Pages

Thursday, November 27, 2008

The Cross and the Crescent (I)

From the desk of Dr Sam C. Holliday, director of the Armiger Cromwell Center

~~-:-~~

In his 1996 book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel Huntington predicts a clash between the West and the Islamic world as some Muslims continue their attempt to establish the Great Caliphate – in which everyone is governed by “the ways of the Prophet.” In 1921 Hendrick Van Loon, in The Story of Mankind, described the struggle between the cross and the crescent. He explains how peaceful Arab shepherds listened to Muhammad, mounted their horses, drew their swords, and in less than a century pushed to the heart of Europe and proclaimed the glories of Allah, “the only God,” and Muhammad, “the prophet of the only God.”

Today we face the third episode in the Great Jihad (Holy War). The current so-called War on Terror could be a precursor for a final Clash of Civilizations, or it might be only a skirmish, which if handled correctly can prevent death and destruction of a magnitude the world has never seen. This essay is an attempt to determine the nature of the current threat to Western culture and to suggest what should be done.

Possible Outcomes
If ever there is conflict to the point that either Western culture or Islamic culture is utterly vanquished the world will be fundamentally altered. There will be more death and destruction than in World War I, II, and the Cold War combined. Terror will be an everyday occurrence, and weapons of mass destruction will kill millions.

Our challenge is not to accept the inevitability of this final Clash of Civilizations, but to do whatever is possible to prevent it. True excellence is not killing all of your enemies, but defeating your enemies without killing. Reasonable people must have the conviction, knowledge, and courage to challenge the extremists on both sides – evildoers (Hirabahists) and postmodernists.

However, from what we see on TV reasonable people might be in short supply. Reasonable Muslims around the world need to step forward and challenge those advocating the Third Jihad, for they are subverting Islam to advance their own agenda. The extremists call themselves jihadists (holy warriors), but they are hateful unholy warriors (Hirabahists) defaming the Prophet Muhammad.

Reasonable Westerners, and their allies around the world, need to prevent postmodern thinking from weakening Western culture to the point it is unwilling to defend itself and becomes an easy target for conquest by the Third Jihad. Postmodern thought attempts to eliminate or modify many of the roles, rules, standards, and character that were accepted as proper, good, and right in Western culture prior to the 1960s. Postmodernism visualizes "progress" toward an ideal “Postmodern Culture” that is nonjudgmental and nondiscriminatory, in which disagreements are resolved by universal law, debate, and compromise – but never by the use of force.

The Role of Islam
It is true that there are many violent apostates (Hirabahists) in mainstream Shi'a and Sunni Islam who claim they are faithful to the teachings of Muhammad. They often claim that the only basis in the Qur'an for Muslims to address non-Muslims is to struggle until the non-believers are converted, expelled, or destroyed. If most Muslims accept this view, the final Clash of Civilizations is inevitable.

But the teachings of Muhammad are not so simple – they combine opposites: struggle and tolerance. They present several kinds of jihad. It all depends on what Muslims are led to read into Muhammad’s words and actions. Hopefully there are Muslims who want to avoid the death and destruction of the final Clash of Civilizations. If so, they must find ways to be faithful to the Prophet Muhammad and the Qur'an while they stress inner jihad for themselves and practice compassion, mercy, and tolerance toward non-Muslims. However, this is certainly a long shot. Yet we must convince any such Muslims that they are our allies – that all Muslims are not our enemies.

Initially Muhammad spoke to the pagans who worshiped the meteorite now enclosed by the Kaba at Mecca. Islam was then expanded into a reform movement – in part to replace Judaism and Christianity that had, according to the Prophet Muhammad, gone astray and were no longer the proper legacy of Abraham, Moses, David, and Solomon. The Qur’an clearly states that the Bible is false, and rejects Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God.

Islam from the very start was a religion of struggle, both inner and against non-believers. It sought to eliminate temptations that the devil might use to erode commitment to Allah. It sought to get all people to submit to Allah. Islam does not give a high priority to economic wealth, prosperity, freedom, self worth, or comfort. Islam seeks purity. Thus in many ways Muslim true believers are less concerned about non-Islamic religions or Western armed forces being in their lands than they are about non-Islamic ways, i.e. movies, pop culture, dress and behavior. The challenge we all face is to show that Islamic purity is compatible with Western Culture—a very difficult challenge.

Obstacles
Islam is hostile to pluralistic, representative, secular government, since true believers consider Qur’an law and its sharia derivatives the only basis for governance. It is true that Christianity, Shinto, and other religions also do not have stellar records in this regard. However, dhimmi status (subordinate, disfranchised residents subject to discriminatory taxation and limits on freedom) is unique to Islam. Only when Islam controls a country and all non-Muslims have accepted dhimmi status can evildoers (Hirabahists) accept diversity.

Neither Islamic fundamentalism nor Western postmodernism can tolerate the coexistence of religion and reason. Neither will accept the suggestions in the lecture of Pope Benedict XVI at Regensburg on 12 September 2006. The Pope called for the rejection of dogmatic faith, cultural relativism, and forced conversion. But these seeds of hope fell on the unwelcoming ground of Islamic fundamentalism and Western postmodernism. Even some fundamentalist Christians did not welcome the Pope’s comments.

