What a simpleton.

Soros has come under extraordinary pressure from Moslems and anti-globalists, I wonder if this is an attempt at accomadating them.

A very earnets Malaysian told me the other day, that Soros (ie Jews) was responsible for Malaysia's eceonomic problems, (not her corrupt islamofascist dictator).

It was chilling, like meeting a Nazi in 138 talk about how great Hitler was.

On the other hand, ole Georgie is a great advocate for decriminalization. Gotta take the bitter with the sweet sometimes...

Morning, Charles. First?

Is this how he cleans his damaged reputation? Disgusting.

One would think a survivor of Nazi rule would be more sensitive to just how insulting comparing GWB to Hitler is to Holocaust victims. Has anyone here read Jonah Goldberg's essay that posits comparing the Bush administration to the Third Reich is nothing less than a form of Holocaust denial?

Soros = Asshole

His money would seem to be better spent on therapy - or maybe that is exactly what he gets by funding the Dems?

Gosh Mr. Soros, how did you get so hyper-sensitive to the trace hints of totalitarianism, yet have nothing but a deaf ear and blind eye to turn to real genocidal and oppressive movements? Has your spidey-sense tingled at all over the anti-Semitism that's simmering in Europe and roiling in the Ummah? Is that anything we should be alarmed about sir?

And lest anyone think this guy is just a harmless nutbar who was granted his super-powers after being bitten by a radioactive turd, here's how he's looking to skirt the intentions of campaign finance reforms to plow millions into the appeasement party. Yeah, Mr. Soros, the enemy is us. We'll just sit back and let you buy us a leader selected from the nine dwarves, and the world will be a much safer and freer place.

Well, my first hat tip!
This sory just goes to prove that the ability to make lots of money is not a sign of a great intelligence.

"Oh, what a noble mind is here o'erthrown." The Soros Foundation did some good work in the 90s in newly-liberated former Warsaw Pact countries. And now, he's comparing Bush to Hitler, and apologizing for being a Jewish financier. How depressing.

Years ago I read two of George Soros's books. I considered him to be a brilliant business man and also incredibly public-spirited. His knowledgeable, controlled method of giving money to groups in iron curtain countries must have been immensely effective at promoting freedom there.

I cannot understand the transformation of this brilliant, effective, subtle person into an ignorant, run-of-the-mill Bush demonizer, now spouting anti-Semitism! It's sad.

Soros, you're off the team.

Isn't it nice to know that the Democratic Party is the party of the little guy, the Honest Joe struggling to get ahead, salt o' the earth sort of folks like Barbra Streisand and George Soros?

#6, Adam. You have far more complimentary opinion of the man than he deserves.

What do you expect from someone who blames Jews and Israel for anti-Semitism?

What is it about money that makes these nimrods so guilty all of a sudden?

Soros said he had been waking at 3 a.m., his thoughts shaking him “like an alarm clock.” Sitting in his robe, he wrote his ideas down, longhand, on a stack of pads.

Howard Hughes, anyone?

This is very sad. Soros is a financial genius and has done good work around the world with his philanthropies. His family was victimized by the Nazis and the Soviets and he has been personally attacked by Mahathir as one of the "Jewish speculators" responsible for the Asian financial crisis. Yet here he is, succumbing to the infamous FriedKrug syndrome, chastising the victim, facilitating the forces of darkness, and actively opposing the only power standing between those forces and the extermination of his people. Shame on you Soros.

"Der Feind Hort mit."

Interestingly, during WWII, the Allies used almost the same slogans, remember: "Loose lips sink ships" or "Somebody talked" ? So I guess Bush=Roosevelt.

Not OT: Today is Vetern's Day

It's turns your stomach to witness the writings and the rants of these rich people who believe that they should use their wealth and position to influence the "little people's lives"

Babs is the poster child for this arrogance. she claims that Working people should eliminate the use of clothes dryers to conserve energy - but that of course does not apply to Miss Streisand - she is above personal conservation.

Soros has joined the ranks of Bush haters and it's hard to determine why?

Actually, it's hard for me to understand why Bush raises such strong animosity from so many people.

I am not a big Bush fan myself - especially on domestic spending - but when was the last time we had a President (or any elected official) that was honest, told you what he was going to do, and then actually did it!

Polls aside - I believe that he is winning more of the "common" people over to his side as each day passes.

What? Soros didn't like his tax cut?

There is a difference between supremacist ideology and actually being the best. Somebody is always the best by any given metric. The US is tops in many national traits, and overall way above any other nation. No brag, just fact. Soros lives in the land of extreme socialist egalitarianism where it is illegal to be better than your neighbor, and for your neighbor to be better than you. And they plan to enforce that law.

It seems to me that Europe really is in a new coldwar with the US. Soros is the EU's point man. Expect more to follow.

My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitized me,” he said in a soft Hungarian accent.

He's just challenging Dean for 'Metrosexual of the year'

#23 Smit
lol!

Soros is the EU's point man.

Huh?

Interesting. So Bush=sHitler because they both used phrases about enemies? I mean, the phrases aren't really similar except that they both refer to enemies, or those against us. So since Nazis had enemies, and Bush recognizes that we have enemies... By that logic since Nazis had an army, any country with a military is just like the Nazis. Nazis also wore clothing and ate food. So if you do that, you're just like them. DOn't get me started on breathing air and walking upright.

#26: Renna

So since Nazis had enemies, and Bush recognizes that we have enemies... By that logic since Nazis had an army, any country with a military is just like the Nazis.

Yeah. The Left calls this reasoning "dialectics", the military calls it "collateral damage", desert wanderers call it "fata morgana".

Engineer writes:

This sory just goes to prove that the ability to make lots of money is not a sign of a great intelligence.

This has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with character or the lack thereof. In short, cowardice. This bastard is afraid of getting killed and is looking to hide by attacking the President of the US, someone who won't kill him for his libel, treachery and cowardice.

This is so disgusting I can't tell you how pissed I am on Veterans Day.

#16 TargetPractice -- "What is it about money that makes these nimrods so guilty all of a sudden?'

I think it's all ego at the bottom of it. Bush Sr. had his nemesis in H. Ross Perot. He had a jealously thing for the Bush's that would not go away. It's like he had to prove who had the biggest wang in Texas. He funded a third party from his own money, he put himself at the head of it and drew enough votes to see Clinton elected by less than a majority twice. When he was done playing with his toy, he walked away and left his adherents stranded.

George Soros has the same bug up his butt.

We can't underestimate him though. The Dems have a very narrow band of plutocrats that contribute ungodly sums to their party, which is why it is the party of wealth and privilege despite their false face otherwise.

Newly minted Clintonista Democrat John Corzine bought a US Senate election in NJ. The Dems in league with the Jersey media, pulled an outrageous bait-and-switch substituting monied the Lautenberg for the corrupt Torricelli and got away with it. The Dems have plenty of practice at this. With every branch of the mainstream media, their push polling affiliates in their hip pocket, Soros' money backing Hillary's candidacy could be a winning combination.

#27 hans:

the military calls it "collateral damage",

What's the problem with the term "collateral damage"? It conveys exactly what it's meant to convey; killed and wounded people, and physical damage, that were not the intended targets of a military operation. Awful, but unavoidable in warfare.

Soros is up to his neck in the whole 'Sustainable Development/Transnational UN Power Grab' thing. Yes, he's a philanthropist, but to causes that further his vision which is little distinguished from any of the New World Government = UN fever dreamers.
An old guy like that? Probably likes hangin' with all those young and vital NGO'ers and Greenpeace types - makes him feel 'timely and relevant'.

Compare Gates, who basically just took the 'neutral' road, and supplied PC's/internet to a good part of rural India (for example) - which has truly "empowered" that country.

It's easy to back political causes when one has big bucks, much harder to find neutral ground, harder still to make a stand and remain true to oneself, with courage, he being a case in point.

Unbelievable.

I would like to know how this Hungarian managed to make seven BILLION dollars.

As a general rule, most of the filthy rich in former Soviet states got that way by:

A. Having ties to the mob.
B. Being a party official who looted the treasury before the government collapsed.

#32 Fatmouse: Soros left Hungary when he was a teenager (going first to the UK, then the US). He didn't make his money behind the Iron Curtain, rather through being a very smart investor in the wicked capitalist West.

#30: Occasional Reader

What's the problem with the term "collateral damage"? It conveys exactly what it's meant to convey; killed and wounded people, and physical damage, that were not the intended targets of a military operation. Awful, but unavoidable in warfare.

No problem at all with the term, I just wanted to state that the mentioned reasoning (Bush=Nazi) is a logical collateral damage.

George Orwell used the phrase 'you're either with us or against us' in a BBC radio debate in 1941 with pacifists who argued for a deal with Hitler.

People like Soros make me sick; getting rich from speculation and then blame capitalism and suck up to the neo-communist antiglobalist nazis. That's definately the European way. Corporatism: backroom dealings between unelected bureaucracies and selected established companies (mostly former state and semi-state companies) with a socialist facade for the gullible Europeans, who learn to blame it all on 'neo-liberalism', 'capitalism' and 'America'.

#22 Yes, Europe is definately in a cold war with America. The European press was jubilant about the WTO decision against the US steel tariffs that allows the EU to put in place two billion in counter measures that will hurt the economy for everybody. It's all part of a largely French campaign led by evil motherf***er Pascal Lamy. One of the largest Dutch newspapers today has the headline:

Europa mag VS hard treffen in staaloorlog

translates into something like:

Europe allowed to strike the US hard in steel war

The EU today also announced a 62 billion euros 1930s style stimulus package of public projects to get the stagnating economy moving. Sigh...

Fatmouse

Soros made his money by running an extrememly successful hedge fund. His ability to predict the movement of various markets better than other investors shows that he possessed great wisdom at one time.

#33 Occasional Reader

Thanks.

Sounds like a case of burning down the barn after he's finished milking _his_ cow.

Bio on Soros from the Jewish Post
[Link: www.jewishpost.com...]

BH:

What? Soros didn't like his tax cut?

I'm sure Soros and his fellow richie rich friends like Paul Krugmanic Depression have chosen to not accept the Bush Tax Cuts because they are so evil and disparate.

Soros giving millions of dollars to the Democratic Party is something that Howard Dean should come out against. Dean is the candidate that rails against the party for failing to reach out to Americans and instead chooses to follow the leadership of McAuliffe and raise money via the rich mahattan/DC/Hollywood elites. And remember, we are told the Republican Party is the party of rich guys. Far be it for me to mention that almost 80% of the Forbes 500 are donors to the Democratic Party, it's the Republicans that are the party of rich dudes.

I heard that Soros had an incident at his Open Society Institute in Moscow. It was stormed and held captive by people the OSI knew. Did Soros buy his way out of that too?

I will believe Bush is just like Hitler when he quits praising islam, starts gassing muslims, and invades Canada. Until then, anyone saying it just gets a great big 'M' for moron next to their name on my list.

It's a good things all these rich liberals have only one vote each...and they can't buy mine no matter how much money they throw at the Dems.

#25 zaza - Yes he is the point man. He has been trying to take over US companies for a long time, and sometimes succeeding. He would take them over and dismantle them, and make money off it. Now, lots of people have done this in the past, but none had a philosophy like Soros. Most were just in it for the money. Soros has other goals besides money. And those goals are political. I would even say that now he has a type of EU nationalism as a motive. I know this because he tried this with a company I used to work for. In order to defeat Soros the company wound up having to dismantle itself. Not quite the poison pill, but it was pretty bad. A once Fortune 500 company is now much less. When I started there, the company had 25000 employes, not it is more like less than 5000. Many jobs are now overseas (China), and much of the business is now just a branding house and partner with EU and Japanese companies. So he has been the point man because he has been fightiing the US for a long time.

The death camps in the US are a prime example of Bush=Hitler.

But wait! After further review...There are no death camps in the US.

My father fought Hitler. My father is 100% behind Bush!

Shut up already

Apparently, Soros did learn his lesson from life under the Nazis. It was the lesson the Nazis wanted him to learn: That all the world's evils were his fault, because he is Jewish.

While I hate that he is repeating these lies, I see their inception in his childhood. He fled the Nazis, remember. He lived among the Soviets, who also blamed the Jews for the world's ills.

It's the wrong lesson, but it's the lesson that they taught him well, apparently.

He's so wary of being Jewish that he has contributed only a tiny portion of his wealth to Jewish charities, saying the Jews can take care of their own. Hello, George, YOU'RE ONE OF US.

Sad. Very sad.

If George Soros remembers so well the hate and the experiences under Nazi rule, how does he now view the hate, repression and genocide that is blatantly evident in the Arab world and culture? As the say in Brooklyn -- Eff'im.

#34 hans: my apologies, I misunderstood your meaning.

#44 Meryl Yourish:

Apparently, Soros did learn his lesson from life under the Nazis. It was the lesson the Nazis wanted him to learn: That all the world's evils were his fault, because he is Jewish.

Well said.

oregonian (#42), that is really interesting. As a journalist I would like to know more about that. Please contact me via peterlucasverkooijen at planet dot nl.

#20 LAR she claims that Working people should eliminate the use of clothes dryers to conserve energy

But, of course, Striesand could hire servants to hang out all her clothes on the line or more likely send them out to a laundry.

Actually, it is or at least was --air conditioning which was by far the greater damage to the ozone layer than even cars. (That may have changed with improvements)

Not to mention that it undoubtedly uses requires more energy than a clothes dryer.

Soros and Harold Ickes are positioning themselves as the moneybag saviors of the Democrats in 2004. If Soros's Romperroom rantings are representative of the mainstream of the Democratic Party (which I'm afraid they are), a 50-state Republican sweep in '04 is not entirely outside the realm of possibility.

See, don't you get it, Mahathir was right! The Jooose are sooo smart, they have there Kabal meetings in places like, like a Denny's...in the middle of the night, and figure out who is the next Jooo who is going to make it LOOK like they are against the BIG WORLD CONSPIRICY too, so, well you know, so they can continue to RULE EVERYTHING...

(muwahahahaha)

Soros is a LLL idiot. Case closed. Next.

#39 axiom: Just so you know, I got a cease and desist letter from Terry McAullife's lawyers. It seems that now that the economy is turning the corner, we're not allowed to call them the "Bush tax cuts" any more, even though that's all we heard for the last year from Dems.

#43 kufr (Abu WWII Vet): I think in this case, it's "Ibn" not "Abu." Then again, there's never too many Abus.

Interesting factoid on "the rich" and "the giving" from last week's WSJ "Tony and Tacky"

In news sure to depress those for whom Republican stinginess and antipathy for the less fortunate is an article of faith, the Massachusetts Catalogue for Philanthropy has just released its Generosity Index 2003, which ranks states not just by how much their residents give per capita but also by how much they give relative to what they earn. As OpinionJournal.com reader Gabriel Openshaw pointed out to us, the resulting index shows that the top 20 states all went for George W. Bush in the 2000 election--while 15 of the 20 least generous went for Al Gore. Maybe, he suggests, the difference is that those in red states are more generous with their own money while those in blue states are more likely to be generous with other people's money.

I agree with #15. I do not believe Soros identifies himself as Jewish except when it ingratiates himself with the European crowd, i.e., survived Hitler and still hate America.

Soros is one of thos self-hating Jews, like Madeline Albright, who will say or do anything to show the Euros that they are not one of those trouble making Jews. Soros and others like him have no problem defaming Jews and working to destroy the true friends of Israel and the Jewish people, like George Bush.

What a jerk!

We should fear the motivations of George Soros.

[Link: www.soros.org...]

He has an evident and deliberate anti-Christian agenda in Europe and the United States. He is even willing to empower and expand militant Islam for this purpose.

He is an overt globalist, whose goal is a Global Governance and a global universal "earth based" religion.

He will seek this goal even at the expense of the United States.

He plans to destroy the Bush administration using any and all means both domestic and international, to rid Bush of the Presidency, because his policy is in the way...

In Their Image and Likeness :Part I Militant Islamic "Green Belt" threatens the West

In Their Image and Likeness: Part II Building the "Islamic Green Belt"

Religion and patriotism are prime targets of non-governmental organization (NGOs), according to the head of an influential U.S. policy think tank in an exclusive interview with International News Analysis Today.

"Non-governmental organizations are acting as governments," declared Thomas Fleming, President of the Rockford Institute, a respected conservative policy analysis foundation, citing instances of NGO influence in Poland and Slovakia, and particularly in Serbia.

NGOs, private organizations with semi-governmental influence, are recognized as participants in international deliberations, including United Nations conferences.

Serbia became vulnerable to NGO influence after the Balkan wars of the early 1990s and its defeat by NATO following the 1999 air war.

Serbia is half of the Balkan nation of Serbia-Montenegro federation, successor to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Balkan region, traditionally a flash point between the West and the Muslim East, is currently the focal point of a sharp attack mounted by NGOs on religious values and patriotic sentiments.

Fleming was especially focused in his criticism of George Soros and the Open Society regarding Serbia, emphasizing the Open Society's attack upon religion.

"In Serbia, religion is revered, and the (Serbian Orthodox) bishops are major figures - even the intellectuals talk about the bishops as cultural leaders -- and this is what the Open Society wants to destroy," declared Fleming.

The "international community" also appears determined to separate the nation of Serbia from Kosovo, an area closely tied with the history and culture of the Serb people, and assist the aspirations of the militant Muslim separatist who now dominate Kosovo.

Although Serbia officially regards Kosovo as a province, the final status of Kosovo remains highly uncertain, while the clearest trend is toward an independent state of Kosova.

***Part of the Open Society's effectiveness rose from its contacts with the Central Intelligence Agency. U.S. President George Bush, however, cut the connection between Soros and the intelligence agency, earning Soros' wrath, Fleming stated.

Soros is now actively working to assemble an international coalition to destroy Bush, Fleming asserted.

Any organization led by Soros would be extremely formidable, with billions of dollars in assets behind it, and some of the most powerful individuals in Europe and the U.S. supporting it.

The NGOs are determined to change the world. Unlike the United States and other nations with election processes, the NGOs are accountable to no one, and, with no check on their power, they doggedly persist to create the world in their own image and likeness.

It is common for rich Jews to be self-deprecating, besides being liberal. This way they can hide the fact that they were Jewish and blend into society. They keep their money and avoid any payback. Soros is the perfect example of this. I think that Soros probably would not define himself as a Jew nor do I think he's observant. Soros is simply aware of his Jewish blood and that's as far as he is likely to claim any Jewish identity. Jews like Soros were the Kapos in WWII, and today they are apologists for terrorists.

If he felt Jewish, he'd give money to Israel to help the fight against terrorism. Since he doesn't, at least he's wasting his money. I hope he rots in hell.

The European Commission works closely with NGO's in developing European policy, because they are regarded as representatives of the people. This is scary stuff...

A recent BBC Internet article supports Fleming's position. [aforementioned article] The BBC reports that Soros is urging a "regime change" in the United States.

Soros calls for 'regime change' in US Billionaire philanthropist George Soros has called for an end to the Bush administration ahead of next year's presidential elections.

Mr Soros - whose Foundations Network has given $1bn around the world to various causes to help tackle poverty and disease - told BBC Radio 4's United Nations Or Not? programme that the US would only stop pursuing "extremist" policies if there was a change at the White House.

"It is only possible if you have a regime change in the United States - in other words if President Bush is voted out of power.

I am very hopeful that people will wake up and realise that they have been led down the garden path, that actually 11 September has been hijacked by a bunch of extremists to put into effect policies that they were advocating before such as the invasion of Iraq."

The US is now discovering that it is extremely painful and certainly costly to go it alone

"There is a group of - I would call them extremists - who have the following belief: that international relations are relations of power, not of law, that international law will always follow what power has achieved," he said.

He added that he felt US actions in the build-up to the war on Iraq was evidence of an extremist element in the Bush administration.

"Probably President Chirac would not disagree with this philosophy but he is not so powerful - so I am not so worried about what France is doing," Mr Soros said, referring to France's opposition to the war.

However, he added that he felt the rift between the US and the United Nations over the war - which President Bush referred to as a "difficult and defining moment" for the UN - had in fact strengthened the UN, rather than weakened it.

"I think that the United States has over-reached," he said.

"What happens to extremists is that they go to extremes and the falsehood in their ideology becomes apparent.

"I think there is a good chance that the US will yet turn to a greater extent to the United Nations because they are now discovering that it is extremely painful and certainly costly to go it alone so in the end the outcome may be to strengthen the United Nations."

Mr Soros was, however, critical of the UN for what it sees as its inability to function well as a collective of states.

Mr Soros has a history of donating great sums of money to areas in need around the world - but only once has he done this through the UN.

"We do interfere in the internal affairs of states, but based on supporting people inside the country who take a "certain stance".

"We have actually been quite effective in bringing about democratisation, democratic regime change in Slovakia, Croatia and Yugoslavia, but that's by helping civil society in those countries to mobilise

TruthTeller (#54)

It is common for rich Jews to be self-deprecating, besides being liberal. This way they can hide the fact that they were Jewish and blend into society. They keep their money and avoid any payback.

I'm voting that as the most obnoxious statement of the day. "Rich Jews"? What are you talking about? What does their wealth have to do with anything? I know plenty of "rich Jews" who are not anything like what you describe. Get a grip.

Soros has an idiotic article in this month's Atlantic Magazine

How George really got rich: Soros found guilty of insider trading.

fiery celt (#53),

So glad to see you back. You've contribute a lot here. So this thank you is for all the times in the past that I thought "What a great post," & "Thanks for the links" without saying so.

Thanks.

Birth of New European Terror State?

NATO and the European Union may be responsible for the birth of a nation devoted to the active destruction of the West - including the United States -- and would be situated only a few hundred miles from the heart of Europe.

The new nation would be called Kosova, derived from its present legal name Kosovo. Kosovo is technically a province of the Balkan state of Serbia, but has been under NATO/UN control since the end of the NATO air war against Serbia in 1999. Kosovo's majority population is ethnic Albanian, with a dwindling Serb minority.

Most Albanian politicians want union with Albania and other Albanian areas in the region.

Terror experts believe that Albania is again being used for transit and terrorist training for operatives traveling from the Near East into Europe. Reports have come to light that Osama bin Laden's terror network trained members of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in 1999, just prior to NATO's conquest of the Serb province.

The administration of President Bill Clinton actively sought independence for Kosovo/Kosova, along with the UN and a number of non-governmental organizations, according to Dr. Thomas Fleming, a leading authority on the Balkans and President of the Rockford Institute, a conservative think tank.

In view of continuing terrorist activities since September 11, the support for an independent Kosovo/Kosova has declined. "France and Germany are terrified of the progress of Islam in Europe," stated Fleming.

Gunrunning, drug trafficking, and the sale of women are all hallmarks of life in NATO/UN-controlled Kosovo. Most of the Serb population living in Kosovo before NATO/UN rule has been driven out. Serbs remaining in Kosovo are the targets of assaults, Serb property has been confiscated, and many Serb churches - some hundreds of years old - have been burned to the ground.

On November 5, 2003 the Serbian government issued a "White Book" detailing the involvement of leading Kosovo politicians and activists in the trafficking of drugs and humans.

The Serbs, however, still are the "bad guys in the black hats" in Balkan affairs, with international sympathy going to the ethnic Albanians, especially in the United States. "They have no natural constituency in the United States," said Fleming.

Fleming also stated that U.S. and European foreign policy traditionally opposed a dominant power arising in the Balkans, and that Western powers distrusted Serb intentions in the Balkans.

The Serbs also recall a religiously oriented Europe, Fleming stated.

"The Serbs remind Europe of what Europe of what it used to be - the Song of Roland, [the victory of Christian Europe at] Lepanto, the Christian warrior. The Serbs have their problems but they believe in something. They [the international community] want to replicate Santa Barbara, California over the entire planet," declared Fleming.

NATO attacked Serbia to defend the ethnic Albanians living in Kosovo, following a series of high-profile media reports depicting Serb-perpetrated massacres against the Albanian majority living in Kosovo. At the time, Serbia was the major partner in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, now reorganized as the Republic of Serbia - Montenegro.

After NATO's occupation of Kosovo, however, no evidence of mass killings of Albanians was found.

The "international community" has given technical reassurance through UN Resolution 1244 that Kosovo will remain part of Serbia, but NATO and UN administrators have provided Kosovo with all the necessary tools to achieve independence.

Soros is a messed up little man. He's guilt-stricken for being a successful currency speculator. He simply can't stand himself. That's understandable enough. But worst of all, he just can't understand why, despite all the millions upon millions he's donated to charity, the Euros still hate the Jews. It must be Bush's fault! Sickening. He should do himself and The Tribe a favor and make a one way pilgrimage to Mecca.

The scary part about Soros... he's giving kerjillions to the party of treason

#57

I'm voting that as the most obnoxious statement of the day. "Rich Jews"? What are you talking about? What does their wealth have to do with anything? I know plenty of "rich Jews" who are not anything like what you describe. Get a grip.

Vote all you want. I don't care what you think. Wealth has A LOT to do with the attitude and characteristics of one's behavior. It is my observation that RICH JEWS often (but not always) deny, hide, or deprecate their own Jewish identity. I already explained why. If you wanna peddle the PC mantra be my guest, just peddle it somewhere else. I'm not buying.

TruthTeller (#64)

Not to worry, nobody has ever accused me of being PC. Your statement that rich Jews, specifically, hide or deny their identity is utter nonsense.

#42 oregonian: I know, I also heard he funded a lot of anti-global stuff and Indymedia and the like - I'm just puzzled as to the connection to the EU? now I really don't know a lot about him, but is he European? and is he in or close to EU levels in what way?

I mean, I thought he was American?

He's just another Guilt ridden Philanthropist who pisses away his money to charitable organizations. He's out to save the world and feels guitly that he has so much. Typical Socialist viewpoint. He must share it with the people and distribute it evenly so that all that never worked for it will benifit. Sounds like welfare to me. I bet most of the money he paid out in the communist bloc countries and groups ended actually ended up in the hands of the Russian mafia anyway. They are the ones who took over after the fall of the curtain, not democracy. Former KGB chiefs and thugs now call all the shots. If you don't believe that then go see for yourself.

I hope he pisses all his money away in vein. I'll be voting for Bush in 2004.

With all due respect people, but could you get of the Jew or no Jew thing for once? This is about a whole lot more.

Isn't he a little young to go senile?

#38 tomcat,

'thanks for the link to that bio review - - but what is this?

"He did not convert." His mother, who immigrated from Hungary after 1956, did convert before she died in Florida.

Anyone know what happened here?

#44 Meryl Yourish

Apparently, Soros did learn his lesson from life under the Nazis. It was the lesson the Nazis wanted him to learn: That all the world's evils were his fault, because he is Jewish.

Well said. There was pretty well a watershed of world view/religious view among the survivors of the Shoah - some lost all faith, and some were strengthened. Normally I'd give wide berth to commentary as I prefer not to 'go there', even in imagination. But I think somehow Soros didn't see too much of the deep horrors. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

#53 fiery celt

Good links, and accurate representation. The Timeline to Global Governance proceeds apace, and those who fight against it, the whole set of attacks like the Agenda 21 - have hard and powerful folk arrayed against them.

#57 zulubaby

In fairness to #54 TruthTeller, (and I know we must be very careful with our words here - and 'casual' comments that make sweeping generalizations can do great harm), simply changing his words "It is common", to "many" would pretty well make his statement veridical. Just look again at the membership of Shimon's Center for Peace

That's not saying that there are not many more Jews who are clear thinking 'yet wealthy' - I think they might prefer "to do", rather than grandstand about their vaunted 'social consciousness'. We can hope they are being effective, behind the scenes.

But that said - I for one would surely find it edifying to see more overt statements "truth telling" from our influencial brethern - those that see the War for what it is... It feels pretty lonely out here with no trace of a 'high command' (except Him Above, of course...no small consideration, yes)

You know - like the sort of statements that one might like to hear from a PM of Israel? About Arafish and the murderous thugs? a little statement or two, clear and true. not even necessarily 'action', right away. to test the waters, so to speak.

Fiery celt - I started reading and thought they were talking about the EU itself as a terror state and then got to this:

The new nation would be called Kosova, derived from its present legal name Kosovo.

The irony there is too, too rich... oh my...

He's just another Guilt ridden Philanthropist who pisses away his money to charitable organizations. He's out to save the world and feels guitly that he has so much. Typical Socialist viewpoint

If only it were that benign. I think that these rich liberals have been corrupted by their wealth (Absolute power corrupts absolutely), and are actively seeking to slowly destroy our country's success. Due to their jealousy.

Guilt may play a part, but vindictiveness is the driving force behind these Bush haters.

TV (Harry)

George Soros is a supporter of the "United Religions Initiative"...a movement which denounces orthodox Christianity and Judaism as "separative" and "obsolete," and forecasts a coming age of enlightened, spiritual collectivism-after the cleansing of earth to remove those who do not accept progress.

The United Religions Initiative (URI), founded in 1995 by Episcopal Bishop William Swing, intends to create a spiritual equivalent of the United Nations, encompassing all "religions, spiritual expressions, and indigenous traditions." The URI Charter says that the organization's purpose is "to promote enduring, daily interfaith cooperation" and to "end religiously motivated violence;" they also plan to "create cultures of peace, justice and healing for the Earth and all living beings."

The URI has support among some leaders of Asian religions (including the Dalai Lama), some liberal Protestants, and Reform Jews, dissident Catholics, and leaders of the state-run churches in China. URI activities have occurred in 58 countries on all continents, and in 33 states in the U.S. The URI claims that 1 million people participated in its 3-day global "religious cease-fire" from 31 December 1999 through 2 January 2000. The Vatican, the Eastern Orthodox, and Evangelical Protestants oppose the URI.

The URI has friends and funding sources in high places-including George Soros, the billionaire currency speculator, and Richard Blum, the wealthy husband of Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). URI allies include Mikhail Gorbachev's star-studded State of the World Forum, and the Earth Council-headed by Maurice Strong, a wealthy Canadian advocate of world government. The URI also enjoys tacit support or active cooperation from most other interfaith organizations, including the Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions, the World Conference on Religion and Peace, the Temple of Understanding, and the North American Interfaith Network.

The URI supports efforts by Hans Kung and others to create a new Global Ethic, and supports the push by Maurice Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev, founders of Green Cross International, for an Earth Charter. Gorbachev views the Earth Charter as "a kind of Ten Commandments, a 'Sermon on the Mount,' that provides a guide for human behavior toward the environment in the next century and beyond." The Green Cross Earth Charter Philosophy" makes clear the philosophy of these proposed codes: "The protection of the Biosphere, as the Common Interest of Humanity, must not be subservient to the rules of state sovereignty, demands of the free market or individual rights."

Some other money quotes from George Soros regarding the United Religions Initiative...

...Meanwhile, the quest for a global soul is also attracting some global power brokers. Billionaire currency speculator George Soros has added the URI to the long list of recipients of his largesse. He also funds Choice in Dying (which supports legalizing assisted suicide), needle exchanges for drug addicts, and groups that his foundation believes "will protect women's access to comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion." Soros's ambitions, like Swing's, are large, but he is not daunted. "It is sort of a disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out,"

The Earth Charter - Agenda for Totalitarianism

I think a more interesting little 'investigation', for those with too much time on their hands - would be to fathom the present day speculative financial holdings of Soros, and how backing the Dems, (who he can't be so naive as to think can take '04) might favour his wide-flung financial positions. Y'know, in terms of keeping certain tensions alive, and steering others off the financial pages...

Smart financial speculators work both sides of a market, after all, as appropriate. What does his politics 'influence', relative his wealth?

OT
Hi fiery celt - nice to see ya! :-)

Tiburon (#70)

I know a lot of wealthy Jews who are strong Jews and Zionists. They are not anything like what TruthTeller decided they are. Of course there are Jews, rich and otherwise, who will support Peres and the rest of the traitors -- I guess it was that sweeping generalization that got up my nose. It is absolutely not true that "the rich Jews" hide their Jewish identity. It is as stupid as making a statement that tall Jews deny or hide their identity. I don't know where TruthTeller lives but in my world that couldn't be further from the truth.

#64 Truth Teller

zulubaby is certainly not being "PC" in her comments to you, my friend. Your "personal" experience with "Rich Jews" doesn't constitute grounds for making such sweeping statements (which it's now clear from your post, you are in fact postulating)

Where do you meet all these "Rich Jews"? In synagogue? If so, which Stream? Orthodox? Modern Orthodox? I think not.

I would have agreed with you if you'd limited your statement to saying that "many" wealthy Jews, made a big point out of being "liberal" - and your reasoning "why" wasn't too bad, either. They are hardly, however - "hiding" or "denying" their identity, perhaps "deprecating" it, yes - but only inasmuch as they seek to "redefine" Jewish identity (when they so engage or do, that is...) They DO believe in their positions, as "proud Jews" in their own minds...They are no friends of mine (well, actually, I do have a couple...(blush)), and I consider they are actively threatening Our People in the Big Picture, but that's what the civil war is about, after all...

#51 Model4

the difference is that those in red states are more generous with their own money while those in blue states are more likely to be generous with other people's money.

Yes, that is exactly the difference between the parties.

Bush is very good at raising money, he may to do more of it than he planned on doing.

I think Truth-Teller is correct, it is common for rich Jews to be self-deprecating, besides being liberal. Not to say that all wealthy Jews follow this pattern, but I think I know the type (from TV).

#51 model4

How does this square with the fact that blue states generally get less tax revenue than they put in, as opposed to red states, which tend to take more than they give? Or was that little map with the breakdown I saw circulating around the blogosphere a few weeks ago a liberal lie?

Soros has always been an idiotarian.

When Anwar Ibrahim (former deputy Malaysian PM) was deposed, Mahatir claimed that Anwar and Soros were involved in a zionist plot to overthrow him, so that Malaysia would establish diplomatic relations with Israel.

There was nothing new about Moonbat Malysian Muslim Mohammed Mahatir's speech at the OIC.

“When I hear Bush say, ‘You’re either with us or against us,’ it reminds me of the Germans.” It conjures up memories, he said, of Nazi slogans on the walls, Der Feind Hort mit (“The enemy is listening”): “My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitized me,” he said in a soft Hungarian accent

Therein lies the stupidity of moral equivalence. You could just easily say "Hitler brushed his teeth, Bush brushes his teeth, therefore Bush is Hitler." You know, Hitler and Bush put their pants on the same way, too... it doesn't mean shit!

Does it ever occur to these morons that Hitler was fighting to impose tyranny and commit genocide and Bush is fighting against tyranny and genocide. Is there a short bus for the morally retarded?

It just goes to show that being an utter and complete idiot is no barrier to becoming a billionaire in a free society.

It gets even better: Bush=Lenin=Hitler

After Bolshevik revolution Lenin said: "If you're not with us, you're against us".

My guess is that something Bush and company is doing in the war on terror is affecting Soros ability to MAKE MORE MONEY. Maybe he was benefiting from Saddam Inc?? Too bad, so sad...

#82 Abu Messerschmitt - I agree. I was trying to say the same thing in #26

#80 scarshapedstar: It "squares" in the same way you square making applesauce out of oranges. The two are unrelated. No matter what a state gets back out of what is taken from it, individual federal tax rates apply equally to everyone. It's then from their own wallets that individuals decide how much to give to charity. Liberals just give less when weighed against their income.

As for the veracity of a map you saw on the Net, I can't vouch for it. But if true, it does live up to the principles our liberals claim to support on an individual level, that of progressive taxation. If a rich guy should get taxed more on each single dollar he makes than a poorer guy, then richer states should either give more per dollar of income, or get less back.

Of course this is inherently unfair and counterproductive to the greater good in both cases. That's why I'm consistently against both. You?

#2 Terry

I have heard this from Malaysians as well. See my post @81.

#60 zaza - No, Soros is not an American. I have never been more sure of anything. He does hold US citizenship, but he is not an American. And I don't mean that just because he was born in Hungary he can't be an American. I have grandparents who were Americans and they were born in Europe. Soros is anti-American. Just read what he writes and says. He is a US citizen, but that is about his money and taxes. It is just a peice of paper to him, though now he can use it to leverage his eurocentric and global agendas. At heart he is an Eastern European. But I would say he considers himself to be above citizenship. A global citizen. I consider him to be a super-rich euro-trash whore. As you can tell, I do not like him. A piece of paper does not make you an American.

#88 oregonian,

I disagree. Soros is the epitome of everything that is great about America - freedom, human rights, democracy, etc... Soros is a refugee from Hungary who has become one of the richest people in the US - only in America. Soros is constantly critisicing the US - if he were living in North Korea, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia or Iran he would have been put to death the first time he had opened his mouth. Soros is the epitome of everything great about America - its just too bad he doesn't realise it.

Soros can skip over the democrats and give his money directly to the islamic death cult, if he likes. Won't do him any good, they'll still kill him the first chance they get.

I'd be curious to see Soros' portfolio of investments right now.

Perhaps he is speaking less out of principle than financial self-interest.

I think Soros' ideology is a manifestation of a serious philosophical problem that Americans may find relatively hard to sympathise with. Given there is no God, how can the terms "good" and "evil" mean anything more than what the collective will of the community says they mean?

In America, where the metaphysical assumptions underlying the Judaeo-Christian value system still reverberate quite strongly, even among people who are not overtly religious, this question may not loom very large. But in Europe, where moral values are largely divorced from that Judaeo-Christian heritage, the chronic failure of secular philosophy to give a positive, non-totalitarian answer to the above question, completely dominates the moral landscape.

The upshot is that most Europeans (as well as most American intellectuals) can only understand the belief in an objective sense of "good" and "evil", as an expression of totalitarian dogmatism. That is how Soros comes up with the Bush = Hitler equation.

I say this not to excuse Soros, but to offer a substantive explanation for his, and Europe's, loss of moral nerve. This is a problem that is going to get worse, before it gets better.

#73 fiery celt

great information FieryCelt...

happy to see you.:-)

More money than brains.

Well here's some good news:

DNC Slams Soros: 'Special Interest Fat Cat'

(2003-11-11) -- The Democrat National Committee (DNC) today condemned billionaire George Soros as a "special interest fat cat" who's dodging campaign finance laws and buying influence by contributing $15.5 million to activist groups trying to oust George Bush from the White House.

"He's an affront to everything Democrats stand for," said DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe. "The McCain-Feingold law was passed to protect Americans from his brand of soft-money influence. But since he can't give millions to the DNC, he's donating huge sums to MoveOn.org and other liberal activists organizations. That's just not right, and if we could do anything to stop Mr. Soros from using this loophole, we surely would."

Oh wait, that's a parody, nevermind.

Geepers

Did you ever determine who that NPR reporter at the OSU "conference" was?

Kolya, interesting point.

I doubt that atheism inevitably leads to unethical behavior. In theory at least, humanism, empathy and the "golden rule" can provide a kind of moral basis for a godless society. I'm not sure to what degree it will be fair to say that Europe is increasingly divorced from its Judeo-Christian heritage... it's just that European heritage is very complex, and it includes totalitarian utopias.

Not knowing much about Soros, I get an impression that he's the kind of guy who is actually very much invested in utopian visions of the future, the visions that probably have a quasi-religious moral dimension. Perhaps contemporary American policy doesn't go well with his ideology, so in order to preserve his worldview he demonizes Bush.

95

:jawdrop: Are you serious!? The DNC blasting an LLL moonbat!? Whoa!

McAwful's statement can only mean that Soros clearly intended that his money help Dean or any other candidate besides Hillary. Otherwise, McAwful would be peddle his influence as fast as possible.

Hey Soros! When were you hauled off to Gitmo and gassed? When were Michael Moore and Russ Feingold(the one senator to vote against the Patriot Act) hauled off and killed? Soros? Soros?

#98, #99, come on guys, Scrappleface?

I skipped to the end of the thread to post this, I'm sorry if it is a repeat...

He [Soros] is portrayed as someone ... who can be offended if a leader of a country where he is involved philanthropically is insufficiently subservient; who will consort with an autocratic regime in order to see his programs carried out; and who is intent on imposing his influence generally on an ever-expanding area of the world.

Connie Bruck, The World According to Soros, The New Yorker, 23-Jan-1995, p. 75.

SoCalJustice,

I almost certainly picked here out of the bios-list at NPR.

I've been waiting to see if there is anyone that got her name as conformation or to see if there is report filed from the conference.

She had almost daily reports until 10-23 and none since, so she may be on vacation and attended the rally as a supporter, not as a reporter.

NPR has no individual emails address for there staff, so I can't ask her directly, and I haven't heard anything from the inquiries I made.

Oh, and this...

"So I asked for recommendations [for people to staff his Moscow foundation, says Soros], and I invited people, took them on a trip, and it turned out that they were all too old and too Jewish!" He chuckled. "And not acceptable. I mean, you can't be that Jewish in Russia. So I told them, 'You can't have more than one-third Jews on board.'"

Connie Bruck, The World According to Soros, The New Yorker, 23-Jan-1995, p. 77.

#97 veebee

I agree that atheism doesn't necessarily lead to unethical behaviour. It's just that it's very hard for atheists to have a coherent explanation of good and evil being matters of fact, rather than matters of opinion. Not impossible, just very hard. And consequently they are strongly inclined to regard people who do take that position, as being in the grip of a totalitarian ideology.

The problem with Soros contributing the money (so long as it complies with Federal election laws) is that to an extent money DOES buy influence in elections. At least it buys access to the voters through advertising.

This advertising might be truthful or not, but it still has to be countered somehow. Even if it is patently absurd, if people never hear any defense, then they will think that there's no defense. I don't expect a huge amount of deep thinking on the public's behalf, but if at least they are made aware of the falsehoods then there's a much better chance of disrupting its influence.

So George Bush has to raise that much more money to level out the access bought by Soros' money. Simultaneously Bush spends his political capital defending against scurrilous Demon-rat attacks in the Senate Intelligence Committee, that takes lots of time and effort if they succeed in blasting an investigation through, even on flimsy evidence.

The Democrats are banking on the fact that EVERY attack on Bush is like a nuisance lawsuit: Pretty soon you have no time for business because all your time is spent playing a deadly form of whack-a-mole. And heaven help him (us, really) if he misses one.

So don't rely on being right to carry the day: "A Lie can travel halfway around the world before the Truth has even put on its shoes."

Bush is the choice by default. The problem is that he is attempting to build a consensus on untenable ideas: that Western liberty, democracy and prosperity can be exported to islamania.

I am the only one who posts critical comment here, on Bush's nominal constructive-engagement policy as implemented in nation-building aid in the Mideast and Central Asia. President Reagan played that card successfully in South Africa, and the State Department is obsessed with the fiction that said success can be repeated.

During the Cold War, a Western consensus held, wherein it was believed that the Soviets were doctrinally prohibited from abandoning Marxist dogma on inevitable revolution, and revolutionary solidarity. The West was forced, because of the East's nuclear arsenal to practice "containment," because the alternative - "rollover" - would mean "mutually assured destruction" (MAD).

It is the suicidal acceptance of the fiction that islam has been hijacked by heretics, and that its alleged original and fundamental character - "islam is peace" (GWB, Sept 17, 2003) - will reassert, which hampers carrying out the necessary "rollover" measures. Rather, than either containing or rolling-over Islamofascism, Bush has elected to incorporate the ideology within an ersatz democratic framework. Nancy Powell (US Ambassador to Pakistan) is effectively protecting jihadi governments of two Pakistani provinces, from economic collapse. Consequently, it is not an exaggeration to state that: the Bush government is subsidizing the neo-Talibani guerrilla war in Afghanistan, notwithstanding bloody costs to American troops.

A majority of participants at this post, make nothing about the obvious popular support for indiscriminate killing of American soldiers in Tikrit and Fallujah, Iraq. HIJACK dogma, the centerpiece of the Bush's "incorporation" policies inhibits realpolitick. Under State Department pressure, Afghanistan's government, is negotiating with the neo-Talibanis. Egypt, again under State Department pressure, released over 15% of imprisoned Ikhwani terrorists this year alone.

This quixotic attempt to incorporate Islamofascists within a one-time democratic election framework, has: delivered Turkey to Islamofascism; led to huge electoral victories by these [bigoted word]s in Pakistan; has sandbagged the war of the seculars against Islamofascists in Algeria; legitimized depraved terrorist movements in Arab sections of Palestine; etc. Strategically, the Islamofascists are so strong, that now they are directly challenging the Saudi government, even though they are their prime benefactor. In the West, almost all Muslim organizations are obstructing counter-terror operations, while funneling aid to terror-warriors.

If one takes the time to listen carefully to muslims, one will learn that they hardly deny their global-genocidal nature. In fact, it is the West's leadership which denies that which muslims affirm. When the unholy koran tells the muslim that "terror-war (jihad) is prescribed to you," they are hardly going to abandon jihad. As Sheik Azzam, the founder of the latest Islamofascist insurgency which is supported by at least 700,000,000 muslims, said: muslims cannot abandon terror-war until "allah alone is worshipped by mankind."

[Link: www.islam.org.au...]

The Bush response to muslim genocidist-globalism has been to falsely minoritize terror-warriors:

[Link: www.whitehouse.gov...]

Slavish one-time democracists are so fixated on the belief that muslims will adopt amity towards the West in general, and America in particular that contrary ideas cannot impact on their brain. Orwell wrote of the acquired inability to perceive certain facts, which are politically uncomfortable to deal with. Nobody is re-posting this salient, and irrefutable, comment by David Warren because they cannot handle it:

[Link: www.davidwarrenonline.com...]

I predict that the ideological wall against objective undestanding of the mortal muslim enemy, will collapse soon. In 1971, Troy Duster (NYU) framed "conditions for a guilt free massacre." These preconditions are forming in Fallujah, Iraq. I forsee jihadi annoyed American troops killing terror complicit Fallujaterrorists in large numbers within the next couple of weeks. Americans will be forced to either accept that the troops acted with the framework of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," or according to suicidal rules of engagement, which are being promoted by quixotic SLOG-WIMPS like Victor Hanson.

The root cause of GWB brand affirmative-denial, is the inability - post ISLAMIC-GENOCIDE911 - to perceive discontinuity between the obviously untenable post WW2 human rights-overreach bureaucracy, and the genocidist-globalism of the muslim beneficiaries of this system, which subverts the Free World. Within the past 30 years, an inability to attribute mortal enemy status to any protected minority, has yielded a window of opportunity to the muslim savage. Few at lgf could look at a [bigoted word] and either say or think, 'the founder of your cult was a filthy pedophile who concocted your cult for private benefit, and his legacy has been to enslave large sections of humanity to an ideology of murder and plunder.'

Case in point, the Euros could produce objective studies of islamic koran sanctioned terror, but their ideology of minority-supremacism, and the private benefit that Euro-bureaucrats receive from the system of forced acceptance of muslim entitlement of respect an unilaterally beneficial law enforcement, enforces a subjective framework of acceptance of the ersatz dignity of these depraved savages:

[Link: eumc.eu.int...]

[Link: eumc.eu.int...]

This deferential mentality, which serves the subversive infiltrators - is polluting America through the influence of the ABRAHAMITE dogmaticists, especially GWB:

[Link: www.interfaithcenter.org...]

The Abrahamite dhimmi class refuses to accept that muslim subversives only use interfaith as a means to conscript useful idiots, in their campaign against interfaith, and on behalf of creating a genocidal khalifa tyranny:

[Link: www.alminbar.com...]

[Link: www.alminbar.com...]

[Link: www.alminbar.com...]

For an example of successful and honest consensus building, American "incorporationist" fanatics, should check out this HUAC volume on the nature of the Communist enemy, and then use the same interpretative principles as a means for objective study of unholy islam and the filthy pigs who embrace it:

[Link: dogbert.abebooks.com...]

On that consideration, check out this book, which should be used to train in guilt-free killing of muslims:

[Link: dogbert.abebooks.com...]

RULE # 1 IN COUNTER-TERROR: DO NOT AFFIRM THAT WHICH THE MORTAL ENEMY DENIES.

RULE #2: START KILLING THE MORTAL ENEMY BEFORE THEY START KILLING YOU.

RULE #3: KILL THE MORTAL ENEMY IN DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBERS.

Man, I'm making mistakes here and there aren't I?

I wish I could blame it on being drunk. ;-)

How on earth can someone so wealthy, be so stuipid?

I'm amazed.

soros = ivan boesky... ..i almost knocked his limp dick ass into a swimming pool at a party a few years ago--should have since he's all wet-- btw the "rich jews" are LLL argument is just plain dumb--obviously its proponent has never attended a jewish federation dinner at pledge time--the checkbooks come out faster than yassir arafat on a young boy--negative stereotyping anyone

How on earth can someone so wealthy, be so stuipid?

Money doesn't buy class, style or brains.

#92 Kolya is totally right.

What started out as criticism of religious absolutism has come full circle.

1. it's not all God's will; we can take control of our fate with reason

2. we can construct our own world

3. reality is a subjective construct; you're truth is as good as mine

4. as idealists we can and must construct our truth against the subjective truth of the bad people

The EU, UN, the United Religions Initiative, etc., assume that solutions to problems can be reached by a scientific process aimed at consensus that rejects moral judgements or politics. Only bad or stupid people would stand in the way of progress, right?

The new Euro-religion is rationality without an anchor. Whether that anchor is God or another realisation of man's insignificance and fragility doesn't even matter that much. In my reading the Christian and Jewish God is precisely that; a reminder of the need to be humble in the face of something that transcends us.

In the real world humble little humans have to deal with God's wild mood swings; one moment angry and avenging, the next loving and benevolent. Making moral judgements requires constant effort. The Bible is full of stories where the point is to make you aware of this; the first will be last, lost sons that are loved more than the good sons, noticing the splinter in your brother's eye and not the plank in your own eye, he who casts the first stone..., etc.

Allah apparently is a very different kind of God that simply offers 'peace through submission'.

This is way too schematic of course...

Kolya,

In my experience of living in a largely atheist society (the Soviet Union) I found that people were practically obsessed with morals and ethics on individual basis. There was constant talk of things that "need to be done," sacrifices to be made, etc. Judging from your name, I think you know what I'm talking about.

Likewise, I'm not sure that much more religious Western Europeans luck Christian morality. Again, on individual level I don't find them to be all that different from Americans.

Peter Verkooijen

I'm not sure that new Euro religion is some sort of scientism. After all, if you look at their attitudes to Jews and Israel, you notice that Europeans are not interested in fact as much as they are interested in feeling. And their gut feeling is that Israel is wrong.

I agree with both of you that contemporary Europe lacks direction, but I'm not sure that it's a necessary result of godlessness. I would actually prefer to be more evangelical about their atheism. I would want them to insist that the Arab world and the Islamic world needs to embrace Darwin and Malthus as well as Western humanist values, the values that are, in fact, grounded in Judeo-Christian teachings, although they don't need to be.

#113 veebee

I'm not sure that new Euro religion is some sort of scientism.

Don't get me wrong here; I'm all for rationality. But I think that the European atheism is a rationality that doesn't recognize its own limits. It is a new kind of religious absolutism cloaked in the language of rationality.

I didn't mean to imply it. :)

...that Europeans are not interested in fact as much as they are interested in feeling. And their gut feeling is that Israel is wrong.

My point is that the Europeans would not see it this way. They would say that they have the rational, critical, balanced view of the situation (=seeing both sides as equally bad or good) and that the Americans and Jews are irrational and deluded by religion.

I suppose you are right on this point: Aversion to Israel is being justified as fairness. However, postmodernist ideology favored by Europeans and much of the American left, clearly privileges feeling over reason, with reason being construed as something completely devoid of feeling.

True, Veebee, but...

...first they painfully rationally deconstruct the 'dominant ideology',
then they use a lot of pseudo-rational arguments to construct a new reality
to immediately disappear behind a thick impenetrable cloud of 'non-lineair thinking', 'spirituality', 'expressiveness', 'passion' and 'emotion'.

Our arguments will be dismissed as superficial rationality; they think on a deeper level.

I think we killed this thread...

True and sad... Why do people need to be so self-destructive?

Oh, and

I think we killed this thread...

I suspect it was pretty much dead anyways...

I suspect it was pretty much dead anyways...

On a second look... er... may be not.

What do you know of Europe, or the rest of the world for that matter, that is not spoon-fed to you by a right wing media? Soros knows totalitarianism and that is why he is horrified by what is happening in the United States, as are millions of people around the world who look in amazement and horror as reason in the United States disentegrates into a cesspool of ignorance and anger and intolerance. In what other democracy would blatant political pressures prevent the release of a creative work like 'The Reagans'? In what other country would critics of Israel's Likud be cowed into silence, scared as they are of being called anti-semites? As a holocaust survivor Soros is especially sensitive to the precursor signs of authoritarianism - and all these signs are present in the US today - increased nationalism and intolerance of other views, disparagment of foreigners, hate speech in op/ed pieces (such as a recent anti-german piece in the NY Post), attacks on civil liberties (patriot act, anyone?) and free speech. It our DUTY to speak out on what is happening in the US.

as a Jew, I am so ashamed by Soros. his name is tsuris .

#113 veebee

In my experience of living in a largely atheist society (the Soviet Union) I found that people were practically obsessed with morals and ethics on individual basis. There was constant talk of things that "need to be done," sacrifices to be made, etc.

My point is not that godlessness makes people indifferent to moral issues. It is that godlessness makes it very hard to maintain the metaphysical assumption that moral questions have objectively true answers. And if you, yourself, don't hold that metaphysical assumption, then anyone who does, looks like a would-be tyrant. That, in my opinion, is the predicament not only of Soros, but all intellectuals who, illogically, place an unwarranted degree of faith in the truth-revealing power of scepticism.

bubba

What do you know of Europe? I was actually born and raised there, in a totalitarian state, if you want to know. So I can tell totalitarianism when I see it. There are some kids on this side of the Atlantic who like to pose as dissidents while spewing hatred. If you are a real dissident, may I ask you how come you are not locked up in an insanity asylum?

Really, my dear, does "The Rageans" really qualify for creative work? If so, what are your criteria for creative work? Does our government sensor television? I don't think so, and I would like to see it stop subsidizing other media, such as NPR, too. Mind you, the pressure to discard the miniseries came from bellow, not from above. Often times such pressure is applied to other acts, for instance, Tim McGraw's (sp?) song was pulled off the radio several years ago for an inappropriate reference to Native Americans. are you against that, too?

There is certainly nothing wrong with discussion of cultures, be it German, Islamic or American, even if negative elements of that culture are brought up in the discussion. As a naturalized American I feel respected and safe, although some anarchist scam gives me the creeps.

So, although I mentioned that there is nothing wrong with a discussion of culture, please think before you speak.

97 and 105

Of course you can have a society with morals without religion. Its called rationalism.

And consequently they are strongly inclined to regard people who do take that position, as being in the grip of a totalitarian ideology.

I think they do this, and I agree with you, because people that take that position are usually very controlling of people's personal, individual lives- labeling some as wrong and right. abortion/drugs/sexuality/etc.

On Europe, I do think they are too godless, in the sense that they have faith in nothing, rather than in something. This is what I found anyway.

America is governed by middle america in terms of religion and i guess that is what he's (Soros) against.
I dont agree with his statements btw

#125 Jack Frost

Of course you can have a society with morals without religion.

I agree that you can. But I think there is no "of course" about it.

Its called rationalism.

Although reason is undoubtedly part of the answer, I put it to you that reason, alone, cannot, in general, tell you whether an action or intention is objectively good or evil.

It is that godlessness makes it very hard to maintain the metaphysical assumption that moral questions have objectively true answers. And if you, yourself, don't hold that metaphysical assumption, then anyone who does, looks like a would-be tyrant.

It might well be that that's how Europeans construct themselves. But if that's true, they are surprisingly blind to their own recent history where all totalitarian movements came from the atheist corner.

George Soros=UN-American. Perhaps its time he Moved On and chose another country of convience, one that is more compatable with his views such as Zimbabwe.

126 Koyla

Although reason is undoubtedly part of the answer, I put it to you that reason, alone, cannot, in general, tell you whether an action or intention is objectively good or evil.

True. I dont think it is possible to solve the good and evil argument without absolutism (such as religion). But morality is seen as right versus wrong not necessarily good versus evil. An action can be determined intellectually right or wrong.

#121 Bubba, who are you talking to?

I was born and raised in Europe as well. I studied political science and history there. The problem with the American left is they don't know what fascism and national socialism really was about. I read many original texts from the 1920-40s in Dutch and German. I followed the European Union increasing its grip society all through the nineties. I interviewed EU commissionars Erkki Likkanen and Pascal Lamy in Dusseldorf and Washington. I wrote articles about EU technology, economic and trade policy. The similarities between what is happening now and what was happening then are striking. What do you know about fascism and totalitarianism? Do you even know what corporatism is? Whining about a tv series that was moved to another station because a television director made the sensible commercial decision that a huge part of the viewing public would turn against it. You call that censorship, you shallow sack of shit? In what other country would the opposition leader get assassinated six days before the general election? What other country is going to replace its constitution of 150 years by a constitution dominated by its bigger neighbour countries? I what other country has the economy actually been contracting in the last couple of years? I am talking about the Netherlands here, you know, that friendly social paradise where leftwing American love to go to get stoned and look at hookers. I fled October 1st and moved to New York. God bless America.

#129 Jack Frost

I dont think it is possible to solve the good and evil argument without absolutism (such as religion).

My position is that it is very hard, but not impossible.

An action can be determined intellectually right or wrong.

It doesn't matter whether we use the language of "good" and "evil", or "right" and "wrong". What matters is whether we believe the resulting moral judgements to be matters of fact, or of opinion.

I believe that moral questions concern facts, not opinions. But I don't agree that they can be decided intellectually – we also need to draw on some values that cannot be derived by pure reason. But nor do I believe that such values have to be asserted dogmatically.

These are genuinely hard problems, towards which Americans and Europeans adopt significantly divergent attitudes – albeit usually unconsciously. Europeans tend to assume that if the philosophers cannot prove objective morality rationally, then it doesn't exist. Americans tend either to rely on their religious worldview, or to assume that the philosophical problems are soluble, even though the solutions have not yet been found.

Either way, Americans are much more likely than Europeans, to assume that morality is objective. So, whereas most Americans think that Bush's foreign policy is actually right, most Europeans – not recognising the validity of such a concept – think that he is acting as a bully, using America's might to enforce his will on the rest of the world.

I remember reading Taylor Caldwell as a teenager - Soros reminds me of a villian in a Taylor Caldwell book. Very scary. Too much money - and the idea that the world should dance to his vision of one world, one world government - probably under a oligarchy.

I do think that his financial dealing should be investigated. He has most likely broken lots of laws and/or taken part in transactions that are treasonous.

Someone told me that he was just a bitter man because neither Bush I or Clinton would give him influence in government. I guess Dean will.

veebee, Peter Verkooijen - Thank you for such a spirited defense of America! Glad you're here!

Back to topic - As others have said, I think Soros' attitude comes from having lived under Soviet rule. I have a good friend who was raised in the Czech Republic during the Communist years. He didn't even know he was Jewish - until he guessed when he was about 16.

He became an enthusiastic Jew for a short while (much to his parents' dismay), but ultimately he turned away from Judaism when he came to the US and met some racist Jews. He concluded that Jews were "no better than anyone else" and he began to resent their "hypocrisy." As a rationalist, he found the Jewish religion to be just so much "superstition" - oh, and the people were so "clannish," too.

This hostility arose during the hippie era (probably not a coincidence), but my friend still holds mostly negative views of Jews. I am convinced it was the result of his early anti-Jewish upbringing, combined with the disappointment he felt when he learned that Jews were just people (not saints or perfect victims). It's sad, but very common, I think.

#92 Kolya

I'd had to run, base lucre the vain pursuit...so I'm catching up on this thread and haven't read farther. You are a great, and lucid thinker. Articulate, too...

Nice.

#97 veebee

as I say, scrolling, unprejudiced, through the posts - good one. (i did had some quibbles with your earlier post, but not deserving of address). Try this.

In the Talmud we read:

A Gentile came to Shammai and said to him: I want you to convert me, but on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot. [Shammai] chased him away …

He came to Hillel who converted him and said to him: What is hateful to you, do not do to someone else. This is the whole Torah. Everything else is simply commentary to that rule. Go and study it (Shabbat 31a).

Now ponder the difference between Judaism and Islam.

#105 Kolya

...once again. Wham! Who the heck are you? precise, and balanced, but obviously 'cosmopolitan' nonetheless: -
(Atheists), -

they are strongly inclined to regard people who do take that position (ed -of having a perhaps lucid grasp of good and evil - tiburon), as being in the grip of a totalitarian ideology.

Love it.

#106 Big Dan

"A Lie can travel halfway around the world before the Truth has even put on its shoes."

Old words, well spoken.

#107 Masstul Camel Prophet: -
in this, speak for yourself. I count myself among 'the few': -

Few at lgf could look at a [bigoted word] and either say or think, 'the founder of your cult was a filthy pedophile who concocted your cult for private benefit, and his legacy has been to enslave large sections of humanity to an ideology of murder and plunder.'

“When I hear Bush say, ‘You’re either with us or against us,’ it reminds me of the Germans.”

If Bush was inspired by anything to create that saying, it was more likely these statements than anything the Germans said about "the enemy is listening":
[Link: www.biblegateway.org...]
[Link: www.biblegateway.org...]

#121 bubba

ya, I know - GAZE -

is especially sensitive to the precursor signs of authoritarianism

Or enured to them.

#122 endnprbias

subtle. very subtle.

Never thought of that, me...

Kol HaKavod.

#123 Kolya

My point is not that godlessness makes people indifferent to moral issues. It is that godlessness makes it very hard to maintain the metaphysical assumption that moral questions have objectively true answers.

In my Canuck playbook, that makes it a 'hat trick'.

Girl (I suspect), or Boy. I like ya.

#132 Lyncc

Someone told me that he was just a bitter man because neither Bush I or Clinton would give him influence in government.

Wish I had been a 'fly on the wall' for that one...

in sum?

Kolya is Ace. #131 No one on this site has done a Four, let alone a Five. This person should write a f-ckin book.

Camel Prophet for effort. (and relentless links)

Again: - Kolya: - #92, #105, #123, #126, #131

for the rest?

game attempt. Soros is a berk. (but tell him to fund my very attractive projects, please...next time you see him.)

[quite OT: - I'd love, (said in a spasm of irrevelance), to find reason to disagree with Kolya, one day, on anything...][do have teeth left]

Kol HaKavod to the Winner of This Thread.

George Soros is a ^%%$$$ and I hope he goes bankrupt. He is an Isreal basher and he won't be able to buy the jihadis off when his number is up.

Soros's foundation left 'paralysed' after raid

By Sapa-AFP

Moscow - Fifteen years since it started work in post-Soviet Russia, US billionaire financier George Soros's foundation has been "paralysed" after 50 camouflage-clad men seized its Moscow offices and removed computer records and archives.

Yekaterina Geniyeva, the head of Soros's Open Society Institute in Russia, told journalists yesterday that the raid, ordered by the building's owner ostensibly because of a dispute over rent, appeared to be politically motivated.

The raid, at about midnight on Thursday, came just days after Soros publicly criticised the jailing of Russian oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky as "persecution" that would force business to submit to the state.

The organisation had lost all information on its 1 000 grant recipients, Geniyeva said.

"This means that the work of the Soros foundation is paralysed. We can't work without our financial framework."

"I really hope that there is no connection between the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and what happened with our building ... But I cannot rule this out completely. There are too many coincidences: the interview of Soros, the arrest of Khodorkovsky, the seizure of the Soros building and the removal of documents. We do not understand why they were needed.

"The Soros foundation has been stripped bare. There is nothing left but the walls. We will try to resurrect our activities but we cannot be certain when," Geniyeva said.

The foundation is involved in promoting civil society and the development of democratic ideas, chiefly in former Soviet bloc countries.

Khodorkovsky, the former boss of oil giant Yukos, has been in jail since October 25 on seven charges including fraud and tax evasion.

A Moscow court yesterday turned down an appeal by Khodorkovsky to be released from jail after a two-hour bailhearing that was held behind closed doors, Sapa-AP reported.
link

Joshua and all others who can't remember what Bush said. Here it is:

i>You're either with us, or with the terrorists.

A subtle, but important difference.

#88 Oregonian: ok ok I know all that! I just meant "American" as in "holding American citizenship" indeed - I honestly got confused when you mentioned the EU, for a moment I had the doubt he was not a US citizen but a EU one - I'd never really paid much attention to where he was from.

Bubba's take on Conservatives VS creativity as it applies to the CBS movie "The Reagans" is off because it wasn't fiction. It was purported to be a dramatization of President Reagan's life.

There is always some poetic license in dramatizations, but this production was a hatchet job, the author admitted to making up dialogue and situations which not only show Reagan in a bad light, but were diametrically opposite to his real values and beliefs.

CBS planned to air this travesty at a time when President Reagan is fighting the ravages of Alzheimer's disease and could not speak for himself. Many people thought this was so reprehensible that they had to speak out in his stead to thank him for speaking so eloquently for us when he well and strong.

Why does the left always engage in ad hominem attacks. Attack the politics, attack the ideology if you wish, but don't smear a great man with lies because of your irrational hatred.

Koyla: no intention to get into the argument, but just one thing - you say

reason, alone, cannot, in general, tell you whether an action or intention is objectively good or evil

you forget that morality is not an exclusive attribute of religion. It can exist independently of religion. You put it as a matter of opposition of religion vs. reason. But, just like when you're religious, you don't give up on reason anyway - if you are not religious, it's not like you act and decide based on reason alone. We all act also on emotions, instincts, convictions, beliefs, values, sympathies and ideals that may not necessarily be religious, and don't have to be.

Every human being has an "instinct" to know right from wrong - doesn't mean acting on that knowledge, but most of us know. Even criminals do. It has to do with cognitive faculties, we develop that function in early age. And it's both nature and nurture, it's a process of learning and using what's innate. It's there already, though. You don't "learn" morality by way of religion, primarily. Religion can define it in religious ways, but morality is still independent of it.

Then, I'd actually agree religion largely contributes, and has contributed, to many values we all hold precious - but it's because it contributed values that were totally compatible with non-religious thinking.

#150 zaza

Koyla: no intention to get into the argument, but just one thing - you say

reason, alone, cannot, in general, tell you whether an action or intention is objectively good or evil

you forget that morality is not an exclusive attribute of religion. It can exist independently of religion. You put it as a matter of opposition of religion vs. reason.

Actually, I never said that morality necessarily depends on religion. I just said that it depends on having some goal that cannot itself be derived by pure reason.

To be moral, you must be striving for something, and whatever that thing is, it cannot be justified purely rationally. Reason cannot make people want things, other than as a means towards achieving some more global objective. But one's most global objectives cannot, as a matter of logic, be deduced out of thin air.

David Hume famously encapsulated the insight that you cannot deduces values from facts, when he said that you can't get an ought from an is.

erp

There are some very creative documentaries out there, but "The Reagans" is not one of them. Let's not fool ourselves it's a low brow slander peice that has nothing to do with "artistic expression" bubba mentioned.

However, even though it's a low brow slander peice I would be very concerned if we were, indeed, dealing with censorship. But we aren't. Even the most creative of autonomous artists in the West are responsive to market pressures.

Kolya, zaza

Zaza is making the point I wanted to make, only better. I don't think that absence of religion necessarily jeopardizes morality, and morality is not based in religion alone and education of children is not relegated to priests only. I know it because I was brought up in a an atheist society where morality wasn't "hard" at all. It might well be the case that godless Europeans feel threatened by American moral clarity. Some of them, in fact, say that they are, although I'm not sure that we can take their words at their face value. If American morality frightens them, there has to be something else to European culture to account for this fact. I guess it's my bias; to me this argument is about the European society, not theory of morals...

Tiburon

I think what you are trying to get to is that there is no humanist tradition in Islam. Unfortunately it's true; in Arab world they even practice human sacrifice... I'm curious to know what you found objectionable in my previous posts even if you judged it wans't that important...

#152 veebee

The way the French, Germans and, yes, the Russians, behaved at the UN – when they tried to block the liberation of Iraq – was not a manifestation of their lack of morality. I believe they were following their own, sincerely held moral precepts. So, to repeat what I said before, I am not arguing that atheism leads to an indifference to morality.

But their policy was a manifestation of their belief that moral values are defined by certain special kinds of consensus-seeking procedures, such as votes by the UN Security Council. By contrast, the policy of the US and the UK was a manifestation of their belief that moral truth (and therefore the legitimacy of invading Iraq) is independent of the way bodies such as the UN Security Council decide to vote.

In the eyes of the Europeans, the moral stance adopted by the US and UK, is very hard to differentiate philosophically from the doctrine of Might Is Right – which, in fact, is just how they interpret it.

One of the points I have been trying to make is that religion is neither logically nor philosophically necessary to explaining why the European interpretation is mistaken, but that secular philosophy does not yet have a good answer to this question: How can we tell that your moral values are not just based on our subjective preferences, but are actually right in some universal sense?

My other main point was that unlike the Brits and the Americans who are not unduly troubled by this problem, the Europeans tend to treat the failure of secular philosophy to give a satisfactory answer to this question, as proof of their belief that morality is not a matter of objective truth, but can only be decided by legitimately constituted institutions. It would follow from that inference that Bush is indeed no more than a bully who is throwing America's weight around on the world stage.

Now, I don't believe that for a moment. But I think it behoves those of us who believe in the existence of objective moral values, to recognise that the philosophical coherence of our stance is not intellectually self-evident, no matter how natural it may feel.

Of course, that doesn't make our stance wrong. But it does make it hard – though, in my opinion, not impossible – to explain in a purely secular context.

Kolya,

I was more or less agreeing (less Russia values consensus) with what you were saying, except for the last paragraph. I don't think that the current rift btwn the US and Europe can be attributed to the fact that it's hard for Europeans to understand our moral principles. It seems to me that they might be not that interested in understanding them in a first place. In other words, what's in stake for Europe is its identity. And their identity relies on their own morality grounded in certain secular values such as consensus, although there is much more to secular values.

"And their identity relies " should be "and their identity indeed relies"/multitasking

Re: Soros

Did anyone catch Frank Gaffney on Hugh Hewitt's show yesterday, 11/11? When Hewitt asked Gaffney what he knew about Soros, he mentioned something about narcotics trafficking. At least I think that's what I heard. Can anyone clarify? (I wasn't paying close enough attention because I was taking the Urinator, also known as my 16-year-old dog, Joey who no longer has a functioning bladder, to the vet. He was sitting on my lap which he took to be a perfect place to let it all go... again.)

Hungarian Jew? Ask survivors of the Shoah about that combination of words. Particularly if Soros hails from Budapest, the phrase usually constitutes an oxymoron.

Help with the Gaffney statement would be very much appreciated.

Sorros is Disgusting.

Soros made waves last week when, in a meeting first reported by JTA, he told the Jewish Funders Network that the policies of the U.S. and Israeli administrations are responsible for increased anti-Semitism.

Riiight, It's got nothing to do with the rabid imams spouting hate or the ME press or OIC leaders or the PLO or hamas or islamic jihad or PFLP or ...

#151 Koyla: but you're still hung up on that reason vs. religion opposition, and seems like you're saying there's nothing outside reason except religion.

Like I said, people have emotions, feelings, a soul, in other words, whether they are religious or not.

Of course you can't derive values and beliefs from reason alone. You can hardly extract anything at all from reason alone. You need the contribution of so many other aspects of being human.

That's why I think your reasoning is too abstract.

And, again, knowledge of right and wrong is in good measure instinctive. It's functional to the survival of the species in the first place - and I'm no fanatic of Darwinism but that's how it works at the root. Morality is a lot more complex and a cultural thing too, but most of the values of society are predicated on secular principles. It's not a negation of religion, it's just, at a level before it. Religion might enrich it one's morality, but if a basic sense of morality is not there in the first place, you can add on all the religion you like, it's not going to do a thing.

As for the European vs. American debate, fit in anything you like there, but religion has very little to do with it, despite the "godless vs. godly" clichés. There's countries in Europe where religion has been a lot more pervasive than in the US. Yet, the differences are not about that but all about cultural mentalities, economics, history, etc.

#158 zaza

knowledge of right and wrong is in good measure instinctive.

If knowledge of right and wrong is largely instinctive, how can we tell whether our instincts are better than those of bin Laden?

#159 Koyla: look, if you've read wht I wrote so far, esp. in first post, about relation between what's innate and culture, you shuld have got my meaning.

I'm not saying we are "innately good", in case you wonder. Nope. I'm saying, there is a cognitive faculty for knowing the difference between right and wrong. Doesn't mean you'll act on that knowledge, etc. re-read above.

Bin Laden & co. - ideology overturns even instincts. When you got something like powerful brainwashing, esp. if it combines politics with religion, and the brainwashing is strong enough, all other considerations (self-interest, survival instinct, desires, ambitions, personal stuff) go out the window.

See how 17-year olds in Ramallah end up being human bombs. You massively indoctrinate a kid from what, 4-year old upwards, to go blow themselves and others up, in a society where that is viewed as an HONOUR, you drastically reduce the space for the individual decision (following from the knowledge of right and wrong, and from something like an instinct, of self-preservation & of aversion to murder) of to kick in. That space will always be there because ultimately decisions (and responsibilities) are individual, but it will be a lot harder for them to have a place when the individual has been indoctrinated to a point their individual will, their individual ambitions, their individual notion of right and wrong does not really differ from the brainwashing agent's will.

Nature and nurture, society and individual, it's always a matter of balances and give and take. When one takes over, the other is weakened.

Yin and yang of terrorism, if you like...

No, seriously. It's all simple.

And in that case, of terrorists and Islamists, it's precisely religion (as an ideology, but still a religion - a cult - whatever) that helps screw things up and reduce the individual to a puppet.

Substitute notion of physical survival and fear of death with idea of reward in life after death, and there you go.

So, I'd be careful about connecting religion-morality in such absolute terms as you do. It doesn't work like that.

#160 zaza

I'm saying, there is a cognitive faculty for knowing the difference between right and wrong. Doesn't mean you'll act on that knowledge, etc.

This is a point of view. But I don't see any evidence either in biological evolution, or in human history, of an innate faculty for differentiating right and wrong. Nor do I think this notion is supported by prevailing theories in evolutionary psychology (not that I place much credence in them, anyway). But, in any case, even if we had such an innate moral sense, it would not be morally legitimate to obey it, without having a moral theory that explains why our innate moral sense is actually right. Just because a behavioural propensity has evolved naturally, doesn't make it morally right. So we would still be left with the question: How can we know that our moral theories are objectively better than those of bin Laden?

Now, perhaps you're not saying that this moral sense is actually innate, but rather that it is put in place by the community and culture in which we grow up. But, if so, you still have to face the same question: How do we know that the morality of our culture is truer than that of our opponents?

Of course, the majority of LGF readers feel instinctively that Bush and company are right. But is that really what our claim to moral superiority rests on: a feeling? What about the contrary feeling of the large minority of Americans who are vehemently opposed to Bush's policy. How can you explain that your feelings are a true guide to morality, whereas their equally deeply felt feelings are deceiving them?

To avoid any misunderstanding, let me make it quite clear that I believe that Bush is objectively in the right. All I'm saying is that it is not easy to explain why he is right, in a way that justifies the claim that this judgement is an objective fact, rather than a subjective opinion.

As for the role of religion, I have not brought my own beliefs into the conversation, because I have not considered them relevant. But, as you seem to disbelieve my repeated assurances that I am not claiming that morality necessarily depends on religion, perhaps I should make it clear that I am a life-long atheist. An atheist who believes that Bush's foreign policy is objectively right. So I can't possibly believe that morality necessarily depends on religion.

But that doesn't change the fact that belief in the existence of objective moral values is very highly correlated with a belief in God. For example, there are virtually no secular philosophers who would today defend the objectivity of moral judgements. If you know otherwise, please let me know their names. Conversely, the people who bleat most noisily about basing morality on secular values such as economic equality, democratic accountability, the maximisation of happiness, and so on, are, by and large, the loudest opponents of Bush's claim to being objectively in the right.

So, we have these two facts: most people who hold morality to be objective are religious, and America is far and away the most religious of western nations. I'm inclined to put two and two together, and conjecture that it is the relative religiosity of American culture that makes it possible for her to maintain the courage of her moral convictions, in the face of overwhelming condemnation from the rest of the world.

You may have another explanation for the striking uniqueness of America's moral fortitude. But if you do, I have not yet understood it.

Kolya: ... have you read what you're replying to? Or are we just speaking different languages?

I was talking of knowledge of right and wrong - in basic terms, what's right and wrong for a human being - not of morality which is also a cultural thing.

And it goes without saying - but perhaps you don't assume it so that's why you don't understand what I eman - that the whole huge issue of what shapes our morality is a LOT more complex and unfathomable than a case of EITHER innateness OR culture, EITHER secularism OR religion...

But:

This is a point of view. But I don't see any evidence either in biological evolution, or in human history, of an innate faculty for differentiating right and wrong.

No, as I said, I'm referring to studies in child psychology, about cognitive faculties and how they develop in early age. Obviously it's a field of study where there's different points of view. So, sorry for summing up so brutally the thing I'm intersted in here. But for instance, empathy - which is crucial to developing sense of right and wrong, and acting on it - has been observed to develop at a certain precise stage in child growth, in brain growth. So, there are innate *structures* in the brain for processing this sort of thing. Just like there's innate structures for processing language, sight, etc.

If a child doesn't feel empathy - ie. recognising emotions in others - they won't feel restrained in hitting and hurting others. When they do recognise emotions in others, recognise other human beings are like him capable of feeling pain, they'll know *instinctively* it is wrong to hurt others. Empathy is a basic foundation of knowing what's right and wrong to do. You don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you - that's basically "inscribed" in our brain too.

I rememeber reading studies on how in repeated offenders there's a tendency to have a lower sense of empathy. (again, disclaimer - it's a field with many different theories, etc.).

There are things that are basic to survival of the species too. Hence,instinctive. Killing other human beings is perceived as wrong - unless in circumstances where these human beings threaten the existence of the larger community.

THEN, because human development is at stage a bit further than hunters and gathererers, there's all sorts of cultural constructs that *can* modify or alter this perception - or, conversely, most of the time, reinforce it.

Ideology goes further in altering that preservation instinct and substitutes concern for human beings, human species in general, in universal terms, with concern for ideology itself. Like a virus, in a way...

I'm talking about basic things here, killing and survival. Morality is a lot more huge, and I dont think anyone can pinpoint it to a single factor. NO complex human behaviour can be simplified like that. It is both about innate instincts and faculties and individual psychology, AND interaction with culture and what society has developed as values.

How do we know that the morality of our culture is truer than that of our opponents?

If "our opponents" are Jihadis - IMO at the core of it, the difference is simple: they do not admittedly care about the survival of the human species, they care only about the Islamic Jihad. It's totally exclusivist, not universal - an I mean universal in the good sense, of things applying to ALL human beings by virtue of their being human. As in "Universal Human Rights". They're cultural elaborations, but they apply to all human beings by virtue of their biology, psychology, etc. first of all.

It's not one culture vs. another. It's basic universal rights vs. ideological intent to destroy those rights.

Jihadis are not fighting to preserve "their" society, they destroy their societies too. See Iraq, see Palestinians... when you subvert survival instincts even in children and teens, you're endagering your own "group", not only the human species... Ideology is all one big web of distortion and deception, and subversion of basic human values recognised throughout most societies - because they pertain to being human at the core, not to specific social or cultural elaborations.

It's about things that are very obvious to me, so I find it difficult to explain... it gets too abstract in writing.

To me this has nothing to do with mere "feelings". It's not even a case of "objectively right". Bush's policy - which part? The bringing democracy part? There's many aspects that not everyone will agree on obviously. The military part most of all. The "let them do it themselves" - "no, we have to help them" debate. Then there's the mere security aspect.

Everyone not inclined to accept the ideological premises of terorists will see that the basic need to prevent terrorists from bringing further destruction is GOOD.

The disagreeemnt is how to bring that about - militarily or not, etc.

So you cannot lump in everything together when trying to spot one core that can be defined as "right" or "wrong". That policy has more than one item.

Secondly, the principle a country achieving fuller development of human rights and freedom - ditto, everyone not inclined to buy into the Jihadi ideology will see it is also a GOOD principle - disagreements are on how to achieve that, whose task it is, etc. etc. etc.

I don't like words like "objectively" cos I refuse to think in terms of such gross opposition between "objective" and "relative", they can become an hindrance to discussion, are overused and overabused. I prefer to think in terms of basic "instinctive" perception of what helps survival and wellbeing of the human species as such, and what doesn't; and also, in terms of human rights, so, cultural, humanistic, secular, etc.

There's no need to keep asking "why why why" do we feel that survival instinct and that concern for human rights and fellow human beings - if you keep going with the why's trying to find the "objectivist" source, you end up wondering why the heck does the universe exist at all, and that's just *useless* questioning. Not the religious questioning, I'm talking of the hyper-rationalist, hyper-objectivist kind of questioning that - seems to me - you're following here. It doesn't help you live day to day, doesn't help societies face dangers and progress. You only need to know what's good to achieve freedom, happiness (relatively speaking), wellbeing, in short be granted your human rights, now, today, tomorrow.

Religion comes in at another, further stage. It does NOT shape that basic survival instinct, our empathy, our concern for others. Those are ALL basic human qualities. Religion is extra - it is about giving that further meaning to it all, connecting it all, giving a deeper sense to existence itself. But you can have a sense of htat anyway.

I'll make it clear: I separate religion and morality, religion to me is about spiritual matters, not ethics, not primarily at least. If it adds to morality, fine, great. But it doesn't need to.

last bit in response to Kolya:

But that doesn't change the fact that belief in the existence of objective moral values is very highly correlated with a belief in God.

Tsk, tsk, you're positing as "FACT" something that is ENTIRELY your own assumption.

For example, there are virtually no secular philosophers who would today defend the objectivity of moral judgements. If you know otherwise, please let me know their names.

Again, you're stating facts when there's no such facts - are you kidding? MOST of modern thinking has come out of wholly secular thinkers.

Even in ancient times, actually. Philosophy was born *entirely* out of a secular reaction to religion. Out of the need to explain things in a non-religious way.

It's totally preposterous to equate secularism with relativism. Human rights themselves - universal, hence nothing to do with relativism - were born as entirely a secular concept.

Which is why they get *refused* by Islamists who have struck up their own Islamic Declaration of Human Rights.

I think that is very telling.
AS the fact the shariah is predicated on a series inequalities (Muslim- nonMuslim, master-slave, man-woman), unlike all secular concepts of law, predicated on equalities. Exclusivist vs. universal, again.

the people who bleat most noisily about basing morality on secular values such as economic equality, democratic accountability, the maximisation of happiness, and so on, are, by and large, the loudest opponents of Bush's claim to being objectively in the right.

Are you saying most Bush supporters are religious, and most opponents are secularist?

I don't know, I'm not in the US, but it doesn't look to me you can strike up that kind of generalisation.

So, we have these two facts: most people who hold morality to be objective are religious, and America is far and away the most religious of western nations.

None of which is a fact!

The first sentence is entirely your own conclusion, not fact. You do keep interliking morality with religion, and it's just not something you can prove as fact. IF you like that idea, fine, but it's your own only.

Second - on what do you measure "most religious"? church attendance? pervasiveness of religion? in which terms?

In any case, it's not relevant because what you posited in the first sentence is NOt proven.

The very concept of "objective" is a wholly secular one, so you can't attach it to religion as it if was born out of it.

You're doing two and two makes five there.

The opposition to Bush, and to American policy, can be a whole set of different things, even alltogether: mere disagreement with the "how" of the basic principles of that policy; ideologisation; emotional reactions; overt hatred; distrust; disinformation; legitimate criticism, etc.

What does it have to do with religion? nada.

The Catholic Church disagreed too. Are they not a religion?

You may have another explanation for the striking uniqueness of America's moral fortitude. But if you do, I have not yet understood it.

Yeah right. As if it could be boiled down to ONE thing.

Leave aside the morality and religion debate.

It's all in America's history, and it's all obvious. It's how it came about as a nation, at what stage of development of human society it came about, what values it incorporated and was founded on - fully secular humanistic values of the Enlightenment -, how it was built, the pioneer spirit, the superpower factor, and a whole lot of things I'm sure there's no need to point out.

Which doesn't mean the rest of the world is crap. It just means, America is what embodied in its national, legal, political structure the height of modern democratic values developed by the west.

However, this has little to do with supporting Bush or not.

#163 zaza

Tsk, tsk, you're positing as "FACT" something that is ENTIRELY your own assumption.

For example, there are virtually no secular philosophers who would today defend the objectivity of moral judgements. If you know otherwise, please let me know their names.

Again, you're stating facts when there's no such facts - are you kidding? MOST of modern thinking has come out of wholly secular thinkers.

If you're right, it should be easy for you to name some moral philosophers who argue for the objective validity of moral judgements in a way that provides secular philosophical support for Bush's "unilateralist" foreign policy. I don't think there is a single well-known philosopher who meets that bill. If you know of any counterexamples, I would really like to know about them.

It's totally preposterous to equate secularism with relativism. Human rights themselves - universal, hence nothing to do with relativism - were born as entirely a secular concept.

I agree that the European Enlightenment has tried to find a rational basis for putting morality on an objective footing. But, while this project has coincided with an improvement in western moral values, it has not been very successful philosophically.

To take your example of human rights, this concept has no philosophical underpinning. People just take their favourite moral values and then claim them as fundamental rights. But that is not an argument in their favour. Indeed, the whole phenomenon of political correctness, which has been highly successful in undermining the belief in objective moral values, is itself an outgrowth of the human rights movement.

You can see the relative impotence of the human rights concept in the fact that most liberals who support the Palestinian cause, defend their position precisely on the alleged grounds that the Palestinians' human rights are being violated by Israel.

So, while advocates of human rights talk as if they were appealing to something objective, actually they are just dressing up their prior moral values in a quasi-legalist garb. Many people talk as if they had an objective basis for their moral judgements, but very few can offer a convincing explanation of that claim. Present company included.

To take your example of human rights, this concept has no philosophical underpinning.

Kolya: you're kidding, right?

If you're not, you're also implying that the US declaration of independence has no philosophical underpinning...

If you're right, it should be easy for you to name some moral philosophers who argue for the objective validity of moral judgements in a way that provides secular philosophical support for Bush's "unilateralist" foreign policy.

Eh??

I said above why I think it's ludicruous to conflate moral+objective+philosophical+Bush, but I don't think you got my point at all.

Question: what is "objective" for you? what does it mean? and by what standard do you consider valid only what has self-declaredly trumpeted itself as "objective"? even without being so, perhaps?

Personally I'm not talking "objectivism" here, it's an abstraction and a useless one. To demand something be proven "absolutely objectively right" is an intellectual trap useful only for rhetorical exercises. IMO.

I'm talking secular thinkers who elaborated those very values America if founded on.

You know, those who developed the foundations of the very idea of democracy Bush is talking about? hello?

No theoretical underpinning to that? unsuccessful? are you sure? I don't think so at all.

Re: human rights.
To clarify: I'm talking of the concept of human rights, and its legal and historical and philosophical and humanistic background and origins.

I'm not talking of "the human rights movement".

In other words - I'm not talking Amnesty or HRW or any self-appointed association of human rights, I'm talking of the legal system and nitions at the root of that Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is refused today only by communist dictatorships (Cuba has its own "Cuban declaration") and Islamic countries.

Universal rights predicated on totally secular humanistic concepts (compatible with all cultures) vs. ideological-exclusivist ( imposition of one single ideology, in this case, Islamism) .

Hope that's clearer.

#165 zaza

You write:

To take your example of human rights, this concept has no philosophical underpinning.

Kolya: you're kidding, right?

No.

If you're not, you're also implying that the US declaration of independence has no philosophical underpinning...

The Declaration of Independence does have some philosophical underpinning stemming from John Locke's repudiation of moral absolutism. But the actual positive values embodied in the Declaration are mostly the products of the then prevailing English, Judaeo-Christian moral and political tradition:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This is not a philosophical argument. It is an bold affirmation of moral values, supported only by an explicit appeal to God as their guarantor. Which rather supports my case that western morality owes more to Judaeo-Christian values, than to secular moral philosophy.

You continue:

Question: what is "objective" for you? what does it mean? and by what standard do you consider valid only what has self-declaredly trumpeted itself as "objective"? even without being so, perhaps?

To me "objective" means non-arbitrary: in some suitable sense independent of our own, and everybody else's, parochial point of view.

Personally I'm not talking "objectivism" here, it's an abstraction and a useless one. To demand something be proven "absolutely objectively right" is an intellectual trap useful only for rhetorical exercises. IMO.

What I mean by "objective" has nothing to do with proof or certainty. I believe that our scientific knowledge is becoming increasingly objectively true, even though no scientific theory can be proven to be actually true. I defend this claim by reference to our growing capacity to explain and control the behaviour of the physical world, whose existence and properties are independent of our beliefs.

It is genuinely hard to defend a comparable claim about the objectivity (i.e. the non-arbitrariness) of moral values (without appealing to religion, as the authors of the Declaration of Independence did). But unless we strive to defend the claim that morality is more than just a matter of opinion or convention, what exactly is the difference between us and the moral relativists whom we all delight in seeing fisked?

Re: human rights.
To clarify: I'm talking of the concept of human rights, and its legal and historical and philosophical and humanistic background and origins.

I'm not talking of "the human rights movement".

I understood what you meant in the first place. You think there is some deep philosophical way of differentiating true human rights, from the perversion of that concept that has been embraced by the human rights movement. But the problem is that people like Amnesty and HRW think the same thing, but they reach the opposite conclusions. They think there are deep philosophical reasons why their version of human rights is the real one.

I am not suggesting that the tradition of reasoning about human rights is valueless. But I do believe it to be morally derivative. "Rights" are useful as a way of encapsulating the moral values we uphold; but they cannot explain why those values are true in the first place.

I'm talking of the legal system and notions at the root of that Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Dominique de Villepin would enthusiastically agree with that conception of human rights. Yet when it came to choosing whether the human rights of the Iraqi people would be best served by leaving Saddam Hussein in power, or by forcibly removing him, Villepin argued passionately for the former.

So, philosophically speaking, what exactly did the concept of human rights, which you and Villepin both cherish, contribute to that crucial debate?

zaza, if you agree with this statement: There are two sides to every story, but only one truth, then you are committed to the existence of objective moral values. If not, then not.

So, philosophically speaking, what exactly did the concept of human rights, which you and Villepin both cherish, contribute to that crucial debate?

Ho ho ho...

Since I got into this, let me explain, once again, what I meant, and what you keep not getting.

I never denied religion played a part in shaping western values. I said it above in the first post.

I'm not arguing against religion.

I'm not arguing against the existence of a clear right vs. wrong; in fact, it's precisely what I'm arguing FOR.

I just don't buy into your point of view about it and about religion and its influence on morality. Also, I don't follow your mixing of totally different things.

I also don't buy into the whole objectivist rhetorics, which doesn't mean I'm for "relativism". I don't see things in terms of one extreme or the other.

About human rights, again, I'm talking of the Declaration of HR. If you know it, and have it in mind, you'll know it's nothing to do with the political and ideological exploitation of the *phrase* "human rights" by certain activist groups. Why do you keep mixing that and now what does De Villepin have to do with it? I have no idea.

As for the Declaration. A mention of a Creator does not make it any less based on secular principles - those philosophers spoke of a creator too, they wre not theologians, and that idea is vague enough to accomodate all kinds of ideas of the creator - I remember someone here expressed that much better than I can, some time ago. The system of the US is the most secular in the west - never had an official state religion, unlike many other western nations; does not have like the UK a Church of the USA who'd be in part controlled by the state; never had a "Christian Democrats" party like many European nations; etc. - now, because of its higher secularism, ie. separation of church and state, at political level, it actually allows religions to flourish more independently.

Society and mentality at social levels are another matter from political system, but all I'm saying is: no matter how religion is more or less widespread in one country, no matter how church attendence is higher or lower, THIS particular context of fight against terrorism, Bush's policies and statements about democracy, etc. is shaped essentially by secular values. Bush's view is also inspired by religion obviously but everything in his speeches is shaped essentially by those classic principles at the root of the western secular legal and political system. That's all.

As for the definition of "universal human rights", it relates to the concept of "natural law" - which is what Islam refuses, for instance. "Natural law" in the sense it recognises universal rights (as well as notion of crimes and wrongs, of course) to human beings by virtue of being human. A view of ethics based on the nature of human beings. Hence, not a matter of opinion - but not a matter of religion either.

A relatively objective view, in other words, if you pardon the pun.

Which is why everybody in democracies recognises the need for and rightness of the law, regardless of wether they're religious or not. The widest definitions of "morality" - ie. right and wrong - are legal, not religious.

Then, even legal definitions of rights and crimes can get rediscussed, esp. for particular issues.

On the other hand, how individuals like your De Villepin which for some reason you had to pull out of the magic hat - and groups, and societies - interpret the notion of "morality", and build their own systems, depends on how they subscribe to ideologies; or how they simply don't care about ethics, doh, because they put self-interest and business interests and whatnot above them.

In the case where ideology subverts the notion of natural universal rights (and wrongs..), IMHO, I think it's fair to recognise it is "objectively" wrong. Harmful. Contrary to the rights of humans.

I sure don't expect you to agree, but at least, is all the above clearer now? hope so.

Adieu... gotta go meet my friend (whats De Villepin's name? forgot) at the hairdresser now, seeya...

#167 Kolya: I do agree with in that context of propaganda vs. facts. There are clear borders between lies and libels as spread by Arab media, and events they describe (or don't describe, when they invent them).

And you sure don't need to factor in religion or even ethical principles to see that.

BUT, as for *opinions*, it doesn't really work like that. It does depend on the context. And, for values, ideals, etc., you have to separate the exploitation of code-words that are supposed to be values but are no longer... as for "human rights" in the mouths of those inciting to attacks on US troops, for instance.

Now, can you explain your obsession with De Villepin in objective terms? is it the hair? it's objectively ghastly, I grant that... :P

#168 zaza

Bush's view is also inspired by religion obviously but everything in his speeches is shaped essentially by those classic principles at the root of the western secular legal and political system.

If you're right, why are there so few politicians around the world who are not inspired by religion, yet support Bush's worldview? Note that Tony Blair is definitely in the inspired-by-religion category. Also, why are the politicians most strongly committed to the repudiation of religion, among the most vociferous opponents of Bush's worldview:

Twenty-two of Europe's wise men, from ex-prime ministers to Nobel prize winners, have denounced France's insistence on secularising the European Union

You write:

As for the definition of "universal human rights", it relates to the concept of "natural law" - which is what Islam refuses, for instance. "Natural law" in the sense it recognises universal rights (as well as notion of crimes and wrongs, of course) to human beings by virtue of being human. A view of ethics based on the nature of human beings. Hence, not a matter of opinion - but not a matter of religion either.

I agree that natural law theory does indeed claim that morality is objective. An in so far as it repudiates moral dogmatism, it is indeed a valuable concept. But, like Kant's categorical imperative, this theory remains more an ambition than a philosophically argued for body of moral values. The fact that people try to justify their moral values by appealing to phrases such as "natural law" or "human rights", doesn't constitute an argument for those values.

You say that there is a real conception of natural law and human rights (which you subscribe to), and then there are the ones that have been subverted by bad ideologies. But I suggest that all conceptions of natural law and human rights – including yours – are actually determined by their adherents' prior moral values, rather than by compelling arguments based on a philosophically coherent idea of natural law.

The crucial point is that just because you and your interlocutor may both believe in natural law, won't help you win an argument against that opponent, because the theory of natural law has no philosophical teeth. That is why I maintain that secular moral positions are not actually philosophically grounded in natural law theory. They just say they are.

Now, can you explain your obsession with De Villepin in objective terms? is it the hair? it's objectively ghastly, I grant that... :P

Villepin is uniquely brazen – in a nauseatingly unctuous sort of way – in giving voice to the ideology of most western intellectuals, which is centred solely on the repudiation of objective morality, especially as espoused by America:

"The international community cannot wait any longer," the minister told Europe 1 radio earlier, urging Washington to hand over power as quickly as possible to the Iraqi people.

"There are some American representatives on the ground who continue to hold the old, typical language used by all ... occupation governments: We need a little more time. Well time, sadly, means more people dead," he said.

But de Villepin also pledged French support for the administration of US President George W Bush, which he said was facing a "tragic crisis".

I admit I have a morbid fascination with him. I view him as the purest exemplar of what is wrong with western moral philosophy: every decent person knows that he is wrong, but nobody seems to be able to explain that fact in a philosophically coherent way (i.e. without inserting their intended conclusions into their initial premises).

Thank God not everyone named "George" is an idiot!!! Soros knows more about what is happening the world that the imbecile George we have in the White House. Just looking at the uneducated responses I've seen in this website, Michael Moore was spot on when he says that this country is full of "Stupid White Men"!!! Curious George W. has never done anything successful in his life without the help of his Dad. Soros came to the U.S. without any money and from nothing,he has created billions. But he has never forgotten the neediest. He has donated more than $500m to the poorest countries of the world.

#171 Kolya: from where I stand, my impression is support for Bush's foreign policy comes from all kinds of viewpoints - religious, atheists, libertarians, liberals (yes, even those), "neocons", gays (on foreign policy, at least), former communists, etc. etc.

If you want to cut things in halves, go ahead, I just don't think it's that simple.

As for other national leaders, I don't know, I never noticed Blair made much of his religious views in public. Whatever personal beliefs, the appeal on supporting US foreign policy (cos it's not just about Bush is it?) is essentially to secular values, that's why it can draw people from across the spectrum.

And again, there's religious leaders and churches in or esp. outside the US who have taken an anti-war stance, so, if you are right in seeing religion as such a big factor there, how do you square your view with that fact?

I just think its all more diversified. Many people might find an extra religious appeal in the current US approach, many others might not and just embrace the approach for what it is. Cos it's not about religion at all, at the core.

I agree that natural law theory does indeed claim that morality is objective. An in so far as it repudiates moral dogmatism, it is indeed a valuable concept.

Good. That's what I meant.

But, like Kant's categorical imperative, this theory remains more an ambition than a philosophically argued for body of moral values. The fact that people try to justify their moral values by appealing to phrases such as "natural law" or "human rights", doesn't constitute an argument for those values.

I read a quote in an essay on this that said something like: it's irrelevant to find the absolute origin of the concept of law, what's relevant is that it is enforced.

I'd say a pragmatic approach is more valuable than intellectual contortions on why that approach is there.

