Sunday, July 29, 2007

Yes very friendly indeed

Someone recently emailed me an interview with Moroccan Islamist Nadia Yassine, published in Speigel online on July 3, entitled 'our religion is friendly to women'.

Here are some recent examples of this 'friendliness':

Ali Khamenei, the Islamic regime of Iran’s ‘supreme spiritual leader’ said women's rights activists should not try to change Islamic laws relating to women's rights, two days after one campaigner was sentenced to 34 months in jail and ten lashes.

Saudi authorities ordered banks to separate female and male workers at their headquarters. Though women are already separated from male employees in branches, they have up to now worked together in bank headquarters. Under the new system, women employees in bank headquarters could now be obliged to work on separate floors and use different lifts, entrances and canteens from men.

The Kuwaiti parliament passed a law banning women from working at night, except those in the medical profession, and barring them from jobs considered ‘immoral.’

Two female journalists were murdered in Afghanistan in the space of a week. Both women received threats, warning them to stop reporting.

The 'Righteous Swords of Islam' warned that it would strike the women in Palestine with "an iron fist and swords" for refusing to wear a veil on camera.

A 13-year-old named Shukria and another girl were killed and 4 wounded at their school entrance as the Taleban and others use murder, shootings, beheadings, burnings and bombings to close down schools.

Mokarrameh Ebrahimi is languishing in prison, awaiting death by stoning in Iran, after her partner was recently stoned for their relationship. They have both been in prison for 11 years, including with their two children.

The Islamic regime of Iran has announced yet another "plan to increase security in society" by targeting women who are 'badly veiled'.

Yes, very friendly indeed... Maryam Namazie

110 comments:

politiques USA said...

Sharia (Arabic: شريعة transliteration: Šarī‘ah) is the body of Islamic law. The term means "way" or "path to the water source"; it is the legal framework within which the public and some private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Muslim principles of jurisprudence.

Sharia deals with all aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business law, contract law, family, sexuality, hygiene, and social issues.

There is no strictly codified set of laws pertaining to sharia. Sharia is more like a system of devising laws, based on the Qur'an (holy book of Islam), hadith (sayings of Muhammad), and centuries of debate, interpretation and precedent.

Before the 19th century, legal theory was considered the domain of the traditional legal schools of thought. Most Sunni Muslims follow Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki or Shafii, while most Shia Muslims follow Jaafari (Hallaq 1997, Brown 1996, Aslan 2006).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

Purity from the holy writings is unfortunately uncompatible with human rights when it comes to the code of conduct.

Daniel said...

Any code of conduct is difficult to evaluate. Who is to say that the anything goes code of Western society is best (sex, drugs, rock and roll, etc, at thirteen onwards).

Different societies embrace different extremes. Surely somewhere in the middle is reasonable.

sonia said...

Thanks for reminding me what we are fighting against.

And thanks for reminding me what Western leftists are refusing to fight against.

Farmer John said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Farmer John said...

Any code of conduct is difficult to evaluate...

but only if you have NO common standard, that is.

Human Rights is NOT the Islamic Standard. Liberty is not the Islamic standard. SUBMISSION is.

Is this a clash of "civilizations".

You bet!

Bar Kochba said...

Its funny that leftists claim to support women's rights yet refuse to combat a faith that allows a husband to have sex with his wife whenever he wishes against her will and mandates that she cover herself up from head-to-toe. They also claim to support gay rights yet they support regimes that behead homosexuals. Does anyone else see a contradiction?

Liberal White Boy said...

Yes, leftists have long been known for their support of faith based governments. Everyone knows that our Judeo-Christian mythologies are far superior to anything the Muslims have to offer.

Was it Sonia's turn to take the first cheap shot this week? What she really means to say is if you oppose the oppression of the Palestinian people or America's never ending inference in the affairs of other countries in the Middle East, then you support those who brutalize their women. I think she has obtained her reasoning skills from our president.

Liberal White Boy said...

Yes, leftists have long been known for their support of faith based governments. Everyone knows that our Judeo-Christian mythologies are far superior to anything the Muslims have to offer.

Was it Sonia's turn to take the first cheap shot this week? What she really means to say is if you oppose the oppression of the Palestinian people or America's never ending inference in the affairs of other countries in the Middle East, then you support those who brutalize their women. I think she has obtained her reasoning skills from our president.

sonia said...

LWB,

leftists have long been known for their support of faith based governments.

And Hugo Chavez embrace of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the most recent example of this.

Communist China's support of the Muslim fundamentalist regime of Sudan is another example.

Renegade Eye said...

This evening I will comment longer. This discussion is very good.

Politiques: Interesting post.

Bar Kochba: First welcome to this blog. This post put up by Maryam Namazie, was written by an Iranian leftist. This leftist blog doesn't support Iraq.

Sonia: This is a leftist blog that printed this post, it is not "Little Green Footballs".
State to state relationships are often amoral.
I don't oppose Chavez having a government/government relationship with Iran. At the same time I supported Maryam's group and the Iranian Trotskyist's letters to Chavez, telling him to speak up for the dissidents.

I will post soon that China is officially a capitalist country. It is in the constitution of the Communist Party to support capitalism. That is a new development.

Daniel: I think I'm with the farmer on your remark. It is popular to be postmodern these days.

LWB: You are reading too much into what Sonia was saying. Issues as Maryam raises, unfortunately are picked up more by the right.

Farmer John: I'll reply tonight.

Reidski said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mad Zionist said...

Renegade, you are doing a very nice job trying to juggle a very wide range of opinions without getting angry or personal. Keep up the good work. I may be a radical right wing extremist, but I do respect deft hosting skills when I see it. Good luck with this, it is an exhausting tight rope that I try very hard to juggle upon myself.

Renegade Eye said...

Mad Zionist: To me real hatred comes as often as real love. Not all that often.

I envy people who are partisan, and respected by their opponents.

A professional soldier only achieves objectives, but doesn't degrade the enemy.

Renegade Eye said...

Farmer John: I agree that there can be standards to rate one society against another.

The clash of civilization idea related to the death of Stalinism, and the triumph of capitalism. Billions of people around the world, consciously and not, are resisting capitalist hegemony as in Venezuela.

Larry Gambone said...

Maryam Namazi is connected to the Workers Communist Party of Iran which is a left-communist party, that has developed independently of the left-communist sects. Hence it does not share the sectarianism of say the Bordigists, but is a serious organization with great potential. The WCPI and its sister party in Iraq, also called the WCP created the Third Camp whose slogan is "Neither US Imperialism nor Islamism." This is something most socialists and anarchists agree with, I should point out. The idea that a monolithic entity called "the Left" supports and admires Islamist Guerrillas is a reactionary fantasy devised to lend support to the terrorists in Washington. Only a small group, rooted in Stalinist or Third worldist ideology - and some Trotskyist groupings like the International Socialist tendency give critical support to the Islamist guerrillas. My people do not, never have, never will. Same goes for Ren's people. Nuff said...

Renegade Eye said...

Larry: I added Maryam to this blog, because she was the first person on the left I met, who could articulate a socialist opposition to Islamism.

Mad Zionist said...

All political factions view Islam as a cult of conquest, violence and barbarism. The problem with the left isn't that they like islam or approve of the ghastly blood-lust of the jihadis, rather it is the naiive belief that poverty is the root cause of all evil and once economic equality is achieved there will be no more islamic crimes against humanity.

The moslems are simply viewed as fresh meat by the left; a vast, unwashed mass who are ripe for being converted from mohammed to marx once they are properly "enlightened" with progressive philosophy.

The moslems laugh at this notion, of course, and consider the marxists to be useful idiots who will themselves be beheades once they are no longer needed.

In this respect, the moslems and the leftists are both engaging the old adage, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". The neo-conservatives (Jews) are the ones who must at all costs be stopped. They are the economic nemesis of the marxists and the religious nemesis of the moslems. This alliance is highly effective, for now, as the moslems are the might which is used by the left to intimidate, while the elitist left offers the funding and western political influence to the islamists.

Pretty neat game, but it's ultimately as doomed as the US-Soviet alliance of WWII.

Larry Gambone said...

I have seen little evidence that marxists view the Muslim masses as "fresh meat..." I think the main concern is defeating US imperialism. The idea is that when that is done and all peoples of the world are free to develop on their own, at some point, the Muslim masses will chose modernity. I think few revolutionaries these days think they can force modernity upon anyone. The desire has to come from within. Then of course, there is the Post Modern Left which sees the very idea of universals as some sort of Eurocentrism, but I won't go there!
I also don't think that socialists see the problem of Islamism as reduced to poverty alone. Most Islamist leaders are Middle Class and their anger results more from a fear of cultural conquest, (which is also a fear of modernity) a hatred of domination by outsiders, a hatred of the corrupt regimes backed the the US corporate State and the US one-sidedness visa vis the Isreali- Palestinian situation. It should also be noted that Fundamentalism of any kind is in and of itself a product of modernity. "Fundamentalist" religions, in spite of their claims are not a return to the past, but a reaction against modernity, a reaction that uses modernist forms - such as "democracy", such as mass media, etc. How stable and viable in the long-term such fundamentalisms are is a good question. the Marxists (and all modernists,) may get the last laugh after all (If there is anyone around to laugh.)

Renegade Eye said...

Mad Zionist: Poverty does help Islamists recruit. Unlike liberals I know Islamists have to be dealt with. Without poverty they would be rich Islamists. The corrupt Arab leadership makes recruiting for Islamism easier as well.

I'm personally a Trotskyist, from a political movement hated and feared almost universally. I believe the left has to compete more with neoconservatives. I find at blogs based in places as Zimbabwe and Egypt, with progressive ideas, and neoconservative links. I've always tried to change that. I think the left should pay attention to places neoconservatives do.

Who would of dreamed neoconservatism grew out of the Trotskyist movement? Paul Wolfowitz has Trotsky's picture on his desk. I think like neocons from a left view.

I think what you are describing, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" applies to anti-Bush people at times. I found that with liberals supporting Valerie Plame. The law used in the Plame affair, was made as a law against the left. That will come back to haunt the left.

Your comment would be more interesting, if you would name names; which leftists and which Islamists?

You run your blog the way a blog should be run. I was treated with incredible hospitatility, while everyone knowing I don't agree with you on anything.

Liberal White Boy said...

Oh for Christ's sake, just when you think you have gotten rid of Beakerkahane a mad Zionist shows up. I don't view Islam as a cult of conquest, violence and barbarism; I view it as a waste of time, just like Judeo-fascism and Christio-fascism.

As one from the left I demand that the racist's in Israel give the Palestinian's a vote or a country and I really don't give a shit which. I have far more important things to be thinking about.

I myself will always resist the ethnic, religious and political alpha monkeys. Renegade have you gone soft on fascism? Where is John Brown to put things in the proper political perspective?

Graeme said...

Lets not forget who gave militant Muslims the idea that they can defeat a superpower.

The militant Muslims who can't even agree with each other have somehow formed this partnership with the "left?" The left, of course, is everyone from Hillary Clinton to Noam Chomsky. When did this happen? How come I didn't get an email or something?

The "clash of civilizations" is nonsense. Our proposed arms sale to Saudi Arabia proves that. "Scholars" recycle this sort of shit century after century to help "smart" people understand why we should recklessly slaughter each other. You would think they could think up something new for god's sake.

Militant Islam has been trying to take root in muslim majority countries for years and it only got power in one country, and with our help. They killed Sadat in Egypt and expected the population to rise up and form a strict Islamic state. It didn't happen then and it won't happen now (unless the U.S keeping invading countries). The U.S.'s foreign policy is the best thing for militant muslims. They simply need to point to a television and say "see!"

I have friends and relatives that were raised in Christian and Muslim fundamentalist homes, with damn near dictatorship rule. They fled such nonsense and some are pretty much disowned by their families. I imagine that if I would have busted down their door, destroyed their home and killed some of their family members, they wouldn't have thanked me. My good intention might backfire, they might start to take on some of the views of their parents. Not a perfect comparison I know, but the point of my rambling is that change, in individuals and societies alike, must come from WITHIN. Any outside interference will strengthen the very elements it intends to defeat.

Of course, this is all assuming that we actually were and are trying to "free" the people of Iraq and Afghanistan (and wherever else) and not just gain control of a strategically significant area of the world.

Renegade Eye said...

LWB: To be effective politically means to be precise. To be fascist it means you believe in the total annihilation of the working class and progressive movement. Fascism is not just conservatism or even military rule. It's about total annihilation of the progressive movement. Some liberals call Bush fascist. If that is true, what is Clinton or Obama? Why is your blog still online?

He was hospitable to me at his blog. He knows I have nothing in common with him, other than we both like civil discusssion.

I think some blogs should be only for left and only for right to discuss things alone. My blog was once described as a networking blog.

If I personally attack Mad Zionist, the empire will still be standing. If I move him an inch to the left, I won something.

Trotsky found anti-Semitism in Europe so bad, he believed Jews had a right to a seperate state, only he believed Zionists shouldn't run it.

Mad Zionist said...

LWB, that you'd plead for John Brown to ride in as your voice of reason speaks volumes about you.

Memo to Graeme, if you are sincerely unaware of any alliances between socialist movements and islamic movements a great place to begin your education would be to attend an "anti-war" rally. It'd be a real eye opener for you.

Larry, reread your first paragraph. You beautifully, if unwittingly, made my point.

Ren Eye, what if, God forbid, I somehow manage to nudge you a bit to the right?

I'll do my best. ;)

Farmer John said...

Graeme states, The "clash of civilizations" is nonsense.

You find it difficult to believe that the fundamental values held by different cultures do not create conflict?

You think I can violate your sacred taboo's and not stir a fundemental reaction?

