We need another Hollow Cost

January 20, 2015 • 9:42 am

This is a picture from Reuters, via Yahoo News, and it’s not a fake. The caption:

Supporters of the Al Muhammadia religious group chant slogans as they hold sign during a protest against satirical French weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo, which featured a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad as the cover of its first edition since an attack by Islamist gunmen, in Peshawar January 19, 2015. The sign reads in Urdu, “We martyr for the Prophet’s sanctity.” REUTERS/Fayaz Aziz (PAKISTAN)

Supporters of the Al Muhammadia religious group chant slogans as they hold sign during a protest against satirical French weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Peshawar

I wonder what Karen Armstrong would say about this? Oh wait, I know: “They’re acting in the name of what they think is their religion, but it’s not the real of Islam.” If you think that’s a distortion of her thoughts, I’ll post an interview with her this week in which she says something along these lines.

h/t: Malgorzata

138 thoughts on “We need another Hollow Cost”

    1. I’m not very good at readind spelling errors. I’ve been wondering for several minutes what a “hollow cost” is. When I finally got it, my mouth dropped and now I feel sick.

      Yet another classic example of the religion of hate, whoops, I mean peace.

      1. Haven’t you heard the following line by Bill Maher?
        “Sure Islam is a religion of peace. A piece over here, a piece over there…”

      2. Sorry, not flame-baiting, but wanted a clarification of views. Are you saying that Islam has an inherent disposition towards violence that other religions don’t have? I would not deny that it’s inspiring a lot of violence now, but I really don’t think that Islam is inherently more violent than many other religions. To say that it is seems to stigmatize non-violent and even progressive-minded Muslims (on issues like gay rights) as time bombs waiting to explode, because sooner or later, what if they learn the “real” interpretation of their religion?

        1. Yes. At this point in history, “Islam has an inherent disposition towards violence that other religions don’t have.” Jerry’s written about that many times–you should search for those posts. Also look for similar essays on Sam Harris’s website.

          This says nothing about any particular Muslims; it’s the doctrine itself that’s the problem, and the fanatics who take it literally.

        2. A reading of the Quran shows that it’s a near-perfect Iron Age “how-to” manual for rigidly enforcing internal tribal cohesion, subjugating neighbors, and zealously conquring additional territory — a manual which is then given a gloss of “spirituality” to make it more enticing.

          Progressive Muslims — of whom there are very, very many worldwide — are progressive specifically because of how much of this “holy book” they ignore. The very best of them take the humanitarian messages from the gloss and essentially jettison the rest. In that sense, they’re not time bombs but sieves — their brains filter out the bulk of the barbaric muck in transit.

  2. Karen Armstrong thinks she posts on behalf of humanity, but it’s not real humanity.

  3. What are the chances they are trying to make a subtle point about speech? Perhaps they post this sign as being “equally” offensive to the Charlie Hebdo cartoons.

    If so, the response is “more speech” and not murder of them. This banner is hideous and wrong, but I cannot argue for free speech out of one side of my mouth and then say “Hey, but not for THEM or THAT!!” out of the other.

    Now,… when you misspell “Hitlor” and “Hollow Cost”… perhaps giving credit for subtle points is a bit too much.

    1. Somehow I see difference between a drawing of Charlie Hedbo and a call to repeat the Holocaust. The line “They have no right to live” is close to shouting “Fire” in a theatre.

      1. I do, too: its last line indicates their “justified” intention to incite violence stat.

        Is not subtle. Is not at all about free speech.
        Blue

        1. Incitement is stuff like “go kill that guy there. Do it now. Yeah, do it, do it!”

          “They have no right to live” is pretty similar to speech from neonazis and the anti-abortion fringe in the US, which we allow. Heck, it’s probably less inciteful than posting pictures of people’s houses with a target on top, which IIRC some anti-abortion sites do.

          1. Maybe I do not understand finer points of free speach. Telling a bunch of young people that killing Jews is not only allowed but it is a duty, because they have no right to live, knowing that some of them will go to other countries (there are no Jews in Pakistan) and kill Jews, sholud be, in my opinion, banned. Are you sure you would say the same, that it is free speach, if it were in U.S. and the call would be: “African-Americans have no right to live” or “Homosexuals have no right to live”?

          2. Ideally, yes. The response to “bad speech” is “more speech” … as Justice Brandeis famously said in Whitney vs. California, in 1927!

            You fight back with words and defend the principles with your life! It is horribly unfortunate when the fight for the right to conscience and speech is pushed to the level of having to actually defend it with your life… but the other side has already declared THEY are willing to steal it with their lives.

            I see no sane way out of this… but agree further with Brandeis that “the greatest threat to liberty is an inert people.”

          3. I’m saying that when someone makes general comments such as “people who do that have no right to live,” it is generally considered not inciteful in the US. For it to be inciteful, you have to be pretty specific as to the target. You have to be pretty specific about mentioning doing actual violence against them, rather than implying others ought to do some unspecified act against them. And the courts have to think you are supporting some imminent illegal act rather than an action to be taken at some undefined time in the future.

            So yes, your two examples are protected under the US first amendment. And, unfortunately, they probably get said by somebody in the country every day. If I did an internet search I bet I could easily find a quote similar to your anti-gay example published or aired in the mainstream media in the last year. But I’m not going to, because frankly I don’t want to enter those search terms and wade through the resulting filth.

          4. I suggest that comparisons with American laws may be misleading. In Pakistan and the Middle East, “kill Jews” has a pretty specific meaning and a pretty literal interpretation. The context is one of murder and massacre where Jews and Christians and the wrong kind of Muslims are routinely murdered. Not long ago a Christian couple were burned alive by a mob in Pakistan. They were accused of blasphemy, perhaps just by virtue of not being Muslim. Whatever violent fanatics you might find in the US, they do not operate in the same context as these people urging another “Hollow Cost”.

          5. Yes and certainly different cultures can produce different dogwhistle calls for violence, different linkages between words and images (on one hand) and action (on the other). Any American who thinks the symbols of violent bigotry are common across cultures should visit Spain during Semana Santa for an eye-opening experience. So maybe this could reasonably be called inciteful in Hindustan and the surrounding regions, based on the regional and historical uses of this sort of language.

            But Malgorzata specifically said “in the US,” and compared it to two examples of bigotry that are pretty common in the US, so I took her position to be that even in the US this should count as inciteful, as should her two examples. My reply to that is: in the US, none of those three would likely count as inciteful.

          7. I do wonder: in Europe (at least most of it) you need a permission to organize a demonstration. The reason is very mundane: traffic, general security etc. Normally it is not difficult to get such a permission. But if you wanted to organize a public demonstration where you would announce that a certain group of people do not have a right to live, most probably it would be forbidden. I do not know if you need to get permission from the municipal authorities to organize a demonstration in U.S. But would giving such permission to a demonstration which openly calls for extermination of a group of people not be read as a tacit approval? What is said in close societies, churches or written on the Internet does not require any authorities to give their agreement so this is a bit different. And when it seems that the authorities give a permission to kill, there are usually plenty of volunteers.

          8. Malgorzata: I do not know if you need to get permission from the municipal authorities to organize a demonstration in U.S. But would giving such permission to a demonstration which openly calls for extermination of a group of people not be read as a tacit approval?

            You do need to get permission for most things like that in the US, but no probably not on the tacit approval question. We get hate groups requesting permission for rallies, marches, public land use, etc. on a reasonably frequent basis (maybe once every few years some such group makes the news). It happens often enough that most Americans understand that permission /= endorsement.

          9. OK, I understand. In Poland at least it would be read as a tacit approval. But even if Americans know that it’s not, isn’t calling for extermination of a group of people causing a kind of habituation? After a time it no longer gives a shudder and a feeling of outrage. And a question: are there any examples of public demonstrations in U.S. with calls for extermination of a group of people, apart from those famous calls to kill doctors who perform abortions? Ethnic groups?

          10. Malgorzata, I think this would be the best known example:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie

            And we get all sorts of lunatics calling for no end of crazy in public demonstrations, such as the Fred Phelps gang.

            I don’t think it’d even occur to anybody to equate a police permit for a demonstration with government approval.

            And…it’s not even a given that you actually need a permit. We have a Constitutional right to freedom of assembly and association. The more your activities are going to disrupt the normal course of affairs (block traffic, that sort of thing), the more likely you are to need a permit, but it wouldn’t be difficult to come up with an example where somebody could win a case against the police shutting down an assembly on public property where there wasn’t a permit.

            Generally, if you’re not being disruptive, you can do whatever you want. At the same time, it’s a good idea to get a permit if the density of people involved is going to be more than what a bystander could comfortably navigate — and be even quicker to get a permit if you expect tempers on any side to get heated.

            b&

          11. Thanks, Ben, I know the Skoki story, and it was almost 40 years ago. Moreover, if I’m not mistaken, they didn’t shout “Death to Jews” and didn’t have such banners. Swasticas and Nazi uniform was enough. I wondered about something more recent and not necessarily against Jews. Maybe KKK?

          12. As I mentioned, Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church are a pretty “good” contemporary example. Here’s a representative sampling:

            http://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/phelps.jpg

            http://media.theweek.com/img/dir_0088/44353_article_full/westboro-baptist-church-protesters-are-seen-outside-the-us-supreme-court-in-washington.jpg

            http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/v2_article_large/public/2011/06/22/118513-westboro-baptist-church-protest.jpg

            http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/westboro.baptist.church.protest.denver.2010.565×300.jpg

            http://static4.demotix.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/a_scale_large/500-7/photos/1297953635-westboro-baptist-church-protests-jewish-federation-conference_501737.jpg

            Cheers,

            b&

          14. Yeah, pretty obnoxious, no?

            And, yet, Phelps and Westboro are the laughingstock of the nation, precisely because their speech gets so much attention.

