foxdemon wrote:I don’t.
You see, when my father and mother divorced, my father married a woman from Macassar, Sulawesi. As everyone should know, the dominant ethnic group in that area is the Bugis, historically noted for being ferocious pirates. In fact, the myth of the boogie man came from Dutch stories about Bugis pirates, which they to.d their kids as horror stories
So why do I need a boogie man when my step mother is the real thing?
Anyway, I digress.
I agree that what is going on in West is of the same nature as the activities of the Brotherhood. I don’t know much of what is happening on the ground in the ME, but I do know what happens in Indonesia.
There is a modern Islam movement, dominated by aspirational class urban Muslims. Typically well educated. They are pushing a rather intolerant version of Islam on to Indonesian society. Status and power are very important to these aspirational class Muslims. An example movement is Hizb ur Tahrir, but there are other groups besides.
Basically, these progressive Muslim modernists are exactly the same sort of people as the Western progressive. They have very similar ways of looking at the world. I’d also say the Islamic extremists have a very similar way of looking at the world as the far right white supremacists. This probably shouldn’t be surprising as both the West and the Umma share a basic Abrahamic set of beliefs as a core culture.
Regrettably, Western progressives just can’t look in the mirror. They seem completely incapable of admitting to fault. Given their claim to power has a moral basis, I guess they can’t admit to fault without losing status. After all, they must believe they are the good guys.
It follows from a belief that one is the good guy that someone else must be the bad guy. And of course there must be victims to rescue from the bad guy. Hence all the talk about who can claim to be a victim.
But why? If you look at western economics for the last 50 years, you will observe a rising level of economic inequality. When there is a growing gap between the haves and have nots, there must be a system of prejudice that justifies the exclusion of the have nots. In the west, the dominant belief that most accepted was civil rights at the time (1970s).
So that is the belief system cooped to build the prejudice against those who were to become the new have nots, the white working class. Hence all the stuff about minorities, women, transgender, etc.
Basically rights for minorities were over emphasised and general rights were down played. In effect the aspirational class took to itself the prerogative of choosing who has rights and who doesn’t. The minorities were dependent on the aspirational class progressives and thus not a challenge to their power, while the white majority was a rival to their ambition for total social control.
Regarding universalism. Pax Americana needed it to spread their control in the wake of European imperial collapse. Liberalism went from a system enshrined in nation states to a universal system of beliefs more akin to religion. The problem with universalism is that it tends to intolerance.
So you put those things together, aspirational class using accepted moral causes to assert their political hegemony within western countries, and the needs of Pax Americana for universalism, and you get contemporary progressive liberalism, featuring positive rights for designated groups, intolerance of difference, and extreme moral self assured smugness.
But, I totally agree this outcome is not liberal in any meaningful sense. Liberalism is supposed to be about freedom from those who control the instruments of power.
Your ideology, whatever it is, equates to defending far-right Loyalist paramilitaries in NI.
So what right do you have to criticise 'liberals'?
You would have a point about neoliberals using civil rights to string people along/get them to bow down to the system.....Except your own ideology is a thousand times worse than theirs is.
Are you an Alt-Right little Englander? And it's absolutely fascinating that you're a minority yourself, fighting against civil rights.