Ayaan Hirsi Ali Upends Leftist Stereotypes

[scribblet]

This gal has guts for speaking out, in spite of death threats.

http://biggovernment.com/mrwrestler/2010/06/10/ayaan-hirsi-ali-upends-leftist-stereotypes-in-santa-monica/

On May 24th, at Track 16 Gallery in fashionable Bergamont Station in Santa Monica, CA, dozens of marginal works of art were nearly destroyed by the exploding heads of some of SoCal’s finest and most dogmatic liberals, as a roomful of them were injected with some cognitive dissonance when author Ayaan Hirsi Ali spoke.

-snip-

She continues to be an outspoken critic of the subjugation and mistreatment of women under fundamentalist Islam, and the AHA Foundation which she founded aims to combat “several types of crimes against women, including female genital mutilation, forced marriages, honor violence, and honor killings.” These would seem to be fairly non-controversial goals, especially in a pro-feminist Western society, but they received a rather chilly response that night from the tolerant progressives of Santa Monica.

[BubberMiley]

Leftist stereotypes? What goes on in that brain of yours?

[eyeball]

No, I would say that she has upended theist stereotypes.

Why should we hesitate to confront the fact that these particular killers are driven by their fanatical religious beliefs?

We shouldn't, we should confront that fact as well as the fact that many people in the west who are most eager to confront Islam are just as driven by fanatical religious beliefs.

I think Ayaan Hirsi Ali has underestimated the importance of this.

“I just think there are problems in this country that she just doesn’t understand! I mean, what’s the difference between a fanatical mass-murdering Taliban regime and a mass-murdering evangelical Christian in the White House, which this country voted in for eight years?!?”

If this man had asked Ms. Ali his ridiculous question, she could have answered it handily. So why didn’t he? Why was he huddled in the farthest corner of the room spewing his nonsense to his nodding compatriots? What about Ayaan Hirsi Ali had flummoxed him and his fellow travellers into circles of insular outrage?

Why does the author of this report think the question is ridiculous and why is he so sure Ayaan Hirsi Ali would be able to answer it so ably?

[Michael Hardner]

So basically, somebody went to an arts event in San Francisco and was surprised that there were liberals there ?

His thesis is based on the fact that her speech ... didn't get applause ? What is it supposed to mean ?

[kimmy]

(Did I just read a political opinion piece by someone named "Mr Wrestling IV"?)

Why does the author of this report think the question is ridiculous and why is he so sure Ayaan Hirsi Ali would be able to answer it so ably?

I suspect she gets asked stuff like that all the time and has stock answers ready. The interview August posted in another thread, where Avi Lewis attempts to press her on how Muslim extremists who blow up subways are different from Christian extremists who shoot abortion doctors, provides an example of how deftly she deals with predictable questions.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

(Did I just read a political opinion piece by someone named "Mr Wrestling IV"?)

I suspect she gets asked stuff like that all the time and has stock answers ready. The interview August posted in another thread, where Avi Lewis attempts to press her on how Muslim extremists who blow up subways are different from Christian extremists who shoot abortion doctors, provides an example of how deftly she deals with predictable questions.

-k

Oh. This is who we're talking about ? Yes, she is excellent. The best line she gave Lewis was, and I paraphrase:

"You were born into freedom, so you spit on it...."

The debate comes down to believing our systems are superior or not, and how we deal with that belief. To me, a state that separates religion, that makes decisions based on information and reason, has proven itself as generally better than others. But there are aspects of our society that are worse for people.

People like Lewis recognize that, but get confused - especially when confronted by that kind of extreme pride that shows up as chauvinism.

[eyeball]

I suspect she gets asked stuff like that all the time and has stock answers ready.

-k

As an employee of the American Enterprise Institute she probably has a whole database full of answers at her disposal.

The contrast between Ayaan Hirsi Ali's upbringing and where she is now reminds me of Ayn Rand's conversion and resulting convictions. Ali almost seems like she's undergone, or is still undergoing, a process that's resulted in some sort of profound inverse culture shock.

[Bonam]

The contrast between Ayaan Hirsi Ali's upbringing and where she is now reminds me of Ayn Rand's conversion and resulting convictions.

An interesting comparison. Certainly, both have had many insightful things to say, though I wouldn't quite put Ali in the same class as Rand.

[bloodyminded]

The trouble with political converts like Ali is that they (and, it goes without saying, the reactionary ideologues who hold her victimization as proof of her Authority On All Things) view the world as flatly either/or: you oppose the subjugation of women in a Muslim country...so you support American foreign policy, which is self-evidently about "freedom," so that anyone who disagrees with Western militancy must be "spit[ting]" on "freedom."

It's a beautiful tautology, I admit, but we know she is either prone to thoughtlessness, or is simply not serious. I suspect the former.

Consider Ms. Joya, the Afghan MP. Her views on the treatment of women is precisely, exactly aligned with Ali's. There is no difference whatsoever. However, Ms. Joya takes a larger, more nuanced view, considers institutional factors and Western crimes, as well as Western complicity in brutal and oppressive Islamic regimes.

But Joya--who lives under death threats both from the Taliban and from our allies, the Warlords--will not be invited to speak about such affairs...even though she is far more knowledgeable about it than is Ali.

Because Joya offers the wrong narrative; even though she philosphically agrees with the subject of women (and expands it to the mistreatment of minorities and of the poor)...she also is harshly crirical of the West. So...that's no good; we can't have that.

Especially since her stated enemies--who explicitly want her dead--are not only our enemies...but also our allies.

Edited June 15, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Michael Hardner]

The trouble with political converts like Ali is that they (and, it goes without saying, the reactionary ideologues who hold her victimization as proof of her Authority On All Things) view the world as flatly either/or: you oppose the subjugation of women in a Muslim country...so you support American foreign policy, which is self-evidently about "freedom," so that anyone who disagrees with Western militancy must be "spit[ting]" on "freedom."

BloodyM,

Quite true, however her comments were in response to Lewis' hypberbolic comments about American under GW Bush... which we heard quite a lot of in his last days.

Although I don't remember exactly what he said, the hypbole of the day rightly deserved derisive comments. People at that time were equating having your phone tapped with being in a concentration camps.

Ayaan: In America, you can come with nothing, no penny, nothing, and you can become very wealthy. Tell me which Muslim country…

Avi: Is there a school where they teach you these American cliches? Is it part of your application process? I’m sorry – I’m so upset, I’m losing my cards here. I can’t believe you just said that!

She knows the difference because she lived it, and so her comments to him - basically "you don't know" - correctly put him in his place. She even says there are many things wrong with America; so her view is also more nuanced than his.

[bloodyminded]

BloodyM,

Quite true, however her comments were in response to Lewis' hypberbolic comments about American under GW Bush... which we heard quite a lot of in his last days.

Although I don't remember exactly what he said, the hypbole of the day rightly deserved derisive comments. People at that time were equating having your phone tapped with being in a concentration camps.

She knows the difference because she lived it, and so her comments to him - basically "you don't know" - correctly put him in his place. She even says there are many things wrong with America; so her view is also more nuanced than his.

If it's a comparison between Ali And Lewis, then perhaps (argubaly) she is more nuanced.

But if we use my comparison--the ignored Joya versus the right-wing-think-tank-funded Ali--there's no comparison. Joya is a principled, embattled woman trying hard to educate and to help the suffering people of Afghanistan...while Ali is supporting the same powers that are allied to the medieval theocrats who want Joya dead.

When you reported that "he even says there are many things wrong with America," I didn't realize till I watched the video how literal you were being. It's word for word. The point being: everyone says this about America when pushed into a debating corner: "there are many things wrong with America."

What they don't, and won't do is spell out exactly what those things are. (Unless they, quite laughably, claim that America isn't harsh enough in its foreign adventures, a claim astonishing in its immorality and callous disregard.)

For example, Ali perhaps doesn't know that the U.S.--usually with eager help from some of its "freedom-loving" allies, like Canada--often subverts freedom and democracy in favour of anti-freedom and tyranny.

I've had lots of debates with people--usually moderates or liberals--who, after being asked about, say, Western support for genocide, or Western support for terrorism (on a worse scale than those whom we claim to be outraged by)...will say, "Well, there are many things wrong with America, but...."

I'm not sure how this bland, meaningless, substance-free statement is indicative of nuance.

Edited June 15, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Michael Hardner]

For example, Ali perhaps doesn't know that the U.S.--usually with eager help from some of its "freedom-loving" allies, like Canada--often subverts freedom and democracy in favour of anti-freedom and tyranny.

I'm sure that she does know this - she's intelligent enough.

But the discussion didn't go there. If he had asked "Has America always upheld democracy above all ?" then she perhaps could have addressed that.

I've had lots of debates with people--usually moderates or liberals--who, after being asked about, say, Western support for genocide, or Western support for terrorism (on a worse scale than those whom we claim to be outraged by)...will say, "Well, there are many things wrong with America, but...."

I'm not sure how this bland, meaningless, substance-free statement is indicative of nuance.

You did say that her statement is more nuanced than Lewis'. I'll let that stand.

The devils are in the details as you point out. America promotes freedom, but only extends itself in areas in which it has an interest, and has no problem with working with undemocratic governments although they appear to be more conscious of their image in this regard than in the past.

Don't believe me ? Do you think America would support the Chile coup in 2010 ? I don't. Maybe I look to hard for reasons to be optimistic, but I see the eyes of Europe and Asia on America - as well as those of certain Americans too.

[ToadBrother]

An interesting comparison. Certainly, both have had many insightful things to say, though I wouldn't quite put Ali in the same class as Rand.

Rand had insightful things to say. She also said a lot of nonsense. Randians like yourself are among the most frightening people Western thinking has ever produced. The only thing Randians ever seem to be good for is getting Conservatives elected. Randians, like all Libertarians, are the useful idiots of Conservatism and have been for decades.

[bloodyminded]

I'm sure that she does know this - she's intelligent enough.

But the discussion didn't go there. If he had asked "Has America always upheld democracy above all ?" then she perhaps could have addressed that.

You did say that her statement is more nuanced than Lewis'. I'll let that stand.

The devils are in the details as you point out. America promotes freedom, but only extends itself in areas in which it has an interest, and has no problem with working with undemocratic governments

Yes, but that wasn't my complaint: it would be difficult or impossible NOT to work with undemocratic governments.

I'm talking about supporting undemocratic governments against democratic governments, people, and movements.

That's a horse of a different colour. That's not promoting freedom: it's opposition to freedom.

although they appear to be more conscious of their image in this regard than in the past.

Yes...exactly, and only, because of mass public movements expressing opposition.

when we compalin about the actions of the powerful democracies, we are doing the right thing.

It's the apologists for terrorism and mass murder--most of whom are not on the left, but in the center--who are on the wrong side of history.

Don't believe me ? Do you think America would support the Chile coup in 2010 ? I don't.

The support for the attempted Venezuelan coup was not far removed from 2010. The more tepid, but still present, support for the Honduran coup was even more recent.

The support for the Indonesian attempted genocide of the East Timorese ended....just under eleven years ago. And that was far worse than what happened in Chile.

Eleven years ago.

Maybe I look to hard for reasons to be optimistic, but I see the eyes of Europe and Asia on America - as well as those of certain Americans too.

Definitely, crucially, Americans too, lots of them.

I'm tentatively optinmistic as well..of the future.

But we differ on the present, which I see as business as usual. There are slight improvements, yes...witness the sly way they supported the Honduran coup, carefully since they stood virtually alone among the world's nations in their defense of the coup; so it had to be handled cautiously. So that, if not an improvement, at least delineates the possibility of improvement.

[Michael Hardner]

But we differ on the present, which I see as business as usual. There are slight improvements, yes...witness the sly way they supported the Honduran coup, carefully since they stood virtually alone among the world's nations in their defense of the coup; so it had to be handled cautiously. So that, if not an improvement, at least delineates the possibility of improvement.

That probably deserves its own thread, as I myself had almost forgotten about it.

[Bonam]

Rand had insightful things to say. She also said a lot of nonsense. Randians like yourself are among the most frightening people Western thinking has ever produced. The only thing Randians ever seem to be good for is getting Conservatives elected. Randians, like all Libertarians, are the useful idiots of Conservatism and have been for decades.

I'm not really a "Randian" (the more correct term would be an Objectivist). Though I think there are many valid points made in Rand's philosophy, I don't buy it as a whole, and especially not some of the stances that objectivist institutions have made more recently. Perhaps most notably, I am not at all in agreement with two of Rand's ideas: the opposition to state-funded science and Rand's advocacy of effective isolationism in foreign policy.

That being said, what's there to be afraid of, what is so "frightening"? In general, all that "Randians" want is to be left alone by the socialists, they do not seek to impose anything on anyone.

I also see an ever growing divide between the general ideas of "conservatism" and those of libertarian/individualist/objectivist philosophies. Modern conservatism embraces big government and collectivism no less than modern liberalism does, it just seeks to implement a somewhat different social and economic agenda using the power of that large government.

[WIP]

This gal has guts for speaking out, in spite of death threats.

http://biggovernment.com/mrwrestler/2010/06/10/ayaan-hirsi-ali-upends-leftist-stereotypes-in-santa-monica/

I was going to comment on this thread yesterday or the day before, but didn't have time. The OP should note that although Ayan Hirsi Ali has many valid reasons for her bad feelings about the religion and culture she grew up in, she is an admitted liar who was forced to come clean about her fraudulent refugee claim in Holland.....remember that in the future the next time you rightwingers start ranting about fruadulent refugee claimants!

But, more to the point, since arriving on American shores she has been employed by the well-funded conservative think tank - The American Enterprise Institute. So, she is not only a spokeswoman now for atheism and an aggressive response to Islam, she is also a paid apologist for U.S. foreign policy -- as she was the last time when she appeared on Bill Maher's show and declared that Afghanis need to support the American backed government there, along with Afghan troops.....even I am now aware that most Afghanis outside of Kabul view their national army as no better than the Taliban, since most of the soldiers are from the Northern tribes who don't even speak the same language! Whether Hirsi Ali is aware of this or not is immaterial, since she is either uninformed or just out to earn money as a hired propagandist. Either way, that along with her willingness to look in a camera and tell lies removes whatever credibility she had left.

[WIP]

I'm not really a "Randian" (the more correct term would be an Objectivist). Though I think there are many valid points made in Rand's philosophy, I don't buy it as a whole, and especially not some of the stances that objectivist institutions have made more recently. Perhaps most notably, I am not at all in agreement with two of Rand's ideas: the opposition to state-funded science and Rand's advocacy of effective isolationism in foreign policy.

How about Ayn Rand's opposition to the principle of altruism in the first place! This woman's crazy ideas may have made her an interesting oddity for cocktail party conversation back in her day, but the fact that so many sociopathic billionaires have latched on to Randian Philosophy to justify their greed and selfish disregard for everyone else is enough reason to pull out the guns and shoot down her lousy philosophy and bad logic....and her boring novels also!

[Bob]

I was going to comment on this thread yesterday or the day before, but didn't have time. The OP should note that although Ayan Hirsi Ali has many valid reasons for her bad feelings about the religion and culture she grew up in, she is an admitted liar who was forced to come clean about her fraudulent refugee claim in Holland.....remember that in the future the next time you rightwingers start ranting about fruadulent refugee claimants!

But, more to the point, since arriving on American shores she has been employed by the well-funded conservative think tank - The American Enterprise Institute. So, she is not only a spokeswoman now for atheism and an aggressive response to Islam, she is also a paid apologist for U.S. foreign policy -- as she was the last time when she appeared on Bill Maher's show and declared that Afghanis need to support the American backed government there, along with Afghan troops.....even I am now aware that most Afghanis outside of Kabul view their national army as no better than the Taliban, since most of the soldiers are from the Northern tribes who don't even speak the same language! Whether Hirsi Ali is aware of this or not is immaterial, since she is either uninformed or just out to earn money as a hired propagandist. Either way, that along with her willingness to look in a camera and tell lies removes whatever credibility she had left.

In other words, you've got nothing relevant to say regarding Ali's positions on Islamic incompatibility with Western liberal values. If you want to stay on-topic, please spare us your diatribes about her association with the AEI (a good association). I find her a bit too puritanical, but a lot of what she says needs to be heard by the naive and ignorant out there.

[WIP]

In other words, you've got nothing relevant to say regarding Ali's positions on Islamic incompatibility with Western liberal values. If you want to stay on-topic, please spare us your diatribes about her association with the AEI (a good association). I find her a bit too puritanical, but a lot of what she says needs to be heard by the naive and ignorant out there.

If I want a credible source on the subject of whether Islam can be compatible with Western values, I won't look for it from her. I can find a more thoughtful, reasoned approach on the subject from another Muslim woman from a Muslim nation who faced persecution for abandoning her religion (but later returning) and coming out as a lesbian -- Irshad Manji -- who also faces death threats for her unorthodox views on Ijtihaad and other topics on Islamic Reform. A few years ago she had to have bullet-proof glass windows installed in her home, but unlike Ayan Hirsi Ali, she doesn't get paid enough to have 24/7 bodyguards surrounding her at all times.

Now, you and all of the others here who insist that Islam in all its forms is ultimately incompatible with modern values need to inform us of what you see as the end game....and whether it includes all out war and the extermination of all Muslims!

[Bonam]

How about Ayn Rand's opposition to the principle of altruism in the first place!

That part of her philosophy, the rejection of altruism, makes a lot of sense and is in fact what drew me to read some of her books in the first place. Anyway, I don't really want to get into a deep discussion of objectivist philosophy in this thread since that is obviously off topic but I'd definitely be up for discussing it more fully in another thread.

Now, you and all of the others here who insist that Islam in all its forms is ultimately incompatible with modern values need to inform us of what you see as the end game....and whether it includes all out war and the extermination of all Muslims!

I would expect that most people who hold the opinion that Islam is incompatible with Western values would advocate a reduction of immigration from that part of the world to Western countries. War and extermination of Muslims is probably not on the agenda for most of these people, they just don't want to see Western societies overrun by Muslims and eventually turned into Islamic states.

[Guest TrueMetis]

In other words, you've got nothing relevant to say regarding Ali's positions on Islamic incompatibility with Western liberal values. If you want to stay on-topic, please spare us your diatribes about her association with the AEI (a good association). I find her a bit too puritanical, but a lot of what she says needs to be heard by the naive and ignorant out there.

Wait Islam is incompatiable with western values? Since when?

[bloodyminded]

That being said, what's there to be afraid of, what is so "frightening"? In general, all that "Randians" want is to be left alone by the socialists, they do not seek to impose anything on anyone.

Ayn Rand's self-evident dewy-eyed worship of rich and powerful men--evidenced mostly in her execrable fiction (she was an awful literary voice)--calls this into question.

If you greatly admire power...then, by definition, there must be people whom that power acts upon.

This is the opposite of being "left alone."

I'm always surprised when people who are clearly thoughtful and intelligent, like Rand, can overlook momentous and crystal clear contradictions like this one.

Edited June 16, 2010 by bloodyminded

[WIP]

That part of her philosophy, the rejection of altruism, makes a lot of sense and is in fact what drew me to read some of her books in the first place. Anyway, I don't really want to get into a deep discussion of objectivist philosophy in this thread since that is obviously off topic but I'd definitely be up for discussing it more fully in another thread.

Fine, we can leave that for an Ayn Rand thread, but for the record, I wasn't the one who brought up Ayn Rand, but I'm not so sure it's off topic anyway since Hirsi Ali talks like an Ayn Rand acolyte. Maybe it's the money talking from that A.E.I. contract, but when she does veer off of the Islam topic, she castigates the "socialism" of her former adopted home - Holland and other European nations, and even calls for private philanthropy to replace government welfare and financial aid programs. Maybe her future will be as running mate for a Rand Paul presidential campaign!

As for the creator of this toxic stew, I have to admit that I have never liked Ayn Rand, even when I considered myself to be libertarian. Partly because her version of altruism she describes in her philosophical works and novels like the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, is extreme total selflessness, that doesn't allow a person to pursue their own interests. Most people are able to live a more balanced life, but Rand had to create strawman versions of altruism to make altruism look abhorrent and bolster her extreme view that everything will work fine with everyone pursuing their own interests..... and ethical egoism does not fill the void that would be left if no one did anything purely for the benefit of others...... I wonder if having children would have had an impact on this ideology!

I would expect that most people who hold the opinion that Islam is incompatible with Western values would advocate a reduction of immigration from that part of the world to Western countries. War and extermination of Muslims is probably not on the agenda for most of these people, they just don't want to see Western societies overrun by Muslims and eventually turned into Islamic states.

We need immigration to balance out the demographics of an aging population. Most of the world has too many children, while we have too many baby boomers such as myself that are getting close to retirement. And unless we turn into something less than a democracy, a religious litmus test for citizenship will be a non-starter.

But in theory, the dogma that Islam represents an incorrigible malevolent force in the world that cannot be moderated, would make total war inevitable at some future point in time.

[bloodyminded]

But in theory, the dogma that Islam represents an incorrigible malevolent force in the world that cannot be moderated, would make total war inevitable at some future point in time.

I think that getting some of our posters moist and aroused is better suited for pornographic websites.