What Non-Western Civilization?

Taliban-women

Is there anyone who can tell me just which part of modern world civilization is Non-Western?

If it came about in the last 300 years, and general world-wide opinion is that it is “civilized” then it came from the West; deal with it people! IT is not about race or the color of anyone’s skin, it is about CULTURES; some are structured in healthy ways, others , um… are not.

I believe that the source of the West’s almost incomprehensible loss of the will to keep the more unruly cultures on a leash (or at least penned up) is related to the fact that we have won the war, the struggle from animals to civilization; the rest is just tuning and tweaking and finding the best ways to do this civilization game. If the world were ‘civilized’ as a whole there would be no need for war or armies or bombs; but only part of the world is civilized and our own civilized “sensibilities” tell us that it is not “nice” to fail to “be nice” to those unfortunate cultures that still have a lot of growing up to do. And so we allow the idiots to blow themselves and others up, rape, pillage and commit genocide – all in the name of being “civilized”!

How is it a civilized act to allow barbarism to flourish? It isn’t; it will not eve produce stability. Ask the Romans; ask the British.

We in the West walk a fine line; on the one hand we must protect and hold on to our hard-won prize: the dignity and honor of the individual based on their own life instead of their family,tribe, nation or race. On the other hand we must not shy away from swift and effective actions to contain the un-civilized while their cultures slowly grow up in their own time.

I have always felt it was a form of racism to ascribe every problem and ill suffered by the second and third world to the first world; those places all were, in Kipling’s words, “dog’s breakfasts” of cultures to live in long before any ‘white man’ came to interfere with the quaint native ways.

It was Western culture that came, not a color of skin. And everywhere it has gone, the individual has seen the length, prosperity and stability of their lives increase dramatically; at the cost of most of the “old ways”, the majority of which where of questionable psychological value to begin with! Anyone who disagrees about some cultures being more messed up (none are perfect, by a long shot) had better be prepared to come up with a “good” reason why some primitive tribes to this day retain a rite of passage to manhood that includes the child/man performing, willing or not, ritual fellatio on an older man in order to protect the younger one from “the overwhelming power of the female”! I am not sure about you, but I just can’t go along with forced sex with minors in the guise of a religiously vital ritual of passage, and I hold some fairly heretical notions about what a sexually healthy society would look like!

Sex is one of those “tweaks and tunings” I spoke of that Western society needs to work on; oh boy do we need to work on it! But, that hardly means we in the West (the role models of civilization) should be so timid about being settled in our minds on the basics: non-Western ways of treating women as a class, and personally, quite simply suck.

Check out this attempt at a defense of non-Western views toward women.

The whole bazaar mentality of “narrative” is also questionable; it is not who makes the loudest, most emotional yet traditional argument first who wins, it is the guy who goes over and counts the mules teeth and knows the facts.

I close with my update of Kipling; all I did was take one word, and translate from what it meant then to the word we would use to show what Kipling was really saying.

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!

Finally remember that I consider Japanese, South Koreans, and much of India etc., to be “Western” before you light your straw-men.

Turkish Ambassador Should Be Declared Persona Non Gratis According to Austrian MP Ewald Stadler

Respecting religion #3: Islam, Mohammed

Non-adherants owe no religion anything but fair treatment under the law

This is a nice, nice example of how any partisan, religious or otherwise, should be treated in a real democracy; this is a nice, nice example of how any partisan, religious or otherwise, should be treated in a real democracy.

Austrian MP Ewald Stadler lays into the Turkish Ambassador for hypocrisy – telling Turkish immigrants not to integrate then accusing the Austrians of not allowing them to integrate; passionate politics that is truly moderate.

Special Thanks to Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer for this one.

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.

Why are Conservatives are just plain BORING?

