Our Children Are The Guarantors

Defending Zionism from its detractors. Anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism. Let the other side apologize for a change.

Monday, March 26, 2007

The Postmodern Wedge

“Narrative”. That word has become the earmark of postmodernism. Say or write the word, “narrative” in your talk or essay, and many people will identify you as a postmodern lecturer or writer, and either trash or hail your words according to their attitude toward postmodernism.

But I use the word, “narrative” a lot, yet I am no postmodernist writer. It would be, then, a false positive. It would be so because it is a red herring. The idea of narratives is not inherently a postmodern one. To be a postmodernist, more than that is needed. Also, few of those we regard as postmodernists are truly such, yet that does not subtract one whit from their being on the enemy side. Now for the details of what I am talking about.

We cannot do without narratives, even if we believe in objective reality. There are facts, but their interpretation may not always be straightforward, and also, there may be bias in selecting them. We like to think of the hard sciences as being the realm where facts rule supreme; this is true for mathematics most of all, but the Global Warming™ brouhaha shows how interests can lay a fog even over hard sciences. All the more so when we discuss things closer to human peculiarities, such as politics and history and art.

The destruction of the World Trade Center towers is the fact. There is the Lesser Disputation, which is the “9/11 Truth” movement, claiming it was an inside job by the American government; thankfully, this is derided as kookery even by Marxists like the ones on CounterPunch. But there is the Greater Disputation, which is the view of the root causes of 9/11, and therefore of the remedies against its recurrence. One narrative says: Islamic imperialism making its first awesome statement of intent. Another narrative says: the colonized non-Western other making a visible protest against a long series of injustices.

I have no problem calling those two, “Narratives”, for I believe that is the best name for them; nor do I have any problem with listening to all narratives, with recognizing how other people think. Ignorance is not bliss, and listening to the other side does not equal capitulation. But knowledge of the other side does not mean assent to their ideas, and listening does not automatically translate into action in their favor. And I judge. I certainly judge. I listen to the other side’s narrative, I study it thoroughly, and then, after all that, there is a quite real possibility that I will judge that narrative as totally erroneous. That’s what sets me apart from postmodernism.

Take one of the most widely-circulated postmodern mantras of today:

One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

What is wrong with that phrase? Is it false? Maybe. But if it’s not false, there is only one other option: it’s a tautology, a statement of the obvious. Of course some people give the title, “freedom fighters” to those we call, “terrorists”, and vice versa! If that phrase is true, then it’s a “Well, duh…” kind of phrase no one should be wasting such an inordinate length of time on. But people do. We all do. Because there is a serious reason for doing so.

The comparison between groups such as the Stern Gang and Hamas ought to be an open-and-shut case: though both employed violent tactics, the former had no goal other than the liberation of the Land of Israel from British rule, nor did they raise their children on a heritage of perpetual hatred toward the British or sacrifice them, while the goal of Hamas would be equivalent to claiming Britain as part of the Jewish state and striving to liberate it all from the “Anglo-Saxon invader”, and instead of doing anything in the way of building their state, on lands they already have (the Gaza Strip, for example), they use their money for weaponry, and raise their children on the heritage of genocide and suicide-terrorism. The Stern Gang were freedom fighters using terrorist tactics from time to time; Hamas are terrorists in essence, having no way of life apart from terrorism, and cannot be considered freedom fighters, for they are fighting against the freedom of the other side.

Is the above just my narrative? If it weren’t for postmodernism, then no, it would be a foregone conclusion, borne out by the facts. But here comes our phrase, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”, and inserts a wedge into the upright tree. It innocuously poses as an invitation to listen. That is not the actual problem, for I just said listening is basically a good thing. But it is no innocent enticement at all, for it comes with a threat: “Don’t be judgmental! Don’t look down upon the Other! Don’t be such an intolerant Orientalist!”, and so on.

I have no problem with the fact that the members of Hamas may actually consider themselves to be freedom fighters. I have a problem with this order, this command, not to be judgmental. This is no artistic matter, no literary criticism, no hour of entertainment passed by on the couch; this is an issue where life and limb are concerned. Judgmentalism is not only allowed—it’s an imperative! Postmodernism is somewhat sufferable when expounded by professors of literature with too much time on their hands sitting atop the ivory tower; but, as the Sokal Affair showed, when carried over to hard, real-world matters, it can be disastrous. We cannot afford it now at all, for the future of the world is at stake.

Nor is the enemy postmodern. Not the Muslims, whose certainty and judgmentalism, when displayed by a Bible-believer, are decried by the Marxists as “colonial haughtiness”; but not the Marxists themselves either. “Bush = Hitler” is anything but postmodern. It requires, first, the judgment of Hitler as an evil man, and then the judgment of Bush as equivalent to him. The rants of the moonbats against “money-grubbing corporations”, against “the human blight on the environment”, against “the racism of Western governments”, against “the Zionist history of ethnic cleansing” and for “peace and justice for all, no peace with justice!”—all these are decidedly judgmental, to such a degree that it would make a fundamentalist Christian hellfire preacher (or a Muslim imam—but that’s “Racism! Racism! Raaaaaacism!”) blush. It is as far removed from the “all narratives are of equal worth and truth” tenet of postmodernism as can be.

The reality is, postmodernism is nothing but a wedge against the West’s traditional truths, to be used as the beginning of their toppling, and a safety-valve against the same, to be used once they have already been toppled. Postmodernism invites the listener to grant worthiness (and not just an ear, which is what I do) to the view that the customs of wife beating or cannibalism are to be tolerated in modern Western society, a view which self-confident modern Western minds would throw into the trashcan of depraved ideas as soon as they had finished listening. Then, when somebody dares to voice an opinion against those customs, postmodernism is invoked to stifle it on the grounds of, “intolerance toward the other”. We see it all the time at Western universities: whenever you hear the word, “diversity”, you can safely bet it’s a prelude to proscribing some opinion the heads of the university don’t like, even if it be an opinion on hard, factual, real-world matters. Taken to its logical conclusion, postmodernism could be used to force “tolerance” of the “narrative” that 2 plus 2 equals 5 if the head of the university (or state) feels like it, just as Orwell wrote.

I don’t flinch at the word, “narrative”. I will listen, and listen attentively. But I will judge once I have finished listening. I will deliver judgment on each narrative, and I will not cave in to accusations of “cultural imperialism” and “colonial haughtiness”. Any student who asserts that judging things is bad ought to be given an F, and when he protests that, his professor ought to answer, “Stop being so judgmental. Show a little tolerance toward my narrative, according to which you deserve an F”.

Human judgment carries the risk of error, of course. But sitting on the fence carries the certainty of failure. Postmodernism is either a dishonest ruse or a fence-sitting laziness; either way, we cannot afford to give it credence.

Labels: ,


Blogger kahaneloyalist said...

ZY, good article, have you ever considered submitting your articles to Israeli news sites like Arutz Sheva or YNET?

Also Yair Stern is one of the greates heroes of Jewish history, he revieved the concept of Jewish warfare as demanded from the Torah rather then the Goy influenced excessive mercy of other(but still righteous) Jewish resistance groups.

March 27, 2007 12:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

March 27, 2007 7:59 AM  
Blogger ZionistYoungster said...

Arutz Sheva might be a good idea. YNET... now Yediot Achronot is officially impartial, but if my submission ends up in the hands of one of their lefty editors, then in the trash it goes. No harm trying, though.

Anti-Zionists claim the Muslim terrorists learned their art by imitating the Sternists. I think that's partially true: the Muslims have always copied the outer shells of Judaism and Jewish creations, from the Koran to the Pseudostinian narrative; but they've always given them their crazed, extreme streak (compare Islamic dress to Jewish tzeniut). Jewish warfare is a necessary evil, enjoined on us for taking and defending our land, but we always pray for the day we won't have to fight any longer; Islamic warfare isn't just an accessory, it's a pillar (or "hump", as one of their placards said) of Islam.

PS The above comment was a lengthy piece of "9/11 Truth" spam. Apparently my mention of the "9/11 Truth" movement made the commenter think it was welcome. Sorry, but no: the rules state clearly, "They must be presented as intellectually addressible arguments"; a mere list of links, all the more so non-linked ones (i.e. you have to copy and paste onto the address bar to go to them), is unacceptable.

March 27, 2007 9:22 AM  
Blogger kahaneloyalist said...

I think the Muzzies may have learned media manipulation from the Jewish resistance groups but there were already Muzzies terrorist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood founded 1928 existed before Yair Stern began his campaign.

But your right the Muslims steal things from the Jews and make them hideous, that seems to be the way of Islam in all things.

March 27, 2007 1:00 PM  
Anonymous ptah said...

Good post, zionist youngster. In fact, while commenting on it, I decided to put the comments into a post at my website, which you can read here. Its a summary of my subconscous suspicions about the way Leftists argue that your post helped clarify.

March 27, 2007 9:47 PM  
Blogger ZionistYoungster said...


Thanks for the comment both here and on yours. I'd gotten tired of the ploy, "You say the Palestinians don't want peace, but they say the same thing about you", or "You believe Judaism true and Islam false, but they believe just the converse". It's the "Well, duh..." factor again: yeah, thanks for telling me something I didn't already know... My answer, in condensed form, is that I know full well what the other side thinks about me, and what are the thought-patterns that make them tick. I know all that, and I stand my own ground: I'm right, they're wrong. To which the PoMo-ist would answer, "They think they're right and you're wrong". And my reply, "Yeah, swell. But I'm me and they're them. That's a tautology, but so are most PoMo statements in general".

PoMo is an invitation to self-denial. As we all know, and as my blog has been emphasizing right from the beginning, self-denial is the most dangerous thing for us today--it enables Islam to subjugate us despite our still being militarily superior. The PoMo ruse has been of nefarious intent from the start, and it's time people recognized this fact.

March 28, 2007 9:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a very important message about a terroristic Attack.

کیر بزمجه عربستان و مصر تو کس ننه هرکی سیده.
سنده ملت جهان تو کس ننه حافظان شریعت اسلام

کیر خوک تو کس ننه فاحشه => پاسدار یا بسیجی یا اطلاعاتی یا جاسوس اسلام یا سید یا حزب اللهی

گوه خوک تو ننه امام حسین شد امام حسن

سنده شیطان تو حلق محمد رسول الله قرآن شد.

خرطوم فیل تو کس ننه پیامبر اسلام.

الله اکبر
خامنه ای عنتر
مرگ بر دوست ولایت فقیه
درود بر آمریکا

April 26, 2007 10:21 AM  
Blogger ZionistYoungster said...


Thank you for the warning. However, next time, you might consider posting it in a language I can actually understand.

April 26, 2007 8:27 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home