Identifying the Enemy
Germany, France, Sweden, Canada and England are a few of the countries that have made it a crime to criticize Islam. Even comedians satirizing Islamic radicalism are targets and can find the wrath of their respective governments coming down on their heads.
What happens to a culture when it selectively outlaws free speech and even satire? It isn’t rocket science. When you centralize power and give the government authority to ban unpopular speech—as is the case in much of Europe—it’s only a matter of time before the ban grows, muzzling all dissent. Such bans are generally selective, mind you, at least to start with. Criticize Christians, and you're probably safe.
Americans are seeing the same phenomenon across college campuses. That, however, isn’t the only place where speech-codes are being enacted. Recently, our attorney general, Loretta Lynch, floated the idea of banning anti-Muslim speech. Not anti-Christian or Anti-Jewish speech, but solely, anti-Muslim speech.
Massive debt defaults and unsustainable social spending are also threatening to crush European and American economies. This is sometimes met with skepticism by those on the Left who ask, "How can helping the poor be the problem?" Usually answered with the rhetorical "It must be military spending or corporate welfare that are the real culprits."
The simple answer is that government, unlike business, has little incentive to innovate or find cost effective methods of dealing with problems, whether the issue is social security or military spending. Not without having to wait for congress to get around to addressing the problem, which may take years. By comparison, privately owned businesses risk their own money (Not the taxpayers) and must be prepared to adapt to changes in the market daily or even minute by minute. That is the nature of genuine competition. Government, is a monopoly and has no such incentive. Politicians can simply blame the opposition for any and all failures. And, by doing so, maintain the status quo indefinitely, but only as long as the people allow it—you’ve always got to pacify your bosses first. For instance, both parties have known for decades that social security is insolvent. Doing something about it, though, is like watching the flow of molasses in the dead of winter. For older Americans who vote, it’s a serious hot button issue, and anyone who takes it on must be willing to brave shark infested waters. No savvy politician does this willingly. Not if they want to be reelected, which is why it festers like a bacterial infection. If it’s left unattended, it can eventually kill the whole organism. (Before I go any further, let me apologize to sharks and bacteria for comparing them to politicians.)
Make no mistake, both republicans and democrats are guilty of this collusion, not either or. In reality, it’s simply the nature of government. Keeping their jobs then is their primary task and takes precedent over everything else. So, ignoring the really entrenched problems and deflecting the public’s attention with marginal issues like where people can legally pee, is celebrated as a great victory. That’s why nothing of consequence ever gets done. When a major victory does occur, it tends to benefit the government and their cronies mostly, not the people. Besides, the opposition on either side can always be scapegoated as the true enemy, just in case victory suddenly turns into defeat.
No, it’s much easier for politicians to consolidate power by offering new rights and privileges to favored groups, if the majority of the population is systematically disenfranchised, oh well.
That is why Europe's various governments choose not to see radical Islam as the real enemy. The real enemy is their own people. This applies to the Obama Administration and the inert Republican congress, as well. Relatively speaking, radical Islamist are small in number and not as imminent a threat to the political class. Watch as our president refers to a mass slaughter by ISIS as a “Minor setback.” One that shouldn’t be allowed to derail our progress as we resettle immigrants from places that are a breeding ground for global Jihad. It's also why speech codes are nothing more than a deadly ruse and why a seemingly benevolent government will—given enough time—become the enemy.
Mark Magula
What happens to a culture when it selectively outlaws free speech and even satire? It isn’t rocket science. When you centralize power and give the government authority to ban unpopular speech—as is the case in much of Europe—it’s only a matter of time before the ban grows, muzzling all dissent. Such bans are generally selective, mind you, at least to start with. Criticize Christians, and you're probably safe.
Americans are seeing the same phenomenon across college campuses. That, however, isn’t the only place where speech-codes are being enacted. Recently, our attorney general, Loretta Lynch, floated the idea of banning anti-Muslim speech. Not anti-Christian or Anti-Jewish speech, but solely, anti-Muslim speech.
Massive debt defaults and unsustainable social spending are also threatening to crush European and American economies. This is sometimes met with skepticism by those on the Left who ask, "How can helping the poor be the problem?" Usually answered with the rhetorical "It must be military spending or corporate welfare that are the real culprits."
The simple answer is that government, unlike business, has little incentive to innovate or find cost effective methods of dealing with problems, whether the issue is social security or military spending. Not without having to wait for congress to get around to addressing the problem, which may take years. By comparison, privately owned businesses risk their own money (Not the taxpayers) and must be prepared to adapt to changes in the market daily or even minute by minute. That is the nature of genuine competition. Government, is a monopoly and has no such incentive. Politicians can simply blame the opposition for any and all failures. And, by doing so, maintain the status quo indefinitely, but only as long as the people allow it—you’ve always got to pacify your bosses first. For instance, both parties have known for decades that social security is insolvent. Doing something about it, though, is like watching the flow of molasses in the dead of winter. For older Americans who vote, it’s a serious hot button issue, and anyone who takes it on must be willing to brave shark infested waters. No savvy politician does this willingly. Not if they want to be reelected, which is why it festers like a bacterial infection. If it’s left unattended, it can eventually kill the whole organism. (Before I go any further, let me apologize to sharks and bacteria for comparing them to politicians.)
Make no mistake, both republicans and democrats are guilty of this collusion, not either or. In reality, it’s simply the nature of government. Keeping their jobs then is their primary task and takes precedent over everything else. So, ignoring the really entrenched problems and deflecting the public’s attention with marginal issues like where people can legally pee, is celebrated as a great victory. That’s why nothing of consequence ever gets done. When a major victory does occur, it tends to benefit the government and their cronies mostly, not the people. Besides, the opposition on either side can always be scapegoated as the true enemy, just in case victory suddenly turns into defeat.
No, it’s much easier for politicians to consolidate power by offering new rights and privileges to favored groups, if the majority of the population is systematically disenfranchised, oh well.
That is why Europe's various governments choose not to see radical Islam as the real enemy. The real enemy is their own people. This applies to the Obama Administration and the inert Republican congress, as well. Relatively speaking, radical Islamist are small in number and not as imminent a threat to the political class. Watch as our president refers to a mass slaughter by ISIS as a “Minor setback.” One that shouldn’t be allowed to derail our progress as we resettle immigrants from places that are a breeding ground for global Jihad. It's also why speech codes are nothing more than a deadly ruse and why a seemingly benevolent government will—given enough time—become the enemy.
Mark Magula