Islamic extremists see nonbelievers as too weak, too easily tempted, too confused to govern themselves; therefore, they must be shown the way, and protected, by scholar-jurists that know the way of Allah. With the same reasoning, postmodernists think people must be shown the way, and protected, by secular authority.

The evildoers (Hirabahists) see the Third Jihad as a way to seek their Utopian vision of restoring Islamic rule to all lands ever ruled by Muslims but now governed by Christians, Jews, and apostate Muslims. The secular transnational postmodernists of the West are equality rigid in their convictions as they seek their Utopian vision of a worldwide postmodern culture that is nonjudgmental, nondiscriminatory, and in which disagreements are resolved by law, debate and compromise – but never by the use of force.

It is true that Islamic extremists want to expel Western influences from all territory formerly under Muslim control. They want their politico-economic and philosophical views to be dominant. While most insurgents in the past were motivated by a Utopian view of a better world with economic equality and social fraternity, Islamic extremists seek spiritual purity in the eyes of Allah. They seek to protect people from worldly temptations; therefore they attempt to remove anything that will prevent people from submitting to Allah. Postmodernists solve the same problem by giving in to all temptations, thereby making the very idea of “temptations” moot.

Continued in Part II, "Strategy of the Third Jihad" ... "It is a mistake to focus only on terror. The strategy of the Third Jihad is far more complex. It is to be expected that the media, politicians, and those trained for conventional War will focus on the violence of Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Taliban ..."

Copyright © 2008 Armiger Cromwell Center, Atlanta, GA 30319-1322. 404-201-7374. Permission is granted to forward this article by e-mail to friends or colleagues on a fair use basis. For reprint permission, contact Armiger Cromwell Center at armigercc@comcast.net

More by Dr Sam Holliday filed in "The Armiger Cromwell Center"

Related:

- "Reforming Islam: Beware of the Fifth Column"
- "Effectively Communicating Jihad: a spade is a spade"




- Filed on Articles in "The Unholy Alliance" -

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

A US Weimar Rep? Red Flags (I): Introduction

From the desk of Dr Sam C. Holliday, director of the Armiger Cromwell Center

~~-:-~~

The recent election has again raised a question about the American Constitution. Is it a living document that must keep up with changes of the moment, or should we attempt to follow the original intent of our Founders? But the worldwide fixation on our election shows that our Constitution is much more than just an expression of the social contract of our indivisible nation. Around the world it is the gold standard for what government should be. It is remarkable that we conducted our election in accordance with our Constitution as we simultaneously faced an economic crisis and a threat to our security from the Third Jihad, that sees us as the Great Satan.

All American patriots hope that the Obama presidency unites all of us in the pursuit of the general good, and advances our national interests. However, this primarily depends on American citizens possessing civic virtue and how they cope with the future. Therefore, it is only prudent to consider what might be in the stars. We cannot remain in the present or go back to the past. We must anticipate the future; we should hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst. In this regard it is worthwhile to reflect on history. Then we can consider how we can improve on what those before us have done.

Does History Provide Parallels?
In 1957 Amaury de Riencourt published ‘The Coming Caesars’ and in 1982 Leonard Peikoff published ‘The Ominous Parallels’. Both forecast the future based on parallels describing America in terms of the past. Both argue that long-term trends are pushing the USA toward authoritarian government. This essay is an analysis of the validity of the parallels noted and how the arguments presented might relate to current constitutional debates.

Europe is not ancient Greece, nor is America ancient Rome, but Amaury de Riencourt does present some significant parallels. He claims that the concentration of political power in the central government is no accident. It is “the lethal product of centuries of historical evolution, each succeeding generation having unconsciously added its stone to the towering pedestal on which they are going to stand.” (Riencourt, p. 8)

- Caption: Farrarino, View of the Capitol in Rome, c. 1860 -

He states that the primary association “is neither political nor strategic—it is essentially psychological.” (Riencourt, p. 7) It is the growing “father complex.” The larger the masses the more the people surrender to emotionalism rather than depending on knowledge and the rational judgment of free men. “Aristotle had already observed … that Caesarism is a slow, organic growth within a society tending toward” social equality and the centralization of political power. (Riencourt, p. 328)

De Riencourt illustrates how America is an extension of Europe just as Rome is an extension of Greece. Then he identifies America today as the parallel of Rome’s era of Caesars. He likens Roosevelt to Julius Caesar and Eisenhower to Caesar Augustus. Although some of what de Riencourt states is dated and some is questionable, he makes a convincing argument that authoritarian regimes are in our future. The only practical way for Americans to reduce the likelihood of authoritarian regimes is a return to the values and attitudes that existed prior to postmodern thought.

America today is not Germany in the 1930s. Yet there are enough parallels to raise red flags. I initially thought ‘The Ominous Parallels’ by Leonard Peikoff was an alarmist fantasy. I considered it absurd to compare the Weimar Republic, before Hitler gained power, with the USA. National socialism was a unique phenomenon based on a unique time and a unique individual seeking power in order to first change Germany and then to set the world right. I could not imagine our great republic moving, by default, towards the establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship. Perhaps I was wrong.

- Caption: Philip Scheidemann proclaims the Weimar Republic at the Reichstag Building -

Perhaps we should not be so certain that we are superior to others. Our pride might hide dangers. We should notice the red flags. The past might reveal parallels, which will help us anticipate the future.

Continued in Part II, "Our Republic" ... "Today there is the gulf between the self-reliant, practical, hard working, self-disciplined, freedom loving ‘traditional Americans’ and two other groups: (1) intellectuals and youth with extreme postmodern values and attitudes, and (2) entitlement factions which expect government to give them what they want ..."

Copyright © 2008 Armiger Cromwell Center, Atlanta, GA 30319-1322. 404-201-7374. Permission is granted to forward this article by e-mail to friends or colleagues on a fair use basis. For reprint permission, contact Armiger Cromwell Center at armigercc@comcast.net

A printable version of the integral text of the essay "Red Flags", a parallel between Weimar Germany and Postmodern USA

- More by Dr Sam Holliday filed in "The Armiger Cromwell Center" -



- Filed on Articles in "The Armiger Cromwell Center" and "Americana" -

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Urgent Call to Reclaim Europe for the Citizens

Americans have historically taken ownership of their politeia. The Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence are inspiring documents that remind us every day of the core values that produce liberty and prosperity.

Within 24 hours after losing the Presidential election to Barack Obama, Republican grassroots groups ' to win back the White House in 2012' sprang up like mushrooms. Modern Conservatism, The Freedomist Movement, Let's Get This Right and America Coast2Coast are just a few.

Europeans on the other hand still allow petty bureaucrats and postmodern Emperors to rule over them; this, despite the Rousseau inspired French Revolution, at least during its latter stages (typically another animal than its Lockean counterpart across the pond); and democratic principles now being established in almost all corners of the continent.

The European Union is out of control. The Lisbon Treaty (the 'Constitution' redux) was an opportunity squandered to right a wrong that is inherent in the blueprint of the European Union. Instead, the uninspired bureaucrats and power politicians took over and produced an unprincipled pile of legal yada yada.

Our American friends have provided a playbook how to build a grassroots movement. Would you join such a popular movement - based on individual rights, free market economy and limited government - and help claim the European politeia back for its citizens? We'd love to hear from you!

Here's the link to our Facebook page. You can also email us directly at "peace.practice@gmail.com": write us with your views, leaving your name, location, and country and specify what your field of interest or expertise would be.

A grassroots initiative is far overdue! Sign up now and take control of your living space!

Update:

This is the platform where Europe intends to communicate with its citizens (regret due to overwhelming interest the porn doesn't work for the moment) ... and this is how you can contribute (fill up the form) .... and here's how they propose to 'interact' ...

... in an update by Yahoo!Tech the EU's dishonest reflexes are once again exposed; moreover, they cost the taxpayer another EUR 100,000 (US$126,905) on top of the EUR 1 million budget for Europeana, just to get it ready for a relaunch in mid December ... that's right, by mid December! At this point we're starting to experience some real curiosity, what wonderful information Europeana will have in store for those who are financing it ...

Related:

- "Americana"
- "Leviathan's Birth Certificate"
- "Irish Reject "Treaty of Lisbon," Ratification Continues"



- Filed on "Roots! We, the Peoples of Europe" -

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Revising "the Logic of Hegemony"

John Rosenthal has got a worthy piece of prose up on Pajamas Media that makes the skin crawl. "German Publishing’s Man in the White House" tells of Obama's ties to Germany's Bertelsmann Publishing and a massive conflict of interest yet to be fully disclosed.

There's the fact that the emporium happens to be the President Elect’s principal source of income, but even worse, perhaps hard to imagine in this day and age - or sadly, not any more - the Bertelsmann conglomerate does not belong to the vein of Teutons, who in a less politically correct time, were referred to as 'good Germans'.

Consider: the Bertelsmann Foundation and Corporation are two perfectly intertwined entities, both in effect, emanations of the Mohn family. Rosenthal:

"It might be considered irrelevant today that Bertelsmann massively collaborated with the Nazi regime during World War II. (For more on this, see “Bill Clinton’s German Paymasters.”) But it is surely not irrelevant that when German researcher Hersch Fischler first brought this fact to light, the family proposed to have the matter further investigated by one Dirk Bavendamm. Bavendamm is the family’s “in-house” historian, having written no fewer than three commissioned histories of the Mohn family and the Bertelsmann Corporation.

As so happens, he is also an open revisionist, who calls World War II “Roosevelt’s War” and suggests — à la contemporary 9/11 conspiracy theorists writing on George W. Bush — that Franklin Delano Roosevelt intentionally permitted the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to occur. Bavendamm has even written a book on the subject with the curious title Roosevelt’s War 1937-45 and the Puzzle of Pearl Harbor [Roosevelts Krieg 1937-45 und das Rätsel von Pearl Harbor].

“With the events of December 7-8, 1941 [i.e., the attack on Pearl Harbor], Roosevelt … had achieved his most important aims,” Bavendamm has written in an essay on the subject [German link], “America’s entry into the War occurred with the enthusiastic consent of the overwhelming majority of the American people — … Roosevelt had finally convinced them that it was their sacred duty, guns in hand to defend freedom, democracy, and prosperity around the world.” (For more on Bavendamm, see Hersch Fischler and John Friedman’s “Bertelsmann’s Revisionist” here.)

The theory that the Pearl Harbor attack was a set-up is, incidentally, standard neo-Nazi fare. Interestingly enough, in his infamous “God Damn America!” sermon, Obama’s longtime pastor Jeremiah Wright invokes precisely this theory as apparently well-established fact: “The government lied about Pearl Harbor too,” he says. “They knew the Japanese were going to attack. Governments lie.”

The Obama team and the Mohns would undoubtedly say that it is scandalous to suggest that the Mohns were using their millions to influence the American presidency or that Obama could possibly be corrupted. (...) >>>

Be that is may, the Ayn Rand/Stephen Hicks school of philosophy never misses target. Mutual attraction apart, follow the irrationals, follow the collectivists, follow America hatred, and sooner or later one ends up in places where bodies have been piling up, eventual good intentions notwithstanding.



- Filed on Articles in "Revisionism" -

Thursday, November 20, 2008

The Turkish Genocides, the Endless Story

From Facebook group "Turkish troops out of Cyprus" we received word that MSNBC is holding a live poll, if the US should formally recognize the World War I-era killing of Armenians as genocide?

The group: "As of a few minutes ago the numbers showed Yes 20%, No 80%! The Turks have mobilized a global campaign to shift results towards "No" but we can't let them.

The Armenian Genocide is a historical fact, along with many other crimes against humanity (...) and it should be recognized.

Please vote ' YES '
at the below link and send it to everyone you know. >>>
- Caption: from the Genocide Education Project -

As long as Turkey is able to get away with their denial, all concerned - Turks, Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians - will never be able to close the book on this painful episode in the history of the Ottoman Empire.

Even last week The Brussels Journal published an article by "For the EU, Sarkozy and the UN, Turkey Is Already in Europe", quoting Turkish Defense Minister, Vecdi Gönül during a ceremony at the Turkish Embassy in Brussels honoring the 70th anniversary of the death of Ataturk (d. Nov. 10, 1938), in atrocious denial, praising the policy of what he termed the “deportation” of the Armenians, because it allowed the construction of the Turkish nation.

“Would it be possible today to maintain the same national State if the existence of Greeks in the Aegean region and of Armenians in several regions of Turkey had continued as before?” Vecdi Gönül asked. “Remember, before the republic, Ankara was composed of four sectors: Jewish, Muslim, Armenian, and Greek... When I was governor at Izmir I realized that the Izmir Chamber of Commerce had been founded only by non-Muslims. There was not a Turk among them.”
The article goes on to quote a comment by French blogger Yves Daoudal:

"Before the republic", Izmir was called Smyrna and it was a Greek city, and stayed that way until 1922, when it was conquered by Ataturk. But he had to deny that Izmir was a Greek city before the Greeks were chased out of it, as he had to deny that the most fortunate deportation of the Armenians was a genocide
(...) "

This has now gone on long enough. Turkey wants to join the European Union. If they want to be a mature state, they should grow up and own up. An organized denial to vote No to a poll is hardly the answer towards resolving this serious question.

- Caption: Headline of a 1922 Times article -

Related:

- Politeia: "The Medina Precedent for Holocaust and Genocide"
- Jewcy: "Understanding the Islam in Islamic Antisemitism", by Andrew G. Bostom (in 3 parts)
- The Lighthouse: "Pope Benedict XVI in Turkey: day 1"
- The Lighthouse: "Transnational Progressivism: an Inexplicable Presumption"



- Filed on Articles in "History Compiled" -

Monday, November 17, 2008

Just What the World Needs: Another NGO, the G20

What's with this G20 summit last weekend in Washington? Who are the G20? The MSM as usual abdicated their duty - did what they do best: what they cannot spin or obfuscate, they bury.

Initial research learns that the G20 have emerged from the the Doha Trade Round, set up on the basis of a Brazilian initiative in the run-up to the Cancun Conference. Apart of the states making up the G8, G20 member states include Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the EU and European Central Bank, and the NGOs IMF, the World Bank and their Development Committee.

With the notable exception of South Korea neither of these countries has a principled tradition of free market capitalism. All, until recently suffered, or are still bowing under the rule of theocrats, autocrats, dictators, a collective, or all of the above.

The Third World is slowly crawling on to the world stage, out of its largely self-imposed, poverty ridden, Marxism or theocracy driven lethargy. But swathes of Latin America are already in danger of regressing back into darkness, even before having fully emerged from it; Socialist as well as Islamic beginnings are simply antithetical to individual rights, the moral requirement for a fully functioning free-market democracy.

And then there's good, old chauvinist commie prop. The Heritage Foundation here reports on the PR stunt China pulled just ahead of the summit!

What can be expected of such a global, economic governing body? They cannot even be trusted to handle a trade round, let alone lead, run and reform the world's economic and financial system. How would they do that ... by committee, by revelation, or by decree?!

The situation is hardly better in the state of Europe, which is steadily desolving into a post-democratic, Hegelian Absolute. European states are challenging American leadership of the global economy, calling on President-Elect Obama to embrace Europe as America’s equal partner.

on The Brussels Journal had this to say last week: "The idea behind this new man-to-man relationship with Washington was hatched by (surprise, surprise) France, which currently holds the EU’s six-month rotating presidency. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner says the reason for establishing an equal transatlantic partnership is that “the world has changed.”

Europe has suddenly realized that the United States “is not the only one concerned by the world’s problems. The European Union has become more resolute…. We don’t want to play a secondary role any more,” says Kouchner," who is an experienced NGO builder (founder Doctors Without Borders).

On the economy the French - as most Europeans - can be fully trusted to commit a coup of state against the private sector. Self-regulation to solve all problems, it’s finished,” Sarkozy says. “Laissez-faire, it’s finished. The all-powerful market that is always right, it’s finished…. It is necessary then for the state to intervene.”


John Gizzi on Human Events goes as far as saying the G20 meeting was in effect Sarkozy's summit, clarifying "that the goal of the French President, was future international economic summits that include many more nations beside the traditional G8 industrial titans. His secondary goal was to assimilate discretionary bondholders (countries that hold U.S. debt) into the summits (...)

John Gizzi gives us the gist of what emerged from the summit: "(...) Sarkozy did get this long-stated desire of a "college of supervisors" for oversight of the books of major financial institutions operating across international borders. Moreover, the world leaders agreed that their systems would submit to periodic review by the International Monetary Fund (whose Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former French finance minister who was tapped for the IMF position by—you guessed it!—Nicolas Sarkozy).


A tougher line by ratings agencies on exhorbitant compensation for executives–either voluntary or regulatory—was called for in the final communiqué of the G20. Again, this was an issue doggedly pursued by Sarkozy.

With much of the actual work of the summit done behind closed doors, the media has had to rely on reports from anonymous sources on who said what to whom. Relying on such sources, the Washington Post pointed to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper as one who was particularly opposed to Sarkozy’s calls for greater global regulation over markets in sovereign nations.

We are looking at an entire round of talks stretching well into the next year. Apart from the above, nothing much emerged from present summit while outgoing President Bush acted as a forceful buffer against the anti capitalist onslaught. But as postmodern President-Elect Obama joins the company of Argentina, China and the other card-carrying members of the Grizzly 20 collective, we will soon all be reminded of which cloth that philosophy is a cut.

Related:

- "Hurray! It's the Weekend of Capitalism!"

- Images - Hat Tip: Barbay Live



- Filed in "Transnational Bankruptcy" and "The Economics and Monetary Dossier" -

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Hurray! It's the Weekend of Capitalism!

Say what you will, call him names! A lame duck, yes mistakes have been made, the rules of laissez-faire capitalism were violated, but right now it is he who stands between prosperity through free market principles, and the forces of Statism, who wish to reduce the financial sector to a tragic shadow of its former self, a mere government utility!

While experts in the US are still trying to figure out what happened, some Europeans already knew before the event: it's capitalism, stupid! Isn't the cause of crime, the law? Now is the time for the coup of state, let the ax fall on the evil system!
- Caption: "Sunriser II", by Bobbie Carlyle -

Here are two opinions: one by the most underestimated US President in history, George W. Bush - and an article by Objectivists Yaron Brook and Don Watkins on the Op-Ed page of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights: a urgent plea for the separation of Economy and State. Europeans are urged to take note of a field virtually unknown to them. But first, the news:

CNN: "Bush ready to defend free-market principles during summit"

(...) President Bush signaled that he's ready to defend Western-style capitalism and free-market principles during what will be one of his last appearances on the world stage. (...) As leaders of the world's 20 largest economies, dubbed the G-20, gather in Washington, some European leaders are pushing for global financial regulation. (...) >>>

Wall Street Journal: "The Surest Path Back to Prosperity - 'If you seek economic growth, social justice and human dignity, the free-market system is the way to go'," by George W. Bush

As we have seen in recent months, financial turmoil anywhere in the world affects economies everywhere in the world. And so this weekend I'm going to host a Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy with leaders from developed and developing nations that account for nearly 90% of the world economy. The leaders attending this weekend's meeting agree on a clear purpose -- to address the current crisis, and to lay the foundation for reforms that will help prevent a similar crisis in the future. (...) the actions taken by the U.S. and other nations are having an impact. Credit markets are beginning to thaw. Businesses are gaining access to essential short-term financing. A measure of stability is returning to financial systems.

- Caption: "Refuge" by Perrin Sparks -

(...) we must recognize that government intervention is not a cure-all. For example, some blame the crisis on insufficient regulation of the American mortgage market. But many European countries had much more extensive regulations, and still experienced problems almost identical to our own. History has shown that the greater threat to economic prosperity is not too little government involvement in the market, it is too much government involvement in the market.

We saw this in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Because these firms were chartered by the U.S. Congress, many believed they were backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. government. Investors put huge amounts of money into Fannie and Freddie, which they used to build up irresponsibly large portfolios of mortgage-backed securities. When the housing market declined, these securities, of course, plummeted in value. It took a taxpayer-funded rescue to keep Fannie and Freddie from collapsing in a way that would have devastated the global financial system.

- Caption: "We the Living", by Nick Gaetano -

There is a clear lesson: Our aim should not be more government -- it should be smarter government. All this leads to the most important principle that should guide our work: While reforms in the financial sector are essential, the long-term solution to today's problems is sustained economic growth. And the surest path to that growth is free markets and free people.

In the wake of the financial crisis, voices from the left and right equate the free-enterprise system with greed and exploitation and failure. It's true this crisis included failures -- by lenders and borrowers and financial firms, and by governments and independent regulators. But the crisis was not a failure of the free-market system. And the answer is not to try to reinvent that system. It is to fix the problems, make reforms, and move forward with the free-market principles that have delivered prosperity and hope to people all across the globe. (...)

Nations that pursued other models have experienced devastating results. Soviet communism starved millions, bankrupted an empire, and collapsed as decisively as the Berlin Wall. Cuba, once known for its vast fields of cane, is now forced to ration sugar. While Iran sits atop giant oil reserves, its people cannot put enough gasoline in their cars.

The record is unmistakable: If you seek economic growth, social justice and human dignity, the free-market system is the way to go. It would be a terrible mistake to allow a few months of crisis to undermine 60 years of success. (...) >>>

Give Bush a buzz z

- Caption: "The Anchorage" by Bryan Larsen -


Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights: "Stop Blaming Capitalism for Government Failures", by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins

Speaking of the financial crisis, French president Nicolas Sarkozy recently said, “Laissez-faire is finished. The all-powerful market that always knows best is finished.” Sarkozy was echoing the views of many, including president-elect Obama, who assume that the financial crisis was caused by free markets--by “unbridled greed” unleashed by decades of deregulation and a “hands off” approach to the economy. And given this premise, the solution, they say, is obvious. To solve this crisis and prevent another one, we need a heavy dose of Uncle Sam’s elixir: government intervention. (...)

But while capitalism may be a convenient scapegoat, it did not cause any of these problems. Indeed, whatever one wishes to call the unruly mixture of freedom and government controls that made up our economic and political system during the last three decades, one cannot call it capitalism. (...) Take a step back.

- Caption: "Lunch Break" by Quent Cordair -


In the lead up to the “Reagan Revolution,” the explosive growth of government during the ’60s and ’70s had left the American economy in disarray. A crushing tax burden, runaway inflation, brutal unemployment, and economic stagnation had Americans looking for an alternative. That’s what Reagan offered, denouncing big government and promising a new “morning in America.” (...) Bush Jr., often laughably called a champion of free markets, presided over massive new governmental controls like Sarbanes-Oxley and massive new welfare programs like the prescription drug benefit.

None of this is consistent with capitalism. (...) The government’s job under capitalism is single but crucial: to protect individual rights from violation by force or fraud. America came closest to this system in the latter half of the nineteenth century. The result was an unprecedented explosion of wealth creation and consequent rise in the standard of living. Even now, when the fading remnants of capitalism are badly crippled by endless controls, we see that the freest countries--those which retain the most capitalist elements--have the highest standard of living.

Why then should capitalism take the blame today--when capitalism doesn’t even exist? (...) Consider the current crisis (...) the driving force is clearly government intervention: the Fed keeping interest rates below the rate of inflation, thus encouraging people to borrow and providing the impetus for a housing bubble; the Community Reinvestment Act, which forces banks to lend money to low-income and poor-credit households; the creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with government-guaranteed debt leading to artificially low mortgage rates and the illusion that the financial instruments created by bundling them are low risk; government-licensed rating agencies, which gave AAA ratings to mortgage-backed securities, creating a false sense of confidence; deposit insurance and the “too big to fail” doctrine, whose bailout promises have created huge distortions in incentives and risk-taking throughout the financial system; and so on. In the face of this long list, who can say with a straight face that the housing and financial markets were frontiers of “cowboy capitalism”? (...)
- Caption: "Cityscape Texture Study II", by Bryan Larsen -

This is just the latest example of a pattern that has been going on since the rise of capitalism: capitalism is blamed for the ills of government intervention--and then even more government intervention is proposed as the cure. The Great Depression? Despite massive evidence that the Federal Reserve’s and other government policies were responsible for the crash and the inability of the economy to recover, it was laissez-faire that was blamed. Consequently, in the aftermath, the government’s power over the economy was not curtailed but dramatically expanded. Or what about the energy crisis of the 1970s? (...)It’s time to stop blaming capitalism for the sins of government intervention, and give true laissez-faire a chance. Now that would be a change we could believe in. >>>

Wall Street Journal have a touching short documentary on the Great Depression up on their video archive ...



Art in this post by the Quent Cordair Fine Art Gallery for Romantic Realism

Update: has the semi pan-European position ... they propose to rule the world by committee ... take note of this: "today’s European leaders are about as interested in solving global problems as was Otto von Bismarck, who devoted his life to empire-building and the practice of Realpolitik. Today’s European leaders are trying not only to revive the Roman Empire in the form of a unified Europe, but they are also seeking to rebalance global power in such a way that places Europe at the top of the international pecking order" ... read it all:

The Brussels Journal: "Europe Is Obama’s First ‘Global Test’"



- Filed in "The Ethics of Capitalism" -

Friday, November 14, 2008

Is Obama above the law?

A small business owner, a grocery store proprietor, or a Republican takes millions of illegal credit card donations and he's going to jail.

Barack Obama does it and he's going to the White House.

Take a stand now for equal justice for all Americans.

Make everyone you know—Democrat, Republican, or independent—aware of this failure of justice.


Send this link via email. Post it on your site.

Download the printable flier here.

Hand out copies wherever you can.

Post them where people will see them.

Draw a line in the sand and say NO MORE.

by AnyStreet


Related:

NewsMax: "Audit of Obama Fundraising Unlikely"

The Federal Election Commission is not likely to conduct a potentially embarrassing audit of Barack Obama’s record-breaking fundraising campaign despite allegations of questionable donations and accounting.

That’s the disclosure from Politico.com, which reports that Obama will probably escape scrutiny in large part because unlike John McCain, he declined to accept $84 million in public financing.

Accepting that money automatically triggers an audit, meaning that the FEC is obligated to thoroughly audit the McCain campaign’s coffers, which will take months and cost McCain millions to defend.

Another factor that will discourage an Obama audit by the FEC is the sheer size of his fundraising haul — more than $650 million — which minimizes the significance of any errors.

“If a House campaign makes a $100,000 error, that’s huge and they’re likely to get audited,” David Mason, a former GOP appointee to the FEC, told Politico.

“If a campaign the size of the Obama campaign has a $100,000 error, then maybe not.” (...) >>>



- Filed on Articles in "Conservative Activism" -

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Communitarianism, Another Great Equalizer

We have received word from "Stop Common Purpose" that they have identified Barack Obama, not as a Socialist or as a Communist, but as a Communitarian. This statement may require further explanation.

First of all, let's jog our memory what is Common Purpose. In case of a total blank on the reader's part we can best refer you to our dossier on the subject. This nefarious, Sorosian fifth column - CP, for short - has its tentacles all over Britain where it is quietly subverting all walks of life without so much as a by your leave. It is rapidly expanding globally.

CP, rooted in the early history of mass psychology and in the British Labour Party, stands for a new, post-democratic, borderless world order, also known as Transnational Progressivism. Stop CP's home page and their page on CP's philosophy explain the matter in detail. This organization is beyond the Marxist/Fascist, Left/Right dichotomy. They are far worse: CP is Pragmatically collectivist and the collective is ... the world.

Those who assure themselves that all is well and that the New World Order is just a conspiracy theory pursued by unhinged paranoids can disabuse themselves of the illusion here and now by reading Glenn Beck's transcript of UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown's recent statements on the international financial crisis, which gives world leaders in his opinion an unique opportunity to establish the global society.

Oh, and before leaving the wonderful world of CP to 'act beyond authority', hi, Sarah Lambert, have a nice day!

Communitarianism is yet another amoral, Pragmatism driven hybrid of collectism that Europeans love to love. It may also be seen as a version of Tony Blair's and Bill Clinton's Third Way politics, but they're moderates in comparison to some highly 'ethical' interpretations (enjoy this tract, if your physique allows). Americans may also know it as radical centrism as advocated by the Responsive Communitarian movement of Amitai Etzioni.

I'm not altogether sure, but I believe his ideas might have been partly triggered by the Neocon push for a democratic Middle East as an antidote to Islamic radicalism. Since then, we see memes entering the blood stream of "democracy, sooo overrated!" It would appear Etzioni is the man responsible for making enlightened dictatorships acceptable to polite society.

He counsels parley with Muslim 'Illiberal Moderates' (moderate, as in coercion of political correctness, rather than the violence of the bomb), appeasement at the expense of social liberties. Ladies, get your niqab out of the moth balls, because that's the Communitarian price to be left in peace!

- Caption: bronze, by Michael Wilkinson -

Barack Obama may be specifically attracted to the hybrid, because of its infestation with positive rights, the reliance on overgrown superstates, and its contempt of individualism. Whereas Stop CP may find the ideology hard to pin down, followers of Ayn Rand can make short shrift. Such hybrid ideologies are just a matter of evil in degrees, all variations on a single collectivist theme.

The core of this philosophy is, that individuals have a duty to subordinate to a society that, in this case, caters to racial and cultural factions (also known as multiculturalism). In case of dereliction of duty, society/ the state/ the collective may enforce the moral obligation. So the key question is, what form will this evil take, and to what degree will it be implemented? This of course, depends on the whim of the ones wielding the stick of power (asigned reading: News Busters: "Obama Spokesman Says 'Obama Ready to RULE on Day 1'").

Whatever name we want to give them, One Worlders, progressives, Socialists, Communitarians, neotots, they find creation - as it stands - a vile, imperfect place replete with social injustice, inequality and insustainability.

One of the most entrenched misunderstandings about Socialists is the equality principle. Most observers take their zeal for an egalitarian society as a signal of their holy belief in human equality. But the contrary is the case. No, to them all men aren't equal, but they ought to be. Hence the vigorous pursuit.

Confusing 'is' with 'ought' (Hume's Law) they'll never stop experimenting with people's lives, social engineering and cajoling human behavior until they've reshaped reality into an egalitarian Hobbotshire in which every hobbot voluntarily sacrifices to the organic, moral Whole.

The allegory of Plato's Cave is useful in more ways than one. You can see the mechanism explained in this home video. Plato and Kant are the originators of the Subjectivist fallacy that thought creates reality. They teach that the physiological world isn't real at all, but a product of our own projections. Their actual world is situated in some parallel universe. Knowledge of this true world is out of reach for us mere mortals, as Plato explains in his allegory of The Cave.

- Caption: Plato's Cave by Ken Stout, 2007, oil on panel -

But the story is not just useful in explaining Subjectivist philosophy. It is also indicative how they think they can pull the wool over people's eyes: not by debate on the basis of verifiable, objective information, but through shadows, smoke and mirrors: passions, constructed perceptions and vacuous projections of 'hope' and 'change'. Here's an exquisite animated version of The Cave.



- Files on Articles in "The Dystopia of Paradise" -

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Armistice and Veteran's Day 2008

For Armistice and Veteran's Day we have attempted to collect a few edifying morsels of interest.

This is a lot less easy than it sounds. Most of what is available are isolated video snippets; or there's a choice of the pacifist anti-war stuff, either of the hefty Gothic or of the sentimental tear-jerk variety.

However, given the current upsurge of interest - primarily in the US - we've unearthed some intriguing, if highly emotionally charged footage on the Weimar Republic, and the German Revolution that followed the chaos of World War I. It's got some rare historical material, as well as background information on whatever fateful constellation of events led to such a profound and total collapse of morality. (For more reading here's the Wiki on Christopher Isherwood.)

The music would certainly not have been our initial choice; we felt however as its message grew, that it serves the purpose of conveying some of the nihilism and the obsession with surreal horror that is so typical for the period, and that led to its inevitable outcome in World War II.

In this respect we can also refer you to earlier postings on the subject of the German interbellum: "Resist Commie Prop, Support Indy", "The Postmodern Anti-War Hero, the Red Baron", "The German Revolution".



From the cultural angle, we proudly present a collection of World War I propaganda posters from all countries involved in the Great War. The entire site is rather a gem and worthy of further exploration. For example, Prose and Poetry reads ...

"More than any other conflict, the Great War inspired writers of all generations and classes, most notably among combatants. (...) This section profiles the more renowned authors and contains samples of their work. Also available in this section are extended features, including a profile of Robert Graves - and, more unusually but nevertheless intriguing, a piece on literary ambulance drivers... There are also two articles written about the author of the war's most famous poem: In Flanders Fields. The 1917 collection of wartime poetry The Muse in Arms has also been republished here in its entirety. (...) >>>

An index of authors - including Sir Winston Churchill - is attached.

Next there's World War I American Legacy, a DVD documentary directed by Mark Bussler.

Wall Street Journal has a reality check for the US. "Soldiers of the Great War" lays an provocative link with the present: "(...) the victors failed to prevent the rise of the totalitarian regimes in Russia and Germany, the fascists in Italy and the militarists in Japan (...) the U.S. withdrew from its global responsibilities. (...) Now we are at a similar pass in Iraq, where the U.S. has effectively defeated Sunni and Shiite insurgents on the battlefield. But whether this costly achievement will hold depends largely on our willingness to support the Iraqi government and steel it against its own fascistic challengers, particularly Iran. If there's one lesson to be learned on this Armistice Day, it's of the price that's paid when we allow victory to slip from our grasp. >>>

One of the blessings of living part of one's life in cyberspace is the human connection one gets with people you will never know on a personal level. Following document was made by someone who remains anonymous, in commemoration of his great grandfather Aaron Kennett who fought in the Great War. He flourished from 1887 to 19187. May God bless them both, and all who fought and continue to fight for freedom, against barbarism and oppression.

The music accompanying the touching family document is the hymn "I Vow to Thee my Country", created in 1921 when a poem by Cecil Spring-Rice was set to music by Gustav Holst. It expresses the unconditional love, loyalty and self-sacrifice that was once unquestioningly devoted to one's country. It is a victory of the Postmodern One Worlders that these words - while warm and patriotic only a few years back when played at my father's funeral - now sound strangely surreal.

But make no mistake: whereas giving one's life for a state in Europe today seems unthinkable and alien, a renewed fight for individual freedom against neotot pocket potentates is certainly not. The same forces taunting national colours and hymns also whisper of collectives and the redundancy of democracy, suggesting that the value of 'enlightened dictators' is somewhat underrated. Ignore them at your peril ...





- Filed on Articles in "History Compiled" -

 
RatePoint Business Reviews