Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

America will have to kill liberty unless she kills sectarianism

The United States is becoming more violent because supreme liberty is incompatible with un-regulated sectarianism from within and without.

Published

on

354 Views

The west’s support of Salafist terrorist groups in Syria, Libya and beyond is well known. Few leaders the west even try to hide this fact, they simply give the terrorists somewhat anodyne English names whether it be something as specific as ‘Free Syrian Army’ or something more obtuse like ‘moderate rebels’, ‘democracy fighters’ etc.

We know from a variety of sources, including from the Syrian President that terrorists can, have and will continue to sneak into western states under the guise of being refugees.

But the third point in this proverbial Bermuda Triangle is little discussed. This is the west’s domestic social policies which fan the flames of terrorism on the home-front.

The American model of religious pluralism has been widely adopted throughout the wider west, a model which is distinct from the model used in early Islamic caliphates, modern Ba’athist republics, the Russian Federation or The Islamic Republic of Iran.

The United States Constitution introduced the idea of freedom of religion as a matter of individual liberty rather than one of a singular approved state religion or a list of state religions.

Indeed, early migration to the US, primarily from Britain and later from other parts of western and later central Europe, were often people drawn to a land of not only alleged economic opportunity but also the opportunity to view religion as a personal choice rather than a form of confessional patriotism.

In almost all these instances, those who sought the ‘American lifestyle’ were those from Christian sects that were not the official or otherwise majoritarian confession of their native land.

The other models mentioned differ in a single important way, in spite of their practical differences from each other. In the early Islamic Caliphates, in modern  Ba’athist societies, in the Russian Federation and in the Islamic Republic of Iran, religious pluralism was and is based on religious groups that are not derived from recent or even relatively recent waves of migration.

Russia, Iran and Syria, to use three contemporary examples are literally religiously plural societies in respect of the historic make-up of their present borders. As such, all three took the pragmatic decision to allow for each confession to have the right to worship freely as preferable to forced conversions or in the event of that failing, civil holy war.

America by contrast quickly adopted idealism as the justification for its religious pluralism and as such, it encouraged further migrations for mainly heterodox Christian sects.

In today’s America, this same attitude has been expanded to not only include non-Christian religious people seeking the religious liberty guaranteed by the Constitution, but also and more dangerously among violently Godless people seeking to use the US Constitution as a protector of heterodox lifestyles which many in the wider world and also in the US believe to be perverse and dangerous.

But what happens when America imports various perverts, radical Salafists and every other conceivable sectarian group form every culture in the world, all at the same time?

The tragic answer is that America is creating by design, something that in other countries exists at a much more manageable level due to historical default.

In Iran, the Shi’a Muslim majority lives in peace with the Christian minority, including many Armenian Christians. In Russia, Muslims (whether Sunni or Sufi) live in peace with the Orthodox Christian majority.

In Syria, Sunnis, Shi’as, Orthodox and Catholics live happily in areas that have not experienced a wave of migratory terrorists and mercenaries who were sent to Syria to molest the placidity of a pluralistic and secular Ba’athist society.

These ancient religions who all believe in the primacy of the same God have found a way to coexist and cooperate in peace in the aforementioned places and in some places beyond.

Even in mid-20th century India, the secular Congress Party was able to forge a society that was home to Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists and Jews. The fact that under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India has taken several big steps back in respect of the treatment of the large Muslim minority is unfortunate, but it is still a matter of dealing with India’s diverse history rather than a problem of a foreign element.

How does the united states expect radical Salafists to live next to radically politicised sexual perverts who in turn must live with a combination of Christian fundamentalists, moderate Christians, moderate atheists and others?

It simply cannot work and the increased political violence in the United States is a sign that it isn’t working.

America must choose from the following options: 

1. Does it want to be sectarian and authoritarian for the sake of peace and security?

2. Does it want to end sectarianism assuming it still can, for the sake of maintaining traditions of manageable liberty? 

Many in America who call themselves libertarians have discovered that liberty has its limits in a sectarian society. In a society comprised of similar sects, however imported they might be, liberty can just about function without causing violence.

But when a plethora of various groups preaching entirely different lifestyles which are underpinned by an entirely different ethos all live side by side, it is not difficult to imagine why things turn rapidly violent. Suddenly the letter of the law prohibiting violence becomes confronted with the inevitable violence which is unleashed by tense living situations.

Countries like Russia, Iran and Syria tolerated the main sects of Christianity and Islam but if they encouraged the fomenting of new made-up sects (primarily radical secular ones) as the US does, if they imported those with totally different beliefs and if they adopted the anything goes attitude of classical libertarianism, they too would be doomed. Syria, Iran and Russia are religiously pluralistic because clear boundaries are set against fringe sects from proliferating mainstream society, thus allowing society to accommodate historically established mainstream sects and groups.

If America is going to be a nation of Christian fundamentalists–so be it, but it means no importation of Salafists and no tolerance for perverse domestic groups. If America is going to be a sanctuary for perverts–so be it, but it means the end of America’s long Christian traditions and of course it would also mean no more Salafists.

The best option would be for America to compromise and end the importation of Salafist and like-minded immigrants, end the political support for contrived perverse domestic groups advocating for awkward lifestyles and also not allowing existing radical Christian, Jewish or Muslim groups to take centre stag in any way shape or form.

It is only within a framework of law and order that religious pluralism can function peacefully. America has lost the plot which is why many innocent Americans are losing their minds.

Liberty has its limits and extreme authoritarian has its dangers. The question as to whether America can still find a balance is very much up in the air.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

US media suffers panic attack after Mueller fails to deliver on much-anticipated Trump indictment

Internet mogul Kim Dotcom said it all: “Mueller – The name that ended all mainstream media credibility.”

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT


Important pundits and news networks have served up an impressive display of denials, evasions and on-air strokes after learning that Robert Mueller has ended his probe without issuing a single collusion-related indictment.

The Special Counsel delivered his final report to Attorney General William Barr for review on Friday, with the Justice Department confirming that there will be no further indictments related to the probe. The news dealt a devastating blow to the sensational prophesies of journalists, analysts and entire news networks, who for nearly two years reported ad nauseam that President Donald Trump and his inner circle were just days away from being carted off to prison for conspiring with the Kremlin to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

Showing true integrity, journalists and television anchors took to Twitter and the airwaves on Friday night to acknowledge that the media severely misreported Donald Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, as well as what Mueller’s probe was likely to find. They are, after all, true professionals.

“How could they let Trump off the hook?” an inconsolable Chris Matthews asked NBC reporter Ken Dilanian during a segment on CNN’s ‘Hardball’.

Dilanian tried to comfort the CNN host with some of his signature NBC punditry.

“My only conclusion is that the president transmitted to Mueller that he would take the Fifth. He would never talk to him and therefore, Mueller decided it wasn’t worth the subpoena fight,” he expertly mused.

Actually, there were several Serious Journalists who used their unsurpassed analytical abilities to conjure up a reason why Mueller didn’t throw the book at Trump, even though the president is clearly a Putin puppet.

“It’s certainly possible that Trump may emerge from this better than many anticipated. However! Consensus has been that Mueller would follow DOJ rules and not indict a sitting president. I.e. it’s also possible his report could be very bad for Trump, despite ‘no more indictments,'” concluded Mark Follman, national affairs editor at Mother Jones, who presumably, and very sadly, was not being facetious.

Revered news organs were quick to artfully modify their expectations regarding Mueller’s findings.

“What is collusion and why is Robert Mueller unlikely to mention it in his report on Trump and Russia?” a Newsweek headline asked following Friday’s tragic announcement.

Three months earlier, Newsweek had meticulously documented all the terrible “collusion” committed by Donald Trump and his inner circle.

But perhaps the most sobering reactions to the no-indictment news came from those who seemed completely unfazed by the fact that Mueller’s investigation, aimed at uncovering a criminal conspiracy between Trump and the Kremlin, ended without digging up a single case of “collusion.”

The denials, evasions and bizarre hot takes are made even more poignant by the fact that just days ago, there was still serious talk about Trump’s entire family being hauled off to prison.

“You can’t blame MSNBC viewers for being confused. They largely kept dissenters from their Trump/Russia spy tale off the air for 2 years. As recently as 2 weeks ago, they had @JohnBrennan strongly suggesting Mueller would indict Trump family members on collusion as his last act,” journalist Glenn Greenwald tweeted.

While the Mueller report has yet to be released to the public, the lack of indictments makes it clear that whatever was found, nothing came close to the vast criminal conspiracy alleged by virtually the entire American media establishment.

“You have been lied to for 2 years by the MSM. No Russian collusion by Trump or anyone else. Who lied? Head of the CIA, NSA,FBI,DOJ, every pundit every anchor. All lies,” wrote conservative activist Chuck Woolery.

Internet mogul Kim Dotcom was more blunt, but said it all: “Mueller – The name that ended all mainstream media credibility.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Canadian Lawmaker Accuses Trudeau Of Being A “Fake Feminist” (Video)

Rempel segued to Trudeau’s push to quash an investigation into allegations that he once groped a young journalist early in his political career

Published

on

Via Zerohedge

Canada’s feminist-in-chief Justin Trudeau wants to support and empower women…but his support stops at the point where said women start creating problems for his political agenda.

That was the criticism levied against the prime minister on Friday by a conservative lawmaker, who took the PM to task for “muzzling strong, principled women” during a debate in the House of Commons.

“He asked for strong women, and this is what they look like!” said conservative MP Michelle Rempel, referring to the former justice minister and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould, who has accused Trudeau and his cronies of pushing her out of the cabinet after she refused to grant a deferred prosecution agreement to a Quebec-based engineering firm.

She then accused Trudeau of being a “fake feminist”.

“That’s not what a feminist looks like…Every day that he refuses to allow the attorney general to testify and tell her story is another day he’s a fake feminist!”

Trudeau was so taken aback by Rempel’s tirade, that he apparently forgot which language he should respond in.

But Rempel wasn’t finished. She then segued to Trudeau’s push to quash an investigation into allegations that he once groped a young journalist early in his political career. This from a man who once objected to the continued use of the word “mankind” (suggesting we use “peoplekind” instead).

The conservative opposition then tried to summon Wilson-Raybould to appear before the Commons for another hearing (during her last appearance, she shared her account of how the PM and employees in the PM’s office and privy council barraged her with demands that she quash the government’s pursuit of SNC-Lavalin over charges that the firm bribed Libyan government officials). Wilson-Raybould left the Trudeau cabinet after she was abruptly moved to a different ministerial post – a move that was widely seen as a demotion.

Trudeau has acknowledged that he put in a good word on the firm’s behalf with Wilson-Raybould, but insists that he always maintained the final decision on the case was hers and hers alone.

Fortunately for Canadians who agree with Rempel, it’s very possible that Trudeau – who has so far resisted calls to resign – won’t be in power much longer, as the scandal has cost Trudeau’s liberals the lead in the polls for the October election.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Why Joe May be Courting Stacey

Joe Biden has a history on compulsory integration dating back to the 1970s that Sen. Jesse Helms called “enlightened.”

Patrick J. Buchanan

Published

on

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via The Unz Review:


Of 895 slots in the freshman class of Stuyvesant High in New York City, seven were offered this year to black students, down from 10 last year and 13 the year before.

In the freshman class of 803 at The Bronx High School of Science, 12 students are black, down from last year’s 25.

Of 303 students admitted to Staten Island Technical High School, one is African-American.

According to The New York Times, similar patterns of admission apply at the other five most elite high schools in the city.

Whites and Asians are 30 percent of middle school students, but 83 percent of the freshman at Bronx High School of Science, 88 percent at Staten Island Technical and 90 percent at Stuyvesant.

What do these numbers tell us?

They reveal the racial composition of the cohort of scientists and technicians who will lead America in the 21st century. And they tell us which races will not be well represented in that vanguard.

They identify a fault line that runs through the Democratic Party, separating leftists who believe in equality of results for all races and ethnic groups, and those who believe in a meritocracy.

Mayor Bill de Blasio has expressed anger and frustration at the under-representation of blacks and Hispanics in the elite schools. But Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the state legislature have ignored his pleas to change the way students are admitted.

Currently, the same test, of English and math, is given to middle school applicants. And admission to the elite eight is offered to those who get the highest scores.

Moreover, Asians, not whites, are predominant.

Though 15 percent of all middle school students, Asians make up two-thirds of the student body at Stuyvesant, with 80 times as many slots as their African-American classmates.

The egalitarian wing of the Democratic Party sees this as inherently unjust. And what gives this issue national import are these factors:

First, the recent scandal where rich parents paid huge bribes to criminal consultants to get their kids into elite colleges, by falsifying records of athletic achievement and cheating on Scholastic Aptitude Tests, has caused a wave of populist resentment.

Second, Harvard is being sued for systemic reverse racism, as black and Hispanic students are admitted with test scores hundreds of points below those that would disqualify Asians and whites.

Third, Joe Biden has a history on compulsory integration dating back to the 1970s that Sen. Jesse Helms called “enlightened.”

Here are Biden’s quotes, unearthed by The Washington Post, that reflect his beliefs about forced busing for racial balance in public schools:

“The new integration plans being offered are really just quota systems to assure a certain number of blacks, Chicanos, or whatever in each school. That, to me, is the most racist concept you can come up with.

“What it says is, ‘In order for your child with curly black hair, brown eyes, and dark skin to be able to learn anything, he needs to sit next to my blond-haired, blue-eyed son.’ That’s racist!

“Who the hell do we think we are, that the only way a black man or woman can learn is if they rub shoulders with my white child?

“I am philosophically opposed to quota systems. They insure mediocrity.”

That was 44 years ago. While those views were the thinking of many Democrats, and perhaps of most Americans, in the mid-’70s, they will be problematic in the 2020 primaries, where African-Americans could be decisive in the contests that follow Iowa and New Hampshire.

Biden knows that just as Bernie Sanders, another white male, fell short in crucial South Carolina because of a lack of support among black voters, he, too, has a problem with that most loyal element in the Democratic coalition.

In 1991, Biden failed to rise to the defense of Anita Hill when she charged future Justice Clarence Thomas with sexual harassment. In the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was a law-and-order champion responsible for tough anti-crime legislation that is now regarded as discriminatory.

And he has a record on busing for racial balance that made him a de facto ally of Louise Day Hicks of the Boston busing case fame.

How, with a record like this, does Biden inoculate himself against attacks by rival candidates, especially candidates of color, in his run for the nomination?

One way would be to signal to his party that he has grown, he has changed, and his 2020 running mate will be a person of color. Perhaps he’ll run with a woman of color such as Stacey Abrams, who narrowly lost the 2018 governor’s race in Georgia.

An ancillary benefit would be that Abrams on the ticket would help him carry Georgia, a state Donald Trump probably cannot lose and win re-election.

Wrote Axios this morning:

“Close advisers to former Vice President Joe Biden are debating the idea of packaging his presidential campaign announcement with a pledge to choose Stacey Abrams as his vice president.”


Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending