My enemy's enemy is my best friend and Islam hates capitalism without something like sharia law imposed, which isn't terribly capitalistic. Like communism, they are ideologically driven and, if you ask me, both communism and fundamentalism support the same Three Stooges slapstick. The problem is, Christian fundamentalism supports capitalism, while Islam is more neutral on the subject.

I do not use the word liberal, since its popular use has lost its meaning. I use the word “Left” instead. — Emptyheady

Like "Left" has a precise meaning.

I find that most of the basic terms that describe common political views have been debased. It isn't just that people have mis-used terms, though they have done that. It also the case that politics have also changed. For instance, a lot of what the far left (communists and socialists) once consisted of has crumbled. The concrete referent isn't there any more. What used to be the far right (libertarians and communist conspiracy paranoiacs have moved in their positions relative to some past "center point". New positions which have nothing to do with libertarianism or anti-communism now occupy the far right. Center? Who knows what the center is?

Plus we now live in a "post-factual world" where the binding between rhetoric and reality has been snipped. In this world the two parties say various things during the election campaigns and may or may not remember what they said after they have won, and may do something else entirely different after the inauguration.

Politicians and PR firms have worked to death terms describing left, center and right. Liberal? Conservative? Who knows what they mean? The continuum of positions on certain issues has shifted "rightward".

Eventually these terms will either be replaced or new definitions will be found, or both. It will happen in the fullness of time. Until that happens, we are stuck with vagary. "Democrat" and "Republican" can only refer to organizations and specific persons. What any given Democrat or Republic will or will not vote for is increasingly difficult to work out.

Neo-paranoiacs suspect the wealthy classes of deliberately destroying the means of rational political discussion (the words) as a way to destroy opposition to their rule. This isn't anti-left or anti-right. It's designed to disenfranchise everyone with New Speak.

It's a double minus downer.

“More perplexing to Ms. Hirsi Ali is the hostility leveled at her by some on the left for her efforts to challenge Islamic law and teachings.” — Emptyheady

It is complicated. Remember that Ms. Ali rose to prominence in Dutch government based on claims she suffered abuses in a Muslim country, then, just when she was exposed by Dutch journalists that evidence showed that her real life story was completely different than what she claimed, she left the country to help right-wing extremists fan anti-Islamic sentiment in the US. They probably don't mind her criticism, (they are quick to criticize Islam, too), but she represents a trend toward racism.

My first impression is that it seems bizarre because those two ideologies are at odds with each other. Islamic cultures are notorious for their contra-leftist (or progressive) behaviour and beliefs, especially regarding women’s rights, LGBT rights and oppressive violence. — Emptyheady

That's true. The values of the majority of Muslims tend to be what would be considered "right" relative to western society. They would oppose abortion, gay rights and insist that religion be raised to prominent importance in society and politics. There are similar conservative values for gender roles in society. I remember back in 2000, most US Muslims were backing Bush for president.

The mind boggling part is that I often hear leftist excuse such behaviour or they become unreasonably sceptical, which is ironic given that the same group are known to proclaim ‘rape culture’ [in areas with the lowest rates of rape]. Ben Affleck called it “gross” and “racist” for pointing this out. — Emptyheady:d635

If you a referring to the incident I think you are, remember that he was speaking to Bill Maher and Sam Harris, who are as "left" as you can get. They criticize all religious beliefs as ridiculous and that they lead to social disparity. I think that Ben Affleck was correctly pointing out that their criticism of Islam was only fueling racism, fear and hatred in the left. Some of their claims of bad behavior tended to conflate social and religious beliefs. Their opposition to all religious beliefs only created yet another island of intolerance.

I don't think there is any alliance between Islam and the left. It should be clear that politics these days is not defined by any ideological or political alliances, but oppositions. There is opposition between the left and the right-wing religious extremism. They might overlook the absurdity of embracing virtually the same values and irrational beliefs in an attempt to fight against the more persuasive mass hysteria. Once you allow that to spread, it is more difficult to reason or argue for progressive values of liberty and tolerance.

I think part of it has to do with the (mostly white) progressive condescension towards 'dark people' basically. They see Muslims as a group of oppressed 'noble savages' who need care and protection by whites. Kind of like a white saviour thing.

I agree, it's utterly absurd. You have groups of western progressive homosexuals speaking out against the 'racism' (Islam isn't a race) and oppression that Muslim minorities face, and yet the majority of those Muslims literally think homosexuals should be punished by death.

