Thursday, August 26, 2010

Philadelphia Story

[Trinity Presbyterians shaking fists at Methodist opponents]

From the newspaper the Daily Star -
A senior Presbyyterian official and another member of the organization have been killed in clashes between supporters of the movement and supporters of a conservative Methodist faction in Philadelphia last night. The clashes took place in the mixed neighborhood of West Bentham in the city.

According to reports, the clashes began with a fight between a supporter of the Presbyterians and a member of the Methodist Revival faction. The fighting escalated, and at one point, machine guns and rocket propelled grenade launchers were used.

The Pennsylvania National Guard intervened and remains deployed in the area, which has been cordoned off. The clashes are said to be continuing.

The dead Presbyterian official has been named as Andrew MacIntosh, who was in charge of the movement in the West Bentham sector.

The incident in West Bentham was not mentioned by Presbyterian leader Jonathan Tavish in a speech he gave last night. However, Pennsylvania sources say that the fighting is the worst outbreak of violence since the clashes in May 2008 brought Pennsylvania to the brink of civil war.

At that time, an attempt by the Pennsylvania government to move against the Presbyterians' independent communications infrastructure and control of security at Philadelphia airport led to the movement taking control of west Philadelphia. It is worth noting that the May 2008 events were preceded by a series of smaller scale clashes on a sectarian basis between Calvinists and Methodists, and this is likely to increase concerns regarding the latest events.

Pennsylvania has been in a state of high tension in recent weeks, because of reports that the UN tribunal investigating the murder of former Pennsylvania governor Randall Thompson was set to issue indictments against Presbyterian members suspected of involvement in the murder.

Okay I admit I may have accidentally made a few misspellings in copying the article. For instance "Hezbollah" accidentally came out as "Presbyterian", and "Sunni" accidentally came out as "Methodist". Similar accidents resulted in "Beirut" and "Lebanon" coming out as "Philadelphia" and "Pennsylvania". Similar clumsinesses changed the "Lebanese Army" to "Pennsylvania National Guard" and the Beirut district of Burj Abi Haidar became the non-existent suburb West Bentham. The various Arab names mistakenly came out as British-sounding ones.

The article with the accidental misspellings changing the factions involved to Protestants in Philadelpia, is highly improbable, even absurd. With the place names changed back to the original Beirut, Hezbollah, Sunni, and Arabic spellings, it is not the least surprising.

We have come to believe and accept the notion that there is no clash of civilizations.We accept that it is wrong and unacceptable to even speak of such a thing.

Yet what distinguishes the improbability of machine gun fire between Protestants in Philadelphia and the routine-ness of it between Hezbollah and Sunnis in Beirut, if not a difference of cultures - of civilizations?

The Main Stream Media (MSM) Accepted View is that Muslims are just another religious group and that Islam is just another religion. Recent events in Beirut and non-events in Philadelphia suggest otherwise.



  1. Anonymous10:29 PM

    Headline: Arabs shot down in Bar

  2. Damien11:14 AM

    Huntington's thesis is the most simplified load of garbage ever to come out of I.R. theory.

    It is a pathetic rehash of the Realist tradition. It ignores national interests of states. It is reductionist offering no explanation for internal diversities. It fails to consider geo-political and geo-economic factors. The answer to your question

    "Yet what distinguishes the improbability of machine gun fire between Protestants in Philadelphia and the routine-ness of it between Hezbollah and Sunnis in Beirut, if not a difference of cultures - of civilizations?"

    is in the short-comings of the Clash of Civilizations theory which I have outlined. Many states in the middle east are backward Islamic theocratic hellholes. This is not because of race, there are far more variables at work. Israel is a more prosperous and liberal state than its Iranian neighbours not because of the skin colour of its citizens. Religion is a minor factor that makes places like Iran what it is, there are also other reasons underpinning Iran's condition which you ignore.

    I am surprised that you would support such a narrow world view.
    If a clash of civilizations exists then why does Saudi Arabia and the U.S. have a special relationship? A self critical analysis of your own perceptions of the Middle-East would be a far more enlightening approach to understand why the area is so prone to violence, Said's writings on Orientalism would be a good starting point for you Jack.

    Your ingrained narrow-minded perception of world politics seems to be a product of your nationalist persuasion as a Jew. I don't see you as a bad person for it, just foolish and misguided.

    A history of persecution can strengthen the nationalist conscience of a people to dangerously excessive levels, this is problem for many of the world's Jewry which so often is evoked on your blog.

  3. Damien mentions race. I didn't. Whereupon he admits that he has no argument whatever and is grasping not at straws but at invented straws.

    The various civilizations of Europe, the Cycladic, Minoan, Greek, Viking, Gaelic, and Frankish/Western have all been among substantially racially identical people. The clashes among them were no less merciless and existential for that.

    Now that Damien has agreed with me by admitting that he has no basis for disagreeing, I hope, forlornly, that he will have the good sense to admit it.

    I find it instructive that he relies on the writing of the late Edward Said, a proven conscious liar whose works have been exploded in detail by critical scholarship.

    It is also instructive that he blames the victims of European and Muslim nationalism for the nationalism. Again, a revealingly empty argument.

  4. Just as an aside about the sincerity of Damien's distaste for nationalism, I ask him to go to Dublin pub at ten o'clock on Saturday night and announce in a loud voice that Irish nationhood was a mistake and that the country should be given back to England.

    Damien doesn't object to nationalism nor to nation-states. He objects only to Jewish nationalism and to Israel. And he will mouth any nonsense whatever to conceal the reason why.