Current stance, after a few weeks of contemplation. was Re: Why Do They Hate Us?

[Jeff Bone]

Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote:

> >>>>> "J" == Jeff Bone <jbone@jump.net> writes:
>
>     J> Did I say that?  I didn't describe any particular means by
>     J> which we should correct the situation.
>
> Ok, I concede you weren't advocating death penalties, but you still
> advocate severe punishment for thought-crimes.

Actually, let's be clear:  I'm not talking about "thought crime."  I have
nothing to say at all about what people individually think except that they
should be free to think and act however they want.  I'm talking about
*institutionalized* (i.e., adopted as principles of state) memetic
incompatibilities and the potentially deadly threats that arise from them.
It's distasteful to me to even admit it, but it's becoming clear that such
incompatibilities indeed exist and may require zero-sum solutions.

>     J> Withdraw diplomatic recognition from all non-secular states.
>     J> Sever all trade ties and commerce with all non-secular states.
>
> That includes Britain, doesn't it?

I would hope not.  Admittedly I haven't provided a specific enough
definition of "non-secular state" to be useful in deciding such issues.

>     J> TRULY marginalize any nation which would be a breeding ground
>     J> of religious fanaticism.
>
> Ever watch 100 Huntley Street? Or the 700 Club?

Point noted;  I should have been more careful with my wording.  At issue
here is *institutionalized* religious fanaticism and non-secularism, not
religious fanaticism per se.

> I haven't seen any stats, but I'd expect the USA produces more banned
> books than all other nations combined.

And we should applaud that fact.  I'm not suggesting that there be an
approved monoculture; indeed, I'm saying that nations should stay as far
away from the culture business as possible.  Unf., we find ourselves
unwillingly engaged in a culture war that may only have a zero-sum
solution.  It is incumbent upon us to "win" (i.e. ensure our own survival)
if this is indeed the case, and this may require facing up to some
unpleasant realizations and taking some unpleasant and illiberal positions
with respect to certain other cultural memes.

>     J> If a particular thought system has as a core, irrevocable
>     J> principle "X must suffer / die," then X has not only the right
>     J> but the *obligation* to eliminate the agency of that thought
>     J> system.
>
> So Satanists can attack Christians?

We're talking about states, not sub-state organizations.  Though we can
quickly get to that point:  al Qaeda is obviously a sub-state organization,
as are many of the corporations, organizations, and even schools which
create and propagate the context of hatred that we are now dealing with.
How do we deal with nations that condone, encourage, even fund / sponsor
such organizations?  No easy answer there except to note that encouraging a
non-secular and anti-discriminatory framework makes it difficult for states
to get involved in this kind of culture war.

jb