Nubbins on Parade: Last Go-Round With the Panic Attackers        
by Chris Floyd     
One more time -- one last time -- into the breach (or rather, into the sump) with the trembly, Islamoscaredy followers of Mark Steyn.

 

 

A Mr. Bryan Leeds writes:

Chris, your article is clueless. You write like you have a Muslim publisher. Whose side are you on, the terrorists or the Free West?

 

Look at the countries that are predominantly Muslim and see how they are overwhelmingly oppressed, third world countries with no hope of improvement due to the suffocation of the Islamic bullies in charge. Islam spreads under threat of violence alone, not by the offer of love as Christianity does. Atheism is the most racist of the three, promoting survival of the fittest, which logically leads to ranking which races are superior or inferior, which are more evolved.

And don't forget how in the last 100 years it is ATHEIST governments like Stalin's who have murdered more people than ALL of the accumulated historical wrongs of Christianity, which you have to reach back over a thousand years to tally, just like Osama bin Laden tallies his scorecard.

Ever wonder if you are backing the wrong side? Christianity is responsible for all of the good things in the Western culture, which Islam and atheists despise. And by the way, when Islam rules your country, atheists will be ranked even lower than Christians according to the Koran's teachings.

Get a clue, Chris, your article is clueless.

To which, this reply:

I think this will be my last foray into the farrago of subliterate prose and/or pinched and specious panic attacks from the prodigiously breeding Steynian horde. You can only knock down so many strawmen  without growing weary. In the end, there is little point in "arguing" or "debating" with people who have shaved down their intellect to the barest nubbin of binary thought: us vs. them, "terrorists" vs. the "Free West," etc., etc., as if there were absolutely no variety, no individuality, no nuance in the human race at all.

But to deal briefly with Mr. Leeds. Martin Amis is being "denounced" not because he has "offended the terrorists" but because he has spoken about inflicting "suffering" on ALL Muslims, as a matter of course, and on ALL people who appear to be of Pakistani or Middle Eastern origin. I don't think anyone has called for Amis to be silenced, censored, or in any way punished for his views; however, if he is going to advance these views in public, then he can certainly be criticized for them, just as anyone who writes for the public can be. But again, we see that Mr. Leeds follows Amis, Steyn and many others in equating Muslims with terrorists.

Everyone who has taken issue with Amis has made it abundantly clear that their objections center on Amis' lumping all Muslims in with terrorists; how then can criticism of Amis be likened to "silencing any objections toward the terrorists"? Again -- because you have to repeat things often for nubbinists -- the "denunciations" of Amis relate to his blanket condemnations and his fantasy of punishing ALL Muslims for the actions of a few. If Amis were merely condemning terrorists -- condemning the actions of specific people or groups of people engaged in the wanton destruction of innocent human lives to advance religious or political or financial agendas -- then he would not and could not be accused of racism. But that is NOT what Amis or Steyn are doing; they are not merely offering "objections towards the terrorists."

I shudder to contemplate the level of historical ignorance that lies behind Mr. Leed's contention that Christianity was spread throughout the world by the "offer of love." But I certainly agree that many predominantly Muslim countries are repressed, such as the ones controlled by the Bush Family business partners in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and by Bush's paragon of democracy in Pakistan, and by Bush's new Terror War pal in Libya, and by the tyrannical recipient of untold billions of U.S. arms and aid in Egypt, etc. If the United States had not spent the last several decades helping stamp out genuinely democratic movements in the Muslim world -- as in Iran, to take just one example -- we might not see so much repression in these countries today.

But all of the leaders of the "Free West" eagerly and cringingly kowtow to what has been the ideological fountainhead and financial spigot for the most obscurantist and retrograde Islamic sect in the last few centuries: the Saudi royals, whose endless largess has elevated the backward Wahhabi extremism to global prominence. So which "side" is George W. Bush on when he chows down with the Saudi king or has a cigar with Prince Bandar "Bush"?

I don't quite understand Mr. Leeds' segue from the Muslim horde to Josef Stalin. In any case, Stalin -- and his post-Soviet successors -- have been world champs in giving the boot to Muslims: mass slaughter, mass arrests, wholesale deportation, ethnic cleansing, the whole nine yards. You'd think Mr Leeds would at least approve of that.

And of course, a very good case can be made for the argument that Communism -- especially as it developed in Russia -- is itself a religion: a political religion, with its own articles of faith, its own saints, its own sacred history, etc. Nazism is even more so. It doesn't matter if your "god" -- your ultimate value, your sanction and source of righteousness -- is Yahweh, or Jesus, or Allah, or Der Fuhrer, or dialectical materialism, or the "free market," religion has always been used as a mainspring and justification for war and repression.

And Christianity is responsible for ALL of the good things in Western culture, eh? Well, if that don't beat all, as my daddy -- a Baptist deacon -- would say. Who knew Jesus invented the microwave oven? Or created democracy? Or wrote the Constitution? Or emancipated the slaves from the, er, um, Christians who fought a civil war to keep them? Or emancipated women from the, er, ah, Christians who kept them subjugated for almost 2,000 years?

And are ALL of the good things in Western culture "despised" by Muslims and atheists? That would certainly come as a surprise to -- but what's the point of going on? Such wild exaggerations are typical of nubbinist thought, which knows only unmitigated good ("whatever I believe") and unbounded evil ("everybody different from me"). To argue point by point with such childish nonsense is to give it far more seriousness than it deserves.

Which side am I on, you ask? Why, the side of truth and beauty, of course -- wherever the former may lead, and in defense of whatever threatens the latter. I also have much more faith in "Western civilization" than you or any of your fellow political religionists do, it seems. You are the ones who believe that "Islam" (that dark mass of undifferentiated evil in your mind) is about to "rule my country," taking over the United States and Europe by -- what's that Steynian time-frame again? 2020 or 2025? I myself think that the West is a bit more robust than that.

But in token of your stirring and eloquent conclusion, I will certainly strive to get a clue so that my clueless writing will, like, have a clue and not be so clueless. 

 

 

 

 

Name

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Add Comment