Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses the state of dhimmitude at NPR:
At 5:43 yesterday afternoon on NPR I heard a respectful interviewer respectfully interviewing a "Palestinian" about the new, improved, peaceful Hamas, which has become a Good Government organization, working for setting up a system of Civil Service Examinations, draining the Pontine Marshes, and possibly putting a Volkswagen in every garage (well, things to that effect). He was particular cagey, in a way one has grown accustomed to, about not answering while seeming to provide an answer to certain questions. Oh, how we all have gotten so used to those examples of oily, pleasant-voiced meretriciousness.But here's the moral of the tale. It was none other than Khalil Shikaki, the one scheduled to be a fellow at the Crown Center, and not only that, but one of three chosen to explain to earnest, long-suffering Brandeis alumni, How We Can Have Peace In the Middle East. He is to do this at some summer seminar, along with Shai Feldman (who at the Jaffee Center put the kibosh on someone wishing to present evidence of how "Palestinian" control of much of the West Bank would also lead to control of 60-70% of the aquifers Israelis rely on to live--simply would not hear of it), and Kanan Makiya, whose sympathy for the Kurds never quite achieves a further understanding that the Arab mistreatment of the Kurds in Iraq is connected to Arab mistreatment of other non-Arab Muslims (blacks in Darfur, Berbers in Algeria) -- not to mention, of course, the Muslim mistreatment of all non-Muslims. When he was offered one of Bat Ye'or's books to read, Kanan Makiya angrily returned it, calling it "disgusting" -- so much for keeping an open mind, so much for being willing to learn a little more about the history of Islam.
Did the young earnest female interviewer know about Khalil Shikaki's appearance on tapes connected to that little matter of Sami al-Arian? Did she know about what was reported in the New York Sun just this week?
He is also the brother of the assassinated founder of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Fathi Shikaki, and a former director of the Florida-based World & Islam Studies Enterprise….Wiretaps of conversations between Messrs. Shikaki, Shallah, and Hammoudeh introduced as evidence at the Al-Arian trial, however, suggest that Mr. Shikaki distributed money in the West Bank for Al-Arian associates, who raised the funds in America, and then stopped the money transfers in January 1995, shortly after PIJ was declared a blocked terrorist organization by President Clinton.Did anyone at NPR know about all this? Might this NPR appearance have been arranged by someone close to Shikaki to counter the effects of the Sun story? And if someone at NPR knew, did anyone think that just maybe that might mean that Khalil Shikaki is not quite as trustworthy, what-you-see-is-what-you-get, as innocent listeners might be led to believe? Did anyone think it might be a duty to inform listeners about this matter, even if they were then going to go ahead and use Shikaki as an expert source, for his take on all sorts of matters?
Anyone at NPR concerned about this? What about you, donors and potential donors -- what are you doing, among your friends, your relatives, the businesses and foundations you know that might be sponsors of NPR here and there -- what are doing to get their attention?
Of course it is unlikely that anyone who comes to this site donates to NPR. But that is not enough. One must spread the word. Despite the hundreds of millions left by Joan Kroc, NPR does still need donations. Spread the word. Remember also the NPR New Hire who repeated propaganda as fact -– genocidal words supposedly uttered by Ariel Sharon. If someone could utter such things and still be hired, then there is something terribly wrong. One can easily imagine what would happen if it was revealed that some other New Hire had previously been spreading Aryan Nation propaganda. Why is this different? It isn't.
NPR has to be punished in the only way it understands -- through financial deprivation. One should do whatever one can to discourage businesses from donating money and being recognized for it on local NPR outlets (if they knew they would lose business, and they should, they might think again).
And when those hideous fundraising days come along, and the smarmy eleemosynary pleas are made, and you are instructed that NPR "is the fairest" station that gives you "all sorts of views" (what preening rubbish this all is) then do not merely not contribute, but cause others not to contribute. Meet them, answer them, for this and other outrages, with an active and relentless hostility.
It works for me.
NPR is the mirror of PBS. It is a mouthpiece for the liberal/Left. I know folks who listen to it every day and sincerely believe they are well-informed.
Correct me if I am wrong but don't my tax dollars support NPR as well as PBS? So it is not just a question of private donations, right?
AnneCrockett
To your point about donor-supported organizations that have aligned themselves with the pro-Islamist Left -- what I find most interesting about the rot that has taken hold of academia and the media, public broadcasters in particular, is that they receive so much of their funding from foundations that were endowed by people who would probably be horrified by what their money is supporting... ...Henry Ford, Ray Crock,... ...very fiscally and socially conservative types and pro "globalization".
So long as foreign investment in our media continues unabated(even Fox has a price)the propagation of misinformation will continue because for every concerned American's dollar witheld . . .the oil rich coffers of the ME will likely double.
Witnessing the decline in New Duranty Times stock . . .it is apparent that a void is created. The Sun appears to be filling that void, and I, for one, after cancelling all print subscriptions two years ago, will now consider ordering the New York Sun.
I don't know how you can stomach listening to NPR, Hugh. There ain't an antacid strong enough!
This outrageous act of journalistic irresponsibility should become a scandal of the highest order, but of course it will be completely ignored. Perhaps we could use a volunteer to track this kind of thing at NPR. I can't imagine Hugh being a regular listener...
I am reminded of the PBS spoof in "A Mighty Wind" where it keeps being pointed up that PBS's audience is a) small and b) old. Which is why sponsorship is so hard to come by...we need to make it harder.
A great little piece at "The American Thinker", media related so not really OT at all.
A quick read, so do it;
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5178
From this morning's Bandar Beacon:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011903457.html
Much is related to what you know or don't know about Islam.
No Islam, know peace.
Know Islam, no peace.
Rebecca,
I'm not surprised at all by Malloy's reaction. Liberals are so quick to use the word Nazi, if they really knew about Nazi Germany they wouldn't be so quick to label people that way.
The real reason they use it, of course, is so they don't have to debate and defend their ignorant point of views. By calling conservatives Nazis, they free themselves in their minds and in those who are like-minded from having to explain and defend what they believe. So typical. Rush Limbaugh is right, liberalism is emotional, consevativism is intellectual.
Keep up the good work, Rebecca.
Ah, NPR. Trying to present themselves as a serious and centrist organization, trying to sound official (note the specific selection of news readers - always guys and dolls in their late 40s).
Trying to hide their agenda... but not exactly successfully.
During boring morning commutes, sometimes, just for fun, I would switch my radio to the dreaded last memory knob and play an always winning game with myself - "what kind of biased 'reporting' or 'commentary' will we hear now?" - And, invariably, it would always be the 'lucky draw' - another shameless and sincere marxists' pro-'victim' pitch with a straight face, be that victim a 'dissatvantaged' illegal, or a shameless welfare recipient, or an islamic propagandist off the street of Londonistan or Parisistan.
Disgusted, almost gagging, quickly then I would switch to another station and sign in relief, giving rest to my ears from this never-ending stream of leftist sewage. But pity those who listen to it religiously on their DAILY commutes to and back from work. Oh, NRP does it job and achieves results. At work I keep stumbling over closed perception doors of its loyal listeners - as usual such inDUHviduals are brainwashed to the point of no return. No discussion is possible. Therefore it's hard for me to persuade them not to listen to that junk any more.
Not sure how many here heard of Michael Savage, but I've been having some grand commute time lately by recording his shows off the internet stream and listening to such homemade podcasts (none available officially as of now yet) in my car. Day and night in comparison! Savage is 150% on our side.
"Savage is 150% on our side."
Actually, Savage is about 75% on our side; or rather, "our side" is about 75% on his.
The crucial difference is that Savage tirelessly emphasizes the screamingly obvious fact that Leftism (Savage calls it "Liberalism", but I forgive his semantics) is the major problem crippling our self-defense against Islam. Here on "our side", Messrs. Hugh and Robert (and the majority of posters here) are consistently fastidiously chary about blaming Leftism (and in fact have turned "it's not a Left/Right problem" into a noble bromide).
They can state their independence from political affiliations all the want, that needs to be done to unite against the common enemy. However, as you pointed yourself, the fact remains highly visible that while the right is on the right side against that enemy, most of the left actively roots for the opposite side.
I listened to the interview, too, and almost puked. Let's just accept the fact that NPR, which stands for National Public Radio, really means National (Leftist/Liberal/Dhimmi/Un-American) Propaganda Radio.
I'm not listening to their crap anymore. It's unbearable.
Not sure how many here heard of Michael Savage...
He is the only public figure with the courage to state that Islam is evil and that the notion of Moderate Moslems is laughable.
This is why he has been ostracized by his colleagues. But, a growing percentage of the American public --- showing more common sense than anti-Dhimmi intellectuals who hold their "credibility" so dear, too dear --- continue to support Savage for admitting what no one else will.
Dr. Pepper writes:
"The crucial difference is that Savage tirelessly emphasizes the screamingly obvious fact that Leftism (Savage calls it "Liberalism", but I forgive his semantics) is the major problem crippling our self-defense against Islam. "
I disagree. I think the problem is that the
actual left wing institutions have been hijacked
by an agressive subset of "The Left" (as
unspecific as "The Right") and that is the
problem. I can certainly imagine anti jihadist
left wing with which I could join hands.
Judging from some posts here, one could imagine a
right wing hijacked by agressive Christians, or
in the UK by white racial nationalists, but the
first is difficult because at the highest level
Christian theology emphasizes love and forgiveness. Also, Americans don't like being
told which church to go to, or how to pray. And
the BNP is small in the UK. But we on the Right
(I consider myself a conservative) have to be on
our guard at all times. And it would be good to
encourage a viable, reasonable, left. The self
destruction of the American left is not a good thing.
Sorry to be so brief, gotta go!
American
"actual left wing institutions have been hijacked
by an agressive subset of "The Left"
I agree -- that's what I mean by "Leftism".
However, I disagree on one point: you imply this aggressive subset has only hijacked left-wing institutions. I think it's far graver than that: they have hijacked the predominant Western culture, embracing sociology, politics, laws, communications, and academe. This Leftist "hijacking" of culture is so extensive, it infects conservatives and the "right wing" to an unprecedented degree.
This Leftist "hijacking" of culture is so extensive, it infects conservatives and the "right wing" to an unprecedented degree.
Posted by: Dr. Pepper at January 20, 2006 12:05 PM
This is sadly true. While leftists are responsible for introducing and imposing multiculturalism, moral/cultural relativisim and political correctness (cultural Marxism) in America, it has infected Conservatives and appears to be spreading. Bush is a good example. In his efforts to appease the left and prove that Republicans are compassionate, he has betrayed almost every Conservative ideal. But Bush is not a Conservative and probably never was, although he had me fooled for a while.
Sadly, despite his efforts to be "inclusive" and empathetic, i.e. the Medicare Prescription fiasco, the No Child Left Behind Act, devised by Ted Kennedy; his refusal protect our borders from rampant illegal immigration; and many other contributions to the Liberal cause, he is still reviled by the Left. These days, the only way to distinguish the Left from the Right is to listen to who is demonizing Bush and the war in Iraq.
Hugh- For pity's sake ,what does the abrivation stands for NPR?
There are readers of J/W around the globe.Some of them,like me, are unable to expand them.
NPR = National Public Radio
It is supported by government grants (i.e. by taxpayers, whether they approve or not of NPR), by grants from foundations whose donors receive tax benefits from the government (again, which means being supported by the taxpayers whose taxes rise when charitable foundations receive tax-deductible donations -- and then transfer some of that money to NPR), and by those tax-deductible donations of viewers "just like you" as we are obnoxiously told.
NPR has many good things. Click and Clack, the Magliozzi brothers, who form the moral center of NPR, and whose funding, I believe, is separate from that of NPR (their best show was the one on which their humorful mother appeared), Science Friday, music-and-fake-homespun-often-very-good-humor shows (Prairie Home Companion), and so on.
On the other hand, their news shows, and of course the BBC World Service, run by John Simpson (google "John Simpson" and "Posted by Hugh" and "Jihad Watch"), with such deplorable people as the hard-voiced phonily chipper Judy Swallow, the even harder-voiced and altogether antipathetic Lyse Doucet, the Arafat-weeper Barbara Plett (now forced to report from Afghanistan, but not discharged as she should have been), and others who make Linda Gradstein seem bearable, even though she isn't.
That's NPR.
Some of those attempting to deal with political and other subjects are not so much evil as simply dumb, dumb, dumb. There's a man named John Ashbrook who, in a program yesterday on the Norton Anthology of Literature, starring M. H. Abrams of "The MIrror and the Lamp" fame, retired from Cornell, of the generation of real, unaggressive, bookish sorts (Reuben Brower, who used to memorize 100 lines a day, or his colleague at Amherst whose name I forget who wrote a book about the literature of childhood, or William Pritchard, newer but still of the Old School), and then, representing the respectable (not the Jonathan-Culler fashionable-now-not-in-fashion deconstructivists or whatever the hell they call themselves variety, New Historicist Stephen Greenblatt (see the TLS and New Republic reviews of his "Will In the World" before reading the book), Stephen Greenblatt, he of those interminable thank-you notes to Professors 1-45, every colleague he has ever had or hopes to have, or hopes to get a blurb or reference from (is it Bellagio Grant time again?) -- on this score see "Acknowledgements" by Mark Bauerlein in the TLS -- were discussing the matter. Nothing enlightening was offered, said, no discussion of whether the "triage" performed in throwing out a poem by A.E. Housman in order to accomodate someone who might have all the extra-literary (racial, sexual) characteristics now found so desirable by anthology-makers, was based on literary merit or on other considerations. The funniest moment was when, asked to read a poem, Prof. Greenblatt (slight Boston accent, just the way Roman Jakobson had a similar accent that Nabokov made fun of) read "O Westren wind/when wilt thou blow/The small rain down can rain/ etc.
