John C. Wright (johncwright) wrote,
John C. Wright
johncwright

The Retrograde Reading Skills of a Progressive

In reference to this article, "The Seldon Plan", a reader (I withhold his name out of courtesy) writes in with some snarky questions.

"Mr. Wright, you only reveal your opposition to what you think stupid and sinister people must think."

Oddly enough, I said the exact opposite. My exact words were "First, it hypothesizes the existence of a Leftist who is not stupid or brainwashed. While I have met any number of Leftists who were stupider than they thought they were (of course, they usually think of themselves as geniuses), I have not noticed any remarkable difference in IQ."

"That scarcely broaches the subject with a wink."

This line is cryptic. If this is a coy way of accusing me of being coy, the accusation is a lie (not to mention being hypocrisy).

"Are you willing to tell us how you think righteous people should respond to an implacable paynim menace?"

Willing? WILLING? You make it sound as if I am reluctant to speak, rather than overeager. Here are some of my previous posts on the subject. They have titles like DUES LO VEULT and ISLAM IS A BARBARIC RELIGION. I am not exactly hiding my opinions under a basket.

http://johncwright.livejournal.com/38601.html
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/209910.html
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/209987.html
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/210303.html
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/210727.html
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/211034.html
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/211318.html
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/211622.html
http://johncwright.livejournal.com/19517.html

To summarize my position: I would like the Pope to declare a Crusade (or whatever the modern equivalent would be, now that the West has been castrated of its Christian heritage). I would like the Western Powers to declare war on the Terror Masters until terrorism is obliterated. This means undermining or destroying both state actors and non-state actors. I scoff at the notion that we must play by the Marquis of Queensbury rules with Jew-killing fascists of a heretical and inhuman suicide cult, or that we cannot make war against anything but a nation-state. Must the disorganization and decentralization of a foe paralyze our ability to act?

Because the main weakness of the West is Progressivism, I would like the Progressives to be dismissed in public opinion and from public office, or to be hanged, as their position on the spectrum leading from innocent useful idiot to deliberate traitor may merit.

(Just yesterday I was speaking with a Progressive who denounced the United States for not allowing Saddam another year or two to produce a legal document proving he had no nerve gas program. I did not ask my Progressive friend why this salient legal document did not win Saddam free from all charges leveled against him at his trial. I assume she wanted the monster back in power, and the rape rooms, man-eating wood-chippers, children's prisons, and secret police open for business -- or else she thought that these things were not significant. If that was not what she wanted, it was nonetheless the goal toward which she was acting. If was not deliberate, it was negligence amounting to a malign indifference to human life. This is one example of countless, frequently seen often enough to convince me it is the norm for Progressive psychopathology, not a personal abherration on her part.misrepresenting an otherwise healthy and sober political philosophy.)

I would like the West to take the threat seriously, and to take the same serious steps any previous generation would have taken, from unity of sober public opinion, to aggressive police work to unfettered espionage work, to limits on the spread of the religion that camouflages the enemy (until such time, if ever, it divests itself of its terrorist hangers-on), and where the terror masters have political power, open and total war.

Let us rain upon the terror masters, death, bloodshed, conquest, and (if need be) atomic annihilation, until they are no more. If they hide behind hostages or civilians, shoot through the hostages. If they refuse to abide by the civilized usage of war, treat them as pirates or privateers, hostes humani generis - enemies of all mankind. Hang them upon capture.

Jihadi delenda est. The enemy must be destroyed. My plan is we win and they surrender.

"Are you evincing coy support for the eradication of Islam?"

This question is dishonest, and I am ashamed of you for asking it.

Tell me whether a stern opposition to witch-hunting or to the Spanish Inquisition is the same as an opposition to Christianity? Does everyone who wants to see the Grand Inquisitor out of power want to see all Christians, including Mother Teresa of Calcutta, burnt at the stake?

The question shows you have fallen into the psychological trap that the Jihadists and their Progressive allies have laid for you: being unable to distinguish between honest Muslims and bloodthirsty mad bombers hiding behind them, you provide cover for the mad bombers by blackening the name of all opposition to the bombers. You act as if anyone who wants to stop the mad bombers wants to ERADICATE the religion that they use as a stalking horse. (As if wanting to stop the Evil Empire of Soviet Russia equalled wanting to eradicate the study of economics, because the Russians said they were motivated by an economic theory.)

May I ask if you are evincing coy support for mad bombers? Your question is on that level.

"Does your title intimate that the collapse of the modern world is inevitably at hand?"

No. The title "The Seldon Plan" refers to a science fiction book, whose premise was that future history could be predicted with scientific accuracy. The title in this context is a dig at Progressives, whose confident indifference to external enemies I mock as being founded on a faith in the inevitability of history: they think their future is on their side.

It is in scorn of those who think the future is on their side I chose that title. I made that clear in the body of the article. Anyone willing to read the actual words I wrote could see what I meant.

"Do you believe your duty as a shepherd of men is to hasten the demise of contemporary civilization so that something better might be wrought?"

No. This question is bizarre. It contains a fase-to-facts assumption. I am not (and do not claim to be) a shepherd of men. I am not claiming and do not claim that contemporary civilization should die, nor do I claim anything better could replace it. I did not say the opposite either. I did not say anything at all about this. Your question is not even remotely related to the topics I address, even by the logic of the cube-shaped Bizarro World from which your questions issue.

I am writing to urge the sleepy population to wake, and take up arms, and man the walls before we are overrun by outer barbarians, or betrayed by inner traitors.

"Or do you merely wish to remind us that people are stupid and you're agin 'em?"

No. My purpose is what I said it was in the body of the article. Anyone willing to read the actual words I wrote could see what I meant. I assume you do not belong in that category.

I am bothering to answer you because I wish to show you more courtesy than you have shown me: I take your dishonest questions seriously enough to answer as if they had been honestly asked.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic
  • 48 comments