I have written before about the PI series, which is only ‘politically incorrect’ if you are not both culturally and politically part of the new right; otherwise, it is merely doctrinal.  So when I saw that their new volume, about The Middle East (not to be confused to their guide to Islam and The Crusades, written by unbiased observer Robert Spencer), actually said Islamic fundamentalism was a new thing, not endemic to Islam, I guess it was time for me to eat some humble pie and concede their fairness, right?

Actually, no. The book is an expression of the neocon need to demonize Islam for political purposes while pretending that Bush’s pals the Saudis are the best thing since sliced bread. It’s a balancing act that would cause the best of us cognitive dissonance, and the book has the logical consistency of a season of Lost. It is generous enough to say that Muslims are not all bad, and that Saudi Arabia, while not perfect, can be reformed.

Iran, though, it sadly reports, is beyond hope.

Yep, the country that forbids women to drive or travel alone, confines women to outfits that make St. Lucia look like girls gone wild, has a fully-ruling royal family with no democratic rights whatsoever enshrined for the populace, effectively forbids the practice of religions other than Ibn Abdul Wahab’s interpretation of Islam, funds terrorism with petrodollars, imports workers who are essentially (and sometimes literally) slaves, has no possibility of social advancement for those not born into the right clan, and tortures and imprisons dissidents, can be reformed. The country that allows women legal agency roughly similar to men, has elections, makes women dress modestly but not like ubernuns, allows other religions with some serious caveats, funds regional guerrillas against non-regional occupiers, has a relatively fluid social system, and, um, tortures and imprisons slightly fewer dissidents than Saudi Arabia, must be destroyed.

The urge for an Iran war is so painfully transparent in this book as to be laughable, but not so much as the new “KSA are our friends, the gooooood Muzzies” approach. The author even makes the hilariously surreal assertion that the left doesn’t like Saudi Arabia because “they’re deeply religious but don’t hate America.” Apparently those of us who are deeply religious and don’t hate America, but identify (politically, at least) with the left are some confused creatures. That being said, I haven’t seen a lot of lefties advocating bombing Mecca, which appears to mainly be a neocon piece of tough talk. I know neocons aren’t horribly knowledgeable about history, geography, or sociology, but you DO know that the piece of land Mecca is sitting on is part of the KSA, right? Not Iran? Just checking.

They do at least make sure to spend some time talking about the Persian empire, since they figure that their core audience probably saw 300, and will make an association between a big, somewhat swishy Brazilian in gold lamee slaughtering heroic (and butch) Scotsmen , and  the current Iranian regime. The sad thing is, it may work.

Of course, I don’t want to suggest that The Kingdom is a den of irredeemable evil or come off as an Iran apologist. I don’t live in a JRR Tolkein novel, and I realize that there are some shades of grey in the world. But this book is like a bad hallucination caused by an excess of Fox brand Kool Aid (in the Ken Kesey sense moreso than Jim Jones).

However, this book is not without its merits (hell, I’m even kind of glad it says Muslims aren’t ALL evil), because in 50 years ago it will be HILARIOUS. Like, a really bad propaganda tape reel or poster from 1956 or so, or old Time magazine issues that helpfully show you how to tell the difference between the noble Chinese and dastardly Japanese (good luck there, I’m marrying one and still can’t). Or even more recently; watch Red Dawn or something, and you’ll get the idea. I give it zero stars for accuracy or honesty, and four for possible future ironic entertainment value. Your call. Buy it used maybe?

Your response: