10 (Biased) Examples of Christian Terrorism

 

jesusgunnedHere we go again, some clueless partisan will now explain how the kid stealing gumballs who will get whipped if he is caught by his folks is far worse than the crack dealer who thinks drive-bys are the best way to deal with competitors or witnesses and whose Mom and Pop will never admit is a nasty sucker instead of their misunderstood little boy.

SATURDAY, AUG 3, 2013 07:00 AM PDT

10 worst examples of Christian or far-right terrorism

Conservatives claim that all terrorists are Muslim, but most violent attacks in the US are carried out by white men

How racist! Did they count the white men who were Muslim terrorists twice?

BY 

From Fox News to the Weekly Standard, neoconservatives have tried to paint terrorism as a largely or exclusively Islamic phenomenon. Their message of Islamophobia has been repeated many times since the George W. Bush era: Islam is inherently violent, Christianity is inherently peaceful, and there is no such thing as a Christian terrorist or a white male terrorist. But the facts don’t bear that out. Far-right white male radicals and extreme Christianists are every bit as capable of acts of terrorism as radical Islamists, and to pretend that such terrorists don’t exist does the public a huge disservice. Dzhokhar Anzorovich Tsarnaev and the late Tamerlan Anzorovich Tsarnaev (the Chechen brothers suspected in the Boston Marathon bombing of April 15, 2013) are both considered white and appear to have been motivated in part by radical Islam. And many terrorist attacks in the United States have been carried out by people who were neither Muslims nor dark-skinned.

When white males of the far right carry out violent attacks, neocons and Republicans typically describe them as lone-wolf extremists rather than people who are part of terrorist networks or well-organized terrorist movements. Yet many of the terrorist attacks in the United States have been carried out by people who had long histories of networking with other terrorists. In fact, most of the terrorist activity occurring in the United States in recent years has not come from Muslims, but from a combination of radical Christianists, white supremacists and far-right militia groups.

Given that Ft. Hood shooting by Maj. Hassan was classified as “workplace violence” you might be able to make a case as far as government records go; if you count the times Islamic fundamentalists with normative scripture to quote have been involved in violence as opposed to Bible Verse spouting Christians doing such things the count would be far more one-sided in the other direction. If we expand our focus world-wide there is no question, almost the only people involved with terrorism today are Islamists; the remainder are a radical and unsupported teaspoon in a bucket of Islamic aggression supported by most of the Imams outside the U.S..

Below are 10 of the worst examples of non-Islamic terrorism that have occurred in the United States in the last 30 years.

Well Virginia, at least one sentence in this piece was accurate, too bad the author could not keep to the ‘examples of non-Islamic’ part instead of turning it into a lynch-whitey-and-the-Christians-fest.

1. Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre, Aug. 5, 2012. The virulent, neocon-fueled Islamophobia that has plagued post-9/11 America has not only posed a threat to Muslims, it has had deadly consequences for people of other faiths, including Sikhs. Sikhs are not Muslims; the traditional Sikh attire, including their turbans, is different from traditional Sunni, Shiite or Sufi attire. But to a racist, a bearded Sikh looks like a Muslim. Only four days after 9/11, Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh immigrant from India who owned a gas station in Mesa, Arizona, was murdered by Frank Silva Roque, a racist who obviously mistook him for a Muslim.

But Sodhi’s murder was not the last example of anti-Sikh violence in post-9/11 America. On Aug. 5, 2012, white supremacist Wade Michael Page used a semiautomatic weapon to murder six people during an attack on a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Page’s connection to the white supremacist movement was well-documented: he had been a member of the neo-Nazi rock bands End Empathy and Definite Hate. Attorney General Eric Holder described the attack as “an act of terrorism, an act of hatred.” It was good to see the nation’s top cop acknowledge that terrorist acts can, in fact, involve white males murdering people of color.

Deceitful definitions are the hallmark of this list. Neo-Nazi (National Socialism) is a far Left mind-set, not a far-Right one. The Right thinks of itself as the “owners” of the status quo, the “traditional way things are done”; their problem children use its system to steal power and abuse it. Meanwhile the Left sees itself as the “champion of the underdog” to the point that they excuse virtually any crime or ‘gaming of the system’ that puts one of “their own” over on “the Man.” Sounds like divisive tribalism in PC clothing to me.

The #1 on this list is not about Christians or the far-Right, who tend to be theocrats seeking to own the system and not radicals seeking to destroy it. It is about a far-Left, Neo-Nazi loser who was about as un-Christian as they come as well as being rejected by virtually all of the mainstream Right, Middle and Left. This does not for a moment stop the Leftists from pulling him out as a straw man to use against their opponents in the theft of power from the people.

2. The murder of Dr. George Tiller, May 31, 2009. Imagine that a physician had been the victim of an attempted assassination by an Islamic jihadist in 1993, and received numerous death threats from al-Qaeda after that, before being murdered by an al-Qaeda member. Neocons, Fox News and the Christian Right would have had a field day. A physician was the victim of a terrorist killing that day, but neither the terrorist nor the people who inflamed the terrorist were Muslims. Dr. George Tiller, who was shot and killed by anti-abortion terrorist Scott Roeder on May 31, 2009, was a victim of Christian Right terrorism, not al-Qaeda.

Tiller had a long history of being targeted for violence by Christian Right terrorists. In 1986, his clinic was firebombed. Then, in 1993, Tiller was shot five times by female Christian Right terrorist Shelly Shannon (now serving time in a federal prison) but survived that attack. Given that Tiller had been the victim of an attempted murder and received countless death threats after that, Fox News would have done well to avoid fanning the flames of unrest. Instead, Bill O’Reilly repeatedly referred to him as “Tiller the baby killer.” When Roeder murdered Tiller, O’Reilly condemned the attack but did so in a way that was lukewarm at best.

Keith Olbermann called O’Reilly out and denounced him as a “facilitator for domestic terrorism” and a “blindly irresponsible man.” And Crazy for God author Frank Schaffer, who was formerly a figure on the Christian Right but has since become critical of that movement, asserted that the Christian Right’s extreme anti-abortion rhetoric “helped create the climate that made this murder likely to happen.” Neocon Ann Coulter, meanwhile, viewed Tiller’s murder as a source of comic relief, telling O’Reilly, I don’t really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester.” The Republican/neocon double standard when it comes to terrorism is obvious. At Fox News and AM neocon talk radio, Islamic terrorism is a source of nonstop fear-mongering, while Christian Right terrorism gets a pass.

The Leftist once again gives a pass to the evil of his own sides radicals. while denigrating the Right for the same thing. I think both sides can be guilty of this kind of condoning of crime.

Late-term abortion, the kind Tiller specialized in, is far from cut-and-dried in it’s ethics and morality regardless of your religion, or lack thereof. In a world where 6 month preemies routinely live and prosper the justification for late-term abortion over delivery and adoption start to look pretty damn self-serving. I do not agree in any way with the theocrats on the Right; the only place in the Bible where it even might be talking about abortion is so vague that both sides use it as a proof that their side is the correct one according to scripture. I certainly do not support an individual taking a persons life into their own hands absent a clear and present danger to a person’s life, limb or property. But, we do need to have a conclusive debate on just when a fetus becomes a baby; the present standard seems to be that until a baby breathes air, with permission of the mother, it is a piece of flesh and may be done with as the clinic chooses, i.e. let die and then disposed of or sent to the research labs.

I have always supported a woman’s right to choose, in the first trimester, have been iffy on it in the second and have never supported it except in the case of extreme birth defects or an actual threat to the mother’s life coupled with a likelihood that the baby will be dead or a victim of massive defects in the final three months.

A woman gets to choose, but how many times does society have to allow her to keep choosing? At what point does a woman-with-a-choice become a mother-with-a-responsibility? We would arrest a woman sharing her cigarette and whiskey with her newborn but, we do nothing save frown in disapproval if she does it a day before she delivers; even when the child is ‘wanted‘! This is an indefensible position.

Would I have been willing to shake Tiller’s hand? No.

Do I think he deserved anything but due process of law in his professional life? Again, unequivocally, no.

3. Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church shooting, July 27, 2008. On July 27, 2008, Christian Right sympathizer Jim David Adkisson walked into the Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee during a children’s play and began shooting people at random. Two were killed, while seven others were injured but survived. Adkisson said he was motivated by a hatred of liberals, Democrats and gays, and he considered neocon Bernard Goldberg’s book, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America, his political manifesto. Adkisson (who pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree murder and is now serving life in prison without parole) was vehemently anti-abortion, but apparently committing an act of terrorism during a children’s play was good ol’ Republican family values. While Adkisson’s act of terrorism was reported on Fox News, it didn’t get the round-the-clock coverage an act of Islamic terrorism would have garnered.

Here we have the classic partisan trick of taking some lone-wolf radical and pretending that they represent the mainstream of their opposition; all parties in America are guilty to some extent or another but, this list get nauseating inn how disingenuous it is in it’s attempt to tar the opposition with a brush of distortion and concealed facts.

4. The murder of Dr. John Britton, July 29, 1994. To hear the Christian Right tell it, there is no such thing as Christian terrorism. Tell that to the victims of the Army of God, a loose network of radical Christianists with a long history of terrorist attacks on abortion providers. One Christian Right terrorist with ties to the Army of God was Paul Jennings Hill, who was executed by lethal injection on Sept. 3, 2003 for the murders of abortion doctor John Britton and his bodyguard James Barrett. Hill shot both of them in cold blood and expressed no remorse whatsoever; he insisted he was doing’s God’s work and has been exalted as a martyr by the Army of God.

So, what he is saying Virginia is that the “Army of God” is far more radical than even the “Rev.” Phelps’ group of anti-gay “activists”? What exactly does this say about mainstream Christianity in relation to the normative schools of doctrine within Islam? Is there even a correlation?

5. The Centennial Olympic Park bombing, July 27, 1996. Paul Jennings Hill is hardly the only Christian terrorist who has been praised by the Army of God; that organization has also praised Eric Rudolph, who is serving life without parole for a long list of terrorist attacks committed in the name of Christianity. Rudolph is best known for carrying out the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics—a blast that killed spectator Alice Hawthorne and wounded 111 others. Hawthorne wasn’t the only person Rudolph murdered: his bombing of an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama in 1998 caused the death of Robert Sanderson (a Birmingham police officer and part-time security guard) and caused nurse Emily Lyons to lose an eye.

Rudolph’s other acts of Christian terrorism include bombing the Otherwise Lounge (a lesbian bar in Atlanta) in 1997 and an abortion clinic in an Atlanta suburb in 1997. Rudolph was no lone wolf: he was part of a terrorist movement that encouraged his violence. And the Army of God continues to exalt Rudolph as a brave Christian who is doing God’s work.

The Army of God is hardly an example of the kind of “Christian” that even the typical ‘radical Christian’ can accept as normative. In Islam, Sunni and Shiite, the norm is support of honor killings, gays executed, and apostates murdered, all with the sanction the Qur’an or ahadith.

Just imagine how much worse the Irish ‘Troubles‘ would have been if there had been hordes of Catholic priests and bishops running around IReland preaching support for the IRA’s violence. Of course the new Irish “converts” to radicalism would have found it confusing when they realized they had joined an atheistic, Marxist group (IRA)!

6. The murder of Barnett Slepian byJames Charles Kopp, Oct. 23, 1998. Like Paul Jennings Hill, Eric Rudolph and Scott Roeder, James Charles Kopp is a radical Christian terrorist who has been exalted as a hero by the Army of God. On Oct. 23, 1998 Kopp fired a single shot into the Amherst, NY home of Barnett Slepian (a doctor who performed abortions), mortally wounding him. Slepian died an hour later. Kopp later claimed he only meant to wound Slepian, not kill him. But Judge Michael D’Amico of Erin County, NY said that the killing was clearly premeditated and sentenced Kopp to 25 years to life. Kopp is a suspect in other anti-abortion terrorist attacks, including the non-fatal shootings of three doctors in Canada, though it appears unlikely that Kopp will be extradited to Canada to face any charges.

And which mainstream, normalized Christian sect is it that supports this kind of radicalism? Army of God? A group so radical that the groups considered radical by the mainstream think they are over-the-line is now normative Christianity?

7. Planned Parenthood bombing, Brookline, Massachusetts, 1994. Seldom has the term “Christian terrorist” been used in connection with John C. Salvi on AM talk radio or at Fox News, but it’s a term that easily applies to him. In 1994, the radical anti-abortionist and Army of God member attacked a Planned Parenthood clinic in Brookline, Massachusetts, shooting and killing receptionists Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols and wounding several others. Salvi was found dead in his prison cell in 1996, and his death was ruled a suicide. The Army of God has exalted Salvi as a Christian martyr and described Lowney and Nichols not as victims of domestic terrorism, but as infidels who got what they deserved. The Rev. Donald Spitz, a Christianist and Army of God supporter who is so extreme that even the radical anti-abortion group Operation Rescue disassociated itself from him, has praised Salvi as well.

So, the only praise this guy got was from a group that Radical Right groups consider too radical? How is this an indictment against any sect of mainstream Christianity? All of the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence endorse honor killing, the execution of gays and apostates as well as other doctrines equally abhorrent to the modern civilised human.

8. Suicide attack on IRS building in Austin, Texas, Feb. 18, 2010. When Joseph Stack flew a plane into the Echelon office complex (where an IRS office was located), Fox News’ coverage of the incident was calm and matter-of-fact. Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa seemed to find the attack amusing and joked that it could have been avoided if the federal government had followed his advice and abolished the IRS. Nonetheless, there were two fatalities: Stack and IRS employee Vernon Hunter. Stack left behind a rambling suicide note outlining his reasons for the attack, which included a disdain for the IRS as well as total disgust with health insurance companies and bank bailouts. Some of the most insightful coverage of the incident came from Noam Chomsky, who said that while Stack had some legitimate grievances—millions of Americans shared his outrage over bank bailouts and the practices of health insurance companies—the way he expressed them was absolutely wrong.

All of which adds up to his being more in tune with Leftists like Chomsky than with conservatives or Christians; another strawman; unless the author’s argument is that only white Lefties commit terrorism.

Of course, Virginia, there are bad people on the Right but, being Right Wingers they will work the system from inside rather than game it from outside.

9. The murder of Alan Berg, June 18, 1984. One of the most absurd claims some Republicans have made about white supremacists is that they are liberals and progressives. That claim is especially ludicrous in light of the terrorist killing of liberal Denver-based talk show host Alan Berg, a critic of white supremacists who was killed with an automatic weapon on June 18, 1984. The killing was linked to members of the Order, a white supremacist group that had marked Berg for death. Order members David Lane (a former Ku Klux Klan member who had also been active in the Aryan Nations) and Bruce Pierce were both convicted in federal court on charges of racketeering, conspiracy and violating Berg’s civil rights and given what amounted to life sentences.

Robert Matthews, who founded the Order, got that name from a fictional group in white supremacist William Luther Pierce’s anti-Semitic 1978 novel, The Turner Diaries—a book Timothy McVeigh was quite fond of. The novel’s fictional account of the destruction of a government building has been described as the inspiration for the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995.

I don’t know about their being “liberal” but, they certainly are NOT aligned with ANY mainstream grouping on either the Left or Right! William Luther Pierce’s own words show that clearly; the closest is the anti-semitism shared with the Left-of-Center Left and radical theocrats from the far Right.

Liars and hypocrites: those are terms that apply pretty well to every politician in the Western world these days, and the Republicans are no better than the Democrats.”

 

“…stop listening to the hypocritical cant of the liberals and the mindless ramblings of the conservatives.”

 

“..But when democracy instead becomes a threat to continued Jewish rule, they are just as fervent anti-democrats.”

 

“… The government we have in Washington now … cannot and should not be reformed or repaired or salvaged. It should be pulled down and have a stake driven through its heart. Everyone who is a part of it should be dealt with in the same way. …… If you want to make an impression on anyone in Washington today, you must convince him that you are willing and able either to hurt him or to help him.”

Clearly this movement is not aligned with conservatives, liberals, Republicans, Democrats or anyone else interested in evolution of society over revolution by a disgruntled minority.

Especially disturbing is when a partisan just makes things up and puts them in the mouth of their opponent; unjustly and dishonestly hanging them with a rope they had nothing to do with making. The last one ion the list full of it, from start to finish.

10. Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing, April 19, 1995. Neocons and Republicans grow angry and uncomfortable whenever Timothy McVeigh is cited as an example of a non-Islamic terrorist…

What I noticed was more of a confusion about why the LEft insists that an anti-government, self-declared agnostic must be conflated with conservative Christians. That hardly adds up to denying that any self-declared “Christian” is without faults.

…Pointing out that a non-Muslim white male [G DeW: WHY do you have to drag race into this? There are plenty of white Muslims in prison for terrorist crimes.] carried out an attack as vicious and deadly as the Oklahoma City bombing doesn’t fit into their narrative that only Muslims and people of color are capable of carrying out terrorist attacks. Neocons will claim that bringing up McVeigh’s name during a discussion of terrorism is a “red herring” that distracts us from fighting radical Islamists, but that downplays the cruel, destructive nature of the attack. [Emphasis added]…

There is one problem with this; There is no mainstream political organisation, Left, Right or Middle, that says any such thing. They all focus on the fundamentalist and radical mentalities.

It is well known on the Right that the majority of American Muslims have absolutely no faith in the representation of the national Muslim “advocacy” groups like CAIR and MPAC. The problem actually is not the perpetrators of terrorist acts, it is the numerous fundamentalist-minded Imams who are the initial radical element; using their authority as religious leaders to cherry-pick from actual scripture and doctrine only what they need to radicalize individual Muslims whenever they can.

“…Prior to the al-Qaeda attacks of 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing McVeigh orchestrated was the most deadly terrorist attack in U.S. history: 168 people were killed and more than 600 were injured. When McVeigh drove a truck filled with explosives into the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, his goal was to kill as many people as possible. Clearly, McVeigh was not motivated by radical Islam; rather, he was motivated by an extreme hatred for the U.S. government and saw the attack as revenge for the Ruby Ridge incident of 1992 and the Waco Siege in 1993. He had white supremacist leanings as well (when he was in the U.S. Army, McVeigh was reprimanded for wearing a “white power” T-shirt he had bought at a KKK demonstration). McVeigh was executed on June 11, 2001. He should have served life without parole instead, as a living reminder of the type of viciousness the extreme right is capable of.”

Here we run up against the Leftist’s cherished fantasy that the KKK and all of the most violent and virulent racism from American history came from Republicans when the truth is that until the late 50’s and early 60’s when Federal court decisions made their legislative foot dragging on integration moot did the Left STOP being the ideology of the Black-hater, Jew-hater or indeed the “other”-haters they had always been; at least in public, there is no sign that the racism of the Left has done anything but morph into a more subtle and slimy form.

Before the Civil War the people in the North that most opposed abolition were Democrats; in the South the ones who supported it were Republican. During the Civil War (or The War, as Southerners like to refer to it to this day) The people in the North who opposed the war were Democrats. After the war was over the KKK was formed by, once again, Democrats.

In the 50’s it was Democrats who perpetrated the famous acts of violence against peaceful protestors; Gov. Wallace – Dem, Bull Connor – Dem, MLK’s assassin – Democrat… the list is endless. Republicans have their faults to be sure, any partisan grouping is going to have them running out of their ears but, if you hang someone, use a rope that they made, not one you crafted to lynch the innocent.

 

If this Koran gets burnt it could only be because – You Made Me Do It!

…Mohammad, the pedophile warlord with submissive and transvestite tendencies, met up with Jesus, the gay, black, communist right-man-in-the-wrong-place to engage in illicit sex with unclean animals… I pause here to look around; no-one seems to be bleeding, nothing seems to be burning, nobody’s pocket has been picked nor has their leg been broken; all that happened was that I wrote a sophomoric and idiotic series of statements about two religious figures, neither of whom has sent me any kind of complaint for my actions. My question to the blasphemy law proponents is this: What is WRONG with you guys?

 Human religious history reads like the development of a self-aware and , mostly, responsible young adult from a completely ignorant and self-centered infant. It is a story of tribes of humanity moving from stage to stage in our comprehension of just WHAT reality IS and WHO the hell WE are, and how do we relate to all the rest of it. IT is a story full of amazing examples of how primitive peoples can have grasped truths while too ignorant to even know why what they have written can still be said, even by science to be, on some level at least, true. We have also seen horrific examples of human wishes for things to be the “way they are SUPPOSED to be” ignoring all trace of the voice of God from within and causing misery upon misery in the name of “the Love of God“; it’s been a long, strange trip indeed.

In normal times and places people would describe me as a bit of a character and definitely of liberal views.In the areas of racial equality, sexual equality and the freedom of speech and religion I have always been on the quote ‘Liberal’ side of things. But as for the extremes of the leaders and their sheep – don’t put their words in my mouth, I am quite capable of putting my own foot there should the occasion arise!

My response to the latest assault on free speech by so-called Muslim people who have never had it, are uninterested in understanding it (which culd be said as equally about them regarding Islam as about free speech (religion for humans is supposed to be like the Pirate Code, less a set of rules than… guidlines) is simple. Let me wipe my feet on this book that used to be a Qur’an until you defiled it with your idolatry and then toss it on the fire to toast my kosher hot dogs.

Normally I would have no reason on the Earth to think of doing such a thing; it is the Islamist rioter’s idolatry that demands it to remind them that Allah has proscribed treating anything as though it is “the same” as Allah. To the beloved of God (Allah by your calling) it is not your holy book I spurn here, I “offend” against a stack of paper made trash by the actions of men who call themselves your fellow Muslims.

I have a policy of always being polite, except to those who demand it. The people who are easily offended and use their offense as a means to control others are usually the ones most in need of being “offended“, that they might have a chance to grow up and control their inner two year old. Especially since those are inner two-year old adults capable of building, and using, all sorts of weapons in order to “get their way“!

The Islamst rioters around the world are behaving like pre-Reformation Christians did but, without the built-in “leash” of Christianity’s  central text, narrative and central figure being all about love, peace and the humility and brotherhood of all humans before God… and about staying OUT of the unholy games of money and politics. Instead Islam has allowed itself to replace any feeling of human love and justice with the simple formula that what is commanded by Allah is mandatory if you wish to avoid committing a crime against God at the same time anything that is seen by the authoritative scholars (all long dead) to have be forbidden by the Islamic texts is forbidden. It is forbidden at any time, in any place and regardless of the humanly defined “moral” situation – unless, in some branches of Islam, the forbidden thing is done with a sincere desire in the heart of the otherwise, sinning Muslim to promote or protect Islam, Allah or the name of Mohammad. This holy principal was used to great effect by the atheistic Communists for their redefinition of the meaning of Pravda (truth) to “that which promotes the world Communist revolution.”

Islam is a rather un-unique religion in that it has been its heretics who have ‘enlightened‘ Islam over the course of the years, while Islamic fundamentalism has only acted to destroy the unity and harmony of societies of humans with differeing views in favor of primitive superstitions about God that have been abandoned long ago by virtually the rest of the religious world, barring a cult here and there.

My opinion? The only true prophet is the voice of God in your own heart; how well you are listeing in your life shows in your life and in your fruits. Not because you are “rewarded:” for “obedience” but because your understanding from God changes you into someone who does not need to ask what is right and what is wrong when they know the facts, it comes from within, not from the memory of a priest or Imam’s sermon.

Oh, Virginia, you will like this bit; In the pre-70 CE Judaism you would have still found a tendency toward the same sort of Shari’ah type system that the modern Islamsts seem to be clamouring for; but by 70 CE that tendency had already mellowed considerably; to the point where Pilate chided the Sadducee dominated alternate Sanhedrin for being lax in the enforcement in their world-famously harsh code of law. The Jews, LIke the Christians later and the Muslims soon (we all hope),  had mellowed over 4 thousand years or so as gloss after gloss, commentary after commentary and, yes, interpolation and insertion after interpolation and insertion changed their tribal superstition into a reflection of the shape of God within us all; they followed the trail of their central tenet: God IS Love/Love of God is All.

It started with Abraham and his using a wonderfully bald-faced baloney about rams and bushes and the ‘Voice of God ™‘ to explain his realization that to kill his son HOPING it MIGHT please God was simply not a ‘Godly‘ thing to do; but as he supposedly smashed the idols of his father’s shop, not because they were “evil things” but because they had come to be seen by the people as BEING the Gods instead of merely being a focus for a person’s attention on Godly thoughts. Idolatry is to act as though an idol IS a God in all ways. Surely it is a small step from there to see that this attitude obliterates the view of GOD from the “idolator’s” path? The Jews, the first ‘Judaic‘ Christians, Protestants (what do you think one of the main things they were ‘protesting‘ was?) Christians all have no argument with the basic idea that to place too much reverence in an image of a person (even Jesus) is ‘religiously-unhealthy’. At the same time all of these religions and sects have engaged in idolatry freely on one level or another, time after time.

In fundamentalist Islam we see a completely theocratic and intolerant, indeed by any other World Religion’s standard’s, a primitive tribal faith; structured not around a seaking of the Will of God but instead based around an almost pathological defense of Islam’s freedom from every other human religions’ burden: to constantly question and test its own faiths; to SHUT UP long enough for the small voice of God within us to tell their clergy what is faithful to the God of their worship, the one of their soul instead of the one that only lives in their scripture, and what is only their human failing to be more true to their own selfish desire than to what is right!

However, it is not all bad Virginia, all religions have the strength, as well as the weakness, of being the product of the human mind and soul; science has found that truth is not a possession you can keep to yourself, anyone with a sincere heart and mind can find it if they search with passion and humility.

It is all about how we use it. One of my earliest quibbles with the Christian Bible regarded the notion that a so called ‘perfect being’ was even capable of making a “wrong” choice (unless they were error about their actual data and the very trustworthyness of the source of that data; since Adam and Eve are also described as totally ‘innocent’ this would mean that they lacked all capacity for what we would call judgement and unable to label anything as “willfull mis-information provided by a source not sanctioned by authority as trustwrothy or untrustworthy.” Eve simply accepted the Serpent’s correction of Adam’s recollection of God’s warning, Adam could not judge between the two data sets and was going to fall back on procedure; why would a ‘perfect being’ of human intelligence accept the authority of the Serpent unless it were through mere ignorance that ANY voiced being that spoke to them might fail to speak the truth. It follows that God had either not warned them about the Serpent’s influence or, that they were at that time already “imperfect“. Either way I failed to see how they could have been ‘guilty‘ of anything!

What is the meaning of perfect if a perfect being cannot see that she should not be arguing the side of some random critter with a voice that has been hanging around, regardless of whether or not God had specificallly told her not to trust it; and a ‘perfect‘ Adam would know better than to let his mate’s opinion be the deciding factor when he himself rememberered God’s warnings; it should be noted though that God lied about the effects of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil since as the rest of the text makes clear that it is the SERPENT’s version that actually occurs (or is feared to be about to occur) by… but, oh my… this is another article in itself. It seems that it seems that the effect of Adam and Eve eating not only the Fruit of Knowlege of Good and Evil but also the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, by which Holy Combo-Smoothie they might live forever and Be As “WE” Are.

The point is that the God portrayed in the earliest parts of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim traditions is either a liar or, far from the omnipotent, oniscient, omnibenevolent being humans conceived of 2,000 years ago; nor the individualized “entity” called the “creator” of the universe Who is also immanent and omnipresent that most faiths ascribe so form of to the word “Deity” today. The worst news though is for non-Monist religions: Quantum physics points to proof that All is One. Yes Virginia, people in white coats with huge intelects and no social lives have proven in repeatable experiments that …

“I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together“! – John Lennon

The nature of time as well defeats those who see God, or Allah or whomever as ‘outside‘ the universe; affecting but unaffected, indeed the very source of effect. If this were so then they would be unable to intervene, change, react or in anyway interact with their created universe for its entire internal “existence.” A God that is within the universe is therefore of the universe and so, if you believe in a God the can relate to you in any way then in the universe you belive in all that is, is inextricably part of God!

When you start to let this all sink in the very ideas of “blasphemy” or “heresy” become ludicrsrous. It hardly takes the wise observation of the ancients that if the Gods exist then it is for Them to decide what is blasphemy, and what fails to make the grade; it is also traditional in such religion’s for the Deity to identify the guilty, and to assign their punishement/retribution. It certainly is not the usual scriptural practice for it to to be the job of any random fool who calls themselves “faithful” to make God responsible for the “working out” of said un-annointed human being’s most personal, and often twisted, inner “issues” in the guise of “protecting” God’s honor!

If my actions offend God then I am sure that God will be fully capable of making my own life, and after-life, conform to God’s, not my own, idea of ‘justice’; anyone else can stay out of my face unless I get up in their’s!

If your relationship with God is threatened by someone else not holding your faith then you have no relationship with God, or Allah, or anything, you have put God in a box and attempted to control your Deity like a pair of shoes. If you think that God (or Allah) is somehow harmed by my words or actions, or that my words or actions could hinder God’s (or Allah’s) plan for humanity and the Earth one jot or tittle (biblical language: sorry but, confidentially Virginia, I am hoping it addds a sage-like air to this piece that might even survive my irreverent sarcasm) then it is they who are the ones commiting blasphemy by putting their own judgement before their Lord’s will for each moment of Creation!

Causing harm to property, people and livelighoods because you think Allah (or God), or Marx for that matter, is hurt and wants you to act like a spoiled two-year old with a machinegun is not a return to fundamentalism, nor is it an expression of the radical fringe of a religion. It is nothing more or less than a social/cultural version of having a disease like rabies in the family dogs.

When are the civilized Muslims in America and around the world going to stop waiting for a new scripture  (forbidden by Islam for anyone ever to write and that most Muslims do not even want) to come along and reform the social diseases within their religion and do it themselves? Can we be sure they want to? If they did then the Ahmadiyya, Sihk and Ba’hai would be thriving and growing faiths all across the Muslim world. In the real world all of them are subject to persecutions and pogroms in many Muslim nations, and are attacked secpond only to Jews by Muslims in the West (Christian are attacked too, just not as frequently or consistently).

A book is a book; holy books should be treated with great respect but, reacting with ANY kind of retaliation on the part of God blashphemes against any ‘holiness‘ you felt the book held if you take that path. If I burn a Qur’an or put dung on a Crucifix or use a statuue of Kali as a coatrack it will be because I used an object in a maner I saw fit that harmed no-one; in I say things about your God or Allah or Mohammed or Jesus or Hitler or any other deity that yo do not like then yo take that rage and give it to God, or Allah etc… You stole it from them to begin with, it is only fitting that you give it back and get on with demonstrating the positive aspects of yor fiaith to those, we might assume, you as a faithful son or daughter of whom you bloody well hope to CHOOSE to change to join your faith.

…so, as I was saying Mohammed and Jesus got out of the third bathhouse and met up with Rama and a few Clears. But I am telling you, the party didn’t get rolling until Lucifer started doing card tricks by pulling puppies out of Mohammed’s houri’s… umm, Virginia, isn’t it past your bed time?

Kuwaiti Professor Abdallah Al-Nafisi “Thanks for Saving My Country; Please Die in Screaming Pain Now! Inshallah”

Here we have a Professor Abdallah Al-Nafisi at a KUWAITI university speaking his mind about the horrors he dreams about being inflicted upon the nation that saved his from destruction. Yes I said Kuwait, the country whose men were french kissing our troops just a few years ago when we saved them from Iraq.

This video is a comprehensive education for the ignorant moderate and the reactionarily Leftist. Watch this man’s face; see the “innocent” glee that warms his features at some of the things he says. Remember that to Reform Islam is not to destroy Islam. Reforming Islam is all that can save it; I am not the only soul in the West who will not lie down to what this man prays for Allah to make our fate.

What I find interesting is how people like trhis “professor” seem know that they cannot ever compete face to face with the Western nations. They wish for the success of evil, dirty tricks, or even for some infidel to do their job for them; Allah willing. It is this poor self image and lack of confidence masking as certainty that will help us to prevail. Why else are so many Muslims eager to live secular lives with Western sensibilities except when given positive correction from traditional  Muslim leaders.

Greece was conquered by Rome, Rome fell to the barbarian hordes but who did the Islamic empires fall to? Answer: themselves, greed and corruption and infighting did the deed with no outside interferance.
Patience, education and their own inherant self-destruction are all we need to win!

For My New Friends at Scripps; Run With It Girls!

 

hereticscrusadethumb

Hear now the words of Kipling, as he reminds America that colonialism was more of a burden than a benefit to Western cultures:

(I make one small change, in the common language of Kipling’s time the difference between race and culture was very blurred if seen at all. If you change the words White Man to Westerner I believe you free the full truth of Kipling’s poem without tainting it with racism.)

Take up the Westerner’s burden–

Send forth the best ye breed–

Go bind your sons to exile

To serve your captives’ need;

To wait in heavy harness,

On fluttered folk and wild–

Your new-caught, sullen peoples,

Half-devil and half-child.

 

Take up the Westerner’s burden–

In patience to abide,

To veil the threat of terror

And check the show of pride;

By open speech and simple,

An hundred times made plain

To seek another’s profit,

And work another’s gain.

 

Take up the Westerner’s burden–

The savage wars of peace–

Fill full the mouth of Famine

And bid the sickness cease;

And when your goal is nearest

The end for others sought,

Watch sloth and heathen Folly

Bring all your hopes to naught.

 

Take up the Westerner’s burden–

No tawdry rule of kings,

But toil of serf and sweeper–

The tale of common things.

 

The ports ye shall not enter,

The roads ye shall not tread,

Go mark them with your living,

And mark them with your dead.

 

Take up the Westerner’s burden–

And reap his old reward:

The blame of those ye better,

The hate of those ye guard–

The cry of hosts ye humour

(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:–

“Why brought he us from bondage,

Our loved Egyptian night?”

 

Take up the Westerner’s burden–

Ye dare not stoop to less–

Nor call too loud on Freedom

To cloak your weariness;

By all ye cry or whisper,

By all ye leave or do,

The silent, sullen peoples

Shall weigh your gods and you.

 

Take up the Westerner’s burden–

Have done with childish days–

The lightly proffered laurel,

The easy, ungrudged praise.

 

Comes now, to search your manhood

Through all the thankless years

Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,

The judgment of your peers!

To the common political “wisdom” these days, the words of Kipling seem to be the crowing of a classically arrogant, Dead White Man. But, when analyzed they show not a single lie, distortion, or untruth.

Today the term racism has been co-opted by the other side, and is now used mostly BY racists to demonize their opposition and mask their own agenda.

I was fortunate enough to have been raised in an environment that was very colorblind. Not in a hyper-PC “Oh, we NEVER talk about the color of Johnny’s skin” way, but more as in no one around me ever made any big deal about it; people were people, and that was about that.

As a result, I was puzzled on hitting college age when people put such an emphasis on NOT seeing the obvious when it came to cultural differences. What can there possibly be wrong with noting that say, the North Korean culture is seriously inferior to just about all other modern cultures?

Just who is racist, the one who sees people of all color as good, bad, and sometimes indifferent, or the one who sees their own RACE, not only culture, as the villain and excuses ALL other races with an argument that amounts to “they don’t know any better, so we can’t hold them to our high standards.”

Who is racist when every single sign in the Wal-Mart near my house (with many Hispanics in the area) has duplications of all signs in Spanish, while the Wal-mart in Diamond Bar, where there are a great many Asians, the signs are only in English?

Is it not an insult to put “Cosmeticas” under the word cosmetics? Even tourists are not usually THAT clueless.

To me it smacks of an arrogance that assumes certain races are less able to “cope” with our society than others.

On the other hand, if the impetus for these signs comes from the Hispanic community itself, it is also just another form of arrogance. It is then saying “hey, we don’t care HOW close your stupid English is to the Spanish, we do not want to have to even pretend to think we are not in a Hispanic country if we don’t want to.”

Just imagine a white American expressing that attitude. The Leftist lynch mob would be after them in a flash.

We have a term in America that we apply to, among other things, the kind of American who lives in a foreign land in an American enclave, and ignores the culture and language of their hosts…

We call them assholes. Unless they are from a developing land and act that way IN the West. Then we call them oppressed.

Is it not racism to think that Westerners should completely adapt to cultures wherever they go but, non-Westerners are not required to do the same, when THEY travel to the West?

What other than racist arrogance (on one side or the other, if not both), would make anyone think that ONLY the Spanish speakers need to have a special option on phone lines?

And on that note, what about the racism of the Spanish speakers toward all the Portuguese speakers? ALL anyone ever talks about in California is Spanish this, and Spanish that. Do we not get immigrants from Brazil, and the other Portuguese countries?

The HiSPANIC issue has been taken over by those who speak Spanish, and the entire Portuguese based culture has been suppressed in America. The general public is hardly aware that there are TWO major cultures in South America, not just one.

At some point simpleminded Humans seem to became confused about the difference between skin color and culture. As an American though, I have grown up with the glaring example of a place where about the only thing that really controls how a person lives is the cultural face they choose to show the world.

A Hispanic man, who dresses and acts like he wants all the world to know that he could have been type-cast in a remake of Zoot Suit will not have the opportunities given to him that a man who is assimilated (into WHATEVER country he lives in) and happens to have been born in Mexico will have. Or one born in China, or one born in America for that matter.

Even keeping to just white Americans, who will deny the profound differences between people who grow up in inner city Brooklyn, and those who grow up in suburban Southern California? Which one would you rather hire for a job dealing with customers in Japan?

Culture matters. Culture is values, and traditions, and ethics. One culture says stealing is not a crime when a person is legitimately desperate, while another says that a man raping his wife is no criminal.

Both think the other society is wrong. Who wins? In the West it is the one that provides the most freedom and opportunity to all, while oppressing none, is the best regardless of the details.

In the East it is one that protects the status quo, and those who fall between the cracks are just collateral damage in the pursuit of a pure society that will be completely benign; once all opposition is removed.

Yeah, right, we have heard that one before.

But if you take a person from ANY culture that is willing to adapt, and put them in ANY place where they are given the opportunity to do so, they will thrive and their children, and children’s children will be of the new country, not the old “race”.

So, what is the point of all this PC pretense that all cultures are equal and valid, and no one’s “cultural experience” should be held as less than any other’s?

Good question. I do not see how it can be anything that is meant for the good of all involved.

Anyone who travels far enough from their home culture will be seen as “wrong” in their ways.

Take two examples: A bunch of random California college students dumped in Saudi Arabia would be seen as tainted and evil and inferior to the locals, not for their race (which could be anything, including Arab), as much as for how they acted, and their moral, and ethic values, and what religion they belonged to.

And a bunch of the elite of Saudi Arabia let off the leash in America would offend MANY people with THEIR actions and values.

As an example, not too long ago a Saudi Prince was caught beating his servants in Switzerland and he was arrested. The Saudi Government’s response was to put political and economic pressure on the Swiss until THEY apologized.

Is this the response of a civilized nation? No, it is the response of a tribal mindset; A mindset that sees “us” as always to be protected right or wrong and “them” as always worth less than any of “us” regardless of actual individual merit.

I for one refuse to apologize for acting with vigor to defend against the destruction and defamation of the cultural paradigm that has brought the world from violence, ignorance and superstition to the point where the only thing keeping most people’s down is their own lack of commitment to those same ideals.

This is not to say that the West is perfect. There never has been a perfect society, and I do not expect to see one any time soon. I am content with protecting and improving the only one that has actually had significant results in improving the lot of all humanity.

To those who accuse me of only talking about non-Western tribalism I would like to say that I have spent a lot of my time highlighting the aspects of our own culture that retain tribal elements.

The deep South in America is one place where Tribalism is still fairly strong for a Western land. The Us and Them factor is ever present there in way a Californian like me finds boggling.

Institutional prejudices that I grew up thinking only were seen in the movies and on TV were shoved in my face when I had been living there for less than a month. I did not respond by assuming the locals knew best, and that I was just an interfering outsider.

I stood up for the values that made the West, and America, what they are. But even the worst of rural Louisiana culture has risen far above the level of the highest of the non-Western lands.

To pursue civilization means to pursue, fair, consistent laws for ALL people, instead of privilege for a few, with subservience for the rest, in pursuit of a FUTURE paradise that is promised to be “worth” the unfortunate “deviations” of the present.

So, do not be ashamed to stand up for the West. Do not be afraid to call non-Westerners to task for their barbaric treatment of minorities and women.

Stand for the West, and world civilization or you can be sure your apathy will be used by those who promote tribal and totalitarian thought to take your power away and use it ON you, instead of FOR you.

Bottom line, freedom of religion and conscience gives you a right not to be oppressed by others as you pursue your business, it does not give you a right to make others dance to your tune, or allow you to break commonsense laws protecting public health and safety simply because you do not “believe” in doing things that way.

The PC paradigm says we should pretend that the U.S. and Iran are equal in “civilization”, and that it is wrong and evil to even TRY to judge which might be the “better” culture.

But that attitude denies the three thousand years of developing human rights and government for the People we find in the West. If the values of the West; freedom of speech and religion and conscience, and Constitutional government designed to limit the excesses of individuals are not meaningless mental masturbations by a timid people somehow afraid to “deal with the nitty gritty real world”, then the “values” of Iran, and North Korea, and such places can ONLY been seen as evil, and inimical to those who are unfortunate enough to grow up in them, or are subject to their power.

To get any other answer is to say that all of the West’s evolution toward dealing with other nations and individuals humanely has been a meaningless game that has no moral ramifications at all in the eyes of any hypothetical “objective” observer”.

How did the progress of the West toward equal rights for all get derailed into favoritism to favored minorities, disdain for the un-favored, and outright institutional contempt for not only the indigenous peoples but, the entire indigenous culture of the West?

I think Neville Chamberlain could explain the phenomenon if he were here; in every group there are Hardliners, and Compromisers, and Appeasers.

Hardliners will not see the brick wall in front of their face if it means giving up one iota of their agenda but, the Appeaser willingly sacrifices, one by one, every vital aspect of their psyche and security for the promise of peace in the future, and to be seen as the “good guy”.

But, the Compromiser weighs each path in relation to the situation, and THEN chooses to compromise or to stand firm. Unfortunately Hardliners and Appeasers seem to be the dominant breed in politics today, and the result is hardly more than a tug of war between the hardliners and appeasers on BOTH sides of the political spectrum.

In the terror wars the appeasers seem concentrated in the West, and the hardliners are almost all on the Islamic side, when it comes to foreign policy.  But in domestic policy, the Appeasers of the West turn Hardliner towards their own people, and conspire toward the downfall of our culture as a means of “humbling” the “arrogant Colonial Powers”.

This is how we ended up with a “separation of church and state” that allowed the government to pay for Muslim footbaths at a state university.

This is how we see a couple in England put on trial for criminal racism, merely for responding to statements by a Muslim woman about THEIR religion, that TO THEM, Mohammed was a warlord, and Muslim traditional dress is oppressive to women.

For stating two truths that any third grader with a copy of the Koran and Ahadith could confirm, these people may lose their Bed & Breakfast (yep the woman was a GUEST under their roof when she initiated a conversation about their Christian beliefs), because they “insulted and offended” a member of the only religion that demands that YOU follow THEIR customs at all times when they MIGHT be present, or AWARE of your activities.

When was the last time a Jew, or Christian, or Hindu demanded co-workers refrain from eating in front of them during a fast? Why do they not? Because they subscribe to the ethics of the West when in the West, not the tribalism of the East.

Civilized people tend to not like appearing uncivilized, even when presented with those who are truly barbaric. We tend to give the benefit of the doubt, and bend over backwards to excuse the behavior of non-Westerners (in this Japan, and South Korea, and others like them are in “the West”), no matter how horrific, simply because at one time in the past our culture had “taken advantage” of them.

That the non-Western countries that were colonized are all dramatically better off (at least, as far as the people in the street are concerned), with the influx of Western Law, and Western Science, and Western concepts of Human Rights is deemed irrelevant.

That they treat their own people, or foreigners with no power, in ways that make the WORST of the colonial excesses look tame, also means nothing.

If you say that the English were preferred employers to the local Indian rich folk during The Raj because they treated their servants more humanely, and that Islamic attacks over centuries cost the lives of MILLIONS of Indians by DIRECT violence, you are called racist or Islamophobic.

Yet the fact remains, the English actually freed India from despotism, and the Islamics brought eventual barbarism wherever they won.

So, why are the English demonized as the oppressors of India, and the Islamics, who conquered with blood half of that ancient land, seen as “victims”?

Things like this happen because the Appeasers are not half as afraid of having their civilization destroyed as they are of being seen as barbarian themselves. They will excuse time and again those from non-Western nations that seek to bring their customs into our lands no matter how many laws are broken, or how many people, Western and Non-Western alike, have to suffer or even die so they can pretend that “all cultures are equal”.

So, what makes a civilized culture as opposed to a barbarian one? To the ancient Greeks who coined the word barbarian it meant any who were so benighted that they did not speak Greek. To the Shogun Japanese, it was anyone who was not Japanese, no matter how high their technology or cultural achievements.

To me, civilized cultures are those that allow their individual members the stability and safety to build their lives in peace, and a consistent and humane system of laws that apply to all people equally, so that all, rich and poor know where they stand in regard to acceptable behavior toward each other as humans, regardless of their “station” in life.

When these criteria are met a society can start building “civilizational equity” that grows over time.

Without them, a society will remain stuck in a feudal or tribal mode that has no checks and balances against abuses of personal power.

When every functionary, officer, and elected official seeks to build their own power base without duty to the people, and the people are expected to obey without question any who have power over them, cooperation drops to a minimum and consistency in law and its application are hard to find.

Let us come right out and say it, today “World Civilization” IS Western Civilization.

The most universal aspects of our world today, those of culture, and technology, and law, that are shared and sought by the people of almost every nation are almost exclusively the brainchildren of Western civilization.

We can fantasize all we want about how the many things the ancient Chinese invented, or how the many Greek and Indian works the Islamics preserved (and modestly improved) makes them the equal of the West, but it does not change the truth.

The Chinese invented things but, then used the knowledge as a means to horde power. Their lack of sharing of information between scientists and innovators caused many discoveries to either languish unused, like deep ocean navigation, or the secrets were never spread. When the inventers and their people disappeared, so did the knowledge.

The printing press was invented in China a thousand years before Gutenberg made his but, the Chinese still mainly used the older wood block printing when the Europeans were printing books by the gross.

Individual innovation inherent in the Chinese culture did not take up, and improve, and spread around the new ideas and inventions. Instead technology was horded like a secret weapon, to be used only for the benefit of the owner.

And because of this, most of the innovation by individuals in ancient China came to naught over time.

But in the West, with a different way of looking at power, the rate of progress, sustained, accelerating progress, has been unparalleled anywhere in human history.

Starting with the traditions of the Greeks and Phoenicians, and developed by the Romans, Western European – council based (as opposed to those controlled by kings and priests) tribes adopted many of the new ideas from their Roman conqueror, and blended them with their own rough and ready form of democracy and individual rights.

Westward rolled the tide of humane civilization. At the high tide of the changes and innovations from the Italian renaissance European thinkers shifted to an even higher civilizational gear and began what came to be called the Enlightenment. No longer would priests and kings be obeyed simply because they were priests or kings. With this evolution the value of ALL people came into its own, and then the tide jumped the ocean to America.

There all bets were off, as the West turned fully away from the old Eastern paradigm of the individual existing only to serve the society. Instead the West had recognized that all societies only exist to serve the people that make them real in the first place.

The most significant difference between the West and the East is this concept.

To a Chinese gentleman I once chatted up the nation of China is more important than the individual rights, or desires, or even the oppression of any of the subject peoples of that nation.

This man was not a bad person. In fact he was so nice and reasonable that when he said the above, as though it was completely obvious, it shocked me.

But to him, growing up in the East, people only had worth as they contributed to the WHOLE. To him, anyone who in any way diminished the whole was simply wrong, no matter what the reason.

To him, if Taiwan or Tibet once were “China” they always should be, and individuals who happened to live there needed to act like it.

In contrast the West sees the WHOLE as sick unless it promotes the well being of the individual, as well as the whole!

In the East, the state may oppress the people to keep order, in the West the people may dispense with the state if it does not serve them.

This was the whole premise of the American “revolution” and has spread all over the Western world. It is now “common sense” in the West that a people have the right to create a government that benefits them, and that The State has no right to put stability ahead of the law.

In the East, the only people who have the right to overthrow the government, are the people who belong to the winning faction in said revolution. “Treason doth never prosper, for if it does, none dare call it treason”.

To take power for “us”, for the “right thinkers”, is seen as a “legal” violation of the principal of putting the state first.

But, all this does is replace one set of thugs with another, then another, then another.

So now, let us compete abandon any pretence of PCism and declare that it is ONLY the hated values of the West that keep non-Western nations from barbarism and political instability.

Even China and India, the most advanced non-western cultures, routinely sacrifice the rights of the person to pursue the prosperity of the whole. India does it much less than China due to their greater orientation toward the West, and as a result is a “freer” place to live for its citizens (at least in comparison with completely non-Western countries that take our technology and try to ignore the rest).

As a result, the people in these lands do not know where they stand from year to year, and it is next to impossible to build stable institutions.

India especially has been a textbook of the evolution from a tribal society to a Western one based on law.

Compare its evolution to that of Pakistan, which retains its attachment to the tribal past.

When there is no underlying structure to the law, when each new ruler acts by whim, and not in accord with agreed rules, the citizen is left adrift in a sea of uncertainty and corruption.

Making nice with evil men is seen as simply the price a person must pay to be allowed any life at all. Success comes not from values but, from a willingness to compromise ALL values on the altar of the local boss’s power, and his ability to pull the strings of influence.

In the West, we know from experience that a few humane rules that apply to everyone produces more prosperity and stability and opportunity for all than all the strong arm rulers in history ever managed to give their people.

Those in the East know this too. But in their paradigm power is not to be shared lest someone else take it all and leave you nothing. Do unto others before they do unto you is the rule in lands that do not accept Western ethics.

Their leaders are willing to see their people live forever in fear and oppression,, as long as they can feel secure in their power as leader.

But this fails the very task of a leader, to protect and provide security for their people since to promote Western values is to undermine everything that made them powerful in the first place.

In these lands each time the people can stand no more and rebel the only point on the agenda for the new regime is to consolidate power in the same way that those who oppressed them consolidated it: By force, and without mercy for dissent.

By contrast the more a nation has embraced Western Values the more stable and prosperous that nation becomes. Nowhere is this more blatantly obvious than in Israel, and the Arab states surrounding it.

How can a tiny, oppressed, besieged people be the world’s most innovative and inventive nation? How can this tiny land produce so much good for all humanity in medicine and agriculture and science while surrounded by lands where civilization is something to be had only by those who can afford to import it from the West?

How can Israel give citizenship to Muslim Arabs and retain its integrity and yet Saudi Arabia will not even accept as citizens fellow Arab Muslims from neighboring Arab nations lest they lose some sort of Holy “Saudiness”? And of course, non-Muslims are far from equal to Muslims there in rights and privileges.

Power, and how it is used and protected, is what it all boils down to.

In the West, governing power is seen as naturally belonging to all of us, and is to be used for the benefit of everyone.

In the East, this power belongs to the collective group, be it nation or tribe, and is to be used to further the nation’s or tribe’s wellbeing.

However, the individuals of the East are seen as replaceable parts in a machine they serve rather than being served by. In the West it is the rulers who are seen as replaceable. Judging each paradigm by its fruits it is clear which one is better at delivering its promise of a stable, prosperous culture.

So, why do so many in the West trip over themselves to allow Non-Westerners to practice any and all of their tribal “values” in our lands, even when those practices are illegal, and universally condemned for Westerners?

How can a civilized Westerner ever allow things like forced marriage, and genital mutilation, and honor killings to resurface in the West.

Did all those who fought and died to make these horrors go away in the West act in vain? Is it our duty as “civilized” folk to allow “underdeveloped” people to re-establish in our own lands every horror we ourselves have outgrown?

About the only even partially reasonable answer I can come up with as to why this happens is that people are so scared of being seen themselves as uncivilized that they will not make ANY judgment on another person’s culture lest they somehow be tarred with the same brush as REAL oppressors from the past.

In embarrassment at the excesses of Western civilization (which are not very “excessive” compared to social policy outside the West) they will not only excuse, but PROMOTE worse excesses in their own lands by those who are less civilized.

It is somehow culturally insensitive for a Westerner to tell an immigrant they can’t keep their women ignorant and enslaved.

But it is not insensitive for that same immigrant to demand that the Western women in their new land conform to his notion of proper dress in order not to provoke rape (yes, that came from an actual Australian Imam, who said that Western woman should veil in order to get along better with the Muslim immigrants who were treating Western Women with violence and contempt).

We in the West need to get over this over-developed sense of guilt, and start acting with more responsibility to our hard won values.

We need to stop applying double standards to the values of Dead White Men (and women, Queen Elizabeth I and others made huge contributions; Q.E. I pioneered the concept of consolidating ruling power by serving the interests of the people instead of the nobility) and stop protecting those who want to strip away 500 years of advancement in favor of a return to tribalism, with them at the top of the pecking order.

What is a racist?


Hear now the words of Kipling as he reminded America that colonialism was more a burden than a benefit to Western Cultures:

(I make one small change, in the common language of Kipling’s time the difference between race and culture was very blurred if seen at all. If you change the words White Man to Westerner I believe you free the full truth of Kipling’s poem without tainting it with racism.)

Take up the Westerner’s burden–
Send forth the best ye breed–
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives’ need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild–
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the Westerner’s burden–
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another’s profit,
And work another’s gain.

Take up the Westerner’s burden–
The savage wars of peace–
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the Westerner’s burden–
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper–
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.

Take up the Westerner’s burden–
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard–
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:–
“Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?”

Take up the Westerner’s burden–
Ye dare not stoop to less–
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the Westerner’s burden–
Have done with childish days–
The lightly proferred laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!

To the common political “wisdom” these days the words of Kipling seem to be the crowing of a classic arrogant dead white man. But when analyzed they show not a single lie, distortion or untruth. Today the term racism has been co-opted by the other side and is now used mostly BY racists to demonize their opposition and mask their own agenda.

I was fortunate enough to have been raised in an environment that was very colorblind. Not in a hyper-PC “oh, we NEVER talk about the color of Johnny’s skin” way but as in that no one around me ever made any kind of a big deal about it. People were people and that was about that.

As a result I was puzzled on hitting college age when people put such an emphasis on NOT seeing the obvious when it came to cultural differences. What can there possibly be wrong with noting say, that the North Korean culture is seriously inferior to just about all other modern ones? Just who is racist, the one who sees people of all color as good, bad and sometimes indifferent or the one who sees their own RACE, not only culture, as the villain and excuses ALL other races with an argument that amounts to “they don’t know any better so we can’t hold them to our standards.”

Who is racist when every single sign in the Wal-Mart near my house (with many Hispanics in the area) has duplicate Spanish while the Wal-mart in Diamond Bar where there are a great many Asians the signs are only in English? Is it not an insult to put “Cosmeticas” under the word cosmetics? Even tourists are not usually that clueless. To me it smacks of an arrogance that assumes certain races are less able to “cope” with our society than others. ON the other hand if the impetus for these signs comes from the Hispanic community itself it is another form of arrogance. It is then saying “hey, we don’t care HOW close your stupid English is to the Spanish, we do not want to have to even pretend to think we are not in a Hispanic country if we don’t want to.” Just imagine a white American expressing that attitude. The Leftist lynch mob would be after them in a flash. We have a term in America that we apply to, among other things, the kind of American who lives in a foreign land in an American elcleve and ignored the culture and language of their hosts…we call them assholes. Unless they are from a developing land and live that way in the West. Then we call them oppressed. Is it not racism to think that Westerners should completely adapt to cultures wherever they go but non-Westerners are not required to do the same when they travel to the West?

What other than a racist arrogance (on one side or the other, if not both) would make anyone think that ONLY the Spanish speakers need to have a special option on phone lines? And on that note, What about the racism of the Spanish speakers toward all the Portuguese speakers? ALL anyone ever talks about in Ca is Spanish this and Spanish that. Do we not get immigrants from Brazil and the other Portuguese countries? The HiSPANIC issue has been taken over by those who speak Spanish and the entire Portuguese based culture has been suppressed in America. The general public is hardly aware that there are TWO major cultures in South America not just one.

At some point simpleminded Humans became confused between skin color and culture. As an American though I have grown up with the glaring example of a place where about the only thing that really controls how a person lives is the cultural face they show the world.

A Mexican man who dresses and acts like he wants all the world to know he could be type-cast in a modern remake of Zoot Suit will not have the opportunities given to him that a man who is assimilated (into WHATEVER country he lives in) and happens to have been born in Mexico will have. Or one born in China, or one born in America for that matter.

Even keeping to just white Americans, who will deny the profound differences between people who grow up in inner city Brooklyn to those who grew up in suburban Southern California. Which one would you rather hire for a job dealing with customers in Chicago? Culture matters. Culture is values and traditions and ethics. One culture says stealing is not a crime when a person is legitimately desperate, while another says a man raping his wife is no criminal. Both think the other society is wrong. Who wins? In the West the one that provides the most freedom and opportunity to all while oppressing none is the best regardless of the details. In the East it is one that protects the status quo and those who fall between the cracks are just collateral damage in the pursuit of a pure society that will be completely benign once all opposition is removed. Yeah, right, we have heard that one before.

But if you take a person from ANY culture that is willing to adapt and put them in ANY place where they are given the opportunity to do so they will thrive and their children and children’s children will be of the new country and not the old “race”.

So what is the point of all this PC pretense that all cultures are equal and valid and no one’s “cultural experience” should be held as less than any other’s? Good question. I do not see how it can be anything that is meant for the good of all involved. Anyone who travels far enough from their home culture will be seen as “wrong” in their ways. Take two examples: A bunch of random California college students dumped in Saudi Arabia would be seen as tainted and evil and inferior to the locals not for their race (which could be anything, including Arab) as much as for how they acted and their moral and ethic values and what religion they belonged to. And a bunch of the elite of Saudi Arabia let off the leash in America would offend many people in Ca. with THEIR actions and values.
As an example, not too long ago a Saudi Prince was caught beating his servants in Switzerland and he was arrested. The Saudi Government’s response was to put political and economic pressure on the Swiss until THEY apologized. Is this the response of a civilized nation? No, it is the response of a tribal mindset; A mindset that sees “us” as always to be protected right or wrong and “them” as always worth less than any of “us” regardless of actual individual merit.
I for one refuse to apologize for acting with vigor to defend against the destruction and defamation of the cultural paradigm that has brought the world from violence, ignorance and superstition to the point where the only thing keeping most peoples down is their own lack of commitment to those ideals.
This is not to say that the West is perfect. There never has been a perfect society and I do not expect to see one any time soon. I am content with protecting and improving the only one that has actually had results in improving the lot of humanity.
To those who accuse me of only talking about non-Western tribalism I would like to say that I have spent a lot of my time highlighting the aspects of our own culture that retain tribal elements. The deep South in America is one place where Tribalism is still fairly strong for a Western land. The Us and Them factor is ever present there in way a Californian like me finds boggling. Institutional prejudices that I thought only remained in the movies and TV were shoved in my face. I did not respond by assuming the locals knew best and I was just an interfering outsider. I stood up for the values that made the West and America what they are. But even the worst of rural Louisiana culture has risen far above the level of the highest of the non-Western lands. To pursue civilization means to pursue, fair, consistent laws for ALL people instead of privilege for a few and subservience for the rest in pursuit of a FUTURE paradise that will be worth the unfortunate “deviations” of the present.
So do not be ashamed to stand up for the West. Do not be afraid to call non-Westerners to task for their barbaric treatment of minorities and women. Stand for the West and world civilization or you can be sure your apathy will be used by those who promote tribal and totalitarian thought to take your power away and use it ON you instead of for you.
Bottom line, freedom of religion and conscience gives you a right not to be oppressed by others as you pursue your business, it does not give you a right to make others dance to your tune or allow you to break local laws protecting public health and safety because you do not “believe” in doing things that way.
The PC paradigm says we should pretend that the U.S. and Iran are equal in “civilization” and that it is wrong and evil to even try to judge which might be the “better” culture. But that attitude denies the three thousand years of developing human rights in the West. If the values of the West; freedom of speech and religion and conscience are not meaningless mental masturbations by a timid people afraid to “deal with the nitty gritty real world” then the “values” of Iran and North Korea and such places can only been seen as evil and inimical for those who grow up in them or are subject to their power. To get any other answer is to say that all of the West’s evolution toward dealing with other nations and individuals humanely has been a meaningless game that has no moral ramifications at all in the eyes of any hypothetical “objective” observer”.
How did the progress of the West toward equal rights for all get derailed into favoritism to favored minorities, disdain for the un-favored and outright institutional contempt for not only the indigenous races but the entire indigenous cultures of the West? I think Neville Chamberlain could explain the phenomenon if he were here. In every group there are hardliners and compromisers and appeasers. Hardliners will not see the brick wall in front of their face if it means giving up one iota of their agenda but the appeaser willingly sacrifices, one by one, every vital aspect of their psyche and security for the promise of peace in the future and to be seen as the “good guy”. But the compromiser weighs each path in relation to the situation and THEN chooses to compromise or not. As hardliners and appeasers seem to be the dominant breed in politics what we have today is the result of a tug of war between the hardliners and appeasers on both sides of the political spectrum.
In the terror wars the appeasers are concentrated in the West and the hardliners are almost all on the Islamic side. This is how we end up with a “separation of church and state” that allows the government to pay for Muslim footbaths at a state university. This is how we see a couple in England put on trial for criminal racism for merely responding to statements by a Muslim woman about THEIR religion that to them Muhammed was a warlord and Muslim traditional dress is oppressive to women. For stating two truths that any third grader with a copy of the Koran and Hadith could confirm these people may lose their bed & breakfast (yep the woman was a GUEST under their roof when she initiated a conversation about their Christian beliefs) because they “insulted and offended” a member of the only religion that demands that you follow their customs at all times when they might be present or aware of your activities. When was the last time a Jew or Christian or Hindu demanded co-workers refrain from eating in front of them during a fast? Why not? Because they subscribe to the ethics of the West not the East.
Civilized people tend to not like appearing uncivilized even when presented with those who are truly barbaric. We tend to give the benefit of the doubt and bend over backwards to excuse the behavior of non-Westerners (in this I include Japan and South Korea and others like them in “the West”.) no matter how horrific simply because at one time in the past our culture had “taken advantage” of them. That the non-Western countries that were colonized are virtually all dramatically better off (as far as the people in the street are concerned at least) with the influx of Western Law and science and rights is deemed irrelevant. That they treat their own people or foreigners with no power in ways that make the worst of the colonial excesses look tame also means nothing. If you say that the English were preferred employers over local Indian rich folk during The Raj because they treated their servants more humanely and that Islamic attacks over centuries cost the lives of MILLIONS of Indians by DIRECT violence you are called racist or Islamophobic. Yet the fact remains that the English actually freed India from despotism and the Islamics brought eventual barbarism wherever they won. So why are the English demonized as the oppressors of India and the Islamics who conquered with blood half of ancient land seen as “victims”?
Things like this happen because the appeasers are not half as afraid of having their civilization destroyed as they are of being seen as barbarian themselves. They will excuse time and again those from non-Western nations that seek to bring their customs into our lands no matter how many laws are broken or how many people, Western and Non-Western alike have to suffer or even die so they can pretend that “all cultures are equal”.
So, what makes a civilized culture as opposed to a barbarian one? To the ancient Greeks who coined the word barbarian it meant any who were so benighted that they did not speak Greek. To the Shogun Japanese it was anyone who was not Japanese no matter how high their technology or cultural achievements. To me, civilized cultures are those that allow its individual members the stability and safety to build their lives in peace and a constant and humane system of law that applies to all people equally, so that all, rich and poor, know where they stand in regard to acceptable behavior toward each other.
When these criteria are met a society can start building a civilizational “equity” that grows over time. Without them a society will remain stuck in a feudal or tribal mode that has no checks and balances against abuse of personal power. When every functionary, officer and elected official seeks to build their own power base witout duty to the people and individuals are expected to obey without question any who has power over them cooperation drops to a minimum and consistency in law and its application are hard to find.
Let us come right out and say it, today “World Civilization” IS Western Civilization. The most universal aspects of our world today, those of culture and technology and law that are shared and sought by the people of almost every nation are almost exclusively the brainchildren of Western civilization. We can fantasize all we want about how the many things the ancient Chinese invented or the many Greek works the Islamics preserved makes them the equal of the West but it does not change the truth. The Chinese invented things but used knowledge as a means to horde power. The lack of sharing of information between scientists caused many discoveries to either languish unused, like deep ocean navigation, or the secrets were never spread so when the inventers and their people disappeared so did the knowledge.
The printing press was invented in China a thousand years before Gutenberg made his but the Chinese still mainly used the older wood block printing when the Europeans were printing books by the gross. Individual innovation did not take up and improve and spread around the new ideas and inventions. Instead technology was horded like a weapon to be used only for the benefit of the owner. And because of this most of the innovation by individuals in ancient China came to nought over time. But in the West, with a diferent way of looking at power the rate of progress has been unparalled anywhere else in history.
Starting with the traditions of the Greeks and developed by the Romans Western European council based (as opposed to those controlled by kings and priests) tribes adopted many of the new ideas from their Roman conqueror and blended them with their rough and ready form of democracy and individual rights.
Westward rolled the tide of humane civilization. At the high tide of the changes and innovations from the renaissance European thinkers shifted to an even higher civilizational gear and began what came to be called the Enlightenment. No longer would priests and kings be obeyed simply because they were priests or kings. The value of ALL people came into its own and the tide jumped the ocean to America. There all bets were off as the West turned fully away from the old Eastern paradigm of the individual existing only to serve the society.
The most significant difference between the West and the East is this concept. To a Chinese gentleman I once chatted up the nation of China is more important than the individual rights or desires or even the oppression of any of the subject peoples of that nation. This man was not a bad person. In fact he was so nice and reasonable that when he said the above, as though it was completely obvious, it shocked me. But to him, growing up in the East, people only had worth as they contributed to the WHOLE. To him anyone who in any way diminished the whole was simply wrong no matter what the reason. To him if Taiwan or Tibet once were “China” they always should be and individuals who happened to live there needed to act like it. In contrast in the West the WHOLE is seen as sick unless it promotes the well being of the individual as well as the whole! In the East the state may oppress the people to keep order, in the West the people may dispense with the state if it does not serve them. This was the whole premise of the American “revolution” and has spread all over the Western world. It is now “common sense” in the West that a people have the right to create a government that benefits them and that the state has no right to put stability over the law. In the East the only people who have the right to over throw the government are people who belong to the winning faction in that revolution. “Treason doth never prosper, for if it does none dare call it treason”. To take power for “us”, for the “right thinkers”, is seen as a “legal” violation of the principal of putting the state first. But all this does is replace on set of thugs with another, then another, then another.
So now let us compete abandon any pretence of PCism and declare that it is ONLY the very values of the West that keeps non-Western nations from barbarism and political instability. Even China and India, the most advanced non-western cultures, routinely sacrifice the rights of the person to pursue the prosperity of the whole. India does it much less than China due to their orientation toward the West and as a result is a “freer” place to live for its citizens.(At least in comparison with non-Western countries.) As a result the people in these lands do not know where they stand from year to year and it is hard to impossible to build stable institutions. India especially has been a textbook of the evolution from a tribal society to a Western one based on law. Compare its evolution to that of Pakistan which retains its attachment to the tribal past. When there is no underlying structure to the law, when each new ruler acts by whim and not in accord with agreed rules the citizen is left adrift in a sea of uncertainty and corruption. Making nice with evil men is seen as simply the price a person must pay to be allowed any life at all. Success comes not from values but from a willingness to compromise all values on the altar of the local boss’s power and his ability to pull strings of influence.
In the West we know from experience that a few humane rules that apply to everyone produces more prosperity and stability and opportunity for all than all the strong arm rulers in history ever managed to give their people. Those in the East know this too. But in their paradigm power is not to be shared lest someone else take it all and leave you nothing. Do unto others before they do unto you is the rule in lands that do not accept Western ethics. Their leaders are willing to see their people live forever in fear and oppression as long as they can feel secure in their power as leader. But they fail in the very task of a leader, to protect and provide security for their people. To promote Western values is to undermine everything that made them powerful in the first place. In these lands each time the people can stand no more and rebel the only point on the agenda for the new regime is to consolidate power in the same way that those who oppressed them consolidated it: By force and without mercy for dissent.
By contrast the more a nation has embraced Western Values the more stable and prosperous that nation becomes. Nowhere is this more blatantly obvious than in Israel and the Arab states surrounding it.
How can a tiny, oppressed, besieged people be the world’s most innovative and inventive nation? How can this tiny land produce so much good for all humanity in medicine and agriculture and science while surrounded by lands where civilization is something to be had only by those who can afford to import it from the West? How can Israel give full citizenship to Arabs and retain its integrity and yet Saudi Arabia will not even accept as citizens fellow Arab Muslims from neighboring Arab nations lest they lose some sort of Holy “Saudiness”?
Power and how it is used and protected is what it all boils down to. In the West governing power is seen as naturally belonging to all of us and is to be used for the benefit of everyone. In the East this power belongs to the collective group, be it nation or tribe, and is to be used to further the nation or tribes wellbeing. However, the individuals of the East are seen as replaceable parts in a machine they serve rather than being served by. In the West it is the rulers who are seen as replaceable. Judging each paradigm by its fruits it is clear which one is better at delivering its promise of a stable, prosperous culture.
So why do so many in the West trip over themselves to allow Non-Westerners to practice any and all of their tribal “values” in our lands even when those practices are illegal and universally condemned for Westerners? How can a civilized Westerner ever allow things like forced marriage and genital mutilation and honor killings to resurface in the West. Did all those who fought and died to make these horrors go away in the West act in vain? Is it our duty as “civilized” folk to allow “underdeveloped” people to re-establish in our own lands every horror we ourselves have outgrown?
About the only even partially reasonable answer I can come up with as to why this happens is that people are so scared of being seen themselves as uncivilized that they will not make ANY judgment on another person’s culture lest they somehow be tarred with the same brush as real oppressors from the past. In embarrassment at the excesses of Western civilization (which are not “excessive” compared to social policy outside the West.) they will not only excuse but PROMOTE worse excesses in their own lands by those less civilized. It is somehow culturally insensitive for a Westerner to tell an immigrant they can’t keep their women ignorant and enslaved. But it is not insensitive for that same immigrant to demand that the Western women in their own land conform to his notion of proper dress in order not to provoke rape. (yes, that came from an actual Australian Imam who said that Western woman should veil in order to get along better with the Muslim immigrants who were treating Western Women with violence and contempt. )
We in the West need to get over our over-developed sense of guilt and start acting with more responsibility to our hard won values. We need to stop applying double standards to the values of Dead White Men (and women, Queen Elizabeth I and others made huge contributions. Q.E.I pioneered the concept of consolidating ruling power by serving the interests of the people instead of the nobility.) and stop protecting those who want to strip away 500 years of advancement in favor of a return to tribalism with them at the top of the pecking order.

Another Middle Eastern Voice in support of the West

Rome, as the proud city of the ancient world, was not simply overwhelmed by the swarming hordes of barbarians from the east, but a civilization long in the making swiftly was ruined. It was undone from within by a population that lost its sense of purpose while forgetting its history, and a ruling elite corrupted by self indulgence beyond repair.

The West, as was ancient Rome, is besieged, and those encircling the West at present make no pretence of their intent to tear it down as reparation for past sins that occurred in the making of the modern world.

But the swarming hordes of the anti-West axis — unlike those that overran Rome and its empire — do not gather at the frontiers of the West. Instead they assemble within the modern day temple of rank hypocrisy, the United Nations, and from there launch their assault against the civilization whose wonders they greedily seek, as did their barbarian predecessors invading Rome.

The UN conference on racism in Geneva, Switzerland is the modern day effort of an increasingly supine West at negotiating the price for being left alone by the rapacious thuggish leaders of failed and rogue states of the Third World.

It is the weakening of the West’s moral centre — the abject unwillingness to defend its history which on balance has given the longest lease on freedom and prosperity to the world — that was on display in Geneva.

The spectacle of several European diplomats walking out of the conference hall in Geneva as Iran’s President Ahmadinejad delivered his vile anti-Semitic anti-western rant, illustrated the pathetic disarray of Europe’s frantic diplomacy to negotiate a face-saving agreement with the world’s worst human rights violators.

Instead of hosting such fraudulent conferences as Durban II in Geneva, it is time the West demonstrated its moral authority by demanding from the likes of Ahmadinejad and his anti-West allies to answer why they have denied their people freedom to fully embrace the proven model for prosperity that is the West.

In respect to Israel, it is a beacon of modern enlightenment restored to its ancient home and a reflecting mirror in which the Arab-Muslim world sees daily its appalling failure as a civilization that once merited respect.

AHMADINEJAD’S RAGE

Moreover, the intensity of the anti-Semitic rage that Ahmadinejad displayed in Geneva serves the Arab-Muslim rulers to hold others responsible for their people’s misery.

The Third World needs more of the West despite its flaws — ask the Chinese and the Indians — if their poor are to escape the oppressiveness of their traditional cultures.

The West needs to recover urgently its moral centre for it is only moral criterion — as once Alexander Solzhenitsyn counselled the West against communism — which can help contain and defeat the contemporary enemies of freedom.

SALIM.MANSUR@SUNMEDIA.CA

Please, read it all by clicking on the title