Saturday, March 4, 2017

Is it racist to oppose fascism of color?

Michael Lumish

{Also published at the Elder of Ziyon and Jews Down Under.}

Charlie Hebdo Cover, Oct 2014
Many westerners seem to believe that opposition to political Islam (Jihad) is equivalent to racism.

This is why progressives - or what Dave Rubin, and others, refer to as the "regressive-left" - so vehemently oppose the vetting of Arab-Muslim immigrants into the United States.

They honestly do not care about the rise of political Islam, or Koranically-based violence against innocent people, because they tend to believe that Jews, Americans, and westerners deserve whatever beating radical Muslims are prepared to dish out.

As an American of the Jewish persuasion, however, I would very much prefer it if newly minted Americans from the most antisemitic part of the world did not think that the Jewish people were the unnatural cosmic offspring of swine and orangutan in need of a good slaughtering in the name of Allah.

Does this make me a bad, or ignorant, person?


But if you assume that opposing political Islam is the same as opposing Muslims then you must think that all Muslims are jihadis who wish to spread Sharia by any means necessary.

They aren't.

In fact, I might even go so far as to suggest that if you think that denigrating or mocking or opposing jihadism is the same as "Islamophobia" than it is you who are the racist.

The defenders of political Islam, and mass Muslim immigration into the West, need to stop confusing Muslims with jihadis and they need to stop conflating opposition to political Islam with racism. Suggesting that western opposition to the Jihad is the same as opposition to Muslims is something akin to suggesting that British opposition to Nazism during World War II was the same as a racist opposition to Germans.

It isn't and it wasn't and the very notion is both hateful and absurd while turning history inside-out and backwards.

Furthermore, "progressives" need to stop implying that Jewish opposition to the murder of our own family somehow indicates an essentialized Zionist form of racism. They need to stop suggesting that speaking out against the rise of political Islam, from any quarter, is a form of retrograde white redneck bigotry against a perfectly innocent indigenous population "of color."

And, make no mistake, this is precisely what the Left and the Democrats say to their Jewish friends when they suggest that opposing unvetted Arab-Muslim immigration into the United States is "racist."

It isn't because it does not matter where a person comes from or the color of their skin.

It does not matter what languages they speak or what deity they worship or refuse to worship.

It does not matter what their sexual orientation is.

It does matter, however, when people from the Middle East or North Africa teach their children to despise non-Muslims as a religious imperative even as they seek immigration into the West.

These are a people with a long and proud history that predates the rise of European civilization and they should be accorded respect. In doing so, however, they should be treated as equals and therefore as responsible for their own views and behavior, including their views on Jewish people.

This matters very much.

According to Anti-Defamation League polling statistics the Muslim Middle East is absolutely roiling with hatred toward the Jews. 75 percent of Egyptians despise Jews. 78 percent of Lebanese despise Jews and a whopping 93 percent of Palestinian-Arabs do so.

And it is spreading.

Mosques emphasize Arab-Muslim innocence and western / Jewish aggression in Haifa and Malmö and Brooklyn, NY... home of our friend, Linda Sarsour.

They teach ideologically-inspired hatred toward Jews and "crusaders" in Paris and London and Berlin.

The truth, of course, is that Islam is the single most successful theocratic imperial project in world history.

muslim conquests
Early Islamic Imperial Expansion
Therefore, those of us who care about how Islam meets the contemporary secular west are watching the results unfold in Europe and most of what we see is violent and ugly.

We remember the jihadi murder of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, a one-time colleague of Islamic apostate Aayan Hirsi Ali in the Netherlands. We remember the fatwā placed on the head of author Salman Rushdie for daring to pen The Satanic Verses. We remember the unbelievably brutal near-beheading of Lee Rigby in the streets of southeast London in broad daylight. We are cognizant of such things as Islamic rape-gangs in Britain.

And we are well-aware that aggression toward indigenous peoples throughout world history is not the privilege of Europeans alone.

The Failure of Discussion

Thus the question of Muslim immigration into the West is an exceedingly serious matter that must be honestly discussed... but it is not.

The western-left and the Democratic Party have made any such discussion impossible via the politically-correct tactic of silencing, shunning, and de-platforming "deplorable" speakers... which is to say, anyone whom they disagree with.

And this is the reason that we end up with fascistic "anti-fascists" beating the hell out of innocent people at UC Berkeley at the mere presence of Milo Yiannopoulos who, whatever else he may be, is not a white nationalist.

The fire of progressive-left hatred toward Trump and his supporters is so intense, so polarizing, and so irrational that normal discussion on important issues, such as immigration, has become impossible.

When "progressives" and Democrats shut down discussion of Arab-Muslim immigration into the United States as "racist" they also block discussion of anti-feminist, anti-Jewish, anti-liberal, pro-Sharia influences into Europe and coming to an American movie theater near you.

This shutting down of discussion on immigration also blurs any candid distinction between jihadi immigration and the immigration of regular Muslims.

This is not a matter of "racism" against jihadis - as if there could be such a thing - but it is a matter of ideological blinkertude on the part of westerners who condescend to Muslims as little children in need of a cookie.

If mainstream and non-traditional opinionators throughout the West would look up for a moment from their incessant, self-serving, emotionally-driven Trump-bashing, they might consider honestly discussing the question of mass Muslim immigration into the West.

polling2But they don't.

Nonetheless, according to recent Pew polling, terrorism was second only to the economy in the election that brought Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States.

Along with economic issues, whether progressives and Democrats like it or not, immigration combined with terrorism top the political charts.

The reason that many of us came to the rational conclusion that we need a tightening on immigration policies is because for too long the European Union, with the assistance of globalist neo-liberals like Angela Merkel, refused to do so and we see the results.

For example, the other day Trump referenced the immigration crisis in Sweden and was roundly spit upon by media and politicians, both here and there.

The truth, however, is that Sweden and Germany are experiencing street violence and serious social consequences due to their open-borders policies and because of Muslim disinterest in European social and cultural integration.

Democrats need to understand, as philosopher and neuroscientist Sam Harris emphasizes, that Hillary's failure to honestly discuss the problems of mass Muslim immigration into the West is one of the reasons why she lost the recent election.

If Democrats wish to take back the U.S. Presidency in 2020 it might be helpful to be forthright with the American people concerning the immigration crisis in Europe and what that suggests for U.S. immigration policy going forward. We need not draw foregone conclusions, but we very much need to have an open and fair national discussion around the question free of partisan demonization.

It might also be helpful if the Democratic Party would let their constituency know that opposing the Jihad on American soil is not racist toward Muslims. This will have to be something hashed-out between the Bernie / Ellison semi-socialist wing and the Obama / Hillary neo-liberal, corporate wing of the Democratic Party.

However, until western-progressives affirm and honestly discuss the meaning of political Islam to western immigration policies then they are deceiving their own people and deserve whatever electoral beatings that they get.


  1. I just received an email from someone I respect informing me that Islam is not a "race" nor, even, a religion, but only a malicious political ideology and, therefore, the above piece is "wrong."

    I find this very sad.

    Obviously, Islam is not a "race."

    What kind of idiot thinks that Islam is a race?

    As for religion, of course Islam is a religion, but religions clearly do not exclude malicious political ideologies.

    Is that not obvious?

    I wish anyone who thinks otherwise the best in convincing theologians, because they won't have a chance.

    Finally, not every self-identified Muslim is a jihadi, despite the Muslim ideology of Jihad.

    {Not every Christian loves their neighbor, either, but they're still Christians.}

    Suggesting that every Muslim is an ideological jihadi with malicious intent toward everyone else is both unjust and entirely counterproductive.

    1. I read this sort of thing all time. Of course Islam is a religion, not a race. But when one condemns all people identified as Muslim we tend to define that sort of broad brushing of people as racism. I'm not sure how many people actually do that, but the SPLC is on the case! :0)

      I spent much of my own life not hearing or caring about Islam as some sort of issue. Who spent their time before terror attacks on the West thinking about Islam? Surely not your average Joe. Even when it came to the Arab/Israeli conflict we though of it in just those terms, i.e., Arabs vs. Israel. Now we're thinking about Islam and there is a lot of defining and misinformation going on. Most of us are exploring these issues for the first time in hundreds of years, and then there are subsets of people who just happen to know everything ranging from Islam is a religion of peace to Islam is not a religion at all.

    2. Jeff,

      "Who spent their time before terror attacks on the West thinking about Islam?"

      Not me, that much is certain.

      In fact, as I love to brag, I was part of that 10 percent of Americans who, even after 9/11, still opposed George W. Bush.

      But times have changed and evidence comes in and there is no way that we can avoid the fact of the European immigration crisis.

      What really drives me bats is to simply raise the question is looked upon with contempt - with the threat of personal defamation - coming from the Left, the ideological land of the free speech movement.

      That's my political home... or it was.

  2. Let them all do it over there.
    Yours truly,

  3. Mike,
    I love the title of your piece. Bingo! May I use it?

  4. They honestly do not care about the rise of political Islam, or Koranically-based violence against innocent people, because they tend to believe that Jews, Americans, and westerners deserve whatever beating radical Muslims are prepared to dish out.

    Would suggest it's more accurate to say they pretend not to know the terrible things they enable, far worse than Zionism, so they cannot accept responsibility. This is their main weakness.

    When it comes to militant Islam, and a lot of other things, they are the illiberals, what progressivism has come to represent.

    If you stop pretending not to know, then it challenges what you've stood for, an admission that you were wrong. Who wants to do that? Thus, the climate is created to accept the flow of fake news on a macro level, while attacking it on a micro level.

    Ask a progressive that pretends not to know why they do it. Is grabbing the low hanging fruit what they need to look in the mirror every day?

    In the end, they are killing the goose that has provided the golden egg that makes them wealthy and safe from the things they pretend do not exist.

  5. The Dems can't do that just like Merkel et al can't. It would alienate a large portion of their voter base; Muslims and the merchants of neo-colonialism and such

  6. The LGBTQIA+ movement in the United States is not concerned about the Islamist Space Program. Does that make it a nationalist movement?

  7. You lost me after Q. BTW, is that "queer" or "queens?" And why the separate category? And aren't lesbians also gay? I'm not up on this stuff.
    I don't live in the Haight. I'm kind of a live and let live kind of person, and got scolded for it by some friends of LGB before they got the TQI & A.
    The AFL & CIO were much less confusing then all this sexual balkanization.