Sunday, April 08, 2012

How long before civil war in Europe?

Share |
People, this is a good example of why Britain and the rest of Europe is doing to the dogs - by 'dogs' - I mean the collectivists on both sides - the Brits and the Muslim Brits. The dialogue in this video conveys a great deal of moral ambivalence. Let me demonstrate by quoting and commenting on their statements. Their contradictions lead them into positions neither side can defend....which means that, like in WWII we will end up with a European war where people don't know what they are fighting for. Consider that prior to WWII a great many of Europe's intellectuals and academics escaped to Britain and America and resulted in the socialisation of these countries, adopting the same time of polcies, i.e. The New Deal which they rejected from Germany before the war. This was of course the 'post-WWII emergency', the difference was, they never dropped the welfare state. Learn why history is destined to be repeated from this video.

Lucy: "Is is true that Muslim extremists are taking over my town"
What exactly is an extremist. I guess you could argue they are because they don't dress like you, and they were not born in Luton, or if they were, they have different values. In this video, we see her getting more aggressive than the Muslims, who are placating her. I would argue that this is an anti-intellectual spoilt brat who does not even understand the values of her own country. Let me demonstrate my point later.
Muslim loudspeaker: "Police go to hell"
Lucy says Muslims have a right to protest but they are going to extremes because they are critical of the police for abducting the wife of a terrorist suspect. I would however argue that these Muslims are far more civil than the labour unionists we have seen in Britain, Australia, New Zealand, in previous decades...I take it, that was the period in which she grew up at Luton. I would argue that Muslims and unionists have learned that aggression tends to alienate few resort to such efforts least for now. That will of course change.
So, based on this video, it seems Lucy is in fact getting in the face of Muslims because she has this sense of entitlement that 'she grew up in Luton'...though she does concede that they are people too.
Muslim loudspeaker: "UK go to hell"
Well, these are silly things to say because they will only alienate these Muslims from the majority. The problem is that you have this unthinking Brit (essentially a collectivist) repudiating the Muslim collectivism. The implication is that in ethics, they are actually more consistent than her, as they show in this dialogue:
Muslim loudspeaker: "Hands off Muslims"
That does not seem terribly threatening....mind you there is implicit racial superiority and judgement here. The issue however is - what is wrong with judging others? Apparently in Muslim, there is nothing wrong with it, and good for her, because this is the ultimate hypocrisy in Christianity, that you should not judge others.
Lucy: "Everyone has a right to protest, but I found their protesting provocative and extreme".
I don't know a country where protesting is not "provocate and extreme'; insofar as its the last straw that breaks the metaphoric 'Arab camel's back'.
Muslim lady: "This is a protest to stop oppression".
The Muslim makes the statement that she is their to fight oppression. What is wrong with that if she makes a valid position. The problem is that there is no issue here of 'a breach in the procedures of law', the issue is being raised in terms of collectives, them and us, and this is not the way to deal with the issue. It will ultimately lead to civil destruction. The Brits should no better; but because the Muslims are even bigger collectivists, they are going to drag Briton into a civil war.
Lucy says "no one should want anyone (ant police) to burn in hell".
Muslim lady says ".....because of what they have done"...."you either believe or you disbelieve"...."You choose to wear that and I choose to wear this".
You have the Muslim woman giving Lucy a lesson in individual rights; and yet both collectivise these rights or issues when it suits them. For the Muslim lady, the issue of rights is arbitrary, and so it is for Lucy.
Muslim lady says Lucy "looks are you trying to seduce".
Lucy: You shouldn't judge I choose to dress"...."I don't judge you"
Muslim lady: "I am judging you".
Lucy: "Well, I don't judge you....because I'm above that".
Muslim lady: "Go put some clothes on".
Lucy: "You choose to dress like that, I choose to dress like this....don't start"
Lucy's early premise was that these Muslims are extremists; now she is saying she is above judgement. Early the Muslim was saying that values are subjective (I choose) and now Lucy is agreeing...values are subjective. The difference is Lucy is inconsistent. Everyone is morally compelled to make choices; that demands a standard of value, a standard of what constitutes the good, or bad. In this case, the standard is not clear, but they are arguing about who is 'provocative' in terms of politics, and on another issue, who is provocative in terms of dress.
This is ultimately a crisis of values, and the issue will deteriorate into war if we retain our system of representative democracy.
Lucy: "Do you think its fair that you should say that the police should burn in hell"
Muslim man: "Its freedom of speech so we can say what we say"
Lucy: "In Islam does it not say that you ought to respect the law of the land you live in"
Muslim man: "No it doesn't".
This is important because in the West we are raised with such silly conceptions as 'the rule of law'; whether that means due process, or respecting the law 'because no one is above the law'. This is not true; the Muslims have it right. The law serves the people; at least so long as its consistent. If its not, none of us are above the facts of reality, but the law is merely a person's interpretation of the reality. They are legitimately campaigning; that's freedom of speech. I have no idea whether there is an injustice here, and I suspect they have no idea either because their sense of injustice is 'collectivised' and its because of Brits like Lucy, but also the Arabs who see the American clergy burning a Koran (yes one man) and we are all infidels.
Muslim leader: "If the law of the land is Islamic, then we would respect the law of the land"
He then quotes the prophet Mohammed "I do not obey the disbelievers or the hypocrites". He has a point. Moral ambivalence is driving the West into a war with the Muslims.
Lucy: "That really hurts me to hear you say that because you don't really know me"
Muslim leader: "Its enough for me to know that you are not a Muslim".
This is where the dogmatism are a you are evil and not to be respected. This deeply expressed dogmatism is going to drive the Britain towards war. These people are bad for Britain and should be removed. When you consider 'rights', you need to understand that the precondition for rights are:
1. Ethics: Respect for personal sovereignty - this is not evident
2. Epistemology: Respect for rationality - this is not evident in the Muslim leader at the end. He is dangerous, and should be removed from Britain...along with Lucy...she learnt nothing abroad...she needs to go back to la-la-land.
3. Metaphysics - Respect for objectivity - this was repudiated by both parties on occasion with 'dress sense' and 'judgement'.

ConvinceMe.Net - Anyone up for a debate?