The Essence of Contemporary Leftism And Islamism Revealed: Freedom or Slavery to Those Who Claim to Know Best?
“Different men often see the same subject in different lights.” — Patrick Henry, 1775
Below is a fascinating exchange telling us not only about the contemporary state of Islam, Islamism, and the political issues involving them, but also about the debates and conflicts shaping Western civilization today. The exchange also taught me about the common theme between revolutionary Islamism and the revolutionary leftism that today masquerades as liberalism.
The interviewee is Hazem Salah Abu Ismail, a leading Islamist presidential candidate in Egypt — the Salafists’ favorite. I’ll annotate his dialogue with my analysis. (Thanks to Raymond Ibrahim for the translation):
Host: You have already begun to try to impose a particular dress code for us.
Abu Ismail: I’ve begun to? It’s the Lord of the Worlds [Allah] who said so. I have nothing to do with it!
Salafists have been setting up vigilante groups to impose a dress code, especially on women. Though not much has happened so far, this is obviously a very dangerous implication for Egypt’s future.
What Abu Ismail is saying is that all sorts of extremist things (by Western standards and even — as we will shall see in a moment — the standards of many Muslims) are innate in Islam. In other words, by contemporary standards Abu Ismail is an Islamophobe.
But listen to how the host, who is also a Muslim, puts it. No, he says — this is not imposed by Allah, but by “you.” After all, the host could say, Egypt has been a pious Muslim country for a long time without such measures.
The host thus gives his interpretation of Islam:
Host: Allah left it for me to decide as a personal freedom.
Abu Ismail: Who said that? Where’d you get that from? See, that’s the whole point: If you claim that Allah considers it your personal freedom, show me your reference? Nobody has ever said that — except for people who have no understanding of Sharia.
Host: There is “no coercion in religion” [Koran 2:256].
Note that the host can come up with a key phrase and indeed one that is often used on Western audiences to prove the liberality of Islam. Some day — though it may be a century or two from now — an entire moderate Islamic theology could be built on that phrase. But that’s not going to happen in 2012.
When Abu Ismail says that only “people [who] have no understanding of Sharia” could disagree with him, he is simply asserting that his interpretation is the only valid one. This is the way of all totalitarian ideologies, true also for Communism, Nazism, fascism, and Arab nationalism:
Abu Ismail: This is concerning the creed. You don’t force someone to convert to Islam.
Host: So when Allah in the Koran mentions “religion”, it is synonymous with “creed”?
Abu Ismail: Exactly.
Host: So when He says, “Today I have perfected your religion for you” [Koran 5:3], He is only talking about the “creed.”
Abu Ismail: Yes …
Thus, Abu Ismail interprets Islam as a perfect dictatorship in which only one view is permitted, which happens to be his view. This is not how Islam has functioned historically, at least in modern history. There have been different schools of thought and variations in practice. Of course, there are limits that cannot be transcended, but that’s true of all religions.
Ah — but that brings us to a fascinating point, an understanding of the substructure of what’s going on here. Let me present a thesis:
Islamism, though quite different in its specific precepts, is parallel to Western leftism, and vice-versa. Each system claims to know what is the perfect society coinciding with the demands of God (Islamism) and that of logic and ecology (Western leftism).
The host proclaims freedom in parallel to, say, the U.S. Declaration of Independence:
Host: Allah left it for me to decide as a personal freedom.
The Declaration of Independence speaks of the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” endowing individuals “with certain unalienable Rights … among them are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Patrick Henry said in 1775: “Different men often see the same subject in different lights.” Precisely. But what does it bring when one group has the ability to impose its view on every aspect of society on all others? Liberalism developed in the nineteenth century precisely to reject the ability of an overly strong conservative state, structure, and ideology to do so. Now the same basic problem has returned, albeit with the position of the two sides reversed.
The two top-down systems of our era — the far left in the West, Islamism in the “east” — say, respectively: God or logic and nature tell you what precisely what you must do. I am the proper interpreter of those sources of Correctness. I’m going to make you do these things — to obey Allah or save the planet or live a healthy life, etc. — or else.
And the opposing view is: No, God and the nature of the world have given us freedom within wide but reasonable boundaries.
BR: “Is God… a dictator that has set down every detail of proper behavior which we must merely slavishly obey, or do human beings—as part of the great design, if you are taking a religious approach–have freedom to make their own choices?”
“Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens . . . are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion.” Thomas Jefferson
Why do you say leftism operates according to logic and ecology? The leftists proclaim that they are following the creed of social justice and the welfare state, which is whatever they say it is (one has to admit that your friend the Salafist is implementing the more predictable system). ‘Save the planet’ green piety is drizzled over the whole as a kind of nod to religion. All this has very little to do with logic, as far as I can see.
It’s more precise to say that leftists CLAIM to operate from logic. If you want to see contortions in order to avoid logic, just visit http://judithcurry.com some time, and read the comments. It’ll be obvious who the leftists are, and the pretzel logic that they use. Especially Robert or Joshua.
Dr. Rubin makes some good points. This kind of totalitarian mentality – that there is one truth, I know it and I want to impose it on you for your own good – is also shared by fundamentalist Christians in America and some “fundamentalist” Jews here in Israel.
As for ecology – there are certainly far leftist with a totalitarian apocalyptic mentality, but there are also liberals (like myself) who accept the reseach-based conclusions of many scientists that human-caused climate change is a reality, is and will cause serious prblems and needs to be dealt with.
There are also research-based reasons to be skeptical of AGW as it has been promoted by the likes of Al Gore.
“But there are also liberals (like myself) who accept the reseach-based conclusions of many scientists that human-caused climate change is a reality”.
Do you accept the research of Hansen at NASA, Mann at Pennsylvania State University, and Jones at East Anglia, even though leaked e-mails show that their ‘research’ is rich in fraudulent data, in other words, their science is bogus, and that they colluded in promoting their fraud as “settled science”?
You apparently don’t accept the research-based conclusions of many scientists who defied the politically correct, popular, and profitable winds and claimed skepticism about AGW.
Birds of a feather…
Blind acceptance is poor logic.
Question;
If you consider CO2 (the AGW advocates’ bete noir’) to be the problem, as per “mainstream” global warming theory, are you in favor of replacing CO@-producing energy sources with non-CO2 generating ones?
Specifically, replacing coal, oil, and gas with nuclear and hydroelectric?
I will give you time to think about your answer.
cheers
eon
I wish that you were the real “Golda” risen from the grave but your writing indicates that you most certainly are not.
That aside, I know of no fundamentalist Christian or Jew who has ever imposed anything of significance on me. But I suffer the negative results of liberal claptrap (such as AGW) being imposed on me daily by uniformed fundamentalist liberals such as you. How is that? IMHO when one proudly proclaims themself a liberal it is akin to someone proclaiming that “I celebrate failure and ignorance and I’m proud of it”.
Did you not read the East Anglia e-mails? Michael Mann, of Pennsylvannia State University, said this in an e-mail: “We must get rid of the MWP.” The MWP is the Medieval Warming Period, a period of 800 years during which the planet warmed to an average of 24 degrees Celsius. The earth began warming around 600 A.D. and started cooling around 1400 A.D., after which the Little Ice Age occurred. The peak temperatures occurred during the 10th, 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries. Why did Michael Mann say the scientists needed to get rid of the MWP? The average temperature was a nice, comfortable 70 degrees. The oceans did not rise. The earth didn’t burn up. In fact, anthopologists have determined that life in during the MWP was almost ideal. Plants thrived. Consequently, animal and human life thrived. And Michael Mann and his cronies don’t want you to know about this because they can’t explain why it happened without humans causing it, the core belief of AGW. There were no factories or SUVs around to blame.
Here’s another example of the flaws of the AGW movement. A Japanese scientist wanted to test the reliability of the UN’s computer climate models. He and his colleagues had a known weather event with known climate conditions that had caused it. They fed the conditions into the UN computers. The computers should have created a model of the known weather event that had actually occurred. The computers (all 24 of them) failed to duplicate the actual weather event. And global warming freaks want us to spend trillions of dollars and change our lives based on models that these computers spit out?
Check out The Oregon Petition on the internet. Over 31,000 scientists signed this petition that basically says that AGW is junk science.
The theory of global warming and cap and trade are hoaxes and scams to create global government and redistribute wealth from rich countries like the U.S. and Canada to poorer countries run by dictators.
oy. raising hand, here. Raised fundamentalist. You know what a Christian fundamentalist is? Someone who has read the bible, and is trying to understand and apply it to their life, without a catechism. That’s it. That’s all.
The bible is a big, complicated book from long, long ago. This means, there is study and debate within a fundamentalist church, within each congregation,and within each sunday school class. There is the Nicene Creed binding churches of the West together, and that’s it. Fundamentalists don’t even have a over-arching political representation. Mr Albert Mohler, head of the Southern Baptist Convention? Any member church of the convention can tell Mr Albert Mohler to go jump in a lake. They do, too. We listen to him b/c usually he makes sense. When he doesn’t, we talk.
Baptists, one group of fundamentalists, believe in the primacy of the individual soul’s freedom. Which means- that each person reads and understands the bible to the best of their ability, in their own light.
David Koresh? of the Branch Davidians? The guy who’s entire church got killed by a government operation? There are still videos? His religious writings- the government had taken some and taken them to scholars at the local Baptist college. They said ” He’s odd, but he’s quoting scripture and supporting his understanding. It’s different- but it’s how he sees it.” Which means- he wasn’t apostate, in their view. These “buckles on the fundamentalist belt” were more liberal and humane than Janet Reno, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and the whole media. The government burned them down for being odd. The fundamentalist Baptists had lived in peace as neighbors with them for decades.
Fundamentalists invest in teaching kids to read- so they can read the Bible for themselves. It’s the same reason the Puritans made everyone pay for school for the kids.
Fundamentalists volunteer to teach Sunday School. It’s an honor and a privilege to teach Sunday School. That one would get entrusted to- honestly- debate moderation and presenting research- is a statement of, well, service and status. Notice how many times in the south on one’s professional curriculum vitae- sunday school teacher- is listed? It’s even listed on Jimmy Carter’s cv, as a reason to vote for him for pres. That’s not just a weird little side note. Do you teach a sunday school bible class? Grownups or kids?
Fundamentalists built Liberty University. LU, right now, has the strongest debate program in the country. B/c it’s important- they are taught to parse evidence, line by line, bit by bit. They also have a strong engineering school. I’ve met graduates around the world. We talk about Obama lying, line by line, and “mis-stating” facts. He’d be toast, in front of a Liberty U debater. Any place with a strong fundamentalist presence has a strong high school debate program. It might not look nice, and it might not have computers, like a suburban program- but the kids can research like nobody’s business. They’re kind of scary, honestly.
Fundamentalists expect kids to memorize Bible verses. Even entire books, chapters and psalms. They write the words of God on their heart and minds. Since Jewish people are expected to carry around bible verses, and put ??I don’t know what it’s called, on the front of their house- and some are expected to memorize chunks of their bible- I’m thinking fundamentalists and jews are on the same page?
Fundamentalism came around in the USA b/c the USA had enshrined the free exercise of religion. European states had state churches, and people who thought freely were barred from owning property, heading to college, inheriting stuff, marrying who they pleased. Within the colonies- we have memoirs of each state- sponsored church harassing believers of other versions- puritans hanging quakers, episcopalian grandees hunting baptist preachers by horseback ” like fox-hunting.” Of methodist leaders sneaking about, away from the prying eyes of the state. Freedom of belief is the first amendment of the bill of rights.
Fundamentalism became called fundamentalism when a Harry Fosdick got up in Riverside Church in New York City, and began preaching collectivism. In reaction, some other preachers wrote out pamphlets saying “These are the Fundamentals of the Christian Faith.” not collectivism preached to wealthy urban yankees. The faith preached from the bible to everyone else- slave, poor, workingman, shop-keeper, even wealthy. It said ” God blessed you with a mind. Use it.”
Carnegie? Carnegie Libraries across America are a version of his fundamentalist vision. The ads in newspapers and Christmas and Easter explaining the holidays meaning, paid for by Hobby Lobby’s owners- are a version of this vision. WorldVision- the largest, or among the largest- world charities- funded one person at a time, $20 a month- are a version of the fundamentalist vision.
Anything that says you face God on your own, read the bible on your own, understand and apply the bible on your own——–how is that an oppressive, scary vision? Critics who have shrieked and hidden- are doing so b/c they’ve met a force that won’t bow to their idols- an individual’s own free will.
And, btw, when a critic takes a tour of “scary” fundamentalist churches- you know what they find? nice people.kind people. people trying to be friendly, kind, helpful. nice. They get swept up, and don’t come down until they’re home in their own town, and wonder if they joy they felt was real.
I’ve read articles saying that Islam is falling from within, b/c some preachers are preaching that one can read the Koran on one’s own, and interpret it. So–who’s the scary fundamentalist there? The mullah? or the individual who dares think his/her own thoughts?
“David Koresh? of the Branch Davidians? The guy who’s entire church got killed by a government operation?” David Koresh and his Branch Davidians had killed two government agents and refused to be arrested. Then Attorney General Janet Reno, instead of calling on local law enforcement, wanted to prove how tough she was and ordered the raid which ended up killing all the Branch Davidians.
yeah. and he was walking around in public, out of the compound for most of the time. Why didn’t they arrest him when he was away from the women and children? Janet Reno, in the name of ‘what about the children?’ killed an awful lot of children, and their mothers. Lots of them. Lots and lots and lots of children died b/c Janet Reno is one freakishly unbalanced, violent woman.
In Miami, on her watch- she let drug dealers go with plea deals. Miami was violent b/c she didn’t prosecute anyone. The death-rate dropped pretty much the day they elected someone else prosecutor. She sent a SWAT team to invade a man’s house to enforce a child deportation order. She hasn’t sent any SWAT teams out to enforce deportation orders on grownups, or even enforce shipping violent criminals back to their home country. Nope- her thing is point guns at children, and point tanks at oddball religious groups full of women and children.
The marines in Fallujah were more solicitous of iraqis trying to kill them, than Janet Reno was towards people who lived down the road from me. Tanks! Tanks turned on Americans!!!!
I was raised fundamentalist. and I left, by using the skills and logic I’d been blessed with, and trained in. We attend a Lutheran church. My children are being raised Lutheran. And frankly, what they are doing now gives me the creeps. They vote- they have close votes- and tell pastors to fall into line whether they like it or not. Baptists don’t do that.
I just read a biography review where they say “yep, the bishop decided to do this over the objection of the entire church.” that’s freaking creepy. It’s something from the late seventies/ early eighties…but still, it bugs me. It’s not something I’m used to, being ruled from on high, and told to sit down, shut up and quit rocking the boat. My children are lovely and remarkable people, they are part of it all, but my husband and I are unnerved by it, on a pretty regular basis. It’s gotten more pronounced, too. I keep thinking the lunatics running the asylum will change.
And: my husband raised fundamentalist. Different flavor. What he thinks is “obvious and true” is nearly completely opposite of what I was raised to considere “obvious and true.” There is not a fundamentalist church in America. There are churches that agree, or talk on certain points, or join up together, or pastors attend the same seminaries, but there can’t be a conspiracy, b/c they are all differing in their interpretation.
Fundamentalists believe in freedom, and personal responsibility b/c that’s what the Bible talks about, over and over and over. It’s not Plato’s bag- he’s in favor of slaves. It’s not the Democrat’s thing- they like state dependent serfs. It’s not liberal Christian’s things- they talk about submitting the church to Marx ( I thought this was a joke, until I found heavy-weight textbooks saying just that) It’s not Islam’s thing- Islam means submission. I’m thinking freedom is a Jewish thing- b/c serious Christians and Jews are worshipping the same god, and reading the same texts.
Ari, the “scary fundamentalist” is the one who blows himself and your family up at the supermarket. He is the one who misunderstands his scripture and misrepresents Gods word to any and all. He is the one who does not consider the necessary consequences of his teachings or behavior. He is the one who will not believe or argue logically and/or scripturally. He is the one who does not understand that conversion requires the commitment of heart, mind, soul and strength and thus cannot be coerced. He is the one who confuses the Social Contract with the Scriptural Covenant.
But accepting that “research based bla bla bla” means that you’ve made the affirmative choice to reject other scientific research that says it isn’t so.
Science isn’t that simple. No cookie for you.
This.
One does not accept science. One is skeptical of science. That is the foundation of science: skepticism. All science is to be questioned, because only by constantly reviewing it and testing it can we prove its validity.
Too many people treat science like a religion. It is exactly the opposite. Religion is acceptance. Science is skepticism.
It is this misunderstanding that causes all the problems. It is this “acceptance” which allows the pseudo-science to thrive. Science becomes the new religion. It is not to be questioned, but just accepted as “scientific fact”… because its High Priests have spoken.
The Leftist liars corrupt everything they touch. Everything.
…accept the reseach-based conclusions of many scientists that human-caused climate change is a reality…
You’ve accepted the politically-based conclusions of the IPCC as incontrovertible gospel. You chant IPCC mantras and accept IPCC computer projections – not measurements, but projections – as ‘settled science’. You’re a convert, not a seeker, and your goal is a heaven in which your IPCC priesthood will justly rule the world with immense political and taxing powers, to guide the rest of us to thermal salvation.
Your’re as gullible as Jimmy Jones’s congregation down in Guyana.
“Your’re as gullible as Jimmy Jones’s congregation down in Guyana.”
which was a marxist ‘temple’.. and Jim Jones was a Democrat
has to be said
Lumping Christian fundamentalists with the Islamic variety is simpleminded, dishonest and hateful.
Yes, agreed. I must have missed the part of the thesis where Mr. Rubin compared Jesus to mohammed.
It’s usually the person who is not “here” and not privy to daily experiences that makes such a remakedly inaccurate statement about “fundamentalist Christians” who, by their very nature, do not seek to “impose” ANYTHING on anyone else . . . salvation come of faith (in Jesus Christ) and is for the individual . . . “imposing” belief systems on anyone will result in NOTHING of any value . . . most “fundementalist Christians” know that only organic behavior that come spontaneously from the guidance of the Holy Spirit from within is of any value as well . . . now we all might wish to educate others as to what is most valuable to society in terms of behavior and flagrantly criminal behavior is unwelcome in any reasonable society, but to ascribe the totalitarian impulses of a dictatorial nature to “fundamentalist Christians” is as ignorant and niece as they come . . .
Bless your little heart, Golda! You only support the false notion of anthropocentric climate change because you ignore the facts and choose to accept the proven fallacies of the One World pseudo-scientists; eg., the wonderful Al Gore, who “invented the internet”.
Truth, both moral and scientific, is ultimately self-evident, and only requires imposition by force when lies are imposed by force. Forced truth, like human-caused climate change, is a sign that scientific research has been corrupted, and that lies are at work.
http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2012/01/31/the-coming-of-the-new-ice-age-end-of-the-global-warming-era/
“You believe that reality [truth] is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident… I tell you Winston that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind and nowhere else; not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes and in any case soon perishes; only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be truth is truth… When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science… Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously [the truth and the lie], and accepting both of them… with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth… Even the names of the four ministries by which we are governed exhibits a sort of impudence in their deliberate reversal of the facts; the ministry of peace concerns its self with war; the ministry of truth with lies… These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy; they are deliberate exercises in doublethink… There was truth and there was untruth; and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad… She [Julia] did not feel the abyss opening beneath her feet at the thought of lies becoming truth.” George Orwell – 1984
Golda
Dr. Rubin makes some good points. This kind of totalitarian mentality – that there is one truth, I know it and I want to impose it on you for your own good – is also shared by fundamentalist Christians in America…
Nonsense. Utter nonsense. Church people knock on my door several times a year, wishing to convert me to their religions. I inform them that I am not interested. Do they “impose” on me their views? No, they quietly leave.
One of my grandmothers was a fundamentalist Christian. She regretted that her children and grandchildren had left her faith. She also believed that God would punish her for her children and grandchildren not being members of her church. She would have been overjoyed if her children and grandchildren became members of her church. Even so, she never made membership in her church as a prerequisite for relating to her. We agreed to disagree on religion, and focused our conversations on other issues. My grandmother was a very articulate, perceptive, dynamic person. I consider myself very fortunate to have gotten to know her when I was an adult. She was not totalitarian at all, contrary to what Golda may assume.
Another example of how the “totalitarian” label applied to fundamentalist Christians is a gross distortion of reality is the variety of churches. My grandmother’s town, a fairly typical example of the Bible Belt, has 1000 residents and ten churches. Not one church, but ten churches. If one creed cannot impose its point of view on 1000 people, then how can that creed impose its point of view on 300 million? This is an example of religious freedom, not of totalitarianism.
