Being “read” in this Internet era is an interesting phenomenon. In my old novelist days it would take months or years to discover what people thought I meant (or whether they liked it). Now it’s near instantaneous. But still what you find is not entirely unpredictable. To begin with, when you link gay marriage and the war on terror, you know you are going to gore a lot of oxes on both sides. So I can’t say I was surprised to see Glenn Greenwald taking a whole lot of umbrage at me on Salon.
What’s interesting about when people attack you is what they think you are saying, kind of a deconstructionist puzzle. Greenwald presumes that I assume Islamists are at our door. He runs the following quote as if it might come from my article: “read Zawahiri’s speeches about the Plan for Caliphate!!” Of course I didn’t write this at all. One of my teachers told me way back when not to overuse exclamation points, although occasionally I err.
Still, to be clear. I don’t presume them to be at our door, although I know they are capable of hugely violent actions against the innocent. But I do think the Islamists approach life in an entirely different from manner from Mr. Greenwald and even from me. We are Western of the minute people, they are in it for the long haul … to put it mildly. That is why in my essay I referred to the year 800 and secondarily to the large demographic changes of our time (Europe, of course, although Latin America seems to be at the beginnings of a similar change). It is these long term massive changes that the contemporary Left avoids dealing with. Yet changes do occur in history. And there is no guarantee that they be good ones unless good people make them so, and even then…
I also find Greenwald’s gleeful categorization of Left and Right a tad tedious and old fashioned, but of course that’s one of my hobby-horses. I note one of the commenters on Pajamas accused me of being a “liberal.” Greenwald assaults me as a right-winger even though I support gay marriage and choice … I guess I don’t got that “old time religion.”
Roger — Here’s why Greenwald is attacking you.
Both Gays and Gay Marriage Advocates and Islamists want to destroy the foundation of Western Civilization, i.e. the nuclear family as it exists. Feminists too want this as their end state.
Thus they are all united to destroy the old Judeo-Christian-Roman-Greek culture.
It’s why Gays and Feminists and the Left are fine with Islamic Creationism, but hate Christian varieties. It’s why these groups all deny that Islamist groups are a threat to their existence.
Because largely they are not.
Gays and gay relationships are well tolerated in Islamic countries. That of the nuclear family and the average man marrying and raising a family certainly is not.
Feminists don’t care about the burqua or anything else of that nature, they see the great benefit which is polygamy, i.e. sharing the rich and powerful man and promote it every turn. It’s why Bill Clinton and Mayor Tony receive their plaudits not condemnation, Feminists too would like to sleep their way into power.
Gays, Feminists, and Leftists are NOT stupid. They know that formal rights for their groups will be limited under Islamic rule or indirect groveling.
They also know that fighting the Islamists will produce huge threats to their power. Power shifting from Gay and Feminist activists to military men and soldiers, sailors, and marines. A re-emphasis on average men fighting for their families or rights to have one, not women marrying the same powerful man or covert gay relationships ala Arafat with powerful men.
Bottom line this is all about power. Because you are rich and powerful you can’t see it. But I certainly can. Under direct and indirect Islamic rule gays and women will have more power and average straight men far less. Which explains pretty much everything including Greenwald.
“And then we will have to be Muslims and “our women” will be forced into burkas and there will be no more music or gay bars or churches or blogs.”
—Glenn Greenwald
This definitely the long term goal of the Islamic nihilists. They make no bones about it. In the meantime, however, they are relentlessly carrying out terrorist strikes against the West. They have every intention of murdering as many of us as they can. Our very survival depends on vigorously fighting these thugs with both hard and soft power options. Why do Glenn Greenwald and his buddies run away from reality? This is a very easy question to answer. They are, in their heart of hearts, pacifists. Warm and friendly dialogue should resolve most conflicts between human beings. The use of violence is never really required. Human beings merely need to increase their one-on-one dialogue skill. Alas, the rest of us must deal with the real world.
Glenn Greenwald represents the center of today’s Democratic Party. He is not a marginalized individual. We would be foolish to think otherwise.
I used the link and skimmed the article and read some of the comments; I could only make it through part of the second page before my head hurt too much to go on. Do any sane people post there?
Under direct and indirect Islamic rule gays and women will have more power and average straight men far less.
??! That may be what the Feminists, Gay Activists, and Leftists think. If so, they’re delusional. Actually, a lot of them clearly are delusional, so this is just one more delusion. What the Islamicists are after is Sharia Law imposed everywhere, and that means gays will be stoned to death, women will have zero power, and Leftists will either convert to Islam or be killed (as atheists, they don’t qualify for Dhimmitude).
“…though I support gay marriage and choice.”
Like almost all abortion supporters, when you say “choice” regarding parenthood you mean choice only for women, but not for men. Am I correct in assuming that?
Why would you assume anything like that, mikem, unless you enjoy being passive-aggressive? That’s okay. Many do.
1. I am not a pacifist. I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as a moral war, but occasionally there are necessary wars. I am also of the opinion that those responsible for any attack on American interests should be hunted down and removed from the planet.
2. I am not a fan of any religious system which purports to KNOW the Truth. At best, any religion (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Anything else) may be a useful system for some people who need such a system and at worst a series of lies and manipulations used and abused to control millions of individuals. I am no more a fan of the crazy Muslim, than I am of the crazy Christian. On the other hand, I have no grievance against any individual’s beliefs… as long as they don’t try to enforce those beliefs (or some moral Law based on those beliefs) on anyone who isn’t in their tribe.
Ok, those are out of the way. On to my points re the article.
While there are many on the Left (or whatever we call them now) that ignore the human rights issues and movement toward extremism on the part of some Muslims, there are many on the Right (or whatever we call them now) that actually believe that the Muslims will somehow magically take over this country, if we don’t continue to fight in Iraq. In this I agree with Greenwald. The belief is not justified, its based on fear and propaganda (propaganda from some here in the US and propaganda from the Crazy Muslim Extremists). It may be that someday, far into the future, if Muslim extremists are left entirely unchecked, if all Americans give up their guns, if our nation becomes completely mired in partisan bickering rather than a united nation, if we fall as a World Power… then maybe, maybe some Muslims might try to grab a little power, but even then it would not be some Worldwide Caliphate.
However, to presume that Terrorists attacks like 9/11 further their aim of a caliphate directly, seem foolish. To think that the War in Iraq will somehow stop this imaginary threat appears silly. If we are truly concerned about the Enlightenment, if we truly wish to see the US remain a superpower and a home for Freedom and enlightened ideals, then there are plenty of areas to focus on. First and foremost is the reconciliation of the Red and Blue, Left and Right or whatever the hell this divide has become. A Nation divided cannot stand against anything. Neither side has been virtuous and both sides have committed acts of partisan BS. Comments like “Both Gays and Gay Marriage Advocates and Islamists want to destroy the foundation of Western Civilization, i.e. the nuclear family as it exists. Feminists too want this as their end state.” are far more damaging to our nation than five 9/11′s. Not only is it a insane statement, it’s not even factual in the concept of what constitutes Western Civilization, at best it’s what constitutes some ideal of Western Civilization as perceived by some individuals who have a rather myopic focus on who’s having sex with who and who wears the pants. Hell, the nuclear family as we know it is barely a century old, let alone some mainstay of Western Civilization. Besides, even without Gays and Feminists, the family unit as a standard is constantly changing. Arer the 50%+ divorces the fault of gays and Feminists, no. Often they’re the fault of heterosexual men and women who either don’t like each other any more, or who are busy fucking people they aren’t married to. Accusing gays and Feminizis of bringing down “The Family Values” is utter horseshit… Family Values exists as a meme, a buzzword, an imaginary bit of nostalgia invoked to energize a subset of people to sign on to whatever harebrained political move someone is hoping to push.
Uniting this nation will do far more good against any threat, real or imagined, than war in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia or any other nation. I say this, not because I fear a Caliphate, but because this nation will stand or fall on the actions of its citizens, not the actions of a few crazy towel heads.
If you truly fear some Muslim takeover, then Bin Laden and his crazy cohorts have beaten you. Their tiny band of mostly impotent fighters, have you running scared. Their single act of terror has you fearing for the future. That’s the point of terrorism. Terrorism invokes fear, fear causes irrational behavior. In a nation like ours, that irrational behavior will show up as Fear=Fight or Fear=Pacify. Once the terror invokers have the citizens divided along these irreconcilable positions, then they will tear each other apart, rather than the instigator needing to actually do anything. If you’re looking for a threat, that’s where you should be looking.
You may read this and think I’m some evil Leftist, you may think that these are misconceptions or lies… but I implore you to at least consider that what I’m saying may have merit.
“Why would you assume anything like that, mikem, unless you enjoy being passive-aggressive? That’s okay. Many do.”
Gee, Roger. Merely asking the question brings out the insults from you. That’s a rather childish response, isn’t it? Next it will be rubber/glue. I won’t respond in kind.
You have often defended abortion on this site and have followed up in comments to argue in response to critics. In fact, I think abortion was the first of the “get over it” subjects.
I have brought up men’s rights regarding parenting choice (child support, of course, not forced abortion) several times and your response was silence. Also, I talk to very few abortion rights supporters who think men should have any say at all regarding unplanned fatherhood.
That’s why I assume. Any chance you will answer?
MikeM — I don’t see how a father can have any choice in the matter of pregnancy, given the LOCATION of the womb, and the inability for any compromise on the question of whether or not go to term. Let’s say a father wants an abortion, but the mother wants to keep the child. Or vice versa. How would either of these disagreements be resolved, aside from one party getting their way, and the other party having their preference (“choice”) denied?
It’s about child support, as I said. Two people “hook up”. Just casual sex and certainly no agreement that they are making a baby. Birth control fails and she gets pregnant.
If she doesn’t want to be a mother, she has a constitutional right to abort the baby. (Even a married woman has the right to abort a planned child. That’s how sacred America views the right to choose to be a parent.) Or maybe she will choose to allow the child to be born. She has a choice.
But if the man doesn’t want to be a father, he has no choice at all. In fact, he will be sent to prison and publicly shamed by the government if he doesn’t act as a father. He must support a child he never agreed to father. For at least 18 years, often 22 years (college).
That’s not consistent. It is not right. It is certainly unjust. But it is a burden imposed on men only, so it’s “OK”. And again, the most vocal supporters of women’s rights are the most dismissive of men’s rights.
The most sober excuse I hear is “someone has to pay for the child’s needs”. As if the idea of the woman providing for the needs of her “choice” is just unfathomable. Then it’s “society has the right”. As if that would pass the laugh test if applied to women.
Regarding the first commenter:
I am a conservative gay Christian who wants to get married someday, and I take exception to that comment. Maybe some gay people are out to destroy marriage and so forth, but they’re not doing it because they’re gay, they’re doing it because they’re leftists and view marriage as a bourgeois institution that needs to be abolished. There are many gay people who repudiate that view, but they’re exactly the ones whom you’ll never see demonstrating for ridiculous lefty causes. They’re quiet and keep to themselves, and would probably be the ones who would really want to marry for the right reasons.
mikem — OK I see what you’re saying. But a world in which an economically able father’s support for his children is optional would be a nightmarish one, full of men who don’t necessary not want to be fathers, but who definately prefer not to assume any parental responsibilities.
“…father’s support for his children…”
They are not “his children”. He hasn’t made that choice. The woman may very well decide that they are not “her children” and abort them. That is her sacrosanct right. He had sex at the party or on a date, and then moved on, as she did.
We are not talking about fathers, men in marriages (official or common law) who have agreed that children may be a result of the relationship. I would agree that once committed to the idea of having children, it would be “too late” once the woman got pregnant to opt out of child support. (Too late for the man only, of course.)
I’m talking about an unplanned pregnancy outside of any relationship. Why should the man have to bear the extreme financial and emotional burden of being a parent when society would never impose that on the woman?
“…would be a nightmarish one, full of men who don’t necessary not want to be fathers, but who definately prefer not to assume any parental responsibilities.”
Again, no. These are men who are not “fathers” in any sense but chemical. They don’t want children at all, never did, at least with their date that night. That aside, society saw clearly that although most thought abortion itself a nightmarish grizzly act, it had no right to take away the womans choice to opt for it. So society can express it’s opinion, but it has already said it is wrong, even damn wrong (i.e. unconstitutional) to force its will in reproductive rights.
I can tell you from my own experience posting on this that those who most strongly believe in choice for women are the most reluctant to discuss men’s rights.
Their single act of terror has you fearing for the future.
Single act of terror? Even if you have been living under a rock and don’t understand that 9/11 was but their latest in a series of attacks against America the fact remains they are now in Iraq fighting Americans and opposing the attempt to establish both peace and a responsible government. They must therefore be defeated.
If you don’t understand the importance to America of not letting Iraq fall into the hands of Islamists you are too uneducated about the issue to warrant any investment of time.