We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day If anything, it is the failure of multiculturalism to generate real reciprocal respect and provide legitimate avenues to social participation that provides the psychotic self-justification the murderers indulge in as part of their vision of nirvana.
– Andrew Jakubowicz, a sociology professor, explains to Australian newspaper readers that suicide bombers have nothing to do with Islam.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Scott Wickstein writes:
“… a sociology professor, explains to Australian newspaper readers that suicide bombers have nothing to do with Islam.”
An opinion, according to the poll in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph, not shared by many Moslems.
Perhaps we should expect nothing better of a sociologist?
The nutty professor appears to be saying that all our problems arise because we are not multiculti enough. He would have a point if there was any common ground between Islamic fundamentalism and Western freedom. But there is no common ground.
I’ve been trying to fathom out what makes Islamic fundamentalists tick. It doesn’t help us to focus on the day to day issues. Expressing shock and horror, with reactions ranging from self guilt and cringing appeasement to a desire to attack and expel all Muslims are simply knee jerk reactions.
Is it possible that a state of brainwashing is a perfectly natural, even desirable, innate, and genetically determined human state? Over the first few years of life such a process would allow us to be socialised and to fit in with our family and society. It is easy to see why such a process might have evolved. If this is the case then we are all brainwashed.
PC multiculti relativists are advised not to read the next sentence as it will be upsetting for them. The only distinction between any of us is that some brainwashing is good (socially desirable), and some brainwashing is bad (socially undesirable).
If you consider cults such as the Moonies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Family etc. is what has happened in their brains any different to what happens in the heads of Islamic fundamentalists? I raise this question because there are many recorded cases of cult victims being kidnapped by friends or family and restored to sanity by psychiatrists who specialise in this area of treatment.
The above thoughts suggest that to stop future problems our highest priority must be to stop anti-Western ideological indoctrination, and replace it with indoctrination of our own to encourage logic, reason and an ability to think critically. (Note to Phoney Tony: Stop promoting faith schools you dingbat. It can only make things worse).
Maybe those already infected with the fundamentalist virus can be treated and re-programmed?
John East wonders:
“The only distinction between any of us is that some brainwashing is good (socially desirable), and some brainwashing is bad (socially undesirable).”
The great psychologist B.F. Skinner certainly thought so (see Beyond Freedom and Dignity .)
His was a chilling vision which, though it is widely reviled, has yet to be thoroughly disproved.
GCooper,
I have always been anti-Skinner. His philosophy reduces us to little more than biological robots, and I agree it is a chilling vision. However, I would not agree that any of what I said in my post has been, “…thoroughly disproved….”
If Mr. East re-reads my post he will see that what I actually wrote was that Skinner’s work has yet to be thoroughly disproved.
I passed no opinion on Mr. East’s speculation, other than suggesting it bore some resemblance to Skinner’s ideas.
skinner raised psychology from philosophy to a science IMO I just stumbled accross samizdata in my quest for ‘truth’ and know the feeling of “EUREKA” Here is a brief, self aggrandizing synopsis of me: Honest,informed, happy, libertarian, hetero, intelligent, ‘nerd/geek lover’, aspie, atheist, artist, writer paleoanthropologist, pirate etc. 100% lover of freedom & all that is good. Also an anarchist & despiser of ALL religions & governments. Looking for my ‘mind doppelgangers’ I don’t care what age, sex, size, shape, nationality, race or color u r, Simply that your minds not be crippled by lies. I am the originator of the CAL-HOHO-HAHA’s >> Capitalist, Atheist, Libertarian, Hedonist, Objectivist, Heterosexual, Original, Heroic, Anarchist, Humourist, Association… all volunteers LOL.. so far there are two members and that includes moi!. I am not an activist, .I am a researcher, writer, a maveric, semi hermit, totally liberated and financially secure. So it’s easy for me ..yeah right!! pleased to meetcha P-{
Sorry GCooper. I must practice my reading.
John East writes:
“Sorry GCooper. I must practice my reading.”
Absolutely not a problem. In the rapid cut and thrust that goes on here, we’ve all done it.
Poor Mr Jakubowicz is so confused he manages to make multiple errors in a single sentence. Multiculturalism hasn’t failed Indian Hindus, who are three times as likely to be employed as their Muslim counterparts. The failure lies entirely with Muslims who are too busy with dawa and jihad to bother finding work. And there is no need for any “psychotic self-justification”, because the core teachings of Islam provide all the necessary justification, and this is backed up by mainstream clerics such as Qaradawi and others.
The only possible strategy for dealing with Islam is to expose its teachings to constant scrutiny. Let everyone see what’s in the Koran and Sunna. Let everyone see the website of al-Sistani, (the leading religious figure in Iraq), where he equates unbelievers with urine and feces. If we apply ourselves relentlessly in this direction, we might eventually create a situation where people become too ashamed to admit any connection with Islam, and abandon it completely. Unfortunately, by banning free speech, this goal will be much harder to achieve, and we are going to make the situation a lot worse than it might otherwise have been.
Unbeliever has the most intelligent solution I have read so far. What is astounding in all this multiculti crap is how little the British know about the guiding principles of the religion of the enemy in their midst. (And no, Perry, I am not saying all 1.6m Muslims in Britain are the enemy, but their religion predisposes them to be so – although the more intelligent and ambitious ones escape.)
Iqbal Sacristy and Igloo (Inuit Bungalow) and other self-appointed spokesmen drone on in sneering, haughty tones of superiority, and the native population, and the immigrants who have intelligently woven themselves into the tapestry of our national lives, sit and nod meekly, without a clue what the hell they’re talking about. “Islam is a religion of peace,” drones Bungalow. “Islam is a religion of peace” responds the native population.
Their koran needs to be opened up and commented on. How many people know that Mohammad married a six-year old girl, but held off from consummating the marriage until she was nine? War and conquest and cruelty in the name of allah is all they hear. We need to hear it too – although ironically, telling people what’s really in the koran instead of what the Islamics want you to know would be regarded as incitement to religious hatred. They – meaning the islamics and the self-loathing British multiculti fascist left – do not want you to know the guiding principles of islam.
Let’s shine a light on this four wives crapola. Let’s have less of what a lovely little boy Ahmad is because he doesn’t eat during ramadan and more of what a little shit he is going to grow up to be because he believes in beheading living, conscious humans in the name of his god. Let’s have less of the holiness of praying five times a day (try getting anything done in an islamic country; they’re always away from their posts praying) and more about plans to reestablish the caliphate.
You are right, Unbeliever. We need a harsh spotlight on islam. It is not a nice religion and they mean us harm.
I, too, think there’s a lot of merit in Unbeliever’s suggestion.
We’re not only up against Moslem clerics lying about their beliefs, we are also up against the second front (the liberal intelligentsia) doing exactly the same thing.
Almost certainly, were the man on the Clapham omnibus made aware of what this is all about, he might feel rather differently about the presence of so many militant Moslems in this country.
Always assuming, of course, that the Clapham omnibus in question isn’t blown to smithereens.
Verity I agree it is a good strategy to expose the bullshit but I have one caveat. Whatever is exposed must be referenced so it can be checked as honest and not fictional mud slinging. Where untruths are held up to ridicule the holder is made ridiculous and the intended targets are made stronger. If we are to acuse Muslims of saying or believing that babies should only be eaten for breakfast then we must also show where they make this claim.
Bernie writes:
“If we are to acuse Muslims of saying or believing that babies should only be eaten for breakfast then we must also show where they make this claim.”
No, you fool – that’s Republicans!
On the Skinner and other such psych bullshit ideas that we are “nothing more than biological robots” and that such ideas have not been “disproved”:
Are you kidding? That is equivalent to saying there is no such thing as reason, judgement, honesty, responsibility, free will or anything else we value highly in each other. If that were so why bother indulging in any attempt to persuade? It would be fruitless. Force (brainwashing) would be the only effective method of changing another person’s mind. The concept of freedom would be so small as to not be worth anything and totalitarianism would be the only “logical” way to go.
Doh!
Bernie writes (regarding BF Skinner):
“Are you kidding?”
I’m sorry. I don’t disagree with your objections to some of the implication’s of Skinner’s theories, but they are emotional responses and thus do not constitute proof that he was wrong.
Skinner, whatever we may think of him, established significant scientific evidence to back his beliefs.
Simply saying he was wrong because it makes us uncomfortable (and it makes me uncomfortable, too) isn’t worth much as a scientific statement.
Which was why I said that his theories haven’t been disproved.
Bernie, I am baffled by what motivated you to impress on all us children that only the referenced truth should be exposed. Did anyone suggest otherwise? Have you read the posts? Why on earth would we say anything as infantile as Muslims eat babies for breakfast when that is beyond absurd?
Unbeliever’s suggestion is very intelligent and thoughtful. The only thing is, it won’t be allowed to be implemented because the fascist left knows that a great deal of islamic thought is indefensible.
I don’t think he is wrong because it makes me uncomfortable. If I thought he was right then it wouldn’t matter how I felt about it. He is wrong because there are such things as free will, responsibility and decency, and these things are not programable.
If there is a claim that such things are not proven to exist scientifically then the scientific method of those who make such claims is highly suspect. You may not be able to put reason into a test tube but you can still demonstrate it to exist.
Bernie writes:
” He is wrong because there are such things as free will, responsibility and decency, and these things are not programable.”
I don’t think those who support Skinner’s ‘operant conditioning’ ideas really disbelieve in free will. They probably just believe less in it than you or I.
But as we’re straying off-topic, I’ll shut up now, save to say that I think the madrassas are doing a damned fine job of confirming at least some his theories.
Its my role in life to enlighten the masses 🙂
I wasn’t suggesting anyone had said that Muslims eat babies for breakfast but was attempting to cleverly use that to illustrate that a falsehood presented as a claim can easily backfire. Maybe not so clever. I was not suggesting that anyone had made false claims about Muslim beliefs but wherever I read claims that cast others in a bad light I tend to discount whatever is said that isn’t documented and reliable.
Bernie,
I feel as if I might be coming over as a touchy feely sociologist, and nothing could be further from the truth as I still think that an appropriate cure for indiscriminating mass murdering religious fanaticism is several bullets in the back of the head.
However, if we are to beat fanatics, it can only be to our advantage to try and understand them. When you highlight qualities such as reason, judgement, honesty, responsibility, and free will I took you to mean that these traits are either innate human qualities, or at least distinctly different from fanatical beliefs, but are you sure that this is the case? I’m playing devils advocate a bit here because half of me agrees with this interpretation, but if you were to talk with a religious fanatic his set of beliefs would be held just as sincerely as yours. What would it take for you to be persuaded to turn against reason, judgement, honesty, responsibility, and free will? You might rightly say that you could never be forced to give up these virtues, and the fanatic will echo this equally strongly from his perspective.
That’s why I see no mileage in dialogue or compromise which only leaves violence or brainwashing. I think that the latter, whilst not a very nice thing to contemplate is the lesser of two evils.
Thank you Verity. Sistani’s website is very useful for opening the minds of those who find it hard to believe that mainstream Islam regards us as filth. For anyone who has the opportunity to show that website to people who are in any doubt about this issue, here is the url:
al-Sistani’s website
Select “Najis things” from the upper select box, and the list will appear below. (“Najis” means “unclean”, and item eight on the list is “Kafir” – unbelievers.)
Force alone is the way to get someone to turn against these things.
Honesty could be defined as saying that what you see is indeed what you see and not something else. You could be guided to look a bit closer or from a different angle and thus see that what you thought you saw was in fact a mistake. But your sanity, reason and even your life depend upon trusting your own perception. You would be in a sorry state indeed if anyone ever managed to convince you that you should not trust your perception. I know there are such things as optical illusions and other such tricks but these are still resolved by looking closer or from a different angle and are resolved in the same way.
“Education” by authority is one way to bypass perception and is done in all our schools and by most parents of whatever faith or otherwise. As we grow up some of us get to question the things “learnt” in this way and so adjust our outlooks. Much religion is taught by the authority method. Such and such is true because (God or your father or a great teacher) says so. But science and other subjects are also taught this way in our schools.
I think the only sure cure is for a person to come to see for himself that an idea is incorrect because he sees that it is. So you have to get a person to look for himself. Forcing things down his throat might get a desired response but it wouldn’t be an honest one so is dangerous.
Bernie, your view, “I think the only sure cure is for a person to come to see for himself that an idea is incorrect because he sees that it is.” is laudable, but I think we are more likely to see the world wide Caliphate established before the Islamic fanatics come round to your point of view.
John none of what I said means we should accept any kind of behaviour from those out to destroy us purely because of their poor education! We should still defend ourselves against barbarity with whatever force is necessary to maintain our own culture. I hope I’m not coming across as a “touchy feely sociologist” too.
What interested me about Unbeliever’s suggestion was, it was positive and unemotional, and he isn’t suggesting addressing Muslims. He is simply saying: shine a spotlight on their religion. Open it up for all to look at.
Right now, the only “experts” – none of them slow to lecture the host society – are Islamic. Let’s have the general public reading texts from the Koran in the newspapers. Let’s hear people on talk shows mentioning that they read that Muslims regard non-believers as filthy. Let’s hear someone say, “Their holy book refers to Jews as sons of pigs and monkeys. Bit over the top that, don’t you think?” Let’s hear a character on Coronation St or Eastenders say her daughter was dating a Muslim boy and his parents told him she was unclean.
Let’s get this thing out in the general public and every time Islam is mentioned, it doesn’t have to be in the presence of a muslim spokesman who is going to hold his hands up and say, “No, no! You’re taking it out of context!” Or, “You can’t possibly know what the koran says because you can’t read Arabic.” Or, “We only approve of stoning homosexuals to death in some instances.” We do not need the religious police on the set every time native Brits mention the word muslim. It should be out in the arena as a subject to be talked about.
At the moment, broadcasters think they can’t have anyone say the word “islam” unless there’s a muslim “spokesman” on hand to correct everyone and explain where they’re going wrong.
I think this is what Unbeliever was saying – somewhat more economically with words!
And Bernie, Unbeliever was not suggesting we try to dissuade muslims from their religion. We’re saying it should be opened up to general discussion – stop being so secret, like an exclusive society. Everyone should know about it and be free to say they think stoning women to death for committing adultery is barbaric. End of story.
Little by little, drip by drip, some Islamics will begin to see what their brains are mired in and will start reconsidering. And yes, some may start being embarrassed by it. This would have to come from the disapproval and humour of the 58.5m or Brits who aren’t islamic – but people can’t laugh at islam or discuss it properly until they know about it.
Verity I entirely agree.
How on earth is anyone supposed to know that a group of armed men — whether white, black or asian — is not an armed gang? Criminals can’t get guns in England because gun control is 100% effective? White people don’t join the mafia or the mob or what have you?
Are you seriously proposing that the onus should be on a poor vicitm not to run from armed men chasing him or her with guns drawn on the assumption that they’re police because they’re white? What if you have enemies? Why could not any criminal gang use this as their modus operandi for assassinations – posing as police?
In the U.S., where I live, criminals have been known to impersonate the police to get inside houses and commit crimes. How much easier to do so in plainclothes?
Whoops — posted in the wrong area, sorry.
Verity, Unbeleiver,
Isn’t that what MEMRI(Link) is doing ?
The problem is, people aren’t really interested.
Jacob writes:
“The problem is, people aren’t really interested.”
Well, two responses to that. The first is that, because of its alleged origins, MEMRI is slandered in the UK as an Israeli propaganda exercise.
The second is that the average person (the person we need to get to) doesn’t trawl websites for this sort of news. It needs to be on radio and TV and in popular daily newspapers.
Exactly, G Cooper. But, of course, it will not get on TV and radio because Igloo (Inuit Bungalow) and Sir Siqbal Sacristy will scream racial prejudice, and 1.6m islamists trump 58.5m native Brits and immigrants who have woven themselves into our national landscape without fuss.
Jacob, you are right, many people seem disinclined to think about the problems posed by Islam. They’d rather get on with the more pleasant things in life than worry about a primitive ideology that threatens the fabric of Western societies. All we can do is try to echo what MEMRI is doing on a local level, amongst family, friends, and colleagues.
Unbeliever had the right idea: No one wants to listen to facts about Islam. They don’t believe them. They don’t believe that this would be allowed in Britain, so they tune it out. One way or another, it must get on the mainstream media, woven into plotlines in soap operas, celebrities talking about it on talk shows for laughs (“iz mum said I was unclean, so then I goes, so wot does that make you, you ol’ crone – wen was the las’ time you washed that filthy burkar?”) – it has to be opened up. This is our country.
Our leaders have to stop throwing platitudes at Islam, too. Look at what John Howard said in his widely lauded response to a journo at the recent Howard/Blair press conference :
JH’s answer in its entirety was powerful, however he got the above part wrong. These terrorists aren’t some rogue element who are ignoring the edicts of Islam. Their actions have doctrinal support. They are legitimate Muslims. It’s about time our leaders started calling a spade a spade.
James,
Our JH, even the dreaded Tony, knows that Islam is far from a religion of peace. It’s just that they have to keep up the mantra:
(a) in the hope that it will brainwash Islamists into believing that it just might be a religion of peace (Islam has its dumb-ass believers who might actually believe Tony – yes I know, hard to believe);
(b) as the full horror of Islam, as defined by its deeds (see recent London bombing), is revealed over time, they can then clamp down on the loonies and ship them off without predictable outrage from the local (but socialised into passiveness) inhabitants.
ADE
Once el phonio gets his “religious hate crime” legislation in place, will we even be able to have this conversation? New labour, New thought crime.
Our JH, even the dreaded Tony, knows that Islam is far from a religion of peace. It’s just that they have to keep up the mantra:
(a) in the hope that it will brainwash Islamists into believing that it just might be a religion of peace (Islam has its dumb-ass believers who might actually believe Tony – yes I know, hard to believe);
(b) as the full horror of Islam, as defined by its deeds (see recent London bombing), is revealed over time, they can then clamp down on the loonies and ship them off without predictable outrage from the local (but socialised into passiveness) inhabitants.
Ah yes and christianity is a non-violent religion.
Let’s face it, the muslims have had one country after another invade them and kill their people since the 12th century. If I were a muslim I’d hate christians too.
Run that by me again, Bubba.
That quote is crap.
Yes, blame ‘multiculturalism’ for the rise of the terrorisers. It wouldn’t have anything to do with the opaquely antiarabian policy, fastened to the mantle of the United States with Israeli screws.
And don’t go too far … the Israelis are as much pawn in this as the Arabs.
“If anything, it is the success of multiculturalism to deny fake one-way disrespectation, and withhold illegitimate inroads to antisocial nonparticipation that withholds the rational justification the lifebringers partake in as part of their vision of hell.”
Suicide is not something that is indulged in. Something is fucked up here. These people are dying to kill you, and ours are killing to die for us.
Jakubowicz is pomp.
Worldpeace,
Ben
How exactly is the UK pro-Israel? Seems to me the UK policy towards Israel is one of complete indifference, which pretty much mirrors the views of most Brits to be honest.