Today at MediaRight.ca we give the opinion space over to UK editorialists. After reading scores of UK editorials I am amazed that Blair has been able to commit any troops to Afghanistan at all… or Iraq for that matter. It’s as if most every journalist and writer were cast in the image of Jack Layton or a member of Rabble.ca. From expressions of utter horror that British troops are involved in combat to an almost blind focus on only those facts that support America hate and socialist utopianism, I see nothing in the UK of 2006 that defeated the Nazis in 1945. The British Bulldog is dead.
Add to this the possibility that Blair has duped his public by completely misrepresenting the Afghan conflict and cutting funding to the UK military while deploying it to two fronts, and the mess between British ears seems somewhat justified. In the end I conclude that the balance of UK public opinion has dissolved into hand-wringing; based on what I read of course. (and you can never trust all that you read)
The one thing that sneaks out often, no matter how hard the UK press tries, and no matter how many disgruntled soldiers it dredges up, is the fact that morale among UK troops is said to be incredibly high. ( a contradiction indeed )
In one editorial we feature, you’ll find evidence that a UK unit just about destroyed one of our Canadian LAV 3’s… now that would’ve been carnage.
cross posted at Celestial Junk
It is indeed a strange scenario - the contrast between the fact that the UK parliament sent British troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, while the UK people have cowered into dhimmitude submission over the swirls on ice cream cones, the long and dearly held tradition of piggy banks, and various other politically correct forms of behaviour.
The ice cream cone was a miracle of Newspeak, with a Muslim claiming offence because, IF you turned the ice cream cone on its side, THEN, the chocolate swirls looked like the arabic for 'allah' and....
No-one in Old Englande thought to tell him not to turn the bloody cone on its side and 'all would be well'. I've seen graphical representations of polynomials whose swirls did indeed look like... Are we then supposed to cease graph construction?
The problem is, when you have a flexible belief system, as the UK system is and must be, meeting up with an inflexible belief system, as the Islamic system is - and should not be.
By 'flexible', I don't mean cultural relativism which isn't a belief system but a rejection of belief (in anything). I mean a belief in REASON, as Benedict said, which is also a scientific action. This means that I don't accept Ultimate Final Truth, but operate within a behaviour that says that 'this might be true or false' and I will have to use empirical evidence and reason to explore it. The West's great strength has been this focus on the use of Reason, which requires empirical evidence and logical causality.
Islam rejects Reason; it rejects the use of empirical evidence and also logical causality. It rejects both because it rejecs the right of the individual to 'know anything'. All Truth is expressed within the Koran and the Koran is the direct word of god. As an atheist, I have great, tremendous problems with such a claim. As a scientist, I have even more problems with such a claim.
How does a society, working for centuries within a mindset that required that it reject any final conclusion, that it keep its mind open to new solutions and new answers - how does such a society interact with a people whose minds are completely, totally, closed?
The society will first, following its habits of 'further questions and answers', try to accomodate this new population's beliefs, considering that these beliefs might be 'other answers'. But they aren't answers derived from empirical evidence and logic. They are pure dogma.
The UK, Europe and Canada have to 'wake up' to reality, and realize that dogmatic perceptions don't fit into the scientific method. And, that cultural relativism is a sink hole, a trap that will suck the unsuspecting traveller into the very depth of its peat bog.
Lord Nelson would weep bitterly.
Betrayed: How we have failed our troops in Afghanistan
Britain's most senior military chiefs warned John Reid not to commit UK troops to "a war on two fronts" in Iraq and Afghanistan more than 18 months ago, The Independent on Sunday can reveal
Meanwhile, a detailed statistical analysis of the mission, obtained by this newspaper, shows British soldiers fighting in Afghanistan are dying at six times the rate of those engaged in combat in Iraq. Forty UK soldiers have been killed and 86 wounded in Afghanistan since 2001
Britain has nearly 5,000 troops in Afghanistan and 900 more on the way. Around 7,500 UK troops are serving in Iraq. Keith Simpson, the Conservativespokesman on the Middle East, said: "It is clear that Reid took what he probably regarded as a low-risk gamble
Read the rest from The Independent
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1777868.ece
The UK people haven't cowered, even after the bombings in London, just the limp dicked local councils who are from the old school of the Labour or Liberal parties. I suggest you find out more about local politics in the UK before throwing out so stupid generalisations. After all I could make comments about why is Canada the only country on Bin Ladens list that has been left alone. Maybe he thinks because his troops are allowed to camp there.
I think Canada should worry more about Taliban Jack and the left wing moonbats. Blair has been pushed out, so wait for the Labour party to implode. If the present conservative leader doesn't sort out the country then wait for another Maggie. The UK always comes through, so what about Canada if you get a minority Liberal government supported by the NDP?
There's an example of British weakness reported today in the Sunday Times. I have the story linked on my blog which should come up shortly in Blogging Tories.
Well, Debris Trail, you certainly are outlining the rational problem.
On the one hand, you give us the British Bulldog as "kitty" on the evidence of the links you provide. On the other, you give us "the fact that morale among UK troops is said to be incredibly high. ( a contradiction indeed)" [stet.] So you contradict the opinions you don't like with the evidence of "is said to be." Thank you for the "you can never trust all that you read" caveat, but with which opinion based on what factual basis is one supposed to agree if one does not happen to be wearing partisan blinkers?
Let me give you another link that you should have no problem disproving: "Afghanistan: Why NATO cannot win" on the front page of to-day's Asian Times at atimes.com.
The physical principle of every action having a reaction is just as true of politicas and popular culture as it is science.
Blair's lying to the public on several occasions to justify Britain's dead loss involvement in Iraq and to justify the virtual armed camp gulag domestic policies of UK's MI5 styled homeland security, has had a public backlash...a rejection of this police state war mentality...it is unfortunate that this backlash to Blair will drive brits even deeper into the gaping maw of the statist-socialists....who will do nothing to dismantle the Orwellian security state Blairs "emergency" has authorized after the "emergency" has subsided. the UK now has the tightest civilian surveillence programs in the worls...rivalling or supassing those of Russia or China...staist socialism did this...Blair simply justified it with an hyperbolized "war crisis".
Between decadent entitleist socilaism, social engineering multicult socialism and police state MI6 socialism,( all propagated by the most partisan leftist press on the planet) the UK is truly FXXked as a democratic free state...it seems obvious to me the nation is run by 3 factions of blind pig socialist camps who are swept up in the political fantasies they created for the poor mindwashed masses they lead down the rabbit hole of failed democracies.....I hope they enjoy their place as a conditioned herd of sheep in their EU "colony".
Everytime I hear some leftist poipe up about how we should be "following Britan's lead" on some socially repressive policy, my skin crwls.
I have had it with the so called insult to islamofacists. They insult me and my religion every time they open their mouth or go out in public. The public that puts up with this crap will wonder what happened when they have lost all the freedoms they have, freedom to think, dress, pray, eat. Time to send every mosque and muslim your know a huge piggy bank for CHRISTMAS. Time to fight back and send all these terrorists to their objective-DEATH. Deport all muslims from Canada, especially those who have converted from other faiths.
In Adelaide, South Australia, circa 1961, I recall a short-lived 'issue' where an Arabic speaking immigrant claimed that the swirls on his neighbor's wrought-iron gate said "something rude" in Arabic.
The complainer was told, by the court, "We don't speak Arabic in Australia".
I doubt the same response would be given today.
Never judge the British by their press.
Perhaps this can provide some balance.
from: The Sunday Times - Review.
"The shadow war with Al-Qaeda is being won: about 3,000 fighters have been killed or captured, the fate of two-thirds of its military commanders. America is gradually adjusting its military doctrines to minimise civilian casualties. US intelligence has quietly fostered useful contacts in places such as Libya, Sudan or Yemen."
timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2382599_1,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20509201-601,00.html
Muslim cabbies refuse to carry booze
Geoff Elliott, Washington correspondent
October 02, 2006
MUSLIM taxi drivers in Minnesota have declared jihad on duty-free, refusing to carry passengers who are carrying alcohol.
The ban has created chaos at Minneapolis-St Paul international airport, where about three-quarters of the 900 taxi drivers are Somali and mostly Muslim.
Airport officials have begun working with taxi drivers to install colour-coded lights on taxi roofs to indicate which are alcohol friendly and which are not.
The lights are expected to be introduced by the end of the year.
Ali Culed, a Somali Muslim who's been driving an airport cab for eight years, said the ban was "a religious issue"..........cont
From: * The British Bulldog *
Sir Winston Churchill on Islam - Speech in 1899
(The River of War, Vol. II, pages 248-250)
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.
The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.
No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step - and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.
============ Churchill ========== TG
There's also a cartoon on the front page of The Australian showing a Somali cab driver saying to a fare: "Sadly, my religion also forbids me from taking the shortest route to your hotel".
of course, this is a much more appropriate thread for this comment:
take a look at the blair / bush thing in the same issue of the electronic newspaper.
'with friends like that' syndrome again; same as the softwood lumber thing that got all yer knickers in a bind.......
kept in the dark by the bushists. 'with friends like that'......
and yet you right wingers *still* thing dubya is so great. bbbRRRRRRR!!!!!
Posted by: t. schmuck esq. at September 30, 2006 09:52 PM
I win !!!
In Adelaide, South Australia, circa 1961, I recall a short-lived 'issue' where an Arabic speaking immigrant claimed that the swirls on his neighbor's wrought-iron gate said "something rude" in Arabic.
The complainer was told, by the court, "We don't speak Arabic in Australia".
I doubt the same response would be given today.
Posted by: Nemo2 at October 1, 2006 01:00 PM
A very likely story Nemo. It's amazing that people make things like this up, thinking it will be persuasive.
Nobody said the agreement was without flaws.
Many people are back at work now and flaws can be ironed out over time.
Sorry, you lose, as usual. = TG
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20509201-601,00.html
Muslim cabbies refuse to carry booze
Geoff Elliott, Washington correspondent
October 02, 2006
MUSLIM taxi drivers in Minnesota have declared jihad on duty-free, refusing to carry passengers who are carrying alcohol.
The ban has created chaos at Minneapolis-St Paul international airport, where about three-quarters of the 900 taxi drivers are Somali and mostly Muslim.
...
Posted by: Nemo2 at October 1, 2006 01:14 PM
Nemo, I don't know what it is about you and other Conservatives, why you have such a hypervigilant attitude towards anything done by Muslims. Next thing, you'll be posting a story about how a Muslim man spat on a sidewalk somewhere.
For a more balanced version of your story, go to the Minneapolis newspaper. It says that about three customers a day are refused service because they are carrying liquor. Hardly chaos as the intentionally misleading Australian paper claimed.
http://www.startribune.com/462/story/709262.html
Possession chosen over reason?
Rejection of reason is a good way to think about these Islamic fanatics. However, to me their behavior seems more like a kind of "autism". They almost act more like they are like "possessed" than, say, a Hemingway who has decided to dismiss intellectualizing in favor of a completely sensory life.
Carl Jung would probably see their behavior as the manifestation of possession of an achetype from the collective unconscious. And he says that when one is fully possessed by such an archetype, they are not exactly fully human.
In some ancient cultures and religions driving oneself into a frenzy is an intentional technique, like Norse berserkers. It can be a "method" of delivering oneself from fear and uncertainty, having blanketed out other psychological processes with rage and primitive atavisms.
Jung saw Nazi Germany as possession by the "Wotan" archetype. After all, how does one explain a country of good Lutherans deciding to turn people's skins into lampshades?
Perhaps some of the religio-cultural insanity can be explained by the complete and total denial and subjugation of the Eros principle.
The demand for women to be dressed in burkas, the absolutely imposition of ignorance on women. The torturous practices of honor killing and female mutilitaion.
It seems to me this is the manifestation of a view of the Eros principle synonymous with evil. The threat and fear of Eros being the motive for any medieval form of repression and denial that one can dream up.
There was a touch of this in the West (more than a touch).. I believe that it wasn't until the 1950s that the Virgin Mary was canonized and raised to a level that had some proximitiy to the Holy Trinity.
However, the West has managed to deal with these issues in a more sophisiticated and reasonable way than this Islamic jihad against the Eros principle.
That would certainly give some basis for speculation about why the unconscious of radical Islam is filled with so many (figurative?) demons.
For Islam to adjust to the modern world, they will have to come to an entirely new point of view in respect to the way they look at women.
If they are driven by archetypes that have taken possession of their rational faculties partly out of willfulness, then shooting them is going to be the only answer for a long time to come.
Truly WINSTON SCHUCHILL and RICHARD THE LIONHEART are spinning in their graves to whats happend to thier country under wussies like BLAIR
As for the taxi drivers who won't accept passengers with alcohol, that's their economic loss. I think it's trivial and the airports should simply have a rule that any taxi that refuses any incoming passengers loses their airport rights.
When will passengers start to 'case' the beliefs of their drivers, and refuse to get into a cab where the driver rejects the use of Reason and Empirical Observation, and adheres to sharia law and the stoning of women?
Greg in Dallas: Sorry- I reject the idea of the Jungian archetypes.
And that's a wonderful line - 'my religion forbids me from taking the shortest route to your hotel'. Great.
"Greg in Dallas: Sorry- I reject the idea of the Jungian archetypes."
ET, I would expect you to reject the idea Jungian archetypes. (How does the old saying go? Some of my best friends are aristotilians, peirceans, and atheists.)
Seriously, I appreciate that since Jung's archetypal theories were taken from Platonic forms, you would not favor them. Even if Jung was an empiricist.
A million years ago, when I was doing as little as possible in college and trying to avoid working for a living, Wittgenstein was the god in philosophy departments.
Well, this damned near killed philosophy. I mean, all these subjects philosophy had nagged on for years -- God, angels, metaphysical principles -- with logical positivism, none of this was regarded as a subject it was possible to discuss.
It wasn't so much that God didn't exist. It was simply that without scientific verification of a Supreme Being's existence, it was pointless to talk about it.
As you might imagine, none of this sat very well with someone who had tremendous regard for La Belle Dame Sans Merci. Didn't Charles Peirce get angry with William James even though Peirce was the first one to coin pragmatism? Brilliant mind.
Anyway, to me the important thing is that those of us in the West who don't happen to share the same views can live comfortably with each other and acknowledge the value of what the other brings to the table. My own views are a work in progress, and it is not important to me that others share them.
What is important to me is that all we Western Christians, Jews, atheists, humanists, and others stick together and support each other in a unified coherence against Islamic fanatics who wish to destroy us. I prefer to see the inches between our positions as a symbol for how close we are, rather than how far away that makes us.
greg in dallas - indeed, yes, and some of my best friends are Platonists, Hegelians..and..yes, Jungians.
Peirce frothed at Hegel, and Plato, of course. And critiqued James; he changed the name of pragmatism to 'pragmaticism', which he felt was 'ugly enough' that no-one would steal the term.
I completely agree with you; we do indeed have to stick together and confront the mindless dogma of Islamic fascism. It has to be confronted but it's a vicious explosion with nothing, absolutely nothing, inside it. It's like confronting a firewall, a hurricane, a violent storm - and once you get past that entrance, you find it completely empty. That's Islamism.
It is completely empty because it rejects life and the living; and has no capacity to evolve or adapt - and evolutionary adaptation, after all, is the essense of what it means to Be Alive.
Budd Campbell: I was there. I read about it in the newspapers and heard it on the radio.
The British bulldog has been dead for quite some time.
Just why in hell do you think the New World was so attractive to all those Brits?
History people, history.
All a bunch of monday morning quarterbacking.
Of course the Brits were having the same thoughts as Rommel was giving them a pasting in North Africa and with the opening shots of Operation Barbarossa.
At first blush Adolf seemed unstoppable; until Stalingrad.
The resolve of British, American, or Canadian troops is the fact that they have competent leadership; even with some reversals or occasional setbacks. Friendly fire has always been an occupational hazard of the military.
That does not by any stretch detract from the rationale for the cause nor the morale of the troops. Everyone who signed up knows occasionally the enemy gets a lucky shot away, you just try to minimize those incidents or moments of inter allied confusion.
To suggest that one can minimize friendly fire or enemy fire to zero % is just fantasy and everyone on the battlefield knows it.
Well they are not part of "Eurabia" just yet.
I found this at Hot Air. Its an amazing documentery by the left in England, chastising the left for its blindness on this war. If not its anti Semitic stance on Isreal.
It a goldmine of information. It also holds out some hope they will wake before the head choppers kill them in their socialist slumber.
I don't agree with it all, but it is instructive.
