Sunday, July 10, 2005
Some Still Don't Get It
The Financial Times lead editorial in yesterday's edition shows a complete lack of understanding of the dangers of multiculturalism. Those who embrace the idea of mutliculturalism also must embrace the idea of moral and cultural relativism since no one culture or value system can be valued above another. Somehow, the twits at the Times don't get this, nor do they bother to understand that multiculturalism is rooted in Gramscian Marxism. The ignorant editorial board sums up their core idea as follows: "At its best London offers a dream to rival the American dream: more genuinely multicutural, more relaxed and capable of humor."
Of course, the same editors go on to contradict themselves by writing that "more must be done to integrate Islameic London with the wider community." Multiculturalism is not about integration; rather, it is about undermining the hegemonic culture in charge. For radical Muslims, it is a temporary tool to destroy the culture of the west. London's Islamic community has a history of harboring such nuts, and even the Washington Post has an article showing as much (free subscription required).
This sort of twaddle is enough to make one's head hurt. But, not to be outdone by the goofballs on the editorial page, the current socialist prime minister of Spain, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, writes in the same edition from another position of silliness: that this whole problem is a) the fault of the West (implying the United States) and, b) it really is a legal problem, "The EU is an area of law, freedom and democracy and must continue as such." The is the same dangerous mind that ran against Spain's involvement in Iraq, and, when the terrorists blew up the trains in Madrid, used that to "prove" that the West's and Spain's policy of fighting state-sponsors of terror was wrong. The Socialists won, Spain pulled out its troops (like the terrorists demanded) and... authorities found another Islamic-terrorist bomb on a train track the next month (and were fortunate enough to disarm it before it went off). So, his policy did not prevent Spain from being the target of another Islamic-terrorist attack.
Of course the prime minister of Spain argues that we have to understand their mind set, and then goes on to blame financial conditions (like a good socialist) among other perceived problems. Well, Mr. Prime Minister, this is all you have to understand - they are trying to kill you. Stop them before they do or die.
Of course, the appeasement of the socialist government of Spain showed weakness, which is exactly what the terrorists thrive on. In reality, the action of this fool last year emboldened the terrorists and probably encouraged them to strike out again, this time in London. But I'm willing to bet he will never look in the mirror and come to that conclusion. Rather, he is more likely to spit on President Bush and hug the corrupt and ineffective United Nations (and he does the latter in his piece).
Then there is David Gardner who leads the charge of the blame-America-first-bandwagon. He sites some recent polling data that shows that Muslim Arabs really like ideas like democracy, and even like our culture. "In other words, they don't hate us for our values, but because of our policies" which is in direct contrast to the position of President Bush.
My response to Mr. Gardner is that he should review the tapes of the people dancing in the streets in various Arab-Muslim locales after 9/11. He should talk to the persecuted minority groups in various Islamic countries (like the Kurds), or to the women of several countries who have no chance at enjoying any type of freedom whatsoever or are treated as second class citizens. Mr. Gardner has no grasp of what the Ikwhan approach to Islam is about, nor does he seem to understand the mullahs of Iran; his ignorance disqualifies him from commenting on the situation, and he should be fired.
To its credit, the FT does print some opposing views. But, given its editorial and some other articles (including the silliness of its own Jeffrey Sachs), it is getting increasingly difficult to give much credence to any political reporting or analysis of politics or business that the paper offers.
(note: I am going on vacation for a few days... see ya later!)
Of course, the same editors go on to contradict themselves by writing that "more must be done to integrate Islameic London with the wider community." Multiculturalism is not about integration; rather, it is about undermining the hegemonic culture in charge. For radical Muslims, it is a temporary tool to destroy the culture of the west. London's Islamic community has a history of harboring such nuts, and even the Washington Post has an article showing as much (free subscription required).
This sort of twaddle is enough to make one's head hurt. But, not to be outdone by the goofballs on the editorial page, the current socialist prime minister of Spain, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, writes in the same edition from another position of silliness: that this whole problem is a) the fault of the West (implying the United States) and, b) it really is a legal problem, "The EU is an area of law, freedom and democracy and must continue as such." The is the same dangerous mind that ran against Spain's involvement in Iraq, and, when the terrorists blew up the trains in Madrid, used that to "prove" that the West's and Spain's policy of fighting state-sponsors of terror was wrong. The Socialists won, Spain pulled out its troops (like the terrorists demanded) and... authorities found another Islamic-terrorist bomb on a train track the next month (and were fortunate enough to disarm it before it went off). So, his policy did not prevent Spain from being the target of another Islamic-terrorist attack.
Of course the prime minister of Spain argues that we have to understand their mind set, and then goes on to blame financial conditions (like a good socialist) among other perceived problems. Well, Mr. Prime Minister, this is all you have to understand - they are trying to kill you. Stop them before they do or die.
Of course, the appeasement of the socialist government of Spain showed weakness, which is exactly what the terrorists thrive on. In reality, the action of this fool last year emboldened the terrorists and probably encouraged them to strike out again, this time in London. But I'm willing to bet he will never look in the mirror and come to that conclusion. Rather, he is more likely to spit on President Bush and hug the corrupt and ineffective United Nations (and he does the latter in his piece).
Then there is David Gardner who leads the charge of the blame-America-first-bandwagon. He sites some recent polling data that shows that Muslim Arabs really like ideas like democracy, and even like our culture. "In other words, they don't hate us for our values, but because of our policies" which is in direct contrast to the position of President Bush.
My response to Mr. Gardner is that he should review the tapes of the people dancing in the streets in various Arab-Muslim locales after 9/11. He should talk to the persecuted minority groups in various Islamic countries (like the Kurds), or to the women of several countries who have no chance at enjoying any type of freedom whatsoever or are treated as second class citizens. Mr. Gardner has no grasp of what the Ikwhan approach to Islam is about, nor does he seem to understand the mullahs of Iran; his ignorance disqualifies him from commenting on the situation, and he should be fired.
To its credit, the FT does print some opposing views. But, given its editorial and some other articles (including the silliness of its own Jeffrey Sachs), it is getting increasingly difficult to give much credence to any political reporting or analysis of politics or business that the paper offers.
(note: I am going on vacation for a few days... see ya later!)
