The liberal is either at your throat or at your feet….

My post caption is mangled version of an English expression popular in the years leading up to and during WWI:  “The Hun is either at your throat or at your feet.”  It was a reference to the fact that Germany was a deeply hierarchical, undemocratic nation, with only the haziest notions of equality. England wasn’t that democratic either back around 1910, but it was still light years ahead of Germany.

What these “advanced” English realized was that the German nature, because it was so hierarchical, could never just relax into equality.  People were either above, in which case they required deference (even if grudgingly given), or below, in which case they were to be treated with the utmost contempt.  This contempt, of course, was not successfully purged from the German character, despite the rigors of WWI.  It came to full flower with the Nazis, who turned their contempt into genocide and slavery for those in the below position, whether Jews, gypsies, gays, the mentally ill, slavs, or whatever other group the German psychology needed to pigeonhole.

It occurred to me that, although the dynamic arises from a different psychology, liberals have precisely the same habit of classifying people and then, depending on the classification,treating them with abject respect or blood-chilling contempt (a contempt, fortunately, that is still limited to words).  With liberals, though, the categories aren’t above and below.  Instead, they are I dislike you or I dislike and fear you.

What sparked this thought was two news stories.  The first was an update on a story out of San Francisco, one about which I already blogged.  Briefly, a war is brewing over a gun store in the upper Mission District, a neighborhood that is part working class, part yuppie.  The gun store has been there for a long time but the former owner let the license lapse while he considered reconfiguring the store.  Now that the new owner is trying to reinstate the license, neighbors and San Francisco citizens are objecting vociferously.

In my earlier post, I posited (based on nothing more than intuition), that the same people protesting the gun store are probably completely in favor of the Ground Zero Mosque.  That is, they almost certainly support a mosque connected to a man who espouses sharia (wife beating, wife stoning, gay hanging, hand cutting, infidel killing sharia), while vocally opposing a store that is consistent with one of the oldest and most clearly stated constitutional rights in America.

The second story was the report from Hartford, Connecticut, an overwhelmingly Democratic city, announcing that the next City Council meeting would open with a Muslim invocation.  My bet is that Hartford’s Muslim population is small (I can’t find numbers on it), so this invocation is intended to be symbolic and is, no doubt, a way for the government to show its support for the Ground Zero Mosque.

Think about it, which required putting myself in the liberal brain for a minute, I can appreciate that liberals hate guns, which they see as symbols of violence and, worse, as equalizers.  However, I am incapable of imagining that these same liberals actually like sharia law.  After all, as I noted above, many of sharia’s principles are deeply inconsistent with liberals’ self-identification as the party of love, peace and harmony.

The difference, I believe, is fear.  Even though liberals fear guns, they know that gun owners are fundamentally law abiding people.  Equally well, they know that a significant percentage of committed Muslims are sharia-abiding people, who are not averse to using extreme violence against opponents.

You can, of course, always find the lone wacko in any group.  However, I challenge you to find a situation in which Jews or Christians or Hindus or Sikhs or Buddhists or any other clearly defined religious group) has recently risen up en masse to attack Americans for perceived insults against their faith.  Muslims, however, have done that.  Not all Muslims, of course, but enough Muslims.  Anywhere in the world, it is Muslims who grab the gun, sword and bomb when they perceive an insult.  The Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Atheists, and any other group I can think of refrain from the gun, the sword and the bomb when insulted.

This willingness to respond to criticism with violence is pretty much a Muslim thing.  Not all Muslims, of course, but enough.  And certainly enough to make us fearful of the group as a whole.  After all, it’s usually not until after the bomb explodes that we can separate the Muslims who embrace violence from the ones who didn’t — and, worse, most of the ones who don’t embrace it, rather than speaking out, are passive to the point of acquiescence.

But liberals, rather than being driven by principles, which would have them looking down their noses at Muslims until the day comes when world Muslim leaders explicitly disavow terrorism, tend to be driven by fear.  If you’re a liberal and you both dislike and fear someone, you’re at their feet, as with the liberal response to Islam’s ceaseless attacks on America’s sensibilities and constitutional liberties.  Of course, if you merely dislike them, then you’re at their throats, at least rhetorically.

Right now, liberals don’t like Jews, Christians, Israel and conservatives, and their rhetorical contempt is unbounded.  And right now, while they probably don’t like Muslims very much, they do fear them, and their abject groveling is equally unbounded.

I’ll going on a limb here and say that liberals have exactly the same relationship with blacks as they do with Muslims.  Liberals don’t want to live in black neighborhoods or attend black schools (and, as their hostility to vouchers shows, they don’t want blacks attending their schools).  But blacks have shown themselves to be a volatile population, more than willing to out-rhetoric the liberals, and to stand around with bully clubs, so liberals grovel there too.

Whether the liberals are groveling before Muslims or militant blacks, it’s not a very healthy situation, either for the groveler or the grovelee.  The situation, indeed, is precisely analogous to a parent who spoils a child:  The child, rather than feeling loved, feels resentful and, worse, the child’s pathologies rage uncontrolled.

And that’s what happens when liberals are either at your throat or at your feet.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Gringo says

    You can, of course, always find the lone wacko in any group.  However, I challenge you to find a situation in which Jews or Christians or Hindus or Sikhs or Buddhists or any other clearly defined religious group) has recently risen up en masse to attack Americans for perceived insults against their faith.
     
    The answer is obvious. The Crusaders, Joos, Caste people, Sword and Turban people, and the Exploded Statues  people et al  have been dressing up in burkhas and such muslim costume to commit acts that will give Islam a bad name. :)
     
    I recently read one lib who stated that those who focused on Wahabis for their view of Islam were distorting matters because Wahabis were an extremist minority in Islam. Which ignores the facts that  Wahabis are in charge of the holiest sites of Islam in Mecca, and that Wahabis also spend a considerable amount of money paying for Wahabi priests and imams throughout the world.
     
    Agreed with you that Libs feel free to be vociferous against Bible-Thumpers because they know that Bible-Thumpers are not going to slit their throats. Which is why libs want to make nice with Islam. I never had much fondness for Christian fundamentalists-evangelicals et al until I finally realized that they were much more inclined to let me be than the libs. Church people will knock on your door, and quietly go away if you are not interested. You are not interested, that is fine. Libs will keep at it and keep at it. If you are not willing to swallow lib rhetoric, libs label you as dumb/bigoted et al. Much less tolerant than the church people.
     

  2. Charles Martel says

    In 1940 the science fiction writer Robert Heinlein wrote a short story, “Coventry,” which takes place in a future America where the Constitution has been superceded by the Covenant, a libertarian document that incorporates all the hard-won wisdom gained from America’s travails during the constitutional era, including the imposition (later thrown off) of a repressive theocracy sometime in the 21st century.

    Coventry is the name of a large expanse of land, probably thousands of square miles in area, somewhere in North America, surrounded by high walls. Its inhabitants are people who have placed themselves outside the Covenant and refuse to abide by even its minimalist requirements. Since there is no death penalty, the most extreme punishment is exile to Coventry—thus the walls, manned by armed guards and patrolled by sophisticated robots and sensors.

    Coventry is large enough to sustain agriculture and industry, a deliberate decision by the United States since people exiled there are totally on their own. There is no law inside its boundaries, save whatever rules or customs voluntary associations agree upon, and every person placed there must provide for himself—food, protection, companionship, shelter.

    People exiled there may enter with a choice of weapons, limited by weight and overall firepower. For instance, some exiles opt for high-powered rifles and pistols (artillery or machine guns are prohibited), while others enter armed with hunting knives, swords, and bows and arrows.

    As we take our country back and break the stranglehold of the academy, media, government, race hustlers and parasitic unionists, I have no interest in gulags, jails or “re-education” centers for the vile people who have led us to the edge of the cliff. Instead, I’d like to see us set up a Coventry, perhaps on the Great Plains, where we could give all of the Brights and Enlightened Ones a chance to practice their economic and political schemes on each other while leaving the rest of us alone.

    I would be happy to tax myself a substantial sum for five years to help build an infrastructure that, if managed properly, would allow our exiled geniuses to live decently. (That way they would not be able to complain, at least plausibly, that we arranged it so that they could not succeed.)

    We would broadcast the proceedings of their meetings and self-governance, as well as random shots of their schools, neighborhoods, police stations and industries. We would simply observe and never interfere.

    That last provision, non-interference, is important. Given the ludicrousness of liberal thinking, and its disconnect between theory and reality, the inhabitants of Coventry would be reduced to gang warfare, probably along racial lines, within a matter of months. There would be food riots, highway robbery, endless strikes, vandalism, medical rationing and out-of-control STD epidemics within short order. (Yikes, maybe we should call it “Detroit” instead of Coventry.)

    I would not watch those goings-on as entertainment but as rueful reminders of what happens when people lose contact with decency and rationality.

  3. Texan99 says

    I was just thinking about the story “Coventry” yesterday.  It’s an old problem, what to do with the people you can’t abide, but you don’t want to kill or keep imprisoned nearby.  We don’t have an Australia to send them to, or a penal colony on the Moon, as in Heinlein’s other fine tale.
    In the same conversation in which “Coventry” came up, we were discussing the habit in recent years of countering every story of a Muslim atrocity with stories about the Crusades or the Inquisition.  It’s as if people thought the purpose of complaining about Muslim atrocities was to posit that Muslims as individuals are more objectionable people.  For me the point is not that they are more prone to sin and error than ordinary human beings, or even necessarily that their religion is more easily distorted and abused than Christianity.  There’s no doubt that Christians have done awful things in the name of their religion.  The immediate point, however, is that no Christians are doing anything like that right now, whereas a big segment of the Muslim population is a clear and present danger. Perhaps when both Torquemada and the latest Islamofascist to be blown up by a predator drone met their Maker, they received an equally harsh judgment, I don’t know.  The fact remains that I’m not threatened by the Inquisition.  I’m threatened by al Qaeda.

  4. Mike Devx says

    I’m going to do an analogy here to bullies in a playground.  I’m speaking off the cuff; I could do a lot better if I got my thoughts organized, but what the hell.
     
    Consider a school playground of 100 kids during lunchtime, dominated by a group of five bullies – they call themselves the “Muslim Wahabbi Radical Jihadist” Gang – trying to dominate the other 95 kids.
     
    Among the 95 is a group of smarter-than-you liberal kids.  In the classroom, they make fine noises about how we are all equal and need to teach each other tolerance and compassion.  On the playground, they cower in abject fear and hand over half of their lunch money every day to the five bullies.  ”Just give them your lunch money and they’ll leave us all alone!” they lecture the others on the playground.  ”Be quiet! Don’t antagonize them! You’re just making things worse!”
     
    The bullies LOVE their abject, servile nature.  Every once in a while they’ll pull one out of the group and rough them up, to make a point.
     
    There’s another group that calls themselves the “Muslim Others” Gang.  They’re peaceful and quiet and they’re friends with the bullies.  Could they have influence on the bullies to stop the terrorization?  No one knows for sure. They say they don’t really like the way the bullies are behaving, but they NEVER do anything about it.
     
    The bullies have a lot of money and the “Muslim Others” are poor, and the bullies are trying to buy them off.  Some of the “Muslim Others” have decided to go along, and they’re starting to push the others around.  Everyone’s afraid that more and more of the “Muslim Others” are going to become violent.  No one knows which of them are leaning toward becoming Bullies.
     
    The rest of the kids?  Some of them are trying to organize some resistance, others are just kind of watching and minding their own business.  But more and more of them are starting to be picked on, around the edges of each clique.  Most of the kids just don’t think it’s going to get any worse… even though some of the Bullies have begun showing knives.
     
    Everyone knows how you stop bullies in a playground.  You have to confront them.  The last thing you can do is let them have their way.  And it doesn’t take many bullies to ruin the whole playground.  May God help you if they’re even a tenth of the kids, or what if they’re a quarter?  a third? half?
     
    My analogy breaks down of course. Playground bullies don’t slit throats and set off bombs.
     

  5. Spartacus says

    O, Frankish Dude of Dudes, you are a blackheart!  Several thousand square miles somewhere in the Great Plains?  May I offer a friendly amendment to your motion?
     
    In some happy (and very simplified) scenario, we manage to turn their Left flank.  And as the Left is in many ways a house of cards — as all ruling minorities must necessarily be — one thing leads happily to another, and the minority which once seemed so powerful finds itself terribly outnumbered, utterly despised, and generally without recourse.  As the forces of the Right close in and surround them, the leader of the Right suggests a parley.  “OK, you guys win,” he says gruffly to the astonishment of the Left (before turning around and giving a surreptitious wink to his own people).  “We henceforth will banish ourselves to flyover country, provided only that you allow us to defend our borders.”
     
    Now, “flyover country,” of course, is about 90% of the landmass of the United States, and so it is to that 90% that we would “banish” ourselves.  Take one of those red-and-blue, county-by-county electoral maps, smooth it out along natural and defensible terrain features, and give them the blue parts.  For the most part, they wouldn’t even have to move anywhere.  And the sum total of those little blue islands would be their country, and the rest would be ours.  Commerce would experience a brief hiccup as walls were erected and administrative procedures changed, but would quickly resume as it would be in the compelling best interests of everyone.
     
    It really wouldn’t matter how much we generously gave them in the beginning: their profligate ways without our tempering fiscal influence would soon have them in mountains of debt — to us — and we would begin to buy back much that we had ceded for pennies on the dollar.  All transactions would be fairly administered, ideally because of the requirements of our national conscience, but also, on a more practical level, because of the fact that the overwhelming majority of the armed forces would throw in on our side (especially the combat units).
     
    Best of all, they wouldn’t vote in our elections, and we wouldn’t vote in theirs.  Everyone could celebrate on election night.
     
    Not at our throats, and not at our feet, but just on the other side of a Berlin Wall on Steroids.

  6. Charles Martel says

    Spartacus, LOL! I like the way you think.

    Mike, your very apt analogy reminded me of something brilliant my grammar school principal did more than 50 years ago. There was a gangly third grader, I don’t remember his name or face, who was being bullied. He was too scared to name the bully, so the principal was left trying to figure out a way to help him.

    After some thought, she summoned the 20 toughest boys in school to her office. I was complimented to be one of the 20, even though I wasn’t particularly tough. I think maybe she was just seeding the group with boys she trusted to go along with what she was planning.

    She gathered us all in our office and introduced us to the kid. To say he looked uncomfortable is an understatement. Imagine a Kobe beeve trapped at the far side of a one-door room with a score of drunken Benihana chefs in between—he acted sort of like that.

    Anyway, the principal told us about the bullying and declared that she was deputizing all of us to accompany the kid on his walk home after school. We were to defend him from the bully.

    Which we did for three days until she de-deputized us.

    It was brilliant. Many of us agreed later that the bully himself was very likely among our number. But the principal’s ploy made sure that he didn’t dare call attention to himself. Her bold means of protecting the kid sent a signal to the bully that not only she, but 19 of the roughest, toughest, orneriest 9 and 10 years olds in the neighborhood, would be on his case if he bullied again.

    I realize this has nothing to do with the need to bloody Islam’s nose however many times it takes to protect ourselves, but I thought you might enjoy reading about how one woman gobsmacked a bully.  

  7. says

    “(a contempt, fortunately, that is still limited to words)”
     
    But it isn’t limited to words. The Left has made millions suffer and have successfully killed, directly or indirectly, millions more of Americans.
     
    If you are weak enough, they will kill you whether by strangulation or more direct methods. Every person that died in Afghanistan due to their leaks, they killed. Every person that died as a result of the New York Times giving intelligence to Islamic death squads, was caused by the Left.
     
    Limited to words? As if. A political party that has honor and can be trusted to hold the best interests of the nation at heart is “limited to words” even if those words you disagree with. That is not the Left.
     
    The Left is something called “evil”.

  8. says

    “If you’re a liberal and you both dislike and fear someone, you’re at their feet, as with the liberal response to Islam’s ceaseless attacks on America’s sensibilities and constitutional liberties.  Of course, if you merely dislike them, then you’re at their throats, at least rhetorically.”
     
    The solution was always simple. Hammer the Left hard enough that they begin to fear you. Only then will they take us seriously for they always fear what are serious threats to their existence.
     
    It’s not enough that they have to fear and hate Sarah Palin. They have to do the same for all of us. Every single one of us. Just like they do with Muslims.

  9. says

    Charles Martel….Heinlein wrote another story in which the US is taken over by an unspecified totalitarian Asian nation. A small group of scientists organizes a resistance movement, and they operate *under cover of a religion*, since the Pan-Asians have adopted a totalitarian version of of multiculturalism and believe it is best to allow the slaves to retain their spiritual comforts in order to make them more tractable.
    The religion is dedicated to the worship of the Great God MOTA, and the churches are centers for resistance organizing and the development of military technologies.

  10. Texan99 says

    The story was “Sixth Column.”  Heinlein didn’t think of scientists the way you do, Ymar.  He liked to have a “mad scientist” character around somewhere to provide the startling invention that moved the plot.  In this case, only a half dozen or so guys know about the new technology, which was developed individually and in private.  They’re the farthest thing from having been co-opted by any kind of research-industrial complex.  Do you ever read Heinlein?  I think it would appeal to you.  He had very strong feelings about what keeps free men free.  Lots of his plots involve insurgencies.

  11. says

    I have read some Heinlein, but it wasn’t predominant in my library’s science fiction section so I only read some of his more popular stories. I can access his short stories, but never really got around to em. I tend to like short descriptions of such stories to get the blood flowing, which is rare for the Golden Sci Fi stories.
     
     

  12. Charles Martel says

    “Sixth Column” was one of my favorites growing up in the Fifties. It would be considered horribly racist today because the Yank scientists develop a ray that targets East Asians but leaves white people alone.

    Unfortunately, “Sixth Column’s” evil science is already here. I have it on good word from some of the African American community’s best and brightest minds that HIV was invented by white scientists to target black people.

Leave a Reply