Infidel Blogger's Alliance, your globalist, open border, neo-con, and yes – multicultural – ways have failed! As a contributor, I therefore beg you to change the IBA Declaration of Principles. On the upper right of the permanent IBA page we see the following words:
THE PARALLEL GOVERNMENT
OF THE ENTIRE WORLD
All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same inalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.
By postulating universal values, you ignore the importance of cultural diversity. You claim that every person in the world holds the same values and only bad governments holds them back. You sound like a multiculturalist as you tell us that all cultures believe in the same values deep down. If that were true, every Muslim who immigrated to the West would embrace the love of liberty everyone, apparently, wants.
How are those open borders based on universality workin’ out for ya?
Your globalist values back our “everyone is an American deep down” foreign policy. With this ideal we have sunk blood and treasure in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan. “Regime change” for democracy in the Muslim world proves the importance of cultural diversity. Thirty years of imposed tolerance in Egypt and it is primed for fundamentalism.
How is that “breaking skulls” to make Muslim nations leftist workin’ out for ya?
Expensive regime change is bankrupting our nation. And when the West goes broke, “human rights” and the universals you believe in will die. China nor the Organization of Islam Conference will protect them. Why are we quoting the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights anyway? To protect “human rights” we have to protect the West with border laws based on our selfish needs.
How is that membership in the U.N. workin’ out for ya?
Rather than universals, the West must embrace its cultural uniqueness. The easiest way to defeat multicultural globalists is to spread ideas that convey the opposite: “Culturism” and “Culturist.” So here is our new Masthead. Vote or contribute now!!
PROTECT THE WEST!
The West has a special vision and a right to protect it. We are not an Islamic nation; we are not a world nation; ours is a Judeo-Christian-Enlightenment nation. Embracing culturism, every non-Western nation from China to Mexico to Saudi Arabia acknowledges their traditional majority culture and designs their border laws accordingly. We too have a right to be culturist.
49 comments:
Brother you insult me.
You'll find no globalists here.
No one here calls for open borders but we do suggest an overhaul of the immigration system.
NO ONE here is a supporter of the Useless Nitwits.
No one here supported our intervention in Libya. Quite the opposite.
As for Iraq, that began before IBA existed. And now you may get your way when all troops are pulled out by then end of the year. Let's see how that works out for you then.
And Afghanistan. What, we should have left the Taliban unfettered access? Our mistake in Afghanistan is not allowing our military to fight the way they can. But no, instead we try to be nice about it and now an alliance forms between the Afghans and our "friends" the Paks. When maybe what we should have done was nuke the pukes.
I don't think anyone here has ever said all CULTURES believe in the same values deep down. But what our statement says is all people are born with the same rights, not values.
Mssrs. Jefferson, Adams, Franklin et al seemed to believe that way as well. I'll take my lot with those guys.
As for you, you TEL us ou new masthead is:
PROTECT THE WEST!
The West has a special vision and a right to protect it. We are not an Islamic nation; we are not a world nation; ours is a Judeo-Christian-Enlightenment nation. Embracing CULTURISM, every non-Western nation from China to Mexico to Saudi Arabia acknowledges their traditional majority CULTURE and designs their border laws accordingly. We too have a right to be CULTURIST.
To which I ask:
What's up, John? Book sales down?
Which I guess means you can put my vote down in the NO column.
Mexico is a non-Western nation?
Clarification on that, please.
Clearly, Islamic nations object to the UN's Declaration of Universal Rights:
The governments of Sudan, Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia have criticized the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for its perceived failure to take into the account the cultural and religious context of Islamic countries because they claimed their governments were based on the Sharia. In 1982, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, said that the UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law. On 30 June 2000, Muslim nations that are members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (now the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) officially resolved to support the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, an alternative document that says people have "freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah"...
Until today, I hadn't read some of the articles of that Declaration for a long time. I don't believe that IBA would go along with all of those articles. Clearly many nations of the world do not adhere to the articles of the Declaration despite many nations' statements that they do.
I vote no, the original is way better.
I can see that you mean well, John, but I've always thought (quietly) that "culturist" sounds more like someone who specializes in making yogurt.
As a Canadian, I too am solidly with the American Founding Fathers.
I also don't think Iraq or Afghanistan was so much about spreading these universal principles as you indicate. It's just that so many people are semi-retarded that that was the only "reason" (among many) that eventually took hold. Blame the fucking MSM and liberalism gone wild for that, dude.
Additionally, in WW2 the rise of Hitler and the Nazis taught humanity that leaving a defeated enemy utterly humiliated and punitively emasculated is very dangerous. The problem is that doing the opposite only works well when you are dealing with semi-rational enemies.
In Iraq and Afganistan we were dealing with MUSLIMS. Islam kills human beings along with their human rights. That doesn't mean we have to go along with it and pretend they never had any in the first place. That would be very wrong.
Actually, come to thinh of it, I would change on small thing.
The last word from "necessary" to "inevitable".
NO
Always On Watch asked,
"Mexico is a non-Western nation?"
Good question. Before purporting to "PROTECT THE WEST!", we should probably define what exactly is and what isn't Western in the first place.
In Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations, he divides the world up into nine distinct civilizations, Western, Latin American, African, Islamic, Sinic, Hindu, Orthodox, Buddhist and Japanese. Huntington's West includes the Catholic and Protestant countries of Western and Central Europe, plus the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. He dates the emergence of Western civilization back to about 700 or 800 AD, roughly to the time of Charlemagne's revival of the western Roman Empire, and the schism between the eastern and western churches.
Personally, I've got two major problems with Huntington's thesis: the geography and the timeline. To me, it makes no sense to divide Europe, Christianity, and the Slavic world in half. That seems like an outdated and artificial division more suited to the Cold War than to the 21st Century, or, indeed, most of European history up to 1945. Huntington also excludes Greece from the West, even though it's almost universally acknowledged as the birthplace of Western civilization.
Historically, I would trace the political, cultural and ideological roots of the West to the Greco-Persian wars of the early 5th Century BC. These wars were the arguably the world's first major clash of civilizations, between West and East, Europe and Asia, rudimentary democracy and tyrannical despotism, freedom and slavery. Greek victory in these wars ensured their independence and the beginnings of a unique European civilization distinct from those in the Middle East. This predates Huntington's alleged birth of the West by more than a thousand years.
Huntington wrote his book in the mid-1990s, so maybe he was overly influenced by the Yugoslav civil wars that were raging at the time, with the Catholic Croats fighting the Orthodox Serbs. I don't believe that there is an Orthodox civilization separate from the West because our similarities far outweigh our differences. Racially we are all mainly fair-skinned Caucasians, i.e. white people, linguistically we all mainly belong to the Indo-European family of languages, religiously we are all mainly Christians, and our common ancestral homeland is Europe. The EU has expanded to include Orthodox Romania, Bulgaria and Cyprus, further blurring the old divisions between Western and Eastern Europe.
So, contra Huntington, I believe that Western civilization dates back 2500 years rather than 1200 years, and that it not only includes Western and Central Europe, the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, but Eastern Europe and Russia as well. I'd like to promote and strengthen Western unity by expanding pan-Western organizations like NATO and the OECD to include all of Eastern Europe and Russia, and push the borders of the EU to Russia's western frontier. The other important Western transnational institution is the G8, which already includes all the major Western nations plus Japan. Only a united West will be able to defend its interests and project power in a world of rapidly rising billion-people-plus behemoths like China, India and the OIC. But the West won't remain a unique civilization of its own unless we put an end to mass non-Western immigration.
The answer to AOW's question is yes, Mexico is a non-Western nation, it's part of the mostly mestizo/mullato Latin American civilization, an offshoot of the European West. Anyway, that's my definition of the West, what's yours?
IMHO If the people are sovereign and the rights of the individual a key component to be the center of effort, you are a western nation
Thus...
Korea
Japan
Western nations.
Israel = Western Nation
Pastorius
Huntington considers Korea part of the Sinic, or Greater Chinese civilization, and Japan to be a distinct civilization of its own. He also considers Israel and Haiti to be unique, one-nation micro-civilizations, ones that don't fit into any of the larger civilizational blocs. Israelis might consider themselves Westerners, but I doubt the Japanese and Koreans do.
Sovereignty of the people and the rights of the individual are Western concepts, first appearing in democratic Athens around the time of the Greco-Persian wars. Yet another reason to date the birth of Western civilization to circa 500 BC in Greece. Now democracy has spread around the world, but the receiving nations have for the most part retained their own cultures. They have become partially Westernized without becoming part of the West.
The problem with using political systems rather than historical cultures to define civilizational boundaries is that a concept like "The West" essentially becomes meaningless. Check out this map from Freedom House, which ranks countries by their levels of freedom and democracy. The nations judged fully free and democratic, or Western in a purely political sense, come from all nine of Huntington's civilizations. So are India, Indonesia, Peru and Botswana truly Western nations? Or are they non-Western nations with Westernized political systems?
And what if the entire world one day democratizes? Will all the ancient civilizational faultlines simply fade away if the entire world becomes "Western"? I seriously doubt it. It's the people of any given nation, not their government, that determine which civilization they fit into. And the people are better defined by long-standing organic developments like their race, religion, language and culture more than their current political ideology.
Was this posted to the right blog?
Someone's reading an IBA that I'm not reading.
I vote NO but Pasto knew I'd say that.
Jeppo,
Very interesting concepts. And, I agree about the 500bc thing. The rest is too deep and off topic for me now.
Anonymous.
Yogurt???? Really???
MR,
Book sales are up!! I have sold one book a month for the last two months. Yes! That is up! I should have made the 99 cent e version years ago.
EVERYONE,
So no one sees the connection between believing our values are universal and our willingness to have indiscriminate border laws?
No one sees a connection between a belief in universal values and our being in the UN?
No one sees a connection between a belief in universals and our endless wars in the Middle East?
Ok. Not one vote. It is typical. And, despite my book sales, I will continue expressing my obviously incoherent rants!!
Thanks for commenting!!
John
You're not dealing with the distinction that MR made:
Universal Rights
vs.
Universal Values
Everyone has the same Rights. The question would be do they have the same commitment to fight for and establish those rights within their part of the world.
The only reason you call them "values" vs. Rights is because you do not agree with us on their origin.
In the case of MR, AOW, and I, we believe they come from God.
Others who post here believe these Rights derive from Natural Law.
Natural rights, also called inalienable rights, are considered to be self-evident and universal. They are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government. Legal rights, such as constitutional rights, common law rights, and statutory rights, are bestowed under a particular political and legal system; they are relative to specific cultures and governments.
It's the same old disagreement you and I always have, CJ.
But, I love you and I love what you do, so please keep doing it.
Re Libya, I supported US intervention with air power to support NATO action. I would not have supported any US troops in-country.
As I've written before, our priority has to be on immigration policy--preventing radical islamists from entry to the USA and legally deporting radical islamists already here.
Everyone has the same rights? Really? Oh, you mean in the fantasy world? Yes. Not here on earth, but in theory. Yes. Absolutely.
Would then fight for them? Well, they don't believe in them even though they are self-evident and universal. But, yes, perhaps they'll take a break from trying to impose Sharia to fight for individual rights.
And, yes, it is reassuring that, ultimately, we are doing it in the name of God. Hallelujah!! That allows me to have belief without evidence. : )
Thank you for loving me despite what an insufferable a-hole I am!! It goes to show that there is something good in Christianity.
By the way, AOL, the jury is out on whether or not Mexico will be fully western. It has had 3 elections in its history. But like Russia, that ain't much of a trend.
But don't sweat it. Voting rights are universal and everyone has them and values them; as in Egypt as in Mexico. Their appearance is inevitable and necessary!!!
Gawd, what a jerk I am!!! I love it. Thanks for your indulgences! - John
Felix why?
Why would you want to keep radical Islamists out? Everyone has voting rights and believes in perpetuating them.
We all think the same universally! Isn't that self-evident to you?? Are you * gasp * different?
Universal rights don't stop at borders, you know?
If you don't believe this, just read the universal statement of rights on the IBA masthead!!!
Jeez, I am in my jerk house element!!
Yes, I know Pastorius, they don't have the same values, but they have the same rights. And that includes the right to be in the US !! It is true!! Damn your local values!!!
Culturist John,
German culture dictated that Jews be murdered en masse.
That's what German culture dictated. That's ok.
The Jews had no right to Life, Liberty or the Pursuit of Happiness, because the Germans did not think they did.
Right? That's ok.
It's not a rhetorical question.
Is it ok?
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said people have the right to be in the USA. I don't even think people have the right to visit the USA.
Keep them out.
Only allow people in the USA after the equivalent of a job interview. If they seem like someone you'd want to hire to do an responsible job, then fine, let them in.
If not, let them die in the country they are from. We are not responsible for them.
That's how it would be if I ran things.
CJ, there is no right to vote in the US. For anyone.
And everyone using the word 'democracy' needs to find a better word for what they mean.
Democracy was a dirty word and in the same vein as Communism up until the 40s or so.
Democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting what's for lunch.
