Duly Noted: Priests, Gypsies, Mullahs

From the desk of George Handlery on Sat, 2010-04-10 08:34

bj-logo-handlery.gif
What pillorying deviant churchmen is not. Noble principles invite scrutiny. A Gypsy voice: Wanted is work and order. Why you should keep your prayer rug ready.

 

1. In a sermon, the Pope’s personal priest reacted to the charges of pedophilia, and sadism attributed to churchmen and committed against juveniles entrusted to their care. In doing so, he has compared the criticism of the Church to anti-Semitism and the resulting Holocaust persecution of Jews. The claim elicits concerns that are comparable to the publicized instances of abuse.

This line of defense compares incomparables. It does so in a way that exploits inculcated reactions and puts them in the service of the indefensible. The attempt suggests that regarding genocide and mass murder, rather unfitting concepts are in circulation. Bad history can amount to more than a mere academic error. It prejudices the present and the future. This case testifies not only to a lack of knowledge but also to the kind of misinformation that Holocaust deniers exploit. No knowledge is more dangerous than false knowledge: a lie is less dangerous than a half-truth.

As a retired altar boy and as someone who, at the age of ten, experienced daily beatings and other “disciplinary measures” in a boarding school, one is moved to react. It is done knowing that in the mind of some, this admission will be labeled to be a bias that sheds doubts on the points to be made.

The charges supporting anti Semitism and then maltreatment – as in other comparable cases of persecution – had unique characteristics. Alleged guilt was, invoking some kind of an original sin, to predate birth. This criminalized an entire group regardless of any individual’s personal deeds. The charges leveled were irrational and therefore not subject to objective scrutiny. By inference, anti-Semitic persecution had little to do with religious identity –which one can chose or reject. In this case, the reason for chastisement is embedded in pseudo-racially pre-determined guilt. This trait of the crime implies that individual innocence cannot be demonstrated by any investigation. (By the way, this argument suggests that privately Holocaust deniers do not really doubt the event they claim to be an invention. Their actual position is that whatever had happened was deserved and that it did not harm innocents, as we tend to claim.)

Now, to the Church. In this instance, the charges do not aim to destroy it and to popularize reasons for liquidating its hierarchy, the priesthood or the entire flock. The critique is just a critique that is a charge that individuals have abandoned the path of propriety. As such, the critique is not an attack but an inducement to correct comportment. Therefore, no automatic guilt shared by all to justify destruction is implied. This assigns the responsibility for what is charged to originate from the transgressions of individuals. Also, the alleged violations are a suitable subject for a criminal investigation intended to deliver objective proof of guilt or innocence that stands up in court.

Pedophilia, the sexual exploitation of dependents and sadism are serious charges. However, they are leveled against persons. The institution is only affected in that the supportive knowledge of supervisors, and therefore their conniving responsibility is also examined. The acts charged, whether proven or not, are considered crimes in the case of any citizen. No claim is made that being a Catholic or a priest makes you ipso facto a violator or that non-membership assures innocence and immunity. The claims against Jews were raised to allow their physical destruction. The charges leveled against the Church are to compensate victims and to improve the institution to enable it measure up to its honorable principles.

 

2. Two collected and contradictory Gypsy-related news deserve some publicity. The cases fit the above topic that is also about “collective guilt.” They also have something to say about the larger subject of adjustment and

collective success and failure. A Gypsy spokesman from a city in Hungary rose up to oppose his official representatives. These live well off the continued sub-class status – Marxists would use the term “Lumpen” – of their misguided and abused flock. The elections to be held on April 11 will result in a countrywide disaster of those Communist cleptocrats that hide behind the Socialists label. It is part of the story’s background that traditionally Gypsies deliver the core of leftist-collectivist votes. (On the day of the submission of this text and two days prior to an election, a survey reports something stunning. The Roma will vote for the right-of-center party and will not support the Socialists. This suggests an awakening of the Gypsies and reflects the general dissatisfaction with Socialist rule.)

On April 3, the Roma leader told a paper of his disappointment with the Left. What he wants for his people is public order, “security and work”. Debilitating welfarism and criminal coddling has given nothing to those he cares for. The good life is only possible under stable conditions regulated by law. Therefore, his wish is equality even if that expressly implies no special leniency for criminals that happen to be Roma.

This attitude seems to express the views of a growing number of Roma that dare to out themselves. The process suggests that there is hope to achieve one society uniting different ethnic groups.

 

3. Less comforting, is the next item. Nevertheless, it illustrates the problems presented by those Gypsies that resist integration while they demand equal privileges. The following edited report from Slovakia sheds light on an aspect of a retrograde Roma sub-society embedded in a dynamic post-socialism.

In October 2009, villagers erected a wall to be separate their neat quarters from the messy district of the Gypsies. The Western reporter found that the “other side” has a “powerful stench from soiled diapers, rotting food”. The construction has been financed from community funds instead, as a Roma complains, to “improve our homes”. As that was said, a 12-year-old expressed regret that “we cannot steal apples anymore.

The poverty and the alternative life-style, which is not only its product but also its cause, means that unemployment is at 80%. This condition is permanent: most are unemployable in any modern economy. No schooling means no skills. By refusing education because of its integritative consequences, the Roma are beset besides alcoholism with a lack “basic skills”. By resisting schooling that is said to deprive those exposed to it of their identity, reluctant Roma kids, regardless of their IQ, attended special schools for the handicapped.

 “The wall does not solve social problems” claim the Gypsies. The mayor insists that the “fence” is a last resort to stop vandalism and theft. The Roma were stealing produce from the neighborhood’s gardens. When metal fences were erected for protection, the Roma sold them as scrap metal. “The Roma have access to the village,” the mayor tells, adding “if citizens want rights,” then “they have to accept responsibilities.” Allegedly, local factories had tried to employ Roma; however, many employers gave up when these failed to show up for work. He feels that it is hard to motivate Roma to work as long as welfare pays more.

Crimes tarnish the Roma with a reputation for lawlessness. In a survey 70 percent said they would object to having Roma neighbors. Plans are under way to build further barriers near other Roma communities in Slovakia.

 

4. This makes one think. Effective sanctions against Iran have, albeit belatedly, become at least a remote possibility. Especially Russia, to some extent even China, seem to have second thoughts about resisting such projects. The wise men in our midst that used to advise us to avoid provocations since these make the extremists

fanatical, now opine that sanctions are useless because they come too late. This amounts to suggesting: “Accept Iran’s bomb and dig a deep hole. Do not forget to take along your prayer rug”.

 

Jewish liberalism - Paul Gottfried

Submitted by Armor on Fri, 2010-04-16 00:55.

KO: "I suggest that the evils you attribute to Jews are largely those of liberalism."

Paul Gottfried wrote something about that this week at AlternativeRight.com in an article headlined: The Myth of "Judeo-Christian Values"

His words: "it is simply wrong to pretend that Jewish liberals act from liberal motives that have nothing to do with their Jewish fears and hostilities. I've never met a Jewish liberal whose leftist politics was not in some way connected to his self-identity as a Jew."

What he says is not 100% unambiguous. He doesn't say that Catholic liberals do not act from liberal motives that have a lot to do with their own Catholic fears and hostilities. Still, he seems to be saying that the motivations of the Jews for supporting leftist politics are more connected to their specific identity than is the case with most people.

As I said the other day, even if you think that Jewish liberals are typical liberals, their overrepresentation in the media is still unfair. Any effort to correct that will certainly weaken the leftist dictatorship. So, the issue should not be swept under the carpet.

Generic Liberalism #4

Submitted by KO on Fri, 2010-04-16 16:19.

Armor: I have already conceded your first point, but it is always interesting to hear what Prof. Gottfried has to say. On the issue you note is left open, I can tell you that Protestant Christian leftists make a big deal about their Christianity, which is why Christianity has to be reclaimed from the Left.

On your second point, legal or political action may be called for to redress the predominance of certain viewpoints in the media, which I will persist in calling liberal and you will persist in calling Jewish, if that predominance results from government-sponsored monopolies. There should not be taxpayer funding of pernicious Left speech and culture. In the U.S.A., for example, there should be no public funding of PBS, NPR, and all the public leftist media.

To Armor & KO RE: Jewish "Liberalism"

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Wed, 2010-04-14 18:35.

South Africa's Joe Slovo is exemplar of what KO is referring to.  After playing a leading role in the ANC's paramilitary wing during its anti-apartheid insurgency, Slovo then turned his sights on Israel.  He considers the current Jewish State to be identical to South Africa under National Party rule.  He is a committed Marxist-Leninist, anti-fascist, anti-racist and most importantly, anti-zionist. 

To Kappert RE: The Romani Problem

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Wed, 2010-04-14 08:02.

Kappert,

 

The Romani in Europe are parasitic.  They are relatively new to Europe, arriving in the 14th century, and therefore have no right to impose their nomadism on their host societies.  However, rather than integrate into Europe or migrate to less inhabited regions that could better accommodate them, the Romani benefit at the expense of their hosts.  The Romani are dependent on crime as well public benefits and funds.  They are a burden that is becoming intolerable for many countries in Europe, such as Italy.  Canada recently imposed restrictions on visitors from the Czech Republic when it became evident that Prague was encouraging its Romani population to emigrate.  Instead of following the examples of the Magyars and Jews, the Romani have chosen to be a burden.  Unless they are prepared to integrate and contribute to Europe, why should they enjoy the sedentary benefits of electricity, water or sanitation? 

 

I am not suggesting that the Romani be “devoured”.  But there are good reasons why the Romani are universally reviled.  I doubt even India or the countries through which they migrated would take them back…

Romani Problem

Submitted by kappert on Wed, 2010-04-14 08:29.

Thanks for your feedback, showing that the 'Romani Problem' might be as interesting as the 'Jewish Problem' on this site. Your definition of 'parasite' and being 'new' in Europe, that is 14th century as you say, must be incomprehensible for U.S. Americans. Most European gypsies live in Spain and in southern France; they are part of the pituresque mediterranean image tourism is living from. The 'problem' with gypsies in Eastern Europe is clearly a social-economic one, that's why they want to migrate to Italy, Spain and Portugal, where they evidently suffer due to their poor integratebility pattern and strong family/clan structures. Yet, many Romani adopt seditarian lifestyle and integrate in the dominant society network. Calling them 'parasites' is blockheaded.

Possessed

Submitted by KO on Tue, 2010-04-13 20:20.

@Akira. I don't want to pile on, but you should consider consulting an exorcist. After looking at your website for the first time in months, I suspect you are possessed. I don't mean to pose as someone immune from demonic influences and temptations, but there is no peace or charity in your writing, only a mad swirl of accusation, with the esoteric blended together with the exoteric, and the spiritual blended with the worldly. You have a fount of knowledge and obvious abilities, but you are clearly not on a good track. Anti-Semitism really can take the form of a mania, and you seem to have it badly. Seek peace and simplicity, at least for now.

As useless as it may be to engage with you after the exchanges that have taken place here, I suggest that the evils you attribute to Jews are largely those of liberalism. That is not very exciting and does not require any occult research to discover, but it seems fairly clear and straightforward. To take the thought a step further, liberalism is the socially acceptable, contemporary form of several well-established evils, including sloth, pride, envy, mendacity, fraud, robbery, and blasphemy. Liberalism indeed is the prevalent form of the Gnostic revolution identified by Eric Voegelin as the revolt against God and the divine order that is characteristic of modern political movements. (You have probably read The New Science of Politics, but if you haven't, you will get a lot out of it.)

Jews are overwhelmingly liberal, and they overwhelmingly cooperate with the Gnostic revolutionaries seeking to destroy all traditional Western orders, including the hereditary white populations of the West. However, the vast majority of liberals are white Gentiles. Both Jewish and Christian liberals seek to destroy both Jewish and Christian traditional orders. Because of the mass, inter-faith, multi-cultural quality of the liberal movement, which would in all likelihood be the same without Jews as with them, it is not reasonable to attribute everything that is wrong with contemporary culture and politics to Jewish hatred of Christ and Christians. The liberal-Gnostic rebellion against God and his people unites Gentile and Jew in an unholy war. You should not waste your energy, or encourage others to waste theirs, in attacking the wrong target in this deadly struggle.

That is not to say that the liberalism of Jews is not a problem, and non-liberals should be as wary of Jewish liberals as of Christian liberals. Together they are a very dangerous group and they are rapidly taking the rest of us over the cliff with them. In charity, however, we should try to win Christian and Jewish liberals to our side, and only treat them as heretics to be suppressed when they persist in their malice -- which, unfortunately, they show every sign of doing.

On a more direct and personal note, please read again the first few chapters of the Gospel according to Luke. How can you not love the Jews, when you read of their yearning for the coming of our Lord? The Nunc Dimittis, the Magnificat -- what is more touching and inspiring? I.B. Singer's stories and novels depicting the Hassidim bring out the same note of personal love of the Lord that is a primary Christian experience.

But the Jews that rejected our Lord, are they not our brothers and sisters just as the liberals who reject him today are our brothers and sisters? Charity does not eliminate our duty to evangelize them, or our duty to protect ourselves and others from their evil influence. I thus would end on a different note than our other friends here. We need to rescue Christianity from liberalism, and that means recovering charity from the grip of universalism and egalitarianism, the fraudulent banners of Liberalism International. Someone with your abilities can join in that effort. If you would leave aside your esoteric conspiracies, and return to the main front of this war, you could probably do more good.

Generic Liberalism

Submitted by Armor on Wed, 2010-04-14 02:14.

KO said: "I suggest that the evils you attribute to Jews are largely those of liberalism"

I suggest this is not true. Even if it was, so what? Let's accept for one minute that Jewish "liberals" and non-Jewish "liberals" have the same ideology and the same motivations. I think it would still be legitimate to specifically discuss the problem of Jewish support for the displacement of white people. I'll make a comparison: we know that the Black crime rate is higher than the White crime rate. You may argue that Black and White murderers have similar motivations and should simply be considered as generic criminals. You may suggest that the evils I attribute to Black murderers are largely those of criminality. So what? I still think that black crime can partly be examined as a separate issue, and that we can take specific measures to alleviate the problem. (For example, the Whites should be allowed to stay among themselves).

The thing is that Jewish activism plays a key role in the (pro-)immigration activism and in intimidating the opposition. To a large extent, the drive to replace white people with third-world immigrants is a Jewish endeavor that relies on cooperation between Jews. Plenty of non-Jews are involved, but much of the money and many of the most active activists are Jewish. They act as leaders.

Even if Jews are no different from non-Jewish liberals, there is no reason to accept their over-representation in the media and other positions of power. If their numbers were brought down in proportion to their part of the population, the media would become less hostile. Besides, many non-Jewish pro-immigration liberals have simply been selected and recruited into the media by Jewish media owners. We should get rid of them too.

I disagree with the theory that Jewish liberals are generic liberals. I think they have an ideology and motivations of their own. They support the mass immigration of non-whites to white countries but not to Israel. They are very critical of the West, but do not tolerate any criticism of anti-white Jewish activism. This is obvious proof of ethnic antagonism.

By the way, on the topic of Jewish liberalism, on AlternativeRight.com, K.McDonald recently published "a rather longish review of Norman Podhoretz’s Why are Jews Liberals?"

Generic Liberalism #2

Submitted by KO on Wed, 2010-04-14 15:43.

Nice to hear from you, Armor. I will concede only this much -- liberal Jews have their own store of real and mythical grievances to justify their liberalism and their advocacy of policies destructive of inherited Western societies. But the existence of that proprietary store of grievances is also generic. Liberalism finds grist for its mill in the resentment of every ethnic group and social class. In the U.S.A., liberal Irishmen, blacks, Chinese, Japanese, Hawaiians, American Indians, Mexicans, Catholics, Poles, and Scandinavians, as well as Jews, all find something to justify their opposition to historic American society. In Canada, you can include the French. No doubt there are even liberal, pro-Muslim Bretons in France. Other groupings too can find ready justification for destructive open-borders policies. Unions blame business. Business blames unions. The rich blame the poor. The poor blame the rich. There is no limit to the number of excuses people can find to do evil. We should be aware of the excuses, misjudgments, and lies cultivated by liberals of every description, including Jews, but Jews are not unique in exerting liberal influence based on cherished grievances.

As for Israel, Israeli liberals are dead-set on incorporating hostile Palestinians into their polity. They are the most suicidal liberals on earth, along with South African liberals, who think an ANC government will protect their "rights." There is no substantial basis for claiming that liberal Jews are protecting Israel while trying to destroy Western nations.

In sum, I agree with you that liberal Jews have specifically Jewish-inflected motivations and reasons for their liberalism, and that we should be alert to those and refute them at every opportunity, but that goes for liberals of all descriptions, who all harbor real and imaginary excuses for their resentful posture vis-a-vis inherited society.

We conservatives are resentful, too, but we believe we are standing up for good sense based on natural law and fidelity to God's will.

Jewish liberalism

Submitted by Armor on Wed, 2010-04-14 17:47.

"In the U.S.A., liberal Irishmen, blacks, Chinese, Japanese, Hawaiians, American Indians, Mexicans, Catholics, Poles, and Scandinavians, as well as Jews, all find something to justify their opposition to historic American society."

You should make a distinction between Whites and non-Whites :

1st group: Blacks, Chinese, Mexicans, Catholics...
2nd group: Catholics, Irishmen, Poles, Scandinavians...

The blacks cannot be called liberal in the same sense as liberal whites. A black liberal wants more money for his own people from the welfare state. A white liberal wants his own people to pay more money to the blacks. It isn't the same perspective. Besides, I'm not aware that the Blacks are mass immigration enthusiasts, or that they approve of homosexual marriage. The Chinese should vote conservative both for cultural and financial reasons. But I think they tend to side with other non-white minorities in the way they vote. The Jews do even worse.

I know that white catholics have had grievances against the Anglo-Saxon protestants in the past. It encouraged some of them to dislike society and support immigration, but not to the same extent as Jews. Today, I think most white catholics who support immigration do it for the same reasons as protestants. Anyway, today's white catholics aren't much more supportive of mass immigration than protestants. (see here for example: Religious Leaders vs. Members: An Examination of Contrasting Views on Immigration)

I think what matters is not whether Jews by and large approve of immigration. What matters is who are the main immigration activists: who is doing the political work. And I think there is no Christian equivalent to the Jewish immigration activism.

"As for Israel, Israeli liberals are dead-set on incorporating hostile Palestinians into their polity. / There is no substantial basis for claiming that liberal Jews are protecting Israel while trying to destroy Western nations."

Israel's crazy leftists are held in check. The government there has a policy of actively preserving the Jewish ethnic stock, while western governements are busy replacing their own people. And there is little criticism of Israel's racial policy in the Western mass media. By contrast, any European country trying to apply the same ethnic policies as Israel would be pilloried by the Western media and by every Jewish organization.

Generic Liberalism #3

Submitted by KO on Wed, 2010-04-14 23:25.

Armor: Thanks for the link to that interesting report. It shows that religious leaders in general favor a more open immigration policy in the U.S.A., but that lay people have more restrictive views. That is also true of Jews. They are demonstrably more liberal than other religious groups, but substantial numbers of them share the more restrictive views of other groups. Here are the relevant excerpts:

"Most members of religious denominations do not feel that illegal immigration is caused by limits on legal immigration, as many religious leaders do; instead, members feel it’s due to a lack of enforcement.
...
* Jews: 21 percent said not enough legal immigration; 60 percent said inadequate enforcement.
...
"Unlike religious leaders who argue that more unskilled immigrant workers are needed, most members think there are plenty of Americans to do such work.
...
* Jews: 16 percent said increase immigration; 61 percent said plenty of Americans available.
...
"When asked to choose between enforcement that would cause illegal immigrants to go home over time or a conditional pathway to citizenship, most members of religious communities choose enforcement.
...
* Jews: 43 percent support enforcement; 40 percent support conditional legalization.
...
"In contrast to many religious leaders, most members think immigration is too high.
...
* Jews: 50 percent said it is too high; 5 percent said is too low; 22 percent just right."

If you have 50% of American Jews saying immigration levels are too high, you have a group that is more liberal than other groups, but is by no means unanimously hostile to the welfare of their country.

@Akira

Submitted by debendevan on Tue, 2010-04-13 16:16.

Akira, help me understand what church you belong to. Does the pastor/minister of your congregation endorse what you write here? The mark of a believer in Jesus Christ is the legacy he/she leaves behind. Arguing points of scriptures was a hallmark not of Christ, as my good friend Traveller has pointed out to you, but of the Pharisees.

Given your passion for scripture verses (which as Christ pointed out, for those who alter even a jot of the intended meaning, it would be better if a millstone had been hung around their neck and they had been tossed into the sea) I encourage you to read Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians. Paul, truly a master of scripture and one who had been adamant in his persecution of the Christians (and of a long proud Jewish priestly family I might add) offered this as the central point of his preaching:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

de bende van

@Akira

Submitted by debendevan on Mon, 2010-04-12 23:25.

Akira,

I have just read your comments above as well as your blog. Your blog seems to emphasize two things that are irreconcileable: espousal of Christian beliefs and a slanderous anti-Semitism. Christianity is a religion of love. Even if the things you believe about those of the Jewish faith and ethnicity were true (but they are not), you as a Christian are required to turn the other cheek and ignore the speck in their eyes.

But the fact is that the hateful diatribe you spout out about Jewish people is wrong. It is wrong because it is not true. And it is wrong because it is inconsistent with Christian tenets.

As a child growing up in Chicago there was a song that we used to sing in church. The title escapes me but the refrain I remember: "And they will know we are Christian by our love..."

Did you ever learn that song?

de bende van

@ Akira

Submitted by traveller on Tue, 2010-04-13 08:42.

You didn't catch very much from the teachings of Christ.
The phrases about pharisees and scribes are also valid for the Catholic church leaders of today and any religious leader who preaches one thing and does the opposite.

You are slandering the Jewish community and their history as a whole, that is slander
You are not better than the nazis, sorry but that's the truth.

@ Akira

Submitted by traveller on Tue, 2010-04-13 10:03.

I am sorry, but your accusations against the Jewish people as a whole are totally unacceptable for a Christian and for any human being.
Personally I think you are sick.

Roma discrimination

Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2010-04-12 09:21.

It is a fact that politicians in Hungary, Slovakia and Romania would like to see the Roma in 'closed areas' quite similar to what we saw in Europe between the years 1943 and 1945. Most Sinti and Roma in Slovakia live without electricity, water and sanitary canalization, as was stated at the conference in Córdoba last week. In the same event Spain, Belgium and Hungary admitted structural discrimination towards Roma, asking for an 'European Strategy' - meaning, do nothing, not a matter of interest, time will pass ...

@Akira

Submitted by Reconciler on Mon, 2010-04-12 03:04.

Jews are largely not at all parasitic. They have tremendously contributed to your current high standard of living, education and entertainment. It is safe to assume that your ethnic group has contributed only a fraction of their achievement, relative to the ratio of population of both ethnicities.

RE: Duly Noted

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Sun, 2010-04-11 08:45.

RE:

1.  Duly noted and agreed with.  The Catholic Church is guilty, as an institution, of obstructing justice and of being an accomplice, if indirectly, of these criminals.  In attempting to avoid a scandal, the Church crossed ethical and legal lines.  Instead of a few priests de-frocked and prosecuted, the entire institution’s reputation is tarnished.

 

2-3.  Irrespective of any hopeful changes in attitude, the Gypsies/Roma clearly need to be segregated from Europe. 

 

 

4.  Iran will have crossed the threshold when it enriches uranium in significant quantities beyond the 20% required for medical radioisotopes.  Although it has enriched some uranium to 18.5%, its stocks are at approx. 3.5%.  Under international law, Iran has the sovereign right to pursue a civilian nuclear program.  Despite the transition from realistic to moralistic foreign policy by the Bush and Blair governments, neither liberty nor democracy are prerequisites for sovereignty.

 

 

 

Cleary, intelligence indicates a military nuclear program controlled by the IRGC, which may or may not be related to the pre-2003 program and may be segregated from the current “civilian” one.  Unfortunately, intelligence on IRGC involvement is admittedly inadequate.  Iran should be punished for any violations of its international obligations (e.g. the NPT), but these are disputed.

P.S.  I can't wait to see the reaction here to the crash at Smolensk...

@kappert

Submitted by Reconciler on Sun, 2010-04-11 04:11.

Kindly direct me to the incitement to ethinc cleansing that you found in my posting. I seem to have overlooked it.

As far as I can see, I merely described the nature of the relationship between Gypsies and their host societies. Can you refute that the majority live of aid money and crime? Do we have to purge our textbooks of the word "parasite", because the Nazis used it?

@reconciler

Submitted by kappert on Sun, 2010-04-11 12:45.

Calling people 'parasites' is quite close to incitement to ethnic cleansing, supported by other commentators on this website, too. Roma people in Hungary make up about 10% of the population, and only a small part, surely not greater than non-Roma citizens, receive state welfare. As for crimes, I think there a bigger sharks in the pond than gypsies.

@kappert: That would be interesting

Submitted by Reconciler on Sun, 2010-04-11 16:19.

How close is calling someone or a group of people parasites to incitement of ethnic cleansing? Please elaborate. If you call me a spade, does it mean that you are inciting others to dig holes with me?

@Reconciler

Submitted by kappert on Sat, 2010-04-10 18:28.

Are you speaking about Switzerland? Or do you consider III Reich methods to clean the race of parasites? How about integrating Catholic priests? Perhaps one should build more walls around people, everywhere, that seems to work for some thinkers.

Think unintegrable Roma, think unintegrable Muslim minorities,

Submitted by Reconciler on Sat, 2010-04-10 15:10.

see the problem? I have to admit, that Muslims are probably more integrable than Gypsies, but not by much. Indeed. Islam compounds the problem, because we think, they are integrated while they actually subvert our society. Gypsy communities however are merely parasitic without an ideological drive to dominate their host societies...

...was that too harsh? Sorry, I have pledged to call a spade a spade.