• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

MSNBC…Associated Press….Big Unions and BIG GOVERNMENT Rally in Washington

 The Left met in Washington yelling  “ONE NATION”.   It rallied “The bigger the government the smaller I can be.”…..and cheered.

Nothing could be said at the rally that rings  more truth clarifying THE  GOAL of the MARXIST LEFT, and that its drive to establish  ”ONE NATION”!   One Nation under control of the People’s Committee…..Everyone votes alike, looks alike, acts alike, speaks alike reads alike, goes to leftwing rallies alike and with the exception of the Obamas who decide what being alike is, the get salaries alike and are expected to eat alike as use the same amount of energy…alike.

The Left isn’t interested in the idea of ONE NATION UNDER GOD, either.  It will decide the god of the day.

The  United States, a blue state under Obama,  and the states, California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, District of Columbia, Michigan, Washington……and until Chris Christie, New Jersey, nearly all are  financially bankrupt blue states are blue  run by amoral to corrupt Democrats and RINO Republicans who prefer the life of potentates rather than tend forthrightly and honestly to the problems that face our nation whether in the states or at the national level and confront the enemies of a healthy democracy.

LIKE PRESIDENT OBAMA THEY DECEIVE AND CONDUCT THEIR BUSINESS BELOW THE TABLE IN THE DARK OF NIGHT.   ONE NEEDS TO PASS LEGISLATION BEFORE ONE READS IT.

The Americans who vote for the largesse of the STATE met in Washington.  Here is what their LEFTwing press at Associated Press and MSNBC reported:

“We are together. This march is about the power to the people,” said MSNBC host Ed Schultz. “It is about the people standing up to the corporations. Are you ready to fight back?”

In a fiery speech that opened the “One Nation Working Together” rally on the National Mall, Schultz blamed Republicans for shipping jobs overseas and curtailing freedoms. He borrowed some of conservative commentator Glenn Beck’s rhetoric and vowed to “take back our country.”

“This is a defining moment in America. Are you American?” Schultz told the raucous crowd of thousands. “This is no time to back down. This is time to fight for America.”

With a month of campaigning to go and voter unhappiness high, the Democratic-leaning organizers hope the four-hour program of speeches and entertainment energizes activists who are crucial if Democrats are to retain their majorities in the House and Senate. The national mood suggests gains for the GOP, and Republicans are hoping to ride voter anger to gain control of the House and possibly the Senate.

Organizers insist the rally is not partisan. They say the message is about job creation, quality education and justice. However, the largest organizations, such as the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union, tend to back Democratic candidates.

And the first speakers hardly shied from criticizing Republicans.

“They want to change this country,” Schultz warned participants of Republicans.

More than 400 organizations — ranging from labor unions to faith, environmental and gay rights groups — partnered for the event, which comes one month after Beck packed the same space with conservatives and tea party-style activists.

Beck and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin gathered near the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech to urge a vast crowd to embrace traditional values. Though also billed as nonpolitical, the rally was widely viewed as a protest against the policies of President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats.

One Nation organizers said they began planning their event before learning about Beck’s rally, and said Saturday’s march is not in reaction to that.

Obama was spending the weekend at Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland.”

Comment:  No matter how difficult it may be to listen to such people as Ed Schultz…..Keep in mind, the Left once colored hims as the Democrat’s Dennis Prager.

Mr. Schultz is vile.  He is severely handicapped by not being able to clarify matters.  He smears his opponents.  He lies.   He  is a hack, a bloviator whose success lies in defaming. 

If folks do not listen to him, and carefully analyze his techniques of persuasion, they may  not know if such  words are true.   The dedicated Left always retort…there is no difference between the far right and us.  They all do the same lies….that’s politics.

No, not all lie.  Not all lefties lie, defame, bloviate, and are vile either.    Many Marxist leftwingers of the Democrat Party are very bright and clever with their arguments…..I know of none who clarify.’  I know of none who in any manner can compare with Dennis Prager as a teacher…..as one to clarify the differences of opinion to the  question.

The Global Warming People Video a New Form of NO PRESSURE!

James Delingpole at Telegraph.co.uk, writes an article regarding the new push advertisement designed to alert the British public to the needs of meeting Global Warming controls by the year 2000something or another.  

I viewed the video before I read Mr. Delingpole’s article.  

The Brits have been quite good about looking (and reporting) deeper into the Climate Change claims and scandals in which some British academics had taken part.  In truth, I found the film hillarious, but I wasn’t really quite sure who the bad guys were…….in truth,  thinking the video probably was made to make  fun of the United Nations’  financed government-academic plots to censor anyone questioning its climate change declarations leading to the Al Gore -Barack Obama  politics to dictate climate science no matter what the facts were.

What on earth are these Green fanatics  thinking with the creation of the next chapter of Carbon emissions reduction goals of ten:ten?……”NO PRESSURE!”

Well, I have always considered Brit humor rather wacky.  Judge for yourself. 

Warning:  This isn’t exactly your run-of-the-mill political advertisement.  I assume we will view the mini-movie as adults.  You may not take it as “hillarious”.

Click on here:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100056586/eco-fascism-jumps-the-shark-massive-epic-fail/

Dennis Prager: What Americans Should Know About The Chaos The Left Has Brought To California

The collapse of California as the state to emulate is complete, except for the official bankruptcy.  Its play-along Republican Governor, whom I truly like for the many times he has so eloquently described his love and appreciation for his adopted country, abandoned leadership for the easier social life of a star. 

Dennis lives in California.  Early this year he had this to reveal to his  national audience about the  modern nature of the state molded by the hands of its Democratic Party leaders, who have  a strangle hold over nearly every activity  in the state.

Here is Dennis’ report:

“ It takes a lot to turn California around from growth to contraction, from people moving into the state to a net exodus from the state, from business moving into California to businesses leaving California.

It takes some doing.

And the left has done it.

California’s Democratic legislature has been more or less able to do whatever it wants with California. The Wall Street Journal has described the result:

“The Golden State — which a decade ago was the booming technology capital of the world — has been done in by two decades of chronic overspending, overregulating and a hyperprogressive tax code …”

One might argue that’s this is a politically biased assessment. So here are some facts, not assessments:

– California’s state expenditures grew from $104 billion in 2003 to $145 billion in 2008.

– California has the worst credit rating in the nation.

– California has the fourth highest unemployment rate in the nation, 9.3 percent — higher even than the car manufacturing state of Michigan.

– California has the second highest home foreclosure rate.

– California’s tax-paying middle class is leaving the state. California’s net loss last year in state-to-state migration exceeded every other state’s. New York, another left-run state, was second.

– Since 2000, California’s job growth rate — which in the late 1970s was many times higher than the national average — has lagged behind the national average by almost 20 percent.

– California has lost 25 percent of its industrial work force since 2001.

Joel Kotkin, one of the leading observers of urban America, the presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University, recently wrote an essay on California, “Sundown for California.” He begins with these words:

“Twenty-five years ago, along with another young journalist, I co-authored a book called “California, Inc.” about our adopted home state. The book described ‘California’s rise to economic, political, and cultural ascendancy.’ … But today our Golden State appears headed, if not for imminent disaster, then toward an unanticipated, maddening, and largely unnecessary mediocrity.”

That is what left-wing policies have done to California. In Kotkin’s words, “the state legislature decided to spend its money on public employees and impose ever more regulatory burdens on business.”

Last week, Intel, the world’s largest maker of computer chips, announced that it would invest $7 billion to expand its facilities. Where? In Arizona, Oregon, and New Mexico. But not in California, the state in which Intel is headquartered.

The left is bringing the greatest state to its knees.

What generations created, the left destroys. There are few productive and noble institutions in America that the left has not hurt or attempted to hurt. But while the left destroys a great deal, it constructs almost nothing (outside of government agencies, laws, and lawsuits).

Take the Boy Scouts. For generations, the Boy Scouts, founded and preserved by Americans of all political as well as ethnic backgrounds, has helped millions of American boys become good, productive men. The left throughout America — its politicians, its media, its stars, its academics — have ganged up to deprive the Boy Scouts of oxygen. Everywhere possible, the Boy Scouts are vilified and deprived of places to meet.

But while the left works to destroy the Boy Scouts — unless the Boy Scouts adopt the left’s views on openly gay scouts and scout leaders — the left has created nothing comparable to the Boy Scouts. The left tries to destroy one of the greatest institutions ever made for boys, but it has built nothing for boys. There is no ACLU version of the Boy Scouts; there is only the ACLU versus the Boy Scouts.

The same holds true for the greatest character-building institution in American life: Judeo-Christian religions. Once again, the left knows how to destroy. Everywhere possible the left works to inhibit religious institutions and values — from substituting “Happy Holidays” for “Merry Christmas” to removing the tiny cross from the Los Angeles County Seal to arguing that religious people must not bring their values into the political arena.

And, then there is education. Until the left took over American public education in the second half of the 20th century, it was generally excellent — look at the high level of eighth-grade exams from early in the 20th century and you will weep. The more money the left has gotten for education — America now spends more per student than any country in the world — the worse the academic results. And the left has removed God and dress codes from schools — with socially disastrous results.

Of course, it is not entirely accurate to say that the left builds nothing. It has built vast government bureaucracies, MTV, and post-1960s Hollywood, for example. But these are, to say the least, not positive achievements.

In his column this week, Thomas Friedman describes General Motors Corp., as “a giant wealth-destruction machine.” That perfectly describes the left many times over. It is both a wealth-destruction machine and an ennobling-institution destruction machine.”

Comment:  It also produces Henry Waxman and Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, and Barbara Boxer.

The Australian on Politics and “Climate Change”

Do remember, however, that the Lefties who  pushed the Climate Terror button preached by Preacher Gore, first called it Global Warming.  We were all doomed.  (Well, we do know this inevitable is true, but not in the context political terrorist Al Gore and the UN IPCC declared.

Unless…….we were all doomed UNLESS we voted for Marxists who would save our souls and planet Earth,  and tax the wealthy and anyone else involved with private enterprise to death.   The funds would be shipped off to Obamalands of the Thrird world.   Left standing would be all of the glories of forced equality.

There was money to be made.  There were political battles to be won.  There was the World Wide Web of the  Marxist Left to nurture.  Private enterprise was the enemy and the U.N. had the money to deal to whomever would prove the point.

Charlatons were on the march……

But then, something happened on the way to the windmills.

Fraud…….Intimidation……Threats……Emails and the Climate Change house of cards which guaranteed the world as we know it would come to an end in a few decades fell into disarray.

Where are we now?  An Aussie website, The Australian, reviewed the following:

“BRITAIN’S science academy, the Royal Society, has acknowledged the limits of current scientific understanding of climate change, revising its outlook.

A 19-page guide prepared by leading international scientists, including society fellows, is an honest account of where climate change science is clear and where it is less certain, such as the impact of energy emitted by the sun.

The ragged intersection between science and politics is the point at which much of the climate debate has been derailed. Politics demands certainty to make a convincing case for co-ordinated action. Science, on the other hand, is driven by scepticism. Each hypothesis formulated from empirical evidence needs to be challenged and tested to within an inch of its life before its veracity can be assumed. The 43 society members now believe the society’s previous position was too strident and implied a greater degree of certainty than was justified.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s reports should have been seen for what they were, political documents. They were designed, quite reasonably, as a basis on which to build a political solution. The mistake was to elevate them to the status of divine prophecy. When the IPCC recommended in 2007 that nations reduce global emissions by 50 to 85 per cent by 2050 to have a reasonable chance of averting warming beyond 2C and “catastrophic” consequences, it was clear to those with a sophisticated view of science that the targets were based on assumptions fed into computer models. As the debate unfolded, those who exaggerated the evidence or presented only worst-case projections did much more to set back the cause of carbon restraint than the commentators they derided as deniers. Scare tactics have not worked, and will not work.

The Royal Society sets out a strong case for pursuing the cautionary, responsible approach long advocated by The Weekend Australian. The society cites strong evidence that increases in greenhouse gases due to human activity are the dominant cause of global warming. It is all the more convincing for its honesty and avoidance of doomsday scenarios pedalled by alarmists, whose proposals would wreak economic devastation. After a long, needlessly polarised debate, the guide is a welcome new start to help restore the credibility of climate science and civility to the discussion.”

Comment:  I don’t know about politics demanding certainty in the down under, but politics of the Al Gore folks is about buying votes.   When the argument is against the Al Gores, politics demands confusion….uncertainty…. so no voter knows what is going on, so they will choose against climate terror just to be safe.

The Al Goring of Osama bin Laden

John Hinderaker at Powerline has the following nitch on the New Osama bin Laden added to, not replacing, the Old Osama bin Laden:

I’ve thought for quite a while that we have al Qaeda on the run, but this clinches it: Osama bin Laden has retreated to the last refuge of a scoundrel, environmentalism:

Osama bin Laden criticised relief efforts in Pakistan and called for action against climate change in what appeared to be a new audio tape from the al Qaeda leader issued on Friday in an Islamist forum. …

Bin Laden also touches on global warming, the second time he is believed to have made climate change a prominent theme of one of his statements.

“The huge climate change is affecting our (Islamic) nation and is causing great catastrophes throughout the Islamic world,” he says in the tape.

