Ecological Progressives Conflicted: Crude Oil Ban Would Disproportionately Affect Muslim-Majority Countries

It boils down to Muslims as victims being the ultimate axiom, and therefore Muslims retaining ultimate veto over everything lest it offend or oppress them further.

Berkeley, June 29 – Proponents of a progressive environmental agenda face internal contradictions within the movement over the prospect of banning crude oil imports and other fossil fuels in favor of promoting renewable energy sources, activists reported today, because such a policy would commit the cardinal progressive sin of affecting Muslim-majority states.

Academics, ideologues, demonstrators, and rank-and-file operatives throughout the progressivism-driven segment of the US population reacted with dismay this week at discovering that the worst flaw in President Trump’s travel restrictions against which they have raised bitter protest applies in greater measure to many of their movement’s demands, and they are still struggling to assimilate that revelation into their world view.

“It turns out that if we abandon fossil fuels, which are an ongoing environmental Holocaust, we end up hurting the economies of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, and a whole bunch of other places that are basically Muslim,” explained environmentalist Vic Timhood. “As everyone knows, in the hierarchy of progressive values, not offending or adversely affecting Muslims reigns supreme, and we are now struggling with how to promote a cleaner world in a way that does not commit this grave offense against our values. I mean, what have we been fighting the Muslim Ban for? The way forward is not yet clear.”

“If the Dyke March in Chicago demonstrates anything, it’s that Muslims’ sensibilities trump all others,” observed activist Linda Sarsour. “That’s what I’ve been getting at for years, always couching it in terms of tolerance and openness. But it boils down to Muslims as victims being the ultimate axiom, and therefore Muslims retaining ultimate veto over everything lest it offend or oppress them further. Unfortunately for other elements within the progressive movement, that sets up conflicts. But it’s hardly the first time, and the lesser causes within the movement have to just suck it up.”

Sarsour pointed to the Dyke March’s exclusion of Jewish symbols as a manifestation of that phenomenon. “Muslims dislike Israel and any reminder that Israel exists and prospers,” she noted. “So of course the people in charge of that event bowed to Muslim and Muslim-sympathizer demands to ban anything that smacked of Israel. The question isn’t whether Muslim desires and demands come first – the question is whether other causes can be made to coexist with Muslim demands and desires. If they can’t, well, that’s the nature of things.”

“Islam by nature was conceived as a dominant culture,” she added. “Freedom of religion dictates that Muslims be granted the ability to practice Islam to the fullest extent, and that means Islam comes first.”

Please support our work through Patreon.