…from the quill of Antisthenes the Younger
I guess trying to put the recent Paris incident into a perspective is a forlorn task. I learnt about it in the morning from a check-out attendant in very scanty terms; and when I told him that this is only a beginning, he appeared dubious. The fact is that only D-Day (24 hours) casualties on the Allied side were 8,443 (conservative estimate). I hope you see the connection.
I was directed by my friends to many interesting reactions on the internet, many not-too-well-thought out. For example, The New International Outlook (A neoreactionary review of the world today) website had, on the 8th January, the following article. Despite my original reluctance, I decided to comment thereon (in italics):
In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack, I figured I would throw in my two cents on the whole issue. The first major issue for me is that the response from right wing circles is gloriously confused and incoherent.
Strange use of language – should it be ingloriously? And would not “typical“ suffice? Of course, rather than “circles”, I would prefer “diaspora”.
That from the left has also been somewhat confused initially, but as always the narrative hammer comes down pretty hard, and they all take their cue as to which way to be facing.
They all face to the communist east without any need for directives. It is the tactical dance steps which get them sometimes confused. Trotsky the hero, Trotsky the traitor, Hitler the enemy, Hitler the friend of proletariat, Hitler the enemy again, Mao the true Marxist-Leninist, Mao the right-wing deviationist etc. The delay in their public utterances is thus understandable, even though today, as far as I know, it is not a physical execution, but merely an academic one, which awaits the slow-to-follow ones.
The second major issue is that the confusion is created by the need for the right to face multiple threats from multiple angles, without a coherent strategy, coherent tactics or cognition as to whom they should be facing, and who is on their side.
This is correct, and is to the large extent caused by the lack of basic education; in this case by the feeble or no memory of children’s stories, classics (e.g. Iason) or even Christian literature (e.g. Revelation 12:3 or a myth of St George). The enemy of “good” has often many faces; and for children and simple minded, the evil was visualised as a dragon with many heads, which, sad to say, regenerate when cut off. Thus children, not so long ago, used to learn the facts of life.
Now however, when, say, Pol Pot or Stalin bites the dust, and the Left recycles itself as environmentalists, anti-racists, anti-misogynists etc. the Right runs around like a headless chuck.
So we see the following types of response -
Islam should be confronted to uphold free speech. (ergo – free speech should be defended for a left wing publication to viciously attack every belief system barring the left wing’s.)
I do not see how that necessarily follows – just a left wing publication?Further, if the various representatives of the many Islamic sects were seriously (an operative word) challenged in that regard to at least acknowledge our (non-Muslims) right to free speech, it would be quickly shown that Islam in all its versions is incompatible with it. We, who read Koran, know it already; and some citizens, media weasels willing, could learn.
The attack (on a left wing media outlet) was an attack on ‘us’.
Well, depends who is ‘us’. It certainly wasn’t an attack on The Guardian, ABC, cowardly politicians etc, or any smart alec bloggers.
The Muslims are savages, and anyone who does not find the attack abhorrent is sick.
I am not aware of anybody writing or saying this, but perhaps I do not read enough and have too limited circle of acquittances. I guess that some semi-educated people may be saying this, but then some people say that Obama is a good president.
Etc, etc. How to escape from this confusion? Well the first thing would be to have a coherent strategy.
Nice but wishful thinking, alas.
The left have one, even if it is ultimately insane – keep targeting the right, use the media to vilify them and push further and further laws which persecute anyone arrogant enough to have non-left wing views.
Why ‘insane’? It is very effective.
They also coherently apply discrimination against the majority ethnic populations with zeal. The result is they are able to enforce incoherent ideologies and beliefs successfully. Racism for example, is utterly incoherent but everyone knows implicitly what it means in any given situation regardless of its internal inconsistencies.
This paragraph does not seem to be too coherent to me. Must be my limited English.
The key to the lefts strategy, I am convinced, is the ability to control the media discussion, which is a direct result of the modern nation states democracy structure. It is a baked in feature. Should we celebrate the media and freedom of the press? No. It is a central pillar of left wing power.
Oi, oi, throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Just because the Left got control of the world media should we reject the freedom of the press? That’s akin to saying you are rejecting a sword because the enemy got hold of it. The way to go is to take it away from him, even if your hands may get cut in the process.
So, taking the media as a central pillar of left wing power, what should a right wing response to the Charlie Hebdo incident be? I would think it should be one of understanding that Charlie Hebdo was populated by leftists who have been attacking western civilisation for over a hundred years and who have contributed to filling the west with 3rd world immigration. In short, they are not ‘us’, unless you apply nationality and ethnicity (which given that a Muslim policeman, frenchmen and a Jewish person were killed makes this incoherent.)
Methink that even Lenin would like this reasoning. But when fighting for your life, and that what it is, ideological purity is secondary.
Once we accept that Charlie Hebdo, and by extension all of the left wing media are not ‘us’ by dint of nationality or ethnicity, then we can maybe begin to break things down more coherently. We can now see the following points -
First point– the media is left wing, anything or anyone that attacks them is attacking the left and not ‘me’, ‘us’, ‘Christianity’ or ‘western civilisation’.
Hmm. So would Muslims leave a right wing publication, which “insulted Mohamed”, in peace? Wake up.
Second point – Should Muslims (the cape) be the target? Or should the matador?
Sometimes you have to pierce the cape to get to the matador. By the way, who is he? The Cathedral? And in your scenario, are we that primitive animal? Do you imagine yourself as a wise bull breeder, who knows better?
Third point – This is an extension of the second point, which is how, exactly, could Muslims exist in such large numbers in the west if there was no benefits systems in place, our elite did not aggressively enact discrimination
against the majority ethnic population and law and order were applied with 100% force.
Certainly they would not migrate to the blasphemous West in so overwhelming numbers, yes.
Following on from the third point, it would be helpful if further concentration
was paid to an analysis of the incident from a systemic position. Not just in relation to the media which was attacked (not ‘us’ – but the media),
Digressing somewhat – in that Sydney café, was it media or us attacked?
but also in relation to the state structures and forms which allowed this set of affairs to come into place, and the ideological directions, and strategic decisions that have taken place which have set the stage.
A good point, but you are one of those who allowed this to happen.
The alternative is to react to socio-historical forces in a haphazard manner after they have already come into place, at which point any hope of altering them have long since past, and all you can do is shout, scream, stomp your feet and play the leftist game, within the leftist paradigm.
Nastily insulting and defeatist, as one would expect. Pepe Escobar would approve. I can think of other alternatives, albeit all within the paradigms, leftist or not, like cutting off one head at a time.
So can, amongst others, Spengler:
“The means by which France could defeat the terrorists are obvious: To compel the majority of French Muslims to turn against the terrorists, the French authorities would have to make them fear the French state more than they fear the terrorists. That is a nasty business involving large numbers of deportations, revocation of French citizenship, and other threats that inevitably would affect many individuals with no direct connection to terrorism. In the short term it would lead to more radicalization. The whole project of integration as an antidote to radicalism would go down the drain. The effort would be costly, but ultimately it would succeed: most French Muslims simply want to stay in France and earn a living.”
Finally – It is good to see that teenagers get involved in matters political, if only safely via a keyboard. Perhaps one day they would grow up and apologise for the defeatist, pseudo-intellectual twaddle they have been peddling.