Raimondo is clearly making a connection between our secular culture and war/aggression and the rest.
Yes, but you keep reversing the causality. He is arguing that they are secularists because they are warmongers, not the other way around. He is not arguing that if they were more religious (as you have noted, many of the war-mongers in Washington are religious), they would be more peaceful.
This also being related to there being a video like the one released.
The video is a hit-piece, meant to inflame Muslim sentiment. I don't know if it was produced or funded by Langley but the same Establishment that is behind 9/11 is doubtless behind this.
I think what is missing here is the context. 9/11 wasn't just "an event" that happened and, oh yeah, a bunch of countries got invaded and a bunch of legislation got passed. No. 9/11 was an inaugural event. It was the "kickoff" for all that has followed. Iraq was already on the chopping block from day one of the Bush Presidency, this is well documented. But it doesn't stop there... all the major headlines, all of them over these past 11 years have been a part of what I'm calilng the Third Attempt. Goal: World government. Means: 9/11 followed by a slow burn of inexorable, "terror"-related headlines created in part through CIA/MI6/Mossad chicanery and in part through the CFR-controlled MSM blowing out of all proportion every little news item that comes along regarding the inevitable Muslim backlash to the Washington-led Holy War on Islam while covering up the US military's massacre of Muslims on a Biblical scale, particularly in Iraq.
And siding with religion because of this connection. And even saying that Murray rothbard endorsed religiosity.
I'm pretty sure Rothbard was not hostile to religion.
He thinks secular government equals war.
War-mongers are secularists. They have no use for religion except as just another tool in the arsenal of imperialism. Religion - for the ordinary man - is an end in itself. It is what you do because it is what you feel you should do. But for the warmonger, religion is only useful as a means for manipulating populations.
And that secular people love war.
Cite please. He is not saying that all secularists are warmongers. Merely that most of the Washington warmongers are secularists and that this is because religion is to them but a means for waging war.
So the only thing I can take from that, is that he prefers the return to a religious government and culture.
Religious culture (because freed of secular-government sanitization of religion). Look at Turkey, for example. The secular government is clearly imposing its will on an otherwise peacefully religious culture.
Because that is how he imagines that we will empathize with others, and/or stop the wars. Obviously such a culture/government would have religious laws. On top of this, he bemoans the facts of abortion, gay marriage, divorce rates. Which he hangs on the door secularism, as well.
You're really mangling the article. I think it would be best if you cut/paste his quotes word-for-word if you intend to criticize them because your restatements of what you think he's saying are unrecognizable to me.
Clayton -
I don't understand why they need to become secularists to be come warmongers. Especially when as you agreed others in Washington are both religious and pro-war. And that right-wing radio and Fox News is pervasive with both. And saying that this is the case seems to be the same as what I said.
I'm not sure if religion is a tool or not in warmaking, even among the right. And I don't want to say that people make war because of Christianity. But it seems that enough people don't see a problem with serving two masters, so to speak. Whether in Washington or in the populace at large.
I already had some quotes of his and commentary earlier in the thread.
As for 9/11 truth, I think there is maybe some thing to it. And I agree that there is an establishment. However, it is unclear exactly how they work. This is the problem of the illuminati, according to Robert Anton Wilson. Everyone has a different idea about their goals and methods and so forth. And everything is attributed to them, eventually. Even accidents and apparently opposite ideologies.
For the sake of lurkers...
I don't understand why they need to become secularists to be come warmongers.
I'm not offering a theory of origins - I'm simply clarifying Raimondo's critique of the Washington warmonger elite as secularists. They are secularists because that's what warmongering necessarily reduces all religion to. Note that the Romans were renowned for their secularism in their heyday - always careful to preserve the local temples and not to prohibit local religious practices so long as they did not bait insurgency. Washington is no different. Sure, they "message" to Islamic leaders that they are "appalled" at this video - a video that they almost certainly had a hand in producing "behind the scenes". But, at the end of the day, only Romans were Roman and only the Anglo-European-DC Elite are the Anglo-European-DC Elite.
Especially when as you agreed others in Washington are both religious and pro-war.
Secularist is not synonymous with atheist. I've explained this a few times already and won't repeat it here. See above.
And that right-wing radio and Fox News is pervasive with both. And saying that this is the case seems to be the same as what I said.
No, you've succumbed to the Hegelian dialectic regarding atheism versus theism. There are these atheists on one end of a spectrum and theists on the other and all people (except maybe agnostics) fall to one end or the other of the spectrum. Nonsense. Hell, look at the five pillars of Islam... every single one of them is an act and not a belief. This just goes to highlight the chasm of comprehension between Westerners and the East. Even those in the West who have shed Christian belief are still trapped in the paradigm of beliefs-as-the-most-important-determining-fact-about-a-person. Other people in the world don't look at things this way. What's in your skull is your own business, what matters is what you do. Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, even Eastern Orthodox Christianity... all these major religious groups place far more emphasis on behavior than on belief. It is only in the West where we have this maniacal obsession with what is going on between another person's ears.
Well of course religion plays a role in warmaking. That's the whole point. The secularist warmongers only ever see religion - whether their own or somebody else's - as a tool, a means, a weapon to be used in furthering their war aims, that is, their imperial aims.
Bear in mind that this sanitizing cultural imperialism isn't restricted only to religion. Many other aspects of culture are affected. Languages, for example, are dying out at a rapid pace. This is the work of the academic imperialists who want to impose one language on the whole world (theirs!) These people are closet fanatics rivallied only by the Nazis; their tongue is the one, perfect tongue and all the unwashed heathen of the world need to be trained from youth to speak properly. There are English imperialists, Latin imperialists, Hebrew imperialists, French imperialists, even Arab imperialists of language. You can look to India for a living example of how the process of monoculturalization works. First, you get everyone speaking the same second language. Then you make entry into business, politics, academia, religion, etc. conditional on fluency in that second language. Before you know it, the old languages are dead-on-arrival and you now have a large bloc of people that can be dictated to, all in the same language.
I already had some quotes of his and commentary earlier in the thread. As for 9/11 truth, I think there is maybe some thing to it. And I agree that there is an establishment. However, it is unclear exactly how they work. This is the problem of the illuminati, according to Robert Anton Wilson. Everyone has a different idea about their goals and methods and so forth. And everything is attributed to them, eventually. Even accidents and apparently opposite ideologies.
The Illuminati were just one of dozens of European secret societies in the 18th century. They may have survived, may have been wiped out. Doesn't really matter. The real secret societies that actually matter in shaping world events are literally never talked about, they're not even called secret societies. And they are comprised of the ultimate units of power in this world: ruling families. This is not to be confused with the Ickean Illuminati bloodlines drivel - a ruling family is like the Corleones in Godfather. It is a family that holds real power: political power, thug power, black market power, legal power, religious power, ideological power, economic power, territorial power but most importantly of all social power.
In the Roman example, it seems that the Romans wanted to avoid stirring up a hornets nest. Which seems the opposite of what the US is doing.
In Islam, the first pillar is shahada or the statement of a belief: there is no god but allah, and Muhammad is the messenger. The others are actions based on the assumption that it is true, and that everything is true which follows from it. Blasphemy laws seem to be based on caring what others believe. For instance, saying there is no God could earn you a beheading.
I don't think the left is very hard on Muslims, even if they don't care about religion anymore or sometimes are Christians who don't care what others believe. I mainly see a few atheists, but a whole torrent of conservative and anti-secular Christians piling on to attack Islam. With their jihadwatch websites, islamofascist awareness weeks, and other hysteria. It seems to have been a reaction to secularism; or removing Christianity from public life. They think they are losing relevancy, and so lash out at Muslims. Possibly because they think Islam or some other foreign religion will replace Christianity. And possibly to divert attacks away from Christianity, as in the case of when leftists criticize Christian for something that they wouldn't criticize Muslims for. Or when Muslims are more extreme.
