The Left’s Complicity With Islamic Terrorists (FrontPageMagazine.com) by Deborah Gyapong 05/28/12)
Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/05/28/the-lefts-complicity-with-islamic-terrorists/
Front Page Magazine.com
Front Page Magazine.com Articles-Index-Top
Publishers-Index-Top
The review below of Jamie Glazov’s book, United in Hate, is reprinted
from Deborah Gyappong’s blog, deborahgyapong.blogspot.ca.
Jamie Glazov’s book United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tryanny
and Terror tries to answer the questions I and many others have had
about the silence and even complicity on the part of the West with
Islamist terrorists. Why the silence on the part of feminists about
the gender apartheid in places like Saudi Arabia? Why the silence
from gay activists about the hangings of gays in Iran, the beatings
inflicted on gays in cities like Amsterdam?
Glazov has dug into a mother lode of insight that is so rich and so
vast that this book can only serve as substantial first course. And
in some ways, because his critique seems to come from a kind of
Enlightenment-version of Western civilization that does not refer too
deeply to the West’s Judeo-Christian roots, he may not even realize
the full depths of what he has uncovered.
Glazov documents, with extensive footnoted excerpts, the Left’s
romance with dictators from Hitler, to Stalin, to Castro, to Mao, to
the North Vietnamese commununists, to the Sandanistas, showing that
this romance is the strongest at the height of the terror unleashed
by each regime and falls off when the terror is abated. The new
darlings of the Left are the barbaric jihadists of radical Islam that
he shows has elements of western-style tyranny borrowed from Hitler
and Stalin and mixed with religious texts advocating Islamic
supremacy and death to the infidel and to the Jews.
But don’t let the footnotes and the quotes from primary sources deter
you. This book reads like a thriller. I could not put it down. I want
everyone I know to read it.
Glazov writes:
Just like religious folk, the believer espouses a faith, but his is a
secular one. He too searches for personal redemption–but of an
earthly variety. The progressive faith, therefore, is a secular
religion. And this is why socialism’s dynamic constitute a muted
carbon copy of Judeo-Christian imagery. Socialism’s secular utopian
vision includes a fall from an ideal collective brotherhood, followed
by a journey through a valley of oppression and injustice, and then
ultimately a road toward redemption.
Later in the book, he shows how this redemption is built on the blood
of those killed for the sake of the new society and calls up a
suicidal longing in true believers on the Left. He also points out
the parallels between the socialist utopia and that of the reign of
Islam. In other words, profound insights into the old Leftist phrase
of having to break a few eggs if you want to make an omelet–so what
you purge society of the intellectuals and the bourgeois, and those
who refuse to sink their individuality into the collective.
Glazov writes:
In rejecting his own society, the believer spurns the values of
democracy and individual freedom, which are anathema to him, since he
has miserably failed to cope with both the challenges they pose and
the possibilities they offer. Tortured by his personal alientation,
which is accompanied by feelings of self-loathing, the believer
craves a fairy-tale world where no individuality exists, and where
human estrangement is thus impossible. The believer fantasizes about
how his own individuality and self will be submerged within the
collective whole.”
These assertions come relatively early in the book and some might
have a hard time accepting them at first, because they so go against
the grain of progressive thinking that’s like a miasma arising from a
cauldron of toxic ideas. But he provides the proof, over and over
again, from diaries, from writings of prominent leftists who turned a
blind eye to the Stalinist purges etc. etc. and romanticized the blue
pajamas that obliterated sexual distinctions and individuality at the
height of China’s cultural revolution. He even makes a convincing
case for why the burka holds such allure for western feminists.
Back in my radical days I recall someone saying the personal is
political. I don’t think they realized how right they were, but not
in the sense the phrase-coiner meant. Glazov has hit the nail on the
head about how personal dysfunction leads to certain political views
(which is not to say all people who are progressive have this
pathology, some really do strive for equality and to help the poor,
but are not doing so as the result of a death wish).
I confess I used to hate my father and hate men, white men
especially. I resented the authority my father had over me and my
dependence upon him, and I resented the privileged place men had in
society. But after my religious awakening, when I realized profoundly
how wrong it was to resent and blame, and I started to resist those
tendencies and forgive, as I forgave my father and stopped resenting
men, low and behold, I no longer felt inferior or felt imaginary
barriers to my being treated as an equal and with respect. And my
politics started changing as well. But of course, none of my blame
game and politics of resentment and its relationship to self-hatred
and self-destruction was conscious. And when it became conscious, it
was a difficult, humbling journey of recovery. Thankfully, as I
changed, I realized my father was a good man who was doing his best
to raise a difficult, rebellious daughter.
What struck me were the yearnings for utopia, for immersion in some
embracing collective, for heaven, for what Douglas Farrow calls “the
savior state.” It makes me think of the argument from desire for the
existence of God and of heaven. We have thirst, therefore something
must exist like water to quench it. We hunger, therefore food exists
to satisfy it. We long for a Supreme Being, therefore God exists to
satisfy what Blaise Pascal called that God-shaped abyss that only God
can fill. But to settle on anything but the living God, is to settle
on a deception thrown up by the evil one, who perverts those impulses
and longs to destroy us body and soul.
I’m reading a thriller by a friend of mine called “Mohamed’s Moon”
that I will write more about later–in the meantime, I’m utterly
enjoying this great read—and he uses a deftly written novel to get
across the big differences between Islam and Christianity in story
about twin brothers separated at birth. One is raised by the Islamic
Brotherhood in Egypt to flawlessly penetrate western society to
advance the Caliphate. It’s a timely contemporary novel and it
dovetails perfectly with what Mark Steyn writes about in Lights Out
and Jamie Glazov writes about in United in Hate.
We long for a Savior. There is a Savior. We long for heaven. There is
a heaven. But it is not here on earth. In the meantime, we do the
best we can for the common good, in what Farrow describes as
a “modest” way that does not grant the state or some modern day
Pharoah savior status.
I think it is mega cool that someone who bought United in Hate also
bought my book, according to Amazon.com. (Copyright © 2012
FrontPageMagazine.com 05/28/12)
Return to Top
MATERIAL REPRODUCED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY