Error: Unable to create directory uploads/2019/02. Is its parent directory writable by the server?

Judith Miller, the 9-11 Triumphal Mosque, and Discover the Network’s Taxonomic Flaw

Posted on August 5 2010 5:00 pm
Be Sociable, Share!
Print This Post Print This Post

Discover the Networks is an emerging force to be reckoned with in serious political analysis.  Its most significant contribution to public discourse?  A system of classification of the species “americanus  sinestra non-sapiens,” the American Left.  Instead of the ambiguous designation, “Liberal,” David Horowitz and the DTN editorial team have developed precise terminology for the accurate sorting of America’s leftists and their organizations.

In one of his most important articles, Defining the Left, David Horowitz explains the criteria that assigns one to particular slot on the revolutionary spectrum, as well as his motive for developing this system in the first place:

“If you visit the Individuals search page in DiscoverTheNetwork, you will see that we have separated the individuals into five columns, which we identify as “totalitarian radicals,” “anti-American radicals,” “leftists,” “moderate leftists” and “affective leftists.”

“In the conventional political lexicon of today, the term “moderate leftist” is equivalent to “liberal.” We have not used this designation because part of the agenda of DiscoverTheNetwork is to challenge the use of the word “liberal” in this way, a way that obscures the network of the left…in order to escape accountability for the leftist past and in order to more easily advance their radical agendas in the American mainstream.”

On August 3rd, Pulitzer Prize journalist, Judith Miller, provided a striking example of the one flaw, or potential danger Mr. Horowitz has identified with his own system.

Discussing NYC Mayor Bloomberg’s efforts to facilitate the construction of a mosque three blocks from the 9-11 Islamic Crime Scene, Sean Hannity confronted Miller with her pro-mosque position in spite of pro-Sharia statements of the allegedly dovish Imam Abdul Rauf:

Hannity:  Why don’t his statements disturb you?

Miller:  Because he claims they were taken out of context.

Hannity:  Why are you not upset that he wants America to be Sharia-compliant?

Miller:  Because I have friends who insist that he has spent his whole life fighting for a moderate Islam.

Hannity:  Why won’t he condemn Hamas?

Miller:  Hamas is a terrorist organization and should be referred to as such.

Hannity:  But, if he’s a moderate, why won’t he refuse to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization?

Miller: I don’t know.

Judith Miller would be considered an “affective leftist.”  Horowitz defines this form of Leftism:

“The term “affective leftist” requires some explanation, and I am grateful to my comrade-in-arms Peter Collier for the description that follows. ‘These are people who are often in positions of influence, the media in particular, who are bien pensant in the extreme.  In spite of their social status, they see themselves ‘in opposition’ – a legacy from the 60s when the notion of ‘The System’ as a malign code word for America – was born. They are also involved in post-radical chic, glorifying people who ‘authentically’ represent oppositional ideas in a way they would not have the courage or really even the political inclination to do themselves. To these people, as opposed to serious leftists, political ‘ideas’ are the intellectual equivalent of a fashion statement.’”

Horowitz continues:

“On the other hand, there is an aspect of this revision that may lead to results that are not entirely positive and that may even support familiar delusions of the left, which function as fail-safe mechanisms for its complacency in the fact its regrettable record of the last fifty years.”

“The progressive left supported freedom’s Communist enemies in the Cold War…many progressives did so “critically,” deploring the lack of freedoms in the Soviet bloc countries, while explaining this lack of freedom as the result of America’s Cold War “aggressions” against the socialist world…These same leftists…were busily applauding the totalitarian camp for “restraining” American “imperialism.”… when the Soviet system collapsed, they pretended not to have done what they had done or felt what they had felt. They washed their hands of “actually existing socialism” altogether, and accepted no responsibility for their complicity in its crimes.”

“We have some concern that the attitudes reflected in this false innocence are encouraged by descriptions that distinguish factions of the left as in our new grid. We have created the categories of leftists who are neither anti-American radicals nor totalitarians as though this might absolve those who are not from their responsibilities for the consequences of their actions when they work in coalitions with radicals who are anti-American and totalitarian, and when they fail to reject them.”

Judith Miller is a perfect example of the “affective Leftist” who will support Rauf after a shoddy inquiry that would shame a  high-school newspaper intern.

She trusts Rauf because her friends told her he didn’t mean what he said?  The champion of peaceful Islam in America won’t condemn Hamas and Judith has not conducted a single interview, listened to a sermon or article, or bothered to cross-check Rauf’s associations?

Condescendingly casting the 9-11 Mosque as a test of our ideological loyalty to religious liberty, Miller instinctively supports it.  She will ignore Rauf the Radical and condemn the intolerant Islamophobes.  No one will accuse her of loving Hamas or favoring the dissolution of America as we know it.  Miller will share responsibility for the honor killings, the homicide bombings, and the burned synagogues that will be inspired by the NYC 9-11 Islamic Jihad Memorial because, as Horowitz charged her anti-War Affective Leftist predecessors:

“The left in other words is not only a movement and perspective formed by its ideals and political hopes…the effect of their anti-war activities was to establish brutal police states in Cambodia and Vietnam that slaughtered masses of innocents.”

Miller claims to support religious freedom and oppose “Islamophobia,” but contributes, nonetheless,  to establishing a brutal Sharia police-state that will slaughter masses of innocents, unless it is opposed by those sneered at by Miller and the Left.

Be Sociable, Share!
6 Responses leave one →

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS

Copyright 2019 NewsReal Blog

The Theme Foundry