PURITY IS NOT OF THIS WORLD and don't you forget it.
why do so many liberals tolerate leftists? why do so many moderate
muslims and secular arabists tolerate radical muslim extremists?
one reason is obvious. it's the united or popular front mentality.
when you have a common enemy, you join forces with whomever. after
all, US was allied with stalin's russia to defeat the nazis. nixon
later made peace with mao's china to counter the growing force of the
soviet union. but, this is tactical and pragmatic. it doesn't
explain the psychology of liberals or muslims who sup****t extreme
whackos even when their world is NOT threatened by dark forces of the
Right or Western Imperialism.
to unnerstand, let's consider some christians in america. ever notice
that some normal moderate christians make excuses for fundamentalist
fatheads? partly, it's pragmatism, a need for unity against the
hardline secularists. but, there's something else. moderate people
of all stripes feel compromised, contaminated, a bit ashamed, as
though they made a pact with the devil, that they've sold out their
ideals. so a moderate christian who feels he's not a good enough
christian finds solace and comfort in sup****ting those christians who
are willing to go the extra step and be fundamentalist loon
rabblerousers who spend 24hrs a day picketing abortion clinics.
same applies to liberals. most of them are not whackos. they are
anti-totalitarian and anti-extremist. some are passionately
anti-communist and reject leftism thoroughly. but, a substantial
number of liberals tolerate, aid, and abet leftists because, like
moderate christians, they feel compromised in this world. there's a
lingering sense of guilt, self-doubt, and even self-loathing that
they've sold out their save-the-world ideals, chosen 'bourgeois'
comfort, enjoy too many priveleges, and/or feel stressed out by the
materialistic demands of a dog-eat-dog competitive world of free
market economy where nothing seems to be set in stone. they see in
the leftist dissenter an image of purity, uncompromise, high ideals,
and progressive sainthood. just as a well-to-do bourgeois christian
beset with guilt over his material goodies feels nobler by sup****ting
some whacko christian activist nut, a well-to-do and priveleged
bourgeois liberal feels good when giving sup****t to some loudmouth
progressive zealot.
in both cases, we have people trying to compensate for their
self-perceived lack of courage, commitment, and purity in their
personal lives by siding up to extreme cranks who pretend
spiritual/ideological purity.
think of leonard bernstein who sup****ted the black panthers. or
robert redford who romantizes about che guevara. or warren beatty and
his movie 'reds'. or, consider all the accolades showered on chomsky
and eric hobsbawn by liberals. both are david irvings of the left,
but their total inflexible unbending dedication to leftist causes wins
them awe and respect from liberals who feel they are just too
chicken**** to go all the way, having settled down to bourgeois
comfort--though chomsky and hobsbawn are hardly struggling with daily
hunger themselves in their posh tenured positions in elite
institutions.
another reason is there is a utopian in each of us. moderate
anglo-american political tradition says aint no such thing as utopia.
like thomas jefferson said, government is a necessary evil, and we
need democracy not because we're angels but because we're devils. only
democracy prevents one set of devils from taking total power. but,
there is something in us that wishes that angels among mankind will
take power and lead all of humanity toward A BETTER TOMORROW, the
final end of history. the idea of accepting that man is FOREVER
imperfectible and that, at best, we can only hope for gradual reform,
is just soooo lame, bourgeois, compromised, and even corrupt for the
utopian within us. indeed, even in anglo-american tradition, there is
the notion of city on a hill, that US will be the beacon of the world
and some such, and there is no doubt a strain of this in neo-con
ideology and foreign policy though it's more pragmatic and strategic
than idealistic.
today, the greatest radicalist danger is, of course, among the
muslims. most muslims are not extremists, but many do feel
compromised by modernization, westernization, and/or secularization.
they don't want to be stuffy radical fundamentalists themselves but
they want to believe in the idea of purity. and so, many moderate
muslims have given sup****t or championed radical extremists such as
the taliban... not so much because they want to live under such a
system themselves but because the existence of such a system and their
token sup****t of it allays their sense of self-compromise(similarly,
liberals championed communism for other people, not themselves; jane
fonda wanted to keep her hollywood mansion; it was up to the
vietnamese to realize the leftist utopia). moderate muslim
tolerance and sup****t of radicals is the same kind as the liberal
tolerance of leftism.
liberals settle for reform and acceptance of compromise, but they
aren't immune to the romance of 'dissent'. dissent--whether leftist,
ultrachristian, or radical islamic--carries connotations of courage,
integrity, nobility, boldness, purity, and refusal to compromise.
what is often missed or ignored is that dissent, in pragmatic terms,
often take on the forms of arrogance, dogmatism, rigidity,
intolerance, contempt, and the idea that ends justifies any means;
after all, how can people with pure motives ever do wrong? and even if
they do wrong, doesn't their pure dedication redeem whatever wrong is
done?
german conservatives who sup****ted hitler found out too late.
moderate muslims who sup****ted the likes of osama are making a similar
mistake. and the liberal admiration for the purist 'martyr' che
guevara--murderous, fanatical stalinist--is equally misguided, to put
it mildly.
we see this phenomenon in movie and rock criticism too. surely,
roger ebert is not a leftwing nut. but, feeling compromised by his
bourgeois status as a thumbs up/down mainstream critic and mild
liberal, he has gone out of his way to suckle the toes of
anti-american leftwing jew assholes like jonathan rosenbaum and wipe
the ass of that fat ugly stalinist pig michael moore.
and look at rock critics who are so passionate about punk music. as
critics, they are nerdy, dorky, wimpy, whitebread, and geeky. they
rely on words, concepts, theories, intellect so anathema to the spirit
of rock n roll. so how do they purify themselves of their whitebread
middleclassness? by championing the radical purism of punk... just as
some liberal movie critics pretend to like the extreme works of dogma
filmmakers.
this isn't to say passion is wrong. in politics and in art, we need
more and not less passion. but, leftist and islamic purism isn't
about real passion. it's about the suppression or extinguishment of
real, complex, richly textured, varied, multi-layered, and
contradictory passions of humanity in favor of zealous arrogant
contemptuous intolerance of know-it-all intellectuals and
self-righteous murderous theocratuals.
kurosawa, creedence clearwater revival, john ford, dylan, theodore
roosevelt, kennedy, degaulle, dubya, kerry... that's real passion,
summation of whole human experience.
lars von trier, the clash, beastie boys, chomsky, lenin, che, moore...
that's passion hardened and constipated into a dogmatic bludgeon to
beat rest of humanity into their purist vision.
|
