Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
I'm a culturalist
Published on February 12, 2006 By Draginol In Current Events

I have little patience for racists.  Most racists I encounter fall into two groups:

Group 1: People who are indoctrinated to be racists.  They grow up around racist people and become racist themselves. These are the people who will go to ridiculous lengths to "prove" that one race is "better" than another.

Group 2: People who confuse race with culture.  They'll say "Look at all those <insert racial group here> doing that? They're natural born <insert insult here>."  No. Not true. Not natural born. Perhaps a product of their culture but not of their genetic code.

To use an analogy, ones race is like the hardware of a person.  And while there are certainly minute differences between one race and another due to the pressures of natural selection over the past 100,000 years, those differences are not very significant.  Simply put, humans are remarkably similar genetically.

But culture is a whole different thing. Culture is like the operating system.  For example, if you take two identical personal computers and install two different operating systems on them, they will behave remarkably different. And on that point, I won't cower to political correctness and try to say all cultures are equal. They are not.

I don't even think it's a value judgment.  A culture's ability to produce happy, well adjusted people who live a long productive life has some subjectivity to it but not a lot.  If someone reading this wants to say "Well maybe misery and suffering is 'good' to some people? Who is to say that happiness, joy, physical health, and longevity are 'better'?"  To those people I say, go away and get a life. Let's be real.

Operating system debates are pretty common. MacOS vs Windows vs. AmigaOS vs. OS/2 vs. Linux and so forth.  And indeed, it gets hard to say that one is "better" in all ways than another. Few are.  But in the case of human culture, I don't think it's a MacOS vs. Windows XP type debate.  It's more like a MacOS vs. some machine whose running an OS that requires people to flip switches and put in punch cards.  The differences between some human cultures is so vast that it's pretty obvious that it's not geography or bad luck that caused the discrepancies. It's that their culture is holding them back.

Some cultures simply fail,  utterly, to produce happy, healthy, prosperous, productive people. 

When I see the behavior of the Islamic world, I don't think "Damn Arabs." I don't think there's any significant genetic difference. But I think at this point we can say that the Islamic culture, as a whole, has some serious problems.  It is not as good as other cultures. I mean that.  It's the Vic-20 of cultures. And I'm not just comparing them to the west.

There are several different major cultures on our planet:

  • American liberalism
  • European socialism
  • Japanese
  • Chinese
  • Indian
  • Russian Orthodox
  • Latin American
  • Islamic

These are just the largest ones that come to mind that have a specific identity. There are sub-cultures as well. African-Americanism, Latin American Socialism, Sub-Sahara African cultures, Eastern Europe Orthodoxy/Slavic which is quite different than European Socialism, Australian liberalism.  And even within these various groups, there are different modest differences.  I'm just pointing this out before someone jumps in with semantics and wants to list off the ones I mised.

Most of the major cultures have their pros and cons to them.  Just as we might debate whether MacOS is better than Windows XP, we can debate whether American liberalism, with its consumerism is better than European socialism with its economic stagnation.  Each has its problems.  So for the most part, debating the various major cultures is like trying to debate Windows vs. Linux vs. Mac and so forth.

But it seems to me that the Islamic culture stands out amongst them all as being the most problematic.  It has been this way for my entire life.  I can't remember a time in my 34 years of life where the Islamic World wasn't blowing up something, murdering innocencts, or lashing out at something.  And over what?  There are lots of theories as to why there are Muslim extremists who have a pattern of doing this kind of thing.  I can't think of any other cultures that so routinely and consistently use their people as ordinance. Muslims can't even claim to have suffered particularly harshly compared to other cultures.

My personal theory is that at some level, Muslims know that there is something wrong with their culture. That it fails to produce happy, healthy, prosperous people at anywhere near the rate of other cultures. And rather than trying to adapt (borrow features from) other cultures, it simply blames other cultures and lashes out.

The Muslim riots over the pictures of their prophet being in a Danish newspaper come across as more than just violent. They come across as infantile. A big temper tantrum from a culture that routinely cuts the heads off people, sets fire to the religious and national symbols of other cultures and nations, and intentionally murders women and children whose crime is that they are from a different culture.  If the Muslim world were an individual person, it would be a slow-witted spoiled brat child with psychotic tendancies.

I personally think the world would be better off if Islamic culture were to disappear -- entirely.  I definitely think that the human beings who inhabit the places that are dominated by that culture would be better off (the women definitely would be).  I can't think of a single contribution to the world that the Islamic world has provided in the past 500 years.  You have to go all the way back to the middle ages to find anything and how much of that was due to geography -- the Islamic world is centered around the fertile crescent where much of Indoeuropean civilization started from.

But as a practical matter, people won't stand up and say the obvious: Some cultures are not as good as others. They won't say it because you'll have unscrupulous politicians and opportunists tag those who say it as "Racist" even though race and culture are unrelated.  And because people won't say the obvious, they cannot move people to action.  A worldwide movement to put pressure on the Islamic world to knock it off and grow up would probably do some good.

While the other cultures continue to evolve and improve themselves, the Islamic culture stagnates and revels in hatred and violence.   So yea, you could say I'm a culturalist.  I think some cultures are more worthy than others.  I define "Better" in terms that I think are pretty universal for human kind. Happiness. Health. Longevity. Prosperity. Productivity. 


Comments (Page 4)
6 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6 
on Feb 13, 2006
I'm from and in Sweden.

But is the right way to fight facism with facism? Look at the groups gaining from this conflict

It's not the secular muslims, neither is it the conservatives or liberals. It's the good ol' brownshirts (meanwhile the hardline muslim fanatics gain). I believe that dialogue and debate is the way to fight fundamentalsts, not insults and childish behaviour. I also think the comparison about Islam going after Jews is wrong. I know there's anti-semitic propaganda in the Arab World but it is mainly tied to Israel and Zionism which is not very popular to say the least. Believe it or not, there are Jews living throughout the Arab World. They might not be revered citizens but neither are they shot down on a regular basis. At least 30.000 in Iran (which is somewhat surprising considering hte hardliners in power there). One reason that Jews can live in Iran is more due to the ancient ties between the peoples, before Islam that is. And very few muslims demand any closure of press, they just ask that at least some consideration is shown to the Prophet. They can probably keep refering to muslims as mud heads or ragheads. They are used to the daily racism in Denmark. Marcus
on Feb 13, 2006

I believe that dialogue and debate is the way to fight fundamentalsts, not insults and childish behaviour.


Then perhaps you shouldn't have quoted Niemoeller.

How do you debate with, say, those who want to kill all the Jews in Palestine? What kind of compromise could you find? Will they get to kill half of them?

What compromise could have been made with the Nazis?

What could they and we possibly talk about?
on Feb 13, 2006

Believe it or not, there are Jews living throughout the Arab World. They might not be revered citizens but neither are they shot down on a regular basis. At least 30.000 in Iran (which is somewhat surprising considering hte hardliners in power there).


There are very few Jews left in the Arab world. There are some, as you say, in Iran (which is not part of the Arab world).

As for the Jews in Arab countries, I'm afraid you have a rather romantic view of their fates. Before Israel existed Arab countries had similar Jew laws as Germany in the 1930s. Most Jews fled when they had the chance (i.e. when the state of Israel existed).

I don't know of any significant Jewish community in Arab countries except Morocco, Tunisia, and Bahrain (35 individuals).
on Feb 13, 2006
And it is secular Muslims. The embassies were burned in Syria and Lebanon. And the Syrian regime is secular.
on Feb 13, 2006
I think it's very relevant to quote him. There was an excellent article in Haaretz(Israeli newspaper) of all places which made more or less that comparison.

Here in Europe it's very popular to find scapegoats whenever there's high un-employement or other problems.Now it's the muslims, next it's someone else. You can be sure that I wont ever side with facists on any issue, nevermind their arguments. If progressive powers have anything to say, then I listen but I wont fight fire with fire. You dont need to debate with the fanatics. You debate with those who want real change. Believe it or not, they are in majority even among the muslims. Read the interview with Quaray in Jerusalem Post for examples on levelheaded(secular) muslims.

Insulting religious icons is childish. I find no need to insult Jesus in order to prove my point against religious zealots.
There are better and more productive ways.

If for instance Hezbollahs/Hamas main goal was to eradicate all Jews. Why didnt they do it in Iran then? As you are probably
aware, Hezbollah in Iran and Lebanon are one and the same. Ahmadian may use that sort of rethoric but you can be sure that the men with the real power would control him (that would be guys like Khamenei).

Since you mentioned nazis. I recommend Last days of Sophie Scholl. This is what real struggle for freedom of speach is to me, not childish slugging.

marcus
on Feb 13, 2006
" And it is secular Muslims. The embassies were burned in Syria and Lebanon. And the Syrian regime is secular."


Compared to Western nations they seem secular, but do you think you'd feel that way if you insulted Muhammed there? I have a feeling you'd be dealing, briefly and violently, with the government, not the mob.
on Feb 13, 2006

I think it's very relevant to quote him. There was an excellent article in Haaretz(Israeli newspaper) of all places which made more or less that comparison.


I do think it's very relevant to quote him. But to quote him and then say that we must not speak up is quite another thing. If you don't think we should act against Islamofascism, why quote Niemoeller?

I agree with him, not with you.



You dont need to debate with the fanatics. You debate with those who want real change. Believe it or not, they are in majority even among the muslims. Read the interview with Quaray in Jerusalem Post for examples on levelheaded(secular) muslims.


The Palestinian Arabs just voted for real change. They voted for Hamas who want to destroy Israel. I don't need to debate with them, that is true. But they will continue to try to kill me and mine.

What do you propose I should do about that? Rely on the majority who just voted them into office?


Insulting religious icons is childish. I find no need to insult Jesus in order to prove my point against religious zealots. There are better and more productive ways.


Having religious icons is childish. The Qur'an specifically forbids it. It is important to insult religious icons, because if in a given society you can do that, it means you are allowed to say anything. That's what free speech is. We need somebody to try the limits. It's very important. It's more important than a religious icon for sure.


If for instance Hezbollahs/Hamas main goal was to eradicate all Jews. Why didnt they do it in Iran then? As you are probably aware, Hezbollah in Iran and Lebanon are one and the same. Ahmadian may use that sort of rethoric but you can be sure that the men with the real power would control him (that would be guys like Khamenei).


Hezbollah's goal is not to eradicate all Jews. But Hamas' goal always was and still is to throw the Jews into the sea. As was Nasser's and Saddam's and the PLO's.

What do you think it means when they say that and then attack, after they got rid of all the Jews in their own countries?

Hezbollah seems to want to bomb northern Israel a bit, probably just to have a reason not to disarm (all Lebanese militias were supposed to disarm).
on Feb 13, 2006
Syria is a hardline dictatorship. Everything that happens there is part of an agenda.

It reminds me of the "spontaneous" book burnings in Germany. You really believe it was just a "whim" and not something carefully orchestrated by SA?

You could say that. Libya is also a hardline dictatorship and no embassies were burned there.

marcus
on Feb 13, 2006

Syria is a hardline dictatorship. Everything that happens there is part of an agenda.

It reminds me of the "spontaneous" book burnings in Germany. You really believe it was just a "whim" and not something carefully orchestrated by SA?

You could say that. Libya is also a hardline dictatorship and no embassies were burned there.


You said it's not secular Muslims. I pointed out that this time it was secular Muslims. Not all secular Muslims burn down embassies. But in this case it was the seculars who did most of the attacking, not the extremists.
on Feb 13, 2006
So be it. I'll hand that one to you .

But secular or not, they are humans. Humans can be idiots and they can be intelligent and reasonable. I just think it's un-necessary to make such broad sweeps over such large human masses. It is counter productive.

You wonder what the point is in debating. I say that's the key to working democracy. Having a meanigful dialogue (like we have here) is the key to developing religions and ideologies to something better.

And in that context. Then yes I think mud slinging like insulting Jesus, Moses or Muhammed is not productive. It does lead to the effect you desire, namelly more democracy. If anything this latest event has made it harder for journalists in Arab nations. How productive is that?
Meanwhile the brownshirts (DFP) has increased to 18% in Denmark. Very nice for democracy indeed .

marcus
on Feb 13, 2006

You wonder what the point is in debating.


No. I wonder what the point is in debating someone who would rather kill me than look me in the face. You cannot debate with Hamas.



Meanwhile the brownshirts (DFP) has increased to 18% in Denmark. Very nice for democracy indeed.



Their votes increased because of the Muslim attacks, not because of the cartoons.
on Feb 13, 2006
Islam is a socio-political religious culture, not unlike the Catholic religion prior to reformation.

The root problem at issue is the lack of a significant reformation of Islam since its inception in the 7th century.

Certainly it can be said that there are "moderate Muslims", but , strictly speaking, moderation is looked upon as aposty, hence the lukewarm declarations against terror.

The lack of reformation is a direct result of dictates by the prophet himself; "The Koran is the literal word of God", "Mohhamed is the last prophet God will send", " Peoples of the Book ( Christians and Jews) have had Moses and Jesus bring them the same message, but allowed their clergy to twist the message of God".

Mohhamed set out in the 7th century to unite the Arabic world, devinely inspired or not, he created a cult around his personality ( 2nd only to the Koran is the Sunnah of the Prophet, a detailed accounting of how he led a "rightly guided" life, to be emulated by all muslims) By his own dictates, pious Muslims are stuck in the 7th century.

The Prophet took the best of all of the prevailing monotheisic religions of the region,( the Koran is a retelling of the Torah and the Gospels, as well as a history of the birth of Islam ) put an Arab spin on them, threw in some Arab pagan ritual ( the Kaba in Medina was home for all tribal idols ), mixed in some tribal laws and ethics, and viola, a one God religion, sans the passivity of Christians( passive didn't work well in the warring tribal climate ) and the controling hiarchy of Judeaism ( didn't want to share power ? ) and united the fertile cresent.

This governmental formation expanded through the organization of the Caliphate, which then set out to conquer and convert "the world" to Islam( now what was the concept of the world in the 8th and 9th century ? Generally it was 1000 mile radius of the Mediterainian basin). Now, Islam is set up to have central leadership, led by a Caliph, the problem with that is the last Caliphate was dismantled after WW1 with the disolution of the Ottoman Empire.

Islam, was left to create Nation- states in a culture that had no concept of individual rights or responsibility, few have made the transition ( Turkey may be the only successful example, and that took the extreme imposition of secularization by Attaturk )

I realize this is a rambling historic recollection, but I use that to precede my observation that Islam is at a similar crossroads as the Catholic Church was in the 16th century. Islam needs a Martin Luther, a John Wesley, a Joan of Arc, or some similar reformationist.

The Caliphate has gone the way of Papal governance,and what we are left with in Islam is a relic.

To compare the operating system analogy; Islam, in its present state, compares more with an Ox Cart chasing a Ferrari............
on Feb 13, 2006
Putin invited them to Moscow for talks. Hardly something he would do if they were raving madmen trying to kill everyone.
Remember that Hamas was actually supported by Israel in the beginning, in order to damage Fatah. They choose the wrong horse of course.

And it increased because that was the exact response JP intended. Called a flame bait in forums/usenet. Sure, it's stupid to go after flame baits but there's definatelly two sides of this story

marcus
on Feb 13, 2006
I don't think it was rambling. A good insightful post Dynosoar.

And I agree with the conclusion. Islam is at a crossroad but in my opinion we(meaning Western society) should help them find the right way, There are better ways than the flame war type reactions.

For the record. I think Brads original post was insightful too(but not entirely correct), wouldnt bother replying if it wasn't. But I felt the need to reply anyway .

marcus

ยจ Yes. Islam needs reform but sometimes you get the impression that Islam is the Earth equivalent of Drengin. It's not that bad (unless the Drengin got more sensible in GC2)
on Feb 13, 2006

"Putin invited them to Moscow for talks. Hardly something he would do if they were raving madmen trying to kill everyone."


Perhaps you have a different image of Putin than I have. To me the above sounds like a joke.

Also, Putin is no Jew and no Israeli. There is no danger for him. There is no danger for anybody who works with Hamas as long as the Jews are there.

However, once Israel and the Jews (in the middle east) are gone, who will speak up for Russia?
6 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6