My current understanding of the root of modern day Islamic Terrorism

This is my current understanding of the root of modern day Islamic Terrorism:

Hundreds of years ago on the Arabian Peninsula, the new ruling family, the House of Saud, made an arrangement with the leading religious family, the Wahhabs: The Sauds would rule, while the Wahhabs were given power and influence to propagate their version of Islam, which is called Wahhabism today. This ultra-conservative version of Islam was derided and condemned over many years by mainstream Islamic teachers and scholars.

Fast-forward to 1948 and the Sauds still rule the Arabian Peninsula (a country known as Saudi Arabia) while the Wahhabis still have a huge influence over Islam in that country. While the world is shocked and awed by the formation of modern Israel, geologists discover the Ghawar Field in Eastern Saudi Arabia - the largest underground crude oil reservoir ever discovered. Subsequent discoveries around the Persian Gulf in neighbouring countries creates the Middle Eastern oil boom.

Now fast forward to 1973. The world's economy has depended upon cheap oil for decades but the Arabic nations have remained opposed to Israel in that time. After the Yom Kippur war ended in Israel's favour, oil producing Arab nations (as OPEC) embargoed oil deliveries to nations they believed were helping Israel, including the US and many other western countries. The high price of oil resulting from the embargo and its aftermath led to these countries becoming very rich - especially the ruling classes and especially the house of Saud.

Because of the close relationship between the house of Saud and the house of Wahab, many prominent government positions were handed out to members of these families. The Wahabs were still very conservative and very extremist in their religious beliefs and were still being criticised by more mainstream Islamic leaders.

One of the more prominent families in the Saudi world was, and remains, the Bin Laden family. The Bin Laden family received all sorts of juicy government contracts to construct buildings throughout Saudi Arabia. One of the members of this family was named Osama. Osama was influenced greatly by the extremist Wahhabism and began planning his terrorism program in the 1980s.

Other extremist Wahhabis began using their power and influence within the Saudi government to fund the building of Wahhabi mosques around the world, including in Western countries. This is still going on.

The 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by Saudi Wahhabists. They were funded by rich members of the Saudi government at its lower levels. The attacks were planned by the well-connected Osama Bin Laden - a man with both extremist religious views and practical business training and experience.

The years following 9/11 have seen an upswing in Islamic terrorism. Most of these terrorists have been influenced by Wahhabi teaching, found either online or in their mosque. The presence of the internet has allowed the Wahhabist message to spread to disaffected Muslims around the world, creating an environment where formal structures (ie a terrorist network) are not needed to create terrorists.

A summary of my conclusions - Modern Islamic terrorism:

* is mostly Sunni (as opposed to Shi'a)
* is sourced from Wahhabism, a powerful but not dominant religious ideology within Sunni Islam.
* is mainly Arabic in nationality, with exceptions due to Wahhabi influence (eg Jemaah Islamiyah in Indonesia)
* is funded by well-connected families in Saudi Arabia and members of the Saudi government.
* has been funded for decades from the profits of the Saudi oil industry being distributed to powerful Saudi families.
* is angry at "the west" for a) the creation of modern Israel, and b) past aggressions against Arabic nations from colonial times up until today (including British and American oil companies taking their oil, but also aggressions like invading Iraq).
* can influence individual Muslims through the internet.
* is NOT a natural outworking of the Islamic faith.
* does NOT have any historical precedent prior to 9/11.
* needs to be addressed by Western countries through directly challenging and influencing Saudi Arabia.
* is unlikely to be propagated in mosques that are not Wahhabist.
* is opposed by the majority of Muslims and the mosques they worship in.

The inevitable result of Islamophobia

From the department of publishing what people want to hear:

The Sun newspaper has come over a bit modest. Following a Channel 4 documentary about media reporting of Muslims, the paper accepts some of its stories were "distorted". But they're not doing themselves justice. They weren't distorted – they were entirely made up. For example, a story about a Muslim bus driver who ordered his passengers off the bus so he could pray was pure fabrication.