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/30/video-no-excuses-for-terror/
CTV;.. "Atta met his death at the World Trade Centre." Why didn't they come out and say it,.. poor boy, he died when that Damn American building fell on him !!
In case you don't get it, Media hacks, how about; "Atta murdered himself and a thousand innocents. The tape the terrorists made in 2000 proves it". ... But that would disappont the wako left appologists and cospiracy nutbars.
I guess the MEDIA IS AN ASS. Who coined that phrase ?? when ??
Thanks, Hans. I agree with you. They aren't part of Eurabia yet - and I don't think they will be.
The reason is, that Islamism is functionally empty. It can't support itself, because its ideology rejects thought and reason. It can't start innovative research, it can't analyze the environment and develop new technology. It can't enable people to interact constructively. It's empty. It yells a lot, it is violent and vicious, but once past that front door - the land is a desert.
Eurabia is France's imperialist dream and so far, no French dream has succeeded, outside of the smoke-filled cafe's on Blvd Des Italiens.
Again, the reason it can't succeed is because, pragmatically, an Islamic ideology cannot support an industrial economy.
Now, will the world move its industrial economy to China and India, which most certainly won't move into Islamism - and will Europe move out of industrialism? Will North America move out of industrialism? Will the Middle East move into industrialism? Those are the questions to ask.
Definitely off-topic ... well, somewhat.
If you liked the "Youth for Volpe ($5400)" parody web site, you might want to take a look at this Taliban Jack parody shamelessly plagarized from the earlier one.
http://www.thistechnology.com/neville/
Before it's forced off the air, that is.
there's one thing for certain in this article...you can't believe everything you read.
Greg and ET. . .
Your exchanges were a delight. One underestimated point;
**What is important to me is that all we Western Christians, Jews, atheists, humanists, and others stick together and support each other in a unified coherence against Islamic fanatics who wish to destroy us. **
This is paramount if we ever hope to prevail.. However, are we mistaken to presume these various groups have any idea of the real picture with dots connected?
Conversely, the white hot mutual hatred among four major Moslim sects is a saving grace that assures no unified Moslim wave against us. For the moment, anyway.
We should make much more of this weakness in the enemy than we do.
No one understands the paralizing suffocation that Taliban and Al Qaeda flavoured Sharia law brings better than ME Moslims.
There are at least sixteen of the governments in the Middle East who never want to be under the thumb of Iranian / Persian puritan Shiia oppression.
I say governments, because the citizenry do seem to be confused or uninformed in so many ways. Al Jazeera et all.
As for Eros. Burkahs force imagination. Imagination keeps population counts up.
Those wiley Moslims know a thing or two about Eros. = TG
Maybe Britain doesn't want to support Israel or its supporters any longer?
ET - I hope your prognosis is right regarding the Brits. I'm not as sanguine. When the Brits joined the EU, throwing away centuries of autonomy, the historic moral high ground and enmeshing their unique heritage in exchange for markets, now subjugated by the smarmy weasels in in Brussels, I'm afraid they made their Faustian bargain. The nanny state is, in spades, more entrenched there than here. Go over to City Journal, read all entries by Theodure Dalrymple, add Mark Steyn's observations, the Brits are close to being comatose.
Blair is a Clintonesque triangulator, unlike Thatcher and Bush, he has been driven by polls. I never completely trusted him. He always struck me as having a weasel quality that was right below the surface.
Old Europe is just plan shot. The wild card in the WOT aren't our dear Brits, but, the "new" Europe of the Eastern bloc. They've lived under fascism, and, their young aren't as decadent. I look to them as more morally relevant.
I am sympathetic to your anger, pissedoff, and, maybe, we North Americans are completely off base, but, I doubt that you can make a convincing case that the Brits won't go French on us after Blair.
Muslim, those good moderates who have backbone and protest terrorism practices.
Thus the spelling *Moslim* for the time being. = TG
Hey TG, how're you doing, buddy?
I think you make a good point:
"This is paramount if we ever hope to prevail.. However, are we mistaken to presume these various groups have any idea of the real picture with dots connected?"
See, this is just what I'm worried about. You're an old military guy like me, and what we need righ now is a whole lot of Western esprit de corps.
And here we are with Western intellectuals raised on post-modernism and things like Being and Nothingness.
I mean, we have modern philosphy started by Descartes, whose major departure for examination is whether he himself exists or not.
TG, I see this as bad mojo, when we have these crazed maniacs with 100% kamakazi certainty that anything they do to screw up the West is a good idea.
However, I think we have hope. Look at our good friend ET here. You could not find a more intelligent, reasoned and forceful voice for atheism, and yet she brims over with praise for Pope Benedict's academic address. Here she is an atheist and she will take on people who want to challenge the basis for his views.
"There are at least sixteen of the governments in the Middle East who never want to be under the thumb of Iranian / Persian puritan Shiia oppression."
Yeah, that is a terrific opportunity to exploit. If the CIA and MI6 and the other similar agencies could do some work some serious divide-and-conquer, it could weaken those guys a lot. They could dust each other off and save us the trouble. That could really "put the cat among the pidgeons" as the British used to say.
"As for Eros. Burkahs force imagination. Imagination keeps population counts up."
OK TG, if you say so. It ain't my kind of fetish, but then I tend to run more toward black lingerie. Really though, these people treat women like they were slaves.
ET: You said (as you have on other occassions:
"Again, the reason it can't succeed is because, pragmatically, an Islamic ideology cannot support an industrial economy".
I hope I'm not coming across as argumentative, but isn't this illogical? (Begging the question ... using a premise that itself is not proven? ... remembering your earlier instruction?).
Isn't this assumed but unproven premise that the industrial economy is a given, forever, and that therefore islamism cannot succeed? That's no argument ET, just wishful thinking ... whistling in the dark!
The thing to realize is that the industrial economy can decline very slowly over a very very long time, and it has a huge constituency who hate it. Recall, Maurice Srong himself is on record for saying that the industrial economy must be destroyed to save the environment.
Think of the outright hatred for Thatcher in Britain -- she who literally saved and boomed that economy.
In fact the long slow decline is always the danger. Very sudden declines have the good effect of waking people up (remember New Zealand?). A long slow slide doesn't (frog in water brought to a boil).
penny: I with you. I'm not at all sanquine. When I see a pitched battle in the streets with islamofascists running one of their tiresome faux-rage events, I'll start to have some hope.
ET: You're obviously one of the smartest visitors here, so it hurts to see you being illogical. With respect, you need to be called on it.
Speaking of 'dead', can anybody explain why the following is not talked about more on either of the msm? Sent a chill up my spine when I first read it. It's also been in the Canadian Press.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52018
Any thoughts, Anybody???
Me No Dhimmi:
You mention Maurice Strong, let me say it would be best not to take any more advice from that individual! What a piece of business.
Real Conservative said:
"Maybe Britain doesn't want to support Israel or its supporters any longer?"
You mean that a country thinks!? I never heard of it!
Greg in Dallas: Agree with you about ET and her spirited defence of the Pope It caused me to find and read the speech.
Did you know that Oriana Fallaci (sp?) called herself a "Christian atheist". That, I saw immediately, is what I am for sure.
Read somewhere (but not sure) that Einstein believed in God. That should give all atheists, Christian of otherwise, pause for thought.
ET, TG & GiD,
This is one of the best threads I have read anywhere in a long time. Being a computer geek whos education henceforth has comprised of 0 history and near 0 sociology, reading your exchanges here and following up on the keypoints elsewhere has made for a learned evening. Thanks for that.
Liz J: Oh, I've got the total drill on Uncle Mo, don't worry. He is below despicable in my books. I take no advice from him -- only cited him as an example of a quite large lefty constituency which hates capitalism while of course living nice lives under it. Sorry to have alarmed you :). Recall, I was trying to point out what I perceive as ET's illogic in her "argument" that islamism will fail because an industrial economcy cannot survive under it -- which begged the question in that it assumed that the industrial economy was a given and forever!
No, me no dhimmi, I'm not being illogical and it most certainly was not a 'begging the question' argument. My argument was an 'enthymeme' which means that one of the premises is taken for granted and not presented in the argument. Which premise is taken for granted?
That a 6 billion global population cannot survive except within an industrial economy.
And it is most certainly proven, by the mere fact that industrialism has emerged as population increased. The two are directly and positively correlated.
You don't understand the close relationship between population size, economic mode and political infrastructure. I've been teaching it for 20 odd years, which, is not a reason for you to accept its conclusions, but only to show that I do know a fair bit of the empirical evidential grounds for such a conclusion.
No, the industrial economy cannot decline - slowly or rapidly - unless the population also declines. No economy stands alone; all systems are networked.
That remark by Maurice Strong is ignorant. Just because X person says Y, doesn't mean a thing.
Again, unless the global population reduces, drastically, by several billion, there is no way that industrialism can disappear or decline.
By the way - I hope you are not making the error of equating 'capitalism' with 'industrialism'. The two are not identical; however, in my view, the most robust industrialism is a capitalist industrialism. A socialist industrialism, as has been tried in various nations around the world, simply can't function; it regresses to the 'lowest common denominator'. You need a capitalist industrialism to move a system out of a 'bell curve'mode which regresses, to a scale-free mode, which enables dissent and deviation and innovation.
a "Christian atheist...plausible and makes sense to me, because Christianity is as much about western culture as it is about religion, and, oh, do I love it even more, warts and all, in the past five years. Thank you, Jesus, divine or not, you weren't Mohammed.
This is a dumb question, but, is ET as she? Not that it matters.
A long slow slide doesn't (frog in water brought to a boil)...yes, yes, yes, and start the clock long before the advent of terrorism for the Euroweenies.
"This is one of the best threads I have read anywhere in a long time."
They are good, aren't they? Also impressive: liz j, penny and no dhimmi.
That's enough flattery for one evening, back to football.
BTW, I was watching the buffalo/minnesota game and was subjected to several shots of bubba clinton stuffing his face.
ET: You know very well from history that culture, population, science, and progress can decline. All continents, even pre-European North America, had long spells of decline. I think that you put too much faith in modern industrial society. The world's population can decline and industrial societies and democracy can enter long periods of darkness. I can clearly see Islamic Fascism ushering in just such an era, perhaps regionally; perhaps globally.
Roman Europe declined and collapsed over a fairly long period of time, largely due to barbaric migration and unwillingness on the part of decadent Romans to die for their civilization... they relied on proxies and mercenaries and paid with the slow loss of their civilization. Roman armies were unbeatable… but they lost. Roman culture was unequalled… yet it collapsed.
When compared to post-modern society; Islam is barbaric, even in its many "moderate" forms. Yet, I see it spreading. I see it gradually swallowing up much of Africa. I see it causing decline in Europe, and I see it causing decline in many parts of South Asia, and Asia proper. The Middle East is a cesspool held together by dictatorships and kingdoms. And, Russia is slipping back into totalitarianism with China flirting with nationalistic fascism of its own. Nope… I’m not all that confident.
Western society in all it’s freedoms has produced an intellectually lazy society which is incapable of understanding, least of all recognizing the danger it faces. What we call the utopian left is the vanguard of this mentality, and it holds sway over all of our European allies and over a good half of North America.
I do believe we’ll survive, but not for the reasons you do. I take my cue from military history, and my prognosis is ugly, but likely unavoidable. Military conflict, after all, is what writes history.
The Islamic Republic of Britain.
No, debris trail, much as I respect your blog (celestial junk) and your remarks, I don't see things the way you do.
No, science does not decline. And it most certainly, with our modern communication systems, cannot decline. Population can be stable, can increase, can decline. But in the long run, it must increase. The world global population is increasing. As for 'culture' declining, I don't know what this means.
The Roman Empire may have declined, as the Roman Empire, but civilization didn't decline. The knowledge developed within the Roman Empire simply moved into a different mode of organization, namely, local socioeconomic zones, rather than a centrally governed area.
I think that the Roman Empire as a political entity collapsed because its central gov't couldn't, technologically and politically, deal with such a vast territory. By technology, I mean communication. By political, I mean that such a vast territory had to move into local governance rather than central. And, local governance, coupled with a poor communication system, means that a central gov't loses authority.
Then, the rise of Christianity - and above all, the 'choice' of an Athanasian rather than Arian interpretation of Christianity inserted a different and new centralism - and moved it away from Rome and the Emperor.
Islamism is most certainly barbaric; it rejects knowledge, rejects science, rejects democracy, rejects individualism, rejects life and promotes death.
I disagree with you that it can triumph. The reason is, that, in order to triumph, it must stop all science, all knowledge, and all economic interactions. When it does this, the population will rapidly move into medical chaos -Again, my point is, that with a global population of 6 billion, if you stop the economies, science and knowledge - you can't sustain that population in health.
Islam may be sweeping into Africa, a continent that is dying and therefore, amenable to an ideology that is focused only on death rather than life. China is not 'flirting with nationalistic fascism' but with international capitalism. And science. Check out some of the international conferences and science work being done in China. Same with India.
As for Western freedoms, the price we must pay for this intellectual freedom is the loss of many to empty opinions and ignorance. There were just as many prior to the world wars.
I agree with you about the utopian left - who are aligned with utopian Islamic fascism and any other utopias. They always will be like that.
Will it come to the world war that you envisage? Remember, if the people are, as you suggest, unwilling to see the danger, then, how will they go to war?
Will it require a world war? I'm not sure. This is a different fascism than Hitler's, which was focused around that a priori Purity of the People, but it was focused around economic imperialism. Islamic fascism is very different; it is utterly disinterested in the economy. That's astonishing, quite frankly. It is focused only on one agenda - a reclusive life of prayer, a focus on death, and a lifestyle suited to a 5th century desert pastoralism.
So-what's required? The West has to reject 'dhimmitude'; it has to reject the 'I am an insulted Muslim'; it has to react viciously and immediately to their terrorism; it has to insist on democracy. And, as Benedict asserted, on the rule of Reason. Will it need a war? I don't know - I suspect 'no'.
We'll see. But, I maintain my point. It is utterly empty and can't exist, on its own, in an industrial society. And industrialism is the only mode that can deal with 6 billion people.
Debris Trail wrote, "Western society in all it’s freedoms has produced an intellectually lazy [you've got it] society which is incapable of understanding, least of all recognizing the danger it faces. What we call the utopian left is the vanguard of this mentality, and it holds sway over all of our European allies and over a good half of North America." As a teacher in the gulag of the modern public education system of this country, I agree. As a society, we're not bringing up citizens: rather, barbarians. Some of them are actually nice, but they're neither principled nor brave. In fact, they've been trained not to be: They've seen that such traits usually land the possessor in deep trouble.
Debris Trail also wrote, "I do believe we’ll survive, but not for the reasons you [ET] do. I take my cue from military history, and my prognosis is ugly, but likely unavoidable. Military conflict, after all, is what writes history." Debris Trail, thanks for your realistic, unpleasant though it is, analysis--utopians HATE unpleasant realiy. I can hope . . .
ET: The premise I thought you were taking for granted was that the industrial economy was a given and here forever ... sorta "end of history" notion. Let's leave "enthymeme" for the moment ... I'm still very shaky on "beggng the question", despite your earlier, very able instruction.
And that premise has been re-stated when you say:
"No, the industrial economy cannot decline - slowly or rapidly - unless the population also declines."
Isn't this more circularity? I never said that the population couldn't decline.
But how about Iran? I read somewhere that its GDP per capita is down about 50% since the 1979 revolution. A Iranian guy, who once detailed my motorcycle (but who perfers to be known as Persian) said "way more" when I mentioned that stat. Has its population declined?
Again, I find most of your analysis extremely cogent but have been stuck on what seems like a "begging the question" fallacy. You seem to start from the premise that the industrial economy will not decline (now adding it can't unless the population declines), then to the premise that the industrial economy cannot thrive under tribalism (agreed), and that therefore, islamism must fail. Whereas I feel that the industrial economy can indeed decline even precipitously and that the population can decline too. That a new dark age is a real risk.
Wasn't the very brilliant Jane Jacobs' last book called: "Dark Age Ahead."
To realconservative
I would like you to give us your policy, or some reference that would make you anywhere near conservative. Your postings here belong to "Rabble" as far as I can figure out.
Me No Dhimmi, I agree with you. Like you, I have the highest regard for ET. However, also like you, I believe the argument that Western civilization CANNOT fail is fallacious. (Your posts mirror ones I've made before on this issue.)
As a teacher, believe me, as I see the child who is NOT becoming a man, we're already in the new dark ages: And this is just the beginning.