Get PJ Media on your Apple

Roger’s Rules

From ‘Anti-Communist’ to ‘Counterjihadist’

July 30th, 2013 - 6:22 am

Remember when “anti-Communist” was a preferred leftist term of abuse? “Oh, you’re an anti-Communist” — translation: you’re not one of the trendy people and, moreover, you probably harbor “McCarthyite” tendencies and think Ronald Reagan (the American cowboy) is more of a hero than Mikhail Gorbachev, the glamorous prophet of perestroika. 

Think back to the 1980s. Was there any cool person you knew who didn’t glamorize Gorbachev? Every academic (near enough) did, and of course the media slobbered all over the guy. Was he a Communist to the very end?  Yes, but for Dan-Diane Sawyer-Rather, for the battalions of scribes who scribbled about such things in the pages of the New York Times, the New Yorker, the Washington Post and other approved outlets, Gorbachev was the hero, Reagan the crazy, trigger-happy anti-Communist.

“Star Wars”: Oh, with what contempt they uttered that dismissive phrase. “Evil Empire,” forsooth. What a dangerous clown he was. Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, his plan to deploy a missile defense system (which, incidentally, he offered to share with the Soviet Union): what a joke, what a stupidity! It was ruinously expensive and [deep breath] would never work and destabilizing and why-would-we-need-to-protect-ourselves-from-a-cuddly-sophisticate-like-Mikhail-Gorbachev-with-his-chic-wife?

Then, quite suddenly, the Soviet Union was no more. It just, you know, vanished. “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall.” Reagan said that one day in Berlin and, presto-change-o, down came the wall. Star Wars, SDI, had helped expose the empty, burnt-out shell that was the fag-end of the lumbering, senile Communist redoubt. And then at last all the beautiful, right-thinking (i.e., left-leaning) folk who had ridiculed Reagan and Star Wars and his repulsive talk of the Soviet Union being an “Evil Empire” — suddenly, they woke up and realized what fools they had been and thanked Reagan and those who had supported him for helping to end one of the most monstrous tyrannies in history …

Except, of course, they did no such thing. Reagan was still, must always be to blame, though enough water has passed under the bridge by now that he is no longer scary because he has receded into the impotence of history.

No one talks about anti-Communists now because that threat — under that name, anyway — has more or less passed. Today’s anti-Communists are the Islamophobes, those folks (like me) who think that the Islamic effort to spread Sharia (i.e., Islamic law) is fundamentally incompatible with liberal democracy with its principles of free speech, freedom of religion, and political equality of men and women.

“Islamophobia”: what sort of beast is that? A phobia, as I have been at pains to point out in this space and elsewhere, is an irrational fear or hatred. Is it irrational to fear and hate an ideology that denies the equality of the sexes, murders apostates and homosexuals, wishes to subjugate the non-Islamic world, and has consigned Jews and Christians to the perilous second-class citizenship of dhimmitude? (“First the Saturday People,” runs an Islamic slogan, “then the Sunday People”: first we’ll deal with the Jews, then move on to the Christians.)

Who rules the language, rules the world. Orwell knew that. And so does the Left. “Islamophobia” is a mendacious neologism designed to obscure the reality of Islamic ideology. Major Nidal Hasan shouts “Allahu Akbar” and murders 13 people at Fort Hood. What do you call that?  I call it “Islamic terrorism.” The Obama administration insists it’s “workplace violence.” In 2007, some young Muslim packs a Jeep Cherokee full of propane canisters and detonates it at the Glasgow airport. What do you call that? I call it “Islamic terrorism.” Jacqui Smith, then the British home secretary, insists that we call it “anti-Islamic activity.” (How’s that for an example of the “no-true-Scotsman” fallacy?)

In a brilliant, no-to-be-missed column for Frontpage.com, the Scandinavian-based Bruce Bawer reports on the Left’s latest piece of linguistic mendacity: “counterjihad.” Yesterday it was the anti-Communists who were the bad guys. Today, it’s the counterjihadists.

The “counterjihadists”  are the villains — the hysterics, the fools, who see a Muslim under every bed, with a bomb in his turban. Meanwhile the good guys are the counter-counterjihadists — the journalists, activists, and others who make a career of slamming Islam’s critics, whom they frequently represent (especially over here in Scandinavia) as “conspiracy theorists.” For just as the anti-Communists of yesteryear were viewed not as sober, well-informed students of life behind the Iron Curtain but as obsessive, ignorant haters, we counterjihadists are viewed not as people who’ve read the Koran and studied Islamic societies and subcultures but as semi-literate morons and bigots.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (34)
All Comments   (34)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Daniel Pipes (πύξ, λάξ, δάξ) has an interesting related piece here:

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2013/08/on-closed-embassies-the-worldwide-travel-alert
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It's already too late. There's no way America can withstand the Islamo/Jihadist onslaught. It first began way before 9/11 in the prisons, then it moved into the universities and is now slowly becoming mainstream. It's really a by-product of the 60s "revolution".

Islamic "exceptionalism" is becoming a fait accompli - you can do and get away with nearly anything just by donning the Islamic mantle.

Among some circles that I frequent, having an Islamic or at least an Arabic tattoo is now considered a sign of solidarity and sophistication. The Palestinian "kaffiyeh" or scarf is now de rigueur in even the most elegant and sissified houses of haute couture (I don't know why all this French is coming out today) in Milano and Paris.

9/11 was not "wake up call" for Americans. Instead, in a way, you could say it was the last nail on the coffin. Americans can hardly "save" for their retirement, their horizons are limited to their latest credit card statement, their credit score, Halloween and wide-screen TV sets. With this mental acumen, the Jihadists are having a field day......the last stand of the Dodo birds.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
my classmate's step-aunt makes $80 every hour on the internet. She has been unemployed for 8 months but last month her pay check was $16974 just working on the internet for a few hours.
Read more on this sit....>>> W­W­W.C­N­N­1­3.C­O­M
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I'd like to submit an example of left wing language abuse which is happening right now. I'm referring to Obama and Co.'s controversially endless repetition of the phrase "phony scandals". It's clear that they made the decision to use this phrase to diminish that fact that these are really not scandals at all, but abuses of power born of the systematic corruption throughout this administration. In using the word "scandal" these outrages become something rather petty, just naughty episodes of the eyebrow-raising sort. They would have used the word "flap" but the Clintons beat them to it back in the Lewinsky days. Obama and Co. were very clever because now politicians and the media are repeating the word "scandal" and the actual "corruption" has been able to slither off into the darkness.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Both leftists and muslims are simply criminals; I won't hold my breath that any on the left will wake up, look in the mirror, and curse the jihadi staring back.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
From the time "McCarthyism" became a "thing", I have glorified the man and his missions. So he drank. He never had a Choom squad. Or did he? Did he even know what a "hot box" is? Potus seems to be qualified ONLY to be a dope user. The dealers would surely shun him. He, himself, is a dope.
It is only recently that I realized fully that Joseph McCarthy's accumulated venial sins did not, in any way, make his arguments completely and finally void, due to their tiny imperfections. He accused actual communist agents (most of them turned out tp be true). But the disinformation campaign was strictly Sacco-Vanzetti. (which the left still thinks a travesty of justice, y'know). They seem to be reality impaired.
Nixon was merely the whipping boy for all those scummy commies who lived the '50s knowing that Eisenhower was practically a God (ergo, untouchable), but they could definitely GET that NIXON GUY because he actually fought communists (and he LOOKED shifty). Imagine that.
Then imagine that it was the communist-led McGovern cabal that was fighting Nixon, and Watergate, an act which no previous President would have scrupled over for a second (don't even mention Wilson or either Roosevelt. Don't say "Johnson" or I will puke) became a scandal made of hole cloth. It's "hole" cloth, dolts, not "whole" cloth, as in "made of holes", to be made of nothing. (See Dr. Samuel Johnson. Even I do not argue with the MAN! Anyone who suffers to make an Encyclopedia which some one can actually read, is my King. And I would serve him well.
Bak to politics. Then the destruction of Agnew and Rockefeller, and we have Dopey Ford. Does anyone deny that it was a far more outrageous a thing to make fun of a President, a veteran, a football star, falling in public, ad nausea um, unto infinites, than to perhaps mention that Obama is a pathological liar?
Which barring some personal distraction, everyone must know to be indisputable truth. The man prefers lies to truth. It is no longer debatable.
"Squirrel!"
Me, neither.
I'll exalt the Presidency when we can find someone beyond the rating of "DUNCE" to take it.
I'm not preparing for it.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Just a note, the term Counter-Jihad was propagated by Anti-Islam voices. The play is on the term counter-terrorism which is a euphamism for the real enemy....Islamic Jihad. Instead of Anti-Jihadist or Anti-Islamist or Anti-Islam or Anti-Islamification and so on and so forth.

It isnt a word that people hostile to the Counter-Jihad created to smear them with. It's a meme which forces the recognition of Islamic Jihad in it's mere utterance. That doesnt stop people intent on ignoring Islamic Jihad from ignoring it. But for those without an agenda, it puts Jihad squarely on the table as the enemy and that the movement is a reaction to aggression by Muslims.

Hope that helps.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Hope they Die.
"Lying Arab" is not a newly minted phrase, y'know.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I agree. Great stuff from Bruce Bawer.

This recent Bruce Bawer article is not to misssed either.

If You Can’t Beat ‘Em, Join ‘Em?

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/if-you-cant-beat-em-join-em/#comment-939926576
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Maybe the Left should remember what the Ayatollah did to the commies in Iran after the 1979 revolution.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Once the "right" people get their heads sawed off then the left will begin to think that "maybe" there is something to this jihad stuff.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Pray do not hold your breath, my friend.
Leftism is a religion.
Not a nice, fat Episcopal, wine -in the-box religion. Nor even a Roman Catholic "let's play wimpy rock songs and turn off our few pew sitters who might remain than we possibly can" Religion. It is a Communist religion, and once one thinks that some one else has too much, which righteously calls to be confiscated to give to "deserving" (Read: My friends!) there is no end to it.
The Founders, flawed as they were, trusted NOONE! Not even each other. Else their Constitution would not be so designed.
I have recently reread De Tocqueville. He forecast it all, right up until the day we spent this very day. It is, indeed, frightening, because his path follows the age of logic, perfectly, and he has arrived at our crisis, which he can't possibly have been aware of, more able to explain each and every way our ships of state are to seed than we are, ourselves, because he used logic and experience, two things entirely forbidden in the lickspittle affirmative action government we now seem to own.
Go read just some excerpts. One will find truly frightening gems lying about at nearly every hand.
His conclusions? We are at a point of enslavement or revolution. We have more arrows in our quiver than any society in history, similarly situated. He does not claim a certain outcome, but his warnings; a man of the French Revolution, who examined the American with an unjaundiced eye, says we need only one thing: to decide.
Decide to throw in ur lives, our fortunes, and our Scared Honor, or live as sheep or chickens, dependent upon our betters for sustenance or to decide if we live or die, like sheep.
In his day, they knew the difference. They saw sheep slaughtered every single day. They saw entire Armies destroyed to no effect.
"To be; or NOT to be. THAT IS the question." The ONLY question.
Choose well.
Smart Frog. I will certainly give him that.
I think, 2000 years ago, his name would be "Elijah".
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All