The "Fear" of Appeasement

The left blogosphere has been pushing this meme for a while -- that they're the "brave" for refusing to acknowledge the evil of global jihadism, whereas those concerned about it and in favor of action against it are "cowardly" and "bed-wetters" for being so "afraid."

According to a couple of opinion pieces, the MSM has now (surprise, surprise) adopted this idiotic idea as their own. Isn't it strange that the "centrist" or even "rightwing" MSM is forever picking up stories and memes from the far-left sinistrosphere?

Ron Rosenbaum:

The Best Thing Written About the Ahmadinejad Visit...

…was a column by Caroline Glick of The Jerusalem Post. She puts the visit and the inanely naive treatment of it—that it was about free speech or “fear” of Ahmadinejad, or fear of talking to our enemies—in its true context.

To me the visit was about the necessity to bear some kind of moral witness against the evil represented by Ahmadinejad, whatever pseudo-sophisticated arguments are used deny responsibility to him for his regimes crimes or to treat him as open to Reason.

The new meme tries to frame it as being about “fear” of Ahmadinejad. No it’s not about fear, it’s about moral disgust, revulsion. The fear can be seen, rather, in the posturing of those super brave boyz who accuse those who have the clarity to express moral disgust and rejection as “fearful”. When in fact it’s their fear—that their super-sophisitcated white boy, think tank subsidized, wonk mentality with all its nuances that is laughably impotent in the face of fundamentalist, theocratic fascist evil. [UPDATE: Not just boyz—the liberal propogators of the “fear of dialogue” meme are now on the same page as Peggy Noonan! And what’s equally laughable is their belief that their arguments, their rhetoric their desire above all for dialogue will make a differnce in a kumbaya way, to the victims of a theocratic Stasi-like state.

Are they aware of how student dissidents are beaten and tortured in Terhan? Only in the abstract, I imagine. I suggest they read this harrowing account of an Iranian student hunted down, beaten and tortured, that was just published in London’s Observer.

Read it? Now tell me the best response: protest or “dialogue”? I wonder if that Iranian student was grateful for the super, super brave bloggers who boasted of their courageous lack of “fear” of dialogue with the representative of a theocratic fascist regime.

And the Carolyn Glick piece he's so high on:

During his visit to New York this week, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad attacked every basic assumption upon which Western civilization is predicated. Ahmadinejad offered up his attacks while extolling his vision of Islamic global domination.

Refusing to note his existential challenge to the Free World, the Western media concentrated their coverage of his trip on his statements regarding specific Western policy goals. His rejection of the UN Security Council's authority to take action against Iran's illicit nuclear weapons program; his championing of the Palestinian cause and Israel's destruction; his denials of Iranian support for terrorism, and his attacks against the US were widely reported. So too, his insistence that Iranian women enjoy full rights and that there are no homosexuals in Iran received banner headlines.

Ahmadinejad gave two major addresses this week - at Columbia University and at the UN General Assembly. He devoted both to putting forward his vision for global Islamic domination. And while the Western media sought hidden meanings and signals for peaceful intentions in his words, the fact is that on both occasions, Ahmadinejad made absolutely clear that his vision of Islamic domination cannot coexist in any manner with Western civilization. Consequently, Ahmadinejad's statements were not negotiating stances. They were the direct consequence of the world view he propounds. As such, they are non-negotiable.

...

Perhaps the central reason that Ahmadinejad's message, and the hundreds of thousands of voices echoing his call throughout the world, are so dangerous is because the Free World is making precious little effort to assert its own message. Indeed, rather than contend forthrightly with the challenge that men like Ahmadinejad and Osama bin Laden pose to the West, the West searches for ways to either co-opt their message by seeking out points of agreement or to show that really, the Islamic imperialists have nothing to fear from the West.

...

The thing of it is that aside from blind narcissism, there is a reason that the West ignores the dangers facing it. The Western media ignored Ahmadinejad's message, just as it has insistently ignored the messages of bin Laden and Fatah throughout the years, because Westerners have a hard time believing that anyone would want to abide by the Islamic world view which denies mankind's desire for freedom.

But no matter how ugly an ideology is, in the absence of real competition it gains adherents and power. The only way to ensure that jihadists' demonic views are defeated is by stridently defending and upholding the fundamental principles on which the Free World is based. And the West hasn't even begun to take up this challenge.

We need a rewrite.

"When they came for the communists, I was silent, because I was so badass that I wasn't afraid of them coming for the communists;
When they came for the socialists, I was silent, because I wasn't a bed-wetter like some other pansies getting all freaked out about Hitler;
When they came for the trade unionists, I did not protest, because I eat lightning and crap thunder;
When they came for the Jews, I did not protest, because I am not "fearful" like silly conservative faggots;
When they came for me, there was no one left to protest on my behalf. But then again, I didn't need anyone. I'm a tough, strong Brave Boy who fears nothing except calling evil by its proper name."

-- The MSM (with an assist from Glenn Greenwald)

Thanks to CJ.

posted by Ace at 12:05 PM

| Access Comments