Home Sympathy for America's Devils
Home Sympathy for America's Devils

Sympathy for America's Devils

For the past decade, the sight of Western liberals gathering in defense of terrorists seeking to impose a medieval patriarchal cult on the rest of the world by force seems incongruously odd. What is there about Islam that is so appealing to the erstwhile defenders of minorities, women and gays-- all of whom have next to no rights under Islam?

Looking over tomes by liberal authors that argue that Islam is truly feminist, progressive and shares all their basic values, the rational observer is forced to wonder, "Who exactly are they kidding?" The answer is a complicated one, but the problem is not as new as it seems.

The far left and the far left have a longstanding affinity for playing, "The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend", with America designated as the primary enemy, and everyone from the headmasters of the guillotine to Al Queda has emerged as their friends.

Before 9/11, the Taliban had a spokesman named Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, today studying in Yale on a student visa, making the rounds of Berkeley to explain that the detonation of the Buddhist statues, then the worst thing that the jolly gang of headchopping boys in black were known for at the time, was actually a protest against the world ignoring Afghanistan's poverty. His audience cheered and laughed along with him, able now to relate to the Taliban, not as murderous butchers who throw acid in the faces of little girls-- but as activists against Third World poverty.

But long before Sayed slimed his way across California, a Japanese consulate employee named Hikida Yasuichi would strike up close ties with Black Harlem intellectuals in the 1930's, in pursuit of General Sato Kojiro's then bizarre fantasy of destroying America's Pacific Fleet, occupying Hawaii and then invading the mainland with an African-American army. While no such army ever materialized, Hikida Yasuichi succeeded in stirring up sympathy for Imperial Japan among black writers like W.E. Du Bois, who were otherwise fervent Communists, by convincing them that Japan was fighting for all the non-white races.

Du Bois would go on to spew back Japanese propaganda claiming that Japan was fighting for the liberation of Asia from European colonialism. He blamed China for provoking the Japanese invasion, denounced any efforts opposing the Japanese invasion and urged the Chinese people to welcome their liberation at the hands of the Japanese Army. He then did what most Americans who find common cause with an enemy whose real views would be utterly unacceptable to them, by projecting his own agenda and worldview on the Japanese, classing China as the Uncle Toms who insisted on being subservient to Europe, while the Japanese, "classed themselves with the Chinese, Indians and Negroes as standing against the white world."

It was an absurd piece of propaganda, particularly W.E Du Bois' repeated insistence that the Japanese were "free from all race prejudice" and saw themselves as brothers with all non-white races. But as would happen so many times in history, it was a case of the enemy cultivating a fifth column, while the Americans being cultivated insisted on projecting their own worldview on an enemy who in reality had nothing but contempt for them.

Nor would W.E. Du Bois limit his propaganda reach to Imperial Japan alone. He would actually travel as an honored guest to Nazi Germany, where he would insist that he been treated with the greatest courtesy and pen an article titled, "The German Case Against the Jews" arguing that Jews in Germany were better treated, than Blacks in the American South. Meanwhile as a dedicated Communist, Du Bois would at the same time praise Stalin, as a "great and courageous man", and provide support for his brutal purges.

This kind of across the broad support for Nazi and Communist regimes would seem to be intellectually incompatible, much as being a liberal who supports Islam. Yet Du Bois, as many others, would find the point of compatibility through solidarity with anyone opposed to America. And any real world obstacles to that solidarity could be easily fogged over by projecting their own motives for hostility toward the United States onto their newfound friends.

This sort of motivated blindness would enable Black Communist writers to make common cause with Imperial Japan on race, and with Nazi Germany on socialism. It in turn enables Paleocons such as Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul to make common cause with Putin and Ahmadinejad, arguing that all Russia and Iran really want is to be left alone. Much as their political forebears argued that all Germany wanted was to take back the Rhineland, and maybe liberate the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia-- to undo its victimization by America, England and France in WW1.

It is why modern day liberals insist on treating Islamic terrorist groups as social service organizations and political activists, who happen to have an armed wing to further their struggle for social justice. It is why the media repeatedly plays up Hamas' clinics or Hezbollah's so-called rebuilding effort in Lebanon. It is why  Senator Patty Murray in 2002 described Al Queda as mirroring the social service agenda of the Democratic party, saying, "He’s been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. He’s made their lives better."

It is of course easier to find common ground with the enemy of your enemy by assuming that your values mirror theirs. And America's enemies have always understood the value of cultivating a fifth column, whether it was the cheering sons and daughters of bank Presidents wearing flowers in their hair and chanting, "Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh, NLF is going to win,"; W.E. Du Bois being led around Tokyo and Berlin by his Axis handlers while claiming to see no racial prejudice ever; Lenin assuring Western thinkers that his politics were just like theirs, only more action oriented; Osama bin Laden citing Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11 movie and  Michael Scheuer's book to better relate to the Anti-War movement, or Lindbergh doing a grand tour of Nazi Germany to return assuring his countrymen that the danger to them came not from Hitler, but the British and the Jews.

Lord Haw Haw, Tokyo Rose, Ezra Pound, Robert Jordan (the Black Fuhrer), W.E. Du Bois, Paul Robeson, Bertrand Russell, Charles Lindbergh, Carl Sagan, Michael Moore, Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Michael Scheuer, George Galloway and Ken Loach all represent microscopic snapshots of how radical politics drives Westerners to ally themselves with their worst enemies, while deluding themselves as to their intentions.

To the far right and far left, by defining American capitalism or American imperialism as the chief enemy, it becomes possible to treat any enemy of America as the victim, by sufficiently demonizing America. This kind of irrationality led British workers unions in wartime England to claim that American troops were not coming to England to fight the Nazis, but to oppress British workers. It led the modern left to accuse George W. Bush of seeking to become a dictator, rather than fight Al Queda.

Nor is this a unique element in the 20th century. The Jeffersonians found more common cause with the worst butchers of the French Revolution than with the Federalists across the aisle. The resulting feud would lead to a vicious smear campaign against George Washington and the Alien and Sedition Acts. Extremists on the Federalist side in turn put Anglophilia above all else in the War of 1812, giving them the name "Blue-Light Federalists", which long before the days of K-Mart was a suggestion that they were functioning as enemy spies. While the accusation was not technically true, it did help destroy the Federalist party. Much as the willingness of the Democratic party to let itself be co-opted by the Copperheads during the Civil War would help keep Democratic Presidents out of the White House, barring Johnson, for nearly a generation.

It is no surprise then that in the 20th century, American leftists proved willing to side with Nazi Germany, the USSR and Imperial Japan-- all because they were convinced that America was a stewing cauldron of the worst sins of humanity. And by comparison to America, Hitler, Tojo and Stalin suddenly looked very good indeed.

If you presume that America, England, Canada and Australia represent the absolute nadir of racism, colonialism and the military-industrial complex, anyone who opposes them must have some virtues. And if his opposition takes the form of mass butchery, the fault will nevertheless be placed at the doors of the colonial powers. Which is how the far left and far right justified the worst atrocities of the 1930's, and how they continue to justify modern tyrants and butchers, such as Saddam, Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad and Putin.

Thus instead of seeing the piles of dead Chinese corpses, W.E. Du Bois saw "colored" Japanese radicals casting off the rule of Europe, and Europe's Chinese accomplices. This same absurdity is repeated today by liberals who class Arab Muslims together with African-Americans and Asians as "Brown People" (which is the new colored) when Dubai alone racks up thousands of African, Indian and Asian guest workers dead in a single year. Muslims do not see themselves as "Brown People", no more than Imperial Japan saw itself as "colored". For Imperial Japan which saw the Chinese as subhuman, W.E. Du Bois would not have even shown up on the relationship chart. To Arab Muslims, African-Americans are Abd, nothing more than slaves.

The American radical projects his revolutionary agenda and the American isolationist projects his isolationism onto the enemy. Their hatred for America leads to sympathy for America's devils which leads them lightly down the road to hell.


  1. Anonymous30/7/09

    The human mind's propensity for self-deception is limitless.
    Gays look at photos of Iranian gays being hanged in the streets of Teheran & gay rights groups are silent. Feminists watch scenes of brutality & oppression of women in the Muslim world including horrific public stonings & say nothing.
    Journalists have untold examples of other journalists murdered or imprisoned in all Muslim countries, in Russia, & in China, & almost never voice their condemnation.
    Liberal Jews see & hear countless examples of Islamic anti-Semitism & can easily read the Qurán & Sunna to find it's basis in Islamic theology but their response is to call for inter-faith dialogue & tolerance for Muslims.
    Blacks (or brown) ignore the pervasive racism in Islamic societies & for that matter, the racist attitudes in Russia, China, & Japan.
    All have no problem being anti-Western, anti-American, & anti-Israel.
    They would all be among the first victims of those they support.

  2. And now we have David Milliband, British foreign secretary, insisting we need to 'talk to the moderates in the Taliban'.

    What's that saying, originally French... 'the more things change, the more they stay the same...'...?

  3. Anonymous30/7/09

    beautifully said. do you know what will happen to these neo-Liberals and the rest of us?
    history. After Iranian Leftists helped the Islamists to dominate the country,they kept defending every evil they did during the follwoing years, just because they believed they were only trying to throw the U.S and Isareli Emprisalists out of the country. Soon, Islamists announced all other political parties illegal, the enemies of Allah and people (!)and their members, mostly Liberals and Communists, were thrown in jail. finally eight years after Islamist took power, they got tired of these infidels who were not submitting to Islam even after being in jail for years and in 1986 by Khomeini's orders, in a course of just two months, a minimum of 4000 prisoners were executed, some of them 12 year old kids. their families were asked to pay for the price of the bullets with which their kids were killed in order to be able to receive their corpses. for the next 30 yeas the oil revenue was used for funding terrorism around the world while Iran turned into a den of poverty, corruption and all kinds of evil. The Leftists had hoped that Islamist would only try to attack Israel and destroy it but they in return were destroyed. This is what will happen to the Leftists and unfortunatley the rest of us in West. Many of these Leftists escaped to Western countries after Islamist came. Many Islamists Officials of Iran have sent their children to U.S and Europe for better lives, while they are oppressing the people!
    Iranian people obeyed the Mullas when they talked about destroying Israel becuase of Islmaic racism and then they became the victims of the evil they promoted. I dont' pity them. Now they want freedom but this time a so-called reformist but in fact a Leftist-Islamic group is trying to take the lead and use their voices for its own benefit. probably because Obama and other Leftists are working on using Iranian people for gaining support for their anti-Israel Leftist agenda! fortunately thoes who want to destroy us will go down with us. there are no winners here.

  4. Anonymous30/7/09

    I have a question: how did Israel and the U.S became the bad guys in Liberal ideology?
    Islamists keep repeating that these two are the evil, becuase in Islam, since Jews didn't submit to Islam they are bad(Israel is the land of Jews and the U.S is a frind of Israel) they never use their mind and ask themselves how could Jews accept a religion whose founder asked them to join his army for the sole purpose of attacking other tribes, killing people, raping their women and stealing from them and forcing them to consider him a messenger of god? if someone forces you with a sword to accept he is a prophet it means he is not one.
    Also Islamist try to make themselves appealing to Leftists in Western countries where they are immigrating to so they try to defend the Leftists words and ideas which somehow resonates with their own.
    but where did this anti-Israel ideology start among Liberals? what is the basis of it?

  5. Progressive ideology is premised on the idea that the country they're in Europe, America, Australia, Israel, etc are immoral and in need of reform. Liberalism is primarily a reformist movement, so they begin by gauging everything wrong in order to reform it, of course the reforms often turn out to be as bad as the original problems

  6. Anonymous30/7/09

    why don't they believe that 'other' countries are corrupt too? self-criticism is good but what about criticising others?
    but not all of them believe their country is bad.
    Leftists in Russia believed their country was good. Iranian Leftist believed they country was bad because it was close to Americans.but when Islamist controled the country, they believed their country was good.
    how can this form of ideology be changed? changing Islamist ideology can be only done through pointing constantly at the evil it contains and its illogical views. but thoes who believe in far Left Liberal ideology seem to be extremly more illogical than the most illiterate simple minded Islamists (at least the repentant ones that I have seen)

  7. Anonymous30/7/09

    I mean they have nothing against the country and its system if it is controlled by their own kind or by Islamist, no matter how much evil they see is being done.They are not agaisnt the evil they see. They saw good in Iran but they were against it. when Islamist started imposing oppressive laws, they never complained. Do Leftists only complain when it is easy and fashionable and dosn't cost much? they were certainly afraid of being against Islamists.
    I hardly see any differece between Islamist, Leftist or other dangerous cults for whom truth is only what they believe and they find it extremly hard to change their belief system. its like being possessed.

  8. They see their home system as evil, unless it is controlled by people of the same ideological stripe as them. They also see any outside system as good or evil depending on whether it is opposed to their home country's system or friendly to it

    It's much like the way ordinary people relate to other systems, but reversed backward

    Thus Israel is bad because it is friendly to the United States and is seemingly first world capitalist

    Iran is good because it opposes the US and its system is markedly different

    They do not judge the actual value of the Iranian system, only that it is different from and hostile to the American one, which they oppose

  9. This has been going on since before he 2nd world war when so many in Britain were nazi sympathizers and Tom Mosely wanted to create and almost did.. a revolution in England to overthrow the government.
    His brown shirt thugs beat up Jews by the thousands in those day.
    He and his wife Diana along with the Duke of Windsor and his wife and many others were giving away state secrets left and right.

  10. sure, the Nazis had plenty to do their work overseas, down to the IRA

  11. Anonymous31/7/09

    I don't mean to present an exercise in psycho-babble, which I generally dislike, but we can't avoid seeing a lot of self-hate in the attitudes of the politically correct liberal left. I think the origin of this self-hate comes from expecting perfection from whatever group they're part of.
    For example, Jews who criticise Israel because Israel is not absolutely 100% perfect & because of this ''imperfection'' then proceed to demonize Israel & Jews. They already have inner feelings of low self-worth which they project onto anything Jewish. In their eyes, being Jewish is itself a defect. These are the same people who are uneasy at the sight of anyone ''too Jewish'' or react with hysteria when a Jew is caught in some crime or scandal.
    Evidently, many Americans see America the same way - since America is not ''perfect'' then it is evil.
    Consequently, everything which is not Jewish or American or whatever, must be good, by definition. This is a kind of moral totalitarianism, holding your own self & by extention, your whole group to impossible standards of perfection.

  12. Anonymous31/7/09

    Interesting topic and theory, I must admit I have wondered why liberals tend to side the way they do. I think that modern libs do it because it is currently very TRENDY to be liberal - the more liberal you are, the more "progressive" you are. Just look at Hollywood celebrities - they all compete with one another at how "tolerant" and "progressive" they can portray themselves. They do it for attention, much like a fashion accessory.

  13. B R I L L I A N T !!!

  14. Anonymous31/7/09

    Very good analysis and good posts. I would like to add my 2 cents to the ideas. The current conflict with Islam has much more supporters than the previous conflicts. Universities receive tons of books on Islam since 9/11, movies (right now at San Francisco "Jewish" festival), tv series, are all pro-Islam no one dares SAY anything against honor killings, terror attacks against Jews in America (they are all "disturbed", not normal)so my point is that with the polical correctness the white males, including the Israelis have been emasculated, made "sensitive" and who more than the liberals. I think that somewhere inside they admire the animalistic brutality and power that Islam has shown on 9/11 and they are attracted. The people who despise political correctness are the ones who see the truth.

  15. Anonymous31/7/09

    I think Iranian people owe a big apology to all the Leftists of the world, specially Hussein Obama. exaxtly when Obama decided to become the biggest friend of 'the world of Islam' and start shaking hands with all Islamic fascist dictators, like Iranian leaders especially Ahmadinejad, Iranian people revolted against Islam and these dictators that Obama and other Leftits worship! Oppressed people rising against Islamists and their Leftist Allies? never heard of! Unthinkable!

  16. Anonymous31/7/09

    Why are you maligning Buchanan and Sheuer?

  17. I'm not maligning them, I'm telling the truth about them

    Why do you think Bin Laden promoted Scheuer's book? And Buchanan has gone from Cold Warrior to pimping for Putin.

  18. Harbi31/7/09

    Ever since its beginning, Islam has destroyed or attempted to destroy EVERY civilisation with which it came into contact WITHOUT EXCEPTION!

    In Britain, our present Marxist politicians demonstrate a breathtaking combination of ignorance and arrogance in thinking that the Muslims will treat us any differently from the way they have treated Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, Zoroastrians and Eastern Orthodox Christians in the past.

    Muslims are programmed with hatred of the 'najis kuffars' (filthy infidels) from earliest childhood. Shariah law (the word of Allah) tells them that all infidels are polluted, on a par with pigs, excrement and rotting corpses.

    The Marxists' ignorance is the ignorance of global history, which was not shared by great statesmen of the past such as Churchill and Enoch Powell. The Marxists' arrogance is the arrogance of the dogmatists, who believe that they have all the answers, and that all religion - the opium of the masses - will fade away once these benighted third-worlders have settled into Kool Britannia.

    Of course their arrogance also prevents the Metropolitan elite ever admitting their mistakes, which is why they continue to perpetuate the Big Lie of our time that Islam does not desire our destruction, and on the contrary is a 'Religion of Peace'.


Post a Comment

You May Also Like