Saturday, October 1, 2011

Islam's Fellow Travellers: Seculars and Socialists

Serge Trifkovic gave a lecture to a western audience which appeared on the Front Page Magazine (see here) under the title Jihad's Fellow-Travellers. We have paraphrased and modified it for Indian and Hindu context.

Until 1991, Indian political leadership was in deep denial about the catastrophe that was imminent on the economic front. Even after failures of Jawaharian Socialism, they pretend as if life can go on as before, that nothing of great importance had happened. The Comrades hope, absurdly, that Socialism's awful consequences could be concealed from all those untold millions of people doomed to suffer its short and long-term consequences.

Now, two decades later, our self proclaimed elites are behaving in exactly the same manner on the subject of Islam. It is ironic that the misnamed The Hindu, The Times of India, and various lesser organs of the dominant cultural Nomenklatura, have devoted so many minutes and column-inches to the criminal myopia of the Jawaharians, while remaining…not oblivious, but actively supportive, of the ongoing criminal betrayal of trust and responsibility, of which the political, academic and media elites are guilty.

We are not going to waste your time this morning with yet another treatise on the nature of Islam, with yet another refutation of the alleged dichotomy between "true Islam" (peaceful, tolerant, etc.) and its supposedly aberrant terrorist fringe. We are way beyond that, or at least we should be: had Americans agonized, in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, whether Shinto war actually good but only Bushido was bad, the Greater Asian Co-prosperity Sphere would be going strong to this day. Those who still have doubts on this score should read not only my books, but also those by Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Bat Ye’or…and above all, they should read the Koran.

I am also not going to talk about something called "War Against Terrorism" because "WAT" is itself a misnomer indicative of the pathology of the elite class. Its squeamishness in naming the enemy is but one sign of a malaise that hampers a coherent effort. Had Scipio issued a rallying call for the War on Elephants, Hannibal would have marched into Rome in triumph. Had World War II been waged against Guderian’s Blitzkrieg, rather than against Nazism, the Reich would still have 927 years to go.

It is in the inability and unwillingness of the elite class to confront jihad that India, as well as Western Europe and North America most tellingly certify that they share the same suicidal memes.

Hilaire Belloc, in The Great Heresies (1938), presciently wondered, "Will not perhaps the temporal power of Islam return and with it the menace of an armed Muhammadan world which will shake the dominion of Europeans—still nominally Christian—and reappear again as the prime enemy of our civilization?" Seven decades later, the same traits of decrepitude are present in Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Scandinavia, Canada – and here in the United States, including both the primary cause, which is the loss of religious faith, and several secondary ones.

In India people like Ram Swarup and Sitaram Goel have worked for opening our national eyes to these dangers. However, out left along with its elites are perennially hostile to all forms of solidarity of the majority population based on shared historical memories and common culture; the loss of a sense of place and history; demographic siege, unparalleled in history; rampant illegal immigration; collapse of private and public manners and morals; imposition of "diversity," "multiculturalism," "sensitivity"; and demonization and criminalization of any opposition to any of the above.

One consequence is the Hindus' loss of the sense of propriety over their lands. In ancient times, both the Hindus and the Muslim world could define themselves against each other in a cultural sense. What this elite-mandated is to cast aside any idea of any specifically "Hindu" geographic and cultural space that should be protected from those who do not belong to it and have no rightful claim to it.

Another result is an elite consensus that de facto open immigration, multiculturalism, and the existence of a large and increasing Muslim population within India are to be treated as a fixed given, and must not be scrutinized in any anti-terrorist debate. That consensus, we contend, is ideological in nature, flawed in logic, dogmatic in application, and disastrous in its results. It needs to be tested against evidence, not against the alleged norms of acceptable public discourse imposed by those who either do not know Islam, or else do not want us to know the truth about it.

There is a problem, however. It is that a depraved mass culture and multiculturalist indoctrination in state schools have already largely neutralized the sense of historical and cultural continuity among young Hindus. By contrast, the blend of soft porn and consumerism targeting every denizen of India, every day from millions of flickering screens and printed pages, have not had the same effect on the Muslim population. The roll-call of educated Muslims supportive of terrorism confirms that failure. More over, in view of Love-Jihad, the depraving effects of media make Hindus even more vulnerable to Muslims.

The loss of a sense of place and history experienced by approximately one billion Hindus, whether they are aware of that loss or not, follows the emergence of thoughts which are inspired and impressed by a socialist and secular political and educational system. The emergence of a trans-national hyper-state in Europe, however ill founded and short-lived it may be, inspires our secular and socialist politicians to dream of a South East Asian Union on the lines of EU. Recall the SAARC conception, Samjhauta Express and so on. All these mindsets, seemingly at odds, are but aspects of the same emerging secular-socialist universe. The former advocates "multilateralism" in the form of an emerging "international community" controlled by the United Nations and adjudicated by the International Criminal Court (ICC), with the regional bodies like SAARC (even more so like the EU) acting as an interim medium for transferring sovereign prerogatives to a supra-national body; the latter prefer to be the only cop in town. Both share the same distaste for traditional, naturally evolving societies and cultures. Echoing the revolutionary dynamism and historicist Messianism of their common Marxist roots, these "visionaries envision" that "We have a glorious opportunity to improve life on our planet, and we are the right people, at the right time, to pull it off. The most dangerous threat to our success is limited vision and insufficient ambition. If we act like the revolutionary force we truly are, we can once again reshape the world…". The same imbeciles politicians keep parroting platitudes like "All religions teach the same truth", "Unity in Diversity", "Social-Justice" and so on.

Indian proponents (Socialists as well as Secular) of this breathtakingly hubristic agenda have de facto allies among America's and Europe’s neo-Marxist leftists of Prodi’s and Solana’s ilk. Divisions between them refer not to the common goal of advancing a global revolutionary project but only to the ways and means of doing so. The end of the Cold War has cleared the way for them to move beyond the Gramscian "long march." In the apparent defeat of revolutionary struggle – epitomized by the triumph of liberal capitalism over Bolshevism – the neo-Marxist axis has found the seeds of future victory for their universalist paradigm, which globalization makes possible by eradicating traditional structures capable of resistance. Note that on the one hand they oppose globalization in economics but promote globalization of multiculturalism.

Globalization, whether in its Eurocratic and pax Americana guise, or its Indian version, or rather perversion of "Unity in Diversity", is "objectively" an ally of the revolutionary change desired by neo-Marxists, not only because it destroys the remnants of the old order, as Ledeen gloats, but also because it contains the germ of another form of globalization: the counter-Empire that will be made possible by the ongoing rapid demographic change along with de-Hinduisation of sections of Hindu population within India.

The revolutionary character of the project is revealed in the mantra of Race, Gender and Sexuality, now elevated to the status of the post-modern Philosopher’s Stone. Race, Gender and Sexuality are the Force that moves the linear historical process forward, towards the grand Gleichschaltung of nations, races, and cultures that will mark the end of history. Race, Gender and Sexuality have replaced the Proletariat as both the oppressed underclass (hence the cult of the non-Hindu, non-male, non-heterosexual, non-uppercaste victimhood), and as the historically preordained agent of revolutionary change.

Classical Marxist political economy found the dynamics of revolution in the inevitable conflict between the owners of the means of production and the proletariat that has nothing to sell but its labor and nothing to lose but its chains. The system was self-referential and therefore fatally flawed; but in the late 19th century it seemed to possess a degree of quasi-scientific neatness. Latter-day Marxist revolutionaries go beyond any recognizable variety of dialectical materialism, however, by introducing a wholly metaphysical concept of victimhood and an array of associated special-rights claims that have worked such wonders for Islam not only in India but all over the Western world. Hindus, in this insane but all-pervasive paradigm, are guilty of oppression by their very existence and must not protest the "minority" deluge. This despite the fact that for centuries before 1947, the "minorities" were happily heaping contempt over Hindus, Hindu culture, Hindu religion, Hindu places of worship and so on.

The fruits are with us already. In its present form, within a century the majority status of Hindus will melt away. But whereas the threat of extinction of an exotic tribal group in Borneo, Amazonia, or Mizoram – let alone a species of spotted owl or sperm whale – would cause elite alarm and prompt activism, it is deemed inherently communal to mention the fact that Hindus are, literally, endangered species.

There will be no grand synthesis, no civilizational cross-fertilization, between Hinduism and Islam. It’s kto-kogo. The bluff os the Sufis has been called by many truth-speakers. We are hamstrung by a ruling class composed of guilt-ridden self-haters, appeasers and plain meanminded demagogues. Their hold on the political power, the media, and the academe is undemocratic, unnatural, obscene. If we want to survive as Hindus, the members of this ruling class need to be unmasked for what they are: traitors to Hindus, Hinduism and Hindu culture. They must be replaced by people ready and willing to subject the issues of secularism, socialism and identity to the test of democracy, unhindered by administrative or judicial fiat.

The war against jihad can and must be won. The first task is to start talking frankly about the identity and character of the enemy and the nature of the threat. It is essential to discard the taboos and to discuss Islam and the Muslims without fear or guilt, or the shackles of mandated thinking. The obligation to do so is dictated by morality no less than by the need for self-preservation. "Historians in free countries have a moral and professional obligation not to shirk the difficult issues and subjects that some people would place under a sort of taboo," Bernard Lewis warned over two decades ago, "not to submit to voluntary censorship, but to deal with these matters fairly, honestly, without apologetics, without polemic, and, of course, competently."

"If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles," says Sun Tzu. We know the jihadist enemy. We know his core beliefs, his role models, his track-record, his mindset, his modus operandi, and his intentions. We also know his weaknesses, which are many, above all his inability to develop a prosperous economy or a functional, harmonious society.

The main problem is with ourselves, with those among us who have the power to make policy and shape opinions, and who will reject and condemn our diagnosis. Having absorbed postmodernist assumptions, certain only of uncertainty, devoid of any serious faith except that in their own infallibility but loath to be "judgmental," members of our own elite class treat the jihadist mindset as a pathology that can and should be treated by treating causes external to Islam itself. The result is a plethora of proposed "cures" that are as likely to succeed in making us safe from terrorism as snake oil is likely to cure leukemia.

We are told that we need to address political and economic grievances of the impoverished masses, we need to take the benefits of democracy and free markets to the doorsteps of Muslims, we need to invest more in welfare and affirmative action. We need more tolerance, greater inclusiveness, less profiling, and a more determined outreach to the minorities that feel marginalized and threatened by the war on terror. We are repeatedly told that saffron terror is much more dangerous than Islamic terror, Mao terror or Christian terror.

The predictable failure of such cures leads to ever more pathological self-scrutiny and morbid self-doubt. This vicious circle is untenable and must be broken.

Winning a war demands "knowing the enemy and knowing oneself," of course, but it often also demands "thinking outside the box." This cliché is apt: the magnitude of the threat demands radical responses that fall outside the cognitive parameters of the elite class.

Let us start our specific policy recommendations with the complex and emotionally charged issue of constitutional rights versus national security.

Post 26/11 it has become imperative to eavesdrop on people inside India as well to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying. Thus security aganecies may need to monitor the international telephone calls and e-mail messages of potential terror suspects. However, the MSM, the current ruling party Congress and their illegitimate cousins the Leftists create a hullabaullo over this. A remarkable feature of this propaganda, made by the likes of Aruna and Arundhati Roys, Harsh Manders, Burqua Dutts, etc., which focuses on the legal, constitutional and operational issues implicit in the case, is usually its failure to explore the identity of those who have been subjected to surveillance. This failure creates the impression that just about any "Indian" may be subjected to such unwarranted and possibly illegal intrusion. The ensuing controversy is then presented by the mass media to the nation through inflammatory headlines, for example "Government authorizes spying on Minorities."

The unwillingness of the mainstream media to disclose the exact identity of those who are terror-suspects is reminiscent of its refusal to disclose the religious identity of those who burnt the train coaches at Godhra. In both cases the mainstream media are guilty of misconstruing reality for reasons rooted in their ideological prejudices and political preferences.

Glossing over the identity of terror-suspects has an objectives. It also implies that a Muslim who is a citizen of India is so thoroughly and irrevocably "Indian" that no hyphenated designation or qualifier is called for. Distorting the same identity justifies the false claim that Hindus are as much terror-suspects!

Also oncealing the identity fits in with the liberal world view that reject the notion that faith can be a prime motivating factor in human affairs, or that Muslims may be in any way disadvantageous for our country. Having reduced religion, politics and art to "narratives" and "metaphors" which merely reflect prejudices based on the distribution of power, the elite class view the terrorists' shout of "Allahu akbar!" as a mere idiosyncrasy that would be cured if the state gave those "youths" more jobs, shrill-voiced immature TV anchors, and, of course, lots of "affirmative action" in employment and education.

For starters, it is essential to suspect those who owe highest allegiance to Islamic Umma. Those who are fake citizens and continue to preach jihad and Sharia must be surely profiled. Any one who preaches jihad, inequality of "infidels" and women, the establishment of the Shari’a law etc., should be tried for treason.

For a Muslim to take oath of citizenship or office in good faith, and especially that he accepts the Constitution of India as the source of his highest loyalty, is an act of apostasy par excellence, punishable by death under the Sharia law. The Sharia, to a Muslim, is not an addition to the "secular" legal code with which it coexists with "the Constitution and laws of the Union of India"; it is the only true code, the only basis of obligation. To be legitimate, all political power therefore must rest exclusively with those who enjoy Allah’s authority on the basis of his revealed will. Thus, for a Muslim, India is illegitimate!

So how can a self-avowedly devout Muslim take the oath, and expect the rest of us to believe that it was done in good faith? Because he is practicing taqiyya, the art of dissimulation that was inaugurated by Muhammad to help destabilize and undermine non-Muslim communities almost ripe for a touch of Jihad. Or else because he is not devout enough and confused, but in that case there is the ever-present danger that at some point he will rediscover his roots, with a whole array of predictably unpleasant consequences for the rest of us.

Conditio sine qua non all along is to accept and declare that Religious Freedom does not protect Jihadists. Nothing ought to protect those who advocate the overthrow Hindus by force and violence, and, at bottom, that is what the Jihadists are up to. Legal regulators need to grasp that Islam itself is a radical, revolutionary ideology, inherently seditious and inimical to Indian values and institutions.

Acceptance of these proposals would represent a new start in devising long-term defense against terrorism. We are in a war of ideas and religion, whether we want that or not and however much we hate the fact. This war is being fought, on the Islamic side, with the deep conviction that Hinduism is on its last legs. The success of its demographic onslaught on India enhances the image of "a candy store with the busted lock," and that view is reinforced by the evidence from history that a civilization that loses the urge for self-perpetuation is indeed in peril.

These proposals are not only pragmatic, they are morally just. They will elicit the accusation of "discrimination," even though no such label is applicable. Targeting people for screening, supervision and exclusion on the basis of their genes may be discriminatory indeed, but doing so because of their beliefs, ideas, actions, and intentions is justified and necessary.

Islamic beliefs, ideas and intentions, and not some allegedly aberrant variety of Muhammad’s faith, as such pose a threat to our civilization and our way of life, . The elite class rejects this diagnosis, of course, but among reasonable, patriotic, and well-informed citizens the debate on Islam’s nature should be long over.

Yes, Socialism’s and Islam's apologists, character witnesses, moles and fellow-travelers, assure us that the Comrades and the Muslims want nothing but social justice and peaceful coexistence. They hold tenured chairs, staff the Hindu(!), the Times of India and such crooked media, control Bollywood production houses, and dominate the "intellectual discourse". They explain away and justify the inconsistencies and horrifyingly violent implications of the source texts of Marx, Lenin and Muhammad. They explained away and justify the appalling fruits: the bloodbath during Islamic conquests and during partition, the crimes by the Maoists and Naxals, the show trials and purges. The genocide that happened in Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Today these scum in politics, the academy and the media establishment are acting as Islam’s apologists, character witnesses and fellow travelers. They explain away, with scholastic sophistry and moral depravity, the dark and violent implications of the source texts, the Koran and the Hadith, the deeply unnerving career of Muhammad, and 14 centuries of conquests, wars, slaughters, subjugation, decline without fall, spiritual and material misery, and murderous fanaticism.

The fact that many normal people don’t realize the magnitude of the problem works to the advantage of these people. These ideas, which should be deemed eccentric or insane, now rule the mainstream media. Only a society inured to the concept of a "all religions teach the same" can be unblinkingly told that Islam is good and tolerant, that "we" (the Hindus) have been nasty and unkind to it over the centuries, and that "terrorism" needs to be understood, and cured, independently of Islam’s teaching and practice.

At the root of the domestic malaise is the notion that countries do not belong to the culture and people who have inhabited them for generations, but to whoever happens to be within their boundaries at any given moment – regardless of his culture, attitude, or intentions.

Another pernicious notion is that the resulting random melange of mutually disconnected multitudes is actually a blessing that enriches and elevates an otherwise arid and monotonous society.

Such notions have been internalized by our elite class to the point where they actively help Islamic terrorism. The process has been under way for decades. The refusal of the elite class to protect Hindus from Islamic terrorism is the biggest betrayal in history. It is rooted in the mindset that breeds the claim that "force is not an answer" to terrorism, that profiling is bad and open borders are good, that Islam is peaceful and Sanatana Dharma is wicked. The upholders of such claims belong to the culture that has lost its bond with nature, history, and the supporting community. In the meantime, thanks to them, the quiet onslaught continues unabated, be it 26/11 Mumbai attacks and the likes.

The real nation, the Hindus, are still out there, all over India. When they are told of Islam’s "peace and tolerance,", they grumble about someone’s stupidity or ineptitude, but still do not suspect outright betrayal. The betrayers, meanwhile, promote an ideology of universal human values, of a common culture for the whole world. In reality, however, the proponents of politically correct "diversity" are creating its exact opposite: a soul-numbing monism. They may not even realize why they abet Islam. For all the outward differences, they share with the mullahs and sheikhs and imams the desire for a monistic One World. They both long for Talbot’s Single Global Authority, post-national and seamlessly standardized, an ummah under whatever name.

Those Hindus who love Hinduism, who love their mother land, and who love their families and their neighborhoods, are normal people. Those who tell them that their attachments should be global and that their lands and neighborhoods belong to the whole world are sick and evil. They are our main enemies and jihad’s indispensable allies. The elite class, rootless, arrogant, cynically manipulative, and irreversibly jihad-friendly, has every intention of continuing to "fight" the war on terrorism without naming the enemy, without revealing his beliefs, without unmasking his intentions, without offending his accomplices, without expelling his fifth columnists, and without ever daring to win.

It is up to us, the millions of normal Hindus to stop this madness. The traitor class wants them to share its death wish, to self-annihilate as people with a historical memory and a cultural identity, and to make room for the post-human, monistic Utopia spearheaded by the jihadist fifth column. This crime can and must be stopped. The Bhagat Singhs and Tatya Topes, fought against the colonial government for offenses far lighter than those of which the traitor class is guilty.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are not moderated. Please read the About Us page. If you have outright disagreement, then you may not have much use commenting. You are free to record your disagreements in a civil manner. Repeated abuse, and irrelevant postings will be removed. Please avoid advertisements.

This blog does not honor political correctness. If your comment is posted, this does not mean that this blog endorses your views.

While I allow anonymous comments, please quote your twitter account if you want to have a referenced discussion.

There is a Suggestions Page, please post your suggestions regarding this blog as comments on that page.