Western dependencies

(Postcolonial Theoretic) Question: Why are we still dependent on theories developed in the West, as in by White Europeans?

We’ve already provided the answer to that question, in both long and short forms. In the former relation, as a bonus, we revealed who Hajar actually is (and why she’s intrinsic to all postcolonial escape, so much more than, say Said or Asad) and precisely how her circuit allows us to Face God.

But here’s the executive summary. Edward Said got it wrong, while (Wallice Fard) Muhammed got it right. The Orient is not a means to power for Western Imperialism. Western Imperialism is an invention of the Orient.

All it takes is for a Caliph to imagine the European piracy for piracy to become the paradigm. And for the pirate paradigm will run on and on, up to and including those who attempt an escape maneuver.

Yes, there is hope for the poor embittered brown man. There’s hope, always, for everyone. The means to escape, as usual, is encoded within the bars of misprison: and requires a Muhammedean/Hajaric offense, not a Saidian defense. That is to say (and this is where the Nation of Islam failed to grasp Wallice Fard’s point, literalising but what’s new?), it requires the Eastern man to know himself, by looking into the eyes of (his own) fantasy of the Western man fantasizing/orientalising the Eastern man’s reflection/creation of the West (see the importance of the Gollum to Kabbalah).

Thinking in future terms, the Fulfillment of the Ottoman Empire’s an invisible, veiled Caliph, the entire Kingdom’s a Caliph, dependent on the visibility of the wife/slave Prophetess, from Sultanate to a Sultanate of WomenRoxelana bifurcating a multiplicity of Ukrainian mothers, dictating public policy for (exterior, non-metaphoric) the ummah from behind the intimate interiority of the harem.


5 thoughts on “Western dependencies

  1. Nice. If I understand you correctly, you seem to me to be saying that by defining and labeling something in a certain way, humans tend to turn it into a reality – which then takes on a illusory life of its own.

    1. @Fugstar: I assume you are asserting “Imagination (as a construct) exists as a function of white power”.

      Quite so, quite so: the term contains within it a whole trace that is inextricably Logocentric (which is basically the Eurocentric powerhouse if you are postcolonial, or the Phallocentric regime if you’re a feminist).

      But of course — so are the term “function”, “existence” and “power” — also functions of white power.

      Now the general Foucaultian response is to unpack these terms, query them, deconstruct and de-center them, expose their logo-historical situation as one in which some kind of power is at play. The postcolonial response is to do the same, but to expose the whiteness of the power at play (and the browness of what is supressed).

      For example, we could unpack the term “imagination” and trace its usage back to the European enlightenment — in which “imagination” privileges a kind of private, secular space of thought that ultimately is used to enslave the black man. Those who do not imagine as we do are the barbarians: all kinds of ways of saying this — we teach them what creativity/art/culture is — or they do not “imagine”, they “feel” — or perhaps they only “imagine”, they do not have a cultural demarcation between imagination and science/rationality, they are wild imaginers, they are imagination. The list’s endless (even includes government funded “Islamic arts” movements in modern times, in western cities like London). And in all these senses it is a means to control, to define caste systems, to enslave.

      (Note that feminist studies proceeeds with a similar Foucaultian response — but the emphasis is on how the power play runs to castrate women. For example, creativity/imagination always end up in objectification of woman, never of subjecthood — imagination is pornography.)

      The TAILORITE response acknowledges the Foucaultian gambit. But it goes deeper.

      The Tailor Complex believed and followed that stuff for exactly 7 years until an entity known as “Allah” spoke to us directly.

      Amongst other things we realised was that Foucault is a defense. There’s an intrinsic slavery involved (remembering that his favourite hobby was S&M, I argue it was not just a hobby but an academic career).

      KNOW that Foucault himself is the creation of Asia. (And, solving the feminist’s problems as well as the postcolonial, an ASIAN WOMAN created Foucault.) And we realised that attack (of the Mind) is better than defense (of the body).

      Foucault received his revelations (that continue to rock the academy) after a mescaline adventure in the desert. We received ours after a Hajaric flight into a deeper, underlying desert.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s