> [Krimel]: > If you want to discuss this kind of thing it would help > to begin by understanding the terms you use. The > egalitarian movement began in France. It comes from > a French root. It first reared its ugly head in the United > States with these words, "We hold these truths to be > self evident, that all men are created equal..."
[Ham] You'll note that I prefaced my comments with the statement "I don't like to use this forum for political debate," and your "clinical advice" is one of the reasons why. I'm well aware of the etymology of 'egalitarianism' and that the French revolutionists' motto was Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité. I'm also aware that the Declaration of Independence began with a statement that included the phrase "all men are created equal." [Krimel] I am tempted to say that at least political discussion forces you out of your private prayer language. But as it turns out that while your "philosophy" is inane your politics are revolting. [Ham] However, being CREATED equal does not give man the right to equal respect, wealth, or social esteem throughout his lifetime, for such distinctions must be earned by the individual in question. This bit of humanistic logic has been conveniently swept aside by the modern liberal movement for whom "equality" demands a "level playing field". Political Correctness in today's vernacular translates to treating everyone alike, regardless of their moral values, educational level, citizenship status, or record of achievement. [Krimel] The 1960s movement of which the Great Society was a part attempted to begin to redress more than a 100 years of legally sanctioned unequal and unlevel playing fields. Jim Crow laws, discrimination at work and at play, segregation in public and in private had been the accepted order of the day. Certainly men and women of all races have to earn respect but they shouldn't have to earn the right to piss in a public toilet or drink from a public fountain. It was this bit of humanistic logic that started to level the playing field and produce something akin to 'social equality' it was hard work and as you show us the jobs not done but it is something every American should be proud of. There is no such thing as a Political Correctness that demands that we treat assholes as anything other than assholes. But it is a deep seated American Value that we should be respectful of others and not judge them on the basis of their race, creed or color. [Ham] I suppose it was to be expected that my comments would bring accusations of "racism". [Krimel] Racist statements deserve to be called what they are. This is jumping ahead a bit but the rest of the bullshit you write below is equally racist. [Ham] Actually, I was responding to your question as to how postmodernism relates to collectivism. [Krimel] You used the term postmodern once and showed clearly then and now that you have no more idea of what it means than you do what egalitarian means. [Ham] And the alien culture I was referring to is, of course, the collectivist culture of Islam, whose encroachment on the Free World is proving to be a problem in both Europe and America. [Krimel] It is certainly more Politically Correct to direct your hatemongering toward Ragheads than Niggers, but it is not less anti-American and bigoted. [Ham] Rather than engage in a debate about how egalitarian our nation is, and to what extent the principles of egalitarianism define our society, I refer you to Tony Blankley's essay on "How a collectivist mentality endangers peace"' which I'll be running on my Values Page next week, starting Sunday. You can access this at www.essentialism.net/balance.htm. Blankley, a British-born journalist who writes for The Washington Post, makes the point more eloquently than I can, plus he's much more up to date with political/social developments in the U.S. and his native country. [Krimel] I read Blankley ridiculous rant, "Rising Euro-Muslim Tensions". I note that you plagiarized his essay in your last post, by the way. And I would point out that in typical Hamish style you are confused about his resume. He does not write for the Washington Post he writes for the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times. The wiki on the paper makes it clear how much credibility that rag has. Blankley article which does not seem to have been printed in the Times is filled with religio-racist bigotry, distortion and outright lies. Some samples: Sample 1 - In the Beginning: "Perhaps the greatest secular gift to the world by Judeo-Christian civilization is its seminal concept of the individual, which it raises above the tribe or the collective. In Genesis, we are told that man is made in the image of God." Duh, God is said to have made Adam, one guy. The he made Eve. Then He told them to get busy, be fruitful and multiply. As in, create the collective... "Deuteronomy tells us that "each human by his own sin is to be judged" and "do not punish children for the sins of their fathers."" Deuteronomy recounts the story told in Exodus, where the chosen "people" are delivered out of bondage in Egypt. "And of course, the biblical life and teachings of Jesus reflect the deep importance of the individual." Jesus, his disciples and the early church were collectivist communists, holding property in common. In the Beatitudes Jesus blesses collective groups as in the poor and the peacemakers and the hungry... He asks his followers to love their enemies. Where does this asshole get off quoting scripture to preach hate? Sample 2 - Damning Islamic Demands: "A recent example of such intimidation was reported in The Washington Times Monday: Muneer Fareed, head of the Islamic Society of North America, is "demanding" that Sen. John McCain stop using the word "Islamic" to describe terrorists who are radical Islamists. He insists that McCain (and all others) just call Islamic terrorists "criminals." This one points up the jingoism of both Blankley and the Times. Here is the quote from the Times: "A coalition of American Muslim groups is demanding that Sen. John McCain stop using the adjective "Islamic" to describe terrorists and extremist enemies of the United States. "Muneer Fareed, who heads the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), told The Washington Times that his group is beginning a campaign to persuade Mr. McCain to rephrase his descriptions of the enemy. "We've tried to contact his office, contact his spokesperson to have them rethink word usage that is more acceptable to the Muslim community," Mr. Fareed said. "If it's not our intent to paint everyone with the same brush, then certainly we should think seriously about just characterizing them as criminals, because that is what they are." This is a "demand"? They tried to call his office and ask them to rethink their word usage? This is "intimidation"? Blankley goes on: "McCain, being as tough as nails, has said he has no intention of submitting to Fareed's demand and will continue to use "Islamic" to describe Islamic terrorists." But the Times article says: "President Bush also avoids the term, prompting criticism from some conservative pundits, who say the White-House-coined phrase "war on terror" does not sufficiently identify the enemy." So Blankley thinks McCain is tough as nails but the Times thinks Bush is a pussy? Where do you stand on this one Ham? Is Bush a pussy? Sample 3 - Vicious Canadians "Meanwhile, in Canada, Mark Steyn awaits trial before the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal for the crime of committing hate speech by writing a book and a magazine article that warned against the dangers of Islam overwhelming Europe." This makes it sound like the guy is cooling his heals in jail. He's not. He's out running around milking the publicity for all its worth. There is a bit of subtlety here but a complaint was file by students against the magazine that printed Steyn's article. This is a Canadian matter the rules of law are unclear to me but any subtlety is certainly ignored by Blankey and Steyn who seems to be having a grand time beating his breast and gnashing his teeth and selling T-shirts. Sample 4 - Who Peed in the Pool Ok I saved the best for last: "Already, non-Muslim British are being banned from public swimming pools during time reserved for Muslims. (No other group can reserve such times.)" Sounds really aweful right? According to the Telegraph in the UK it went down like this: "A father has described his anger after he and his son were refused entry to their local swimming pool because they weren't Muslims. David Toube and Harry, five, were turned away by staff from the men-only session. The council has now admitted that workers at Clissold Leisure Centre in Hackney, north London, made a mistake and offered the family an apology." In fact here is the apology printed in the paper or at least online for everyone but Blankley, apparently to read: "The member of staff in this situation made a mistake and the centre manager is working to ensure that all staff are clear about the timetabled sessions at the centre. Hackney Council would wish to apologise to any member of the public who was given incorrect information at any of our facilities." As I said hatemongering, lies, and distortions but go ahead Ham sounds perfect for your Values page. [Ham] I'll let the matter of postmodern education and the multicultural indoctrination of our children rest until a later time. [Krimel] So they are teaching French philosophy and anthropology to kids these days, huh? Can't wait to read about that! Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
