Wednesday, March 23, 2011


Andrew McCarthy describes what happens "When Grievance Industries Collide":
At Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch, we learn Canadian authorities and school officials don’t know quite what to do about a McGill University Muslim student who has written that he’d like to “shoot everyone in the room” at a conservative student organization, that the organization is a “secret Zionist convention” to which he “should have brought an M16,” and that — in response to the club’s showing of “Indoctrinate-U,” a documentary about political correctness on college campuses — “the jihad begins today.”

We further learn that a gay couple in the Netherlands is suing the mayor and police in Utrecht for failing to protect them from young Muslim immigrants (“Moroccan youths”) who repeatedly attacked their home and vandalized their car until the couple finally left town, the police having told the couple they were unable to take action against the aggressors. (The religion of peace holds that homosexuals should be killed — “in the worst, most severe way of killing,” says Ayatollah Ali Sistani, our country’s cherished ally in the new Iraqi “democracy.”)

When “youths” are aboard, even gay rights and “hate speech” codes have to ride in the back of the bus.

These incidents represent an interesting phenomenon of the leftist world that I described in a post about the "The Victimhood Heirarchy or, The Leftist Food Chain. There is a logic to that food chain; and a simple way to determine whose "victimhood" is considered a higher priority when there is a conflict of victims:
...[A] theoretically "oppressed" culture or religion's status as "victimized" allows (nay, it demands) the consequent suppression of any uppity victim classes subsumed within it (e.g., Women or Gays) who try to rise above their assigned place in the utopia to come.

From the perspective of the socialist utopian, what matters more than Women's rights or Gay rights, are the rights of the designated "oppressed culture." The dogma of multiculturalism trumps the lesser dogmas of feminism or gay pride. This is probably because for the socialist utopian, might makes right and the needs of the many always outweigh the needs of the few--and the few better remember that fact, or else.

In the socialist utopia, there is no room for individuality or personal preference; or tolerance for differences. You always must subsume yourself to the collective; and the bigger the collective, then the more power victimization can be exploited.

For example, we know from our experience of watching the compassionate people of the left, that blacks, women and gays lose their cherished victim status if they dare to become Republicans (shocking, I know); and, to a lesser extent, if they choose to be Christian (except for most those radical dominations, who have seen the secular light--or, who preach against American imperialism, and the evils of capitalism, of course).

Being black trumps being a woman or gay (i.e., there is more "social justice" mileage to be squeezed out of the oppression of blacks, i.e., racism, than there is from the oppression of women (sexism) or even gays (homophobia). Just ask President Obama and his supporters.

The oppression of Jews is completely ignored because of the animus the "enlightened" have toward Israel; and anti-semitism, which in past times would have had a victimhood ranking up close to the level of dark-skinned people (probably because those who founded the Jewish state were dedicated socialists--unfortunately, they soon realized that in real life, Marxist ideology doesn't work too well); but anti-semitism no longer is a compelling issue for the socialists. In fact, they are among its worse practitioners as socialism has spread throughout the Middle East.

When you have created a society that is made up of an infinite number of agggrieved groups--all of whom see themselves as "oppressed" all the time, there has to be a way to prioritize, after all.

The political left is nothing if not consistent about squeezing the last drop of grievance and victimhood out of each and every situation--especially where there is power over the lives of others to be gained.

In McCarthy's first examples, the PC leftist academics are in a bind because of the homicidal rantings of a member of a very powerful and acclaimed victimhood group. Why, those academics stand the risk of being accused of being "Islamophobic" if they were to actually do something about the situation with the Muslim student. Likewise, the PC police and city authorities in the Netherlands example.

Islam and Muslims in general, have slowly but surely percolated to the top of the victimhood food chain and thus, accusations of Islamophobia are considered more heinous than pretty much anything else, even sexism or homophobia.

Then, of course, there is the not quite conscious fear factor in play here, on the part of many leftists.

You might recall Han Solo commenting to C3PO during the latter's chess game with Chewbacca--"Let the Wookie win." His reasoning: Wookies will pull your arm out of its socket if they lose. Make no mistake about it, part of the left's bizarre willingness to submit to Islam's constant, universal whining about being "oppressed" is because they are fearful of standing up to a religion that tends to do a bit more than pull your arm out of its socket if you oppose them. They can rationalize it any way they like, but they identify with this powerful aggressor and it makes sense to them to give deference while pretending they are simply standing up for the poor, helpless victims of the world.

Like the threatening and homicidal McGill student; or the homophobic "youths".

So, forget oppression against women; forget oppression against gays--their grievances pale in significance before real, or even imagined, oppression against Islam.

No comments: