The Left, Islamism, and a Moment of Truth?

The Left, Islamism, and a Moment of Truth?

Allyson Christy

Rising influences like Bhaskar Sunkara and the socialist magazine Jacobin that he founded in 2011, and the appearance of advantaging current perils of a faltered American Left, seek to embody unification of young enthusiasts and older adherents to socialism, communism, Marxism, activism, and the like. Tactics have nonetheless and long seemed to embrace, embolden, and manipulate selected demographic pawns—minorities, immigrants, gender egalitarianism, youth and elderly constituents, generating political and economic compunctions, and all which urge the core of activism and society’s disadvantaged towards envy and confliction. The list further includes, but is not limited to, the LBGT community, sexual and reproductive issues, children, education, wage and labour, poverty, environment, and even animal rights activism. Such societal elements represent campaigning tactics the Left has traditionally advanced, together with apposite conditioning strategies often cloaked with progressive ideals.

The Left has cleverly managed to champion selected and relevant pawns, encompassing core and poignant connections relative to stirring misgivings, expanded politicking, and a continued influx of adherents by fanning conflagrations of emotionalism and partisan frictions. The tactical aim has seemed to indubitably sow seeds of revolutionary configurations for decades. Furthermore, such discernments may evoke the resilient thrusts and therefore similarities, at least with doctrinal juxtapositions, to elements of the Bolshevik Revolution. Moreover, Trotsky once inferred sufficient contradictions within any class of society¾henceforth, plausible raisons d'être for conspiracies, as for example, a minority progressing “a movement of the majority.” Such quintessential approaches may thereafter be recognised to entreat institutional conversions.

The current surge at challenging this clever and expansionist utopian movement lies within the timely core of anti-democratic ideals and a cunning assault infiltrating the borders of Western societies. Islamism, saturated with extremism and its explicit incitement of turmoil, making use of sweeping religious propagandas, unassimilated migrant penetrations and recruitment avenues to radicalism and terror, is concurrently anchored within proximate crossroads of Western encroachment. Preponderant dictates of Political Correctness (PC), however, substantially safeguard and similarly enable this increasing initiative of tension, discord, and violence. Synchronised with modern-liberal undertakings that hold Western society politically, socially, morally, and culturally captive despite the appearance of perfectionistic intentions, PC as a subduing tool has instead, amassed and therefore imposed a constricted mind-set upon society at-large. Exploiting impassioned propaganda and manipulative regulators has shaped a framework of communicative limitations that steadily precludes frank and open debates.

Wielding power by exploiting ardent codes that galvanise social causes and underdog defences, in essence, conveys methodical contexts that instead, may suppress underscoring fervent hypocrisies and impending realities of border and state security risks. As thus, systematic undertones of advancing superficialities may furthermore compromise crucial focuses against rising challenges to democratic societies in the long-term. Stymying free speech in general, exceptionally affecting university campuses and commonly blocking the attempts of opposing public discourses consequently weakens the diagnostic reckoning and resistance against plausibility for Islamist impingement.

Why? Playing emotional cards alongside definitive and legal exploitations of racism and Islamophobia, and concomitant to well-crafted hijackings of social justice issues encircles the dispositions of institutional public conscience. How so? Vis-à-vis poverty, welfare, education, treatment of children, women, the elderly, immigrants, hate contexts, and so forth¾for these societal elements, it must be reminded, have been slyly manipulated over decades through emotionalism. Indeed, Trotsky expounds upon a similar framework in The History of the Russian Revolution, as holding the bourgeoisie abled to possessing not only land and property, but “...education, the press, a network of strategic positions, a hierarchy of institutions,” of which may additionally link to modern do-gooding, liberal pop-cultural and political dispositions. Having thus evolved across similar and contemporary institutions may likewise indicate analogous patterns of causation that are further underscored to propitiating, and even quelling frustrated Western temperaments.

Broadening this exploitation internationally, the parallel to open borders, globalisation trends, terrorism, immigration movements, refugee and humanitarian struggles, has seemed to serve Leftist-driven underdog manipulation and to incline wilful racist and Islamophobic labelling strategies that stifle discourse and garner otherwise, sympathetic and indebted advocates. Furthermore, misleading or exaggerated distortions linking pivotal accusations of racism—hence, straying from the actual racist definition, have long enflamed passionate tensions in the West, replete with increasing harassment against challenging dialogue and overflowing with double standards. Islamophobia is comparably both coined and somewhat elevated to the acclimatised ethos of discourse suppression, which brandishes further dissonance against free thought and speech—ever more with legal implications and challenges. Yet, the rising tide of political Islam as a prevailing socio-political and increasingly cultural force, may not merely threaten the heart of Western civilisation. Ideologically opposed to democratic autonomies, radical Islamic antithesis to democracy and non-Muslim societies may in turn, profoundly undermine those gainful strategical inroads of the rose-coloured utopian inclinations that are analogous to modern liberals, globalists, and socialists.

