Eric Rush Doubles Down On His Heartless Islamophobia

by
Owen Poindexter
Eric Rush, spewer of Islamophobic vitriol and frequent Fox News commenter, took the time to "explain" an inflammatory tweet about Muslims after the Boston Marathon bombing: "Yes, they're evil. Let's kill them all."


Erik Rush is an idiot with a platform
 
Erik Rush, spewer of Islamophobic vitriol and frequent Fox News commenter, took the time to "explain" an inflammatory tweet about Muslims after the Boston Marathon bombing: "Yes, they're evil. Let's kill them all."
 
Rush was shocked (shocked!) that people took offense to his calling for the murder of a billion or so people, so he shook his head and wrote a column at WorldNetDaily (which also gives regular space to Ted Nugent and Ann Coulter) to explain why he is right, and the left and the "Islamists" (two groups he sees as united in their mindset) are wrong.
 

It would be enough to just quote Rush and say "what an idiot, right?" but I feel the need to pick this one apart to help those of us who think that Rush's ideas are vile and dangerous to articulate why.

"My words are funny, yours are vile."

Rush first described his reaction to the Boston Marathon bombings (all indented quotes in this post are from him):

Circumstances being what they have been in recent years, many on my side of the political fence considered the possibility of Islamists having carried out another attack. After all, bombing does fall within the modus operandi of jihadists, who continue to call for “death to America” across the globe, whereas neither the tea party nor tax protest groups have blown up anything.

Rush is upfront about his assumption that Muslims are more likely to bomb civilians. Never mind that this sort of bombing is not usual for any group. The sort of civilian bombings Rush is referring to are suicide attacks, but this was an anonymous bombing intended to maim as many people as possible is not common for any demographic. As for the peacefulness of the tea party and tax protest groups, that's presumptuous, subject to confirmation bias and potentially disproved by this event. Does Rush really know the mindset of ALL tea partiers well enough to say that this had nothing to do with taxes? Despite it being both tax day and Patriot's Day? That could be coincidental, but if we are going to speculate about who might have done this, the symbolism of the day, and the city (Boston, of course, was the site of the original Tea Party), ought to factor in, no?
 

I'll skip over the rest of his recounting of Rush's tweet and the response it got, but I do have to point out that he brushes off his line of "Kill them all," as meaningless sarcasm but categorizes the response to his tweet as "some of the foulest and most threatening tweets." So, his line is a joke, everyone else is foul and threatening. Got it.

"The left, the Muslims, all the same to me."

Here, the lesson learned is that, in the short span of time since the 9/11 attacks, the left has inculcated an almost religious deference and solidarity toward Islam amongst a substantial segment of Americans.

Rush already ties the left to Muslims earlier in the post through his favorite word, "dhimmis" which refers to a non-Islamic population living under Islamic rule, but this is where he really welds Muslims and the left together. His main line of reasoning is that the left is very cautious with their words, and not saying things like...everything Rush says in this piece. To generalize, Rush, and many others like to generalize everyone who follows Islam as one group. That's 1.6 billion people as of 2011. Outside of some basic biological facts, there's really nothing you can say all that definitively about 1.6 billion people, and IF over 20% of the world population wanted to take over the world, we would know. And we'd be screwed. So it's good that suicide bombers and anyone who has a chance of becoming one are a narrow sliver of the Muslim population.

It is important that we know the extent to which many of our fellow citizens have been indoctrinated into this suicidal worldview. Despite the interpretations of my words and liberals’ tiresome claims that the right is prone to violence, we know that with very few exceptions, violence is the way of the left (as well as Islamists). This also gives rise to curiosity as to what evil deeds large numbers of these dhimmis might be willing to do if properly motivated. As we have seen relative to the Occupy movement, violence – whether throwing rocks, Molotov cocktails, or engaging in recreational rape – is a natural progression.

This is where Rush really goes off the rails. "Violence is the way of the left." I don't even know where to begin with that one. Historically, violence is the way of everyone (we live in the most peaceful time in human history), and the most atrocious violence is the way of political and religious extremes on both sides. As for violence being "a natural progression" of a motivated left...really? The Obama campaign is probably the best example we've seen in our lifetimes of a "motivated left," and that was entirely non-violent. As for Occupy, much of the violence associated with that movement was initiated and carried out by the police, and some of what was reported was incidental the movement, and had nothing to do with political speech.

"Whereas my religion is just peachy..."

For the record, I still maintain that Islam is, by its nature, wholly incompatible with Western society. I analogize liberalism, which is promoting this dhimmitude, to Stage 3 cancer in America’s body politic. For the record: While killing people is definitely undesirable, that is what war tends to be about.

And we are at war – just study the history of Islam, or ask any Islamist.

First, let's point out the hypocrisy: Rush is saying that the right is not prone to violence, but, they may be forced to go to war with about half the population of Planet Earth. Sure, it's "undesirable," but hey, gotta do what you gotta do, right?
 
As for, "we are at war -- just study the history of Islam," I could say the same thing about Christianity. It's hard to beat Christianity for ideologically motivated violence in the course of human history. Same goes for what's "wholly incompatible with Western society." A good democracy runs on rational actors with priorities we can agree on. Any religion, if believed ardently and specifically enough, is going to get in the gears of that. The question is whether we have an adequate separation of religion and government. Which has nothing to do with Islam in particular.

Erik Rush only speaks to a far fringe of the American right, but it's important to tear down his specific points, in case they creep across that divide into the mainstream.

Carbonated.TV