Cultural Reframing, A Vital Strategy
In Britain and Belgium, pretty much the only political parties that are not PC about the Islamic threat are the British National Party and Vlaams Belang, respectively. I commented on them only briefly in the past, stating that I do not identify with their stance on cultural uniformity, as I believe it is not cultural diversity that is the problem but an ideology that uses it to its supremacist ends (Islam)—the parable of the fishbowl that has many kinds of fish living peacefully, until the piranha is introduced into it. The BNP, Vlaams Belang and other nationalistic parties err, in my opinion, in throwing the baby with the bathwater. I support their courageous stand against Islamic imperialism, but the fact that they are nearly alone in making that stand means the PC crowd is having a field day using the accusations against them on all those who resist Islam. Robert Spencer makes that point on the post UK: Race-hate laws to be changed after BNP case fails, from November 14, 2006:
I have no love for the BNP. Its strength is an indication of the wholesale abdication of responsibility on the part of the mainstream British parties, none of which seem able to discuss the jihad threat to Britain in any useful manner. (Yes, my British friends, the same thing is true of the mainstream parties in the United States.)
This case shows just how out-of-focus the British approach to the jihad threat really is. Nick Griffin calls Islam a “a wicked, vicious faith”, and is charged with race hate. What race is Islam? It is a religious faith and a political ideology, of course, not a race at all, but at the same time the British authorities’ classification of Griffin’s offense is understandable. After all, most Muslims in Britain are from central Asia, and thus it has become illegal to discuss the elements of an ideology that is held by a large number of non-white people.
I don’t want to turn that quote into a discussion as to whether the BNP is racist or has long repudiated the white supremacist statements for which Griffin was notorious in the 1990’s. The point is that the BNP, Vlaams Belang and the like are perceived as racist parties by the left-leaning academics and mainstream media functionaries. In our age, in which perception and “what the polls will say” more often than not overcome sane judgment, this means the people in power shy away from making statements that sound like those made by the heads of those nationalist parties, and the mere word, “racism” is enough to make them back away from anti-dhimmi steps that are nothing if not reasonable. As far back as a few days after 9/11, this produced an apology and a backtracking from Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, after he dared to speak about the superiority of Western culture (not race) over that of Islam (a religion, not a race). Ever since, the Muslim lobbyists have skillfully employed the accusation of racism against those of the non-Muslims who have showed refusal to play the good dhimmi, time after time.
Why is the accusation of racism so potent that its threat must be defused, even when we know it is false? And what is the alternative?
This weapon derives its lethality from a widely-acknowledged truth: racism is indefensible. The idea that a group of people are entitled to supreme rule over all others just because of their birth is something no one can make the case for without being dragged into a moral quagmire—picture yourself defending the scum at Stormfront. (Note to any anti-Zionist who might think of hitching a ride here: my post Chosen To Show proves how Jewish exceptionalism is not an example of racist supremacism, however fashionable it may be to say so in our day and age.) If it can be shown that a person or party or state is racist, then they have effectively lost the ideological battle and been shut out of the realm of intellectual discourse, and retreating to their fastnesses is the only option left for them. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the Marxists and the Muslims to tar their opponents with the brush of racism.
The use of the perceived racism of nationalist parties like the BNP and Vlaams Belang against all anti-dhimmis, as well as against those who oppose illegal immigration (on the US border, for example), is a case of tried-and-true well-poisoning, aimed at shutting down the free world’s defenses against the onslaught of the forces of nihilism on it. If the issue of Muslims in the West is a race issue, as the politically correct discourse holds for dogma, then it naturally follows that speaking against the Muslim immigrants is “racist hatred”, that detaining suspicious-looking Muslims at airports is “lack of sensitivity to those of different color”, that building a security fence to keep Muslim suicide terrorists off non-Muslim civilian centers is “apartheid”, and that, obviously, beyond a shred of doubt, advocating the mass expulsion of Muslim immigrants because the cost to their host countries far outweighs the profit is “making genocidal sentiments of which Hitler would be proud”. Who could possibly defend such things?
Where to, then? If avoiding the accusations of racism is an absolute necessity in Stage 0 of this war, what can constitute a non-racist platform against the Islamic threat?
I already mentioned it, indirectly, in passing: Berlusconi’s platform. Before he caved in and apologized to “My Arab friends…” (with “Arab” bringing it all to the ballpark of ethnicity, if not race), he talked of cultural superiority, the superiority of Western culture over the Islamic one. Once this debate is reframed from a clash of races into a clash of cultures, the whole territory changes drastically. The Muslim imperialists and their PC supporters cannot silence the opposition as they did with the accusations of racism. Two notes on this new framing should be made:
First, what is culture? I have said before, a few times, that the diversity of art forms and foods (to name a few examples) is not the issue. Cultural purists may mourn the construction of a Japanese theater beside the Shakespearian college, or voice misgivings on having to hear pentatonic scales alongside the classical polyphony of Bach and Mozart, but I see that as being of no consequence, as long as those alternative art forms are not pushed as counters to the original host culture, and if some nationalist parties think their countries should be purified of them then here it is that they and I must part ways. No, when I speak of the Clash of Cultures, it means social values above all: societal norms, interpersonal customs, sexual mores, the regard to the law of the land, and other such things that impact the life of every man and woman, day to day. It bears on questions such as whether it is normal for apostates to be killed, or whether, instead, it is the law of the land, immutable, undebatable, unassailable, to execute those who kill apostates. This echoes the 19th-century debate in which British colonial administrator General Sir Charles Napier invoked the British cultural custom of hanging those who burned widows alive on their deceased husband’s pyre.
After reading all this, an objection may be raised: surely you, the author of this post, having loads of analyses of Political Correctness behind you, know that the PC brigade would be just as quick to raise accusations of “cultural imperialism” as it does accusations of “racism”? That is the second note about the benefit of cultural reframing: yes, I know, but no, it wouldn’t do them good this time.
Recall that I said racism is indefensible. Not so is cultural imperialism: there is no difficulty for a person to make the case for cultural imperialism without any risk of losing the moral high ground. In fact, the attitude of cultural imperialism is often necessary to avoid being a racist! For if the law of the land is to hang those who murder women, but certain people are exempted from it because it is part of their (to follow the PC mindset) color-group, then it follows that women of a certain color have fewer rights than those of another color—racism any way you slice it! And the only way to equalize the rights of women of all colors involves, you guessed it, cultural imperialism. The PC snake swallows its own tail…
Also, the Marxists themselves are cultural imperialists par excellence. Marxism calls for a worldwide workers’ revolution establishing a “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” to end the existence of all social classes, worldwide. Now, this is an inherently imperialistic goal: have the Marxists no sensitivity toward other cultures in which social stratification is an ancient indigenous tradition? These ideas emanating from the brain of a 19th-century German intellectual—does anyone have a right to foist them on all the world, in much the same way as, so we are told by the Marxists themselves, Christian missionaries invade every part of the world and replace its native culture with their foreign values? All the Marxist talk against cultural imperialism, then, is nothing but a convenient lie employed for the purpose of felling Marxism’s bitterest enemy: the Bible-based (Judeo-Christian) culture underlying the West. And for that same purpose, supporting Islamic cultural imperialism is fine too.
In summary, the titanic global clash of today is between cultures, with each culture believing itself the best, as it must (for a culture that does not believe so is destined to be conquered by one that does). Race does not play any significant part in the conflict of our day, except for its role as a propaganda device. The war is truly and factually between cultural systems vying for control of the world, and that should be the answer to every attempt at tarring the resistance against Islam with the Stormfront brush.
Thus spake Silvio:
We should be conscious of the superiority of our civilization, which consists of a value system that has given people widespread prosperity in those countries that embrace it, and guarantees respect for human rights and religion. This respect certainly does not exist in Islamic countries.
That he was pressured to apologize by charges of racism is the core reason why there is no end in sight to this war five years and a half after the two towers were brought down. Reframing it in Berlusconi’s terms is the only human way to victory. Let us wear the badge of our cultural imperialism with pride.