Rival Victimhoods Go To War In Orlando

Significant fault lines have long existed between the motley assortment of victim groups which form the progressive coalition. The recent butchery in Orlando is the most high profile example of this inherent tension playing itself out. There is an unavoidable element of humor involved in watching the media organs of the Cathedral, as they attempt to piece the Humpty Dumpty narrative of multicultural harmony back together again–especially after one of their key proxy groups has decided to unapologetically jihad the other into oblivion. The rationalization wheels of the liberal mind are coming apart at the seams as they spin wildly past their maximum recommended operating speeds.

Try as they might to stay on message, by attempting to pin the blame somehow on the NRA and/or “intolerant” Christian America, the holes in the narrative are apparent enough that some on the left are taking notice of the dissonance. Granted, liberal propaganda has never had qualms about ignoring reality; the entire transgender movement is based entirely on just such a premise.

But pontificating about genderqueer theory is an entirely different proposition than doing the same about the great Religion of Peace, while dodging 5.56mm hollow points in Orlando. The cognitive dissonance required to achieve the latter requires a rare mix of ideological athleticism and intellectual dishonesty which exists only on the outer edges of the Bell curve.

The clash between LGBT theory and the multiculturalist/anti-imperialist Ideology which has embraced the cause of Muslim refugees, of course, was bound to happen. But until the recent massacre, it was possible for liberals to overlook this as most of the anti-homosexual violence perpetrated by Muslims was concentrated in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran which are distant and so far outside the liberal circle of concern as to effectively not exist.

To make matters worse for the budding multicultural coalition, the Muslims involved seem to have not been reading from the same script as the liberals. Who had assumed, wrongly, that Islamic immigrants would quickly and seamlessly be assimilated into Western society. Once they had arrived and uncritically internalized liberal secular values (which include of course the sacred right to sodomy), they would quickly become model globalist citizens. Differing from their Western born peers only in their fondness for Halal food, artisanally crafted prayer rugs and the kitschy poetry of Rumi. The fact that this didn’t take place illustrates the critical failure of liberal, Fukuyamaist ideology, which presupposed that all of the world’s cultures would inevitably follow the same path of progressive cultural development which has thus far marked the trajectory of the Western world.

The failure of the prophecy’s fulfillment is now the Sword of Damocles, which hangs over the head of the liberal order. Much like how the failure of the industrialized nations of Germany and England to embrace Communism as Marx had predicted fatally wounded the prospects of the Global Proletariat, so too has the failure of non-Western societies to assimilate wounded  the lofty pretensions of global neoliberalism. If it is empirically demonstrated that the Islamic world (perhaps along with Indian, Russian and Chinese societies) are mostly immune to the allures of the atomic individualism preached from the pulpit of the Cathedral, then the Hegelian narrative of a universal triumph is fatally undermined.

It continues to seem ever more apparent that this will be the case in the Muslim world. As Shadi Hamid author of the new book Islamic Exceptionalism recently pointed out in an interview with The Atlantic:

I am arguing that Islam is exceptional. I think there’s a general discomfort among American liberals about the idea that people don’t ultimately want the same things, that there isn’t this linear trajectory that all peoples and cultures follow: Reformation, then Enlightenment, then secularization, then liberal democracy.

I see very little reason to think secularism is going to win out in the war of ideas. But the question is: Why would it in the first place? Why would that even be our starting presumption as American observers? It’s presumptuous and patronizing to think a different religion is going to follow the same basic trajectory as Christianity.

As Hamid notes, this is the true nightmare scenario for liberals: the open, rational rejection of their values by other societies. Societies whose immigrants, in the context of domestic politics, were presumed to be great allies against whatever reactionary elements of Western Civilization remained. But without the internalization of liberal values by Muslim immigrants, this alliance falls apart, and they instead become the proverbial fox in the henhouse of liberal victimhood.

As this realization slowly dawns upon the more non-tribal members of the left, more and more will adopt anti-Islamic views. The Ghosts of Pim Fortuyn and Christopher Hitchens will beckon them to do battle against the Chomskys and Judith Butlers of the world. There is a chance, however, that they will begin abandoning Islam en masse only when the danger to the left from Islam outweighs the gains the Islam thede offers to the progressive apparatus. Why drop a successful proxy against Middle America for ideological reasons?

These developments are a genuine boon for the right and should be exploited. A good course of action is simply to heighten and continually emphasize the contradictions which lie beneath the thin veneer of unity put forward by the liberal victim coalition. These would develop naturally of course, as the goals of the competing groups in question are mutually exclusive, but all the same, it’s in our best interest to help them along. Find the chink in the narrative’s armor and keep swinging at it until it’s big enough to drive a pickup truck full of mass shooting victims through. Keep pulling the thread until the entire narrative unravels. Take one side of the argument and then immediately pivot to another if it encourages fissures and resentments to develop. The Outer Right has no principled stake in either side’s argument, since it rejects the premise upon which they both rest. Profound cynicism should be the order of the day.

Let the militant secularists and sentimental multiculturalists fight it out, and as the body counts go up, let the resentments fester until they become gangrenous. Let Sam Harris and Ben Affleck fight it out as they take sides in the great LGBT vs. Islam shoutfest. Leftist revolutions always devour their own, and this current fissure in the liberal coalition will end no differently. The leftist’s appetite for the flesh of their comrades is insatiable.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All

8 Comments

  1. The Left has never shied away from piles of bodies. In fact, their whole history is mass slaughter. They revel in it. From the French Revolution, through Soviet communism and expansion, and up through the Muslim terrorism of today. They might at first deny, but then when they can no longer deny, they justify, excuse, or turn the blame on the Right. The one-sided alliance between the Western Left and Islam exists only as a tool to destroy what is left of traditional Christian society. I think that the Left elites know how dangerous, destructive, and backwards Islam is, and that these people will never be assimilated into Western societies, but that is fine with them. The elites will be safe within their walled enclaves and in their new domains. The remaining elements of the traditional Western citizenry are the elites’ true enemies, and these people being overrun or wholly slaughtered isn’t just a fortuitous result, its the goal.

  2. Orlando was reminiscent of middle east conflicts in that I couldn’t decide which side I supported (like the Sunnis vs. the Shiites) . I don’t support the LGBTs and I don’t support radical Muslims… it’s almost irrelevant to me except for the satisfaction I feel in watching the opposing coalition murder itself. America is fast becoming a Third World-esque country with all its imported tribal conflicts.

    “Outer Right” is an interesting new term I haven’t seen before.

    1. Walrus Aurelius June 17, 2016 at 1:05 am

      I see “Outer Right” as a morphing of our traditional moniker, coinciding with the Alt-Right (TRS and such) rebranding themselves the “New Right” to help cement the fact that they are quickly becoming a more visible element of Trump’s mainstream.

      We are not the Alt-Alt-Right, but rather an Outer element similar to their now more mainstream appearing view. We could call for some of their policies which we share (HBD, for instance) publicly, but not yet for the harder sells like the end of Democracy.

      I like Outer Right. It’s more descriptive, and graspable to the normies, than NRX

  3. Thanks for writing about this. I’ve noted for a while that the homosexualist vs. multiculti tension is a huge potential political 4GW fracture point that we can exploit if we’re smart about it.

  4. Very good article. Were I a queer, and saw Muslims throw homosexuals off roof tops, headfirst, then see them stoning the body once it crashes to the concrete, I too might experience some “cognitive dissonance” The progressive narrative has fatal flaws which are now coming to a head, quite literally. Pun intended.

  5. I am fairly new to this line of thinking and this forum but I have got to say, this is a fabulous article! The comments after are equally good. My experiences with leftists are rooted in the Cold War but this piece touches on a great deal of what I learned from that time.

  6. Seen online:

    Obama’s dilemma: His JV team is killing his HIV team.

  7. Because the leftist nature is inherently dialectical, they always eat their own. However what is scary is that, historically, whenever they eat their own they merely gain strength.

Comments are closed.