The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation


The Left helped fuel Islamic terrorism -- and it keeps it going.


Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Men and women, some whose clothes were still marked with gray ash, walked dazedly toward Union Square. Many did not know what to do or where to go. So they kept on walking. They knew the country was under attack, but they did not know how bad it was or what might still be heading for them.

Behind them lay a changed city and thousands of American dead. Ahead was the bronze statue of George Washington, facing into the devastation and raising his hand to lead his men forward in victory. Around its base, with the destruction of the World Trade Center as their backdrop, leftists had set up shop, coloring anti-war posters even while rescue workers were risking their lives at Ground Zero.

In the coming days, the statue of Washington would be repeatedly vandalized by leftists drawing peace signs and “No War” and “War is Not the Answer” slogans on it. But that moment crystallized my realization that while Muslim terrorists had carried out the attack, it was the left we would have to fight.

While some New Yorkers had gone to help the victims of Islamic terrorists, the left had rushed to aid the terrorists. Unlike the rest of us, they were not shocked or horrified by the attack. They were treasonously working on ways to spin the murder of thousands of Americans to protect the enemy.

The greatest obstacle to defeating Islamic terrorism is still the left.

The left helped create Islamic terrorism; its immigration policies import terrorism while its civil rights arm obstructs efforts to prevent it and its anti-war rallies attack any effort to fight it. In America, in Europe and in Israel, and around the world, to get at Islamic terrorists, you have to go through the left.

When a Muslim terrorist comes to America, it’s the left that agitates to admit him. Before he kills, it’s the left that fights to protect him from the FBI. Afterward, leftists offer to be his lawyers. The left creates the crisis and then it fights against any effort to deal with it except through surrender and appeasement.

Islamic violence against non-Muslims predated the left. But it’s the left that made it our problem. Islamic terrorism in America or France exists because of Muslim immigration. And the left is obsessed with finding new ways to import more Muslims. Merkel is praised for opening up a Europe already under siege by Islamic terror, Sharia police, no-go zones and sex grooming and groping gangs, to millions.

The left feverishly demands that the whole world follow her lead. Bill Gates would like America to be just like Germany. Israel’s deranged Labor Party leader Herzog urged the Jewish State to open its doors.

And then, after the next round of stabbings, car burnings and terror attacks, they blame the West for not “integrating” the un-integratable millions who had no more interest in being integrated than their leftist patrons do in moving to Pakistan and praying to Allah on a threadbare rug. But “integration” is a euphemism for a raft of leftist agenda items from social services spending to punishing hate speech (though never that of the Imams crying for blood and death, but only of their native victims) to a foreign policy based on appeasement and surrender. Islamic terrorists kill and leftists profit from the carnage.

The ongoing threat of Islamic terrorism is a manufactured crisis that the left cultivates because that gives it power. In a world without 9/11, the Obama presidency would never have existed. Neither would the Arab Spring and the resulting migration and wholesale transformation of Western countries.

In the UK, Labour used Muslim immigration as a deliberate political program to “change the country.” In Israel, Labor struck an illegal deal with Arafat that put sizable portions of the country under the control of terrorists while forcing the Jewish State into a series of concessions to terrorists and the left. The same fundamental pattern of Labour and Labor and the whole left is behind the rise of Islamic terrorism.

Muslim terrorism creates pressure that the left uses to achieve policy goals. Even when it can’t win elections, Muslim terrorism allows the left to create a crisis and then to set an agenda.

 The left’s patronage of Islamic terrorists for its own political purposes follows a thread back to the origin of Islamic terrorism. Islamic violence against non-Muslims dates back to the founding of Islam, but the tactics of modern Islamic terrorism owe as much to Lenin as they do to Mohammed.

Today’s Islamic terrorist is the product of traditional Islamic theology and Soviet tactics. The USSR did not intend to create Al Qaeda, but they provided training and doctrine to terrorists from the Muslim world. The “secular” and “progressive” terrorists of the left either grew Islamist, like Arafat, or their tactics were copied and expanded on, like the PFLP, by a new generation of Islamic terrorists.

The earlier phase of Islamic organizations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, had been inspired by fascists who were seeking to use them in their own wars. Over this layer of secret societies plotting takeovers and building networks of front groups, the Soviet Union added the terror tactics that had been employed by the left. And the leftist mad bomber became the Muslim suicide bomber.

Terrorism in the Muslim world has evolved from functioning as a Third World proxy army for the left, in much the same way as guerrillas and terrorists from Asia, Africa and Latin America had, to a diaspora whose migrations lend a domestic terror arm to a Western left whose own spiteful activists have grown unwilling to put their lives on the line and go beyond tweeting words to throwing bombs.

With the Muslim Brotherhood, the origin organization of Al Qaeda, ISIS and Hamas, among many others, so tightly integrated into the American and European left that it is often hard to see where one begins and the other ends, Islam has become the militant arm of the purportedly secular left. Western leftists and Islamists have formed the same poisonous relationship as Middle Eastern leftists and Islamists did leading to the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Arab Spring. Leftists expected Islamists to do the dirty work while they would take over. Instead the Islamists won and killed them.

Having learned nothing from the Hitler-Stalin pact, the left has replayed the same betrayal with the Mohammed-Stalin pact in the Middle East and now in the West. But the end of the Mohammed-Stalin pact will not be a Socialist totalitarian utopia, but an Islamic theocracy of slaves, terror and death.

On September 11, I saw with my own eyes how eager and willing leftists were to rush to the aid of Islamic terrorists even while their fellow Americans were dying. Nothing has changed. Every Islamic act of brutality is met with lies and spin, with mass distraction and deception by the treasonous left. Every effort to fight Islamic terrorists is sabotaged, undermined and protested by the enemy within.

Since September 11, the left has trashed the FBI’s counterterrorism and has now succeeded in destroying the NYPD’s counterrorism while transforming the FDNY into an affirmative action project. What the September 11 hijackers could never accomplish on their own, the leftists did for them by defeating the three forces that had stood against Islamic terrorists on that day. And it would not surprise me at all if some of the “No War” scribblers have gone on to play an influential role in that treason.

The left has crippled domestic and international counterterrorism. American soldiers are not allowed to shoot terrorists and the FBI and NYPD can’t monitor mosques or even be taught what to look for. Islamic terrorism has achieved unprecedented influence and power under Obama. ISIS has created the first functioning caliphate and Iran marches toward the first Jihadist nuclear bomb. The mass Muslim migration is beginning a process that will Islamize Europe far more rapidly than anyone expects.

The Jihad would not be a significant threat without the collaboration of the left. Without the left standing in the way, it’s a problem that could be solved in a matter of years. With the aid of the left, it threatens human civilization with a dark age that will erase our culture, our future and our freedom.

We cannot defeat Islam without defeating the left. That is the lesson I learned on September 11. It is a lesson that appears truer every single year as the left finds new ways to endanger us all.

Tags: -, Daniel, Greenfield, Left, Real, Terror, The, Threat, is, the

Views: 70

Replies to This Discussion

Smelling Blood

by Mark Steyn
Twenty Years On: Summer of '01    August 5, 2021

A month from now, America will be marking the twentieth anniversary of 9/11. The observances will be muted here, because it's too sad: we lost the war, not only in the narrow military sense (the Taliban will be back in power in Kabul, if not in time to mark the anniversary, then shortly thereafter), but in the broader defeat represented by the post-Motoon surrender on free speech, Angela Merkel's admission of an army of young Muslim men, the ugly security procedures that now attend the bollard-encircled ancient Continental Christmas markets, and ultimately the reorientation of the generally useless post-9/11 surveillance state as a tool of domestic control.

In the media, the month before 9/11 was a weird, accelerating accumulation of trivial preoccupations, culminating in the ludicrous western prostrations before an international racism conference. Indeed, August 2001 seems far more relevant to where we are now than September 11th does. So I thought we'd revisit a few of my pieces from that last summer.

As a scene-setter, let's begin with this piece from my book on the first year of the new war, The Face of the Tiger. I would not use the word "Islamism" now, because it quickly became clear that it was not a useful distinction (the term was popularized by Christopher Hitchens, although in its original 19th century usage an "Islamist" was synonymous with a Muslim), but I leave it here as originally deployed:

THE LAST THING I wrote before September 11th was a column for the preceding weekend's Sunday Telegraph. It was about shark attacks, which had exercised the Eastern Seaboard's fevered imagination all summer, ever since eight-year old Jessie Arbogast had his arm torn off just off the Florida coast. The boy's uncle wrestled the shark back to the beach, killed him, and retrieved Jessie's severed limb from his mouth.

In an eerie pre-echo of the world to come, progressive opinion came down on the side of the shark. The New York Times said that we should bear in mind all the sharks we humans kill, and fretted that the uncle's retaliation might have been disproportionate. The experts agreed we needed to look at the "root causes", to understand "why they hate us": just blundering into their territory in ever larger numbers was only going to provoke them into even bolder assaults on our shores; above all, we should resist any hysterical over-reaction to the many non-violent members of the shark community. Substitute "Islamists" for "sharks" and you'd have a dandy post-September 11th editorial thumbsucker. Go on, try it. Here's the Times back in July:

Knowing something about the biology, behavior and world status of sharks [Islamism] does not mitigate the terror... Even knowledge cannot alter some emotions. But many people now understand that an incident like the Arbogast attack [World Trade Center attack] is not the result of malevolence or a taste for human blood on the shark's part [Islam's part]... Inevitably, an incident like this one reinforces a nearly pleasurable cultural hysteria about sharks [Islam]... when what it should really do is remind us yet again how much we have to learn about them and their waters [them and their extraordinarily rich culture]...

It was that kind of summer. We weren't playing croquet on sun-dappled country-house lawns in August 1914, we were splashing in the shallows, fleeing screaming for the shore at the first sight of a black snorkel. But we were enjoying the same complacent holiday from history. The week before September 11th, the US, Canada, Britain and Europe gathered at Durban under the auspices of the UN to apologise for western civilisation to the massed ranks of gangsters and dictators (supported as always by various NGOS – "non-governmental organisations" – led by the Rev Jesse Jackson, President-for-Life of the Republic of Himself). There was complete unanimity between all parties - from Robert Mugabe to the EU - that the west had a lot to apologise for. The only arguments were over how abject the apology should be and whether there should be a large cheque attached. Durban marked the zenith of the western world's thirty-year campaign of self-denigration. Watching CNN in his cave, Osama bin Laden could reasonably have concluded that he was up against a soft culture ashamed of itself and its history.

For Americans, September 11th brought to a close the post-Cold War era, the period that began with the fall of the Berlin Wall. For a significant proportion of Muslims, September 11th was the culmination of a quite different timeline - an era that was inaugurated on October 23rd 1983, when Hezbollah suicide bombers killed 300 American and French soldiers in Beirut and prompted their governments to pull out of Lebanon. From a Muslim point of view, the suicide bomber is as reliable as the Maxim gun was: sometimes he brings victory, as in Beirut; sometimes he attracts a barely minimal response, as in Bill Clinton's desultory retaliations to bin Laden's ever more brazen provocations during the Nineties; and sometimes he is rewarded by public admonitions to his victims, as when the EU et al urge "restraint" on the part of Israel after Hamas or Islamic Jihad have blown up a few more pregnant women in a shopping mall.
Before September 11th, we saw the events, but not the pattern.

America has been galvanised in the last three months: the Islamofascists loathe the rest of the west almost as much as they hate the US, but the difference is that, for the most part, those countries are content to be, as the Canadian columnist David Warren put it, "mere spectators in our fates". They're still in Durban mode, more inclined to apologise than act. Robert Fisk of The Independent nicely captured the likely fate of the apologists, not in anything he wrote (he's been pretty much wrong on everything since September) but in the simple act of getting beaten up by the people he's championed so long. His column on the lessons to be drawn from his savage assault by disaffected Afghans was a gem of self-parody:

Then young men broke my glasses, began smashing stones into my face and head ... And even then, I understood. I couldn't blame them for what they were doing... If I was an Afghan refugee in Kila Abdullah, I would have done just what they did. I would have attacked Robert Fisk. Or any other Westerner I could find.

It's not their fault, their "brutality is entirely the product of others" – i.e., us. Mr Fisk is the quintessential New Racist - he believes that, while he and Bush are sophisticated human beings who should be held accountable for their actions, the noble savage (and no one's done more to ennoble him than Fisk) should be offered moral absolution for assaulting a civilian on no other basis than his ethnic identity. As Salman Rushdie has said, this denies "the basic idea of all morality: that individuals are responsible for their actions." Mr Fisk's exquisite condescension to the people he claims a unique insight into is indestructible. The difference between him and the President is that Bush treats them as he'd treat Texans, who are at least members of the human race (however primitive and barbaric). Fisk regards Muslims as exotic wildlife.
Which is where we came in, in the turbulent waters of last summer. Read that column again, substitute "Jessie Arbogast" for Fisk and "the shark" for the Afghans, and you're back in the world before September 11th:

Then the sharks began chewing off Jessie's arm... And even then, I understood. I couldn't blame them for what they were doing... If I was a shark off the Florida coast, I would have done just what they did. I would have attacked Jessie Arbogast. Or any other human I could find.

September 11th was a call to moral seriousness. You cannot compromise with a shark, you cannot negotiate with a suicide bomber. And, if you can't see that, you must have rocks in your head, and it wasn't the Afghans who put 'em there. The next shark to chew up a Florida moppet will get a tougher press, even from The New York Times.

~The above is excerpted from Mark's book The Face of the Tiger, personally autographed copies of which are exclusively available from the SteynOnline bookstore. And, if you're a member of The Mark Steyn Club, don't forget to enter your promotional code at checkout for special member pricing.


Page Monitor

Just fill in the box below on any 4F page to be notified when it changes.

Privacy & Unsubscribe respected

Muslim Terrorism Count

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Mission Overview

Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them. 

At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.

Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.

We need to capture this information before it is removed.  The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.

We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.

The 4 Freedoms

These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper). 
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom from Voter Importation
Immigration is allowed - except where that changes the political demography (this is electoral fraud)
4. SP Freedom from Debt
The Central Bank is allowed to create debt - except where that debt burden can pass across a generation (25 years).

An additional Freedom from Religion is deducible if the law is applied equally to everyone:

  • Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"

© 2023   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service