RoR: Forum

Post 40

Wednesday, March 26 - 9:16am

Link

Edit

Phil, you are right. That interpretation is the one most often offered and in point of fact is the final outcome of the story: the ram was sacrificed, the first-born (Ishmael or Isaac) was not.

It remains that infant sacrifice was practiced, else God's command would have been totally without context. Furthermore, the Philistines and Cartheginians both continued the practice.

From another point of view, the story of Iphigenia also tells of child sacrifice, in this case, the daughter. Laid down by the time of Homer it nonetheless was transmogrified into Iphigenia in Tauris in order to deny the human sacrifice that sanctified the sailing of the warships to Troy.

All of which is to say that Rand was not kidding: human sacrifice is always waiting in the wings for a chance on stage.

Post 41

Wednesday, March 26 - 9:35am

Link

Edit

For what it's worth, my wife and I chose not to have our son circumcised, and the doctor advised us that there were no medical benefits to the procedure, it's purely cosmetic.

Bob Kolker's claims aside, most parents consent to the procedure because everyone else does. I find that despicable.

It is always possible to perform the procedure later in life, but it cannot be reversed.

Post 42

Wednesday, March 26 - 10:13am

Link

Edit

I am proud to have saved my sons from the curse of Smegma.

Bob Kolker

Post 43

Friday, March 28 - 6:46am

Link

Edit

In post #10 in this Topic, Bob Palin identified "The Problem" and offered "The Solution" to which Mr. Robert J. Kolker replied in 11:
"At last! Someone who thinks as I do!
Thank you sir.
Bob Kolker

First of all, the guys praying were all in uniform, so I assume that they are all regular army or at least all regular militia, and therefore engaged in a proper roll of government.
Secondly, they were all praying, which, while not the most productive activity is not directly threatening... unless you suffer from low self-esteem...

Third, and of deepest significance, Mr. Robert J. "Bob" Kolker's yea-said #10. We know that Kolker is not an Objectivist. He is in fact, proud of his own religious (ethnic; racial; whatever...) heritage. I underlined proud purposely because we must remember that all forms of collectivism are based on mysticism and are wrong on metaphysical grounds. Yet, Kolker endorsed Palin. I remember back in the mid-1960s, on the far right (YAF, John Birch, that range), we enjoyed the ironic assertion, "He can't be a communist. He believes the same things I do." Most often said by an unthinking liberal, occasionally your civic interest moderate would say that about labor strikes, progressive taxes, property taxes, public schools, regulation of businesses, etc., etc., etc. It also came up in chats about foreign policy at social gatherings, parties, classrooms, etc., regarding "fair play for Cuba" or "disarmament" or "peaceful coexistence" and those issues. Remember: if you agree with a communist, then you are (at least to that extent) a communist. So, if you agree with a Zionist, then you are (at least to that extent) a Zionist.

Over on Objectivist Living, MSK gave some reasons why in his opinion there needs to be a "Jewish" State in Palestine. That was in the topic thread " Objectivist Living > Objectivist Living > Objectivist Living Room> A true Israeli doesn't evade"
In that, I freely stipulated the following:

OK... Look, Israel has opposition parties, three minor parties, BALAD, HADASH and The United Arab List, that all advocate for Arab rights within the Jewish state. These are anti-Zionist parties. I think that UAL is the oldest and is the one that has had women in the Knesset. So, OK, now, go to Syria or Jordan or Egypt or Saudi Arabia and show me an Anti-Islamist Pro-Jewish party with women parliamentarians.
It is pretty easy to see that when push comes to shove -- and pushing and shoving has been going on in Jericho since before recorded history -- that Israel has a strong democracy and the other nations do not.

I then asked:

That said... How strong does that democracy need to be in order to justify the invasion of Palestine? "We are better than you, so we can take everything you have," sort of begs some deeper questions.

Regarding Islam, I raise those questions here and now. In the 1960s and 1970s, there were nominally secular Islamic states, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan.... Even Lebanon held out promise as a place where Christians, Muslims (including the "heretical" Druse) and even a few remaining Jews could all live in something that looked like peace. In Monetary Crisis, Harry Browne said that he was speculating in Lebanese pounds because of their hefy gold reserves. Well, all of that unraveled... as did Iran ... and then the USA government in Washington took on Iraq... and here we are today...

Perhaps the deepest questions are those that attempt to tease out why a nominally "Christian" nation such as the USA has such strong individual rights and toleration (far from perfect), whereas nominally "secularist" states (look at Europe: survery and polls reveal that large numbers are "non believers") are collectivist and yet, we saw Ireland (and Northern Ireland) bleed for centuries.

In short, religion per se has little to do with it. There is something deeper. Calling it "tradition" gets close, but misses a deeper point that "tradition" (so-called) is, in fact, an invention of "modernity." In other words, before the Enlightenment, all we had was "tradition" so no one perceived it as such. One exception was Aristotle who noted that tradition is stronger than law. To that truth, I point, again, to all the constitutions and bills of rights all over the world that are not worth the paper they are written on. Carpet bombing never changed anyone's traditions.

Post 44

Friday, March 28 - 7:11am

Link

Edit

M.E.M.

In short, religion per se has little to do with it. There is something deeper. Calling it "tradition" gets close, but misses a deeper point that "tradition" (so-called) is, in fact, an invention of "modernity." In other words, before the Enlightenment, all we had was "tradition" so no one perceived it as such. One exception was Aristotle who noted that tradition is stronger than law. To that truth, I point, again, to all the constitutions and bills of rights all over the world that are not worth the paper they are written on. Carpet bombing never changed anyone's traditions.

I reply:

It does not change tradition. It ends tradition, provided it is done thoroughly. Even when not it can produce useful results. Consider the case of the Japanese. Prior to their losses in the disastrous Pacific war, they were imperialistic and fascistic. When we got through burning down their cities and nuking a few just to see how our bomb worked we scared the shit of of their God Emperor who abdicated his divinity. Now the Japanese are humble and lovable (sort of) and they do not follow Bushido anymore. That is a tradition change.

Look at Germany. After wrecking the Third Reich and reducing the Herrenvolk to scrounging for food from empty K-ration cans, the Germans gave up fascism. No more Herrenvolk. No more Blood and Race. That is a tradition change.

Moral of the story: If you drop enough bombs on enough people and their property and kill enough of them, you can bring about Tradition Change. It is simply a matter of killing enough people with harmful habits and modes of thought.

It may be that Might does not make Right, but Might surely produces Results.

Bob Kolker

Post 45

Saturday, March 29 - 10:05pm

Link

Edit

Bushido:
Bushido survives and thrives in the works of novelist Yukio Mishima and the movies of Akira Kurosawa. Kurosawa's films -- notably Seven Samurai, Yojimbo, and Sanjuro -- greatly influenced not only the "spaghetti westerns" but also George Lucas's Star Wars (Kursosawa's Hidden Fortress).

Here in Ann Arbor -- a pretty tyrpical midwestern American college town -- we have three schools of aikido: Aikido Yoshokai - Genyokan Dojo; Aikido Raisin River Aikikai; Huron Valley Aikikai. I will not even try to count the martial arts academies and dojo for karate, tae kwon do, shorin ryu, etc., etc. My own experience (two college phys ed classes) is that these disciplines often appeal to those who might be nazis, but they learn to focus on mastery of self instead of the master race.

Ayran Pride.
Again, George Lucas's Star Wars borrowed heavily from Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph des Willens. Back about 25 years ago, I did some computer programming for Loompanics, which was a sponge for wierd literature, including Spotlight and Thunderbolt. I actually sold an article to Spotlight and won a subscription to Thunderbolt -- not something I brag about, but there it is; and I have done a lot of left wing stuff, too. The point is that when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, the Aryan racists touted the mujahideen as Aryan fighters resisting the godless Jew communists. The pictures of the Aryan freedom fighters were convincing, if you accept the Aryan racial theories.

See here:
Aryan Pride (Iran)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSUwNxI5sQ4
Aryan Afghanistan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBn3TMcFScI
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54S1IBK-Ou4
among others.

If Lord of the Rings does not reveal itself to you -- in the books, the orcs had black skin and slanted eyes -- then try the real thing: Ring of the Nibelungen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KpCUrk5Qfw

There is so much white racist and pro-nazi stuff on YouTube, it is impossible to list any of it. You cannot parse it -- at least I cannot. In fact, that was why I posted the Capitalist and Atlas Shrugged video links. After two hours of watching the Horst Wessel crowd, I had to cleanse my mind.

The point is that Bushido and Aryan Pride have spread, like blowing on a dandelion or opening a milkweed.
You cannot destroy an idea by killing the people who believe it.
You replace ideas with better ideas -- but only in the minds of those who have chosen to think.

I recommend highly (and often) that you read Robert Malcom's On the Origin of the Trading Syndrome which stood in contradistinction to Robert Malcom's On the Origin of the Taking Syndrome.
I advertise them because Malcom is much better received here than Murray Rothbard whose Power and Market delivered the same message. While the symbolic heroism of Lord of the Rings appeals to our sensibilities for justice, the fact remains that the post-Atlantean age was still unmonetized. You want to stand there at the Black Gate with Aragorn. You do not get the same adrenaline rush from double-entry bookkeeping... not unless you really are a capitalist... The Elves originally had the right solution: leave. That was the choice of the archaic Ionian Greeks who took their coins and rowed away ahead of the Persians.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 3/29, 11:34pm)

Post 46

Sunday, March 30 - 5:36am

Link

Edit

reply to 45

wherein it is written

The point is that Bushido and Aryan Pride have spread, like blowing on a dandelion or opening a milkweed.
You cannot destroy an idea by killing the people who believe it.
You replace ideas with better ideas -- but only in the minds of those who have chosen to think.

I reply:

And those who choose not to think and are your deadly enemies, you kill. It is as simple as that.

You think we are going to get rid of the Jihad by reasoning? You are foolish and optimistic. Not a chance in hell.

Bob Kolker

Post 47

Sunday, March 30 - 7:22am

Link

Edit

At some point, Mike, life demands that one push back. You can't run forever and still have much of a life.

Post 48

Sunday, March 30 - 10:11am

Link

Edit

Ali Baba Khalkar says that we will never dissuade him from his jihad by reasoning with him. We know that because he is not an Objectivist. He is not open to reason. He is, like Boris Spassky, a man of high intelligence for whom his profession is an escape from life. He serves his destroyers because he fails to consistently apply logic to the facts of reality.
(See Ayn Rand's "Open Letter to Boris Spassky" in Philosophy: Who Needs it? and Ellen Stuttle on Objectivist Living has transcribed the salient points at http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=371&st=20)

Reply to TSI:
One of my favorite movies is High Noon. You are right. Sometimes you cannot outrun trouble. You have to face it. Objectivists have long considered this film an example of romantic art because it is based on choice and values. Watch the movie. It is great work at the detail level. The acting, the camera, all of it is perfect. It is not just a shoot-out. The characters are the movie. The moment of truth is not when Kane returns to town. It is when Amy Fowler Kane confronts Helen Ramirez who tells her that if it were her husband out there, she would be with him. As Mrs. Kane, the Quaker Amy Fowler shoots a man in the back; and when she is held at gunpoint, she attacks her captor. It's not just about the Marshall. It's about her, too, maybe moreso...

I am a professional security guard. In six weeks, I complete a bachelor of science degree in police administration. It cost me about $250 to carry a bullet-proof backpack on campus. Have you seen Live Free or Die Hard? I'm "that guy." (Do you have a plan? "Kill them all and rescue Lucy." I mean, a plan as in how to achieve that?) Whatever happens, it is I between my clients and the problem.

That said, as death is absence of all choice, all values, by definition very few things in life can be worth killing or dying for.

There are far fewer than most people seem to think are worth other people killing or dying for. We had a post here about a young man in college who, on the basis of an Objectivist's argument for the war, enlisted... and was killed ... I feel that this was a tragedy on several levels, but I grant that the young man was intelligent enough to make his choices based on his values. I hold him in much higher esteem than I do the neo-conservative warhawks who want other people to fight in Iraq on the theory that if you can hire a gardner to do your lawn, you can hire a soldier to do your killing. I believe that anyone who supports the war and is capable of fighting ought to go. Do not tell us that the military will not take you. This is a contractor's war. They will take almost anyone. Maybe you cannot fight on the frontlines, but you can work in engineering or logistics. If you believe in the war, then accept responsibility for your values.

My values are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I agree that we cannot stop "jihad" or "jihaddi" (plural), but I know that we can change the attitudes, opinions, thoughts, ideas and assumptions of individuals. You do that with ideas, symbols, media, products, services, words, music, painting, sculpture, cinema, clothing, jewelry, fashions, artifacts and processes.

First and foremost, treat each individual as a person, as one, unique, alone, as an ego.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 3/30, 10:14am)

Post 49

Tuesday, April 1 - 7:22pm

Link

Edit

TIME
How Moqtada al-Sadr Won in Basra
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2008
By CHARLES CRAIN / BAGHDAD

On Sunday Sadr issued a call for members of the Mahdi Army to stop appearing in the streets with their weapons and to cease attacks on government installations. Within a day, the fighting had mostly ceased. It was an ominous answer to a question posed for months by U.S. military observes: Is Sadr still the leader of a unified movement and military force? The answer appears to be yes.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1726763,00.html

Does any rational, empirical observer of the travesty that is American involvement in Iraq still believe that the solution is so easy as to be more guns, more bombs, more troops?

Post 50

Wednesday, April 2 - 12:26am

Link

Edit

Our problem is not enough bombs. Lotsa nukes would have solved the problem neatly.

Sending in men to do something that machines can do better is stupid and criminal. Our best approach to dealing with our enemies is thorough and merciless air attack, with either nukes or nerve gas.

Bob Kolker

Post 51

Saturday, April 5 - 7:53am

Link

Edit

Coming as a book review... In the mean time, just a citation...

The Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads and Modernity
by Tariq Ali (London : Verso, 2002).

Chapter 1: An atheist childhood
"I never really believed in God. Not even for a week, not even between the age of six and ten when I was an agnostic ..."

From the Introduction:
"What is obvious is that the leaders of the United States wish to be judged by their choice of enemies rather than the actual state of the world."

Post 52

Monday, April 7 - 4:57pm

Link

Edit

I want to examine how Tariq Ali presents Modernity as Fundamentalism. I want to examine the reasoning for imperfections.

Ed

Islam Update