Amazon.com Widgets

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

About a year ago, I attended a conference discussing millennialism at which David Cook presented a paper on the apocalyptic dimensions of global Jihad, especially in its hostility to the USA – the ways in which people like Osama bin Laden (al Qaeda) and Yousef al Qaradawi (Muslim Brotherhood) believed they live in the apocalyptic moment when Islam would achieve its dream of conquering the world, imposing Sharia on all mankind, and usher in the millennial era of “peace” – global Dar al Islam. One of the participants, a professor with impeccable progressive credentials where Middle Eastern politics are concerned, remarked: “Just don’t let George Bush hear what you have to say.”

Nothing embodies better the ostrich policy of “progressives” than that comment. While the good professor had no grounds to question the validity of the deeply frightening analysis he had just heard for the first time, the last thing he wanted was for the President to hear about it. Why? Because it would fuel the administrations arguments for war, and “we” all know that war is the last thing we want. No war at any price… including deep ignorance about what dangers we face, including alliances with warmongers who happen to oppose the current war. After all, our progressive professor showed no personal interest in the material that he had just encountered. He was not moved to think, perhaps. of a more progressive way to approach this problem. It’s one thing to say, let’s work on this one ourselves because we don’t trust the President and his advisors; quite another to say we don’t want to know anything about this issue.

I couldn’t help but think of this exchange when I read the following piece by Ira Chernus, Professor of Religion at University of Colorado, Boulder, at HNN, the History News Network. Nothing illustrates better the inability to think about the dangers we face. Tired psychology about the debilitating effects of fear, rapid refuge in a politics of hope so staggeringly unrealistic that one has to wonder what universe the author lives in. I guess Colorado is far enough from NY or London or all those other places that have felt the wrath of global Jihad since 9-11 – for the professor not to give them much thought or much empathy.

It makes sense to join the liberal chorus of "end the war in Iraq so we can protect ourselves against terrorists" as long as it's just a first step, as long as we go on to say things like: "Instead of draining our national treasury for endless war, we demand that our tax dollars be used to repair the damage done to Iraq [presumably by us, not the “insurgents” – RL] and to fund services in our communities." Those words, from the United for Peace and Justice website, echo the sentiment of hundreds of groups that are imagining a better future.

Many demand that our tax dollars be used to fund services and repair damage all over the world. After all, that's actually the best way to begin to protect ourselves from danger. But even that won't work if we do it simply because we are scared. We'll never be safe if we make safety our ultimate goal. We'll be safe only if we let safety be a by-product of a society working together to improve life for everyone.

Repair the damage done to Iraq…? What does he think Americans, both military and civilians are trying to do in Iraq? And what price do the Americans and other foreigners trying to rebuild the infrastructure pay for working on these projects? Who does he think is doing the damage these days? Or does his radar screen, set to moral autism, only pick up “our” sins, and not notice the insane hatreds and grotesque violence of global jihadis in Iraq who target Muslim civilians? Like Michael Moore, can these folk only register the suicide terrorists as activists… insurgents… freedom fighters… Minute Men?

This produces for the USA the same distortion that Stephanie Gutmann describes in The Other War: Israelis, Palestinians, and the Struggle for Media Supremacy as the effect of media coverage on the Israelis. She cites the scene in Fight Club where Edward Norton thrashes around fighting with an invisible enemy: “A map based on news coverage would have shown the State of Israel drawn in speed-addict obsessive detail sitting next to a mostly empty blob titled “Terra Incognita” or maybe “Here Be Palestinians” (p. 31). With Jihadi flaws blow-torched out of the picture, no wonder people can think that the best way to protect ourselves from danger is to be nice, nicer and nicest. Unfortunately, by tightening the grip of the Moebius Strip of Cognitive Egocentrism, that makes us all that much dumb, dumber, and vulnerable. And, alas, it is our own intelligentsia who seem to be working so hard to make us so. Who will write the Darwin Award for us when we’re done self-destructing?

5 Comments

It isn't about the Israeli paestinian conflict. It isn't about Iraq, Afghanistan, or drowned people in New Orleans. It isn't about NAFTA or the WTO or trade.

This is all about being about one sides narrow and close minded political agenda here in the states. These same people (dollars to donuts) were the ones running about pulling out their hair and beating their chests over womens rights and a few other items in the middle east when Bill Clinton was in the white house. See, at that time they could afford to look at the situation from a viewpoint grounded slightly more in reality because it was *their* guy deploying troops. I can't remember the name of the person who said it, but during Clintons first inauguration he looked up at the F-16's doing the fly over and commented "those are *our* planes now" while grinning.

I garuntee almost all of this is grounded in short sighted domestic political obstructionism.

"... imposing Sharia on all mankind, and usher in the millennial era of 'peace' – global Dar al Islam. One of the participants, a professor with impeccable progressive credentials where Middle Eastern politics are concerned, remarked: 'Just don't let George Bush hear what you have to say.'

"Nothing embodies better the ostrich policy of 'progressives' than that comment. While the good professor had no grounds to question the validity of the deeply frightening analysis he had just heard for the first time, the last thing he wanted was for the President to hear about it."

Yes, precisely, well put, very well put. The Left, if that term may be understood in a general sense, desires a kind of retreat into their aesthetic enclosures, shut out that aspect of the world which is undesirable, retreat, ostrich-like. To justify it they use all their descriptive and analytic prowess, both in terms of the realities they deny and in terms of their more offensive rhetorical initiatives as well - with sundry and endless variations, to aesthetically compose, to imagine a world that is a fundamental distortion of the world which needs to be more responsibly dealt with.

Hence forgetful and indulgent in studied avoidance as a primary tactic.

And yes, it does have to be allowed this is a reduction of their avowed and putative interests, not all of which are invalid as such. But it's a prismatically focused reduction in order to focus on aspects of their motivations which are absolutely fundamental and absolutely critical to understanding the overall psychology which very much informs their social/political praxis.

Ostrich-like; "dumb hope"; self-blinded; retreating into their aesthetic enclosures. They all mean the same thing, they all refer to the same phenomena, they all describe a critical aspect of the underlying psychology and the resulting, malformed, social/political initiatives. All that's true even as regards situations, such as Darfur and Rwanda, where they have avowed interests; yet even here there's very little real-world action called for by the Left, in terms of requisite military counter initiatives. It does make for good theatre though.

Hundreds of groups of these clowns may imagine a better future but they will not produce it. What they will produce is more terrorism and tyranny. This will concern them only if it's their own ox being gored.

it's actually quite interesting. even when their ox is gored, they don't react. for example, although the BBC initially refered to the 7-7 bombings as the work of terrorists, upon being reminded of their policy not to call anyone a terrorist, they changed their tune. (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=16611&only ) these folks are actually suicidal. now that's something to meditate on.

Suicidally stupid doesn't worry me too much. Afterall, a little chlorine in the gene pool is usually a good thing. It's when they decide they want comapny on the way out that worries me and to be honest, they sound alarmingly lonely.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Search


Archives
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]