Taking cultural editing notes from terrorists

January 17, 2007

As you’ve probably heard, conservative activist/writer Dinesh D’Souza has a new book out, which effectively argues that terrorists are right about the problems with the culture in the United States. Osama bin Laden and other dangerous Islamic radicals believe the U.S. is too secular, too permissive, too diverse, too free, and too tolerant … and D’Souza believes they’re absolutely right. Indeed, D’Souza goes so far as to argue that liberal Americans are literally to blame for 9/11 — the left invited the attacks by reinforcing the beliefs al Qaeda had about the United States.

Sure, it’s about the most offensive, spectacularly stupid argument I’ve ever heard, but on the plus side, it led to a terrific interview on The Colbert Report last night.

After D’Souza explained that we ought to appease terrorists by showing them more of the “traditional” America, Colbert asked, “What other cultural editing notes should we take from the terrorists?” D’Souza continued to defend his position, until Colbert put it all on the line.

Colbert: I agree with you. There are some good ideas these guys [the terrorists] have. This is what you’re saying, that there are some parts of our culture that are corrosive, and you agree with some of the things that they’re saying.

D’Souza: I’m saying that…

Colbert: No, you have the courage to say that, right? That you agree with some of the things these radical extremists are against in America.

D’Souza: I’m more concerned…

Colbert: Do you agree with that statement? Just, do you agree with that statement?

D’Souza: I agree with it.

Colbert: OK, good. Finally, someone has the courage to say that there are there things in America that the liberals do that are causing our destruction.

I have to admit, most Americans tend to disagree with the radical ideology of the Islamic terrorists who slaughter the innocent. It’s refreshing to see a celebrated conservative ideologue stand up and explain how and why al Qaeda might be right.

Indeed, it helps set up a helpful dichotomy, doesn’t it? In Western civilization, we have progressive Americans on one side, and terrorists and conservative Americans on the other. That’s not my characterization — that’s D’Souza’s.

Keep in mind, it’s not just D’Souza, either. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, said the exact same thing, saying Americans are to blame for what al Qaeda did. They eventually backpedaled, whereas D’Souza’s has written a book parroting the same idea. As he put it, “In this book I make a claim that will seem startling at the outset. The cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11.” Here’s an excerpt:

[I]f the political left and the Islamic fundamentalists are in the same foreign policy camp [because they both hate American imperialism], then by the same token the political right and the Islamic fundamentalists are on the same wavelength on social issues. The left is allied with some radical Muslims in opposition to American foreign policy, and the right is allied with an even larger group of Muslims [which includes radical Muslims] in their opposition to American social and cultural depravity. This is the essential new framework I propose for understanding American foreign policy and American social issues.

As Timothy Noah put it, “Dinesh D’Souza has found common cause with Osama Bin Laden,” and is “forging a values-based alliance” with terrorists against other Americans.

Remind me, right-wingers everywhere, exactly why the left isn’t patriotic enough? Why we favor appeasement?

Bush said once “they hate us for what we are,” D’Souza agrees, and thinks they have a point. I wonder if he’ll ever make Hannity’s “Enemies” list. After all, if a cultural figure on the left made this argument, they’d be halfway to Gitmo by now.

  • In the meditation community they say that each person contains the seeds of their own enlightenment. D’Souza and the right wing are almost there. They just don’t see what they see yet.

  • It IS pretty funny the way Colbert made D’Souza step on his dick, but I don’t believe for a moment the amorphous terrorists “hate America for its freedoms”. As others have pointed out, it’d be difficult to find countries more free than, say, Switzerland or Norway. Number of terrorist assaults? Zip. Therefore, the notion that living in freedom is in itself a powerful magnet for hatred is just stupid.

    As it has ever been, America is resented not for what it is, but for what it does.

  • Saw the Colbert Report interview with Dumbass last night and he got squashed by Colbert’s Word Fu. At the end, SC asked if he (Dumbass) knew that he was part of the left leaning Hollywood and not one of his fellow travelers. For a brief moment, the smugness was replaced by a tiny bit of doubt.

    Dumbass, thru his own ineptitude, just connected the dots that a lot of us here have been saying all along about today’s American right wing: Al Qaeada is just Arabic for THE BASE.

    Falwell and OBL have a lot more incommon than they think.

    Of course, we’ll soon enough have a reply from Dumbass saying that his words were miscombobulated by the Left in their attempt to make one of the greatest conservative intellectuals look like a theocratic and terrorism luving dipshit.

  • “Osama bin Laden and other dangerous Islamic radicals believe the U.S. is too secular, too permissive, too diverse, too free, and too tolerant … and D’Souza believes they’re absolutely right.”

    So by definition D’Souza believes the U.S. needs to be more theocratic, more restrictive, less diverse, more enslaved and more intolerant.

    Gosh, this explains the entire Republican agenda. Thanks, D-Man!

  • D’Souza hit the nail on the head, but I think he missed the most obvious of conclusions, which is easily seen via analogy with 5th grade sociology.

    You know, girls, when you were in 5th grade, and a boy would pick on you and tease you, and maybe crash an airplane into you, that really, he liked you but he didn’t know how to express himself? That when he said “You’re stupid”, or “girls are wimpy”, or “death to Jessica”, that really, he just wanted attention from you?

    It’s time to face facts America — the terrorists have a crush on us. When they say “Death to America”, they are really saying “America, we love you, and if we can’t have you, no one should have you.” When they say “we will crush the necks of the imperialist American swine pigs”, they are just trying to look tough in front of their friends, but secretly, they admire our spunk and bravado.

    I’m not sure how we let them down easy. I mean, frankly, we’re still pining over the relationship we had with Russia, and we probably just need a little “me” time before seeing someone else. So if I can speak for all Americans (and I know that I can), to the terrorists we say “we’re just not that into you.”

    And we’ll send you a tape of that “Sex and the City” episode to help you understand.

  • The nice thing about D’Souza’s argument is that it allows these guys to completely ignore the things that our government and the oil companies have done in the Persian Gulf and Middle East that Bin Laden actually complains about. Support for Israel? Amercian troops in the Middle East? American violence directed at Iraq and in the Persian Gulf? All can be safely ignored.

    D’Souza’s argument is funny because it turns on it’s head our rationale for invading Iraq. Bush claimed that we weren’t at war with the Iraqi people – just the Iraqi government. D’Souza’s argument puts the war being waged by militant Islam as against the American people and not the American government. Weird – but then why bomb the embassies and attack the Pentagon??

  • We all know it’s pretty lonlely out there in wingnut world, but I didn’t know there were only 3 on this planet:

    “Prior to his marriage, [D’Souza] reportedly dated conservative author Ann Coulter and conservative radio host Laura Ingraham, to whom he was engaged but never married.” – wikipedia.

    What a threesome!

  • Agreed, Mark. Bush’s statement was used only to rally the country with a sufficient sense of victimhood in order to get war going. Now it seems like D’Souza wants to reframe it as part of the culture wars. My overall point was that the cultural Right is becoming fundamentally incoherent.

  • The existence of Dinesh D’Souza is one of the best arguments against the liberalization of American immigration policy back in 1965 that I can think of.

  • Re #9 – Talk about having one’s nuts in a vise. Ouch!! 😉

    Oh my god….what if they start breeding???

  • I wish Comedycentral had not banned UTube from showing highlights. New computer, DSL and still I can’t get the damned things to download from their site. It’s as bad as the wall NYT built around their commentators…..

    But does this blaming of the secular really surprise anyone? All true believers have more in common with each other than the rest of us. It’s the need for control, the need to dominate.

  • “It’s time to face facts America — the terrorists have a crush on us.”

    [Addison]

    Friggin’ hilarious.

    I guess this makes D’Souzaphone the “friend” who tries to convince us the unwashed knuckle dragging junkie that has been stalking us isn’t all that bad.

  • Don’t miss the WaPo review of this steaming pile o’ turd:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR2007011200082.html

    Conclusion: “the worst nonfiction book about terrorism published by a major house since 9/11”

    Memorable quotes:

    “D’Souza […] has no particular expertise on terrorism, which may explain why he writes twice that there are U.S. troops in Mecca (someone should probably alert Bob Gates)”

    “he thinks that President Reagan’s 1986 airstrikes on Libya “convinced Qadafi to retire from the terrorism trade,” despite the bombing of Pan Am 103 by Libyan agents two years later.”

    “it’s as if he read Mein Kampf and concluded that its author’s main concern was not Aryan supremacy or genocidal anti-Semitism but distaste for Weimar theater”

    Note on Colbert – he is a genius, but some people make his job far too easy.

  • I agree that a root of the problem is that, “Osama bin Laden and other dangerous Islamic radicals believe the U.S. is too secular, too permissive, too diverse, too free, and too tolerant …” I just happen to like those things.

    Another root of the problem, perhaps THE root, is the hopelessness that the vast majority of educated Arab young people feel when they see the world moving ahead around them and their Arab States locked firmly into what can best be described as feudalism. Dr. King said something to the effect of; hopelessness leads to violent nihilistic philosophy and actions. The answer is in how we can bring hope to the hopeless.

    If we had adhered to the existing Pentagon plan (300,000 troops with set objectives) when we invaded Iraq we would, in all likelihood have a hopeful healthy Iraq today. I still would have opposed the war but it probably would have worked.

  • D’Souza should have named his book “Cultural Learnings for Make Benefit Glorious Struggle of Religious Fundamentalism.”

    Al Qaeda hates us for Paris Hilton, they hate us for Pam Anderson’s big breast, the despise our “Humps” and they are willing to kill themselves to avenge these wrongs upon the world? Jagshemash!

    Of course Britian and Japan have even more degrading TV shows (where do you think we get our ideas from?) and as Mark noted above, our free culture isn’t the only one out there so why do they seek to punish us?

    The real issue is that the severly religious wish to exact the retribution for sins that only God can take. Rather than minding their own sinfullness, they wish to deflect their own inward struggle onto others.

    D’Souza even breaks his concentration and admits that politics played a big part in 9/11. Face it, they don’t hate us for our krumping, they hate us for our George Bush.

  • “Falwell and OBL have a lot more incommon than they think.” – Former Dan (#5)

    Eric Hoffer nailed it in his mid-century wonder, The True Believer.

  • D’Souza cracks me up. He clearly wants to be both as transparently vicious and reality-resistant as Coulter. But he just can’t quite deliver the goods. He goes on shows like TDS and Colbert, and wants to seem more or less suitable for polite company… despite having on the COVER OF HIS FUCKING BOOK that “the cultural left” is responsible for 9/11.

    He’s either not truly that offensive but very easily manipulated, afraid to fully embrace the vile implications of his views, not all that smart, or (most likely) some combination of the three.

    Watching Colbert play him reminded me of little kids trapping, then crushing insects.

  • From #15:
    “it’s as if he read Mein Kampf and concluded that its author’s main concern was not Aryan supremacy or genocidal anti-Semitism but distaste for Weimar theater”

    LOL (I enjoy dark cutting humor)

    From #17
    “Cultural Learnings for Make Benefit Glorious Struggle of Religious Fundamentalism.”

    Again, LOL. But will Borat D’Souza complain about a rubber fist making his anus bleed?

    “The real issue is that the severly religious wish to exact the retribution for sins that only God can take. Rather than minding their own sinfullness, they wish to deflect their own inward struggle onto others.”

    Hey, he did date Mann Coulter. Perhaps there was a “Crying Game” moment?

    Finally #18,
    It sounds like I have my first book on my 2007 reading list. Thanks.

  • #19 – Ramesh Ponnuru, last year, flopped out “Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life” and went on TDS or Colbert with an opening pitch that the title wasn’t meant to be offensive.

    Bottom line: They play to the wingnut base, because that’s all they got.

  • funny how d’loser’s analysis of US policy in the ME didn’t include stationing troops in saudi, which was osama’s explicit reason for attacking us. of course bush capitulated to his demands and got out. but d’sousaphone went from jimmy carter to bill clinton and no further, of course.

  • What ethel said in #8.

    “D’Souza’s argument… allows these guys to completely ignore the things that our government and the oil companies have done in the Persian Gulf and Middle East that Bin Laden actually complains about. Support for Israel? Amercian troops in the Middle East? American violence directed at Iraq and in the Persian Gulf? All can be safely ignored.”

    D’Souza would have us believe that bin Laden doesn’t really mean what he says, except when D’Souza says bin Laden does mean what he says.

    Textbook cherry-picking, and hacktacular journamalism. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson must be on D’Souza’s speed dial.

  • Irony is a refined art, and as such, it is lost on the likes of D’Souza, and his ilk! -Kevo

    p.s. in the case of D’Souza’s most recent screed, truly a tragic irony!

  • I watched it and it made me dizzy. The right hates us because we don’t take the threat of their allies, the radical Muslims, seriously enough. Is there any line of reason too convoluted for them to try?

  • I’m so embarrassed — I thought Ramesh Ponnuru and Dinesh D’Souza were the same person. When D’Souza was on TV last night, I thought, “Wow, his hormones finally kicked in.”

  • i know it’s a badge of honor with a lot of really wonky people (both on the left and the right) to be completely ignorant of the popular culture, but really now… haven’t these guys caught on yet that appearing with colbert (or ali g) is an open-ended invitation to be made to look like a fool?

  • This sort of cultural exchange has been going on for awhile. In September 2001, I visited the Ayotallah’s website and heard a video in which the Ayotollah agreed with former presidential candidate, Pat Robertson, about the reasons for 9/11 – atheists, gays, abortionists etc.

  • I bailed quickly on that interview, but the scum started by saying the Democratic administrations were responsible for 9/11 because they ignored the Embassy bombings (not true) and the Cole bombing (given to the Bushites to ignore). He ignores the fact that it was the Republican’ts who forced us out of Somalia after a battle where we exchanged eighteen American Soldiers for eight thousand Somali gunmen. He ignores the fact it was Tom D’Loser who complained about attacking the Taliban after the embassy bombings (and screwing up his oil pipeline deal, no doubt) without “evidence” that caused the Clintonistas to put off the response to the Cole until after the election and sadly after the change of administrations.

    Toss in the fact that the Bushites send wingnut theocractic reactionaries to every international conference on children’s, women’s, religious or human rights where they flee from the dreadful Europeans to caucus with such “rightminded” people as the Sudanese and the Saudis and you realize that Colbert (may blessing rain upon him) nailed him just right.

  • I saw this last night and applauded Colbert’s handling of Dinesh’s argument. Dinesh didn’t even realize he was trapped before it was too late. Basically, Dinesh was forced to say, “I, Dinesh D’Souza, wholeheartedly agree with the philosophy of Osama bin Laden.”

    Using this type of (il)logic, I could argue that Americans are responsible for Jimtown because they wouldn’t accept Jim Jones as their personal Saviour (and taxed him). And Republicans killed Sharon Tate because they refused Charlie Manson’s screeds for world peace.

    Question: Are there any legitimate Conservative intellectuals left? Anywhere? Surely they all can’t be this devastatingly stupid…

  • I think it’s interesting that the “cultural right,” as it were, seek to ascribe the blame for 9/11 to the “cultural left” and in doing so embrace the values of the jihadist and at the same time the cultural left seeks to blame the right for 9/11 and in doing so embraces the strategic goals of the jihadists. Stockholm syndrome indeed.

    To explain, the right’s argument that the left is responsible because Bin Laden, etc. hate fags as much as they do is clearly hogwash for a number of reasons, not only in that it’s an inaccurate (as the WaPo review of the book demonstrates) but also that it gives a dangerous legitimacy to Al Qaeda. However, at the same time the left is saying, with a good deal more evidence to back them up, that American imperialism, and the death, destruction and humiliation that goes with it in the muslim world, is the reason Al Qaeda is at war with the west.

    Those two standpoints aren’t directly equatable because the left has the evidence on its side – most of Qaeda’s missives point to that conclusion – and furthermore because I see the moral case for the left’s argument but not the right’s, as I consider their standpoints on abortion, civil rights, etc. anathema to democracy, whereas I consider the occupation of foreign countries and the support for despotic regimes such as the house of Saud immoral.

    The left should be happy to fight people like D’Souza on his terms – essentially by asserting that yes, Bin Laden hates us for our freedoms, freedom of speech, life, liberty and the pursuit of hot gay sex – and that’s why it’s so important that we preserve them, but it would be fundamentally dishonest.

    I’m not sure I’ve quite got to grips with what I’m saying so I’d be happy if anyone has any further thoughts on this that they’d like to share.

  • I believe Art K. at #16 is essentially correct in assesing the principal motivations of Arab terrorism against the West. Bin Laden is a violent, nihilistic megalomaniac. He’s convinced himself, and many less-fortunate Arab people, that the real cause of their own poor lot in life is the excesses of another people halfway around the world. He seeks the same status among Muslims today that their prophet once enjoyed. American imperialism in the region, while not the cause of Arab poverty, neatly fits into bin Laden’s equation. The Islamist, like the Jehovah’s Witness, starts with a particular conclusion and then parses the religious texts looking for evidence that supports the pre-conceived prejudice.

    “They hate us for our freedom” is propaganda, nothing more. D’Douchebag’s use of this false premise suggests he believes it is morally correct to hate a western nation for its freedom.

    I haven’t read the book but I wonder if he has anything to say regarding the morality of violently murdering innocent people because they enjoy the right to speak freely.

  • #34: Did he say that he wholeheartedly agrees with the terrorists? Because Carpetbagger’s quote doesn’t indicate that; in fact, Colbert pretty clearly says *some* in asking the question. But it gets written up and discussed as though D’Souza and bin Laden are Best Friends Forever and that D’Souza advocates violent attacks targetted at civilians as a means of accomplishing public policy goals. Hell, he might well advocate that (Hiroshima anyone?), but support for that claim has not been presented here. This comes across more as word-gamesmanship.

    Don’t get me wrong, I don’t agree with D’Souza’s premise. I’m much more of the point of view with #8 and #16 as to the real causes of the attacks and the continuing struggle.

    For all the complaining the Left very correctly does about how the Right twists things around in terrible debate tactics, I sure wish our side wouldn’t do the same thing.

    • Comments are closed.