The Enemy at Home: Dinesh D’Souza Takes Sides in the War on Terror—Osama bin Laden's Side

The Stranger ^ | February 5, 2007 | Bruce Bawer

[Eurotwit]

It may be hard to imagine today, but on 9/11 the thought actually crossed my mind that America’s social divisions would now melt away, or at least radically diminish. After the fall of the Twin Towers, how could anyone continue to believe (or pretend to believe) that gays, for example, were a real threat to America? Surely the U.S. would unite in defense of its freedoms—everybody’s freedoms—and in opposition to the jihadists.

For a moment, that seemed to be happening. Then the finger-pointing started. Leftists railed that America had gotten its payback for imperialism; Jerry Falwell insisted that pagans, abortionists, gays, and others of that ilk had “helped this happen.” This claim was elaborated in an unpublished text later sent to me by a retired member of the Norwegian Parliament who blamed 9/11 on the stateside degenerates—principally “homosexual heroes and anal addicts” (yes, “anal addicts”)—who offend Muslim family values. Now right-wing hack Dinesh D’Souza makes this same accusation in a jaw-droppingly repulsive screed, The Enemy at Home. Charging that “the cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11,” he wants good Christians to recognize that Islamic values resemble their own—and that the real enemy is those fags next door. If only they’d retarget their rage, thereby showing their respect for “traditional values,” Muslims would stop hating the USA.

D’Souza (who says he is Catholic) invites us to “imagine how American culture looks and feels to someone who has been raised in a traditional society… where homosexuality is taboo and against the law…. One can only imagine the Muslim reaction to televised scenes of homosexual men exchanging marriage vows in San Francisco and Boston.” Let it be recalled that D’Souza is referring here to a “traditional society” in which girls of 13 or 14 are routinely forced to marry their cousins, and in which the groom, if his conjugal attentions are resisted on the wedding night, is encouraged by his new in-laws to take his bride by force. Such are the sensitivities that, D’Souza laments, are so deeply offended by the American left, which “would like to have Mapplethorpe’s photographs and Brokeback Mountain seen in every country… the left wants America to be a shining beacon of golden depravity, a kind of Gomorrah on a Hill.”

This isn’t entirely new territory for D’Souza. In What’s So Great about America? (2002), while celebrating the U.S. for enabling him—an immigrant from India—to achieve “a life that made me feel true to myself,” he condemned as contemptibly self-indulgent others who sought to be true to themselves. The West, he summed up, is “based on freedom,” Islam “on virtue”; while praising the latter, he claimed (ultimately) to prefer the former—though it seemed a close call, for while freedom for the likes of himself is cool, freedom for certain others is merely a license to sin. In any event, he’s now firmly in the “virtue” camp. He still claims to prize freedom—he just doesn’t like what some people have done with it. Hence he recommends a more Islamic (i.e., Orwellian) definition of “freedom”—namely the kind of “freedom” in which newly free citizens hold free elections in which they vote in authoritarians who promise to impose sharia.

As for “virtue”—well, D’Souza fumes for pages at length about the moral corruption of everything from Pulp Fiction and Jerry Springer to Britney Spears and Will and Grace, ardently contrasting all this vice and filth to the glorious uprightness of Muslim family values. Forget the sky-high rates of wife-beating and intrafamily rape in Muslim households; forget the stoning to death of gays and rape victims—D’Souza offers only scattered, rote, and understated acknowledgments that Muslim domestic culture might not be 100 percent morally pure (“There is, of course, no excuse for the abuses of patriarchy”). He ignores the Muslim schoolbooks and media that routinely depict Jews as subhumans who merit extinction; he winks at the current persecution of “traditional, family oriented” Christians (and Hindus) across the Muslim world; and he pretends that “most traditional Muslims” condemn honor killings. (On the contrary, when European Muslims slaughter their daughters, journalists struggle to find coreligionists who’ll criticize them for doing so.)

He’s quick to warn, moreover, that in discussing potentially troubling aspects of Muslim culture, “we should be on guard against the blinders of ethnocentrism.” In short, while inviting conservative Christians to buy the idea that Muslim family values are essentially equivalent to their own, he wants them to overlook the multitudinous—and profoundly disturbing—ways in which they aren’t. He labors consistently to minimize this value gap—and thereby reinforce his argument that today’s terrorism (far from perpetrating a centuries-long tradition of violent jihad) is, quite simply, a reaction to America’s post-’60s moral dissipation. He would have his readers believe that if only the U.S. returned to the values of the Eisenhower era, our Muslim adversaries would let us be. But he deliberately obscures the mountains of evidence that for “traditional Muslims,” even small-town 1940s America wouldn’t do. For example, in sympathetically describing the outraged response of Sayyid Qutb, the father of modern Islamism, to America’s debauchery, D’Souza neatly skirts the fact that Qutb first witnessed that debauchery at a church dance in the then-dry burg of Greeley, Colorado, in 1948—a year when, as Robert Spencer has noted, the highlights of America’s decadent pop culture included the movie Easter Parade and Dinah Shore’s recording of “Buttons and Bows.”

Promoting his tract on TV, D’Souza has consistently softened and misrepresented its message. His January 28 reply to critics, which ran in the Washington Post, is a masterpiece of dissembling: he complains that Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert hounded him with the question “But you agree with the Islamic radicals, don’t you?”—but fails to mention that he finally replied “Yes.” Indeed, though he purports to disdain those radicals, he writes about them far more compassionately than about anyone on the American left: Among the images he strives to improve are those of Theo van Gogh’s murderer (he quotes out of context a sensitive-sounding courtroom remark the butcher made to his victim’s mother), of bin Ladin and Khomeini (both of whom, we’re told, are “highly regarded” for their “modest demeanor, frugal lifestyle, and soft-spoken manner”), of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi (whose criticism of gay marriage he approvingly cites, while omitting to note that Qaradawi also supports the death sentence for sodomites), and even of the 9/11 terrorists (D’Souza excerpts the goodbye letter one of them sent his wife, which he plainly finds noble and poignant).

For those who cherish freedom, 9/11 was intensely clarifying. Presumably it, and its aftermath, have been just as clarifying for D’Souza, whose book leaves no doubt whatsoever that he now unequivocally despises freedom—that open homosexuality and female “immodesty” are, in his estimation, so disgusting as to warrant throwing one’s lot in with religious totalitarians. Shortly after The Enemy at Home came out, a blogger recalled that in 2003, commenting in the National Review on the fact that “influential figures” in America’s conservative movement felt “that America has become so decadent that we are ‘slouching towards Gomorrah,’” D’Souza wrote: “If these critics are right, then America should be destroyed.” Well, D’Souza has now made it perfectly clear that he’s one of those critics; and the book he’s written is nothing less than a call for America’s destruction. He is the enemy at home. Treason is the only word for it.

[ggekko60506]

I have read the book and I can assure you that this reviewer's interpretation is warped by the usual left-wing reality distortion factors.

There is good rule of thumb to go by for Conservative Books and authors: the more the left vilifies a book and its author the closer to the truth the book and its author is.

In this book, D'Sousa highlights a little examined aspect of the War on Terror and its relation to Islamofascism. His basic point is that the NGO's with left wing agenda have been providing intellectual fodder to Islamo-Fascist radicals within Islamic societies. Islamic Moderates within these societies are undercut by these NGOs and naive promotion of Western Cultural Liberalism.

D'Souza advocates a new cultural strategy in Islamic societies that is sensitive to these issues which would be analogous to the way in which Radio Free Europe was used to help undermine Communism. I don't if such a strategy will work but it at least identifies the poisonous effect that some of these NGOs is having on the situation.

Reading some of the reviews in the MSM of D'Sousza's book has been a bizarre experience. This book has become a Rorschach Test for Liberals where they project their own neurotic anxieties onto the text of the book without responding to its substance. This free form anxiety may have something do with the fact that NGOs are populated entirely Liberals with agendas to promote and they are very thin-skinned when criticized.

[Eurotwit]

It's soccer.

America needs to take up soccer. Then there will be peace in the world.

I think I'll write a book :-)

Seriously, I talk quite a lot with muslims here in Norway, and I don't think I have ever, not even once, heard that they have misgivings about America because of Brittney Spears.

It is the whole "killing muslims, supporting Israel etc. etc." spiel. That is ordinary, everyday muslims... mainly Pakistanis.

BTW: Pakistani muslims sometimes praise the Norwegian welfare state as an islamic ideal, due to the charity involved. Perhaps you guys should elect Hillary, implement a cradle to grave welfare state, and then bin Laden will be pleased and apply for a green card.

However, I would tend to agree that the instigators, the mullahs and imams tend to put some more emphasis on the social morality of the west, but more as an afterthought.

There was for instance a book that circulated in the Norwegian muslim community which called Norwegians for sons of satan and claimed that we eat pork and have sex a lot :-)

Cheers.

[dfwgator]

America needs to take up soccer. Then there will be peace in the world.

Well we did beat Mexico 2-0 the other night.

[Eurotwit]

I saw that. Congratz :-)

Anyhow, it seems like you are taking over the entire premiership in England at the moment. Thank goodness that Randy Lerner ruled out that Villa Park in Birmingham will be called the Dorrito Bowl.

Jihad narrowly averted there :-)

[nathanbedford]

I think you have interpreted D'souza and Bush correctly.

There are about 1.4 billion Muslims in the world and our Commander in Chief quite prudently has concluded that it would be unwise to wage war against all of them at the same time. It is bad enough that we have shed most of our allies since 9/11, but to mindlessly take on 1/5 of the world in a global inter- generational war for survival might satisfy some of the more rabid posters on this board, but it would be reckless in the extreme. Hence, Bush's resort to euphemism in declaring that we are in a war against "terrorism." He is perfectly right to do so.

There are those, however, motivated out of religious or ethnic affiliation, or fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, who place the survival of Israel at the first order of priority and regard a victory in the war against terrorism not a victory unless it means the validation of the State of Israel. To secure this end, it is necessary to enlist irrevocably the world's mightiest superpower, The United States of America, in an alliance with Israel.

That means that it is impossible to accept the idea that our association with Israel compromises our ability to enlist moderate Islam in our war against jihadist Islam. Another explanation must be found or Americans might start to ask, what do we get out of our alliance with Israel and is it worth the price? If you hold that Israel is right in all respects all the time - and must be regarded to be right in all respects all the time- then you are forced to assert that Islam is wrong in all respects all the time. Even if Islam or utterly without any redemptive qualities, is it smart to say so? It is smart to say so if your fear is that you cannot enlist the American people in a war on behalf of Israel against Islam. If on the other hand your greater fear is that, to entangle American in a war for the very survival of the Republic against one out of every five people who inhabit the earth when only 19 of them were enough to take down the World Trade Center, threaten our economy, severely damage our airline industry, and kill 3000 of our citizens, you conclude that we must adopt a policy of divide and conquer.

We cannot adopt a policy of divide and conquer if Islam is be damned all the time for everything. I do not believe that we can win unless we enlist moderate Islam against fanatical Islam. D'souza and President Bush evidently share this point of view. So to the Europeans, although they would deny that Bush sees anything their way.

This does not mean that we should repudiate Israel, or even abandon Israel, it does not mean that the writer of this post is anti-Semitic. It just means that we have to beware of people who would manipulate us to advance the gay agenda or who would manipulate us to advance Israel's security. It means that we have to assess the world through the lens of America's national security interests and not let our vision be distorted.

[windcliff]

ping

[Riverman94610]

Yet, like another poster stated,they would hate us ANYWAY even if we were a pious and moral nation.
They hate us because we are a predominately Christian nation,we are prosperous and we are generally pro-Israel.

[dfwgator]

Anyhow, it seems like you are taking over the entire premiership in England at the moment.

There is a big stink here in Dallas over that. Tom Hicks can't afford a decent pitcher for the Rangers, but he can afford to purchase half of FC Liverpool?!?!?

[Eurotwit]

Interesting post nathanbedford.

I have supported the President's strategy in the "war on terror" on this board since I joined. I do see the obvious rationale against turning 1/5 of the worlds's population against us. However, I have later started to doubt the strategy, though I rarely articulate it on here.

As it is, I am turning into the "it's a war on islam"
camp. My views might be biased because I live in a European country which in increasingly being dhimmified by a suprisingly small ammount of muslims (some 4-5 percent of the population). I fear that for many countries in Europe, if not for Europe overall, the question is soon a matter of survival as western nations. The matter of the very survival of way of life. I do conceed that the very stakes at hand might cloud my judgement.

In this picture I cannot see how you bring Israel in to it.
If anything, I think an argument which is alot more convincing than D'Souza's can be made that an abandonment of Israel could "lure" the "moderate" muslims to our side. Put
a bra on Britney, or help liquidate Israel. I think that the choice would be very easy for any muslim to make.

My guess also would be that it would be many of the Israel supporting Christians with an authoritorian bent who would support D'Souza's line of reasoning, not the other way, which you seem to imply? Or perhaps I am wrong and that it is the anti-semite right who would go for D'Souza's line. Frankly, I have no idea :-)

I don't know if my messy thoughts made much sense. But, there they are nonetheless :-)

Cheers.

[onedoug]

Another gay who would as soon service perverted imams then have his head cut off for having done so.

[TAdams8591]

I agree that America's decadence is as offensive to many Muslims as it is to me, perhaps even more so. It helps to fuel their hatred toward the United States and the West.

That said, many Muslim men, are not as sexually pure as they claim to be, and will condemn innocent women to death for acts they themselves routinely commit, which they believe the women MAY have committed. It is a very twisted and hypocritical culture.

I find D'Souza an intelligent and thoughtful person and would have to read his book before commenting on his viewpoint.

[Eurotwit]

Bruce Bawer?????

[Eurotwit]

I find D'Souza's argument to be a giant red herring.

Muslims sexually pure... You know...There is a rape wave currently ongoing in Oslo, Norway. It has gathered a lot of media attention. The perps? It does not even need be to said.

What does that tell you about any kind of purity?

On the contrary it is unadultared filth.


If that is intelligence, then intelligence is overrated.

Cheers.

[Allan]

Bump

[TAdams8591]

I'll wait to read the book. When I have read D'Souza in the past, he has always bee intelligent and insightful.

Muslim men may preach sexual purity, but I agree with you, many of them hardly live it, as I said in my last post. In fact when it comes to sex they are quite twisted and often brutal, as you pointed out.

[nathanbedford]

I, too, live in a European country, Bavaria (they think of themselves as a country) which is sleep walking towards dhimmitude. The apathy towards the threat from Muslim expansionism is appalling.

I am addressing the motivation of the authors cited in the thread, on the one hand a gay activist and on the other hand a publication with deeply committed affiliation to Israel. These people should be able to express their views. I merely question whether we can afford to accommodate their predilections when, as you say, "the question is soon a matter of survival as western nations."

There is an America of the Right and the Christian right. I tend to count myself generally in the camp of the latter as well as the former and I am glad to have this opportunity to set right a stereotype which is regrettably gained wide coinage in Europe. The Christian right in America largely supports Israel. I am unaware of a Christian right in America with any, "authoritarian bent." It is the left in America, especially the secular left, with the authoritarian bent. Within the last two weeks the American left has advanced legislation which would require our teenage girls to have a vaccination against the will of their parents, prohibit jaywalking while listening to an iPod, and outlaw models who are too thin. This kind of authoritarianism can only come from the loony left.

But I take your larger point. The risk in Europe is that the populace will not take seriously the threat of aggressive islamo-fascism. In America, the threat is that the populace will be led into an indiscriminate and self-defeating crusade against a jihad.

[Antoninus]

If we're fighting Islam for the sake of a culture which celebrates the "right" of two guys who sodomize each other to call themselves married, and the "right" of a woman to hire a butcher to dismember and vaccuum out her unborn child, then count me out.

[Antoninus]

My brother, who isn't particularly virtuous or religious, said this as we sat and watched Janet Jackson's breast be bared on World Wide TV: 'No wonder these countries hate us.'

I've had that same epiphany on numerous occasions.

[Antoninus]

Yet, like another poster stated,they would hate us ANYWAY even if we were a pious and moral nation.

Maybe, but they would also fear and respect us -- as they used to.

[Eurotwit]

That means you are all nuts....