Monday, January 12, 2015

When the Appeasement Has to Stop

We like to sneer at the appeasers of the 1930s, the British and French politicians that appeased Hitler until they could appease no more.

You have to say, it worked for them. They could appease and appease until the moment that they had to put Winston Churchill in as First Lord of the Admiralty, or Navy Secretary.

You can see the parallel with the current situation. The western elites, like the French elite, are still the only game in town, according to the French Rush Limbaugh, Eric Zemmour.
While widely perceived as incompetent, these elites, Zemmour argues, nevertheless keep to themselves the right to define the political and social agenda, including, pertinently, the burning question of who can be trusted to speak for France in the current crisis, which, moreover, only they can define. 
Sound familiar?

Look at it from the elite point of view. They want to continue their spend and elect, bribing their supporters election after election with new free stuff, and part of that strategy is to put off "doing something" about Islam.

In Europe today the "far-right" nationalist parties that want to "do something" about Islam are gradually gaining strength, but are kept outside the magic circle by the ruling elite. Really, there is nothing to stop the ruling elites doing a 180, at some point, and co-opt the policies of the "far right," and drop the hammer on the Islamists, while still keeping the "far-right" politicians out in the cold.

Or they might blow it and wake up one morning with a "far-right" election victory. I wonder what they will do then.

In my American Thinker article this week I am proposing to call the current crisis the "Muslim Question" to compare it to the "Social Question" of the 1900s that brought in the welfare state. But our modern welfare state didn't get where it is today without existential battles for decades against the anti-capitalist Communists and Fascists. And at several moments it was uncertain who would win.

My point is that capitalism and the exchange economy have always had powerful enemies, and the immigrants to the city have often voted for the radicalisms and terrorisms of Communism and fascism as they tried to deal with the challenge and frustrations of learning how to live and thrive in the city. Why should things be any different for today's Muslim immigrants to the western city?

For the last 100 years the educated ruling class has dithered and flopped around as it followed this or that rabbit down a rabbit hole. Several wars and revolutions and terrors later, it achieved an inflection point with the fall of communism in the Soviet Union and Western Europe and the turn towards capitalism if not democracy in China.

But no sooner had the Communist and Fascist reactionaries given up the game than we discovered new reactionaries riling up the struggling immigrants in the city, only these reactionaries are fundamentalist Muslims rather that radical lefties and fascists.

In other words, nothing new.

Of course, we plebs want to know, right now, whether our ruling class can or will push back against Islamism and solve the "Muslim Question."

My guess is that it will, if only because in my view Islamism cannot provide the ideological basis for a global exchange economy. (If you are a Marxist you have my permission to insist that we are talking about the internal contradictions of an Islamist superstructure built on the current global productive forces.)

In other words, I don't think that Islam can coexist with a world power that can dominate the world. It must destroy the nest it occupies just as the reactionary and nostalgic religions of Communism and Fascism destroyed their nests in Russia, Germany, and China. What killed Communism and Fascism was that they did not work well enough to defeat welfare-state capitalism and democracy.

But because of the rhythm of Appeasement followed by global war, I suspect that things are going to get worse before they get better.

No comments:

Post a Comment