Quick Roundup 28

There is no "clash of civilizations".

(That would take two civilizations, wouldn't it? Oh. But wait. Civilizations don't "clash". I am so jealous I didn't make this point first!)

The title of the subheading comes from the below partial transcript of an interview with Arab-American psychologist Wafa Sultan.

Someone at Objectivism Online said, "She defends the West on grounds that would make any Objectivist proud."

Yep. That would be quite accurate.

Read all of this. It is incredible!

Wafa Sultan: The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.

[...]

Host: I understand from your words that what is happening today is a clash between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and ignorance of the Muslims?

Wafa Sultan: Yes, that is what I mean.

[...]

Host: Who came up with the concept of a clash of civilizations? Was it not Samuel Huntington? It was not Bin Laden. I would like to discuss this issue, if you don't mind...

Wafa Sultan: The Muslims are the ones who began using this expression. The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations. The Prophet of Islam said: "I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger." When the Muslims divided the people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war. In order to start this war, they must reexamine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels.

My colleague has said that he never offends other people's beliefs. What civilization on the face of this earth allows him to call other people by names that they did not choose for themselves? Once, he calls them Ahl Al-Dhimma, another time he calls them the "People of the Book," and yet another time he compares them to apes and pigs, or he calls the Christians "those who incur Allah's wrath." Who told you that they are "People of the Book"? They are not the People of the Book, they are people of many books. All the useful scientific books that you have today are theirs, the fruit of their free and creative thinking. What gives you the right to call them "those who incur Allah's wrath," or "those who have gone astray," and then come here and say that your religion commands you to refrain from offending the beliefs of others?

I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others' right to believe in it.

Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: Are you a heretic?

Wafa Sultan: You can say whatever you like. I am a secular human being who does not believe in the supernatural...

Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: If you are a heretic, there is no point in rebuking you, since you have blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran...

Wafa Sultan: These are personal matters that do not concern you.

[...]

Wafa Sultan: Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don't throw them at me. You are free to worship whoever you want, but other people's beliefs are not your concern, whether they believe that the Messiah is God, son of Mary, or that Satan is God, son of Mary. Let people have their beliefs.

[...]

Wafa Sultan: The Jews have came from the tragedy (of the Holocaust), and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling. Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists. 15 million people, scattered throughout the world, united and won their rights through work and knowledge. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people. The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a Mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy. Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people, and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.

And so we have yet another example of a woman who has rejected fundamentalist Islam showing more cajones than any number of men who have embraced it....

Hat tips: Objectivism Online, for drawing this to my attention, and Stupid Evil Bastard, who posted this transcript.

Enterprise Demands Freedom

The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism has posted my article on Kelo and Jihad -- and Nick Provenzo has given it a better title than I came up with besides!

The Deeper Meaning of the Riots

Cox and Forkum once again illustrate (below) and link to commentary on another crucial aspect of the cartoon riots.


In addition, Amit Ghate has a chilling post on the full significance of the riots with respect to the very purpose of our government. It is very long, but very important, and ought to be required reading for every government official in the Western world. Here's just one of the many good points he made.

[B]ecause each individual knows that his government has the means and responsibility to defend him, he does not have to seek out other forms of protection. Specifically, he does not need to join a gang or tribe whose members will help him battle others. In civilized society there is no need to ally oneself with members of one's race or ethnicity (as do the Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda; or the Serbs, Croats and Albanians in the Balkans), or of one's religious sect (as do Sunnis, Shiites, Jews and Christians throughout most of the Middle East), or with criminals (as do those seeking the "protection" of a mafia Don) or with the politically-connected and politically-favored (as does almost everyone in the Third World). In a word, because the individual is sovereign and consistently protected by his government, there is no gang warfare of the type so prevalent around the rest of the world.

The result is modern Western society; a society whose overwhelming advantages include: freedom for each individual to live, think, question and speak as he sees fit; respect for the law and the rights of others; individual safety and empowerment; and a benevolent atmosphere of cooperation and peace among men.

But along with all the advantages of an individual-based society comes one inherent risk. In delegating his use of force, and forsaking adherence to any gang or tribe, each individual is disarmed and essentially helpless should his government fail to act on his behalf.

It would therefore be of the highest treason for a government to abandon any law-abiding citizen who comes under attack. In fact failing to protect an individual would be beyond treason: it would essentially reverse and betray 2,500 years of Western development. It would be tantamount to taking the individual, whose life and happiness is for the first time important, stripping him of all his defenses, and then offering him up to any mindless brute or savage to skin alive as he pleased.

And yet, in the past few decades, this is exactly what Western governments have done repeatedly. If it is not stopped soon, Western, i.e. civil and peaceful, society will break down -- and we will return to the primitive state of gang rule and utter contempt for the individual which currently exists in the entire non-Westernized world. [bold added]

Read it all. Yesterday.

Update: The news is not all bad! (1) Gideon Reich reports that a prominent Objectivist was featured at RealClear Politics, and has word on the publication status of a book by another. (2) I was pleased to see that Amit Ghate's excellent article got broader exposure via LGF.

Let it happen already!

Bruno at The Simplest Thing notes that the collapse of Hamastan, which we should encourage, is being prevented.

If the multiculturalists who hold sway over Europe (and, apparently, America as well) really believe that "one culture is just as good as any other", why are they not letting the Hamastanis live fully in accordance with Islam? It's just as good as Western culture, so they don't need us, right?

Good Advice for Bloggers

This blog posting is more directly applicable to professional journalists, but much of its wisdom applies to bloggers as well. My favorite "rule" is "20.) Your prime directive is to serve the truth. Nothing else, in the end, matters." (HT: Chap.)

Sic transit perfidia.

My Latin is rusty, but I believe the translation of this post title would be "Nothing but evil from this dead ---hole."

And oh yeah. Now that Jonah Goldberg has decided to disinter this unfair and factually inaccurate review of Atlas Shrugged, it's only fair for me to mention Robert Tracinski's commentary on it, as well as my own reply to a more recent bit of foolishness about Ayn Rand by National Review's Andrew Stuttaford.

I was about to say that the title ["A Strangely Important Figure"] says it all, but the title, in fact, does more than just that. The title explains the whole, consistently vicious editorial approach that [National Review] has taken towards Ayn Rand from the start. Written by a contributing online editor [to the New York Sun] whose name, Andrew Stuttaford, appropriately evokes some paunchy, pasty-faced lesser villain from -- oh, an Ayn Rand novel -- the article is more remarkable for what it shows us about its parent publication than about anything it has to say on its ostensible subject matter.

Enjoy!

Oh well. At least the clowns over at National Review don't pretend to be friends of Objectivism.

Blogroll Additions

I have added two blogs with oddly similar names to the 'roll and they, coincidentally, show up one after the other.

The first is Ayn Rand fan Craig Creely's The Anger of Compassion. His is a cultural blog that many of my readers may have already encountered via the Noodle Food blogroll. And, regardless of whether you've ever "kippled" before, you ought to consider reading this post.

The second is a blog that I've been following for ages, fellow submariner PigBoatSailor's The Discomfort of Thought. Aside from lots of thought-- er-- discomfort-provoking and often humorous commentary, he also posted (quite a while back) the funniest sea story I have ever read.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Added link to Gideon Reich, another to Thrutch, and one to LGF.
3-5-06: Fixed some bad HTML.