First: if there is one pattern we see in the public policies the Cathedral produces, it’s that they tend to be very good at creating dependency. We can observe the dependency system by imagining what would happen if Washington, DC, out to the radius of the Beltway, is suddenly teleported by aliens into a different dimension, where its residents will live out their lives in unimaginable wealth, comfort and personal fulfillment. We here on Earth, however, see the Federal City disappear in a flash of light. In its place is a crater of radioactive glass.
What would happen? Many, many checks would no longer arrive. Children would go hungry – not just in North America, but around the world. Old people would starve. Babies would die of easily preventable diseases. Hurricane victims would squat in squalor in the slums. Drug companies would sell poison, stockbrokers would sell worthless paper, Toys-R-US would sell little plastic parts designed to stick in my daughter’s throat and choke her. Etc, etc, etc.
Washington has made itself necessary. Not just to Americans, but to the entire world. Why does Washington want to help the survivors of Cyclone Nargis? Because helping is what it does. It dispenses love to all. Its mission is quite simply to do good, on a planetary basis. And why does the government of Burma want to stop it? Why turn down free help, including plenty of free stuff, and possibly even some free money?
Because dependency is another name for power. The relationship between dependent and provider is the relationship between client and patron. Which is the relationship between parent and child. Which also happens to be the relationship between master and slave. There’s a reason Aristotle devotes the first book of the Politics to this sort of kitchen government.
Modern Americans have enormous difficulty in grasping hierarchical social structures. We grew up steeped in “applied Christianity” pretty much the way the Hitler Youth grew up steeped in Hitler. The suggesting that slavery could ever be or have been, as Aristotle suggests, natural and healthy, is like suggesting to the Hitler Youth that it might be cool to make some Jewish friends. Their idea of Jews is straight out of Jud Süss. Our idea of slavery is straight out of Uncle Tom’s Cabin. If you want an accurate perspective of the past, a propaganda novel is probably not the best place to start. (If you want an accurate perspective of American slavery, I recommend Eugene Genovese’s Roll, Jordan, Roll, which is a little Marxist but only superficially so. No work like it could be written today.)
[…]
We can see the answer when we look at the fate of politicians who have attacked the Cathedral. Here are some names: Joseph McCarthy. Enoch Powell. George Wallace. Spiro Agnew. Here are some others: Ronald Reagan. Richard Nixon. Margaret Thatcher.
The first set are politicians whose break with the Cathedral was complete and unconditional. The second are politicians who attempted to compromise and coexist with it, while pulling it in directions it didn’t want to go. The first were destroyed. The second appeared to succeed, for a while, but little trace of their efforts (at least in domestic politics) is visible today. Their era ends in the 1980s, and it is impossible to imagine similar figures today.
A long, interesting read. If you are in government (at any level) or media, you owe it to yourself to read it.
“Because dependency is another name for power. The relationship between dependent and provider is the relationship between client and patron. Which is the relationship between parent and child. Which also happens to be the relationship between master and slave.”
Locally for me at the personal level, “School breakfasts and Food banks” comes to mind.
The collectivist, non-judgmental nanny state owes much of its growth to women’s suffrage. Common references to the Democratic Party as the “Mommy Party” indicate, I think, tacit acceptance of this view. Women ON AVERAGE (1) favor accommodation over confrontation and hence prefer a pacific approach to foreign affairs, (2) want themselves and their children to be taken care of, and (3) incline instinctively toward nurturing as opposed to a “judgmental” insistence on personal responsibility. As a side note, I think the gay-rights movement, too, owes much of its success to women’s suffrage, being identified, at least in the public mind, with a “feminine” sensibility.
Let me acknowledge that, yes, all women are not alike. There are plenty of women, like Kate for instance, who have absolutely no fear of confrontation, and there are plenty who are not particularly “nurturing”. I am speaking of what I think are broad tendencies of the group as a whole. If I’ve generalized incorrectly, by all means correct me.
There are 5 kinds of Muslim exisit in North America
1) one group who born from Muslim parents but thier act exactly like non Muslim they are dress and folow exactly party and dress and etc… the only thing may make little bit seperate from nonMuslim they may say No thanks I do not like to eat pork that is only think Muslim still may in this group say you still think they are muslim bt they drink… you can see them alot in office in Canada and USA they are kind and people can trust them in job and like them alot but they are not educated or obey Islam at all
these are not pray 5 times per day they go beached with nonMuslim they are not involve politc if they do they are not follow Muslim rigt at all. they educated in north america university you can see them may like other normanl populaiton of nonMuslim do some illegal but they are not real Muslim we call them just born Muslim some also group like bad can involve with these group like Sadam Hosain goes to criinal group of just born Muslim henever follow Islam law at all but again this group can be very good peopel or can be bad criminal like Sadam Hossain
2) are the group who has basic correct like they pray they are not drink or eat pork or not go to beaches but they are dress like nonMuslim and follow some may revealing drss form woman in party group 2 can communicte with group 1 in job in most cases but group 2 are involve in soem 50% in politic of Muslim and theri right you can see lots of Indian woman and men in office work in bank and etc.. this group has 80% do pray god but not fasting of Month of Ramazan
they are half educated in univierity. this group you can trust them for office work they are not do illegal in 90% of job
3) group 3 are the people are completly follow Muslim law and do salat and do all go to Haj and participate in mosqe they are educated in law of Islam and 80% attend univerist in North American
they are group like law school who fight Mark Styen for freedom right of Muslim and very smart in both knwo law in north AMerica and know Islam logic and know Islam well and able to aruge but not like to tlak to nonMuslim most of them because of diffenrences for politic reason on today are so many not security involve for htem to talk but they are not involve any terrorist attach or any invovle illegla act these group never do any illegal thing at all
4) group are Extermesit.
now sheikh and Mola can go to this group and some bad group too but again
this group can didvied to 4 to 5 groups
not every body look like sheik who are extermeist are terrorist like not all Catholic Church are help terrorist group they are extermes in wear Hijab and cover and why they call them extermsit this can go to 4 goups
I later in next post I explain for you how you can find out who is danger extermist who is not
when nonMuslim go to area extemist live for secuity should cover their body and more detail I expain
again most problmes nonMuslim not understenad between Mslim and plus we have more htan 70 branch of Islam but major of them are 5 to 6 of them are live in North America
and again culutre add to above group made them diffenre too
socity study you need that to know how to open dialoghe with Muslim theylisnte to you not fight you
in next post I try to explain with my simple way how many group and how you recongnize who to speek to them
can you come near bad group in nonMuslim and talk god they are hate god in the smae respect you can not talk QUran with extremst to made them angry they belive you non Muslim disobey god and they hate you not liek Mohamad fro prophet
you should knwo what Muslim are thinking and how can be get close to them not change them to not scare them to do any bad job
The original post reads as if it were written by an academic. Long winded (heh). I’m not sure what his point(s) is/are.
From what I can figure out and I don’t have the time to thoroughly go through it – he seems to consider that the realm of power in the West/US (?) has been moved to the ‘intelligentsia’, the so-called Platonic Philosopher-Kings (PPK). Rather than the elected legislature.
The Intelligentsia/PPK are busy ‘manipulating procedural outcomes’…and in true Platonic and Hegelian fashion, they set up a master/slave relationship of dependency upon the Big Government Welfare State.
What he is ignoring, I think – and I’m still not sure I’ve read him accurately – is that the Big Govt PPK mode of governance does indeed set up what Karl Popper called a totalitarian and Closed Society. BUT, my point is that societies, as living organisms, can’t be frozen into these closed mechanical Forms of Existence. Because they are, well, they aren’t mechanical. You can set up a machine to operate according to a closed set of dominant rules. But you can’t do the same, that easily, with an organic living system.
A living system is a Complex Adaptive System, and from the periphery, deviations and dissent will begin and gather force. It takes a LOT of energy, usually repressive totalitarian military effort, from the Top Down Governance, to repress the periphery. Essentially – change will occur.
He also seems to be against the Political State – if I again, read him correctly. He’s in favour of open ‘immigration’ (incorrect term for what he’s advocating which is open doors to anyone). This nullifies the notion of ‘the citizen’ for the national space becomes, not national and owned by the citizes, but open, ‘unowned’ for whoever wants to camp there. If that’s his point, I disagree with it. Strongly.
There’s always governance in a complex system; there has to be a rule of law – otherwise we entropically dissipate to random bits. So..I’m not sure what his ultimate solution is.
The original post reads as if it were written by an academic. Long winded (heh). I’m not sure what his point(s) is/are.
From what I can figure out and I don’t have the time to thoroughly go through it – he seems to consider that the realm of power in the West/US (?) has been moved to the ‘intelligentsia’, the so-called Platonic Philosopher-Kings (PPK). Rather than the elected legislature.
The Intelligentsia/PPK are busy ‘manipulating procedural outcomes’…and in true Platonic and Hegelian fashion, they set up a master/slave relationship of dependency upon the Big Government Welfare State.
What he is ignoring, I think – and I’m still not sure I’ve read him accurately – is that the Big Govt PPK mode of governance does indeed set up what Karl Popper called a totalitarian and Closed Society. BUT, my point is that societies, as living organisms, can’t be frozen into these closed mechanical Forms of Existence. Because they are, well, they aren’t mechanical. You can set up a machine to operate according to a closed set of dominant rules. But you can’t do the same, that easily, with an organic living system.
A living system is a Complex Adaptive System, and from the periphery, deviations and dissent will begin and gather force. It takes a LOT of energy, usually repressive totalitarian military effort, from the Top Down Governance, to repress the periphery. Essentially – change will occur.
He also seems to be against the Political State – if I again, read him correctly. He’s in favour of open ‘immigration’ (incorrect term for what he’s advocating which is open doors to anyone). This nullifies the notion of ‘the citizen’ for the national space becomes, not national and owned by the citizes, but open, ‘unowned’ for whoever wants to camp there. If that’s his point, I disagree with it. Strongly.
There’s always governance in a complex system; there has to be a rule of law – otherwise we entropically dissipate to random bits. So..I’m not sure what his ultimate solution is.
ET:
For someone who hasn’t the time to analyse the piece, I think you summarized it well. And yes, it is indeed inflated, comically so, I would say.
haye!!!! Wow!! BOY HOWDY!! That’s some great writing there! Did you even notice that it was a bit off topic?
You stole Kate’s bandwidth to say that there are 5 kinds of Muslims living in North America and then describe only 4 of them. That’s the same kind of logic and writing skill that’s brought Islam to World prominence, no doubt.
Perhaps the 5th kind of Muslim will be the targets for when North Americans finally lose their patience, their tolerance and their inherent distaste for bloodshed.
In light of your crappy little piece of propagandistic hatred, I personally look forward to the day when Muslims identify themselves as Canadians first and Muslims second. If that doesn’t happen – and damned soon – then I may have to self-identify as a Crusader first and Canadian secondly.
GWJ:
Whenever I see a post like HAYE’s, I do wonder whether it is written by a person whose English is truly rudimentary or whether it is submitted by someone who is merely faking illiteracy. Assuming that HAYE is writing in English as best he can, I’m not sure he deserves the scorn you’ve heaped upon him. I sense that (1) he disapproves of religiously motivated violence, and (2) he wants to share his perceptions of various segments of Islamic society in Canada. If he is speaking in earnest, I think he might be worth hearing.
RSP – I happen to think that Haye is quite fluent in English. He’s posted to Kate’s blog quite a bit in the past few days – and his grammatical structure is correct (something difficult for an ESL person) and he both spells and uses difficult words correctly. So, in my view, he’s a fake.
The post above is slightly worse than his other posts; we’ve been criticizing his posts as a pretense, pointing out his good grammer, correct spelling and correct use of difficult words and phrases. So, he’s trying to downgrade himself. But even so, it is obvious that his grammatical structure is basically English. And his spelling of non-phonetic words is correct. So, I conclude that he’s a fake.
His other posts, by the way, are quite vicious in their focus – essentially telling us that we may not discuss or criticize or analyze Islam.
Plus, he doesn’t really seem to know much about Islam. His views are straight from the general popular press (ie, Wiki).
The Dependency hook aka Trudeau’s do loop;
01 n=5
02 GO TO 05
03 n=n+4
04 Go to n
05 break health care
06 Print ‘health care is broken’
07 Print ‘ Only Trudeau can fix health care’
08 GO TO 40
09 Break economy
10 Print ‘economy is broken’
11 Print ‘only Trudeau can fix economy’
12 GO TO 40
13 Break education
14 Print ‘education is broken’
15 Print ‘only Trudeau can fix education’
16 GO TO 40
17 Break Foreign relations
18 Print ‘Foreign relations are broken’
19 Print ‘only Trudeau can fix foreign relations’
20 GO TO 40
21 Break ‘Law and order’
22 Print ‘Law and order is broken’
23 Print ‘only Trudeau can fix law and order’
40 If n=infinity GO TO 80
50 GO TO 03
80 Walk In Snowstorm
85 END
say what????
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4083979.ece
Thanks for linking to that Kate, that’s one of the most thought-provoking things I’ve read in a while. The unsettling Roo trial in Vancouver, and the unveiling of bureaucratic thinking through Ian Fine’s performance opposite Ezra on CPAC makes it even more resonant.
I was really struct by Moldbug’s observation, which I believe to be absolutely correct — ET has said similar things, too — that progressives fear and loathe democracy, but not publicly under that name; they hate it under the name of “politics.” So, progressives may level that charge that so-and-so “politicized the Justice Department”, for example, but when they themselves have their hands on any such office it is always treated as a chance to finally do something in the public interest, and not as political in nature.
“If the actions of our democratic governments are not to be ascribed to the venal machinations of politicians,” MB asks, “who is responsible for them? We are back to the basic question of power, which Lenin once summarized as ‘Who? Whom?’ What Lenin meant was ‘who rules whom?'”
The progressives’ answer, he notes, is PUBLIC POLICY. It sounds good, and necessary, and scientific and non-partisan, like it’s a mere descriptor of the necessary management of important concerns, but it’s actually an elision that borders on anti-democratic violence, one of the true word-bludgeons, and consciousness erasers of the global left. MB captures the disappearing middle brilliantly: “Just as there is no German physics or Catholic mathematics, there is no German public policy or Catholic public policy. There is only public policy. There is no ‘who’. There is no rule. There is no world domination. There is only global governance.
That’s a perfect description of the watch-the-hand chain of putative non-issue/non-concerns, and where that all leads. Progressive public policy is ostensibly just good; it’s neither this, nor that, nor is partisanship an issue. It’s just sound public policy, and as such it’s not about power, or partisanship, and there’s nothing to think about, and there’s no domination, there’s just — BANG! — global governance.
Listen to Ian Fine explaining on CPAC why it’s not only acceptable but necessary that his ilk be allowed to in effect determine what we may say or write: “The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1966 provides that freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities. (Expression) may therefore be subject to certain restrictions…The international community has come together and reached a consensus on these principles.”
Note that he and his ilk would have the power to shut us up because an international covenant none of us ever voted for, or were ever asked to, “provides” him his right to do so. Note also how being censored is not onerous for those being silenced, but rather a “special duty” we carry in the interests of a public policy which ostensibly mandates that the expressions of our own consciences are, in fact, already subject to “certain restrictions” in place because the international community has “come together” and reached a consensus on these “principles.”
It’s all a craven and obscene power grab in the form of a disappearing act, but the truly sick joke of it all is that EVERYONE knows — Ian Fine knows — that the speech restrictions based on these “principles” apply only to one group: the lineal descendants of the European enlightenment. An Imam in Toronto who advocates the murder of Israeli civilians is not, in practice, subject in any way to the international community’s “consensus”, nor are any citizens of Karachi or Kinshasa or Shanghai or Mexico City or Jakarta. Or London, provided they attend mosque or have more than a certain amount of melanin in their skin.
It’s hard for me not to think of P.E.T and Chretien, and Ian Fine and the HRCs when I read this: “Power has all the usual reasons to hide. Power is delicious, and everyone wants it…it is more than a pleasure. It is satisfaction. It is fulfillment. It is meaning.” In nature, “it may have other defenses — poison-filled spines, and the like — but why not start with camouflage? Why look like anything more than a stick or a leaf?”
Exactly. Why look like anything more than a high-priest of goodness who is merely implementing public policy?
Ok
the the fifth one is: as I said group 1 to 4 above
——————–
Muslim terrorist
such as we have IRA who are Irish Catholic terroirist that is true we have Muslim terrorist as well.
Now let talk about waht cause hate
differneces:
1)
theorty and diologue – Islam
as some Muslim not like to some group talk about Quran, Islam and Prophet Mohammade
these matter only by let schoolr debate the theory and belief of Islam vs. chrisitiny to jewihs or hindo or konomist or etc… we need schoolar in all relgion to open this diloage and thory of differnce to polic and with corerct way and nto fight as we see so manycarton of Mohammad is wrong and offene to Muslim to reduce hate among two groups such as do not talk about islam quranand Mohamad to made Muslim angry to reduce hate
2)
politicial- Islam
handle by government of world are fight over power between pull the string between USA and middle east always love both groups to have war to entertain the world we need politiican for direction but again this misused in politic world that american get moeny from rich jewsih fund them when they come up let go and kill muslim or this dirction must stop goverment must reduce their power and focue in specif area not aboluste so far all problems in world came from wrong politicial directin to world let all people hate each other we need new orginiation to regulare politcal power such as disarm world or disarm nuclear weapn not one had other take it off all must disarm under one eqaul law for safty and securty of peopel in world not for money and power an game of wehave too much weapn let go and kill mUlsim no politic msut get regulated by UN orany new orgination with fair of all country to tlak and able to nutrize the tention stop the war we need this to reduce hate
if war stop all small terroist will very well reduced
3)
economic and financial Islam
are group who care about increase wealth inside countries and not like to have war
I bleive world trade must let all wrold not stay hungry and circulate the wealth in some extend of percentage not all like the tax to not let US used one hungry to made them rich in wrong way ot wealth in North America this wealth not come from real correct path you will oil go high since inside economic of middle East is down while solution can let busiens are work together and not put one up or down tosuffer inside country by united them in minimum among eath otehr and this will reduce hate we need real world trade not let one dependen of otehrs if you are goverment not listen let cut food to people and let them die this must stop by otehr comitee powe of govermetn to push imbargo must cut and this reduce hate
4)
cultural Islam who between East and West both are fighting over diffenre in their hwo they dress or ear or behave or ceromoney that this one under Human right commision under discriinaiton of both west with muslim always is high topic and all writers human right in Canada is differn than Muslim human right this must made certain rules such as blogs of writer of magazine what border tehy can go or not go or if some one cover otehr not like to stay naked are two diffenre mentaliy of culture can be religon can be freedom but one can not interfer in other in certan extend we need human right for this area
5) let civil regulate busiess among countries nnot English saying we control all world money
busienss free to grow this reduce hate
6) let criminal court in world talk to each other since judges in middle east and west give two order agaisnt each otehr this will made some simility and reduce hate such as x person as US army went to Iraq and sleep with teenager arab person and the father kiled his daugher this is crime and need to contorl by police in fair way not sme person take crime wit teir owen hand to reduce hate
waht I am trying to say to regulate the reason people hate each otehr and this reduce hate will reduce hate in world include Muslim terrorist
who can some are indepently some small child see his parents dies go and put bump to do suide boming for his or her hate when he saw the crime he could not handle the crimea nd did nto see the jusitce and he though he need to take his owen life to showe his voice is wrong thjs create horror to kill innoice to reveng your parent crime who killed by hand of unjust Isreali soldure
the otehr kind of teroirst I thing are small group who may made sep 11 it no body did said from big group who were even ben ladne did not approve he was behind sep 11 but eitehr us conpiracy or mix and/or some group saw ecnomic in middle east are hungry hate us are rich they are poor hit the busiens buildien in revneg of US put thier building down in Lebanen or Palateiin I am not sure but may some hate increased started related tobusiens building again as I said those is reaction of crime those grup hear every day 50 people die in Lebanad if not body find the justice theywill do justice in wrong way again this is terrorust can made horris since too many Muslim were in buildinf of sep 11 who died as well that action is nobody say ok go ahead whie this is show among of pain in middle east killing them as well and destroy their building as well in wron way of revenge as I said if you reduce hate all wil get reduce
I was wonder how army in USA who are big let airline go so close to city with not attemp of army that may some Muslim say US army may know there is action want to happend did not prevent it to used taht accident to kill More muslim later under conpiracy still no court expalain why let all those airplane come so close to those building take a second to USA army to destroy taht airline kill 100 verses kill 6000 peoole in building
next are group who are some extermeist but they are not see themselves as terrroist they are judge in Islam saying if you talk more than limit in against Mohamde they will say order you must die as we heard about Soman Roshey means toomuch hate wake up extremist who are criminal jduge and have power to do order this as law of Islam if some one talk more htan limit against Islam law
next is organized crime who kill no matter this is hate full terrousr who are Wahabit and kill ohter branch of Islam for theri too lefies belive who are not bring hate againt too many schold against them 99% of Muslim not like Wahabi Muslim at all this grup are very danger group but not by face some peopel thinks this person are look extremes then must be terroist that is wrong to under tand them
=====================
group 1 Muslim said above love west culture in 100% and s we said not follow any rules or may 5% of rule of Islam
group 2 like west in 75% like
group 3 are 50% like education and finacial not culture like non Muslim are ok not like or dislike like to stay seprate to work only
or study
group 4 are not like generally ( 25%) may accept some from west) non Muslim but they do not hate them
gtoup 5 terrorist are hate nonMuslim ( 0%)
group 1 can talk to group 2 but group 1 not talk to group 3, 4, 5
group 2 can talk to group 1 and group 3 but not the rest
group 5 can talk to 4 but they are not talk to the rest
group 3 can talk to group 2 and grop 4 )but group 3 not like to talk to group 1 and group 5
group 4 can talk to 2, 3, 5 but not talk to grup 1
=================
I am explain for peopel who do nto the rule donot talk to Extemet group 4and made them upset
and do not let terrosut get angry by incrase hate start by cut all 6 my recomandation to decreast their activity
all 6 said above fro reduce hate will help all muslim able to oepn better dialoge with you
or in future all muslim tell you who is criminal agaisnt them to police arrest them
right now Muslim are not feel they are safe or secure and justice is support them in fair way
===========
fight criminal and fight terrorist has solution for it
this is not give US or Canada to use their power in wrong way to bother all Muslim to cathgt the cirminal
again each counties has diffenr rules in cirinla criminal law in middle east are diffrent
some extems are sheikh but they are judge scholare judge who order
like court in Canada order is diffenret than them
we need all UN, world trade new one , criminal court, civil court, human right commsion to work together to find real solution by find first why
that sheikh in Norway said he does not mean
Muslim are insect
he was under pain saying you kill us in war
we grow next spring again
you are not understand Muslim pain or dilaouge of them that is why Muslim and nonMuslim first has communication problems
you nonMuslim are so rude use so much f and b and bad wording in your talk and pen fix yourself
or human right will fix you
—
Mark Styen
will get some warning and some small fine
but next tiem he will get arest and more fine
and third tieme he wil go to jail
if he is nto listne to Humna right commision order
as I can predict it
unless he did not say any word against Muslim intentionally which I doubt to that!!
that is all I want to say
you do not know Islam and Muslim and culture and differnet among 1.2 billion muslim and have stick and punish with one stick to all of Muslim
thatis wrong fix your law.
Hey Haye
Think I your shitbull is posting.
ET and EBD have provided us a beautiful synopsis of The Cloud. Boiling down the argument, the “government” side of the story is, as allways, “People are stupid and must be controlled”.
Here’s the silver lining fer ya. Thanks to the ever accelerating rate of change in technology, people are rapidly becoming uncontrollable.
The HRCs are a case in point. They can’t shut down discussion on the Internet. The most they can do is make people move their servers off-shore. Cuba and Communist China have proved that. The Great Firewall has leaks you could sail a tanker through, and in Cuba even the impoverished can get access to forbidden fruit on thumb drives and flash cards.
But that’s just information. That’s nothing compared to what’s coming down the pipe, kids.
The article dwells on dependency. How governments create it, manage it, etc. What if they couldn’t do that anymore? What if you could download the stuff you need off the web just like you download a song?
For my money ubiquitous manufacturing is the thing that’s going to do to government what the web has done to the newspapers.
Brilliant video discussion of the coming revolution here: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/90
At some point ad-hoc, self assembling groups and associations are going to swing a bigger stick than Ottawa. Its happened before, actually. For a neat history lesson on a subject nobody knows jack about, wiki up the Independent Order of Odd Fellows.
in conclusion
I noticed you do not understand or may try to not understand since by talk in slander you enjoy
while the problmes in resolution
between Muslim and NonMuslim in Canada
just started
you need to seperate who you are talking
who you are fighting and why you are fighting
we need criminal court to punsih criminal, civil court to grow business not stop Muslim business just because person is Muslim should not come up , human right and world trade new origanization to solve poverty inside countries in Muslim to free with limit, we need UN to join politician to stop war, we need scholars talk about theory of Islam while is not know for nonMuslim in peacefull way to open thoery of Islam isnto what media and USA or sep 11 teach you, we need so many groups each group are work different
but you can judge 1.2 billion with one stick
since sep 11 give usa or Canada to made you antimuslim by paying do use your pen in this way
before all we need communication start between muslim and non Muslim in rihgt direction
the best group to talk to is group number 3 who know it all and mid class group talk to group 1,2 is useless since they are not know Islam weel talk to group 4, 5 will end up war for you.
taht is my recommandation. you can find so many educated Muslim who know Muslim and Canada law and able to talk and do work to find real solution to today problmes in Canada
ET you are real symbol of Canadian bullyyys do not answer to my post any more no body need your opinion any more who love useing f, s b school and teacher and your parents did not teach you better words to talk to and most Canadian has anger problmes look polite but they have anger under skin of them, I know I know I know you know better than Muslim ha ha ha ha…ha!!!! who can belive that non Muslim for sure!!!
my point is too early for you to digest
but is real fact and direction and solution for nonMuslim and Muslim to think about it in Canada
right, phantom, the global network – whether it’s dealing in manufacturing or in information, is outside the control of any one authoritative agency.
This means a different style of workforce – one that is not committed to one employer (40 years at GM)or even one city – but is flexible, global, and connected by personal interaction, by internet interaction – and working in flexible and changeable teams.
And..Here comes Hear, hear Haye. Listen, young man, you are a fraud. Your grammar and spelling reveal that you are fluent in English.
It’s fun to see that you spell difficult words correctly and also use complex grammatical formations correctly. Your error in your game of Let’s Play Pretend is to misuse the simple structures..but you retain correct use of the complex structures!!
Again – your grammar and spelling clearly show that your first language, in which you are quite fluent, is English. So, grow up and stop with the Grade Three Let’s Pretend. And quit with the mumbo jumbo pretend-Muslim. You haven’t a clue what the society or ideology is about. Wikipedia doesn’t have it all.
There’s a host of interesting issues in your post Phantom. I share your hopefulness, and for the same reasons as far as I can tell, but IMO the chance of a positive outcome is less than 50 percent.
We’ve seen the ridiculousness of the roo-court and it’s shutting-down edicts, but that doesn’t mean at all that they’re going anywhere. Censorship is a huge part of LPC/prog political culture, and in order for us to even guess whether or not the enforcers of public policy will remain capable of shutting down dialogue, we have to at first acknowledge our casualties, and that even in this wild-west medium there’s a lot that *hasn’t* been said because of, say, libel chill from HRC investigators, and threats from Kinsella, etc etc. That which hasn’t been said is immeasurable, but that doesn’t mean it’s non-existent.
No one knows how big a factor that is, or how many people have self-censored because in their view it’s more trouble than it’s worth — maybe they’ve got kids to raise, and can’t afford to pay a fine — to write/post about particular topics.
Also, public policy has become *culture*, in Canada, so similarly it’s impossible to fathom how much HASN’T been written in newspapers, or presented on TV news coverage in the last 40 years because o the dominant, politically correct LPC/Trudeaupian culture. Meaning, it’s not necessarily always the case that people are afraid to say things, it may be that they wouldn’t even dream of wanting to because they’ve internalized, through the national grinding application of public policy, manifest in public fora and in the school system, the lessons about what is and isn’t acceptable to say. It’s part of what makes us Canadian.
You asked, what if the government couldn’t create/manage dependency? That will simply never happen, ever. Dependency is a natural resting point; you just have to allow it, and nature will provide. It’s like putting out hay in the winter for deer — they’ll come for it, and then need it; but there is no way that the person putting it out can alter their eagerness to take what you offer. Similarly, in political terms, dependency will *always* be waiting at the tip end of any political arm that hands out the goods. The more you hand out, the more dependents there are. For as long as Paul gets to vote, you can always rob Peter and buy Paul’s vote. And Paul will always get to vote.
Finally — one less reason for hope :>) — you can’t download free cash off the internet, so the internet won’t do anything to reduce the dependency that the article refers to.
Aye, out to drink beer now. I’m late already.
ET….The nutcase fake Muzzie was posting again? Never noticed. Hehaw. GUess my new software for by-passing bulls**t is working!
That is exactly the problmes
when you can not answer and you know we are right
you will start using bullyies talk
0000000000000000000000000000000000000
Bullying is present behind all forms of harassment, discrimination, prejudice, abuse, persecution, conflict and violence. When the bullying has a focus (eg race or gender) it is expressed as racial prejudice or harassment, or sexual discrimination and harassment, and so on. When the bullying lacks a focus (or the bully is aware of the Sex Discrimination Act or the Race Relations Act), it comes out as pure bullying; this is an opportunity to understand the behaviours which underlie almost all reprehensible behavior. I believe bullying is the single most important social issue of today.
