Conservatives are put into awkward positions of critiquing liberal ideas on grounds that they are impractical, unworkable, or counterproductive. Yet rarely, at least outside the religious sphere, do they identify the progressive as often immoral. And the unfortunate result is that they have often ceded moral claims to supposedly dreamy, utopian, and well-meaning progressives, when in fact the latter increasingly have little moral ground to stand upon.
Having pondered that for a bit, its clear that VDS has articulated an insightful and important point. VDS goes into detail, explaining how radical environmentalism, multiculturalism, illegal immigration, and affirmative action make his point. Do read his entire article. This is a suggestion that all on the right should take to heart. It is decades beyond time for the right to stop ceding the moral high ground to those on the left who are merely posing atop it.
They've lost it across the pond I think. Racism is a belief that a person of another race is inherently inferior. So what is "racist" about a 7 year old boy asking a 5 year old boy "are you brown because you come from Africa?" Absolutely nothing of course. But it was enough to get the 7 year old boy a permanent note in his school record branding him a racist. Apparently he now shares that brand with 20,000 other school children under the age of 11 in Britain. This really is multiculturalism taken to its logical - and quite absurd - conclusion. As Prof Reynolds opines at Instapundit: "Britain is overdue for a revolution against such. But then, so are we."
In the video below, a member of CAIR tries to score points on Congressman Allen West regarding the peacefulness of Islam - and gets an earful from West, who happens to be very well schooled on the history and dogma of Islam. Enjoy this bit of red meat.
The fact that we have intellectually honest people in our government, such as Rep. West, and that our Constitution gives them the freedom to express that honesty, give some small measure of hope both for our future and the future direction of Islam. As I wrote here, unless people like Rep. West and people inside the religion of Islam are able to change the current trajectory of Islam, we are all on course for a bloody, existential collision.
In Europe, however, speaking with intellectual honesty about Islam is not merely repressed, it is repressed with the police power of the state. Were Rep. West to have given this same short soliloquy in, say, the Netherlands, he could have well found himself on the wrong side of that nation's interpretation of its 'hate speech' laws, much the same way Dutch politician Geert Wilders has.
Wilders, currently on trial for hate speech, addresses Islam and the European repression of free speech in a WSJ editorial today:
"The lights are going out all over Europe," British Foreign Secretary Edward Grey famously remarked on the eve of World War I. I am reminded of those words whenever I read about Europeans being dragged into court for so-called hate-speech crimes.
Recently, Danish journalist Lars Hedegaard, president of the International Free Press Society, had to stand trial in Copenhagen because he had criticized Islam. Mr. Hedegaard was acquitted, but only on the technicality that he had not known that his words, expressed in a private conversation, were being taped. Last week in Vienna, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, an Austrian human-rights activist, was fined €480 for calling the Islamic prophet Muhammad a pedophile because he had consummated his marriage to a nine-year old girl. Meanwhile, my own trial in Amsterdam is dragging on, consuming valuable time that I would rather spend in parliament representing my million-and-a-half voters.
How can all this be possible in supposedly liberal Europe? . . .
Early in 2008, a number of leftist and Islamic organizations took me to court, claiming that by expressing my views on Islam I had deliberately "insulted" and "incited hatred" against Muslims. I argued then, as I will again in my forthcoming book, that Islam is primarily a totalitarian ideology aiming for world domination.
Last October, my former colleague in the Dutch parliament, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, wrote in these pages of the way in which Islamic organizations abuse our freedoms in order to limit them. "There are," she wrote, "the efforts of countries in the Organization of the Islamic Conference to silence the European debate about Islam," citing their strategy "to pressure international organizations and the European Union to adopt resolutions to punish anyone who engages in 'hate speech' against religion. The bill used to prosecute Mr. Wilders is the national version of what OIC diplomats peddle at the U.N. and EU."
Indeed, in 2008 the EU approved its so-called "Council Framework Decision on combating Racism and Xenophobia," and the EU's 27 nations have since had to incorporate it into their national legislation. The decision orders that "racist or xenophobic behavior must constitute an offence in all Member States and be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties." It defines "racism and xenophobia" so broadly that every statement that an individual might perceive as insulting to a group to which he belongs becomes punishable by law.
The perverse result is that in Europe it is now all but impossible to have a debate about the nature of Islam, or about the effects of immigration of Islam's adherents. Take my own case, for example. My point is that Islam is not so much a religion as it is a totalitarian political ideology disguised as a religion. To avoid misunderstandings, I always emphasize that I am talking about Islam, not about Muslims. I make a clear distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and Islam, recognizing that there are many moderate Muslims. But the political ideology of Islam is not moderate and has global ambitions; the Koran orders Muslims to establish the realm of Allah in this world, if necessary by force.
Stating my views on Islam has brought me to court on charges of "group insult" and incitement to racial hatred. I am being tried for voicing opinions that I—and my constituents—consider to be the truth. I am being tried for challenging the views that the ruling establishment wants to impose on us as the truth. . . .
I should be acquitted. My trial in Amsterdam is not about me, but about freedom of speech in Europe. As Dwight D. Eisenhower, Europe's liberator from Nazism, once warned, freedom "must be daily earned and refreshed—else like a flower cut from its life-giving roots, it will wither and die." Today in Europe, freedom is being neither earned nor refreshed.
George Washington once said, "If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." When it comes to Islam, and particularly Islam in Europe, where Islamic minorities are not merely failing to integrate, but actively undermining traditional society, Washington's quote rings true indeed. The Islamist's are aided and abetted by left-wing governments wholly immersed in the toxic philosophy of multiculturalism. I thank God that our founders had the foresight to craft the First Amendment. While in America, we still might be able to influence the trajectory of Islam because of our rights to free speach, Europe is in a much more precarious state.
This is the text of Geert Wilders opening statement at his trial in the Netherlands for "hate speech" against Muslims. It is a thorough denunciation of multiculturalism, hate speech laws and the suicidal partnership of the Western leftist elite with the Islamists:
The lights are going out all over Europe. All over the continent where our culture flourished and where man created freedom, prosperity and civilization. The foundation of the West is under attack everywhere.
All over Europe the elites are acting as the protectors of an ideology that has been bent on destroying us for fourteen centuries. An ideology that has sprung from the desert and that can produce only deserts because it does not give people freedom. The Islamic Mozart, the Islamic Gerard Reve [a Dutch author], the Islamic Bill Gates; they do not exist because without freedom there is no creativity. The ideology of Islam is especially noted for killing and oppression and can only produce societies that are backward and impoverished. Surprisingly, the elites do not want to hear any criticism of this ideology.
My trial is not an isolated incident. Only fools believe it is. All over Europe multicultural elites are waging total war against their populations. Their goal is to continue the strategy of mass immigration, which will ultimately result in an Islamic Europe — a Europe without freedom: Eurabia.
