May 17, 2011

Auster on liberal dishonesty.

Lawrence Auster excels at following the thread of any thought or deed back to its essentials. He's one of the best examples of Henry Miller's idea of a philosopher:
For the first time I was talking to a man [Roy Hamilton] who got behind the meaning of words and went to the very essence of things. For the first time I felt I was talking to a philosopher, not a philosopher such as I had encountered through books, but a man who philosophized constantly—_and who lived this philosophy which he expounded_. That is to say, he had no theory at all, except to penetrate to the very essence of things and, in the light of each fresh revelation to so live his life so that there would be a minimum of discord between the truths which were revealed to him and the exemplification of these truths in action.
Tropic of Capricorn.

James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal is another example of this. Be that as it may, I love this from Auster on dishonest liberal rhetoric and foolish liberal views on the essential nature of man:
“A clash between Coptic Christians and Muslims left 55 injured late Saturday night in the second outbreak of sectarian violence in seven days, officials said.” In fact, this recent “clash” and other “clashes” mentioned in the article were all precipitated by Muslim attacks on the Christian minority. Also notice how every one of these neutral-sounding “clashes” results in churches being burnt, never in a mosque being burnt. Why the dishonest description of Muslim anti-Christian attacks as “clashes”? It’s not just the usual liberal/neocon protocol of covering up the crimes of Muslims; more specifically, it is the liberal/neocon protocol of concealing the actual results of Muslim “freedom.” When you give Muslims freedom, you don’t get liberal democracy, you get jihadism. This is the reality that the liberal West will keep concealing and will never voluntarily recognize, because to recognize it would mean that there are unbridgeable differences between Muslims and us, which would mean that the liberal dream of a single unified mankind is false. It is as false now as it was at the Tower of Babel. But liberal man, man who rejects God and worships man, will never give up the hope of building that tower whose top may reach into heaven, where men will have one language, and where nothing will be restrained from them which they have imagined to do.
As he makes clear, liberals -- like dogs who revel in the discovery of a dead skunk -- roll around in the unreal, mendacious, lunatic idea that Muslims are willing to coexist with the West or live in Western countries without subverting those countries by working to turn them into shariah hell holes replete with honor killings, female genital mutilation, and total subjugation of infidels, i.e., us.

The realities of Islam are otherwise. They are such as to require of us a complete rejection of and unrelenting hostility to Islam and its followers throughout the West. Also, an Auster position if I don't unfairly overstate it. Once the idea of Muslims as carriers of an enemy belief system is grasped, following that idea to its logical conclusion does not include inviting more of them into your country to live or take up space in our universities.

On the presence of huge numbers of hostile and incompatible Muslims inside Western countries, I again recite my mantra that, in the entire history of man on earth, the presence of huge numbers of such foreigners inside the borders of any land only came about after a catastrophic failure of arms on the part of the people of that land. Throughout the West, there was no such catastrophe but rather a deliberate invitation to those foreigners or an indifference to their arrival. Both quite baffling to anyone with any common sense and a cursory understanding of the history of Islam and the cultural realities of third world peoples.

"Liberal/neocon Mideast idols crashing left and right...." By Lawrence Auster, View from the Right, 5/15/11. (Quote is from the pointer to the actual article.)

No comments: