Ace of Spades HQ

« Memories of Double-Oh Joe | Main | Media Too Fixated On Karl Rove's "Treason" To Report On, You Know, Actual Treason »

July 14, 2005

And Speaking Of The Decent Left...

Paul Berman was mentioned in that article linked below. He's mentioned much more prominently in a book review quoted, it seems, in full, by NormBlog.

Apparently Berman's book Terror and Liberalism has changed at least one mind. The reviewer confesses complete error in his thinking -- not in detail, he remarks, but in fundamentals.

The reviewer quotes Berman's analysis of the French left's response to the rise of Hitlerism-- to excuse it, to suggest that perhaps it wasn't all that bad (Weren't Jews guilty of at least something? Obviously the Germans must be angry with them for a reason), and then finally to actually support the collaborationist government imposed by the Nazis after the invasion:

To see the old process at work, one only has to look at how a large chunk of the world's liberal opinion has got itself into the position where it can't support Iraqi and Afghan liberals, socialists and feminists. You think the worst thing in the world is the developed countries because they brought the First World War, which to be fair is a charge worth making, or globalisation and McDonalds, which to be fair is a charge that is infantile. You are confronted with totalitarian movements, which are worse, and your first thought is to blame them on the West. Your second is to make excuses for them. Your third is to betray your comrades. Your fourth is to go up to the totalitarian movements and shake them by the hand.

As the Arabs say, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." The left seems to believe that on some level, perhaps unconscious, and can't quite bring itself to condemn lunatic barbarity simply because it seems opposed to the sorts of things they're opposed to as well -- American military power, globalization, capitalism, etc.

Would that more on the left realize that aphorism is a guideline, not a rule. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is your enemy, too. This is probably the case when the enemy in question annouces, with little equivocation, that he hates you with a black passion and would like to murder you, no matter how progressive and tolerant your politics might be.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, when he announces that he hates you especially, because you are, after all, the ones most aggressively pushing the vile ideas of secularism, equality for women, more latitudinarian attitudes towards sex, and of course the crazy idea that homosexuals and victims of rape shouldn't be stoned to death.

Thanks to "someone."

More From Nick Cohen: Writing in the Guardian, of all places:

The instinctive response of a significant portion of the rich world's intelligentsia to the murder of innocents on 11 September was anything but robust. A few, such as Karlheinz Stockhausen, were delighted. The destruction of the World Trade Centre was 'the greatest work of art imaginable for the whole cosmos,' declared the composer whose tin ear failed to catch the screams.
Others saw it as a blow for justice rather than art. They persuaded themselves that al-Qaeda was made up of anti-imperialist insurgents who were avenging the wrongs of the poor. 'The great speculators wallow in an economy that every year kills tens of millions of people with poverty, so what is 20,000 dead in New York?' asked Dario Fo. Rosie Boycott seemed to agree. 'The West should take the blame for pushing people in Third World countries to the end of their tether,' she wrote.

In these bleak days, it's worth remembering what was said after September 2001. A backward glance shows that before the war against the Taliban and long before the war against Saddam Hussein, there were many who had determined that 'we had it coming'. They had to convince themselves that Islamism was a Western creation: a comprehensible reaction to the International Monetary Fund or hanging chads in Florida or whatever else was agitating them, rather than an autonomous psychopathic force with reasons of its own. In the years since, this manic masochism has spread like bindweed and strangled leftish and much conservative thought.

All kinds of hypocrisy remained unchallenged. In my world of liberal London, social success at the dinner table belonged to the man who could simultaneously maintain that we've got it coming but that nothing was going to come; that indiscriminate murder would be Tony Blair's fault but there wouldn't be indiscriminate murder because 'the threat' was a phantom menace invented by Blair to scare the cowed electorate into supporting him.

Worth reading in full.

Thanks to Si.

posted by Ace at 01:40 PM

Comments

As the Arabs say, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
That's the abridged version. The rest goes:

Until I kill my enemy, then I cut off the head of my enemies enemy and we are all the best of friends.

Posted by: 72 VRIGINS on July 14, 2005 01:44 PM

Actually, the review is at Normblog, part of an interesting series (that started with Buddenbrooks!).

Dunno how he gets 'em, but he does.

Posted by: someone on July 14, 2005 01:55 PM

The other thing is that the author -- Nick Cohen -- is the sole non-nut left at al-Guardian now that Aaronovitch went to the Times.

Posted by: someone on July 14, 2005 01:57 PM

The reviewer, Nick Cohen, writes in the Guardian's more grown-up Sunday version, The Observer, and has been a kick-arse war-lefty for years. I'm only surprised to find there was a time when he wasn't. He supported the Iraq war since the beginning and I thought he was up for Afghanistan too.

He had an excellent piece on Sunday on the loony-liberal response to the London bombings:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1525260,00.html

Posted by: Si on July 14, 2005 02:08 PM

As I posted before below and it bears repeating:

Liberals are scared shitless of Moslems!

Though Liberals are somewhat in sympathy with Islam, or more correctly, they hate some of the same people that Islam hates, it isn’t the primary motivating factor when it comes to Islam. Liberals are by definition cowards and being Liberals, they are capable of finding an infinite amount of bullshit excuses and reasons for their cowardice. While we can analyze their motives till doomsday, the important truth is this: Liberals are scared shitless of Moslems.

And not without reason either. Moslems have shown the entire planet that they are eager to kill anyone who opposes their Jihad against the world. But Liberals, already scared of their own shadows, are trying to compensate for it by working themselves up into a lather and putting on this fake tough-guy act like Kennedy, Dean, and Gore, against their own country! It makes them feel brave and powerful (when they are really cowardly and impotent) to yell and shout about how terrible this country is, this administration is, blah, blah, blah. This compensates for the deep fear they have of the rest of the world. And they know that there’ll be no real consequences for their actions, no shadowy-middle-eastern-man lurking in the garage when they come home at night.

No doubt some conservatives have the same justified fear. But the difference between Liberal writers at, say the NYT and conservative writers at the NRO is that the conservatives refuse to be intimidated by Islam and are eager to tell the truth about it, and they do so all the time, for being Conservatives, they have the courage of their convictions. Men like Robert Spencer and Rusty Shackleford and many others refuse to be intimidated in the face of the Islamic Threat. And deserve as much appreciation for their courage as Liberals deserve condemnation for their cowardice.

Posted by: 72 VIRGINS on July 14, 2005 03:07 PM

Best quote from that piece:

'In his intervention before last year's American presidential election, bin Laden praised Robert Fisk of the Independent whose journalism he admired. 'I consider him to be neutral,' he said, so I suppose we could all resolve not to take the tube unless we can sit next to Mr Fisk. But as the killings are indiscriminate, I can't see how that would help and, in any case, who wants to be stuck on a train with an Independent reporter?'

Posted by: Si on July 14, 2005 03:07 PM

You are confronted with totalitarian movements, which are worse, and your first thought is to blame them on the West. Your second is to make excuses for them.

Your third is to betray your comrades ...

Your fourth is to go up to the totalitarian movements and shake them by the hand.

Why would anyone act this way?

1) they have the mental disorder called Liberalism which allows them to justify anything.

2) But far more importantly:
Because Liberals are Cowards!

Posted by: 72 Cowards on July 14, 2005 03:22 PM

$10,000 bet: You will large numbers of leftists (progressvies, anarnchists, commies, etc) start to convert to Islam by 2010.

Posted by: on July 14, 2005 03:40 PM

My analysis of the reasons for the lefts 'alignment' with the terrorists has more to due with the fact that if the right is for it, then they must be against it. That is, if I as an evil neocon fascist warmonger come out as pro puppies than they are required to take the opposite stance and will easily be able to come up with justifications for it.

But then again, since as Mr. Dean pointed out, I am evil and lazy, then what can I possibly know that would serve any purpose other than to spread more evil laziness?

Posted by: Defense Guy on July 14, 2005 03:41 PM

$10,000 bet: You will large numbers of leftists (progressvies, anarnchists, commies, etc) start to convert to Islam by 2010.

I agree, unless of course Islam starts losing, and being Liberal Cowards, then they won't.

Posted by: 72 Liberal Cowards on July 14, 2005 03:57 PM

"Terror and Liberalism" didn't start my wake-up act, but it hammered it home, as the bishop said ...

"Radical Son," David Horowitz's biography, was the real catalyst. Anyone else? I was vaguely aware of him as a "movement" guy, not so much his current "radical right-wing extremism" (actually for once fairly accurate, it's hard for some dudes to get anywhere near the middle) ...

... expecting Hoffmanian boosterism - nay, EAGER for it, I am now ashamed to admit - I met a devastating autobiographical/psychological/existential explanation of politics, "the sixties" and the twentieth century.

Before I read that book, I was DOWN with the DU agenda. Almost three years go by, and here I am at ... this fine establishment.

Oh, and in case Cedarford is around: Haven't got a chance to taunt you in a while, sicko, so here goes:

AFTER YOU DIE OF IMPACTED BILE YOUR CORPSE WILL BE PAWED BY JEWISH MED RESIDENTS, JEWISH LAWYERS WILL DEVOUR YOUR ESTATE, AND YOUR OFFSPRING, IF ANY, WILL CONVERT AND BECOME TRANNY-BOYS DOWN THE OLD JAFFA WAY.

Because you *know* that's what happens in his nightmares. And sketchbooks.

Asshole.

/that should tide me over for a few days

Posted by: Knemon on July 15, 2005 02:10 AM

Amazon.com Widgets

Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]

Top Headlines

Chris
@chriswithans

"Ahhhhh ahh I put my career on the line for Louise Lucas and Jay Jones thinking they'd vault me into presidential contention and we ended up costing Democrats 20 House seats and unleashing a Reverse Dobbs ahhhhh ahhh"

Forgotten 80s Mystery Click That Sums Up the Democrat Communist Party Today
Something is wrong as I hold you near
Somebody else holds your heart, yeah
You turn to me with your icy tears
And then it's raining, feels like it's raining

TJM wonders about world building in stories, mostly The Hunger Games

"It's f**king f**ked."
-- reportedly a genuine comment offered by a "senior Labour source"
Correction: I wrote that Labour is losing 88% (now 87%) of the seats it is "defending." I think that's wrong. The right way to say it is the seats they are contesting -- that is, they don't necessarily already hold these seats, but they have put up a candidate to run for the seat. It's still very bad but not as bad as losing 87% of the seats they already held.

Basil the Great
@BasilTheGreat

🚨ED MILIBAND [a Minister in Starmer's government] SAYS KEIR STARMER WILL RESIGN AS PRIME MINISTER

He has reportedly reassured Labour MP's that Starmer will be resigning following the disastrous results tonight

It's over

"The end of the two party system in the UK" as first the Fake Conservatives and now Labour chooses political suicide rather than simply STOPPING THE INVASION
Incidentally, the only reason this didn't already happen in the US is because of the Very Bad Orange Man (who is right on 85% of all policy calls and extremely, existentially right on 15% of them)

No political party that is NOT also a doomsday religious cult would EVER choose a cataclysmic loss -- and possible extinction as a party -- to support a toxically unpopular favoritism of NON-CITIZEN ILLEGAL MIGRANTS over actual citizen voters.

Only a cult does this.

Now they've lost 84%.

Annunziata Rees-Mogg
@zatzi
If this continues Labour loses 2,148 seats tonight.

That is much worse than the worst case predictions I’ve seen.

Cataclysmic

Update: They've now lost 88% of the seats they're defending. As I mentioned earlier, I think I heard that London will not bail them out, as many of those Labour seats will probably flip to "Muslim Independent" or Green. Detroit's 5am vote will not save them.

Yup, Labour is losing 80% of its seats...

The British Patriot
@TheBritLad

🚨 BREAKING: Labour have lost 80% of all seats contested as of 2:25 AM.<
br> If this continues, Keir Starmer will be out of office next week.

Reform has surged and projected to pick up between 1700-2100 seats.

Wow, up to 1700-2100 seats. It's not incredible that this is happening. It's incredible that the Davos crowd is so absolutely determined to privilege Muslim "migrants" over the actual native population who elects them, no matter how loudly the natives scream that they want to be prioritized, that they will gladly self-extinguish as a party rather than simply representing the interests of their own voters. Astonishing.
Remember, when they call other people "cultists" -- they are the ones so imprisoned in their social reinforcement and discipline bubbles that they will choose political death rather than dare upset the Karen Enforcement Officers of their cult.
Update: Now they've lost 83% of the seats they were defending.

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges

Reform are basically wiping Labour out in the North. It's not a defeat. It's not even a rout. Labour are simply ceasing to exist.

Nick Lowles
@lowles_nick

Tonight’s results are calamitous for Labour. Not just for Keir Starmer's leadership, but for the very future of the party

STARMERGEDDON: In early returns, Reform gains 135 seats, Labour loses 90, the Fake Conservatives lose 36 (and I didn't even know they could fall any further), the Lib Dems lose 4, and the Greens gain 6. Note that the only other party gaining seats is the Greens and they're only gaining a handful of seats.
Update: Reform now up 145, Labour down 98.
Labour projected to lose Wales -- where they've ruled for 27 years.
Fulton County Georgia just discovered 400 boxes of ballots for Labour
Update: REF +156, LAB -107, CON -45
Brutal: In four out of five council seats where Labour is defending, they've lost. 80%.
I'm sure it's not this simple, but Reform is straight taking Labour's and the "Conservatives'" seats. They've lost almost exactly what Reform gained. If understand this right (and warning, I probably don't), all of London's council seats are up for election, and Labour might lose hugely there, as their old voters abandon them for Reform, Muslim Indenpendents, and the Greens.
REF +190, LAB -134, CON -56.

Updates on the Labour collapse in council elections -- which wags are calling #Starmergeddon -- from Beege Welborne. There are about 5000 seats up for grabs, Labour is expected to lose 1,800, Reform will probably gain 1,580, up from... zero. So this would be more than that.
People claim that while Labour has adopted the Sharia Agenda to appeal to the million Muslims it allowed to migrate to the country, those voters are ditching Labour to vote for the Muslim Independent Party or the Greens. Delicious. This shadenfreude is going straight to my thighs.
Oh, and if Starmer loses about as badly as expected, Labour will toss him out of a window Braveheart style and replace him. He will announce he is resigning to spend more time with his Gay Ukrainian Male Prostitutes.

Media bias and senationalism are as old as, well, the media:

That was written by Denny O'Neill and illustrated by, get this, Frank Miller. Editor to the Stars Jim Shooter was in charge at the time.
I always thought the gag was original to the comic book, but in fact the "Threat or Menace" headline was a satirical joke about media bias and sensationalism for a long while. The Harvard Lampoon used it in a parody of Life magazine: "Flying Saucers: Threat or Menace?"

Hamas is Humiliating Trump's 'Board of Peace'
[Hat Tip: TC] [CBD]

Tucker Carlson is pretty sure Trump is a wizard

Ted Turner Dies At 87 [CBD]

Podcast: Starting a new season, CBD and Sefton discuss their personal journeys to conservative principles, is Nick Shirley the beginning of a trend?, Iran trying to reignite the war, the Left attacks itself, even on "Best Guitarist" lists, and more!

TJM definitively ranks the films of Billy Wilder, like Some Like It Hot

TJM talks about Billy Wilder

Democrat Congresswoman Sara Jacobs cites Me-Again Kelly, Cavernous Nostrils, Alex Jones and Tuq'r Qarlson as proof that concerns about Trump's mental health are "bipartisan"
As Bonchie from Red State says: Know the op when you see it.