Skip to content


April 22, 2013

Idiot Savant

 Figure 1: Idiot Savant, by Stewart Kenneth Moore (Booda), a contemporary artist from Prague, Bohemia, Czech Republic.


The unsympathetic Western Leftist does not recognise the Coptic plight in Egypt as “persecution” but regards it as “sectarian conflict” – he fails to see the victim-criminal dynamic of it.

Not all the Left is idiotic but some are.


In the wake of the recent Islamist terror at Boston, U.S., and analysing the various responses of Westerners, I tweeted, “Some Leftists/Liberals sympathise with Islamic terrorism like all mother-haters. And I have nothing but contempt for these.”[1] I must first emphasise that not all Leftists or Liberals in the West sympathise with the Islamists, but some indeed do, and these are the ones I call “Idiot Leftists”. I have always found the illegitimate relationship between two seemingly different ideologies, Socialism and Liberalism on one hand and Islamism on the other, mind-boggling. How can the Leftists and the Liberals sleep in one bed with the Islamists who try to destroy our modern civilisation as we know it, and as both Leftists and Liberals contributed to its production? How, for example, do they defend an evil ideology such as that of the Islamists that is out and about to destroy liberty, equality, women and religious human rights?[2]

The answer came from an intelligent friend, Sol Robinson, who pointed to the imperial guilt, the colonisation complex that Leftists in the West, but not Liberals in his opinion, suffer from: “That is how I define the distinction [between Leftists and Liberals]: when you stop caring about morality, and only superficial concepts like ‘imperialism’”.[3] But I feel the Left hates the West, and what it stands for, not just because it believes that the powers that be were or are “imperialist” but because it mainly hates Capitalism and the free market economy and wants to replace it with Socialism – and, as they say, any enemy that fights my biggest enemy is my friend; hence the loose alliance with the Islamists. The Left sympathises with the Islamists not because it shares in its values but because the Islamists will help them, they hope, in violently destroying Capitalism.  This is the truth behind that unholy coalition between the Left and Islamism.

Anyway, my friend Robinson follows his tweet by: “That makes you a leftist. Liberals value human rights for ALL, including right to not get blown up in the name of religion.”[4] Robinson is a Jew, and as a Jew he has seen how others have reacted to the plight of his people. Analysing reactions to the right of the Jews to have their own national homeland, he came up with a brilliant test to differentiate between the two: “There’s a fairly easy ‘Leftist/Liberal’ test I’ve developed: Ask someone how they feel about Zionism. If they start ranting, they’re a leftist. If they at least respond reasonably, they are a liberal.”[5] Now, I don’t think any such test will approach the 100% mark in sensitivity and specificity as in all political and social issues, neither do I think all Leftists are anti-Zionist since at least many founding Zionists were Marxists themselves; however, I think Robinson’s test has a reasonably good positive predictive value, particularly after the collapse of the USSR.  Something has happened to the Left since 1991 when Socialism/Communism was defeated that made it even more morally bankrupt.

I wanted to develop a reasonably sensitive test using this time the Coptic case. Many in the West have ignored the persecution of the Coptic Christians in Egypt by Muslims (well, I know not all Muslims, but a lot of them), and worse still some actually assisted the Muslim Brotherhood, that uterus of all modern Islamists, in strengthening its hold of power in Egypt. And here Robinson came up with a suggested test: “Hm… ask whether or not it’s sectarian conflict, or persecution. Anyone who starts talking about ‘sectarian’ anything when it comes to the Copts has at minimum leftist inclinations.”[6] This is again brilliant.

We have seen this recurring again and again in some Western media coverage of violent attacks by Muslims on the Coptic Christians on Egypt. Rather than designating these incidents on a criminal-victim basis, many preferred to describe them as “sectarian conflict”, implying that they were fights between two equal warring factions, with no one being victim and no other being criminal offender.[7] Even Western governments, particularly those of the greatest beacons of freedom and democracy, the U.S. and the U.K, preferred to see these violent attacks by Muslims as sectarian conflict, and even worse, and as the attacks were on-going, calling “on both sides to exercise restraint”! The reader will be reminded of the shameful responses by Mr Barak Obama, President of the U.S., and Mr William Hague, U.K. Foreign Secretary, during the Maspero Massacre, on 9 October 2010, when the Egyptian army, aided by a State TV journalist and the Islamic thugs on the streets of Cairo, massacred 27 Coptic civilians and injured over 100 who were peacefully protesting the previous sacking of a church in Egypt by the Islamists.[8]

But here again, we notice the inherent defect of such tests and we are reminded not to generalise: Obama is considered to be a Leftist while Hague is a Rightist, and yet both gave the same reaction! How can we explain that? There is no doubt that there is a lot of cowardice in it – the desire not to offend Muslims and Muslim governments even when it is necessary. But that is the moral explanation: the non-moral fact is however related to national interests: the Western Powers, not all of them, need the Arab’s oil, and as long as they do, they will ignore the plight of the 15 million powerless Coptic Christians who don’t have oil wells effortlessly springing up from under some palm trees in their back gardens. But can the national interest of the West be served by securing oil without paying much attention to the security and values threat Islamists impose on the West? The answer is clearly no! We do not accuse the West of being short-sighted: We accuse it of being long-sighted: It does not seem to see the full danger of the Islamist threat which is right under its nose. Western appeasement of the Islamists in the Islamic world will eventually lead to what Copts have suffered from for over thirteen centuries being transferred to the West itself. We have seen the beginnings of this already happening, haven’t we?

[1] Twitter, @DioscorusBoles, 9:57 AM – 22 Apr 13.

[2] When I refer to the Leftists here, I don’t mean the Marxists, who are like the Islamists enemy of liberty too, and who believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat, but I mean those who claim to be Liberal-Leftists, and apparently believe in freedom.

[3] Twitter, @BlackJewEgg , 9:59 AM – 22 Apr 13.

[4] Twitter, @BlackJewEgg , 9:59 AM – 22 Apr 13.

[5] Twitter, @BlackJewEgg , 10:02 AM – 22 Apr 13.

[6] Twitter, @BlackJewEgg , 10:11 AM – 22 Apr 13 and 10:14 AM – 22 Apr 13.

[7] On Coptic Nationalism (21 May 2011), The Media Inaccuracy In Reporting The Violence Against The Copts In Egypt.

[8] On Coptic Nationalism (16 October 2011), Barak Obama and William Hague on the Maspero Massacre of the Copts by the Egyptian Army on 9 10 11 – what their pathetic responses tell us? What should we do?

3 Comments leave one →
  1. rising warrior permalink
    April 29, 2013 3:26 pm


  2. May 18, 2013 1:03 pm

    Very thought provoking post, this one. And yes this is me this time 😀

    • Dioscorus Boles permalink*
      May 18, 2013 2:10 pm

      Thank you! 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: