Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s remarks at a Republican campaign rally in Grand Rapids have caused a media firestorm, in large part because his Democrat background gives extra sting to his recent criticisms of Islamic culture. In liberal and independent western circles, this is simply not done.
On Monday evening, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. spoke at a Republican get-out-the-vote (GOTV) rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where an existential political battle is taking place between GOP candidate Mike Rogers and Muslim Democrat pro-immigration candidate Abdul El-Sayed.
RFK noted that Islamic (or Arab) cultures do not produce much of value for humanity as a whole because of the rise of fundamentalist extremism. He argued:
“There’s 500 million Arabs in the world. And yet they don’t produce science. They don’t win the Nobel Prize. They don’t win the Fields Prize. They don’t win the Wolf Prize. They don’t produce literature.”
El-Sayed has come under fire in recent weeks after it was widely reported that in 2012 (as a medical student at Columbia University) he was one of 46 signatories on an Arabic-language statement published on the Egyptian news site Al-Ahram Gate. The letter showed support for the Muslim Brotherhood and the Mohamed Morsi regime (a senior figure in the Muslim Brotherhood).
It explicitly called on Morsi to “purge the media and the police as quickly as possible" and criticized US and European opposition.
The left-wing media has rushed to the defense of Islam and attacked RFK as a "bigot". As it always goes with left wing journalists, they zero in on the exceptions to the rule rather than admitting that the rule exists. They claim that, in an absolute sense, RFK's comments are false, listing a handful of counter-examples of Arab scientists and writers who have won prizes in recent decades.
Kennedy's point was primarily aimed at the negative effects of the Muslim Brotherhood on the Arab world. And, the media does not mention that nearly all of their examples of "Arab excellence" are Arabs living in western nations.
Overall, RFK is correct. In-country Arab institutions have garnered zero science Nobels or Fields Medals in recent decades. All high-profile scientific work by Arabs occurred after they relocated to the US/UK/France. In other words, any Arab wanting to achieve anything in science has to leave the Arab world in order to do so.
Per capita, Islamic contributions to these fields is incredibly low and any prominent accomplishments rely on people who live in the west. The US alone has produced hundreds of science Nobels. Western Europe has produced far more awards than the entire Arab world combined, despite overlapping or smaller total populations.
Progressives have shifted the Overton Window on Muslims, presenting them as a "race" of people when Islam is actually an ideological movement. This was a strategic effort to make criticism of Islam nearly impossible without accusations of "bigotry."
The fact remains that Islamic nations produced very little of value for the world on the intellectual stage, and their only export besides oil seems to be millions of Muslims. Islam has consistently proven to be an anathema to basic human rights and scientific progress, yet, critics are not supposed to point out the obvious incompatibilities between Muslim ideology and western culture.
The Democrat infatuation with Muslims is exceedingly bizarre given that liberal values of total and unfettered hedonism directly clash with Islamic values of total control and suppression. The reason only these two groups have been able to form an alliance is due to their shared agenda: To burn down the west.
Of course, if this is accomplished, one can only guess at what would happen next as the socialists and the Islamic fundamentalists turn on each other.