The Ideological War Within the West (a long but good read)

[Tony]

http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2002_04-06/fonte_ideological/fonte_ideological.html

Nearly a year before the September 11 attacks, news stories provided a preview of the transnational politics of the future. In October 2000, in preparation for the UN Conference Against Racism, about fifty American nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) called on the UN "to hold the United States accountable for the intractable and persistent problem of discrimination."

The NGOs included Amnesty International-U. S.A. (AI-U. S.A.), Human Rights Watch (HRW), the Arab-American Institute, National Council of Churches, the NAACP, the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and others. Their spokesman stated that their demands "had been repeatedly raised with federal and state officials [in the U. S.] but to little effect. In frustration we now turn to the United Nations." In other words, the NGOs, unable to enact the policies they favored through the normal processes of American constitutional democracy—the Congress, state governments, even the federal courts—appealed to authority outside of American democracy and its Constitution.

At the UN Conference against Racism, which was held in Durban two weeks before September 11, American NGOs supported "reparations" from Western nations for the historic transatlantic slave trade and developed resolutions that condemned only the West, without mentioning the larger traffic in African slaves sent to Islamic lands. The NGOs even endorsed a resolution denouncing free market capitalism as a "fundamentally flawed system."

The NGOs also insisted that the U. S. ratify all major UN human rights treaties and drop legal reservations to treaties already ratified. For example, in 1994 the U. S. ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), but attached reservations on treaty requirements restricting free speech that were "incompatible with the Constitution." Yet leading NGOs demanded that the U. S. drop all reservations and "comply" with the CERD treaty by accepting UN definitions of "free speech" and eliminating the "vast racial disparities… in every aspect of American life" (housing, health, welfare, justice, etc.).



a new form of fascism is brewing.

[Mr Manifesto]

Two can play the propaganda game. (http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/sunday_review/5778521.htm)

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Two can play the propaganda game. (http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/sunday_review/5778521.htm)

What propaganda game? Dude, you are stupid.

I posted this to get thoughts and start a good discussion. You tried to turn it into a partisan battle. If you dont have anything useful to say, fukc off!!!

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony


What propaganda game? Dude, you are stupid.

I posted this to get thoughts and start a good discussion. You tried to turn it into a partisan battle. If you dont have anything useful to say, fukc off!!!

Why should I waste my time saying anything useful to you- a childish person who resorts to invective when his simplistic views are foiled?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Why should I waste my time saying anything useful to you- a childish person who resorts to invective when his simplistic views are foiled?

huh? what "views" are you talking about??

[Tony]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Tony,

You are an idiot, first class :D

Yeah yeah yeah, you're a c-nt. :)

[Jon_in_london]

That rascism conference was a farce.

Condemning Isreal left right and front but not even a squeeek about Arab human-rights violations.

Demanding reparations for slavery exclusively from the the west while ignoring the eastern slave trade (which the Brits put a stop to, oh by the way), AND ignoring the fact that slavery still goes on EVEN TODAY in places like mauritania.

Could it be that the non-western slave trade was ignored because there were no white people to demonise?

[Jon_in_london]

You tried to turn it into a partisan battle. If you dont have anything useful to say, fukc off!!!

You are an idiot, first class

Yeah yeah yeah, you're a c-nt.



You guys are a disgrace.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


You guys are a disgrace.

I concur.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Demanding reparations for slavery exclusively from the the west while ignoring the eastern slave trade (which the Brits put a stop to, oh by the way), AND ignoring the fact that slavery still goes on EVEN TODAY in places like mauritania.

Could it be that the non-western slave trade was ignored because there were no white people to demonise? I read somewhere that the American slave trade was far more de-humanizing than African and mid-eastern slave trade. And there might even be an argument to support the notion. So losing ones freedom and being forced to do the bidding of another can be excused under the right circumstances.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Tony

What propaganda game? Dude, you are stupid.

I posted this to get thoughts and start a good discussion. You tried to turn it into a partisan battle.When you conclude the post by implying the targets to push "new form of fascism", it becomes a tad disingenuous to accuse others of trying to turn the discussion partisan.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Tony

When you conclude the post by implying the targets to push "new form of fascism", it becomes a tad disingenuous to accuse others of trying to turn the discussion partisan.

How? Did you even read the article?

[Victor Danilchenko]

Tony

How? Did you even read the article?I wasn't commenting on the article, I was commenting on your well-known right-wing paranoia and ideological blindness.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Tony

I wasn't commenting on the article, I was commenting on your well-known right-wing paranoia and ideological blindness.

so why dont you comment on the article?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Tony
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2002_04-06/fonte_ideological/fonte_ideological.html



a new form of fascism is brewing.



Hmmm.. A new form.. What do we call it?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Diogenes




Hmmm.. A new form.. What do we call it?

hmmm good question. Commufascism?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Hmmm.. A new form.. What do we call it?

Originally posted by Tony
hmmm good question. Commufascism?

Fonte names the ideology he's attempting to characterize Transnational Progressivism.

[Tony]

Originally posted by aerocontrols




Fonte names the ideology he's attempting to characterize Transnational Progressivism.

I know, but I think that term is too euphemistic.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

Fonte names the ideology he's attempting to characterize Transnational Progressivism. I don't see a lot of people joining something they can't say with one or two syllables.. So, I really do not see a threat to western culture as we know it.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Tony


I know, but I think that term is too euphemistic.

You might consider that, as others have indicated, your terminology is openly antagonistic.

I first read the Fonte piece you link to above here (http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/08/Transnationalprogressivis.shtml). You might be interested.

MattJ

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I don't see a lot of people joining something they can't say with one or two syllables.. So, I really do not see a threat to western culture as we know it.

Umm... ok?

Fonte argues that many people have already joined up, in the same way, I suppose, that many people were capitalists before Marx slapped that name on the ideology.

Besides, it'll eventually give rise to short nickname like 'Red', 'neocon', or 'hippy'.

MattJ

[Tony]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


You might consider that, as others have indicated, your terminology is openly antagonistic.



I am not trying to be antagonistic, I just call it as I see it.

I first read the Fonte piece you link to above here (http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/08/Transnationalprogressivis.shtml). You might be interested.

MattJ

Thanx, im reading it right now. What do you think of it?

[Fade]

Tony:

Posting an article along with your extremely right wing view point doesn't simply dismiss your view point. If you had actually wanted a serious discussion of the article you'd have posted it without comment.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Fade
Tony:

Posting an article along with your extremely right wing view point doesn't simply dismiss your view point. If you had actually wanted a serious discussion of the article you'd have posted it without comment.

What are you talking about?

All of a sudden democratic principles and self determination are exclusively right wing views?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Tony

All of a sudden democratic principles and self determination are right wing views?

I certainly wouldn't say " All of a sudden "... ( .... I know, you didn't ask me..;)

[Tony]

Originally posted by Diogenes


I certainly wouldn't say " All of a sudden "... ( .... I know, you didn't ask me..;)

dammit, that didnt quite come out the way I intended. What I mean is, self determination and democratic principles are values which (should) transcend left/right, liberal/conservative.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Tony


dammit, that didnt quite come out the way I intended. What I mean is, self determination and democratic principles are values which (should) transcend left/right, liberal/conservative.

I agree.. Notable, that you should clarify this.

It seems to me, if everyone agreed on what constituted ' self determination and democratic principles ', there would be no ' left' or ' right '...

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Tony


dammit, that didnt quite come out the way I intended. What I mean is, self determination and democratic principles are values which (should) transcend left/right, liberal/conservative.

So what should we do. Get rid of the demcratic and republican party designations. I'm up for that. I say vote for who you like, and not justthe little "d" or "r" next to the name.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Tony

dammit, that didnt quite come out the way I intended. What I mean is, self determination and democratic principles are values which (should) transcend left/right, liberal/conservative.They do. The thing is that there are many different interpretations of those values, yet that's not the reason to call the ones you disagree with "new fascists".

Your ridiculously and obviously partisan inflamatory demagoguery serves only to present you as a mindless, myopic right-wing nut.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Tony

They do. The thing is that there are many different interpretations of those values, yet that's not the reason to call the ones you disagree with "new fascists".




'sigh' I never called people that disagree with me "new fascists". You're turning out to be more of a wacko than JK.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Tony

'sigh' I never called people that disagree with me "new fascists".No, you just made ominous statements about 'new fascism brewing" on the topic related to something done by liberal organizations.

Come on, you have shoved your foot in your mouth so many times before (most recently with that ridiculous "bedwetter" thing) that your posts get interpreted in exactly this way, and with excellent reason. You want to be treated differently? then stop acting like a bad carricature of right-wing idiot.

You're turning out to be more of a wacko than JK.Except that i am a bedwetter and JK isn't, right?.. :rolleyes:

[Tony]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Tony

No, you just made ominous statements about 'new fascism brewing" on the topic related to something done by liberal organizations.



so what? That doesnt mean I think everyone that disagrees with me are new fascists. And I wouldnt classify these organizations as "liberal", a true liberal values individual liberty and doesnt seek to undermine the democratic process.

If you're done with personally attacking me, care to comment on the article? I would be interested in your opinion.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony


so what? That doesnt mean I think everyone that disagrees with me are new fascists. And I wouldnt classify these organizations as "liberal", a true liberal values individual liberty and doesnt seek to undermine the democratic process.

If you're done with personally attacking me, care to comment on the article? I would be interested in your opinion.

Originally posted by Tony



Shut up dumb-ass, you know not what you talk about

What propaganda game? Dude, you are stupid.

Anybody who sympathizes with the palestinians is obviously ignorant and incapable of rational thought.

You should know, you are an expert in basic logical fallacies.

You are the one who is the expert on personal attacks. And you are not interested in the opinions of others. You only want to hear the sound of your own voice.