Double standards in criminals and normal people.

Criminals and terrorists, like normal people, often show behavior that would seem to contradict their principles.  For instance, Lee Malvo, who along with John Allen Muhammad, terrorized the area around Washington D.C. by randomly killing strangers from a distance with a sniper rifle, was an idealist.  He was impassioned over social injustice, especially mistreatment of blacks, and had read extensively on this subject.  On the other hand, in his home country of Jamaica, he had robbed people, who I assume were black.  If you are concerned about historical forces on a grand scale that hurt blacks, then why hurt a few on an individual level?
Another example:  Muslims who were among migrants trying to get from Libya to Italy in a boat threw 12 fellow passengers overboard — killing them — because the 12 were Christians.  This may not have caused the Muslims who did this cognitive dissonance, but to me, it is odd that they were trying to get to the mostly Christian continent of Europe, and throw themselves on the charity of Christians, and at the same time had an attitude of hostility to Christians.

We live in a world where any opinion, no matter how repugnant to us, is held by large numbers of people.  for instance, we believe in individuals following their own star, and achieving what they can by their own talents.   But consider this: Ivan Ilyin  has been dead for more than 60 years, but his (anti-individual) ideas have found new life in post-Soviet Russia. After 1991, his books were republished with long print runs. President Putin began to cite him in his annual speech to the Federal Assembly, the Russian equivalent of the State of the Union address.

What are the ideas that have inspired such esteem?

ivanilyin
Ivan Ilyin
Ilyin believed that individuality was evil. For him, the “variety of human beings” demonstrated the failure of God to complete the labor of creation and was therefore essentially satanic. By extension, the middle classes, political parties and civil society were also evil, because they encouraged the development of personalities beyond the single identity of the national community.
According to Ilyin, the purpose of politics is to overcome individuality, and establish a “living totality” of the nation.
So while we might like to believe the debate on individuality is over and done with, many think quite differently in the largest country in the world (by land area).
Or democracy.  To quote the renowned Muslim Brotherhood cleric, Sayyid Qutb,
It is Allah and not man who rules. Allah is the source of all authority, including legitimate political authority. Virtue, not freedom, is the highest value. Therefore, Allah’s law should govern the society; not man’s.
This is echoed by two recent fatwas posted on Islam Q&A, both of which state that democracy is “contrary to Islam.”  Number 07166 says that “Democracy is a man-made system, meaning rule by the people of the people…. [In Islam] rule is for Allah and it is not permissible to give legislative rights to any human being.”
Or Homosexuality.  Some people see “gay marriage” as evidence of endless progress in liberty and rights, others believe all gays should be killed, when they find them, they kill them.
Or Child molestation.  One practice that scandalized American soldiers in Afghanistan was the molestation of young boys there. Two American soldiers roughed up one abuser, and the U.S. army relieved them of their posts soon afterwards.  The abuse is a whole subculture of bacha bazi, or “boy play,” in which young Afghans are used as sex slaves by grown men.
Or the Holocaust.  We have Holocaust museums, and the word “Nazi” is about the most evil concept we can think of, but demonstrators in Europe have chanted “Hitler should have finished the job”, and American Nazis have been coming out of the woodwork recently.
Given the above, a video surfaced that is quite ironic:
It shows a group of students yelling at Nicholas Christakis, the former master of Yale University’s Silliman College.  The issue was that his wife sent out an e-mail criticizing Yale for telling students not to wear culturally insensitive Halloween costumes because she didn’t think it was the administration’s job to tell students what to wear.  Her husband   agreed with her and refused to apologize. The anger and protests that ensued over it eventually resulted in both of them having to resign last spring.
Immediately after the controversy, video surfaced of a student screaming in Christakis’s face that he should be fired. That was bad enough, but the newly publicized videos show that the hysteria went way, way beyond that. The things that these videos show are beyond parody: One student says the real reason he didn’t remember her name was because he’s a racist. Another student compares the pain she endured from his supporting his wife on that issue to getting a soccer ball kicked in your face and having your nose broken. Throughout, Christakis is clearly trying to remain calm.  …At one point, a student even declares that what he “did was create space for violence on campus.” When he disagrees, she shouts, “It doesn’t matter whether you agree or not! It’s not a debate!” Now, creating “a space for violence on campus” would be setting up a boxing ring and encouraging students to punch one another – not supporting your wife’s criticism of a college’s micromanaging its adult students’ Halloween-costume choices. That’s not what the word “violence” means. It’s insane, no doubt, but her most insane comment actually comes right after: “You want free dialogue? You want free speech? This is how it works. Someone speaks, you listen, you do not cut them off.” And she was saying it while screaming in Christakis’s face and not allowing him to talk. Her lack of self-awareness in making that statement is astounding, but the bottom line is that she and the other students acting like her just don’t care about “free dialogue” at all.
The point is that these students can yell all they want, but the immovable walls they want to erect in the face of discussion turn out to be not so immovable in the rest of the world.  Against racism?  Too bad.  Some countries even have black slaves.
How would these students deal with the following item?
Hillary Clinton accepted the Margaret Sanger Award in 2009. “I admire Margaret Sanger enormously,” she told Planned Parenthood, “her courage, her tenacity, her vision.” But this vision included blaming Jews and Italians for causing “the multiplication of the unfit in this country,” judging “the Aboriginal Australian” the “lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development,” and using the n-word in private correspondence. If she sounds like an ideal speaker for a KKK rally in some barn, that’s because Sanger really once spoke at a KKK rally in some barn.
sanger
Margaret Sanger

I would expect that loyal Democrats don’t see material such as this, (I saw it on a conservative website) and so would either dismiss the source, or say Margaret Sanger was good on women’s rights, and that position was what Hillary was praising.

Leon Festinger (the scientist who came up with the theory of “cognitive dissonance”) wrote:
A man with conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts and figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point… presented with evidence – unequivocal and undeniable evidence – that his belief is wrong, he will emerge not only unshaken but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed he may even evince new fervor about convincing and converting others to his view.
It is reasonable to challenge people’s sources, but what I’ve notice happens in arguments when quoting sources is that sources become suspect simply for being mostly on the other side.
Dale Carnegie, author of “How to Win Friends and Influence People”, had a major rule: “Never argue!”.  If you want friends, in other words, don’t talk politics and other sensitive topics.
So lets leave politics and look at how people deal with inconsistencies in their lives.
The son of Pablo Escobar, an ultraviolent drug lord, said this about his father to about 1,500 people packed into a theater in Guadalajara, a city convulsed by Mexico’s spike in drug violence: “He was a mass of contradictions.  Despite his bad behavior outside the home, he was a loving dad, a good counselor and my best friend.”
[The son] became an architect, a choice he calls a direct response to the many buildings his father brought down with bombs. Though raised in mansions so large that cars could be driven through their foyers, he now lives in a cramped apartment with his wife and 3-year-old son.
The question arises, how could Pablo Escobar (who amassed a huge fortune), be such a likeable Dad?  Didn’t he see a inconsistency in killing other people’s sons and husbands?
The son is not being inconsistent.  The father though, was.
escobar
Pablo – very, very rich, very, very violent, and a good father.
Another man, Csanad  Szegedi, did the most dramatic thing you can do when faced with a dissonance, he jettisoned his former value system.
As deputy leader of the radical nationalist Jobbik party in Hungary,  Csanad Szegedi co-founded the Hungarian Guard – a paramilitary formation which marched in uniform through Roma neighborhoods.
And he blamed the Jews, as well as the Roma, for the ills of Hungarian society – until he found out that he himself was one.  When he found this out, from his grandmother, he began a journey that included moving to Israel.  It was not easy.  His first reaction:
“I couldn’t believe it, I just couldn’t believe it, I thought, this is the worst thing that could ever happen – there couldn’t ever be anything worse than this.”
He adds:
“It’s changed everything. It’s like being re-born, and the changes in my life are still happening,” he said. “I had this set value system that I had to change completely. I had had this value system until I was 30 and I had to admit that it was all wrong and to find the will to change.”
szegedi
Csanad Szgedi
Thinking about contradictions can be dangerous to dogma:
Danushka Goska wrote:
One day, back in the 1970s, I was leaving class with my friend. “Nur” was beautiful, a gentle person, and a talented artist; she used to doodle arabesques in her notebook margins. We were comparing our two religious traditions. She said “When the time for jihad comes, if you don’t accept Islam, I will have to kill you.”
I had been educated in Catholic school, where nuns encouraged me to interrogate my faith. I extended to Nur that invitation. “Just for the sake of argument, let’s imagine for a moment that there is no Allah,” I suggested.
Nur replied that she could not. She had been trained that even a moment’s doubt could lead to an eternity in Hell…