Good poem. Marred by the subsequent comment of the hopeless philistine Ashbrook, who said it was just like a "haiku." It had nothing whatsoever in common with a haiku, except that it was four short lines, and apparently the only thing Ashcroft, a Reader's Digest Condensed Books man (more or less), could think of that it might be like was that other short poem -- the 17-syllable haiku which, in the Japanese versions, does not have to be divided into three lines (google "Amanogawa" and "Posted by Hugh" and "jihad watch"), but does, Blythely or blithely, when they are written in English.
So the level of the conductors of these NPR
general-interest programs is not what it should be,nothing like Alastair Cooke's "Omnibus" of yore. It is not merely a question o fhow badly they cover Islam or the Middle East, or faile to, but how they handle, or cover, everything else too, or fail too (for example, nothing about art exhibitions, nothing about university education and its discontents, unless it is of the predictable outrage-about-Larry-Summers variety).
But the failure to cover Islam is the most important, because the one with the most dangerous potential consequences for our foreign and domestic policy. NPR has had more than four years to educate, to begin to hint at slightly starting to get a glimmer, about what Islam is all about. I have not heard, once, in those years, any mention by any of the mere reporters or the conductors of these news programs, of the words "Hadith" or "Sira." I have not heard them read any passages from the Qur'an, much less 9:29 or the rest of Sura 9. I haven't heard any programs on the origins of Islam, on the early Qur'an, on how Islam spread. Not once has there been a program devoted to the concept of the dhimmi -- to what the word means, and what disablities, for 1350 years, non-Muslims have had to endure under Islamic rule. Nothing, nothing, nothing.
You can't learn a thing, or haven't so far, about Islam, at NPR. Don't expect it. You haven't heard a thing about the demographic conquest of non-Muslim lands, about the emptying out of non-Muslims from many Muslim countries. Not a single program devoted to the Copts, or to any of the other endangered Christian communities in Lebanon, Iraq, and elsewhere. Why not? Not a single program devoted to the ARab supremacist ideology within Islam that helps explain the Arab razzias in Darfur, the massacres of the Kurds, the linguistic and cultural imperialism under which the Berbers have chafed in Algeria. Why not?
Do I think people should stop contributing to NPR until it begins to minimally meet its obligations to help us to comprehend Islam and the Jihad? Yes (I'll take care of the Norton Anthology of Poetry myself)., Do I think that despite the Magliozzi borthers, Science Friday, the jazz and American-music programs, the quiz shows, and all the other good things, we should deprive NPR of "much-needed support from viewers like you"? Yes. Do I think we should try to get them either to have the BBC World Service modified, in its own outrageousness, or to cease to carry it? Yes.
And so, to end with a slight twist to the title of one of the shows I enjoy -- though I enjoy nothing on NPR as much as the re-runs of "My Word" and especially Frank Muir and Dennis Norden, save for "The Jazz Decades" with Ray Smith:
Wait, wait. Don't stop me.
Leftism. And PRAGMATISM...
Here's sumthin'
""Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." --- James Madison.
""I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."--JamesMadison
""The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson
True, true.
Hugh-Thanks a lot for your enlightenment on NPR.
Will there be any chance of Saudi money playing their part with the top persons running the NPR,like other medias like BBC,CNN,etc?
Pepper old buddy, have you noticed Robert and Hugh largely ceased their pleas for Left-Right comity once 'kj' announced his departure. It was apparent he was emailing Robert with complaints. I could be wrong, but I think alot of what was going on then was an attempt to pacify him. I try to attribute that episode to Robert's good nature.
Meanwhile, you know I respect your opinions and largely agree with your overall outlook. But if we're being absolutely honest with ourselves, we can't throw responsibility EXCLUSIVELY at the doorstep of the Left for the state of affairs we find ourselves in.
The US-Saudi relationship for example is organically rooted in petroleum. It is not the multicultural Left but rather big oil that precludes us from the 'Manhatton project' that Sam Harris, Robert and Hugh keep talking about. The oil companies and their lobbyists and palm-greasers are protecting hundreds of billions of dollars in investments and trillions in potential future earnings.
I'm not one who hates big oil. In my mind, they are much like the hated pharmeceuticals; both have worked wonders to help fuel the progress of mankind. But in the case of oil, its time is passing. Instead of an engine for progress, it's becoming an albatross.
This is not to minimize or mitigate the nauseating ideology of the Left that has so corrupted our universities, culture, media and political class. But I'm willing to acknowledge that corporate profits don't have a whole lot to do with Left-wing ideology, but they have much to do with the US-Saudi symbiosis...and with the inability of Administrations past and present to break our dependence on fossile fuels.
""have you noticed Robert and Hugh largely ceased their pleas for Left-Right comity once 'kj' announced his departure. It was apparent he was emailing Robert with complaints. I could be wrong, but I think alot of what was going on then was an attempt to pacify him."
-- from a posting above
It will be amusing to see Robert's reply to the posting above, if he runs across it.
He is the only public figure with the courage to state that Islam is evil and that the notion of Moderate Moslems is laughable.
This is why he has been ostracized by his colleagues. But, a growing percentage of the American public --- showing more common sense than anti-Dhimmi intellectuals who hold their "credibility" so dear, too dear --- continue to support Savage for admitting what no one else will.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer
APF
Reason Michael Savage is reviled by many is because he too frequently resorts to name calling, and also loses his temper too quickly. It's hard to listen to him for 2 minutes at a stretch without being put off by either his choice of words, or his down & out rudeness. And I'm one who agrees with some 80% of what he says. Just that I can't stand him. (If I was one who disagreed with him, I'd listen to him only for a chuckle at the desperation that such an adversary has.) As Bernie Goldberg pointed out, his tone tends to hand left wing commentators a stick to hit right wing talk show hosts with, even though none of them are like Savage.
It's a pity that the only outspoken voice against Islam is that of him. His rants against Islam would leave one with the impression that Jihad is a good thing. I wish that mainstream conservative hosts were aware of Islam. They don't have to be as outspoken as we are here, but the least they can do is express scepticism over various claims about Islam, express their opposition to Shariah, and speak out against Islamic practices (without necessarily invoking the Quran).
In fact, a good way to draw attention to the vile contents of the Quran would be to condemn Muslim activists, and call on them to follow the Quran. Guess what the response would be - and the Quran would be laid naked for all to see.
I also like many of NPR's shows, but I snooze through or change the channel when the news or 'news analysis' comes on. It's deplorable, leftist ranting and their are so many options to listen to. Whatever one may think of Rush Limbaugh(when I first heard him I thought it was manna from heaven), his Club Gitmo thing is priceless . . . the tropical retreat from the stress of Jihad . . . I went to club gitmo and I'll I got was this stupid teeshirt bits are awesome as are the visuals of Sen. Leahy serving the Jihad brass in black tie. But, it's not just NPR is it? I don't recall much of an education on Jihad with the big three networks, Larry King or Brit Hume. I'm also disgusted by the Saudi Prince Al D'weeb who is buying up shares in Fox. Sadly, it will take more horror for the mainstream press to 'get it.' The cold war analogy to the current war is apt; this is a struggle fought over ideology over time and wide spaces, pitting good against evil. The NYT is also hopeless. Pathetic. But I think many Americans of all political stripes are slowly 'getting it.' This web site is invaluable.
Listening to NPR is a bittersweet experience to be sure. For every good program, and even the good ones can have some pretty lame sentiment expressed by guests or goaded by hosts, there is the incredibly biased news commentary. For me, it is an exercise in "know your enemy and his supporters." (My Word would have fun with that comment.)
The biggest problem for me is that I listen while driving my old truck around, and the other drivers around me wonder why I am screaming at the windscreen and flailing my fists at the dashboard. Every report that shamelessly and cluelessly coddles the creeping terror, and there are many, nearly causes a traffic accident. I can't seem to reach through the radio and throttle the reporter, but I try.
Money for NPR? Maybe if they change the name of All Things Considered to The Rising Gorge I'll consider it.
Cornelius,
The corporate elite are Pragmatists, they go any which way the wind blows, where-ever it goes, to serve their own interest.
There can be some confusion about this, like, big-business and communism are like oil and water, they don't mix. But that is assuming that communism is what it says it is, and the assumption that the corporation represents what it is purported to represent-- Capitalism--
Communism is at it's core is simply totalitarian collectivism administered by an elite. It can be a hard or soft totalitarianism.
Collectivism, Elitism, and Statism is the enemy, leftism is the dominant splinter-off ideology, the one with most appeal and success. Fascism is another one,but fascism and communism are not opposites or mortal enemies, that's an invention of Stalin. They are just different sides of the same coin.
