"MY NAME IS SHARI"

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And it is a simple fact that many Palestinians are envious of the way Israelis live and therefore want to destroy that which shames them.

Barbara,

This is a separate issue, so I am giving it a separate post. I need to read more before I can come to this conclusion, or even against it. It is not a simple fact for me because it does not correspond to anything I have experienced with Palestinians and Muslims I have known. Maybe this is an issue. It did not apply to the ones I have known.

The wish for destruction of Jews I did perceive was not based on shame at all. It was more based on a pure tribal kind of thinking where envy played no part. It was something like, "they want to get us, so we want to get them." How accurate that is was not questioned, but that was the overriding sentiment I was able to discern. When this hatred passed a point of intensity, I called (and call) it racism.

I was also able to discern a mixture of Satanic attribution coming from the religious end (but not with all). I have heard Jews scapegoated as some kind of manifestation of Satan in a pure "blank-out" kind of manner. Once again, I was unable to perceive either shame or envy in this. I did perceive hatred as a kind of duty to Allah.

The things I have read so far, outside the Objectivist orbit and some Jewish writers who promote the cultural envy view, tend to support my experience. I intend to read a lot more, though.

I do think the Nazi progeny has had a great deal of influence in this in the Middle East hot spots, but this conclusion was not gained from my personal experience. It was from reading and watching videos of the history I have posted.

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

An interesting and relevant statement. Note the year it was written. Where Hoffer refers to Hitler, one could substitute "Islamists."

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

ISRAEL'S PECULIAR POSITION

by Eric Hoffer (LA Times 5/26/68)

The Jews are a peculiar people: things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews.

Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people and there is no refugee problem.

Russia did it, Poland and Czechoslovakia did it, Turkey threw out a million Greeks, and Algeria a million Frenchman. Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese-and no one says a word about refugees.

But in the case of Israel the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees.

Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single Arab.

Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis.

Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms.

But when Israel is victorious it must sue for peace.

Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world.

Other nations when they are defeated survive and recover but should Israel be defeated it would be destroyed. Had Nasser triumphed last June [1967] he would have wiped Israel off the map, and no one would have lifted a finger to save the Jews. No commitment to the Jews by any government, including our own, is worth the paper it is written on.

There is a cry of outrage all over the world when people die in Vietnam or when two Blacks are executed in Rhodesia. But when Hitler slaughtered Jews no one remonstrated with him.

The Swedes, who are ready to break off diplomatic relations with America because of what we do in Vietnam, did not let out a peep when Hitler was slaughtering Jews.

They sent Hitler choice iron ore, and ball bearings, and serviced his troop trains to Norway.

The Jews are alone in the world. If Israel survives, it will be solely because of Jewish efforts. And Jewish resources. Yet at this moment Israel is our only reliable and unconditional ally. We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us. And one has only to imagine what would have happened last summer [1967] had the Arabs and their Russian backers won the war to realize how vital the survival of Israel is to America and the West in general.

I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us.

Should Israel perish the holocaust will be upon us.

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

Barbara

[Barbara Branden]

And another artkcle, this one by Thomas Sowell.

*Point of no return?*

By Thomas Sowell

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

It is hard to think of a time when a nation -- and a whole civilization

-- has drifted more futilely toward a bigger catastrophe than that

looming over the United States and western civilization today.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran and North Korea mean that it is

only a matter of time before there are nuclear weapons in the hands of

international terrorist organizations. North Korea needs money and Iran

has brazenly stated its aim as the destruction of Israel -- and both its

actions and its rhetoric suggest aims that extend even beyond a second

Holocaust.

Send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.

This is not just another in the long history of military threats. The

Soviet Union, despite its massive nuclear arsenal, could be deterred by

our own nuclear arsenal. But suicide bombers cannot be deterred.

Fanatics filled with hate cannot be either deterred or bought off,

whether Hezbollah, Hamas or the government of Iran.

The endlessly futile efforts to bring peace to the Middle East with

concessions fundamentally misconceive what forces are at work.

Hate and humiliation are key forces that cannot be bought off by

"trading land for peace," by a "Palestinian homeland" or by other such

concessions that might have worked in other times and places.

Humiliation and hate go together. Why humiliation? Because a once-proud,

dynamic culture in the forefront of world civilizations, and still

carrying a message of their own superiority to "infidels" today, is

painfully visible to the whole world as a poverty-stricken and backward

region, lagging far behind in virtually every field of human endeavor.

There is no way that they can catch up in a hundred years, even if the

rest of the world stands still. And they are not going to wait a hundred

years to vent their resentments and frustrations at the humiliating

position in which they find themselves.

Israel's very existence as a modern, prosperous western nation in their

midst is a daily slap across the face. Nothing is easier for demagogues

than to blame Israel, the United States, or western civilization in

general for their own lagging position.

Hitler was able to rouse similar resentments and fanaticism in Germany

under conditions not nearly as dire as those in most Middle East

countries today. The proof of similar demagogic success in the Middle

East is all around.

What kind of people provide a market for videotaped beheadings of

innocent hostages? What kind of people would throw an old man in a

wheelchair off a cruise liner into the sea, simply because he was

Jewish? What kind of people would fly planes into buildings to vent

their hate at the cost of their own lives?

These are the kinds of people we are talking about getting nuclear

weapons. And what of ourselves?

Do we understand that the world will never be the same after hate-filled

fanatics gain the ability to wipe whole American cities off the face of

the earth? Do we still imagine that they can be bought off, as Israel

was urged to buy them off with "land for peace" -- a peace that has

proved to be wholly illusory?

Even ruthless conquerors of the past, from Genghis Khan to Adolf Hitler,

wanted some tangible gains for themselves or their nations -- land,

wealth, dominion. What Middle East fanatics want is the destruction and

humiliation of the west.

Their treatment of hostages, some of whom have been humanitarians

serving the people of the Middle East, shows that what the terrorists

want is to inflict the maximum pain and psychic anguish on their victims

before killing them.

Once these fanatics have nuclear weapons, those victims can include you,

your children and your children's children.

The terrorists need not start out by wiping our cities off the map.

Chances are they would first want to force us to humiliate ourselves in

whatever ways their sadistic imaginations could conceive, out of fear of

their nuclear weapons.

After we, or our children and grandchildren, find ourselves living at

the mercy of people with no mercy, what will future generations think of

us, that we let this happen because we wanted to placate "world opinion"

by not acting "unilaterally"?

We are fast approaching the point of no return.

Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

I need to understand this correctly. Is Hoffer implying that we did not end Hitler's career and when the extent of the Holocaust atrocity was revealed, the world was not horrified?

I thought the 1948 UN proclamation of state of Israel was made in good part because of this.

Michael

EDIT: I fully agree with Sowell that we must prohibit fanatics from getting their hands on nuclear capability. On the issue of suicide bombers, however, the headlines I have been reading recently claim suicide bombers are attacking Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan. I do not recall Jewish people being targeted in these attacks. These Islamist fanatics are run partially on antisemitism, but their hatred seems to be more equal opportunity at times. To continue with the Nazi theme, the Nazi's did not just exterminate Jews. They targeted anyone they felt was in their interest to target. They were all round nasty and these Islamist fanatics seem to act in the same manner.

[Judith]

(HUGE sigh of relief)

Barbara, thank you. You said a lot of what I needed to say. I wish I were coming to Washington this weekend so I could thank you in person. The articles you quoted were right on point.

Michael, I suspect this another one of our typical miscommunications. You tend to see huge, broad pictures, not wanting to leave anything out. My style is to look at a big picture and try to separate the gray into black and white. That's a difficult, painstaking job. It takes a lot of work and a lot of ability. When I'm finally done and I proudly wave my results, I'm infuriated when someone says, "But you've oversimplified! The world isn't just black and white!" Duh! I know that! I just spent huge amounts of effort simplifying it and distilling all that information down to the essentials so that it would be comprehensible, and someone goes and takes my nice intricate comprehensible sand picture and kicks it into chaos again!

In this context, I'm saying what I see. I'm fully aware that there are people who could take what I say and interpret in a racist manner. In fact, there are people who could take statements far less controversial and interpret them in a racist manner. I don't care. I'm tired of self-censorship in the name of political correctness. Like Bob (Ba'al), someone has to say the emperor has no clothes, or say that there's an elephant in the room, or whatever metaphor you prefer. I see my job as what I described in the previous paragraph: to look at a chaotic mess and distill it to its essentials and present it in a comprehensible manner, and to speak as clearly as possible. Clarity is a religion for me. I have no patience for indirectness at the expense of clarity.

