If citizens of a nation state elect people to represent them, then it is reasonable to expect their representatives to share their cultural values, and to defend those values on their behalf. But if politicians who have been elected by citizens of a nation state find themselves entangled within a global political system, then the people they were elected to represent will face the consequences.
If politicians engaged in business only with states founded on similar cultural values then no moral compromise would be necessary on their part, but if a politician decides to deal with a state built on values that are antithetical to our own, then they must turn a blind eye to what their new business partners do in their own country. This necessarily involves a moral compromise on the part of our elected politicians, and the only difference between dealing with one state and another is one of degree. Most citizens understand that this is the way of the world, and if their elected political representatives must do business with other political regimes whose values they disagree with, then they will tolerate this so long as a deal advantageous to their own state is struck between the two parties. But within the borders of their own nation state, their own cultural values must hold sway, and this has to include the ability to freely criticize any and all philosophies and pseudo-religions which are inimical to human liberty, and which openly endorse tyranny.
At a philosophical level, that is what makes freedom so important: the ability of each individual to choose between competing values and belief systems. And when the citizens of a state choose, repeatedly and over time, to follow basic Judeo-Christian rules of morality, and those are the values which obtain throughout that society, there you have a real, honest-to-goodness culture, a way of life which their politicians are elected to uphold and protect.
The danger comes when elected politicians align themselves with other politicians and see themselves as members of a political elite, rather than representatives of the people of a nation state. Each of our politicians who find themselves unable to resist that temptation will find that the more people who are in such a group, the greater the chance that one or more of them will not only be a believer in political or pseudo-religious doctrines antithetical to the cultural values which obtain in their own nation state, but they will be guilty of implementing those beliefs and thereby acting in a way that would be considered both illegal and immoral by the citizens who voted that politician into office.
What to do in that situation? For any career politician who wants to become a member of the political elite, they face a straightforward choice. If you want to ride that gravy train, then you have to to pay for a ticket. If you are going to stand alongside evil men and deliver to them whatever they want from the world, then you must forsake your own conscience. Amorality is a prerequisite of a global political system.
That politician has now pledged his allegiance to a group other than the citizens of the nation state who elected him to represent them. It follows that he will try to conceal from those people both his decision, and any subsequent activities which he carries out in order to further the goals of that supranational group.
One of the things he will be committed to is to convince his own citizens to abandon their traditional values and accept the flawed philosophy of moral relativism. If he is successful then the politician's decisions and activities, and those of his fellow elitists, won't be understood in moral terms by the citizens of his own nation state, who have the power to take away that politician's ticket to the global gravy train and instead, hand him a P45.
Another necessary project will be the limitation of free speech within the nation state. Take away citizens' moral beliefs and a politician's activities cannot be understood in moral terms by them; take away the ability to speak freely, and that behavior cannot be criticized.
It is of course possible to study the contents of a book and to criticize the ideas found therein; any philosophy undergraduate understands that there is a difference between doing this and committing the ad hominem fallacy - making assertions that refer not to the contents of the book in question, but rather to people who have read the book and believe its contents are true.
In order to silence citizens who might discuss their elected politicians' allegiance to foreign powers and supranational groups, we have seen agents of the British state assert that anyone who criticizes the values and beliefs of some of the members of those groups and powers - values which are based on the pseudo-religion of Islam, and beliefs taken directly from the pages of the koran - constitute attacks on people who hold those beliefs and strive to uphold those values. As noted previously, one can read the koran and the hadith, study the doctrines and history of Islam using respected academic sources, then present an argument criticizing the doctrines of Islam, laying out one's premises to support one's conclusion and meticulously citing one's sources, employing language which refers only to to abstract pseudo-religious concepts. But to criminalize discussion of the doctrines and history of Islam, agents of the state can and will prosecute British citizens on the basis that they have spoken about Islam and therefore they have committed the ad hominem fallacy, which simply does not follow.
Obviously a distinction can be drawn between an assertion which refers to a long-dead man named Mohammed who is regarded by some as the prophet of Islam, and an utterance that issues forth from the mouth of an individual which refers instead to some bloke called Mohammed who lives along the road, works for the local council and drives a Ford Mondeo. The government has deliberately blurred this perfectly clear linguistic distinction in order to restrict freedom of speech within the United Kingdom.
The British state has not only criminalized the discussion of Islam in an intellectually dishonest manner, it has encouraged acceptance of the incredible notion that discussing Islam is "racist", which is an impossibility since the ink and paper which constitute the Koran and the hadith have no genetic component whatsoever. That assertion is therefore the height of absurdity, and can be dismissed as such by all rational people.
It is important to remember that all politicians are hired by us on a temporary contract to carry out the administrative duties involved in running the country, and that is all. The idea that a politician has some kind of moral standing above and beyond the citizens who employ him is ridiculous. Take Barack Obama: the man spent years listening to Jeremiah Wright, so who's going to take anything he says about religion seriously now? As for David Cameron, he's nothing but a jumped-up fairground attendant.
Each one of us is an individual, a moral agent capable of exercising their own free will. Any attempt by the state to prevent us from discovering the truth about Islamic doctrines and history, and subsequently passing judgement on them, is a betrayal of who we are as human beings. Politicians may develop grandiose ideas of belonging to an elite group who will control great swathes of the earth, but so far as I am concerned, politicians are about as morally significant as a bug on my car windscreen.
I am a free moral agent. I am more than capable of deciding for myself whether the so-called prophet of Islam really flew about the sky on a horse, whether the moon deity at the heart of Islam is deserving of worship, or whether the Islamic doctrines that take precedence after applying the principle of abrogation to the koran as a whole are deserving of contempt.
And there's not a man or woman alive on the earth today, politician or not, who can tell me otherwise.
Tags: globalism, tyranny, freedom of speech, Obama To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!