The Apotheosis Of Ron Paul [Updated]

Concerning Ron Paul, Cory Massimino and friends are coming under some fire for a fine article, which recalls a newspaper piece the Fort Collins Weekly published back in 2008.

Here’s an excerpt from Cory’s article:

Hans Herman-Hoppe, distinguished fellow of the Mises Institute, wrote just last year that, “it is societies dominated by white heterosexual males, and in particular by the most successful among them, which have produced and accumulated the greatest amount of capital goods and achieved the highest average living standards.” Hoppe has also advocated violence against homosexuals and other people who live lifestyles he doesn’t approve of, “There can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They-the advocates of alternative, non-family-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.” The racist and homophobic themes in these passages speak for themselves.

(Link)

Here’s the Fort Collins Weekly article:

Among so-called libertarians, Congressman Ron Paul has taken on brobdingnagian proportions of late, despite the fact that he doesn’t actually believe in liberty.

The confusion comes, I think, from his nominal advocacy of free markets, the Austrian School of Economics in particular, of which I myself am a proponent. But as we’ve seen, economics is not the proper foundation of any government, because private property – which is the crux of the free market – is not primarily rooted in economics but ethics:

Property (including money) is only an extension of person; thus, the right to property rests upon the more fundamental right to life.

Do you think that Paul supports individual freedom, unrestricted by law? He does not. Quoting his own words:

I also support overriding the Supreme Court case that overturned state laws prohibiting flag burning. Under the Constitutional principle of federalism, questions such as whether or not Texas should prohibit flag burning are strictly up to the people of Texas, not the United States Supreme Court. Thus, if this amendment simply restored the state’s authority to ban flag burning, I would enthusiastically support it.

Goodbye, free speech — if, that is, your state votes it down.

You see, on Planet Paul, big government is fine, provided that government operates at the state or local level, not federal.

In fact, Ron Paul only believes in freedom unrestricted by federal law. When it comes to state and local governments, he fully endorses those governments’ “right” to restrict any number of your freedoms.

It comes as no surprise to learn, therefore, that on a host of other issues, such as the banning of raw milk, marijuana, abortion, same-sex relations, and so on, Paul explicitly advocates majority rule at the state level.

Properly classified, Ron Paul is what’s called an anti-federalist.

He is more specifically an anti-federalist neo-confederate masquerading as a defender of a Constitution he doesn’t fully understand. To wit:

“The notion of a rigid separation between church and state,” says Paul, “has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writing of our Founding Fathers.”

From this provably false assertion, he arrives at a remarkable conclusion:

“Far from mandating strict secularism in schools, [the First Amendment] instead bars the federal government from prohibiting the Pledge of Allegiance, school prayer, or any other religious expression. The politicians and judges pushing the removal of religion from public life are violating the First Amendment, not upholding it.”

What this translates to where Ron Paul comes from is that the First Amendment was intended to sanction (rather than prohibit) state governments who wish to impose religion upon the people.

Accordingly, Paul rejects the Jeffersonian wall of separation between church and state, and you can read it in his own words on this website.

It’s important to note here a far-too-often forgotten fact: namely, the principle behind individual rights – and, indeed, the whole reason that the United States is not a democracy but a Constitutional Republic – is that the rights of every individual, including the rights of gay people, are inalienable and never subject to vote, not at the federal level, not at the state level, and not at the local level, much as Congressman Paul wishes they were.

A religious man, Ron Paul naturally rejects evolution in favor of creationism.

He believes also that the Ten Commandments should be posted in public institutions and that the word “God” should be included in the Pledge of Allegiance.

On the issue of abortion, he’s to the right of such notable figures as Pat Robertson. He thus seeks to repeal Roe v. Wade, and he supports legislation to eliminate any legal distinction between a zygote and a fully-formed human being.

On Planet Paul, abortion is tantamount to murder; yet despite this, neither “murder” (of this sort) nor “fetal rights” (so-called) fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government. “Murder” and “the rights of the unborn” devolve to the states, so that the state can then exercise its own brand of tyranny, via public vote. This is known as majority rule, which is also known as democracy, which is also known as tyranny of the masses, which is why our Constitutional framers distrusted democracy, as well they should have. And Ron Paul knows this.

Congressman Paul correctly votes against all spending bills – that is, until it comes to his own district, for which he’s won earmarks in the federal budget, to the tune of hundreds of millions. The above process, incidentally, is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, and yet Congressman Paul says he’s “never voted for anything not specifically authorized by the Constitution.” How, then, does he justify this?

“By getting the money into the budget but then voting against the budget on the floor of the House,” says Paul critic, libertarian Stephen Greene.

And who can forget the notorious Paul newsletter, which shocked so many, myself included, and which, it turns out, he didn’t write but did endorse for thirty years. (A more thorough explication of that bigoted bile can be viewed here.)

If you’re unfamiliar with this newsletter, please don’t despair: you’ve read it many times before from neo-Marxists like Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal, Howard Zinn, Norman Mailer, and an army of others: the standard anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist, blame-America-first rhetoric.

The New Republic said this about it:

What [the newsletters] reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing – but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.

True.

In the arena of foreign policy, one of Paul’s main gurus is a fellow named Robert Pape, who wrote a book called Dying to Win, which, in the last few years, has become Paul’s foreign policy Bible.

The premise of the book is that American occupation is what compels these otherwise gentle Islamofascists into their suicide missions. Marc Sageman, however, author of the more authoritative Understanding Terror Networks, says this about it:

“In terms of al Qaeda, [Robert Pape] is dead wrong.”

Osama bin Laden, incidentally, says the same thing as Marc Sageman. Still, Paul would have us believe Ron Paul and Robert Pape instead.

It’s this and a number of other hot topics (such as the peculiar about-face on immigration) that has made many erstwhile supporters distance themselves from Paul. To many, he’s become just another garden-variety, religious, conspiratorial “survivalist.”

Quoting libertarian lawyer Kip Esquire:

If you want to declare openly and loudly that you are a radical majoritarian anti-federalist, and that you support Ron Paul because he shares your worldview, then good for you. If you want to shrug and conclude that a radical majoritarian anti-federalist is better than the other candidates, that could be rational as well. But don’t dare proclaim that Paul is a libertarian or that his views reflect a commitment to individual liberty, regarding the war on drugs or anything else.

