Diary of Defeat, March 2025

THE CENTRIST has an article on how Auckland University slipped out of the world’s top 150 universities’ rankings last year, and this year began a course on the Treaty and indigenous “knowledge systems” for all first-year students in every faculty.  The compulsory course, with its name ‘gifted’ as “Waipapa Taumata Rau” which also applies to the university, plays a key part in indigenising — or decolonising — it.  And you will have to pay for the privilege of being railroaded onto the course — with international students paying up to $5730 for the paper. Perhaps most alarmingly, students must pass to be entitled to move on to second-year studies. 

Education professor Elizabeth Rata considered that the effect of the decolonisation programme would be to turn the university into a faith-based institution, like a wananga, seminary or a madrassa.  It will mean a university would no longer be a place for the discovery of new knowledge, and for the testing and refutation of the knowledge that we currently have.

The course is an example of the erosion of the universality of science and of objective truth.  "Situated knowledge" is the idea that knowledge is always shaped by and embedded in the specific social, cultural, historical, and political contexts in which it is produced.  It lies in the dubious company of ‘anecdotal evidence’, ‘standpoint epistemology’ and ‘lived experience’, as being knowledge that must be accepted on trust.  This tends to be antithetical to the expert authority which is embodied in strong governance.  Woke culture enables it by taking strong account of feelings and perceptions and has led to ‘identity politics’, establishing a kind of “moral aristocracy” in public debate on the basis of a particular racial category, and to close ranks around ever-narrower conceptions of group interests.

THE DAILY BLOG carries a story on Luxon and police minister Mitchell wishing NZ’s Muslims a happy Ramadan and reading a script from FIANZ’s Dawah Division.  The Blog is Left-wing, so its criticism is of Luxon and Mitchell, not Islam.  Of course.  The X post is frankly creepy, and Luxon reads out the well-worn line about Ramadan being a time of ‘spiritual rejuvenation’.  I found this hard to resist so posted the following on the Blog's site:

Ramadan’s spiritual rejuvenation carries statistical value.  The average daily slaughter in the name Islam for the last ten years is 37.9 dead people.  But Ramadan carries a 13.6% premium – 43.1 dead people.  For those who think this is a bad thing, take comfort.  Rates are declining.  Islam’s daily dead peaked at 90.4 in 2014 while last year’s was only 23.8.  Thanks to TheReligionOfPeace.com for keeping pace with ‘peace’.

But as I say, The Daily Blog is Left-wing, so did not publish my post.  It's hard to say whether this is support for, or fear of, Islam.

 

Diary of Defeat, February 2025

Argumentum ad Cultro

 THE WORD ‘ISLAM’ IS RARELY SPOKEN THESE DAYS.  In situations where it should be necessary to talk, for example, about its moral justification for violence, rape, Gaza and societal change, euphemisms are used and ellipsis is commonplace.  Where once Islam could be discussed in forums, lectures and seminars as well as pub and dinner-table conversations, the Overton Window has closed.  Yet Islam is effecting a reversal of the West’s moral progress, and those who, like me, wish to bring attention to this cannot make headway because commentary is increasingly discouraged.  How?  I have a theory…

In Stage 1 psychology I learnt about ‘operant conditioning’, whereby behaviour could be controlled by using reward and punishment.  A sub-function of this was ‘intermittent reinforcement’ in which reward and punishment could be applied at irregular occasions and achieve the desired result with less intervention.  The subject is aware of good and bad behaviour and internalises it for maximum reward and minimum punishment.  Ironically, in education the far Left has maximised reward for minimal effort and minimised punishment to the point where control is lost.  But that’s another issue.

Generally, in Western societies punishment is no longer physical.  It tends to be limited to incarceration, fines, public shame and forms of restitution.  This is not the case in Islam since the rules for Muslims’ behaviour are those laid down in the Koran and hadiths, from the tribal desert culture of 7^th century Arabia.  Since these are dictated by God or by Muhammad’s actions, they cannot be changed.  

And thus it is with violence.  When God says, “And slay them wherever you come upon them…” [2:191] Muslims are obliged to comply, and comply they do.  Cutting off heads, knifing people, mowing people down with vehicles, machine-gunning and bombing, the list goes on and on.  This is punishment for the non-believer, but not every one of them, just a few.  It is intermittent reinforcement in action, and results in implicit fear.

There is a phrase in studies of logic called ‘argumentum ad baculum’, a fallacy which means argue with the cudgel rather than with the subject under discussion.  It’s a threat, plain and simple.  However, God says, “I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve.” And Muslims are obliged to “then smite their necks…”  [8:12, 47:4].  Not with a cudgel, but with a knife, so to coin a phrase to suit Islam’s intermittent punishment, it should be ‘argumentum ad cultro’.  We in the West are, after all, in Islam’s domain of war and this is how it is fought.

IMPLICIT FEAR IS A WONDROUS TOOL.  This is the real Islamophobia - the fear of offending Muslims, and offended Muslims can be extremely violent.  The occasional beheading or knifing reminds people that Islam’s punishment for blasphemy is death, and since blasphemy is hard to define, no-one makes comment.  In the Islamic world, punishment works top-down.  Courts routinely jail or hang perpetrators, or the police permit mobs to attack suspects.  The Christian world hasn’t killed blasphemers for centuries and the application of relevant laws is lax, which suits the public’s secular inclinations.  But for fundamentalists, Islamic law is universal.  The doctrine of hisbah, ‘command right and forbid wrong’ [9:71, 3:110, 3:114, 7:199, 9:112] obliges action by Muslims in the doctrine of fard al-‘ayn, individual responsibility.  This is bottom-up punishment in what I’ve termed ‘retributive subsidiarity’, the obligation of each Muslim to impose the will of Allah and punish infractions, operating at the lowest practical social level. 

Even so, the level at which such control operates is rising.  Lawyer Lucy Rogers counter-protested an Auckland pro-Palestine march with an improvised sign and was told to move on by the police, despite the right of Kiwis to peaceful protest.  She was arrested for ‘breach of the peace and failure to comply with the lawful instructions of a police officer’, alleging she was ‘attempting to “antagonise” the crowd and their role during protests was to uphold the law.’  A police officer can be heard telling Rogers the pro-Palestine protesters were “going to get upset [with the sign] and then it’s going to start a riot”.  Similar things are happening in Europe with ‘two-tier policing’.  One result is that Muslims’ assertiveness increases.  This can lead to aggressive assertion, thence to assertive aggression.  This is what Islamic conquest looks like – authorities are doing the fundamentalists’ jobs for them.

GIVEN IMPLICIT FEAR, Westerners are increasingly describing themselves as ‘Christian-adjacent’ or ‘cultural Christian’ which is a back-door way of saying Islam is toxic and taking over the West without saying “Islam”.  It’s a code phrase, or as Jews have termed it in the past, a shibboleth, signifying outsiders from the prevailing world view.  Our personal, professional and political lives are shaped by the fear of what other people think.  Adding qualifiers to ‘Christian’ is deemed wise, since Christianity is considered below the salt for the professional managerial class.