All the Saudi Arms Sales prove is that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Farmer John said...

As for facism being about the "total annihilation of the working class and progressive movement"... sounds a bit "absolutist" for my taste... especially since "historically" much of a fascist's support originated amongsth the poor and working classes.

Larry Gambone said...

MZ, I don't know how I inadvertently support your claims. Let's look at what you wrote; "The moslems are simply viewed as fresh meat by the left; a vast, unwashed mass who are ripe for being converted from mohammed to marx once they are properly "enlightened" with progressive philosophy."

I stated, the contrary that - and this has to be emphasized - the group of socialists and anti-imerialists who give critical support to Islamists do so out of their desire to defeat US imperialism and not out of some foolish fantasy about converting them to dialectical materialism. However, I do agree with you that this is a sort of "enemy of my enemy is my friend." and that such a view is fraught with danger. Just ask the surviving members of the old Iranian Communist Party.

Larry Gambone said...

The point has to be made that the US is largely responsible for the rise of Islamism. 1. They did everything possible to undermine secular regimes in the 1950's and 60s. 2. The overthrow of Mossedegh led to the Khomeni Regime in Iran. 3. Their support for the Saudi regime which has been promoting Wahabist reaction 4. Their support for Islamist guerrillas in Afghanistan against the secular Russian-backed regime. Islamism is, as others have pointed out, "blowback" from imperial adventures.

Larry Gambone said...

MZ, I think you ought to point out that the alliance between Islamists and the anti-war movement is only representative of a MINORITY of that movement. Anything other than that position is a straw man attack on the anti-war movement.

Farmer John said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Farmer John said...

Larry,

What you fail to see is this. There is always an "establishment" party and an "anti-establsihment" party. Once upon a time in the ME, the "establishment" party was the Turkish Caliphate. The anti-establishment party was 1st the Saudi tribes (WWI) allied w/the UK (who won and became the new "establsihment party", then the fascists WWII, then the communists (Cold War-89), and are now the Islamicists (90'+).

They aren't going "back" to communism. The mess we're in now is simply the result of Soviet collapse. Islam is a the great "local" "tool" for creating civilization out of anarchy/poverty.

Sure, there are a few diehard communist idealists left in Iran and Syria, etc. But they ain't never going back to worker's collectives and soviets. Not unless there's big Soviet rubles behind the revolution, and those days also are gone.

Larry Gambone said...

Farmer John, one thing I have learned about politics is that it is unwise to say "never." I would agree however, that old fashioned Stalinism is a dead duck. We should not rule out new, and especially more democratic and libertarian forms of socialism arising in Iran after the Mullahfuckers fall from power. Not that I am saying this will occur, but it is not totally outside the realm of possibility given the history of Iran with its workers councils and militant trade unions.

Renegade Eye said...

Farmer John: People throw around the word fascism carelessly.

Some think Bush is a fascist. If that was true, this blog would be shut down, demonstrations and political activity against the regime would be banned.

Even a military government doesn't constitute fascism.

The conditions for fascism include a defeated working and revolutionary movement, and an alliance of frightened middle class and lumpen elements, as shock troops.

The situation in Latin America, where the masses are starting to see alternatives to the IMF and World Bank models.

Farmer John said...

Larry

We should not rule out new, and especially more democratic and libertarian forms of socialism arising in Iran after the Mullahfuckers fall from power. Not that I am saying this will occur, but it is not totally outside the realm of possibility given the history of Iran with its workers councils and militant trade unions.

I happen to believe that the mullahs will fall, and soon, because the Khomeini invented velayat al fiqh system directs all hatred and political failure upon the Supreme Leader/Jurist, Ali Khameini, instead of secular authorities (who could be replaced/or re-elected thereby leaving the "system" guilt free and individuals responsible). As it is now in Iran, the people blame the mullah's for the f*cked up state of things.

But Iran is going to go down a more typical western-capitalist path to socialism, one in which "quietist" clerics like al-Sistani will play the role of the first and second estates, and capitalist businessmen the third. After fifty years of democracy, the clerics will be on the outside completely looking in as the people vote in more and more socialist reforms.

All the Iranians need to do is toss the "veleyaat al fiqh" and they'll soon lead Persia (including Iraq) into the 21st century. Just an opinion.

As for other countries, (Ie Sudan) I'm not nearly as optimistic. Those cultures have a lot of "civilizing" ahead of them, that will require them to be dominated by fundamentalist clerics from the Islamic Courts Union, etc, first. Islam is a great post-anarchy rebuilding tool. Keeping them from uniting outside of their tribes will put a natural "lid" on their expansion although it will be quite destabilizing of their neighbors governments.

India, on the other hand, is interesting in the sense that the Maoists are bringing small and fragmented mini-cultures to power. I doubt they have any staying power for application in the more urban regions, but so long as primitive agriculture rules, I suspect its' the best they can hope for till the central government is able to reach out further into the countryside. It's merely a short-term stabilizing force that prevents further descent into anarchy.

Farmer John said...

Renegade eye,

I think you may be right about those "conditions".

But the "masses" are not looking beyong IMF and World Bank models. Their caudillos are. Kim il Jong and Fidel both learned the hard way. "Self-Reliance", as a path, can be a real bitch. Fidel only want's Chavez in because it takes more than a few isolated states to make a "free trade zone". And as soon as they've invested in economic integration, they become vulnerable to a "block-takeover", becuase the states are no longer in any respect "self-reliant". A single "Bolivarian" state is inevitable, and Chavez will soon have his hands full trying to keep the "hinterlands" in lockstep.

Renegade Eye said...

Ideas as "juche" and the cult of "self reliance", are manifestations of Stalinist socialism in one state. I don't think that applies in Latin America.

Freedomnow said...

Hey tanguero,

Since you are a Trotskyite tanguero maybe you can answer a question that I have always wondered about.

Is the song "Che Tango Che" about Che or the Argentinean expression or both?

Since Piazzolla also wrote “Salvador Allende” I wouldn’t be surprised, but I’ve always wondered what the lyrics of Che mean.

I thought maybe you’d know.

Of course, I think that Che was a warmongering executioner, but I am curious about the song.

Cheers

Freedomnow said...

Ideas as "juche" and the cult of "self reliance", are manifestations of Stalinist socialism in one state. I don't think that applies in Latin America.

Oh dont forget about Peruvian Maoism. That's nasty stuff...

It is small revolution for a man, ONE GIANT LEAP BACKWARDS for mankind....

Renegade Eye said...

Freedom Now: My main gripe with the Peruvian Maoists, is that I could have been blown up by one of their bombs.

I read on their website (Shining Path) an English article, calling for overthrowing Hugo Chavez. The Venezuelan Maoists are allied with Chavez's opposition, and speak at their rallies.

On this blog don't use the Stalinist term Trotskyite. Beak has a soft spot for Stalinism, don't you. The correct term is Trotskyist. For me it's a courtesy.

