Slouching Towards Bethlehem 4: the Worst are Full of Passionate Intensity

Three weeks since Musharraf expressed his contempt.

His utter, total and absolute contempt. The contempt Pakistan’s Pervez Musharraf oozed during his September 26th interview on Canadian television. Right after the interviewer charged Pakistan with ambivalence opposing Islamic fundamentalism.

Interviewer: “.. Canadians are making the sacrifice and they would like to know that your country is not making it worse for them.”

Musharraf: “We have suffered 500 casualties. Canadian may have suffered four or five.”

Interviewer: “Actually, it's more than that.”

Musharraf: “… So you suffered two dead, and there's a crying and shout all around the place that there are coffins. Well, we've had 500 coffins. So you think we are not fighting?”

And, watching the interview – Musharraf’s words scarcely intimate the contempt oozing his body language. His lip curling not quite short of outright sneering. His backhand brushing away choice droppings gesture. Contempt just oozing.

The interviewer, cheeks briefly flaring bright as her hair, retorted Canada suffered near forty casualties – and “many many wounded”. Which so came across as whining. As if Pakistan hadn’t also suffered far more wounded than fatalities. And prevaricating whether Pakistan suffered 100 times or just ten times the number of fatalities Canada has – or some number in between. Whining – in response to Musharraf’s contempt at Canadian whining, no less.

But come on. Whining interviewers aside. Does counting fatalities help establishing who is genuinely repelling Islamic fundamentalism – and who isn’t? Is anything figured going along with Musharraf’s body-counting?

Witness 9/11. Six times the fatalities suffered by Pakistan – all in one day. Does that mean that, prior to 9/11, the United States had been foremost in repelling Islamic fundamentalism? Nope. Absolutely not. Prior to 9/11 the United States had either fostered and bolstered Islamic fundamentalism – or ignored it.

And how about since 9/11? Just in Iraq, the United States has suffered yet even more fatalities. Does that mean that, since 9/11, the United States has been foremost in repelling Islamic fundamentalism? Nope. Not so very much, as it turns out. Since 9/11, despite spectacular early military success in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States has been encouraging Islamic fundamentalism. That’s what the absurd police action enforcing democracy in Iraq amounts to. Absurdity. Of course it’s been encouraging Islamic fundamentalism. Enforcing democracy. Enforcing voluntary conduct. Such absurd, contradictory policy – how could it not backfire?

And how about Iraqi fatalities? Some say there have been over half a million by now. Does that mean they’re foremost at repelling Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq? Nope. Precisely not. What they’re doing in Iraq isn’t repelling. It’s revelling. Revelling in Islamic fundamentalism.

And how about Lebanese fatalities – where Hezbollah, after shooting at Israel for a decade, escalated to such extent that Israel had no option but to shoot back? Nevermind how long and hard Israel managed resisting shooting back – how single-mindedly Israel went about building fences and unilateral withdrawing. Why did Lebanese tolerate Hezbollah’s using all Lebanon as human shield? Was this the Lebanese repelling Islamic fundamentalism? Nope. Of course not. This was flirting with Islamic fundamentalism. This was the Lebanese, more than half-heartedly, splaying to Islamic fundamentalism raping Lebanon. Sure – there’s resentment now. Morning-after feelings. But see Lebanon cooking breakfast for Islamic fundamentalism. Batting eyelashes. What are a few broken eggs? Lebanon waits for nightfall. Waits for fundamentalist nights to come – and the days, weeks, years of ruin bound to follow.

And how about Palestinian fatalities – where shooting at Israel has become patellar reflexive and Hamas can’t even conceive stopping? Where Israeli unilateral withdrawing caused climactic, knee-jerking shooting orgies because it seemed like Israel running scared? Any Palestinian fatalities resulting from repelling Islamic fundamentalism? Nope. Naught. Palestinian fatalities result from demanding Islamic fundamentalism. Not from repelling. Palestinians demand Islamic fundamentalism by democratic right. And now they’ve got it, they’re having such a blast – shooting anything and everything that moves. Now they’ve got their fundamentalism, they’re shooting each other like there’s no tomorrow. And, should any tomorrow brighten Palestinian horizons, they’ll shoot it down too.

So let’s not get caught up body-counting. By all means, let’s count – but let’s not get caught up in it. Let’s notice that there’s too many to count – and acknowledge each single one’s too much. And let’s realize: counting bodies is no help distinguishing those repelling Islamic fundamentalism from those revelling and orgying in it; nor those martyred or sacrificed to it from those merely flirting with it.

Rather than bleating casualties, the interviewer ought to have demanded who the hell Musharraf was sneering at, exactly – and why?

No way was Musharraf sneering at the Canadian military. However under-funded, however lacking domestic support, the Canadian military is renowned. It’s been renowned since the World Wars to the present. And, in the present, the Canadian military is once more proving effective in its mission. The relatively low casualty figures further reinforce and testify how effective the Canadian military is proving.

No way was Musharraf sneering at Stephen Harper or those following Harper. Stephen Harper is becoming renown even internationally as a principled leader. So, love him or hate him – there’s no sneering at him. Doesn’t qualify for Musharraf’s contempt.

Nor was Musharraf likely sneering at Jean Chretien, Paul Martin or Michael Ignatieff – and the Liberal camp following. For however unprincipled Liberal leadership may have proven since the heydays of Trudeau, there’s no call thinking them whiners and cowards. They’re just opportunistic. However Liberal policies blow like straw polls in the political wind – there’s no call thinking them whiners and cowards. Yes, Martin made a competitive sport, a one-man tennis match of reversing himself – like on Canada’s mission in Afghanistan. Yes, Ignatieff charged Israel guilty of war-crimes; then alleged both sides guilty of war crimes; then confirmed Israel entitled to self-defence; then declared plans to visit Israel – either to figure out where he stands or cover his trail entirely; then cancelled plans to visit Israel – in event it should make his trail more conspicuous. Except he might still visit Israel later – perhaps once his trail has faded. Perhaps. There’s no telling. Blowing in the wind. Opportunistic. Sometimes even righteously corrupt – like Chretien pretty much inviting Gomery to suck his golf-balls. Got’ta admire a sense of entitlement like that. Them golf-balls are almost up there with Trudeau’s bird-flipping. Unprincipled, opportunistic, even corrupt – sure. But there’s no sneering golf-balls like that.

So who was it Musharraf sneering at?

No mystery. Canadian media – i.e., CBC, Toronto Star – have long contended Canada out of Afghanistan. Shouldn’t have gone in the first place. Not the case for all Canadian media, of course. One might read, in the Ottawa Citizen for instance, that the Canadian majority are glad – even proud – our military’s helping out over there. But, far as anything one might read in the Toronto Star – the Canadian majority wants out. Thing is, it’s kind’a late for the moaning and groaning. Canada’s Afghanistan mission isn’t slated to end anytime very soon. Whatever to do, then – beyond bleating casualties and carping unpopularity? Well, how’s this: since we’re there for a while – how about we just talk to the Taliban?

Just talk to the Taliban. That’s what Jack Layton’s been pitching for the Canadian media to bat at us. Just talk to the Taliban. As reported in Toronto Star’s September 28th article, “Critics Blast Musharraf”, Layton pitched: “This is deeply distressing and I certainly call on the Prime Minister to engage, as I have done in the House and as I have done for many weeks, in trying to bring all parties to the table to discuss this issue seriously.” Yeah. Layton’s been pitching this for months. That we just talk to everyone – seriously talk to everyone. We should, like, just really talk to the Taliban.

What’s it mean, though – just talking to the Taliban? Aren’t Canadian soldiers willing to talk? But of course they’re willing to talk. After all, they’re Canadians. And how does one pick Canadians out from the crowd? Why, they’re the ones that apologise when you kick them. Ridiculously polite. So of course they’re willing to talk – it would be impolite not to. Canadians are always willing to talk. More than just talk. Canadian soldiers aren’t just talking. They’re digging ditches. They’re repairing roads. They’re rebuilding infrastructure – and politely persist doing so whenever they’re not getting ambushed doing it.

Jack Layton and the Canadian media know all this. For instance, in its October 17th front-page article – “’Glitches’ delay Afghan aid” – the Toronto Star fully acknowledges that “Ottawa is pumping $100 million in development aid into Afghanistan each year…” What makes this article front-page headline news, though, isn’t how tremendous the Canadian aid is or the great works of Canadian soldiers. The converse. What makes this front-page headline is Toronto Star’s criticizing there have been delays delivering some of the aid. No kidding.

So. When Layton and Canadian media tell us to just talk with the Taliban. They’re not denying Canadians are always willing to talk. They’re not ignoring Canadians are doing far more than just talking. None of the above. They mean it literally. When they say just talk they mean do nothing else other than talk. Do nothing but talking. Even while getting ambushed. Regardless. Get totally serious about discussing the issues. Stop doing anything other than talking. No shooting back. Just talk.

Canadians are always willing to talk. Canadians persist helping out far more substantially than just talking. But when Layton and the Canadian media say just talk to the Taliban, they don’t mean great job, keep it up. When the say just talk they mean stop it already – take talking seriously, damn it, and stop doing anything but talking. Even while getting ambushed. For instance:

“Hey Sarge! We can’t go on with that roadwork. We just got ambushed in a three-way RPG crossfire. What you want us to do?”

“Whad’ya need, an engraved invitation? You need it spelled out? Get out’ta the military uniforms. Put on the waiter costumes. Get the menus – the pork-free ones. And go take their orders.”

“Anything else, Sarge? We’re gettin’ chewed up bad here.”

“Yeah. Don’t forget to smile. And be sure to ask if they want fries!”

Just talk to the Taliban. Surrender the military uniforms. Doesn’t really matter what else Canadian soldiers put on – doesn’t actually have to be waiter costumes. Doesn’t matter – so long as Canadian soldiers surrender military uniforms. So long as Canada surrenders doing anything but talking. So long as Canada surrenders.

There’s no mystery who Musharraf was sneering at. None whatsoever. He’d have been no more contemptuous were Canadian soldiers really stripping uniforms and donning waiter costumes whenever shot at. Because that’s what it amounts to, Jack Layton’s just talk to the Taliban. Jack Layton’s call to surrender. How could Musharraf not sneer and not ask the Canadian interviewer, “When a soldier puts on a uniform and he joins the army, is this for fighting or for peacekeeping or what does he join the army for?” And wouldn’t it have been honest, at least, had CBC’s Carol Off not whimpered about Canadians “making the sacrifice” in reply. If she’d answered with the Layton – and Toronto Star and CBC – party line, straight and true:

Canadian soldiers join the army to bring a table for everyone to be sitting at. So everyone can be seriously talking. After everyone is talking, to bring a meal to put on the table. And if military uniform interferes with eating or discussing seriously issues, it is no problem. Canadians surrender military uniforms and don waiter costumes. Canadian soldiers join the army for talking and waiting tables. Because for Canadian soldiers uniform is a costume. If one costume is not good for talking, Canadian soldiers take it off and put on a better costume for talking.

Just talk to the Taliban. How despicable. Are Layton and his followers – followers not because most vote for him but because they share ideology and he’s so photogenic – really such whiners and cowards? Probably not. Probably they are just perpetually confused by ideological fundamentalism.

Not Islamic fundamentalism. Not in North America – not much yet, anyway. Rather, in the United States, a load of Christian fundamentalism. And, here in Canada, a load of Marxist fundamentalism. It’s true. Hard to stomach in this day and age. But true.

That’s the ideology Layton and followers are confused by and fundamentalist about. They believe all fighting is between rich and poor. That all conflict is class struggling over the means of production. Struggling by the exploiting class – rich, power elites, etc. – excluding the exploited from the means of production; and struggling by the exploited classes – poor and victimized so thoroughly that any getting ahead demands shackle-bursting vigorous redistributing all good things at gunpoint – to liberate the means of production from the exploiters. That’s what Layton and his followers believe. That’s what they’re fundamentalist about. They’re not ashamed of their Marxism, either. They own up to it fairly readily – if not so clearly.

Nor can Layton and followers change their minds. They can’t learn better. They’re fundamentalist about it. Because, far as they’re concerned, believing anything different can mean only wishful thinking. Believing anything else is an opiate. An ideology. Not real. While that which causes conflict in history must be real. Tangible. Material. Namely: the economic disparity between rich and poor. Between exploiters and exploited. For Layton, conflict in human history means the expression of class struggling over means of production. And class struggling must originate from material causes – i.e., exploitation. Believing otherwise – i.e., that struggling may be rooted in ideology rather than materiality – is pipe dreaming.

As a matter of fact, Layton and followers are mostly wrong. By far most conflict in history is ideological – not economic. Rich and poor of one ideology struggle together – against those of conflicting ideologies. Ideology binds us together – and tears us apart – prior to the possibility of economics. There is no possibility of society, even – nevermind economics – absent ideological fabric binding us together. But that’s not the point.

Aside from Layton and followers being wrong. The point is they can’t even conceive being wrong. For them, everything – struggling included – must originate from material causes. There’s no believing otherwise, for them. Conflict must be materially caused.
It’s been called (not only) scientific materialism: that conflict arises only by material causes – that nothing, including conflict, arises for ideological reasons. Layton and followers can’t conceive otherwise.

That’s the point. Scientific materialism is an ideology. And that the scientific materialism ideology can’t conceivably be wrong to those adhering it, that it can’t be refuted, means that scientific materialism isn’t scientific. It’s as if someone were to declare all crows black – and then deny the evidence on being presented a white crow: “I just told you all crows are black – so, since the bird you’re showing me is white, it’s no crow.” Fine. But let’s get real. That’s totally not being scientific. That’s being dogmatic.

And that’s the whole point. Layton and followers are dogmatic materialists. They can never stop believing all conflict is class struggling over means of production. This is very silly – but has debilitating consequences.

Here’s one consequence, with which we’re familiar without even realizing it. Layton and followers are so obsessed with struggling over means of production – they can’t comprehend the meaning of productivity. Take, for instance, a voluntary employment relationship. To any dogmatic materialist of Marxist variety, it isn’t voluntary. It isn’t collaborative. Rather, since the employer profits from the employees labour, the employer necessarily belongs to an economic class inimical to that of the employee. The employer is exploiting the employee. And the longer such exploitation continues, the worse it will get. Inevitably, whether sooner or later, the employee will have no recourse but to rise up and put an end to it. A violent end – since the exploiting leech isn’t gon’na give up economic blood-sucking otherwise.

We’re familiar with this consequence of Marxist dogmatic materialism. That’s why not that many of us vote for Jack Layton – even if we share his ideology. We know better. We’ve seen what’s been going on behind iron curtains the past hundred years. The terminal, totalitarian mismanagement. We know about it – even if we don’t understand how inevitable it is.

Absolutely inevitable. There’s no voluntary collaborating behind iron curtains. There’s no private employment relating allowed. Since, according to Marxist dogmatic materialism, such would constitute endorsing exploitation. Thus, collaborative labour must be managed and enforced by authority – more often than not at gunpoint. At gunpoint in order to ensure exploitation – i.e., voluntary collaboration such as in standard private employment – is extirpated. But what gets extirpated, of course, is everything voluntary. Including voluntary work. Eventually, no work remains voluntary. All work is at gunpoint. If not at gunpoint – well, they pretend to pay us, we pretend to work.

We’re familiar with this consequence – that productivity has no meaning for dogmatic materialists obsessing the means of production. There’s other consequences, though – some with which we aren’t familiar. Particularly, there’s one other consequence worth familiarizing – to help appreciate where Layton and followers are coming from.

It is this. Marxist dogmatic materialists can’t conceive conflict as genuine unless rooted in economic class struggling. There’s no conceiving genuine conflict rooted in ideological dispute, religious intolerance, cultures clashing. No way. No conceivable way. Not genuine conflict. Merely noise and confusion under the influence of ideological, religious or cultural opiates. Alternately, should conflict prove unavoidably genuine, then it must be rooted in real economic class struggling. No conceivable way for genuine conflict to root and emerge from opiates like ideology, religion or culture.

The absurdities Marxist materialist dogma leads Layton and followers into – also non-Layton followers like Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae, of course – are legion. But returning to the present instance – Musharraf’s sneering contempt at Layton – it comes down to this. Layton can’t conceive there being genuine conflict resulting from clashes of cultures and civilizations. Hence, shooting between Taliban and Canadian soldiers indicates but noise and confusion under the influence of ideological, religious or cultural opiates. So let’s stop shooting, for crying out loud. Let’s get serious about talking to the Taliban – and clear up this damn confusion already. Alternately, should conflict and the shooting prove genuine, then no way does such conflict emerge from opiates like ideology, religion or culture. No way. If the shooting’s for real, then it must result from real class struggling. If so, fine. Let’s stop our shooting and get serious about talking to the Taliban. Let’s find out how we’ve exploited them – and let’s rectify our exploitation. We’re willing, damn it! We didn’t mean to exploit the Taliban! Stop shooting! Get out of those uniforms and wave some white flags! Talk, damn you all, just talk. Just talk to the Taliban, already.

Layton and followers – they’re no whining cowards. Just terminally confused. Understanding where they’re coming from helps. If one doesn’t understand, though – they sure come across superlatively despicable. So it’s difficult faulting Musharraf’s contempt. No reason expecting him understanding Layton’s confusion. Musharraf just needs to stop counting bodies long enough to figure out what Musharraf stands for. Even double agents need to know who they are. More so than the rest of us, even.