Friday, December 16, 2016

Question of the Whenever # 3

Michael Lumish

If we can agree that opposing the Jihad is not racist - but is, in fact, an effort against the very worst sort of racism - why is it that most on the Left seem so very reluctant to even discuss the question?

Do they think that political Islam is essentially irrelevant?

Do they think that discussing it will result in blowback toward innocent Muslims?

Are they nationalists who happen to believe that the rise of political Islam is significant only to the Middle East and Europe?

Yet, again, I do not have the answers.


  1. Again, teasing out your opponents rationale is counter productive. Did Noam Chomsky really approve of Pol Pot or was he simply grabbing on to the most extreme example of the same kind of anti Western hatred he himself holds dear? Does it matter?

    Why someone is a hanger on to genocidal loons is less important than that they are. Mental illness? Self hatred? Suicidal groupthink? Stupidity? Ignorance? Daddy issues? A genuine wish to see the world burn?

    I'm sure I'm not qualified to makes sense out of all of that. I only can and have to deal with the logistics and consequences of it.

    1. Perhaps, but it's still a good idea to know the basic arguments.

      So many people think that opposing the Jihad is "racist" when that is precisely the last thing that it is.

      This needs to roll right off the lips.

      There is nothing racist about opposing a political, legal, and theocratic philosophy that is responsible for dead in at least the tens of millions over the centuries.

      I know that you know it, but we need to get others to get it, as well.