Political Parties Exist to Subvert Instead of Enable the Voice of the Individual.

heretics-crusade,guy-dewhitney,partisan

My Life for Ze Party und Ze Leader!

Why is it again that, in 2010, political parties still exist? Well, other than for the implimentation of the control of a few who claim the voice of many, I don’t see much reason; member voices are given more lip service than respect from the party’s “leaders”. And, while we are attacking preconception, why a party “leader”? Would not an “impementor” be a more appropriate term for the desired function of the office.? Someome trusted to make the will of the members of the party heard effectively?

But how is that again? A party is supposed to make the voice of its X number of citizens louder than this other bunch’s equal number of voices?

Do you people out there ever completey agree with every part of “your” party’s platform? If one election cycle you do happen to agree with it all have you ever in your life seen the party hold to each and every plank after the election?
Remind me again Virginia; just WHO these parties claim to serve?

A Modestly Heretical Proposal

Get rid of the parties. No labels to hide behind, no pols in pocket of biz or party, pols un-electable without personal support from the community, pol has to listen on every issue and best of all, the most important, the pol would be judged more by accomplishments and record than by their associations.

Today there is no practical reason not to elect individual candidates directly.

Not sure you like the idea? Think about this: neither. Obama nor Palin would have ever been nominated without an agenda following party forcing them upon their supporters. Think about that for a while…

Posted with WordPress for BlackBerry.

Guy DeWhitney on Partisanship, God and Such

Guy DeWhitneys Heretics Crusade

I have been asked a number of times about my religion/theology and my attachment or lack thereof to Christianity. Here are posts I have done that should answer all of those questions fully.

Enjoy.

http://hereticscrusade.com/2010/04/07/if-you-are-not-playing-fair-god-is-not-on-your-side-clergy-are-not-excused-from-honesty/

http://hereticscrusade.com/2010/03/24/tweaking-moral-noses-on-the-left-right-prison-reform/

http://hereticscrusade.com/2010/01/25/partisan-partisan-fly-away-home/

http://hereticscrusade.com/2009/10/04/why-do-i-call-myself-a-both-moderate-and-liberal/

http://hereticscrusade.com/2009/10/04/a-lesson-in-moderate-thought-also-known-as-critical-thinking-without-an-agenda/

http://hereticscrusade.com/2009/10/23/stepping-into-the-void-guy-dewhitney-on-abortion/

http://hereticscrusade.com/2010/05/26/limbamian-politics-101-2010-the-limbaugh-obama-mentality-takes-hold/

http://hereticscrusade.com/2009/12/29/why-are-conservatives-are-just-plain-boring/

http://hereticscrusade.com/2009/10/27/religious-organization-dedicated-to-subversion-invades-america/

http://hereticscrusade.com/2009/10/18/queering-our-schools-and-excercises-in-denouncing-gays-for-the-wrong-reasons/

 

 

EVOLUTION NOT REVOLUTION!

6a00d8341c60bf53ef0120a5f53d7c970c-500wi

Virtually all REVOLUTIONS (as opposed to the American colony revolt) have resulted in MORE pain and suffering for almost everyone involved!

The French Terror, Lenin and Stalin’s purges, Mao and the Cultural Revolution, the Kamir Rouge, Cromwell’s regime, Iran, North Korea…the list is endless!

The mindset of the partisan revolutionaries, indeed the partisan mindset itself, is convinced that ONLY their one group’s mode of looking at and dealing with social function can be beneficial to society.

On the Left and Right pundits seem to feel that “Democracy” is best served by ELIMINATING the opposition’s “clearly evil and deficient” worldview from PARTICIPATION.

Surely any reasonable mind that contemplates this situation for more than a moment will see that this is NOT democracy!  It is tribalistic ego-masturbation that kills individuals and families and whole societies!

LimBamian Politics 101: 2010 The Limbaugh-Obama Mentality Takes Hold

idylls king 0013

In 2010 we have fully entered a new era of politics that I call the Limbaugh-Obama, or LimBama period.

This era’s new mentality is neither Left nor Right wing. Instead it applies equally to both sides of the political spectrum,indeed all sides.  It is the ability to purport to believe in republican democracy and the Constitution, while firmly believing that political perfection is only prevented by the “Opposition” being allowed to participate in the legislative process.

The Constitution is replaced (ideologically at least, for the WORDs “The Constitution” will still ring out when freedom is but a memory) by the simple rule:

WE do not HAVE to play “fair” because WE ARE THE GOOD GUYS!

The because part of this unwritten commandment comes in many forms in the minds of partisans:

We defend the downtrodden and repressed

We have God (Allah) in our hearts and you are fooled by Satan

We serve the long-term interest of Human Survival

We serve Mother Earth

Yada, yada, yada… it is all a bunch of self serving baloney from minds so lost in group think that they can’t SEE the surface of the swamp let alone know their common sense had drowned!

It all only has ONE ‘because’:

Because WE WANT THE POWER, though we prove by our methods that we do not deserve it, and will surely abuse it for our selfish personal goals.

Democracy promotion in the Middle East: Good idea, wrong place and time

By BARRY RUBIN Jpost.com
Democracy is a great idea; open elections are ideally the best way to choose governments; dialogue with everyone is wonderful in theory. But in the Middle East, unfortunately, as a policy this would be a disaster.

It is not Western policy but local conditions which are going to determine whether there will be democracy in the Arabic-speaking world. In my book, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), I analyze both the debate and the existing groups. The assessment must be pessimistic.

Would we like to see liberal democracy and moderation prevail with rising living standards and more freedom? Of course, but the real question is what effect certain policies would have.

The Western debate gets stranger and stranger. Among the policymaking classes, there’s a prevailing view that the Bush administration was a disaster. The rather misleading description for those who advocated a US policy of promoting democracy and overthrowing dictators – “neo-conservative” – has become among such people a curse word implying stupid and evil.

WHATEVER BECAME of good old-fashioned realism, the breakfast of champions in diplomacy for centuries? Realism, a term that has been hijacked lately far more than Islam, means to base a policy on the actually existing situation rather than one’s wish-list, building alliances on the basis of common interests. It does not mean embracing your worst enemies while kicking those with common interests in the groin. Nor does it mean acting like the nerdy kid groveling in the hope that it will make the popular guys like him. And it also doesn’t mean ignoring adversaries’ ideologies and goals.

Is it really so hard to understand that US policy should be based on working closely with Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Iraq, Lebanon (moderates, not Iranian-Syrian agents), Saudi Arabia and the smaller Gulf emirates? Is it really so hard to understand that US policy should also be based on combating Iran, Syria, Sudan, Hizbullah, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhoods, as well as al-Qaida?

We saw what happened in Iran after experts predicted in 1978 that anything would be better than the shah and that moderates would inevitably prevail.

We saw what happened with the Palestinian elections, for while Fatah was no prize, Hamas is far worse and eager for bloodshed. We are about to see what will happen with Lebanese elections which are nominally democratic but influenced by Iranian-Syrian money and intimidation, as a government emerges likely to lead Lebanon into the Iranian bloc.

In Turkey, the several-times-elected AK regime, although still presented internationally as a model moderate Muslim government, is engaged in systematically Islamizing institutions and taking the country down a road leading closer to Teheran than to Washington.

I DO NOT LIKE saying this because I know many courageous liberal dissidents and would like them to win. US and Western policy should always press for their rights, against their imprisonment.

But why should the United States pursue a policy that we have every reason to believe will be catastrophic: namely, pushing for a situation in which radical Islamists are more likely to take over.

Examples have been given of people who might be expected to be liberal preferring to back Islamist parties. But Egypt is virtually the only place this seems to be happening. Elsewhere, people who might be expected to be liberal are supporting the existing regimes out of fear of Islamists. I think that Egypt is a misleading case for that reason. And in Egypt, the leading “liberal” group has now been taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood and spouts a very radical anti-American line.

Do we really want to contribute to subverting the Egyptian regime, with all its faults, and making the Brotherhood more powerful? The reaction is arrogance on the part of the radicals and despair among the moderates. The liberals conclude, you hear this all the time in Turkey, that America wants the Islamists to win.

I don’t prefer this situation. I don’t like it. But in a world where Islamists seek to overthrow nationalists, in which an Iranian-Syrian led alliance is trying to gain hegemony in much of the region, I feel that Western policy needs to back the regimes against the revolutionaries.

There are some ethnic or religious communities which have an interest in supporting a moderate democratic approach. At present, this includes Iraqi Kurds and Shi’ites; Lebanese Sunni Arabs, Christians and Druse; and the Berbers of the Maghreb. These are, however, special cases.

There are also very systematic campaigns to fool well-intentioned, gullible Westerners. These are often carried out by having moderate statements in English directed to a foreign audience and revolutionary extremist ones in Arabic directed at one’s own society. The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood has created a very nicely done English-language Web site that would make it seem the organization is something between the Democratic Party and the March of Dimes.

If the West engages with Hamas, Hizbullah and the Muslim Brotherhoods, while working to create a situation in which these groups can compete for power more effectively, the results will be disastrous both for the West and for the Arabs who become victims of the resulting Islamist regimes. No argument, no matter how sincerely heartfelt or superficially clever, alters that fact. That is a tragedy, but in policy terms it is also a necessity to deal with the reality of Middle East polities and societies.

The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center at IDC Herzliya and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal.

The Jerry Falwell of Islam Today

Wow! I just finished watching this video from “peace”tv. The intro and “commercials” are rather distrubing but, the main lecture is  by a man who could be considered as close to a moderate as devout Muslims get.

It is a long vid but it is worthwhile to watch the whole thing. This is the Jerry Fallwell of Islam not the Rev. Phelps! Watch it all and consider if there might be a problem to the West.