Watermelon politics are on the rise in the United States. The green Islamist groups intent on undermining the West through self-proclaimed “civilizational jihad” have aligned themselves formally and informally with the red radicals such as Black Lives Matter (BLM). For many, this union seems unlikely. Islamist’s want to turn the clock back to the Seventh Century and BLM is eager to push the clock ahead to a time when race consciousness is a national preoccupation.
Yet both want political warfare against an established culture. This is the use of seemingly non-violent means, e.g. the very use of the word “Islamophobia,” for violent organizations such as ISIS and al Qaeda. The call for “social justice” is cover for jihad since no one can define the phrase and advocates merely repeat it as a mantra of society’s injustice.
CAIR (The Council on American Islamic Relations) has been united with a number of radical organizations that exploit racial tensions. While CAIR claims to be a benign group, it is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Muslim Brotherhood and was named as an unindicted conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case which proved that Islamic organizations in the U.S. were raising money to promote Hamas - identified as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department. It is instructive that BLM spokesman and their counterparts in the Muslim Brotherhood have called for a revolution within America.
Non-violence and violence ring against one another like a vibrating tuning fork. BLM contends cops kill innocent black men, then mirabile dictu, cops are killed. Islamists maintain they are discriminated against, then Americans are killed. Is this cause and effect? Perhaps, but there is little doubt this relationship is correlational.
The effect of a left – Islamist narrative has had a powerful effect on White House policy from the prison system to the Pentagon. Protocols for the military conflate terrorist groups with traditionalists of any persuasion leaving the impression that the real issue is fundamentalism. Within the prison population, Wahhabist imams control the narrative very often promoting conversion to their extremist position.
In fact, President Barak Obama has apparently imbibed this world view which may explain his equivocal and sometimes positive view of BLM and his continual defense of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is noteworthy that the Muslim Brotherhood is banned in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Jordan among others, but not the United States.
Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979 Islamic extremists have sought alliances that offer protection from criticism, while advancing their cause. When suitable, the Islamists and BLM will refer to the First Amendment as a defense, but simultaneously engage in actions that would undermine the Constitution. These are not mutually contradictory responses; they reflect instead a strategic position that beguiles a portion of Western opinion just as it promotes a radical agenda.
This has been the stance of extremists throughout history from Machiavelli to Mao. Adolph Hitler said, “Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future.” Of course, that war is here. Unfortunately, most Americans do not realize how far demoralization has gone; nor is there a willingness to connect the dots that unite non-violent and violent acts and the left on the home front and Islamists internationally. That unholy union plagues the nation as its corrosive influence damages the ability of the West to defend its interests. This union is subtle, subversive and effective. It also appears to be on the ascendency.
Herbert London is President of the London Center for Policy Research, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of the book The Transformational Decade (University Press of America). You can read all of Herb London’s commentaries at www.londoncenter.org
The views expressed by commentators are solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of this station or its management.