Tuesday, February 17, 2009

No Room For Winston Churchill In Obama's White House

Housecleaning, or symbolic act? (or symbolic housecleaning?)
A bust of the former prime minister once voted the greatest Briton in history, which was loaned to George W Bush from the Government's art collection after the September 11 attacks, has now been formally handed back.

The bronze by Sir Jacob Epstein, worth hundreds of thousands of pounds if it were ever sold on the open market, enjoyed pride of place in the Oval Office during President Bush's tenure. But when British officials offered to let Mr Obama to hang onto the bust for a further four years, the White House said: "Thanks, but no thanks."

Diplomats were at first reluctant to discuss the whereabouts of the Churchill bronze, after its ejection from the seat of American power. But the British Embassy in Washington has now confirmed that it sits in the palatial residence of ambassador Sir Nigel Sheinwald, just down the road from Vice President Joe Biden's official residence. It is not clear whether the ambassador plans to keep it in Washington or send it back to London.

7 comments:

Nora said...

He clearly has "swept" Churchill because the vision of British PM was not very compatible with the "respect for Muslims" he supported. Churchill's profound critical views of Islam make very difficult to respect all Muslims, even if Obama didn't really make any distinction between not only terrorists but extremists Muslims and those who don't hold such extremists views (1). And never refer to Islamist ideology.

I really understand why he is not compatible with Obama's presidency.

Regards.

(1) Yes, I know that a moderate Muslim does not fulfill some of Islam's tenets, so in purity he/she are not really Muslims. But they all believe in Allah and in Mohammed as their Prophet, so the basic tenets are there.

I think you wouldn't agree with me, by the way. But I think we are fighting Islamist ideology or if you put ir Islamic fundamentalist ideology (that is, fulfilling ALL their tenets, their fundamentals). And that ideological fight is even more important than the fight against the people that defends it, at least from my point of view.

I am not a scholar in this, so I can be mistaken. :D

Dag said...

There's this to consider, two quottions that come from the River War, as I recall off-hand:

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."
(Winston Churchill: 1874-1865)

And this:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men."

but I suspect Osama Barka never read any of Churchill's work. My feeling is that Churchill represents some morbid vision of "imperialism" that Osama wouldn't soil his soul with. Why would he read the work of a man who represents "imperialism"? It's automatically cut off from Osama's mind, not to be considered. He knows already, ideologically, that Churchill isn't "right." No thinking involved. No reading. No consideration.

Here are a couple of quotations I like:

"Wilfred R. Bion'S (Tavistock group) "basic sign of mental health is the capacity to tolerate and live in a state of not knowing, chaos, and confusion without have to join up with others for the quick relief—the state of 'O.'"

Or maybe a dip into Camus' Notebooks:

"The need to be right is the sign of a vulgar mind. "

We have elected a fool. Where's our Churchill?

Charles Henry said...

Nora, you make a strong case, but I'm not entirely convinced that Obama knows enough about history to be aware of Churchill's past statements about islam. I think that's giving him too much credit. My guess is that it is the violent British-Kenya history that causes him to devalue Churchill's stature as a leader.

I think you wouldn't agree with me, by the way. But I think we are fighting Islamist ideology or if you put it Islamic fundamentalist ... And that ideological fight is even more important than the fight against the people that defends it…

As a matter of fact we may be in close agreement. I tend to believe that the more the end results of the fundamentalist belief system can be exposed to the light of day, the more likely that its defenders will abandon that belief system.

I believe that muslims and Christians have one thing in common, in how they each view their respective faiths: that they offer hope in time of despair. To me, that’s the bridge. I find that Christianity offers infinitely more hope, and that for the sake of millions of people, like that poor Buffalo woman who was beheaded by her maniacal husband, they need the means to find that out too.

We must find a way to reach out to those like her, in order to rescue them. If we paint women like her with the same broad brush as we do the psychopathic husband, if we treat them as no different, as equally irredeemable, what hope do we have that either will ever cross from one shore to the other?

I therefore believe that we always must differentiate between those who hold different degrees of commitment towards their belief system, between moderates and fundamentalists, so that we leave room for the moderates to change for the better, even for the fundamentalists to become more moderate (however rare that change tends to be).

I think the far greater evil comes from those who willfully sacrifice the moderate muslim on the altar of political correctness. Human sacrifice is alive and well, especially in the west, as those who view humans as soulless animals, as creatures divided by their plumage, incapable of change in the way that a cat can’t become a dog, allow muslims to be murdered in “honor killings”, to be enslaved, to be raped, then whipped for being raped to atone for their “shame”, to be set on fire for wanting to learn how to read, and all the other disgraceful episodes in the ghoulish parade of horrors on display for those with eyes to see. It is all tolerated, or ignored, so as to preserve their desired illusion of multi-cultural egalitarianism.

Like all previous utopias, the newest illusion of Heaven on Earth comes with a bloody price tag indeed. I have no idea what can halt the rising tide of cruelty and suffering that ever accompanies these fantasies, and maybe this is just my own utopian fantasy, but I persist in believing there must be a way.

I’m no scholar either, but my life experiences teach me that a life worth living involves change… and surely, also forgiveness. Today the islamist fundamentalists are forgiven for not changing how they live life, rather than being given the chance to be forgiven for having changed.

Dag said...

It is a pleasure to know you, Charles.

Nora said...

Yes, I have read the first two already, Dag. He was truly critical of Islam. And each time I read this I find it so amazing:

were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

I really believe he was so intelligent. He just saw the future in a clear light. And I always have thought that someone as bright as Churchill in the fight against Nazis, should recognize a threat when he sees one.

Anyway, both of you agree that Obama doesn't know those quotes. Perhaps you're right. Anyway, it's clear he doesn't like Churchill, even if Europe would be very different if the British ex-PM wouldn't have existed.

Hello, Charles Henry:

Today the islamist fundamentalists are forgiven for not changing how they live life, rather than being given the chance to be forgiven for having changed.

Read this:

The Prime Minister had urged the Muslim community to do more about the scourge of extremism within its own ranks but, Barkatullah said, “When we did do precisely that with Abu Hamza, we were ignored.”

I really believe that that's the key point, but all governments are failing to do it. They are continously fueling the intolerant (such as in the case of Wilders vs. Nazir -what a name!!-) and rejecting the real moderates...

allow muslims to be murdered in “honor killings”, to be enslaved, to be raped, then whipped for being raped to atone for their “shame”, to be set on fire for wanting to learn how to read, and all the other disgraceful episodes in the ghoulish parade of horrors on display for those with eyes to see. It is all tolerated, or ignored, so as to preserve their desired illusion of multi-cultural egalitarianism.

Rightfully so. Before I was enraged each time I saw such people. Now I just believe it's not worth it. It's just losing a precious time you can spend in other much more productive matters.

Regards.

Dag said...

I must thank Charles' wonderful memory for bringing back a glib comment I made during the course of our first meeting, when I tossed out the remark that we should "Manji Islam." I meant it in terms of Irshad Manji's approach to Islam, i.e. taking it out of the realm of orthodoxy and turning it into a personal and nominal identity kit, something of a fashion statement for exotophiliacs. but I used Mani for a further reason: she is female. Thus, my remark was meant to suggest a feminization of Islam, not just a twisting of it beyond all current recognition.

I had the dubious pleaure some years ago of spending considerable time with members of the Muslim Brotherhood, one member of which explained to me that "women have no family, no lanuage, no religion."

That appears to contradict reality, so allow me to explain as he meant it: A female is an empty vessel, having no mind of her own, being almost exclusively obsessed with her own (evil) unrestrained sexuality. A woman is akin to a dog on the street, a dog which, if left to its own devices, would run wild.

When a man takes on the responsibility of a female, it is his honor at stake should he allow her behaviour to shame him. In a totally male dominated culture, he would be less than a male, diminished in the eyes of all, women included.

Because women are shameful, i.e. having reached puberty, i.e. six years of age, they must be tightly controlled for the sake of the male owner as well as for the skae of the community, the female otherwise running amok in a sexual frenzy, disrupting the calm of the community, leading to violence, and cetera, to fitna.

A woman, being almost solely devoted to her own indiscriminate sexual needs, must be controlled, and for her own good, since she has almost no mind of her own. She has no home, being given to he who pays, in whatever currency; and she has no language, adopting that of her husband; and she has no religion, being a shameful thing in the eyes of Allah, being a brainless thing that cannot resist temptation of her own volition. In the latter instance, we see that a Muslim female cannot marry a non-Muslim: she cannot have her own religion while her husband has his as well. The female must be placed in the custody of a Muslim man. Otherwise, she would adopt the religion of the man, and such is not allowed in Islam.

Thus, when I argued for the Manji-ing of Islam, I meant it in term of whimmitude: that women should and perhaps only they can destroy Islam from within by abandoning male Muslims for others, even if each other. Women can break the bonds of Islam, to their eternal benefit, by dumping their men. That is the road to transforming Islam. To say Islam is not reformable, I still think not. It would become something so qualitatively different as to no longer be "Islam." It would be "Manji-ism," for example. I'm in favor of that.

The Hunter said...

Don't underestimate Obama on anything.

The Clinton Administration was the most corrupt in US history, worse than the next three runners-up combined.

The Bush-43 Administration topped the Clinton Administration.

Obama is going to set a new record.

For Churchill's part, he knew an oppressive, imperialistic ideology when he saw one. He warned the world about Nazism, and he was right. He warned the world about Communism, and he was right. And, he warned the world about Islam.