Well, we knew sumbuddy had to be blamed for The Donald’s Islamophobia. Why not the creator of Refugee Resettlement Watch? Others put the onus on Trump’s dementia (here we go again) for his push-back against Islamic jihad. But, no, a jornolisto at The Atlantic, a monthly magazine, has found the real culprits and one of them is the eeeevil Ann Corcoran.
From her recent post on the subject:
Writer at The Atlantic blames me (among others) for Trump’s “anti-Muslim” re-tweets
But, you know what I’ve noticed about left-wing writers like the Rhodes Scholar Peter Beinart is that whenever they call me out, they don’t even have the decency to mention RRW or my book!
Why is that?
Because it makes it harder for their readers to find my work. And they fear, horror of horrors, that some of those readers might actually agree with me on a few things!
So come on, Mr. Beinart, you call yourself a Yale-educated journalist, a journalism professor no less, so why no link when you attempt to abuse me?
From Peter Beinart at The Atlantic:
Early on Wednesday morning, Donald Trump retweeted three graphically anti-Muslim videos—one entitled “Islamist mob pushes teenage boy off roof and beats him to death!,” the second entitled “Muslim Destroys a Statue of Virgin Mary!” and the third entitled “Muslim migrant beats up Dutch boy on crutches!”—posted by British First [sic] leader Jayda Fransen, a woman convicted last year by a British court of harassing a woman wearing a hijab. [By the way, the videos Trump re-tweeted were real, not fake, and those who were depicted in them were Muslims making Muslims look bad. They weren’t actors! —ed]
Beinart goes on….
None of this should come as a surprise. Trump has been associating with anti-Muslim bigots, and parroting their arguments, since before he launched his presidential campaign. In May 2015, a month before he entered the race, Trump journeyed to Iowa to speak at a forum hosted by Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy (CSP), a think tank that specializes in in arguing that devout Muslims cannot be loyal Americans because Islamic law, or Sharia, violates the Constitution. During his speech, Trump mentioned that he had been chatting backstage with “some experts,” one of whom was a woman named Ann who was “so good, she was telling things that you wouldn’t even believe.” Two months earlier, Ann Corcoran had published a CSP report [This is where a legitimate journalist would have added a link.—ed] that urged Americans to “speak up against the opening of more mosques in your neighborhoods,” to “say no” to requests for “special Halal food section[s],” and to oppose efforts to require “local government to pay for a Muslim cemetery.” Citing Corcoran, Trump fumed that “if you come from Europe, you’re European, you’ve done great in school, you want to come, you want to come to the United States, you can’t get in, but if you’re Muslim, you can get in.” According to the Huffington Post, Trump would go on to cite “research from the Center for Security Policy dozens of times in press releases and speeches during his presidential campaign.”
[…]
Continue reading as he goes on to blame a whole bunch of people for educating the President on the most significant and serious issue facing America since its founding.
Truth be told, I love it when a ‘journalist’ goes off like this.
I become more energized because, as one of my dear friends remarked about this article, they are letting us know that their heads are exploding!
From a friend:
“I must admit that I actually laughed when I read this article. The heads of the Left are EXPLODING!!! They have nothing, NOTHING but the old bromides and scare tactics to fall back on. You can hear the fear in this article!”
It’s been over ten years that I’ve written about refugees and sometimes I think it’s time to retire. Then along comes Peter Beinart and I’m energized and ready for another year! 2018 here we come!
Ann Corcoran is a paragon. We’re grateful she’ll continue soldiering on.
Thanks to the work Ann Corcoran, we have been able to learn some of what the entire refugee resettlement establishment did not want us to know.
Be it noted that our entire prestige media has been very incurious about anything important.
Thank you Ann Corcoran.
She is a real treasure. Her reporting on the use of “refugees” (economic slaves) brought in by those so-called church NGOs, and used by Big Meat for the dirty, physically wearing jobs in their factories is an awful blot on our country’s integrity. Tyson, Chobani, etc., are the modern robber barons. Or some of them.