The progressives would never have this sort of attitude to a minority group of white people. You can often hear them insulting stupid dumb redneck hicks etc. And yet to level these sort of insults at Muslims ("terrorist" "camel-jockey" etc) is blasphemy to the progressive mindset.

Progressives don't see 'darker' people as morally culpable as whites. When a white Christian says homosexuals should be punished by death he's (rightly) slammed as a violent bigot. When a middle eastern Muslim says the same the liberals go silent *crickets chirping*, or they start mentioning the crusades, or some other irrelevant nonsense.

Progressives = crazy

Ms. Ali rose to prominence in Dutch government based on claims she suffered abuses in a Muslim country, then, just when she was exposed by Dutch journalists that evidence showed that her real life story was completely different than what she claimed... — swstephe

Is that so? I would be interested in knowing the details of that.

Sure, here is the Dutch documentary on her:





So this kind of gets into "unreliable testimony" territory.

... yet the majority of those Muslims literally think homosexuals should be punished by death. — dukkha

Do they really? Could you point me towards the poll that was taken?

Progressives don't see 'darker' people as morally culpable as whites. When a white Christian says homosexuals should be punished by death he's (rightly) slammed as a violent bigot. When a middle eastern Muslim says the same the liberals go silent *crickets chirping*, or they start mentioning the crusades, or some other irrelevant nonsense.

I don't think this is right. It's not that those vocal Muslims aren't condemned, just as it's not that those vocal Christians aren't condemned. Because they are. It's that one doesn't then condemn Islam (or Christianity) or Muslims (or Christians) in general because of the violent bigotry of a vocal minority.

Progressives = crazy — dukkha

Dukkha, you are doing the same kind of thing that you think the progressives are doing: projecting some stereotypes which have some validity, (as stereotypes are wont to have) onto groups of people.

You are not altogether wrong, of course. Neither are progressives, Moslems, fundamentalist Christians, socialists, nor atheists all wrong, all right, or all alike. You know this of course, you being a worldly-wise sophisticated intelligent thinker.

Dammit, one day I wish I could just meet an archetype. I just don't get out enough I suppose. (1)

(1) personal inexperience

Do they really? Could you point me towards the poll that was taken? — Michael

It varies from 8% to 99%.

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2013/04/gsi2-overview-1.png

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/22/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/

edit: I remember that I did some calculations regarding this poll, it is worldwide more than half of all Muslims.

That shows how many support Sharia law. Although Sharia law has homosexuality as a punishable offence, it doesn't state what that punishment is (and so doesn't state that the punishment is death).

I remember that I did some calculations regarding this poll, it is worldwide more than half of all Muslims. — Emptyheady

Did you take into account the size of the Muslim population of each country, and all the countries missing from that list?

Have a look at this, Leftists confirming the crux of this post.

it doesn't state what that punishment is — Michael

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/homosexual.htm

For the lazy: stoning to death is the punishment.

But I will leave some room for """progressive""" interpretations, like just some non-lethal form of punishment... ◔_◔

Did you take into account the size of the Muslim population of each country? — Michael

Here is Shapiro doing it with outdated data and lower percentages than those of 2016.

I can't be arsed to do the proper calculations right now for 2016, but seeing those percentages, I am reasonably confident that it is well above half.

Leftist are just more sensitive to the possibility of crimes being committed against Muslims who live in their communities.

For the lazy: stoning to death is the punishment. — Emptyheady

I think you reveal yourself here as an amateur Islamic scholar, unaware of the subtleties, nuances and rules of abrogation in that deeply complex religion. Allow me to educate you:

While stoning to death is AN accepted method of killing gays (Quran 7: 80-84, 15:72, 27:58, 29:40), it is not the ONLY method.

Gays can also be killed by throwing them off roofs, THEN stoning them if they are not already dead. OR they can be burnt at the stake.

We left wing milk and water liberal political correctness fanatics do not need to agree with the arseholes whose human rights we defend.

Thanks, I thought homosexuals were forced to smoke weed. Silly me and my """progressive""" interpretations.

We left wing milk and water liberal political correctness fanatics do not need to agree with the arseholes whose human rights we defend. — unenlightened

But you don't defend the child-brides, you don't defend the raped, you don't defend the beheaded, you don't defend the genocided, or the genitally mutilated. You do however defend those practices. Well done!

You know me so well, arsehole.

You know me so well, arsehole. — unenlightened

Precisely, you will insult me (though you wouldn't dare to do so to my face) but you won't say a word against the Orlando terrorist who targeted homosexuals.

Yeah I support terrorism, don't I?

Do they really? Could you point me towards the poll that was taken? — Michael

It's an interesting subject, recently a Dutch scholar published a book (thesis) about the role of multiculturalism and it's effects https://www.amazon.co.uk/Choosing-Sharia-Machteld-Zee/dp/9462366349

She earned her doctorate and is considered to be a proper modern feminist, yet suffered some backlash from left-wing feminist who appear to be pro-multicultural / pro-Islam.

(You'd have to run them through Google translate, they're Dutch)
http://www.volkskrant.nl/opinie/schrijf-vrouwen-niet-voor-hoe-zij-emanciperen~a4405451/
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/10/24/een-echte-feminist-komt-juist-op-voor-moslimas-4960632-a1528197

I found it somewhat disturbing that both those articles were written by three females together, from post docs in the Humanities, professors of culture, professors of gender based violence, etc.

An English article with a similar gist: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabby-aossey/muslims-are-the-true-feminists_b_9877692.html

I am unaware of the left vs.right divide in our universities but a bunch of self proclaimed left wing feminists ganging up to try and influence public opinion through reputable newspapers makes me doubt their function as teachers for our population; especially when, upon dissecting their articles, what they write is full of fallacies and appeals to emotion.

Not implying they shouldn't be teaching, just doubts towards the role of their ideological baggage and how such ideological baggage might turn into political idea's being peached.

Of course, one must know by now that we are being played for suckers. You and I, "left and right", "conservative and liberal". This is hardly news to anyone certainly.

A pyramid has a left and a right on the bottom. The top is just the top. And those on top want to stay there, which is difficult because there is not much room and the fighting is no-holds-barred.

Divide and conquer is probably oldest strategy around. And it is working on us so well that you will see another civil war in the Ununited States, before you see a parade celebrating both sides. And that potential civil war would be just fine with the status quo. They are ready for it, whichever "party" (now there's Orwellian doublespeak. No fun at this party) is in office. There may be two parties, but they are two sides of the same coin. And they don't wish to share that coin with us. Or anything thing else. Those who study philosophy and the human mind should be able to see past this game. But passions and fog are blinding.

So we can waste our time, energy, efforts, and money on wearing our official red or blue team merchandise and yelling at our neighbors. Or we can take the difficult steps needed in order to see clearly. There is nothing wrong with our eyes or our minds. But there is a thick fog covering everything that makes it hard to see. Guess who is running the fog machine? Action is needed, but without our vision we are like the Three Stooges smacking each other on the head, much to the amusement of the Pharaohs (and their billionaire backers).

Still don't believe this? Just picture yourself on top of that pyramid. You are the ruler with immense power and money. You want to stay on top for as long as possible. The fighting at the pinnacle is fierce. The mob and natives are restless, and they want answers now. Before they storm the Bastille, they must be weakened. Divided and conquered. Is that not what you would do to hold on to power?

In my heart, there is a hope that this post is all cynicism, bs, and recycled conspiracy theory. There is also a fear that it isn't.

Germany is in the position of having no choice but to integrate the 1.2 million refugees (1/6/16 WPost) it took in last year. While there is an apparent clash of clash of cultures, Germany has a very proficient culture with a plan.

The following is from:
"Cities and refugees: The German experience" Brookings Institute study 9/16/16
https://www.brookings.edu/research/cities-and-refugees-the-german-experience/
1) they distributed the refugees according to tax and national funding parameters which is a predictable and efficiency system deviations from the assigned quota norm are minimal.
2)the cities where the majority of the refugees were relocate to have to varying extents their own issues of housing, labor, and all the civic issues prior to arrival of there people. In some cities the situation is now acute.
3)the current framework for allocating funding and expenditures across federal, state, and city governments imposes uneven burdens on city-states and large cities and the government is in process or rectifying these allocations and giving cities a seat in on Federal decisions that will have a direct effect on them.
4)cities such as Hamburg and Berlin have shown a remarkable ability to innovate in the face of crisis. Innovations have included an expanded role of civil society, the use of technology to engage community participation, and the rapid building of non-traditional housing.

In the words of Nigel Farage its "Too late. The horse has bolted." The debate of Left versus Right is over. The government has decided to integrate this population, to make it its own, which will take time.


Aren't politicians a type of walking archetype...we call them representatives? Instead of the collective unconscious, they reflect the choice of the collective conscious?

The first problem in discussing this is that a lot of people, including the sources you listed that I checked out (I didn't examine all of them), simply claim that "The left loves Islam" without actually giving many (if any) examples of statements from leftists that are being interpreted as them loving Islam.

What I've observed online on other message boards, including some political message boards, is that a lot of people (whether they're on the right side of the political spectrum or whatever) make hasty generalizations about Islam, very similar to how people would make hasty generalizations about blacks or Jews or whatever, folks who are left-leaning or perceived that way (like myself when I'm interacting with conservatives) will point out that the hasty generalization is unjustified, that it's bigoed, or whatever, and then the person who made the hasty generalization will say, "Oh! You love Islam! How can you support oppressing women" and so on.

So it's a misinterpretation.

What folks on the left putatively support ("putatively" because I do agree that they're hypocritical about this in some regards--I particularly can't stand the PC/SJW crowd for example) is tolerance of different beliefs, lifestyles, etc., and they disagree with bigoted, blanket-statement hasty generalizations based on the actions of a subset of people in whatever category.

Thanks for your informative post. I live in the mid-USA, and it is difficult for me to imagine living in an area flooded with more and more refugees each day. The countries in Europe had their hands full already, before the influx of foreign people seeking refuge. Hats off to Germany if they can find a solution to this crisis. It would serve as an example for other nations. As an aside, i feel that Time magazine's "Person of the Year" should have been "the Refugee", imho.

Divide and conquer is probably oldest strategy around. And it is working on us so well that you will see another civil war in the Ununited States, before you see a parade celebrating both sides. And that potential civil war would be just fine with the status quo. — 0 thru 9

I agree it is an end result of a "divide and conquer", (dīvide et īmpera), strategy. But that strategy is usually employed by an external power wishing to conquer a region. Come in, find some minor ideological difference, then keep the locals fighting over their identity so they have to come in and take control to "maintain order". It is a bad strategy for just one local side. Historically, this strategy doesn't last for very long as the locals tend to unify and revolt. So, who is this external power? Could it be Russia? It would have a lot to gain by keeping the US and Europe under control and out of the picture.

Thanks very much for your reply. Of course, my post was on the speculative worst-case scenario side. I just wonder if some organizations (whether local or foreign, public or private) have a vested interest in stirring people against each other. Noam Chomsky said "We are hurtling towards self-destruction at an alarming rate thanks chiefly to an advertising and propaganda system that goads people from infancy towards apathy, isolation, passivity, helplessness and separation."

BTW, happy holidays everyone! ;)

I hadn't noticed this thread earlier. I was too busy waging the war against Christmas, in my case on behalf of Sol Invictus whose feast day, Dies Natalis Solis Invicti (also his birthday, of course) is likewise December 25. The same is also said regarding Mithras by the way, whose birth was witnessed by shepherds. I have my tauroctony scene set up already, complete with Mithras, the bull and the torchbearers, Cautes and Cautopates. It's a festive time of year indeed.

It isn't clear to me that the Left, to the extent it exists, has sanctioned the excesses of certain proponents of Islam. But it has seemed to be excessive in its efforts to object to criticisms of Islam. Christopher Hitchens found himself abandoned and reviled by his friends on the Left because of his stand against what he called Islamo-fascism; but he was against all forms of theocracy. The Left seems to have lost itself in a kind of fog of smugness brought about by its adherence to the view that we of the West are incapable of judging those different from us, and have no business doing so in light of our own excesses. Indeed, the whole idea of judging especially when matters of customs and morals are involved seems to be objectionable to some.

Remember that Ms. Ali rose to prominence in Dutch government based on claims she suffered abuses in a Muslim country, then, just when she was exposed by Dutch journalists that evidence showed that her real life story was completely different than what she claimed, she left the country to help right-wing extremists fan anti-Islamic sentiment in the US. They probably don't mind her criticism, (they are quick to criticize Islam, too), but she represents a trend toward racism. — swstephe

This is an outright smear. Nothing in her history shows her to be supportive of "right wing extremists" (I suspect you've set the bar rather low for this) or racism. Quite the opposite in fact.