Below is the latest guest essay from our Russian correspondent Peter 1.
The Rule of Professors
by Peter 1
In our days we observe a phenomenon which is very strange at first glance — the convergence of the progressive Left with Muslim fanatics on virtually every issue.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the progressives ruling Europe are deliberately transforming the continent into a Muslim land. Many people still cannot believe this; they prefer to think that it is either incompetence or naïveté.
If we now look at history, we notice that it was the most scientifically advanced countries that fell into the hands of Muslims during their expansion, including Egypt, Anatolia, and Mesopotamia — the birthplaces of civilization.
I cannot believe that the great countries were unable to resist the attack of nomadic barbarians, if they wanted. Something, however, prevented them from doing so. It was the peripheral and much less developed states that showed resistance and managed to repel the conquest.
The Golden Age of Islam, which some don’t believe in, may have really existed. Some sort of civilization may have really flourished under Islamic rule. The only small objection is that none of those great achievements were produced by Islam itself.
– – – – – – – – –
However, Islam can perfectly adopt and consume the fruits grown by others, while they last. More than that, I believe that the whole motive of Islamic conquest — although never openly admitted — is to grab the tasty fruits of civilization which they cannot produce themselves but jealously desire. Therefore, countries that are less prosperous have a better chance of surviving.
However, there is more than this one-sided desire. There is a mysterious tendency of the elites of the advanced countries — let us call them progressives — to submit to the rule of nomadic barbarians. The true hidden reason is yet to be found; however, one interesting point is the amazing similarity of progressives and Islamic spiritual leaders!
Let’s take, for example, a typical professor from a School of Political Science in San Francisco or London, and a professor from a School of Islamic Jurisprudence in Cairo. We will find that:
|1.||Both study texts which they consider to be absolutely correct, and to which they cannot add a single new word.|
|2.||Both claim that their work and their ideas can save the world.|
|3.||Both believe in administrative measures to be imposed on the population for the good of society: taxes, penalties of various sorts, the prohibition of wrong ideas.|
The main difference between the two is the contents of the texts which they study. Some people believe it is an obstacle that cannot be overcome. However, there is nothing in Islam that cannot coexist with most physical sciences, such as atomic physics or ballistics. As for scientific institutions and universities, they can also perfectly function under Sharia.
Of course, free thought will be forbidden, and research will degrade, but who told you that research is the main goal? The main goal is the educational process. And progress can be easily redefined as the progress in education, for example, how many verses you have learned by heart.
Actually, most of the progressive ideas — such as imposing taxes, centralized redistribution of goods (while there are still some), elimination of borders, the worldwide rule of progressives — can be implemented under Islam much more easily. After all, Islam in many respects is just the rule of professors, who failed to add a single new word to their textbooks.
Brilliant, short and to the point.
Why is the left today so irrational?
During the Iranian revolution Michael Foucault warmly received the news that left-wing movements in Iran had hybridized the war-like and austere Shia Islam with Communism. Think about it, Communism with religious fanaticism. When the Shia aspect of this Shia-Marxist glorious “peoples revolution” (as Foucault beleived it to be) began beheading gays and stoning women he couldn’t acknowledge what had happened. Moreover, he didn’t want to condemn the direction the revolution had taken for to do so would be to imperialistically and occulsively impose Western values on a non-Western revolution.
According to a hugely interesting article Foucault:
“Michel Foucault stated that he was ‘impressed’ by the ‘attempt to open a spiritual dimension in politics’ that he discerned in project on an Islamic government. Today there are little girls all in black, veiled from head to toe; women stabbed precisely because they do not want to wear the veil; summary executions for homosexuality; the creation of a ‘Ministry of Guidance According to the Precepts of the Koran;’ thieves and adulterous women flagellated.” “
Moreover Foucault saw a redemptive power in Shia/Marxism
“He concluded the article by referring to the crucial place of “political spirituality” in Iran and the loss of such spirituality in early modern Europe. “
Then he called his opponents Islamophobic:
“Returning to the problematic notion of an Islamic government, Atoussa H. pointed to the brutal forms of justice in Saudi Arabia: “Heads and hands are cut off, for thieves and lovers.” She concluded: “Many Iranians are, like me, distressed and desperate about the thought of an ‘Islamic’ government. . . . The Western liberal left needs to know that Islamic law can become a dead weight on societies hungering for change. They should not let themselves be seduced by a cure that is perhaps worse than the disease.” Foucault, in a short rejoinder published the following week in Nouvel Observateur, wrote that what was “intolerable” about Atoussa H.’s letter, was her “merging together” of all forms of Islam into one and then “scorning” Islam as “fanatical.” It was certainly discerning on Foucault’s part to note in his response that Islam “as a political force is an essential problem for our epoch and for the years to come.” But this prediction was seriously undercut by his utter refusal to share any of her critique of political Islam. Instead, he concluded his rejoinder by lecturing Atoussa H.: “The first condition for approaching it [Islam] with a minimum of intelligence is not to begin by bringing in hatred.” In March and April 1979, once the Khomeini regime’s atrocities against women and homosexuals began, this exchange would come back to haunt Foucault.”
