Posted by: Lister | March 16, 2007

Method in Madness

I’m going to compare two articles that I think incite hate. I’ll compare technique only, Churchill is obviously more eloquent.

[1] George Jonas, National Post (March 2007)
[2] “Zionism versus Bolshevism — A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People, by Churchill (Feb 1920).

First, praise the target:

[1] “Islam is one of the world’s great religions.”

[2] Some people like Jews and some do not; but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.

And you don’t want to paint with a broad brush:

[1] “Islamism is not Islam. The two are not to be equated.”

[2] In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. […] Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world.

Give a list of the bad — the more unconnected the better. After all, you don’t want to be too specific:

[1] The followers of Islamism include Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda, Sheikh Omar and his Taliban, the nuclear ayatollahs of theocratic Iran, the militants of Hezbollah, the Armed Islamic Group of Algeria, the late Shamil Bashayev’s human bombs from Chechnya and a string of other terrorists in far-flung parts of the globe. Unfortunately, they also include some of our neighbours down the block or around the corner.

[2] From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire. […]

There’s just something about them….

[1] But is there something about Islam that is conducive to the formation of extremist sects and radical movements? Is Islam a Petri dish in which a culture of fundamentalism thrives? Arguably, yes.

[2] And it may well be that this same astounding race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical.

Racism is easier to sell if it’s re-branded. It can be “sober and factual”:

[1] For liberals, it goes against the grain to think of entire ethnic, racial or religious groups as hostile. It especially goes against the grain to think of other groups as morally or intellectually flawed. This is a good thing.

The bad thing is that this reluctance sometimes stands in the way of a sober and factual analysis. In recent years, it has prevented many liberals from facing certain facts about Islamism and Islam, including the relationship between the two.

Chruchill, I think, did a better job of hiding his bigotry. Jonas does target Islam (eg: it does not have the seperation of Church and State built into it, ala “render onto Caesar”). But as I’ve said before, I see through Churchill. If Bolshevism/Communism was what he feared, why didn’t he simply attack Bolshevism/Communism? Why widen the topic? “Oh, the irony! They give us the religion of God with one hand and threaten to take it away with the other. What a people!”

As you can guess from the title of Churchill’s article, he confirms Israeli novelist AB Yehoshua’s statement that “in a perverse way, a real anti-Semite must be a Zionist.”


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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


%d bloggers like this: