Evils such as Islam cannot be called evil
because to do so is considered “racist” and worse.
Here’s a video of an interview with Dineh D’Souza, who engages in what Attorney General Holder did not mean when he called for an “honest discussion” of Race or anything else. Mr. D’Sousa well knows the dangers of political correctness. Please watch at least this video.
Back in 2012, I posted an article titled Political Correctness is a Communicable Disease. Islam is protected from legitimate criticism — increasingly — by a shield of political correctness. So are President Obama’s malignant policies. To take issue substantively with either is “racist.”
The religion of peace
According to libruls, “Islamophobia” (an irrational fear of Islam) is racist. It matters neither that Islam is not a race nor that the fear is rational.
In April, a British candidate for the European Parliament was arrested “on suspicion of religious/racial harassment” for publicly quoting Winston Churchill on the Muslim religion.
Mr Weston told his audience: ‘Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
‘Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.
‘No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.’
Police officers arrested Mr Weston, mid-speech, for failing to comply with their request to move on under the powers of a dispersal order made against him.
He was further arrested on suspicion of religious or racial harrassment.
Islamist clerics who preach hatred and violence toward concepts for which Britain once stood — including freedom — are generally given a free pass.
We are told that since Boko Haram does evil things, it is not Islamic. As noted here,
According to a Democrat Senator from New Hampshire, Boko Haram is not Islamist.
New Hampshire senator Jeanne Shaheen says Boko Haram, the Islamic terrorist group that has kidnapped hundreds of Nigerian girls from their families and forced them to convert to Islam, should not be confused with Islam. The Democrat made the point in a Thursday hearing.
One of the hearing’s witnesses, State Department official Robert Jackson, prompted Shaheen’s comment when he argued that “Boko Haram’s philosophy is not an Islamist philosophy.”
“I agree and I’m glad you made that point,” said Shaheen. “Clearly, we need to make sure Islam is not confused with some of these horrible terrorist acts that have been and continue to be perpetrated by terrorists groups.” [Emphasis added.]
Islamic persecution of Christians? So what? It must all be done by a few Islamic extremists — rather like Tea Party Terrorists in the U.S. and “Price tag” terrorists in Israel.
An article by an Israeli, AnneinPt, titled Price tag, illegal building and Olmert’s guilty verdict questioned the way in which the librul media deal with “price tag terrorists.”
The Israeli news (which the international media have lapped up with malicious glee) is full of the acts of vandalism and petty crime committed by Israeli youngsters who live in communities in Judea and Samaria. They have been nicknamed “hilltop youth” by the media after the hilltop settlements in which some of them live. I’m sure you’ve all heard of at least some of their pranks: anti-Arab and anti-Christian graffiti spray-painted on mosques, churches, and Palestinian homes; tire slashing of cars belong to both Palestinians and the IDF [Israeli Defense Force]; and generally causing a disturbance of the peace whenever the IDF or police come to their communities or are even in the vicinity. [Insert added.]
The psychological reasons posited for the price-tag phenomenon are varied: they are youth traumatized by the Gush Katif expulsion; they have been traumatized by Palestinian terror attacks on themselves, their families or their friends and they feel betrayed by the IDF and the political establishment whose reactions they feel have been weak to none; they have been marginalized by a hostile press and leftist academia and feel they have no recourse; they have been brutalized by the “occupation”… the list goes on I’m sure.
. . . .
[T]he official Israeli reaction has been over the top and hypocritical. This op-ed in Arutz Sheva by Douglas Altabef expresses my sentiments perfectly:
Suddenly, there is a new threat to world peace and stability. There has arisen a diabolical force, so sly, so threatening, so innately evil as to challenge the very foundations of Western Civilization.
This despicable, unspeakable force moves with the cunning of a cat, strikes with the force of the Mongol Hordes and, when the rest of the world is naively asleep, stealthily arrives to…
Spray Paint the Side of a Building!…or even worse, unbelievably worse, to…
Have we perhaps lost some perspective here, or is the hysteria about Price Tag attacks meant very much to be a straw dog for a larger issue, against a more serious enemy.
First things first. I am not excusing Price Tag attacks. They are the criminal acts of hooligans.
But let’s also apply some perspective. Spraying a wall with paint is not in the same league as spraying a car with bullets. Slashing a tire does not quite equate to slashing a throat. [Emphasis added.]
But judging by the reactions of many on the Left there is no difference. Worse yet, those who find justification for the actions of Palestinian Arabs feel no compunction in labeling these perpetrators “terrorists” or even, to quote Amos Oz, “ a monster that needs to be called what it is: Hebrew neo-Nazi groups.”
When all else fails, call it “racism”
Remember the Bundy Ranch kerfuffle? Mr. Bundy said some things about Blacks and Mexicans which, edited for the purpose, were used with great success to divert attention from overreach by the Federal Bureau of Land Management to focus on race.
The same sort of ideology-based editing was used during media efforts to slam George Zimmerman as a “racist.” As noted at the linked article,
“Racist” has become an all-purpose word for damning any viewpoint with which libruls disagree. Perhaps some yell “racism” merely to purify their souls of their own sins of racism by casting stones at lesser beings. However, they often do so, as urged by Saul Alinsky, because they cannot successfully attack a position factually or otherwise substantively. It matters little, if at all, that the characterization is through omission. [Emphasis added.]
Alinsky asserts that in “charging that so-and-so is a racist bastard and then diluting” this “with qualifying remarks such as ‘He is a good churchgoing man, generous to charity, and a good husband,’” one convicts oneself of “political idiocy” (134). The winning strategy is to “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” [Emphasis added.]
Since few enjoy being characterized as “disingenuous racist,” this tactic can be very effective and force the victim to try to prove a negative and to be politically correct thereafter. No matter what he may say or do, the characterization tarnishes the victim.
That Alinsky tactic was used against George Zimmerman during a pre-trial media assault dedicated to showing that Mr. Zimmerman was a racist. This recorded conversation between Mr. Zimmerman and a police dispatcher was edited and widely broadcast to delete the words shown below in bold face type:
“Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK and this guy – is he white, black or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.” [Emphasis added.]
Here’s how it was broadcast to make Mr. Zimmerman seem to be a racist:
“Zimmerman: There is a real suspicious guy. Ah, this guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something. He looks black.”
How mindbogglingly brain washed to we have to be to accept such garbage as true and, if ideologically-oriented editing comes to light, to shrug and say, “it was just an honest mistake?” Why do the “legitimate” media gleefully report crimes against Blacks as racist, while failing to report overtly racist crimes by Blacks against Whites as race-based, if reported at all?
According to an article at Front Page Magazine titled Media Blackout of the ‘Knockout Game’
It’s an infuriating example of political correctness: Most of New York City’s media outlets have sanitized the nature of a spate of unprovoked attacks upon hapless pedestrians — all recent victims of the so-called “knockout game.” There have been injuries and several deaths among men, women, and youngsters, as they suffered walloping “sucker punches” by roving black youths in New York City and elsewhere.
The knockout game involves an unmentionable subject for most in the mainstream media: black-on-white violence. To a lesser extent, Asians and Hispanics have been targeted as well. They’re white enough, it seems, for black youths playing the knockout game.
For those unfamiliar with the knockout game, it’s how some black youths amuse themselves, especially in urban settings. The goal: use a single devastating punch to knock a victim unconscious. And when they succeed, they invariably react with merriment and laughter, as videos capturing the mayhem have revealed. Could racism be motivating these black youths? Nobody in the mainstream media dares suggest that this might be fueling the black mob violence in what President Obama said would be a post-racial era.
Be not concerned. According to an article at Mother Jones titled The “Knockout Game” Isn’t a Real Trend. These Lawmakers Are Trying to Ban It, Anyway,
The Connecticut state Legislature’s Judiciary Committee passed a bill last week that would ramp up penalties for people who commit assault as part of the so-called “knockout game.” Reports of black teens randomly punching bystanders and then uploading videos to YouTube sparked a media frenzy last year. After the hype died down, it became clear that there was little law enforcement data to suggest the knockout game is a trend among black teens—or anyone else—and plenty of critics have noted that the obsessive media coverage perpetuates racist tropes. (Remember “wilding” and “headlight flashing”?) [Emphasis added.]
Would our always candid law enforcement officials conceal Black racism? Perish the thought.
Attempting to counter the forces of political correctness is almost certain to precipitate charges of racism, Islamophobia and worse. Few are willing to risk disparagement of that nature, and for a politician to do so can bring politically fatal consequences. Generally, politicians seek election or reelection above all else. Shouldn’t that — indicative of their lack of integrity– disqualify them?
Here’s a link to an article at Front Page Magazine titled Nigerian ‘Sex-Slaves’ Disrupt Obama Narrative on Islam.
Islamic sanctioned sex-slavery does not perturb the Western world simply because the powers-that-be—specifically academia, media, and government—ignore it, and all other unsavory phenomena associated with Islam, out of existence. [Emphasis added.]
But I thought the only “war on women” worth discussing was that of the Republicans.
The real news here is that the so-called mainstream media, which generally downplays or ignores Boko Haram’s terror campaign (see here for example), actually reported on this particular atrocity, prompting both Western and Muslim authorities—who are much more accustomed to, and comfortable with, pretending these sorts of things don’t exist—to respond in awkward, hypocritical and, in a word, foolish, ways.
. . .
[J]ust like the Obama administration has been a thorn in Egypt’s war with the Muslim Brotherhood, so too has it been a thorn in Nigeria’s war with Boko Haram—despite all its current handwringing and “outrage” over this latest—that is, known—atrocity.
As for the “Islam” aspect of Boko Haram’s violence and Christian persecution, needless to say the Obama administration rejects it outright. Thus, after the 2012 Easter Day church bombings by Boko Haram that killed dozens of worshippers, U.S. Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson was quick to insist that “religion is not driving extremist violence”—or, in the aforementioned words of Bill Clinton, “inequality” and “poverty” are “what’s fueling all this stuff.” [Emphasis added.]
Still, because this latest kidnapping anecdote has received sufficient media attention, including in the Arab and Muslim worlds, some Muslim leaders have been forced out of their comfort zone to respond.
Thus, Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayib, the Grand Sheikh of Egypt’s Al Azhar—regularly touted as the Muslim world’s most prestigious institution of Islamic learning—was quick to condemn Boko Haram’s actions of kidnapping and selling “infidel” women, saying, “these actions have no connection to the tolerant and noble teachings of Islam.”
Did he and others get their talking points from New Hampshire senator Jeanne Shaheen and State Department official Robert Jackson (referenced above) or vice versa?
UPDATE, May 20th
Here’s a link to an article by Bryan Preston at PJ Tatler titled Regime Set to Imprison Second Film-Maker Who Criticized Islam. Bryan quotes this from a National Review article:
Dinesh D’Souza, the outspoken conservative scholar and filmmaker, has pleaded guilty to a federal charge that he paid others to contribute to a friend’s campaign for New York U.S. Senate seat in New York in 2012. Sentencing has been set for September 23. D’Souza may be sentenced only to probation, but a jail sentence is possible.
The plea cuts short a process that was scheduled to go to trial today. Last week, D’Souza lost a motion to dismiss the charges against him on the grounds he had been selectively prosecuted.
Bryan then observes,
D’Souza’s proximate crime was violating America’s increasingly complicated, built-to-employ-lawyers campaign finance law. He violated the law and gave the government the weapon to wreck him. His actual crimes were making a movie criticizing Barack Obama, 2016: Obama’s America, and criticizing Islam.
The Obama government previously jailed Coptic Christian film-maker Nakoula Nakoula for a year on parole violations. Coptic Christians are routinely persecuted in Egypt, to the point that they are among the world’s most vulnerable religious minorities. Nakoula came to the federal government’s attention when President Obama, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice and others blamed his obscure YouTube movie for causing a riot that led to the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya. There was no riot. Nakoula’s movie played no role in the pre-planned attack. But he still spent a year in jail.
FURTHER UPDATE, May 20th
Here’s a new video by Pat Condell on political correctness: