Monday, February 21, 2005

The Left’s Stockholm Syndrome

Diana West writing in gives us an interesting overview of the perspectives of developments in the European approach to affairs with the Arab world. The rat on that ship is Radical Islamism which has wheedled it's way into the soul of the left.

Explaining the
Euro-Arab axis

"Eurabia," the long-awaited book by
Bat Ye'or, is a comprehensive, even overwhelming and absolutely shocking explication of how and why it is that Europe is transforming itself into what the Egyptian-born historian calls "a new geopolitical entity -- Eurabia."

...the Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD). Created 30-odd years ago at the instigation of France and the Arab League, the practically unknown EAD has provided structural and theoretical underpinnings to a Euro-Arab axis -- Eurabia. These have fostered the political, economic and cultural bonds between Europe and the Arab world that Bat Ye'or maintains were designed to create "a global alternative to American power."
[WHY this is necessary is never raised, but it’s all about

The [New York] Times reporter [covering the same subject] seems perplexed. This is how it seems he thinks: To be anti-immigration is to be, as he puts it, "far right" or "extreme right." And to be "far right" or "extreme right" is to be very, very bad. Weren't Nazis both far and extreme right -- or is that the Republican party? Whatever.

[Remember that anti-immigration rhetoric is and has always been a leftist, trades unions obsession, and that
Hitler was a leftist who nationalized everything in sight, told people how to live, euthenized them if they cost the society something, and built the Zwangswirtschaft...]

Smith writes: "Many people" -- himself, for instance? -- "worry that the appeal of anti-Islamic politics will continue to spread as Europe's Muslim population grows." No mention, of course, that to be "anti-Islamic politics" is to be anti-sharia law...

The poisonous animus for Jews (and Christians) contained within "Islamic politics," not to mention its totalitarian strictures, fails to move the reporter's silly sense of political direction. His compass tells him anti-immigrationists are on the "far right" (jackboots), while Muslims, he writes, join "left-leaning parties" (save the whales).

Then Smith interviews a Belgian Muslim whose son faces terror charges in Turkey for killing 61 people in a 2003 bombing, and who calls the 9/11 attacks "a poetic act." In his, I suppose, "left-leaning" way, terror-dad "dismisses the far right's fears of an islamization of Europe, even if he does dream of an Islamic theocracy governing the continent someday."

[NYT/ Craig] Smith's conclusion? "In many ways, radical Islamists" -- such as terror-dad -- "are holding Europe's broader, moderate Muslim population hostage..."

[Note that there's no mention whatsoever of anyone else being put upon. The population that radical Islam takes advantage of doesn't matter to the European left and the NYT.]

No comments: