Friday, July 09, 2010

Islam and the Left - Two Sides of the Same Coin

The Islamists and the Leftists have the same goal. Absolute power. Islam, like Communism, is a means to that end

On the surface of it they seem to have very little in common. The left claims to be progressive, embraces gay bars, abortions, feminism, worker’s rights civil rights, multiculturalism and obscene slogans. The Islamists throw acid in women’s faces, hang gays on every streetcorner and repress minorities and freedom of expression.

This seeming contrast baffles many who demand to know how for example the left can champion Islamic regimes which mandate the death penalty for homosexuality. The answer is very simple. The people asking the question have mistaken the facade for the reality.

The left is socially progressive only in its revolutionary phase. The Soviet Union, Castro’s Cuba and Communist China all had much the same view of gay people—that Iran does today. While gay writers in America campaigned for the USSR or Cuba, both those regimes imprisoned gay writers. Homosexuality was a criminal offense in the USSR until its actual fall. None of this bothered liberals in the West, who were happy to trek to Moscow, meet with Soviet leaders and blame the US for the Cold War. And then come home and talk about how intolerant the United States is.

The USSR was happy to discuss the civil rights of African-Americans in the US. Liberals however did not care that most of the African-Americans who came to Russia early after the revolution wound up in Gulags or dead. This has been documented in books such as Black on Red: My 44 Years Inside the Soviet Union by Robert Robinson, an African-American engineer who came to find a job but was unable to leave for over four decades, while remaining constantly in fear for his life in a racist society.

Then there’s Castro’s Cuba, which practices unofficial racial segregation. Yes, not a fact you’re likely to see in a Michael Moore documentary.

Jorge Luis García Pérez in Cuba, a pro-democracy activist who was only recently released from prison, said: "The authorities in my country have never tolerated that a black person oppose the regime.” Carlos Moore has said; "There is an unstated threat. Blacks in Cuba know that whenever you raise race in Cuba, you go to jail. Therefore the struggle in Cuba is different. There cannot be a civil rights movement. You will have instantly 10,000 black people dead.” Do you think that any of the Hollywood liberals like Spielberg or Costner who fall over themselves praising Castro care? Why would they.

Shall we discuss worker’s rights? In the West, Communists championed unions. In the USSR, striking workers were meant with machine gun fire. In 1962, workers in the city of Novocherkassk tried to go on strike to protest pay cuts. They were gunned down in the street in front of city hall by Soviet troops. This mind you was in the days of the relatively "moderate” Communist regime of Khrushchev. Independent unions were illegal there. Just as they are illegal in the USSR.

It’s possible to write volumes on this topic, but let’s just cut to the chase. An actual left wing dictatorship brutally represses everything they claim to fight for.

While in the West, experimental artists were cheering on the USSR, in the USSR, such art was considered degenerate, just as it was in Nazi Germany. And the same went for literature. The USSR did push a sham feminism and occasionally abortion rights, not because they believed in it, but because they needed to expand the workforce.

On the other hand divorces were hard to come by, and women who obtained them risked being expelled from the Communist Party. All the elements of political equality and civil rights that the left claimed to be fighting for, were in fact completely absent from Communist regimes. And that never bothered the left at all.
The social progressivism of the left has never been anything but a fraud

The social progressivism of the left has never been anything but a fraud. A tool used to recruit bohemian activists to fight on their side, while purging them once the revolution was successful. The left tries to overturn the values of a target society as part of a comprehensive revolutionary assault. That doesn’t mean that its actual values are different. Once the left gains absolute power, it seeks to create a static and unchanging system. The perfect Utopian society with immovable laws administered by an endless political bureaucracy.

In the real world this translates into a repressive search for stability. Which means banning exactly the same things that the left had been fighting for. And the first thing to be banned is always the right to dissent. A right that the left insists on for itself when it is out of power, but does not permit to others when it is.

George Orwell expressed this closed circle at the end of Animal Farm by having the "new bosses” who were once pigs become indistinguishable from the farmers, the "old bosses”. The pigs had not been interested in an animal run farm. What they all along wanted was to take over. To become the farmers. Championing the rights of all animals to be free was only a tool to accomplish their end goal. Absolute power.

This finally brings us back to Islam. There has never been any contradiction between the left making common cause with Islamist movements and regimes that murder gay people. Because if the Left in the West ever gained absolute power, they would murder them too. For that matter 90 percent of the idiots attending their anti-war rallies would end up in front of a firing square. Does this sound far-fetched to you? Guess what, virtually every Communist regime did the same thing in its time.

Do you know what the worst possible way to survive a Communist takeover is? It’s being a member of a right wing organization. Do you know what the second worst way is? Being a member of a left wing organization. Do you know what the third worst way is?

Being a member of the Communist party before the takeover. Yes, the third worst thing to be when the Communists take over, is to be one of them. Because you’ll only get to live long enough to help wipe out the members of right wing organizations and the members of left wing non-Communist groups, before your own turn comes.

This is not just the norm for Communists, it’s a common pattern on the left. The French Revolution degenerated into horrifying massacres and endless executions in exactly that same way. First the radicals purge "enemies of the state”, then they purge each other, then they themselves are purged to make way for a more stable system. The end result is a repressive state that has wiped out anyone who might want to change things. Which was the goal all along.

So the idea that the Left would have only moral objections to the Islamists is just plain naive. In fact the Left and the Islamists agree on the essential bullet points, including the part about using actual bullets and who they want to kill. As far as both Left Wing and Islamist leaders are concerned, 90 percent of their movements consist of nothing more than useful idiots good for nothing but cannon fodder.

Don’t believe me? When was the last time, a Hamas leader sent one of his sons to blow himself up? It never happened. And never will.

The Islamists and the Leftists have the same goal. Absolute power. Islam like Communism is a means to that end

The Islamists and the Leftists have the same goal. Absolute power. Islam like Communism is a means to that end. This is what makes them so dangerous. Their goal is to create absolute tyrannies based on ideologies that promise a better world. The ideology is what brings them to power as useful idiots kill and die, thinking that they’re fighting to create a Utopian society run according to the Koran (a book supposedly dictated by an illiterate merchant who used his claims of getting divine messages from angels to rule over an entire region) or Marxism (essays produced by a man who never worked for a living, but was supported by the profits from a textile factory) that will usher in a new era where everyone (except all the people they killed) are happy.

The Left is on the same page as the Islamists. Just as they were on the same page as the Nazis. Just as they’re on the same page with every reactionary totalitarian regime in the world, except those that they think they can overthrow, or those that are allied with the Great Satan or the Imperialist Capitalist Powers.

The Left tells its followers that they’re smarter and more moral than ordinary people. What it really means is that they’re dumber and more willing to sacrifice for its goals. The Islamists tell their followers that they’re braver and more religious than ordinary people. What they mean, is that their followers are suicidally stupid and easily led around the nose. The common denominator isn’t very hard to see. The Left is the Islam of the West. And Islam is the Left of the Middle East. But labels like that are virtually meaningless. Both are just totalitarian movements using gullible idiots following an ideology worked out by vicious greedy men to seize power. That is all there is to it in the end. The rest is just technique.

The Left has no problem allying with Islam. Nor does Islam have a problem allying with the Left. That is because they both agree on their enemies and their objectives. They have more of a problem allying with people who actually want to be free, then they do with slaves and their slavemasters. Of course once in power, one would have to absorb or destroy the other. Just as Communism and Nazism united to consume Eastern Europe, with the inevitable consequence that once the job was done, one would have to destroy the other. Hitler successfully fooled Stalin and nearly destroyed the USSR with a first strike. Islam will likely do the same thing to the Left, just as it did in Iran.

The Red-Green Alliance

The Red-Green Alliance works because both are variations on a theme. The theme is totalitarian rule. It is not the Left that threatens Islam, nor Islam that threatens the Left—but free societies and individual freedoms. When such societies prove successful, then they particularly infuriate those who insist that they must be replaced with their totalitarian rule. These twin impulses, fear of a loss of control over their own societies, and a lust for power, is what energizes the Jihad of Islam and the Revolutions of the Left. Both want control, rather than freedom. And offer promises of Utopian tyrannies in exchange for freedom.

Destroying Europe, America, Israel, Australia, Canada, etc is about power. Absolute power. And it is about putting out whatever light still shines in the West, for fear that it will spread. The light of freedom and civilization stands in the way of tyranny. And tyranny is the endgame of both the Left and Islam. Two sides of the same coin. Janus, with one head looking back to the impossible past of Mohammed, and with one head looking forward to the even more impossible future of Communism. Both forcibly ignoring the present in which people can still be happy and free.


British cities 'waste millions' on pointless jobs

Councils have wasted millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money employing people to do pointless jobs, a Cabinet minister will warn today. Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, will criticise positions such as “audience development officers”, “cheerleading development officers” and “communications waste strategy officers”. All have been employed by local councils in recent years.

Mr Pickles will also say that the failure of councils to share chief executives and other senior officials wastes money. He will tell councils to stop making the superfluous appointments and call on local authorities to merge departments.

Mr Pickles’s decision to publicly name and shame workers for doing “pointless” jobs is likely to inflame tensions with trade unions. Councils are under pressure to save tens of billions of pounds as part of the Coalition’s austerity drive.

In a speech today to the Local Government Association’s annual conference, Mr Pickles will tell councils they must publish job descriptions on their websites. “Putting jobs on your website not only shows local people where their money is going,” he will say. “It will also enable them to question whether those jobs are really needed at all.”

A number of councils employ “audience development officers” to help promote local museums and heritage sites. Rebecca Williams, an audience development officer at Warwickshire council, hit back at Mr Pickles’s suggestion that her job was a waste of taxpayers’ money. “I wouldn’t do it if I didn’t believe in it,” she said. “We work with the county museum service and the county records office to make them accessible to the people of the county.”


New Leftist Australian Prime Minister is still keen on internet censorship

She has now postponed any action on the matter until after the imminent Federal election but has not resiled from her aims

THE federal government hopes to introduce legislation to enable its controversial internet filter by the end of the year. Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said the legislation would be this year "sooner rather than later".

Timing for the web filter legislation, which has earned the ire of ISPs and internet freedom advocates, depends on the date for the looming federal election and whether Labor wins office. Political commentators have earmarked August to October as possible election dates. The polls are likely to occur before the Victorian election in late November.

Since the plan was mooted in 2007, Senator Conroy has changed his mind several times on how the filtering scheme would eventually work. The latest measure is to create a list of web pages comprising refused classification-rated content and force internet service providers to automatically block them. Legislation will be introduced to require all ISPs to filter the RC content list.

New Prime Minister Julia Gillard backs the filtering plan. She made her support known to ABC radio today, saying she understood public concerns over the scheme but that Senator Conroy was working to find a resolution that would be in the "right shape".

When asked if Ms Gillard had set a deadline for the filtering legislation to be introduced, Senator Conroy said: "We are prepared to spend as much time as necessary to make sure we get it right. "The discussions we're having behind the scenes with various players are more interested in getting the implementation and the actual policy right rather than saying it's got to be done by some artificial deadline."

Those talks include consultation with ISPs on how to increase accountability and transparency for RC material. "I expect it (the legislation) to be this year. I expect that we will table the legislation this year sooner rather than later. "If you're thinking 'does that mean December?' - no, I wouldn't think it would be December, but there could be intervening events that I am not in control of," Senator Conroy told reporters in Sydney today.

The policy would be implemented 12 months from the passage of legislation.

RC broadly consists of illegal content but Google and various internet experts believe the list could potentially contain legitimate material.

Labor Senator Kate Lundy's suggestion for an opt-in approach has been rejected.

US Ambassador to Australia Jeff Bleich has urged the government to ditch the plan, saying child pornographers can be captured and prosecuted without using mandatory internet filters.

Ms Gillard told ABC Darwin she was happy with the policy aim of the filtering plan. "Clearly you can't walk into a cinema in Australia and see certain things and we shouldn't on the internet be able to access those things either so Stephen Conroy is working to get this in the right shape.

"I'm happy with the policy aim and the policy aim is if there are images of child abuse, child pornography ... they are not legal in our cinemas, you would not be able to go to the movies and watch that ... you shouldn't ... no one should want to see that. "You're not able to go to the movies and see those kinds of things why should you be able to see them on the internet? I think that that's the kind of moral, ethical question at the heart of this."

But she understood concerns raised over the filtering program, especially how it would impact speed and remove proper use of the internet. "It's not my intention in any way to jeapordise legitimate use of the internet," she said.

The filtering legislation was expected to be introduced in the autumn or winter parliamentary sessions but former prime minister Kevin Rudd postponed it until after the next election.


Hard time may be the only deterrent for young offenders

by Damien Leith, commenting from Australia

Last weekend my heart sank as I watched the 60 minutes investigation into the horrific UK murder in 1993 of 2-year-old James Bulger. The vicious murder of the toddler by Robert Thompson and Jon Venables is regarded as one of the most violent crimes of Britain’s modern history, particularly because the boys who committed it, were themselves only kids at 10 years of age. This story always leaves me deeply saddened and sickened to my stomach every time I hear about it – not just as a father, but as a human being. The fact that two young boys could be so calculated, violent and evil is hard to comprehend.

When you hear about terrible things like this, the last thing you expect is to discover is that they were carried out by children themselves. It’s terrifying. What’s equally hard to comprehend is the sentence they received – 8 years of detention and rehabilitation. Is that a suitable punishment?

At the time, the public were outraged, many claiming the sentence was too lenient and that rehabilitation was a waste of time. “Lock them up and throw away the key”, was the catchcry. There was further outrage when it was later discovered that the boys won a court battle to receive new identities as soon as they’d turned 18, which was the same time they were allowed back into society.

This year marks the 17th anniversary of little James’s death but the case is far from closed. Last week it was revealed Jon Venables, now 27, has violated parole and faces potential jail time on child pornography charges. This is outrageous and makes a mockery of the whole process.

It makes me question: what was the rehabilitation? Is there really any such thing as rehabilitation and if so, how can you be 100% certain that it’s effective?

Some claim that irrespective of an individuals up-bringing and personal circumstances, there are those that are innately prone to violence and harm; it’s inherent to who they are. The real question is should the justice system be more strict with youth offenders?

I remember when I was growing up I used to hear people say that it didn’t matter what you did wrong, if you were under the age of 16 you’d never go to jail. Instead, you’d be sent off to a juvenile detention centre. Among the “bad boys” in town, that never frightened them and the thought of time in “juvy” was not enough to deter their actions. Is that still the case now?
I would imagine that there are very few adults out there who could claim that jail time wouldn’t scare them and it makes me wonder should youth have something similar to be frightened about – a fate behind bars – to avoid?

This week The Manly Daily reported a gang of 15 youths dressed in black, wearing caps and beanies invaded and robbed an Elanora Heights IGA store in plain sight of the security cameras. Many laughed directly into them. Clearly those youths aren’t worried about the consequences of their actions. They’re committing crime for kicks without a care in the world. What happens in these cases when police catch the culprits? It would seem that juvenile detention isn’t an effective threat.

We heard earlier this year about the wheelchair bound Canadian who was viciously assaulted by two boys aged 15 and 16, the 15 year old was out on bail at the time and had a history of violence. What’s going to happen to these two kids now, how long before they’re back on the streets doing similar violent attacks?

Our schools are making headlines too. Ministers regularly state schools are probably the safest places for kids, which I don’t doubt, but we can’t overlook the fact that violent assaults at schools have increased in the past five years. I was shocked recently to read that police in Penrith were investigating an incident where a 9-year-old boy threatened a classmate with a knife. What drives a 9 year old to do something like that?

If kids are starting so young, what does the future hold? In such an environment it’s no wonder parents are criticised for “helicopter parenting” or being overly protective.

Kids are exposed to far too much violence and crime from a young age; on the internet, on handheld games, in movies and even among young celebrities. Lindsay Lohan was sentenced this week to 90 days in jail for repeated violation of her probation; three years too late, since her crimes stem back to arrests in 2007.

The system failed here, she was allowed to re-offend a number of times before finally being punished. What a joke – whatever happened to the saying, “only do the crime if you can do the time”?

As a parent it’s hard not to worry about what our children will be exposed to in the years ahead. Kids are bringing knives to school, not only as a weapon but as protection. I don’t want to one day discover that my kids are worried about their safety, that they feel the need to carry something for protection. I don’t want them to fall into the wrong type of company and end up going down a desperate path.

The message out there should be loud and clear, there will be consequences to your actions. The last thing we want in Australia is a case like Jon Venables – he committed a horrendous crime 17 years ago, was ‘rehabilitated’ and now is up on charges again. It’s a sickening thought.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.


No comments: