Peter,

My apologies for my personal reaction towards you. I keep freedom of thought and expression close at heart. This caused my ‘emotional’ reaction.

You are right about the necessity for dynamism in society. It is one of the goals of democracy. So, why blocking democracy as is done today in Belgium?

The political left achieved many positive things mainly during the first 5 – 6 decades of the last century. The left was certainly part of this dynamism. At this moment they are not. They are not progressive. They want to keep the things as they are. And they are actively blocking the thrust that is living in society by blocking democracy. They are anti-democratic.

@ George2

Believe me, I have long experience with 'PVDH'.  He is well-intentioned and is not a bad leftie.  But he is also young and needs more practical experience with actual 'human nature', which requires time (for most people).   

Thus, while he thinks that cultures need changing and that "dynamics" should be accepted, he still hasn't grasped that it is precisely freedom of expression that has allowed certain cultures to "change" (in positive ways) and to adjust to new circumstances.   He is still trapped in the 'idealistic' phase of the "wereldverbeteraars", and wants to use govermental monopoly power (including censorship laws) for abstract (but 'good') ideological ends (e.g. like "anti-racism"). Thereby, forgetting that acceptance of such powers can also lead to the use of them for 'bad' ideological ends.   

It took western civilisation many centuries to get to a 'consensus' that freedom-of-opinion (or expression) should be a bedrock primary constitutional right, separate and above political/ideological battles of any moment or time.  Recent European history shows again that that lesson of centuries can easily be unlearned or forgotten.

If it took many centuries for western civilization at large, it should not be surprising that it can take many years in the life of an INDIVIDUAL westerner to come to the realisation that the actual enforcement and respect for freedom of (political) speech is much more important than the 'fancy words' and fleeting goals of politicians of-the-moment. 

"In a fix world view, everyone that once was an adept of Marx, must be a Stalinist agreeing in the killing of millions of people. It must be a poor and boring world, the world of a conservative."

So what about demonizing the largest party of Flanders? They are certainly right wing. And this makes them neo-nazis? Is this a good reason to start changing laws to be able to sue this party? But of course!!! These are the politically correct parties who are sueing! They own the truth. They can shit on democracy, because they are right.

"It must be a poor and boring world, ..."

@ PVDH: I guess you don't have the freedom, nor a sense of 'self-pride', nor the guts to apply your own thinking to the image in the mirror.

How curious.

Presumably this small discussion is occurring because Rosa Lux. was an atheist, thus a proxy for philosophical debate over religion?

Personally, I thought the article highlighted the Marxist component of her life (top down control of society, centralized planning, lack of personal freedom).  What is the positive heritage from the thrust of Rosa Lux.'s outlook on life? Why so approvingly name an Alley after her? Or any of the totalitarian mass murderers like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot who stand with her viewpoint on the nature of humanity?

But let us move away from debate. Allow me to offer a heartfelt "thank you" for the wonderful people donated to my country by Europe. I read this account today for the first time, very moving. After reading it, I thought of so many heroes who could have had that Alley named after them...if the Euro elites had a different set of priorities and core beliefs.

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/008785.php
 

Forgive me for answering for Peter, but Rudi's remark that a paragraph criticising a certain conservative mindset based on religion is "looks to be the best definition of Islam I have ever read" is wonderfully telling.

Rudi adds, "probably you weren't aware of it yourself?", which is the most telling point of all.

Dear Rudi, and much esteemed Paul Belien, I think that was Peter's point.

It is certainly a point I had started to make in my comment but erased it because I needed to rewrite it and didn't have time.

Something that pains and frustrates me so much when I read some otherwise excellent articles here is the belief by Paul and others here in religion and its so-called certainties.  Some of the things that follow from that could be equally said by Islamist theocrats.

Please, for the sake of all of us who are in this together, try to lighten up a bit. Surely you don't really believe in a supernatural "God", you must be into religion for the social glue it provides so well.  So consider that there are others out here who share a lot of your values but are not using religion to hold everything together.  I'm happy to leave you alone about your religion so long as you don't try to impose it on me. Do me the same favour and we will remain on the same side against the extreme versions of that -- which is precisely the Islamist theocrats.

But equally I recognize the truth in your point that the leftwing supporters of Islamist theocrats are using their politics as religion.

Is it safe to assume that a street named for Marc Dutroux, in the US, would be acceptable?  He was merely ahead of his time fighting for the rights of the little guys. 

Interesting text you wrote here:

They don’t see civilisations changing, merging or becoming born. They merely see their own culture as the superior one, wanted and agreed upon by God, and obviously constantly at treat of destruction by malicious forces. They talk about values as if they were valid and fixed in all circumstances and times, defined by some supernatural power and mostly to be found in the recent past that has to be “conserved”.

This looks to be the best definition of Islam I have ever read. probably you weren't aware of it yourself? 

Thanks, Peter. That was just the sort of thing I wanted to say.

I very much value the Brussels Journal but sometimes the blinkers are just too securely mounted.

There is really more to the current situation and problems that we face than left against right and right against left.  But watch out conservatives, it is the leftwing New Statesman that is exposing the British Labour government ass-kissing of Islamist thugs.

"Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblence of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element."

"Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblence of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element."

Conservatives tent to deny the dynamics in culture and politics. They don’t see civilisations changing, merging or becoming born. They merely see their own culture as the superior one, wanted and agreed upon by God, and obviously constantly at treat of destruction by malicious forces. They talk about values as if they were valid and fixed in all circumstances and times, defined by some supernatural power and mostly to be found in the recent past that has to be “conserved”. That’s probably why they can’t see Rosa Luxemburg as a product of her time: A courageous Jewish woman struggling for the causes that were important at that time. Trying to change the, for the working class, undoubtedly harsh and unjust world order that reined her part of the world. In a fix world view, everyone that once was an adept of Marx, must be a Stalinist agreeing in the killing of millions of people. It must be a poor and boring world, the world of a conservative.