Hirsi Ali’s anti-Christian agenda

Carl Simpson writes:

After reviewing the atheist reader’s diatribe over your refusal to endorse this so-called manifesto against Islamism, along with his repeated insistence on holding up Hirsi Ali as some great defender of the West, I remembered this little snippet at VFR from two months ago.

As the story about her support of denying political expression to a small Christian party demonstrates, Hirsi Ali is clearly a leftist who has no problem with destroying what few shreds of Christianity remain in Europe. She opposes the Muslims because, unlike a typical western leftist who has actively allied with the Muslims, she realizes that she will be among the first to fall before Sharia’s sword should the Muslims take control. She has a fatwa on her head, for heaven’s sake! I expect the majority of the left would view her much in the same way feminists viewed Clinton’s rape victims—a necessary sacrifice to achieve the greater objective.

While I am reserving any comment on Ibn Warraq (who may be simply deceived), there is no way that I could ever endorse a person like Ali, who is an enemy every bit as much as the Muslims are. Advocating an alliance with the secular left (as opposed to true liberals) to fight Muslims is morally no different from advocating an alliance with the Muslims to fight the left (who is actually the greater enemy). The point is moot anyway, for the vast majority of the atheist left has already cast its lot, in full-blown treason, with the Muslims. Ali, Rushdie, and Bernard-Henry Levy—leftists all—are like rats fleeing the now-sinking ship they participated in weakening.

The manifesto is contemptible in its attempt to conflate jihad (LA adds: and by extension, all religion, including Christianity) with the totalitarian slaughters committed by atheist regimes over the past century. As Belien mentioned in his criticism, they couldn’t even bring themselves to mention communism by name, instead resorting to “Stalinism” (as if Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism or Pol-Potism were substantively different). The over one hundred thousand mass graves that dot the former Soviet Union were not filled by religious fanatics, but by comrades of several of those who signed the manifesto—now offered up as ostensible allies against jihad. With “friends” like these, who needs enemies?

My reply:

Thanks for this, and for reminding me of that earlier item about Hirsi Ali. I agree with you overall, but I can’t go along with the idea that Ali “is an enemy every bit as much as the Muslims are.” During World War II, Britain and America did the right and necessary thing by allying with the USSR against Nazi Germany, though they went badly wrong in uncritically embracing and lauding the USSR instead of remaining cautious and vigilant toward it. As Churchill put it with admirable balance, “If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.” If Churchill would make a favorable reference to the Devil, we can at least refrain from regarding Hirsi Ali as the moral equivalent of a jihadist.

At the same time, we should remember that Hirsi Ali, foe of Islam, is only in Europe because of the same immigration that let the Muslims into Europe. Without that immigration, we wouldn’t be talking about whether we needed to ally ourselves with Ali against the Muslims, because the Muslims wouldn’t be in Europe, and neither would she.

I would just add this. I am fully willing and ready to say a kind word about secularists who stand against Islam, and have already done so in my strong support for the papers that published the Muhammad cartoon. I have yet to see a secularist say a kind word about Christianity, or even acknowledge its place in European civilization.

A reader writes from England:

To hear people like Carl Simpson describing Hirsi Ali as an enemy is to remind myself of the enormous problem we have in dealing with the Muslim situation here in the West. And of the problems within the various groups of people (such as myself, such as Lawrence Auster) who are trying to develop serious strategies and tactics to decrease the Muslim situation. Obviously, no one who is “secular” is good enough for Simpson to ally himself with. For God’s sake, Ali is risking her life every day fighting the spread of Islam in the West while Simpson writes blogs dismissing her as too secular. If Nazi type groups declare they are Christian believers (and some do) would they be preferable allies for Simpson? Gimme strength Lord, gimme strength. And more discerning allies in this fight! Surely we can come up with better thinking than this (Carl Simpson). BEST, JEFF

Carl Simpson replies to my reply:

I can understand you point about Islam being a greater threat than a single individual like Hirsi Ali. That much is true. The problem is with the type of leftist totalitarianism she advocates. If Hirsi Ali were to gain substantial political power in Holland, or the EU, she would unhesitatingly use the full power of the state apparatus to destroy whatever pockets remain of Christianity and the traditional West—even if she were to likewise attempt to use it against the rising tide of Islam. This is why I said she’s just as much an enemy as the Muslims are. The atheistic, leftist, totalitarian ideology Ali subscribes to has undermined and corrupted the very foundations of the West. It is every bit as deadly as Islam itself (arguably deadlier) and leaves us utterly defenseless against Islam at the end of the day. “Klin Klinom” as another reader said.

Aggressive, secular leftism—with its simultaneous advocacy of totalitarian measures and unlimited individual amoral licentiousness in what Sam Francis termed “anarcho-tyranny,” is the same driving force behind the opening of Europe to Muslims in the first place (as you pointed out). Like Pim Fortuyn, Ali understands the nature of Islam and its ultimate threat to secular leftism. Thus she employs a big unprincipled exception to her own multiculturalism when it comes to Islam and takes an essentially neocon stance. I’ve not heard of Ali advocating an end to mass immigration from sub-saharan Africa, for example. She has no problem with the destruction of Europe or the West (as traditionally defined) per se. She just wants it demolished on her terms (leftism, feminism, gay marriage, abortion, etc.) instead of Islam’s. I think Howard Sutherland’s assertion about her hating Islam much more than having any love for the West is basically on target.

I asked Mr. Simpson what his evidence was that Ali is a totalitarian leftist, and he replied:

Does not her support for the effective banning of a political party—solely for their religious based positions on issues like gay marriage—constitute a type of totalitarianism? I wonder what her position is on laws such as the one Sweden used to intimidate the pastor of a small church, Ake Green? Granted this is one of degree, and your point about Ali’s not being the moral equivalent of an armed jihadi stands. As we’ve seen in the whole Cartoon affair, the left has used such laws to stop publication of the Cartoons in Sweden.

If she were more of a libertarian, then I would have to re-think my characterization of her as a totalitarian. I have doubts that a real libertarian would support the squashing of a political party or be willing to sign this fraudulent manifesto, though. My take on what few statements I’ve read is that Ali is a conventional EU leftist who supports the basic agenda, with one big exception.

In an earlier e-mail, Mr. Simpson had written:

I can also say that Ali’s degree of destructiveness is less than that of a jihadi. However, like the jihadi, she is still an enemy within the gates. Any expression for support for her should be very limited and highly qualified, like: “I agree with Hirsi Ali’s position on restricting Muslim immigration, but sharply oppose her advocacy of ending freedom of religious expression.”

LA here: While I haven’t sorted all this out yet, I just want to point out that there is a tendency for people in politics to care too much about allies, so that creating and maintaining alliances becomes the overriding objective rather than standing for the things that one stands for. Why do people make such a big deal about Hirsi Ali? Because she is a Muslim opposing Islam and paying for it with a death sentence over her head. But as a result of our focus on her, there is a loss of perspective on our side. Bolstering up Ali becomes the main thing, rather than bolstering up ourselves. Why should we be depending on this Somali woman to legitimize and advance our side? Why do people make a bigger cause celebre out of Ali than out of Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician who is also under a death threat? It’s because we still don’t believe in our own civilizational legitimacy as white Western people; we feel we only acquire such legitimacy if a nonwhite, non-Western person takes our side. It’s a variation on the liberal syndrome of always needing to have a black conspicuously at your side to show that you’re a good person, that you’re morally approved. So I’m not opposed to having a Hirsi Ali take our side and oppose Islam. Fine, the more on our side, the better. But the battle is OUR battle; our primary task is to defend and preserve our civilization and peoplehood, not to defend and raise up an individual leftist Muslim apostate. If we make her the main thing, then we end up making all kinds of compromises to accommodate her and her leftism, somewhat as Britain and the U.S. during World War II went too far in accommodating Stalin, rushing to please him at every turn, even when it wasn’t necessary.

Another reader wrote a little earlier this afternoon:

As for myself, I see no point in getting involved with internal warfare among Muslims, however they interpret themselves within Islam. And that’s what Ali is involved in. She wants to rally Europe, because she hopes it will aid in her internal battles within Islam.

Europe should rally, not to help her, but to help itself.

I wonder at her response if Europe said: Yes, we will rally, we will repel Islam, and you will go with the rest of them. If you wish to change Islam, go ahead, but leave us out of it.

Yes. A question I may pose to the person who got so angry with me, if we ever converse again, is this: What does our salvation from the Muslim threat depend on? Does it depend on what Muslim apostates do? Or does it depend on what we do?

Also, a little earlier I wrote to Carl Simpson:

Ok, maybe I’m being difficult, but I’m not convinced on the basis of that one position she took against that Christian party that she is a leftist totalitarian per se, though she may be. I just need more information than that one story.

He replied:

No, you’re not being difficult. I’ve been doing a bit of research on Ayaan Hirsi Ali myself. First of all, it’s very difficult to find out anything about her except for her stand against the Muslims. What little I am finding is leading me to think she’s more of a liberal than a totalitarian. I’ll let you know what I find out. The issue of her obvious animus towards Christianity stands, as you mentioned yourself.

Carl Simpson writes again:

You wrote: “If we make her the main thing, then we end up making all kinds of compromises to accommodate her and her leftism [or liberalism?], somewhat as Britain and the U.S. during World War II went too far in accommodating Stalin, rushing to please him at every turn, even when it wasn’t necessary.”

This is the essence of my opposition to allying oneself with Ali, along with Rushdie and several of the other signatories. I heard Bernard-Henri Levy on a radio interview today praising political correctness—hate speech laws, “affirmative action,” the whole nine yards. Levy is clearly a rat swimming away from the sinking ship he helped to scuttle. This is where your English reader and I part company.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 04, 2006 01:56 PM | Send