Category Archives: Morality

Gottfried on the Why of Systemic vs. Personal Responsibility

Individual Rights, Intellectualism, Morality, Neoconservatism, Socialism

Professor Paul Gottfried offers this insight as to why, “When speaking about crime and culpability (punishment is not an option), left-liberals like Jolie use the passive voice. Crimes are caused, not committed.”

I think Ilana’s observation about the widespread tendency to blame all non-white and non-Western atrocities on abstract causes such as “violence,” “poverty,” and “white racism” serves a necessary function within the context of (non-neoconservative) leftist thinking. This ascription allows the user to blame morally revolting actions on neither the perpetrator nor any specific person or group of persons belonging to the white Western world. It goes without saying that blacks, who form a martyr people within leftist victimology, cannot be called to account by white Westerners because they rape and murder each other. To do so would undermine the reigning anti-fascist, anti-racist ideology. But neither is it wise to lay the blame for Third World atrocities at the door of one’s parents and associates, assuming they are white, if one intends to maintain civil relations. Therefore the problem becomes “structural” or “economic” rather than personal. And this also suggests that everything can be set right by adopting the right socialist, redistributionist policies.

—Paul Gottfried

Send Us Your Con Men and Women

Christianity, Europe, IMMIGRATION, Islam, Morality

What do you know, a day after The Decider (Bush’s nickname for himself) praised millions of illegal immigrants for heroically forging documents and lying to employers about their status in the country, The American Enterprise Institute has opened its arms to a prominent Dutch counterfeiter, and is, evidently, sponsoring her immigration to the United States.

She’s the Somali-born Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali, whom I’ve mentioned—favorably—before. Ali’s an outspoken and brave critic of Islam. She assisted Theo van Gogh, the slain Dutch filmmaker, in exposing the enslavement of women in Muslim countries. It goes without saying that followers of the religion of peace want to kill her.

Little did I know that she is liberal only with respect to views she endorses. According to Lawrence Auster, Ali has sought to ban conservative, Christian, and immigration restrictionist parties in Europe. Writes Auster:

She was also among the 12 signers of a leftist anti-Islam manifesto in March 2006 that said, ‘It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.’ The clear implication is that Christian ‘theocrats’—which by contemporary standards means anyone who actually believes in Christianity—are Ali’s enemy as much as jihadists are.

Ali, moreover, lied on her Dutch asylum application. Duly, after being a Dutch citizen for 14 years, and a member of that parliament, to boot, immigration minister Rita Verdonk has revoked her citizenship.

I’m not saying I support this ruling. The details are sketchy, and Ali claims to have “admitted lying to win asylum in the Netherlands when she was vetted as a candidate for parliament in 2002.” What makes me even more suspicious is that “a Dutch court ruled that she must leave her home in The Hague because neighbours felt she was a security risk.” That’s preposterous! What right has the court to evict her from her home because thugs have threatened her life? Let the court banish the thugs from the country!

I’d say that Ali is a candidate for asylum in the United States, although I’m not sure she’d be better protected here than in Europe. What I question is her candidacy for a fellowship with an American think tank.

Wait a sec, what am I thinking? Having no coherent political philosophy or lacking veracity—even talent—are not always impediments to being hired by such places. For example, Rachel Marsden, a convicted Canadian stalker, worked for Paul Weyrich’s D.C. think tank, the Free Congress Foundation, which is dedicated to fighting America’s “long slide into cultural and moral decay.” I’m sure there are other examples—of lack of talent, at least, if not of out-and-out wrongdoing.

* Image courtesy Point Of Inquiry.

Hang the Hangmen

Britain, History, Islam, Justice, Morality, Religion, The West

With reference to Abdul Rahman of Afghanistan who narrowly averted death for apostasy: I pointed out that the “Afghani judiciary is criminal, not—conservative,” as it had been characterized in our multicultural media. By natural law standards, to kill someone for his beliefs is a crime.

Mark Steyn dredges a delightful anecdote from a time when Englishmen were real men and knew what was naturally just. A doff of the hat to George Reisman for sending along this relic from a proud past:

“In a more culturally confident age, the British in India were faced with the practice of `suttee’ – the tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. Gen. Sir Charles Napier was impeccably multicultural: `You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks, and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.'”

Updated: Manners As Virtue

Ethics, Etiquette, Media, Morality, Pop-Culture

George Will once wrote that “manners are the practice of a virtue. The virtue is called civility, a word related—as a foundation is related to a house—to the word civilization.”

Will’s column, “Manners and virtue in a modern world, suggests that the ability to be courteous, kind, and mindful of etiquette in dealing with others is a reflection of something far more meaningful: one’s mettle.

Maybe this is why, other than hate mail, I respond to all letters I receive—to each and every one. Due to time constraints, my replies are laconic. But if someone bothers to read and comment on what I have to say, then it’s only decent to acknowledge the gesture. I haven’t always been firm in this resolve, but I try my best. If colleagues write, I always reply, whether I like them and their stuff or not.

Most pundits, however, don’t reply to their mail. That smacks of hubris and pride, almost always unwarranted. The younger sorts are plain punks. Since most are so uninspiring and mediocre, one wonders what they’re playing at, and why they’re not more modest.

Golda Meir’s zinger, “Don’t be so humble, you’re not that great,” is a relic from a time when false humility was at least still practiced. We’ll have to settle for something less clever. Can’t be bothered to answer your mail? “Don’t be so arrogant, you suck.”

P.S. The very popular and busy Dr. Daniel Pipes is polite. If you write to him, he’ll find the time to answer your questions. If I think of anyone else who rates a mention, I’ll update the post.

P.P.S. Pipes, ever the gentleman, sent this note: “What a nice refuge from the usual vulgarity! I completely agree with you that correspondents deserve a reply, even if a short one. And the quote from Golda Meir is beautifully apt.”

Update: I promised above to remind myself, as a “refuge from the usual vulgarity,” to use Dr. Pipes’s words, of the fine—and refined—individuals I do encounter along the way. Television ensures that the brainless, loud, airheads, whose intellectual output is as significant as a foghorn’s, loom large. They should not. So here’s a low-key shout-out to the brilliant and nice people I’ve had the pleasure to e-meet since I penned this post: Robert Spencer, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades),” Andrew Bostom, author of the Legacy of Jihad, and historian Bat Y’eor of the Eurabia fame. And yes, on the entertainment side, the irrepressible Michael Musto of the Village Voice. Nice people all.