Piazzolla went into exile during the time the dictatorship in Argentina was in power.

I never heard before of the Che Tango. I found a translation of the lyrics, and found them melancholy (surprise). It seemed to lament futile idealism, and celebrate their friendship.

Che's strategies are the opposite of Trotskyism. He practiced the futile guerilla warfare, because he never read Trotsky.

Che is the last thing on my mind at a milonga.

politiques USA said...

1)Could we say the Q'ran need to be renovated or do they need to stop interpreting literral expression of the Q'ran?
2) Is the problem with Islamists essentially coming from the Q'ran?

politiques USA said...

PS: there was no shariah laws in Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
"Democracy" won... cough cough.

Graeme said...

Memo to Graeme, if you are sincerely unaware of any alliances between socialist movements and islamic movements a great place to begin your education would be to attend an "anti-war" rally. It'd be a real eye opener for you.

The last rally I was at I held hands with a nun and sang songs.

You find it difficult to believe that the fundamental values held by different cultures do not create conflict?

No. I don't believe Western leaders have fundamentally different values then many "Islamic" regimes. The all fall to the usual suspects, power, money, etc...

As far as the "jihadists" are concerned, even though their number have been increasing greatly (mainly due to the Western terrorism), they still don't constitute a "civilization." Sensible people, Muslim or otherwise, simply disregard them. They have for years.

I would add that I don't view groups fighting occupation-- in Iraq, Israel or elsewhere-- the same as I do groups like Al qaeda, even if they sometimes get lumped together. I think that the majority of fighters are simply fighting an occupation; religion is important to them, and provides added incentive, but without the occupation many wouldn't be "jihadists." Some still would, but many would not.

Mad Zionist said...

I think that the majority of fighters are simply fighting an occupation; religion is important to them, and provides added incentive, but without the occupation many wouldn't be "jihadists." Some still would, but many would not.

Bravo, you now understand the Jewish fight to end islamic occupation of Judea & Samaria.

Liberal White Boy said...

Graeme, I think someone has Islamists confused with Jewish Voices for Peace. The last few protests I was at in Washington they were well represented. Holding up those signs protesting the occupation in Palestine and Iraq, I can see how there may be some confusion. I always stop to talk to them they are very nice people. But they are not Islamists. Although I'm sure people of this faith would be welcome at these events as well.

Farmer John said...

No. I don't believe Western leaders have fundamentally different values then many "Islamic" regimes. The all fall to the usual suspects, power, money, etc...

I agree, but also disagree. I agree that the ultimate name of the game is "power", but the methods regimes use to achieve "power" differ inversely. Islamic regimes are traditional and achieve and impose authoritarian power directly through force. Western regimes achieve power surrepticiously and indirectly by decieiving the people into believeing that they are the rulers and not the ruled and emphasize non-force.

In this "approach" lies all the difference.

Larry Gambone said...

"Bravo, you now understand the Jewish fight to end islamic occupation of Judea & Samaria."

Are you serious or is this some kind of joke?

Farmer John said...

Oh, he's serious, alright. And why shouldn't he be? You took graeme to be serious enough, did you not? There was a world before 1947-8, was there not?

Jungle Mom said...

Thank you,I do appreciate it. Lets see if he listens this time.

Larry Gambone said...

Farmer John, If taking back territory that you left 2000 years ago is justified, maybe you better get the heck offa Turtle Island! But seriously folks, how much chaos and violence would be engendered were we to apply such an idea at the global level.

politiques USA said...

Ren Eye, I heard a bridge collapsed in MN.
BBL

Larry Gambone said...

JM, I checked your blog comments and failed to find any from Slave Revolt that could be construed as threats. Maybe I missed something. He is critical, mind you. Is that what you don't like?

Liberal White Boy said...

No kidding renegade. Jungle mom is starting to look like a jungle fraud. I think your initial thoughts about this women may have been right. I think slave revolts crime is that he comments on JB's blog. I can't even leave a comment on JB's blog without these guys leaving their droppings on my blog. All these guys so critical of JB lately seem to have one thing in common. An Israeli flag flying on their blog. Even that so called Christian jungle mom.

Jungle Mom said...

Ren, thats because I do not post them! If there is bad language or a threat I will not post the comment. He has been warned by at least 4 Venezuelan bloggers.
I do know he is not under yours or anyones control. I do not mean to imply that.
LBW, you have never left a comment on my blog.

nanc said...

that's very strange, lwb - i cannot think of 200 people i blog with who would leave a comment at your blog...you're not lying, are you?

jungle mom is a very gracious hostess - but her rules rule her blog - her behavior out in the www is exemplary - you'll be hard put to find another who states differently.

Renegade Eye said...

Politiques: Thank you for your concern. This bridge collapse was a real tragedy.

Jungle Mom: At the post before this one, Slave Revolt seemed to say he wouldn't be at your blog. If someone asked me not to be at their blog, I wouldn't even be angry. The blog owner can determine the blog character.

I will delete the comment about Slave Revolt's real name. I don't want personal things on my blog.
I'm sure you understand.

I'm against anyone going to any blog where they are not wanted. That is easy for me, because I don't have a need to confront everything I disagree with.

Slave Revolt only comes here when you do.

LWB: There has been many Zionists of all stripes, who have posted here with manners.

Again every blogger has a right to determine the direction of their blog.

Jungle Mom said...

Ren, Thank you, It is not your responsibility to control him. I only thought it was best for him if he would heed someones warnings. I did not intend to distract the comments from your post.
I will handle it myself and will not comment about him again here or anywhere else.I would not want him to do here what he has done elsewhere to other blog hosts.

Farmer John said...

Larry,

I don't justify the Jewish presence in Israel on the basis of 2000 year old land claims. I base it on the ability to conquer and hold territory.

This has been the standard for justifying all land claims before the founding of the UN. Some would say, its' still the only "legitimate" claim, since it actually has a foundation in natural law.

Farmer John said...

btw,

I don't fly any Israeli flags, nor do I harbor a love of Jews or Zionism. I'm just sick of Pelstinians crying to the UN for "justice". The only "injustice" the refugees are suffering come is coming from Arabs not accepting defeat and foisting responsibility for their support upon various and sundry international organizations, thereby perpetuating a state of defacto war.

Larry Gambone said...

Farmer John, I have little knowledge of the history of the law, but in observing Native land claims I do know that there is no such thing as "right of conquest" under English-based law (which of course includes Canadian law) Hence the Canadian state (and its colonial precedessor) bases its position on (usually forced) treaties signed with the Native Nations and of the legal fiction of discovery and claim by the Crown. No where does the law say "Well, we took your land and that's too bad." Thus, I would say that the standard you dislike for justifying the seizure of territory did not come about through that convenient whipping boy, the UN but is merely part of "civilized" jurisprudence.

Larry Gambone said...

Furthermore, John, one of the wonderful things about humans isd their refusal to admit defeat and fight on. This is called courage. Think of the Irish who fought English domination for 700 years, the Native americans who have fought 400 years of European conquest, the working class which fights back against the corporations and usually loses etc. The Palestinians should be admired for refusal to have their territory stolen from them, though certain of their methods are not admirable, like suicide bombing.

Farmer John said...

Have you ever looked into the basis of native land claims? Have you ever delved into the back-histories of the Four Kings, who signed the vast majoritiy of North American colonial treaties?

There's nothing like making a treaty with yourself giving yoursel all the land you currently occupy or could ever want in the future.

As for no such thing as a "right of conquest" in British History, the law is an *ss. There's an old saying... possession is 9/10ths the law.

And there's courage, and then there's stupidity. The only difference lies in achievement or not, of the desired result. So far, the Palestinians are merely "stupid"

...for as Shakespeare's "Hamlet" said 'This thing's to do;'Sith I have cause and will and strength and means to do it!

The Pseudostinians may feel they have "cause" but will forever lack the will, strength, AND means to do it.

Farmer John said...

Shakespeare, "Hamlet"

That capability and god-like reason To fust in us unused. Now, whether it be Bestial oblivion, or some craven scruple Of thinking too precisely on the event, A thought which, quarter'd, hath but one part wisdom And ever three parts coward, I do not know...

Larry Gambone said...

The law may well be an ass and usually is, but there is no law of conquest and this has ramifications. In British Columbia only abt 5% of the land mass was treaty-granted to the Newcomers. This has created a huge problem for the corporate rulers as the First Nations are making very large land claims, since technically they still have claim to these territories.

You also ignore morality. More and more people see "might makes right" as barbarism and seek justice for those who have been robbed and oppressed historically. The Native People do not stand alone. About half the Newcomer population see the justice of their claims and this is ever more so, the younger and better educated the population. The "well, we took it, therefore it's ours." crowd are limited to the old, the ignorant and the bigoted.

Farmer John said...

Like Barnum said, there's a sucker born every minute. Only you won't find me doing anything as stupid is giving land back to the tribes. They stole it my way, only they didn't wite it down. Instead they created a mythology stating that they always owned it.

Did you know that the Iroquois were originally kicked out of Canada by he Huron's (supplied by the French), who promptly dominated the Lenape and Susquehannock?

It was all a take-take-take world. Still is. Native land claims are cr*p.

Larry Gambone said...

The fact that First Nations people often fought with each other is a red herring and does not justify the Newcomers stealing their land. Furthermore, this theft did not happen back in the mists of time but recently, in some cases within living memory. The Newcomer population of British Columbia only outnumbered the Aboriginal inhabitants in the 1880's and only did so because of the small pox epidemics which wiped out 90% of the Native population. And might I ask who did the First Nations people "steal" their land from? In order to steal something it has to have an owner. The first people to cross over from Asia, were in fact, the first people to inhabit the Americas.

Larry Gambone said...

And while it may be a "take what you can" world for the sociopaths runninng our corporations and governments, people generally are not that way. Most people have some concept of ethics. Life is actualy far more difficult in the dog-eat-dog world that you apo9logize for, than a world where there is a modicum of cooperation and equality. Your ideology had its salad days at the beginning of the 20th century and was called SOcial Darwinism.

Mad Zionist said...

Hypocrisy on the web.

Justification for moslems claiming Israel:

I think that the majority of [moslem] fighters are simply fighting an occupation; religion is important to them, and provides added incentive.

Condemnation for Jews claiming Israel:

If taking back territory that you left 2000 years ago is justified, maybe you better get the heck off Turtle Island! But seriously folks, how much chaos and violence would be engendered were we to apply such an idea at the global level.

Apparantly when Jews claim that Israel is land that God promised for the children of Israel they are being illegal occupiers and fanatical trespassers. When moslems are fighting for jihad to kill the Jews and create an islamic state in place of Israel they are merely exercising their rightful religious convictions.

Now, what do we call that when Jews are treated with a double standard again? What's that word we have for people who deny the validity of Judaism while showing tolerance for a religion that despises Jews?

What is that word...

Renegade Eye said...

MZ: Don't be on autopilot. Just because you are visiting a leftist blog, it doesn't mean you shouldn't read before you comment.

Nobody here left or right, supports jihad here. The writer is one of the UK's top secular leaders. Both Maryam and myself, have received death threats from Islamists.

I don't know what to say when you use the God argument, in this secular world. Even the hardest line Islamist states, make decisions based on secularism.

Mad Zionist said...

Ren, I was directly quoting Larry Gambone. How was I on autopilot? My response was religious in nature because you have a commenter who validates religious convictions of moslems but condemns the religious convictions of Jews.

Also, if you think you have a secular answer to a religious dispute you are off the mark. The fight over Israel is rooted first and foremost in religious differences, even if most Israelis are secular. The fact is, almost all Jews, religious or not, identify Israel as holy and the homeland for the Jewish people. Moslems see Israel as a place that they are obligated to conquer in the name of their prophet. It only seems logical to face reality and understand that this conflict will not be mediated away by secular humanists.

Larry Gambone said...

I would second the point that no one here wants a jihad against Jews in Israel or any where else. The ideal situation would be for both Jews and Palestinians - a large minority of whom are not Muslim, I should add - to share the territory of Palestine in peace. But, I do not hold my breath! You are right, of course, that LITERALIST religious viewpoints will not curry much favor with either secularists or sophisticated religious people who see scripture as metaphor and symbol rather than something to be taken literally. You are wrong to think that this criticism of literalism only applies to Jews - it applies to all literalists Muslim, Christian, Marxist, whatever. I have no use for so-called fundamentalism in any form.

Larry Gambone said...

I should add that any sympathy I might have for the Palestinians has nothing to do with any religious arguments they might come up with. It has to do with the fact that they were living in Palestine long before the Zionist Movement came into being and have been pushed out of their territories by Israelis with the settlements. This is morally wrong, in the same way it was morally wrong for the Europeans to take the Aboriginal People's lands or the Chinese to colonize Tibet etc and etc.

Mad Zionist said...

Larry, exactly why do you assert that it is morally wrong for Jews to have emigrated to Israel? Jews have lived in Israel continuously, usually by the thousands though now by the millions, for the entire 2000 years of exile. To suggest that it is morally wrong for Jews to live in Israel is perhaps the most graphic example of anti-Semitism I have ever heard. When the Jews made their biggest immigration to Israel the country was a British colony. The Jews were the ones called Palestinians at that time, while the arabs despised the term. Arabs terrorized the Jewish civilians simply because they were not moslem.

To say that the moslems in Israel, who numbered under 100,000 total before WWII, have the exclusive claim to the land is not a logical argument, it is a religious argument. You have no rationale for saying that that land is for the moslems and not the Jews, for the moslems did not have that land as their own, under their own rule, as their own country, EVER.

Why should you ban Jews from Israel? I would love to here your explanation for why a Jew should not be allowed to move to what he considers his homeland, but a moslem should have the right to call that land his.

You say moslems are a small majority of the Palestinians, do you? Well, let's see, the people who call themselves Palestinian are nearly 100% moslem with just a fraction Christian and nothing else represented statistically at all.

This is not an issue of a Palestinian nationalism. As I said before, Jews were originally considered the Palestinians. The Palestinians who were home owners in Israel before the Zionist movement were tiny in number, usually nomadic, totally impoverished, and had no desire to make Palestine an independent country from the other bordering arab countries.

To this day the charters of both the PA and Hamas call for Israel to be destroyed. The arabs do not want to have Jews in their neck of the woods at all. Jews clearly disagree, believe that with every fiber that Israel is the JEWISH HOLY LAND and belongs eternally to the Jewish people.

The religion factor you poo-poo is the entire argument. The moslems say that they are the rightful conquerors who are obligated by their prophet to make Israel an islamic state. Jews are called Jews because the tribe of Judah, who settled in the land eventually called Judea, are, along with the Levites, the only surviving tribes. Our entire existence as a people and a nation and a religion and a lifestyle are completely revolved around that body of land. Do you think we left it because we wanted to? We left it because we were CONQUERED and EXPELLED by the Romans. That you can justify, but Jewish independence in the land the moslems now want for themselves is morally objectionable?

Hypocrite.

You think you will change the continuous 3,000 year old dream of Jews to posses the land of Israel because you are a secular marxist? Because you detest religion means religion isn't the biggest factor??

You can preach collectivism until you are blue in the face, but this is Judaism vs Jihadism, end of story. Obviously, you have chosen your side...for ulterior motive perhaps, but chosen.

Sorry, but I just can't bring myself to understand how you believe what you type? Is this just all propaganda designed to advance a cause at all costs?

Freedomnow said...

Dear Trotskyist,

Thanks for researching that song. Do you still have the translation of it so you can post in the comments?

Its a shame that you Socialists fight amongst each other so brutally.

You do seem to have quite a few rightwing "fans" here. Yet the debate is interesting.

This post actually attacks Islamists! It looks like you have laid off your polarized views in the aftermath of your recent spat with some rightwing bloggers (probably all Internet friends of mine). I am not making fun of you or rubbing it in, just making an observation and wondering where this is leading.

Farmer John said...

The fact that First Nations people often fought with each other is a red herring and does not justify the Newcomers stealing their land

Please show me anyone in the world, anyone, with a "clear title" on the land he owns.

Every land claim is a fiction. The only one worth its' salt is the one where the landowner is currently "defending" the land he currently occupies. Ask the robins in their tree's or sparrows in their nests. They'll tell you. Or are you more like a cuckoo bird, like the Pseudostinians, who claims the nest he was raised in as his own?

Are you familiar with the concept of Achille's "Mermidons"? How about Cadmus' spartoi? History is full of "bogus" land claims.

Farmer John said...

And might I ask who did the First Nations people "steal" their land from?

Each other. Over and over. Millions of thefts across hundreds of generations.

But you feel a need to "set it all right". That, my friend, is what I call foolish. You can't untie the gordian knot. Best do as Alexander did.

Farmer John said...

Justice and wisdom are opposites, Larry. To emphasize "justice" FOR the Palestinians is "the opposite of wise".

The Jews are spartoi, after all.

Farmer John said...

And once the Dragon's Teeth are sown, they can't be "un-sown". It's called "immigration". It's "done". And immigrant's have just as much right to the land as any "native born" son, so long as they're willing to fight for those rights. Period. Emphasizing an "historical" right over an "immigrant's" right is just so much empty rhetoric.

Farmer John said...

The USA is a nation of immigrants. It was a nation of immigrants 10,000 years ago, when the Asian's crossed the land bridge. It's a nation of immigrants today, with every airplane touchdown on an American runway.

Farmer John said...

As for Madze's claim to his Holy Land in perpetuity... As long as the Jews have the strength, will, means, and cause to maintain their claim, they will. If any of those falter, they will be kicked out again. And deservedly so.

Farmer John said...

To finish Hamlet's soliloqy...

How all occasions do inform against me,
And spur my dull revenge! What is a man,
If his chief good and market of his time
Be but to sleep and feed? a beast, no more.
Sure, he that made us with such large discourse,
Looking before and after, gave us not
That capability and god-like reason
To fust in us unused. Now, whether it be
Bestial oblivion, or some craven scruple
Of thinking too precisely on the event,
A thought which, quarter'd, hath but one part wisdom
And ever three parts coward, I do not know
Why yet I live to say 'This thing's to do;'
Sith I have cause and will and strength and means
To do't. Examples gross as earth exhort me:
Witness this army of such mass and charge
Led by a delicate and tender prince,
Whose spirit with divine ambition puff'd
Makes mouths at the invisible event,
Exposing what is mortal and unsure
To all that fortune, death and danger dare,
Even for an egg-shell. Rightly to be great
Is not to stir without great argument,
But greatly to find quarrel in a straw
When honour's at the stake. How stand I then,
That have a father kill'd, a mother stain'd,
Excitements of my reason and my blood,
And let all sleep? while, to my shame, I see
The imminent death of twenty thousand men,
That, for a fantasy and trick of fame,
Go to their graves like beds, fight for a plot
Whereon the numbers cannot try the cause,
Which is not tomb enough and continent
To hide the slain? O, from this time forth,
My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth!

Exit

Farmer John said...

btw - Are you familar at all with maritime law? Once a ship runs aground and is abandoned, any person who thereafter boards her can claim the wreck and has rights of salvage.

Your Native Americans "abandoned" their claims the minute they stopped fighting. The Pseudostinians may not have abandoned their claims yet, but they will. Just as soon as the rest of the world stops feeling "sorry" for them and foolishly sending them billions in welfare.

Farmer John said...

The international "welfare" merely keeps the pseudostinians from being FORCED to get on with their lives and pays them to keep making trouble for the Israeli's.

They're being paid to stir up trouble and justified in doing so by do-gooders in the UN and European/American Left.

There was a saying popular on American coinage in 1776. We'd best be served by following it.

Farmer John said...

btw - What do you think of the Ruskies recent claim to the seabed under the North Pole?

How about other's claims to Antarctica?

Farmer John said...

Venezuela & British Guyana's border dispute? Britain & Argetina's "Falklands/Malvinas" dispute? India & China? India and Pakistan's dispute?

Is there any reason why these issues are always on some idiot's back-burner?

Claims are pressed, aggression follows.

Remember this one? 54-40 or Fight! You can bet your sweet *ss the US wouldn't be giving any territory back! But should we ever think we need it... we might just press a claim one day!

Larry Gambone said...

MZ, 1. I never said that Jews should not immigrate to Palestine. You are imputing this to me. Actually, I would like to see a world without borders and people could go where they like. 2. I am no Marxist, but an anarcho-syndicalist. 3. "The Palestinians who were home owners in Israel before the Zionist movement were tiny in number, usually nomadic, totally impoverished." This is historically untrue 4. What I am talking about is the fact that right-wing Zionists have pushed the Palestinians off their land and have continued to do so with the West Bank settlements. If, like the original Zionists they had simply and fairly bought the land, I have no problem with this.But what is being done is seizure of land that there people have inhabited for hundreds of years. 5. I don't want to insult you, and as a seeming "fundamentalist" I would do that if I argued against yopur religious viewpoint. Suffice to say that I consider all appeals to God for rationalizing war, politics etc as spurious. Anyway, thank you for your time, but I see little point in continuing. I will not change your mind and you will not change mine.

Farmer John said...

...because we all know that Polk was a seditious Limey-Lover who settled on a boundary between Canada and the US at the 49th parallel following the receipt of a British bribe from Lord Aberdeen. ;-)

Farmer John said...

Even Hugo Chavez is pushing old land-dispute claims... got oil?

Larry Gambone said...

I repeat, I am not talking about something that happened in the distant past, but actions that have gone on within living memory, and in then case of the West Bank settlements, right now.

Your views are a-moral - “might makes right” - if you can steal it and hold it, it is yours. This concept went out of favor a long time ago. Why do you think the Iraq War was rationalized with a lot of blather about democracy and liberation, and not an open “We want to grab Iraq to control the oil.” ? Why was WW1 fought “to liberate Little Belgium” and “for democracy” and not simply to preserve the British Empire against German competition? Why was the Boer War fought “to resist Boer aggression” and not to grab the gold mines of the Transvaal? The answer is simple – the vast majority of people consider wars of conquest immoral.

Since it is a matter of ethics which divides us, rather than data as such, I see little point in continuing this discussion.

One final observation, Unlike the wretched beak, you are obviously a person of some education, but this only allows you to be more sophisticated in your rationalizations of evil. Here in Canada, aside from a tiny handful of reactionary intellectuals, the political company you keep with your contempt of the First Nations people is of the most ignorant, degraded and uneducated sector of the “white” population.

Larry Gambone said...

Sorry, that previous comment was for Farmer John.

Farmer John said...

And while it may be a "take what you can" world for the sociopaths runninng our corporations and governments, people generally are not that way. Most people have some concept of ethics. Life is actualy far more difficult in the dog-eat-dog world that you apo9logize for, than a world where there is a modicum of cooperation and equality. Your ideology had its salad days at the beginning of the 20th century and was called SOcial Darwinism.

So much for rationalism and ethics, cooperation and equality, eh larry?

Nietzsche "Will to Power" 1067

...--do you want a name for this world? A solution for all its riddles? A light for you, too, you best-concealed, strongest, most intrepid, most midnightly men?-- This world is the will to power--and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power--and nothing besides!

Larry Gambone said...

Farmer John, Washington and Oregon should be ours! So should the Alaska Panhandle. The Brits sold us out. They were too scared to get into a fight with the US to defend this territory. And the Mexicans are taking back the territories that the US stole back in 1846. Yea! Viva La Raza! Kick Gringo ass!

Farmer John said...

...in order for the people to be "good", larry, governments MUST be evil.

It's called "generation from opposites". It's a fundamental philosophical priciple.

Government has always been the tool of the devil. It's ALL over the Bible. I'm not saying there's a devil... I'm just saying that its' the source of all "evil"

For example: Nietzsche, "Genealogy of Morals"

These Germans have used terrible means to make themselves a memory in order to attain mastery over their vulgar and brutally crude basic instincts. Think of the old German punishments, for example, stoning (the legend even lets the mill stone fall on the head of the guilty person), breaking on the wheel (the unique invention and specialty of the German genius in the area of punishment!), impaling on a stake, ripping people apart or stamping them to death with horses (“quartering”), boiling the criminal in oil or wine (still done in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries), the well-loved practice of flaying (“cutting flesh off in strips”), carving flesh out of the chest, along with, of course, covering the offender with honey and leaving him to the flies in the burning sun.

With the help of such images and procedures people finally retained five or six “I will not’s” in their memory, and so far as these precepts were concerned they gave their word in order to live with the advantages of society—and that was that! With the assistance of this sort of memory people finally came to “reason”! Ah, reason, seriousness, mastery over emotions, the whole gloomy business called reflection, all these privileges and ceremonies of human beings—how expensive they were! How much blood and horror is the basis for all “good things”! . . .


And I don't rationalize "FOR" evil. I understand it. i understand that JUSTICE and WISDOM are OPPOSITE principles. Justice is NOT imposing one's will upon another and using them as a means to an end. WISDOM IS imposing one's will upon another to achieve certain ends... (the "good").

Got it?

Farmer John said...

Come take it then... if you can.

Do you think an attack now on the USA by Canada would be "wise"?

Farmer John said...

...since they have neither the means, will, or stregnth to do it...

merely a "cause".

After all, THAT is what a rationalization is. A cause. And as Nietzsche said in his "Gay Science"...

Cause and Effect. We say it is "explanation "; but it is only in "description" that we are in advance of the older stages of knowledge and science. We describe better, we explain just as little as our predecessors. We have discovered a manifold succession where the naive man and investigator of older cultures saw only two things, "cause" and "effect,"as it was said; we have perfected the conception of becoming, but have not got a knowledge of what is above and behind the conception. The series of "causes" stands before us much more complete in every case; we conclude that this and that must first precede in order that that other may follow - but we have not grasped anything thereby. The peculiarity, for example, in every chemical process seems a "miracle," the same as before, just like all locomotion; nobody has "explained" impulse. How could we ever explain? We operate only with things which do not exist, with lines, surfaces, bodies, atoms, divisible times, divisible spaces - how can explanation ever be possible when we first make everything a conception, our conception? It is sufficient to regard science as the exactest humanizing of things that is possible; we always learn to describe ourselves more accurately by describing things and their successions. Cause and effect: there is probably never any such duality; in fact there is a continuum before us, from which we isolate a few portions - just as we always observe a motion as isolated points, and therefore do not properly see it, but infer it. The abruptness with which many effects take place leads us into error; it is however only an abruptness for us. There is an infinite multitude of processes in that abrupt moment which escape us. An intellect which could see cause and effect as a continuum, which could see the flux of events not according to our mode of perception, as things arbitrarily separated and broken - would throw aside the conception of cause and effect, and would deny all conditionality.

Larry Gambone said...

Yes, Farmer John, I have read "Will To Power." Quoting it does not impress me other than to show that you have some education. I have a different interpretation of what "will to power" means. I think the sort of brutal social darwinist concept of it was not what N. had in mind at all, but was something that was imputed as a rationalization for the crimes of imperialism and the Robber Barons at that time. If I remember correctly the German word that N. uses is "maken" (or something like that) which is the same root word as "to make" . What is translated as "will to POWER" in English is actually something more along the line of "Will to make/create/do/act" And even if N did mean the crude concept of power, it still proves nothing. I prefer anthropology to philosophy when it comes to evidence about human behaviour.

Farmer John said...

It's been fun larry. Thanks for the discussion.

Renegade Eye said...

Freedom Now: I Babelfished the lyrics here.

The writer of this post is a blog team member, who leads a group, to help people leave Islam. This blog was never pro-Islamist.

I've always had rightists at my blog. Sonia and myself are connected at the waist. Some rightists have visited for years.

I'm always wondering what is the point? I'm not interested in changing anyone, but having atleast an impact. The value of having people who disagree with me here, is that atleast I'm exposed to arguments I never would come across, if it was left only.

I have a hard time getting Marxists to come to my blog.

Farmer: I will answer tonight.

Farmer John said...

btw - Will to Power merely describes the world as it really is.

Not how is "should" or "ought" to be in the future. It is the tower from which the tightrope walker must exit and procede's towards another (what ought be/should be).

As Nietzsche also said...Knowledge thus became a portion of life itself, and as life it became a continually growing power; until finally the cognitions and those primeval, fundamental errors clashed with each other, both as life, both as power, both in the same man. The thinker is now the being in whom the impulse to truth and those life-preserving errors wage their first conflict, now that the impulse to truth has also proved itself to be a life-preserving power. In comparison with the importance of this conflict everything else is indifferent; the final question concerning the conditions of life is here raised, and the first attempt is here made to answer it by experiment. How far is truth susceptible of embodiment - that is the question, that is the experiment.

btw - truth is NOT what your thinking...493 (1885)
Truth is the kind of error without which a certain species of life could not live. The value for life is ultimately decisive.


Zarathustra

Then, however, something happened which made every mouth mute and every eye fixed. In the meantime, of course, the rope-dancer had commenced his performance: he had come out at a little door, and was going along the rope which was stretched between two towers, so that it hung above the market-place and the people. When he was just midway across, the little door opened once more, and a gaudily-dressed fellow like a buffoon sprang out, and went rapidly after the first one. "Go on, halt-foot," cried his frightful voice, "go on, lazy-bones, interloper, sallow-face!- lest I tickle thee with my heel! What dost thou here between the towers? In the tower is the place for thee, thou shouldst be locked up; to one better than thyself thou blockest the way!"- And with every word he came nearer and nearer the first one. When, however, he was but a step behind, there happened the frightful thing which made every mouth mute and every eye fixed- he uttered a yell like a devil, and jumped over the other who was in his way. The latter, however, when he thus saw his rival triumph, lost at the same time his head and his footing on the rope; he threw his pole away, and shot downward faster than it, like an eddy of arms and legs, into the depth. The market-place and the people were like the sea when the storm cometh on: they all flew apart and in disorder, especially where the body was about to fall.

Who will reach the overman? You can't just talk the talk. You must walk that precipitous walk.

Farmer John said...

Which sometimes requires a leap of faith (or intuition).

Farmer John said...

...and as proof that governments MUST be evil... have you ever read the conservative Joseph d' Maistre's "panegyric on the executioner"?

He believed that the executioner was the foundation stone of the state and social order.

Imagine that.

Farmer John said...

"Justice" cannot exist without someone to "execute" it. Eye for eye is the requirement amongst weak peoples. With the "strong" it's more a matter of how many fleas a healthy dog can tolerate.

Farmer John said...

As is everything on this earth, it's relative.

Farmer John said...

What's good for the goose, is gravy for the gander.

Farmer John said...

I prefer anthropology to philosophy when it comes to evidence about human behaviour.

the study of man to a love of knowledge.

Looking back on man to looking forward towards the overman?

Afterthoughts to Forethought?

Epimetheus to Prometheus?

Farmer John said...

erratum - 'lover of wisdom' (not love of knowledge)... using people as means to an end, not ends unto themselves.

I think you're a more a lover of justice, than wisdom (treating people as ends unto themselves and NOT a means to an end).

Of course, lovers of justice really shouldn't attempt to achieve any "ends" but their own. Best, they mind their own business and leave the business of "ruling others" to the wise, lest they be called "hypocrites".

Larry Gambone said...

Yes, Farmer John, thank you for the discussion. It has been interesting. And thank you for being gentlemanly in your discourse. A welcome change! I recognize where you are coming from and while I disagree totally, at least it has an intellectual pedigree! (I am also familiar with Joseph DeMaistre) One final point. You speak of wisdom - well, from my studies and experience of life (62 years now) I would consider you well-versed but possesssing views that lack wisdom. And of course, you would say the same about me. Thus, I think there is little point in carrying on.

Freedomnow said...

Ahhhh Babbling Fish, your one stop shop for gibberish. I cant really blame them, because its hard to translate a complex language that doesnt make zeros and ones.

Thats interesting that you say that you dont want to change anyone, but earlier you said that you would wish to move people a touch to the Left.

I dont expect complete consistency from you or even myself. I'm just pointing that you have already expressed such interest, no matter how small.

It looks like Farmer wants your attention.

Renegade Eye said...

Freedom Now: I imagine you'll discover greater contradictions, than whether I want to change people's views vs not changing anyone. I have seen people change opinions in my lifetime.

I've been thinking about this subject quite a bit lately. The main value of having opposing views here, is otherwise I'd never be exposed to them. Some of the rightist arguments are new to me.

I have very few Marxists here.

I invited Farmer to visit my blog. I read through comments on my blog, his arguments were smart, and never personal.

Larry Gambone said...

Actually, it has been a treat to debate with Farmer John. (Would say the same abt Sonia) In 8 years of Internet use, one of the rarest creatures I have encountered has been a truly literate, knowledgeable "rightist". Usually, what you encouter is someone who knows nothing of history, philosophy or politics who simply repeats ad nauseum the idiocies he (rarely she) has picked up from hate radio, or at best a very simple-minded, poorly thought-out version of "conservatism". The arguements are always logical fallacies. It is sad because there are a number of rightist or reactionary traditions that do have content - such as the European Right - starting with DeMaistre down to Alain DeBenoist today, the British Tory Tradition (of which the Canuck version is where I find my roots) and of course, the American libetarian-conservative tradition. One thing I learned from studying Hegel many years ago is that no philosophies worthy of the name are completely untrue, all have some rational content. The task of the critical thinker is to find that content. I would say this is the situation with the three aforementioned traditions. We socialists and anarchists can learn from these traditions, without of course becoming rightists or right-left hybrids like some of the proto-fascist thinkers of the 1930's. It would be far too lengthy a comment to state exactly what is valuable in such traditions, but if anyone would like to get an idea read Raymond William's classic study of Tory writers, "Culture and Society"

Freedomnow said...

Thanks RE,

I love it when people dont deny their humanity.

There are certain contradictions that are inherint in our complex relationships and certain contradictions in ideology that inexcusable.

This is the type of point that some bloggers blow up out of proportion and distract from the real debate.

The Farmer is unique. There is no blogger like him.

Anonymous said...

滿.............................................