← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Walter Yannis
Thread ID: 19585 | Posts: 10 | Started: 2005-08-12
2005-08-12 04:43 | User Profile
Situational libertarianism Charles Krauthammer [URL=http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer081205.asp]Jewish World Review [/URL]
In 1977, when a bunch of neo-Nazis decided to march through Skokie, a suburb of Chicago heavily populated with Holocaust survivors, there was controversy as to whether they should be allowed. I thought they should. Why? Because neo-Nazis are utterly powerless.
Had they not been ââ¬â had they been a party on the rise, as in late-1920s Germany ââ¬â I would have been for not only banning the march, but for practically every measure of harassment and persecution from deportation to imprisonment. A tolerant society has an obligation to be tolerant. Except to those so intolerant that they themselves would abolish tolerance.
Call it situational libertarianism: Liberties should be as unlimited as possible ââ¬â unless and until there arises a real threat to the open society. Neo-Nazis are pathetic losers. Why curtail civil liberties to stop them? But when a real threat ââ¬â such as jihadism ââ¬â arises, a liberal democratic society must deploy every resource, including the repressive powers of the state, to deter and defeat those who would abolish liberal democracy.
Civil libertarians go crazy when you make this argument. Beware the slippery slope, they warn. You start with a snoop in a library, and you end up with Big Brother in your living room.
The problem with this argument is that it is refuted by American history. There is no slippery slope, only a shifting line between liberty and security that responds to existential threats.
During the Civil War, Lincoln went so far as to suspend habeas corpus. When the war ended, America returned to its previous openness. During World War II, Roosevelt interned an entire ethnic group. His policies were soon rescinded (later apologized for) and shortly afterward America embarked on a period of unprecedented expansion of civil rights. Similarly, the Vietnam-era abuses of presidential power were later exposed and undone by Congress.
Our history is clear. We have not slid inexorably toward police power. We have fluctuated between more and less openness depending on need and threat. And after the 9/11 mass murders, America awoke to the need for a limited and temporary shrinkage of civil liberties to prevent more such atrocities.
Britain is just now waking up, post-7/7. Well, at least its prime minister is. His dramatic announcement that Britain will curtail its pathological openness to those who would destroy it ââ¬â by outlawing the fostering of hatred and incitement of violence and expelling those engaged in such offenses ââ¬â was not universally welcomed.
His own wife had made a speech a week after the second London bombings loftily warning against restricting civil liberties. "It is all too easy to respond in a way that undermines commitment to our most deeply held values and convictions and cheapens our right to call ourselves a civilized nation,'' declared Cherie Blair. You need only read Tony Blair's 12-point program to appreciate how absurd was his wife's defense of Britain's pre-7/7 civil liberties status quo.
For example, point 3: "Anyone who has participated in terrorism, or has anything to do with it anywhere will be automatically refused asylum in our country.'' What sane country grants asylum to terrorists in the first place?
Point 5, my favorite, declared "unacceptable'' the remarkable fact that a man accused of the 1995 Paris metro bombing has successfully resisted extradition across the Channel for 10 years.
Blair's proposals are progress, albeit from a very low baseline ââ¬â so low a baseline that the mere announcement of his intent to crack down had immediate effect. Within three days, the notorious Sheikh Omar Bakri, a Syrian-born cleric who has been openly preaching jihad for 19 years, skipped the country and absconded to Beirut.
Not only had Bakri been allowed to run free the whole time, but he had collected more than 300,000 pounds in welfare, plus a 31,000-pound gift from the infidel taxpayers: a Ford Galaxy (because of a childhood leg injury).
It took 52 dead for at least the prime minister to adopt situational libertarianism. Or as Blair put it, "The rules of the game are changing,'' declaring his readiness, finally, to alter the status quo in the name of elementary self-defense.
Before departing Britain, Bakri complained that it would be unfair to have him deported from the country he reviled: "I have wives, children, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law. It would be hard on my family if I was deported.''
Wives, no less. Point 10 of Blair's plan would establish a commission to try to get immigrants to adopt more of the local mores.
2005-08-12 15:11 | User Profile
Krauthammer openly confirms with this analysis that what's good for jews must be, nay, [I]will be[/I], good for everyone else. If you don't like it or you sense a "slippery slope" of increasing governmental power, well then your just a "pathetic loser".
This guy's view is so warped it's pretty sad to think he has so much clout in the media.
2005-08-12 15:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Neo-Nazis are pathetic losers. Why curtail civil liberties to stop them? But when a real threat ââ¬â such as jihadism ââ¬â arises, a liberal democratic society must deploy every resource, including the repressive powers of the state, to deter and defeat those who would abolish liberal democracy.[/QUOTE] Why stop there, Chucky? Real threats? Let's include Zionism as well. That is also fanaticism.
2005-08-12 16:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Call it situational libertarianism: Liberties should be as unlimited as possible ââ¬â unless and until there arises a real threat to the open society......
Civil libertarians go crazy when you make this argument. Beware the slippery slope, they warn. You start with a snoop in a library, and you end up with Big Brother in your living room.[/QUOTE]I'd say this is typical of Zionists arguments for protecting their state. The "situational" part reminds me of Albert Einstein's "situational" pacifism. He had been a pacifist, until Nazi Germany came along, and as soon as they were defeated, he'd go back to being a pacifist again.
Amazingly people let them get away with this. They just ignore them of course. The answer "trust us". We'll determine what's a threat and what isn't.
There are of course some real dilemma's here and threats to democracy, but he just ignores them.
[QUOTE]In 1977, when a bunch of neo-Nazis decided to march through Skokie, a suburb of Chicago heavily populated with Holocaust survivors, there was controversy as to whether they should be allowed. I thought they should. Why? Because neo-Nazis are utterly powerless.
Had they not been ââ¬â had they been a party on the rise, as in late-1920s Germany ââ¬â I would have been for not only banning the march, [B]but for practically every measure of harassment and persecution from deportation to imprisonment.[/B] A tolerant society has an obligation to be tolerant. Except to those so intolerant that they themselves would abolish tolerance[/QUOTE]Is it just my imagination, or is he focusing a little strongly on Nationalists here? We all know who people like him view as the real threat. It isn't Muslims, and it this certainly applies directly to Nationalists. Right now, things do seem awfully pathetic, but wait until the next David Duke or Pat Buchanan election success comes along :ph34r:
2005-08-12 17:29 | User Profile
He's saying "Jews are for any speech so long as Jews don't feel that it threatens Jews." After all, they managed to hide their culture destruction message behind the First Amendment. Now that work's nearly complete, there's little reason not to come out and say now that it was all just a scam. They're really getting open about their intentions vis a vis whites now. It looks to me like it's going to get bad.
But I think that there might be a silver lining to this darkening cloud.
Remember that "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." That proverb is a pithy description of the way white people naturally think. We're all about promise keeping and reciprocity. It's hardwired in our brains in a way it really isn't with, say, blacks. If we make a deal - in business, religion or politics - then we feel that we have to keep the deal until the other guy's nonperformance frees us from our duties.
So, for whites, once the the principle of free speech is abandoned like Krauthammer does here, it's just a question of who has the authority to impose the limits. And ultimately whites will wake up and seize power and be in a position to impose those limits.
This will be good for us in the long run, just like I think hate crime laws will be, because it frees our hands in the coming fight in a moral sense.
As the state's attacks on our rights to free expression continue, it will become clear to whites that the social contract was breached by the other side, and that we need have no compunctions now about silencing our enemies such as the Jews, just as we need have no scruples about imposing severe penalties on black and hispanic criminals who target whites.
And I can hardly wait until the President issues a "torture warrant" on Dershowitz. Film at eleven!
I think it's entirely possible that we'll take these legal precedents and turn the tables on them.
2005-08-12 17:44 | User Profile
And don't forget Marty Peretz's "my pacificism stops at the deli door."
2005-08-12 20:07 | User Profile
According to Krauthammer, nations must "tolerate" becoming racial, and in the case of Europe, religious minorities in their own land. If this is "tolerance" then to hell with it, give me intolerance. And, of course, none of this altruism applies to Krauthammer's true country, Israel. :dung:
2005-08-12 23:20 | User Profile
This thoroughly nauseating essay is definitely a keeper, as it shows the true colors of Kikehammer and his ilk very clearly.
Kikehammer clearly doesn't believe in natural or God-given rights. He believes that a state should have absolute power -- as long as Jews are at the helm, of course -- and should dispense privileges as it sees fit, according to the security situation. That's in direct conflict to traditional American values, which hold that certain rights are inalienable.
Had they not been ââ¬â had they been a party on the rise, as in late-1920s Germany ââ¬â I would have been for not only banning the march, but for practically every measure of harassment and persecution from deportation to imprisonment.
...
But when a real threat ââ¬â such as jihadism ââ¬â arises, a liberal democratic society must deploy every resource, including the repressive powers of the state, to deter and defeat those who would abolish liberal democracy. And this is why the "conservative" Kikehammer is in favor of gun control -- though of course it isn't "liberal democracy" he's in favor of protecting with Draconian fascism. No -- he's in favor of protecting the interests of Jews. The same is true of all the other Jewish gun grabbers: Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, etc.
I'm Kikehammer's thinking reflects that of many others within ZOG. That's why it's so important to piss those people off by arming ourselves to the teeth. Rifles, handguns, tons of ammo, Class III and IV body armor, gas masks -- it won't be available forever. And if we political dissidents ever start making major progress in winning people over, the government WILL start harassing and persecuting us, just as Kikehammer said. When that happens, will all of us be ready to go underground and do what has to be done?
2005-08-15 20:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Commented on CK's "The Oppressive Powers of the State"[/QUOTE]Gee, sounds Socialist to me. Looks like old Chuck K is turning his back on republican forms of government (small r) and may not realize his Freudian slipped. :unsure:
2005-08-17 14:45 | User Profile
[B]For example, point 3: "Anyone who has participated in terrorism, or has anything to do with it anywhere will be automatically refused asylum in our country.'' What sane country grants asylum to terrorists in the first place?[/B]
I wholeheartedly agree with the pig-snouted jewcrip, but I'd take it to its logical extension: no prime minister of Izzyrael should ever be allowed to set a cloven hoof on our shores.
:caiphas: :dung: