Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Liberal’

This day the Mother of all Wars was born. Britain declared war on Germany which wanted a war, not out of any solid reasons than spite. Sheer spite. This War was an unwanted baby that would show how wars in future shall be fought. Not for glory as in the times of Alexander of Macedon but for the sheer perverseness of peoples coalescing into the hands of a few. The Military Class in Germany and the Kaiser’s wilfulness closed ranks to make a war necessary. The English nobs that called the shots wanted to cut the Hohenzollern to size.

‘On July 24 1914 the British cabinet met to discuss the diplomatic situation in Europe, which had deteriorated rapidly since the assassination of the Austrian archduke, Franz Ferdinand, a month before. An Austrian invasion of Serbia now appeared imminent, threatening to spark a regional military crisis that might easily escalate into a general war between the Great Powers.
The sense of foreboding in London was captured in a letter sent by the prime minister, Herbert Asquith, to his confidante Venetia Stanley. The situation was “about as bad as it can possibly be”, he wrote, and Europe now stood on the brink of “a real Armageddon”. Nevertheless, Asquith felt able to reassure Stanley. “Happily there seems to be no reason why we should be anything more than spectators.”
Eleven days later, on August 4, Britain declared war on Germany.
In retrospect, Asquith’s words seem strangely complacent. At the time, however, his assumption that Britain might stand aside from the looming European conflagration reflected the hopes and beliefs of a majority of his political colleagues and supporters. This, after all, was a Liberal government which had won a landslide general election victory in 1906 under the slogan of: “Peace, Retrenchment and Reform” ‘.
By the same light we can see the sanctimonious approach to International politics by statesmen especially President Wilson who expressed the wish after the war was won that it was ‘a war to end all wars’.
(quoted from Mathew Johnson article /the Conversation/Aug.4,2014)
benny

Read Full Post »

Norway Muslims question focus on Breivik’s sanity-AP News April, 28,’12
Anders Behring Breivik, the far-right fanatic went on trial for killing 77 people. The self-described anti-Muslim militant shocked Norway on July 22 with a bombing and shooting rampage targeting the government headquarters and the Labor Party’s annual youth camp. Breivik told the court his victims had betrayed Norway by opening the country to immigration. It was as though a wake up call for fellow Norwegians to get on with a “patriotic” revolution aimed at deporting Muslims from Europe. In a 1,500-page manifesto he posted online before the attacks, Breivik frequently cited anti-Islamic bloggers who say Muslims are gradually colonizing Europe. But so far, much of the trial has focused on his mental health, rather than his ideology.The case is still being heard.

Since he has admitted to the attacks, one of the issues for the trial was to determine whether Breivik was sane enough to be held criminally responsible. Mehtab Afsar, head of the Islamic Council in Norway, an umbrella organization of Muslim groups in the country has already expressed his views. “He wants to get rid of Muslims and Islam from Europe. That is his main message. So I don’t see the point of using so much energy on is he normal, is he insane?” Afsar told The Associated Press.
Norway is becoming increasingly diverse. According to official statistics, 13 percent of the 5 million population are either born abroad or children of immigrants. Most of them have European backgrounds, but large groups have also come from Asia and Africa. The government does not register people by faith, but just over 100,000 people, or 2 percent of the population, are members of Islamic communities in Norway.
A report by the government-run Central Statistics Bureau showed attitudes toward immigrants became more positive following the July 22 attacks. Those disagreeing with the statement that “immigrants are a source of insecurity in society” jumped from 48 percent to 70 percent, the agency said.
But just after the bombing, before the perpetrator was known, many Muslims say they were harassed by Norwegians who thought Islamist terrorists were behind the attack.
When it became clear that an ethnic Norwegian was to blame, questions were raised about whether the threat of right-wing extremist violence had been underestimated.
“There’s nothing new in the hatred of Behring Breivik, except for his gruesome actions,” Sultan said.
On the flip side is another piece of news:
According to abc News of April, 27-‘12
Danish intelligence officials arrested three men in their twenties suspected of “having been in the process of preparing a terrorist act,” according to a statement from PET, the country’s Security and Intelligence Service.
Denmark has faced terror threats before, mostly linked to the publishing of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005.
Admitted American terrorist David Headley told a U.S. court that in addition to helping a Pakistani militant group plan the 2008 Mumbai massacre, he also scouted Jyllands-Posten’s offices in Copenhagen for the possibility of an attack.
In May, a Chechen-born man was sentenced to 12 years in prison in Copenhagen for preparing a letter bomb believed to have been intended for the newspaper. In addition, four Swedish residents are currently on trial in Denmark for plotting a shooting spree on the newspaper.)
I cited these two to show multicultuaralism as expressed in the present world is a total failure. It is not in want of trying but the very idea of a free open society cannot be possible when barbaric past still holds on the mind of members who make up the society. Can society work with two variable speeds? With liberal live-let-live attitude and eye-for-an eye vindictiveness of Islam?I hope to explore this peculiar predicament in near future.
Are we not with all the powers in our possession to colonize the moon and beyond, stymied by the question? Is multiculturalism or assimilation better model?
benny

