That's why. Islam is more totalitarian, collectivist, and authoritarian than Communism. You might still find Leftist like controls over the economy in Islam, but Islam's grip over the population is stronger than even Stalin's.
If you intend to have freedom in some way, however, you can't do it with purging.
The same goes for Iran and the Iranian Revolution.
If you intend to have freedom in some way, however, you can't do it with purging.
History seems to bear this out. It's funny that in the two cases of countries that executed (murdered) their monarch (Charles I and Louis XVI), the monarchy later returned, but when the monarch fled and died in exile, the monarchy never returned.
Notice also that despite executing their monarch, they also instated monarchs in all but name: Cromwell and Bonaparte.
Of course they returned the monarchy (albeit in a reduced power capacity), they never actually established proper Liberalism that weakened the government and promoted individual growth. Instead, they embraced authoritarian mass institutions, or effectively Lyncherdom in the form of Robespierre's Committee of Public Safety and the House of The Commons alone asserting total parliamentary sovereignty.
This is not Liberalism.
Charles was actually fucking clever enough to use this as a weapon at his trail. Where he claimed to be acting to protect the freedoms of Englishmen from the House of The Commons. This strategy started working on witnesses to the trail... because he was right.
He was standing against the tyranny of the House of The Commons (Tyranny of the commons?) because they were in utter violation of the law. His trial was a complete sham. His charges may not have even had merit legally (even if they should have because fuck you for invading your own country with a foreign army to attack your own people with), and the The Commons was just making shit up as they went along, while appointing a biased and ignorant judge to oversee the whole thing. It's also why The House of Lords didn't participate in any of this, even though they were literally the rest of parliament.
This is the thing about "Popular Sovereignty" that they introduced, but in a bastardized way. The people being Sovereign is correct. However, the people claiming to represent the people are not the Sovereigns. This is a fine distinction that the British repeatedly failed to learn, and the Americans literally rebelled against them for.
The American Revolutionaries, particularly the New Englanders, understood that the British government and Parliament hadn't done fuck all for them in 200 years, and then simply seized control over the colonies. America didn't rebel against the monarchy... until the King sided with parliament. It was not King George who was out of control. It was parliament that was out of control. Parliament's excuse was again, parliamentary sovereignty. When the Americans screamed that they couldn't be taxed without having representation in the British Parliament, the British Parliament claimed "virtual representation". It was Parliament who passed the Coercive Acts, it was Parliament who refused recognition of colonial legislatures, it was always Parliament that kept getting more radical and more violent, and then the king agreed: 'You must all die.'
Once again, after the Brexit vote, the English had to learn the hard way that Parliamentary Sovereignty is nonsense, because the people who claim to represent the people are never sovereign.
The Americans have survived authoritarian seizures of power multiple times in an era of human civilization where collectivism was optimal due to technological advances because the American Revolution was a Liberal Revolution and properly weaponized the government against itself. Not enough, clearly. But just enough to survive. It's survived the Progressive Racial Autocracy of Jim Crow, it survived the Progressive Era itself without becoming fully Communist, it survived a Democratic Socialist president from FDR, as well as Lincoln's authoritarianism.
You have to treat the government as a weapon, and not a friend. If you build a government to solve problems, it's one day going to see you as a problem and try to solve you.
Notice also that despite executing their monarch, they also instated monarchs in all but name: Cromwell and Bonaparte.
The British revolutionaries were not republicans. The French ones were. 'They' did not install Bonaparte, they were removed in the Thermidorian Reaction, replaced by the Directory - the abbe Sieyes of whom then conspired with Bonaparte to prevent a restoration of the monarchy. Neo-Jacobins in fact opposed Bonaparte because he was a monarch.
Of course they returned the monarchy (albeit in a reduced power capacity), they never actually established proper Liberalism that weakened the government
Of course not. The whole point of the Revolution was strengthening the government and centralizing it. A jurist in Provence was hanged for objecting to the removal of the traditional privileges of the county.
His charges may not have even had merit legally (even if they should have because fuck you for invading your own country with a foreign army to attack your own people with), and the The Commons was just making shit up as they went along, while appointing a biased and ignorant judge to oversee the whole thing.
Correct. But note that David Frum was a while back citing Charles I as a warning to Donald Trump, in a veiled warning that he may want a similar fate for POTUS.
This is the thing about "Popular Sovereignty" that they introduced, but in a bastardized way. The people being Sovereign is correct. However, the people claiming to represent the people are not the Sovereigns. This is a fine distinction that the British repeatedly failed to learn, and the Americans literally rebelled against them for.
But then you instituted the same system.
The American Revolutionaries, particularly the New Englanders, understood that the British government and Parliament hadn't done fuck all for them in 200 years
This is incorrect. The British had protected them from the French. It's likely that the British were contributing more to the colonies than they collected in taxes.
When the Americans screamed that they couldn't be taxed without having representation in the British Parliament
It must also be noted that they also refused to have representation in the British parliament.
You have to treat the government as a weapon, and not a friend. If you build a government to solve problems, it's one day going to see you as a problem and try to solve you.
I'm not excusing it, but it did 'work' in Indonesia.
That's why. Islam is more totalitarian, collectivist, and authoritarian than Communism. You might still find Leftist like controls over the economy in Islam, but Islam's grip over the population is stronger than even Stalin's.
If you intend to have freedom in some way, however, you can't do it with purging.
The same goes for Iran and the Iranian Revolution.
History seems to bear this out. It's funny that in the two cases of countries that executed (murdered) their monarch (Charles I and Louis XVI), the monarchy later returned, but when the monarch fled and died in exile, the monarchy never returned.
Notice also that despite executing their monarch, they also instated monarchs in all but name: Cromwell and Bonaparte.
Of course they returned the monarchy (albeit in a reduced power capacity), they never actually established proper Liberalism that weakened the government and promoted individual growth. Instead, they embraced authoritarian mass institutions, or effectively Lyncherdom in the form of Robespierre's Committee of Public Safety and the House of The Commons alone asserting total parliamentary sovereignty.
This is not Liberalism.
Charles was actually fucking clever enough to use this as a weapon at his trail. Where he claimed to be acting to protect the freedoms of Englishmen from the House of The Commons. This strategy started working on witnesses to the trail... because he was right.
He was standing against the tyranny of the House of The Commons (Tyranny of the commons?) because they were in utter violation of the law. His trial was a complete sham. His charges may not have even had merit legally (even if they should have because fuck you for invading your own country with a foreign army to attack your own people with), and the The Commons was just making shit up as they went along, while appointing a biased and ignorant judge to oversee the whole thing. It's also why The House of Lords didn't participate in any of this, even though they were literally the rest of parliament.
This is the thing about "Popular Sovereignty" that they introduced, but in a bastardized way. The people being Sovereign is correct. However, the people claiming to represent the people are not the Sovereigns. This is a fine distinction that the British repeatedly failed to learn, and the Americans literally rebelled against them for.
The American Revolutionaries, particularly the New Englanders, understood that the British government and Parliament hadn't done fuck all for them in 200 years, and then simply seized control over the colonies. America didn't rebel against the monarchy... until the King sided with parliament. It was not King George who was out of control. It was parliament that was out of control. Parliament's excuse was again, parliamentary sovereignty. When the Americans screamed that they couldn't be taxed without having representation in the British Parliament, the British Parliament claimed "virtual representation". It was Parliament who passed the Coercive Acts, it was Parliament who refused recognition of colonial legislatures, it was always Parliament that kept getting more radical and more violent, and then the king agreed: 'You must all die.'
Once again, after the Brexit vote, the English had to learn the hard way that Parliamentary Sovereignty is nonsense, because the people who claim to represent the people are never sovereign.
The Americans have survived authoritarian seizures of power multiple times in an era of human civilization where collectivism was optimal due to technological advances because the American Revolution was a Liberal Revolution and properly weaponized the government against itself. Not enough, clearly. But just enough to survive. It's survived the Progressive Racial Autocracy of Jim Crow, it survived the Progressive Era itself without becoming fully Communist, it survived a Democratic Socialist president from FDR, as well as Lincoln's authoritarianism.
You have to treat the government as a weapon, and not a friend. If you build a government to solve problems, it's one day going to see you as a problem and try to solve you.
The British revolutionaries were not republicans. The French ones were. 'They' did not install Bonaparte, they were removed in the Thermidorian Reaction, replaced by the Directory - the abbe Sieyes of whom then conspired with Bonaparte to prevent a restoration of the monarchy. Neo-Jacobins in fact opposed Bonaparte because he was a monarch.
Of course not. The whole point of the Revolution was strengthening the government and centralizing it. A jurist in Provence was hanged for objecting to the removal of the traditional privileges of the county.
Correct. But note that David Frum was a while back citing Charles I as a warning to Donald Trump, in a veiled warning that he may want a similar fate for POTUS.
But then you instituted the same system.
This is incorrect. The British had protected them from the French. It's likely that the British were contributing more to the colonies than they collected in taxes.
It must also be noted that they also refused to have representation in the British parliament.
That ship has sailed.