Skip to comments.Clifford D. May: The Left Romances the Jihad
Posted on 04/19/2009 6:41:22 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Ask those on the left what values they champion, and they will say equality, tolerance, women's rights, gay rights, workers rights and human rights. Militant Islamists oppose all that, not infrequently through the application of lethal force. So how does one explain the burgeoning left-Islamist alliance?
I know: There are principled individuals on the left who do not condone terrorism or minimize the Islamist threat. Author Paul Berman, a man of the left, has been more incisive on these issues than just about anyone else. Left-of-center publications, such as The New Republic, have not been apologists for jihadism.
But it is no exaggeration to call The Nation magazine and such groups as MoveOn.org pro-appeasement. Further left on the political spectrum, the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition sympathizes with Islamists as well as with the Stalinist regime in North Korea -- which is in league with Islamist Iran and its client state, Syria. Meanwhile, Hugo Chavez, the Bolivian socialist Venezuelan strongman, is developing a strategic alliance with Iran's ruling mullahs and with Hezbollah, Iran's terrorist proxy.
In a new book, "United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror," Jamie Glazov takes a hard look at this unholy alliance. Glazov's book indicts left artists and intellectuals for having "venerated mass murderers such as Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, Castro, and Ho Chi Minh, habitually excusing their atrocities while blaming Americans and even the victims for their crimes."
Following the fall of the Berlin Wall, the left spent several years wandering in the wilderness. More than a few, Glazov suggests, looked upon the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, less as an atrocity than as an opportunity to revive a moribund revolutionary movement.
He notes that novelist Norman Mailer called the 9/11 hijackers "brilliant," their terrorism "understandable" because "everything wrong with America led to the point where the country built that tower of Babel, which consequently had to be destroyed."
German composer Karlheinz Stockhausen called 9/11 "the greatest work of art for the whole cosmos."
And then there is Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, aka Carlos the Jackal, who in 2003, from his prison cell, published a book called "Revolutionary Islam," which urged "all revolutionaries, including those of the left, even atheists," to accept the leadership of militant jihadists, Osama bin Laden key among them. His reasoning: "Only a coalition of Marxists and Islamists can destroy the United States."
Glazov quotes British lawmaker George Galloway, elaborating on the rationale for this coalition. "Not only do I think (a Muslim-leftist alliance is) possible, but I think it is vitally necessary, and I think it is happening already," Galloway said. "It is possible because the progressive movement around the world and the Muslims have the same enemies. Their enemies are the Zionist occupation, American occupation, British occupation of poor countries, mainly Muslim countries."
There also is an older tradition to build on. In the 1970s, the Red Army Faction -- West German Marxist terrorists also known as the Baader-Meinhof gang -- went to Jordan to train with the Palestine Liberation Organization. And in 1979, the success of the Islamist Revolution in Iran depended, in large measure, on the support given by the Iranian left to the Ayatollah Khomeini. Once firmly in power, the clerical regime repaid its leftist enablers with executions, assassinations and prison sentences. Evidently, no lessons were learned.
Glazov concludes that the left's "romance with Islamism is just a logical continuation of the long leftist tradition of worshipping America's foes. ... The left clearly continues to be inspired by its undying Marxist conviction that capitalism is evil and that forces of revolution are rising to overthrow it -- and must be supported."
If such values as equality, tolerance and human rights are crushed in the process, that's a price many on the left are willing to pay. Those on the left who disagree should perhaps speak up more loudly and more often.
Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism. His e-mail is email@example.com.
There is the Nazi-Islam Connection
Basically, the left can not attack anything anti-American with out attacking themselves..
The left - militant homosexual supporter, atheist (rabid anti-God), sexualize women/girls, pre-abortion, rabid feminist, etc. They will be the first to feel the sword when the muslims get power...
The Left understands winning through alliances and coalitions, even with groups they despise personally. Look at the Democrat party; it is composed of groups who probably hate each other, yet they come together to win elections, with the understanding that they will each get something out of it. The Right never gets this. I voted for Sarah and Whats-his-name. Not because Whats-his-name was a good choice; he wasn't. But I knew that it was important to defeat the opposition. Unfortunately, a lot of people didn't vote.
Democrats never stay home on election day, while complaining, "America deserves what it gets, because our party's candidate isn't perfect"!
Congressional elections are about a year and a half away. We need to get our act together and get cohesive. Or at least adhesive. Otherwise it's going to be very dark for a very long time.
Very good article by Clifford D. May. Thanks for posting. Anti-truth, anti-freedom, anti-life individuals and (their) collectives are likely to join forces. We are seeing more clearly all enemies, foreign and domestic.
"In a new book, "United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror," Jamie Glazov takes a hard look at this unholy alliance. Glazov's book indicts left artists and intellectuals for having "venerated mass murderers such as Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, Castro, and Ho Chi Minh, habitually excusing their atrocities while blaming Americans and even the victims for their crimes." Glazov concludes that the left's "romance with Islamism is just a logical continuation of the long leftist tradition of worshipping America's foes. ... The left clearly continues to be inspired by its undying Marxist conviction that capitalism is evil and that forces of revolution are rising to overthrow it -- and must be supported."
It goes deeper. They like non-Western primitive cultures of the Third World, especially anti-Christian ones. There is a Rousseau aspect of the Noble Savage. It follows a trend of "neo-primitivist" chic in art and fashion circles that concern themselves with such things. They like anything anti-Western even if it comes into conflict with their secular humanism and liberal belief in progress and science. Liberals will be the first to go in places like Amsterdamistan unless they reverse the trends. But they can't admit the contradictions in their point of view. The cognitive dissonance.
Why is the Left infatuated with Islam? Good question!
When you peel back the onion, the Left has always been after one thing: absolute power. It was true (and obvious) in Stalin’s time and it is true now. The best way to successfully wield absolute power is to totally subvert the individual to the State. To do that, one must tear down the attitudes, values, and traditions that the majority holds dear and replace them with a new, different set. This is a variant on the technique used in military basic training. That is part of the reason why the Left supports things like rampant immigration, Gay marriage, and radical feminism while eschewing established Western religion institutions. Radical Islam fits the bill in two respects. First, like the Left, it seeks the overthrow of Judeo/Christian culture. Second, and more importantly, Islamic clerics have close to absolute power over their adherents. If the Mullahs can motivate someone to be a suicide bomber, convincing them to pay higher taxes should be a piece of cake. Many in the Left must salivate at the thought of having that much control over the individual. At some point, the Left will have to choose between radical Islam and the continued embrace of its traditional interest groups (gays, feminists, etc). I predict they will chose the former, because ultimately the Islamists will be more numerous (in 30-50 years or so).