Truth & Meaning

Ultimate Double-Standard

It seems like the global Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) talks are about to collapse.  At least according to the bold Reuters headline declaring nuclear treaty talks on brink of failure.

How come?  Because, obviously, not everyone can agree what nuclear non-proliferation is meant to accomplish.  Egypt and even more-so Iran, for example, would rather not focus too much on NPT-signatory problem states.  Problem states such as North Korea and Iran.  Instead, Egypt and especially Iran would much rather focus on those nuclear-armed states that never signed NPT.  India, Pakistan and – presumptively nuclear-armed — Israel.

Except, of course, that India and Pakistan were not mentioned as problem states.  India and Pakistan were only mentioned as NPT non-signatories.  Far as Egypt and Iran appear at all concerned?  The only real problem is Israel.

And how can anyone particularly blame Iran?  Why should Iran not distract international focus and pressure from itself and onto Israel as the problem state?  Above and beyond Iran’s nuclear aspirations and Iran calling for Israel to get wiped off the map — is there not a matter of principle involved?  Is there not an issue of fundamental fairness?

Indeed.  If there’s some problem with Iranian nukes — then there must equally be a problem with Israeli nukes.  And, just the same, if there’s no problem with Israeli nukes – then there can’t be any problem with Iranian nukes either.  Like Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s envoy to the U.N. nuclear watchdog in Vienna, said: “”We will not compromise on principles.”

Good on you, Mr. Soltanieh.  Everyone hates double standards.  The international community and each of us personally should thank you for reminding that we must reject double standards.  Especially when it comes to the ultimate, most glaring double standard of all.

Right?  People keep saying how Israel has more nukes.  And whether false or true — does anyone even seem to care about Israeli nukes?  Hardly.  Yet mere suspicion Iraq had WMDs.  Mere anticipation when Iran will have a few nukes to throw around.  Whoa.  Nellie.  Just thinking about Islamist nukes gets the non-Islamist world up in arming.

How and why can there be such universal double standards?  Clearly.  Too obviously.  We can’t get morally worked up about Israel not participating in NPT.  Not after India was granted that waiver from NPT.  Due to insecurity, tensions and longstanding border disputes with China — including a border war in 1962. There can be no moral outrage when, in Israel’s case, the existential issues are so infinitely more grave.  When, in Israel’s case, what gets disputed by Islamist societies is not just one border — but how soon Israel must be wiped from the map entirely.

And yet far more importantly still.  We cannot get viscerally worked up about Israeli nukes.  We simply do not feel terrified should Israel have nukes.  Regardless how anyone hates jews — there is no looming urgency concerning Israeli nukes.  There is no genuine excitement.  There is no honest fear.  If only tacitly, the whole world knows Israel always fights only in self-defense.

But Islamist nukes?  Dude — don’t ever go there.  Because even though we hate to admit it?  Even though we try and pretend otherwise?  We can’t go on pretending when nukes are involved.

When nukes become involved?  Nobody can ignore what everyone already knows.  How only Islamist societies remain sufficiently fundamentalist to proudly declare their genocidal ambitions and terrorize every other culture there is.

There can be neither resting nor sleeping with possibilities of Islamist nukes.  For while we lose a little sleep worrying about North Korean nukes — we stand losing far more should Pakistani nukes fall into Taliban hands.  And nothing can ever strike us waking or sleepless like the very idea of Iranian nukes.

We do hate double standards.  But since Islamist societies can never stop attacking Israel?  Railing against Israel defending herself instead of just dying already?  Worrying about — presumptive — Israeli nukes?  Alright then — we must admit it.  There’s the ultimate, most glaring international double standard.

Totally justified.

Last modified on 2011-08-16 07:31:52 GMT. 2 comments

Why Socialist Media Must Always Side With Islamic Fundamentalism

It used to be surreal.  News concerning dire existential conflicts in the Middle East – beneath headlines advertising humiliation.  Fortunately, it didn’t last.  Not after someone somewhere reminded that Islamist societies were bound to experience humiliation each day Israel kept surviving.  And that after 60 years failing to destroy Israel?  Humiliation could become unbearable.

Then, just a couple weeks ago?  It got even more surreal.  Where did so many headlines that Israel humiliates Biden, Obama and the United States come from?  How did the very idea of humiliation originate in relation to the U.S. and Israel?

Apparently, mass media inferred humiliation when Biden said that Israeli buildings in Jerusalem were endangering American troops.

But why?

Debatably, Israeli buildings are counter-productive.  Maybe even dangerous.  Conceivably Israeli buildings are worse than Islamist rocketing never stopping.  There could be architecture so atrocious as to make buildings worse than killings.

But humiliating?

And then the White House denied Biden ever said that Israeli actions are endangering American soldiers.  One senior administration official got quoted completely denying it: “It’s nothing he said and I don’t know how it was inferred.”

So where did the outlandish idea of humiliating Israeli buildings come from?  It had to come from somewhere.  And since there’s no evidence either Joe Biden or Barack Obama felt remotely humiliated — the idea must have originated with the media itself.

If it did?  If there was humiliation in the media due to Israeli buildings in east Jerusalem?  Then the media ought never have admitted it.  Never mind not projecting members’ own sense of humiliation onto Biden and Obama — due to how factual projection isn’t.  Admitting any humiliation whatever under these unwarranted circumstances is itself humiliating.

Could there be humiliation from Israeli buildings because of anti-Semitism?  Not likely.  Not unless anti-Semitism were so extreme to react just about anything Israeli as humiliating.  Not unless the very existence of Israel were humiliating.  And so long as mass international media has independence from societies chartered, constituted or calling for Israel’s genocide?  There can be no common ground to conclude genocidal anti-Semitism in mass international media.

This is worth stressing.  Any humiliation experienced by mass international media concerning Israeli buildings should not be considered Islamist in origin.  Should not be considered genocidal in scope.  Not like, for one instance, the anti-Semitism of IAW organizers and sympathizers.  Because those shouting “Israel Apartheid!” can’t even understand how offensive apartheid is.  Why anything so absolutely offensive as apartheid can’t be done in self-defense.  How IAW hatred of Israeli self-defending can only be genocidal.  Since really hating someone for defending against genocide?   That’s got to be genocidal hatred.

Whereas there’s no reason to think whatever media humiliation there is — from Israeli buildings — has genocidal character.  Instead, whatever humiliates the media?  It has more apartheid character.  It isn’t about wiping all Isreali buildings from the map.  It’s about not mixing Israeli buildings with non-Israeli muslim buildings.

Thus, whatever humiliates the media?  The origin of media humiliation is not likely Islamist.  There must be another endemic accounting media humiliation.  Accounting all those humiliating headlines suddenly and groundlessly emerging from mass media as if by international accord.  And there is.  There’s the international accord due to international ideology.  Particularly the false scientific, absurdly materialistic ideology colloquially known as Marxism.  An ideology that attributes all human struggling to conflict over means of production — and fatuously ignores how human conflicts are governed by contradictions in production of meaning.

There’s just too much ideological naïveté when it comes to the bitterness between Islamist and Israeli societies.  Too much absurdity.  As if the Islamist versus Israeli conflict were some variety of economic class struggling over better access to means of production.  As if Middle Eastern conflict could be deciphered in terms of struggling between poor and rich, between the economically exploited and their economic exploiters.  As if.

But that’s precisely what Marxist ideologues must believe.  That Islamist societies can only be fighting to liberate and more justly redistribute their means of production from oppressive Israeli exploiters.  Because, from their ideological perspective, thinking different could only be wishful.  Un-real.  Conflicts cannot be about contradictions in the production of meaning.  Only about disparities in the means of production.

Why are contradictions in the production of meaning not real?  Why not believe that human struggles could be rooted in conflicting ideologies?  That our worst divisions could reflect fundamental contradictions between cultures?  Because from the materialist perspective of Marxist ideologues, blaming real conflict on mere ideology can only be pipe-dreaming opiates.  Real conflict must have real causes.  Real conflict can only express real material struggles.  Can only originate in tangible class divisions.  And must reflect material exploitation.

Mostly?  Just as a matter of plain facts?  Marxists are wrong.  More human conflicts are ideological. Not economic.  More about production of meanings than about means of production.

Not only don’t the rich have to fight the poor – more often than not they fight together.  Poor and rich of one cultural ideology struggle together – against those of contradicting ideologies.  That’s how and why Islamist societies converge against infidels.  Clearly not because some Islamist societies are wealthiest – and must therefore exterminate poor infidels.  Rather, obviously, due to glaring ideological contradictions and irreconcileable cultural differences.  Even just silly cultural misunderstandings – like Muhammad cartoons – can conflagrate final conflicts more so than monopoly OPEC oil pricing.

Marxists can never understand how wrong they are to believe everything must originate in material causes.  They can never acknowledge conflict due to cultural reasons.  Because the foundation of Marxism is buried by the dogma of scientific materialism.  And absent this central dogma that only causes matter in human history — that reasons are in themselves meaningless – there is no Marxism.

How absurd is that, though?  Scientific materialism is precisely not scientific.  It’s like someone declaring all swans white – then utterly denying every evidence of black swans.

“Like, dude.  Why you bringing black birds?  Those are not swans.  Didn’t I just tell you?  Swans are white.  What’s wrong with you?”

That’s just how dogmatic Marxists are.  Show them conflicts due to cultures clashing?  They’ll deny there’s conflict.  They’ll tell you it’s just vigorous exercise.  And when they must admit there’s real conflict? Then Marxists will deny it can be due to cultures clashing.  They’ll fabulate endless false oppressions and exploitations to account for ideological conflicts in terms of class struggling.

Well, fine.  People can be dogmatic as they please.  But when they please to be that dogmatic?  Then they ought stop lying to themselves and others that they are being scientific.

Marxist ideology sure is absurd.  But what has it to do with humiliation language in the media?  Particularly in relations between the U.S. and Israel?

Goes like this.  Because existential conflict between Islamist and Israeli societies is undeniably real – Marxist ideologues can only conceive it as class struggling.  Socialist media members can never believe Israel is not exploiting and oppressing Islamist societies.  Even though Israel insists it only fights in self-defense?  Even though Islamist societies continually advertise genocidal ambitions when always shooting at Israel?  Even though some Islamist societies loudly and proudly constitute and charter themselves on genocide?  Socialist media can’t believe either Israel or Islamist societies.  Far as socialists are concerned – so what if combatants themselves fail to realize it?  Real conflict can only mean class struggling.

Thus, for socialist media, the existential culture clashing between Islamist and Israeli societies becomes, of all things, a distributive social justice issue.  And when it comes to issues of social justice?  Socialist media have now got tremendous, near absolute faith in U.S. leadership.  Almost as if Obama, Biden and Clinton were some holy socialist triumvirate.

Not to say Obama, Biden and Clinton really are hard-core socialist or ideologically Marxist – as opposed to reasonably progressive.  There can be no doubting they fully understand the existential issues Israel is faced by Islamist societies.  They would never themselves employ the language of insult or humiliation in relation to Israel.

But for regular Marxist ideologues?  For socialist media?  There are the highest hopes vested in Obama’s administration.  Obama, Biden and Clinton have become figureheads of near-absolute faith.  American idols.  That’s why, when Israel places existential concerns ahead of pressures from the Obama administration?  It can only seem like scorn.  It can only feel humiliating to Marxist ideologues.  Almost like Israel were desecrating America’s socialist idols.

Does any of this mean there’s left-wing conspiracy in the media?  Of course not.  How can there be conspiracy where there is such plurality?  From the BBC to Fox News?  But, by same tokens, we know there’s plenty far-left media.  And whenever media wings far enough left?  That’s when it must side with radical Islamic fundamentalism.  So much so that Israeli self-interest and self-defense in response to Islamist genocidal ambitions becomes not just illegitimate — but humiliating to U.S. leadership.  In the eyes and language of more socialist media, that is.

Last modified on 2011-08-16 07:39:27 GMT. 93 comments