He may as well have called his critics “Islamophobic” and because their criticisms were only thinly veiled “discourses of the will to power”, because, after all, there is no objective truth. God is Dead. The Will-to-Power creates truth and order.
We are naive in the extreme if we think this reincarnation of Godless German philosophy is not going to end up with another Nazi tyranny.
No, I’d say this tyranny has already begun with the spurious “Hate-Speech” legislation where quoting from the Koran in public, or perhaps just filming and displaying what Muslims think of gays, can land you in prison, or subject to investigation because after all, there is no truth, no ideas, only speakers, and if one says something that makes another look bad by reference to his beliefs and culture–which are protected as a human right, i.e. religion is irrational, but being irrational it is a wellspring of life and therefore essential to humanity therefore to insult religion is to insult someone’s humanity–then you’re on the road to Auschwitz.
Fanatics of a feather flock together.
Those who forbid critical thinking (critical of them and their intolerant ideology) end up with empty heads awaiting those stuffed full of militant and murderous brainwashing to slice them off.
The anarcho-leftists’ sickly romanticization of “the oppressed” absolves this mythical type of all crimes, until there is nothing left but crimes.
Human liberty and dignity require that both forms of tyranny over the mind of man and woman – thoecratic of “philosophic”- be opposed and defeated.
“However, there is nothing in Islam that cannot coexist with most physical sciences, such as atomic physics or ballistics. As for scientific institutions and universities, they can also perfectly function under Sharia.”
I have to disagree. First, the few, non-left professors are in the hard sciences. Second, Islam believes that Allah can and does, change the rules so research into the the Sciences is worthless since the rules can change at any time.
> Why is the left today so irrational?
— That’s just the sales-pitch of “We’re so stupid that we couldn’t possibly succeed in our eternal ambition to rule you….so sleep, child. Sleeeeeeeeepppp….”
The left is incredible perceptive when it comes to taking bureaucracies and consolidating power.
— When you think about it, the *only* time the Left has lost power in the last 100 years is when the Soviet Union collapsed due to internal unwillingness to commit another blood-soaked purge to keep the people in line (something China was obviously willing to do, which is why the Chinese commies still run things).
> If we now look at history, we notice that it was the most
> scientifically advanced countries that fell into the hands of Muslims
> during their expansion, including Egypt, Anatolia, and Mesopotamia
> — the birthplaces of civilization.
Eh, that’s some faulty history. All three of those areas were non-entities, scientifically speaking, at the time prior to the Muslim Conquest. (And they weren’t targeted first for any specific reason other than that they were closest to Arabia.)
The Left is sick and deranged, and self-hating. There is no way they would like to live under Sharia. What are they thinking?
absurd thought –
God of the Universe says
politics is religion
feeling is most important
thinking is not required
absurd thought –
God of the Universe says
claim to care for people
call yourself progressive
your policies hurt poor folk
Philosophy of Liberty Cartoon
Help Halt Terrorism Today!
The Left is sick and deranged, and self-hating. There is no way they would like to live under Sharia.
Islam is a totalitarian communal ideology which enforces strict ideological conformity, permits no dissent, putatively erases all differences between people, and allows only Party members to wield the levers of power. In what way is this not the Left’s ideal world?
Somebody wrote “However, there is nothing in Islam that cannot coexist with most physical sciences, …”. (The comment seems to have disappeared.)
If that were true, then why is it that Islam has produced exactly zero physical science?
People like al-Khwarizmi advanced mathematics (a long time ago), but other people like Ulugh Beg were assassinated because they were doing too much science and not enough religion.
In Islam, all thinking is done for you by the mullahs and the Koran. Scientific advancement is unneccesary, because of inshallah: if Allah wishes it, it will happen whether we will it or no; if he does not, it will not.
It’s interesting, the connection between Focault and Communism. (And most postmodern philosophers.) They discovered that their philosophy won’t bring about the glorious communist state, so what the heck, let’s see if we can do it with Islam.
And the “it” they’re trying for is the downfall of Western civilization.
The so-called Golden Age of Islam only existed because of Christians, i.e. the Byzantines. Islam conquered the former territories of the Byzantine Empire and inherited the learning, culture, and technologies of those lands. Nothing original or good came out of Islam.
In some ways, Islam is a Christian Heresy and Muslims are Heretics.