Who Is IOZ?: Ultraviolence

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Ultraviolence

Oi ye bollocks. What have ye all got on about? God? Why he's the real problem, i'n't it? I've a mind ta knock the old pouf in his pouf face for tryin ta kill them slags.

Yeah, ye heard me all right. I say it was God that dunnit, God and his dirty Muslim hordes, that's who.

Great Britain is rot through and through with these swine. Winston Churchill, God bless his soul, he would've gassed the lot of them. It's ye liberals, Gordon Smith on down the daisy chain, who're bollocksing England up for the rest of us. Oi these Muslims are inbred as a clan of Hapsburgs.

Ye skeevy Labour bastards. I hope God gets ta ever last one of ye. That'll teach ye.

37 comments:

Brian said...: I don't think CH is saying God done it. He's saying people who believe so fervently in God (or Allah in this case) done it. And, he's right.

Heck, we are certainly raping in pillaging in the name of OUR God, don't you know? (Mammon, of course). So, it's a battle of warring theocracies.

Seriously, though....hating American (and western) imperial history and policy doesn't mean that we have to love every alternative world view. Sorry to say I'm not in love with Islamism. Of course, if we would just get our butts out of the rest of the world, they would have less incentive to hate us, but Mammon is a demanding God and we gotta stay!; 10:54 AM
Scruggs said...: Brian, that binary is purely Hitchens' problem. Your objection to being run over by truck won't make you objectively pro-being run over by a steamroller.; 11:23 AM
Ellen1910 said...: Allah is an oriental potentate exhibiting that kind's usual willfulness, arbitrariness, and stupidity. He doesn't belong anywhere in the West -- nor for that matter do we belong in the East.; 1:02 PM
IOZ said...: "An oriental potentate."; 1:09 PM
Brian said...: Scruggs: I know that. But, the binary sometimes gets lost. On the one hand, we have the raving Islamophobes who think we need to kick some Islamobutt because they are disappointingly not stepping up to the plate in Iraq and properly selling off the entire country to the US. On the other hand, you have well-meaning liberals earnestly consulting with raving lunatic mullahs who think bombings are just fine.

I think a pox on both of their houses, although I acknowledge (America-blamer that I am) that it is the West who has institigated this violence through its own meddlings. Still...I have no sympathy with some nutcase who blows up a car in the middle of a British shopping center. Or, someone who raves that Sharia must be established in Canada. I'm sorry, Islam is not the solution. Neither, of course, is Seligmanized Corporate America, but...; 1:47 PM
Evan said...: Somebody ought to tell either Hitchens or the terrorists (or both parties perhaps) that in the peculiar conventions of bar language, "Ladies' Night" generally = "Extra Desperate Sausage Fest".; 2:28 PM
Scruggs said...: Brian, there's no parity to the threat posed by each. My metaphor was ill considered.

The feckless and silly liberals are nothing but useful idiots for the security state, which is a threat to everyone regardless of what they worship, or don't, and regardless of what color their skin may be. The silly liberals' job is to make an annoying noise unto the Lord, whoever the Lord may be. The mullahs have a few thousand people, most of whom are as Juan Cole described: cranks.

There's no clash of civilizations or anything like that.; 2:30 PM
Brian said...: True vis a vis the degree of threat posed by, say, a George W. Bush (or an Obama or Hillary) to the world (how many tens of thousands have we DIRECTLY slaughtered in Afghanistan, Somalia, and Iraq by now?)versus the Mad Mullahs.

I remain unconvinced, though, that radical Islam is such a powerless force. It is an idea that conquered half the world.

That does not mean I support the useless security state apparatus and bureaucratic nonsense (or the gutting of the few remaining legal protections). Nor do I think there is a "War of Civillizations."

All that I am saying is that anti-war liberals and libertarians and even paleocons need to avoid cozying up too much to the mullahs and mad imans. They lack the power of our Nutty President, but they are not powerless and they are not nice. Maybe that makes me a scaredy cat liberal, but I think there is an ideological problem out there.

The difficulty is that I am a citizen of the United States. Although the laws of karma suggest that the United States may in some way "deserve" punishment for its sins, my own self interest says that supporting the enemies we have created is not a good idea-even if I didn't find their ideology even more appalling than the current theocracy under the mailgn rule of Deus Mammon.

I'm babbling a bit, sorry. I don't think we disagree per se.; 4:22 PM
IOZ said...: I think you'd be hard-pressed to identify a libertarian, anti-war liberal, or paleocon "cozying up" to any Mullahs.; 6:04 PM
Brian said...: Less so here in the United States. There seem to be an awful lot of them doing so in the UK, though. Nasty, nasty individuals glorified as "representatives" of their "community" while they raise funds from Saudi Arabia for suicide bombings.; 6:23 PM
Scruggs said...: Brian, you mean these UK guys?; 7:55 PM
Brian said...: LOL Scruggs. You got me there.

That IS why I talk about our own religious fundamentalism, Deus Mammon.

I would point you to www.butterfliesandwheels.com.

Sorry to be so unsympathetic, but religious fanaticism of all kinds frightens me.; 8:13 PM
Scruggs said...: The proprietor of Butterflies and Wheels tried to cut off my toes with a bolt cutter, Brian. She hates me for the insults I heaped on Sir Salman's books and all that snarking about Enlightenment fetishism. That's bad enough, but then I claimed her Wheeloids were as humorless and hysterical as any fundies. I'm lucky to have kept my toes. Cruise missile liberals are nasty.; 8:36 PM
Brian said...: Ah, but only a few of her patrons are truly cruise missile liberals, Scruggs. I know very few support the Iraq debaccle, and only a few are eager for more "humanitarian" campaigns. She is indeed rather doctrinaire, but as I share her....distrust...of those who speak for "God." One can be adamantly opposed to the (upcoming?) Iranian adventure without loving the mullahs. And, I don't think looking askance at their purity campaigns AUTOMATICALLY means one is pro-war. But...given the need to feed Deus Mammon, maybe I am naive.; 10:58 PM
Scruggs said...: Some may not be too verbally eager, directly, for another immoral catastrophe but when it comes time to cast their votes on the issue they'll weigh their choice as carefully as a bombardier following orders. Until then, they'll spend a good deal of their energy -- as the Wheeloids do -- tackling anti-war caricatures and intoning pieties about their Enlightenment Values. Brian, really they're as neurotic as any wingnut. Those who are anti-war on Iraq are anti this war at this time as opposed to anti-empire.; 11:34 PM
Brian said...: Perhaps so. Mr. Scruggs. I don't think Ophelia herself is all that interested in "Empire."

I guess I too, am doctrinaire on some of their issues. Frankly, I'm not too patient with the pieties of the priests, mullahs, and immans, Especially when said pieties and "traditional cultural values" lead to 16 year old girls being stoned to death. Especially when one is told that all the floods are the responsibility of the godless queers. So...maybe that makes me doctrinaire???; 12:33 AM
Ellen1910 said...: Until Muslim leaders stand up and proclaim loudly that these glory-hounds are never, ever crossing as-Sirat, I'm with Hitchens.; 12:40 AM
Scruggs said...: Brian, shall we compare lists of horrors? I've got folders full of dreadful miseries imposed right here in the land of Enlightenment Values® We can start with cretinous control freaks tasing elderly people for contempt of cop and move on to executions using chemicals considered too cruel to be used on dogs. La mission civilatrice starts at home! First cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. Etc. . .

There's never been any shortage of horrible people over there. Nor has there ever been any shortage of people willing to send them some modernity through the blessing of munitions. Our own slouching beasts are always happy to provide the cluster bombs, depleted uranium and fuel/air explosions they need to feel all grown up.

-------------

"Until Muslim leaders stand up and proclaim loudly that these glory-hounds are never, ever crossing as-Sirat, I'm with Hitchens."

You're in luck. They do so on regular basis.; 9:16 AM
Ellen1910 said...: Hey; great! Citation? Link? Something you heard on the old radio?; 10:44 AM
hipparchia said...: ellen, some places to start:

http://www.bostonnow.com/news/local/2007/05/22/boston_muslims/

http://www.masnet.org/takeaction.asp?id=4140

my guess: there are lots of muslims, many of them prominent in their communities, who denounce extremism, and that the msm just doesn't publicize this. sells more newspapaers, radio air time, etc, if you let the general populace go on believing that they're all out to kill us.; 12:17 PM
hipparchia said...: evan, i'm pretty sure that hitchens does know exactly what "ladies night" really means. i don't read him all that often, but my impression is that he slants his writing to be as imflammatory as possible, rather than clear-eyed and truthful. i'm not the least bit convinced that hitchens actually cares about women and feminist values.; 12:28 PM
Brian said...: First cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. Etc

Can't deny that. Still...liberals cozying up to ant-establishment religious wackos of whatever flavor (Ol' Tony Blair was mighty close to some of the "Christian" side as well-and nobody every demanded the mountain folks responsible for hiding Eric Rudolph disavow their actions either) is not the solution, either.; 4:14 PM
Scruggs said...: Brian, that sounds an awful lot like the stuff at Harry's Place, where they construe a pro-wacko agenda through some arcane metric devised by Norman Geras. They haven't heard loud demands that X or Y bad thing be disavowed or condemned. Therefore X or Y bad thing has been condonded. They have heard people urging the rulers of the state not to overreact. Therefore they're objectively pro-wacko. Because, hey, wackos exploit liberalism to further their goals. But the people harboring and assisting Rudolph have been roundly condemned. All the bad things get condemned all the time -- both by people on the receiving end and the people who belong to the groups assigned collective responsibility. Meanwhile the rulers of the state set up complex and deniable means of funding the wackos.; 4:29 PM
Ellen1910 said...: Not particularly persuasive, hypparchia!

Saying to a non-Muslim American audience that "from a Muslim perspective [where've we heard that before?] suicide bombing of civilians simply cannot be justified in any circumstance" is hardly telling Muslims that they're going to Hell for doing it.

I gather the 25% of young Muslims IN THE UNITED STATES -- never mind anywhere else in the world -- who believe that "suicide bombings to defend their religion are acceptable in at least some situations" have obviously not been told they're going to Hell.; 9:28 PM
Brian said...: That's not what I'm really saying, Mr. Scruggs. What I am really complaining about is major "liberal" (and wingnut, for that matter) politicans cozying up to people with some scary, scary viewpoints.; 2:39 AM
hipparchia said...: my intent wasn't to persuade, ellen, only to provide some starting points for further research, if anyone was interested. i leave the masterful rhetorical flourishes to ioz.

i haven't ever thought about looking for the data, but i do wonder what percentage of young christians in the united states believe that killing other people "to defend their religion are acceptable in at least some situations." i'd bet it's pretty high where i live.; 7:17 AM
IOZ said...: Let me be the one to suggest that as a forward security strategy, demanding that clerics tell congregants that their imaginary deity is going to send them to an imaginary punishment for an imaginary eternity unless they change their evil ways is a paltry strategy indeed.

Meanwhile, I have rarely heard expressed the notion that the boys in the B-52s are gonna burn for killing all them womnyz an chillrun; 9:27 AM
Ellen1910 said...: . . . my guess . . . i haven't ever thought about . . . i'd bet . . . . hipparchia

Hmm.

Question for IOZ: Are the "boys in the B-52s" doing their dastardly deeds -- as the 25% of young American Muslims would have it -- "to defend their religion"?

That's the issue.; 1:08 PM
Keifus said...: Is "defending the American way of life" a religion? Because I've got to think there's just a little bit of fantasy in that particular circumlocution.

K; 1:16 PM
Ellen1910 said...: Well; is it?; 1:27 PM
IOZ said...: That's the issue?

Man alive.

Ellen, I don't know how to break it to you, but the man who kills his neighbor because the dog told him to do it and the man who killed his neighbor because the radio in his teeth told him to do it both, in fact, killed their neighbors.

You have this idea that Islam is a unique ethical system that excuses--even encourages--killing for its own defense and expansion, and you think that by establishing such fact you can come up with a reasonable moral foundation for high-altitude bombing. Islam doesn't tell its followers anything that American exceptionalism doesn't tell its own. Innocents in a marketplace; collateral damage--there is not one iota of difference between a schoolgirl killed by American ordinance and a schoolgirl killed by a car bomb.; 1:34 PM
Scruggs said...: Brian, like who? Bush and the jello-brained Leviticans? They're driven by a sense of entitlement and authoritarianism, to the extent they have any ideological or religious convictions. Scripture means whatever they want it to mean. Plunk a Bush down in the old USSR and he'd be quite happy mouthing Stalininst platitudes. Robertson has the makings of a proud Lysenkoist.

Religion has always adapted itself well to the secular ambitions of the state's rulers, like Wahabbism and the Saudi royals. In its absence, any body of work consisting of enforced double binds and anti-rational contradictions will do. Look at the braying hyper-rationalism of Hitchens! What kind of fool expected anything but bloody slaughter and sociopathic looting from Bush the Lesser? And yet somehow Hitchens found a defender of liberal democracy in him. There's a liberal cozying up to a scary crank for you.; 1:45 PM
Scruggs said...: Ellen, you want some more condemnations? Here are a few. They're robust, scalable, enterprise-level condemnations.; 2:55 PM
Brian Miller said...: Well, Scruggs-I can't disagree with anything you're saying. However, religion is a mighty fine recruiting tool and I don't like people who use it in the way the jello-brained Leviticans or Muslim Association of Britain use it.

I don't want my antiwar heros or politicans cozying up to religious nuts. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend-sometimes he is my enemy, too.

Give me braying hyper-rationalism over religious obscurantism anyday-besides, how rational IS Hitchens really given his falling for the Shrub?

Ioz: I hardly think Islam is unique in its propensity for violence. After all, the last big terrorist attack on American soil was from a wacked out Christian Identity movement fingeoid (trained by our very own military to boot.) (It is interesting that for some reason, "Oklahoma City (didn't) change everything.); 3:03 PM
IOZ said...: Brian--I don't think you'll see me arguing for its uniqueness. I think you'll find me arguing quite the opposite.; 4:19 PM
Evan said...: evan, i'm pretty sure that hitchens does know exactly what "ladies night" really means.

Probably, though I'm less convinced of the rest of your diagnosis of Hitchens' perfidy. I think he's perfectly in earnest, not that THAT means a thing. A perfectly honest true believer is a good deal more dangerous than a bellowing hypocrite, anyway. As for the bombers, I assume they picked "Ladies' Night" on the same literal-minded basis as "World Trade Center" and "American Media Company".; 11:18 PM
hipparchia said...: like most americans, what i actually know about whacko nutjob fanatic religious zealots could be inscribed on a mustard seed, but i suspect they chose that location strictly for logistical purposes: easy to place the car there and leave the scene, plus potential for lots of dead bodies.

i freely admit that in my head i've consigned hitchens to the "bellowing hypocrite" category, and have done so without taking the time to carefully read him.; 9:34 PM

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Ultraviolence

37 comments:

Axis Mundi

About Me

Hypocrites Lecteurs, Semblables, et Frères

Archive