»Home | »Philosophy  | »Advocacy | »Weblog
:: The Rule of Reason ::

:: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 ::

Israel Votes to Exist 

:: Posted by Edward Cline at 4:33 PM

You’d swear that Benjamin Netanyahu was Mephistopheles in disguise and had magically wangled a victory by hypnotizing the whole Israeli electorate! The New York Times, the Washington Post, David Axelrod, Barack Obama, are all mystified, their panties in a twist over Netanyahu’s landslide triumph! It must have been electoral chicanery! Dishonest sleights-of-hand! Netanyahu must have cast an alchemist’s spell on the Israelis! He must be in alliance with….Satan! He must have channeled Shirley MacClaine! The Iranians must have engineered Netanyahu’s victor! Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank were duped into voting for him! Or something!! It was a result of climate change! Martians stole the election for Netanyahu!

Call us Harvey Wallbanger! We don’t get it! We did our best – we, the Obama administration – did our best to scuttle this arrogant man’s bid for continued leadership, and interfered in Israeli politics by backing his opponents, we poisoned his wells and poured sugar into his gas tanks – but he won anyway! It’s not fair!

That Israelis wish to continue to live and not be sliced-and-diced by a Palestinian state and overrun by hordes of Muslims who love death more than life – this is a notion alien to the New York Times and other anti-Israel entities. The Israelis voted for a man who stymied Hamas in Gaza last year and who is in earnest to preserve the Israeli state and protect it from harm or destruction.

Something we Americans can't say about President Barack Obama.

Jodi Rudoren, writing for the New York Times on March 17th, in “Netanyahu Soundly Defeats Chief Rival in Israeli Elections,” expressed the Gray Lady’s anger and senility over Netanyahu’s victory by penning a vicious, petulant lead article that reads like a back-fence gossip rant. In her “objective” report on the election results, she accused Netanyahu of “offending” voters, resorting to last-minute “scorched-earth” tactics to snatch victory from the implied jaws of defeat, (implying that he was doomed to defeat), of insulting Arab voters, by calling Netanyahu’s campaign “divisive” and “racist,” by insinuating that the coalition government he might form is destined to querulous dissolution, and that his Likud party is a “right-wing” party (ergo fascist, can you hear those marching jackboots now?).

In two companion pieces on the same day about Netanyahu’s victory, the New York Times continued tantrum-throwing and shoe-pounding. Isabel Kershnermarch, in “Deep Wounds and Lingering Questions After Israel’s Bitter Race,” accused Netanyahu of a number of sins:

From the capitals of Europe, to Washington, to the West Bank, to the streets of Israel, even while his critics said Mr. Netanyahu had reaffirmed his reputation as a cynical, calculating politician, it appeared that his approach succeeded in drawing votes from other right-leaning parties.
But along the way he angered the president of the United States with a speech to Congress and infuriated European leaders eager to see the peace process move ahead to create a Palestinian state.

:: Permalink | 1 Comments ::


:: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 ::

The Altruist Moral Cast of Early American Novels 

:: Posted by Edward Cline at 10:54 AM

After a hiatus from my columns, one enforced by the necessity of writing, without distraction, my latest Cyrus Skeen mystery novel, Silver Screens, set in the Hollywood milieu (but not in Hollywood itself), it is appropriate that I return with the review of a book about the early American novel, Philip F. Gura’s Truth’s Ragged Edge: The Rise of the American Novel, which traces the beginnings of the literary form in this country and discusses its largely religious nature and later anti-American nature. He covers roughly the century just prior to the American Revolution up to the mid- to late 19th century.

Gura discusses such better known novelists as Nathaniel Hawthorne and Herman Melville, and reveals that they, too, experimented with, if not endorsed, the kind of “self-fulfillment” dramatized by their lesser known colleagues in the realm of fiction. Many of the novelists Gura discusses aren’t even on Wikipedia’s list of known 19th century writers.

All novels are “morality tales” of one kind or another, including Silver Screens. The difference, however, between Silver Screens and virtually every novel discussed by Gura is that the morality in Silver Screens is integrated with the action, whereas the morality and action in these early novels are rarely integrated and are paragons of what novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand called the soul-body dichotomy. That is, the morality is not reason-based and so is at odds with man’s nature and with reality itself.

