"She wasn't listening to me because I wasn't really talking to her but to some dark listener within myself." John Steinbeck, East of Eden.
Can we understand the discourse of "Others?" Our post-modernist compatriots in the West tell us no. We are shut out from any real understanding of them by our positions of privilege as imperialists and racists who can never understand the truth of the Other's discourse.
We can't understand each other among ourselves either, from what we will read below by Tony Blair. Nor will we truly understand the idiocy of the Moslem writer immediately below. Should we even bother trying?
Metaxy points out that the Left has the hegemony of public discourse in the West at this time, i.e. that the Left defines our social discourse, how we say what we say, and therefore how we think what we assume is right and wrong, how we express our basic social attitudes. In an earlier post we looked at how Dawkins claims, to paraphrase, we express our social discourses in the form of memes, as dominant ideologies in the form of living biological entities, as a personified group-think bug. We think within the confines of the "General Idea."
The General Idea today among most Westerners is that of post-modernist reaction, the clawing back toward the pre-revolutionary period of our time. We speak of our own time in terms of our enemies' vocabulary and within the meme of the enemy's discourse. We privilge the Other's discourse over our own, giving the highest regard to the ideas of the Left and the fascist Moslem agenda for fear that if we contradict them we will be what they claim is racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, reactinary, fascistic, and so on. We give way to the Left discourse constantly, allowing stupidities to grow and flourish at the expense of Reason and Rationality until such points come that we find ourselves adopting the discourse of the Left dhimmis as our own without examining it and without criticizing it clearly.
Below we'll look at some contrasting discourses: the first by a Moslem fascist; next a few comments for the Right, so-called; then some drivel from Tony Blair; and a snippet of history on the nature of Islam in the West that shows all too clearly that Islam is a fascist poligion.
In all, we'll see that we are not speaking to each other. We can't make sense of the situation of Modernity under assault by fascist Moslems and their fascist dhimmi collaborators if we can't understand the terms we use to define our plight. If we use the langue of the Left dhimmis we will forever find ourselves on the defensive in our discourse among ourselves, and we will find our natural allies ranged against us becuause of the hegemmony of the Left discourse.
The BBC likes to pretend it's objective. 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' That might well be true but it's an ideological position in itself. It's not a Rationalist stance, not an intellectual postion, but a Scholastic pose, little better than Medieval philosopher Scholasticus himself who claimed that because suicide is proscribed: "One should not enter the water till one knows how to swim." That might well be true. Or maybe it's only true for him and the BBC.
Our position is that we Modernist Revolutionaries must reclaim the discourse of our revolutionary past. The examples of how we speak and therefore of how we act and assume based on those actions, those speach-acts, lays the foundations of our relationships with our realities. Our view of life is very different from those who hold to a heliocentric world-view. If we argue Modernist principles using post-modernist discourse and dhimmi Left dialogue to express ourselves we can't really communicate with ourselves intelligently and critically.
Below is some discourse from a Moslem. If we indulge him and speak in terms of cultural relativity, then we will find ourselves arguing to no purpose.
Immediately following the first posting by the Secret Operations Group, one signing himself ‘Bu Badr' on the Tajdeed forum warned against his fellow mujahideen indulging in too much applause, noting that "those who defend al-Qaeda actually live in Britain" which "gathered in our Muslim brothers who had been expelled from their countries due to their opinion and views opposing their regimes … Our brothers in al-Qaeda are too clever to strike the thugs in their own country." For this commentator, another candidate was more suspect: "This is [simply] a game played by the swine Blair in order to strike at Muslims and Muslim refugees … a plot to put pressure of the expatriate Muslim Arab communities, and enable the passing of legislation to expel our Muslim brothers from Britain and hand them over to their agents, the ruling regimes in the Middle East" [www.tajdeed.org.uk].
Fighting a War Against Fanatics
By Herb London
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 13, 2005
After all, this is not merely a war for hearts and minds, it is a war of life and death. Remarkably even those I consider sensible refuse to consider current reality. The West is at the crossroads. It is one thing to say, as Tony Blair has, that we will prevail. How we will prevail; what we must do to prevail? These need to be answered.
Many people I’ve talked to after the London attack share my basic opinion, yet very few are willing to say so. They have been chastened by the orthodoxy of liberalism, fearful of being called reactionary or racist.
Now that body parts have been exploded on to London streets, the public may awaken from its tranquilized state. This war depends on an all-out effort to win. Half measures won’t do, nor will good-will. The time has come to remove our ideological shackles and fight this war with every once of strength we, as a people, can muster. Our destiny and the destiny of our civilization depend on it.
Herbert London is president of the Hudson Institute and Professor Emeritus at New York University and author of the book Decade of Denial (Lexington Books).
Tony Blair has the plan to save us from fascist Islamic terror:
He told the Commons the government had a four-point plan, in which it would:
• Begin the process of consultation on planned counter-terrorism legislation within the next couple of weeks, with a priority being measures to combat the incitement and instigation of terrorism.
• Look urgently at how to strengthen the process for excluding from the UK those who incite hatred, and make it easier to deport such people.
• Start discussions immediately with Muslim leaders on combating "the perverted and poisonous misinterpretation of Islam" which lay behind the attacks.
• Talk to other nations on how to mobilize the "moderate and true voice of Islam."
July 12, 2005
How a Mosque for Ex-Nazis Became a Center for Radical Islam
by Ian Johnson
Wall Street Journal
North of this prosperous city of engineers and auto makers is an elegant mosque with a slender minaret and a turquoise dome. A stand of pines shields it from a busy street. In a country of more than three million Muslims, it looks unremarkable, another place of prayer for Europe's fastest-growing religion.
The Mosque's history, however, tells a more-tumultuous story. Buried in government and private archives are hundreds of documents that trace the battle to control the Islamic Center of Munich. Never before made public, the material shows how radical Islam established one of its first and most important beachheads in the West when a group of ex-Nazi soldiers decided to build a mosque.
The soldiers' presence in Munich was part of a nearly forgotten subplot to World War II: the decision by tens of thousands of Muslims in the Soviet Red Army to switch sides and fight for Hitler. After the war, thousands sought refuge in West Germany, building one of the largest Muslim communities in 1950s Europe. When the Cold War heated up, they were a coveted prize for their language skills and contacts back in the Soviet Union. For more than a decade, U.S., West German, Soviet and British intelligence agencies vied for control of them in the new battle of democracy versus communism.
Yet the victor wasn't any of these Cold War combatants. Instead, it was a movement with an equally powerful ideology: the Muslim Brotherhood. Founded in 1920s Egypt as a social-reform movement, the Brotherhood became the fountainhead of political Islam, which calls for the Muslim religion to dominate all aspects of life. A powerful force for political change throughout the Muslim world, the Brotherhood also inspired some of the deadliest terrorist movements of the past quarter century, including Hamas and al Qaeda.
The whole story is available to subscribers at: www.wsj.com/
I like to think that we can make some progress toward our (ill-defined) goals by recreating a public vocabulary in this struggle:
We are not kafirs.
We are Revolutionaries. We struggle for the continuation and spread of our revolutionary heritage of the triune revolution: the American, French, and Industrial Revolutions.
We are not imperialists.
We are Modernists. Ours is a struggle for the good that has arisen from the past 250 years of revolution for progress in the world; progress not shared by the vast majority of people today; and progress that is unknown to all for all of our history until 250 years ago.
Islam is a poligion.
Islam is not a religion, but a fascist reactionary ideology pretending to be a religion.
Dhimmitude is fascism.
The Left is not inclusive, benign, caring, sharing, and peaceful: it is a corruption of Modernity, a turning away from our struggles in the past 250 years for progress. Dhimmitude is collusion with primitive fascism.
Our discourse has to change course so we see and that most know by the very meme of culture that Islam and dhimmitude are evils, just on-the-spot intuitive and unthinking knowledge of vile and demonic fascism is what Islam is.
Most people believe what most people believe. This struggle against the fascist poligion of Islam is going to be won or lost at the neighbourhood coffee bar and in the supermarket and at the watercooler.
My God! Those people are fascists, just like the Nazis.
If we speak to ourselves honestly about the nature of fascist dhimmitude and fascsit Islam, maybe no one will listen to us anyway. But we must speak to our inner selves to know if we're being honest. Once we can say yes or no to that we can move on to speak to others with the expectation that some will listen and that eventually others will simply follow along anyway.