Neo-communism exposed! (II)

To complete our case that:

- the postmodern [1] mind-set is not tuned towards individualism, democracy and freedom, but on the contrary is in fact collectivist, irrational and totalitarian in character;

- it could be termed neo-communist, or neo-Marxist (already taken up by some other re-invention of trouble), but its epithet is immaterial to the case;

- that postmodernism has made common cause with radical Islam, in these pages dubbed The Unholy Alliance of Convenience.

- The case is first of all borne out by the postmoderns themselves. By: the nomenclature; the allergic reactions towards religion and rash caused by concepts as ... !Authority!; compilation of a dossier against the common scape-goat and enemy (Jews and Christians); the propagation of ideals that are only practically attainable under dictatorial-cum-totalitarian circumstances; the hatred towards dissidents; and indifference towards the interests of individuals who must conform to the masses and submit to the ideology; the tendency to allow the end to justify the means; the attitude towards science: if it doesn't underpin the ideology, it is manipulated so that it does, or it is considered irrelevant (a snap shot of tomorrow's post: it is "... colonial-hegemonic-rationalistic-Western tradition and just emblematic of an Enlightenment hegemony that has infected Western society and by extension the rest of the world for hundreds of years ...").

- The case is underpinned by Dr Pat's psychological analysis.

- It is confirmed by Nick Cohen article in Opinion Journal (Wall Street Journal), "An Upside-Down World, The British far left makes common cause with Muslim reactionaries".

- And affirmed by German social scientist Ulrike Ackermann in her article "In Praise of Dissidence" on Signandsite in defence of expostulate Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and by the latter herself;

- Today it has been re-affirmed by 'Britain's foremost political philosopher', a man whose credentials must be beyond postmodern suspicion: Professor John Grey in his article "The best we can hope for is tolerance". In fact, he's spilling the beans!

Here's a quote from John Grey's [4] article on Austrolabe: "In Britain at the present time, the threat of terror ... comes from a radicalised minority which has embraced a type of thinking that has more in common with radical Western ideologies such as Leninism and anarchism than with traditional Islamic theology ... The most urgent task is to halt the process of radicalisation, and it is here that the current exaggerated revulsion against multiculturalism can be dangerous".

John Grey, though not described as a multiculturalist or a postmodern - but his knee-jerk reaction betrayes him - obviously still labours under the illusion that something ultimately beautiful has gone lost in multiculturalism. Instead of it standing for 'Westerners being nice to Muslims, and allowing them to celebrate their own culture and faith as a part of the society they respect for the freedom and wealth it provides them', a conviction, by the way, held by the average Westerner - we now know multiculturalism quite the contrary - to be, a species of crypto-totalitarianism:

... each 'tribe' isolated in their own urban ghetto or rural reservation - or 'archipelago' as the commentators on Austrolabe term it - indifferently avoiding criticism of 'the others' at all cost and hoping the thought police will the able to stop any dissent within before it breaks through the tribal Berlin Wall, out into the public Hobbesian space of perpetual almost war of all against all, a failed state, on a world-wide scale.

A little later Grey openly admits that "rather than raking over the ashes of multiculturalism, political leaders should focus on genuine obstacles to peaceful co-existence between Britain’s communities". Grey admits that the multicultural ideal is now lost, but finds that those that are still in pursuit of a liberal monoculture as the ideal - presumably pointing at Ayaan Hirsi Ali c.s. - will founder on the diversity on the ground. Exactly how and why, is food for thought.

The Muslim commentators on Austrolabe applaud Grey for 'exploding' the idea of teleological liberalism - the wide-spread concept of ongoing progress of Western liberal democracy as per Fukuyama's book "End of History ..." - a thought abhorred by postmoderns, anti-globalists in particular. It remains unclear in the post if the teleological outlook has always been a part of Classical Liberalism. I'm also not sure, but I think it is a Christian concept that at some point has become part and parcel of Liberalism. Perhaps somebody can confirm this.

If Grey is right in this, then free democratic society has reached culmination point somewhere between say World War II and the change of the millennium; from there onwards decadence and degeneration has set in and things can only go down hence onward. But we aren't to worry, as Muslim youths and culture will save the West from itself and re-launch it as the pearl in the crown of the world-wide Ummah - or something like that (I'm only letting my imagination run riot).

Grey suggests harking back to Classical Liberalism - Hobbes [5] and John Stuart Mill [6] (as long as nobody else gets hurt) are paraded onto the stage in an effort to bring the ideal of a happy melting pot closer towards our idea of a free democracy. Dr Pat's first chart has shown that the Classical Liberal tenets have been perverted by the Left. In that respect is Grey's suggestion to go back to basics, perhaps not a bad one.

If one thing becomes clear from this article and its appending comments by the intellectual Muslim readership of Austrolabe, it is that multiculturalism's initial offer on behalf of the West, of Down With Us, renders the peaceful assimilation of Muslims into free societies and adjusting themselves to the status quo ante, too much to expect.

After Grey betraying his postmodern mind-set once again by a spot of religion bashing - never mind that we thank the very concept of scientific thinking, the belief in human dignity and secularism itself, on Christianity - he ultimately goes on to advocate a return to unspecified human rights and true tolerance.

It is therefore such a pity that postmodern relativism has exactly eroded human rights as figments of Western ethnocentrism, and has perverted the very concept of tolerance beyond all recognition!

To be continued with the question, what to do post postmodernism?