The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11

[Beet]

From Publishers Weekly
Conservative pundit D'Souza (Illiberal Education) roots the blame for the 9/11 attacks in the left wing's "aggressive global campaign to undermine the traditional patriarchal family" in this mostly lucid but unconvincing argument. Pointing to Hillary Clinton, Britney Spears and Noam Chomsky, he decries those who have teamed up with Hollywood and the U.N. to foist an irreligious, sexually licentious, antifamily liberal culture—epitomized by Eve Ensler's play The Vagina Monologues and gay marriage initiatives—on a Muslim world that rightly reviles it. By deliberately attacking Islamic values, the left tacitly allies itself with al- Qaeda in its effort to defeat Bush's war on terror and thus discredit conservatism at home, he asserts. But D'Souza's claim that Islamic extremists are inflamed solely by America's music videos and feminists—not its U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or American support for Muslim dictators—is too single-minded. For example, he paints Abu Ghraib poster-girl Lynndie England as the personification of liberal sexual depravity, without acknowledging that the U.S. Army sent her to Iraq, not the left. Charging that liberals aid terrorists while sympathizing with the terrorists' culturally conservative worldview, D'Souza's critique of American cultural excess trips over its own inconsistencies. (Jan. 16)

I have to thank D'Souza for his provocative, insightful book. He is both the dangerous rebel underdog undermining the politically correct establishment by exposing secrets that no one wants to be known, and far too credentialled to be disputed by anyone else, as a Washington Post columnist and "a scholar at the Hoover Institute at Standford University."

[Jack Vance RIP]

Conservative pundit D'Souza (Illiberal Education) roots the blame for the 9/11 attacks in the left wing's "aggressive global campaign to undermine the traditional patriarchal family" in this mostly lucid but unconvincing argument. Pointing to Hillary Clinton, Britney Spears and Noam Chomsky, he decries those who have teamed up with Hollywood and the U.N. to foist an irreligious, sexually licentious, antifamily liberal culture—epitomized by Eve Ensler's play The Vagina Monologues and gay marriage initiatives—on a Muslim world that rightly reviles it. By deliberately attacking Islamic values, the left tacitly allies itself with al- Qaeda in its effort to defeat Bush's war on terror and thus discredit conservatism at home, he asserts. But D'Souza's claim that Islamic extremists are inflamed solely by America's music videos and feminists—not its U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or American support for Muslim dictators—is too single-minded. For example, he paints Abu Ghraib poster-girl Lynndie England as the personification of liberal sexual depravity, without acknowledging that the U.S. Army sent her to Iraq, not the left. Charging that liberals aid terrorists while sympathizing with the terrorists' culturally conservative worldview, D'Souza's critique of American cultural excess trips over its own inconsistencies. (Jan. 16)

A Hilarious parody of Conservative thought, I see. I'm rather curious now.

EDIT: To be fair, The Hypothesis above is just as blinkered as those on "the left" who reduce everything to "It's America Fault" or "If the US hadn't been such a supporter of Israel then 9\11 wouldn't have happened", those types of commentators who project what they believe and what they oppose onto terrorists and their allies really should be banned from making any cultural commentary.

{@thefactor: Sarcasm....}

[Beet]

Conservative pundit D'Souza (Illiberal Education) roots the blame for the 9/11 attacks in the left wing's "aggressive global campaign to undermine the traditional patriarchal family" in this mostly lucid but unconvincing argument. Pointing to Hillary Clinton, Britney Spears and Noam Chomsky, he decries those who have teamed up with Hollywood and the U.N. to foist an irreligious, sexually licentious, antifamily liberal culture—epitomized by Eve Ensler's play The Vagina Monologues and gay marriage initiatives—on a Muslim world that rightly reviles it. By deliberately attacking Islamic values, the left tacitly allies itself with al- Qaeda in its effort to defeat Bush's war on terror and thus discredit conservatism at home, he asserts. But D'Souza's claim that Islamic extremists are inflamed solely by America's music videos and feminists—not its U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or American support for Muslim dictators—is too single-minded. For example, he paints Abu Ghraib poster-girl Lynndie England as the personification of liberal sexual depravity, without acknowledging that the U.S. Army sent her to Iraq, not the left. Charging that liberals aid terrorists while sympathizing with the terrorists' culturally conservative worldview, D'Souza's critique of American cultural excess trips over its own inconsistencies. (Jan. 16)

A Hilarious parody of Conservative thought, I see. I'm rather curious now.

The guy is serious.

[Gabu]

If I recall correctly, Osama's main reason for having sand in his vagina was the American presence in Saudi Arabia, which certainly was not brought about by the cultural left.

[Colin]

Conservative pundit D'Souza (Illiberal Education)

Oh Mr. "Party of Death" this should be fun.

roots the blame for the 9/11 attacks in the left wing's "aggressive global campaign to undermine the traditional patriarchal family"

So if everybody just lived like Leave it to Beaver Osama Bin Laden would be a construction executive in Saudi Arabia? Okay Dinesh.

in this mostly lucid but unconvincing argument.

If the definition for lucid has now become "not on LSD" I guess you could call it lucid.

Pointing to Hillary Clinton, Britney Spears and Noam Chomsky

LOL

he decries those who have teamed up with Hollywood and the U.N.

So when did Britney Spears become Secretary-General? I must have missed that. I don't think Noam Chomsky is winning any Oscars recently either.

to foist an irreligious, sexually licentious, antifamily liberal culture—epitomized by Eve Ensler's play The Vagina Monologues and gay marriage initiatives—on a Muslim world that rightly reviles it.

So if we just kept our women in their places and didn't write the Vagina Monologues we'd be safe. Alright. Why don't we veil them at the same time, I think both social conservatives and Muslims fundamentalists would be happy.

By deliberately attacking Islamic values, the left tacitly allies itself with al- Qaeda in its effort to defeat Bush's war on terror

That doesn't make sense. If anything that would make them more heinous to al-Qaeda and the like than Bush and conservative Christians. He goes from saying they cause this Muslim outlash to them being allies of it. WTF?

and thus discredit conservatism at home, he asserts.

Does that have anything to do with this?

But D'Souza's claim that Islamic extremists are inflamed solely by America's music videos and feminists—not its U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or American support for Muslim dictators—is too single-minded.

You could say that again. I doubt Chinese farmers in Hainan really like American culture and its "depravity" but I have yet to see them blow themselves up or hijack airplanes.

For example, he paints Abu Ghraib poster-girl Lynndie England as the personification of liberal sexual depravity, without acknowledging that the U.S. Army sent her to Iraq, not the left.

Makes sense. Plus I doubt Lynndie "I'm from West Virginia" England is really part of the vast "cultural left".

Charging that liberals aid terrorists while sympathizing with the terrorists' culturally conservative worldview, D'Souza's critique of American cultural excess trips over its own inconsistencies.

Ie a pleasant way of saying that this book makes no sense at all and that it's thesis is complete bunk.

I have to thank D'Souza for his provocative, insightful book.

Sounds like the same sh**t that has been said by conservative pundits and commentators since the beginning of the War on Terrorism and earlier during the Cold War. It's really nothing new nor insightful.

He is both the dangerous rebel underdog undermining the politically correct establishment by exposing secrets that no one wants to be known

He's such a dangerous rebel underdog who is taking on the masses of liberal propoganda, yet he has a steady job as a columnist at the National Review and has had several bestselling books along with major speaking deals. I would hardly say that Mr. D'Souza is really in dire straights from his "rebel" status.

and far too credentialled to be disputed by anyone else, as a Washington Post columnist and "a scholar at the Hoover Institute at Standford University."

Is credentialled even a word? I think not.

He's a syndicated columnist for the Washington Post not a columnist. He writes as the token conservative in the Opinion and Editorial section and like all token conservatives he needs to take his ideology to the extreme and dive right off the deep end.

As for the Hoover Institute basically anyone that they can verify to be even slightly right-of-centre and to either be a writer or an academic becomes part of the Hoover Institute. Much like academic circles on the left many on the right can harbour people who hold extreme ideas and call them part of their organization.

[Beet]

I have to thank D'Souza for his provocative, insightful book.

Sounds like the same sh**t that has been said by conservative pundits and commentators since the beginning of the War on Terrorism and earlier during the Cold War. It's really nothing new nor insightful.

He is both the dangerous rebel underdog undermining the politically correct establishment by exposing secrets that no one wants to be known

He's such a dangerous rebel underdog who is taking on the masses of liberal propoganda, yet he has a steady job as a columnist at the National Review and has had several bestselling books along with major speaking deals. I would hardly say that Mr. D'Souza is really in dire straights from his "rebel" status.

and far too credentialled to be disputed by anyone else, as a Washington Post columnist and "a scholar at the Hoover Institute at Standford University."

Is credentialled even a word? I think not.

He's a syndicated columnist for the Washington Post not a columnist. He writes as the token conservative in the Opinion and Editorial section and like all token conservatives he needs to take his ideology to the extreme and dive right off the deep end.

As for the Hoover Institute basically anyone that they can verify to be even slightly right-of-centre and to either be a writer or an academic becomes part of the Hoover Institute. Much like academic circles on the left many on the right can harbour people who hold extreme ideas and call them part of their organization.

[/quote]

The later part is all sarcasm, Colin. It refers to a column he has in the Washington Post today complaining about how he's all persecuted while at the same time bragging about his status in the Hoover institute (among many other things)

[Vasall des Midas]

There is a shred of truth in it. Note: a shred. It's actually quite closely related to the self-defined socially progressive Islamophobics' argument. (Yeah, not looking at any regular posters here. -_- )

The secret to winning elections in the Middle East right now, if there were free elections everywhere, would be to be economically populist, socially mildly progressive (ie, progressive compared to what they've got, conservative compared to what we've got), and very very anti-American and anti-Israel.

[Michael Z]

With idiotic, nonsensical rants like this, people like O'Souza are doing far more damage to the ultra-conservative movement than anyone on the left could ever possibly hope to achieve.

[Colin]

I have to thank D'Souza for his provocative, insightful book.

Sounds like the same sh**t that has been said by conservative pundits and commentators since the beginning of the War on Terrorism and earlier during the Cold War. It's really nothing new nor insightful.

He is both the dangerous rebel underdog undermining the politically correct establishment by exposing secrets that no one wants to be known

He's such a dangerous rebel underdog who is taking on the masses of liberal propoganda, yet he has a steady job as a columnist at the National Review and has had several bestselling books along with major speaking deals. I would hardly say that Mr. D'Souza is really in dire straights from his "rebel" status.

and far too credentialled to be disputed by anyone else, as a Washington Post columnist and "a scholar at the Hoover Institute at Standford University."

Is credentialled even a word? I think not.

He's a syndicated columnist for the Washington Post not a columnist. He writes as the token conservative in the Opinion and Editorial section and like all token conservatives he needs to take his ideology to the extreme and dive right off the deep end.

As for the Hoover Institute basically anyone that they can verify to be even slightly right-of-centre and to either be a writer or an academic becomes part of the Hoover Institute. Much like academic circles on the left many on the right can harbour people who hold extreme ideas and call them part of their organization.

The later part is all sarcasm, Colin. It refers to a column he has in the Washington Post today complaining about how he's all persecuted while at the same time bragging about his status in the Hoover institute (among many other things)

Alright thanks. Thank God nobody actually believes that. As you can see I was in complete and total shock and mourning.

[nini2287]

I am actually going to have dinner with and meet D'Souza next week.  My newspaper is sponsoring a debate bewteen him and one of the school's professor over the removal of a cross from school property.  I'll let you know how it goes.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The only way the left is responsible for 9/11 is allowing muslims into the west.