One and the other, leftist ploys and rising Islamism, make use of each side for their intended manipulations, exploitations, and decisive similarities to effecting ideological impositions onto society. Thus, any similitudes may eventually culminate to open antagonism. Who then, will win? What will ensue relative to nationalistic guardians of Western civilisation? Who will be blamed for the cunning submissions to PC pressures that continue to intensify with such latent potency out of the residual Western social movements of prior decades? Collective progressivism may have accelerated political pawn strategies, thereby ushering sensitive social issues with ardent policymaking, obliging a PC climate of dominion upon politicians and society at-large. Furthermore, the tightening of a resultant chokehold on institutional merits of education, economy, free speech, open discourse, and classical liberalism may just, after all, resound certain ideals of conspiracy and semblances of the preceding era of Trotsky.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Duplicate

I’m afraid that Ms. Christy’s piece here is largely unreadable. It is filled with ten-dollar-worded opinions but lacks evidence of its assertions. Most importantly, the piece does not explain how or why Islamism relates to the American Left.

I believe that there is a compelling case to be made that an unfortunate ideological confluence is allowing Islamism to run amok in the West, driven by cynical self-interest, altruistic but foolish intentions, and the normal delayed intellectual reaction to material change.

In the United States, the following forces are at work that enable Islamism to a concerning degree:

Firstly, federally, the Democratic Party has historically captured a minority of the non-Hispanic white vote, and even a smaller minority of non-Hispanic white males. In order to win, a Democratic presidential candidate must cobble together a base of support that includes all non-whites and as large a minority of whites as possible. Therefore, advancing non-white identity politics – collectivism at the expense of individualism – is crucial. Muslim Americans are a tiny, but salient and growing client of the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, collectivism in a classically liberal society such as the United States, means that the Democratic Party and often the state itself interacts with Muslim Americans as a whole, rather than as individuals, with “representatives” of Muslim Americans who are neither elected nor otherwise empowered to represent more than three million Americans. Islamists, especially those affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, have been successful at assuming representation of Muslim Americans.

Secondly, we must distinguish between “progressives” and “liberals”. Although progressives often refer to themselves as liberals and are salient in the social and political discourse, they are not liberals in the classical sense. Classical liberals are opposed to collectivism as they hold that the individual is the fundamental “unit” of society, and are also opposed to inequality of any type on the basis of identity. As much as classical liberals have no love for Islamism, they are also opposed to any policies that would target Muslim Americans as a group.

Thirdly, there are the “progressives”. The progressives continue to wage decades-old “culture wars” against whites and/or Christians for historical and contemporary injustices that they perceive. As both non-whites and non-Christians, Muslims are included in the diverse group of “victims”. Muslim supremacism is regarded as a legitimate response to an ahistorical and vague nebula of European colonialism, American support for Israel, Israeli occupation of Muslim territory and American wars in the Middle East. If anything, progressives regard Muslims as “allies” in their struggle against white Christians, and dismiss inconvenient conflicts between feminism and Islam, or Islam and gender/sexual orientation. As progressives are selective about which personal freedoms they consider alienable, in the conflict between individualism and Muslim sensibilities, they defer to the latter.

BTW...those conservative religious groups that adhere and believe in the 2nd Coming at the same time are literal diehards in their support for Israel.

BUT in fact if there was a 2nd Coming it would mean the destruction of Israel would it not???

Really now interested in these comments...

QUOTE

I believe that there is a compelling case to be made that an unfortunate ideological confluence is allowing Islamism to run amok in the West, driven by cynical self-interest, altruistic but foolish intentions, and the normal delayed intellectual reaction to material change.

In the United States, the following forces are at work that enable Islamism to a concerning degree:

Firstly, federally, the Democratic Party has historically captured a minority of the non-Hispanic white vote, and even a smaller minority of non-Hispanic white males. In order to win, a Democratic presidential candidate must cobble together a base of support that includes all non-whites and as large a minority of whites as possible. Therefore, advancing non-white identity politics – collectivism at the expense of individualism – is crucial. Muslim Americans are a tiny, but salient and growing client of the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, collectivism in a classically liberal society such as the United States, means that the Democratic Party and often the state itself interacts with Muslim Americans as a whole, rather than as individuals, with “representatives” of Muslim Americans who are neither elected nor otherwise empowered to represent more than three million Americans. Islamists, especially those affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, have been successful at assuming representation of Muslim Americans.
UNQUOTE

The last time I checked not many US non Muslim Americans were swarming to join IS and or AQ......and many US american Muslims are not swarming to officially join MB, Hamas or even Hezbollah if they are Shia.....

When using the 3M Muslim figure please break them down into Sunni and Shia in order to get a better understanding of their religious world views...

Lastly I would not call the US "a classical liberal society"... since it was founded largely on the fundemental beliefs of the "Protestant ethic".....and that since the 30s most of the conservative side has been trying to eliminate such "socialist things" as SS, Medicaid and Medicare and has limited unemployment n some states to virtually nothing.

While the founding fathers truly believed in separation of church and state we see lately a drive to ignore that concept and place religion ie "the church" above even government...which is now the core demands of the so called conservative movements.....

A far cry from "progressives and or liberals still believe is what the FFs wanted for the US"....if you ask me....

Secondly I truly hope you do not really believe what you wrote here.....

QUOTE
Thirdly, there are the “progressives”. The progressives continue to wage decades-old “culture wars” against whites and/or Christians for historical and contemporary injustices that they perceive. As both non-whites and non-Christians, Muslims are included in the diverse group of “victims”. Muslim supremacism is regarded as a legitimate response to an ahistorical and vague nebula of European colonialism, American support for Israel, Israeli occupation of Muslim territory and American wars in the Middle East. If anything, progressives regard Muslims as “allies” in their struggle against white Christians, and dismiss inconvenient conflicts between feminism and Islam, or Islam and gender/sexual orientation. As progressives are selective about which personal freedoms they consider alienable, in the conflict between individualism and Muslim sensibilities, they defer to the latter

EXAMPLES please
Thirdly, there are the “progressives”. The progressives continue to wage decades-old “culture wars” against whites and/or Christians for historical and contemporary injustices that they perceive

Actually "progressives" would tell you..WTH are we in Iraq and Syria to begin with OR we are in Syria supporting the wrong side.....

I am curious. I am unaware of anything anti-individualist about progressives. In fact, progressives' advocacy for the LBGT community and Gender Rights are extremely individualistic. I think you are conflating progressives with communists. Can you cite a source for this anti-individualist/progressivist connection?

Again, their advocacy is for individuals in certain groups, not individuals on the whole. Often this advocacy is focused on symbolism or cultural norms rather than legal treatment e.g. common-law spouses often have the same rights as married ones, depending on jurisdiction.

Here is the New York Times Editorial Board condemning free speech and blaming free speech for inciting a foiled terrorist attack: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/opinion/free-speech-vs-hate-speech.html

In addition, we all saw how progressives demanded that the 2016 presidential election outcome be invalidated or changed to their preferred candidate.

This is not to say that conservatives have a monopoly on individualism. In the wake of failed leveling and liberal revolutions from the 17th to mid-19th Centuries, socialists and conservatives alike incorporated liberal tenets like carrion birds picking at a carcass. Today, both claim to represent classical liberalism, yet neither do.

I am unaware of any Progressive groups demands that the Election results be invalidated. You appear to be making this up as you go.

Further, Conservatives are not Individualists. They are for individual property rights, but not individual protections of liberty.

From the Heritage Foundation:
"The Unravelling Social Fabric. There are social and cultural requisites of a free and democratic society as well as political and economic ones. Our mistake has been to sorel y neglect the social and cultural context in which individual liberty can be meaningfully exercised. We have assumed, falsely, that a republican form of government and a market economy are all that is needed to make freedom a reality. The price we pay for this misjudgment is evident in the unraveling of the social fabric." http://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-limits-liberty-indi...

Conservatives want to enforce their vision of the family:

In fact, deep structural unemployment is affecting men to a much greater degree than women. Further, the increasing dysfunction of the American family has a deep and profound impact on children, who will soon be adults. This is a structural problem that will not be solved by increased unemployment insurance or a higher minimum wage. Our challenges are not only financial and political; they are deeply spiritual. Conservatism’s “governing vision” helps us to ask these hard questions about the role of government in our lives and its capacity to really solve problems.

https://graceuniversity.edu/iip/2014/01/14-01-18-1/

"WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE THE advocate of liberty in the world today? Looking back over our series of essays, we can perhaps draw a few tentative conclusions. First, we must recognize that liberty is not the same thing as equality, and that those who call themselves liberals are far more interested in equalizing than in liberating their fellows. Secondly, the pursuit of liberty often disguises a hostility to established moral norms. When Adam Smith made freedom central to his vision of the modern economy, he was clear that freedom and morality are two sides of a coin. A free society is a community of free beings, bound by the laws of sympathy and by the obligations of family love. It is not a society of people released from all moral constraint–for that is precisely the opposite of a society. Without moral constraint there can be no cooperation, no family commitment, no long-term prospects, no hope of economic, let alone social, order. And interestingly, as we have seen, the advocates of equality and the advocates of license tend to be one and the same. Morality, they believe, is none of our business: the state is in charge."

https://spectator.org/42526_limits-liberty/

Sorry, I am not seeing Conservatives as defenders of individual freedom. I see them as enforcers of religious social norms against individual freedom. The only liberty they will defend is individual property rights.

TC: “I am unaware of any Progressive groups demands that the Election results be invalidated. You appear to be making this up as you go.”

Then you must have been busy when there were calls for Electors to turn “faithless”, when there was discussion of Trump being assassinated on CNN, when Rosie O’Donnell called for martial law, when media commentators discussed how Obama could continue to govern under a state of emergency, etc. I sincerely doubt that any other postwar president-elect has been subjected to the same refusal to acquiesce by his political opponents.

Interesting links, but I addressed Conservatism and individualism in my comments above.

You can see Conservatives as you like, but as a non-Conservative, I have no dog in that fight.

I did not realize Rosie O'Donnell constituted a "Progressive Organization."

You also might want to look at the images of President Obama being lynched in effigy before you talk about how poorly Trump was treated.

No, you don't address anything about Conservatives and Individualism. You make groundless claims. I provide actual evidence from Conservative sites.

http://www.revelist.com/politics/america-responds-obama/5855

T.C.,

You are determined to frame our debate as one between Progressivism and Conservatism. Unfortunately for you, I did not reply to the article in order to promote or defend Conservatism.

As far as sourcing is concerned, I posted an editorial from a leading “Liberal Progressive” publication. To say that a particular organization, publication or leader represents Progressivism would be utterly false. But I would remind you of the organizers and speakers of the Women’s March, Day Without Women and Day Without Immigrants; the former two embarrassingly tried to present Islamists as being “allies” of Feminists, or vice versa.

You are free to post links to any Conservative think tanks or media that you like. It will not change the fact that there is a wide divergence between Liberalism, in its true form, and Progressivism. Progressivism is rather nebulous, and subject to change: currently it is rather a curious blend of Liberalism and Socialism, much as Conservatism is a curious blend of Liberalism and Socialism. The failure of truly Liberal revolutions in Europe, allowed collectivists on the Left and Right to adopt elements of Liberalism at their leisure.

I am well aware of the reaction by some to Obama’s election. However, I would caution you that the racism against him, which manifested itself in various accusations that his presidency was illegitimate, merged with a libertarian movement that had actually emerged under Obama’s predecessor. Bush tended to govern as a right-wing Democrat, and relied upon the support of Democrats in Congress to advance key legislation, resulting in the Tea Party. It is therefore difficult to separate the racial animus towards Obama, from the animus toward federal taxation and spending (e.g. ACA, TARP, etc.), as well as the hysteria over possible firearms control.

Yet the people that lynched effigies of Obama were largely considered on the fringes of society. Today, one sees leading media commentators discussing the hypothetical assassination of the president-elect, suggesting that he is authoritarian and calling his presidency illegitimate, as well as large riots. One also sees leading intellectuals promoting conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated rumors in the manner of Alex Jones, such as Applebaum and Snyder, who I greatly respected until recently. If mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery, then I suppose that the Democratic Party is doffing its hat to the Tea Party and the “alt-right” by following the same playbook, albeit in a much broader and more visible way.

As far as Progressivism and Islamism are concerned, Muslims are regarded as non-whites and clearly non-Christians, and therefore subject to social injustice by white Christians. This perspective, despite being an ahistorical fantasy, has been prevalent in higher education for years. But the reasoning is very simple. The Democratic Party relies upon the non-white vote, and therefore it must have a cause around which to unite very disparate groups such as Mexican-Americans, African-Americans and Muslim-Americans: oppression by white Christians and achieving “social justice” by way of “positive discrimination”. Democrats also rely upon obtaining the largest minority possible of the white vote, which is why they try to bring the LGBTQ community and women into this unwieldly coalition of special interest groups. However, I do not see the Republicans as the solution. The U.S. is in need of a true Liberal party.

Interesting article that is long on accusations and short on facts.

I will give it credit for separating Political Islam from Religious Islam. Western Liberals, like George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin wisely created a system of government that separates the religious from the political - the Church from the State. This allows people to practice religion freely while not imposing religious law on society. I know of no person or organization on the Left that is interested in changing that system. It would seem that only Christian Conservatives have any interests in forcing church dogma upon the masses. As long as the United States, and any other Western State, maintains that separation, there is no fear of Political Islam taking hold in the West.