First, let’s establish some context. Most of the novels Gura discusses can be categorized as “popular” literature. Novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand wrote about such novels:

 Popular literature is fiction that does not deal with abstract problems; it takes moral principles as the given, accepting certain generalized, common-sense ideas and values as its base. (Common-sense values and conventional values are not the same thing; the first can be justified rationally, the second cannot. Even though the second may include some of the first, they are justified, not on the ground of reason, but on the ground of social conformity.)

Popular fiction does not raise or answer abstract questions; it assumes that man knows what he needs to know in order to live, and it proceeds to show his adventures in living (which is one of the reasons for its popularity among all types of readers, including the problem-laden intellectuals). The distinctive characteristic of popular fiction is the absence of an explicitly ideational element, of the intent to convey intellectual information (or misinformation).

Most of the novels discussed by Gura, who offers informative synopses of scores of them, together with the backgrounds of their authors, strike me as extended, highly convoluted morality tales that stress self-sacrifice and moral improvement vis-à-vis Christian morality. One value of Gura’s opus is that he documents the transition from Christian morality tales to collectivist, social morality tales. For example, of Catherine Maria Sedgwick’s A New England Tale (1822), Gura writes:

A New England Tale’s heroine, Jane Elton…embodies disinterested benevolence. The novel’s message is that no matter what one’s station in life, moderation, honesty, and sympathy, not blind allegiance to heartless doctrine, are the foundation of a religious life. With more and more of her countrymen rejecting religion that cast the individual as a helpless, lost soul, they easily could fall into the snare of selfishness. Liberal denominations like Unitarianism offered an alternative, a life defined by a self-empowerment held in check through a concern for catholic moral virtue. A New England Tale spoke to a readership that increasingly turned to this sort of literature for guidance in navigating a society in which selfishness seemed not only justifiable but the only sensible ethic. Sedgwick reassured readers of the rightness of simple Christian goodness during a time when old pieties were breaking against shoals of individualism. (p. 51)

Jane Elton rejects the marriage proposal of a successful attorney (Edward Erskine) because he wasn’t sufficiently selfless in his court cases, and because he refused to support reform of the state’s poor laws.

To most of her contemporaries, Erskine would be a prize husband, but Jane rejects him for his lack of Christian virtue….Her patience and principles bring her the spouse she deserves. Thus, Sedgwick implied that religious and social pretension can be combated by faith….Happy endings for fictional heroines are possible despite dismal ends The Coquette and similar novels presented as inevitable. (p.53)

I rarely resort to Biblical quotations. Here is an exception to my rule:

Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight. (Proverbs 3:5-6)

This is applicable to not only Christians seeking a pseudo-individualism, or a “self-fulfillment” by submitting to a “higher authority” and leading a “virtuous” but psychologically harmful life, but also to the Progressive/collectivist philosophy, in which individuals must not “lean on their own understanding,” but suspend their minds, ignore the evidence of their senses, and have faith in the chimerical morality and feasibility of collectivism.

Gura describes the trope of another Sedgwick novel, Clarence (1830). It dwells on the same theme, that earthly happiness is a false alternative.

The novel’s heroine is Gertrude Clarence, a natural target for speculating single men. But unlike other characters, she questions the endless pursuit of wealth and the consumerism and instead tries to persuade the rich to use their money for good causes. Clarence thus takes up the debate over disinterested benevolence and civic republicanism that characterizes religious and political debate. Sedgwick realized that wealth did not mean happiness; a contrarian view in 1830. The rich in her book languish in boredom, cynicism, or worse. Sedgwick was no Thoreau, bellowing against the economic system itself. Rather, she condemned those who value money excessively and mindlessly subscribe to the notion that goods make the man. (p. 60)

Reading through Gura’s study, one can observe the creep of altruism into political and social realms in American literature, gradually metamorphosing from the travails of women (and of some men) to the travails of society, of the poor, of the “disadvantage” under capitalism.

Most of the novels, states Gura, are obscure, little known to the public, discussed chiefly by authorities on the fiction of the past. Many of them were, nonetheless, popular and even successful. They were “bodice rippers” or “potboilers” overlaid with enervating Christian moralizing.

It was inevitable that, in the absence of a fully rational philosophy of egoism and individualism, the Christian moral code that dominated American literature would logically evolve, by the end of the 19th century, into a Progressive, collectivist moral code. The compartmentalized rational aspect of American philosophy, the political philosophy that made the American Revolution possible, had to give way to the irrational Christian aspect, with which the rational attempted to ally itself. One could not have one’s individualism and self-sacrifice to God, to the “community’ or to the public good, at the same time.

As Christian morality, regardless of the denomination, placed a value on individual salvation and on the free will to achieve it, the secular version of it that dominated American literature stressed an individualism close to the Transcendental notion of self-worth by surrendering one’s ego to the “greater good.” Transcendentalism was the chimerical hair shirt that these novels recommended Americans should wear for the good of themselves and for the nation. The individualism preached by most of the authors was, incredibly, a “selfless” species of individualism.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, who together with Thoreau and other prominent writers of the time, opposed business and the industrialization of the country, himself provided a fairly open definition in his 1842 essay “The Transcendentalist”:

"The Transcendentalist adopts the whole connection of spiritual doctrine. He believes in miracle, in the perpetual openness of the human mind to new influx of light and power; he believes in inspiration, and in ecstasy. He wishes that the spiritual principle should be suffered to demonstrate itself to the end, in all possible applications to the state of man, without the admission of anything unspiritual; that is, anything positive, dogmatic, personal. Thus, the spiritual measure of inspiration is the depth of the thought, and never, who said it? And so he resists all attempts to palm other rules and measures on the spirit than its own."

The Christian writers who used their literary works to advocate the “reform” of society and of men, provided grist for their successors in the literary realm to become activists and Progressive reformers. The American literary corpus of the first half of the 19th century largely was what latter crusaders for social and political change cut their teeth on.

In pursuit of virtue, the protagonists of these novels achieve little else but misery or death, social ostracism, or degradation. There are few “happy endings” in any of the novels discussed by Gura. The virtue seekers invariably meet their end by committing suicide, or murder, or descend into madness.

Another popular novelist of the early 19th century discussed by Gura was George Lippard. This author, in his “genre-breaking” works, railed against the evils of city life, and specifically against capitalism. Among his most successful and lurid novels was The Quaker City (1845), which “exposed” the depredations and criminal character of Philadelphia’s “elite” moneyed class in a fictive institution called “Monk Hall.” About the political and literary character of Lippard’s best-known works, Gura writes:

He exposes the irrational core in every person and shows that liberty and individualism lead to immorality and sin as much as they do to happiness. If people are in thrall to powerful subliminal forces beyond their control, the very foundations of American life begin to tremble. Absent a strong political or religious authority to govern society and morality, uncertainty, ambivalence, and even chaos ensue….(p. 88)

…His novels challenged the immensely popular domestic fiction typified by {Catherine} Sedgwick’s later works. He subverted standard plot devices and characters prevalent in sentimental writing, shocking readers with depictions of violence, perversion, and pornography. His heroines, unlike those in domestic fiction, act irrationally and without regard for Christian humility. (p. 91)

The novels, because they portrayed individuals in pursuit of a “transcendental” Christian virtue in conflict with their desires (chiefly sexual), were popular because they appealed to the prurient interests of their readers. They were read for their “dirty” scenes, e.g., of young women seeking perfect marriages with handsome young rakes or opportunists after their money or fortune, and consequently “falling from grace” by allowing themselves to be seduced, and then either being abandoned by their paramours and dying, or committing suicide. Foolish or ill-advised trysts invariably led to tragedy. Some of these novels, Gura relates, are heavily influenced by Gothic romances that were introduced from Europe. Other novels are picaresque in nature, featuring a protagonist stumbling hither and yon in search of “virtue.”

One can compare these “potboilers” and “bodice rippers,” in terms of contents, events, and denouements, with the currently popular Fifty Shades trilogy (of Grey, of Darker, of Free), by British writer E.L. James. That trilogy, therefore, is nothing new and there is nothing original in or about it. Only the pious language is missing. In it, a young woman also seeks a perfect relationship with a man who requires that she submit to sadism/masochism (BDSM).  In the box-office record-breaking film, the woman leaves the man (a billionaire). By the end of James’s trilogy, however, she has converted the man into “normal” person who desires a normal relationship. They have children and settle down.

Gura devotes many pages to discussing Nathaniel Hawthorne’s lesser known novel, The Blithedale Romance (1852), set in a socialist commune, and how its characters are not quite good enough or ready to make such a social arrangement work. The two male protagonists, Coverdale and Hollingsworth, members of the group, are depicted as being fascinated and attracted to the “free spirit” of a woman named Zenobia, a wealthy, beautiful, and sexually “liberated” member, but fall for the safer, fragile “purity” of Priscilla.

Another constant “trope” of these novels was the living conditions of the poor, and how these oppressive conditions led to the spiritual debasement of the “disadvantaged.” It was the implied duty of the virtue searchers to concern themselves with such matters.

I don’t envy Gura for having had to read many of these novels. They would put me to sleep five pages into any one of them. His synopses, concise and well-written as they are, whether about the obscure or famous novelists, such as Hawthorne and Melville, caused me to nod off more than once.

Truth’s Ragged Edges is a tedious chore to read, but it is nevertheless an important work in that it chronicles the not so obvious relationship between religious ardor and concerns for the self-salvation of the individual and the collectivist commands to “improve” oneself by submitting to the imperatives of the “community” or the state. Gura has an uncritical view of this transition; his approach to the problem hovers near politically neutral psychoanalysis. Gura writes, unaware that Rand identified a problem that haunts these early novels, as one of a soul-body dichotomy:

American novelists in the first half of the nineteenth century…produced remarkable, and remarkably complex, fiction. But the harsh truth is that even after the cataclysm of the Civil War, the United States remained unique among countries in a schizophrenic emphasis on the individual and his feelings as well as on the commonwealth and one’s obligations to it.  (p. 280)

Truth's Ragged Edge: The Rise of the American Novel, by Philip F. Gura. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2013. 330 pp.

:: Permalink | 2 Comments ::


:: Monday, February 16, 2015 ::

On the Appeal of Terrorism 

:: Posted by Edward Cline at 10:12 PM

So, what goes on in the heads of Islamic terrorists? Barack Obama says their massive, continuing murder sprees have nothing to do with Islam. The Prime Minister of Denmark, which has experienced multiple Islamic terrorist attacks over the last week, agreed with Obama that they had nothing to do with Islam, but did admit they were terrorist attacks. Ms. Thorning-Schmidt sought to calm tensions after the attacks, saying, “This is not a war between Islam and the West….We feel certain now that it was a politically motivated attack, and thereby it was a terrorist attack,” she said. If the violent suppression of freedom of speech is a “politically motivated attack, and if she is certain of that, why deny it has nothing to do with Islam?

Speaking to reporters in Copenhagen on Sunday, according to Danish television station TV2, Ms. Thorning-Schmidt said: “This is not a war between Islam and the West. We will do our best to defend our democracy and Denmark.”

In the name of what politics were the attacks on a meeting about freedom of speech in Copenhagen and on a newspaper in Paris launched? No answer. Blank out.

The International Business Times on February 2nd carried a lengthy reiteration of Obama’s standard denial that Islam:

U.S. President Barack Obama refused to consider it a “religious war” to fight against terrorism. He continued to avoid the phrase “Islamic extremism” as he said that the majority of Muslims “reject” such an ideology.

Obama said that he would not give a religious colour to the war against terrorism. He warned against the danger of “overinflating” the threat of terrorist organisations. He added that the United States should align itself with the majority of Muslims who disapproved of terror groups like al Qaeda and Islamic State. He said that the most of the Muslims reject the radical views of those organisations….