That is one of the reasons Islam does not moderate itself, but Christianity does.
But are we in the West so much more open-minded?
Here is what the editor of Popular Mechanics James Meigs had to say (New York Post 9/12/06).
ON Feb. 7, 2005, I became a member of the Bush/ Halliburton/ Zionist/ CIA/ New World Order/ Illuminati conspiracy for world domination. That day, Popular Mechanics, the magazine I edit, hit newsstands with a story debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories. Within hours, the online community of 9/11 conspiracy buffs – which calls itself the “9/11 Truth Movement” – was aflame with wild fantasies about me, my staff and the article we had published. Conspiracy Web sites labeled Popular Mechanics a “CIA front organization” and compared us to Nazis and war criminals.
For a 104-year-old magazine about science, technology, home improvement and car maintenance, this was pretty extreme stuff.
This shows a tactic believers use when confronted with someone who disagrees.  They conclude that that person must be in the pay of someone else, or be fronting for someone else.   Sometimes there is a plausibility to this type of accusation, for instance, oil companies might benefit if Anthropogenic Global Warming models were proven false, or conversely, Green advocacy organizations might gain funding if it is proved correct.  Therefore, if a few genuine scientists here and there cast doubt on those models, they can be accused of being secretly paid by the oil industry.  I have not seen proof of such allegations, but in any event, arguments should be debated regardless of motives.   That is what happens in a law court – the defendant pleads his innocence, even though he obviously is biased in the matter.  It is of course preferable if both sides of a debate argue what they really believe, and use honest techniques to back their arguments up.
Internal contradictions can be dangerous.  Frederick Douglass, a black man who escaped slavery in Maryland gave a speech in 1852 on July 4, independence day, in Rochester, N.Y. (This was nine years before the Civil War)  In the speech, he said this:
…. The sunlight that brought light and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony.
Douglass actually felt positive about the U.S. constitution, but the contradiction he was pointing out would lead to a war that killed over a half million white Americans.  That was at a time when there were little over 31 million people in the entire country.
I would advise people, take the time to have a long debate, point by point with an intelligent person who is willing to play the debate game with you.  A person who will not start calling you names in the middle of the debate, or cut it off abruptly.  You will learn something.  Don’t argue with a Jihadi, however:)
jihadi
Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/16/europe/italy-migrants-christians-thrown-overboard/index.html
http://spectator.    org/the-standard-bearer-of-bull-connors-party-calls-trump-racist/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/pablo-escobars-son-tries-to-make-amends-1472830516
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32549099
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2013/august/crisis-of-conscience-anti-semite-learns-hes-a-jew/?mobile=false
Olson, Barbara. Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Kindle Locations 3220-3221). Regnery Publishing. Kindle Edition.
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/douglassjuly4.html and http://www.wsj.com/articles/andrew-bibby-what-to-the-slave-is-the-fourth-of-july-1404342530
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440092/video-yale-students-scream-faculty-member-violating-their-safe-space

http://thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/democracy.aspx
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/22/asia/afghanistan-boy-abuse-us-military/index.html

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s