A witty neighbor of mine once asked me a good question about this.
If slavery did not work out so well in the past, why keep trying to repeat it?
But I suppose that they think that THIS time we will do it right. As with socialism….
“As the Special Rapporteur has previously emphasized, for the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion to be fully realized, robust examination and criticism of religious doctrines and practices — even in a harsh manner — must also be allowed.
The Special Rapporteur also reiterates his concern in relation to anti-blasphemy laws, which are inherently vague and leave the entire concept open to abuse. He wishes to underscore once again that international human rights law protects individuals and not abstract concepts such as religion, belief systems or institutions, as also affirmed by the Human Rights Committee (CCPR/C/GC/34, para. 48). Moreover, the right to freedom of religion or belief, as enshrined in relevant international legal standards, does not include the right to have a religion or belief that is free from criticism or ridicule. Indeed, the right to freedom of expression includes the right to scrutinize, debate openly, make statements that offend, shock and disturb, and criticize belief systems, opinions and institutions, including religious ones.”
La Rue, F. Promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, UN General Assembly, 67th Session, A/67/357, September 7th 2012, paragraphs 36, 53, available at: Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights > English > Human Rights Bodies > Special Procedures > General Assembly 67th session. (Accessed 02/12/2017)
Each of those videos recorded behaviour that is criminal, in much the same way as CCTV cameras or mainstream reporters. Yet Mr. Beinart calls them”anti-muslim”.
What rubbish.
I hate Beinart, every single thing about him.
I hate Harry’s Place which supports him.
I am opposed to all of that, a whole revisionist type thing.
But then I read Baron describing this as the “Left” (in fact he is quoting his friend with approval)
quote
From a friend:
“I must admit that I actually laughed when I read this article. The heads of the Left are EXPLODING!!! They have nothing, NOTHING but the old bromides and scare tactics to fall back on. You can hear the fear in this article!” end quote
But then I know that the main leaders in socialism, to varying degrees because Islam was not always at the forefront, but were all opposed to Islam and would also hate Beinart and his types.
But that blanket phrase of the “Left” is always meant to include me.
Spencer and Pamela do it also all the time, their favourite word is “Leftists”, and indeed unity is not possible with these insults to me.
See at the end of this E.H.Carr…he evaluates the position of the Bolsheviks as using Islam and Jihad in an opportunist fashion. I think he means to stir up Jihad in order to take the pressure of the much stretched workers state set up in 1917. This was in 1920.
quote…”Historian E. H. Carr emphasized the Comintern’s “uncompromising” promotion of the notion of revolution combined with its willingness to compromise with Muslim traditions:
Muslim beliefs and institutions were treated with veiled respect, and the cause of world revolution narrowed down to specific and more manageable dimenstions. The Muslim tradition of jihad, or holy war against the infidel, was harnessed to a modern crusade of oppressed peoples against the imperialist oppressors, with Britain as the main target.[39]
I cannot say whether Carr is on firm ground on this or not. Anything is possible since study of this area has been neglected.” end quote
I do know that Trotsky was opposed to what he called the “Mohammedans” when he was speaking about the Jews and Palestine, that would be about eighteen years later.
I do not know how firm historically the film “Reds” starring Warren Beatty and Diane Keaton when it depicts in a major scene John Reed the American communist in conflict with Zinoviev over this exact issue. But it seems likely there was conflict.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_the_Peoples_of_the_East
Political and theoretical work can be destroyed along the way. The revolution in Russia in 1917 broke out in a very backward country.
It is entirely possible that the writings of Marx on Islam were unknown to them.
Also possibly leaders in the Bolshevik Party like Radek and Zinioviev were weak theoreticians.
Yet Marx did write quite a lot on Islam.
One of my major disagreements with Robert Spencer is that although he has written many books on Islam, often attacking “Leftism” etcetera., yet has never to my knowledge mentioned the very important writings on Islam by Marx.
That tells me to put it mildly there is “something wrong there”.
quote…”The Koran and the Mussulman legislation emanating from it reduce the geography and ethnography of the various people to the simple and convenient distinction of two nations and of two countries; those of the Faithful and of the Infidels. The Infidel is “harby,” i.e. the enemy. Islamism proscribes the nation of the Infidels, constituting a state of permanent hostility between the Mussulman and the unbeliever. In that sense the corsair-ships of the Berber States were the holy fleet of Islam. How, then, is the existence of Christian subjects of the Porte to be reconciled with the Koran?”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1854/03/28.htm
The words above are at the centre of the issue even today which shows there is such a thing as absolute truth. The Koran divides the world into two parts, infidel and believer.
But probably the bloodthirsty drive of this form of imperialism came first the Koran as justification and then promoter (later even though nearly simultaneously).
This is an interesting essay containing
quote…”The MM was thus the incarnation of Daniel Pipes’s nominalist view of Islam: he thinks that Islam can be whatever he wants it to be. Because he believes in a secular, democratic, modern, Western Islam, therefore that is the true Islam and the people who actually follow the religion of the Koran, the Hadiths, and the sharia law as it has existed since the ninth century—the people who actually dominate the actually existing Islamic community and who make it dangerous for any moderate Muslim to speak out—are fake Muslims.”
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007742.html
I am not sure why he says the ninth century surely he means the seventh century at least.
But the key issue in this paragraph. he identifies the issue of philosophy as in the style of Bishop Berkeley (George Berkeley of Cloyne which is an Anglican diocese in Ireland) who Marx contended with…the person THINKS it is so therefore it is. That is the whole of the very damaging Karen Armstrong in a nutshell.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley
So whether it is accepted or not these issues are really at very bottom a struggle between dialectical materialism and subjective idealism.
In this way of thinking unconsciously the Gates of Vienna are the dialectical materialism of today because they are studying the ACTUAL concrete manifestations of Islam as it concretely presents. People like Peter Beinart are the subjective idealism practitioners of today who cannot tolerate such an examination because it conflicts with their subjective idealism.
This is a little inadequate
Michael Copeland writes…”Each of those videos recorded behaviour that is criminal, in much the same way as CCTV cameras or mainstream reporters. Yet Mr. Beinart calls them”anti-muslim”.
What rubbish.”
But the videos are very effectively anti muslim because they are exploring the reality of Islam which is the same as Muslim surely.
Beinart is a subjective idealist above all other things.
So he sees the videos of Muslims being criminal. What he sees registers on his brain but he immediately as a subjective idealist, the reality conflicting with his subjective idealist way of thinking, and he immediately reaches for a way out that will not conflict with that subjective idealism.
The way out for Beinart and so many of that ilk today is to resort to the word “racism” and to the attack on President Trump as a “racist”.
Pretty stinking behaviour by Beinart.
Copeland uses a very useful metaphor…so the cop viewing the video from the camera will say “Oh but these are Muslims so the camera must be wrong”.
Previous indoctrination and the subjective idealist method are interlinked.
This is where the fallacies of our education system come in. All of the youth, especially in primary, are indoctrinated by means of a vacuum of knowledge. They are taught nothing. The devisers of the educational programme themselves know nothing. The primary teachers but ten years earlier were sitting in those same desks and with a spell in a college have simply got worse.
That is what the likes of Beinart prey on.
Ann Corcoran refers to this same suppression of knowledge when she writes…”So come on, Mr. Beinart, you call yourself a Yale-educated journalist, a journalism professor no less, so why no link when you attempt to abuse me?”
The answer to Corcoran is very simple. It is all of a piece and there is no distance at all from the primary school vacuum of knowledge to the Beinart Yale Scholar vacuum of knowledge.
And this is total in the society of today.