You say that there is a real conception of natural law and human rights (which you subscribe to), and then there are the ones that have been subverted by bad ideologies.

No, I don't subscribe to anything at all - I just know if I agree with something or not, if I like it or not, when I see it. I may have to think about it, but I certainly don't have any theory to support my preferences. It's all on a case-by-case basis. As it happens, with all things, no?

What I meant by bad ideologies is a reference to the kind of brainwashing that leads people to kill themselves and others, to place an afterlife reward above basic respect for life, etc.

ut I suggest that all conceptions of natural law and human rights – including yours – are actually determined by their adherents' prior moral values, rather than by compelling arguments based on a philosophically coherent idea of natural law.

Heh, you know, I dont even understand what you wrote there. To me, all such reasonings don't matter at all, what matters is practical remedies, solutions, conclusions, etc. Facts, and how to deal with them. I don't care what the theoretical foundations are. What I appreciate in the US policies is the pragmatic approach, even when theres idealism or values, it's about what it does in reality.

The crucial point is that just because you and your interlocutor may both believe in natural law, won't help you win an argument against that opponent, because the theory of natural law has no philosophical teeth.

Heh.. Look, I'm not a philosophy student, so I don't care at all about "winning arguments" in that sense, theoretical arguments. They can be interesting, but also, often, very boring, and useless.

I maintain that secular moral positions are not actually philosophically grounded in natural law theory. They just say they are.

Ok, whatever - put it this way - I personally don't think it's that relevant what theoretical grounds there are to any position, I just think it's relevant to spot a stinking one when it stinks. And conversely to spot good principles that can be shared by all kinds of people. Like your man Bush says.

re: De Villepin - I wouldn't credit him with being the representative of anything, but I totally agree he is nauseating and unctuous, perfect definition there.

Now get on your knees and say sorry for daring to compare me to him! :P

zaza,

I just know if I agree with something or not, if I like it or not, when I see it. I may have to think about it, but I certainly don't have any theory to support my preferences.

I think that what you say pretty much holds true for western civilisation as a whole. We tend to judge moral issues from an intuitive, not a conceptual standpoint. And yet, although we don't subject our intuitions to rigorous analysis or criticism, viewed from a historical standpoint, private and public moral values in western societies seem, in general, to be improving.

I find that fact both amazing and frustrating. Amazing, because the existence of moral progress implies that there is some hidden moral truth that is shaping the evolution of our intuitions. Frustrating, because the exact nature of that truth seems extraordinarily elusive. But, as I said, moral progress carries on, even though we cannot explain what our intuitions are homing in on.

The only thing capable of stopping that progress is not our Islamicist enemies, but our villepinist friends – with their specious doctrines of political correctness, multilateralism, etc., which are all variants of moral relativism.

Stopping that kind of poison from spreading would be made much easier if we understood better what aspect of the natural world our moral intuitions have been latching onto, in the course our culture's historic tendency towards moral improvement.

Clearly this problem will not be solved by recourse to moral dogmatism. But nor will it be solved by underrating the importance of the challenge it poses to the secular worldview. That is really what I've been getting at in this conversation.

Now get on your knees and say sorry for daring to compare me to him! :P

You will just have to take my word for it that I am kneeling down as I type these words:

I freely apologise for comparing you to Dominique de Villepin (who is a man), and I sincerely declare that Cose Turche is incomparably more worthwhile than all 822 pages of Eloge des voleurs de feu.

Will that do?

Actually Prescott Bush Senior and his son in law Herbert Walker made quite a bit of money helping Fritz Thyssen launder Nazi money out of Germany before the fall of the Third Reich -- using the Bush bank, Union Banking, in the 40s -- so he is closer to the Nazis than most of you think...and as far as fiscal policy...Bush is destroying the country by slashing revenues(tax cuts) while increasing spending(war)...and that is not a sustainable economic policy. Not to mention the fact that Bush has done nothing to stop the financing of terrorism abroad which threatens us all...it took a lawsuit by a private citizen to launch the Operation Green Quest Raids which will hopefully uncover the complicated web of terror funding in this country and abroad... And Bush was a drunk-driving, C student, cocaine user!!!...when I was a kid, I always thought that only the best of the best could become president...how disappointing..

You will just have to take my word for it that I am kneeling down as I type these words:

I freely apologise for comparing you to Dominique de Villepin (who is a man), and I sincerely declare that Cose Turche is incomparably more worthwhile than all 822 pages of Eloge des voleurs de feu.

Will that do?

Hahaha!! yes!! you rock, Kolya :)

You cracked me up there.

Re: about the hidden moral truth, I now understand better what you meant. I think that is one of those things that are honed by experience, simply.

But I think you are a little too dismissive of the debates at theoretical level which are still there.

Philosophers still study the "classics" and discuss them. New ethical problems arise such as bioethics and are discussed also from theoretical standpoints, not just practical and legal - you do need a theoretical basis for laws on such matters anyway.

The debates are just not that centered on the "prime mover" of ethics, like you say - but in fields like neuroscience or pshichiatry, those "prime" questions do arise more.

In the end though, yes, it's less important and anyway it's impossible to pinpoint an absolute truth.

because the exact nature of that truth seems extraordinarily elusive.

I know what you mean, but I don't find it frustrating, I think it's fascinating, it's part of the mystery of existence (woo hoo...).

The only thing capable of stopping that progress is not our Islamicist enemies, but our villepinist friends – with their specious doctrines of political correctness, multilateralism, etc., which are all variants of moral relativism.

Actually, I think the biggest logical fault of that kind of approach is the opposite, ie. moral dogmatism - applying principles as rhetorical tools, ignoring contexts, ignoring cause and effect, ie. ignoring all practical aspects of that which they pretend to preach about.

Say, "pacifist" activists with a kneejerk total opposition to war - they isolate war from any historical or political context, they declare it as an absolute evil, and most of all they pretend to think of human history in utopian terms, as if it was perfectible to the point of reaching absolute nirvana on earth.

That view of course is applied with a lot of hypocrisy - and relativism - to things like terrorism, but I don't think it's mainly because those people *directly* support terrorism, but because they see it as the effect of war, "imperialism", etc. and all those de-contextualised things extracted from history and indicted as absolute evils. And then declare an underdog to be championed anyone who claims to be fighting against those "absolute evils".

A reversal of the cause-effect framework and of the nature of human life and history is enough to screw up one's moral view - logical view first of all.

- note: I don't think this is quite the same as "villepinisme", heh - French foreign policy is dictated by their interests, I'm talking of the wider "idiotarian" view

Stopping that kind of poison from spreading would be made much easier if we understood better what aspect of the natural world our moral intuitions have been latching onto, in the course our culture's historic tendency towards moral improvement.

I disagree - I think its on a practical level that those views have to be challenged. On a case by case level, through information, studying history, presenting facts, and simply getting those facts in context.

First, one has to understand what is going on, before one can judge it. So I think it's also important to abandon the pretence of saying immediately what and who is absolutely right or wrong in a certain situation, before you have grasped its context.

Take for instance Chechnya. The usual multilateralist, pacifist, internatinalist, antiglobalist posses are screaming murder, Putin criminal, Bush and Blair criminal for supporting him, Russians criminal for raiding Grozny. But why did they raid it? We can't judge things before we know what's going on. Why did Putin close up pro-Chechen guerrilla media? We can't judge from the general, abstract point of view of freedom of information, without getting the whole picture.

So even something as terribly heavy-handed as the repression the Russians did in Chechenya cannot be isolated from the context it happened with, what provoked it, etc.

So I think it's more on a pragmatic level, of both pratical logic ("common sense") and information, that one has to escape that dangerous "absolutism" of ignoring history.

One can surely see the rights and wrongs, but only in context. That's what I mean by right and wrong being "relatively objective". If we don't have a full context of a situation, or receive one that is totally distorted (via disinformation, propaganda, or ideologisation), then even our moral decisions, conclusions, are more likely to be screwed up.

#176 zaza

One can surely see the rights and wrongs, but only in context.

I agree with what you say about the moral significance of the factual and historical context of disputes. But I think you are still erring on the side of believing that there is, in some sense, a naturally honest way of reading that context – which is what we do; and an ideologically distorted way of reading the context – which is what the bad guys do.

But how one reads the ostensibly factual context is irreducibly dependent on one's basic moral values. There is no value-neutral way of gathering the pure facts and deriving one's moral judgement just from them. What counts as relevant and significant will necessarily always depend on one's prior values.

Let me illustrate my point with an example taken from LGF. On the recent "Case Closed" thread, our local toll, "Moshe", linked to a story about four recent heads of Shin Bet declaring that Israel is heading for a catastrophe, unless she reaches an agreement with the Palestinians soon. Colt, naturally assuming that these guys must know the factual context better than we do, was clearly deeply troubled::

#117 Moshe

first, Moshe Ya'alon and the Four former Shin Bet chiefs know more details about the situation than any civilian anywhere

I wouldn't deny that, which is what scares me.

Charles subsequently posted an item citing a Jerusalem Post story which explains the moral context underlying the Shin Bet Heads' understanding of the factual context. History does not record whether Colt is reassured by this explanation, but let's presume he is. "Moshe" on the other hand clearly is not, because he's standing by his original argument that none of us knows the factual context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well as the four Shin Bet leaders:

I dare anyone here to claim they know more about the middle east conflict than the 4 ex Shin Bet chiefs

As "Moshe" plausibly argues, prima facie you could hardy ask for a more objective appraisal of the factual context underlying Israel's political predicament, than having the considered opinion of four people who have led Israel's intelligence service.

But in the event we find that there really is no value-free way of getting at the factual context. Because whom we count as authoritative experts on the facts, turns out to depends on our own prior moral judgement of where those experts are "coming from".

Kolya: I'm having some trouble following you on that example... :)

I wouldn't even put the basic idea exactly like you summed it up:

I think you are still erring on the side of believing that there is, in some sense, a naturally honest way of reading that context – which is what we do; and an ideologically distorted way of reading the context – which is what the bad guys do.

I don't assume I am in the right on everything, far from it; but I do think there is some (relatively) objective right/wrong side to general approaches, mindsets, etc.

Like, I believe it is fair to say that the idea that terrorism is merely an "alternative" to military war for the poor poor guerrilla/terrorists/militants with fewer resources than big armies is totally, completely wrong - it does not seem so only to those who have subscribed to some cheap and illogical ideological view. Which can be proven from the factual differences in nature, kind, scope, target etc. between military and terrorism, with specific instances too.

But -- on more complex things, and/or more precise points, like how to deal with terrorists, how to minimise the risks, or whatever - there's bound to be different views and not necessarily one is "more right" than the other. So there wouldn't be two sides necessarily but perhaps three, four, ten etc.

That kind of decisions are about strategy, not morals in the first place. A pragmatic, not ethical framework first of all - the how, not the why.

I think in your instance there (I hadn't followed that story or read that post and thread yet, so I'm only considering the part for the argument here), it really did not have much to do with morals or ethics or general principles. It's normal that if some head of intelligence says something shocking or impressive, one should find it of concern - as for judging what they said, well, like I said, strategy, tactics, politics, there's so many other factors in the specifics, that have very little to do with the general moral views.

I personally wouldn't assume that just because they're intelligence, they have to be right - but I'd sure pay attention nonetheless. If tomorrow the CIA starts saying troops should immediately witthdraw from Iraq, I'd think they're nuts, or have been bribed, or something.

In these things, and esp. these days, there's also many games being played. Machiavellian too.

But in the event we find that there really is no value-free way of getting at the factual context. Because whom we count as authoritative experts on the facts, turns out to depends on our own prior moral judgement of where those experts are "coming from".

Like I said, I don't think the judgement there needs to have to do with morals just cos it's experts.

And, in general on the theoretical level - of course there is no "value-free way" etc. - because our brains are not thought-free, logic-free, value-free, or they'd be mechanical. Values are part of the cognitive process (sorry, back to the start eh) - whether it's logical values, sensorial values, ethical values, they all are *necessary* to process reality, and their basic foundations (structures) are there already as we develop and grow as children - society, culture, adds on to it, in huge ways, but the basic framework is there already. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to survive and function at all. So I think our capacity to judge has to do with both instinct and basic cognitive processes too, not just learnt values and beliefs.

That's why I think it's impossible to find the "prime mover". It's like asking why we have eyes.

zaza:

Western civilisation is facing two great dangers: an external threat from Islamic moral absolutists, and an internal threat from moral relativists who deny the legitimacy of our struggle against the absolutists.

Of these two threats, I think the latter is the more serious. Provided we retain the courage of our moral convictions I am confident we will prevail. But the only countries that are truly acting in a morally clear-sighted way are America, Britain and Israel. And even in these countries the political will to act rightly hangs in the balance. Bush, Blair and Sharon are under enormous political pressure to cave in to the relativist mentality that is the norm among western intellectuals.

Moreover, it is scary how dependent we are on the continuing leadership of those particular individuals. In all three cases, all the alternative leaders would probably be less clear-sighted about what we need to do, and less resolved about doing it.

I believe this raises an important question that deserves serious consideration: "Why is it that most people in the west, and especially most intellectuals, fail to understand the moral case for war?" Or to put this in the context of the subject of this thread: "Why has George Soros – who proudly professes to base his worldview on the ideas of Karl Popper, the pre-eminent philosophical critic of moral absolutism – made it his life's goal to depose George Bush?"

Calling people like Soros idiotarians may make us feel better, but it does not constitute an explanation for why so many clever, well-educated, well-meaning people, who are quite amenable to reason in other areas, are so impervious to our moral arguments.

I think part of the explanation is that our moral arguments are genuinely not very compelling. They make perfect sense to us because we have certain moral intuitions in common. But for people with contrary intuitions our arguments are ineffective. That's not because those people are more stupid than we are. It is because our arguments don't actually explain the rightness of our intuitions themselves.

I am not prepared to acquiesce in this state of affairs. I believe that the policies we support really are right. They are not just right, relative to our intuitions. It follows that our moral intuitions must be right, as well. And if a thing is actually true, it must be capable of being explained – I categorically reject the possibility that there exist truths that we can perceive, but never explain.

The search for this explanation has already been going on for millennia. Both monotheists and secular philosophers have made major contributions to this project. So far the answer still eludes us. But it does exist, and it will be discovered. But only if we continue searching for it.