Golda, you don’t know Jack. That is as polite as I can be.
Golda, have you ever had a conversation with a fundamentalist Christian? I doubt it very much.
Disclaimer: I was an atheist when an adolescent, but have been an agnostic for years.
Golda and the left in general completely wigged out back in the late 70s/early 80s, when evangelical Christians started getting involved in politics. Ever since Pat Robertson ran for president, liberals have been convinced that evangelicals are trying to impose a Christian theocracy on the United States. It’s no longer an opinion based on observation – it’s an accepted article of liberal doctrine. And as Golda demonstrates, it’s trotted out every time someone brings up the negative aspects of Islam. Somehow, they seem to think the existence of Christian theocrats makes the existence of Muslim theocrats OK…or something.
Look, I have a feeling that at no time in the last 2000 years has there been a period where most people were generally respectful of others. That is, I am not one to romanticize the world of old. In fact, I believe that now more than ever is it more likely for individuals to have an outlook on the world that reflects a concept of individual freedom and respect for differences.
And we live in a world with rampant anti-Semitism. I mean, I’m not saying we Jews are great or anything. But if ever there was a people who left other people alone and in general tried to just get on with life, it was the Jews. And there has been consistant anti-Semitism throughout the last 1000 years. While at the same time, governments have been constantly trying to violently control their own people, and through Imperialism, even other people.
I believe it is a simple fact of life–most people have a pathetic tendency to try to control other people. Education in the normal sense doesn’t erase that tendency. Only instilling values of respect for each other does that. And I think that, for lack of a better word, that is what religion is–a set of values.
The fact is, one can interpret Judaism, Christianity, or Islam any way that suits one. And a non-religious person can come up with all the scientific studies one wants to in order to “prove” that one’s value system is superior.
The fact is, only a value system that includes respect and tolerance for other people’s existence (obviously excepting criminal behaviors) is a “religion” worthy of practice. Almost nothing else matters–but if respect and tolerance is absent, then the religion simply has no place in this world.
And I can’t see a reasonable practice of such a religion on a grand scale, anywhere in the world, at any time in the last 2000 years.
“I have a feeling that at no time in the last 2000 years has there been a period where most people were generally respectful of others.”
Try, “at no time in recorded history”.
I’ve just been reading about the wars of the ancient Greeks. Everybody today seems to know about the Persian Wars (Thermopylae, the 300 Spartans [but often overlooking their 6000+ allies, mostly Thebans], Plataea, etc.), but surprisingly modern authors often overlook the Peloponnesian War half-a-century later.
To give the Cliff’s Notes version, the democratic rulers of Athens decided to impose their definition of democracy on the rest of Greece by force. The form practiced at that time in Athens was very “Platonian”, in the sense that those elected had near-absolute power and were very difficult to unseat. (Yes, I do know Plato’s “Republic” came later, around 380 BC, but I suspect he viewed the Athenian government circa 435 BC or so as a model worthy of duplication.)
The Athenians tried to use their army to impose their version of “the way things ought to be” on everyone else. Which generally meant the treatment they gave to Corinth; conquest, followed by the imposition of rule by an oligarch, who was basically a “territorial governor” taking orders from the big bosses in Athens. They of course informed the locals that they were now living in a superior democratic state, and as long as they did as Athens said, they were free.
Just not free to disobey, or even disagree with, their “enlightened thought leaders” in Athens, is all.
When the Athenians got to the Spartans, whom the “enlightened” Athenian rulers regarded as savages living under a dictatorship, they were told by said “savages”, “We don’t care how you run Athens, or even others you have conquered, just leave us alone”.
The Athenians didn’t take the hint, got on their moral high-horse, and tried to conquer Sparta in the name of “enlightened government”. And of course making an example of the Spartans to discourage anybody else from bucking them.
The ensuing full-blown war lasted about three decades (c.435-404 BC), involved both land and sea battles, and finally ended with an alliance of Sparta, a liberated Corinth, and Syracuse beating the Athenian forces’ asses like the proverbial gong.
In the end, on the “what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander” principle, Sparta and her allies imposed a rule of thirty oligarchs (The Thirty Tyrants) on Athens for about a decade, to make sure the house-cleaning was complete. The parallel with Germany and Japan after World War Two is pretty obvious; remember, most of the Allies’ leaders of that generation were students of ancient history, notably Sir Winston Churchill and General (later President of the United States) Dwight D. Eisenhower.
The point here is that the Athenians sought to conquer Greece, a set of city-states who had been their allies against the (dictatorial) Persians only half a century earlier, by force, in the name of bringing their brand of “enlightenment” to everybody else, whether that “everybody else” wanted it or not. And were perfectly willing to abandon the very principles of democracy they claimed to stand for in the service of bringing that “enlightenment”.
Which of course leads to the question, was actual democracy their true goal? Or was it simply a form of “dictatorship of the chosen”, of the type Plato later advocated, with themselves doing the choosing- and choosing themselves as being the only ones “fit to rule”?
I think the Peloponnesian War is very much worthy of further study. Both the Islamists, and our own “enlightened elite’”, are acting very Athenian, these days.
clear ether
eon
Nice outline, eon. Thanks.
The Islamists, Athenians and ‘Progressives’ – and fascists, socialists and communists – are all similar in their beliefs in the possibility of utopia. For them, the ‘key’ to achieving this utopian society is a homogeneous society, following one set of rules, which rules are defined and controlled by one central authority.
To achieve such societal control, there must be both mental and physical coercion. So, all utopian societies are elitist, denying power to the majority and establishing an inviolate Set of Rulers whose authority cannot be challenged or removed. The authority invested in these Rulers is maintained by fear – physical fear, emotional fear, religious fear…
A basic fault line in such utopian infrastructures is that the society so organized is unable to adapt; it has no innate capacity for progress and cannot handle expansion of population, new challenges (disease, natural diasters, new technology, new interactions with others), or modernization. The reason this utopian society cannot change of course, is because it rejects dissent, questions, diversity from the Rule.
Therefore, utopian societies, by definition, are and must be, fictional. That is, they can only exist as such perfect states, within the imaginary realm of ideology. Trying to put them into reality requires so much material, military and authoritarian energy that no regime can last as such, for more than a generation. BUT – as we have seen, the repeated attempts by humans, over the years to install such regimes, seems to be endless. And disastrous, with millions left damaged and dead by these attempts.
By the way, I’d suggest Karl Popper’s ‘The Open Society and its Enemies’ as a good read on the Athenian attempts at utopia (as well as that of Marx and Hegel).
how has your version of eygpt turned out. the democracy you anticipated. it will get a heck of a lot worse .
Democracy will come to Egypt and the Middle East – because, as I said, of the realities of demographics and the requirements of an industrial economy.
But what has to be purged out of the system first, is the old system – of tribalism. What exists now in the ME, are the old tribal systems. This is not simply one Tribe dominant over another tribe – and if you topple that singular tribe then, whoosh, democracy will take over. No. What first must be transformed is the INFRASTRUCTURE of tribalism. This structure operates within a two-class system of Ruler vs Ruled. What is happening now in the ME, is merely a fight by various want-to-be-Rulers to take over the Rulership role. And maintain the old tribal two-class structure. This will pass..but as I also wrote – it isn’t an easy transition and will take more work.
But – I maintain my argument. Democracy as a societal and political system is inevitable in the ME – because of the pressures of demographics and the nature of the economy. Once your population is in the multimillions, then you need an industrial economy. An industrial economy can only operate, functionally, within a THREE class system, ie, one that includes a middle class. The middle class, by definition, is made up of small to medium PRIVATE businesses, ie, capitalism. This class must be politically empowered – which is what democracy does; it empowers a middle class.
So- there’s no choice in the ME. The size of the population requires industrialism; Industrialism rests on a middle class; a middle class rests on a democratic political system. End of argument.
Very interesting post. My take-away was that the Athenians loved their new form of governance to a fault, Unfortunately it was a form of governance that did not respect the right of the minority. Can 51% of the population usurp the rights of any portion of the remaining 49%? Apparently, the Athenians assumed they could. Eon’s comparison with modern liberals seems apt as does Dr. Rubin’s Islamists. All assume the moral supeiority and authority for their beliefs. The Athenians drew their moral authority from Plato, the Islamist from Mohammed, and the liberals from from a mix of Christianity and a covey of 19th century philosophers (primary German). All demand the subordination of the individual to either the majority, Allah, God or the proletariat. Literally, for all of them, the individual be damned.
Eon mentioned the classical education of Churchhill and Eisenhower. Also classically educated, the Founding Fathers were not admirers of Athenian democracy and clearly recognized the threat the majority could have on the rights of the smallest of minorities, the individual. Upmost respect for the rights of the individual, man’s mind and the requirement that man must be free to act upon the product of his mind is what gave these unique men their moral authority.
Note that their moral authority was not directly obtained from religion. Though undoubtedly religious, religion was a personal matter and they passionately felt such personal matters were separate from the affairs of state–which was primarily established for the protection of individual rights.
“Look, I have a feeling that at no time in the last 2000 years has there been a period where most people were generally respectful of others.
Consider the Old West and recall to mind the phrase “An armed society is a polite society”. Now I’m not suggesting that the gun-toting bitter clingers actually respected each other but they also didn’t openly disrespect each other because the reaction could be swift and deadly.
How different would the ME be if the peasants had “the right to bear arms” and could defend themselves against the thugs? The first thing two things any repressive regime does when it gains power is to capture control of the media and confiscate all weapons. They then control the message and the means to resist the message. And, just in case you’re idly curious, that’s why “liberals” hate the Second Amendment.
Because you, blindly, are imposing your own subjective standards on the entire world and your notions are no better than those of anyone else. Gods standard, in the NT, is love of God and love of neighbor. Love, gk, agape, a self-sacrificial, caring commitment for the welfare of the other, is a considerably higher standard than yours. Read Lk.10.25-28 together with IJn.5.3 and see that to love God is to obey Him.This requires much more than you feel is sufficient. So, who is right- you or God?
The translation is no correct. “It should read the god, Allah, also known as Sin, of this world system demands it.”
I believe it is very important for people to understand which god is being written about here. A god Muhammad worshiped, or the G-d Noah, Abraham, and Moses followed.
“Abu Ismail: This is concerning the creed. You don’t force someone to convert to Islam.”
In this statement, I believe Ismail is referring to the dual character of islam as both a “creed” (religion) and a system or ideology of state power and social norms (the shariah state). He’s pointing out that one is not required to practice the creed (i.e. People of the Book should not be forced to convert), but everyone, including non-muslims, must submit to the shariah state, with its covenant of dhimmitiude mandating permanent second class status and various shariah based punishments and limitations, i.e. forced veiling, gender aparteid, death for open apostates (again, the “open” part is crucial – you’re welcome to be an apostate and privately reject the creed, but you must never speak of it as that is a crime against the shariah state). He’s explaining that there’s no compulsion on the “creed” side, but plenty of compulsion on the state/theo-political side.
You are wrong to conflate apostates with infidels. No one is “welcome” to exist as an apostate from islam. The punishment for apostasy is death.
Somehow I don’t think Abu Ismail was accurate when he implied that anyone could leave Islam. Pure taqquiya for the Western ear. The Quran says:
Quran (3:56) – “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”
So good luck with what the Islamic world perceives to be apostasy.
Also:
Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.
Spot on analysis. I think it’s a particularly pervasive and human sin to impose your own version of morality on others – whatever your creed may be.
Come on Ken. You don’t really mean that unless you are a New Age follower of Lucis Trust.
What are we suppose to do as a society when someone rapes a child because they think it is OK? How about smoking crack while driving? Both are laws that imply we have a moral line that can not be crossed.
If you think raping a child is somehow a moral act you are a truly sick person.
I can see you are lost.
When you write keep your morality out of your life, I used an example of someone who thought having sex with a child was OK. It is not. Therefore, we have laws based on morality.
Do you see?
Anything Islamists/Liberals are in favor of must be made mandatory and anything they are against must be banned.
When you can substitute one for the other in a sentence like that you know they ar cut from the same cloth.
Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.
There is only the state…and the state …and the state.
When religion is used as a prop for totalitarianism, God disappears. Forced Sharia and forced atheism are brothers under the skin.
They do not give glory …they steal it. False prophecy is always about the glorification and power of the demented few over the distracted many. First they strip your identity, then they strip your freedom, then they strip your wealth, then they strip your dignity.
“A newspaper is not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, it is also a collective organizer.”
Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, “The Plan For an All-Russia Political Newspaper” (1901)
“Capital is an international force. To vanquish it, an international workers’ alliance, an international workers’ brotherhood, is needed.
We are opposed to national enmity and discord, to national exclusiveness. We are internationalists.”
Lenin, Letter to the Workers and Peasants of the Ukraine (1919)
” Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.”
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
To understand the leftist jihad against capitalism and religion (not just Catholics and Jews, but all Judeo-Christian adherents), one must understand that religion robs the state of fealty. When you “cling to guns, Bible and religion”…you are not surrendering to the state…and that “clinging” is a rebellion that must be put down.
In Sharia, the “there is NO God, and WE replace him” of leftist jihad, is replaced by “there is a God, and ONLY WE speak for Him”.
God is a prop in each instance, to glorify and give power to jihadists. In this way, they hide behind God’s cloak, in order to make war (class war, ethnic war, religious war, gender war, nationality war)…with God not as a human shield, but as a divine one.
God as a prop, God as a puppet to human masters, God on a stick…battered and deep fried is a carnival game, rigged before you begin.
As for leftists pushing “science” in order to steal wealth, it’s all part of the taqqiya “lying trick”…where being a liar is ok…IF…it’s for the “right cause”.
The Himalayan glaciers are NOT melting. And Sen. Inhofe says hello to Al Gore.
“I am particularly pleased that Marc will be releasing his A-Z Climate Reality Check report. This report shows that on virtually every claim – from A-Z – the promoters of man-made climate fears are failing and the global warming movement is suffering a scientific death of a thousand cuts. It categorizes and indexes the full range of climate developments. It includes key facts, peer-reviewed studies and the latest data and developments with links for further reading, on an exhaustive range of man-made global warming claims.
But let’s also remember that even though cap and trade legislation is gone…done…dead, President Obama is going full force in his efforts to pass these destructive regulations through the EPA. And even if we defeat Obama in the 2012 elections, they’re still out there. Moveon.org, George Soros, Michael Moore, and the Hollywood elites are not going to give up – and they’ve got the press and unlimited resources on their side. So it’s not over yet.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/07/inhofe-to-climate-conference-nobodys-listening-any-more/
Radical jihad is a game played by the same rules…using God as the “negative” charge or as a puppet for totalitarianism, is two sides of the same coin.
cfb;
You are one scary dude. However, can I distill some of this into some simple words? My small experience of 71 years of life on this planet boils down to this: “all things man made have an agenda”. This applies to politics and religion.
Not scary to most. Perhaps you misunderstand.
Some of the references are to things with which you may not be familiar. The juxtapositions may therefore, be foreign to you.
1)When someone forces atheism down the throats of those they mean to rule…it is the replacement of religion with statism. The radical left believes that Judeo-Christian religion “clinging” is a threat to the abject fealty they demand. The totalitarianism of the “no God” crowd.
2)When someone forces brutality against “infidels”, women, and conjures up false “teachings” to murder innocents, behead foreigners, and blow up buildings, it is the replacement of religion with the totalitarianism of the iron fist of fascism.
In the comments, the juxtaposition of “science” into the debate, necessarily involves the global warming hoax. A redistribution scheme that steals wealth under a pretext…a lie.
ALL totalitarianism is built on a lie. The “ends justify the means”…”by any means necessary”. For totalitarianists…freedom is the enemy.
That’s why the line in the song, “freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose” resonates with leftist jihadists.
Replace it with “religion is just another word for nothing left to believe”. Or patriotism is just another word for nothing left to support”.
Or, in the case of the global warming hoax…”science is just another word for nothing left to fake”.
“Perhaps you misunderstand.”
The problem is; I DO understand.
Perhaps you think you do…and you really don’t.
But, at 71…it’s probably not likely you would change your mind, so we can leave it at that. Best of luck to you.
jbtx – Smoke another doobie brother! And, oh yea… please don’t vote!
wow~! I’m glad you guys got that out of your systems.
Whatever made you think I disagreed with you? When I said you were a scary dude, I meant that in a friendly way, as if,,, you expressed your ideas accurately and intelligently and drew thought pictures in the sand that needed to be said. Not too many young folks have that ability these days.
Perhaps it was you who misunderstood.
Sorry to be so long in catching up, but I’ve been busy winterizing my boat. You know what I mean, draining old bad gas from the tanks and changing the oil, etc.,,, just trying to keep up appearances until Obama takes it all away from me in 2013.
Really an excellent outline, cfb. Many thanks.
Today’s Islamism and Western Political left – i.e all ism’s- are the two different sides of the same coin. Both sides use the same identical argument to justify their moral and intellectual superiority. In other words they consider themselves God like force whose ultimate goal is to create an utopia or haven on earth by having total control over humanity. The only thing both sides could never understand and can not accept is that individual survival instinct always overcomes any man made rule that constrict human spirit. The fight between individualism and collectivism as old as time itself, and always resulted in bloodshed. No one should expect that would be any different this time around.
Host: You have already begun to try to impose a particular dress code for us.
Abu Ismail: I’ve begun to? It’s the Lord of the Worlds [Allah] who said so. I have nothing to do with it!
The Lord of the Worlds told Mohammed (through the always faithful intermediary, the Angel Gabriel) to tell his women to cover their hair when the enemy came around so said women wouldn’t get stolen.
As a great stealer of women himself, Mohammed had some insight into this phenomenon.
Abu Ismail: For example, when you say “no coercion to join the Military Academy,” it means that you are free to join or not — but if you do join, then you are obliged to wear their uniform, to attend their classes, to attend the training with them, and to obey their leader.
One thing Mohammed got from the Angel that I agree with, that there was no intermediary between the worshiper and Allah.
All of the planet’s imams, ayatollahs, assorted holy men, self-designated leaders & interpreters of Islam for 14 damn centuries can put that in their pipes and smoke it.
Abu Ismail perfectly embodies the dogmatism and rigidity of Islam, clinging to a body of cant like a dog to a bone.
Totalitarianism is the Mother’s Milk of both Islam and the Left.
In the context of this debate, a particularly interesting and seminal book, very relevant to today and this discussion, is Professor J.L. Talmon’s 1965 book, “The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy,” which focuses on the French Revolution and the origins of the ideas behind Fascism and Stalinism, and on how Robespierre and The Committee of Public Safety knew–with absolute certainty–what course the unenlightened masses needed to be forced to take (for their own good, of course), and would let no obstacle or person stand in the way or obstruct their absolutely essential revolutionary “transformation,” that attempted to “force people to be “free” as the Left, Robespierre, and the Committee defined “freedom.”
Seth–
Good call.
For another focused look on a similar theme, try Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff, 1980. It presents the ideas behind Nazi Germany and their similarity to the ideas behind the Welfare State of America.
Dr Rubin put his finger on the core problem. Those with the most conservative understanding of the Faith use their authority as experts and theologians to insist that more lenient interpretations are wrong. But I think Rubin errs when he says:
>> “This is not how Islam has functioned historically, at least in modern history.” <<
That "not" is wrong. Because thatis exactly how Islam has functioned historically. The more liberal and rational interpretations like the mutazilite view which had a run in the 10th century and earlier, have again and again been rejected. Fundamentalists have, in every controversy, in the end prevailed. Because at the core of the Faith is Mohammed's demand that the Koran be understood literally, because it is truly the word of God and no one has the right to edit God. It is not metaphor, it is not open to interpretation. every word must be accepted as it stands, for what it actually says.
The reason for this severity resides in the fact Mohammed justified his third monotheist religion by claiming Judaism and Christianity, the earlier messages from up high, were corrupted by the sages of the Jews and Christians. They monkeyed with what God had relayed to the Jewish and Christian prophets, turning those messages into lies and forgeries and requiring God to speak to the world one last and final time, via his greatest prophet.
In short, to prevent anyone from undermining Islam in the way Mo had invalidated Judaism and Christianity, God ordained that the Koran must be understood without interpretation. Thus it is a fundamentalist faith and all efforts to explain it in more lenient and rational forms have historically failed. The Islamists and Salafists have always prevailed, as they will now.
Islam, unlike Judaism and Christianity, cannot evolve, it has this built in resistance to moderation.
It’s hard for Islam to diss the other faiths when, reportedly, Mo got Old Testament ideas from Medina’s Jews, even paid for their knowledge. (With the wealthy wife Khadija’s money, no doubt.)
Because at the core of the Faith is Mohammed’s demand that the Koran be understood literally…
Was the old boy himself that insistent ? He himself neither read nor wrote and the Koran was (reportedly) only written down some 150-200 years after his death.
It is the idea of the Koran as the immutable word of God that is absolutely the case closed argument Muslims use when any questions at all arise. So convenient to not ever have to indulge in any messy doubt, and, thankfully, there are all those religious leaders around who can instruct the faithful in how to tie their shoes or which toothpaste is islamically pure.
Or who they need to behead this week.
Islamists and Salafists will prevail, the latter decreeing that Shi’ites aren’t real Muslims and are almost as worthless and as worthy of extermination as we infidels.
Dr Rubin put his finger on the core problem. Those with the most conservative understanding of the Faith use their authority as experts and theologians to insist that more lenient interpretations are wrong. But I think Rubin errs when he says:
>> “This is not how Islam has functioned historically, at least in modern history.” <<
That is exactly how Islam has functioned historically. The more liberal and rational interpretations like the mutazilite view which had a run in the 10th century and earlier, have again and again been rejected. Fundamentalists have, in every controversy, in the end prevailed. Because at the core of the Faith is Mohammed's demand that the Koran be understood literally, because it is truly the word of God and no one has the right to edit God. It is not metaphor, it is not open to interpretation. every word must be accepted as it stands, for what it actually says.
The reason for this severity resides in the fact Mohammed justified his third monotheist religion by claiming Judaism and Christianity, the earlier messages from up high, were corrupted by the sages of the Jews and Christians. They monkeyed with what God had relayed to the Jewish and Christian prophets, turning those messages into lies and forgeries and requiring God to speak to the world one last and final time, via his greatest prophet.
In short, to prevent anyone from undermining Islam in the way Mo had invalidated Judaism and Christianity, God ordained that the Koran must be understood without interpretation. Thus it is a fundamentalist faith and all efforts to explain it in more lenient and rational forms have historically failed. The Islamists and Salafists have always prevailed, as they will now.
Islam, unlike Judaism and Christianity, cannot evolve, it has this built in resistance to moderation.
Islam was not always this way. True, the present adherents are very gullible. When Christianity was 1400 years old, it was no model of beneficent behavior either. Real religions do go through some amazing reformations over time.
Islam, as ugly as it is right now, will probably also go through this reformation, or it will die. There will come a point when the coercion will be seen for what it is.
not true – islam has always been this way. some muslims may not have been this way, but the tenants of islam remain unchanged.
Read Barry’s piece carefully and realize that the Koran can (and has) been interpreted in many ways. What you see today is a fundamentalist bunch who are bent on conquest because they think they can.
The West has indeed gone soft, in part thanks to waves of very aggressive leftist thinking. Some Islamic militants think that this means we’re not going to fight them. They’re wrong, for the same reasons that attacking them is not a bright idea.
The reason I say Islam will die is the very same reason that all religions die: They get so inflexible and dogmatic that they can not adapt. This is why we call what the Greeks and Romans believed “Mythology.”
The nations where Islam has taken hold have all gone down hill. The only ones that can hang on are those with significant money, or a military that realizes what will happen if they let the Imams dictate too much. And they’re not doing so well either.
On the other hand, aside of clear defensive actions, fighting Islam is counterproductive in the long run. Like us, they will form a cohesive whole that will be hard to defeat. But if we do nothing, they will fight amongst each other and get nowhere. They are doing this very thing even now.
We do not have to lift a finger. Let them fight each other. Syria is imploding and we can’t stop them from having this lesson. Egypt is imploding. Libya is imploding. When they figure out what the problem is, they’ll be a very different bunch of people. We have done all we can to attempt to tell them what is wrong. They don’t want to hear it. Now all we can do is to step back and let them learn what none but hard-earned experience can teach.
Pass the popcorn. I’m going to watch, while I clean my guns.
Really? Islam has over a billion adherents and is considered by most to be the fastest growing religion, and you think it’s going to die? 1400 yrs old and instead of reforming, it’s actually retrograding to the past “glory days” of the caliphate. I have not read David Goldman’s book “How Civilizations Die: (And Why Islam Is Dying Too)”, and I desperately want to believe him too, but I can’t.
I find myself more in alignment with Walid Phares warnings in his excellent book “The War of Ideas”. When we can’t describe terrorism for what it is, or name Islamo-fascists for what they are, without being shouted down or potentially sued for slander by CAIR; all while the President apologizes in Cairo, disengages from directly confronting jihadists in Afghanistan, and inadvertently (or possibly intentionally as Barry Rubin suggests) supports the MB in Egypt, Libya, and now Syria, then we have lost the “War of Ideas”. Why would Islam reform itself when it’s winning (especialy in liberal/leftist political circles) the intellectual, spiritual, and at times, physical battlefield?
If you like your freedom, I suggest you take a more active role in seeing political Islam “die”. Waiting on it’s natural death or eventual reformation is recipe for future enslavement.
I like to imagine that Khadija, Mohammed’s first wife & financial benefactress, 25 years his senior, would have laughed in her husband’s face if he ever told her the Lord of the Worlds wanted her to slap on a burka.
It was after her death that our Prophet proceeded to acquire a gaggle of additional wives and assorted concubines, totaling around 15 known.
A couple of them Jewish, but he only married the one who had renounced “The Book”. The non-renouncer never rose above the status of concubine.
Thank you! We have all been just sitting around, breathlessly wondering about what you might like to imagine about this or that. Thank you so much for alleviating our ignorance and curiosity!
You’re so welcome, white tiger !
You guys need all the help you can get as to the real life of this idealized individual, Mohammed.
Khadija’s personal wealth enabled the life Mohammed lived. It is hugely ironic that a world plan such as Islam that strongly persecutes women was actually made possible by a woman.
Don’t you think ?
(I think she was only 15 years older, age 40 when they married Mohammed, age 25)
Allah is a pigxfuxcxker and Mohammed is his catamite oink oink oink
F.A. Hayek saw, and what most all his contemporaries missed, was that every step away from the free market and toward government planning represented a compromise of human freedom generally and a step toward a form of dictatorship–and this is true in all times and places. He demonstrated this against every claim that government control was really only a means of increasing social well-being. Hayek said that government planning would make society less liveable, more brutal, more despotic. Socialism in all its forms is contrary to freedom.
Nazism, he wrote, is not different in kind from Communism. Further, he showed that the very forms of government that England and America were supposedly fighting abroad were being enacted at home, if under a different guise. Further steps down this road, he said, can only end in the abolition of effective liberty for everyone.
Capitalism, he wrote, is the only system of economics compatible with human dignity, prosperity, and liberty. To the extent we move away from that system, we empower the worst people in society to manage what they do not understand.
Nazis, Commies, Jihadists… same tyranny, different day.
Have you ever noticed how many Muslim nations are virtually 100% Muslim, with only an underground Christian population, or in some places a very small, very old one (Egypt, Iraq)? This is because Islam, from the very beginning, has murdered everyone who refuses to convert or tries to leave Islam. This is how Muhammed established it. This is what the Koran commands over and over again, verses like the one above notwithstanding. There is no moderate Islam. Islam IS “Islamism”.
Perhaps a system must be designed to constrain the natural tendency to go too far left or too far right. Call it “three strikes”. If society implements policies that correct an ‘ill’, it is a ‘hit’. If a policy makes matters worse (on a whole), it is a ‘strike’. Three of those, and you’re out. Scrap them and start over.
First at bat: Liberals. We could go back to FDR for the first pitch. Was social security a ‘hit’ or a ‘strike’? Today, it is running in the red. Is it a Ponzi scheme? If so, a strike against. Next pitch goes to LBJ. Was The Great Society a ‘hit’ or a ‘strike’? Has poverty been eliminated? Fewer poor? Less crime? If not, a ‘strike’ (two). For Strike Three, I think we should look at the tax system- has it paid for government and does everyone have “skin in the game”? The mere thought of any ‘debt’ suggests a ‘strike’, doesn’t it?
Second at bat: Conservatives. Did Nixon’s war on drugs end or lessen drug use?
Strike one, perhaps? Have two wars in the ME resulted in democracy, cheaper Oil, better relations with Koranians? Strike two, perhaps? Did Mr. Gorbachev tear down ‘this wall’? Hit! Reagan lowers taxes, economy rebounds- strike or hit? Who’s the umpire, again?
See, we should no longer depend on one-eyed umpires, be they Imams or Jeffersonians. Evidence should lead us toward the World Series. Empirical evidence should guide us on the path that knows no bounds. Three strikes and you’re out. If life isn’t a game, I don’t know what is. Without rules, without ‘three strikes’, it can go anywhere and the outcome may be catastrophic. We’ve done this before, WWII comes to mind. It was Jackboots vs Elvis and Elvis won (with the help of James Dean, plow boys and Rosie the Riveter).
WWIII will no doubt be with Koranians and communists who hate liberty as much as they detest humans with breasts and vaginas. And our President comes from Chicago streets where protests high mark his resume. We elect a community organizer when the rest of the world is looking for a ‘freedom fighter’ who’s ass they intend to kick. This isn’t a fight, our guy will roll over on his back because he’s one of them. WTF (win the future)? (ps, “ladies, can I count on ‘ya? I hope you vote for me because I really care… as I just showed you by beating-up Catholics..rolled up my sleeves, got my hands dirty…just for you. I’ve been in this fight against babies for a long time, gals. Are ya with me?”
the israeli palestinian conflict is about the fact that zionism displaced the arabs that had been living there and what is to be done about that. Why bother getting into this other stuff? seriously
Sounds like you need a little enlightenment.
(I won’t hold my breath)
Phyllis Chesler: Gingrich Just Revealed that the Emperor has no Clothes
Well, most african countries didn’t “exist” till they were arbitrarily drawn up by colonialists. The area called Palestine was majority arab for the 18 centuries preceding zionism. The people who lived there, whatever you want to call them, got driven out by people who also wanted to live there. Unless you are a real hard core ideologue I think that’s pretty well accepted history in general.
The point is all this fantastical epic stuff is beside the point, it’s a land dispute.
The people who lived there, whatever you want to call them, got driven out by people who also wanted to live there.Unless you are a real hard core ideologue I think that’s pretty well accepted history in general.
No,it is NOT“pretty well accepted history.” Arab leaders urged Arabs to leave. Arabs commenced leaving Israel/Palestine well before Israel became an independent country in May 1948. Before January 1948 nearly a third of the ~60,000 Arab residents of Haifa had left, well before Independence and the war. [see link]
There is an overwhelming body of evidence from contemporary Arab, Jewish, British, and American sources to prove that, far from seeking to drive the Arabs out of Haifa, the Jewish authorities went to considerable lengths to convince them to stay. …
The Secretary of the Arab League Office in London, Edward Atiyah, wrote in his book, The Arabs:
In his memoirs, Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948?49, also admitted the Arab role in persuading the refugees to leave:
When Arabs left at their urging of their leaders, it is not accurate to state that Zionists “drove them out.” They left anticipating that the Jews would be quickly defeated. Guess what?
I would agree that the descendants of those Arabs who left should be monetarily compensated for their homes that are now in Israel. Similarl, the similar number of Sephardic Jews who left Muslims countries for Israel, and similarly left property behind, should be compensated.
If someone told me to leave my house it’s still my house. and that story has been debunked time and again.
that story has been debunked time and again
DOCUMENT IT.
Gringo- so you believe that the european jews were perfectly willing to share the land with the arabs but all of the arabs left when the other arabs told them too so they forfeited their property? that would be a little too convenient if it even made sense.
Lester: Gringo- so you believe that the european jews were perfectly willing to share the land with the arabs but all of the arabs left when the other arabs told them too so they forfeited their property.
Regarding “forfeiting” their property, you apparently have reading comprehension issues, as I already provided you with my position: I would agree that the descendants of those Arabs who left should be monetarily compensated for their homes that are now in Israel. Compensation: yes. Right of return: no.
I see no need to parse the rest of your incoherent statement.
lester: that story has been debunked time and again
Gringo” DOCUMENT IT. [i.e. document the debunking]
lester: …………………….crickets…..
I believe what can be documented and analyzed. I have provided documentation to support my point of view. You have given no documentation whatsoever to back up your point of view, and have therefore given me no reason whatsoever for me to change my mind.
As you refuse to provide documentation to back up your point of view, it is an utter waste of my time to continue this discussion.
Ciao.
google nakba
If you scroll down Rubin Reports, you find: Why Did the Arabs Suffer “Nakba” (Disaster) in 1948 and Every Day Since? The Surprising View of the Man Who Coined That Term.
I have known three generations of a Palestinian Christian family, which for some years has had many members who have led successful lives as professionals in the US. Before the Six Day War, the patriarch told his children to get out of the West Bank. He informed his children that Muslims would always be promoted over Christians. This was based on his experience in the Jordanian civil service.
Payaso sos, lester.
the fact still is the palestinians want it and the demographics are on their side. The article was just gloating over the “victory” of 1948.
Hi there, just became aware of your blog through Google, and found that it’s truly informative. I am going to watch out for brussels. I’ll be grateful if you continue this in future. Lots of people will be benefited from your writing. Cheers!
I love it whenever people come together and share ideas. Great website, stick with it!
My spouse and i felt really contented Emmanuel could finish up his inquiry through your precious recommendations he gained using your web site. It’s not at all simplistic to just always be giving out tactics men and women may have been trying to sell. So we recognize we have the writer to give thanks to for that. Those illustrations you made, the easy site navigation, the friendships your site make it possible to foster it’s got many amazing, and it’s aiding our son and us recognize that the subject is satisfying, which is exceedingly fundamental. Thanks for the whole lot!
It is a clear truth what you have written here! If everybody could write the same way like you guys than the internet would exist without lies and rumors! WARNING! Only the certified content here! Beware of fake!!