Friday, 17 August 2007

10 signs that you're a Moral Idiot including #10 update

We live in an age of cognitive dissonance, of inverted values and of true Orwellian doublethink. The Left believes in, amongst other things, gay rights, women's rights and rehabilitation for thieves while also offering moral support to radical Islam, which hangs gays, stones errant women to death and chops the hands off thieves. On the Right, we stand in bewilderment wondering why nobody has learned the lessons of the evil of socialism throughout the last century or understands the threat of totalitarianism in this one.

Given all of this topsy turvey-ness it seems to me that we need some sort of test, a guide, in order to establish whether your moral compass is tuned correctly. Therefore, I have prepared the following 10 signs that you're a Moral Idiot and hope that it helps guide you towards good, solid values in life.

UPDATE - The original list called for ideas for the #10 sign. I've updated the list to include it.

1. You can't tell the difference between Israel and her enemies*. This really is the ultimate test. If you are so dozy, so hopelessly indoctrinated with University-educated ignorance that you equate a democratic (and extremely left wing!) Israel, a country that has had to defend itself from attack for all of its existence, in which a million Arabs live peacefully alongside Jews, in which Arabs have the highest standard of living (by miles) of any country in the Middle East, in which Arabs serve on the judiciary, in which Arabs stand for, and are voted into, the Knesset (their parliament) with the suicide bombing, fanatical, genocidal, death cults known as Hamas, Hezbollah or Fatah then you are definitely a Moral Idiot and there's no hope for you. Click here to go to a website of like minded and racist moral idiots.

2. You believe that the United States is the greatest threat to world peace. This sign is similar to the first sign about Israel. In order to hold this view you must forget that America fought a civil war to eradicate slavery, costing a huge number of lives, proving the moral strength that underpins its values even to this day. You must forget about America's role in saving the Allies in WWII, rebuilding the Japanese and European economies afterwards and defeating socialism during the Cold War (probably something you're still not too thrilled about anyway) and then going home afterwards when it could have annexed half of Europe. You must forget about the fact that the US is the largest provider of humanitarian aid on the planet, exceeding all other nations combined and is the first and only non-Imperial superpower in history (even France still has greater imperial influence than America). You must forget that its free market approach and entrepreneurship have driven the economies of the world forward in a way unlike the collective efforts of all nations through history. China is on the rise because of it, as is India and many others. The result? Vastly increased living standards and hugely longer life expectancy. How appalling! You must forget about the positive outcome of the civil rights movement that, while divisive and momentarily destructive, has led to equality of opportunity for all citizens of the United States. You must forget about the threat of the deranged regime of North Korea or the completely round the bend Islamic Revolution in Iran building nuclear weapons and you must laugh off their threats to annihilate their neighbours and Israel because 'they're not really serious'. You must forget about Al Qaeda's declaration of war in 1996 on the US (before 9/11, imagine that!), as well as the Lebanon peacekeepers bombing, the attack on the USS Cole, the attacks on the embassies in Africa that left hundreds dead and the first World Trade Centre attack - and you must recast all of those events into a "it's all due to US policies in the Middle East" and "we've brought it all onto ourselves" framework. You must magnify the smallest US mistake into the greatest sin, believe that Vietnam was the worst war ever, that Iraq is just a repeat of it and that we were all better off with the world's worst living mass murderer, Saddam Hussein, who had killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens and was an existential threat to the world, still in power. In short you must believe that there is nothing exceptional about the United States at all and that its only intention is to rule the planet in spite of the fact that there is nothing in the evidence cupboard to support the argument. If you believe that the United States is the greatest threat to world peace then you're a Moral Idiot.

3. You believe that all cultures are equally valid. This particular piece of hare-brained logic has its roots in secular multiculturalism. The loss of belief in God, particularly in oh so enlightened Western Europe, has resulted in a loss of societal values and along with that has gone the ability to differentiate good from evil and right from wrong. Cultural relativism dictates that equality is the order of the day and that all cultures are equally good. What a complete load of bollocks. If I go to Saudi Arabia I will behave exactly in accordance with their culture and customs, understanding all the while that they have certain harsh punishments for crimes that if they were committed here would result in a slap on the wrist compared to a complete loss of the wrist over there. If a Saudi comes here and enslaves his house keeper, beating her along the way such as is reported from time to time then he should expect to be given time in jail for something that isn't even considered a crime over there. But, oh no, cry the cultural relativists. We can't offend people with cartoons! We must respect their culture and bend over backwards to accommodate their disgusting values even if it means allowing Muslim women to wear the profoundly demeaning mask of oppression, the burqa, when in public here, giving moral support to the obnoxious and evil Sheik 'cat meat' Al Hilaly or agreeing to replace our own symbols for fear of offending a violent and backward religion. It demeans us and cheapens our culture. Congratulations, if you believe that all cultures are equally valid then you're a Moral Idiot.

4. You believe that Iraq 2.0 is all about oil. "No blood for oil!" wailed the crowds of bra-less grandmothers and grey haired, pony tailed protesters as the US prepared itself to invade Iraq in 2003. The only reason that the US could have to go into Iraq was oil. Nothing else. It's all about the oil. That it was the home to a terrorist supporting, brutal dictator with masses of the blood of his citizens on his hands after the repeated use of WMD against the Kurds, who was defying UN resolutions and whose daily activity included shooting at US aircraft patrolling the no fly zone protecting the Kurds is completely lost on people (by the way - if you believe the war was illegal then go and read the text of UN resolution 1441, which clearly states the consequences of non-compliance). Here's a fact that people don't know - 80% of the United States oil supply comes from itself, Canada and Mexico. Hmmmm. Bet you didn't know that, did you? Now, here's a really big question. I want you to concentrate really hard. Put on your tin foil hat if you think it'll help. If the United States wanted Iraq's oil then...why didn't it just buy it? Would have been much cheaper. Because they're warmongers and wanted it for free, you cry, thus demonstrating the terrific double standard you have that also supports socialist confiscation of western companies' assets such as happened in Chile and Cuba, and is going on in Venezuela today particularly with foreign owned oil companies. If the US wanted the oil then they would have simply taken over the refineries and pipelines, rolled up the oil tankers and pumped away. Would have been much easier. Did that happen? No. If you believe that Iraq 2.0 is all about oil then you're a Moral Idiot.

5. You believe that war is not the answer. The irony is that war was the answer when it was needed to protect your ongoing right to say that war is not the answer. It was the answer to defend Europe from Germany in both WWI and WWII. It was the answer when socialism threatened South Vietnam (and would have been the ongoing answer if Congress hadn't cut off funds to the South Vietnamese Government). It was the answer in Korea. It was the answer in the First Gulf War. It was the answer in Kosovo. It was the answer in Panama. It was the answer in Grenada. It seemed to be a pretty good answer to the question of freeing the slaves in the South even if there were more Americans killed than in WWII. And I think you'll find that Israel thinks it's been a pretty good answer to 60 years of Arab aggression. Oooooooh, sorry. I completely missed your point. It's only not the answer when the major nations like the United States, Australia or the UK go to war. Of course, how silly of me. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan you didn't protest against that because it was obviously OK for them to cause the death of 1.5 million people. Not a peep when the Rwandans started a war that exterminated a million or more Hutus. Must have been the answer to something, surely? Perhaps their library books were overdue. Let me see here. Uh huh, no protests against the Iran-Iraq War with another million dead. No protests about Ethiopia or Mozambique or the 1.5 million killed in the Congolese conflict. Checks the history...nope, no protests against Cambodia and the 1.6 million dead there or the 2 million dead in the Second Sudanese Civil War. If you stay silent on totalitarian and socialist atrocities while advocating that for the good guys 'War is not the answer' then you're a Moral Idiot (and a bloody dangerous one at that).

6. You believe that Fidel Castro has been a positive influence for Cuba and a role model for the world. This really is one of my favourites.
Cuba used to have a vibrant, competitive economy and now has a stagnant, pitiful self-enriching dictatorship. But they have free health care for all, you cry, and free education too! Well guess what? So did the Soviet Union and look what a bastion of enlightenment and progress that turned out to be in its hideously murderous and repressive seventy-something year history. And guess what else? Cuba has been just as repressive and backward as it. Read Against All Hope and check out The Real Cuba and if you can look at the reality of the health care, education and living standard and still believe that Fidel Castro has been a positive influence for Cuba and role model for the world then you're a Moral Idiot.

7. You believe that 9/11 was an inside job. Another particular favourite of mine. In order to believe this one you must first believe that America is rotten to its core and that it will do anything in order to promote its interests, including killing 3000 of its own citizens. Popular Mechanics profoundly debunks all of the hilarious and bogus claims about rate of building collapse, use of explosives, explosive pods on the 767s and the collapse of Tower 7. Even more hilarious than the 9/11 conspiracy sites are the ones that debunk the Popular Mechanics debunking. Here's a question. If the administration's goal (which had only been in office for eight months so obviously they were speedy workers) was to give it a cause to invade Afghanistan, and then Iraq, then why did it need four aircraft? Assuming that the conspiracy is true then one plane into the WTC might frighten people but not anger them into action so I can see that a second would be necessary. But a third? And a fourth? And why 'bring down' Tower 7 at all? It's completely unnecessary to the overall plot. The key, for me, was the reaction of George W Bush when told of the attacks. He sits there looking like a stunned mullet without a clue what to do for nearly ten minutes. If it was a set up then he would have been immediately up on his feet, in front of a camera, marshalling the country and showing himself to be a man of action in time of crisis. Conspiracy theories always rely on thousands of people keeping quiet and the hyper-competence of government. In spite of proving itself to be less than competent on a near daily basis on a wide range of issues it's still possible to believe that on this one issue it's hyper-competent. Want more proof? If there was something in it then the traitors at the New York Times would have gone looking, found one of those thousands of people keeping quiet and exposed it to the world like they have with so many other national security secrets. So, despite a plethora of incontrovertible evidence you continue to be driven by ideological hatred and maintain your lunatic position. If you believe that 9/11 was an inside job then you're a Moral Idiot.

8. You believe we should sign the Kyoto Protocol. Hmmm, you say, why is there a moral aspect to this? If you disagree with me then aren't I just an idiot and not a moral idiot? Good question, I'm glad you asked. A fully implemented Kyoto Protocol (the US and Australia sign, China and India etc are exempt) would cost the world $20 trillion and save 0.1C by 2050 and, if you're wondering, there's not much argument on those figures from either side of the political spectrum. The moral aspect comes into play in that it is completely immoral to spend such a massive sum of money on a completely symbolic project when millions of people in the world currently don't have access to clean drinking water, don't get enough to eat, suffer from diseases that were eradicated in the West decades ago (malaria, polio, cholera etc), live in totalitarian African regimes and have an average life expectancy of about 35. When the environmentalist Bjorn Lomberg gathered representatives from countries affected by these issues and created the Copenhagen Consensus Centre they came out with a report ranking the priority that aid money should be spent (in their case they assigned a hypothetical $50 billion). The first of the climate change issues, the Kyoto Protocol, ranked 27th on their list of 40. If you want to hamstring the US economy (the greatest provider of humanitarian aid on the planet) and transfer money to China and Russia through carbon trading schemes (which is their net effect) while we have a here and now crisis in Africa then your values are inverted and you're a Moral Idiot.

9. You believe that socialism is still the answer. The fact is that socialism is still surprisingly popular, especially among the world's academics and others that suck at the public teat.
And just as a point of clarification - Marx made no distinction between communism and socialism - which is why I always use the latter, more accurate term (after all, it was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). The theory is that 'we just haven't got it right yet' and we still need to do some fine tuning. Well, Stalin fine tuned 20 million of his compatriots into early graves, but even he was left for metaphorical dead by Chairman Mao whose Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution and other assorted attempts at fine tuning socialism into something workable required the digging of 40 million graves in order to bury the evidence of failure. Those are extreme cases, you say, clutching feebly to the last straws of logic still left in your argument. Really? How many million did the Vietnamese knock off with their fine tuning? The Cambodians? And what about our current favourite socialists, those crazy North Koreans? The evidence against socialism is overwhelmingly stronger than the evidence in support of Global Warming but our pinko friends still reject the socialist reality while embracing wholeheartedly the results of computer climate models that have never shown to be remotely accurate even once. The European Union is the latest organisation to impose its socialist ideology. Do you know that the EU costs 600 billion Euros a year to operate? All it has done is add in a layer of unelected, totalitarian ideologues and detract spectacularly from economic development. Thus, the socialist EU is being completely outperformed by free market economies such as the US and Australia. But that's OK because they'll just keep fine tuning until they get it just right. How many millions of lives that costs is yet to be tallied. If you believe that socialism is still the answer then you're a Moral Idiot.

10. You support the troops but don't support the war. The people that are most vocal in their opposition to the war point to the goings on at Abu Ghraib, the killing of civilians by the US military and claim that it is all about funding Halliburton and Big Oil not to mention that it's an 'illegal' war. Saying that they support the troops but not the war is a way of protecting themselves from claims of being anti-military. If you believe in the troops then how can you support them if they tortured and killed at Abu Ghraib?
If you believe in the troops then how can you support them if they wantonly kill Iraqi civilians? If you believe in the troops then how can you support them if they're really working for Halliburton and Big Oil? If you believe in the troops then how can you support them if the war is illegal in the first place? How can you support those troops that volunteered for service after the war started, after Abu Ghraib and in the 'knowledge' that it is a blood war fought for the profit of a few companies? If you claim to support the troops but don't support the war then you're a Moral Idiot.

* Thanks to Dennis Prager for the idea.

60 comments:

Knob said...

Its about time someone knows what they are talkin about.

Jack Lacton said...

Thanks, knob. There is certainly going to be some almighty clash of ideologies in the near future you'd have to think.

Anonymous said...

What a douchebag.

Further, learn the proper use of paragraph breaks, turdbrain.

Blackiswhite, Imperial Agent Provocateur said...

Great use of logic and reason, and anonymous had to go and prove that logic and reason is wasted on the left. Banishment to some "worker's paradise" would be far more appropriate.

Anonymous said...

So, you're saying that a few crazy people makes a whole movement (i.e., The Left") bad?

And blackiswhite, one comment from a random person proves that "The Left" can't reason?

These signs are what as know "strawmen". They are wild exaggerations that no one reasonable agrees with (excepting the Kyoto argument, especially since 27th out of 40 means not as important as some issues, but not "morally" wrong).

Name me one person of any standing who believes in your 9 things. Ward Churchill does not count.

Jack Lacton said...

What about starting with the entire editorial board of the New York Times? Noam Chomsky? Jacques Chirac? In fact, almost any European leader. Nancy Pelosi. The list is endless.

The left can certainly reason. It's just that it prioritises feelings over results, which is a complete disaster for everyone.

Anonymous said...

The entire editorial board of the Times believes that 9/11 was a conspiracy? Can you point to one piece of evidence that proves this? How about for any of the other people you mentioned?

I will grant you that Chirac probably thinks there is some validity to social welfare systems, given that it's working out pretty well in France. They do have problems. Chirac is somewhat known (at least in France) for trying to change/reform the system. (He is from a center-right background.)

I could say the same things for each of your 9 points. The main factor is that you cannot come up with one person who thinks all nine of those things and has power. Not one.

Jack Lacton said...

I missed your point, Anonymous.

There might be some 60s hippie in San Francisco that believes all nine points but having to believe all nine is not my point.

To be really clear - if you believe any one of those then you're a moral idiot.

Anonymous said...

Alright, it feels like shifting the goalposts to me, but I can accept that you really didn't mean all nine. It seems even more like extreme exaggeration now.

Regardless, which one of your nine points does the editorial board of the Times agree with? I mean, the whole, actual point.

For example, I believe that many other cultures have things of value that we should not destroy just because we can (e.g., I do not believe in "Social Darwinism"). But I don't think I have to support all parts of all cultures. I can point to the existence of peaceful Muslims who have things of value to offer, without giving any (ANY) support to slavery or violence that people commit in some cultures. (Just like by pointing out some peaceful Christians, I am not giving any support to the Spanish Inquisition.)

Jack Lacton said...

Using the Inquisition as a moral equivalency argument to defend militant Islam should probably be #10 on my list. The Inquisitions took place more than half a millennium ago and the world is a more civilised place now; unless you think that Islam is still rooted in the 12th century. As for peaceful Muslims - where are they? If they exist then they have no voice and no influence. I'll be doing a piece on that later on.

The NYT's disgraceful disclosure of the SWIFT program and its pathetic defence really was treasonous. They are always running the US down and #2 definitely applies to them.

The Stranger said...

I'd like to preface my comment with a bit of self-identification: I'm a social libertarian, a foreign policy do-what-is-effective-ist (needs a snappier title, I know), and an economic society's-best-interest-ist (snappier title needed here as well... in my opinion this comes down to a largely free-market and low-taxes setup for efficiency with some safety nets to prevent poverty and the resultant ill effects). I was raised "conservative" with these values, but find in the modern era I actually fit in with "liberals" easier. Funny how "government has no place in the boardroom or the bedroom" switched sides... but I digress.

Points 1, 3, 6, and 7 really seem to be aimed at straw liberals. I have never heard anyone seriously argue, outside of conspiracy websites that also think certain types of contrails are poison from the government, that 9/11 was an inside job. Likewise, I've never heard anyone in the US seriously admire Castro's oppressive regime. Liberals as a rule dislike it because it's, you know, repressive. Same reason you do. Also, for the record, I heard liberal feminists arguing for action against the Taliban due to their horrific treatment of women many, many years before 9/11. Finally, yes, I concur that a liberal democracy that is secular in governance despite a religious background is extremely different from its neighbors. I want Israel to survive. That's why I speak up when I believe Israel is acting counter to its own long term self-interests.

Which brings me to the primary point I wanted to make: I believe that past actions of the United States as the primary superpower of the 20th century are largely the causes of our modern situation. I'm not so much "blaming" America (after all, I'm looking back with 20/20 vision) as attempting to learn from our past mistakes and determine how to steer the world in a better direction in the future.

And so I'd like to counter some elements of your second point:

"America fought a civil war to eradicate slavery, costing a huge number of lives, proving the moral strength that underpins its values even to this day."

We fought a war to preserve our Union. Lincoln himself admitted the slaves were secondary. And if this moral action can be extended to the present day, couldn't the immoral action of keeping slaves, which at least as much of the population supported, be extended as well? I'm not saying it actually would I'm saying that this point really doesn't make sense.

"rebuilding the Japanese and European economies afterwards"

We learned our lesson from the failure of the resolution of WWI. Had we not done this, we'd be much worse off today in all liklihood. I agree, this was a Good Thing. We should do things like it more often.

"defeating socialism during the Cold War (probably something you're still not too thrilled about anyway)"

Actually, I'd argue that socialism largely imploded on itself, regardless of many of our actions and *in spite of* many others. Our tactics in the Cold War *drove away* more of the Third World than they brought in.

"and then going home afterwards when it could have annexed half of Europe."

Hopefully this is a given for a decent republic.

"You must forget about the fact that the US is the largest provider of humanitarian aid on the planet, exceeding all other nations combined"

Private sector more than government. And the haphazard application means that less of it gets where it needs to go. Applying our clout and leverage as a state would go much, much further. One can also argue that policies like lowering tariffs to expand the free market and allow developing nation's developing industries a decent chance to compete would have a more positive effect... but we don't do that.

"and is the first and only non-Imperial superpower in history"

...right. We have Guam, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico at the moment. We made Hawaii a state, but we took it by force, too. And that's not counting the Philippines and Indonesia and many Latin American countries where the US supported, put in power, and held in power, popularly-hated, often-corrupt governments that at least would pay lip service to being anti-communist and supporting US business interests.

"the threat of the deranged regime of North Korea or the completely round the bend Islamic Revolution in Iran building nuclear weapons"

Had we acted in our best long-term interest during the Cold War, we would have given North Korea options besides turning to communist China for aid. Likewise, Iran would be a lot less radical now had we not toppled their popular not-communist-but-not-siding-necessarily-with-us government long ago.

"You must laugh off their threats to annihilate their neighbours and Israel because 'they're not really serious'."

If anyone actually thinks this, I missed the memo.

"you must recast all of those events into a "it's all due to US policies in the Middle East" and "we've brought it all onto ourselves" framework."

Well, see... we were the primary superpower for most of the 20th century. We had the power to make things better, and we largely made it worse. It's not un-American by any stretch to want our country to learn from its mistakes and to act in its own best interests in the future.

"You must magnify the smallest US mistake into the greatest sin"

Because if we're the city on the hill, the shining beacon of light to the rest of the world, then we should damn well better act the part. It's my PRIDE in America's ideals that makes me so furious when we don't live up to them.

"believe that Vietnam was the worst war ever"

It was a colossal strategic blunder that had no real purpose, wasted the lives of good young Americans, and harmed the US's best interests.

"that Iraq is just a repeat of it"

It is a colossal strategic blunder that has no real purpose, wastes the lives of good young Americans, and harms the US's best interests.

"and that we were all better off with the world's worst living mass murderer, Saddam Hussein, who had killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens and was an existential threat to the world, still in power."

Some other dictators may be in the running for that, but I digress. Removing Saddam? Fantastic idea. Doing so in a way that makes life worse now than under him, hurts our ability to right other wrongs, and generally makes us look impotent and vulnerable to the rest of the world? BAD idea. Seriously, it's hard to believe we messed it up this badly.

"If you believe that the United States is the greatest threat to world peace then you're a Moral Idiot"

We're its greatest threat because we don't consider the true ramifications of what we do. We hurt ourselves as well as everyone else. If we lived up to our ideals we would be the greatest *champions* of world peace, and that's what makes our failure so profound.


And on that (rather long-winded) note, I'm going to bed.

Jack Lacton said...

Thanks, Stranger, for your feedback.

If you've never met an American that admires Castro then you've missed the number of trips that Hollywood celebs make to the place to then come back raving about what a bastion of freedom it is.

The US Civil War was, indeed, about slavery. Lincoln himself could care less about slaves, as you point out, which is something that's generally unknown but the reason that the 11 Southern states looked to secede was that the Republican controlled Congress was going to abolish slavery.

Earth to Stranger - you missed the memo re Iran's threats. Check out any of the left of centre websites and you'll find a squillion people that think Iran is simply huffing and puffing.

Other than that you make cogent and worthy points. Well done.

Anonymous said...

About the Inquisition, I could have said the Holocaust, but some people feel that's exaggeration, and I am certainly sympathetic to that. (It was done in Christianity's name, but so far what Muslims have done has not approached it. Maybe some people want to, but they haven't had enough power. At least yet.)

Perhaps more relevantly, there's the Oklahoma City bombings. Did you denounce the church for that one?

Also, I think I made it perfectly clear that I was NOT defending militant Islam. (That was the part about not "giving any (ANY) support to slavery or violence".) You either didn't read what I wrote or are arguing in bad faith.

There are plenty of peaceful Muslims. In our culture, we generally just pay attention to loud and violent things, which may be why you are not so familiar with them.

You can argue in theory that what the Times did was treasonous. Arguing that that means they think the U.S. is the greatest threat to world peace is more absurd exaggeration. Did you read them following 9/11?

Anyway, if you want to respond reasonably, I will listen and respond in kind. If you are not going to read what I write, then I won't.

Jack Lacton said...

Anon,

It is an unfortunate falsehood to claim that the Holocaust was done in Christianity's name. The Nazis certainly adopted Christian symbols (as well as those from other ancient cultures) but never claimed that Christianity was their foundation. Hitler makes his views on religion very clear in Mein Kampf.

Straight after 9/11 even the world's worst nation, France, was claiming "We are all Americans now" or whatever it was so that doesn't count. The NYT is one of the leaders of the 'blame America first crowd'. There is a reason it's circulation is falling apart from the rise of New Media. The LA Times is in diabolic circulation trouble having moved even more to the left.

I have an essay I'm preparing on the myth of moderate Islam, which will be up within the next few weeks. I look forward to your feedback on that one.

Anonymous said...

I do still think it's dangerous to bring up the Holocaust in discussions like this. Lots of baggage.

Still, the point was it was done in Christianity's name. Do I think Hilter was a good Christian? No. Do I think people were a lot more willing to follow along because it was draped in pseudo-Christian propaganda? Yes. I feel the same way about the pseudo-Muslim propaganda.

The NY Times does not blame America. The LA Times hired Jonah Goldberg, which is hardly a move to the left.

If you defend your accusation of me supporting "militant Islam", I will be more inclined to reading what you have to say in the future.

juandos said...

Anonymous said: "If you defend your accusation of me supporting "militant Islam", I will be more inclined to reading what you have to say in the future."...

Don't waste the bandwidth...

The barking moonbats at this site might actually think you know what you are talking about and appreciate it...

Jack Lacton said...

Anon,

I don't think I suggested you were defending militant Islam. I was merely pointing out that while there is, in theory, a group called 'moderate Muslims', the fact is that the results of their behaviour tend to be more supportive of militancy than otherwise.

Thanks for stopping by, Juandos. Any chance of a cogent argument rather than application of the moonbat label? You should read my essay on that point http://ker-plunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/political-correctness-and-left-wing.html

Jack Lacton said...

My apologies, Juandos. I should have read your post properly! I thought you meant THIS site not THAT site.

Francis W. Porretto said...

Excellent stuff, Mr. Lacton. You've just made the Eternity Road blogroll. Keep it up!

Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant said...

Jack, #10 should probably be "you believe that the United States was the primary superpower for most of the 20th century".  Apparently, MIs have a tendency to forget a little something called the USSR.

rightwingprof said...

Excellent. You just made my blogroll.

tannerb said...

You seem to insult everyone, regardless of religion, national origin, party affiliation, etc. Anyone who agrees on all the points you make is worse than a moral idiot.

Anonymous said...

#10. You believe that a person who:
- wears civilian clothing as your battle uniform
- fakes an injury to kill a medic wanting to help you
- thinks there are 72 virgins waiting for you at death
- uses women and children as human shields
- uses your place of worship to store weapons
- drives a car loaded with explosives into a crowed market
- goes to a wedding wearing an explosive belt
- was happy when the towers fell on 9/11
- demands your children to throw rocks at tanks

is an insurgent rather than a terrorist.

Anonymous said...

Militant Islam kills more innocents in a single year than Christians who fought to preserve their way of life (many of them fighting against Muslims trying to impose theirs, ironically) did during the ENTIRE crusades.

When was the LAST time a devout Christian strapped bombs to himself and blew up innocents to make a point? There are wackos in every race/religion/creed but only militant Muslims train to be wackos as a group.

root@localhost.localdomain said...

Anonymous said:

"There's the Oklahoma City bombings. Did you denounce the church for that one?"

There's no reason to denounce “The Church”. The bombing had no religious motivations or overtones (unless you're claiming that McVeigh was secretly a pissed off “Branch Davidian”). No church or religious leader ever supported McVeigh or his actions. None. McVeigh in his own words, considered himself "Agnostic". His established motivation was revenge for the people killed at Ruby Ridge and Waco. He was pissed off at the FBI and ATF and felt that the government was out of control in the way it handled these stand-offs against U.S. citizens. That's why he targeted the FBI building.

The Oklahoma City bombing became a favorite point of leftists almost immediately after the incident. When losing an argument, they pull it out just like the "Race Card". They want to make McVeigh a poster boy of the evil white-christian male. But by all means, don't let the facts get in the way of your feelings.

Chris said...

10.) You are a massive, crippling idiot if you believe that unfettered open borders are a good thing for the continued existence of America.

true patriot said...

whatever.

BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED!

COPioneer said...

#10 Entry: You are a Moral Idiot if you believe that life in a mother's womb is not a life worthy to be preserved, but a murderer on death row is a life worthy of worshipping.

Ellen K said...

Fascinating and insightful post. It put everything in one place that I have been posting in small dabs elsewhere. It's been long said, but bears repeating, those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. I think that especially plays out with the attempt to defund the Iraqi War. Simply plug South Vietnam into any of the rhetoric and it's the same dialog with many of the same speakers. Even though diaries from North Vietnamese commanders tell us now that we had them on the run after the Tet offensive, our media in collusion with the left wing antiwar groups succeeded in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Bravo on your post. I plan to send others this way to read.

Aaron Matthew Arnwine said...

I was lead here from BlogmeisterUSA (my friend Pam) and this top ten list is excellent. It could be refined and nailed to the doors of the Rayburn building in DC.

As to #3. You should read In Defense of Elitism by William Henry, III. Best quote from the book:

"It is hardly the same thing to put a man on the moon than to put a bone through one's nose."

Eric said...

You GO dude! I loved your article and exhorted anyone reading my blog to check it out - gave 'em a link and put a truncated version on my blog with your name and blog right up front - just in case they were too lazy to go to your site.
I loved what you had to say. In America, we have been gagged and tied up by the PC thought/speak police for so long it is amazingly refreshing when someone lets 'em have it with both barrels. Bravo! I appreciate the spirit in which the piece was written. I was distressed to see so many comments trying to nit pick you apart - I guess it just proves your point I guess. Well, I suppose some might truly want to discuss the issues - but since Liberalism is such a mental disorder, it all too often dissolves into name calling etc... very sad. A mind is a terrible thing to waste!
http://thatsthewayiseeit.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

Well Jack, For a proper response to every point your making here a lenthy reply would take many hours.
Regardless, lets give one point a shot here.
US threat to global peace...
Back in Lincolns time the country was less than a 100 years old and was still laying formative legal structure for a civilized society. Information of political debates both pro and con were percieved differently due a society lacking in its intelectual capabilites compared to today. The rules have changed and the word slavery has similar but different meaning than it does today. How do I make that re-defintion of the word slavery stick ? Factor into your life the words "monitory inflation" since WWII. Your money keeps buying less year after year. We are being ripped off like a slow burn on what we earn. The value of money changes day to day... It begs the question, has a government ever changed the value of an inch or a gallon, a mile or a amp ? No ! Standard weights and measures keep everything the same worldwide.

Having said that, why would we not help the europeans defeat Hitler ? Had Hitler conquered Europe what would have stopped him from expanding his dream to rule the world ? It was in our best interest to stop Germany when we did if you believe he was commited to world domination.
To continue that line of reasoning, it only makes sence to help fallen countries rebuild, it is great for business, our business ! Let me ask you this, what can make money faster than war ? When expensive militaries are built a lot of defence contracts get rich while bankers and big oil also do well. Just look how much money we borrow to miltarize. Next up is the war itself... The going rate for a few divisions of troops and armor plus arms like cruise missle and other costly munitions? Lets not forget aircraft carriers and their supporting cast. Are you starting to get the picture ? Now, after the war is over, bring in the 4th largest industry in the world... drum roll please. Construction companies ! When a 1st world country has become a 3rd world power they might be inclined to ask, how much to rebuild my country Mr Haliburton and competing companies ? No wonder war keeps repeating itself... It moves a lot of drugs and make tons of money ! This is our modern day era and cycle of life in some ways, and, we ( USA ) always seem to be in the middle of it. The USA's defence contractors depend on wars to survive... it is the American way !
Perhaps you could stand to take a long look at what Bill Moyers and some other guy put together here. Plenty of credible folks giving the truth about the details of over throwing governments.
BTW... annexing a large part of Europe would have made us the Imperialist... it is much better to do it covertly as you will see if your willing to believe documented history.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3453261789658676035&q=what+i%27ve+learned+about+u.s.+foreign+policy

Anonymous said...

Thank you for this highly entertaining article. For me, the biggest laugh came when the author claimed that the economy of Australia was 'completely outperforming' that of the EU.

Hilarious stuff.

Jack Lacton said...

After the comments from Anon two back, I should add in that if you believe in the military-industrial complex driving the world then you're actually among the biggest moral idiots ever to waste the oxygen of good people. It is a complete straw man argument and totally at odds with the plummeting percentage of GDP the US has spent on the military, especially over the last nearly 20 years, as per my post http://tinyurl.com/2xnfu2

Anonymous said...

10. You believe Capitalism is bad, and profits are even worse. You're willing to make exceptions for Soros or Oprah or any Democrat/Green contributor, otherwise, as Hillary said, "I want to take those profits" and "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Talk of the 'common good' trumps the guilt of personal prosperity.

Fit said...

10. You believe Captialism is bad... above, is not from 'anonymous'
- but from Fit

Anonymous said...

As a former Canadian, moved to the U.S because at least the system kind of keeps liberals in check. What does that say about my Morals?

The Cuba one was of great interest because as a former Canadian, I did travel to that prison island. All 10 signs are very true from a personal life experience growing up in a country that strives to create a just society via liberalism!!!!!!

mr putnam said...

you are right on the money people want to know why we are in iraq its simple if we are not fighting there we would be fighting this war in our streets .yes a war that was started long before 9/11 everyone forgets all the americans that died over the years which went unanswered .do you remember an old man in a wheel chair that was shot and thrown into the ocean. and the last goes on and on wake up americathis war was not started by george bush he was the only one with the balls to bring it to there back yard. p.s is anyone besides me pissed at these citco commicals a member of a family that has been called american roylity is supporting a country that its leader has dissed our country.i just don't get it

Anonymous said...

you are right on the money people want to know why we are in iraq its simple if we are not fighting there we would be fighting this war in our streets .yes a war that was started long before 9/11 everyone forgets all the americans that died over the years which went unanswered .do you remember an old man in a wheel chair that was shot and thrown into the ocean. and the last goes on and on wake up americathis war was not started by george bush he was the only one with the balls to bring it to there back yard. p.s is anyone besides me pissed at these citco commicals a member of a family that has been called american roylity is supporting a country that its leader has dissed our country.i just don't get it

hawaii navy wife said...

Citgo's worse than that; the US Navy has a contract with them, and you can't buy gas on base anywhere in the US w/o using Citgo. Mil members are working to change that. Contract's up next year.

The more voices we have out here, the better our bloodless fight will go. This is a good one. I've always spoken well of our friends down under; glad to know I've been right all along.

BTW, my many military friends tell me that war games with the Aussie military are challenging -- y'all can fight! Again, glad you're our friends!

Anonymous said...

I think number 10 should be that you equate race with ideology. Can anyone explain why it is racist to criticize Christianity or Islam, when any believer has the ability to change their ideology at any time (I am aware of the social pressure, but just because something is difficult doesn't make it impossible).

Daniel Lewis said...

#10 is easy:

If you are a woman or a homosexual and support Islamists.

bondo said...

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot agree with you at all. After all, if we have learnt anything from the true experts on these matters - hollywood actors - it is that America is evil and run by jews, and Bruce Willis will soon save the world from global warming by flying a rocket loaded with ice cubes directly into the suns core.

curious said...

The Civil War was not fought to "free the slaves". The Civil War was a sectarian conflict which began decades prior to the actual shooting, wherein the northern industrialists were determined to have complete political and economic dominance.

The election of the radicals was the sure sign that the northerners were going to use their superior votes to pass ever harsher laws to achieve political and economic dominance over the south. Secession had more to do with the hatred that southerners felt toward the Yankees, and a refusal to just lie down and submit to Yankee dominance, than it did with slavery.

My ancestors were coal miners in the western part of Virginia. None of my ancestors ever owned slaves. All the able bodied men from my family fought for the Confederacy as partisan rangers against the northern occupation forces. Most of them were executed illegally by Sheridan and his murderers.

I think the feelings of most southerners for the Yankees can best be summed up by Edmund Ruffin, who fired the first shot of the Civil War at Fort Sumter: "...And now with my latest writing and utterance, and with what will be near my latest breath, I here repeat and would willingly proclaim my unmitigated hatred to yankee rule--to all political, social and business connections with Yankees, and the perfidious, malignant and vile Yankee race".

wheels said...

There were many reasons for the Civil War. For the North, the major stated reason was to preserve the Union. For the South, slavery (and the North's growing hostility to it, as well as the ramifications of that opposition) was a major (and, perhaps, the primary) reason for the war. See: Declaration of Causes of Secession.

Darren said...

Love this post--it gets another link from Right On the Left Coast.

miriam said...

Some of your anonymous commenters obviously are wise in commenting anonymously.

Calling people names is not actually an intellectual response. By the first grade, most kids are more mature than this.

Good post. I will link you to my humble website.

Jack Lacton said...

Thanks for dropping by and the link, Miriam.

Anonymous said...

Damn you for arguing the American civil war was about slavery !
Otherwise a good post

rightwingprof said...

I believe I said this the first time around, but it bears repeating.

Brilliant.

GRAYWOLF said...

"Its about time someone knows what they are talkin about."

Unfortunately, that "someone" can't be found here...

Just another idiotic fascist vs communist poorly thought out blog and comments.

Jack Lacton said...

If Graywolf thinks that fascist is some right wing term then he's been sucked in by the left's redefining of it. It's clearly a leftist ideology.

Mussolini was a socialist and Hitler was a socialist and fascism is the first leftward step towards socialism and communism.

The left redefined the term to absolve themselves of the guilt of the Holocaust.

Anonymous said...

And the number one sign you're a moral idiot is....

Posting this morally idiotic article.

(applause)

Jack Lacton said...

Oh! Bravo, Anon! Bravo1!

Kudos for your bravery. Your wit. Your insight.

Not.

Jerry said...

Dear Jack Lacton,
The dominant moral thinking of modern times assumes a material existence. Being bound by the consequential assumptions we find ourselves in the topsy-turvy world you describe so well, where nothing is secure in the visions any opinion offers. We live in a world where opinions jockey for popularity and power and you proffer no resolution except to identify “moral idiots.”
There is an intellectual solution to all the problems you identify but it cannot be accepted by the intelligentsia as it flies in the face of all their proselytizing. This solution says they are all wrong and most likely this includes you. To wit:
“You believe that war is not the answer.” This belief is supposed to make me a moral idiot. Well you are right as long as it is a belief for beliefs and opinions are the curse of mankind.
Is it possible for this conclusion to be the truth and not a belief? Of course, but not from a materially visualized existence. Why do you think we have all this freedom of religion jazz? Not because it is essential to man’s existence but because material perceptions do such a profoundly bad job of describing existence and we need something to preclude and exclude all the horrendous consequences of material assuming in order to maintain some semblance of what we sense is good.
In this miasma of intellectual befuddlement you describe so well we find no belief, opinion or ideal that stands the test of time. One could even conclude we are nearing term on the latest test of reinvented beliefs, opinions and ideals or simply stated modern social theory. It will include the collapse of populations who live by entitlement.
We are facing once again the repetitious nature of history for reason for which we feign topical understanding but whose evolutionary cause we do not understand. Intellectually we have no choice materially speaking but to accept this ugliness as the nature of man.
To do so places man’s intellect on the ineffective list of evolutionary progress. Each of us has a good idea of what is good conduct but as an intellectual endeavor we have failed to identify the exactly why we have no guidelines for genuine goodness. We are as you say, “Moral Idiots.” Modern visions consist of the adherence to beliefs, opinions and ideals. Expectedly a materially visualized existence offers no intellectual guidance because the thing we need to be honest about is also the thing that becomes our greatest evil, the search for gratification, i.e., selfishness.
In a material existence we are dead before we start the game. The best philosophy has done is to say we exist, therefore, we exist. There is no intellectual resolution so we create the games of beliefs, opinions and ideals. This is our inheritance and it is tied directly to our perception of a material reality.

Jerry said...

Continued

The truth is reality is not material in its nature. Every thing of existence has a dynamic and it most definitely is not material as the meaning of materiality conveys inert behavior. Material things have no reason to do anything which is where we found ourselves in trying to moralize our way out of the jungle. It cannot be done as long as a material perspective is assumed. The only thing we can do is believe, have opinions and ideals in an effort to escape the crassness of the material games we play and we all reveal our ignorance.
The solution is to change perspective from a materially defined existence to an existence where value is the defining essence of all things. Now we can begin an honest intellectual approach to understanding our existence. This assumption means all things are in search of gratification all the time. There is no other objective.
Now we come to the idea of what an intellect is for. It is to maximize gratification. Recognizing all people are now made of value, the route to maximizing value and avoiding the potentially self-defeating nature of opportunistic grabbing, we employ not a rule but a principle, non-contradiction. (Principles are for guidance in a truly relative existence per A. Einstein.) This principle gives our minds the responsibility of making those decisions which are genuinely gratifying without negative consequence. This finally opens the door to an existence where boredom, opportunism and delusion are no longer the inheritances brought to us by the pursuit of material knowledge.
The employment of non-contradiction is not a simple task but constant use simplifies its application. Ultimately we come to another missing link in our repertoire of genuine goodness. It is respect. Again, it is not a rule or law but a principle for minds actively involved on the successful application of non-contradiction. It is the grease facilitating cooperative relationships and requires constant assessment in relationships.
War is inevitable from a material perspective. There is no progress to be made from war as the intellect supporting war already has serious problems preventing the identification and application of genuine goodness outline herein. Even in theory the supposed superiority of winning beliefs, opinions and ideals will not stand the test of time. The material perspective determines everything.
The progress we need is to change our perspective to the value perspective. It is the only thing that can give potency to man’s intellect.
It is Thanksgiving Day here in the US. Maybe one day it will be real.

Jerry Hewes
6943 Moore Rd.
Mayville, NY 14757 USA

Anonymous said...

oh so good .... I like your blogger post because you talking about Sex and Marriage and i like any thing or any post talking about it as Ancient Greece for Kids , Map of Ancient Greece ,Ancient Greece Timeline,Ancient Greece Government ,BBC Ancient Greece ,Ancient Greece Food ,Ancient Greece Religion, Ancient Greece Clothing ,Women in Ancient Greece ,Ancient Greece Art ,Ancient Greece Gods ,Ancient Greece Facts ,Ancient Greece Geography,British Museum so i will be happy if your visit my site AncientGreece.Me

Anonymous said...

Right I have not even read more than 1/3rd of it and already it is too much for me... all the benefits brought by america and getting the world to be a better place ... oh right dude... what about in 50 years with your model american and healthy countries have dilapidated and stolen all of earth ressources so in a couple of decades all crude oil, forests, animals about to be extincts will have disappeared? these things took millions of year to get to what it was a couple of centuries ago and in 150 years of inustrialism and in the last fifty years of economies being driven by the ideologies you put forward we are sacking our world ressources just to have a good "financial quarter"?

I am sorry but you are not elevating the debate, the world is more complex than you think and unfortunately everything has pros and cons, even your blind activism were you blatantly point the pros and totally ignore any cons. I can not trust somebody with no defect, and you 9 points of blind obediance to an ideology lack the honesty of admitting it could be wrong.

Qatzel Ok said...

After reading your blog post, I have a much better idea of what a moral idiot is. Thanks for this useful post.

Anonymous said...

well, i'm going to look at this and put my own opinions on it
1: pretty self explanatory. and, i'll agree with it
2: well, if you look at it this way, america is basically trying to start all sorts of wars and interrupt other country's business when we should stay out. but hey, my opinion and probably the same opinion of the "idiots" you described
3: well, cultures that kill aren't alright with me, i'm alright if they are killing people who are killing or stealing though.
4: eh, i can really care less, as long as people aren't dying.
5: i believe war is really about collateral damage not killing people, they just get in the way sometime.
6: uh, pretty sure castro was the idiot who started the cuban missile crisis? i can really care less about cuba.
7: well, 9/11 COULD'VE (look at that word it does not mean "i know it was an inside job" or whatever you are thinking right now like the idiot i believe you are) been an inside job, i personally care less people died we found someone to blame hooray hooray.
8: eh, i can see where you get this one. but, i believe survival of the fittest as well. and there are ways to purify water. get a plastic bag or something plastic and clear, dig a hole, put a bucket or something in it and you can let the water cycle do the rest. well, not sure about "dirty" water but, works with salt water
9: only way to make an effective economy is to remove the human factor. people will always be corrupted by greed. but hey you know that's like, 99% of the US
10: eh, fair enough.

now, im really on neither side, i just want to see more collateral damage and survive. if you ask me, every person who participates in society is an idiot and i believe all idiots should be shot. so, there goes about what? the entire human race?