It’s crucial to remember here that the founders of this country didn’t create federalism so that the states could thus be empowered. On the contrary, along with the system of checks-and-balances, federalism was created to further protect individuals from government, at any and every level, including state.

Freedom is fundamentally the absence of coercion. It matters not at which level the coercion originates. Your right to life, liberty, and property are inalienable – which means: your rights literally cannot be transferred or made alien. Paul, however, doesn’t recognize the inalienability of rights but endorses overriding a great many of them, via majority rule, provided it occurs at the state or local levels.

Finally, if you’re still in doubt about Ron Paul, just look at whom he endorsed for the 2008 presidency.
That’s right: candidate Chuck Baldwin, of the Constitution Party, whose party Preamble reads, in part:

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations …

(Source)

26 Comments

  • E.A. Blair

    September 29, 2010

    Great Piece Ray – I’ll never see Paul the same way again.

    That being said – END THE FED.

    Speaking of Conspiracy Theories – How about this one?

    Mexico drug plane used for US ‘rendition’ flights: report

    (AFP) – Sep 4, 2008

    MEXICO CITY (AFP) — A private jet that crash-landed almost one year ago in eastern Mexico carrying 3.3 tons of cocaine had previously been used for CIA “rendition” flights, a newspaper report said here Thursday, citing documents from the United States and the European Parliament.

    The plane was carrying Colombian drugs for the fugitive leader of Mexico’s Sinaloa cartel, Joaquin “Chapo” Guzman, when it crash-landed in the Yucatan peninsula on September 24, El Universal reported.

    The daily said it had obtained documents from the United States and the European Parliament which “show that that plane flew several times to Guantanamo, Cuba, presumably to transfer terrorism suspects.”

    It said the European Parliament was investigating the private Grumman Gulfstream II, registered by the European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation, for suspected use in CIA “rendition” flights in which prisoners are covertly transferred to a third country or US-run detention centers.

    It also said the US Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) logbook registered that the plane had traveled between US territory and the US military base in Guantanamo.

    It said the FAA registered its last owner as Clyde O’Connor in Pompano Beach, Florida.

    Extraordinary rendition has been harshly criticized since it began in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.

  • BedazzledCrone

    September 29, 2010

    Way to go – now I have a place to send all Ron Paul supporters!!!!!!!!!!!

    Don’t have time to read all the links yet, but this underscores what I have been trying to argue for sometime, just haven’t had the time (not, frankly, the inclination) to put together the argument against Ron Paul.

    Again, way to go Ray and Thanks

  • Douglas

    September 29, 2010

    Yes, shame on Ron Paul for standing up for the Constitution! How dare you!

  • Ray

    September 29, 2010

    It’s good to see you, BedazzledCrone. Thanks for dropping by.

    Douglas, shame on you, sir, for your misbegotten remarks.

  • Redmond

    September 30, 2010

    Socialism
    Of Course you linked to Wikipedia for the discussion of Paul, Here is some of what Mr. Zinn’s Wiki Page says.

    Zinn described himself as “Something of an anarchist, something of a socialist. Maybe a democratic socialist.”[52] He suggested looking at socialism in its full historical context. In Madison, Wisconsin in 2009, Zinn said:

    “Let’s talk about socialism. I think it’s very important to bring back the idea of socialism into the national discussion to where it was at the turn of the [last] century before the Soviet Union gave it a bad name. Socialism had a good name in this country. Socialism had Eugene Debs. It had Clarence Darrow. It had Mother Jones. It had Emma Goldman. It had several million people reading socialist newspapers around the country. Socialism basically said, hey, let’s have a kinder, gentler society. Let’s share things. Let’s have an economic system that produces things not because they’re profitable for some corporation, but produces things that people need. People should not be retreating from the word socialism because you have to go beyond capitalism.”[53]

    Ha!

    Here is an Interesting blog – Gays For Ron Paul .

    Overall I think for all of his faults – and we all have them, I think Paul’s influence is a positive one.

    I read “The Revolution” and it was great – one reference to abortion, but that is about it.

    Here is what Paul was complaining about when he brought up the references to the constitution.

    Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

    This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel’s Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort. Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?

    I don’t have a problem with Secularism, but at the same time if a private entity chooses to use the word “Christmas” and a Government Authority in some way restricts that through Political Correctness, I think there is a real issue.

  • Redmond

    September 30, 2010
  • Redmond

    September 30, 2010

    Do a youtube search for

    “Ron Paul” “Ben Bernanke”

    Some good stuff

  • Ray

    October 1, 2010

    Nobody here is saying that a person should be faultless.

    It’s just that some of us have a little trouble getting enthusiastic about a homophobic, xenophobic, anti-Semitic creationist who’s a supporter of Chuck Baldwin, who in turn believes that “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” is what we should found this country upon. That philosophy has another name: it’s called theocracy.

  • EJ

    October 1, 2010

    Will read all the posts. So, Ray, tell me about your perfect candidate. Not Ron Paul.

    Who then?

    Man, compared to BHO, RP is a godsend.

    EJ

  • Ray

    October 2, 2010

    Hiya EJ. It’s good to see you.

    My perfect candidate? Well, I don’t know that we’ll ever find someone who’s perfect, and I don’t mean to come off as overly critical, as I’m often accused. I do like this fellow. And Grover Cleavland was decent.

    Thank you for dropping by.

  • E.A. Blair

    October 2, 2010

    Here is what Mr. Paul said about the Budget if he were president.
    In Fact he has stated that the president should not do too much, much like Van Buren – He would stick to what is outlined in the Constitution.
    Of course that means that he would not attempt to install a theocracy.

    While the president can do a great deal on his own, to really restore the Constitution and cut back on the vast unconstitutional programs that have sunk roots in Washington over 60 years, he will have to work with Congress. The first step in enacting a pro-freedom legislative agenda is the submission of a budget that outlines the priorities of the administration. While it has no legal effect, the budget serves as a guideline for the congressional appropriations process. A constitutionalist president’s budget should do the following:

    1. Reduce overall federal spending

    2. Prioritize cuts in oversize expenditures, especially the military

    3. Prioritize cuts in corporate welfare

    4. Use 50 percent of the savings from cuts in overseas spending to shore up entitlement programs for those who are dependent on them and the other 50 percent to pay down the debt

    5. Provide for reduction in federal bureaucracy and lay out a plan to return responsibility for education to the states

    6. Begin transitioning entitlement programs from a system where all Americans are forced to participate into one where taxpayers can opt out of the programs and make their own provisions for retirement and medical care

    I agree with all of that.

    You can read more of what he sad he would do as President here.
    My Plan for a Freedom President

  • R.J. Moore II

    October 7, 2010

    While it might be better than what we have now, the Constitution was – in the first place – a centralizing document that created a legally recognized mafia (also known as a ‘government’). There is no such thing as ‘good government’, I don’t understand how anyone can call themselves a libertarian and not be an anarchist.
    Taxes are stealing, monopolies (even legal and security monopolies) are coercive.

  • E.A. Blair

    October 7, 2010

    Hi R.J.

    Nice to see a fellow libertarian around here – I am tired of battling the neo-cons on my own.

    Not referring to Ray of Course.

    And yes taxes are theft as they are based on coercion.

    Hard to make that point while I am running for city council though – most people buy into the propaganda.

  • Paul

    October 27, 2010

    Interesting read. Overall I enjoyed the article and it is important that we question any kind of ‘heroic’ figures in the public eye. For that I applaud you sir, keep up the good work!

    I do have some issues with Ron Paul, but very few. I do take issue with several of your major points though:

    “In fact, Ron Paul only believes in freedom unrestricted by federal law. When it comes to state and local governments, he fully endorses those governments’ “right” to restrict any number of your freedoms.”

    This argument takes up most of your article, but unfortunately it is a straw man, unsupported by any of your evidence. Ron Paul is a federal politician arguing about federal issues. He is simply claiming that the federal government does not have the powers it claims, under the constitution, for most of these issues. According to the constitution, these issues are withheld for the state and local government. You cannot go from a negative argument to a positive one claiming that because of this, he thinks local governments should be doing this instead. You make a huge leap in logic, amounting to nothing more than mere speculation. Do you have any positive evidence of Ron Paul claiming that marijuana, gay marriage, or abortion SHOULD BE ILLEGAL at the state level? You claim that you do when you say he ‘explicitly’ says this. Show me where.

    Now I’m an atheist that believes religion is mostly destructive to children. However, on the issues of Church and State, you convolute what’s being said and miss the point. What Ron Paul is arguing is that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot force its own brand of religion on the rest of the population (including non-religion). However, since we have a system of universal education, schools are restricted from teaching religion. In a free society, schools would teach whatever the want, however they want. This is totally consistent with libertarianism. Your opposition to it makes me question your own ‘libertarian’ leaning. Do you think that ALL CHILDREN must be taught atheism under state education? Or do you believe school should be private?

    With regards to Roe v. Wade, this again is consistent with the constitution. The federal government has no business making these decisions. Under the present system, tax dollars would fund abortions, which is exactly where the opposition comes from. I’m not going to pretend and solve the issue of abortion here, but it is reasonable to say that the federal government shouldn’t be involved in this matter.

    Your foreign policy discussion leaves much to be wanted. A simple one-line quote from one author to another is far from sufficient to deal with this issue. Where were these ‘islamofascists’ before the creation Israel or the coup in Iran? I guess they just sprung up coincidentally at the same time right? Because we’ve gained so many freedoms to fuel their jealousy in the last 60 years…

    “Freedom is fundamentally the absence of coercion. It matters not at which level the coercion originates. Your right to life, liberty, and property are inalienable – which means: your rights literally cannot be transferred or made alien.”

    I agree with this last statement, though I would specify coercion to be violent coercion. Social pressures are still reasonable. And yes, we should get rid federal, state, and local governments which infringe upon our rights. It is a long battle, with many different battle lines. Ron Paul has been a great ally in the fight, and I don’t think this kind of smear is in anyway conducive to the libertarian movement. We need soldiers fighting everywhere, and Ron Paul has probably been the single largest recruiter in our lifetime.

  • Ray

    October 27, 2010

    Paul wrote: > Do you have any positive evidence of Ron Paul claiming that marijuana, gay marriage, or abortion SHOULD BE ILLEGAL at the state level? You claim that you do when you say he ‘explicitly’ says this. Show me where.

    Ron Paul: “If this amendment simply restored the state’s authority to ban flag burning, I would enthusiastically support it.”

    Ron Paul: “I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman[.] In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government! If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction. If I were a member of [a state] legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state. The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system. [I]f federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches…. I think we should read the First Amendment, where it says, “Congress shall write no law.” And we should write a lot less laws regarding this matter. It shouldn’t be a matter of the president or the Congress. It should be local people, local officials. The state should determine so many of these things .. We should allow people at the local level…. We sort out the difficult problems at local levels and we don’t have one case fit all, because you have a Supreme Court ruling like on Roe versus Wade; it ruined it for the whole country. And that’s why we shouldn’t have it at a central level but at the state.”

    Ron Paul: “Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights—rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.” [boldface mine]

    More here:

    http://sandefur.typepad.com/freespace/2007/11/ron-paul-a-thre.html

    http://sandefur.typepad.com/freespace/2007/11/more-on-ron-pau.html

    http://www.kipesquire.net/2007/05/republican-presidential-candidate-quote-of-the-day/

    http://www.kipesquire.net/2007/06/republican-presidential-candidate-quote-of-the-day-2/

    http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/02/ban-on-sale-of.html

    http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/08/thoughts-on-ron-paul

    Ron Paul:

    Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the “right” of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the “property rights” of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.

    And yet “mass murder” evidently does not fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government.

    Ron Paul has also written two books on the NECESSITY of a pro-life libertarianism: Abortion and Liberty and Challenge to Liberty: Coming to Grips with the Abortion Issue.

    On June 4, 2003, speaking in the House of Representatives, Paul described “the rights of unborn people” as “the greatest moral issue of our time.”

    Yet the “rights” of individuals is not an issue for the federal government.

    On March 29, 2005, Ron Paul said: ” I believe beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection”

    Just not federally protected, I suppose.

