The Times, It Ain’t a-Changin’
As was the case with Duranty and Stalin, moreover, Matthews’ articles and private confidences strongly influenced State Department views of Castro; and his rhapsodies about the Cuban, like Duranty’s hymns to the Georgian, were echoed throughout the Western media. Matthews insisted repeatedly that Castro was not a Communist, and he smeared reporters (just as Duranty had smeared Gareth Jones) who disagreed. As Duranty had excused Stalin’s crimes with the blithe sentiment that “you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs,” so Matthews justified Castro’s abuses by saying that “A revolution is not a tea party.” And though Castro’s victory, in which Matthews was proud to have played a part, led to the murder of countless Cubans by firing squads, the reporter was ready to play down such uncomfortable details, excuse them, and even misrepresent them — in the same way that Duranty had done with the Ukraine famine. Just as Duranty defended Stalin’s show trials and the executions that followed, so Matthews dismissed Castro’s post-Revolution bloodbaths, calling Cuba “the happiest country in the world” (a lie that has lived on for decades in PC circles). In one editorial, Matthews referred to Castro as a “friend”; Castro, in a personal note professing his “deep and lasting affection,” addressed Matthews as “Mi Querido Amigo.”
And with Matthews, as with Duranty, the Times was a willing accomplice. In 1959, when Castro visited the Times offices in New York to “thank the Times for its role in the revolution” — as Matthews’s biographer, Anthony DePalma, put it – Sulzberger was there to “welcome” him, and “Castro thanked Sulzberger and several editors profusely.” (Castro would visit the Times’ offices twice more, in 1995 and 2000.) In a memo written shortly after the revolution, Matthews told Sulzberger that Castro “really wants advice and guidance and constructive criticism from sources he knows to be friendly, such as The New York Times.” Eventually, the Times stopped running Matthews’s pieces on Cuba — not because they were too heavily slanted toward Castro, but because Matthews was so public about his friendship with the dictator. What mattered to the Times, in short, was not maintaining objectivity but preserving an illusion thereof. “It is bad enough,” Buckley later wrote, “that Herbert Matthews was hypnotized by Fidel Castro, but it was a calamity that Matthews succeeded in hypnotizing so many other people, in crucial positions of power, on the subject of Castro.” Indeed. The lingering influence of Matthews’s idolization of Castro — who executed political rivals and put homosexuals in concentration camps — could be observed, as Garvin notes, in such nauseating spectacles as Dan Rather’s chumminess with the dictator in a 60 Minutes interview, Barbara Walter’s hosting a dinner party for him, and Diane Sawyer’s greeting him with a kiss.
This overview would not be complete without at least a brief mention of Times Indochina correspondent Sydney Schanberg, who was immortalized by actor Sam Waterston in the film The Killing Fields. In a 1975 article, Schanberg looked forward to the fall of the Lon Nol government in Cambodia, writing that “for the ordinary people of Indochina . . . it is difficult to imagine how their lives could be anything but better with Americans gone.” This line was quoted in 2003 by Myron Kuropas, who went on to cite Schanberg’s backhanded defense of the genocidal Khmer Rouge:
Was this just cold brutality: a cruel and sadistic imposition of the law of the jungle which only the fittest will survive? Or is it possible that, seen through the eyes of the peasant soldier and revolutionaries, the forced evacuation of the cities is a harsh necessity? Perhaps they are convinced that there is no way to build a new society for the benefit of the ordinary man, hitherto exploited, without literally starting from the beginning; in such an unbending view people who represent the old ways and those considered weak or unfit would be expendable and would be weeded out.
The weasel words “harsh” and “unbending” aside, this passage amounts to a reprehensible attempt to justify pure evil on what we would today call multicultural grounds. Similar language was used to defend Stalin and Hitler. Indeed, to read Duranty, Matthews, Schanberg, and the Times’ Holocaust-era European correspondents is to be struck by how much alike they all sound. Whether they were in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Castro’s Cuba, or Pol Pot’s Cambodia, these reporters evinced the selfsame fascination with tyrants and offered the selfsame justifications for tyranny. This mentality is still on view today in the pages of the Gray Lady, as one after another of Duranty’s heirs continue to try to sell the line that Islam is a religion of peace, that “jihad” means spiritual struggle, that only a minuscule minority of Muslims in the West want to exchange democracy for sharia, and that the only real problem with Islam in Europe is European racism.
The Times should have learned a valuable lesson or two from its past. But it’s making exactly the same mistakes today with Islam in the West that it did with Stalinism and Hitlerism, ignoring and discrediting the testimony of honest observers while giving legitimacy to tyranny’s sympathizers and apologists. The Times‘s power is such that it might play an immensely positive role in educating its readers about the situation before them and helping them to recognize where their own responsibilities lie. Instead it’s pursuing an editorial policy that bids fair to be every bit as disastrous as was its approach to Stalin, the Holocaust, and Castro. And a large segment of the mainstream Western media is following its example.
There was a similar willful blindness throughout the west with regard to Mao’s China, especially the roughly 40 million who died in the famine caused by the Great Leap Forward (1958-60). See Jasper Becker’s book, Hungry Ghosts.
And the Cultural Revolution (1966-76) was likewise trendy among academics and intellectuals in the west — at least until the Chinese themselves made it clear, after Mao’s death, that the CR was 10 years of unrelieved manmade disasters.
I’m always astonished by the number of people who consider The Times an “intellectual” read. Then again, there are a lot of people who think having been graduated from college makes them educated.
Your point about the NYT and sand in their ears from burying their head in it has merit. But I disagree about the problem being Islam per se. In my job I work with some Islamic families and have found them to be good, moral people who love this country. There are many just like them.
The problem from my perspective is from hateful people with fascist leanings who are also Muslims. As a Christian, I am asheamed of people who claim to follow the teachings of Christ and hate people of other races or murder abortion doctors. It is insulting when people conflate my spirituality and religion with theirs. I think you may be making the same mistake. Islam in not our enemy, but many of our enemies are terrorists who are Muslims. That distinction helps clarify out position nad keeps us on the moral high ground I think.
Trey
To this day the Times still retains the Pulitzer for Duranty’s lies. I’m glad their stock is dropping and the ad revenue has fallen more than 50% in the last decade, the harm that this paper has done for the last 80 years has been monumental maybe it will finally fold. It has been the sycophant and mouthpiece of two really evil homicidal regimes for their own ends and now they are trying to add another, the Islamic Genociders.
Thanks for the good information. The article rings true generally except that I think the threat radical Islam poses to Western Civilization is much greater in Europe (ironically) than it is here in the US.
European countries with strong national identities (like England and France) may survive, although there will be a lot of violance. Countries like the Netherlands will disintigrate altogether unless they take serious steps to accomplish real integration between their Muslim populations and thier national identities and that includes the adoption by all Muslims in Europe (not just the moderate ones) of at least some liberal Western traditions.
With regard to Mao and China, the US expert in that area was Edgar Snow who was enthusiastic about Mao and who wrote sympathetically about him and his movement in his books, one of which was Red Star Over China. After the publications of Mao’s biographies we know now that many of Snow’s stories about Mao came directly from Mao who could be counted on to speak well of himself- Snow swallowed the stories whole and they are what we in the West read. Liberals are drawn like moths to flames by totalitarians who promise to better the lives of the “little people,” promising hope and change.
The real problem is that there appears to be no counterbalance to the patently obvious bias’ of the NYT. So long as many make the NYT the supposed “leader of news,” there will be a place for fool’s and apologists to hide & flourish.
Many warned that leaving SE Asia would mean holocaust, but few listened or truly understood, because they had been deluged with horror stories about war there & had been told how terrible America was, as opposed to how horrible the alternatives were.
The past stories reflect present day actions to try to portray Americans soldiers, en masse, as the evil in Iraq, not the Islamist terrorists who are doing the murdering.
Haditha is the best example in the present conflict. Now, with only one more soldier to be tried, few are reporting the reality that after complete impartial investigation & trials, none of the soldiers committed crimes there. Only one soldier is yet to be tried & that soldier will not be tries for supposed atrocities, but for supposedly withholding reports, or failing to file reports, or making errors in reports. But, no mass & indiscriminate killing of civilians is allege against this soldier as all those soldiers have already been, exonerated. BUT, the NYT & others have failed abysmally to adequately report those facts. The exaggerated reporting manner of the charges which were levied, is not matched by the pathetically sparse level of reporting on the exonerations.
Murtha got front page above the fold headlines when he leveled his charges from the floor of the House of Representatives against the soldiers. Yet today, we hear no calls for Murtha to at least apologies for the majority of his exaggerated false accusations.
Perhaps these reasons account for the demise of the NYT! Perhaps even the NYT’s most loyal readers are beginning to realize that slanted coverage does little to report the news and much to allow & excuse the atrocities of tyrants and despots! While Bush has failed us on many issues, asserting his failures are greater than or comparable to the likes of Saddam, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, the Muslim Brotherhood, bin Laden, et al, is not only disingenuous, its outright despicable.
Truth requires one to take sides eventually, while still reporting on the positions of those doing the lying!
Any publication that justifies not reporting on issues or couching their reports so they can remain in contact, is responsible for lies, deaths, and the miseries the oppressed suffer because those reports have provided cover and credibility to despots & murderers.
Trey
you are an obvious Islamic Troll – i have noticed that nearly any articly published on the net – critical of Islam has a similiar comment from some “christian” who “knows personally many muslims” who are always ” great people”.
ye ye ye!!
Trey’s comment, in my opinion, rings true especially in the US. I believe things are a little more complicated in Europe where there is less integration and greater antagonism between Muslim population and the rest.
For example, I would certainly feel safer in the large Palestinian communities in Detroit than I would in many of the other neighborhoods in that city (the same could probably be said of New York). On the other, in England, I would feel significantly less safe, in many of the Muslim communities in London than I would in some of the other, poorer neighborhoods in London. This doesn’t mean Muslims are good here and bad over their. It does mean that there are serious problems across the pond that are greatly mitigated over here.
Of course the Times pretends there are no ‘real’ problems anywhere.
Trey,
Exactly how many abortion doctors have been killed by Christians? And how many jihadis are killing Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan? And how many innocent non-combatants were murdered by jihadis on September 11, 2001, exactly?
Your attempt to equate and conflate the behavior of one insane “Christian” ten years ago with hundreds of thousands of homicidal, suicidal maniacs who kill in the name of Islam is risible.
You have absolutely no business posting in a forum featuring the arguments of Bruce Bawer because you will be decimated by his superior intellect. He sees you and those like you coming every time and he crushes your pathetic arguments before you even make them.
Unlike the past, the Times no longer goes on challenged. What I find amazing is the sheer stupidity of the management. One thing is to have the editorial section flown blown commie. That is what that market wants, fine. However to falsify the news reporting and skew the facts is not only immoral but really stupid business wise. No one can take them and their reporting seriously, they undermine their own credibility. Is it any wonder their circulation is dropping? They might as well drop the pretense of being a newspaper, cut cost and publish the editorial page and letters to the editor along with all the high end advertising. Throw in the style section, the book review and the travel section. Could actually be quite profitable if they dropped the pretense of being a “newspaper”.
Maybe what the Times means when it says Hitler, Stalin and bin Laden aren’t really threats is that they aren’t all that dangerous compared to the threat the Times itself poses to our security. After all, none of them have insinuated themselves so deeply into our culture that they appear on iPhone commercials and get called the “nation’s paper of record.”
“Islam in not our enemy, but many of our enemies are terrorists who are Muslims. That distinction helps clarify out position nad keeps us on the moral high ground I think.”
This is the error at the center of Western thinking.
Yes, it is an error. Islam is not just a religion, Islam dictates to not only the terrorists but the everyday “good” Muslims. The only difference between the two, other than murder, violence and terrorism, is that the good Muslims want to make the world into an Islamic world, complete with all of the Islamic laws, customs and centuries of hating and treating infidels as slaves, taking their treasures, and/or killing them by the millions.
The western world can’t accept that truth. So they use every excuse and reason to say it is just not true.
But sad to say, it is true. I hope that non-muslims wake up to that truth before it is too late.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
The times is a rag. I will never buy it again. It is a crime that it still exists.
Not only are we seeing the NYT and the MSM provided cover for Islam but they wholeheartedly support those who believe in anthropogenic global warming. Some radical members of the environonmental movement , such as James Hansen, want to prosecute for crimes against humanity those who contradict their beliefs about climate change. No freedom of speech for oil executives and people like me, it appears.
New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis was one of the biggest champions of Robert Mugabe as well.
In each case of the NYT malfeasance against the truth, Mr. Bawer concentrates on who the Times flacked *for*. It would reveal greater consistency to speak of what the Times has consistently been *against*. People’s hates are often more revealing than their loves.
In each case Mr. Bawer mentions, the Times has sought to preserve the reputation of the enemies of the productive networks around the world that, properly defined, make up industrial society, around the world. Mr Bawer *did* mention a “conservative” aspect of the Times. He failed to perceive their outright reactionary zeal against the vital networks of the Industrial Revolution, since at least the 1930s, or before.
During the rise of “the socialist camp”, the Times apologized for the state hierarchy leading the wave of reaction against other people’s market freedoms around the world. During the rise of the first racist reaction against Jews, who contribute more on a per capita basis than any other comparably sized group to industrial networks around the world, the Times made every effort to avoid calling attention to what was being done to the Jews.
While the Hirabi reaction against intellectual freedoms has risen, the Times has been careful to not call attention to the broad support that caliphatism holds within the Umma of Islam. In each case, the Times has soft-pedaled the evil of groups assaulting other people’s industrial freedoms, to the point that NYT publishers can be comfortable in cocktail parties with those who deny evil exists, or who deny there is much worth defending in industrial society.
We should watch the Times, as a bellwether for the true reactionaries of our time- those who are reacting against other people’s industrial freedoms. Those freedoms of action are needed to build and maintain the productive world-wide networks of industrial society around the world. It is this anti-industrial slant that continues in the Times today, as they defend and participate in the assault on other people’s physical freedoms to change the human environment to fit human needs. The Times is not so much *for* any of these alternatives, as it is *against* industrial society.
Industrial society’s freedoms of action, with their rapid rates of change, overturning so many of those elites that Times publishers like to hobnob with, is the Time’s true bete noir. In this it has been a predecessor and supporter of “multiculturalism”, which, in its zeal to “protect” any agrarian society’s reaction against industrialization, mirrors the Times’ focus of attention when it comes to true cultural change.
Now that the industrial revolution has been renamed, as “globalization”, and the word “revolution” thereby extracted from it, many groups proclaiming themselves as “green revolutionaries”, who are in fact reactionary, can get much easier coverage in the Times. Just like Stalin and Hitler did.
Its a tragedy what the family has done to a once powerful newspaper..
The real shame: willful bias at the Times deprives trustful readers, for whom there is no truth but the Times, and frustrated readers who would like to see unbiased news, of genuinely informed coverage. The result: readers that “know” what isn’t so and fail to appreiate the gavity of so much. Readers like me discount what the Times does say because the bias is so evident; the omitted data is too. It’s always had “the slant” but its gotten so much worse. As it tries to influence unfairly, it loses its influence. Its slant is so well known, that stories for which it has an “approved” slant are laughably obvious. Soviet readers must have felt this cynical disbelief reading Pravada’s insistence on “big farm surpluses”. We are all hurt by the malfeasance at the Times, and many similar newspapers.
Management’s stupidity is no surprise: its built in. GM and its unions banned reality-based discussions as they slid from 60+% market share to whatever sliver they have now. Douglas aircraft was the largest air frame manufacturer in the world- and its management preferred tea and cocktaisls every friday while they ignored “jets” -until Boeing obliterated them with the 707.
“Management” at the Times is really a facade: its an entrenced family with artificial protection from the market doing as they please–with shareholders’ money. Like a wasteful, stupid Roman emperor that never would have risen to Praetor in the days of the Republic.
The owner’s son runing the business into the ground is not new: just sad. His decision to stop printing the Declaration of Independence on July 4 was more than an omen: its was foolish. Do you know how many people bought it on that day for just that reason? And continued to buy it having bought it just that once?
But this is a loss for all of us. Fragmented media is fine and a great reality-check for MSM. But having a great newspaper is great too: a common source of news: the Times is like a relative that went haywire, wasting all the promise, the accumulated lustre…. Its a shame.
(All this having been said, its still better than the Los Angeles Times, which isn’t saying much, but it matters if you live in Los Angeles.)
the most dangerous organization in the world: the NY Times
and of course, they, like their moronic, anti military fawning millionaire readers, love Hussein Obama
This is 2008 and the subject is supposed to be Islamic whitewash.But all we get from Mr; Bawer is the same old stuff we have heard many times before. Let’s keep it currrent or at least in this decade.
When I read 19th Century novels, I am frequently struck and embarassed by the blatant racism of the writers. Trollope, Thackeray and Dickens were fine writers and good men, but there is racism in their books. I wonder how long it is before readers will look askance at the Marxist slant of so many good writers in the 20th Century. With the notable exception of Hitler, the great butchers of the 20th Century were all Communists. It is amazing that so many well read and well intentioned people gave them such a good press for so long. Just recently in a review of Mao’s biography in the Times Book Review, Nicholas Kristof corrected the author. He said that Mao did not kill 70 million but only 20 million. Kristof also pointed out that the writer did not mention that women’s rights were increased in post revolutionary China as opposed to Japan.
I am glad to read that the NYT is losing money and perhaps will close soon. The Cuban people owe the Times and Mr. Herbert Mathews for the misery and bloodshed we still suffer in Cuba for the past 50 years. He compared Fidel Castro to Robin Hood and the rest of the world believed him. He wrote about the man who was going to bring peace and prosperity to the beautiful island and what do we have now, a brutal tyrant, a despot who has impoverished the most affluent country in Latin America and the Caribbean. With more than 2 million Cubans exiles around the world, and more than 300,000 executions and thousands of people in prison just for thinking democratically the damage the Times has done is unforgivable. One day the history of Cuba will be known and the world will know everything about the “paradise” Mr. Mathews so diligently sold to all the readers of the Times. One day in the not too distant future the world will also know what “El LOCO ENDEMOMIADO” aka. Fidel has done to the people of Cuba. The least I wish for the Times is that they close shop for ever. The Times influence has been extremely detrimental for freedom, democracy and human rights in many countries around the world. VIVA CUBA LIBRE! VIVA U.S.A.!
AJ, keep up the good work, your insight is awesome.
In the 8th century, Islam forcefully spread throughout the Middle East as well as across Northern Africa, seizing control of local government. Islam did not seek to exist side by side with other beliefs. They were forbidden. Alexandria, Antioch and other centers of great great learning, where Platonism, Judaism and Christianity were studied by noted scholars of each of these beliefs. They exchanged views and published studies. Suddenly they were no more. Islam became the only acceptable belief. Islam has not yet demonstrated a tolerance for views other than its own.
The NY Times is drenched in the blood of the victims whose massacres they’ve helped cover up. They wear their stains proudly. One can only hope the paper continues to whither and die.
Feldman’s thesis that European anxiety about Islam and Islamism is essentially the same as the antisemitism that led to the Holocaust effectively blames the Jews for the Holocaust. Rational people know that there is good reason for anxiety about Islamism in Europe. If worries about Islam today equals antisemitism of the WWII period, then there was good reason for the antisemtisim that led to the murder of 6 million Jews.
Will this article appear anywhere else? I would like to see a note like “every news organ in the free world please copy” appended.
For those who are interested in reading some of the books by Walter Duranty, Herbert Matthews, John Esposito, and Karen Armstrong …. I have been able to find at other websites some of their books. When browsing through some of them, I found that they add a considerable amount of perspective to Bruce Bawer’s points and observations of institutional bias at The New York Times. To actual read and browse some of the books written by Walter Duranty, with history being our hindsight …. can only make you shake your head in disgust.
I have listed what books are available and links to get them at my blog http://bookyards.blogspot.com/
Sweden, Holland, Belgium, and Spain are most at risk from being inundated by uneducated, untrainable, violent and fanatical third world muslims. The rest of Europe is beginning to wake up slowly.
The New York Times has very little influence outside the academically lobotomised fringe. Its reporting and editorial policies seem very European, in a slipshod, authoritarian way.
Great article! Want to see someone take useful articles like paper and ink and make something worthless out of them? The NY Times does it every day!
A prediction: after the Islamofascists attack a Western city again, I expect the Times to blame it on Bush’s “illegal” war in Iraq.
If you tally their reportage (and that of their cohorts) on the perceived illegalities of “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” you’ll notice that, viewed in toto, the reportage represents a carefully laid thread of contrived evidence to this effect. This thread was deliberately woven, and its touch-points (ie. “Abu Ghraib,” “Haditha Massacre,” “Lancet Study”) were deliberately repeated ad nauseum, to drum the Time’s circumstantial-but-incriminating narrative into our very brains.
Having worked so hard to emphasize my country’s compound culpabilities in the conduct of “the War in Iraq,” it’s unforseeable that Sulzberger’s editorial board won’t miss the opportunity of another 9/11 to say our “Chicken’s're comin’ home to Roost!”
Because, the Times IS Obama’s other church.
Trey,
Your argument would be acceptable except Islam fails to make a distinction between the religious and the political and consequently much of what they teach as religious doctrine is incompatible with western political liberalism. It is therefore unacceptable in our society because it breaks our laws and this type of cultural diversity not to be tolerated.
The NYT has consistently backed dictators against democracies for decades. On Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Min, Arafat, Sadam, Global Warming etc they unerringly root for the lying tyrant. But hey, lefties never let truth interfere with a good fantasy and can’t be bothered to check whether their predictions ever came true (never) or if their policies ever had a good result (never). That’s because truth or success do not interest them in the slightest. Lefties are only interested in destroying the society that in their immature adolescent minds didn’t value them enough. Literally it’s that simple… “If I can’t be Madonna then I want to make sure nobody else can”. That’s it, the sum total of lefty intellectualism. I know, I used to be a lefty until I decultified myself. A long painful process but ultimately fulfilling. I recommend it, but only after NYT has gone bankrupt.
The Times?
I wouldn’t wrap fish in that crappy rag.
Then again, there are a lot of people who think having been graduated from college makes them educated.
Technically, they are “educated”…though I get what you mean. I would say that there are a lot of people who think that graduating from college makes them more intelligent than other people, thus bestowing upon them some sort of magical understanding of any number of issues. It’s a completely ridiculous proposition. And invariably, it’s Leftists who try to propulgate it. And on cue, AJ and Javelin show up to denigrate everyone for not being “nuanced” enough to understand the infallable greatness of the Times.
I have my Bachelor’s in English. And while, in comparison to the rest of the public, that degree gives me a somewhat specialized knowledge of the English language and English literature, it in NO WAY confers upon me some sort of unique insight or special understanding of ANYTHING ELSE WHATSOEVER. The other core curriculum classes that I took in college were no more difficult or challenging than those I completed in high school. Basically, finishing college means that you have a better than average understanding of one particular subject than the rest of the general public.
Does that mean I think that I’m more intelligent than other people? No, not at all. Even Leftists? Nope.
Do I think that I’m better informed than most Leftists? Most definitely. Mainly because when I’m considering a topic, I try my best to start from a position of intellectual neutrality, rather than simply jumping to an emotional investment in one side of an argument or another. I ask myself questions…What are the pros? What are the cons? Are there historical precedents/parallels? What are the legal ramifications? Societal ramifications? Geopolitical ramifications?
The only thing the vast majority of Leftists are well-versed in is in perusing leftist newspapers, visiting leftist Web sites, reading books written by other Leftists, then regurgitating what they’ve read ad nauseum.
Islam in not our enemy…
Tell that to the 9/11 victims…or the Spanish railcar victims…or the London subway victims…or the Bali disco victims…or the Darfur animists and Christians…and on and on and on.
but many of our enemies are terrorists who are Muslims.
And what is the ideology that drives their violence?
Platitudes, song lyrics, and poety are nice, Trey, but they have nothing to do with reality. That statement is akin to saying “AIDS doesn’t kill people, it’s the diseases that the body can’t fight off because of AIDS that kills people”…technically, that’s correct, but ignoring the HIV virus because it’s not “technically” killing anyone is only going to result in dead people. And your confusion actually serves as a perfect example of the problem that Bawer is trying to illustrate.
The leftist orthodoxy that dominates at the Times (and thoughout Western Civilization’s so-called “elites”) holds that deep-down inside, all human beings are really the same and that conflict between groups doesn’t arise out of any inherent differences or antipathy, but rather are simply the results of “misunderstandings”, “failures to communicate”, and “economic disparities”. It’s a suicidally dangerous world view, one whose logical end result is best foreshadowed by the killing of Theo van Gogh, where the Western liberal realizes – when the horrible finality of the truth is standing in front of him with a gun in one hand and a knife in the other – that not everything is an intellectual exercise in flippancy…and he’s reduced to frantically screaming “Stop! Let’s talk about this!” just before his head his almost severed from his shoulders.
Islam has been our enemy for nigh 1,400 years…an enemy that only stopped its OVERT aggression towards the West following the Ottoman Empire’s defeat at Vienna in 1683. And the only reason they stopped then and in subsequent centuries is because they were beaten into submission BY FORCE and were kept there BY FORCE…by European powers who didn’t have the same moral confusion about who their enemies were nor about how best to ensure that those enemies weren’t allowed the leeway to threaten them. And it’s precisely that – moral confusion in the West – that has brought the Islamist wolves out of their dens after hundreds of years. They can smell the blood in the water.
The best way to think of people like bin Laden is to view them as the “tip of the spear” of Islam – they are testing the resolve of their enemy – i.e. the West – to see what the response will be. They use indirect attacks that are extremely difficult to tie to state sponsors, but make no mistake – IT’S ALL STATE SPONSORED. They want to see how far they can push…and what they’ve seen from the West so far is nothing to be all that worried about. For proof, google “Iran nuclear”.
Look at Muslim countries that border non-Muslim countries…then look at countries that have sizeable Muslim and non-Muslim populations (where either makes up at least 25% of the population)…in just about every instance, Muslims are involved in or fomenting violent conflict with their non-Muslim neighbors. How do you explain that without bringing Islam into the calculation?
Trey, you are typical of Westerners: good-hearted people who, due to a pampered life-style that only kings could have dreamed of just a few generations ago, desperately want to hold onto the illusion that the world is populated by a “human brotherhood” that has put it’s violent past behind it. Unfortunately, over the next few decades, you and the vast majority of the Western world are going to be thoroughly disabused of that notion.
AJ, keep up the good work, your insight is awesome.
Hmmm, let’s see…
AJ’s post doesn’t address or refute a single point…doesn’t contain a single fact…and consist of sophomoric sarcasm.
Yup! It certainly does qualify as an “awesome” example of Lefty “insight”!
Liberals in general, and the NYT specifically, never gave a damn about Stalin, Saddam, Ho or any of the others, and probably consider the ideas of Castro, Kim, Bin Laden and their other heroes to be big yawns. They got (and get) supported because they are violently anti-American and, therefore, objectively progressive. Anything which hurts the USA helps the cause of liberation, regardless of ideology, since the USA is the bastion of reaction and must be destroyed. If flat earthers started killing Americans, the NYT, Obama and all the rest of that human sewage would demand pluralism in geophysics and plead for understanding.
The problem with people like “trey” and Noah Feldman (Armstrong and Esposito too)is that they’ve never read pretty much the entire corpus of Islamic writings: their scriptures (the Qur’an), their traditions (ahadith), and the example of the Prophet (the Sira). All of these coalesce into a body of law called Sharia. If they bothered to rise up out of their sloth or their perfidy and read these things they would indeed find the religious basis for the jihad and Sharia.
The “extremists” ARE the good Muslims who are faithful to Muhammad and his sock puppet deity “Allah.” “Bad” Muslims are actually our potential friends, because they don’t practice all or even most of what Muhammad taught and modeled.
I’ve read a number of articles and books written by the above apologists for Islam. These people are frauds, with respect to any substantial and informed views of Islam. I would love to see former Muslims like Ali Sina, Ibn Warraq, Walid Shoebat, and Ali Hirsi debate them. It would be no contest. Knockout in the second round.
I expect good Muslims to engage in taqiyya – to try to fool us and dupe us. They are allowed and encouraged to do that. What angers me most is when Western apologists, for either reasons of money or Leftist ideology, function as dhimmi whores for these 7th century savages.
And the Grey Lady is a Queen Dhimmi Whore.
Trey like so many is unable to divorce people from the religion, I have studied Islam to the degree that fred has and understand exactly what it is, to be honest I wish I was not so aware, because once you realise you begin to get very worried. Islam is the problem no doubt about it, that some people who follow it may be decent, friendly or hard working does not and should not hide the fact that Islam itself is the issue.
I would call it a religion of xenophobia, a tolitarian ideology dressed up as a religion, or a cult of personality built around the needs and wants of Mohammed. fred has called it right.
I second the comments of Fred and David. Islam is a 6th century political ideology dressed up as a religion. It is a totalitarian ideology because it creates a state which has complete authority over all areas of life. Nothing is beyond its purview.
It is this “totalism” which gives Islam its affinity for modern totalitarian ideologies such as Naziism and Communism. Indeed, this affinity helped established the ties between the Muslim states of the Middle East and the Nazi and Soviet regimes. While it is true that “Islamofascism” stems from the work of “modern” Islamic extremists – if you define an “extremist” as someone who actually believes in his own religion – it is a case of like reaching out to like.
Imagine if Hitler had had the foresight to state in the foreword to “Mein Kampf” – which, by the way, means “My Struggle,” or, perhaps “My Jihad” – that God had told him to say all the insane and hateful things contained therein. Then perhaps Trey’s post would read like this:
“Your point about the NYT and sand in their ears from burying their head in it has merit. But I disagree about the problem being Naziism per se. In my job I work with some Nazi families and have found them to be good, moral people who love this country. There are many just like them.
“The problem from my perspective is from hateful people with fascist leanings who are also Nazis. *** Naziism in not our enemy, but many of our enemies are terrorists who are Nazis. That distinction helps clarify out position nad [sic] keeps us on the moral high ground I think.”
Sounds a little foolish, doesn’t it?
Ideas have consequences and bad ideas, even when held by otherwise good people, have bad consequences.
The main article is interesting, as opposed to the majority of crap that is poured out in this comments section.
You guys who say that there´s no difference between jihadists and terrorists, and that all muslims actually seek for world domination: You should have been her in Berlin yesterday to watch the soccer semi-finals between Turkey and Germany. I think some of you would be surprised to find that muslims also are normal people who have they everyday concerns, provide for their family – they are infact just like you and me.. And seeing them dancing hand in hand with germans (yes, the clichee came true) all night long, would probably be a shock to you guys.
It should be unnecessary for me to point this out. And you will probably label me a leftist apologizt for it, even though I´m neither. I am one of those who always point out many of the grave problems our society (the Norwegian) meet facing muslim immigration. I think terrorism is a big treath to our society, and must be dealt with firmly. It kills me to see how liberals who used to fight christian fundamentalism so vigorously, now seem to defend muslim viewpoints who are even worse.
But I still agree with some of the points made from the “apologists” in the Times. It IS dangerous if the view that is presented in this comment section, among (presumably) bright and concious people, is becoming widespread in the population. If everyone believes that the friendly turkish guy who runs the liqourstore on the corner, is infact a terrorist who is determined to take over your country, our society is on a wrong path. And it´s quite disturbing to find that some of you actually believe that all other countries than France and Germany are gonna “fall” and “disintegrate” to muslims……I´m sorry, but that silly rethoric sounds pretty bad in my ears. I suggest that any of you who hold such views should come over here and see for yourself. I´m sorry. It´s not gonna happen. Not now, not in a million years.
The mainstream media get’s their talking points from the AP and the NYT. Does that sit well with any rational thinking american?
Per Andreas,
A subtle point needs more clarification to facilitate your understanding. Islam IS the problem. Not every person who calls himself a Muslim is a problem. In fact, most Muslims do not practice their “religion” completely, nor do they know most of the tenets outlined in the Qur’an and modeled by Muhammad, the “Perfect Man.” Most Muslims are what one would call “cultural Muslims” or what we could also call “bad” Muslims.
It is the “good” Muslims who practice Islam as it was intended to be practiced.
Most Muslims do not know what is in the Qur’an, because they do not know classical Arabic and they are not encouraged to read the text in their languages. And there is a reason for that. The very language of the Qur’an is considered the language of “Allah” (Muhammad’s sock puppet deity)and thus is the language of prayer. It is considered that holy. They are told that it cannot be reliably translated into their languages – and that is a bald lie because there are extant excellent translations of the Qur’an.
So, most Muslims do not know about the surahs which enjoin them to jihad against the kafir, or any of the other scandalously violent, totalitarian, and oppressive injunctions. Most Muslims only know about what’s in it from their clerics, if they go to mosque.
In no way are we promoting hatred of Muslims on the level of individuals. But, yes, we do hate Islam as the ideology and cult it is. Muslim apostates will freely tell us that it IS a toxic cult and has our civilization right in its crosshairs. If one is intellectually squeamish and wants to fall back on the usual variants of multi-culti psychobabble – avoiding the tedious and time-consuming task of diving into those texts – then there is nothing else I could say to persuade you of the honesty and diligence of my own journey into discovery of what Islam really is.
I am not advocating open hostility or violence against your Muslim neighbor. But, if we cannot be honest about what is in the normative, orthodox texts and opinions about Islam, how are we to know the truth? Life is full of distasteful challenges to our categories of thinking. Imitating the ostrich is not a mature option.
I remember many years ago being utterly appalled at the sheer hypocrisy of the left when they started championing violent Islamists. For decades I had read and listened to their dire warnings that Fundamentalist Christians wanted to establish a theocracy to punish unbelievers and heretics, suppress minorities and keep women “barefoot and pregnant.”
Imagine my surprise when the usual lefty interest groups started apologizing for Islamic terrorists and blaming the US for their terrorism. I remember thinking “Are these people frikken nuts? They are protecting people who will institute the very same practices that they abhor and have accused Fundamentalist Christians of. Also if these Islamist nut jobs ever win, it is they who will be first in line to either submit or get their heads chopped off.” It was at that point I realized that the Left leadership were not people who had the best interests of humanity rather they were either nihilist of the first order and/or hated America so much they didn’t care who they allied with.
The main article is interesting, as opposed to the majority of crap that is poured out in this comments section.
What “crap” would that be? Oh, that’s right, you never actually get around to stating which of the FACTS presented in the comments are incorrect. Instead, your assertion that Islam is no threat to Western Civilization is based on the earth-shattering experience of having witnessed people holding hands at a soccer match…and friendly neighborhood grocers.
You guys who say that there´s no difference between jihadists and terrorists…
What – pray tell – is the difference?
…and that all muslims actually seek for world domination
Please point out where anyone said that? And while you’re answering that, please grace us with your answers to these:
Were all Greeks soldiers and fighters?
Were all Romans soldiers and fighters?
Were all Mongols soldiers and fighters?
Were all Persians soldiers and fighters?
Were all Ottomans soldiers and fighters?
Were all the Spanish soldiers and fighters?
Were all British soldiers and fighters?
Were all the Nazis soldiers and fighters?
Were all the Japanese soldiers and fighters?
Were all the Soviets soldiers and fighters?
And yet, weren’t all of them – on one level or another – pre-occupied with imperial conquest?
It IS dangerous if the view that is presented in this comment section, among (presumably) bright and concious people, is becoming widespread in the population.
Telling hard truths is always dangerous…especially in a civilization that’s been rotted through with the mental disease of Marxism. But in the end, ignoring the truth is far more dangerous.
If everyone believes that the friendly turkish guy who runs the liqourstore on the corner, is infact a terrorist who is determined to take over your country, our society is on a wrong path.
Again, you’re making up things out of whole cloth. Where did anyone say this?
For help with this propensity of yours to simply reframe a topic in terms that allow you to refute it, I suggest googling “Straw man argument”. You may find it enlightening.
And it´s quite disturbing to find that some of you actually believe that all other countries than France and Germany are gonna “fall” and “disintegrate” to muslims……I´m sorry, but that silly rethoric sounds pretty bad in my ears.
Oh yeah? How does this sound in your ears?
2.1 children per woman is the number needed to maintain a steady population. Here are the birth rates for several European countries:
Ireland: 1.99
France: 1.90
Norway: 1.81
Sweden 1.75
UK: 1.74
Netherlands: 1.73
Germany: 1.37
Italy: 1.33
Spain: 1.32
Greece: 1.29
NONE are meeting replacement levels. And the average across the EU is 1.5. And for Muslims? 3.6
Do the math.
In 2008, Muslims comprise about 5% of Europe’s population…by 2020, that figure will be 10%…by 2050, approaching 20%.
But the birth rate disparity isn’t the only thing you Europeans should be worried about. You need to also consider the age demographics that will become more and more pronounced amongst the native vs. Muslim populations: IOW, native Europeans will be getting older and older whilst the Muslim population will be getting younger.
Let’s see: old populations of liberal pacifists sharing ground with young populations of increasingly radicalizing Muslims.
Again, do the math.
I suggest that any of you who hold such views should come over here and see for yourself. I´m sorry. It´s not gonna happen. Not now, not in a million years.
What a perfect illustration of the ignorant, arrogance of the Left.
Here’s a tip: find a current map of the world. Then find a map of the world as it existed in 1900…then one from 1800…then one from 1700…and so on and so on.
Notice anything?
This exemplifies the moral depravity of the mainstream media and why they simply cannot be trusted at all to provide the public with the truth about world events. This is the same pernicious mindset which influences coverage of Israeli-Arab conflict.
What a fascinating and damning read. Bravo.
If I had a preference I would have to go with the summary of FACTS from RVASTAR to the catalogue of FEELINGS from PER ANDREAS. Does the particular emotional effect of the sound of any particular facts on P.A.’s tender ear drum have any particular relevance to the truth of that fact? No. It is almost unfair to allow someone as attentive as Rvstar using factually buttressed logic to debate someone who can’t distinguish reality from their internalized feelings about that reality. It’s like grizzled Marine veterans of Okinawa fighting Miss Darymple’s unarmed Sunday School Class on the open battlefield — not a fair fight. But fun to watch.
One comment, Rvstar. The truth is it will be “old populations of [RICH] liberal pacifists sharing ground with young populations of increasingly radicalizing [POOR] Muslims,” at least relatively speaking.
But overall great summary, RVSTAR, and, as I said, essentially devastating.
A climactic clash between the human race and islam is not that far away…only a matter of time.
Trey wrote,
Trey, there are nevertheless several problems with such good, moral peple:
1. Volume: In any large number of such good, moral, moderate Muslims, there will still be a number of boundary-less fanatics.
2. Volume: Should any country exceed about 2% of its population being such good, moral Muslim people – every one of them reasonabe and assimilated – the rest of the population (and particularly minorities like Jews and Hindus) will nevertheless come under pressure and intimidation to adapt to Islam, their civil rights violated and creeping dhimmitude on its way.
3. Anti-Semitism: I know many such good, moral, moderate Muslims. Yet, even when completely assimilated to western society, almost all still retain a vicious and objectionable anti-Semitism arising, I believe, from supersessionism and religious pride. I have too often heard such good, moral, moderate Muslims insist the Jews were responsible for everything from 9/11 to the Asian tsunami.
4. In large numbers (rather than one-on-one), the behaviour of such good, moral, moderate Muslims changes and becomes much more unreasonable.
Two items in support of Tblakely.
Tblakely wrote,
That has already happened. In Iran, Khomeini brutally suppressed his former Tudeh (far-leftist) allies.
There are several factors I think contributing to the Islamophilia of both American and European left. These include
hatred of Christianity
hatred of Jews and Israel
automatic support for those of a darker skin hue (except, Muslim are preferable to Hindu)
a pathological need to feel self-righteous and support the “underdog” even if they have mis-identified the underdog and the underdog is vile, intolerant, and violent
extreme political correctness: the need to feel good about oneself supersedes facts and rationality
First, to the author. This article I found to be very well-written and it hits with the force of a 2,700 lb 16″ armor-piercing shell.
Secondly, for the board denizens. For a frightening read, read Tom Kratman’s Caliphate. For the first few chapters, the link is: http://www.webscription.net/chapters/1416555455/1416555455.htm?blurb
It’s only a tiny minority of Muslim extremists who want to wage jihad on us, subjugating or eliminating our civilizations. The vast majority of peace-loving Muslims merely wish to scold us for noticiing.
The Sanity Inspector: “The vast majority of peace-loving Muslims merely wish to scold us for noticiing.”
And Western dhimmis will scold us for trying to notice what the taqiyya-inspired soft-jihadists want to scold us for noticing.
While watching a documentry on Winston Churchhill,He made a statement about the Appeasers in Europe like Chamberlain during the 30`s who made excuses for Hitler.”These Apeasers and peace at any cost types are doing nothing more than throwing sheep (i.e.countries,ethnic groups ect”)at a ravenous wolf in the hope that when the wolf reaches them it will be full.”We all know from history how that turned out! 65 and more years later we have a continuation of the same type of groveling appeasers making the same excuses.Don’t these overeducated beyond their intelligence level elitists realize they will be the fist ones the religion of peace will eradicate under Sharia law?Being a country boy I van tell you in no uncertain terms That a wolf is always ravenous , ALWAYS!!
Aside from lining a parakeet cage, what possible reason can an intelligent person have to read the NY Slimes? This is the rag that supported theGulag holocaust,brought castro to power, and famously proclaimed on its sunday Magazine cover that Eminen was a genius.With a record of vile pronouncements of that caliber,why bother?
You mean Eminem’s not a genius?
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=752
Good piece on the POS NYTimes. Keep up the truth about our very own Pravda on the Hudson, All the Propaganda fit to print. May the NYT soon find itself in the same place that Walter Duranty’s favorite Communist, big Joe Stalin now resides.
I would pay to see Pinch panhandling on the streets of NYC.