Friday, April 27, 2012

Part right

Although not an expert in the field of Angry Muslims like Robert Spencer, I think his answer here is only half right:
RUBIN: What are the main reasons you think it is so hard for Western policymakers, journalists, and academics to understand and deal accurately with Islam and political Islamic movements?
SPENCER: I think the main reason is that Islam is a religion.

Only partly true, sir. If a worldwide campaign of terrorism and social pressure had been launched by the Afrikaaners' Dutch Reformed Church, you can bet not a stone would be left unturned in unmasking it. It is the race of Muslims that makes the difference. Islam is a Third World Brown-and-Black Peoples religion and as such, Islam is coded as a non-White race in public discourse, with all the rights to lying license and deference and BS that comes with it.

PS. Speaking of race...or rather, keeping your mouth shut about it...a rise in NYC subway crime of late. Here's some of the text about two suspects.
The suspect is described by police as a man in his early to mid 20s, approximately 6-feet and 175 pounds.  He was last seen wearing a gray hooded sweatshirt with navy blue jogging pants and a black baseball cap.

The suspect is described by police as a man between 30 to 40 years old, approximately 5-5 and 150 pounds with brown eyes, short black hair and a mustache. He was last seen wearing a black and orange sweatshirt.
Aaaaaaaand here's the pictures.
Gee, what important descriptor might have been omitted? Was one of them a "white Hispanic"?


Anonymous said...

And yet it is precisely as "religion" that Islam has been under-criticized by Western politicians, as well as clergy, including academics and journalists.

Since 'true Islam' like every valid religion is social-justice spirituality, we have nothing to fear from Islam. Although we would never say that because "true Christianity" is social-justice spirituality therefore we have nothing to fear from white Christian fundamentalists.

But if we had to say that Islam is "politics" then we couldn't simply affirm and celebrate it -- if I may use lingo now passé. ... This would also hold if we said that Christianity is "politics" (which obviously it is if "the personal is political" -- the Trinity is thrice political, eh?)

But what the heck is "politics"? ... If the state has the monopoly (the many make the will-to-power oneness or Tauhid) on legitimated violence, then Christianity, Islam etc are political in providing the legitimating charismata etc for such unify'd unifying violence.

In any case, insofar as there is Islamic politics and Christian politics, this politics must be social justice since true Islam and true Christianity are social justice religions or spiritualities. Just that we would never say that we have nothing to fear from white Christian fundamentalists because true Christianity isn't fundamentalist but a social-justice spirituality that interprets the Bible as a flexible set of narratives that are convenient for speaking truth to power.

Anonymous said...

I specify'd "white" because African-American conservative Christianity isn't criticized by us for fundamentalism, disinclination to ordain women and LGBT, disinclination to accept LGBT marriage equality etc. What does a black Christian have to do to get some attention from our elites? He has to go as far as Louis Farrakhan.

And even Eastern Christianity (no filioque clause) though 'white' isn't under any pressure to ordain women or LGBT etc.

Islamic rule, then, would seem to be almost 'too good to be true' for the troglodyte natures who constitute the America or the West as interpreted by critical-theory theorists: all the critical-theory activisms would have no standing.

One might suppose that western critical theorists could still speak truth to Caliphate power, but the indications are that our critical theorists have no particular wish to speak truth to Islam (or rather to speak truth to obediently developing will-to-power that will become Islamic political rule).

Every Muslim is already a social-justice activist insofar as she or he is a Muslim. Whenever a Muslim isn't doing social-justice activism it's because she or he is reacting to Western imperialism, American foreign policy, Zionist Apartheid etc. My guess is that all such implication will evapourate vis-a-vis the Caliphate.

Neo-Islam seems thoroughly fascinated by the Protocols, so if the traditional natures are anti-semitic, then this is a plus for them too. O man! those first western journalists must have had a frisson of laughter or horror when they received a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of ZIon in their press packet in Riyad!

I'm not confident that real-world non-black Muslims' attitudes toward blacks or subSaharan Africans bear investigation. The claim is that Islam isn't racist, which may be true in the accurate pickwickian meaning of 'race' and 'racism.' Bull Connors would probably have embraced such freedom from racism with open arms.

Anonymous said...

The question is whether the Western 'secularist' populations have been prepared sufficiently for a return of the Gods in Islamic guise (Heidegger, What Are Poets For? in "Poetry, Language, Thought" pp. 91-5).

The substance of Christianity has been abandon'd. Even the "conservative" Islamophobes complain only of Islam's incongruence with Western or American "values" "culture" etc. In fact, the usual "conservative" complaint as by Mark Steyn, who enthuses for old movies, Peggy Lee music etc, use progressives' critieria: they complain that Islam is misogynist, anti-gay, anti-semitic, etc.

The French Revolution has been abandon'd: our Marxists no longer call for Revolution or a Dictatorship of the Proletariat in any version. Marxism is only for doing a critique of racist imperialism, militarist homophobia, etc.

The aftermath of Christianity and the French Revolution has been abandon'd: Nietzsche is only a relativist [moral genealogist of one's relatives], a proto-Nazi [protestant vs Nazi], etc. Heidegger has begotten only critiquers of American imperialism etc.

... Birthrate and immigration patterns in western Europe and Ango-Saxony may have arranged for populations rather like India-Pakistan under the British Raj. The 'state' is easily wither'd away into administration when it is imperialist (out-sourced), formalist, and thus has no political meaning for the ruled. (Although the British Raj was not quite without political meaning for India, as the Mahatma complain'd. Apparently he would have prefer'd the totally foreign domination of Japan.)

Anonymous said...

But since subterranean war of spirit is written in armaments that flower in the cave world, we must expect that the transition from us white male privileged ruling war criminals (karmically guilty of racism, sexism, homophobia etc) to post-us Caliphate personnel cannot occur without a tremendous shedding of our blood. Cf James Hillman, A Terrible Love of War, passim.

Anonymous said...

P.S. One Christian thesis that critical-theory has dissolved is that the psyche is deepen'd, enrich'd, even strengthen'd (including for obedient rule as will-to-power) by suffering and oppression.

This thesis is incompatible with critical theory because critical theory would see power as if only in the ruling, the powerful etc, and not in the rebels, resisters, et al. "Speaking truth to power" must be a tear-down, not a revelation to the oppress'd that they have power and can stand up against the oppressors.

Not that critical theory can explicitly maintain that the oppress'd don't evince power in their resistingness, the protestingness, their occupying wall streetness etc. That would sound insulting.

But the main thing is to undermine bourgeoisification etc. Critical theory must show that the capitalist heteropatriarchy prevents "real change." Thus, blacks must manifest the harm done to them by white power: in fact, the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow devaluation in terms of family system dysfunction etc is apparently worse in 2012 than in 1950 (which Thomas Sowell implicitly deems absurd).

At the same time, critical theory has no psotive programme -- no proposal for a different politics than interest-group democracy and an economics where progress is measured in terms of inclusion of women and subaltern males into corporations, the military-industrial-congressional complex etc. "Inclusion" could of course make the meanings related to sex, orientation, race, class disappear. Which is to say that military-industrial-interpretational complex is the normal and proper arrangement. The point is simply that no biblical meanings should be attach'd to the system.

The Christian thesis that suffering strengthens or empowers is perhaps rather flimsy or at least misleading. One can think of better, more invigorating preparations for ruling than mortification of the flesh, the ascetic ideal (e.g. Socrates' militancy against spiritedness), etc. Not that switching between Madonna and Sodom (underground licentiousness) provides the proper balance.

Anonymous said...

In any case, one shouldn't expect a population to basically be improved by slavery and devaluation. But whereas formerly blacks could claim self-respect in having the strength to endure severe mistreatments that even poor whites did not, now we are to half-heartedly look to government programmes for the strength necessary to achieve justice.

Oppression proximally and for the most part causes ruin. This is accurate, I suppose: cf Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols re the Chandalas.

But is it true that governmental counter-oppression causes healing? Admittedly, progressives only imply this, since to say so would insult African Americans.

I suppose it would be most helpful to look to Charles Murray's Belmont population. No doubt this population too is heavily into government programmes and subsides of various sorts. But do government programmes provide the basic mores of their life?

The disprivilege that those born lucky must endure is that they can't have a personal narrative of triumph. Success, maybe, but not triumph. Whites always sound nauseating when they try to come up with a personal story of triumph because in the foreground anyway we aren't negatively privileged (blacks get a head start in that department: they are negatively privileged, as Weber would say).

And anyway the public square is so contemptible nowadays that anyone with self-respect forbears from handing his or her personal life history over to the talk shows or in his or her own personal relationships to any talk show format (including especially the sense of the comparison of various triumph stories in terms of pain or suffering quantity and triumph struggle quantity). Sometimes because of individual misfortunes that are invisible, even white men must struggle in order to 'triumph' 'against the odds' etc. ...

In any case, at least formerly blacks' own narrative permitted a self-understanding of endurance and a certain amount of triumph. Critical theory forbids this. Blacks' bodies must be texts on which the damage of white privilege or white supremacy is manifest.

More or less the same thing when gays would rather party and white women would rather do a consumerist lifestyle than to march to raise awareness about health care reform: white men's homophobia and trivialization of women is manifest written in the defeatedness of gays and women.

Anonymous said...

For the AG's file on Hosea 2:23; Rom 9:25f My People Lo-ruhamah:

"dirty kuffar," as in the hip hop song by Sheikh Terra and the Soul Salah Crew, as dirt covering a cover'dness, could seem a double sense of cover KPhR 3722 (3713 white frost; 7087); cf 2653, 2643ff. also ape head as js6971 + resh.

"dirty" perhaps js8654 ThROThY sc gate, openings (from 8651f)

Anonymous said...

I would like to see a 19th c. anthropologist studying the present. "The natives will make meticulous observations of the diverse hair and iris colors of all their individual members (even making crudely written records of the same) but will consider it /tabu/ to remark skin colors, or even to mention them. Many an utterance that we more enlightened people would consider quite ordinary -- such as "Who is that high-yellow squaw there?" -- will met with mixed embarrassment and confusion. This matter of skin hue and value is indeed "doubly-tabu," in the classic pattern, for it is also /tabu/ for the natives to admit they operate within a tabu. When pressed, many will even declare "I don't see color," before admitting to merely not mentioning color. Some early researchers of this people offered the theory that the natives were suffering some sort of yet unrecorded light-to-dark Daltonism, but this was swiftly disproven."


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...