    Paul wrote: > Where were these ‘islamofascists’ before the creation Israel or the coup in Iran?

    You’d be better off asking: where WEREN’T they? Click-click.

    Paul wrote: > Do you think that ALL CHILDREN must be taught atheism under state education?

    No.

    Paul wrote: > Or do you believe school should be private?

    Yes.

    And do I think religion should be taught in schools, or the Ten Commandments hung on the walls? No. Does Ron Paul? As a matter of fact, he supports the following platform:

    This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. … The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

    The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God’s image. … We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all unborn human beings, without exception.

    The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions.

    The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted.

    We reject the notion that sexual offenders are deserving of legal favor or special protection, and affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior. We oppose all efforts to impose a new sexual legal order through the federal court system. We stand against so-called “sexual orientation” and “hate crime” statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression. We oppose government funding of “partner” benefits for unmarried individuals. Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions.

    Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country.

    We favor a moratorium on immigration to these United States, except in extreme hardship cases or in other individual special circumstances, until the availability of all federal subsidies and assistance be discontinued, and proper security procedures have been instituted to protect against terrorist infiltration.

    We particularly support all the legislation which would remove from Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government. We commend Former Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court for his defense of the display of the Ten Commandments, and condemn those who persecuted him and removed him from office for his morally and legally just stand.

    Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.

    (Source)

    So, yes, in proudly voting for a theocratic candidate, Ron Paul indeed EXPLICITLY supports that agenda, and if you believe that a person who supports such a theocratic platform is a defender of liberty and is the “single largest recruiter in our lifetime,” then I’m afraid we must agree to disagree.

    Thank you for dropping by.

  • Paul

    October 27, 2010

    That’s all fine, but none of your quotes are POLICIES. They all involve getting the federal government out of the way and allowing state and local governments to handle the problems. Again not explicitly saying states SHOULD BAN gay marriage, but simply saying that the federal government should not define it. His position on marriage is to get the government completely out of the way. Oh how Theocratic!

    Again with abortion, your not even addressing his arguments, your just quoting them as assumed falsities. And RP has never advocated banning abortion by the government.

    I liked that little 500 word blurb on the history of Islam. I guess the exact same thing could be said about the Christians (or, disciples of Christ), who have conquered much more territory with equal or greater violence. Perhaps we should bomb all of the Christian nations as well and see to it that no Christian have access to nuclear weapons. By your logic, we should also return North America to the natives immediately because it was taken under violence from radical christians seeking a promised land. Or was that radical takeover different somehow?

    As for that platform you mention, Ron Paul simply picked Chuck Baldwin, not the entire party, as his choice presidential candidate. That doesn’t mean he supports the whole platform (you have this beautiful tendency to play with the facts). It’s just that when forced to pick the lesser of evils, that was the one. If I’m restricted to voting between Stalin and Hitler, does that mean I support their entire platform. Nice try though.

    Yes Ron Paul has his own personal beliefs, but he has repeatedly said: “I don’t know how to run your life and I don’t want to run your life.”

    It was my pleasure to stop by, carry on with your story.

  • Ray

    October 28, 2010

    Paul wrote: > That’s all fine, but none of your quotes are POLICIES.

    Ron Paul wrote: > If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act.

    Paul wrote: > Oh how Theocratic!

    Yes.

    Paul wrote: > And RP has never advocated banning abortion by the government.

    Ron Paul wrote: > Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.

    Ron Paul, then, doesn’t believe that “mass murder” should be banned? (I suppose not if local government’s decide it shouldn’t.)

    Paul wrote: > your [sic] not even addressing his arguments, your [sic] just quoting them as assumed falsities.

    I have addressed them at length, many many times before. See here. See the second to last chapter of my book.

    Paul wrote: > I liked that little 500 word blurb on the history of Islam.

    Thank you.

    Paul wrote: > I guess the exact same thing could be said about the Christians

    Yes! Now please tell your hero Ron Paul that same thing.

    Paul wrote: > Or was that radical takeover different somehow?

    Yes.

    Paul wrote: > As for that platform you mention, Ron Paul simply picked Chuck Baldwin

    No, not so simply. But keep telling yourself that, and I wager it will make Ron Paul’s theocratic political views more palatable to you.

    Paul wrote: > That doesn’t mean he supports the whole platform

    Except he does.

    Paul wrote: > It’s just that when forced to pick the lesser of evils, that was the one.

    Wrong!

    Paul wrote: > If I’m restricted to voting between Stalin and Hitler, does that mean I support their entire platform.

    You vote for neither, of course, precisely because throwing in with any of them is a sanction.

    Paul wrote: > Nice try though.

    Likewise. All I ask is that you keep equivocating on Ron Paul’s explicit support of the Constitution Party, and then keep telling us what a great believer in liberty he is, and how he’s the “single greatest recruiter in our lifetime.”

  • E.A. Blair

    October 28, 2010

    Paul Wrote:

    Where were these ‘islamofascists’ before the creation Israel or the coup in Iran?

    Meet the original Islamofascist: Michel Aflaq – Founder of the Baath Movement.

    Further info on the links between the Ba’ath party and National Socialism(German Communism)

    “It is Michel Aflaq who created the party and not I,” Saddam told an interviewer in 1980. “How can I forget what Michel Aflaq has done for me? Had it not been for him, I would not be in this position.” It was Aflaq whom Saddam installed in a top party post once he became dictator. It is Aflaq whom Saddam cites when he insists, as he does frequently, that the Baath party is not like other parties.

    And some history about Michel Aflaq

    MICHEL AFLAQ was born in Damascus in 1910, a Greek Orthodox Christian. He won a scholarship to study philosophy at the Sorbonne sometime between 1928 and 1930 (biographies differ), and there he studied Marx, Nietzsche, Lenin, Mazzini, and a range of German nationalists and proto-Nazis. Aflaq became active in Arab student politics with his countryman Salah Bitar, a Sunni Muslim. Together, they were thrilled by the rise of Hitler and the Nazi party, but they also came to admire the organizational structure Lenin had created within the Russian Communist party.

    You can read more about it all here. Sadaam’s Brain

    And that was before the creation of the state of Israel.