Obama said that “99.9 percent of Muslims” believed in what everyone believed in: “order, peace, prosperity.” He added that the “hearts and minds” of young people in the Middle East and South Asia should be won back as the particular regions had become the “ground zero.”

Obama insisted on a “surgical, precise response” to a very specific problem. He said that terrorist organizations would be defeated as they did not have a vision which ordinary people found appealing.

And if countless “ordinary people” find that vision appealing? Do we tell them, “It’s bad for you. You might be shot and it’s not nice”? Do we eliminate the “visionaries” with “precise” drone strikes or by the elimination of states that sponsor terrorism, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran? Turn every square inch of territory that ISIS has conquered into parking lots of melted glass? Create vast acres of the bodies of napalmed ISIS fighters in Syria and Iraq and Libya? (Call it the Jordanian pilot treatment.) Send all those “ordinary people” to de-programming camps so they can get their minds right? How many millions of Muslims are we talking about here? Americans are getting tired of our panicky, hand-wringing political leaders and the MSM crying, every time Islam strikes, “Oh! What to do?? What to do??”

Islam is an ideology and it’s an ideology Obama is friendly to, given his power grabs in this country, and one which has Europeans shaking in their boots. The Europeans don’t dare name Islam as the root motive for terrorism lest they push the hot buttons of their new immigrant Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Finns, Germans, French, Spanish, Italians, Austrians, Swiss, Belgians, and Dutchmen who are likely to go berserk in their quest for “order, peace, and prosperity.” The only prominent European brave and prescient enough to name the enemy is Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who is regularly persecuted by his own government

But, what makes a terrorist tick?

Tablet Magazine ran an article by Paul Berman on January 28th, “Why Is the Islamist Death Cult So Appealing?” He opens with:

Why do people who are not clinically crazy throw themselves into campaigns of murder and suicide? The sociological answer to this question assumes a pettiness in human nature, such that even the slightest of humiliations and misfortunes may be regarded as sufficiently devastating, under certain conditions, as to sweep aside the gravest of moral considerations.
I rather think that such people are criminally, not clinically crazy, their “craziness” being no ameliorating defense or excuse for why they commit murder, rape, deliberate destruction, and continue to attack Jews and other “infidels.” At the risk of sounding like a xenophobe (or an “Islamophobe,” if you like), I would say these people’s “mental” problems would be of no concern to the West if they’d remained in their own pestholes of origin where they could murder, rape, honor kill, and slaughter members of competing Islamic “flocks” to their hearts’ desire. Instead, Western governments have invited them in to civilized societies by the boat- and plane-full and don’t mind if they bring their “cultures” with them in the name of their pitiless god, diversity.

However, Berman writes:

I prefer to invoke the history of ideas. People throw themselves into campaigns of murder and suicide because they have come under the influence of malign doctrinal systems, which appear to address the most profound and pressing of human problems—and do so by openly rebelling against the gravest of moral considerations. Doctrines of this sort render their adepts mad, not in a clinical sense but in an everyday sense. And the power to drive people mad comes precisely from the profundity, or the seeming profundity—which is what everyone else fails to see.

Yes, it has something to do with ideas, in this case, the totalitarian nature of Islam.

Berman concludes:

Why, then, do people who are not clinically insane throw themselves into this kind of insanity? Why do they do so even in the world’s wealthiest and most peaceful of countries? They do so because the apocalyptic dreams and the cult of hatred and murder and the yearning for death are fundamentals of modern culture. They enlist because they are unhappy, and the eschatological rebellion against everyday morality satisfies them. The Islamist idea, in its most extreme version especially, offers every solace that a mopey young person could desire.

Tablet carried another article, by Nancy Hartevelt Korbin on February 11th, “Sadomasochism and the Jihadi Death Cult.” Korbin writes:

Paul Berman’s recent essay in Tablet magazine “Why Is the Islamist Death Cult So Appealing?” is a wonderful piece on the history of Islamist ideas, but Berman does not really answer the question that he poses in his first line: “Why do people who are not clinically crazy throw themselves into campaigns of murder and suicide?” Berman’s conclusion is that “apocalyptic dreams, the cult of hatred and murder and yearning for death” born of unhappiness is what motivates Islamist terrorists, and further that “eschatological rebellion against everyday morality satisfies them.”

Korbin comes closer than Berman to an answer to the question of why so many people are drawn to the jihadist life.
But is that why they do it? Is that what motivates men in hoods to publicly decapitate an individual with a knife, or pose smiling with the severed head of a woman, or put bullets into the heads of hundreds of captives and toss them into the river, or most recently throw a prisoner into a cage and light him on fire? Berman addresses the ideological part of the problem, but buried deeper is the psychological pull of sadomasochism—the thrill of violence, power, and control that comes from inflicting pain on others. This is the unspoken driver of the appeal of the Islamic State and similar groups.

In a word: Nihilism. For what is a sadomasochist but a nihilist who experiences a sense of existential efficacy by inflicting pain on his victims, either the drawn-out pain of a man in a cage set on fire, or the fleeting pain of individuals crushed and incinerated in a jet plane as it strikes a skyscraper, or the pain of a man feeling his head being sawn off?

In the final analysis, jihadists do what they do because it is what they choose to do. Their militant professions of love for Allah and acting out a variety of by-the-book Koranic diktats of Mohammad disguise a profound hatred of existence, especially a hatred for those who appear to be living happy, successful lives. The Islamic “faith” is nihilistic. It appeals to those who are unhappy with being alive and unhappy that others are happy to be alive. Islam does not offer them a reason to live, it does not offer them an automatic set of goals and rewards to reach by living by a certain ethos.

On the surface, that is sadomasochism. But, existentially, that is nihilism, whose end is to destroy the good for being the good.

Islam’s chief appeal to Islamic terrorists is that it offers them a chance to escape life, to escape existence. They rationalize their brutality by saying or thinking that what they choose to do in the name of Allah is to destroy those who deny Allah, and in the most hideous ways possible. As the terrorists hate their own existence, they wish to make their victims regret their own existence. The ethereal reward of a paradise with seventy-two virgins, if any Muslim really believes in such a thing, to an Islamic terrorist ready to “martyr” himself is the mental mirage of eternal, effortless, causeless, purposeless, selfless existence.

One cannot dismiss the element of volition when examining the motives and actions of Islamic terrorists. They choose to kill for the sake of killing. And that choice reflects a life-long affinity with nihilism, from early childhood up thru adulthood.

Yes, Prime Minister Thorning-Schmidt, there is a war between the West and Islam, and to grasp the reality of it, one must first grasp the anti-life core of Islam. If you think that life is the motive and fuel of Islamic terrorists, you are badly and perilously mistaken.

:: Permalink | 2 Comments ::



» Recent Posts

» Israel Votes to Exist
» The Altruist Moral Cast of Early American Novels
» On the Appeal of Terrorism
» On Phobias
» Lies the Media Told Me
» Not Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals II
» Not Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals
» Global Urban Renewal
» The Muslim’s Conundrum
» Crying for Argentina

» RSS Feed

» Capitalist Book Club
Purchase the essential texts on capitalism.

» Feedback
We want to hear from you!


Blogs We Love:
» Alexander Marriot
» Armchair Intellectual
» Best of the Web Today
» Daily Dose of Reason
» Dithyramb
» Dollars & Crosses
» Ego
» Ellen Kenner
GMU Objectivists
» Gus Van Horn
» Harry Binswanger List
History At Our House
» How Appealing
» Illustrated Ideas
» Intel Dump
» Instapundit
» Liberty and Culture
» Michelle Malkin
Mike's Eyes
» NoodleFood
» Objectivism Online
» Outside the Beltway
» Overlawyered
» Powell History Recommends
» Quent Cordair's Studio
» Randex
» Sandstead.com
» Scrappleface
» Selfish Citizenship 
» Southwest Virginia Law Blog
» The Dougout
» The Objective Standard
» Truth, Justice and the American Way

» Link Policy
» Comments Policy



Copyright © 1998-2013 The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism. All Rights Reserved.
info-at-capitalismcenter.org · Feedback · Terms of Use · Comments Policy · Privacy Policy · Webmaster