            That’s a big part of why so many of us are so firmly in favor of free speech: it actually works to promote sanity, despite the fears of those who would limit the unlimitable.

            b&

          15. Malgorzata, you can look up the March 03, 2014 KKK rally at the Atlanta capitol building for a feel of how some hate speech is handled. In this case, there was a police presence to prevent violence, but no media presence, not much of a turnout at all. I think basically people in the US just shake their head, laugh and get on with their day. Marginalization of fringe stupidity works fairly well.

          16. Oh, it sounds like a happy country! (do not strangle me, all you critics of U.S.) I’ve seen so many contries where this type of stupidity is mainstream…

          17. Malgorzata: Oh, it sounds like a happy country!

            Keep in mind we are a big country. Third in population behind China and India. We’re also big in geographic area. Me getting outraged about a Klan rally in Dallas, Tx, is sort of like someone in Warsaw getting outraged about a Klan rally in London, UK. (Actually, mapquest tells me that distance between Warsaw and London is 500-600 km shorter than the distance between me and Dallas!)

            Being so big means that you have to be really crazy or offensive to make the national news. Run of the mill crazy or offensive doesn’t get much attention here (with some exceptions). It also means that you have to have a lot of people in your organization to pose any sort of serious political threat to the system. A million people back some nationalistic party? Don’t make me laugh. That’s one, maybe two congressional seats out of 435, and that party could only get those one or two seats if they somehow managed to all move into the same one or two congressional districts. Here, a political party would need to be the size of the entire population of Poland just to be a viable third party.

            So we shouldn’t pat ourselves on the back too much. I suspect size has as much to do with our tolerance for offensive groups as does our, uh, virtuous dedication to freedom of expression.

      2. They can legally have their speech. Jerry’s point (with which I agree) is that their genocidal hatred reflects their religious beliefs, and it would be silly to claim otherwise.

        2. Yes, of course it is their religious beliefs-and not very subtle or smart beliefs.Most of Islam is considerably smarter and some very subtle and smart. I think that is what Karen Armstrong is trying to get at when she says it is what they THINK Islam is about. It can be as subtle and smart as you are capable of making it. Some in any discipline/culture/religion are subtle and smart and some not so.No excuses and who knows what potpourri of causes the current upsurge of Muslim violence is due to.And who really knows if Islam is inherently more subject to violent interpretation.

      3. Precisely… and having that discussion, pointing out the difference between satire and calls for Holocaust, is the “correct” response.

        Belittle, shame, mock, educate, argue, elucidate… whatever we can do to draw attention to the fact that the argument for violence in response to words, OR claims of prior restraint against certain words or images are WRONG.

        Their using such a hideous tactic (if it is indeed a tactic) as displaying banners calling for holocaust, to support their already tendentious claims on a right to violently enforce blasphemy laws, is WRONG.

        1. While I whole-heartedly agree with you, I suspect one’s ability to “Belittle, shame, mock, educate, argue, elucidate… whatever we can do” is quite a bit more difficult (and dangerous) in Peshawar.

          1. Exactly…those of us who don’t live there bear some responsibility to keep an idea alive that they would, if only they weren’t killed for it. It’s the same logic behind the need for highly trained, ivy-league educated lawyers to advocate for the poor: the oppressed need intelligent people with resources and time working on their side.

    2. The chance is zero.

      If you threaten your ex spouse with murder, it is possible to get a restraining order issued in most countries.

      It’s tough to argue that direct threats are protected.At some point we have to draw a line. The problem is that it will always be subjective.

          1. Cabela’s has a hunting trip to Turkey for bezoar ibex- unless it’s an old link maybe? I was intrigued by the bezoar part of the name, since that’s the same word for a hairball type formation in humans (usually suffering from mental illness). Sorry so off topic. .

          2. Heaven forbid! Hunting an extinct Capra would seriously endanger its chances of survival wouldn’t it.
            Bezoar ibex are believed to be the origin of domesticated goats. Glad to hear they are still around.

    4. Did I say that this kind of speech should be banned? I’ve explicitly said the opposite.

      And if you think they’re making their own point about free speech, and not calling for a new “Hollow Cast,” you’re living on a planet different from mine.

    5. Yes, because centuries of persecution of a people who did not accept any of the new religions (Christianity or Islam) culminating in organized mass genocide is totally comparable to satire of a violent religion.

    1. I concur. It’s deeply saddening, and it’s a very dark time in history that the human species has been reduced to this and all the recent atrocities around the world. Words fail me more and more these days.

      1. “Dark time in history?” I think it’s probably the best time in history. And “reduced to this?” I don’t think there was ever a time when the majority of humanity was better than this.

        I haven’t read Pinker’s book yet, but I’m pretty sure that’s his whole point – and he documents it with data.

        1. Agreed. If anything, much of what shocks us about some of these cultures today is precisely that it’s a throwback, a taste of what pre-enlightenment societies were often like the world over (often worse, actually).

          1. I used to think that too. But now it seems particularly saddening, given all our advances in science and technology, health and medicine, education, and general enlightenment. There seems to be large segments of humanity that are being left behind and regressing.
            (And I don’t want to get started on the environment either.)

          2. I completely agree, it’s such a wide gulf that some- many of these news stories are sadness to me- a glimpse of a primitive culture maybe.

          4. I agree. Saddening and worrisome. There’s never been a time when so much information was so widely available, yet certain groups only get more obdurate. Nor are they just the benighted, ignorant poor–many of the rabble-rousers were western-educated.

            I sometimes actually worry about a near-armageddon; certain factions on both sides seem to desire a great clash…

          5. Well then, come to terms with reality.

            There is no 1 mankind. There never was.

            Right now, there is 1 civilisation, with all its locally colored suburbs, and then there are rural areas where ignorant violence reigns supreme.

            I say, we owe these howling freaks nothing – not even the patience to “wait for them” until their boorish congregations catch up with modernity.

  7. They are so eager to promote their prophet, it is as if they worship their prophet rather than their god. For example, the man who was on BBC radio saying he loves Mohammed more than he loves his wife & children.

    Extremely disturbing & deeply nasty.

    2. When PZ Myers first announced that he would desecrate a consecrated wafer (as pushback against Bill Donohue and a religious climate which was in the process of trying to expel a public university student for failing to consume a holy cracker) Pharyngula experienced a sudden and sustained influx of Catholics coming in to the comment section and begging him to stop. Their hysterical and over-the-top arguments ended up persuading at least some of the accomodationists there that no, this actually WAS a good idea.

      I remember one woman in particular. She told us that she would rather watch her own daughter be raped and murdered in front of her than have a nonbeliever do something harsh to the Host. That’s how important blasphemy is. That’s how important it is to respect the sacred. She loved the cracker more than she loved her own children.

      I think she thought she would invoke our pity with this admission and cause PZ to reconsider and forebear. All I could think though was that her religion had either made her a monster — or given her monstrous values. I suspect that she didn’t really mean it. But she seemed to believe she meant it.

      No. That’s just not the sort of thing to encourage by giving in. We do not pander to that. Shame on her — but even more shame on the religious impulses and ideas that inspired this.

        1. +1

          And shame on all the religious leaders who encourage parents to choose their religion and religious beliefs over their children.

      2. Shame and embarrassment. The religious ostracize themselves from reason. The best we can do is show the benefits of secularism and the decline of religion will result.

      4. That whole incident was such an eye-opener. It’s sort of dropped off the table, now, when it really should be taught in a number of different classes–psychology, philosophy, sociology, religious studies…a book should be written! Too bad PZ’s blown his reputation since then.

    3. Pretty nauseating to think he’s more attracted to a man who has been dead well over a thousand years more than he is to his own wife. Just another example of the sickness religion spreads.

  9. Not too sure this could get by as free speech in the U.S. Maybe they are not asking for action at a specific time or place but it is calling for killing. It is much worst than simple protest or burning of flags.

    It always depends on where you are so in Pakistan they give out awards, in Germany they lock you up as they should.

    2. Yeah, here in Germany you can get nicked for that – it falls into §130 StGB, incitement of popular hatred (Volksverhetzung). That paragraph outlaws hate speech which might be a risk to public peace, either by directly inciting violence, or by “othering” people in a way which might cause violence being directed at them.

      For more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung

      Fun fact, BTW, did you know that German keyboards have “§” as a special character?

  10. What I find disturbing is the growing numbers on both sides with such a naked bloodlust. We have Islamists like these calling for the death of millions, and just yesterday we had somebody here clamoring for similar deaths of Muslims in the name of eradicating ISIS.

    I don’t think we’re on the verge of an orgy of murder, but there sure do seem to be a great many who think that’d be a swell way to spend an afternoon.

    b&

    1. It’s a tough situation to be in defense of a principle which is being attacked by another principle… as opposed to being attacked by a specific sovereign leader like Hitler.

      It was easy to fight a “good war” in defense against Hitler. It becomes very difficult to fight a “good war” against Islam.

      It also puts us (defenders of free thought, free speech, liberty, etc.) in the distinctly uncomfortable position of having to sit back and wait for violence, and then insist on justice against the violent, while apologists simultaneously claim that the violence did not in any way emanate from the ideology.

      Tough, tough, tough situation. I agree with your sense, however… there are forces on both sides who appear to be getting ready to “Kill ’em all, let God sort ’em out!”

      1. We don’t have to sit back and wait; we have more alternatives than mere violence.

        A really big first step would be some serious international diplomatic pressure on Saudi Arabia to embrace human rights. And, now that they’re starting to feel the pressure of their dwindling oil reserves in perfect, we’ve got a perfect opportunity to hold them over a barrel….

        b&

        2. “Mere”? Whenever I hear that word I think of C. S. Lewis and get all squirmy.

          In any case, you pose a false choice. There is good reason to put way more pressure on Saudi Arabia, of course. Over the long haul this is absolutely necessary and we haven’t even started. But that doesn’t diminish the need to use military force in places and at times where it makes sense. We can argue about where and what those may be, unless you are taking an absolute pacifism position. Which may be your position. I don’t know.

          1. Military action is only justifiable in response to an attack within your own borders or those of a treaty ally. You don’t, of course, need to keep your military within your own borders once attacked. And, similarly, you don’t need to reply to all forms of provocation with military force (and often shouldn’t, even if justified).

            There may be some grey areas when it comes to supporting a popular uprising, but that can come perilously close to picking sides in a civil war, which, in turn, is an hair’s breadth away from fomenting revolution as the CIA is so notorious for.

            The United States hasn’t justifiably used its military since WWII.

            b&

          3. That’s another really questionable one. It’s easy to point to Rwanda and say the West should have done more. But Saddam Hussein arguably was waging genocide against the Kurds, and we know how our military intervention in Iraq turned out. Were it not for a couple key vetoes, the UN would likely be willing to declare Palestine a genocide in action. Would you support military intervention there? And it wouldn’t be much of a stretch to call what the US does to dark-skinned people here genocide, what with all the structural poverty and the vastly disproportionate numbers of them in prison and in state-run murder factories. Should foreign militaries invade the States to liberate anybody with a built-in suntan? And, even if not in today’s America, what about America before the Civil War, or before the Civil Rights Act?

            There may be situations where military force is appropriate to stop a genocide in progress, but it’s far from a given.

            b&

          4. Just to be clear, that definition of “justifiable” leaves military response to non-state actors off the table by definition.

          5. Of course.

            And, to anticipate your next objection: privateers are generally considered agents of the state they’re working for, even if the state goes to great pains to officially distance themselves from them. Basically, if non-state actors commit what would otherwise be an act of war that their home country nominally benefits from and said country doesn’t make them “Public Enemy #1,” the assumption is that they’re privateers.

            b&

          6. That wasn’t my next question. I’m just making clear where you’re coming from. I don’t think it is a realistic position.

          9. I thought that was uncontroversial by now. We created the power vacuum in Iraq, gave huge amounts of weapons to a woefully pathetic and dispirited reconstituted Iraqi army, and then Al Qaeda raised its head, said, “BOO!” and the army we sorta-trained and bountifully equipped instantly transformed itself into Al Qaeda re-branded as ISIS.

            …or does that series of events not exist in your interpretation of reality…?

            b&

        3. Agreed that tolerance for Saudia Arabia’s archaic behavior is a key problem.

          I’m not so sure that they are running out of oil at the moment. Obviously eventually they will, but at the moment I think it is at least as likely that they are waging a price war against someone. Who is a matter of speculation, there are a lot of players hurt by the lower prices: Iran, Russia, Syria, Venezuela, US fracking industry, Canada tar sands extractors, deep water drillers, and of course every kind of renewable energy provider. Over the medium term, the lowest cost producer, which is clearly SA, has an incentive to knock out more expensive producers, so it can make sense on a purely economic outlook to engage in a price war even if there is a short term loss (Standard Oil did this, for example, to consolidate their hold on the market). If you throw in some geopolitical motivation as gravy, antipathy for Iran, spite at Russia for supporting Assad, or whatever, it’s not hard to imagine this being merely a strategic move on their part.

          I think the world would be better off without Saudi oil on several dimensions, assuming we survive the transition period (far from given IMO). So I have mixed feelings about the desirability of the price war scenario. I do think it’s fairly likely, though.

          1. I’m not so sure that they are running out of oil at the moment.

            It’s difficult to tell, and they may well be waging a price war for the reasons you state.

            But we’ve long known that they’re basically overdue for hitting peak production by now. I think your price war scenario makes much more sense if they’re waging such a price war as part of some sort of strategy for them to deal with their own imminent significant decline in production.

            For some time, Saudi production has been basically inelastic in response to price changes, which is a very strong sign that they’re pumping as fast as they can (or want to), rather than in an effort to maximize quarterly profits. I tend to think that they saw their peak coming, and capped output so as to stretch it out as long as possible. The flip side of that would be ramping up extraction potential during this period, which means that their production is going to remain relatively constant for a moderately-extended period and then fall off a giant cliff, rather than the gradual peak and slow decline that would otherwise be the case (and as we saw with US domestic oil production a few decades ago).

            And I would expect exactly this sort of price war to be the final step before going over the cliff….

            b&

          2. The hope is that the remaining oil will be left in the ground if we are to prevent disastrous CO2 levels. There is a point at which even any easily obtainable oil must be capped regardless of the price. Waiting for supplies to run out is totally irresponsible.

          3. Irresponsible, yes, but nigh unto inevitable I feel.

            Or, at the least, I think it so likely that humans won’t leave any oil in the ground that I find it vaguely irresponsible to pretend that we will and not explore options such as geo engineering, ecosystem management (including shifting species as habitats change), and general investment in surviving the effects of climate change. Sure, we should push for the best most responsible action, since who knows if any of the other stuff can even work. And we should push hard. But we should not let the best most responsible action blind us to preparing for what is very likely to happen: that we will burn all the oil we can burn and will have to figure out how to live with the outcome.

          5. I’d be happy with a good stiff carbon tax. But I wouldn’t call getting one “simple”.

          6. It’s unlikely we’re going to extract significant portions of the remaining oil — or, if we do, that we’ll burn it instead of use it as feedstocks in various chemical processing plants.

            Increasing demand coupled with declining supply and the inelastic nature of the product means we can expect price shocks sooner rather than later. Most likely, that will result in a prolonged global depression coupled with starvation and the rest as food prices skyrocket. Petroleum is absolutely required for modern food production. All of that put together is going to cause various crises that are much more severe and immediate and existential than climate change. Either we’ll find a way out that sort of oil crises, or we won’t have any civilization left to burn hydrocarbons.

            If we’re very lucky, the price shocks will be gentle enough that something such as solar-powered manufacturing of syngas from atmospheric or oceanic CO2 can ramp up almost as fast as oil dwindles. Those types of technologies generally become profitable at about, maybe not quite, the $200 / barrel range…but it’s not at all clear that our civilization can withstand energy prices that high. Food riots and all that….

            But, the thing is, oil is going to go to $200 / barrel, and then through the roof. These alternatives may well be more expensive than anybody thinks is economically realistic, but they’re still going to be cheaper than oil in the not-too-distant future. So we’ll either make do with expensive-but-clean alternatives, or we’ll die.

            Either way, yes. Most of the rest of the oil stays in the ground.

            Something else to ponder: the balance sheets of the energy companies assumes that they extract and sell every last drop in their reserves. When it becomes clear that that’s not going to happen, for whatever reason, those companies collapse in a bubble burst that makes the housing market collapse look like a child’s balloon. That, again, will do really nasty things to the economy as an whole….

            b&

        4. I agree with you. This is one instance where the use of the word ‘sea change’ would be most welcome. There needs to be a dramatic shift in thinking, behaviour and policies in the heart of the Arabian Peninsula.

      2. Call me a hawk, but I have little problem with proactive violence in the case of a group like ISIS. Once some group has essentially declared war on the surrounding governments and is obviously and clearly using violence on the nearby population to win it, I don’t think you need to wait for a criminal trial and evidence or limit yourself to tit-for-tat exchanges. Go in there, and kill or capture all their combatants until they surrender.

        But there is also a vast difference between a guy who gets on the back of a truck, drives into a town with his friends & shoots people with an AK-47, vs. a guy who holds up a sign calling for another holocaust. I don’t think it’s all that tough a call to decide that the former is not to be permitted but the latter is.

        1. +1 on that

          (Just wish it was possible to simply ‘kill or capture’ all of ISIS without vast collateral damage (and probably ‘unacceptable’ casualty rates among the US or other Western troops…)

          And the trouble is that any collateral damage will, quite naturally, whip up anti-Western sentiment and hence potential ISIS sympathisers.)

          1. But, see? That’s just it.

            We have literally generations of experience, from Korea through Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan, that such military action, though it often produces limited short-term success, is inevitably horrifically disastrous over the course of years.

            It’s not a case of “Mission Accomplished” and sorry for the wedding party we accidentally blew up. It’s ISIS and the Taleban and Al Qaeada and North Korea and and and and….

            Never mind how morally reprehensible such imperial wars are, they’re ineffective at anything other than funneling taxpayer money to military industrial contractors and far less savory characters.

            b&

  11. I thought to look up information about how Hitler viewed Arabic people and I wanted to also learn his views about Islam. I was expecting to find that he held both in total disdain, but I was actually surprised to learn that he basically admired the religion b/c it advocated expansion by the sword. But of course he viewed Arabic people as an inferior race.
    Details can be seen here.

    1. Yep, when I saw this I wondered if they understand that if Hitler had succeeded, they would have been next, or at least on the list.

      1. Well, not really. Nazi Germany forged many ties with the Arab world and was courting them as allies, using their animus toward the Jews as a bait. Help in form of arms and money went to the Arab world during 1930s and also during the war. Many Arab dignitaries were in Berlin during the war, among them the infamous Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Huseini. This was reciprocal and many in Arab world admired Hitler. “Mein Kampf” was translated and sold in huge amount of copies. Those interested in the problem might want to see a book by Professor Jeffrey Herf, “Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World”.

        1. Yes. Germany built on the strong ties it already had with Turkey in particular, which was also (Ottoman Empire) an ally in WWI. In that war a German led their army.

      2. Remember that “Mein Kampf” is a perennial best-seller in the Middle East and the Muslim world. It hasn’t been out of print since about 1935. The Arabic version has less about the superior Aryan race (that is, Germans) and lots about the extremely negative view of Jews. I think that is the main reason that Hitler and the Nazis are still so prominent in this anti-Jewish discourse. Hitler was a good thing, but on the other hand, Israel is behaving like Nazis. They don’t seem to notice the contradiction.

    2. Hister particularly admired Shintoism, particularly the Bushido concept. Albert Speer quotes him in his memoirs as once remarking that Shintoism would have been a better choice of religion for Germans as he considered Christianity effete.

      1. OTOH, there’s his quote (from 1941 IIRC), to the effect that he always considered himself a Catholic. A lot of whatever fellowship the Nazis promoted with the Middle East must also have had something to do with oil, tho.

  13. Not surprising in the least bit. This is exactly what it looks like when lunatics get the keys to the asylum. Atrocious thinking, half-baked thinking, mob behavior and, of course, rotten and stupid spelling.

    Where’s the multiple exclamation marks at the end of each statement and multiple colors for each word. That’s the only thing differentiating this mob from the mobs standing behind Tony Perkins, Scott Roeder and others of their ilk.

  14. What strikes me about the CH slaughter is that the real underlying issue here is not about radicalism, or violence not being the answer. The underlying problem here is not something which only a small percentage of radicalized Muslims get wrong – it is something which the majority get wrong.

    And that is this incredibly selfish notion that non Muslims need to respect the sanctity of Islamic imagery or traditions.

    Can you imagine if the one billion Hindus in the world acted like Muslims, and snarled that eating beef was a deliberate provocation toward them which requires a “new hollow cost”? And if they machine-gunned the patrons of a MacDonalds one day, would Bill Donohue be talking about the repeated “vulgarity” of MacDonalds advertisements and how the patrons “for years” were “intentionally insulting” Hindus? (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/11)

    And the Pope agrees with him. After all, “You cannot insult other people’s faith,” the Pontiff told reporters. “You can’t make fun of other people’s faith.”

    You might want to avoid oyster bars in future, all that flaunting of Jewish sacred laws of kosher is going to get a lot of people who were asking for it blown to bits.

    Got a hair appointment? Might want to rethink that – uncut hair is sacred to Sikhs, and they are going to use their sacred kirpan daggers on you with justified anger. Why do you provoke them so by deliberately desecrating their sacred symbol, and then walking around without a turban, parading your blasphemy for all to see?

    Tossing a broken umbrella in the trash? Don’t be surprised when a mob of Buddhists demand your head on a platter. You just insulted their faith – even the Pope knows that.

    Feel like going bird hunting with your dog? Might want to rethink that one, brother. Birds and dogs are the sacred messengers of the Gods in Shinto. And those guys have samurai swords.

    Bill Donohue and the Pope are exactly wrong on this issue, and their attitude about religious sanctity, their sense of religious privilege, is the root of the problem.

    1. What strikes me about the CH slaughter is that the real underlying issue here is not about radicalism, or violence not being the answer. The underlying problem here is not something which only a small percentage of radicalized Muslims get wrong – it is something which the majority get wrong.

      And that is this incredibly selfish notion that non Muslims need to respect the sanctity of Islamic imagery or traditions.

      I disagree strongly and think you have it completely backwards. There are many “real underlying issues” contributing to islamic violence. This is one, yes. But since millions of muslims voice that selfish notion peacefuly, I think the real issue we need to tackle is the belief that ones’ ideology should be defended/promoted with fist, gun, and bomb rather than voice and vote. We do not have to uproot the concept of blasphemy to win this war. We have to uproot the concept that it’s okay to respond to blasphemy with violence to win it.

      When you go after concepts like blasphemy directly rather than go after the concept of acceptable violent response, you are going to miss the real target twice over. You are going to get a lot more false positives (attacking the beliefs of believers who are law-abiding nonviolent citizens) and you are also going to get a lot more false negatives (not attacking the beliefs of political or other nonreligious extremists who think violence is an acceptable way to promote their agendas). Its a really bad mistargeting.

      Your strategy is also an indicator of bias. For why else, other than bias, would someone try and fight against such a very poor proxy correlate of violence (and even calling it a correlate is a misnomer, because its millions who don’t do it to tens who do), when it is relatively easy enough to speak out and educate people against violent repsonses directly.

      The ‘ideology’ we need to fight is the ideology that says it is acceptable to use violence to promote/defend one’s [insert ideology here]. Going after one group’s particular way to fill those brackets is neither necessary nor prudent.

      1. Are you saying therefore that blasphemy should be a crime? If so, I couldn’t disagree with you more. We can’t make some ideas, just because they are religious, immune from criticism. All ideas have to be open to scrutiny, and religious beliefs are no different. The fact that religion is given a special place in our society, above other ideas, is a problem. Many in Islam expect to be able to criticize others without being criticized in return. None of us likes being criticized, but it is the very basis of a fair society. Questioning the status quo is the way all knowledge moves forward.

