Progressives Love Anti-Religious Art — as Long as It’s Anti-Christian

Why aren’t liberals offering Pamela Geller a federal subsidy? Geller is the blogger-activist who organized the “Draw Muhammad” exhibition in Garland, Texas, which inspired some DIY jihadists to attack the event. The would-be terrorists chose poorly: They were cut down by Texas lawmen shortly after wounding a security guard.

Let’s hop in the WayBack Machine for a moment.

  • winniec

    Cultural Marxists want to destroy European civilization, starting with Christianity, the foundational philosophy of it. They have imported exotic, dangerous pets, the jihadist ‘noble savages’ to do their dirty work. The Cultural Marxists avoid criticizing their ‘noble savage’ allies so they will maintain the unholy alliance of convenience. Both sides (Muslims and Marxists) are plotting how they will deceive and destroy the other when they outlive their usefulness.
    This is one of the most cynical alliances in history.

  • Maggat

    From the National Review “winners and losers,”. Shouldn’t that read, whiners and losers?

  • First of all, there is nothing progressive about these people. They are regressive. I see nothing progressive about banning expression, even to prove a point, so as to limit civilisation.

    Secondly, they embrace ideologies that are dangerous to them and others. Passively, leftists/liberals/regressives are upholding Islamism as they once (still do) did for communism. There is no freedom of expression in North Korea. There is one voice whether one likes it or not.

    Thirdly, those who set the narrative for others unintentionally prove Pamela Gellar’s point and must be publicly disparaged for it. Loss of reader or viewership, messages of complaint and watchdogs become important in this. If the popular press chooses to be a cheerleader for Islamism, then it can be called out for it.