The key to understanding why it is possible to form statements which contradict individual myths yet remain consistent within the ideological universe is this: the only essential myth it is necessary to accept is the guilt and worthlessness of Western civilization. The particulars are irrelevant. (emphasis mine)
Stephen Hicks wrote about the phenomenon of these seeming contradictions in Explaining Postmodernism. He termed this leftist strategy as "using contradictory discourses as political strategy":
In postmodern discourse, truth is rejected explicitly and consisteny can be a rare phenomenon. Consider the following pairs of claims. - On the one hand, all truth is relative; on the other hand, postmodernism tells it like it really is.
- On the one hand, all cultures are equally deserving of respect; on the other, Western culture is uniquely destructive and bad.
- Values are subjective--but sexism and racism are really evil
- Technology is bad and destructive--and it is unfair that some people have more technology than others.
- Tolerance is good and dominance is bad--but when postmodernists come to power, political correctness follows.
As I noted in a recent post on The New Political Discourse, there is a common pattern to the illogical assertions: subjectivism and relativism in one breath, and dogmatic absolutism in the next.
In other words--it is a waste of time looking for any sense in the contradictory demands and rhetoric of today's political postmodernists
Compare and contrast the positions of each of the 12 myths and its counterpart provided by Wretchard. Both are firmly held as holy writ in the minds of the believer. Imagine, if you will, the degree of cognitive dissonance that would be necessary to have both beliefs in one's consciousness; and to act on them with equal religious fervor.
Take just the first two sets:
War doesn’t change anything.
War is capable of achieving liberation from the clutches of America.
Victory is impossible today.
Victory over America is not only possible, but inevitable.
You begin to see how the nihilism of the postmodern, neo-fascist left dovetails nicely into the fanaticism of the Islamofascists; and how the one sets the stage for and completes the other perfectly.
Postmodern rhetoric evolves into, and seemlessly becomes, the post-medieval terror of the Islamic fanatics. The circle is unbroken. The contradictory discourses of the former pave the philosophical path for the barbarism of the latter.
As Wretchard notes, the particulars are irrelevant--if the destruction of western civilization is your ultimate destination.
In The Four Pillars of the Socialist Revival and the Rise of Islamofascism, I wrote:
Observe how easily Islam has been able to subvert key Western values--such as freedom of speech and expression--with a degree of invincibility and outraged virtue, capitalizing on a tactical opportunity that they have never before had in history. And worse of all, many on the political left--particularly the remnants of utopian socialism-- are aiding and abetting the Islamofascists.
With that in mind, is it at all surprising that Islam is able to take maximum advantage of this Achilles heel within Western culture and use the vulnerability to optimize their own religious, political, psychological, and military objectives?
Multiculturalism and political correctness are two of the fundamental pseudo-intellectual, quasi-religious tenets-- along with a third: radical environmentalism--that have been widely disseminated by intellectuals unable to abandon socialism even after its crushing failures in the 20th century. These tenets have been slowly, but relentlessly absorbed at all levels of Western culture in the last decade or so--but primarily since the end of the Cold War.
All three have been incorporated into most K-12 curricula and all other learning environments. They have been at the forefront of attempts by leading academics and academic institutions to rewrite most of history and undo thousands of years of Western cultural advancement. And further, as the culture has been completely saturated with this toxic brew, any attempt to question the tenets' validity or to contest their value is met with hysterical accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, imperialism, bigotry, or--worse of all --intolerance or insensitivity.
It just so happens, that these tenets represent three of the four pillars that are the foundation of an evolving epistemological, ethical and political strategy that the socialist remnants in the world have developed and are using to prevent their ideology from entering the dustbin of history.
And, what is most interesting is that, even as they encourage and enable Islam with the first three pillars; the Islamofascists are aiding and abetting them by using the fourth pillar- Terrorism. We can think of the four pillars as the reason for both the socialist revival (particularly in the western hemisphere recently) and the rapid advancement of the Islamic Jihad.
Click on the link to see the philosophical flow chart that explains how this comes about. For people anchored in the real world, the particulars are extremely relevant.
Having granted the philosophical premises of postmodernism (truth and morality are relative; reality is unknowable; and life's a bitch and then you die--without purpose, meaning, or sense) ; then the complementary premises of a pre-primitive terrorist suddenly are quite simple to grasp.