The comments on Wajahat Ali ‘s anti-US rant almost make my planned fisking of his revolting opinion piece unnecessary. Almost.
I am in sympathy with the commenters who feel that Ali’s gaslighting isn’t worthy of the time it takes to read or rebut: it is a bit like shooting the proverbial fish in a barrel. But as soon to be Sheriff (Black) Bart (Cleavon Little) says before he hits Taggart (Slim Pickens) over the head with a shovel in “Blazing Saddles,” “I gotta!”
Now that I’m committed, however, it is clear that I can’t begin to do Ali’s rant justice—meaning to punch it in its metaphorical mouth so it slides down into a mudhole—in a single post. So I’ll primarily devote Part 2 to his “Great Replacement” claim.
Here we go…
“Is it time to leave? I’ve caught myself asking my wife this question several times over the past year.”
I’ll state up front: I don’t believe him. The threat to leave the United States is a uniquely leftist bluff, and almost always employed to cheaply make the point that “I really, really don’t like where democracy is taking us right now.” The proper reaction to that is, “Oh, shut up. Running away is un-American; if that’s your response, you don’t belong here anyway.” It’s such an arrogant and presumptuous threat. Why do you think anyone cares whether you leave or not, man? “Do things the way I want or I’m quitting!” is infantile.
We were both born and raised in America, a country of opportunity for our immigrant parents who left Pakistan with little more than hope and belief in a dream that anyone, even brown-skinned Muslims, with some luck and hard work, could make it and be accepted. But that dream is becoming a nightmare.
Right. The writer is a successful writer and lives an affluent upper-middle class existence that he would be hard-pressed to achieve in Pakistan. He’s “made it.” In fact, he’s made it by writing junk like this. Impressive! Dream indeed!
If you’re a person of color, it seems foolish and reckless to not, at least, have an exit plan when looking at the political and cultural landscape.
The United States goes to extreme, often excessive lengths to cater to the needs and desires of its minorities; right now, the fantasy being pushed by full-time victims “of color” is that nothing is enough. I clicked on the “political and cultural landscape” link, assuming I might find something illuminating. What did I find? Just more whining about “the Great Replacement Theory,” as if it were anything but a pejorative description of what Democrats have been openly crowing about for decades: “See, if we overwhelm all these white conservatives with a wave of Hispanics we let across the border, the Democratic Party will rule forever, because “voters of color” always vote for us!” Pretty diabolically clever, really: if Republicans accurately describe the strategy, they can be accused of bigotry by the same people who devised the strategy.
The problem is that the Democrats’ version of “the theory” is wrong and obviously so, as they will discover to their sorrow when Hispanic voters turn on them in November. Immigrants “of color”, illegal or otherwise, usually behave like all other immigrant groups—the longer they are here, the more like the majority they become. It’s called assimilation, and it’s a good, indeed crucial process, no matter how hard progressives have been trying to undermine it by trying to keep the population divided into tribes. Wielded by the Left against conservatives, “the Great Replacement” trope is a sinister way to mischaracterize a legitimate concern: the importance of maintaining a national culture rooted in Western and core American principles and values.
It is not “white supremacy” to conclude, as history and reality compel us to conclude, that all cultures are not equally productive, desirable, healthy or successful. As long as this national culture remains strong enough to assimilate those coming from other lands and cultures, perhaps adopting and adapting complementary aspects of other cultures in the process, then all is well. However, there are toxic cultures that resist assimilation, making them dangerous.
One of those, not coincidentally, is the culture Ali comes from, Islamic culture. Concern about an influx of Islamic immigrants isn’t based on fear of “replacement,” but upon undeniable evidence that the Muslim religion is antithetical to pluralism, women’s rights, the separation of church and state, Western principles of justice, modernization and peaceful co-existence with non-Islamic societies.
It is also resistant to assimilation.
It is axiomatic that in any advocacy, one leads with one’s strongest point. It is telling that the first point Ali raises is “The Great Replacement.” It marks him as a partisan hack who has little ammunition, advancing one of several “Hail Mary!” distractions to vilify Republicans and try to distract voters from the wreckage wrought by President Biden and a Democratic Congress.
The sudden obsession with the “theory” arrived because the Buffalo shooter referenced it in his rambling “manifesto.” Follow me now: see, Tucker Carlson, a particularly smug and intellectually dishonest talking head on Fox News, has periodically expressed support for the Pod People version of the Great Replacement Theory. All conservatives and Republicans regard Carlson as God, or something, soooo…the Buffalo massacre was caused by Carlson, Fox News, Republicans and conservatives!
The problems with this theory are: 1) Carlson isn’t close to being that influential or persuasive 2) As noted already, “the Great Replacement Theory” began as a progressive/Democratic strategy 3) Only wackos like the killer (and maybe Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan) think this way and 4) Most important of all, in a screed longer than a Stephen King novella, the shooter never references Carlson or Fox News at all, and refers to himself as being left-of-center.
Of course, most of the public doesn’t know that because Ali’s fellow pundits and journalists won’t let them read the manifesto. If they did, it would be obvious how contrived this latest strand of the “white conspiracy” narrative is.
At the risk of muddling this issue further, I have to point out that it is particularly hypocritical of the Axis of Unethical Conduct, as EA calls the “resistance”/ Democratic Party/mainstream media alliance, to attach white supremacy beliefs to claims of a “Great Replacement” when the Left and its allies are openly advocating and implementing literal “replacement” across all sectors and aspects of the culture. All of a sudden, half of almost every married couple that would have been white a few years ago has been replaced by a spouse “of color” on TV commercials and dramas. Jake from State Farm turned black. “The Equalizer” first turned into Denzel Washington, then into a black woman for the TV version. Thomas Magnum, Tom Selleck’s career-launching role, is played by Jay Hernandez. Blond Aquaman became a Samoan in the movies. Red-haired Ariel, the Little Mermaid, is now officially a fish-girl “of color.” “Hamilton” changed all the Founders and their wives non-white. In the real world, President Biden made a point of requiring that a white Supreme Court justice be replaced by an African American before he knew who that might be. The Celtic king of Shakespeare’s tragedy “King Lear” also recently turned into Denzel. Meanwhile, if anyone can identify for me a previously black or Hispanic or Asian character who has been “replaced” by a white actor, please do. I can’t think of any.
I really don’t care, mind you, what color Jake from State Farm is, the casting of “Hamilton” was interesting and dynamic, and I’m sure Justice Jackson will be a credit to the Court. Still, it’s a little disingenuous for the Left to be citing “white supremacy” fantasies as the motivation for a racial replacement theory when literal racial replacement is going on in the media right before our eyes as a deliberate policy.
OK, enough of “the Great Replacement.”
I hope I can knock off, and out, the rest of Mr. Ali’s hackery in Part 3.