David Horowitz’s Archives: Matthew Yglesias’ Islamo-Fascism Petition


This article was originally published on October 02, 2007.

On October 8, we are officially launching a drive to obtain signatures on a petition condemning Islamo-fascism. Our campaign has already been attacked – before launch – by Atantic Monthly blogger, Matthew Yglesias. Yglesias should know better since he was a supporter of the war against Islamo-fascism in Iraq, although he has since turned his back on the effort.

In his blog Yglesias attacks us for having as a “main goal” the creation of a petition deliberately designed to be unlikely for Muslim groups to sign and then to use Muslim groups’ failure to sign the petition as evidence that they’re on the side of ‘our terrorist adversaries.’”

Let’s stop right there, since Yglesias has already significantly distorted our position. Our main goal is to make people understand who the enemy is in the war on terror (since the White House has failed miserably to do so) and to expose people who 1) are on the other side of the war or 2) don’t understand what the war is about and therefore approach it with an appeasement mentality. Unfortunately, Yglesias seems to have slid in the direction of the latter position – otherwise why attack us?

As evidence in support of his characterization of our motives, Yglesias cites this passage from our Student Guide: “Perhaps most importantly, a petition forces students and faculty to declare their allegiances: either to fighting our terrorist adversaries or failing to take action to stop our enemies. For this reason, we encourage you to make a special effort to bring this petition to those groups who might be least likely to sign it, for example to campus administrators, student government officers, and the Muslim Students’ Association.”

Note that we actually designate three specific groups who would be least likely to sign it, and that none of these three groups is the Muslim faith as such. We mention one Muslim group – the Muslim Students Association. Perhaps Yglesias is unaware that the MSA is a creation of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas and is funded by the Saudis and is part of the Islamo-fascist jihad. We can forgive him if he did not understand this and we will welcome a corrective blog acknowledging that fact. If the Muslim Association is not part of the jihad they will sign the petition, which attacks Muslim fascists, not Muslisms who are not fascists.

We also singled out campus administrators and student government officers as unlikely to sign, because we are familiar with efforts to shut down any attempt to even discuss Islamo-Fascism, as for example by showing the film Obsession. Overcome by multicultural correctness these bureaucrats have fallen back on the current liberal orthodoxy which is indistinguishable from classic appeasement: any attempt to discuss Islamo-fascism is eo ipso “Islamo-phobia.”

No it isn’t. It’s an attempt to discuss a real world problem that is threatening us. Yglesias reveals his myopia in the face of this threat with the following comment about our petition: “This is a great way to go about things if you want to (a) be a campus troublemaker, (b) over the long run turn hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world into hardened enemies of the United States, and (c) create a large group of disaffected Muslims inside the United States who’ve been made to feel that adherence to their faith is unwelcome in America and fundamentally incompatible with loyalty to this country.”

Can Yglesias really be so blind as to believe that one can “turn hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world into hardened enemies of the United States” by condemning “Islamo-Fascism?” This would be news to the moderate Algerian Muslims who invented the term to describe the religious fanatics who were slaughtering them (somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000). Would Yglesias not want Christians to dissociate themselves from Ku Kluxers or clerical fascists?

What does Yglesias achieve by blurring the distinction between moderate Muslims and Islamo-Fascists in attacking a petition that distinguishes them? And what exactly is it that Matthew Yglesias doesn’t like about our petition, which affirms “the right of all people to live in dignity,” “the equality of dignity of men and women” and ”the right of all people to live free from violence, intimidation and coercion?”

Liberals such as Yglesias should be signing our petition not implying, as he does, that it is bloodthirsty and insane.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Blogplay
  • Ping.fm
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Sphinn
  • PDF