« Guam rejoices! | Main | American Insanity by Publius Tacitus »

16 August 2017

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Nancy K

Fred, Trump didn't win a majority of voters, Clinton did. He won because of the electoral college. I am not saying he is not the legitimate president just that he did not win the popular vote.

Lyttenburgh

"And for Sweden, Finland was always going to be most important."

As a former colonial holding? No doubt. Just spare me this “Scandinavian Solidarity” demagoguery.

"The idea that Sweden should have fought Germany when Finland was attacked by the Soviet Union is ridiculous."

I'm talking about Finland post June 1941. Sweden supplied and abetted known Nazi ally after Finland invaded Soviet territory. Which makes all pretense to be neutral bogus.

" Our sin was rather that we did not enter the war on the side of Finland."

And get yourselves defeated - yeah!

So, basically, the Swedish logic here is: "There are different types of Nazis. We support some, we condemn some, and we feel absolutely superior to anyone around".

Babak Makkinejad

He was not Iraqi - that appellation " Sassoon" is a pronunciation of "Sassan" - of the Sassanian dynasty fame.

There are "Sassoons", hailing from Sanadaj, in Iran - Muslims, to my knowledge.

kao_hsien_chih

Babak,

In every society, there were segments of population who are less secure than others. Even in Diocletian Europe, rules were enacted to protect the rights and "security" of the nobles, the clergy, and the townspeople, but rarely the peasants (or the denizens of towns who were not "citizens"). Much of the social struggles during and after the Middle Ages had been about extending the strata of the segments of population who had "rights" that granted them a measure of security, in economic, social, and political terms. (In a sense, this was not uniquely Western, although that built around "citizenship" probably was--while the millet system is associated with the Ottomans, it was (and still is, in a sense) the common mode of providing for "rights" in most of the non-West: the entire tribes were granted rights, not individual members. This was the case, incidentally, with the Jews in even in the West--if the Jews had any rights at all, it was the entire (tolerated) community of the Jews in a city or a country, not individual Jewish persons, or, in a sense, same with the Indians in US, well into 20th century, and perhaps even 21st--this is why there's so much fight for determining who the "rightful" tribal members are, after all.

I think this is the real difference between the West and the East. An individual is not, inherently, secure because he or she is one against many. That security can only be maintained by a credible assurance that that individual will be dealt with within confines of "the law" which everyone agrees is reasonably "fair," within a set of agreed upon logic, i.e. not used as an arbitrary hammer to "get at" someone just because they are on the wrong side. Without this assurance, the individual has no refuge except their "natural" tribal grouping, defined by blood or faith who would collectively provide a measure of protection. In other words, in order for a society to get past the tribal stage, you need a law whose "fairness" is accepted by all, more or less, both in principles and in its operations. The miracle of the West was that this assurance could be made for much broader segments of society than the East, I think, with exceptions, at different times and places, for Jews, different denominations of Christians, and other peoples who didn't quite buy into the "universal principles" that the "law" was built around.

I don't think things are really different here. The cosmopolitans (I don't think they coincide exactly with the "left" although there is a huge overlap) have built a particular worldview that they think should be universal and are willing to impose it on everyone by law. Many people do not find its principles all that universal from their perspectives, but, with the cosmopolitans increasingly in control of "the law," they find little protection from "the law." So they are increasingly retreating into the protection of their tribes as the refuge. But since some tribes are not recognized by the principles that the cosmopolitans hold dear, the conflict is becoming more likely. This is the longwinded version of what I'm thinking anyways.

kao_hsien_chih

Jdledell,

There was another little episode in identity politics in northern MN in late 19th century. Apparently, a sizable community of Ruthenes settled there (although most Ruthene immigrants, as far as I know, settled in middle Pennsylvania--they were mostly miners from what is now Eastern Slovakia/Western Ukraine). Ruthenes are mostly Greek Catholics, part of the Catholic church, but with much different traditions and customs, and who were disliked by American Catholic Church hierarchy in 19th century because they were so different from "regular" Catholics and posed problems when the bishops had to deal with the Protestants who were not sympathetic to the Catholics generally. In 1889, a Ruthene priest named Alexis Toth came to a rural parish near St. Paul and immediately got into a fight with the local bishop. The bishop insulted the priest by claiming that he didn't consider his people "real Catholics" and the priest, who was trained in canon law, compounded the problem by lecturing the bishop on all the rights that were granted to the Greek Catholics by Popes over centuries. But, at the end of the fight lasting more than a year, Toth wound up leading tens of thousands of Greek Catholic immigrants in United States to join the Orthodox Church whose environment they found more tolerant.

turcopolier

Nancy K

Once again, this is a federal republic and the popular vote is irrelevant. You actually don't see that the left establishment as well as the antifa left are seeking to carry out a Great Cultural Revolution? That does not mean that I do not see the far right as a serious counter-revolutionary force. pl

Mark Logan

Fred,

I'm not addressing the legality of their actions. I thought I hit reply to Jersey's post quite some way up the thread but for whatever reason the post appeared at the end so context wasn't readily apparent. Do you recall if you also hit the "reply" button under my post? This may be a bug.

Lyttenburgh

" Unlike Spain or Switzerland a Nazi invasion would have quick and resulted in few casualties given the limited nature of the Swedish armed forces and Sweden's geography."

And there will be further lesser number of dead people during the occupation, because Swedes were Aryan enough not to warrant their eradication - as opposed to the policy conducted against occupied Slavic countries.

"Neutrality was the best bet and thankfully Sweden avoided the fate of other countries of being overrun by either side, especially the Soviets with the mass killings and rape that were often the immediate consequences."

Ah, yes, of course! The myth about "Red horde", that only murdered and raped it way to Berlin, as opposed to the "civilized" Anglo-Saxons! That's a BS. Sweden violated its alleged neutrality and actually helped the Axis more than the Allies. This is a fact. They did nothing to their nationals who fought for the Axis - another fact. They have absolutely no right to feel smug and superior for their role in WW2 and teaching others how to deal "ethically" with this or that incident of NeoNazism.

"For many the Soviet Union was the greater evil and Ernst Nolte isn't wrong, it was the Bolsheviks who set off the madness."

I'm sorry, what madness you are talking about? Ever heard about Munich treaty, LondonBob? Oh, and I’m still waiting for you to support your claim of USSR and Nazi Germany being allies.

English Outsider

jdledell - I think you make some points there but I'm not sure why you make them in a reply to me. Either I have failed to express myself adequately or you have failed to read what I wrote. Whichever it is I am left mystified.

But whatever the bearing of your reply I think you are wrong switching from my term "European" when describing a particular overall culture or identity to your term "European white". Skin colour or ethnic origin is not a fixed indicator of cultural, local or national identity in the West. The progressives are insisting on making it an unalterably fixed indicator but they're doing a disservice to us all by that insistence.

I'll illustrate that by taking a good example from one of your posts above. You describe how the Norwegians and the Swedes in your community were at daggers drawn in the past but over the years have melded together and are now friendly to each other. Say the politicians had deliberately played on those past animosities for electoral advantage. That would have widened the gap, not mended it, and you'd now have "Norwegian identitarians" fighting "Swedish identitarians". Politicians messing around with identity politics in order to grab votes, particularly in a country such as yours where there are lots of identities jostling together, are a real hazard.

So are the progressives who are at present so frenetically supporting them. The progressives are all set to force everyone who doesn't see eye to eye with them into a box labelled "white identitarians" so it's more than likely that's exactly what they'll end up facing. It's an odd game to see played out, in the American last chance saloon.

Fred

Lyttenburgh,

Nothing like taking things out of context. Did you not see that was in response to Lars? As in "Fred said in reply to Lars" in type at the top of the comment?

Fred

Nancy K,

" He won because of the electoral college." Just like all other presidents before him.

Fred

jdledell,

So Lutherans moved into a state full of Americans who were made up mostly of multiple denominations of the Christian faith including Lutherans, but one type of the Lutherans wouldn't let their kids marry the wrong kind of Lutheran? Glad that worked out over the decades. What kind of government required benefits did these Lutherans recieve from the state and local governments back then? Section 8 housing vouchers, SNAP benefits, special instructors fluent in their language as well as english in public schools for thier kids? Affirmative action employement priority in government positions like policing?

Greco

Here's how it works. These Antifa thugs, and groups like them, see themselves as communist revolutionaries. Every fracas they create is supposed to kickstart or buildup towards the full blown revolution prophesied by their pseudo-intellectual hero Karl Marx. They want to use events like these in the hopes that it will snowball into a war, into their communist revolution. It's what they live for.

Yes they're violent. And yes they're seething with hate. It's why they burn the American flag. They hate America. And they're progressives. Meaning today they will tear down monuments of Robert E. Lee and next they'll progress to tearing down monuments of Thomas Jefferson.

YT

Sir,

As much as I would like to agree with your librul Weltanschauung - where all of us join hands and sing 'kumabaya' in an atmosphere of "we are the world" joy & love, Reality outside of your democrat-leaning coastal states - in fact outside of America - is anything but pleasant...

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/231415

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/231367

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/16/sarah-champion-quits-jeremy-corbyns-shadow-cabinet-warning-pakistani/

Again, I apologize for my brusqueness.

I seem to forget - at least whilst online - that I am in the midst of polite company and not surrounded by all manner of buffoons or riff-raff.

YT

LOL!

You're a funny 老外...

What makes you assume I'm working for "the enemy"?

Just because of a couple links?

DianaLC

PT, thank you for the post, and thanks to all who commented. I like reading here rather than watching those young commentators on tee vee go on and on and on about it day and night saying the same things over and over. Here I got some reasoned and helpful ways to think about the event.

This current state of severe and personal reaction to events in another state of the union makes me so very nervous. It used to be that a person here in CO could read/hear/watch on T.V.a little about a riot in Chicago, for example, in 1968 at the Democratic National Convention and not have to feel personally involved somehow.

I didn't like the tactics of the rioters then, though I wan't at all sure that I liked the results of the convention. But I knew I didn't like the idea of rioting when I didn't get my way.

Then I could simply move on and not worry so much since it was, after all, an event that did not happen so near to me. And I still had confidence in our system of government.

Now, so many feel they have to have a personal opinion and act on it for every single event that hits the news. I've always felt it strange that the Confederate flag was still valued so much by Southerners, but I guessed the flag just helped them to identify themselves as people who were a little cranky or something.

My question is and has been for a long time: How now do I simply do as Voltaire recommended in Candide and be happy simply tending my own garden? To me, that is the real ideal of the Constitution. I feel that both sides of this mess were terribly wrong and that the entire county's fascination with it is entirely juvenile. Let those who were involved go back to their "gardens" and search their consciences. That's all I can do in regard to the event. And, I do agree with PT about Trump's comments, and I have never been a person who felt Trump himself was the best person to carry the job of putting into place the agenda he outlined. I am an old-fashioned English teacher, and the thought of diagramming and making logical sense of some of his sentences when he talks and tweets puts me back into the time I had to read ninth grade papers and grade them. It was a very hard job, and it simply got worse over the decades as no one taught logic or "correct" sentence structure, much less rhetorical patterns of writing.

But now I worry that my "garden" needs to be surrounded by concrete barriers and twenty foot high razor wire so that no one can be offended by my lifestyle or judge me for my political leanings if they see me do something they interpret at not their way of thinking.

And I do believe we have reached a point where something very slight might put us over the edge into total chaos. And then, as usual, I do my "thy will be done on earth" recitation. That's all I can do.

Babak Makkinejad

Thank you for your comments with which I have many quibbles.

I start by noting that there are multiple "East"s - there is Muslim East, and Orthodox East, an Indic East, a Sinic East, a Javanese East and so on and so forth.

What they are, in my opinion, is that they are not West - West of the Diocletian Line and to from which they receive their significance and their reference.

Having delineated this, I would like to proceed to state that in none of these "East"s Rule of Law, as understood in Rome or the West has ever obtained, even to this day.

My understanding has been that in those cultural basins and polities, Individuals did not rely for protection on the Law but rather on the Family (immediate and extended) and Clan. Only among Near Easterners (and among the non-Han Northern Barbarians) did tribes have any salience and then only among the new Arab and Turkic invaders into that geography.
One of the persistent demands of the reformers that preceded the Constitutional Revolution of Iran was the establishment of "House of Justice" - which became the first Majlis - and also found its way into the Baha'ai House of Justice. But the historical experience in Iran as well as in China and in Korea was that protection was not something to be taken for granted and basically impossible to obtain - one was left with regurgitating bitterness.

It is true that the Melliyat system made the Ottoman Empire governable and I agree that the Ottomans had no concept of Citizenship, in Law or in Custom. That concept, again, originated from the Romans and the Greeks - it never existed East of the Tigris River. But Italian city states had maintained a concept of citizenship; I think the process that you are referring to pertained to Northern Europe were the "Freedom" of cities went through a long process of gestation until it became a political and then legal fact.

But, again, no such things existed East of Tigris; there were no self-governing cities, there were no free people and every one was a subject of this or that King, local ruler, or emperor.

For these reasons I think that there are too many substantive and qualitative differences among the West and these multiplicity of "East"s that I enumerated earlier for me to be in agreement with your model.

In fact, from personal experience, I can tell you that these many "East"s have a lot more in common with one another than with the Western Diocletian Civilization; e.g. "Omiai" in Japan and "Khwastegari" in Iran - or malicious envy in Iran and in India.

I agree that the Western Civilization has a claim to universalism, just as Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism have had. But, just like those 3 religions, this one too has been refuted by the historical process in its claim. Unfortunately, the Western people, like their counterparts among the Western Asiatic religions, are wont to acknowledge that fact of failure.

Lastly, I think that there are people who are born "Cosmopolitan" and who can appreciate and thrive in those environments. Perhaps these people have expansive souls - itself something that the latest emanations of Western Intellect has designated to the category of Meaningless - or a generous natures - yet another Meaningless thing to the Western Empirical Sciences - but such people are almost certainly a minority of mankind. The rest is afflicted with a Fearful sort of Arrogance - or perhaps an Arrogant Fear, which shrivels and retracts whenever facing the new, the strange, the different.

What, I think, is urgently needed, is technological solution; something that was believably described in the science-fiction novel "Cities in Flight" by James Blish. That is, every nation, tribe, group, country could cheaply and inexpensively relocate to a suitable Earth-like planet. In this manner, the prejudiced, the fearful, the narrow-mined, the bigot - irrespective of their doctrines, can find refuge in a parochial existence to their liking any where in this universe.

The cosmopolitans, on the other hand, could go on to realize what the Star Trek fans recognize as "The Federation".

In this manner, the Federation can go on its merry way and the parochial planets on theirs - and never the twain need meet.

Harper

Identity Politics has its modern roots in the work of the Frankfurt School, a collection of German Marxists who came to America and had an enormous influence on our politically correct, identity politics culture. My point in the original posting was to emphasize the divisiveness that has gripped our society, where things like Charlottesville could occur and cause deeper social divisions and finger pointing (and worse). No one has cared to dig deeper into the roots of the divisions that have been deepened in the past decades, even as there has been modest progress in some civil rights areas.

In reply to PA, the issue is not "victims" versus "tormenters"--and no one has made any posting suggesting that the initial protesters, who clearly included white supremacists, wanna-be Nazis and other angry fringe types (watch the YouTube footage of the march the night before), were being let off the hook. If you want to understand how these gang/countergang, divide and conquer methods have been used to manipulate people through their twisted senses of identity, study some of the classic counterinsurgency texts, including Brigadier Frank Kitson's Gangs and Countergangs, about the Mau Mau uprising and how it was suppressed in Africa in the 1950s and 60s.

If you can't see the bigger game, you will be stuck in it and think that you are "on the right side" when you are being played as a sucker. The would-be neo-Nazis and the Antifa Black Bloc types have a lot more in common than you may realize. Look at the history of the Strasserites within the Nazi Party in early 1930s Germany, or read The Green and the Brown, about how the Nazi Party recruited heavily from the ranks of the 1920s and 30s disenfranchised "greenies."

I repeat: Identity Politics is a disease that has been spread deep in our population and, as some commenters noted, divides people who from any sane standpoint have common cause against the Borg elite who have manipulated and ripped off all of them. I hope that this discussion continues and helps free some people from the "us versus them" game that is so destructive. Col. Lang has warned that he sees the seeds of a new civil war in the United States as the result of these outbursts, fueled by 24/7 media coverage. BTW, MSNBC is making big gains in their ratings, passing Fox News this past week, because they have been stoking the idea that there is a Nazi insurgency on the loose in the country, and Donald Trump is the new Hitler.

turcopolier

Pacifica Advocate

"Good lord, where to begin: A) "Antifa" stands for "anti-Fascists." The reason the term is used is because it's a loose collection of groups who are opposed to fascism. While I find a lot of their privvy dialogue quite immature and misguided, I personally see nothing wrong at all in a collection of groups who are united in physical opposition to the rise of fascism." I am not Harper but it seems evident to me that whoever it is who displeases you by "shorthanding" the broad spectrum of alt-left as communist is guilty of doing the same thing that you do when you shorthand your opponents on the right as fascists. And BTW, where is the evidence of growing "fascism" in the US? pl

Fred

Pacifica,

"Today's progressives are concerned primarily with rapidly growing economic inequality and the manipulation--rigging--of our political and policing institutions..."

So progressives are concerned about Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Donna Brazile rigging the Democratic Primary? I find that to ba a rather funny statement to make.

"Eminent Domain used to steal farmland away from small landholders who were standing in the way...."
Of Shennandoah National Park. That was the liberal FDR who did that Ethnic cleansing poor whites didn't get much pushback from the "progressives" back then. TVA was another project doing essentially the same thing. Poor black familes were treated even worse than the poor white ones.

Fred

Pacifica,

I've been reminded by a few of my fellow Democrats, with tenure, that the behavior of HRC and the upper echelons of the Democratic party of course has "some" merit. and "The chicanery of Podesta et al goes back for generations and, arguably, captures the history of national political parties in general." Then I'm promptly told to ignore all that because it is just dog whistle poltics. The real issue is Russia! Racism! Don't forget the battles we fought - yeah with Donna Brazile and Debbie in leadership roles, and oh, vote democratic.

turcopolier

PA

My "friend?" TTG? I was in the clandestine HUMINT business both before and after the Church committee hearings as well as doing a lot of other things over a 40 year government career. The hearings were set off by a belief that the the IC was being made into a group that would oppress political dissent in the US and do other things that made Frank Church uncomfortable. There was some justice in that on the counter-intelligence side. COINTELPRO was a project in army counter-intelligence that a few fatheads wanted to start up because they were offended by people marching around in the street carrying the enemy's flag. That project deserved to be squashed. To understand this you have to know that at least then the counter-intellignce people and the clandestine HUMINT people were different groups of people. CI people were generally thought of by the clan HUMINT people as just anther kind of cop whose business was to investigate soldiers who had violated some security regulation. The clan HUMINT people did not have badges and almost never carried a gun, relying instead on their wits to stay out of trouble overseas. Their mission was altogether to recruit foreign people to spy on their own governments. If you don't like that, well, life is tough and everyone does it. froem the point of the clandestine guys the restrictions imposed by law and regulation after the Church hearings effectively banned recruiting as assets; Americans, clergy, academics and journalists. pl

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28            
Blog powered by Typepad