The Heart of the Unholy Alliance’s Darkness

dtnBy

To know everything you ever wanted to know about the Left’s Islamist odyssey, visit DiscoverTheNetworks.org, the website that describes and exposes the networks and agendas of the political Left.

As Islamic Jihad, including its “stealth” variety, is rapidly succeeding in destroying our civilization, the Left continues its shameless and bizarre denial — not only about the threat of Islamic Jihad, but also about its own complicity with our enemy and its war on our society.

The latest example of the Left’s Jihad-Denial concerns me personally: it involves an intriguing post, written by Brian Tashman in RightWingWatch.org, titled: Beware: Human-Hating Liberals and Islamic Extremists Seek to Build Shariommunism. The post ridicules my recent appearance on CBN’s “Stackelbeck on Terror” in which I discuss the Unholy Alliance between the radical Left and radical Islam, which David Horowitz has masterfully documented in his masterpiece Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left and that I have analyzed in United in Hate: The Left’s Romance With Tyranny and Terror.

Unholy Alliance book

United in Hate book

The ingredients of Right Wing Watch’s attack on me are pathological not just in how they deny blatant reality, but also in how they in and of themselves substantiate the very realities they are denying.

Below, I will demonstrate and deconstruct the pathology in these assaults. It is more crucial than ever to expose the nature of the Left’s duplicity, lies and inner contradictions, since the Unholy Alliance’s malicious and destructive war on our civilization is now making more dangerous inroads than at any previous time.

Read it all at Front Page

See also:

Stakelbeck on Terror: The Unholy Alliance between Islamists and the Left

sot1_edited-1-450x286

Stakelbeck on Terror

Erick Stakelbeck sat down with Frontpagemag.com editor Jamie Glazov, author of High Noon for America: The Coming Showdown and William “Kirk” Kilpatrick, author of Christianity, Islam and Atheism.

The show focused on the unholy alliance between radical Islamists and the radical Left and what can be done to preserve Judeo-Christian, Western civilization:

The Progressive-Islamist Alliance

By J.T. Hatter:

The  affinity between radical Islamists and the progressive left derives from a shared belief that America  is the Great Satan and must be destroyed.

The  esteemed writer and lecturer David Horowitz has crafted a book entitled Unholy  Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left, in which he reveals that  common cause.  The progressive left — which also embraces  socialism/communism as a means to destroy America — has now allied  ideologically with the Islamists, who despise modernity itself and especially  detest the sexual agenda of the left.

This  alliance is growing and extends deep into the Obama administration, the  mainstream media, and academia.  The Democratic Party and the mainstream  media have been protecting and supporting radical Islamists for decades.   And where you once saw fashionably leftist young college students wearing Che Guevara t-shirts, it is now common to  see them wearing Palestinian colors and sporting radical anti-Zionist  themes.

The  leader of the progressive left, President Barack Hussein Obama, proclaimed  recently at the United Nations (emphasis added):

The  future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be  credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when  the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the  Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite  pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form  of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic  spirit.”

Like  most Obama oratory, this is filled with deception and hidden meanings.  In  this statement, Obama delivers a virulent attack against those who “slander the  prophet of Islam.”  This is followed by a backhanded token (“to be  credible”) to the effect that Christianity, Judaism, and minority sects of Islam  should also receive a modicum of respect.  The implication is that the  rights of other faiths are secondary to those of Islam.

Then,  in typical Obamaic oratory fashion, he turns Gandhi’s famous quote about  tolerance on its head, delivering a meaning that is the opposite of what its  author intended.  Only the worst kind of propagandist or hypocrite can use  the term “tolerance” in the context of a nonexistent Islamic pretense to a “true  democratic spirit.”   There is no such spirit anywhere in Islam.   Islam abjures democracy.  In this reprehensively deceptive and devious  statement, Obama masks the offensive depredations of Islamic intolerance and  terrorism with the noble veneer of religious tolerance.

Obama  went on to specifically denounce the Nakoula YouTube video and continue his cover for the latest Islamic  terrorist attacks in Egypt and Libya and the murders of the American  ambassadorial staff.  Yet he curiously failed to specifically mention the  return engagement of the Piss Christ “artwork” on display less than two  miles away at the Edward Tyler Nahem Gallery on 57th  Street.

The  progressive left — the liberals in our society — almost always side with  Muslims against American ideas and laws and, in particular, against Christian  beliefs and practices.  It is a curiosity, to say the least.  You  would think that Islam and liberalism had nothing in common and were  diametrically opposed to one another.  But the two belief systems actually  have much in common.  Liberals and Muslims despise most of what patriotic,  religious Americans cherish and revere.  This makes them common enemies of  the American enterprise: comrades de guerre, so to  speak.

Where  there is conflict between the Islamic and leftist ideologies, the Muslims always  prevail.  Progressives will never confront the Islamists, in the fear that  to do so would weaken their ally, or that it could produce a backlash so violent  and devastating that the beneficial alliance would be destroyed  forever.

