Victory of the democracy spreaders

The Muslim Brotherhood and allied “Islamist” (translation: seriously Islamic) parties are in the process of taking over all the countries of the “Arab Spring”—Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and possibly Syria—and the BBC seems to think this is an entirely positive development.

As I’ve said before, when “Islamists” proceed to take over increasing parts of the West as well as of the Muslim world, the BBC and the rest of the liberal/left will also see that as a positive development. Liberalism will fulfill itself by destroying Western civilization—and, with Western civilization, itself. It’s as simple as that.

And what I’ve just said about liberals includes the neocons, a category that in turn includes most Republicans. Remember that the real purpose of the neoconservatives and most Republicans is to spread Islam—which, of course, the neocons and Republicans call “spreading democracy.” The fact that some of the neocons recoil at the results after Islamic rule has been successfully implanted in a country, such as Egypt, changes nothing. After all, have any of the neocons said that the U.S.-facilitated toppling of the Mubarak regime, in the name of “democracy,” was a mistake? Have any of them said that the U.S.-led toppling and killing of Khadafi, in the name of “democracy,” was a mistake? No. Even if they are not happy with all the consequences, they haven’t renounced in the slightest their policy of spreading democracy, which means spreading Islam.

And the same obtains and will continue to obtain as Islam continues to increase its power within Western society. Yes, the neocons are worried about jihadist and terrorist Muslims in the West, just as they are concerned about the “excessive” manifestations of ascendant “Islamism” in Egypt. But has a single neocon said that the non-discriminatory immigration policy which brought those jihadist and terrorist Muslims into the West was a mistake and should be abandoned? No. So the case is closed. The neocons and the neocon Republicans are, objectively, traitors, just as the left-liberals are.

- end of initial entry -

Doug H. writes:

You put it so very well when you said, “Liberalism will fulfill itself by destroying Western civilization—and, with Western civilization, itself. It’s as simple as that.” It’s exactly as I have been reading about the French Revolution. The elites knew they were headed towards their own destruction but would not stop.

Karl D. writes:

I was reading your post about the impending Islamist takeover in Egypt and the position of neocons and liberals which made me think of one of the most liberal shows on television ever. Star Trek. If you want to see what the liberal view of the perfect future is, one only need watch Trek. Especially Star Trek: The Next Generation. I have always loved Trek but found the liberal platitudes of the show to be at times quite nauseating. It is one big festival of tolerance, altruism, and moral relativism all day long. The one thing that liberals and Republicans could learn from Trek is the highest principle of Star Fleet and the United Federation of Planets (a galactic UN). The law of non-interference, or the “Prime Directive.” Under no circumstances will any federation members meddle in nor try and influence the internal affairs of any planet. Although sometimes to a suicidal point. And when one considers gays in the military? In Star Trek: The Next Generation, not only is the crew a smorgasbord of multiculturalism but entire families, children included, live aboard the ship. After all, even though the characters are military it would violate their human rights to be separated from their families. How long before we see gay and straight families alike living aboard aircraft carriers and submarines? Yes, it sounds laughable now, but I can see it happening. Liberalism, to boldly go where no man (excuse me, no ONE) has gone (nor should they have gone) before.

May 26

Indian living in the West writes:

I will, for once, indulge in a bit of bad taste and say that “I told you so” a good seven years ago. All that has now come to pass.

LA replies:

What exactly did you say seven years ago?

ILW writes:

Well I think my very first discussion was on how planting democracy in the Middle East will give power to the Islamists. I will have to find that thread.

ILW continues:

I found it. This one was our first discussion I think.

LA replies:

It is “America and the Method of Bush: Why do we simply assume that democratization will be a good thing?” dated May 14 2005. It’s very good. I will also link it from a new entry on the main page.

James N. writes:

It’s not just “democracy” that should be problematic for traditionalists, it’s “freedom.”

Somehow, concepts like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “choice” have been transmuted from means to ends. I’m sure there are linguists and grammarians here who could put this better than I have done.

“Freedom” always leads to, “Freedom to do WHAT?” “Choice” always leads to, “WHAT exactly is being chosen?”

I always agreed with Bush that the people of Iraq and Afghanistan wanted freedom. I never understood why he had no interest in what they wanted to be free to do. The governments of Saddam Hussein and Najibullah used their ability to constrain their peoples’ freedom to be even worse then they would have been otherwise. The government of Pakistan does exactly that today. The Taliban is probably the closest thing to what a free choice of the Pashtun people in Afghanistan and Pakistan would create, if THEY ever had “freedom.”

“Democracy” as a means of arbitrating certain choices (NOT all choices) is reasonably convenient. But democracy is ill-suited to those who would choose evil over good—and the virtues of democracy, such as they are, do not elevate the nature of that which is chosen—not even a little bit.

LA replies:

James is touching on the fundamental point that can lead people from the disastrous illusions and contradictions of liberalism to the clarity and sanity of traditionalism; I have made this point repeatedly and I will keep making it. If liberalism is not to destroy society, it must not be primary, it must be secondary to something else, to cultural or moral or other substantive values which are not themselves liberal. It’s a point that Jim Kalb and I have made numerous times over the years, each in our own way. Here James N. has made a valid and useful addition to the analysis. It is that liberalism/freedom can be a means to good ends, but it’s the ends that are primary, not the means.

A few months ago Mr. Kalb stated the general idea with maximum simplicity, without any loss of needed articulation. As I’ve put it:

As Jim Kalb said to me recently (I’m not sure if he’s written this), the difference between liberalism and traditionalism boils down to this: liberals believe that freedom (or equal freedom) is the highest principle. The truth that traditionalists believe is that the good is the highest principle. As long as people believe that freedom is the highest principle, they will support, or will be unable to oppose effectively, such things as mass diverse immigration, feminism, homosexual marriage, and the unending excoriation of the white West for its “racism.” Jim says that the turn away from this suicidal liberalism will come when people see that the good, not freedom, is the highest principle.

Applying this to James N.’s comment, freedom or choice is a means to serve the good. No rational person would support a freedom that led—indeed that was logically destined to lead—to the bad. Yet that is what “conservatives” have been doing, with their pursuit of Muslim freedom/democracy for its own sake, regardless of the consequences of such freedom/democracy.

James N. writes:

It used to puzzle me why, since it is now 66 years since the last legal meeting of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party, Germany retains an absolute proscription on the existence of the NSDAP or any similar organization, bans discussion in public of NSDAP ideas, bans publication of NSDAP literature, images, and songs, and strictly regulates access to historical materials which might lead to such ideas leaking out.

I mean, a twelve year old who joined the Party in 1945 is now 78 years old. An adult Party member who is still living is at least 90.

But in line with our previous thoughts, it makes sense that, in Germany, “freedom” does not include freedom to be a Nazi, “choice” does not include choosing to be a Nazi or disseminate Nazi ideas, and “democracy” does not include the right to vote for Nazis.

This is because the Germans understand the consequences of allowing the freedom to choose evil.

We, on the other hand, do not. Just check out World Star Hip Hop.

LA replies:

I agree entirely, both with the general principle (of course) and with your specific example. In response to people who have protested the German proscription on Nazism and Holocaust denial, I have written in the past that given Germany’s history, it makes absolute sense that it would criminalize both Nazism and Holocaust denial. Those factors do not obtain in the United States.

Various people on the far right, who at the core of their thinking are not traditional conservatives, believing in a moral order, but liberals, believing in freedom, do not understand this. They think Germany should allow people to be Nazis and to disseminate Holocaust denial.

LA asks:

What is World Star Hip Hop?

James N. replies:

Is a website where Negroes post videos of themselves beating up white people, among other degeneracies.

James N. writes:

I do wonder if the ban, in the long run, with have a paradoxical effect. But the reason they do it is clear.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 25, 2012 02:49 PM | Send