What motivates the Western dhimmi intellectual? Below we'll look at some comments from Eward O. Wilson to see if we can continue to expand our understanding of fascist Islam and its followers, below in terms of ideological construction and personality.
Edward O. Wilson describes modern social science as a rigidly ideological failure, and its manifestation of failure is obvious in the dhimmitude we encounter today almost everywhere in almost every strata of society, a cringeing and sentimental dhimmitude of nucleaic tribalists, people who are seperated from soiciety at large, from friends and family, and particularly from themselves, longing for something they think they've lost, i.e. an 'identity' that they might regain vicariously through identification with and association with barbarians, much like old homosexual men trying to suck up lost youth by glomming onto young boys.
Wilson writes in Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge; New York: Alfred A. Knopf; 1998:
The theorists have consistently misjudged Muslim fundamentalism, which is religion inflamed by ethnicity. At home in America, they not only failed to forsee the collapse of the welfare state, but still cannot agree on its causes. In short, social scientists as a whole have paid little attention to the foundations of human nature, and they have had almost no interest in its deep origins. (p.184.)
What is Marx without Freud? Skinner! the Western social scientist's ideological version of the orthopraxy of Islam. And what is psychiatry without psychology? Prozac! Medicated orthopraxy. We have today as our ruling social ethos a banality of mediocrity that can hardly qualify as evil. The banality of the ideologues is one of social science's greatest acheivements, due to its vapid pursuit of mediocrity at all costs. No messy stuff like Human nature, but only the paper-clean ideologies of sociology and anthropology to apply to the unknowable masses, the dirty bastards, those who can be quantified and theorized about from the distant far side of the emotional gulf. Forget who they are but only what they do.
Wilson writes that originally social science kept its distance from natural science to lay its own groundwork from which it meant to become objective in its own right. He continues:"But once the pioneering era ended, the theorists were mistaken not to include biology and psychology. It was no longer a virtue to avoid the roots of human nature." (Ibid: p.184.)
One reason for the constant failure of imposed ideology and its resulting torment of the masses is the perversions imposed on the masses by ideologues who resist any understanding of human nature, or wu, the emptiness of mind one finds explained after a fashion in the Tao Te Ching, an objectivity that surpasses any false impositions of reality upon reality itself, an imposition that resembles Procrustes bed far more closely than anything we could ever call science. The results of imposed and enforced ideological programmes upon the masses fails over and again due to its obvious perversion of the Human condition and the Human state, results deliberately imposed upon the masses by those deliberately ignorant fo and contemptuous of the nature of Humanity. Today's ideology is the imposition of Islam, and the result is a suicidal umma and the masses of emotionally dispossessed and alienated Westerners cut off from their social groups, families, and from themselves as individuals who allow themselves to die in a condition of utter confusion and emotional sickness along with the self-destructing Moslem masses. Naive dhimmitude is the ruling ideology of the West today, imposed from above by the intelligensia of social scientists who have no understanding-- more, even a hatred of Human nature-- that doesn't fit into their social science cargo cult boxes. If people don't fit into the bed of social science, then they must be remade till they do, losing in the process a couple of feet here and there, or perhaps some heads along the way till they look just so. Then, hail: the New World, the New Man, not like those old and inferior men who think in terms of Human nature, as if it were important to life that is determined by culture and the economic mode of production, moderated by the precepts of socially engineered environments developed from the theories of disinterested anthropologists.
Wilson points out that social scientists were averse to the examination of human nature from the beginning, not surprizing if one looks at the mental health of some of its originators, Condorcet, for example. In reaction to what social scientists termed "Social Darwinism" they discounted human nature in favor of ideology. Where human nature offended these scientists they ignored it:
The theorists were inhibited from probing in that direction [human nature,] by another problem endemic to social sciences: political ideology....With caution swept aside by moral zeal, they turned opposition [to Social Darwinism] into the new ideology of cultural relativism.
During the 1960s and 1970s this scientific belief lent strength in the United States and other Western societies to political multiculturalism. Also known as identity politics, it holds that ethnics, women, and homosexuals possess subcultures deserving equal standing with those of the "majority," even if the doctirine demotes the idea of unifying national culture. (Ibid: pp184-85.)
If everything is equally good and if nothing is really bad, since there is no such thing in the Neitzchean world of post-modernity, then where do we go for our beliefs, opinions, and attitudes when confronted by something so totally alien and dangerous that we live in fear for our very lives? We turn on ourselves, adopting the symptoms of the Stockholm Syndrome, turning to hatred of ourselves as the likely cause of our own problems with 'others,' and yet too denying that we are actually like our fellows because we are enlightened and dhimmified now, superior in all ways to those who have caused our tormentors to act out their violence against us, mistakenly in our personal cases (if only they truly knew us.) Not having belief in evil, we also have no belief in good; therefore, believing in all things equally we equally believe in nothing until such time when we meet those who do believe, and who are happy to kill us because we believe in nothing, i.e. not what they believe in. Out of fear of social ostrasization, out of fear for our lives, we look for the strongest threads to grasp for our salvation, that thread being appeasement of those who would kill us, because we see our own fellows --even ourselves-- as being worthless and unbelieving allies in our time of need. We move to strength to save us. Not our own strength, which we condemn as socially Darwinistic but that of the oppressed whom we've provoked to rage by our very existence. And those who do beleive, the proverbial "Right-wing Christians," they, not being relativists, are the cause of the provocation of the others who would harm us because the believers among us are believers at all, a thing we consider to be bad in that it provokes the minority to violence against our majoritarian 'Force,' upon which all states are inherently based, and justifiabley opposed only by a Sorelian 'Violence.' Those who have no Moral have instead the moral superiority of self-righteous social-scientific dhimmitude to save their capo lives-- temporarily; and while alive they also have Recognition, in the Hegelian sense. But it's a loser's game.
All great civilizations were spread by conquest, and among their chief benficiaries were the religions validating them.... But every major religion today is a winner in the Darwinian struggle waged among cultures, and none ever flourished by tolerating its rivals. (Ibid p. 244.)
For Western relativist dhimmis the solution to this problem is to remove all religion from public discourse, except those that are the domain of the "Other," the victims of the dominant ideology of Capitalism. Thus, Islam is privileged by virtue of its being a traditonal poligion of Captialism's victims, "Moslems of Color,' who must retain their traditonal beliefs and practices from the social Darwinist predation of capitalism in order to maintain a social and Romantic purity of blood and soil. All struggle against capitalism is valid if it leads to the triumph of the New Man, which is impossible under capitalist conditions of competition, of alienation from Mother Nature, and of the inherent and innate evil of White Europeans. To condemn the dominant non-minority and to find ones own place as a fellow minority in solidarity with other, more valid minorities, is to find a place in the tribal Romance of fascism of the Left. And the majority of us go along because we just don't know what the hell is going on and we don't want to upset anyone by complaining about it. If we do, then we must be Right-wing fundamentalists no different from that tiny minority terrorists who've hihjacked Islam, the religion of peace, to justify their deeds against the evils of capitalism and those of us who live well by raping Mother Nature. Christianity, the lapdog of the dominant ideology, obviously with a violent imperialist history, for otherwise it could not have succeeded, now remains as a superstructure on the capitalist base, while Islam, a militant, anti-capitalist, anti-Modernist poligion in struggle against captialism, must be valid and valuable because it retains its naturalism, communitarianism, and 'traditional values' of Romanitic fascism, not Darwinistic but self-defensive in regard to Christian neo-Crusaderism. The struggle against capitalism is the only good in a relativist world, and only non-capitalists can rule non-capitalistically in the capitalist system. Therefore, Christianity must be bad, it must be evil, because of the Darwinian struggle that places it at the top of all religions, and worse because it is a superstructure on the capitalist mode of production. Hence, an alliance of Moslems and Leftists while the rest of us just don't know what to do but keep our silence and sympathize with the downtrodden masses under our big smelly feet. But that's not nearly enough for the dhimmi elite. They need recognition, and from that the power that inhers. They want to be part of the tribe, and rulers therein, to boot.
To be fair, let me put the matter of cause and effect straight, [Wilson writes.] Religious exclusion and bigotry arise from tribalism, the belief in the innate superiority and special status of the in-group. Tribalism cannot be blamed on religion. The same causal sequence gave rise to totalitarian ideologies. The pagan corpus mysticum of Nazism, [and Communism] were put to the service of tribalism, not the reverse. Neither would have been so fervently embraced if their devotees had not thought themselves chosen people, virtuous in ther mission, surrounded by wicked enemies, and conquerers by right of blood and destiny. Ibid: pp. 244-45.)
There, it seems, is the clue to the dhimmi intelligensia's lack of insight that propels them to ally with fascist Islam: They, the moral nihilists, cling to moralism, not to religion but to empty religiousity, to socio-political orthopraxy, all of it in reaction to a loss of their own moral beliefs, loss of their own abilities to gain a place of status to their own liking in the present mode of production. They who have nothing in Modernity that they feel is worthy of them, turn to those who have nothing for their validation as recognizable Humans: Big toads in tiny sloughs. Those self-exiled from their own tribe flee to an inferior tribe to act as dhimmis and toadies in the false hope of recognition of their desired status, and the mysticum, the fascist longing for strength and glory through irrationality comes from Islamic fascism itself, which most dhimmis cannot believe in, creating a further striving for acceptance by further acts of extremities of posturing orthopraxically. Because the dhimmis don't believe, they must believe even harder in that which they cannot believe, acting-out even further to prove adherence to their false beliefs.
The lonely, unhappy, socially failed dhimmi longs for recognition, and he tries to find it in Islamic fascism. Finding it, he then finds it empty, needing an endless filling-up with more and evermore vacuuity, endlessly, and hoping, like a prositiute on the sidewalk, to have another to share her miseries and perhaps to show her where the glory is that she really can't see in spite of all her self-assurance that somewhere it really does exist, because this is the lot of the life, paid for at the cost of all else. O,the tribe one almost sort of belongs to. O, the romance; the glamour of it all; the path of glory that leads...to dhimmitude.