Respectfully, Atlas, I think you're confusing the terms "imperialist Capitalism" with "secularism".

As you and others have pointed out, religious motivations only matter to the cannon fodder, ever since the Crusades (and the Muslim versions of same, as they conquered Turkey and Spain, etc.), and even an Introduction to World History course will teach that every supposed "religious" war can be traced to economics. We see the use of nationalism and religion both as ways the wealthy elites can manipulate their people into seeing people who have things we want as "The Other", "The Enemy", "barbaric animals", etc.

Again, I'd like to repeat for you: all secularism means is that the government maintains a position of utter neutrality with respect to the religious beliefs of its people, and no one can use the power of government to help or hinder private religious practices. That's it.

All the rest of the stuff you're talking about is greed, and has nothing to do with secularism. In fact, I'd say secularism is what maintains a modicum of restraint in our dealings with other peoples: imagine if the Saudis had the firepower/manpower that the USA has, and could project its power directly, as we do. Imagine if the United States was an openly Christian theocracy, ruled by a puppet President and a cabal of priests who tell him what he is allowed to do/say... do you think we'd have failed to use nuclear weapons in this war by now, in that case?

In the case of Truman and the bomb, we did need to send a message to the Communist Soviets (who did not yet possess this weapon) that the Red Army had to stop when it met the US/UK forces at the Elbe river. They could have rolled us, otherwise. The entire war (and the first one) was a battle over land and resources--in the Pacific theatre, it was about the Belgian, Dutch, and British oil interests, which the US wanted (and got) control of--and it is well documented that the USA did everything in its power to goad the Japanese into attacking us, even sailing a fleet of our heavy cruisers up and down the coastline in Japanese territorial waters, an overt act of war. The Japanese, of course, were trying to get the same resources. Many, many of our war-adventures from 1900 to the present can be traced to the national leaders acting at the behest of corporate interests, like the Banana wars, and not the secularism of our ideals.

Finally, we do not oppose Israel as a secular state, regardless of how it was created, or the wisdom of doing so. It's there, it exists. Deal with that fact. On the other hand, to the degree they have become a Zionist-ideology-led theocratic state, we do condemn their actions and mistreatment of Arabs and other Muslims in their country, of the Palestinians, and anyone else they mistreat for religious reasons.

Right.

Atlas has a problem with secularists who support things he is opposed to.

The implication is either that he has no problem with non-secularists who support things he is opposed to; or he assumes anyone against such things must be a secularist.

The first option is insane; the second shows a complete failure to understand what secular means. Take your pick, I'm going with the second. It's sad what propaganda can do to a person. When you can't use a word without adding a paragraph of unfounded agenda to it, you're off the rails.

(March 2, 2016 at 7:21 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Respectfully, Atlas, I think you're confusing the terms "imperialist Capitalism" with "secularism".

As you and others have pointed out, religious motivations only matter to the cannon fodder, ever since the Crusades (and the Muslim versions of same, as they conquered Turkey and Spain, etc.), and even an Introduction to World History course will teach that every supposed "religious" war can be traced to economics. We see the use of nationalism and religion both as ways the wealthy elites can manipulate their people into seeing people who have things we want as "The Other", "The Enemy", "barbaric animals", etc.

I would say that religious or ideological motivation isn't something that matters only to cannon fodder, in my opinion it provide framework for entire conflict. When you fight with infidels peace isn't something that comes to mind as easily as when you fight with the enemy, when you're in a war against subhumans no mean is to horrible to use.

War between III Reich and USSR can't exactly be called religious (though calling nazism cult heavily borrowing from religious language wouldn't be out of place I would say; marxism-leninism on the other hand was religion [Rafał Imos, Faith of the Soviet Man. The Soviet's Institutionalized Myth, Raymond Aron The Opium of the Intellectuals], though Aron saw it as political religion, or poor man substitute) but it is ideology which lead to cruelties committed on Eastern Front. To be fair there was other reasons but one could look to Western Front and compare things. If not for belief of Russians racial inferiority and Jewishness of it's system I wager war would look different.

You could also look on deeds of Stalin regime where military language in used in context of economy was far from uncommon - from what I read older works ascribe more importance to ideology/state religion, same with books written by those who suffered during years of dictator rule. Good examples could be Escape from Russian Chains by Ivan Solonievich, or Martin Malia The Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia, 1917-1991 in which ideology/state religion play a great role, constantly being shown as more important than economy. There is also other view - Stalin and Europe: Imitation and Domination, 1928-1953 redacted by Timothy Snyder sees ideology/state religion only as justification and deeds of regime which appeared irrational to victims were supposed to be rational in larger sense of country well-being. I must say I don't agree with Snyder view - you could say that forced relocation to inhospitable regions of country was good for said country, but you would be hard pressed to claim rationality in such endeavors when you consider in what circumstances it took place. Same is with Great Terror - in book redacted by Snyder it is shown as ultimate anty spy action and considered more or less good for regime. But again where is rationality in forcing your own secret police to see plots where there are none and murdering innocent citizens? It's only framework of ideology/state religion that could make it appear rational - when survival of Homeland of Revolution is at stake individual rights and lives doesn't matter; if being closer to socialism mean intensifying of class struggle (Stalin own invention) then you can argue that regime will be opposed when there is no real enemies left, or no hope for prevailing. It's this invention that allowed Stalin to claim that peasants during Great Hunger were fighting against the state by starving.