        1. No, sorry if I somehow gave that message. Blasphemy is not and should not be a crime. Speaking out against someone else’s blasphemy of your religion is also not a crime. No ideas should be immune from criticism.

          The crime is when either side uses illegal, violent acts to try and convince the other side to stop their speaking. And that should be our focus: we fight the ideology that violence is a legimate response to speech. That ideology is contained in some religious sects, its also contained in some non-religious movements and not contained in many religious sects. So it seems to me better to target that ideology directly, than to target some religious notion of blasphemy per se.

      2. I know you are using a ratio as metaphor, but it is not a small number of Muslims (as your ratio implies) who BELIEVE IN or IDENTIFY WITH extremist Muslim ideology. Using data from a 2006 Environics poll in Canada (the latest available from them on this subject), and the current Muslim population in Canada today, approximately 75 000 CANADIAN Muslims identify with the extremists of their religion. That is a small percentage but it is not a small number.

        The reason blasphemy taboos themselves should be ridiculed and countered is because they are one of the root causes of extremism and extremism often leads to violent action. No heightened feelings of offence to blasphemy equals one less reason to identify with extremists, and less people identifying with extremists should lead to the less likelihood of violence.

        Also there is no possibility of a “false positive” here. Blasphemy is a non-existent charge. It is the concept of blasphemy itself that is ridiculous with or without violence.

    2. The sarcasm is a bit heavy, not very subtle, but I think Condell makes the point quite well, not really without humour.

  16. I hope this isn’t off-topic, but we see the problem in action at American universities. Case in point:

    “What I’m really trying to show her is that she can’t continue to say these kinds of things on a campus that’s so liberal and diverse and tolerant”

    http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/20892/

    1. This kind of thing does seem to be happening a lot, although I’ve no idea whether my perception is accurate. I.e. free speech only for those who agree with the majority.

      1. This is just human nature. Regression to the mean that will always happen without someone pushing back. As the majority opinion shifts, who exactly the majority tries to shut up may shift, but you can fairly well bet that that impulse will always be there and always need to be corrected.

  17. I think that the point is this: sure, these people are motivated (in part) by their religion. But the point some make is that others follow Islam and do NOT do such things.

    For example: when some fundamentalist Christian blows up an abortion clinic, of course they are motivated by their religion. But Christianity doesn’t influence most Christians to do that.

    Same here: the morons holding up the sign are motivated by their religion, but most (?) Muslims are not moved by their religion to do such things.

    Of course, currently Islam DOES have a problem with intolerance, violence, etc. in that such thoughts haven’t yet diminished to reach “crackpot nuisance” levels.

    1. Yes, I think it’s a scale and proportion issue. There are plenty of violent morons who can be incited by almost anything and they are bound to cross all ideologies. But the scale and fractional backing do matter.

      A hundred people acting out but only cheered by a few tens of thousands (out of a hundred million) is quite a different situation than a couple of thousand acting out but cheered by tens of millions (out of a hundred million). The latter suggests a bigger problem.

      If large majorities of Christians around the world supported the idea that the death penalty was appropriate for abortion doctors, it would make those who do act out this idea more worrisome. If you don’t at least take a look at the size of the cheering section, you’re missing part of the story.

      1. “If you don’t at least take a look at the size of the cheering section, you’re missing part of the story.”

        I couldn’t agree more. One problem with Islam is that too many terrible things (e. g. death penalty for apostasy) are MAINSTREAM at the moment (even in regions where they aren’t majority ideas). Such beliefs have to be relegated to crackpot status within Islam.

        1. As I noted above in response to Eric, in Canada the “cheering section” is probably 75 000 Muslims. Not a small number.

  19. Reminds me of an English Defence League slogan which read, Never Submit To Aslan, I enquired on an EDL website why they disliked Aslan I thought the group was anti-Islamic not anti-Narnian.

  20. Nice! No masks, too! It makes it easier to identify and add them to the no fly and terrorist watch lists.

    Someone is updating those lists, right?

  21. Finally. I’ve long waited to see this. Whenever I read of Muslim leaders denying the Holocaust, I thought: Wait, why? They hate Jews, shouldn’t they be saying, “Brilliant idea, shame they only got half through, definitely needs a second treatment?”

    I understand, of course, that they believe Jews in general and Israel in particular are getting a free pass because they have “victim status”. Point is, those still care what the rest of the world is thinking, and are thus moderates compared to the people holding this sign … which kind of gives you the right perspective, in terms of how frightening it really is.

  23. “I wonder what Karen Armstrong would say about this?”

    I’d like to hear her (she knowing so much) declare which is the more “legitimate” expression of Islam, Sunni or Shiite. Which is more “legitimate,” “moderate” Islam or (if such a thing exists) “liberal” Islam?

    And while she would be at it, declare which is the more “legitimate” expression of Protestant Christianity, Methodist or Presbyterian. Or how about Primitive v. “Hardshell” Baptist? Or Lutheran v. Congregationalist? Too, she should advise whether one should lean Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant.

Comments are closed.