The blasphemous thread

France: Jeanne d'Arc is a national symbol of French heroism.

France: also proud of Voltaire who wrote an intensely malicious send-up of Jeanne d'Arc. Satire, you know.

La pucelle d'Orléans

Mustn't we mock? Will heads fly, really? For this?

What if I post, "MUHAMMAD STINKS" and "MUHAMMAD FUCKED A NINE YEAR OLD GIRL AND SO DO STILL THOUSANDS OF MUSLIM MEN"

Am I now fair game?

Dead in the water?

What?

Raise your hand and be counted, les cons qui aiment le prophète!

Veil it! Veil it NOW!

#6 is good :)

But is it art IS IT WORTH DYING FOR?????

:) no

:) non

:) nein

(: naaaaah

(: neVAR

:) But, it's worth KILLING for, to fucking fucks from Fucklandia.

Dear LolaWalser >1 LolaWalser: I haven't noticed too much support for your/this thread.

I support you!

One of my "mates" is a professional Cartoonist and has written on this.

I will get back to you when I find a link to his posts.

Guido.

https://medium.com/the-nib/political-cartooning-is-almost-worth-dying-for-5fb3a0...

My friend didn't write the above story, but I know it reflects his thinking.

Any liberal democracy must support the freedom to blaspheme. Many of the political cartoons penned in the wake of the murders at Charlie Hebdo have been brilliant.

It is strange but I as an atheist found This offensive

>19 guido47: I didn't.

MOHAMMAD FUCKED A NINE YEAR OLD GIRL? WHEN DID HE STOP FUCKING NINE YEAR OLD BOYS?

WHERE THE SHEEP TOO FAST?

That includes all the stinking prophets, priests, Nazis and Republicans.

P.S. The list continues...

Republicans too?! Holy cow! I've been a blasphemer less than an hour and they're already coming for me!

Oooh swwing low, sweet chariah-ah-t. Comin' for teh caarry me hooohm.

In others news, Mohammad finds a pair of Diesel boxers in the Popemobile glove compartment, spends weekend at his mother's.

>27 SomeGuyInVirginia:

Republicans, absolutely. Blasphemy is equal opportunity or it's mere racism and xenophobia.

In other news, Dubya and everyone who ever voted for him snorts camel boogers.

I'm a victim! Free at last!

This just in, Jesus attends republican wedding, asked to turn water into bloody marys.

Personally I consider myself to be absolutely secular. I was brought up in a religious household--however I don't believe and look at religion as a thing that too often divides people. The violent rhetoric of many clerics of various belief systems creates a lot of violent fundamentalist extremists. These religious conflicts coming out of the middle east--I wish these people whose existence revolves around hating each other lived on some other planet. I have my suspicions that the murderers of the cartoonists and the staff of Charlie Hebdo along with the economist Bernard Maris and even the two unfortunate policeman (and usually I'm not too keen on the police) were a little bit short on the ability to laugh at themselves let alone anything else--kind of making them sad and pathetic clowns to my eyes. These two brothers and their accomplice will not be missed at least by me.

Heaven is like a blowjob that lasts forever.

>31 SomeGuyInVirginia: If I'm going to hell, I'd probably end up in your heaven.

>30 lriley: Meh, all schools of though have high body counts. I believe there is something there, God or the Force or whatever, and I fully expect to be consigned to the fires of hell for what I've written, but secretly I'm hoping to get off with a just spanking.

>32 southernbooklady: Hehe. Nice. Now I'll never be able to tell someone to go to hell without cracking up.

#30--there are things that I just don't get. Even if those who don't believe lived lives that were generous and not violent towards others--but let's say there is some overriding entity above--so these people who have done very little harm are to be thrown into some dark pit for an eternity of suffering--let's again say the overriding entity is the Moslem god (it could just as easily be the Judeo/Christian one) and these maniacs from the other day who believe so much that they'd murder off the entire world are really going to have their paradise. What kind of God would that be? I hear all this shit about his mysterious ways but it seems to me if the extreme fundamentalists of any of these camps is right--then this overriding entity is some kind of a fucking nut.

Anyhoo--one of the reasons I don't really like the idea of Heaven/Hell is a matter of taste because the descriptions I get of either (and they basically come from the religious) are very hierarchical (if not even patriarchal). I think when are we ever going to get away from this business of being told what to do or how to behave or what to believe or what to think? When are we all going to really be on the same level? So it's hard for me to believe there's such a thing as a perfect world. The best IMO we can do for now is try to make the one were living in now as good a place as we can--considering our limitations--that's not much. And as for what comes after we're gone--who the fuck knows?

People travel from around the world to worship at a black rock that fell from out of space. How is this not idol worship?

I've often wondered if a graduated scale isn't what's holding the West back. Discrete, linear. Has its limitations.

From the Grauniad:

Also from the Grauniad:

From one of Kenya's major newspapers:

The tango between Islamist terrorism and hatred of Islam:

>39 John5918:

Sacco is brilliant and I think I know exactly where he's coming from. I still felt like that around the Danish protests.

But he is wrong. Not in that that he is not drawing, would not draw, cartoons of the Charlie Hebdo type. But in implying, "in this time and place", after the massacre, that perhaps no one else ought to indulge in such things.

He is also wrong, utterly and dangerously wrong, to imply that it's only "in this time and place" that Muslims are so very touchy about satires of their faith.

What does that mean? That they weren't in the past? Strict rules and punishments regarding blasphemy abound throughout the history of Islam. That this sensitivity is the product of contemporary times, mayhap "the fault" of the West? That it's something temporary we all just have to sit out until...? What?

I share his feelings, but disagree with his argument.

BBC revises Muhammad ban as BBC1 news bulletin features Charlie Hebdo cover

The BBC said in a statement on Friday: “This guidance is old, out of date and does not reflect the BBC’s long-standing position that programme makers have freedom to exercise their editorial judgement with the editorial policy team available to provide advice around sensitive issues on a case-by-case basis.

“The guidance is currently being revised.”

The guidelines which Dimbleby quotes from are believed to date from 2010.

The Charlie Hebdo cover featured in a report towards the end of Thursday’s bulletin by the BBC’s religious affairs correspondent, Caroline Wyatt.

Most UK media did not reprint any of the satirical magazine’s caricatures of Muhammad or the cartoons from Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, with which Charlie Hebdo first provoked international outrage in 2006.

Independent editor Amol Rajan said “every instinct” told him to publish the cartoons but described it as “too much of a risk”.

Everybody should have published the cartoons and be done with it. Shame on all the "big" newspapers.

Glorious free-for-all blasphemy by The Onion:



Crude? Lewd? Inartistic, witless and not particularly funny?

Quick, someone go MURDER EVERYBODY AT THE PAPER!!!!!!

Muhammad wasn't available for this orgy. Too busy FUCKING NINE YEAR OLD GIRLS.

Edit: No One Murdered Because Of This Image

>45 LolaWalser: I think they ran that in 2012, right? It would be awesome to write for The Onion.

Ganesh would love that cartoon; Indra would intervene for his own pleasure.

Please, you historians of Islam, look up the Persian satirist Obeyd e Zakani: meanwhile don't jump into a well unless it is absolutely necessary.

http://redflag.org.au/node/4373

R. Crumb on Charlie Hebdo and drawing the Prophet Mohammed:

So why wouldn’t you just not do it? Why would you go ahead and submit a cartoon like that? Isn’t that really scary and risky?

Well–they asked me to. Liberation called me and said, “Crumb, can you do a cartoon for us? About what you think about this, you know, you are a major cartoonist, and you live in France.” So I thought about it. I spent a lot of time thinking about it. I’m doing the dishes, or whatever, I was thinking, “What should I do for that cartoon…” I had a lot of ideas. Other people come up with these, you know, clever cartoons that comment on it, like…This one guy did a cartoon showing a bloody dead body laying there, and a radical Muslim standing over him with a Kalashnikov, saying, “He drew first!” Stuff like that. That’s good, that’s clever, you know, I like that. But, me? I gotta like, you know, when I do something, it has to be more personal. I said, first: “I don’t have the courage to make an insulting cartoon of Muhammed.”

Then I thought, “OK, I’m the Cowardly Cartoonist…As a Cowardly Cartoonist, I can’t make some glib comment like that, you know? I have to, like, make fun of myself. So instead of drawing the face of Muhammed (laughs), I drew the ass of Muhammed. (Laughs.) But then I had myself saying, in small lettering, “Actually, this is the ass of my friend of Mohamid Bakshi, who’s a film director in Los Angeles, California.” So if they come at me, I’m gonna say, “No, look, it’s not Muhammed the Prophet, it’s this guy, Mohamid Bakshi.” So, you know.

http://observer.com/2015/01/legendary-cartoonist-robert-crumb-on-the-massacre-in...

> 49

R. Crumb specializes in drawing large asses.

Thus, he is the perfect cartoonist to draw Muhammad.

>51 RickHarsch: That's got to be one of the oddest and dumbest posts of the new year.

I love catholics. Not so much the catholic hierarchy, though. Anyway, I hate to leave the H.R.C.C. out of any discussion of religious moral failings. So:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_desecration#2008_controversy_in_the_US

Yes, in modern times catholics have pretty much left off the murder of rivals. We must give them credit for "most improved" religion. (It took'em a while, though.)

Anyhow, it seems some of them at least make murderous threats still, now and then, especially, apparently, if someone effs with their "sacred hosts". Christ-on-a-cracker, I must say.

Growing up as a wolf, er, oops, I mean as a southern baptist - heh heh - I was taught that the broken up saltines and the Welch's grape juice were ONLY SYMBOLIC or REPRESENTATIONAL of the body and blood of you-know-who. Even as a six-year old I could readily understand the concept. It was like a metaphor or something.

So, then, here we have an instance wherein southern baptists are seen to exist on a higher intellectual plane than catholics.

Hard to believe, I know, but facts is facts.

#52--the pope is the pope and the catholic church is the catholic church but the faithful can be something else.

Considering your hard to argue with (at least for me) past commentary about the fucktardedness of those with tendencies to vote for the republican party voting demographics don't seem to back up your above post claim very well.

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/11/07/how-the-faithful-voted-2012-preliminary-exit-...

>51 RickHarsch:
That's got to be one of the oddest examples of auto-sarcasm of the new year.

(Is auto-sarcasm a real term?)

(And by the way, JGL has a point about Crumb's obsession with asses.)

> 53

There is a race factor involved here, to wit: Most U.S. blacks voters in the rural south vote democratic and are religious. I believe there is a strong correlation there. Most U.S. white voters in the rural south are religious and vote republican. Again, a very strong correlation.

The whites see christianity and the republican party as two aspects of god's work here on earth.

The blacks are actually on average as "conservative" on the social issues as the whites. They vote democratic because they are put off by republican rhetoric and actions concerning blacks. Have you heard? - it's rather overtly racist.

Does that clear things up for you?

>55 nathanielcampbell: There's a very old joke about the Catholic priest and the rabbi who find themselves together in a railway carriage compartment on a long journey. They get chatting.

Eventually the Catholic priest leans over and asks the rabbi, "Is it really true that Jews don't eat pork?" The rabbi replies that it is indeed true. After a while, the priest asks him whether in fact he has ever tasted pork. The rabbi looks a little embarrassed but admits that in his younger days, in a moment of weakness, he did in fact eat some pork.

After a while, the rabbi leans over and asks the priest whether it is really true that Catholic priests abstain from sex. "Yes, that's true," replies the priest. "Catholic priests are celibate". The rabbi then asks him whether in fact he has ever tried sex. Looking a little embarrassed, the priest admits that in his younger days, in a moment of weakness, he did in fact have sex.

A little later the rabbi leans over and remarks, "It's much more fun that eating pork, isn't it!"

#56--not really. First off you weren't regional about your claims in post #52. In #56 it's all about what's going on in south. So either you weren't being very clear or you're changing the goal posts. Truth is--the 'higher intellectual plane' comment about one religion vs. the other is pretty much the kind of comment that drives religious intolerance all around the planet. In any case I wouldn't claim there isn't any bigotry in the north (where more Catholics live) --but it seems to me it's on another level in the South--the home base of the Southern Baptists (though they're well represented pretty much anywhere you go in the USA).

As a non-believer personally I think there's plenty of nuttiness among the different religions/faiths to go around but as long as people don't bother me with their crap they can continue to believe in the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and Santa Claus and I won't really give a rat's ass.

As far as voter dynamics Catholics do vote for Democrats in much higher %'s than Protestants and whether they're caucasians or not. This is in part a traditional carry over from the immigrants that came over from Europe in the 19th century and settled in the larger cities in the north. New England and New York (particularly the City but also the State) are pretty much bulwarks for the Democratic party. But there are other reasons--such as a much stronger connection to labor organizations in the north than the south and those immigrants--particularly Irish and Italians working in mines and factories played a large part in building the working class Union tradition that fought against the rich and powerful--people who weren't wanted in their own countries--weren't wanted here either--who weren't conservative by nature.

> 58

Yes, I understand all that.

As to race - nationwide, a majority of whites (who vote for either major party) have voted republican for some time now. And I would emphasize the obvious - we are always talking percentages and/or averages. E.g., I understand that there are many examples of both right-wing catholics and left-wing catholics, and so forth. E.g., I myself am a white male over age sixty who is a native-born Mississippian and yet - I am a liberal Democrat and an atheist. There are no absolutes, i.e., no group of X humans is all of Y opinion or belief.

Yea "diversity".

Continuing - I would question your statement that "Catholics do vote for Democrats in much higher %'s than Protestants". I think traditionally that was so but has it been so for the past four Presidential elections? I would imagine it is only moderately higher than "much higher". I.e., catholics as a whole have become more "conservative" in the last couple of decades. Is this not true?

>55 nathanielcampbell: I guess you've never had pork vindaloo.

Ha.

#59--as the above Pew linked clearly shows--the overall Catholic vote went for Gore in 2000 and Obama in 2008 and 2012. As far as the Democratic party is concerned white Catholics outperformed white protestants and evangelicals from election to election by significant %'s. The poll is not that hard to follow. Again as far as the Democratic party is concerned non-evangelicals outperform white protestants and evangelicals as well--consistently coming in at 44% in '04, '08 and '12. The Jewish vote and those religious claiming not to be affiliated come in best of all for the Democrats. John Hagee can get his massive congregation to come out for any dickhead he wants but the Jewish (who he fawns over) voter here votes hard for the other side. Go figure.

Back to the Catholics--I'm very positive that catholic Cardinals and the Bishops pre-election are pointing out the nefariousness of the so-called 'liberal' agenda of the Democratic party. It does sway a lot of voters--but the majorities are still voting democratic with the exception of 2004. It just may be that catholic congregations are not quite as conservative as their cardinals, bishops, priests and nuns. Like it or not that seems to me to be the way it is.

Catholics by the way are well aware of the very holy's often times predilections for paedophelia. Back in the day priests had a tendency to turn a little bit more to the drink--and that was okay. A drop of the creature in the morning is the best kind of breakfast. That kind of a norm offended almost no one. These days though the priesthood is more a haven for the sexually confused. You might be surprised that many catholics think priests should be allowed to marry or that there should be such a thing as women priests. Partly it's because they know a lot of these people passing gas up in the pulpit are a bit more different than they ought to be. They go to mass because they believe. They don't necessarily have a lot of faith in their priests though. There's a bit of skepticism there.

>63 lriley: You might be surprised that many catholics think priests should be allowed to marry or that there should be such a thing as women priests

Just wondering why you say, "You might be surprised"? I would have thought it was common knowledge.

All this is fine and dandy and no doubt those who sincerely care about such things really care about such things. OK then.

But back to the OP.

I just nailed a Host to a makeshift wooden cross in my backyard after stamping the face of Muhammad on it, and then set it on fire.

Anyone have any problem with that?

>65 JGL53: Will you be providing marshmallows for everyone?

#64--it is common knowledge among catholics or fallen away catholics (which is pretty much what I am). I'm not sure it's common knowledge to other people. Catholics in general are not locked in step with the Vatican. I think the voter dynamics in the USA as cited by Pew in it's poll testify to that. A lot of catholics think that allowing priests to marry or women priests would allow avenues for the not sexually confused. Besides being the right thing to do (if for no other reason--equality) it's a practical solution to an ugly problem.

Anyway past popes and cardinals at least in some respects very comparable to Kruschshev's or Brezhnev's politburo--a bunch of old duffers who have locked up everything the way they want it and are completely out of touch and unconcerned with what's going on with the populace and very resistant to change. It doesn't mean you won't have patriotic Russians joining the army to defend the homeland--it's just a general perception that their leaders are a bunch of assholes. I think a lot of catholics look at their hierarchy pretty much the same.

#65--not at all. Nothing should be sacred.

?63 "Back to the Catholics--I'm very positive that catholic Cardinals and the Bishops pre-election are pointing out the nefariousness of the so-called 'liberal' agenda of the Democratic party"

You write this as if you think Catholics should rubber-stamp the agenda of the Democratic Party -- yet you'd be upset if they rubber-stamped the agenda of the Republican Party.

The thing that seems to be lost here is that Christianity is not a political party, and that neither major party in the United States, Democrat or Republican, is representative of Christianity. Putting a political ideology ahead of your faith is known in theological circles as "idolatry".

Those "nuns on the bus" - they seem like nice people. You know - the ones going around saying nice things about how the democratic party is more in line with the christian view of charity toward the poor than those meanies the republicans are. No one is saying all catholics are superstitious twits or bad people or something. Most catholics seem like rather nice people.

It is the bad catholics who preach and teach bad things that all decent people should oppose - not because they are catholics but because the particular catholics are preaching, teaching and doing bad things. Many if not most of the bad catholics seem to be in the hierarchy. That just seems to be a fact.

The catholic church is based in extreme authoritarianism. But it would seem the ancient authoritarian hold over the minds of the people is slowly but surely dying the death. But to use an analogy or simile or something, the college of cardinals is a bunch of cornered rats - cornered by the zeitgeist. They are going to go but they are not going to go quietly - they will fight to the bitter end.

Pray god the bitter end comes soon. And not in a "Jesus is Coming Soon" way, but ACTUALLY soon.

Lol.

#69--actually I didn't write that--that's the way you chose to read it between the lines.

Basically when given the choice between democrats and republicans I consider democrats to be somewhat better--I really don't understand working people voting for republicans at all. It's like choosing your bosses over your co-workers. These people IMO have contempt for the middle classes and actively hate everyone below that state. I wasn't always happy with the unions I was a member of but still there's the classic us against them mentality which fit into the day to day reality as I saw it. With all that I haven't very often voted for democrats--despite what those unions would suggest I do. Too many betrayals starting with the Nafta thing. To me the democrats say a lot of the right things but can't be trusted. At the end of the day I look at the two parties this way--democrats (with a few exceptions) as conservatives and republicans as extreme conservatives. I'm not a conservative. Last time I voted for the Green Party's Ms. Stein--I have voted for Mr. Nader more than once. I think they are closer to where I'm at. If it proves anything I suppose I'm a malcontent.

Pope Francis is well aware of the nature of the Vatican bureaucracy but he is NOT as thought "the absolute monarch" popes are SAID to be and his "reform" of that bureaucracy will meet/is meeting with considerable resistance.

Also the laity is divided -- many ARE indeed more "liberal" but many are pretty "traditional" too and long to overthrow Vatican II -- John Paul II was THEIR pope as he was both charismatic AND conservative while Benedict was, although just as conservative, too "dull" as a leader and inept at responding to the "pedophile crisis."

The church NEEDED "something REALLY different" and consequently Francis but he's 78 which is no accident as it was assumed that his reign would be relatively short and while he would galvanize and inspire the laity he wouldn't live long enough, like John XXIII, to ensure his reforms would last.

One needs to hope that he would be followed say by another Paul VI at least!...

"ST. LOUIS (CNS) -- St. Louis Archbishop Raymond L. Burke will issue a pastoral letter following his comments in a radio interview that Catholics commit a mortal sin by knowingly voting for a candidate who advocates abortion.
"It is a serious sin," Archbishop Burke told The St. Louis Review, newspaper of the St. Louis Archdiocese. He added that a person who voted that way could receive Communion only after a "true repentance" and obtaining absolution by going to confession. "It's not right to support candidates who are for abortion," he added.
The archbishop was in Rome to receive the pallium June 29. The pallium is a circular white band of wool that symbolizes an archbishop's authority and his unity with the pope.

Issuing a pastoral letter will fulfill an earlier promise to address the voting issue, Archbishop Burke said.

"It is not a matter -- as in the case of politicians whose positions are public -- of denying Communion to voters who support pro-abortion candidates," the archbishop said. "But Catholics who support such pro-abortion candidates participate in a grave evil. They must show a change of heart and be sacramentally reconciled or refrain from receiving holy Communion."" http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0403600.htm

I see Pope Francis removed this gentleman from the Congregation of Bishops, perhaps constituting a grave evil ...

>73 theoria:

And his job as head of the "Supreme Court" at the Vatican. He's got a job—patron of the Knights of Malta—that's normally a sinecure for old men now.

>71 lriley: At the end of the day I look at the two parties this way--democrats (with a few exceptions) as conservatives and republicans as extreme conservatives

I think this is how many of us outside the USA see US politics. You have no true centre or left-of-centre parties, or at least none that garner significant electoral support.

>75 John5918:

The US Democrats would, I think, have a reasonable claim to being socially left of centre in most global contexts. Not so much economically left of centre however.

>76 hf22: Well, it's true that global politics has shifted right-wards in recent years, but I would still suggest that most European countries have true left-wing parties. There are are thriving Green parties, and Communist parties still garner votes (I believe Britain still has one Communist councillor). Britain's Labour and Lib-Dems may have moved towards the centre, but are still recognisably left of centre. Not sure about your Labour party in Australia?

And of course the Official Monster Raving Looney Party, a sign that democracy is alive and healthy, and the unofficial raving looney party, UKIP!

>77 John5918:

Depends what you define as a "true left wing party". Anyone who is still an official Communist, has to be pretty close to a raving loon.

We have a Green Party, which I would define as truly left wing, both economically and socially (it is what a Communist would vote for - Rich inner city socially "progressive" socialists in the main). Our Labor party (it uses the US spelling, due to historical links with the US in the 1890s) would I think be fairly called centre left from a global perspective.

Our Liberal Party (classical liberals - Conservatives in US speak) are a centre right party, and would not accept much of the US Republican agenda (i.e. re guns, socialised medicine, Ayn Rand stuff etc).

>78 hf22: Anyone who is still an official Communist, has to be pretty close to a raving loon

There are still plenty of official Communist parties in the world. You may dismiss them as raving loons; I could equally dismiss most right-wing capitalists as raving loons, but it doesn't make them disappear.

But, onto more serious political matters:

Last orders for Nigel Farage? Pub Landlord takes on Ukip (Guardian)

Comedian Al Murray to stand against Ukip leader in South Thanet representing the Free United Kingdom party, aka FUKP.

>79 John5918:

Firstly, you did dismiss a group as raving loons (UKIP), so you can hardly complain when the shoe is put on the other foot.

And continuing to support an utterly failed ideology, long after history has shown it brings only poverty, oppression and death, is to forfeit intellectual respectability. Now, that is not to say one must be a right-wing capitalist, and there are plenty of reasonable left wing alternatives. Even some which might be considered the spiritual heirs of communism.

But the alternatives presented must at least have the benefit of not having failed every time it has been tried in practice.

At least with arguing about the benefits of EU membership it is possible to produce a respectable argument, as it was for the Scottish Nationalists regarding UK membership, even if in reality the motivations may have more to do with racism and xenophobia. But dyed in the wool Communists? Raving loons.

>80 hf22: Well, I'd vote for Screaming Lord Sutch except he topped himself a few years ago. But Al Murray is a pretty good comedian.

I think this is how many of us outside the USA see US politics. You have no true centre or left-of-centre parties, or at least none that garner significant electoral support.

It's all about framing and context. From a US context, much politics elsewhere is mushy statism, with no right to speak of. What you guys call the "right" is mostly just bigots—in France even the "far right" Nationalist Front is in favor of state control of much the economy. From other perspectives—the Soviet Union in 1930 or 19th century laissez-faire Europe, for example—things would appear similarly skewed.

In other words, "you don't conform to my categories" is not really a useful way to think about the world. We have right, left and center in the US, just as they had them in Revolutionary France, or have them in Denmark today. It's not surprising the American, Revolutionary-French and Danish "center" believe different things.

And continuing to support an utterly failed ideology, long after history has shown it brings only poverty, oppression and death, is to forfeit intellectual respectability.

I'll Godwin this by noting that's only on the right. Nobody gives a Nazi the time of day. A contemporary Communist gets a pass by many on the left. Cuba isn't even really Communist anymore, but some sort of lingering affection for old-style leftism, and hatred of the USA, prompts even democratic, "centrist" Europeans, to treat Cuba—the only remaining single-party state or dictatorship in the Western Hemisphere—as some sort of positive role-model!

>82 timspalding: "you don't conform to my categories"

So what you're basically saying is that there's no way at all of talking about global politics? Of course each country has its own "left, right and centre", but surely it is still useful to be able to look at politics globally? In that regard most European countries, while they do have right-wing parties comparable to and sometimes more extreme than your US right-wingers, nevertheless have significant left-of-centre parties which the USA does not.

Cuba—the only remaining single-party state or dictatorship in the Western Hemisphere

So let's treat it as a single-party state dictatorship and not as a definition of what every communist party in the world can or should be.

I'm not sure why you (and I think hf22) continue to equate European (and I presume South African, Sudanese and other) communist parties with the defunct Soviet dictatorship, as if that were the only brand of communism and as if those of us who are left-of-centre have not noticed that it no longer exists. I'm not convinced that communism per se has failed and capitalism has succeeded. Rather, a particular distortion of communism has collapsed, and the current brand of free-market capitalism is actually not looking too healthy in the medium- to long-term future. When that collapses as well I wonder what the new synthesis will be?

But we're off topic yet again...

In that regard most European countries, while they do have right-wing parties comparable to and sometimes more extreme than your US right-wingers

No, you don't have a right wing. You have bigots. The anti-immigrant parties of Europe have essentially the same opinion about state spending and economic structure as everyone else. They don't oppose the welfare state; they just don't want the dark-skinned people to get any of it.

a particular distortion of communism has collapsed

I would regard the communists of Lenin's Russia, Stalinist Russia, Brezhnev and post-Brezhnev Russia, Maoist China, China under the Cultural Revolution, the Khmer Rouge, North Korea, Cuba, Albania under Hoxha, Romania under Ceausescu, The Shining Path, the Naxalites, and on and on as representing quite a number of different models. They represent a wide diversity of economic structures, social contexts, political organizations and so forth.

Their legacy is one of political repression, political murder, a number of genocides as savage as the Nazi's, control of every basic human right--from speech to religion--control of the most basic facts of human life--from where you work to whether you can have children--and repeated economic and social failure.

What remains is, we must all agree, admirable.

Yes.

>83 John5918:

I'm not sure why you (and I think hf22) continue to equate European (and II presume South African, Sudanese and other) communist parties with the defunct Soviet dictatorship

I am not. I went to University, and we had the obligatory umpteen hundred different communist parties straight out of Monty Python, all with slightly different takes on the ideology.

I'm not convinced that communism per se has failed

Then you are ignoring facts again. Communism per se, Marxism, has been tried in many places by many people. Not just in Russia. And it failed. Everywhere. Every time. With every variation attempted.

If after that many attempts, you try a no true scotsman, it is time to realize whatever you considered to be true Communism is pointlessly impractical and impossible to implement in any real context.

capitalism has succeeded.

Firstly, democracy and capitalism. Secondly, that is a different question. Capitalism has proven to be better than Communism. That does not mean it has succeed long term, just that it is better than Communism.

Rather, a particular distortion of communism has collapsed

No true scotsman - See above.

current brand of free-market capitalism is actually not looking too healthy in the medium- to long-term future.

Again, different question. Capitalism has proven to be better than Communism. Not better than any other possible future alternatives.

When that collapses as well I wonder what the new synthesis will be?

Not a old, stale proven failure like Communism. Something different, with some chance of actually being an improvement.

> 84

'No, you don't have a right wing. You have bigots. The anti-immigrant parties of Europe have essentially the same opinion about state spending and economic structure as everyone else. They don't oppose the welfare state; they just don't want the dark-skinned people to get any of it.'

First, this is this: "you don't conform to my categories"
Second, Europe is far more complicated than you make out. The 'welfare state' is in many places that are a living disaster for outsiders such as the Algerians in France equated with civilization at its most basic. At the same time, privatisation cuts across all but left parties. Currently in Slovenia there is a terrific--for mild Slovenia--hubbub over privatising industry (not that much of it has not already been privatised) and it appears that finally Slovenes may say no to Brussels, this after years of failing to realise the benefits of austerity economics.

>86 hf22: I agree with Johnthefireman a great deal more than I do with you. It is obvious that Stalinism was tsarism and Marx would have abhorred the result. The two most tragic cases I have borne much witness to are Nicaragua and Cuba, both states that never became anything we can dissect, for they were reacting to an economic giant that had ravaged them and were then opposed from their revolutionary inception by this same unbeatable giant.

Sure, Europeans love Cuba. They know the history and appreciate the difference between a country that sends doctors to fight Ebola rather than a military contingent. This is hardly to say that Cuba has not committed crimes against its people that are not committed officially in the US--being gay in Cuba has been quite difficult under Castro--but these crimes pale against those committed by the US outside its borders. But then, the US is no more capitalist than Russia was communist.

eta: revolutionary

First, this is this: "you don't conform to my categories"

No, I agree. I'm only insisting because he's insisting. I would not hesitate to use the term in a European context.

it appears that finally Slovenes may say no to Brussels, this after years of failing to realise the benefits of austerity economics

Yeah, you guys should definitely stop that "austerity." Spend more, more! Your children can pay for it!

35: Uh-huh. Give an actual example of the silly edited version of the cartoon you posted actually happening.

>84 timspalding: >86 hf22: It's not a "no true Scotsman" argument to recognise, for example, the South African and Sudanese Communist parties, both of which have a fine record of struggling against oppressive regimes. A number of European countries (not former eastern bloc countries) have Communist parties which have played a respectable role in civic life, usually more at a local rather than a national political level. You may disagree with them (just as I disagree with the right-wing capitalist parties) but one can hardly deny their role and I don't believe they have all collapsed. Not every Communist party is dictatorial nor can be linked to any atrocities. And as Pope Francis noted recently, if he were to read from some of the early Church Fathers it might well be mistaken for Marxism.

China is an interesting case. Are you suggesting it has collapsed?

Cuba seems to be a particular bug-bear amongst right-wing people in the USA (and apparently Australia too). Like a number of other Latin American countries which had communist-styled regimes, they usually came about as a result of overthrowing even more brutal right-wing dictatorships. They were dysfunctional countries to start with, and the new regimes had little chance of overcoming that dysfunctionality, especially with the USA undermining their efforts at every turn. Nevertheless, Cuba has made remarkable strides in some areas, such as health and education, and as Rick says, for its size it has a very good record in assistance to and solidarity with developing countries.

No, you don't have a right wing. You have bigots

I think that's rather a sweeping dismissal of the European right-wing. I have no truck with them, but I would hardly accuse all right-wing political parties of being bigots. Certainly there are bigots (UKIP and the various neo-Nazi groups are obvious examples), but I wouldn't say that the old-style "noblesse oblige" British Conservatives are bigots. Likewise a number of other European conservative parties.

>89 timspalding: It's a far more complicated issue than you can understand from one table. First and foremost Slovenia's depression began with external events, particularly a result of it being one of the Euro countries. More importantly, you probably have no idea what life is like under severe austerity measures. You mention children. Well, their education is one of the first things that suffers. Classes grow, teachers are fired. Small businesses close as patrons have less to spend if anything. Factories combine so that, for one instance, a fish canning factory in Izola, over 100 years old in one form or another, that employed hundreds of local people has moved to a shared facility about an hour's drive away.
Both my wife and I are paid by the municipality, but currently the municipality is broke. I haven't been paid for November yet. My wife cannot get paid until a budget is passed, meaning under the best of conditions in March. My son's classes are bigger and the options fewer. Many former university colleagues face possible dismissal as the state is considering downgrading their facility from a university to a technical school.

Here is a quote about the Slovene economy from a general source (https://www.google.si/search?q=slovenia+gdp&oq=slovenia+gdp&aqs=chrome..69i57.6402j0j8&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8):

'Gross domestic product growth fell to 3.5% in 2008 after experiencing a growth rate of about 6.1% the prior year. Due to the recession in Slovenia’s export markets, GDP fell by about 8% in 2009. Services contributed the most to the national output in 2009, accounting for 61% of GDP. Industry and construction comprised 37% of GDP, and agriculture, forestry, and fishing accounted for 2% of GDP. While the service sector is the largest part of the economy as a percentage of GDP, manufacturing accounts for most employment, with machinery and other manufactured products comprising the major exports.'

Unremarked are several factors that have come into play since Slovenia became independent, and more since joining the EU and NATO. Foreign concerns have bought up banks, Slovenia's main maritime operations, and are competing in insurance. Innumerable retail chains have invaded. The countries involved are particularly those that pushed prematurely for Slovenia and Croatia to declare independence against the advice of a few foreign ministers who could foresee the resultant slaughter. Slovenia is now virtually a colony of the largest EU countries, particularly Germany, a country which underpays the new gastarbeiters. A few people are making a great deal off privatisation--we have great highways and terrible rail service--while most are finding their jobs either cut, or their pay lowered. Construction workers are disproportionately migrants from southern ex-Jugo countries that are underpaid. The service sector number is an indication of some success as a tourist destination and much walmartisation.

>91 John5918:

both of which have a fine record of struggling against oppressive regimes

Struggling against oppressive regimes, in order to implement your own oppressive regime, is not much to crow about.

You may disagree with them (just as I disagree with the right-wing capitalist parties) but one can hardly deny their role and I don't believe they have all collapsed.

No one has said they don't exist. Just that, in terms of actually governing, they have always only lead to human suffering and poverty. Which for a purely material based ideology, is a pretty comprehensive failure.

Not every Communist party is dictatorial nor can be linked to any atrocities.

Not every Communist party has had the access to power required to implement their ideas.

And as Pope Francis noted recently, if he were to read from some of the early Church Fathers it might well be mistaken for Marxism.

Or socialism, social democracy or communitarianism. What is reasonable about Communism is not unique to it, and does not defend continued support for the ideology.

China is an interesting case. Are you suggesting it has collapsed?

China is more capitalist than most places in the world these days, and has the issues to match, like rising income inequality.

I am not sure what China would be classified as these days, but Communism is not it.

Perhaps a mature fascist state? Chinese authoritarianism? Not sure.

They were dysfunctional countries to start with, and the new regimes had little chance of overcoming that dysfunctionality, especially with the USA undermining their efforts at every turn.

And democratic governments had the USSR undermining their efforts. And Cuba had pretty large levels of assistance and aid from the USSR. So what? It does not excuse their relative poor performance. And this again ignores that regimes like Cuba were, by design, oppressive and violent. These were not bugs, these were explicitly endorsed and applied as part of the ideology.

old-style "noblesse oblige" British Conservatives are bigots.

You can't call them US style economic right wingers either. The closest in the UK would be Thatcherites, but that is hardly a significant force these days.

>93 hf22: I am not sure what China would be classified as these days, but Communism is not it.

Aren't you ashamed to say that since you introduced the no true scotsman meme in the first place.

>94 jjwilson61:

I think it can be fairly distinguished, in that China is explicitly not trying to implement Communist ideology, whereas the other examples that for instance Tim provided were.

As represented by Deng Xiaoping saying, "It doesn't matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice", China has abandoned Communism as a governing ideology.

What it has is not real nice either mine you, but neither its strengths or flaws have much relationship to Communism. Like I said, in some senses, it is now more capitalistic then say some social democracies.

>92 RickHarsch:

I'm sure it is. But as the chart demonstrates, you have a mushrooming debt despite being under what you consider austerity. If having your debt go from 54 to 71% of GDP in year is austerity, and you want government spending and therefore debt increased significantly, you'll find yourself in Greek territory before long. You have some time, largely because your initial level was low compared to many other European countries. Italy had a 1.2/1 ratio before the economy went south! I hope you can manage to grow economically. But the danger is there and can't be ignored, and, while things are bad now, they can get worse. Good luck. Seriously.

China is an interesting case. Are you suggesting it has collapsed?

By no means, it stopped being Communist long ago. It's just an authoritarian regime now.

They were dysfunctional countries to start with, and the new regimes had little chance of overcoming that dysfunctionality

Meh. Cuba had a nasty, dictatorial government, but it was far from a basket case. Much is made of Cuban health care. They have the lowest regional pre-5 mortality rate, for example. But they had the lowest rate in 1960 too. It's no miracle to have the lowest and stay the lowest. Literacy? Oh, Cuba did so well Wikipedia even has a page on Cuban Literacy campaigns, bemoaning how terrible rural literacy was. Except not. In a regional context Cuba had the third-lowest literacy after Uruguay and Argentine in 1950. The Communists made it fall, but it fell everywhere else too. Again, Cuba did fine on various "human" metrics—leaving out human things like religious freedom—but it was among the most advanced countries of the region to begin with.

And at the end of the day, the Cuba has a lot of problems. The embargo made some worse. But hardly all. Cuba today is almost the only country in the world where regular people can't have access to the internet. That's not because of America; Iran's under much worse sanctions and its people are online all day. No, it's because their dictators don't want them to have access to free speech, information and debate.

