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.

Thursday, March 08, 2007

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.

Picture: portrait of General Sir Charles Napier
“You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom…”

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.

Labels: , , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interestingly enough the BNP and Vlaams Belang are gaining strength and may come to power if things get worse. Are they Jew haters I dont know, but I put no trust in Goyim to save us, no matter there political leanings.

Judaism certainly has supremicist elements, there are many places in the Torah where Jews are refered to as being superior to Goyim, but it is not racial as anyone can become Jewish.

On this note Yaakov Jibraeli born a Muslim converted to Judaism and was actually on the Kahane Chai party list before they were declared "terrorist".

I'm not so sure your right about only the Muzzies being a problem while at this point almost all terrorism is from muzzies, the Christian Arabs are profoundly racist and believe in Arab Nationalism. Rather humorous in that their supposed Muzzie Arab brethren hate them and will kill them the first chance they get. Ala Lebanon

March 09, 2007 1:09 AM  
Blogger ziontruth said...

I remember Griffin's pro-"Palestinian" words in his interview for Yediot Achronot sometime back in the 1990's. As with everything concerning the 1990's, I can only say it was another time, another age, lost forever in the events of that day in September 2001. To hear tell, both the BNP and Vlaams Belang have called for Jews to be their allies in their fight against the Islamization of Europe. That would be an alliance of convenience, sure, but then a lot of alliances in our time are, conforming to G-d's words, "...and every man's hands against him" on Ishmael in Genesis 16:12. Of course, what every Jew must remember is there is only One in Whom we are to put our trust for salvation.

I prefer to speak of Jewish exceptionalism every time: the Jewish people being exceptional in their appointment by G-d for His purposes. And it's not racist, not only because anyone can convert to Judaism, but because the end result of it all, speedily in our days, amen, is that all nations will benefit from our service to G-d. A racist ideology doesn't promise benefits to those outside the group. Nor does any supremacist ideology, even if not based on race. For example, Islam.

There's been a series of lectures by Muslim converts to Judaism in Israel lately. It looks like this subject is captivating the interest of the crowd, because I rarely heard of those lectures before. Let us just pray for the safety of all such gerei tzedek.

The Christian Arabs, in my opinion, are afflicted with the same malady as the Western Left: they're dhimmi dupes and anachronists. Like useful idiots such as Hugo Chávez and Ken Livingstone (may HaShem strike them down soon), they think they can buy peace from the Muslims through sacrifices; and just as the Marxist intellectuals and academics think the world can still be viewed in terms of race struggles and class warfare, the Christian Arabs are under the delusion that pan-Arabism is still relevant. As we have seen, of course, it just takes a medieval quote from the head of the Catholic Church to show how lacking in substance "Arab unity" is, with "Palestinian" Muslims setting fire to the churches of their "Palestinian" Christian "brothers". HaShem gives all humans free will, which includes the free will to act stupidly, against their own interests.

Shabbat Shalom, KL!

March 09, 2007 10:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shabbot Shalom, ZY.

Do you have any links to these speeches by Muzzies who converted to Judaism? I'd like to hear them.

March 09, 2007 3:17 PM  
Blogger WomanHonorThyself said...

Amen ZY!...There's a huge difference between being open to new ideas like immigrants of the past generations and the new ones wishing to establish as separatist communities.
Wer'e doomed.

March 11, 2007 7:19 AM  
Blogger ziontruth said...

Sorry all, been busy lately...


I didn't look for such links, but I suppose a web search in Hebrew for their names might yield something. There was one lecture at my neighborhood last Shabbat, but of course I couldn't tape it then. I hope HaShem will bring my way a yom chol lecture soon.


Are we doomed? Despite my own moments of great despair, particularly when contemplating the weak leadership of my own country, I wouldn't rush to that conclusion. In my post from December 20, 2006, Potentially A Great Generation, I wrote of how the current state of affairs reflects the lowliness of the previous generation, not this one. We're doomed only if the Sixties generation isn't ousted from positions of power in time. I don't know what can be cause or even catalyst for the needed generational change of guard, and frankly, the fact that 9/11 didn't do it makes me skeptical that an atomic attack (G-d forbid) would do it either. Perhaps the actual fall of some European state to shariah law, demonstrating the full fruition of the Islamic threat. But I have faith that HaShem will pour a spirit of reawakening in time. My prayer is that the toll will not have gotten too great by that time.

March 11, 2007 9:34 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home