The Anglosphere debate: Thanking James
Yesterday, James Bennett informed me that he wrote his response to mypolemic I'm deeply grateful to James as he's cleared up some misconceptions and misreadings of his original article on my part.
We corresponded after I read in diagonal, as the French say, his essay and we both agreed that we'd continue the debate. In fact, I downloaded the essay to read it more serenely as I want to digest more fully his rebuttal and write a response to it. I only ask my readers and those James to be patient. I have a very vague idea of what subjects I want to cover and how I would like to organize my thoughts.
I do want to make it clear to my readers that James and I don't really disagree about the existence of the Anglopshere as an emerging empirical reality. In fact, we both hope that our continuing debates will sharpen and refine the Anglophere concept. I even advocate that social scientists and humanities students to expand what's been learnt about the Anglopshere and apply them to other historical/cultural spheres. I suspect that we'll find many unexpected bridges, path and tunnels the connect the various spheres more closely that we realize.
Hi I'm Xavier and I'm a biblioholic!
My readers can't miss the latest edition to the blog site. I apologize for the disbalanced look. I still haven't figured out which HTML codes will place the Amazon search engines on the right margin. I'll quitely ask fellow blogger for help and advice with the HTML coding.
I love books but they're expensive and my suck up skills to get free books(O I so look foward to your forthcoming book) are unpersuasive. I placed search engines for both French and English titles to ensure fellow bibliophiles can persue titles in either language (or both!) as well as doubling my chances to get a modest portion of the
referral fees and sustain my refined addiction.
Mounting hysteria over one's impotence
Abdul Aziz Al-Khereiji's shrill article
is really annoying. To equate America as a terrorist state is egregious and a slur. Al-Khereiji doesn't know the Americans. I do as I live some 45 minutes from the border. Lord know I have my complaints about Americans. However, the last time I watched the news, I didn't see some American teen strapping a semtex vest and blowing up Mexican migrant workers; nor see Americans dancing in the streets each time the news reported of shoot outs that killed Afghani civilians. Nor have I ever seen Americans proudly shwoing photos of babies dressed up as sucide bombers.
The Americans by and large try to live up to their constitutional and democratic ideals. That Americans fail, is simply a reminder that humans are faillible. Nonetheles, at least teh Amricans haven't in a fit of wilful blindess embraced the murder cult as the Palestinans. As much as Al Khereiji may fantasize, there were no massacres at Jenin and upholding such an opinion discredits any subsequent analyses on current events by the Arab press.
Reading through the article, I can only conclude that Saudi regime is become progressively more worried about the geostrategic metamorphasis that'll take place if Iraq is invaded and occupied.
La por del poliglotisme en EE UU
Cal Thomas es un articulista conservador en EE UU. Ayer escriví un article
del perill cereixent del poliglotism. Deixeu-me ser clar; no objecto que quan un immigrant s'estableix en un pais, ha d'aprendre la llengua i viure sota les lleis. Que opposo es l'exigència implicita que per ser un bon 'americà' (o'francés') s'ha d'abandonnar la llengua materna. Desafortunadamente, els americans sempre han vist la poliglotisme com una cert recel, com si la república s'enfondria si els citudans parléssin una altra llengua que l'anglès. Els americans sempre han considerat la coneixència d'una altra llengua com a predua en lloc d'un haver.
Ademés, forçar els immigrants a parlar l'anglès es anti-democràtic perque l'estat intervindrà en la politica lingüistica i això inflarà l'estat; algú que contradiu un dles principis del conservadisme americà que avoca per un estat limitat i petit. Finalment, EE UU no esta preparat i no té idea de cóm actuar amb la lingüistica o legisferar la politica lingüistica perquè l'anglès mai ha sigut un preoccupació estatal.
You can't just adopt technology wholesale without some cultural changes
on culture and technological development highlights a problem that Saudi Arabia has with respect to technological development: that the socitey uses the machines and gadgets but without the ability to produce it themselves.
The problem is that when a country adopts technology there has to be some cultural changes, Saudi Arabia's problem- a bit like Meiji's Japan- is that it can't go all the way with respect to cultural change. One of the most radical changes is the role of women. As banal as it seems at first glance that many of the electrodomestic (aka household appliances) are labour saving tools. That gives the housewife more lesiure time to pursue other interest and dispenses, to an extent, with th eneed for a domestic service staff. Unfortuantely, in Saudi Arabi, many of the women simply can't start their own buisness or open a bank account or get a loan without a male member of the family to act as the surety.
