Of course, as Bill Clinton would say, it depends what the meaning of 'new' is. The Guardian's Caroline Bennett has had a revelation about the war on terror. She's realised that there are traitors amongst us. And all this while working at the Guardian too. Isn't that like a guy at Ford blowing the lid on this whole 'cars' thing ? But no: at least she got there eventually, and she's speaking out, exposing the enemy within, the worm in the apple, the Sheikh Haw-Haws, the dirty rats, the fifth columists....
Well, basically it's us. Yep, that's her revelation: Islamofascists criticise the decadence of western civilisation, so do Social Conservatives, therefore we're just like Islamofascists. Of course, for this to be anything other than a reductio ad Mohamidum, Bennett would have to show examples of Socio-Cons actually sympathising with the Islamopaths. Does she ? Well, consider her examples of Rightist enemy sympathisers: Patrick Mercer, Norman Lebrecht and Bel Mooney. So that's a Cameroonatic already slapped around for crimes against PC, a music critic and an ecoloon ex-New Statesman hack. True, there's the obligatory jibe at the Daily Mail, but not only has the Mail been notoriously weak on the war anyway, it's most famous scold is Melanie Phillips, not hitherto known for her Islamofascist sympathies.
It's the same story all over. Look at America's Michelle Malkin, a firm critic of both the 'Girls Gone Wild' culture and Islamofascism. Ditto, Robert Ferrigno's 'Prayers for the Assassin', unflinching in its depiction of the essential evil of Islam, while still being alive to the attractions. Indeed, in so far as Bennett seems to be suggesting that anyone who seems any good qualities at all in Islamofascism is clearly a collaborator, then it's tempting to ask where the nuance went ?
At least, it would be tempting to mock Bennett's lack of nuance if her position wasn't so blatantly tactical. Bennett - supposed scourge of Islamoappeasers - can't even get through her first sentence without doing the dhimmi-dance:
Here's a free clue: if you're writing an article criticising other people for soft-pedalling on Islam, it's probably not such a good idea to gloss over the misogyny and homicidal insanity of its founder.
Even leaving aside the humbuggery of Bennett's position, the thesis is absurd: Islamofascists contrast the rigid doctrine of their cult with the depravity of the West, so western critics of Islamofascism should stop talking about morality ? Huh ? Isn't that like saying you can't criticise the animal rights nutters and oppose badger baiting ?
As it happens, a good proportion of anti-dhimmis speak out on moral issues precisely because they believe that the cultural collapse of western civilisation leaves it vulnerable to totalitarian insanities like Islam. Look at Mr Bean, Jabbah Turley and the rest of the 'frightened 15' for proof of that.
We're back to what I wrote about when Ferrigno's book first came out, and the March for Free Expression was hurtling towards farce. Liberals disparage traditional morality as irrational and self-evidently absurd, but where's the evidence for their lifestyle ? Civilisation has been around long enough now for us to have a pretty good idea what works and what doesn't. In that sense, traditional morality is just the accumulated wisdom of ages on how to run a society. It's the post-1960s consensus that's arbitrary and unsupported. Are we really living in the one moment of human history where everything that we've ever known about successful cultures no longer applies ?
Well, basically it's us. Yep, that's her revelation: Islamofascists criticise the decadence of western civilisation, so do Social Conservatives, therefore we're just like Islamofascists. Of course, for this to be anything other than a reductio ad Mohamidum, Bennett would have to show examples of Socio-Cons actually sympathising with the Islamopaths. Does she ? Well, consider her examples of Rightist enemy sympathisers: Patrick Mercer, Norman Lebrecht and Bel Mooney. So that's a Cameroonatic already slapped around for crimes against PC, a music critic and an ecoloon ex-New Statesman hack. True, there's the obligatory jibe at the Daily Mail, but not only has the Mail been notoriously weak on the war anyway, it's most famous scold is Melanie Phillips, not hitherto known for her Islamofascist sympathies.
It's the same story all over. Look at America's Michelle Malkin, a firm critic of both the 'Girls Gone Wild' culture and Islamofascism. Ditto, Robert Ferrigno's 'Prayers for the Assassin', unflinching in its depiction of the essential evil of Islam, while still being alive to the attractions. Indeed, in so far as Bennett seems to be suggesting that anyone who seems any good qualities at all in Islamofascism is clearly a collaborator, then it's tempting to ask where the nuance went ?
At least, it would be tempting to mock Bennett's lack of nuance if her position wasn't so blatantly tactical. Bennett - supposed scourge of Islamoappeasers - can't even get through her first sentence without doing the dhimmi-dance:
Although we shall never know how the Prophet would have received a plan to blow up "slags" in a London nightclub....Dang! If only there was some kind of book.....
Here's a free clue: if you're writing an article criticising other people for soft-pedalling on Islam, it's probably not such a good idea to gloss over the misogyny and homicidal insanity of its founder.
Even leaving aside the humbuggery of Bennett's position, the thesis is absurd: Islamofascists contrast the rigid doctrine of their cult with the depravity of the West, so western critics of Islamofascism should stop talking about morality ? Huh ? Isn't that like saying you can't criticise the animal rights nutters and oppose badger baiting ?
As it happens, a good proportion of anti-dhimmis speak out on moral issues precisely because they believe that the cultural collapse of western civilisation leaves it vulnerable to totalitarian insanities like Islam. Look at Mr Bean, Jabbah Turley and the rest of the 'frightened 15' for proof of that.
We're back to what I wrote about when Ferrigno's book first came out, and the March for Free Expression was hurtling towards farce. Liberals disparage traditional morality as irrational and self-evidently absurd, but where's the evidence for their lifestyle ? Civilisation has been around long enough now for us to have a pretty good idea what works and what doesn't. In that sense, traditional morality is just the accumulated wisdom of ages on how to run a society. It's the post-1960s consensus that's arbitrary and unsupported. Are we really living in the one moment of human history where everything that we've ever known about successful cultures no longer applies ?
No comments:
Post a Comment