The Shallow World of Sunny Hundal
by Scoop Shachtman, 10 April 2008
Sunny Hundal has a post up titled Hapless Neocons. Strangely, his article is concerned with bigoted and mindless critics like Steyn, Wilders, and Philips. His definition of neocon appears to be someone who bashes Muslims, rather than any actual understanding of what neoconservatism actually is. For good measure he makes sure that leftwing critics of Islamist terrorism, so-called muscular liberals, are lumped in with the “neocons” et al.
This is the possibly the worst piece of analysis I have every read in the past two or three years:
Its evidence that the neocons are running out of steam. There are two directions they have tried to take their arguments, albeit unsuccessfully.
One is a point over demographics; that regardless of whether they’re all terrorists or not, European Muslims have a higher birthrate than white Europeans and hence in about [insert scary time] from now there will be sharia everywhere. It’s time to go forth and multiply, brave soldiers!
This is sometimes combined with the view that what Europe actually needs is a resurgence of good old-fashioned “Judaeo-Christian values” to act as a bulwark against Islamism. Ignoring the fact that traditional European Christian fundamentalism involved healthy doses of anti-semitism, even the estimable Melanie Phillips has been pushing this line.
The problem for Steyn, Phillips and their core supporters is that at this juncture they lose the interest of their “muscular liberal” atheist fans.
Let’s leave aside the neocons, muscular liberals, Fitna and the rest for now. This debate isn’t necessarily about re-interpreting, reforming or revolutionising Islamic texts for a modern world either. This is more about political maturity.
There is an immense vacuum between the ears of Sunny Hundal, which he fills with random associations and glib assertions.
Yes, Sunny Hundal is the Melanie Phillips of the liberals.
Thursday 10 April 2008 at 13:14
I read that article and I thought exactly the same. I would like to think that it was just a hamfisted attempt at a smear job–as usual, his real targets were those to his left–though I fear that it reflects the author’s real understanding of disparate political categories. One of my reasons for believing this is his similarly inept criticism of that book by Andrew Anthony, which clearly showed that Mr Hundal has no real grasp of what liberalism is, and he seemed completely incapable of understanding why his criticisms of the book were so off-target.
Thursday 10 April 2008 at 13:35
I prefer the Worker-communist Party of Iran version which landed in my email box this morning:
The Internet release of the film Fitna provided a pretext for an array of the right wing and reactionary forces of our time to declare a Jihad against humanity! In this holy war on secularism and freedom of expression Islamists are not alone. Western governments and Eurocentric racist forces support and reinforce Islamists in different ways. The major winners of this Jihad against humanity are Islamists, Mullahs, Imams and criminal Islamic governments that claim to be the representatives of millions of people in countries plagued by Islam. They demand - and indeed receive - damages for “the hurt feelings of Muslims” who they claim they represent. EU Foreign Ministers line up to endorse this “representation”, and under the pretext of condemning Fitna, support “moderate Islam” and repeat the words of criminals such as Khomeini and Bin Laden that “Islam is the religion of peace!” In this climate, the UN Human Rights Council passes a resolution that demands “respect for religious beliefs”, thereby declaring that what will not be respected is freedom of expression and the human being! Fitna recalls some truths about the crimes of Islamists in order to ascribe those crimes to so-called “Muslims;” it demands their removal from Europe – no matter if most have in fact fled precisely from those atrocities!
The common denominator of these reactionary camps is the false assertion that political Islam is not the creation of Islamic forces - often with the direct backing of Western governments - but a product of the beliefs of people living in countries plagued by Islam, many of whom, like the people of Iran, are in fact fighting to get rid of the menace of political Islam. These camps directly or indirectly support the political Islamic movement and religious Mafia that were nurtured during the Cold War by Western governments, and which, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, emerged as a camp claiming political power. Western governments are now at pains to strengthen the pro-West, “moderate” wing of political Islam to conclude this power struggle to their own advantage. This is the principal political aspect of the uproar surrounding Fitna.
The victims of this astonishing Jihad of the 21st century are not only the people in countries plagued by Islam, but all people, including those in the West. The beneficiaries of this Holy Jihad are not only Mullahs, Imams and Islamic governments, but also the political reaction in the West, which promotes intervention of religion in the state and the educational system. This is a co-ordinated Jihad on the secularist, left-wing and progressive movement that has emerged within the past few years, particularly in the West. This is an unprecedented attack on the values that several generations of socialists and progressives in the West have fought for. Above all, it is an outrageous attack on freedom of expression. If Islam or any religion or system of beliefs cannot be criticised, exposed or even mocked then the “freedom of expression” that remains will be mere mockery!
WPI calls on the freedom-loving people of the world, on workers’ and progressive organisations, on atheists, secularists, humanists and socialists to stand up with full force to this united Jihad of political Islam, Western governments and Eurocentric racism. Unconditional freedom of expression must be defended. The absolute separation of religion from the state and education must be demanded. Flirting with Islam, Islamists and other religions should be done away with. The support provided by the EU and UN to political Islam and religion should be strongly condemned. This concerted attack by reactionaries on humanity is at the same time an opportunity to raise the banner of freedom, secularism and respect for human dignity even higher. On behalf of workers and people in Iran who are fighting to topple the detested Islamic regime and to build freedom, equality and prosperity, we state that we stand with all our strength on the side of the freedom-loving people of the world.
Worker-communist Party of Iran
Thursday 10 April 2008 at 14:31
Mr Hundal has no real grasp of what liberalism is
He seems to be using the American right-wing political pejorative version.
And where’s the picture of him in heels?
Thursday 10 April 2008 at 23:47
Hmmm, doesn’t understand much, does he? Here’s a line that caught my attention: what exactly the fuck does he mean by “traditional European Christian fundamentalism”? My first response would be to say there’s no such thing. Is it Protestant ‘fundamentalism’? Catholic ‘fundamentalism’? Eastern Orthodox ‘fundamentalism’? The term ‘fundamentalism’ is only really properly applied to Protestants and I find it difficult to understand what he thinks is ‘traditional’ about this most modern of obscurantist revivals. Perhaps he’d like to pop into the comments boxes and explain what exactly the fuck he’s talking about.
Saturday 12 April 2008 at 16:17
He doesn’t think [link excised for purposes of cleanliness] Lefties are irrational or angry enough
The Melanie Phillips of Liberals - that’s a good one.
Sunday 13 April 2008 at 1:28
“The Melanie Phillips of Liberals”
Love it ! (darling)
Sunday 13 April 2008 at 4:28
Standard Hundal tripe. His dubious concepts of “neocons” and “traditional European Christian fundamentalism” were probably half-hinched from DailyKos, a site he thinks is brilliant.
marvin: He doesn’t think [link excised for purposes of cleanliness] Lefties are irrational or angry enough
Noticed that too. Fucking hypocrite, especially as his whole LiberalConspiracy shite was meant to be a counter-balance to mouthy trots that piss him off and who are supposedly disproportionately loud in the world of blogs. How long would a critique of his woolly liberal bollocks from the likes of Will last on any of his websites? Contrast that to when he fucked up an argument with Norm a while back, snuck in here to spout a bit and then ran like the wind when he was shown up for the shallow twat he is.
I read somewhere he has the most punchable face in the blogosphere. Other suggestions welcome.