Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Back-handing the sinister American left...

Expand Messages
  • Greg Swann
    ______________________________________________________________ Nota bene: The HTML version of this is very rich in links:
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment

      Nota bene: The HTML version of this is very rich in links:

      Back-handing the sinister American left...

      by Greg Swann

      Why is it, do you suppose, that we are not up to our necks
      in liberals up in arms about the Islamic _fatwa_ against
      Nigerian journalist Isioma Daniel? After all, in response to
      an article by Daniel, religious fundamentalists staged riots
      that left hundreds dead, hundreds more injured, thousands
      more burned out of house and home. Then they burned her
      newspaper's offices to the ground, chased its editor into
      exile and pronounced a death sentence upon her head. All
      because she committed an act of unfettered journalism. How
      can it be that all the usual liberal suspects are not
      marching arm-in-arm down Fifth Avenue in protest? Where are
      the demonstrations featuring adorable children dressed up as
      death and unsightly middle-aged women dressed up in their
      altogether? Where is the full-page ad in the _New York
      Times_ signed by literary luminaries, reformed communists,
      unreformed communists and the entire editorial staff of the
      _New York Review of Books?_

      Andrew Sullivan makes a similar observation in a recent
      _Salon_ column: "[W]hen it comes to a far, far deadlier
      menace to our freedoms than fundamentalist Christianity,
      much of the left is silent or, worse, making excuses for
      this Islamist threat." Surely this is true. The _Washington
      Post_ says that it's only Christian TV preachers and
      conservative advisors to President Bush who question the
      peaceful nature of Islam. The _Post_ ignores webloggers and
      other internet ideologues, perhaps because they're not so
      easily tarred with liberal labels. But it remains that the
      liberals themselves are absent from condemnations,
      particular or general, of extremely _un_peaceful exponents
      of Islam.

      Consider the case of Kola Boof. As the very-non-liberal
      _WorldNetDaily_ reports, Boof has her very own _fatwa_ upon
      her very own head. Not only that, she had a personal phone
      call from Osama Bin Laden himself, who said to her, "If I
      had the time to waste, I would slit your throat myself."
      Boof is a poet, an essayist and a novelist, a black Sudanese
      feminist whose writing tears at the very heart of the most
      patriarchal of patriarchies, Arabic Islam. To my knowledge
      she hasn't actually killed any policemen, unlike perennial
      liberal poster-boy Mumia Abu-Jamal. But she's a _writer,_
      for goodness sake! _Under a sentence of death!_ Exactly how
      much more does she need to do to get Norman Mailer to toss a

      Weblogger Eric Raymond decries a treason of the
      intellectuals: "An intellectual commits treason against
      humanity when he or she propagandizes for ideas which lend
      themselves to the use of tyrants and terrorists." Could this
      account for the liberals, strangely absent, strangely silent
      in the only debate that matters, ultimately? One form of
      intellectual treason, Raymond argues, "[D]enounces our will
      to fight terrorists and tyrants, telling us we are no better
      than they, and even that the atrocities they commit against
      us are no more than requital for our past sins." That
      certainly fits the commentary we _have_ heard from the left
      since the 9/11 attacks. There is nothing to be objected to,
      the left seems tacitly to argue, with beating, stoning,
      burning women, with sentencing innocents to death, with
      burning down newspaper offices, with demolishing skyscrapers
      with hi-jacked airliners, murdering thousands in the
      process. There is nothing to be objected to with Islam, with
      the East, with terrorism. The _root cause_ is _us__,_ not

      Raymond claims that this treason is caused by "second-rate
      intellectuals" who, "feeling themselves powerless, tend to
      worship power." I think this is an error. In the same
      respect, Sullivan argues that the left is beset by "a
      failure to grasp that freedom is under attack," and this,
      too, seems wrong to me.

      Why does the left defend a Mumia Abu-Jamal and not an Isioma
      Daniel? Is it because the left worships power?

      Why do liberal critics and trend-setters rally to an
      illiterate thug like Eminem, when the demonstrations in
      support of Kola Boof drew fewer than twenty protesters, none
      of them leftist bigfeet? Is it because they don't "grasp
      that freedom is under attack"?

      Or could it be that the left understands its objectives
      perfectly, and _we_ do not?

      Posit, if you would, a left that is not _pro_ anything. Not
      pro-freedom as Sullivan supposes, not pro-power as Raymond
      offers, not pro-communist or pro-environment or pro-union or
      pro-feminist or pro-homosexual or pro-vegan. Posit instead a
      left this is _anti-_Western. Not anti-television or
      anti-condominium or anti-moveable-type. Posit a left that is
      _fundamentally_ anti-Western: anti-rationality, anti-egoism,
      anti-individualism, anti-capitalism.

      But wait...! That _is_ the American left, is it not? They
      hector us ceaselessly to put the heart before the mind,
      'higher purposes' before the self, the collective before the
      individual and the _need_ of the endlessly needy before the
      _greed_ of the producers. Leftists could never summarize
      their philosophy so succinctly, but this _is,_ in fact, a
      fair summary.

      So working from the supposition that the motivating
      philosophy of the American left is not _pro_ anything but
      rather _anti-_Western, what falls out? Would you expect them
      to defend Mumia Abu-Jamal, which serves to undermine
      duly-constituted order? Or would they take the part of
      Isioma Daniel against a mindless machete-wielding mob? Which
      would do more long-term damage to the West?

      Would they march in behalf of Kola Boof, thus communicating
      their contempt for the slavery and brutalization and murder
      of women? Or would they march up to the cash register to
      give millions of dollars to Eminem, in tribute for the
      corruption of America's youth? In tribute, in fact, for the
      _celebration_ of the slavery and brutalization and murder of
      women. Which would quicken the demise of Western culture?

      What best fits the evidence? A left that lusts after power?
      A left that misunderstands the threat to freedom? A left
      that is perverse or distracted or over-committed? Or a left
      that labors persistently to undermine and destroy the West?
      Not as an organized conspiracy, but as a shared,
      long-standing habit-of-mind.

      The West is not Christianity, even if its only
      well-publicized defenders right now are Christians. The West
      is _free_--free of dogmas or doctrines imposed by force,
      free of moral codes imposed by force, free of political
      systems imposed by force, free of economic restrictions
      imposed by force. At its very best--not yet realized but
      glimpsed in the distance--the West is home to the
      _sovereign_ individual, every man his own king, every woman
      her own goddess. Every peaceful life a life led in splendor,
      without fear of domination or usurpation or

      The left is not _for_ the opposite of this. The left is not
      _for_ anything. But the left, by its actions if not always
      its fully-conscious intent, is _against_ everything that is
      uniquely Western. That is why they muster their unwitting
      foot-soldiers to destroy every redoubt of Western
      civilization. That is why they accuse and vilify the West
      when it is the victim of the most craven kind of Eastern
      savagery. And that is why they defend cop-killers and
      wannabe-cop-killers, but do not condemn Islamic tyrants who
      sentence to death innocent women whose only crime is
      objecting to Islamic tyranny.

      America's liberals don't want Islam to win this cultural
      war. They just want the West to lose it. If you understand
      the _true_ objectives of the left, the
      seeming-contradictions make perfect sense...


      VIST MY WEBLOG: http://www.presenceofmind.net/


      Permission is explicitly granted to repost/reprint unmodified.

      We are what we do, not what we say we do.
      - Janio Valenta
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.