Adolf Schreyer (1828-1899): Arabs on the March
The following is a disagreement I had yesterday with two other members of the Conservative-Libertarian History internet list. Their names are Frank Zavisca and David Beito. And their messages are below my response. Beito’s response was to Zavisca, not to me and was posted simultaneously with mine. I thank Richard Jensen, moderator, for permission to replicate this interchange.
[Clare Spark:] I am surprised that Frank Zavisca thinks that the Mosque/Muslim story is not a “REAL ISSUE.” And that it is a distraction from “the economy” and jobs, or that the Democrats will benefit from the (excessive) discussion. I also wonder if his notion that the media set agendas, without regard to an upsurge of emotion from below, is valid. For one thing, persons concerned about the economy can think about more than one thing at a time, and economics can seem impenetrable in contrast to deciphering a religion that is plainly amenable to analysis for authoritarian content.
Second, the issue has enabled thinking about the false face that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf presents to the world, transforming the story from one of right-wing “bigotry” to a question of national security. Moreover it is now more urgent to focus on the various strains of Islam, and if passion drives the curiosity of ordinary people, that is a very good thing, from the point of view of pedagogy.
The latter is especially important because the dominant theme of the Democratic Party this Fall will be the “racism” or “bigotry” of the South and West, digging into time-tested loathing of “the frontiersman” by the Northeastern liberal establishment. Anything that discredits that Northeastern establishment is a good thing, for their elites are guilty of perpetuating racialist thinking, though few will admit it. (For more on this theme see my https://clarespark.com/2010/07/18/white-elite-enabling-of-black-power/.)
Clare Spark, Ph.D.
Clarespark.com
Director, The Yankee Doodle Society
—–Original Message—–
From: CONSERVATIVENET list for conservative-libertarian history [mailto:CONSERVATIVENET@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU] On Behalf Of Richard Jensen
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 6:34 AM
To: CONSERVATIVENET@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Subject: cnet: how to build a mosque
from Frank Zavisca:
Conservatives have been “had” by Team Obama on this issue.
Fox News, Rush, and others are doing the dirty work for the Democrats and the Democrats are getting it for free.
EVERY minute of discussion about the “Ground Zero Mosque” is a minute that Americans are distracted from the REAL ISSUE. “It’s the economy, stupid”.
And the Democrats couldn’t possibly buy the massive amount of time that “experts” are discussing the Mosque.
from David Beito dbeito@TENHOOR.AS.UA.EDU
Agreed (with Frank Zavisca) Even more, this sad episode has shown that many conservatives are so dominated by blind hysteria that they are more than willing to selectively violate aside private property rights and the first amendment. Ironically, it was Obama, not the conservatives, who defended the private property rights of the owner in this case.
David
The Clare Spark Blog 
Four comments:
1)The majority of public opinion seems to me to be opposed to this “mosque”(really a community center). Republican office-holders and conservative opinionators seem to be likewise inclined. Therefore I think the prolonged discussion (however emotional or not) favors the GOP.
2) The media do indeed set the agenda. I, for one, would never have known of this were it not for the media. But at the same time public interest sets the media agenda. If the public isn’t interested, the media will drop the topic. Isn’t this something like what was once known as a “dialectical relationship”?
3) The debate seems, in my opinion, to have boiled down to a conflict between constitutuional and property rights(“mosque” apologists), vs the moral/emotional sensibilities of many citizens(anti-“mosque”). Doesn’t the argument for sensibility-respect and the charges of pro-“mosque” insensitivity echo Liberal arguments against “hate speech”?
4) Don’t understadn the reference to Rauf’s false face and the issue of national security. Could you elaborate?
Thanks for your attention. I’ve become a big fan
of your blog.
David Gansel
Comment by david gansel — August 23, 2010 @ 6:42 pm |
The Victory Mosque affair has seriously damaged the image of The Religion of Peace™ in the eyes of ordinary Americans. We can consequently expect a lavish petrodollar-funded campaign of taqiyya (lying about Islam to the infidels) in the MSM, in an attempt to lull the public back to sleep.
So, as a high priority to immunize the American people against the coming onslaught of Islamic propaganda, could bloggers please familiarize their readership with the techniques of lying, deception, feigned moderation, guilt-inducement, diversionary tactics, twisted logic and half-truths embodied in the Islamic practice of taqiyya.
There’s a description of the main features of taqiyya HERE … http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/twelve-tactics-of-taqiyya.html
Comment by Trencherbone — August 22, 2010 @ 10:21 pm |