Friday, March 24, 2017

Hugh Fitzgerald is puzzled -- more detailed posting



"How the Left fell so hard for Islam is a puzzlement," says Hugh Fitzgerald in an essay published on Jihad Watch.

It's 2017 now, and Hugh is still puzzled by this?  There's no "puzzle" involved here, in the sense of a baffling mystery.  There is a puzzle about it, however, in the sense of a complex phenomenon that requires a bit of subtle, imaginative thinking.

Nevertheless, the thrust of the answer can be expressed swiftly and simply:

"Because Muslims are Brown People."

Complexities arise when one examines this more closely; but the heart of the matter is still the same.

One complexity is that, of course, when I put the answer that way, I'm not literally saying that all Muslims are "Brown".  I know there exist multitudes of Muslims who are olive, yellow, black, and white.  I know the tired, old, and almost comically ineffectual mantra of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, that "Islam is not a race".  The point about it is that this answer reflects how the Politically Correct Multi-Culturalists (PC MC) think about Muslims, not necessarily the factual reality, nor how those who are anti-Islam think about it.

Then we factor in the powerful cultural dynamic, throughout the PC MC West, of reverse racism, and its attendant White Guilt.
The unfortunately disastrous cultural fact is that, on the issue of Islam, PC MC continues to dominate the sociopolitical culture throughout the West – not because some insidious cabal is imposing it upon the hapless populace, but because the populace has learned, over a long arc of time involving complex cultural processes, to believe in its values. 
A further complexity is that this anxiously anti-racist dynamic that sees Muslims as an ethnic people (or a wondrous rainbow or tapestry or mosaic of many Kumbaya hues) and -- as a direct consequence, feels anxiously compelled to protect and "respect" their "culture" -- is not merely a neurotic habit of the Left -- for the mass neurosis of PC MC still affects probably the majority of non-Leftists throughout the West on this issue: Conservatives, Centrists, and what I call the "Comfortably Apolitical".

This Western mainstream neurosis (if it hasn't kicked into a mass psychosis by now) reflects what I call the Problem of the Problem.

The inability of those in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, like Hugh Fitzgerald, to recognize this secondary problem is what I call the Problem of the Problem of the Problem.

Further Reading:


Sunday, February 12, 2017

Lengthy post about Akbar Ahmed and Ibn Khaldun

Liberal Christians and Islam

by Hesperado on June 1, 2012
coexist
by Hesperado

The National Council of Churches (NCC) is just one umbrella organization out of many like it that demonstrates the fallacy of the caricature that all, or most, Western Christians are “Fundies” or “Evangelicals” and therefore must be “right wing”.
With regard to the problem of Islam, many Christians in the West are rather regressive (though naturally they preen themselves as “progressives”): they still think in terms of trying to have an “Abrahamic dialogue” with “Moderate Muslims” — whom they assume, without any evidence, must constitute the vast majority of Muslims.
Take a browse at the NCC site and look at their various projects, papers and agenda to see what I mean. And the NCC is no small potatoes. They represent many churches and denominations throughout the USA:
African Methodist Episcopal Church
The African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church
Alliance of Baptists
American Baptist Churches in the USA
Apostolic Catholic Church
Diocese of the Armenian Church of America
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Christian Methodist Episcopal Church
Church of the Brethren
The Coptic Orthodox Church in North America
The Episcopal Church
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Friends United Meeting
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Hungarian Reformed Church in America
International Council of Community Churches
Korean Presbyterian Church in America
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Mar Thoma Church
Moravian Church in America Northern Province
and Southern Province
National Baptist Convention of America
National Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Inc.
National Missionary Baptist Convention of America
Orthodox Church in America
Patriarchal Parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church in the USA
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends
Polish National Catholic Church of America
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc.
Reformed Church in America
Serbian Orthodox Church in the U.S.A. and Canada
The Swedenborgian Church
Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch
Ukrainian Orthodox Church of America
United Church of Christ
The United Methodist Church
For a detailed argument of the PC MC leanings of the NCC, see this.
One acutely apt demonstration of the misguided sincerity of Christian organizations like the NCC (and of another — the Institute for Global Engagement (IGE), a Christian organization “dedicated to religious freedom worldwide”) is their alliance with taqiyya Stealth Muslims like Suhail Kahn and Dr. Akbar Ahmed.

An apposite example of this is this memo about an “Interfaith Engaged Congregation” in which a female Episcopalian minister, the Reverend Dr. Carol Flett of St. Alban’s, mentions just this past March how Akbar Ahmed is an “interfaith partner” along with her church and the NCC.
Dr. Ahmed has quite an impressive resume. At the IGE page, it goes on and on… and on. At 1,185 words, it is too long to quote in full here, but I’ll quote enough to give a flavor of it:
Akbar Ahmed, the Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies and Professor of International Relations at American University in Washington, DC, is the former High Commissioner of Pakistan to Great Britain, and has advised Prince Charles and met with President George W. Bush on Islam. Dr. Ahmed is a distinguished anthropologist, writer, and filmmaker. He has been actively involved in interfaith dialogue and the study of global Islam and its impact on contemporary society for many years.
The BBC described him as, “Professor Akbar Ahmed — the world’s leading authority on contemporary Islam.” Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, described him as “one of the most important scholars of Islam today.” Adding, “Professor Ahmed has impeccable credentials.” Emel, one of the UK’s leading Muslim magazines, had a feature story with illustrations and called him “the new Ibn Khaldun” (Nov/Dec 2004).
Dr. Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the UK, wrote to Professor Ahmed, “Thank you for the wisdom and generosity of spirit you are constantly showing through your spoken and written words. I cannot tell you how important your voice is right now. These are fateful times — and in you classic Islam has a spokesman and role model of supreme grace and dignity. May God/Allah be with you in all you do — and I thank you from the depth of my heart.”
Dr. Ahmed joined the Civil Service of Pakistan, the elite cadre of the Central Superior Services of Pakistan, in 1966. He held important posts in Pakistan and Bangladesh — including Commissioner, Quetta; Political Agent, South Waziristan Agency; Founder-Director General of the National Center for Rural Development, Islamabad. He resigned from service in the summer of 2000. Parallel to his civil service career, Dr. Ahmed was visiting professor at Harvard University, Cambridge University, and the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton.
Dr. Ahmed is the author of many books on contemporary Islam…
He was given the 2004 Professor of the Year Award for Washington DC by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Council for Advancement and Support of Education. He was given the 2004 Scholar of the Year Award by the Pakistani-American Congress and he is the recipient of the Star of Excellence in Pakistan and the Sir Percy Sykes Memorial Medal given by the Royal Society of Asian Affairs in London. He is also the recipient of the 2002 “Free Speech Award” given by the Muslim Public Affairs Council, and in 2004 he received the Gandhi Center Fellowship of Peace Award, the Sir Sayyed Ahmed Memorial Award, the Safeer Pakistan Award and the Coudert Institute Award. Dr. Ahmed was invited to join the legendary figures in Anthropology’s Hall of Fame as part of the “Anthropological Ancestors” audio-visual interview series at Cambridge University in July 2004.
He was appointed Trustee of the World Faiths Development Dialogue by the Archbishop of Canterbury. In 2003, the Bishop of Washington DC appointed him Charter Member of a national-level interfaith initiative based at the National Cathedral. He was asked to join the World Wisdom Council, the Board of Interfaith Advisors for the Council on Faith and International Affairs, the Institute for Global Engagement, The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, Family Voices (Victims of 9/11) and the International Institute for Mediation and Historical Conciliation…
And so forth. If you think that’s a lot, there is much, much more at the link I provided. Sounds quite impressive, no? No wonder gullible Christians and Jews swoon at Dr. Akbar Ahmed and his glittering cascade of credentials and honors and achievements. (And take a look at this particularly richly nauseating page from the “Muslims for America” website, featuring the good doctor as part of their Advisory Board, along with photo-ops of stupidly smiling Newt Gingrich and George Bush.)
But let’s pause and rewind.
What was the first thing that interminably long resume mentioned about Ahmed? Let’s see… oh yes:
“Akbar Ahmed, the Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies and Professor of International Relations at American University in Washington, DC…”
Now, let’s take a look at Ibn Khaldun, the great 14th century Muslim scholar in whose name that sumptuous “Chair” seating the good doctor’s prodigously moderate behind has been named:
From his magisterial work titled The Muqaddimah, we find this quite unremarkably mainstream Islamic view:
In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. Therefore, caliphate and royal authority are united, so that the person in charge can devote the available strength to both of them at the same time.
The other [i.e., non-Muslim] religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty to them, save only for purposes of defense. It has thus come about that the person in charge of religious affairs is not concerned with power politics at all. Royal authority comes to those who have it, by accident and in some way that has nothing to do with religion. It comes to them as the necessary result of group feeling, which by its very nature seeks to obtain royal authority, as we have mentioned before, and not because they are under obligation to gain power over other nations, as is the case with Islam. They are merely required to establish their religion among their own.”

[pages 473 and 480, from the translation by Franz Rosenthal, New York, Pantheon Books, 1958]
Ibn Khaldun’s Muqaddimah is no marginal work. The great Western scholar of world history, Arnold Toynbee, describes this work as being “undoubtedly the greatest work of its kind that has ever yet been created by any mind in any time or place.” (Toynbee, 1955: 322).
And its author’s name, after all, has been bequeathed to the “Chair” at American University in our Nation’s capital — a “Chair” that, among a shower of numerous other dazzling merits, ensures the legitimacy and moderation of Dr. Akbar Ahmed. (No surprise, too, that he has graced the pages of The Huffington Post and the studio of the Cat Stevens defender Jon Stewart — not to mention that he has appeared several times on the Oprah Winfrey Show.
Unsurprisingly, when confronted with this uncomfortable association of the great Ibn Khaldun and the doctrine of offensive (in every sense of the word) jihad, the good doctor tried to slip-slide and tap-dance around it by affecting ignorance at first, then by insinuating that it was a faulty translation. Hugh Fitzgerald, in his searingly witty dressings-down of Ahmed (here and here), wrote:

And what was the dismissive reaction of Akbar Ahmad, “Ibn Khaldun Professor of Islamic Studies,” to being made aware of this view, so clearly expressed by Ibn Khaldun, and easily accessible to Spencer and to Bostom? It was to replay that he had never heard of such sentiments in Ibn Khaldun’s writings. And then to further insist that the translation of the original must be faulty.

The translation “incorrect”? The translator of Ibn Khaldun’s Maqaddima, in this case, was the tremendously learned scholar, possibly the world’s expert on Ibn Khaldun, the late Franz Rosenthal.

Conclusion:

The problem, however, is not so much the Akbar Ahmeds of the world — but the Western idiots, including many Christians and Jews, who continue to be impressed by them as beacons of hope for a viably modern, and moderate, Islam.
Further Reading:

A nicely scathing overview by Denis Schulz at the Maximumflack blog.
And this unintentionally amusing complaint by Daniel Pipes that the Muslim he has respected as a “moderate Muslim” has turned out to “surprise” him with innuendoes about Pipes being tantamount to an Islamophobe.
Also, this sampling from the Multicultural Cafeteria of “inter-faith Outreach” by Christians Kumbaya-singing with Muslims — among which we find this choice tidbit:

2005-FEB-20: DC: A “model gathering of the Abrahamic faiths:” At Evensong, in the National Cathedral in Washington DC, a special service was conducted which brought together three of the Abrahamic faiths: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The Baha’i faith, sometimes considered a fourth Abrahamic faith, may also have been represented. Persons from many non-Abrahamic faiths were also present.

Evensong is an evening service in the Anglican faith. It was led by John Chane, an Episcopal Bishop, Senior Rabbi Bruce Lustig, and Akbar Ahmed, an Islamic scholar. All three delivered talks from the pulpit and discussed their friendship. Guests came from Florida, California, Massachusetts, and Pakistan. to attend the service. Although Evensong is rarely dedicated to an individual, Bishop Chane announced that this was service was dedicated to Akbar Ahmed.
Also, Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch has had a couple of telling run-ins with the good doctor.

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Original French text for Louis Bertrand's "Devant L'Islam"



"J'interoge de vieux Alexndrins. Ils me rapellent les massacres periodiques: tel eglise, tel hôpital, tel quartier ont du etre reconstruits tant de fois en moins d'un siècle...Et ils me content les recents massacres de 1922. Qu'on ne me dise pas que les seuls Chrétiens ou Juifs orientaux étaient visés. Quiconque portait un chapeau se designait par la même aux matraques ou aux couteaux des assassins. Chez nous, à cet époque-là, une presse ignorante ou vénale a glorifié la prétendue tolérance des Egyptiens musulmans. A en croire nos journaux, les Coptes fraternisaient du fond de leur coeur avec leurs ennemis séculaires. Le Croissant s'unissaait à la Crois sur les mêmes drapeaux,- et les écrivains légers ou complaisants y voyaient la preuve des sentiments fraternels des musulmans à l'égard des chrétiens."

Chapitre 1 Retour d'Egypte, Page 21 "Devant l'Islam"

Friday, September 30, 2016

Viktor Orban interview 9/27

http://gatesofvienna.net/2016/09/viktor-orban-we-must-stop-this-compulsory-colonisation/#more-41006

Hungary is a cultured country, a European country with a thousand years of Christian history, and I am one of those who would like to keep it that way. If we let in the uncontrolled migration flow forced on us by Brussels, our county will change. I love my country, and I would like to keep it as it is, with its problems and faults, and with all its virtues.

*************************

We want to defend ourselves.

We demand the right, we insist on it and we refuse to lose that right,
Only we Hungarians should be able to say who we want to live with in Hungary and who we do not.
If the Germans feel so differently, and they willingly live together with these people that we do not want, or the French or the Italians, that is their business, but we insist that Hungary has the right to make the decision about who they want to live with. 
But that would mean on long term, we need a defensive migration politics for the whole continent, because Hungary is part of Europe!?
Because Europe is not willing to do this, then Hungary set up a defensive strategy for itself.

*************************************
 

Now both you and the Italians are trying to draw attention to the North African area with more or less success. What is the reason of the disinterest of the EU about the millions of migrants massing there? Do the Hungarian Intelligence services know something more than their counterparts?

The partner agencies are well-informed. If the police and intelligence services of Western countries were able to publish the reports they’ve created in the last year, then we would be able to see that the decision-makers were briefed by the professionals, and they were warned about the extreme risks, terror threats and public safety problems caused by uncontrolled and unchecked immigration.
An example via Hungary, too. Here are some facts, provided by our own professionals, clearly showing that mixed in with the migrants who came into Europe through Hungary, were men who later committed serious terror acts there. We could have saved the lives of many European citizens if from the beginning the EU had approved a strict policy of border control. But if we view the facts from the proper angle, then we can see this is not a refugee crisis but a migration. This did not start just now. If you review how the ethnic and religious composition of large Western cities has changed in the last twenty years, you will see it slowly changed, step by step. This migration has been going on for two decades now. It had a quiet period; now it has become loud, over the last year. I think these are just the scouts. The real pressure on Europe is just starting now, from inside Africa, the masses who are waiting there. We know exactly where and how many — crowds of millions — are waiting to travel into the territory of the European Union. This is where the human smugglers are building their businesses.

Yes, this is when your European political colleagues say this is not dangerous, just some change in Europe, while you state that the invasion of Muslim masses is a danger for the future of Europe.
[Interesting that it was only the interviewer who brought up the M word; Orban seems a bit over-careful about avoiding the M and I words]

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Extended dialogue in 2008 in a comments thread at Hesperado with a commenter named "GuessedWorker" on the topic of the supposed "problem of Jews"

Guessedworker said...
Good heavens, another one who can't get past the false paradigm of Islamism vs the West.

Dear fellow, Moslems really don't matter in America. They are a demographic threat in France, Holland, Denmark, Flanders and Germany. But they are not to blame for that. Responsibility is with the powerful. Follow the money (and I don't mean to Saudi).

But, in any event, lift this present blindness from your eyes. As things are, you are obediently wasting your time.
Guessedworker said...
My friend,

Your vanity is showing - very entertaining. And a suspiciously verbal prolixity. What is your ethnicity?

Because, of course, I've been assuming that you are of European lineage, and not Jewish or part-Jewish. I would not waste my time on you if you are either of the latter.

My second question is: What is the life-value you are promoting by this obsession with Moslems? Normally with conventionalist thinkers like you I can immediately see what, for me, are tertiary, perhaps secondary interests at work in political positions and argumentation. But your obsession serves no interest at all that I can see.

And a word to the wise. If I were you I wouldn't attempt windy intellectual intimidation with someone like me. I've been in the ring before.

Just answer my questions.
Hesperado said...
Guessedworker, in this arena (i.e., my blog here) I'm only interested in the ideas (relevant to analysis, proposals and policies) of commenters concerning the problem of Islam and related issues; and you will thus have to expect a reciprocal limitation in terms of your interest in me. That eliminates your first question, while your second seems purely rhetorical (i.e., is really an assertion in the form of a question). That leaves no substance for me to deal with.
awake said...
Guesedworker covers all bases nicely in this offering below:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/wilders_fitna_is_released/#comments

My favorite entry in that article is this:

"Likewise, no attempt is made to investigate the nature of Moslem anger towards the West. The vast offence that Moslems feel at America’s machinations in the dar al-Islam and the humiliation occasioned by Israeli aggression are not touched upon. All the blood-letting is portrayed as a product of the “problematic” surahs."

You see, it's all America's and Israel's fault. This aggression against Moslems that cause their "humiliation". Islam apologia 101.

Guessedworker may have "been in the ring before", but he sure is no student of history. These types have no answer to Islam's aggressive expansionism prior to the rise of US imperialism of the 1950's.

What Islamic country was the US occupying just prior to 9/11 again?

The historical impetus for the call of the Cuusades beginning in 1095, obviously just Christian bloodlust to him as well.

guessedworker openly states:
"Dear fellow, Moslems really don't matter in America. They are a demographic threat in France, Holland, Denmark, Flanders and Germany. But they are not to blame for that."

So Moslems are a "demographic threat" in parts of Europe? What does he mean by that? A threat in what way?

Evidently, it does not matter, since they are a blameless threat, at best.

Good heavens.
Guessedworker said...
Surely, you - a man apparently given to the lofty contemplation of limits - have no need of censorship? What is there but advantage to be got from bringing your logicianship to bear upon my brutish and ill-advised, not to mention small and rare, emotionalism? Come now, don't skulk behind your delete button. Where is your intellectual pride?

The questions I asked are related, indeed more than related. Question no. 2 is only worth asking if the answer to question no.1 is the right one. If you are of European descent, question no.2 is the entrée to a meaningful discussion.

"Meaningful", in this instance, means you move beyond the semiotics of "protecting Western civilisation" from the "Islamic threat", and dig down into why we politic and, most crucially, who "we" are.

So, I'm not trying to flog you judeophobia which, as it happens, is not required, and is not the opposite of your present 'philia anyway (though it is no more inappropriate). But even you, burdened by that as you are and all wrapped-up in this "Islamic threat" nonsense, can surely understand that the illusion of polarities, encouraged by media and academic witch hunts of the ex-consensus ("anti-semites", "racists", "haters", "deniers"), is the long-term driver of politics. There are more urgent and rewarding areas of study for the aware than Islam.

If you are a son of Europe - but only if - answer my second question.
Guessedworker said...
asleep,

What category of interests do North Africans and Sub-Saharan Africans, or Turks and Chechens serve in old Europe?

Do you know the difference between a subject and a proxy?
Hesperado said...
Guessedworker,

"The questions I asked are related, indeed more than related."

Merely your opinion in the form of an unargued assertion.

"Question no. 2 is only worth asking if the answer to question no.1 is the right one."

a) whatever you deem to be "right" has to be argued, not merely asserted

b) question #2 -- "What is the life-value you are promoting by this obsession with Moslems?" -- does not admit of an answer since, with the tendentious word "obsession", it has already answered the question and dismissed any answer I could give.

"If you are of European descent, question no.2 is the entrée to a meaningful discussion."

I doubt that, since you have already axiomatically interdicted all appropriately substantive concern about Islam and Muslims. With that concern off the table judged to be "nonsense" before the "discussion" begins, there is no "meaningful" discussion.

" "Meaningful", in this instance, means you move beyond the semiotics of "protecting Western civilisation" from the "Islamic threat", and dig down into why we politic and, most crucially, who "we" are."

Who we are includes Israel, from Abraham four thousand years ago, to the nation-state fighting for its life now. Read volume one of Eric Voegelin's Order and History, subtitled Israel and Revelation, for a minimum appreciation of the Western nature, and spiritual-intellectual contribution to the West, of Israel and Judaism. You probably think those swarthy Greeks like Thales, Anaximander, Parmenides, Xenophanes, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, et al., were not "real Europeans", either. (Or if you do, you would do so incoherently; as you probably have figured out some way (perhaps based on the cranky speculations of some dubious race-theorists) to redefine the "European" nature of all the central Asiatic tribes who over the span of more than a millennium poured into the lands we know as Europe and came to constitute its demography post-A.D. and certainly were among the phylogenetic ancestors of an indeterminable and innumerable quantity of "sons of Europe" today.)

At any rate, the West is the grand synthesis of Judaeo-Christian pneumatic revelation and Graeco-Roman noetic philosophy in medieval Christendom, along with the secular reconfiguration of that synthesis in so-called "modernity". Other theories that would subvert this paradigm are cranky and dark inheritors of various strands of heterodox and heretical movements that festered during the Middle Ages, then began to come out into the sunlight after the Reformation, given wider lease on sociopolitical power with the Enlightenment and the post-Enlightenment breakdown of the ancien regime. The line from medieval heresy, magic, alchemy and gnostic mysticism -- to the disorders of the Enlightenment -- to the spectacular Gnostic diseases of Hitler and Communism in the 20th century (along with less virulent, more amorphous forms of Gnosticism, including Leftism and PC MC) -- can be gleaned from, to take one example, the perspicacious sociocultural observations of Heinrich Heine in the first half of the 19th century. (Flaubert's Beuvard et Pecuchet, L'Education sentimentale, and Tentation de Saint Antoine are also good sources for the problematic reconfiguration of the Western paradigm under the forces of the 19th-century unfolding of certain consequences of the 18th-century Enlightenment paradigm shift and attendant revival of ancient and medieval Gnostic currents in the intellectual and public conscious, in which one can discern by hindsight the disastrous denouement of the 20th century -- which, it should not be necessary to add, the West rallied around in admirable sociopolitical health to fight, successfully, though not without a signficantly troubling aftermath most markedly manifested in the mainstream dominance of PC MC throughout the West since the decade after WW2 to the present.)

"There are more urgent and rewarding areas of study for the aware than Islam."

I'm sure you think so, and I don't doubt they lead to the wondrously disturbing underworld of what is "really" the "truth" about politics and the nefarious conspiracies that are the real "drivers" of reality once we "dig down" deep enough.
Guessedworker said...
Hesperado,

Please do not resort to throwing straw in the wind again. It is irritating to be forced to wade through such copious verbiage in search of some substance, there to find only bombast and evasion.

I am not some right-wing internet ingenue. Very likely, I am old enough to be your father, and was applying myself to the questions you do not ask before you were out of diapers. You have nothing to offer me. Not your Weltangschauung. Not your political innocence. Not your reading list. Not your rhetorical devices. Nothing.

Is that clear?

If you are wont to understand my philosophy, - and I mean understand it, not simply fit me up with some bastardised version of Gentile's (that's an Italian name, btw) merely to validate your pathetic moral or, possibly, ethnic sensibilities, you can always ask me. In fact, it might not be a bad idea to exchange questions. You could ask from whence my attachment to the politics of nation flows, rather than tell me it is a consequence of Louis XVI losing his head.

Unlike you, I have no personal difficulty with telling the world who and what I am, and why.

Here, suprisingly, are my first two questions:-

What is your ethnicity? What interest do you serve in promoting Islamophobia to Americans of European ancestry?
Guessedworker said...
And here's a third question, Hesperado: Why do you, a self-proclaimed Man of Learning, find antecedents for our woes only in PeeCee (effective when - mid-1980s?) and multiculturalism (1990s?)?
Hesperado said...
"Why do you, a self-proclaimed Man of Learning, find antecedents for our woes only in PeeCee (effective when - mid-1980s?) and multiculturalism (1990s?)?"

Depending, of course, on how one defines PC MC, the timeline will be different.

Secondly, there are two aspects to establishing a timeline:

a) are we merely trying to locate the beginnings of PC MC, and marking that beginning with merely glimmers here and there of it?

b) or are we marking the beginning with the mainstream dominance of PC MC throughout the West?

It is largely (b) that is my concern, though I am interested in (a) from a history-of-ideas perspective. I have written four essays on this blog, each one examining in detail evidence of a PC MC mindset manifested in a given scholar (mostly historians whose articles in question touch on Islam). The first one I found was an article written in a scholarly journal in 1917, and at the time it surprised me to find pretty much the same PC MC attitudes in that scholar as we find today. The second one went back to the 1850s! (Of course, soon thereafter I recalled the Enlightenment and realized I shouldn't have been that surprised to find at least instances of certain PC MC attitudes a mere century or century and a half ago: and it wasn't long before I could handily verify some of them in thinkers like Voltaire, Rousseau, and Montaigne).

These four essays were the fruit not of any concerted effort in trying to find such manifestations of PC MC in scholars of yore, but were almost accidental discoveries whenever I spent time rather casually browsing through archives of dusty scholarly journals.

However, pending more research on the matter, one would reasonably conclude that these four examples represent the exception to the rule: and, thus, it is the mainstream dominance of PC MC that is currently inhibiting the West from rationally dealing with the problem of an Islam Redivivus. Back in 1917, or in the 1850s, PC MC was the rare exception; today it is the dominant norm. Big difference.

As to your flippant question: first of all, I am dealing with a kind of subset of PC which I term "PC MC" -- i.e., it is PC in relation to non-whites, non-Westerners, the Noble Savage, the Third World, and now pre-eminently that Poster Child of the Third World, the Muslim.

Secondly, I am dealing, as I said, with PC MC's mainstream dominance. I do not date that to the mid-1980s (much less the 90s). A more reasonable estimate would push it back to at least the 1960s, and certainly the process of the dismantling of Western Colonialism beginning in the late 40s after WW2 paved the way. It's probably not possible, however, to pinpoint a year. It's a matter of a sea change in consciousness, a paradigm shift, that has affected the majority on all points on the political spectrum and all levels of social class, "elites" and commoners alike, and has like a gas pervaded all institutions. The boundaries of such epochal developments are complex and ragged, no matter how closely one focuses on them (indeed, they seem to become more blurry the more closely one inspects them).

I have written quite a few essays speculating about and analyzing the various complexities surrounding this phenomenon.

"I am not some right-wing internet ingenue. Very likely, I am old enough to be your father, and was applying myself to the questions you do not ask before you were out of diapers."

All this is irrelevant to whether your ideas are cogent or not, and that depends on how you argue them.

"If you are wont to understand my philosophy, - and I mean understand it, not simply fit me up with some bastardised version of Gentile's (that's an Italian name, btw) merely to validate your pathetic moral or, possibly, ethnic sensibilities, you can always ask me. In fact, it might not be a bad idea to exchange questions. You could ask from whence my attachment to the politics of nation flows, rather than tell me it is a consequence of Louis XVI losing his head."

No thanks. Anyone who thinks that an exigent concern about the massive, grotesquely ghoulish and spectacularly menacing mountain of data pullulating out of the Islamic world today, and throughout 1400 years, is "nonsense", is a waste of time for me -- unless they can marshall an argument (an actual argument, that is) supporting that outlandish claim and, while doing that, avoid the unnecessary emotional pique and irrelevant ad hominems that have so far characterized the bulk of your comments here.

"Unlike you, I have no personal difficulty with telling the world who and what I am, and why."

I specifically told you why I do not answer your question, and it has nothing to do with "personal" anything. It's a matter of the importance of ideas, and the relative unimportance, here, of "ethnicity".
Guessedworker said...
Hesperado,

Have those four essays at any point considered the Jewish role in Marxism, the Russian revolution, and the Marxist-Leninist state apparatus, including the apparatus of state terror? Or, indeed, any of the following:-

Revolutionary internationalism
Critical Theory
Postmodernism
Freudianism
Second-wave Feminism
Second-Wave Libertarianism
Gay Rights/LBGT Rights
American Civil Rights
Human Rights
White Privilege/White Abolitionism
Agitation for open borders and mass immigration
Neoconservatism
Academic race-denial
Encouragement for white race-mixing
Promulgation of hate speech law
Negative imagery of whites on film and TV
Anti-white bias in media reporting

And then there’s always:-

Internet pornography
Israel Lobby
Exploitation of the official holocaust narrative

… if you get a taste for this kind of thing.

You see, what you call the "mainstream dominance of PCMC" is to a substantial degree a Jewish-engineered transference of Jewish ethnic interests to the West's political and cultural class. They are become what Dawkins described as “an extended phenotype”. The needles employed to inject the serum have been political funding, racial guilt, and anti-racist hyper-morality. I expect if I sat down and thought about it I could expand on that quite a bit.

But it doesn’t matter. The important thing is that you acknowledge who inoculated the patient and why. Otherwise you cannot produce a workable analysis for any politics that post-dates WW2.

Now I have learned from elsewhere that you regard support for Jews and Israel as a moral imperative. But without Jewish influence we would have no Moslems to speak of in our lands. The moral imperative with regard to Jews is COMPLETE HONESTY. It doesn’t involve hate or anti-semitism. It involves not being a complete sap.

You are pretty much OK on the non-Jewish historical influences which have shaped what you PC MC. No complaints there.

But let’s not play games on the other.
Hesperado said...
Guessedworker,

This will not be a response as thorough as I might like it to be or as it might warrant, as it would take me too much time to prepare such for now. It is also not a subject I have ever felt it necessary to dedicate too much time and effort to plumb, given other priorities more important in my estimation. This will be thus only a skeletal adumbration of some of the salient points of why I disagree with your essential premise as I understand it.

There are two things being claimed:

1) that Jews, and Jewish culture, are sufficiently besotted with PC MC as to make them hopeless as allies against both PC MC and Islam (though you propound the additional claim that Islam is not a problem), and as to make them contributors to the larger pool of PC MC propaganda in a degree sufficiently significant to warrant calling attention to it;

2) that Jews, and Jewish culture, are in fact both

a) the source of,

and

b) the continuing primary and massively influential & singularly powerful proponent of,

PC MC throughout the West.

While I am sympathetic to #1 to a small degree -- there are features of Jewish culture that do partake of certain PC MC axioms and do contribute to its purveyance in sociopoligical culture: most appositely, an amorphous anti-Christian tendency, and the post-Holocaust paradigm that inculcates and institutionalizes a trigger-happy sensitivity about anything that might smack of going down the "slippery slope" toward genocide and other collective measures against any non-white peoples.

While the latter post-Holocaust sensitivity is more or less fine by me when it protects Jews and other non-Muslim minorities, in my estimation it becomes severely irrational -- to a pathological degree -- when it stubbornly persists in protecting Muslims. Now, the pathology involved of course pertains to the paradigm itself; but it seems unnecessary and irrelevant (not to mention crazy and unethical) to assail that paradigm on some basis that wishes to extend collective measures against all non-white peoples, or even against any non-white peoples beyond the Muslims.

Which brings us to (b) above:

The problem with it is that the majority of the West is PC MC -- at least in regard to the issue of non-whites and Muslims (if not also a few other issues) -- and has been so for approximately the last 60 years. The majority of Western Christians are PC MC in this way. The majority of Republicans are PC MC in this way. The majority of non-Jews in general are PC MC in this way.

So on the face of it, this is not some sociopolitical disease peculiar to Jews. It's mainstream and cuts across all divisions and categories.

A simple principle I have reiterated many times on this blog is that PC MC would not enjoy the mainstream and dominant traction that it does in fact enjoy, were not the majority (indeed, probably even the vast majority) on board with it in terms of voluntary and informed assent.

If it is agreed that this characterization of the problem of PC MC is accurate, and if (b) is still somehow to be salvaged, one will have to posit some extraordinary assumptions about both the Jews and the West:

1) that Jews have some amazing ability to cause the majority of non-Jews to become PC MC

2) that Jews are actually deploying this amazing ability through some nefarious plot to undermine the West

and, lastly,

3) that, if #1 and #2 are true, the majority (if not the vast majority) of non-Jewish Westerners are stupid and weak enough to simply let themselves be brainwashed and taken over by an astonishingly tiny minority.

These three claims are just too outlandish to take seriously, and can only be sustained by irrational conspiracy-theory pseudo-argumentation that connects dots through fantastic leaps of logic and across vast lacunae where no data exists.
awake said...
"But without Jewish influence we would have no Moslems to speak of in our lands."

That is an incredible statement. So, according to you, Jews, the prime target of Islam asccording to their canonical texts, in which their extinction is well-documented, are the protectors of Muslims and Islamic influence?

I dare you to substantiate that claim.
Guessedworker said...
Hesperado,

Jewry is united on and, by European standards, impossibly dedicated to the pursuit of its own group interests. I assume you realise that these interests are, at their most fundamental, twofold:-

1. To reach the Promised Land of collective ascendency over the bovine herd, as commanded,

2. To maintain group cohesion and awareness at the highest possible level.

Today, these teleological and ontological interests are pursued respectively through (i) the culture of critique and the tradition of subversion, and (ii) the annointment of the Jewish homeland and promotion of Jewish victimology and self-sanctification.

Now return to my last comment and that list of gifts to the goyim, and assign each to one of these three headings. That act of assignation will provide you with the briefest of brief histories of Jewish ethno-aggression against the European host since the middle of the 19th century.

Someone noted recently that 95% of Jews support open borders in the West, while 99% of Jews support Israel. But 100% of Jews support Holocaust victimology. This impressive unity is not justified embattlement. This is paranoia on stilts, targeted at not merely a secularly-perceived racial enemy but at an enemy who raised up the insanely hated Jesus of Nazareth from the dead, and made him the Messiah and them Christ-killers.

Paranoia cannot be reasoned with from a European perspective, as you seem to think. Besides, Europeans are in demographic decline and are being replaced by low-IQ peoples everywhere. Our sense of self-preservation is associated everywhere with goose-stepping and gas chambers. Jewish-contrived leftist philosophies are the political lingua franca of our educated classes. The great dynamic of globalising capital depends is wholly in tune with them. We Europeans cannot escape, so why should Jews let us - us, the most hated of the goyim - free now, so close to the realisation of their tribal march of three long millenia?

Jewish power mania (no.1 above) and paranoia (no.2) overule every argument you can possibly muster. That is why Auster can write that Jews prefer Moslems", and that is why you are aiming your guns in the wrong direction.

You have great talent, Hesperado, but also you have great weaknesses - intellectual vanity, stubborness, and a susceptibility to Jewish memes that I simply do not possess. If you are not Jewish, you could be of the very high value to the European struggle for racial survival. But you are of no value at all as you are.

Awake,

Get an education. Start with Hart-Celler.
Hesperado said...
awake & Guessedworker,

"So, according to you, Jews, the prime target of Islam according to their canonical texts, in which their extinction is well-documented, are the protectors of Muslims and Islamic influence?"

There are two ways Guessedworker's theory could make sense:

1) Jews are thinking & behaving irrationally by siding with Muslims, because they hate and fear Christians more -- and the specter of another Holocaust in their minds, consequently, is feared as a non-Muslim Western possibility, whereas the dhimmitude they had under Islamic rule they mistakenly and irrationally believe was better than any rule under a West where anti-Semitism becomes unleashed as it did during the mid-20th century.

(I have encountered quite a few Jews in discussions who express sentiments more or less comporting with #1, and in addition, they interpret Islamic Spain as a model of tolerance for Jews in marked contradistinction to what they interpret as perennial mistreatment of Jews by Western Christians throughout the Middle Ages and after.)

2) Jews are, in addition to #1, siding with Muslims as a conscious strategy of using one enemy against another -- either in the megalomaniac belief that once they destroy the "Christian" West, they can then turn around and destroy Islam; or that in the mistaken and irrational belief that once the "Christian" West is destroyed with the help of Islam, they (the Jews) will be able to get along relatively fine with Islam.

That takes care of the bare logic of Guessedworker's apparent line of thought. What remains to be supplied are two closely related clusters of data:

a) Re: #1 above, it has to be proven that all Jews -- or a sufficient majority of them -- actually think the way Guessedworker apparently claims they do.

b) Re: #2 above: Even if (a) could be established persuasively, there is still the problem of proving that

i) Jews actually have both the desire and the capability of successfully expanding their sentiments expressed by #1 into a global strategy of subversion of the West through the three related but not synonymous sociopolitical processes of Marxism, Leftism and PC;

and, closely related to (i), that

ii) virtually the entire non-Jewish West over the past century or so has been either weak enough to allow this to happen, or ignorant enough not to know it was happening, or some incoherent combination of the two.

In Guessedworker's latest answer to me above, he continues to conflate #1 and #2 and implies an assumption that merely asserting #1 to be the case also demonstrates that #2 is the case -- even when he has not sufficiently established #1 (let alone sufficiently establishing #2)!

In tentative fairness to Guessedworker, he probably thinks he has a "mountain of evidence" for his claims just as I think I have one for my claims about Islam; and he probably also reasonably feels that only a relatively studious familiarity with his mountain of evidence -- coupled, of course, with an openness to the interpretation that subsumes his mountain of evidence -- may be sufficient to persuade people like me of his views on Jews.

That said, his interpretation has a three-pronged problem that confronts one at the outset of contemplating it: Namely, it shares a disquieting consanguinity with --

a) Islamic anti-Judaism -- which Andrew Bostom has massively documented using both Islamic writings as well as copious Western scholarly studies from the era before the "Great Inhibition" (as Hugh Fitzgerald has aptly termed the PC MC sway over academe in the past 60-odd years) is not dependent upon Western anti-Semitism but is sui generis and massive in Islam both textually and culturally (not to mention grotesquely ghoulish, horrifically brutal, and uniquely fanatical);

b) Western anti-Semitism that has already been disproven as shoddy conspiracy-theory (e.g., 19th-century Russian Protocols of the Elders of Zion);

and

c) specifically 20th-century anti-Semitism culminating in the Communist pogroms against Jews and Hitler's Holocaust -- both of which have roots in (b) which, furthermore, has deeper roots in medieval heresies ultimately derived from the more or less underground persistence of Gnosticism in the West (e.g., Voegelin has argued persuasively that Western anti-Judaism & anti-Semitism has more to do with Gnosticism than with orthodox Christianity insofar as the heretical Gnostic-Christian mythological paradigm located the origin of the evil of the cosmos in Yahweh perceived as the evil Demiurge who, in rebellion against the "true" Gnostic God, created the cosmos as a Prison to trap the good spiritual "spark" (= the enlightened Gnostics) and keep them from their salvation of rejoining the "true" God -- and therefore the cultus of Yahweh (viz., Israel and Judaism and also its later form into which it had morphed, orthodox Christianity, which as the Christian Fathers (e.g., Tertullian in his Adversus Marcionem) consistently argued was in harmony with Israel and not in opposition to it) was a socio-cultural perpetuation of that evil rule.
Guessedworker said...
Hesperado,

Either logic in your hands transmogrifies into a violent and cumbersome tool or you have such an aversion to "seeing", you must do violence to my words.

Is that because you are intellectually vain and stubborn, or because you are (also) a Jew. You are the only one who can tell us. Please do so.

While I wait, I will supply a couple of missing pieces in the puzzle.

First, when examining the activisms of Jews in diaspore it is key to look not at the affiliation of the selected pathways, which so often appear to conflict, but at the striking uniformity of their effect. Hyper-individualism, atomisation, anti-racism, egalitarianism and all the rest draw the European host into self-estrangement, and thence onward into ethno-masochism. The liberal zeitgeist, always at war with genuine conservatism, has been dragged far away from that healthy self-awareness and survival instinct which Jews so prize for themselves.

Second, when examining the hypocrisy of Jews be aware of the profound difference between our evolved selves, with our high out-group altruism and our reliance upon individualism, and that Asiatic mind which, as an ecology, has evolved its own unique methodologies both for exploiting its environment and for out-competing its rival in the struggle for survival. The trust-based hyper-ethnocentrism which is unrivalled anywhere for its power, the materialism, the towering conviction of uniqueness, the Messianic sense of purpose, the binding paranoia, the tradition of subversion, etc ... all these remarkable characteristics are either unique to or brought to perfection in the Jew. As a people, we Europeans are perfectly unequipped to deal with them.

These things you should understand, and much else besides. But I cannot spend all my time trying to shut down your logic-machine long enough to make you THINK new and liberating thoughts.

I will, however, add this. Your "Islamist bogeyman" scenario is blatent fact-avoidance. You rely upon Voegelin, yet you do not see that it is neoconservatives who have prosecuted the attack on liberty in the West, creating a state of exception in which Law can be, and is being, suspended by executive decision.

Meanwhile the neocons "invest" billions of dollars to secure the borders of Israel and Iraq, while inviting the world to replace white America at home.

No, not every neocon is a Jew. But jewish values, Hesperado, are endemic.

Your famous libertarian thinker is wrong, btw, about the sporadic European backlash against the eternal megalomania and paranoia of Jewry in diaspore.
Hesperado said...
Guessedworker,

You haven't provided me with any proof at all, after I have told you it was necessary repeatedly. You think I'm a fucking idiot?
Guessedworker said...
"You think I'm a fucking idiot?"

No, you are far from that. But I do think you are an intellectual coward. What proofs, Hesperado, do you want? How about the Jewishness and Jewish function of the Frankfurt School?

http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/frankfurt_resed.html

Jews in the Cheka? Soon you will be able to read Solzhenitsyn's Two Hundred Years Together, first published in January 2003 - ask yourself why you have not been able to do so yet.

Jews in porn? Read Nathan Abrams.

Jews in Feminism? Go google.

Jewish academic race denial? How about Boas, Montague, Gould, Lewontin, Diamond, Rose, Levine, Kamin ...

It's not as if there is any shortage of evidence for you to unearth. It is in front of you every day. But you have to be courageous enough to look. And you're not. You want to "save Western civ" from the evil Islamofascist. But Western civ is a secondary interest to Western (aka European) genes.

The war against Europe's peoples is existential. I don't think you have the moral constitution to follow that thought to its logical conclusion.
Hesperado said...
Guessedworker,

"What proofs, Hesperado, do you want? How about the Jewishness and Jewish function of the Frankfurt School?"

You continue to indulge in leaps and dot-connection with insufficient dots. With the rhetorical questions above, you have the same problem you've had all along here:

1) you have to demonstrate that the Frankfurt School was dangerous to society

a) then you have to demonstrate the degree of danger they presented, and how that's relevant today as reflecting the most exigent danger the West faces

2) if you can do #1, you then have to demonstrate that the Jews who were part of the Frankfurt School are indicative of Jews generally as a unique problem other groups don't present, and as directly related to #1 + #1a.

You continue to promulgate the mere utterance of #1 as though that proves #2. And/or, you continue to promulgate #1 and #2 as though the link between them was already established, as though the many dots required to link them were simply self-evident. Or, to vary your tactics somewhat, whenever the corner of this problem draws nigh, you refer me to some book or long article.

The link you gave I have not read more than the first few paragraphs, but it seems to be only trying to thoroughly do #1, and again by insinuation and tenuous dot-connection assuming that the sheer marshalling of #1 (even if it is cogent and evidentiary) is sufficient to establish both #1a and #2.

"Jews in the Cheka? Soon you will be able to read Solzhenitsyn's Two Hundred Years Together, first published in January 2003 - ask yourself why you have not been able to do so yet."

With the Tcheka you have the same problems I articulated above. As for Solzhenitsyn and that book, there was some good discussion about this on this link --

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022072.php

-- which demonstrates that the issue is not sufficiently clear-cut.

"Jews in porn? Read Nathan Abrams."

With the problems 1 and 2 which I articulated above in mind, there is also the position for which I have sympathy that I would much prefer a culture that was open to purveying porn than one that was schizophrenically possessed to simultaneously indulge in far worse sexual pathologies than the West does while at the same time fanatically puritanical to intolerant, violent and murderous degrees (i.e., Islam).

"Jews in Feminism? Go google."

This again insufficiently addresses the problems of 1 and 2 above. It also, like all your other concerns about Jews, is ostensibly based upon begging the question of how the vast majority of non-Jewish Westerners can allow themselves to be manipulated by the tiny minority of Jews to such a broad and deep extent. When something doesn't make sense, it's probably not true. This particular point supremely does not make sense. It represents a logical problem the size of an aircraft carrier going the wrong way, which it is your responsibility to aright and turn around both with logical arguments and evidence. Simply waving your hands (and adducing others who find dastardly Jewish intellectuals here and there in academe, government, media, etc.) to cast a spell of some dastardly cabal of Jews is not sufficient: it is simply an artful way of restating the assertion without supplying what needs to be supplied.

The implicit illogical maneuver here -- recognizing the problem of how to explain a vast majority of non-Jewish Westerners falling under the sway of a tiny minority among them, the Jews, and then trying to argue that this proves just how demonically powerful Jews are, that they could successfully manipulate a vast majority around them -- is laughable. It resembles the methodology of conspiracy-theory: for example, with those who maintain that John Kennedy was assassinated by the US Government (and/or evil subsections of it), when you challenge them for thorough dot-connection for each of their claims, after tap-dancing around a while, they admit that large lacunae exist where no dots can connect the lines upon which their theory of the assassination depends -- but then they say, "You see? This proves how powerful the forces are that arranged and executed that assassination -- that they can manipulate and delete the evidence!"

I.e., the fact that the theory cannot be proved becomes the proof that the theory is true! This one-ups Tertullian, and comically so.

With this kind of methodology, one can "prove" anything at all, no matter how fantastic.
Guessedworker said...
Hesperado,

I know this must be annoying for you, given your fastidious observance of the rules and conventions of Logic, and the religious (ie, illogical) faith in their power and universality that you plainly nurture in your breast. But you must understand that when you make a statement like:-

"you have to demonstrate that the Frankfurt School was dangerous to society"

... the tiny thought does enter my head that, actually, you are wriggling away under the nearest patch of vegetation to avoid the hunter's gaze, and the whole of this logic-fest is one big avoidance strategy.

Well, I explained before that I do not need to comply to the rules of your vanity-game. I am not here to debate with you - there is nothing, literally nothing, that you know right now which is of use to me in my own tiny struggle for the survival of my people.

I am here to call you to be a man and not an intellectually vain lightweight ... to release yourself from your present anti-Islamist mental corset ... to seek the truth regardless of where that takes you ... and to selflessly take up your burden for your people (always assuming you are not Jewish, in which case you are already doing a very effective job in that respect).

So I have no "problems" with my commendations to you to research Jewish ethno-aggression. My only problem is that it takes time - a lot of time - for these rude interventions to trigger a correction in the values of the modern mendicant.

Oh, and one more thing. You can junk that very gauche Gnostic reductio ad absurdum. It's in your way. You could do worse than turn an impassioned gaze on what you don't have to think seriously about as a result of it.
Hesperado said...
I suppose Guessedworker (and I) could have saved a lot of time if he had just said at the beginning what he said at the end -- namely, that his gnosis needs no ordinary proof, only a special way of seeing.

He compounds that problem with an apparently un-self-reflective dismissal of Voegelin's diagnosis of the problem of the modern West in terms of the pneumopathology of Gnosticism as "that very gauche Gnostic reductio ad absurdum", apparently blind to his pot -- of a very gauchiste
Jewish reductio ad absurdum -- calling the kettle black.

To my exigent concern about Islamic jihad, Guessedworker counters with what he thinks is the true exigent concern -- which we may call "Stealth Jewhad". The asymmetry of the two concerns is evident from their descriptors: his concern is ipso facto under the radar of detection through ordinary procedures of logic, reason, and evidentiary persuasion; while mine depends upon the mountain of data of, among many other related things, Muslims exploding and plotting to explode and through this effectively manipulating Western behaviors (whether it is to spend billions on public security or whether it is to inhibit free expression through the fear of "offending" Muslims). (And that's why I object to the way Spencer and Fitzgerald package their poorly articulated "steal jihad" concept, consistently making it seem as though the concern is disconnected from our concern for violent jihad, whereas the two are intimately, massively, necessarily, and indissolubly connected -- not to mention that their supposed disconnection is in fact arguably part of the clever strategy of stealth jihad!)
Guessedworker said...
Hesperado,

I will answer two of your "avoidance tactics", solely because I think you are, if of European extraction, too talented to leave lying around in the drawer marked "False Binary Activism".

In no particular order, then:-

1. A while ago I also assumed that the palingenetic idealism present in the German völkisch movement and brought to full alcoholic strength on the streets of post-WW1 Munich was internally related to the collective teleology of left-liberalism and the individual teleology of right-liberalism (known since 1865 in America as conservatism). On that basis, for example, and with a little intellectual laziness it was possible to accomodate National Socialism on the standard political compass, and to argue that "all human life is here".

What killed it for me was trying to fit Italian Fascism in there, in the sense that its politics of a renewal of the racial spirit, conducted by Mussolini with such overpowering emphasis upon the state, left no room for individual realisation.

I already knew that I, like all the empiricists who blog with me at MR, did not fit anywhere along the axes prescribed by Adorno and Reich. So we popped up all over the place when we tested en masse at The Political Compass, yet we held the same fundamental values and beliefs. It was immediately obvious that the authoritarian <> libertarian, left <> right analytic simply absented our Weltanschuuang, and did violence to what remained.

I explained this in my case by the profound disconnection of one political milieu (say, feudalism) from another (say, enlightenment liberalism). Having seen myself for a very long time as an instinctual conservative comprehensively disaccomodated by the modern age, I developed a model in which Pittite conservatism, which I admired in opposition to the Disraelian cuckoo we have now in my native land, was a 50-year burst of particularism, a self-standing milieu in its own right which ended in 1831 with Reform. Thereafter, the hardbitten Toryism of a Liverpool, Salisbury or Powell had insufficient valuational concurrence with its liberal successor to "compute" in terms modeled purely according to the latter. Indeed, as an endless war on Nature and therefore, on social order, liberalism is bound, beyond everything else, to do violence to the anti-democratic, anti-egalitarian principles which preceded it.

Unlike you, I suspect, I am not seeking self-validation though my own ideas. I am just looking for the truth. So I have set aside my neat historical model of successive milieux, and sought an answer elsewhere to the problem not only of fascism and National Socialism, of course, but of all non-liberal political expression.

One product of that search is an acceptance (what you might call "a special way of seeing", I suppose) that spontaneously arising social order is always ethnic in character and, like religion, corresponds at some level of function to the evolved natures and genetic interest of given subject peoples. All political milieux except one share some degree of respect for Nature in Man. The absence of respect means that the milieux must be swept away or it must abolish its subject people.

The normality and, excepting liberalism, universality of an ethnic component to politics is what renders your employment of Voegelin's Gnostic analysis a reductio ad absurdum. NS does not stand with communism because it is teleological. Teleology is not the prime determinant of political value, but respect for genetic interest IS.

Am I right in thinking that Voegelin attached no meaning to any concept, however vaguely or imperfectly understood, of genetic interest? I'm sure I am, and that is in no way a criticism of his elevated mind. But it does make him wrong on this issue, on which his own life so turned.
Guessedworker said...
And the second reply ...

In point of fact, I am not especially interested in the JQ myself. I have a wider interpretaion of our ills than that. I have raised the issue with you not because it is the Whole Truth, as some insist, but because it is a beam to the Islamic mote, and the admirable Tanstaafl had put in some preparatory labours.

That said, nothing I have written about the expressions of Jewish nationalism in diaspore fail the fallibility test, and your constant attention to the structure of what is said rather than its content argues only for a deep unwillingness on your part to venture on unholy ground.

Part of being intellectually free is facing up to the JQ in all its diverse discomforts. You have to walk through that house, Hesperado, or you will forever be walking away from home. It does not matter that the man by your side is intellectually unappealing, or that he presents himself as the proud owner of a near-perfect roof tile from the Auschwitz flattened by the advancing Red Army. What matters is Truth.


You are not yet interested in it. How might that change?
Hesperado said...
Just because I disagree with you, you pronounce that I am not "interested" in "Truth"; and thereby show yourself to be a fanatic. History is littered with the bones of victims of those who were deemed not to have sufficient "interest" in "Truth", victims of those who thought they had "Truth" on their side.

Back across the apparent looking-glass, for your disagreements with me I pronounce you not as a person disinterested in Truth but as a person whose interest in Truth has been skewed by a factor other than Truth; a spirit, so to speak, arrayed in the seductive, light-bearing raiment of Truth.
Guessedworker said...
Hesperado,

Of course you disagree with me. Hundreds of millions of my own benighted fellow Europeans disagree with me. It is in the ideologically intolerant nature of liberalism, which is, for us, a politics of collective death, that a politics of life will appear disagreeable.

Nonetheless, I am in the life business and you are not, which is what you cannot yet process. It is life, freedom and sovereignty for our people that moves me, Hesperado. ("A spirit ... arrayed in the seductive, light-bearing raiment of Truth", indeed!)

I'll say it another way. Our people are dying. You know that. You know, too, that the cause is, at bottom, political. Even if you were right that Islamism is the salient threat, the blame would be in our political selves. If you ... we ... wanted Islam out of the West, we would need to generate a politics - conservative, democratic nationalist, neo-fascist, whatever it may be - that is robust and anti-liberal enough to accomplish that.

Perhaps you think, as do White Nationalists like Tanstaafl, that there is something inherent to Americanism, some natural corrective, that will defy any need of such an exigency. There isn't. We have to be thorough-going revolutionaries.

At the moment, though, you are a political aesthete, and you know it. Do you understand? I am entitled to question your committment to Truth because you have shown yourself to be too fastidious in your political tastes to get your hands seriously dirty.

Anyway, I propose that we leave this conversation here unless you especially want to publish some new proof of the inferiority of my position (I am a believer in an inner circle of humanity, perhaps, or the Tawhid of the Sufis). I am sorry if you feel that I have abused you. I hope you will not settle back into your intellectual recliner too easily. In fact, I hope it will slowly transmogrify into a bed of nails!

Good luck, in any case.
Hesperado said...
first comment to Guessedworker:



The comment above is rather amusing, not only in that it comes unexpectedly out of left (or rather, right) field, but also in its being off the map of conceived political/intellectual opposition to my thesis altogether: the author's blog, gleaned tentatively from a brief gander, along with his tersely fluffy comment above leaving no meat to sink into but only a vague aftertaste of something fishy, reveals a disposition that would minimize the problem of Islam not out of asymptotic analysis, not out of PC MC, not out of Leftism -- but rather out of a much smaller and comparatively rarer POV -- so small and rare I have not bothered to devote an essay to its analysis (though I have mentioned it in passing once or twice): namely, for want of a better term, right-wing gnosticism.

The end result of right-wing gnosticism is the same as that of leftist gnosticism: both locate all significant geopolitical and political evil in the West, and both consequently locate the salvation from this evil within some form of ecclesiola that either is the "true West" (as opposed to the false West holding sway) or is the nucleus of a transfigurative new order: either way, both cultivate a profound alienation from the extant West and consequently ideate, if not machinate, a revolution of some kind in order to destroy the present order of the ostensible West, and replace that with the true order known and appreciated only by the gnostics in question.

Right-wing gnostics and Leftist gnostics, thus, think, feel and operate roughly analogously to Sunnis and Shias: they are very similarly diseased with a very similar pneumopathology, but their philodoxic constructs are sufficiently configured at odds with each other, if only superficially from an outside perspective, to cause mutual enmity, rather than cooperation.

When "Guessedworker" advises me to "follow the money", one suspects where that trail will lead for him: to some nefarious dastardly cabal of "elites" (no doubt Jews and Masons among them?) that "really" pulls all the strings of the world and for whom all Muslims are mere pawns when they wreak their terrorism -- but, he hastens to assure us, "they are not to blame for that".

Of course, one shouldn't underestimate the potential for this very specific strain of the pneumopathological virus to cause problems for our unfolding learning curve in the decades ahead; but one shouldn't overestimate it either.