There is a debate in the internet land of Punditia about just what is the “counterculture” and why do Leftists dominate it.  The conservative side is pretty well summed up by this quote from one Samuel, a commenter at NewsReal Blog: 

 “A Conservative, be s/he a Christian Conservative, Deist Conservative or an Atheist Conservative, all live by fundamental principles. At the top of the list would be, that individual freedom is unlimited under the level that it remains below the infringement of others freedom.” 

What so many Conservatives don’t seem to get, is that the counter culturist types describe themselves essentially the same way!!! They seek to maximize  individual freedoms that do not infringe upon other’s freedoms. 

Isn’t that JUST what most (non-politically active) people of a counter culture bent are all about? They are drawn Left simply because there they have more opportunity to express their creativity, whether it is art, music or writing. 

Why must pundits and leaders on the Right and Left equate artistic creativity with POLITICAL movements that seek to REMOVE traditional elements from society rather than make SOME of them more optional? Things like how you dress or what you can do for a living as a man or woman or minority, and what kind of art you can produce. 

It is the FAULT of the Conservatives as well as the progressives if Leftists dominate the creative world! Conservatism is a FACET of thought, not a religion that needs to be kept pure and un-tainted. 

The political progressives seek to change entire societal systems to THEIR model; not just allow more elbow room for expression and differences in style and tone; they seek to LIMIT other’s ability to express themselves, JUST LIKE THE CONSERVATIVE EXTREMISTS. 

Why else does David Horowitz so often make the point that he is a CLASSIC LIBERAL, not a classic Conservative?!? 

A pure Leftist or pure Conservative cannot form a healthy government. NEITHER ONE! 

Just look at one of history’s examples of a truly conservative group: The Catholic Church. 

Just when in the history of the Church can it be said that there were no Liberal influences moderating the harshness of the Conservative ones? Are those times you would want to live in? As I read history the less influence classic Liberal thought had the more corruption and evil the Church did to the societies it held under its authority. 

Can progressive expression of Liberal ideas go too far in shedding traditions? Of course they can, just like Conservative ideas can go too far when unmediated by LIBERAL thought. 

On the Left we have seen the brutality of the Protestants against Catholics in the wars of religion, the horrific acts by Communist inspired groups abetted by modern technology in the 20th, and The Terror after the French Revolution. On the Right we have the Spanish Inquisition and that whole mentality which extended all across Europe at one time or another including Conservative Catholic family outings like the Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. Arguments can be made that Nazi Germany had elements of BOTH Left and Right; explain THAT one in black and white partisan terms if you can!!! 

The accident of history that gave the Nazis, Japanese and Communists modern weaponry and transportation to abet their crimes does not in any way alleviate the intimate similarities between Right extremists and Left extremists; it is hypocritical to claim that as an excuse to not be critical of your “allies’s” actions. 

The simple truth is that pure conservatism is not just boring, it is stagnant. The most purely conservative group in American history that I can think of off hand were the Puritans. Does anyone on the political Right really WANT to live in a society like that? Is that really your goal? Do not forget, to protect their “Godly” society these wonderful CONSERVATIVES had no trouble hanging a couple sisters for the crime of being Quaker. They also drove one preacher right out of their colony for the truly heinous crime of insisting that a forced faith was not true faith! If the colonies had not united in the U.S. how far do you think they would have gone? Are you all unaware that it was this very Conservative extremism that prompted the majority of colonies to endorse the whole freedom of religion ideal? 

IS. THIS. REALLY. WHAT. YOU. WANT? Is THAT the America that those Liberal bastards Franklin and Paine and Jefferson and yes, even Washington wanted? 

Frankly, one of the biggest reasons it is so hard for many moderates to embrace their Conservative side publically is just how BORING most True Blue Republicans are! Why do you think Huckabee got so much attention? He actually had NUANCE to his lifestyle. 

It may come as a surprise to a lot of culturaly isolated Conservatives but, the majority of people are not content with re-runs of I Love Lucy and a stack of Frank Sinatra records. 

Heck, if you eliminated all art produced by those Limbaugh woukd CALL “Leftist” and that produced by “active” homosexuals and “drug” users, just WHAT would you have left? 

No: 

Dickens, Twain, Melville, Shakepeare, Dumas, Wilde, Elvis, Judy Garland, Ella, Billie Holiday, oh, why bother with a list; almost ALL literature, music, art, plays, blah, blah, blah, is produced by those that the True Blue Conservative ™ would ELIMINATE FROM PARTICIPATION in society!!! 

The fact that LEFTISTS in total control would destroy the balance of society just as surely does NOT excuse the partisanship of the Right. 

It comes as a constant surpise to me that people actually try to defend the idea of eliminating the influence of Liberals(or Conservatives) from politics. Can anyone truly be that ignorant, to believe that that “victory” would end up in anything but a horrific tyranny of one sort or another? 

The label of Conservative is not a shield against immorality or abuse of power, nor is Progressive. Deal with it folks! 

Oh, and while I am on a rant, if Conservative Principals are what Republicans say they are, WHO are these people who are registered as Republicans and call themselves Christians who do not seem to GET the whole free speech and freedom of religion thing, not to mention the whole “if you allow one religion to use a public platform ALL must be allowed” thing that the Supreme Court has been so adamant about? 

It seems to ME, a MODERATE, that BOTH side’s partisans just love to supress others when they get a chance. Free speech for me but not for thee. 

Whether you call yourself Democrat or Republican, THAT ISNT ABOUT FREEDOM AND THAT ISN”T WHAT AMERICA’S CONSTITUTION IS ABOUT! 

(Pure Leftist Mind) “Things are not the way we THINK they should be so, we must tear down everything to make it as it should be. Those who stand in the way fully support ALL evil, real and imagined, done by the current system. We are not responsible for ANY evil commited in this noble pursuit.” 

(Pure Conservative Mind)”It Ain’t the way Daddy did it so it ain’t the way I gonna do it! It must be immoral and against God; it aint’ NATURAL! IT is a slippery slope. Those who seek ANY changes fully support ALL evil Our Party must not be charged with any evil commited by the status quo.” 

Get riled if you want, but that is JUST what most Conservative arguments against change come down to! 

This attitude has saturated the Conservative stance in debates ranging from slavery to child labor, women’s votes, black votes, EVERY new form of music and ALL new styles of dress and undress. 

The Leftist attitude has successfully co-opted much of the “Liberal” world due to the Conservatives opposing ANY creative changes to society, no matter WHAT the motivation for them may be. 

Is there a single creative change that can be listed that did NOT receive immediate opposition from the “Conservative” elements of society? 

It is not often that you get a “Liberal” change that does not find support even in the bastions of Conservatism. (Abolition, child labor, minority religious rights, minority racial rights, etc. etc. ad nauseum), and the truly immoral and heinous ideals, like NAMBLA’s agenda, unites Conservatives with people across the spectrum in defense of, not tradition, but life, children and the things that matter to a harmonious society. 

Counter culture is nothing more or less than a label for CREATIVE people who seek to express themselves in ways not allowed by the straight-jacket of strict Conservatism. 

At certain times politics can intertwine with these people but, do not forget that Leftists are just as authoritarian and CONSERVATIVE about THEIR principals as “real” Conservatives” are and usualy wll offend the most creative after a while. 

How do you tell the difference from the inside between a strict Stalinist society and a strict “conservative” one in terms of how the freedom of the individual and their families differ? 

Look at a “proper” Puritan household and see how they self edit and apply double-think, and are IN NO WAY SIGNIFICANTLY different from the 1950’s Russian family watching every word and action lest they “sin” and bring down the punishment of God (The State)

One extreme wants to tear down the Constitution and replace it with Marx, the other side wants to tear down the Constitution and replace it with THEIR interpretation of what the Bible says.

Neither side should be allowed to run a society alone without adult supervision.

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.

Secular Muslim Manifesto

Submitted by admin on 17 November, 2004 – 15:06. IHN 2004.4 November
International Humanist News

By Tewfik Allal and Brigitte Bardet

We are of Muslim culture; we oppose misogyny, homophobia, anti-Semitism and the political use of Islam. We reassert a living secularism.

We are women and men of Muslim culture. Some of us are believers, others are agnostics or atheists. We all condemn firmly the declarations and acts of misogyny, homophobia, and anti-Semitism that we have heard and witnessed for a while now here in France, and that are carried out in the name of Islam. These three characteristics typify the political Islamism that has been forceful for so long in several of our countries of origin. We fought against them there, and we are committed to fighting against them again – here.

Sexual equality: a prerequisite for democracy

We are firmly committed to equal rights for both sexes. We fight the oppression of women who are subjected to Personal Status Laws, like those in Algeria (recent progress in Morocco highlights how far Algeria lags behind), and sometimes even in France via bilateral agreements*. We believe that democracy cannot exist without these equal rights. Accordingly, we unambiguously offer our support for the “20 ans, barakat!” (20 years is enough!) campaign of the Algerian women’s associations, demanding the definitive abolition of two decades old family code.

It is also for this reason that we oppose wearing the Islamic headscarf, evenif among us there are differing opinions about the law banning it from schools in France. In various countries, we have seen violence or even death inflicted on female friends or family members because they refused to wear the scarf. Even if the current enthusiasm for the headscarf [among some Muslims] in France was stimulated by discrimination suffered by immigrant children, this cannot be considered the real cause of the desire to wear it; nor can memories of a North African lifestyle explain it.

Behind this so called “choice” demanded by a certain number of girls is the promotion of a political Islamic society based on a militant ideology which aims to promote actively values to which we do not subscribe.

Stopping homophobia

For Islamic fundamentalists, (as for all machos and fundamentalists), “being a man” means having power over women, including sexual power. In their eyes, any man who favors equality of the sexes is potentially subhuman, or “queer.” This way of thinking has proliferated since the rise of political Islamism. Its ferocity is equaled only by its hypocrisy. One of the organizers of the demonstration on Saturday, January 17th 2004 in favor of the headscarf declared that “It is scandalous that those who claim to be shocked by the headscarf are not shocked by homosexuality.” Undoubtedly he thinks that a virtuous society hides women behind headscarves or puts homosexuals behind bars, something we have already seen happen in Egypt.

We shudder at what the triumph of these attitudes implies for “shameless” persons in society-like women who fail to wear the headscarf, or homosexuals or nonbelievers.

In contrast, we believe that recognition of the existence of homosexuality and the freedom for homosexuals to live their own lives as they wish represents undeniable progress. As long as an individual – heterosexual or homosexual – does not break the laws protecting minors, each person’s sexual choices are his or her own business, and do not concern the state in any way.

Fighting anti-Semitism

Finally, we condemn firmly the anti-Semitic statements made recently in speeches in the name of Islam. Just like “shameless” women and homosexuals, Jews have become the target: “They have everything and we have nothing,” was something that we heard in the demonstration on January 17th. We see the use of the Israel-Palestine conflict by fundamentalist movements as a means of promoting the most disturbing forms of anti-Semitism.

Despite our opposition to the current policies of the Israeli government, we refuse to feed primitive images of the “Jew.” A real, historical conflict between two peoples should not be exploited. We recognize Israel’s right to exist, a right recognized by the PLO congress in Algiers in 1988 and the Arab League summit meeting in Beirut in 2002. At the same time we are committed to the Palestinian people and support of their right to found a state and to be liberated from occupation.

Living secularism

Islam has not received sufficient recognition in France. There is a lack of places to pray. There are not enough chaplaincies nor enough cemeteries. We are aware that young French people, the sons and daughters of Muslim immigrants, are still held back socially and suffer discrimination. All monitoring bodies recognize this. Consequently, “French-style” secularism has lost a great deal of value in the eyes of these young people.

Two possibilities lie before them. They can rediscover the strength of a real, living secularism, that is, political action on behalf of their rights and to demand the social gains fought for by their fathers and mothers-who belonged to social classes, cultures, peoples and nations before they belonged to Islam. Or they can see themselves in an imaginary, virtual “umma” [Islamic community – ed.] that no longer corresponds to reality, and then masquerade in republican or tiers-mondistes (Third-Worldist) rags. This only ends up securing unequal, repressive, and intolerant societies. This latter path cannot be ours.

*France has bilateral agreements with Algeria, which allow the application of Algeria’s “Family Code” to emigrants in France. It particularly affects issues of divorce and discriminates against women.

Tewfik Allal, a French union activist, who was born in Morocco of Algerian parents, and his wife Brigitte Bardet, a teacher and feminist activist are the authors of this Manifesto. The Manifesto attracted several hundred signatories and a list of “Les Amis du Manifeste” (Friends of the Manifesto) composed of non-Muslim intellectuals expressing their solidarity. www.manifeste.org

This women is why I know the West will prevail

Nahed Selim, born in Egypt and living in the Netherlands, is an author and interpreter. This article appeared in Trouw on 30th of august 2008.

Translation Maggie Oattes

This strange negativism

Were the old days all that good? Nahed Selim consciously chose to live in the Western world she fervently defends. „No civilization in the history of mankind has brought so many good things to so many people at the same time, as the modern, Western, capitalist society.”

(HH: Ooh, if a Westerner said that they would be called arrogant and racist!)

Why is it that my contemporaries are so mercilessly critical about themselves and the age in which we live? Hearing them, one would think our society has not even one redeeming quality. Cynicism and discontent prevail. But was life really that much better in the past?

I am a so-called baby boomer, part of the generation born roughly between 1945 and 1955. It benefited like no other from the increasing post-war wealth and could therefore afford to make radical choices. It was a generation that thought it knew everything better than all previous generations. They were going to do everything differently.

I got to experience the last bit of this era when I came to the Netherlands in the 1980s at age 25. And I joined in enthusiastically.

The late Pim Fortuyn, born in 1948, was not impressed with the accomplishments of his contemporaries. In his book ’Babyboomers’ (1998) he reproached them for having dealt irresponsibly with the social institutions they were put in charge of.

Perhaps he was right. But I do not like to complain, not even about the people who complain all the time. I merely observe that I lack the mental attitude of people who remember the past nostalgically, a past when everything was supposedly much better.

I believe there is no point in focusing on the past. Today is the only reality, and we should love this real reality. The past and the future are merely memories or utopias. The only real life is now, here, today. And it is my job and my moral duty to focus on the present. Everything else is childish. Irresponsible escapism.

I personally have an unbridled confidence in our time and at the same time a deep aversion to the current cynicism and the discontent I observe all around me. This cynicism often takes the shape of anti-Western feelings, both in westerners themselves and in people with different cultural backgrounds.

In those years there was a kind of cultural rebellion against everything that was ’old-fashioned’ and authentic in the Netherlands. One might call it an exaggerated enthusiasm for the modern capabilities In any case it was totally different from what I was accustomed to in my own Arabic culture where everything modern and new was synonymous with wrong, evil and therefore undesirable.

Yet I felt very happy here. I was also rebellious at the time; I needed that to distance myself from many traditions and cultural conventions. My own attitude facilitated my interaction with Dutch people. Back then they were very open to foreigners and they immediately made you feel you belonged. You even felt an eagerness in the way they embraced you. In England and France, where I had briefly lived before, it took much more effort on my part to make contact with the people. Here I instantly formed close friendships with Dutch women and men. I also fell in love all the time.

This strange negativism about the own Dutch culture still has not disappeared completely. However, a large part of the population is in the middle of a revaluation process. I think that is healthy, nothing to get worked up about.

Revaluation of the national identity should not be taken to mean a sign of hate towards migrants. Every civilization has the right to defend itself and safeguard its survival; and you may expect from newcomers that they adjust. This, in my opinion, also explains the immense popularity of the political parties of Geert Wilders and Rita Verdonk. They are erroneously referred to as extreme right-wing parties. What they want has nothing to do with extremism. They want to put a stop to the snobbish disdain for everything indigenous and Dutch.

The current revaluation of the cultural heritage is an appropriate correction.

Even though I was not born here, I feel very connected with the West. Even though it is not the culture I grew up in, it is the culture I have chosen. That is why I feel entitled to defend and protect this culture. Even more than someone who just happens to have been born here, I am aware of the advantages of the Netherlands and the West. And there is nothing to stop me from going back if I did not like it here.

No civilization in the history of mankind has brought so many good things to so many people at the same time, as the modern, Western, capitalist society. Other civilizations were and are good to the small elite that holds all power. They took little notice of the rest of the population, least of all the weak, the infirm and the disabled.

The most frequent complaint about this era is the hurried pace. People supposedly don’t have time or room for fun things and for each other anymore.

People who complain about a lack of time often forget that the eight-hour working day is a fairly recent phenomenon. In the first half of the twentieth century it was quite normal to work six or seven days a week and ten or eleven hours per day. In the rest of the world civil servants are the only people who work short hours. In all other professions people work long days, that rarely have a maximum number of hours.

Never before have we had as much time at our disposal in the West as right now. And then we also have clean running water for all, heating that simply comes out of pipes, electricity everywhere, household appliances that save lots of time, and food you can buy almost-ready-to-eat. All things that save huge amounts of time.

Many people argue that ’materialism’ is a major drawback of current Western civilization. People supposedly only care about money and material things. That is nonsense. Nowhere in the world is more money given to culture, the arts and charities as in the West. Global organizations like Amnesty International, the Red Cross and environmental organizations all started in the West and are funded primarily by Western donors. Other rich countries such as the oil states give almost nothing to charities.

We often hear that ’materialism’ is less prevalent in other parts of the world. The opposite is true. Money is hugely important elsewhere also. Weddings, funerals, and other events that may reflect people’s social status cost a fortune there. People want to show others they have money, even if they don’t.

In addition the rich people in other parts of the world are much more arrogant. A wealthy man who does the household himself, gets his own groceries, tends to his garden or drives his own car is unheard of in third world countries.

I think the only difference between the West and the rest is the fact that many people have the opportunity to earn a lot of money. In countries like India, Russia, China, or Egypt this is the privilege of a small elite. In that respect the majority of the world’s population would trade places with the West in a second.

The quality of life of women in the West is another major advantage. Thanks to the feminism of previous generations – in spite of excesses such as the open hostility towards the male – women here have rights and freedoms that women in other cultures can only dream of. Every time I go on holiday to Egypt this is brought home to me again.

So why do we complain so much about the modern time and modern civilization?

Complainers are cultural pessimists. I would like to distinguish two groups.

One category is unhappy about the West for ideological reasons. What they want is to see the realization of heaven on earth, if possible before they die. Their utopia cannot endure or tolerate violence, poverty, or unfairness. They have often distanced themselves from believing in a heaven after death, but they do want to see this same heaven here on earth.

They forget that all contrasts go together. On earth they coexist: wealth and poverty, love and hate, humanism and barbaric behaviour. Striving for improvement is a good thing, and we must continue to do that. But letting your own life go sour because you aim for the impossible is a waste.

A second category of complainers are the socialists, communists, anti-globalists, and environmental activists. They would have us believe that the ideal life can be realized by choosing a different political system or making different political choices. They believe in a government that takes care of and controls everything; that is the only way to make total equality between people possible.

I too believe this once. Fortunately I don’t any longer.

As far as I am concerned it is a good thing to remain critical, in order to improve things insofar as that is possible. But complaining and striving for the impossible – while we already have so much, are capable of so much and we have so much freedom – verges on ungratefulness.

Our job is to be happy in this world. We have opportunities and possibilities that so many people can’t even imagine. If we let discontent turn our lives sour in spite of all that, how will that make those other people feel?

Well GO GIRL!!! Read the rest by clicking on the title

Changing minds by not shutting doors to change

Reforming Moderate Islam Muslims

Let me give an example of how spin does not help our cause. The video Islam:what the West needs to know
This film has loads of wonderful information that is completely accurate. However it seeks to deny that there is an under current of moderates in the Islamic world. They confuse the voices of the leaders and terrorists and ignore the views of the masses of Muslims who go about their lives in peace.

Why have certain blogs almost ignored the story about the Changes the King of Saudi Arabia has introduced? Why won’t they give the moderates they yell at to stand up a chance to get to their feet without partisan criticism?

If you despair of real support for Western Civilization you only need peruse a few months of The Religious Policeman a blog written by an educated Arabian Muslim over a period of four years.

His voice and many others show a strong ferment of free thought and desire for reform in Islam.

How can the moderates stand up and begin reform if we, their supposed supporters, say that Islam is unreformable? Down this path lies total war between West and East. Black and White ideology is what we are fighting AGAINST isn’t it?

It is very important for a Westerner to understand Abrogation and Taqqyia but they also need to understand that morals and decency come from the human heart, not laws or books. People who are not strictly thought policed tend almost universally to react like PEOPLE not soulless robots.

Our goal should be toe remove the disproportionate voice of the Wahabi financed organs of Islam while holding out our hand to all who seek to grow beyond that way of life. The Bible and Torah DO contain horrific elements. It may be argued whether they are as “bad” as the Koran. But what is without doubt is that the chief difference is not in the inherent peacefulness of the oldest scriptures. The chief difference is that Judaism and Christianity have reformed!!!

In the days of the last Temple in Jerusalem the Jews tended to behave in ways that were very similar to Muslims today. But they changed.

In the Middle Ages in Europe you did not have the option most times of disagreeing with the clergy. IF you did you died. But they changed.

The early Protestants could be as nasty as just about any when it came to repression. But they changed.

Today the mainstreams of thought for all major religions but one hold that human brotherhood and connection trumps any verse that denies that concept.

As Hillel said; “Love God and Love your neighbor, all else is commentary”. Few Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or Pagan clergy will care to have to refute that doctrine for to do so will render them seemingly callous and “unholy”.

It have been said that a holy man is known in spite of the name of his religion, not because of it. A previous post about Muslims who saved Jews during WWII is a great example of that.

If we are going to hold Islam’s feet to the fire about not accepting the idea of universal brotherhood then we need to stop denying that they are capable of realizing it.

Yes, we will get our hands bitten now and then. But is that reason to become hard of heart? But we need to keep the door open for those who seek to reform their religion.

The film linked above shows a number of Western leaders talking about how we are not at war with Islam and that Islam is a religion of peace. The way I see it that kind of language is not a bad thing if used properly. Turn the idea on it’s head. Over and over and over they are declaring that a Muslim who believes in violence in the name of God is NOT religious. Now I will be the first to oppose censorship regarding who is doing what and WHY they say they are doing it.

Bottom line time. If you can’t recognise ANY step by Muslims toward a better world then you ARE an Islamaphobe and should proudly wear the title. I am not afraid of Islam, I am not afraid of Judaism, I am not afraid of any religion. I am afraid of people who so literally interpret their scripture as to forget that we all are in it together.

So I will link to some things that I hope will serve the cause but I shudder when I think how many people will not be able to un spin the antagonism from the truth.