Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, Musings, Philosophy sans Sophistry, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism, Technology > On the Unwillingness of Public Liberals to Criticize Islamic Zealotry

On the Unwillingness of Public Liberals to Criticize Islamic Zealotry

The last few days have seen almost continuous mass-media and internet coverage of a series of terrorist attacks in Paris which started with the Charlie Hebdo shooting and ended with the Porte de Vincennes hostage crisis. As many of you know, incidents of this type have become a somewhat regular feature of the global news cycle. While the locations, details, casualties and scale of such incidents vary – they all seem to share a common storyline.

They are perpetrated by devout muslim men within a specific age range and almost always living in a country where muslims are the minority. While the exact reason given by the perpetrators changes from incident to incident, it almost always involves some perceived insult or injustice to their professed religion.

So, what is going on? Why are such incidents almost always perpetrated by the followers of one particular religion? What makes them so sensitive to real or perceived slights to their invisible friend or his long dead supposed human mouthpiece? Why are they so interested in making others accommodate their religious belief system? Well.. I will save my answers to those questions for another post. Instead, I will focus on a most peculiar phenomena seen in western countries in response to such incidents.

One of the most consistent public ritual seen in western countries after such an incident are the almost unanimous statements by political leaders, public intellectuals and mass media personalities which loudly proclaim that the incident in question had nothing to do with religion (specifically Islam). They then go on to claim that Islam is a “religion of peace” and that the perpetrators were not “real” Muslims.

Many readers might have noticed that these public rituals and proclamations have become more predictable than the terrorist incidents that necessitate them. But why are the official governmental responses of western countries to Islam-inspired terrorism so oddly similar? Also, why don’t such incidents have any worthwhile effect on relevant governmental policies such as immigration or integration?

Now, there are some who believe that such a peculiar set of official responses and oversight are deliberate and part of a nefarious conspiracy to “islamize” western countries. Others see this state of affairs as a result of the “west” losing its way, will, vital force or mojo. Some think that the west has become too soft and decadent or is racked by post-imperialist guilt. I believe that the answer lies elsewhere and involves far less conspiracy, organization or even thinking. But before we go there, let us quickly examine a few popular theories on why westerns countries are being unusually accommodating to militant Islam. For sake of simplicity, I will divide existing popular theories on this subject into two camps.

The first camp consists of theories centered on the idea that the peculiar response of western governments to islam-inspired terrorism is part of some great conspiracy. These theories require us to believe that western politicians and public intellectuals are very smart, highly organised extremely greedy and working according to some master scheme to somehow gain more power or retain it in the future. While the mental image of very smart, organised, greedy politicians and public intellectuals scheming to create a world that would make them richer or stronger is appealing and would make a great book or movie- it is simply not true. The vast majority of political leaders and public intellectuals end up their positions because of some combination of luck, accident of birth and internal intrigue. To put it another way- they are not especially intelligent, competent or farsighted.

Theories from the second camp, in contrast to those from the first, are centered around a different myth. This particular myth is rooted in the idea that whites (especially those in western countries) are intrinsically superior to others in all respects- but especially in matters of public and private morality. Of course, this myth totally ignores actual historical facts such as genocides of indigenous people on multiple continents, slavery and its relationship with capitalism, multiple revolutions, myriad wars and both world wars. Anyway, proponents of theories in the second camp see the “west” as having become too soft, decadent, unwilling to effectively confront external enemies etc. But is that really the case? The USA had no problems going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan or conducting warfare and drone strikes in countries like Pakistan or Yemen. Furthermore countries like UK, Australia, France and Canada have joint participants in one or more of such military operations.

It is therefore clear that both camps of popular theories are inadequate to explain the most peculiar response of western political leaders and public intellectuals to islam-inspired terrorism. But what if there is another explanation for such behavior- one that does not require you to invoke complex machinations or unrealistic beliefs.

Over the last couple of months, I had written a few articles about SJWs- especially Why SJWs Want to Censor Games While Studiously Avoiding Rap Music and The Priorities of SJW Activism Expose their Real Motivations. In the later, I said the following:

Pseudo-activists or SJWs have no interest in solving problems other than increasing their public status, power and income. They are just parasites exploiting existing niches for their lifestyle created by pre-existing system dysfunction. Also, SJWs do not actually believe in the ideologies they profess at every public occasion. Their publicly stated beliefs and ideologies are simply covers for their real motivations, namely- becoming rich and famous by screwing over other people.

