The Clueless Left and Islam

Family Security Matters

Daniel Greenfield penned a perceptive and welcome critique, “What the Left Does not Understand About Islam” (February 15th),  of  the cluelessness of the Left vis-à-vis Islam. The Left, he writes,  is naïve  about its rival ideology, and ideologically will always remain  naïve. The Left,  he writes, has never been able to think outside of the  cardboard box it has  built for itself.

The  left has never adapted to the transition from nationalistic wars to   ideological wars. It took the left a while to grasp that the Nazis were a   fundamentally different foe than [sic] the Kaiser and that  pretending  that World War 2 was another war for the benefit of  colonialists and arms  dealers was the behavior of deluded lunatics. And  yet much of the left insisted  on approaching the war in just that  fashion, and had Hitler not attacked  Stalin, it might have remained  stuck there.

From  my own observations, what the Left refused to acknowledge was that it   was Hitler’s Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Soviet Russia that  behaved like  unrepentant imperialists and colonialists, invading and  conquering other  nations for all the loot they could lay hands on. It  was the consistent  kneejerk evasion of that fact which demoted the Left  from a noisy avante- garde  to a commune of deluded lunatics.  Greenfield goes on to remark:

The  Cold War was even worse. The left never came to terms with Communism.   From the Moscow Trials to the fall of the Berlin Wall, the moderate left  slowly  disavowed the USSR but refused to see it as anything more than a  clumsy  dictatorship. The only way that the left could reject the USSR  was by  overlooking its ideology and treating it as another backward  Russian tyranny  being needlessly provoked and pushed around by Western  Europe and the United  States.

The rise of Islam, however, presented the Left with another conundrum it  could not handle.

Communism  was…a red virus floating around the world, embedding its ideas  into  organizations and using those organizations to take over nations.

Islam  is even more untethered than Communism, loosely originating from   powerful oil nations, but able to spring up anywhere in the world. Its   proponents have even less use for the nation state than the Communists.  What  they want is a Caliphate ruled under Islamic law, a single unit of  human  organization extending across nations, regions and eventually the  world.

The  Left, instead of confronting Islam as a rival ideology, has preferred   to stick with the devils it knows, imperialists and the running dogs of   capitalists. Greenfield notes:

The  left is incapable of engaging with Islamism as an ideology, instead it   reduces the conflict to a struggle between colonial and anti-colonial  forces,  showing once again that the left’s worldview is usually at least  fifty years  out of date.

Fifty years out of date, or fourteen centuries?

Their  response to the Clash of Civilizations has been to include Islamists  in  the global rainbow coalition of minorities, gays and gender theorists,   indigent third world farmers, transsexuals, artists and poets, sex  workers and  terrorists; without considering what the Islamists were or  how they would fit  into this charmed circle.

Here is another take on just how clueless the Left is about its competitor  for power.

Project a hypothetical triumph of Islam over the world, and how its itinerant ally, the Left,  would be treated. Not very well.  Consider the Left’s global  rainbow coalition  of “minorities, gays and gender theorists, indigent  third world farmers,  transsexuals, artists and poets, and sex workers.”  Islam, committed to  doctrinal purity and eager to cleanse the world in  literal conformance with  that doctrine, would act to extinguish every  member of that rainbow coalition,  including those not mentioned by  Greenfield:  feminists, gun-owners,  free-speech advocates,  cartoonists who offend Islam, atheists, agnostics,  apostates, followers  of other religions, libertarians, anti-government  advocates,  Constitutionalists, First Amendment champions, and so on. Rightly or  not, they’d all be lumped together in Islam’s holding pen until they can  be  prosecuted, tried and walked to the chopping block or gallows.  Leaving the Left  what?

Nothing,  not a single victim of capitalism or colonialism. The Left will  wonder  what happened to its dialectical materialism, or claim that these are   not the progressive forces it had predicted would pacify the world and  leave it  warless and in peaceful harmony. They might complain, if they  dared to, that a  gatecrasher hijacked their future. The more perceptive  Leftists might then  grasp just what Islam meant when it claimed it was  just a “religion of peace.”  They would understand that it won’t be a  world in which they’d be expected to  pray five times a day to godless  icons of Marx, Lenin, Engels, Mao, and Stalin,  but instead to Allah and  Mohammad.

They  would understand that Islam isn’t interested in peacefully coexisting   with other faiths and ideologies, “interfaith dialogue” to the contrary   notwithstanding. They would grasp that Islam is as totalitarian as  anything  conceived by George Orwell and would play no favorites, not  even with loyal  Party members.

