Banner Rotate

Logo by Julian Spanos

Antitheistic. Long. Perplexing. Offensive. Whatever.

Warning: This blog does not cater to your whims. If you are offended, then I am not obliged to care. It ain't personal until otherwise stated.

Random Quotes

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Another Day, Another Apologist!

“I’m trying to relax, believe it or not! I am trying to call it a fuckin’ day, and I had to come across the manifesto, and then I had to come across the critique of the given manifesto! Why, oh why the fuck do I get myself into these situations? I am a pathological case of philosophical self-destruction; I am compulsively gauged towards meshing my digestive enzymes and what remains of my functioning brain-chowder, until I am left with one puddle of bad-tasting soup. I need a fuckin’ lobotomy!” - Opening statement, and signs of warning.

So yeah, I would recommend that you read the following to catch-up on the manifesto:

I would also recommend that some of you graze through the following article, which is a critique of the manifesto by an Islamic-scholarly-type-person, named Hamid Dabashi (Islamic Scholary - Oxymoron, I know.):

However, I shall lay strong emphasise on grazing, because this very literary piece could have you confused and tearing your hair over a matter that is actually quite trivial. This of course, is nothing but a by-product of the author’s own tactics to obfuscate a matter for the sake of his own self-esteem, which stems from the denigration of his group identity. After all, most of the non-individualistic individuals practically treat their group identity as their own; as a matter of fact, technically, there is no such thing as a non-individual. You have individuals who actually end up with their own unique identity; and you often have the individuals who take on a group identity, but treat it as their own; this is why most individuals with a group identity often exude denial when the presence of their unique individual is challenged. Anyhow, I’d be digressing with my theories; let’s get on with the matter then, because my stomach’s in more knots than those one would find listed inside an ace boy scout’s hand book.

Now, I am going to try to avoid sprinkling too many random words over this matter, because I do not want to reciprocate the same pretentious drama that the author--of the aforementioned, and linked article--Mr. Hamid Dabashi has done. People bitch about me getting too dodgy with semantic trickery; I’ve had a taste of this medication, and gleaned much displeasure from it - fuck, there I go again. You see, under that plethora of words in the article that is aptly titled, “Islam and globalisation” our author is actually just beating the same old dead horse. This is, in fact, another one of them reasonable Moslems--a koranik, by my standards--who’s trying to take a zealous counter-offensive through a more civil and journalistic medium. Good for him! I can respect an individual for offering good intellectual rebuttal; however, these days, we have too many people who prance about under the guise of intellectual critics, while evading the essence of an argument by disputing surface semantics. When you can’t defeat an actual point; you then criticise and denigrate any flaws you might find in its cosmetic layout; anything to get the heat off from the irrefutable bone of contention. Going into such rebuttals can be a very tacky process, for just exposure to the first quartet of such literary debacles, effectively has one searching for an actual critique of the essence, and just enduring endless drivels about specifics and cosmetic mechanics, that really don’t say much about the essence to begin with.

It’s kind of like contiguous conditioning; I’ll say that another person’s point is invalid, but instead of actually addressing the spirit of their point, I’ll try to distract by just addressing a poor use of mechanics. I’ll dedicate about a thousand-plus words to that poor use of mechanics, and before you know it, the essential critique of the essence of my target, will be long forgotten. A reader will read something about me disapproving of something, and then attacking only the semantic side of the criticism, leaving the conclusion on that note. Yes, yes, I am digressing, again; I think Mr. Dabashi pretty much did the same thing, in his critique of the infamous/famous manifesto. He attacked it because it generally addressed the threat that free speech suffers at the hands of extremists, and Mr. Dabashi countered the contention by arguing against the western views of ‘Islam’. So in reality, he didn’t really succeed in disqualifying the threat that all the free speech advocates were wallowing over; he only argued that it should not be considered part of the Islam that he believes in--the same old 'perverted ideology' argument.

He thinks that 'Islamism', as a term, is getting demonised by these European closet-fascists, who’re actually using 'freedom of expression' as a justification, while secretly achieving this agenda. Now, while I don’t have problems with individuals coming up with their conspiracy theories and observations, I do have certain issues with people just charging up an argument against one essence, but completely evading it for the bulk of their contention; it’s like watching a movie for the sake of a certain premise and element within, only to find that premise taking up to five-percent of the given movie’s time and resources.

Dabashi argues that how these talentless individuals can demand shelter from Islamic Totalitarianism; I can personally see the flaw in the terminology, myself. The man argues that very point as well; where’s the totalitarianism, when the only true theocracy is Iran? So okay, dude, it isn’t a politically accurate way of putting things; you bring up references of Pakistan as a US agent - do you bring up the fact that over two-thirds of its population actually celebrated 9/11? Mr. Dabashi, didn’t even bother to consider how impotent the Pakistan government is in dealing with the finer issues, and how most apostates and secularists have to lead very insecure and closeted lives, because not only are they publicly persecuted, but are also persecuted under legal-pretences because of Islamic law. So no matter how you slice it; American ally or not - Pansistan is an Islamic theocracy. I can fully acknowledge Mr. Dabashi’s personal views; he doesn’t appear to be subscribing to a sharia-oriented view, and seems to be a quasi-critical thinker. So then, why scathe the few who demand universal freedom of expression? It’s not like Dabashi’s faith is being robbed from his fragile mind, which has no trouble coming up with bulks of literary boomerangs, which he proficiently uses to distract us from the real contention made by most of these proponents of free speech.

Call it whatever you wanna’ call it; totalitarianism wasn’t being used as a very specific and close-ended term, here; it wasn‘t a literal term. This is philosophical totalitarianism, or a metaphorical totalitarianism, if your will; this is a plea against a bullying attitude, and the style of reaction as opposed to the reaction itself. They’re condemning the fact that million-dollar bounties are being put on their heads for expressing views; they’re not condemning people like Dabashi for making his contentions and expressing his own distaste; if that were the case, then Dabashi himself would be the target of condemnation, and clearly, such is not the case. I am quite certain that much like myself, these proponents of free speech actually welcome subtle conservatives like Dabashi to openly engage in civil critique through his own one-track opinions. I also believe that Dabashi isn’t eclipsed from this reality; he gets it, but he’s trying to get his closure through intentionally avoiding that reality so he can defend his wounded group-pride.

Therefore, I slouch over from reading this highway-long thesis, and try to see the finer points that’ve been spread too thinly over an unnecessarily hefty column; dispassionate and riddled with dull verbiage - it’s only energy emanating from the evident displeasure against the heathen westerners who’re looking to advocate free speech for all. Meaning that the only non-boring and somewhat passionate parts of this entire snoozing literature, was Dabashi’s constantly subtle condemnation of Salman Rushdie, which of course, he tries to hide so carefully under the guise of a very objective critique. Sorry, dude, not even a million-word jabbering could change the fact that you were basically whining about the context in which these proponents of free speech refer to Islamism; and of course, the term totalitarianism being used in a relatively metaphorical sense. Yes sir, in the real world, we actually use a lot of metaphors to escape the routine of mundane expressions. Dabashi knew full well that by totalitarianism, Rushie and co. were addressing the potent issue of religious fascists putting out bounties; destitute and narrow-minded masses going all ape-shit over the issue of their religious dignity getting challenged in mere and free-opinion.

Dabashi even admits that they’re free to do what they desire; his only, true rhetoric addresses the denigration of the term “Islamic” and utility of the term “Islamic Totalitarianism.” So okay, let’s call it, hmm, “Ugly Fanatic Baboonism”, I think that’s a suited term; does Mr. Dabashi care to guess how many of his estimated one-and-a-half billion Moslems fall under that umbrella? Quite a few! If people coining “Islamism” in bad light, hurts him so badly, then why don’t he and his so-called cronies of true enlightenment, actually reform the Moslem world, which they connotatively pass off as flexible and adaptable. I mean, if the problem’s really in Iran, only, then perhaps Mr. Dabashi can explain why the masses in Afghanistan and Pakistan still celebrate western suffering; still believe that pagans and apostates are not worthy of life. If he believes that the western media is intentionally focussing on the bad apples, while not focussing on the majority of the moderates, and their perception and implementation of Islam, then I’d like him to dedicate a few words to explaining why moderate clerics in Afghanistan demanded Abdul Rahman’s death; I would like him to explain why horse-shit like the sharia; a law that commands death of apostates, and stoning of adulterating women--whether via forced rape, or otherwise--continues to exist in most of these moderate domains. I don’t care what the numbers are for the moderates, because even if they’re a majority, they’re too fuckin’ wimpy and spineless to implement actual change. Therefore, allow me to introduce this whole ordeal to the Dark Storm’s Three-Tier Path To Nullifying this chatter!

“Sorry, chump! Lotsa’ big words, but wasted on a very linear point! Most of the Islamists, still fit the same officious profile that's implied by the free speech advocates; a majority of the moderates are nothing more than extremists with an apologist tone. Most of them assign the Sharia a higher priority over their holy book, because the stars be fucked that they’d have to actually work out adjusting the abstract nature of their holy-book into a modern and changing world! Why do this, when they can rely on one preset, preordained dogma of misery!? The book is only called out when your apologist buddies need to distract critics from the clear-cut ills and inhumanities of the Sharia; focussing on the pretty, generic message of peace and tolerance! But when a contradiction arises, the book is wrapped up and stowed away, and the Sharia is back to work, torturing apostates; oppressing minorities, and turning women into incubating drones, among many other follies. Sorry pal, you yourself stated that the west focuses on the demonised form of what Islam has become over the last two-hundred-years; well tough luck! Most of the Islamic omelette falls under that machination! Deal with this reality; they‘re the majority, therefore, they get to define the concept. The day you and likeminded thinkers become the majority of the Islamic race, then you might have a case against people referring to Islamism as something officious; because at the moment, that is exactly what it is, thanks to a majority of its self-defining populace; yourself excluded.” - First contention of the Storm’s three-tier-path to nullifying all this chatter!
“Oh, and worry not about the references to the similarity this whole issue bears to the initial demonisation of the Jews at the apex of the pre-World War II drama that set the tone for the Jewish holocaust. While the specifics and facts cannot be disputed; this is so not the same, and a tactic that I’ve often seen utilised by apologists. Only difference; it doesn’t seem to be happening as we speak; Islamic-fascists--yes, I said it--are having a ball with their domineering dogmas, governing and terrorising any mavericks and individualistic bodies that fall under the remote vicinity of their devil-wings! Seriously, reciting a tired of historical fact and trying to draw matches between the then and the now, is really just an evasive ploy - not something to be expected from an argument that is trying to sincerely dispel a modern-conception rather than distract.” - Second contention of Storm’s three-tier-path to nullifying this chatter!
“I won’t even argue against the fact that there aren’t neo-con bodies in the western paradigm, with their own esoteric agendas, who’re actually relying on the plot to subtly demonise an entire race in order to justify their own racial and religious bigotry. It is but natural, every force -- even when it comes to complex human schools of thought and nature -- usually has an equal and opposite force that is almost a mirror compliment. You have the Islamic Fascists, followed by their bloodhounds - the fanatics; on the other side of the board, you have the western Neo-Cons and their own bloodhounds! The rest of you lot are just politically impotent critical thinkers, caught up in the gravitational rifts that have been created by these two spheres of psychotic dogmas. Do I associate Rushdie and the free-speech advocates as part of the Neo Con movement? No, not entirely. I consider them as much a part of that Neo-Con machine, as I consider you, Dabashi - a part of the Neo-Islamist machine; now, you go and figure the rest; I‘ve offered a simple equation! Of course, this doesn’t mean that neither party is being used by their respective machines - oh hell no! Just like most Neo-Cons will use -- and must already be using -- these free speech advocates as launch pads for their own agendas; similarly, most Neo-Islamists/Islamic Neo-Cons/Extermists/Ugly Aggressive Baboonists, will mostly likely use your plethora of dodgy words and semantic disputes-for-distraction, as launch pad for their own apologist agenda, which is ultimately destined to progress into justification of some of the most heinous acts being committed under the glory of a homogenised populace, and their blind-faith! Comparing Rushdie to the malicious Iranian theocrats only serves as further evasion from the point, and even reflects your personal passion against Rushdie, bleeding into, and destroying your thesis. One‘s a general proponent of a safe ideology, whose contentions might be used by other malicious bodies for their own propaganda; the Iranian president‘s an actual religious fascist who‘d easily and willingly bathe in the blood of a thousand humans, for the sake of his officious ideology, and not lose even a second of sleep over the atrocious implication! You, sir, have drawn an awful parallel, and you‘ve also defeated that pseudo-objectivity that you had to diligently construed as your tone during that article. Pathetic.” - Third contention in Storm’s three-tier-path to nullifying this chatter!

You see, fuckers, I recently found a Neo Con shooting off a similar, but pro-republican opinion, on Moxie’s blog. I made a very brief response to his rhetoric regarding the loss of objectivity. Now, here’s the deal, folks, I am tired of people dragging the concept of objectivity through the mud. Objectivity, in the manner that it is fakes by these religious and ideological apologists, is far from any form of objectivity when it intentionally ascribes to an anthropic bias--it’s defeated by the fact that the abusing party intentionally and systematically restricts the objectivity in a given matter to serve their own goal and agenda. Even if additional objectivity might disprove their point. Then again, this would be the core issue here: people don’t want objectivity - they just wanna’ have it their way, and then not feel selfish or questioned about getting it, by deceiving themselves into believing that it was all empirically valid as a strategy.

I am sickened by this approach; everyone uses it, and I don’t have anything against people being selfish; I have problems with people being selfish while touting a holier than thou stance of objectivity, which is clearly a sham. Same goes for Hamid Dabashi’s critique; he aims to attack the free speech advocates who signed the manifesto -- Rushdie included -- but since he couldn’t really disprove the fact that Islamic fanaticism is actually something that many of the third world Moslems either practice, or sympathise with, and that actual bounties are being handed out and availed by many, in the name of the same religion. Dabashi, instead, focussed on just creating a glorified semantic debate out of the advocates utility of the term “Islamic Totalitarianism”.

So it isn’t technically totalitarianism; but the general group psychology is tainted with this arm-twisting mentality, and a sizeable and dominantly vocal group are either practising it, or at least in sympathy with this agenda. So let's just accept this reality and move on with addressing the concerns raised rather than the same old smoke and mirrors routine of deflection! When the masses wanna’ create chaos, they’re able to, and that’s about all that one can say on the matter; it really can be the majority’s authority, at times.

The essence of what the free speech advocates had set out to imply, remains as valid as ever, if not further validated, despite Dabashi’s semantic critique, which was simply evading the point. Dabashi was just a hair short of outright personal attacks on the signers, which further validates his own anthropic bias in the matter. He had neglected most of the wrongs; reserved the least amount of his bulky literature to dedicate to a scientific critique of the Islamic theocratic atmosphere in the East, or the actual threat that Islamic fanaticism holds to western freedoms. He was being absolutely one-sided and opinionated while packaging his contention in an objective veneer about as thick or convincing as a paper mache baseball bat. That is the bane of post-modern scholarly wisdom and tactics: using shoddy objectivity for self-service, and trying to pass it off as pure objectivity.

“Mr. Dabashi, good sir; lose the holier than thou tone, please. It just makes an all-round critique sound even more like a dull, yet well-written attempt at an archetypical Islamic apologist’s contention. Disputing terms will not change all those ‘fatwas’ and reactionary nerves that are so prominently out there; people in the cleanest and best of mosques outright fall short of damning the western paradigm, and those that don’t necessarily agree with the Islamic world on everything.

"You talk about people having that freedom, and vice versa. You talk about the certain Shiites being flexible. Well, then let us see you make a majority out of these people; and furthermore, let us see these people take actual initiative rather than their extremist counterparts showing their ugly hate-ridden mug shots in the media. 

"You have bigger things to worry about aside from Rushdie and his evil free speech advocates; hell, you even have bigger issues aside from the esoteric Neo Cons. You have a sizeable number of your own Islamic populace, being homogenised under a violent theological regiment, spearheaded by psychotic dogma-mongers. Deal with those bastards, because they‘re at the forefront of inciting all the movements against your so-called faith; you wanna get all eloquent about it? Deal with the source: Deal with those that are directly corrupting your faith! Deal with those forces that have changed Islam over the last two-hundred-years, rather than complain about a bunch of people who now feel terrorised by the Islam that they‘ve witnessed across their own respective life-spans! 

"So get over this sham of a critique; you‘re not of lacking calibre to sound like an apologist, because despite trying it here, you managed to fall short of being an apologist, which is a good thing. We are now at a point in time where masses of people are beginning to define the visage of faiths. You can‘t have it both ways; differentiate yourself from the rest of the Islamic morass, and then reform rather than complain about how the rest of the world feels about that group of one-and-a-half-billion, because of how a majority of its intolerant populace, chooses to project itself. ” - Part I of Closure

“And please, let’s refrain for this fucking fruit cocktail of distracting vocabulary in a matter where the words only serve to further obfuscate us from the very simple bone of contention: Most of us are frikin’ threatened by this reactionary nature! People actually live under such threat and worry for their well being; call it totalitarianism, or baboonism. Just lose the barrage of fancy words to pretentiously decorate your evasion from confronting the actual, and irrefutable point: that fanaticism is a strong and on-going threat! It needs to be dealt with; the rest of us don’t deserve to have our lives fucked into a black, painful oblivion for having mere opinions! I can respect your progressive views; but by pulling off this quasi-apologist critique, you are painfully shifting the light from a blatant threat!” - Part 2 of Closure

Maaaaaaaan! Why the fuck do I get into this shit? Could someone remind me, again? Fuckity!

Yeah, I’ve just performed a psychic lobotomy on myself; I feel high; I feel stupefied; I feel like half my brain-matter just vaporised from the confines of my bulky skull. Yes! All is finally well!

Stay cool, fuckers.


No comments: