Debbie Schlussel’s recent rant on the “Greeniacs”—i.e., those Westerners who preposterously elevate the Iranian People to the status of Western Revolutionaries fighting for Peace, Justice and the American Way—is wonderful and refreshing.
However, there is one little problem: it’s a problem I have noticed with another fine essayist, Diana West, who on her blog has also decried this strange phenomenon of an irrational romanticization of the “Iranian People”.
And that problem is that neither Schlussel nor West have remarked upon the curious, and lamentable fact that two important luminaries from within the Anti-Islam Movement—namely, their colleagues Robert Spencer and Pam Geller—have been among the most flagrant “Greeniacs” around, both of them purveying a preposterous romanticization of this opposition movement in Iran, and both of them virtually ignoring all the evidence of the deeply suspicious nature of the leaders of that opposition movement (including not only Mousavi, but also Ayatollah Montazeri, Maryam Rajavi and Massoud Rajavi of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), and Mohsen Kadivar).
Both Spencer and Geller have also been ignoring Diana West and Debbie Schlussel.
Meanwhile, West and Schlussel, in turn, have been ignoring Spencer and Geller’s Greeniac mania for the Iranian People.
What’s going on here? It looks like the “Gentlemen’s Agreement of Silence” of the Anti-Islam Movement—whereby the unofficial aristocracy of the Movement pretend like there are no significant disagreements among themselves in the interest of protecting their silly anxiety that public differences will somehow weaken the Movement (when actually the strength of any sociopolitical movement is measured in great part by its ability to air differences in a mature and intelligent manner out in the sunshine of public discussion)—is afoot here. I don’t know how else to explain why Schlussel and West—ordinarily the most perspicacious analysts around—seem to have this blind spot for the egregious behavior of Spencer and Geller.
It’s bad enough when the MSM (both Right and Left) indulge in this kind of irrational romanticization of the Iranian People. It’s even worse, one would think, when major luminaries within the Anti-Islam Movement, such as Spencer and Geller, do so. And this problem is then compounded when other noteworthy luminaries within the Anti-Islam Movement—namely, Schlussel and West—ignore it.
You haven't followed Debbie much. While she does normally credit Atlas whenever she uses any of her sources, she doesn't say much about her writings. And note that she is very different from Atlas completely in a bunch of ways, and despite being a former GOP congressional candidate from MI, is very independent in her thoughts on both GOP and Dems. Some examples:
ReplyDelete1. Pamela supported Mitt Romney, Debbie opposed him for a bunch of reasons
2. Debbie never took up the cause of honor killing victims, beyond showcasing the incidents themselves as examples of Muslim savagery
3. Pamela has been very supportive of Netenyahu, whereas Debbie has adapted a 'wait and see' attitude towards him, due to his policies in the 90s of transfering some authority to the Palis under the Oslo agreements. This one is a bit complex, but having followed it, I agree w/ Netenyahu's rationale for why he did it. He doesn't look like doing anything closely similar to it now.
4. Debbie has been a strong critic of Sarah Palin for the example her family has set, as opposed to Pamela, who is now rooting for Palin as the 2012 candidate
5. Debbie is a strong critic of Bush, and is sharply opposed to the policy in Iraq, which has enabled Iran to get a foothold there. She somewhat agrees w/ Hugh there. Pamela, otoh, is more of a 'support our troops' gal, in the mould of Melanie Morgan.
So there is no 'agreement' between these 2 - they both happen to agree on Obama, Israel, and both happen to be pro-GOP, but beyond that, if you read their blogs, they have a very stark difference in outlook. Debbie on one hand is a purist, a simple black/white type of gal, while Pamela is more of the folksy type.
Needless to say, I prefer Debbie!
Nobody, all those characteristics of Debbie you list only make me wonder all the more why she doesn't air her differences with her colleagues (especially Geller) out in the public sunshine and explicitly, and make me more convinced than ever that she is consciously following the unspoken "Gentlemen's Agreement" code of silence.
ReplyDelete