All they would see would be piles of victims of Islam, not of capitalism or  of colonialism.  The Left acts now as the janissaries of Islam, as ideologues  and Sturmabteilungof  another totalitarian system, for the moment  tolerated and drafted into  Islam’s cause to swell the numbers of Islam’s  brigades and to handle the  rough stuff in protests and demonstrations and  clashes with the targets  of the day. And when Islam’s battles are won, the Left  will act  surprised when the executioners knock on their door and escort its   members to killing fields that resemble Pol Pot’s and to camps modeled  on  Auschwitz. They would be slaughtered by the bushel in the name of  Allah,  because they worshipped false gods or no gods and proposed a  godless global  government.

The humbler and more cowardly of them will submit to Islam. All others would  be terminated. Some  of their women and pretty boys would be whisked away to  stock the  numerous new harems that would be established, and which would not be  limited to the palaces of Saudi Arabia and Dubai and Qatar and Cairo.  They  would pop up in New York City and Peoria and Buenos Aires and  London and Vienna  and San Francisco. Name your city or town.

That  would be the character of the world under a global caliphate. The Left   would find itself in the inconvenient and embarrassing position of the  garage  mechanic, George Wilson, in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby.  In  it, Wilson is told that it was Jay Gatsby who struck his wife in a  hit-and-run  outside his garage, not his airhead paramour, Daisy  Buchanan. So Gatsby catches  the mechanic’s bullets. Wilson then shoots  himself. Daisy gets off scot-free.  While the literati may treat Daisy as  a useless “ornament” of capitalism, in  fact, Daisy is Islam.

Gatsby  was F. Scott Fitzgerald’s conception of unregulated capitalism,  married  somehow to gangsters and crime, while Wilson’s grungy garage was   symbolic of the underside of capitalism. Poor, exploited, put-upon  George. But  it was clueless Daisy Buchanan who killed the woman. Leftist  literati may  understand Fitzgerald’s novel, but their ideological muchachosdo  not.

Intellectually honest Leftists will follow George Wilson’s example. Less  honest ones will adapt.

Greenfield concludes his masterly column thus:

The  left dwells in an intellectual bubble of its own making. It transforms   that bubble into an elaborate place, furnishing the space until it  resembles a  miniature world, but a bubble is not a world, it can only  ever be a bubble.  Trapped inside the bubble, the left cannot realize  that the world is going  backward, not forward, that the 21st century is  really the 7th century and that  the future is the past.

The Islamists understand this quite well. The left cannot.

I  think Greenfield gives the Left too much credit for being clueless. I   think his is a misplaced generosity. I am convinced that the Left’s  ignorance  of the true nature of Islam is a front refined and tailored  over recent  decades, ever since Islam and jihad began making  headlines, disguising  something much more insidious. Down deep, in the  remotest, darkest corner of  the soul of every Leftist, collectivist,  statist, and community organizer, is a  seething glop of malice for  freedom which he wishes to exterminate, come what  may, never mind how,  and don’t ask him about it if you don’t want to see him  froth at the  mouth and threaten you with physical violence. If the  extermination is  performed by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Valerie Jarrett,  or Cass  Sunstein, or any other exponent of totalitarianism, it won’t matter to   him, just as long as the murder is committed.

And if it’s performed by Islam, so be it. He will be content, even if it  means he will need to buy himself a prayer rug or pay jizya from his  paltry income and show up at Islamic rallies as a loyal  infidel. All else – the  protests, the books, the lectures, the posters  -is guff and practiced posturing  to him. He works to create the image of  a champion of the underdogs, whoever  and wherever they might be, when,  in truth, he would just rather shoot the  mangy mutts.

And  what is the root of that seething glop of malice? An unquenchable,   malevolent envy of every individual who has ever achieved independence  and  happiness without the Leftist’s assistance or advice or guidance, an  envy of  the incalculable wealth produced by what little capitalism has  been permitted  to exist in any given nation’s mixed economy or welfare  state. This envy is  coupled with an intimate but repressed knowledge and  certitude that the kind of  ideal communist or socialist state  envisioned by him can produce nothing but  poverty, misery, a state of  stagnation sustained by force and deception and  lies, and the  suffocation of the able and the brightest.

Of  individuals better than he. All tyrants and would-be tyrants nurture an   inferiority complex. The only way they can compensate for it is the use  of  force and as much power over people as they can muster.

Islam  would also produce that kind of existence, and the Left must know it,   if only secretly and not spoken about among themselves, and certainly  not to  the gullible hoi polloi, in another kind of “gentleman’s  agreement.”  The Left’s ideology and Islam’s ideology are compatible in  practice, differing  only in details and object.

After all, what should it matter to the Left to whose ideology the hoi  polloi swear an extorted obsequious obedience? Barack Obama’s, or Mohammad  Morsi’s?

The Leftist won’t care which, just as long as they concede defeat and  subservience to the State or to the Caliphate.

Read more: Family Security Matters Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

2 thoughts on “The Clueless Left and Islam

  1. Leftist ideologues are cutting their own throats by cozying up with radical Islam. They are too stupid to realize that in the end, they will also get their heads sawed off for their efforts. Ambassador Stevens is a fitting example.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s