I'm relying on my reputation to rescue me from any possible accusations of racism. I am such a radical individualist -- and I mean "radical" in the true sense -- at the root -- that I think I was born incapable of racism. It's incomprehensible to me. When I see groups of people behaving stupidly I will say so. And I will always take individuals on their own merits.

Judith

[tjohnson]

They are not, and it is not racism, to even the most infinitesimal degree, to say that the Israeli culture, like the American, is vastly superior to the Moslem world

You can call it whatever you want. I would call this attitude "delusions of grandeur".

delusions of grandeur: a delusion (common in paranoia) that you are much greater and more powerful and influential than you really are

[Dragonfly]

I'm relying on my reputation to rescue me from any possible accusations of racism. I am such a radical individualist -- and I mean "radical" in the true sense -- at the root -- that I think I was born incapable of racism. It's incomprehensible to me. When I see groups of people behaving stupidly I will say so. And I will always take individuals on their own merits.

I think all those examples of so-called of "racist implication" are crap. First it's new to me that "Palestinian" is a race, and that "Arab" is a race. And why should we bother that some people (usually from the left) use such terms as a smear tactic? It is the same nonsense as calling anyone who criticizes Israel or some Jewish person an "anti-semite"; it is a tactic to disarm people who have a valid criticism, by suggesting that their criticism implies that they are is not only biased, but that they are somehow comparable to Nazis or some similar unsavory types. Why should we surrender to such cheap guilt-inducing tactics? If there is anyone a racist, it is the person who uses this term indiscriminately as a smear term to disable his opponent, as he is treating people as groups belonging to a certain race. I think we should stand firm, calling a spade a spade and not yield to this kind of emotional blackmail.

[tjohnson]

A race is a distinct population of humans distinguished in some way from other humans. The most widely observed races are those based on skin color, facial features, ancestry, and genetics. Conceptions of race, as well as specific racial groupings, are often controversial due to their impact on social identity hence identity politics.

Race is often seen to be an arbitrary, socially constructed category. This is not to say that there are not differences between people, but that the means by which certain peoples have been distinguished, categorized and subordinated across history, are usually spurious.

In other words, avoid using the word 'race' in any serious discussion, it's meaning is quite arbitrary.

[BaalChatzaf]

A race is a distinct population of humans distinguished in some way from other humans. The most widely observed races are those based on skin color, facial features, ancestry, and genetics. Conceptions of race, as well as specific racial groupings, are often controversial due to their impact on social identity hence identity politics.

Race is often seen to be an arbitrary, socially constructed category. This is not to say that there are not differences between people, but that the means by which certain peoples have been distinguished, categorized and subordinated across history, are usually spurious.

In other words, avoid using the word 'race' in any serious discussion, it's meaning is quite arbitrary.

Or stipulate that the term "race" extends to ethnic, religious or cultural group. These can be readily identified

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Alfonso Jones]

They are not, and it is not racism, to even the most infinitesimal degree, to say that the Israeli culture, like the American, is vastly superior to the Moslem world

You can call it whatever you want. I would call this attitude "delusions of grandeur".

delusions of grandeur: a delusion (common in paranoia) that you are much greater and more powerful and influential than you really are

You would regard it as a delusion for the Israelis to think they are vastly "greater and powerful and influential" than the Moslem world? Seriously? Consider the accomplishments since 1948 of the two groups. Consider the forms of government both have. Consider...

Or is it instead a delusion of grandeur for those in the Moslem world to think otherwise than that Israel is much greater and more powerful and influential than the Moslem countries? Read much by Bernard Lewis? Say "What Went Wrong? The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East?"

Alfonso

[Brant Gaede]

Anti-Semitism is the only unifying force in the Middle East for Muslims and Muslim nations, most of whom are otherwise at each other's throats. Their political culture is shit. Where does that political culture come from? Their religion is spread by the sword. Its mantra is submission. The bottom line is gross cultural inferiority wherein to stick out is to get chopped down into stultifying conformity. You can build a mosque in the United States and be a Muslim. You can't even legally import a bible into Saudi Arabia.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Judith,

Two things are kicking in and both are unfair. The first is that I am calling you and Barbara racist. The second is that I am defending multiculturalism. I am doing neither.

The last I looked, Objectivism was a philosophy of reason, not a religion of Moses and Abraham. I have no problem at all with noting differences in groups if the fundamental cause for those differences is made clear. Barbara mentioned the crime rates among young blacks. There is nothing wrong with noticing that as a fact and saying it. But is this because they are black or because reason is not valued in the culture where they grew up? Now we get to a whole other can of worms. Is it multiculturalism to ask that the reason be made clear when noticing a collective fact that comes with a high emotional charge?

Where is the word "reason" in the whole of your summation of the events (Post 48)? It isn't there. It just isn't. What is there is a lot of the standard arguments I am growing to reject the more I learn about them: Palestinians do not exist, Palestinians breed (and not procreate), Palestinians are envious of Jews, etc., etc., etc. And this is contrasted to the outstanding moral characteristics and hard-working character of Jews (still without mentioning reason), including cleanliness of all things. My critique of this commentary was (an is) to draw attention to the underlying message that this kind of rhetoric communicates. It is a racist message, not a message of reason and I am sure you were not aware of it when you wrote it. But if I am wrong and that is the message you want to give, go for it. Someone who notices this message is not trying to intimidate you into silence or defending multiculturalism. This particular someone wants true fundamental causes mentioned along with the collective problems. This is particularly important on explosive issues where hysteria is the rule and reason the exception.

You claimed that highlighting black and white on specific issues was your purpose. OK. I have no problem with that. But the moral standard in Objectivism for that kind of analysis is reason.

If we say, like my ex-father-in-law, that Jews created a garden in the desert, this is because they used reason on their farming methods and nothing else, not even יהוה (Yaweh). Hard work alone (as you insinuated) does not make a garden in the desert and the insinuation that Palestinians are lazy and do not work hard is incredibly wrong. Every Palestinian I ever met worked hard. Palestinians who are unsuccessful at farming do not use reason as their standard of farming.

And if we note that, on looking at the roster of doctors in practically any hospital in the USA, we find names that are Arabian, Iranian, etc., attached to first-generation immigrants—usually Muslims—(and this includes Palestinians), this is because in the specific field of medical technology, the use of reason is fostered in the Islamic culture. Muslims are good at it, too. Does anyone think our hospitals hire doctors on the basis of multiculturalism? From what I have observed, the reason-based standards in American hospitals is very high. A doctor either does the procedures correctly or he loses his job. The threat of malpractice suits practically ensure this.

I reject comparing cultures on any basis other than reason.

Anyway, all of this focus on Mulsim envy of Jews completely misses the boat regarding the appeal of Islam. As I stated, I have been unable to detect such envy in the Muslims I have known. Maybe it is there. I have not yet seen it. Sowell says it is there. Maybe he saw it, but he didn't say where. I have seen hatred in several places: up close, in a documentary I linked to elsewhere called Blaming the Jews, in acts of terrorism against Jews and a few other places. But even hatred is not the primary motivation of Muslims. There is a reason Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and I can assure you that antisemitism, hatred and envy are not found in that reason.

If you listen to the words of Ahmadinejad in his interview, or listen to almost any Mulsim, even a new American convert, you keep hearing one word repeated over and over: security. Focus on that the next time you read or hear an interview with a devout Muslim. It will be there.

If I were to psychologize about Muslims, I would not say envy is the main emotional component that causes him to seek out the religion, but anxiety instead. Islam gives him a sense of belonging with well-determined roles and rules. It is tribal thinking at a metaphysical level, but a highly effective spiritual salve for anxiety. A Muslim literally belongs to a group. He has surrendered his will. In exchange, he feels secure. He feels safe in terms of existence. He feels peace of mind. He can dispel those nagging doubts called "Why do I exist?". Hatred of Jews is built on that foundation, not the contrary. Not understanding this leads to the reason this whole mess never gets untangled.

If you want to kill a bear, shoot him between the eyes. Don't shoot him in the paw because that will not work. This is how I see the culture envy argument and most of the other causes you gave. You are shooting the bear in the paw. Reason is the shot between the eyes. Once a person adopts reason as his standard and learns how to feel secure with this, the good follows regardless if he is Jew or Palestinian or farmer or doctor or scientist or politician or anything else. That's reality. The results always show it.

Michael

[tjohnson]

Great post Micheal.

[BaalChatzaf]

If you listen to the words of Ahmadinejad in his interview, or listen to almost any Mulsim, even a new American convert, you keep hearing one word repeated over and over: security. Focus on that the next time you read or hear an interview with a devout Muslim. It will be there.

You did not mention the other two words also often heard: Jihad and Martyrdom. They will be there too.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Not in the interview of Ahmadinejad I heard in its entirety. I listened to the one on 60 Minutes and portions of the university talk. I don't remember hearing either word in the parts I heard. I did hear the word "security" many times.

I see the word jihad often discussed by Muslims to explain that it means much more than violence (they usually give the nuances of struggle) and I do not recall ever seeing the word "martyrdom" discussed by a devout Muslim in an interview, unless directly asked (usually to comment on a suicide bomber or something like that). I do see these words appear often within the context of terrorism in articles and discussions criticizing and analyzing fanatical Islamist thinking and actions.

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

Barbara,

I need to understand this correctly. Is Hoffer implying that we did not end Hitler's career and when the extent of the Holocaust atrocity was revealed, the world was not horrified?

I thought the 1948 UN proclamation of state of Israel was made in good part because of this.

Michael

Michael, you've responded to the least significant aspect of Hoffer's statement. But no, Hoffer is not implying that we failed to end Hitler's career. But we certainly dd not do so in order to save the remnants of European Jewry. Perhaps we should not have done so. We had a draft army, and it is questionable whether it would have been right to send that army to Germany to fight and die -- not until Germany declared war on us, or until we fully grasped that Germany represented a clear and present danger to America.

Was the world horrified when the extent of the Holocaust atrocity was revealed? Some of it was, some of it was not, and some of it cheered -- as they cheered 9/11. And in fact, it was news only to a partial extent; all through the Hitler years, occasional reports appeared, half-buried in back pages with other unimportant information, in American newspapers such as the New York Times, about Germany's death camps. These reports were largely ignored. And please recall that it was Franklin Roosevelt who turned back from America's shores a shipload of 900 Jewish men, women, and children who had escaped from Germany and were desperately seeking refuge. He did so, knowing that concentration camps awaited them in Germany.. These refugees were refused admission to every other country they approached, and had to return to Germany -- to die. Were there protests? Very, very few. Why did so many millions of Jews die in concentratiom camps? Because when they tried to leave, and sought foreign visas, no country on earth would take them in.

Barbara

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Why did so many millions of Jews die in concentratiom camps? Because when they tried to leave, and sought foreign visas, no country on earth would take them in.

Barbara,

This is not the only reason, but it is an important one for why I support Israel. May this never happen again.

Michael

[Judith]

First it's new to me that "Palestinian" is a race, and that "Arab" is a race.

Same here. I was taught in school that there are three races: the Caucasoid, the Negroid, and the Mongolian. As far as I'm concerned, the Arabs and the Jews are both white. In fact, to be technical, both are Semitic peoples.

And why should we bother that some people (usually from the left) use such terms as a smear tactic? It is the same nonsense as calling anyone who criticizes Israel or some Jewish person an "anti-semite"; it is a tactic to disarm people who have a valid criticism, by suggesting that their criticism implies that they are is not only biased, but that they are somehow comparable to Nazis or some similar unsavory types. Why should we surrender to such cheap guilt-inducing tactics? If there is anyone a racist, it is the person who uses this term indiscriminately as a smear term to disable his opponent, as he is treating people as groups belonging to a certain race. I think we should stand firm, calling a spade a spade and not yield to this kind of emotional blackmail.

Well said. Thank you.

Judith

[Judith]

I have no problem at all with noting differences in groups if the fundamental cause for those differences is made clear. Barbara mentioned the crime rates among young blacks. There is nothing wrong with noticing that as a fact and saying it. But is this because they are black or because reason is not valued in the culture where they grew up? Now we get to a whole other can of worms. Is it multiculturalism to ask that the reason be made clear when noticing a collective fact that comes with a high emotional charge?

Here is a fundamental point of disagreement between us. I am first and foremost for speaking the truth and letting the chips fall where they may. Suppose we don't know why things are the way they are? One usually observes a phenomenon before one discovers its causes. If one is never allowed to speak the truth, one can't go about investigating its causes, because it is politically incorrect to acknowledge that it exists. I'll have no part of that. What if the reasons turn out to be a political correctness nightmare? As far as I'm concerned, too bad. The truth is the truth.

Remember the huge fuss that everyone made over Charles Murray's "The Bell Curve" in the '90s? It purportedly held that, statistically speaking, whites are smarter than blacks and Asians are smarter than both. All kinds of double blind studies with adopted kids and everything, if memory serves me correctly (which it may not, since it's been about 10 years since I read the book). Now, I'm hearing revised studies that say that culture plays a very heavy role: that black kids from places like Zimbabwe and the Caribbean islands who immigrate to the states have stellar performances in school and on tests compared to native born black and white kids. It's the high emphasis and value placed on learning in their families, and the work ethic that leads them to come here. Same with the Asians. So which is true? Who knows? Should people be prohibited from talking about it?

What's everyone's biggest fear regarding open discussion of these issues? It's that INDIVIDUALS may be discriminated against because of stereotypes or prejudices. We know that the bell curve is such that math geniuses are just about always male. Does that mean that Ph.D. scholarships in math should be given disproportionately to men, or that the faculty in math departments should be limited to men? No. How many math departments have faculty limited to geniuses? The merely "very bright" also have a role to play. Make the testing and the applications sex-blind, and judge each INDIVIDUAL on his or her merits, and all will be fair. If it turns out that there are only 20 female math professors in the entire country, based on merit, then so be it.

Judith

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is a fundamental point of disagreement between us. I am first and foremost for speaking the truth and letting the chips fall where they may.

Judith,

Ya think?

Michael

[tjohnson]

The truth is the truth.

I think you will find there is no such thing as absolute truth, only relative truth.

It purportedly held that, statistically speaking, whites are smarter than blacks and Asians are smarter than both. ...................... So which is true? Who knows? Should people be prohibited from talking about it?

What possible useful knowledge can come out of study designed to decide which "race" is "smarter"? Both these terms are quite ambiguous in the first place. So yes, people shouldn't talk about things publicly that are ambiguous and potentially harmful to others.

[Brant Gaede]

The truth is the truth.

I think you will find there is no such thing as absolute truth, only relative truth.

How will she know it then, when she does?

--Brant

[tjohnson]

How will she know it then, when she does?

Good question, are there different methods for ascertaining absolute "truth" vs. relative "truth"?

[Roger Bissell]

They are not, and it is not racism, to even the most infinitesimal degree, to say that the Israeli culture, like the American, is vastly superior to the Moslem world

You can call it whatever you want. I would call this attitude "delusions of grandeur".

delusions of grandeur: a delusion (common in paranoia) that you are much greater and more powerful and influential than you really are

You would regard it as a delusion for the Israelis to think they are vastly "greater and powerful and influential" than the Moslem world? Seriously? Consider the accomplishments since 1948 of the two groups. Consider the forms of government both have. Consider...

Or is it instead a delusion of grandeur for those in the Moslem world to think otherwise than that Israel is much greater and more powerful and influential than the Moslem countries? Read much by Bernard Lewis? Say "What Went Wrong? The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East?"

Alfonso

Of course, GS thinks it is crazy for one group to think it is better or more influential than another group. How dare they (any group) think it has more of some quality than another! Why, next we're going to hear people claim that some societies are free than others, or more rational than others. Heresy!

To quote my favorite para-philosopher, "After all, everything is relative, don't you know." :-)

REB

[Jonathan]

Was the world horrified when the extent of the Holocaust atrocity was revealed? Some of it was, some of it was not, and some of it cheered -- as they cheered 9/11. And in fact, it was news only to a partial extent; all through the Hitler years, occasional reports appeared, half-buried in back pages with other unimportant information, in American newspapers such as the New York Times, about Germany's death camps. These reports were largely ignored.

Until I heard Michael Crichton's comments on eugenics from State of Fear, I hadn't been aware of how popular eugenics had been in the U.S. I thought that Crichton's most interesting line was, "After World War II, nobody was a eugenicist, and nobody had ever been a eugenicist."

J