Islam Means "Submission," and So Does Liberalism

One problem with liberalism has always been that those promoting it are, and largely have been, cowards.

The creed is not inherently cowardly; in fact, most if it is brave. (Don't jump on me; I'm talking about "liberalism" as it is classically understood. American conservatives, per this classical understanding, are called "conservative liberals," but because the creed of liberalism is dominant in America, the "liberal" part is left off as unnecessary, as it's understood.)

But a lot of the people championing it are morally uncertain and physically weak types. This has caused liberalism to be associated in the world with vacillation, compromise, and cowardice.

A knew someone who once told me he despised liberals as cowards. So you're conservative?, I asked.

"No," he replied. "Communist."

And that is the knock on liberalism. Other creeds are dark, stupid, and murderous, but they appeal to young men because they seem to be espoused by strong men, rough men, ready men.

And liberalism, meanwhile, is mostly a collection of pious platitudes mouthed by sissies.

And again, this is not the fault of the creed; this was Washington's creed. This was Lincoln's.

Instead, it is the fault of the creed's messengers, who seem to have decided that liberalism is offended by a display of masculine balls and fire, when in fact it absolutely requires it.

And then the cadre of liberals shrinks still further, and more academic types become full-blown leftists and communists, and more foreign Muslims embrace full-on medieval sharia Islamism, and the liberals wonder, "Why?"

Why? Because through your cravenness you've convinced the world that a creed of the brave is actually a creed of cowardice.

And to prove my point:

As Sean Connery said in the Untouchables after their key witness had been murdered, their compatriot had been slaughtered, and Elliot Ness was making noises about just giving up: "So, are we done?"

The West is now Islamic. All it took was some murderers to kill people, and then the craven institutions of the West to start signing away our cultural and political legacy in exchange for some promises that they'll be the last to get their throats cut open.

Oxford University Press (OUP) explained that their books must take into consideration other cultures of the world and must avoid mentioning pigs or "anything else which could be perceived as pork," the International Business Times reported.

The move was revealed during a discussion on free speech during BBC Radio 4’s "Today," following last week’s terror attacks in Paris.

"I've got a letter here that was sent out by OUP to an author doing something for young people." Presenter Jim Naughtie said. "Among the things prohibited in the text that was commissioned by OUP was the following: Pigs plus sausages, or anything else which could be perceived as pork."

All of this of course encourages terrorism and ever-more extreme brands of Islam, because the institutions of the West -- our political, academic, and media institutions -- are all essentially proclaiming that Islam, particularly violent, medieval Islam, is the only real and True religion in the world:

For what other religions do they bow and scrape to as if they were Slaves?

Only one.

And so while other religions remain in some doubt, for lacking a tangible impact on the world, we can see that violent, barbarous Islam is the one religion that has a real impact on academy, on the media, on American and Western governments; Western governments despise all other religions, and attack them with harassing laws, but violent Islam -- and only violent Islam -- they honor and in fact proclaim, effectively, to be the state religion.

And the liberals wonder why conservatives, and believers of all other creeds in the world, lampoon them as effeminate and quivering.

posted by Ace at 02:02 PM

| Access Comments