The US elections recently focused on Barak Obama's connections to former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Sarah Palin's accusation that Obama was 'palling around' with terrorists was received by the Democrats and the media in two ways: some claimed that associations don't matter while others accused Palin of racism for daring to bring up the topic.
The Conservative response is, of course, that the people you associate with do matter - especially when you seem to have a common political ideology - and that it's easy to accuse one of racism even when no racism was implied or intended.
This brings to mind the debate about the Counter-Jihad movement.
The Austrian nationalist parties doubled their power in the recent elections, getting close to 30% of the vote. These parties have a tough anti-Muslim and anti-immigration stance. They also apparently have interesting views on Jews. For example, the Freedom Party of Austria is helping out Moshe Aryeh Friedman in his case against the Jewish community who banned him after he participated in the Iranian "World without Zionism" conference.
It's extremely easy to shout 'Nazis!", "Racists!", "Islamophobes!". The question is not what the media is shouting, or what the 'politically correct' establishment decides. The question is what you do and who you do it with.
Some would claim that the West is currently at war with the global Jihad movement and that any partner is acceptable in this fight.
One example is Soviet Russia, who joined the Allies in WWII in the fight against a common enemy. However, the war against Nazism was one where military might actually mattered. The war against Jihad and extremist Islam is mainly one of ideology. You can't join the fight unless you know what your ideology is and you can't win unless you make it clear what you're fighting for. In that sense, what do extremist ethnicist nationalists add to the Western liberal ideology? If you're fighting for your right to express your opinion freely and they're fighting to cleanse the country of foreigners - do you really share the same ideology?
It should also be mentioned that Soviet Russia joined the fight against the Nazis only after the Soviet-Nazi partnership fell apart. The victory of the Allies in Europe was followed by half a century of global battle against Communism. If your ally is not truly a 'partner', you'll find him round the bend once you win your mutual battle. Maybe this is what Europe is heading for, who knows.
In "While Europe Slept" Bruce Bawer focuses on the problem of integration in Europe. It doesn't matter if you're a Muslim from a third world country or an American who grew up on liberalism and democracy. You'll always be an outsider and you'll never belong, because you're not 'ethnic'. Can Europeans be nationalist - patriotic, love their country, love their national culture - without being ethnicist? Can Europeans accept new immigrants who truly want to join their new nation?
For Americans it's not a problem. For Europeans, I'm not sure it's possible.
The Conservative response is, of course, that the people you associate with do matter - especially when you seem to have a common political ideology - and that it's easy to accuse one of racism even when no racism was implied or intended.
This brings to mind the debate about the Counter-Jihad movement.
The Austrian nationalist parties doubled their power in the recent elections, getting close to 30% of the vote. These parties have a tough anti-Muslim and anti-immigration stance. They also apparently have interesting views on Jews. For example, the Freedom Party of Austria is helping out Moshe Aryeh Friedman in his case against the Jewish community who banned him after he participated in the Iranian "World without Zionism" conference.
It's extremely easy to shout 'Nazis!", "Racists!", "Islamophobes!". The question is not what the media is shouting, or what the 'politically correct' establishment decides. The question is what you do and who you do it with.
Some would claim that the West is currently at war with the global Jihad movement and that any partner is acceptable in this fight.
One example is Soviet Russia, who joined the Allies in WWII in the fight against a common enemy. However, the war against Nazism was one where military might actually mattered. The war against Jihad and extremist Islam is mainly one of ideology. You can't join the fight unless you know what your ideology is and you can't win unless you make it clear what you're fighting for. In that sense, what do extremist ethnicist nationalists add to the Western liberal ideology? If you're fighting for your right to express your opinion freely and they're fighting to cleanse the country of foreigners - do you really share the same ideology?
It should also be mentioned that Soviet Russia joined the fight against the Nazis only after the Soviet-Nazi partnership fell apart. The victory of the Allies in Europe was followed by half a century of global battle against Communism. If your ally is not truly a 'partner', you'll find him round the bend once you win your mutual battle. Maybe this is what Europe is heading for, who knows.
In "While Europe Slept" Bruce Bawer focuses on the problem of integration in Europe. It doesn't matter if you're a Muslim from a third world country or an American who grew up on liberalism and democracy. You'll always be an outsider and you'll never belong, because you're not 'ethnic'. Can Europeans be nationalist - patriotic, love their country, love their national culture - without being ethnicist? Can Europeans accept new immigrants who truly want to join their new nation?
For Americans it's not a problem. For Europeans, I'm not sure it's possible.
10 comments:
Not only is Obama's association with Bill Ayers relevant, but all of his associations with known terrorists, communists, and genocidal supremacists of every sort are relevant, including Wright, Rezko, Frank Davis, Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, Rashid Khalidi, Iraqi gun runner Nadhmi Auchi, Saul Alinski, Kwame Kilpatrick, Joseph Aramanda, Louis Farakhan, his newly-hired CAIR lawyer Joe Sandler (if this CAIR lawyer is actually a lawyer) as an advisor, and the list goes on and on. What's also intolerably shady and quite relevant are the questions of how he got accepted to Harvard and Columbia with horrible grades at a 3rd-rate college (since affirmative action does not even begin to explain that one, particularly given his lack of the equivalent of a free-world primary-school education but the Khalidi 5th-column connection does), why he can't produce a legitimate birth certificate, all his well-documented attempts at screwing Americans out of their first-amendment rights during this campaign, his goonish promises to Teamsters of pardons for the their convicted associates, and all of the illegal donations which have come in from overseas through his website's T-shirt shop which Pamela Gellar has documented quite well. Millions have undeniably rolled in from 'Palestine' and Iran, and thousands of donations end in uneven dollar amounts, which would of course never happen if he were dealing in US dollars.
What's also relevant is his connection to communist ACORN who are largely responsible for the current financial crisis for demopathically turning Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into public housing a` la Lenin, and all the election fraud that has been committed on his behalf.
To quote JB Williams at the New Media Journal: He has been propped up for years by Black Nationalists, former Black Panther thugs, Wahabbi wealth and communist sympathizers masquerading as Alinsky styled “community activists” who have bilked the poorest and most unsuspecting members of society out of their freedom and liberty in pursuit of left-wing political power.
Guilt by (not 'of,' as that constitutes shamelessly horrible grammar) association is always a perfectly valid claim. It got a bad name through a logical fallacy: straw man. It comes from McCarthyism, which was never a bad idea in theory or in practice. Joe McCarthy never accused a single innocent person - or even anyone who deserved anything less than to be eviscerated and eaten alive by rats - of anything of which they were not 100% guilty and which did not constitute treasonous sedition, an offense that is punishable, thank God, with death. He was always right and he always did the right thing, if too little of it, so of course liberal fascists created a straw man and dismissed McCarthyism. They hate America, they hate democracy, they hate freedom, and they hate any tolerable or defensible human being, including Abraham Lincoln. 'Have you any decency,' liberals? Or even shame for that matter? Souls? A clue?
I wear the label 'racist' as a badge of honor, for it has come to be iconic of having defeated or of being in the process of defeating a liberal at their deompathic game, which is actually quite easy to do because no liberal has ever had an argument that wasn't a flat-out lie or that didn't constitute a logical fallacy (e.g., listen to any Obama response to any question or accusation). Retarded 5-year-olds can beat liberals in debates.
Racism, furthermore, does exist, but only against Jews and in the form of black, Hispanic, and Arab supremacism, so when they cry 'racism,' they simply indict themselves for demopathy. Does racism against Arabs exist? Absolutely, in that Arabs can slaughter 'Palestinians' by the millions and thousands, respectively, like Kuwait and King Hussein did, and Egypt can build a wall to keep them out of their country, but when Jews build the same wall or kill 'Palestinians' in self-defense they are persecuted for it. So yeah, racism against Arabs (and blacks) exists in that it is somehow completely acceptable to hold them to a completely different moral standard than whites/Jews, i.e., no moral standard whatsoever.
That, folks, is real racism. Islam is pure racism, as is the Democratic party, who grew out of Confederates, who opposed fighting Hitler until we were in cahoots with Stalin and Hitler was threatening their precious commies but slaughtering millions of Jews and overrunning democratic nations was A-OK with them, who then absorbed as many retired Nazis as they could dig up, who overwhelmingly voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, who never supported the only democratic nation in the Middle East because it's a nation which is both Jewish and democratic but which can't wait to meet with Ahmedinejad without prconditions and can't have enough Saudi terrorist friends, whose socialist public school system keeps ghetto black in their underfunded ghetto schools and keeps them out of 'our' nice schools, whose high taxes and regulations keep minority upstarts down and keep the Old Boy Network in place, and who ally themselves with every terrorist and Saudi they can find (now that Nazis are few and far between) so that women can live their lives as sex slaves, blacks can be enslaved again, and Jews, homosexuals, and feminists can be exterminated as can anyone who dissident to their fascist coalition and intolerable ideology (i.e., any honest individual with a backbone, a soul, and half a clue). I won't even go into the inherent Christophobia of their ideology.
Jdamn13,
"Guilt of association" - That's exactly what I meant. The accusation here is the association itself. It's a phrase which has been appearing in various articles re the US presidential elections, and which I shamelessly copied. Though I thank you for correcting my (shamelessly horrible) grammar.
I lost you on the rest of it. Do you think the Counter-Jihad movement should join forces with racist organizations? Do you think the aim justifies the means?
Esther
In no way should Counter Jihad movements join up with racist groups.
Counter Jihad is pro Democracy, pro Human Rights and pro Freedom before it is Counter Jihad.
Joining up with racist groups is being against real democracy, human rights and freedom.
He is guilty BY association. 'Guilty of association' means that association - any kind - makes one somehow culpable, where as 'guilty by association' implies that it is the specific type of association that makes one culpable in the eyes of others. It's like 'guilt by suspicion.' 'Guilt of suspicion' means that suspicion makes one culpable, whereas 'guilt by suspicion' implies that being suspected of something by someone makes one guilty. It's a subtle, but important distinction. This proves the idiocy of any media source that would label Sarah Palin as a terrorist (?!?) while Obama pals around with the Muslim Brotherhood and the Saudis and uses police-state tactics to try to stifle free speech when it criticizes him.
And no, the counter-jihad shouldn't ally itself with racist groups because then there would only be one side and we would be de facto allied with the Left. All racist groups in America are Leftist (e.g., every Muslim Brotherhood front group, La Raza, Rainbow-PUSH, etc.). The Left is racist and I proved it, pretty well I might add. It's a party that was founded on racism and which perpetuates it today while demopathically crying 'racism' every time intelligent people call them on the evil they perpetuate, the things they do, and with whom they ally themselves (genocidal states like Iran and Saudi Arabia, every racist group, Muslims, Nazis, Confederates, you name it).
That was the most random, ridiculous sick crap I've ever read in my life. It has nothing to do with anything. America is not and never was on any 'crusade,' we don't want to control the world's oil (we buy it because that's how capitalism works). If we wanted all the oil we would colonize Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Libya in 15 minutes. We would also own Iraq, which we did manage to completely conquer twice - first from the hands of a dictator and then from Al Qaeda - before we handed it over to the Iraqis, asshat.
"There must be no coercion in matters of faith".
How can one ignore such an unequivocal statement?
Because it's abrogated by every single Medinian verse, for instance K 9:05, Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Or K 9:45: Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day ask no leave of thee lest they should strive with their wealth and their lives. Allah is Aware of those who keep their duty (unto Him). Muslims are to kill us and parsitize us, idiot.
Islam wasn't spread by the sword my ass. Only the most mentally ill of despicable monsters would become Muslims voluntarily. There's a reason why dawa only works in prisons.
No compulsion in religion, huh? It's true, in that Islam isn't a religion, just a genocidal, supremacist, fascist, totalitarian political ideology/death-cult for inbred, baby-raping, Nazi terrorists who mutilate little girls and require them to live their entire lives as sex slaves, but Muslims, like Stalin, have never let that stand in the way of compulsion.
This war is going to become much bigger. The U.S. and the 'West' do not have the political will to initiate it ourselves.
It is only a matter of time before an Islamic terrorist group obtains nuclear weapons. Does anyone really believe that if one of these groups obtain nuclear weapons that they will not use them? At that point, it will not matter if someone is a 'good' Muslim. Many good southerners died defending the evil of slavery. It is in human nature to defend your way of life.
The 'West' will not start it. Islam will. It will only remain to be seen as to who ends it.
Everybody,
Please do not respond to obvious spam. I delete it as soon as I see it.
Actually, I think if we only fight wars with islamic nations in order to keep them from getting nukes, which was why we went to Iraq, Islam may very well destroy itself. We of course need the water vapor car already in order to free ourselves from them, we need to stop dealing with them in the UN and to cut off the jizya, and we need to stop immigration from OIC nations and to outlaw the seditious practice of Islam in the free world. No Islamic nation can sustain itself for enough reasons for an essay unto itself. They will destroy themselves if we only stand back and let them. The water vapor car is essential, though, as is the international recognition of Islam for what it is, which could only be as far away as a good civil or criminal suit.
Post a Comment