RE: Islam and Europe and Joe

From: Scott Chase (
Date: Fri 22 Nov 2002 - 18:50:48 GMT

  • Next message: Lawrence DeBivort: "RE: Islam and Europe and Joe"

    >Subject: RE: Islam and Europe and Joe
    >Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 12:32:25 -0600
    > >
    > > Hi, Scott,
    > > By 'anti-Semitic' I mean bigoted against any or all Semitic races,
    > > including Arabs. Islam, being a religion, would not be included,
    > > though of course many Muslims are Arabs and vice versa. My experience
    > > of bigots is that their bigotry can swing around at anytime to attack
    > > anyone who is 'different,' so it should not bring much comfort to Jews
    > > - or anyone else - that Joe has so far focused his anti-Semitism on
    > > Arabs and Muslims.
    > >
    >Here is another blatant example of Lawrence's bullus shittus. I am
    >critical of a violent, virulent, cannibalistic memeset known as Radical
    >Islam, which may contain members of any ethnicity. Lawrence merely
    >parades his own bigotrous prejudices when he cluelessly equates a
    >memeset with a particular ethnicity.
    > >
    > >{Someday, when we have nothing else to talk about,
    > > we can explore whether the support of US Christian fundamentalists for
    > > Israel's territorial aggrandizement is _support_ for Israel, or an
    > > odd and powerful form of anti-Jewish anti-Semitism. Not that would be
    > > an interesting discussion!)
    > >
    >That would indeed be an interesting discussion.
    > >
    > > One of the insights of the US civil rights
    > > movement is that until there is tolerance for all, there can be
    > > tolerance for none, and in Joe we see the quintessential bigot: a
    > > raging anger against things and people he cannot understand; a
    > > recourse to binary, simplistic 'me-good, you-bad' thinking; and a
    > > biased selection of 'facts' for obsessive repetition; and, a pervasive
    > > paranoia - 'they are out to get me.'
    > >
    >Actually, it is not paranoia when they are really out to get you, or
    >anyone who is not clones of them, to convert or die, as the Radical
    >Islamicists vociferously maintain. Those who are not concerned by
    >such a phenomenon have not truly understood it. It is paradoxical, yet
    >nevertheless true, that the one thing that tolerant people cannot tolerate
    >is the intolerance of others, when that intolerance veers beyond
    >dissociation into conquest. Lawrence's abject inability to grasp this
    >simple principle reveals him to be quintissentially uncomprehending.
    > >
    > >It is sad, really, for a couple
    > > of reasons: Joe is not stupid, so there is in principle a waste of
    > > intellectual capability going on, and it occupies time and space on
    > > our list.
    > >
    >Actually, umm, no. I am interested in how strategies can be contrived to
    >defang this most noxious of memesets.
    > >
    > >Joe will never understand that we are here to study memes as
    > > objects, because instead he gets caught up inside them.
    > >
    >It is Lawrence who is caught up in a memeset; he attacke any remark
    >critical of the voracious nature of the radical Islamic memeplex. It
    >makes me wonder if that is his chosen faith.
    > >
    > > And Joe's
    > > raging bigotry is toxic; to the extent that anyone buys into it, it
    > > impedes the ability of the US to form intelligent and effective views
    > > of the world, and so to find our way to effective international
    > > policies.
    > >
    >I would argue that Lawrence's call to blissfully ignore devastating and
    >catastrophic events driven by such a voracious memeplex is itself a call
    >for cultural suicide; like telling one dog to roll over and expose its
    >in submission, even though the other dog will eagerly rip out its entrails.
    > >
    > > The consequence is that the US alienates itself from a world
    > > in which we need all the friends possible. It is ironic, too. Joe
    > > makes President Bush look like a model of insight, understanding,
    > > tolerance and leadership.
    > >
    >And now Bush is criticized for going the multilateralist route, and getting
    >not only the okay of the US congress and the vote of the US populace
    >in midterm elections, but also a unanimous UN security council
    >resolution and the support of NATO. I did not vote for Dubya, and do
    >not support his domestic or environmental agendas. However, that fact
    >does not mutate into an unreasoning hatred of the things he has done
    >right. The Bush-haters have insisted that Dubya do exactly as he has
    >done. First, they said, get the Congress to okay it. then they said,
    >see what the American people think. After that, they said the UN needs
    >to be consulted, and then they said that NATO should be consulted,
    >also. Every time he has met their demands, they have raised the bar,
    >only to be appalled when he in turn pole-vaulted the new demand.
    > >
    > > Joe lines up with the Falwells and Pat
    > > Robertsons of our country, and only make the job of the President
    > > harder.
    > >
    >Now, there are two people who closely resemble the very Radical
    >Muslims who concern me. They attack ALL Muslims, which I do not do,
    >just as Radical Muslims attack ALL Christians, and indeed anyone who
    >is not Muslim.
    > >
    > > Joe will rush to say that he is anti-religion, but his
    > > bigotry is on a par and with and of the same nature as Falwell's and
    > > Robertson's.
    > >
    >And I have just explained why this is another Lawry lie. Still working the
    >character-impugning ad hominem line, ayy, Lawry, when you cannot
    >context points on their merits?
    > >
    > > Having said all of that, I will also say that Joe's
    > > presence here on this list is interesting and not without value: it
    > > gives us our own case study of memetic warfare, and reveals a dark
    > > side of the American soul, a dark side that harks back to the
    > > foundations of our country - the dispossession of native peoples by
    > > Europeans colonialists, slavery, anti-black prejudice, religious
    > > fundamentalism, and now, international bullying in the form of
    > > power-based relationships.
    > >
    >Ahh - here we get a glimpse into the foundations of Lawry's own
    >memeset, the one to which he is in thrall, the one that motivates his
    >talibanic attacks. America is forever, for this clueless one, a
    >personification of the Heart of Darkness, which is why he probably
    >PREFERS an active Al Quaeda and a Nuke-toting Saddam. Anyone to
    >wield the sword of righteousness against the infidels. This is why
    >criticisms of Radical Muslims and Tin-Horn despots so deeply dismay
    >Lawry; they share the same hates, thus the enemy of Lawry's enemy
    >must become his friend, and must be defended in his inimitable US-
    >bashing way.
    > >
    > > I know that not everyone here is interested
    > > in this memetic battle, and sympathize. As with the battles that
    > > attended these other dark issues, we can't always choose our case
    > > studies. Sometimes they choose us <smile> Best regards, Lawry
    > >
    >You do make a good case study in why so much of the euro-trashing
    >that goes on (as a complement to the US-bashing) is so richly
    >deserved. It is because there are as many Euros like you as there are
    >Muslims who are Al Quaeda sympathizers.
    > >
    > > Scott:
    > > In what way are you using the label "anti-Semitism"? The term has a
    > > specific application AFAICT, meaning "hostility toward or
    > > discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group"
    > > [from MWCD10]. Is your application broader than this (ie- hostility
    > > etc. against Arabs or Muslims) or has Joe posted diatribes against
    > > Jews? I realize that Semites include the groups of Arabs and Jews but
    > > thought anti-Semitism had a more specific application.
    > >
    >Bingo. Lawry is inadvertently engaging in a psychological projection of
    >his own prejudices.
    > >
    > > Joe may be posting stuff that goes a little far in negative attitide
    > > towards Islam, but he could see himself as countering apologetics
    > > seen in the attitudes of others.
    > >
    >Lawry forgets that Jews are Semitic; for Lawry, I'm guessing that he
    >would prefer that Jews not exist at all. This European antisemitism has
    >dark and well-known roots, and a horrible history, and it would not
    >surprise me at all if Lawry shared it. For the enemy of his enemies is
    >his friend; thus the enemy of his new friend must be his enemy, also.
    Whoah there, calm down. I realize that Lawry may have ticked you off with some of his pinpricks, but that's no reason to go off the deep end and characterize him in such a way.

    BTW I share some of Lawry's critical attitude towards Israeli policies and some of the history behind the creation of the Israeli state (eg- the Palestinian nakba).

    I wish he'd apply his font of wisdom to being more critical of Islamist tendencies too.

    _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*

    =============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri 22 Nov 2002 - 18:53:33 GMT