How Do Leftists and Liberals Parrot Foucault’s Lunatic Post-Modern Dream
“The western liberal left needs to know that Islamic law can become a dead weight on societies hungering for change. The Left should not let itself be seduced by a cure that is perhaps worse than the disease.”
— Atoussa H., an Iranian exile in France, wrote in response to Michel Foucault’s post-modern folly.
It’s really true, as reality proves my conclusion, that Islamism is way, way better in propaganda-creation and myth-making
than the stupid leftists and liberals. The stupid leftists and liberals never learned from the stupidity and utter idiocy of leftist and post-modernist Michel Foucault, who was one of the most notorious apologists of Islamic totalitarianism in the past century. The philosophy and post-modernist madness of Foucault led him to believe that Ayatollah Khomeini and Islam were the solution to Iran’s internal problems in the 1970s.
Yes, Michel Foucault’s utter ignorance of Islam and his rejection of reality-based objective facts exposed the profound flaws of his philosophy and ideology. More than three decades after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, today’s socialists and liberal nincompoops inherited the idiotic, non-reality-based mentality of Foucault, as they also echo his post-modern and anti-reason defense of Islam and blind arguments against American imperialism. What they refuse to understand is that Islam is not merely a totalitarian religion; it is also an imperialistic political ideology.
In his non-objective, post-modernist article entitled What are the Iranians Dreaming About, Michel Foucault made a self-destructive exposition of his philosophical blunders, as he prattle on about his naive pronouncements and illusions about Islam and politics. He considered Khomeini, who established a totalitarian regime founded on Islamic faith in 1979, an “old saint”, and argued that “there will not be a Khomeini Party; there will not be a Khomeni government.”
“One this must be clear,” he insisted, “by Islamic government, nobody in Iran means a political regime in which the clerics would have a role of supervision or control. To me, the phrase “Islamic government” seemed to point to two orders of things.”
He went on to substantiate his stupid, post-modernist claim:
“A utopia,” some told me without any pejorative implication. “An ideal,” most of them said to me. At any rate, it is something very old and also very far into the future, a notion of coming back to what Islam was at the time of the Prophet, but also of advancing toward a luminous and distant point where it would be possible to renew fidelity rather than maintain obedience. In pursuit of this ideal, the distrust of legalism seemed to me to be essential, along with a faith in the creativity of Islam.
“A religious authority explained to me that it would require long work by civil and religious experts, scholars, and believers in order to shed light on all the problems to which the Quran never claimed to give a precise response. But one can find some general directions here: Islam values work; no one can be deprived of the fruits of his labor; what must belong to all (water, the subsoil) shall not be appropriated by anyone. With respect to liberties, they will be respected to the extent that their exercise will not harm others; minorities will be protected and free to live as they please on the condition that they do not injure the majority; between men and women there will not be inequality with respect to rights, but difference, since there is a natural difference. With respect to politics, decisions should be made by the majority, the leaders should be responsible to the people, and each person, as it is laid out in the Quran, should be able to stand up and hold accountable he who governs.”
Reality is the only arbiter of a bunch of socialist and liberal idiots. But the problem with all insane socialists and liberals is that they usually make flawed and non-reality-based judgments because of their equally flawed way of thinking and philosophy. The fundamental cause of this flaw is their rejection of reason, reality, and the laws of identity and causality. They reject reason simply because their patron saint Karl Marx said it eloquently, that reason was created by the bourgeoisie. This is the reason why I laugh at the stupidity of the liberal and neo-Marxist freethinkers who claim that they are defenders and promoters of reason. They reject reality because of their subjective way of thinking, and that they know nothing about the value of the laws of identity and causality simply because of their rejection of reason and of reality. They believe that we can have our cake and eat it too. They don’t believe that for nature to be commanded, it must be obeyed. They also disregard the fact that the genocide of their founding fathers like Stalin, Lenin, and Mao Tse Tung is the result of their socialist ideology.
It is very ironic and disgusting that despite the fundamental blunders in Michel Foucault’s judgment about the Islamic revolution and the Khomeini regime, almost all leftists and liberals today still echo his stupid claims and defense of Islam. Worse, he insisted that “the definitions of an Islamic government” are “basic formulas for democracy.”
“It is often said that the definitions of an Islamic government are imprecise. On the contrary, they seemed to me to have a familiar but, I must say, not too reassuring clarity. “These are basic formulas for democracy, whether bourgeois or revolutionary,” I said. “Since the eighteenth century now, we have not ceased to repeat them, and you know where they have led.” But I immediately received the following reply: “The Quran had enunciated them way before your philosophers, and if the Christian and industrialized West lost their meaning, Islam will know how to preserve their value and their efficacy.”
Foucault also insisted that an Islamic community would lead to the creation of “religious communities,” which would probably consist of not only Islam but of also other religions on earth. What he meant to say is that Islam is a tolerant, civilized, and fore-bearing religion that is open to all religious faiths and cultures. He believed that when the Iranians spoke of Islamic government and fought for their Islamic dreams, they were “thinking about a reality that is very near to them, since they themselves are its active agents.”
It is first and foremost about a movement that aims to give a permanent role in political life to the traditional structures of Islamic society. An Islamic government is what will allow the continuing activity of the thousands of political centers that have been spawned in mosques and religious communities in order to resist the shah’s regime. I was given an example. Ten years ago, an earthquake hit Ferdows. The entire city had to be reconstructed, but since the plan that had been selected was not to the satisfaction of most of the peasants and the small artisans, they seceded. Under the guidance of a religious leader, they went on to found their city a little further away. They had collected funds in the entire region. They had collectively chosen places to settle, arranged a water supply, and organized cooperatives. They had called their city Islamiyeh. The earthquake had been an opportunity to use religious structures not only as centers of resistance, but also as sources for political creation. This is what one dreams about [ songe ] when one speaks of Islamic government.
However, reality tells us that Michel Foucault lived and died a liberal, post-modernist nincompoop who helped spread academic stupidity and anti-reason values and ideology in the past century. The facts of reality tell us that Ayatollah Khomeini was not an “old saint” as Foucault believed him to be. Khomeini was a murderous, power-seeking religious cleric who sought to spread the religion of Islam throughout the world by faith and force. The Islamic political ideology of Khomeini is the same as political motivations of the most brutal and genocidal tyrants in world history like Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Kim Jong Ill- “The end justifies the means.” This is the reason why there are many Muslim suicide bombers who are ready and willing to offer their lives in order to fulfill the imperialistic vision of Islam and its holy prophet. Islam is an imperialistic ideology that seeks to dominate the world by whatever means possible.
Thirty years after the creation of the Islamic regime of Iran, the Iranians begin to see the evil of the system which they helped create and establish in 1979. The un-democratic elections held last year in Iran proclaimed re-electionist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad president of Iran in a public poll marred by cheating scandal. But even before the elections, the Islamic regime made it sure only the favorable political candidates could run for president. Only a few were allowed to run for the highest post of the land out of more than 200 aspirants who filed their certificates of candidacy.
The Iranian people, fed up and abused by the clerics and their Islamic soldiers, went to the streets of Iran under the threats of bullets. One of those who were killed by Iran’s Islamic soldiers was Neda Agha-Soltan who eventually became the face of resistance against Islamic theocracy.
Those who try to appease Islamic totalitarianism are either profoundly ignorant of Islam or just plain lunatic creatures. Their appeasement helps perpetuate crimes being done in the name of religion in all theocratic regimes on earth. While they condemn Israel’s defense of her survival and evade the question ‘who started the war in the Middle East,’ they turn a blind eye on such gruesome crimes done in the name of Islamic faith and tradition as as honor killing, terror attacks, killing of infidels, burning of Christian and Buddhist churches, censorship, execution of gays and those so-called guilty of blasphemy and adultery, etc.
These lunatic leftists and liberals cannot claim innocence for their stupid appeasement. They are morally guilty. Just like Michel Foucault, they are living a life full of lies, dishonesty and stupidity.
A must-see video for all the world to see…