Roger L. Simon: Reactionaries of Newsweek unite!

I don't know if there is a more fuddy-duddy publication than Newsweek (unless it's Time). Now they are tut-tutting those Europeans who have the temerity - in the post-cartoon riot world - to be concerned with protecting free speech and other Enlightenment values through new immigration standards that encourage assimilation. Not surprisingly the Newsweekies title their article The End of Tolerance, meaning Europe's, of course, not those Sharia-bound Muslims whose tolerance is legendary. Here's how the authors (there are three) sum it up near the end:

Oh, I get it. It's time for those atheistic Dutch and Danish to meet their Islamic guests mid-way. They should be half-misogynist and half-homophobic. Is that the kind of culture Newsweek really wants? Of course not. They're just lying phonies and poseurs. They continue, slightly further on:

Open question? Maybe so, but I'll tell you a closed question - whether Saudi Arabia could ever accept Germans, Dutch or Danes living among them. Or sanctimonious Newsweek writers, for that matter. Enough already.

UPDATE: Here's anothe reason never to trust the media, myself included. [You never fake polls.-ed. That's because I can't afford to hold them.]

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

I have it on good authority, that the Den Hague football hooligans have had enough. The Dutch police will become "tolerant". It is an enormous effort on the part on Dutch authorities to keep the Den Hague football hooligans in line.

Although lately I've been very busy and haven't been able to comment, I always read and treasure your blog.

There are very few people who can penetrate the cant and hypocrisy like you can...

The multi-culti myth is based on the assumption that the host country has no values, principles, or minimum standards of conduct of their own and that the cultures, values, principles, or maximum standards of the immigrants must be put ahead of the host countries. Thus, any imposition on the immigrants ideas is considered either racism or "intolerance".If your "culture" includes clipping the clitoris off of their teen age daughter then I am sorry, that doesn't work in any country that I would want to be a part of. If you think that is being insensitive then to bad. Does that mean that the immigrant has to abandon his or her faith to become a citizen? of course not. Does this mean that the individual family or community can't preserve their own customs in their homes or among community groups that share similar values? Of course not, nothing in Europe or America stops them from doing it.This also means that the host ccountry may adopt or modify the things that it admires from your culture.The only time it couldn't happen would be if your values include activities that are an anathama to the host countries values or against their laws. This strange self loathing strain in parts of the West has gotten to the point where the elite are apologizing for the things that make us what we are. We do have values, we do have principles, we do have minimum standards of conduct.

After centuries of war, violence, and actual intolerance the West developed a wonderfull idea, it is called freedom of speech, expression, and religion. I am a conservative Christian. I read, hear, or watch things that are an insult to my faith on a regular basis. And I don't like it. If they are bad enough the west has given me numerous ways to vent my disapproval. I can write a letter. I can peacefully protest. I can use the right to vote to influence the laws, politicians, and the general attitudes of the society. I can economically boycott any organization that I think has gone to far. But physical violence to try to bully someone into stopping the offending behaviour is beyond the pale. Even if it is happening to someone I despise. I am sorry but, "You hurt my feelings, I have to kill you, or burn down your embassy until you stop it" doesn't cut it. And there is Newsweek."How dare those French, German's and Brits stand up for any principle that they hold dear. How dare they make certain people who want to impose their values on the majority and are often violent in their method of persuasion feel uneasy." What do they expect? Welcome to my home, sure go ahead, spit in my face again, I know that it is a vital aspect of your culture and I would never dare impose my notions of civility on you."

I think both have decided to follow in the footsteps of MSNBC's Crist Mathews and pander to the BDS driven hysterical Dems all the time.

roger, good call. no freaking pc languge...of course, pink lefties will disagree with you...when will they ever learn, when will they ever learn? (everybody, join me singing...)

Not to steal any fire here, but this came from Tim Blair, entitled "Prepare to Be Adjusted."

"The offensive caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad were published in a European country which has recently acquired a large Muslim population, and is not yet sure how to ADJUST TO IT."

Kofi means "offending cartoons", but we know now that Kofi thinks that the Danes need to do the adjusting.

So Newsweek would have the Europeans slumber on to extinction. Because that is what being tolerant of someone who is intolerant of you means inevitably. You either leave (if you have somewhere to go), submit, or fight back. Heaven forbid the Europeans should grow intolerant of intolerance.

I am so tired of this continuing tripe offered up to us by our MSM. They have already shown by their decisions with repect to the cartoon controversy that their choice would be to submit. That would be the truly multi-cultural thing to do.

Kevin it is even worse than that. It is not that the Western democracies have no values, but that their values are wrong and evil and must be replaced by the values of the immigrants from such enlightened countries as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria, Algeria, etc.

In an effort to prove how "open minded" and "accepting" we are of "diversity," many Western nations are afraid to speak out against intolerant, violent, misogynist societies and condemn such practices. Eventually, all this refusal to denounce will lead to a strengthening of all that supposedly liberal societies reject.

"Is that the kind of culture Newsweek really wants? Of course not. They're just lying phonies and poseurs."

the tragic element in such endless pretense is that the supposed beneficiaries (in this case, no-longer-so-welcome immigrants) are so often misled, to a deeper and otherwise-avoidable ultimate sorrow.

As Eric S. Raymond wrote awhile back, "the suicide thinker is typically a Western academic or journalist or politician whose mission it is to destroy the West�s will to resist not just terrorism but any ideological challenge at all." Your fisking of the dhimmitude of Newsweek exemplifies Raymond's "memetic weapon" of blaming the victim and forgiving the perpetrator of violence.

I find this madness disgusting. I understand that many so-called "pinko's", "lefties" etc, are really trying to make things better. It's not that they're intentionally trying to destroy nations, but rather that they truly believe in a Utopia. It seems, sometimes that such a Utopia is right at the edge of our grasp and suddenly, the moment is gone and the world appears as a bleak and deadly place. During the 90's, at the height of the Internet boom, most of my friends thought we'd finally reached the beginning of the next Golden Age. Suddenly, within about 2 years, every last shred of hope vanished. These are a people desperate for peace, desperate for cooperation and with faith in humanity.

Alas, for they cannot see through their own dogma. Human nature isn't what made the Internet Boom, human nature is what made the world we now live in. Every major issue that devides the Left and Right at this point, seem like issues of human nature.

It's human nature to be territorial, its human nature to be dogmatic in one's belief of Truth. Bin Laden and his cronies are acting out the same role that has been acted out time and again, and it appears, will continue to be acted out in one guise or another. The Christian Conservatives who want to pass laws legislating morality according to their interpertation, are again, just slaves of human nature. Human nature appears to believe you KNOW what is best.

It's human nature to rail against those that you see as different, be it different religion, moral code, sexuality, politics... yet, the Left still hopes for a better world through reliance on human nature.

I don't think they're trying to be evil, underhanded or anti-freedom. They're simply desperate for peace, they're desperate to believe that humans can once again enter a golden age. It's too bad that humans are such nasty little buggers.

Wow. That Newsweek article started stupid, stayed stupid, and ended stupid. I wonder if anyone in the entire editorial process even mumbled, "We're not really going to print something this stupid, are we?"

No, Sissy, I think they're willing.
Because if they're in charge, this time it'll be different and work.

I reluctantly read the entire Newsweek article, and the phrase "blaming the victim" kept coming to mind. They write as if the European actions happened in a vacuum, rather than a response to provocative acts.

No offense, but frankly I don't see our current dystopia as the failure of utopians to work through the difficulties in human nature. And your observation on Christians is a little off the edge, because by your standards, they are acting on the same low human impulses as Islamists.

The current battles are not among the various potentialities in human nature, but between competing products of Reason. Perhaps you can reduce everything to urges and animal impulses, but we need to fight the logic of our enemies as well as their manias.

If this war is ultimately a herd fight over a waterhole, then I'm not sure I care about the outcome.

Perhaps the Newsweek headline should have read, "The Insistence of Tolerance".

I'm not sure I understand. Irony directed at me or dclydew? There is a very big "wot the hell" about it, which was my point. I have a very large familial stake in this war, too, and we're willing to pay whatever price is necessary for this country and The West. Simple-minded? Maybe. If, however, it's simply a squabble among squealing and shrieking bipeds, then wot the hell is absolutely right.

I was trying to agree with you, Rhod. dclydew's point stopped a little short, I thought. If the conflict is over the truth of a Higher Power, then it seems that whichever vision asks a person to rise above his nature, is the vision closest to a Higher Power--regardless of whatever form, if any, that it may take.

Thank you. I was afraid I'd made a fool of myself again and a hash of the point...again. You said it better, too.

My observations can obviously only be about those people that I have interacted with. I recall being a senior in High School right around the time Clinton came to power, and I recall a number of teachers (who had been part of the 60's 'revolution') being excited because Clinton was one of their own (they had finally beaten the man). Clinton understood peace and love (in their minds), he understood the 'better way' and their vision was finally on its way after the letdown of the 80's. Right as this happened, the Internet exploded everywhere and those of us graduating from High School were getting jobs that paid. My first computer job put me in the same income bracket as my Father. My next job beat him by 10,000 and at the top of the Boom, I was pulling in double what my Father was making at the same time. In the minds of people who were similar to me, we were in the future. Sure there was unrest in the ME, but it was just a few angry people (and green technology would replace Oil, thus making the angry Arabs impotent). The Utopia that was dreamed of, was soon to become a realtiy....

I'm not saying this is how thing were, I'm saying that this is how many, many people I interacted with saw things. I was part of the bleeding edge geeks that embraced Open Source and Linux, again with the Utopian idea that we would free all software and honestly, at the 1999 Linux World Expo, it seemed as though we were close.

During the 90's we thought for sure that peace and security was right around the corner. Then, right as Mr. Bush became President, the bubble burst... and shortly thereafter, the world changed irrevocably. I think many people are still holding out. Many people still want to blame Bush, because admiting that War is the only answer, destroys the ideology they believed in.

. And your observation on Christians is a little off the edge, because by your standards, they are acting on the same low human impulses as Islamists.

I think that in some sense this may be the case(it also seems true of Evolutionists, Dems, Republicans and anyone else who accepts a single dogmatic stance as True).

Once a human has a belief, it seems that they have a choice. Does the belief exist only for them, or will they try to impose the belief on others (through violence, legislation, high school science classes, etc)?

(The following examples are not meant to indicate that ALL of any group act in this way, these are examples which typify some members of these groups, usually minority members.)

In this way, I see the staunch evolutionist (who believes that he KNOWs what is TRUE and teaches theory as Fact to force others to agree), the staunch Christian (who believes that he KNOWs what is TRUE and tries to pass legislation to force others to agree) and the staunch Muslim (who believes that he KNOWs what is TRUE and threatenes others to make them agree) as having a very basic psychology in common. Now obviously, there is an extreme difference in the way in which each of these groups try to force agreement.

The crazy Science teacher, for example, has the least obvious (but perhaps most insideous) way of gaining agreement, through his ability to teach and test. Students, must accept the teaching, in order to pass the test. The teacher can force the students to agree with him, or fail them. From a psychological standpoint, students don't want to fail (no one does), so they learn an idea as TRUE.

The fundamentalist Christian who wants to ban abortion, sodomy, etc. uses a more refined approach (that of legislation), but is really trying to accomplish the same thing, that is, to force others to agree with him.

The fundamentalist Muslim, uses the law (Shiria) and in cases where that doesn't work, uses a bomb or terror to make others agree with him. Obvioudly the most deadly, but also the most straightforward.

In all of these, each group has a belief. There are not facts to support their belief, there is not logic to support their belief. There is only their belief in an idea. Yet, in each of these three examples, the person is so sure of their own rightness, that they are willing to force their idea as the TRUTH on as many people as possible.

They have differences in their tools of persuasion, but the basic issue "I KNOW TRUTH, You must agree" appears constant.

A number of studies on human psychology have tended to conclude that the 'territorial' instinct that functions around waterholes isn't all that different from the 'territorial' instinct that functions around beliefs.

I think in this War On Terror, as with almost every war, it's this basic drive that has brought the human race to this point. Most, but not all of the fundamentalist Muslims who are violently inclined toward us are inspired by a number of issues which could be seen as territorial.

1. Israel.
2. US presence in Muslim countries.
3. US influence in Muslim societies.

Now, I'm not saying that our presence or influence are wrong, only that Bin Laden and his crew appear to react in a very similar way to any animal who feels that their territory is under threat.

Responding to the attack on the WTC was, I think, without argument a territorial issue. That doesn't make it wrong, its just how the human brain works.

The war with the Taleban in Afganistan... they appear again inspired by territorial instinct, territory in the litteral sense and territory in the ideology sense. If they had simply handed over Bin Laden, they would likely still control Afganistan. But, their desire to remain soverign in their own territory (a bit of the old Top Dog/Bottom Dog) overrode common sense.

The war in Iraq, again territorial. Hussein didn't want to be friendly with the weapons inspectors, because he wanted to be sovregin in his territory. He gassed the Kruds, because they threatened his territory. Our invasion, perhaps still somewhat territorial (threat to our territory), led to an insurgency which for some was a territorial protection of their fundamentalist faith and for others a territorial issue of their sovregin homeland.

The Sunni's and Shiites are at each others throats because of ... territory, both litteral and ideological.

It's this basic human drive that all of my Leftist friends refuse to admit to. They still hope for some eternal peace and seem willing to sacrifice all for it. Yet, eternal peace, Utopia, seems like something unattainable, because in the end... we're just human.

Nice overview, dclydew, large-spirited and inclusive, but you could throw in a paragraph on just *who* is trying to take *whose* waterhole.

The devil is in the details. The free-world may be metaphorically pushing the totalitarians, but the totalitarians are literally pushing the free-world.

You're so right about Clinton-times. The Wall fell and the happy face arrived, and suddenly 'free-world' was 'freeee world'.

I guess had that other herd not started shoving around the water hole--that is shooting, stabbing, exploding, burning, crushing, poisoning whomever was in the wrong place at the wrong time be it in bus, car, highway, pizza parlor, mall, skyscraper, jetliner, ship, train, vacation resort, wedding party, funeral, synagogue, church, market or home, the happy face could've been permanent.

You appear to differ from most members of your generation. You have a set of ideas that go somewhere and hang together. The "but", for me, is that original mistakes lead you to enlarging layers of falsehood, like an inverted pyramid, and you end up being wrong about a lot of things.

My short bio is that I'm sixty years old, started college in 1963, interrupted it for a fourteen-month tour (I chose to stay longer) with the 25th Infantry Division in VN, went back to college and finished in 1971...which was an epoch away from 1963.

I have three sons in this war, one currently in Baghdad, another on his way to Afghanistan in a matter of days, and a third going back for a second time in August. I had nothing to do with their decisions; they're not war-mongering Hobbseian screwballs like me.

I know something about the 60's types you mention and innocently misunderstand. I used to be one of them. Believe me, you've elaborated unnecessarily on an explanation for their fondness for Clinton. To attribute anything more than vanity and recognition of themselves in Clinton is to misunderstand Clinton's appeal even now.

The short complaint I have with your view is that I see all of us struggling for transcendance, even our worst enemies. That probably means that we recognize "human nature" in ourselves and others, and try to clarify a means to rise above it, and make mistakes along the way. There is a moral neutrality in your ideas that troubles me, and based upon it, there is finally no reason to evaluate any action for correctness or value or coherence.

Last, territoriality has virtually nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli disputes. It's an insidious idea that needs to be demolished. Territorial disputes are spatial. But here, on one side is The West (a way of thinking), on the other something new. Something permanently disturbed which claims total jurisdiction over all mankind. If you think of this as territorial, too, you're not thinking it through.

I don't think there is 'a' Waterhole. I'm not sure that our current situation is a simple 'cause and effect', but rather I think there are lots of 'waterholes' and we are looking at 'causes and effects'.

If we start with 9/11/2001, I think it's arguable that the first waterhole argument was by Bin Laden in his view of how thr West has intruded on Arab lands (and Arab 'values' among the populace). In response, we had to protect our waterhole (cause three thousand people got killed while drinking). Hence, we found ourselves at the waterhole of the Taleban, who of course didn't want to give it up (both the land and the people held by their crappy ideology).

Iraq was a parallel set of arguments that had been going on since 1991, over a different 'waterhole', that is Hussein's territorial view of his country and his WMD's. Why do you think he was still taking pot shots at our planes even after the Gulf War was over and done (of course, that war was fought over the waterhole in Kuwait).

There seem to be rare gaps in human history where this same shit isn't happening on some level. People like Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great or Napoleon, decided that they should have all the waterholes. The Catholic Church's forced conversion of Jews and other non-christians in the Middle Ages was yet another 'waterhole' fight, just as is the Islamic mess of today.

Dclydew, not to go sentimental or jingo on your obervations, but you must admit there is a certain Olympian paralysis to it, that we would not have the luxury of voicing were it not for the praxis of families like Rhod's. Unless you're certain that you and all whom you care about would be as well off under Sharia as you are now, you should contemplate the notion of burying the moral equivalency argument for the duration, to perhaps dig it up again if you wish, at some future date when circumstances are less dire, and when it is less disheartening to the demands of survival.

First, please understand that 'territory' doesn't always mean physical land. The problem between the Jews and the Arabs has many facets, but they seem generally tied to 'territory' (in the sense of land), and more importantly, the 'territory' of their beliefs. If one accepts the Muslim belief system, then one cannot accept the Jewish one, for they are in direct conflict. On top of that, you're looking at nations of people which appear to have been fighting over waterholes (perhaps literally) for thousands of years.

Also, please don't misunderstand me. I am not insinuating that your sons are out for blood, or are just ball-scratching mammals protecting their waterhole. When a nation is attacked, its people must defend against the attack. If your sons chose to enlist, in order to keep 9/11 from ever happening again, then I applaud them.

(As for Clinton, I think we agree. Many people saw his presidency as a vindication of their own ideology. They saw themselves in him, thus thinking that he could implement their Utopia, just as they would were they President.)

I also think that some people are trying to rise above their human nature. It appears, from my study of history that people always have fought against their human nature, and for some individuals, they appear to succeed on an individual basis. However, as a society, it seems we are still running on that basic nature.

Look at the example of Jesus (be he man, god or myth). Surely, if the information we have about him is correct in any fashion, then we must agree that he truly transcended his human nature, much like Buddha and perhaps in some similar sense even Ghandi. However, how many people follow the example of these who did transcend human nature?

In the writings about Jesus, we find no instance where he advocated forcing others to do his (or God's) will. Nowhere do we see commands to convert or kill, in no example of Jesus life and ministry do we find a single time where he advocated being involved with politics to further the Christian faith. Indeed, he said that his followers were 'no part of this world'. When violence was done, he said to 'turn the other cheek', and exemplified this at his own trial, torture and execution (even asking for God to forgive those who did it).

Yet, instead of this transcendant view, some loud minority of those that follow Jesus' teachings seem much more territorial and much less transcendent. Jesus and the later writings of the apostles indicate that Christians would win others over by their actions (so that the unbeliever could be 'won without a word'), by their evangelical work (preaching from house to house) and in cases where someone chose a 'sinful' lifestyle, 1st century Christians used shunning.

I think that there are many individuals who are constantly trying to better themselves and for some they think that includes bettering all humankind. But, many humans seem content to live life easily, where one takes an eye for and eye and an eye for an eye, until everyone has gone blind.

There is a moral neutrality in your ideas that troubles me, and based upon it, there is finally no reason to evaluate any action for correctness or value or coherence.

Indeed, it may seem that way. But, I don't think this is necessarily the case. I do not feel that beheading a 'sinner' and passing laws to jail a 'sinner' are morally the same. I think that they are psychologically similar, that they feed similar instincts or 'urges', but beheading a homosexual certianly seems much more immoral than tossing them in jail for having anal sex.

I think we can discuss morals, but I think that we can only discuss these in a proper context. There is moral consideration for someone that kills another human being. There is moral consideration for someone who accepts bribes, or swears to falsehood. There are moral considerations when determining if we should assist the poor and homeless. There are basic moral considerations that we all must analyze. How will our morals direct us?

However, if you're discussing war specifically... well, I'm not sure that any side could call themselves 'moral'.

Can there truly be 'morals' in wartime? Ezra Pound ended his Canto 78 with the lines:

Is our current war moral? Even if our leaders didn't condone torture, was not the actions of some soliders immoral? Even if we hoped not to harm more civillians than necessary, can one morally justify killing thousands of innocent people?

It may be necessary, it may be the best option, but does that truly make it moral?

dclydew - thanks for your observations, good of you to open up your thought processes to debate here.

While reading The Adversary Culture;
The perverse anti-Westernism of the cultural elite I came across this quote by Sir Charles Napier (replying to a delegation of local Hindus who were complaining about the ban on sutee) which, I believe, summarizes where the ideas of cultural relativism eventually lead:

As I stated in my last post, this isn't an argument of moral equivalency. rather it is an argument against the ideology that believes in a Utopia. Human nature is something lower than morality yet something that can be modified by morality.

The instinct will always lead to wars, but the morals of the participants will determine how that war is fought. The wars of today seem quite modified from the wars of 500 years ago. We no longer use the rack or the Iron Maiden. There are no longer Press Gangs that simply haul citizens off to fight, with no consideration of their family. Our active decision not to simply destroy the entire reigon with superior firepower, speaks to moral modification of the territorial psychology.

Indeed, one might even argue that a society trying to deal with 9/11 yet maintain a high level of morality may have prefered assasination to invasion, since killing civilians, even through accident, might be considered immoral by many (Jesus included).

Sir Charles Napier: It may be your custom to call him an Imperialist; it is my custom to call him a Savior of Women.

I stand corrected, dclydew. Arguing the 'how' is a different thing than arguing the 'why'--I had read you wrong.

Think nothing of it... your comment was well stated and thoughtful. You chose not to be some wild-eyed ideologue and instead wrote reasonable words. The written medium seems a tricky form of communication and misunderstandings happen. ;-)

ddyclew: "[The war] may be necessary, it may be the best option, but does that truly make it moral?"

If you are going to apply a morality test here, logic requires that you apply the same test to all the alternatives and their underlying principles.

Is it moral to go to war with a dictator, win, and then leave him in power anyway?

Is it moral for a government to risk its soldiers' lives daily enforcing no-fly zones, indefinitely?

Is it moral for a government to impose economic sanctions that starve innocent people while only inconveniencing the dictator at whom they're aimed?

Is it moral to encourage an uprising and then let the dictator slaughter the participants?

Is it moral to give certain knowledge to dictators worldwide that they are entirely safe personally?

Is it moral to assume that a people are actually incapable of peaceful self-government?

I should have left you alone, dclyde, Because I can't find what's missing in the buildup to your conclusions, and "sophomoric" keeps racing through my head. That's unkind, though, and probably means I'm too old for this.

BUT, inside all your swirling words is something other than open-mindedness, and I think it's a kind of utilitarianism and determinism. Where your arguments break down, you then use your facility for expanding words and definitions to patch the defect... like "territoriality" to encompass ideas you already have about conquest in general, and "morals" to frame observations you make on motive. There are others, too, along with imbedded sermons, and it's very hard to agree on anything when the vocabulary is in question.

Finally, the Palestinian/Arab/Israeli nightmare is not a territorial dispute...anymore. At all.

You bring up some excellent questions. I think that there is little we could call moral about any of those decisions. Yet, the immorality of those decisions doesn't make the alternative moral, does it?

If, I decide that raping her would be immoral, so I kill her (so I won't be tempted), is that then moral?

Hussein, by all accounts was a very bad man. Certianly, the Iraqi people now at least have some chance of forming a reasonable government and relative freedoms for themselves. However, that still doesn't address morals.

What is more moral, letting a madman dictator kill thousands of innocent people, or killing thousands of innocent people while trying to stop that Dictator?

I think the answer is that neither option has any moral ground. I think the latter option is probably much wiser, it probably has the best chance for a better future for the Iraqis, but I can't call it moral or (in Pound's words)righteous.

Again, my main point here is that the inability to accept basic human nature is, in my opinion, what has led the Left to this desperate situation... it seems to me that they continue to hope that one more compromise, one more act of dhimmitude will finally appease and begin the rebuilding of their Utopia. They simply can't accept that mankind, as a whole appears as a slave to its own nature. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's simply a fact.

When America gets attacked, she will never 'turn the other cheek'. She will retaliate. When some other group of people see a percieved threat to their 'territory' of property or beleifs, they will fight and in some cases that fighting will be violent. Utopia seems unattainable, not because of Bush, Cheney or Bin Laden... but because of all of them and about 6 billion other people.

When both choices are called "immoral," it's time to choose the lesser of two evils, to get up and state a preference and then act on it.

Nonsense. Your comments were thoughtful and reasonable. This, in my opinion constitutes a good debate. Perhaps you can't put your finger on exactly what you disagree with, but then my statements sort of run the gambit here as I have been trying to reply to several people on variations of the original point.

I don't think you're to old for this, but I think perhaps you may not be quite catching what I'm trying to say. And, honestly, compared to most blog commenters, I'd say your age msut be a good thing to keep you from hotheaded ranting responses. :)

Allow me to try to summarize a few main points and then perhaps you can extract the ones you disagree with. Or, barring that we can shake hands and end a good debate (instead of name calling).

1. Many individuals on the Left appear to hold to an unattainable dream of a future without war, violence etc. Many of them seem to believe that's what Democrats stand for. I think that the average liberal truly wants an end to war, poverty etc. (the average Conservative too). I think their current attitudes and actions belie a frantic, almost desperate attempt to maintain this belief in utopia.

2. Most, but not all, humans have what most psychologists identify as a basic territorial instinct. This instinct appears for thousands of years to have expressed itself first and foremost in the form of holding territory. However, once territory(food, shelter etc) is no longer directly in dispute, this same psychology seems to transfer to ideas, particluarly strongly held ones like political or religious beliefs. These ideas seem as viciously guarded as any piece of land.

3. When someone feels that their territory is in jeopardy, they tend to retailate. I think we can point to this as a key factor (but not the only factor surely), in most of the major events of the past 5 years. Territorial defense of land, territorial defense of ideology, territorial defense of belief, all seem to have a distinct part that they've played.

4. This doesn't mean humans are doomed, but only that Utopia seems like a unreasonable idea. While I don't think we can wage a moral or righteous war (but perhaps a right war), I don't think war is necessarily unavoidable. I don't agree with the notion that there is "No good war and no bad peace". Sometimes blood must be shed, because some groups will always be enslaved to their basic human psychology.

5. All of this may be false, they are only observations that appear valuable to me.

When both choices are called "immoral," it's time to choose the lesser of two evils, to get up and state a preference and then act on it.

I agree completely. However, I am opposed to hiding this plain truth under the guise of 'moral justification'. Sometimes we have to get our hands bloody. It's not something to be proud of, but its not something to hide from.

I'd say after reading your comment that you need to flip that; most of us are too juvenile for this (no matter our years).

Dclydew, maybe the flaw some of us see in your position is that it makes 'judgementalism' an artifact, when 'judgementalism'--its lack, it's discredit, or even its 'flipping' in modern thought--may be precisely what has gotten us into this war--the whole war, the culture war and the GWoT all.

We may need to go back to the future. Figure a very simple few First Principles, and stick to 'em no matter what anyone else can be imagined to think, no matter that everything under the sun can be rationalized and forgiven.

IOW, if you take your human nature argument one step further, what is 'natural' about, on the same basis of 'human nature, (1) forsaking our judgement in order to (2) forgive our oppressor?

In fact, since 'our people'--the children, their future, the honor we owe the sacrificial accomplishments of our ancestors--depend on us, as a behavior it is actually perverse and even suicidal, though natural to low human nature in that the far threat is general and the near threat is personal.

Our finest people daily sacrifice their abstract purity, their human nature (which is not to march *to*, but *away*, from the sound of the guns), and that is why they are our finest. In the eyes of one side of the cultural divide, for sure, and the other side, perhaps (depending on how they come out).

maybe the flaw some of us see in your position is that it makes 'judgementalism' an artifact, when 'judgementalism'--its lack, it's discredit, or even its 'flipping' in modern thought--may be precisely what has gotten us into this war--the whole war, the culture war and the GWoT all.

Could you expound on what you mean here, I can't quite figure out if your saying that I'm being judgemental, or that I'm saying judgement is bad. (I don't think either is the case).

Figure a very simple few First Principles, and stick to 'em no matter what anyone else can be imagined to think, no matter that everything under the sun can be rationalized and forgiven.

I agree completely. In fact, I bet that such a document would look surprisingly like the Constitution and the basic Bill of Rights.

I find rationalization of wrong an abhorrent feature of the misapplication of post-modern thought. I think we can all agree that no one has all the answers, and indeed, all the answers we currently have may be wrong (History seems tells us that this appears to be the case for every generation). However, that doesn't mean that we are unable to say that driving planes into buidings is Very Bad. It surely doesn't mean that we must lay impotent while those that falsely believe that they KNOW try to enforce their crazy ideology.

what is 'natural' about, on the same basis of 'human nature, (1) forsaking our judgement in order to (2) forgive our oppressor?

I don't think that's natural at all... from my observation, like most other creatures on this planet, it's human to judge and punish, not forgive.

I don't think it conforms to any human nature. Indeed, it seems that only those who (as Rhod put it) try to transcend human nature aim for forgiving instead of judging.

it is actually perverse and even suicidal, though natural to low human nature in that the far threat is general and the near threat is personal.

Of course... and that to me, appears as one of the major reasons that any Utopia seems ultimately unattainable.

Our finest people daily sacrifice their abstract purity, their human nature (which is not to march *to*, but *away*, from the sound of the guns)

I'm not sure that I agree that human nature is to walk away... Humans, in general seem to tend toward violence and conflict. After all, isn't it human nature to protect the tribe?
----------------------------------------

I left this blog several months ago, because the comment section had become a swirling mass of reactionary ranting. I am pleased with the much improved level of discussion I find here now.

1. Isn't cultural assimilation just a synonym for the "melting Pot," which is as American as apple pie?
2. What have they got against this fine American tradition?
3. What's wrong with the concept of every US immigrant's adopting US culture as their own?
4. What's the problem with US culture?

Oh, gee. Silly me. The problem with cultural assimilation is precisely that it is American. So the answers to the questions are:

I wanted to say that your last comment was above the genre of open posting, but that's truly what Roger Simon has brought forth here. Well, I said it anyway, didn't I? And I need to print your remarks and read them again and again and again.

I thought immediately of Lewis (C.S.), which can be damnning with faint praise to some. I hope not. There is nothing unoriginal in what you've said, or derivative. No man can write that way unless he's lived the subject matter.

I appreciate you remarks, too, although I find you less convincing as we go along. Your "human nature" explanation reminds me too much of Mailer's "dread"...something grand and existential but really no different than man as economic animal, or bug in a jar, or something like it. It's not that you haven't tried.

I think you might be taking the idea to an extreme view. But, nontheless thanks for the debate :)

Nations may be warlike, but a war zone is populated by individuals who'd be elsewhere, if human nature was their sole drive.

There's also the issue of EEO: If you work at CBS or Newsweek, you have Arab American coworkers who might well slap you with a complaint if you speak your mind too freely about Islam. This kind of thinking becomes systemic, & surely spills into the decision making.

Prop 209, banning racial quotes, was opposed by every major newspaper in California. Of course, they all have their own affirmative action programs, so when the wonderfully diverse editorial board sits down to discuss quotas, no one knows who was promoted on the basis of race & who got ahead by talent, but they have some ideas. Imagine the tension in that meeting.

The SF Comical hit a low point with a banner editorial whose only argument was "Wouldn't you rather vote against something David Duke supports?" When a major daily is that anti-intellectual, something else is going on

You seem to be making the argument that Christians who use their primary influence in life, what they base their standards on, are forcing their views on everyone else if they participate in the political process. Everybody has some sort of process that forms their beliefs, not always religous. The non religous person does not go into the voting booth with a blank slate in his mind.And most issue are not based on science. They often involve value judgements.Religous based or not. And the very nature of legislature institutes restrictions on other humans, directly or indirectly. By voting up or down on tax issues,social issues, zoning issues, constitutional issues, there is almost always some sort of restriction or penalty involved. The thought that non religous people do not impose their values through the legislative process on others does not hold water. just because they may not have a formal, written set of values does not mean they have not constructed one of their own. And you may not want the Christian community to ignore the political process. During the Jim Crow era, southerners who did not buy into that racist form of legislature used the very arguments you presented to opt out of the political process and thus handed the victory to the committed racist. And when Jesus forced the money Changers out of the Temple he was forcing his views upon the people he thought were defiling the Temple.

Participatory Democracy was not a common thing when the Bible was written. It says to respect and Honor the authority above, unless it is forces you to perform actions that would dishonor God.When the Romans tried to eliminate the Christian faith Jesus did not expect his followers to go along with the authorities. It doesn't say don't vote. And if you vote you must express an opinion and "push" your views on others if you happen to vote for the winning side. The people who vote for the loser are going to expierence things that he or she is not pleased with.Lets forget the religous issues. The Bush tax cuts imposed changes on everyone. No matter whether you thought them to be good or bad, everyone was affected with either higher local taxes, a cut in their own taxes, some lost government monies from programs that they recieved before the cuts, some recieved new monies. The question of gay marriage is bringing change. Whether you are for it or against it, everyone has ideas on the issue. Those who are for it are trying to change the status qou. Those who are against it want to retain the status qou. One side is going to be dissapointed. And whoever wins is going to have his ideas validated at the expense of the other. That is the nature of democracy. The most important thing is to deal with the results with grace and to respect the outcome. It doesn't mean that you can't try to change the outcome. Or change your views. As long as it is done in a democratic fashion.

If you have managed to create a culture that is a magnet, rather than an creator of, immigrants, then you have the right AND THE OBLIGATION to compell immigrants to accept the tenets of your culture.

If your culture creates more immigrants than anything else, than your culture is in drastic need of an overhaul.

Your argument about "cloaking" the issue under "the guise of 'moral justification'" is largely a straw man. Specific reasons for the war were given. Please don't claim you haven't heard them.

A couple of years ago, I was still willing to argue with people about the necessity for this war.

The opposition at that time was unwilling to do anything other than chant, "But it's all about the oil/Halliburton/the eeevil Bush family/American imperialism." Time and time again I was told by these reactionaries that I had been "tricked" and that the reasons I had in my heart weren't the "real reasons" for the war.

Here's one for the "host" culture. Wherever your immigrants came from must really suck otherwise they would have stayed there. You are not required to allow them to recreated the conditions which sucked so bad they had to leave.

I think you misread me. I am not debating the justification for war, only that war not be hidden under the guise of morality. This, I think is not something being done by the government, but rather by some war supporters who don't wish to face the fact that we are killing people. I think that the millitary action in Afganistan (and to a lesser extent in Iraq) was likely unavoidable. It does seem to be a gamble, but a gamble that may save us a lot of problems in the future.

However, all of the good and rational reasons in the world still cannot make killing people moral. Necessary, unavoidable, in the best interests of our future... but not moral.

I think its important that we face the real us, the us that may try to be moral... but that must, sadly still bloody their hands.

It is amazing to me how unappreciated is the simple fact that long term, sustainable prosperity and freedom are the result of THE BEHAVIORS THAT ARE PROMOTED AND/OR DISCOURAGED BY THE CULTURES THAT ENJOY THEM!!!!!

Prosperty, wealth, etc... aren't things that just happen to hover over certain geographic areas, bestowing their gifts on people whose only responsibility is to figure out how to get to these fortunate places.

"whether Saudi Arabia could ever accept Germans, Dutch or Danes living among them."

How about merely letting Philippino OFW's carry rosaries, attend Mass and hold bible studies...or let IndianHindus have small shrines in their quarters?

My cousin was forced to throw out her rosary by customs when she went there to work as a nurse...

BIG UNREPORTED STORY: the number of OFW that live and run Saudi Arabia...while local unemployment is high...

February 27, 2006: Reactionaries of Newsweek unite!

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post