young about the principles of progressive virtue.
• It is our mission to educate the ignorant from other cultures about the principles of progressive virtue.
• It is our mission to reeducate ignorant or misinformed adults about the principles of progressive virtue.

 

The newthink takeover of education wasn’t motivated by a need to improve a failing American educational system. Along with the news media and the entertainment industry, it was part of the Progressive Missionaries’ undertaking  to reeducate the benighted in progressively-virtuous principles.

As Mona Charen points out in her book Do-Gooders, American children have for centuries attended religious schools, private schools and local public schools. These children grew up and built the U.S. into the richest economy and most powerful military the world has known. But in 1979, the Democrats felt that wasn’t good enough; the U.S. Government must have a Department of Education. The Department of Education, created under Jimmy Carter’s administration, centralized American education and enabled the domination of progressively-virtuous teaching curricula. Since then, progressives have promoted new math, whole language, bilingual education, and now, common core. These and all the other progressive educational improvements aren’t free. The U.S. spends more than almost any of its peers on K-12 schooling, yet our high-schoolers performance is only middling, and our high school completion rate is plunging. Despite many progressive educational innovations and massive spending, the longer a student is in our educational system, the worse he compares to his international peers.*

American children have for centuries attended religious schools, private schools and local public schools. These children grew up and built the U.S. into the richest economy and most powerful military the world has known. But in 1979, the Democrats felt that wasn’t good enough; the U.S. Government must have a Department of Education.

So, progressive educators have taken over American education, instituted lots of new progressive teaching methods, spent truckloads of money, and as the result our children’s educational level has plummeted and is now circling the drain. If the main purpose of progressive education were to educate children, it would be a disastrous failure. But forget that. Progressive education has actually succeeded in its actual, primary and largely unconscious mission: the indoctrination of children in politically correct opinions based on progressively-virtuous principles. C. Sheldon Thorne, a professor of history at Golden West University, says that after a dozen years of public school, his college students in U.S. History are exquisitely aware of every subtlety of racism, sexism, and imperialism throughout America’s history, but unable to write as much as a paragraph coherently about any of them. According to Thorne, they have it all figured out: the constitution – a racist document from rich white men; westward migration – fueled by greed and distinguished by genocide; slavery – a practice which occurred only in America. To them, America is bad to the bone.**

* Mona Charen, Do-Gooders, (New York: Sentinel, 2004)

** C. Sheldon Thorne, from Mona Charen, Do-Gooders, (New York: Sentinel, 2004), pp. 233-4.

The Ignorant Unvirtuous, the Purposely Unvirtuous and the Culture War

Just as traditional Americans thought that those who didn’t believe in the ultimate morality of right-and-wrong were either barbaric or evil, newthinkers think that those who don’t believe in the morality of political correctness are either ignorant or purposely unvirtuous.

The unconscious logic supporting this belief is as follows, starting from the “Human beings are inherently and transcendentally noble” branch of the newthink worldview tree:

• Human beings are inherently and transcendentally noble.
• Our motives are inherently noble.
• We are progressively virtuous.
Progressive virtue is supremely important.
• Those who do not agree with us – the progressively unvirtuous – are either ignorant or purposely unvirtuous.

 

Newthinkers group non-progressives into two types: the ignorant progressively unvirtuous and the purposely progressively unvirtuous. To newthinkers, the former are equivalent to barbarians and the latter are tantamount to evildoers. Because, to newthinkers, progressive virtue is supremely important, these unenlightened folk must be dealt with.

The unconscious logic branching out of this belief is:

• The ignorant progressively unvirtuous must be reeducated.
• The purposely progressively unvirtuous must be fought.

 

Progressive Missionaries (a character archetype discussed earlier) are similar to those Mona Charen calls “do-gooders.” Their mission is to spread progressivism through education and reeducation. They – mostly unconsciously – make progressive virtue a social reality by “doing good.” Youth are indoctrinated into the newthink worldview from the start. Those who are ignorant of but amenable to political correctness and progressive virtue are reeducated by Progressive Missionaries to incorporate them into progressive culture.

In traditional America, those who purposely ignored or clashed with Americanism’s morality were thought of as evil. Similarly, those who purposely clash with political correctness are considered wicked by devout newthinkers.

While Progressive Missionaries focus on those ignorant of progressive morality, Progressive Crusaders fight the purposely progressively unvirtuous in order to vanquish them and establish the supremacy of progressive culture.

Progressive Crusaders:
Newthinkers who actively seek battle with the purposely progressively unvirtuous so as to wrest power from them and create a virtuous future.

The “culture war” is aptly named. We are in the midst of a progressive mission and crusade – equivalent to those in pre-twentieth century Western civilization which shouldered what they called the “white man’s burden” to civilize the planet. They spread Christianity and Western civilization through reeducation and – when necessary – force of arms. Similarly, Progressive Missionaries are reeducating and Progressive Crusaders are proactively battling the progressively unvirtuous in order to spread newthink.

Progressive Missionaries are reeducating and Progressive Crusaders are proactively battling the progressively unvirtuous in order to spread newthink.

Progressives aggressively pursue the culture war; traditional Americans must therefore defend their culture on multiple fronts.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Public Opinion Management

The Enlightened — the progressive elite — believe that their virtue and wisdom give them the responsibility to shape our culture like a good mother shapes her child. One way the Enlightened shape public opinion is through public opinion management (POM) by the media.

public opinion management (POM) n : low-intensity but constant propaganda that surreptitiously shapes public opinion by highlighting events or opinions that illustrate politically correct positions; by ignoring events or opinions that contradict progressive beliefs; by framing issues as exploiter vs. exploited; by attaching virtue to politically correct positions and people; by implicitly reinforcing politically correct assumptions

pom vb pommed, pomming : to manage public opinion

On the national and international scale, what we used to call news is now mostly public opinion management. The progressive bias of the national media is well-documented and acknowledged by all objective self-shoe-tiers. But it’s more than a bias: it’s a constant, partly unconscious, and surreptitious process of shaping public opinion in a progressively-virtuous direction. I suspect that the higher one goes up the ranks of the Enlightened, the more clear-eyed and conscious they are of the nature of their POM.

On the national and international scale, what we used to call news is now mostly public opinion management.

Perhaps in every society some are called to be priests. Under newthink, membership in the Enlightened is the form priesthood takes. But the Enlightened are not motivated solely by their progressive virtue. The power progressive priesthood entails is enticing – the power to shape public institutions, shape law, shape thought, shape the next generation.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Progressive Belief: Progressive Virtue Trumps Human Law

Traditional Americans believed that good and evil ultimately trump human law. Many of them believed that in extreme circumstances they were obliged to follow the higher good even if it violated the law. Our Declaration of Independence says as much:

English: This is a high-resolution image of th...
English: This is a high-resolution image of the United States Declaration of Independence (article (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it [my italics], and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

In the same way, progressives believe that society has no ultimate right to dictate to them and that their virtue system ultimately supersedes human law.

The unconscious logic supporting this belief goes like this, starting from the “Human beings are inherently and transcendentally noble” branch of the newthink worldview tree:

• Human beings are inherently and transcendentally noble.
• Our motives are inherently noble.
• We are progressively virtuous.
Progressive virtue is supremely important.
• Society has no ultimate right to dictate to us because progressive virtue and progressive unvirtue ultimately trump human law.

The unconscious logic branching out of this belief is:

• It is our responsibility as the most virtuous and best-informed in a godless world to steer and shape the culture.

 

The Enlightened believe that, because of their enlightened minds and progressively-virtuous emotions, traditional standards don’t apply to them. Furthermore, they believe that their virtue and enlightenment give them the responsibility to steer and shape our culture in the same way a good mother steers and shapes her child.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Shield of Progressive Virtue

Luckily for wrongdoers, progressive society has a default attitude of forgiveness toward anyone who publicly avows progressive views. It is believed that they must have worldlove and therefore would be highly unlikely to commit traditionally evil acts.

This shield of progressive virtue even extends to foreign terrorists. They need not express progressive views or display worldlove; merely having the same enemies as progressives is sufficient. For instance, at a 2002 Socialist Scholars Conference, a large crowd applauded an Egyptian novelist’s defense of a young Palestinian woman’s recent suicide/murder.   As David Horowitz writes in Unholy Alliance, even the socialist writer who witnessed this event was surprised that such a pathological movement was embraced by the progressive utopians attending the conference.  But both the radical Islamist and the devout progressive believe in a coming utopia. The radical Islamist’s faith compels him to attempt to dominate all non-believing societies in order to institute sharia for Allah; the socialist’s faith compels him to eliminate private property through state power, including violence, and bring on the millennium.  Newthinkers don’t take radical Islam’s pathology seriously because they think that religion itself is just an expression of the wretchedness caused by capitalist oppression.*

[Progressives] see Islamists through the filter of their own worldview’s unconscious beliefs. They note their common enemies and incorrectly infer that Islamists are therefore progressively virtuous.

Just as traditional Americans do not understand or often even recognize newthink, progressives do not understand or often even recognize Islamism. They see Islamists through the filter of their own worldview’s unconscious beliefs. They note their common enemies and incorrectly infer that Islamists are therefore progressively virtuous. As for the Islamists, they see the manifestations of worldlove among their enemies as weakness and an opening for attack.

* David Horowitz, Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left, (Regnery Publishing, 2004), p. 129.

Enhanced by Zemanta