/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Liberal World Order, R.I.P.



سيف الله
03-28-2018, 07:48 PM
Salaam

An establishment take on why the Liberal International order is declining, an interesting read nevertheless.

Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

America’s decision to abandon the global system it helped build, and then preserve for more than seven decades, marks a turning point, because others lack either the interest or the means to sustain it. The result will be a world that is less free, less prosperous, and less peaceful, for Americans and others alike.

NEW DELHI – After a run of nearly one thousand years, quipped the French philosopher and writer Voltaire, the fading Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire. Today, some two and a half centuries later, the problem, to paraphrase Voltaire, is that the fading liberal world order is neither liberal nor worldwide nor orderly.

The United States, working closely with the United Kingdom and others, established the liberal world order in the wake of World War II. The goal was to ensure that the conditions that had led to two world wars in 30 years would never again arise.

To that end, the democratic countries set out to create an international system that was liberal in the sense that it was to be based on the rule of law and respect for countries’ sovereignty and territorial integrity. Human rights were to be protected. All this was to be applied to the entire planet; at the same time, participation was open to all and voluntary. Institutions were built to promote peace (the United Nations), economic development (the World Bank) and trade and investment (the International Monetary Fund and what years later became the World Trade Organization).

All this and more was backed by the economic and military might of the US, a network of alliances across Europe and Asia, and nuclear weapons, which served to deter aggression. The liberal world order was thus based not just on ideals embraced by democracies, but also on hard power. None of this was lost on the decidedly illiberal Soviet Union, which had a fundamentally different notion of what constituted order in Europe and around the world.

The liberal world order appeared to be more robust than ever with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. But today, a quarter-century later, its future is in doubt. Indeed, its three components – liberalism, universality, and the preservation of order itself – are being challenged as never before in its 70-year history.

Liberalism is in retreat. Democracies are feeling the effects of growing populism. Parties of the political extremes have gained ground in Europe. The vote in the United Kingdom in favor of leaving the EU attested to the loss of elite influence. Even the US is experiencing unprecedented attacks from its own president on the country’s media, courts, and law-enforcement institutions. Authoritarian systems, including China, Russia, and Turkey, have become even more top-heavy. Countries such as Hungary and Poland seem uninterested in the fate of their young democracies.

It is increasingly difficult to speak of the world as if it were whole. We are seeing the emergence of regional orders – or, most pronounced in the Middle East, disorders – each with its own characteristics. Attempts to build global frameworks are failing. Protectionism is on the rise; the latest round of global trade talks never came to fruition. There are few rules governing the use of cyberspace.

At the same time, great power rivalry is returning. Russia violated the most basic norm of international relations when it used armed force to change borders in Europe, and it violated US sovereignty through its efforts to influence the 2016 election. North Korea has flouted the strong international consensus against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The world has stood by as humanitarian nightmares play out in Syria and Yemen, doing little at the UN or elsewhere in response to the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons. Venezuela is a failing state. One in every hundred people in the world today is either a refugee or internally displaced.

There are several reasons why all this is happening, and why now. The rise of populism is in part a response to stagnating incomes and job loss, owing mostly to new technologies but widely attributed to imports and immigrants. Nationalism is a tool increasingly used by leaders to bolster their authority, especially amid difficult economic and political conditions. And global institutions have failed to adapt to new power balances and technologies.

But the weakening of the liberal world order is due, more than anything else, to the changed attitude of the US. Under President Donald Trump, the US decided against joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership and to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. It has threatened to leave the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Iran nuclear deal. It has unilaterally introduced steel and aluminum tariffs, relying on a justification (national security) that others could use, in the process placing the world at risk of a trade war. It has raised questions about its commitment to NATO and other alliance relationships. And it rarely speaks about democracy or human rights. “America First” and the liberal world order seem incompatible.

My point is not to single out the US for criticism. Today’s other major powers, including the EU, Russia, China, India, and Japan, could be criticized for what they are doing, not doing, or both. But the US is not just another country. It was the principal architect of the liberal world order and its principal backer. It was also a principal beneficiary.

America’s decision to abandon the role it has played for more than seven decades thus marks a turning point. The liberal world order cannot survive on its own, because others lack either the interest or the means to sustain it. The result will be a world that is less free, less prosperous, and less peaceful, for Americans and others alike.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/co...-haass-2018-03
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Misbah-Abd
03-29-2018, 09:58 AM
Remember, the motto is "Ordo Ab Chao" or Order out of Chaos. If L.W.O. is in its demise then that means it has exhausted its usefulness. Perhaps this is the era of disorder that will bring about the advent of the Dajjal who will come in and establish "Order" where the masses will flock to him as their savior from all the fitnah that will have taken place. And Allah Knows Best.
Reply

Futuwwa
03-29-2018, 11:42 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Junon
The United States, working closely with the United Kingdom and others, established the liberal world order in the wake of World War II. The goal was to ensure that the conditions that had led to two world wars in 30 years would never again arise.

To that end, the democratic countries set out to create an international system that was liberal in the sense that it was to be based on the rule of law and respect for countries’ sovereignty and territorial integrity. Human rights were to be protected. All this was to be applied to the entire planet; at the same time, participation was open to all and voluntary. Institutions were built to promote peace (the United Nations), economic development (the World Bank) and trade and investment (the International Monetary Fund and what years later became the World Trade Organization).
Nonsense. US respect for and promotion of rule of law, other countries' sovereignty and territorial integrity and human rights always ended wherever its Cold War realpolitik interests began. That, and the wants of politically influential factions within the US.

The only place where the US created such a liberal order was in Western Europe, and that too was because it needed Western European powers to stop fighting each other and form a common front against Communist Eastern Europe.
Reply

Karl
03-30-2018, 12:26 AM
The Zionist Liberal World Order is getting stronger not dying at all. All the United Nations lefty liberal rants are getting louder and more intensive. Even the News is just globalist liberal propaganda trying to bash down all cultures to conform to the Zionist ideal of global cultural Marxist hegemony.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Zafran
03-30-2018, 12:32 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
The only place where the US created such a liberal order was in Western Europe, and that too was because it needed Western European powers to stop fighting each other and form a common front against Communist Eastern Europe.
Dont forget Japan and south Korea.

Liberalism is bound to fail. The people that sing its praises also cant seem to stay liberal themselves. People are moving more towards nationalism, fascism and socialism and anarchism - thats what happens when you don't have a religious paradigm anymore.
Reply

AllahIsAl-Malik
03-30-2018, 06:35 AM
I feel a little disappointed. I clicked this thread hoping eagerly that I would see evidence for what the title suggests.

However, this was not the case. I don't feel a need to restate it- Karl has stated it perfectly.

format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
The Zionist Liberal World Order is getting stronger not dying at all. All the United Nations lefty liberal rants are getting louder and more intensive. Even the News is just globalist liberal propaganda trying to bash down all cultures to conform to the Zionist ideal of global cultural Marxist hegemony.
Reply

سيف الله
03-30-2018, 10:50 PM
Salaam

format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
Dont forget Japan and south Korea.

Liberalism is bound to fail. The people that sing its praises also cant seem to stay liberal themselves. People are moving more towards nationalism, fascism and socialism and anarchism - thats what happens when you don't have a religious paradigm anymore.
Yes its advocates have a habit of saying one thing and doing another. There was was always something not right about them which made me crazy. Then I came across books that articulated what I was feeling.






This is an interesting book on the impossibility of fruitful dialogue between liberals and conservatives (or you could put in people of faith).

The Great Divide: Why Liberals and Conservatives Will Never, Ever Agree

Blurb

The theme of The Great Divide is that the populations of the democratic world, from Boston to Berlin, Vancouver to Venice, are becoming increasingly divided from within, due to a growing ideological incompatibility between modern liberalism and conservatism. This is partly due to a complex mutation in the concept of liberal democracy itself, and the resulting divide is now so wide that those holding to either philosophy on a whole range of topics: on democracy, on reason, on abortion, on human nature, on homosexuality and gay marriage, on freedom, on the role of courts … and much more, can barely speak with each other without outrage (the favorite emotional response from all sides). Clearly, civil conversation at the surface has been failing -- and that could mean democracy is failing.

This book is an effort to deepen the conversation. It is written for the non-specialist, and aims to reveal the less obvious underlying ideological forces and misconceptions that cause the conflict and outrage at the surface -- not with any expectation the clash of values will evaporate, but rather that a deeper understanding will generate a more intelligent and civil conversation.

As an aid to understanding, the book contains a handful of Tables directly comparing modern liberal and conservative views across a range of fundamental moral and political “issues” so that curious readers can answer the book’s main question: “Where Do You Stand?” An interesting result in testing this exercise has been the number of people who find they “think” one way, but “live” another.


Reply

AllahIsAl-Malik
04-02-2018, 08:19 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Junon
Salaam



Yes its advocates have a habit of saying one thing and doing another. There was was always something not right about them which made me crazy. Then I came across books that articulated what I was feeling.






This is an interesting book on the impossibility of fruitful dialogue between liberals and conservatives (or you could put in people of faith).

The Great Divide: Why Liberals and Conservatives Will Never, Ever Agree

Blurb

The theme of The Great Divide is that the populations of the democratic world, from Boston to Berlin, Vancouver to Venice, are becoming increasingly divided from within, due to a growing ideological incompatibility between modern liberalism and conservatism. This is partly due to a complex mutation in the concept of liberal democracy itself, and the resulting divide is now so wide that those holding to either philosophy on a whole range of topics: on democracy, on reason, on abortion, on human nature, on homosexuality and gay marriage, on freedom, on the role of courts … and much more, can barely speak with each other without outrage (the favorite emotional response from all sides). Clearly, civil conversation at the surface has been failing -- and that could mean democracy is failing.

This book is an effort to deepen the conversation. It is written for the non-specialist, and aims to reveal the less obvious underlying ideological forces and misconceptions that cause the conflict and outrage at the surface -- not with any expectation the clash of values will evaporate, but rather that a deeper understanding will generate a more intelligent and civil conversation.

As an aid to understanding, the book contains a handful of Tables directly comparing modern liberal and conservative views across a range of fundamental moral and political “issues” so that curious readers can answer the book’s main question: “Where Do You Stand?” An interesting result in testing this exercise has been the number of people who find they “think” one way, but “live” another.


wow that post is a goldmine. thank you. i want to add all those books to a list now.

i deal with a lot of these authoritarian liberals and i deal with them on a pretty much daily basis.

as I see it, they engage in ideological colonialism. they want to force people who believe in God to think in secular terms. i don't care if they believe what i believe yet they are constantly trying to force godless ways of thinking on me. i seriously want all those books so i can better understand who im dealing with.

what shocks me for example is... i had a liberal become super aggressive with me because i would not agree that everyone should have their guns taken away and i would not negate that people have a right to defend themselves. how can a person become aggressive in the name of that belief? they were yelling at me and becoming very belligerant. all i did was respectfully not agree with their view.

this happened to me a day ago again. i was talking to a liberal. i almost never raise my voice at anyone. i did not agree with them on something and they became very loud and yelling and caused a huge scene.

very often these liberals who sermonize about "tolerance" and "open-mindedness".... they very often become very hostile and belligerant to me and often even verbally abusive and yelling towards me simply because i have a different point of view. i almost never raise my voice at anyone and i almost always try to speak in a calm manner. i dont mind people thinking differently and so it is very strange to me how people will start yelling and making a scene simply because i won't agree with their beliefs. for example i had a professor try to single me out and humiliate me because i believe in God. i didn't even mention God. the professor just was able to tell that I believe in God and was trying to make me into an object of humiliation and also tried to force me to write from a postmodern point of view which would be implicitly atheistic. i was so shocked. where i grew up, almost all my teachers believed in God and I had no idea how to react.

liberal culture is so strange and foreign to me. i am not from a liberal place and so liberal culture is baffling to me.

i don't mention this stuff meaning to complain. I don't mind that liberals have yelled at me and got belligerant with me. If you have to raise your voice in an argument i think the embarrassment is upon the one who raises their voice- not the one who is calm. but i just find it bizarre that people will suddenly become super belligerant for example if you won't say you're for homosexuality or abortion or things like that. it is puzzling to me and i struggle to understand the mindset. so thank you for posting those books. i would like to read them so i can understand this strange culture i encounter.
Reply

beleiver
04-02-2018, 08:56 AM
Liberal? Its been a right wing corporate world order for as long as i been alive, the word liberal is a smoke screen..
What we are seeing is the well planned hard right turn to facism.

Dissenting voices have been silenced by corporate/state media for decades. There is no other side of the debate or discussion of ideas that go against the corporate usery agenda.

Liberal 1.
willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.

Reply

AllahIsAl-Malik
04-02-2018, 10:14 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by beleiver
Liberal? Its been a right wing corporate world order for as long as i been alive, the word liberal is a smoke screen..
What we are seeing is the well planned hard right turn to facism.

Dissenting voices have been silenced by corporate/state media for decades. There is no other side of the debate or discussion of ideas that go against the corporate usery agenda.

Liberal 1.
willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
is that what they claim? I was wondering what this word "liberal" is supposed to mean.

In my experience, people who call themselves "liberal" are people who become hostile if you don't agree with a certain set of beliefs that liberals are into.

Liberalism like other isms can be one thing in theory and something totally different in real life.

People can say what they want about conservatives but you can disagree with them and they're generally pretty calm about it.

For whatever reason, in my experience the conservatives are more tolerant the liberals. You disagree with the conservatives and they'll calmly disagree. The liberals... the liberals you say the wrong thing and they can become belligerent. I'm not saying in all cases. I know a liberal who seems laid-back. But this is my experience and I've lived in both conservative and liberal areas.

And I'm on neither side. I'm just a Muslim. I don't identify with left, right, up, down or diagonol.
Reply

beleiver
04-02-2018, 12:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AllahIsAl-Malik
is that what they claim? I was wondering what this word "liberal" is supposed to mean.

In my experience, people who call themselves "liberal" are people who become hostile if you don't agree with a certain set of beliefs that liberals are into.

Liberalism like other isms can be one thing in theory and something totally different in real life.

People can say what they want about conservatives but you can disagree with them and they're generally pretty calm about it.

For whatever reason, in my experience the conservatives are more tolerant the liberals. You disagree with the conservatives and they'll calmly disagree. The liberals... the liberals you say the wrong thing and they can become belligerent. I'm not saying in all cases. I know a liberal who seems laid-back. But this is my experience and I've lived in both conservative and liberal areas.

And I'm on neither side. I'm just a Muslim. I don't identify with left, right, up, down or diagonol.
Me too i dont like to identify with left right and all that devicvie nonsense, i can see merits from both sides and can see how words describing political genres have been hoplessly distorted from their original meanings over time..
The quote i used was the english language definition of 'liberal' which kind of proves my point.

My original point was more of a world political deception where politically we are heading from the right wing to the extreme right wing conservatism..there has been no left or liberal in geo politics for a while..
for example, in the 80s the largest growing political movement in the world was the landless peoples movement, but because they endorsed squatters rights they were deemed illegal and prohibitted from politics, they questioned the world debt and how it enabled multinational corporations to own the land and rescources while displacing the indigenous populations on the conditions that governments brought millitary hardware so to ensure the people couldnt rise up and form their own governments..Any movement that questioned corporate property rights over the peoples was deemed 'marxist' and the enemy.
The banking system that enables this also resulted in the media being owned by a smaller more concentrated group that protects the same system.
Its a global corporate system, corporate being right wing, there have been no real left wing governments in the world that have not been deposed of by the worlds corporate elite..
The war on drugs/humanity is another one, there is no room in the corporate world for reasonable debate where behaviour or opinions or even Truth are heard or respected, not in the political world at least..Governments simply dissmiss or ridicule those that speak Truth on such matters..And those matters extend beyond just the issues of illegal drugs but our everyday medecine, monopolised and sold at great cost to us by the corporations.

But i agree, on a personal level consevatives can be open minded enough, but there are a lot of far right deluded morons out there that hide behind a 'liberal' mask..Few people i ever met identify as a Liberal these days.
Reply

سيف الله
04-02-2018, 06:23 PM
Salaam

format_quote Originally Posted by AllahIsAl-Malik
is that what they claim? I was wondering what this word "liberal" is supposed to mean.

In my experience, people who call themselves "liberal" are people who become hostile if you don't agree with a certain set of beliefs that liberals are into.

Liberalism like other isms can be one thing in theory and something totally different in real life.

People can say what they want about conservatives but you can disagree with them and they're generally pretty calm about it.

For whatever reason, in my experience the conservatives are more tolerant the liberals. You disagree with the conservatives and they'll calmly disagree. The liberals... the liberals you say the wrong thing and they can become belligerent. I'm not saying in all cases. I know a liberal who seems laid-back. But this is my experience and I've lived in both conservative and liberal areas.

And I'm on neither side. I'm just a Muslim. I don't identify with left, right, up, down or diagonol.
This is my experience, liberalism in the abstract might sound very appealing but it is in practice where it counts, though this ideology has evolved over the centuries its advocates have always been self interested and have a tendency to be dedicated to the perpetuation of state power/banks/corporations etc.

Even though I don't agree with the Right or conservatives on many issues I actually prefer talking to them or the apolitcal types who you can just have a conversation with.

You only have to look at the ones from time to time who pop into this forum, in the end they always try to coopt you and then try to convert you, it gets old after a while.

More book that you might find interesting

Traditionalism the only radicalism by John Dunn

Blurb

It is a feature of twenty first century modernity that the tenets around which society is built and organised exist unchallenged. When there is only one cultural perspective and no alternative story, where is the judgement about the worth of the existing regime meant to come from? The left-right political dichotomy serves liberalism by not challenging it. Democracy sustains the status quo by offering the illusion of choice with no choice. Genuine opposition can only emerge if there is an alternative story with which to counter the current mythos. And how that mythos is maintained! By the great world enterprise, with its digital mountain of media propaganda, Hollywood-fashioned histories, global corporate HR masquerading as an education system and pseudo-religious convictions riddled with liberal ethics. Against this multi-billion dollar programme of maintenance, a few mere words could hardly be said to endanger the global regime. Yet John Dunn contends that the weakness of liberalism lies in the shallowness of its roots. The belief in its apparent virtues can only be sustained by lies, and even these cannot disguise liberalism's materialistic origins and sustaining raison d'être. Those who live under its all-seeing eye are left either consciously bereft of meaning or deluded into laughing despair. The world state cannot be opposed from outside. There is no longer any outside. Yet the opposition that must come from within is fragmented. Redemption will not be possible until today's heresies coalesce into a new mythos. Enough of scholarship therefore, original work is needed to expose the essential wheel in the working of things, the eternal struggle between good and evil. Only then will moral choice be clear and a meaningful political dichotomy emerge, with sufficient distance to make liberalism the other. John Dunn was inspired to write this book by the hope of contributing towards the redemptive coalescence of thought and deed.



SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police by Vox Day

Blurb


Social Justice Warriors have plagued mankind for more than 150 years, but only in the last 30 years has their ideology become dominant in the West. Having invaded one institution of the cultural high ground after another, from corporations and churches to video games and government, there is nowhere that remains entirely free of their intolerant thought and speech policing. Because the SJW agenda of diversity, tolerance, inclusiveness, and equality flies in the face of both science and observable reality, SJWs relentlessly work to prevent normal people from thinking or speaking in any manner that will violate their ever-mutating Narrative. They police science, philosophy, technology, and even history in order to maintain the pretense that their agenda remains inevitable in a modern world that contradicts it on a daily basis. The book is named after the First Law of SJW: SJWs always lie. SJWS ALWAYS LIE is a useful guide to understanding, anticipating, and surviving SJW attacks from the perspective of a man who has not only survived, but thrived, after experiencing multiple attempts by Social Justice Warriors to disqualify, discredit, and disemploy him in the same manner they have successfully attacked Nobel Laureates, technology CEOs, broadcasters, sports commentators, school principals, and policemen. It analyzes well-known SJW attacks as well as the two most successful examples of resistance to the SJW Narrative,




Oh I forgot to add, related

Barren Metal; A history of capitalism as the conflict between labour and usury
Reply

beleiver
04-02-2018, 07:14 PM
Being a warrior for social justice is bad how?

The whole SJW thing is a strawman to lead us down the path to Fascism that will remove many good things people struggled a long time to acheive.

Milo is a profesional hate preahing liar who exells in what i call Orwellian double speak.

When 'Liberal' ideology and 'social justice' is defeated, then we will know all about real thought police and good luck to openly practicing Islam then.
Reply

AllahIsAl-Malik
04-02-2018, 07:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Junon
Salaam



This is my experience, liberalism in the abstract might sound very appealing but it is in practice where it counts, though this ideology has evolved over the centuries its advocates have always been self interested and have a tendency to be dedicated to the perpetuation of state power/banks/corporations etc.

Even though I don't agree with the Right or conservatives on many issues I actually prefer talking to them or the apolitcal types who you can just have a conversation with.

You only have to look at the ones from time to time who pop into this forum, in the end they always try to coopt you and then try to convert you, it gets old after a while.

More book that you might find interesting

Traditionalism the only radicalism by John Dunn

Blurb

It is a feature of twenty first century modernity that the tenets around which society is built and organised exist unchallenged. When there is only one cultural perspective and no alternative story, where is the judgement about the worth of the existing regime meant to come from? The left-right political dichotomy serves liberalism by not challenging it. Democracy sustains the status quo by offering the illusion of choice with no choice. Genuine opposition can only emerge if there is an alternative story with which to counter the current mythos. And how that mythos is maintained! By the great world enterprise, with its digital mountain of media propaganda, Hollywood-fashioned histories, global corporate HR masquerading as an education system and pseudo-religious convictions riddled with liberal ethics. Against this multi-billion dollar programme of maintenance, a few mere words could hardly be said to endanger the global regime. Yet John Dunn contends that the weakness of liberalism lies in the shallowness of its roots. The belief in its apparent virtues can only be sustained by lies, and even these cannot disguise liberalism's materialistic origins and sustaining raison d'être. Those who live under its all-seeing eye are left either consciously bereft of meaning or deluded into laughing despair. The world state cannot be opposed from outside. There is no longer any outside. Yet the opposition that must come from within is fragmented. Redemption will not be possible until today's heresies coalesce into a new mythos. Enough of scholarship therefore, original work is needed to expose the essential wheel in the working of things, the eternal struggle between good and evil. Only then will moral choice be clear and a meaningful political dichotomy emerge, with sufficient distance to make liberalism the other. John Dunn was inspired to write this book by the hope of contributing towards the redemptive coalescence of thought and deed.



SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police by Vox Day

Blurb


Social Justice Warriors have plagued mankind for more than 150 years, but only in the last 30 years has their ideology become dominant in the West. Having invaded one institution of the cultural high ground after another, from corporations and churches to video games and government, there is nowhere that remains entirely free of their intolerant thought and speech policing. Because the SJW agenda of diversity, tolerance, inclusiveness, and equality flies in the face of both science and observable reality, SJWs relentlessly work to prevent normal people from thinking or speaking in any manner that will violate their ever-mutating Narrative. They police science, philosophy, technology, and even history in order to maintain the pretense that their agenda remains inevitable in a modern world that contradicts it on a daily basis. The book is named after the First Law of SJW: SJWs always lie. SJWS ALWAYS LIE is a useful guide to understanding, anticipating, and surviving SJW attacks from the perspective of a man who has not only survived, but thrived, after experiencing multiple attempts by Social Justice Warriors to disqualify, discredit, and disemploy him in the same manner they have successfully attacked Nobel Laureates, technology CEOs, broadcasters, sports commentators, school principals, and policemen. It analyzes well-known SJW attacks as well as the two most successful examples of resistance to the SJW Narrative,


Yes it's easy to think liberals sound good... when you live in a conservative area and you've never actually had to really deal with liberals on a day-to-day basis.That was my experience. When I grew up, I only saw liberals on TV and read about them and I thought they sounded pretty good. But now I actually live in a super liberal area and I experience for myself how intolerant they actually are. I have to deal with iberals being hostile and hateful towards me simply because I don't agree with them. Even though I am quiet and don't push my beliefs. They simply are aware that I am of a different perspective and they are hostile for that reason. Furthermore, they have this smug, self-righteous attitude which is very annoying.What is very puzzling is their attitude towards Muslims.They remind me of this story from Aesop. There was a dog and some other animal- I think a rabbit or something. I'll say a rabbit.The dog one minute is playing with the rabbit. Playing playfully and being friendly. Next minute the dog is attacking the rabbit.The rabbit finally gets fed up and says something to the effect of "make up your mind- are you my friend or my enemy? For you to one minute be my friend and next my enemy is worse than for you to simply be my enemy".And that is how I feel. I prefer an open enemy to one of those slimy types of people who are sneaky and one minute pretending to be a friend and the next minute being an open enemy.I am not at all a fan of Nicki Minaj and her music (I don't listen to music- except in cases where annoying people play music around me and I can't avoid such annoyingness). But there was one song where she said "pick a side, pick a side". I seriously think she serves the devil. And apparently even the devil wants people to pick a side. Let people pick a side. Are people serving God or Shaytaan? Let people pick a side. It is repugnant when a person one minute is trying to serve God and the next is trying to serve the devil. Let people just a side and stick with it.This is why I prefer the conservatives to the liberals. In a lot of ways the conservatives are openly antagonistic. A lot of times they openly support imperialism and neocolonialism. Of course I am opposed to that. But the liberals are sneaky imperialists, sneaky neocolonialists. Let them pick a side and just stick with their side. They need to quit trying to be on the fence.One minute the liberals are against Muslims, the next they want to portray themselves as friends of the Muslims.What is very interesting I notice is that the liberals- the everyday liberals are basically just pawns. They don't set the liberals' agenda- people higher up set the agenda for the liberals and the everyday liberals are just followers.The liberals' "schizophrenic" (more accurately, split-personality) attitude towards Muslims I believe is intentional.One minute they are anti-Muslim, one minute they're posing for pictures with women in hijab. They're worse than open imperialists. They're just sneaky imperialists. Rather than simply openly oppose the Muslims, they want to subvert us. They want to force their garbage on us.For some reason they want to equate being anti-Islam with racism. Even though Islam is not a race thing (although some of the anti-Islam stuff is racially motivated in the minds of bigoted Westerners).Basically, their agenda is "oh yeah.... of course we LOOOOOOVE Muslims. Look at us with our pictures with our token Muslim friends (COUGHCOUGHMALALACOUGHCOUGH). We are cool with Muslims. Except... we want Muslims to adopt OUR values and to impose OUR values as Muslims. Muslims are wonderful- as long as they are willing to accept the imposition of OUR values. We accept the hijab. Look how tolerant we are! But of course... Muslims are noble savages (in their minds) and they need to accept our superior values and accept feminism, abortion, homosexuality, filthy music and a bunch of other garbage that we promote".I detest this. I am friendly and I am polite with the liberals but I keep a distance from them. Their fake friendliness to cover their desire to impose cultural imperialism and hegemony- it does not fool me. We should be aware of their two-faced nature. Some of them are smiling psychopaths. Say "God," "sin," words like that around them- and some of them will suddenly explode and become belligerant. "Triggered" in their lingo.

Another thing i hear about is a bunch of nonsense about "unity". We shouldn't want to "united" with liberals. If we are not united within the fold of Islam, we don't need to be united. Let me keep my distance from them and not have to hear their sermons about how walking around half-naked is "empowering" for women and a bunch of nonsense promoting gay stuff, abortion, etc.Furthermore, to me it is very simple. I am not for the left or the right. I am against both. And I don't want them to forget their differences and become united. I am perfectly fine with them being divided and let them stay that way. The last time they became united, the result was the invasion of Iraq. If that's "unity", then "unity" is horrible. If they're united, they'll inflict horror. Therefore let them be divided and attack each other so they can leave others alone and not bother us. If the liberals get the upper hand, I think let's support the conservatives. If the conservatives get the upper hand, I think let's support the liberals. I think we should support whichever side is weaker so they stay divided and their capacity to meddle is weakened. I can't stand people trying to meddle in what isn't their business. And these days the liberals have the upper hand over the conservatives. Whoever says otherwise is simply not being objective in my opinion.
Reply

AllahIsAl-Malik
04-02-2018, 08:52 PM
What for me is very ironic is how the 1984 DoubleSpeak goes on.We have a super intolerant faction of society- the left- who hold up the banner of "tolerance".When we think of terrorism, we should think of leftists. We should not think of Muslims.The word terrorism originates from leftists- where the term "terrorism" originates is the French Revolution. The psychopath Robespierre was a theorist of terrorism. When someone mentions Al-Qaeda, oh that's so horrible. And I agree but- if we are against terrorism- why aren't people like Robespierre treated the same way as Al-Qaeda? Imagine if someone cited Al-Qaeda in a term paper. You'd be in all sorts of trouble. You cite Robespierre and you'd probably be celebrated, though.The leftism is a path that leads to terrorism. They want to perfect the world. They want to perfect the world and what ends up happening is they try to perfect the world through violence, forcing their lunacy on people.I am sitting in a classroom with a bunch of leftists and I just watched a "tolerant" leftist verbally abuse the class- even the teacher. When you have to resort to such abuse in order to "perfect" the world, it's just a relatively mild method of terrorism. That leftist stuff is dangerous.Many people- when they think Islam, they think terrorism. Whereas in actuality when we think of terrorism we should think of extreme leftists. It was the French Revolution where the word "terrorism" actually came from. It's easy to get caught up in their propaganda but as someone who is surrounded by leftists and is surrounded by them on a day-to-day basis, I see their hypocrisy every day. I just want to live my life, practice my religion and they want to force their lunacy and extremist ideology on people. I'm fed up with it. They have no idea how to mind their own business and co-exist with people.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by beleiver
Being a warrior for social justice is bad how?

The whole SJW thing is a strawman to lead us down the path to Fascism that will remove many good things people struggled a long time to acheive.

Milo is a profesional hate preahing liar who exells in what i call Orwellian double speak.

When 'Liberal' ideology and 'social justice' is defeated, then we will know all about real thought police and good luck to openly practicing Islam then.
I just experienced one of these "tolerant" leftists verbally abusing my classroom and teacher about half an hour ago. I have a right to be fed up with their extremism, hypocrisy, intolerance and cultural imperialism.
Reply

سيف الله
04-02-2018, 09:24 PM
Salaam

format_quote Originally Posted by beleiver
Being a warrior for social justice is bad how?

The whole SJW thing is a strawman to lead us down the path to Fascism that will remove many good things people struggled a long time to acheive.

Milo is a profesional hate preahing liar who exells in what i call Orwellian double speak.

When 'Liberal' ideology and 'social justice' is defeated, then we will know all about real thought police and good luck to openly practicing Islam then.
I think we already have problems practicing Islam as of now under the Left/Liberal elite, UK anyway.

I think you should give the book a try before you come to definite judgement, it isn't a rant and forced me to rethink a lot of issues, particularly on how the left and liberals gain influence and operate, for example how they ride on the back of minority issues not to help minorities but to gain power.

And when they do gain power a lot of their social engineering projects cause more problems than they solve.

The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy

Blurb

Sowell presents a devastating critique of the mind-set behind the failed social policies of the past thirty years. Sowell sees what has happened during that time not as a series of isolated mistakes but as a logical consequence of a tainted vision whose defects have led to crises in education, crime, and family dynamics, and to other social pathologies. In this book, he describes how elites,the anointed,have replaced facts and rational thinking with rhetorical assertions, thereby altering the course of our social policy.


Reply

beleiver
04-02-2018, 11:19 PM
I am kind of shoked of the replies, leftist elite?
They the UK are corporatists, its a corporate entity representing corporate intrests, has been for years..They want out and out overt corporate government for king and country, aka Fascism.

When was there a leftist government or even a real liberal one in the UK? I was born there moved away in the 80s lived there for a while around ten years ago.
when i left it was too fascist like for me in the 80s under thatcher, how and when did it go left?

when has the global corporate elite ever supported a leftist regime?

Corbyn is probarbly the closest thing UK has had for many decades of anything remotley to the left, and you think the UK elite like him?

- - - Updated - - -

Supprised also by a Muslim calling French revolutionaries terrorists as if there are not any better right wing examples?
Doesnt Islam kind of support the idea of equality and the struggle against oppression?
Isnt Islam about feeding the poor, caring for the sick and elederly, or does it agree with an elite aristocracy owning all the land at the expense of the poor?

You know of French history and how the Land was taken, now that was terrorism?

- - - Updated - - -

And Thomas Sowell just googled him, wouldnt waste my time reading his stuff for the same reason i dont have a TV, I would likley end up loving my oppressors and hating the oppressed, that guy is a real pro by the looks of it..
An economist that refuses to aknowlage the real hidden hand of the free market and ignores the evil of usery.
Reply

سيف الله
04-02-2018, 11:47 PM
Salaam

I used to think like this early on but as I grew older I began to change my views, then I read some of the dreaded 'right' wing perspectives, I was quite surprised, there not what I imagined them to be. Not to say I automatically agree with them but they are worth considering.



First off I don't like the whole left/right paradigm. People are usually a mixture and I think its an outdated way of looking at the world.

On Corbyn, yes he's old school genuine left, he actually has principals whether you agree with him or not, he was never meant to be in a position of power. Thats why the liberal/left elite hate him, they want the gravy train to be continue uninterrupted.

And on the contrary many leftist/marxism/socialists (pick your favourite label) realised that many of their economic theories/predictions have failed, embraced capitalism as a means to achieve socialism (cultural leftism etc). This actually suited the globalists because they share common goals of destroying old/traditional societies, remaking them both in their own interests. In fact Marx praised capitalism for destroying traditional societies preparing the way for a socialist utopia.

This book might be of interests, it challenged many of the standard tenets of leftist discourse (relationship between capitalism and imperialism etc). Caused quite a controversy but led many on the left to embrace capitalism as a means of achieving socialism. Worth a read.

Imperialism: Pioneer of Capitalism Bill Warren

Blurb

Ever since the First World War, socialists have considered imperialism a calamity: responsible for militarism, economic stagnation, and assaults on democracy in the metropolitan countries, an impediment to economic and cultural development in the Third World. So widespread has this view become that it is shared, in its essentials, not only by Marxists but also by an entire school of liberal development economists. Bill Warren breaks with this traditional outlook, arguing that the theory of imperialism, one of Marxism's most influential concepts, is not only contradicted by the facts, but has diluted and distorted Marxism itself.

In particular, Warren disputes the claim that "monopoly capitalism" represents the ultimate stage of senile capitalism and sets out to refute the notion that imperialism is a regressive force impeding or distorting economic development in the Third World. The book argues on the contrary that direct colonialism powerfully impelled social change in Asia and Africa, laying the foundation for a vibrant indigenous capitalism. Finally, it takes issue with the conventional view that postwar economic performance in the Third World has been disastrous, presenting a powerful empirical case that the gap between rich and poor countries is actually narrowing.

Closely argued, clearly written, original and iconoclastic, Imperialism: Pioneer of Capitalism is a compelling challenge to one of the chief tenets of contemporary socialist politics.




- - - Updated - - -

Salaam

Yes we all want to end poverty and build a better society, but how does one do that? By ranting and raving and shouting slogans, how are you going to achieve it? Its not straightforward, there are no quick fixes.

And when reading about the French revolution its a complicated subject, we should get other perspectives, particularly from those who lost, they charge they just replaced one set of elites with another and many fought for the old order.

Thomas Sowell is an interesting guy, I don't agree with him on everything but he makes clear and easy to understand arguments, give him a try before you dismiss him.
Reply

AllahIsAl-Malik
04-03-2018, 12:22 AM
Thomas Sowell makes great arguments when it comes to many things.

I believe that we should take a path of moderation and not bash "the right," "the right," "the right," over and over again.

As far as what I said about the French Revolution... all I did was state facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

Terrorism

Contents

[hide]

  • 1Terminology

  • Origin in French Revolution[edit]

    Further information: France § History, History of France § Counter-revolution subdued (July 1793 – April 1794), and Jacobin § Girondins disbarred from National Convention
    The Latin verb terrere means: to frighten.[17] The English word 'terror', just like the French terreur, derives from that Latin word and means from of old: fright, alarm, anguish, (mortal) fear, panic.
    Oxford English Dictionary reportedly states that the word 'terrorist' (French: terroriste) was invented in the year 1794, during the French Revolution. The first meaning of the word 'terrorist' was then: adherent or supporter of the Jacobins.[18] Apparent from the context given in an article in the Guardian, the indication 'Jacobins' in that Oxford definition bears on the group around Maximilien Robespierre, also called 'Montagnards', that after 1794 were held responsible by some commentators for the repressive and violent government over France between June 1793 and July 1794, a period analogously labeled 'Reign of Terror' by commentators

    what is incredible is if you read the Wikipedia article- it is slanted towards defending "revolutionary" terror...

    however even the slanted Wikipedia article acknowledges terrorism's origins in the French Revolution....

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror


    Reign of Terror


    The Reign of Terror, or The Terror (French: la Terreur), is the label given by some historians to a period during the French Revolution after the First French Republic was established.
    Several historians consider the "reign of terror" to have begun in 1793, placing the starting date at either 5 September,[1] June [2] or March (birth of the Revolutionary Tribunal), while some consider it to have begun in September 1792 (September Massacres), or even July 1789 (when the first beheadings by guillotine took place),[3] but there is a consensus that it ended with the fall of Robespierre in July 1794.[1][2]
    Between June 1793 and the end of July 1794, there were 16,594 official death sentences in France, of which 2,639 were in Paris.[2][4]
    Contents

    [hide]

    • 1Barère and Robespierre glorify "terror"

    and before we, like Wikipedia does (if you examine its articles), defend "revolutionary" terror-

    look at what was happening in the French Revolution

    Dechristianization of France during the French Revolution

    The dechristianization of France during the French Revolution is a conventional description of the results of a number of separate policies conducted by various governments of France between the start of the French Revolution in 1789 and the Concordat of 1801, forming the basis of the later and less radical laïcité policies. The goal of the campaign between 1793 and 1794 ranged from the public reclamation of the massive amounts of land, power, and money held by the Catholic Church in France to the termination of Catholic religious practice and of the religion itself.[1][2][3] There has been much scholarly debate over whether the movement was popularly motivated.[1]
    The French Revolution initially began with attacks on church corruption and the wealth of the higher clergy, an action with which even many Christians could identify, since the Roman Catholic church held a dominant role in pre-revolutionary France. During a two-year period known as the Reign of Terror, the episodes of anti-clericalism grew more violent than any in modern European history. The new revolutionary authorities suppressed the church; abolished the Catholic monarchy; nationalized church property; exiled 30,000 priests and killed hundreds more.[4] In October 1793 the Christian calendar was replaced with one reckoning from the date of the Revolution, and Festivals of Liberty, Reason and the Supreme Being were scheduled. New forms of moral religion emerged, including the deisticCult of the Supreme Being and the atheistic Cult of Reason,[5] with the revolutionary government briefly mandating observance of the former in April 1794.[6][7][8][9].[10]

    what kind of sickness leads people to murder priests???












Reply

beleiver
04-03-2018, 12:32 AM
Junon i am neither left nor right either, i have looked at the right arguments and find hypocracy at every turn same can be said for the left..But the distinctions are fuzzy.

The right balance can be found in the Quran, its right wing as it supports the free markets but left wing as it demands the poor, sick and elderly are looked after..
It respects the relegions and ways of life of others and there is no compulsin in it so it has a liberal side too.

What i really like is it abides by the universal natural laws that no one can esacpe, that no modern day economist will talk of, it prohibits usery, it warns against hoarding, unused land can be used if the occupier brings life to that land and empty abandoned buildings can be occupied with no fear of God..I am sure there is a verse where it warns about monopolizing and i am certain there are several that warn against rich exploiting the poor with their wealth..
In effect from what i understand it respects but limits property to what doesnt infringe basic human rights and adds a responsibilty to that property..That is the True hidden hand of the free market that the corporate elite refuse to aknowlage , basic human rights.

And whats more it promotes sound money.

My ideal philosphy would be free market capitalism, co-operative rather than corporate, but that takes hard work and dedication and a strong community able to think for them selves, the Quran also teaches how to acheive this.

Now corporate is certainly right wing by and for the wealthy to exploit the worker..co-operative self ownership is left but right too, certainly works for conservatives and socialists alike, which i find totally compatable with Islam?

I have found a great wealth of wisdom from reading the Quran but few people seem to notice or disscuss these points.

- - - Updated - - -
Reply

AllahIsAl-Malik
04-03-2018, 12:41 AM
My thing is... look at how communist China is persecuting Muslims.

As Muslims, aren't we called to enjoin the good and forbid the bad?

If we're around liberals- let us try talking to them about what Islam teaches about topics such as homosexuality and abortion. If you dare to think differently in regards to such issues (as well as other issues), the liberals are liable to become hostile and belligerent. That is what I have a problem with.

I myself am a minority in terms of my ethnicity and I'm all for trying to promote social equality for minorities... however, all too often the left's seeming championing of the poor and of minorities is nothng more than demagoguery.

Many of the leftists are HOSTILE

- - - Updated - - -

(continued- sorry, I accidentally pressed enter prematurely)

towards religion.

Atheism predominantly (though not exclusively) is a thing among Europeans.... most people of Third World origins are religious believers of some sort.... thus for leftists to claim to be for minorities but then try to attack the religious faith of people from such backgrounds.... that is something that I can not accept. It is worse in my opinion than the outright hostility towards minorities that is sometimes exhibited by the right... with the left it seems.... people can have food stamps, health care, etc.... but what the left wants is peoples' souls.... to lead them away from God and to lead them towards championing causes such as abortion and homosexuality which go directly against what Allah has commanded
Reply

beleiver
04-03-2018, 12:46 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by AllahIsAl-Malik
  • what kind of sickness leads people to murder priests???
Following orders from higher priests...That was how the aristocrats gained their lands..The first crusades ordered by the Pope were in the Laungdoc , they were brutal, they killed every man woman and child in many towns and though the word terrorism wasnt invented , it brought terror to the region, genocide and ethnicly cleansed the lands of the preists and their followers..

Then they went on to murder Christians for the crime of translating their book so the pesants could read it for them selves.

- - - Updated - - -
Reply

AllahIsAl-Malik
04-03-2018, 03:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by beleiver
Following orders from higher priests...That was how the aristocrats gained their lands..The first crusades ordered by the Pope were in the Laungdoc , they were brutal, they killed every man woman and child in many towns and though the word terrorism wasnt invented , it brought terror to the region, genocide and ethnicly cleansed the lands of the preists and their followers..

Then they went on to murder Christians for the crime of translating their book so the pesants could read it for them selves.

- - - Updated - - -
Whatever wrongs the Catholic Church might have done- was it just for the French revolutionaries to murder priests and try to destroy Christianity and replace it with atheism?

I am all for leading Christians to Islam but Christianity is better than atheism.
Reply

beleiver
04-03-2018, 08:11 AM
Same could be asked of the revolutionaries in Syria that have killed priests and even Iman, what would cause even Muslims to kill priests and other Musilms , even children who are innocent?
Then there are those that do similar massacres in Moskes just because they dont like the form of Islam in those Moskes, i dont know what motivates, fear, hate, superiority?

Assad is evil i am sure, and evil beggets evil, but so were those Catholic priests, and to call them christians is an insult to Jesus imho..
The revolutionaries didnt force their atheism either like the Church forced their Catholicism, people were still free to be Christian.

I know i was an Athiest for half my life but found my way to Islam, i dont think it would of been any easier for a Catholic, even a modern one.
Reply

AllahIsAl-Malik
04-03-2018, 11:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by beleiver
Same could be asked of the revolutionaries in Syria that have killed priests and even Iman, what would cause even Muslims to kill priests and other Musilms , even children who are innocent?
Then there are those that do similar massacres in Moskes just because they dont like the form of Islam in those Moskes, i dont know what motivates, fear, hate, superiority?

Assad is evil i am sure, and evil beggets evil, but so were those Catholic priests, and to call them christians is an insult to Jesus imho..
The revolutionaries didnt force their atheism either like the Church forced their Catholicism, people were still free to be Christian.

I know i was an Athiest for half my life but found my way to Islam, i dont think it would of been any easier for a Catholic, even a modern one.
What could be possessing you to defend the killing of priests and the promotion of atheism?

What you say about Syria is inane and irrelevant.

You sure seem very buddy-buddy with atheistic leftists. Very quick to rush to their defense.

Do you denounce fornication? Do you denounce abortion? Do you denouce homosexuality? Do you denounce intoxicants?

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by beleiver
First of i want to thank you all for your responses, given me much to ponder, and will adress the Jedi bit first:D I put Jedi on the forum form more of a joke than anything..I am from the star wars generation and love the film, I often wonder if a film came out now where the hero in a lawless land was radicalized by a relegious extremist in a cave and then went on to blow up government buildings how it would go down:D But jokes aside , the force that is present in all living things that binds the universe together to me is similar to the 'light of the heavens and the earth and all that is within' that and the Truth is what I beleive, I trust and i willingly submit to, it is that Truth that guides me inshalla and i seek forgiveness and mercy from, It is Truth that protects me from satan and his lies..That is all included in my daily prayers..And I start those prayers with 'in the name of God the mercifull the extra mercifull' but in Arabic as to me it has a deep deep meaning that simply doesnt translate..So after reading this forum for around a year now and learning a simple, basic concept of prayer, I dont think i am much of a Jedi, I dont like their strict Monastic ways and i doubt i could fight my way out of a paper bag, besides the Evil empire of Disney has the whole thing totally corrpted, Jedi is most likley gone to the dark side too..What you think i am is not really important , what God thinks of me is..Inshalla i will get back on topic next reply..
the force that is present in all living things that binds the universe together to me is similar to the 'light of the heavens and the earth and all that is within' that and the Truth is what I beleive, I trust and i willingly submit to, it is that Truth that guides me inshalla and i seek forgiveness and mercy from

I have no idea what that is but that does not sound like Islam.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought that I remembered something in the Bible about a blasphemy involving "God of forces"

The Antichrist's God of Forces
Daniel 11:38, “But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.”

The Bible teaches that the estate of the Antichrist, i.e., the New World Order, will honor the GOD OF FORCES. This is the core teaching of New Age doctrine, i.e., that god is a force of nature, the energy of all life, the substance of the universe. New Age doesn't recognize a personal, reachable, individual, God. Deuteronomy 6:4 tells us that there is ONE God. 1st John 5:7, Matthew 28:19-20, Colossians 2:9 and many other Scriptures teach a Godhead, Who has revealed Himself to mankind in the Persons of: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
In Luke 3:22 we see all 3 members of the Godhead present... “And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from Heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.” The teaching of the Godhead cannot be denied. Please note that the King James Bible is the only reliable English Bible I would recommend. The word “Godhead” is found in Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20 and Colossians 2:9 of the King James Bible; yet, all modern perversions of the Scripture completely removes the word Godhead. This is a woeful evil, intended to lead people away from the truth of God's Word. Every modern Bible diminishes the deity of Jesus Christ and the Godhead.
New Age teaches a one-size-fits-all god. New Age speaks of spirituality, heaven and Jesus; but leaves off the Scriptures. Anytime you hear someone talking about spiritual matters and they don't quote the Word of God, either run or tell them how to get saved!!!

Religions: Ecumenical Bridge to the New World Order
Jesus never started a religion. Jesus said that the kingdom of God is within the believer (Luke 17:21). In the 1950's, the U.S. government came to America's churches are offered them tax-exemption if they converted over to charities. This one move turned all of America's churches into businesses. And so it is today.

It is tragic that 1,000,000,000 Catholics have been taught to bow and worship statues, paintings and icons. Look at the picture to the left. The man is bowing in worship to a painting of the Virgin Mary. The people in the picture are also bowing and worshipping to the Virgin Mary.
Exodus 20:4-5 teaches NOT to bow nor worship any graven image. This is the 2nd of the Ten Commandments. It is appalling that most Catholics deny worshipping Mary, in the face of blatant evidence of Mary worship.
Oh, that people would wake up and come out of the prisonhouse of Catholicism.


The photo to the right is called THE IMAGE OF DIVINE MERCY. This image has been displayed in ALL Catholic churches since the year 2,000, when Pope John Paul II canonized Sister Faustina and made it an official requirement for Catholics to worship this image. Carefully notice the New World Order pyramid. This is the same pyramid seen on the back of every U.S. one dollar bill. This is the same pyramid which is found in the Scientology logo. The founder of the Jehovah's Witness religion, Charles Russell, has a 10-foot pyramid parked on top of his grave.
The truth is that all these religions are controlled by the occult. They have all sworn allegiance to the forming New World Order, and will give their loyalty to the Antichrist when he appears. Revelation 13:4, “And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?”
Catholics are unknowingly worshipping the Dragon, by adhering to doctrines of devils (1st Timothy 4:1). As they sit singing their songs and worshipping God in vain (Mark 7:9), there is THE IMAGE OF DIVINE MERCY staring right down at them from the front or side of the auditorium. That pyramid says it all.
Freemasonry is the common denominator of most religions today. Ron Hubbard of Scientology, Charles Russell of the Jehovah's Witness, and Joseph Smith of the Mormons, were all 33rd degree Freemasons. Tragically, one-third of the men in the Southern Baptist Convention are Freemasons, which explains why the convention is so apostate today and going downhill ever so fast doctrinally and morally. The churches which are growing the fastest are the ones pastored by the biggest apostates. These ministers see no reason to argue over which Bible is God's preserved and inspired Word. The King James Bible is that faithfully preserved and inspired Word!
As the world nears the coming of the Antichrist, more and more churches are embracing false Bibles, false doctrines, false religions, false Gospels, false Christs, false spirits and the New World Order. The primary teaching of the New World Order's religion is that God is merely an energy force, present in all life, including humans who have the potential to become gods themselves. The Biblical proclamation of a personal God is denied. New Age teaches an ambiguous, non-defined, all-purpose God. Freemasons call this false god, THE GREAT ARCHITECT.
Beware of the Antichrist's GOD OF FORCES.

John 8:32,36, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free ... If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.”
Jesus Came to Save Sinners
http://www.lovethetruth.com/false_re..._of_forces.htm


Obviously I don't believe in the "worship Jesus" stuff but I definitely believe the weird Star Wars stuff is blasphemous New Agey stuff

I remember having thought there was something sinister about Star Wars.... Masha'Allah I never really cared about those movies

- - - Updated - - -

but of course... you don't identify as a leftist.... I get it... "I don't like labels, man..."... all this does is confirm the earlier observation (I think from Junon) that leftists are constantly trying to practice subversion..... and I don't have anything personal against you.... but I do take that very seriously!
Reply

beleiver
04-03-2018, 01:44 PM
Those words where i compared the 'force' can all be found in the Quran and the night prayer..

I dont defend killing but when people have nothing left to loose many people loose it, its natural.
The Catholic priests for years had nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, they forced their will on the people, atheists do not all do that, people were probarbly more free to practice Christianity in France after the revolution than before it..
I think thats about all i said other than point out the worst genocides in Europe we commited at the order of preists.

What ever preconceived ideas you have about me are in your head, i will leave the disscussion here as its pointelss to go on..If you think i lie so be it, i am what i am.

But my original point still stands..Liberal world died a long time ago, we are in a corporate world order moving to overt fascism if we dont turn of our TV and wake up thats where we are going.
Reply

Futuwwa
04-03-2018, 07:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
Dont forget Japan and south Korea.
Japan might be a case of that, but South Korea, no. For pretty much the entire Cold War, it was a right-wing dictatorship.
Reply

سيف الله
04-04-2018, 07:55 PM
Salaam

format_quote Originally Posted by AllahIsAl-Malik
but of course... you don't identify as a leftist.... I get it... "I don't like labels, man..."... all this does is confirm the earlier observation (I think from Junon) that leftists are constantly trying to practice subversion..... and I don't have anything personal against you.... but I do take that very seriously!
The French revolution was a disaster for Christianity in France, its never recovered and paved the way for Marxism, communism etc. Important to learn the lessons from this period of history.

I do like aspects of the left, but it has a dark side particularly its relentless attempt to subvert and remake societies.





I know were getting a bit offtopic but these books might be of interest.

The Dark Side of Church/State Separation: The French Revolution, Nazi Germany, and International Communism

Blurb

The Dark Side of Church/State Separation analyzes the Enlightenment's attack upon the Judeo-Christian tradition and its impact upon the development of secular regimes in France, Germany, and Russia. Such regimes followed the anti-Semitic/anti-Christian agenda of the French Enlightenment in blaming the Judeo-Christian tradition for all the ills of European society and believing that human beings can develop their own set of values and purposes through rational means, apart from any revelation from God or Scripture. Stephen Strehle's analysis extends our understanding of church/state relations and its history. He confirms the spiritual roots of modern anti-Semitism within the ideology of the Enlightenment and recognizes the intimate relationship between anti-Semitism and anti-Christianity. Strehle questions the absolute doctrine of church/state separation, given its background in the bigotries of the philosophes. He notes the nefarious motives of subsequent regimes, which used the French doctrine to replace the religious community with the state and its secular ideology. This detailed historical analysis of original sources and secondary literature is woven together with special appreciation for the philosophical and theological ideas that contributed to the emergence of political institutions. Readers will gain an understanding of the most influential ideas shaping the modern world and present-day culture.



Critics of the Enlightenment (Crosscurrents)

Blurb

For the Anglo-American world, Edmund Burke is the touchstone of counter-revolutionary thought, but in this volume, Christopher Olaf Blum shows that in attempting to vindicate the principles that had, at its best, animated the Old Regime, and in critiquing the institutions and beliefs associated with the New Regime, the French counter-revolutionary tradition is unparalleled. To understand adequately what Georges Bernanos called the spiritual drama of Europe, it is a tradition that must be grappled with. Critics of the Enlightenment makes available new translations of representative selections from some of the leading French conservative thinkers of the nineteenth century: Franois de Chateaubriand, Louis de Bonald, Joseph de Maistre, Frederic Le Play, Emile Keller, and Rene de La Tour du Pin. The selections span much of the nineteenth century, from Chateaubriand's 1814 pamphlet against Bonaparte to La Tour du Pin's 1883 essay on the theory of the corporate state. The volume, therefore, not only includes responses of the French conservatives to the French Revolutions of 1789 through 1815, but also testifies to the continuing elaboration of this critique against the background of the troubled nineteenth century. Blum's introduction sets these selections within the contexts of the events giving rise to them and the lives of their authors. The French political philosopher Philippe Beneton supplies the book's foreword. Blum's elegant translations of texts heretofore difficult or impossible to find in English allow Anglophone readers to profit from the counter-revolutionaries' insights about social and cultural matters of perennial importance, such as the necessary roles of religion, family, and local communities within any larger political society--matters of pressing concern to the counter-revolutionaries of our own time



Sorry last book, this book is very readable one of the first books I read on the subject we are discussing.

Worshipping the State: How Liberalism Became Our State Religion

Blurb

Many Christians feel that they are being opposed at every turn by what seems to be a well-orchestrated political and cultural campaign to de-Christianize every aspect of Western culture. They are right, and it goes even further back than the Obama Administration.

In Worshipping the State: How Government is Replacing Religion, Benjamin Wiker argues that it is liberals who seek to establish an official state religion: one of unbelief. Wiker reveals that it was never the intention of the Founders to drive religion out of the public square with the First Amendment, but centuries of secularists and liberals have deliberately misinterpreted the establishment clause to serve their own ends: the de-Christianization of Western civilization.

The result, they hope, is government as the new oracle. Personal faith in a deity is replaced with collective dependence on government, and the diversity of religious practices and dogmas is reduced to a uniform ideological agenda. The strategy is two-pronged: drive religion out of the public square through law and by encouraging popular derision of the faithful; then, in religion’s place, erect the Church of the State to fill the human need for a higher power to look up to.

But what was done can be undone. Outlining a simple, step-by-step strategy for disestablishing the state church of secularism, Worshiping the State shows the full historical sweep of the war to those on the Christian side of the cultural battle—and as a consequence of this far more complete vantage, how to win it.


Reply

beleiver
04-04-2018, 11:43 PM
Wouldnt Islam be a classic revolutionary movement that seeks to remake societies?..
Truth subverts evil.

And its quite sad how the leftist ideals in Islam are ignored..

Islam was the first socialised state no?
Prohibits Usury, now there is some more lefty revolutionary talk right there..
Reply

Zafran
04-05-2018, 01:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by beleiver
Wouldnt Islam be a classic revolutionary movement that seeks to remake societies?..
Truth subverts evil.

And its quite sad how the leftist ideals in Islam are ignored..

Islam was the first socialised state no?
Prohibits Usury, now there is some more lefty revolutionary talk right there..
left wing and right wing are terms used within the liberal paradigm - Islamic political and social phenomena was within the Islamic paradigm - Even the term right wing and left wing were first invented during the french revolution.

where ever Islam went be it Persia, the Turks, north Africa, Indonesia, Malaysia or sub Continent it reformed peoples beliefs, action, character and manners but didn't change there historical, cultural and ethnic identity.

Islam didn't come as a revolution on the contrary calling people to Tawheed, revelation, Prophet hood and the last day is more of reminder and a reformation of earlier revelations which were corrupted. In Arabia it was a recalling of monotheism that Ishmael and Abraham pbut (the forefathers of the arabs) were on.

Prophet Muhammad pbuh of course is known as the last prophet.
Reply

AllahIsAl-Malik
04-05-2018, 03:40 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by beleiver
Wouldnt Islam be a classic revolutionary movement that seeks to remake societies?..
Truth subverts evil.

And its quite sad how the leftist ideals in Islam are ignored..

Islam was the first socialised state no?
Prohibits Usury, now there is some more lefty revolutionary talk right there..
Stop trying to subvert Islam.
Reply

beleiver
04-05-2018, 08:41 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
left wing and right wing are terms used within the liberal paradigm - Islamic political and social phenomena was within the Islamic paradigm - Even the term right wing and left wing were first invented during the french revolution.

where ever Islam went be it Persia, the Turks, north Africa, Indonesia, Malaysia or sub Continent it reformed peoples beliefs, action, character and manners but didn't change there historical, cultural and ethnic identity.

Islam didn't come as a revolution on the contrary calling people to Tawheed, revelation, Prophet hood and the last day is more of reminder and a reformation of earlier revelations which were corrupted. In Arabia it was a recalling of monotheism that Ishmael and Abraham pbut (the forefathers of the arabs) were on.

Prophet Muhammad pbuh of course is known as the last prophet.
Yep I agree, i genuinley dont like left right paradigmes, its all part of the divide and rule stratergy used by the evil one.

But the notion that usery should be forbidden for example in this day and age is revolutionary and i do think welfare state 1400years ago in Arabia was also revolutionary?

But i also get your point.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by AllahIsAl-Malik
Stop trying to subvert Islam.
Is prohibiting Riba subversion of Islam?
Reply

Futuwwa
04-05-2018, 10:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by beleiver
Wouldnt Islam be a classic revolutionary movement that seeks to remake societies?..
Truth subverts evil.

And its quite sad how the leftist ideals in Islam are ignored..

Islam was the first socialised state no?
Prohibits Usury, now there is some more lefty revolutionary talk right there..
Also, Caliph Abu Bakr launched the Ridda Wars to bring to heel tribes that refused to pay zakat. That's some truly radical giant missile parade grade Communism there ;D
Reply

سيف الله
04-05-2018, 07:44 PM
Salaam

On the subject of Interest, I think Arisotle was one of the first to speak against interest.

Aristotle understood that money is sterile; it doesn’t beget more money the way cows beget
more cows. He knew that
"Money exists not by nature but by law":

"The most hated sort (of wealth getting) and with the greatest reason, is usury, which
makes a gain out of money itself and not from the natural object of it. For money was
intended to be used in exchange but not to increase at interest. And this term interest [the
word tokos, which in Greek also means 'breed' or 'offspring']*, which means the birth of
money from money is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles
the parent. Wherefore of all modes of getting wealth, this is the most unnatural." (1258b,
POLITICS)

And he really disliked usurers:

"...those who ply sordid trades, pimps and all such people, and those who lend
small sums at high rates. For all these take more than they ought, and from the wrong
sources. What is common to them is evidently a sordid love of gain..." (1122a, ETHICS)

But your right that Islam had the most success in prohibiting interest.

Bro beleiver I think we want the same things and like I said I do admire aspects of the left (their stances against war, racism etc)

I think we differ on how to get to the destination.
Reply

anatolian
04-05-2018, 08:47 PM
The Islamic socio-economic system is neither capitalist, nor communist but in between. Islam permits the individual investment but discourages the accumulation of wealth. Tries to establish the equal distribution of wealth.
Reply

AllahIsAl-Malik
04-05-2018, 09:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by beleiver
Yep I agree, i genuinley dont like left right paradigmes, its all part of the divide and rule stratergy used by the evil one.

But the notion that usery should be forbidden for example in this day and age is revolutionary and i do think welfare state 1400years ago in Arabia was also revolutionary?

But i also get your point.

- - - Updated - - -



Is prohibiting Riba subversion of Islam?
Do you denounce fornication? Do you denounce abortion? Do you denouce homosexuality? Do you denounce intoxicants?
Reply

beleiver
04-05-2018, 11:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AllahIsAl-Malik
Do you denounce fornication? Do you denounce abortion? Do you denouce homosexuality? Do you denounce intoxicants?
Going massivley off topic now..I really dont see the relevance? but while i am here.
Most that stuff is between the sinner and the creator, there is no other victim, and every situation is different, Allah knows best and i have faith there is no escape from His punishment.
But 'intoxicant' the word doesnt translate in arabic or at best its a bad translation..
I totally agree 100% with the Quran where it says to stay away from anything that covers ones mind if they want to succede, I really dont think out right prohibition is subscribed, justified nor has there ever been a single case where it works or hasnt caused more problems than some idiot getting wasted might..'Stay away from' means just that, i dont support tyranny at any level either.

There is nothing in the Quran that says stay away from things that open the mind, but plenty of quotes that say the Quran is work for those that think.
Reply

AllahIsAl-Malik
04-06-2018, 01:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by beleiver
Going massivley off topic now..I really dont see the relevance? but while i am here.
Most that stuff is between the sinner and the creator, there is no other victim, and every situation is different, Allah knows best and i have faith there is no escape from His punishment.
But 'intoxicant' the word doesnt translate in arabic or at best its a bad translation..
I totally agree 100% with the Quran where it says to stay away from anything that covers ones mind if they want to succede, I really dont think out right prohibition is subscribed, justified nor has there ever been a single case where it works or hasnt caused more problems than some idiot getting wasted might..'Stay away from' means just that, i dont support tyranny at any level either.

There is nothing in the Quran that says stay away from things that open the mind, but plenty of quotes that say the Quran is work for those that think.
That is not off-topic.

I asked you that same question twice and you ignored the first time. Only the second time did you answer.

In any case, Islam already has a certain amount of socialism built in via Zakat.

The leftists support abortion, homosexuality, "gender theory" (saying things like "gender and sex are not the same" and trying to force that deranged ideology on people) and all sorts of degeneracy.

The liberals are promoting degeneracy. You try to make it about economics and talk about economics. But the liberals are not just talking about economic things.

The liberals are promoting degeneracy. What the social justice warriors are promoting is totally against Islam. I live around a bunch of leftists. I see for myself what they're about.

- - - Updated - - -

This is leftism today. It deserves to die.

Reply

beleiver
04-06-2018, 09:04 AM
I will look at that later..My initial reaction is to say, just because there are some insane leftists doesnt make all leftists of their ideas insane..Same can be said for conservatives.

Abortion for example , it can be insane to force a pregnancy againt ones will that might endanger a woman a mother a daughter and wife for the sake of an unborn that is dependant on that woman and that woman alone in the first place, or to force a rape victim to give birth, in such cases its between that woman and God alone surley?
This is not a left right debate but a debate centred around Truth and Justice.
There is a referendum on Abortion here in Ireland so its a hot topic, and i can find no consensus in Islam, some Sheiks are in favour of repeal.

Labels are bad and i stand by the theory that the left right paradigm is from the evil one, he seeks to divide and rule us.
Reply

سيف الله
04-21-2018, 09:41 PM
Salaam

Some more books Id like to recommend.

Liberalism: A Counter-History

Blurb

In this definitive historical investigation, Italian author and philosopher Domenico Losurdo argues that from the outset liberalism, as a philosophical position and ideology, has been bound up with the most illiberal of policies: slavery, colonialism, genocide, racism and snobbery.




A review

Germinal


5.0 out of 5 stars The murky side of liberalism exposed.

This book is a forensic excavation that aims, and succeeds, in challenging the dominant narrative of the history of liberalism. This dominant narrative, self-regarding, self-congratulatory, claiming for itself a constant, peaceful path of progress, is described by Losurdo as a 'hagiography'. It is one that Losurdo quite ruthlessly undermines.

Losurdo argues that from the outset liberalism, as a philosophical position and ideology, has been bound up with the most illiberal of policies: slavery, colonialism, genocide, racism, support for fascism and systems of ruthless and violent class domination both in the heartlands of the liberal world, Britain and the USA, and in the colonies.

Losurdo narrates an intellectual history running from the seventeenth through to the twentieth centuries. He examines the thought of preeminent liberal writers and politicians such as Locke, Burke, de Tocqueville, Constant, Bentham, Mill, Jefferson, Disraeli and Sieyes among many others, revealing the inner contradictions of an intellectual position that has exercised a formative influence on today's politics. The contradictions that Losurdo highlights are what he terms 'the exclusion clauses' that enable the liberal, in the classic age of liberalism, to deny to others, blacks, slaves, the colonised, Irish, peasants and working class, the liberties which the liberals claim for themselves and the specious reasonings employed to justify oppression in the name of liberty. In fact, Losurdo locates much of the progress made in liberal societies, the extension of liberty to those previously excluded from it, to the struggles of the oppressed themselves, what Losurdo calls 'struggles for recognition' and how these have challenged the exclusion clauses of liberalism and forced some liberals to amend their philosophy and practice. Uncomfortable reading for liberals.

Despite some quite complex lines of argumentation, the book is easy to read. It's divided into short thematic chunks to make it easily digestible and really was great to read. In fact, I was sorry that it finished and felt that the twentieth century and the present day of liberalism could have received greater attention.



The Myth of Liberalism


Blurb

Individual freedom looms large in political and ethical thought. Nevertheless, the theoretical foundations underlying modern liberalism continue to be contested by proponents and opponents alike. The Myth of Liberalism offers a unique contribution to this debate by following through on the often-underdeveloped suggestion that liberal principles are untenable because they are self-contradictory. By analyzing and ultimately refuting each of the proposed underpinnings of liberalism—liberty, equality, rights, privacy, autonomy, or dignity—Safranek concludes that contemporary liberalism is a myth: it is not a coherent political philosophy as much as a collection of causes masked by emotively potent political rhetoric.

Safranek marshals thorough evidence to make the case that each of the allegedly fundamental liberal principles amount to the right to do as one desires. As a result, liberalism’s proponents must offer some method or principle to mediate the inevitable conflict of desires. In fact, all liberal scholars invoke some form of John Stuart Mill’s harm principle to proscribe unacceptable desires. But this leads to self-contradiction: because all acknowledge that harm can be psychological as well as physical, anyone suffers harm when his act is legally prohibited, as this denies him the object of his desires (liberty) for the sake of another’s desires. Therefore any right advanced in the name of liberty contradicts that very principle.

While finding inherent flaws in liberal justifications for personal liberty, including rights to same-sex marriage, abortion, and assisted suicide, Safranek reveals the consequences of the contemporary liberaldisdain for morality as a basis for law and constitutional rights. To correct for these shortcomings of the modern liberal notions of freedom, which are grounded in the passions, The Myth of Liberalism proposes an alternative way of safeguarding the human desire for liberty: a cogent retrieval of a pre-modern intellectual tradition that esteems reason and virtue.







A Conservative history of the American left

Blurb


A conservative and author of Intellectual Morons takes a look at the origins and history of today's leftist and liberal ideas, from the nineteenth century to the present day, with profiles of colorful characters ranging from a free love, anti-marriage activist, to a famed abolitionist who advocated violence, to a woman who ran for president on a platform of "scientific religion.



A review

Peter Uys


Superbly written & researched history of ideas & individuals


Laird M. Wilcox

5.0 out of 5 starsWell-written and authentic account of the dark side of the American Left from a conservative perspective.

Nearly all of the books on the American Left tend to favor it They are written by leftists for leftists and many are embarrassingly partisan and heavily biased. Acts of violence, though regrettable, are justified by the circumstances. Lies, deceit, fanaticism and psychopathy are ignored or explained away as unavoidable artifacts of necessary socialist causes and crusades. Books on the American Right, on the other hand, are uniformly critical, name-calling, sterotypical attempts to marginalize and stigmatize it. All right-wingers are Nazis, near-Nazis, crypto-Nazis or unaware that their values, opinions and beliefs are leading in that direction.

This book is an attempt to illustrate the shady and even dangerous side of the American Left. Deals with the dark side of the sometimes psychopathic far left that most books minimize or explain as regrettable exceptions to a rather nice bunch of people only wanting to do the right thing. Explains the role that the Communist Party had in promoting Soviet espionage in the 50's along with other examples of leftist worship of totalitarian dictatorships. It's well-written, insightful and a good balance to other fawning accounts written by fans and enthusiasts. It predates the racial fanaticism and identity politics of the early 21st Century but is very helpful in understand the historical basis it.
Reply

سيف الله
08-19-2018, 10:05 PM
Salaam

More food for thought.

The Tyranny of Liberalism

Modern Liberalism is the dominant paradigm in the US, and it plays a major role in Europe, in post-Soviet Russia and elsewhere. This line is preached by the powerful world-wide mass media syndicate whose elements are ostensibly independent yet they transmit the identical message James Petras has called The Tyranny of Liberalism.[1] A “liberal tyranny” may strike some as oxymoronic if not a contradiction in terms since Liberalism likes to represent itself as the neutral ground of freedom rather than as an ideology and as an arbiter of religious pluralism and freedom rather than an anti-religious ideology. Liberalism is the ideology than denies that it is such a thing; ask a liberal and he will tell you he is against the dominance of any ideology or of any religion.

In our attempt to pierce this protective colouring we shall apply some ideas of the late German thinker Carl Schmitt who learned of liberalism the hard way. After Germany was subdued and conquered in 1945, Carl Schmitt lived for a while in the Soviet and the American occupation zones, which were later converted into the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany. On the basis of his comparative experience in the occupation, Carl Schmitt noticed that American Liberalism is a militant ideology less prone to compromise than Soviet Communism. The Americans demanded that Schmitt give proof of belief in Liberal Democracy, while the Russians never asked him to swear an oath upon the Communist Manifesto. This personal experience led Schmitt to conclude that the Modern American Liberalism is not an ideology-free live-and-let-live paradigm, but a positive ideology, and an ideology even more dangerous than the Communism he greatly disliked. Schmitt saw the traditional balance of power threatened by the new triumphant Anglo-American air and sea global imperium based on an aggressive ideology. For this reason he welcomed the Cold War, as he thought the USSR the only force capable of containing the American ideological drive.

In recent years with the American invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, many others have come to share Schmitt’s realization that Liberalism is an aggressive global ideology calling for certain principles to be implemented world-wide by force of arms. These principles can be described either in positive or negative terms: a restaurant guest and an oyster would describe the arrival of Chablis and lemon in different ways. Much depends on whether you eat or you are eaten. Let’s have a look at the menu from a dual perspective.

  • Human rights OR denial of Collective Rights.
  • Minority Rights OR denial of Majority Rights.
  • Non-governmental ownership of media OR exclusive right of Capital to form public opinion.
  • Women rights and protection OR dissolution of family.
  • Homosexual unions OR denial of the sanctity of marriage
  • Antiracism OR denial of “the need for roots” in Weil’s terms.
  • Economic self-reliance, OR ban on social mutual help (in theological terms agape and charity)
  • Separation of Church and State OR freedom for anti-Christian propaganda and a ban on Christian mission in the public sphere.
  • Public elections of government («democracy»), limited by voters’ conformity to the liberal paradigm, OR denial of authentic self-determination.


Carl Schmitt postulated an important assumption: every ideology is a crypto-religious doctrine, or in his words, «all of the most pregnant concepts of modern doctrine are secularized theological concepts». Let us compare Communism and Liberalism in the light of this insight.

Though it originated in the West, Communism first arose in the society formed by the Russian Orthodox Church, and it had many features one would expect to find in a secularised Orthodoxy [2]. Poets felt it well, and Alexander Blok sang of Christ “with the blood-red flag, invulnerable to bullets, fleeting foot above the blizzard, in a white crown of roses” leading his Twelve Red Guards [3]. In the late Soviet days, the Russians proclaimed the Christian principle “Man is to Man a Friend, Comrade and Brother.”[4] The Russian Communists despised material comforts as had their Orthodox predecessors, and placed their sobornost (Catholicity, or togetherness-in-the-Church) and solidarity above all other virtues.[5]

Solidarity and Catholicity are features shared by ideologies Liberalism is hostile to. Last week, Yehuda Bauer, the Yad Vashem Memorial director, the High Priest of the Holocaust cult, in a speech given to counterbalance the Tehran Conference, said:

“There are great differences between National Socialism, Soviet Communism, and radical Islam, but there are also some important parallels. All three are or were religious or quasi-religious movements. Unquestioning, quasi-religious belief in Nazi ideology was central to the existence and policies of the regime, and it was Nazi ideology that was the central factor that produced the Holocaust; Marxist-Leninism was the quasi-religious dogma that everyone in the Stalinist empire had to swear by. The same applies to radical Islam.” [6]

This is undoubtedly true, or, in the light of Carl Schmitt’s words, rather a truism: if it is an ideology, it has theological underpinnings. We shall notice that Bauer did not mention one important ideology, contemporary with the three and at war with them. Just recently, some fifty years ago, Marxists-Leninists, National Socialists and Liberals sorted out their differences on the battlefields of Europe. Why does the Liberal Bauer give a pass to Liberalism?

Beyond being coy, Bauer’s significant omission has an important theological message: Liberalism’s claim to transcendence. A liberal places liberalism above “ordinary” religions and ideologies; on a higher plane than any religious or ideological construct. The adepts of any ideology other than Liberalism are “totalitarians” or “fanatics”, in the eyes of a Liberal. This arrogant attitude of the only possessors of truth reminds us of the Judaic narrative of the Old Testament, where the devotees of One God are exalted to a level above the “pagans”.

Theoretically, this attitude of superiority was inherited by the three great religions of our oikouménè, of Eastern and Western Christianity and of Islam as well; but it wasn’t internalised. An Orthodox Christian did not consider himself a cut above Muslims and Catholics. However, modern Judaism (widely divergent from Biblical Judaism in other respects) preserved this unpleasant claim to superiority of its predecessor.

Bauer’s reluctance to name the religious component of Liberalism provides us with a clue pointing to something he might wish to conceal. But here is an additional hint. As Bauer continues to seek parallels in the three indicted movements, he positions their common antagonist:

“All three target Jews as their main, or immediate, enemy: the Nazis murdered them; the Soviets planned, in 1952, to deport all Soviet Jews to Siberia, with the obvious intention that most of them should die. The genocidal message of radical Islam to the Jews is loud and clear.”

If Bauer believes his claim about the Nazis is as true as his assertion about Soviets and Muslims, his place was at the head of Tehran Conference as the chief H-denier. If he does not believe his own claim, he is a liar and a defamer. The story of “Soviets planning to deport Jews” is an Israeli fabrication as false as a three-dollar bill and thoroughly debunked, too.[7] If Stalin and Hitler had read Bauer’s talk in 1940, they wouldn’t have gone to war. But what is important for us is that Bauer construes every modern movement based on solidarity, catholicity and community as “anti-Jewish”, while Liberalism is as Jewish as gefilte fish.

What indeed is Liberalism? Some scholars follow Weber and describe Liberalism as secularised Protestantism. Others pay attention to its anti-religious anti-Church tendency and see Liberalism as secularised Satanism. The late Alexander Panarin considered it a form of idolatry based on the “heathen Myth of de-contextualised Goods and their de-socialised Consumers”.

Armed with Schmitt’s thesis and Bauer’s testimony, we may conclude: the “liberal democracy and human rights” doctrine carried by the US marines across the Tigris and the Oxus is a form of secularised Judaism. Considering the predominance of Jews in mass media and especially among the media lords, it is only natural that the ideology they promote is so close to Jewish heart. Its adepts retain classic Jewish attitudes; and the “uniqueness of Israel” is a tenet of this “non-religious” school, whether in the form of the “unique” Holocaust, or a “unique” attachment to Palestine, or a “unique” love of freedom and diversity. Indeed, while mosques burn in the Netherlands and churches are ruined in Israel, no emotions are stirred up in comparison to those set in motion when graffiti is written on a synagogue wall.

The US grades its allies by their attitude towards Jews. The Holocaust Temple [“Museum”] stands next to the White House. Support of the Jewish state is a sine qua non for American politicians. Bauer describes the horror of possible Nazi victory in such telling words: “There would be no Jews, because they would all be annihilated. This would end history as such”. In other words, history in Bauer’s eyes is about Jews. No Jews – no history. The rest of mankind are just sheep devoid of memory and futurity.

Secularised Judaism feels no aversion to Judaism, and this is the only religion protected within the dominant Liberal discourse. When some Russians tried to apply the Instigation of Hatred Law to Judaic anti-Christian diatribes, they were condemned not only by Jewish bodies, but by the White House and by the European Community as well. This week, a Lubavitch rabbi demanded that the Christmas trees be removed from Seattle Airport until a menorah was installed. The airport removed the trees, disclaiming its expertise in “cultural anthropology.” New York city schools won’t allow mention of Christmas but celebrate Hanukkah, Ramadan, and the silly Kwanza because they are all multicultural whereas Christmas is not. (Vdare.com is a good source for the war against Christmas strenuously denied by the media.) Every reference to Christ is fought off by the network of Human Rights bodies, ADL, ACLU and other PC enforcers, who never object to Jewish religious symbols.

When Secularised Orthodoxy, that is Russian Communism, conquered lands, they shared their faith and their resources with the conquered. Indeed, Soviet Russia was a net supplier to its “satellites”, and spent a fortune supporting Cuba, East Germany, Hungary, Poland and the Baltic states. After 1991, the ex-Soviet states remained owners of great industrial enterprises and energy complexes they thoroughly lacked before their integration within the Soviet Commonwealth. One of the more successful propaganda slogans of the USSR’s liberal destroyers was “enough of feeding foreigners”.

Secularised Judaism conquers lands in order to rob and destroy them. For forty years of Jewish rule in Palestine, not a single building was constructed by the authorities, but thousands were demolished. Although thoroughly secularised, the Jewish state embodies the paranoid Jewish fear and loathing of the stranger, while the Cabal policies of the Pentagon are another manifestation of this same fear and loathing on a global scale. The Secular Judaic Jihad in Iraq turned the fertile Mesopotamia into a wasteland. Countries that have been fully subdued by the Liberals – Haiti, Malawi – are the poorest of all.

Hold on here! you’ll say. What a load of trash! Judaism is one of the great monotheistic religions; Judaists believe in the same God we Christians and Muslims believe. Judaists are our comrades in the common struggle against godless subversion. Judaism has nothing in common with the anti-spiritual, materialistic, anti-religious cult of globalisation, neo-liberalism, consumerism, alienation, denial of roots, destruction of family and of nature. It’s the other way around: Judaism postulates the priority of spirit, the sanctity of family, the preservation of nature; Judaic communities are well known for their solidarity and mutual support, for tradition and for the togetherness of people united-in-God.

This is strong objection; and apparently it shatters our identification of Liberalism as Secular Judaism. But only apparently; for this objection is based on faulty premise. Judaism (like the Roman God Janus) has two faces; one facing the Jews, and other facing the Goyim, non-Jews. It makes two opposing sets of demands to Jews and to Goyim. This is the difference between Judaism on one hand, and Christianity, Islam, Buddhism on the other hand. These great faiths place no demands on non-adept except for the call to become one. The only thing the Church wants from a non-Christian is to become Christian. Judaism does not want to transform a goy into a Jew. It is almost impossible, almost forbidden, certainly disproved of. But Judaism places definite demands on a non-Jew who has the misfortune to be under its rule. He should not imitate a Jew, and thus the goy is forbidden to have a religion, he may not celebrate his own religious feasts, he may not help his brethren; he should be an economic animal. Secularised Judaism tends to be Judaism for Goyim, for Judaism-for-Jews has its sacral core.

Moreover, all the liberal ideas we described fit Judaism-for-Goyim.

  • Denial of Group Rights. In Judaism, Goyim have no group rights. Jews are entitled to participate in the society as a group, but non-Jews should play as individuals, an attitude of “You have individual rights, we have group rights”. Communal property of goyim is considered as abandoned. In the Jewish state, Jews freely take over the lands belonging to Palestinians as a group; it is only about confiscation of private Palestinian lands that discussion is permitted. In Liberal Secularised Judaism, workers’ solidarity should be broken, trade unions must be dismantled, but rich men’s solidarity is permitted. Privatisation is such a denial of group rights: if an asset does not belong to a private rich person, it is up for grabs.
  • Minority rights and denial of majority rights. In Judaism, a non-Jewish majority has no rights; certainly not over Jews, and this is fully inherited by Liberalism. In the Russia of 1991-1993, the victory of Liberalism over Communism was achieved through the media de-legitimisation of the Majority: the Russian people were called the “Aggressive and obedient majority” as opposed to the Enlightened Minority of Jewish oligarchs. An enlightened discourse in the West usually contains a hidden reference to John Stuart Mill, Madison, Alexis de Tocqueville and to the fear of the majority’s tyranny.
  • Private (as opposed to public) ownership of media, or the exclusive right of rich men to form public opinion. A publicly-owned paper is usually contrasted with “free media”, as if a newspaper belonging to a rich Jew is somehow more free than one that belongs to a state, to a church, or to a trade union.
  • Women’s rights and Homosexual rights. Judaism does not recognise the goy’s family. This is fully inherited by liberalism: liberals do not believe in the non-privileged man’s family and want to dismantle it.
  • Antiracism for a Jew is a tool in his natural struggle against the indigenous population; in the liberal paradigm, antiracism allows for the importation of a cheaper labour force, to undermine trade unions and to operate world-wide in a race to the bottom for wages.
  • Judaism considers welfare a unique feature of Judaic community, while the goyim are not allowed such prerogatives as agape for mutual aide and protection. Liberals are actively undoing welfare, unless it serves to support their companies and corporations or as a government policy to foster support for immigrants and demographic upheaval as an ad hoc measure to undermine national communities and to racialize politics.
  • Freedom of anti-Christian propaganda. Liberalism does not fight Judaism, but carries on a relentless struggle against Christianity. In liberal America, judges condemn the Catholic Church for its teachings, ban Christmas trees and usher a new expurgated Bible.
  • Democracy. In the liberal paradigm, if you do not agree with the liberal ideas, your voice is not counted; a defence against the Tyranny of Majority is activated. If you agree, it does not matter for whom you vote, as the result will the same. They call Israel “a democracy”, though the majority of its goyim have no right to vote, and those who can vote are kept out of power by invoking the “Jewish majority”. The democratic victories of Hamas in Palestine, and of Lukashenko in Belarus were considered illegal; in Serbia, they repeated the elections until they obtained the sought-after result.
  • Thus we come to a conclusion: modern American liberalism is secularised Judaism for Gentiles, and not freedom from religious pressure, as its proponents claim.


Why have the US and Britain succumbed to this strange ideology? A probable answer to this can be found in British history. Recent studies by Dr Mark Thomas, UCLA claim that in 5th-7th century, pre-Christian Saxon tribes conquered Britain and established an “apartheid society” of 10,000 invaders in the midst of 2 million natives. They eventually outbred the natives: “An initially small invading Anglo-Saxon elite could have quickly established themselves by having more children who survived to adulthood, thanks to their military power and economic advantage. They also prevented the native British genes getting into the Anglo-Saxon population by restricting intermarriage in a system of apartheid that left the country culturally and genetically Germanised. As a result, Britain has a population of largely Germanic genetic origin, speaking a principally German language,” writes Thomas.[8]

Thus, some of the British population have an inbuilt genetic memory of a successful evolutionary strategy connected with apartheid and with application of “Judaic” principles. The Jews have no copyright on being nasty; and the quaint British meddling with the Lost Tribes myth has more to do with Saxons than with Israelites. As long as Britain was Catholic and Christian, this tendency was kept in check; but along came the Reformation, with its wholesale import of Judaic ideas of the Old Testament, followed by the import of their Talmudic reading from the Netherlands during the Orange Revolution. The Catholic religious muzzle came off, and the enclosures devoured traditional England. In this great bout of privatisation, the landlords partitioned, privatised and fenced off the commons. Like their Judaic predecessors, they disregarded the group rights of native underprivileged classes, of “the goyim” of the New Order. They applied their strategy in Ireland and Wales, and later in North America and Australia, and caused the extinction of millions of natives. Many Britons, Americans and Australians have the memory of the successful strategy; this makes them prone to philo-Judaic policies and to quasi-Judaic measures.

Certainly, colonisation and ruling military caste formation did not occur only in Britain. There is the Aryan Conquest in the Indian tradition, or Frank rule in France. The French solved the problem by the National Razor of Dr Guillotin in the Big Terror of 1793, where the idea of blue-blooded aristocracy was loudly voiced by the middle-class revolutionaries. Even today the Polish nobles claim that they are descendants of non-Slavic Sarmats, as opposed to ordinary Poles who are Slavs. This “Sarmat” claim of the Polish nobility (which entails contempt for an ordinary Pole as an alien) was an important reason why Poland tolerated and nurtured the biggest Jewish community ever to exist on earth.

Wherever it gains the upper hand, the Liberal Secular Judaic doctrine creates enormous gaps between the upper and lower castes. Indeed, in the US, 60 million Americans live on $7 a day, while a happy few have billions they can’t possibly spend.[9] This represents a very successful evolutionary strategy for the ruling minority. It is so successful, that eventually the ruled majority may have to apply drastic measures to moderate its success. But its full extinction is not to be desired: brought down-to-size, cured of its exclusivist claim, offered a small niche, Liberalism can be useful in any solidarist society like a ventilation shaft in a warm room. We just should not allow to freeze us out.

http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-tyranny-of-liberalism/
Reply

Karl
08-20-2018, 12:28 AM
Good read but didn't the Soviets have "pogroms" against Jews. The Soviets also pushed unarmed Jews towards the German infantry so they would waste a lot of ammo on them. I suppose there are different types of Jews, the elite Soviet Jews probably wanted to get rid of "inferior" Jews. Jews like to use the term Anti Semitism but the Palestinians are Semites and the Ashkenazi are not, so are those Jews into Anti Semitism? Well we can only hope that Liberalism will die and kingdoms and caliphates will rise to crush the Zionists and their puppet democracies.
Reply

سيف الله
08-24-2018, 05:45 PM
Salaam

Another update. Take the test how liberal are you? American context but can be applied elsewhere.

James Burnham devised a test to distinguish liberal-progressives from conservative-reactionaries in 1965. See how you do; you will very likely be surprised to see where you land in light of how much the Overton Window has moved to the Left in the last 53 years.

1. All forms of racial segregation and discrimination are wrong.
2. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion.
3. Everyone has a right to free, public education.
4. Political, economic or social discrimination based on religious belief is wrong.
5. In political or military conflict it is wrong to use methods of torture and physical terror.
6. A popular movement or revolt against a tyranny or dictatorship is right, and deserves approval.
7. The government has a duty to provide for the ill, aged, unemployed and poor if they cannot take care of themselves.
8. Progressive income and inheritance taxes are the fairest form of taxation.
9. If reasonable compensation is made, the government of a nation has the legal and moral right to expropriate private property within its borders, whether owned by citizens or foreigners.
10. We have a duty to mankind; that is, to men in general.
11. The United Nations, even if limited in accomplishment, is a step in the right direction.
12. Any interference with free speech and free assembly, except for cases of immediate public danger or juvenile corruption, is wrong.
13. Wealthy nations, like the United States, have a duty to aid the less privileged portions of mankind.
14. Colonialism and imperialism are wrong.
15. Hotels, motels, stores and restaurants in the Southern United States ought to be obliged by law to allow Negroes to use all of their facilities on the same basis as whites.
16. The chief sources of delinquency and crime are ignorance, discrimination, poverty and exploitation.
17. Communists have a right to express their opinions.
18. We should always be ready to negotiate with the Soviet Union and other communist nations.
19. Corporal punishment, except possibly for small children, is wrong.
20. All nations and peoples, including the nations and peoples of Asia and Africa, have a right to political independence when a majority of the population wants it.
21. We always ought to respect the religious beliefs of others.
22. The primary goal of international policy in the nuclear age ought to be peace.
23. Except in cases of a clear threat to national security or, possibly, to juvenile morals, censorship is wrong.
24. Congressional investigating committees are dangerous institutions, and need to be watched and curbed if they are not to become a serious threat to freedom.
25. The money amount of school and university scholarships ought to be decided primarily by need.
26. Qualified teachers, at least at the university level, are entitled to academic freedom: that is, the right to express their own beliefs and opinions, in or out of the classroom, without interference from administrators, trustees, parents or public bodies.
27. In determining who is to be admitted to schools and universities, quota systems based on color, religion, family or similar factors are wrong.
28. The national government should guarantee that all adult citizens, except for criminals and the insane, should have the right to vote.
29. Joseph McCarthy was probably the most dangerous man in American public life during the fifteen years following the Second World War.
30. There are no significant differences in intellectual, moral or civilizing capacity among human races and ethnic types.
31. Steps toward world disarmament would be a good thing.
32. Everyone is entitled to political and social rights without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
33. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and expression.
34. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
35. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.
36. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security.
37. Everyone has the right to equal pay for equal work.
38. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions.
39. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Reply

Karl
08-26-2018, 03:14 AM
It's easy to tell that Burnham is a liberal given his typical liberal fixation with words like "adult" and "juvenile" and also "mankind". It is interesting that the Liberals zealously support age discrimination and prejudice, therefore they are no better than the "racists" and "male supremacists" that they loathe so much. Their bigotry is about age and it affects EVERYONE at some point throughout their lives. They are obsessed with ageist oppression. A typical liberal question is "should cannabis be legal for adults 18 years and over?" Such a question also reveals that the dogmatic liberal believes a person has to have obtained the ludicrously high age of 18 years old to be regarded as an adult.

Anyway here's my own response to his "test". (Not every one has been answered yet as they require more thought):

1. No. The reason being that every respective race has a natural right to have a self-determining self-segregating ethno state.
2.Yes
3.No. Education is not something that is inherently "free". It costs MONEY. A "free" state run education system ultimately means that money is coerced from tax payers pockets.
4. No
5. No (at least in cases where the enemy is the INVADER).
6. Yes, but only if the rebels are in agreement with my own political stance and don't actually want to instil a regime even WORSE than the one I'd like to bring down and destroy.
7. No, government does not have an inherent "duty" to provide for the "needy". However, it can nonetheless be pragmatic to do so to avoid increased crime such as theft etc.
8. No
9. No
10. No (reason: I'm not a globalist cultural Marxist bleeding heart humanist clone. Other races are simply of no consequence to me. I believe they instead have a duty to themselves).
11. No (reason: The UN and it's arrogant detestable globalist leftist ideology represents my greatest ENEMY)
12. Yes, although I do not believe in the liberal concept of "juvenile corruption". "Juvenile corruption" should NOT be allowed as an "excuse" to smother free speech.
13. Most definitely NOT.
14. Yes. Countries should keep to themselves and mind their own business.
15. No. Businesses operating on PRIVATE PROPERTY have every right to discriminate against who enters, regardless of whatever reason.
16. No.
17. Yes (as much as they are despicable creatures).
18. Depends on what's being "negotiated".
19. No.
20. Yes. They are the indigenous races of Asia and Africa, therefore they have every right to self-determination without any form of Western meddling.
21. No.
22.
23. There he goes with his "juvenile morals" again. You either have a morality or you don't. It makes no logical sense for a particular age group to adopt a particular morality, while another age group adopts a different morality. To answer his question, no, there should be no censorship except when a government's national security is under threat. Justified examples of censorship could perhaps be what we see coming from Iran or Russia.
24.
25. No
26. Yes, as long as they do not attempt to apply communist/leftist propaganda to incite students to cause disruption and rebellion.
27. No
28. Here he goes again, now with "adult citizens". Only tax paying MALE citizens (regardless of age) should be allowed to vote. But I am against democracy anyway and instead prefer strong warrior KINGS, in which case, "votes" simply don't apply.
29. No
30. Emphatically disagree.
31. No.
32. No.
33. Yes.
34. Yes.
35.
36. No.
37. No. If an employer wishes to offer less pay to some employees and the said employees AGREE and SIGN the employment contract then there is simply no issue.
38. No.
39. No.
Reply

سيف الله
09-30-2018, 04:29 AM
Salaam

Another opinion on the nature of liberalism.

Given that liberal democracy has seemingly vanquished all its competitors, why should one be curious about radical alternatives?


As liberalism progresses, its demands become more and more radical. Democracy, feminism, and non-discrimination sounded nice when it was sold to us as meaning just being respectful of others, but now we learn that they require radical restructuring of the family, erasure of cultural distinctiveness and national boundaries, repudiation of the Christian religion, and aggressive indoctrination of children in disregard of the authority of their parents. If the principles are true, then we must accept the conclusions, no matter how discomforting we initially find them. But has liberalism really proved its case? Have the alternatives really been given a hearing?

As liberalism progresses, the range of publicly acceptable opinions (those not dismissed as “hateful”, “ignorant”, and “bigoted”) continues to narrow. We simply assume that anyone not on board with 21st century elite American beliefs is stupid, evil, or mentally ill. It is no longer even allowed that dissenters have inferior arguments for their beliefs; we do not allow that their beliefs can have any arguments at all. Thus we cut ourselves off from the entire past of our civilization (everything before about ten years ago) and from every other civilization (except for small Westernized elites who will parrot our ideas back at us). Even if we’re right and the mass of past and present humanity is wrong, we should at least want to understand these other perspectives for the sake of history and anthropology. Even a committed liberal can desire not simply to condemn but to have a genuine encounter with historical and non-Western peoples, which requires trying to understand their beliefs on their own terms.

https://bonald.wordpress.com/

Now that liberals have firmly esconed themselves in the establishment, they are suddenly losing interest in being open minded.

Against open-mindedness


Now that the liberals control everything, they’re finally getting around to agreeing with my arguments against open-mindedness and for censorship. Regarding the former, see this new book review at the Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews of Jeremy Fantl’s The Limitations of the Open Mind.

In Chapter 2, Fantl begins to make his case for his first key premise:

There are important and standard situations in which you know that a relevant counterargument is misleading whether or not you have spent significant time with the argument, found each step compelling, and been unable to expose a flaw. (xi)

In many cases, Fantl argues, being unable to find a flaw in a compelling counterargument does not defeat your knowledge. Fantl labels this view ‘forward-looking dogmatism’. He argues that such a dogmatism can be rational since often the best explanation of your situation is that your well-supported belief is correct, and a clever individual has simply come up with a sneakily misleading counterargument. (34) Further, rather than being in conflict with intellectual modesty, such a dogmatism actually embodies it, since for many propositions you know, you could easily fail to identify a flaw in a misleading argument to the contrary (‘The Principle of Modesty’). (35) Given the ease at which one may come across an apparently flawless argument to the contrary, actually coming across one does not provide much evidential weight to the contrary. This is why, according to Fantl, your knowledge can survive coming across an apparently flawless counterargument. Fantl’s account explains how we can know that motion exists and that people are bald without being able to diagnose flaws in the compelling arguments to the contrary.

In Chapter 3, Fantl argues that a counterargument being too sophisticated for you is actually a reason why you can dismiss it, and do so without losing your knowledge. The greater your amateurism about some matter, the less surprising it should be to find an apparently flawless counterargument. This has the surprising result that the amateur is often in a more fortunate epistemic position than the expert. The motivation here is the same as in the previous chapter — surprising evidence counts for more than unsurprising evidence, so since the amateur is more likely to come across an apparently flawless counterargument, it counts for less against the amateur’s belief.


https://bonald.wordpress.com/2018/09/28/against-open-mindedness/

Liberals are getting nervous, people are asking more and more awkward questions, where will it lead?

20180915 cuk400hires 429acf1118574771a4b 1?v1536954296 -

So how will the liberal elite maintain their grip on power? Through persuasion? debate? Discussion? Not quite.

Liberal ideals are worthless unless backed by military power

The Economist 15th-21st 2018

Well at least the mask is coming off.
Reply

سيف الله
10-03-2018, 10:41 PM
Salaam

More on the future direction of liberalism.

Reply

سيف الله
10-13-2018, 08:14 PM
Salaam

Like to share

Blurb


This lecture discusses the history of liberalism and some of its fundamental epistemological flaws. it does so especially in the context of the relationship between Islam and the West.

Reply

سيف الله
10-17-2018, 04:27 AM
Salaam

Like to share

Blurb

An interesting discussion between Patrick Deneen and Scott Stephens on liberalism. Political liberalism has been an extraordinarily successful doctrine, freeing the individual from custom, tribe, and tradition. The self-interested, self-directing individual has triumphed. But that great achievement may have come at a heavy cost. Unacceptable levels of inequality and the rise of a new global ruling class are two symptoms of a political system being lauded as the natural end point of history.



More on the current state of liberalism.

Reply

سيف الله
11-01-2018, 10:35 PM
Salaam

format_quote Originally Posted by BeTheChange
Eric H it is always a pleasure to read your posts. Well done for practising your religion when many have left Christianity and moved to a secular ideology.
Yes, the importation of secular ideologies into Christianity hasn't helped it.



As always learn the lessons.
Reply

BeTheChange
11-02-2018, 07:03 AM
Asalamualykum

Never saw this thread. Just came across it Alhamdulilah. New subscriber to this thread. :statisfie
Reply

ACEDIslam
11-02-2018, 09:18 AM
I am western. American. Are you talking about liberalism in the sense of neo-liberalism, like unfettered capitalism, or liberalism in the sense of progressivism?

You do know the latter is very sympathetic to Islam, and fights for the rights of Muslims nationwide, right? And you do know that American conservatives hate you, right? Liberalism is the reason you can practice Islam freely in the US. If conservatives had their way, you couldn't practice at all.

Show some gratitude. You may not agree with their ideologies, but they are an ally to Islam. They are very vocal about your religious rights. Ask them. Then ask a Christian conservative how they feel about you. You're in for a surprise.

- - - Updated - - -

Also keep in mind that it's liberals welcoming Muslim refugees with open arms, and conservatives trying to purge them from the country.

Learn a little bit about western politics before commenting.
Reply

سيف الله
11-03-2018, 12:53 AM
Salaam

Your proving the point on how Authoritarian liberals can be. Once must not question the 'good intentions' of the liberals can we? Having had experience dealing with both sides you realise the world isn't so black and white. I'm not beholden to the 'liberal' narrative.

Relax bro, read the thread, read the books mentioned and come back with a more reasoned response.

Another update. This is insightful

Introductionof Traditionalism the only radicalism by John Dunn

We swim in the medium of liberalism. Throughout our school and working lives, the non discriminative principles, known euphemistically as 'political correctness', are drilled into us. In a Hollywood Disneyland world of media stereotypes, the 'good' guys always win where the good is equated with the liberal and progressive; and the cops get the villains, leaving the world a safer place for homo economicus to pursue his nihilistic dreams.

Little wonder that our western way of life appears rational, even natural, and the culmination of a long chain of Darwinistic evolutionary progress. the hard fact to swallow is that it is none of these. Liberalism, the dominant western, verging on global, belief system is built on a chimera, a lie.

Liberalisms mantra of equality has arisen in such a manner that no other difference is acknowledged to be more right and more true than that which is 'achieved' through ones efforts and 'merit', according to the terms of liberalisms monetary measure of value.

From a higher point of view (from a point of view that knows that the progressive decay of the organism will eventually push one into nothingness), meritocracy and the chasing after wealth, or self fulfillment, or peer recognition, or celebrity, all lead, quite literally, to dead ends.

Yet liberalism remains unchallenged from any point of view. the political left and right in the West are both sides of the same coin. Where one promotes multiculturalism, the other offer globalisation. The same applies to nationalisation and corportisation, equality and commoditisation, liberty and the free market, materialism and the amoral economic space, education and media indoctrination. Even Karl Marx was pro capitalism to the extent it was necessary to sweep away tradition. Where religion exists in the West, it is these days founded upon ambiguously liberal 'ethics'. It is not a coincidence either that vaguely left causes are often supported by the global elite.

In short, the same coin is liberalism and there is no opposition to it. The political right in the West was long ago hijacked by economic liberalism. And what does liberalism serve? Money. It arose out of financial liberalism, the freedom to make money out of money. Whatever the personal belief of the individual, whatever the motive driving the individual, the way society is constituted under liberalism means that his or her efforts will serve money in the end.

'Thank God for the possibility of my holding certain beliefs' some might say. But it is too simplistic to suggest that all are at liberty to think how they will. you only have to look at the world to see that people are thinking and behaving and consuming in ways that are increasingly similar. Liberty seems to be mistaken for 'principles' of the corporate human resources department, where all are equal in a 1=1 prison. In this sense, and individual right becomes a right to do nothing.

We might be free to hold beliefs, even if under strict surveillance, but these will eventually be an irrelevance. It is much easier and safer to be like all the others, to become a repetition, a number along with the crowd, all serving the great global enterprise in the most efficient manner. Belief will become a folk memory.

Being two sides of the same coin, todays political left and right offer and false dichotomy. The right has been hijacked by economic liberalism, whereas once it was resistance to the amoral economic space opened up by money that motivated the radical right.

A renewed political dichotomy would have the liberal economic motive on one side and the ethically driven on the other, the latter founded on beliefs that have a transcendental origin, separate from man. Without a renewed political dichotomy, there will be no opposition to liberalism in the West. But how will one emerge? All contact with previous eras of faith have been lost; the distance between the traditional and todays egotistic mind being vast.

The answer is that faith and tradition will have to be rediscovered and relearnt. This will have to happen outside of academia, which is no merely a functionary of liberalism, engaged in the business of preparing workers for the wage economy.

Once a process of rediscovery has been undertaken, then a more meaningful and historically relevant political dichotomy will arise in the form of liberalism versus traditionalism, the latter being the radical challenger to the status quo. Traditionalism is the only radicalism.
Reply

ACEDIslam
11-03-2018, 03:03 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Junon
Salaam

Your proving the point on how Authoritarian liberals can be. Once must not question the 'good intentions' of the liberals can we? Having had experience dealing with both sides you realise the world isn't so black and white. I'm not beholden to the 'liberal' narrative.

Relax bro, read the thread, read the books mentioned and come back with a more reasoned response.

Another update. This is insightful

Introductionof Traditionalism the only radicalism by John Dunn

We swim in the medium of liberalism. Throughout our school and working lives, the non discriminative principles, known euphemistically as 'political correctness', are drilled into us. In a Hollywood Disneyland world of media stereotypes, the 'good' guys always win where the good is equated with the liberal and progressive; and the cops get the villains, leaving the world a safer place for homo economicus to pursue his nihilistic dreams.

Little wonder that our western way of life appears rational, even natural, and the culmination of a long chain of Darwinistic evolutionary progress. the hard fact to swallow is that it is none of these. Liberalism, the dominant western, verging on global, belief system is built on a chimera, a lie.

Liberalisms mantra of equality has arisen in such a manner that no other difference is acknowledged to be more right and more true than that which is 'achieved' through ones efforts and 'merit', according to the terms of liberalisms monetary measure of value.

From a higher point of view (from a point of view that knows that the progressive decay of the organism will eventually push one into nothingness), meritocracy and the chasing after wealth, or self fulfillment, or peer recognition, or celebrity, all lead, quite literally, to dead ends.

Yet liberalism remains unchallenged from any point of view. the political left and right in the West are both sides of the same coin. Where one promotes multiculturalism, the other offer globalisation. The same applies to nationalisation and corportisation, equality and commoditisation, liberty and the free market, materialism and the amoral economic space, education and media indoctrination. Even Karl Marx was pro capitalism to the extent it was necessary to sweep away tradition. Where religion exists in the West, it is these days founded upon ambiguously liberal 'ethics'. It is not a coincidence either that vaguely left causes are often supported by the global elite.

In short, the same coin is liberalism and there is no opposition to it. The political right in the West was long ago hijacked by economic liberalism. And what does liberalism serve? Money. It arose out of financial liberalism, the freedom to make money out of money. Whatever the personal belief of the individual, whatever the motive driving the individual, the way society is constituted under liberalism means that his or her efforts will serve money in the end.

'Thank God for the possibility of my holding certain beliefs' some might say. But it is too simplistic to suggest that all are at liberty to think how they will. you only have to look at the world to see that people are thinking and behaving and consuming in ways that are increasingly similar. Liberty seems to be mistaken for 'principles' of the corporate human resources department, where all are equal in a 1=1 prison. In this sense, and individual right becomes a right to do nothing.

We might be free to hold beliefs, even if under strict surveillance, but these will eventually be an irrelevance. It is much easier and safer to be like all the others, to become a repetition, a number along with the crowd, all serving the great global enterprise in the most efficient manner. Belief will become a folk memory.

Being two sides of the same coin, todays political left and right offer and false dichotomy. The right has been hijacked by economic liberalism, whereas once it was resistance to the amoral economic space opened up by money that motivated the radical right.

A renewed political dichotomy would have the liberal economic motive on one side and the ethically driven on the other, the latter founded on beliefs that have a transcendental origin, separate from man. Without a renewed political dichotomy, there will be no opposition to liberalism in the West. But how will one emerge? All contact with previous eras of faith have been lost; the distance between the traditional and todays egotistic mind being vast.

The answer is that faith and tradition will have to be rediscovered and relearnt. This will have to happen outside of academia, which is no merely a functionary of liberalism, engaged in the business of preparing workers for the wage economy.

Once a process of rediscovery has been undertaken, then a more meaningful and historically relevant political dichotomy will arise in the form of liberalism versus traditionalism, the latter being the radical challenger to the status quo. Traditionalism is the only radicalism.
Eloquently put. However, I will counter and say liberalism is anti-authoritarian in nature. Liberalism allows people personal choice; they can be who they want to be. Muslim, Christian, atheist, Hindu. It attempts not to superimpose on personal freedom. Excessive? Maybe. My defensiveness does not lend to authoritarianism. Everyone defends their personal beliefs. Even you.
Reply

ACEDIslam
11-03-2018, 03:07 AM
And you should be grateful for secular commitment to religious liberty. We are a Christian majority country. Without said commitment, Muslims here would not enjoy the rights they have.
Reply

ACEDIslam
11-03-2018, 04:21 AM
All of that being said, I appreciate your well thought out critique. I am intrigued, and would like to know more. Can you offer details about your proposed policy and government?

I am new to Islam. I am sympathetic to secular liberalism. This is all very new to me, but my mind is open, if you'd care to educate.

What specific government and policies would you like to see implemented?
Reply

fschmidt
11-03-2018, 04:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ACEDIslam
I am western. American. Are you talking about liberalism in the sense of neo-liberalism, like unfettered capitalism, or liberalism in the sense of progressivism?

You do know the latter is very sympathetic to Islam, and fights for the rights of Muslims nationwide, right? And you do know that American conservatives hate you, right? Liberalism is the reason you can practice Islam freely in the US. If conservatives had their way, you couldn't practice at all.

Show some gratitude. You may not agree with their ideologies, but they are an ally to Islam. They are very vocal about your religious rights. Ask them. Then ask a Christian conservative how they feel about you. You're in for a surprise.

- - - Updated - - -

Also keep in mind that it's liberals welcoming Muslim refugees with open arms, and conservatives trying to purge them from the country.

Learn a little bit about western politics before commenting.
The word "liberal" has been so badly abused and had so many meanings that it is now a useless word. There is Modern Culture which can be divided into the Modern Left and Modern Right. And there is Traditional America which was Christian and is now dead. Traditional America was a great culture which allowed freedom of religion and economic freedom (capitalism). The freedom enjoyed by Muslims in America is mostly due to laws put in place by Traditional America. Modern Culture is pure evil and hates all forms of freedom including religious freedom, economic freedom, and freedom of speech. This applies equally to the Left and Right. The only reason that the Left supports Islam is as a way of attacking the Right. The Left shares no values with Islam and fundamentally hates tradition and morality. The best path for Muslims is to be nonpartisan. Vote for whoever is most tolerant of Islam and ignore the Left/Right divide.
Reply

ACEDIslam
11-03-2018, 05:00 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
The word "liberal" has been so badly abused and had so many meanings that it is now a useless word. There is Modern Culture which can be divided into the Modern Left and Modern Right. And there is Traditional America which was Christian and is now dead. Traditional America was a great culture which allowed freedom of religion and economic freedom (capitalism). The freedom enjoyed by Muslims in America is mostly due to laws put in place by Traditional America. Modern Culture is pure evil and hates all forms of freedom including religious freedom, economic freedom, and freedom of speech. This applies equally to the Left and Right. The only reason that the Left supports Islam is as a way of attacking the Right. The Left shares no values with Islam and fundamentally hates tradition and morality. The best path for Muslims is to be nonpartisan. Vote for whoever is most tolerant of Islam and ignore the Left/Right divide.
I understand what you're saying. I too have considered the left supporting Islam simply because the right rejects it.

I would not say the left has no shared values with Islam. I am left of center, but a moderate, and I try to keep an open mind. It is true that the western left and Islam have many points of contention, however, I have found many points of intersection. For example, Islam states that there is no compulsion in religion. This is an idea the left is on board with. Also, the idea that people of various faiths should coexist peacefully without oppression of one another is an idea held dear to almost every liberal and Muslim I have spoken to. There are outliers, but typically that view is shared. Liberals and Muslims are also both very passionate about caring for the poor, sick, elderly, orphans, etc. This is one thing that I have found my leftist friends respect very much about Islam, and something I respected greatly about Islam even as an agnostic. The kindness of Muslims is unmatched in the modern world.

I don't think it's that the left doesn't care about morality. It's just that morality often takes a back seat to personal freedom. It's also worth noting that leftist morality typically doesn't come from any divine source (one of my biggest criticisms of leftist ideology).

Islam and the left diverge greatly when it comes to issues of sexuality, gender, orientation, and the like.
Reply

ACEDIslam
11-03-2018, 05:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by beleiver
Junon i am neither left nor right either, i have looked at the right arguments and find hypocracy at every turn same can be said for the left..But the distinctions are fuzzy.

The right balance can be found in the Quran, its right wing as it supports the free markets but left wing as it demands the poor, sick and elderly are looked after..
It respects the relegions and ways of life of others and there is no compulsin in it so it has a liberal side too.

What i really like is it abides by the universal natural laws that no one can esacpe, that no modern day economist will talk of, it prohibits usery, it warns against hoarding, unused land can be used if the occupier brings life to that land and empty abandoned buildings can be occupied with no fear of God..I am sure there is a verse where it warns about monopolizing and i am certain there are several that warn against rich exploiting the poor with their wealth..
In effect from what i understand it respects but limits property to what doesnt infringe basic human rights and adds a responsibilty to that property..That is the True hidden hand of the free market that the corporate elite refuse to aknowlage , basic human rights.

And whats more it promotes sound money.

My ideal philosphy would be free market capitalism, co-operative rather than corporate, but that takes hard work and dedication and a strong community able to think for them selves, the Quran also teaches how to acheive this.

Now corporate is certainly right wing by and for the wealthy to exploit the worker..co-operative self ownership is left but right too, certainly works for conservatives and socialists alike, which i find totally compatable with Islam?

I have found a great wealth of wisdom from reading the Quran but few people seem to notice or disscuss these points.

- - - Updated - - -
Thank you for your input! Very eloquently put. Peace be upon you.
Reply

fschmidt
11-03-2018, 06:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ACEDIslam
For example, Islam states that there is no compulsion in religion. This is an idea the left is on board with.
Isn't the Left requiring Christian bakers to bake gay wedding cakes compulsion in religion?

Liberals and Muslims are also both very passionate about caring for the poor, sick, elderly, orphans, etc. This is one thing that I have found my leftist friends respect very much about Islam, and something I respected greatly about Islam even as an agnostic. The kindness of Muslims is unmatched in the modern world.
The Islamic approach is quite different and much better. Islam supports direct charity while the Left produces complex government programs that tend to destroy communities.

I don't think it's that the left doesn't care about morality. It's just that morality often takes a back seat to personal freedom.
As far as I can tell, the Left has no respect for personal freedom. They undermine freedom of speech with hate speech laws. They destroy economic freedom with regulations. And now they seem to be going after Christians. It seems to me that the primary value of the Left is support for degeneracy. The primary value of the Right is intolerance. (I don't vote anymore.)
Reply

ACEDIslam
11-03-2018, 04:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
Isn't the Left requiring Christian bakers to bake gay wedding cakes compulsion in religion?


The Islamic approach is quite different and much better. Islam supports direct charity while the Left produces complex government programs that tend to destroy communities.


As far as I can tell, the Left has no respect for personal freedom. They undermine freedom of speech with hate speech laws. They destroy economic freedom with regulations. And now they seem to be going after Christians. It seems to me that the primary value of the Left is support for degeneracy. The primary value of the Right is intolerance. (I don't vote anymore.)
I welcome you to explore the positives of regulation. The FDA, for example, protects the environment against harm from industry. Experience shows us a lack of adequate regulation leads to destruction of the environment by industry. Would Allah look favorably upon us if we allowed corporations to destroy that which He provided for us?

Also, whether government or charity, are the poor and sickly not still being taken care of? Are not both pleasing in the eyes of the Lord? I am wondering what issue you have with public programs providing for the less fortunate. Is it not charitable for us to dedicate our tax dollars to such a purpose?

You're looking for the differences and discounting the similarities.
Reply

سيف الله
11-04-2018, 11:31 PM
Salaam

format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
The word "liberal" has been so badly abused and had so many meanings that it is now a useless word. There is Modern Culture which can be divided into the Modern Left and Modern Right. And there is Traditional America which was Christian and is now dead. Traditional America was a great culture which allowed freedom of religion and economic freedom (capitalism). The freedom enjoyed by Muslims in America is mostly due to laws put in place by Traditional America. Modern Culture is pure evil and hates all forms of freedom including religious freedom, economic freedom, and freedom of speech. This applies equally to the Left and Right. The only reason that the Left supports Islam is as a way of attacking the Right. The Left shares no values with Islam and fundamentally hates tradition and morality. The best path for Muslims is to be nonpartisan. Vote for whoever is most tolerant of Islam and ignore the Left/Right divide.
This is a point, foundations of America is built on the old culture, whats disturbing with the rise of secularism/liberalism/leftism/(capitalism?) is that now this culture has gone into serious decline we see a corresponding rise of authoritarianism and cultural degradation (In the UK but can apply elsewhere). I agree that the whole Right/Left paradigm is a relic of the 'enlightenment' thought, it should be dispensed with (but I'll use it anyway :p).

I think the main problem with Liberals and Leftists they have a hard time excepting that people might not want to agree with them and want to live in a different way according to their own customs, culture, traditions. I was initially was attracted to them because they were a lot more tolerant and accepting of minorities etc than those on the right but my experience with them left me disappointed, realising how much I would have to 'conform' to gain their 'approval', they are very good at wearing masks and can be very manipulative.

Contrast this with those on the 'right' who even though we disagreed on a lot of things they were more upfront and direct in many respects.

In the UK Muslims were an 'approved' minority among liberals while they served their purpose (they thought we were going to over time secularise ourselves out of existence and become 'good' liberals), but now they realise this is going to happen they are now mewling on about 'equality and diversity', 'integration' and 'social cohesion', meanwhile making conditions 'hard' across the board to make Muslims 'conform'.

Syria, Gaza and the Criminalisation of Islam

Its all very confusing, I think it will take me a lifetime to understand this :hmm:.

Some more book recommendations.

There was a great review for this book that has since been removed, :heated:. he summed the book up nicely that contrary to all the talk of liberals being inherently tolerant and all that, they are more inclined to behave like 'moral totalitarians' particularly when they gain influence and power.

Blurb

Mill and Liberalism was first published in 1963. Initial reactions varied from the uncomprehending to the splenetic.

In the intervening quarter-century the intellectual climate has changed as reflected by its greatest exemplar, to warrant fresh consideration. Unlike many commentators, before or subsequently,

Maurice Cowling endeavours to view Mill's thought as a coherent whole with a specific proselytising purpose, geared to the emasculation of Christianity and its replacement by a libertarian public doctrine. This interpretation aroused much contemporary hostility, and in a new introduction Cowling locates Mill and Liberalism within the broader intellectual history of post-war Britain, looking at the various strands of the 'new Right' and relating the academic to more specifically journalistic or political manifestations.




This book really purged my mind of any naive views I had of liberals.

Blurb

Dawkins and Hitchens have convinced many western intellectuals that secularism is the way forward. But most people don't read their books before deciding whether to be religious. Instead, they inherit their faith from their parents, who often innoculate them against the elegant arguments of secularists. And what no one has noticed is that far from declining, the religious are expanding their share of the population: in fact, the more religious people are, the more children they have. The cumulative effect of immigration from religious countries, and religious fertility will be to reverse the secularisation process in the West. Not only will the religious eventually triumph over the non-religious, but it is those who are the most extreme in their beliefs who have the largest families.

Within Judaism, the Ultra-Orthodox may achieve majority status over their liberal counterparts by mid-century. Islamist Muslims have won the culture war in much of the Muslim world, and their success provides a glimpse of what awaits the Christian West and Israel. Based on a wealth of demographic research, considering questions of multiculturalism and terrorism, Kaufmann examines the implications of the decline in liberal secularism as religious conservatism rises - and what this means for the future of western modernity.




Tim Farron was 'eased' out as leader of the Liberal democrats because of his Christian views.



One way of dealing with a liberal.

Reply

سيف الله
11-07-2018, 04:07 AM
Salaam

Another update

End of Liberal World Order?

Though the press is obsessed with President Trump defining a change we are seeing, that is a classic case of mal-educated Amerocentrism. The shift started before him. He is just a symptom, not a cause. It isn’t even an American phenomenon. If anything we are lagging the global trend.

What period started to come to an end at the start of this century? The end of the post-Cold War as a period by itself? I don't quite buy it. There is a lot of talk of an end to the post-WWII, “Liberal World Order” (LWO). I think that might be right.

The LWO began at the end of WWII. The period after the fall of the Soviet Union that people call as the Post-Cold War Era wasn't really an era. It was either the final or the penultimate chapter of the long running LWO that the Cold War was just a longer chapter of. Even while the Soviet Union was on its death bed we saw the next chapter, AKA Bush41’s “New World Order” (NWO).

One could argue the NWO was the penultimate chapter, and 2001-2008 the final chapter of the LWO.

Hard to say right now, but if forced, I’d put my chips on that argument.

The NWO lasted less than a decade, if that. It was a period of unchallenged American dominance, but that rode on the back of the “The Liberal World Order” built in the post-WWII period.

What I would call the final chapter, somewhere from the attacks of September 2001 and the newly elected President Obama's apology tour and welcoming of a rising China, I'm not sure - but it marked a shift to something new. The pivot is not yet complete - it is a slow turn that took awhile to get here.

The last two chapters of the LWO saw the falling apart of those structures – the EU, ascendency of Western culture, extra-national international legal bodies, American dominance of the high seas - that defined the success of the old age. The vacuum left behind by them, and the fragility of remaining ones like NATO, is feeding change.

This new era is a movement of returns, reckoning, and realization. Strangely, end of the LWO can probably can be traced back to the Muslim world. They were an the early adopter or canary in the coal mine of the structural culmination of the LWO. There you find the first place where the assumptions of the ruling Western elite began to fail.

Just look at the pictures of Cairo and Kabul in the 1960s and 1970s. Western dress, cultural norms, secularism, and political systems (socialist, capitalist, or a mixture of both) dominated. At the end of the 1970s the wave crested first there when you saw decades of progress for women in the public space begin to retreat from Islamabad to Alexandria.

Those were indications that the West had lost its confidence and its appeal. Once that support goes soft, everything it underpins weakens. Much of the weakening started with the anti-Western efforts in our own universities and popular culture. Jesse Jackson’s “Hey, hey, ho, ho; Western Civ has got to go” was just one of a long series of notes to the outside world that things were well along the way to being not quite right.

If you value Western values of tolerance and progress, how do you expect them to grow and expand abroad when you cannot support them at home? In their absence, something will fill the void.

https://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2018/10/from-berlin-beijing-to-brasilia-new-era.html
Reply

سيف الله
11-10-2018, 04:56 AM
Salaam

MSM are acknowledging it.

Reply

سيف الله
11-17-2018, 04:35 PM
Salaam

Insight into how the liberal order operates.

“The Liberal Order Is the Incubator for Authoritarianism”: A Conversation with Pankaj Mishra

FRANCIS WADE: You have emerged as a prominent critic of empire and its foundations in liberal ideas of freedom and progress. Can you outline how your thinking has evolved, from your early writings on the topic to the present, and describe the major events that either reinforced or altered your position?

PANKAJ MISHRA: I know from experience that it is very easy for a brown-skinned Indian writer to be caricatured as a knee-jerk anti-American/anti-Westernist/Third-Worldist/angry postcolonial, and it is important then to point out that my understanding of modern imperialism and liberalism — like that of many people with my background — is actually grounded in an experience of Indian political realities.

In my own case, it was a journalistic assignment in Kashmir that advanced my political and intellectual education. I went there in 1999 with many of the prejudices of the liberal Indian “civilizer” — someone who simply assumed that Kashmiri Muslims were much better off being aligned with “secular,” “liberal,” and “democratic” India than with Pakistan because the former was better placed to advance freedom and progress for all its citizens. In other words, India had a civilizing mission: it had to show Kashmir’s overwhelmingly religious Muslims the light of secular reason — by force, if necessary. The brutal realities of India’s military occupation of Kashmir and the blatant falsehoods and deceptions that accompanied it forced me to revisit many of the old critiques of Western imperialism and its rhetoric of progress. When my critical articles on Kashmir — very long; nearly 25,000 words — appeared in 2000 in The Hindu and The New York Review of Books, their most vociferous critics were self-declared Indian liberals who loathed the idea that the supposedly secular and democratic Indian republic, which prided itself on its hard-won freedom from Western imperialism, could itself be a cruel imperialist regime.

Writing about Kashmir was a strange and painfully isolating experience, but an absolutely crucial one. It made me see that, whether you are Indian or American, black, brown, or white, it is best not to get morally intoxicated by words like “secularism” and “liberalism” or to simply assume that you stand on the right side of history after having professed allegiance to certain ideological verities. Rather one should try to perceive the scramble for power, the clash of interests, that these resonant claims to virtue conceal; one should ask who is using words like “secularism” or “liberalism” and for what purposes.

The mendacity and hypocrisy of Indian liberals and even some leftists about Kashmir made me better prepared for the liberal internationalists who helped adorn the Bush administration’s pre-emptive assault on Iraq with the kind of humanitarian rhetoric about freedom, democracy, and progress that we originally heard from European imperialists in the 19th century. It was this experience in Kashmir that eventually led me to examine figures like Niall Ferguson, who tried to persuade Anglo-Americans that the occupation and subjugation of other people’s territory and culture was a wonderful instrument of civilization and that we need more such emancipatory imperialism to bring native peoples in line with the advanced West.

“Liberal modernity,” you’ve argued, “has prepared the ground for its destruction” by unleashing forces that are “uncontrollable.” Have these forces contributed to the resurgence of the right in countries where, thanks to modern liberalism, a premium is placed on the autonomy of the individual?

There are many ways to answer this question, and one’s choice will inevitably be determined by the political context of the day. There is no doubt that the individual freedoms central to liberalism ought to be cherished and protected. The question is how, and by whom? Are many self-declared liberals the best defenders of individual liberties? As it happens, many powerful and influential people who call themselves liberals are mostly interested in advancing their professional ambitions and financial interests while claiming the moral prestige of progressivism for themselves. They are best seen as opportunistic seekers of power, and they exist in India as much as in the United States and in Britain. Bush’s “useful idiots” (Tony Judt’s term) had their counterparts in India, where some liberals chose to see Prime Minister Modi as a great “modernizer.” They are happy to whisper advice to power, and they recoil from the latter only when power rejects or humiliates them — as in the case of Trump and Modi, who have no time for eggheads in general. The dethroned “liberal” then transforms himself into a maquisard of the “resistance” and prepares the ground for a Restoration where he’ll likely be hailed as a great hero. It’s a nice racket, if you can get into it.

As Trumpism and other authoritarianisms become powerful, their liberal critics engage in a kind of moral blackmail based on a spurious history: “Are you against the ‘liberal order’ which guaranteed peace and stability, and other wonderful things for so long?” The obvious answer is that your much-cherished liberal order was the incubator for Trumpism and other authoritarianisms. It made human beings subordinate to the market, replacing social bonds with market relations and sanctifying greed. It propagated an ethos of individual autonomy and personal responsibility, while the exigencies of the market made it impossible for people to save and plan for the future. It burdened people with chronic debt and turned them into gamblers in the stock market. Liberal capitalism was supposed to foster a universal middle class and encourage bourgeois values of sobriety and prudence and democratic virtues of accountability. It achieved the opposite: the creation of a precariat with no clear long-term prospects, dangerously vulnerable to demagogues promising them the moon. Uncontrolled liberalism, in other words, prepares the grounds for its own demise.

Weren’t liberal ideas of freedom and progress, as far back as the 19th century, being explicitly pressed into the service of racialized science, with its demarcation of “civilized” and “non-civilized” peoples?

Yes, liberalism as an ideology of the propertied white men comes into being together with institutionalized hierarchies of race and class and bogus distinctions between civilized and uncivilized peoples. It was clear, from John Stuart Mill as well as Thomas Jefferson, that individual rights and universal reason were the prerogatives of a tiny minority — settler colonialists who expanded and indulged their freedom at the expense of other people. Their victims, nonwhite peoples, were pointing out these fatal contradictions in the rhetoric of liberalism as early as the 19th century.

Today, of course, the question of liberalism’s relationship with imperialism — whether the former is contingent on the morally tainted successes of the latter and therefore tends to weaken when the empires totter — has become particularly urgent as non-Western powers emerge and an endless economic and political crisis forces Western liberal democracies to expose their racial and inegalitarian structures, their leaders resorting to explicit appeals to white supremacism. I wrote in 2015, in a survey of liberalism’s record in the non-Western world, that “liberalism” has come to be seen “as an unaffordable plaything of rich Westerners: the elevation into universal values of codes that long favoured a tiny minority, and are unlikely to survive the rise of everyone else.”

In this regard, one doesn’t need to draw upon the tradition of Asian and African thinkers. Listen to Max Weber in 1906:

The question is: how are freedom and democracy in the long run at all possible under the domination of highly developed capitalism? […] The historical origin of modern freedom has had certain unique preconditions which will never repeat themselves. Let us enumerate the most important of these. First, the overseas expansions. In the armies of Cromwell, in the French constituent assembly, in our whole economic life even today, this breeze from across the ocean is felt […] but there is no new continent at our disposal.

The Nigerian scholar Biodun Jeyifo has lamented the state of “arrested decolonization” in which many former colonies find themselves, whereby a native elite has furthered the imperial project by abetting Western economic expansionism. Did the arrival of liberal capitalism not end imperialism but rather extend it — perhaps in a quieter, more insidious way?

The postcolonial experience is a very complex one. The political movements against capitalist imperialism in Asia and Africa were often led by elites intellectually and emotionally shaped by the ideologies and epistemologies of their masters. At their most antagonistic and hubristic, they wanted to beat the West at its own game. Others wanted to survive in a world made by the West. They were all in a hurry to modernize, industrialize, urbanize, and somehow catch up with the Western powers that seemed to have taken such a long lead over their countries.

The problem for nearly all of these leaders was the meager resources and often the state of devastation they started out with. Decades, if not centuries, of exploitation has left them in a very poor state. Their social systems had ossified; intellectual life had dwindled. The materials to build a coherent nation-state were often missing. And then the first generation of postcolonial leaders could not, despite their best attempts, shake off their economic dependence on the West — something created by imperialism’s division of the world into center and periphery. Most of them saw virtue in socialism and a strong state control of the economy; hardly anyone in Asia and Africa was enamored of capitalism after the experience of the Depression. By the 1980s, however, decolonization had run into trouble. The structural political and economic problems of many Asian and African societies had become even bigger. At that point, the collapse of communist states brought an unexpected bonanza to Western intellectuals and policy-makers who had for years been arguing for the free flow of capital and goods and railing against the protectionist economies of Asia and Africa. And they were of course helped by a new generation of ruling classes who were ready to embrace the American dream of free markets and private enterprise.

We still need a sociology of these new elites — their connections to the US and Europe through networks of colleges, universities, think tanks, NGOs, foundations, and fellowships, and their ideological indoctrination at various institutions. Anecdotally, I can confirm that in India a whole new American-educated — or America-philic — class emerged to argue for untrammeled markets and to institutionalize their ideas. They often called themselves liberal, but they were also to be found on the Hindu right, and the traffic between the two camps was brisk.

Embedded in your critique of liberalism is a deep skepticism of contemporary human rights discourse and its links to a liberal free-market agenda. Are the two wholly at odds, and why does the former so often champion the latter?

Well, if you have lived in an Asian or African country and are knowledgeable about the history of imperialism, then you are reflexively suspicious of any kind of moralizing discourse about individual rights emanating from powerful countries. Let’s not forget that the French and the British were presenting themselves, as early as the 19th century, as protectors of women’s rights in barbaric nations. The rhetoric of free trade and free markets was very much part of a larger discourse of emancipating the individual.

In our own time, this discourse has been very useful in not only sanctioning old-style imperialist campaigns (tiresomely disguised, as before, as humanitarian interventions) but also in supplanting the aspirations for justice and equality between and within nations. Many people, especially Samuel Moyn, have argued rigorously and eloquently about the tendency to make a fetish of human rights while limiting its scope of operation to gross abuses by the state, using it to violate the hard-won sovereignty of nations, and giving a free pass to structural forms of violence, such as historically entrenched racial inequality or the inequality perpetuated by global capitalism. In that sense, it was too easy for political and corporate interests to champion human rights: it was a cause that did not challenge their power and influence; in many ways, it preserved them.

You say that economic inequality has been given a free pass by human rights advocates, but does that erase some of the agency at work here? Has it indeed been willfully neglected?

Yes, I don’t think inequality was a paramount issue until quite recently, when its politically calamitous consequences began to unfold. We were told, whether in India or the United States, that it is more important to make the economy grow and generate wealth, which will eventually trickle down, than to address substantive issues of inequality, how it comes about, how it perpetuates itself, what we can do to alleviate it.

One of the main cheerleaders of India’s economic liberalization was a deeply networked Indian American of the kind I mentioned earlier: a Columbia University economist and fellow of the Council for Foreign Relations named Jagdish Bhagwati. Bhagwati, who claimed to be the “world’s foremost free trader,” was as cozy with Modi as he was with the previous, more secular Indian prime minister. This man not only blatantly denied that there had been an increase in inequality or that India was turning into an oligarchy; he not only mocked people like Amartya Sen, who exposed inequality, as a wannabe Rosa Parks; he said that inequality is actually a good thing if you have mobility and that the poor tend to “celebrate” it. Arguing for less protections for labor, he upheld Bangladesh as an example that allows “firms to hire and fire workers under reasonable conditions and maintain a balance between the rights of both workers and employers.” This was after the collapse in April 2013 of a garment factory in Dhaka that killed more than a thousand people and exposed the way many unprotected workers in the globalized economy are reduced to slave-labor conditions. Bhagwati’s response to the decline in Indian calorie consumption, which obviously reflected increased hunger and poverty, was positively Marie Antoinette–ish: the poor were probably consuming more “rice and fruits,” and in any case, “malnourished families should be shifting their diet to more milk and fruits.”

It is probably unfair to single Bhagwati out, but you can find clones of him among ruling classes everywhere; his ideas bespeak an extraordinary callousness among policy-makers and opinion-makers. Of course, there were many small, under-resourced, and besieged human rights organizations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America that struggled against the injustice and inequality generated by neoliberal capitalism. But the well-funded human rights movement originating in the West did not challenge any of the verities of free traders and free marketeers, and the cruelties they perpetuated, until it was too late. Not doing so was a severe dereliction of duty. You could argue that the human rights movement became too much of an elite Western endeavor, naming and shaming selectively, as David Kennedy has put it. It became too aligned with the interests of the West’s political and corporate powers, and lost much of its insurgent energy.

https://www.lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-liberal-order-is-the-incubator-for-authoritarianism-a-conversation-with-pankaj-mishra

A critical review

Shrinivas Sohoni

One used cordially to dislike Pankaj Mishra's sanctimonious, motivated-sounding essays against India - in which country of his origin he had failed (miserably, despite rather desperate, repeated, and strenuous effort) to enter the corridors of power.

This one, however, comes across somewhat less dishonest, though not less biased, as he now opens his mouth to rant about Western Liberals, the Anglo-American West, being poorly disguised imperialism..
Has nothing to suggest, of course, that is constructive or corrective.


First you identify the problem, then find a solution.
Reply

سيف الله
12-23-2018, 07:49 AM
Salaam

Like to share

Blurb

The age of unfettered liberalism is coming to a close. For better and/or for worse. One way or another a corrective will and must occur. For several generations now, all resistance has been quashed outright. Opposition or dissent has been easily labelled as 'reactionary'. But the energy of liberalism is approaching exhaustion.

Here is an assembly of artists and thinkers (of various viewpoints) who, over the course of the last hundred years, have expressed 'reactionary' or ambivalent stances towards an ascendant or prevailing liberal orthodoxy.

Most of them are completely mainstream and some of course are enmeshed in the very same liberalism they venture to tame.


Reply

سيف الله
12-25-2018, 07:39 AM
Salaam

Like to share

Blurb

This video attempts to look at some foundational problems with liberal ideology. There is a focus on how liberalism has also effected Muslim community in the West and elsewhere.



Blurb

The argument put forth in the article titled 'Biological Leninism', is that the lack of a coherent and unified ruling class under Liberalism is what allows for Leninism (single-party communist rule) to take over. Our question is, can this all be prevented, or is it just part of a natural flow of history and human nature?

Reply

سيف الله
12-28-2018, 11:26 PM
Salaam

Related, like to share.

Blurb

Historian Niall Ferguson argues that today’s political polarization echoes the religious polarization of the Reformation. Both were brought about by technological disruption: The printing press, in the case of the Reformation; and the personal computer and internet, in the case of today.

Reply

سيف الله
01-09-2019, 08:00 PM
Salaam

Like to share. Pithy and to the point.



Reply

سيف الله
01-12-2019, 10:38 AM
Salaam

More comment on the nature of liberalism.

Blurb

Liberalism is a negative, feminizing, destructive force, divorced from cultural and national allegiances. It attacks human nature at a fundamental level, empowering only the selfish instincts, leaving society atomized and denuded of everything life-giving...

Reply

سيف الله
02-05-2019, 07:37 PM
Salaam

More comment. The consequences of liberals sucessful takeover of the commanding heights of British culture.

The BBC once promoted a Christian worldview. Today it champions a very different philosophy

The Corporation has been an active agent of change, agitating for the new secular morality

The BBC has wholeheartedly thrown its lot in with the liberal reformers; there has been no “impartiality” on any of the big moral issues of the past half-century. In every instance, the socially conservative argument has been depicted as callous, reactionary and dogmatic. Any counterargument to the prevailing liberal consensus is now ignored altogether; social conservative voices are conspicuous by their absence on mainstream current affairs programmes. That is sometimes because there is no one in the production teams who understands the social conservative position, so it is no longer considered when programmes are in the making. The liberals now have a national culture moulded by their thinking and their laws; it is their world now – the old morality has been utterly vanquished.

Consider the way in which Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion was promoted by the BBC. The book was treated with reverence, and the lavish coverage helped to propel its author to the highest pinnacle of intellectual celebrity. He is now one of that small, glittering band of international intellectual superstars in demand around the world. The BBC was not his only promoter – the Times, the Guardian and the Independent, as well as most other serious television and media outlets, all paid homage to the new guru – but the BBC’s imprimatur is always worth more than the others.

The Corporation still commands respect among media professionals; there is a noticeable cultural cringe when other broadcasters, particularly those from places such as Australia and Canada, come into contact with it. Partly thanks to the BBC’s heady sponsorship, The God Delusion became a global phenomenon which – given its intellectual mediocrity – takes some explaining. The eminent American sociologist Peter Berger gave much thought to the general phenomenon of secularisation, and his observations are peculiarly apt as a way of explaining the success of Dawkins’s book:

“There exists an international subculture composed of people with Western-type higher education, especially in the humanities and social sciences, that is indeed secularised. This subculture is the principal “carrier” of progressive, Enlightened beliefs and values. While its members are relatively thin on the ground, they are very influential, as they control the institutions that provide the “official” definitions of reality, notably the educational system, the media of mass communication, and the higher reaches of the legal system. They are remarkably similar all over the world today, as they have been for a long time … I may observe in passing that the plausibility of secularisation theory owes much to this international subculture.”

So ubiquitous was the coverage that it felt at the time as if The God Delusion was being promoted as a quasi-official philosophy; away with the Book of Common Prayer, in with a book for the common man. And in the context of Berger’s “subculture”, The God Delusion has become one of the standard texts of the secularists; an enormously influential work colouring the opinions of millions of people around the world. The fact of its essential vacuity doesn’t matter because, with its reputation enormously inflated by an uncritical media, it has been promoted to the status of holy writ.

The old moral code is difficult to live up to; its stern injunctions run counter to human instinct in every respect. It calls for self-restraint and self-abnegation and does so in the name of a higher power. That’s why people find it difficult, and why many don’t like it. Mr Dawkins’s alternative Ten Commandments, as listed in The God Delusion, have the great advantage of not being at all irksome – they are, in fact, a very agreeable and flexible set of rules which allow an individual to do pretty much what they want. They certainly would not act as a brake on selfish impulses. The crucial point to grasp is that because they admit to no outside authority, but depend entirely on the individual’s own judgment (one might say “conscience”) of what is right and what is wrong, they validate an infinite variety of outcomes. Each man becomes his own “god”, and sets the rules accordingly. The obvious problem is that most people find it difficult to resist the temptation to self-justify their actions, and tend to give themselves the benefit of the doubt.

The noble lie at the heart of this new morality is that we can, as individuals and as a society, dispense with an objective moral code without harmful consequences.

The claim is that the old moral code was judgmental and harsh and based on a non-existent deity who had supposedly laid down rules about human conduct; in fact, say the atheists, the rules were concocted by power-hungry priests. The new moral code, they say, which dispenses with God altogether, allows everyone to live happier lives – free from the guilt that the traditional rules engendered. This idea has been successfully marketed to the country (after all, it’s not that difficult to persuade people to do what their instincts urge them to do) and, exercising our democratic free will, we have enshrined in law measures that overturn the old moral code.

The countless discussions of Dawkins’s book provided easy fodder for the pocket-intellectuals who make BBC talk shows, but the practical effect of this unilateral moral disarmament were never addressed. In recent decades millions of people have become unmoored from the country’s traditional moral code with sadly predictable consequences, not least on the nation’s mental health.

Increasing incidence of mental illness has been apparent in recent years, not surprisingly because the UK has one of the highest rates of mental health problems in the world. According to an NHS survey reported in 2017, at any one time, a sixth of the population is suffering from a mental health problem. As reported by the BBC website: “It seems to be getting more common – or at least among those with severe symptoms. While the proportion of people affected does not appear to have risen in the past few years, if you go back a little further there has certainly been a steady increase.”

The result of our national, transgressive moral revolution is now apparent: a horribly diminished sense of security for millions of children and a coarsening and debasement of our attitudes to sex, plus a rise in mental illness across the population. In addition, there has been a profound change in the value we put on human life itself. It is often said that contemporary Britain is a post-Christian country; if so, the ills that afflict the nation today cannot be laid at the door of the old belief system. This country of unhappy children and uncertain adults – this is the world social liberal values have conjured into being.

The BBC which, once upon a time, understood its responsibilities differently and promoted a straightforward Christian view of the world, has been the midwife to this transformation; in fact, more than the midwife – an active agent of change agitating for the new morality. And, the change having been successfully realised – with permissive liberal values now triumphant – the BBC no longer even allows a social conservative challenge to the new dispensation. Any claim by the Corporation to be “impartial” in this debate is a lie.

https://catholicherald.co.uk/magazin...nt-philosophy/
Reply

سيف الله
02-20-2019, 09:55 AM
Salaam

Another update.

The end of US liberal hegemony

In his New Year speech for 2019, Chinese President Xi Jinping warned that “we’re facing a period of major change never seen in a century.”

So what is likely to come to an end and what is likely to emerge in this “period of major change”?

According to a number of prestigious international relations scholars in the United States, such as Stephen M. Walt of Harvard University, Barry Posen of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, among all the things that are likely to disappear in the future is American hegemony.

In his new book, “The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities”, Mearsheimer has declared in no uncertain terms the end of the US “liberal hegemony”.

Mearsheimer noted that since the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, the US has been adopting a global strategy of facilitating its liberal hegemony in order to serve three goals: 1. to promote, around the globe, US democratic ideologies as a set of universal values; 2. to facilitate the integration of countries in the world into the global market and the free economic system, and 3. to establish supranational bodies to regulate other nations on American terms.

Mearsheimer contends that the reason why the US has been embracing this strategy over the past 30 years is that, subjectively speaking, both the Republican and Democratic elites in Washington are firm believers in a set of libertarian ideologies, and have acquired a sense of superiority.

As a result, these US elites would often attempt to shape the world based on America’s own facets.

Then, objectively speaking, under the unipolar world order following the disintegration of the former Soviet Union in 1991, the US has remained the world’s superpower which is basically free to do whatever it wants.

It is against such a unique historical background that the world has witnessed, over the past two decades, America’s active and successive military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, not to mention the suppression of Iran, the facilitation of the eastward expansion of NATO, as well as its roles in the “Color Revolutions” in Eastern Europe and the Arab Spring.

Under the US liberal hegemony, the sovereignty of other nations is often pushed to the sidelines.

However, ironically, the fact that the US has been throwing its weight around on the world scene hasn’t made it stronger.

Moreover, according to the statistics of some independent institutions, the number of countries around the world that practice liberal democracy has actually gone into decline.

As Mearsheimer has put it, what happened over the last two decades around the world has indicated that nationalism and pragmatism have always been able to prevail over liberalism.

And the American liberal hegemony has become increasingly unsustainable as today’s world has changed from being unipolar to multipolar, looking from an objective perspective of the world situation.

In particular, the 2008 global financial tsunami has taken a heavy toll on the soft power of the US.

And since US President Donald Trump was voted into office in 2016 with a strong public mandate of making America great again, he has radically deviated from the policy approach adopted by the traditional political establishment in Washington, and subverted the original goals of the US liberal hegemony.

Under his “America First” policy, Trump has replaced free trade with protectionism, and pulled his country out of international organizations and treaties one after another.

Mearsheimer believes Trump’s rise to power has officially marked the end of the global strategy of promoting liberal hegemony adopted by the US over the last 30 years.

Nevertheless, as some American scholars have pointed out, the demise of the US liberal hegemony doesn’t necessarily mean Washington would totally give up pursuing global predominance in the days ahead. Nor does it mean the US would stop interfering in other countries’ domestic affairs.

The US will have to adjust its policy in order to stay relevant in global affairs.

As to how America should adjust its policy approach in order to adapt to a multipolar world, it is a complicated issue that involves intense partisan struggle in Washington.

The recent political drama over the proposed wall along the US-Mexico border can be seen as an example of the intensity of the political struggle in the US.

http://www.ejinsight.com/20190214-the-end-of-us-liberal-hegemony/
Reply

CuriousonTruth
02-20-2019, 04:00 PM
US people have moved from Liberalism to White Nationalism just like most in Europe. But the hegemony of the west is still there. It has partially just changed in ideology.

And also don't forget, the new ideology is also "liberal" in that it still champions gay rights, atheism, fake western high horse of "humanitarianism". Nothing changed, they just became more radical is all.
Reply

سيف الله
02-21-2019, 11:37 PM
Salaam

format_quote Originally Posted by CuriousonTruth
US people have moved from Liberalism to White Nationalism just like most in Europe. But the hegemony of the west is still there. It has partially just changed in ideology.

And also don't forget, the new ideology is also "liberal" in that it still champions gay rights, atheism, fake western high horse of "humanitarianism". Nothing changed, they just became more radical is all.
A rebranding exercise, reminds me of this scene.

Reply

سيف الله
02-22-2019, 01:04 AM
Salaam

More on the liberal elite trying to create a 'new narrative' for Muslims to follow. Dont agree with all that is said but worth a read.



“Islam Is Transforming” And Other Idiotic Views from The Economist

The Economist has always been the less subtle, more in-your-face anti-Islam publication compared to the likes of the NYTimes, Washington Post, Atlantic, et al. The benefit of this unvarnished animosity toward Islam is that Muslims can see very clearly what the elite Western political and media establishment really thinks about them and their religion, without all the fake political correctness and shallow nods to multiculturalism dripping from the pages of those other outlets.

Their latest piece, “The Little-Noticed Transformation of Islam in the West,” is the perfect example of such truth in midst of barely-masked derision.

The Economist:

Islam frightens many in the West. Jihadists kill in the name of their religion. Some Muslim conservatives believe it lets them force their daughters to marry. When asked, Westerners say that Islam is the religion they least want their neighbours or in-laws to follow. Bestselling books such as “The Strange Death of Europe”, “Le Suicide Français” and “Submission” warn against the march of Islam.

The editors at a more politically correct outlet would have insisted that this paragraph be followed with some assurance that the “version of Islam followed by most Muslims” is nothing to be afraid of and perfectly benign in the same way that a neutered pet is perfectly benign.

But not the folks at the Economist! People are justified in fearing Islam because Islam is fearsome. I tend to agree, but not in the sense that the Economist intends or the sense the poor geriatric nativist with bouts of dementia understands when he is reading, well, the Economist. Islam is fearsome in the way that, to a criminal, justice is fearsome. Islam is fearsome in the way that the truth piercing through the fog of self delusion is fearsome.

However, Western Islam is undergoing a little-noticed transformation. As our special report this week sets out, a natural process of adaptation and assimilation is doing more than any government to tame the threat posed by Islamic extremism. The first generation of Muslim workers who migrated to the West, starting in the 1950s, did not know how long they would stay; their religious practices directed by foreign-trained imams were tied to those of their countries of origin. The second generation felt alienated, caught between their parents’ foreign culture and societies whose institutions they found hard to penetrate. Frustrated and belonging nowhere, a few radicals turned to violent jihad.

First- and second-generation Muslims in the West were really lost, weren’t they? For them, Islam was either a bumbling cultural byproduct or the expression of seething, violent frustration, frustration born from the fact they couldn’t make it in enlightened Western institutions.

Today the third generation is coming of age. It is more enfranchised and confident than the first two. Most of its members want little truck with either foreign imams or violent jihadist propaganda. Instead, for young Muslims in the West, faith is increasingly becoming a matter of personal choice.

For the Economist, Islam doesn’t amount to much beyond foreign cultural practices, at best, terrorism at worst. Islam is only redeemable when Muslims adopt liberal values like personal choice and scriptural revisionism. This openness to transcend run-of-the-mill “foreign Islam” is what makes this new generation of Muslims so promising to the Western elite.

Their beliefs range from ultra-conservative to path-breakingly liberal. Some prominent scholars allow female converts to keep non-Muslim husbands; a few congregations conduct weekly prayers on Sundays, because the faithful go to work on Fridays; there are even women-led mosques. At the same time Western institutions are gradually opening up to Muslims. London and Rotterdam are both run by Muslim mayors. Two Muslim women, one of them veiled, were voted into the United States Congress last year.


So much garbage jam packed into these paragraphs. I wish I could say the Economist was making it all up. But unfortunately, we do have such trash promoted by self-described Muslims in this day and age. Thankfully, the Muslim community has rejected this nonsense for the most part.

What is a problem are the Muslim politicians. It is telling that the Economist ties liberal initiatives like women-led mosques to Muslim political involvement. Indeed, these two phenomena are intertwined because Muslim politicians have proven themselves to be the most liberal and, more importantly, have been the most effective force for introducing liberal tendencies into the mainstream Muslim community.

For example:

For decades, self-described “progressive Muslims” have tried to get mainstream traditional Muslims to adopt liberal views on homosexuality, women’s equality, religious pluralism, etc. But figures like Linda Sarsour or Sadiq Khan, through the conduit of political activism, have been able to accomplish more towards that goal in just a few years than all these progressive misfits combined.

It is quite insidious when you think about it. Sad as it is, some otherwise traditionally-inclined Muslims reflexively support and celebrate any Muslim who gets recognized in the Western political or media establishment. But the Western political and media establishment only recognizes and promotes Muslims who are sufficiently liberal. The result is as predictable as it is depressing.

How can Western governments encourage this transition? Their main task is to focus on upholding the law rather than try to force Muslims to change their beliefs. The West is enjoying a decline in attacks by jihadists. The number they killed in Europe fell from over 150 in 2015 to 14 last year. Attacks not only threaten lives and property, they also set back relations between Muslims and those around them. That is why criminality must be dealt with firmly by the law and the intelligence services.

How deliciously coy of the Economist to pretend like Western governments haven’t been forcing this transition with all their might for literally more than two centuries. Or is the Economist not aware of the colonial history of the Muslim world, where Western-backed religious agents in conjunction with their colonial masters, like Lord Cromer, worked hard to introduce liberal values to the average Muslim in order to make him more amenable to Western colonial rule? This project, of course, is still in full swing today.

The colonialists always described Muslim resistance to their genocidal colonial project as “terrorism.” In the same way, the Economist describes “conservative” illiberal Muslims as being more prone to violent terror. So, to suggest that Western government interest in liberalizing Muslims is solely or even primarily intended to curb terrorism is putting the cart before the horse.

The trouble is that governments frequently lump in criminal actions with regressive norms. Germany is leading a drive to curb foreign influence of mosques, train imams and control funding. France wants to cajole Muslims into a representative body. They are echoing the Muslim world, where Islam is often a state religion that is run, and stifled, by governments.

Conveniently no mention of how these tyrants in the Muslim world are doing the stifling of Islam at the behest of Western governments and Israel.

However, the top-down nannying of religion risks a backlash. Heavy-handed interference will alienate communities whose co-operation is needed to identify potential terrorists and abusers among them. Put on the defensive, Muslims will deepen communal identities and retreat into the very segregation that intervention is supposed to reverse.


You see that? Heavy-handed repression of devout Muslims is bad because then they won’t cooperate with us in policing themselves. If only we could somehow get them to cooperate in spite of heavy-handed repression…

The word “abuser” is very conspicuous here. I haven’t seen this pairing of terrorism with abuse in a mainstream media outlet before, but it is significant. Over the past year and a half we have seen this vaguely-defined concept of “spiritual abuse” be introduced in Muslim community discussions by liberal activists who, like the Economist, seem to have a strange animus toward “foreign imams.” For all the self-righteous sanctimony surrounding the concept of “spiritual abuse,” most of what we have seen so far by those deploying the term is the policing of illiberalism. Of course, this has been the prime function of the concept of “extremism” as well. Countering extremism by Western governmental agencies and their Muslim agents has just amounted to countering illiberalism. It appears that countering abuse serves that same end.

Rather than intervene in doctrine, it is better to deal with social conservatism through argument and persuasion. That can make for testy debate. This week Ilhan Omar, a Democratic congresswoman from Minnesota, had to apologise for peddling anti-Semitic tropes. The trickiest balance is over how to counter the radicalisation of Muslims, whether online or in prisons. This often involves vulnerable young people becoming more devout before turning to violence. But there are signs of progress. Although young Muslims are conservative by the standards of Western society (eg, on gay schoolteachers), they are more liberal than their elders.

Ilhan Omar is a social conservative? The same Ilhan Omar that is regularly tweeting about her love for cross dressers and sodomites? That Ilhan Omar?

It’s not a mistake that the Economist portrays Ilhan Omar as some kind of radically conservative Muslim. If someone as nauseatingly liberal and assimilated as Ilhan Omar is on the edge of radicalism, then the vast majority of the non-LGBT-accepting, non-faux-turban-wearing Western Muslim community must be ISIS on steroids by that standard.

And as the Economist makes clear here, this conservatism justifies the surveillance and policing of the Muslim community. In the world of the Economist, this is because being devout is the precursor to violence, i.e., terrorism. Socially conservative, i.e., illiberal, Muslims are one step away from committing terrorism. Muslims who criticize Israel are one step away from committing terrorism. Therefore, monitoring Muslims in order to detect the first sign of illiberalism and/or anti-Zionism is critical to fighting terror. This has been the de facto anti-terror policy position in the West since 2001.

Of course, it is irrelevant to the Economist that numerous studies have shown no positive correlation between religiosity and a propensity to commit acts of terror. Even the US Pentagon issued a report in 2004 concluding that the main driver of terrorism is not religiosity. Why should such studies matter when the real intention behind policing religious Muslims is to stamp out their illiberalism? That has always been the goal. Fighting terrorism or curbing “abuse” just provides a convenient justification for that larger project.

https://muslimskeptic.com/2019/02/18...the-economist/

Related



More 'moderate' Islam.







Reply

سيف الله
02-26-2019, 09:14 PM
Salaam

Brother Malcolm on the ball.

Blurb


A must-see for those that are looking for the truth about left-wing ideologies.

Reply

سيف الله
03-07-2019, 11:10 PM
Salaam

Like to share.

Blurb

This is a discussion with a liberal Atheist (James) who thinks that western enlightenment ideas are the most moral alternative for human beings in opposed to Islamic ones.


Reply

سيف الله
03-09-2019, 02:23 AM
Salaam

Another update.

Why the ‘Left’ is Dead in the Water

It seems that there is not much left of the Left and what remains has nothing to do with ‘Left.’

Contemporary ‘Left’ politics is detached from its natural constituency, working people. The so called ‘Left’ is basically a symbolic identifier for ‘Guardian readers’ a critical expression attributed to middle class people who, for some reason, claim to know what is good for the working class. How did this happen to the Left? Why was it derailed and by whom?

Hierarchy is one answer. The capitalist and the corporate worlds operate on an intensely hierarchical basis. The path to leadership within a bank, management of a globally trading company or even high command in the military is of an evolutionary nature. Such power is acquired by a challenging climb within an increasingly demanding system. It is all about the survival of the fittest. Every step entails new challenges. Failure at any step could easily result in a setback or even a career end. In the old good days, the Left also operated on a hierarchical system. There was a long challenging path from the local workers’ union to the national party. But the Left is hierarchical no more.

Left ideology, like working class politics, was initially the byproduct of the industrial revolution. It was born to address the needs and demands of a new emerging class; those who were working day and night to make other people richer. In the old days, when Left was a meaningful adventure, Left politicians grew out of workers’ unions. Those who were distinguished in representing and improving the conditions of their fellow workers made it to the trade unions and eventually into the national parties. None of that exists anymore.

In a world without manufacturing, the working class have been removed from the consumption chain and demoted into an ‘under class.’ The contemporary Left politician has nothing to do with the workless people let alone the workless class. The unions are largely defunct. You won’t find many Labour politicians who have actually worked in factories and mixed with working people for real. No contemporary Left politician including Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders is the product of a struggle through a highly demanding hierarchical system as such a system hasn’t really existed within the Left for at least four decades.

In most cases, the contemporary Left politician is a middle class university activist groomed through party politics activity. Instead of fighting for manufacturing and jobs, the Left has embraced the highly divisive identitarian battle. While the old Left tended to unite us by leading the fight against the horrid capitalists rather than worrying about whether you were a man or a woman, black or white, Jew or Muslim, gay or hetero, our present-day ‘Left’ actually promotes racial differences and divisions as it pushes people to identify with their biology (skin colour, gender, sexual orientation, Jewish maternal gene etc.) If the old Left united us against the capitalists, the contemporary ‘Left’ divides us and uses the funds it collects from capitalist foundations such as George Soros’ Open Society Institute.

The British Labour party is a prime example of this. It is deaf to the cry of the lower classes. It claims to care ‘for the many’ but in practice is only attentive to a few voices within the intrusive Israeli Lobby. As Britain is struggling with the crucial debate over Brexit, British Labour has been focused instead on spurious allegations of ‘antisemitsm.’ It is hard to see how any Left political body in the West even plans to bring more work to the people. The Left offers nothing in the way of a vision of a better society for all. It is impossible to find the Left within the contemporary ‘Left.’

Why has this happened to the Left, why has it become irrelevant? Because by now the Left is a non-hierarchical system. It is an amalgam of uniquely ungifted people who made politics into their ‘career.’ Most Left politicians have never worked at a proper job where money is exchanged for merit, achievements or results. The vast majority of Left politicians have never faced the economic challenges associated with the experience of being adults. Tragically such people can’t lead a country, a city, a borough or even a village.

The Left had a mostly positive run for about 150 years. But its role has come to an end as the condition of being in the world has been radically transformed. The Left failed to adapt. It removed itself from the universal ethos.

The shift in our human landscape has created a desperate need for a new ethos: a fresh stand point that will reinstate the Western Athenian ethical and universal roots and produce a new canon that aspires for truth and truthfulness as opposed to the current cancerous tyranny of correctness.

https://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/201...d-in-the-water

Good point on the importance of defending your culture.

Blurb

How can the Left be defeated?



vinylsingleman

3 years ago

Ironically, cultural Marxism is much stronger today in the West than it is in the old Communist bloc, where it has long been discarded.


RockingMrE


3 years ago

+vinylsingleman It looks that way. Eastern Europeans know better.

A look at the darker side of leftwing politics.

Blurb

One consequence of the triumph of the political left is the proliferation of fanciful psychiatric diagnoses for all manner of conservatives. Now Kerry Bolton has written a factually based account of the pathology of the left - the vanity of Rousseau, the narcissistic personality of Karl Marx, the megalomania of Trotsky, the father-hating hedonist Mao Zedong, through to the paedophile promoting Allen Ginsberg, and the Oedipus complex of Louis Althusser who on release from a mental hospital strangled his wife. Kerry Bolton’s The Psychotic Left not only makes fascinating reading, but it provides an insight into the hypocrisy of many of the leading figures on the political left, who despite their rhetoric were totally devoid of compassion or empathy for their fellow man.

A common thread of many of the personalities discussed in this book is an overwhelming narcissism - the arrogance of people who are absolutely confident in their prescriptions for redesigning society and absolutely ruthless in putting their ideas into action - whatever the cost in human lives and suffering.


Reply

سيف الله
03-14-2019, 09:57 PM
Salaam

Like to share, a vision of the future?

Reply

سيف الله
03-21-2019, 05:30 PM
Salaam

Like to share

Reply

سيف الله
06-21-2019, 07:03 AM
Salaam

Another update.

Blurb

Is LIBERAL DEMOCRACY in RETREAT?

Recent elections in India and Europe, societies with a range of cultures and levels of wealth, have provided further proof that the liberal world order, is retreating into one dominated by sovereignty and the nation state. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, on his Hindu nationalist ticket, won an even bigger majority. In European parliamentary elections, what have become known as populist parties increased their share of the vote to 29 percent of the total, up from just 10 percent two decades ago.

Reply

سيف الله
09-05-2019, 08:16 PM
Salaam

Another update.

The failure of the neo-liberal order


Prof. Stephen Walt observes, contra Fukuyama, that history didn't end in 1989:

As a professor of international affairs at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, Stephen Walt has a front row seat to the discussions, debates, and human types that dominate U.S. foreign policy. His assessment is bleak. With the leading lights of both parties wedded to the consensus that he calls “liberal hegemony,” the world’s predicted embrace of democratic capitalism and peaceful relations has not materialized. Instead, liberal hegemony has yielded long and inconclusive wars in the Middle East, regime change operations that have led to failed states in Libya and Yemen, U.S. military spending that dwarfs that of the rest of the world, resentment and passive resistance from our ostensible allies, along with increasing hostility from Russia and China.

In short, Walt makes a persuasive case that liberal hegemony is not succeeding, even on its own terms....

Walt details the practice of liberal hegemony since the end of the cold war, when the United States found itself in the position of being the “sole superpower.” He explains that “the pursuit of liberal hegemony involved (1) preserving U.S. primacy, especially in the military sphere; (2) expanding the U.S. sphere of influence; and (3) promoting liberal norms of democracy and human rights.”

This approach continued through the Clinton, Bush, and Obama presidencies, in spite of their superficial differences. Indeed, the bipartisan hostility to Trump shows how much consensus on foreign policy prevailed before his election, in spite of the heated debate over the Iraq War in the mid-2000s.

The early fruits of liberal hegemony include the ill-fated Somalia mission and the later intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo. But most infamously, liberal hegemony provided justification for the Iraq War and contributed to the never-ending Afghanistan campaign.

In both cases, liberal hegemony did not counsel limited punitive expeditions, nor would it conceive of classifying certain areas of the world as ungovernable “shitholes” that needed to be cordoned off and avoided. Instead, we would stay until these countries were stable democracies—100 years if need be. As George W. Bush ambitiously put the matter in his second inaugural address, “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands.

The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”

One legitimate criticism of this strategy, for which we have real time confirmation, is that in addition to not achieving results in places like Iraq, Somalia, and Libya, these expansive aims have left little reserve for dealing with a genuine emerging competitor: China. Indeed, far from being prepared and equipped to counter a rising China, the NATO expansion counseled by liberal hegemony has driven the otherwise-declining power of Russia into China’s arms, while, at the same time, short-sighted free trade policies have expanded China’s economy while deindustrializing our own.
Liberal hegemony has become simply another name for rule by neoclown. And since the neoclown objectives have remained essentially unchanged since Trotsky advocated world revolution, liberal hegemony will never accomplish its stated goals because it's not even working towards them. So, the important conclusion is not that liberal hegemony HAS NOT worked as advertised, it is that it CANNOT POSSIBLY do so.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2019/09/t...ral-order.html
Reply

سيف الله
09-12-2019, 04:18 PM
Salaam

Another update

The fall of the neoliberal order

The demoralization of Europe is complete with a declaration by the President of France concerning the end of Western hegemony.

The international order is being shaken in an unprecedented manner, above all with, if I may say so, by the great upheaval that is undoubtedly taking place for the first time in our history, in almost every field and with a profoundly historic magnitude. The first thing we observe is a major transformation, a geopolitical and strategic re-composition. We are undoubtedly experiencing the end of Western hegemony over the world.

We were accustomed to an international order which, since the 18th century, rested on a Western hegemony, mostly French in the 18th century, by the inspiration of the Enlightenment; then mostly British in the 19th century thanks to the Industrial Revolution and, finally, mostly American in the 20th century thanks to the two great conflicts and the economic and political domination of this power. Things change. And they are now deeply shaken by the mistakes of Westerners in certain crises, by the choices that have been made by Americans for several years which did not start with this administration, but which lead to revisiting certain implications in conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere, and to rethinking a deep, diplomatic and military strategy, and sometimes elements of solidarity that we thought were intangible for eternity, even if we had constituted together in geopolitical moments that have changed.

And then there is the emergence of new powers whose impact we have probably underestimated for a long time. China is at the forefront, but also the Russian strategy, which has, it must be said, been pursued more successfully in recent years. I will come back to that. India that is emerging, these new economies that are also becoming powers not only economic but political and that think themselves, as some have written, as real “civilizational states” which now come not only to shake up our international order but who also come to weigh in on the economic order and to rethink the political order and the political imagination that goes with it, with much dynamism and much more inspiration than we have.

Look at India, Russia and China. They have a much stronger political inspiration than Europeans today. They think about our planet with a true logic, a true philosophy, an imagination that we’ve lost a little bit.
This is the result of the so-called Enlightenment gradually eroding the foundations of civilization. Western civilization ebbs and flows with Christianity because Christianity is the spiritual and intellectual barrier that separates truth from untruth. It should be no surprise that a post-Christian West has not only divorced itself from truth and reality, but in doing so, has lost its historical power and influence.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/
Reply

Umm Malik
09-13-2019, 11:54 PM
....
Reply

سيف الله
09-23-2019, 09:12 AM
Salaam

Liberals, have to hand it to them, they are the masters of subversion.



How American Liberalism is Co-Opting Islam

Rather than attack directly, it's transforming the faith into something more individualistic and materialistic.


A persistent refrain of conservatives and liberal hawks has been that liberals and leftists are soft on Islam. This theme dominated Nick Cohen’s What’s Left, Andrew Anthony’s The Fall-Out, Paul Berman’s Flight of the Intellectuals, and much of the late life of Christopher Hitchens.

There is, of course, a great deal of truth to that contention. It is unimaginable that if the pope threatened a novelist with death for blaspheming against Christ, leftists would oppose the author, even though some did, and still do, in the case of Salman Rushdie.

It is unimaginable that if Christian radicals broke into the offices of a magazine and massacred its staff for the crime of depicting their God in an irreverent manner, liberals would condemn the journalists, even though some did in the case of Charlie Hebdo. It is unimaginable that if Serbian Orthodox terrorists bombed U.S. and European cities, progressives would blame Western foreign policy, even though some have in the case of al-Qaeda and ISIS. A clear tendency towards excusing or rationalizing negative phenomena inspired by Islamically derived beliefs has marked liberals and leftists who have tended to see Muslims as innocent victims of Western imperialism and nativism.

Still, I have noticed an interesting irony, at least in the United States. While those conservatives and liberal hawks denounce mainstream society for outwardly celebrating conservative Islam, they ignore its subtle subversion of Islamic tenets, the manner in which it pays cloying respect to the symbolism of Islam while undermining its significance.

Here is a golden example. The magazine Sports Illustrated publishes, for some reason, a “swimsuit issue” filled with bikini models. This year’s issue featured a young Muslim model in a “burkini,” which ensured that both her body and her hair were covered. Reaction was hostile from some quarters. The conservative Christian Matt Walsh decried progressive hypocrisy, writing:

…this is the maneuver leftists have pulled, heaping unabated scorn on conservative Christians, sneering at their modesty and condemning their adherence to traditional gender roles, even while saluting the hijab as a symbol of self-expression and personal liberation….
Yet this “salute” was superficial at best. While the model might have covered up, she was still lazing in the surf, her hands behind her head, as her swimsuit hugged her contours. To be clear, I am not proposing that there was any intent on the part of Sports Illustrated—and still less on the part of the model—to subvert the traditional significance of Islamic dress. But it still seems obvious that drawing attention to womanly curves undercuts the intended modesty of the hijab.

The accidental subversive genius of American liberalism has been in presenting the hijab not as a symbol of faith but as a symbol of choice. Right-wing critics resent this because, of course, the hijab is often imposed on people rather than being chosen. By encouraging Muslims to defend traditional dress on the grounds of choice, though, liberals and leftists have encouraged them to internalize individualistic standards. The hijab becomes less of a religious symbol, virtuously accepted according to God’s will, than an aspect of one’s personal identity, which one is free to shape and exhibit according to one’s wishes.

This is why the New York Times was able publish a column called “How to be a Hoejabi.” This peculiar article, from 2018, by a young Muslim woman, argued:

…the term “hoejabi” (not my coinage) refers to women who see themselves at the crossroads of being “hoes” and “hijabis.” But deeper than that, it mocks all of the negative implications that come with “hoe,” all of the negative implications that come with “hijabi,” and all of the ways that people who are not us try to define our sexualities for us.

Of course, the idea that the individual has the sovereign right to define their sexuality is more religiously progressive than the act of wearing a headscarf is religiously conservative.

The news presenter Noor Tagoudi’s 2016 Playboy interview was another interesting case. Playboy, of course, is a lot more famous for featuring women with naked breasts than veiled hair, but Tagoudi’s message was far less out of place than one might have imagined. She praised the variety of individual fulfillment rather than any kind of religious norm: live your life as your truest self and encourage others to do the same!

One need not homogenize diverse forms of Islamic belief to suggest that this kind of relativism is very new and very American. A Muslim hijabi and an atheist drag queen—what is the difference so long as they are living life as their truest selves?

This concern for individual choice and the individual identity is extended to others. More American Muslims support gay marriage than American Christians. Ilhan Omar, who some conservatives comically believe is some kind of radical Salafi, took a stand this year on behalf of transgendered competitors in sports. Granted, American Muslims are bound to be more liberal than European Muslims because they tend to have originated from the educated middle classes, but America’s power as an engine of secularization remains incredible to behold.

It might sound outrageously presumptuous to say these things of a faith that is not my own but Muslims have said them before. In her essay on “Hijab Culture in the American Muslim Context,” Butheina Hamdah wrote:

It seems that for the hijab to comfortably sit within the public square and in order to “qualify” for inclusion in the sphere of what constitutes grounds for public reason, it has to be secularized and represent something other than its essential meaning.

She continued:

Perhaps this is what distinguishes American secular-liberalism from European secularism, particularly French secularism/laïcité: rather than a ban on certain forms of hijab in the public sphere, what occurs is a recalibration of its meaning to align with public consensus in the US – through individual autonomy or “right to self-expression.”

This cultural “recalibration” could turn out to be a far more powerful liberalizing force than state intervention. Repression, real or imagined, tends to unify people around that which is or appears to be being repressed. Absorbing it into the mainstream, though, leaves little to unite around.

As someone who has criticized dogmatic, totalistic forms of Islam, it might seem unfair for me to spin around and say that these liberal manifestations of the faith are somehow areligious (by which I do not mean the individuals themselves, whose hearts I have no window into, but their public practice). Am I promoting an Islamified “no true Scotsman” fallacy?

Yet Muslims are not alone in being subjected to this tendency. American liberal capitalism has a unique ability to individualize and materialize all structures of belief that claim to have objective transcendent meaning. Nowhere else could the “prosperity gospel” of Joel Osteen or the hyper-progressive pro-sex Christianity of Nadia Bolz-Weber have emerged. That it has done so much to liberalize perhaps the world’s most creedal, anti-modern faith speaks to the astonishing scale of its power. A thousand Christopher Hitchenses hammering out columns on the cruelty and irrationality of faith could not in their wildest dreams have hoped to achieve so much.

https://www.theamericanconservative....-opting-islam/



Related.

Reply

سيف الله
10-07-2019, 12:05 AM
Salaam

Another update





The Sources of the West’s Decline

The growing problems in the Transatlantic community long precede the Trump Administration, Brexit, and the rise of populist movements.


Only five years ago, the general consensus among U.S. and European policy wonks was that, notwithstanding occasional glitches, the so-called liberal international order would remain the dominant global paradigm. For decades, the cognoscenti had assumed that export-driven modernization would eventually transform the likes of communist China into a mega-scale Japan, and that Russia, though authoritarian, would nonetheless adhere—at least in Europe—to the rules-based order. In hindsight it doesn’t really matter whether we fell victim to our own wishful thinking or refused to admit what was in front of us all the time—namely, a brief pause in great power competition followed by two great powers intent on revising the international order, in terms of both its principles and its geostrategic fault lines.

We finally awoke to the geostrategic dimension of the ongoing rivalry when Russia seized Crimea and stoked a war in eastern Ukraine, and when China militarized the South China Sea by deploying military assets on its artificial islands. But the West has yet to fully grasp the realities of the system’s overall transformation, and especially its emerging axiology. The reason for the latter is not a lack of data points, but rather our inability to own up to the ideological shift underway within our own culture.

At the geostrategic level, the state of global affairs today is defined by two principal trends: the growing assertiveness of Russia and China, the two principal revisionist states; and the accelerating realignment of states worldwide in response to this rising pressure. More importantly, this challenge to the West runs in parallel with the apparent determination on the part of China to supplant democratic governance with a system built around authoritarianism, framed around a party elite. And for the first time the West seems too divided to launch a coherent response to this ideological pressure from abroad.

On paper, the West stands head-and-shoulders above any real and potential peer-competitors according to any reasonable economic measure. Judging by the numbers alone, the West should be able to dominate its adversaries: The GDP of the European Union totals about $17 trillion (all figures from World Bank, 2017), and that of the United States, around $19 trillion (as opposed to $12 trillion for China and $1.5 trillion for Russia).

Likewise, given the combined EU population of roughly 512 million and the United States of close to 330 million (not counting the economic resources and population of our principal allies in Asia—Japan, for example, has a GDP of close to $5 trillion and a population of more than 126 million), Western democracies should be uniquely positioned to sustain their supremacy into the foreseeable future. And there are other geostrategic advantages that have accrued to the democratic world: Europe’s key position as the doorway to Eurasia, the U.S. status as a “continental island” advantageously positioned to project power in the Pacific and the Atlantic, with alliances, partnerships, and forward military deployments to match.

In short, the democratic world does not have a shortage of usable power, whether one views it in terms of economics, population, or geography. And while it is true that we have made our situation worse by offshoring our supply chain to Asia and, most importantly, allowing the Chinese to acquire, whether legitimately or by theft or extortion, some of our most valuable intellectual property and technology, Beijing’s growing economic and financial muscle is no match for the combined heft of the West.

The real trouble for the West, rather, is what has been happening within our own societies. Internal changes have made us more vulnerable than any economic calculus would indicate. For the first time since the end of World War II, the so-called declinists may be onto something fundamental when they argue that the West’s heyday may be a thing of the past. The problem is not the economy or technology, but the centrifugal forces rising within the Transatlantic alliance: in short, the progressive civilizational fracturing and decomposition, fed by the growing disconnect between political and cultural elites and the publics across the two continents. Alongside this is an even more insidious trend of fragmenting national cultures and the concomitant debasement of the idea of citizenship, the latter increasingly defined almost exclusively in terms of rights, with reciprocal obligations all but relegated to the proverbial dustbin of history.

The growing disunity of the West, exacerbated by tensions caused by the rejection by some in the Transatlantic community of a historical and cultural narrative that once inspired pride and admiration, both across state lines and internally, is now arguably the key national security challenge confronting us. It is this deepening sense of self-doubt that has made it all but impossible for the United States and its European allies to move beyond personal acrimony and articulate a strategically coherent common response to the devolving international power structure.

The problem runs deeper than individual leaders or governments. We are at an ideological inflection point within the Transatlantic community because of trends that have been building up over decades. Both in the United States and in Europe, we are now subject to the added stress of a “take no prisoners” politics in which the goal is not so much to win the argument as to annihilate one’s opponent.

The re-engineering of the Western cultural narrative over the past 50 years, first in our educational systems and media, and now within politics writ large, has effectively deconstructed the foundations of our shared Transatlantic civilization. In America—and increasingly also in Europe—colleges and universities produce cohorts of indoctrinated political activists with little or no knowledge of the foundational texts of our political tradition, the greatest works of Western literature, or the most enduring political debates that have shaped the Western democratic tradition.

That heritage carried the West to victory through cataclysmic world wars and laid the foundations for the seven decades of peace and prosperity that followed.

Today the very bedrock of the Western political tradition is under assault. In addition, for at least three decades immigration policies across the West have shifted away from acculturating newcomers to the now regnant multiculturalist ideology, which has resulted in unintegrated “suspended communities.” In the process, in a growing number of democracies the larger national identity, which was historically tied to the overarching Western heritage, has been subsumed under ethnic and religious group identities.

We are not quite there yet, but once the sense of belonging to a larger shared Western cultural community has been abolished, we will have reached the tipping point: The Transatlantic alliance that has preserved, protected, and promoted democracy since 1945 will be effectively undone, regardless of whether or not NATO continues to exist.

The cultural unmooring of the West that is now well underway is the result of more than a misguided immigration policy; rather, it flows from the larger ideological transformation of America and Europe. It is not my purpose here to recount the number of times I have encountered undergraduate students who have never read The Federalist Papers or have no idea why the Framers insisted on divided government as the backbone of our political system. Suffice it to say that members of the rising generation increasingly see democracy as either so abstract a concept that it seems to have little direct connection to their experiences or as obstacle to the necessary wholesale transformation, or even abolition, of our obsolescent political systems. According to The World Values Survey, today only about 30 percent of Americans born in the 1980s think it is “essential” to live in a democracy, compared to 75 percent of Americans born in the 1930s.

In Europe, the number of youth who see democracy as “essential” was slightly over 40 percent.1 In a 2017 European Youth Study by Germany’s TUI Foundation (a sample of 6,000 respondents aged 16-26), only 30 percent of the young saw the European Union as an alliance of countries with common cultural values, only 18 percent of them attributed a common cultural basis to the European Union, and only 7 percent mentioned the value of religion and Christian culture. Meanwhile, a 2018 Gallup poll found that only 45 percent of young Americans view capitalism positively. This marked an astonishing 12-point drop in only two years, and a dramatic shift compared to 2010, when 68 percent of young Americans viewed capitalism positively.

The same poll also showed that, when broken down by party affiliation, Democrats were more positive about socialism than capitalism. In short, the societies that are about to emerge from decades of the Gramscian neo-Marxist “long march” through the West’s cultural institutions may in fact have little or no grounding in the foundational principles of liberty, free speech, and a powerful citizenry.

https://www.the-american-interest.co...wests-decline/
Reply

cmb20
10-08-2019, 11:01 AM
Western liberalism is an invention of the kgb during the cold war in the early 60's as part of their active measures/subversion program
Reply

سيف الله
10-09-2019, 08:55 PM
Salaam

format_quote Originally Posted by cmb20
Western liberalism is an invention of the kgb during the cold war in the early 60's as part of their active measures/subversion program
Not true liberalism has existed in some shape and form for centuries, though I agree it has changed over the centuries and merged with leftism during the 1960s.
Reply

cmb20
10-10-2019, 03:59 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Junon
Salaam



Not true liberalism has existed in some shape and form for 500 years, though I agree it has changed over the centuries and merged with leftism during the 1960s.
Yes there were always elements of liberalism in the west but the type of liberalism we see today only became something mainstream in western society during the 60's
Reply

cmb20
10-10-2019, 04:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by cmb20
Yes there were always elements of liberalism in the west but the type of liberalism we see today only became something mainstream in western society during the 60's
This is due to the kgb
Reply

سيف الله
12-01-2019, 10:44 AM
Salaam

The snake oil merchants of liberalism are getting desperate.

Reply

Delphi
12-18-2019, 09:55 PM
It's really not bad at all. Quite frankly, Milo Yiannopolous is an anti Islam provocateur. It's that liberal sense of social justice that leads people to want to protect religions they don't agree with in the name of common humanity and tolerance.
Reply

CuriousonTruth
12-23-2019, 07:06 AM
Nearly all the far-right parties in Europe, India, etc are rabid pro-Zionist. The Liberal ideology of Europeans may fall but the elites will still there. Now they're just sponsoring a different ideology than 20 years ago.
Reply

سيف الله
02-04-2020, 01:34 PM
Salaam

Good insight into the liberal mindset particulary how the justify their right to rule.



Usually genuinely illiberal/racist regimes have to restrict democracy and the franchise. Take, for example, Jim Crow-era USA. The racist Deep South states passed loads of new constitutions drastically restricting voting rights, and not just those of African-Americans

Alabama, 1901: racist Democrats passed a new state constitution that disenfranchised a lot of poor whites as well as African-Americans. One supporter said he was comfortable that it ‘might disenfranchise one or two -------s in the white counties of Alabama’ (h/t to @richardmarcj)

Genuine attacks on basic civil/political rights, the adoption of racist and/or violent policies: nearly always they require the basic principle of one person, one vote and other democratic norms to be suspended or drastically restricted. Apartheid South Africa another obv example

and yet so many liberals nowadays sneer at the basic idea of majoritarian democracy, dismissing it as leading to 'populism', which they smear as largely racist/sexist/xenophobic. Only strengthening liberal safeguards against the majority can prevent catastrophe, they opine

The real issue here is that the existing liberal safeguards have already frustrated the legitimate will of the majority to such a great extent that people resort to anything that promises some radical shake-up. The problem is too much liberalism already, not too little

And at the bottom of this is the real fear of liberals: populist economics that might challenge their cosy little existence. They are terrified that populists might break up the upper-middle class & plutocratic chokehold on the economy - so they have to smear them as 'racist' etc

and they fear this for good reason. All the evidence suggests that the only regimes that have managed to make any dent in spiralling inequality are populist ones, of left and right:

Part of this strategy is taking populist demands which, although more towards a communitarian or less liberal end of the spectrum, are perfectly legitimate - reducing immigration, say - and presenting such demands as akin to extreme racist/reactionary policies

If you conflate the desire of the British population to reduce net inward migration from around 300k people year to, say, 50-80k with Apartheid and Nazism, you can kid yourself that you're a brave anti-racist, not an anti-democratic upholder of the status-quo

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...997902336.html
Reply

سيف الله
08-08-2020, 04:09 PM
Salaam

Like to share.



Reply

سيف الله
09-11-2020, 07:11 AM
Salaam

Another update.

Salvaging Fukuyama


No, Virginia, Fukuyama was most certainly not right all along.

Liberalism, for Fukuyama, if severed from its pre-liberal roots, is destined to fail. “Stable democracy re-quires a sometimes irrational democratic culture,” he cautions, “and a spontaneous civil society growing out of pre-liberal traditions.” Indeed, there is in The Last Man, a striking distaste for the blandness of liberalism, an aesthetic and moral disgust with the world liberal principles has brought into being that goes beyond conservatism into reaction.

“Liberal economic princi-ples provide no support for traditional communities; quite the contrary, they tend to atomize and separate people,” Fukuyama warns. Contrary to the assertions of absolute equality which, at least rhetorically, govern the liberal order, Fukuyama argues that if liberalism attempts “to outlaw differences between the ugly and beautiful, or pretend that a person with no legs is not just the spiritual but the physical equal of someone whole in body, then the argument will in the fullness of time become self-refuting, just as communism was.”

Like any 21st century internet reactionary, Fukuyama pronounces that “a civilization devoid of anyone who wanted to be recognized as better than others, and which did not affirm in some way the essential health and goodness of such a desire, would have little art or literature, music or intellectual life. It would be incompe-tently governed, for few people of quality would choose a life of public service. It would not have much in the way of economic dynamism; its crafts and industries would be pedestrian and un-changing, and its technology second-rate.”

Furthermore, Fukuyama predicts, in a startlingly prescient passage foreshadowing the rise of the 21st century civilisation-state, “perhaps most crit-ically, it would be unable to defend itself from civilizations that were infused with a greater spirit of megalothymia, whose citizens were ready to forsake comfort and safety and who were not afraid to risk their lives for the sake of dominion”.
To Fukuyama's credit, he belatedly realized that he was incorrect. To his demerit, instead of honestly and openly admitting his errors, he simply tried to quietly correct them. His most recent book, an attempt to get out in front of the nationalist trend, is virtually unreadable because he clearly does not wish to give up on the neo-liberal order whose triumph he proclaimed and whose interests he defends.

Fukuyama is still warning about "threats to liberal democracy". He is still trying to breathe life into a corpse. He is still selling civic nationalism as a replacement for authentic nationalism. He still isn't admitting that liberal democracy is dead because liberal democracy was always a collection of pretty rhetorical lies constructed upon the foundation of a false philosophy.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2020/09/s...-fukuyama.html
Reply

سيف الله
09-05-2021, 11:46 PM
Salaam

Another perspective on the decline of liberalism. Dont agree with his COVID take but the rest is interesting.

An Induced Economic Coma

Fabio Vighi explains why the fake pandemic was necessary in the eyes of the global elite, and how it is less a well-orchestrated plan to take permanent control than a desperate measure of last resort to attempt to salvage some vestiges of the neoliberal world order:

Joining the dots is a simple enough exercise. If we do so, we might see a well-defined narrative outline emerge, whose succinct summary reads as follows: lockdowns and the global suspension of economic transactions were intended to 1) Allow the Fed to flood the ailing financial markets with freshly printed money while deferring hyperinflation; and 2) Introduce mass vaccination programmes and health passports as pillars of a neo-feudal regime of capitalist accumulation. As we shall see, the two aims merge into one.

In 2019, world economy was plagued by the same sickness that had caused the 2008 credit crunch. It was suffocating under an unsustainable mountain of debt. Many public companies could not generate enough profit to cover interest payments on their own debts and were staying afloat only by taking on new loans. ‘Zombie companies’ (with year-on-year low profitability, falling turnover, squeezed margins, limited cashflow, and highly leveraged balance sheet) were rising everywhere. The repo market meltdown of September 2019 must be placed within this fragile economic context.

When the air is saturated with flammable materials, any spark can cause the explosion. And in the magical world of finance, tout se tient: one flap of a butterfly’s wings in a certain sector can send the whole house of cards tumbling down. In financial markets powered by cheap loans, any increase in interest rates is potentially cataclysmic for banks, hedge funds, pension funds and the entire government bond market, because the cost of borrowing increases and liquidity dries up. This is what happened with the ‘repocalypse’ of September 2019: interest rates spiked to 10.5% in a matter of hours, panic broke out affecting futures, options, currencies, and other markets where traders bet by borrowing from repos. The only way to defuse the contagion was by throwing as much liquidity as necessary into the system – like helicopters dropping thousands of gallons of water on a wildfire. Between September 2019 and March 2020, the Fed injected more than $9 trillion into the banking system, equivalent to more than 40% of US GDP.

The mainstream narrative should therefore be reversed: the stock market did not collapse (in March 2020) because lockdowns had to be imposed; rather, lockdowns had to be imposed because financial markets were collapsing. With lockdowns came the suspension of business transactions, which drained the demand for credit and stopped the contagion. In other words, restructuring the financial architecture through extraordinary monetary policy was contingent on the economy’s engine being turned off. Had the enormous mass of liquidity pumped into the financial sector reached transactions on the ground, a monetary tsunami with catastrophic consequences would have been unleashed.

As claimed by economist Ellen Brown, it was “another bailout”, but this time “under cover of a virus.” Similarly, John Titus and Catherine Austin Fitts noted that the Covid-19 “magic wand” allowed the Fed to execute BlackRock’s “going direct” plan, literally: it carried out an unprecedented purchase of government bonds, while, on an infinitesimally smaller scale, also issuing government backed ‘COVID loans’ to businesses. In brief, only an induced economic coma would provide the Fed with the room to defuse the time-bomb ticking away in the financial sector. Screened by mass-hysteria, the US central bank plugged the holes in the interbank lending market, dodging hyperinflation as well as the ‘Financial Stability Oversight Council’ (the federal agency for monitoring financial risk created after the 2008 collapse), as discussed here. However, the “going direct” blueprint should also be framed as a desperate measure, for it can only prolong the agony of a global economy increasingly hostage to money printing and the artificial inflation of financial assets.

At the heart of our predicament lies an insurmountable structural impasse. Debt-leveraged financialization is contemporary capitalism’s only line of flight, the inevitable forward-escape route for a reproductive model that has reached its historical limit.
A SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY: SYSTEMIC COLLAPSE AND PANDEMIC SIMULATION, 16 August 2021
There are a number of implications that follow from this interpretation of events. First, the attempt to blame China for the “China virus” are almost certainly false. China has been at war with the neoclowns and the banking elite as well as with their government and military tools for the last 20 years, but it took until 2013 and Xi Jinping unexpectedly consolidating his power in the CCP for the elite to realize it. What we’re experiencing appears to be fallout from the global war between the Sino-Russian alliance and the neoclown-occupied West; notice how there have been no lockdowns in China, Russia, or any of the nations allied with them.

Second, unlike Xi and Putin, Donald Trump never succeeded in breaking free of the globalist influence. This is hardly a surprise, in light of the 2020 election fraud and the way he inexplicably permitted himself to be constantly surrounded by hostile Deep State figures, but it does explain the constant alarm with which the media and the corrupt institutions regarded his administration.

Third, this radical treatment is not a viable long-term solution. The economic forces that have stretched the neoliberal world order and the global economy to a breaking point have neither been addressed nor have they disappeared, they’ve merely been held at bay for a period of time. When the emergency structure fails – and it will fail – it is unlikely to the point of inconceivability that the same parties who have resolutely refused to address the core problems will have done anything but make the situation worse.

Fourth, there will be more lockdowns, shutdowns, and other attempts to interfere with the economic forces that are putting pressure on the central banks to write off bad loans and deflate the credit market. The entire effort is focused on refusing to let organizations that are only financially viable on paper go bankrupt; it’s an attempt to prop up the entire global economy with nothing more than word spells and will. But this sort of magickal thinking failed in the real world of Afghanistan and Syria, and sooner or later, it will fail in the markets too.

Fifth and finally, I am more convinced than ever that the entire neoliberal system, including the political entity known as the USA, will fail within 12 years, as I first predicted 17 years ago. There is nothing, literally nothing, to suggest that the historical trends I observed then concerning the lifespan of currencies will not play out according to the historical norms.

https://voxday.net/2021/09/04/an-induced-economic-coma/
Reply

سيف الله
10-17-2021, 06:38 AM
Salaam

Final update. Good and unusually respectful debate.


Reply

سيف الله
12-18-2022, 07:37 AM
Salaam

Another update

Free Trade is Dead

In amidst the economic pain and disruption incumbent in the fall of Clown World, there are some significant silver linings:

The founder of the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation, Morris Chang, says geopolitics is having profound effects on the semiconductor industry.

Speaking at an event in Phoenix Arizona, where his firm was debuting an ambitious $40 billion upgrade and expansion of its new manufacturing facility in the state, he explained the new constraints being placed on the sector by the changing geopolitical scene.

Speaking of the new facility, which is TSMC’s first advanced chip plant built in the United States in over two decades, Chang said there remained a lot of hard work ahead, if it was to be a success.

The upgrades for the facility will enable the phoenix plant to manufacture the chips for Apple’s iPhone, which can perform almost 17 trillion specialized calculations per second. TMSC is planning an even newer facility in the state which will house even more advanced production technology, capable of producing the microchips for future smartphones, computers, and other smart electronics.

In an interview with Nikkei Asia at the event, Chang likened the plant to the first plant TSMC ever built in the US, in 1995 in Carnas, Washington.

Chang said, “Twenty-seven years have passed and [the semiconductor industry] witnessed a big change in the world, a big geopolitical situation change in the world. Globalization is almost dead and free trade is almost dead. A lot of people still wish they would come back, but I don’t think they will be back.”
The death of globalization and free trade is not only a good thing, it is absolutely necessary if Mankind is going to survive, and eventually, thrive. We’ve seen the best that globalism has to offer, and it is nothing more than idiocracy, debt slavery, and a relentlessly ugly monoculture.

It only took 30 years for 300 years of economic theory to be conclusively disproven by reality. But it was always false and totally incompatible with the existence of nations, as my critique of free trade on mathematical grounds demonstrated.

https://voxday.net/2022/12/11/free-trade-is-dead/

The Economics of Clown World

Michael Hudson explains the basic operation of what passes for Clown World’s economic system in an interview:

https://thesaker.is/michael-hudson-g...rman-magazine/

MEGA Radio: In your new book The Destiny of Civilization: Finance Capitalism, Industrial Capitalism, or Socialism you state that the world economy is now fracturing between two parts, the United States and Europe is the dollarized part. And this Western neoliberal unit is driving Eurasia and most of the Global South into a separate group. You just stated this in an interview from November. Could you explain this for our outlet?

Michael Hudson: The split is not only geographic but above all reflects the conflict between Western neoliberalism and the traditional logic of industrial capitalism. The West has deindustrialized its economies by replacing industrial capitalism with finance capitalism, initially in an attempt to keep its wages down by moving abroad to employ foreign labor, and then to try and establish monopoly privileges and captive markets or arms (and now oil) and high-technology essentials, becoming rentier economies.

A century ago, industrial capitalism was expected to evolve into industrial socialism, with governments providing subsidized basic infrastructure services (such as health care, education, communication, research and development) to minimize their cost of living and doing business. That is how the United States, Germany and other countries built up their industrial power, and it also is how China and other Eurasian countries have done so more recently.

But the West’s choice to privatize and financialize its basic infrastructure, dismantling the role of government and shifting planning to Wall Street, London and other financial centers, has left it with little to offer other countries – except or the promise not to bomb them or treat them as enemies if they seek to keep their wealth in their own hands instead of transferring it to U.S. investors and corporations.

The result is that when China and other countries build up their economies in the same way that the United States did from the end of its Civil War to World War II, they are treated as enemies. It is as if U.S. diplomats see that the game is lost, and that their economy has become so debt-ridden, privatized and high-cost that it cannot compete, that it simply hopes to keep making other countries dependent tributaries for as long as it can until the game finally is over.

If the U.S. succeeds in imposing financial neoliberalism on the world, then other countries will end up with the same problems that the United States is experiencing.
Read the whole thing. It’s really good and it even references Crusader Kings. And Hudson points out that the cruelest thing Russia can do to Europe is not to invade it, but rather, to abandon it to the rapacious rule of the US financial elite.

https://voxday.net/2022/12/17/the-ec...f-clown-world/
Reply

سيف الله
12-27-2022, 11:56 PM
Salaam

Different perspectives but saying the same thing. Globalism in its current form is dying.





Having said that.



We will see how long this form of globalisation lasts. Time will tell.
Reply

سيف الله
07-18-2023, 06:52 AM
Salaam

Like to share. A return to neo - serfdom?



Related



More comment. This has been going on for sometime against Muslims but now their remit is expanding to target others.


Better Stick with Cash


Banks are now closing the accounts of people whose “publicly-stated views are at odds with their positions as inclusive organisations” and using spurious excuses to do so.

The 40-page file shows that the bank cited his retweet of a Ricky Gervais joke and his friendship with Novak Djokovic to raise concerns he was ‘xenophobic and racist’.

The extraordinary documents obtained by the former Ukip leader and handed to MailOnline revealed the 331-year-old bank decided to ‘exit’ him after making reference to his friendship with former Wimbledon champion Djokovic.

The tennis player, who lost in the men’s singles final in SW19 on Sunday, made headlines over his decision not to have the Covid-19 vaccine during the pandemic.

The dossier also shows the bank’s discussions considered 13 tweets, including a retweet by Mr Farage of a video of a Ricky Gervais sketch posted by Laurence Fox satirising the transgender movement. In the scene Gervais made a joke about ‘old-fashioned women – the ones with wombs’.

Mr Farage had retweeted the clip in May last year with the phrase ‘this is brilliant’ – but the document described it as a ‘transphobic comedy sketch’.

The officials noted that closing his accounts could not be justified on the basis of his wealth as his ‘economic contribution’ was ‘sufficient to retain on a commercial basis’.

But the minutes state: ‘The Committee did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.’
This is why all of the liberal “civil rights” and “freedom of speech” has been nonsense all along. As some of the earliest supporters of these fraudulent concepts admitted nearly 100 years ago, they only exist in order to permit those whose evil beliefs had been repressed to take power and begin repressing traditional views, nationalist beliefs, and the Christian faith.

And it is why every effort to create “central bank digital currency” should be opposed, and why you should stop using credit cards and debit cards for every little purchase, because the more you utilize the control system, the easier it is for the control freaks to force everyone else to do so.

Start small. Use cash at the supermarket and the gas station. Delete the financial apps from your smartphone. Wait patiently in the lines instead of using self-checkout. Don’t make it easy for them.

Because if you don’t, you’ll soon find yourself being ejected from the system anyhow, just like Niles Farage and other individuals deemed undesirable by those in control of the banking system due to a joke on social media or something similarly trivial.

https://voxday.net/2023/07/19/better-stick-with-cash/
Reply

سيف الله
08-01-2023, 10:49 PM
Salaam

Another update




Niger Tests Clown World


One of the inevitable consequences of the sanctions war on Russia was the realization by third parties that economic globalization is a trap that provides more external control than internal opportunity. This is why the Sino-Russian turn to Africa, Asia, and South America is significant, as it threatens to exclude the self-styled “global majority” from the greater part of the world’s population. That’s why the USA put so much pressure on African leaders to not attend the second St. Petersburg summit.

Last week’s Russia-Africa summit in St. Petersburg was a landmark event in Moscow’s foreign policy concept and practice. Not so much because it brought scores of African leaders and senior officials to the country. The first summit, four years ago in Sochi, featured even more African heads of state. Also, it is not solely because its agenda expanded beyond economics and included a humanitarian dimension: this is important, but this isn’t all.

Essentially, the meeting, with the bureaucratic preparation and the wide public coverage it has received within Russia, testifies to a sea change in Moscow’s worldview and international positioning toward the world’s rising non-Western majority, as laid down in the recently adopted Foreign Policy Concept.

St. Petersburg was founded by Peter the Great in the early 18th century as a ‘window to Europe,’ and last week, it served the same purpose for Africa.

Eurocentrism, of course, is still deeply embedded in the Russian elite’s thinking and aspirations. Nevertheless, the failure of Russia’s long travails of Western integration in the wake of the demise of the Soviet Union has now exploded into the proxy war against the United States and NATO in Ukraine. This has produced a historic shift in Moscow’s policies, comparable to the time of Peter the Great in its significance, though in a wholly different direction. For the foreseeable future, the universe of Russia’s foreign policy will remain divided in two large parts: the house of foes including Europe, North America, and the rest of the Anglosphere, and the house of friends elsewhere. The dividing line between the two is a country’s position in relation to the sanctions regime against Russia.

Africa, in this regard, is largely on the right side of that divide. 49 nations out of the continent’s 54 were represented in St. Petersburg. True, only 17 of them participated at the top level. No longer a curious and skeptical observer, as during the Sochi summit four years ago, the West this time made a determined effort, advising, cajoling or threatening African leaders against going to Russia and dealing directly with President Putin.
Russia has proven that it is possible for a nation to stand up to the US military, which from Afghanistan to Iraq and Libya, had hitherto crushed every rebellion against the Clown World order. Which, one suspects, is why Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso have banded together to protect the new Nigerois regime from Clown World’s regional proxies.

In a move considered a tactical way to protect the recent regime change in Niger, Mali’s military Junta said Monday that they stand to support the coup leaders in Niamey. Mali said that they stand together with Burkina Faso to defend Niger and further warned that any foreign military intervention in Niamey will be considered a declaration of war on both nations with Niger.

“I warn that any military intervention against Niger will be considered as a declaration of war against Burkina Faso and Mali,” announce Col. Abdoulaye Maiga, State Minister for Territorial Administration and Decentralisation, Mali junta.

The announcement was in response to the outcome of a summit by regional bloc ECOWAS that gave a 7-day deadline to Niger’s coup leaders to free detained president Mohamed Barzoum and restore civilian rule or face consequences, with military force an option being considered.
The irony of the appeals to democracy by the USA and the UK, both of which are led by equally unelected heads of state, is unlikely to escape the Russians, the Chinese, and everyone else observing the matter. If the new Nigerois government finds enough support to maintain power, this will be the second significant step toward the complete collapse of the Clown World order.

And since Wagner doesn’t appear to be occupied at the moment, I expect they’ll be willing to accept gold and uranium in lieu of cash.

https://voxday.net/2023/08/01/niger-tests-clown-world/



More seriously.



Africa is preparing for war

After the coup d'état in Niger and the removal of the French puppet from the presidential position, the West African organization ECOWAS, which is under the full control of the United States and France, announced that it would attack Niger.

Yesterday, Mali, Burkina Faso and Guinea jointly declared that the attack on Niger is an attack on all of them and that they will intervene militarily.

But the most interesting part is Algeria's statement that it will also intervene militarily if Niger is attacked. Today the Chief of Staff of the Algerian Army arrived in Moscow for a meeting with Shoigu. Algeria is likely to receive heavy weapons from Russia and Iran through its ports.

The USA and France have confirmed that they support military intervention by ECOWAS, de facto confirming that they are creating a new war in the world like in Syria and Ukraine.

The same scheme worked for them when they destroyed Libya, but today Niger has powerful support
Good point





Reply

سيف الله
08-02-2023, 02:54 PM
Salaam

More comment from a mainstream perspective.

The coup in Niger puts spotlight on nation’s uranium


Tensions are building in Niger just days after a military junta ousted its democratically elected government. A coalition of West African states issued an ultimatum Sunday to Niger’s putschists, threatening military intervention if deposed President Mohamed Bazoum is not returned to power by Aug. 6. Members of the regional bloc, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), suspended relations with Niger and shut their land and air borders with the country. While ECOWAS meekly stood by in recent years as juntas supplanted civilian leaders in Burkina Faso and Mali, the crisis in Niger may mark a different phase in regional politics.

“This is where the junta in Niamey may have miscalculated. They may have assumed a weak ECOWAS response just like in Mali and Burkina Faso,” Alex Vines, head of the Africa program at Chatham House, a London-based think tank, told the Financial Times. “But ECOWAS has drawn a line in the sand. Defense planners have been tasked to plan an intervention — it’s not bluff.”

Upping the ante, the Malian and Burkinabe regimes put out their own joint statement Monday, warning that an ECOWAS intervention in Niger could prompt a military response from their states. Western powers, chiefly France and the United States, are being more circumspect, keen not to fan the flames of anti-Western feeling that surged around the coups in neighboring Burkina Faso and Mali. The Biden administration is so far unwilling to label what happened in Niger formally as a “coup,” as that determination would trigger immediate blocks on the security aid that Washington provides a country seen as a bulwark both against Islamist extremist threats and encroaching Russian influence in the region.

The coup-plotting generals seemed to be digging in their heels, though it’s far from clear whether all of Niger’s military apparatus is fully behind the putsch. Over the weekend, their supporters demonstrated in front of the French Embassy in the capital, Niamey, threw stones at the compound and attempted to set it on fire before being dispersed by security forces. Some waved Russian flags or bore signs celebrating Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Amid escalating anti-French rhetoric, the junta allegedly said that it was suspending exports of uranium to France. The radioactive ore is impoverished Niger’s main export and has, over the years, brought the country into the global spotlight — most notoriously in 2003, when dodgy intelligence about a possible Iraqi purchase of 500 tons of Nigerien “yellowcake” uranium formed part of the American case to launch the “preemptive” invasion of Iraq.

Niger is the world’s seventh-biggest producer of uranium, possesses Africa’s highest-grade uranium ores, and is one of the main exporters of uranium to Europe. France, the country’s former colonial ruler, is a major importer of Nigerien uranium, which helps power the massive French civil nuclear industry.

On Monday, a statement from France’s Foreign Ministry indicated that a falloff in uranium from Niger would have minimal impact, because “our supplies are extremely diversified.” The ministry said Tuesday it would evacuate French and other European nationals from the country.

But some analysts suggest the impasse may have a kind of snowball effect, forcing European governments to reconsider further punitive action against Russia, one of the world’s biggest exporters of uranium. “It could have consequences at the EU level. Uranium — and nuclear power in general — is still not subject to sanctions,” Phuc-Vinh Nguyen, an energy expert at the Jacques Delors Institute in Paris, told Politico. “If the situation in Niger gets worse, this would certainly complicate the adoption of sanctions on Russian uranium in the short term.”

Orano, a French state-backed nuclear energy company, has major stakes in three uranium mines in Niger, though only one is in operation. Located far to the north of Niamey, closer to the dusty border with Algeria, the mines have been more vulnerable to Islamist militants than coup-plotting militants. A colonial expedition in search of copper in the late 1950s turned up the uranium, and Orano, formerly known as Areva, has operated in the country for the better part of half a century.

In a part of the world deeply sensitive to the French colonial legacy, the extraction of uranium can be a smoldering issue. Environmental watchdogs have documented over the years incidents of negligence and abuse, in which dangerous levels of radioactive waste were left among the local populations living near the mines. Earlier this year, France-based investigators found that 20 million tons of waste left near a recently depleted mine was spreading a potentially lethal radioactive gas known as radon, contaminating groundwater and endangering over 100,000 people living in adjacent communities.

A decade ago, the Nigerien government engaged in protracted negotiations with Orano over a new contract, angry over the cut in royalties afforded to Niger by the French company. Oxfam, an international advocacy group, highlighted the clash at the time between one of the world’s poorest countries and Orano as a “David vs. Goliath” struggle. The dealings were also shrouded in allegations of corruption in the years thereafter.

Now, given the uncertainty of the moment, new questions surround Niger’s uranium industry. What will happen to France’s interests? Will other countries — chiefly, Russia — find opportunistic accommodation with the junta and finagle concessions in natural resources? Before the coup, Niger was already exploring options for energy investment, including the cultivation of a new uranium mine, with China.

But given the enduring presence of French companies in Burkina Faso and Mali, no matter the anti-Paris disposition of the juntas there, there may be little change to the current status quo. “In most of Niger’s coups d’état, the uranium sector was never fundamentally in question,” Emmanuel Grégoire, director emeritus of research at the Research Institute for Development, a French government agency, told Le Monde. After the 1974 coup, which overthrew the country’s first post-colonial government, Grégoire said that “negotiations took place because the French had imposed contracts that were financially detrimental to the Nigeriens, but there was never any question of kicking them out.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...r-france-coup/
Reply

سيف الله
08-05-2023, 10:04 PM
Salaam

To continue with Niger lets look at Frances role in this part of the world.

France secretly owns 14 countries

Blurb

@kieranbrady1240
5 months ago
Geez everyone talks about the UK and Spain when they used to rule colonies but France went in so deep they've never even properly left




Russia is competing with other European powers through its mercenary group Wagner.

Russia secretly in war in Africa


Blurb

@headoverheels88
1 month ago
I always knew Wagner had a large presense in Africa, but I had no clue it was this wide and this entrenched. Honestly, this helps explain why Prigozhin survived (well... so far...) his little coup attempt; his little operation is much too important for the Russian Federation, especially as being able to avoid sanctions (with blood gold and diamonds) is top priority. I'm curious to see how this all pans out.




More analysis.

Blurb

The French have found themselves caught between a rock and a hard place, and a coup in Niger happens to be the catalyst for this predicament. To be clear, we're only talking about Niger because of what it means for the French.







More players entering the 'game'



]Most of us understand that the struggle for control of the Sahel is currently manifesting in conflict between Wagner and al-Qaeda (read: France); but this could get very complicated, very fast.
The UAE and KSA have an interest here which they are sharing with Russia; but the Emiratis don't want Wagner to muscle them out of the equation, and the Khaleej has access to their own for-hire-Islamic militants. So, this could potentially get even more dicey than we all already expect.
Reply

سيف الله
08-09-2023, 05:31 PM
Salaam

Another update

The Third Front

To be honest, I thought that Iran or Syria would be the Second Front of World War III, prior to China opening Taiwan, Korea, or even the Philippines as the Third Front. But it appears Niger may have already claimed that honor. Still, the Middle East is already drawing more US troops and ships away from the Ukrainian Front.

The US military has deployed thousands of troops and additional naval assets to the Middle East to “deter” Iranian forces. The move comes after Washington accused Tehran of harassing commercial vessels and other “destabilizing” actions.

The US Navy’s 5th Fleet announced the decision on Monday, noting that more than 3,000 marines and sailors had arrived in the Red Sea aboard an amphibious assault ship and a dock landing vessel the day before.

“These units add significant operational flexibility and capability as we work alongside international partners to deter destabilizing activity and deescalate regional tensions caused by Iran’s harassment and seizures of merchant vessels earlier this year,” 5th Fleet spokesman Commander Tim Hawkins told The Hill in a statement.

The amphibious assault ship sent in the latest deployment, the USS Bataan, also carried additional air assets, the Navy added. Though it did not specify the systems on board, the military said that the ship can carry more than two dozen rotary-wing and fixed-wing aircraft, including the Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft and AV-8B Harrier attack jets, in addition to a number of landing craft. The smaller USS Carter Hall, a docking ship, will act as a support vessel for operations involving landings or amphibious attacks.
The usual hypocrisy is on display here. The USN’s justification for this deployment is “to defend the freedom of navigation”. While just yesterday, US Senators and neoclowns were decrying the Russian and Chinese ships that were exercising the very right that the US Navy is claiming to defend in the Red Sea.

In a statement on Saturday, two Republican Senators representing the state of Alaska – Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan – said a total of 11 ships had been detected “transiting US waters in the Aleutians,” citing a classified briefing, and labeling the activities “an incursion.”

Sullivan said it marks “yet another reminder that we have entered a new era of authoritarian aggression led by the dictators in Beijing and Moscow,” adding that he was pleased to see a robust US response involving four American destroyers.

Brent Sadler, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, has called the patrol “a historical first” and “highly provocative” considering tensions over Taiwan and the Ukraine conflict, the WSJ reported.
Of course, all of these actions are little more than gunboat diplomacy. A single destroyer and a single Marine Expeditionary Unit are not a serious threat to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps nor are they meant to be. What really has the neoclowns alarmed is that Russia and China have sent a very clear signal to Iran, Niger, and every other country that isn’t controlled by Washington DC that they are no longer afraid of the US Navy, and that any country that challenges the globalist hegemony doesn’t need to fear US-backed regime change anymore.

https://voxday.net/2023/08/08/the-third-front/
Reply

سيف الله
08-23-2023, 11:27 PM
Salaam

Like to share.

Blurb

Many people may not realize that BRICS, both the concept and the term, was created by Goldman Sachs in 2001. De-dollarization, the destabilization of Europe, the rise of BRICS, the potential new BRICS currency, and the pivot to Asia, are all occurring by design




Reply

سيف الله
10-02-2023, 07:49 PM
Salaam

Another update. The talk about 'neo feudalism' is going mainstream.

Blurb

The world is witnessing an epochal shift, according to Greek economist Yanis Varoufakis: from the now-dead capitalism, to “technofeudalism”.

In his latest book, the former Greek politician - who in 2015, at the height of the Greek debt crisis, was catapulted from academic obscurity to Minister of Finance - argues that insane sums of money that were supposed to re-float our economies in the wake of the financial crisis and the 2020 pandemic have ended up supercharging big tech's hold over every aspect of the economy. And capitalism's twin pillars - markets and profit - have been replaced with big tech's platforms and rents; while we, the “cloud serfs”, increase these companies’ power with every online click and scroll.

Today on Ways to Change the World, Yanis Varufakis tells Krishnan Guru-Murthy how the world is grappling with an entirely new economic system and therefore political power, and why Britain and the EU are “irrelevant” compared with the “fiefdoms” of US and Chinese tech firms.




Yanis Varoufakis on the hidden power of the US dollar: how America's debt shapes the global economy

Blurb

In this video, Yanis Varoufakis explains the real reasons why the US dollar remains powerful and how America's debt shapes the global economy. He also tell us why the BRICS face enormous obstacles in trying to challenge the hegemony of the dollar, and much more.

Reply

سيف الله
12-01-2023, 04:43 PM
Salaam

Another update

Stumbling Toward 2033

Simplicius explains his perspective on the decline and fall of Clown World:

The general gist though of what’s happening now is that the world is hurtling toward a nexus point, a sort of singularity moment, because the entire 20th century’s worth of hyper-financialized “capitalism” has reached a near-breaking point.

The type of system in the West relies on parasitism and labor theft to keep its own luxurious standards afloat, as well as mediate the endless debt expansion and ever-ballooning inflation. They needed globalism to do this, as globalism allowed a new form of parasitizing the rest of the world by smudging out economic borders between countries and creating a predatory pipeline enabling the “too big to fail” corporations and banks in the West to keep themselves afloat by increasingly robbing the rest of the world via offshoring and other globalist techniques.

The problem is, that too has come to its end, as most developing nations like China have reached a level where it’s no longer profitable to use them for slave labor, and infact they’re in turn becoming so powerful that they threaten to form new economic blocs that could entirely usurp the Western money cabal’s rule of the globe.

One of the ways the West has been kept afloat is via the anchor of the U.S. dollar, which was made possible by secret coercive deals with all vassals to prop it up by way of purchasing U.S. government treasuries and bonds—in short, financing all U.S. debt.

But now that too has reached its limit as China and other traditional purchasers are no longer buying, and are in fact dumping, the treasuries. This is leading to a point of no return, where the entire Western financial system has no way out, no further quick “saves” like before.

In the past, they used several emergency stopgap measures to buy themselves a few more years of time. The financial crash of 2008 was the first crack heralding the end of the system. They pumped trillions upon trillions to keep the system afloat, but by the 2020s it was obvious time was running out and final collapse was again close. So they panicked and rolled out the Covid hoax to save the system one final time. Under cover of the Covid falseflag, they managed to sneak another few massive trillions into the system to get a last few precious years.

But now they’ve run out of options. Only the final tried and true method could save them: instigate some type of global war/conflict, which is mostly why they provoked the Ukrainian conflict at the time they did, after years of it being frozen.

As you said, things are now moving at breakneck speeds and the power elite are hanging by a thread, as they’re being assailed and losing on almost every front: from social media, where they’ve failed to stop the onslaught of ‘truth’ destroying most of their fake “Fact-Checking” fronts and Ministry of Truth attempts (Nina Jankowicz, etc.); to the global geopolitical flashpoints where they’re besieged, from Ukraine to the MidEast; to the Covid and “Climate Change” hoaxes, which are taking a beating in the public forum; the ‘paradigms’ are crashing all around.

Now I believe hyperinflation has truly begun in the U.S. Forget Biden’s cooked numbers, everyone who’s paying attention can see the prices for everything are skyrocketing YoY.

So where is it all leading? I believe the turmoil is only just beginning. Sure, there’s potential for a major culmination to happen by election time, or 2025, but I personally think it will drag out a bit longer both in U.S. and Europe as well.

Large new movements are growing in Europe, we’ve seen the wave of conservative and ‘right wing’ candidates sweeping many countries. The citizens are up in arms and angrier than ever, with major protests getting steadily more violent in France, Netherlands, Ireland, Italy, and everywhere in between. Insanely totalitarian new laws are being rolled out everywhere, from the new proposed clampdowns in Ireland, to the crazy anti-free-speech laws in Germany and the EU at large with their DSA.

There’s still far more “room for growth” in terms of the degradation and disaffectation in society. I believe this trajectory will continue for another few years, with A.I. developments adding the final ‘unpredictable’ black swan momentum which could veer everything into untold and unforeseen directions.

That’s why I don’t see a final collapse or major historic ‘events’ happening until closer toward 2030, but it’s very possible it can happen sooner.
What I find fascinating is the way in which what was deemed impossible and borderline insane when I first pointed out the observable trajectory back in 2004 gradually became conceivable in the late 2010s and is now increasingly becoming seen to be inevitable in the early 2020s. That doesn’t mean I was correct, of course, as even the seemingly inevitable is only a probability, but it is rather fascinating to see the way public opinion has shifted so massively over the last two decades.

https://voxday.net/2023/11/29/stumbling-toward-2033/
Reply

سيف الله
12-08-2023, 09:22 PM
Salaam

Like to share

Blurb

This past week, the world has reflected on the death of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. As Nixon's national security advisor, he was notorious for his ultra-realist approach to international politics, which saw the policy of triangulation with China and the Soviet Union that was pivotal in bringing China into the Western sphere and ultimately helping the emerging economy become a global power. But also the carpet bombing of Laos and Cambodia, in a failed attempt to solicit concessions from the North Vietnamese. Such unscrupulous foreign policy is again on display over Gaza. The silence with which the Western powers have embraced the slaughter and the tacit, if not open, approval of Israel's behaviour evokes a long-standing memory in the global south about a racist colonial logic. Today, we would like to explore this with our very own elder statesman', Dr Mahathir Mohamed.

Dr Mahathir Mohamad has been Malaysia's longest-serving prime minister for some 22 years. He has stewarded Malaysia through a difficult period; today it is a thriving economy. He came back to power briefly after winning a resounding victory in 2018. Dr Mahathir has seen first-hand in his 98 years the rise of America and the establishment of Israel, but also the sorry state of much of our ummah - and today, we would like to tap into his extensive knowledge and wisdom.


Reply

سيف الله
02-13-2024, 09:14 PM
Salaam

Like to share

Blurb

The events of the past 6 weeks have exposed the sheer double standards that apply to the implementation of international law. The so-called liberal international order has been found to be nothing short of hypocritical. Gaza has exposed not only this duplicity but also the very ideas that undergird such a system. Today, we explore these ideas. Many surmise that the West has taken a wrong turn, and if only they return back to their original noble enlightenment values. Yet Gaza unveils a more unsettling truth. That the values of secular liberalism have always remained connected to European chauvinism. Their unbridled support for a settler colonial project and the ease with which they absorb genocide reveals the unsettling nature of liberalism. This is the argument of my guest today, Hasan Spiker.

Hasan Spiker is a philosopher and comparative scholar of Islamic, Greek, and modern thought he studied at the University of Cambridge, where he received his MPhil in philosophy and where is carrying out his doctoral research. He also studied the Islamic sciences. His new book, Hierarchy and Freedom: An Examination of Some Classical Metaphysical and Post-Enlightenment Accounts of Human Autonomy, was released this year.


Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-13-2018, 10:10 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-26-2016, 06:29 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-26-2012, 03:14 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-27-2009, 01:38 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!