Features, Free Speech, Human Rights, Politics, Spotlight

The Shame and the Disgrace of the Pro-Islamist Left

By supporting fundamentalists, the Left simply chooses one camp in a political struggle without acknowledging it.

Maryam Namazie, a trenchant campaigner against religious fundamentalism, made this observation last week during a fraught lecture at Goldsmiths, University of London. It would turn out to be pertinent.

Namazie’s appearance at Goldsmiths was causing trouble before the event had even begun. The day before the event, the university’s Islamic Society (ISOC) let it be known that they considered Namazie to be a “renowned Islamophobe” whose presence on campus would cause ISOC members to feel “extremely uncomfortable,” and constitute a violation of their “safe space.” Such a reaction was tiresome but unsurprising. Goldsmiths’ ISOC is, after all, an Islamist-led organization, dominated by people who hold precisely the kind of beliefs Namazie spends her days attacking.

When expressions of Islamist self-pity failed to get her disinvited, ISOC members resorted to childish disruption of the talk itself, giggling, talking, heckling, and interfering with her power-point as she tried to speak. The video of the event (which can be seen here) makes for a depressing watch.

But what followed was more depressing still, and offered an instructive example of the moral collapse of the activist Left to which Namazie had referred in her lecture. “Solidarity,” she had warned…

…has become increasingly defined, not in political terms, as collective action in pursuit of certain political ideals, but in terms of ethnicity or culture. And since those in power [within Muslim communities] determine the dominant culture, many student unions – those on the Left, and even feminists – side with Islamism at our expense.

And so it was that when ISOC misrepresented the event as an unhappy tale of marginalization and Islamophobia, both the Goldsmiths Feminist Society and the LGBTQ+ Society quickly released statements pledging their support and solidarity with ISOC.

“We support them,” FemSoc soberly declared:

…in condemning the actions of the Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society and agree that hosting known islamophobes at our university creates a climate of hatred.

Two days later, the LGBTQ+ Society came up with this:

We condemn AHS and online supporters for their islamophobic remarks, attitudes, and harassment. If they feel intimidated, we urge them to look at the underpinnings of their ideology. We find that personal and social harm enacted in the name of ‘free speech’ is foul, and detrimental to the wellbeing of students and staff on campus.

In a positively craven gesture, the Goldsmiths Student Union has since written to Namazie requesting that the recording of the event be removed from youtube. (She refused.)

The dismal spectacle of radical queer activists, feminists, and sundry other progressives professing solidarity with Islamists is at once fascinating and enraging. Whatever kind of higher education survives in ISOC’s utopian caliphate, it’s certain that no feminist or LGBTQ+ societies will be permitted to exist.

But for radical university students in the West, their lives of almost unparalleled opportunity, privilege, and comfort are a source of considerable guilt and anxiety. So conspiratorial notions of omnipresent oppression have been contrived against which they oblige themselves to struggle. This idea is supported by claims that liberal democracy is a sham, that objectivity is illusory, and that reason is elitist. And since all that makes rational discussion virtually impossible, debates about ideas are transformed into competing professions of woe, decided by whoever turns out to be subject to the greater degree of structural oppression.

By way of a further explanation of their stance, the LGBTQ+ Society directed browsers of their facebook page to a 34 page paper written by Caribbean academic Charles W. Mills. “In short,” Mills flatly concludes:

…the moral and political agenda of those persons not originally seen as full persons will be significantly different from the agenda of those whose personhood has traditionally been uncontested, and we need concepts, theories, and narratives which register this crucial difference.

Namazie is a woman, an Iranian (and thus a “person of color”), an ex-Muslim, a feminist, and a campaigner for secularism and human rights. And yet apparently she still hasn’t collected enough oppression points to outbid theocratic fascist males, conversant in the hand-holding jargon currently fashionable on the Tumblr Left.

I’m doubtful that either the LGBTQ+ Society or FemSoc or the student union has the slightest interest in Islamist ideology or what ISOC’s own invited speakers have to say about gay and female emancipation. Frankly, I’d be astonished if they watched the video of the debate before publishing their statements of solidarity. Why bother? Since Muslims are considered a homogenous protected group of victims and atheists are numbered amongst their tormentors, ISOC’s claim to emotional distress was probably enough. Besides which, surely all radicals – including Islamists – ought to unite in opposition to the common foe: a corrupt, greedy, Imperialist, and Islamophobic establishment of which Maryam Namazie is presumed to be some kind of instrument.

