Is Evil Impotent or Virile?

[william.scherk]

Lordy, what will Linz do when he finds out there is a real 'pomowanker' loose here? I am tempted to cross-post. But, I am not that evul.

In the meantime, Michael (and those who have been in this thread since the beginning), the worthies at ARCHN just published another in their recent series, this time dealing with brain anatomy/emotion/empathy/morality/sociopathy. It seems quite pertinent, though perhaps not alluring to fans of Baudrillard, Derrida, Deleuze, Lacan, Foucault and lesser lights of post-modern theory, its gush, bumf and grime. Zizek is of course in a class of his own, where philosophy meets critical theory meets world-shaking events. And of course, he is not dead.

“Every time someone puts an objection to me, I want to say: 'OK, OK, let's go on to something else.' Objections have never contributed anything.”

"A concept is a brick. It can be used to build a courthouse of reason. Or it can be thrown through the window”

―

Gilles Deleuze

,

Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia

[Xray]

I don't agree with Pinker's wide-ranging historical assertions, particularly with violence from the Age of Reason, onward.

If he were right, we would be a perfectly rational, civilized bunch by now.

Moving toward more rationality and civiization is a long-haul process stretching over many, many generations. Mankind is still its baby shoes when it comes to that. For our old stone age man impulses are still quite vivid.

Civilization means not to give in to those impulses, to handle conflicts without bashing our heads in. And as opposed to those dark times, civilized societies do exist today, albeit they are still in the minority.

Many societies have never gone through an Age of Enlightement and have never had a democratic system.

Also, the phenomenon of one fallacious system fighting another is by no means rare.

While dictatorial regimes do get overthrown because people rebel against oppression and exploitation, this often leads to a 'psychological vacuum' which then makes them susceptible to look for some other strong leadership. The sad result can be landing from the frying pan in the fire.

But instead of losing hope, why not - to get back to the candle metaphor used several times here in this discussion - focus on the already 'lighted candles' instead?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

Let me get this on record before it blows up into something it isn't elsewhere.

Just because people are interacting with Seymourblogger, that does not mean OL stands for post-modern thought as a doctrine that should be preached. (Actually, it doesn't even stand for Objectivism as dogma.)

But I have no problem with looking at post-modern ideas by discussing things with a person who has adopted this school of thought.

Seymourblogger is intimate with Objectivism. She's an old-timer with lots of good stories to tell. And, if and when you can understand her, she manages to serve up some premises that need to be checked and some tangents that look enticing, like they will greatly reward people who choose to check them out.

We can be civil and interact and cross-feed ideas with those who disagree when there is goodwill on both sides. And we can do it without betraying our principles. (I mean "we" as in humankind, not "we" as in members of some Objectivist tribe.)

I know the people of the shunning mentality do not agree, but discussing stuff is not "sanctioning" it. (Anyway, I really dislike that word "sanction" the way it has grown in O-Land. On the surface, it means one thing, which even then is pretty broad and vague in the approval direction, but underneath, it is a stealth tool for controlling others within the group.)

I like Seymourblogger so far. I am really interested in people like her who got deeply into Objectivism, then walked out of Galt's Atlantis but took some good stuff with them. Usually they get embittered because of the outright nastiness of the Gatlantians left behind (see Michael Prescott's initial reactions, for instance). So it is a treat to be able to probe ideas (ones that should be relevant to anyone interested in Rand) without hostility.

If checking premises is supposed to be a virtue, then what better person to present a good premise to check than one who was embedded in the Objectivist culture, checked, and became convinced Objectivism was not for him or her? What thinking led them to that decision?

I don't fear looking at that. I think you have to if you want to be certain of your own conclusions.

But I believe many people in O-Land do fear looking. That's why they bash and shun apostates so quickly and with such vehemence. It's a form of closing their eyes, then shouting there is no light.

Michael

[anthony]

I don't agree with Pinker's wide-ranging historical assertions, particularly with violence from the Age of Reason, onward. If he were right, we would be a perfectly rational, civilized bunch by now.

But instead of losing hope, why not - to get back to the candle metaphor used several times here in this discussion - focus on the already 'lighted candles' instead?

Yes, it's what I draw some strength from.

I suspect though that my metaphor of a candle is distinctly at odds with the popularly accepted one.

Have you noticed how a single, lighted candle, in darkness, strongly draws your inner gaze - while

dozens of lighted candles are ...just a lot of candles?

[caroljane]

The Shafia verdict is in, and the murderers are actually in prison as I write The pathological trio thoughtfully chose a murder venue two hours away from the Kingston Penitentiary

Four women died, essentially because they were female: One disposable (barren first wife) and three dangerously ordinary One wanted to be a doctor, one wanted to marry for love, one (age 13) wanted to be like her friends and contradict her parents.

Except they were not ordinary, not at all. Trapped in despotism and hatred, they tried in every way they could to live their lives, their own lives, for themselves, and in so trying they were reckless, thoughtless, and unimaginably brave.

"They leave the vivid air signed with their honour".

-Stephen Spender

[caroljane]

There will be a plaque erected, where they died. For Rona, Zainab, Sahra and Geeti.

I hope they will also plant four rosebushes, for the four lives which were never allowed to bloom.

Today I spoke with my good friend Nasim, a devout Ismaili Muslim. She believes in capital punishment, I don't, so I said to her, "I suppose you think they should be executed."

"No", she said. "Why should death come to them so easily?"

Also today I enrolled a new student, who arrived in Canada from Afghanistan three months ago.She is 20. She came with her brother, who helped her fill out the form. They look very alike, almost like twins.

[Peter]

I am glad you are happy Carol, but countries in Europe are sadly changing their immigration policies to more restrict Muslims. Diversity in moderation may be good but Muslims are taught irrationality, violence, bigotry, world domination, beheading and handing. Those that try to fit in are called apostates and are killed by their relatives. So what’s to like about them? Are you so PC blind that you cannot see the hazard? Read some of Infidel’s latest posts.

Peter

[caroljane]

I am glad you are happy Carol, but countries in Europe are sadly changing their immigration policies to more restrict Muslims. Diversity in moderation may be good but Muslims are taught irrationality, violence, bigotry, world domination, beheading and handing. Those that try to fit in are called apostates and are killed by their relatives. So what’s to like about them? Are you so PC blind that you cannot see the hazard? Read some of Infidel’s latest posts.

Peter

Obviously you are learning avidly what Infidel and his ilk preach that all Muslims are taught.

How many Muslims do you know personally and interact with daily, for how many years have you done it? How much time have you spent in Muslim countries?

[Peter]

Daunce wrote:

How many Muslims do you know personally and interact with daily, for how many years have you done it? How much time have you spent in Muslim countries?

end quote

Zero, under those restrictions.

We have a colony of Persians about a mile or so from me. They have had a firing range near my house since 911. They began to feel “watched” for some reason. Just after 911 they went around, four males in a car. I know I stared at them. I clued in the local newspaper about them in 2011 but haven’t seen a story yet. There are probably two or three dozen families in one housing development. The mothers still wear scarves and dresses like sari’s but the kids seem to be more westernized.

I don’t want any more around me, but I don’t discriminate against them either. What prompted my letter to the paper? I was dropping off a family friend years ago, and saw a bunch of hundreds of bearded men in the development. I said to the person I was dropping off, “Are those Jews?” I had not seen so many bearded Jews since I visited the diamond district in New York City. I was told they were Iranians, celebrating some family or religious affair. Recently when tensions with Iran escalated, so did the gun fire at their range, some of it sounding fully automatic which is illegal, but I may have been wrong.

Lately I have also known one small store owner, named something like Chorman, who kept his overhead TV tuned to CNN and every time CNN would go on an anti American rant he would tell his customers to, “Look, look at that. Even Americans distrust their country.” This happened half the times I was in his store. He went out of business and back to Pakistan last year.

Would Canada and America be better off without them? Wouldn’t Muslims be better off without their religion? Certainly.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

The Apostates of Islam

Who we are:

We are ex-Muslims. Some of us were born and raised in Islam and some of us had converted to Islam at some moment in our lives. We were taught never to question the truth of Islam and to believe in Allah and his messenger with blind faith. We were told that Allah would forgive all sins but the sin of disbelief (Quran 4:48 and 4:116). But we committed the ultimate sin of thinking and questioned the belief that was imposed on us and we came to realize that far from being a religion of truth, Islam is a hoax, it is hallucination of a sick mind and nothing but lies and deceits.

What we believe:

Some of us have embraced other religions but most of us have simply left Islam without believing in any other religion. We believe in humanity. We believe that humans do not need to follow a religion to be good. All we need to follow is the Golden Rule. All we have to do is to treat others the way we expect to be treated. This is the essence of all the goodness. All good religious teachings stem from this eternal principle. This is the ultimate guidance humanity need. This is the Golden Rule.

Why Mohammed was not a prophet:

One who claims to be a messenger of God is expected to live a saintly life. He must not be given to lust, he must not be a sexual pervert, and he must not be a rapist, a highway robber, a war criminal, a mass murderer or an assassin. One who claims to be a messenger of God must have a superior character. He must stand above the vices of the people of his time. Yet Muhammad’s life is that of a gangster godfather. He raided merchant caravans, looted innocent people, massacred entire male populations and enslaved the women and children. He raped the women captured in war after killing their husbands and told his followers that it is okay to have sex with their captives and their “right hand possessions” (Quran 33:50) He assassinated those who criticized him and executed them when he came to power and became de facto despot of Arabia. Muhammad was bereft of human compassion. He was an obsessed man with his dreams of grandiosity and could not forgive those who stood in his way. Muhammad was a narcissist like Hitler, Saddam or Stalin. He was astute and knew how to manipulate people, but his emotional intelligence was less evolved than that of a 6-year-old child. He simply could not feel the pain of others. He brutally massacred thousands of innocent people and pillaged their wealth. His ambitions were big and as a narcissist he honestly believed he is entitled to do as he pleased and commit all sorts of crimes and his evil deeds are justified.

Why Quran is not from God:

Muhammad produced no miracles and when pressed he claimed that his miracle is the Quran. Yet a cursory look at the Quran reveals that this book is full of errors. Quran is replete with scientific heresies, historic blunders, mathematical mistakes, logical absurdities, grammatical errors and ethical fallacies. It is badly compiled and it contradicts itself. There is nothing intelligent in this book let alone miraculous. Muhammad challenged people to produce a “Surah like it” or find an error therein, yet Muslims would kill anyone who dares to criticize it. In such a climate of hypocrisy and violence truth is the first casualty.

What is our goal?

We are apostates of Islam. We denounce Islam as a false doctrine of hate and terror. However we are not against Muslims who are our own kin and relatives. We do not advocate hate and violence. Muslims are the main victims of Islam. Our goal is to educate them and let them see the truth. We are against Islam and not the Muslims. We strive to bring the Muslims into the fold of humanity. Eradicate Islam so our people can be liberated, so they can prosper and break away from the pillory of Islam. We would like to see Islamic countries dedicate more time to science and less time to Quran and Sharia. We would like to see them prosper and contribute to human civilization. We would like to see the draconian laws of Islam eliminated and people are treated humanely. We strive for freedom of beliefs, for equality of gender and for oneness of mankind.

Mankind’s biggest challenge:

Today the humanity is facing a great danger. Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise and the hatred is brewing in the minds of millions of Muslims. This hatred must be contained or there would be disastrous consequences. We believe that the education is the only answer. Muslim intellectuals must realize that Islam is a false doctrine and they must let the rest of Islamic world know the truth. Islam is a religion that thrives on the arrogant assumption that it is the most logical, the most scientific and the most perfect religion. While the fact is that it is the stupidest doctrine — the most backward and absurd belief. Once the truth about Islam becomes common knowledge, it will be weakened and the Islamic fanaticism will lose its fangs. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being expended to combat Islamic terrorism, yet no effort is made to contain the ideology behind this terrorism. It is our belief that Islamic terrorism will not be eliminated unless and until the ideology behind it is exposed and eradicated. This is what we intend to do.

* * *

[caroljane]

There's really not much to say about this post, except about American gun culture, which is really a side issue.

I'll just let it stand in its utter, shining ignorance of the world, which however much you don't want it, will always be near you.

[Peter]

I have two questions for Carol.

Do you think Islam would hold thrall over a billion people including the ones you know without its continuous brainwashing, psychological coercion and threat of physical violence?

Without the coercive elements of their religion would the Muslims you know, modify their restricted lives, and how many would like to step out of their imposed straightjackets?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[caroljane]

I have two questions for Carol.

Do you think Islam would hold thrall over a billion people including the ones you know without its continuous brainwashing, psychological coercion and threat of physical violence?

Without the coercive elements of their religion would the Muslims you know, modify their restricted lives, and how many would like to step out of their imposed straightjackets?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Peter, there is no "it", no monolithic Islam bent on forcing you to grow a beard or lose your head.

It is a religion practiced to various degrees and in various ways amongst billions of people in thousands of cultures and subcultures, staggeringly diverse.

It is used as a prop for the fanatic, a weapon for the despotic and a justification for the criminal or the psychopath, just as Christianity has been over the centuries.

[Selene]

Of course Carol, you are correct...

Judge Maranger explained that:

As Muslim families continue to immigrate into the western world, the conflict between local and national laws versus Islamic Sharia law heats up. In the United States, several courts have upheld Sharia law over state and federal laws.

In Canada, this conflict was waged in an Ontario court where Afghan immigrants Mohammad Shafia (58), his wife Tooba Yahya (42) and son Hamed (21) were charged with murdering Shafia’s three daughters and first wife. Daughters Zainab (19), Sahar (17), Geeti (13) and first wife Rona Amir Mohammad (52) were found in a car that was submerged in a local canal. Shafia’s second wife Yahya was the mother of son Hamed and the three daughters.

The parents and son claim that the three girls and former wife, who was still living with the family, accidentally drove into the canal while joy riding in the car. Hamed told the court that he witnessed the accident, however he never called police for help.

The prosecution presented a case indicating that all four victims were drowned nearby, their bodies placed into the car which was then pushed into the canal. The motive for killings were the dishonor the four females brought to the family due to their rebellion against the family rules on dating, how to dress, socializing and their internet activities.

Prosecutor Gerard Laarhuis presented evidence that Shafia was extremely domineering. When he made his frequent business trips to Dubai, son Hamed was known to administer harsh discipline on his sisters.

Nineteen year old Zainab was forbidden to attend school for a full year when her father found out that she had a Pakistani-Canadian boyfriend. At one point, Zianab feared her father to the point of fleeing to a shelter for protection.

Middle daughter, seventeen year old Sahar had a Christian boyfriend that she kept secret from her father, until her parents discovered photos of her wearing a short skirt and embracing her secret boyfriend. They also found several condoms hidden in her bedroom.

Youngest daughter Geeti told school officials that she wanted to be placed in foster care because of the circumstances in her home. She started skipping classes and failing school as well as wearing provocative clothing.

First wife Mohammad wrote in her diary how Shafia’s second wife treated her as a lowly servant and that he would often beat her. In one excerpt that was read in court, she had described that Shafia “made life a torture.”

According to Sharia law, all three of the daughters had brought dishonor and disgrace to the entire household and thus warranted their deaths via an honor killing. The family denied that this was an honor killing and stuck to their defense of it being a tragic accident. Having been granted permission to wiretap the family’s telephone and cell phones, the prosecution presented taped calls that clearly indicated the deaths were honor killings. Within those taped calls Shafia called his daughters whores and treacherous. At one point he invoked the devil to defecate on their graves.

In what could have been the final nail in the coffin was one particular taped call where Shafia said,

“There can be no betrayal, no treachery, no violation more than this. Even if they hoist me up onto the gallows … nothing is more dear to me than my honor.”

The Canadian jury deliberated for fifteen hours before rendering the verdict of guilty on four counts of premeditated murder against all three defendants. Canadian law prescribes that any conviction of first degree murder carries with it a mandatory life sentence with no chance of parole for a minimum of 25 years.

After the jury rendered their verdict, Judge Robert Maranger contended that the jury made the right decision based upon the evidence and then told the family that their conviction was for “the planned and deliberate murder of four members of your family.”

Judge Maranger went to address the family and court telling them,

“It is difficult to conceive of a more despicable, more heinous crime … the apparent reason behind these cold-blooded, shameful murders was that the four completely innocent victims offended your completely twisted concept of honor … that has absolutely no place in any civilized society.”

Gerard Laarhuis, who prosecuted the case against the Afghan family told a crowd outside the courthouse,

“This verdict sends a very clear message about our Canadian values and the core principles in a free and democratic society that all Canadians enjoy and even visitors to Canada enjoy.”

I can only hope and pray that American juries and courts have the same courage and moral conviction to render decisions based upon the local and national laws and not play into the hands of Muslims who are bent on turning our legal system into one based upon Sharia law. As for my personal opinion, if they want to be ruled by Sharia law then let them go to a country that follows that cruel and inhumane system and stop trying to change our system, which already has enough problems of its own.

Read more: Canadian Judge Describes Sharia Killings as 'Twisted Concept of Honor' http://godfatherpoli.../#ixzz1l4Kka0u4

[caroljane]

After they have served their sentences, they will be deported to Afghanistan.

Parole after 25 years is unlikely for the two men. There are still two Shafia daughters, a teenager and a tenyear-old.at this time. Who knows what they will get up to in 25 years. Their lives would be at risk if their loving father and brother were at large.

[Xray]

I don't agree with Pinker's wide-ranging historical assertions, particularly with violence from the Age of Reason, onward. If he were right, we would be a perfectly rational, civilized bunch by now.

But instead of losing hope, why not - to get back to the candle metaphor used several times here in this discussion - focus on the already 'lighted candles' instead?

Yes, it's what I draw some strength from.

I suspect though that my metaphor of a candle is distinctly at odds with the popularly accepted one.

Have you noticed how a single, lighted candle, in darkness, strongly draws your inner gaze - while

dozens of lighted candles are ...just a lot of candles?

Tony,

I think it depends on the psychological feeling one brings into a specific situatin. Seeing for example, any lighted candles in a vigil for . persons held hostage by terrorists can enhance even more a deep feeling of community.

Here is a very interesting article about mirror neurons and empathy [thanks to Adam (Selene) for sending me the link]:

http://www.salon.com...urce=newsletter

Not only are all primates capable of empathetic reactions and cooperation, many more primitive animals have this capacity as well.

The mirror neuron/empathy issue is so crucial because it offers the great opportunity to establish an ethics supported by scientific reseach.

[anthony]

I don't agree with Pinker's wide-ranging historical assertions, particularly with violence from the Age of Reason, onward. If he were right, we would be a perfectly rational, civilized bunch by now.

But instead of losing hope, why not - to get back to the candle metaphor used several times here in this discussion - focus on the already 'lighted candles' instead?

Yes, it's what I draw some strength from. I suspect though that my metaphor of a candle is distinctly at odds with the popularly accepted one. Have you noticed how a single, lighted candle, in darkness, strongly draws your inner gaze - while dozens of lighted candles are ...just a lot of candles?

Tony, I think it depends on the psychological feeling one brings into a specific situatin. Seeing for example, any lighted candles in a vigil for . persons held hostage by terrorists can enhance even more a deep feeling of community. Here is a very interesting article about mirror neurons and empathy [thanks to Adam (Selene) for sending me the link]: http://www.salon.com...urce=newsletter Not only are all primates capable of empathetic reactions and cooperation, many more primitive animals have this capacity as well. The mirror neuron/empathy issue is so crucial because it offers the great opportunity to establish an ethics supported by scientific reseach.

Xray,

I don't see it: are you saying primates are moral because they display empathy or mirror-neuron capability?

That these capacities are the hallmark of morality?

We then, should return to our primate roots, absolving reason, to rediscover morality?

Surely not.

Morality by instinct is no morality at all. It is the nature of us, that morality must be consciously chosen,

and constantly applied. Without options and alternatives at every turn, ethics is null and void.

Even religious ethics knows that.

Scientific research is only proving lately what every parent, or philosopher (or animal lover) has always

known - that we share characteristics with primates, but for us nothing is automatic. Nothing new under the sun,

for the "rational animal."

By now I understand, I think, that for you, morality and empathy are interlinked as a "deep feeling of community"

and "co-operation", and that you are looking for empirical bases for this. I only agree as far as one's morality

should impart good feelings to oneself - without doubt. We are at opposite ends, and won't ever agree on the rest,

I realize (quite regretfully.)

Suffice to say, that I think the Objectivist morality has the overwhelming advantage - one can appreciate all that you do of empathy and human togetherness, but much more besides. O'ism only has as its goal to show how we can be human to the utmost, without dilemma or conflict.

[BaalChatzaf]

Ask anyone who came out alive from the Gulags if Evil is impotent or not.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Ask anyone who came out alive from the Gulags if Evil is impotent or not.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Evil is impotent if it is abstracted out of a human being or beings. The problem is the potent part of these people carries the impotence forward. Rand imagined the perfect man and the perfect villain, solving that problem, so to say. In other words the impotent is a parasite on the potent, which is a contradiction. By that I mean the impotent is potent and does not actually exist as such. It is merely an inferior form of potency. Rand hung her art and philosophy on this idea of the impotency of evil. It is only true epistemologically, not metaphysically or existentially. It wasn't impotence that sent three million German troops into Russia in 1941--I assume most of them could and did masturbate for instance--but Hitler was so stupid he sacrificed entire German armies in WWII hastening the end of the war. Invading Russia was stupidity prime. Declaring war on the United States was stupidity squared. This stupidity represents impotence. Obviously there was much more to Hitler than stupidity.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

This stupidity represents impotence. Obviously there was much more to Hitler than stupidity.

--Brant

Anyone who things the Panzer Korp is impotent has not studied the history of warfare. The Nazis took Poland apart in under 6 weeks. Some impotent that is. If Hitler were a bit smarter he might have ended up with a Greater Reich and I would have become a cake of soap.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

This stupidity represents impotence. Obviously there was much more to Hitler than stupidity.

--Brant

Anyone who things the Panzer Korp is impotent has not studied the history of warfare. The Nazis took Poland apart in under 6 weeks. Some impotent that is. If Hitler were a bit smarter he might have ended up with a Greater Reich and I would have become a cake of soap.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Well, it's not that your argument is wrong, it's not deep enough. In Rand's world potency represents creation. Impotency, destruction. When one goes to war, justified morally or not, one goes to destroy both lives and property. German potency failed in Russia and Germany lost the war, "Panzer Korp" and all. This name, BTW, wasn't introduced until 1942, long after the conquest of Poland (Wikipedia).

--Brant