But if reporters are allowed to make up what they like, that one should be disciplined for displaying a shocking lack of imagination. He could have continued, "The driver has now won a case at the Court of Human Rights that his bus route should be altered so it only goes east. This means the 37A from Sutton Coldfield will no longer stop at Selly Oak library, but go the wrong way up a one-way street and carry on to Mecca. Local depot manager Stan Tubworth said, 'I suggested he only take it as far as Athens but he threatened a Jihad, and a holy war is just the sort of thing that could put a service like the Selly Oak Clipper out of business'."

Then there was a story about "Muslim thugs" in Windsor who attacked a house used by soldiers, except it was another invention. But with this tale the reporter still claims it's true, despite a complete absence of evidence, because, "The police are too politically correct to admit it." This must be the solution to all unsolved crimes. With Jack the Ripper it's obvious – he was facing the East End of London, his victims were infidels and he'd have access to a burqua which would give him vital camouflage in the smog. But do the pro-Muslim police even bother to investigate? Of course not, because it's just "Allah Allah Allah" down at the stations these days.

I have no politically correct notions that demand that I ignore racially motivated violence. I know that minority racial groups can often give rise to racially motivated violence - like Lebanese men in Sydney gang-raping white women.

What I can't tolerate is when the media, in order to capitalise on this fear, creates stories out of thin air in the same way in order to gain financial rewards (more newspapers sold, more advertising space sold). In this sense, the market rewards the media for distorting facts rather than reporting facts.

Much of our current debate about terrorism since 9/11 has been based upon fear and ignorance. While Islamic terrorism is certainly on the rise it has yet to impact us (since 9/11) in the West any worse than, say, the IRA bombing campaigns in Britain or radical leftist groups like the Red Army Faction.

And this means, of course, that 9/11 in the light of history is now appearing to be an exceptionally unusual event rather than the beginning of a new pattern of terrorism.

AAAAAAAAA

A blog post with every single category marked (I'm doing this for scribefire)

Some interesting US poll data

• 57% of Americans think the country is in recession. Source. Obviously people are feeling scared.
  
• 61% of Americans think that some tax cuts should be reversed. Source. This is mainly repealing tax cuts for the rich, rather than the mainstream.
  
• 52% of Americans think that the Democrats are best suited to handle the budget deficit, while 29% think that the Republicans are best suited. Source. The idea that Republicans are good economic managers has been shot to pieces.
  
• 50% of Americans think that illegal immigrants have made no negative impact on their community. Source. A substantial minority do have problems, but I think this shows that many Americans see the issue as being overstated.
  
• 73% of Americans think that Global Warming will be a major problem in 50 years. Source. Obviously they don't think it is a problem now, but believe it will be in the distant future.
  
• 18% of Americans think Iran should be bombed. 73% of Americans think that diplomatic and economic efforts should be used to address problems with Iran. Source. Americans don't want to bomb Iran. They want this fixed up the old fashioned way - by talking.
  
• 68% of Americans oppose the US war in Iraq. 59% believe that neither side is winning. Source.
• 61% of Americans are not too worried about the chances of being directly harmed by terrorists. Source. The further we get from 9/11 without any further terrorist attacks, the safer average Americans feel.
• 81% of Americans are unhappy with the nation's health care. Source. The next president and the 2009 Congress should act on this straight away.
  
• 79% of Americans approve of marriage between blacks and whites, while 15% disapprove. In 1994, the approval rating was 48% and the disapproval rating was 37%. In 1983, 43% approved while 50% disapproved. In 1978, 35% approved and 54% disapproved. In 1972, 29% approved and 60% disapproved. In 1968, 20% approved and 73% disapproved. In 1958, 4% approved and 94% disapproved. Source. More than anything else, this poll, dating back to 1958, shows just how much American society has changed in 50 years.
  
• 70% of Americans are dissatisfied with the country's direction. Source.
• 64% of Americans disapprove of how George W. Bush is doing his job. It has been around this percentage for at least 12 months. Source. The same disapproval percentage is seen with the Democrat controlled Congress. Source. I would argue that the reason why Americans don't like the Democrat controlled Congress is because they haven't made a stand against George Bush.
  
• 53% of Americans would probably vote Democrat in the 2008 congressional elections. Source.
• 50% of Americans have an unfavourable attitude towards Hillary Clinton. Source. This is an important statistic. Obviously there are people out there who can't stand her.
  
• 16% of Americans have an unfavourable attitude towards Mike Huckabee. 33% have a favourable attitude. 33% don't know who he is. Source. Huckabee is suffering because of voter ignorance. Who knows what will happen when he becomes better known?
  
• 53% of Americans have a favourable attitude towards Barack Obama. 33% unfavourable. Source. Shows again how much America has changed regarding race.
  
• 36% of Americans have a favourable attitude towards Mitt Romney. 30% unfavourable. 20% don't know who he is. Source. Not a good start for a potential Republican candidate.
• 52% of Americans have a favourable attitude towards Rudy Guiliani. Source. Obviously he is still held in highish regard after 9/11.
  
• More Americans would vote for John Edwards over Rudy Guiliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain or Mike Huckabee. Source. This is interesting since Clinton and Obama don't run as well against these Republicans. It probably shows that Edwards has some level of public trust that other Democrats don't have.
  
• Whichever candidate ends up running, 48% of Americans would probably vote Democrat while 31% would probably vote Republican. Source. Even though lots of people are undecided, such a big spread essentially guarantees a Democrat in the White House in 2009.
  
• 46% of Americans have a favourable attitude towards Al Gore, while 29% do not. In June it was 34% favourable and 40% not favourable. Source. This shows that Gore's Nobel Prize turned many Americans to favour him.
  

Reagan the Racist?

From the department of smashing-rose-coloured-glasses:

The murders were among the most notorious in American history. They constituted Neshoba County’s primary claim to fame when Reagan won the Republican Party’s nomination for president in 1980. The case was still a festering sore at that time. Some of the conspirators were still being protected by the local community. And white supremacy was still the order of the day.

That was the atmosphere and that was the place that Reagan chose as the first stop in his general election campaign. The campaign debuted at the Neshoba County Fair in front of a white and, at times, raucous crowd of perhaps 10,000, chanting: “We want Reagan! We want Reagan!”

Reagan was the first presidential candidate ever to appear at the fair, and he knew exactly what he was doing when he told that crowd, “I believe in states’ rights.”

Reagan apologists have every right to be ashamed of that appearance by their hero, but they have no right to change the meaning of it, which was unmistakable. Commentators have been trying of late to put this appearance by Reagan into a racially benign context.

That won’t wash. Reagan may have been blessed with a Hollywood smile and an avuncular delivery, but he was elbow deep in the same old race-baiting Southern strategy of Goldwater and Nixon.

Everybody watching the 1980 campaign knew what Reagan was signaling at the fair. Whites and blacks, Democrats and Republicans — they all knew. The news media knew. The race haters and the people appalled by racial hatred knew. And Reagan knew.

He was tapping out the code. It was understood that when politicians started chirping about “states’ rights” to white people in places like Neshoba County they were saying that when it comes down to you and the blacks, we’re with you.

And Reagan meant it. He was opposed to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was the same year that Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney were slaughtered. As president, he actually tried to weaken the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He opposed a national holiday for the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He tried to get rid of the federal ban on tax exemptions for private schools that practiced racial discrimination. And in 1988, he vetoed a bill to expand the reach of federal civil rights legislation.

This issue of whether former President Ronald Reagan was a racist has been bouncing around the op-eds of America's newspapers for the past few weeks. The issue was started by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman whose new book, The Conscience of a Liberal, contains a section that is critical of Reagan's attitude towards African-Americans. Interestingly, Krugman was a minor advisor during the Reagan administration (if Wikipedia is to believed). Fellow New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote a response, arguing that Krugman was putting words and actions into Reagan's mouth. Krugman responded by listing numerous occasions where Reagan's words and actions supported the idea that Reagan had ulterior motives.

I have yet to make up my own mind about this. Nevertheless Reagan did become part of McCarthyism in the 1950s and ratted out members of Hollywood as Communists - an action which indicates some level of paranoia and misguided nationalism that seems to typify American racists.

Kevin Andrews knows nothing

From the department of shock-horror-migrants-are-different-to-us:

Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews has inflamed tensions with the African community by releasing a dossier claiming African refugees were involved in gangs, nightclub fights and drinking alcohol in parks at night.

...

While refusing to release the full advice or provide any statistics, Mr Andrews said a summary of the material included:

- Concerns about race-based gangs.

- Reports of altercations between Africans at nightclubs.

- Conflict and assaults between some African families.

- Reports of a developing trend of young African males drinking alcohol in parks at night.

African community organisations arguing about who received favoured treatment.

"The critics who shout racism are bereft of real arguments," Mr Andrews said. "Australia has the right to ensure those who come here are integrating into a socially cohesive community."

Oh my goodness, the wonderful lands of Australia are being over-run by black African savages! Unlike any migrants before them, these migrants don't instantly take on the cultural trappings of the world around them. They don't instantly speak our language and there is even crime amongst them that is completely unAustralian, like public drunkenness and fighting!

In all seriousness, Kevin Andrews is not unlike many other people throughout history who fear that different people have come to invade us legally and destroy our culture. These people, along with Kevin Andrews, know nothing.

Update:

• Queensland Premier Anna Bligh calls Andrews a racist.
• If you want to know why I like Africans, click here.

Hate Mail

This email was sent to a friend. The red letters are my emphasis:
--------------

We are the Sons and Daughters of the ANZACs.

We can not expect our treasonous Government to protect us in these times, they are the ones that bought us to this very place. With 150,000 Arab immigrants entering our nation "legally" each year it is time Australians stood up and were counted. For we are the Sons and Daughters of the ANZACs, the men who protected us from invasion and threats in years gone by. Now it is your turn, OUR turn, the guard has changed, the times have changed, but true patriots shall NEVER be silenced!

John Coward has not protected us, not now, nor ever from this threat, and his Cowardice has cost us greatly. I urge all my Australian brothers and sisters to attend Cronulla and Maroubra this Sunday in a show of strength, unity and brotherhood. For this is a fight not just for Cronulla, not just Sydney, but for our entire nation, and not until the cowards in the media, along with the cowards in our parliament understand this, shall we stop our show of strength.

After rallying in Cronulla and Maroubra we will push our way through to Lakemba and Bankstown, we will destroy the mosques in these areas and any leb that gets in our way. We will smash their houses, smash their shops, destroy their ghettos.

We are the Sons and Daughters of the ANZACs, the men who ran into gunfire protecting our great land. Will you today run from biased media coverage and Lebs with poles? Or will you stand with your brothers and sisters THIS DAY, AND THOSE DAYS COMING and stand united in continuing their legacy.

The coals were lit when lebs threatened to rape young children on Cronulla beach, lifeguards stepped in to defend them and were bashed. this has been going on for years.

John Coward disarmed the australian people, and gave arms to the Lebanese criminals, and today you see the results.

The comoncheros and Bra Boys have as of today given official support to gang rapists and thus must be destroyed if they interfere. They are a group of old has-been, race traitors, junkies and lebs. Aussie Patriots do not need their support.

Failure to fight and win will mean living under the rule of criminals and gang rapists.

This is a real war, make no mistake. cowards WILL BE TREATED LIKE LEBS!

Bring yourself, your mates, anyone you know of fighting age and whatever devices you see fit to defend yourself and your country.