Further, the widespreade use of technology also affects schooling.Technology is intellectually demanding because a user has to be literate (in that he/she can read, write, count and calculate); further the user has to show some initiative when using technology. Rote memorization and regurgitation of what the teacher said is untenable. Let's face it technology- especially computer technology- never ceases to bring up problems that aren't always covered in the manual; so the users have to be flexible and try out all sorts of steps before they resolve the problem. Or not as the case may be.
Why WW I happened: audacious explanations for Eve
I read through Eve's visit to the Imperial War museum where she reflects on war and other things. She then asks how WW I came about.
Well, unlike John Keegan who's reluctant to articulate any reasons as to what
caused the First World War, I will (hey I'm young and foolish and je m'adventurerai as I'd say in French). Hopefully Eve will find them interesting point of departure.
Here's my list:
Personalism in European international affairs.
Bismarck made himself indispensable to European politics. It was he who created and
manipulated many of the alliances and secret treaties during the second half of the
19th century. Unfortunately for him and for Europe, he thought he was
irreplaceable and didn't think of the consequences of what would happen if someone less skilful
than he took over the alliance system. That's exactly what happened when Wilhem II took the throne and dismissed Bismarck. Wilhelm wasn't as deft as Bismarck and the former managed to antagonize just about everyone in Europe, Hence the first cause of the First World war was the total absence of any institutional mechanisms which didn't depend on one person. This is one lesson the European learnt very well as today there are so many bewildering array and overlapping institutions of all kinds in European Union
Impersonalism in the mobilization system
Parallel to the personalism in international affairs, the mobilization system in Europe was impersonal. The mobilization system as it evolved in the post Napoleonic wars, made it impossible for an individual or a group of people to order a halt in mobilization. At the root of this rigidity was the train timetable; for the French it was a lesson burnt into them by their defeat during the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71 when the trains were sent to the wrong place and the troops
couldn't be transported to the battlefield. Indeed, Keegan blasts Wilhem II and the other European leaders for not grasping the complexity of their respective mobilization systems and that once activated, war was inevitable. Again the Soviets and the Americans learnt that lesson and incorporated the famous hotline telephone system so that the leaders could at least communicate with each other during a crises.
German and French frustrations
The frustrations weren't for the same reasons. The Germans were frustrated at what they perceived to be the British and French denial of an empire which the former thought was their right.
Thus, Wilhem II started to engage in provocative acts like building a navy that would
compete with the British and aggravating crises like the Morocco situation in the early 1900s.
Unfortunately, the Germans didn't really need an empire, they were widely successful in business:
they sold all over the world and their products were highly sought after. If Wilhem didn't have
such a militaristic mind set and the Germans so obtuse with gaining an empire at any cost,
Germany would be what the U.S. is today: a dominant country influential in all fields.
The French nursed a different kind of grudge: the loss of Alsace-Lorraine due to their defeat in the Franco-Prussian war.
As long as Bismarck was in power, France was pretty isolated and no one much cared about its whining. After Bismarck, the British, French and Russians sufficiently feared German policies that they put aside their differences and created the Entente
The British would literally support one of France political aims which would be the restoration of Alsace-Lorraine.
That treaty was one of the worst things to happen to Germany. In case of a war Germany would have to fight a 2 front war which is what happened.
The ideological factors: why was everyone so enthusiastic?
That's perhaps the hardest question to answer. I think it was the delusion brought about by nearly
a century of general peace since the Napoleonic wars fostered (sure there were conflicts in Europe but they were small, lasted a short time and didn't cause extensive damage throughout thecontinent).
Consequently, people thought that what would be the First World war would last at most 8 weeks. The enthusiasm that occurred in the first weeks of the war, I think was due to the optimism fostered by the success of the continental nation state in advancing industrialization, education as well the hubris brought by great advances in sciences. People thought they could conquer anything.
Yet another factor that led to the war European generals' refusal to absorb the lessons of the new
military revolution that industrialization brought about.
The European generals observed the American civil war but they didn't seem to learn anything from that conflict or incorporate them
into their training. After all, the Europeans didn't consider America to be a serious nation at the
time. The Russo-Japanese war of 1904-05 didn't make much of an impact either except for the importance of entrenchments.
In sum, the generals didn't bother to learn the lessons of previous war nor interest themselves about how industrialization changed their professions.
It's as if the generals concluded that the Napoleonic style warfare represented the 'end of military history' and deigned to incorporate a few technological innovations like the train, the breech loading, and later, bolt action rifle and the machine gun. Yet the underlying foundations hadn't really changed at all.
Even during World War I, it took 3 years of pointless slaughter before the Allied generals decided to try the tank to resolve the dilemma of trench warfare.
The U of North Carolina and the Qur'an controversy
Contrary to Fawaz Turki's histrionics, the controversy over the Qur'an isn't some protypical anti-Islamic animus. Rather it's the way that it's presented at the university which exposes a double-standard. The secularists have done everything in their power to ban any obligatory presentation of Christanity in the American educational system; yet suddenly, it's OK to study the Qu'ran? The laws either apply equally or they don't an exception must be justified.
Further, the edition of the Qur'an is incomplete as it leaves out the controversial verses about the 'infidels' and violence that cen be done to them if they refuse to accept Mohammed as his prophet. Students, particularly at the university level, should have access to a complete version of any holy book. In order to appreciate the influence that such books have, the students must be exposed to the beauty, the ugliness, the obscure, the boring and even the controversial if they're to appreciate why a religion has the influence and adherence of its faithful.
Surely even Turki would concede as much.
I'm frankly tired of hearing about how the Arab/Moselms prepared the way for the Renaissance. They did not. They preserved and transmitted some of the Greek science and philisophy to the West but it was the latter which synthesized the various threads and made science its own. The West owes nothing to Islamic civilization in the recuperation of its cultural heritage. The Arabs/Moselms did not help us recuperate Aristophanes, nor did they really care about the Classical world's architecture, nor did they influence us in our paintings or sculture.
Hell even the Alaric King of the Visigoths had the Timateus read to him in Greek! when he conquered Athens! An attitude that in the 1400 years of Islamic civilization, no Moselm never, ever demonstrated. Culturally we owe more to the Carlomagnian and Cisterian reforms than we do to various Caliphites.
And one last thing, the Iberian peninsula wasn't the only place where the 3 Abrahamic religions exchanged ideas and stuff, there was also the Two Sicilies. Roger in particular got into a lot of trouble with the papacy because of his close relationship with the Arabs in his realm as well as inviting prominent Arab/Islamic scholars to exchange ideas and scholarship.
Big deal, we've read this before and it comes to nothing
hast posted some updates on the Cleargudiance and soundvision forums. So just for fun, I viisted the Soundvision.com site and looking around the site I came across this
. My reaction is that this article is disinformation. It reads o so reasonable but in the final analysis, the participants at the Soundvision forum disabuse us of any sincere moderation or desire to tolerate any criticism.
Further, Malik Mujahid's plea to rely on the Moslem media to provide a forum for criticism is useless. They're so thorougly intoxicated by the virus of anti-Semitism, the bacillus of anti-Westernism and the disease of the death culture cult that they're as much a problem as bin Laden. More so, because they continue to spew forth their vociferous hatred long after Al Qua'da will have disappeared.
Ho Chi Min biography: Viet communists have hard time accepting the Supreme Leader was a human
It seems that the Viet Communists are freaking out over the latest biography of Ho Chi Minh
It seems that the historical account flatly contradicts the myth of Ho's celibacy and 'marriage to the revolution.' For an atheist regime, the Party sure does love its hagiography. Worse, the party won't even tell the authour what to censor in the official Viet translation.
What utter bullshit, the Vietnamese Communist party's reaction to the unsurprising revelations that Ho Chi Minh was possibly a womanizer exposes the unstinting common defect of that type of regime: everything is based on lies; not just monstrous lies but lies over such simple facts. Think about it: the revelations that the Supreme Leader had human appetites like the rest of us threatens to bring down Viet Communism. Well if that's case than the Viet Communist party deserves to be jettisioned. If the Party can't tolerate such a simple fact about its Supreme Leader, than the Party is useless as it can't cope with reality.
So much for dialectial materialism.
