The bizarre alliance between Radical Islam and the Western Politico/Cultural Left is never more obvious than when they share a forum. For example, last Saturday London Mayor “Red” Ken Livingstone and director of the Middle East Forum David Pipes held a debate titled: “A World Civilization or a Clash of Civilizations?” Pipes was supposed to be easy pickings, friends warned him he was falling into a trap. But things worked out rather differently, according to Daniel Johnson of the New York Sun :
As soon as the self-styled “young British mom” in a hijab who was seconding the mayor, Salma Yaqoob, referred to the July 7 London suicide bombings as “reprisal events,” I felt the audience shudder. There was another shudder when Ms. Yaqoob refused to utter the word “Israel.”
Then the biographer of Winston Churchill, Sir Martin Gilbert, rose. “My son was on the subway when these ‘reprisal events’ took place on 7/7. Would you mind telling me what these reprisals were for?” Ms. Yaqoob had no answer. What could she say to him? A great historian who has done the British state some service, who happens to be a Zionist? How could she justify the killing of scores of innocent people, and the attempted murder of countless others, including his son, as a “reprisal event”?
The mayor himself seemed taken aback by the lack of enthusiasm for his side.
Even an audience of pierced, tattooed London Lefties were puzzled by the obvious contradiction of an avowed socialist politician, champion (we presume) of women’s rights appearing in partnership on stage with a Hijab-Bedecked supporter of jihadist Islam.
From whence comes this unlikely alliance? Usually, Leftie interest groups gather around the kool-aid bucket of a common goal; ending world hunger or promoting a vapid, preachy movie about environmental catastrophe (that only collectivist social policies can cure), which they both want because at some point they have shared a quart or two of ideological saliva. But in the case of the Movie stars and the Murderous Imams this Leftie-Peanut-Butter-Meets-Islamic-Chocolate political confection suits neither; the Left tastes nutty and the Islamics bitter. The question is – how do we or they know when they have won? And what are they trying to win? What is the common goal?
What, for example, do the Liberal Elites claim they are trying to do for society when they traipse off to a random fascist hellhole and kowtow to the smirking “Great Leader”? As they stroke the rich, luxuriant pelt of political repression, do they really believe they are keeping victims away from the sharp, retracted claws below?
Academics love to plumb mythology for what they call “deeper insights” into the nature of human society so let’s get Jungian for a moment and see if we can find the answer in the Collective Unconscious. One of the most popular myths in all cultures is the story of a beast who sets up near a village and demands regular sacrifice to leave the people alone. The people comply because they feel powerless and do not want their lives disrupted or devastated. Eventually a hero arrives and kills the beast. Sometimes the hero is welcomed, but often he is shunned because the villagers worry that if he fails the Beast might enact revenge. Regardless of the version, this compact with evil is always shown to be a shameful one – the villagers who feed their virgin daughters to the Dragon or send their young to the Minotaur are complicit and cowardly. This lesson could come right out of the decisions at Nuremberg: men and women are morally required to resist evil. Acquiescence is aid.
And yet here we are, The Left accommodating or apologizing for the acts and goals of The Muslim Fanatics. Where’s their myth?
In their minds perhaps this is not “Theseus and The Minotaur”, in their minds this is more like “The Beauty and The Beast”. Remember, in the original tale by Jeanne-Marie LePrince de Beaumont, The Beast is horrible and dangerous, but only because he is feared, isolated and misunderstood. His heart is hard because he had been victimized in his past and his rage, though out of proportion, could be understood as a reaction to injustice. As in the other myth, The Beast demands a sacrifice – in this case because Beauty’s father steals a rose from his garden. The Beast wants one of the father’s three daughters. The Father doesn’t want to comply and his neither do his three sons, who vow to defend their sisters. But the Father does not want any of his family hurt so he returns to The Beast and hands himself over to be killed. Beauty insists on accompanying him. She tells The Beast she will stay in her father’s place, an act of pure sacrifice for a loved one. The Beast keeps her and sends the Father away.
You know the rest – The Beast’s heart softens and he falls in love with Beauty, who eventually loves him back. In the end that love redeems them both. The Beast is transformed.
The Beast is obviously Fanatical Islam; wrathful, violent and ugly because the Evil Fairy of western colonialism done them wrong. And the Left surely does love a victim, does it not? Liberalism styles itself as Beauty — pure, self-sacrificing and submissive. They hope to be loved, but that’s where it falls apart.
Beauty provides herself to The Beast to save her family. Liberals proffer themselves AND THE REST OF US. We get no say. The Liberal’s myth, their collective unconscious requires everybody to give in to Islam or else it doesn’t work.
Is it better to love The Beast and submit to it in hope that it will change? Or is it better to fight and kill The Beast? Which approach has history shown us works best? Certainly the western world in aggregate is strong enough to take on any threat from a military standpoint. But is it strong enough spiritually? Does it have the will to be Theseus and secure itself?
Or must we be like Beauty and submit in blind hope that beneath the bestial, bloody rage an innate goodness lurks?