Thursday, June 21, 2007

Is Hugh Fitzgerald interested in an answer?

In a comment to a thread today on Jihad Watch about how the U.S. military is, in its unsurprisingly normal imbecility, trying to get Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims to sit down and talk instead of kill each other as they have been doing for over 1,300 years, Hugh asks: Why are they even attempting this?

Hugh still demonstrates no interest in pursuing answers to this most pressing question. His question must be assumed to be rhetorical. There is no answer for Hugh, because Hugh presumes a vaccum: he presumes that most everybody in the West is not beholden to a paradigm of axioms which guides their assimilation of old data and new data, and channels all that data into pre-fab axiomatic conclusions. Since he presumes a vacuum, there is no need to seriously pose that question and others like it which he has posed before—always rhetorically, never pertinently. Since there is no broader, deeper, sociological and systemic tissue of axioms out there, Hugh persists in berating all those in the public eye who keep popping up and saying, and doing, stupidly disastrous things with regard to our exigent and deadly problem of Islam. Berating them is fine; but berating them for merely having character flaws is itself dangerously missing the point.

Hugh also wrote in the same comment: What is described in the article above shows the failure, by those in Iraq, to think beyond Iraq, to think of Iraq only as one theatre in the war of self-defense against the Jihad.

Once again, Hugh points out the screamingly obvious, and confines his focus to the merely obvious symptom, showing utter disinterest in the broader, deeper causes of this symptom and all the similar symptoms that pop up all over the Goddamn place throughout the Western world.

Hugh’s concluding words: The article above makes one furious, and sad. Furious at the stupidity. Sad for the troops, sad for the soldiers being asked to be there, fighting for something, trying to do something in Iraq, that makes no sense—none.

Just as there is a secondary problem, perpendicular to the problem of PC—namely, the problem of Jihad Watchers failing to appreciate and investigate the systemic nature and scope of PC—so too we may say that there is a second fury and frustration stemming from the one Hugh rightly—within his delimited focus—sentences: the infuriatingly persistent myopia at Jihad Watch concerning the nature and scope of PC .

No comments: