Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

The Value of Ayaan Hirsi Ali

I am prompted to write in response to this question from whodareswings:
I'm wondering why you have a link to Hersi Ali. Isn't she at the American Enterprise Institute working for them now? And isn't AEI a neocon outfit? And aren't neocons the enemies of White nationalists? Why have you given this Somali feminist "change agent" a pass?
I listen to many people. In spite of the fact that many have worldviews that conflict with each other or with my own they often expose me to opinions I consider valuable. What I value most is truth. What I value about Hirsi Ali is the truth she speaks.

I have not read everything Hirsi Ali has ever said, but I am not aware of any lies. She does not pretend to be what she is not. Lawrence Auster, in contrast, is no friend of neocons. He often speaks truth, but like neocons he pretends to care about the West when what concerns him most is what is good for jews.

From an interview Hirsi Ali did with Reason in November 2007, titled The Trouble Is the West:
Reason: Should we acknowledge that organized religion has sometimes sparked precisely the kinds of emancipation movements that could lift Islam into modern times? Slavery in the United States ended in part because of opposition by prominent church members and the communities they galvanized. The Polish Catholic Church helped defeat the Jaruzelski puppet regime. Do you think Islam could bring about similar social and political changes?

Hirsi Ali: Only if Islam is defeated. Because right now, the political side of Islam, the power-hungry expansionist side of Islam, has become superior to the Sufis and the Ismailis and the peace-seeking Muslims.

Reason: Don’t you mean defeating radical Islam?

Hirsi Ali: No. Islam, period. Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace.

Reason: We have to crush the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims under our boot? In concrete terms, what does that mean, “defeat Islam”?

Hirsi Ali: I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars. Islam can be defeated in many ways. For starters, you stop the spread of the ideology itself; at present, there are native Westerners converting to Islam, and they’re the most fanatical sometimes. There is infiltration of Islam in the schools and universities of the West. You stop that. You stop the symbol burning and the effigy burning, and you look them in the eye and flex your muscles and you say, “This is a warning. We won’t accept this anymore.” There comes a moment when you crush your enemy.

Reason: Militarily?

Hirsi Ali: In all forms, and if you don’t do that, then you have to live with the consequence of being crushed.
Reason: So when even a hard-line critic of Islam such as Daniel Pipes says, “Radical Islam is the problem, but moderate Islam is the solution,” he’s wrong?

Hirsi Ali: He’s wrong. Sorry about that.
Hirsi Ali is a clear and articulate anti-islam iconoclast - one of the few of an extremely rare breed. What she says about islam is not only the unvarnished truth, without any PC dithering, it is far beyond what the vast majority of neocons (or White nationalists for that matter) have the courage to say.

From her review of Lee Harris' book Civilization and Its Enemies: The Next Stage of History:
The second fanaticism that [Lee] Harris identifies is one he views as infecting Western societies; he calls it a “fanaticism of reason.” Reason, he says, contains within itself a potential fatality because it blinds Western leaders to the true nature of Islamic-influenced cultures. Westerners see these cultures merely as different versions of the world they know, with dominant values similar to those espoused in their own culture. But this, Harris argues, is a fatal mistake. It implies that the West fails to appreciate both its history and the true nature of its opposition.

Nor, he points out, is the failure linked to a particular political outlook. Liberals and conservatives alike share this misperception. Noam Chomsky and Paul Wolfowitz agreed, Harris writes, “that you couldn’t really blame the terrorists, since they were merely the victims of an evil system — for Chomsky, American imperialism, for Wolfowitz, the corrupt and despotic regimes of the Middle East.” That is to say, while left and right may disagree on the causes and the remedies, they both overlook the fanaticism inherent in Islam itself. Driven by their blind faith in reason, they interpret the problem in a way that is familiar to them, in order to find a solution that fits within their doctrine of reason. The same is true for such prominent intellectuals as Samuel Huntington and Francis Fukuyama.

Harris does not regard Islamic fanaticism as a deviancy or a madness that affects a few Muslims and terrifies many. Instead he argues that fanaticism is the basic principle in Islam. “The Muslims are, from an early age, indoctrinated into a shaming code that demands a fanatical rejection of anything that threatens to subvert the supremacy of Islam,” he writes. During the years that this shaming code is instilled into children, the collective is emphasized above the individual and his freedoms. A good Muslim must forsake all: his property, family, children, even life for the sake of Islam. Boys in particular are taught to be dominating and merciless, which has the effect of creating a society of holy warriors.

By contrast, the West has cultivated an ethos of individualism, reason and tolerance, and an elaborate system in which every actor, from the individual to the nation-state, seeks to resolve conflict through words. The entire system is built on the idea of self-interest. This ethos rejects fanaticism. The alpha male is pacified and groomed to study hard, find a good job and plan prudently for retirement: “While we in America are drugging our alpha boys with Ritalin,” Harris writes, “the Muslims are doing everything in their power to encourage their alpha boys to be tough, aggressive and ruthless.”

The West has variously tried to convert, to assimilate and to seduce Muslims into modernity, but, Harris says, none of these approaches have succeeded. Meanwhile, our worship of reason is making us easy prey for a ruthless, unscrupulous and extremely aggressive predator and may be contributing to a slow cultural “suicide.”
Hirsi Ali's critiques of islam and the West are, in my opinion, accurate. Once again, contrast her with a charlatan like Chomsky.

Whether Hirsi Ali is a feminist, an african, or an immigrant is beside the point. She is not a charlatan. At some point she will realize, as I did, that the progressivist globalists, the West's leftist-plutocrat alliance, don't see any fundamental incompatibility between themselves and islam. That they're helping subvert the West and establish a worldwide caliphate. That pundits like Pipes, Chomsky, and Wolfowitz are gatekeepers. That they help channel public opinion and define the bounds of legitimate discussion primarily in the best interests of jews, not the West, and certainly not Europeans or somalis.

If she comes to this realization before she dies I think she'll have the courage to say it out loud. After facing muslims and their bloody knives I can't believe she would fear politically correct liberals and their bloody lies. They'll defund her, they'll call her crazy, they'll threaten her with hate crimes. Then we'll know she has really put her finger on what troubles the West.

Labels: ,



Blogger Flanders Fields said...

Hirsi Ali is an independent minded person and is fully capable of independent thought. She is to the left in some of her views, but like you, I think she will see the futility and the wastefulness of "progressive" thought when it is applied and when the results of their action become evident.

I think the gatekeepers you mention are not operating in the interests of the jews. They are giving that appearance as are others who are in the visible rungs of heirarchy, while operating factually for that leftist nirvana, the socialized world order. Jews will obtain no more from their support of those high-visibility gatekeepers than the rest of us. The internationalists plans are too near to fruition to allow ethnicity or nationalism, even for Israel, to become an interfering factor.

All of our full efforts should be against those few who plan to regulate the masses into a controllable heap, responsive only to their Pavlonian babblings. We should welcome those who have either come to a similar realization instead of submitting to communal PC.

5/10/2008 07:00:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the gatekeepers you mention are not operating in the interests of the jews.

They must be acting in the interests of someone.

The internationalists plans are too near to fruition to allow ethnicity or nationalism, even for Israel, to become an interfering factor.

But the scenario you propose is pointless. Cui bono? You propose that no one benefits. That can't be right.

5/11/2008 10:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reason: So when even a hard-line critic of Islam such as Daniel Pipes says, “Radical Islam is the problem, but moderate Islam is the solution,” he’s wrong?

James Bowery might say he's right, as a matter of managing the evolution of virulence. That is not to say, however, that moderate Islam should be allowed in our territory. It shouldn't.

5/11/2008 10:55:00 AM  
Blogger Flanders Fields said...

Ben, Those gatekeepers are Marxists. That is their first and primary loyalty. Ethnicity is a tool which they use to advance socialist causes. I think many within their community of supporters are too cozy with their policies, thinking that they will benefit. It should already be obvious to them that they are being deluded and that supporting the left is not in their interests.

The corporate left, who are Fabian Socialists in the way in which they operate, are the financial beneficiaries. This includes the multinationals, their financier/controllers, and thier transnational brood of leftist administrators and politicians in our societies. The corporates get free reign over the resources of the world and the leftists get more power and choice positions from and within a bigger government, as well as the under the table benefits fed to them as corporate scraps or diverted tax dollars.

There should be no one in our society who supports another ideology or national/international force over the interests or sovereignty of the United States. That includes Muslims, Marxists, and especially the Multinational corporations and financiers who support them both against the interests of our country.

It also includes much of the general media and MSM and some (if not all) of the Presidential candidates. Those who support the interests of Israel in ways which are detrimental to the US usually fall within those categories, but anyone who intentionally supports a foreign nation in ways which are substantially adverse to material US interests should be prosecuted, their corporate charters revoked, or made to leave.

5/11/2008 05:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ben, Those gatekeepers are Marxists. That is their first and primary loyalty. Ethnicity is a tool which they use to advance socialist causes.

But you're not positing any benefit for the "gatekeepers", so what's the point?

No, Marxism is an expression of self-interest, and the interest it serves is that of the Jewish community. Marxism is a form of Judaism. Trotsky himself equates the two: "The welfare of the revolution -- that is the supreme law", which is just a restatement of the general Jewish belief that right ad wrong are judged by what is "good for the Jews".

5/11/2008 07:43:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

From the introduction to MacDonald's Culture of Critique:

My view is that Judaism must be conceived primarily as an ethnic rather than a religious group. Recent statements by prominent Jewish figures show that an ethnic conceptualization of Judaism fits with the self-images of many Jews. Speaking to a largely Jewish audience, Benjamin Netanyahu, prominent Likud Party member and until recently prime minister of Israel, stated, “If Israel had not come into existence after World War II then I am certain the Jewish race wouldn’t have survived. . . . I stand before you and say you must strengthen your commitment to Israel. You must become leaders and stand up as Jews. We must be proud of our past to be confident of our future.”21 Charles Bronfman, a main sponsor of the $210 million “Birthright Israel” project which attempts to deepen the commitment of American Jews, expresses a similar sentiment: “You can live a perfectly decent life not being Jewish, but I think you’re losing a lot—losing the kind of feeling you have when you know [that] throughout the world there are people who somehow or other have the same kind of DNA that you have.”22 (Bronfman is co-chairman of the Seagram company and brother of Edgar Bronfman, Sr., president of the World Jewish Congress.) Such sentiments would be unthinkable coming from European-American leaders. European-Americans making such assertions of racial pride would quickly be labeled haters and extremists.

It is taboo for Whites to speak of race, to express any concern for White interests, while jews, even captains of supposedly aracial secular industry like Bronfman, are engaged in all manner of jewish ethnocentrism. This double standard cuts across the academic, political, and corporate worlds. It transcends all these things because race transcends all things.

As the internationalist plans advance this double standard has not diminished - it has strengthened. It is reasonable to expect it to play out similarly to the bolshevik revolution. There, after bringing Karl "class transcends race" Marx's plans to fruition, the anti-religious anti-racist leftists made criticism of jews a crime. Then, even as today, the reality inverting logic was that pointing out jewish chauvinism is chauvinist. Liberal thought (left and right) is riddled with such dishonest logic.

5/12/2008 11:25:00 AM  
Blogger Flanders Fields said...

Tan, I fully agree on your point that there is a double standard being pushed. Not only is the standard being pushed, it is being limited, tracked, hounded and loudly shouted by SPLC and by other groups. We also have the selective ommissions practiced by the ACLU.

I came across an excellent article which details some information about corporate campaign donations and it has an excellent discussion on those things which are truly our greatest danger, in addition to the other groups. The article is at Howard Was Right, but here is my link to the article.

We all know where a great amount of the impetus for leftism comes from and this is information on the corporate side of the financing vis a vis the major parties.

5/15/2008 11:35:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home