Wednesday, January 25, 2012

School's not out yet

As a brief postscript to my
last post on Eric Allen Bell -- the Leftist who made such a big initial splash this past week with his defection from the Leftist party line by actually rousing from his Rip-Van-Winklish nap of politically correct multi-culturalist slumbers, not by spastic reflex hitting the snooze alarm after the thousandth Islamic atrocity, but actually waking up to smell the Arabic coffee (well, in its decaf form) -- I notice, as I continue to read the ever-growing comments to the Jihad Watch article devoted to his valedictorian essay at the grotesquely Leftist rag the Daily Kos (of which Bell was a frequent contributor and participant over the years), that many of the Jihad Watchers are growing tired of Bell.

But not because of his squishy and incoherent nougaty center of softness on Muslims (ludicrously juxtaposed to his supposedly no-nonsense toughness on Islam): rather, Jihad Watchers are growing weary and wary of Bell for his economic and political Leftism -- and not just your ordinary garden-variety Leftism, but a strangely Buchananish conspiracy-thinking Occupying anti-"Corporatist" hybrid of sumpn' -- totally, however, unrelated to the problem of Islam.

As far as Jihad Watchers are concerned, apparently (with extremely rare exceptions, as noted in my previous essay), Bell's creamy nougat center by which he wants to continue to allow millions of Muslims to immigrate into the West, and finds absolutely no danger in that metastasizing prospect (because all the American Muslims he's met are just so awfully friendly and Westernized, you see) is just peachy keen by them.

Makes one wonder what exactly these Jihad Watchers are "watching", anyway.


Nobody said...

In that thread, I took issue w/ Bell supporting the OCCUPY movement, but at the same time, refusing to admit that it is a Leftist position. I didn't and don't have a problem w/ him being a Leftist - I just have a problem w/ him pretending to be non-partisan, and also, misrepresenting the OCCUPY movement as consisting of people from the entire political spectrum, as opposed to just the Left.

But I did point out to him earlier in the thread - in something he either overlooked or didn't bother to refute - that the distinction b/w being anti-Islamic & being anti-Muslim is specious @ best, and disingenous @ worst. That is my biggest problem w/ him.

My problem w/ his problem w/ 'Corporatism' and 'Statism' is lower in priority. I could even swallow that, if what I got in return was a solid opposition to any Muslim remaining in the West.

Sagunto said...

Hi Hesp -

That's quite a few requests to set me on a track of clarifying my position, which you already are more than familiar with. You know where we agree and disagree, and even the reasons why we differ - both on specifics and fundamentals - are pretty clear after numerous spirited debates. Let me recap all of it before I'll try to indulge you in accord with your kind guidance.

[You might wanna skip this part and go right to my attempt at providing you with a somewhat satisfying answer.]

* * *

In short: your discussion is with fellow big-gov progressivists, who treat two specific fetishes as treasure: the (a) "Tiny Minority" meme and (b) the "Leftist conspiracy" meme.
What I have tried to make you understand, is that, like these JW/GoV/../ fetishists, you have one of your own, which makes it harder for you to see the bigger picture. My point: substantial differences between you people notwithstanding, you all fail to discern, let alone address, the underlying monetary structure that acts as another very powerful "enabling factor" besides people's mindsets.

I will now - without any further annoyance ('cause you know what would normally follow here ;) - go straight to my specific answer to your string of requests.

* * *

[You might want to skip this as well..]

First off, and for argument's sake, let's depict The Problem as being twofold: the existential Threat, and the reaction to that threat.

In the great piece you did on Bell, you restated one cardinal point that features in the intra-progressivist discussion about the reaction to the existential threat of Islam:

"We cannot tell the difference between harmless Muslims, even if we agree they exist in large numbers, and the dangerous Muslims trying to deceive us in the service of their grand, protracted plan to subvert the New Rome -- the modern West -- standing in the way of Islam's right to dominate the world."

That's between you, a firm AIMer, and the soft-CJs populating the comments section of JihadWatch. Since we're here at your blog, "entre-nous" so to speak, I can reformulate your axiom in ever sterner/simpler terms:

Islam is our existential Threat, a hostile take-over Cult with Muslims acting as its agents. Islam is the problem, therefore Muslims are. All Muslims.

No need to talk about the academic issue of "harmless Muslims" and related debates about the quantity of them available, let alone the use of these enigmatic "harmless Muslims" for the cause of (defending) Liberty.

* * *

Hesp -

Your requests, in condensed, reshuffled/rephrased form [Attention: annoyance alert! ;)]:

"(2) How is it most likely the Progressivist Welfare State will solve -- or try to solve -- this problem? (1) How should the West solve this problem? P.S.: And, if you would so indulge me, I would greatly appreciate your clarification on: a), the specific ways in which you disagree with or differ from Eric Allen Bell, and b), the specific ways in which you may agree with him."

As to your first two requests, I can only say that I marvel at your capacity to leave uncomprehended the obvious. So the only thing for me to do, is to have you revisit that comment of mine @Wellington. My point (1) answers your second request about the most likely way the state apparatus will try to solve the problem. My point (2) answers your first request about my ideas for a desirable political solution to the problem.

[to be continued..]

Sagunto said...


Now, the more interesting part about E.A. Bell and the specific ways where I might agree/disagree. Thank you for that typical comment of his in the JW thread. Very typical indeed. As would be your answer that I distil from your posts. Pity you aren't allowed to engage him directly on JW, but then again, I imagine your replies wouldn't have been all that different from here. What stands out is the issue you'll always leave unexplored: the economy. Bell superficially touches upon it, yet distorts the issue in a typical leftist way. You just leave it out of the picture in its entirety.

Here's the Bell quote that I find most useful, to illustrate - for your understanding - the way I see things fundamentally different:

"It is a myth propagated by the MSM that OCCUPY is just a bunch of lazy liberals who think taxing the rich will solve everything.

Occupy Wall Street exists in protest to the unholy alliance between certain big money interests and the near ownership they have over our politicians and our political process."

Notice the typical complaining about the MSM lamestreamists, while actually, his real qualm should be with that segment of "Occupy" that fails to promote (through the internet) its fundamental difference with the "bunch of lazy liberals". The second part of the quote doesn't do well to support his argument, because it's just another variety of the typical leftist/anti-globalist critique of "big business"* that practically "owns" the thing he chooses to describe as "our political process".
Suppose he'd use that term, "our political process" in a narrative decrying the fact that PCMC practically "owns" our politicians, I imagine you'd be much more in agreement with Bell, right? There you've got your fetish (i.e. the staunch fixation on just one particular part of reality), your fantasy, shared by many other Progressivists, that it's just the wrong people, with the wrong mindset, who happen to be in charge at the wrong time in history.

To be sure and FYI, I don't agree with Bell on any of the points he pushes in his particular comment. He suggests OWS isn't typically "leftist", then he comes up with typically leftist talking points, while remaining oblivious to the more than active participation of the State in this collusion. Addressing this omission would entail an in-depth discussion of the history of the monetary system involved. I see not even the beginning of that in Bell's worldview, and wouldn't expect it from someone obviously lacking the wider frame of reference here. The introduction of this "Tea Party" phenomenon to clarify his point only adds to the confusion for several reasons, starting with the fact that these days, "Tea Party" is a label that has been attached to almost anything deemed "conservative", even if that includes mutually exclusive political positions.

In short: for me, most of this - and other related CJ/AIM squabbles - comes down to the usual Progressivist infighting, with most people pushing typical Big Gov "solutions" to the Problem. I don't care whether the solutions proposed are deemed "left" or "right". People who still hold on to that false distinction are beyond rescue, as far as I'm concerned.

So there you have it. There's no doubt in my mind, that you will be left unsatisfied, and that you'll have more in store after I've ventured to take these discursive hurdles. I'm afraid though, this will have to do for now.

Always a pleasure to disagree with you Hesp, take care,

* without any mention of the crucial difference between big political entrepreneurs and genuine free market entrepreneurs.

Hesperado said...

Yes Nobody, I realize your position, and you were one of the exceptions to the general rule I noted in my previous essay.

Hesperado said...


You wrote in this comments field:

"my position, which you already are more than familiar with."

While in another comments field on my blog here, only about three weeks ago,
you wrote:

"You have no idea what my position really is..."

In addition, at other times, you have insinuated the latter. Furthermore, I am telling you (as I told you in the previous comments field) that I am not clear on your position. I know what I am clear about and what I am not clear about more than you do, surely.

That's why I asked you the questions I asked you in the comments field of the previous essay below this one.

They are clear, precise questions to which I have no doubt you are (at least intellectually) able to provide pertinently clear and precise answers. Why you might persist in refusing to do so, however, goes beyond the realm of reason into other areas about which I may have certain opinions and ideas, but for whose diagnosis I am not professionally qualified.

Sagunto said...

Hey Hesp -

Get a clue, you disingenuous "I have no arguments, let's play a round of semantics, and catch the 'inconsistency'.." one: I've answered your freakin' "questions", while I should have known better than to invest time and effort. Having said that, I must admit that you don't dissappoint me. It's vintage Hesperado: in it for lecturing, incapable of learning.

Oh well, just another day at the baby-boom office ;)

Kind regs from Amsterdam,