Part of the leftist intellectual movement seems to be 'multiculturalism'. Which allows some leeway for post-colonialists groups like Muslims. That also seems different than what you said about them removing languages and other cultures. If anything, it seems to be that they hate the West, and think others are swell. Usually based on misunderstanding of either.
What else are you going to do, besides bomb dem Muslims? It's either war or blasphemy laws, I personally like dat war stuff
Seriously though, is there a link to his statements?
Found it, where in that article did he call for blasphemy laws? He's criticizing secularism and cultural decadence, which if you know about him is nothing surprising, he has associated with the Buchanite movement.
Therein lies the problem. You cannot be both an anarchist and a Buchananite.
At least Buchanan is consistent. He has called for religious laws, and opposes libertarianism. His primary goal is cultural ideal, instead of liberty.
Buchanan's cultural analysis is based on his support for a state to protect what he sees as American heritage. Whether it is through tariffs, or laws against homosexuality and illegal immigrants.
My question for the thread was basically can we assume from the article that he is calling for the blasphemy laws. Since he sympathizes with it clearly. He remembers a time when we had such laws and prohibitions, and we were better for it. Look at the abortions, gays, and divorces. And he seems to think that Islamic society is superior to ours, because of their need for transcendence. And Islamic society has such laws. HE seems to understand their reaction, part of which is their demand that our government criminalize insults to their prophet.
>Implying Buchanan has called for laws against homosexuality
But how did he imply he was in favor of blasphemy laws or any kind of "laws and prohibitions"? All he said was that the West can't understand where this anger is coming from because it's basically soulless. Hans Hermann Hoppe is also pretty culturally conservative, does this mean he's a statist?
Frustratio.
I think this is absurd. There are methods of provoking readers and this is one of them. I highly doubt that he is "calling for" blasphemy laws. He is telling people that they want freedom to be irresponsible and offending not responsible and productive.
I'm not going to say more in this thread because your posts are frustrating (much more so than the people I argue with; at least I can read their posts without wanting to smash my head on the desk).
"He is telling people that they want freedom to be irresponsible and offending not responsible and productive."
That seems to be collective blame, and the height of laziness. One or a small group of people made that stupid video. Not 'western culture' or 'America'.
Both he and many of the Muslims are collectively blaming. Even while at the same time saying that it is our elites behind it. It can't be both. Either it is random and caused by ordinary people, or it is deliberate and conscious effort of the elites. But it can't be both. Even the Iranian government is saying it is the Jews or some conspiracy theory, and not ordinary people. At the very least they are consistent. Even Buchanan is more consistent, because at the very least he is a populist with some foundation in American heritage.
Of course, JR wanted to use the article to cheaply slam American culture. Which is unnecessary, and pandering to religious people.
I don't see it as too radical to assume that people who think our culture is unacceptable would accept reintroducing religious laws. Or that their words would incite a political movement towards that end. Lew already promotes Gary North who wants that. And I also think that it would be tempting for Lew to ride a resurgeance in religious fundamentalism in this country, if it also meant more free markets and 'sound money' in addition to religious law. As well as winning out over the 'other libertarians' in the Kochtopus.
"Hans Hermann Hoppe is also pretty culturally conservative, does this mean he's a statist?"
Well, I call Buchanan a statist because it is an objective fact, not an opinion. He supports the state. A statist is one who supports a state.
As for Hoppe, I don't think he is the same type of conservative. He is obviously an anarchist who has a different outlook than Buchanan, as well as a different approach to how to solve social issues. In addition to this, I haven't heard that he is religious. One can be culturally conservative in many ways. We cannot mix definitions, because without unfolding that definition it is meaningless.
True.
We can assume Hoppe is culturally conservative in the same way Buchanan is, since in Democracy Hoppe speaks of Buchanan trying to combine socialist economics with cultural conservatism. And didn't you say Justin is an atheist?