Monday, November 16, 2015

Imams Sing French National Anthem US Reactionairies look for gain.


Two contrasting articles Imams Sing French National Anthem At Bataclan and The Exploitation of Paris [in the United States].

Depending on who wins what is effectively an Islamic civil war no on going, those Imams may be seen as principled traitors.  That is they are will to make an explicit rejection of one side,  a refusal to use or work with its agents, and exposed action.

If they win, of course, they will not be traitors.

Reactionairies in the United States are willing to betray the common wealth for gain, their own interests, and without regard to others who are part of the nation.  This is a preparation for an unprincipled treason.*

This sort of treason take a long time for it to show its head, but I believe it can be indentified by:
  1. Denigration of the state, while being succored by it
  2. Disregard of other loyal members of the common wealth, because of disagreement
  3. Intentionally fomenting discord, instead of discussion
  4. Of making all issues simply fodder to attacking other actors in the polity.
An example of this sort of treason might be seen in the French right. Prior to the Second World War, it strove to undermine the republic, and when given the chance, collaborated  (“mieux vaut Hitler que Blum”), somewhat to the actual annoyance of the Germans.

The current generation of reactionairies would light signal fire on the way to Pearl Harbor and object the surrender in Tokyo Bay rather than work with other Americans.



----
I know my brother Matthew will chide me for my loose use of the term, viz. the definition in the US Constitution, but I will stick with it for now.

2 comments:

Matthew Saroff said...

No approbation for the broad use of the term treason. You are stipulating an extraterratorial application of the term.

But don't link to HuffPo. They continue to make money off of unpaid writers, and Arianna was a long time buddy with Andrew Breitbart.

Stephen Montsaroff said...

The comment about Andrew Breitbart is grossly inappropriate.

I do not approve in guilt by association nor chastise people for their friendships. You should know better.

As to the former point, it has some merit. If there were an active unionization campaign, I would consider it. This issue is hardly a secret and there is an understood quid pro quo.

Post a Comment