Muslim Nazis: some additional comments
Chrales Johnson deserves great praise for his latest article
on the links between the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Ibn Saud and Nazism.
I simply want to add some additional comments that might provide some aditional insights to this virtually underresearch period.
I used Google because as some of the commentators pointed out, there was even a SS unit made up of Bosnian and Albanian Moslem soldiers called the 13-Freiwillige Gebirgsdivision der Waffen-SS Handschar
To be fair, there were many collaboration units ('foreign legions' is often used to describe them )of the SS from other occupied European countries. SS' foreign ccollaborationist units here's a book from a series
from the same series
Most people are quite aware that a lot of Nazis ended up in Latin America, Australia, Canada, the U.S. but not everyone fled west; some fled east and establishd themselves in the Mideast. One of the more notorious is Alois Brunner
, Eichman's righthand man, who fled to Syria in the 50s and has stayed there ever since.
In the case of the Mideast, perhaps the presence of many Nazis, as well as the fact that the region was never denazified, explains why the anti-Semitism is so virulent, why the Mein Kampf is so popular.
I also wondered if the East German connection- via the Satsi- also has influenced anti-Semitism in the Mideast. I went to Google again and typed: Stasi+anti-semitism. The results are inconclusive. I simply haven't found any information per se through Google but that's not to say that there aren't any.
Europe's worse floods in centuries: It's America's fault!
I deeply sympathize with the Europeans- particularly in Prague- about the floods. However to blameAmerica
because it didn't sign the Koyoto Agreements is rather egregious After all, there's a thick smog all over southern Asia that's wrecking havoc on the monsoons and that could just as easily be blamed on India and China.Both countries aren't exactly sticklers for environmentally friendly industrial development and both are also explicitly exempt from, the Kyoto Treaty's obligations.
Tous les européens ne sont ni avuegle ni anti-américans
Une entrevue avec André Kapski
sur les tensions outre-atalntique vis-à-vis si oui ou non de lancer une offensive contre l'Irak. Selon le professeur une partie de les différends entre l'Europe et les EE UU est due au manquement de l'administration d'expliquer aux européen la nécésité d'enhavir l'Irak. D'autre partie c'est aussi la faute des dirigeants eurupéeens qui croient sincèrement qui le terrorisme islamiste ne ciblent pas leurs pays. Ce qui est totalement faux lorsque on prend le temps ses écrits et fatwas issu au quotidien.
Je sympathise avec les sentiments du prof qui voit les différends entre les américans et européens soit dommagables.Puisque en fin de compte les deux bordes de la 'rive' partagent les mêmes valeurs même si leur expression diffèrent entre les deux.
En tout cas, moi je pense que ça prendra un acte de violence plus ou moins semblable à ceux qui est arrivé aux tours jumelles avant que les européens apprécient la profoneur de la colère américaine envers Irak et d'autres regimes de la région.
Fête de l'Assomption: Salut a tous les Maries!
du Figaro sur l'Assomption. Rien de nouveau mais j'aime cette petite phrase:
Dieu n'a qu'une mère, mais il l'offre en partage à toute humanité. Ève nouvelle, Marie est la première des mères. Marie nous précède, elle ouvre le chemin. Elle est mère de Dieu, et elle est unique à ce titre
Ce que j'aime de cette citation c'est de nous rappler de la dignité de femmes et de la générosité de tous les mamans qu'elles soient croyantes ou non.
El musulmans volen coexistir amb el mòn:¡nanes!
Llegint el blog de Charles Johnson
hi havia un article sobre com es coexisteria entre món amb els integristes. Pasé als commentari quan trové aquest enllaç
que resumeix en gros les iddes principals del 'assaig per un d'aquests
participants. El paragràf que diu que el musulmans hi veuen els cristans coms el més pròxims de les tres religions abramiques amb l'Islam es pura mentida
Menteixen per que si realment creïen que escribissin, deixerien els cristans construir esglésies en Arabia saudita; no imposarian el shar'ia als no-musulmans enm Nigeria i a Indonèsia i no farien la punyeta als coptes on el govern prohibeix quansevulla renovació o construcció de una esglesia.
Tot això demonstra, com ho he dit en anglès, que els islamics li falten confiància en la seva religió- o més ben dita a una interpretació particular del islam. Els integristes s'aterren que si els dexissin el cristans, jueus o non-musulmans florir, el musulman ordinari es començarà a preguntar de cóm es què fa que els no-musulmans prosperan, son més rics, més ben instruïts, amb més movilitat social que els. Si aquest musulman continués amb aqueixa retrospecció o es convertirà o s'enfadarà contre el seu règim per haver gastat els recursos i les vides amb odis gratuïts que només serveixen per apoderar uns quatre atrinxats.
El editorial de Arabnews sobre la guerra en Columbia
Arabnews en su editorial pregunta por que los antriores presidentes no habian declarado un estado de excepción contra la FARC. Bueno, es obvío que los redactores cuentan a la ignorancia del saudí ordinario para haber sollevado esta pregunta.
Es muy sencillo- en el caso de Pastaran su plataforma electoral hace 5 años era de negociar con la FARC. Hasta concedió un terreno equivalente a Suiza. Desafortunadamente por Pastrana la FARC utilizó la truega así como el terreno para regrupar. Los ataques bajo la truega demonstraon rotundamente la mala fe del lidergazo de la FARC. Los ataques multiplicaron, los secuestros estafaba la clase media etc. La gente se hartó y querría un replique mucho mas rebusto algo que dañaria a la FARC.
El editorial lamenta por que la Administración estadaunidense no considera el narcotràfico como terrorismo- los integrantes de la Administración siempre le han considerado como tal y han ortogado 2 mil milliones$ U.S. para financar el Plan Colombia 2000. Ha sido muy contravertida esta financación tanto dentro como fuera de país. Sin embargo, la razón por que los norteaméricanos no han intervenido mas abiertamente como en Afganistan es por que el Estado columbiano y la socidad civil muestre el comprimismo de combatir el narcotràfico y la FARC (que son dos caras de la misma medalla). Además, en contraste con Al Qua'ida y los demás terroristas integrists islamistas, La FARC se ancora en la realidad y ha tenido el buen sentido de nunca ataquear directament los EE UU. De actuar así el lidergazo de la FARC se suicidaría y lo saben. La FARC prefiere subvertir los EE UU vendiendo la coca y utilizar los beneficios del narcotràfico para comprara las armas para destruir el Estado columbiano y sustituir un etado narcosocialista
Ad Orientem answers a question about church architecture
Mark Sullivan at Ad Orientem
has posted answers to a burning question of mine about church architecture
Higly recommended blog and well worth bookmarking.
American Airlines supprime des emplois et rétire une partie de sa flotte
Le Figaro dresse ce bilansombre
de l'industrie aérienne américane. Primèrement, on a l'annonce d'hier de la faillite- strictu sensu
une protection sous la protection du tribunal envers ses créanciers- de US Airlines. Deuxièmement, la supression des emploi et la rétrate des plusiers avion de la flotte.
n'a pas rappelé à ses lecteurs que malgré une aide finacière extraordiaire legisférée le lendemain d'11 séptembre, n'a pas suffi à empêcher une performance comméricale assez médiocre.
Une partie de la problème ce sont les compagnie aériennes elle-même, elles traitent sa clientèle comme des cons, des saludes et des bêtes. Elles ne founissent pas les passagers le moindre information; c'est toujours des obfuscations ou des excuses ridicules. Les prix de billets sont chers pour la qualité de services sans parler de la bêtise qui se prend pour la sécurité aéroportière américaine.
Les gens sont tannées et ils préférent voyager autrement ou m^me rester proche de chez eux. Beaucoup moins d'aggravation.
Arabnews can't help itself
I hate to break it Faial Kutty
but there's no cartel of Jewish millionaires in Canada.
Even if the CDMA loses the case it could always appeal to the Supreme court and invoke ultra vires. The Federal Court is incompetent to deal with foreign policy consideration when looking at a tax law dispute.
Well there's a bit of a double standard as Canada unfortunately is a haven for fundraising for terrorist groups (Tamil Tiger, Hamas, etc) and no one has challenged before the Federal Court the contribution to those organizations as contrary to international law and unhelpful to the peace process. Further, many of those charities equally promote political activities not just the Jewish ones.
The truth about Iraq: the contradictions abound
Rizar Khoshnaw contradicts himself
He frets about how an American invasion will invariable kill the innocents but then states the following:
One thing that we will never hear Bush tell the American public is that going into Baghdad, with population of over six million, we will surly be sending the young soldiers into the death trap that will be set up by the Iraqi people. Feeling that they must fight to defend them selves, they will fight to the end. Lets not forget that in their minds it is the American government that has caused the death of one and a half million innocent Iraqi due to the embargo that has been placed on them for over eleven years. When Bush, Sr., the war in 1991, it was not because he loved Iraqi people, but rather he knew that the Iraqi government had distributed a great deal of weapons to its citizens in case the Americans would try to invade the Baghdad and Bush did not want to take that chance. This was a fact and my wife, a recent immigrant from Iraq, had witnessed such actions.
She told me that the government of Iraq has found a way to protect its city and people by distributing weapons to each and every home in the city. The Iraqi citizens referred to this possible invasion of the city as: Inzal, meaning: The drop. This was short title used to for the meaning of: whenever the American parachutes down to the city, that the Iraqi citizens would fire at the American soldiers before hitting the ground. That is a very scary scenario and I would not want ONE single young American to experience this possible disaster. And if Bush thinks that he can go house to house fighting the Iraqi people, he has lost the meaning of reality!
So the Iraqis aren't innocents but militia soldiers that would be legimate targets in the course of the war. So much for being innocent 'noncombattants'. Goes to show the depths of Saddam's deparavity as there's no way that the Iraqis match the professionalism of the American army. No doubt the Iraqis would bravely defend their homes but they'll be quickly wiped out.
In any case, it's Khoshnaw who's fantasizing. The Americans won't charge into Baghdad and let Saddam sucker them into fighting a mega-Jenin or even a 1945 Berlin style war. The Americans will undoutedly use their UAVs to full effect as well as pinpoint thermobarbic strikes and fight the Baghdadians according to American military doctrine PERIOD. Unlike Saddam, the Baghdadians won't have nice reinforced concrete bunkers buried deep underground to hide and I don't see them dying for Saddam à la Volksstrum.
Finally he hasn't made the case why the sanctions should be lifted. To state it coldly why does Iraq derserve to have the sanctions lifted if its leadership has never, ever complied with the ceasefire agreements and brazenly violated them? In fact, just this week, the Iraqi leadership has unilaterally declared the inspections to be over and the world is supposed to believe those liars that they have no weapons of mass destruction
Le conférence d'économistes arabes au Beyrouth: des intéressants statisiques
MEMRI a publié un un article
(en anglais) sur la conference des écomonistes arab tenue à Beyrouth. Ce que j'ai trouvé fort intéressant c'est dans la période 1975-2000, les arabes ont sorti un montant qui se chiffrent aux aléntours entre 212 à 320 millards$ U.S. Cette révélation peut-être explique pourquoi le Moyen Orient se arrière par rapport aux autre régions dans la santé, éducation, investissement dans la sciences et téchnologie et ainsi de suite.
L'article couvre d'autres dépêches économiques dans la région.
Islamist leaders in London interviewed
MEMRI has an interview
with a thoroughly repulsive man. The very idea that this British citizen activally subverts his country is truly sickening. The idea that the West will somehow embrace his vision of Islam and somewhow the former would be resolve all of its problems isn't just laughable it's affront. Islamism is a deadend ideology that seeks to arrest all change. Sadly the world can't stay stuck permanently in the 7th
Guys like him are a threat and the faster that we discredit this irrational ideology; the better off the world will be.
America's plans to kill top Al-Qua'ida leadership a breach of international law?
is rather historonic. He's shocked; shocked I tell you that the American administration is seriously contemplating using its Special forces to kill the top leadersip of Al- Qua'ida. Further he frets about how such a policy would call into question America's committment to international law. WTF!? Al- Qua'ida hijacked 3 airplanes and with 2 killed 3000 American and foreign citizens when the planes chrashed into the World Trade centre buildings and subsequently collapsed. Further the leadership has engaged in various acts of war in the years prior to 11 Sept. Bin Laden even declared war of sorts on the U.S. So I fail to see the shocking immorality abouting using Special forces to kill the Al Qua'ida leadership. The leaders have killed Americans and wil continue to do so until they and their underlings are dead.
Such a policy has precedent, for a journalist of the British Independent
surely he's aware that the British spy services tasked the SAS to kill IRA terrorists and their leadership during the late 70s-80s. The organization was known as 14 Intelligence company.
Une découverte 'banale' révolutionne le génétique
qui vulgarise la découverte qui revoltionnera le génétique.
Je ne prétende pas le comprendre à 100% mais il vaut la piene d'y jetter un coup d'oeil à reportage.
America in WW I: a dissenting perspective
Lately, I've been reading in many blogs that America saved Europe in World War I. I challenge the recieved ideas on this subject.
The U.S. neutrality and war supplies
It's hard to accept the assertion that America saved Europe in the First World War. In fact, America rigidly maintained its neutrality in public; while in private it was supplying the British and French with war matériel. To be sure, the American administration defended its trade under the then current international law which allows neutrals to trade with whom it wants even belligerents. That may been a reasonable position until the Napeloenic wars. Since then, and which industrialization has only accentuated, any neutral country that trades with a belligerant has objectively picked side in a conflict and must be treated as a abetter. The reasoning is stark in its simplicity: the neutral supplies the 'enemy' with vital resources with which to prolong a conflict and thus tilt the balance of forces against the other combatant.
Consequently, I disagree with John Weider's contention that American defenselessness encouraged the Germans to undertake unrestricted submarine warfare. Rather, it was a realization by the Germans admirals that the most effective strategy to win the war was to interdict the shipping lanes and thereby starve England to submission. The strategy was applied haltingly because as men of their time, they felt bound by the 1888 Law of the Mercantile Marine which spelled out how to attack and when merchant shipping. However, as it became clear that the war would be a long affair, the German admirals adopted unrestricted submarine warfare.
When the Americans finally declare war and arrived at teh Western Front, their contribution was to tilt decisively the balance of forces overwhelminly in the Allies' favour. The Germans had exhausted all of its human and matrial resources and simply could never counter the fresh infusion of the American contribution. Yet the Americans really didn't save Europe from the First World War and even managed to lose the peace with the help from the French, Belgs and British.
Losing the peace I: British, French and Belian revanchisme
It's too easy to blame Wilson alone for the subsequent loss of the peace. The French, Belgs and British also deserve much of the blame. My history professor, in my university days, pointed to the class that the leaders gathered at Versailles had read their history of the 1815 Vienna Conference and tried to imitate its results for a lasting peace. It failed. It failed because the French, Belgians and British negoitators obviously didn't learn the central lessons of the Vienna Conference. France wasn't humilated with war guilt for having started the Revolution which led to the Napoleonic wars or economically crippled by occupation of its industrial areas nor by payment of ludicrious reparations. France was rehabilitated and brought back to the European mainstrean ('the community of nations' to use the contemporary conceit. The french, Beligians and British forgot, or ignored, the lessons and were bent on revenge. The result was political instability and economic chaos of a major European power that wasn't only intolerable, because it would lead to Naziism but because Germany played a stabilizing role in pre-war Central Europe. By destabilizing Germany, weak democracies or authoritarian regime would predominate. British, Belgian and French revanchisme doesn't absolve Wilson's responsibilities.
Losing the peace II: Wilson's Fourteen points and anti-imperialism
Wilson's Fourteen points were aimed directly at destroying teh AUstroHungarian empire. He succeeded beyond his expectations. Unfortuately, Wilson, like the other victorous political leaders, didn't offer any succeeding institution or framework, like a common market or a custom union. The result were weak states with small economies with unstable political institutions. Congruent with Germany's internationally sanctioned instability, there was no way the Central Europe would ever be stable, peaceful and prosperous under such conditions.
Wilson's Fourteen points also exposes a latent anti-imperialism that soon became American policy right up to Truman. Anti-imperialism suits the American political and ideological temperment for democracy, free markets and individual liberties. Nevertheless, Wilson confused the Austrian-Hungarian empire with imperialism and never wanted to realize that however creaky and rickety the AustroHungarian empire was, the fact that it lasted so long suggested that it provided much needed stability to a turbulent region; as events in the inter-war years subsequently demonstrated.
Aziz on the 'damned state' of unbelievers and cousins of the faith: respectful disagreements
Aziz has posted an article that I respectfully disagree with.
In the years, I've listen to Radio Catholic Answers, I've never heard the assertion that people who's born in a different religion is in actuality a Christian and reverts when he or she becomes, say Catholic.
I disagree with Aziz assertion that Christanity (like Islam) is quite explicity about the damned state of the non-believer. As Mark Shea made clear in his article about Abe Zelmanowitz we humans don't know what outside the Church is. Even though Abe didn't believe in Jesus, his action showed that Abe maybe was influenced by him because the former lived by God's Talmudic commandments and died illustrating one of Jesus' promises that there's no better person than one who sacrifices himself so that another may live. It's paradoxical but Abe illustrates what Christians have meant by God works in mysterious ways cliché. So far from condemning a 'non-believer's' 'damned state'(a pious Jew who didn't believe in Jesus is God), we'd wiser to ponder the wonder of God's love that all children of Abraham believe and praise everyday.
Another disagreement I have is when he calls Jews and Christians cousins in the Faith. That's a moving sentiment and I hope that we can indeed view each other in that way very soon but he'll forgive my skepticism. No, I don't mean the usual litany about the imposition of Shar'ia law in Nigeria, nor the forceful conversions in Indonesia nor even the vitriolic Friday sermons at various Mideast mosques; rather, my skepticism is over a banal issue: how come the Copts (and other Mideast Christians) can't renovate their churches or build new ones? How come they face a multitude of societal disqualifications and harassment all derived from the dhimmitude?
I'll repeat a comment I made at Charles Johnson's site. To me, if Islam really viewed the Jews and Christians as cousins of the faith and had more self-confidence, the Moslem countries would allow the former to flourish in ordinary ways like restoring old churches/synagogues, participating fully in society and prosper according to their talents and inclinations. The fact that most Moslem states don't, suggests a deep, unconscious fear of inadequacy. The fear is that if the Christians and Jews were allowed to flourish, some Moselms might be induced to convert or ask troublesome questions of how come the other people of the book seem to be more prosperous, better educated, freer and more productive than the Islamic 'cousins of the faith.'
It's not enmity towards Islam but a particular interpretation
Poor Dr. Basim Abdullah Alim whines
about the growing emnity towards Islam. Get over it. It's not Islam that Americans or othr westerners are concerned per se about; it's a particular interpretation that stresses violence, muder and destruction against civilians.
Damn right the westerners want to change your education system; it's the ideological source of much of the 'Islamistic' terrorism and you've done nothing to stop. Hence, shadow has fallen on the world.
If you want the world to stop looking at Moselms with suspicion than the entire Umma must unanimously condemn killing citizens, not impose the shar'ia where it's not wanted or welcomed, transform the culture from one of death to life, allow women more latitude to live their lives and respect polities that are different from the one the Prophet envisaged.
Until then, Islamic solidarity and cooperation is simply wet paper.
Los américanos menacen los aliados de retiros de ayuda militar no ratifiquen los acuerdos bilaterales de inmunidad ante el TPI
El Mundo ha publicado
este interesante artículo sobre el avisos que la Casa Blanca ha dado a los aliado-interesadamente se excluye OTAN, Israel (por que ambos han firmado un acuerdo bilateral de no-extradiccion) Egipto, Core del Sur y Japón.
No cabe duda que el mundo protestará vehmente del 'unilateralismo' américano pero no estoy deacuerdo. Tampoco fio mucho en la neutralidad del TPI. Es bastante obvío que el Tribunal se utilizará por los tiranos para fastidar los occidentos y no para dispensar la justícia.
I wish I had lunch with Bernard Lewis
From Prof Glenn's blog
is this article
Man o man how I'd live to interview and ask the good professor my own questions.
Saudis whining about the propganda wars
It's turgid to read this
. Ali ibn Showail Al-Qarnil please stop fixating on the weapons because Saudi Arabia has Apaches and F 15 planes.
You're quite right that the Mideast is in the midst of a propaganda war. One in which the region is losing because it offers nothing to rebut. Mideast opinion when it's not hysterical in tone is viruently anti Semetic in attitude. Worse is that the intellectuals are incoherent and betray a deep ignorance brought about my centuries of cultural chauvinism.
Unfortunately for you, you'll lose the war of ideas because there's nothing substantive underneath Mideast culture.
Blogged at Joe's
Long before I had my own blog Joe Katzman
asked me to write up my objections to Bennett's Anglosphere article. Well it's posted
I look forward to any comments or disagreements