www.thornwalker.com/ditch/lights162_lte.htm
Strakon's column:
To the editor ...
Mr. Strakon has answered Fred Reed's question but the omission of Islam as a
target of cultural Bolshevism seems curious. Government, Hollywood, and the
MSM relegate Muslims to an even more fetid sewer than the one they reserve for
Catholics. Is there a certain relief in this? After 9/11 some African-Americans were
delighted to describe Muslims as the "new niggers." Free at last. The crackers hate
someone even more than us.
When it comes to the dark suits (our dictatorial class) who induced LBJ to open
America's borders to non-white, non-European, non-Christian immigrants, it
seems they had in mind something resembling Hannah Arendt's dictator at the
center of onion. The dictator is surrounded by independently ignorant layers of
subordinate bureaucracy which protect him from the threat of reality. In a
multicultural society, the Podhoretzes don't stand out as much. And when men,
women, whites, blacks, Muslims, Christians, gays, immigrants, rich, poor, and the
rest are at each other's throat we're not likely to see a common threat.
Longi Ziper
Nicholas Strakon
replies
Indeed. The state specializes in setting us at each other's throat. It works out nicely for the statists: state intrusions into society necessarily ignite social conflict, as I have pointed out a time or two; and the results help the statists retain and bolster their power.
I didn't want to burden my column with an overlong discussion of the
Mohammedan question, but I thank Mr. Ziper for prompting me to expand on it a bit. I think it's fairly complicated. It's always perilous to try to divine what goes on in
those leftist heads, but I suspect that — as we say nowadays — they're
somewhat conflicted on the subject.
To begin with, all manner of leftists are stuck with that whole cultural-relativism
thing, at least when it operates to the detriment of the white race, Western culture,
and America and old American ways. That drives them to cuddle up to primitive non-Western
peoples, the more dodgy and exotic the better; and, to the extent they can, import
them into the United State.
In respect to the Mohammedans, the women's-rights issue has created some dissonance,
as I mentioned. But the Guards have to be careful about what they say and do in
any case. Most of the people whom I call Red Guards, at least those working
outside the government, are employed directly or indirectly by the Dark Suits — the men
representing the senior, established wing of the ruling class, keeping their
headquarters in investment banking but maintaining strategic control over the commanding heights of the entire fascized economy. Those men are responsible for the empire,
ultimately; they saw to its construction, for their own perceived benefit; and over
the past ten years they have at least tolerated the neocon wars aimed at extending
the empire and supporting Israel.
That places limits on those Guards who might otherwise take an antiwar position. (In these mindless times, as I can testify, taking an antiwar position means taking a pro-Mohammedan position to those who have trouble following simple arguments and understanding simple ideas.)
The antiwar movement — run, as always, by leftists — wasn't very
impressive even during the
True antiwar and anti-Zionist leftists do exist, of course, and they haven't shut up.
But they're not members of the power elite, and as such, they're not the sort of
people I mean when I talk about Red Guards.
Both Suits and Guards shudder in horror at any discrimination against
Mohammedans in this country, and insofar as they have the power and influence to
do so, they punish those who attempt to exercise their freedom of association in
avoiding Mohammedans; at the same time Suits and Guards alike shrug or even
(in the case of the neocons and some Suits) actually applaud the bloody havoc the
empire perpetrates against Mohammedans in their own countries. It is an
eye-popping spectacle, and business as usual.
Mr. Ziper alludes to the reaction of some Negroes to 9/11, pleased that "the
crackers" had found a new object of hate. (One senses that the Negroes
themselves did not spend much time looking for a new object of hate.) I believe that the big political figures
and mouthpieces among the Negroes are not true Red Guards — not most of
them — even though very many of them are employed by the Suits, same as
the real Guards. (Marxists such as MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry are probably
the real thing.) Instead, those figures are just pro-Negro and anti-white; and their main
interest is deriving power, privilege, and swag from the leviathan that is mostly
financed by whites. Following Martin L. King, most Negroes are antiwar —
but only because they fear war spending will mean a reduced flow of domestic-socialist goodies for themselves.
In 2007, inspired by the Michael Vick Affair and the
shrugging of most Negroes in response to it, Andy Nowicki wrote a brilliant column for us exposing
the hollowness of Negro "liberalism" compared with the white variety.
I take note of one last complication: Negroes who have converted to some flavor of Mohammedanism or been raised in it may sincerely identify with Mohammedans in foreign countries — certainly more than they do with any ofay here at home.
February 14, 2012
Nicholas Strakon is editor-in-chief of The Last
Ditch.
Comment?
Back to Strakon's
column.
"Why they hate religion — or Christianity, at
least"
February 14, 2012