I thought the guy was gay and atheist. And here he is talking like a fundamentalist Christian, saying that we serve Mammon and that we can't think of anything besides fame and money. I get that the US government can't understand the mideast very well, but why the political correctness that borders on apologetics just because he opposes war? It seems like he is just reading the lines of Islamist groups. Which makes me wonder if his opposition to war is based on his secret religious identity or funding, rather than rational or moral opposition to violence. IE: when Soviet Union was funding anti-war activity in the US and you had yahoos like jane fonda promoting communism, and not just opposing war.
It seems he has a deep-seated hatred of our culture that transcends his opposition to war. Making him as bad as those on the left.
If we do return to blasphemy laws and start cutting the heads off infidels, I wonder where we draw the line. Shouldn't it be our culture at least, or do we have to take care of all of the others ones too? For instance, what should be the punishment for blaspheming against L. Ron Hubbard? More or less than Jesus?
Muslims don't think that Jesus is son of God. So it is blasphemy to support Muhammad. And christians don't think that Muhammad is a prophet. So it is blasphemy to say something nice about that. we have to hold that Jesus is the son of god, and not, at the same time?
Did you say something coherent?
Yeah, he did.
No. What a ridiculous clobbering of Raimondo's article. Here is his thesis sentence: "Libertarians, plagued by a militant atheism from the very outset, have stoutly ignored a key aspect of what motivates humans to act as they do, and this has crippled our ability to not only understand but to change the world." That describes the Reason/Skeptic-crowd to a T.
Clayton -
I didn't say it was an accurate read of Raimondo, I just said it was a coherent post.
Perhaps if anyone would bother to link to what they're actually talking about people could judge the merits of the assessment themselves.
Yeah, it'd be alot easier to agree or disagree if we knew the source of these thoughts.
If the OP is accurate, doesn't he imply that Raimondo is self-loathing?
And here he is talking like a fundamentalist Christian, saying that we serve Mammon and that we can't think of anything besides fame and money.
Most in the U.S. cannot.
I get that the US government can't understand the mideast very well
The US government "gets" their culture very well. Significant amounts of government money (DIA; CIA, etc) is spent on anthrpological research. We jsut don't care about thier culture. The point of getting to know them is to manipulate them.
Which makes me wonder if his opposition to war is based on his secret religious identity or funding, rather than rational or moral opposition to violence.
Yes, conspiracy! CON SPIR A CY! CON SPIR A CY! CON SPIR A CY!
Also, I think it was from Molyneux, but he read a poll that said "aethists" and "rapists" are the two lowest trusted groups in the U.S. Sticking up for Xmasians might just be trying to win their favor to a degree.
John James:Yeah, he did.
Read the article before you judge coherency. Thanks.
myhumangetsme:Read the article before you judge coherency. Thanks.
http://mises.org/community/forums/p/31505/491247.aspx#491247
http://lewrockwell.com/raimondo/raimondo184.html
What I mean about his condescension, and Christian fundamentalism. He almost reads like one of Pat Buchanan's crankier diatribes.
"Having abandoned their own religion sometime in the last century or so, they just don’t understand why someone would get all hopped up over a little thing like blasphemy – after all, all one has to do is turn on the TV or view the latest Madonna music video and you’ll get a full dose of it."
This is not just making a statement about our inability to understand. This sounds like his anger and condescension towards Americans. We are stupid heathens now who watch Madonna videos.
"where reporters are no different than the elites they cover in their militantly secular outlook."
Like who exactly? He doesn't say who these militant beret-wearing atheists in the media are. Most of the media is touting the politically correct line. Though admittedly most in the media are not religious, I would hardly call them militant nor solidly atheist. Our elites are not militantly secular either. Most of them are Christians, or they worship Molech at Bohemian grove (thanks Alex Jones). OR they may have no religion, but most of them at least pretend to rather having a Soviet-style atheism squads, like Raimondo seems to think.
Then we get more condescension and strawman from him:
Yes, I know, it’s hard to believe: how could any civilized person take seriously the impulse to achieve transcendence and find meaning in the universe besides the pursuit of pleasure, fame, and money? I mean, really! How primitive can you get? Didn’t that kind of superstition go out with corsets, free silver, and the horse and buggy?
This is just whiney sarcasm and he knows no one makes such stupid statements. And here is defending killing people, and uses the euphemism 'taking seriously an impulse to achieve transcendence'. Sheesh. If only that held up in court. Not only that, but uses the above rationalization to say we are inferior.
A society in which blasphemy is impermissible is inconceivable to the warlords of Washington,
Could it be that their being 'warlords' is irrelevant to this incomprehension? And that it could be shared by non-elites, whether secular or religious. Nowhere here does he share with us the opinion of Christians who don't want the state to cut the heads off non-Christians either. Which nearly all of them.
It’s a culture in which gays want to get married, straights are setting records for divorce, and the way to appeal to women in an election year is to make it easier for them to kill their unwanted babies.
Here is another drive-by insult from closeted Christian fundamentalist. Oh noes gayz getting married. I like how equivacates each of them, so we know that marriage and divorce are equivalent to killing your baby. And of course to suggest how decadent and horrible he thinks our society is. And how great it is in Saudi Arabia.
He then goes on to say how the myriad Gods and goddess of the Roman empire is at least better than the 'decadence that we aspire to'. But there is no connection between Gods and decadence or why any of that matters.
-
In the modern West, where the only god is Mammon, the riots over those Danish cartoons were “a round of silliness,”
Here we worship Mammon instead of political correctness. Mammon has apparently forbid massive property damage and murder. And that's a bad thing, in his opinion.
Raimondo is correct that the foreign policy is the reason for their anger. But does not simply suggest that we stop the foreign policy. He however goes into an irrelevant tangent about militant atheism. That should have zero to do with that policy. In reality, neither Christianity nor atheism have any role to play in that region nor in our response. The only role to play at this time is to get our people out of those countries. We don't have to like what they do. The Murray Rothbard thing is completely out of context. Murray would not support religious statism, nor was he a relativist, but promoted natural rights that were used by many Christians. However, he was not afraid to criticize various religious groups.
I cannot believe people are getting all bent out of shape over this. He is criticising society. Deal with it. He is not promoting "religious tyranny" you losers.
Like I said before, we do understand them. We don't care.
John Ess:Raimondo is correct that the foreign policy is the reason for their anger.
I didn't see him suggest that at all. It sounded to me like a large part of his point was to make the case that all this violence was about the movie...
"they just don’t understand why someone would get all hopped up over a little thing like blasphemy"
"Even as the protests spread, they insist it just can’t be about what Muslim protesters say it’s about: it’s all just a “flimsy” excuse, as Reason magazine editor Matt Welch told..."
"Like Welch, the magazine claims the protests are about something other than what the protesters themselves say they’re about."
"Forget the video, we’re told: it’s not about that."
Where the hell does he even link foreign policy? Are we just supposed to assume he's bitching about foreign policy because it's an article on AntiWar.com?
Sounds to me like he's making the case that it all really is about the movie, and blasphemy. I mean, that is essentially the title and his intro.
And yeah, I honestly don't really get what he's calling for here. If all he wanted to say was "secular people should probably pay a bit more attention to what motivates religious people and maybe they'd have an easier time getting along"...then he didn't need to go on with an article that long. And it certainly didn't need to go on and on with all the straw men and condescention and sarcasm.
And it really does seem like he's all but outright making an excuse for the reactions to the film. [Oh NOES! Did John James just accuse Mr. Antiwar.com of making excuses for violence??!! That's like saying the Cookie Monster claimed cookies are nasty!] Yes, come at me with your knee-jerk defense of anyone friendly with Rockwell and any bullshit they spout.
Among the things that I got from that article was a sense that "hey, maybe you idiot secularists should take a second and understand where these people are coming from. Heaven forbid you try to see things from the perspective of stupid rubes who believe in moronic concepts like sanctity and blasphemy."
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware reverence for sanctity and aversion to blasphemy included cutting people's heads off.
And obviously some people (i.e. those who made and promoted the film to Muslims) do know exactly what motivates such people, as Raimondo so aptly yet indirectly points out throughout the article.
If his whole problem is just with clueless politicians and journalists who just "don't understand" religious fervor, join the club. There are ignorant people in the world. What else is new. But I don't quite see how them not understanding why something like blasphemy is so important to people makes a difference in how one should react to the violence that has been perpetrated for apparently no other reason than being religiously offended (again, as Raimondo was so adamant about reiterating.)
Just what exactly is he calling for anyway?
If he's not defending the violence (which I would certainly hope not) then what the hell is he advocating? That we shouldn't be so confused as to why it would take place? If that's all he's saying, then why does it sound more like he's suggesting everyone should "be more careful", and "watch what they say", so as not to offend anything sacred to anyone who might ascribe to some religion (or at least be more sympathetic when they are so overcome with disgust and protective ardor that they literally murder people)...while simultaneously insulting anyone who doesn't agree with that notion?
Aristophanes:Like I said before, we do understand them. We don't care.
I'm not sure why you're proclaiming that here. Raimondo's the one that suggests you're an idiot condescending asshole for not understanding the religious folk.
He is criticizing it in a stupid, tedious and whiney way. And trying to get points from Christian and Muslim readers by pandering to them.
It could be an advertisement for Murray's books in the middle of a bad article, but it seems pointless. Why write something at all?
He is sad that mean and stupid old Westerners react intolerantly to something on tv. Because we lost the religion and blasphemy laws that apparently prevented hydra of gay marriage, divorce, and abortion.
John James, I meant the small section here:
"No, it’s not just about the video: there’s America’s relationship with the Arab world to consider, and specifically with Libya, Egypt, Yemen, and many of the other countries where rioters are burning our flag and assaulting our embassies. In Libya, we installed their present government and are keeping them on life support through “foreign aid” and “democracy promotion” grants. In Yemen, we’re bombing them: in Egypt, we’re trying to influence their elections, and they’re on the take from us to the tune of over a billion every year. We are, in short, at the center of their world — and yet not of it, indeed distinctly alien to it."
I was using "we" as the "U.S. government." The U.S governmet studies the shit outta their cultural trends and beliefs. The U.S. government policy is what it is because...the U.S. government don't care.
Have you people watched that video? I didn't even get it (I suspect if one is familiar with the Bible it would have made more sense). It is like a 70's B-movie and is so bland in its condescension of Mohommad that "it insists on itself" and fails in my opinion to even be offending. It is hard for me to believe that the video really has anything to do with the violence. It was a Christian/Jewish group that was trying to get attention. Never give the people who are doing things soley for attention attention.
I think Raimondo is just trying to compare the people over there (who do have blasphemy laws) to the people over here who can barely comprehend them. And the ambassador killed was gay, so to him it might be a different level of offending. He may have associated it with that, who knows? His expression of religious values there and here is also comparable (although they are the same here that they are there so it wouldn't make sense for him to do so thus we have 'blasphemy').
He is pointing out that the laws were purposeful and peole obviously don't have restraint or respect enough to not offend people and live according to the principle the law enforced, but without the law itself..
Aristophanes:I'm not sure why you're proclaiming that here. Raimondo's the one that suggests you're an idiot condescending asshole for not understanding the religious folk.I was using "we" as the "U.S. government." The U.S governmet studies the shit outta their cultural trends and beliefs. The U.S. government policy is what it is because...the U.S. government don't care.
My statement still stands.
As somebody who supported Obama in bombing Libya you should be covering your head in shame in some dark corner, not blathering here about men many times better than yourself.
He's commenting on the decadent lifestyles of the West and their apathy and disdain for people with less consumerist lifestyles (though that disdain is very well likely to be purely coincidental with foreign policy for other reasons).
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
This one? "Raimondo's the one that suggests you're an idiot condescending asshole for not understanding the religious folk."
No, it doesn't. I know he's not talking about me. I don't have to "like" thier religious values to "respect" or "understand" them. Frankly, I respect anyone who actually sticks to thier religious values whatever they may be (I might still consider them a lunatic, but one doesn't preclude the other). He is talking about the people who take offense to what he is saying... He is talking to the ones that don't notice the rampant consumerism and materialism that pervades everything in the U.S. and don't see how their life embodies it and their government flaunts it.
I hope this was not directed at me. I don't support anything that our military does. I merely think the maneuverings are intersting considering what the "voting public" is told about the issues...
Ohmigod you people have absolutely no reading comprehension, whatsoever!
I don't know about Raimondo's religious identity but I can tell you for certain he's no religious fundamentalist. I know the difference, I was raised Christian fundamentalist, having only found my way out of it four years ago or so.
"Having abandoned their own religion sometime in the last century or so, they just don’t understand why someone would get all hopped up over a little thing like blasphemy – after all, all one has to do is turn on the TV or view the latest Madonna music video and you’ll get a full dose of it." This is not just making a statement about our inability to understand. This sounds like his anger and condescension towards Americans. We are stupid heathens now who watch Madonna videos.
But we are. And our lack of religious context has played an integral role in this. What you don't understand is that the cultural context of religion provides a memetic defense against outlandish and injurious moral and social ideas, it can even defend against malformed metaphysics and philosophy.
Religious fundamentalist leaders understand this, even within the US. Fundamentalist religions act as "memetic enclaves" within the wider culture and they shelter their adherents from much of the erosive effects of unfiltered American culture. Of course, to a one they engage in all kinds of manipulative bullshit of their own. Pick your poison, I guess.
"where reporters are no different than the elites they cover in their militantly secular outlook." Like who exactly? He doesn't say who these militant beret-wearing atheists in the media are.
Like who exactly? He doesn't say who these militant beret-wearing atheists in the media are.
I think the list of exceptions would be much shorter.
Most of the media is touting the politically correct line. Though admittedly most in the media are not religious, I would hardly call them militant nor solidly atheist.
Atheist and secularist are not synonymous. There are a lot of religious secularists. They have their private religion and they insist that you keep yours private, too. Meanwhile, their religious leaders are busy infiltrating the "secular" power structure. Yes, I'm looking at you, Vatican.
Our elites are not militantly secular either. Most of them are Christians, or they worship Molech at Bohemian grove (thanks Alex Jones). OR they may have no religion, but most of them at least pretend to rather having a Soviet-style atheism squads, like Raimondo seems to think. Then we get more condescension and strawman from him: Yes, I know, it’s hard to believe: how could any civilized person take seriously the impulse to achieve transcendence and find meaning in the universe besides the pursuit of pleasure, fame, and money? I mean, really! How primitive can you get? Didn’t that kind of superstition go out with corsets, free silver, and the horse and buggy? This is just whiney sarcasm and he knows no one makes such stupid statements. And here is defending killing people, and uses the euphemism 'taking seriously an impulse to achieve transcendence'. Sheesh. If only that held up in court. Not only that, but uses the above rationalization to say we are inferior.
Actually, he's merely returning the acidic sarcasm of the Reason/Skeptic crowd... giving them a dose of their own medicine. The modern secularists are not merely critics of bad and false religious teachings, in the tradition of the Higher Criticism or the liberal philosophers. They are cultural sanitizers, fanatics.
A society in which blasphemy is impermissible is inconceivable to the warlords of Washington, Could it be that their being 'warlords' is irrelevant to this incomprehension? And that it could be shared by non-elites, whether secular or religious. Nowhere here does he share with us the opinion of Christians who don't want the state to cut the heads off non-Christians either. Which nearly all of them.
You're entirely missing his point. I'll translate it for you to see if you can get the point: "A society in which immodest public dressing is prohibited is incomprehensible to the pornographers of Southern California." To those who hold nothing sacred, the offense of Muslims at gratuitous, salacious caricatures of the things they hold sacred is baffling. That's his point. It's not advocacy of Islam or even religion, per se. It's just a criticism of the moral nihilism of the American establishment and its soulless inability to comprehend the idea of holding something sacred, even something so obviously sacred as human life or our natural environment.
It’s a culture in which gays want to get married, straights are setting records for divorce, and the way to appeal to women in an election year is to make it easier for them to kill their unwanted babies. Here is another drive-by insult from closeted Christian fundamentalist. Oh noes gayz getting married.
Here is another drive-by insult from closeted Christian fundamentalist. Oh noes gayz getting married.
I doubt Raimondo has a problem with gays living together and even wearing a ring and calling it marriage or even religious organizations such as the Anglicans or ELCA blessing gay marriages. What I suspect he has a problem with (because I also have a problem with it) is the idea of conflating marriage with the state-licensed monstrosity whose only reason for existence is its tax advantages and then gay couples wanting to get in on the tax-break action. What an obscenity.
I like how equivacates each of them, so we know that marriage and divorce are equivalent to killing your baby. And of course to suggest how decadent and horrible he thinks our society is. And how great it is in Saudi Arabia.
Wow, I don't think there's anything I can say that will fix this train-wreck of miscomprehension.
He's making no connection between belief in gods (or God) and morality. Rather, he's pointing out that at least the Roman imperialists - soulless, blood-sucking tyrants that they were - had the good sense to respect the sacred things of their subjects. If nothing else, do it out of a sense of self-interest. But DC is so completely self-absorbed into its alternate reality and disconnected from the real world in which its colonial subjects live that it can't even bring itself to act in its own self-interest. Even the Romans - debauched as they were - could manage that.
I feel like I'm holding a third-grader's hand, here... I find it difficult to believe you are genuinely misunderstanding this, the meaning is quite plain.
In the modern West, where the only god is Mammon, the riots over those Danish cartoons were “a round of silliness,” - Here we worship Mammon instead of political correctness. Mammon has apparently forbid massive property damage and murder. And that's a bad thing, in his opinion.
American culture has devolved to a crass and embarrassingingly shallow materialism. Raimondo is dead on, here.
Raimondo is correct that the foreign policy is the reason for their anger. But does not simply suggest that we stop the foreign policy. He however goes into an irrelevant tangent about militant atheism. That should have zero to do with that policy. In reality, neither Christianity nor atheism have any role to play in that region nor in our response.
You're absolutely clueless. This movie was most likely a CIA/Mossad/MI6 stunt. Raimondo's a journalist, so he's constrained from speculating. I'm not. But he sees through the ruse and he's pointing out that either this was a cynical manipulation of Muslims on the part of the vampiric war-mongers or the DC establishment is completely out-of-touch with reality in its insular, little secular enclave, sanitized of all expression of genuine, religious sentiment. Or both. Both, in my book.
The only role to play at this time is to get our people out of those countries. We don't have to like what they do. The Murray Rothbard thing is completely out of context. Murray would not support religious statism, nor was he a relativist, but promoted natural rights that were used by many Christians. However, he was not afraid to criticize various religious groups.
Good God, man. Religious statism?? Are you serious?
I think it is a rather stupid tactic of modern religious people to associate rejection of their values with rejection of values per se. They get a lot of mileage out of pretend anger at that demon 'relativism', even while usually having no idea how their religion isn't completely subjective or relative itself. It's usually used to pump up the importance of whatever nonsense they believe, and completely ignore other viewpoints. Or at least to not understand them well enough to make a decision. What better validation of yourself than that other people believe nothing, so you must be correct? This places almost no burden on your own mind, and becomes de facto monopoly nonetheless.
It couldn't be that religious people are also decadent, consumerist, and the rest. I've met plenty of holy rollers who are worse than atheists. Saudi Arabia and a lot of those oil countries have shopping malls and fashion and wacky Michael Jackson-ish amusement parks in their backyard. They all have to have the Lamborghinis for each of their wives. And all of the Amirs and Kings have gold plated toilets and the rest. It is pure decadence. In fact, the idea of decadence and materialism like that itself came from Arabia and was what Europeans wanted during their contact with them and finally got. It's one of the reasons they were tracking down gold in the new world. And then Arab world became a bit poorer. But it's back. ignorance of this fact is also an example of orientalism.
I saw a guy in Tunisia who was burning the American flag, while wearing red, white, and blue American Eagle brand pants with an American flag on it.
And it's even worse to say that absurb belief might distract you from something else. For instance, it might be better to believe something untrue, if it will prevent you from reading Marx and promoting communism. We have a common friend in Scientology apparently. Worst of all this is disrespectful to those who believe in religion. Since they believe it is true, not that God created it as a diversion from other beliefs. If you don't respect religon on it's own terms, you don't respect it.
If you don't believe infidels should be beheaded, it must mean that you don't believe in anything is important or sacred. If you don't believe in angels, you must not have any metaphysical system. If you don't believe eating pork is sinful, then you must believe that killing old ladies is okay.
It's hogwash.
"Good God, man. Religious statism?? Are you serious?"
Yes, I know you believe all religious people are anarchists and anti-war. And that they respect each other's beliefs. But that isn't true, you see.
Islam in most cases than not is a statist ideology. The majority of Christians, Jews, and Muslims on this planet are statists.
@John Ess: What do religious people have to do with Raimondo's article?? I'm not even sure Raimondo is religious. There's really nothing in this article to indicate that he is.
The implication is that religious people are peaceful victims in this world, while secular atheists are warlords and elites.
Atheists are materialists who can't understand anything except shopping, while the religious people have a deep and meaningful life free of superficiality.
Atheists can't understand other people's viewpoints, but religious people understand the views of others and respect their needs for transcendence.
My only rebuttal is look at all of the bloodthirsty Evangelicals in this country. How does he explain that? You think these people are sad about "transcendence" of Muslims? No, they want more blood and wars and terror, in the name of Jesus.
The second is just rehashed orientalism. West is material and greedy, and East is spiritual and altruistic. It is old stupid myth by people who have never been outside of the West. In reality, all civilizations go through the same old crap over and over again. Islam is not different than the cycles of India, China, Persia, Rome, or the US. They have the rise and fall of empires, wealth, and then the various forms of religion. Islam basically died many centuries ago before Christianity did, around the time when Genghis Khan destroyed Baghdad. Christianity died around the time of Renaissance, and rise of protestantism. The modern Christianity and Muslim is just a decadent empty shell, reacting against that death. Each is what Spengler called 'Second Religiousness'. Which is a type of religion after the death of it and whatever civilization it wraught for itself, that is too conscious of itself to be the same as the past. It is not non-modern, but thoroughly so.
no religions on this planet make any attempt to understand the others' viewpoint. All of the others are heresies. The Jews hate the Arabs, and vice versa. The Christians hate the Muslims, and vice versa. Muslims hate the Hindus, and vice versa. It goes on and on. They invade each others' lands and mess things up, and then they kill each other in retaliation. It has just been the same always. If isn't one religion it is another. And when it isn't a religion, it is not different than when it was.
No, his point is that the Washington elites are a bunch of secularists. You keep conflating secularism and atheism. Secularism is a stance regarding religion in the public square (namely, that it shouldn't be). You can be theist and secularist at the same time.
This is a separate subject. The depravity of the warmongering Christian right in America is no excuse for the moral nihilism of the space-cadets in Washington, so disconnected from the lives of people outside of the ivory tower in DC that they can't even comprehend people being insulted at mockery of their sacred prophets.
Oh really, it looks to me like Romney and Hillary Clinton made statements right away condemning the film. Saying that it was disgraceful and horrible, even if it is not an excuse to kill people. Point me to a quote from a politician or person in the media who said they didn't care, or that they were happy about the film. Because Raimondo did not list any. People at Reason magazine are not politicians or elites. Also, Reason magazine is largely anti-war so it is moot.
Also, list some of the militant atheists in the media or Washington, besides Bill Maher or Penn Gillette (who are rather peripheral figures).
Raimondo seems to brush off the idea that anyone in Washington is genuinely religious without knowing if they are or not. He just states that they merely 'pander', so as to avoid the question of if they are or not. It's just not convenient to his argument. And even if they only have the image of being religious, you can't then say that Washington is a bunch of militant atheists. We have an election where the Republicans, the primary war party, is running on all kinds of Christian-based things: putting prayer back in the school, overturning Roe v. Wade, bringing creationism in as a scientific choice, defining marriage as man and woman, etc. Don't tell me that is moral nihilism or militant atheism.
He is probably saying that they are 'atheists' because they do not respect the religious beliefs of other countries. If you cannot respect someone else's religion, how much respect are you really going to have for your own. He points out their insincerity. The GOP uses religious rhetoric to get votes (pandering).
Honestly, I don't even know what you are on about.
Don't cite words of a politician when you are talking about "what they actually believe" you cite the words of a politician when you are referring to what the politicians want people to think. Sincerity figures right into this kind of thing...
@John Ess: We'll just have to disagree. There is a movement within the Power Elite to sanitize the global culture of all religiosity, in the long run. This movement is partly motivated by sheer profanity (e.g. the Bohemian Club types) and partly by closeted religious imperialism (e.g. the Jesuits and their constant machinations). All the CFR types are on board with this agenda, including Clinton and all the big names in media. Raimondo is decrying this. I don't think he has any issues with gay people choosing how they want to live their lives, so long as they don't interfere with their neighbors' property rights, same as anybody else. And nowhere in this article has he advocated the State, let along a religious tyranny and "blasphemy laws". You're completely misreading him.
It seems that this crusade against Muslims is brought to you by Christians like Terry Jones. And another Christian guy who thinks that he will smoke Muslims out of their radical muslim hidey holes. The latter was the one who apparently made the film. The former apparently promoting it.
And not the government or elites in media. As much as that narrative would be great. I don't think it is the case.
You don't see militant atheists caring that much about Muslims. At least not in the US.
My guess is that Terry Jones and other Christians want a crusade to transform American culture back to Christianity. They need a common enemy in the 'angry Muslims'. Similar to how that enemy was communism during the cold war. They have to rile up Muslims to attack, which will unite the country under Christianity.
Various Christian groups have a delusion about their relevancy to the culture. And they want political stunts in order to gain more cultural capital. I don't mean Christianity is irrelevant. But there are Christian groups like the guys who predict the end of the world and these Quran burners who think anyone cares about their pronouncements.
We are stupid heathens now who watch Madonna videos.
I'm offended.
I think his bit about Madonna was stolen from Bill Hicks.
That used to be his thing, and the thing of various other alternative comedians who copied his schtick. No one pays attention to globalism and the new world order, because they sit front of the tube watching madonna videos.
Madonna is so 90s. Lady Gaga is the new thing, dunbass!
In the recent link on Lewrockwell.com, apparently Lew (or whoever runs the site) has renamed Raimondo's recent article as
"You're supposed to forget the Hollywood Hate Movie"
I don't think Hollywood was involved in the making of a youtube video. But the real article title is 'Spinning Benghazi", and no mention of Hollywood.
John Ess:In the recent link on Lewrockwell.com, apparently Lew (or whoever runs the site) has renamed Raimondo's recent article...
John Ess:I don't think Hollywood was involved in the making of a youtube video.
I think what is missing here is that there is no division between politics and religion in Islam as exists in the west.
The truth seems hard to miss as in this charming photo of some British citizens exercising their free speech:
'Ummah' is their word for the international nation of Islam. The idea that it was "power politics" doesn't seem wrong if take religious outrage to be equivalent to political outrage.
Raimondo wants to insist on separating the political and the religious but that is not the motivation of the Muslims waving signs like this.
@Walden: So? Who wouldn't be radicalized by the Western assault on the entire Middle East?
I'm not seeing where Raimondo insists on separating Islamic politics and religion. He's not saying they have good religion and bad politics. He's saying their religious beliefs are irrelevant to the political situation and their political stance vis-a-vis the West is perfectly rational. I agree!
I have to say I agree with most of Clayton's analysis in this thread (except for the Jesuit part; to me they seem a substantially infiltrated organisation - but that's what they want you to think!).
I found these quotes from Prophet Muhammad.
"Power consists not in being able to strike another, but in being able to control oneself when anger arises."
"From morning until night and from night until morning keep your heart free from malice towards anyone."
"He is not strong and powerful, who throws people down, but he is strong who withholds himself from anger."
So much for that.
"He's saying their religious beliefs are irrelevant to the political situation and their political stance vis-a-vis the West is perfectly rational."
That doesn't even make sense. His biggest argument seems to be that their religion is important, but that secular elites hate it and are being disrespectful. He brings up the issue because he thinks we lack perspective about what? Their religious beliefs and society. He is also saying that our culture is horrible because of the loss of our similar Christianity. That is the whole point of bringing up the video, and his saying that that video is important to the discussion. He barely even talks about the foreign policy, except in passing. Nor does he say the reaction is rational. He thinks it is okay to be irrational; and that rationalism leads to Madonna videos and whatever. The killing of the ambassador in his opinion was based on the video, and it is justified in his opinion because of the video. However, he believes that the video is part of a larger conspiracy to provoke a reaction or manufacture tension that doesn't already exist. That may or may not be true, but that is not part of my criticism of him here. But the rest of what he says is.
I don't know if he thinks, at least in the article in question, that it is radicalization of because of political stance. First of all, there is no radicalization mentioned, nor is there any proof that they've been radicalized at all. It seems to be the same as it as always was. And as I said, it includes many non-rational features which cannot be reduced to a rationalism. However, Raimondo does not think that is a problem. Since he believes Murray Rothbard loved religious people.
@John Ess: Underlying Raimondo's analysis is the implication that the video was produced because it was in the interests of the USG that it be produced. If you think 9/11 was the work of 19 hijackers armed with boxcutters, you might be too credulous to see any connections between the USG and world events that are purportedly the work of its enemies, however fortuitous they may be for USG interests.
You're completely missing the point of his analysis. It is not possible to read his article at an adult comprehension level and come away with advocacy of religious tyranny or blasphemy laws.
Well, the 9/11 truth thing is a separate issue. And I don't really think there is anything but a tenuous relation between this video and the government. I would like to see evidence. It could be that many things are in their interest, or that they can use it easily to their advantage. But that does not prove their culpability. Credulosity is built on a lack of doubt. One can see the connection between many things, and it could be wrong. The article you mentioned might be right, but it doesn't show any connection between government and the video.
Raimondo is clearly making a connection between our secular culture and war/aggression and the rest. This also being related to there being a video like the one released. And siding with religion because of this connection. And even saying that Murray rothbard endorsed religiosity. He thinks secular government equals war. And that secular people love war. So the only thing I can take from that, is that he prefers the return to a religious government and 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.