Let's hear from the Cubans? Well, there's a reason there aren't any Cubans on LibraryThing telling it like it is. They're not allowed. It ought to be give those of you who are here to praise Cuba some pause.

I think that's rather a sweeping dismissal of the European right-wing.

Well, terms again. I don't think of the Conservatives as being the European right. They're center-right. The right wing in Britain—among the most moderate countries in Europe—is UKIP, which is nationalist and bigoted in an understated, British way. (Wikipedia, by the, way uses exactly the same distinction of right and center-right in their articles on them. These are conventional disctinctions.)

Aren't you ashamed to say that since you introduced the no true scotsman meme in the first place.

That's absurd. China has definitely transitioned from a Communist economy. It's not for nothing that, in 20,000 words, the Wikipedia article on the Economy of China doesn't mention Communism once (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_China) and the only use of "socialist" is to indicate a period that is over.

>95 hf22: I think it can be fairly distinguished, in that China is explicitly not trying to implement Communist ideology, whereas the other examples that for instance Tim provided were.

I think Chinese leaders would vehemently disagree with you. Alternatively I think a good case could be made that Stalin just cared about his own power and didn't give a hoot about Communism.

>96 timspalding: Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal)12 is a socioeconomic system structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money,34 and the state; as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims to establish this social order.

I agree. But I don't see that Stalinist Russia was that Communistic either. Did the common people really own the means of production or was it owned by a ruling class? It was more of an oligarchic dictatorship with a command economy.

Has there really ever been a true communist state? Is such a state really possible given the constraints of human nature?

>97 jjwilson61:

I think Chinese leaders would vehemently disagree with you.

You will find, if one speaks to Chinese Government officials, that they don't. They have a very clear eyed understanding that the Chinese state was once an attempt at some form of Communism, but now it is not.

Alternatively I think a good case could be made that Stalin just cared about his own power and didn't give a hoot about Communism.

Perhaps, but he did not implement a capitalist system, he implemented a Communist inspired one. The same can not be said about modern China, though it can about China earlier in the 20th Century.

Has there really ever been a true communist state? Is such a state really possible given the constraints of human nature?

That was precisely my point at >86 hf22:. Given so many attempts at a Communist State have been tried, not just the well known ones, if you can't find a realised version of a "true communist state" then it can't reasonably exist.

then it can't reasonably exist.

Nor can it morally exist. For a state that owns and controls the economy, or at least all its key components, is an imposition on human freedom in itself and a blank check for tyranny and exploitation by those who control the state. From Marx on down, it has advocated the destruction of previous order as a tool of revolution, and the centralization and magnification of central power and the imposition of a dictator. We are happy to be rid or it, and can only mourn the tens of millions it killed and billions it stunted.

>100 timspalding: . For a state that owns and controls the economy, or at least all its key components, is an imposition on human freedom in itself and a blank check for tyranny and exploitation by those who control the state.

The laissez-faire capitalist edition:

For an economy that owns and controls the state, or at least all its key components, is an imposition on human freedom in itself and a blank check for tyranny and exploitation by those who control the economy.

Thanks to others for wading in. Just a couple of comments to our right wing posters:

Communism is broader than you appear to recognise. Communism also develops, just as any political ideology or party does. China is communist whether you like it or not, but it is obviously a different communism than Marx posited, or than was practiced in any number of other communist countries, or indeed was practiced in China 70 years ago.

Stalin and a number of other well know communist leaders were dictators. In practice they were closer to fascist dictators and Islamic dictators and any other dictators (including some absolute monarchies and emperors) than to ideological communism. Now I'm not positing the "no true Scotsman"; they can indeed be labelled as communists. But it is wrong to assume that the only reason other communist parties (such as in South Africa or Sudan) are not dictatorial is because they never got into power. Don't assume that all communist parties are the same as the Soviet model.

As I've said often before, I don't vote communist. I prefer the mixed economy which was found in Britain and a number of other European countries before the right-wards swing around the time of Thatcher. But I'm far along the socialist end of that spectrum.

Charlie Hebdo attack: African newspapers apologise over cover (BBC)

>102 John5918:

Communism is broader than you appear to recognise.

I have already explicitly acknowledged the extent of ideological disagreement within Communism.

Communism also develops, just as any political ideology or party does.

You keep the name, you keep the baggage.

China is communist whether you like it or not, but it is obviously a different Communism than Marx posited, or than was practiced in any number of other communist countries, or indeed was practiced in China 70 years ago.

That would be news to those in charge in China. As already pointed out, the Chinese Government has knowing and explicitly abandoned Communism as a governing ideology. It was not working, so they dumped it, and now they are a great power. Nationalism is the closest thing they have to an ideology now.

This has been one of the great stories of modern history, and very well covered.

But it is wrong to assume that the only reason other communist parties (such as in South Africa or Sudan) are not dictatorial is because they never got into power.

Any evidence they have a deep and abiding commitment to democracy? In South Africa, the ANC's commitment to democracy often looks more tenuous than one might wish, so I can well imagine their communist party hedging.

As I've said often before, I don't vote communist. I prefer the mixed economy which was found in Britain and a number of other European countries before the right-wards swing around the time of Thatcher. But I'm far along the socialist end of that spectrum.

And yet, you clearly have an ideological sympathy for Communism, which is clouding your better judgement. Not re-evaluating ones political views with reference to historical evidence as it has come in over the last 30 years might have something to do with it.

Everyone else has learnt a lot over that period, and most people have recognised the errors of their earlier support for ideas like Communism.

For an economy that owns and controls the state, or at least all its key components, is an imposition on human freedom in itself and a blank check for tyranny and exploitation by those who control the economy.

Well, of course, there's a key difference. Laissez-faire is not actually an ideology about the structure of the state--unlike Marxism, which explicitly is. It really has nothing to say about the state, except that it have a working justice system and that it not attempt to regulate the economy.

In practice, however, does a strong separation between government and the economy create tyranny? I'd like to see a good example of that. It seems to me that capitalist power over the state is almost always crony capitalist in nature--the capitalists giving themselves special treatment and concessions by the state. The better the state resists that the more laissez faire it is.

The trick is, of course, how to keep money from worming its way into control. Against that you really have two defenses--a robust government structure that resists the sway of monied interests, or a government plan to prevent monied interests from developing. It seems to me the latter almost always fails. The former can also fail. Life is imperfect.

China is communist whether you like it or not,

It's not whether we like it or not, it's whether the term has any meaning or not. Anyway, this is a stupid argument. You can find the 1,000 articles flatly denying what you say. Nobody who studies the issue thinks "Communism" is an apt description of the Chinese system, the Chinese state having systematically dismantled all those elements that distinguish "Communism" from authoritarianism.

This has been one of the great stories of modern history, and very well covered.

Exactly. "China is communist" is up there in the annals of not-getting-the-memo.

>100 timspalding: 'Nor can it morally exist. For a state that owns and controls the economy, or at least all its key components, is an imposition on human freedom in itself and a blank check for tyranny and exploitation by those who control the state.'

In an oligarchy like the US human freedom is likewise limited, and the system thrives on the exploitation, and tyranny over, foreign countries--this an extenstion of the frontier required for that illusory growth the system is based on.

The main point for me is approximation of egalitarianism and simple fairness. There is nothing inherently wrong with the proposition, for instance, that workers own the means of production, but I believe people have been brainwashed into thinking that CEOs are a different breed of cat, of a different order than workers. And 'from each according to his abilities...' has been dismissed as fantasy, despite it's obvious Christian foundation.

>105 timspalding: Laissez faire is a means most certainly an ideology, a 'self'-serving one at that.

>106 RickHarsch:

In Australia at least, we are a shareholding democracy. In a very real way, via things like their pension funds, the workers do own the means of production. Capital and labour are in fact, to a large extent, the same people.

But people do insist on trying to solve yesterday issues, and forget todays, which are more to do with things like those locked out of the labour and capital markets due to various disadvantages.

Also, I believe, Australia responded to the 2008 crisis with an energetic Keynesian economic approach and the country thrived. If I am wrong, please tell me. If I am right, please send a list of measures that might work in Slovenia.

Another statistic to consider is how much your CEO's make versus your workers. Ratios like 10 to 1 are obscene, but common. In England last I checked it was higher than in most European nations, something like 25 to 1. In the US it is astronomical, 150 to 1?

>109 RickHarsch:

Also, I believe, Australia responded to the 2008 crisis with an energetic Keynesian economic approach and the country thrived. If I am wrong, please tell me. If I am right, please send a list of measures that might work in Slovenia.

Australia had basically no net debt before the GFC (i.e. a debt to GDP ratio of under 10%, and even that ignores net financial investment assets held by the State, as the debt was retained basically to keep the bond market open), so it had some more room to move than others, and its response was still relative moderate (a current debt to GDP ratio of something like 20%). There is also much current focus on getting that debt ratio reduced, before the next crisis, so we again have such room to move.

Also, the GFC did not really impact on the underlying driver of the Australian economy, being Chinese demand for resources etc.

Another statistic to consider is how much your CEO's make versus your workers.

About 100 to 1 I think. CEO pay is a market failure - An agency failure. There needs to be a better mechanism for shareholders to hold boards and CEO's to account, in the ways they spend shareholder money.

We have tried a few things here, like requiring regular shareholder votes on senior managers pay, but they are yet to have an impact. Still looking for a solution to that one.

>105 timspalding: In practice, however, does a strong separation between government and the economy create tyranny?

We'd have to see it in practice to answer.

a robust government structure that resists the sway of monied interests, or a government plan to prevent monied interests from developing.

Given that the state needs money to function, neither of these seem at all feasible.

The better the state resists that the more laissez faire it is.

Unfortunately, the goals of a capitalist economy and the goals of a government are not necessarily compatible. So laissez-faire capitalism is inevitably at the cost of good governance.

We'd have to see it in practice to answer.

Right. I resist saying "true capitalism has never been tried" for that reason. I would, however, distinguish between communism and a commitment to the free market in saying that communism is a complete ideology, whereas not interfering with markets is a general principle about one part of life which is and has been compatible with many different political systems. It is ultimately to those systems that we should look.

Given that the state needs money to function, neither of these seem at all feasible.

Well, in American history, the power of the monied, and especially the corrupt power, has waxed and waned. I think we're at something of a high-point, but then we have a government that does not in fact treat all economic actors as equal, but rather gives larger ones special treatment.

As an example, LibraryThing paid almost 40% taxes last year—that's 40% corporate taxes, before I or the other investors paid taxes. Large corporations commonly pay less than 10% taxes, if they pay any. The difference is simple: Tax law is not fair, but rather written by large corporations.

>112 timspalding: Do you mean that you haven't opened an office in Ireland yet? What are you waiting for?

The communist ideology as propounded by K. Marx and F. Engels is a utopia ideology that proposed to explain the "true facts" of how human society/economics will "necessarily" evolve and what will then be the ultimate or"inevitable" evolutionary end of it all.

Feudalism is eventually to give way, evolutionarily, to capitalism, which is still exploitation of the many by the few but somewhat of an improvement over feudalism.

Capitalism is to give way eventually to socialism. It seems quite clear that "violence", i.e., violent revolution, may be a necessary part of this evolution.

Thus Socialist Man will come to be - one who is molded into an non-selfish person by government persuasion, as the people own all means of production together under the, let's say leadership, of the government, lead by intellectuals who really know the score, like Marx and Engels.

In time, perhaps hundreds of years, Communist Man (CM) will evolve from Socialist Man. CM will need governmental over-site because he will be the Perfect Man - who will care for others - all others - as he does himself. Thus government will melt away. Essentially CM will be the ultimate vision of the Perfect Anarchist - who acts automatically completely empathetically and all will live in peace and harmony, with no one exploiting anyone else, and all share equally, and thus hunger and want will disappear from the earth.

It's a vision of secular or earthy Heaven - brought about by humans.

Marx was quite a dreamer. A really fucktarded dreamer with a who gave intellectualism a bad name. IOW, he was an out-of-control egomaniac.

There were many idealistic intellectual types who bought into this bullshit and became "true believers", many especially in the U.S. and Britain in the 20's and 30's especially.

But ultimately, as pointed out by others on this thread, communism became merely a means to an end by psychopathic megalomaniacs like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and their many ilk. "True believers" were always first in line to be their victims. Trotsky with an ice pick in his brain comes to mind.

But of course tens if not hundreds of millions eventually became their victims.

So communism is a dirty word. Fer sure.

But any kind of utopian idealism can cause a lot of headache and heartache and eventually death and destruction of a whole lot of people. E.g., we can all be grateful that Ayn Rand's "Objectivism" bullshit did not catch on any more than it did. I can easily envision a sci-fi scenario wherein Rand's brand of BS is used to ravage the people of the earth similar to communism has in our real word.

The solution is to eschew utopian idealism - which, when it gets out of hand, always evolved fairly quickly into a dastardly dystopia.

A representative form of democracy, something similar to that of the U.S. or Great Britian, is a really shitty thing, granted - but at this stage of human evolution, it seems the best form of governmental organization of society that we have, or perhaps can have.

It's the "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." thing.

France begins jailing people for ironic comments
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/france-begins-jailing-people-ir...

Re "up above" -- Ray Burke was the bishop of La Crosse Wis and I once had dinner with him at my parish priest's house. I asked him about some controversial "visions" (back in the 1950s and there's an "unofficial" shrine) in the small town of Necedah Wis and he was reluctant to get into that except to say that officially it was considered "bogus."

I was thinking of entering the priesthood at the time and we talked about it and though Ray was "polite" he seemed a bit "cool." He never got back to me and when my priest asked me if he had and I said no, Father told me that was Ray's "style" -- avoiding what he didn't want rather than telling you outright.

Finally I received a letter from him asking to see me but I had by then "cooled" too, knowing his attitude, and I wrote him I had changed my mind. I then got back rather quickly a very "friendly" letter -- of "relief" I assume.

Ray closed some parish schools in the diocese and combined some parishes so though he was popular (as a diocese "boy from the farm country") when he was first appointed, folks pretty much were glad when he left -- for "higher" ground, i. e., St Louis where they ended up not especially thrilled with him either I understand.

I think he HAD to close and combine -- the congregations and support simply weren't there anymore -- but he also got up a local shrine to "Our Lady of Guadalupe" which struck people as unnecessary spending and a shrine to the Mexican patroness in Wisconsin?! Well maybe Ray WAS "ahead of the game" huh, considering how many Mexicans live EVERYWHERE in the USA now. (It isn't just for Arizona anymore!)

I thought Ray was sure "too conservative" but then the way it was put to me once was that "the priests {and bishops, most of them?} vote Republican" and the NUNS vote Democratic.

The Vatican finally "kicked" Ray upstairs -- he is after all a canon lawyer, meaning an expert in church law -- to the Vat "supreme court" and Ray I understand had spent a lot of time in the Vat anyway; he was there in some position when he initially became bishop. Most American priests who served in the Vatican didn't like it -- too coldly "sophisticated," too gossipy, to uh Borgia like medieval? But Ray "liked it" there I was told; he just had to go back to the states in order to have his "ticket" (to the top, i. e., the cardinal's red hat) "punched" as a bishop and an archbishop.

I never really "warmed" to Ray but then I liked the parish priests a lot better and also the nuns. And I MAY have some "problems with authority" I guess.

Francis is "my kind of pope, Francis is,/my kind of pope" -- "Frank"'s too probably if he were alive huh. But I think "they" (in the Vat) are all waiting for him to uh "be called by the Lord" hm. (No hard feelings -- they'll probably make him a saint too!...)

> 116 Thanks for the lowdown on Ray, Michael. I remembered some of it, but not all. I knew you were not enamored of the guy. It is odd, isn't it, that in religion we're stuck with the bureaucrats when we so much rather have a talk with Lady Guadalupe...

Ray was "okay" to me really -- I was told later that he only wanted uh "virgins" for the priesthood. (I was "close but no cigar"!)

The shrine I guess is doing well as far as I know -- folks like the cafe and it's attractive for a "visit" with THE "Virgin" who of course CAN'T be a priest! (It's all right however -- she "outranks" them anyway...)

close but no cigar

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. But perhaps not to Burke.

>119 timspalding: Or Clinton?

lol



("they already drew dicks everywhere")

"Papa (Freud) knows best"!...

It's got nothing to do with Freud, but as Tom Tomorrow notes, context is hard. It's about the Charlie Hebdo guys continuing their blaspheming in heaven. Of course, as everyone who thinks they deserved what they got knows, that's not where they ended up, so the joke's on god-knows-whom!

This is not to say that Freud would have had nothing to say about it all.

I'm surprised by the number of supposedly enlightened people who try to excuse Charlie Hebdo's blatant racism by arguing "context." Usually, when somebody tries to downplay the seriousness of a racist or sexist incident by appealing to "context," they're really just trying to perpetuate the white patriarchy.

>125 nathanielcampbell: I'm surprised by the number of supposedly enlightened people who try to excuse Charlie Hebdo's blatant racism by arguing "context."

Why is the word "context" in quotes?

Laura Miller discusses the issue of charges of racism and context in a recent Salon editorial:

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/11/is_charlie_hebdo_racist_or_have_critics_been_too...

It might suit Western leftists’ sensibilities if the only people allowed to mock or criticize Islam in our countries were other Muslims, but it simply isn’t true that rebels and innovators only learn to challenge orthodoxies from people just like themselves. Or from people just like us.

It’s hard for me to see how Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons might inspire meaningful questioning of religious authority, but then again I also can’t for the life of me understand what people see in the Beat poets. That doesn’t mean that crass satire and bad poetry can’t have profound and positive effects on human lives — in addition to being forms of expression that absolutely must be protected in a free society whether or not they do. Part of that freedom is, in turn, the right to criticize those expressions if they seem to perpetrate stereotypes and other forms of injustice. Racial stereotypes can be savagely pernicious. But a censure of racial stereotypes that tacitly insists that certain figures ought to remain exempt from parody is in its own way just as perilous.

I don’t know if it’s possible to make a caricature of Mohammed or of Islamist extremism that would be acceptable to those who condemn Charlie Hebdo as racist, although I’m fairly sure that both should be open to such ridicule.

>126 southernbooklady: I was thinking more of the cartoon of France's first black-female Justice Minister as a monkey. But there you go.

(And with reference to the following commentary on the issue, which I believe was first brought to notice somewhere in these LT threads: https://nplusonemag.com/online-only/online-only/equal-in-paris/ :

In the five years that I have lived in France, I have more than once been welcomed into well-furnished rooms where I have been left to silently puzzle over colonial detritus—Sambo-like dolls and figurines, thick-lipped, bug-eyed, disembodied brown porcelain heads—cavalierly displayed on illuminated shelves and marble tabletops. The first few times I saw these mementos I was jarred, though it is also possible for me to talk and laugh and drink in such spaces, because I am with friends, and I am comfortable in my status as an American who has made his home in Paris but is always free to leave. And yet, I would be lying if I denied that there is some small part of my consciousness still tender with ancestral ache, which cannot ever allow me to lose sight of these outlandish trophies and souvenirs. They seem to somehow comfort or amuse my hosts, reminding them of nothing at all or of some far less complicated and stressful past, and fit smartly in the décor alongside equestrian prints, layered “oriental” rugs, and grandfather’s antelope heads from Africa mounted on the wall.

To my mind, in addition to the French tradition of anti-authoritarian satiric wit, this is also very much a part of the context of our current crisis, whether we want to talk about it now or not: France has a violent, racist, and unexorcised past. There is no self-respecting way for me to identify with these objects that I sometimes see, just as there is no self-respecting way for me to hear the still-in-use French word for ghostwriter—nègre (literally an unacknowledged, unpaid laborer: a nigger)—without flinching; and there is no self-respecting way for me to gaze on that hideous Charlie Hebdo cartoon depicting France’s first black Justice Minister, Christiane Taubira, as a monkey.

Considering the incontestably great cultural monuments of the former colonial powers—whether Descartes or Chartres —Baldwin maintained that the Algerian blue-collar worker in Paris has no reason to genuflect before them (let alone before the infinitely lesser cultural achievements, such as satirical cartooning). Instead, Baldwin says, he has, “once these monuments intrude on {his} attention, no honorable access to them. . . . To bow down before that history is to accept that history’s arrogant and unjust judgment” of him.

>127 nathanielcampbell: Ah, well you didn't make your specific reference, uh, specifically, so I thought you were talking about Charlie Hebdoe's (and by extension, France's) attitude towards Muslims as racist.

But it's interesting you make a connection with the Baldwin essay (which I actually first posted), because one of the common denominators of Baldwin's view of racism is his focus on the dangers not of explicit racial stereotyping, but of the racism that is so inured, so taken for granted, it is unseen by white culture.* Those "Sambo-like dolls and figurines, thick-lipped, bug-eyed, disembodied brown porcelain heads—cavalierly displayed on illuminated shelves and marble tabletops." are invisible as anything but ornament by the people who display them. They have no true significance, no importance, they are...nostalgia--which in itself is a horror because the racism is so internalized it is not even recognized as the hatred it is.

I suspect Baldwin would see the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdoe as a different order of things altogether, because those images are meant to be seen, meant to be jarring, and meant to be talked about. They are meant to upset us. Whether or not he would still find them racist in the same sense, I don't know-- I have a feeling that even faced with a satirical black judge/monkey he would be aware of both the racism and the conversation it demanded about race-- he always seemed to see 8 levels of significance for every two that I am able to discern. He also, of course, had his own run-ins with Islam and he knew how tangled faith and identity and nationality can be from his own experiences with the Black Muslim/nationalist movement in America.

*For a great example of just how blind white people can be to the racism right in front of their own faces, you should read Baldwin's account of going to see the movie The Defiant Ones, first in a white theater with a mostly white audience, and later in a theater with a mostly black audience, and how differently those two groups saw the story.

>125 nathanielcampbell:

I'm not surprised at all that you are unafraid of demonstrating your complete crass ignorance of the subject. Before the massacre you had never heard of the paper; today you know ALL about it, satire, French culture, French Muslims, etc.

It's not just that you know so little, it's that everything about you, your background, makes you constitutionally incapable of getting a grasp on the facts. Culture clash at its most blatant. Frankly, it's easier--simply in the interest of saving time and energy, none of which ought to be wasted on you--to let you think of yourself as the not-racist (never mind Ferguson), not-sexist (YOU! never mind your views on extramarital sex, contraception and abortion), freedom-loving democrat (never mind your overt support for religious intrusion into politics).

In the five years that I have lived in France, I have more than once been welcomed into well-furnished rooms where I have been left to silently puzzle over colonial detritus—Sambo-like dolls and figurines, thick-lipped, bug-eyed, disembodied brown porcelain heads—cavalierly displayed on illuminated shelves and marble tabletops.

After France, perhaps this person could take a trip to the Caribbean and observe the Sambo-like dolls there, not just trinkets for racist tourists (all French no doubt), but the ornamental and functional imagery on clothes, decoration etc. Context. Cultural attitudes. They don't conform in simple, uniform patterns.

I have lived in North America long enough that I personally have adopted the North American distaste for such imagery, but I'm also sufficiently aware of my imperfect understanding of cultural nuance that I wouldn't mention that distaste to the PoC I saw in Kingston, Nassau, Cuba and Puerto Rico sporting T-shirts and jewellery with "bug-eyed big-lipped" black characters.

I wouldn't have bothered saying this much, but the irony of an American, residing in the South at that, trying to paint France as uber-racist, is too much to ignore completely.

You can fucking only WISH your biggest race problem were "Sambo-like dolls". No doubt you think the Warner Bros. solved it all for you by tacking onto classic cartoons the warning about prejudices of the times etc. etc.

Once someone is MURDERED for exercising his free speech then I cease entirely to focus on what was said, how rude, unpopular or disgusting it was, etc. - EVEN, e.g., if it were the filthiest speech imaginable and had been directed directly at ME and/or mine.

But that's me.

Apparently some of you have different "standards".

YOU would be the people who I have no interest in arguing with - YOU are not worthy opponents.

No need to name names. You know who you are.

Actually, it would be (or would have been) tactically smart, on the part of anyone who wants to combat radical Islam, to put grossly-offensive-to-Muslims cartoons on hold for a few decades. (Re. Burke to the British Parliament on the American colonists, "We have the right to make them unhappy, but have we not the interest to make them happy?")

We should want to see the emergence of non-radical Muslim leadership among Muslims, and their triumph over the ones who want to kill people. (Non-radical does not mean secular or liberal.)

This is going to be a matter of decades, if not generations, but time is on our side.

Of course, once it has become a point of honor to publish this sort of thing, we have to do it, or, rather, defend the people who do it. Too bad.

>131 Doug1943: "We have the right to make them unhappy, but have we not the interest to make them happy?"

Well said, that man.

If the King had listened to him, we'd probably still be part of England. (And they'd regret it.)

>132 John5918: We have the right to make them unhappy, but have we not the interest to make them happy?

If you value a pluralistic society, then these are not mutually exclusive.

>134 southernbooklady: No, of course they're not. But mocking the powerless and marginalised in a supposedly pluralistic society is hardly likely to bring mutual harmony.

^

"You people" really don't get it, do you? I mean, you really FUCKING don't, do you?

I.e., still focusing on speech as the proximal "cause" of the murder?

OK. Pure genius on your part. Fer sure.

And following your own "logic" I will suppose you all would agree with this statement:

"IF the hot chick had NOT worn provocative clothing THEN she would not have been raped. Ergo, in a real way, it is really HER fault."

This whole fucking thread sickens me. But it is good for me to be reminded, I suppose, of what kind of shit "thinking" is out there, all around me, day and night.

Christ on a Fucking Stick - in a jar of piss.

>135 John5918: But mocking the powerless and marginalised in a supposedly pluralistic society is hardly likely to bring mutual harmony.

Neither is telling people to shut up.

Oh, they're not powerless, and hardly marginalized. In fact, Islam in Europe, including its radical wing, has quite a lot of power of a certain sort, and it's growing. (For instance, there will be no more Charlie Hebdo's founded for a very long time in Europe, not to mention an Islamic version of Life of Brian. And Europe's Jews, or the more far-sighted among them, will now be considering to which country they want to emigrate. (( My advice: avoid Israel, if personal safety is your concern.)) )

But our salvation lies in the transformation of Islam into a modern religion (that is, one its adherents don't take seriously.) And a critical component of that is avoiding things that increase the authority of the radicals, among Muslims, and make the 'moderates' look like cowardly collaborators.

And so we have to restrain ourselves. As for openly mocking Islam, c'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre. And in we're in a guerre, and we're going to have to make some sacrifices as part of the fight.

An example from history: during the Second World War, the main enemy was Nazism. This necessarily meant allying with another repulsive totalitarian movement, Stalinism.

But ... they were on our side. And thus we saw the hilarious example of a right-wing Mississippi Congressman getting up in the House of Representatives and praising Stalin, noting that he had been trained for the priesthood, and as the Bible tells us, "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." I doubt he did it from a sober consideration of tactical necessities -- he was just expressing the spirit of the times.

Privately, of course, we shouldn't kid ourselves. It's a horrible religion, just the opposite of a 'religion of peace'. But needs must.

>138 Doug1943: Oh, they're not powerless, and hardly marginalized

With all due respect, Doug, that position is not very credible.

Well, John. Look at the very first cartoon that begins this thread. You see a Catholic Priest, a Jewish Rabbi, and a Muslim Imam, all ready to machine-gun or fire a rocket at people who are denying the existence of God.

But there is something wrong here.

Catholic Priests and Jewish Rabbis may well facilitate the machine-gunning of the enemies of their governments, or of their sides, in wars and civil wars, or even pull the triggers themselves. And long ago they were as awful as the radical Islamists today.

But there is only one religion where, today, you can be killed for denying its theological foundations. There is only one religion which prescribes death for apostasy, and enshrines this in law.

The fact that the cartoonist has to pretend to be criticizing all religion, is a direct proof of the power of one of them to shape our actions (and, probably, for the politically correct, our actual private thoughts).

So we're just going to have to get used to pulling in our horns, when it comes to criticizing Islam. We'll have to pretend to criticize all religions, not just the only one that actually murders its critics. (As I said before, I think it's tactically smart to do this anyway, regardless of the lethal results of not doing so, but that's not quite the same question.)

This has already begun to happen, and it's not restricted to Europe. Even in America, radical Islamist power has expressed itself:, US Cartoonist in Hiding , Yale Press Pulls Cartoons .

I'm using 'power' in this context as the ability to force someone else to do your will, which is just what we're seeing.

>140 Doug1943: Poking fun at Catholics in the west is OK now as we are no longer a powerless marginalised minority; it would have been different in Britain a hundred or so years ago, or in Northern Ireland much more recently. Poking fun at Jews is less easy to justify. Although in the Middle East they are now perceived as the rich and powerful aggressor, in Europe it seems anti-semitism is on the rise (and was on the rise led by the extreme right wing for some time before the current Islamic attack on a Jewish supermarket) and that will hardly be helped by anti-Semitic cartoons. It would be difficult to argue that Muslims in Europe in general, particularly the poor and unemployed, aren't still powerless and marginalised. Would it be OK in the USA to publish cartoons which ridicule black people, or are homophobic, or take the piss out of mentally disabled people? Well, maybe it's legal in the USA, but to my mind it's in very poor taste and it does nothing to promote harmony.

Hmmm... well, I think we have to distinguish between cartoons poking fun at whole groups as such ... for instance, cartoons which portray all the Irish as stupid ... versus cartoons which poke fun at the pronouncements, or behavior, of the people who lead such groups. Of course, there is an overlap.

So, I think cartoons which satirize, say, fundamentalist preachers who get caught in bed with hookers, or bishops who preach sexual morality but cover up child abuse by their priests, or rabbis who do the same ... I think that's fair game. And once you satirize the activities of leaders, you implicitly satirize the people who continue to follow them.

Certainly there are lots of cartoons which, for example, portray conservatives as dolts ... see the wickedly funny Tom Tomorrow cartoons, or watch some of the videos made by the late Bill Hicks. They don't promote harmony!

But this is because there is no harmony. Life is a struggle for existence, and this is true within society as much as it is in the natural world. Differing social groups have, or think they have, differing interests ... there's only one state, so we fight over what its policies should be.

The Jews and Catholics have adapted to the modern world ... they aren't going to kill you over theological differences. The Muslims are still in the process of transition. Our actions, including our cartoons, ought to take that into account.

There were these two Irishmen at a bar...And they told jokes non-stop for about three hours, starting with a very Irish one about the Irish, proceeding to tell about 33% jokes on the Irish. One of the top three hours of condensed laughter I have ever experienced.

Ireland used to be a pretty backward country ... Dublin had the worst slums in Europe, and the dead hand of the Church controlled everything. As a result, 'dumb Irishman' jokes had a certain reality to refer to, and the Irish were, or some of them were, pretty sensitive about it. Not so long ago some very Politically Correct branch of government in London designated the Irish as 'Black', for purposes of racial grievance-mongering. (I'd like to have seen the response to that in South Boston.)

All that has changed. It took just two generations for it to become pretty indistinguishable from the other nations of the British Isles, or even more advanced than they are.

So now the Irish can laugh about themselves, just as the Jews do. People get really touchy about mockery when they secretly think the mocking points to something that is true.

Which all goes to show: it's material conditions, not some unchangeable mysterious (or genetic) essence of a people, that determine these things. Base and superstructure, and all that.

In Ireland's case, this change was probably greatly enhanced by economic changes.

As the Wikipedia article describes it, "Ireland ranks among the wealthiest countries in the world in terms of GDP per capita. After joining the European Union's predecessor, called the European Economic Community, in 1973, Ireland enacted a series of liberal economic policies that resulted in rapid economic growth, coupled with a dramatic rise in inequality. The country achieved considerable prosperity from 1995 to 2007, during which it became known as the Celtic Tiger. This was halted by an unprecedented financial crisis that began in 2008, in conjunction with the concurrent global economic crash." (Note: things didn't go backwards after the crash. They're still modern, just broke.)

Which reminds me of a Jewish joke, set in Ireland ....

>142 Doug1943: Certainly there are lots of cartoons which, for example, portray conservatives as dolts

Conservatives are not a powerless and marginalised minority.

Satire is best used against the powerful, the establishment.

>143 RickHarsch: There were these two Irishmen at a bar...And they told jokes non-stop for about three hours, starting with a very Irish one about the Irish

Irishmen telling jokes about themselves, not, for example, the former colonial power telling jokes about them while they were still a powerless and marginalised minority on the British mainland and in under British emergency rule in Ulster. I understand many black people are comfortable using a certain n-word amongst themselves but still feel offended when it is used against them by whites. I know a lot of good Catholic jokes.

>145 John5918:

Conservatives are not a powerless and marginalised minority.

Why can't conservatives be a minority? By definition, we often do not connect with the majority spirit of the age (depending on the operative definition of conservative).

>146 hf22:> In some times and places no doubt they could be, although in most countries outside Greece voting figures do not suggest that they are currently much of a minority, and rarely are they a powerless and marginalised one.

>141 John5918: Would it be OK in the USA to publish cartoons which ridicule black people, or are homophobic, or take the piss out of mentally disabled people? Well, maybe it's legal in the USA, but to my mind it's in very poor taste and it does nothing to promote harmony.

There is a real and distinguishable difference between racist humor and satire. The first buys into racism, the second exposes it. Racist humor is unfunny. You can't suppress it, but society won't laugh at it either.

But as far as satire goes, if you can't laugh at yourself, is harmony even possible?

Not racist: Dave Chappelle explains what makes white people dance

>148 southernbooklady: There is a real and distinguishable difference between racist humor and satire

Well, yes, but the underdog community which sees itself as the butt of satire might not feel that way.

if you can't laugh at yourself, is harmony even possible?

I think that's a very interesting question, given that humour is so variable across different cultures.

On a number of occasions I've sat with people from the USA watching or listening to British humour and they have just not been able to see what was funny, while we Britons were wetting ourselves laughing. I also recall staying with a US family who were real Monty Python fans, had all the episodes on video (pre-DVD days, that!), and knew all the sketches and punchlines off by heart. When we sat and watched some of them together, we realised that they were laughing for completely different reasons than the Britons who understood the cultural context.

I've also found that most of the Africans I have come across tell jokes differently from the Britons and (I think) north Americans. When we tell a joke we stop at the punchline and everybody laughs. If you have to explain the punchline it's generally considered that the joke has fallen flat. But in Africa generally the joke is only finished when the punchline is explained, and it's then that people roar with laughter.

But going beyond jokes to laughing at oneself, western culture seems to accept self-depredation more than some other cultures where status and saving face play a greater role. I would say also that it's often easier for the dominant group to laugh at themselves than for the underdog, who is already being demeaned by others.

>149 John5918: I would say also that it's often easier for the dominant group to laugh at themselves than for the underdog, who is already being demeaned by others.

You have never been in a gay bar.

>150 SomeGuyInVirginia: Only once, by mistake!

Oh, me too.

There is a dominant culture in the US and it's WASP culture, it just hasn't been acceptable to acknowledge it since the reign of Bush I. Having a dominant culture is fundamental to a society; not that it's necessary to try and include one if you're making a society from scratch, it will simply coalesce. Radical shifts in culture are pretty rare- Christianity overtaking Rome and the Norman conquest are the biggies that I'm aware of. Doubtless there have been others I'm not aware of, places with too much sun and not enough mad dogs and Englishmen.

It's absurd and a waste of time to try and understand the context of someone's murderous rage at cartoons, in anything other than a clinical way. Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke. And as for being sorry for French Muslims who feel they are neither Algerian nor French, tell that to an Auschwitz survivor or the Navajo nation or any black person anywhere.

>152 SomeGuyInVirginia:

'And as for being sorry for French Muslims who feel they are neither Algerian nor French, tell that to an Auschwitz survivor or the Navajo nation or any black person anywhere.'

These French Muslims you refer to have a great deal in common with blacks in the US and many are descendents of slaughtered and survivors of massacres as are descendents of Auschwitz survivors and non-survivors.

Then that's the message they need to get out there. This psycho killer thing is getting them no where.

Anyway, have an example?

>152 SomeGuyInVirginia:
I'm not sure WASP culture is still dominant. After fighting a brave battle against immigration in the 1920s, the inevitable demographic tsunami made resistance futile in the long run. Certainly, it is still significant in parts of the Northeast. I think Louis Hartz remains correct (despite several major blindspots) that the dominant political culture tends to be liberal.

Regarding "Radical shifts in culture are pretty rare...": The 1960s seems to have brought on some radical shifts. At least those of the conservative bent think/thought so and continue to react against them.

> 154 'Then that's the message they need to get out there.' Who? Unemployed Algerian immigrants out in the suburbs? Moroccans?

Anyway, here is an article that if nothing else demonstrates the complexity of the issue: http://www.brookings.edu/press/books/chapter_1/integratingislam.pdf

>156 RickHarsch: Thanks, Rick. That's a very interesting chapter.

Things fall apart, political systems tend to grow more liberal unless consistently checked. Muslimah just want to have fun. Radical western islam is a self-correcting problem.

I still don't feel sympathy for muslims who live in the west and wage war against it. Fack theem. And yes, unemployed Algerians in the suburbs. It's not like they have anything else to do.

>155 theoria: Don't drink the kool-aide. What's more WASPy than the 1950s and 1960s; well after the immigration tides? Even if the Latinos become the largest ethnic group in the US, they'll still be putting mayonnaise on their enchiladas.

>158 LolaWalser: BWAHAHAHAHA!

> 159

You misspelled "feck". (Though "theem" is the correct A-rab spelling of "them".)