Still,  it is amazing to watch progressives  continue to defend and support their Muslim allies in light of the latter’s  historical and continuing offenses against the most hallowed tenets of  liberalism: hanging homosexuals; stoning adulterers; maiming criminals; abusing  and raping women and children; beheading and crucifying non-believers; killing,  dismembering, and having sex with the corpses of women; invading embassies and  torturing and killing Americans and raping the body of the ambassador.   Instead of getting tough with the Islamists for their horrors, the president and  his leftist followers cover for them.

The  horrific crimes and depredations committed by Islamists are endless, yet  liberals manage to “tolerate” them.  You would think that people with any  kind of claim to a moral mantle would not be able to tolerate so much  evil.  Such is liberalism.

Liberals  cope with these contradictions by denying that they exist or by convincing  themselves that Islamic practices are justified and the  result of cultural differences, poverty, Zionism, or something George Bush  did.

The  more you compare the beliefs of Islamists and liberals, the more similarities  you find.  David Horowitz was right: it is an unholy  alliance.

Read more at American Thinker

Hating Valentine’s

 By Jamie Glazov at Frontpage:

Today, Tuesday, February 14, is Valentine’s Day, the sacred day that intimate companions mark to celebrate their love and affection for one another. If you’re thinking about making a study of how couples celebrate this day, the Muslim world and the milieus of the radical Left are not the places you should be spending most, if any, of your time. Indeed, it’s pretty hard to outdo jihadists and “progressives” when it comes to the hatred of Valentine’s Day. And this hatred is precisely the territory on which the contemporary romance between the radical Left and Islamic fanaticism is formed.

The train is never late: every time Valentine’s comes around, the Muslim world reacts with ferocious rage, with its leaders doing everything in their power to quash the festivity that comes with the celebration of private romance. Imams around the world thunder against Valentine’s every year — and the celebration of the day itself is literally outlawed in Islamist states.

In Aceh province in Indonesia just a few days ago, for instance, Muslim clerics issued a stern warning to Muslims, the younger generation in particular, against observing Valentine’s Day. Tgk Feisal, general secretary of the Aceh Ulema Association (HUDA), stated that “It is haram for Muslims to observe Valentine’s Day because it does not accord with Islamic Sharia.” He added that the government must watch out for youths participating in Valentine’s Day activities in Aceh. One can just imagine what will happen to the guilty parties caught celebrating their love for one another.

The Saudis consistently punish the slightest hint of celebrating Valentine’s Day. The Kingdom and its religious “morality” police always officially issue a stern warning that anyone caught even thinking about Valentine’s Day will suffer some of the most painful penalties of Sharia Law. This is typical of the Saudis of course. As Daniel Pipes has reported, the Saudi regime takes a firm stand against Valentine’s every year, and the Saudi religious police monitor stores selling roses and other gifts. They arrest women for wearing red on that day. Last year, the narrative was no different: the Saudis  announced that, starting the week of Valentine’s and until February 15, it would be illegal for a merchant to sell any item that is red, or that in any way hints of being connected to Valentine’s Day.

As Claude Cartaginese reported at Newsreal Blog during last year’s Valentine’s, any merchant found selling such items as red roses, red clothing of any kind (especially dresses), toys, heart-shaped products, candy, greeting cards or any items wrapped in red, had to destroy them or face the wrath of Saudi justice.

Christian overseas workers living in the Kingdom from the Philippines and other countries always take extra precautions, heeding the Saudis’ warning to them specifically to avoid greeting anyone with the words “Happy Valentine’s Day” or exchanging any gift that reeks of romance. A spokesman for a Philippine workers group commented last year: “We are urging fellow Filipinos in the Middle East, especially lovers, just to celebrate their Valentine’s Day secretly and with utmost care.”

The Iranian despots, meanwhile, always try to make sure the Saudis don’t outdo them in suffocating Valentine’s Day. Iran’s “morality” police consistently order shops to remove heart-and-flower decorations and images of couples embracing on this day — and anytime around this day. In Pakistan, the student wing of the fundamentalist Islamic party Jamaat-e-Islami has called for a complete ban on Valentine’s Day celebrations. Khalid Waqas Chamkani, a leader in the party, calls it a “shameful day.”

Typical of this whole pathology in the Islamic world was a development witnessed back on February 10, 2006, when activists of the radical Kashmiri Islamic group Dukhtaran-e-Millat (Daughters of the Community) went on a rampage in Srinagar, the main city of the Indian portion of Kashmir. Some two dozen black-veiled Muslim women stormed gift and stationery shops, burning Valentine’s Day cards and posters showing couples together.

In the West, meanwhile leftist feminists are not to be outdone by their jihadi allies in reviling — and trying to kill — Valentine’s Day. Throughout all Women’s Studies Programs on American campuses, for instance, you will find the demonization of Valentine’s Day, since, as the disciples of Andrea Dworkin angrily explain, the day is a manifestation of how capitalist and homophobic patriarchs brainwash and oppress women and push them into spheres of powerlessness. As a person who spent more than a decade in academia, I was privileged to witness this grotesque attack and “deconstruction” of Valentine’s Day at close range. Feminist icons like Jane Fonda, meanwhile, help lead the attack on Valentine’s Day in society at large. As David Horowitz has documented, Fonda has led the campaign to transform this special day into “V-Day” (“Violence against Women Day”) — which is, when it all comes down to it, a day of hate, featuring a mass indictment of men.

So what exactly is transpiring here? What explains this hatred of Valentine’s Day by leftist feminists and jihadis? And how and why does it serve as the sacred bond that brings the radical Left and Islam into its current feast of solidarity?

The core issue at the foundation of this phenomenon is that Islam and the radical Left both revile the notion of private love, a non-tangible and divine entity that draws individuals to each other and, therefore, distracts them from submitting themselves to a secular deity.

The highest objective of both Islam and the radical Left is clear: to shatter the sacred intimacy that a man and a woman can share with one another, for such a bond is inaccessible to the order. History, therefore, demonstrates how Islam, like Communism, wages a ferocious war on any kind of private and unregulated love. In the case of Islam, the reality is epitomized in its monstrous structures of gender apartheid and the terror that keeps it in place. Indeed, female sexuality and freedom are demonized and, therefore, forced veiling, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, honor killings and other misogynist monstrosities become mandatory parts of the sadistic paradigm.

The puritanical nature of totalist systems (whether Fascist, Communist, or Islamist) is another manifestation of this phenomenon. In Stalinist Russia, sexual pleasure was portrayed as unsocialist and counter-revolutionary. More recent Communist societies have also waged war on sexuality — a war that Islam, as we know, wages with similar ferocity. These totalist structures cannot survive in environments filled with self-interested, pleasure-seeking individuals who prioritize devotion to other individual human beings over the collective and the state. Because the leftist believer viscerally hates the notion and reality of personal love and “the couple,” he champions the enforcement of totalitarian puritanism by the despotic regimes he worships.

The famous twentieth-century novels of dystopia, Yevgeny Zamyatin’s We, George Orwell’s 1984, and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, all powerfully depict totalitarian society’s assault on the realm of personal love in its violent attempt to dehumanize human beings and completely subject them to its rule. In Zamyatin’s We, the earliest of the three novels, the despotic regime keeps human beings in line by giving them license for regulated sexual promiscuity, while private love is illegal. The hero breaks the rules with a woman who seduces him — not only into forbidden love but also into a counterrevolutionary struggle. In the end, the totality forces the hero, like the rest of the world’s population, to undergo the Great Operation, which annihilates the part of the brain that gives life to passion and imagination, and therefore spawns the potential for love. In Orwell’s 1984, the main character ends up being tortured and broken at the Ministry of Truth for having engaged in the outlawed behavior of unregulated love. In Huxley’s Brave New World, promiscuity is encouraged — everyone has sex with everyone else under regime rules, but no one is allowed to make a deep and independent private connection.

Yet as these novels demonstrate, no tyranny’s attempt to turn human beings into obedient robots can fully succeed. There is always someone who has doubts, who is uncomfortable, and who questions the secular deity — even though it would be safer for him to conform like everyone else. The desire that thus overcomes the instinct for self-preservation is erotic passion. And that is why love presents such a threat to the totalitarian order: it dares to serve itself. It is a force more powerful than the all-pervading fear that a totalitarian order needs to impose in order to survive. Leftist and Muslim social engineers, therefore, in their twisted and human-hating imaginations, believe that the road toward earthly redemption (under a classless society or Sharia) stands a chance only if private love and affection is purged from the human condition.

This is exactly why, forty years ago, as Peter Collier and David Horowitz document in Destructive Generation, the Weather Underground not only waged war against American society through violence and mayhem, but also waged war on private love within its own ranks. Bill Ayers, one of the leading terrorists in the group, argued in a speech defending the campaign: “Any notion that people can have responsibility for one person, that they can have that ‘out’ — we have to destroy that notion in order to build a collective; we have to destroy all ‘outs,’ to destroy the notion that people can lean on one person and not be responsible to the entire collective.”

Thus, the Weather Underground destroyed any signs of monogamy within its ranks and forced couples, some of whom had been together for years, to admit their “political error” and split apart. Like their icon Margaret Mead, they fought the notions of romantic love, jealousy, and other “oppressive” manifestations of one-on-one intimacy and commitment. This was followed by forced group sex and “national orgies,” whose main objective was to crush the spirit of individualism. This constituted an eerie replay of the sexual promiscuity that was encouraged (while private love was forbidden) in We, 1984, and Brave New World.

Thus, it becomes completely understandable why leftist believers were so inspired by the tyrannies in the Soviet Union, Communist China, Communist North Vietnam and many other countries. As sociologist Paul Hollander has documented in his classic Political Pilgrims, fellow travelers were especially enthralled with the desexualized dress that the Maoist regime imposed on its citizens. This at once satisfied the leftist’s desire for enforced sameness and the imperative of erasing attractions between private citizens. The Maoists’ unisex clothing finds its parallel in fundamentalist Islam’s mandate for shapeless coverings to be worn by both males and females. The collective “uniform” symbolizes submission to a higher entity and frustrates individual expression, mutual physical attraction, and private connection and affection. And so, once again, the Western leftist remains not only uncritical, but completely supportive of — and enthralled in — this form of totalitarian puritanism.

Read the rest…