Sustaining such a belief requires a person to ignore a lot of information. To be able to shut out anything ideologically disagreeable, and to stigmatize those who come bearing uncomfortable news, is therefore useful. It is also profoundly damaging.

It would be bad enough if university activists were simply indifferent to Islamist ideology and its victims. But when they go out of their way to attack people like Namazie as a bigot and an oppressor, and to dismiss her arguments and experiences as therefore unworthy of consideration, they make the lives of all campaigners against fundamentalism considerably more difficult. Apart from the aggravation caused by having to deal with the abuse and defamation itself, it forces them to fight a war on two fronts.

I have seen Namazie speak a number of times, and on each occasion she has had to waste time explaining the exasperating moral blindness of people whose support for secularism and universal human rights ought to be a foregone conclusion. But those who recoil from politically incorrect music or an infelicitous joke find they have nothing to say about honor-based violence, forced marriage, the execution of gays and apostates, or the veiling, stoning, subjugation, and genital mutilation of women. Afraid to be seen to lend their support to racist and Imperialist ‘narratives,’ they instead assuage their guilty consciences by denouncing those whose activism shames their silence.

In late 2013, a scandal erupted when it was revealed that advocacy organization Universities UK had published diversity advice (since withdrawn) recommending segregation of audiences by gender at Islamist events on campus. The New Statesman’s Laurie Penny, a young feminist writer who has built a career on radical self-disgust, protested in the Guardian that she could hardly be expected to condemn religious gender apartheid while women remained under-represented at the top levels of the academy. “Horror stories about Muslim misogyny,” she added, “have long been used by western patriarchs to justify imperialism abroad and sexism at home.”

We are the fools, if we believe that accepting aggressive distinctions between nice, safe western sexism and scary, heathen Muslim sexism is going to serve the interests of women. The people making these arguments don’t care about women. They care about stoking controversy, attacking Muslims and shouting down feminists of all stripes.

And yet the distinction between the sexism women experience in the West and the misogyny endured by women across the Muslim-majority world and diaspora is indisputably huge. And while Laurie Penny and the activists at Goldsmiths discretely look the other way, many courageous people are paying a terrible price for noticing this self-evident truth. As Namazie pointed out, in Bangladesh, secular and feminist bloggers are being murdered in the streets with machetes, while across the Middle East and North Africa, free thinkers are languishing in jail or awaiting flogging or death.

But in the West too, cartoonists, writers, filmmakers, artists, and journalists are being assassinated or forced to live fugitive lives under security protection. And those not being threatened with Islamist violence are being traduced by campaigns of defamation in which ostensibly progressive people are eagerly participating. “Salman Rushdie” the writer Paul Berman observed, “has metastasized into an entire social class.”

In the wake of the 2005-6 Danish cartoon crisis, 12 such people – one for every drawing – signed a statement of solidarity with the embattled artists. Entitled “Together Against The New Totalitarianism,” this short document was written by the feminist and Charlie Hebdo staff member Caroline Fourest. It was a statement of considerable principle and courage produced in a climate of gathering fear, and Maryam Namazie was among its signatories. The concluding paragraphs read as follows:

We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of “Islamophobia,” a wretched concept that confuses criticism of Islam as a religion and stigmatization of those who believe in it.

We defend the universality of the freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit can be exercised in every continent, with regard to each and every abuse and dogma.

We appeal to democrats and independent spirits in every country that our century may be one of enlightenment and not obscurantism.

That so many on the Left fail to see the importance and value of such sentiments is a shame. That they contrive to re-describe them as something sinister and ignoble is a disgrace.


Jamie Palmer is a freelance writer, independent film-maker, and an editor at Quillette. You can follow him on Twitter @j4mi3p

Listen to this article
Voiced by Amazon Polly


  1. Samuel says

    Interesting and well written article. I hope attitudes towards Maryam Namazie and other ex-Muslims change in the near future. As someone who considers themselves left-leaning politically, it is frustrating to see a lack of criticism towards Islamism amongst my peers.

    • Ronald says

      Samuel, I agree with your comment except for the word “Islamism.” Critical thinking and freedom of expression should extend in regards to any or all forms of Islam (and all religions or ideas general).

  2. A powerful and important article that should be read and considered widely – thank you. I watched the video of Maryam Namazie’s talk at Goldsmiths with appalled fascination: at the rude, childish interruptions; the lack of academic and social discipline amongst some audience members; the apparently low level of intellectual rigour by those same people; the rudeness. It was, as one audience member said, frankly embarrassing behaviour by (supposedly) some of the brightest young minds in the country. But ultimately I was left impressed by the way in which Maryam and the thoughtful lady from Libya, who spoke from the heart, handled the situation and the vital message they came to share.

    • “by (supposedly) some of the brightest young minds in the country.”

      And by what evidence would you consider these young minds bright?

  3. I Thought I Saw It Move says


    The Feminist society and the LGBTQ Society are siding with a group who’s ideology would see women marginalised and subservient, and gay people killed or in other ways punished (this is part of the basic idology of the perverted stream of Islam that the Islamists wish to impose). They’re siding with the Islamists against a secular campaigner, who has repeatedly spoken out against the oppression of women, the imposition of religion and religious belief on society, and who has spoken for the need for a secular society where people of all faiths, or none, are equally free, and have equal opportunities and influence.

    You genuinely couldn’t make it up.

    Incidentally – please don’t assume that all liberals or those on “the left” are pro-Islamist, anti-free speech. Most atheists, secularists, and humanists (i.e. those who invited Namazie in the first place) also tend to have their politics somewhere in the progressive spectrum, and much of the campaigning against the restriction of free speech and expression to avoid offending extremist faith groups has come from non-belief, rationalist, and skeptic groups, who tend to be left-leaning. “The Left” is not this convenient, homogenous mass with one ideology, any more that “the Right” is.

  4. Thank you for this wonderful thresh dose of sanity in the dull, grinding debate on why we in the West should get our values and allegiances stright when discussing Islam. The sort of time Namazie has to waste explaining moral blindness and other simple, observable facts to her audiences is a burden I share as I fear do many critically thinking liberals trying to help well-meaning, but unconsciously biased, liberals regain some sense when discussing and thinking about Islam. I recently gave up on a number of ‘friends’ on Facebook after trying to explain some of the contradictions of those who see all Muslims as victims to be rescued by nice, loving liberals! It is all fascinating though as the author notes at the start. Crazy times we live in. I do hope that universities find their way again.

  5. Mitch says

    Great summary of the events at Goldsmiths, one that everyone on the Left should be reading. I gave up on the identitarian Left a while ago now and things like this remind me that I was correct. This whole episode is like bad satire of progressives as written by someone on the far Right.

    One of the highlights/lowlights of that video was the Libyan woman quoting from the Quran (in Arabic) and the Islamists heckling her to “speak English”.

    • The left won’t read this article. It’s “triggering” to them.

  6. Excellent article. That Islamists can hide from robust challenges as to the acceptablility of some of their beliefs by claiming racism, Islamophobia and other categories of victimhood is bad enough. To see them joined by people who really should know better is depressing. This is a fight worth winning.

  7. Pingback: All that makes rational discussion virtually impossible - Butterflies and Wheels

  8. It boggles the mind when gay and lesbian groups support radical Islamists. They would be the first to be jailed/killed in an Islamic fundie society.

    And people wonder why the world is moving to the right. Leftists are insane right now.

  9. Ron Moule says

    It’s due to sentimentality and arrogance that older activists wonder at the support of feminist and LGBTQ for fundamentalists.
    The fact is, these activists are themselves fundamentalists: they believe their gender / desire makes sense of everything, as some Muslims do the Koran.

    They are not the Left: they don’t really believe in state provision, in class politics, in driving down poverty and inequality, because their politics can flourish while socialism is crushed.
    Their beleief that in supporting Islamic fundamentamists they are supporting.thenoppressed is their error; our belief that these groups are the inheritors of the 70’s libertarian socialism is ours.

    • Whitemartin666@yahoo.co.uk says

      I agree.. the “left” has been hijacked by middle-class middle of the road ‘officially nice’ politics.. bring back CLASS struggle.

  10. It’s an excellent article in all but one important respect. Nowhere does it prove what Goldsmiths ISOC stands for, beyond one sentence at the bottom of the second paragraph, which implies lots yet leaves it to the (islamophobic) imagination. Perhaps this could be expanded?

  11. The ‘free world’ will come roaring back. The moral putridneess of much of academia is coiling the spring and it will soon trigger. Nothing is as dangerous as an idea whose time has come…especially if it is really just a fad.

  12. Pingback: paris ...now ,look at the news - Page 37

  13. simon crutchley says

    This is a repeat of the left’s support for Stalin and Mao (still continuing); they might have been able at one point to claim ignorance of the horrors of the communist system but even after these were exposed, and the finger of blame firmly attached to those at the top (Dikotter in his book about China’s famine demolishes the arguement that those at the top weren’t exactly aware of what was going on below them) it’s trendy to advocate Maoism or Stainism. People who wouldn;t wear a swastika (6million murders) will spout a picture of Mao (30 million plus, some actually carried out with his own bare hands). Stasi memorabilia is cool for the left in the way that Nazi wares are for the right.

    Part of the support for Islamists comes from what the left criticises as Orientalism – (a belief in ‘the other’ generally starting at Calais, but most often manifested in the middle east) – exempting Islamists from the rules that govern our society because of their difference. And of course as Hitler portrayed the Germans as victims of the Jews, the path is well worn – Milosevic, Mugabe, Selassie are just a few who successfully turned reality on its head. the left loves underdogs and therefore supports those who can cast themselves as downtrodden. There are whole organisations trying successfully to portray muslims as victims of western oppression (the IHRC operates in the same way communist propagandists did in the cold war and consistantly fools the BBC). Many muslims believe this – against overwhelming evidence that muslims are oppressing other muslims way better than the west could imagine.

    Naive students (there are quite a few at Goldsmiths, I’ve taught there) easily fall for these ploys, while enjoying the benefits they are eroding (free speech, science and technology, western medicine, feminism) and extolling the problems that riddle Islam (slavery, misogyny, violence, colonialism, sex slavery to name a few that were there at Islam’s inception).

    One could write t off as naivity if it wasn;t being gleefully orchestrated by the people who would destroy everything those spoilt students rely on for their lifestyle. And a cowardly liberal academic ‘politically correct’ power structure abets them.

  14. Nailed it. Had a similar discussion with a gay friend lately who was actually defending a country were being openly gay carries the death penalty, yet when I pointed that out I was called a bigot.

  15. David Matzdorf says

    There are two underlying problems that lead to the “disgrace” (not an over-dramatic word) of woolly and/or rigid minds on the left supporting censorship.

    One is the increasing confusion between opposition to religion and racism. It is is true that many people who are hostile to Islam are doing it as a camouflage for their racism, but opposing fundamentalism is not the same thing as hating brown people and it should not be beyond the mental capacity of supposed leftists to distinguish between them.

    The second is the pernicious canard that groups of people have a “right not to be offended”. Fuck that. I have a right to be as rude and disrespectful as I want about people’s beliefs, as long as I am not disrespectful of their rights as people. My right to say what I think, even if it offends delicate sensibilities, trumps their right not to be offended. Every time.

    In some ways, it’s the same distinction, between respect for what people think and respect for what people are: on the one hand between opposing a fundamentalist view of the world and racism; on the other hand, between people’s (genuine) right to believe whatever nonsense they want to believe and their (nonexistent) right to prevent other people from pointing out that it is nonsense.

  16. There’s a gigantic leap in this article, from ‘the Left’ to identity-based political groups. There are many on the left that despair of many of their activities, whilst also being supportive of their questioning of the distribution of power that underlies the marginalisation of minority groups.

    So, all a bit strawman [sic] imho.

    • John Morgan-Evans says

      My experience is that it is not only the protest groups, who you could expect to have a sectional approach, who fall into this trap. Most of the prominent advocates are current left party members or ex-party members whose experience and education should make them know better.

    • Agree 1000% with Dave on this …..keep the broad sweeping statements about the “left” out of this unless it is 100% and you can define what the “left” is clearly and specifically!

  17. John Morgan-Evans says

    Thank you for this excellent article, which really gets to grips with the mess the left is in at the moment. It couldn’t be better expressed

  18. Very worrying to see how Islamists now cloak their restrictive & abusive aspirations under the guise of Leftwing liberation rhetoric, ‘safe spaces’, etc. The idea of ‘safe spaces’ makes me queasy at the best of times, but when it is being used to silence the voices of those who are vilified in their native countries & communities; face a believable and constant threat of violence, and campaign merely for gender equality, free expression, etc, then something has gone severely wrong. The problem is that the very idea of challenging a ‘grievance’ goes against the principle of the safe space, so it is wide open for abuse of this kind. If you belong to a certain cultural, ethnic, religious or gender identity – the safe space effectively grants you immunity from critique. Woes are accepted at face value. In this uncritical echo chamber, 1st world students at a university in London can convince themselves that they are victim to an ‘oppression’, so strongly believed that they trump the genuine oppression of invited speakers. These assumptions go beyond the college campuses – whereby dissent towards feminist, black activist & Islamist causes is seen as abhorrent, taboo or heartless. We are losing the meritocracy of ideas that sustains a healthy student body, a dynamic intelligensia and an honest government. Communities who victim monger the most stand to gain the most, and so far the Muslim community is winning.

  19. I’m genuinely interested in whether the author of this article, and several of the commentators here – the majority, really – consider themselves Rightists. With so much dung-throwing against “The Left,” I can’t help but wonder.

    I’m also curious, re. this sentence:

    Goldsmiths’ ISOC is, after all, an Islamist-led organization, dominated by people who hold precisely the kind of beliefs Namazie spends her days attacking.

    Is there any evidence backing this up? It’s a pretty serious charge, if Namazie’s critiques are as the author claims them.

    • Michael says

      When exactly did opposing religious fundamentalism become a “rightist” position? Both Islamic and Christian fundamentalists are rightists.

      • Leftists are increasingly turning toward identity politics and a kind of radical liberalism which fears critical observations.

  20. David says

    Whatever they claim, the Islamists who heckled and disrupted her speech are clearly authoritarians of the right, as all religious fundamentalists are, whether muslim, xtian, jewish, sikh. Progressives and democrats everywhere, whether socialist, liberal or conservatives should recognise that.

  21. Michael says

    I honestly do not know why anyone is shocked. It makes perfect sense to me that both feminists and LGBT groups support Islamist groups. Feminists for all their claims of equality want to be dominated by men. Who better then a radical Muslim to dominate you? They are so obsessed with men dominating every aspect of their lives they see it where it does not exist. Far as homosexual or LGBT groups why is anyone shocked they would be spending a lot of time with Muslim groups? The middle east has consistently been the world’s largest consumer of gay porn on the earth.

  22. shmiggen says

    This is a story of Pride. Men in western societies are unable to defend women who speak out against Islam, because under Feminism we cannot be macho. Additionally, western feminists are too proud to request protection from men because they know they killed the Patriarchy. And so here we are. Western women are now faced with an Islamic patriarchy, and there are no white men to help them because to do would be unfeminist.

  23. Somebody ought to wallpaper Jeremy Corbyn’s office with this article.

  24. Joe Salama says

    Excellent well expressed exposé of the bullying hypocritical dominance by such odious special interest groups of what ought to be the natural Greenhouse for our political future thinkers and orators policy makers and opinion formers. Instead of which we are allowing an incubator scenario where the protection from any challenging or threatening influence becomes paramount as this is perceived as a mortality threat and must be sanitised out of existence.

  25. William says

    Thanks for sharing this. So brave are the people offering rational thought to an irrational audience
    My admiration goes out to you


  26. I’ve been a leftist all my life but I increasingly find myself in the position of “I didn’t leave the left, it left me.” I’m repulsed by the crude collectivist and reductionist thinking that underlies SJW thought. Everyone can be summed up by a small set of labels – male/female, white/”of color”, etc., and everyone with the same set of labels is interchangeable. Furthermore, everyone is either a privileged oppressor or a helpless oppressed victim depending on which category you fall into. Muslims are one huge undifferentiated (and of course oppressed) mass and therefore it makes perfect sense for feminists and LGBTQ people to side with them. There’s no room for individuality in this picture. It’s lazy, sloppy thinking, an excuse to avoid the hard work of being informed about an issue and making judgments based on the particular circumstances of the issue. SJW’s have become the Tea Party of the left.

  27. Arvid says

    So why would these would-be egalitarians side with authoritarian islamists? Well, it’s quite obvious: they prioritize the struggle against right-wing, populist, islamophobic rhetoric over the well-being of certain oppressed groups. Said populists are of course very keen to point to radical islamists to give muslims in general a bad name, and in this particular antagonism, Namazie comes out on the wrong side.

  28. Pingback: Victimization as Power | Dissident Right

  29. Brian hopper says

    Jamie. Thank you. This all seems depressingly familiar. The likes of Chomsky & Greenwald are constantly trying to discredit Sam Harris’ Ayman Hirsi Ali & others with the same brush with the “the West is to blame” mantra and self flagellation. It is probably worth the while of the left to look at Iran and the ‘revolutuon’. The secular left and free students so much a part of the Shah’s downfall were the greatest to suffer when he was deposed. Sadly Jamie…I think your efforts will be to little avail…but thank you for a thoughtful piece. I will ‘share’ but most will flip on to hilarious videos of cats ( insert exasperated sigh here).

  30. cephus0 says

    Oh dear, I see the turkeys are voting for Christmas again. The ideology is so firmly entrenched now that like many of the brainwashed Nazis they will go to their deaths saluting their murderers.

  31. Pingback: Outside in - Involvements with reality » Blog Archive » Chaos Patch (#92)

  32. cryptonymous bill says

    All these organizations and movements suffixed with -SOC and ‘+’; doesn’t anybody get the joke?

    Pardon – I’m sure it’s declasse of me even to point it out.

  33. Chris Squire says

    The Feminist Society and the LGBTQ+ Society are simply radical Islam’s ‘useful idiots’:

    ‘useful idiot n. derogatory (chiefly Polit.) (originally) a citizen of a non-communist country sympathetic to communism who is regarded (by communists) as naive and susceptible to manipulation for propaganda or other purposes; (more widely) any person similarly manipulable for political purposes . .
    1948 N.Y. Times 21 June 14 L’Umanita said the Communists would give the ‘useful idiots’ of the left-wing Socialist party the choice of merging with the Communist party or getting out . . ‘ (OED)

    Experience may teach them sense but arguing with them is a waste of breath, I fear.

  34. Well said. The main thing this article failed to stress is how far back this travesty goes. On university campuses in the 1970s and ’80s, extremist feminists adopted the wacko attitudes of “critical theory” and “post-modernism”, which view the world in black-and-white categories of oppressed and oppressor groups. This included supporting Muslims against the formerly colonialist West and Israel (in some ways legitimate, but not on their black-and-white terms)–and this has led ever since to dominant feminism turning a blind eye to the many serious forms of discrimination against females in Muslim societies. And to massive insanity and bigotry of other kinds, but that is a further story.

  35. The Left’s tacit support of Islam betrays their real agenda: anti-White and anti-Christian.

  36. P.H.R. says

    So far as I know, there are still no fully satisfying or convincing explanations of the peculiar psychology of the radical left. Guilt about privilege may be part of the story, but there are surely other factors as well, such as narcissism and susceptibility to fanaticism. More investigation is clearly needed.

  37. P.H.R. says

    A truly remarkable quote from Laurie Penny:

    “We are the fools, if we believe that accepting aggressive distinctions between nice, safe western sexism and scary, heathen Muslim sexism is going to serve the interests of women. The people making these arguments don’t care about women. They care about stoking controversy, attacking Muslims and shouting down feminists of all stripes.”

    What on earth is she talking about? Does she or doesn’t she believe that sexism is WRONG and to be condemned?

  38. “So far as I know, there are still no fully satisfying or convincing explanations of the peculiar psychology of the radical left.”

    Read “Darwinian Politics: The Evolutionary Origins of Freedom” by Paul Rubin; and focus on the chapters explaining the origin and function of Envy, and the great difficulty many people have in distinguishing between Production Hierarchies and Consumption Hierarchies.

  39. Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » TO BE FAIR, THEY HAVE A COMMON ENEMY IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION: The Shame And The Disgrace Of The Pro…

  40. Why the surprise ?

    Should have qualified the Left as Marxist Left.

    A Marxist does not care about freedom of speech , racism, poverty, discrimination, inequality, unionism etc etc.

    They are all are pretexts to be thrown away by the Marxist Left :
    If it is in the wrong side of the border, if it is not the right group of people or even when the clocks changes the time of the day.

    That has been the behavior of Marxist Left since even earlier than the Bolshevik coup in Russia.

    The Marxist Left has no cause except destroy Western Civilization.

    So everything and everyone that helps Western Civilization no matter how good is criticized or ignored and everything that help fight Western Civilization no matter how bad is supported.

    That is the pattern. That is what explain this behavior.

  41. Since the Progressive Left and Radical Islam have the same enemy, Western Enlightenment… wouldn’t it make sense to defund Progressive worldview education in K-12, university, law schools and Journalism schools? Simply replace the pedagogy with “1776-Tragic-Liberty” worldview ed!

    This is how to restore and keep a Republic. Logic and love of sanity would require us to defund, defund, defund Progressive worldview education, as it (and Extreme Muslims) are at war with any Republic.

    Defunding Progressive worldview education would works for the U.S., France, the U.K., Kenya and Japan. Maybe every other country, as well, that doesn’t want intellectual B.S. jihad coming from schools or the public educated by schools at war with Republic sanity.

  42. Progs despise western civilization in general and the US in particular. They are obsessed with ‘transforming’ the white-patriarchy and aren’t fussy how to accomplish that goal which is why in the past 60 years or so they’ve either openly or surreptitiously supported enemies of the west. Nowadays they are using Islamic barbarians to do their dirty work and either think if successful the barbarians won’t turn on them or they just don’t care as long as they destroy western civilization. Progressivisn = Nihilism

  43. Pingback: The Shame and the Disgrace of the Pro-Islamist Left | THE REGRESSIVE LEFT

  44. Voice_of_Reason says

    The “progressive” left is now in the bizarre situation of allying themselves with the most “regressive” ideology in the modern world, Islam.

    Just this past weekend, the news carried a story of how the ISLAMIC state threw a 15 year-old boy off of a roof for being gay. It wasn’t too long ago that the New York Times wrote an article explaining that the ISLAMIC State Enshrines a theology of rape (Aug 14, 2015). Even “regular” Islamic countries tend to impose sanctions on woman and gays unimaginable in the modern Western world. And yet feminists and gay activists ally themselves with islamists.

    Many leftists seem to hate the center-right (or “classically liberal”) West so much that you would rather ally yourself with monsters, stifle legitimate debate, bully dissenters, and pretend that the obvious excesses of islam don’t actually exist in their doctrine, rather than face head-on a simple truth: Islam is in dire need of a reformation, and without a reformation, it is incompatible with Western democracy and is used to justify barbaric behavior.

  45. Pingback: A few good links | Column Catcher

  46. Pingback: Victimization as Power | Dissident Right

  47. Pingback: O falhanço da Europa | Bitaites de um Preguiça

  48. Pingback: Dawkins – A Right Old Tweet | meVolution

  49. Pingback: A doutrina totalitária dos “justiceiros sociais”

  50. Pingback: THE LEFT IS DRIVING AWAY SO MANY OF US | Balladeer's Blog

  51. Jesus fucking christ…what the fuck is wrong with the regressive left…YOU ARE LITERALLY SUPPORTING REPRESSION OF WOMEN AND THE HATRED OF GAYS.

    I am just amazed, it is inconceivable to me how this can happen.

  52. Pingback: The Totalitarian Doctrine of ‘Social Justice Warriors’ – THE REGRESSIVE LEFT

  53. Pingback: The Thin Skins | Alex John-Henry

  54. So the Muslims in the audience responded by voicing dissent? Wow! The next thing you know they’ll be campaigning for Freedom of Expression, just like it says in the …

    That’s strange, I can’t find where it says that in the Quran. They must have acted independently! How dare they ruin our stereotypes!

  55. Jamie says

    Excellently written article summing up more eloquently than I ever could what I’ve been saying to friends who fall into the same trap as the Goldsmiths FemSoc. This new fad of the regressive left of jumping to the defence of a minority regardless of their actual beliefs and motives purely out of a desire to “side with the oppressed” is becoming increasingly dangerous for the future of society, especially when the “victims” are able to terminate debate with such craven cries of “Islamophobe” and “racist” as soon as their position is questioned, silencing debate and smearing those critics with good motives who merely point out the obvious.

  56. Pingback: Women without vagina? Understand what is a “Social justice warrior”. | Women Against Feminism UK

  57. Pingback: Was wir von den USA lernen können | Ceiberweiber

  58. Pingback: Feminist and LGBT groups joined with the Islamic Society to say talk by Iranian-born feminist and ex-Muslim Maryam Namazie was a violation of “safe space.” | The Grand Order of the Red Feather | The Grand Order of the Red Feather

  59. Pingback: FEMSOC Libs Go Full Burka – Lonestar Parson

  60. Pingback: SJW ? POS ? IMO ➖ Open Thread | Rabblerouserruminations's Weblog

Comments are closed.