Rest In Pieces
Nick Cohen explains why he abandoned the church of the Left in a Guardian article where he argued it was about to betray its principles for a second time within living memory. The first was when it sold its soul to Stalin in exchange for the debased coin of pacifistic self-righteousness. Its second embrace of totalitarianism is today, exchanging the labels "Islam" for "Communism" and "Arabia" for "Russia". Cohen compared the two betrayals.
Auden noticed a retreat from universal principles in the 1930s - communism was fine in 'semi-barbaric' Russia but would have been a screaming outrage in a civilised country. He should have been alive today. With no socialism to provide international solidarity, good motives of tolerance and respect for other cultures have had the unintended consequence of leading a large part of post-modern liberal opinion into the position of 19th-century imperialists. It is presumptuous and oppressive to suggest that other cultures want the liberties we take for granted, their argument runs. So it may be, but believe that and the upshot is that democracy, feminism and human rights become good for whites but not for browns and brown-skinned people who contradict you are the tools of the neo-conservatives. On the other hand when confronted with a movement of contemporary imperialism - Islamism wants an empire from the Philippines to Gibraltar - and which is tyrannical, homophobic, misogynist, racist and homicidal to boot, they feel it is valid because it is against Western culture. It expresses its feelings in a regrettably brutal manner perhaps, but that can't hide its authenticity.
But it is the incidental argument in Cohen's chain reasoning that is most significant. He knows that socialism as an ideology with scientific pretensions is dead: all that is left is manner.
I'm sure that any halfway competent political philosopher could rip the assumptions of modern middle-class left-wingery apart. Why is it right to support a free market in sexual relationships but oppose free-market economics, for instance? But his criticisms would have little impact. It's like a religion: the contradictions are obvious to outsiders but don't disturb the faithful. You believe when you're in its warm embrace.
And manner is not enough. The collapse of the Left's rigor and militant core means it is vulnerable to the erosive effects of militant Islam. The Belmont Club argued in September, 2003 that:
The hollowing out of the Left -- the death of its Bolshevik core -- is one of the great unwritten stories of the late twentieth century. The decline of the cadre of professional revolutionaries at its center was simultaneously matched by the inrush from the periphery of the network of sympathizers, fellow travelers and "useful fools" which it once adopted as protective coloration. It was a classic case of the inmates taking over an asylum from which the keepers had fled. ... the freak show of autonomists, zapatistas, rage-against-the-machine cultists, transgender spokespersons, abortion rights activists, militant gay and lesbians and tattered academics that characterize today's Left. ... To experience any real militancy, today's Left wing activists must attach themselves as pathetic dogs to Islamic causes like the International Solidarity Movement. There, they can indulge their fantasy of advancing world socialism while objectively dying for Osama Bin Laden or Yasser Arafat. The circle is complete. The roles have been reversed. The heirs to moribund Bolshevism have now become the "useful fools", the protective coloration of a dynamic militant Islamism.
As Cohen puts it, "with no socialism to provide international solidarity", all that is left is "good motives of tolerance and respect for other cultures" -- even when that culture is sworn to destroy the Left itself -- like some association of morons intent on carrying out a function whose purpose no one can remember. Cohen ends on a note of hope. "My advice to my former comrades is to struggle out of your straitjackets and get off at the next station. It would be good to see you on this side of the barrier." I wouldn't hold my breath.
posted by wretchardthecat at 8/08/2005 04:58:00 AM
49 Comments:
"I wouldn't hold my breath."
Nor will I:
They may have little else going for them, but obduracy to all things counter to their blind cant they have in abundance.
---
"the hypocrite is entirely cynical and doesn't even believe the snake-oil he or she is expounding; while the speaker of cant does have conceptual faith in what he or she says—but won't actually be practicing what he or she is preaching."
- wiki
Papa,
And they have the advantage of a very much dumbed-down audience to work on.
Ignorance plus multicult self-hatred makes for fertile ground indeed.
...not to mention victimology squared for "minorities."
Myron Magnet's remarkable work "The 60's: the Dream and the Nightmare" describes the incredible disaster that occurred when the Civil Rights movement (motto: "We shall overcome") ran into the "any lifestyle at any cost" movement, (motto "If it feels good do it.") to yield a movement whose secret motto is "We shall overcome any obstacle to feeling good." Wretchard's post describes the much the same thing, internationally.
...and Stallions.
Italian Stallions?
miklos,
Such questions as yours haunt me from time to time. The left is now a shambling skeleton, lurching from one momentary distraction to the next, dishing out fear as its currency. That much is clear to those educated in history, and aware of the cause-and-effect nature of the world. But that aspect of the world isn't taught in public schools today (if it ever was).
One wonders at what point the average Lefty will wake up to his future prospects under the New Caliphate -- will it be when his girlfriend is compelled into the hijab? when his favorite rap musician is censored or silenced for lyrics that defame Islam? when the corner deli where he gets his lunch has to stop serving prosciutto?
When will he notice that his old world is being taken away from him, and the pristine new extension of the Ummah is about to be substituted for it?
Bravo Wretchard!
This stuff deserves wider exposure.
American higher ed should require the Belmont Club membership for graduation. This is what they should be studying. This would constitute an EDUCATION. I'm hopeful.
Anyone with a computer and Explorer has access to this.
Sail on Dude!
There are reasons why it's hard to leave the left--leaving the fold is not for the squeamish. It requires coming to terms with having made an error, for one thing, and that seems to be a very difficult thing for most human beings to do. Easier to rationalize, ignore evidence, and keep on keeping on.
I've written a number of posts on the subject, some based on the autobiography of David Horowitz, Radical Son. See this, this and this.
Miklos, we get some peculiar referrals from google searches at Gates of Vienna, and one of them is for "islamic porn" and related topics. Apparently there is a big market for specifically Islamic pornography. Dymphna says it often involves women wearing a veil but nothing else, but I don't know where she got that information.
There was a discussion on this topic the other week at Winds of Change.
Recently, the hot search words bringing people to Gates of Vienna have been "how to make a bomb", "make bomb jihad", and similar combinations. The number of people all over the world searching for info like this (and not finding it at Gates of Vienna, fortunately) has been astonishing and frightening.
Posts on this phenomenon are here and here.
Baron,
The Lefties are awake. They are certain that George Bush causes terrorism.
I correspond with a few dedicated avoiders-of-reality, and eventually the argument always comes down to, from their side: "Are there, or are there not, more terrorists in Iraq now than in 2003?"
So even when the imams are putting their girlfriends in burkhas, it will be Bush's fault for making the devout Islamics mad at us.
Tony: yes, I guess you are right. I've noticed that Bush is ominipotent and omnipresent as well as supremely evil and abysmally stupid, and also under the control of his sinister aides. Without his say-so no sparrow falls, nor do the stars move in their appointed courses...
Miklos, if they are not evil then we might as well erase the word "evil" from our lexicon, since it has no meaning.
Wretchard:
The Baron wrote a good piece on Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech from 1968, the one for which he was villified. Probably still is...
You will find it interesting reading, as in this amazing prediction from Powell:
Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population.
Preventable Evils
Thirty years later and the Left, more hollowed out than ever, limps along only because it has maintained a death grip on the role of gatekeeper. That role is about to go the way of buggy whip manufacturers.
~D
Tony,
"Are there or are there not more terrorists in Iraq now than in 2003?"
That's an important question. What I find interesting is that my leftist friends might ask it, but really have no interest in an answer. Moreover, they don't have the habits of mind that might lead to an answer.
For example, how should "terrorist be defined? Do we have an accurate 2003 census of said terrorists? A 2005 census? Of course we do not. It's a foregone conclusion in search of data.
There really can be no rational discourse with those who won't think. Note, I said won't and not can't. Some of my lefty friends are brilliant, deluded but brilliant.
On a general level, resistance to change is related to our human propensity to surround ourselves with a safety cushion and push away unpleasant realities. This requires a mental state to match, in which we justify ourselves, the engine of which is a belief in a utopia. The unpleasant realities are misdiagnosed in the pushing, allowing the dream to continue. I offer this explanation of the human condition by way of anecdote:
On the radio this morning (I believe it was NPR) the reporter announced that, per capita, Americans are in deep debt, an astounding figure though I don't recall it, something like 150% of yearly income. The reporter then speculated why this is happening, and offered that perhaps the dollar isn't worth as much as it once was. As he began his analysis of the relevant data I switched off the radio. My first thought was that we are obviously spending more than we make. Why? We are habituated to our comfort, mental and physical, and once established, seek to maintain it. The price is next to irrelevant; we pay for it. If we don't have the funds for it, we charge it. We fill up the car, run the a/c, purchase the clothes, filter out news that doesn't fit our outlook, and allow this set of desires to be steered by marketing and media. When we are faced with a fear that manages to sink into our consciousness, this is a most unpleasant experience, and we seek to find others to blame for our discomfort. The dream must continue.
The country's movement away from spiritual values of sacrifice, thrift, to consumerism and materialism exacerbates the problem. (Christ on the cross allows the sleeper to awake (I am not saying all "true" Christians are conservatives)).
Or, in this case, Islamic holy writ. Written in their blood.
The classic quote, "...like some association of morons intent on carrying out a function whose purpose no one can remember."
And that is exactly what it is. Because what is Left buys the image, without the substance. I look around the city where I live and see 99% percent Leftist by default. But most would be hard pressed to articulate a single principle, much less a consistent philosophical position.
However, I would argue that there is a violent core congealing as better people like Mr. Cohen peel away. What is being Left is a maniacal body of nonsensical hooligans devoid of purpose and fermented on self-loathing. I submitted in a previous post of my own, what is being Left abandoned rational philosophy as the first rite of their descent from the pinnacle of human hegemony. With an objective standard eliminated, next came morals, then logic, science, art, religion, being, identity, and finally decency. With no foundation of individual respect, force and violence remain as the single mechanism of human interaction. Cooperation is nothing more than a surrender to primal fear in the face of power ... in the absense of a conscious and resolute will to exist. And that ultimately is the last thing to be surrendered. Because what is being Left devoured its soul when it embraced the self-loathing prerequisite of nihilism.
Hence what is being Left concentrates its sole damnation on its own Right hand for daring to pull Man back to his feet to face the Devil that pushed him down.
miklos rosza said...
money seems (to many) more and more abstract, less and less consequential or real.
/////////////
and yet we live more and more in a cash economy:ie: when was the last time you grew anything you ate, made anything you wear etc.--
careful about vanities
That's some pretty strong--and true--imagery, there, Mr. Atos. You must've read Milton in your formative years. It is scary to see so many people simultaneously without any desire to recognize their own archetype, yet so full of desire to act out the one which must surely be, in time, the most miserable of all.
Old Dad said:
I correspond with a few dedicated avoiders-of-reality, and eventually the argument always comes down to, from their side: "Are there, or are there not, more terrorists in Iraq now than in 2003?"
For once, you can use the media's terminology in your favor in this instance. You can simply respond that "according to the news, they're insurgents".
Often, it seems they are insurgents when such a description makes the current administration look bad, and terrorists when that particular moniker makes the administration look bad. Might as well throw the words of the left back in their face.
yashmak
Most of the Opfor in Iraq are Insurgents. The vast majority ARE Iraqis that believe, rightfully so, that they are going to be given their "fair share" of the new Iraq.
It is a terrible thing, when you are used to the Gravy Train to be allocated to the coal car on an diesel locomotive.
I've been reading up on Dark Ages history. As you might expect, it is rather depressing.
Consider the development of European serfdom: as Rome weakened, citizens sought security by selling their property or even themselves to stronger landowners or military men who could offer them protection (in exchange for service) against the growing anarchy. As the "lords" grew stronger and battled each other, this movement accelerated, and Roman government revenues and manpower declined.
Civilization thus decayed because our ancestors chose the short-term security offerred by supporting the local bully - "Roman" or invader - rather than risk their own necks to remain free men. It was a false choice -- death and destruction came anyway, but it was slower and longer-lasting than the defeats suffered by the Roman Republic.
The modern-day Left is behaving the same way too many Europeans behaved 1500 years ago. They would have us "kiss up" to the invader -- be they Soviet Communists or Islamic militants. This, they think, is a good strategy for survival.
The Left refuses to think just how much sufferring will ensue by following such a choice. Islamic militants might accept a supine Europe where the differential birth rate gives them hope of eventual Muslim domination, but they will never accept even a Muslim America, for as the strongest Muslim state, America would have the automatic right - that's how it works in practice - to lead Islam itself.
No, the Islamists want us quite, quite, dead. Why, then, should anyone listen to the Left? Why should the Left continue to believe in itself?
Miklos and Charles,
Once a person has advanced beyond the needs of subsistence, money changes from a method of barter to a measure of prestige (which tends to guarantee more business, since you are a winner). It becomes a measure of your manhood, whether you are somebody that others would notice and wish to be like. Hence the Sunni's reluctance to be shamed, lose their place of prominence, power, perks. After all, it's their right, and the Sunni's aren't even real muslims, anyway.
"money seems (to many) more and more abstract, less and less consequential or real", that is, money is a function of whether or not you are somebody, not a fixed measure of what you can afford to purchase. Witness the squandered fortunes of a Mike Tyson, or any number of lottery winners, or the budgetary hemmoraging of the House of Saud. I wonder whether our economy is dependent upon fostering this need to consume, which, like the over-eater, leaves one feeling empty and overwhelmed. Yet the liberals haven't succeeded in policies that can foster or allow the generation of wealth.
Contra the notion that money is the root of all evil, look at socialist France, where they have other methods of defining prestige when wages are fixed. It doesn't matter what the object of prestige, so long as all agree upon it. A few years ago I noticed an article about a proposed change in a French civil service that had nothing to do with wages, that caused a big row. Sorry for no specifics.
As is widely known, the latin Radix omnium
malorum est cupiditas lists cupidity or avarice as the source of all evil, not money per se. The wakeup call allows the recognition that the problem lies within ourselves.
I measure my own (unknown) position on the scale of virtue against the phrase "there but for the grace of God go I". It's so easy to have virtue when there is nothing at stake (as in Conrad's Lord Jim below deck during the storm), and it's so easy to have a Liberal point of view so long as your comfortable center is not impinged upon.
Old dad,
Our Leftists buddies won't learn, they don't want to learn. Willful ignorance. I just don't know why otherwise bright people would be this way, just not want to know what's really happening, to the best of their ability. I mean, isn't that the universal goal - to know the truth?
Re "no terrorists in Iraq before Bush invaded" - I point them to the 98 indictment against bin Laden in NY, filed by the dear Clinton Admin. It mentions collaboration with Saddam. - no response, none -
How 'bout the cool unilateral bombing of the "chemical factory" in Sudan, where OBL is in business with Iraq on nerve gas production? That was 98, too, before "Bush Lied!" about WMD's and terrorists. - no response, none -
Just to get a response, send them the three Joscelyn articles in Weekly Standard, detailing all the known terrorist activity in Iraq over past cupla decades.
Finally! A response: "That rag is owned by Richard Mellon Sciafe!" It's their excuse to not read the articles, maintaining willful ignorance.
But, the article constantly uses proof sources of liberal godhood: Clinton, Richard Clarke, 9/11 Commission, NYT. - no response -
To tack back toward Wretchard's topic - my favorite super-lib "understanding" bit was when a feminist sent me that glowing piece about how Muslim women LOVE the veil and burkha, keeps all the dust and flies out, gives them privacy, yadda."
They just don't wanna know nuthin.
Which is understandable, because they already know everything that it is proper to know. Further thought about Politically Correct / Religious laws would be just wrong. Thinking about such things is probably just as bad as smoking within 100 yards of other people's lungs.
- - -
(Baron: the stars will move in their appointed courses as long as the Halliburton contract to move them is renewed.)
Erico -- there was a character in one of Elmore Leonard's novels who, when asked why he pursued money so avidly (he was already rich), replied, "Money is a way of keeping score."
World History Lesson:
The two most important events in all of history were the invention of
beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to
get man to the beer. These were the foundations of modern
civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of
humanity into two distinct subgroups: Liberals and Conservatives.
Once beer was discovered it required grain, and that was the beginning
of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can
were invented yet, so our early human ancestors just stayed close
to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.
Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night
while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known
as "the Conservative movement".
Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live
off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQ's and
doing the sewing, weaving and hair dressing. This was the beginning of
"the Liberal movement." Some of these liberal men eventually
evolved into women. The rest became known as 'girleymen'.
Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of
cats, the trade union, class action lawsuits, the invention of group
therapy & group hugs and the concept of democratic voting to decide
how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.
Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the
largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant.
Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.
Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer
white wine or imported bottled water.
They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu and French
food are standard liberal fare.
Another interesting revolutionary side note: most of their
women have higher testosterone levels than their men.
Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, hairdressers,
dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals.
Liberals invented baseball's designated hitter rule because it
wasn't "fair" to make the pitcher also bat.
Conservatives drink domestic beer and eat red meat & potatoes.
Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks,
construction workers, medical doctors, police officers,
corporate executives, soldiers, self-employed, athletes & generally
anyone who works productively outside government. Conservatives who
own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for
a living.
Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to "govern" the
producers and decide what to do with the production. They also like to
take money away from successful people and give it to the
failures. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than
Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when
conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild
West was tame & created a business of trying to get MORE for nothing.
Thus ends today's lesson in world history.
Anybudee,
Live free or die.
That's what I tell my kids: "America is mean. The World will grind you down and take everything away from you, if you just sit there and do nothing."
In America, "Live Free" = = earn a living, any living you choose = but unfortunately for the current and future generations, we have de-emphasized the "OR DIE" side of the equation.
Half our population acts like their Dad is going to take care of all those annoying stories on TV.
Interestingly, George Galloway prove Wretchard's analysis and understands the connection between the Left and Islam.
Peter...what did you think of your PM's speech the other day? He sure didn't sound much like a Liberal. Reckon there's hope for the old boy?
Peter,
You might want to give some credit to the Fabian Society. I think Gramsci borrowed a bit from them. And let it never go unremarked that the primary fool was Hegel with his historicism. The PC'ers really couldn't have gotten to where they've arrived without his initial idiocy.
Let us also dishonor John Dewey who was among the first to institute Fabian/Gramscian methodology in the United States in his pursuit of the destruction of the academy.
Osama bin Laden Looks Like Heading for Iraq:
Coded electronic signals bandied in recent days among al Qaeda Middle Eastern elements across secret Internet sites all carry the same message: the supreme leader, Osama bin Laden, has come out of hiding in Afghanistan and set out, or is about to set out, for Iraq. This is the sense gained from this correspondence by DEBKAfile’s exclusive counter-terror sources.
If he does indeed make it to Iraq, the public airing of his presence in the Land of the Two Rivers, would have a radical impact on the nature of the Iraq conflict. No longer a mere guerrilla campaign, it would escalate to a full-scale fight to the finish against al Qaeda in Iraq, analogous to the all-out hostilities in Afghanistan.
Bin Laden’s organization has begun referring to the Iraq conflict in these ultimate terms.
http://www.debkafile.org/article.php?aid=1068
I've been collecting these confessional essays on my desktop since 9/11. His left me unimpressed. No passion, and little originality. I would imagine that he's read a bit of Thomas Friedman and Christopher Hitchins and wants to stake out some territory of his own.
I suspect as Iraq marches towards a conclusion these confessionals will be more insightful and relevant.
It seems the other descendents of our European forebears haven't learned what us rude Yanks have known for three centuries
Our forebears self-selected themselves out of the European master-slave relationship and set up relations among themselves as free men in America. Most Europeans are descended from those who decided to remain as serfs or subjects.
So when democracy came, they generally thought of it as (1) a way to turnabout the master-slave relationship, or (2) a way to get more of the pie, and kick back in ease.
The French Revolution and Communism are examples of #1. Immigration without assimilation is an example of #2. It is the same mistake the Romans made in the waning days of their Empire: they invited the poor but fast-breeding barbarians in to provide cheap agricultural goods and labor, but instead of the Romans civilizing the barbarians, these immigrants barbarized the Romans. [paraphrased from Durant]
I spent the weekend reviewing a bunch of leftist websites. Strange; not one of them could offer any kind of coherent response to Islamic Terror. It was all Bush/America bashing - all the time. That Bush even acted is seen as a huge affront to their vanity. What is it? - something feeble and fragile about the left I can't name but I think that Wretchard is closing in on.
Anyhow, there are even a few of us here in Seattle (who have left the left).
Such a rare species our weekly lefty rag called the Seattle Weekly profiled a few of us here:
http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0524/050615_news_republicans.php
Cheers.
Good luck up there, Das. The anti-idiotarian movement sure needs a few west coast cells!
Things like this--Arab women in freeing lands flocking into the stock markets and becoming investing capitalists in their own neighborhoods--must be driving bin Laden crazy. Crazier.
Peter & Rick,
I would add Foucault as a pivotal figure for the contemporary Left, for his recognition that the old utopian ideals of socialist economics were worn out. He replaced them with a nihilistic embrace of the Dionysian, while intensifying the Left's disdain for "petit bourgeois" values like sexual fidelity, law and order, and sanity. The exact antithesis of Edmund Burke, he considered the internalized norms of Western Civilization to be more tyrannical than any governmental force. As I describe in these posts, this fundamental error led to his disastrous embrace of the Khomeini revolution (and ultimately to his death of AIDS). His motto, like the Islamofascists, could be easily summarized: Choose death.
Buddy, Amen - Mr. Atos - Preach it brother!
In programming (especially in Unix/Linux) a "zombie" is a bit of code still alive in the CPU, not taking many (if any) cycles, but which has lost its calling code, and its ability to call any other code... It'll "run" uselessly until the next soft-reboot.
Today's left is a LOT like a ZOMBIE. (Or a zealot, one who has redoubled efforts after losing sight of the goal!)
Saddam's very own party.
Nick Cohen
My post from "Out on Bail:"
D-Day for British politics - Respect, the alliance between the Muslim Association of Britain and the Socialist Workers Party, shows how ugly the far left in Britain has become, writes Nick Cohen
---
- no one has found it worth noting that, for the first time since the Enlightenment, a section of the left is allied with religious fanaticism and, for the first time since the Hitler-Stalin pact, a section of the left has gone soft on fascism.
I left out the date on Nick Cohen's article:
7th June 2004
Well, that was short and to the point, I guess.
when wretchard mentions the "religious" aspect in leftist belief, it's good to keep in mind the utopian impulse which has been so formative in the american frame of mind. in the 1820s, 1840s, 1870s, 1920s and late 1960s early 70s all kinds of citizens fled ordinary banal life for communes and various idealist movements and cults, ranging from new brook farm to robert owen's new harmony to alphadephia or whatever, generally short-lived experiments which might feature socalled "free love" or nondoctrinaire socialism, nudism or the taking of hallucinogenic drugs.
It seems to me that given the need to actually work for a living makes some people wish for the good old days of being a servant...after all, for a little abuse, you got fed and hand a place to sleep. America has almost always demanded that for the benefits conferred, you had to work...some people just want an out...socialism in its many forms promises (but does not deliver) such 'comfort'.
I'm not sure if this was covered in that rather lengthy post, but if you are interested in having sex with stallions, please be sure that the horse is smaller than the size of your stool.
(Had to get in one more nice scat piece before the reformation in comments took effect.)
Reformation, first in Mohammedism second in Belmont.
The trouble with real Stallions, doug, is that they make my forearm look small.
If the stool is that large I'd suggest a recliner.
LOL!
With a strategically placed orifice, of course.
I hope that Wretchard does ban George M Weinart: Half the comments on this post are Weinart's single huge comment. All he's doing is venting bile and hogging bandwidth. He's a useless troll.
" Who is going to help the victims of religious intolerance in Britain's immigrant communities? Not the Liberal Democrats, who have never once offered support to liberal and democrats in Iraq. Nor an anti-war left which prefers to embrace a Muslim Association of Britain and Yusuf al-Qaradawi who believe that Muslims who freely decide to change their religion or renounce religion should be executed. "
This is the trap for the anti-war Left -- what do they want in Sudan? What for Zimbabwe? The world needs a real world cop, and the UN it ain't goona be, not with China on the UN SC. Supporting human rights, without using force, means accepting genocide. Again (Sudan), Again (Congo), Again (Zimbabwe), Again (Srebrenica), Again (Rwanda), and Again (Cambodia & Vietnam).
Post a Comment
<< Home