    I am all for critiquing the nationalist movements of the 19th and 20th centuries – it seems to me that the German Pricipalities did far better on their own rather than when they were joined together into one great Reich.

    And of course Zionism is a Jewish nationalistic movement

    But, since the creation of the state of Israel, in 1948 the Arab powers that have surrounded it have done everything in their power to turn the palestinians into a dagger pointed at the heart of Israel.

    They have done little to nothing to integrate the palestinians into their greater societies, and have used every opportunninty to turn what could have been a peaceful settlement into sectarian conflict and war.

    And when you look and Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, and Syria those countries and their history of brutal repression of individual freedom and expression in the name of total state control have done plenty to “create” the Radical Islamists.

    You must remember the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda’s original target were the oppressive regimes in the Muslim world.

    As per usual(Marx and Engels for instance), the founders of this movement were the educated elite of their societies.

    Ayman al Zawahiri was born into an aristocratic family in 1951 in the upper class Cairo suburb of Maadi. Some accounts have Zawahiri leading an unnamed clandestine cell in 1966 at the age of just 15 – notably also the year that Sayed Qutb, Zawahiri’s primary ideological influence, was executed. By Zawahiri’s own accounts, he was part of group that established the cell but did not take over leadership of the cell until after 1974 when the cell consisted of 11 members. Their objective, as stated by Zawahiri was “to topple the government” and “establish an Islamic government that rules according to the Sharia”. Zawahiri’s cell understood jihad to mean “removing the current government through resisting it and changing the current regime to establish and Islamic government through a military coup”. At least one of Zawahiri’s went on to establish jihadi training camps in Pakistan. Abdul Azeez, as he is known, along with Zawahiri established the first Islamic Jihad in Peshawar- a group which Zawahiri eventually took leadership of in 1992.

    Importantly, like many of the members of jihadi groups in Egypt, Zawahiri and his confidantes were not poor. They were not economically disadvantaged. They were not uneducated. They were doctors, engineers, pharmacists, professionals- middle or upper middle class or, like Zawahiri, from an aristocratic background. Militant Islamism flourished not among the poor, underprivileged or the masses, but among the elite. Many of those recruited by Zawahiri for his cell between 1967 and 1981 were students.

    Much like Osama himself – remebmer – Osama once pledged his Arab Mujahideen to the ousting of Sadaam from Kuwait – instead the Saudi Royal Family called in the Americans.

    Don’t forge tthe Grand Mosque seizure of 1979

    The Grand Mosque Seizure on November 20, 1979, was an armed attack and takeover by armed Islamist dissidents of the Al-Masjid al-Haram in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, the holiest place in Islam. The insurgents declared that the Mahdi, or redeemer of Islam, had arrived in the form of one of the insurgents’ leaders, Abdullah Hamid Mohammed Al-Qahtani and called on Muslims to obey him.

    The seizure shocked the Islamic world as hundreds of pilgrims present for the annual hajj were taken hostage, and hundreds of militants, security forces and hostages caught in crossfire were killed in the ensuing battles for control of the site. The siege ended two weeks after the takeover began with militants cleared from the mosque.

    It is far too easy to blame Israel for everything.

  • E.A. Blair

    October 28, 2010

    Here is an excerpt from

    Postmodern Jihad: What Osama bin Laden learned from the Left.

    It speaks to a lot of the problems I have with Naomi Klein and her ilk – half-assed postmodernist bullshit that is really washed-up and rehashed Marxism, mixed with bad economics, a oh-so popular critique of “Consumer Culture” and alliance with the totalitarian solutions to “Environmental” problems around us. I could go on.

    MANY ELEMENTS in the ideology of al Qaeda–set forth most clearly in Osama bin Laden’s 1996 “Declaration of War Against America”–derive from this same mix. Indeed, in Arab intellectual circles today, bin Laden is already being likened to an earlier icon of Third World revolution who renounced a life of privilege to head for the mountains and fight the American oppressor, Che Guevara. According to Cairo journalist Issandr Elamsani, Arab leftist intellectuals still see the world very much in 1960s terms. “They are all ex-Sorbonne, old Marxists,” he says, “who look at everything through a postcolonial prism.”

    Just as Heidegger wanted the German people to return to a foggy, medieval, blood-and-soil collectivism purged of the corruptions of modernity, and just as Pol Pot wanted Cambodia to return to the Year Zero, so does Osama dream of returning his world to the imagined purity of seventh-century Islam. And just as Fanon argued that revolution can never accomplish its goals through negotiation or peaceful reform, so does Osama regard terror as good in itself, a therapeutic act, quite apart from any concrete aim. The willingness to kill is proof of one’s purity.

    According to journalist Robert Worth, writing in the New York Times on the intellectual roots of Islamic terror, bin Laden is poorly educated in Islamic theology. A wealthy playboy in his youth, he fell under the influence of radical Arab intellectuals of the 1960s who blended calls for Marxist revolution with calls for a pure Islamic state.

    Many of these men were imprisoned and executed for their attacks on Arab regimes; Sayyid Qutb, for example, a major figure in the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, was executed in Egypt in 1965. But their ideas lived on. Qutb’s intellectual progeny included Fathi Yakan, who likened the coming Islamic revolution to the French and Russian revolutions, Abdullah Azzam, a Palestinian activist killed in a car bombing in 1989, and Safar Al-Hawali, a Saudi fundamentalist frequently jailed by the Saudi government. As such men dreamed of a pure Islamic state, European revolutionary ideology was seldom far from their minds. Wrote Fathi Yakan, “The groundwork for the French Revolution was laid by Rousseau, Voltaire and Montesquieu; the Communist Revolution realized plans set by Marx, Engels and Lenin….The same holds true for us as well.”

    The influence of Qutb’s “Signposts on the Road” (1964) is clearly traceable in pronouncements by Islamic Jihad, the group that would justify its assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat in 1981 as a step toward ending American domination of Egypt and ushering in a pure Islamic order. In the 1990s, Islamic Jihad would merge with al Qaeda, and Osama’s “Declaration of War Against America” in turn would show an obvious debt to the Islamic Jihad manifesto “The Neglected Duty.”