Who knows, maybe someday bin Laden could win a Nobel Peace Prize, like Al Gore. Don’t laugh–after all, bin Laden must have the smallest carbon footprint of any political leader. An unheated cave, a few goats–talk about sustainability! He makes Gore look like a rank hypocrite. Well, to be fair, pretty much anyone does.

Comment:  While you’re at Powerline, take a look at today’s mini-movie of the decade: NO PRESSURE.  I am sure it will catch your attention all the way to the end….which will happen in under four minutes.

The Black Hole in Eric Holder’s Department of Unequal Justice?

What is at issue here is someone is actually challenging the Obama Left’s justice theory  that civil rights violations can only occur against minorities.  Since whites are the majority population, violations against black civil rights could not be carried over to the same violations if the victim happens to be white. 

This “rule”, apparently accepted by the Obama administration has surreptitiously become standard procedure in the Department  of Justice.   Apparently, this bit of duplicity was supposed to kept in silence.   More silent than the “rule” being at the base of the decision to deny the  Black Panther thugs who were standing at a voting station, November 2008, threatening white who might dare to enter and vote did anything wrong and dismissed the charges.   The thugs posed for pictures at the scene, looking formidable in their uniforms. 

Oh, the joy of being in the minority in America if the victim is a member of the Leftwing plantation culture.

But,  Christopher Coates arrived on the scene.  

Powerline has kept close watch over this bit of Leftwing racism.  Let’ see what the Powerline guy, Scott W. Johnson has  to report today:

“Christopher Coates is the former head of the Department of Justice voting rights section who defied the order of his superiors at the department to keep his mouth shut regarding the department’s treatment of the New Black Panther Party case. Coates testified to the Civil Rights Commission that the NBPP case suffered from the department’s belief in the racially based administration of justice.

At key points Coates took issue with the previous testimony of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez, though he carefully avoided any assertion that Perez’s testimony might have been willfully false. The Weekly Standard’s Daniel Halper adds a footnote to Coates’s dramatic testimony; Andrew McCarthy comments on it at NRO. Halper writes:

Jen Rubin previously reported in The Weekly Standard that an April 2010 letter documented Coates’s key allegations. The Weekly Standard has learned that the letter came from Coates himself and was sent to Jody Hunt, director of federal programs. Hunt participated in the briefing of Civil Rights head Thomas Perez on May 13, 2010, which Coates and other members of the [NBPP case] trial team attended. At that briefing, Coates’s concerns were related to Perez. Perez nevertheless testified under oath before the Commission that hostility toward race neutral enforcement of civil rights laws was news to him.

The powers-that-be in the department did their best to keep Coates from testifying last week:

In addition, sources now tell The Weekly Standard that after 11 pm on September 23, the night before Coates was to testify before the Commission, the same individual, Jody Hunt, sent Coates a letter advising him again not to testify. Only 6 hours earlier Rep. Frank Wolf had sent [attorney general] Eric Holder a letter warning him that Coates was protected under federal whistleblower laws. Jen Rubin contacted the Justice Department for comment. Spokesman Tracy Schmaler’s only reply: “The letter speaks for itself.” She did not respond to a follow up question as to whether DOJ would take disciplinary action against Coates. Coates could not be reached for comment.

Halper sums up:

Coates puts his explosive allegations about unequal enforcement of civil rights laws in writing. The same official who gets the letter sits in a briefing with Perez when the allegations are repeated. And then at literally the 11th hour before Coates testifies he sends out a letter which makes one last stab at keeping the story under wraps. Jen Rubin’s sources tell us that it’s not remotely possible that all of this would have occurred without the express knowledge and direction of senior DOJ officials.

Halper adds an update to his post with a comment from Rep. Frank Wolf (R., Va.):

“If, in fact, Assistant Attorney General Perez was aware of Mr. Coates’ concerns prior to testifying under oath before the Commission, this is a shocking development. It would indicate the extent to which this department has misled the public about the equal enforcement of federal voting rights law. I am determined to stay with this until the department comes clean with the American people.”

In a Republican administration, this story would be on the front page of every serious newspaper and heads would already have rolled. The underlying Department of Justice story involves a racially based double standard that cannot be publicly avowed, admitted or defended. There is of course another kind of double standard operating in the mainstream media that keeps this story under wraps, and we all know what it is.”

Comment:  By the Obama administration’s definition, there cannot be an anti-white racist bone in the Obama body, no matter how many times he had listened to his “father figure”, Reverend  Jeremiah “Goddamn America” Wright’s sermons.   Mr. Wright seethings against Hillary Clinton’s whiteness couldn’t be deemed racist either.

Oh the joy of being on the Left and be able to dictate  the meanings of all the words spoken and written  in the English language.

One has to go to college to learn these things…..as Dennis Prager often reminds us.

Christian “Guilt” and the Fall of American Values in Its War With Violent Islam

An excellent article written by Bruce S. Thornton at City Journal emphasizes not everyone in the world views evil or good the same as the vast majority of  Americans and others of some degree of western culture  foolishly assume.

We are all isolated into our own world of knowledge, or the lack of it.  We see others in the world and outside our neighborhood, and rely on the essentials of stereotypes to help us understand the unfamiliar.  Our stereotypes, despite leftwing Marxist and black racist propaganda, are lifesavers in presenting each individual with the immediate understandings of where danger might exist on one hand, and where friendship exists on the other.

A new neighbor moving in next door who is white does not, in the immediate discovery, elicit the same 76 years old of my living’s experience as if the new neighbor is black.  I admit that.  The last fifty years of living has warned me to be on the alert.  Good neighbors are important to a family’s happiness.   More blacks commit street crimes, more violent crimes, and some are just plain hostile toward whites.   Sorry, America, but let’t be truthful.

Black racists and the American Left, especially those at university, in the press, and Hollywood,  advertise  this as white racism, and ironically will reach into their bags of anti-white racism in maintain their political control of politics in the black community. 

Their racist propagandists will and have attacked this most natural human condition, stereotyping, as an vile, inherent ’invention’  of American whites to keep blacks in misery. They do so because they are Leftists in religion and deed.  They ignore  the fact that leftist whites perform similar stereotyping as do blacks if I were to move into a black or lefty neighborhood.   

The stereotyping will not provide the same picture, though, will it? …..despite what leftist professors, especially the anti-white racists which inhabit the Black Studies, Women Studies, and Gay Studies Departments of nearly every American university in the land.

In his article, Bruce S. Thornton, reminds us that stereotypes are also potentially misleading, when Americans assume the rest of the world has American JudeoChristian based values on right and wrong, the important and not important, and  style, approach and language.

The most important stereotypes we make come our collections of everything we have ever experienced.  They are our first feel for understanding.

POLICIES BASED ON ILLUSION is the title of Mr. Thornton’s writing.    His subtitle tells us more……”The West fails to imagine that its adversaries might have different values”.

As you read this article, please reflect on whether the Obama Left in America has the same basic values and goals of the vast numbers of Americans throughout the 225 year history of the nation……or are they new values from another part of the World?

Bruce S. Thornton’s “Policies Based on Illusion:”

“The great historian of Soviet Russia, Robert Conquest, once wrote something about the dangers of naïve diplomacy that I’m reminded of daily. “We are still faced with the absolutely crucial problem of making the intellectual and imaginative effort not to project our ideas of common sense or natural motivation onto the products of totally different cultures,” Conquest observed. “The central point is less that people misunderstand other people, or that cultures misunderstand other cultures, than that they have no notion that this may be the case. They assume that the light of their own parochial common sense is enough. And they frame policies based on illusions. Yet how profound is this difference between political psychologies and between the motivations of different political traditions, and how deep-set and how persistent these attitudes are!”
America’s 30-year struggle with Islamic jihad has been defined by just this sort of failure of imagination. Yet the diplomatic pathology has much deeper roots, and reflects a larger set of assumptions about human and state behavior going back to the Enlightenment—what we can call utopian universalism. In this view, all peoples are essentially rational and want the same political and social goods, particularly personal freedom and material prosperity. If they behave irrationally or destructively in seeking other goods, blame this on the fact that they have not yet been educated to their true interests. They remain mired in ancient superstitions, particularly those of religion, ethnic loyalties, and nationalism. Yet in time, the progress of knowledge, technology, and global trade will sweep away these impediments to happiness.
This vision of human identity lies behind the idealistic internationalism that dominates inter-state relations in the West. The same global progress that has led to international law, international courts of justice, and transnational institutions like the United Nations will, it’s widely believed, eventually liberate people from irrational loyalties and violence. Diplomatic discussion and engagement, predicated on a global “harmony of interests” and mediated by transnational organizations, will replace violence as the means for resolving conflict.
Far from universal, however, these ideals reflect a particular history—that of the West—beginning in ancient Greece and Jerusalem and developed further by the Romans and Christianity. They have become globalized mainly by Western power and dominance. Nor does the history of the past two centuries support the narrative of steady progress away from the use of force in interstate relations. Within the West itself, this “moralizing internationalism,” as historian Corelli Barnett calls it, was exploded by the carnage of the twentieth century, in which nationalist and ethnic loyalties, incoherent political religions like fascism and Communism, and finally a renewed religious fanaticism have created mountains of corpses.
The critical intellectual error in this utopian view is the assumption that because all peoples are capable of desiring goods such as freedom and prosperity, then these goods will trump all others. Yet people pursue multiple goods, and can desire even conflicting goods at the same time. As Michael Novak has written, there is “universal hunger for freedom,” one that all peoples can satisfy with the right political values and institutions. But people and nations have other “hungers” as well: to follow God’s will, to get rich, to acquire power and prestige, or to take revenge on an enemy. If we dismiss these goods and national interests as mere illusions from humanity’s benighted past—ghosts to be exorcised by material prosperity or education or diplomatic engagement—then indeed we will construct policies based on illusions, policies doomed to fail and thus compromise our security and interests. Diplomatic engagement demands an effort of imagination to recognize these motivational goods, no matter how strange or repellent, rather than dismiss them or subordinate them to our own.
This failure of imagination in international relations was apparent long before our current conflict with modern jihadism. World War I demolished the pretensions of nineteenth-century internationalism, whether socialist or liberal democratic. Yet despite that lesson, the Allies created the League of Nations, the ineffectuality of which was clear long before the rise of Adolf Hitler. Hitler manipulated masterfully these delusions about universal goods, especially the desire for peace, and used the diplomatic “engagement” at Munich to take another step toward his aim of an Aryan empire. And as Conquest has chronicled, an expansionist Soviet Communism was abetted by the delusions of Cold War diplomacy predicated on false assumptions about Soviet motives.
Munich in particular illustrates the dangers of projecting one’s own motives or goods onto an aggressor. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain failed to imagine that Hitler and the Germans, fired by revanchist passions and the lust for recovering lost prestige and power, were eager for conflict and had spent most of the interwar period preparing for it. Worse yet, this ignorance of true motives puts one at a disadvantage when dealing with an aggressor, who can conceal his aims under the pretext of diplomatic negotiation (as Hitler did), thus buying time and misdirecting his adversary by the duplicitous endorsement of ideals he knows are important to the West.
Despite the examples of these historical failures, we have made the same mistakes in our conflict with Islamic jihad, starting with the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Rather than attempting to understand the religious motives of Islamic jihadists, which they clearly articulate and link to their reading of traditional Islam, we reduce them instead to our own secularized, materialist beliefs. In the West today, religious faith is often dismissed as a Marxist “opiate” or a Freudian “illusion,” a mere compensation for more significant material causes such as education, economic advancement, or political freedom. Religion is trivialized into a mere lifestyle choice or source of private therapeutic solace. Shaped by these prejudices, we assume that Islam functions similarly for Islamists as Christianity does for today’s Christians, and so cannot be the prime mover of their murderous deeds. Thus we refuse to believe that, in the twenty-first century, a major world religion could serve as the primary motivating force for jihadists around the world.
Such has been the failure of imagination plaguing our encounter with violent jihad. Armed with these reductions of the Islamist cause to our own prejudices and ideals, President Obama has attempted to “engage” the Islamic world with a diplomatic outreach predicated on American guilt—as if sufficient American penance will dissuade jihadists from their religious fanaticism. Yet for all of the efforts at a new beginning he made during his speech last year in Cairo, for all the “extended hands” and solicitous letters to Iranian leaders touting their religion and civilization, Obama has reaped little but contempt. Iran continues its march toward nuclear weapons. As it has in the past, the failure of diplomatic imagination has blinded us to our enemy’s motives, leading us, as Conquest warned, to “policies based on illusions”—and putting our national security at risk.
Bruce Thornton is the author of Greek Ways and Decline and Fall: Europe’s Slow-Motion Suicide .

 

Comment:  It is at the base of every religion to gather an ever larger flock of believers.  The history of the Leftwing has always been to seek power BT ANY MEANS POSSIBLE.  Truth is used only when needed.   Lying, deceit, bigotry as practiced by Robert Jensen of the School of Journalism, University of Texas at Austin is a good example of  this religion in practice.  I believe it reeks thoughout the land in the world of our modern universities corrupted by this religion of the New Left.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 126 other followers