The Paradigm
At the time of this writing, there was a Mohammedan attack in a chocolate shop yesterday, and the shoppers held hostage, and two were killed; today Mohammedans assaulted a school in Peshawar, doused a teacher in gasoline and set him ablaze, and forced the students to watch, and then killed over a hundred children, beheading many. Meanwhile a church was broken into, the priest slain, and the children beheaded when they would not renounce Christ.
Earlier this year, schoolgirls in Africa were abducted and tortured and sold as sex slaves. Riots over Danish cartoons. Death threats against novelists. Theo van Gogh stabbed to death on the street. A British soldier beheaded in broad daylight on a street in England. The Boston Marathon bombed. A nightclub in Bali. A train in Madrid. The London Underground. The Bombay massacre. The school in Russia attacked, children tortured, killed. The Twin Towers. Khobar Towers. The S.S. Cole.
To see a fuller list, go to the Religion of Peace website. But this list goes only as far back as 2001. The real list goes back from the shores of Tripoli, to the Battle of Lepanto, to the Gates of Vienna, to the Seige of Constantinople, to Battle of Manzikert, and beyond.
Meanwhile, the list of atrocities carried out by the Baptists includes … nothing.
Maybe we can find Baptist on Mormon violence around the time of the Civil War, or something else not in living memory. For Catholic versus Protestant atrocities, we can uncover many in Ireland, and, before that, we need to dive back far enough in history that everyone is wearing lace or ruffs. My amateur’s knowledge of history tells me of few or no battles between Catholic and Greek after the Great Schism, and some tumults and riots between Orthodox and the Nestorians or Arians. The next time religious atrocities appear in Western history is the persecutions of Diocletian or Nero. Before that, the Roman pagans engaged in the greatest witch-hunt in history, wiping out members of a cult whose practices were abominable.
Hence there is no moral equivalence here. What is the occasional and historically anomalous aberration for Christendom is the heart and soul of the Dar-el-Islam. What for us is a freakish departure from our code of conduct is their code of conduct. A more perfect and absolute evil than performing the most grotesque and nightmarish atrocities the vile imagination of man can conceive in the name of God does not exist. Even the Nazis were more civilized than this — they did not use nerve gas.
The battle is existential and absolute. Compromise or coexistence is not possible if the enemy is unwilling to compromise and coexist.
The great puzzlement and horror about this battle is that the Left is firmly on the side of the Dar-el-Islam and firmly against Christendom. The Mohammedan mutilates and oppresses women in a fashion not even the Chinese with their foot-binding nor the Hindu with his suttee could match. The Mohammedan slays homosexuals, forbids speech and thought, imposes theocracy.
Mohammedanism is everything the Left says it opposes. And yet the Left embraces the Mohammedan. Why?
Few if any on the Left read or understand Marx, but his basic ideas have been carried along and become part and parcel of their worldview.
The Marxist paradigm is of two classes: (1) evil oppressors who control the laws and customs that are designed to be unfair, and benefit only the oppressors, and (2) angelic victims whose every misbehavior is the inevitable reaction to those unfair laws and customs. Now who fits into these two categories does not matter. It can be whites and minorities, men and women, Jews and Palestinians, moralists and perverts, no matter: facts do not matter. Only the paradigm matters.
The paradigm does two things, both crucial to the Left:
(1) The paradigm justifies any lie, any murder, any oppression, even the ten million murders done by Communism, and the endless lies from the press. The reason why any lie or murder is justified in this paradigm is that all evils in the world are laid at the feet of the oppressors, and all good attributed to the victims.
The paradigm simply shuts off the conscience. This is why Leftist talk like sociopaths.
(2) The paradigm provides an unearned sense of moral superiority, and flatters the ego. When the paradigm is assigned to moralists versus perverts, so that the moralists are ALWAYS wrong and the perverts are ALWAYS right, one actually gains more and ever more a sense of unearned moral superiority the more and ever more utterly lacking in moral conscience one is.
That the behaviors are self destructive and destructive of society is, for them, a feature, not a bug.
Many words have been spent debating in vain whether the Left are knowingly and deliberately aiding and abetting the destruction of civilization, or they are so drugged and dazed in fathomless stupidity as not to know it.
When one talks to a Leftist, and, at first, they seem sane and normal, as well educated as any man, or, at least, as well educated about recent matters. Of the past they know nothing.
And they are sane and normal on any topic except those touching their central insanity, the self-destructive philosophy they use to smother the conscience and to excuse themselves from any obligation or debt of fealty to the civilization in which they live.
Once that spot is touched, they utter word-noises without meaning, meant only to halt thought and halt debate, invariably an ad hominem attack to shut up any questions shining light on that spot.
This cannot be incomprehensible to any sinner. We all act this way about matters where our guilty conscience leaves a raw and red spot. We speak nonsense, make accusations, say anything, anything, to get the horrible accusation away from the red spot.
We even — and this is the important point — confess to crimes we did not do to draw attention there and away from spots where we are sensitive. This is the source of so called white guilt. The Leftist will confess freely to enjoying the white privileges of having slave owning ancestors, because he hates his ancestors, and feels no guilt whatever about this alleged privilege, because it is not something about which one can feel guilt, even were it real. One cannot feel guilty about a situation over which one has no scintilla of control.
When the paradigm is applied to male-female relations, it has the same effect. It shuts off the conscience. Now, shutting off the conscience in sexual matters leads to what is euphemistically called free love, that is, a free for all where all sexual partners attempt to exploit each other with consummate selfishness, and merely sneer when they encounter a partner so naive as to believe that love, commitment, or mutual respect will result. No, nothing results but hatred.
There is no substance to evil; it is always a sick version, a twisted version, of some good. The feminists hate masculinity and want to be men, and be like men, and so they want men to be boys.
A woman in a leadership role takes on the aspect of a mother, that is, someone who wants to shape the character of her charges: and this requires pliant and loving charges. A man in a leadership role takes on the aspect of a father, that is, someone who wants the tasks accomplished with minimal backtalk and fuss, by men who know their business, obey orders, and do their work, and work with the team, and keep their word. The internal character is little or no use to them.
Maternity is innately unequal, because it deals with character; Paternity is innately equal, because it is based on merit, based on performance.
Feminism, whether it admits it or not, intrudes the method and tone of maternity into leadership situations, and undermines equality. Hence the holier than thou aspect of nearly every feminist speech. Hence feminists act like nags and termagants because that is what works in a domestic situation with a henpecked husband: it is the winning strategy.
The husband, by his nature, seeks to make his wife happy and feels himself a failure if he cannot. The nag, by her nature, finds her most powerful weapon is to be made unhappy, and make her man weak by being immune to happiness. Hence the misery of the feminists. It is their default, instinctive behavior.
The Leftist, whether male or female, adopts this same instinctive behavior in dealing with political issue. Whenever a Leftist gets what he wants, he refuses to be happy. He merely demands more. He moves from rational demands to irrational. When the first Black president in history is elected in America, the Left demand that blacks criminals not be shot by police even while the criminal is assaulting the officer. The first generation of feminists, the suffragette, demanded the vote, a rational demand; this generation demands the word ‘bossy’ be banned, an irrational demand.
If any measure of the sheer, jaw-dropping insanity of these modern feminist were needed, it need only be recalled that the same week when the announcement was made of the latest word banned demand, the Iraqi parliament was enacting new law that would legalize rape, prohibit women going out of doors without the permission of husband or father, and legalize marriage for 9-year-olds. Of these goings-on, one hears not the slightest peep from the feminists.
No doubt they are all to busy rushing out to be the latest comic book where a Politically Correct Marvel Comics has made Captain Marvel into a teenaged Muslim girl. Because now is the time when we should be glamorizing and glorifying the Religion of Peace, lest those evil Christian bigots start lynching and rioting, eh, what?
This refusal to be happy is not just the tactic of a nagging and clinging harpy, harridan or termagant. It grows out of the paradigm. If one believes in the paradigm, all evil comes from the laws and customs and institutions imposed by the evil oppressor class upon the innocent victim class. Winning some concession, as the women’s right to vote, never changes the basic paradigm: the victim class can never be made equal to the oppressor class by definition. It is by definition impossible that the victims stop being victims nor that the oppressor stop being oppressors.
Only the revolution that creates the New Jerusalem, the paradise of People’s State of Utopia can do that. The mere fact that normal civilized mechanisms for creating the change, voting and debate and so on, were used (according to the paradigm, at least) proves that the basic power imbalance between oppressor and victim has not changed. Merely by being offered, the concession proves beyond doubt that it is worthless.
Then why, in in the war between Dar-el-Islam and Christendom, must the Leftist side with the Mohammedan, who will eagerly torture and kill him, after raping his wife and sodomizing his son before his eyes? The question becomes even more poignant when asked of a Jew voting for Leftist candidates and supporting Leftists causes. Is it merely a suicidal impulse, or is it something more?
I submit that it grows out of the paradigm. The point of the paradigm is to shut off the conscience, to have a ready excuse for hatred against the innocent, no matter how clean their hands, if they are of the wrong class, sex, or race; to have a ready excuse for letting the guilty off the hook, no matter his crime, if he is of the right class, sex, or race; and the point of the paradigm is to allow the guilt-ridden to feel saintly and superior, the moron to feel smart, the loser to feel like he won.
The paradigm is the overthrow of laws and rules in favor of feelings. That is what it is, that is all that it is. When sane people complain about the egregious hypocrisy and unfairness of the Left, they miss the point entirely:
Hypocrisy is Left. The Left is hypocrisy.That is what it is. That is all it is.
Leftism is institutionalized double-standardization. It is an attempt to cripple opponent by making them adhere to standards one neither believes nor feels any desire to obey. Rules are for chumps. Leftists do not break the standards of honor and decency which bind all other people; they blink like wide-eyed does in wordless surprise at the idea that standards of honor and decency should apply to them, or even exist at all.
According to the paradigm, all standards are a type of oppression, a tool used by the devilish bad people to victimize the innocent good people. Hence, breaking any standard is a meritorious act. This is one reason, by the way, why the Left are in favor of everything from Ebonics to videos of little girls swearing like sailors: it violates a standard of decency hence helps the overthrow of the evil world-system.
In the effort to gain unearned moral superiority obviously there can be no standards, for a standard would allow anyone meeting the standard to earn something, and anyone falling short of the standard to fail fair and square.
Having no standards and breaking all standards is central to Leftist thinking. They must both be hypocrites and accuse all others of hypocrisy.
Level the charge of hypocrisy is always a winning tactic for the Left, which is why they always do it, even in cases where the charge makes no sense. If the accused has broken his own standard, the standard seems weak and nonbinding, or the accused seems like he does not live up to it himself; if he has not broken the standard, the accusation nonetheless detracts from the legitimacy of the standard, or at least brings it into question, and puts the standard bearer on the defensive.
We are now in the position to answer the question about the Leftist infatuation with the Mohammedan monsters. It is not a suicidal impulse, or, rather not just that. It grows out of the paradigm itself: all the candidates for being slotted into the ‘oppressor’ slot have to be those who support the laws, customs and institutions of the West.
Well, like it or not, the laws, customs, and institutions of the West are Christian. The English Common Law is Christian, the Code of Justinian is Christian, the Great Books of Western Literature – including those written by pagans – are Christian. Marriage is Christian marriage. Kings are Christian Kings. Parliaments and Republics were founded by and meant for a moral and religious people and can serve no other, that is, a Christian people. This is why all attempts to run democracies or ‘people’s republics’ on an non-christian basis, on a secular humanist basis, end up as nightmarish slave camps and bloodbaths as in Cuba and China.
The paradigm not only excuses opening the city gates to the barbarians, it requires it. The paradigm requires burning the city to the ground, allegedly to clear the ground for the erection of the cloudy palaces of Utopia, actually to erect the walls and barbed wire of a slave camp. The city is Western Civilization. Western Civilization is Christendom.
There can be no surprise that the Left sides with Mohammedan mass murderers, rapists, suicide-bombers, torturers and beheaders, tyrants and racists and lynch mobs and killers any more than a surprise that the Left sides with Mao or Stalin or Castro, or, for that matter, with Jefferson Davis of the Confederacy or with Napoleon or with the bloody Terror of the French Revolution.
This has always been the side they were on. The wolves in sheep’s clothing are never on the side of the sheep. The hypocrisy between the fluffy outward coat of the sheep and the bloody teeth of the wolf is not a mistake or an irony or an oversight.
The hypocrisy is the point, the only point, that the movement called Leftism, Progressivism, Liberalism, Socialism, Nihilism, Postmodernism, and so on and on, ever had.
The Socialists who call their tyrant-states ‘People’s Republics’ are tyros and latercomers to the game of hypocrisy in thought and speech. Mohammed, centuries ago, who first decided that the word ‘martyr’ referred not to the innocent party dying while unarmed because he, the innocent, would not foreswear his religion, instead refers to the guilty party killing any unarmed bystander who does not convert under threat of death.
Craving unearned moral superiority logically requires the overthrow of all civilized laws and standards. Our laws and standards are Christian, a religion unique in world history for the transcendent integrity of its laws and standards. Hence craving unearned moral superiority logically requires the overthrow of Christianity and Christian civilization. Hence craving unearned moral superiority logically requires adherence to allies whose standards are a hypocritical and Orwellian as one’s own.
There is no need to ask why the Left allies itself with the Mohammedan. The question to ask is why it took so long to recognize that these are two sides of one and the same group, motivated by one and the same paradigm.
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