    It can be argued, then, that the birthplace of Osama’s brand of terrorism was Paris 1968, when, amid the student riots and radical teach-ins, the influence of Sartre, Fanon, and the new postmodernist Marxist champions of the “people’s destiny” was at its peak. By the mid ’70s, according to Claire Sterling’s “The Terror Network,” “practically every terrorist and guerrilla force to speak of was represented in Paris. . . . The Palestinians especially were there in force.” This was the heyday of Yasser Arafat’s terrorist organization Al Fatah, whose 1968 tract “The Revolution and Violence” has been called “a selective precis of ‘The Wretched of the Earth.'”

    While Al Fatah occasionally still used the old-fashioned Leninist language of class struggle, the increasingly radical groups that succeeded it perfected the melding of Islamism and Third World socialism. Their tracts blended Heidegger and Fanon with calls to revive a strict Islamic social order. “We declare,” says the Shiite terrorist group Hezbollah in its “Open Letter to the Downtrodden in Lebanon and the World” (1985), “that we are a nation that fears only God” and will not accept “humiliation from America and its allies and the Zionist entity that has usurped the sacred Islamic land.” The aim of violent struggle is “giving all our people the opportunity to determine their fate.” But that fate must follow the prescribed course: “We do not hide our commitment to the rule of Islam, . . . which alone guarantees justice and dignity for all and prevents any new imperialist attempt to infiltrate our country. . . . This Islamic resistance must . . . with God’s help receive from all Muslims in all parts of the world utter support.”

    These 1980s calls to revolution could have been uttered last week by Osama bin Laden. Indeed, the chief doctrinal difference between the radicals of several decades ago and Osama only confirms the influence of postmodernist socialism on the latter: Whereas Qutb and other early Islamists looked mainly inward, concentrating on revolution in Muslim countries, Osama directs his struggle primarily outward, against American hegemony. While for the early revolutionaries, toppling their own tainted regimes was the principal path to the purified Islamic state, for Osama, the chief goal is bringing America to its knees.

  • E.A. Blair

    October 28, 2010

    More on Al-Qaeda and the postmodern “cult of the victim” from Spiked

    Al-Qaeda now lives entirely off Western controversies over offending Muslims. The origins of the Rushdie stink lie in Britain more than the Muslim world. Almost as soon as it was announced three weeks ago that Rushdie would be knighted, some British MPs and Muslim community spokespeople expressed their concern about the ‘timing’ of the award – it might be perceived as an insult by ‘the world’s Muslims’ at a time when Britain is embroiled in conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, they said (1). They expressed a pre-emptive fear about a potential reaction. Then, members of the Pakistani parliament said they were indeed insulted by the award. One even said it would be justified to carry out suicide attacks in Britain in response to this act of war-by-knighthood (2). Now al-Zawahiri is using the same language, describing the Rushdie knighting as an ‘insult to Islam’ (3).

    Similarly, al-Zawahiri has made finger-wagging statements about the Danish cartoons controversy and the storm caused by Pope Benedict XVI’s comments on Islam last year. In March 2006, al-Zawahiri described the cartoons, which depicted Mohamed in various weird poses, as ‘an insult against the Prophet’ and a ‘continuation of the crusaders’ war’ (4). We should remember that the fuss over these cartoons started in Scandinavia, not the Muslim world. When the cartoons first appeared in October 2005, Muslim groups in Copenhagen reported the newspaper that published them to the Danish police for ‘blasphemy and racial discrimination’. Then, in December 2005, a delegation from various Danish Islamic groups visited the Middle East to spread publicity about these little-noticed drawings. This was followed by demonstrations in Palestine, Iraq and elsewhere in January 2006, and then by al-Zawahiri’s sabre-rattling condemnation of Denmark, and the West in general, in March 2006.

    Here, we can see that al-Zawahiri’s statements, and al-Qaeda’s raison d’être, is derived from the West’s culture of victimhood. In the case of the cartoons, al-Zawahiri’s complaints against the West were directly inflamed by Western PC sensibilities about offending minorities. In describing first the cartoons and now the Rushdie knighting as ‘insults’ that ‘hurt’ Muslims, al-Zawahiri is echoing the culture of grievance that has been nurtured by multiculturalism in parts of Europe in recent decades. Al-Qaeda should perhaps be seen as a logical and bloodily violent extension of today’s increasingly internationalised victim culture. Al-Qaeda statements are peppered with claims about feeling ‘humiliated’ by Western governments, and complaints about the West ‘ignoring’ Muslims’ pain. When Benedict XVI commented on Islam last year, al-Zawahiri said he was a ‘charlatan Pope’ and his words were part of the ‘crusader US campaign against Islam and Muslims’. In short, words hurt. Sound familiar?

    Read more about Postmodernism and the Destruction of Thought.

  • Paul

    October 28, 2010

    Defense of Marriage act quite simply meant that ‘no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state’. Again, protecting against Federal intervention on state jurisdiction. Fully consistent.

    Ray: “Yes! Now please tell your hero Ron Paul that same thing.”

    He is not my hero.

    Ray: “I wager it will make Ron Paul’s theocratic political views more palatable to you.”

    No, not his views. Not even the Constitution Party’s views. Maybe two of your lines have anything even remotely resembling theocracy, and you’ve excerpted a tiny fraction of the platform. If this is your only “Theocracy” point against Ron Paul, that’s pretty damn weak. And if he’s so theocratic, why isn’t he part of the party himself? This is grasping at straws like any good smear campaign without any substance.

    To build an argument based on this and neglect 30 years of consistent liberty-minded action is ridiculous. Or maybe you’re just bitter he left behind the useless Libertarian Party?

    E.A. Blair: “It is far too easy to blame Israel for everything.”

    That’s true and that’s not what I’m doing. Were there lunatics in Islam before Israel, absolutely! Were they attacking America? No. America’s intervention and violence in the middle east has made recruiting for these groups that much easier, and now they target us. No just Israel, but our support of dictators in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and now Afghanistan. To think that we can kill civilians and support dictators and not incite hatred is incredibly naive.

  • E.A. Blair

    October 29, 2010

    Were there lunatics in Islam before Israel, absolutely! Were they attacking America? No.

    Really?

    The First Barbary War (1801–1805), also known as the Barbary Coast War or the Tripolitan War, was the first of two wars fought between the United States of America and the North African Muslim states known collectively as the Barbary States. These were the independent Sultanate of Morocco, and the three Regencies of Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli, which were quasi-independent entities nominally belonging to the Muslim Ottoman Empire.

    America’s intervention and violence in the middle east has made recruiting for these groups that much easier, and now they target us.

    Before Osama targeted the USA, the USA was assisting the Jihadi’s in ousting the Soviets from Afghanistan.

    By the way, you say “Target us” are you American?

    The bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen and the American Embssies in Africa weren’t based on massive intervention – the Gulf War 1 was officially under the UN Flag, and involved multiple Arab and Muslim Nations.
    You could argue that the UN Embargo on Iraq didn’t help, but I again you’ll note the number of muslim nations that fought Sadaam.

    Kuwait
    Saudi Arabia
    Egypt
    Bangladesh
    United Arab Emirates
    Morocco
    Qatar
    Oman
    Pakistan

    As I pointed out – for years the main target of Islamic Fundamentalists were their own ruling classes, they had no success in creating islamic revolutions in their own nations – the attacks on the USA and Europe are a way of attempting to inflame passions and get the west more deeply involved in the Middle East – looks like it worked.

    Their stated goal is creating a sense of Pan-Arab Nationalism – Al Queda etc, want a Pan-Arab Revolution, they want there to be a clash of civilisations.

    No just Israel, but our support of dictators in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and now Afghanistan. To think that we can kill civilians and support dictators and not incite hatred is incredibly naive.


    I agree – Canada should get it’s troops out, and let the Afghans grow their Opium in peace.

    The americans are spending far too much time protecting the opium fields.

    Hatred is one thing, but a person who is of Arabic heritage, who has grown up in Canada, a well integrated nation that believes in the protection of individual rights and freedom of expression(to an extent) who decides to join the “Global Jihad” and might attempt to cause death and destruction in Canada, I think is out of their mind, and does not have a leg to stand on.

    But I agree Interventionism is generally a waste of time, and we would do well to heed the founders of the Republic.

    Washington Put it this way.

    The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

    Jefferson Put it this way

    “Separated by a wide ocean from the nations of Europe and from the political interests which entangle them together, with productions and wants which render our commerce and friendship useful to them and theirs to us, it cannot be the interest of any to assail us, nor ours to disturb them. We should be most unwise, indeed, were we to cast away the singular blessings of the position in which nature has placed us, the opportunity she has endowed us with of pursuing at a distance from foreign contentions the paths of industry, peace and happiness; of cultivating general friendship and of bringing collisions of interest to the umpirage of reason rather than of force.” –Thomas Jefferson: 3rd Annual Message, 1803. ME 3:359

    The anti-imperialist League put it this way

    We hold that the policy known as imperialism is hostile to liberty and tends toward militarism, an evil from which it has been our glory to be free. We regret that it has become necessary in the land of Washington and Lincoln to reaffirm that all men, of whatever race or color, are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We maintain that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. We insist that the subjugation of any people is “criminal aggression” and open dis-loyalty to the distinctive principles of our Government.

    By the you might be interested in the discussion in the comments below ths post:
    Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick Wishes America Wasn’t A Free Country

  • Paul

    October 31, 2010

    Really? The Barbary Wars? They were pirates stealing, not waging holy war. That is your example of pre-Israel muslim terrorism?

    Blair: “Before Osama targeted the USA, the USA was assisting the Jihadi’s in ousting the Soviets from Afghanistan.”

    Exactly, we helped radicalize and train them.

    Blair: “As I pointed out – for years the main target of Islamic Fundamentalists were their own ruling classes, they had no success in creating islamic revolutions in their own nations – the attacks on the USA and Europe are a way of attempting to inflame passions and get the west more deeply involved in the Middle East – looks like it worked.”

    Blair:”Their stated goal is creating a sense of Pan-Arab Nationalism – Al Queda etc, want a Pan-Arab Revolution, they want there to be a clash of civilisations.”

    Completely Agree. And we have our own version trying to perpetrate this clash from our end.

    Blair: “Hatred is one thing, but a person who is of Arabic heritage, who has grown up in Canada, a well integrated nation that believes in the protection of individual rights and freedom of expression(to an extent) who decides to join the “Global Jihad” and might attempt to cause death and destruction in Canada, I think is out of their mind, and does not have a leg to stand on.”

    I certainly see this point. But I also think it is important to understand the source of the anger these people have. If you are born here and your current country is killing your family or hurting people in your family’s country, would you not feel some resentment? It’s not like people of random countries are doing this – there aren’t any Indonesian, Turkish, or Indian terrorist plots going on in Canada.

    The truth is, it’s not Arab, Muslim, Jewish, or Western societies or cultures that are to blame. It is governments. Western governments, Muslim governments, Jewish governments, etc. I certainly don’t condone individual terrorists trying to kill civilians. However, I think they are morally superior to the governing bodies, both here and elsewhere, that are the source of the killing and violence that fuels the hatred of these individuals. These lunatics are a consequence, not the cause.

  • E.A. Blair

    November 1, 2010

    Really? The Barbary Wars? They were pirates stealing, not waging holy war. That is your example of pre-Israel muslim terrorism?

    Now why do you focus so much on pre-Israel Muslim terrorism?

    Muslims/Arabs have been just as violent as anyone else in the middle east over time.

    Just because the state of Israel was formed, gives Muslims/Arabs License to kill indisciminately?

    And what’s the big deal with Israel? The surrounding Arab States only tried to invade it 3 times. They didn’t succeed, but continue to blame it for all the ills of their own totalitarian states – sort of like the Soviets blaming their failures on “Western Imperialism”

    Speaking of treatment of native minorities, how about this?

    As a result, a large number of Jews were forced to emigrate from Arab lands, although some emigrated for ideological reasons.[25] Over 700,000 Jews emigrated to Israel between 1948 and 1952, with approximately 285,000 of them from Arab countries.[26][25]

    After the 1967 war, more than 850,000 Jews had left their birthplaces and their homes in some 10 Arab countries. To-day, fewer than 7,000 Jews remain in these same countries. Individual and communal properties were confiscated without compensation.[27] [28][29] Riots in Yemen and Syria killed hundreds of Jews. In Libya, Jews were deprived of citizenship, and in Iraq, their property was seized.[30] Today, these displaced Jews and their descendants represent 41% of the total population of Israel. For details, see Jewish exodus from Arab lands. [31] The property the Jewish-owned land left behind in Arab countries is estimated at 100,000 square kilometers – four times the size of Israel.

    So imagine if the Jewish stat of israel had put all of those 1 500 000 people of Jewish Heritage, did not allow them to gain citizenship and then said “you have a right of return” to your ancestral homelands.

    On top of that, what if Israel then sponsored terrorism in all of those countires, on behalf of the expropriated Jews?

    That is what the Arabs states have done.

    Exactly, we helped radicalize and train them.

    There is that nasty “we” again.

    Who did this exactly? the ISI, Pakistani intelligence, Saudi Billionaires and the native Afghans were already fighting the Soviets, the Americans just chipped in some cash and weapons.

    After that it was up to the ex-jihadis to decide their own fate – they chose to continue fighting. They originally tried to bring their fight to the Arab states, but when that didn’t work, they turned their anger to the West – as if the west was solely responsible for the totalitarian regime in Syria, or Egypt for that matter.

    Completely Agree. And we have our own version trying to perpetrate this clash from our end.

    I think the average American or Canadian citizen would like nothing more than to be left alone.

    I certainly see this point. But I also think it is important to understand the source of the anger these people have. If you are born here and your current country is killing your family or hurting people in your family’s country, would you not feel some resentment? It’s not like people of random countries are doing this – there aren’t any Indonesian, Turkish, or Indian terrorist plots going on in Canada.

    WTF? Where have you been living for the last 20 years?

    Air India Flight 182
    “Operation Samosa”
    Ottawa Terror Plot
    Jamal’s sermons at a local mosque were “filled with hate” against Canada.
    Toronto’s terror plot of 1991 (pre September 11) has been forgotten and become a lost memory to Canadians.

    You need to look at the roots of radicalisation – and in particular the Saudi/Wahhabi brand of Islam – most extremist are adherents of this strain of Islam

    Sources of Radicalization

    To understand why more and more Muslims are becoming radicalized, one can look to the original currents that fed into the violent Islamic extremism of the 1980s and ’90s, culminating on September 11, 2001. Along with a majority of the 9/11 hijackers, Osama bin Laden is a Saudi who embraces the fundamentalist Wahhabi version of Islam, puritanical in its strictures and extremely intolerant of nonbelievers.

    The relationship between the Saudi royal family and Wahhabism is complex, and it touches on that nation’s long religious traditions, need for domestic stability, status as the protector of Islam’s most holy places, and competition with Shiite Iran in the realm of Islamic theology. The results of that complex relationship, however, are unambiguous. For many years, the Sunni rulers of Saudi Arabia allowed the country’s vast oil wealth to be used in part to promote and export Wahhabism through the establishment of fundamentalist mosques and religious academies and schools called madrassas.

    Nowhere did the export of fundamentalist and intolerant Wahhabi ideology find more welcome than in Pakistan. A poor country with a weak central government unable to provide adequate education to its own youth, Pakistan allowed the Wahhabi-inspired madrassas to fill its educational void. The Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency also had a thirty-year history of supporting Islamic militants as a way to wield influence in neighboring Afghanistan and operate in Kashmir (a disputed province where Pakistan and India have fought three wars and countless skirmishes).

    Source
    Some more on the Wahhabi Movement

    The contemporary Wahhabi movement is the modern outgrowth of a 250-year-old
    schism within Islam that was sparked by a radical evangelist named Muhammad ibn Abdul
    Wahhab (1703-1792). Ibn Abdul Wahhab believed that Islam had been corrupted by countless
    errors and innovations, which he set out to purge with puritanical zeal.1 He and his followers
    denounced intellectualism, mysticism and traditional Islamic spirituality. They declared most of
    the Islamic scholars, thinkers and clerics that preceded them heretics and rejected the classical
    schools of Islamic jurisprudence that were the guarantors of moderation in traditional Muslim
    society. This is significant because it allowed the Wahhabis to interpret Islam according to their
    own whims – accepting those elements that supported their aims and ambitions, and rejecting
    whatever stood in their way. Anyone who failed to embrace Ibn Abdul Wahhab’s new doctrine
    was declared an “unbeliever.” Along with Jews, Christians and people of other faiths, they were
    declared “enemies of Islam” and became the target of a vicious crusade aimed at “purifying the
    faith.” Ibn Abdul Wahhab believed that Islam could be reformed through violence. By opening
    the entire faith to reinterpretation, he was able to provide a theological justification for this call to
    arms.2.

    Source
    I would argue that the USA should have invaded Saudi Arabia – not Afghanistan or Iraq.

    The truth is, it’s not Arab, Muslim, Jewish, or Western societies or cultures that are to blame. It is governments. Western governments, Muslim governments, Jewish governments, etc. I certainly don’t condone individual terrorists trying to kill civilians. However, I think they are morally superior to the governing bodies, both here and elsewhere, that are the source of the killing and violence that fuels the hatred of these individuals. These lunatics are a consequence, not the cause.

    There are plenty of Wahhabi Clerics who preach hatred and urge people to fight.

    Not too many Lutheran Ministers calling for a global war on non-believers.

  • Jungle Orchid

    November 20, 2010

    this is a very interesting chain of comments. some of them well formulated. stuff to write books about – ray. switching between paul, bin laden, the state of israel, the bath philosophy and the palestinian problem. boy there is good stuff here. wished all americans would debate in such a civilized way. it is not inconceivable that we might even find solutions to most of our problems.
    this being said, i do not agree with source where he advocates we should have invaded saudi arabia. mr or mrs source, we should not have invaded at all. the so feared ‘mulimization’ of our world stems from an evolutionary process: muslims constitute a large group of people with a common belief, not necessary common cultures. the process is not unlike the one the christian civilizations went through starting in the 15th century. the muslim struggle is most prevalent in their own societies. externalization of it (such as attacking the great satan) is merely one of the movements ripping their world apart. too soon to say whether moderation will prevail but we should all hope it will.

Leave A Response

* Denotes Required Field