Spencer on The Savage Nation

Is that 8:30 in the east coast? I ask because i'm in London so trying to work out what time it's on here. 1:30am I'm guessing?

OT but significant IMO:

Stephen Harper was wearing a bright blue scarf today; coincidence, I think not. And the reporter even mentioned that he was wearing this scarf.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1138276087456&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

There is a worldwide movement symbolized by wearing a blue scarf on TODAY, January 26, 2006, in particular to show that you are against Islamo-fascism.

http://www.claudereichman.com/larevolutionbleue.htm

I hope that the motives for the overwhelming votes for Hamas are discussed. I have heard the "pundits" explain that it is because of the mismanagement and corruption by the PA-Fatah that Palestinians voted for Hamas. That may be some of it, but I strongly suspect that the votes had more to do with good old-fashioned Islamic hatred of the Jews and the stated goal of Hamas to expunge Israel from the face of the earth.

Mentat,

I am glad that you brought up the Blue Scarf Wearing day (the Blue Revolution.

Earlier today I was at a fine art auction. There must have been a crowd of about 400 people, maybe more, in the room of whom at least one third were wearing blue scarves. It seems that JW is far more widely followed than perhaps any of thought.

Mentat, here's a big, fat, cyberspace wet one for news on the blue scarves. We have a page up, but the scarf and blog areas aren't quite yet operational. I promise to work on it tomorrow:
http://www.newenglishreview.org

There's a wonderful travel diary there by Theodore Dalrymple and an essay by yours truly.

Rebecca: I found your website and your article and Dr. Dalrymple's were so excellent that I added it my favorites. Everyone should go to Rebecca's website and read her article on Secularism and Islam. This Italian-American R.C. (the religion not the soda pop) certainly gives your article two thumbs up!

Michael + Robert. I'll be listening to this one.

Those two will be cleaving the meat of the matter all the way to the bone.

Rebecca:

That is a nice looking site. I look forward to your completing the section on the blue scarf society. I don't have time to read your essay carefully right now. However, I would say that there are more ways to skin this cat than neo-platonism. I think you can have a pragmatic approach to developing value systems. For instance, in Dershowitz's Rights from Wrongs, he posits that we cannot know for certain what is right (if we have a secular perspective), however, we can know what is wrong and tailor the rights in response to what we know is wrong (i.e. what doesn't work - genocides, inquisitions, pogroms, witch-burnings and the like). As well, I think that religious belief has a genetic and practical basis. Some people are genetically programmed to religious experience more than others. For instance, the person who has the sensation of being in touch with a higher being more than other people. Then, of course, there are practical reasons for faith - it provides an explanation for the orgins of existence; it gives a guide to how to behave; it often goes in hand in hand with political power as politicians use religion to keep people in line and have done so for as long as civilization has existed. As Gibbon said in Decline and Fall:

"The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful."

The bottom line is that I think for some people a religion of some sort may be necessary for them to function properly; but for many people, they are capable of, as you say, "being their own gods" and not be bad people either.

However, I do think that, if we are going to counter Islam, ideologically, wishy washy secular existentialism will have no appeal to those people. If we want to convert them to something else, Christianity is just the ticket.

I guess in the final analysis I mostly agree with you that we need something transcendant for people to hang their mental hats on but I am not sure if your concepts would have a strong enough appeal to religiously inclined people either.

Anyways, Rebecca, let's keep thinking. Have you read Eric Hoffer's The True Believer?

I shall be listening!!

Savage is great on USA border-illegal immigration problems

Michael Savage runs from 6-9 PM East Coast Time

Internet radio stations to try for Michael Savage:

LIVE- http://www.950kprc.com/main.html

LIVE- http://www.910knew.com/main.html

LIVE I THINK- http://www.wor710.com/home.php

DELAYED- http://www.wrko.com/Article.asp?id=77640

Robert,

Tell Michael that the newly elected PA Gov't is an "Iran Mini-Me"...

Mahdi

VERY KEWL! Savage is out there on a couple or so issues, but the Border, Language, Culture thing is alright with me.

I'll be listening!

Mentat,

It would be nice if (newly-elected Prime Minister) Harper's blue scarf was intended to signal his opposition to Islamofascism. More likely, though, it was simply chosen because (a) blue happens to be a popular colour for scarves (I've had one for some years now), and (b) blue is the colour for the Conservative Party. No political party in Canada has criticized Islam publicly, to my knowledge.

Rebecca,

You don't actually follow the Biblical "morality," do you? I'm still not sure, but I hope not!
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
http://www.evilbible.com/

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you are advocating in your article is a return to divine command theory. (I.e., commands written by humans who allege that the commands are from a deity). This is not morality, but comes down to a simple appeal to force. What standard would be used to determine that any particular command was a morally good one? What you propose could lead to relativism, whereby all religions' deities are considered to have produced divine commands that adherents must follow, and that we have no basis for saying one set is better than the other. (This is a common modern liberal view). Alternatively, what you propose could be resolved by brute chauvinism, simply asserting that one package of divine commandments is better than the others--because the human representatives of one deity has said so. (This is generally the view of fundamentalists). To get out of this trap, you've got to turn to morality per se and put questions of the gods aside.

I believe a standard of morality must be established explicitly that is independent of any particular existing package of religious beliefs. In fact, most people, including religious people in modern western secular societies, use such a standard anyway. For example, do you think it is acceptable to execute children who are merely disobedient? Do you think it is acceptable to execute people for "blasphemy," adultery, or engaging in a homosexual act? According to the Bible, it is morally good to execute people for any of the above. Now, what standard are you using when you (hopefully) say "It is not morally acceptable to execute people for these 'crimes/sins'?" And further, what standard is being used if you would say, as I do, that, at least "blasphemy" and homosexuality, are not morally wrong? Clearly, a standard other than that advocated within the doctrine package in question is being used to evaluate these questions.

As for the claim that belief in an afterlife is necessary for morality, isn't this claim falsified dramatically by the actions of Atta and Co. on 9/11? Atta had even packed his wedding costume in his luggage in preparation for his virgin brides in Paradise. One could argue that the belief in an afterlife devalues this one. As far as I'm aware, brain activity which supports our consciousness, self, memories, emotions, etc., stops at death. Perhaps not, but all the evidence indicates that death--complete cessation of brain activity beyond the point of its recovery--is truly the end. This makes me value life (not just mine, but others') and makes me less likely to throw it away recklessly over some recycled tales that there is something better as reward, or worse as punishment, afterward. Human beings (not their "gods") must be held accountable for their actions in this life, because we have no proof that they will be held accountable afterwards.

As for your comments on materialism, secularism, etc., I don't have time to go through it all, but it appears that you are conflating a lot of different concepts. Most secularists are not strictly materialists. Most at least believe in the existence of thoughts, emotions, consciousness. Materialists, in the strict or strong sense, are quite rare. Regarding non-religious or "secular" morality, all I can suggest is read more of what non-religious moralists or ethicists have to say, and have them read over and comment on your articles, because I think this will help you improve your arguments. I'm not sure what process you use before publishing, but I suggest that solid criticism of earlier drafts can be most beneficial, especially if it comes from those who represent the views you are criticizing. At the very least, you need to read Socrates' Euthyphro argument and come up with a rebuttal to it. (Just read a summary of it).

Lastly, secularists continue to be blamed, particularly by some Christians in the west, for the blind acceptance/willful ignorance toward the various ills and evils of Islam. I disagree. I think most Christians and most (non-religious) secularists alike are guilty of ignorance about Islam. Many Christians have accepted the belief that Islam is a "great religion" and should be shielded from criticism in the same way they wish their own religion should be shielded from criticism. This plays directly into the hands of Islamists of all sorts, who have far more extreme views on this issue. Unfortunately, there appears to be a widely held assumption that if something is purported to be religious, therefore it is good, and if it's non-religious, it is bad. Americans are much more likely to elect a Muslim to public office (from what I recall, about 60-70% approval) than they would an atheist (about 45% approval)--the lowest approval of any minority group in the U.S. (By comparison, women and blacks are above 90% approval; homosexuals are at about 60% approval). Many secularists, at least in the U.S., have been pre-occupied with opposing the theocratic ambitions of the present government and have paid little attention to criticizing Islam. Most secularists and atheists/skeptics/agnostics/deists (and this combined group makes up only a small minority of the population in the U.S. and is underrepresented in positions of political power) have failed to deal with the much more significant problem of Islam.

Way to go, Robert. You were great. Savage has a growing audience, and many, I'm sure could use the kind of insight you provided.

Here is what Robert was talking about with M.S.??

Just some lessons??

http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/iran.htm

January 16, 1997
Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base

READ THE WHOLE THING??

Suppression of Enemies
As might be expected, one manifestation of the radical Islamic orientation of the Izetbegovic government is increasing curtailment of the freedoms of the remaining non-Muslims (Croats and Serbs) in the Muslim-held zone. While there are similar pressures on minorities in the Serb- and Croat-held parts of Bosnia, in the Muslim zone they have a distinct Islamic flavor. For example, during the 1996-1997 Christmas and New Year holiday season, Muslim militants attempted to intimidate not only Muslims but Christians from engaging in what had become common holiday practices, such as gift-giving, putting up Christmas or New Year's trees, and playing the local Santa Claus figure, Grandfather Frost (Deda Mraz). ["The Holiday, All Wrapped Up; Bosnian Muslims Take Sides Over Santa," Washington Post, 12/26/96] In general:
"Even in Sarajevo itself, always portrayed as the most prominent multi-national community in Bosnia, pressure, both psychological and real, is impelling non-Bosniaks [i.e., non-Muslims] to leave. Some measures are indirect, such as attempts to ban the sale of pork and the growing predominance of [Bosniak] street names. Other measures are deliberate efforts to apply pressure. Examples include various means to make non-Bosniaks leave the city. Similar pressures, often with more violent expression and occasionally with overt official participation, are being used throughout Bosnia." ["Bosnia's Security and U.S. Policy in the Next Phase: A Policy Paper, International Research and Exchanges Board, November 1996]
In addition, President Izetbegovic's party, the SDA, has launched politically-motivated attacks on moderate Muslims both within the SDA and in rival parties. For example, in the summer of 1996 former Prime Minister Haris Silajdzic, (a Muslim, and son of the former imam at the main Sarajevo mosque) was set upon and beaten by SDA militants. Silajdzic claimed Izetbegovic himself was behind the attacks. [NYT, 9/2/96] Irfan Mustafic, a Muslim who co-founded the SDA, is a member of the Bosnian parliament and was president of the SDA's executive council in Srebrenica when it fell to Bosnian Serb forces; he was taken prisoner but later released. Because of several policy disagreements with Izetbegovic and his close associates, Mustafic was shot and seriously wounded in Srebrenica by Izetbegovic loyalists. [(Sarajevo) Slobodna Bosna, 7/14/96] Finally, one incident sums up both the ruthlessness of the Sarajevo establishment in dealing with their enemies as well as their international radical links:
"A special Bosnian army unit headed by Bakir Izetbegovic, the Bosnian president's son, murdered a Bosnian general found shot to death in Belgium last week, a Croatian newspaper reported . . . citing well-informed sources. The Vjesnik newspaper, controlled by the government, said the assassination of Yusuf Prazina was carried out by five members of a commando unit called 'Delta' and headed by Ismet Bajramovic also known as Celo. The paper said that three members of the Syrian-backed Palestinian movement Saika had Prazina under surveillance for three weeks before one of them, acting as an arms dealer, lured him into a trap in a car park along the main highway between Liege in eastern Belgium and the German border town of Aachen. Prazina, 30, nicknamed Yuka, went missing early last month. He was found Saturday with two bullet holes to the head. 'The necessary logistical means to carry out the operation were provided by Bakir Izetbegovic, son of Alija Izetbegovic, who left Sarajevo more than six months ago,' Vjesnik said. It added that Bakir Izetbegovic 'often travels between Brussels, Paris, Frankfurt, Baghdad, Tehran and Ankara, by using Iraqi and Pakistani passports,' and was in Belgium at the time of the assassination. Hasan Cengic, head of logistics for the army in Bosnia-Hercegovina, was 'personally involved in the assassination of Yuka Prazina,' the paper said." [Agence France Presse, 1/5/94]

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM AMEN

PS
http://www.beecy.net/frank/

Robert

Even though I'm one who normally loathes Savage due to his rudeness to callers (despite my agreeing with >85% of what he says), I salute him for giving you so many avenues to open up, instead of constricting this discussion to Hamas, (including a plug for JihadWatch). Also, you did brilliantly in connecting all the mini Jihads in the world to a global Jihad emanating out of one source.

My only disagreement was with the argument that democracy was a disaster here - it served the salutary effect of showing what the Palestinians really are about, and putting paid to all who pretended that they were moderate. Also, you would have done well to elaborate on the fact that under Shariat, Gays and Women would face stonings, amputations and the like - it was a point that needed elaborating on.

Cant follow your other 2 conversations this evening on the Left Coast, but this fitted my time slot perfectly - the 10 minute drive home.

Rebecca,

Thank-you for the newenglishreview.org. I hope it all works out and we also get good scarf stories.

I tend to agree more with Archimedes (above) than with you and I am worried that you might yet let the European Diary thing slide into yet another "let's all bash the poor ignorant European peasants" sort of thing (which I have railled against on this sight many-a-time). Apart from those silly quibles I wish you luck and I will keep on reading.

Archimedes~well said.

Certiorari~ The blue scarves that you saw today, were they out of the ordinary that would make you think they were the scarves being discussed in France and elsewhere. That would be encouraging. Did others glance, mention or question the large numbers who wore them? Any interesting conversations to report?

Archimedes:

I especially like your last paragraph which sums up some of the major ideological conundrums that we are facing.

Thanks for taking the time to write such a thoughtful response to Rebecca.

About the blue scarf thing, can't I engage in a little wishful thinking? You hyper-rationalists want to take all the fun out of consciousness ;)

Archimedes, I am moved by your comments, and I agree. Thank you.

I also enjoyed hearing Robert on Savage.

Robert - Good Job

Mr. Savage had a guest on before you who is supposed to be well educated with, I think, an Arabic name. My take on that is more negotiations and Hamas will go the peaceful route - very suspect.

Robert, then it was your turn. You stated their ideology will not get along with Democracy and it is a proven fact it never will. I felt the points you stated was facts that time has proven. I had the impression Savage hesitated at times to be sure and grasp them. My conclusion - you won, no doubt. Good job.

Savage is the only person in talk radio that tells the truth,unaltered by any kind of b.s.whatsoever.
His is the number one independent talk radio show in America,according to the latest ratings,with about 10 million listeners/week,he also has the highest TPS (time per listener)compared to any other talk radio show,including Rush.
His listeners are well educated and informed,from all walks of life,and extremely devoted,too.
Robert`s appearance on the Savage Nation will have great consequences for both the radio show and this website.

Archimedes

"As for the claim that belief in an afterlife is necessary for morality, isn't this claim falsified dramatically by the actions of Atta and Co. on 9/11?"

Atta's afterlife symbolism supported and structured his morality. That it was evil morality is not the same as saying it was no morality. On what basis do we prove good morality? Good morality implies transcendence; all symbolisms of afterlife are extrapolations of transcendence. That many or most of them are literalistically conceived extrapolations should not render opaque (and by consequence null) the mysterious transcendence they point to. (I speak these words after a profoundly rich and complex recent history in the modern West (the past 200-300 years) of the massive (though by no means total) sociologico-existential rejection of transcendence due in great part to the corruption of symbolisms failing to be transparent for what they symbolize.)

"Most secularists are not strictly materialists. Most at least believe in the existence of thoughts, emotions, consciousness."

All thoughts, emotions, consciousness are reducible to matter/energy in the absence of transcendence.

"Materialists, in the strict or strong sense, are quite rare."

Rigorous materialists are quite rare; de facto materialists who don't pursue the logic of their beliefs are more common.

"Lastly, secularists continue to be blamed, particularly by some Christians in the west, for the blind acceptance/willful ignorance toward the various ills and evils of Islam. I disagree."

So do I. The line to be drawn demarcating those who see the problem of Islam from those who don't is not the line separating religious people from secularists, but the line separating those whose minds have become unduly influenced by PC Leftism and those whose minds are relatively free of PC Leftism. The latter group includes secularists and religious people, as does the former group.
That said, the historical process of modern Western secularism (which includes quasi-religious modern Gnostic currents in its supposedly purist atheist nebula) has been to a great extent complicit in generating PC Leftism as a sociocultural phenomenon that now dominates the West. Many Christians and Jews have joined that bandwagon more out of the sheer fact that secularism has powerfully corroded their former sociological/institutional edifices and permitted the attendant solvents of PC Leftism (become dominant in the last 50 years or so) to infiltrate.

Infidel Pride: I am surprised that you say Michael Savage is rude to listeners. On the whole, I would say, he is more willing to listen to callers than other radio show hosts. He actually LISTENS to the other person and doesn't always just ignore the caller's comments in order to say his own. He is, of course, delightfully rude at times and enjoys hanging up on people, but I think he manages not to sound condescending like so many others in his field.

Pepper,

Thanks for those thoughtful remarks. I will agree with you and Rebecca, both, in that morality is independent, even transcendent of material/energy, though I’m not sure we would all agree on how to define “transcendental” and we may not agree on its origins. I think we can see that Atta and Co. were wrong morally just as easily as we can see that someone who claims 2 + 2 = 5 has either (a) failed to do arithmetic, or (b) knows arithmetic and is deliberately providing the wrong answer. I would define evil as an action carried out by an agent who knows what good is but consciously chooses to do what is ultimately bad. I see what Islamists are doing as a combination of amoral power-seeking (including pursuit of alleged spiritual powers, as well as political, social, and psychological powers) and a primitive visceral sense of revenge that is out of proportion to the alleged offences, with a knowing willingness to carry out actions against out-group members for the sake of causing them harm. This fits exactly with Islamic ideology. It is a combination of amoral and immoral (i.e., evil) elements. Much of it was, originally, simply thrown together ad hoc for Mohammad’s various personal and political desires. Consequently, many of Islam’s adherents fail in moral arithmetic and, sometimes, know the right answer but knowingly provide the wrong answer.

Re PC, I don’t see this as a monolithic concept. It occurs in different forms. I think some people on the left and the right are guilty, for different reasons and causes. People who are religious (which is most of the U.S. population—something like 85% are at least nominally religious) and those who are non-religious have been guilty of excessive PC-ness. The idea that Islam should not be criticized because it is a religion arises out of adherence to certain PC superstitions/taboos, and this is essentially a “blasphemy” law by another name. This ultimately arises, I believe, out of an individual’s bias to not want to be criticized. We had ideologies like that imposed on us by powerful dictatorial leaders in the past; they imposed their personal psychological and moral deficiencies unto entire populations (e.g., Mohammad did this). Once individual adherents incorporate this imperialist-supremacist ideology into their own psychological make-up, (e.g., Muslims who identify themselves with “Islam” more than with their own families or countries, or humanity generally), an attack on the ideology becomes an attack on themselves.

But I believe you are referring to PC as the tendency to want to block criticism of Islam because it is an element of non-Western culture and tends to have non-white adherents. Many mostly left-wing PC westerners follow this taboo tacitly assuming that they are being open-minded and tolerant, when in fact what they are doing is a moral failure (amoral power- or status-seeking; avoidance of being tagged “racist”, etc.). But some small percentage of leftist PC types are guilty of evil, i.e., of knowingly deflecting attention or denying the facts about Islam to keep the critical spotlight focussed on one’s opponents, political or otherwise. Given the harms that have been, are, and may continue to be inflicted upon the world due to Muslims’ adherence to imperialist Islam, this attempt to protect Islam must be categorized as evil. But I think the phrase “useful idiots,” as applied now to leftist PC types with regard to their relationship with militant and political Islam (i.e., Islam applied), is appropriate in most cases, because most of them don’t know what Islam is. Most are not evil; they’ve arrived at morally incorrect decisions through a combination of ignorance and blind adherence to the superstitious taboo that non-Western non-white cultures should not be criticized by white Westerners (but westerners and non-westerners, white and non-white, have full freedom to criticize western culture). Political Islamists have been knowingly exploiting this particular cultural flaw in the west. They had to link “Islamophobia” to the racism taboo because Islam on its own is morally indefensible.

The political and militant Islamists of Sept. 11/01 would not have been ‘successful’ in their mission without the cooperation (a) westerners who think that Islam is a “great religion” that should not be criticized because it is a religion, (b) westerners who think that there is something wrong with westerners ever criticizing a predominantly non-white non-western culture. We need to demolish these ideas, just as we need to demolish much of Islamic ideology.