The Unreality Principle in Action

A reader who goes by the fruitful name of Watermelonyo takes me to task for daring to say that the modern Left supports the Jihad. He expresses astonishment, and doubts my sincerity and even my sanity for saying such a thing.

Time does not permit me to post a complete list of the outrageous statements and actions by the Left who have defended the Jihadist enemy. I assume we all remember the human shields who volunteered, with their bodies and their lives, to defend Saddam against the West.

However, time does allow me to post a partial list, compiled by another man, of supporters and support for various aspects of Jihadist terror. I have not clicked through all the links, for there are too many. I have not reproduced his whole list, for it is too long.

The list below is from one Mark Humphrys, an Irish Atheist who ‘self-identifies’ as a Liberal-Right, because the Left support for Islamic Fascism drives him away from the Left.

I reprint his list in part, and his comments, without his permission, in the hope that he would approve that his work in lighting his torch will shine a light on this dark issue.

My point in posting this list is not to convince my honorable opposition that the Left does indeed support Jihad. My point is that it is not insane, nor even unreasonable, for an honest man to see what Leftwing figures have said and done and come to the conclusion that a collusion of sentiment exists.

I am proposing that I am that one figure whom Leftists steadfastly say does not and cannot exist: a reasonable man whose conclusions do not match Leftwing conclusions.

The part of the list I find saddest is the one placed at the top. These were Mr Humpheys’ heroes, the thinkers he trusted and admired,who betrayed their trust in him. If you click through no other links, click that one. It makes for interesting reading.

The words below are Mr Humphrys’.

The left’s reaction to 9/11

  • Chew on This by Christopher Hitchens – “Ever since that morning, the United States has been at war with the forces of reaction.” – and the left supports the reactionaries.
  • People who let me down after Sept 11th
  • Jean Baudrillard
    • Baudrillard’s decadent applause for 9/11: “That we have dreamed of this event, that everyone without exception has dreamed of it, because no one can avoid dreaming of the destruction of any given power that has become hegemonic to such a point, is unacceptable for the Western moral conscience but it is still a fact which is measured precisely by all the pathetic violence of all the words that would erase it. Ultimately, they did it but we asked for it.”
    • Baudrillard on the WTC: “The horror for the 4,000 victims of dying in those towers was inseparable from the horror of living in them – the horror of living and working in sarcophagi of concrete and steel.”
  • Damien Hirst
    • The fabulously wealthy multi-millionaire Damien Hirst‘s decadent applause for 9/11: “The thing about 9/11 is that it’s kind of like an artwork in its own right. … Of course, it’s visually stunning and you’ve got to hand it to them on some level because they’ve achieved something which nobody would have ever have thought possible – especially to a country as big as America. So on one level they kind of need congratulating, which a lot of people shy away from, which is a very dangerous thing.”
  • Norman Mailer
    • Norman Mailer on 9/11: “The WTC was not just an architectural monstrosity, but also terrible for people who didn’t work there, for it said to all those people: ‘If you can’t work up here, boy, you’re out of it.’ … Everything wrong with America led to the point where the country built that tower of Babel, which consequently had to be destroyed. And then came the next shock. We had to realize that the people that did this were brilliant. … Americans can’t admit that you need courage to do such a thing. For that might be misunderstood. The key thing is that we in America are convinced that it was blind, mad fanatics who didn’t know what they were doing. But what if those perpetrators were right and we were not?”
  • Mary Beard (Professor of Classics at the University of Cambridge)
    • Mary Beard’s depraved reaction to 9/11, London Review of Books, 4 October 2001: “when the shock had faded, more hard-headed reaction set in. This wasn’t just the feeling that, however tactfully you dress it up, the United States had it coming. That is, of course, what many people openly or privately think. World bullies, even if their heart is in the right place, will in the end pay the price. But there is also the feeling that all the ‘civilised world’ (a phrase which Western leaders seem able to use without a trace of irony) is paying the price for its glib definitions of ‘terrorism’ and its refusal to listen to what the ‘terrorists’ have to say.”
    • Of course, Mary Beard hasn’t a clue what the terrorists have to say. She simply projects western values onto them, that they do not share. The people who actually listen to what the terrorists have to say want the terrorists destroyed.
    • She attacks the use of words like “‘fanaticism’, a term regularly applied to extraordinary acts of bravery when we abhor their ends and means. The silliest description of the onslaught on the World Trade Center was the often repeated slogan that it was a ‘cowardly’ attack.”
  • List of celebrity reactions to Sept 11th and Islamofascism contains a huge list of morally-sick responses from:

    I think people show their true colours at a time like this.

  • John Pilger’s stupid reaction to 9/11, September 13, 2001, viewing it as some kind of response to “oppression”.
    • He says: “Far from being the terrorists of the world, the Islamic peoples have been its victims – principally the victims of US fundamentalism, whose power, in all its forms, military, strategic and economic, is the greatest source of terrorism on earth.”
    • “The attacks on Tuesday come at the end of a long history of betrayal of the Islamic and Arab peoples: the collapse of the Ottoman Empire” [Oh how sad – every leftist should regret the collapse of an unelected tyranny that carried out the genocide of the Armenians.]
  • Bush’s Secularist Triumph: The left apologizes for religious fanatics. The president fights them. – article by Christopher Hitchens an atheist for Bush.
    • “Only one faction in American politics has found itself able to make excuses for the kind of religious fanaticism that immediately menaces us in the here and now. And that faction, I am sorry and furious to say, is the left. From the first day of the immolation of the World Trade Center, right down to the present moment, a gallery of pseudointellectuals has been willing to represent the worst face of Islam as the voice of the oppressed.”
    • “George Bush may subjectively be a Christian, but he – and the U.S. armed forces – have objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled.”
  • The Transformation of “Jihad Jack” and John Walker Lindh by Christian Beenfeldt – How can you go from trendy western liberal-left godlessness to Islamic religious fascism? You can if your trendy, non-judgemental godlessness is based on feelings rather than on reason:
    • “Consider the typical “progressive” leftist, with his non-judgmental relativism. He is the embodiment of subjectivism: he holds that there are no absolute principles, that truth is “in the eye of the beholder,” and that “what’s right for you might not be right for me.” … the subjectivist makes clear that his choices are ruled by blind feelings.”
    • “This is precisely also the basic policy of the religious dogmatist. There are an infinite number of opposing religious sects. How does the religionist decide which faith to embrace, which revelations to follow and which authority to obey? Does he scientifically gather the evidence, carefully weigh it, and then adopt the conclusion to which reason and logic point? Obviously not. He feels it. He feels that Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, astrology or whatever, is the right faith for him.”
    • “So while the religionist may claim to uphold absolute truths, his beliefs are as arbitrary and baseless as those of the subjectivist. Thus, the paradoxical conversions of Jack Thomas and Walker Lindh – from subjectivist to religious dogmatist – aren’t so paradoxical after all; in both cases, the switch was merely from one form of emotionalism to another.”
  • Australian Taliban Feted Again – Via the Medium of Dance – Scott Burgess is hilarious on Australian leftists’ mad support for the Australian Islamic convert and jihadist David Hicks. If he was a Christian violent fundamentalist nutcase the leftists wouldn’t touch him with a bargepole.
    • Pimp my Soviet ride, Tim Blair, January 05, 2008 – On Australian leftists’ support for David Hicks.


  • Open Letter from an Arab-American Student by Oubai Mohammad Shahbandar – A Syrian disgusted with the western left. – “They have never known the humiliation of living under the iron rule of an Islamic despotism. I have.”
  • The left-wing solicitor Gareth Peirce‘s bland whitewashing of the women-hating, gay-hating, atheist-hating, mass-murdering religious savages, the Taliban.
  • Afghans and the Guardian by Matthew Leeming – Afghan women, who suffered under the Taliban, listen to how left-wing writers in the west defended the Taliban, and get angry.
  • Zachary Roth, May 22, 2009, at the left-wing Talking Points Memo, illustrates the double standards. On jihadis who planned to slaughter Jews at American synagogues: “It’s easy to laugh at this gang of goons — and we’ve done our share of that. But, frankly, it’s also hard not to feel some compassion for what looks like a group of struggling, credulous, under-educated men, existing on the fringes of society, who lacked the intelligence or willpower to avoid getting taken in by a government informant anxious to mitigate his own situation, and by their own vague understanding of radical Islam and the hole it might fill in their lives.” Can you imagine, just for one second, him saying that if these were white right-wing skinheads who planned to slaughter Jews at American synagogues?
  • The Huffington Post runs Islamic religious apologetics:


  • This moral sickness on the left has been building for a long time:


  1. Comment by watermelonyo:

    Yes, that’s it. Keep dividing the world into the good people and the bad people with no room for nuance. All these people are in league with Saddam, the Taliban, and the Devil. Clearly, the Huffington Post is a den of Jihadis with their scandalous explanation of what “Shariah” means (Sample quote: “Those nations that oppress in the name of Shariah are as justified in their claims, as the slave owners who claimed their right to slavery was based on the Bible.” Well that sounds like support for the Taliban if I’ve ever heard it!). All of them are helping Al-Qaeda try to kill you. They are all your enemies. Have fun fighting them. I no longer care.

    • Comment by Andrew Brew:

      Sneering sarcasm? That is all you’ve got?

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      Strawman argument. Ad hominem, this time, ironically, calling me evil because I think one group (who no doubt has many people with many fine qualities in its number) is possessed by an evil antichristian philosophy to defend and excuse another group (who no doubt has many people with many fine qualities in its number) is possessed by a fanatic heresy logically incompatible with the Christian religion.

      You cherry picked one item on the list to defend, and, ironically, you said the very thing that condemns it. Shariah Law provides for second class citizenship for nonbelievers, and the imposition of a special tax. It provides for polygamy. The Huffington Post condemns oppressions done in the name of Shariah Law which are not truly in the Shariah Law, but says nothing about these two, and the several others I could name, which are in the Shariah law. You seem to imply that this is not a defense of Shariah Law and an attack on Christianity, which, as a matter of historic fact, eliminated slavery as practiced under pagan Rome throughout the European continent in the Middle Ages.

      But what of Noam Chomsky? What of all your brethren? What of Marvel Comics and their absurd attempt to suck up to the Moslems? What of you?

      Go back and reread every damnable word you have written to me, and count the number of times you condemned Christianity. Then compare that to the number of times you condemned Islam.

      • Comment by watermelonyo:

        calling me evil

        Yes, I remember doing that now. For a second I had thought you had just made that up, but now I remember it. Now if only I could locate the place where I actually did it.

        You cherry picked one item on the list to defend, and, ironically, you said the very thing that condemns it.

        You’re right. I should have used this quote: “In fact, the most ‘Muslim country’ in the world is likely America, because America guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of thought–all hallmarks of Shariah Law.” Obviously, this is a man who would prefer a Taliban style regime in this country.

        But what of Noam Chomsky? What of all your brethren? What of Marvel Comics and their absurd attempt to suck up to the Moslems? What of you?

        Yes, all of us. Chomsky, Marvel Comics, me, that French philosopher I’ve never heard of who apparently said some deliberately provocative pseudo-philosophical nonsense about the horrors of the modern world. All of us may have many fine qualities, but that doesn’t make up for the fact that we’re in an alliance with the Taliban. And therefore, so is “the Left.”

        Go back and reread every damnable word you have written to me, and count the number of times you condemned Christianity. Then compare that to the number of times you condemned Islam.

        If I could think for about five seconds I might be able to come up with a reason why that might be the case that doesn’t suggest I’m in an alliance with the Taliban, but I’m afraid my thought processes are overwhelmed by the power of your logic. I’ve said more things here against Christianity than I have against Islam, therefore, I support the terrorists. It’s as airtight a case as you’ve ever made for anything.

        • Comment by Darrell:

          I actually did ask myself that last night. I’m still not entirely sure. I will tell you one thought that came into my head though. And I’m not proud of it, but here it is. I truly do not believe that the world is divided into good people and evil people, but sometimes it really seems to me that you are doing your best to convince me that it is, and that you are on the evil side. And that’s a pretty powerful motivation.

          Evil, because I tell the truth and you lie?

          No, because you are full of hatred, and I feel it poisoning me every time I read your words.

          • Comment by watermelonyo:

            it really seems to me that you are doing your best to convince me

            And it still does.

            • Comment by Darrell:

              And herein is the problem. Even when someone tries to treat your disingenuous requests seriously you simply ignore their implications.

              • Comment by watermelonyo:

                Yes, this is indeed the problem. This inability to differentiate between “it seems like you are trying to convince me that you are evil” and “you are evil.” This inability to conduct analysis at any level beyond the most simplistic. This need to see everything in black-and-white terms. The world must be divided into Christians and their allies vs. Muslims and their allies. Mr. Wright simply cannot accept that I am in neither of those camps. I must be in one or the other.

                Personally, if I were forced to divide the world into two camps (which I otherwise have absolutely no inclination to do), I think it would have to be people who take religion way too seriously vs. everyone else.

                • Comment by Darrell:

                  Let me try a simpler approach by asking you some questions. If you’d like I will answer any questions that you might have as well.

                  1. Do you believe in “evil”.
                  2. Why, if you were forced to divide the world into two camps, would you the categories of those who take religion too seriously and everyone everyone else? In other words, why specifically religion as opposed to any ideology or belief system?

    • Comment by sdqpds:

      Mr. Wright wrote:
      “My point in posting this list is not to convince my honorable opposition that the Left does indeed support Jihad. My point is that it is not insane, nor even unreasonable, for an honest man to see what Leftwing figures have said and done and come to the conclusion that a collusion of sentiment exists.”

      watermelonyo wrote:
      “All these people are in league with Saddam, the Taliban, and the Devil. … All of them are helping Al-Qaeda try to kill you.”

      Mr. Wright clearly stated that the point of his post was not to make any such claim, but here Watermelonyo sarcastically claims he does. Watermelonyo wants to argue against claims Mr. Wright did not make, I assume because he cannot understand the difference between the caricature of Mr. Wright he has created and what Mr. Wright actually says.

      • Comment by The Deuce:

        Watermelonyo wants to argue against claims Mr. Wright did not make, I assume because he cannot understand the difference between the caricature of Mr. Wright he has created and what Mr. Wright actually says.

        Or, more likely, he knows exactly what Mr. Wright actually says and knows he cannot refute it, and so erects a strawman instead because he is dishonest.

  2. Comment by Stephen J.:

    I think for me the saddest part of the link you note is one of Humphrys’ very first sentences: “I still believe in human rights, free speech and freedom of religion for the whole planet (not just for westerners).” It highlights for me one of the most irreconcileable value clashes in this whole matter — i.e., it is precisely a non-western culture’s attempt to practice its religion which is threatening that freedom in all other cultures, because the very definition of that religion holds it not only obligatory to eliminate other faiths, but licit to do so by force, deception and economic coercion where necessary.

    For the Progressivist, the easiest and most obvious way to avoid this cognitive dissidence (whether you abet or attack Islam, you are endangering someone’s religious freedom) is to fall back on basic class-struggle paradigms and support the economic rather than theological underdog, trusting that Marx was right and that theological differences are ultimately masks for economic ones anyway. This, I think, is what many of Humphrys’ heroes did (those who did not use it as an excuse to finally express their own long-standing anti-Americanism).

    For principled atheists like Humphrys, it seems like it would be much harder to come to terms with this basic paradox. When the very prevention of one faith imposing itself on any other is defined by that faith as an unacceptable imposition on itself — when the very existence of one set of values is an intolerable affront to the holders of other values — how shall this be resolved, without sneaking principles derived from one tradition or the other in through the “back door” as supposedly neutral arbiters?

    This seems, to my mind, to be one of the great difficulties of the atheist perspective: when all religions appear (to paraphrase Humphrys himself) equally absurd, it becomes very difficult to comprehend the thinking of those who disagree, and even harder to comprehend the thinking of those who disagree about which religion is less absurd than which. As Chesterton said: “[W]e are always saying to a Mormon or a Moslem — ‘Never mind about your religion, come to my arms.’ To which he naturally replies — ‘But I do mind about my religion, and I advise you to mind your eye.'”

  3. Comment by oddy:

    Wow, this watermelon guy has no idea what you’re talking about Mr. Wright. Thus, the rather pitiful non-response. I wonder what this ‘nuance’ is and why he didn’t explain it.

    • Comment by sdqpds:

      I have seen many arguments like this. Watermelonyo will no doubt walk away congratulating himself for standing up to the great religious oppressor Mr. Wright after spouting the same unsupported assertions and ad-hominem attacks several times, never bothering (if capable) to formulate a rational response to Mr. Wright’s counterpoints.

      The dynamic of this conversation has more to do with maintenance of social ingroup status for Watermelonyo than rational discourse; by shouting down the evil (by definition) opposition, he fulfills what he understands to be behavior that exemplifies members of his particular ingroup.

  4. Comment by Spheniscine:

    I’m curious what you think though, of his criticisms of Pope Francis (as well as several other Catholic and non-Catholic Christian individuals and organizations) of failure to recognize the threat of extremist Islamism:

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      I am not willing to click through the link and look, sorry. Hearing more slanders against the Catholic Church is not something I can take the time to do. The Pope is a man of peace; he is supposed to be a voice on the side of peace.

    • Comment by sdqpds:

      Mr. Humphrys makes weak points in the section on the Catholic Church. In the Iraq and Palestine sections, he castigates the church for expressing pity and compassion, which is absurd even for an atheist.

      I stopped reading in the ‘Thomas Burns’ section; Mr. Humphrys lost focus and went on an atheist rant, concluding with:
      “.. and we will return to the one God as our common destiny.” Again, nonsense. We will not “return” anywhere. I guess if Thomas Burns believes all this made-up nonsense, it’s no surprise he is impressed that the Iranian thugs believe the same.”

      I am not Catholic and not Christian, but I expect arguments to at least be coherent.

  5. Comment by Andrew Brew:

    While all the links on Humphrys page concerning leftists looked fairly kosher (as it were) to me, looking further on his site there is some very dodgy material on, for example, the alliance of the Catholic church with Nazism. I note this only to indicate that his claims should be checked with some care, not just taken at his word.

    • Comment by Spheniscine:

      Did he really accuse them of “alliance”, or is the charge more about misguided “anti-war” efforts?

      • Comment by Andrew Brew:

        You are right. He did not use the word “alliance”. He did claim, in so many words, that German bishops did not oppose the holocaust because they approved of it, among other similarly tall (and tendentious) claims.

        I prefer not to discuss the claims further here. I have gone quite far enough off-topic as it is.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      I make no representation of warranty for Mr Humphrys. I am not citing him as an authority. I am using his list because it is convenient to hand, to show the only point I am trying to make: that it is not unreasonable for me or any honest man to see the continual and repeated pro-Islamic, pro-Terrorists, anti-War rhetoric of the Left as being evidence of an alliance, if only an alliance of sentiment, against their mutual foes, a worldview they both reject.

  6. Comment by markhumphrys:

    Someone told me I was mentioned here, and I saw the debate, so thought I’d reply.

    Yes, I am part of the atheist counter-jihad and we are unlikely to agree on some issues. But I see the counter-jihad as a grand alliance of Christians, atheists, Jews, Hindus, liberal Muslims and others. All who oppose jihad and sharia should be welcome.

    I did want to say to John C. Wright that if he is thinking like this, he should read the two best fiction books I’ve seen so far about the struggle with the jihad, Caliphate (2008):

    and Age of Tolerance (2005):

    You’ll love them.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      Civilized men need not agree on all issues, sir, to agree to oppose the Jihad. The differences that separate us are an opportunity for brotherhood across a small but deep chasm.

      I recommend Mark Steyn’s book called LIGHTS OUT (

      • Comment by markhumphrys:

        Thanks. I love Mark Steyn. Love his humour.
        Here’s something else you might like:

        Message from a Time Traveler

        • Comment by John C Wright:

          If you look carefully, you may see a comment from me somewhere below that story.

          I remember all the grief Mr Simmons got from it. I do not understand how anyone aware of such vociferous slanders and sneers from the Left directed toward men like Mr Simmons, and yet maintain that it is a sign of insanity to see sympathy between the Left and the Jihadists.

          I will ask you the question which you may be in a unique position to answer, since you are no partisan of Christianity. Why does the Left favor the Jihad? What interest do they have in common? The Jihad stand for everything the Left says its opposes. They are a homosexual-stoning misogynistic Jew-hating theocracy.

          I am assuming it is a basic world view that they oppose: namely, Christendom. But I am a recent and enthusiastic convert to that religion, and so cannot be called objective. It may be that there is something else. Neither is a friend of the free market, for example. But would that explain it?

          • Comment by Sean Michael:

            Dear Mr. Wright:

            I too remember very well that terrifying story Dan Simmons wrote. And I fear it may well be all too PROPHETIC. As for understanding why so many liberals and leftists remain stubbornly blind to the threat posed by Islam, well, a common hatred of Christianity and the institutions needed for political and economic freedom unites leftists and fanatical Muslims. Altho my view is the Jihadists are likely to end up eliminating liberals/leftists as useful idiots they no longer need.

            I recommend all interested persons to read Andrew McCarthy’s THE GRAND JIHAD for a recent study of the de facto alliance of the left with Islam.

            Sincerely, Sean M. Brooks

          • Comment by markhumphrys:

            John, that’s a good question. You inspired me to try to write an answer.

            Why the left favours the jihad:

            1. The left is all about some kind of vague “revolution” to destroy the West, or capitalism, and introduce something “better”. And basically, no one wants to do that any more except the Islamists. The Soviet Union is gone, so the left is stuck supporting a bunch of religious maniacs.

            2. Obsessed with Daddy. The left is all about rebellion against Daddy. Daddy is Christian. Rebelling against Islam means nothing to the left.

            3. Still fighting the last war. The left are still fighting against Christianity, even though they won, and Christianity no longer oppresses anyone. I have moved on to the next war.

            4. Pure ignorance. Most leftists know nothing about jihadist slaughters that do not involve the West – Nigeria, Thailand, Philippines, Egypt, Algeria, Sudan, India, Pakistan, Russia, Somalia – and get angry if you bring them up. They think jihad only happens with westerners.

            5. White people are the bad guys. The left loves its white guilt, and is only interested in situations where the white man can be blamed. The left tends to support anyone fighting against “the white man”. It ignores conflicts not involving “white” people. Have to use sneer quotes since the left’s racial categories are usually ludicrous.

            6. Violent people are exciting. The left loves violent “resistance” of all forms. If Islamists desired the same goals – sharia law – but used entirely peaceful methods, the left would find them very uninteresting.

            • Comment by John C Wright:

              Those are all good answers. Since I am a Christian, I see the world through a certain lens.
              1. The revolution to destroy the West, to destroy their own homes, is the sin of pride.
              2. The rebellion against Daddy figures is a rebellion against God, the ultimate Daddy figure. The sin here is disobedience.
              3. Fighting the last war is just a symptom of mental laziness, of cowardice. It is the sin of sloth.
              4. What you call pure ignorance I call selfishness, ego, lack of concern for others. It is a lack of moral imagination. Nigeria, Thailand, Philippines, Egypt, Algeria, Sudan, India, Pakistan, Russia, Somalia — none of these people seems like real people to the Left. The lack of moral imagination is the same thing we see when people are only concerned with themselves, getting ahead in life. It is like avarice, but it is really childish self-centeredness, or, to use a technical term, the are sociopaths.
              5. Hating the ‘white’ people means, for the Left, hating the ‘haves.’ This hatred is not out of concern for the ‘have-nots’ (because the Jihad kills have-nots, poor people in Somalia). It is merely the sin of envy.
              6. Love of violence is the sin of Ire. It glamorizes the ugly side of human nature, the violent side, the barbaric side.

              The reason why the Left is so successful spreading their poison is that in each man’s heart there is a tendency or temptation to sin. We like being proud, disobedience, lazy thinkers. We like envy and anger and so on. Those temptations are ones against which a civilized man, a gentleman, every day must fight.

              And the Left are the ones who give in when the fight comes around. If they were really concerned about the poor, the weak, the helpless, they would help the helpless, not cheer for the Jihadists bombing them and the terror-sponsoring tyrants forcing them to live in poverty.

            • Comment by John C Wright:

              I am not sure any of these answer suffice for any Leftist who knows even the slightest thing about Jihad.

              First, the Jihad does not plan to destroy the West to replace it with a leftist sexually liberated communal utopia, but with a Caliphate theocracy.

              Second, Allah and his Mullahs are just as much a Daddy figure as God and the Pope, but abusive Daddy figures who kill Jews.

              Third, the answer that the Left is still fighting Christianity is not an answer to the question of WHY the Left is still fighting Christianity, particularly to defend someone, the Jihad, who agrees LESS with the Left than do we.

              Four, pure ignorance is surely part of the answer, but not the whole answer, since Leftists react with scorn and hatred if anyone tries to tell them the truth of the matter. It is not an innocent ignorance but a willful ignorance.

              Five, Islam is a religion, not a race. The Chechnians who set off a bomb at the Boston Marathon were as Caucasian as they come — from the Caucasas Mountains. Again, I don’t doubt the Left is motivated by hatred of Whites, but to them the skin color is symbolic of something else, such as ‘the establishment’ or ‘the capitalists’ or, really, ‘The Christians.’

              • Comment by markhumphrys:

                If you’re saying the left doesn’t know what it is doing, I totally agree with you!

                • Comment by John C Wright:

                  No, sir. And here is where, I fear, we must part company, because I cannot explain my axioms to you. I think that the Left knows exactly what it is doing, and that the same thing that made you an atheist also made you leave the ranks of the Left. They are not a political party. Whether a comic book contains a token Muslim girl is not a political issue. It is a religious issue. Leftism is a religion, an atheist religion, one that worships Nothing. I do not mean they do not worship. I mean they do. They commit sacrifices, suffer penance, and go through ritualized behaviors to show themselves to be righteous, such as, for example, recycling. I mean they worship and the thing on the altar to which they sacrifice is the idol of THE NOTHINGNESS. It is a vacuum or void from which they say all life came and to which they say all life is going, and the Nothingness grants to them the godlike power of determining for themselves the nature of right and wrong, being and nonbeing, and what the meaning of life is. Their attitude toward the nothingness is a religious attitude.

                  Their basic ethics is a perverse form of Christianity, with concern for the poor, the desire to help widows and orphans which makes sense in my world view but has no logical way to fit in with their somewhat more Darwinian world view of endless conflict between irreconcilable pressure groups.

                  They are intolerant, like religious groups, and hate the orthodox, like heretics.

                  Their reason for wanting to destroy the West is because it is Christian. The two religions are in dire and absolute conflict, just as Shia and Sunni are, or Catholic and Protestant once were.

                  They know exactly what they are doing. They want to eliminate Christ and erect idols to the Nothing.

                  • Comment by markhumphrys:

                    Well I’d say we part company on many issues! But it is interesting to talk anyway. The question of what morality you should have if there is no God is a huge question, debated for centuries, of course. If you’re curious, I have some thoughts here:

                    I agree leftism is often like a religion. But it is not true that all atheists are leftists. There are plenty of right / classic liberal / libertarian atheists like me.

                    It is also not true that Christians are on the right. I find most of what comes out of the Catholic and Protestant churches on Israel and capitalism, for example, to be firmly on the left. The Catholic church in Ireland, where I live, is almost entirely left-wing on economics and foreign policy. The Catholic church’s charity in Ireland is entirely pro-Palestinian and anti-capitalist.

                    Anyway, back to the left. I’m not sure the left really does know what it is doing with Islam. The left would absolutely hate living in a society run by sharia law. They really would not enjoy it. Those novels I mentioned, “Caliphate” and “Age of Tolerance”, nicely portray the misery of the left after their own actions make Islamism take over their society. In both novels, the right escapes, to set up some outpost of freedom elsewhere, while the left remains stuck in an Islamist tyranny in their old country.

                    I don’t think the left has a grand plan. It is often said that “the left thinks the right is evil, while the right thinks the left is stupid”. That’s the way I see it. I see the left as stupid, and this (pandering to jihad) is example no.1.

                    • Comment by John C Wright:

                      I hope you are not under the impression that I implied that “all atheists are leftists” or “all Christians are rightists”. Obviously that is not the case. Before my conversion I was a classical liberal atheist for all my adult life.

                      That was my point. I am claiming that Leftism is a religion, an atheist religion that worships nothing. Classical liberal atheists do not follow a religion, and hence must depart from the Left, sooner or later, even though there is what seems a surface similarity. Worshipers of Nothing, the Nihilists, claim to be atheists, and technically they are atheists, but in essence they are not.

                      Leftism cannot be explained by stupidity. Were you stupid when you were a Leftist? It is not your IQ that changed.

    • Comment by watermelonyo:

      Yes, I am part of the atheist counter-jihad and we are unlikely to agree on some issues. But I see the counter-jihad as a grand alliance of Christians, atheists, Jews, Hindus, liberal Muslims and others. All who oppose jihad and sharia should be welcome.

      Indeed, the only point I was ever trying to make in this discussion was that liberal Muslims should not be lumped in with jihadists. But you can see where I’ve gotten with that.

      Mr. Wright, of course, will continue to claim that no one was ever doing that. But the question that he has never been able to answer remains: What then was the point of the joke? Why is it so ridiculous for Marvel Comics to have a liberal Muslim superhero? The entire point of the joke is to say that it’s ridiculous for Marvel to have a Muslim superhero because Muslims are polygamous. It requires one to think exclusively of Middle-Eastern fundamentalists when one hears the word “Muslim,” and to ignore the existence of liberal American Muslims like those the character was meant to represent. People who would clearly not be polygamists, and who would clearly oppose the jihadists.

      • Comment by A Spectator:

        Indeed, the only point I was ever trying to make in this discussion was that liberal Muslims should not be lumped in with jihadists. But you can see where I’ve gotten with that.

        As I recall, you had assumed a joke was an attempt to do such, repeatedly, without ever addressing any of the arguments to the contrary. You’re merely assuming the very point of contention for which you’ve never once actually contended.

        Mr. Wright, of course, will continue to claim that no one was ever doing that. But the question that he has never been able to answer remains: What then was the point of the joke?

        You’re killing me! How many times has that question been answered?! The point was that political correctness is absurd. That’s why the unthinking political correctors jumped on it while using secular Arabs as human shields. You never addressed that point.

      • Comment by Darrell:

        You are shading the truth. Your initial point was that implying Muslims practice polygyny is bigoted and people, such as yourself, who decried Conan O’Brien’s joke were making a stand against bigotry rather than supporting the supremacy of Islam. This position later evolved into several additional points.

        But, oddly, you are not universally against bigotry as you later went on to write that bigotry is good when employed against the correct “other”:

        American Christians are the culturally-dominant majority, and can thus easily take being made fun of. In fact, doing so now and then is probably a good thing, since it keeps their power in check.

  7. Comment by Rob Corrigan:

    I don’t know if it’s so much that the Left supports Jihad, but rather that in their ranking of enemies, their fellow countrymen on the Right always come out on top. You get this sense acutely from Obama, who can negotiate and praise and urge understanding for the Iranian despots, or the gangster Putin, but can’t spare even a kind word for the American Right. I think the Left very much sees itself first and foremost as trying to redesign domestic issues (like health care), and that eventually the international situation will work itself out (eventually we will not be able to afford to project force internationally if they get their way).

    I’m speaking of the American Left, because I don’t really get the European left, who seem largely unhinged; I mean, anyone who supported the USSR is beyond the pale to me.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      Well, I would say that the Left supported the Soviet Union also.

      But let us clear up confusion as to what is meant by ‘support’. Walter Duranty lied about the Soviet orchestrated famine in the Ukraine. He reported, as news, that is never happened, even though he saw it happening around him. Lincoln Steffens is famously quoted as saying of the Soviet Union “I have seen the future–and it works.” The name of McCarthy was made into a synonym for outrageous, unhinged witch-hunting accusations, even though, as a matter of undisputed historical fact, we now know the people he accused of being Soviet agents in the State Department were in fact Soviet Agents. The Venona Cables and the paystubs of the KGB which we recovered from the Kremlin after the fall of the Soviet Union prove it. Senator Kennedy is known to have contacted Soviet spies and sought out their cooperation to discredit and disgrace then President Reagan.

      None of these men were believers in literal Marxism. None of them wanted to see the victory of the Soviet Union. None of them wanted to see American cities turned to ash beneath Soviet atomic bombs. So, they were not supporters if by supporter we mean total ideological agreement with the cause they are supporting.

      But they did aid and abet the Enemy in ways that are either nearly treason or are openly treason. They routinely assume the best of the Soviets, they cheered them on, they complimented them and wrote apologetics and in every way acted as the counsel for the defense, including (as mentioned above) outright lies and endless years of propaganda.

      No one here is using the word, I hope, in the strict sense. That sense of the word was only brought up as a straw man argument, to heap scorn on my statement that the Left is aiding and abetting the Jihad by pretending I said the Left is composed of Jihadists. Indeed, if the Left were literal Jihadists, that would at least make sense of their behavior. No, the whole puzzle comes from the fact that the Jihad stand for everything, every single thing I can think of but one, which the Left opposes.

      But the case of the Soviet Union is nearly identical. The method of behavior is the same: Reagan is a greater threat to world peace than Stalin. Whenever there is any doubt, the United States is guilty until proven innocent, and despite being proven innocent, and the Soviet Union is innocent until proven guilty, and despite being proven guilty.

      There are still people who claim the Rosenbergs were innocent, or that Alger Hiss was not a communist. How does one account for such things other than to point out that these beliefs aid and abet the Soviets?

      To this day, the Left will routinely downplay, or airbrush away, the Muslim motive for religious-inspired crimes, and newspapers will refer to them as ‘youths’ or speculate that they are angry white males or tea party members.

      Indeed, aside from Christopher Hitchens, may his immortal soul rest in peace, I know of no major Leftwing speaker who has condemned Muslim religious violence except unless it was used as a lead-in to condemn Christian religious violence. They are not afraid of the first, even though it is real, and they are very afraid of the second, even though it is not real.

      What can explain that? I can only speculate. It is too far beyond the pale of normal, self-preservation-style thinking that I can only explain it metaphorically, as something like the hysteria of a suicide pact or a death cult, a desire to drink poison laced Kool Aid in an act of Mephistophelian defiance of reality and fact.

      • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

        A small correction, McCarthy did not accuse those people of being Soviet spies, he noted they were security risks, and should probably not be employed by the American government. He was very careful (As opposed to the Hate shouted out by the Democrats on a daily basis) to not ruin people who might be innocent. His care can be show, as you note, by the fact that his security risks all turned out to actually be traitors…….

  8. Comment by The Ubiquitous:

    The Unreality Principle — echoes of the Nothing Sophotech from the Golden Age. The Nothing Sophotech is itself a reason why I have before and here again say that the Golden Age is the best kind of atheist fiction, which is to say it is fundamentally Catholic and fundamentally true, and it doesn’t realize it.

    Off-topic. Still, I thought I’d plug that marvelous series again on your behalf, good sir.

    Leave a Reply