Ghana accepts over 90 Christian refugees from Syria
A Two-Part Series on Leftism and the Media: A Response the Rachel Maddow’s “Breaking News” Part One was posted yesterday.
By Peter Amos Cohen
05 March 17
Part 2: The Leftist’s Cocktail Is Equal Parts Of “Expertise” And Gnosticism
In the last installment, we saw how leftism is absolutist because it holds that perception causes being. This installment shows that Maddow has no story in the document itself.
First, an unbiased person would admit that an “expert” or “academic case” can be made both for or against the travel ban, based on which factors one weighs more heavily. An unbiased person would also admit that all sides of the issue must be considered. There are probably 30 reports dealing with this issue, none of which have the same conclusion, because each one follows out one side of the issue be weighing certain factors more heavily. While such abstract studies may be helpful, they can never replace prudential judgment in political matters for the same reason that politicians ought not to be merely the puppets of the political consultant class.
Second, those who support the travel ban agree that citizenship is not an indicator of terrorism, one way or the other. If citizenship indicated terrorism, these individuals would be arrested, not banned. “Banning” does not connote knowledge of terrorism, but lack of knowledge in that category. Hence, the travel ban presupposes that citizenship is, exactly as the title of the paper claims, not an indicator of terrorism. Just because someone comes from one country or another does not mean he is a terrorist. Precisely.
Given that citizenship is not an indicator (one way or the other) of terrorism, the problem is that it is difficult to find indicators (one way or the other) in these countries due to their lack of pertinent records. There is no indication whether someone coming from these countries is a terrorist. Combine this with the facts that there are a high number of terrorists in these countries and that terrorists use guerrilla warfare techniques to disguise themselves as civilians. One concludes that citizenship from these countries does not indicate terrorism, but only the need for further screening; one also concludes that temporarily halting immigration is responsible until the administration knows that people immigrating are not terrorists. Whereas people from other countries may start with a presumption of not being terrorists, it is irresponsible to extend that presumption in blanket fashion to people from these seven countries given their high terrorist occupancy. There is nothing racist or xenophobic or uncharitable about it. Morally, the protection of the people entrusted to his care is a grave (the matter for mortal sin) duty for the father of a family or the president of a nation (CCC #2265).
Nor is it Islamophobic to allow immigration of Christians from these countries. The reason is that, regardless of the question of whether terrorists are faithful Muslims or not, the terrorists are all Muslims, who have a fanatical dedication to Allah. Consequently, while they have no problem posing as a non-terrorist civilian, they do have difficulty posing as Christians. Religious fanatics have difficulty professing the faith, even symbolically, of other religions. It is blasphemous. So one must further conclude that, while profession of the Muslim faith, like citizenship, IS NOT an indicator one way or the other regarding terrorism (because both terrorists and non-terrorists profess it), profession of the Christian faith IS an indicator that someone is not a terrorist. Christians, therefore, should be cleared for entry. These conclusions are both obvious and commonsensical. It does not need an intelligence expert to confirm it. The policy may need to be revised in terrorists begin to pose as Christians, but so far that has not been an issue.
Yet, the third point and tie in to this essay’s first part, is that many people, like Rachel Maddow, embrace and anti-democratic, anti-republican gnosticism. It stems from her (possibly unconscious and uncritical) adoption of the position that, for the powerful, perception causes being. She holds that what appears to the common sense person does not exist. Because she does not will it, Maddow does not perceive it within her dream and so, for her, it does not exist. Not common sense or reason, but “expert knowledge” from leaked intelligence confirm her in her dream. According to Leftists like Maddow, in other words, people who think in terms of general reason, liberal arts, etc. are not experts and are not qualified to know matters like immigration, or whatever. Ultimately, Leftism claims that people are not qualified to govern themselves and, therefore, that representative government is impossible. This is the key presupposition of the administrative state (for more on why this is so, see: https://tinyurl.com/j58ntzh). It is by constant reference to and equivocation between expertise and gnosticism that the Left inflicts reality with its willed perception. The fact that so much of reality is not accounted for within the Leftist’s dreamy perception explains why the media is so dumbfounded by the Trump movement. Reality has exploded into their ideological perception. Those, like Maddow, who are uncritical stooges, have been shocked that reality is not reducible to media perception or, more precisely, to media-controlled public perception. They are shocked that they do not have the control, the power, they think they do. But, lacking in self-knowledge, the media doubles down on its efforts to create its willed-perception. Just watch Julian Assange’s, whoops, I mean Rachel Maddow’s “exclusive” (found here: https://tinyurl.com/z9qrnrl).