Bush banishes Press

Remove all ads!

Eww! I think I got bluster on me.

I do not contend that "hippie-communists" are a group or orginization that you can point at and say, "ah ha! I have you now you scoundrel". They are not a conspiratorial order like some people accuse the Masons of being. I told you that you would know them by what they say, after all this is how they know one another.You say:

No one in thier right mind is going to approach you and tell you "you can not have a child and you must get divorced!". You look at it as if I am describing unhenged people assaulting you constantly with these rediculous ideas in the middle of the street like unto an anti-abortion protester. They are everyday people just like you, only they beleive in things that you would find insane. The difference is, they present the most acceptable principles of these beleifs in a public forum. And where is this public forum? Mass media. Why do media outletts give them this forum? Some out of ignorance and some out of solidarity, but one thing is for certain, they know each other by what they say.

Already you bring the conservitive lable into this, remember, "Liberal/Conservative, Demicrat/ Republican, these are just lables to devide us in to factions."
No one is going to get on tv and say,"Beatiality is great, do try some!". But they are going to say,"All mature adult relationships deserve the same human rights recognition as heterosexual marriage". Now they may present it as a gay rights issue but it ends up as a free-for-all. Maybe not by the intentions of homosexuals, but for those who would see America as a Republic torn down and rebuilt in the image of a Godless Utopia it means that pedophilia, beatiality, bigamy, homosexuality, and any other sexual deviancy must be accepted and tolerated. For what purpose you ask? To weaken the moral fabric of society and the will of the people. If you are willing to accept these things you can be pushed even farther. Don't beleive me? Ask yourself,"How much Freedom have I lost at the goverments hands over the past tweenty years?". You think of Bill Clinton and George Bush as opposites. I see them both as "hippie-communists" destroying my country.

You are correct when you say you have never heard anyone with credibility say this but it has been given a forum in the media. Why? Surely an idea such as this is so ludicrous that it merits no attention at all. But once an idea takes hold it gains power. Don't beleive me? Look at abortion. Once considered a heinous act by most Americans it is now protected by the Constitution of The United States of America. Now, no matter where you stand on this issue you should realize that abortion was never illeagal in America, it was a matter for state law. The abortion issue was never about a womans right to choose. It was more about forcing the country as a whole to accept something that most of America found immoral. Why? To weaken the moral fabric of society and the will of the people, and in this case to reduce the population of certain ethnic grous. Think I am wrong? Look at the issue of gun controll. A right guaranteed by the Constitution of The United States of America can be resticted by such draconian measures in some states so as to make it near impossible for the citizens of that state to own a firearm. If a state tries to restrict the so-called "abortion right" it will quickly find its self in the fight of it's life with group hiding themselves behind the legitimit noble cause of womens rights.

2+2, anyone? anyone?

You are very correct about hippies. I used to hang out with some old hippies in my yunger days. But hippie-communists hide among the hippies and used thier causes to cloak thier own communist agenda. They used the benign nature of hippies to camouflage themselves and give hippies a worse name than they deserve. hence the term "hippie-communists".
But I don't think that the combination of these two terms accurately describe these people either. If I were to reveal what I beleive they truely are it leaves me open to worse scorn than the pathetic smurf smack floating around.
I tier for now and will give you more evidence of who and what "hippie-communists" are later. until then "Cast off your old beleifs and be saved!"

 

OK, so the current list of hippie communists include:

1. George W. Bush
2. Bill J. Clinton
3. At least some members, if not a majority of the mass media.
4. At least a majority of the Justices on the Supreme Court.

Yes, it's all so clear now.

 

Hey, you don't need hippie-communists to get a conspiracy of idiots...

From the tendencies of stupid people a pattern of destruction emerges.

It's not planned. Stupidity is a mighty force of nature, but it also resides in the eye of the beholder.

 

@Aldeth: You are still missing the point. I do not claim that it is a concerted effort by some highly organized cabal. But rather actions of groups or individuals acting independently. One may not be interested in the goals of the other until they are awear of them. They may not alter thier own goals and take up the others cause, but when they recognize the cause of the other, they will lend all the aid and support at thier disposal. You want specifics like the name of everyone who is this specific organization and you look at it as if they wield great power. The only great power they have at thier disposal is deception. once we are deceived in to seperating ourselves into factions we can be played one against the other. Every group with an agenda knows this. It is a concept as old as mankind,"A house devided can not stand". Look at you and me for instance, I bet that you think that I am some right wing coo coo and I would not blame you. Some ideas can only be convied in person but that is not practical at this time so I do the best I can. You are self described as a very liberal/leftist person yet from what I have seen of you on the boards you are mostly someone with moderate, reasonable beleifs. I am sure that you are pro-abortion, gun control, and go for all this environmental protectionizm. I am equely sure that you have good reasons for your veiws and you beleive these and other held convictions make you a liberal/leftist person and to a degree they do. It is when these veiws are pushed to an extrem, there is no room for change or compromise and you activly seek to repress contrary veiw points that a problem arises. This happens on all sides in political warfare. But no matter which side wins we all get hurt and when America is hurt so bad that she can not be healed, it is in that hour you will see the ones I warned you about, but it will be to late.

1. George W. Bush: So you are telling me he hasn't worked to curb your Freedom? He hasn't done great harm to America?
2. Bill J. Clinton: Bill J. Clinton?
3. At least some members, if not a majority of the mass media.: You are one of the brightest people I have meet on tBoM and there are many intelligent people here, I find it hard to believe that you do not see how the media plays a big part in driving the direction of this country. When it can, it tries to drive an agenda, call it Liberal/Conservative, Demicrat/ Republican, it is a one veiw media. Now, I am not saying that the media is controlled by the Dark Lord Xenu, but a lot of it has the same mind set.
4. At least a majority of the Justices on the Supreme Court.: Even honest liberal/leftist/demacrat judges agree that Row/Wade was bad law, so you tell me why it was done. If you say Supreme Court Justices come to the bench with no preconception or agenda, well .
"Yes, it's all so clear now.": Is that really necessary?
All I ask is that you read what I have posted with an open mind and give it fair consideration. Take time to look at through glasses that aren't smudged with:"if your posts here in the Alley weren't so amusing to read because they're so contrived and next to impossible to take seriously", "think about your childhood. The smurfs were defintely hippycommunists. Evil smurfs."
If you can look at American society and tell me that there are not groups inside and outside of this country who are working for America's downfall and want our traditional values replaced by other more "enlightened and tolerant" values then I will not try to convence you any further.

Edit: @ Iku-Turso: I think that you are closer to interpreting what I am saying than anyone else has gotten. I just hope that I am not the stupidity that you beheld.

[ August 30, 2006, 13:02: Message edited by: Bassil Warbone ]

 

@Bassil Warbone: No, since I haven't really seen you in action. But you may be a little too eager to make a point.

The main thing in what you're saying has some merit, so far as I understand it, but the specifics...maybe they're not even completely necessary.

This conspiracy of idiots happens all the time, and the worst thing is, it's all of us doing it. It's normal human activity. If I'd blame something, I'd blame the magnifying of mistakes by accumulation of people and power. The numbers are too big for human brains to cope with them and make decent value judgements. Some people have too much power in their hands for their own good, because they don't even realize the full extent of their powers. Exactly because these powers aren't working together for the overall good a lot of bad things come out of it.

A lot of it IMO comes out of thinking "let's just work to satiate our greed, cover our own backs and good things will come out of that for everyone by itself".

 

@Iku-Turso: I agree with you about conspiracy of idiots, and this probably covers half of the people I consider harmful to America and the world. But there are also people and groups who actively seek the downfall of America for what I consider nefarious reasons. I would like to name a lot of them but as I said, when I do I will be labeled by those who can only see the one side of the coin, I will be called things such as right-wing extreamist, nut case, contrived and next to impossible to take seriously, and many other dismissive titles. I know it sounds crazy when I call someone or group hippie-communists, but that is how I lerned of them. The movement really gained strength in the late 50's through the early 70's. Partly an organized movement and partly individual causes. They co-opted the hippy movement, and hid among them. And why not? Hippies were radical and extream in some cases, a perfect environment to recruit an spread the word. What word were these people speading? Communism. And not the hippy Communal living life style, the Marxist type of communism. You can tell the hippie-communists today from the real hippies like Nakia spoke of because old hippies are still confussed smelly pot-heads and the hippie-communists moved up in society. Some in politics, some in media, some in educational positions, and some even in business. Sometime when I am well recovered from my medical treatments and can adequately defend myself, I will go into more detail about it. But now I tire and am way ,so I think I will retire from this thread and start a new one on hippie-communists when I am well. By the way Iku-Turso, thanks for your fair treatment off me.

 

I guess I should defend myself first.

If you review my prior posts, you will see no place where I referred to hippie-communists as smurfs (that was others) nor anywhere where I said your opinions were contrived and next to impossible to take seriously (again that was others). I am trying to be both open-minded and considerate of your opinions.

OK, you got me on that one. Guilty, as charged.

You mistake exasperation for sarcasm. I asked for a better explanation, and I walked away more confused than when I had initially asked the question. I cannot say that your more recent post has improved the situation in any dramatic way.

Here's what I don't get:

Combined with:

It just seems so self-contratictory. In the first part you say that they are working independently, and in the second part you say they are working together. How can both be possible? If they are working together then they are part of a larger group that could be classified as such, but if they are truly independent, then it makes no sense to slap an arbitrary label on the whole group of them. Can you see why I'm confused by this? If there's no concerted effort, then they aren't acting as a group, and I connot conceive why you would wish to classify them as such despite this.

I was keeping the Geroge W. Bush Motif. I admit that it usually is written as William J. Clinton, with the "J" standing for Jefferson.

You see, you don't really have my belief system correct. Only when comparing me to most Americans am I extremely leftist. Most in the European community would consider me a moderate, if not even somewhat conservative. For example, I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion, and that distinction should be obvious. I support gun control in you mean the purchase of fully automatic assault rifles and grenade launchers, but not gun control in the extreme - it's fine if you want a hand gun for home protection, or a hunting rifle, or even a whole collection of such items. And while I do support environmental protection, it's not the extreme Al Gore/Green Peace type environmental protection. So hopefully, we understand each other better now.

Of this point I have no doubt. In fact, it's probably the one thing that you said where we are in agreement. The problem I'm having is connecting the first part of your post regarding the hippie-communists to this statement.

 

@Aldeth: First, let me say I appreciate that you are giving me fair hearing in this thread. now on to the work.

I am sorry if you took those comments as an accusation against you. I was just trying hard to ensure that such commentary did not color our disscussion.

Let me see if I can explain this in a couple of different ways. One example I have seen before went like this. Lets say that the anti-firearm rights group Handgun control Inc. wants to hold a rally and need a strong physical presence, something they do not have. Groups like N.O.W. will lend thier support and bodies to thecause and H.C.I. can count on a fair amount of media coverage and hype. so now we have three different groups with differing causes, Handgun control Inc. working to disarm the American citizenry, N.O.W. working to destroy the male identity in American society, and the"main stream media working to change traditional American values. now as I said, it is not some highly organized cabal it is groups and individuals who have thier own goals and agenda but recognize that the advancement of the sum total of thier causes equals the destruction of traditional America which they see as an intolerant,ignorant, society and they wish to turn America into thier idea of "enlightened and tolerant" society with these groups in control. To give you an example thhe kind of cooperation and recognition I am trying to convey. I was a telecommunications contractor before being disabled by an accident. In this line of work I often found myself on huge jobs, (it was guys like me laying cable, installing swtches and hubs,and seting microwave dishes that made the.com boom possible), often requiring several contracting companies to complete them. After a short period of time most of the guys who were good at thier job and made it thier life would begin to congregate together in a cliqe. No mtter where we were from or what company we worked for we knew each other by deeds and what we said. We would go out of our way to help each other in our individual jobs and even loan each other equipment. That may not sound like a big deal but if your boss catches you lending time and equipment to another company . We all had our own individual part of the job and if you didn't complete yor part I still got paid. Working independently on an individual goal,(makemoney for my self owned contract company), whle acomplishing an overall goal,(provide a major univarsity with it's own telecomm system).

That isn't why I gave it the ol' , the reason I gave that response is, the harm that he did to this country should be obvious. (but if it isn't I do not wish to debate that issue at this time)

I think I had you pegged pretty well, I don't see that as extremely leftist and I am decidedly very un-European. Pro-choice/pro-abortion, I undeestand the difeence I just have a different view of the issue, but I want you to know that I don't look down on you or feel that I am better than you in this matter. Most of my friends were pro-choice, they just were not abortion extreamist (abortion anytime anywhere for anyone without oversite or restiction). Fully automatic assault rifles and grenade launchers can only be baught, sold, and produced under strict government license and inspection coupled with highly expensive license fee, you can't just walk into a gun store and walk out with one. I do feel that gun ownership needs restrictions placed on it, but not the kind of crap these anti-gun groups want. So, we are not that far apart. Despite my post in global warming/ozone layer threads I do support conservation efforts of all kinds and environment protection, but these issues have been taken to extreams in some cases. I am considered by most to be conservative in my views but as I said we are closer than you would have thought.
As to the George W. Bush/William J. Clinton similarities, I am pretty sure Bill Clinton is a hippy-communists and George Bush is a "let's just work to satiate our greed, cover our own backs and good things will come out of that for everyone by itself" type of person that Iku-Turso mentioned in his post. The conspiracy of idiots combined wth the onslaught of hippy-communists will surely lead to the downfall of this great nation, the shining city on a hill will become the best housing project in a very filthy slum.

 

This is actually... starting to make some sense.

We could have avoided a whole hell of a lot of confusion if you had just labelled these groups you refer to as hippy-communists as what other people call them: activist groups or, depending on your political/social affiliation, extreme activist groups. If you were talking about groups like NOW - a better example probably would have been PETA - then you should have just said so at the onset of this discussion. Yes, it is true that certain activist groups will provide members to other activist groups at rallies and the like, so long as the group being benefitted will reciprocate at some future point. The whole "I'll help you if you help me" dynamic.

So let me see if I understand now. You refer to these activist groups as hippy-communists because they initially infiltrated ranks of people who were hippies that supported communal living (thus providing both the hippy and communist link) even though these groups of people have no links to either hippies nor communism today? (I am almost embarrassed to admit that this is starting to make some sense. If only you didn't convolute the issue so much at the start, it wouldn't have taken nearly as long.)

So hippy-communist at this point is a misnomer for the aforementioned groups, as the name references their origins and is not an accurate description of their current goals and members? What I'm saying is while there certainly may be both hippies and communists that are pro-chioce, pro gun control, and pro environmental protection, I wouldn't say that any of those items are at the heart of describing what either of those groups of people are like. Hippies are more anti-war and communism (unless you're speaking about strict Marxism) is more an issue of economics and crowd control.

I suppose the thing that threw me off the most in the previous post was listing W among the hippy-communists, as he is about as rightist and conservative as they come. (Well, to be honest, I'm not so sure he has much in the way of personal conviction regarding the issues he claims to stand for, but hey, he won two elections playing that game, so it's hard to argue with the results of such a strategy.)

I was using hyperbole here to make a point. I fully realize you cannot purchase a grenade launcher at WalMart. Everyone knows you have to give Halliburton a call

 

Reading all of this I was being reminded of the 'Fall of the US' thread. Therein claims were made that the end of the United States will come from within. Here is talk of groups that are bent on the destruction of America by tampering with its values. Those groups, in the opinion of Warbone, apparently arent Americans with a vision for their very own nation but enemies.
If that understanding is shared by others I can see how the 'end from within' scenario has perhaps some merit.

Also, seeing how one American proclaims to be 'decidedly un-European' is sort of perculiar, given the cultural/historical link of Europe and Northamerica. Talk about whittling down US fundament.

 

I actually think it goes alittle farther than that. If you notice, such groups will come to each others aid regardless of having the favor returned. They are out there for the "over all big picture", and as I said, I will get more into this at a later time, they are pretty sure that they will get aid in return.

You are half right the infiltration into the hippy movement was by persons in the communist movement taking place around the late 50's through the early 70's. The hippy movement was just a good environment for them to hide and to grow strong in. Thus the name hippie-communists. (Two groups I generally dislike rolled into one. While the rank and file members of groups like NOW are just everyday people who beleive in the cause of equel rights for weman, as do I, and work hard for that cause, the leadership of such groups operate under different motivation. It isn't just NOW that I see in this light, they are just an example, and I will go into what I think motivates these people at a later time. It isn't just leftist groups that I categorize this way, they are just the most prevalent. Over the years I have gotten to the point that any anti-American or leftist group, (and like I said, I don't think you know what a real leftist is yet), hippy-communists.

To me communism is the enslavement of the masses for the cause of an "elite" few. The former USSR is the model. Only the hippy-communists beleive that they will make it work because thier goal is noble and rightious in thier eyes.

I agree with you, and most Presidents Liberal/Conservative, Demicrat/ Republican wil be the same "tell them what they want to hear" kind of person, only the crowd they appeal to changes.
All in all I think that you, and hopefully others have a begining idea of what a hippy-communists is. Whether you agree with me or not it isn't a contrived way of insulting Democrats, Europeans, or anyone else it is how I identify communists, extrem leftist and other nefarious groups.
Thanks for taking the time to try and understand this whole messs, Aldeth, you are an outstanding gentleman!
EDIT:

didn't see your post until after I had posted Dendri, just for the record, my ancestry is mostly "American" Indian.

 

:/

Ack. In that case I would have liked it better that you had missed my rant.

 

AND

Sorry, but that's just lol funny. When I had initially read Dendri's post, I thought to myself, well, while it is most probable that Bassil is a white male between the ages of 20-35, it is possible (athough not very likely) that he is not of European anscestry. I was thinking more along the lines of Hispanic or African, as American Indians represent less than 1% of the US population, but the fact that he is American Indian makes it even funnier. American Inians are arguably the one group that was harmed the most by the European influence in America, and thus the least likely to see some type of cultural link with Europe.

While slightly off-topic, what is the official stance on the term used to describe Native Americans? I noticed Bassil used the term American Indian, which I thought was regarded as un-PC. Am I wrong in thinking that most Native Americans find the term American Indian objectionable?

True enough. I wasn't necessarily saying that there was an explicit agreement between the two groups before hand. It was more of a simple acknowledgement of human nature i.e., you are more likely to help someone if they have in the past aided you. So there isn't a need for the agreement to be so deatiled as they get together and say, "We'll show up for your rally on Saturday, on the condition you come to ours next month."

However, I think there are more pragmatic reasons for these groups working together than some nefarious plot to ensure America's downfall. Particularly, I'm arguing against your assertion that they are looking at the "big picture". As I said, I think pragmatism is the root cause.

I'll try to explain by example. Say you have three groups, A, B, and C. And each group has the goal of the advancement of Issue A, B, and C, respectively. Let's further say that Group A, B, and C are also working together to help turn out, spread the word, etc. The pragmatic part of this is that Group A is really only interested in the advancement of Issue A, and doesn't really care if Issue B and Issue C get advanced or not. However, if to advance Issue A, they have to also allow the advancement of Issue B and Issue C, that's a compromise they are willing to accept. And it goes beyond just accepting the compromise. They would even take it a step further - if the advancement of Issue B and Issue C will further the advancement of Issue A, they may aid the other issues for their own benefit, even if Group B and Group C never return the favor, because they are still gaining broader acceptance of Issue A.

However, if one accepts that as a possibility, there is no reason to believe any of the groups are working towards a "big picture" collectively. They may even be opposed to some of the elements in the "big picture". However, their personal convictions on one particular issue may be so important that they will accept less than ideal situations elsewhere in advancement of their own issue.

I'll use a somewhat ludicrous example to illustrate. Say for the sake of arguement that some pro-life organization wants to promote all life, and as such, ban both abortion and the sale of all firearms. (I am not aware of any such group existing. This is completely a hypothetical example.) Someone who has a strong personal conviction about stopping abortion, and additionally does not own any firearms, may support such a group regardless of having no interest one way or the other on the sale of firearms. Such a person isn't looking at the "big picture" in such a case. To them the ban on selling firearms is immaterial - they don't own any and weren't planning on purchasing any, so they are more than willing to take such a compromise because it doesn't affect them. All that person cares about is that abortions get stopped. If a ban on the sale of firearms comes along with it, then so be it.

 

Aldeth I have no desire for hardcore debate atm, but since you picked that bit up will rise above apathy to say:

Actually, ancestry is of no import for my point. I thought it remarkable to go and selfdescribe as 'un-European', yet show concern about the imperiled values of America... since the US and Europe can be likened to a double-helix, wound around each other, not least when it comes to certain values and political/social ideas. Though perhaps for the longest of time, now.

Then again I am clueless what Bassil is all about in this thread, or what non-European bloodlines have to do with it etc. So... I'll just slink away.

 

Good point, seeing as how many of American values are a direct result of the European history and influence. Oh the irony.

 

As you mention Europe is moving to a leftist society. In my mind traditional America, (which is greatly influenced by it's European roots), is a right of center conservative society. When I traveled in my former occupation I had the opportunity to work with many Europeans. They almost always loved our country and admired our Freedom, the way our tax and comerce system works, and in generally just what an all around great county we have. Of course they all had thier own national pride, as they should, a man should be proud of his roots. But I always got the feeling that, aside from the lack of right wing morality laws and pressure in thier countries, they really didn't have that love and pride of thier country like most Americans do. They had a forlorn sense about them. It was as if they once had something like we have and it was taken away and to make it worse they helped those who took it because they were decieved into beleiving they were getting something great in return. It seems fashionable now days for Europeans, (and others), to look down thier nose at us as if to say, "Those silly, ignorant Americans just don't get it." And thats ok by me because they alredy have a head start on being where we are heading. when they do wake up they may find themselves up to thier eyeballs in scimitars and tulwars and the only hope they have of help is a hippy-communists version of Nevil Chamberlin teling them that al they need to do is sit down and have a meaningful dialog. Thats why I say that I am decidedly un-European. But enough of that silliness.

As to my heritage, my great grandfather was a of the Shawnee people of nothern Kentucky and my great grandmother was of the Cherokee people of north western North Carolina. When my great grandfather abandoned my great grandmother she allowed white missionaries to adopt my grandfather. Now he was a handsome man with incredible charisma that was offset by him being a drunkard. He married a most beautius Italian woman named Isabella, my grandmother on my fathers side of my family. They had three children one of which, my father, married a young lass of Irish, Spanish, English, Cherokee, descent, me own lovin' mother she is.

So, you arent far off. My dads's family has lived in the white European culture for a little under 100 years. And, like quite a few Kentuckians, I can also track my lineage back to Danial Boone, for what its worth .

As to the hippy-communist thing, when I say that they are woking for America's downfall, to me trying to replace traditional American values with a progressive, extream leftist society then you are working for America's downfall. And working for a progressive, extream leftist society is the "big picture". Thats part of my theory on the subject anyway.

Wheew, this thread has been taxing but worth every thought and keystroke.

[ September 01, 2006, 05:29: Message edited by: Bassil Warbone ]

 

Not really. Most of the early American settlers came over because their values were actually quite different from their nations of origin, were prisoners (Georgia). Besides, Americans view the environment, the role of government, the importance of religion, the purpose of community (and our place in it), and the manner in which we should interact with the world around us very differently than Europe does. Our values are actually very different.

 

As an european I can agree. The love that americans feel for their country is always something I find surprising. Not because I don't think that you wouldn't have enough reason to feel that way, but because I'm unfamiliar to such strong feelings towards my own country. Finland's a good place to live in, but in general we don't have that patriotism towards our country as so many americans have.

You beat me to it, Drew, but I'll still say my bit about this. Our values are different, but it's not only because you've descended from settlers. The impact of native american values on modern american values is perceivable. If you'd like to read a book about it then I'd suggest Robert M. Pirsig's 'Lila'.

Freedom as an american value can be seen to originate from native american values. Love for the land, the country (by the by, in finnish 'land' and 'country' are one and the same word) is also something that is specifically a native american value.

 

No it's not. Oh sure, they may call themselves "Labour Party" or "Parti Socialiste" or whatever, but that hardly makes them leftist. The "New" Labour Party, especially since Blair came to power, has pushed the limit more and more to the right. Nothing is more ironic than hearing David Cameron (Conservative Party) speaking about social issues and youth violence and unemployment while Blair can only speak of racial profiling and war and whatnot (and let's not even get close to John Reid). While the Parti Socialiste in France hasn't gone that far, they're less and less leftist, especially compared to their policy in the early 80's when they were in power. About the only country in western Europe I would really describe as leftist is Spain, and that's only since the last elections a couple of years ago.

I fully agree with that. Although I have to admit I sometimes have difficulty seeing how that is different from the USA's implementation of capitalism, particularly under George W. (though the trend was probably started with Reagan, if not much earlier). You still have a very select minority getting richer and richer, while the propaganda's just as vicious and makes sure the non-elite stay in their assigned spot (glued to the screen watching Fox I suppose). Sure people against the government's policy don't get thrown into a hellhole in the middle of nowhere, they "just" get branded as traitors, unpatriotic, enemies, allies of the terrorists, and all that.

 

Dunno. Sure, there are differences, just as one will find them between the Greek and the Irish people. Very different values, however, I would expect between Europe and China or India. If there is no common cultural frame/sphere what is it they mean by Western civilization?

The ruling classes of Europe may have rejected the ideals of them early settlers - nonetheless they were Europeans, thus were their values, as those will hardly have evolved in a cultural vacuum.