Skip to content

Newt Gingrich and the Struggle Against Freedom

2010/08/02

There are two radical and radically different forms of authoritarian collectivism.  One is religious, the other atheistic.  Liberty is simultaneously under threat from both.

Pajamas’ Roger Kimball follows the arguments of NRO’s Andy McCarthy, who was expanding on critically important points made recently by Newt Gingrich at AEI.

Paraphrasing…

“The single purpose of this [struggle] is the imposition of [socialism]. On that score, Gingrich made two points of surpassing importance. First, some [Socialists] employ mass-murder attacks while others prefer a gradual march through our institutions — our legal, political, academic, and financial systems, as well as our broader culture; the goal of both, though, is the same. The stealth [Socialists - "Progressives"] occasionally feign outrage at the [radicals], but their quarrel is over methodology and pace. Both camps covet the same outcome.” – Roger Kimball

Both camps – the radical socialists and the “progressives”. Dear reader, note well: I’ve made substitutions for the original words sharia, Islamism, Islamists and terrorists. It’s disturbing on the one hand and refreshing on the other to see how interchangeable are the phenomena. Both ideologies use precisely the same strategic and tactical methods against us.

Let me [ . . ] offer the irreducible minimum you should take away from the news today. It’s from the indispensable Andy McCarthy over at National Review Online. His column is called “It’s about Sharia,” and the irreducible minimum I’d like to highlight is this striking proposition:

“Islamism is not a movement to be engaged, it is an enemy to be defeated.”

Newt draws a number of clear comparisons and contrasts between the West’s response to both threats, particularly historical American responses. He makes clear that we are at war, whether cold or hot, whether we are aware or not, but nonetheless at war with ultimate stakes:

“The war is about the survival of Western civilization, and we should make no apologies for the fact that the West’s freedom culture is a Judeo-Christian culture — a fact that was unabashedly acknowledged, Gingrich reminded his audience, by FDR and Churchill. To ensure victory in the United States we must, once again, save Europe, where the enemy has advanced markedly. . . .

Our allies are the Muslims who embrace our freedom culture — those for whom sharia is a matter of private belief, not public mission. Our enemies are those who want sharia to supplant American law and Western culture. When we call out the latter, and marginalize them, we may finally energize the former.”

Energize… better, create by winning hearts and minds.
Andy McCarthy: It’s About Sharia

“This being the Era of the Reset Button, Gingrich is going about the long-overdue business of resetting our understanding of the civilizational jihad that has been waged against the United States for some 31 years.”

Better: Our time is end-game for the old order.  Reset as we must.  There has been a collectivist jihad in progress for twelve decades, sometimes from without, and continuously from within.  The lesson?

Collectivism – whether the radical socialist variety or the “kinder, gentler” progressive cancer is not, thereby, merely a movement to be engaged, it is an enemy to be defeated.

When faced with Sharia’s clear totalitarian challenge, the collectivist would rather convert or succumb to dhimmitude than to die. Libertarians and Conservatives – by definition – will fight to the death before accepting slavery or apostasy. The Judeo-Christian tradition of Liberty may be the least-ordered of all societies, but ironically it has the potential to be the most powerful.

Western Civilization endures many fronts, spatially and politically.  We can do this… we can win against both enemies, with God’s help, simply by remaining who we are.

About these ads
5 Comments leave one →
  1. 2010/08/02 09:00

    “Remaining who we are” or regaining who we were – either will require more work than the expression would lead us to expect. Just standing in place is a struggle when the tide is running.

    Remaining who we are, then, means we struggle against the tide that tries to convince us and our children that cultures, religions, histories – all are of equal value and each contains something worth emulating. We have to lean against the current that would sweep us toward accepting the notion that Sharia or liberty, personal freedom or socialism – it’s all the same.

    • 2010/08/02 12:28

      Hi Steven.
      My response to the tide has been to raise my two daughters as libertarian-conservatives. I don’t have boys, so I started a Boy Scout troop this year at our synagogue.

      This blog is three parts cafeteria table, and two parts lab bench and one part museum wall. Hey – come to think of it, you’re the first reader who has shown up on all three. Thanks!

  2. 2010/08/02 22:45

    Now that’s something to be proud of! Thanks, my friend.

  3. Mrs. Kissell permalink
    2010/08/03 06:32

    Ran,

    Not having seen the full context of Newt’s speech from which, I think, you quote this passage (I could be wrong):

    “Our allies are the Muslims who embrace our freedom culture — those for whom sharia is a matter of private belief, not public mission. Our enemies are those who want sharia to supplant American law and Western culture. When we call out the latter, and marginalize them, we may finally energize the former.””

    I have to start with caveats: I’d not sure I’m responding to who I think I’m responding to, or what. And I’m not sure I understand your drift entirely. So, please take what follows accordingly.

    “Our allies are the Muslims who embrace our freedom culture — those for whom sharia is a matter of private belief, not public mission. Our enemies are those who want sharia to supplant American law and Western culture. When we call out the latter, and marginalize them, we may finally energize the former.” — is a stupid, contemptible statement, whoever made it, and whoever did, is a dangerous person.

    I won’t explicate that remark. It’s self-evident or it isn’t. To me, it is utterly insane and in context criminally insane.

    I guess what triggers my desire to comment here is the suspicion that you quote that statement concurringly. I cannot imagine you would do that.

    Still, for what it’s worth, or isn’t, I’m for you. Carry on. I’m just one jivatma among very many.

    • 2010/08/03 13:08

      Thanks Mrs. K!
      No concurrence. Newt fell precisely into the same patronizing trap that he had just exposed as Bush’s. Dangerous indeed.

      Your question deserves a proper posted response.

      Cheers!

      Ran

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 29 other followers