“McCarthyism” is sometimes defined as “the use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition.” Some would claim that this describes very well how critics of Muslim immigration in the West have been demonized during the previous generation, especially by Leftists. Carl I. Hagen, leader of the right-wing Progress Party, was for several decades virtually the only Norwegian politician of some stature that warned against the madness of the current immigration policies. And he was hated for it by the establishment, denounced as a racist pig, Nazi and subject to every insult in the dictionary. During the 1990s, when there were still many people who took the “Oslo Peace Process” seriously, he went in demonstrations in support of Israel and with the slogan “No money for Arafat.” The public now understands that he was right, which is why his party has grown from being a tiny protest party to being at the brink of replacing the Labor Party as the largest political party in Norway, for the first time in 80 years. Why doesn’t Mr. Clooney or other Hollywood personalities make a movie about Carl I. Hagen, Pia Kjærsgaard of the Danish People’s Party, Pim Fortuyn, Theo van Gogh and Geert Wilders in the Netherlands or others that have been warning against the madness of Muslim immigration? They are the real victims of the “new McCarthyism.”

Glorification of anti-democratic fanatics has penetrated Western popular culture in other ways than movies. Che Guevara’s face is cropping up everywhere, from posters to t-shirts. Che is famous for helping Fidel Castro shape the Cuban revolution. Later, he was in charge of La Cabana prison, where he oversaw a military tribunal which condemned scores of counterrevolutionaries to death without trial. “Hatred,” he said, is important. It makes you, he reflected, “into an effective, violent, selective and cold-blooded killing machine.” He helped set up a police state in Cuba, and negotiated the stationing of Soviet nuclear weapons on Cuba in 1962. He later became furious when Moscow removed them following the Cuba Crisis. “If the rockets had remained, we would have used them all...” He spoke of “unimaginable destructiveness to defend a principle.” Yet this murderer and symbol of an ideology that killed 100 million people during the 20th century is treated as a pop icon in the democratic West.

Michel Foucault is one of the best known and most widely read philosophers of our time, familiar to hundreds of thousands of Western University students. During and after the 1978-79 revolution, Foucault visited Iran twice and also met with Khomeini in Paris. Much of Foucault’s work is grounded in the problems of modernity in Europe. Thus he became fascinated with the Iranian revolution because it “challenged the Western model of progress.” He wasn’t the only Western intellectual who was seduced by the “revolutionary energy” displayed in Iran. The age of marriage for girls was reduced to 9 years, tens of thousands of political opponents were arrested, tortured and killed, young women were raped in prisons as a matter of routine to prevent them from entering Paradise as virgins, and barbaric, medieval laws were re-enacted for tens of millions of people. Apparently, for some Western intellectuals, anything is excusable as long as you are anti-Western and have a “revolutionary cause.”

Phyllis Chesler writes about the Culture War in academia, where both Western leftists and Islamists employ a systematic misuse of language, writing about “insurgents,” not “terrorists,” whom they describe as “martyrs,” not “killers, and as “freedom fighters,” not as “well educated evil men.” Meanwhile, hateful anti-American and anti-Israel demonstrators are described as “peace activists. She believes that Western academy has been “utterly Palestinianized.” Our Islamist opponents have turned out this propaganda non-stop around the world. As propagandists, they are “far more sophisticated than Goebbels, and far more patient.”
Yale University in the US admitted a former Taliban spokesman, Rahmatullah Hashemi, as student. He was the chief translator for Mullah Omar in Afghanistan. Female Afghan parliamentarian Malalai Joya said Hashemi was one of the Taliban’s top propagandists and called his status as a student at Yale “disgusting” and an “unforgivable insult.” Yet people at Yale fired back and said it was the critics of Yale and Rahmatullah Hashemi who were the real Taliban, and that excluding him would “ takes us one step closer into the Taliban-like suppression of views that challenge the party line.”

Robert Fisk is a veteran British foreign correspondent. During a visit to Australia, Fisk said: “I see this immense world of injustice . . . and I must say given our constant interference in the Middle East, I’m amazed that Muslims have been so restrained.” In fact, so “restrained” are they that Fisk wasn’t sure how much they can be blamed even for the terror attacks of 9/11. He often spoke in the US, he said, and “more and more people in the audience believe the American administration had some kind of involvement”. “ …the worst I can envisage is that they know something was coming and they preferred it to happen so that their strategy could be put into place.”

Ironically, it seems as if some of the chief defenders of democracy and Western civilization now are immigrants. Britain’s first black Archbishop made a powerful attack on multiculturalism, urging English people to reclaim their national identity. The Ugandan-born Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, said “that too many people were embarrassed about being English.” “Multiculturalism has seemed to imply, wrongly for me, let other cultures be allowed to express themselves but do not let the majority culture at all tell us its glories, its struggles, its joys, its pains,” he said. He said that the failure of England to rediscover its culture afresh would lead only to greater political extremism. “What is it to be English? It is a very serious question,” he said. “When you ask a lot of people in this country, ‘What is English culture?’, they are very vague. It is a culture that whether we like it or not has given us parliamentary democracy. It is the mother of it.”

<  back     next  >