Conservatives Kick D'Souza/The Fascinating Irony
I am getting the biggest kick out of the conservative reaction to Dinesh D'Souza's latest book the enemy at home, in which D'Souza whole heartedly blames the cultural left for everything that is wrong with America (where have we heard that before). Then proceeds to blame the cultural left for the Osama bin Laden's rise to power.
This book uncovers the links between the spread of American pop culture, leftist ideas, and secular values, and the rise of anti-Americanism throughout the world.
IN the strangest of ironies, D'Souza's book has aroused a huge reaction from conservatives, to get this...... defend liberals. I am laughing out loud as I type.
D'Souza accuses conservative bloggers like Scott Johnson of a wholesale and massive ignorance of Islam. HIs goal, he says, is to better understand why radical Islam is becoming so populist in the muslem culture.
Since I have a good knowledge of both Western and non-Western cultures, I approached the leading thinkers of radical Islam in an attempt to study what their ideas are, and why they are winning so many converts to their nefarious cause. My objective is to understand the enemy, so that we can fight him better.
Or how Mr. Johnson Goes Nativist (As an aside Mr. Johnson is The Powerline Blogger responsible for the downfall of Dan Rather.) Johnson asserts that "D’Souza identifies “the cultural left” that is responsible for 9/11 as “the left wing of the Democratic Party” and “a few Republicans, notably those who adopt a left-wing stance on foreign policy and social issues.” Going on in McCarthy like fashion, with an enemies lists of who's who in the liberal wing of the Democratic party, or all the liberals that conservatives loves to hate.
The rub seems to come when D'Souza, in calls for fair justice and a fair accounting, of the often reprehensible over reaction against defenseless muslems. "“No one can deny the horror of Palestinian and Chechen attacks on civilians, but these have to be measured against the state-sponsored terror on the other side: the bulldozing of Palestinian homes, the shooting of stone-throwing teenagers.”
There is is in all it's horror. D'Souza a proud mulitcultural left hater, had the audacitiy to criticize Israel as a "state sponsor of terror". Watch the neoconservatives explode with rage. How dare anyone say such a thing about poor defenseless Israelites. Then further enraging Islamophobes, D'Souza even has the nerve to say out loud, "“This may come as news to some conservatives, but Wahhabi Islam is not a breeding ground of Islamic radicalism. It is a breeding ground of Islamic obedience.”
Rock My Boat
Even further alienating conservative thinkers, D'Souza disavows a connection between Totalitarian Nazi's and Islam. Why because Islamists are "true believers", with strong moral values, whereas, Nazi's were authortarians following orders. "What bin Laden objected to was America staying in the Middle East, importing with it the immoral ingredients of American values and culture.”
In the letter, bin Laden calls on Americans to “reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling, and trading with interest.”
My oh My!
Dan Bartlett is aghast, and now defends liberals, screaming "No, it's not liberals fault.
Victor Davis Hanson a notoriously harsh critic of liberals feels the need to the hard core left from D'Souza's visious attacks on the left.
"First, he libels a number of "domestic insurgents" who "want bin Laden to win." His list is nonsensical. Whatever one may think of the wisdom of Jimmy Carter or the late Molly Ivins, or of intellectuals like Tony Judt, Martha Nussbaum and Garry Wills, none of them wanted al Qaeda to defeat the United States — a victory that would have ended liberal tolerance here."
Whatever one thinks about D'Souza's highly partisan approach, taking the time to delve into his world is quite thought provoking! In fact I would suggest that D'Souza is himself, if not a liberal at least a progressive, willing at the very least to approach things from a fresh perspective.
(In otder to further understand D'Souza's thinking, a thorough study of the History of the Zero f irst postuated by an Indian mathematician, is deligthfully enlightening, especially in regards to the zero's first use in charging compound interest and the power of greed. But this dairy is already long enough.)
- missliberties's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
Is D'Souza Really a Liberal
in sheeps clothing.
It is the economy, stupid.
Apologist not analyst
From Scott Johnson's piece:
http://www.newcriterion.com/archives/25/03/sjohnson/
Where does Islam get this victimhood complex from anyway? "It's not my fault, X made me do it."
The Turkey reference is revealing.
An interesting dust-up. Thanks for posting it.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Israel as a State Sponsor of Terror
Is the reason I think Powerline conservatives went so nuts over this. That D'Souza would even have the audacitiy to mention justice for Palestinians, sent xenophobic powerliners into seizures.
The title of D'Souza's book, "The Enemy at Home, or how Liberals cause 9/11", after all seems at first glance so conservative friendly.
IN this instance D'Souza and the hated liberal President Jimmy Carter are on the same side of the fence, only D'Souza makes mention of the mistreatment of the Palestinians in much starker and more candid terms.
Also was highly amused at all of the conservatives defending liberals...... not being the cause of the attacks on 9/11, though all their talking points as terrorist sympathizers say otherwise.
Who else could get conservatives to defend the immoral left...... besides a multicultural import of a "conservative", raised in India, but professed Christian, like D'Souza.
Ha!
.... As Johnson recoils in horror.
It is also interesting that Johnson brings up the Jewish tradition to keep itself pure from other races by not inter-marrying, and the charge of muslems and mormons sanctions of the all too immoral practice of polygamy.
Yes there are always two sides to every story.
It is the economy, stupid.
obviously
D'Souza is an anti-semitic hack and a lunatic to boot. Nothing to discuss really.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
The ex-darling
of the conservative movement.
Once glorified for trashing liberals...... that WAS just good sport, but criticize Israel. It's over.
It is the economy, stupid.
Hacks and lunatics abound :
: on the Right but I find it interesting that Israel cuts across both left and right, and even across antisemitism.
With so many antisemitic Christian groups wanting Israel sacrificed for the second comming, they find themselves in conflict with those nuts into Illuminati myths.
As you point out D'Souza, and others who have always opposed Israel on at least anti-Zionist grounds from the right, are finding themselves in conflict with those who hate Arafat, the PLO and any derivatives as "communists".
And on the Left there was until recently considerable support for Israel as long as it seemed to pursue the kind of liberal agenda of the pre-Begin years. As it has swung ever more violent and right-wing, the support on the left has plummeted, but there are still many who would tolerate such things only from Israel.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
you just demonstrated a serious lack
of knowledge about the Christian theology and the relationship between the Christian right and Israel. It's actually the opposite when it comes to Christ's 2nd coming as the vast majority of the Christian Right strongly supports Israel and believes that, as the Revelations (book of the Bible) states, in the last days Israel will be the light of the nations and Israel's 2nd founding is prophesied in the Bible as the precursor to Christ's eventual return. There is virtual lovefest going on between the Evangelical Right and Israel as the support is very strong and Bush is only one such incarnation.
So to state that there are many antisemitic Christian groups is actually putting the truth on its head. Also the support for Israel among GOP (in congress) is almost universal (99%) while it is lower among Dems (though slightly and probably above 80%) Among the general public all the Gallup polls showed a significantly higher support for Israel and jews in Israel among conservatives and republicans than democrats and liberals. It's been like that for decades so your information is quite outdated.
Yeah many in the GOP who are not part of the Christian Right simply support Israel for being the only democratic nation in the Middle East that has been kicking terrorist ass for literally decades (especially blowing up the Iraqi nuke reactor in 1981 was a heroic act to conservatives). Our military trains and learns from Israeli military (especially urban combat and counter-insurgent tactics) and the relationship between our countries is incredibly close.
Most of the hate towards Israel comes from the Left because on the Right it is less than 1%. Which is why D'Souza has been kicked like the moron that he is.
[Edit] P.S. I know much more than I ever wanted about the Evangelical Christian Theology as I was a part of an Evangelical Church and somewhat of an activist back in the days of my strange youth.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Jews for Jesus
I don't think that movement was all that succesful.
Unless Jews accept Jesus Christ as their true savior...... the second coming will leave them behind. Yet the Christians use them to serve their own purposes.
The Judeo/Christian ethic is a political alliance of convenience.
It is the economy, stupid.
you obviously don't know much
about the theology of the evangelical Christianity, the rapture, tribulation and the after.
A good book to read on this is a great series - Left Behind :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
thx!
NO child left behind. It is a whole way of thinking that says Christian morals are the most well suited for democratic socities that promote capitalism.
Yes I am somewhat familiar.
It is the economy, stupid.
There is a large number of
"Christian" activists that associate themselves with the KKK and share a nationalist code of whites only. Part of that is no blacks, no jews.
David Duke is a member of this Christian tribe that thinks the Jews are out to destroy the world.
While he may be out of the mainstream, there is no denying that some Christian groups (Mel Gibson) really do think that the Jews are the cause of all wars.
The same way that you think that socialism is the worst of evils.
Everyone has there opinions......
I would like to see that True Israeli Moral Code....... the sweet side of justice see more light.
I would like to see moderate and liberal Israelites take back their faith from the hands of the extremists.
It is the economy, stupid.
that is a lie
there is no such large number. They are less than 1 tenth of 1%. It's like saying that because 1 in a 1000 blacks is a violent murderer, a large number of blacks are violent murderers. Look up statistics on the Christian Identity movement (white supremacists) before spouting insulting nonsense. It is very very insulting.
Even a moderate Israeli in Israel wants death to terrorists who are blowing him up. You'll never get that.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
okay a small number
but there is still no denying that these people exist is there.
It is the economy, stupid.
Don't forget Jimmy Carter.
He fits in with this crowd as well. :-)
One can only assume that since the Democrat Party elected him, at least some significant percentage of them agrees with his positions. I would venture to say that the Democrat Party outnumbers the KKK by a fair bit, wouldn't you?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Yes
I wholly agree with his pro-justice, pro-human rights agenda.
Or what you like to call the "muslem left".......:+)
It is the economy, stupid.
Nope.
Jimmy is a Christian antisemite, not a Muslim. So I would never accuse him of being part of the Muslim Left.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Can you tell me
what is an antisemite?
It is the economy, stupid.
See <s>above</s> below. n/t
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
makes no sense to me n/t
I am too naive to realize that there is a prejudice here.
Justice is justice. Whether it purports to blacks, palestinians or israelites or fricking liberals.
It is the economy, stupid.
This got me to thinking.
From Wikipedia
:
From the census archives
:
Carter won with 3.1% of the popular vote. If just half of those people disagreed with him enough to switch their votes, he would have lost (the popular vote at least, ignoring the electoral college for this analysis).
That means that at least 1.55% of the total population (assuming that the relative percentages for voters and non-voters is similar) were willing to overlook Carter's antisemitic bigotry and still vote for him, which amounts to a de-facto endorsement of that bigotry in my book.
So, that means that there must have been at least (218,035,164 * 1.55%) = 3,379,545 "liberal" antisemites in 1976. Wow, I didn't realize this was so wide spread.
From Wikipedia
:
So this implies that there must have been at least (40,831,881 * 1.55%) = 632,894 antisemite Democrat voters in 1976. I imagine that even swamps the number of KKK members, Neo-Nazis, Skin Heads, and White Supremicists combined!
Yep, Jimmy Carter, a liberal icon, is in good company indeed.
:-)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
further qualified
as Liberal AntiSemites????
What does that mean?
Is liberal a slanderous smear?
Is antisemite a slanderous smear?
Which is worse being a communist or an anti-semite?
Which is worse being a socialist or an anti-semite.
Which is worse being a liberal or an anti-semite?
Or they all anti-American traitors?
Does that make liberal antisemite a doubly evil slanderous smear.
I didn't realize it was that bad.
Your numbers mean there were that many traitors in the country that voted against democracy and freedom. If so why weren't they put in internment camps and executed as traitrors? If they had been we could have prevented 9/11! Just like D'Souza said.
It is the economy, stupid.
OH and as an aside
your rhethoric is just a ridiculous as my above statement.
It serves no purpose.
If you want to be right all the time trying being reasonable.
It is the economy, stupid.
OH, I wasn't making a value judgement.
I was doing math and science there, so it can't be political. Numbers don't lie.
:-)
(Hint ... the smileys let you know when I am poking you for fun)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Good questions.
Gee, I hadn't looked at it that way. Thanks!
Good questions.
:-) <-- Note the Smiley
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
okay!
I hate your guts! You and your ilk are ruining America.
:-) <-- Note the smiley.
It is the economy, stupid.
Are you basing
the 1976 votes on his 2007 book. Cool! Where did you get your time machine?
Interesting.
This is a serious charge. Based on my 45 or so years of observation I have never really had the feeling that there was any significant tension between the Christians and the Jews in this country. I have always felt that they each respected the other's right to exist even though they obviously held differing religious beliefs.
Can you name some of these groups and point to some of their positions that you feel justify this position?
I also have never really felt that "the Left" has ever been a particularly strong supporter of Israel. As you alude to, a quick read of the left-wing blogs will quickly confirm that in recent times they are clearly no supporter of Israel.
From Jimmy Carter's latest book it seems fairly clear that he is antisemitic which seems to serve as annecdotal evidence of a lack of support for Israel from the left. On the other hand, he professes to be a Christian so perhaps he and his contsituents are members of one of those antisemetic groups you refer to above?
Perhaps the disparity in our respective opinions comes from differing interpretations of the word "support". (Bill Clinton taught us to never take the meaning of simple words like "is" for granted.)
In this context I tend to use the underlined definition. Do you as well?
If so, can you please provide some examples of where you believe that the Democrat Party has ever provided any "considerable support for Israel"? I am just trying to make sure that I understand where you are coming from when you make this sort of claim.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
The Jews are the Money Changers.
The hold a lot of power and sway because they have a lot of money. They do business well.
Their investment in the Orange Grooves of Hollywood California has proved "fruitful"....... ha!
It is the economy, stupid.
this is a purely antisemitic comment
get this trash outta here. And I mean it.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Can you explain exactly what
antisemitic means?
I don't understand.
It is the economy, stupid.
research it yourself n/t
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I looked it up on my online dictionary
and I couldn't find it.
Let's not talk about the hard subjects.......:=(
It is the economy, stupid.
Not sure if your are serious ...
So here is the definition
:
I agree that the reference to the Jews as the Money Changers is anti-semitic and prejudicial.
See this Wikipedia article for background
.
I think the prejudicial part comes because the tying of "Jews" to being "the Money Changers" has been used in the past to incite bigotry and hatred against the Jews amongst Christians based on class envy even though the charge is unfounded.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I am
I am also naive...... so I guess it is not PC to ask such a question.
I do not understand this prejudice towards "jews" the complete fear of being called an anti-semite or why they were chased out of so many countries.
Why can't they just embrace their success and take pride in it. Why does it have to be a negative....talking about it and getting it out in the open would go a long way towards getting rid of the unfound prejudcie!?
Thanks for answering a question that no one else would touch with a ten foot pole and for the links.
It's an odd and fascinating history.
So the bottom line is saying anti-semite is sort of like calling a black person the n word, I guess. That is inflammatory!
It is the economy, stupid.
no
calling jews moneychangers is what is like calling a black person a "nigger". Calling what you said anti-semitic is right on the money. It's very offensive and I repeat should not be repeated here if you want to keep participating.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
overreaction
imho.
the whole policially correct diatribe.
It is always strange that any such discussion of the unmentionable unmentionable is followed with threats.
but whatever.
It is the economy, stupid.
Yeah!
Now I get it.
It is the economy, stupid.
it's about time n/t
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
While I do see her comment
treading on provocatively sensitive and offensive ground (though she did not say they were directly greedy or have that intent), your analogy is incorrect. It is not the same as calling a black person the 'n' word for a few reasons. The 'n word has no practical uses other than its derogatory use. 'Moneychanger' is a real profession and the term can be used in practical ways. To build on that, it is different than calling a gay person a 'f**' because the derogatory term for gays is not used in American English much in its practical use (of either cigarette or bundle of sticks). For example, the dictionary does not see the term 'Moneychanger' as a derogatory term
, whereas the term 'f**' 
does have its derogatory use explicitly stated, and the 'n' word only has disparaging use.
I would say a more correct analogy is that it is a negative stereotype such as black people eat chicken or are lazy.
you make a good point
it is a negative stereotype and has been used repeatedly through history from crusades to nazi germany to today obviously.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
This may come as a shock!
But I honestly had no idea about this negative stereotype until just very recently. I didn't live through those times, nor did I experience a sense of prejudice from the stated negative stereotype. I lived in the blissfull ignorance of a white middle class neighborhood, where I just thought people were people.
By reacting so negatively and harsly the stereotype actually gets reinforced...!
I have never understood this strange dynamic against the Jewish people....., and if you recall I asked about it recently. Why they were exiled from so many places, etc. It is like a ferbotten topic, I guess.
Current events have sparked my curiosity.
So again you reinforce the negative stereotype by your reaction.
Oddly my understanding was recently enlightened by watching a show about the history of the zero, and its fascinating travels through different lands and cultures. I had no idea that the zero was so controversial.
There was a religous prejudice against The Zero, precisely because it was used for compound interest. Some religous cultures viewed compound interest as a sin and therefore the zero fell into ill rupute. Think where we would be without it today!
It is the economy, stupid.
I believe you
I could tell by your sincerity that you really did not know about that stereotype. Some people argue about whether or not it is actually a negative stereotype (especially in our current capitalist system), but it does exist, and it is not for me to say whether or not Jews should be offended.
While I see his point, I actually thought Ender overreacted a bit, and wanted to point out that what you said was not so much a racial epithet so much as a stereotype.
I caught a little about the zero on TV also. Interesting stuff.
uhh
I also answered your question right when you asked it (ans so did someone else as I remember) so how the hell was it forbidden?
Maybe anytime you say "Jews are ____" (and this goes for any ethnic group) saying that the entire people is whatever (regardless of whether you think it's positive, neutral, or negative) you should stop and think and maybe back off of that.
I know you probably wouldn't say "Blacks are ____" or "Gays are ____" or "Latinos are _____" so why the hell do you keep bringing up the jews?
I get bashed for generalizing about liberals but at least liberals do have some common ideology. All jews are not the same. All blacks are not the same. All asians are not the same. Think.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
all muslems are not the same......
It is the economy, stupid.
Sorry.
Not sure what you were hoping for me to say here. Maybe I am having an off day or something, but I didn't really have a strong reaction here either way. I don't really know who this D'Souza is nor have I followed any of his positions.
I find the title of the book to be amusing, and certainly good fare for the blogs but a bit over the top for a book that is at least purporting to be serious. As I said over in the other posts, I don't really think you guys want America to loose. I just think that you are unwitting "useful idiots" for the Al Quaeda propaganda machine. There is a difference.
As for your last blockquote (by Hanson), I wouldn't really read that as a defense of liberals, per se. If it is, it is a rather back handed one IMHO, as highlighted by the last part "none of them wanted al Qaeda to defeat the United States — a victory that would have ended liberal tolerance here."
This is sort of poking fun at the PC and Progressive crowds by highlighting that they want to push their views down everyone's throats (i.e. not wanting to end liberal tolerance here), at least that's how how I read it.
Sorry, but I don't have time to follow-up with the embedded links. I'm glad that whatever they said made you laugh. :-)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Fair Enough :+)
At least you partially defended liberalism.
That is why I love D'Souza. He puts conservatives in the bind of defending liberals........ ha!
It is the economy, stupid.