The post-modernist pseudo-Left is a joke only in the most Jerry Lewis fashion. The post-modernist Left is a fascist bundle of irrationalist cliches parading across the intellectual landscape in a dance of death, cavorting and posing and posturing for itself and itself alone. we must see the Left and its adheerents as nothing more or less as fascists, and we must call them so by that name. The Left is dead. It is rotting on the roadside of history, crawling with the maggots of dying Islam and its philobarbarist allies. There is no Left. There is only the legitimate Modernist Revolutionary fighting to maintain Modernity to push the limits of our modern revolutions to the furthest global extremes. All others we condemn to the dust-bin of history, as Trotsky said.
Left fascism is a fad of the mind in our time. It's time to don a new dress for the future. Left fascism is worn-out and filthy. It stinks. And once we've re/adressed our position vis the Modernist Revolutions of our lives it's time we change not only our outer garments of behaviour but that we take a good long shower, washing away the years of crusty ideology of pseudo-Leftism, that we cleanse our minds of the poison of reaction and fascism, the we wash our brains.
It's time that we turf the dictatorship of 18 year old sociology students as the rulers of our social discourse and our cultural ethos. Spoiled suburban kids do not have legitimate answers to the collective problems of the world, not even if they took a couple of sociology courses at the community college.
It's time for mature adults to reclaim the dominant position in our societies and send the kids back toschool to learn just a little bit more about the nature of fascism before they lecture us on the evils of the West. Then we might send the nasty little brats off to war and replace them with a better lot altogether. they don't want no blood for oil? Well, take away their car keys for a week and see how they react.
The struggle against fascism is the greatest moral challenge one can face in a lifetime, and it is ours to win if only we will. If we don't see the fascism of the polst-modernist Left as the fascism it is then we will sink with the drowned, nameless and unmourned, not even having lived to be remembered as worthless. Or we can rise to the challenge and be the heroes of our time, Revolutionaries of the first rank. It is time for us.
Below we include an article by Andrew Sullivan on Left fascism, and further we include excerpts from Mark Humphrys' blog on the nature of Left idiot fascism.
The Agony of the Left
Forced to choose between the West and the Taliban, some have trouble deciding.
BY ANDREW SULLIVAN
Thursday, October 4, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT
One of the most telling things I have seen since the Sept. 11 massacre was an early "peace movement" e-mail. It listed three major demands: stop the war; stop racism; stop ethnic scapegoating. A liberal friend had appended a sardonic comment to the bottom. "Any chance we could come out against terrorism as well?"
One of the overlooked aspects of the war we are now fighting is the awakening it has spawned on the left. In one atrocity, Osama bin Laden may have accomplished what a generation of conservative writers have failed to do: convince mainstream liberals of the illogic and nihilism of the powerful postmodern left. For the first time in a very long while, many liberals are reassessing--quietly for the most part--their alliance with the anti-American, anticapitalist forces they have long appeased, ignored or supported.
Of course the initial response of left-wing intellectuals to Sept. 11 was one jerking of the collective knee. This was America's fault. From Susan Sontag to Michael Moore, from Noam Chomsky to Edward Said, there was no question that, however awful the attack on the World Trade Center, it was vital to keep attention fixed on the real culprit: the United States. Of the massacre, a Rutgers professor summed up the consensus by informing her students that "we should be aware that, whatever its proximate cause, its ultimate cause is the fascism of U.S. foreign policy over the past many decades." Or as a poster at the demonstrations in Washington last weekend put it, "Amerika, Get a Clue."
Less noticed was the reasoned stance of liberal groups like the National Organization for Women. President Kim Candy stated that "The Taliban government of Afghanistan, believed to be harboring suspect Osama bin Laden, subjugates women and girls, and deprives them of the most basic human rights--including education, medicine and jobs. The smoldering remains of the World Trade Center are a stark reminder that when such extremism is allowed to flourish anywhere in the world, none of us is safe." The NAACP issued an equally forceful "message of resolve," declaring, "These tragedies and these acts of evil must not go unpunished. Justice must be served."
Left-wing dissident Christopher Hitchens, meanwhile, assailed his comrades as "soft on crime and soft on fascism." After an initial spasm of equivocation, The American Prospect magazine ran a column this week accusing the pre-emptive peace movement of "a truly vile form of moral equivalency" in equating President Bush with terrorists. Not a hard call, but daring for a magazine that rarely has even a civil word for the right.
Most moving was Salman Rushdie's early call in the New York Times to "be clear about why this bien-pensant anti-American onslaught is such appalling rubbish. Terrorism is the murder of the innocent; this time, it was mass murder. To excuse such an atrocity by blaming U.S. government policies is to deny the basic idea of all morality: that individuals are responsible for their actions." Whatever else is going on, the liberal-left alliance has taken as big a hit as the conservative-fundamentalist alliance after the blame-America remarks of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.
It's not hard to see why. Unlike previous Cold War battles, this one is against an enemy with no pretense at any universal, secular ideology that could appeal to Western liberals. However repulsive, the communist arguments of, say, Ho Chi Minh or Fidel Castro still appealed to a secular, Western ideology. American leftists could delude themselves that they shared the same struggle.
But with Osama bin Laden, and the Islamo-fascism of the Taliban, no such delusions are possible. The American liberal mind has long believed that their prime enemy in America is the religious right. But if Jerry Falwell is the religious right, what does that make the Taliban? They subjugate women with a brutality rare even in the Muslim world; they despise Jews; they execute homosexuals by throwing them from very high buildings or crushing them underneath stone walls. There is literally nothing that the left can credibly cling to in rationalizing support for these hate-filled fanatics.
This is therefore an excruciating moment for the postmodern, postcolonial left. They may actually have come across an enemy that even they cannot argue is morally superior to the West. You see this discomfort in the silence of the protestors in Washington, who simply never raised the issue of bin Laden's ideology. You see it in Barbara Ehrenreich's sad plea in the Village Voice: "What is so heartbreaking to me as a feminist is that the strongest response to corporate globalization and U.S. military domination is based on such a violent and misogynist ideology."
You see it in the words of Fredric Jameson, a revered postmodernist at Duke University, arguing in the London Review of Books that the roots of the conflict are to be found "in the wholesale massacres of the Left systematically encouraged and directed by the Americans in an even earlier period. . . . It is, however, only now that the results are working their way out into actuality, for the resultant absence of any Left alternative means that popular revolt and resistance in the Third World have nowhere to go but into religious and 'fundamentalist' forms." The only adequate description of this argument is desperate. And, of course, it ducks the hard question. What does the left do now that these forces are indeed fundamentalist?
The other rhetorical trope that is fast disintegrating is the antiracist argument. The doctrine of "postcolonialism," which now dominates many American humanities departments, invariably sides with Third World regimes against the accumulated evil of the West. So the emergence of the Taliban is a body blow. If dark-skinned peoples are inherently better than light-skinned peoples, then how does a dark-skinned culture come up with an ideology that is clearly a function of bigotry, misogyny and homophobia?
One immediate response is to argue that the U.S. itself created Osama bin Laden in its war against Soviet communism. This isn't true--but even if it were, doesn't this fact, as Mr. Hitchens has argued, actually increase the West's responsibility to retaliate against him?
It may be, in fact, that one of the silver linings of these awful times is that the far left's bluff has been finally called. War focuses issues in ways peace cannot.
Leftists would like to pretend that any criticism of their views raises the specter of domestic repression. But in a country with a First Amendment, no suppression from government is likely, and in the citadels of the media and the academy, the far left is actually vastly overrepresented. The real issue, as pointed out this week by Britain's Labour prime minister, is that some on the left have expressed "a hatred of America that shames those that feel it."
The left's howls of anguish are therefore essentially phony--and they stem from a growing realization that this crisis has largely destroyed the credibility of the far left. Forced to choose between the West and the Taliban, the hard left simply cannot decide. Far from concealing this ideological bankruptcy, we need to expose it and condemn it as widely and as irrevocably as we can. Many liberals are already listening and watching--and the tectonic plates of politics are shifting as they do.
Mr. Sullivan, a senior editor of The New Republic, writes daily at andrewsullivan.com.
The mind of the left - The continued appeal of socialism and totalitarianism to the young:
?What is wrong with us that we are attracted to leftism when we are young??
Stanley Kurtz describes the leftist mind [thus:] Defending democracy and opposing tyranny "is just too obvious - too embarrassing" for the sophisticated modern mind. The young modern leftist prefers to feel that only he understands the true state of the world - that the rest of the population is too "stupid" to see it.
The ordinary people don't agree with him because they have their consent "manufactured" by the media - they do not think for themselves - but the leftist does. He can see beyond the propaganda and realise that the poverty, famine and tyranny in the world is caused by the West (rather than, for example, by the moronic ideas of the non-western world). Concepts like "The Free World" are the absurd and simple-minded propaganda of ignorant Americans who do not understand the world. The ordinary people deal in concepts like "good" and "evil". - Our leftist sophisticate understands how simplistic such ideas are, and how genocidal police states are just another culture, and not to be regarded simplistically as "inferior".
