“Nothing To Do With Islam” Means A Politician Fears “The Diversity” He Has Inflicted On Society

Why politicians pretend Islam has no role in violence

“…Why, then, do powerful politicians make ignorant and counterproductive arguments, ones they surely know to be false, especially as violent Islamism spreads (think of Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab, and the Taliban)?

Cowardice and multiculturalism play a role, to be sure, but two other reasons have more importance:

First, they want not to offend Muslims, who they fear are more prone to violence if they perceive non-Muslims pursuing a “war on Islam.”


  • Drunk_by_Noon

    Yeah, all of the above to be sure.
    I think the biggest reason is that if they repudiate multiculturalism, they also repudiate the very bedrock of leftism itself.

    Economically leftism is dead. Just look at Cuba and Venezuela; it has only this one branch remaining of an already dead tree and that branch is multiculturalism.

    When multiculturalism is recognized to be an unworkable fraud, then false “white guilt” goes, and when “white guilt” goes so does all rationale for accommodating virtually every aspect of leftism goes along with it. Then entire galaxy of shibboleths that must be mindlessly repeated that are its underpinnings collapses.

    They don’t need you to believe their nonsense, they just need you to ACT as though you do, and if they have to use duress and the removal of your freedoms to make you pretend, then they are fine with that.

    • Multicult is their last bludgeon and you’re correct it has not aged well.

      • Justin St.Denis

        Anti-racism is rooted in progressive leftist politics. Race relations is the conservative model for development. The conservative right does not ignore the issues but has a totally different perspective on many of them.

      • Frau Katze

        Be very hard to reverse, though. Looks like we’re stuck with it.

    • Justin St.Denis

      Hey, you nailed it again. What are you drinking today? I want me some of that.

  • Martin B

    “First, they want not to offend Muslims…”

    This has implications. If the Allies had first not wanted to offend Germans & Japanese, they would have lost WW2. Islam will keep advancing and the West will keep losing until not offending Muslims is no longer a priority.

    • Look where it got Czechoslovakia.

      • FactsWillOut

        Bombed by NATO for defending themselves?

  • WalterBannon

    The problem is that politicians have lost their fear of the electorate.

    A few hangings and heads mounted on pikes will fix that, once the civil war gets under way.

  • Martin Luffa

    Get a load of the guy that I have gotten to admit that he thinks the Constitution is a suicide pact.

    That’s the kind of “highly educated” moron that are in positions of power with which they use to help Muslims make strategic gains.

  • FactsWillOut

    “This is not a new view: for example, prior U.S. presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush also aired views about what is and is not Islam, though less assertively.”

    GWB’s “Islam is Peace” speech while the WTC was still smokin’ not assertive enough for ya, Pipes?

    “Without such casualties, however, politicians will likely continue with denial because it’s easier that way. I regret this – but prefer it to the alternative.”

    Yeah, we know you prefer to see mass death at the hands of Muslims, to the alternative of dealing with it now, that’s why you are what is called a “collaborator”.

    Fuck Daniel Pipes.

  • winniec

    Marxists failed to convince Europeans to become Marxists, so they decided to replace them with noble savages!
    Cultural Marxists LIE TO US about the supposed ‘peacefulness’ of militant Islam. They want the replacement to go ahead while they guilt us into accepting thousands of terrorists and terrorist enablers into the West.

    • Frau Katze

      The savages turned out to be plain savages and not noble at all (at least, a good fraction of them, especially the Muslims).