Wednesday, February 04, 2015

Not Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals II

At the end of my last column, “Not Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals,” in which I distinguish between Saul Alinsky’s manual for “community organizing” against selected local targets in the economic and cultural realms, and Takuan’s “Laws” for “governing” the national  “community” once the “radicals” have entrenched themselves in political power and have become the authoritarian establishment, I noted:

Seiyo’s laws are presented as abstractions [initially]. I have no argument with them except for their unfamiliar nomenclature. It has been my philosophy of political and cultural commentary to prefer the concrete over the abstract. All abstract hypotheses are founded on concretes, arguing from the particulars to the general. I think that is the best way to communicate the power of ideas. If there are no concretes or particulars to instance, then no matter how broad the abstraction, there is no idea to communicate, and no abstraction to contemplate or reach. Seiyo provides concretes in Part I as an overture to Part II. 

In Part II of his disquisition, Takuan Seiyo applies his abstractions and offers numerous instances or concrete examples of Lawrence Auster’s and Takuan’s “Laws” in action.
In my original “Not Alinsky’s” column, I discussed the four abstractions Takuan Seiyo lists under the headingThe Laws of Postmodern Social Reality,” which read:

1. Liberal Society approaches all majority-minority issues with a quadruple blindfold.

Presentism is the first blindfold. All past attitudes and deeds relative to any minority are judged by present standards.

Relativism is the second blindfold. All judgments relative to past or current attitudes and deeds toward any minority are applied to White society alone.

Outlyism is the third blindfold. Any negative statistical fact relative to the mean or majority characteristics of any designated minority is shouted down by quoting the far-outlying exceptions to that statistical fact.

Sentimentalism is the fourth blindfold. All negative hard or statistical facts relative to any minority group are shouted down in preference to cuddly feelings about that group or implanted feelings of guilt relative to it.

2. The main goal of Liberal Society is to implement a radical equality that is unnatural and in defiance of salient biological facts and unchanging human reality. This can only be accomplished by coercion of the majority and squashing of once-common civil liberties. This, in turn, requires an enormous growth of the Liberal-Oppressive State, with its joined canopy of social repressions and engineered culture implemented by all societal institutions at levels as extreme, if not as violent, as they were under the Nazi Gleichschaltung.

3. Liberal Society inexorably fractures and breaks down due to its promotion of designated identitarian minorities and cultivation of the radically egalitarian fictions related thereto.

4. The ruling elite can keep Liberal Society together only by employing egregious means bordering on fascism.

The term identitarian is another of Seiyo’s neologisms I’m uncomfortable with, but for the nonce, I'll accept it as meaning a collectivist term that applies to a group-oriented ideology that permits an individual to assert something like, “I’m a Muslim first, American second,” or, “I’m a Muslim first, and British second.” Or, “I’m a Muslim-American” or “I’m a German Muslim of Turkish  persuasion.” This mindset could easily be dubbed “Hyphenism,” the hyphen signalling that a person’s first  loyalty is to his group or tribe, not to the country of his residence and in contrast to his citizenship.

The mainstream media naturally adopts the mindset, as well, as when one can see headlines such as, “Somali-American students go on a rampage in a high school cafeteria.” Identifying the Somalis as Muslims is verboten.  (This incident in Minnesota involved a fight between black Americans and Somali-Americans.) Or, “Most Irish-Americans don’t get drunk on St. Patrick’s Day.” The hyphenization of groups and individuals has been ongoing for decades. I would be startled to hear an American Jew confess that he was “Jewish-American.” I have cocked a snook at the trend and refuse to refer to myself as an “Atheist-American.”

Some hyphenization is legitimate, as in a hypothetical story headlined, “Poll: 96% of Mexican-Americans say they won't vote Democratic in 2016 because of Obama’s amnesty plans,” or, “Most Cuban-Americans give thumbs down to Obama’s Cuba overtures.”

That being said, Seiyo prefaces his four points with:

Prior to analyzing the fallout from the recent “extremist events” that we discussed in Part 1,  it’s useful to take a look at the Laws of Social Reality that govern these phenomena.

Witnessing the psychotic fawning that the United States’ establishment lavished on Muslims and Islam after 9/11, the traditionalist thinker Lawrence Auster formed his Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society:

“The worse any designated minority or alien group behaves in a liberal society, the bigger become the lies of Political Correctness in covering up for that group. The more egregiously any non-Western or non-white group behaves, the more evil whites are made to appear for noticing and drawing rational conclusions about that group’s bad behavior.”

Auster elaborated further: “The First Law and its corollary are intrinsic to liberalism. Once the equality of all human groups is accepted as a given, any facts that make a minority or foreign group seem worse than the majority native group must be either covered up or blamed on the majority.”

Since the 1960s, this law has been immutable in all the lands of the Euro peoples, and was lavishly on display after the recent “extremist” unpleasantness in majority-white countries. But it alone cannot convey the manifold ways in which the West’s liberal rulers’ partly psychotic, partly conniving obsession with designated minorities, Muslim or not, affects our world’s present state and future destiny. In homage to the prematurely-departed Larry Auster, l shall formulate here the laws subsidiary to his and bracketing this phenomenon.
Throughout Takuan’s essay he makes repeated references to Caucasians (or “whites”) laboring under the rule of the Liberal establishment. Lest anyone conclude that he is arguing from a racist position, it should be noted that it is the Liberal establishment that instigated the race issue, and long before its fortuitous alliance with Islam. For example, a front group of the Muslim Brotherhood, the International Institute for Islamic Thought, coined the term “Islamophobia.” It is consistently employed by especially the infidel MSM as a derogative term for critics of Islam – be they serious critics of Islam or someone who expresses his contempt for Islam by smearing the door of a mosque with pig’s blood. A fear of Islam, they imply, is the  same as racism. In non-Islamic issues, Liberals contend or agree with black racists that “whites” owe blacks reparations for past slavery.

But not, they neglect to say, Saudi Arabia, or any other surviving feudal Muslim regime; omitting the fact that Muslims enslaved blacks, millions of them, for centuries before any country in the West practiced slavery. “White” or “Western” civilization, they natter on,  is a form of racial imperialism imposed on all “people of color.”

But most Muslims happen to be people of one color or another, including a growing number of whites searching for a religion that will tell them what to do and why they should live and for an iconic ghost that punishes thought. Their “diversity” and multicultural education have left them empty of self and brain dead. So, Islam is not a race. Islam can make no claim to any achievement that parallels any of the West’s. Islam has never sent probes to other planets, has not invented disease-eradicating vaccines or open-heart surgery, never figured out pressure loads for 100-story skyscrapers, never discovered the oil beneath the sands of the Mideast wastes otherwise watered by the blood shed over the centuries by all the warring nomadic tribes in thrall to one form of Islam or another. Any positive achievement of the West’s is rooted in a recognition of and an adherence to the efficacy of reason and a fealty to reality, reached first during the Renaissance and then during the Enlightenment after centuries of the West wallowing in the same brand of anti-reason mysticism to which Islam has grasped tenaciously for fourteen centuries and will never let go of lest Islam perish in historic irrelevancy, leaving behind only a steady, unbroken record of nihilism.

Islam and reason are in essence antithetical. No “reformation” of Islam is possible without gutting it of its violent, anti-man nature.

Following are some of Seiyo’s numerous instances of craven Western timidity regarding Islam and a bullheaded, fact-denying refusal to name Islam as the cause of the “violent extremism” of Muslims:

NBC Television analyst Evan Kohlmann opined that France’s Problem is “The Far-Right,” not the Jihadists, let alone the 10 million African Muslims.
Great Britain’s Telegraph featured a headline on the Charlie Hebdo massacre that read “France faces rising tide of Islamophobia”

BBC News ran a program about the growing anti-Semitism in France, showing footage of a neo-Nazi march a year earlier, but nothing of the Muslim purveyors of 99% of the anti-Semitism.

The New York Daily News pixilated the Muhammad cartoon in its story about the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

Fox News issued an abject apology for “regrettable errors on air regarding the Muslim population in Europe,” citing “no credible information to support the assertion” concerning the existence of “so-called ‘No Go Zones’ areas where non-Muslims allegedly aren’t allowed in and police supposedly won’t go.” Bloomberg Business Week published “Debunking the Myth of Muslim-Only Zones in Major European Cities.”

Despite the fact that an official French government document was published in 1996, listing 750 such zones, and reports by prestigious French institutions, among them Fondation Res Publica, Institut Montaigne, and University of Paris exist, describing these lawless (non-droit) colonies.

What about ISIS? Al-Qaeda? The Taliban? Hezbollah? Boko Haram? These and other terrorist organizations, goes the Liberal line, have little or nothing to do with Islam. Their members are merely “violent extremists” (aka “militants”) who have “misread” the Koran. To wit, President Barack Obama on the brutal murder of the Jordanian pilot by ISIS. In the video of his remarks, Obama looks and speaks about the Jordanian pilot as though he just had a bad day at the golf course. He may as well have been reciting the rules of the course clubhouse.

“Lieutenant al-Kasasbeh’s dedication, courage, and service to his country and family represent universal human values that stand in opposition to the cowardice and depravity of ISIL, which has been so broadly rejected around the globe.  As we grieve together, we must stand united, respectful of his sacrifice to defeat this scourge.  Today, the coalition fights for everyone who has suffered from ISIL’s inhumanity.  It is their memory that invests us and our coalition partners with the undeterred resolve to see ISIL and its hateful ideology banished to the recesses of history.” [Italics mine]

And the name of that “hateful ideology,” Mr.  President? Islam. But Obama refuses to utter the word. He doesn’t want to be identified as an “Islamophobe.” If anything, he is an Islamophile. His administration is riddled with Muslims and Islamophiles, ideological termites eating away at our country’s national security. With his blessing.

And, a few more of Seiyo’s instances of genuine “Islamophobia,” that is, examples of fearing the consequences of bad-mouthing Islam so instead it’s better to state that Islam is a paragon of tolerance and good will:

The Swells Who Ride in Limousines (SWORILs) turned out en masse for a photo-op in Paris, with millions of Useful Idiots throughout the West declaring to TV cameras “Je suis Charlie Hebdo,” but not a single one declaring “Je suis Charlie Martel.” German Useful Idiots went as far as carrying signs that read, “I am Charlie Hebdo — but not PEGIDA.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Joachim Gauck attended in Berlin a Muslim-organized event “to promote tolerance and religious freedom and “to show solidarity with the victims.” The victims, alas, could no longer benefit from the solidarity.

Herr Gauck said to the crowd; “We are all Germany” and disclosed with astonishing originality that “Germany has become more diverse through immigration — religiously, culturally and mentally.” His assertion that this diversity has made Germany more successful, interesting and likeable was based on far more flimsy evidence.

Frau Merkel asserted that Islam was part of Germany and that there was no place for “hatred, racism and extremism” in the country. Of course not; that’s why an estimated 550 “Germans” are out of the country, exercising their hatred, racism and extremism with ISIS, with so many more trying to join that the German government is replacing their regular ID documents with “jihadi cards,” to prevent them from leaving the country.

Here’s a last instance that occurred too late for Seiyo to include: Sweden to reward returning ISIS Jihadists. They’re going to be offered couch time and gainful employment:

Jihadists returning to Örebro Municipality will get psychological help.
And not only that: Tvärsnytt now reveals that the municipality council are discussing giving them jobs.

- It gives a very inverted signal, Peter Santesson, opinion Director at Demoskop, says to the Swedish newspaper Expressen.

ISIS Jihadists returning to Örebro will be offered help by a psychologist, the municipal leaders have decided. Jihadists are likely to have traumatic experiences and this is where the municipality wants to help.

- We have discussed how we should work for these guys who have come back, and to prevent them from returning to the fighting, and that they should be helped to process the traumatic experiences they have been through, Councilor Rasmus Persson (C), said to SVT "Tvärsnytt".

They also want to offer the jihadists jobs in the municipality. The initiative is to prevent alienation, which the Örebro Politicians believe is the reason to take part in the fighting in Iraq and Syria. (!)

Oh! We mustn’t forget the “traumatic experiences” the return jihadists have been through! The poor dears! However, we should forget the traumatic experiences of native Swedish women who have been gang raped by Muslims, or the experiences of the Jews of Malmo at the hands of invading Muslim settlers whose religion calls for the extermination of Jews, and other inconvenient but unmentionable experiences of Swedes, mentionable on pain of being charged with “hate speech” and “racism.”

Paul Weston takes British Home Secretary Theresa May to task for her pro-Islam, pro-Muslim speech delivered at a Party conference last month, in his column, “The Multicultural Madness of Theresa May.”

When we willfully refuse to believe basic facts, such as the incompatibility of Islam and non-Islam, we retreat into fantasy or outright lies in order to deny the bleeding obvious. Highly educated men and women with PHD’s and Master’s degrees thus find themselves talking utter nonsense when it comes to Islam, simply because of their Politically Correct refusal to accept the awful, ghastly reality of Islam’s rigid belief system.

The pathologically irrational behaviour of British Home Secretary Theresa May is just such an example of the insanity that ensues when liberals pontificate upon Islam. She made a speech recently at the Conservative Party Conference which was so riddled with platitudes, contradictions, lies and fantasies that had it been submitted it as an end of term paper, she would have been laughed out of a school for slow learners let alone Oxford University from where she inexplicably graduated.
After quoting several delusional but Islam-fawning portions of her speech, Weston asks:

Memo to TM: Are you utterly insane? You cannot state we celebrate different ways of life and value diversity whilst at the same time complaining about people because they lead different lives in line with the “diverse” values of 7th century Arabia. The whole point of diversity is “difference” sweetie-pie! This is as foolish as stating you value the diversity entailed in living with peckish lions and then complaining about their illiberally carnivorous behaviour when they unsurprisingly eat you. You can celebrate British values or you can celebrate Islamic values. You cannot, you simply cannot celebrate both! A five year-old would understand this basic fact. Why cannot you?

I have to ask you, in all seriousness Ms May, are you A) Suffering from a form of mental illness? B) Both remarkably stupid and illogical? C) A coward? D) A traitor? E) A typical careerist politician engaging in lies and deception in order to ensure the inevitably violent racial/religious break-down occurs only after you have retired somewhere safe with your gold plated pension?

And a final question, Home Secretary May: When our politicians refuse to recognize reality, is it likely that reality will just disappear, or will it remain to devour our children?

Memo to Theresa May: You wish Islam to be what it isn't, just as convicted classified document leaker Bradley Manning wishes to be something he isn't: A doppelganger of you, albeit a younger version, and in prison for the next thirty-five years.

I have some helpful advice for Mr. Weston: What permits Theresa May to shamelessly flaunt her lunacy as official policy is pragmatism, the philosophy that reason, principles, integrity, and sanity needn’t guide one’s actions or policies, that they’re optional, and what works is not subscribing to any one of those things, but ensuring that Muslims don’t demonstrate loudly calling for her head and that of Prime Minister David Cameron.

In conclusion, it should go without saying that had the West not abandoned reason, none of these things would ever have occurred. They would have been the subject of wildly imaginative satire. But, as nature abhors a vacuum, and if reason is absent from human relationships, only the irrational will fill the void left behind by retreating reason. 

We would not be assaulted daily with so many absurdities, contradictions, and abbreviations. And Lawrence Auster and Takuan Seiyo would never have had reason to formulate their Laws and Rules for a Liberal Society.


madmax said...

Wow. You're reading Larry Auster. I discovered him in 2007 and he changed my view on a lot of things. Auster is a Traditionalist Conservative; a real reactionary right winger who is not pro-Classical Liberal. In fact his argument, which I think has validity, is that Classical Liberalism and the Enlightenment paved the way for Leftism largely due to its inherent epistemological subjectivism; which is something I think a few O'ist scholars think too.

Auster not only applied his "minority-majority" view to Muslims but to every non-white group. He was a racialist although not a white nationalist and not an anti-Semitic PaleoCon (he was born Jewish and converted to Christianity). IMO, Auster was the BEST analyst of the Left of any and every modern political commentator out there. No Objectivist even comes close to understanding Leftism like Auster did. Thing is, I think that many of Auster's identifications are consistent with Rand's philosophy. In essence he believed that skepticism led to relativism led to egalitarianism led to nihilism. Throw in the altruist ethics and you have Leftism as a replacement religion for Christianity but instead of sacrifice of the haves to the have-nots (downtrodden) you have sacrifice of the white to the non-white. Call it "hatred of the white for being the white."

But what Auster clued me in on was that today's Left is not just waging a war on the "producers" as O'ists would say. But on white producers and specifically white, male producers. Today's Left is specifically a war on white non-Leftist men.

I would disagree with you on one thing though. Islam is valuable to the Left precisely because it is a religion of non-whites for the most part. Most Muslims are either brown, olive, black or beige, not white. If Islam were a European religion it would serve no purpose to the Left. Remember Auster's principle; the Left surrenders to things non-Western or non-White. Leftists, especially Euro-Leftists, want non-white immigration because their particular egalitarian vision ends with a multi-racial humanity where there are no white people. This is documented. Its what the European Union was founded for. This is why Leftist don't care about something like Rohterham rape land. They will throw women under the bus because they don't care about opposing "rape culture". What they care about is destroying their mortal enemy which is the white male. To do that they need to import as many non-whites as possible. Thats why they defend Islam. Islam gives them the non-whites to fulfill their utopian visions.

Edward Cline said...

MadMax: I’m afraid I’m going to have to take exception to some of your remarks in your comment. First of all, I’m not that big a fan of Auster, or even of Takuan Seiyo. There are some underlying principles they’ve articulated with which I agree, but not all. My chief objection to them is that they’ve written from a Christian “traditionalist” viewpoint. They’re like squeaky clean Republicans, and many lights in the Tea Party, and pundits who write for the Weekly Standard.

Second, as much as I don’t like many “officially recognized spokesmen for Objectivism,” such Ari Armstrong, Diana Hsieh and others in that crowd – I’ve had verbal run-ins with them in the past – Hsieh and I traded blows over the Ground Zero mosque, you might recall – but I don’t bear them grudges. I just don’t think of them anymore. In fact, I’ve forgotten what Armstrong did or said that rubbed my fur the wrong way. But to insinuate that she’s a Leftist of any stripe is a bit much. She’s an Objectivism follower, not an innovator. Until Peikoff spoke on the issue, she was vociferous in her condemnation of me and anyone else who opposed the GZ mosque, as he did. After that, she had nothing to say.

Moreover, neither Auster nor Takuan is entirely clear about his concern for “whites.” I’m just not that confident that they aren’t writing from a white “supremacist” standpoint, which is why I express my qualifications and reservations about their statements in both columns. I can only agree with them on an ad hoc-per issue basis. So, I must say that Auster’s and Seiyo’s “identifications” are definitely not consistent with Objectivism. When a living body like Western civilization decays, I’m more likely to accept Leonard Peikoff’s account of the decomposition, not Auster’s or Takuan’s.

And that’s all I’m going to say on this subject.