http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2011/02/05/david-cameron-l-europe-doit-se-reveiller-contre-l-extremisme-islamiste_1475497_3214. html
According to this article World , Cameron's position about the clash of civilizations would be most critical and nuanced as it denounces the clash of civilizations between Islam and the amalgam and Islamism. Crazy or insane? There are several variants of the clash of civilizations, especially in the current rise of nationalism, anti-Jewish minority variant as the majority variant Islamophobic. It would be naive to believe that supporters of the clash of civilizations promote it explicitly. Our soft
ideologues establish at the outset the distinction between evil and treacherous Islam and Islamism to give the illusion that their purpose is moderate. What Makes a partisan clash of civilizations when it wears a mask? Cameron says he is against the shock civilizations in distinguishing between Islam and Islamist terrorist fanaticism? W. after the attacks of 911, in full neo-conservative rhetoric legitimized, demanding democracy and an end to terrorism, had already distilled the most tolerant statements about Islam and Muslims - to distinguish ugly bearded terrorists carrying explosives and knives their socks.
Not only should be wary of this kind of discourse marked and nuanced, but Cameron has a pedigree whose political achievements (and program) inspire the highest suspicion. It's like with W. the great Liberal Democrat tolerant: we saw the result in Iraq or Afghanistan. Cameron does not call for a redefinition of the clash of civilizations toward a more moderate or nuanced: the skill of a typical neo-conservative discourse is to oppose the clash of civilizations hard version (explicit) version of the clash of civilizations soft ( and denied). It is the gentle method dear to Brzezinski, Carter's mentor and Obama - and this is especially the method of this dear Bernard Lewis, an Islamic scholar who officiated on behalf of the diplomatic interests of the Empire UK.
Just learn about the strategic vision Lewis on the clash of civilizations to realize that Cameron has hardly changed its face and that applies ultra-conservative vision of a clash of civilizations that far from being proved only moderately honeyed - compatible with its postmodern feudalism Blond or advisor of European imperialism postmodern dear Cooper, a friend of Baroness Ashton, the current head of British diplomacy, sorry, I meant - European.
Lewis is the founder of the expression of the clash of civilizations (1957 and 1990). Huntington simply repeated the phrase and give content leui more vindictive. Lewis noted in this article of 1957 ( The Roots of Muslim Rage ) that "it is vitally important for [the West] not to indulge in a reaction equally historic but equally irrational" against Islam. Already about tolerance to coat the contents of the clash of civilizations. But the more significant this consideration could be particularly relevant for the Arab people: "Men of good will find it possible to be pro-Israel without being anti-Arab and pro-Arab without being asked to approve the clowns and the tyrants who have disgraced and dishonored a great and talented people "( Friends and Enemies : Reflections after a War ).
Like Cameron's position in relation to Islamophobia and the clash of civilizations, Lewis displayed a tolerance that would equal his high culture Islamophile. But just like the clash of civilizations, Lewis manifesto against Arabs or Palestinians openness equaled that of British imperialism on the ground. Concealment and handling of the trains are rhetorical sophists are those reported by Plato and which did not begin with Bernard Lewis on Islam that held about concealing penny criticism of Islamic terrorism will destroy all forms of cultural constitutes a threat or an embarrassment for liberal imperialism. The adept
clash of civilizations (whether Lewis or thurifer indirectly) admits to the fact that he intends to promote liberalism in the guise of promoting freedom and tolerance in other crops. In other words, a Huntington, U.S. Assistant (trend british ) Lewis to U.S. National Security Council, offers a harsh and clumsy version of the clash of civilizations that his cunning master. Just read Lewis to realize that the inventor of the expression has a position closer to the cautious and wily Cameron: propose secularization and liberalization of Islam is the true approach that motivates the clash of civilizations. We accept your culture condition that mimics your culture and we like us. Curious
tolerance that this tolerance of intolerance housing. The positive is the negative: definition of nihilism and the principle of contradiction underlying. The clash of civilizations is not detected as a result of a hatred of other civilizations, but because of ethnocentrism remarkable that in theorists about the clash of civilizations is to promote British imperialism. Theorists of this shock requiring less chaotic warfare civilizations that liberal westernization of the world.
Exactly what is proposed by Cameron World : under cover of appeal to the distinction between liberal and tolerant Islam and Islamic terrorist, he is proposing nothing less than the conversion of Islam (and other civilizations ) to liberalism and secularism (milling and ultra-liberal format theorized by Lewis). This scam reminds Venetian mask underlying Nietzsche or the initials of the Fabian Society: a wolf in sheep. Far from calling the war of civilizations against each other, the clash of civilizations theory upon calls for war against Islamist terrorism and the secularization of Islam in crisis (one of themes of Lewis).
The ideological concept of war of civilizations is a tactic to make the unilateral hegemony of British imperialism and liberalism in particular give an enemy (preferably Islam as a non-Christian monotheism, universalistic and competitor). In a nihilistic, we need an enemy as devoid of negative positive. The enemy recognizes both the externality while postulating that this externality was replaced by the rule of completeness and immanence. The externality would be obsolete. The clash of civilizations can not manifest itself so hushed and treacherous, because it has the sanction of the draft programmatic failure all (totalitarian) liberal.
Unlike what he said, Cameron's speech is a speech emblematic of the clash of civilizations. It is the Venetian mask and sheepskin fabienne: authoritarianism imperialist Cameron is revealed in this attack against Islam under the guise of fighting against Islamic terrorism. Moreover, the coverage of World indicates the factual manipulation that engages both the newspaper would continue to pass for a Social Democratic newspaper while he is a newspaper of ultra-liberal left in the hands of bankers dominant (interest BNP).
Figaro's article is conscaré this episode was much more incisive than the World:
http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2011/02/05/01003- 20110205ARTFIG00536-cameron-denounces-the-failure-of-multiculturalisme.php
Where we see that the journalistic honesty is reflected in better positions than conservative false progressives. Cameron does not just attacking Islamic terrorism (related to Islamic terrorism) and denounces the model of the so-called multicultural society in the name of liberalism history - of British origin. Cameron, under the guise of attacking the clash of civilizations (in its extreme and simplistic), rehabilitates the most ultra liberal ... Speeches infamous cynicism and perversity (which merely repeats about other connotations such as Merkel in Germany)! Because the model does not describe a multicultural policy to promote alternative models that the liberal model, but to have knowingly allowed fanaticism and extremism (especially Muslims), so that the London hospital for criminals was called by the French secret service Londonistan ...
Cameron confuses the fittest who handle extremist parties weaker (as Islamism terrorism against liberalism) and freedom of expression. If the position is not surprising in the mouth of an even more radical than conservative Thatcher (big understatement), the clash of civilizations is defined by its perverse and misleading apologia of tolerance, secular and liberal unmasks the unbridled glorification of ultra-liberalism as the heir of liberalism as a model of historical and civilization than the religious model antagonist, including Islam abroad became the foil and caricature caricatured.
0 comments:
Post a Comment