{"id":6849,"date":"2015-11-16T05:12:54","date_gmt":"2015-11-16T05:12:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2015\/11\/16\/politicization-national-debt-and-the-paris-attacks\/"},"modified":"2015-11-16T05:12:54","modified_gmt":"2015-11-16T05:12:54","slug":"politicization-national-debt-and-the-paris-attacks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2015\/11\/16\/politicization-national-debt-and-the-paris-attacks\/","title":{"rendered":"‘Politicization,’ National Debt, and the Paris Attacks"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Republicans have been accused of 'politicizing' the debt crisis.  But how can you politicize what is  inherently political?  The debt in question is the debt of the federal government.  Since a government is a political entity, questions concerning federal debts are political questions.  As inherently political, such questions cannot be politicized.<\/span><\/p>\n

If to reify is illicitly to treat as a thing that which is not a thing, then to politicize is illicitly to treat as political what is not political.  Since governmental debt questions are 'already' political, they cannot be politicized.<\/span><\/p>\n

Some commentators are now claiming that the Paris attacks are being 'politicized.'  But again, how can something that is inherently political be 'politicized'?  An attack by a terrorist entity upon a Western democracy is clearly a political event.<\/span><\/p>\n

Someone might respond to me as follows.  "I see your point, but when people say that an event is being politicized, what they mean is that it is being exploited for partisan advantage.  Thus those opposed to Muslim immigration will 'use' the Paris attacks to support their case against such immigration."<\/span><\/p>\n

I agree that this is what most people mean by 'politicization.'  But then what is wrong with it? Nothing as far as I can see.<\/span><\/p>\n

We must learn the lessons from these terrible events.  One lesson of Paris, or rather a confirmation of a lesson that already should have been learned, is that radical Islam (militant Islam, Islamism, pick your term) is a grave threat to civilization.  French civilization, and European civilization generally, borders on the decadent; but it is still to be preferred to the fanaticism, tribalism, and backwardness of the Islamic world.  That is what we call an understatement.<\/span><\/p>\n

So I say we need more 'politicization' in the second sense of the term.  We need more 'exploitation' of such horrific crimes.<\/span><\/p>\n

And there is a bridge from Paris to Mizzou.<\/span><\/p>\n

In a characteristically piss-poor OpEd piece in the NYT entitled Exploiting Paris<\/a>,  Frank Bruni whines, "Using Paris to delegitimize them is puerile."  He is referring to the 'safe space' girly-girls and crybullies.<\/span><\/p>\n

This shows how willfully stupid he and his colleagues are.  (Not all of them, of course: Douthat and Brooks are worth reading.)  They fail to grasp the connection between the assault on free speech by the Islamists and that by the crybullies and pampered fascists of our elite universities.  And they will never own up to the obvious fact that the Left serves to enable radical Islam.  <\/span><\/p>\n

Both are incredibly destructive forces that attack the foundations of genuine civilization.  Observe also that the Left is not only destructive, but insanely self-destructive:  they think they will use the Islamists for their ends; but they will be the first of the infidels to be slaughtered.<\/span><\/p>\n

\nRelated articles<\/legend>\n
\n
\"\"<\/a>The Danger of Appeasing the Intolerant<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>What Explains the Left's Toleration of Militant Islam?<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Ron Radosh on the American Left<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/fieldset>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Republicans have been accused of 'politicizing' the debt crisis.  But how can you politicize what is  inherently political?  The debt in question is the debt of the federal government.  Since a government is a political entity, questions concerning federal debts are political questions.  As inherently political, such questions cannot be politicized. If to reify … Continue reading “‘Politicization,’ National Debt, and the Paris Attacks”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[119,6,375],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6849","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-islamism","category-language-matters","category-terrorism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6849","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6849"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6849\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6849"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6849"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6849"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}