The Left’s War on the Culture and Traditions of Western Civilization

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 27th, 2013

Politics 101

The Left sees Traditional Marriage as a way to make Women Cooks in the Kitchen and Whores in the Bedroom

What’s the difference between conservatives and liberals?  Conservatives believe in the genius of the Founding Fathers and embrace the U.S. Constitution.  Liberals constantly disparage the Founding Fathers as rich white men who owned slaves.  And they bristle at the restraints the Constitution places on them.  Conservatives believe in limited government.  Liberals believe in big government.  Privilege.  And feel they are part of an aristocratic class who are exempt from the laws they do not like.  Conservatives stand on principle.  While liberals will sacrifice principle in the pursuit of power.

The Sixties gave us the Sexual Revolution.  Where sex outside of marriage was not only okay it was better.  Hippies put sex into everyday ordinary life.  Where sex was as causal as an afternoon greeting.  Contraception and women’s liberation made the Seventies swing.  No one was getting married.  They were just living together.  And having a lot of sex.  With a lot of different people.  For it wasn’t the 1950s anymore.  No.  Women were no longer going to be sexually objectified or trapped into soul-sucking marriages.  Which was all the institution of marriage did.  Oppressed women.

The Seventies changed all of that.  Women could be whatever they wanted to be.  And sleep with whoever they wanted to sleep with.  For they now had the pill.  And when that failed they had abortion.  It was truly a time for feminists.  As they could be more sexualized than they had ever been before.  Those who did get married could ‘swing’ with other married couples.  That is, swap wives for sex.  Feminists persuaded women to be independent.  To have careers.  Not to get married.  Not to have children.  For that would only subjugate them to some man.  Where they would end up a cook in the kitchen.  And a whore in the bedroom.  Serving him.  One man.  And taking care of a long string of snot-nosed brats sucking the life out of them.  This is how the left sees traditional marriage.

Laws encouraged Marriage to Provide more People to Till the Soil and more Soldiers to Defend the Land

So clearly the left had launched a war on the institution of marriage during the Sixties and Seventies.  And beyond.  For it was everything that was wrong with America.  It destroyed a woman’s identity.  She even lost her last name.  No.  It was better for a woman to remain free.  And strong.  To enjoy sex when she wanted to enjoy sex.  Not only when society said she should.  In the marital chamber.  She should live alone.  Or live with someone outside the institution of marriage.  So she could remain free.  She should have a career.  And use birth control and abortion to terminate any pregnancy that could interfere with her career.  To remove any reason to consider ever getting married.  As well as enjoy the explosion of sexual transmitted diseases her new liberation gave her.

And yet as bad as marriage is the left is trying to make same-sex marriage a Constitutional right.  Despite fighting to destroy the institution of marriage for some 3 decades or more.  And still fights hard to help women avoid the institution and to keep her family tree a barren one.  But when it comes to gays and lesbians who want to get married that changes everything.  Marriage is then a beautiful institution where two people can profess their undying love to each other.  And denying marital bliss to same-sex couples is discriminatory.  Mean.  And just plain medieval.

Conservatives oppose same-sex marriage because they don’t want to change the institution of marriage.  Which has a tradition that dates back to the beginning of civilization.  While there is no such tradition of same-sex marriage.  Marriage created the family.  Allowing a man and a woman to raise a family.  So they can raise, provide for and nurture their children.  For unlike most animals in nature whose young can go off on their own after a year or so the human race must spend years rearing their offspring.  Which required two parents.  One to raise and nurture.  And one to provide.  Marriage also provided for inheritance.  To transfer property down generations.  Marriage provided a last name to their children.  In time religion entered the marriage ceremony.  Adding more tradition.  Then came laws to encourage people to marry and raise children.  To expand the population.  To provide more people to till the soil.  And more soldiers to defend the land.  As well as increasing the tax base.

The Left attacks the Culture and Traditions of the Political Opposition as they cannot Defeat Them in the Arena of Ideas

So the institution of marriage served many purposes.  The most important was to raise children.  Because if you couldn’t replace the people killed in battle or died from disease or famine countries would collapse.  And because it took so long to rear children traditions and laws developed to facilitate child rearing.  Some traditions go back thousands of years.  While there is no comparative traditions for same-sex marriage.  Or utilitarian purpose for same-sex marriage.  Such as expanding the population.

But the left shows no respect for tradition.  Unless it’s for a lost tribe in the Amazon that practices cannibalism and human sacrifice.  No, that tradition they’ll respect with the reverence of religion.  And actively oppose any interruption into their culture or traditions.  Even if they are sacrificing young virgins.  They’ll fight to protect their culture and tradition.  But they have no such respect or reverence for the culture and traditions of Western Civilization.

So the left is many things.  But one thing it is not is consistent when it comes to principle.  They attack the institution of marriage for those who currently enjoy that institution.  While embracing it for those who don’t have it.  They will do whatever they can to prevent women from coming down with the ‘disease’ of pregnancy.  While championing same-sex couple adoption.  They have no tolerance or respect for culture and tradition.  Unless it is culture and tradition not found in Western Civilization.  Proving that everything to the left is political.  And everything they do serves one purpose.  To increase their power.  And they do that by attacking the culture and traditions of the political opposition.  Which they do to destroy them.  As they cannot defeat them in the arena of ideas.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Marx, Engels, Communist Manifesto, Capitalists, Bourgeoisie, Proletariat, Private Property, Soviet Union, Iron Curtain and East Berlin

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 1st, 2012

History 101

Nationalism, Socialism and Communism forced a more Fair, Just and Equitable Society onto the People

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published the Communist Manifesto in 1848.  Launching a war against capitalism.  And private property.  Intellectuals and those in academia loved this stuff.  And labor leaders.  Because it was a path to power.  Especially for those who could not create wealth.  Unlike the great wealth producers.  Like the industrialists.  The entrepreneurs.  Small business owners.  The productive middle class.  That is, the capitalists.  Who work hard and achieve success.  By using their talent and ability to create wealth.  Moving up the economic ladder.  Creating income inequality.  The ultimate sin of capitalism.  According to Marx and Engels.  Intellectuals.  Academia.  And labor leaders.

In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels single out the accumulation of private property as the source of all our problems.  The capitalists, the bourgeoisie, have an insatiable appetite for private property.  They just can’t get enough of it.  And therefore oppress their workers, the proletariat, to maximize their property.  By paying them less and less to maximize their profits.  So they can use those profits to buy more and more property.  Which keeps the proletariat in perpetual and abject poverty.  And concentrates all the wealth into the few hands of the bourgeoisie.  And the only way to correct this great inequity was through a worker’s revolution.  Where the proletariat rises up and takes the private property of the bourgeoisie and gives it to the state.  So it belongs to everyone.  Especially to those who did not create it.  A very popular idea among those mired in perpetual and abject poverty.  Who are easily swayed to support this more fair, just and equitable distribution of other people’s wealth.

These progressive views enthralled Europe.  Especially after the Industrial Revolution created some appalling conditions for workers.  And they took this opportunity to put them into practice.  It was the 19th century that gave us the ‘fair’ political systems of nationalism, socialism and communism.  That began the process of transferring wealth from the capitalists to the anti-capitalists.  Precipitating the economic decline of Europe.  Making America the new economic superpower.  Which still maintained the principles of free market capitalism throughout the 19th century.  Until the anti-capitalistic teachings of Marx and Engels took hold in the progressive government of Woodward Wilson.  Bringing back the federal income tax Abraham Lincoln used to pay for the Civil War.  But unlike Lincoln Wilson had no intention of repealing it.  The federal income tax was here to stay.  As progressives began building that more fair, just and equitable society.

The Soviet Union Depended on the West for Food because their Forced Collectivized Farms couldn’t Feed their People

But the equitable movement in America was not as intense as it was in Europe.  Or Russia.  Which was taking the teachings of Marx and Engels to their logical end.  They had a worker’s revolution.  They became communist.  And forced that more fair, just and equitable society on their people.  Whether they wanted it or not.  And those who objected they systematically killed.  Or exiled to a Siberian gulag.  For Joseph Stalin’s rise to power was brutal.  As was the Soviet Union.  Even making a deal with Adolf Hitler to split Poland after the Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland that launched World War II.  Then Hitler double-crossed their Soviet ally and attacked the Soviet Union.  And the Nazis nearly overran them.  The Nazis were in Leningrad (present day St. Petersburg).  At the gates of Moscow.  And in Stalin’s city.  Stalingrad.  The Soviets were unable to resist the Nazi onslaught.  The only thing that saved them was material aid from the capitalist West.  The Soviet T-34 tank (the best in the war).  And, of course, the millions of Soviet people the Soviet generals could throw into the Nazi killing machine to wear the Nazis down.

No one suffered like the Soviet people did during World War II.  The US and the UK each lost about a half million people.  A terrible loss.  The Soviets, though, lost about 25 million people.  A number that just numbs the mind.  This was the second Russian invasion that had brought an enemy to the gates of Moscow.  The first were the French a century earlier under Napoleon.  There wasn’t going to be a third.  Wherever their armies were at the end of World War II they pretty much stayed.  Turning Eastern Europe into a communist bloc.  And to make the Soviet Union a mightier nation they embarked on a rapid industrialization program.  To make it a modern power like those great nations in the West.  But unlike them they were going to do it the ‘smart’ way.  With their command economy.  Where their brilliant state planners would marshal their resources and do what the free market economies did in the west.  Only instead of taking about a century their Industrial Revolution would take only 5 years.

With no industrialists, entrepreneurs, small business owners or a middle class it fell upon the state planners to industrialize the Soviet Union.  As well as feed the Soviet people.  Well, they industrialized the Soviet Union.  But never brought it up to par with the industrialized West.  Worse, they couldn’t feed their people.  Despite having some of the most fertile farmland in all of Europe in the Ukraine.  The Soviet Union depended on the West for food.  Because their forced collectivized farms didn’t work like Marx and Engels said they would.  And they didn’t work in China, either.  Where another brutal communist dictator, Mao Zedong, killed tens of millions of his people by starving them to death.  By forcing a more fair, just and equitable society onto the Chinese.

Time Froze behind the Iron Curtain and People Lived pretty much Forever in the 1940s

At the end of World War II, like at the end of World War I, no one wanted to think about war anymore.  Winston Churchill, though, did.  For he saw what the Soviet Union was doing.  And saw the spread of their communism as a threat to Western Civilization.  He gave a speech at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, in 1946.  And said, “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe.”  There was now an Eastern Europe.  An East Germany.  And an East Berlin.  All behind the Iron Curtain.  All in the Soviet sphere.  All communist.  Where they all suffered under a more fair, just and equitable society.  Whether they wanted it or not.  And they clearly did not.  For the Soviets had to build a wall in Berlin to prevent those in East Berlin from escaping to West Berlin.

The intellectuals, academia and labor leaders loved Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union.  They thought communism was the enlightened future.  Probably because they didn’t have to live in it.  But what is surprising is that a lot of college students have this affection with communism.  To this day they still wear t-shirts emblazed with the beret-wearing Che Guevara.   Who helped Fidel Castro bring that more fair, just and equitable society to the Cubans.  Who have been trying to escape it ever since by practically swimming to Florida and free market capitalism.  But the college students and their professors still yearn for a Soviet-style economy in the United States.  And condemn capitalism as they sit in coffee bars sipping their lattes.  Enjoying social media on their smartphones.  Wearing the latest fashions.  Enjoying the latest movies.  The newest music.  And dream of that more just society.  Where they redistribute wealth fairly and equitably.  And the rich pay their fair share.  Just like in East Berlin.  Where life was fair.  But it was nowhere as enjoyable as in the unfair West.

Time froze behind the Iron Curtain.  When West Berlin enjoyed the best Western Civilization had to offer in music, fashion, food, entertainment, etc., East Berlin didn’t.  For they were frozen in the 1940s.  Western music was decadent.  So instead of rock and pop music you listened to classical music.  Instead of the latest Hollywood movies you went to the ballet.  You didn’t watch Western television.  Read Western books.  Or newspapers.  No.  You only saw things approved by state censors.  And that were patriotic.  Why?  To prevent their people from seeing how much better life was on the other side of the Iron Curtain.  Where they enjoyed the latest and the best of everything.  Whereas inside the Iron Curtain you went to the black market for any real luxuries.  Like a pair of blue jeans.  Which they didn’t sell in East Berlin.  Because they were decadent.  Why, they wouldn’t even sell a t-shirt with a communist icon on it.  Because you just didn’t wear something like that in the 1940s.  But college kids will attack capitalism.  And support the fairness of socialism and communism.  Even though the things they enjoy come from free market capitalism.  And are simply not available in the communist command economy.  Because the accumulation of private property is the greatest sin of capitalism.  And not allowed under communism.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Greece, Rome, Western Civilization, Alexandria, Londinium, Enlightenment, Adam Smith, Free Market Capitalism and Gender Equality

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 17th, 2012

History 101

Greece gave Western Civilization Math, Science, Engineering and Philosophy

History has been a political struggle over power.  Kings and emperors and priests and nobles had it.  While other kings and emperors and priests and nobles wanted it.  They fought wars.  They oppressed their people.  They’ve committed acts of genocide on their enemies.  And on their people.  To get that power.  To keep that power.  And that’s the way it was for a long time.  The ruling class at the top battling it out.  While the people suffer abject poverty, famine and genocide at the bottom.  Until something came along to change that.  An advanced civilization.  That could produce a food surplus.  Freeing up people to become artisans.  Specialists.  Who could invent and make things.  To make life better.  Especially for a large group of people called the middle class.

The Greeks and Romans took civilization to new heights.  When Edgar Allen Poe wrote To Helen (1845) he chose Greece and Rome to describe his most beautiful Helen.  Because Greece and Rome were that beautiful.

On desperate seas long wont to roam,
Thy hyacinth hair, thy classic face,
Thy Naiad airs have brought me home
To the glory that was Greece,
And the grandeur that was Rome.

Western Civilization began in Greece.  Food surpluses freed the great thinkers.  Math, science, engineering and philosophy took roots in Athens and spread through the Greek world.  The Hellenistic civilization.  That Alexander the Great spread east all the way to Iran and the Indus Valley.  And south into Egypt.  Where he founded the great city of Alexandria.  Repository of some of the greatest Greek books of knowledge.  When Rome conquered Greece they spread that great Hellenistic civilization east to Spain.  North to France and Germany.  Even to England.  London itself was once a Roman city.  Londinium.  And everywhere the Romans went they brought with them Greek math, science, engineering and philosophy.  Building engineering marvels.  And creating a very high standard of living.

Where the Romans went they also built roads.  Primarily to move their legions throughout their empire.  But they also used them for trade.  Where they traded the goods made by that rising middle class of artisans.  Economic activity was bustling.  Until the government grew.  To pay for an ever larger government bureaucracy and military they started taxing that economic activity.  And regulating it.  Rather harshly.  Restricting freedoms.  Eventually tying farm workers to the land.  Even their children.  Turning that once bustling economy into feudalism.  Serfdom.  Until the growth of government expenditures made the Western Empire so weak that the Germanic barbarians sacked Rome.

Enlightened Thinking and Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations helped make Great Britain the Leading European Power

While Europe went through the Dark Ages the Eastern Roman Empire continued on.  Centered on Constantinople (modern day Istanbul) on the Bosporus, she was smack-dab in the middle of the trade crossroads between Europe and Asia.  And continued to prosper economically.  Until the Arabs began attacking her.  And the Christian Crusaders.  Who came down to reclaim the holy land for the Catholic Church.  Where they fought Muslim Arabs.  As well as Orthodox Christians.  While in the area they visited the sights.  Including that great repository of books in Alexandria.  Which they packed up and brought back to Europe.  And changed the world.

As the Christian monks translated these books all of Europe read them.  Math, science, engineering and philosophy.  Kicking off the Enlightenment.  Advanced economies appeared in the Italian city-states as they controlled trade in the Mediterranean.  But with all that Greek knowledge Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands built bigger ships and learned to navigate across the oceans.  Moving the center of trade from the Mediterranean to northern Europe.  The Europeans established colonies in the Old World.  And the New World.  France and England soon followed.  Trade exploded.  And fortunes were made.  But something really special was happening in England. 

Thanks to all that enlightened thinking the English took the lead in Europe.  And the world.  Modern farming practices improved yields and created great food surpluses.  She had representative government in her Parliament.  The rule of law.  Banking institutions.  Joint-stock companies to raise large amounts of capital.  An insurance industry to manage the great risks of transoceanic trade.  And an economist up in Scotland who wrote a book about new ideas in economic thought.  Adam Smith.  Who wrote The Wealth of Nations.  Championing something he called the Invisible Hand in free market capitalism.  Taking away the economic decisions making from the kings and emperors and priests and nobles.  And giving it to the people.  Which Great Britain embraced.  Kicking off the Industrial Revolution.  Other European nations followed her lead.  As did one young upstart nation.  The United States.

Famine has been Rare in Western Civilization since the 18th Century

Western Civilization dominated the world in every measurable way.  Economic output.  Living standards.  Public health standards.  Gender equality.  You name it and the free market capitalism of Western Civilization made it better.  The general path of emigration of great minds traveled in one general direction.  From eastern/southern Europe to Germany, France and Great Britain.  Then on to the United States.  Or directly to the United States.  Where free market capitalism was the freest.  Making the Untied States the new world superpower.  Following the Industrial Revolution with even greater innovation.  Providing ever greater living standards.  And individual liberty.  For everyone.

The freedom in free market capitalism brought women into the workforce.  Take the automobile.  When Henry Ford first mass produced the car it was not people-friendly.  Men started our first cars by turning a hand crank.  Sometimes losing a finger or breaking a wrist in the process.  Once started he adjusted his goggles and gloves and took the wheel.  His face being the bug screen.  His muscles being his ‘powered’ steering.  Clutching through the gears.  Gearing down and stomping down on the breaks to stop.  It was man’s work driving our first cars.  Dirty, filthy man’s work.  The automatic starter, automatic transmission, power steering and breaks, though, changed all of that.  All American developments.  Allowing women in heels and a short dress to start and drive a car as well as any man without losing any of her dignity.  And she could sip a latte on her drive to work.  While listening to music.  And on those hot days she didn’t sweat through her clothes before getting to work.  Thanks to air conditioning.  Another American invention for the car.  And she’s able to enjoy this freedom because of some other inventions.  Two in particular that let her pursue a career.  And enjoy any activity whenever she chooses.  The birth control pill.  And the tampon.  Again, products of Western Civilization. 

Women in Western Civilization have it pretty good these days.  Where for the most part their standard of living has caught up to men.  There are some earning disparities.  But a lot of that is due to women leaving the workforce to raise children.  And then reentering at a later time.  Having to play catch-up with those who didn’t leave the workforce to raise a family.  Not too bad when you consider what women are going through where they don’t embrace free market capitalism.  For not only do they have none of these everyday comforts we take for granted but they often go without food.  Up until the 18th century famines were pretty common.  But with the advances we’ve made in farming and our other institutions we have that give us a modern and bustling economy (and our high living standards) there really haven’t been any famines in Western Civilization since the 18th century.  There may have been a few but they were very rare.  Unlike the famines in the 20th century that killed tens of millions in Russia, the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Southwest Asia, Southeast Asia and Africa.  But famine is not the only thing killing people in these countries.  They have also suffered the greatest acts of genocides.  As rival groups battle each other for political power.  With the innocent masses stuck in the crossfire.  Something a prosperous middle class has put an end to in Western Civilization.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Classical Greece, Persian Empire, Hellenistic Period, Roman Empire, Italian Renaissance, Venice, Florence and Government Bonds

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 17th, 2012

History 101

The High Cost of Mercenary Soldiers and a Bloated Bureaucracy brought down the Western Roman Empire

Classical Greece dates back to the 5th century BC.  Lasted about 200 years.  And was the seed for Western Civilization.  Classical Greece was a collection of Greek city-states.  There was no Greek nation-state like the nation of Greece today.  The city-states were independent.  And often waged war against each other.  Especially Sparta and Athens.  Athens is where we see the beginnings of Western Civilization.  Sparta was a city-state of warriors.  While Athens kicked off science, math and democracy, Sparta bred warriors.  And boys trained from an early age.  Or were abandoned to die in the wilderness.

Adjacent to Classical Greece was the great Achaemenid Empire.  The First Persian Empire.  The empire of Cyrus the Great.  Which extended from the eastern Mediterranean all the way to India.  Some of those Greek city-states were on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean.  Did not like Persian rule.  And the Ionians revolted.  Supported by Athens.  The Ionian Revolt (499 BC) was the first in a series of Greco-Persian Wars.  Persia’s Darius the Great was tiring of the Greek’s insolence.  And set out to conquer the Greek mainland.  Only to get turned back at the Battle of Marathon.  His son Xerxes returned to Greece to complete the work his dad started.  King Leonidas of Sparta delayed him at the Battle of Thermopylae for three days.  But he defeated the vastly outnumbered Spartans and marched on to Athens.  Where he sacked the abandoned city.  But he would lose the subsequent Battle of Salamis naval engagement.  Losing his navy.  Forcing Xerxes to retreat.

The Greek city-states united to fight their common enemy.  And won.  With the common enemy defeated, Sparta and Athens returned to fighting each other.  In the Peloponnesian War.  Where Sparta emerged the dominant power.  But the constant fighting weakened and impoverished the region.  Making it ripe for conquest.  And that’s exactly what Phillip of Macedon did.  He conquered the great Greek city-states.  And Phillip’s son, Alexander the Great, succeeded his father and went on to conquer the Persian Empire.  Creating the great Hellenistic Period.  Where the known world became Greek.  Then Alexander died.  And his empire broke up.  Then the Romans rose and pretty much conquered everyone.  And the known world became Romanized.  Built upon a Greek foundation.  Until the western part of that empire fell in 476 AD.  Due in large part to the high cost of mercenary soldiers.  And a bloated bureaucracy.  That was so costly the Romans began to debase their silver coin with lead.  To inflate their currency to help them pay their staggering bills.

In Exchange for these Forced Loans the City-States Promised to Pay Interest

The history of the world is a history of its wars.  People fought to conquer new territory so they could bring riches back to their capital.  Or to defend against someone trying to conquer their territory.  And take their riches.  Taking riches through conquest proved to be a reliable system of public finance.  For the spoils of war financed many a growing empire.  It financed the Roman Empire.  And when they stopped pushing out their borders they lost a huge source of revenue.  Which is when they turned to other means of financing.  Higher taxes.  And inflation.  Which didn’t end well for them.

With the collapse of the Western Roman Empire the world took a step backwards.  And Europe went through the Dark Ages.  To subsistence farming on small manors.  The age of feudalism.  Serfs.  Wealthy landowners.  And, of course, war.  As the Dark Ages drew to a close something happened in Italy.  At the end of the 13th century.  The Italian Renaissance.  And the rise of independent Italian city-states.  Florence.  Siena.  Venice.  Genoa.  Pisa.  Much like the Greek city-states, these Italian city-states were in a state of near constant war with each other.  Expensive wars.  That they farmed out to mercenaries.  To expand their territory.  And, of course, to collect the resulting spoils of war.  These constant wars cost a pretty penny, though.  And built mountains of debt.  Which they turned to an ingenious way of financing.

These Italian city-states could not pay for these wars with taxes alone.  For the cost of these wars was greater than their tax revenue.  Leading to some very large deficits.  Which they financed in a new way.  They forced wealthy people to loan them money.  In exchange for these loans these city-states promised to pay interest.

Renaissance Italy gave us Government Bonds and a new way for a State to Live Beyond its Means

The vehicle they used for these forced loans was the government bond.  Used first by the Italian city-states of Venice and Florence.  Which were very similar to today’s government bonds.  Other than the being forced to buy them part.  The bond had a face value.  An interest payment.  And the bondholders could then buy and sell them on a secondary market.   The market set interest rates then as they do now.  The market determined the likelihood of the city-state being able to pay the interest.  And whether they would be able to redeem their bonds.

When there was excessive outstanding debt and/or war threatening a city-state’s ability to service their debt interest rates rose.  And the face value of existing bonds fell.  Because if the state fell these bonds would become worthless.  When state coffers were full and peace rang out interest rates fell.  And bond prices rose.  Because with a stable state their existing bonds would still be good.  Just like today.  So if you’re into government bonds you can thank Renaissance Italy.  And their wars.  Which gave birth to a whole new way for a state to live beyond its means.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Fear of Man-Made Global Warming is not as Fearsome as it once was to the British

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 10th, 2011

Week in Review

The British are a nice people.  A good people.  Very polite.  And friendly.  But sometimes a bit over trusting in their institutions (see Wilting greens posted 12/10/2011 on The Economist).

The furore over whether climate change is real and man-made that has shaken American politics barely stirs a leaf in Britain. Yet the issue is quietly slipping from the popular consciousness. In early 2007, soon after Sir Nicholas Stern published a doom-laden report on climate change, 19% of people told Ipsos MORI, a pollster, that the environment was one of the most pressing issues facing the nation. Nowadays just 4% think so.

Why might this be? Peter Lynn of the University of Essex reckons a fuss over the way some academics presented data, known as “climategate”, may have had an effect. And present economic woes have distracted people from long-term concerns. Compared with looming household debts and the prospect of unemployment, rising sea levels do not seem troubling. That may explain why graduates still fret about global warming whereas those without qualifications are far less concerned about it…

The history of Western Civilization goes through Great Britain.  Agriculture reform.  The rule of law.  Limited government.  Capitalism.  The Industrial Revolution.  Free trade.  Everything that made Western Civilization great Great Britain gave Western Civilization.  So the British are a proud people.  And rightfully so.  So when the University of East Anglia says there is such a thing as man-made global warming the British will believe it.  Because this science is, after all, British science.

The British are also a strong people.  They can endure some of the greatest hardships.  They never lost their will to fight to stay free while the Nazis bombed their cities.   So they can put up with a lot.  But one thing they don’t take too kindly to is being lied to.

So when Climategate 1 and 2 broke the British were probably not amused.  Because they built a lot of those silly wind farms that are ugly, noisy and don’t produce electricity during some periods of highest demand.  So not only are they paying huge energy surcharges on their electric bills to pay for this nonsense they also experience some brownouts during the coldest winter days.  So it’s no surprise that the fear of man-made global warming is not as fearsome as it once was.  Because it turned out that the whole thing was bull [excrement].  And expensive bull [excrement] at that.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , ,

The Far Left Hates Christians more than Radical Muslims

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 26th, 2011

No Morality Police under 20 Years of Republican Presidents

The far Left hates conservatives.  And Christians.  They don’t want them shoving their morality down their throats.  Like conservatives do in some countries (see Iran’s Hardline Fashion Police by Babak Dehghanpisheh posted 6/24/2011 on The Daily Beast).

It’s that time of year again. As summer temperatures soar in Tehran and other large Iranian cities, the morality police, or gasht ershad as they’re called in Farsi, come out in droves to make sure the citizenry isn’t flashing too much skin or acting in other inappropriate ways. The activities of the gasht ershad ramped up after the election of hardline president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005, but it seems this year they’re going for broke: since mid-June, 70,000 morality police have been sent out into the streets of Tehran alone.

Ronald Reagan was president for 8 years.  George H.W. Bush for 4 years.  George W. Bush was president for 8 years.  That’s three Republicans occupying the Oval Office for 20 years.  All the while the far Left was attacking them for being too close to the Religious Right.  Trying to scare everyone into believing that they would set up a Spanish Inquisition-like morality police to punish people misbehaving.  But in those 20 years let me ask you this.  Did any of these Republican presidents ever send 70,000 morality police to any American city?  No.  In fact, by my recollection, during those 20 years we still had pornography.  Women were still wearing bikinis in public.  Birth control and abortion were still available legally.  And guys were able to do whatever they wanted to with their hair.  Even wear gold chain necklaces if they wanted to.  But in Iran…

No more mullets (a move even some Tehran fashionistas applauded), ponytails, or a popular hairstyle called the rooster, which swoops up in a faux-hawk in the front and flares out at the back. And there’s a new restriction for men this summer: no necklaces.

During those 20 years of Republican presidents there was no morality police.  There was no one saying what fashion was and was not permissible.  As I think parachute pants and the mullet attest to. 

The government has not only spelled out the crackdown in legal terms, but has also tried to make the case that inappropriate clothing can be directly linked to damnation. Last week, an analyst named Ali Akbar Raefipour, appeared on state television and claimed that the word “jeans” actually comes from the word “jinn,” which are supernatural beings that can fly and take the form of animals. He took it a step further by comparing women’s high heels to the hooves of demons. And if that wasn’t enough, Raefipour said that numbers and symbols on some t-shirts can be read as “spells or satanic slogans.”

After only a week of the crackdown, Tehran police chief Hussein Sajedinia held a press conference and claimed resounding success, citing a 50 percent drop in the harassment of women on the streets (without a hint of irony)…

Who would have known?  That wearing blue jeans will send you to hell.  That high heels are the sign of the beast.  And writing on t-shirts is satanic.  If I’m not mistaken, though, during 20 years of Republican presidents I’m pretty sure I saw women in high heels, in tight denim jeans and in shirts with stuff written on them stretched taut across their bosoms.  Not that I looked.  I wonder why the Religious Right allowed this to happen during those 20 years of Republican presidents.

Anyway, it’s good to know that Iranian women are now safe.  Free to walk along the streets.  Without any men harassing them.  Just by exercising a little more modesty in their appearance.

For ordinary Iranians, the evidence of the crackdown is in plain sight. Checkpoints run by the morality police have mushroomed all over Tehran and, residents say, it’s not uncommon to see women getting stuffed into one of their ubiquitous vans…

Soheila, a 28-year old Tehran resident, has had enough. “I was even with my husband one time when a policewoman gave me a warning about bad hijab,” she says. “‘[I’m] going to start wearing the chador [a head-to-toe cloth covering] because [I’m] afraid of the morality police.” 

Exercising a little more modesty in your personal appearance.  And by living your life in absolute fear and oppression.  Again, I lived through 20 years of Republican presidents yet don’t recall any such oppression of women.  Guess there’s a difference between Islam and Christianity.  And women have more freedoms under Christianity.

One thing you have to say about Muslims living under Sharia law, though.  They must really love, honor and respect their women.

Al Qaeda has a PR Problem because they’re Killing Muslim Men, Women and Children

Actually, they don’t.  Which is really a puzzling thing about the far Left’s open hostility towards Christianity and absolute tolerance for anything Islamic.  Christians don’t physically and/or brutally oppress their women.   Or use them as suicide bombers (see Taliban say husband and wife in Pakistan suicide attack posted 6/26/2011 on the BBC).

A husband and wife carried out a suicide attack that killed eight people at a police station in north-western Pakistan, the Taliban has said…

The BBC’s Orla Guerin, in Islamabad, says that the use of a husband and wife suicide squad by the Pakistani Taliban is a new tactic, and a new threat.

Already, our correspondent adds, the militants have resorted to using children as human bombs. And a suicide attack in Pakistan’s tribal areas last December was blamed on a woman bomber.

I don’t think this is the kind of gender equality women living under Sharia law want.  To be sacrificed like men. 

You just don’t hear about Christians doing things like this.  Or Jews for that matter.  Judeo-Christian societies treat women better than this.  They can show a little skin.  Wear high heels.  Even smile at passersby.  Including men they don’t even know. 

With feminists populating the far Left it just boggles the mind that they fear and hate Christians.  While no such vitriol is ever directed against anything Islamic.  And yet it’s elements in Islam that are doing some of the worse things imaginable against women.  And children (see Afghanistan: Eight-year-old girl ‘used in attack’ posted 6/26/2011 on the BBC).

An eight-year-old girl has been killed after insurgents used her in a bomb attack on police in southern Afghanistan, the government has said.

The interior ministry said insurgents gave the girl a package and told her to take it to a police vehicle, detonating it as she approached…

Correspondents say insurgents have recruited both adult women and recently male children to carry out suicide attacks, though the Taliban denies recruiting children.

According to letters seized during the mission that killed Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda has a marketing problem.  For there was no religious element in the name ‘Al Qaeda’.  And they were losing the PR war with the Americans.  Because Al Qaeda was killing more Muslims than the Americans were.  So bin Laden wanted to change the name to stress the holy war element in the war against the Americans.  But that didn’t happen because of his ‘untimely’ death. 

Apparently he was alone in this view.  Because giving an 8 year girl a package and telling her to take it to the police station without telling her what’s in the package and then detonating the bomb in that package while hiding from a safe distance away doesn’t exactly help put a positive spin on the holy war against the Americans.  Especially when you’re killing Muslim men, women and children by blowing up a bomb being held by a Muslim child.

The Far Left Hates Western Civilization

Islam is a religion of peace that some twist the meaning of to do unspeakable things.  Christianity is a religion of peace, too.  And some may twist the meaning of it to do some unspeakable things.  But if you’re tallying these unspeakable things you’re going to see the tally far greater for one religion than the other.  Unless you don’t consider putting bombs on women and children as unspeakable.

Western societies tend to be Judeo-Christian societies.  And in these societies women have a lot of freedoms.  They can do anything they want.  Have a career.  Go into politics.  Become presidents.  Prime ministers.  Or be porn stars.  They can eat and drink anything they want anywhere they want.  They can go to a movie, a bar or a dance club.  Women have come a long way in Western Civilization.  Nowhere are they empowered more.  And nowhere are they empowered less than in Islamic society.

And yet, despite all of this, the far Left attacks Christianity.  They will say some of the most vile and vicious things.  Insult their institutions.  And openly mock them.  But they don’t do this with Islam.  In fact, if anyone says anything critical of Islam the far Left calls that hate speech.  While their criticism of Christianity is merely free speech.

This makes no sense.  Unless the far Left hates Western Civilization.  Then it makes perfect sense.  The far Left is the liberal Big Government left.  Who wants more government in our lives.  Telling us what’s best for us.  Regulating us.  Controlling us.  And this they have in common with radical Islam.  Because they, too, want to tell their people what’s best for them.  To regulate them.  To control them.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #60: “Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. Fool me again shame on public education.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 5th, 2011

The Founding Fathers’ Experiment in Self-Government

Benjamin Franklin said when the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.  Because people tend to be greedy.  And lazy.  And they don’t understand public finance.  Especially the uneducated ones.  And there were a lot of uneducated people during our founding.  The Founding Fathers worried about this.  Because governments past have always exploited the uneducated for personal gain.  Kings and lords would give the poor some alms to make them feel good about their lives of unending toil and suffering on the feudal estates.  Should you not be lucky enough to have been born with the ‘right’ last name.  The new United States of America was going to change that.  Here it wouldn’t matter who your father was.  Here, no one would be better than you.

But only if this experiment in self-government succeeded.  So they were very careful when they wrote the Constitution.  And the type of government for the new nation would not be a democracy.  Instead, they chose a representative republic.  For the Founding Fathers all feared democracies.  Which when you come down to it is nothing more than mob rule.  If the mob is racists they’ll pass racist laws.  If the mob is sexist, they’ll pass sexist laws.  And if the mob is greedy and lazy, they’ll vote themselves money from the federal treasury.  This is the risk of democracy.  All you need is a majority.  And whatever you want is yours.  No matter how destructive it is to the country.

That’s why the Founding Fathers did NOT give us a democracy.  We have intermediaries between the mob and the actual law-making.  We call these people our representatives.  At the founding, these were the best of the best.  Well educated and/or experienced.  Men of great honor and integrity.  Imbued with a selfless sense of duty.  These men went out of their way NOT to prosper from their government service.  Really.  It’s nothing at all like today where government service is nothing more than a ticket to a fat pension and early retirement.  Back then such a thought was anathema to the Founding Fathers.  Which is very evident by the type of government they created.

Indirect Elections temper the Populist Tendencies

The Constitutional Convention was a hot, miserable, long summer in Philadelphia.  There was little agreement.  No one liked the final product much.  But most agreed it was the best that they could do.  Even then the U.S. was big.  Lots of different people trying to make the final product favor their state more than the others.  And few were in favor of giving the new central government much power.  They all feared that this new central power would consolidate its power.  And regulate the states to fiefdoms in a new kingdom.  Just like in the Old World.  So they took as many opportunities to restrict federal power.  And minimize the influence of the populist mob.

The new federal government was a limited government.  It was only to do the things the states couldn’t do well.  Maintain an army and navy.  Treat with other nations.  Those things that needed a singular national identity.  Everything else was to remain with the states.  And to make sure the states would not lose their sovereignty, the states’ legislators would choose their federal senators.  The House of Representatives would have direct elections.  Being the closest to true democracy, the House risked being influenced by the mob.  The Senate, then, would be wise and prudent to temper the populist tendencies of the House.  To keep the House from doing something stupid.  Like voting the people the treasury.  (Of course, the states lost a lot their sovereignty when we changed this by amendment to a popular vote like the House.)

The president was to be elected indirectly, too.  Like the senators.  The Founders were worried that the office of the president could be easily corrupted.  So they put great restrictions on its powers.  And made it as difficult as possible for any one group or interest to ‘cheat’ and get their man into office.  Hence the indirect election.  Again, to protect their sovereignty, this fell to the states.  State legislatures would choose electors who would then vote for president.  (With quite a few close elections, there have been calls to eliminate the Electoral College and replace it with a pure popular vote.  Of course, it is usually the loser in a close election who wants this change.  If the same thing happens in a subsequent close election where they win they are quite happy with the Electoral College.)

Talented People create things to trade

The reason the Founders wanted so many people between the voters and the actual law-making is to keep people from voting irresponsibly.  The federal budget is pretty big.  And people see that it is big.  They figure that because they pay taxes, there’s no reason why they can’t have stuff from the federal government.  In a true democracy, the people could vote to cut taxes and increase spending.  They could vote themselves a monthly stipend to live on and quit their jobs.  An uneducated mob can easily do this.  Who wouldn’t want to get a paycheck for doing nothing AND pay less in taxes?  It’s very attractive.  If I ran for office on such a platform a lot of people would probably vote for me.  But there’s a problem with such generosity.  You see, government can’t give money to people unless they take money from other people first.

There appears to be a popular misconception about public finance.  Many believe that government has a stash of cash that they can give out whenever they please.  And that this stash of cash has mystical power.  That it’s endless.  And when they give it away more just magically appears.  But the government has no money.  The public treasury isn’t filled with the government’s money.  It’s filled with our money.  That’s our tax dollars in there.  Or it’s borrowed money.  Borrowed money that costs interest.  Paid with our tax dollars.  Or it’s printed money.  Money created out of nothing.  Which makes our money worth less.  Which makes everything we buy more expensive.  We call this inflation.  You just can’t print money.  Because it just dilutes the purchasing power of the money already in circulation.  It’s like a bartender selling you whisky from a bottle that’s one part water and 4 parts whisky.  It not only tastes bad.  But you’ll have to pay more to get the same buzz from an honest bartender.

The reason why printing money doesn’t work?  Because it isn’t the money we want.  It’s the things that money can buy that we want.  Who sits in an empty room and enjoys looking at big piles of cash?  No one.  Take the cash out of your wallet or purse and see how long you can stare at it.  Probably not long.  Why?  Because it’s boring.  We don’t enjoy the cash.  We enjoy the things in the room we trade that cash for.  And this is key.  We trade.  We are traders.  Always have been.  And always will be.  We started out bartering for things.  You traded something you built (this is important) for something someone else built (equally important).  Talented people who created things met to trade.  And we still do this today.  The money just makes it easier to trade.  But this would not be possible if we all lived on a government stipend and nobody worked.  Because if no one worked, there would be no things to buy.  We would be sitting in an empty room staring at piles of useless money.

A Public Educational System that doesn’t Educate but Indoctrinates

The Founding Fathers understood all of this.  And they framed the Constitution accordingly.  They limited the powers of the federal government.  Minimized the amount of actual democracy/mob rule.  And minimized the amount of money in the federal treasury.  For they were capitalists.  They knew money left in the private sector stimulated local economies.  People created useful things.  Brought them to market.  And traded these useful things for other useful things.  That’s the way things were.  It’s not how they are now.  Politicians today are in politics for personal gain.  They pander to the voters.  Buy and sell favors.  Enrich themselves in the process.  And leave a swath of destruction in their wake.  And how are they able to do this?  Because the government has become more of a democracy than a representative republic.

Along the way the educational system failed.  Probably starting in the Sixties.  With the hippies in college.  Who went on to teach in the Seventies.  We spent less time on reading, ‘riting and ‘rithmetic.  And more on American white guilt for what happened to the Native Americans and a slave economy.  We learned less about the Founding Fathers.  And more about the people they wronged.  We learned less about American culture and more about diversity and multiculturalism.  We learned less about American Exceptionalism and more about American Imperialism.  We learned less about Western Civilization and more about ‘enlightened’ oppressive socialism.  We learned less about capitalism and more about the ‘fair’ redistribution of wealth.  Let’s face it.  Kids in school didn’t have a chance.  Their teachers were no longer teaching how America got to be exceptional.  They were teaching that America was anything but exceptional.  That we were guilty of every crime and injustice you could think of.  That America needed to change.  And that they, the young, our future, could make that change happen.

So the dumbing down of America began.  For those unable to escape the indoctrination of the new public education.  And the growth of government took off.  In fact, you can say that as society became ‘less American’ they became more dependent on government.  Where once rugged individualists dominated the land their numbers are thinning.  As slick politicians lure more people by the siren song of an easy life provided by government benefits.  And these politicians find the lie easier to sell with a public educational system that doesn’t educate but indoctrinates.  In fact, it’s quite an incestuous relationship.  The politicians spend more and more money on education.  The money goes to the teachers.  The teachers belong to unions.  The teachers’ unions support and donate to Democrat candidates.  So some of that tax money spent on education goes right back to the politicians that just increased educational spending.  And the teachers, eager to keep a good thing going, teach their students to become good Democrat voters.  Instead of teaching them about the three Rs, the Founding Fathers, American culture, American Exceptionalism, Western Civilization and capitalism.  As the standardized test scores show.  And does their irresponsible voting.

A Rising Sun or a Setting Sun 

America is fast approaching a crossroads.  People have learned that they can vote themselves money.  And have.  Politicians are pandering to these people for personal gain.  Offering to spend more and more money that we just don’t have.  Bringing us closer and closer to the end of the republic. 

Ben Franklin sat through that insufferable summer in Philadelphia.  Swatted at the giant horseflies in the hall.  He was old and his time was short.  He sat quietly during much of the debates.  Often staring at the sun carved into George Washington‘s chair.  He wondered if it was a rising sun.  Or a setting sun.  He saw it as symbolic of their little experiment in self-government and the work they were doing in that hall.  Was this already the end of their noble experiment?  Or was it just the beginning?  After the delegates voted to send the new Constitution to the states for ratification he breathed a sigh of relief.  For it was a rising sun.

I guess that question is once again open to debate.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is the Arab World backward because of their Women?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 6th, 2011

Europe Pulls ahead of the Middle East in 1200 and never Looks Back

What’s the deal with the Islamic world?  While Western Civilization has reached staggering heights of prosperity and freedom, much of the Islamic world lives as they did during the Middle Ages (see Is Islam the Problem? by Nicholas Kristof posted 3/5/2011 on The New York Times).

A wise visitor from outer space who dropped in on Earth a millennium ago might have assumed that the Americas would eventually be colonized not by primitive Europeans but by the more advanced Arab civilization — and that as a result we Americans would all be speaking Arabic today.

Yet after about 1200, the Middle East took a long break: it stagnated economically, and today it is marked by high levels of illiteracy and autocracy. So as the region erupts in protests seeking democracy, a basic question arises: What took so long? And, a politically incorrect question: Could the reason for the Middle East’s backwardness be Islam?

That great city in Egypt founded by Alexander the Great, Alexandria, held a treasure trove of old Greek texts.  When the Christian Crusaders crusaded into the region, they took some of these books back home with them.  As well as some Arab science and math.  It’s what made Europe dominant coming out of the Middle Ages.  At the time of the Crusades, the Arab world was more dominant than Europe.  More learned.  More advanced.  So it’s a good question.  What happened?  Why did the Europeans pass them by?

Yet one challenge is psychological. Many Arabs blame outsiders for their backwardness, and cope by rejecting modernity and the outside world. It’s a disgrace that an area that once produced outstanding science and culture (giving us words like algebra) now is an educational underachiever, especially for girls.

Perhaps there is a clue here.  Perhaps it’s the human capital of Western women.  It’s just a thought.  When you exclude women from anything reserved for men it basically cuts your human capital in half.  The greater your human capital, the greater your advancement.  If the split between men and women is 50-50, then the Western Civilization has been working with a 100% advantage in human capital.  Perhaps that is a factor.  I don’t know.  It’s just a thought.

The Great Cultural Divide: Bikinis or Veils

Little has changed in the Muslim world.  Education and custom is little changed from what it was back when the Arab world was dominant.  And those who try to change things are not received well by their brethren (see London imam subjected to death threats for supporting evolution by Rowenna Davis posted 3/6/2011 on the UK’s Guardian).

An imam of an east London mosque has been subject to death threats and intimidation for expressing his views on evolution and women’s right to refuse the veil…

A statement from the secretary of the mosque, Mohammad Sethi, that was leaked to extremist websites, said Hasan had been suspended after his lecture resulted in “considerable antagonism” from the community and for his “belief that Muslim women are allowed to uncover their hair in public”.

It is not uncommon to see magazines at the checkout lane in American sores with bikini-clad women on the covers.  You see them so often you don’t give them a second thought.  Compare that to the ferocious outrage directed against someone who said Muslim women should be able to show their hair in public.  That is quite a cultural divide.  And perhaps a reason for the men in the Arab world to hate the West.  Because we let these uppity women to do whatever they please.  Why, we even let them believe in evolution.

Harun Yahya, a popular Islamic creationist scholar from Turkey, begins a UK tour in London on Monday, adding to the debate. Last December Salir al-Sadlan, a senior Saudi-based scholar Salir al-Sadlan, said Muslims shouldn’t pray behind someone who believed in evolution in a speech at Green Lanes mosque in Birmingham.

Inayat Bunglawala, chair of Muslims4UK, a group promoting Muslim engagement in British society, said there was “widespread ignorance” about evolution among the Muslim community. “Many traditional imams are grounded in ancient books in Arabic but have very little grounding in science. I find it staggering how they can be so strongly opposed to evolution without reading about it. That seems to be opposite of the very first commandment of the Qur’an, which is to read,” Bunglawala said.

It was interesting to hear the American left argue for that Muslim community center (that included a mosque inside of it) near Ground Zero.  They fought for and defended the Muslim religion.  Even though they attack Christianity tooth and nail over their ‘oppression’ of women and God-clinging rejection of evolution.  Incidentally, a lot of those bikini-clad women on the magazine covers in American stores?  A lot of them are Christians.  And why do Christian women do this in the West?  Pose half-naked?  Because they can.

The Left makes absolutely no logical sense to support a stringent religion (Islam) while attacking a less stringent one (Christianity).  Then again, a lot the Left does defies logical sense.  But I digress. 

Protestant Germany have an Islamic Past?

There’s a lot of Christian history in Germany.  Martin Luther was a German monk who started the Protestant Reformation.  That’s a pretty big movement in the Christian world.  And Germany was smack dab in the middle of the Christian world.  But others would beg to differ (see German Minister’s Comments on Islam Stir Debate by Judy Dempsey posted 3/6/2011 on The New York Times).

Germany’s new interior minister, appointed just last week, has already managed to upset politicians, church leaders and representatives of the Muslim community by saying that Islam is not a part of the German way of life.

“Islam in Germany is not something substantiated by history at any point,” the interior minister, Hans-Peter Friedrich, said at his first news conference in his new job, adding that Islam did not play a major role in German culture…

Lamya Kaddor, chairwoman of the Liberal-Islamic Union in Germany, said that Mr. Friedrich’s remarks were a “slap in the face of Muslims.”

“Such statements are not only politically and historically wrong, I think they are dangerous,” Ms. Kaddor said. She added that Mr. Friedrich’s position would undermine progress between Muslims and Christians that previous interior ministers had encouraged.

I don’t know.  I think the German guy is kinda right here.  It was a Germanic people that conquered Rome and renamed it the Holy Roman Empire.  And the empire moved north.  It became German.  And it was Germanic kings that sent crusaders to the Holy Land.  To fight the Muslims.  To return the Holy Land to Christian rule.  That’s why Muslims hate Christians.  The European crusaders.  Western Civilization.  And Americans.  They say we’re all still crusading against Islam.  And that’s why Muslim immigrant communities don’t want to assimilate into their new countries.  Including Germany.

Germany has been grappling with how best to integrate its four million Muslims into the society at large. The government is pushing for the children of non-German-speaking parents to develop better German language skills.

But in a recent visit to Germany, the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, urged Turkish parents who are living in Germany to teach their children the Turkish language before German.

Mr. Erdogan told a crowd of more than 11,000 people in Düsseldorf that the Turks in Germany should not assimilate, but integrate.

“I say yes to integration,” Mr. Erdogan said. “You should definitely integrate with the German society, but we are against assimilation. No one should be able to rip us away from our culture and civilization. Our children must learn German, but first they must learn Turkish.”

I wonder how many Christian Germans are living in Muslim countries maintaining their culture and civilization.  Or is that a one way street?  I mean, if you want to retain your culture and civilization, why leave the country where your culture and civilization is?  And why expect another country to lose their culture and civilization by refusing to assimilate into your new adoptive country?  It doesn’t seem fair.  And appears that something else is at play here.  The expansion of Islamic fundamentalism?  Perhaps.

Americans Attacked in Germany

So, is there any radical Islamic fundamentalism happening in Germany?  Well, there’s this (see Jihad in Frankfurt posted on 3/7/2011 in The Wall Street Journal).

On Wednesday two American soldiers were shot dead on a military bus at Frankfurt Airport. Arid Uka, a 21-year-old Kosovo native, has confessed to the murders of Senior Airman Nicholas Alden, 25, and Airman First Class Zachary Cuddeback, 21.

German officials say Uka approached the airmen boarding the bus, asked for a cigarette, and struck up a conversation. After one of the soldiers confirmed they were headed for Afghanistan, Uka followed them onto the bus, cried “Allahu akbar,” and began shooting.

Hmmm.  A young man from a predominantly Muslim country shouting ‘God is Great’ before killing two Americans on their way to Afghanistan where Islamic Fundamentalism is fighting to throw the Westerners out.  Why, one could say this young Muslim is simpatico with his Muslim brethren in Afghanistan.  So, yes, one could call this an act of radical Islamic Fundamentalism against Americans on German soil.

No Room for Oprah in the Middle East

I once worked with a guy that proudly told me he didn’t leave the house in the morning unless his wife put on his socks for him.  He was the boss in his house and she did what he told her to.  I sometimes get the feeling that this is what’s going on with radical Islam.  It’s all about the women.  They don’t like the freedom of women in the West.  For Islam is a male-dominated society.  And to maintain this culture and civilization, it is best to keep your country like it was in the old days.  Backwards.  For Muslim women watching Oprah may get ideas.  The wrong kind of ideas.  So it’s best not to have the modern conveniences of life that could bring Oprah into the Muslim living room.  For the sake of that male-dominated society. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUITH #17: “The raison d’être of federalism is to keep big government small.” -Old Pithy.

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 8th, 2010

BONJOUR.  A LITTLE French there.  To go with the use of the French expression ‘raison d’être’.  Which means reason for being.  Sounds better in French, n’est-ce pas?

I like Canada.  Both parts.  The French and the English parts.  I’ve met and become friends with people in Toronto, Montreal, Fredericton and Corner Brook.  And elsewhere.  I like to talk to my Francophone friends about that day on the Plains of Abraham.  And I like to speak French to my Anglophone friends.  And they both like to point out to me what they believe to be America’s lack of tolerance and compassion.

The Canadians may be a tolerant and friendly people.  Everyone says that about them.  That they’re nice.  And they are.  But they have to work at it at times.  For there ain’t a whole lot of love between the French and English.  Not now.  Or then.  When French Canada became British.

Like it or not, that animosity has been at the van of Western Civilization.  And it would compete in the New World.  Colonize it.  Fight in it.  And give birth to a new nation.  One that would break from the ways of the past.

“WHO’S THAT, THEN?” one filthy peasant asked another.

“I don’t know.  Must be a king. ”

“Why?”

“He hasn’t got shit all over him.”

(From Monty Python and the Holy Grail – 1975.)

What is a king?  Besides someone who “hasn’t got shit all over him.”  A king is where sovereignty lies.  And sovereignty?  In a word, supremacy.  Supreme authority. 

The Sun King, Louis XIV of France, was an absolute monarch and his word was the absolute law of the land.  And he could do pretty much whatever the hell he wanted.  He built his gorgeous palace at Versailles.  Because he could.  Over in England, the king was sovereign, too, but Parliament checked his power.  So the British king wasn’t an absolute monarchy.  In England, the king could do whatever he wanted as long as Parliament agreed to pay for it.  For Parliament controlled the purse strings.  There would be no Versailles in England.

Now France and England were always at war.  Their fighting even spilled over into the New World.  The 7 Years War (as the Europeans called this world war) went by a different name in North America.  The French and Indian War.  The British won.  France lost Canada and other colonial possessions.  Their loss, though, was America’s gain.  The French and Indian attacks on the American Colonists ended, leaving them with peace and prosperity.  But it was costly.  As wars are wont to be.

Over in England, Parliament had to pay that cost.  But taxes were already pretty high at the time in England.  If they raised them further, it could cause trouble.  So what to do?  Well, there were some who pointed out that the American colonists really came out the clear winner in this latest contest.  They got peace and prosperity without really paying anything to get it.  Shouldn’t they pick up part of the tab?  I mean, fair is fair, right?

And they probably would have gladly contributed as good English subjects.  However, and this is a big however, they felt they weren’t treated as good English subjects.  In fact, they felt more like Parliament’s bitch than English subjects.  And to add insult to injury, they had no vote in Parliament.

Parliament passed a series of acts that the Americans would call the Intolerable Acts.  Both sides missed opportunities for compromise and peace.  Instead, tempers festered.  Parliament would bitch-slap the colonists.  And the colonists would bitch-slap Parliament.  Eventually throwing some British East Indian tea into the water.

Now Britain’s king, King George, had a bit of a problem on his hands.  The Americans were challenging his sovereign rule.  There was a name for this.  Kings call it treason.  And they kill people for it.  King George was the supreme authority.  Anyone challenging his authority was challenging his right to rule.  That’s why acts of treason are typically punishable by death.  You don’t stand up to kings.  You grovel.  And these uppity Americans surely weren’t groveling.

And just how does a king get this authority?  Well, you don’t vote for them.  They either inherit power.  Or they kill for it.  It’s a story as old as time.  Patricide.  Matricide.  Fratricide.  And sometimes the killing was by someone outside the family.  But that’s how sovereign power changed.  A king or queen died.  Naturally.  Or with a little help.  And when a new sovereign ascended the throne, he or she usually killed all other possible contenders.

If King George didn’t put down the American rebellion, it could spread.  To Canada.  To other English colonies.  Or give someone ideas back at home that the king was weak.  And challenge him for his throne.

These are things kings think about.  Power can be precarious.  Even when it’s absolute.  As King Louis XVI would learn in France.  During the French Revolution, the people, challenging the king’s sovereignty, sent him to the guillotine.  Chopped his head off.  His wife’s, too.  Marie Antoinette.

ENGLAND GAVE BIRTH to modern, representative government.  It was a balance of power between the many (the common people in the House of Commons), the few (the aristocratic rich in the House of Lords) and the one (the sovereign king).  Each provided a check on the others.  The king was the supreme power but he needed money to wage war and build things.  Parliament collected taxes and paid for things they approved of.  And the House of Lords was to keep that spending from getting out of control as they understood money and costs (that’s what rich people are good at).  They were to protect the nation from the evils of pure democracy where the people, once they realize they can, will vote themselves the treasury.

Most of the American colonists were transplanted Englishmen.  Or came from English stock.  They were English subjects (at least in name if not in practice).  They understood representative government.  Their colonial governments were in fact very British.  The Rule of Law was the rule of the land.  The governed consented to taxation.  And the government collected the taxes they consented to. 

You can probably see where this is going.

Taxation without representation was very un-English.  The fact that it was okay in the American colonies chafed the American English subjects.  I mean, it really frosted their shorts.  It wasn’t right.  By English law.  Or by precedent.  Anger at Parliament turned into anger at the king.  Questions of sovereignty arose.  Should the king be sovereign?  Or should the people?  In 1776, the American colonists stated their opinion in a very treasonous document.  The Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed….

The U.S. Constitution emphasized the sovereignty of the people in the preamble.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Kings were out.  The Rule of Law was in.  No aristocracy.  No hereditary offices.  In America, it would be different.  After the Battle of Gettysburg some 75 years later, Abraham Lincoln would reiterate this at the dedication of the Soldiers’ National Cemetery.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal…

…that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

THE AMERICAN COLONISTS rebelled and broke away from Great Britain because they were through with being her bitch.  In fact, they weren’t going to be anyone’s bitch.  That’s why there was a lot of opposition to the establishment of a strong, central government.  They didn’t want a national government taking up where Great Britain left off.  And they didn’t want an American president to be just another King George.  The people won their liberty.  And they intended to keep it.  So they could pursue that happiness Thomas Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration of Independence.

Federalism was the solution.  The states’ governments would retain most of their powers.  Only those things they could not do well (regulate ‘free-trade’ interstate commerce, negotiate trade agreements with other nations, wage war, etc.) would be done by the new national government.  The people would remain sovereign.  Strong state governments and a ‘weak’ central government would share power.  In effect, the new central government was to be the people’s bitch.  But you’d never know that by looking at things today.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,