.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Visit Freedom's Zone Donate To Project Valour

Saturday, August 26, 2006

A Little Bit Of History

Updated at end.

The Life Of The Parties, by A. James Reichley, is an interesting and timely read for several different reasons, although the book was published in 1992. I quote from Chapter 7, "Machine Politics" (the following is taken from a section discussing politics of the early 20th century):
What accounted for this continued Republican hegemony in most of New England, much of New York, Pennsylvania, and the old Northwest, and almost all of the newer states of the Great Plains?

There was, first of all, the enduring legacy of the Civil War. Memories of shared hardships and a common sense of national purpose during the war produced among Union veterans a sense of fraternity, often identified with the Republican party. Many Republican leaders had been Union gnerals, including Hayes, Garfield, Schurz, Logan, Benjamin Harrison, Ben Butler, and of course Grant.
...
The Democrats had let the nation down during its hour of trial, Republican publicists insisted, and did not deserve the trust of those who had answered their country's call. As Oliver Morton put it: "While it may be true that not every Democrat is a traitor, every traitor is a Democrat."
Something to think about, because I think it is quite possible that Lieberman will not win in Connecticut. It's clear that the core Democratic belief is that Syria, Iran and North Korea, and the terror they fund, present much less of a genuine threat to the American people than those who would combat it. Because of the accidents of history, this is resulting in the Euro-wing of the Democrats becoming the anti-Israel party. See Photon Courier's post. How can Democrats and Eurocrats insist that we should negotiate with a country that insists that an entire country should be wiped off the map? How can Democrats and Eurocrats insist that we should negotiate with leaders, who when among friends, insist that the people who founded it must be wiped off the globe?

The end result is that all debate about real moral questions is being suppressed in the Democratic party, while it remains strong and healthy among the Independents and Conservatives (see The Pondering American on Tancredo for an example).

This is what the Democrats want to negotiate with (read the entire MEMRI report):
1. Guardian Council Secretary Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati [9]

The Iranian Students' News Agency (ISNA) recently quoted Guardian Council Secretary Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati as saying: "If there is a regime known as an 'Islamic regime,' we owe it to the shahids [martyrs]. Without the shahids, our dear youths with the living Islamic spirit would not have remained [alive]. Everything we have is thanks to the shahids..."
...
Jannati also discussed the spirituality that evolved in the soul of the Imam, i.e. Ayatollah Khomenei, saying: "Were it not for Imam Khomenei, there would be no shahada on the battlefield. The Imam [Khomenei] came, extolled shahada, and opened the gates of Paradise, and our young people ran towards this gate with love. The entire world, even the non-Islamic world, is indebted to the shahids. These programs revive us, and cause the blood of love and of Islam to flow within us. It is like a man hungry, thirsty, and dying suddenly given food; he is infused with a new spirit, and he becomes alive. The spirit of man requires sustenance, and if sustenance is not forthcoming, it will die. This [shahada] is a kind of such nourishment."
Seriously, the nation is being confronted with a moral test. There is a cohesive, coherent and imperialist ideology which is our unalterable enemy; anywhere it gains sway it destroys.

Update: Dr. Sanity has another excellent post which touches on the same thing from another angle. She begins by quoting Shrinkwrapped and then writing:
The appropriation of Freud by the left to justify its marxist victimhood scam has always irritated me. Think about it.

When marxists began to realize that their ideology was completely unsatisfactory in creating wealth; or promoting human happiness, they turned their frustration toward the hapless proletariat, who, instead of rising up against their capitalistic oppressors, were busily all trying to be capitalists themselves and improve their standard of living pursuing their own happiness.
The same combination of elitism and anger toward the common people found in Mussolini's Italy is dominating the Marxist-elitists of the Democratic party today, and they respond to our rejection of their philosophy by writing long tomes on the extreme stupidity of the proles of Kansas who refuse to vote for them. Unfortunately for the Democrats, the wisdom of both the proles and history is on their side. This is a chunk of Ciano's diary entry for March 8, 1939:
Meeting of the central corporative committee at the Palazzo Venezia for the adjustment of wages of private and governmental employees on the occassion of the twentieth anniversary of the Fascisit. The Duce was very well satisfied with the provision made, and he told me, "With this we really shorten the distance between social classes. Socialism used to say all equal and all rich. Experience has proved this to be impossible. We say, all equal and all sufficiently poor."
Gaghdad Bob has written beautifully about the spiritual results of such systems here:
Humanism always results in subhumanism, because, among other things, it denies the very free will that defines us as human. Interestingly, both Islam and the left share the common view of seeing man as determined rather than free. One of the impediments to development in the Islamic world is the concept of “fate,” meaning that Allah wills everything on a moment-by-moment basis.

This is radically different from the Judeo-Christian view, which sees God creating the universe but then “standing back,” so to speak, in order to facilitate and encourage freedom.
The dampening of human creativity that accompanies state-controlled systems or theocracies (and I don't see a difference) always results from the denial of freedom. The rage and venom that the elites of such societies target towards freer systems is generated because these unfree societies cannot compete in any way - economically, culturally or spiritually - with societies that allow human freedom. It's worth noting that the elites in such societies don't share in the material poverty of those they govern. Ciano, for example, got very wealthy while everyone else was getting "sufficiently poor". They do suffer from the spiritual poverty of their philosophies, though, and they respond by seeking power and conquest.

Iran today is tremendously similar to Mussolini's Italy. Must Lebanon meet Albania's fate?


Comments:
ISLAM IS THE RELIGION OF ABRAHAM, MOSES, JESUS AND MUHAMMAD (PEACE BE UPON THEM ALL). WAKE UP FEAR THE GOD OF ISRAEL AND THE UNIVERSE. AS A WESTENER THE RATE OF ISLAMS INFLUENCE IS SKY ROCKETING ESPECIALLY IN EUROPE. SO STOP BURYING YOUR HEADS IN THE SAND (no pun intended) LIKE OSTRICHES.

Visit the following websites for further information on ISLAM.

http://www.islamicity.com/Mosque/Muhammad_Bible.HTM
(MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE)
http://bible.islamicweb.com/
http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,31200-galloway_060806,00.html
http://ifamericansknew.com/
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MB_BQS/default.htm (Quran and Science)
http://www.harunyahya.com/
http://www.barnabas.net/
http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac.htm
http://www.islamicity.com/
http://www.islamonline.net/english/index.shtml
http://www.islamalways.com/
 
You realy got a live one here...

Islam is NOT the religion of Jesus. Let's be clear on that.

Myself, I don't think Islam is a religion, so much as a political ideology, as was(is) various strains of socialism.

As a friend of mine elegantly put it: "Another Jerk-Off for Allah..."
 
Good Ole Charlie -

Islam is both a religion (for some people) and a political ideology for some.

As a political ideology, it is a frenzy of destruction. As a personal religion, it is not.
 
Adji- I have read the Koran and have had very dear friends who are Muslim. There are Christian groups (very small) who have evolved a Christianist philosophy that allows them to kill everyone in their path. Jonestown is an example. Christians strive to eliminate and distinguish such teachings because they are so malign.

There is an Islamic political variant (very large) that has evolved a philosophy that allows them to kill everyone in their path, including Muslims. It is a death cult that is currently destroying Lebanon. The two forms must not be confused.

As it stands, the malignant form of Islam is at war with the precepts of the other type of Islam and the entire world, and it is not clear at all which type will win in various countries, since it is a cult which demands the destruction of all people of good and independent consciences. The malignant form may well win in Europe, in which case Europe will meet the fate of Lebanon.

The Islam gaining in the world today is absolutely not the religion of Jesus or Abraham. It is a cult of destruction, death and furious weakness. It is going to destroy every country it can and every person it can. It is Jonestown writ large across the history of the world.
 
As a second class citizen in America, aka a male, why should Sharia law scare me?
I'm already enslaved by divorce courts and family law courts. Why should I give a rip about Islam?

I've been taught since I was a child that the fact that I was a male made me an evil son of bitch and I was personally to blame for all bad things that happened.

Why should I care to fight and die for this treatment?

So, I'm not shedding many tears or getting to worried about what is going on with the Islamics. Perhaps they are evil? So what? I'm already living with the evil from within. Big whoop.
 
Great post. By the way, I couldnt notify you by email(I didnt see one) but added you on my blogroll today
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?