“Written to enlighten, guaranteed to offend”
A Publication of Seth J. Frantzman
May 25th, 2008
1) Profile of Post-Humanism: At the center of the ideology of Post-Humanism is a series of contradictions predicated on the theory that there is an other and a self and that the other, which dwells abroad or lives at home as a ‘minority’ is superior. But there is a much more disturbing trend to this ideology that undermines everything we hold dear. This is an attempt at a profile of it.
2) Liberalism runs its course in the Rainbow Nation: The recent violence in South Africa is conjuring up all sorts of excuses. Some blame the ‘hidden hand’ of white racists while others blame something called ‘negrophobia’ and claim that the violence by Zulus against Zimbabweans and Somalis is due to Apartheid. Its time the Rainbow nation stop blaming Apartheid and blame its own failures and admit the history of black on black violence that has always been a part of South Africa.
3) When Indians die of terrorism it is the fault of the Hindus: After the recent bombings in India the typical self hating ‘Hindu’ intellectuals were trotted out who condemned their own country and the ‘right wing Hindus’ for ‘forcing’ Muslims to become terrorists. It was not a surprise. But perhaps it is time to finally blame the actual perpetrators behind terror rather than the victims.
Profile of Post-Humanism
Seth J. Frantmzna
May 22nd, 2008
When confronted with enormous odds of more than 10 to 1 at the battle of Alesia in 52 B.C in Gaul we are told that Julius Caesar sat down with his generals and told them a maxim. "To fight your enemy you must know what he thinks, to defeat your enemy you must learn about his tactics, to kill your enemy you must know his weak spot." Caesar beat the Gauls at Alesia. When one thinks of Western Liberalism/Leftism and its ideology known as Post-Humanism one is confronted not with a series of conditions and arguments but rather with a series of hypocrisies and contradictions. This is why it is so important to understand exactly what Post-Humanism proscribes for the West and for the World.
Post-Humanists dislike religion. They write books about the 'God delusion' and how 'God is not great'. But this contempt for god is not what marks Liberalism. What marks it is the fact that while it hates god at home it loves god abroad. Liberals cannot love God if he is called 'god' but they can love him if he is called 'Allah'. The essence of the liberal construct of religion is not the hatred of religion but rather the love of religion, so long as that religion is 'eastern' or 'Muslim' or called Yoga. As long as it goes by something other than Christianity and has at its center something other than the Bible it is loved. Take the example of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. He has argued for the imposition of Shariah law in England. But if we were to simply change the name of Shariah law to 'Catholic Cannon law' we would suddenly find that the post-humanist archbishop would be wholeheartedly against bringing the religious rulings of the Catholic church into the family life of the English people. The same post-humanist Englishmen now want to bring back Blasphemy laws that have not existed for more than a hundred years. Liberalism does not have a hatred for religion, on the contrary it has a deep love for religion and would enjoy imposing it upon us so long as that religion is not the religion that was traditionally practiced by the majority of the people.
Post-Humanists love minorities. Post-Humanism has created the culture of 'diversity' and multi-culturalism and tolerance and asked us all to stop judging the 'other'. On the face of it this means that post-humanists love minority groups. But in fact, as was the case with religion, the post-humanist only loves minorities at home, abroad she hates them and ignores them. Thus while a post-humanist will seek out the most obscure national group in his own country when he travels to Egypt he will only ensconce himself in Sunni Islam. The one exception of the liberalistic love of the 'other' is when the liberal can convince himself that another countries dominant ethos is western and then he will again seek out the minority. Thus the leftist post-humanist who visits India will find himself Muslims to meet and when he visits Israel he will only associate with Arabs. This is because India and Israel have become 'western' in his narrative. But when he is in Syria he will not search out Kurds or Druze. He will stay ensconced in the narrative of the majority. His history too will be written by the majority. Under the ethos of Orientalism he believes that only the 'other' can write correctly about his own society and that in the society where the 'other' is the majority than only the majority can write the narrative. Thus the narrative of the Middle East is one of 'indigenous Sunni Arab Muslims' and all the other people, the Kurds, Armenians, Greek-Orthodox, Jews, Maronites, Chaldeans, Copts, Assyrians and Berbers, disappear in the history book, never having exited. History, inevitably, begins in the 7th century A.D with the rise of Islam since the liberal accepts the Islamic interpretation of history in Islamic countries that history only begins with the imposition of Islam. The liberal doesn't like minorities. On the contrary he hates them and his narrative of world history crushes them beneath the boot of majority culture. Thus while the liberal spews self-hatred at home he is a patriot of the majority abroad. Self-Critique is the Liberal way, hatred of the self and love of the other.
Liberalism loves human rights. Post-humanism preaches a lot about gay rights, abortion rights, women's rights and minority rights. But in fact its track record of supporting these things, like so many liberal programs, ends at the borders. Thus one will rarely hear that abortion is illegal across the Muslim world. This most important 'human right' that liberals fight for in the west is certainly not for easterners. The liberal hatred of the death-penalty does not extend universally, for liberalism loves the death penalty so long as it takes place abroad. Women may have rights at home but there is not interest in women's rights abroad. The liberal post-humanist tourist would never boycott a country simply because that country's legal system viewed women as being worth half a man in courtroom testimony. No liberal would boycott a country simply because that country's law says that a woman who is raped must bring four witnesses to testify that they saw her be raped or risk being stoned to death for adultery. In fact most of those who visit countries that have the worst legal rights for women are in fact leftist western women. They make the majority of the tourists to countries such as Iran, Yemen and Egypt. Gay rights goes the same way as women's rights. While every guide book must now have the requisite 'gay and lesbian travelers' section, because as every good liberal knows a gay person travels differently than a strait person since their sexual behavior obviously dictates what types of beaches and monuments they will be interested in seeing, the travel books now make sure that whenever homosexuality is punishable by prison terms that the book merely notes that the country's society is 'conservative and modest and displays of homosexuality in public are not condoned'. The gay movement, oddly enough, didn't accept cultures in the West that simply preferred homosexuality to keep to itself and be kept indoors (which is what the statement "conservative and modest and displays of homosexuality in public are not condoned" means). In the West when homosexual acts were illegal those laws had to challenged and dismantled. Yet when it takes place abroad the very same law, such as sodomy being illegal, is seen in a positive light by the post-humanist westerner. Suddenly hating gays and stoning them is part of the 'culture' and thus positive.
Western women are not modest. But like with everything else the post-humanist love for modesty can be found abroad. At home the post-humanist woman sunbathes nude, wears G-strings, goes to strip clubs and reads playboy for the 'articles'. Abroad the same post-humanist will cover her hair and anything else required by 'modest' cultures. At home when a city is known for being conservative the post-humanists will subject to an unending barrage of immorality and immodesty and gay pride parades until it is broken into submission. Abroad the gay pride is hidden away and the cleavage is covered up and the short skirt is lengthened and the hair is covered. Suddenly dressing like a nun is 'cool' because it is 'cultural. The same post-humanist who jeered at the 'walking penguins' or nuns at home suddenly finds affinity for the same exact attire so long as there is a 'cultural' excuse for it.
Liberalism is conservative. It is not conservative at home. But abroad it is conservative and nationalistic. It is xenophobic and hateful. It is fascist and religious. Post-humanism is a chameleon of identities. It can go to a gay pride parade and wear nipple rings in public at home and be in a west t-shirt contest. Then it can cover its hair and wear a black Abbaya abroad. It is a snake that is forever changing its skin to suit the day. While Foucault, the ultimate post-humanist, the fountainhead of moral-relativistic insanity, preached gender-bending and gay pride at home in France and San Francisco he was also a key ally of the Ayatollahs in Iran and the Islamist revolution of 1979. But he is not the only one. Leading liberals like Ramsey Clark have defended dictators abroad and professed human rights at home.
There can be no human rights unless they are universal. There is no such thing as the belief that on one side of a line on a map a person has the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, and on the other he has the right only to be killed for his religion because it is 'offensive' to the majority. There is no such thing as a cultural attitude to women. One cannot say it is proper that on one side of a line women can be raped, kept in cages, whipped (and I am not speaking of some twists BDSM porn here) and that there testimony is worth half a mans but on the other side of the line women may cavort in public and divorce at will and abort unborn children. There are no two-sides to human rights. One cannot say there is freedom of religion and have Shariah law recognized by the state. One cannot say there is secularism and yet have religious personal law for only one religion, as is the case in India with Islam. One cannot say that certain ethnic-groups may only have one child and that others may have more, as is the case in China where only Muslims may have more children. There can be no contradiction of the law within the state and there can be no concept of rights that do not apply to all. There is no such thing as modesty that is 'cultural'. All cultures were at one time modest and immodest. The Greeks and Romans were immodest. Ninth century Europe was modest. America was once modest and is now immodest. Where once women bathed topless in Bali now they are covered head to toe in hateful black clothing, only their eyes given slits to breath. There is no such thing as a positive culture that stones gays. Either all gays deserve to be stoned or none of them do. There is no way to reconcile two cultures that treat people differently unless one has a single frame of mind when considering them both. There is no such thing as positive 'Arab Nationalism' and negative 'xenophobic Chinese Nationalism'. There cannot be good and bad nationalism. Either all are good or all are bad. There is no terrorism that is coded as 'armed struggle' and terrorism that is a 'crime against humanity'. There is no genocide that is 'spontaneous' and no genocide that is 'diabolical in its planning'. Murdering entire nations of people does not have a moral positive and negative. The complete destruction and extermination of one people cannot be worse than another simply because in one case people planned it and in another everyone engaged in it for no apparent reason. There is a reason. The planning of one does not mean only the few are guilty and the participation of the many does not mean that none are guilty. They are all guilty. When one nation murders another the murderer completely guilty, for when the whole nation wields the dagger it is as if the nation is one man and thus all are judged together. There is no such thing as a 'banal' mass murderer.
We must purge all these notions from our minds. We must purge the notion from our mind that allows us to cross a border and suddenly accept from people what we would not accept at home. To respect other cultures is one thing, to love and support them merely because they are different and to jeopardize the universal truth of morality just because of a line drawn on a map represents the worst form of moral turpitude. To laugh at racism in one place and to hate racists in another represents the destruction of the moral compass and the rape of the soul. It is no less than the shackling of the mind and the murder of the human spirit which has convinced man that he can, by the ridiculous accident of history, cross a border and suddenly change his views on how things should be. A man that does so is called a Post-human because he no longer believes in humanity. He believes only in himself and he believes that the world revolves around him and that in his solipsism he can decide that in one place a woman must cover herself and that in another she must not. The woman who chooses in one place to cover herself and in another to not cover herself is a slave. She is a slave of post-humanism. Both the post-human and his slave represent the worst form of humanity because it is dishonest and it believes in nothing. It has no center. It is only twisting in the wind. When people twist in the wind they put themselves at the mercy of great storms and they do not understand that their act of twisting has encouraged the storm and has brought it on and that when the storm washes away all that the person knew she will no longer be able to tell which way to twist because nothing will be left.
Liberalism runs its course in the rainbow nation
Seth J. Frantzman
May 20th, 2008
The chanted in Zulu as they came upon the foreigners. They beat the victims with anything they could find; bats, chains, sticks, machetes. Then they set their shacks alight. Such were the scenes that have been common in communities around Johannesburg. 25,000 foreigners, mostly Zimbabweans, have had to flee. At least fifty are dead. According to the BBC the immigrants have become 'scapegoats' for South Africa's problems such as lack of housing and crime. One immigrant with the improbably name of Precious described what had happened 'because some South African Zulu people came over to our house and attacked us. They took our property and hit my husband. Then they said to us: "You must go." The violence was not only focused on Zimbabweans. Businesses perceived as foreign owned were also attacked as were people from Malawi and Somalia.
The attacks began simply enough with gangs of men bursting into the homes of immigrants and demanding money. Later the mobs came back with guns and weapons and forced the foreigners from their residences. Jealousy is supposedly to blame as South Africans complain that the influx of immigrants is a 'barrier' to local South Africans moving ahead.
But violence in South Africa is not new. The ludicrous assertion that Zimbabwean immigrants have brought crime to South Africa is laughable considering the fact that the Crime wave began not long after the fall of Apartheid in 1994 and the mass influx of Zimbabweans began years later in the late 1990s.
One letter to the editor posted on the BBC noticed something else as well. Theodorus Theron, an Afrikaner apparently, noted that "The violence is caused by Mr. Mbeki's ignorance towards the severity of the problem in Zimbabwe, and the fact that he is supporting Mugabe." A European Aid volunteer Alexandra noted that "I've witnessed during the past year how xenophobic vibes had already become deeply rooted within South Africa's poorly developed townships. But perhaps Peter Fourie made the most obvious and as yet unspoken comment "Fourteen years into "democratic" South Africa the Rainbow Nation is unraveling. We're back where we were in the 1980s, with people being "necklaced"
Let us start from the beginning. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, in one of its interim reports, tried to provide a 'history' of the problems facing South Africa. For the high godfathers sitting on the tribunal this was simple: "Racism began in 1652 when Jan Van Riebeeck stepped ashore near what is now Cape Town to establish a station for the Dutch East India Company." Thus before the arrival of the white man there was no 'racism' because all Africans existed in a state of peaceful utopia. Zulus, Xhosas and Bushmen all lived together and there was no fighting between them. Such is the narrative that Desmund Tutu and others would have the world believe. It is why Desmund Tutu has been at the forefront of those condemning the violence, noting that it was pitting 'brother against brother'. Many Black members of the elite media in South Africa have been caught up in this narrative as well. Rich Mkhondo writing in the Pretoria News notes that "But xenophobia is not going to go away until society itself confronts its history of bigotry, intolerance, and hatred against people from other countries, particularly African countries." The City Press editorial line noted that "We should know better because we have just emerged from more than three centuries of the horror of settler colonialism and apartheid... This madness has to stop." Andile Mngxitama also writes in the City Press that "Negrophobia, or the hatred of blacks, has reached fever pitch in South Africa with the recent attacks on black Africans in Pretoria, Alexandra and Diepsloot... The rise of negrophobia is the logical conclusion of our failure to decolonize our minds and also socioeconomic realities... The root cause of these attacks rests deep in our colonial and apartheid history." On May 25th the Herald Tribune reported that leaders of the ANC and Manala Manzini, an ‘intelligence’ official are blaming ‘dark hands’ from the ‘Apartheid Era’ and that the ‘right wing’ was to blame for the violence. There were references to the Inkatha Freedom Party of the Zulus being allied with reactionary whites to cause this violence, reminiscent, so the ANC leader claims, of the 1994 election violence. But this narrative is a lie. The true narrative is far more nuanced and complicated. The Dutch and their descendants, the Afrikaners came into South Africa at a time when immense changes were already taking place. The San and Khoikhoi people had already been driven off their lands and into either the interior or the environs around Cape Town by Bantu speaking tribesmen. Relationships between Khoikhoi women and Dutchmen produced copious amounts of people, to such an extent, that they became the ancestors of the modern South African Afrikaans speaking nation known as 'Coloureds'. Later, with the arrival of the British in 1806, a new component was added into the mix. The Afrikaaners moved inland, at various times allying and fighting various African black tribes. It was here that they clashed with the Zulus, a newly created warrior nation that had spent the period between 1815 and 1840 carrying out a 'crushing' or 'Mfecane' of other tribes. This great upheaveal sent African tribes reeling under the militaristic domination of Shaka Zulu. They scattered far and wide with the Ndebele settling as far away as modern Zimbabwe, where they immediately putting to use methods they had learned from the Zulus to crush the local Shona tribes. The Tswana, of modern Botswana, and the Sotho of modern Lesotho were all affected by this upheaval and, as evidenced by the modern state names, led to creation of a series of African nation-states through treaties with the British. It was, after all, the British who put a 'crushing' on the Zulus in the 1870s. It took the British another 30 years to do the same to the Afrikaans speaking Boers. Although the Zulu nation numbered some 250,000 in 1858 it now numbers almost 11 million, making it one of the largest national components of South Africa's 40 million people.
The Demund Tutu brand of 'brotherly' liberalism has infected South African history to such an extent that in 1988, Rhodes University professor Julian Cobbing advanced a controversial new hypothesis on the rise of the Zulu state, which contended that the 'Mfecane' was a self-serving narrative constructed by Apartheid era politicians and historians. According to Cobbing, the Mfecane has been mischaracterized by Apartheid historians as a period of internally-induced black-on-black destruction. Instead, argued Cobbing, the roots of the conflicts can be found in the actions of European slave traders. There is one slight problem. Zulus and Xhosas still dislike eachother as do the Ndebele and the Shona. Cobbling never presented his theories to the royal family of Lesotho or to Sir Seretse Khama of Botswana. Had he, he might well have had a cool reception, given the fact that the kingdom of Lesotho was heroically founded by King Moshoeshoe I in 1822 in the face of the Zulu onslaught.
If Black on black violence characterized the early 19th century and white on white (the Boer war) characterized the last years of the same century than surely white on black violence was to chracterize the 20th century with such infamous killings as the Sharpeville Massacre (1960) and the Soweto uprising of 1976. But intra-tribal violence did not end in South Africa. Between 1985 and 1994 there was a great deal of violence between Zulu activists of the Inkatha Freedom Party (led by Zulu royal family descendant Mangosuthu Buthelezi) and the ANC. Although information on the death tolls seems to have disappeared from memory, thousands died in these clashes. In 1994 the IFP received 10% of the votes in the election, a total of more than 2 million and had been the second largest opposition party since 1994.
The savage violence that has confronted South Africa in May of 2008 is not new. Since 1994 violence has been the mainstay of South Africa. The surprise that this is the case is due to the fact that during the 'struggle' against Apartheid the west was led to believe that all violence in South Afica was either positive, which is to say 'resistance' or it was negative and thus 'reactionary'. The west fostered this narrative and this heroic perception of violence whereby terrorism and the murder of civilians became part of the 'struggle'. It didn't matter if those civilians were 'collaborationist' blacks in the homelands or 'racist' whites, because it was part of the 'Armed Struggle'. When the struggle ended in 1994 everyone convinced themselves that the violence would disappear because the 'cause' of the violence, i.e Apartheid, had disappeared. No one dared to ask if the violence was in fact coming up from a deeper wellspring. When the murder rate skyrocketed and rape became the national pastime of South Africa, after Rugby be course, no one dared to wonder what was happening. In the 1990s and even after 2000 people convinced themselves that the murders of whites was primarily the birthpangs of the 'New South Africa'. So when hundreds, if not thousands, of Afrikaner farmers were killed in farm invasions, people said 'this is the legacy of Aparthied' and 'this is about land rights'.
Since 1994 the black leadership of South Africa has ensconced itself in the culture of black leadership across Africa. This means accepting the idea of non-intervention and non-interference in the affairs of other nations. This theory, or culture, was derived from the first conferences of the OAS when it became clear that so many of those African leaders of newly independent states attending continent wide conferences were dictators. The silent agreement was 'I will not bother you if you do not bother me…I have tribal, religious and economic problems of my own at home.' Thabo Mbeki, the President of South Africa since 1999, has played this policy to the hilt. He has therefore refused to help end the dictatorship of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Thus he has helped cause the continuing problems in Zimabbwe, in which half the people of that country have left as migrants, mostly to South Africa.
Amy Biehl, a white American student studying at the University of the Western Cape was living in South Africa in 1993 as a Fulbright 'scholar'. She was driving through a township near Cape Town called Guguletu with three black Africans as part of her volunteer work opposing Apartheid and helping to register blacks. On August 25ht, 19093 her car was set upon in the township by a mob chanting 'one settler, one bullet', w popular 'resistance' chant of the time used by the Pan African Congress (PAC). The Africans she was driving shouted that she was a 'comrade' but the mob paid no mind. She was pulled from the car and her head was beaten in with a brick (in much the same manner as was done to a white truck driver who took a wrong turn during the L.A riots). Mongezi Manqina, one of the men who helped murder Amy was later hired by Amy's mother and the Amy Biehl foundation as a gesture showing the coexistence that would take place in the 'New South Africa.' One wonders if the parents of the murdered Zimbabweans will be creating foundations and hiring the young men who beat their sons and daughters to death. One wonders if they will see in the deaths of their children the birth of the 'New South Africa' and if they will be able to ascribe those deaths to such mundane concepts as 'struggle'. Perhaps, instead, they will see the racism, hatred, tribalism and violence that has plagued South Africa long before Apartheid and they will realize that the 'Rainbow nation' is a myth.
Liberalism created this myth through simplistic narratives. In this narrative all blacks were the same and they were all 'brothers' and the existence of whites in Africa was 'racism'. Those twenty-two dead Zimbabweans might have a different story to tell about such stupid concepts. They might recall that there country was also handed over to the thug Robert Mugabe all in the name of progressive 'struggle'.
Post-Humanism: When Indians die of terrorism it is the fault of the Hindus
Seth J. Frantzman
May 16th, 2008
On May 15th tolerance swept across the city of Jaipur. 63 people died from the tolerance, many of them near a Hindu temple. In February, May and August of 2007 another hundred people died through tolerance. In July of 2006 it was the same story with 160 dead in Mumbai. In March of 2006 tolerance struck a Hindu temple in Varanasi and 15 died. In October of 2005 a total of 62 people died in Delhi from similar tolerance. What is the name of this tolerance? One name it goes by is Mohammed Jalaluddin. Another name it goes by is Harkat-al-Jihad-al-Islami. Ignore the last two words ‘Jihad’ and ‘Islam’ and ignore the name ‘Muhammad’. It was Jalaluddin and Harkat, both mutually incomprehensible, that caused these deaths. Islam is tolerant. Jihad is an inner struggle.
According to the U.S State Department some 2,300 people have died of terrorism related deaths in India in 2007. This is, so we are told 10% of the worldwide total of 22,000 who have died from tolerance, or terrorism. It turns out that these deaths of thousands of people in India have nothing to do with Pakistan or Bangladesh, from which Jalaluddin received training. They have everything do with Hinduism. So explains the BBC and its pet ‘Hindu’ in India.
"They have thrived on Muslim alienation in India since the phenomenal rise of the Hindu right in the country in the mid-1980s," says Pradip Bose of the Calcutta-based Center for Study in Social Sciences (CSSS). He says it all started with the demolition of the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya in December 1992 and has been fuelled by large-scale violence against Muslims, such as in the Gujarat riots in 2002. "A riot like Gujarat creates a few thousand potential jihadis seeking revenge, so there's no use blaming the foreign hand. We in this country have created this problem," says Mr. Bose, a distinguished sociologist.
He is a distinguished ‘sociologist’ and works for an NGO. He has a good Indian name, Bose, which makes his credentials impeccable. He is a good Hindu blaming other Hindus for their own deaths. He must be correct. But there is one hole in this all-to-often-heard story. Why is it so many people have to die every year because Muslims suffer ‘alienation’? Why is it that marginalized non-Muslim people who are alienated in Muslim countries don’t react with terrorism when right wing Muslims come to power. If Mr. Bose, the ‘sociologist’ was on to something, namely that, Alienation+marginalization+rise of the right=terrorism as resistance by the minority, then it would be true for all people. Sociologically all people are the same. Right? Muslims are like everyone else, except Muslims are more tolerant. Thus the Copts in Egypt should, logically be terrorists. The few hundred Hindus who were left in Pakistan after 1948 should be terrorists. The Christians in Iraq should be terrorists. But they aren’t. In fact there is not one example of a minority in a Muslim country turning to terrorism, no matter how much that minority is alienated, suppressed and marginalized. The Jews of Syria and Iran haven’t turned to terrorism. In fact the Jews of Iran spend most of their time condemning Israel and supporting the Iranian regime, at least publically.
It is only Muslims that ‘react’ to ‘alienation’ by becoming terrorists. This is the hole in the argument of the pet left-wing quotable Hindu. This is the hole that sits gaping through every leftist post-humanist argument throughout that world that always blames the host country for terrorism. In Russia it was the journalist Anna Politkovskaya. Remember Anna? She was the celebrated Russian female journalist who supported the Chechans and claimed that Russian suppression of the Chechan ‘freedom fighters’ forced the Chechans to murder hundreds of children at Breslan. When Anna was shot down in the lobby of her building by a terrorist, from Chechnya ironically, one wonders if she felt that she herself deserved to die, the same way she had condemned the Breslan children to death? But Anna and Mr. Bose are two of the same. Them and Noam Chomsky, who blamed 9/11 on ‘blowback’. What was the blowback? Was it the blowback from Saudi Arabia that they weren’t receiving enough blowjobs from the imported eastern European prostitutes and sex slaves? Or was it the ‘blowback’ from the fact that America had supported Islamism in Afghanistan? Logically the blowback should have come from Russia. It should have been men named Boris and Yuri flying planes into the world trade center, not guys named Mohammed.
Terrorism is always blamed on the victims of terror. Except when the terrorists are non-Muslim, then the terrorism sits squarely on the shoulders of the terrorist, such as Tim Mcveigh or the Tamil Tigers.
Is it a surprise that in India there are enough bourgeoisie Hindus that there is always a Hindu ‘professor’ that is trotted out after every terror attack who blames India for the attack? No. The post-human is a staple of every democracy. Dictatorships don’t seem to produce as many. Thus when America bombed Afghanistan after 9/11 there were no Afghan professors saying “we deserved this for helping Al Quieda”. When Hindu freedom fighters destroyed the Babri Masjid in 1994 there were no Muslim professors to be trotted out to say “we deserved this for colonizing India for 1,000 years and enslaving 10 million Hindus and destroying 4,000 Hindu temples”. No, the Muslims played the victim then just as they do now. Because now that Muslims have carried out yet another bombing in India we will have to hear how Muslims suffer ‘racial profiling’ and ‘discrimination’ because of their ‘perceived connection to terrorism’. Muslims are always the victims. When Muslims murder innocent people the Muslims are the victims because they are ‘stereotypes’. When Muslims are killed in the rare terrorist incident directed at Muslims they are the victims. This is how Islam works. It is a religion that always wins.
But there is always one question left to be asked. What if Muslims weren’t terrorists everywhere in the world? What if they weren’t terrorists in Bali? What if they weren’t terrorists in Madrid? What if they weren’t terrorists in Mumbai? What if they weren’t terrorists in Sudan? What if they weren’t terrorists in London? What if they weren’t terrorists in Moscow? What if they weren’t terrorists in Beirut? What would it be like if those 22,000 people that will die this year at the hands of Muslim terrorism could live another year? Liberals and post-humanists like Mr. Bose always have sympathy for the terrorist. But what if we think of those 22,000 individual men, women and children who don’t have to die every year. What if we think of each one them as an individual who has a right to enjoy their whole life. What if we think of each one whose life is now made into an excuse, whose life the post-humanist like Mr. Bose condemns to death because of some perceived injustice. What if we think of those 22,000 people we cannot meet this year, 22,000 African, Indian, European, Hispanic, Asian, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish people who we will never meet because their lives have been cut down by someone named Mohammed and his Jihad al-Islami ‘sleeper cell’. Each one is an individual whose life is worth the same amount as Mr. Bose’s. That is right. It is hard to think about. The BBC portrays Mr. Bose as an important person, someone without whose message of self-hate the world would deeply miss. But Mr. Bose is worth no more and no less than each one of those 22,000 dead people. 22,000 dead Mr. Boses. What if it was 22,000 dead Noam Chomskies instead of 22,000 dead anonymous people who we don’t know? What if it was 22,000 dead Anna Politkovskayas? Would the world care then? What if it was 20,000 bombed abortion clinics? Would the leftist world care then? Would there still be an excuse about ‘blow back’ and alienation? What if it was 20,000 dead Matthew Shephards, the homosexual who died in a hate crime in Montana? What if it was 20,000 dead Rodney Kings? Would there still be an excuse about alienation.
The only way to think of terrorism is not to think of random dead Hindus. The way to think of it, especially for the liberal, is to think of that which is most dear to the heart. For leftists that is not family because family is meaningless to post-humanism. It is to think of some cause. Terrorism is not a foreign thing. It is a beast. It is a monster. It is a thing that eats away at the world. It is something that does not have to exist. It only exists, at least in this day and age, because of the existence of Islamism and the religion that has created Islamism. There is nothing else that creates terrorism. It is not ‘marginalized’ people or ‘alienation’. It is not ‘the rise of the right’.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment