The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11

[Beet]

From Publishers Weekly
Conservative pundit D'Souza (Illiberal Education) roots the blame for the 9/11 attacks in the left wing's "aggressive global campaign to undermine the traditional patriarchal family" in this mostly lucid but unconvincing argument. Pointing to Hillary Clinton, Britney Spears and Noam Chomsky, he decries those who have teamed up with Hollywood and the U.N. to foist an irreligious, sexually licentious, antifamily liberal culture—epitomized by Eve Ensler's play The Vagina Monologues and gay marriage initiatives—on a Muslim world that rightly reviles it. By deliberately attacking Islamic values, the left tacitly allies itself with al- Qaeda in its effort to defeat Bush's war on terror and thus discredit conservatism at home, he asserts. But D'Souza's claim that Islamic extremists are inflamed solely by America's music videos and feminists—not its U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or American support for Muslim dictators—is too single-minded. For example, he paints Abu Ghraib poster-girl Lynndie England as the personification of liberal sexual depravity, without acknowledging that the U.S. Army sent her to Iraq, not the left. Charging that liberals aid terrorists while sympathizing with the terrorists' culturally conservative worldview, D'Souza's critique of American cultural excess trips over its own inconsistencies. (Jan. 16)

I have to thank D'Souza for his provocative, insightful book. He is both the dangerous rebel underdog undermining the politically correct establishment by exposing secrets that no one wants to be known, and far too credentialled to be disputed by anyone else, as a Washington Post columnist and "a scholar at the Hoover Institute at Standford University."

[Beet]

Conservative pundit D'Souza (Illiberal Education) roots the blame for the 9/11 attacks in the left wing's "aggressive global campaign to undermine the traditional patriarchal family" in this mostly lucid but unconvincing argument. Pointing to Hillary Clinton, Britney Spears and Noam Chomsky, he decries those who have teamed up with Hollywood and the U.N. to foist an irreligious, sexually licentious, antifamily liberal culture—epitomized by Eve Ensler's play The Vagina Monologues and gay marriage initiatives—on a Muslim world that rightly reviles it. By deliberately attacking Islamic values, the left tacitly allies itself with al- Qaeda in its effort to defeat Bush's war on terror and thus discredit conservatism at home, he asserts. But D'Souza's claim that Islamic extremists are inflamed solely by America's music videos and feminists—not its U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or American support for Muslim dictators—is too single-minded. For example, he paints Abu Ghraib poster-girl Lynndie England as the personification of liberal sexual depravity, without acknowledging that the U.S. Army sent her to Iraq, not the left. Charging that liberals aid terrorists while sympathizing with the terrorists' culturally conservative worldview, D'Souza's critique of American cultural excess trips over its own inconsistencies. (Jan. 16)

A Hilarious parody of Conservative thought, I see. I'm rather curious now.

The guy is serious.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds like the same sh**t that has been said by conservative pundits and commentators since the beginning of the War on Terrorism and earlier during the Cold War. It's really nothing new nor insightful.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He's such a dangerous rebel underdog who is taking on the masses of liberal propoganda, yet he has a steady job as a columnist at the National Review and has had several bestselling books along with major speaking deals. I would hardly say that Mr. D'Souza is really in dire straights from his "rebel" status.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is credentialled even a word? I think not.

He's a syndicated columnist for the Washington Post not a columnist. He writes as the token conservative in the Opinion and Editorial section and like all token conservatives he needs to take his ideology to the extreme and dive right off the deep end.

As for the Hoover Institute basically anyone that they can verify to be even slightly right-of-centre and to either be a writer or an academic becomes part of the Hoover Institute. Much like academic circles on the left many on the right can harbour people who hold extreme ideas and call them part of their organization.
[/quote][/quote]

The later part is all sarcasm, Colin. It refers to a column he has in the Washington Post today complaining about how he's all persecuted while at the same time bragging about his status in the Hoover institute (among many other things)