The lights are going out all over Europe. Anyone who thinks or speaks individually is at risk. Freedom-loving citizens who criticize Islam, or even merely suggest that there is a relationship between Islam and crime or honour killing, must suffer, and are threatened or criminalized. Those who speak the truth are in danger.
The lights are going out allover Europe. Everywhere the Orwellian thought police are at work, on the lookout for thought crimes everywhere, casting the populace back within the confines where it is allowed to think.
This trial is not about me. It is about something much greater. Freedom of speech is not the property of those who happen to belong to the elites of a country. It is an inalienable right, the birthright of our people. For centuries battles have been fought for it, and now it is being sacrificed to please a totalitarian ideology.
Future generations will look back at this trial and wonder who was right. Who defended freedom and who wanted to get rid of it.
The lights are going out all over Europe. Our freedom is being restricted everywhere, so I repeat what I said here last year:
It is not only the privilege, but also the duty of free people — and hence also my duty as a member of the Dutch Parliament — to speak out against any ideology that threatens freedom. Hence it is a right and a duty to speak the truth about the evil ideology that is called Islam. I hope that freedom of speech will emerge triumphant from this trial. I hope not only that I shall be acquitted, but especially that freedom of speech will continue to exist in the Netherlands and in Europe.
PM David Cameron attacked multiculturalism in Britain yesterday. Here are a portion of his remarks.
I applaud his raising this issue. Whether Cameron will be able to follow through and change the hold multiculturalism has on Britain is suspect.
Multiculturalism is a direct outgrowth of marxism. Karl Marx, in the opening lines of the Communist Manifesto, stated that "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles [between the] . . . oppressor and oppressed." And that defines the heart and the soul of the left to this day.
The left throughout Europe and America have taken the Marx paradigm and overlayed it upon society. The left divides society into "oppressed" groups by whatever sets them apart from the "oppressor" class, be it Muslims, women, blacks, gays, etc. The left treats the oppressed groups as entitled to special treatment and to freedom from judgment or criticism. Commonly, any criticism is delegitimized as a "racist" attack and the one speaking the criticism is demonized. The flip side of the left's marxist paradigm is that the "oppressor's" culture and history is demonized. This is, in a nutshell, is what actually defines "multiculturalism." It is and always was a tool to destroy traditional society, allowing it to then be rebuilt into a Marxian worker's paradise.
Britain has been on this multicultural path for decades in fits and starts, with it becoming core British policy under the Labour governments of PM Tony Blair and then PM Gordon Brown. It has, when applied to the triumphalist Islam that is pervasive in Britain's Muslim community, become a virulent toxin.
If Cameron is serious about attacking this cancer, then his task is daunting, for it has metastisized throughout British culture and is ensconced in British law. For just a few examples, see the following:
- a poll of 600 Muslim students attending university in Britain found that 32% of British Muslim students support killing for Islam and that 40% want to see Sharia Law imposed in Britain.
- any person or organization that takes a principled stand against the encroachment of Islam is inevitably demonized in Britain as "far right wing" and racist. Indeed, the treatment given such groups in Britain is even more vicious and pervasive than the treatment by the left of the Tea Party on this side of the pond. One such organization that figures prominently in the news reports below is the English Defense League. As to whether they are "far right wing," here is their website and below are two interviews with the head of the EDL. The EDL does not seem either racist or "far right wing" to me. They are standing up and saying, "no more." And that is driving the left crazy.
In the immediate aftermath of his speech condemning multiculturalism, Cameron was attacked by the left and by Muslims. This from the Guardian:
David Cameron was accused of playing into the hands of rightwing extremists today as he delivered a controversial speech on the failings of multiculturalism within hours of one of the biggest anti-Islam rallies ever staged in Britain.
Muslim and anti-fascist groups questioned the prime minister's judgment and sensitivity to the issues, saying he had handed a propaganda coup to the hard-right English Defence League as 3,000 of its supporters marched through Luton chanting anti-Islamic slogans. . . .
A major row over Islamic extremism erupted last night after Labour accused David Cameron of being a far-Right ‘propagandist’. Sadiq Khan [the Labour Party's Shadow Justice Secretary] made the incendiary remark in response to an outspoken speech by the Prime Minister attacking ‘state multiculturalism’, calling for a stronger British identity and signalling a crackdown on Muslim groups. . . .
Gavin Shuker, the Labour MP for Luton South, questioned why Mr Cameron had given his speech on the same day that 1,500 EDL supporters demonstrated in the town. They were policed by 1,800 officers from 14 forces in an operation costing around £800,000. ‘On the day far-Right extremists descended on Luton, is Mr Cameron unwise to attack one form of extremism when another form is on the streets making people in Luton feel unsafe?’
The Muslim Council of Britain’s Dr Faisal Hanjra said: ‘The Muslim community is very much in the spotlight, being treated as part of the problem as opposed to part of the solution.’ . . .
The last quote, from the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), hints at the problems Britain has with its Muslm population. The MCB is Britain's branch of the radical Muslim Brotherhood, yet they are treated by many in the government and the media as spokesman for the UK's Muslim population.
At any rate, to say again, Cameron's task is daunting. Multiculturalism pervades not merely Britain's culture, but its laws. And it is augmented by permisive immigration rules. Moreover, given that multiculturalism is central to the left's power structure throughout the West, they will fight Cameron tooth and nail to preserve it in substance, if not in name. I hope Cameron succeeds, but I will be very surprised if he does.
From Seraphic Secret: For those who don't know, the majority position among Sunni Muslim clerics is that anyone who gives up the Islamic faith to join another should be put to death. Not so fast, says new Ground Zero Mosque Imam, Abdallah Adhami. They should not be beheaded, merely jailed - I assume until they repent, though this enlightened Imam did not specify. Tell me again, why are we treating purveyors of this Wahhabist screed as equal members of civilization? Actually, in Britain, they are treating the radicals as suprerior to their native population. Do see the horror story below, about multiculturalism gone mad.
[W]ith all this confusion abounding, we do wonder if it isn’t a bit judgmental of the mainstream media to condemn the 18 percent of Americans who say they think Barack Obama is a Muslim. For one thing, this is fewer than the number of Americans who say that intelligent beings from other planets have made contact with humans on Earth. And it has gotten hard even for people of good will to keep things straight.
Bill Kristol at the Weekly Standard weighs in on the question of whether Obama is a closet Muslim? No, of course not. He's a multiculturalist progressive.
Obama’s problem isn’t that people falsely think he’s a Muslim. It’s that the public is correctly concluding he’s a garden-variety multiculturalist progressive. So November’s election won’t just be a repudiation of one non-Muslim president. It will be a repudiation of a multiculturalist progressive worldview—and of the bitter elites who cling desperately to that worldview and are consumed by antipathy to most Americans, who don’t.
Well said.
There has never been any indication that Obama, since adulthood, has been a practicing Muslim. That said, it seems apparent that his time spent in Indonesia where he was living in a heavily Islamic environment has colored his views on Islam. He seems to have extrapolated from from what he observed of the benign form of Islam practiced in the Indonesia of his youth to the Islamic world as a whole. That is an incredibly naive error.
The Shafi'i school of Islam, practiced in Indonesia during Obama's stay there, is not the norm for the Islamic world. More and more the norm is Wahhabi-Salafi Islam, the far more militant, racist, misogynistic ideology at the heart of alQaeda. As I have pointed out countless times on this blog, there is a war going on today for the heart and soul of Islam. It is a war between those who would reform their religion and those who would keep it mired in the backwaters of 7th century Arabian tribalism. Andrew McCarthy makes the same point today at the NRO. Unfortunately for us, our government is not engaging in this war. But that has nothing to do with Obama actually being a Muslim. It has everything to do with the fact that Obama has close experience with a benign form of Islam.
Obama claims to have been converted to Christianity after hearing one of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's polemics, the one that took note of inequities created by "white man's greed." But that polemic seemed to have little or anything to do with Christianity and far more to do with socialism and the left's "social justice" construct.
I do not think Obama is a Muslim. Nor do I think he a Christian. I think he sees his deity every day when he looks in the mirror. Moreover, I think Afrocity hit the nail on the head in her post today, Obama is . . . . a recipe for disaster:
French writer and philosopher Pascal Bruckner has written a fascinating essay at City Journal. His topic is the modern - and dysfunctional - European mindset. It is a mindset that sees its own historic sins as unforgivable while forgiving the sins of (almost) all others. It is a mindset that refuses to acknowledge historical realities and indulges in dangerous fantasy. To give you a snippet from his essay:
. . . There is nothing more insidious than a collective guilt passed down from generation to generation, dyeing a people with a kind of permanent stain. Contrition cannot define a political order. As there is no hereditary transmission of victim status, so there is no transmission of oppressor status. The duty of remembering implies neither the automatic purity nor the automatic corruption of grandchildren and great-grandchildren. History is not divided between sinner nations and angelic ones but between democracies, which recognize their faults, and dictatorships, which drape themselves in the robes of martyrs. We have learned over the last half-century that every state is founded on crime and coercion, including those that have recently appeared on history’s stage. But there are states capable of recognizing this and of looking barbarism in the eye, and there are others that excuse their present misdeeds by citing yesterday’s oppression.
Remember this simple fact: Europe has vanquished its most horrible monsters. Slavery was abolished, colonialism abandoned, fascism defeated, and communism brought to its knees. What other continent can claim more? In the end, the good prevailed over the abominable. Europe is the Holocaust, but it is also the destruction of Nazism; it is the Gulag, but also the fall of the Wall; imperialism, but also decolonization; slavery, but also abolition. In each case, there is a form of violence that is not only left behind but delegitimized, a twofold progress in civilization and in law. At the end of the day, freedom prevailed over oppression, which is why life is better in Europe than on many other continents and why people from the rest of the world are knocking on Europe’s door while Europe wallows in guilt.
Europe no longer believes in evil but only in misunderstandings to be resolved by discussion and dialogue. She no longer has enemies but only partners. If she is nice to extremists, she thinks, they will be nice to her, and she will be able to disarm their aggressiveness and soften them up. Europe no longer likes History, for History is a nightmare, a minefield from which she escaped at great cost, first in 1945 and then again in 1989. And since History goes on without us, and everywhere emergent nations are recovering their dignity, their power, and their aggressiveness, Europe leaves it to the Americans to be in charge, while reserving the right to criticize them violently when they go astray. It is notable that Europe is the only region in the world where military budgets go down every year; we have no armies that would be able to defend our frontiers if we were so unlucky as to be attacked; after the Haitian crisis, Brussels could not dispatch even a few thousand men to help disaster victims. We are well equipped to calibrate the size of bananas or the composition of cheeses, but not to create a military force worthy of the name. . . .
Mssr. Buckner draws numerous contrasts with America, such as, for example:
[Europe] has a history, whereas America is still making history, animated by an eschatological tension toward the future. If the latter sometimes makes major mistakes, the former makes none because it attempts nothing. For Europe, prudence no longer consists in the art, defended by the ancients, of finding one’s way within an uncertain story. We hate America because she makes a difference. We prefer Europe because she is not a threat. Our repulsion represents a kind of homage, and our sympathy a kind of contempt.
I would add two thoughts to Mssr. Bruckner's essay. One, though he never mentions the word "multiculturalism," that is precisely what he is describing. It is deeply dysfunctional philosophy that will prove suicidal to Europe if allowed to follow its logical course.
Two, Mssr. Bruckner ignores the contribution of Karl Marx's philosophy to the development of the European mindset. Marx posited that all events should be viewed through the lens of oppressor and oppressed. It is a deeply distorting philophy that is at the heart of the European mindset. I explain this in more detail when writing on virtually the same topic in the essay, "Thoughts on Britain, Colonialism and Multiculturalism." I think it an important point to make as, if this scourge is ever to be vanquished from the national psyche of Europe, then one must understand the origins of the disease.
It is also of note that the dysfunctional mindset described by Mr. Bruckner precisely describes the mindset of the left wing intelligentsia in the U.S., a point made by Victor Davis Hanson in his latest offering at PJM:
. . . This is the most tolerant society in the world, the most multiracial and richest in religious diversity — and the most critical of its exceptional tolerance and the most lax in pointing out the intolerance of the least diverse and liberal.
It is market capitalism, unfettered meritocracy, and individual initiative within a free society that create the wealth for Al Gore to live in Montecito (indeed to create a Montecito in the first place), or for Michelle to jet to Marbella, or for John Kerry to buy a $7 million yacht. We know that, but our failure to occasionally express such a truth, coupled with a constant race/class/gender critique of American society, results in an insidious demoralization among the educated and bewilderment among the half- and uneducated.
In short, the great enigma of our postmodern age is how American society grew so wealthy and free to create so many residents that became so angry at the conditions that have made them so privileged — and how so many millions abroad fled the intolerance and poverty of their home country, and yet on arrival almost magically romanticize the very conditions in the abstract that they would never live under again in the concrete.
A final thought: given what we know of collectivism now and in the past, government in places like Mexico or Syria, multiculturalism in nations as diverse as the Balkans and central Africa, and the role of religion in most locales of the Middle East, how exactly could critics of the U.S. gain the security to protest, the capital to travel, and the freedom to criticize should the system that they find so lacking erode or even disappear?
Indeed, it would seem that the paradigm of the left is to push America towards Europe in all respects, including philosophical. All of the West can be thankful that, as of yet, our left has not been wholly successful in this endeavor.
Is this a surprise to anyone? If Obama has a choice between supporting America's best interests or those of an entity opposed to America's freedoms and values, Obama chooses the latter every time.
And so it was yesterday, when at a White House dinner to commemorate the start of the Muslim Holy month of Ramadan, Obama pleased Muslim Brotherhood folks and the CAIR types by announcing his support for a Muslim victory mosque next to Ground Zero. And he did so in what is now easily identifiable as his own unique rhetorical pattern – create a straw man that misstates his opponents arguments, assume the moral high ground, and then announce that he has identified the greater good. Oh, and of course, prevaricate where necessary and ignore all inconvenient facts.
Obama starts off by calling 9-11 “a deeply traumatic event for our country.” Bull. It was not a “traumatic event.” It was an act of war against America by a subset of Muslims acting to advance the cause of political Islam. It is a war that is ongoing. Perhaps Obama chose his words so carefully in order to avoid having to acknowledge that the spearhead of the Cordoba Project, Imam Rauf, blamed America for bringing this war and the 9-11 attacks upon itself.
Equally outrageously, Obama fails to note the significance of the name Cordoba and its ties to 9-11. Cordoba was the capital city of Andalusia - a portion of Spain once conquered by an Islamic army and ruled as a caliphate for several centuries. Obama ignores that one of the reasons given by alQaeda to justify jihad and the attack on 9-11 was the reconquista - the reconquering of Andalusia by Spanish Christians. Indeed, the “Tragedy of Andalusia” was the first thing mentioned by Osama bin Laden in the videotape released by alQaeda one month after 9-11.
Obama ignores the fact obvious to very many Americans - that this Ground Zero mosque is a "victory mosque" for political Islamists of all shades. If you do not understand the concept of a victory mosque, Raymond Ibrahim, writing at PJM, helpfully explains:
. . . throughout Islam’s history, whenever a region was conquered, one of the first signs of consolidation was/is the erection of a mosque atop the sacred sites of the vanquished: the pagan Ka‘ba temple in Arabia was converted into Islam’s holiest site, the mosque of Mecca; the al-Aqsa Mosque, Islam’s third holiest site, was built atop Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem; the Umayyad Mosque was built atop the Church of St. John the Baptist; and the Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque upon the conquest of Constantinople.
Any doubt that this is a "victory mosque" was dispelled when NY Gov. Patterson offered to find Imam Rauf suitable space elsewhere in New York City for his mosque, away from Ground Zero. Rauf refused.
Obama referred to Ground Zero as “hallowed ground,” then added a “but.” Setting himself apart from those concerned with protecting this “hallowed ground,” he assumed the moral high ground.
I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country.”
That is a straw man of mammoth proportions. No one is suggesting that freedom of religion be curtailed for Muslims. Rather it is Obama's way of sidestepping the valid argument, that building a mosque overlooking Ground Zero would be, in the words of Charles Krauthammer, “sacrilege.” Indeed, building this mosque will do nothing at all to advance the cause of freedom of religion in America. To the contrary, it is, in the words of two Islamic authors, a "deliberate provocation" that will poison it as Americans push back against this obscenity.
Obama also makes the case for allowing the Ground Zero mosque to go forward on the basis of property rights – that Imam Rauf has every right to build a mosque on “private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America.” This is the strongest argument for allowing the Mosque to be built - though we in fact limit the right of owners of private property to build what they want all the time. Regardless, no one expects Obama to do anything more than use the bully pulpit in regard to this issue. But for him to use that bully pulpit to support the Ground Zero mosque is itself an obscenity.
I have to note as an aside that for Obama to make a private property argument is cynical beyond belief. Are we to believe that Obama is now the great defender of property rights? I am sure the senior creditors of GM and Chrysler who were demonized by Obama and strong-armed into giving up their property rights so that Obama could make a massive gift to the UAW will be pleased with his change of heart. Likewise, I am sure that all of the dealerships who lost their livelihood at Obama's direction will take similar comfort.
Back to Obama's justifications. Obama eventually got around in his speech to giving us the most dangerous lie of all.
Al Qaeda’s cause is not Islam -– it’s a gross distortion of Islam.
That is a treasonous lie. The members of alQaeda and its supporters are true believers in all of the toxic dogma of Wahhabi / Salafi Islam emanating out of Saudi Arabia. It is a toxin infecting virtually all other forms of Islam today as it speeds around the world on the back of Saudi petro-dollars. (See here)
While Obama pretends otherwise, America and the entire West remain under attack not merely from alQaeda, but from all of political Islam. Al Qaeda is merely a splinter off of the Muslim Brotherhood and its many associated organizations. All want to attack the West, displace Western freedoms and put in place Sharia law. The only issue dividing the organizations is tactical, not strategic. Bin Laden wants to use the sword, the Muslim Brotherhood wants to use the freedoms of the West and taqqiyah – in which they are aided by the Western secular left with whom they have made common cause. Certainly this victory mosque will be a grand monument to both. And indeed, it is being built while we are still in the middle of what promises to be a war that will last many decades into the future.
If nothing else, Obama has now nationalized the issue of the Ground Zero mosque. And to anyone that is paying any attention, it has made absolutely clear that this President is dangerously out of touch with reality when it comes to Islamic supremecists and political Islamists.
Some final thoughts - one, Islam poses such a unique problem for America because, as practiced by many throughout the world, Islam is less a religion and far more a triumphalist political ideology that promotes violence to impose its will. The two most aggressive manifestations of this are the theocracy in Iran and the Wahhabi based monarchy in Saudi Arabia. To the extent that Islam is practiced as a religion and concerns itself only with improving the lives and saving the souls of its practitioners, then it clearly should be accorded the status of religion and given all the Constitutional protections associated therewith. But going beyond that, into the realm of the political, wherein lies everyone and everything from alQaeda to the Muslim Brotherhood to CAIR and the MAB, should we extend the protections of the 1st Amendment to it? Moreover, given the nature of this issue, should our government begin funding true Muslim reformers to advance their cause? Our First Amendment requires that the answer to that be no, but we are clearly in a position that the drafters of our First Amendment never contemplated.
And finally, there is a way for New Yorkers to take care of Imam Rauf and this mosque come next election. Toss Bloomberg out on his ear and only elect a mayor who will promise to use the power of eminent domain to take the property of this planned mosque and set that property to a public purpose. Indeed, making that an issue today may well limit the ability of Rauf to get funding for his planned obscenity.
Update: John at Powerline picks up on a point in Obama's speech that I missed - Obama's sophomoric multiculturalism:
This was the climax of Obama's lecture:
For in the end, we remain "one nation, under God, indivisible." And we can only achieve "liberty and justice for all" if we live by that one rule at the heart of every religion, including Islam-that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
This is revealing: the ultimate destination of multiculturalism is platitudinous stupidity. All religions, Obama tells us, are really the same, and can be summed up in the Golden Rule. Actually, there is no religion that can be reduced to the Golden Rule, least of all Islam. Islam does not enjoin believers to do unto infidels as you would have infidels do unto you. On the contrary! Islam tells its followers to subdue infidels; to kill them; to, at best, reduce them to dhimmitude. The Golden Rule is antithetical to Islam. Here is a thought experiment: compare HADITHSahihBukhari [4:52:176] with the parable of the good Samaritan.
Multiculturalism, in short, reduces its adherents (like President Obama) to a low intellectual plane. If you really think that all religions are the same, and they all exemplify the Golden Rule, then you won't understand the point of Cordoba House.
Update: A day later, and our Prevaricator in Chief is already backtracking on his endorsement of the Ground Zero Mosque. Obama is now claiming that, in his speech the other night, he didn't express support for the “wisdom” of building a mosque blocks from the 9/11 site, rather only the right of Imam Rauf to build there. That is a nuance you will not find in his speech. Here is Obama'sspeech in full. See for yourself.
Some time ago, responding to the avant Brit socialist line that its Colonial period was unforgivably sinful, I wrote a post on Britain's Colonial past, pointing out:
British Colonialism was Britain's gift to the world. A sizable chunk, if not the majority of the most prosperous and free countries in the world today have emerged from Britain's colonial empire . . . Indeed, as I pointed out in a post below, the U.S. not only adopted most of Britain's legal, governmental and bureaucratic systems, but the Bill of Rights itself is in large measure an amalgam of the rights of British Protestants at the time of our nation's founding. Our debt to Britain is deep and lasting. . . .
The Brits . . . brought a host of benefits to the nations they colonized, from education to the English language, from trade to capitalism, from government bureaucracy and democracy to the British legal system. . . .
David Cameron, Britain's new PM is now preparing to visit India, once the jewel of Britain's colonial possessions, and announced that he is doing so "with a spirit of humility." Nirpal Dhaliwal, the son of Indian immigrants to Britain, writing in the Daily Mail, has pointed out that Cameron does not need to be apologetic to India, as the gifts of Britain from the Colonial Period now form the basis for India's rapid growth and evolution:
Many have interpreted David Cameron's statement that he is visiting India in a 'spirit of humility' as a shame-faced apology for Britain's imperial rule there. But Indians require no apology for Empire and seek none, and nor do Britons need to feel especially guilty for it.
India is the world's second-largest growing economy, producing more English-speaking graduates than the rest of the world combined. The use of English is the most enduring and profitable legacy of the Raj; without it, the boom in Indian call-centre and software industries could not have happened. . . .
Just as Empire opened the doors of modernity to India, a good relationship between Britain and India will be a mark of how prominent both countries are in the modern world.
All that is best about India - its tolerance, freedom and engagement with the world - has flourished due to the structures and ideas it inherited from British rule.
Despite the often callous profiteering of Empire, the modern Indian state simply would not exist without it. . . .
The attitudes of British intelligentsia towards the Colonial period is deeply distorted by the lens of Marxism and multiculturalism. The reality is that the British Colonial period has proven one of history's most positive influences.
At the WSJ, Democratic pollsters Patrick Caddell and Douglas Shoen take stock of Obama's performance after eighteen months, concluding the obvious - that Obama has been the most divisive President in living memory. This from their commentary in the WSJ:
. . . Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship. Moreover, his cynical approach to governance has encouraged his allies to pursue a similar strategy of racially divisive politics on his behalf.
. . . By dividing America, Mr. Obama has brought our government to the brink of a crisis of legitimacy, compromising our ability to address our most important policy issues.
We say this with a heavy heart. Both of us share the president's stated vision of what America can and should be. The struggle for equal rights has animated both of our lives. Both of us were forged politically during the crucible of the civil rights movement. Having worked in the South during the civil rights movement, and on behalf of the ground-breaking elections of African-American mayors such as David Dinkins, Harold Washington and Emanuel Cleaver, we were deeply moved by Mr. Obama's election.
The first hint that as president Mr. Obama would be willing to interject race into the political dialogue came last July, when he jumped to conclusions about the confrontation between Harvard Prof. Henry Louis "Skip" Gates and the Cambridge police.
During a press conference, the president said that the "Cambridge police acted stupidly," and he went on to link the arrest with the "long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately."
In truth, the Gates incident appears to have had nothing to do with race—a Cambridge review committee that investigated the incident ruled on June 30 that there was fault on both sides.
Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) has said the president told him in a closed-door meeting that he would not move to secure the border with Mexico unless and until Congress reached a breakthrough on comprehensive immigration reform. That's another indication Mr. Obama is willing to continue to play politics with hot-button issues.
Add in the lawsuit against the Arizona immigration law and it's clear the Obama administration is willing to run the risk of dividing the American people along racial and ethnic lines to mobilize its supporters—particularly Hispanic voters, whose backing it needs in the fall midterm elections and beyond.
As the Washington Post reported last week, two top White House strategists, speaking on condition of anonymity, have indicated that "the White House plans to use the immigration debate to punish the GOP and aggressively seek the Latino vote in 2012."
On an issue that has gotten much less attention, but is potentially just as divisive, the Justice Department has pointedly refused to prosecute three members of the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation at the polls on Election Day 2008.
It is the job of the Department of Justice to protect all American voters from voter discrimination and voter intimidation—whether committed by the far right, the far left, or the New Black Panthers. It is unacceptable for the Department of Justice to continue to stonewall on this issue.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Mr. Obama's campaign emphasized repeatedly that his minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was being unfairly stereotyped because of racially incendiary sound bites that allegedly did not reflect the totality of his views. In the Gates incident and others, Mr. Obama has resorted to similar forms of stereotyping.
Even the former head of the Civil Rights Commission, Mary Frances Berry, acknowledged that the Obama administration has taken to polarizing America around the issue of race as a means of diverting attention away from other issues, saying: "the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. . . . Having one's opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness."
The president had a unique opportunity to focus on overarching issues of importance to whites and blacks. He has failed to address the critical challenges. He has not used his bully pulpit to emphasize the importance of racial unity and the common interest of poor whites and blacks who need training, job opportunities, and the possibility of realizing the American Dream. He hasn't done enough to address youth unemployment—which in the white community is 23.2% and in the black community is 39.9%.
Mr. Obama has also cynically divided the country on class lines. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and corporations behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda.
Finally, President Obama also exacerbated partisan division, and he has made it clear that he intends to demonize the Republicans and former President George W. Bush in the fall campaign. In April, the Democratic National Committee released a video in which the president directly addressed his divide-and-conquer campaign strategy, with an appeal to: "young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again."
President Obama's divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture. Meanwhile, the Republican leadership has failed to put forth an agenda that is more positive, unifying or inclusive. We are stronger when we debate issues and purpose, and we are all weaker when we divide by race and class. We will pay a price for this type of politics.
LIke the RMS Titanic, the UK's ship of state is sinking. British journalist William Shawcross, writing at the NRO, tells why in a damning indictment of Labour and its 12 year stewardship of Britain. This from Mr. Shawcross:
A Foreign Office diplomat’s proposal to mark the Pope’s visit to Britain with Benedict condoms and by having him bless a gay marriage, open an abortion clinic, and set up a hotline for abused children is a perfect example of the ruling Labour party’s degradation of Britain. Former ambassador Sir Ivor Roberts said on Sunday, “I cannot think of a papal visit anywhere in the world where the host government has had to apologize so profusely and abjectly…for the appalling behavior of one of its officials.”
Charles Crawford, a distinguished ambassador who retired early in despair at New Labour’s destruction of British diplomacy, says that in Euroland, “religious pieties plus national identities and symbols, and thus the role of national embassies, are all essential targets of postmodern pastiche.”
He is right — “postmodernism,” the disastrous creed that there is no objective truth and that everything is relative, is the defining characteristic of New Labour. The only force of which Labour (like most E.U. ruling parties) seems to be in awe is Islamism. No Foreign Office official would have drawn up a document mocking Islam. “Postmodernism” is in effect a form of appeasement.
And Gordon Brown has been a disaster for this country. As the all-powerful chancellor, he spent the first ten years of New Labour undermining what might have been sensible Blairite reforms to education, health services, and welfare. Brown and his allies wanted no success for Blair — instead, they simply threw money at unreconstructed and inefficient structures. Billions upon billions of taxpayer money is still being squandered. Perhaps most tragic is the lack of welfare reform. Brown has perpetuated the growth of a wretched, demoralized underclass, unwilling and increasingly unable to work.
At the same time, Labour has continually expanded its client state (70 percent of the workforce in Northern Ireland), which produces nothing. Every person in the U.K. now has £40,000 of national debt to his or her name.
The list of horrors is endless: Brown sold our gold at about the lowest price imaginable, he destroyed the country’s strong pension system, he broke Labour’s promise for a referendum on the E.U.’s Lisbon Treaty, and he has mortgaged Labour back to the trade unions. Harold Wilson had more courage.
Unforgivably, Brown has treated our soldiers with contempt. He has never given the armed forces the resources they needed to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many men have died in battle because of inadequate equipment. Recently Brown was forced to correct a lie he told the Chilcott Iraq Enquiry when he claimed that under him, defense spending had risen every year.
Labour boasts that 3 million new jobs have been created — but most went to immigrants. Labour deliberately let immigration rip but never put this controversial policy before the voters in a manifesto. Some leaked Labour documents suggest this was a deliberate policy “to dilute Britishness” and create a new class of voters grateful to Labour.
It is an outrage that the British people were never told the truth about Labour’s immigration free-for-all. Instead, Labour apparatchiks denounced anyone as racist if he or she complained. Those who hate the rise of the British National Party should blame Labour, not the poor white voters whom Labour abandoned and whose lives have been changed forever by uncontrolled immigration. Last week, two London taxi drivers told me that they were going to vote BNP because it’s the only party that cares at all about them.
It’s not just about immigration that they complain. People are grossly offended by the drunken anarchy that Labour has encouraged in so many town centres, with 24-hour drinking, the litter that everyone now feels free to throw, the noise, the anger, the increasing incivility. The quality of millions of peoples’ lives has really suffered.
This government has made countless attacks on our civil liberties and has constantly, carelessly undermined our constitution, which has been carefully crafted over centuries to protect us. The Lord Chancellor has gone, the Law Lords have gone, now the House of Lords, one of the last bastions of independent expertise, is also threatened by Brown, who wants to create an elected clone of the Commons. Nick Clegg would do the same.
Labour’s bullying “multicultural” ideology has been a catastrophe. The government has cosseted extremist Islamist preachers of hatred to a shocking degree. No wonder French security officials talk of “Londonistan.” At the same time, under New Labour’s “progressive” laws, ordinary Christians have been persecuted for their views. Gordon Brown boasts of being “a son of the manse,” but he cares far more about leftist ideology than he does about the religion of his father. Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, has now taken up the cudgels on behalf of Christianity, its followers, and the fine tradition of British tolerance. It is a measure of the illiberalism of this government that he should have to do so.
“Orwellian” is an overworked phrase, but at least everyone knows that it means something destructive to society. It is a fitting description of the debasement of language, the ignorance of history, and the oppressive culture of “postmodern progress” controlled by thousands of highly paid apparatchiks that Labour has forced upon us. . . .
In his conclusion, Mr. Shawcross calls for people to vote for the Tories as their best option to right Britain's sinking ship of state. Perhaps if anyone heard from David Cameron words similar to Mr. Shawcross, they might be able to do so with some confidence. But by all measures, David Cameron is nothing more than a base political opportunist himself who has, once having promised a referendum on EU membership, reversed himself not long ago. Unfortunately, it appears that the only real conservative party in Britain, the UKIP, is rudderless at the moment. The upcoming election will no doubt be interesting, but I seriously doubt indeed if it will result in a positive change in direction for Britain.
Just to highlight one other point, note that Mr. Shawcross credits "Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury" as being the nation's best defender of Christianity, That is because the current Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, elevated to his current position by nomination of Labour PM Tony Blair in 2002, has proven utterly worthless in standing up for Christianity and the Anglican Church.
This from a comment by the blogger at Thin Blue Line to the Police Inspectors blog:
Not sure about the number [of immigrants] paying tax, though there are figures available about those issued NI numbers, which might indicate the numbers on benefit. Here are a few lines from one of our recent posts that might give you an idea.
The Extra Cost To The Tax Payer Of Immigration :-
• Local Authority race relations £3.1m • Higher Education race relations £6.7m • Commission for racial equality £32m • Translation costs £100m • Ethnic minority awards scheme £169m • Security £174m • English lessons for immigrants £80m • Treating immigrants with HIV £330m • Border Controls £690m • Money sent home by foreign workers £1.4bn • Asylum support & processing £1.6bn • COST OF IMMIGRANT CRIME £4bn
Crime related costs, at £4Billion is by far the largest cost attributable to immigration.
Labour’s ‘open door’ policy on immigration costs every household £350 a year, claims Professor David Coleman, an Oxford University academic, who puts the total annual bill to the taxpayer at almost £8.8billion.
In a submission to a House of Lords committee, he said there had been a commitment to increase the population by one million every five years. With the population having swollen by 2million since 1997, they’re well on track for that one.
Apparently, Nu Labour research prior to taking power suggested that 80% of immigrants would vote Labour if they acquired citizenship.
On topic, Panorama did a piece on immigration tonight but conveniently left out the effects of immigration on the social fabric and criminal justice system.
I am not long off the phone with a most amazing woman, a particularly erudite British woman who, seated in her office deep in a venerable British ivory tower, took part in a discussion with others of a more hard-left bent (which is, unfortunately, mainstream in British academia), all of whom decried Britain's colonial past. My friend, a closet conservative, kept her tongue out of a sense of self preservation. But when a Malaysian professor spoke up and said she was glad her country had been colonized, an uncomfortable silence descended.
I am always amazed by how completely the modern socialists of Britain have been able to plant the canard in the British public's mind that British colonialism is a grave and unforgivable sin - and one for which the country must atone through such things as multiculturalism and reverse discrimination. It involves a complete distortion of history and today's reality.
The truth is that British Colonialism was Britain's gift to the world. A sizable chunk, if not the majority of the most prosperous and free countries in the world today have emerged from Britain's colonial empire - the US, Canada, India (which today boasts the world's biggest democracy), Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, New Zealand to name but a few. Indeed, as I pointed out in a post below, the U.S. not only adopted most of Britain's legal, governmental and bureaucratic systems, but the Bill of Rights itself is in large measure an amalgam of the rights of British Protestants at the time of our nation's founding. Our debt to Britain is deep and lasting.
In all of history, I can think of only two colonial powers that have had a major positive impact on the world. The first is Rome. As they expanded throughout Western Europe, they built up the infrastructure in each area they laid claim. They brought with them writing and a language that unlocked a rich store of knowledge. They brought advanced science, engineering and sophisticated forms of government administration. These things they left in their wake, allowing Western Europe to evolve much faster than those who did not benefit from Roman rule.
This Monty Python short from the Life of Brian that perfectly captures what it meant to be colonised by Rome.
The second colonial power to have such a major positive impact is of course Britain. The Brits, just like the Romans, brought a host of benefits to the nations they colonized, from education to the English language, from trade to capitalism, from government bureaucracy and democracy to the British legal system. What further set Britain apart from other colonial powers of the time was that Britain tended to treat her colonies as what amounts to junior trading partners. That was a major difference between Britain, Spain and France. The latter two looked upon their colonies as areas to be exploited for their riches
Compare Britain's former colonies today with those of France and Spain. The former are mostly functional, stable and economically viable states. The latter tend to be dysfunctional, corrupt and with lesser economic development.
For instance, compare the U.S. and Canada to Mexico, Argentina, or virtually any of the other South and Central American countries colonized and raped of their resources by Spain. Compare Nigeria - perhaps the most stable and prosperous of African states - with France's Chad. They are mirror opposites. Compare any of Britain's Caribbean Island colonies with France's former slave colony of Haiti, the poorest and most dysfunctional country in the Western Hemisphere.
There have been three classes of locales where British colonialism did not work to leave strong, stable countries in its wake. These classes are Islamic countries, many African countries still mired in tribalism, and in those countries that have suffered coups or dictatorships in the wake of Britain's withdrawal.
Virtually every Islamic majority country colonized at one time by Britain has failed to develop. Most today are ruled by autocracies of one form or another and are saddled with moribund economies. The reasons for that can be gleaned from the observations of Winston Churchill made during his time in the Middle East as a soldier and memorialized in his book, The River Wars:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries.
Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. . . .
The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).
With the observations of Churchill in mind, compare Pakistan and neighboring India. Both were part of Britain's colonial empire and both received their independence at the same time. The people of Pakistan and India are of the same race. The only difference between them is that Pakistan is an Islamic country under the increasing influence of Wahhabism. Today, India is the world's largest democracy, it is a free capitalist nation with a booming economy. Pakistan is mired in poverty, its democracy is atrophied and its civilian elected government has only the most tenuous hold on power.
Or for that matter, compare all other Middle East countries with Israel. Israel has a vibrant democracy and economy built on the British model. All of the other many former British colonies in the Middle East, from Egypt to Jordan to Arabia and others, all have dysfunctional autocracies and weaker economies.
The second group of countries that did not benefit from British colonialism are those countries that were driven off the track by a coup or the installation of a dictator in the wake of Britain's withdrawal. Zimbabwe is one example. Uganda is another, as is Burma. Indeed, Burma exists next to Malaysia, another of Britain's colonies. Malaysia has a GDP fully 14 times that of Burma. And also close by is Singapore, one of the richest places on earth in terms of GDP. Malaysia and Singapore embraced the gifts of British colonialism. Burma was subject to a military coup by a junta that sought to impose Karl Marx's socialism.
Lastly are those former colonies in African nations where tribalism was and is stronger than nationalism. That said, Nigeria, once Britain's colony, is rapidly becoming the jewel of Africa based on the British model. It is overcoming a degree of tribalism that is amazing. Over a century ago, over 500 different languages where spoken in Nigeria. Today, English is the unofficial unifying language and Nigeria is a functioning nation state with a rapidly expanding economy.
To put all of this in perspective, the belief among Brits that British Colonialism is an unforgivable sin comes out of the socialist ethos of Karl Marx who famously wrote in the opening lines of the Communist Manifesto:
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
Marx, a creature of his time and place, wrote his grand theory of history specifically as a condemnation of the colonialism, imperialism and capitalism that formed his world. But Marx's theory is a deeply distorting and simplistic one that ignores all which does not fit cleanly within its theoretical box.
Brits today who decry the colonial period are embracing their inner Marx. Britain's socialists, as Marx's theory directs, would focus on the sins of their forefathers as unforgivable while ignoring all of the reality around them. Today's British socialists suicidally think of nationalism as an evil and they would deconstruct their own nation out of guilt.
The reality is that virtually every nation on this earth has at one time or another taken control of the territory of others by force. If the Pakistanis make Brits feel guilty for colonization, lift up the knickers on Pakistan's history and you will find brutal wars of aggression against her neighbors sprinkled throughout her history. Virtually all nations and races have been colonial powers or fought brutal wars of aggression at points in their history. There are sins aplenty in every nation on earth.
And if we are going to do a comparative itemization of sins, let's begin with the Arabs and the Turks who spread Islam by the sword during the greatest imperialistic expansion in our world's history. They spent centuries laying waste to mostly Christian lands and installing Islam and Arab/Turkish rule in its stead. The Arabs made conquest of the entire Middle East, all of North Africa, Pakistan and Afghanistan, much of Spain and parts of Italy, with forays into France. The Turks did the same in Byzantium, Greece, and the Balkans, until finally beaten back at the gates of Vienna, Austria. And these colonizers never left of their own free will. Together the Arabs and the Turks are leagues beyond Britain in the breadth of their expansion and colonialism. Nor, with hindsight, can we say that their colonization was in any way benign.
But that aside, if Brits today believe colonialism is wrong, then they need not further engage in it. But that does not mean that they alone have to atone for outlandishly magnified sins of the past.
The penultimate question one must ask is whether the world would be better off today had there been no British colonialism? To anyone of intellectual honesty - and to at least one Malaysian professor teaching in Britain today - the answer to that question has to be an emphatic and absolute "No." The truth is that there is a significant portion of this world that owes their peace, prosperity and stability to the legacy of British colonialism.
The real tragedy is not that Britain was once a colonial power, but that today, Britain is so chained up in the distorting guilt of Marxian philosophy and so embracing of that philosophy's bastard child, multiculturalism, that a significant portion of Britain's populace - and in particular much of it's political and academic elite - no longer value and are willing defend their own culture and heritage. That said, if these individuals would only look about, they would see that there are a host of countries across the world who, once colonized, have adopted the many benefits Britain bequeathed them and are quite willing to defend to the death those benefits today.
Thomas Sowell has written a four part essay covering many aspects raised at the intersection of race and politics. In Part I, Sowell notes that:
Few combinations are more poisonous than race and politics. That combination has torn whole nations apart and led to the slaughters of millions in countries around the world. . . .
Sowell takes Obama to task for leading us deeper into racial politics and condemns the left's unjustified playing of the race card as very dangerous politics indeed.
In Part II, Sowell explains that historically, racial groups with different cultures, sophistication and eduction have varied widely in their degree of success at different points in history. That is actually the norm - and it is not indicative of racism.
Today's racial dogmas are no more realistic, when they try to dismiss or downplay behavioral and performance differences among racial and ethnic groups, blaming different outcomes on the misdeeds of others. Nothing is easier to find than sins among human beings. But the fatal misstep is to assume that those sins must be the reason for the differences we see.
Sowell goes on to note that historical injustices often proved a boon in disguise. He points to how Western Europe suffered brutally under the yoke of Rome, yet because of Rome, their societies were able to advance much faster through the Middle Ages and Rennisance. Likewise, "the fact that people of African ancestry in the United States have a far higher standard of living than the people of African ancestry still living in sub-Saharan Africa, is due to injustices and abuses inflicted on black Americans' ancestors. " As Sowell concludes:
Causation and morality are two different things, however much they get confused today by politicians and the media."
Lastly, in Part IV, Sowell takes on the evils of multiculturalism:
One of the most ominous developments of our time has been the multicultural dogma that all cultures are equal. It is one of the many unsubstantiated assertions that have become fashionable among self-congratulatory elites, with hard evidence being neither asked for nor offered.
But, however much such assertions minister to the egos of the intelligentsia and the careers of politicians and race hustlers, the multicultural dogma is a huge barrier to the advancement of groups who are lagging economically, educationally and otherwise.
Once you have said that the various economic, educational and other "gaps" and "disparities" of lagging groups are not due to either genes or cultures, what is left but the sins of other people?
Sins are never hard to find, among any group of human beings. But whether that actually helps those who are lagging, or just leads them into the blind alley of resentment, is another question. . . .
Multiculturalism enshrines the sins and grievances approach — and paints the poor into a corner, where they can nurse their resentments, instead of advancing their skills and their prospects. The beneficiaries are politicians and race hustlers.
Do read all four essays. It is Sowell at his best.
We see the attempts by the Left to redefine words all of the time. Our current batch of little Orwellians in office play this game constantly. For example, only a few weeks ago, the Left took to labeling Dede Scozafaza as a "moderate" for the purpose of attacking the "far right wing" - i.e., people who believe in fiscal conservatism and strong national defense. Their aim was to redefine language and, thus, recalibrate what is considered the norm in American politics. To call Scozafaza moderate would, I guess, put Lenin a bit left of center. I and others have blogged on this practice many times before. For example, see here.
George Orwell wrote the book on this practice. Actually, he wrote, wrote several books that include the practice, and not to mention at least one famous article on the topic, "Politics and the English Language." Mark Falcoff picks up the meme in an interesting article at NRO:
. . .[Orwell's] major concern, however, was not merely with literary niceties but with the moral consequences of linguistic obfuscation.
He put the point thus: “The decline of language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer.” He was particularly irritated with the way political words were used “in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition.” Far too many political articles, he wrote, consisted “largely of euphemisms, question begging, and sheer cloudy vagueness.” Such usages were “deliberately intended to deceive.”
Well, here we are more than six decades later, and how much worse the situation has become, particularly in the American press. In recent times, I have begun to make a list of political terms in common usage that are, in fact, private definitions, as Orwell calls them. Perhaps many readers of this journal could add to it. Here are just a few.
. . . “Civil-rights leader.” A half-century ago, when many states in this country denied black people the right to vote or sit where they wished on buses or dine in restaurants of their choice, this term had some real meaning. People risked their lives and well-being to challenge laws that were unfair. However, since the passage of so much legislation in the last 50 years — not just the Civil Rights Act but also the Voting Rights Act — as well as the various forms of “affirmative action” and court-ordered reapportionments of congressional districts to ensure maximum black representation, it is difficult to see what possible dictionary definition “civil-rights leader” could have except “black agitator,” “shakedown artist,” or “poverty pimp.” Martin Luther King Jr. was a civil rights leader; Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson — to take just two of many tawdry examples — are merely cruel caricatures of the same. Too bad the media can’t see the difference.. . .
“Progressive.” Here is a term that at least those of us over 50 learned at school to identify with Pres. Theodore Roosevelt, or perhaps William Jennings Bryan. Lately, however, it has become a euphemism for liberalism, left-liberalism, or plain old leftism. Even bomb-throwing Communists or self-described revolutionaries (for example, Angela Davis or Van Jones) are no longer characterized as “Reds” or even “Marxists”; they are merely lumped into the category of harmless “progressives.” To be sure, most people on the left end of our political spectrum could best be characterized as liberal (in the American rather than the European, or classical, sense). That’s what they used to be called. Why has the word “liberal” suddenly disappeared? The answer is simple. Thanks to real-life experience, many people have understandably come to associate the word “liberal” with high taxes, a permissive attitude towards crime and criminals, and social engineering of the most obnoxious sort (school busing, racial preferences, etc.). To force the medicine down one final time, it needs to be rebottled under yet another new label. . . .
There is much more to read. You can find the entire article here.
I would make one additions to the list of Mr. Falcoff's - its the term "discrimination." To be able to discriminate is a necessary survival mechanism of everyday life. We must be able to discriminate between things which are good and those which are bad. Yet the word has become a font of all evil under the pc talk of today, used as shorthand to define the practice of racism. The Left, having effectively made discrimination a modern sin, has carried forward this logic to its extreme under the banner of multiculturalism, where no value judgment are allowed to be made about competing cultures lest it be discriminatory. That doesn't seem to be working out too well for the UK.
Instapundit has a video that makes this point perfectly. Please watch it.
Posts