Read Full Post »

In an address to an overflow meeting in an adjacent hall, Lloyd George defiantly declared that amendments proposed by the Lords to the Finance Bill would not be accepted. The speech was well received by his audience and by Liberal supporters throughout the country. Predictably, it provoked wrathful protests from the Unionists, and also from the King; three days later Prime Minister Asquith found King Edward VII in a state of ‘great agitation and annoyance in consequence of [Lloyd George's] Limehouse speech. I have never known him more irritated, or more difficult to appease, though I did my best’.

In preparing his Limehouse speech, Lloyd George had two principal aims: to demonstrate the justice and fairness of his Budget proposals, and to warn the Unionists of their potential vulnerability should they reject it. Limehouse itself did not cause rejection of the People’s Budget, but it did strengthen the antagonism of those already opposed to it. Its rejection by the House of Lords led to a constitutional crisis and two general elections in 1910.

J. Graham Jones
Excerpts

“…..It is rather a shame for a rich country like ours – probably the richest in the world, if not the richest the world has ever seen, that it should allow those who have toiled all their days to end in penury and possibly starvation. It is rather hard that an old workman should have to find his way to the gates of the tomb, bleeding and footsore, through the brambles and thorns of poverty. We cut a new path for him, an easier one, a pleasanter one, through fields of waving corn. We are raising money to pay for the new road, aye, and to widen it, so that 200,000 paupers shall be able to join in the march. There are so many in the country blessed by Providence with great wealth, and if there are amongst them men who grudge out of their riches a fair contribution towards the less fortunate of their fellow-countrymen they are very shabby rich men. We propose to do more by means of the Budget. We are raising money to provide against the evils and the sufferings that follow from unemployment. We are raising money for the purpose of assisting our great friendly societies to provide for the sick and the widows and orphans. We are providing money to enable us to develop the resources of our own land. I do not believe any fair-minded man would challenge the justice and the fairness of the objects which we have in view in raising this money.

But there are some of them who say, ‘The taxes themselves are unjust, unfair, unequal, oppressive notably so the land taxes’. They are engaged, not merely in the House of Commons, but outside the House of Commons, in assailing these taxes with a concentrated and sustained ferocity which will not allow even a comma to escape with its life. Now, are these taxes really so wicked? Let us examine them…
…Let us take first of all the tax on undeveloped land and on increment.
Not far from here, not so many years ago, between the Lea and the Thames you had hundreds of acres of land which was not very useful even for agricultural purposes. In the main it was a sodden marsh. The commerce and the trade of London increased under Free Trade, the tonnage of your shipping went up by hundreds of thousands of tons and by millions; labour was attracted from all parts of the country to cope with all this trade and business which was done here. What happened? There was no housing accommodation. This Port of London became overcrowded, and the population overflowed. That was the opportunity of the owners of the marsh. All that land became valuable building land, and land which used to be rented at £2 or £3 an acre has been selling within the last few years at £2,000 an acre, £3,000 an acre, £6,000 an acre, £8,000 an acre. Who created that increment? Who made that golden swamp? Was it the landlord? Was it his energy? Was it his brains – a very bad look out for the place if it were – his forethought? It was purely the combined efforts of all the people engaged in the trade and commerce of the Port of London – trader, merchant, shipowner, dock labourer, workman, everybody except the landlord. Now, you follow that transaction. Land worth £2 or £3 an acre running up to thousands. ( To be Cont’d)

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,906 other followers