Saturday, May 20, 2006
A Little Bit Of Perspective
1) The US offers more religious freedom to Muslims than Turkey.
2) France is coming under fire (from outside the country, because burning cars are an ever-present sight on French streets) for its attempt to reform immigration. There is a new bill pending which would restrict immigration to highly qualified immigrants:
It requires immigrants from outside the EU to sign a contract agreeing to learn French and to respect the principles of the French Republic, and makes it more difficult for them to bring their families over to join them.3) Saddam Hussein's government used torture and murder to help a minority group control Iraq for three decades, but the US papers do not inform the public of that fact. You won't have heard about this book:
"Our policy is simple: More rights for Malians whose situation is in order and fewer Malians in an illegal situation. No nation with a state of law can fault us for that policy," he said after meeting Malian Prime Minister Ousmane Issoufi Maiga.
The French bill has also attracted controversy in France. Socialist MP Serge Blisko said it amounted to "the organised pillaging of brains", and the French anti-racism organisation SOS Racisme has called it "dangerous".
Sasson says many newspapers and networks (Fox was one exception) declined to interview Mayada when she visited the United States. The French refused to publish the book, in which Mayada speaks briefly of her appreciation for President George W. Bush and the liberation of Iraq.4) You've just got to read this post at Dust My Broom and follow all the links. Chavez of Venezuela has just about succeeded in silencing his internal critics and is now moving to silence his external critics. Red Ken of London has picked up the baton and is carrying the battle onto foreign soil. From a long post at Publius Pundit by Aleksander Boyd:
Perhaps it helps to have been kidnapped by government thugs, separated from one's children, thrown behind bars, beaten, shocked, half-starved - and kept awake every night by the screams of other tortured innocents - to appreciate a war that few support three years later.
Well folks it seems that since Hugo Chavez’s officials can’t get to me, given that I live in a full fledged democracy where freedom of expression truly exists, Ken Livingstone, his ’social democrat’ comrade in London, has taken issue directly with me stating “Aleksander Boyd is a supporter of terrorism against Venezuelan democracy” (sic) [remarks start around minute 16]. Mayor Livingstone went further yesterday and read to London’s assemblymen from some articles written and posted by me in this website, where I argued that once all democratic tools had been sequestered by a criminal State the only recourse left to regain the lost liberties was violence.The Marxists of the west are aimed at destroying the countries in which they live. To this end they bend all of their efforts, and there is absolutely no person prepared to act against the west that they will not embrace. There is no lie they will not tell. There is no vicious act or murder they will not feel is justified.
it was my comrade the Mayor of London, who, in keeping with his democratic foreign policy agenda, invited an Islamic fundamentalist who openly called for the execution of gay men and implementation of barbaric practices upon women in London’s City Hall.
Certainly I did not expect this, but as someone aptly put it the other day, one should never underestimate the militancy of the radical left. Bloggers are indeed a menace, whether in Iran, China, Venezuela, Cuba or London. What’s next; a lawsuit? Deportation to Venezuela? Stay tuned.
And these are the people running our schools. See this post, and see TheFire.org, especially regarding disposition theory in education schools in American universities. There is an organized attempt in the west to destroy the legal foundations of our societies, and to block it all we need do is defend our right to rebut the lies that they tell. It's quite an uphill battle.
I think this passage from Aldous Huxley is interesting:
"The Marxist calls himself scientific and to this claim the Fascist adds another: he is the poet--the scientific poet--of a new mythology. Both are justified in their pretensions; for each applies to human situations the procedures which have proved effective in the laboratory and the ivory tower. They simplify, they abstract, they eliminate all that, for their purposes, is irrelevant and ignore whatever they choose to regard an inessential; they impose a style, they compel the facts to verify a favorite hypothesis, they consign to the waste paper basket all that, to their mind, falls short of perfection...the dream of Order begets tyranny, the dream of Beauty, monsters and violence."
Although they draw on both historical precedents, I think today's leftists are probably closer to the Fascist than the Marxist model.
This is quite in opposition to the monotheistic theory of law which has as its ideal the imposition of externally absolute rules governing all individuals equally. The worldview of monotheism involves an external reality (G_d) with which all individuals are involved, impacted and interact in the same way.
When people write that our law is Judeo-Christian at its roots, that is what they mean and it absolutely true to that extent. The pagan worldview of gods was that a particular people's relationship to a particular god would change their interaction with the world based on the god's or gods' powers.
I don't disagree with your identification of modern leftism with fascism. The Fascist movements grew out of the socialist movements in Europe, and contained the same essential doctrine, which is, after all, only the old tribalism under a different cover.
So substitute "Aryans" for "proletariat", and it is a difficult endeavor to distinguish the essential tenets of German fascism from those of Leninism. Substitute "Italians" for "workers", and you encounter the same difficulty in distinguishing the tenets of Italian fascism from those of Leninism.
It's no accident that Mussolini was originally an ardent socialist. Both Mussolini and Hitler ended up disagreeing with socialism's internationalism. Their idea was to substitute a state representing a people as the central ideal. In Hitler's case, he confounded a cultural people with an ethnic group as well, and defined the state as representing only those who belonged to both.
Interestingly, Islam has developed in both directions at the same time, and now contains both worldviews in a badly integrated synthesis.
Links to this post: