Cultural Center near Ground Zero, pt. 2

I shouldn't waste my time with this, but oh well...

"My original intention was mere to defend, on moral grounds, the now fully born opposition to the Ground Zero mosque. The Left has framed any forthright censure of the project as xenophobic and unjustified; I was primarily concerned with offering a counter argument based on the practical effectiveness of nationalism and patriotic symbolism:"

It was a meager attempt. Many would also doubt the "practical effectiveness of nationalism" and cite WWI and WWII as instances of nationalism and if they wanted they could throw in the conflicts in Former Yugoslavia too, just to name a few. The patriotic symbolism is empty too.

"Further, leftists purvey the specious claim that any opposition tacitly castigates all Muslims. This romantic statement ignores the inherent ethos of Islam, a religion premised on military conquest and a Holy book rife with diktats to that end and lacking in allegorical sentiments that now underpin Christian liberalism. But ignoring the sickening argument of America's culpability in the attacks, Muslims undeniably did it. Opposition to the mosque doesn't impugn all Muslims, but simply notes the correspondence between the attacks and the religion that supported their actions."

The last sentence is pretty funny.

Notice he states, "…and the religion that supported their actions." So, Islam supports terrorist actions. Then it should follow that all muslims support terrorist actions.

P1) All Islamic people support terrorist actions
P2) All muslims are islamic
Cn) Therefore all muslims support terrorist actions

Aside from that many would claim the first premise (P1) is false and the conclusion (Cn) would be too.

This ties in with his second sentence which he claims he knows the "true" nature of islam, or in his words, "This romantic statement ignores the inherent ethos of Islam,...". How he comes to know this"inherent ethos" is beyond me, but I would assume it would probably be based on a literalistic and fundamentalist viewing of islam. If that's the case then I really don't see why other religions would be exempt from a literalistic and fundamentalist approach. Plus I also think any sort of justification for this would probably end up being ultimately question begging.

"Basically, mosque opponents view this as an unnecessary symbolic gesture. Perhaps the mosque's backers repudiate this extreme ideology, but nonetheless, you can't fault people for making the trivial jump given such an emotion charged situation. Is it logical? Maybe not. But again, reductionist and naively philosophical thinking ignores the primacy of emotion in our personal and national lives."

Uh...yes we can fault them. I also lulz at the, "Is it logical? Maybe not." comment. Of course, it isn't logical it's like saying Some X believe Y therefore All X believe Y. I assume we are suppose to ignore that so he can make his "point." However, going back to my previous paragraph, he already believes that all muslims support terrorists. His last sentence is a straw man.

"A nation must maintain a cohesive narrative and spirit to prosper. It must imbue its citizens with an unshakable patriotism and a collective loyalty, pragmatic values that admittedly don't always vibe with rigid logic. Allowing a foreign entity to erect such a structure implies we no longer have that backbone. It showcases the complete enervation of our national solidarity. It illustrates how we've lost the ability to differentiate between ourselves and our nation and that of another peoples."

"Cohesive Narrative"? I assume this probably means ethnic identity. Also again with the spirits? Really? "Unshakable Patriotism" sounds downright dogmatic. "Collective loyalty" isn't anything unusual under a nationalist framework. The rest is kind of blah blah, but the "foreign entity" comment is weak. What exactly makes muslims or islam a "foreign entity"? However, since he's a nationalist I assume he has his own vision of the national identity, more likely based on an ethnic identity, of America and islam or muslims don't belong so they would be rejected as inherently un-american. His last sentence helps support that view point.

"The mosque fits squarely in with this gradual decay of American sovereignty, commenced with the degradation of private rights and now continuing with the stigmatization of any conservative view as well as the political and popular glorification of foreign peoples. The elite have perverted the American narrative, once a celebration of our singular success, morality, and daring, into a globalist doctrine that consciously denigrates the Republic's creators and fully lacks a cultural tradition. This paradigm demands we ignore our own emotional desires because a foreign entity intends to insensitively trample on them. And a nation that sees itself merely as a vehicle for others, a nation that has no loyalty to its own peoples or traditional institutions, is doomed to fail due to its own divisiveness and delusional Marxism."

Blah blah blah. This whole paragraph pretty much reinforces my earlier points. I got a good chuckle with the throw in of "Marxism" which seems to be a standard cry anymore.

"The solution is rather simple. Protest this until they can't handle it and then outlaw Muslim immigration."

Well at least it's clear where Onestdv is coming from and that is ethnocentric nationalism.

Cultural Center near Ground Zero

insert facepalm.jpg at Onestdv

"Obama holds the "rights" of foreign peoples over the palpable anguish of the vast majority of American citizens."

Unclear. Or am I to assume muslims by definition cannot be American citizens?

"The left frames this as an issue of fundamental rights and I admittedly can not offer an opposing argument in this regard. Freedom of religion applies to all in every circumstance. But is a nation defined solely by its laws and legal principles or do the people occasionally supersede these guidelines? Do widespread cultural and social desires allow us to occasionally circumvent these principles? And what circumstances warrant subverting our laws?"

lulz. So it seems you agree that it's a fundamental right and cannot give an argument against it, but then disagree that it's a fundamental right. Most people are probably scratching their heads at the contradiction already. Or I guess to frame his opposition in regards to another fundamental right. Should the 5th amendment really be applied in all cases? Aren't there cases where the crimes are so heinous and the outcry from the public is so loud and emotional that the defendant or defendants should be forced to testify?

"The conservative opposition to the mosque is primarily concerned with our collective "sensitivity". They take the position that emotional consensus concerning this event justifies opposition. I agree with them, yet the left does persuasively counter by noting the universality of religious freedom and the nebulous precedent advocated in this instance. Mainly, I disagree with the specificity of the conservative opposition, an inexorable aspect of the debate caused by the prevailing mainstream discourse."

The emotional consensus doesn't justify opposition because it's, quite frankly, an appeal to emotion and is not a valid argument. Of course, then he goes on to question the fundamental right, which he already agrees with, and you can see my previous paragraph about that and then he finishes it up with, "...I disagree with the specificity of the conservative opposition...". Not sure what he means by this at this point and whether he supports a broader campaign to stop mosques or opposition to muslims in general.

"Instead of focusing on this particular mosque, an important issue for sure, the Right needs to take a more general approach about the fabric of this nation and what constitutes "American principles". The "proposition nation" fails due to its inherent globalism; the Mosque supporters use this embedded concept, one ignored by pusillanimous conservatives, as justification for their project and their triumphalist edifice. This debate isn't necessarily about Ground Zero, but rather about the national capitulation we must endure if diversity and tolerance, instead of national vigor, become the highest values. Too much of a great thing, constitutional republicanism, can ultimately cause a nation's downfall."

I think we already know about his "American Principles" and that is that they can be superseded by emotional appeals. "Proposition Nation"? I don't know what he means by this. "Triumphalist edifice"? Now there are probably only two ways to come to this conclusion one is by associating any muslims or anything islamic with islamic terrorism (specifically 9/11), which is fallacious, or coming from a broader ethnocentric stance. Judging from his post I would suspect both. I also agree it's not about ground zero because what's being built isn't going to be at ground zero. "National vigor" is vague but I would assume it's based upon ethnocentrism.

"Allowing this mosque represents a vile insult against the American people. Surely we cherish the founding concepts of this nation and owe our predominance to these freedoms. But a nation exists independent of its laws; it's an amalgamation of cultural mores, traditions, social bonds, collective pride, national folklore, and, yes, an incorporeal spirit. A nation is founded upon laws, but a nation is defined by its people, a concept illustrated by the most basic thought experiments. (Walk from your local Bodega to Little Italy.) This mosque abides by our laws, but it enervates our nationhood. It's an ostentatious display implying that America must willfully acquiesce, even welcome, that which disturbs their solidarity and upsets them greatly. Only to the liberal reductionist, obstinately beholden to "diversity" and "tolerance", would the emotional spirit of a people and the death of a cohesive civilization matter so little."

Blah Blah Blah more appeal to emotions Blah Blah Blah. However, I got a good lulz at nation states having incorporeal spirits. Since when did nation states have spirits? There's some other stuff in there I could talk about but, I'm wasting too much time on this already. I also got a good lulz at the last line too. My favorite lulz was...if they build this cultural center then it's the collapse "of a cohesive civilization." lulz. Slippery slope much?

Race

"So if the races were actually biological, gene frequencies should not be equal amongst these populations.

The whole point is to demonstrate that race is biological. The problem is that in attempting to demonstrate that the races are biological they use the assumption of races are biological. Not to mention a lot of the time there is a restatement of what race is.

Understanding the HBDer

It's important to fully understand where the HBDer comes from. First off it should be noted that a vast majority of HBDers are politically conservative, with libertarianism sprinkled here and there, and the rare liberals. Of course, this is nothing new and even when sociobiology came out most of the supporters happened to be of the conservative persuasion and most of the opponents happened to be of the liberal persuasion. Because of this it's no surprise to see that most HBDers try to use biology to support their political viewpoints, for instance the following sentence from a book... 

"Darwinian biology sustains conservative social thought by showing how the human capacity for spontaneous order arises from social instincts and a moral sense shaped by natural selection in human evolutionary history."

If you browse through some HBD blogs here and there you'll more or less find the idea of the aforementioned quote in HBD blogs applied to various things they deem appropriate.

However, anyone who has looked at the HBD sphere knows that the main obsession of HBDers is race. Race is the center puzzle piece of the HBDers world-view much like the earth being the center of the universe was the center puzzle piece for the Aristotelian world-view. Other obsessions you'll encounter when going through HBD blogs is IQ and various positions each blogger finds appealing like AIDS denialism.

There's more that can probably be said, but for now that's good enough.