• very few people, when put to the test, have the integrity and moral courage to stand up against bullying, harassment, corruption etc; the target is selected often because they do have this moral courage; most people will pass by on the other side, only targets have the integrity to be a good Samaritan
People who are bullied find that they are:
• constantly criticised and subjected to destructive criticism (often euphemistically called constructive criticism, which is an oxymoron) – explanations and proof of achievement are ridiculed, overruled, dismissed or ignored
• forever subject to nit-picking and trivial fault-finding (the triviality is the giveaway)
• undermined, especially in front of others; false concerns are raised, or doubts are expressed over a person’s performance or standard of work – however, the doubts lack substantive and quantifiable evidence, for they are only the bully’s unreliable opinion and are for control, not performance enhancement
• overruled, ignored, sidelined, marginalised, ostracised
• isolated and excluded from what’s happening (this makes people more vulnerable and easier to control and subjugate)
• singled out and treated differently (for example everyone else can have long lunch breaks but if they are one minute late it’s a disciplinary offence)
• belittled, degraded, demeaned, ridiculed, patronised, subject to disparaging remarks
• regularly the target of offensive language, personal remarks, or inappropriate bad language
• the target of unwanted sexual behaviour
• threatened, shouted at and humiliated, especially in front of others
• taunted and teased where the intention is to embarrass and humiliate
• set unrealistic goals and deadlines which are unachievable or which are changed without notice or reason or whenever they get near achieving them
• denied information or knowledge necessary for undertaking work and achieving objectives
• starved of resources, sometimes whilst others often receive more than they need
• denied support by their manager and thus find themselves working in a management vacuum
• either overloaded with work (this keeps people busy [with no time to tackle bullying] and makes it harder to achieve targets) or have all their work taken away (which is sometimes replaced with inappropriate menial jobs, eg photocopying, filing, making coffee)
• have their responsibility increased but their authority removed
• have their work plagiarised, stolen and copied – the bully then presents their target’s work (eg to senior management) as their own
• are given the silent treatment: the bully refuses to communicate and avoids eye contact (always an indicator of an abusive relationship); often instructions are received only via email, memos, or a succession of yellow stickies or post-it notes
• subject to excessive monitoring, supervision, micro-management, recording, snooping etc
• the subject of written complaints by other members of staff (most of whom have been coerced into fabricating allegations – the complaints are trivial, often bizarre [“He looked at me in a funny way”] and often bear striking similarity to each other, suggesting a common origin)
• forced to work long hours, often without remuneration and under threat of dismissal
• find requests for leave have unacceptable and unnecessary conditions attached, sometimes overturning previous approval. especially if the person has taken action to address bullying in the meantime
• denied annual leave, sickness leave, or – especially – compassionate leave
• when on leave, are harassed by calls at home or on holiday, often at unsocial hours
• receive unpleasant or threatening calls or are harassed with intimidating memos, notes or emails with no verbal communication, immediately prior to weekends and holidays (eg 4pm Friday or Christmas Eve – often these are hand-delivered)
• do not have a clear job description, or have one that is exceedingly long or vague; the bully often deliberately makes the person’s role unclear
• are invited to “informal” meetings which turn out to be disciplinary hearings
• are denied representation at meetings, often under threat of further disciplinary action; sometimes the bully abuses their position of power to exclude any representative who is competent to deal with bullying
• encouraged to feel guilty, and to believe they’re always the one at fault
• subjected to unwarranted and unjustified verbal or written warnings
• facing unjustified disciplinary action on trivial or specious or false charges
• facing dismissal on fabricated charges or flimsy excuses, often using a trivial incident from months or years previously
• coerced into reluctant resignation, enforced redundancy, early or ill-health retirement
• denial of the right to earn your livelihood including preventing you getting another job, usually with a bad or misleading reference
A favourite tactic of bullies which helps them evade detection is to undertake a “reorganisation” at regular intervals. This has several advantages:
• anyone whose face doesn’t fit can be organised out through downsizing (redundancy) or transfer
• ditto anyone who challenges the reorganisation
• ditto, their job can be “regraded” or “redefined” to the person’s disadvantage
• each reorganisation is a smokescreen for the bully’s dysfunctional behaviour – everyone is so busy coping with the reorganisation (chaos) that the bully’s behaviour goes unnoticed
• the bully can always claim to be reorganising in the name of “efficiency” and therefore be perceived by those above as a strong manager
However, there is never any cost-benefit justification to the reorganisation – no figures before and no figures after to prove the reorganisation has brought benefits
Definitions of harassment and bullying vary and there is much overlap. The essential differences between harassment and workplace bullying are as follows:
———-
Harassment
Has a strong physical component, eg contact and touch in all its forms, intrusion into personal space and possessions, damage to possessions including a person’s work, etc
bullying-Almost exclusively psychological (eg criticism), may become physical later, especially with male bullies, but almost never with female bullies
————-
harrasment-Tends to focus on the individual because of what they are (eg female, black, disabled, etc)
bullying-Anyone will do, especially if they are competent, popular and vulnerable
———–
Harassment is usually linked to sex, race, prejudice, discrimination, etc
bullying,Although bullies are deeply prejudiced, sex, race and gender play little part; it’s usually discrimination on the basis of competence
————–
Harassment may consist of a single incident or a few incidents or many incidents Bullying is rarely a single incident and tends to be an accumulation of many small incidents, each of which, when taken in isolation and out of context, seems trivial
bullying-The person who is being harassed knows almost straight away they are being harassed The person being bullied may not realise they are being bullied for weeks or months – until there’s a moment of enlightenment
———
Everyone can recognise harassment, especially if there’s an assault, indecent assault or sexual assault
Few people recognise bullying
———-
Harassment often reveals itself through use of recognised offensive vocabulary,
eg (“bitch”, “coon”, etc)
bulying, Workplace bullying tends to fixate on trivial criticisms and false allegations of underperformance; offensive words rarely appear, although swear words may be used when there are no witnesses
————
There’s often an element of possession, eg as in stalking
bullying:Phase 1 of bullying is control and subjugation; when this fails, phase 2 is elimination of the target
——-
The harassment almost always has a strong clear focus (eg sex, race, disability)
bullying is The focus is on competence (envy) and popularity (jealousy)
————-
Often the harassment is for peer approval, bravado, macho image etc
bullying Tends to be secret behind closed doors with no witnesses
———–
Harassment takes place both in and out of work
The bullying takes place mostly at work
———
The harasser often perceives their target as easy, albeit sometimes a challenge
bullying,The target is seen as a threat who must first be controlled and subjugated, and if that doesn’t work, eliminated
—————
Harassment is often domination for superiority
Bullying is for control of threat (of exposure of the bully’s own inadequacy)
——————–
The harasser often lacks self-discipline
The bully is driven by envy (of abilities) and jealousy (of relationships)
————–
The harasser often has specific inadequacies (eg sexual)
The bully is inadequate in all areas of interpersonal and behavioural skills
Yes, haye. Just as I said; you are fluent in English.
You didn’t provide us with a reference source, which – if the above are not your words – providing the reference source is the required and accountable thing to do. Therefore, it’s your posting. Sudden switch into fluent English!
Yes, bullying readers by pretending to be a victim, pretending to be speaking for Muslims, and thereby setting up a situation insisting on our feeling guilty and your feeling empowered – yes, you are indeed a bully.
Harassing readers with your fake pretence of inability to speak the language and your inadequate knowledge of Islam – yes, you do indeed harass people.
As I said, grow up. Start to think and critique what you read, and stop pretending. Be accountable. And for heaven’s sake, don’t fall into the simplistic analytic frame of the binary opposites – as you’ve done above with your attempt to define the two forms of behaviour.
The topic, by the way, is authoritative control over populations by the establishment of a clique of elite Rulers, the old Philosopher-Kings. Kindly stick to the topic.
I read the article this am as well as the follow up at:
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/06/ol8-reset-is-not-revolution.html
I’m not sure who is missing the point – the commentators here or me.
When PMSH was asked (CBC I think) in an interview just before the election about “changing things”, he responded that because of the setup he couldn’t change dick all. We have seen that everything since then on anything that approaches anything controversial it has been been delegated to someone from some university to decide.
That, I think, is the point of the article. Instead of electing policy makers, we are electing people to delegate to to the policy makers … the so called experts … who know shit about anything.
It was an interesting read, had to read it twice actually to get a grasp of some sort. Probably due to my lack of academia learning.
It did seem to ramble and was somewhat rambling, but it is food for thought.
But the best summary that I can think of is that it is not the political parties one has to worry about it is the bureaucrats. Politicians come and go, bureaucrats are always there.
Haye @ 1128 is not an Anglo or Franco canadian. His difficulty witrh the language suggests either a high school student or someone living in Na’il in teh SNAFU desert.
No, I didn’t re3ad it in detail, in diagonal was enough to convinve me not to waste teh time.
Gary in the ‘peg has a good point, @1158.
Yes, I too found it perapatetic; but, hey, he did quote Aristotle. In fact, his link to Aristotle makes me want to read him (Aristotle) again. The Greeks invented Western Civilization, no doubt.
I think his point is that there have been different epochs of political power: Agrarian city-state god-king priesthood; feudalism; theocracy (really just another form of feudalism); free-booting liberalism (18th C in the UK); ideological totalitarianism (20th C Nazis & communists).
Now, we are clearly in the epoch of the bureaucratic society-controlling state, a la Chinese, EU or ancient Egypt. In the latter case, the ideology was religious. NBow the ideology, or excuse, has become “climate change”. Fortunately for us, the bureaucrats have over-extended themselves. Hehehe.
To call this the Cathedral power is an artistic device; it certainly doesn’t originate from academia, rather from bureaucracy itself.
Bureacracies have set themselves up as meritocracies and therefore, wise. The academia connection is that, obviously, a wise government will consult the experts, i.e. academia. As in all societies, the members of the various arms of state all go through the same educational experience.
This is how governments are seriously considering economic suicide for a particular ideology. All the power members bel;ieve the same religion.