Left-liberalism weds Islam ⭐
Table of Contents
The relationship between Liberalism and Islam is best understood as between a Henpecked Man (liberalism) and his psycho wife (Islam).
Despite RW cope, neither side is getting “played”. Yes, she beats him, and when his efforts fall short in the slightest she threatens to leave him and fantasizes for her abusive Chinese ex-bf. But she won’t actually have to do it, because the husband genuinely holds servicing the most insane of his wife’s demands to be his prime directive in life.
All “fights” between them are basically the husband making practical points like “yes of course I will unalive the Z for you, but if I do it NOW I will go to jail and you will have no one to carry your bodybags every Friday!!”
1. femme-fatale
People must stop doing “he’s pseudo-Marxist, really Islamist” or “he’s pseudo-Islamist, really Marxist”.
These two ideologies are married. You won’t play them against each other. If the wife is sleeping with you, you’re not cucking Liberalism, but getting femme-fataled by Islam.
2. continuation
Continuing on my “Liberalism is Islam’s henpecked husband” analogy:
deep down, RWs of every country just want the Liberal to love them.
Constantly trying to out-liberal and pull down other RWs, hoping that he will one day divorce his abusive muslim wife and marry them.
3. the wedding anniversary
Mentions of the so-called “Islamic Golden Age” skyrocket from 2001.
If there were a single image capturing the moral bankruptcy of Western academia and institutions, this would be it.
9-11 is the wedding anniversary of Left-liberalism and Islam.
4. Would education solve Islamic radicalism?
A common misconception and cope I hear from right-wingers is “education and cosmopolitanism will solve the threat of Islamic radicalism”.
But if you think about it — why would it?
Education in ancient India didn’t make people less Hindu, it made them more. Education in medieval Europe didn’t make people less Christian, it made them more. Education in Madrassas didn’t make people less Muslim, it made them more.
This is a great example of right-wingers unintentionally, subconsciously accepting Left-liberal premises: that there is something special about modern educational institutions, that they impart a certain special objective truth, unlike ancient religious institutions, and this objective truth contradicts the old religion.
In truth: modern educational institutions aren’t fundamentally different from these ancient ones. Yes, an enormous amount of knowledge has been built up in the past four centuries since the scientific and industrial revolutions, but this is a difference of quantity, not of quality.
The preceptors in ancient India did not see themselves as “imparting Hinduism specifically”, they saw themselves as imparting THE TRVTH. The Vedas and associated philosophy were among those truths, as were various mathematical and empirical sciences. Those at the universities of medieval Europe, or the madrassas of the Muslim world, saw themselves in the same way (though unlike the Hindus, they were wrong).
Sidenote: In fact, this is why a proper native endonym for “Hinduism” never really emerged. Sure, some people have now taken to using “Sanātana Dharma”, but this was only ever an occassionally-used descriptor historically. Hinduism was the water the ancients swam in, it was THE TRVTH, THE DHARMA: there was no need to give it a name, except when debating other religions when they would refer to themselves with descriptors like “āstika” and “those who affirm the authority of the Vedas” (though the Buddhists and Jains also used the former term for themselves, calling others nāstika). For the same reason the Sanskrit language was not named until quite late, simply being called “Bhāṣa”: it was THE LANGVAGE, of which all other languages were seen as a mere degeneration.
The natural question to ask is: what is the analogous ideology today, whose adherents (and to an extent society at large) simply sees as THE TRVTH — thinking of themselves as completely different from all those religions that had come before them?
What ideology — alongside the no-doubt very impressive knowledge of rational and empirical sciences — is instilled by modern academic and educational institutions? What ideology — alongside some amount of factual reporting — is imparted by the news media? What ideology — alongside valuable factual knowledge — is pushed by popular institutions such as Wikipedia?
The answer is Left-liberalism: the ideology that future historians will look back on as the global religion that was in vogue from “1933-<whenever its reign ends>”.
And the reason that education or assimilation into modern global monoculture reduces religiosity among Hindus (and also among Christians/Jews in the West) is that the religion of Left-liberalism is opposed to Hinduism. It sees our philosophy as immoral, our gods as false and Hindutva, our cause for Hindu Sovereignty, as “fascist”.
The same is not true between Left-liberalism and Islam: Left-liberalism is not opposed to Islam, in fact it celebrates and affirms Muslim supremacist beliefs (why, is a topic for another day).
Sidenote: Muslim traditionalism might decline as a result of increased assimilation into the global monoculture, but we have no issue with Muslim traditionalism, only with Muslim supremacism.
TL;DR: education does not directly “promote atheism or irreligiosity”. It promotes the dominant religion of the time, which happens to be Left-liberalism. For Hindus, Left-liberalism is antithetical to our religion, thus becoming more Left-liberal means becoming less Hindu. Not so for Islam.
5. explaining islamism
While I agree with “no identity politics” in general, commenting on Islam is not identity politics. Unlike races or even other religions, Islam is a totalizing ideology for its adherents.
“He’s not an Islamist he’s a leftist” type rhetoric is simply counter-productive: we need to draw an almost-equivalence between Leftism and Islam (because as things stand their beliefs and interests are very much intertwined), in the same way that Leftists claim “Palestine IS queer liberation IS climate justice IS BLM”. Omnicause-building is not some weird quirk of leftists, it is essential for keeping your base constantly “mobilized”.
With that said, a little bird mentioned this to me in a DM: the “Islamist” accusations against Zohran simply don’t stick: while he is Islamist(-adjacent), this is a point that actually needs to be made: until the “Muslim supremacism / orthodoxy” and “Red-Green alliance” memes are widely-understood, crude memes about 9/11 and burqas will not stick.
The Islamist problem with Mamdani is:
- He would compromise every one of your nation’s interests to prioritize vile Islamist causes like Palestine or Kashmiri separatism. (yes, I know he has no influence on foreign policy as mayor; don’t be a midwit)
- the incredible Muslim ethno-narcissism of endlessly complaining about the (almost non-existent) “backlash against peaceful Muslims” and turning it into another “great American crime” to be repentant for.
“but a Leftist of non-Muslim background would do the same!”
yes, and that tells you exactly how much influence Islamism has over American politics, that it is the number-1 cause for the American Left! You cannot turn a blind eye or pretend it doesn’t exist.