Recent Posts



Saturday, 28 February 2009
Apologists of Totalitarianism: From Communism to Islam, Part IV

The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy, 9/11 And The Apologists Of Islamic Terrorism
by Ibn Warraq
(March 2009)

          I shouted out, 'Who killed the Kennedys?' When after all, it was you and me."
                            --- The Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil, 1968.   
The kind of attitudes revealed by Western, particularly leftist, intellectuals after the attacks on the World Trade Center in September 2001, were prefigured in the responses to the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963. James Piereson[1] has argued persuasively that the Liberal Left, unable to accept psychologically the, essentially simple, facts of the assassination suffered cognitive dissonance, when they tried to reconcile deeply held beliefs with evidence that clearly contradicted those beliefs. In order to eliminate this psychological tension (or dissonance) the Left denied or ignored key facts or re-interpreted the facts in such a way as to make them consistent with deeply held convictions.[2] Liberals dismissed as irrelevant the fact that President Kennedy was shot by a communist- for them threats to the nation could only come from the irrational conduct of the radical right. Thus Kennedy must be a victim of "intolerance and bigotry" ; the nation itself was to blame. [3]  more>>>
Posted on 02/28/2009 5:08 PM by NER
13 Mar 2009

As a "follow-up" to this interesting and perceptive essay, readers might be interested in the following excerpt from Oriana Fallaci's "The Force of Reason" (Rizzoli International, 2004):

                Thus, how can it [the Left] possibly speak of revolution when it refers to Khomeini and Khomeinism?  The Left speaks of progress.  For a century it has been singing hymns to Progress, to Improvement, to the Sun of the Future.  Thus, how can it possible be fornicating with the most backward and reactionary ideology on Earth?!?  The Left was born and grew in the West.  It is western.  It belongs to the most evolved civilization in history.  Thus, how can it possibly identify with a world in which you have to be told that marrying your mother is wrong and eating the sheep you keep as your mistress is a sin?!?  How can it possibly sing the praises of a world in which a girl can be widowed or repudiated at the age of nine or before?!?  Then my sort of malady became an obsession, and I started asking, “Do you understand, can you understand, why the Left is on the side of Islam?”  Well…  Some answered: “Because the Left is pro-Third World, anti-American, anti-Zionist.  Islam is also so.  In Islam the left sees what the Red Brigaders call their natural-ally.”  Others answered: “Because with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of capitalism in its former States and in China, the Left has lost the old points of reference.  Ergo, it clings to Islam as to a lifebelt.”  Or: “It’s obvious.  In Europe the real proletariat is like a shopkeeper with no goods.  So in the Islamic proletariat the Left has found the merchandise it needs for selling: a future reservoir of votes.”  But, although all the answers contained an indisputable truth, none of them took account of the reasoning my questions was based upon.  I continued to torment myself, and this lasted until I realize that my question was wrong.


It was wrong because it came from a residue of respect for the Left I had known as a child.  The Left of my grandparents, of my parents, of my dead comrades, of my youth’s utopias.  The Left that ceased to exist half a century ago.  It was wrong also because it came from the political solitude in which I have always lived.  A political solitude which at that time included the one given to me by moral and intellectual desert of the phony heroes in which I had believed as a youngster.  Justice-and-freedom.  Liberal-socialism.  And so on.  But above all it was wrong because the reasonings or rather the premises on which I based my interrogative were wrong.  First premise, my illusion that the Left would be laic.  I mean secular.  Though the daughter of secularism (besides a secularism begotten by liberalism and consequently not consonant with dogmatism), the Left is not laic.  Whether it dresses in red or black or pink or green or white or in all the colors of the rainbow, the Left is confessional.  Ecclesiastic.  Because it derives from an ideology of religious character.  That is, because it appeals to an ideology which claims to possess the Truth.  On one side, the Good.  On the other, the Evil.  On one side, the Sun of the Future.  On the other, the Darkness.  On one side, the comrades.  The blessed ones, the faithful.  On the other, the infidels or rather infidel-dogs.  The Left is a Church.  And not a Church similar to the Church which came out of Christianity, thus open to free-will.  A Church similar to Islam.  Like Islam it considers itself sanctified by a God who is the custodian of the Truth.  Like Islam it never acknowledged its faults and its errors, it considers itself infallible and never apologizes.  Like Islam it demands a world as its own image, a society built on the version of its Prophet.  Like Islam it enslaves its own followers, it makes them feel stupid even when they are intelligent.  Like Islam it does not accept different opinions and if you think differently it despises you.  It denigrates you, it punishes you.  Like Islam, in short, it is illiberal.  Autocratic, totalitarian, even when it plays the game of democracy.  For Christsake, isn’t it revealing that ninety-five percent of the Western people converting to Islam come from the Left or the red-black Extreme Left?  A ninety-five percent of the Muslims naturalized Italian or French or Spanish or German or British or Scandinavian, by the way.    Like Islam, finally, the Left is anti-West.  The cause why it is anti-West can be summarized with a passage of The Road to Serfdom; one of the important essays left to us by Frederick Hayek, the Austrian economist who in the Thirties flew from Vienna and took refuge in England.


                “It is not only the principles of Adam Smith and Hume and Locke and Milton which are being abandoned.  It is the bedrock of the civilization developed by the Greeks and the Romans and Christianity.  Meaning, the western civilization.  What is being relinquished is not only the liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries, that is the liberalism which completed that civilization,” it says.  “It is the individualism which, thanks to Erasmus of Rotterdam and Montaigne and Cicero and Tacitus and Pericles and Thucydides, that western civilization has inherited.  In other words, the concept itself of individualism which through the teachings imparted to us by the philosophers of classical antiquity then of Christianity then of Renaissance then of the Enlightenment have made us what we are.  Socialism is based on collectivism.  And anyone who denies individualism denies western civilization.”  (pp. 213-217)


     Similarly, the following essay by Daniel Pipes - “The Islamist-Leftist Alliance” - at is worthy of note.


  Interesting work, Mr. Warraq!

Chapter 11, pp. 213-217

The Force of Reason

Rizzoli International, 2004


6 Mar 2009
hayden eastwood

Thank you for this well thought out and well written article. I will be sure to read more of your work.

Your analysis makes perfect sense and the trajectory of the liberal western intellectuals frankly freightening. It is amazing how human beings can use intellect to justify preconceived emotional convictions.


Do you know where I could get a copy of any of your books in South Africa?

Many thanks