Jeppo,
About Mexico....I see it as a Western nation because the dominant religion is Roman Catholicism.
Now, if one is speaking of race as the determinant qualification for what a Western nation is, then Mexico is a non-Western nation because of the mestizo factor that you mentioned.
Granted, most Western nations are predominantly white by race.
I found THIS of interest (found via Google search):
Is Japan a Western country ?
Halloween Special:
Tokyo International Party
Of course, it all depends on what we call "Western". There are several definitions.
First, the geographical opposition between Europe and Asia, but that alone has turned out to be a too simple definition, as Australia or New Zealand are more East than Asia, but definitely Western. So is it a cultural or ethnic distinction rather purely geographical ?
Secondly, Western used to refer to the Capitalist world during the cold war. The East-West opposition was especially valid for Europe, but on a global point of view, America the NATO countries laid West, while the communist world (not only the USSR, but also China and North Korea) laid East.
Finally (I think), most Europeans consider that a Western country is about the same as an industrialised/developped one.
The 2 latter points, Japan is definitely Western, and I think that's also where most Europeans would place Japan (from the opinions I have heard). Nonetheless, Japanese always stress the opposition between themselves and Westerners (or foreigners in general). They certainly not feel Western, but what if others consider them as such because they have a different definition ?
More at the above link.
And what of the Philippines? Is that Western or not?
You seem to believe that Westernized isn't the same as Western.
But many Westernized nations were not Western until a Western nation conquered them. Take the island of Great Britain before the Normans arrived as an example of what I'm talking about.
The New World colonies were mostly Western "from birth," the indigenous peoples were not. Some of those indigenous peoples never Westernized at all, but most did.
Pastorius,
As for Jews, it is tricky. But, in the West our values - via Socrates and Christ, dictate against murder. The NAZIs violated our ethics.
Should NAZI sorts arise elsewhere, the right for the attacked minority to live will only exist if a) someone believes in it 2) someone enforces it.
The right's theoretical existence would not matter in a nation that did not believe in rights. For much of the world, that was the case until the West evolved the fragile concept of rights.
Also, I STILL CANNOT BELIEVE NO ONE SEES THE CONTRADICTION BETWEEN UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES AND CLOSED BORDERS.
SK,
I think we do have a right to vote, now. I loved your three wolves and a sheep analogy. We are heading towards demogoguery and I don't know how to stop it.
AOW and Jeppo,
Questions of how the West is defined are very interesting. I do not go with the proposition nation. It has no historical content.
The version i VOTE for contains history that includes the Enlightenment and considers the Middle Ages, the Dark Ages. This impacts our view of Mexico. Have they come into the modern world?
I think AOW's inclusion of our being defined by the Japanese view of ourselves is very interesting.
This definition of the West discussion deserves its own post. I wish I had read more about the "proposition nation" debates.
FINALLY, I think the masthead statement is very Neo-Con. If no one sees the connection between universal rights and values declarations and neo-cons, what can I do? And, if folks see the connection and persist in being Neo-Cons, what can I do?
Culturism embraces sovereignty and so is not Neo-Con. At least I am on record with that.
AOW,
Sorry, interruption broke my train of thought. The Middle Ages comment was meant to impact my view of Mexico. In some ways it is not progressive Western.
This is an interesting discussion. I have a dental appointment but will return her when I get back.
CJ, there is no Federal Right to Vote. The states could set up any system they want ie only red-heads can vote or property owners (as it once was, and was better.)
Jesse Jackson Jr. has spoke numerous times on "We need a Federal Right to Vote Law."
No need for it if we have the right.
I think you are on a different plane than am I and I need to set aside time to read and think about what you are saying.
"So no one sees the connection between believing our values are universal and our willingness to have indiscriminate border laws? "
Conflating vastly different things.
Everyone IS born with rights set. Those rights are =. PERIOD.
When a local group for reasons LOCAL TO THAT GROUP decides to make that group exclusive for WHATEVER reasons, then they have that innate ABILITY if they can enforce it among themselves and enforce that exclusivity on others who wish to join.
If a bunch of folks in Bolivia want to head into Ecuador, the rights they are born with have nothing to to wit that.
PS, why are the 10 commandments (and therefore the jews) tricky at all w rgd to what u conceive of as western values? Are they (10 rules) not at the utter ROOT of western values? They would be about 7-900 years before the 2 gay lovers were instrumental (with Sparta's fumbling influence) in dumping the tyranny in Athens.
CJ,
You wrote: As for Jews, it is tricky. But, in the West our values - via Socrates and Christ, dictate against murder. The NAZIs violated our ethics.
Should NAZI sorts arise elsewhere, the right for the attacked minority to live will only exist if a) someone believes in it 2) someone enforces it.
The right's theoretical existence would not matter in a nation that did not believe in rights. For much of the world, that was the case until the West evolved the fragile concept of rights.
My response: So, it's ok to kill you if most everyone around me agrees that you ought to be killed.
And, you would feel no sense of affront at the idea.
Your argument that rights do not exist if the culture does not believe in the rights is like Berkeley's idea that a tree which falls in the forest, with no one to hear, makes no sound.
It is hyper-empirical, and it is irrational. It ends in David Hume's despair, at which point he says, "Let's put down the Philosophy and go drink beer and play pool." But then, Nietzsche picked it up and took it even further, and we got the pleasure of meeting Derrida and Foucault.
That's what you get when you untether your senses from reason. If that's what you want, then you are creating the exact situation which led to the destruction of your people under the Nazis. It was not Christianity which led to the Holocaust, but German Romanticism/Nihilism.
And you say, "at least there is one good thing about Christianity." That is a vacuous statement. There are an awful lot of hospitals out there that were started by Christianity. Apparently, you would dismiss them with a wave of your hand. Your lack of gratitude is reminiscent of those who are currently Occupying Wall Street.
Another thing is I would point out the notion of the laws of God being spread throughout the whole world is a Jewish notion, not a uniquely Christian notion. The "Old Testament" is replete with verses declaring that the God of the Jews will be the God of the entire Earth, calling on the Kings of the Earth to acknowledge his Truth.
IMHO
Ignorance led to the Holocaust.
Ignorance has no religion.
The Holocaust occurred at the first opportunity ancient ignorance and prejudice intersected a modern industrialized state.
The means to carry out the rhetoric of ancient times coexisted in a willing population warped by this ignorance, and a military that made the force it took possible.
If that had been Russia it would have been Eastern Orthodox.
If that had been Egypt, have NO DOUBT it would have been (as we see now) Islam.
Cicero hated the Jews as did Luther.
But neither is responsible for the Holocaust. Only it's background. Neither had the ability or opportunity. The Germans did. That's all there is.
Ignorance. Industry. Military.
Sounds like Iran to me
I forgot to mention that Huntington also considers the English-speaking island nations of the Caribbean and South Pacific to be part of the West. I think he just threw them in at the last minute in order to neatly fit almost all of the world's nations into one of his nine civilizations. But if the cannibal headhunters with bones through their noses in Papua New Guinea are supposedly Westerners, then I'm starting to think that his definition of the West is far too broad.
AOW: My basic premise is that "Western" means "European", or maybe "Greater European". The nations with European majorities are the ones that I would consider Western, except for Argentina and Uruguay, which I think are better classified as part of the mainly mestizo/mulatto Latin American civilization, an offshoot of the West. So even though Mexico and the Philippines (I can't figure out which civilization Huntington assigns the Philippines to) are Catholic nations, they are not European and therefore not Western IMO. They are Westernized, meaning they've absorbed some of our culture, like language, religion, political ideology, etc., but they aren't Western per se.
Most Japanese don't consider themselves Western and I agree with them. Japan is a wealthy First World country with a standard of living as high as that of any Western nation, but they have a completely different history and culture than we do. Just because they're rich doesn't make them Western. Kuwait is rich but it's definitely not Western, while Croatia is relatively poor but part of the West. I think that pre-Norman England was a Western nation, because the Anglo-Saxons were Caucasians, Europeans and Christians speaking an Indo-European language, just like the Normans. It was a case of one group of Westerners conquering another. But it's a good question to ask, just when did these various "barbarian" European peoples become a part of the Greco-Roman-Christian West?
CJ: "This definition of the West discussion deserves its own post." Hey, there's an idea! (hint, hint)
Everyone has heard of "Western Civilization" or "The West", but there is very little agreement on what these terms actually mean. Samuel Huntington was one of the very few prominent people to actually attempt to define the modern borders of the West, and trace its history back to a specific moment in time. I don't know if there's a right or wrong answer to what "The West" actually is, but it's probably a discussion that we should have, especially since we're all in agreement that the West is something worth defending.
Jeppo,
I am glad you threw history in! Thank you. ANd, your imbibing of Huntington is great.
Pastorius,
I get where you are coming from, but no, I do not support a NAZI philosophy. Yes I would feel a sense of affront if the As were killing the Bs. But it would might seem like good old fashioned conquering to the As. And, no, acknowledging that does not make me a relativist NAZI lover.
And, I felt bad for insulting MR!
And, my remark about Christianity was meant to be humorous; it being a religion that could make someone love me was the at least one good thing I was pointing to. It was a bit of self-deprecation.
I have repeatedly, even in this very post, praised our Judeo - Christian roots. Haven't you noticed? I have repeatedly and forever said it is central to the West, which I hold so dear.
By the way, I believe I hold it more dear because it is fragile and earned and not universally always a priori true from the get go, no matter what; not less so.
SO, ARE WE KEEPING OUR NEO-CON STATEMENT OF PURPOSE???? LOL !!! HUMOR FOLKS, HUMOR !!!! HOW ABOUT WE PROPOSE GIVING MORE AID TO THE ARAB SPRING FOLKS??? THEY LOVE DEMOCRACY TOO !!! He he INVITE THEM HERE TO STUDY !! He he. WE ARE ALL THE SAME !!!! he he.
Thanks for the indulgence (pun intended), CJ
Hi CJ,
In your phone msg to me you commented that you did not believe Nazism was the inevitable end of the "Western trajectory".
I agree. Good point.
However, I do think that Nazism, or better yet it's nihilism and murderous insanity, were natural consequences of separating the rational from the empirical. I do think extreme Empiricism leads to Romanticism leads to Nihilism leads to Postmodernist Multiculturalism.
At the same time, I also think that extreme Empiricism is instructive and it is a necessary component of the scientific method. I think Romanticism is what it is; Romantic. I think the Postmodernist critique of culture and reality is instructive, and in many ways true.
I think all these ideas lead to the betterment of Western Civilization if they are seen as descriptive and not prescriptive.
Anyway, I'm tired. I've had a long day. I'll think about it more another time.
John, one of these days we are going to meet in a dark parking lot or alley. But you're going to have to supply the Thunderbird and beer cause I'm a bit strapped these days.
Gawd I love being able to set off a good donneybrook and then get out of the way.
:)
Historically, I would trace the political, cultural and ideological roots of the West to the Greco-Persian wars of the early 5th Century BC. These wars were the arguably the world's first major clash of civilizations, between West and East, Europe and Asia, rudimentary democracy and tyrannical despotism, freedom and slavery. Greek victory in these wars ensured their independence and the beginnings of a unique European civilization distinct from those in the Middle East. This predates Huntington's alleged birth of the West by more than a thousand years.
there were the punic wars later, even the european enemies of rome joined rome.
Pastorius said...
Culturist John,
German culture dictated that Jews be murdered en masse.
That's what German culture dictated. That's ok.
The Jews had no right to Life, Liberty or the Pursuit of Happiness, because the Germans did not think they did.
Right? That's ok.
It's not a rhetorical question.
Is it ok?
Monday, October 24, 2011 2:49:00 AM
that's not culture, that was hitler's politics.
Jeppo,
About Mexico....I see it as a Western nation because the dominant religion is Roman Catholicism.
what about the other south-american countries?
Also, I STILL CANNOT BELIEVE NO ONE SEES THE CONTRADICTION BETWEEN UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES AND CLOSED BORDERS.
she's has inalienable rights, the rights are there but... sharia comes in the way:
Egyptian woman tells of the humiliation of being publicly deflowered on the floor of a bus station on her wedding day.
we have inalienable rights too, but muslims want to put sharia in the way, so...
islam should be quarantined.
Anonymous,
You say, "That's not culture. That was Hitler's politics."
But, if that was so, why did almost all of Europe go along with Hitler, rounding up Jews, and turning them over to the Germans?
Our friend the Avenging Apostate sent me the following comment in an email (and he also said to tell you, sorry, but he will not be able to further comment on this thread):
I see that John (I don't know if I got the name right) has recieved a lot of nagative comments regarding his suggestion. In fact, I don't see that anyone agrees with him. I have to say that I do. To be specific, I agree with his statement about the IBA statement "The Parallel Government Of The Entire World", or at least part of what he has said.
I believe, like most on IBA and the founding fathers of America, that people are born with certain rights that are given to them by God. However, where I agree with John and not with the IBA statement is where it says: "And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary." This sentence seems to be putting the whole blame squarely on the governments for why people are so screwed up in most of the world. Recently, we have seen regime change in three countries (Tunisia, Egypt and Libya). Every single one of them is headed, by popular vote and wish of the people, toward Shariah law. And we all know that Shariah law is anything but about protecting those rights for people.
I say this often to people that I come across: America tries to do a lot of good for the world but more often than not, American intentions are misunderstood. America has tried to bring democracy to the rest of the world, there is no doubt about that if you know anything about the recent history of the world. But the way America and Americans understand democracy is way different than the way, say, Muslims understand it.
In Muslim countries, it is not the elite of the country that force Islam on people, or Shariah on people, it is the people themselves. In my conversation with a Yemeni once, I asked, "So, your president should be able to say who should live and who should die?" His answer was, "Yes, he is my leader and knows best!" (This was about 4 years ago, so way before this crap in Yemen even started).
I believe that it is because of the culture of the people, say, in the Muslim world that would forever bar them from choosing democracy where everyone has equal rights. Take away tyrants from the middle east and people will create a system that ensures tyranny through popular vote (Shariah). Class difference based on religion will always exist because that is part of their culture and accepted as perfectly normal. Blaming the governments for the attitude of the people in these countries will only deviate the attention to something that is not so important. In fact, in my opinion, it is better for the people here to have dictators because the people are incapable of thinking for themselves, and that's not because of lack of education but because of their culture which comes from Islam.
I also happen to believe that the best way for the West to deal with these countries is imperialism (take what you need and that's that)...but I digress.
Roman Empire (if memory serves me correctly) was the first country to give all its citizens equal rights, at least in theory. And that's a Western country. The idea, I think, comes from Greek philosphy (I am not too sure about this, I am just collecting information from memory). What I am getting at with this is that, yes, everyone is BORN with those rights mentioned above BUT it is only the Western culture that has an understanding of what those rights are. Other cultures couldn't give a rat's ass about those rights, whether inalienable or not (I should know, I used to adhere to one of those cultures).
So all I am saying here is that I partly agree with John.
(continued in next comment)
(Avenging Apostate comment continued)
I don't agree with Jeppo though in the part where he associates "Western" with being caucasian. He has said similar things in the past associating race and IQ with, for example, crime. He said something like White population has a higher IQ than black. Now, I am not white. I don't really know what race I belong to because I am a mix of a whole lotta races but when I took the IQ test, I scored amongst the highest 5% in the world (I was offered to join this club thingy but I declined). I don't talk about it or brag about it because IQ does not really prove anyone being smart. What I am saying is that I don't think that being Western (a culture built on logic) has anything to do with being white.
Oh as for whether it is anyone's right to be in the US. I think to even think such a thing would be a joke. Now, you know my situation and I would love nothing more than for me and my wife to be able to live in America (even today when 20% or so people can't even get a decent job) mainly because of the culture and the constitution. There isn't a greater country on earth, there is no doubt about that. However, I do think that no one has the right to visit the US or immigrate there, no fricking way. Only Americans have the right to be there and that's that. People talk about airport checks for security. They hate being searched so much at the airport and also hate what they percieve as profiling and my only answer to that is: If it saves American lives, then they should continue it and do it even more. If I am stopped at an American port and searched for 5 hours or a day or 3 days, I wouldn't mind because I am going to their country and I am from Pakistan, that makes me a suspect. Whether I like it or not, most terrorists come from Pakistan so I have to put up with all of this. And if I don't like being searched at airports, then I shouldn't be going to America.
Finally, any immigrant, in my opinion, should pay a "thank you" tax until he or she becomes a citizen. A "thank you" to all Americans for letting him/her in the country. That's what I think. Or serve in law enforcement or do some other service to the country.
I believe that it is because of the culture of the people, say, in the Muslim world that would forever bar them from choosing democracy where everyone has equal rights. Take away tyrants from the middle east and people will create a system that ensures tyranny through popular vote (Shariah). Class difference based on religion will always exist because that is part of their culture and accepted as perfectly normal. Blaming the governments for the attitude of the people in these countries will only deviate the attention to something that is not so important. In fact, in my opinion, it is better for the people here to have dictators because the people are incapable of thinking for themselves, and that's not because of lack of education but because of their culture which comes from Islam.
muslims are brainwashed at the mosque.
Pastorius said...
Anonymous,
You say, "That's not culture. That was Hitler's politics."
But, if that was so, why did almost all of Europe go along with Hitler, rounding up Jews, and turning them over to the Germans?
Tuesday, October 25, 2011 1:15:00 PM
almost all of europe?
hitler came up in a post first world war with a «left-wing» «right-wing» divide.
*
if it was almost of all europe, americans would have little chance of winning the war, the atomic bomb was about to be completed in germany. but the allies, americans and many europeans, fought hitler.
**
what about the many plots to kill hitler? 30? 40?
You're right. I am guilty of a gross exaggeration.
To be more specific, almost all of Europe was complicit in the death of Jews, in that they (by "they" I mean their leaders) knew of the wholesale murder of Jews and did nothing to stop it. Wouldn't let a ship into their country. Wouldn't lift a hand.
In Nations like Poland, France, Germany, Austria, Italy, etc. leaders were complicit in the outright murder of Jews because they aided and abetted in the rounding up of Jews in order to send them to the camps. In other words, they took action.
The lesson smart Jews have taken from this is that they can not trust any Europeans when their lives are on the line.
I could be a weenie and say, well, maybe a lot of those Europeans would have lifted a finger to help, but their lives were threatened. They were really nice people deep down.
But, I don't give the same excuse to Muslims, so why should I give it to Europeans.
I do think John is making a big mistake if he does not acknowledge that the ideas of Western Civilization did, indeed, lead to these actions. They did not spring up out of nowhere. This blog is based on the idea that ideas will, inevitably turn to action, unless they are thwarted through argument and derision.
If John does not agree with that idea, then he does not agree with us about much here.
But, I do think he does agree with that idea.
So, I would challenge him to answer me, does he really believe that the Holocaust sprang merely out of anti-Semitism, or was there a deeper decadence which gave rise to the wholesale murder of Jews by a good deal of Europe?
Pastorius said...
You're right. I am guilty of a gross exaggeration.
To be more specific, almost all of Europe was complicit in the death of Jews, in that they (by "they" I mean their leaders) knew of the wholesale murder of Jews and did nothing to stop it. Wouldn't let a ship into their country. Wouldn't lift a hand.
dominican republic received refugees.
the united kingdom received 10000 jewish children at a time.
when the west found out what was going on, the pope said «we are all semites»
In Nations like Poland, France, Germany, Austria, Italy, etc. leaders were complicit in the outright murder of Jews because they aided and abetted in the rounding up of Jews in order to send them to the camps. In other words, they took action.
but that was the leaders and colaborators, not the people at large.
The lesson smart Jews have taken from this is that they can not trust any Europeans when their lives are on the line.
I could be a weenie and say, well, maybe a lot of those Europeans would have lifted a finger to help, but their lives were threatened. They were really nice people deep down.
But, I don't give the same excuse to Muslims, so why should I give it to Europeans.
we had foes too, i don't give them any excuse.
I do think John is making a big mistake if he does not acknowledge that the ideas of Western Civilization did, indeed, lead to these actions. They did not spring up out of nowhere. This blog is based on the idea that ideas will, inevitably turn to action, unless they are thwarted through argument and derision.
what ideas?
If John does not agree with that idea, then he does not agree with us about much here.
But, I do think he does agree with that idea.
So, I would challenge him to answer me, does he really believe that the Holocaust sprang merely out of anti-Semitism, or was there a deeper decadence which gave rise to the wholesale murder of Jews by a good deal of Europe?
what decadence?
there were dictatorships in europe, you have no idea.
My point is that the separation and aggrandizement of Empiricism at the expense of Reason, led directly to the Romanticism and Nihilism which brought about the European climate that gave rise to Nazism.
CJ responded to me, saying he doesn't believe that Nazism is the culmination of Western Civilization. And neither do I. I do think, however, that such violence rose out of thought. And, "anti-Semitism" or Jew-hatred was not the only thought necessary to bring about the insane complicity that went on with regard to the Holocaust.
My argument is not with you. It is with John.
But, he seems to have abandoned the discussion he set up.
My argument is not with you. It is with John.
i know :D lol
«Dr. Aristides de Sousa Mendes (1885-1954) who served as Consul General of Portugal in San Francisco, CA from 1921 to 1924, risked everything -- his career, his family, his reputation, his savings, everything -- to save over 30,000 World War II refugees fleeing Nazi-occupied territories, 10,000 of whom Jewish, by providing Portuguese visas as Consul General of Portugal in Bordeaux, France. He, himself a Catholic, said "I would rather stand with God against man, than with man against God."»
http://www.amazon.com/Good-Man-Evil-Times-ebook/product-reviews/B001SN8PIC
Post a Comment