Wednesday, 27 July 2011

SPENCER’S HOLLOW STUTTGART SPEECH


Robert Spencer trying to act tough

 SPENCER’S HOLLOW STUTTGART SPEECH

Robert Spencer’s persistent and systematic defiance of lurking Islamic hegemony is a truly admirable feat that lies in the best traditions of Western Enlightenment thought, and thus of Western civilization as a whole, including its religious component, dominated by various religious traditions in which Christianity predominates. I find Robert truly remarkable in the humility, the lack of pathos, the plain talk, and the precision of the   thinking, that he deploys against the cultthroats.

Considering the fact that Robert Spencer’s principal heavy, his nemesis,  his Dr. Moriarty, his Fu Man-Chu, is the Prophet Mohammed, it is  truly astonishing how whenever he mentions Mohammed he manages to ooze more good  breeding, self-control  and obsequious politeness than a hair-oil salesman.

I greatly admire such rhetorical restraint (although perhaps not so much when carried to such comical extremes), not only on esthetic grounds but also for the more practical reason that it forces the foe to express himself rationally, which of course is Islam’s undoing. Any realistic description of Islam, both by its proponents and its critics,  at once reveals its intolerably totalitarian, Bronze Age view of the world and produces immediate revulsion in rational people.

That is why SWAB-think is often presented as folk art, popular traditions, instead of a as a thinking method. All traditional ways of thinking including, of course Western traditional folk  thinking, are rife with  deficient, illogical, contradictory., and pre-scientific features, that on the whole make them unacceptable for public consumption except in homeopathic doses. Irrationalism lurks everywhere, in every fibre of our nature.  

I can’t say I  disagree with anything Robert Spencer said in his speech at Stuttgart, addressing a mixed riffraff of Mohammedan louts and their pseudo-Marxist sidekicks. Every one of his reproaches was on target.

But nonetheless his denunciations rang hollow. I admire and respect Robert  Spencer, I consider him an important and ethically unobjectionable historical figure. (That’s probably why the Mossad picked him in the first place, ha-ha.)  

But I say to Robert Spencer in tones of reproach:

A man who denounces one imperialism, namely Mohammedan imperialism,  is morally obligated (at least in petto or by the artifice of muttering veiled allusions) to denounce all imperialisms, including among others, Chinese imperialism, French imperialism, Russian imperialism, British imperialism and, last but by no means least, US imperialism.  Have I left any out?

To any doubters, any who might admire how the US exercises power worldwide,  I say:"I have seen redundant and overwhelming proof for many years that the US  cruelly exploits the hell out of the rest of the world, and often with the greatest brutality." 


One sample will suffice: Wikileaks revealed that the US Embassy in Haiti exerted strong pressure on the Haitian president to revoke or reduce a decree raising the Haitian minimum wage. Purpose;  to increase the profits of the US clothing companies that have their jeans sewn in Haiti for a fraction of the cost in the US.  Increasing the minimum wage was a necessary measure because the workers could not live on what they were earning.

 One sample will suffice: Wikileaks revealed that the US Embassy in Haiti exerted strong pressure on the Haitian president to revoke or reduce a decree raising the Haitian minimum wage. Purpose;  to increase the profits of the US clothing companies that have their jeans sewn in Haiti for a fraction of the cost in the US.  Increasing the minimum wage was a necessary measure because the workers could not live on what they were earning.

Which imperialism is more repugnant, Soviet imperialism that invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968 to prevent freedom from taking root, or American imperialism in Haiti that threatens governments for trying  to save the population from starving (2010)?

Of course it would be tactically disastrous to try to fight on all fronts at once, for Spencer receives much support in his struggle against the Mohammedan system of oppression from supporters of rival systems of oppression.   

But  Spencer’s ritual invocations of freedom, while implying that freedom is practically a free good in America and readily obtainable there, make me feel all queasy inside. It is a grave distortion of the facts.

To imply that the US is a free country  is to use the term “freedom” very loosely indeed. I wager than during the Prague spring of 1968, Communist Czechoslovakia was freer than the US is now, although all the repressive Stalinist laws were still the law of the land, merely because the prime minister was a lover of freedom and chose not to exercise his colossal repressive powers.  

Nonetheless US imperialism is infinitely preferably to Mohammedan imperialism. On the other hand I sometimes I find Moslems’ pragmatic approach to the free market an  attitude much more reasonable and tolerant than the anarcho-capitalist pyrotechnics that often blaze in America, with everyone going ”Oooh!” and “Aah!” as the ideological fireworks blind them to reality.   

Likewise Spencer’s dogged refusal to brook even the slightest criticism of Israel is a bit hard on the digestive system. What I like most about Israel is that it plays by democratic rules, and although it commits injustices, there are incessantly whistleblowers who protest and often prevent the worst excesses from happening. I don't mind the Israeli authorities being tough. Israel’s banning of Kahane’s political  party for racism definitely put Israel in my good books. I also found it very encouraging when cadets at the Israeli Army officer school spontaneously denounced excesses by Israeli troops in the Gaza campaign of 2009. Every country should be like that.  

Moreover  from photographs I have seen evidence that Israeli soldiers often discuss things in a reasonable manner  with Palestinians and do not irradiate  menace They often approach Palestinians while  arguing with them, but without pointing their weapons. That is a clear indication of goodwill and even trust, because right up close their guns are useless.

I was much impressed by a photograph showing an Israeli soldier walking by the body of a dead Arab, presumably done in by other Jewish soldiers. Instead of fixing his gaze straight ahead and ignoring the corpse, he glanced toward it with slightly bowed head and a pensive expression on his face. Even if the photo was cooked up by the Israeli propaganda machine, it reveals a profound underlying humanity that truly moved me.

I'd better stop here.

No comments:

Post a Comment