Eight or ten Years ago, liberals had no use at all for Islam or Islamic culture. Today they spend a lot of energy defending them, to the point where liberals that still dislike feel that they can’t talk about it publicly.

What exactly happened, and when?


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

186 Responses to Islamophobia

  1. The Big Red Scary says:

    “Today they spend a lot of energy defending them”

    And even more energy advocating the destruction of their societies.

    But the phenomenon Cochran is describing is very general. There are all kinds of peculiar tribal identifiers which have no obvious relation with underlying principals. Sometimes they are adopted just to spite the out-group, which is what I think is going on with Muslim loving liberals.

    But others seem to make no sense at all. Why for example should there be an apparent correlation (either positive or negative) between being vegetarian and being “pro-choice” or “pro-life”?

    • Silenced Wesley says:

      Sowell’s Conflict of Visions theorizes that it’s the constrained and unconstrained intuitions of human nature or roughly the difference between blank-slate utopians and fatalistic Calvinists. Also low-disgust vs high-disgust responses to the environment, though I don’t remember if Sowell goes there.

      I was also confused why breast-beating vegan types tended to support abortion (counter-intuitive for a bunch of neopuritans) until it clicked that a leftist would naturally see the fetus as a biological blank slate with no scribbles on it yet to impart meaning & value.

    • Leonard says:

      The unifying theme of the left is holier-than-thou. Back when the left was <href=,9171,801396,00.html>”super protestant”, this meant being holier than the Church, then holier than Jesus, and finally holier than God — and then so much for God. But the process never stops; it’s always possible to find something even more extreme, i.e. the idea that animal feelings matter (to whom? — don’t think about that). Or the idea that women and men can be equal, and therefore women need to be able to kill their fetuses because obviously being pregnant is not equal nor is being forced to be a mother. Men aren’t being forced to be mothers!

      • kn83 says:

        Infantcide is actually much more common in more Conservative, non-Western parts of the world than the West. I doubt Leftism has much to do with increased abortion rates in America, since the Red States actually have higher rates of abortion than more Liberal parts of the country.

        • Aura says:

          Where on earth did you get that information about red states having higher rates of abortion? Upon reading this, my first guess was that this would be one of the stats that correlates to the black population (like porn searches for “ebony” being popular in Mississippi, which is cause for gleeful gotcha-ism among those who like to imagine stupid rednecks who are racist IRL, secretly pleasuring themselves to videos of black people having sex …. until someone points out that Mississippi has a very high black population, and you just need to think for 2 seconds to figure out why more Mississippians being black people might mean more Mississippians like black-person porn).

          But then 5 seconds of duckduckgo’ing brought up this data:

          So there’s no need to explain your assertion, because your assertion is simply wrong. The top twelve states in abortions per 1000 fertile-age women (in 2014, are, in order, New York, Florida, Delaware, DC, Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, Georgia, Rhode Island, Massachusettes and New Jersey. Not exactly a murderer’s row of Republican strongholds. New York for example has quadruple the abortion rate of Oklahoma and Indiana.

      • JP says:

        It’s all about the Good Yamnaya-Americans scoring a win over the Bad Yamnaya-Americans. Or to look at Britain, that famous quote, I believe by Tony Blair, that the 90s immigration push was all about rubbing the Conservative’s faces in diversity. These people don’t believe in any any timeless truth, all that’s left is scoring petty victories, regardless of the cost.

        • random observer says:

          I remember circa 2008 when a flack named Andrew Neather, who was entirely on side with that goal, somehow inadvertently blew their cover on that. I am still curious as to when the point was that Diversity became the be-all, end-all progressive totem it is today.

    • Aldo says:

      That’s easy. Support for animal rights/vegetarianism/veganism goes in line with contempt for other (White/Western) humans. They can frame support for abortion as preventing Mother Earth’s rapists from being born. They can call cries for population control in Africa “Racist” yet support abortion since they shill the age old noble savage myth but for the 3rd World today.

    • Jason says:

      Sometimes they are adopted just to spite the out-group”
      Kinda this. A good deal of modern progressivism is a teenager giving “dad” the finger. If they perceive (rightly or wrongly) that Islam is the enemy of father-figure Christianity, then they’re all for it.

      This gives lie to idea that progressives always back the underdog. Throughout the Middle East right now, millions of Syriac, Coptic, Maronite, etc. Christians are fleeing their ancient communities at a rate not seen since Timur. Hundreds of thousands have been killed by Salafists in the last decade. However, you hear barely a peep in the news, and some notable progressives (Daily Kos) have inferred it’s their own fault for living there.

      I realized this when I worked with a hardcore progressive for a few years. We were watching the news in the lunchroom once, and it was showing the ISIS video with the orange jumpsuited Christians, waiting to be beheaded by the jihadis behind them. Someone made a comment about the brutality, and the prog said “They deserve it for oppressing Muslims”. He got eaten alive for saying that, but then said something like any enemy of Christianity was a friend to him.
      Those statements, coupled with his sophomoric mentality, made me think about the actual basis for progressives attraction to Islam.

    • Frau Katze says:

      I don’t think it started 8-10 years ago. It started in the aftermath of 9/11. Negative feelings about Islam did predate 9/11 but I am an example of one who had given Islam almost no thought before 9/11.

      As soon as the first negative reactions occurred, the leftist contrarians jumped into the fray. GW Bush warned against it.

      The current defunding by Visa and Mastercard of long-time Islam critic Robert Spencer seems to be just one more case of an already popular technique.

      The conservative online magazine FrontPage (run by David Horowitz) shows the scope is spreading from video makers to print outfits.

      Just the other day a minor conspiracy theorist (Illuminati have infiltrated the Vatican) called Jay Dyer was kicked of WordPress.

      Our host should not assume he’s immune himself.

      • Whitney says:

        I think 9/11 is correct time wise. It definitely was for me. I was still a leftist atheist then and when it happened I immediately thought it was the United States fault, of course, but I also started looking into Islam. And that led to my break with leftism. Not because of their support of Islam but because of their lies about islam. And once I realized of the left was lying about that I had two look and see else they were lying about. Ultimately, that giant glass house just came crashing down. So so many lies. I wish more of my fellow leftist had followed that two step path instead of stopping at the first step

        • Frau Katze says:

          Similar for me. At first I could hardly believe how much the left had lied about, not just about Islam, but other things too. It was almost like breaking up a personal relationship. But that passed fairly quickly.

          I do think the Left lost quite a few. Helps explain why they need Muslims on board.

          My sister initially thought I had become raving right wing loon, but within a couple of years she jumped ship too. Even my son was put off by the Gamergate stuff.

          Virtually every young guy who played video was affected. By the time of Gamergate the left had only gotten worse.

          • Whitney says:

            You are very fortunate. I was raised to be a leftist atheist and I was until my late 20s and then it been a couple decades after that I continue to change away from the lessons of my childhood. But I’m the only one in my family. One of my sisters lives in Canada and Trudeau was too far right for her. Everyone in my family voted for Hillary, except for me of course

            • Rosenmops says:

              Frau Katze’s sister here. It is good to have her to talk politics with. Or at least email politics with. I don’t talk about politics with anyone else in the face-to-face world–especially at work (though when Trump was elected I discovered on other person in my department who seemed happy — but we don’t talk about it)

            • Frau Katze says:

              Leftist atheist family here too. My sister jumped ship after she used a forum for the United Church of Canada (a Canadian mix of Presbyterian and Methodists from the 1920s). Of course they’re just another SJW Church now. The people on the forum were extremely intolerant of the slightest deviation.

              Sorry to hear you’re alone in your family. A lot of people just automatically pick up whatever their parents are. I doubt my father (b. 1913) would be impressed with the SJWs. He was growing disenchanted with hippies of the 60s and 70s. Never really warmed up to the New Left.

      • NickG says:

        My awareness of the problems with Islam started in 1989 apropos the Satanic Verses / Salman Rushdie brouhaha and the vitriolic demonstrations but UK Muslims.

        The UK establishment reaction was to side with the demonstrators. After reading the Koran and some Bernard Lewis I realised there was a problem coming then.

        • Frau Katze says:

          Yes, that was the first major indicator. But I was really busy with work and single parenting. It just didn’t make as much of an impression.

          The Middle East, I couldn’t understand. There was a war in Lebanon. My daughter was friends with a girl whose father was able to get his wife and kids to safety in Canada. But I had no idea what they fighting about, or even what religion my daughter’s friend’s family were. They seemed secular.

          9/11 seemed a lot more dramatic, and much closer to home.

          I could really relate to the poor office workers. You show up for your desk job and suddenly your choosing between burnt alive and jumping off the building. I thought, that could be me.

  2. Hesse Kassel says:

    The essence of being left wing is to prefer, encourage, subsidise and glorify the worse thing/group over the better. Better by traditional standards, that is, richer, healthier, ahead in status games, better treated/thought of by most people in society.

    They want to both raise the worse and to break down the better.

    So as far as they are concerned homosexual beats heterosexual, disabled beats able, transgender beats normal, broken family beats intact family, black beats white etc.

    Then an ethnic group appeared whose members are usually poor, marry their cousins, chop up their daughters privates etc. They also like to publicly smash up other, in the west, usually more successful groups. Inevitably the left loves them.

    European jews are an interesting case. Historically, when they have been allowed to succeed, the left have often hated them and treated them terribly. Then unpleasant events during WW2 made them holy victims to the left for a while. It seems to be wearing off again now. Maybe WW2 was too long ago and the meritocratic modern world has exposed Jews as winners more than ever before.

    Speaking of WW2. German nationalists have a problem with winning leftist support. They obviously want to raise Germany and Germans. Unfortunately Germans are generally a pretty competent, impressive group. What is the solution? Find the only group which is more successful than Germans and really go to town on them. Talk about it a lot.

    • Alex says:

      You are basically describing what spandrell called biological leninism.

      It is a good essay.

      Would love to hear Mr. Cochran’s take on it.

      • pyrrhus says:

        Promoting transgenderism, aka World War T, and Islam is just another marxist holiness spiral, in which the new craziness is used to acquire status over other marxists, and of course to brow beat and humiliate “normals” and force them to subscribe to propositions that are clearly nuts….Dr. Dalrymple has written about this on several occasions.

        • Frau Katze says:

          I would agree. There are numerous issues for the crazed neo-Marxists that can imagined as “oppressive.” Some may have an actual degree of oppression, although this is changing fast.

          Being gay barely gives a man any victim points these days. That’s an incredibly fast change. Gone from scandalous to, “yeah, so what? You’re cis, I understand.”

          • Jonathan says:

            When it comes to criticising Islam, it seems homosexuals retain enough victimhood to avoid the pariah hood of any heterosexual counterparts foolish enough to try.
            Three of the loudest voices not to lose a mainstream platform being David Starky, Douglas Murray and Milo.

            • Zimriel says:

              Whut. Milo was among the first martyrs of no-platforming as soon as the Leftists found an excuse. He lost his blue checkmark and then was thrown off Twitter. Lost his publishing contract too.

            • Hugh Mann says:

              David Starkey is rarely if ever seen or heard on BBC these days, he’s been unpersoned. Go-to BBC historians now tend to be vaguely attractive public school girlies, plus Mary Beard and Dan Snow, forgiven for being male because of his lefty dad and because the ladies need something to look at.

    • jb says:

      I think you are overcomplicating the issue. The essence of Leftism is not to glorify the worse, but to see the entire world through the lens of oppression. Oppression is the Great Satan — nothing else matters! — and the goal of Leftism is to make the world perfect by finding Satan under every bed, dragging him out, and casting him into the void.

      So the first rule of Leftism is this: if a situation can be interpreted in terms of oppression, then it must be interpreted in terms of oppression! I really believe this explains pretty much everything. Is it possible to see homosexuals as oppressed? Yes, it’s possible! Therefore you must side with homosexuals against heterosexuals. Is is possible to see Muslims as oppressed? Yes, it’s possible! Therefore you must side with Muslims against Christians. And so on. Always it is the oppressor and the oppressed. This is in start contrast with the Right, which tends to see the world through the lens of personal responsibility and accomplishment.

      The thing is though, both lenses can be valid, depending on the time and place! The origin of the present day Left was the French Revolution; and you know, Europe at that time was actually pretty damn oppressive! The problem is that Left is so wedded to the idea of oppression that it continues to see it everywhere, even when it doesn’t exist, and is outraged by the idea that people’s problems could ever be their own damn fault, a consequence of their own inadequacies and failures. Which of course today they mostly are.

      • jb says:

        stark contrast…

      • teageegeepea says:

        Could east asians discriminated against by Ivy League universities be considered “oppressed”? Perhaps, but leftists would prefer not to think about that. Sailer has also noted the research indicating that boys in rural areas are the largest source of “diamonds in the rough” who don’t attend college more because the possibility doesn’t occur to them rather than due to ability, but the modern left has little interest in hicks from the sticks. Someone above gave the example of Coptic Christians in the Middle East, whom the left would also prefer to ignore. Razib has written about how ex-Muslims are a “minority within a minority”, and precisely because they are so marginal the Left would prefer to side with the larger set of Muslims who would despise the ex-Muslims as apostates.

        • jb says:

          If it were only an issue of East Asians and whites in the Ivy League, I’m quite sure the Left would have no trouble seeing anti-Asian discrimination as oppression. But blacks are higher up in the oppression hierarchy, and siding with Asians here would work against the interests of blacks. So yes, the Left prefers not to think about it.

        • Frau Katze says:

          Segments of the left treated former Muslim, now atheist, Ayaan Hirsi Ali disgracefully. This is a woman who has undergone female genital mutilation.

          • 3g4me says:

            No Western Christian should give a damn about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who managed (mutilated genitals and all) to entice Niall Ferguson to father a numinous Mulatto with her, and then to abandon his White wife and three children in order to marry her. She has to go back.

            • Frau Katze says:

              The blame, if any, falls on Ferguson too. No one was holding a gun to his head,

              She appears to be brighter than average by quite a bit. Given how many blacks you already have in the US (I assume you’re an American), What’s one more, who is also above average?

              I don’t buy blanket condemnations based on group identity. Islam is awful, I completely agree, thus we should support those brave enough to leave (the prescribed penalty is death, to be applied by any devout Muslim).

              Millions worldwide support that death penalty. It causes a lot of violence in Muslim countries. Simply say, “So-and-so has strayed from the true path …fill in reason, it needn’t be very serious… death to this apostate.”

              You saw it very clearly with ISIS, who killed any Muslim they didn’t like.

              It’s almost unbelievable to me that the Left can’t see the threat that this death cult poses.

              • gcochran9 says:

                The Aztecs had a death cult – the Moslems don’t. They’re not even as bad as the Soviets. What they are is ineffective, backwards, and hostile.

              • Zimriel says:

                GCochran, although it is true that most religions have a hagiography around death in service to the religion, Islam takes it further with its doctrine of qital fi sabili’llah. If it’s not a death cult it at least allows for death cults. ISIS got very close. The Assassins reached that nadir IMO.

              • gcochran9 says:

                In terms of people ready to fight for their religion, Islam scores fairly high. But suicide attacks were not common, outside of the Assassins. The Japanese in WWII just had to be asked.

                In recent conflicts, there have been Moslem volunteers, sometimes enough to matter a little, but nothing like the kind of power projected by even a small nation-state. Portugal put a far bigger army in the field in Africa.
                You could compare it to the pinheads that joined the International Brigades, in the Spanish Civil War.

              • Frau Katze says:

                I’d say that ISIS was edging up there in their behaviour. And this wasn’t a first for Islam.

                Their own history describes previous outbreaks.

                But of course old history all sorts of things, across the board bad stuff.

                The atheists of Communism have the highest counts in the 20th century.

              • 3g4me says:

                No one was holding a gun to anyone’s head. Ali knew Ferguson was married. A married man can make as many advances as he wishes (I had numerous married men proposition me before my marriage) – all the woman needs to do is say “No, thank you.” This “blame them both” canard implies women have no agency.

                Additionally, Ali is not merely an ex-Mohammedan atheist, she is an aggressively anti-Christian atheist. Since Graeco-Roman culture, Christianity, and White Europeans are the three essential components of Western civilization, she managed to attack all three. Destroying a nuclear family – the building block of Western society – and becoming pregnant with a Mulatto prior to marriage – Ali managed to nicely hit all her targets.

                I despise Ferguson as well, but not for accepting what she obviously put on offer. He has offered paeans to her purported “innate understanding” of Western philosophy and civilization, while ignoring her militantly anti-Christian stance and his own infidelity and miscegenation. A pox on both.

              • Frau Katze says:

                @g34me I don’t know why it doesn’t bother me. I have even been through the experience of being left with two small children, as hubby ran off with someone else. It is really hard being a single mother.

                But they’re grown now and seem fine. I don’t like to dwell on it. Negative, vindictive thinking doesn’t help anything. Try to stay positive.

              • albatross says:

                I don’t quite see how you blame the married guy who strayed less than the homewrecker who got him to stray. At the very least, he was the one who had made a promise to be true to someone; she hadn’t made any such promises.

              • BengaliCanadianDude says:

                “Prescribed Death Penalty”


      • Jim says:

        France just before the French Revolution really wasn’t all that oppressive, at least by the standards of the time. In practice there was more toleration of religious differences than in Britain. Necker was a Huguenot but nobody seemed to care. No Catholic could have been a minister in Britain at that time.

        The French economy was in bad shape but that was not the result of a deliberate policy of “oppression”. Actually most of the French population were peasants who were actually benefiting from the inflation as prices of agricultural products were rising faster than the prices of stuff the peasants purchased. The urban proletariat (which was less than 10% of the French population) was suffering since increases in their wages lagged increases in
        the price of food. But nobody was deliberately trying to “oppress” the urban proletariat.

        • jb says:

          I don’t think anyone was deliberately, consciously trying to oppress anyone. But the distance between the aristocracy and the common folk was huge. Quibbling over exactly how oppressive things were, or whether they might have been a bit worse in Britain (or elsewhere in the world for that matter) is immaterial, because it’s a question of perception. The French Revolution was a reaction to a rigid and hierarchical social order that was perceived — (with considerable reason!) — to be oppressive; that’s what shaped the modern Left, and that’s how it has seen the world ever since. The American Revolution was different because the Founding Fathers were not trying to overthrow a social order that they hated, they were trying to preserve the existing social order from foreign meddling.

          • Jim says:

            Of course it was far less “oppressive” than it had been in former times when there was no danger of revolution. I don’t think oppression was the cause of the French Revolution.

            • jb says:

              I’m not saying that oppression was the cause of the French Revolution — that wasn’t my point at all!

              But pre-revolutionary France was in fact oppressive, even if it wasn’t the worst of the worst of the worst, and the revolutionaries perceived themselves to be liberating France (and eventually all of humanity — the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen was the first universal declaration of human rights) from oppression. My point is that the modern Left was born out of a struggle against oppression, and it is incapable of seeing the world in any other terms. Sometimes of course oppression can be real; but when it isn’t the Left is going to find it under every bed anyway, because that’s all it knows.

        • teageegeepea says:

          Sociology gets a bad rap (particularly in these parts) for producing nonsense in pursuit of a political ideology. So it’s worth noting when some sociologists note as one of their major findings that “deprivation theory is wrong“. This is in line with the economists/political scientists who explain things like the French Revolution resulting from a “crisis of rising expectations”, while some quite lousy regimes can grind their people into the dirt (see North Korea) yet persist. Edward Luttwak even argued in The Economics of Repression (which I present here) from Coup D’etat: A Practical Handbook that it’s in the interest of a dictator to keep their people too poor to overthrow the regime.

          • Frau Katze says:

            I’ve heard that theory about rising expectations also. I wonder if it contributed to angry blacks as the Obama era ended. Not much progress had been made.

            Eric Hoffer in “The True Believer” mentions that if one is really poor, one is too busy looking for the next meal to plot revolt.

            • Jim says:

              There were peasant revolts in Europe well before the modern era but they were generally crushed. The French Revolution was a very different sort of thing. The peasantry were still the great majority of the population at that time but they were not the source of the Revolution.

  3. An apparent unwillingness to judge other cultures (who can say one culture is better than another), married to a predilection for immediately judging contrary opinions within their own cultures as being due to foul motives.

  4. The Anti-Communist says:

    The usual suspects are: Obama’s election, Victim’s Departments in Universities (Women’s Studies, African-American Studies etc.), Twitter & Facebook obscuring Democratic Party’s perception of it’s base…

  5. It’s at least partially just because there are more Muslims around these days. Americans didn’t really think much at all about Muslims (other than Palestinians, like the guy who assassinated RFK,) before 9-11. Post 9-11, we went to war in two Muslim countries and Islamic immigration increased. There’s been a whole lotta Islamic immigration in Europe since then, too.

    I noticed increasing Islamic immigration back in the 90s, but only because I accidentally wandered into a lecture on the subject at a mosque one day (I was looking for a lecture on Islamic trade routes in the 1400s.) I don’t think most people noticed anything until numbers got high enough and folks got pissed about 9-11.

    • The Anti-Communist says:

      It’s not just Muslims. The Democrats also spend an inordinate amount of time posing for sexual minorities like transgenders.
      But why? These minorities themselves are an almost insignificant fraction of voters. This pandering only makes sense if the Democrats believe that doing so would get them votes from others —the “Allies”.

    • Henry Scrope says:

      Sirhan, still alive in jail, was born and raised a Christian. Oh and as to why liberals claim to like Muslims; they are lying, they see Muslims as a useful biological weapon to wreak destruction.

    • Gringo says:

      Sirhan Sirhan was a Christian, and as far as I know, still is a Christian.

    • BengaliCanadianDude says:

      Sirhan Sirhan isn’t even Muslim lol

  6. Silenced Wesley says:

    Liberals are enjoying the opportunity to act like grizzly sows protecting their cubs. By seeking out victims of persecution, racism, sexism, etc, they give themselves an easy excuse to unleash their anger on a deserving enemy in the usual two minutes hate. These people see Simon Legrees everywhere they look, and there’s always a convenient victim–like poor, persecuted Muslims–that justifies punching Nazis.

    OTOH the Davos Men types are using Muslim immigrants in a proxy war against their suburban class enemies and to solidify their preferred policies’ position at the ballot box. From that perspective, it’s probably not a bad idea to start importing Somalians into the Mall of America just when the Lutherans start to wonder whether voting Democrat is such a good idea.

    • Frau Katze says:

      The Dems see Muslims as a reliable voting bloc. It won’t work in the long run due to continuing immigration combined with a noticeably higher rate.

      But it works in the short term.

  7. The Anti-Communist says:

    List of suspects: The Academic Left (where such views were common before), Social Media (what distorted worldview), Obama (how the Democratic Party changed).

  8. Alex says:

    Joe Sobran discussed the nativist and the alienist,not in the sense we think of the words. The nativist is self-satisfied and invested in the status quo. Too many of them and everything stagnates and various issues (economic imbalances, social, demographic) get out of hand. The alienist seeks to change things and is always a malcontent. Too many of them gaining the upper hand leads to chaos and the dissolution of societal bonds. The current alienists are terminally disenchanted with their country and fellow citizens. The muslims are either a fetish for a love of the exotic and of a cleansing reform, or a simple political tool to batter their fellow countrymen over their heads with, to be discarded or assimilated when they are done (making janissaries of their children as well). The Muslims are likely not going to go quietly and may win the upper hand because of asabiyah. The liberals need the nativists do to their fighting and dying for them, so this places them in a bind.

    • I had not thought of Sobran in years. thanks for the reminder, I will refressh. The point is a good one. I would add to your last line that the opposite is also true in terms of the internal power wars. They need the alienists to fight for them – or more accurately, just fight – against the nativists at the micro level. Liberals have gotten good at excusing violence.

      I work in a largely, even overwhelmingly liberal environment. I find that they defend “other cultures” mostly in the abstract. I suspect James Thompson’s (above) take on that is correct.

  9. Dykeward says:

    Simple oppressed-oppressor template underlying their worldview–oppressed_distinction

    Acts of the former also frequently seen as being a product of the latter

    • pyrrhus says:

      The ever-changing Narrative and therefore ever-changing totem pole of victimology tells you that it’s not sincere, it’s just the Red Guards at work.ll

  10. adreadline says:

    You mean a bit like how no one cared much about Mexican immigration until four decades ago, not long after Americans stopped having kids?
    It may be the case that we need people to keep working for cheap and buying stuff. Westerners stopped replacing themselves.
    So we might as well start praising other people’s cultures and why they should come to Europe and to the United States and how disliking them is very bad (specially for the economy, which is what really matters).

    And I’m sure there are people who know so much more than me about Europeans pandering to Muslims, but I’d question if that already wasn’t in progress back when that Danish newspaper Mohammed cartoon controversy happened, which was more like 13 years ago (rather than ”8 or 10”).

  11. Maciano says:

    Larry Auster solved this one for me: the worse a minority behaves, the more leftists will defend them.

    You must be talking about the US situation, because in Europe muslims have been sacralised by the left for decades. If not sacralised, they’ve at least been considered noble savages, incapable of agency. The only exception might be Iran, post-revolution.

    The reason why Jews in Israel have been hated by the left, despite being a minority, is easy: Israeli Jews are considered Westerners — and Palestinians as non-Westerners. Westerners engaging in nationalism against non-Western minorities is the core evil of the postwar left. So, that’s why the left hates Israel.

    And Jews in Western countries are considered minorities, thus sacred. However, Jews lobbying Western governments for pro-Zionist foreign policy are considered evil again for reason mentioned above.

    • JerryC says:

      Larry Auster solved this one for me: the worse a minority behaves, the more leftists will defend them.

      Yeah, I think the basic assumption here is that western capitalist society is rotten to the core and needs to be torn down completely. So the more a minority group acts out against the legacy majority, the more support they deserve.

      • pyrrhus says:

        That’s true, but doesn’t explain the obsession with transsexuals and pronouns…That’s just forcing normies, and laggard leftists, to comply with something that’s clearly insane.

        • JerryC says:

          No, I think it all fits together. The point is to attack the status quo from every angle possible, and traditional definitions of “man” and “woman” are part of the status quo, so they have to be discarded. Basic Gramscianism.

          Leftists have always <a href=”>viewed the family as a potential counter-revolutionary force, so it’s not surprising that they’re in favor of anything that undermines the family as an institution.

        • saintonge235 says:

          It’s power, baby, power! Remember your 1984: 2 + 2 = whatever the Party says it equals. The future is a boot stepping on a human face, forever, and this is a psychological boot.

          And breaking down the sense of reality is a great tool for gaining power too. As someone observed, the propaganda of totalitarian regimes includes the ritual of making people repeat things they know aren’t true. It’s a psychological self-crippling the victims are forced to engage in.

          After all, what good would it do to make people repeat things that are true, and sane? Anyone might do that, completely on their own.

          When you’re puzzled by something the Left does, go back to the Melian Dialogue: “The strong do as they will, and the weak suffer as they must. . . . Of gods we believe, and of men we know, that by an inescapable law of their nature they seek power wherever they can. . . . You would do the same, if you could.” Unlike the Athenians, they won’t admit that power is their goal. They’ll bury it under professions of helping the masses. But as Orwell noted, you exercise power by making people suffer, and exercising power is their end-in-itself.

          What remains after power-seeking and power-retention is removed is a death wish, also prominent in the Left. That, I suspect, comes from the fact that on some level they know that their rationalizations are bull shit, that by their own professed standards they are evil. But on this point I confess to less certainty. The death wish is real, as Freud, Rand, and Solzhenitsyn variously noted. The explanation is not as firm.

    • teageegeepea says:

      I dunno, neo-nazis tend to be very badly behaved, and most leftists are outraged if a social media company (or AirBNB) even permits them as users. The exception would be the ACLU defending their rights, an unusual example of consistent adherence to principles.

      • Maciano says:

        Three laws for progressive intellectualism
        1) in western vs nonwestern conflicts progs always choose the nonwestern side
        2) in majority vs minority conflicts progs always choose the minority side.
        3) in nonwestern vs. minority conflicts progs always defend the worst behaving side.

        neonazis fall under 1. they’re white westerners.

      • Frau Katze says:

        The ACLU has become just another leftist organization these days. The Skokie days are far behind.

        Great stock is put in the questionable “Southern Poverty Law Center.” It’s been controversial over its fundraising techniques for years. Currently considered absolutely wonderful by the usual suspects.

        NYT uses it regularly. I stuck with NYT for a long time, but Sarah “I hate whites” Jeong on their editorial board finally induced me to cancel.

        Hating whites is not racist, as all decent people agree.

      • saintonge235 says:

        The American Communist Lawyers Union is consistent only in that they intend to destroy “bourgeois” society. Defending the rights of the American Nazi Party was just window-dressing, to fool the stupid into believing they aren’t revolutionaries. (See Roger Baldwin’s notorious essay in Soviet Russia Today, which you can easily find on the web. And btw, I went to the trouble of finding a physical copy, and confirmed the essay’s authenticity.)

    • Frau Katze says:

      Writer Paul Berman made the same case in “Terror and Liberalism.” He thinks some of the contrarians enjoy reading about atrocities. Published 2003.

      He continues to call himself a liberal.

  12. Name says:

    They took our institutions, with the help of the aliens who already had done such, with the help of liberals.
    That’s what affirmative action is all about, the infiltration of our institutions.

    • Frau Katze says:

      Except the same mentality exists in other countries than the US. Pretty much the whole West.

      The former Communist countries are an exception. This is currently causing problems in the EU, as they are resisting the ongoing invasion from Africa and Asia. They don’t want Muslims at all.

      If you look around the world, Muslims are disliked everywhere. They even riled the Buddhists in Myanmar.

      They hate each other too. Consider Pakistan: any day is a good day for blowing up a Shiite or Sufi mosque.

      Targeted killing of members of the heterodox Ahmadiyya (have renounced violent jihad) are common. By law, they can’t call themselves Muslims.

      Pakistan is Terror Central, because it has all these different strains of Islam.

  13. gyddyn says:

    Demography is not destiny, it’s fate.
    Islam got powermojo. If you have it, it helps.

    • Maciano says:

      islam is a brainless, senseless cult for people who lack individualism, intelligence and joie de vivre.

      I hate it.

      • pyrrhus says:

        Islam is a very backward death cult, harmless unless you welcome it into your home…

      • Frau Katze says:

        But they have way more kids than whites or blacks or Hispanics. Their long term success appears to be inevitable.

        The gates on all Muslim immigration need be shut permanently. Not going to happen. Note the hysteria over Trump’s temporary ban on a handful Muslim countries.

    • Aldo says:

      Muslim majority wouldn’t be so dysfunctional nor would Muslims have repeatedly failed to triumph against the West in major warfare for centuries if what you said is the case.

      • Frau Katze says:

        Except they’re not fighting to get in. They’re being invited. Post WW 2, millions were invited to Europe. Even after the worker shortages ended, legal immigration continued. This is a first in history.

        In the present, we defeating ourselves.

        • saintonge235 says:

          The mass migration is an example of the death-wish at work.

          They want Western Civilization to die, and themselves with it. Realistically, I think the best outcome we can obtain is to separate ourselves from them, and let them die.

  14. anonymous coward says:

    Anti-colonialism and the advocacy for native populations. Here in New Mexico I’ve seen some overlap between activism for Native Americans and Muslim populations. Israel, the legacies of Black slavery, Native Americans, .. all get pulled into and interpreted through the matrix of colonialism. Gregory asks “Eight or ten Years ago, .. What exactly happened, and when?” It seems likely the events of September 11, 2001 resulted in a major escalation in the propaganda efforts (er.. marketing and public relations) of associated countries to influence American public opinion. By that point in time there were already established funding routes from those countries to U.S. colleges and universities. (The Middle Eastern Studies Program at UCSB, for one example, was largely funded by Syria. Excellent music concerts by the way. Though explicitly cultural, politics tends to spill over into everything it seems, though I never saw any of it happening in that particular program, for whatever it’s worth.)

    • Smithie says:

      I think colonialism is just the rationalization of their base power dynamic instincts.

      Told about Turkey having one of the largest colonial empires in history, or how they ethnically cleansed various groups like the Greeks, Thracian Bulgarians, or Armenians, I don’t think that there is one globalist that would stop advocating for Turkey to become part of the EU, or even stop calling it part of Europe, as some globalists already do now.

      I’ve certainly heard the most absurd conflations to justify globalism, like comparing the Berlin Wall to the US-Mexico border. It’s not history; it’s biology and genetics paired with some social thresholds. It is why Communists always talked glowingly about internationalism.

      And if it is instinct, it didn’t evolve in the age of cheap flights and facile global communication. There are a lot of natural checks and balances that technology has completely removed. Not long ago, most people lived on farms, and bad harvests were a frequent occurrence. I guarantee the Left were not as inviting when feeding newcomers potentially meant eating less yourself.

      • saintonge235 says:

        “It’s not history; it’s biology and genetics paired with some social thresholds. . . .

        “There are a lot of natural checks and balances that technology has completely removed.”

        Exactly. Neo-Darwinism 101: genes that lead to behaviors that increase the share of said genes in subsequent generations will spread till they are universal, or reach a stable population equilibrium at least.

        Until recently, obtaining power/wealth/sex meant more surviving offspring in the next generation. Now it doesn’t. If, e.g., Bill Clinton had been born in 1846 he’d likely have a dozen bastards, and several legitimate children. Instead, he only has one, because birth control came along.

        But the power-instincts remain, and the behavior they engender.

  15. greifer says:

    You’re incorrect on the timing. Beginning just weeks after Sept. 11, the Left in the US saw that the Right was too occupied with an existential threat while simultaneously being politically too correct in naming that threat. They attacked the Right and center. Ever since, the Democratic power of Left became the grand champion of Islam in our country. They made common cause with the Islamists to destroy the right and center.

    What changed ten years ago is Obama got elected, and the old Dem power of the Left lost the upper hand to the Islamists. The old Dems, being white males, have been thrown out by the very ideology they used to marginalize and destroy the center and right. Obama put the Muslim brotherhood/CAIR and Nation of Islam folks in positions of power, let them control the OCR, make headway on recognizing multiple marriages in soc security benefits, funded massive immigration/refugee moments into “red” counties, ensured looking the other way on various violations of the law. Etc.

    Europe had already fallen, but the reasoning is similar.

  16. ziel says:

    There were a few watershed moments in the last decade or so that I thought really cemented ‘Islamophobia’ in the leftist mindset (and when I say ‘left’, I mean everyone not to the right of John McCain) as a weapon to tar their opponents:

    The Flying Imams
    The protests over the planned Islamic Center next to ground zero
    Michelle Bachmann asking how Huma Abedin got her security clearance

    The first involved stereotyping the ‘other’, and that’s just plain bad
    The second involved all the deplorable people – Pam Geller, yahoos burning Koran’s
    And the third – well, you don’t get much more deplorable than Michelle Bachmann. But the outcry over a simple request to clarify how she got her security clearance was insane – you’d have thought she said “Hitler was right!”. She might as well have. Soon she was under investigation for campaign finance violations and quietly went back home to Minnesota.

    And then when Trump called for a Muslim ban that really lit the fire. I don’t think Islamophobia is as bad as Transphobia – nothing could be that bad – but it’s up there.

  17. It’s not as big a shift as you say… Liberals were defending Islam 10 years ago. Of course, so was George W. Bush, who famously described Islam as “the Religion of Peace”. It’s true that after 9/11 a large portion of mainstream liberals started to worry about radicalism in Islam, but it was in much the same way neoconservatives did: “Islam itself is wonderful and almost all Muslims are moderate and peaceful, we are only concerned with a few bad apples.” They, for the most part, continued to support mass immigration, and if they opposed it, it was sotto voce and useless. But these people mostly jumped ship around the time the Iraq War went south.

    These days there are virtually zero liberal critics of Islam. A few, like Sam Harris, still exist. Of course, he spends 99% of his time obsessing about Trump, Christian bigots, claiming populists are evil and retarded, etc. Even so, that 1% of his time criticizing Islam is enough to make him extremely controversial on the left, with some people now even calling him “gateway drug to white supremacism.”

  18. Rosenmops says:

    Why do leftist love Muslims?
    1 Muslims and leftists both hate Jew and Israel, the Muslims because the Koran orders it, the leftist because they have been brainwashed by Pallywood and other Muslim propaganda on university campuses in the West.

    Leftists tend to love non western cultures that have trouble keeping the lights on and forming a civil society. The leftists claim these failings are the fault of colonialism
    or patriarchy or just the fact that Western countries are majority white and whiteness is evil. (More brainwashing at universities.

  19. The left sees Muslims as among the oppressed in their simple view of the world; sensible whites and their civilization, which must be ovethrown, are the oppressors. The so-called Palestinians are not an attractive group either, but the left embraced them long ago.

  20. et.cetera says:

    Saudi money:

    Building institutions takes time. Getting those institutions to the point where they have a certain level of influence on public discourse also takes, in turn, time. Propagation also depends on how permissive the cultural medium is, and I can think of several reasons why the public would have been becoming more receptive to such ideas in the recent past…

  21. Jerome says:

    My enemy’s enemy is my friend.

  22. Philip Neal says:

    Islam is anti-capitalist. It’s as simple as that.

    • Aldo says:

      Tell that to the Saudi oil mongers. One Saudi leader even boasted of how he was “moving forward.”

      • Maciano says:

        No it isn’t. and that’s not true.

        In the past leftists tended to be anti-Islam for its obvious backwardness. Leftists believed religions stood in the way of progress. And back then, leftists really were anticapitalist; these days, leftists are antiwestern.

        Communists actually persecuted Islam, often moderately succesful, which was one of the things I won’t hold against them.

        • saintonge235 says:

          Leftists have always been anti-Western, though it wasn’t as noticeable way back when. I recommend Jacob Talmon’s masterpiece “The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy” for a look at the beginning of the mindset that ‘Whatever is, is wrong, and must be destroyed.’

          It’s no accident that every Leftist group falls into schisms and self-destruction. Destruction of the existing order was what they aimed at all along. And the existing order is, always, objectively evil, something that must be destroyed. Proof: the Left isn’t in charge of it, so it can’t be any good.

          The would-be philosopher-kings must rule, or their lives have no meaning.

    • Ursiform says:

      So, arguably, is Christianity. Most Christians are reconciled with it. So, actually, are most Muslims. Even in most Sharia-based countries they find ways to do capitalism while pretending not to.

    • pyrrhus says:

      Mainly, Islam is low IQ and primitive…the rest follows.

  23. dearieme says:

    “What exactly happened, and when?” They decided to weaponise them for use in who vs whom.

    • mapman says:

      Yes, that’s pretty much it. To elaborate a bit:
      1. The decadence of Western world brought about by uncommon prosperity led to some self-destructing cultural ideas seem viable.
      2. Some people eager for power saw an opportunity in capturing the flow and capitalizing on it.
      3. Iterate 1+2 for a few cycles. Positive feedback loop, self-catalytic process.
      4. In the resulting movement, anything that works against the old norms is welcome (“the enemy of my enemy is my friend” kind of idea).

  24. Citizen A says:

    Here is my comment about Islam:
    First: It is super exclusionary, so why would anyone who is truly Islamic choose to live here and expose their children to what amounts to utter heresy? in short, why would they ever show up here?

    Second, below the WEIRD classes, this country has zero welcome for another intolerant crackpot religion- they already have their own flavors of Abrahamic intolerance. (Read any good Jehovah’s Witness stuff lately?)

    Third- see number 2- those folks are never going to be nicey pacifistic and cozy with Islam- plus our military has now spent 17 years engaged in slaughtering them in numerous countries- do you think those attitudes are going to stay overseas?

    The real question is when our WEIRD classes begin to understand that their fantasy world of peace and kumbayah is nonexistent- and Trump was a giant FU to both parties in their delusion.

    • Jason says:

      As soon as someone uses that word like it’s a valid way to categorize extremely divergent philosophies, I quit reading.
      It’s like lumping whales and lions together because they’re both laurasiatherians.

    • Smithie says:

      Out of curiosity, I once watched a short animated video produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses. It seemed to have had two messages: 1.) give money to Watchtower. 2.) Diversity and globalism are good, we can all wear our own different costumes like saris and liederhosen and be better as a multi-racial group of friends.

      I don’t know if that is their standard message, but I found it rather boring.

    • jb says:

      I read an essay once — I think it was by Bernard Lewis — which noted that, until recently, Islamic legal doctrine explicitly forbade Muslims from living in non-Muslim countries (i.e., countries not governed by Muslims), except temporarily for trade or diplomatic purposes. If a country was conquered by non-Muslims, any Muslims living there were required to leave as soon as possible. I’m sure many Muslims ignored or were unaware of those rulings, but at least according to the essay that was the position of most or all schools of Islamic jurisprudence.

    • ghazisiz says:

      Few Muslims accept Nation of Islam as Islamic–the group’s founder (Elijah Muhammad) is proclaimed by members as a Prophet, and no orthodox Muslim will accept a Prophet after Mohammed.

      Liberals seem to have excluded NOI from their embrace of Islam, perhaps because NOI leaders are openly white-hating racists. Their hatred has occasionally led to murder:

      • gcochran9 says:

        “Since 2010, under Farrakhan, members have been strongly encouraged to study Dianetics,

        You learn something every day.

      • Rosenmops says:

        ghazisiz wrote:
        “Liberals seem to have excluded NOI from their embrace of Islam, perhaps because NOI leaders are openly white-hating racists.”

        That wouldn’t stop leftists from embracing them. Look how the NYT has hired an openly white-hating racist for their editorial board, Sarah Jeong .

    • RCB says:

      Nation of Islam always kind of reminded me of cargo cults.

  25. Leonard says:

    I’ll second the comments of others above that Muslims have been sacralized for longer than 10 years. “Religion of peace” and all that. However, it is also true that at least for a while there, there was actual contention on the left as to how to view them. Were they bad because patriarchal, religious-religious, and FGM? Or good because minority, brown, colonized, vote Democrat, etc.? We know side won.

    I think that within the USA, this debate might have gone the other way because Muslim voting was very insignificant compared to the backlash from 9/11. But this was not true in Europe, and the progressive movement is nothing if not internationalist. So an important part of the change was import of the politically correct attitudes of Europe into the high-prestige institutions of worldwide progressivism, which are mostly American.

    • Anonymous says:

      Something happened in the opposite direction too. From about 2005 onwards American ‘educated’ leftists arrived in European leftists circles and brought with them brainwashing like intersectionality, critical race theory and post-colonial studies. They started running around accusing Europeans of ‘settler-colonialism’ and telling us that we’re all immigrants too. European leftists were, as always, quite confused about all this but it very quickly took over European universities also. So the old leftists had to cave in, in order to attract the cool young kids into the movement (to replace the constant attrition from old half-sane ones)

      • Rosenmops says:

        But the Europeans in Europe aren’t colonists. Sweden has never even had a colony, but they seem bent on destroying themselves.

        • Frau Katze says:

          Spain, Portugal, France and Netherlands were all active early on. I think Sweden ended up with one Caribbean island.

          One theory on the idiocity of Sweden: they weren’t in either world war. They were selling iron ore to Germany. Meanwhile, neighbouring Norway was not only invaded by Hitler, but when the Germans left, they used scorched earth tactics as they withdrew.

          Hitler never invaded Sweden because he really needed what Sweden was exporting.

          Maybe it’s a nation-wide guilt complex. That also helps explain their prosperity right after WW2, when other nations were in pretty bad circumstances.

          It still doesn’t make sense. The people who traded with Nazi Germany are not alive now. No one should be held to account for what their ancestors did. Although the modern Left seems to think it’s not only acceptable but mandatory for all Europeans and their descendants.

          But no one else. Total idiots, the pack of them.

        • saintonge235 says:

          Not true. Sweden had colonies called “Norway” and “Finland” for a long time, and founded a New Sweden in North America in the Seventeenth Century.

          And of course Swedish imperialism was big for a while under Charles XII.

  26. Spandrell says:

    Saudi and Gulf money into Anglo PR firms is what happened. Lots of money.

  27. Rye says:

    The consensus among the alt-right kids is that this transition took place at about the time that American troops proved inefficient at furthering the interests of our greatest ally in the middle east and were substituted by Sunni radicals.

    • Garr says:

      Alt-right kids wash down slices of cake with ginger ale at alt-right-kid-parties. They wear cone-shaped party-hats and blow into kazoos with unfurling paper ends. They shout “Yay!” and jump up onto their seats, hopping from foot to foot and pumping their pudgy little fists above their heads.

  28. On some level, it’s got to be the manifestation of a death wish. What happens to feminism, homosexuals, and the transgendered when Islam takes over?

    • teageegeepea says:

      The Iranian theocracy actually prefers for men to get sex changes than to be homosexuals (Sailer recently noted the irony of their view becoming increasingly common among progressives here).

    • Κρατερός says:

      If I recall correctly Paul Gottfried made the point that the leftist/progressive project will go on until the West is repopulated by Mohammedans and third-worlders, at which point the Mohammedans will have no use for Upper West Side Central Park West Brandeis University left wing crazy Marxist self hating bourgeois types, if you catch my drift.

      I think your psychoanalysis of these nutsos is spot on. Last century there were all these deep fried marxists trying to ruin society, but by-and-large they didn’t succeed (how many people are still talking about the communist international or workers of the world uniting? They were jokes then, but they’re really jokes now). Looks like this round they’re winning, but instead of talking about the Proletariat and spouting off some highfalutin mumbo jumbo about Sorel and Hegel and the Dialectic, they’re talking about how brave transvestites are, post-modern marxist critical queer theory monographs on Foucault’s love of getting fisted, and how the Jihadists are actually just misunderstood. Not much of an improvement. One constant though: hatred of Western society, which perforce means self-hatred and a death wish for these folks. I think it’s possibly caught some of these deep fried marxists by surprise that they’ve found such a willing audience in the general public this time– all they had to do was substitute the word “class” for “race” and people bought it hook line and sinker

      • Greying Wanderer says:

        yes – the cultural Marxists created a self-replicating Frankenstein’s monster they no longer control.

    • saintonge235 says:

      What happens? As Aristotle said, some people are naturally slaves. They get the masters they long for.

      Note how assiduously the Left looked the other way at the behavior of Weinstein, Spacey, Bill Clinton, etc. Or the way they are trying to divert attention from the Pope’s tolerance of child-molesters. Turning people into slaves, serfs, and servants is what they long for, and many of them would rather be slaves than free.

  29. DataExplorer says:

    In places like the UK it is more than just standing up for the “underdog”. I think the Leftist establishment has actually woken up to just how dangerous Muslims are, they are now scared and doing anything they can to placate them, ie banning various critics of Islam from entering the country to preserve the peace. 3 years after Charlie Hebdo and everyone saying they will never give up freedom of speech by intimidation, they are now doing just that.

    • saintonge235 says:

      Yes, they are afraid of the Muslims, but they also long to be conquered by them. They fear Islamic slavers and slaughterers, but they long for them too.

      Rand noted this. In Galt’s speech, he says the Left’s secret is they fear dying, but still want to die, and thus seek to create disasters that will end them, and tyrants who will murder them. And she isn’t the only one to have seen it.

  30. Randy says:

    I suspect a deal has been cut between Sunni and Zionist: Europe and Western lands in exchange for a free hand growing greater Israel, so long as expansion hurts the Shiite axis. White genocide is the ideal of the day. All else is subordinated to that cause. Supporting Moslem invasion supports that cause.

  31. Ursiform says:

    I think there are two issues, which often get conflated. One is opposition to Sharia law and societies based on it. The other is believing that Muslims who live in our society by our rules shouldn’t be discriminated against. It is reasonable and consistent to hold both positions.

    “Christians” have a wide range of view of what being a Christian means. “Jews” have a wide range of views about what being a Jew means. Likewise, “Muslims” have a wide range of views about what being a Muslim means. I believe you should judge people by their behavior, not based on what the most extreme people who claim the same label do.

    • Jim says:

      Relations between different groups are frequently driven by the extremists on both sides. I remember when the ethnic tensions in Yugoslavia were beginning to rise experts on TV explained that the vast majority of Serbs, Croats, Bosnians etc. did not hate each other and didn’t want a bloody conflict. I’m sure that was true but what most people want in such situations doesn’t determine what happens. The malignant dynamics of group conflict are little affected by what most people want. They are driven in large part by the most extreme elements on all sides. That is why multicultural societies are so prone to violent internal conflict. It’s useless to cry “Why can’t we all get along?”. We can’t.

      • another fred says:

        I think you need to add fear to your analysis of “malignant dynamics”.

        I don’t like the wackos of the KKK, but I don’t fear them. Black people do fear them. I have been in parts of Chicago, Philly, New Orleans, Birmingham, and St Louis where I have felt fear I would not expect Black people to feel.

        Fear is primal and triggers all sorts of cognitive responses and rationalizations. Humans often hate what they fear.

        • Jim says:

          Yes, fear is a very powerful part of the “malignant dynamics” of group conflict.

          In regard to the fear of the KKK you mention as existing in the black population of some cities such as Chicago, I am curious, when in Chicago did the last incident of violence against blacks perpetrated by the KKK occur?

    • Frau Katze says:

      In all cases you mention, the extremists have the most children.

  32. swampr says:

    Right wing public figures were much more subdued about Islam during the Bush era. The right was in charge, battling terror, freeing the good people of Iraq and Afghanistan. There was less for the left to react to. In the 2000s it was commonplace to read about the travails of women in Islam for instance.

    Then the left was in charge and the dynamic changed. Around 2010 there suddenly tons of articles in conservative news about creeping Sharia law, European no-go zones etc. People started telling me how Obama was secretly allied with jihadists who were going to take over America in the next few years. This was the period when Muslims became fully sacralized as wounded puppies on the left.

  33. Sieg says:

    It’s not really a new thing, only a “new wave” os Islamophilia. Most of leftists and their parties and organizations were not protecting Rushdie against Khomeini back in the 80s. The post 9/11 world is full of Islamophobia because the “post-colonialist” and “anti-western-culture” morons can see in the subsequent conflicts between Western non-muslim countries and muslim ones a “neocolonialism” clash.

    And we had the Danish cartoons affair, the Charlie Hebdo affair, the affair around the Hirsi Ali’s movie: it’s a long leftist trend, a “xenophilic” one, electing muslims as the victim’s champions of the world.

    • Christopher B says:

      Agree. The whole Iran-Shah-Khomeini-hostages arc got framed by opposition to Ronald Reagan, to which was added things like the US mission in Lebanon and conflicts with Lybia and other ME states over support for terrorism. The Left/Democrats have had at least an ambivalent attitude towards Islam since the 1970s at least.

    • Philip Neal says:

      In Britain the Rushdie affair was certainly an important milestone. It made Muslims a separate category whereas they had previously been perceived as Pakistanis, Indians and so on. I was surprised at the time by how many lefties seemed to think they had a genuine grievance. Since then they have become a useful excuse for the teaching of ‘British values’ (i.e. left-liberal propaganda) in schools.

  34. Greying Wanderer says:

    i’d say it started after 9/11 but has got stronger and more insane over time

    a lot of progressives are simply “naturally contrary” so as there was a lot of anti-muslim feeling among normal people after 9/11 the naturally contrary automatically went the opposite way

    however on top of that the western elites were planning neocon wars and needed muslim allies in the mid-east so people like Blair and Bush pushed the “religion of peace” line which made Muslims an officially oppressed class to the “sainted saviors of the oppressed” type liberals

    and Saudi money, as mentioned already – which is ironic as its Saudi money funds most of the jihadism too.

    I’d agree anti-Islamophobia has since crystallized into a fanatical form under the pressure of liberals trying to control the extreme cognitive dissonance caused by all the subsequent jihadist attacks.

    • saintonge235 says:

      The “neocon” need for “allies” didn’t really exist, imao. I believe the real motive is that “tolerance” has been so drummed into the upper class that they can’t bring themselves to believe that some people are just enemies, with whom no peace is possible.

      To admit that it’s war to the knife with the Sunnis and Shias is just too awful to contemplate.

  35. Unladen Swallow says:

    Obama’s apology tour let the left know that this was another group of the oppressed, 9-11 was because of American imperialism and US support for Israel, end of story. That was probably the biggest reason the American left changed, and it seems strongly correlated with the rise in the use of that term. Was the Ft. Hood attack before or after that?

  36. Eli says:

    They thought of Islam as conservative back in the day. Then realized it could be used to attack the West.

  37. Cantman says:

    “Liberals” think Western civilisation is infinitely powerful and are therefore only interested in internal power struggles. Muslims are a useful weapon in those struggles.

  38. panafancypants says:

    9-11. Around that time there was a big stink that Muslims would be unjustly profiled and discriminated against, so the pendulum swung in the opposite direction out of perceived altruism. There’s also a lot more Muslims around now. I remember when I was a kid (I’m 30, this wasn’t that long ago) I only knew one or two, but no one paid them much mind in any way. (

  39. Steve Sailer says:

    Barack Hussein Obama.

  40. Woke says:

    Once migration reached critical mass, Islamophobia became a legitimate rallying cry for nationalists, so the left must silence or deligitemize.

  41. another fred says:

    I think the leftist attitude towards Islam (and some other things) is explained by cognitive dissonance theory. Facing the problems with Islam would require a leftist to face the logic of conflict between Islam and the West with a bias in favor of the West – this is verboten, ergo there is no problem with Islam.

    Similarly, facing population pressures requires that one face the fact that the main focus of population difficulties is with non-Western people – ergo population is not allowed to be the problem. The problem is climate change, or species extinction, or oppression of minorities, etc. ad infinitum. It does not matter that the cause du jour is always rooted in population pressures one must never acknowledge that fact because doing so would align one with the evil capitalist west rather than aiming one’s hand at those mongrel dogs.

  42. biz says:

    The change was definitely not just ten years ago. It was after 9/11. The right (and for that matter the mainstream) were perceived by liberals as being less than thrilled by Islam, so tribal politics being what it is, the Left adopted Islam as its pet.

    Then that was amped up because the Left now judges the goodness of things based on how subversive to middle America they are perceived to be. Islam is perceived to be the most subversive of that, so it is the best.

  43. Warren Notes says:

    It’s impossible to think of a world view that’s more opposed to classic liberalism or modern leftism/progressiveness than attitudes and practices common to the Muslim world. Consider, though, that the opposite has occurred when it comes to Russia. During a time when Russia has lost its satellite states, has a tiny economy compared to its past, and can’t sail a ship that passes a friendly port, progressives talk it up as a scary threat. During the Cold War, they loved Russia. What changed? Obviously liberalism can be seen as “Communism lite,” or even aspiring Communism. Beyond that, responding to Russia’s threat during the Cold War was a reason for heavy military expenditures – money that liberals would prefer to use domestically for social programs. Although Muslims don’t have an ideology that liberals could honestly sympathize with, there is heavy spending on U.S. security and the military due to Radical Islam – so that could be one reason. I think the whole Muslim crying-towel got wet as a liberal response to talking about terrorism as a real, ongoing threat to the U.S., talk that continued over decade after 9-11. It probably also had something to do with the protest groups that formed in opposition to the Gulf War. In order to oppose something, they had to support something else – that they knew nothing about.

  44. ohwilleke says:

    Liberals didn’t seek out Muslims as part of their coalition.

    Ideologically, on most issues both social and economic, Muslims have much more in common with American and European conservatives than they with liberals.

    But, in Europe and America, the conservatives are Christian nationalists want them dead or deported and are anti-immigration (legal and illegal alike), while the Americans and Europeans liberals don’t and are favorably inclined towards immigration, so Muslims have drifted politically towards an alliance with liberals for now and liberals haven’t rejected them.

    Also, the threats conservatives ascribe to Muslims for the most part are those associated with Muslim majority societies which are such remote possibilities in Europe and America right now, that liberals aren’t very worried about them, while conservatives who tend to be isolated in monocultural communities do feel threatened.

  45. blah blah says:

    more like 20 years ago leftists had no use for them, but yeah.

    also it should be obvious what the deal is. leftists support whatever hurts the west.

  46. Young says:

    I wonder why they say ‘Islamaphobia’ like it’s a bad thing.

  47. craig says:

    It’s knee-jerk anti-westernism. It’s the anti-imperialism of ideological dunces.

    Note how only the most conservative and radical Muslims, as well, are considered “authentic”. They never talk to or discuss issues with liberal or casual believers, or ex Muslims, or cultural muslims.

    What’s ironic is that what they would find repugnant about Christian conservatives or, especially, orthodox Jews, they praise about muslims. Thus they consciously, and often aggressively, abandon liberal muslims to their persecutors, even persecuting them as well. Anyone who points out obvious facts like this – that this alliance between the most retrograde of hardline islamists and left-liberal critics of everything western- gets branded, astonishingly, “racist”. That this makes no sense at all, and perversely illustrates the conservative/cultural/racial essentialism of this so-called liberal position. But sense is for dangerous people who think logic and reason are valuable and not tools of the demonic hetero-white-male-hegemonic patriarchy.

    Basically, you are the devil, and you will be beaten out of society by the true faith – the faith being, of course, the anti-imperialism of idiots and the pure purity of all things non western.

    Disagree and you must suffer the slings and arrows of whatever curse words are currently in vogue for dispelling demons. Racist is good, for now, but there are others.

  48. J says:

    Since Trump openly dislikes Muslim immigrants, they became victims, holy martyrs. I don’t think it has much to do with bone-and-flesh Muslims. BTW, why the left forgot its former favorite martyr, the Tibetans?

  49. ghano says:

    liberals generaly hate white westeners so anyone who hate them become their ally.

  50. georgesdelatour says:

    Here’s my UK perspective.

    It’s mainly race. The Runnymede Trust actually defines Islamophobia as “racism against Muslims”.

    Imagine a parallel reality where western countries have exactly the same Muslim share of the population, growing at exactly the same rate; exactly the same experience of Muslims, from delightful bake-off winners to vile terrorists; exactly the same rate of mosque attendance, halal meat consumption, hijab wearing, you name it. Everything the same, except one thing. In this parallel reality, every single Muslim is a white convert.

    In this parallel reality, leftists will be proudly Islamophobic.

    At root, it’s all about habits of affiliation, of supporting the enemy of my enemy.

    There are a few old lefties (old ‘new’ lefties?) who see things differently. Tariq Ali for instance:

  51. Ian says:

    Very few liberals or leftists truly like Muslims as a group or Islamic culture in general – hardly anyone does. It’s more that they dislike and are afraid of people who are openly hostile towards Muslims and their religion.

  52. biz says:

    This thread may be dead but if I could re-summarize something for posterity:

    In the current shallow / woke culture progressive/leftist mindset, which is the ‘good’ side and which is the ‘bad’ side in any given conflict is judged according to the following criteria:

    1) The side that is more non-Western or perceived to be more non-Western is the good side

    2) The side that is a numerical minority or perceived to be a numerical minority is the good side

    3) In the even that #1 and #2 give opposite results, the side that behaves worse is the good side

    #3 is important and explains, for example, why Sunni Arabs are preferred to Yezidis and Kurds. It also explains why Islam is preferred in most situations.

    In the context of the initial question here, #3 is key. It wasn’t always this way. In living memory you could find prominent voices on the Left concerned about, for example, FGM and Muslim enslavement of blacks in the Sahel. But no more.

  53. Anonymous says:

    Bernhard H Levi examines exactly that and other issues on which leftists have abandoned old in Left in Dark Times: A Stand Against the New Barbarism (2008). He asks why they no longer stand up for the oppressed (Middle East Jews, Christians, Yazdi, etc.) against anti-liberal hardliner Islamist who despise religious, speech, gender, etc. freedoms more than the fascists and conservative Christians despised by Leftists.

  54. Karim says:

    Mr. Cochran I have a management proposal for you regarding investments my family would like to make with you.

    Is there any way to contact you more privately?

    Thank you very much

  55. Mike says:

    Look up Lawrence Auster’s first law of majority/minority relations in liberal society.

  56. Anti-colonialist supremo Frantz Fanon died under his nom de guerre Ibrahim Fanon 1961 already, coddled both by Jean-Paul Sartre and his new minders from the CIA, I guess the left’s fascination with Islam goes back quite a while. He didn’t die as Muslim but he had inchoate ideas on the role of Islam in revolutionary struggle.

  57. albatross says:

    I think it’s pretty straightforward “I can stand anything but the outgroup” stuff. The more conservatives became associated with being anti-Muslim, the more liberals felt a moral imperative to be pro-Muslim.

  58. simontmn says:

    It was 9/11. Being really evil = Leftist support. If Hindus had done 9/11 you’d have seen the same effect.

    • Frau Katze says:

      Bin Laden tipped his hand too soon. People like me, with work and family, never thought about Islam. (A few people who lived in areas where one saw lot of Muslims, they might have been more attentive.)

      If he wanted to conquer us, waiting a few more years, with lots of immigrants, would have been more sensible.

      Of course his main thought was impressing his fellow terrorist pals.

      Still, the leftist reaction has been so placating it might not make any difference in the end.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s