So what does this have to do with the way western political leaders and public intellectuals respond to islam-inspired terrorism. Well.. a lot! To understand what I am going to say next, you have first look at the social contract (or the lack thereof) in pre-WW2 western countries. As many of you know, the pre-WW2 west had tons of poverty, deprivation, coercion and lacked anything approaching a functional social safety net. This widespread misery in the midst of technological progress and selective prosperity resulted in many social pathologies such as extreme nationalism, both world wars, many right-wing and left-wing totalitarian governments etc. It also gave rise to the modern socialist liberal movement.

In the aftermath of WW2, many older ideologies and socio-economic compacts were discarded because they were either useless or dangerous. In the west, socialist liberalism was pretty much the only ideology left standing. Moreover, its implementation delivered a very rapid and widespread increase in the material living standards of countries that adopted it. Even today, all developed country (including the USA) are pretty close to the original socialist liberal path. And this brings us to another question.

Why has the general adoption of socialist liberal policies not eliminated poverty and unnecessary material deprivation in developed countries?

This is far from a trivial question. As many of you know, the ability and resources to ensure that everybody living in developed countries enjoys a stable middle-class lifestyle has existed for the last few decades- but somehow it has never translated into the elimination of obvious poverty or materiel deprivation. Sure.. most people in developed countries still enjoy a decent, if somewhat unstable, lifestyle. But why has the acquisition and maintenance of a decent and stable lifestyle become progressively harder in developed countries in the last two decades?

The short answer is that it comes down to human nature. People like to abuse, steal from, impoverish and kill other people- even if they have enough. Consequently, all stable hierarchical societies will end up progressively impoverishing the majority of people in that society. This occurs whether the society is a pre-industrial kingdom or a post-industrial liberal socialist society. Furthermore all human hierarchies promote and are ultimately lead by the most short-sighted, deceptive, greedy and cruel individuals in that society.

That is why mainstream political leaders, public intellectuals and mass-media talking heads throughout the “west” now seldom seriously contemplate, discuss or propose effective action against issues like endemic poverty, progressive impoverishment or economic inequality. However they are also unable to redefine themselves as anything other than socialist liberals. Infact, it is pretty much impossible to govern as anything other than a socialist liberal in this day and age.

Consequently, they overcompensate by promoting nebulous and hard-to-oppose ideas such as “diversity”, “multiculturalism”, “tolerance”, “increased immigration” etc.

The problem of islam-inspired terrorism is therefore just an “unexpected” side-effect of modern official socialistic liberal overcompensation. Of course, nobody in power (especially sociopathic courtiers) want to admit that they were wrong and therefore fallible and not totally in control. So they make excuses and try to divert attention away from them. In any case, the political leaders, public intellectuals and media people in most western countries do not see their fates as being tied to the countries they live in. Therefore they have little interest in the ultimate outcome of their policies and decisions.

What do you think? Comments?

  1. January 11, 2015 at 9:46 pm

    Islam, just like Christianity is a religion of the sword…

  2. January 11, 2015 at 9:49 pm

    on a different note, read this story of a cam grrrl…

    http://www.laweekly.com/arts/i-was-a-web-cam-performer-5163525

    Just like a typical feminist, she thinks men are pieces of shit. Especially telling is when she uses the cable guy in her cam show. She makes $600, but doesn’t offr him any money. And yet, he’s “privileged.”

    Well, that is something I keep on saying. Arguing with people who make obviously false claims is a waste of time because they have no interest in changing their worldview.

    All those MRAs, PUAs and other assorted CONservative morons who are trying to engage and argue with women are just wasting their time.

    • P Ray
      January 12, 2015 at 4:11 am

      Good find.
      I can’t wait for her camshows to get recorded by a viewer, and then she gets identified.
      It’s funny how women can earn much more than men while doing something of little lasting value … but she’s oppressed.

      • hoipolloi
        January 12, 2015 at 12:25 pm

        It can’t be said any better!

  3. sth_txs
    January 12, 2015 at 8:19 am

    If you really wanted to reduce poverty, get rid of government controlled central banking which consistently imposes inflationary policies that always impoverish people. Also, eliminate as many taxes and regulations so their will be jobs for people. Inflation and taxes are what keep people poor.

    Eliminating one type of tyranny does not stop another one form taking its place. It is the property of the system, not who is in the driver’s seat.

    The central problem is that all impersonal human hierarchical systems will morph into tyranny. In my opinion, the probability that humans will make themselves extinct is far higher than them evolving past their limiting behaviors.

  4. Ted
    January 14, 2015 at 10:03 am

    There is a more straight-forward reason why France finds itself in the cross-hairs of Islamists. It has been involved in military adventures in the Middle East & North Africa to a very high degree over the past 3 years. It wanted a bigger strike on Syria, but the US said no. When 10% of your population is Muslim, and those Muslims see French planes & soldiers engaging in open-ended military campaigns in their home countries, is it that surprising that as little as 2-4 people are going to be pissed about it?

    Timothy McVeigh was angered by law enforcement actions in Waco. We all remember how he expressed his displeasure. It was not by voting.

    • hoipolloi
      January 14, 2015 at 3:17 pm

      “It [France] has been involved in military adventures in the Middle East & North Africa to a very high degree over the past 3 years. It wanted a bigger strike on Syria,….”

      These days the ability to cause a lot of violence is no longer the monopoly of governments. That is because of the easy availability of explosives and fire power (AK-47s, rocket and grenade launchers etc.) to individuals combined with mobile phones and internet. A couple of individuals can cause harm to people and property as much as a small army. It was not like this a few decades ago. Societies and nation states should be mindful of this changed dynamic in structuring and implementing their policies towards people; and become increasingly inclusive in sharing wealth and power instead of being greedy and legalistic.

      There now available alternatives from legal and electoral processes for dis-empowered groups; not withstanding who is right and who is wrong. A perceived injustice is reason enough. Governments and various industrial complexes can’t hide behind archaic laws,media propaganda, police brutality and military intervention.

    • P Ray
      January 15, 2015 at 5:22 am

      There are much easier ways to strike back, and involve, for example … just for one day, ignoring directives for preparation of food items that can be frozen. Or interfering with them.
      The people doing those jobs are very poorly paid.
      Many of them, could also be working there illegally.
      Interesting things happen when disenfranchised people realise that the rich eat what they prepare, and a society that treats them as subhuman, naively expects results without repercussions.

  5. hoipolloi
    January 16, 2015 at 8:39 am

    @stonerwitha: “Islam, just like Christianity is a religion of the sword…”

    Knowing the personalities of their founders, the difference between the two religions is obvious with respect to use of violence. Indian history provides a clear picture of the difference between Islamic and Christian invaders. One is a continuous tyranny of a thousand years which continues to today through the State of Pakistan, and the other is punctuated by sporadic violence ending in India’s membership in British commonwealth of nations.

    • September 3, 2017 at 4:42 pm

      With Christianity, the “sword” issue is complicated by a divisive interpretational question involving the (so-called) “Old” and “New” “covenants”. That question asks, “Which, if any, of the Old Covenant applies to how followers of Iesus Christ are obligated to live?”

      There do exist rare Christians who answer that with, “The teaching, command, and principles of the New Covenant, as revealed in what are called ‘The New Testament Scriptures’, supercede those of ‘The Old Covenant’. And, in the New Covenant, Iesus forbids all violence and even physical self-defense.” These rare groups teach forms of what is called “non-resistance” (based on Iesus’ words, “That you resist not evil” from the Sermon on the Mount).

      Historic conservative anabaptist groups such as the Mennonites and Amish hold this as a fundamental belief and practice — they believe that using physical force for even personal self-defense is sin for a follower of Iesus. They are totally non-violent, even more radically non-violent than conscientious objectors. They believe it is sin, for examples, for a Christian to serve as a police officer or even as a judge who would have to sentence others to physical punishment.

      A careful prima facie reading of the entire accepted canon of the “new testament scriptures”, including the parts attributed to Paul, seem to support their interpretation.

      However…almost every other Christian group inevitably hold interpretations that at least portions of “the old covenant” as still in effect for followers of Iesus. The “Old Testament Scriptures” are where they extract justification for self-defense, the use of physical force, nationalism, military intervention, capital punishment, and violence against perceived threats, criminals, and/or enemies. In fact, if Christians followed wholly the Old testament scriptures, their essential behavior would be little different than Islam’s regarding “the sword”.

      The fact that the prima facie reading which supports total non-violence is so contrary to human survival instincts and human tribalism probably makes this latter interpretation more palatable to most people and most Christians.

      The difference between Islam and Christianity on the sword issue, then, is a matter of Islam not facing the same serious “which scriptures does God obligate us to follow today?” which Christians do. Islam faces interpretive questions, but not to the essential extent that Christianity does with its “old and new covenants” dilemma.

      By the way…I am an agnostic/atheist.

  6. nothing
    January 20, 2015 at 2:15 am

  7. February 3, 2015 at 12:31 pm
  1. August 9, 2017 at 6:03 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: