Let's take a look at what he has to say.
Contradictions in the alliance between radical leftists and Islamic fundamentalists only make sense when you realize both ideologies have the same short-term goal.And so "radical leftists and Islamic fundamentalists" are portrayed as working together. This is a common theme in right wing Islamophobia is to scare monger about supposed connections and sympathies between Muslims and leftists. That same theme is stated in this article.
When the average leftist sees homosexuals in the news, he doesn’t view them as individuals living an immoral lifestyle; he views them as an oppressed special interest group needing protection from intolerant Christians.Referring to homosexuals as a "special interest group" tends to incite resentment towards them and accuses them of being somehow privileged.
When he sees Islamists in the news, he views them in much the same way. They’re not individuals under the influence of a toxic ideology, but an oppressed minority fighting against Judeo-Christian imperialism.Which "Islamists" are Müller talking about?
When this leftist reads how Omar Mateen pledged his alliance to the Islamic State before gunning down 49 people in a homosexual nightclub, he agrees with the New York Times assessment that Mateen’s Islamist ideology had no bearing on the situation. Instead, he places the blame on America’s Judeo-Christian ideas about sexual morality.Actually the murderer pledged allegiance to several groups some of which are adversaries of each other.
Müller mentions problems in Afghanistan and Mauritania in order to accuse leftists of being sympathetic towards Islamic fundamentalists.
Despite the fact that 87 percent of women in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan have been domestically abused, left-wing sources like the Huffington Post argue that “Islam has a culture and history of women empowerment,” while patriarchy and gender bias are “rampant in Christian culture.” Despite the fact that 800,000 black Africans currently live in chattel slavery to Arab masters in the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, sources like AlterNet claim the “future of life on the planet” is really being jeopardized by the “white supremacist ideology” of Christian politicians, like Sen. Ted Cruz (who is Hispanic) and Dr. Ben Carson (who is black).Müller insists that radical leftists and Islamic fundamentalists have a common sinister goal in mind.
Such contradictions in the rainbow alliance between radical leftists and Islamic fundamentalists only make sense when you realize both ideologies have the same short-term goal: end Judeo-Christian culture.Müller cites George Galloway as evidence of this sinister Muslim-Progressive alliance.
Former British Labour Party M.P. George Galloway elaborated in 2005 on the need for a Muslim-progressive alliance capable of curbing Anglo-American influence....
Muslims and progressives work together not because they share ideals, but because they share enemies.Now he is no longer talking about "radical leftists and Islamic fundamentalists" but instead talks of "Muslims and progressives" which suggests that he views them all negatively. He forgot the dog whistle.
Galloway revealed the leftist’s worldview that political Islam and international socialism are not threats; the threat is Anglo-American domination.Never mind the American progressives out there. Once again leftists and Muslims are portrayed as constituting a common threat to PCG's members.
Moderate leftists may express this sentiment in less inflammatory terms, but the idea that a countercultural alliance is necessary to “fundamentally transform” the culture underpinning Western civilization is widespread.Maybe Müller should get into politics and try to get American Muslims to vote for him. That would discourage American Muslims from working with leftists. Unfortunately within certain sectors of the American right it has become all too fashionable to scare monger against Muslims. So no wonder politically active American Muslims would tend to lean to the left because a critical mass of the right has rejected them and view them in a hostile way.
But all that seems to be beyond Müller's awareness. Instead this failure of the American right to reach out and gain the support of American Muslims is ignored and portrayed as some sort of sinister conspiracy.
Müller then brings up Iran to scare monger against leftists and Muslims working together to attain common political goals.
The last time a Muslim-progressive alliance “fundamentally transformed” a government was during the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Many left-wing political organizations, such as the Mojahedin-e-Khalq, supported Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s revolution against Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. Once the common enemy was eliminated, however, Khomeini condemned his former allies as unbelievers. It has been estimated that between 15,000 and 30,000 socialists, Communists and other secularists were killed in Khomeini’s betrayal of the Iranian left.PCG's leadership has been constantly demonizing Iran. In 1994 PCG's leader, Gerald Flurry, proclaimed Iran to be the "King of the South." The possibility of peace between the United States and Iran would discredit Flurry's proclamation so since the nuclear deal was made last year PCG's leadership has constantly denounced Iran.
Furthermore no mention is made that the Mojahedin-e-Khalq used to be listed as a terrorist organization by the US State Department from 1997 till 2012. It is also not mentioned that members of this organization launched armed attacks against Americans in Iran during the Shah's rule.
As underreported as this fact is, it’s obvious radical Islamists would do such a thing to secularists—once the greater enemy is gone.This sounds very similar to how some people ridiculed various radicals in the 1960s as being sympathetic towards Communists and stating that if the Communists ever took over such counter-culture people as the Hippies would be suppressed by the Communists. It is the same story here.
It has become common to hear pundits from the left speak of the U.S. Constitution as an impractical, antiquated document unworthy of the 21st century. A large number of Islamists would agree with this sentiment. Nearly 20 percent of U.S. Muslim respondents in a survey done by the Center for Security Policy said the use of violence was justified to make sharia the law of the land.The Center for Security Policy has often been listed as being part of what some have called the Islamophobia Network. It was started by Frank Gaffney, a man who has made various claims of alleged Muslim infiltration of American conservative organizations.
Gaffney even asserts that radical Islam has infiltrated the conservative movement. He insists Islamists have infiltrated the American Conservative Union, which hosts the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, because of their associations with anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan, a former political appointee in the George W. Bush administration. (Source.)Müller then ends the article with these words.
The Islamist version of Anglo-America’s future undoubtedly looks different from the radical left version. In the short term, however, both ideologies want to destroy the current system. As the ancient proverbs says, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”—for now.There are many different kinds of Muslims including American Muslims. Some are left wing. Some are right wing. Some are poor. Some are rich. Some view religion as a moral thing and are not interested in trying to create some sort of theocracy. Some are rather secular. Müller is incorrect to crudely stereotype Muslims as though they were all the same.
Some wonder how can PCG's leaders get their followers to remain so loyal to them? Partly it is because they are told to be scared of the left and Muslims.
It is unfortunate that PCG's leaders seem intent on making their followers so fearful and afraid of leftists and Muslims.
No comments:
Post a Comment