« Betty Friedan, Presente! | Main | Save the Children! »

It's about racism, not "blasphemy"

Hell hath no fury like that of the people who used to run the world and want to run it again. I am speaking, of course, of Western Europe, a cesspool of racism and crude bigotry every bit as bad as the United States -- and in some respects even worse.

And stupid hypocrisy has no better exemplar than the Western liberal who would never lift a finger to fix the crying injustices in front of his face, but cloaks himself in the robes of a defiant saint when he sees a threat to his abstract idea of "free speech" -- by which he always means, more specifically, his right to be a self-important ninny, offering the world his beneficent instruction in the manner of Nicholas Kristof buying child prostitutes on the streets of Calcutta. This is the same type of person who actually believed that the British Empire was an attempt to wipe out the African slave trade and put an end to Indian bride-burning, even as the more practical-minded Cecil Rhodes walked off with all the blood money.

Now both the liberals and the more straightforward imperialists are in a flurry about protecting the "right" of a Danish newspaper to print war propaganda. I say war propaganda because the Danish government -- under the leadership of Anders Fogh Rasmussen, a loathsome factotum of George Bush -- has been involved in the war in Iraq from the beginning. In September, a right-wing Danish newspaper supportive of his government published crude cartoons of Muhammad in a fairly standard attempt to mock and dehumanize the enemy in the course of a war, wholly in the tradition of First World War cartoons about "the Hun" or Julius Streicher's obscene caricatures of "the Jew Bolshevik." When Muslims became upset at this -- especially in light of the same Danish newspaper's longstanding campaign against immigrants -- newspapers throughout the racist cesspool of Europe decided to join in on the fun, on the ostensible grounds that no religion should be able to claim protection from "blasphemy" in a modern, secular society.

Anyone who has ever lived in an historically Muslim society will tell you that the secular have always had plenty of jokes to tell at the expense of the Prophet and at the expense of the pious (which in the real world amounts to the same thing), not least because ignorant, pious fools were always the main prop of corrupt US-supported governments against the secular left. But everyone in Muslim countries -- religious, secular, or in-between -- recognizes the arguments of the European newspapers as disingenuous. All of this is only incidentally about religion; it is really about the bigots of Europe -- including the liberal ones -- having a good laugh at the expense of the wogs. Europe imports millions of brown people from wrecked countries to do all of its least appealing work; houses them in wretched ghettoes; supports far-right politicians who bait and belittle them at every turn and more than occasionally incite violence against them; and treats immigrants like shit generally. Then it adds insult to injury by mocking their religion, and pretends to be saying condescending and pretentious nonsense to the effect that "Islam must reform and join the modern world," when it is clear that Europe is really saying "Muslims are subhumans best fit for low-paid labor who had better learn their station in life; furthermore, it's OK to kill them in our pointless wars."

The response of liberals to all of this has been predictably ridiculous. You know they hate brown people as much as Jean-Marie Le Pen, but their condemnations of "extremists" have that all-too-familiar, especially patronizing air about them. They find the anti-Danish riots in the Middle East "immature" (apparently the doodles of bigots don't qualify as such); they believe that Islamic countries must join the "modern" world; they think that the European newspapers are "courageous" in their defense of "free speech."

I've lost count of how many of them have compared this to the Rushdie affair, which is ludicrous; The Satanic Verses was a fine novel, not as good as his earlier Midnight's Children, but a genuine contribution to world culture nonetheless. It was also written by a lapsed Indian Muslim who obviously did not have immigrant-bashing as his motivation.

Others have pointed to satirical attacks on Christianity in the West, including Andres Serrano's Piss Christ, adding that in the West, institutions like the US National Endowment for the Arts actually subsidize alleged "blasphemy" against Christianity, while there is no space for secularist jibes at Islam in the Muslim world. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant, because the analogy is idiotic. There is no parallel between the Danish cartoons and Piss Christ; a more accurate analogy would be between the Danish cartoons and Sambo drawings.

All the while, as upstanding liberals express outrage and impatience with Muslim "intolerance," millions of immigrant workers in the heart of the West live in poverty and tens of millions of Muslims around the world live in even worse conditions thanks to policies that liberals ignore or endorse. Yet liberals think that it is the height of courage for newspapers to reprint dehumanizing, racist caricatures as an act of "free speech."

When I search for Man in the technique and the style of Europe, I see only a succession of negations of man, and an avalanche of murders. I hope all their embassies burn.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.johnlacny.com/cgi-bin/accident/mt-hike.cgi/23

Comments

Word.

Wow, what a great rant. One thing: I think it was Nicholas Kristof, not Frank Rich who wanted to buy the child prostitute in Calcutta (cf, http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn01292006.html)

I've edited the post to take a swipe at Kristof instead of Rich. All those New York Times guys look the same to me, though.

Nice one. You hit it exactly.

Yours is an interesting, uncomprising voice. How about putting up an 'About' link and telling us about yourself.

So Jyllands-Posten is a Tool Of The OppressorTM, because it's run by Angry White MenTM, while Salman Rushdie "obviously didn't have immigrant-bashing in mind" because, um ... he's not white?

You're the one making the Sambo cartoons, because if I were to point out to you that one of the most articulate speakers at today's rally wasn't white, I can predict with 100% certainty that you'd say he must be a dupe of The EstablishmentTM. You might even use the term Uncle TomTM, or "house slave" (not sure if Harry Belafonte has that one trademarked yet...)

"back in reality" ...you've got to be kidding me.

Nick Kristof was hanging out with prostitutes in Cambodia, not Calcutta/India.

I'll be brief... You're an idiot.

Interlocutor "Stacy" assumes that I said that Rushdie obviously did not have immigrant-bashing on his mind because "he is not white." She thinks this a clever point, but of course, I concluded that Rushdie did not have immigrant-bashing on his mind because I actually read the fucking book. It turns out that liberals aren't all that much into reading these days despite their effected love for "free speech."

Note that for similar reasons, Stacy does not actually contest my earlier statement that the racist Danish newspaper has a record of immigrant-basing. This is because the paper's immigrant-bashing record is well-known and well-documented. Documentation and facts are not a strong point of Western liberals and right-wingers -- two groups of people who become indistinguishable any time the wogs get uppity.

John, you're the one who's used the term "wogs" several times now, even while you call everyone else (at least everyone white) a closeted racist.

It's depressing to have to keep explaining freedom of speech to supposedly educated westerners. Here's the short version: FREE SPEECH APPLIES TO EVERYONE, NOT JUST THOSE YOU AGREE WITH. The muslim protestors--who are demanding legal consequences for the editors and cartoonists, and threatening physical violence if they don't get their way--need to get that through their skulls, as do you.

Commenter Stacy once again fails to grasp the key issue of context. I used the term "wogs" to illustrate the way Europeans are really thinking about this issue. It's obvious to anyone who opens his eyes. That's the issue at hand. I'm not demanding "legal consequences" for the racist publishers of the Danish newspaper. However, I am disputing their self-identification as "free speech" heroes. The real issue at hand is their anti-immigrant racism, and that of the ignorant liberals and neoconservatives like Stacy who enable them.

Look, Europe is a land of ethnic nation-states. It was and is nutty to think they can assimilate immigrants like the United States does. However, up to a few months ago even rightwing Euros generally pointed to bad race relations in the US and cited their own relatively quiet immigrants as proof that their way was better. Now they realize they do, in fact, have a serious problem. Are their racists in their ranks? Sure there are some. But because a racist stands up for free speech (even spuriously) doesn't mean it's a fake issue. That you think substantially all the European support for free speech is just disguised racism means YOU haven't done your homework on that issue. Google up the interview with Anders Fogh Rasmusen, look at the cartoons, read some of the other editorials about the cartoon wars. For the most part, they don't even address immigration.

The interesting thing here is how it points up Whitman's (I think, maybe it was Tom Wolfe) saying that fascism is forever descending on the US, but always lands in Europe instead.

Good on you John, one of the best posts I've read on this issue, and I like the way you got to heart of it as racist migrant bashing pulling no punches. Here's my (unfortunately) more politely argued take fyi:
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/659/659p12.htm