Saturday, December 09, 2006

On the Barricades

There is a comment by The Marwanist on a recent post at the 910 Group Blog that should be required reading for everyone in the Counterjihad:

In order for us to win this war, we can not make it a partisan affair. We have to build bridges between left and right, socialists and capitalists, democrats and republicans. If we fail to build a common front that crosses the right-left divide, the war is going to be much harder, much bloodier, and the outcome much less certain.

'On the Barricades on Rue Soufflot' Paris 1848 by W.J.HeineI’m a libertarian communist. An anarchist in the Bakunin mold.

As a right leaning thinker, you might feel frustrated at the absolute moral blindness of the left. Can you imagine what it feels like for those of us from the left who recognize the threats posed by the Jihadists and the misguided cultural policies which enable them? I was nearly lynched at a party for speaking out against Hezbollah.

Imagine being a liberal and seeing everything you believe in betrayed and attacked by those who claim to be on your side. Democracy, open inquiry, freedom of thought, equality — leading neo-fascist “liberals” are waging a war against these values in the name of cultural sensitivity, and many of us are sick and tired of it.
- - - - - - - - - -
I’ve already started to organize others in this fight. We refuse to let those Marxist-loving bastards get away with what they’re doing. We might be a minority right now, but we’re confident other disaffected leftists will join our ranks. This war is just getting started. Don’t count us out just yet.

You’ve seen how difficult it’s been to organize the right. Imagine how difficult it is for those on our side to organize! It’s a difficult, thankless job. We have more enemies and fewer allies. Right now, we walk our path very gently, ever mindful that a thousand “friendly” predators want to devour us whole.

Despite the hostility we face, despite the thankless nature of the work ahead of us, we have chosen to get involved.

Our first project is a school that teaches Western history and values. Other projects in the pipe include a post-leftist magazine and establishing an educational network that combines and connects online organizations with real world venues like ours.

Will we succeed? Maybe, maybe not. But these are tangible acts of resistance. If other people start doing similar things, we are going to have a real show of defiance on our hands, one that can change the cultural and political climate we now live under. One tiny school out in the wilderness is nothing — but if our business model proves viable, a year from now, we’ll be in a position to help others start their own schools. What happens once hundreds of grass root schools start popping up? Our pie in the sky goal is to see these schools become the next generation of Liberty Trees. Grounds where modern sons and daughters of liberty openly and publicly gather to organize the defence of their constitutional rights.

I like what the 910 group is doing. Baron and friends want to defeat Jihadism by encouraging open debate and free inquiry.

I might disagree with conservatives on a host of issues, but I agree with them on some of the most fundamental ones, and I will do everything in my power — however limited that might be — to help protect their rights and freedoms.

We have common opponents to deal with. We can set aside our differences for the length of this battle. And perhaps, when everything is said and done, we might realize we aren’t that different after all.

That was a long post, but I hope it served its purpose. You are not alone in this war.

I’ve been saying for a while now that it’s wrong — and counterproductive — to write off the entire Left. Christopher Hitchens and Nat Hentoff are not the only ones who understand what’s important.

Anti-jihad leftists are in the same bind as “moderate” Muslims — they are vilified, ostracized, and threatened because of their heresy. A heretical leftist may get to keep his head, but he will likely find his property destroyed and his career ruined because of his apostasy.

So it’s important to extend a hand to anyone who — without any socialist taqiyyah — genuinely wants to defeat the Great Islamic Jihad.

Join us on the barricades! There won’t be any red flags raised this time, but it’s a crucial struggle.

Gates of Vienna does indeed encourage “open debate and free enquiry” within a civil and temperate framework. The enemy lacks these capabilities.

It gives us the advantage.

17 comments:

Heloise said...

Thanks to the Marwanist for taking up the cause.

Voltaire said...

The Marwanist has hit the nail on the head about something else vital: the importance of creating schools that counter the slide towards nothingness that is plaguing our culture today.

No wonder we are bowing to societies who don't apologize about their traditions: for the most part, we are churning out generations of two-dimensional, specialized worker-ants with no logical skilss, critical thinking skills, historical or philosophical knowledge, ethical or religious convictions and cultural identity.

I say let's ope one of these schools in every major community. Talk about a way to make a difference.

Voltaire said...

Oops, pressed the wrong key. Make that "skills" and "hope"...

NightFlight said...

As I look upon the political landscape of America I have been troubled by all of the topics that have been dividing us.

Regardless of the differences that have arisen between us recently I feel there is one troubling storm coming that we can and need to unite against and that is this religious Jihad.

I have been reading a book by Brigitte Gabriel called "Because They Hate" and she comments on what happened in Lebanon to those socialist/liberals who sided with the Muslims thinking that their causes were one and the same. The Muslims accepted the non-muslim help during the horrific civil war but when the Muslims no longer needed the help of their infidel friends they turned on them and attacked them as well.

I applaud your school idea but there is a need for a multiple number of fronts as I feel time is short (as in one generation).

rob/d/bob said...

Keep up the good fight Marwanist. I don't agree with you as a socialist, but we have much more to fear from the Jihadis than from the socialists.

rob/d/bob

johnCV said...

I am greatly heartened by Marwanists comments and the attitude he brings to the fight. It gives me hope that some on the Left realize that without the sheltering safety of Western culture and might, there would be nowhere for them to dissent from! The disagreements between Left and right in our society should be as members of a family who may bitterly oppose each other, but let an outsider attack, they rally to a common cause.
If this fight is engaged and won only by the Right (big IF on the win part), the Left will be correctly be rolled up and discarded with the islamic world because that is perogative of the Victor (especially if the Left continues to visibly fight against the West). The very existence of the Left rides on the outcome of this war, should they choose the wrong side.
I wish you well.

And what heck is 'Libertarian Communist'? Don't think I ever saw one of them...

ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

"I’m a libertarian communist."
Now there's an oxymoron!

Scott said...

Is there really a political 'left' anymore? I mean one that has working alternative economic model?

What I see as the left is more a religious belief system than an alternative political/economic model.

That being the case I'm not sure there is much to be gained by attempting to 'reason' with them. They are impervious to reason. It's
like that new head of the Episcopal Church Dymphna wrote of. What's to say to someone who lives in an alternate universe. I don't find myself in disagreement with such a person so much as find myself in disbelief!

I would have no trouble in say, going for an alternative energy strategy even if it was to be a government run synfuels program if
that would get liberals on board for the war against Islamofascism but it wouldn't because the liberals don't see that there is a war.

eatyourbeans said...

In 1914 the division in France between the left and the right were even more bitter and vitriolic than in the USA today. But in the common danger, they put all that aside and formed la Union Sacree´. If they could, we can. Let's.

lumberjack said...

I'm pretty sure that a a libertarian communist is someone who is free to better himself, to apply his skills and work hard to get ahead and eventually buy a cow; which then becomes state property.

Or, maybe it's just like old time communism only without the drug laws.

Russet Shadows said...

As a liberal arts grad, for years I've endured the heckling and catcalling of my degree as "worthless" and a "meal ticket for 5.50 at Mickey D's". Part of being an educated person, was once the concept of being knowledgable about your culture, its origins, and its foundations -- without such, how can a person be described as educated? He or she may be skilled, but not educated.

Liberal hawks understand something about America and the necessity for a strong defense. They are rational, if misguided. However, the American left has moved so far off the deep end, that liberal hawks are now centrists. ACLU-trysting big government leftists are as much a threat to our republic as the jihadists. I say this only because those execerable fellows have been laying waste to my republic for forty long years. There are no bridges to be built with those who threw open the floodgates for pornography and whom consecrate abortion as a secular rite. Hang the jihadis and the leftists as one, for they work together as one now!

Engineer-Poet said...

Both the Islamists and Russet Shadows want to take away:

- The right to write, print and read what you want (including pornography).
- The right to control your own reproduction (including abortion).

If you want to see the reasons why some folks to the left of you see little difference between America's self-styled Christians (more like Pharisees with ambitions of theocracy) and the Taliban, you've got a prime example right there.

The USA is a nation conceived in liberty.  It's only the lingering respect for that great principle which lets all of us - me and Gates of Vienna included - continue to write and try to defend what is ours.  And I'll support you in the anti-jihad, but I'll be damned if I'll let you forget that you aren't the only ones doing it and that "liberty and justice for all", including the liberty of others to live their lives in a way you would never do, is an essential stone in the foundation of this country.

You undermine that foundation at your own peril.

Voltaire said...

Engineer-poet,

Your likening American Christians to the Taliban is irrational and flawed. If your interest in this matter is more than merely emotional, you may consider this from a rational angle and perhaps be able to see what I am saying.

Even the most fervent Christian in America will give onto Ceasar what is Caesar's. Not so Islamists. If you can't see that Christians welcome other faiths on American soil--to a fault!--and are more than happy to share their bread with a myriad of other mentalities and philosophies, there's nothing I can say to convince you. Let them have the right to express their preferences the way you do yours, through the legal channels established in this civilized society. The moment Christians impose Biblical law on every aspect of Government and behead those who don't agree, then your words will have a leg to stand on.

The reason why there is a Constitution in the USA is precisely to provide for situations like the ones you describe: let the States and the people vote on the matters not enumerated in the bill of rights, including issues of marriage, reproduction and matters of public decorum. Voting your Christian conscience is NOT wanting to establish a theocracy. If you can't see that, there's nothing I can say to you.

Anarchy is not exactly freedom. Libertinism is not exactly liberty. Nihilism is not exactly civilization and enlightenment. Freedom is freedom. And no fashionable concept en vogue at the moment is any more sacred than the right of the people to self-govern within the limits of the constitution. And one of the ways of self-governing is to vote regulations on society's mores. That's the way it is, and that's the way it's been for centuries. And whether the source of your beliefs pushing you to cast a vote one way or the other is the Bible or a reading from the Goddess Tarots it doesn't matter.

If you don't like a law, work to change it, but don't cry "Taliban" if someone doesn't agree with your view of the world.

One of the most important issues in this fight is that we define things crisply and truthfully, and we don't "define down" concepts just to engage in rhetorical hyperbole. A theocracy is precisely one of the things we need to define precisely. Please reconsider your views.

The Marwanist said...

I'm flattered that you felt my comment deserved it's own entry. Cheers, Baron!

Libertarian communism predates modern libertarianism by a hundred years. It was originally a term used by anarchists, but in the seventies it took on it's current meaning.

Basically, I believe that people left to their own devices are capable of managing their own affairs, and that communities work the best when people are free to leave them or join them at their own discretion.

However, my personal politics are immaterial at the moment. We have more pressing matters to deal with.

Russet, perhaps you're right. Perhaps legalized abortion and pornography are the reason why our society will collapse. However, the opposite might also be true. Perhaps the constant threat of coercive force against people who refuse to adopt conservative sexual mores is the reason why our society is in trouble.

How are you going to stop abortion? By sending men with guns to lock people up who disagree with you? And how are you going to stop pornography? By sending men with guns to forcibly imprison people who produce and purchase pornography?

Perhaps liberals have become so accustomed to feeling threatened by conservatives, that they simply can't conceive of conservatives fighting for a cause they believe in.

You don't have to build any bridges, Russet. It may make your life much easier, however. There are millions of liberals out there. Most of them are not that different from you. You're better off treating them with dignity and respect, even if you dislike them and what they stand for. Not because they deserve the respect, but because how you fight this war will determine the kind of world that comes after it.

We need not be allies, but if you fight me with hatred in your heart, don't be surprised if your victory spreads hate in turn.

Nightflight, I consider this war to currently have three major fronts. The political, the academic, and the media. There's a host of minor fronts, but a decisive win on any of the major fronts will probably secure victory. Our greatest opponents aren't the Jihadists, but those who enable them.

Voltaire, that's the idea. A school in every community. With a bit of luck (alright, a whole lot), it'll happen. You should think about starting your own school. Start small and grow. Also, I agree with your points about freedom and the difference between wanting to impose a theocracy and voting for what you believe in. Sorta.

The reason liberals confuse this issue might have something to do with how our laws are enforced - through the use of coercive violence. The more divisive the issue voted on, the more resentful dissenters are of the violence directed towards them when they fail to comply. Like I wrote Russet, conservative laws come off as threatening to liberals.

I don't consider that a critique of conservative politics, but of the political system itself. It works both ways - conservatives consider a lot of stupid laws that liberals want to enact as physically threatening. And both sides are right.

Since laws depend on coercive force, voting can be considered a violent act. Things may have worked the same way for hundreds of years, but I'm pretty sure there's a better way of doing things than this. At the very least, we should always factor in the violence needed to enforce the laws we favor. We aren't asking people nicely to stop doing things. We're using guns and jail cells. We shouldn't be shocked if people oppose having armed enforcers come over to their house to stop them from doing something that was recently legal, like reading playboy.

I've rambled on enough. Despite our disagreements, I thank all of you for the work your doing. Get involved, get active, and we can win this thing.

ljm said...

As a new student of politics, I may have somewhat simplistic definitions, but maybe they will help someone else just beginning.
Socialism has "denominations" just like Chistianity. Communism is one "denomination". Social Democrat is a "denomination". Strictly speaking, and somewhat old-school, libertarianism is also a denomination of socialism, although I'm sure most modern libertarians would be horrified to know that. I've read some old books from the 50s that use these definitions. So, our friend who uses a self definition as "libertarian communist" is exactly what he says he is!

Voltaire said...

The Marwanist,

You offer some very good points, as always, and I agree with a lot of what you are saying.

However, my contention remains that we need to define things carefully and accurately. Let me rephrase that: that careful and accurate definitions are one of the essential conditions for fighting this war in a realistic manner--namely in terms of who our enemy is, who we are, what's at stake, what victory is, and so on.

So, while it is undoubtedly true that "voting can be considered a violent act" by some on either side of the isle, we need to be careful with our words. Especially we in this venue, who are among the opinion leaders in this struggle. And that was my point to the good Poet.

By defining down a "violent act," we automatically bring casting a ballot in the same category as summarily executing women in a soccer stadium in front of a cheering audience. Just like by defining down "civil rights," we see how Islamists get away with likening their (cough) *struggle* to that of blacks in the '60s. Or just like by defining down "killing innocents," the collateral damage we cause makes us no different from our enemy in the eyes of the International community. Or like by defining down "theocracy," to many the Christian right poses a more immediate threat than Jihadism.

I'm sure you see where I'm going with this: the syllogism is always the same--A and B are essentially similar, B is wicked, so A is equally wicked. Let's start challenging that first premise, on which entire edifices of distorted debate are built every day.

Ultimately, the reason why I insist on definitions is this. Logical and rhetorical confusion is why we are fighting a "war on terrorism," and why we are getting our rear-end kicked in the world of public opinion. We don't have a fighting chance until we systematically strip the debate of all hyperbole, euphemisms and logical fallacies and until we call things what they are--with maturity and common sense.

OK, now I've rambled on for long enough as well... Good discussion!

unaha-closp said...

Go have a look at the Euston Manifesto.

http://eustonmanifesto.org/joomla/