Saturday, March 15, 2014

We're still fighting World War 2

Someone recently remarked, in a comment at the Gates of Vienna blog:

"There is no more need of the UN - WW2 finished 70 years ago."

That got me thinking. WW2 may have ended over 70 years ago -- but the PC MC West (particularly in Europe) is still fighting WW2: that's why we can't begin to fight WW4.

Wait a minute: WW4...?  This implies a "WW3".  That would be the Cold War which PC MC in its revisionist history has ruled a paranoid delusion pursued by excessively Communist-phobic right-wingers: PC MC's persistent WW2 paradigm thus has tended to undercut and airbrush out of existence our struggle against Communism -- in many important ways winning, in the sense of a cultural victory through the mainstream dominance of PC MC (whether this cultural victory is simply a tangential process to the Communist infiltration that (as Diana West reminds us) has been going on for decades having become a relatively minor danger in and of itself, or whether it is the visible, and seemingly innocuous, spearhead of a more sinister and concerted sabotage, is a matter of inference and interpretation, not of fact. I am not entirely in Diana West's camp on this one; for she has yet to explain plausibly why there is no overt conquest of the West by Communism (one of whose symptoms would be her inability to publish and publicize her book at all) -- and what that means concretely for a diagnosis of our sociopolitical culture today.  This however is an issue for another day and another essay.

At any rate, the very same PC MC mentality that derides the seriousness of (or even vilifies those who took seriously) Anti-Communism during the Cold War, is the mentality that now derides the seriousness of the concern about Islam. Often, I have found, PC MC types explicitly draw this exact comparison.  Indeed, when Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann was derided and denigrated for her reasonable concern about Muslim Brotherhood operatives in the U.S. government (right up to the Presidency), she was vilified -- even by many of her Republican colleagues -- as promoting a "McCarthyism".

This WW2 paradigm remains, and is directly preventing us from, among other crucial things, seeing the danger of Muslims, because by that paradigm the New Hitler cannot possibly be an Ethnic People (which is how PC MCs think of Muslims). Even to begin to go down that slippery slope toward thinking bad things about Muslims is to end up becoming "another Hitler" -- for the "next Hitler", according to that paradigm still seeing the world through World War 2, would have to be a white racist Western demagogue, and his followers white racists (which, naturally, are assumed to be potentially a far greater danger than are Muslims). No other possibility is permitted within the Box of PC MC. And if you try to point out the mountains of data indicating otherwise (i.e., Muslims all over the world publishing and vociferating hate speech -- including the worst most chilling sort of brazen Jew hatred -- when they are not slaughtering and torturing non-Muslims or insufficiently "pure" Muslims), then you yourself become suspect as a "bigot" and an "Islamophobe", with that darker implication of a tendency toward "another Hitler" ever lurking.


Thus, the bitter irony and bizarre paradox: Our dominant and mainstream paradigm whose raison d’ĂȘtre is to prevent a new Hitler is -- precisely by doing so in the way it does so -- positively enabling the next Hitler to rise up.  But the new Hitlers are not Westerners.  They are, for example (to pluck just one example from a keffiyeh one could adduce from thousands around the world), like Sheikh Qaradawi, one of the most popular and mainstream Muslim clerics in the world today, who has (for perfectly Islamic reasons) advocated the execution of homosexuals, has legitimized suicide bombings, and has said about the Holocaust that it was "divine punishment" for the Jews and that "Allah willing the next time will be at the hand of the believers [i.e., Muslims]".

Further Reading:

For a more detailed analysis, see my older essay:

The Four World Wars: An Interesting Dynamic

No comments: