RRD:The Obama administration has decided that the government now has as one of its roles--fighting the enemies of "Inclusiveness" i.e. Islamism.
Don't you love the way governments come up with these Orwellian terms?
This one reminds of the charge of being "Unmutual" ;from one of the episodes of The Prisoner.People who were Unmutual were....well it was never entirely clear what they were being accused of;which is what totalitarian societies always seek to promote.As Ayn Rand--who escaped from the Soviet Union--noted,it is a mistake:... ...." to suppose that a dictatorship rules a nation by means of strict, rigid laws which are obeyed and enforced with rigorous, military precision. ..... it is not the known that breaks men’s spirits, but the unpredictable. A dictatorship has to be capricious; it has to rule by means of the unexpected, the incomprehensible, the wantonly irrational...(fn1)
Dictatorships thrive on vague laws.Soft-tyrannies traffic in veiled threats.And in a world when you can suddenly find yourself the target of a "random" IRS audit,or be mysteriously denied a discretionary permit of some kind,the government already has many tools to intimidate its targets. Obama's Dubious Scheme to Fix Homegrown Terrorism - Karen Lugo - Townhall Conservative
http://townhall.com/columnists/karenlugo/2011/08/12/obamas_dubious_scheme_to_...
...."According to the White House, the government is also concerned about what it considers to be the enemies of inclusiveness. The indiciations that such phantom operators are present in the community include “actions and statements that cast suspicion toward entire communities, promot[ing] hatred and division, and send[ing] messages to certain Americans that they are somehow less American because of their faith or how they look.” These descriptors are the same ones used to cast as Islamophobic those who credibly confront the issues associated with sharia in American culture. Thus, the government is offering partnership with the multiculturalist and Islamist groups that already impose tremendous censorship on community efforts to defend American constitutional culture. The government just avoids using the recently minted “Islamophobia” label. This will certainly lead to government mediation of cultural debates -and Europe teaches us what happens when government
criminalizes speech on matters of public concern. Obama and the Feds will not have to look far for ready-made partners in this multi-culti cooperative. Conveniently, there are highly organized commissions already active in most communities that spout the same platitudes about inclusiveness and tolerance. These boards feel empowered by their quasi-government sponsorship to criticize any who engage in non-compliant speech. Those courageous enough to challenge political Islam or to expose dangerous radicals in the community are perversely subject to condemnation for creating an environment of “hate.” There is great reason to fear a government alliance with local speechminder commissions. This is exactly what squelched the public debate in Great Britain and led to sharia districts, 85 sharia courts and sharia-compliant schools. If America does not heed the British lesson, the potential for similar, separate sharia societies is predictable. Of course, it is within these enclav
es that
real intransigent radicalization and deep division take root. "....
RRD:Let me add some qualifiers.First it is not "censorship" for group A to accuse group B(unjustly)of "Islamophobia".It IS censorship to use force,and the government's political power to try to intimidate it's enemies.Also it is not clear that the Obama regime will seek to establish formal censorship boards.Not because they do not want to,they do.But they may understand that it is a bridge too far.Or not.We will see.In either case this is certainly something to keep a eye on. fn1
Dictatorship — Ayn Rand Lexicon
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/dictatorship.html It is a grave error to suppose that a dictatorship rules a nation by means of strict, rigid laws which are obeyed and enforced with rigorous, military precision. Such a rule would be evil, but almost bearable; men could endure the harshest edicts, provided these edicts were known, specific and stable; it is not the known that breaks men’s spirits, but the unpredictable. A dictatorship has to be capricious; it has to rule by means of the unexpected, the incomprehensible, the wantonly irrational; it has to deal not in death, but in sudden death; a state of chronic uncertainty is what men are psychologically unable to bear. “Antitrust: The Rule of Unreason,” The Objectivist Newsletter, Feb. 19
Don't you love the way governments come up with these Orwellian terms?
This one reminds of the charge of being "Unmutual" ;from one of the episodes of The Prisoner.People who were Unmutual were....well it was never entirely clear what they were being accused of;which is what totalitarian societies always seek to promote.As Ayn Rand--who escaped from the Soviet Union--noted,it is a mistake:... ...." to suppose that a dictatorship rules a nation by means of strict, rigid laws which are obeyed and enforced with rigorous, military precision. ..... it is not the known that breaks men’s spirits, but the unpredictable. A dictatorship has to be capricious; it has to rule by means of the unexpected, the incomprehensible, the wantonly irrational...(fn1)
Dictatorships thrive on vague laws.Soft-tyrannies traffic in veiled threats.And in a world when you can suddenly find yourself the target of a "random" IRS audit,or be mysteriously denied a discretionary permit of some kind,the government already has many tools to intimidate its targets. Obama's Dubious Scheme to Fix Homegrown Terrorism - Karen Lugo - Townhall Conservative
http://townhall.com/columnists/karenlugo/2011/08/12/obamas_dubious_scheme_to_...
...."According to the White House, the government is also concerned about what it considers to be the enemies of inclusiveness. The indiciations that such phantom operators are present in the community include “actions and statements that cast suspicion toward entire communities, promot[ing] hatred and division, and send[ing] messages to certain Americans that they are somehow less American because of their faith or how they look.” These descriptors are the same ones used to cast as Islamophobic those who credibly confront the issues associated with sharia in American culture. Thus, the government is offering partnership with the multiculturalist and Islamist groups that already impose tremendous censorship on community efforts to defend American constitutional culture. The government just avoids using the recently minted “Islamophobia” label. This will certainly lead to government mediation of cultural debates -and Europe teaches us what happens when government
criminalizes speech on matters of public concern. Obama and the Feds will not have to look far for ready-made partners in this multi-culti cooperative. Conveniently, there are highly organized commissions already active in most communities that spout the same platitudes about inclusiveness and tolerance. These boards feel empowered by their quasi-government sponsorship to criticize any who engage in non-compliant speech. Those courageous enough to challenge political Islam or to expose dangerous radicals in the community are perversely subject to condemnation for creating an environment of “hate.” There is great reason to fear a government alliance with local speechminder commissions. This is exactly what squelched the public debate in Great Britain and led to sharia districts, 85 sharia courts and sharia-compliant schools. If America does not heed the British lesson, the potential for similar, separate sharia societies is predictable. Of course, it is within these enclav
es that
real intransigent radicalization and deep division take root. "....
RRD:Let me add some qualifiers.First it is not "censorship" for group A to accuse group B(unjustly)of "Islamophobia".It IS censorship to use force,and the government's political power to try to intimidate it's enemies.Also it is not clear that the Obama regime will seek to establish formal censorship boards.Not because they do not want to,they do.But they may understand that it is a bridge too far.Or not.We will see.In either case this is certainly something to keep a eye on. fn1
Dictatorship — Ayn Rand Lexicon
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/dictatorship.html It is a grave error to suppose that a dictatorship rules a nation by means of strict, rigid laws which are obeyed and enforced with rigorous, military precision. Such a rule would be evil, but almost bearable; men could endure the harshest edicts, provided these edicts were known, specific and stable; it is not the known that breaks men’s spirits, but the unpredictable. A dictatorship has to be capricious; it has to rule by means of the unexpected, the incomprehensible, the wantonly irrational; it has to deal not in death, but in sudden death; a state of chronic uncertainty is what men are psychologically unable to bear. “Antitrust: The Rule of Unreason,” The Objectivist Newsletter, Feb. 19
No comments:
Post a Comment