Monday, August 30, 2010
[The following, by Daniel Greenfield, is crossposted from Sultan Knish.]
The Ground Zero Mosque debate is only the latest in a long series of incidents in which liberals have chosen to side with Islamists, while denying their victims a fair hearing or any hearing at all. Opponents of the mosque are painted as "Islamophobic Extremists" representing nothing but bigotry and hate. This is much the same way that the liberal cultural elite has placed the blame for over a thousand years of Muslim persecution of Jews on "Zionist Extremism". While a Koran in the toilet becomes a front page story, the ongoing persecution of Hindus, Zoroastrians and Christians in Muslim countries is only a footnote in the State Department's human rights report.
This ugly bias is the product of a political alliance between Liberals and Islamists. And the cost of that alliance may be the world as we know it. That alliance is the reason why the US and Europe attacked Yugoslavia on behalf of a Muslim separatist group in the name of a non-existent genocide, while refusing to take any action against the very real and very horrifying Sudanese Muslim genocide of Africans. It is why Israel is constantly barraged with hateful propaganda from the same left, which defended Saddam's sovereignty in Iraq. The very same media propagandists who champion the flotilla on behalf of Hamas rule in Gaza, have next to no interest in Saddam's rape rooms, his ethnic cleansing of the Marsh Arabs, or his use of chemical weapons against the Kurds. While the American media becomes wildly exercised over a Disney employee's right to wear a Hijab or some other trivial bit of Islamic lawfare-- hardly any newspaper outside of Der Spiegel has covered allegations that Turkey may be using chemical weapons against the Kurds.
This is worse than mere bias. It amounts to ignoring mass murder and genocide because it is inconvenient. It means that the United States entered a war on behalf of a Muslim terrorist organization over a lie widely promoted by the media, which refused to call for armed intervention in the actual genocides taking place in Africa. The media has eagerly demonized entire ethnic and religious groups, because of Islamic hostility to those groups. The persecution and assaults on Jews in Europe today, can be added to the ugly tab of a media that has vigorously taken the Muslim side, and promoted their hatred of a minority group in Europe and the Middle East.
The excuses do not hold water. In the name of fighting racism, the media has been unapologetically racist. In the name of tolerance, it has been wickedly intolerant. In the name of preventing persecution, it has turned a blind eye to ethnic cleansing and genocide by Muslims-- while provoking and perpetuating Muslim separatist conflicts In Asia, Europe and the Middle East. And tricking the American public into a war on behalf of one such separatist group under false pretenses. These are crimes. More than that, these are the actions of bigots whose biases are rigid and fixed, and who like the Nazis, use a political ideology as the basis for valuing some lives below those of others, based on ethnic and religious criteria.
But the question is why. What is so appealing about the Islamists and their ideology, that the left is willing to go to such horrifying lengths to champion their cause. The answer may lie in the liberal view of religion as a tool of social change. The theology behind this goes by many names in different denominations and religions, from Liberation Theology to Prophetic Justice to Tikkun Olam, the common denominator is that they hijack religion to serve as a vehicle for social justice. Indeed the Communist party itself was born out of The League of the Just, a Christian organization. The common denominator is religion becomes reduced to the lyrics of the The Internationale, its only mandate to uplift the "downtrodden" and usher in a utopian age of mass equality and brotherhood.
Seen from that angle, it is not surprising why the Islamist agenda would appeal to liberals. It is after all also religion used as a tool of social change. Islamist groups are revolutionary, they want to overthrow the existing order in order to build a perfect society as defined by Sharia law. They operate social services centers for their followers and claim to be fighting for justice. But what liberals fail to understand is that while for them religion is a means, to the Islamists, religion is an end. Both liberals and Islamists equate religion with social justice. But for liberals, social justice is equivalent to religion, for Islamists religion is equivalent to social justice. While liberals talk about religion in order to bring about what they believe is a better society, Islamists talk about a better society in order to impose their religion on all Muslims and non-Muslims alike. If liberals were able to understand this, they might wake up long enough to realize the "deal with the devil" they had made.
The paradox of champions of equality allying with a religious cult that seeks to impose unequal rights on all seems absurd. However, this is nothing new for liberals, who have frequently allied with narrow interest liberationist groups such as the Black Panthers or La Raza, who did not believe in universal equality, but were fueled purely by racial or sectarian anger. Most have forgotten the racist origins of socialism, whether it was Jack London proclaiming, "I am a White Man first, and only then a Socialist", Marx sneering at the "Lazy Mexicans" or Woodrow Wilson and FDR promoting segregation. The socialists frequently pandered to racism, both in the US and Europe, in order to win over a working class and rural base. Then they jettisoned that base, for another, while still employing racist tactics.
Within a generation, the Democrats went from protecting racist white rioters to protecting racist black rioters. It did not make much difference to them. They had come to think of people as groups that they could manipulate like building blocks for political coalitions. The socialists too went from arguing that working class solidarity was urgently needed to prevent racial and ethnic minorities from taking the jobs of white workers, to championing racial warfare. The differences were not so much philosophical, as tactical. In the same way, Russian Communists were for the rights of minorities before they took power, and morphed into Russian Nationalists once they were in power, and needed to consolidate their grip on an empire.
As I wrote last week in Why the Left Hates Democracy, when liberals talk about equality, they mean "Actual Equality", not "Legal Equality". That means Constitutional equality or a state of affairs in which everyone has the same rights under the law, is not what they are after. Their goal is "Actual Equality", a state of affairs in which they overthrow all the existing power structures, in order to build a society where no one has any advantages over anyone else anymore. So naturally arguments which point out that Islam is discriminatory have minimal impact. Cuba after all has racial segregation. That hasn't stopped liberals from flocking to kiss Fidel's ring, no more than the USSR's ethnic cleansings prevented the socialists of their day from doing the same.
Liberals are not concerned with Islam's treatment of women or gays. Eldridge Cleaver's description of his serial rapes as an "insurrectionary act", did not dissuade liberals from gushing over the Black Panthers. The Nation didn't fire Eric Alterman for his homophobic remarks. To liberals, these like all other minorities, are just building blocks in their political coalition. Not people, building blocks. They still think of Muslims the same way. And the Islamist way seems to them to coincide with their own social justice agenda.
Joining forces with the Islamists, helps build a new left wing consensus in the West, and Islamic revolutions across the Middle East that will topple the old royalist and military regimes associated with the West. That is how the left sees it anyway. And the growing power of the Lib Dems in the UK and Barack Hussein Obama's rise to power in the US seem to be testaments to the power of the Liberal-Islamist Alliance. Anti-Semitism helps seal the deal and silence the cries of pain from their first victims. Hurling insults at the troops gives the Muslim Rage Boys and Leftist Rage Girls something in common besides their Keffiyahs. A common enemy for a temporary alliance.
Both Liberal and Islamists believe in a mandatory overhaul of society from top to bottom, but they differ in the details and the question of the final authority. And collaborations between them before in the Middle East have invariably ended with leftists in prison cells and Mullahs on the throne. The liberal betrayal of the First World will end the same way, given enough time and leeway. The Islamists feed leftist radicalism, and vice versa, but such political and cultural vandalism eventually runs into a wall, when both sides have amassed sufficient power so as not to need the other anymore.
European Socialists think that Islamic immigration will give them for rearranging their countries any way they please, in reality they will find that Islamic immigration means that their Islamist allies have a base, and they have Dhimmis and rape victims. Israeli leftists think that terrorism will lead to a dismantling of Israel in favor of a one state solution, they are right about that, but their role in such a state will be the same one as the Jews in Iran, and the token minorities that any genocidal regime displays to prove it really isn't as monstrous as its actions suggest. American liberals think that Islam is their latest wedge against the establishment and the rights and freedoms of ordinary Americans, they are correct, but what they have not considered, is that when the dust settles, it will be with them firmly at the bottom.
The Liberal-Islamist alliance is the death sentence of the free world, an alliance between a fifth column and the barbarians at the gate.
The massacres in Sudan were indeed very real and very horrifying but so was the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia from 1992, which lead the UN to declare Northeastern Bosnia a protected area and send in Dutch blue helmets. Of course, the UN peacekeepers performed as miserably as always (Darfur, UNIFIL in Lebanon) and did nothing to prevent widespread massacres in 2005.
More than 8,000 Muslims were killed in Srbenica. Mass graves have been exhumed; the genocide is widely documented. It too was very real and very horrifying. In its aftermath, Serbian leaders Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic were indicted by the special international criminal court set up for the former Yugoslavia for direct responsibility for the atrocities of July, 1995. Slodoban Milošević was brought to trial for crimes against humanity in Kosovo and war crimes, but he died in prison of a heart attack five years into the trial before the trial concluded.
If Daniel Greenfield wants to deny it or call it fictitious, that's his business, but it's just not true. Maybe Greenfield has some other "fictitious genocide" in mind, but if he's talking about Srbenica, the largest mass murder in Europe since WWII, it's just not true.
The point he makes is good, though he's not the first to talk about a Red-Green alliance. It's shame he tires to build his case on such a flimsy foundation.
I strenuously disagree that liberals and "Islamists" have some kind of alliance, especially in the case of Park 51 (the so-called 'Ground Zero' mosque.)
Where we've defended MUSLIMS, not "Islamists" - because they're two very different things, is plain and simply on matters of American values.
American Muslims are no less entitled to Constitutional liberties than the rest of us.
It is highly prejudicial and just plain wrong to pretend otherwise.
It is also extremely stupid to confuse Islamism with Muslims. Islamists such as the Iranian regime or groups like Hamas are not the norm throughout the 1.5 billion Muslims of the world.
And, there's just no excuse for broadbrushing people period.
It's on those basis that Americans - liberal or otherwise - defend the rights of American Muslims. Further, wise Americans do not think it's either a good or a noble idea to stereotype any group of people including Muslims.
Isn't that what the Nazis did? Of course it is - and it's on that basis that we'll say - wait a second. These are human beings - over a billion individuals. Look at them. They're people.
Is that so hard to understand?
As to why we haven't interceded in the Sudan, I don't think that has anything to do with any putatitve alliance between "liberals" and the war criminal who runs the Sudan. We didn't intercede in Rwanda either. We gave up on Somalia, we've turned our back on other terrifying situations including the Congo.
For starters we simply do not have the resources to act in cases like this alone. And the UN is just not sufficiently effective, with our without US involvement.
Finally though it isn't "liberals" who are to blame for the Sudan. It's primarily, I think, the fact that Sudanese oil reserves are too valuable. Nobody wants to risk the status quo.
So - money walks and people die - by the millions.
Pay attention to that.
I'd like to make another, highly salient point.
The Soviet Union went to war with people we're now fighting in Afghanistan.
Claiming there's a "Red/Green" alliance is as absurd as claiming there's a "liberal/Islamist" alliance.
There are elements on the left which are antisemitic, that's true.
But the elements behind the demonization of Israel are not representative of average American or European liberals.
If you really want to understand what's going on it still comes down to money. Who's really running the anti-Israel show?
Think about it.
And think about who has always stood to benefit from divide and conquer situations.
It isn't the little people.
And furthermore - this s*** is outrageous - shots and arson in Tennessee - Muslims being threatened:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/us/31mosque.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
Liberal or conservative, Jews should be in vanguard fighting this bull****.
Nappy, I agree with you that Greenfield made a potential error in the way he made that point by risking distracting from the rest of the piece with something controversial, now borne out by the first comment in the thread. I asked him for clarification before posting. I *believe* his point is that Yugoslavia was certainly a massacre, but not a genocide on the scale of Sudan, and in one case we took action, and in the other (far worse) we ignored it. Beyond that I'll let him comment if he'd like.
Rwanda was a genocide, and the "un" did NOTHING to stop it.
Come to think of it, what did al sharpton, jessie jackson, louie farraklan do? NOTHING.
With respect, Eddie, here's a timeline of events in the Rwanda genocide including the fact that it wasn't stopped by major powers and/or by the UN:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/etc/slaughter.html
So what exactly were African American leaders supposed to do? Raise an army and invade Africa?
Clearly it's not the role of Afro-Am spokesmen to raise a militia and fight a war. The UN "peacekeepers" failed miserably at keeping the peace, even though they were on the scene and had some military capabilities, because they didn't have the authority from the UN to take action.
Not the only time that blue helmets have looked the other way or gotten out of the way. The UN fails utterly at these missions. It would be better if the so-called "international community"—there's no such thing if you want to get down to the real nitty-grtty—dropped the fig-leaf and stopped sending blue helmeted pretend peacekeepers whose only role is to present an illusion.
But what about the last, best hope of humanity, the good old USA? Bubba has said that not taking action in Rwanda is the big regret of his time as president. How much better a legacy a different outcome in Rwanda would have been for him than the stained blue dress, the foolish nonsense of the Olso Accords, the disastrous peace process and Arafat's Terror War that some call the Second Intifada.
Serbs were whiteEuro Christians, that is why they were marched on so quickly.
Its the double standard.
Sophia doesnt confronting Euro Christians. However as soon as you confront a non Christian or a darker skinned person, with a foreign culture or Supremacist Ideology(Islam), well, then you are a stereotyping bigot.
She doesnt make distinctions within the Nazi and Neo Nazi community.
Its a double standard, and its a double standard that leads to white Norweigan women, being raped by foreign men, and nobody willing to call a spade a spade. White women will just have to endure the rapes, because halting immigration of these foreigners is xenophobic and racist and based on stereotyping an entire group of people.
These bigoted women should just cover up and adapt to multicultural society.
Here these elderly Danes are just Apartheid wall building racist xenophobes...in the mindset of Sophia. No whiteEuro Christian peoples should be allowed to defend themselves and look out for their own well being....but Sophia will defend Israeli Jews rights to do so.
Via The Iconoclast...
"Copenhagen - Fence to separate senior citizens from thugs
A housing association with homes for the elderly in Copenhagen’s Nørrebro district is in the process of constructing a barbed wire fence to protect its clients against young people from the adjacent Mjølnerparken housing estate, reports Berlingske Tidende newspaper.
The Mjølnerparken youths have for some time been unwelcome visitors to the garden area that belongs to the Lejerbo Association and is exclusively for the residents in the Hothers Plads senior housing complex. In addition, the buildings have been plagued by burglary, vandalism, theft and rock throwing from the nearby housing estate occupants.
Construction of the fence, which will be 2.5 metres high with barbed wire on top, has so far been sabotaged by the youths, and the workers have expressed fears for their safety.
Copenhagen’s deputy mayor of social affairs, Mikkel Warming, is now calling on the city’s street workers to deal with the unruly young people. The fence, along with a few security cameras that will also be set up, will reportedly cost the housing association and its clients around 1.5 million kroner."
Thats $255,000 or £165,000. A lot of money to deal with the children of this small estate. What the article doesn't say about the Mjølnerparken housing estate is that it is home to 2,500 people, 98% are immigrants (including second generation) of 38 different nationalities, mostly Arabs and Africans, the majority under 18 years old. The area is known for its high crime rate.
One of the comments suggests it would be preferable to put a lid on the estate to contain the hooligans.
http://www.newenglishreview.org/The_Iconoclast/
Nappy, I think Bubba should have helped the people of Rwanda.
He should have kept his pants zipped too.
Sophia asked...
"So what exactly were African American leaders supposed to do? Raise an army and invade Africa?"
I expected al sharpton, jessie jackson and the rest of the gang to do what they do best.
Protest. Demonstrate across from the UN.
Demonstrate in Time Square.
Demand that the UN move in to Rwanda to stop the genocide.
jessie jackson could have taken a well publicized trip to Rwanda and use his great powers as a speaker with marbles in mouth to convince the Hutu and Tutsis to stop killing each other.
We all know al and jessies great impact they've had in ending the Hip-Hop Gang Wars.
Eddie you are being unrealistic about the actual power of people like Sharpton and Jesse Jackson or any other individual leader for that matter.
Eradicating gang warfare requires ground up economic and social change. Phenomena like the inner city gangs are largely a matter of hard core poverty, although kids in wealthy suburbs have begun to mimic inner city gangsta culture.
But that remains a mere imitation - unless they're actually harmed or break the law whilst playing, middle class children from secure neighborhoods can step back into their preppie uniforms and their safe, well to do world any time they want to.
This isn't the case in the poverty-stricken inner cities.
That said, given our economic situation, none of us is truly secure unless we're really wealthy.
I was watching CNN this morning. They were talking to a group of high school students. The interviewer made a sad comment: Americans can no longer count on jobs as part of our American birthright.
I think that's a shame.
And, that being the case - expect more gang violence. Indeed that was a feature of the Depression era and even earlier, among poor communities in the 19th century.
For example there were violent Irish and also Jewish gangs in New York.
You should be ashamed of yourself for slandering poor people like that Sophia.
But alas...
Liberals think that poor people are scum of the Earth, truly wretched people. They hold them in contempt.
Are you denying that poverty and criminal enterprise often go together both in American history and in today's impoverished cities?
It's simple EV. People make a living however they can.
When they're excluded by virtue of bigotry from full participation in society that exacerbates the problem. The Irish were victims in the 19th century and African-American people still are.
So knock it off. "Liberals" don't hate poor people. We recognize poverty for what it is - but then I doubt you've ever been poor so you have no room to to comment, Mr. Poor Little Victimized White Euro Christian Male that you are.
Feh.
Please enlighten me on what poverty is?
You can stereotype poor people all you want to.
I didnt say that Leftwingers hate poor people (but you Leftwingers have quite a misunderstanding of hate). I said you have contempt for them, which you clearly do. You think that poor people are violent criminals...that their poverty makes them so.
This is clearly false. The vast majority of poor people are decent honest human beings and not criminal gangsters, willing to commit any crime to make a buck.
Good Lord!
Dont blame poverty for people's criminality....because the vast majority of poor people arent criminals.
Most criminals dont commit crime to cover basic necessities....anyways. Their basic necessities are covered.
You Leftwingers are twisted and demented.
I hope you learned something from RezaV, Sophia, with regards to this discussion, Islam and Muslims topics in general, and the Roma thread on Harry's place.
But I doubt it.