Who Is Lee Silver? Ask Anders Breivik

Who Is Lee Silver? Ask Anders Breivik
by David Klinghoffer

Our local NPR station here in Seattle plays the BBC Newshour after lunch and I happened to be in my car listening when the interview with Robert came on, startlingly all but crediting him as special mentor or private tutor to Anders Breivik. Well, the media see what they want to see, I thought. Little did I realize just then how true that is in this case.

Breivik in his manifesto cites Robert Spencer, and this fact was picked up and trumpeted around the world because it suits a particular imagined narrative that pleases a certain crowd of people who edit prestige news sources. That Breivik’s mixed bag of writings reflects, explicitly and conspicuously, the thought of a distinguished Princeton University professor, Lee Silver, has so far gone almost totally unacknowledged.

Not totally because my Discovery Institute colleague John West picked it up and has written about it searchingly. Who is Lee Silver? He’s the evolutionary biologist and fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science who invented the term and concept of “reprogenetics,” a new spin on the old idea of eugenics as a means to perfect the human race. In his manifesto, Breivik goes on about this idea, citing Silver by name along with his book Remaking Eden: How Genetic Engineering and Cloning Will Transform the American Family, copying passages from Wikipedia that elaborate on Silver’s proposed scheme.

Breivik likes that in contrast to the old pseudoscience of eugenics, which resulted in forced sterilizations, the new pseudoscience of reprogenetics proposed by Silver relies on voluntary methods -- though it’s hardly less chilling in its way, envisioning a race of near god-men, which Silver calls “cognition-enhance GenRich.” Breivik, however, also drew on earlier influential eugenicists like Madison Grant (cited, again, by name) in theorizing about the superior virtues of the “Nordic” race, being lost through “race-mixing.”

Why does it matter? Because even if you were to imagine an anti-Jihadi running absolutely wild, getting really, really upset about Islam’s being the world religion least inclined to pacifism, just taking that view to a crazy extreme, what do you think someone like that might do? Sneak into Pakistan or Saudi Arabia on a mad mission as a Christian missionary, seeking to win over Muslims to a different faith? Perhaps.

But what of the sinister scientism to which Breivik, in fact, subscribed and that he wrote about in detail? He expounds on the importance of government funding for science, that feeding the poor must not take precedence over science, that feeding the Third World poor is in fact a bad idea, that the size of the human population needs to be halved (through voluntary means!), that “social Darwinism” got a bum rap, that “[t]he never-ending collective pursuit for scientific evolution and perfection should become the benchmark and essence of our existence.”

From the self-interview section of Breivik’s manifesto:

“Q: What should be our civilizational objectives, how do you envision a perfect Europe?

“A: ‘Logic’ and rationalist thought (a certain degree of national Darwinism) should be the fundament of our societies.”

This dark vision is not his invention. It’s a spin-off of what he aptly calls “National Darwinism,” which got its start in the writing of Charles Darwin. While a gentle soul in person and wishing no harm to anyone, Darwin envisioned a picture of the world that equates “extermination” (a favorite word of Darwin’s) with biological advancement. I’ve written elsewhere about the historical, moral consequences of Darwinism, quite apart from any explanatory value of natural selection in biology.

No one sane would blame Lee Silver or Charles Darwin for Breivik’s rampage, but it’s a historical reality that views like theirs, in the hands of madmen and not-so-madmen, have inspired some very evil deeds. This fact, because it suits no liberal or progressive narrative, unlike the irrelevant citation of Robert Spencer, is not something you will ever hear as the subject of an aggressive, obnoxious interview on the BBC.

David Klinghoffer is a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute.

| 72 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

72 Comments

| Leave a comment

The Left and the Muslim Nazis are evil – see http://www.hudson-ny.org/2301/norway-massacre-free-speech

The Norway Massacre and Europe's War on Free Speech
by Soeren Kern

July 28, 2011 at 5:00 am

….But in recent years, the secular purveyors of European multiculturalism have moved far beyond their initial objective of creating an American-style "melting pot." European socialists now view multiculturalism as a means to eliminate the entire Judeo-Christian worldview. This is certainly the case in Spain, where socialists have joined arms with Islam in a "Red-Green Alliance" to confront a common enemy, Christianity, as represented, in this case, by the Roman Catholic Churc....

In Norway, large sections of Oslo are being turned into Muslim enclaves subject to Sharia law and to the dictates of local imams. The citizens of Oslo are also struggling to cope with an epidemic of rapes. According to recent statistics, 100% of aggravated sexual assaults which resulted in rapes over the past three years were carried out by Muslim immigrants. Norwegians are now trying to deal with the large-scale torching of automobiles, which, as in France, is being attributed to Muslim youth.

In a Wall Street Journal essay titled "Inside the Mind of the Oslo Murderer," Bruce Bawer, an American analyst who lives in Oslo, writes: "Norway, like the rest of Europe, is in serious trouble. Millions of European Muslims live in rigidly patriarchal families in rapidly growing enclaves where women are second-class citizens, and where non-Muslims dare not venture. Surveys show that an unsettling percentage of Muslims in Europe reject Western values, despise the countries they live in, support the execution of homosexuals, and want to replace democracy with Sharia law. (According to a poll conducted by the Telegraph, 40% of British Muslims want Sharia implemented in predominantly Muslim parts of the United Kingdom.)"

Bawer describes Norway as a country that stands out for its refusal to confront any of the real dangers posed by Islamic radicalism. He also says the failure of mainstream political leaders to responsibly address the challenges posed by Muslim immigration has contributed to the emergence of extremists like Breivik. Pressure cookers without a safety valve eventually will explode.

Bawer writes: "In bombing those government buildings and hunting down those campers, Breivik was not taking out people randomly. He considered the Labour Party, Norway's dominant party since World War II, responsible for policies that are leading to the Islamization of Europe -- and thus guilty of treason....

As antecedent to my two part Palestine: The Counterfeit Country, what Dershowitz wrote about Norway’s utter lack of introspective soul searching regarding their own Nazi past, their continued support of the anti-Israeli Palestinian Unity government efforts, and their initial support for Hamas means Norwegians have learned nothing from their own past, and also ignore or rewrite the inconvenient bits of history which counter the Labour leftist narrative.

“Norway is the most anti-Semitic and anti-Israel country in Europe today.” – Alan M. Dershowitz

A prequel to my next Landmark Report piece.

I'm pissed that conservatives are the most convenient targets in this vileness perpetrated by a madman that the more we disprove the association of Anders Behring Breivik's beliefs with the lawful protests of the majority of conservatives, the more we will come closer to espousing the truth over Liberal lies.

About Anders Breivik being influenced by Lee Silver: It seems certain that, for better or worse, genetic engineering is part of our collective future, and irrespective of the Breivik's murderous rampage, it was perceptive of him to have recognized this. Like nuclear power, it's a genie that, once out of the bottle, will be hard to put back in. And for that matter, the Unibomber Ted Kaczynski, who Breivik also quotes in his manifesto, also had some good points to make about the deleterious effects of unbridled technologization on the earth.

It is a tragedy that neither of these men were able to channel their energies into more constructive ways to address these issues and instead resorted to violence. However, that does not nullify the issues of genetic engineering and unbridled technologization as serious issues.

But the battles over genetic engineering are for future generations to fight. I for one am glad that I won't be around to be part of them.

Re the Unabomber's manifesto quoted by Breivik:

For those who have not read it, here it is http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt . You can judge its worth for yourself.

European socialists now view multiculturalism as a means to eliminate the entire Judeo-Christian worldview.
===================================================

That's the Baha'i worldview.. make Jesus into Isa..

Most of the shleps that buy into the 'new world order' don't understand this.. but the elite messianic muslims do..

unity in diversity...

I weep for Gamle Norge!

In WWII, Norway had one of the better records in its resistance to the Final Solution. The starchy confessionalist Lutheran bishop Ole Hallesby was imprisoned for telling the faithful that they should not support the project, in which he was far from alone in the national church. Even members of the Nasjonal Samling refused to cooperate in rounding up the Jews. Roughly half of Norway's small Jewish population survived the war.

But,whereas I generally approve of Kilnghoffer's article, I'd hope he was a little more understanding.

What Klinghoffer calls "scientism" was part and parcel of the eclectic, modern faith in which I was raised. And, I don't think that I'm alone in this. Scientism tends to overlook the little problem that science is no better than the scientists doing it. What is calls "rational, logical thought" is more often than not unwilling to critically examine the axioms from which it makes its political and ethical pronouncements (and I deny that law and politics have nothing to do with ethics) are themselves, well, unproven and, in the bargain, conditioned by a specific tradition of discourse. Hence, "Science" can offer little in the way of ethical guidance.

I'm all for supporting scientific research myself. But science, while a great servant, surrenders to a more forceful person's mystical vision the minute it becomes a master.

Excellent points.

Indeed, he cited extensively giants in the fields of evolutionary biology as inspiration for his worldview.

Yet the "science is my religion" atheist Left isn't taking responsibility for these attacks.

Could this witch hunt of islamist critics get any more laughably hypocritical?

I think not...

On a side note, in the name of accuracy, eugenics really isn't bunk science.

Eugenics is perfectly grouded in scientific fact.

You could indeed create a race of "super humans" that have high intellect, high athleticism and virtually no genetic defects using selective breeding and genetic engineering.

I don't see why you couldn't.

It isn't evil acknowledging that. What's evil is implementing it.

I keep hoping that it is nothing but paranoia whispering in my ear that the term "judeo-christian heritage" is not evolving into a code word for theocracy as The Only Hope For Stopping Islam and Saving the West...

Are people really going to start blaming everything on godless/secular/atheist/evolution/"scientism" again? It's all Charles Darwin's fault for casting doubt upon Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden with the Apple and the Serpent and God Walking About in the Evening?

In reply, allow me to quote J. Bronowski in "The Ascent of Man": "It is said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That is false, tragically false... Science is a very human form of knowledge... Science is a tribute to what we can know althought we are fallible."

"Eugenics" has been a buzzword in certain nazified occulto-fantasy circles for decades now; I encountered this during cult investigation work as far back as the 1970s, and it was old then. Breivik hoovered that nonsense up along with the other neo-nazi elements of that stew of he called a "manifesto", which somehow also managed to incorporate Ghandi, Churchill, and so many other disparate elements that everyone can find someone to blame.

Science isn't killing us. The supernaturalist insanity that is Islam is killing us. Please let us not become the enemy in any way, shape or form.

Eugenics? the good life? The perfect people?

A favourite line comes to mind, "Education doesn't make a bad man good; it makes him dangerous." Northrop Frye.

I like that line so much that I use it as an epigram in a book I've written (available 2012), one third of which is about eugenics.

My best friend for all of my life is a tiny, crippled, middle-aged Jew, a man ordinary and normal and anonymous. How perfect is he? I have no words to describe. Would Spencer be a better man if he were taller? Would I be a better man if I knew Greek as well as Kepha? Would any of us be better if we were all as erudite as Hugh? It's not a matter of transhuman striving for demi-god stature that makes a man a man and a good man. I have another quotation I like that sums it up for me.

"I have a dream that my fellow men will one day live in a world where they will not be judged by their eugenic standing but by the content of their character."

Breivik might well have been some Nordic biological success story, but the content of his character would not improve by adding more steroids or enhancing his genius, to use the term loosely.

Character. That counts. The rest is decorative.

Eugenics is only minor part of Anders Breivik's ideology. He got more inspiration from JihadWatch than some obscure researcher; there is no point in passing the blame.

Which is nothing to be ashamed of. It was inevitable that someone would resist Islamization violently. I didn't quite expect it to happen so soon, but eventually surely someone whose relatives were raped/killed by immigrant Muslim would have taken matters into his own hands? Breivik's acts will mark only the beginning (especially because I think they will prove counterproductive, emboldening the multiculturalists even more), as long as unchecked Muslim immigration continues, and the native feel they no longer control their own country. It is inevitable.

While smearing eugenics may be fashionable (thanks to the left), it goes without saying that Muslim inbreeding probably has a dysgenic effect. There are many factors that can lower or raise the averages of certain population traits that are useful to society and highly heritable, like intelligence and conscientiousness. I expect more from thoughtful persons than to simply repeat the same tired leftist discourse that eugenics is bad, even if done 100% using non-coercive methods. Fjordman has written extensively on IQ, see for example his essay IQ and Human Accomplishment

Good points, sonofwalker. Actually, I know Chinese better than I know Greek.

It sure is TIRESOME to see poor old Darwin's bones slapped around for something he never did or said. Nor did his OBSERVATION on BIOLOGY have anything to do with human society WHATSOEVER.

Of course, it is because the religious agenda of somebody like David Klinghoffer that Darwin's words be twisted and his work be distorted.

All Darwin said was that the natural environment determines which organisms will survive and get to reproduce. And therefore the offspring of those organisms will be a product of their environment.

THAT'S IT! Nothing to do with human society or politics or anything else, whatsoever.

Klinghoffer said: "It’s a spin-off of what he aptly calls “National Darwinism,” which got its start in the writing of Charles Darwin." NO, IT DID NOT. SEE ABOVE. DARWIN WAS ONLY CONCERNED WITH, AND ONLY EVER TALKED, ABOUT THE NATURAL WORLD.

Klinghoffer said: "Darwin envisioned a picture of the world that equates “extermination” (a favorite word of Darwin’s) with biological advancement." NO, HE DID NOT. HE WAS ONLY OBSERVING THE WAY THINGS WORK IN THE NATURAL WORLD. SHARKS AND INSECTS AND A LOT OF THINGS HAVE BEEN THE SAME FOR A HUNDRED MILLION YEARS BECAUSE THERE IS NO ADVANTAGE IN "BIOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT" IN THEIR ENVIRONMENT AND THE WAY THEY RELATE TO IT.

Klinghoffer said: "I’ve written elsewhere about the historical, moral consequences of Darwinism, quite apart from any explanatory value of natural selection in biology." YOU WERE NOT WRITING ABOUT ANYTHING THAT DARWIN HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH. THERE ARE NO MORAL CONSEQUENCES WITH NATURAL SELECTION, BECAUSE THERE IS NO MORALITY IN NATURE.

I could go on and on, but perhaps this should be considered: You will notice that Klinhoffer and the deluded psycho Breivik both demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of Darwin and his work. Klinhoffer because he has a religious agenda, Breivik because he is insane.

Looks like radio talk show host, Michael Savage really goofed when he told his listeners the past couple of nights, Breivik is a "Christian" terrorist.

Robert,

I've been on vacation and made it a point to leave the virtual world behind...so I haven't had the opportunity to express my support in this time of turbulence. I wanted to do so now.

We all understand the fallacy of the narrative put forth by the MSM...linking you to Anders Breivik. It is a rank obscenity. But it should surprise no one. Perfidy and deception literally define the Islamo-Left.

This kind of character assassination against you will go on long after your time here on earth has passed. Such is the price for having the courage to speak the truth against a powerful enemy....but you knew that going in.

Your friends and supporters know the truth....that you are a man of integrity defending the highest ideals. We stand by you, staunchly and proudly.

The bizarre nature of the Oslo attack and its aftermath continues to raise questions that I see few others asking. Where did he get the training to construct an explosive device successfully where others have failed? The media just seems interested in pushing the "Christian extremist" meme that it ignores basic journalistic principles. My most recent article at http://thenewknighthood.blogspot.com deals with these and other questions. Although, I must say, I forgot to include the weird "Science is God" philosophy of Breivik (as well as Timothy McVeigh), but this author has dealt with it admirably.

Eugenics..

Maurice Strong..

Green Agenda..

Optimal population equals less than one billion..

====

baha'i agenda.. let us kill each other while the 'elites' sit back and let us do it..

hence the wide spread UN directed muslim migration patterns..

(…This fact, because it suits no liberal or progressive narrative, unlike the irrelevant citation of Robert Spencer, is not something you will ever hear as the subject of an aggressive, obnoxious interview on the BBC).

Well, from me it's Thanks to David Klinghoffer for this good piece.

The MSM laborers, at this turbulent horrific news season, I am sure are becoming educated by-force through this Site.

At that therefore, there is this natural call to chortle; as we all mow know that all of them, and all sure-liberals have made JW their visual companion at work for constructive journalism and education – watching their drowning process as the World sink into the last warrior prophet Mo’s abysmal Islam.

Read your link, Jedishaferyn. The possibility that the Norway operation was essentially a false flag operation was mentioned (by me) in the comments stream on these pages a few days ago, although no one picked up on it at the time.

I agree. This possibility needs to be thoroughly explored. If true, then it changes the public narrative considerably.

What a relief to know that maybe I'm not a delusional conspiracy theorist, or maybe we both are. It isn't often I see my thoughts expressed by a total stranger!

I think there is a carefully crafted, well managed plot contrived by the craven social engineers and population police in the despicable UN to poison the entire planet with islam and muslims. Unleashing islam on the civilized world is more lethal than the bubonic plague or biological warfare because it not only kills people, it kills civilizations. Islam is their secret weapon to kill tens of millions of excess, polluting humans and Western Civilization, two birds with one stone.

People like Maurice Strong, Al Gore, George Soros, the socialist eurocrats, and everyone associated and complicit with the UN and its vile machinations deserve to be exiled to a barren wasteland to live in solitude and poverty for the crime of impersonating God. And God complexes are ubiquituous these days; it seems that a handful of wealthy communists whose riches were generated by capitalism but now want to abolish it have annointed themselves the stewards of the earth and the masters of humanity. These megalomaniacs are quite dangerous, and they have many acolytes.

its funny a former prime minister, our cardinal and a former treasurer, and a writer/speaker have all been named in the 'manifesto' but no media feeding frenzy. i think we all know its just a given hes a lunatic, purely on what he did. he can name anyone in it as an influence... none can be held accountable for a tragedy like this.

take it easy robert, it WILL run out of steam. there is nothing to report on.

Hey, it turns out I'm one of those he sent his manifesto to, didn't even know it until a newspaper in Norway contacted me and told me I was on the list...had to go back through my emails and there it was...talk about horror! I have his email and the whole damned 1500 page manifesto...I reached out to the other people in the email (he didn't use BCC) and most of them had no idea either...so far anyway. 1 guy didn't know until I wrote to him! He'd assumed the notices from the European media were spam and trashed them until my email...unbelievable.

I blogged about it here: http://americaswarchick.blogspot.com/2011/07/reflections-from-1-of-1500.html

Hang in there, Robert...anyone who can read and critically think knows neither one of us had anything to do with this asshat. It's a hazard of the job when you write online! WARCHICK

I watched the Knights Templar video which Breivik made the day before he committed the bombing.
Much to my surprise, these were absolutely not the ravings of a lunatic, but a point by point analysis of how Europe got itself into the state it is presently in.
Say what you will about Breivik, but if you watch the video, you will see that it is correct; that he has correctly identified the cause of it, step by step.
I must say I was surprised, because he has been called a 'lunatic' (which he clearly is not if you use the video as a barometer of his mental state) a 'neo-nazi', which is also untrue. He mentions the plight of the Jews in Yemen and elsewhere and never mentions anything which remotely puts him in the nazi camp.
I think it is one of the best videos of it's type that I have seen; and recommend that all anti-jihadis watch it, because he presents data (which I and my website partner had concluded just days ago) which is again, a correct analysis. No matter what, it would be a shame to lose such a well thought-out and appropriate analysis of what we are presently facing, whomever the auther is.

Here's the take from an Israeli, on the state of affairs in Europe today, and heaven forbid, the US tomorrow:

Europe, prepare for flood

Op-ed: Open letter to Europeans, who killed Jews and are now contending with radical Islam

Avi Rath
Published: 10.07.10, 17:57 / Israel Opinion

Good evening Europe!

Hello to you, dear continent. For a while now I’ve been meaning to write you a few words, as a close neighbor here in the Middle East who loves traveling through your beautiful landscape, and whose roots lie deep within the continent.

You were our home for thousands of years, and especially for the past 1,000 years. We’ve known good times of neighborly relations as well as economic, cultural and spiritual prosperity. Yet we had also known difficult days of hatred, expulsions, humiliation, and blood libels. Oh, did we ever know such days.

Somehow, we survived; both you and us. To our regret, and shamefully for you, we were not the ones who chose to end our affair with you, dear continent. We could have maintained neighborly relations and cooperation for many more years, yet for reasons of your own you chose to put an end to this partnership, literally.

The plan was formulated on your soil, the camps were built there and the trains traveled there; the graves were dug on your soil, and the blood flowed to your rivers. Within a short period of time, you cut off a significant, 1,000-year Jewish presence. You murdered and expelled millions of loyal Jewish citizens. You eliminated not only them, but also all their contributions to the culture, economy, art, humanities, academics, literature, medicine, education, commerce, banking, and life in general.

I’ve been meaning to write you for a long time, yet it hasn’t worked out. However, this week, after seeing two things, I decided that I must say a few words.

First, I saw reports drafted by all sorts of demography and sociology experts, who claim that within a few years, you, Europe, will be turning Muslim. In some European states, 50% of all births at this time already are Muslim. If we add this to the low birthrates of non-Muslim European - where you, the white, Christian Europe, shall turn into a Muslim continent.

You are indeed trying to engage in rearguard battles against this phenomenon – against mosques in Switzerland, against burqas in France, against immigration, and against all sorts of other things. Yet you too realize that this train cannot be stopped. Nobody will be able to forbid a Muslim woman from putting on a veil. Indeed, the liberal, enlightened, and scantily-clad European women realize that a day may come where radical Islam gains enough strength to end the party.

The second thing I saw was the travel advisories issued by many states to warn their citizens against heading to Europe for fear of terrorism. Someone already noted (and it wasn’t necessarily a Jew) that while not all Muslims are terrorists, for some reason most terrorists are Muslim.

Slowly, our dear continent, you are starting to understand what you’re dealing with here. You are starting to understand the kind of religion and culture brought along by radical Islam. Suddenly, you discover hatred and the culture of martyrs, as well as intolerance and isolation, alienation in the face of real democracy, and the shunning of human and women’s rights.

Suddenly, radical Islam is stuck like a bone in Europe’s throat. You cannot eject it – because that would immediately raise cries of racism, human rights, and the usual babble – but you cannot swallow it either, because the white, democratic, liberal and Christian European culture cannot contain such radical cultural and religious elements. It will end with a major explosion, in more than one way.

Dear continent, there is no vacuum in the world. You expelled and exterminated us, and got the Muslim world instead. At first it was nice, getting a little Mideastern atmosphere and breeze, yet with the passage of time the radical Islamic storm arrived and now threatens to sweep you away, our dear neighbor.

Now you are starting to sleep in the bed you made. Suddenly you are discovering women wearing veils, zealous eyes, and mosques at every corner. Suddenly you need to contend with high birthrates, a culture with radical characteristics which you cultivated, and terrorism and violence which you ignored. You cannot deny this for much longer. The confrontation is already here. Unfortunately we are already experts on the issue, even though here too there is no shortage of naïve, self-righteous individuals.

The first time the Creator decided to raze the world as result of our conduct, he agreed to grant humanity another chance. He asked Noah to go into the ark in order to create a new basis for the world and produce a more decent humanity. The ark was the world’s chance; a momentary shelter.

So dear Europe, will you be wise enough to prepare ahead of time a physical and cultural Noah’s Ark in order to survive and preserve yourself? Or will your aggressiveness, arrogance, and hypocrisy not allow you to admit to the disaster you brought upon yourself, turning into a continent living on borrowed time?

Regards,

Your Jewish neighbor from the Middle East

"I watched the Knights Templar video which Breivik made the day before he committed the bombing.
Much to my surprise, these were absolutely not the ravings of a lunatic, but a point by point analysis of how Europe got itself into the state it is presently in."

_________________________________________________________


Do you have a link to the video? I have tried to steer clear of calling him a lunatic because I don't know. It is widely reported, Breivik is a Zionist. Do you think he is Christian?

Spirit of 1683, great post! Thanks Avi!

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/1999/jssr/bhjssr.htm

Originally published in The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Volume 37, No. 2 (June 1998): 234-248. Digitally republished here with additional notations, May, 1999.

The Baha’i Faith in America as Panopticon, 1963-1997

=============

I think you would appreciate this analysis...

Just to add to what Abraham Lincoln said. Nature is not benificial to humans nor anything else, nor is it hostile, it is completely indifferent. Like everything else in the universe it just is. We cannot expect the findings of science to fit covieniently into our ideas of morality. As a good scientist all Darwin was doing was pointing out the evolutionary facts, however unpleasant they may be. When Social Dawinism raised its ugly head Darwin was one of the first to oppose it. As he said, "What is, is not what ought."

Glenn Beck said the politically-active Noregian Labor Party Youth Movement "sounds a little like the Hitler youth."

When Spencer was (rightly) accused of encouraging this murderous behavior manifested by his unjust villification of all Muslims he complained that the "blame game" had begun .

Now, after his inefficacious attempt to defend himself, he has resorted to the very same tactic of pointing fingers trying to divert the blame on somebody else. Highly ineffective.

It is greatly irresponsible of Spencer to continue this dangerous cult-like charade when he was forewarned by so many of the possible consequences of his writting should he decide to continue. All but Spency saw this coming. Now s*** hit the fan and instead of acknowledging the disservice of his "work" and its contribution to this massacre he goes on the defensive by painting others with the same brush. Despicable

Come on. Are you really Jewish? Where did you get this "unjust villification (sic) of all Muslims?" I've got several / most of Spencer's books. Provide your evidence. Please do not post irresponsible and baseless accusations.

Regarding Darwin, nature is not benign towards humanity, nor is it hostile, it just is, like everything else in the universe. To expect that the findings of science in biology or any other science should fit in with our notions of morality is ridiculous. Darwin, like the good scientist he was, just presented the facts of evolution as they were, however unpalatable they might be. Social Darwinism, as pointed out by Abraham Lincoln above, has nothing to do with natural evolution. If it has to do with anything it is with deliberate breeding. I am sure, given the history of breeding animals, the idea of breeding superior humans was around long before Darwins time. When Social Darwinism reared its ugly head Darwin was one of the first to oppose it. As he said, "What is, is not what ought."

By chance today I saw an item on the BBC news website about a study been conducted in Bradford into the abnormally high number of babies dying in their first year in that town. It pointed out that 40% of the population is Asian. (BBC newspeak for Muslim.) Maybe evolution is at work among the Muslims.

Regarding Darwin, nature is not benign towards humanity, nor is it hostile, it just is, like everything else in the universe. To expect that the findings of science in biology or any other science should fit in with our notions of morality is ridiculous. Darwin, like the good scientist he was, just presented the facts of evolution as they were, however unpalatable they might be. Social Darwinism, as pointed out by Abraham Lincoln above, has nothing to do with natural evolution. If it has to do with anything it is with deliberate breeding. I am sure, given the history of breeding animals, the idea of breeding superior humans was around long before Darwins time. When Social Darwinism reared its ugly head Darwin was one of the first to oppose it. As he said, "What is, is not what ought."

By chance today I saw an item on the BBC news website about a study been conducted in Bradford into the abnormally high number of babies dying in their first year in that town. It pointed out that 40% of the population is Asian. (BBC newspeak for Muslim.) Maybe evolution is at work among the Muslims.

Regarding Darwin, nature is not benign towards humanity, nor is it hostile, it just is, like everything else in the universe. To expect that the findings of science in biology or any other science should fit in with our notions of morality is ridiculous. Darwin, like the good scientist he was, just presented the facts of evolution as they were, however unpalatable they might be. Social Darwinism, as pointed out by Abraham Lincoln above, has nothing to do with natural evolution. If it has to do with anything it is with deliberate breeding. I am sure, given the history of breeding animals, the idea of breeding superior humans was around long before Darwins time. When Social Darwinism reared its ugly head Darwin was one of the first to oppose it. As he said, "What is, is not what ought."

By chance today I saw an item on the BBC news website about a study been conducted in Bradford into the abnormally high number of babies dying in their first year in that town. It pointed out that 40% of the population is Asian. (BBC newspeak for Muslim.) Maybe evolution is at work among the Muslims.

Just listened to the entire segment of the Beck program where he said Norwegian Labor Party Youth Movement "sounds a little like the Hitler youth."

Listen:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/glenn-beck-norway-camp-sounds-a-little-like-the-hitler-youth/2011/07/26/gIQArUGoaI_blog.html

In it Beck commends Dutch politician Geert Wilders for his insight. Has Beck retracted his accusation that Wilders is comparable to fascists?

Beck concludes this segment with, 'Breivik is no different from Osama bin Laden', which begs a question I might ask Mr. Beck. Had someone slaughtered close to one hundred members of the Hitler Youth, would there be a similar public outcry to Breivik's mass-slaughter?

What is "nature?" What are the facts of evolution? Give me some of your facts.

I have wondered whether Europe was reaping the fruits of the Holocust with the Muhammadian 'invaders'. Or it's just the God hating spirit in Nation's.

"Real Jew" = muslim

cause that's what they believe..

"Had someone slaughtered close to one hundred members of the Hitler Youth, would there be a similar public outcry to Breivik's mass-slaughter?"

I thought the same thing.. In a few decades this modern 'Guy Fawkes' may be hailed as a man ahead of his time..

who knows?

I guess it depends on the victor of the coming conflict..

You don't think there are anti-Semitic Jews? There are indeed. You might be right. He might be Muslim. If he is a Jew, he is a pusillanimous one.

"You don't think there are anti-Semitic Jews?"
sure I do.. George Soros for one..

perhaps this 'real jew' is a Soros disciple..
might as well be muslim in that case..
lol

"I watched the Knights Templar video which Breivik made the day before he committed the bombing.
Much to my surprise, these were absolutely not the ravings of a lunatic, but a point by point analysis of how Europe got itself into the state it is presently in." - julietsm

I, too, would be interested in that link. Thanks.

Also, for those who have never read it, you might be interested in the views of the Unabomber quoted by Breivik http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt where there are some choice words reserved for modern Leftists that many, perhaps even most, people here will probably agree with. Even if you disagree with Kaczynski's conclusions, which, like those of Breivik calls for violence as the only way to get the attention of the world, the underlying analysis of the social scene is well worth the read in its own right.

I looked it up. Now I remember watching it earlier:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAwp2FnRmsE&has_verified=1&skipcontrinter=1

You might have to sign-in on YouTube in order to watch it. Some of the written material is pretty fine print. I had to stop the video from time to time to read some of it. Much of it is historic imagery; compelling imagery. I probably will not read his or the Unabomber's manifesto if I don't have to. I will pick up bits and pieces from this site and other sites that I trust. Do you remember the important passages Breivik quoted from the Ted Kaczynski's manifesto?

My apologies for the multiple posts - my internet link is playing up.

Reply to wild jew. I'd have thought that the word nature is self explanitory. I was refering to the whole of the biological natural world. By evolution I was refering to evolution of species by natural selection. If you need more go to any number of sites that will give you an explaination such as the following, which goes into more detail than I want from a web site. I would make a link but as I've said, my computer system is playing up.

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection.html

I am no expert on the subject. It seems to me Darwinism is a crackpot theory, absent any scientific basis; no?
Darwinism, natural selection, "survival of the fittest," etc., are responsible for some of the 20th century secular ideologies like eugenics and its ba-t-rd child Nazism; resulting in the murders of tens or millions. That is why I asked a member earlier if he thinks Breivik is a Christian. Does Breivik believe in this crackpot pseudoscience?

Echoing denimman, Darwinism in its original sense referred to biological evolution, and except for Creationists and some religious fundamentalists (both Christian and Islamic) there is no serious controversy that this is the main mechanism by which life forms evolved on the earth. Indeed, all of modern biology is based on it and its extensions.

The term "Darwinism" became subverted and bastardized by sociologists anxious to draft the underlying concept into the service of social science. Hence, the term "social Darwinism" that is supposed to describe how cultures and societies evolve, with stronger ones prevailing over weaker ones, by whatever means (often, but not always, militarily or by force, or by superior and more flexible social structures enabling then to adapt to changing circumstances). It appears that it is in this sense, wildjew, that you are using the term. But this shouldn't be confused with biological Darwinism, which has genuine scientific underpinnings rooted in physics and chemistry.

Yes I am. I know its very shocking to most folks on this site that there are jews out there who are unsupportive of racism, stereotypes and villification. Moving on

"Where did you get this "unjust villification (sic) of all Muslims?"

I based this conclusion on his books, articles, and website. Ive read much of his work and to summarize: "Islam is the devil's work. Muslims are terrorists"

And Im hardly the only one who believes this. Including, but not limited to, academics, theologians, Prime Ministers of numerous countries, journalists, and political commentaters, analyists, and websites.

I asked: "Where did you get this "unjust vilification of all Muslims?"

You wrote: "I based this conclusion on his books, articles, and website. Ive read much of his work and to summarize: "Islam is the devil's work. Muslims are terrorists"

And I'm hardly the only one who believes this. Including, but not limited to, academics, theologians, Prime Ministers of numerous countries, journalists, and political commentators, analysts, and websites."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I don't think you have read his work. I've got (I think) most of Spencer's best-sellers, both in hard copy and on audio. The first book I listened to / read, was his "Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest-Growing Faith." Since then I got and listened to (not necessarily in this order) "The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion," "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)," "The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran," and "Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs." These I think are Spencer's more popular books.

I did not buy "Religion of Peace?: "Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't," because it is not available on Audible.com. If it were, I would enjoy listing to it but having read parts of the book at Amazon, I can see (no offense intended toward Spencer) it is an apologetic in behalf of his church which has a terrible history of anti-Semitism and violence. Even to this day (again I mean no offence to Spencer, because he is not violent) the leaders of Spencer's church are anti-Israel to an obsessive degree; church leaders question the Jews right to possess and to live in the Holy Land, as well as Israel's right to defend herself from jihad terror; views and policies which I am unable separate from anti-Semitism. Mr. Spencer knows where I stand. I've made my position abundantly clear on this site.

Having gotten that out of the way, your summarizing of Spencer's views being, "Islam is the devil's work / (all) Muslims are terrorists," is preposterous. I've read his books. I challenge you to find one statement in any of the books I have cited which remotely imply this is his position on Islam and Muslims. This "Islam is of the devil" is a (in my opinion, nutty) theological position that that some Christians posit and have posted here on this site. Spencer makes it clear, he is not responsible for what people post on this site, and thankfully so. I would not want him to be held responsible for my sometimes intemperate comments. No where have I read Spencer believes all Muslims are terrorists or that Islam is of the devil. Again, I challenge you to find these in any of his writings and then I will stand corrected.

Have you watched Ben Stein's "Expelled No Intelligence Allowed." (?)

When you find the time, watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIZAAh_6OXg

It's worth your time.

Ben Stein is well known for being anti-Evolution, if what being in the movie "Expelled" allows one to characterize him as. On the subject of evolution he is like a lot of people whose educations have been primarily in the humanities and devoid of any significant education in science, and as a consequence are bereft of an understanding of it.

I've always wondered why an otherwise reasonable, sometimes even entertaining, guy like Ben Stein allowed himself to get involved in "Expelled." My suspicion is that, like many on the humanities side of C.P. Snow's "Two Cultures" divide, his distaste for science is rooted more in his distaste for the personality types that are drawn to the hard sciences than it is in the subject matter itself, akin to disliking the messenger on account of his not being fond of the color of his neck tie - but in reality because he doesn't understand the content of the message being delivered.

Of course, like the quiche eating Earth First crowd who drive to rallies in their gas-guzzling SUVs, he will probably continue enjoying his Blackberry or surfing the web or flying in airplanes around the country/world (which work according to some kind of magic in his mind), not to mention availing himself to the fruits of modern medicine, all provided by the same folks he finds so distasteful.

I suspect, but can't prove, that Stein is also anti-Semitic.

So your implying that Spencer is accurately reporting on Islams' "insatiable desire to destroy the entire West and our culture, commit genocide on all Christians, and enforce Sharia Law on the entire world."

It's a bit outlandish, don't ya think? And since you are so well rehearsed with his work I'm confident you could verify that this is the message Spencer conveys.

I could care less about Islam and I'm the first to agree that it is very flawed and often violent. However, name me one major religion that hasn't caused unimaginable amounts of death and misery.

You mentioned before that your grateful for Spencer disseminating information about radical Islam and other political issues (fogel family ect). If you really appreciate informative literature and interested in fully understanding this issue it would be beneficial to seek more impartial and unbias material. Although not entirely impartial, www.spencerwatch.com is a good place to start nonetheless.


Thanks, the article was quite interesting. I have studied the Baha'i 'religion' a little bit, not extensively. It seems more political than religious, definitely socialist/collectivist and somewhat tyrannical, but at least members can leave the faith without fear of being killed for apostasy.

The concept of a one world government is abhorrent to me and the idea of being a 'world citizen' is inconceivable. Our nationalities give us unique identities and the disparate cultures, languages, and religions of the world are fascinating. Why would anyone want one government, one language, one religion, one culture?! These people want a world where everyone is just alike and that would be incredibly boring. Typical socialists.

Real Jew:
"So your implying that Spencer is accurately reporting on Islams' "insatiable desire to destroy the entire West and our culture, commit genocide on all Christians, and enforce Sharia Law on the entire world."

It seems you misrepresent Robert Spencer's message and it seems to me that is committing straw man's fallacy.

Real Jew:
"I could care less about Islam and I'm the first to agree that it is very flawed and often violent. However, name me one major religion that hasn't caused unimaginable amounts of death and misery."

It seems to me that this committing Tu Quoque-fallacy. I know that you are trying to avoid using double standards towards Muslims and Non-Muslims and that you desire to consider people innocent until proven guilty.

But me, I like us to turn this around and focus on the real and potential victims of Muslims-inspired-by-Islam.

Then we see the strength of the mountains and undeniable reality of evidence, including names of victims, perpetrators, self-confessed motivations. And we see the study of finite, immutable Islamic holy texts and declarations of influential Islamic scholars, which is done very committed and deeply by Critical Islam Experts like Robert Spencer.

Focusing on real and potential victims of the above, then the logical, seemingly superfluous question is: Is Islam on the whole beneficial or detrimental in this situation for non-Muslims? And when the well-informed and considered and debated answer is YES, ....

Well, then it is negligence of duty towards past, current and potential victims to whitewash, exonerate, condone Islam and it's followers, even those who only belong to it's organisation, with this influence.

Even if you do it to: be fair to Muslims, protect the hurt feelings of Muslims, protect Muslims from perceived increased risk or try to maintain social cohesion.

When you become involved with this issue, and you aspire to be a just, fairminded, neutral, rational observer, ....

You still have to do "triage"; meaning: Are you going to protect Muslims or potential victims of Muslims-inspired-by-Islam? And in what balance?

Stein and other investigations have found little difference between Darwinians and Islamic supremacists. Both seek to stifle opposition and debate. It speaks volumes about the strength of their respective arguments that they are unwilling to debate but instead seek to destroy (even expel) their opponents.

Thanks for the link to SencerWatch.com. I will try to keep an eye on the site. It looks to be pretty up to date. Who owns / manages this site, do you know? Spencer's name is on this site. Why isn't the author / owner's name on the Spencer Watch site?

On the top-right, "about us" is says, "This site exposes Robert Spencer of JihadWatch.org, an extremist "Catholic" idealogue (sic) who hides behind "fake" scholarly claims to promote a fanatic anti-Muslim agenda."

If you read what I wrote about Spencer above, I said I believe he is a bit of an apologist for his church but I'm sure there are those who believe I am an apologist for my faith. I would like to believe I judge my faith, my people and our history impartially and objectively. Sadly this does not appear to be the case in many Christian circles. That having been said, to say Spencer is an "extremist" Catholic ideologue (the owner of Spencer Watch did not even take the time to run ideologue through "spell check," good grief) is unfair. Vicious, anti-Semitic, ultra-traditionalist Catholics, Mel Gibson and his father Hutton Gibson are extremist Catholic ideologues. Extremism is a matter of perspective. The owner of Spencer Watch might be an extremist leftist ideologue (I suspect he or she is), thus he looks at moderate activists like Spencer from his extremist perspective. Surely you understand this reality. One's perspective" (religious, political, ideological, etc.) is all important.

How can Spencer Watch dismiss better than thirty years of the study of Islam, its history, texts and teachings -- since 1980 -- as "hiding behind "fake" scholarly claims?"

I do indee read what you call "impartial and unbiased material." Remember, I listen to audio books at Audible.com. It's a great resource. Not a few of their books and authors are apologists for Islam, what you call "impartial and unbiased material." After the September 2001 attacks, it is pretty hard to swallow much of what these apologists are disseminating.

That having been said, I've got, "Arguing the Just War in Islam," by Professor John Kelsay. I've got, Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources," By Martin Lings. I've got "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, by Jimmy Carter. I've got, "The Case for Peace: How the Arab-Israeli Conflict Can Be Resolved," by Alan Dershowitz Narrated by Alan Dershowitz. I've got, "A History of the Middle East," by Peter Mansfield. I've got, "A History of the Arab Peoples," by Albert Hourani. And I've got more, all apologists for Islam. How can you say I don't read the other perspective?

To Wildjew. Sorry I made an error in my last post. I missed a 'selection' from the U of Michigan's site link. It should be:

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html

As I say, there are any number of websites that will teach you all you want to know about the proven facts of evolutionary theory. I will just say that survival by selective adaption has been observed both in the laboratory and in nature. Speciation in progress is also observable.

I notice you keep refering to "Darwinism". Do you refer to the theory of gravity as "Newtonism" or the theory of relativity as "Einsteinism". This is ironic because the study of evolution has moved on way beyond anything Darwin could have dreamed of even though he was the genius who came up with it and his work still stands. If you have a problem with evolution don't argue with Darwin, argue with those presently working in the field.

Whether or not Breivik believed in evolution or not is completely irrelivant since as Paul Weston, at Gates of Vienna, republished on th EDL website, points out Breivik was driven by his lack of an outlet for his fears about the Islamisation of his country aided by the government and having no political outlet and the possibility of been imprisoned if he expressed his views. I cannot see how evolution or even Social Darwinism could have motivated him to do what he did. This modern form of eugenics may have been part of his world view but so what? Evolutionary theory is part of the world view of the Catholic Church, the Church of England, Humanist groups and that of most people in the world. None of these are going on the rampage whereas Muslims who reject evolution are slaughtering people wholesale. There is a world of difference between fantasicing about creating a super race and going out and murdering seventy odd children. He was driven by the need in his eyes to do something dramatic and came up with a solution that was his alone. If implimenting some sort of "neodarwinist" plan was his desire, getting yourself shot or banged up in jail for most of the rest of your natural after commiting a repulsive crime is a funny way of going about it.
The guy was nuts and as anyone, such as a number of my relatives who work with the mentally ill will point out, a completely deranged mind will twist anything they latch onto, however innocuous or irrelevant, to fit their wierd obsessive views. To suport them they will formulate a dialogue that can be extremely sophisticated and very persuasive. Fortunately most of these sad people are no threat to anyone except possibly themselves.

By the way, Hitler may have believed in Social Darwinism but he did not believe in evolution and for what it's worth, though you don't mention him, neither did Stalin who prefered Lamarckism which fitted Marxist theory better and the implimentation of which on a large scale to agriculture in the 1930's lead to thousands dying of starvation.

denimman, you wrote: "This modern form of eugenics may have been part of his world view but so what?" and "There is a world of difference between fantasizing about creating a super race and going out and murdering seventy odd children."

So what(?) is relevant because educated and scholarly folks are saying he is a "Christian" terrorist. Personally, I view his purported Zionism and his support for Israel as a positive, though I am not certain that in and of itself makes the man a believing Christian. Modern form of eugenics is unethical and immoral. Fantasizing about creating a super race is racist. How can a Christian be unethical, immoral and a racist?

Perhaps you consider yourself a humanist or an atheist or agnostic. I believe in the Creator. My Creator is the God of Israel. Surely you will concede, evolution, natural selection, etc., runs counter to the Genesis account of creation, will you not?

"The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed AFTER THEIR KIND (emphasis mine), and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good." (Genesis chapter 1, verse 12)

This does not preclude what is called adaption but it does preclude one species or kind evolving into another different species or kind. Doesn't it? I don't mean to offend you but I am not all that impressed with the world view of the Catholic Church, the Church of England, Humanist groups and that of most people in the world. Most people in the world believe all kinds of nonsense. Take this nation for example. The majority of Americans elected Barack Hussein Obama. Does that make most Americans right?

You speak of the "proven facts" of evolutionary theory. Where are these proven facts? My background is in science. I graduated from University of Florida with a Bachelor of Science in Agriculture. My background is biology / botany, though I have no advanced degrees, unlike Spencer, I am not a scholar. You say "survival by selective adaption has been observed both in the laboratory and in nature. Speciation in progress is also observable."

I am not so much interested in laboratories within walls. I am interested in the laboratory of earth itself; the fossil record. "Adaption" has been observed in nature, true, but where has evolution - one species evolving into another and a very different species - been observed in nature? Where are all these transitional forms ("missing links") in the fossil record that prove we descended from apes denimman? Where are the transitional forms between man and ape? How do you explain the Cambrian explosion? According to scholars, "at the bottom of the geological column in the so called Cambrian rocks are found highly complex creatures.....These are highly complex life forms appearing on the scene without forerunners...."

Don't give me any links. I am not interested in links. You are the expert. I am your student. Present your evidence. Present your facts. Where is your evidence?

You say, speciation in progress is also observable. How does speciation conflict with the creation account in the book of Genesis?

"Stein and other investigations have found little difference between Darwinians and Islamic supremacists. Both seek to stifle opposition and debate."

This is confusing form with substance, moral equivocating of the worst kind, and is one of the things about Stein that I find despicable. Islamic supremacists have been known to kill people by the thousands who disagree with them, but I don't recall any Darwinians rioting or killing people over "Expelled." And don't bother to pull a moral equivalency trick again by citing a few outlier events to try to prove the contrary. It's precisely the lack of metrics you guys use in your arguments that is part of the problem.

I agree with many of your views about Islam, wildjew, but on this issue I part company with you.

in the manifesto also mentioned Bernard Lewis. a history professor. not an anti jihad activist. so lets ban history?

"Real Jew" wrote:

When Spencer was (rightly) accused of encouraging this murderous behavior manifested by his unjust villification of all Muslims he complained that the "blame game" had begun .

Now, after his inefficacious attempt to defend himself, he has resorted to the very same tactic of pointing fingers trying to divert the blame on somebody else. Highly ineffective.
...................................

What rot. Neither Robert Spencer nor author David Klinghoffer are blaming Lee Silver for Anders Breivik's vicious murder spree. Read the article more carefully.

More:

It is greatly irresponsible of Spencer to continue this dangerous cult-like charade when he was forewarned by so many of the possible consequences of his writting should he decide to continue. All but Spency saw this coming. Now s*** hit the fan and instead of acknowledging the disservice of his "work" and its contribution to this massacre he goes on the defensive by painting others with the same brush. Despicable
...................................

Again, what rot. Shining a light on savagery—in this case, Jihad violence—is not the same as urging savagery. It is, in fact, the polar opposite.

Thanks for sharing your experience, Ms. Kirkland. It must have been very disconcerting to find you were on this vicious mass-murderer's list.

Honestly I'm unsure who's running Spencer Watch but ill look into it. And I agree that the website contains bias and partiality which is why I warned you in advance.

I provided that website only to emphasis the fact there's always two sides of any controversial subject. And its good to see that you took the time to research the "other" side before prematurely forming an opinion.

Well said. While I disagree with some of your logic you seem to debate this subject genuinely using your personal knowledge and opinion. Rather then simply attack, accuse, or smear anyone with an opposing view, which is more then I can say about most on this site.

Stein did not say it. I said it.

You are right. Darwinians that have power in universities over hiring and firing are not rioting or killing people, nor are their supporters. I concede your point. But they do, like Obama and the Democrats, seek to stifle legitimate opposition and debate. I believe, were America's institutions sufficiently weakened, the far left might seek to stifle political opposition and discussion like we see on this and other Internet sites and blogs; maybe Fox News and other right-leaning news sites. Yet Obama and the Democrats are not rioting or killing people, are they?
Frontpagemag editor, Jamie Glazov wrote, "United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror." Nonetheless, do we see leftists rioting and killing people like the jihadists riot and kill? Would you say, this alliance is therefore of little to no consequence because the left is not rioting and killing people like the jihadists? What do you call the stifling of legitimate dissent, opposition, discussion and debate Eastview?

Eastview, you wrote: "It's precisely the lack of metrics you guys use in your arguments that is part of the problem."


I'm curious. Who are "you guys?"

"What do you call the stifling of legitimate dissent, opposition, discussion and debate Eastview?"

These are matters of form, subject to political and ideological pressures. The real debate is, or ought to be, about matters of substance. In terms of substance, the Theory of Evolution has a huge amount of evidence behind it, whereas Creationism is beset with contradictions left and right. (I'm using the term "theory" in its scientific sense to mean an organized body of knowledge, as in Theory of Electromagnetism, Theory of Algebraic Forms, Theory of Relativity, which have extensively vetted evidence to back them up, as opposed to the popular meaning of "theory" as a lawyer might use it, which is little more than a guess without supporting evidence.) The Creationists and Young Earth folks appear not to understand what "theory" means in a scientific context and try to project what is their own misunderstanding of the term onto mature sciences.

It is true that established departments of science in universities are resistant to hiring faculty that might present a divergent view, but this has little or nothing to do with anything related to Left/Right issues. In the case of Creationism and the objections to standard evolutionary theory and the religious subtext behind it, departments of science are correct, I believe, in blocking the injection of such materials with an ideological or religious agenda unrelated to the subject matter from polluting the curriculum. Not to do this would introduce chaos, of a kind not dissimilar to the kind of chaos introduced by Leftists with a political agenda into humanities programs during the 60s and 70s. It destroyed them, and would, if it were allowed to happen, surely do the same to science programs. Can you imagine the effect of insisting that the biology curriculum should be modified to accommodate Lysenkoism, or the chemistry department hiring a specialist in flogiston theory, or the mathematics department hiring someone who specializes in numerology, or the physics department hiring someone pushing the theory of earth/air/fire/water or ether theory, the astronomy department accommodating astrology, etc. Maybe mathematics departments should be forced to hire someone who doesn't know how to count as a professor of mathematics, you suppose? After all, according to deconsructionist thought counting is nothing more than an arbitrarily imposed cultural construct, usually dreamed up by men in order to oppress women and minorities. Not hiring someone to teach this could therefore also be considered suppression of "legitimate dissent" according to their lights.

Of course, Creationists are free to pursue their own interpretations of nature, and they are free to establish their own Hogwart universities with departments of creationist magic if they so desire. But these programs have no place in the science classroom today. If they are subsequently proved to be right, the evolution paradigm will simply adapt to accommodate it. That's one of the beauties of a real science; it can self-correct itself to accommodate anything that has been demonstrated by physical evidence to be true.

"I'm curious. Who are "you guys?""

I was referring to those who engage in moral equivocation about two things that share superficial similarities but skip over profound dissimilarities of a more substantive nature. A trivial example of this, which also illustrates the consequences of ignoring metrics, is asserting that a dollar in your pocket is the same as a million dollars in the bank, merely on the basis of their both being denominated in dollars. Of course, we know this equivalence misses the important distinction between one dollar and one million dollars.

A more familiar example to readers here is assertion of the moral equivalence of Timothy McVeigh and jihadists, while ignoring both the differences in their respective motivations, not to mention the vast disparities in their body counts. To moral equivocators seventeen thousand jihadist attacks since 9/11, with a body count many times that, is no different than McVeigh's one off bombing. This ridiculous assertion lacks a metric to judge the relative importance of these two groups in terms of the magnitudes of the follow-on deleterious effects upon the world. Actually there are two metrics here that are being ignored. The first is the body count, but the second, more subtle one, is the degree to which each side possess a support network that give it inertia into the future. Moral equivocators, who are usually, but not always, members of the innumerate Left, don't do metrics, so this important aspect of discussion is ignored.

In your case, you are implying that Creationism and modern biology should enjoy equal standing in the classroom, and that the resistance of biologists to including creationist ideas in their curriculum is a form of censorship and suppression of ideas. The metric that is missing in this case is the comparative levels of evidence that each side is able to marshal in its favor, which of course is heavily lopsided in favor of modern biology.

But these are side issues in this forum. The main issues here are the deleterious effects of Islam in the world. On this I think we are in essential agreement, and I look forward to reading more or your perceptive posts about this in the future.

I asked: "What do you call the stifling of legitimate dissent, opposition, discussion and debate Eastview?"

You wrote: "These are matters of form, subject to political and ideological pressures. The real debate is, or ought to be, about matters of substance."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I want to deal with this central (critical) contention of yours first. Then I will read and address the remainder of your post.

By definition, fascists "forbid and suppress opposition," debate, inquiry, etc. That is one of several reasons for the term "Islamofascism."

Spencer has written about the Organization of Islamic Conference (the following are by no means exhaustive): "Secretary of State Clinton tells Islamic organization dedicated to crushing free speech that Islam and the West can agree on tolerance"...

"OIC slams "Islamophobia" in the West, says nothing about jihad violence or Islamic supremacism"....

"UN Human Rights Council adopts resolution against religious discrimination...No one supports actual religious discrimination, but the OIC is dedicated to quashing all honest discussion of jihad and Islamic supremacism under this rubric....."

Eastview, you may think these are matters of "form;" not matters of "substance."

I do think these are matters of substance.

You are entitled to your opinion that stifling of speech is not a matter of substance. I think your opinion is wrong.

wildjew, OK I think I see where you're coming from now. My somewhat long-winded reply to you, composed late at night after a couple of bourbons, was directed to your comments about evolution. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that.

I do not think matters such as you mention involving the attempted political suppression of discussions about the problems of Islam are of the same type as is involved in the culture wars over the theory of evolution. I would say that it is in attempting to establish a moral equivalence between the two on the basis of perceived attempts at suppression, such as the OIC in the case of discussions about Islam and non-hirings of creationists in the case of academic departments of biology, as you did, that is itself problematical. You are using the moral equivalence argument to leverage your criticism of suppression of discussion about Islam to criticism of what you perceive as suppression of discussion about evolution. I fully agree with you about the former, but think the analogy to the latter is weak. Indeed, your analogy struck me as being qualitatively of the same kind as equating Robert Spencer with the Norway shooter. As you can see, I get all crazy when I see anyone playing the moral equivalence card (and the race card, and the gender card, etc., etc.) without supporting metrics, or at least a clear case justifying the putative "equivalence."

We have probably exhausted this topic, which isn't really strongly related to the parent story in any case. Keep up the good fight! I always enjoy your posts.

(BTW, can you say where you are posting from? Or, as some of our strict grammarians here might put it, can you reveal the region of the world from where you are posting?)

Sure. Right now I live in central Florida. In the coming years, God (if you will) willing, I hope (intend) to immigrate to Israel. I've not devoted sufficient attention to the ideology of regulars on this forum; that is who is who. Spencer appears to have a smattering of followers / readers, from Jews to devout or former Catholics, to fundamentalist Christian, secular humanists, etc.

I don't think we are that far apart. Reading between the lines, you do not strike me as a fundamentalist (Bible-believing) Christian. I am not an Orthodox Jew. I am a Jew who believes in God. That's all. I generally feel comfortable allying with conservative Christians so long as we don't get into discussions concerning religious dogma, such that I need to accept Jesus as my personal savior and his blood, otherwise I have a "one-way" ticket to hell. In the event, I become uncomfortable.

Your point about moral equivalency. You do not need to impress upon me the repugnance of this method of demonization. I read it almost daily from leftist elitists and their publications regarding the Muslim and the Muslim-Arab war against Israel's Jews. For decades, Islamic terror and Israel defending herself against it, is morally equated in much of the mainstream media, even within conservative political circles.

Calls for Israel to "exercise restraint" by the US State Department is suggestive of a moral equivalence. Charges that Israel uses "excessive and disproportionate" responses to bloody terrorism and suicide bombings; the notion that there is a "cycle of violence" between Israel and Islamic savages are all indicative of a moral equivalence between Israel and her murderous enemies.

I am not a scholar on the debate between Creationists and Darwinists. I do not believe in the notion (some Christians hold) of a young earth. I prefer to deal in broad principles rather than specifics. You called me out on my equivalence between evolutionists (with power to hire and fire) and Islamic supremacists. Your point is well-taken. Nonetheless, I believe there is danger in today's far left, which more and more seems to ally Islamic supremacists. I include President Obama and much of the Democratic party as part of this alliance. I would include evolutionist-leftists in the category (that is, allies with Islamic supremacists) barring evidence to the contrary - because radical leftists are kindred spirits. Evolutionist-elitists, from what I have read, behave like the rest of the far left. You may feel comfortable with the theory of evolution. I would encourage you to note who are your allies.

"Sure. Right now I live in central Florida."

Well, I was just in your neck of the woods (Camp Blanding, just outside of Starke, near Tallahassee), where I had a very miserable time (every day was close to 100F and 100% relative humidity). For this guy from central Alaska, it was as close to Hades as I ever hope to get. :)

"I hope (intend) to immigrate to Israel."

Best of luck with that. I have a number of professional colleagues who live in Tel Aviv, and have been anxiously awaiting the opportunity to visit them. Having visited Cairo (pre-9/11) where my interest in the history of the Middle East was ignited, and having this interest sustained and deepened by discovering the anti-Jihad networks and sites like this one, I'm keen to visit the land that stands at the center of all the fuss. Believing that religion is arguably the single most powerful force that, for better or worse, has shaped the evolution of civilization, and as a consequence becoming an inveterate temple/cathedral/mosque hopper, I enjoy dropping into a reverie while standing in the middle of same and trying to imagine what the social conditions must have been like that led to the construction of these often magnificent edifices at the time they were built. Usually I come away disturbed and humbled by the realization that I am profoundly ignorant about the actual history in question, but determined to patch that hole in my ignorance by study.

For the record, I was raised in a conservative Protestant farming community in Iowa (on a farm, actually - I know how to milk a cow!). One branch of my extended family on my mother's side is Amish, which is about as conservative Christian as it gets, and with whom I grew up associating in family affairs. However, I broke with that tradition intellectually very early in my life, when the first glimmer of rationality appeared in my young brain. On religious matters, I consider myself as being an appreciator of the religious impulse, regardless of the particular religion built around it, and even of the value of revelation, if not always the validity of the contents of any particular revelation. Being raised a Christian, I understand the concept of the Trinity, which is much more subtle (akin to the Hindu SAT-CHIT-ANADA, actually) than the detractors of Christianity, Muslims in particular, give it credit for being. (It's a form and substance issue - they seem not to recognize that the symbols of Christianity, such as the "flesh and blood" in communion, are merely representations of deeper abstract concepts. To be fair, some fundamentalist strains of Christianity seem to be guilty of the same failure to distinguish form from substance.) My response to questions like "Do you believe in the existence of God" is "Define belief, define existence, and define God, and then we can talk." Needless to say, I get accused of dodging the question a lot, but I have yet to find anyone up to the challenge of providing definitions in a form devoid of religious presuppositions, or who recognizes circular and self-referential definitions when they are invoked, that can be used as a basis for unbiased discussion.

I've enjoyed our discussion. You are an honest intellectual with whom I will be proud to stand side-by-side during the upcoming troubles with Islam.

Leave a comment

NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.







Not Peace But A Sword by Robert SpencerDid Muhammad Exist? The Muslim Brotherhood in America, by Robert SpencerIslamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian FutureMuslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer Obama and IslamThe Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks
The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran


Stealth Jihad


The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam


The Truth About Muhammad


What they’re saying about Robert Spencer
“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.”
Oriana Fallaci

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
Ibn Warraq

“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute

“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.”
Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

"The consummate Islam critic and expert." — Bruce Bawer

“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.”
Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.”
Raymond Ibrahim

“A national treasure...The acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy

“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.”
Brad Thor, novelist

“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.”
Daniel Pipes

“A brilliant scholar and writer.”
Douglas Murray

"One of my best teachers."
Ashraf Ramelah, Voice of the Copts

“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.”
Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’”
Neal Boortz

“Robert Spencer is the Stephen King of Jihad.”
Chris Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia

“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.”
Michelle Malkin

“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.”
New York Times

“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.”
Washington Post

“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House.”
New York Magazine

“A hero of the American right.”
Karen Armstrong

"The leading anti-Islamic intellectual in the United States....The go-to Islam expert for the right wing."
Salon Magazine

“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.”
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.”
Hamas-linked CAIR

"Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world. These people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas."
Heidi Beirach, Southern Poverty Law Center

“Satanic ignoramus.”
Khaleel Mohammed

“The Likud anti-Christ.”
Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)

“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.”
Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”



Follow me on Twitter
facebook islam
RSS feed

Monthly Archives



Donate
Jihad Watch is a 501 (c) 3 organization. Donations are tax-deductible.


Robert Spencer debates on The Quran Teaches WarVideo: Robert Spencer on CPAC Breitbart News
Crucified Again by Raymond Ibrahim
SIOAFreedom Defense InitiativeJihad Watch VideosAmerican Freedom Law Center
Note: Listing here does not imply endorsement of every view expressed at every linked site.

» ACT for America
» Always on Watch
» American Center for Democracy
» American Coptic Association
» American Council for Kosovo
» American Freedom Alliance
» American Freedom Law Center
» American Islamic Forum for Democracy
» American Sheepdogs
» American Thinker
» Americans Against Hate
» Americans for Legal Immigration
» Amerisrael
» Amillennialist Contra Mundum
» Annaqed
» A New Dark Age Is Dawning
» Answering Islam
» Answering Muslims
» Anti-CAIR
» Apostates of Islam
» Aramaic Broadcasting Network (ABN)
» Armies of Liberation
» Assyrian International News Agency
» Atlas Shrugs
» Atour — The State of Assyria
» Australian Islamist Monitor
» Biafra Nation
» Blazing Cat Fur
» Bosch Fawstin
» Brad Thor
» Brussels Journal
» CAIR Watch
» Campus Watch
» Caroline Glick
» Christians Under Attack
» Citizen Warrior
» Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights
» Conservative Nation News
» Copts.com
» Creeping Sharia
» Daniel Pipes
» David Horowitz Freedom Center
» The David Project
» David Thompson
» David Yerushalmi Law
» D. C. Watson
» Dearborn Underground
» DEBKAfile
» Dhimmitude.org
» Dry Bones
» Ellis Washington Report
» Europe News
» Eye On Islam
» Ezra Levant
» Faith Freedom International
» Father Zakaria
» Federale
» Five Feet of Fury
» Foundation for Democracy in Iran
» Free Congress Foundation
» The Free Copts
» Freedom Defense Initiative
» FrontPage Magazine.com
» Geert Wilders
» Genocide1915.info
» Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
» History of Jihad
» Hizb ut-Tahrir Watch
» Honest Reporting
» Honor Killings
» Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities
» India Defence
» Infidel Blogger’s Alliance
» Infidels Are Cool
» The Intelligence Summit
» International Analyst Network
» International Free Press Society
» Internet Haganah
» The Investigative Project on Terrorism
» IOwnTheWorld.com
» IranPressNews
» Iran va Jahan
» Islam Review
» Islam Speaks
» Islam Versus Europe
» Islam Watch
» Islamic Terrorism in India
» Islamist Watch — Middle East Forum
» Israel Matzav
» JihadOnBuddhists.org
» Kejda Gjermani
» KRSI: Radio Sedaye Iran
» Liberated
» Logan's Warning
» Looking At the Left
» Mahdi Watch
» Mapping Sharia
» Mark Steyn
» Martin Kramer
» MEMRI TV
» Middle East Facts
» Middle East Quarterly
» Middle-East-Info.org
» Middle East Media Research Institute
» Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA)
» Militant Islam Monitor
» Morning Star
» Muhammad Tube
» The Muslim Issue
» Muslim World Today
» Myths and Facts
» National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition
» NewsReal Blog
» No Mosques At Ground Zero
» Nonie Darwish
» Northeast Intelligence Network
» Occidental Jihadist
» One Jerusalem
» Open Speech
» Operation Give
» Operation Gratitude
» Organiser
» Orwellian Culture
» Palestinian Media Watch
» PamelaGeller.com
» Panun Kashmir
» Pedestrian Infidel
» The People's Cube
» The People of the Book
» Persecution Project
» Political Islam
» Politically Incorrect
» Politiskt Inkorrekt
» Q Society of Australia
» Radio Farda
» Radio Jihad
» RAWA: Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan
» Raymond Ibrahim
» Red Alerts
» Refugee Resettlement Watch
» Religion of Peace
» Republican Riot
» Reuters Middle East Watch
» The “Reverend” Jim Sutter
» SANE: Society of Americans for National Existence
» The Second Draft
» Shire Network News
» SITE Intelligence Group
» Small Wars Journal
» Smoke-Filled World
» The Snooper Report
» Snow Report Blog
» StandWithUs
» Steve Lackner
» The Stiletto Blog
» STOP! Honour Killings
» Sultan Knish
» Tell the Children the Truth
» Terrorism Awareness Project
» Theodore’s World
» Tom Gross Media
» Translating Jihad
» Una via per Oriana
» Undaunted
» United States Central Command
» Urban Infidel
» Walid Shoebat
» Winds of Jihad
» Women Against Shariah
» World Council for the Cedars Revolution
» Yid With Lid
» Z Street
» Zilla of the Resistance
» Zionist Conspiracy
David LittmanOriana Fallaci Thousands of Deadly Terror Attacks Since 9/11The incredible Reza Aslan automated insult generator! iGoogle Gadget
Site Meter