Monday, March 16, 2015

The Post-Colonial Hangover and the Jihadi Bomb

Michael L.

{Cross-posted at Jews Down Under.}

hangoverOne thing that is striking about this political moment is the fact that the western Left seems entirely complacent with the idea of a nuclear bomb controlled by the ayatollahs.

This is rather odd since the Left, in general, opposes nuclear proliferation.  Yet few seem disturbed at the idea of a theocratic-authoritarian regime, grounded in al-Sharia, that hangs Gay people from cranes, and that has incessantly called for the destruction of Israel, gaining a nuclear arsenal that could devastate anything on the planet.

How unusual.

When Barack Obama told the world that it was US policy to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, he lied.

Jeffrey Goldberg, writing in The Atlantic, in the fall of 2012, said this:
But the record is the record: Given the number of times he's told the American public, and the world, that he will stop Iran from going nuclear, it is hard to believe that he will suddenly change his mind and back out of his promise.
The Obama administration changed its stated, if not actual, policy from preventing an Iranian bomb to enabling an Iranian bomb.

Democrats still complain about Netanyahu's speech as a violation of protocol.  This is transparent nonsense.  The problem that Obama has with Netanyahu's speech has nothing to do with protocol and everything to do with the fact that Netanyahu alerted the world that Obama's "deal" enables a Jihadi bomb in the not too distant future.

That is it.  That is all.  And although The Speech was well-received by Congress, the Obama administration has done a lovely job of sicking the hounds on the Israeli Prime Minister who is up for reelection tomorrow.  Obama has done everything short of literally spitting at Netanyahu in order to delegitimize the guy.

How anyone can seriously yammer about protocol when the real issue is a nuclear weaponized Iran, is beyond me.  Politically-inclined people often tend to have issues of proportionality.  That is, we often have a tendency to blow up small issues at the expense of much more important issues because doing so fits our political predispositions.  Thus, when we lambaste Netanyahu about protocol or about "playing politics" versus discussing the possibility of an Iranian bomb, this is what we are indulging in.


When Iran gets the bomb, though, they may use it and they may not use it.  But do we really want to fling dice on this matter as if we were playing craps on the street?

When Iran gets the bomb, they may give it to terrorists or they may not do so.

One thing is certain, when Iran gets the bomb it will set off a nuclear arms race throughout the Middle East, the least stable and most volatile area on the face of the Earth.  In fact, it is a safe assumption that this arms race has already commenced.  Are we honestly supposed to believe that Cairo and Riyadh and Amman and Ankara are not stepping up their own programs?

The question is why?

Why is the Obama administration, and almost the entire western Left, complacent at the prospect of an Islamist regime with the world's most dangerous weaponry?  My suspicion is that what explains it best is what we might call the Post-Colonial Hangover... otherwise known as "white liberal guilt."

Because westerners view themselves as the progeny of rapacious imperialists who intruded into other people's lands for the purpose of extracting natural resources and exploiting helpless native populations, it is only fitting and just that we keep our hands off the doings of other countries in such parts of the world.

This leads to a circumstance in which white western "liberals" feel entirely free to lambaste Jews for daring to build second bathrooms in Judea, but they would never dream of denying Jihadis the Bomb because that would be "racist."  Jews are considered not only white and privileged, but among the most white and most privileged and most deserving of a smack-down due to (our apparently inherent) arrogance and militarism.

Jihadis, however, are usually people "of color" - often indigenous people "of color" - and therefore deserving of every indulgence, however irrational or counterproductive.  Who are we, after all, to tell the children of the oppressed that they must not develop the means to defend themselves?  If we were Iranian and saw American troops to our left and to our right, we would want nuclear weaponry, as well.

The problem, of course, is that Iran might use its nuclear arsenal and white western guilt at the history of imperialism will be no consolation if a city or a region or a country gets vaporized.  The truth is that the Obama administration and the western Left are taking a huge gamble with the lives of people all over the world, particularly the lives of the people of the Middle East, and they seem not to care one whit.

As the centrifuges spin and as Iran gets closer and closer to breakout capacity, the western Left is sitting on the ground staring intently into its own navel.  The Obama administration will not prevent an Iranian bomb because that was never its actual intention.  Its intention is to reset international relations in such a manner as to mitigate centuries of white, western imperialism.

If I am correct - and I believe that I am - what we are witnessing is nothing less than Barack Obama's attempt to re-orient the United State's position in the world according to the visions of people like Edward Said, Rashid Khalidi, and Noam Chomsky.

Toward that end Europe, the United States, and Israel, must be weakened and non-western regimes, particularly those that tend to be hostile to the West, need to be strengthened, supported, and emboldened as a matter of historical justice.

Because the white, liberal West is said to be guilty of horrendous crimes against the non-western world, over the course of many centuries, it is only fitting that it step down and allow the children of their former menial servants to fulfill national independence in whatever manner they choose.

And if that means that they go nuclear, then they go nuclear.

If that means that they go Jihadi, then they go Jihadi.

There is, at bottom, something deeply nihilistic about western liberal attitudes toward an Iranian nuclear bomb and toward the rise of political Islam under the misnamed "Arab Spring."

They honestly do not seem to care whether Iran gets the bomb or not.  They tend to support the Jihadi-inclined Palestinian-Arabs over the scientifically and self-defense inclined Jews in that part of the world.

They despise Benjamin Netanyahu for warning about the bomb, but they do not despise Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi for the joyous head-chopping of infidels of any color.

They despise Benjamin Netanyahu for an alleged breech of protocol, but they do not despise Barack Obama for lying to the American public concerning the administration's lack of intentions toward an Iranian nuclear bomb.

The western liberal instinct has become self-flagellating and corrosive to the safety and well-being of people all around the world.  The Obama administration has signaled that the West, including the United States, is in decline and is thereby leaving the very worst actors to fill the void.


  1. Hold onto your hats!

    "An annual report delivered recently to the US Senate by James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, removed Iran and Hezbollah from its list of terrorism threats, after years in which they featured in similar reports...."

    Can Hamas and ISIS be far behind? Wonder where the Taliban embassy will be located in Washington?

    Kumbaya, man.

  2. Yes.
    They are so mired in this thinking that they believe anyone who is not western
    ( providing they hate the west) deserves power. To make amends.
    It is self-loathing and guilt. On the most extraordinary scale. And it is making them the most dangerous people on the planet, outside of their new best friends the Islamists.

  3. Sisi is fighting ISIS.

    {How weird is this?}

    But al-Sisi is a very brave man.

    I would argue that his speaking for Islamic reform is as bold as Anwar Sadat's visit to Israel in 1977.

  4. Apart from Obama's desire for Iranian hegemony and possibly the extinction of Israel by any means necessary, the issue of Iranian nuclear weapons is a parallel but distinct issue.

    Obama's thoughts on atomic weapons is informed by the late Dr Ken Waltz and the 'neo-realist' school of whom his two most prominent acolytes - Drs Walt and Mearsheimer have Obama's ear more than anyone else either in or out of government.

    This is a key point because Waltz and the neo-realists are ANTI anti-proliferation. They believe quite seriously that nearly unchecked nuclear proliferation, especially to some of the least stable countries out there is a GOOD thing not a bad thing. Their line of reasoning is that since MAD works, it can work everywhere for everyone and that atomic weapons are a stabilizing even progressive influence.

    For more on this, there is a 3 volume series of essay debates between Ken Waltz and Scott Sagan arguing for and against this point. The series is called "The Spread of Nuclear Weapons" 1st and 2d ed and "The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: an enduring debate." Sagan is well known 'disaster analyst' who looks at complex systems in the context of risk and failure projections. He is a student of Charles Perrow whose "Normal Accidents" was the seminal work on loosely coupled systems failure analysis.

    Point being that Obama's push for the Iranian bomb isn't purely a political move for expedient reasons. It's a foundational ethos and where it leads to a regional atomic arms race isn't a terrible thing as far as this administration is concerned.

    Of course you have to temper that with the rest of what Obama says and does and understand that when he indicates nuclear proliferation is good thing he means except for the Jews and except for the non Muslim states unless those states, like North Korea and Argentina are helping Muslim states acquire the Bomb.

    Because examined rationally, atomic weapons are a 1940's technology for the most part. The rest of it is engineered refinement. If Pakistan can steal and buy enough gear to make a bomb, if North Korea can as well, then so can Nigeria, Indonesia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, Libya, and/or Sudan.

  5. It is scary how spot-on this article is! Should Iran get a nuclear weapon, this will set the Democratic party behind decades! All the repubs have to do is show how Obama let Iran have a nuclear bomb and many many people will vote repub out of fear and security.

    In the left's quest to satisfy their guilt, they are going to make the world a far more dangerous place and set their own domestic agenda back decades!

    Obama: The man who killed the left. This is how he will be remembered in future history!

    1. Obama is the apotheosis of the left. He's the man the left wishes it's had for the last 55 years. He wants to ruin the west in the best traditions of the left since 1950's. He could easily fit the role of an African Marxist despot revolutionary. He could out Lumumba, Lumumba himself. He has more in common philosophically with 3rd world left wing dictators than anyone else especially anyone out of the American political tradition. It's through an accident of birth he's a US president. He could easily be the President of Yemen or Sudan, Laos or Mozambique (albeit Mozambique is the most moderate of the 'Marxist' states).

      But Obama is the man the old left and the new left have been waiting for. And in 5 or 10 years when the cadres of young people reach middle age, it's them who will be running things in the US. Every crazy crack pot agendized identity and victim driven academic gaggle of loons out there today who complain about everything. They will be in charge. 'California Uber Alles' by The Dead Kennedys is probably before most of your time, but that's what things will look like soon in fact.

    2. It would be pretty to think so.
      However, when Obama leaves the Oval Office, he will not be planning to be politically inactive. The danger is that he will be perfectly positioned to take up a role as some kind of leader of the trans- national left. The UN job springs to mind..It is possible that he might, in a way, have more influence in the future than in his present job.

  6. Sisi has been warned his stances could lead to assassination so yeah he is brave. Evidently he is immensely popular among average Egyptians.

    On another note Bibi has announced that he is elected there will be no Palestinian state. My guess is that seals his fate since the majority still believe in the 2 state solution and giving away anything in hopes of some goassamer like "peace." Maybe if he had eliminated Hamas last round....

  7. How are Kossacks et al like David Duke?

    1. I'm assuming you know that particular diarist is not some random, anonymous basement-dwelling dweeb, but is rather former US Senate (2006) and House (NY-15, 2010) candidate Jonathan Tasini.

      To New Yorkers' credit, they never gave him many more votes in either race than the random guy who runs on a platform of exposing the Grays running our government from their UN black helicopter bases would usually get, but I suppose he's always only one race away from becoming a huge embarrassment for the party somewhere.

      No less a personage than Cindy Sheehan was / is a fan / supporter of his.

    2. Actually I didn't know that. Sickening. But he is the type of candidate that the cesspool of DKOS loves!

      Waiting for the election results to make my return to fight the scum (figured it would be a good topic, and I am sure they have me as HOS now so i gotta make it count)

  8. If I am correct - and I believe that I am- what we are witnessing is nothing less than Barack Obama's attempt to re- orient the United States' position in the world according to the vision of people like Edward Said, Rashid Khalidi, and Noam Chomsky.

    Toward that end Europe, the United States, and Israel, must be weakened and non-western regimes, particularly those that are hostile to the West, need to be strengthened, supported, and emboldened as a matter of historical justice.

    And Iran getting the bomb is only part of it.
    There is no foreseeable end to the ideological dynamics that have been set in place. Or the almost pathological need to blame the West for absolutely everything. It is important to remember that these people do not believe that the 'collective guilt ' of the West can ever be purged. Our 'sins' have been determined to be unredeemable, as, indeed have we.
    The entire International left is caught up in this. It is what they tell us must happen. And we are supposed to embrace it. Because it is right and good.

    Our universities are teaching this to the next generations. Our schools are teaching these themes to primary school aged children .


    I have wondered for a long time now whether there is any way of turning this around. And the answer I have arrived at is "No".

  9. If Bibi loses tomorrow, we will then see the rise of Leftist war criminals. Ain't Jew hatred grand.

    1. If the RIGHT loses! It is possible to have a good coalition without Bibi in charge. Lieberman comes to mind as a person I wouldn't mind seeing running things (but I highly doubt he gets enough to do it)

    2. We might have to consult Judith Butler on the terminology here, Doodad.

      Hamas and Hezbollah are part of the global left, sure. But I don't know if any icky Zionists count.

      I'm guessing Herzog will be a "Zionist war criminal," like all the rest of the Je... I mean, Zionists.

      In other news, I re-upped my stock of Israeli couscous today in honor of the bigots.

  10. Mike,
    This was another exceptional article. Thank you!