Tag Archives: Jewish

Creation of doubt

We all have doubts and sometimes we create them. I like many others are appalled by the beheading in France, as the news gives us “The teacher killed in a suburb of Paris in an Islamist terror attack has been named as Samuel Paty” as well as “The history teacher, who is said to have discussed images of the Prophet Muhammad with his pupils, was beheaded”, as a Catholic I am appalled, yet as an academic I wonder why the matter was set into motion. In 2015 many learned “If you set aside for a moment the issue of whether satirical cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad are insulting, there’s a separate and complicated debate about whether any depiction – even a respectful one – is forbidden within Islam. For most Muslims it’s an absolute prohibition – Muhammad, or any of the other prophets of Islam, should not be pictured in any way. Pictures – as well as statues – are thought to encourage the worship of idols”, as such we see that Islam FORBIDS any representation of the prophet Muhammad. So is the stage one where a person was beheaded, or is the stage where secular France, knowingly and intentionally disrespects a religion? This is a much harder question isn’t it? I took the events of 2015 at I was against them, yet at that point I was not aware about the Islamic rule of their prophet. As a Catholic, I have an issue of people intentionally disrespecting any religion, it is for that same reason that I refused to read the Satanic verses by Salman Rushdie. I have nothing against the man, I was in those days completely in the dark on Islam and the book was an open attack on Islam. I heard people I knew commenting on how brilliant a book it was, but I knew that they too had no knowledge, none what so ever on the rules and believes towards Islam. As a Catholic, I still laugh over the joke Sir Ken Robinson made “He shares this story of a teacher who asks a 6 year old girl, “What are you drawing?” And the girl said, “I’m drawing a picture of god.” And the teacher said, “But nobody knows what god looks like.” And the girl said, “They will in a minute””, idols and images of the Catholic faith are not a taboo, it sets the joke of anticipation and the premise towards the willingness to fail, a fear most Christians have in abundance. 

As such, why would Samuel Paty create a situation where he got ahead of himself? I do not condone what was done to him, but in defence of any Islamic person, why did he openly offend any religion in a school class? There is no way that there were no Islamic children in that school. I wonder if there is any school left where we share the classrooms with non-christians. Can we set the stage where we openly mock a religion whilst demanding respect from these very same people at the same time? As I personally see it, we create doubt, in ourselves and we create doubt in others. Why is that?

When we take a step back and we consider the Crusades (1096), we need to realise the state where we see “The crusader presence remained in the region in some form until the city of Acre fell in 1291, leading to the rapid loss of all remaining territory in the Levant. There were no further substantive attempts to recover the Holy Land after this”, consider the middle east being in a war for 196 years, this sets a stage (in those days of close to 7 generations that know a stage of war, a never ending war where hatred is taught (to at least some degree) from grandfather, to so to grandson, and that stage is made worse by intentionally disrespecting Islam, and you wonder why there are angry people? This is a stage that goes back to the Council of Clermont, where in 1095 it was decided that “capture Jerusalem for Christendom from its Muslim occupiers. The Pope’s speech to the church hierarchy and crowd of laymen at Clermont famously promised all participants a remission of their sins, a strategy which proved hugely popular amongst Europe’s nobility and knights and which was copied in all crusades thereafter”, apart from the stage where the reward was ‘promised all participants a remission of their sins’, basically on the promise of killing any saracen in sight. Can someone enlighten me where slaughter was approved in the Bible? All whilst Pope Urban II was viewed as “a reformer and active promoter of the idea of expanding Christendom by whatever means necessary. Hailing from a noble family from Burgundy, France, Urban II would establish himself as one of the most influential popes in history”, yes and a war lasting a few centuries longer 196 years achieved that? 

So as we get to “On 27 November the cream of the French clergy and a crowd of laymen gathered in a field just outside Clermont for the finale of the council. It was here that Urban II made his now famous speech in an obviously pre-prepared set piece. The message, known as the Indulgence, was addressed in particular to Christian nobles and knights across Europe. Urban II promised that all those who defended Christendom and captured Jerusalem would be embarking on a pilgrimage, all their sins would be washed away, and their souls would reap untold rewards in the next life. In case anyone was concerned, a group of church scholars later went to work and came up with the idea that a campaign of violence could be justified by references to particular passages of the Bible and the works of Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE)”, The man (not the actual Hippo) got his fame with the Just War theory. A stage where we are taught “The purpose of the doctrine is to ensure war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just. The criteria are split into two groups: “right to go to war” (jus ad bellum) and “right conduct in war” (jus in bello). The first concerns the morality of going to war, and the second the moral conduct within war. Recently there have been calls for the inclusion of a third category of just war theory—jus post bellum—dealing with the morality of post-war settlement and reconstruction”, perhaps the French UN essay writer, might reflect on the Just war theory, I mean, she has such a great handle on fiction, might it not be an idea to set the record straight on historic events? I see and understand the stage of ‘Just war theory’, there is nothing wrong with it, but consider the stage we were at in 1095, the middle east was not a christian bastion. In 1000bc Jerusalem was Jewish, in 586 bc it became Babylonian, Alexander the Great made it Greek, after that is became Egyptian, then Roman, after that it became Muslim, 400 years before the first crusade. Can anyone even tell what Jerusalem was supposed to be? 

But Christians needed expansion and the famine and destitute in Europe gave them the idea to tap into the wealthy reserves of the Arab nations. This is a stage that had war upon war, all whilst none had any clue who they were up against, merely that their enemy was non-christian, can we afford a repetition? Well, I actually do not care, if it decimates 96% of the population, I’ll be happy, because this planet will end up with all kinds of live stopping it become extinct. So back to Christians, can we tell how many versions there are? There are dozens of bibles all different, there are Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, 7 day advents, Quakers and a whole range of subversions and additions. Yet there are as far as I can tell, two forms of Islam, Sunni Islam and Shia Islam and they both have the same Quran, to the letter. Sunni’s and Shia’s pray together and their pilgrimage takes them all to the same to places. I believe that we create the doubt in ourselves and I do not care on secularism, armistice or atheist values, which of them allows for the open and wanton disrespect of Islam we see?

It does not make the violence acceptable, but we created that stage ourselves, we need to see that and we need to see it quickly. In case you wonder if it is just Islamic violence. I offer you the setting of another challenge. Buy a cow, go into Mumbai with that cow and slaughter your own cow, good luck getting out alive, your changes are not that good. If that setting offends you, then why allow the entire stage towards an image of Muhammad, in a school no less.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Religion

About the Miliband Family

This morning as conservative, in opposition of the current Labour ideal I see no other option but to stand next to Ed Miliband as a son of a father, to stand behind him in support and stand in front of him as a shield in regards to this attack. What I just read on the internet, after seeing the news on Sky News is just too disgusting. I personally will never have too much respect for the daily mail and the assault on a person who has already passed away, just to get to someone else. Ralph Miliband, a person who served for his new country against Nazi Germany, who stood there, serving and fighting to keep the British Empire save is just unacceptable. Why? Because he believed that Marxism had the answers? Of course we cannot rely on the Daily Mail to know all this, as I reckon their viewpoint comes from a day and age when the Black and White TV was no longer there, a post radio tube era! Why is this important?

Well, many in England had not lived through those early years. In Belgium and the Netherlands in the years post WW1 life was hard. Workers in those days were there to work themselves to death for a chosen few, who would exploit people again and again. The sad part is that current events are bringing this age back and it does not scare enough people (I will get to that evidence soon enough).

The years in the Netherlands and Belgium between WW1 and WW2 were hard ones (not just there mind you). Books like ‘op hoop van zegen‘ ([translation] ‘Trusting our fate in the hands of god‘) by Dutch writer Herman Heijerman shows the exploitation of Dutch fishermen as they are forced into the sea in unsound ships. In the end people die and the owner would pocket the insurance money. It was Herman Heijerman’s socialist view on the capitalist system. For those not having faith in these issues, remember 2008, whilst the bulk of the western world is still reeling from that ‘Wall Street cabaret‘. The Dutch also had events post WW1 in the east of their nation in an area called Twente, where the Textile industry collapsed as it was confronted with the competitive practices from Japan. Belgium had its own issues and in those times Adolf Hitler came to power and soon after started his European tour (1939-1945). So Ralph Miliband, this Jewish sociologist was lucky enough to flee the horror that would hit Belgium and went to England. To be quite honest, at times it is unfathomable that Marxism did not grow as strong as it could. When the bulk of a nation lives in absolute poverty in the service of a small group of silver spoon people, that consequence would today seem like a given reality.

So, Ed’s dad, Mr. Miliband, a person with Marxist convictions ended up in England and served with the British Navy against Hitler. Whether he was there to protect England, or to fight Hitler, or even both does not matter. In the end he served like so many others and ended up as a CPO (chief Petty Officer).

After that he became an academic. He did not become an anarchist, a terrorist or an anti-social. No, he became an academic and a sociologist. It was all in a time before I was born (such is life). So the paper that attacked the Miliband family was actually (at some point) sympathetic to Oswald Mosely and the British Union of Fascists. Interesting isn’t it? Their ‘Hurrah for the Blackshirts‘ didn’t last long and in that regards it is important to read the ‘Greenslade Blog‘ in the guardian, specifically, the one that was written in December 2011. (At http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/dec/06/dailymail-oswald-mosley). It is an excellent read, showing in addition that the Daily Mail was not the only player in town. The Daily Mirror was on that same horse (that strange Mr Daily and his newspapers, right?) The evidence is clear that both had changed their tune before WW2. What does remain that Mr Miliband’s view was shaped by harsh events in Belgium. The Netherlands had its own ghosts. In Amsterdam in 1934 there would be a workers revolt and in the end under Dutch PM Hendrik Colijn, a harsh response was given against the revolt and in the end the police and military would shoot into the crowd. 5 people died. This event is talked about in a book by Harry Mulisch (the Assault). The son of a NSB agent in that book states ‘My father was ordered to shoot into the crowd of workers. He would never allow for that again.‘ With that he explains his father’s move to National Socialism. The NSB were not the good guys, but the sentiment voiced in several in these books reflect the sign of the times in both the Netherlands and Belgium. I believe that Marxism grew in that same environment, in an age of much injustice and imbalance. So when Mr Miliband escaped that environment, is it a wonder that he would favour the far left, Marxism and/or Socialism? His view as an academic should not be attacked. They should be heralded. He voiced certain views and let us ponder those views. I see that this approach shaped his son Ed Miliband and his son saw the wisdom for what it was and ended up a lot more towards the centre of the left wing. The generation that followed Ed’s dad is like I was, we believe that the wisdom is more to the balanced centre. Me to the right of it and Ed Miliband to the left of it, together the system will remain in balance (as long as we can keep UKIP out of that equation for now). I spoke earlier about returning times. We see now that the retirement age will shift. Meeting financial ends is getting harder and harder. Companies in the Netherlands are now advocating reduction in pay and overall working conditions will hit hard times for years to come. Labour has always fought this (not always in the right way). But I believe with utter conviction that opposition politics is the only way to keep things for the most honest and fair.

So as we end this small piece with a few additional thoughts and a request. The fact that Ed’s dad fought for England is a fact. He must have been good as he ended his service as a CPO, not a rank easily achieved. He ended up with a degree from the London School of economics and even though he was not a conservative, he was a devoted academic. He put his words to books and got 7 of them published. So a man of thought, whether we agree with them or not, they are regarded as distinguished works. If wisdom comes from the past, then the Miliband family contributed to the British Empire (I love the old names), something that a person hating that nation would never do. Finally, there is a book ‘Newman, Michael (2002). Ralph Miliband and the Politics of the New Left.‘ there is a little more at http://monthlyreview.org/press/books/pb0866/ it shows from other sources that the Miliband family contributed to the evolving English way of life. Books that end up on the shelves, unlike the daily Mail that ends up at the bottom of a budgie cage the day after if it is lucky.

Now for the small request to you the reader. Some will agree with the Leveson report (I do), some do not. I believe the article about Mr Miliband to be in really bad taste. This was not about ‘the right to know‘, I see this for what it was, a personal attack on the son of a deceased academic, who is patriotic and who cares about England. In my personal mind, on the wrong side of the isle ;-), but we can’t have it all, can we?

So, if you agree that the attack on someone’s dad, who had already passed away and has no defence against what is being done to him, then this coming Saturday, please DO NOT buy the Daily mail. Buy any other newspaper.  The Guardian, the times, or whatever paper you buy. Let us all send a message to the Daily Mail editorial that some things are just not cricket!

Have a lovely day all!

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics