Pants-Wetting Bigotry Week
Posted by
KTK
David Horowitz, the right-wing provocateur, along with Michelle Malkin and similar bottom-feeders, is promoting “Islamofascism Awareness Week” this month on college campuses, in conjunction with college conservative groups. It’s another exercise in putting a smugly self-righteous face on their own bigotry.
“Islamofascism” is a meme cooked up by right-wingers to make racism and anti-Muslim prejudice sound respectable. Supposedly, we are threatened by a world-wide movement of Muslim fanatics, and, further, their oppressive culture is one that must be opposed at any lengths in the name of freedom. This provides a convenient excuse for invading any Muslim country, for kidnapping, “disappearing”, torturing, and murdering Muslims without oversight, due process, or hope of release, and for vacating our own Constitutional rights and freedoms. It also provides a convenient outlet for bigoted animus - where once denigrating Muslims or advocating invading “pagan” countries at will smacked uncomfortably of racism, religious bigotry, and a Kiplingesque lack of modernity, today you can be out and proud in your hatred of brown-skinned non-Christians as a political stance favoring tolerance, freedom, and progressive values (of the kind harbored by David Horowitz, Michelle Malkin, and the Young America Foundation). Suddenly the people who fall over themselves whenever the word “fascism” is used in reference to the fascist tendencies of the American right (the heirs of the same people who declared the anti-Franco brigadiers in WWII to be “premature anti-fascists”) are finding fascism in religious beliefs that are not in fact very far removed from their own, but held by inconveniently dark-skinned people.
Now, in fact, I agree that traditional Islam is extremely oppressive, and offensive to any decent sensibilities. (I’m not sure the word “fascism”, evocative of a distinct type of political movement, quit applies. It seems to me the word “religion” is all that is needed here.) But you can’t not be suspicious of this sudden sensitivity to “Islamofascism”, especially given who it comes from. I can’t help feeling it isn’t the “fascism” part they’re worried about. And given their pants-wetting over-reaction to what is actually happening, I can’t feel much sympathy for their fears of what might happen.
Whatever the problems with Islamic culture may be, they certainly aren’t a significant threat to the US or its citizens. Terrorism is a terrible, unforgivable thing, but it’s hardly confined to Muslims, and by no means directed only at the first world by the third world. And its magnitude is vastly overstated by the terrified right wing. The likelihood of any given American being harmed by a terrorist attack, in terms of historical trends, is vastly smaller than the risk of many perfectly ordinary harmful events that we take for granted. Even taking 9/11 into account, terrorism is at the bottom of any list of significant harms to US citizens; other than 9/11, it’s essentially negligible in terms of absolute risk to life. That in no way condones it, but it ought to inform our response to it; instead, our response, both in terms of thoughtless vengeance and of needless self-restrictions, has been vastly disproportionate, and it is right wingers who have made it so. A large-scale and emotional response to 9/11 was understandable, but emphasis on terrorism as a particular danger, on Islami terrorism as essentially the only kind that exists, not to mention the destruction of two, and now possibly three, governments that were not responsible for the attack, clearly serves interests and antagonisms that have nothing to do with terrorism itself.
For one thing, even given the right wing’s seemingly absolute incapacity for critical self-reflection, you would think that people who really thought 9/11 was a serious threat to the country would try to avoid making it worse. But George Bush has already killed far more Americans than died on 9/11, not to mention scores, probably hundreds of times as many Muslims - virtually none of whom had anything to do with the attacks. If the “war on terror” mattered as anything but an excuse for invading oil-rich non-Christian countries, you’d think they’d be doing something about terrorism - but Bush has declared that bin Laden is not a priority, and that al Qaeda is not a target other than in the form of its Iraqi spinoff; non-Muslim terrorism is no priority whatsoever, but ordinary left-wing political groups with no history of terrorism are put on “watch lists”. If reducing the likelihood of terrorism mattered, you’d think they would notice how much an international pariah the US has become, they would avoid adopting terrorism and torture as tactics themselves, and they would take seriously the idea that terrorism is caused by something, rather than pretending that “certain people” are just “like that”. The reality is exactly the opposite in every case.
But the “war on terrorism” is not about terrorism, and the concern for “Islamofascism” is not about fascism. In particular, it’s anything but a criticism of repressive religious conservatism. That would require noticing that terrorist acts by Muslims within the US have been vanishingly few (though admittedly of spectacular proportion). It would require noticing that the second most-destructive terrorist act in US history (Oklahoma city) was the work of a home-grown Christian political extremist, in reaction to the government’s antagonism to a right-wing religious group (the Branch Davidians). It would require noticing that the number of terrorist acts by right-wing Christians in the US is literally in the thousands, and the number of deadly attacks by such groups far exceeds those by non-Christians (almost all of them aimed at abortion providers). It would require noticing that the oppressive social standards and misogyny they pretend to disapprove of on the part of conservative Muslims are almost identical to (though more harshly enforced than) those of conservative Christians. And it might require admitting that the Constitutional protections for individual liberty and personal autonomy that Westerners enjoy are an important part in keeping our own terrorists and oppressive reactionaries from dominating our countries the way religious extremists do in some Muslim countries.
None of that will be in evidence during “Islamofascism Week”. The word “Christofascism” will not be mentioned - certainly not by the many in attendance to whom it might best apply. Neither will “Zionist fascism” be mentioned, nor will the degree to which the torture, disappearances, and murders conducted by the Bush regime might also qualify as fascism.
So, while I agree that there is much to be criticized in reactionary Islam, it’s the reactionism I object to more than its religious component. I’m used to that part. And to the extent that “Islamofascism Awareness Week” serves to obscure awareness of the ways in which the oppressin its organizers pretend to disapprove is not, in fact, an uniquely Islamic pheonomenon - not, in fact, one its organizers need to look very far away from their own homes to discover - I don’t expect it to serve any purpose other than allowing its organizers to wallow in their own fears and prejudices, and feel glad about doing so.
[…] Bill Hobbs defends the term “Islamofascism” and declares that the threat that bears its name is real: To be sure, we can debate the exact extent of the threat from radical Islam and the proper response to it. We can even debate whether the threat is truly “fascist” or merely some other form of oppressive tyranny. Does it really matter if the enemy are “Islamofacists” or “Islamonazies” or “Islamocommies” if the end result of them winning is we’re dead or forced to live under sharia law? […]
Pingback 10/18/2007
our response … has been vastly disproportionate, and it is right wingers who have made it so.
With an assist by a not-insignificant number of pants-wetting Democrats who lacked (and in some cases, continue to lack) the cojones to stand up for what’s right.
[I figured I’d beat Ted to it.
]
Otherwise, well stated.
Comment 10/18/2007
Thanks to those rightwing nuts who take terrorism seriously without much help from liberals.
Comment 10/18/2007
“Islamofascism” is a meme cooked up by right-wingers to make racism and anti-Muslim prejudice sound respectable”
What race are islamofascists?
Comment 10/18/2007
It’s IslamoFascism Awareness Week and all I got was this lousy war …
Comment 10/19/2007
“It’s IslamoFascism Awareness Week and all I got was this lousy war”
Yes, it is too bad that the islamofascists attacked us and forced us into war. …
Comment 10/19/2007
“Yes, it is too bad that the islamofascists attacked us and forced us into war. …”
OK…we were the victims of an attack by radical, religious fundamentalists, and we attacked a country (the government being avowedly secular) that had nothing to do with the attack, had no history of supporting said radical, religious fundamentalists, and pulled our forces out of a country who HAD offered shelter to said radical, religious fundamentalist to attack the above mentioned country.
Fred…what is your point exactly?
Comment 10/19/2007
“OK…we were the victims of an attack by radical, religious fundamentalists, and we attacked a country (the government being avowedly secular)”
The Taliban and Al Qaeda are secular? LOL What war are you talking about?
Comment 10/19/2007
really poor (intentional?) reading comprehension or astounding lack of subject matter knowledge…
Comment 10/19/2007
My reading comprehension is fine. The subject is islamofacists. I thought you liberals didn’t believe they were involved in the beginning of the Iraq war. Therefore, why would one assume that the war the poster spoke of was the Iraq war and not the one the islamists were actually involved in, the Afghan war?
Comment 10/20/2007
Fred wrote: “Therefore, why would one assume that the war the poster spoke of was the Iraq war and not the one the islamists were actually involved in, the Afghan war?”
One would imagine because the conflict draining the vastly greater number of troops and money, causing the far greater number of casualties, battles and destruction, that seems to be the far more intractable and is causing the greatest amount of instability is the one in Iraq. I think that was understood by everyone. If that wasn’t the conflict to which SB was referring, (s)he can indicate as much. Also, the right’s propensity (willingness? intention?) to confuse 9-11 and the war in Iraq (not Afghanistan) is also clearly stated in the above article.
Comment 10/20/2007
Heard about the latest Zogby poll? A majority of Americans want a new (read: REAL) investigation into 9/11, one that investigates Cheney and Bush for complicity.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1354
Why is that? Because more and more people are noticing glaring holes in the official myth of 9/11 and are summoning the balls to actually look into the details themselves. Even the N.I.S.T. admitted that the Twin Towers “collapsed” at freefall rate. People in the reality-based community should have no problem whatsoever in realizing that the uppermost portion of a skyscraper is not going to be able to “fall” into and THROUGH the remaining vast majority of solid building as quickly, meaning as effortlessly as falling through air without something else (i.e. explosives) reducing said majority of building to such a state of offering no more resistance than air. Can we all agree on that? Sounds pretty straightforward; solid things offer vastly more resistance than air. Anyone who graduated elementary school SHOULD be able to grasp this, and SHOULD be able to therefore grasp that the Twin Towers and WTC # 7 building had to have been controlled demolitions. It is literally COMMON SENSE.
Add to that the fact that “Al Qaeda” isn’t in control of the U.S. Air Force so they certainly wouldn’t be able to make it stand down while they reach their targets. Add to that the “hijackers” (patsies) not being able to even fly small propellor planes worth a damn, yet we are supposed to believe they jumped in the cockpit of these Boeing 757s and -767s and flew them like pro pilots? Come on. These guys also weren’t Muslim enough to sacrifice their own lives; they drank liquor like fish, snorted cocaine, got lapdances at strip clubs, some lived with their girlfriends; what they sound more like are C.I.A. assets who thought they were in training to become drug pilots. Remember all that time they spent in Florida? Then consider the people like Willie Brown, some DoD generals etc. who were warned in advance to not fly that day. Then consider that SOMEBODY placed record amounts of “put” options on the stocks of companies that would be directly affected by 9/11, and placed the “put” options on the stock in the week BEFORE 9/11, meaning they knew what was about to happen. Then consider Bush’s Secret Service allowing him to remain in Booker Elementary school for at least 35 minutes after Andy Card told him that there had been a second crash at the Twin Towers, that “we’re under attack”. They SHOULD have IMMEDIATELY whisked Bush out of there to a safer location. Instead they let him remain there and even to carry out his pre-announced press conference! The only way they could have been so confident to assume that Bush wasn’t even a POSSIBLE target would be if they knew the target list beforehand, meaning 9/11 had to have been an inside job. These and many more pieces of evidence all point to one inescapable conclusion: 9/11 was a false flag attack done by the U.S. against its own people, to provide a pretext for their resource wars, commonly called the “war on terror”. Wake up from your slumber America, before it’s too late. Many already are waking up. Don’t be the last ones on the school bus to figure out that Santa Claus isn’t real.
Comment 10/21/2007
Everyone, buy stock in aluminum foil. Also, buy stock in companies which make black helicopters.
Comment 10/22/2007
See, Morris and I don’t disagree about everything…
Comment 10/22/2007
There are many potentially credible arguments as to various levels of U.S. governmental involvement in 9/11, but you didn’t make one.
Comment 10/22/2007
I just love the idea of a team of demolition experts installing explosives on every floor (well, every floor below the one where the airplane will hit) in each building - and nobody freaking noticing. These buildings have people in them 24 hours a day. Setting all those explosives would either take hundreds of people or months of work. On a scale of 1 to 10, it is freaking impossible.
Engineers have studied the tape and determined that the building collapsed in exactly the way they would expect it to once the pancaking began. But I suppose facts are less entertaining than fantasy.
Comment 10/22/2007
“There are many potentially credible arguments as to various levels of U.S. governmental involvement in 9/11,”
What are they? Wait before you answer until I adjust my shiny hat. Okay, go ahead.
Comment 10/22/2007
“Then consider that SOMEBODY placed record amounts of “put” options on the stocks of companies that would be directly affected by 9/11, and placed the “put” options on the stock in the week BEFORE 9/11, meaning they knew what was about to happen.”
Because, after all, option trades are anonymous so we only know “someboby” placed the orders, but not who. As if…
Comment 10/22/2007
[…] In what I guess could be described as the heir apparent to — or rather the mutant offspring of — traveling Elmer Gantry style faith healers and caravans of circus geeks, bearded ladies, Siamese twins, skeleton boys and monkey girls, something calling itself the “Terrorism Awareness Project,” is promoting an “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week” tour with all the bravado and twice the pandering as P.T. Barnum. […]
Pingback 10/22/2007
McVeigh was not a christian. He was an avowed atheist. This is a simple fact.
Comment 10/23/2007
The most credible arguments center around the governments long history of state-sponsored acts of terrorism - though almost exclusively abroad. Internal memos, however, have surfaced that document initially approved, but subsequently aborted, plans for CIA operatives to clandestinely shoot ordinary citizens, and perpetrate acts of terror in the 60’s. Such acts were planned to be blamed on Cuba to galvanize support for an invasion. Not to mention COINTELPRO, governmentally-perpetrated murders on our own political radicals, etc. The U.S. government can’t deny that it has put civilians in danger, and/or perpetrated violence against its own civilians for political purposes.
There’s certainly no lack of historical evidence documenting the fabrication of events, and contexts there of, to initiate an already decided upon course of military action.
There are numerous reports from the Project for the New American Century. There’s the fact an eerily similar course of action is beginning with an invasion of Iran in mind.
Basically, our own history is the most compelling case for any sort of governmental involvement, or compliance. The important question is not whether one can prove involvement, or what extent thereof; it is that our despite the proclamations of American values, our country’s military history and international reputation is sordid enough that American compliance in a terrorist attack on its own citizenry is not something that can be outright dismissed without investigation.
Sorry if you were hoping for some crazy tale of blood lines, Skull and Bonesmen, and reptilian shape shifting.
Comment 10/23/2007
Isn’t America a terrible place? I need to move to some socialist paradise.
Comment 10/23/2007
Anybody ever see “Schitzopolis” directed by Steven Soderbergh?…
Platitude. Unsuccessful attempt at dismissive/condescending humor. Platitude. Irrelevant statement about religious values empirically proven disingenuous by previous comment in given thread. Assumption of superiority. Logically inconsistent thought. Platitude.
NOSEARMY!!
Comment 10/23/2007
Muslims Against Sharia congratulate David Horowitz FREEDOM CENTER and Mike Adams, Tammy Bruce, Phyllis Chesler, Ann Coulter, Nonie Darwish, Greg Davis, Stephen Gale, David Horowitz, Joe Kaufman, Michael Ledeen, Michael Medved, Alan Nathan, Cyrus Nowrasteh, Daphne Patai, Daniel Pipes, Dennis Prager, Luana Saghieh, Rick Santorum, Jonathan Schanzer, Christina Sommers, Robert Spencer, Brian Sussman, Ed Turzanski, Ibn Warraq and other speakers on the success of the Islamofascism Awareness Week.
Islamofascism (or Islamism) is the main threat facing modern civilization and ignorance about this threat is astounding. We hope that this event becomes regular and reaches every campus.
A great many Westerners do not see the clear distinction between Islam and Islamism (Islamofascism). They need to understand that the difference between Islam and Islamism (Islamofascism) is the same as the difference between Christianity and Christian Identity Movement (White Supremacy Movement).
Original post
Comment 10/31/2007
50years in USSR I was taught to hate people like you,who counted deaths to pay for future happeness for people.They themselfs didn`t killed,just prayed like millions of muslims
Comment 12/16/2007