|
9/11 has led to accommodation to Islam, while the only real opponents of Islamization are called racists and fascists
I ignored the anniversary of the 9/11 attack because the memory and the official commemorations are painful and meaningless. Painful and meaningful—ok. Painful and meaningless—I’d rather be doing something else. The terrible, desolate feeling from that day still lives in me, and it’s not relieved, because we’ve learned nothing. Not only have we learned nothing, but, as Diana West writes in her 9/11 column, our response to 9/11 has been to accelerate our accommodation to Islam. (Because, under the morally inverted order of liberalism, the more alien and dangerous a non-Western group shows itself to be, the more we approve of it.). Also worth reading is West’s blog entry about Charles Johnson’s attack on an upcoming protest in Cologne, Germany against the Islamization of Europe, because the demonstration will include right-wing speakers of whom Johnson disapproves. The charming Charles writes:
That list contains virtually every racist, fascist leader in Europe, and you can bet that the usual suspects will be defending it. The concept of fighting against the global jihad has lost much of its credibility, because some of the most visible spokespeople refuse to unequivocally renounce their associations with this crew of vile Neanderthals.To which West replies:
Question: How can “the very concept” of fighting jihad be tarnished by anything? That is, if the cause is just (and the threat is dire), nothing can take away from it—and certainly not the “associations” of some “spokespeople,” whatever that means.It’s an excellent point. Johnson’s attack reminds me of how liberals, every time they attack America, don’t just attack a particular thing America is doing of which they disapprove, they say that if America does this one thing of which they disapprove, America itself is discredited. Thus liberals constantly tell us that a single act of discrimination in America is totally unacceptable and a shame on the whole nation. Thus Sen. Kerry throughout his career, every time he disliked some action by the U.S. government, would intone that this was “shameful.” These sorts of comments, repeated endlessly by the left, signify that America is shameful. Similarly, when Charles Johnson says that the “the concept of fighting against the global jihad has lost much of its credibility” because right-wingers whom he disapproves of are fighting jihad, his real meaning is to discredit anti-jihadism itself. He’s showing that he’s ready to cast anti-jihadism aside for being associated with Filip Dewinter et al, just as liberals cast aside and devalue America for its supposed sins. Among the speakers at this demonstration will be Jean-Marie Le Pen. For a while I defended him, until he took such objectionable and contradictory stands that I wrote him off a few years ago. But does that mean that a demonstration where he is one of many speakers must be shunned? Being at the same demonstration with him would not mean approving of everything about him. As West points out, here are the only people in Europe who are actually opposing Islamization, and Charles Johnson describes them as the scum of the earth whose opposition to Islam discredits the very idea of opposing Islam. That tells us what side Johnson is on.
See subsequent entry, where a European conservative disagree with West and me on Charles Johnson and the European anti-jihad parties.
Email entry |