The Politically Correct and the Islamists are Odd Bedfellows

There is no stranger relationship than the one between the Islamists and politically correct westerners, who have since become odd bedfellows. On the one hand, a religion that has not, in the main, accepted liberalism; and on the other, the orthodox among us, who often claim to hold the opposite of values, but hold onto lightly.

With such opposing orthodoxies one might expect a clash of ethics and principles to arise. At the very least there should be an open and unconstrained battle in the marketplace of ideas, where critics and defenders can fight openly using the only arms they would ever otherwise use in that arena: art, wit, satire, criticism, argument, and the like. But more often than seldom, any lyrical or artistic depictions of Islam have been wrongly associated with racism, bigotry, and xenophobia, if they haven't already been shut up by other means.

We should never dismiss that there are actual racists and bigots who are anti-Muslim, and they reflect that stupidity in how they treat others. Such sentiment has led to the murder of innocents and other acts of hatred unbefitting of pluralistic and liberal societies. But why would we not hold that same contempt for the racists, sexists, bigots and murderers of the Islamic faith, and to criticize the content of the very beliefs that lead them to such actions, and for the exact same reasons?

Recall when actor Ben Affleck, who while red in the face, rebuked Bill Maher and Sam Harris over their combined criticism of Islam. His emotions got the best of him.

"That's gross," Affleck said. "It’s racist—it's like saying you're a shifty Jew”.

No, Ben, it’s nothing like that. In fact, your inner conflicts and feelings are absurdly misguided. You are objectively wrong. One cannot convert, abandon, or otherwise change his race and phenotype like he would a religion, for the simple fact that a religion is not a race. A member of Islam can be (and is) of any race, language, class or nation, or combination thereof.

So then why the doublespeak? Perhaps, as Christopher Hitchens once noted, "they cannot shake their subliminal identification of the Muslim religion with the wretched of the earth: the black and brown-skinned denizens of what we once called the Third World.” They are over compensating for their own inclination to see Islam as one amorphous race.

Then again, the worry may be one of utter self-concern and public relations.

That’s why when UK gymnast Louis Smith was excoriated for mocking the salah in a drunken escapade, he was not only reprimanded and banned by British Gymnastics for his insolence, but had to go on a virtue-signalling tour to some local mosques in order to save his reputation. In an interview on ITV’s Loose Women, it was implied by the tempestuous panel that his mockery of the prayer was somehow racist, and as a person of color himself, he should have known better. This kind of conflation and finger-wagging is common.

Never mind that it was Smith who was on the receiving end of any and all injustice here—the release of his private shenanigans to a puritan public, the death threats for imitating a silly prayer, and the infantile public shaming by those inclined to moral preening—he was no less coerced into a fit of capitulation, apology and grovelling by his fellow citizens and his government. If one could hear the slow death of a civilization, it would sound exactly like Smith’s grovelling.



I suppose it could also be a matter of “health and safety”. The assumption of soft-bigotry that Muslims are like matchsticks, sure to set ablaze once confronted with criticism and mockery of their superstitions, is rife in the West. The self-censorship that disguises itself as “kindness” assumes an infantile weakness in Muslims, that they cannot handle the sights and sounds of a free society, so we better be quiet about it. This political correctness has not only had a chilling effect on would-be reformers or anyone who might wish to speak up, but by multiplying the outrage, has only incentivized violent retaliation against those who will do so.

Hence the vilification of ex-Muslim Ayan Hirsi Ali, who is a success story by any unit of measure. If the stereotype that the life of a Muslim woman starts with FGM, and ends with honor killing is true, she was already half way there. But rather than marry her cousin in a forced marriage, she was lucky to escape to greener pastures. As poor immigrant, alone and in a strange land, she got an education, got a job, even got into politics before becoming a writer. Now, as an immigrant living under threat of assassination and religious persecution for no more than criticizing her former religion, the Somalian apostate was deemed an anti-Muslim extremist by the SPLC. She is not only a heretic according to the Islamist extremists, but also by the politically correct westerners.



In a an exhibition celebrating freedom of expression in London, the curators, without irony, were required by police to censor a display by local artist Mimsy, citing security concerns over possibly inflammatory content. So much for freedom of expression. The piece featured cute anthropomorphic animal toys known as Sylvanias Families engaging in typical western pastimes (for instance hanging out on the beach or sitting in a school-room) in an idyllic setting, completely unaware that a group of mice clad in black and carrying ISIS flags were looming in wait for an attack just out of sight. I'm not sure what better portrays the fall of western society, Mimsy's "ISIS Threatens Sylvania", or its censorship.

And the arguments. You may have heard the absurd argument that one is more likely to be shot by a toddler or struck by lightning than killed in an Islamist terror attack. This is objectively true, but then again toddlers and lightning aren’t continuously devising new ways to slaughter you and end your civilization in order to replace it with their own. It is not toddlers and lightning that has forced the airports to remove our shoes and pat down our nether-regions so that we may board a plane. It’s not toddlers and lightning that force us to erect walls around monuments, for instance the Eiffel tower, to discourage possible terror attacks. It is not toddlers and lightning determining the boundaries of free expression, what can or cannot be said, and what can or cannot be criticized for fear of violent retaliation. As our governments clamour to provide security, and limiting freedoms while doing so, our bien pensants, the politically correct apologists who say we have more to fear from toddlers with guns and lightning, clamour to provide us with their complicity and complacency. But no matter the body count, the increased security, and the growing culture of censorship, inch by inch we lose another freedom, as much as that word still means anything anymore

Then there is the odd point that there are “over 2 billion Muslims”—a number that is growing rapidly (while the world’s population is projected to grow 32% in the coming decades, the number of Muslims is expected to increase by 70%)—as if that number should console someone who isn’t counted among it. I wonder how those projections bode for a secular society that refuses to defend its own secular values, unless it’s from Christians. But their tenuous point, I think (if a point there is), is that we should refrain from generalizing in case it leads to some sort of Nuremberg law. We should not say “Muslims this” or “Muslims that”, because it is the same as saying “all Muslims”, which it surely isn’t.

So then why? What is this insane apologism? If we are to be wary of right-wing fascism, theocracy, and totalitarianism, why do we let the worst offenders of all these skate by with nary a peep? Why do critics, apostates, and reformers get lumped in with the racists and bigots? Why the political correctness?

Because western values are dying. The finest cultural inheritance the world has ever known is being squandered by those who would rather enjoy their freedoms than to defend them.

Thank you for reading

- LesMis

Well feminists and the LGBT crowd suddenly loves Islam and their anti-women/gay laws for some odd reason. It's insane and frankly a little bit disturbing. If you stone a gay to death i call you a #ing islamic scumbag. That will never change and btw for the zillionth times Islam is not a race. I can't stress enough how many tweets i read calling people who raised legitimate concerns about islamic terrorism racists. Bunch of morons.

It's really not that difficult. For some significant segment of liberals, Christianity is the enemy. Islam is a tool they use to assault Christians/Christianity with.

They don't approve of or love Islam, they just hate Christianity/Christians enough to get in bed with the devil, in order to harm Christians/Christianity, or at least attempt to.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Damn, back to back Les threads.

Thanks for the always great and insightful reads.

Well Milo has been yammering on in exactly the same way for yonks now, give or take a few words, a few well chosen quotes from people of conscience to make the case...funny that.
Of course Milo will go down the road at the weekend and lift thousands of little green papers just for bending over for an acquaintance. Brave new world eh! led by scummy little charlatans.

a reply to: smurfy

Well Milo has been yammering on in exactly the same way for yonks now, give or take a few words, a few well chosen quotes from people of conscience to make the case...funny that.
Of course Milo will go down the road at the weekend and lift thousands of little green papers just for bending over for an acquaintance. Brave new world eh! led by scummy little charlatans.

Sounds like he has good taste.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: smurfy

Well Milo has been yammering on in exactly the same way for yonks now, give or take a few words, a few well chosen quotes from people of conscience to make the case...funny that.
Of course Milo will go down the road at the weekend and lift thousands of little green papers just for bending over for an acquaintance. Brave new world eh! led by scummy little charlatans.

Sounds like he has good taste.

Telling...very telling LesM.

a reply to: InTheLight

Telling...very telling LesM.

Yeah? What does it tell you?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: InTheLight

Telling...very telling LesM.

Yeah? What does it tell you?

Milo.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The left sees everything through the prism of race.

It isn't surprising. The Warsaw speech set them off and revealed some things.

Yet, to the Atlantic writers, defending Western civilization is nothing more than a defense of white racism.

Beinart begins his piece saying: "In his speech in Poland on Thursday, Donald Trump referred 10 times to 'the West' and five times to 'our civilization.' His white nationalist supporters will understand exactly what he means. It's important that other Americans do, too."

And Fallows begins saying, "what he called 'civilization' ... boils down to ties of ethnicity and blood."

Is there one liberal or conservative American who thinks that the words "the West" and "Western civilization" mean a celebration of white-blood purity?

Basically, they are fighting a war against Western Civilization ... just like the Muslims are if for different reaons, but right now, that's all that matters.

The left is so far gone down their rabbit holes of race/gender/sexual identity oppression games that Western Civ to many of them is no more than dog whistle for "white, Christian cismale oppressive hegemony" that needs to be torn up root and branch.

a reply to: ketsuko

It's the same as the western canon, which has been denounced for. It being the product of "old dead white males", and not on their merits.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

As the article points out, many in the rest of world do not deride the works of Western Civ for being done by old, dead white men. Many of today's finest classical music recordings are done by Japanese musicians. They don't see Mozart of Beethoven as "old dead white men" but some of the finest composers of classical music.

To remove Shakespeare from the canon because he's a white man is to ignore that he is revered not for his skin color but because he is one of the finest playwrights the world has produced.

It's actually very simple. The issue is fundamentalism vs moderate. Liberals and Lefties are pretty much a live and let live people. You want to be a fundamentalist go ahead just keep it off me.

This is where you see us as being hostile to Christianity but welcoming to Islam. Neither is true. We will stand against laws that are based on religious notions. Up to current times those laws would be based on Christianity.

Despite fear mongering over Sharia law, there are no Muslims pushing to have any laws outside their own communities that force the rest of us to conform to anything in Islam.

All the Abrahamic religions practiced in the West have their fundamentalists, women aren't equal and subservient. I don't like any of those sects. But I don't have to join. I don't have to like it. What I do have to do is honor their freedom of religion.

Another aspect to consider is that fundamentalist sects of Christianity and Judaism are left alone for the most part that is not true for Islamic sects. We lefties don't like people being picked on... We would become just as defensive for others.

originally posted by: imwilliam
It's really not that difficult. For some significant segment of liberals, Christianity is the enemy. Islam is a tool they use to assault Christians/Christianity with.

They don't approve of or love Islam, they just hate Christianity/Christians enough to get in bed with the devil, in order to harm Christians/Christianity, or at least attempt to.

This. Full Truth

And for some reason they associate Islam with "being oppressed" in some strange manner though it oppresses a large portion of the planet...

Also it is complete horse dung that liberals and lefties hate the West and everything white. Those of you that believe that have some serious screws loose.

A religion that calls for, supports and actually committed in well documented instances by its members, the killing of LGBT's in grotesque and public fashion is championed by lefties? Wow.

A religion that still practices the mutilation of female genitalia to the common extremes that examples can be found in all western nations, let alone every third world sh!thole, is championed by the home of women's rights liberals? Wow.

But hey, they have something real and tangible in common, the demise of Western civilization and are actively working towards that common goal on a daily basis from the lowliest sheeplike indoctrinated believer of their philosophies, to the well-to-do elite among them with money, power and prestige.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that they are both working under the simple concept of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". That is the only reason I can think of for these "Strange Bedfellows", nothing else makes sense as their views, beliefs, and philosophy seem diametrically opposed to each other.

When Western Values are eroded enough one of these two groups is going to get steamrolled by the other....should be easy to guess which.

Why ? Both are based on a complete takeover of the world and all people's beliefs. But , eventually it would still come down to strife between the 2. So it is only a temporary truce.

Rendered paralyzed and irrational by their own weapons, extreme PC, and calling everyone a racist, xenophobe, nazi if they disagree.
Saying anything about muslims would open them up to the same attack they use on everyone else, so silence and denial it is.

Also muslims tend to be exotic brown immigrant people who wear strange clothes and have exotic food so they must be wonderful. And diversity and multi cultural thingy it's good apparently and we need more of it, or so I am told.

Also extreme PC and the left's new identity politics based on race and skin colour are very fashionable right now.

Also the far left/hard left/loony left also hate the west, whites and christians so it's a match made in heaven... lol.

And yes it's all very bizarre but fascinating. And no I'm not a right wing hardliner, I'm actually centre left if that even exists anymore. Seems to be PC left or extreme PC left or anti capitalist loony left these days.