For instance:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard97.html
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-ma-pa.html
or:
"...Corporation executives, descendants of Karl Marx, Kofi Annan, Bill Clinton, and George Bush are all saying close to the same thing and seem to take some sort of perverse delight in sacrificing the United States to the remainder of the world. As part of this, what is arising is a new breed of mentally dysfunctional and twisted corporation executives, some of whom exhibit passive-aggressive thought patterns wherein the release hostility and destruction upon American society in an indirect and rationalized manner."Robert L.Kocher.
http://members.mountain.net/theanalyticpapers/ch243.htm
And:
..."The Rockefeller Foundation has been instrumental through the century just passed (along with a few others) in giving us the schools we have. It imported the German research model into college life, elevated service to business and government as the goal of higher education, not teaching. And Rockefeller-financed University of Chicago and Columbia Teachers College have been among the most energetic actors in the lower school tragedy. There is more, too, but none of it means the Rockefeller family "masterminded" the school institution, or even that his foundation or his colleges did. All became in time submerged in the system they did so much to create, almost helpless to slow its momentum even had they so desired..." John Taylor Gatto.
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/prologue8.htm
"Pepper old buddy, have you noticed Robert and Hugh largely ceased their pleas for Left-Right comity once 'kj' announced his departure. It was apparent he was emailing Robert with complaints. I could be wrong, but I think alot of what was going on then was an attempt to pacify him. I try to attribute that episode to Robert's good nature."
Cornelius, old buddy, please be assured that I do not say what I do not mean. I said then, and I say now, that the struggle against jihad terror and the supremacist imperative is not a conservative or liberal issue, and that both should join it. I also said then and I say now that the Right is generally stronger on this issue than the Left, but both suffer from severe myopia and other afflictions.
If I were in the habit of dissembling in order to pacify, I would not be out here catching hell for denying that Islam is a religion of peace. I could just join the in-crowd of lotus eaters and be done with it.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Cornelius,
If we assume that
a) American oil companies and their political supporters and collaborators are for the most part not morally bankrupt and spiritually corrupt materialists
and that
b) they would not, in order to continue making money and in order to continue to prop up their money-making structure, countenance and enable an ideology they know to be evil and dangerous to the USA --
then your explanation for why they in fact do continue to countenance and enable an ideology (Islam) they know to be evil and dangerous to the USA fails. The missing ingredient here is the cultural sea change that has occurred in the past 50-odd years, whereby even conservative and right-leaning businessmen and politicians have become infected by the amorphous cultural atmosphere of PC Leftism, which holds three non-negotiable Givens about Islam:
1) Islam is a great world religion of peace
2) terrorism by Muslims represents a tiny minority of extremists who are trying to hijack that religion of peace
3) all substantive criticism of Islam qua Islam is "Islamophobic" and must not be entertained or supported in the public marketplace of ideas (let alone in the halls of policy-making or in the chambers of intelligence meetings).
Notice Spencer's comment: "that the struggle against jihad terror and the supremacist imperative is not a conservative or liberal issue, and that both should join it."
Once again, Spencer conflates the "is" with the "should". Of course, we all agree that our current self-defense against Islam should not be a left-right issue; but that should not blind us to the fact that it currently is one, and has been one for several decades.
Furthermore, Spencer and Hugh (and a few others here) obtusely ignore the more complex sociological issue here: we are not talking about "liberals" and "conservatives" as bodies of people subscribing to clear party platforms. We are talking about a sociocultural process, whereby our culture has become infected by Leftism over the past 50-odd years. This sociocultural process has resulted in the curious phenomenon of conservatives & those on the Right buying into the PC package, which includes the three Givens I listed above.
NPR is very biased, it is true. But the media on the right often reports little and is very simplistic. One cannot be well versed about the issues (not to mention global issues) of the day getting news from either side exclusively. NPR also does amazing and powerful stories that never appear on other media. It is not valueless, in the same way that the BBC is not valueless.
Left and right are silly labels that are best suited for the weak minded. There is no such thing. Most people I know are neither "Left" nor "Right". Most people pick and choose.
What Robert says is right, we need to join together. As a "leftist", I can see that the left holds a large part of the key. If you do not convince them, the battle against radical Islam is much harder to fight. If you agree with that statement, you will see that many here need to cease incessantly attacking the left since they are not the terrorists we are all battling. The left has many faults, but the right is far from what it purports to be: right. Instead, educate the leftists about Islam and join people like me in the middle. It's a nice place to be.
Regards,
Kafir
I hav'nt owned a TV for over 5 years. The brainwashing/social-engineering is too obvious to me, besides it's mostly worthless garbage anyways.
I'll never go back to owning one.
---------------------------
Um, Kufir, you are making an assumption: those who despise the "left", support the "right".
No, that's a trap. And it's a falsely limited choice.
I say f-ck 'em both. I say follow the fricken Constitution.
If you(or anyone else) take attacks on the "left" personally, that's too bad, and it's not my problem. You/they have chosen to join a collective political ideology and like the muslims, cannot cherry-pick only what you like about it and disassociate yourself from the rest.
You may not be an American, so this may not apply, but leftism is the anti-thesis of the founding principles of the USA.
Robert,
No offense intended.
It was at the height of kj's stink about right-wing comments here that Hugh and yourself began imploring the rest of us to try to subsume our differences for the greater cause. Once he departed, we didn't hear anymore about it from either of you.
I didn't see it as an effort to 'dissemble'...and I'm sure I could have found a better word than "pacify" to denote what I was trying to convey, which more than anything else was that it appeared to me you were trying to be a gracious and fair-minded host.
But thanks for setting me straight.
Pepper,
"Morally bankrupt"..."spiritually corrupt"...?
Does big oil have to be abjectly evil or intrinsically benign? Perhaps the oil companies are made up of typical men and women who pursue their self-interests which sometimes coincide with the common good and sometimes don't.
Would you deny that the oil companies have utilized their enormous clout to subvert gov't and private efforts over the past 3 decades to push alternative energy sources?
Would you deny that the oil companies have utilized their enormous clout to advocate for the House of Saud in the corriders of power in Washington DC?...(not for the purposes of furthering Islam for ideological reasons, as the Left does, but simply to maintain a favorable business climate ro continue doing business with an important supplier).
Dude, no question you're right about the sociological process of the last 50 years. This accounts for Bush's absurd RoP invocations; it is an adaptation of Leftist dogma that has become culturally mainstream. But it doesn't account for the latency of US energy independence, which is a non-ideological phenomenon.
Instead, we're talking about business, corporate profits, and protecting investments worth hundreds of billions of dollars from becoming obsolete. One can hardly blame the oil industry from behaving the way it does; one could easily characterize it as enlightened self-interest. But what is good for big oil is not necessarily good for America.
Cornelius,
American oil men wouldn't do those things in collusion with Nazis or the KKK or the Symbionese Liberation Army. The fact they do it with Muslims shows not that they are knowingly colluding with evil people; but rather that they are unknowingly colluding with them. And their lack of knowledge is not merely a simple ignorance of data that, once supplied by accidentally reading Jihad Watch, would cause the scales to fall from their eyes. No, their lack of knowledge is more than mere deficiency of information; it is part of a sociocultural sea change in psychology and sociology that needs more than the simple communication of data to wake them up.
I hear what you're saying...(i.e., read what you're writing).
I'll certainly conceed that whatever collusion exists between big oil and the House of Saud, it is largely non-ideological (though it sometimes manifest itself in ideological validation), which clearly distinguishes it from the dynamic involving the Left, which consciously attempts to elevate ANY other culture above that of the West and thus becomes an abettor of jihad.
But in all earnesty, it's the bottom line and not PC Leftism that motivates big oil and its accommodationism of the Saudis.
P.S. Manny Pacquiao KO'd Eric Morales in 10. Helluva fight.
"it's the bottom line and not PC Leftism that motivates big oil and its accommodationism of the Saudis."
It can't be the bottom line, because, again, if the oil men's potential partners were Nazis, or KKK, or the Symbionese Liberation Army, or the Zebra Killers, or the Manson family, the oil men wouldn't collaborate with them, no matter how compelling and attractive that bottom line was.
The crucial explanatory factor here then is not the bottom line (even though the bottom line is important), since the crucial explanatory factor would have to be a factor under all circumstances: the crucial explanatory factor is the ignorance of how bad one's business partners are, the ignorance of (Islamic) ideology; and again, that ignorance is not in our current cultural condition merely a deficiency of data. It is the state of being massively infected by a parallel ideology -- PC Leftism.
The oilmen of Aramco, a company that for decades performed as a propaganda agent for Saudi Arabia, did know how awful the Arabs they dealt with were. As far back as the 1940s, a certain Texaco official, known to me, was warning his daughter to have "nothing to do" with any Saudi Arabs she might meet, no matter what their outward appearance. He hadn't read the Qur'an or Hadith. But he, and many Aramco employees and associates, knew how the Arabs behaved.
Cupidity helped to explain their behavior. And stupidity. No one had the imagination to realize that someday these primitives might acquire enough money, and with the money enough power, to cause a great deal of harm to the Western world.
And after the quadrupling of oil prices in 1973, did ARAMCO, did those in America, France, England, Italy, Spain, Germany, recycling those petrodollars, selling real estate to those rich Arabs, providing services legal and illegal, to those rich Arabs, show themselves in the slightest to have been affected by this "Leftism" that the poster above manically attributes to them, because everyone who does the bidding of the Arabs must in his view have been influenced by this "Leftism" -- even if the most obvious desire to get money from them is the only factor.
When, in 1980-81, the AWACS sale to Saudi Arabia was the subject of a big battle in Washington, who lobbied Congress to give the Saudis, our "staunch allies," everything they want? John Connally, James Baker. United Technologies, the Whitney Corporation, and all the other big companies with contracts outstanding, or contracts they hoped to obtain, with Saudi Arabia. "Leftists" or "affected by Leftism," the lot of them?
PRAGMATISTS.
With Realpolitik (and its corollary, realistic economics), there has always been a certain amount of dealing with bad people, since the assumption is that nobody's perfect and that in the real world, one makes deals with lesser evils. Knowing that Saudis are the types you wouldn't want your daughter meeting is hardly remarkable, considering how many ordinarily bad wolves exist in the world; and that knowledge is hardly knowledge of the profound malevolence of Islam and the dire threat it poses to the West, and to the World.
Obviously, no American businessman worth his salt (and we are not talking about the ones not worth their salt and we are assuming that the majority of them are decent, intelligent, ethical, patriotic types) would do business with, for example, Hitler in 1944, let alone continue to renew business contracts with him year in and year out (hypothetically imagining that WWII lasted long after 1945).
We here in our tiny subcommunity Jihad Watch know that Islam is as bad as (if not in certain ways worse than) Hitler's Germany. Obviously then, something besides mere cupidity and stupidity motivates these American businessmen to continue to deal with Muslims:
1) not mere cupidity, because otherwise they would have collaborated with Hitler in 1944 if it would have fed their cupidity -- and we know they wouldn't have.
2) not stupidity, because the information is already extant and prevalent, and businessmen and politicians are intelligent.
It's not a matter of lack of information, or some mysterious obstruction to the information getting to the eyes and ears of these people. It's a matter of a massive, sociocultural filter of all information, changing the nature of that information before it gets received.
You need to do a little more studying Dr.Pepper,
The answer, if there is one, ain't gonna be so easy.
First off, you make a grave error by assuming 'intelligence" on politicians and businessmen.
Second, your Nazi analogy does not fit the profile of the M.E.(in addition, there WERE companies doing business with the Nazis).
Thirdly, WE NEED OIL. We go down the tubes without it. We need oil to power everything, including our defense. And Islam is not our only potential enemy, and is not the most powerful one.
Part of the game-playing about islam has to do with our black population, I am quite sure they make up the majority of muslims here. A percieved attack on islam could easily turn into a race war, with non-muslim blacks seeing it as an attack on blacks in general. No doubt the muslims would play that card.
You are right on the cultural aspect and PC. But that is not all and it goes beyond leftism. There is another culture, there is the elitist world, and they are the unelected power-wielders who strive to maintain that power.
And then again, it may all end up not mattering:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0871138883/ref=sib_fs_top/104-9516638-9752713?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S00H&checkSum=dIg%2BXW8AtpAXdbgbR%2FD2HdWokB16YxCR0fof94S7ar0%3D#reader-link
I could not agree more Kentim.
Islam is NOT our only foe; it is probably not even the strongest, although I think it is the foe that is most likely to inflict the most the most casualities on the West. Have you all forgotten China and a resurgent Russia?
ON REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS DOING BUSINESS WITH S.A.
Doing business with such enemies is out of a desire for profit, not out of political desires. That’s "opportunism", not liberalism. As foolish as those politicians’ actions might have been, you cannot blame "leftist" attitudes on the part of all conservative politicians for their business dealings.
ON OIL
Pretending we don't need oil is silly. We need to get off of it. We need a “Manhattan project” for fuel.
THREAT OF ISLAM
Islam is STILL a grave threat to the West, but its threat is mostly demographic. Thus most, as William Buckley recently noted, do not see the urgency in fighting it. It is not the same struggle as between Communism and Capitalism. Moslem states are simply not as militarily powerful. The problem with Islam could also be ameliorated through immigration changes.