Saying that the Tsar's death was because he was anti-semitic gives credibility to the notion that Bolshevism had a large Jewish influence. Is that what you're trying to say?
Apparently they reported to the university administration which failed to take action and may even have tacitly accepted the decision of the mob (presumably because of fear of reprisal themselves). But the good thing is now the police can take action against the killers because they took the law into their hands.
This is absolutely false. Pakistan has a system of laws that is based on the British system - it is very obviously not a theocracy.
Pakistan created the Taliban out of political necessity, and the United States is to blame for it. When the USA and Russia fought a proxy war in Afghanistan, it left the country in tatters. Pakistan got millions of refugees (1/5 of the population of Afghanistan was living in Pakistan at one time). Think of how Americans start to hyperventilate even at the thought of accepting a few thousand refugees. Pakistan took in millions - and it had to stabilize Afghanistan to restore order and stop the flow. At that time, Pakistan supported the Taliban so that the mess that the United States and Russia made could be controlled. Blame the Cold War, not Pakistan.
Here's some perspective from a Pakistani agnostic who supports blasphemy laws.
This article is an example of how people in the West really don't get how religious countries in the third world work. Because rule of law is absolute in Western countries, articles like this make it sound like the problem is the unjust law. That is absolutely false.
There are two major problems with blasphemy reform. The first problem is that the PEOPLE want blasphemy punished. There is a significant minority in Pakistan who is OK with a blasphemer being killed. It is not an unjust law imposed on people - the people WANT it. The second problem is that the rule of law in most third world countries is very weak. Which means that if people want something punished, and the law isn't there to punish it, they will take the law into their own hands. We saw this very recently when a huge mob lynched a university student who was accused of blasphemy. So... the people want blasphemy punished, and you cannot stop them from taking the law into their own hands. What do you do in this case?
Consider the options in front of a Pakistani politician who is personally against punishment for blasphemy. He can either revoke the law (at risk to his own life) and then watch as people form huge mobs who lynch people accused of blasphemy at random. He will be unable to control this because the police might empathize with the killers. OR he can impose blasphemy law, and then weaken implementation. When the blasphemy law is imposed, then people are discouraged from taking the law into their own hands. At the same time, he can weaken implementation to the point that no one Really gets punished for blasphemy (as in the case in Pakistan - the state does not execute people for blasphemy). With a blasphemy law, the religious nuts are appeased, and at the same time, with weak implementation, a semblance of freedom is maintained.
That means, the blasphemy law keeps the lid on the monster that is public opinion until it can be reformed. And that comes through education, where the Pakistani government is trying to make strides. (Unsuccessfully, I might add, since it is a poor country.) In any case, THAT is the logic behind blasphemy law - it prevents the country from descending into anarchy. It is easy to sit in a country with great rule of law to say that why are these people in third world countries making stupid laws, but the lawmakers in these countries aren't stupid. The obviously see that their people are backward, and there needs to be imperfect stopgap solutions until the country can implement better rule of law.
We all know the answer. Saudi Arabia is the chief stabilizer of oil price (and therefore the petrodollar) in the world. Therefore, Saudi Arabia can export all the Wahabism it wants.
The quality of immigrants that US and Europe attract are vastly different. US attracts mostly high quality skilled labor (doctors, tech workers etc.) On the other hand, EU countries often attract the worst sort (people attracted to EU welfare, unsorted refugees, unskilled labor etc.) Naturally, the lower class folk are unlikelier to adjust to life in a new country, and so they commit more crime. This does NOT happen in the US. It is therefore unreasonable to compare US immigration to EU immigration.
Case in point: immigration from Pakistan. Pakistanis in the UK (as an example of a European country) tend to be poor and are highly represented in crime. Pakistanis in the US, on the other hand, have an average income $10000 HIGHER than the average US income. There is also no evidence to suggest they are involved in crime at a rate remotely comparable to the general population.
If not for slavery, the African American population that enjoys 1st world comforts in the USA today would be languishing in some underdeveloped African country. Even for the time, slaves who were not in the USA might just have been slaves in Africa or Arabia.
To prove that slavery was categorically bad for African Americans, we need to prove via counterfactual that a better possibility could exist. I've never seen anyone prove that.
Watching this documentary was a really unsettling experience. The subversion of information has become so institutionalized, and common people are so accepting of it, that it is hard to even think about how we can escape it. My only logical conclusion is that things will continue to get worse as people get more and more distant from the truth. Perhaps a new dark ages.
I know it is mean to say, a 5'7" tall man will never be President in this day and age of celebrity elections. The last 5'7" president was John Adams. The last president under 6 feet was Jimmy Carter, and he was 5'10". Almost all presidents have been over 6 feet tall.
It is fairly obvious that he did indeed piss off "some powerful people in America". He was an anti-semite, and Jews are a very powerful group in the United States.
Even if I take your point that big government can be good, one has to concede that it succeeded with social conservatism. Ever since social liberalism took hold, things have gone steadily downhill.
There is much evidence to suggest that exactly the opposite is true: an excess of social liberalism leads to the downfall of a culture. Social conservatism means stable families, strong men, and social cohesion, which translates into a stronger nation. Social liberalism, as it has now, degenerates into identity politics and political paralysis. As Aristotle put it, "Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society."
The greatest time for the middle class in the United States, for example, was in the 50s, when society was much more conservative than it is now. (That's what the "Make America Great Again" is all about.) The 50s are the last decade that the conservative WASP aristocracy was in power. Every election since, groups like African Americans, women, and Jews have increased their power and brought about with them big government. How is that an improvement? Surely, you agree that big government is disastrous for the country?
There's a book "Sex and Culture" by J.D. Unwin that actually argues (convincingly in my opinion) that a suppression of sexual energies (i.e. control of women) is a necessary (not sufficient) condition for a civilization to succeed. Check it out.
He talks as if the action against Syria is because Assad is a brutal military dictator. The reality is that the US wants Assad gone because he is an ally to Russia/Iran who can exert control over Lebanon, and he is blocking a gas pipeline from Qatar to EU that would weaken Russia.
The simple solution for there to be peace in Syria is for the US to get out. Stop sponsoring terrorists (yes, the "rebels" the US sponsors are terrorists) in Syria, just get out. Assad maintained peace from 2000 - 2011, and he can do it again.
The saddest part is this: when a Syrian kid learns of the destruction of his country and wants revenge on the US, it will be these same newspapers that will be crying about "Why do they hate us?"
Or it means that the US has a double-standard approach where it stabilizes favorable dictatorships (Saudi, Qatar, Kuwait) and destabilizes unfavorable dictatorships (Libya, Iraq) and democracies (Egypt 60s, Iran 50s).
How about getting out of other people's countries?