Credo
"Sign on, young man, and sail with me. The stature of our homeland is no more than the measure of ourselves. Our job is to keep her free. Our will is to keep the torch of freedom burning for all. To this solemn purpose we call on the young, the brave, the strong, and the free. Heed my call, Come to the sea. Come Sail with me." -- John Paul Jones
"Pardon him, Theodotus; he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature" --George Bernard Shaw, "Caesar and Cleopatra"
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music."--Friedrich Nietzsche
"A kind Providence has placed in our breasts a hatred of the unjust and cruel, in order that we may preserve ourselves from cruelty and injustice. They who bear cruelty, are accomplices in it. The pretended gentleness which excludes that charitable rancour, produces an indifference which is half an approbation. They never will love where they ought to love, who do not hate where they ought to hate."--Edmund Burke
“You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”--General Sir Charles Napier
"Μολὼν λαβέ" -- Leonidas
"Blogito Ergo Sum" -- Neptunus Lex
An Anatomy of Surrender…
A better solution would be to speak out against multiculturalism, and say anyone that wants to live in this society should adapt themselves to it, not expect this society to adapt itself to what they are used to….
We get what we deserve. Personally, I think it’s hilarious when you ponder the tremendous amount of money spent on defense and yet, this threat is allowed in, no questions asked. War On Terror = Wide Open Borders. Go Figure. And existing citizens whose families have lived in Western Nations for decades are treated to a humiliating Police State. The best part is that more and more Western Men aren’t willing to fight & die for their women or govt. because of how poorly they’ve been treated (e.g., Feminist Family Court System, Treatment of Injured Soldiers, etc). Those men are either opting out, and in some extreme cases joining the other side. The USA decided to cater to women in everything and anybody who reads history knows what that means. So be it. What you deserve is what you’ll get. I plan on sitting back and laughing while Muslims take over the West. How clueless the US gov is by spitting in the face of those who are asked to defend it. Defenders of the Constitution, LMFAO! Land of the Free, LMFAO! Failure is a better description.
It’s not the legacy of empire, it’s the legacy of open, democratic societies. China and Russia don’t have this problem.
I think there is a fundamental disconnect between those raised in an autocratic or theocratic societies and those raised by more “westernized” democracy. By that I mean the citizens from these countries are (much like us) indoctrinated from birth that right and wrong occupy certain black and white poles that are not muddied by anyone who isn’t looking for some kind of fight.
Just as Americans become reactionary and vitriolic when politicians start talking about restricting free speech, or the right to bear arms, or any number of other celebrated causes, you have to expect that people from outside the culture are going to have their own driving forces. Part of this likely stems from the fact that we invite this sort of criticism and change, and make it known that if you can come up with a better way then why not make the suggestion.
Having known nothing else but state-dominated rule, they default to this position. (Which is not to say that I condone terrorism or turning the United States into some kind of Wahabist theocracy.)
The legacy of empire that I see here is a citizenry incapable of managing it’s own affairs and very much lost in the sauce when it comes to such an idea. The pro-Democracy revolt staged in Tianamen Square in 1989 is a fantastic example. The failure here was not that they rose up and were eventually put down by the state, but that they didn’t quite grasp how to make representative government go. I remember reading interviews with people who were there who said they kept repeatedly looking for a single figure to take charge and then tell them what to do. The idea that they could have open debate and then choose what they liked best was a completely alien concept.
Makes me think that we ought to change our propaganda around a little: How about some education on the mechanics, not just the benefits, of democracy.
I think what many Americans simply don’t understand is that the people who live in these countries just “don’t get it” on a fundamental level.
Part of this is a legacy of empire. Spain, Britain, the Netherlands, and America, were not interested in an informed citizenry very much in charge of their own destiny. Compliance is the watchword when running a colony or territory. Over time, you come to expect government to act as the sole arbiter of what you will and will not do with your life. Anything else (according to your conditioning) is to be immediately revolted against. Add to this a tinge of xenophobia, self-loathing (a result of feeling like you were taken advantage of by someone a little more hip with the imperialist jive than you), and religion, you wind up with the current conditions.
Russia I think is a different case. Their mentality has been shaped (warped?) by centuries of corrupt autocratic rule in one form or another. Someone I know who worked with the scientific community there just after the fall of Soviet Communism recently commented to me that the Russians (as a people) are in love with the idea of a strong state. They invite oppression because their leaders invariably invoke the mighty power of Mother Russia and of gaining back what is owed them. They tend therefore oscillate between revolution and iron-fisted control. Putin’s rise and continued occupation of power is a great example of this “savior comlex”.
Just as Americans have grown inured to the idea of being able to do what they want, when they want, much of the middle east knows war as the only means of getting a point across. Methinks that some schooling for both sides is appropriate. For the Americans, why it is that there are people that do not like them and how to go about cherishing that most wonderful of gifts: representative government. For those who would walk into a crowded market with a bomb strapped to their midsection: by whom, and to what end, are you being manipulated? Are you not smart enough to think on your own?
rwalker: How so? Because as a woman I’d love to hear what it is that is catered to my sex; aside from the right to vote, what is it exactly that a woman gets that a man doesn’t. And what it is about my sex that causes the West to “deserve what they get”?
Drew
I like your comment. Makes some sense to me.
I agree to a point, except for the Tiananmen square part. I don’t understand how that makes for a “fantastic example” exactly. Perhaps I’m just reading it wrong, or don’t understand…
I mean, okay, true the movement didn’t grasp “how to make representative government go”, but had they grasped that, it would have failed as well. There was no opportunity whatsoever for choosing “open debate” or “what they liked best” as thousands were purged either during the massacre or afterwards during the widespread arrests…so any of those hypothetically “chosen” would have been purged as well. They even purged any and every member of The Party who publicly sympathized with the massacred protesters.
(but they don’t have a terrorist problem)
rwalker,
I thought I might respond to your post, bit by bit. There are a number of ideas here that are sort of mashed in together. You’ll have to forgive my lack of quotation here (other than the carots) as I do not grok html to the point where I can make with the fancy yet.
>We get what we deserve. Personally, I think it’s hilarious when you ponder the tremendous amount of money spent on defense and yet, this threat is allowed in, no questions asked.
What happened to: “Give me your tired, your poor. Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Pray tell. Here I was thinking that immigration quotas were something that fell out of fashion at the beginning of the 20th century.
>War On Terror = Wide Open Borders.
Uh, no. Been through customs recently? Am I to assume that you own a concrete factory and are salivating at the concept of some giant #@!$-off fence around the United States? The idea of shuttering this country to filter out those that would do us harm I find silly, not to mention anathema to that for which this country stands.
>Go Figure. And existing citizens whose families have lived in Western Nations for decades are treated to a humiliating Police State.
I’ve not been probed. (Sorry, just wanted to say that.) Seriously, what police state? First you want tighter border security and now you want the government to keep out of your life? Which one is it then, because the two of these conditions are mutually exclusive.
>The best part is that more and more Western Men aren’t willing to fight & die for their women or govt. because of how poorly they’ve been treated (e.g., Feminist Family Court System, Treatment of Injured Soldiers, etc).
Wait, what? I’d prefer not to fight at all. And if you meet my wife, I think you’d find she is perfeclty capable of defending her own virtue. Granted the Uniformed Spouses Protection Act is a horrible little piece of legislation, but I am not sure where you’re going with this here.
>Those men are either opting out, and in some extreme cases joining the other side.
I’d love to know where you’re getting this information. I think we would here some anecdotal evidence (outside of the tinfoil hat set) that this was going on in anything other than extremely isolated incidents. By the way, people electing to go with the other side isn’t anything new either. Henry Ford, for crying out loud, thought (initially) that the Germans were doing it right for pushing the National Socialists (read: Nazis) into power in Germany. He later recanted, but there were others who pulled up stumps and went to Germany instead of stay in the United States. Furthermore, do the names Klaus Fuchs, the Rosenbergs, John Walker Sr. and John Walker Jr. mean anything to you? Defections aren’t new. Don’t feign shock that someone (out of a population of over 300 million) would find the al-Qaedia more attractive. It’s simple probability.
>The USA decided to cater to women in everything and anybody who reads history knows what that means.
No, I don’t know what that means. You’d have us return to a social model that someone from 1850 would find acceptable? You’re off track and the concept of rolling back sufferage is ridiculous. You almost sound as though you agree with the extremists we’re fighting against here.
>So be it. What you deserve is what you’ll get. I plan on sitting back and laughing while Muslims take over the West.
And when, how, or where is this happening? Cite examples. I’d love to see what you’re basing this on. I didn’t realize there was a globe spanning Muslim cabal to overthrow the government of the United States.
>How clueless the US gov is by spitting in the face of those who are asked to defend it.
I haven’t been spit on. Called a few funny names by some people, but nothing that some intelligent discussion couldn’t handle.
>Defenders of the Constitution, LMFAO! Land of the Free, LMFAO! Failure is a better description.
Be careful here, slick. I’ve given fifteen years of service to this country. My father has been serving (in a non-military, but directly applicable capacity) for the last 30. My brother, both of my uncles, both of my grandfathers, all of us have served. We all toed the line (voluntarily) and swore to defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foriegn and domestic. I will not have you diminish their sacrifice or impugn the honor of those who I have buried for this cause so you can whine ineffectually about nothing more than gross sexism.
I appreciate your right to express your opinion, (no matter how much I disagree), but don’t you dare go that route.
Liz,
I agree and disagree here. I’m in the process of plowing through a number of articles about the event (Tianamen) and trying to form an informed opinion. It’s been something of a project over the last few months. So please excuse my ignorance here.
Based on what I’ve read, I’d say that there was a time when the events in Tianamen _could_ have spread wider into China. Given that the democratic reforms would have brought direct benefit to the largely rural population, it would have had a much greater amount of traction there had the word gotten out. (I believe that there were a number of farmers at the protests already.)
The point that I was attempting to get at here is that it was a question of loss of momentum. In my opinion, had the Tianamen protesters managed to get their act together a wee bit faster they could have exploited the paralysis of the Chinese Central Committee to great effect. I don’t labor under the delusion that nationwide revolt was the probable outcome, but it would have forced a large number of reforms much faster than what we’ve seen so far.
Sorry for the lack of clarity earlier.
Drew C.,
you might be right about people growing up in a nation that was always ruled autocratically, but I believe you miss the point about Muslims living in free and democratic Europe, might it be Britain or Germany (where I am from).
A young Muslim developing fundamentalist zeal is the same as an angry white boy turning Nazi or a puzzled adolescent European becoming Jihadist warrior.
It seems always to arise when someone cannot fulfill the expectations of the people one ordinarily lives and grows up with, because the larger society has different expectations and values or does not offer the social status his close circle expects him to receive. Sometimes it is more personal, truly within oneself and the family one grows up with, sometimes it is a larger, e.g. Muslim minorities in Europe.
It is pretty much common in other surroundings. In the same respect it explains the large number of young german middle-class men who became Nazis during the breakdown of german society and economy in the 20′s and 30′s, when times did not allow them to live the bourgeois lifes family and society expected them to live at their birth. Nazism was never so much a worker’s thing.
For an American this is perhaps to much a “social” explanation not focussed enough on personal character and virtues.
Yet there is one very remarkable thing about it: it just grows out. It is common for boys to grow out of the Neonazi movement when they finally have a girl-friend, a job, and ultimately a family live.
The same will apply for the Islamic frenzy. The demographics are actually n o t in their favour, because getting a job, founding a family means integrating, as the young (female) muslima are actually much more reasonable and down to earth and willing to integrate. As they look for the same virtues, it leaves the unwilling to adapt on a dead-end road.
The challenge for the society is of course not to allow them to take over, not even to bow to their ideas and to discourage them, limit the harm they do to other people as much as possible, and – most of all – to keep cool until it is grown out.
There are of course other things to it, among the behaviour of the majority, but the above is the core challenge.
It seems that r. walker found the environs not entirely to his liking.
Pity, that.
Drew C. you may not grok the HTML, but you grok the big picture in a quite shiny way. That was well said.
I will say that while I don’t agree with any of senior Walker’s points, I do understand some of his angst – although the comment “humiliating Police State” made the phrase “drama queen” pop into mind.
And I’m no psychiatrist, but I’m gonna guess that our Mr. Walker has some chick issues…
After reading the article in City Journal, I was really bummed. Maybe it was just the doom and gloom of his article but is there any hope for our future?
A shame really. Walker’s views about feminism and America’s vicious family court system, combined with its incredibly unfair divorce laws, seemed pretty square on the mark if you ask me.
No bias there. Nope, none at all.