Monday, April 24, 2006

Flight of the Dhimmi (Reprint.)

In coming posts we'll take a close look at Occidentalism, the topic of this reprinted essay below.

Also, please read Charle's post immediately below.

Friday, July 01, 2005

Flight of the Dhimmi

"With some on the Left, hatred of the U.S. is all that remains of their Leftism...."

We have argued here that "America" is a confused and semi-conscious euphemism for Modernity; and that America is a geography of the mind, "America" is not the American nation or its people in the flesh.

The quotation above comes from an essay in the New York Review of Books, Jan. 17, 2002, written by Avishai Margalit and Ian Buruma, "Occidentalism."

It's not our purpose here to condemn the Left but to condemn fascism, which today the Left mostly feeds from. What is fascism? How can the Left be fascist when fascism is a Rightist ideology? We look at the details of fascism here, and over and again we see that if fascism is a Right ideology it is also conflated with Left ideology into something unrecognizable as anything other than fascism itself, neither Leftism nor anything resembling classical Left ideologies from the time of the Wat Tyler Rebellion to the time of Eduord Bernstein--except that it is, as we can see from the archived texts, fascist and reactionary in all its details, anti-progressive from the beginning. Therefore, we argue that it is past time to abandon the French Revolutionary dichotomy of Left and Right and refer to the division of the masses as into fascists and Modernists. All of our positive attributes as societies stem from our progressive Modernity; and all of our enemies are the forces of fascist reaction, most glaringly in the world of fascist Islam and their dhimmi collaborators, many of whom will identify themselves as Left, and many of whom are of the Right. In the fascist Will there is no real distinction to be made again between Left and Right but only between Modernists and fascists.

Margalit and Buruma [M-B] write: "...modern civilization was another term for Western civilization...." (p.1.) That was true in the minds of Japanese fascists in the 1940s, and it is true of the world fascists today. Modernity, not the political fiction of America, not the Jews, not Israel-- Modernity is fascism's enemy.

Beginning with Japanese fascism A-M write: "But what was 'the West' which had to be purged? What needed to be 'overcome'? They are, not in any particular order, materialism, liberalism, capitalism, individualism, humanism, rationalism, socialism, decadence, and moral laxity. [Overcome by] self-sacrifice, discipline, austerity, individual submission to the collective good, worship of divine leadership, and a deep faith in the superiority of instinct over reason." (p.1.) In short, fascism and reaction would overcome the modern West.

The enemies of Modernity were defeated in the 1940s in parts of Asia and Europe, but the monster lives on. The fascist ethos is as old as Humanity, not a trait to be eradicated in a matter of a few years by a small percentage of the world's current population. Fascism is the norm; it is we, Modernist Revolutionaries, who are the radical fringe group. It is we who are the edge of the Human telos, the purpose of life as our species. And we are unloved. Our defeat of the fascist force is not a permanent victory but one that we will fight for eternity, it seems.

"Don't rejoice in his defeat, you men. For though the world stood up and stopped the Bastard, the Bitch that bore him is in heat again."
Berthold Brecht, Arturo Ui, May 6th, 1945.

"Nazi ideologues and Japanese militarist propagandists were fighting the same Western ideas. The West they loathed was a multi-national, multi-cultural place, but the main symbols of hate were republican France, capitalist America, liberal England, and, in Germany more than Japan, the rootless, cosmopolitan Jews." (M-B: p.1.) Today the fascist bitch has born yet another bastard: fascist Islam. The runt of the litter is the dhimmi Left in our midst. This fight is on-going, and we must rejoice in our mission to defeat it yet again. We are fighting the same enemies our grandparents fought, and for the same reasons: for the precepts of the three revolutions of Modernity.

We have claimed in these pages that the intellectual ground of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment gave rise to the French, American, and Industrial Revolutions, i.e., to Modernity, and that the Force of reaction has fought against our modern revolutions from the beginning, and they will continue to do so until such time that they are obliterated by our necessary Violence, in reference to Sorel. We have claimed that, in spite of Huntington's dismissal of our position, the world's population is bifurcating, and that split is between Modernity and reaction, between "Us and Them."

Fascist reaction has a dozen or so main themes, all of them highly visible in fascist Islam and in Western Left dhimmitude. If we can show the fascism inherent in Islam and its dhimmi support group, we can claim the rightness of the moral agenda in the public discourse as our own. If we can clearly and from the historical texts show that Islam and dhimmi-Leftism are fascist, that the politically correct discourse is in fact fascist, then we can stop referring to our moral agenda in the defensive and go on to attract the fascist agenda for what it most obviously is.

As the Japanese and German fascists saw, Modernity is the enemy of fascism. One of our traits is Rationalism. Theirs is irrationalism. The dhimmi Left has an irrationalist hatred of America. So does fascist Islam. One of the characteristics of fascism is it's irrational approach to reality as seen in rune mythology or crystal mysticism; in fact, in any number of so-called 'New-Age' cliques. That does not make crystal collectors fascists, but it does lead to unfathomed and unexamined fascist sympathies, which we must expose in favor of Modernity.

Science, but not scientism, is a pillar of Modernity. We must reclaim the virtues of Bacon and Feynman, reclaim the meme, as Dawkins explains the concept, from the pseudo-irrationalists, from the faddist dilettantes who glibly just do not get the idea that they are reactionary in attitude if not in spirit itself. Separating a lack of personal interest in science from the privileging of irrationality is a necessary step in our struggle against Islam and dhimmitude.

M-B write: "...the 'Jewish' idea that 'science is international' and human reason, regardless of blood-lines, is the best instrument of scientific inquiry is regarded by enemies of liberal, urban, civilization as a form of hubris. Science, like everything else, must be infused with a higher ideal: the German Volk, God, Allah, or whatnot." (p.4.)

Modernity, particularly science, is written off by Islam and the fascist dhimmi Left, as a pursuit of philistines, a pursuit that negates the humanity of Humans. We are 'materialists,' meaning, one must guess, consumerists as well as non-Idealists in the Platonist sense. We are 'inauthentic,' as Heidegger would have it. We Modernists are not real people but simply cold, mindless, robotical types who have no "soul." Forget that a scientist without intuition is just a clerk. The Moslems and their dhimmi touts have decided that Modernity is spiritually vacant, that we make up our own laws for ourselves, rather than following the ways of shari'a or the 'traditional' ways of 'The People.'

"Soul is a recurring theme of Occidentalism. The skeptical intellect, to promoters of soul, is always viewed with suspicion, fragmented, indeed as a higher form of idiocy, with no sense of 'totality,' the 'absolute.' and what is truly important in life." (p.4.)

We have written before that the greatest phobia of the fascists is their confrontation with their own mediocrity. When the frustrated dhimmi is confronted by his own mediocrity, he moves toward that which will provide him with a sense of the recognition he feels he deserves, a case of philobarbarism resulting therefrom. Science, being an individual effort rather than one tribal or communitarian, stemming not from the grandness of the Volk or from the stars being in Virgo, the mediocrity flees into Romanticism to escape his own recognition of failure. He abandons science, reason, and rationality in favor of stupidities and irrationalist hopes that if only he does something grand he will be recognized for the truly grand thing he thinks he should be seen as being. Good luck, Grover.

In the flight from mediocrity to Romanticism the dhimmi becomes part of the greater whole, something likely impossible for all the successes of modern science to produce for him. Being a mediocrity himself, he blames the assigned mediocrity of Modernity. He flees to irrationality. He becomes a fascist. He loses the world but he gains 'soul.' He becomes moralistic, self-righteous, condemnatory of all others who are suddenly less than he; and he allows for the destruction of the mediocre and the victory of his own newly adopted tribe of primitives, pygmies among whom he is a giant--at last.

"Enemies of the West usually aspire to become heroes. Islamism, Nazism, fascism, communism are all heroic creeds. [They try to create societies] invigorated by constant heroic violence. The common enemy of revolutionary heroes is the settled bourgeois, the city dweller, the petty clerk, the plump stockbroker going about his business, the kind of person, in short, who might have been working in an office in the World Trade Center." (p.4.)

Once we can clearly and provably show that dhimmis are self-righteous fascist losers, then the plastic Che mask will fall into the dust and the dhimmis will be shunned and despised for the evil poseurs they are. They are not heroes. Not even in their own pot-smoker's dreams. It is up to us to provide the expose of fascism to give the evidence in the court of the public marketplace of ideas, mixed metaphors and all.

M-B continue: "Lack of heroism in the bourgeois ethos, of committing great deeds, has a great deal to do with this [bourgeois self-hating] peculiarity. The hero courts death. The bourgeois is addicted to personal safety. The hero counts death-tolls, the bourgeois counts money. Intellectuals, themselves only rarely heroic, have often displayed a hatred of the bourgeois and an infatuation with heroism-- heroic leaders, heroic creeds. [The bourgeois, Von Selchow writes:] is anxious to eliminate 'fighting against Life, as he lacks the strength necessary to master it in its very nakedness and hardness in a manly fashion.'

Much in our affluent, market-driven societies is indeed mediocre, and there is nothing admirable about luxury per se, but when contempt for bourgeois creature comforts becomes contempt for [your] life you know the West is under attack. This contempt can come from many sources, but it appeals to those who feel impotent, marginalized, excluded, or denigrated: the intellectual who feels unrecognized, the talentless art student in a city filled with brilliance, the time-serving everyman who disappears into any crowd, the young man from a third-world country who feels mocked by the indifference of a superior West; the list of possible recruits to a cult of death is potentially endless." (pp.4-5.)

The mediocre loser who wants to die for a-cause is usually deluding himself into dying for the very second-rate b-cause, because he's a mediocre loser who can only redeem his own failure in his own eyes by dying for something greater than himself, thereby not having to continue with the day-to-day petty pace of working for a living to pay the rent. The 'grand gesture' becomes the reason for living, and it is death, big, lush, Romantic, memorable to his admiring friends who will weep copious tears when they recall him throughout all of history gesture, like some teen-age high school drama-queen performance of the day--but bigger. Like, you know? Really Big. The suicide bomber, the girl under the bricks, heroes ad nauseum. May we suggest: "Get a life, loser." Ah, can't get a life? Then take one. Our hero.

The failed dhimmi and the worthless Moslem peasant in the modern world, these are people who live with the false hope that Modernity will somehow crash into flaming ruin if only they can hijack enough of our planes and destroy enough of our buildings and show enough video tapes of them beheading our civilians. The flight of the dhimmi, (no, not the opera of the same name,) and the suicidal rage of the redundant peasant, these are ugly things to witness-- the opera being quite attractive though. It is necessary for us to reclaim the public discourse to show our moral agenda and to expose the fascism of Islam and the fascism of the Left dhimmis. Once they are seen as losers, as primitives who do not count in the modern world of counting, then they will be seen not as they currently pose themselves for the public view, as morally superior, but as idiot losers, violent, stupid, and evil. If the best they have to offer is hatred of America, basing it all on some foolish ideas from their intuitive grasp of reality as shown by a Tarot card reading, then, once we see them and show for what they are, then we will begin to regain our own standing in our own view of ourselves.

The Japanese military fascists thought that because of their mystical grasp of the heavens they were certain to win their war against Modernity. We dropped atomic bombs on them. Personally, I don't like that idea, but if we don't act soon to control the fascist wave of primitive reaction against Modernity we might be forced in the end-game to do that again, next time to the world at large. Not just twice, but a thousand Hiroshimas. They love death? Well, if we must we could kill them with Pepsi Cola. Let's first try exposure.


Anonymous said...

ZZzzzzz! Yo' puttin' me to sleep here, arguing that today's leftists are fascists. Let's look at the Webster's dictionary definition of fascism: (A system of gov't characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of the opposition, retention of private ownership of the means of production under centralized gov't control, belligerent nationalism and racism, glorification of war) This sounds like the Right Wing the whole way.
In fact, there's a amazing similarity between fundamentalist Christians and Moslems...
-Intolerance against alcohol, pornography, drugs, abortion, other religions
-Subjugation of women
Hell, these groups ought to like each other.


dag said...

Thanks, genius. It never occured to me to read the dictionary.

Anonymous said...

Dag, imho if you're going to try to equate the leftists to fascists, you ought to at least have a good working definition of what IT IS. And I submit such a definition is nowhere in the piece.
...lots of name-calling to be sure.


truepeers said...

Well, you can fight for the historical purity of the word, fascist, if you want. But i think Dag's larger point is sound. History, since at least 1989, if not sooner, has revealed that the old distinction of left and right no longer holds any water. All totalitarianisms are cut from the same evil cloth.

You can talk about private ownership of the means of production, but under, say, the Nazis, there was little security in property, just a variety of gansterism, perhaps very slightly different from the Russian variety, if you care to finesse academic niceties that no one suffering under such a regime would care much about. And what "leftist" totalitarianism hasn't also been nationalist and racist (and I would not exclude today's race and victim baiting pc leftists in the west from this charge)?

I think a model of politics that sums up people in terms of their attitudes towards capitalism, freemarkets, and democracy is where we should be headed. Then we would have conservatives and liberals, but any distinciton of left and right would be largely pointless. We would identify some people as more resentful and destructive towards the system (and it would not be very useful to dig for root causes, or contrast utopian solutions, once you understand the anthropological nature of resentment), and others who did their best to promote the system, resisting it in ways to be sure, resisting in the short to promote its viability over the long term.

Any system that calls for the establishment and expansion of a Caliphate, or more generally, as the Koran and Sunna does, calling countless curses on the non-believer, would have to be weighed on the resentful side of the equation. Is it just another resentful cult? Maybe somethings distinguish it from others. And maybe some individual Muslims have developed a loving relationship to God and humanity, despite the resetnemtns in their texts. BUt on the whole, it would surely be correct to say that most Muslims today identify with a resentful and totalitarian cult in opposition to the western-led market system.

enowning said...

"Modernity, particularly science, is written off by Islam and the fascist dhimmi Left, as a pursuit of philistines, a pursuit that negates the humanity of Humans. We are 'materialists,' meaning, one must guess, consumerists as well as non-Idealists in the Platonist sense. We are 'inauthentic,' as Heidegger would have it."

But no where does Heidegger say that any other group is more authentic, authenticity is purely up to the individual and in to way associated with any group, nor does Heidegger ever express any appreciation for Islam or a "fascist dhimmi Left". Any notion of dhimmitude would be by defintion inauthentic.

So what we have here is a failed attempt to sound "deep" or "intellectual" by invoking Heidegger. Is that authentic, then?

dag said...

[N]o where does Heidegger say that any other group is more authentic; authenticity is purely up to the individual and in to way associated with any group; nor does Heidegger ever express any appreciation for Islam or a "fascist dhimmi Left". Any notion of dhimmitude would be by defintion inauthentic."

That is a failed attempt at slipperiness. Yes, groups are "authentic." What part of Heidegger's work don't you get? Consider, name- calling aside, that the volk are "authentic." They are only authentic as a group and only so through the expression of the native genius as an expression of the blood and soil and language.

Nowhere to my knowledge did I I express any idea that Heidegger is sympathetic to Islam, not because I don't feel that he is but because I didn't write any such thing.

To conclude, I have to ask for some evidence that you understand Left dhimmi fascism in its components and as a general concept. If you care to continue with some indication that we are arguing from the same texts, then I'm happy to engage.