Skip to content

How Do Leftists and Liberals Parrot Foucault’s Lunatic Post-Modern Dream

June 26, 2010

“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

Michel Foucault unleashed one of the most evil men on earth...

Michel Foucault unleashed one of the most evil men on earth...

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…

Advertisements
31 Comments leave one →
  1. interlocutor permalink
    July 30, 2010 3:38

    Dear Sir,

    While I do respect your ability to express information in a forum such as this, the content of your article forces me to request that you argue better.

    It would have been more helpful, if you would have mentioned the fact that Foucault’s epistemological theories serve as a complete affront to your objectivist reasoning, and thus perhaps should require more threshing out. However, you decided to take Foucault for his word on one article about the Ayatollah, granted that it seems unconventional to support Khomeini in retrospect, one must understand why Foucault did this based on his understanding of the relations of critique and the limit-attitude.

    We will never agree, of course, on the Foucauldian (and arguably somewhat Gramscian) idea that no objective truth is possible to comprehend given our subjugation to regimes of truth, but I would like to see why you disagree so vehemently, not in this way, which I think does not give justice to both you and to Michel Foucault.

    Cheers.

    • October 8, 2010 3:38

      That’s wishful thinking. Why not try to argue my points here?

      • Xoce Rixjal permalink
        October 9, 2011 3:38

        And that’s dodging the issue altogether Froi, why not answer the points?

  2. Jules permalink
    October 8, 2010 3:38

    Only on a conservative blog will you see Michel Foucault called a “nincompoop” while Ayn Rand is celebrated as a “must read!” author.

    That being said, it is not your conservatism that compelled me to write this comment. What struck me was the obviously biased article (it is not an opinion that this article is biased, it is a matter of clear fact) posted on a page that touted “objectivity” as a core value in its header.

    I also find it odd that you redundantly and almost compulsively refer to Foucault and your opponents as “idiots” or “morons” (not just in this article, but throughout your site as a whole). Setting aside the grammatical errors in this article, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume by merit of the subject matter that you are a relatively intelligent person – why, then, do you feel the need resort to petty and childlike name-calling to make your arguments? In short, your simplistic argumentative style belies your supposedly informed assertion that a renowned sociologist and philosopher (whatever his opinions) is “stupid.”

    I believe that Henry Kissinger is one of the worst war criminals in American History. I do not believe he is an idiot. The same is true for my opinions on Karl Rove and Dick Cheney: both men have unscrupulous records and poisonous ideals, but neither are stupid. I would hope that – when arguing against those with whom you disagree – you will someday learn to make the same distinction. Just because we disagree with someone doesn’t mean that they are defective in every way or that they are completely void of intelligence.

    Come on…you’re smarter than that. I truly, sincerely believe it.

    Regards,

    Jules

    • October 8, 2010 3:38

      I’m not a conservative. Conservatism is as dangerous as communism.

      • Jules permalink
        October 9, 2010 3:38

        Nice try avoiding the bulk of the argument by arguing against my assertion that you are a conservative. Your ideas: minimal government, unregulated capitalism, and an attack on altruism reflect your disdain for liberal and humanitarian principles. For this, I assumed (and still assume) that you are a conservative.

        That being said, I am curious to read an actually well-thought out response to my post.

        You say you have no degree. I do not hold this against you, but I do have a degree in sociology/political science and would like to warn you that pursuing data without the objective structure of a university setting leads one to seek out information concordant with one’s interests as opposed to a rounded look at multiple sides of an argument.

        Please feel free to actually comment on the post intelligently rather than dodging bullets with “one-liners” and rhetoric.

  3. October 9, 2010 3:38

    First, I think that you didn’t raise any argument at all but a false assumption of my ideology/belief. Conservatism, primarily American conservatism, is founded on faith-based ideology. Their arguments for free-market capitalism is grounded in utilitarian principles, which I reject. I somehow stated in this previous blog why I reject conservatism… https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/the-god-revival/ .

    This is what I wrote: “However, it is very unfortunate that some people in the United States, particularly the religious conservatives, are trying to revive the spirit of the Dark Ages in America by justifying that the superpower nation was founded on Christian values. They even attempt to marry capitalism with religion by equivocating that the primary justification of capitalism are such vague terms as social justice, common good, public welfare, among others. It is the Conservatives who are delivering America to destruction by failing to preach the virtue of capitalism and by asserting that their country was founded on the Christian faith.”

    You said that I was trying to avoid “the bulk of the argument by arguing against my assertion that you are a conservative.” Nice try. I repeat: You never adduced any sane, valid point for me to argue. Also, I’d like you to point out some grammatical errors in this post. I think that’d help.

    Now, if you attacking my arguments against Foucault, the best way to do it is:

    1. present your own case.
    2. rebut my arguments.
    3. argue properly.

    You said: “Your ideas: minimal government, unregulated capitalism, and an attack on altruism reflect your disdain for liberal and humanitarian principles. For this, I assumed (and still assume) that you are a conservative.”

    This is so funny and pathetic. Most conservatives do not attack altruism. In fact, some of the free-market conservatives embrace the morality of altruism and even use altruism and charity interchangeably. I think you’re also a nincompoop like Foucault. Kindly define your terms first.

    You said: “You say you have no degree. I do not hold this against you, but I do have a degree in sociology/political science and would like to warn you that pursuing data without the objective structure of a university setting leads one to seek out information concordant with one’s interests as opposed to a rounded look at multiple sides of an argument.”

    I’m a college graduate. I’m now pursuing my law degree. Your statement above is full of pathetic assumptions. I’d like you to define this: “would like to warn you that pursuing data without the objective structure of a university setting leads one to seek out information concordant with one’s interests as opposed to a rounded look at multiple sides of an argument.”

    You may be a college graduate, but you know nothing about politics, philosophy and economics.

    • Rhyne May permalink
      October 9, 2010 3:38

      This is very interesting!
      But I think it’d be best if Jules reveals his real idendity. Meaning, he should state his real name, profession and other qualifications. I believe the blogger has a right to know who ‘Jules” is…

  4. Jon permalink
    October 10, 2010 3:38

    Within the first six paragraphs of your argument, you use words that completely remove your creditibility. Here are some of them: stupid, stupid, stupidity, idiocy, madness, nincimpoops, idiotic, idiots, insane, stupidity, stupid… just to name a few. Not to mention the fact that almost everything you say is redundant. Example: “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.”

    Learn how to logically construct an argument, and then there might be a possibility that you will be taken seriously.

    • October 10, 2010 3:38

      Well, it would be better if you could point out what’s wrong with my argument. Well, I don’t expect to be taken seriously by stupid, insane liberals and leftists like you.

      • Xoce Rixjal permalink
        October 9, 2011 3:38

        Froi, namecalling is a fundamental problem with your argument. It reduces anything you say to biased, uncritical, polemics. Which, in turn, turns your supposed intelligent, well-thought out arguments into angry rants. Argue like an adult.

    • October 10, 2010 3:38

      Foucault’s stupid appeasement was a rejection of reality! He even called this murderous Islamic cleric an “old saint.” His stand on the Islamic revolution and approval of Khomeini reveals his subjectivist, anti-reason ideology! You won’t see this because you’re an ignoramus!

      • Jon permalink
        October 10, 2010 3:38

        I do not believe I once affirmed that I subscribed to leftist political ideology, or any ideology for that matter. I choose to refrain from confining myself to one form of thinkinig. I was simply attempting to help you out because the process through which you argue does not portray your point positively, and you have a very obvious ideological bias.

        “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. ”

        Foucault actually criticized and distanced himself from many models of left-wing political systems. For instance, he said that Karl Marx’s ideas were only pertinent to the 19th century, and that they would not be applicable to modern times. Even though you make the claim that Foucault was in the category of liberals who apparently: “..reject reason simply because their patron saint Karl Marx said it eloquently, that reason was created by the bourgeoisie.” In reality (a word that you seem to be notably fond of), Foucault rejected the Marxist notion of elitist power as a hierarchical, top-down structure, and introduced a new concept of how power manifests itself into a complex, multifaceted system. Not to mention that the Marxist intellectual movement and the Marxist political system are two distinct concepts. Many Marxist scholars, such as Louis Althusser, denounced the original ideas of Karl Marx. He was more focused on urging people to remove the ideological constraints that society imposes upon them so that they could rid themselves of a false relationship to reality (there’s that word you are so partial to again).

        It’s just humorous to me that you want me to critique your argument, when there is not one to critique. After every quotation by Foucault you repetitively refer to him as stupid, an idiot, or a nincompoop. You also use similar word selections for anyone that disagrees with what you have said. Interesting, isn’t it?

      • October 10, 2010 3:38

        Oh yeah! You’re not a leftist/socialist when you don’t call yourself a socialist or leftist. Are you Jules using another nick because you have the same style?

  5. Jon permalink
    October 10, 2010 3:38

    Please, refute some of the claims that I have made against your argument as you urged me to do. If you can, that is.

    • October 10, 2010 3:38

      In the first place there’s nothing to refute in your stupid argument. Your argument is a good example of context-dropping.

      Foucualt may not be a Marxist but that doesn’t erase the fact that he’s a stupid statist or a socialist. Even Noam Chomsky did not call himself a Marxist (he calls himself a Libertarian socialist, whatever this term means). But one thing is very clear: both Marx and Foucault were greatly influenced by Immanuel Kant.

      I’m not arguing in my blog that Foucault was a Marxist. I was saying that Foucault, a statist or socialist, was an anti-reason, subjectivist philosopher of the past century. He had wrong, irrational metaphysics, epistemology, morality and even politics. His philosophical system is entirely wrong, which led him to make one of the worst judgments in his lifetime.

      I wrote: “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.” this statement should have made you think I was somehow dealing with the sick mind of Foucault. I was dealing with his philosophy, but not entirely, as he misjudged one important event in the past century: the Iranian revolution that Iran to Islamic theocracy. Impliedly I was saying that philosophy should be attached to reality; it should be all-encompassing. If you think at all…

      You should know the impact of ideas on man’s mind. Ideas matter, and most ideological-wingers of the socialist movement know this. This is the reason why socialist and liberal academics love to teach post-structuralism and the philosophy of Foucault to their young students. Why? Because Foucault’s ideas would destroy students’ understanding of reality. That’s why I call it post-modern madness. That’s why I call Foucault stupid and nincompoop. Actually “nincompoop” is one of the kindest terms I could find in the English dictionary to describe Foucault’s sick mind.

      In this blog (https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/readinglist/) I wrote the following:

      “In college I happened to read Foucault’s works, including the forgettable works of some post-structuralists and post-modernists, namely, Jacques Derrida, Roland Barthes, Lévi-Strauss, among others through the prodding of my liberal professor whose name I shall never forget— Duke Bagulaya. In our communication theory class, we were exposed to the teachings of Masao Miyoshi and other liberal and post-modern writers. I believe a studious friend and I were the only ones who eagerly followed the class discussion, and I also remember asking Prof. Bagulaya whether he’s a member of the CPP-NPA. Instead of giving me a straight answer, he simply beamed a mysterious smile.”

      You’re trying to defend one of the worst philosophers of the past century. You should know where I’m coming from. My article about Foucault is just a tip of an iceberg. Foucault was just one of the miserable marksmen of Kant. If you know what I mean. If you think at all. But it seems you don’t…

      Now you may read the following blogs to know what I mean:

      In Defense of Truth https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/04/15/in-defense-of-truth/

      In Defense of Truth: PART II https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/in-defense-of-truth-part-ii/

      On Ethics and Politics https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/on-ethics-and-politics/

      • Jon permalink
        October 12, 2010 3:38

        You are going to try to say “Libertarian socialist, whatever this term means” and expect me to argue with you? Noam Chomsky is not even a libertarian socialist, he is an anarcho-syndicalist. You do not construct an argument. You make statements based on your emotions and what you feel instead of by using logic and reason. You are not worth my time.

      • MC Ramirez permalink
        October 12, 2010 3:38

        Lol! You seemed to have cherry-picked “Libertarian socialist” to end this discussion because you’re a loser haha! Just use google and you’ll find out that Chomsky claimed he’s a Libertarian socialist, moron….

        Here’s one link http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19961223.htm

        No more argument because you’re mindless shit? Study hard next time haha!

      • Rhyne May permalink
        October 12, 2010 3:38

        Jon/Jules

        It’s very interesting how this LOSER changed his nick from Jon to Jules after realizing that he can’t beat the blogger haha! He’s clearly a loser troll… lol

      • Xoce Rixjal permalink
        October 9, 2011 3:38

        Isn’t it interesting that Rhyne May is accusing people of changing nicknames when it seems to be that he’s Froi’s?

  6. Exactly permalink
    March 11, 2011 3:38

    I’ve never seen a gayer article in my life.

  7. Anand permalink
    June 28, 2011 3:38

    This article was a total waste of my time. Even when people were trying to help you make your argument a little less biased and emotional, you called them names and argued like a 5 year old kid. Would u ever write an article for school like this? Do you think you are educating anyone about Foucault by calling him names and summarizing all his works in a few sentences he wrote?

    • June 28, 2011 3:38

      Well, what do I expect from a leftist troll like you?

  8. bob permalink
    October 8, 2011 3:38

    really i don’t see how because michel foucault at one time said something unfortunate about the ayatollah that ultimately discredits his entire philosophy and everything else he had written. he said something wrong once and because of that everything else that he had written becomes supportive of totalitarianistic dictators?

    ayn rand once wrote glowingly about a serial killer – does that discredit everything else she had written? i’m not a fan of ayn rand, but i’m not even going to sink that low.

    it’s funny you say: “oh they reject reason because their patron saint karl marx said it was bourgeois,” – i never, after having read the entirety of karl marx (the SCIENTIFIC socialist) heard him make that statement – nor have i ever come across anyone who posits a subjectivist viewpoint as claiming lineage from karl marx – rather it’s from nietzsche you idiot. foucault was a nietzschean, not a marxist. foucault is read by some marxists – that doesn’t make himself a man of the left, a “liberal nincompoop” as you claim him to be.

    • October 8, 2011 3:38

      What did she write about that “serial killer”? Was it part of her philosophy? You might have taken out of context. But I doubt you read or even understood what Rand wrote. I guess you simply read some articles about that “serial killer” on the net.

  9. December 10, 2012 3:38

    Just a heads up, Foucault argues directly against marxist philosophies of power, so I’m thinking you didn’t pay enough attention in philosophy class.

Trackbacks

  1. Tweets that mention How the Leftists and Liberals Echo Foucault’s Lunatic Post-Modernist Dream? « THE VINCENTON POST -- Topsy.com
  2. A Time Line of The Social Buying Universe | SocialDaily.info
  3. Who Did the Americans Vote For? « THE VINCENTON POST
  4. Big Lunacy | LETS BEEP Blog
  5. Big Lunacy – The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan | Slinking Toward Retirement

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: