:: Saturday, September 29, 2007 ::
The Murderous “Mind-Sets” of Mysticism
Posted by Edward Cline at 11:20 AM
Ayn Rand identified and named the two species of anti-man, anti-life mystics that have largely governed man’s history: the mystics of spirit, and the mystics of muscle.
It is rare that two prominent mystics appear on the world stage at the same time to deliver their ultimata: Pope Benedict XVI and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. Pope Benedict’s appearance and utterances on September 23 passed almost unnoticed, while Ahmadinejad’s appearance at Columbia University on September 24 garnered international headlines.
Columbia University’s invitation to Ahmadinejad to speak to an audience of students, faculty and the public provoked a firestorm of opposition, chiefly from those who challenged the propriety of extending the courtesy to a dictator who not only imprisons, murders and brutalizes people in his own country, but whose government funds international terrorism and whose agents are helping to kill Americans in Iraq.
Aside from the impropriety of inviting a self-proclaimed enemy to speak anywhere in this country, never mind at a noted university, there is the question of what President Lee C. Bollinger of Columbia thought he could accomplish by the invitation. He cited the prerogative of making such an invitation in the name of “free speech.”
Since the Press Law of Iran cited by Bollinger forbids criticism of the government in any form whatsoever, that is, forbids freedom of speech, why extend the right to a dictator responsible for the censorship and repression? Is the right to free speech extended to convicted criminals? By any objective standard, for having committed capital crimes, have they not forfeited the right to freedom of speech? Is not that forfeiture a part of their punishment and incarceration?
In defending his decision to invite Ahmadinejad, Bollinger said during his opening remarks at the event that “this is the right thing to do and, indeed, it is required by existing norms of free speech….”
What are those norms? Bollinger did not elaborate. Do those norms include welcoming a monster who, at his Nuremberg-like rallies in Tehran, regularly calls the U.S. the “Great Satan” and predicts and prays for its destruction at his hand?
One also must wonder what he believed he could accomplish by accusing Ahmadinejad of exhibiting “all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator,” and by reading from a list of crimes committed by the dictator. Did he expect Ahmadinejad to acknowledge the truth of Bollinger’s damnation, suffer an incapacitating guilt attack, then wreathe and weep in heart-wrenching contrition? What was the point? If he was hoping for a “robust debate” of his charges against Ahmadinejad, the robustness of the “confrontation” was an eminently one-sided one. The vulpine Ahmadinejad demonstrated agility in evasive sophistry matched only by Hillary Clinton when cornered by facts and fault.
Bollinger’s list of charges against Ahmadinejad included the jailing and execution of Iranians for demanding freedom of speech, in addition to denying the Holocaust, advocating the destruction of Israel, funding terrorism, providing men and weapons to fight Americans in Iraq, and denying that Iran is working to develop a nuclear bomb.
Ahmadinejad slithered around every one of those charges and every one of the pointed questions put to him by members of the audience. Reading a transcript of his address, there is in it not a single direct answer to any one of Bollinger’s charges or an honest answer to any of the audience’s questions.
Bollinger expressed his subtle estimate of Ahmadinejad during his rationalization of why the dictator should be allowed to speak:
“It is consistent with the idea that one should know thine enemies, to have the intellectual and emotional courage to confront the mind of evil and to prepare ourselves to act with the right temperament.”
But if the enemy is already known, and if one knows that his mind is evil (or what Bollinger characterized as Ahmadinejad’s “fanatical mindset”), why “confront” it in debate? Did we debate with Hitler of Nazi Germany or Tojo of Imperial Japan the rightness or wrongness of their aggression and atrocities?
Bollinger cautioned against “the very natural but often counter-productive impulses that lead us to retreat from engagement with ideas we dislike and fear.”
But Ahmadinejad has no idea but one: brute force. He does not wish to “engage” with ideas he dislikes and fears and which do not conform to his intrinsicist universe of Islam. Ideas emanate from minds, and it is minds he wishes to bypass and ultimately subdue or destroy – which is the leitmotif of Islam. He dismissed Bollinger’s moral indignation as irrelevant, almost comical.
Bollinger also revealed himself as an intrinsicist. His premise was that knowledge of the “good” was somehow an innate resident of Ahmadinejad’s mind as a repressed operative, and that what he wished to “discourse” with Ahmadinejad was why the dictator did not acknowledge it.
Ahmadinejad did not acknowledge it. He has his own set of intrinsic values, all subsumed under Islamic theology. He called Bollinger’s charges “insulting.”
Ahmadinejad’s address was not so much a speech or a lecture as a sermon, and he began it, appropriately enough, with an invocation. “In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful….Oh, God, hasten the arrival of Imam al-Mahdi and grant him good health and victory and make us his followers and those to attest to his rightfulness….”
Perhaps it was lost on or forgotten by Bollinger and the audience, not to mention the press, that Ahmadinejad regards himself as the next “Mahdi,” the expected spiritual and temporal leader of Muslims, and in that role he is preparing the way for the return of the Hidden or Twelfth Imam by laying the groundwork for Armageddon or the Apocalypse. The joke was on Bollinger and the audience; the Mahdi had arrived, and he was Ahmadinejad.
Ahmadinejad’s sermon was such a vile and bizarre soufflé of Koranic references, prattlings about science, scholars, light and “realities,” oblique insinuations of the crimes of American “imperialism” past and present, commiserations about the plight of the Palestinians, and querulous babblings about the ill-treatment of Iran, that it would be fruitless to try to summarize it all here. Its general tone was a combination of an appeal to pity and an appeal to guilt.
(Ahmadinejad’s speech at the U.N. was even more bizarre. He lectured the General Assembly almost exclusively on the virtues of the Hidden Imam. But then, the U.N. is a bizarrely immoral, anti-U.S. institution anyway, which the U.S sanctions with its membership.)
If one wanted proof of Ahmadinejad’s mystical roots and fundamental irrationality, one statement of his at Columbia stands out:
“Realities of the world are not limited to physical realities and the materials, [they are] just a shadow of supreme reality. And physical creation is just one of the stories of the creation of the world.”
Ahmadinejad has read his Koran and his Kant. Both Bollinger and his “guest” are intrinsicists, but Ahmadinejad harbors a strong streak of whim-worshipping subjectivism, as well, against which Bollinger’s anger was impotent. He ended his rant with, “We are a peaceful, loving nation. We love all nations.”
He loves them enough to either conquer them or destroy them, just as Hitler loved Europe and Japan loved Asia.
One does not invite killers to a civilized venue to merely scold them for their crimes. One arrests them, or shoots them, or eradicates their murderous governments. Ahmadinejad in this instance was the enemy and should have been denied entry into this country. Instead, both Bollinger and the U.S., in the names of “fairness” and diplomatic protocol, allowed him to come here to take advantage of propaganda platforms, and he left “victorious and in good health.”
It was not Allah or God who was merciful and compassionate and who answered Ahmadinejad’s prayers. It was the State Department and the President of Columbia University. It is such mercy and compassion that will be the death of us.
Pope Benedict’s pronouncements on Sunday the 23rd were a kind of warm-up act to Ahmadinejad’s. In his own sermons, according to The Scotsman of the 24th, under the headline, “Pope urges rich to turn from Satan and help the poor,” he “denounced what he called the world’s ‘profit mind-set’…warning that money can turn people into ‘blind egoists’ as he urged the wealthy to share their riches with the poor.
“Benedict said life was about making choices between good and bad, between altruism and egoism, honesty and dishonesty….Ultimately, he said, it was about making the choice between God and Satan.”
Yes, life is about making choices, and knowing that those choices enable one to live – if one’s purpose is to live. If one makes the wrong choices, one suffers or dies. Benedict has those choices inverted, however. If one chose between good and bad by his criteria, one would indeed suffer or die. It requires honesty to assert that one owns one’s own life, and that one lives selfishly. It requires dishonesty to profess otherwise.
“…When the mind-set of sharing and solidarity prevails, you can correct your course and change it to a sustainable and equal development,” said Benedict.
“The pope called for a ‘conversion’ of economic goods,” said The Scotsman article. “’Rather than using them for self-interest, we should also think about the needs of the poor, imitating Christ,’ he said.”
Once a National Socialist, always a National Socialist. There’s a “mind-set” for you.
One might innocently pose these questions to Benedict: If the rich and the middle class heeded his altruistic homilies, and shared their wealth with the poor – then what? Who or what would generate more wealth to give away? Would not such a mass transfer of wealth trigger an economic collapse, and impoverish everyone? Would not everyone then be literally staring starvation and death in the face?
Aye, there’s the rub! That is the secret, unexpressed mutual goal of both Ahmadinejad and Pope Benedict. They are humanitarians, “lovers” of mankind, mystics of muscle and mind.
Rand had personal names for them: Attila and the Witch Doctor.
1 Comments ::
:: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 ::
Learning how to teach history . . .
Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 12:07 PM
Recently I've been training to be a docent at George Mason's Gunston Hall Plantation. Our mission is to present Mason's life and achievements to 4th and 6th graders, who are required to know Virginia and US history as part of the commonwealth's curriculum standards. While I have lectured before high school students before, this will be the first time that I will have an opportunity to work with grade-schoolers and I am looking forward to the challenge that a younger and less-knowledgeable audience entails.
One of the tools that I plan to use in my tours is something I picked up from listening to Scott Powell's course on European history. In his course, Powell presents the idea of "periodization" as a tool to identify and present the essential elements of a historical epoch in a few sentences. The benefit of this process is that it forces one to think though all that they know about a historical epoch and pick out the most crucial factors. For me, it's a effective way to identify men with their ideas and corresponding actions and present my knowledge in a concise statement.
For example, George Mason lived from 1725 to 1792 and was a key player in the American quest for political independence from Great Britain and the establishment of constitutional rights-protecting republic to replace the British king. As part of the colonial trend toward self-governance, Mason wrote the Virginia constitution and its groundbreaking Declaration of Rights; this was the first time the Lockean idea of natural rights was codified in a political charter in the Americas. After the revolution, Mason refused to sign the Federal Constitution on the grounds that it did not originally include its own charter of fundamental political rights. Being a southern planter, Mason owned slaves, yet he referred to slavery as a "slow poison" and slave-owners as "petty tyrants" and he all but predicted the American Civil War.
The problem with these and the myriad of other facts I have learned about Mason as part of my docent training is that they can quickly overwhelm anyone, let alone a young (and typically under-educated) mind. Furthermore, I think one of the problems faced by historical institutions such as Gunston Hall is while it is relatively easy for interpreters to focus on the available concretes (such as Mason's house, the available artifacts, ect.), it is much harder to concretize an abstract principle such as natural law and the principle of individual rights. Nevertheless, a proper periodization reminds one that at least in Mason's case, the abstract is the most essential element.
Thus I think Powell's periodization tool serves as a great method for me to introduce Mason's world. To follow Powell's method, I'd say "The American revolution was a period when English colonists, animated by the philosophic ideas of John Locke, forcibly removed themselves from the arbitrary power of the English king and pioneered the world's first individual rights-protecting government. The planter George Mason was a pivotal player in this revolution, and today we will learn about his ideas and his life . . ." And while I certainly would have approached the topic philosophically and hierarchically, I think Powell's program gave me a clear and useful tool with which to do it.
0 Comments ::
Western Reason vs. Islamic Mysticism
Posted by Edward Cline at 9:07 AM
A "moderate" Muslim organization called "Muslims Against Sharia" posted a comment on my "Islamophobia is Justified" commentary (in English and in Swedish, no less). Here is my reply to it. I do not often respond to criticisms by Muslims, but the reader will see why I do in this instance in the first and last paragraphs.
Thank you for replying to my “'Islamophobia' is Justified” commentary on Rule of Reason. It quite startled me that you not only praised the Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks and his colleagues, but also countered with your own bounty on the head of Abu Omar Al Baghdadi (obviously an alias of the contrivance of the coward who hides behind it).
I printed out your Muslims against Sharia Manifesto to read more closely and to compose some commentary on it. You are to be commended for taking the position on Sharia law that you have – that it must be completely abolished – and I agree with many of the points in the Manifesto, if not entirely with their style of expression, then in spirit, especially in regard to religious privacy, outdated practices, words and phrases, and especially with your endorsement of free expression in terms of depicting Mohammad. I particularly liked your characterization of terrorists as “homicidal zombies’; a more accurate description of them I have not encountered elsewhere.
All that, together with your condemnation of Muslims who murder Muslims and non-Muslims in the name of Islam, certainly deserves recognition of your courage and honesty, and you have mine.
You posed a very interesting question in the Manifesto. After citing the possible (and likely) corruption of the Bible over the centuries (if not expedient inventions of great parts of it by the Church), you ask: “Could it be possible that the Koran itself was corrupted by Muslims over the last thirteen centuries?”
I’m sure you are aware of the abrogation issue concerning the Koran, and if you or Muslim scholars attempt to reform Islam, this will be a major and I think insurmountable hurdle. It is my understanding that the earlier sections of the Koran and Hadith reveal a sort of “kinder, gentler” Mohammad who did not call for war against all unbelievers. I would probably agree with some historians who aver that these sections were calculated merely to win him allies among non-Muslims during his campaign to conquer the Arabian Peninsula. There is no other accounting for their content other than that they are a form of taqiya. Later sections of the Koran abrogate or supplant the earlier ones, however, and these contain the homicidal and belligerent injunctions that fundamentalists cite to sanction jihad.
Another issue I think you or your scholars would face would be retaining Islam’s purported “peaceful” identity, so reforming it would prove to be a daunting but nevertheless insoluble and impossible task.
If you performed a theological and textual vivisection on the written corpus of the religion – that is, managed to “reform” it by excising all its objectionable injunctions, leaving only its more “benign” aspects – could you could still call it “Islam”? What would be left would be a collection of unconnected, disparate rules and sentiments with no system at all. It might be a more pacific creed, akin to the Amish or Quaker, but would it still retain the identity you wanted to preserve? I don’t think it would. You would need to call it by another name.
My final remarks concern faith. Muslims, like Christians, Jews and other religionists, have “faith” in the existence of a supreme being, and that what such a being commands or prescribes as moral is true and right. Of this, all religionists are “certain.”
Now, there is a crucial difference between faith and certainty. You exhibit certainty about the existence, for example, of your car keys, that the laws of cause and effect will enable you to unlock the car door with them, and that the laws of physics will cause them to start the engine. Your certainty is grounded in reality. You don’t even think about it, or need to think about it. Reality and your certainty about it are the given.
You exhibit faith when you believe, without so much as an iota of proof, in the existence of a supernatural being who has never appeared to anyone in history, but whose existence is merely asserted by priests, mullahs or other professional mystics. Apocryphal anecdotes about this being comprise all the sacred texts of all the religions, all of them claiming at some point that this being spoke to or appeared before or somehow manifested his existence to a variety of prophets, seers, saints and so on.
But all of these assertions are merely legends that offer no supporting evidence to substantiate them other than what long-dead, shadowy monks and the like recorded. A pile of unsubstantiated written assertions does not make a truth, no matter how many millions of words or thousands of pages are devoted to “proving” it. Nor do millions of people believing in a thing make it a fact or a truth.
But, you are asked (or told) to accept this “truth” on faith. In short, you are expected to treat the unreal as real. Further, you are not permitted to think about or doubt or question what you are expected to believe. You are not to apply reason to the subject. Even further, you are expected, under pain of sin or punishment, to conduct your life according to a chaos of arbitrary rules and injunctions – pacific or not – purportedly authored by a being – call him Allah, God, Siva, Brahma, Vishnu, or Wontonka – evidence of whose existence you have not a shred, except for the assertions or say-so of a hierarchy of witch doctors.
As you have probably concluded, I am an atheist. I was raised in the Catholic faith, but I could never take it seriously, because every one of its tenets contradicted the evidence of my senses and my nature as a thinking, volitional being, and my senses and my mind and my nature are engineered to deal with reality, not with some fictive other-worldly realm. Every human being is so engineered, without exception, and nature did the engineering or “designing,” not a ghost. If reason cannot be applied to an issue, in this instance, the existence of a supreme being, call him what you will, if it is excluded from any discussion of the subject, then I see no reason to concern myself with the question.
But, you might ask, as so many Christians and Jews do, what about the “first cause”? What about the “beginning”? The cosmologies of the various religions, including Islam’s, are ludicrous, fantastic and metaphysically impossible. I think that most men suffer from a kind of mental block, or absorb it from our semi-rational culture, that stops them from accepting the axiom that existence exists. Period. So they become nominally “faithful” or agnostic.
The concept of a “first cause” or “beginning” is a logical fallacy that beggars metaphysical validation, and is subject to an endless reductio ad absurdum argument. Did existence come into existence when Allah or God or Vishnu snapped his fingers or just “wished” it, and if existence didn’t exist before that, where did this being reside if matter and nothingness did not exist before he did, and where did he come from, and why is his supernatural realm always beyond human perception and comprehension? And so on. It is a matter deserving an essay far longer than my remarks here. Aristotle and Ayn Rand have done a better job of exploding that concept than I could ever attempt.
As a primitive form of philosophy, I do not think any religion is “great.” It has caused so much misery, suffering, horror and destruction in man’s history. And because it has attracted so much attention lately, I find Islam especially repellent for its degrading rituals, prohibitions and virulent anti-mindedness. I don’t like seeing men bowing to a ghost or throwing pebbles at a rock in defiance of another ghost.
Faith and reason are incompatible and antithetical means of living, but most men commit the error of compartmentalizing them to avoid facing the issue. They know that doing the hokey-pokey while reciting a doggerel won’t cause their car keys to work, but they’ll do much the same thing believing it will make a morality work.
Because your Manifesto exhibited a quantum of reason, as did your response to my Islamophobia commentary, I thought it earned a reciprocal reply, which is the best kind of respect I can offer. However, I do not wish to debate this subject at any length, but hope you accept my observations in the spirit in which they are offered.
2 Comments ::
:: Friday, September 21, 2007 ::
Democracy for Dummies
Posted by Edward Cline at 9:15 AM
The World Forum on the Future of Democracy at Colonial Williamsburg and the College of William and Mary, the subject of extensive commentary by this site’s host (“Colonial Williamsburg’s Summit of Scrambled Egg-Heads,” September 5), ended on September 18 on a flat note. Only one session of the three-day event was open to the public. The other sessions were “private” events at Colonial Williamsburg’s Williamsburg Lodge, so it cannot be determined if these secret deliberations ended on a high note. Perhaps The New York Times columnist David Brooks, one of the Forum participants, will wax poetic on those private sessions in the near future and let the world know what transpired in them.
The Forum, the signature event of “Jamestown 2007” to mark the founding of Jamestown in Virginia in 1607, was more like a quasi-religious synod of high-minded altruists, globalists, collectivists and pragmatists to discuss in hush-hush huddles how they propose to reform, manage and save the world through “democracy.” As Mr. Provenzo pointed out in his “Scrambled Egg-Heads” commentary, “democracy” had little or nothing to do with the founding of either Jamestown or the United States. All the delegates and participants of the Forum, however, seemed to think it had everything to do with it. This fallacy or untruth neither they, nor the Forum’s publicists, nor the press cared to scrutinize, nor, for that matter, demonstrated any awareness of it. Contradictions cause them no consternation.
It is likely that not one of the 3,000 local residents, students and guests who attended the public session at the College had the presence of mind to challenge any of the panelists with the question: “But, wasn’t this country founded as a republic, and its representative government established to preserve and protect individual rights?” See “Scrambled Egg-Heads” for why individual rights could not be a concern to any of the Forum’s 600 delegates and speakers. Such a question would have left any one of the panelists blinking in momentary speechlessness until he could compose some reassuring but bilious blather.
For example, individual rights were not mentioned by Ali Ansari, panelist and director of the Institute for Iranian Studies at the University of Saint Andrews in Scotland, in answer to a question put to him during the public session. According to the September 18 Daily Press (Newport News, VA) article, “Democracy is no cure-all, Iran expert warns,” he said that democracy “is a process that requires a lot of work. It’s a means and not an end.”
The article reports that “One student asked if democracy and theocracy are mutually exclusive.
“’I think they probably are,’ Ansari said. But he added that religion and democracy aren’t incompatible. He also said in response to an earlier question that theocracy is ‘undoubtedly compatible’ with that form of government.”
Which can be taken to mean that, in the evolution of a theocratic state, democracy is compatible if everyone votes the straight Islam-Sharia law ticket. Then democracy, the “means,” can be discarded because a totalitarian theocratic state, the “end,” will be established – permanently. This is probably what Ansari meant when he said the two forms are “probably” and ultimately mutually exclusive.
Dissension from that “consensus” can result in a charge of apostasy or heresy and relegation to a state of dhimmitude of anyone who protests, or worse. The consequences of opposing Islamic theocracy, elected or not, are remarkably similar to those suffered by dissenters under totalitarian communism and Nazism.
The intellectual roots of Ansari’s brand of vacuous doublethink are strictly Western; see Immanuel Kant, Hegel, Comte, Marx and other anti-Western theorists of the 18th and 19th centuries. Islam’s own leading theorists studied them well in Western universities in the early and mid-20th century in search of a credible system which would both sanction Islam’s irrationality and allow it to gather strength with which to first, resist the inroads of the West, and then emasculate and ultimately subdue it. Not for them and their contemporary heirs and practitioners to see Islam suffer the fate of the Catholic Church, when reason in the Renaissance and Enlightenment contributed to that institution’s diminished role as a political force.
If Islam is enjoying a resurgence, it is only because the West has abandoned reason as the primary means of combating and defeating any species of irrationalism. Ansari and his other Muslim Forum participants could have pointed out (but certainly didn’t) that Islam is as much a political system as it is a religious one. Its fundamentalist purists and moderates make no distinction between God and government. They are one and the same, which is what Christian conservatives are asserting more aggressively today in the U.S.
It is doubtful that Ansari offered Iran as an exemplar of “deliberative” democracy. After all, Iranians voted Mahmoud Ahmadinejad into power, and now they are stuck with a copycat Hitler who is running the country ragged in his pursuit of Iranian hegemony in the Mideast. Ansari’s glib answer was so vacillating that he might feel it is safe enough to return to Tehran. He must have suspected that his remarks were being closely monitored from far away by Ahmadinejad’s thought police. It is certain they gave his performance high marks.
It is also doubtful that he cited Iraq or Afghanistan as models of democracy in action, countries whose citizens promptly voted in theocratic regimes.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates put in a surprise appearance at the Forum – the Bush administration having a special interest in “democracy” – and gave a talk titled “Promoting Democracy Abroad: A Realist’s View.” His presence was written up in a companion Daily Press article of the same date, “Gates: Leaving Iraq a setback for freedom.”
The article reports him as saying that the United States “has made its share of mistakes.”
“From time to time, we have strayed from our ideals and have been arrogant enough in dealing with others. Yet what has brought us together with our democratic allies is a shared belief that the future of democracy and its spread is worth our enduring labors and sacrifices – reflecting both our interests and our ideals.”
Without implying admiration for him, Woodrow Wilson said it better. Gates’s statement is just an echo of Wilson’s imperative in his April 1917 address to Congress that “the world must be made safe for democracy,” and is simply a reiteration of President Bush’s exhortations on the same “duty” to pursue the same selfless goal.
The Daily Press article reported that “Gates emphasized that it takes time to develop democratic governments, referring to efforts within the last 60 years in Germany, Japan, South Korea and other countries, as well as in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
The article did not mention if Gates dwelt on the nature of those efforts, which in Germany meant a program of ruthless denazification, and in Japan of stripping the Emperor of his deity status and extinguishing every bit of militarism from the culture. It is doubtful that Gates discussed these efforts, or that he even knows much, if anything, about that chapter of successful U.S. foreign policy.
But, can we imagine Gates or Bush Junior or Condoleezza Rice approving a program of “de-Islamizing” Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan? No. Such a program would be “arrogant” and “un-democratic.” To propose and impose a separation of mosque and state and a system of objective law would be “offensive” to a “great religion.”
“Gates said that for the U.S. ‘to leave Iraq and the Middle East in chaos would betray and demoralize our allies there and in the region, while emboldening our most dangerous adversaries.’ He urged staying the course in Afghanistan, which he called ‘a litmus test of whether an alliance of advanced democracies can still make sacrifices and meet commitments to advance democracy.’”
Translation: If the U.S. withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan because of the incalculable expense of blood and treasure, it would mean an admission that the policy of altruistic sacrifice to promote democracy, any time, anywhere, is at least futile and impractical, if not immoral. It would be a concession that a failure to act in the U.S.’s self-defense and security has only emboldened our adversaries, chiefly Iran, all of whom correctly treat the U.S.’s policy of selflessness and willingness to “talk things out” as a weakness to be exploited.
Another surprise participant on the public Forum panel was the doppelganger of former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, a left-over from Bush Senior’s administration.
The has-been Secretary of State, however, the Daily Press reports, “drew one of the night’s biggest bursts of applause by saying the United States no longer can take out leaders like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, though it’s done things like that in the past. He said leaders like Chavez could get themselves into trouble on their own and then get replaced.”
Like Osama bin Laden, whom President Bill Clinton had a chance to “take out” but passed up? Or Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe? Or Fidel Castro of Cuba? Or Omar Qadaffi of Libya? Or Vladimir Putin of Russia? Or Ahmadinejad of Iran? Instead of being replaced, these “leaders” have demonstrated remarkable staying power, a power they derive largely from the pragmatic, compromising moral relevance policies of the West and particularly those of the U.S.
Eagleburger expressed an odd opinion, given the venue:
“We should never expect that we can take American democracy into somebody’s country and expect it to work.”
While his statement contradicted the theme and purpose of the Forum, this contrarian assertion apparently passed unnoted and unchallenged. It is as much a reflection on Eagleburger’s chaotic philosophical and moral premises, as on the audience’s.
The Daily Press article also reported that Eagleburger “provided a feisty response to a student’s question on whether increased government surveillance will lead to a Big Brother-style regime.
“’I’m not going to apologize for getting tougher when there are problems within this country that have to be dealt with,’ Eagleburger said. He said the nation must take terrorism seriously and do things it hasn’t done before, within limits.”
“Within limits”? O’Brien, the villain of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, would not agree that there are “limits” to such power, once it is acquired, and he is much more persuasive on that matter than Eagleburger could ever be. As for the “problems within this country,” anyone can go onto Steve Emerson’s Investigative Project site and see how extensive those problems are by studying the map of the U.S. that pinpoints the dozens of Al Qada, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other “Islamic extremist” cells that exist in this country. One can’t gauge how “tough” the authorities are being with them.
And concerning taking “terrorism seriously,” the best “serious” policy would be to deal militarily with states that sponsor terrorism and that fund all those cells. If that happened, all those cells would perish, or they would show their hand only to have it lopped off by the authorities. Then there would be no more need for Big Brother-style surveillance.
But statists need an on-going crisis, real or imaginary (whether it is terrorism, obesity, health care, smoking, global warming, interest rates, etc.), as a rationale for acquiring and retaining extra-legal powers. It usually takes mass civil disobedience, an uprising, or a revolution to force a government to relinquish them.
Also on the public session panel was retired Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor. She may have had more to say about democracy, but the Daily Press article chose to merely report her Jay Leno-style “Man in the Street” observation that “a recent poll found that more young people are able to name the Three Stooges than the nation’s three branches of government.
“She said, ‘If young people can’t name the three branches, then we might be in a little bit of trouble.’”
She might have added that if older people, such as the Forum’s speakers and participants, can’t or won’t distinguish between the concepts of democratic and republican forms of government, then we are in more than just “a little bit of trouble.” After all, it is her own and her successor generations of teachers and thinkers who are largely responsible for the general ignorance of young people today.
And that was the congress of knaves, cads, and illusionists, who assembled from around the world to test (liberally paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson in his last letter) the new chains of “monkish ignorance and superstition” about democracy. They came, “booted and spurred,” to persuade men that they were indeed born with “saddles on their backs” to be ridden legitimately by the select few of the Forum, by the tripartite graces of collectivism, unreason, and power.
It was democracy for dummies. Will the dummies ever open their eyes and acquire some smarts before it is too late?
0 Comments ::
:: Monday, September 17, 2007 ::
“Islamophobia” is Justified
Posted by Edward Cline at 10:55 PM
Islam gets such good Western press that one can’t imagine why Muslims protest so much. For every “offensive” cartoon of Mohammad that bubbles up into public view from the fetid swamp of a decaying and suicidal European culture, there are miles of newsprint that implicitly or overtly take the side of Islam. Of course, the “public” is fortunate if it ever sees these cartoons, because most Western newspapers and news services are too tremulously funked to reprint them for their readers’ edification. The cowardice is artfully disguised by most publications under the cloak of multicultural “tolerance” and “respect” for a great religion.
The exceptions are perhaps such bastions of freedom of the press as The New York Times, which, so much the worse, seems to be sincere in its esteem for a creed whose chaotic and often homicidal tenets were established by a murderous barbarian who heard a voice in the night. The angel Gabriel’s, the legend goes. One imagines Allah was too much of elitist snot to speak directly to a mere mortal.
The Islamists’, or Islamofascists’ protests against such alleged “offenses” seem all out of proportion to their infrequent occurrences. This is because the Islamists demand complete, across-the-board “respect” – or submission. Islam forbids Muslims to criticize the creed; its fundamentalists also expect infidels to abide by the same prohibition.
An instance of Islam-friendly journalism is an Associated Press item of September 16, under the headline “U.N. expert: Religious bias a threat to peace.” No, the “religious bias” is not Islam’s persecution and murder of Christians, Jews, and other religious faithful around the world, but a phenomenon called “Islamophobia.”
“A U.N. expert on racism on Friday branded the defamation of religions – in particular critical portrayals of Islam in the West – a threat to world peace.
“’Islamophobia today is the most serious form of religious defamation,’ Doudou Diene told the U.N. Human Rights Council, which is holding a three-week session in Geneva.
“Diene cited a caricature of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad in a Swedish newspaper, a protest by far-right groups in Belgium Tuesday against the ‘Islamization of Europe,’ and campaigns against the construction of mosques in Germany and of an ‘ever increasing trend’ toward anti-Islamic actions in Europe.”
One’s first thought after reading this pap is: “He must be kidding.” But, then, Mr. Diene is a U.N. “expert,” and such “experts” not only get things backwards, but get them perversely backwards, as well. No one notices it, perhaps least of all Western journalists.
“Diene, a Senegalese lawyer and U.N. expert on racism, was presenting a report on defamation of religions to the 47-member council. The report also includes sections on anti-Semitism and other forms of persecution around the world.”
If Mr. Diene asserted in his report that “Islamophobia” is the “most serious form of religious defamation,” then one can bet that the sections on anti-Semitism and “other forms of persecution” will not be very lengthy or sententious. If they exist, these sections will not dwell on:
• The regular defamation in cartoons, editorials and in television programming of Jews, Christians and other religionists in the Muslim media.
• The Islamic Sudanese government’s campaign of genocide and ethnic cleansing in Darfur.
• The fatwahs against the Danish and Swedish cartoonists (not to mention the still outstanding fatwah against Salman Rushdie, and the achieved fatwahs against Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh).
• The destruction or vandalizing of churches and attacks on non-Muslims during Muslim riots in Europe, especially against non-hijabed, non-Muslim women.
• The synagogues in many European cities now protected by the police or private armed guards against Muslim jihadists.
That is just the tip of the iceberg.
The Associated Press item concludes:
“African and Islamic countries welcomed the assessment and called for moves
to draft an international treaty that would compel states to act against any form of defamation of religion. European Union members of the council and other countries cautioned against equating criticism of religion with racism.”
The only religionists now claiming that any criticism of Islam by Westerners constitutes “racism” are Muslims. And the “caution” by Europeans and presumably other Western nations on the council is the usual meekly vacuous squeak of protest.
None of this was noted by Frank Jordans, who filed the AP report. Now, before he filed his article, he might have taken time to consult a dictionary on the term “phobia.” The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines it as a “morbid fear or aversion.” Webster’s New Collegiate defines it as “an irrational, persistent fear of a particular object or class of objects.” The American Heritage defines it as “a persistent, abnormal, or illogical fear of a specific thing or situation.”
He might have then asked himself: If Islamists or jihadists in the name of Allah were not so regularly persistent in their suicide bombings, detected and foiled conspiracies to perpetrate mass casualties in the West, kidnappings and murders of non-Muslim humanitarian workers, and other episodes of Islamic religious violence, would anyone be justified in developing a “phobia” for Islam? No.
However, since all these outrages are committed by Muslims in the name of Islam, could “Islamophobia” be considered at all morbid, irrational, illogical or even abnormal? Is such a phobia any less justified or understandable than harboring a phobia for rattlesnakes, black widow spiders, or poisonous centipedes?
Perhaps, he might have further thought, such a phobia is more justified or understandable because, while one might have a chance but fatal encounter with a snake, spider or centipede, Islamists or Islamofascists deliberately target their victims. The difference, he might have realized, is one of volition.
Then the journalist might have scoffed: Who or what is the real “threat to world peace”? How can this U.N. “expert” take so much exception to the defiant but pathetic gestures of a dying culture – the cartoons, the protest against the Islamization of Europe and so on – and characterize them as “destabilizing”?
And, if he had any self-respect as a journalist, and respect for his profession, he might have taken principled exception to the idea of an “international treaty” that would prohibit or punish the defamation of any religion. He might have thought: I’ll say what I damned well please about any religion. As far as I’m concerned, and based on all the evidence of the last thirty years of Islamic violence, Islam has earned that phobia.
Jordans could have enlightened his readers about the Swedish cartoon mentioned by Doudou Diene – of Mohammad's head on the body of a dog, a mullah holding the dog leash – drawn by Lars Vilks and published in Nerikes Allehanda on August 18. He could have mentioned the $100,000 reward for the murder of Vilks and a $50,000 reward for murdering the newspaper’s editor, both offered by the purported head of Al Qada in Iraq, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi.
Whose “peace” was threatened? Islam’s, or the Swedes’? These questions did not occur to Jordans, and so he did not bother to enlighten his readers.
Jordans could have enlightened his readers about the “far-right protests in Belgium against the ‘Islamization of Europe.’” These protests occurred in Brussels on September 11, when a peaceful protest by members of Belgium’s opposition parties was broken up by Belgian police, who beat and arrested two prominent demonstrators. The police undoubtedly wanted to prove to Islamists that they are on their side and can be just as brutal when it comes to punishing anyone who publicly speaks on the danger of recognizing Sharia law in an expiring Western culture.
Jordans could have questioned the use of the term “far-right” when it is used to smear anyone who protests Islamization anywhere, and emphasized that while it has traditionally been the “far right” that is accused of using “police state” tactics to squelch opposition, any more it is the far left that is employing them, such as in Belgium.
Jordans’ investigative skills must have been in a sleep mode on this subject, too.
Finally, Jordans could have mentioned another instance of anti-Islamic action in Europe cited by Diene, the “campaigns against the construction of mosques in Germany and Switzerland.” He might have merely noted these campaigns, and posed the question of whether they alone can stem the tide of Islamization, then proposed that it is the totalitarian ideas that are the foundation of Islam which must be combated, not their manifestation in the form of mosques. (He might have even pointed out that no synagogues, churches or even chapels may be built in Saudi Arabia and other Islamic fiefdoms, and delved into the Islamists’ double standard on the matter of places of worship.)
Jordans could have written something like this:
“In the West, churches and synagogues are just that – places for people to go and worship and socialize. But in the West, as well as in the Middle East, and in Indonesia and other Muslim-dominated countries, most mosques are venues of rabble-rousing and jihadist recruiting, where imams and mullahs regularly declaim against the West for its sins against Allah and call for holy war. This has been so thoroughly documented by intelligence services that it is a wonder most mosques in Europe and the U.S. have not been raided and closed down by counter-terrorism authorities.”
But, he didn’t write that. And if he had the knowledge to write it, he would not have dared to write it and file it. And if he had the integrity to write and file it, would the AP have accepted it? Is its motto “All the facts all the time”? Not likely.
That is giving Islam a good Western press. It is dishonest enough to cause one to develop a severe case of “media-phobia.”
3 Comments ::
:: Thursday, September 13, 2007 ::
The Ashes of Universal National Service
Posted by Edward Cline at 9:00 PM
An interesting movie came and went in 1993 without much critical or even public notice, Thomas Carter’s Swing Kids, set in Frankfurt, Germany in the 1930’s. It is interesting because it presaged an issue that has been trial-ballooned by politicians and collectivists in the U.S. for decades – and is now rearing its ugly head again – ever since President John F. Kennedy proclaimed, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”: Mandatory national service.
The movie focuses on the conflicts of a group of rebellious teenagers devoted to “swing,” the popular dance music of the period. That style of music and dance, however, was not only frowned upon by the Nazi government as an instance of Western decadence, but was outlawed, as well. The teenagers are under constant pressure from their parents and teachers to conform to Nazi norms of good citizenship, which meant, among other things, serving their country by joining the Hitler Youth.
All but one in the group cave in to the pressure (that one character commits suicide after being hazed by members of the Hitler Youth). The most moral one, wearing the uniform of the Hitler Youth, is tasked to deliver little wooden boxes to several women in the city. He is not told of their contents. When he learns the boxes hold the ashes of husbands who were executed in concentration camps, of men who had opposed the Nazi regime, he breaks down, suddenly realizing the true horror of the monster he had formerly rebelled against but was now serving.
In a final, desperate, blind protest against the evil he cannot understand, he attends a dance at the Hotel Bismarck he knows is to be raided by the SS and the Hitler Youth. He is ultimately arrested and put on a truck with other dancers, presumably destined for a concentration camp.
(In one of his most effective roles, British actor Kenneth Branagh [Hamlet, Henry V, Much Ado About Nothing] plays an SS officer who persuades the principal teenager to join the Hitler Youth by promising better food and luxuries for his family and immunity from Nazi purges. A friend called him the “great seducer.”)
This raises the question of how many American youths today would be able to rebel against the American version of the Hitler Youth as proposed by Time Magazine in its August 30th issue, “The Case for National Service: A Time to Serve.” Would they have the character to spurn the inducements, rewards and emoluments described in that propaganda? Would they have the repressed moral premises with which to gauge the evil of mandatory or pseudo-voluntary national service?
The questions are not difficult to answer. Are today’s youth being taught to regard themselves as individuals not answerable to the state, the collective or the nation for their existence? No.
Are they taught that they own their own lives? No.
Are they taught that they are not obligated to “give back” to society what it never gave them, and never could? No.
Are they taught that their education today is more a gauntlet of indoctrination than an acquisition of knowledge and skills? No.
Are they taught that reason is their sole guide to survival and living? No.
Are they taught that independence of mind is a virtue never to be compromised or adulterated? No.
Are they taught that whether it is national or “community” service, it is a policy of extortion? No.
Are they being taught that one’s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are one’s inalienable rights? No.
They are being taught that those inalienable rights are imaginary, or perhaps that they were valid in the past but not in the present, or that they are obstructive to the public good and so alienable, or are conditional privileges granted by the state or the collective to be abridged, abrogated or nullified at whim or by expediency.
Today’s youth – and past generations of youth, to judge by the flaccid complaisance of today’s adults and “senior citizens” – are taught to believe that consensus and group-think are valid policies with which to judge right and wrong, that these are the only feasible means of dealing with others, that whatever independence or sense of self they may feel must be subordinated to the state or collective.
Two obscenities in the Time article must be dealt with before examining the piece in depth. The first is its twice quoting Benjamin Franklin out of context in a puerile resort to the argument from authority to make it seem that he endorsed the idea of national service. The second obscenity is its concluding flourish of quoting from the Declaration of Independence. “The courageous souls who signed the Declaration of Independence pledged ‘our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.’ The least we can do to keep the Republic is to pledge a little time.”
This last is either an instance of a profound ignorance of what moved the Founders to action, or an unmitigated, thoroughly dishonest subrogation of their words. Did it occur to the article’s author that the Founders pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor in a commitment to freedom, not to slavery? Perhaps, perhaps not, but the tactic indicates that the author of the article is a college graduate who was taught that a study of history and ideas is merely a study of historical graffiti that can be indiscriminately linked to any proposition, any time, anywhere.
The flourish then manipulates that quotation to hang an onus of responsibility over the reader, implying that his own life, fortune and honor require him to pledge himself to voluntary or involuntary servitude in order to “keep the Republic.”
On to the critique of Time’s master plan to “save” the Republic.
In prefatory remarks to the article’s assertion that more and more Americans are volunteering in public service – “Polls show that while confidence in our democracy and our government is near an all-time low, volunteerism and civic participation since the 1970’s are near all-time highs” – the authors cite what they claim are some reasons for the purported rise in “volunteerism.”
• “…[T]hey see public-school system with 38% of fourth graders unable to read at a basic level.” The percentage is probably higher. But regardless of the percentage, isn’t that figure a reflection of the non-efficacy of government-run, compulsory public education? Shouldn’t the disgracefully low test scores in math, science and literacy of American students suggest a termination of public education?
• …[T]hey see the cost of health insurance escalating as 47 million people go uninsured.” Why is the cost escalating? It is the government’s interference in the medical business and its incremental socialization of the medical profession. What about those alleged 47 million uninsured people? Perhaps they don’t want the insurance, or can’t afford it, because they are already paying for their neighbors’ medical coverage and bills through their taxes.
• …[T]hey see a government that responded ineptly to a hurricane in New Orleans.” Should the federal government go to the rescue of state and local governments to reward them for their corruption and negligence? According to ABC, the federal government has to date already spent $114 billion on rebuilding New Orleans, and will spend billions more. Yet, the Time article recommends creating a “Rapid-Response Reserve Corps” of volunteers to work under the “guidance of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),” the very mismanaged bureaucracy that responded so ineptly!
• …[T]hey see a war whose ends they do not completely value or understand.” Neither do our politicians, including the President. Has any one of them heard of the Islamic jihad, or the Muslim Brotherhood, or the fifth column of cultural jihadists in the U.S., or placed any importance on them vis-à-vis the war against the West? No. There are apparently more important matters to see to than wondering how and why Islamists want to turn the U.S. into a caliphate.
For an intellectual sanction of Time’s plan for universal national servitude, the article relies on the assertions of an obscure Harvard (where else?) political scientist, Robert Putnam, who predicts that, despite the growing “diversity” of the American population, America will develop a “more capacious sense of ‘we.’” “We” meaning neither the thematic sense of Ayn Rand’s We the Living, nor the individualistic sense of “We” as the term is employed in the Declaration of Independence, but rather a boundless number of indistinguishable ciphers.
Twice in the course of the article the author insists that the proposed plan would be voluntary, not mandatory. Apparently he is anxious not to be accused of advocating involuntary servitude. What he fails to mention is that every one of the plan’s ten points requires another form of universal involuntary servitude: taxation. Individuals who resist the social pressure to sacrifice their time in “voluntary” service or refuse to be corralled in that “capacious ‘we’” not only can be shunned as “anti-social,” but can be dunned for the plan’s cost, as well.
Point One of the Time plan is to create a “National-Service Baby Bond.” Upon the birth of each American child, “the Federal Government would invest $5,000 in that child’s name in a 529-type fund – the kind many Americans are already using for college savings.” Where would that $5,000 come from but taxpayers? “At a rate of return of 7% [who or what will guarantee that rate?]…that money would total roughly $19,000 by the time that baby reaches age 20.”
Since it costs about $100,000 today to send a student through four years of an relatively inexpensive and mediocre liberal arts college, by the time “that baby” reaches college age, the cost could well be half a million dollars or more. And since such a “bond” would be similar to a Treasury bond, imagine the deleterious effects it would have in the marketplace for government securities; imagine all the rackets that would spring up in the trade of “baby bonds.”
The catch to this generous offer of other people’s money is “that baby” wouldn’t be allowed to touch it unless he spent at least one year in military or civilian “service.” This is a curious notion of “volunteerism.” Another catch is that the money “must be used to fund education, start a business or make a down payment on a home.” If, by that time, he can still afford such things.
Point Two of the Time plan proposes the creation of a White House cabinet-level department of universal mandatory service, which (under a “catchier” name, such as the Department of National Service, headed by someone whose surname shouldn’t rhyme with “Goebbels”) would amalgamate existing federal “volunteer” programs, such as National Senior Volunteer Corps and Americorps. That is, elevate the Corporation for National and Community Service to the executive level. This new department’s goal would be to “enlist at least 1 million Americans annually in national service by the year 2016.”
The author recommends appointing a department head “who would capture the imagination of the public,” such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, the petit fascist governor of California, or Michael Bloomberg, the petit fascist mayor of New York. If the author of the Time plan knows nothing else, he knows his statists and which ones would assume his departmental duties with power-hungry gusto. Yes, such a person would certainly capture the imagination of Americans who haven’t been beaten or who haven’t surrendered their independence to that “capacious ‘we’”: they would gird themselves for more proscriptions on their lives.
Points Four through Seven describe programs that would come under the aegis of this Department of National Service. The first is an “Education Corps” that would send selfless do-gooders into selected urban swamps of public education to tutor and teach children who can’t read and who are not “supervised” during after-school hours. This would presumably attempt to compensate for the failure of compulsory public school attendance. The “education corpspersons” (one supposes that would be the politically correct term) of course would not need to bother with children who can read and think because they are being home-schooled or sent to private schools (by parents who are also paying via property tax assessments for the dumbing down of public school students), those children far outperforming any prisoner or graduate of the public education system.
The second proposed DNS program would send children to what can only be called a “let’s pay the pubescent not to make trouble” program. “For many teenagers, the summer between middle school and high school is an awkward time. They’re too young to get a real job [thanks to child labor laws and the federal minimum wage] and too old to be babysat.” But apparently they are young enough for further indoctrination and old enough to be babysat by the federal government.
As a “rite of passage” program, the “summer of service” would organize “after-school activities for middle schoolers and run summer programs for younger students in exchange for a $500 college scholarship.” Presumably those activities and programs would focus on “doing good.” After all, our new Nazi youth must be energized. As for the pittance in scholarships, in the old days it was called embracery. Today it is called bribery.
Point Six of the DNS idea is to create a “Health Corps.” This program would oversee the education and make-work of volunteers who would direct low-income people to government insurance programs and work as nonmedical support staff. “The one-year experience in the Health Corps could lead these volunteers toward careers in nursing or medicine, helping to redress gaps that have left the U.S. with a dearth of qualified nurses and medical professionals.”
The simplest solution to filling that gap would be to abolish all immigration restrictions on competent medical professionals. The government’s problem with this solution is that most of those qualified immigrants would come from Europe, and that would be “discriminatory.” It should surprise no one that the federal government is the biggest practitioner of racism. Also, the government would need to abolish the INS, and all its personnel would need to find gainful, productive employment elsewhere – which wouldn’t be fair, either.
The last DNS program Time proposes is to “Launch a Green Corps.” “This would be a combination of F.D.R.’s Civilian Conservation Corps…and a group that would improve national infrastructure and combat climate change….Today there are 1.5 million Americans between 18 and 24 who are neither employed nor in school.”
One needn’t wonder why, since the un-schooled are either are not allowed (or don’t wish) to work or are not worth an employer’s federally mandated minimum wage. Picture semi-literate unemployables working on a New Orleans levee, or combating climate change by using giant fans to waft hot air back across the oceans. “The Green Corps could reclaim polluted streams [and seed it with more snail darters?] and blighted urban lots; repair and rehabilitate railroad lines, ports, schools and hospitals [all government owned or managed entities already!]; and build energy-efficient green housing for elderly and low-income people.” Which would be another invitation to more government-contractor racketeering, also paid for by the shunned and dunned.
Point Nine of the Time plan is to start a “National Service Academy.” Another and more accurate name for this idea would be an extended Nazi Youth Camp. In it, “students would be studying the Federalist Papers [provided they can read them] and learning how to transform a failing public school.” This four-year stint of indoctrination would entail a “five-year commitment to public service after graduation” in order to “create a new generation of civic leaders” – or bureaucrats and gauleiters.
“The idea has been endorsed by Hillary Clinton and Pennsylvanian Republican Arlen Specter who are co-sponsors of legislation that would allocate $164 million per year for the envisioned 5,000-student academy.” It is bipartisan, so there can’t be anything wrong with the idea, right? Who said the Democrats and Republicans are worlds apart in social policy?
Point Ten of the Time plan is to create a “Baby-Boomer Education Bond.” “Over the next 20 years, 78 million baby boomers will be eligible to retire. That is, if they can afford to – and if they want to.” If they can’t afford to, it is because government tax policies penalize their savings and retirement funds, so they continue working part- or full-time to make ends meet.
For doing time teaching children to read or performing “community service,” “baby-boomer volunteers would be able to designate a scholarship of $1,000 for every 500 hours” of volunteer work; this amount would be "deposited in an education savings account or a 529 fund to be used by the volunteer’s children or grandchildren or a student they designate.” That works out to $2 an hour, way below the minimum wage, and it represents money that was already taken away in taxes over the years, but “given back” by the government, with the proviso that the sucker cannot use it himself but must hand it over to someone else. Leave it to a collectivist to dream up another scam.
The author of the Time plan for universal national service calculates that it would cost only more billions of dollars to implement. “At the same time, corporate America would need to play a critical role….The private sector has contributed more than $1 billion to Americorps. The private sector must step up to the plate in funding national service – after all, it benefits, too.” How? By being nationalized by the federal government for not doing enough for the “public good,” just as corporate Germany was nationalized by the Nazi government?
The Time article ends its advocacy of universal national service by remarking that people “are often skeptical of calls for national service, especially from politicians, as they see them as crowd-pleasing rhetoric or a way of avoiding asking people to make a true sacrifice.” Frankly, any American with a shred of self-respect should be frightened of politicians arrogant enough to ask for a “true sacrifice.” To quote Ellsworth Toohey in Rand’s The Fountainhead:
“…Just listen to any prophet and if you hear him speak of sacrifice – run. Run faster than from a plague. It stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there’s someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.”*
The Time article is not so much another trial balloon as an emphatic signal to the presidential candidates of both parties that universal mandatory service is an imperative they should all endorse and include in their party platforms. “’People understand the idea that this is a great country,’ says Zach Maurin, the co-founder of ServeNext.org, which has launched a campaign to get the presidential candidates to endorse national service.” And there isn’t a single candidate who would not hesitate to advocate some form of it. Every one of them is statist to the core.
In my role as a writer, my concept of “good citizenship” has always been and will ever be to oppose every form of tyranny over the mind of man – and over his life, as well. I know what ashes are in the boxes of universal national service – the ashes of a great, free country.
I refuse to carry them.
*The Fountainhead, Centennial Edition, p. 666
1 Comments ::
:: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 ::
September 11th: Six Years and Counting
Posted by Edward Cline at 8:20 AM
Today is the sixth anniversary of 9/11, a day that has become less a day of infamy in men’s minds and more of a fading memory, not only among politicians – most of whom, Republican and Democrat, are too concerned with how to best straddle themselves on the fence yet still look appealing to voters – but among most Americans. Most Americans are living now in the enfeebling purgatory of disillusion, mistrust, and moral exhaustion.
The U.S. won a war against two established war machines in World War Two. Six years after being attacked by our enemies, have we won the war against states that sponsor terrorism?
What war? No declaration of war was ever made against them. As a result, the West-hating regimes of those states still remain intact and in power. In fact, President Bush’s vacillation on whether to serve mankind by being a “democracy builder” or to honor his oath of office to protect this country and never mind what the rest of mankind thinks about it, has added two more states to the Islamic club of evil: Iraq and Afghanistan. (Pakistan has from the beginning been only a pseudo-ally, dominated by a military that is either on the Taliban take or sympathetic with the Taliban.)
Iraq’s government is determined to milk the U.S. for all the billions its bureaucrats can siphon into their pockets before the country succumbs completely to Iranian hegemony. Afghanistan has signaled its true allegiance by hosting a visit by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and by looking the other way while the Taliban raises cash from sales of poppy crops grown within the country’s borders.
Add a new, non-Islamic enemy: Vladimir Putin’s fascist Russia, which is flexing its muscles by claiming sovereignty over the North Pole and sending squadrons of Soviet era bombers close to British air space in exercises of “chicken.” Putin is emboldened by what he correctly sees as American (and European) uncertainty and weakness.
The U.S. has merely protested in its best diplomatic whine Iranian military responsibility for killing American troops in Iraq (technically, another reason to declare war on Iran). Congenitally unable to recognize and deal with the real world and so unable to take the proper actions in self-defense, our policymakers can only stare like frozen deer into the headlights of the oncoming juggernaut of an Iranian nuclear bomb. Their solution is to “end the war,” to “draw down” our presence in Iraq by stealthy degrees, but somehow leave Iraq and Afghanistan “stabilized.” This will somehow un-provoke Ahmadinejad from using his bomb and discourage further terrorist attacks.
Ever since 9/11, President Bush has adhered to a policy that is scarily reminiscent of the premise of the 1989 baseball fantasy, Field of Dreams. Presumably the voice of God has told him that if he builds fields of democracy, all those putative freedom-yearning Muslims will come, that they will stop hating the U.S. and emerge like magic from the cornfield to express their gratitude and “play ball.” God, true to form, has apparently insisted that this fantasy be accomplished only by well-meaning altruism and self-sacrifice.
What else could we expect from a man whose favorite “philosopher” is Jesus?
This observation is more than an analogy. It identifies the root premise that results can be wished into existence without any reference to the nature of existence or of things in existence. As famous but long dead baseball giants somehow inhabiting a Kantian noumenal realm can be called back to the phenomenal world if one “believes” and builds a baseball field, so an “ideal” state of non-judgmental amity with Islam and our other dedicated enemies can be called into the real world by wishing very hard – religionists call it praying – and it will become true.
There is no fundamental difference between the premise behind Field of Dreams and the premise that has governed Bush’s war and diplomatic policies since 9/11.
One real-world problem with his fantasy is that it costs him and his fellow wishers nothing to pursue it. However, it is costing American lives and American wealth, which the wishers believe are inexhaustible, but which are being sacrificed on the altar of altruism and pragmatism. Because individual rights and productivity are not quite “real” to them, the wishers consequently are ready and willing to expend countless lives and incalculable billions to attain their own “field of dreams.”
How great, perilous, and shameful is the gap between the fantasy world of the altruists in office and in power and the real world of the likes of Todd Beamer and his fellow passengers, who struggled to overcome their captor/killers on the flight that ultimately crashed in a Pennsylvania field near Shanksville on 9/11. They gave the last full measure of their devotion to actual values, to living in the real world, to taking the proper actions.
2 Comments ::
:: Saturday, September 08, 2007 ::
Off to the Founders College kickoff
Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 10:25 AM
I'm off to Founders College for the weekend, which officially kicks off its first year of classes with an opening celebration tomorrow. Earlier this week Scott Powell posted his interview with Founders College CEO Tamara Fuller at his blog History at Our House. The interview brought to light several of Founders' key points of differentiation. Unlike most other colleges, Founders is expressly dedicated to teaching an integrated body of knowledge. According to Fuller:
[I]integration permeates every level of [Founders'] construction from the connections between the classes to the training for professors. At Founders, liberal arts and business are connected. Students don’t just study major periods in history, such as the Renaissance, or just the literature of the Renaissance, they are taught to see connections between the arts, literature, philosophy, and the progress of events in society at large.Powell also asks Fuller about Founders' perspective on home schooling. Unlike many colleges, Founders outright embraces home-schooled students for matriculation. In the interview, Fuller made clear her admiration for home school teaching methods:
In most college settings the opposite is true. From the outset, when students arrive they can choose from a wide spectrum of course; they are not taught in any particular order; they are not taught by people who are aware of the other curriculum areas of the system. In most cases, there is no expert guidance provided to enable students to develop a mastery of the subject they are studying.
Homeschoolers necessarily teach in more integrated fashion, because the entire curriculum is developed under the oversight of a single individual or couple. When I interview homeschoolers, I see accelerated learning, because students have an added measure of integration in their education.Again, it all comes back to integration: take the chaos of the world and organize it, first in one's mind, and second in one's actions. And on these grounds, I am excited about the Founders opening: let the revolution begin.
:: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 ::
Colonial Williamsburg's Summit of Scrambled Egg-Heads
Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 1:21 PM
The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation is ostensibly dedicated to promoting an understanding of how and why the United States was founded in the 18th century, to communicate a sense of why the Revolution happened. Among its programs was the replication of colonial Williamsburg, once the capital of colonial Virginia, restoring original buildings dating from the period and reconstructing others from extant records. For decades costumed "interpreters" or actors have roamed the streets of Colonial Williamsburg, regaling visitors with tales and stories from the period, while inside many of the restored or rebuilt structures they introduced visitors to life in the 18th century, from peruke making to 18th century cooking to gardening to the contradance. Over its seventy-plus years of existence, Colonial Williamsburg has been explored, toured and experienced by millions of tourists from the United States and from around the world.
All of this was made possible by money from John D. Rockefeller, Jr., who in the 1930's and 1940's invested millions in the resuscitation of what was once a sleepy, down on its luck college town. Less emphasis was put on the explication of the political principles that animated many of the town's more famous residents and visiting burgesses, and more on "life as it was." Which is not to say that visitors did not go away without a better knowledge of George Washington, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and the rival Randolph and Lee families, to mention a few of the men who once were familiar with Duke of Gloucester Street, the mile-long thoroughfare between the College of William and Mary and the colonial Capitol.
Today, however, in 2007, visitors go away with less of a knowledge of those men, their causes, and their time, and a skewed one, as well - a politically correct one. The rot began to set in and spread late in the last century. What has helped to accelerate the decomposition, among other cultural and political influences, is that Colonial Williamsburg now receives federal money.
When it was a purely private, "not for profit" foundation, depending on donations, endowments, bequests and tourist revenue, it did not need to abide by the Civil Rights Act, or the Equal Opportunity Act, or any other egalitarian legislation intended to usurp and regulate private dealings between individuals and organizations, between employers and employees.
For example, now visitors leave with the impression that there were indeed female footmen and coach drivers, women coopers and carpenters, women fifers and drummers, female "militia persons," and so on, without any attempt by the Foundation or its employees to correct that impression or to even hint at the true, male-defined character of the period.
This is one consequence of taking federal bread - and having to sing the federal song. And it illustrates just one way in which the policymakers of Colonial Williamsburg contradict and ultimately betray the Foundation's decades-old mission and watchword: "That the future may learn from the past." To be willing to falsify the past is to be willing to falsify the present. George Orwell dramatized the motive behind and the consequences of that policy in his novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Perhaps worse than falsifying the character of the period, Colonial Williamsburg has hosted several international conferences. Presidents, queens, princes, sheiks, and demagogues have all visited the place in one capacity or another. The latest event was the celebration of the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown in 1607. President and Laura Bush, Queen Elizabeth of England, and other dignitaries all descended on Williamsburg and Jamestown to participate in an orgy of multicultural "diversity" - designed by its organizers to underplay (and in many instances, to diminish or denigrate) the European settlement and overplay or inflate alleged Indian and African cultural contributions.
The climax of the celebration of the beginning of what the Founders more than 150 years later would deem a republic, however, will not be a recognition of that unprecedented political feat, but the "World Forum on the Future of Democracy," to take place between September 16 and 18.
According to the August 14th Colonial Williamsburg Newsletter, an employee in-house publication, "The World Forum will bring together noted international and national scholars on democracy, as well as leading government officials, political practitioners, advocates and commentators who have played a role in democracy's advance.
"The signature event of America's 400th anniversary is sponsored jointly by the Jamestown 400th Commemoration Commission, the College of William and Mary, the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, and the Commonwealth of Virginia's 'Jamestown 2007' organization.
"The Williamsburg Lodge and the College of William and Mary...will both host World Forum events. Invited guests to the World Forum Conference will be given the rare opportunity to hear a distinguished group of international speakers...
"The first full conference day will focus on [the] 'Architecture of Liberty' and will address the American framers' development of a structure for deliberative democracy, the evolution of the American system over the ensuing centuries, and the contemporary relevance of democracy in a global age." (Italics mine.)
I have news for the invited guests, the participants, the chairs, and the panelists of the Forum: the framers did no such thing. What they "structured" was a political system intended to preserve a republic, that is, a nation whose government was charged with defending and preserving individual rights against foes foreign and domestic - especially against democratically-inclined domestic ones. The Founders abhorred the idea of a democracy, which in history meant mob rule. They knew that democracy, "deliberative" or not, in most cases was an overture to tyranny by mobs or tyranny by dictators. Their papers, correspondence, and speeches bear out that abhorrence. When the Constitution was drawn up for ratification, someone asked Benjamin Franklin what kind of government he and his fellow delegates had created. He answered: "A republic, if you can keep it."
But Americans haven't been able to keep it. They have lost sight of it, or surrendered it in exchange for the messy and expensive pottage of the welfare state. Most do not know the vitally defining differences between a democracy and a republic; to most of them, the terms are synonymous. We have to thank for that appalling and debilitating ignorance a federally dominated public education system dominated by bureaucrats and "educators" one of whose pernicious goals is to convert the study of ideas and the history of ideas into mere "social studies."
Lexicographers have had trouble defining the term republic. The common definition of this form of representative government (compiled here from the Oxford, Webster's, and American Heritage dictionaries) usually includes the absence of a monarch as head of state, substituting an elected president or executive, and the right of citizens to elect representatives who are responsible and answerable to the citizens.
However, the political system in the U.S. today meets only half that definition. What elected official is truly held responsible for his actions? Even if he is voted out of office or forced to resign, he can still collect a taxpayer-paid pension and avail himself of taxpayer-paid fringe benefits. He is not answerable for endorsing policies that result in the destruction of individual rights or the seizure of private property or the mortgaging of the lives of the living and the not-yet-born by voting for programs that depend on theft and deficit spending.
The typical politician is privileged to legislate, and indemnified from any ruinous consequences of his actions and policies.
Also, the meaning of the term republic has not so much been lost, as ignored. Dictatorships and theocracies have incorporated the term in the names of their slave states, e.g., the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the German Democratic Republic, and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
So, in modern practice, the term republic has become meaningless. Democracy, on the other hand, is what most collectivists and statists prefer to impose in theory and in practice. It means majority rule, or mob rule, even though in many instances the majority may be a fantasy or an illusion of its advocates or of those who believe they are in the majority.
Some notorious instances of democracy in action are: the death of Socrates, the French Revolution, and the election of the Nazi Party to power in Germany. Or, more recently, the democratically elected government of Iraq, which adopted a theocratic constitution, a democracy bought with the lives of thousands of American soldiers. (President Bush's attitude? "So be it, if that's what they want, it was democratically done.") All of these instances of democracy were "deliberated," as well.
Like the defenders of Communism in the past, advocates of democracy contend that the system has been given a bad reputation by artless practitioners or just plain bad luck, that it would be an ideal form of government if only the "right" individuals oversaw its implementation. Its poor and often criminal record is blamed on inconducive circumstances, corruption, and other incidental or irrelevant factors - never on its fundamental nature.
Majority rule, moreover, recognizes no absolute principles necessary to ensure the freedom and legitimate rights of individuals. This was a major concern of the Founders, who, within the limit of their knowledge (which was demonstrably wider and deeper than that of modern politicians), labored to ban democracy from the Constitution. Under democracy, absolute principles, founded on the nature of man, are the enemy of the advocates of "social progress" and "political evolution." The rights of minorities, or even the minorities themselves, can be sacrificed for the good of the whole. Or, a minority with political pull can subjugate a majority through the influence of a bloc of ambitious, venal legislators (e.g., the 18th Amendment, or the Volstead Act).
What is deliberative democracy, that is, what the Founders did not "structure"? One can only guess that it means that instead of instant mob rule, the mob and its leaders stop to talk about it first, to devise the best means of imposing their wishes with the least amount of debate or conflict, before putting individual rights on the tumbrel of legislation for a trip to the guillotine.
The roll call of organizations and individuals participating in the World Forum on the Future of Democracy is largely answered by doe-eyed altruists and professional and career do-gooders. It is complemented by a cohort of political has-beens (such as Charles Robb, former U.S senator from Virginia and its former governor, William P. Barr, 77th Attorney General and now executive vice president and general counsel of Verizon, and retired Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor), scholars of the people management and one-worlder globalization stripes, and a few odd couples. Leftist news editor and anchor James C. Lehrer of PBS will moderate some of the panels and two historians, Gordon Wood of Brown University and Joseph Ellis of Mount Holyoke College, both Pulitzer Prize authors, are also scheduled to appear as speakers and panelists.
The World Forum's list of panel topics is a litany of collectivist causes and statist concerns: "Developing a Structure for Deliberative Democracy - The Framers' Debate" - "Has America Kept the Faith? Is it Working?" - "Are America's Founding Principles Relevant in a Global Age?" - "Terrorism and Security" - "Protecting Religious Freedom and Minority Rights" - "World Markets" - "Sustainable Development."
Among the organizations represented at the Forum are:
- The Millennium Challenge Corporation, a U.S. government entity established in 2004, charged with reducing global poverty through the promotion of sustainable growth. It receives an annual Congressional appropriation. "Reducing global poverty" was not what the Founders had in mind when they were "structuring" our alleged democracy. "Sustainable" growth or development, moreover, means the transfer of wealth, private or taxpayer extorted, from a free, prosperous country to an unfree, poor one, as long as the free, prosperous one can sustain its productivity under the twin burdens of regulation and taxation.
- The Aspen Institute, which, according to its website, "is an international nonprofit organization dedicated to fostering enlightened leadership and open-minded dialogue...The Institute and its international partners seek to promote nonpartisan inquiry and an appreciation of timeless values." The rest of its mission statement is just as woozily worded and is a pæan to cultural relativism and sensitivity training. One may suppose that political freedom is a "timeless value" appreciated by the principals of the Institute, but is not much defended by them. To defend it as a non-negotiable value would be "close-minded."
- CIVICUS, or the "World Alliance for Citizen Participation," dedicated to strengthening citizen action and civil society throughout the world. Its "vision" is "a worldwide community of informed, inspired, committed citizens engaged in confronting the challenges facing humanity." This is also woozy. Perhaps the U.S.-Iranian talks are an example of "civil engagement."
- First Peoples Worldwide, "a project of the Tides Center...the only international organization led by Indigenous Peoples and dedicated to the mission of promoting Indigenous economic determination and strengthening Indigenous communities through asset control and the dissemination of knowledge." Which means: keeping the "indigenous" down on the farm and dependent on aid. If these people weren't kept poor, would the do-gooders have anything else to do?
- Winrock International, "a nonprofit organization that works with people in the United States and around the world to increase economic opportunity, sustain natural resources, and protect the environment...By linking local individuals and communities with new ideas and technology, Winrock is increasing long-term productivity, equity, and responsible resource management to benefit the poor and disadvantaged of the world." And all those new ideas and the technology come from individuals who fortunately didn't merit Winrock's compassionate attention.
- Mortara Center for International Studies (Georgetown University), which apparently specializes in "conflict management" and resolving disputes without passing moral judgment on the conflicting parties. Its mission is "to advance scholarship and inform policy by combining the expertise of scholars and the experiences of international affairs practitioners." The Mortara Center is a creature of Georgetown's School of Foreign Service. Well, look at the sorry record of U.S. diplomacy over the last half-century.
- The Cohen Group, a Washington "business" lobby headed by former Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, and staffed chiefly by high-ranking retired military men. "Our Principals," says its website, "bring centuries of experience [that expression, "centuries of experience," is absolutely meaningless] at the White House, the State Department, the Defense Department, and Congress....The Cohen Group's reach extends internationally where our Principals have developed great expertise and relationships with key political, economic and business leaders and acquired valuable experience with the individuals and institutions that affect our clients' success abroad." One couldn't understate it better. The shorthand and more honest term for all that expertise and experience is "political pull." On TCG's website also are several "success stories," which are nonpareil examples of résumé padding, puffery, and circumlocution.
Several of the individuals who will appear as speakers or panelists deserve particular attention.
Carol J. Lancaster, director of the Mortara Center, and currently teaching courses on political leadership, the politics and economics of development and ethics, and global development at Georgetown, has made a career of rationalizing in a scholarly manner the disastrous policy of U.S. foreign aid.
Jessica P. Einhorn, dean of the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at the Johns Hopkins University, took that position after retiring from public careers with the World Bank, the U.S. State and Treasury Departments, and the U.S. International Development Corporation Agency. Nominally an "economist," she had stints with the International Monetary Fund and the Brookings Institute. She is a trustee of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and a director of the Institute for International Economics, the Center for Global Development, and the National Bureau of Economic Research. This is a "brainy" Hillary Clinton.
Martha Crenshaw is the Colin and Nancy Campbell Professor of Global Issues and Democratic Thought, and also Professor of Government at Wesleyan University in Connecticut. (Colin Campbell is president of Colonial Williamsburg.) She is a kind of scholarly "peacenik." She has made a career of analyzing and writing about terrorism, but in terms that treat the subject as a kind of jigsaw puzzle or computer program, sans any moral judgment of terrorists or of states that sponsor terrorism.
She contributed a chapter, "Coercive Diplomacy and the Response to Terrorism" to a book published by the U.S. Institute of Peace Press, The United States and Coercive Diplomacy and several other papers to similarly titled works and the quarterly Foreign Affairs. Among her many, many liberal credits are her memberships on the Committee on Law and Justice and the Committee on (wait for it!) Determining Basic Research Needs to Interrupt the Improvised Explosive Device Delivery Chain of the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science.
Here is a sample of her writing from her article, "Thoughts on Relating Terrorism to Historical Contexts," in a book she edited, Terrorism in Context:
In answer to the question of the consequences of terrorism, she wrote:
"The impact of terrorism is often lost in a tide of sensational exaggerations. Furthermore, terrorism shapes interactions among political actors over long periods of time through a dynamic process in which violence alters the conditions under which it initially occurs. Many consequences are unintended, but it is rare that terrorism (or, more frequently, the government's reaction to terrorism) does not alter political institutions, values, and behavior as well as the functioning of society."
That is her "disinterested" style and perspective, to view terrorism and reactions to it as no better than competing nests of ants that raid each other. One supposes that she regards the reporting of the murder of 3,000 people, mostly Americans, on 9/11, as an instance of sensational exaggeration. Among other things, according to the Wesleyan website, Crenshaw is a former President and Councilor of the International Society of Political Psychology. "Political psychology"? Not political principles, or political ideas?
Which brings me to what initially startled me when I read the list of World Forum participants. Two of the panel topics, mentioned above, are "Terrorism and Security" and "Protecting Religious Freedom and Minority Rights."
Not coincidentally, two individuals who won't be at odds either are retired Coast Guard Admiral James M. Loy, former Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security from 2003 to 2005 (and now senior counselor for The Cohen Group), and Dr. Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America, and formerly a director of the Islamic Circle of North America.
Loy, who also served as chief operating officer for the Transportation Security Administration, will probably chair or moderate the panel on terrorism and security. He got masters degrees in history/government and public administration from Wesleyan in Connecticut and the University of Rhode Island, and was an intern at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. So one can be certain that he will not be saying that President Bush has made a mess of things, that we are losing the so-called "war on terror," and that the solution is to eradicate states that sponsor terrorism - Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria.
No, he will probably advocate that to frustrate "radical militants" bent on launching another attack on U.S. soil, the U.S. be turned into a more thorough police state than the DHS and TSA already has, and that we extend a hand of friendship to Islam. Islam, after all, is a "peaceful" religion. Loy would not be a part of the World Forum if he were not soft (or soft-headed) on Islamism, Islamofascism, or whatever other name Islamic jihad goes by.
The Islamic Society of North America claims over two million members. Its affiliated organization, the Islamic Circle of North America, claims near two million members, and Dr. Mattson was also a director of it, as well. These organizations, like CAIR (the Council on American Islamic Relations), MPAC (the Muslim Public Affairs Council), and others that pass as "moderate" or "mainstream" Muslim organizations, practice what can be called "stealth" jihad. (Steve Emerson, an authority on Islamism and jihad, calls this policy "cultural jihad.")
Instead of resorting to violence to punish infidels or send them running into a state of siege (as President Bush has done), American Islamists apply "reverse" assimilation, that is, coaxing or beguiling a host country into accepting Islam on its own terms, terms that are defined by the Koran and Sharia law. To question those terms - indeed, to criticize any facet of Islam - is to risk accusations of "hate speech," racism, bigotry, or religious discrimination or intolerance.
The ISNA, however, is a Saudi-funded Islamic group and preaches the Wahhabist version of Islam. That makes it as bad and as dangerous as CAIR, which in 1993 began as and remains the American branch of Hamas. Neither the Circle nor the Society has hidden its agenda, which is to turn the U.S. into an Islamic nation. For example, the goal of the Circle, stated on its website, is:
"...the establishment of Islam in all spheres of life. ICNA has many projects, programs, and activities which are designed to help in the process of molding the individual and reforming society at large."
The Society's vision, stated on its website, is:
"To be an exemplary and unifying Islamic organization in North America that contributes to the betterment of the Muslim community and society at large."
"Society at large" means all non-Muslims. "All spheres of life" means their conversion to Islam, or their acceptance of the status of dhimmi-hood in a Muslim society.
Mattson, like her colleagues at CAIR and MPAC, presents the "soft face" of militant Islam. Last year she objected to President Bush's use of the term "Islamic fascism." In an Associated Press report of September 1, 2006, she "acknowledged that terrorist groups 'do misuse and use Islamic concepts and terms to justify their violence. But I think that when we then bestow that term upon them we only make the situation worse and somehow give validity to their claims which we need to deny and reject.'"
She probably added, sotto voce, "But only for the time being, while we talk these fools into giving us the rope with which we will subjugate or hang them." Mattson got her Ph.D. in Islamic studies from the University of Chicago, which meant, among other things, mastering the art of verisimilitude. The Islamic term for it is taqiya, sanctioned by Mohammed as a means of conquest.
Last year her ICNA also declared itself as being against suicide bombings, except if they are directed against Jews. Mattson doubtless will participate on the "Religious Freedom and Minority Rights" panel.
For an eye-opening panel discussion on the duplicitous means and ends of American Islamic organizations, including those mentioned above, and of the culpability of many of its officials - not to mention the delusions of most of our elected officials and the news media - the reader is directed to a FrontPageMagazine article of February 24, 2006, "Victory over Terror?" The chief panelists are Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Steve Emerson, and Phyllis Chesler, all authorities on Islamism and its jihadists, foreign and domestic.
I have not dwelt here on the role of the College of William and Mary as a host for the Forum here, for it is a state university and as guilty as virtually any other school of indoctrinating its students with an anti-Western, anti-American, and anti-reason ideas. Its faculty is largely staffed with teachers of the same philosophical and political ilk of the Forum's participants.
As a measure of how ubiquitous and uncontroversial is the notion in the news media that the U.S. was founded as and intended to be a "democracy," the Newport News Daily Press, on September 1, under the headline "The 400th's Last Hurrah," simply wondered if former presidents Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and former British prime ministers Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, all designated honorary co-chairs of the Forum, will actually attend.
That is the composition and character of the upcoming World Forum on the Future of Democracy. Given that composition and character, one might have expected the principals of Colonial Williamsburg to view the theme of "democracy" of such a "summit" with opprobrium, and resolve to vigorously discredit its thematic link to Jamestown.
In conclusion, if Colonial Williamsburg is willing to falsify the past, and water down its presentation of the political ideas of the Founders, or filter them through the strainer of political correctness, and see nothing wrong in it - it's just a matter of subjective interpretation, don't you know - it should not be surprising that it would lend its venue to a forum that will promulgate a false state of the world, together with false solutions to perceived or imaginary crises and issues - and see nothing wrong in that, either.
The powers of Colonial Williamsburg do not know the difference between democracy and republicanism - between mob rule and individual rights-based liberty, between a leviathan state and limited government - or do not care to know the difference, as long as Colonial Williamsburg is in the public relations limelight.
3 Comments ::