The leftist liberates himself from the ideas of the "stupid" people around him, and feels vastly superior to them. In the extreme case he will quite literally end up defending tyranny and opposing democracy.
The ordinary people have no irony. They just say flat out that America is "superior" to some illiterate Islamic theocracy, or some famine-wracked totalitarian gulag state. The leftist thinks they have never thought about it. In reality, they are grown-ups who understand all too well how the world works. The leftist understands nothing except the coffee-house world of safe, sheltered, protected, rich people.
[Some of] the main problems in thinking on the left, including:
1. Illiterate people from poor societies are superior to Americans.
2. Differences between individuals or groups are unfair.
3. For Designated Victim Groups, strong feelings excuse all behavior;
1. [The 'opressed'] defend the right to free speech for themselves], but anyone else whose speech hurts [their] feelings must be censored.
2. In any conflict between a third-world nation and a first-world nation, the third-world nation is always right.
3. All criticism or disagreement with any policy of a third-world nation, culture, or person is, by definition, racism.
* Victor Davis Hanson
The Western Disease - "There is something terribly wrong, something terribly amoral with the Western intelligentsia ... thousands of the richest, most leisured people in the history of civilization have become self-absorbed, ungracious, and completely divorced from the natural world - the age-old horrific realities of dearth, plague, hunger, rapine, or conquest." They do not understand: (a) what it is like to live outside of their nice, safe, free world: "what it is like to be in a village gassed by Saddam Hussein"; and: (b) they do not understand the awesomely brave military that protects the existence of their world: "how hard it is to go across the world to Tikrit and chain such a monster."
The postmodern left simply cannot handle good and evil. "Nuance is the essence of relativist interpretation. Manichean notions of barbarity and civilization, Western culture juxtaposed to eighth-century Islamic fascism, good versus evil - these "reductionist" and "simplistic" notions of the present Bushworld simply cannot stand. If such clear polarities were to be valid, the entire foundation of postmodern thinking would collapse"
* Face up to the truth, Nick Cohen, The Observer, July 10, 2005, on the mind of the left:
o Leftists have not understood "that Islamism was a reactionary movement as great as fascism, which had claimed millions of mainly Muslim lives in the Sudan, Iran, Algeria and Afghanistan and is claiming thousands in Iraq. As with fascism, it takes a resolute dunderheadedness to put all the responsibility on democratic governments for its existence."
o "I feel the appeal, believe me. You are exasperated with the manifold faults of Tony Blair and George W Bush. Fighting your government is what you know how to do and what you want to do, and when you are confronted with totalitarian forces which are far worse than your government, the easy solution is to blame your government for them."
o "But it's a parochial line of reasoning to suppose that all bad, or all good, comes from the West - and a racist one to boot. The unavoidable consequence is that you must refuse to support democrats, liberals, feminists and socialists in the Arab world and Iran who are the victims of Islamism in its Sunni and Shia guises because you are too compromised to condemn their persecutors."
o "Again, I understand the appeal. Whether you are brown or white, Muslim, Christian, Jew or atheist, it is uncomfortable to face the fact that there is a messianic cult of death which, like European fascism and communism before it, will send you to your grave whatever you do. But I'm afraid that's what the record shows."
Most of us get along by going along, even up to the point of surrendering to death in the lager by following the rules, as Primo Levi writes in Surviving in Auschwizt.
If we are to continue being social animals living in relative peace and security with each other then we must take back the control of our daily attitudes rather than allowing the West to be controlled by children and idiots, by primitive fascists and monsters. Our first task is to admit openly that we don't like them.
We have to find the personal courage to admit openly our personal dislike the primitives among us. They are primitive and ignorant and violent and disgusting. They might well be "Others," and in fact they are. What else can they be? If they won't be us, then they have to stop whatever it is they are until they are us. The primitives are fascists. Their cultures and religion are innately evil. We have not only a legitimate right to defend ourselves against the primitive fascism of islam, we have a moral duty to smash their cultures and their religion and replace it by whatever force necessary until they are Modernists--like us.
There are arguments against the above position, but who cares? It comes to a matter of violence against force. Ours is the violence of the people against the force of the history of Humanity. Ours is the Revolutionary violence required to destroy fascist reaction and primitivism and enforce our mode of life on the world. The fact that it's the right thing to do is totally irrelevant to this discussion. We have the violence, and if we have the Will, then the world will continue to progress toward rightful Modernity universally. Nothing we do to destroy the slavery of primitive fascism is immoral. Our just end justifies our just means. And if teenage college students whine, well, so what?
A gentle reminder that my book, An Occasional Walker, is available at the link here:
And here are some reviews and comments on said book: