Eurabia

[Peregrino]

Hi Peregrino, totally unrelated. I just received Eurabia and I am starting to read it. I would say that I don't agree with how the critics of the west to Israel are just a part of a vast cospiracy (no one like to thinks that his thoughts have been inserted from somone else, not even me). But the description of how the Islamic world is penetrating Europe is very precise. I am now wondering how could this go hand in hand with the understanding that the official version of the twin towers is so faulty, from a purely basic laws of physics POV.

 

--Pietro

 

 

Hi Pietro!

 

I don't think I go for Bat Y'eor's theory of a conscious conspiracy by European leaders to strengthen the Islamic world at the expense of the US (and themselves, ultimately), but there are definitely Islamic governments that take advantage of Europe's "good will" to further the cause of destroying Enlightenment-inspired institutions!

 

I likewise don't believe there was a conspiracy on the part of the US government to instigate the 9/11 attacks, but it's plain as day that the Bush regime has EXPLOITED those events to further its own myopic ends.

 

A couple of articles I'd recommend for anyone who still favors progressive-leaning government without appeasing the jihadists:

 

http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization..._jihad_3886.jsp ("The Left and the Jihad")

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2309812,00.html ("Wimmin at War")

 

http://imshin.net/?p=448

("Genocide, Genocide, Genocide"-- a revealing comparison of Israeli casualties inflicted on Arabs / Muslims and casualties Muslims have inflicted on other Muslims since the founding of Israel)

 

 

I've heard Pim Fortyn wrote some good books on the subject of Islam in Europe before he was murdered, but I haven't found an English or Spanish translation yet.

 

Finally, although you might disagree with them, Penn and Teller from the TV show _Bullshit!_ did a funny episode on 9/11 conspiracy theories: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7501020220921158523

 

Cheers!

Peregrino

[Pietro]

Hi Pietro!

 

Peregrino, can we keep this as a slow moving thread. I don't think much people are interested on this at the time, and although I am very interested I just have no time right now. So I shall post here when I have news and thngs to say.

 

yes, I do think that 9/11 can't possibly phisically has gone as they claim, but I am not going to make any claim of my own. Just point at the inconsistencies.

 

And I never met someone who would buy both the fact that islam moderates are also in a jihad by their silent acceptance, AND that 9/11 was wanted by the USA to respond to a situation they could forsee, but could not act directly if not.

[Pietro]

Peregrino,

the fact is that we need to learn how to say no.

 

At the moment we are able to say FUCK YOU NO!, or no, but....

Saing simply no, in a relaxed yet firm way is something we are unable to do.

 

It is like the difference between the different reactions to being pushed. You can push back, you can give in...

 

But you can also be in structure.

 

Right! We need to learn to be in structure. So the US are pushing back, Europe is giving in. We need to learn to say those are our values, and are non debatable. Freedom of speech is one. Freedom of religion is another (but only up to the point where you don't go over the other values).

 

Doing this is hard because it means to ground on different values that our historical ones. Our historical ones are the judeo-christian values. But those values have been discreditated during the 60's when it became clear how fake most of them where. But we never learned to fully trust the new ones. Now se need to do it. And of course also the Church will be against us.

 

If someone publishes cartoon with images that are offensive for muslim the 3 reaction would be:

pushing back: you protest, and then we bomb your country and impose our freedom of speech also in your country.

giving in: yes there is freedom of speech, but you should not offend other people, so we shall apologise, and change the editor who permit those cartoons to be pubblished

just saying no: clarify that we are sorry that people might be offended, but we are not going to act in ANY way against people who show the cartoons. If our embassy gets threatened, we either get defended by the local authority, or if they are unwilling to do it we close the embassy. If our missionary get threatened we invite them to come back, but we do NOT give in. We don't let threats, or even violence move us to either violence or giving in. Those are our values, we live by them, we die by them if necessary, and we are willing to live in a very polarized world, where any western turist is in danger in the middle east, but we are not willing to make the values of the middle east root in here. And if the immigrants protest than it is clear they are unfit to leave by our values and should leave for any muslim country of their choice. As such I am fully in support with permitting more immigration, but ONLY the immigration who is fully willing to live by our values. And who is not willing can go back.

 

 

This is the position I feel we need to take. And is also the position I have seen so few people suggesting. If you know of anyone who is sugggesting it, please let me know.

 

 

 

Pietro

Edited October 29, 2006 by Pietro

[Peregrino]

That sounds like a very sane, balanced, and rational response, Pietro. Despite Tony Blair's disastrous decision to support Bush in Iraq, I think the Labor Party is taking a line similar to yours: welcoming immigrants, BUT speaking out more and more in favor of the pluralist, Englightenment institutions as being non-negotiable. They have also moved to deport imams who preach hate and violence.

 

The people behind The Euston Manifesto think similarly, as do these American supporters.

 

I think the Christian religious institutions in Europe can be very backwards on some issues, though I still think they're centuries ahead of their unreformed Muslim counterparts. (Notice that I'm not indicting whatever proportion of moderate Muslims there are in Europe and elsewhere with this statement.) Perhaps you can tell from my posts that I'm rather sympathetic to Christian _anthropology_ as interpreted through mimetic theorists like Rene Girard, though I don't take much stock in traditional, literalist Christian cosmology. That is to say, I think that, despite all the bloody crimes of the Judeao-Christian tradition, I still think that a lot of our Enlightenment notions of progress and human rights owe a great debt to the evolving consciousness of "who is my neighbor," as outlined in the Bible's transition from a vengeful god to a non-violent one. The only problem is that with the secular/progressive emphasis on the sanctity of the victim (and the Marxixt Slavoj Zizek has a lot to say about the Christian legacy's contribution here), sometimes Europeans are _too_ quick to assume that they are wrongful victimizers, and thereby put the very institutions that best protect people from victimization in jeopardy.

 

Of course the West also owes a lot to the Greek tradition of reason (logos), but the emphasis on the sanctity of the individual's life owes more to Biblical teaching than to the Greek tradition of democracy. In ancient Greece, women and children had it MUCH worse off than in patriarchal old Israel; indeed, Israel distinguished itself from its neighbors precisely because it insisted on literacy for its women and prohibited the sacrifice of children to deities like Moloch, or the abandonment of children to the elements if the parents simply did not want to raise them. Robert Godwin has some interesting comments on this subject in the interview he did for _What is Enlightenment?_ magazine.

 

By the way, what do you think of Prodi's performance so far? He gets a lot of good press here in Spain.

 

Cheers,

Peregrino

[Pietro]

That sounds like a very sane, balanced, and rational response, Pietro. Despite Tony Blair's disastrous decision to support Bush in Iraq, I think the Labor Party is taking a line similar to yours: welcoming immigrants, BUT speaking out more and more in favor of the pluralist, Englightenment institutions as being non-negotiable. They have also moved to deport imams who preach hate and violence.

 

The people behind The Euston Manifesto think similarly, as do these American supporters.

 

I think the Christian religious institutions in Europe can be very backwards on some issues, though I still think they're centuries ahead of their unreformed Muslim counterparts. (Notice that I'm not indicting whatever proportion of moderate Muslims there are in Europe and elsewhere with this statement.) Perhaps you can tell from my posts that I'm rather sympathetic to Christian _anthropology_ as interpreted through mimetic theorists like Rene Girard, though I don't take much stock in traditional, literalist Christian cosmology. That is to say, I think that, despite all the bloody crimes of the Judeao-Christian tradition, I still think that a lot of our Enlightenment notions of progress and human rights owe a great debt to the evolving consciousness of "who is my neighbor," as outlined in the Bible's transition from a vengeful god to a non-violent one. The only problem is that with the secular/progressive emphasis on the sanctity of the victim (and the Marxixt Slavoj Zizek has a lot to say about the Christian legacy's contribution here), sometimes Europeans are _too_ quick to assume that they are wrongful victimizers, and thereby put the very institutions that best protect people from victimization in jeopardy.

 

Of course the West also owes a lot to the Greek tradition of reason (logos), but the emphasis on the sanctity of the individual's life owes more to Biblical teaching than to the Greek tradition of democracy. In ancient Greece, women and children had it MUCH worse off than in patriarchal old Israel; indeed, Israel distinguished itself from its neighbors precisely because it insisted on literacy for its women and prohibited the sacrifice of children to deities like Moloch, or the abandonment of children to the elements if the parents simply did not want to raise them. Robert Godwin has some interesting comments on this subject in the interview he did for _What is Enlightenment?_ magazine.

 

By the way, what do you think of Prodi's performance so far? He gets a lot of good press here in Spain.

 

Cheers,

Peregrino

 

 

My friend, you run circles around me, and then you ask me what is my take .

 

Regarding the Euston Manifesto, it seem a prograssive and enlightened POV. Yet it does not seem to really uphold what I was speaking about. When it requires Human rights for all, is actually requiring that our values become their values. I cannot support this. Or I would have to accept that their values have a free entrance ticket in our community. Most of the US lives in Denial of the fact that there are billion of people who don't want a democracy. Who, when given the possibility to vote, vote to end the democracy, and start a theocracy.

 

On what base do we impose a democracy to them. And how can we enforce it? By saying you can vote but can only vote this this and this. It is a dangerous form of democracy. It reminds me of the italian democracy during the cold war. A time when if the communist party where to win the election the plans (google GLADIO) where ready to make a GOLPE. The communist party never won the elections and the golpe did not happen. But we were having only the image of a choise. No, I don't think I want to support any society that preaches that everybody values should be so, so and so.

 

Somehow I find more nice the idea of a world fractionated into different nations, each very different with different values, than in a single big puddle. I like diversity, you see.

 

You asked me about Prodi...

 

Prodi is ok. Not more than ok, but ok. It has passed some very unpopular laws, that have permitted the people of the Berlusconi Government to not risk jail for having breached the law while they were in power. Around 90% of the people where against them. Me too. But the jail were overfull, and to empty them he had to pass a law with 2/3rd of the parliament. And the Berlusconi people required that to vote for them. He could instead have asked the help of the ex-fascist. who were requiring that no one oculd have been released if he has not done at least 1/3 of the jail time. That seemed a balanced request. And I think it would have been better.

 

I generally find his actions to be stable and quite good. Never really revolutionary. Never really good. Just ok. Considering that right now the other possibility is Berlusconi, Prodi is like an angel. But then, for example, the Dalai Lama went to Rome to take a Laurea honoris Cause, for his work, and no one of the government went to meet him. He saw the pope, gave a lesson at the Uni. and was off. This was few days after Prodi went to China. ...

You see why I say Prodi is ok, but not great?

 

The law that could stop people who have too much media power to be elected has not been done yet, too. Until this is done we are in danger of being seduced by that bleahusconi. Last time that Prodi was on power before Berlusconi he promise to do it, and he had not done it. This time he has not done it yet, too. I don't like this.

We have proves that someone during the Berlusconi government had used his power on the secret services to spy on his competitor,... and Berlusconi is not in jail.

 

We have now proves that either Berlusconi or his second (Letta) gave the order that made an imam being abducted by the US for the extraordinary renditions, and went to Egypt to be tortured. And all Prodi did was to put the Secret of State on the whole thing. What's the point of saying that we are against torture if the Prime Minister can order or permit Torture by Proxy. This is disgusting.

 

During the Berlusconi Government there was the unfortunate event of the G8 in Genova, with people being beaten up and tortured by the police. This has all been recorded. Berusconi changed the law to make those policeman free by making the time after which the state could not take them (the time between the crime and the end of the trial, for the trial to be effective) really short. I don't think Prodi have changed that law, and surely no commission has started to investigate what has been going on at that time.

 

The television is still in the hands of the governement. And the same people, who under the orders of Berlusconi eliminated some of the best journalists, are still in control. The only difference is that before the news where given as a sandwich pro berlusconi order:

Berlusconi government said,

opposition said,

B. government replied.

 

Now they are given as a sandwich pro Prodi:

Prodi government said,

opposition said,

P government replied.

 

In short, it seem like a man who is doing his best to guide the country, while also avoiding any action that would make the opposition angry or frightened. And any action that would really and strongly help us out.

Even when a sense of degency, of human charity, of justice, of dignity and integrity would scream to make those actions done.

 

This is what disgusts me,

this passivity!

[Peregrino]

Hi Pietro,

 

Actually, I agree with you completely about the principle of never IMPOSING democracy on anyone, so on that issue I part company with liberal/progressive interventionists who think they can convert Shia who idealize the 7th century into 20th century Swiss burghers. However, when it comes to democracies right to defend themselves, then I am in complete agreement. And then there are issues that get trickier--e.g. Bosnia, Rwanda, or Darfur--in which the issue is simply how to save lives, no matter what political system the people of those places choose.

 

Berlusconi's media empire extends to Spain, as he owns Canal 5. Actual Channel 5 isn't the most conservative one here, but it does censor any stories or comments critical of Berlusconi's holdings.

 

So Prodi isn't making the kind of dramatic changes Zapatero has brought to Spain? When the Socialists were elected with many promises of reform, I thought, "Great speech material, but impossible in the world of political compromises." Actually, though, they have done quite a bit to protect the environment, and they immediately withdrew the Spanish troops from Iraq, and, surprise of surprises, they even passed the gay marriage law in this historically Catholic country. Any chance of a similar law passing in Italy? Still though, the Socialist Party here won't change the basic economic system here too much, though they are good on social issues.

 

I remember an English grad student once feverishly telling me about GLADIO and talking about the shadow government of Italy in the 1970s. You know, there is so much I prefer about European democracies to the US system, but sometimes I wonder about how stable the EU will be in the long-term, given the shaky and very short democratic traditions of so many member states. Still, if Turkey recognizes its genocide in Armenia and cleans up its human rights record, I'm all for them joining.

 

Ciao!

Peregrino