Must our people live in fear in our own country by people who dont belong here, who would rather disgrace our country than embrace it.

The media will try and shame us, calling us "nazis" or "racist" and other things. FUCK THE MEDIA, you should all know by now the media have no shame, they lie and manipulate the Australian people on a daily basis while defending these Lebanese scum and giving a voice to their slimey "leaders/terrorists". Even whle the lebs bash their camera crews!

Stand up and fight for what's right while you still can, none of us voted for multiculturalism, and none of us have to accept it either. The media and politicians say we are a "tolerant" society with cultures from all over, but we all know thats absolute bullshit, every man on the street knows its bullshit yet they persist with this failed ideology.

We don't want them, we don't need them and we won't have them forced on us in our country anymore. this is AUSTRALIA, politicians don't own this country WE DO.

Australia was founded on christian values, that is why we are a successful, peaceful nation. but now that the government has imported scum against our will, the cracks are starting to appear and our country is going to shit.

Morris Iemma the EN-ELECTED "premier" of NSW is going soft on the lebs because this scumbag is the son of lebanese immigrants himself! and the member for LAKEMBA!!!! sydneys biggest arab suburb and home of the terrorist training camp aka mosque!

DON'T BE A DOOR MAT!
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! FIGHT LIKE AN ANZAC OR DIE LIKE A COWARD.

YOU HOLD THE POWER OF CHANGE! DON'T COWER TO IEMMA OR MORONY AND THEIR WEAK ANTI-AUSTRALIAN, ANTI-WHITE THREATS!

AUSSIE PRIDE!

Shire Shame

Racial riots broke out yesterday in Cronulla.

Cronulla is a suburb of Sydney, Australia's largest city. It is part of a local government area called "The Sutherland Shire". It is located on the coast and is a favourite spot for surfers to go. One week ago, middle-eastern youths (probably Lebanese) were on the beach when two volunteer life guards approached them and asked them to cease their activities - I think they were playing football and were causing some distress among other beachgoers. The two lifeguards were then assaulted. The media naturally ran this story, and for the past week there have been news reports of the Police ramping up their activities in the Cronulla area to prevent any more violence - obviously from any Lebanese people who had come to make trouble. But instead of experiencing trouble with Lebanese gangs, the police had to deal with around 5000 young, white "Aussies" who turned up waving Australian flags and singing patriotic songs. This was, supposedly, a "show of force" by the white community against the troubles caused by the Lebanese visitors. Law and order broke down and the group of 5000 young whites quickly turned into a mob. Some Middle-eastern people had turned up, and the mob began assaulting them; the headscarf of a young muslim woman was ripped off as a mob chased her; small groups of Lebanese people were chased around the shops, some trying to hide in shopping centres and restaurants; one middle-eastern youth was set upon in full view of the media, and, when he was rescued by the police and taken away in an Ambulance, bottles of beer and other items were hurled at the vehicle as it passed.

The "Shire" (as it is known) has never been one of my favourite places. Even ten years ago, when I "experienced it" for the first time it was obvious that most of the people there had very little contact with Sydney's growing ethnic minority. Asian, European and Middle-Eastern migrants had settled in their own particular areas - pretty much south of a line stretching from Parramatta to Port Jackson. Wealthier migrants, especially those from China, had begun to move into Sydney's North Shore and North-western Suburbs, thus mixing with the middle-upper classes in those areas for quite some time. The Shire, however, remained fairly white - and I am beginning to think that the reason was that many migrants learned to stay away from the area.

Moreover, the Shire itself tends to view itself over and above others throughout Sydney. For whatever reason, they seem to have a chip on their shoulders about how they are perceived by outsiders. During the 1994 Bushfires, for example, when Lane Cove and other areas were being burnt up, Shire residents were up in arms that the media (especially talk-back radio) were concentrating on these areas rather than the fires that were threatening the Southern suburbs.

It's that sort of low-level hostility towards outsiders that has allowed the Shire to become the scene of mob violence. But what about those "Leb gangs"?

I lived in Merrylands from 1993 until 2000. The suburb is as multicultural as they come. There are Indians, Italians, Vietnamese, Chinese and Lebanese people living all over the place.

Are there Lebanese gangs? You better believe it. I used to work at a petrol station in the area and one night I had to lock the doors and keep customers safe inside while two gangs decided to use the station forecourt as their own private battlefield. There were a couple of other low-level incidents as well that concerned me.

Nevertheless, I need to point out that many Lebanese and other middle-eastern people came in to our shop and were good, respectful customers who never gave me a hard time. One Lebanese bloke lived near the station, and was an entertaining and colourful character that got on well with me and the other staff. I have olive skin and dark eyes, and one day this guy actually asked me if I was Lebanese myself. I said no, and he could not believe me when I showed him my driver's license which proved my very Anglo name. "No mate!" he exclaimed "You're Lebanese - it's your eyes!"

I have no trouble in believing that Lebanese youths did in fact assault some life guards in Cronulla last week. Although I wasn't privvy to the Sydney talk-radio personalities, I felt the media coverage of that particular incident generally was not sensationalist at all. Up until Sunday, the media seemed to focus more on the potential police presence in case any other Lebanese youths decide to call trouble.

What I wasn't prepared for was the sight of an Aussie mob attacking any Middle-eastern-looking person that came within their range. The police, who had been sent to prevent any Lebanese youths from causing further trouble, found themselves trying to protect the small amount of Lebanese and Middle-eastern people who actually did turn up.

There was no doubt the crowd of young, white Aussies were angry at what had occurred at their beach the previous week. Nevertheless, Australia is a free country which means that people can essentially move from place to place if they so desire. Even though it may not have been "wise" for these Middle-eastern people to turn up, their presence in Cronulla on Sunday was by no means unlawful. The crime was committed by the Aussie youths, who decided that they would take the law into their own hands and take out their frustrations upon convenient passers-by who didn't look like them.

Yes, there is racism here in Australia. Many Lebanese - especially the younger ones - have a barely concealed disdain for White Australians. This is a problem, but it is hardly going to be solved by white Aussies going on a drunken rampage. We're supposed to be above this sort of thing, but it is obvious that we are not. The flying of Australian flags and the chanting of Australian sporting songs and national anthems made a disturbing juxtaposition with drunken white men chasing and bashing coloured bystanders. It was sickening.

For me, the change came about from about 1996 onwards - when the current Howard government came to power. Pauline Hanson's few years of fame derived from this time as she began to travel around preaching a disturbing and xenophobic message ("please explain?") Hanson was an indicator that Australian society was not as nice as it seemed, and that an underlying anger was beginning to come to the surface.

The current mess that we are in - of which the situation in Cronulla is a result of - is a result of the ineptitude of both sides of government since the early 1980s. Hawke and Keating both embraced the concept of a naive "Multiculturalism" and began to increase the amount of migrants to Australia, thus creating the circumstances we have today. Once Keating lost power in 1996, Howard and his allies did nothing to prevent any escalation in race relations.

It's not that I'm against immigration - I'm all for it. I'm happy that we have Lebanese and Sudanese and other migrants coming to our country. I'm not even worried that they keep themselves in enclaves and speak their own language and have their own customs - the last time I looked that sort of activity was not illegal.

What needed to be done, however, was to assume from the very beginning that both migrants and "Aussies" would fall into racism if nothing concrete was done to prevent it. The high school curriculum especially has a very "leftist" understanding of the importance of harmonious race relations, and should be commended for its efforts. One wonders if the situation might have be worse had the curriculum not had this emphasis. But harmonious race relations require more than just doing essays and school projects on other cultures.

Moreover, there was a need to promote some form of explicit understanding and harmony between white Aussie youths and the children of migrants. Both sides are to blame for the current situation, so both sides need to be educated. Lebanese kids need to be shown that they can respect and like white Aussies, and white Aussies should learn how to accept and like their Lebanese Australian neighbours.

And, for once, let's drop the notion of "tolerance". Tolerance is actually a negative term that implies the ability to put up with some sort of stress without breaking. To me, the influx of migrants and refugees is not some stress that I should somehow put up with like a low-level headache - it is a chance, rather, to celebrate the fact that our country is relatively peaceful and that people from around the world wish to live here (which is, in the light of what has happened in Cronulla, a rather ironic thing to believe!). The fact that a community of Sudanese refugees live a few blocks from where I live should not be cause for my concern, but a vote of confidence that our way of life is actually benefitting those around the world.

The opposite of intolerance is not tolerance, it is acceptance. I am happy that Lebanese and Middle Eastern migrants have come to our land and are enjoying the peace that our society gives them. So long as they obey the law, I have no problems whatsoever. After all, everyone should obey the law - even white Aussies.

© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/




This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.

The danger of nationalistic-coloured glasses

When Los Angeles erupted into riots in 1992, it obviously caused a lot of heart-searching in America. Were these riots a symptom of something deeper? Were the riots caused by something inherently deficient with America?

The general answer to these two questions, I think, was "yes" and "no". Yes the riots indicated something that was wrong, but was it something about America itself that was being shown to be deficient? No, of course not!

The problem with this reading of this particular historical event is that it is tainted by people's own view of their nation. Patriotism, nationalism... whatever you want to call it, means that people often do not see what is quite plain to outsiders.

Take the recent Paris riots. The amount of crowing and France-bashing in the American media was incredible. Mind you, that's actually to be expected - Americans have a deep-seated history of racism that is based on institutional slavery - so their racist comments about the French are unsurprising.

What is interesting, however, is that when such major events occur outside of America, there is usually some editorial that probes the deficiencies of the nation which proves why the event occurred and why, either implicitly or explicitly, America is superior.

So with the Paris riots, it was simply a matter of blaming historical socialism. "These European nations have generous welfare support, high taxes and a more regulated economy. The reason why these riots occurred is because this form of economic and social system is inherently deficient." would be a typical response.

So what caused the LA riots, was it because America has a system that promotes a massive disparity between rich and poor because it is based on a capitalist system that rewards the rich and punishes the poor? Some would say "Yes" to this.

Interestingly, some American leftists blamed the Paris riots on the economic changes that France had begun - changes that liberalised their economy to be more capitalist. So while American conservatives were indulging in anti-socialist schadenfreude, American progressives were arguing that the riots were actually due to conservative policies.

So how are we to make sense of all this? Is there any way of making correct assumptions? Can a person still be "objective" and have a well-thought out point of view - an opinion? Of course.

Opinions and points of view need to be informed by facts. And the facts are that the Paris riots, while certainly big news, were nowhere near as bad as some of the riots in America in recent decades. Moreover, France has a much lower crime rate, lower deaths due to gun violence and a much better health system. Are these just opinions? No, they are based on facts. If you do the research you will find it.

You'll probably also find that progressive American states - those who have stricter gun-control laws, higher taxes to pay for better health services and who have also banned the death penalty - are also probably better off (generally) than the conservative American state.

When it comes down to it - many progressive policies actually work. And this does not mean a wholesale communist revolution (as some conservatives fear) but simply a matter of ensuring a balance between the realities of the market on one hand and the needs of society on the other.



From the One Salient Overlord Department

© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/





This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.

20 Dead in Iraq

I believe that human beings are equal. 1 Australian = 1 Briton = 1 Iraqi = 1 American.

That is why this suicide blast is tragic. But why are we not moved? Why are we not shocked?

Probably because they are not white, they are not westerners, they do not speak English and there is no graphic film footage.

God sees all the evil perpetrated upon mankind. He is not influenced by television or language or skin colour. He knows the pain and the suffering that all go through.

We should have God's attitude. We should weep for all who suffer and die from terrorist attacks.