Another showing of ideology mattering would be Shoah - killing Jews when there was real enemy to be killed could only be called rational when they're greater enemy standing behind everything, or to put it bluntly only if framework for judging rationality was nazi ideology. Raul Hilberg in his The Destruction of the European Jews shown that while arization was short term gain for III Reich it was long term loss. If I remember right same was with the killing - rational thing to do would be using Jewish labourers (I don't say leaving Jews alone cause, well Nazis were Nazis). Apart from being morally reprehensible killing Jews was irrational - it show that ideology matters not only to foot soldiers.

(March 3, 2016 at 4:41 am)Ivan Denisovich Wrote: I would say that religious or ideological motivation isn't something that matters only to cannon fodder, in my opinion it provide framework for entire conflict. When you fight with infidels peace isn't something that comes to mind as easily as when you fight with the enemy, when you're in a war against subhumans no mean is to horrible to use.

War between III Reich and USSR can't exactly be called religious (though calling nazism cult heavily borrowing from religious language wouldn't be out of place I would say; marxism-leninism on the other hand was religion [Rafał Imos, Faith of the Soviet Man. The Soviet's Institutionalized Myth, Raymond Aron The Opium of the Intellectuals], though Aron saw it as political religion, or poor man substitute) but it is ideology which lead to cruelties committed on Eastern Front. To be fair there was other reasons but one could look to Western Front and compare things. If not for belief of Russians racial inferiority and Jewishness of it's system I wager war would look different.

You could also look on deeds of Stalin regime where military language in used in context of economy was far from uncommon - from what I read older works ascribe more importance to ideology/state religion, same with books written by those who suffered during years of dictator rule. Good examples could be Escape from Russian Chains by Ivan Solonievich, or Martin Malia The Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia, 1917-1991 in which ideology/state religion play a great role, constantly being shown as more important than economy. There is also other view - Stalin and Europe: Imitation and Domination, 1928-1953 redacted by Timothy Snyder sees ideology/state religion only as justification and deeds of regime which appeared irrational to victims were supposed to be rational in larger sense of country well-being. I must say I don't agree with Snyder view - you could say that forced relocation to inhospitable regions of country was good for said country, but you would be hard pressed to claim rationality in such endeavors when you consider in what circumstances it took place. Same is with Great Terror - in book redacted by Snyder it is shown as ultimate anty spy action and considered more or less good for regime. But again where is rationality in forcing your own secret police to see plots where there are none and murdering innocent citizens? It's only framework of ideology/state religion that could make it appear rational - when survival of Homeland of Revolution is at stake individual rights and lives doesn't matter; if being closer to socialism mean intensifying of class struggle (Stalin own invention) then you can argue that regime will be opposed when there is no real enemies left, or no hope for prevailing. It's this invention that allowed Stalin to claim that peasants during Great Hunger were fighting against the state by starving.

Another showing of ideology mattering would be Shoah - killing Jews when there was real enemy to be killed could only be called rational when they're greater enemy standing behind everything, or to put it bluntly only if framework for judging rationality was nazi ideology. Raul Hilberg in his The Destruction of the European Jews shown that while arization was short term gain for III Reich it was long term loss. If I remember right same was with the killing - rational thing to do would be using Jewish labourers (I don't say leaving Jews alone cause, well Nazis were Nazis). Apart from being morally reprehensible killing Jews was irrational - it show that ideology matters not only to foot soldiers.

You're quite right; I stand corrected. 

Insane religious ideologies (including Leninist-style Marxism, which is an economic concept elevated to the level of cult/religion) carried out by leaders who are True Believers™ may indeed be a primary influence of the guy who decides where to send the fodder, and why. Perhaps we should think of it as an aggravating factor to the horrors of war. Even the Nazis were originally motivated by economics; the hatred stuff was just to help coalesce the feelings of anger and frustration over the economic situation toward a common enemy against whom the Germans could rally. That their Furher also was a True Believer™ does mean I need to correct my assertion that only the fodder cares about those factors.

I'd say that today's situation, about which Atlas complains, is also the product of economics. We (the Western powers) have dominated those nations and played chess with the peoples of those nations for so long, it's hardly surprising that leaders have arisen among them to feed the aggravating factor of their underlying religious sentiments such that they begin to see us as The Enemies of God™, to be destroyed at all costs. What I meant by that "the fodder" quip was that religious ideology is what it takes to push most of the people of a nation into doing what the leaders want (even if, as you point out, the leaders are also similarly motivated in addition to their economic interests in the conflict), so they will Die Selflessly For The Mother/Fatherland™.

ETA: It's clear to all of us that Atlas' tirades on here are skewed by a heavy-handed propaganda-set he's been fed by such leaders and their cronies/followers, under the guise of religious "wisdom", that is trying to rally the Muslim peoples against the Hated Western Powers™ by teaching them false and overgeneralized information about us and how we think/operate. Which makes it that much more heartbreaking, since he's clearly a smart guy.

(March 3, 2016 at 9:02 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: ETA: It's clear to all of us that Atlas' tirades on here are skewed by a heavy-handed propaganda-set he's been fed by such leaders and their cronies/followers, under the guise of religious "wisdom", that is trying to rally the Muslim peoples against the Hated Western Powers™ by teaching them false and overgeneralized information about us and how we think/operate. Which makes it that much more heartbreaking, since he's clearly a smart guy.

Not that we don't get handed some sort of propaganda concerning the muslim nations...

(March 3, 2016 at 9:12 am)pocaracas Wrote: Not that we don't get handed some sort of propaganda concerning the muslim nations...  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ3mCFTeFYA

LOL
Propaganda works both ways.
I seriously doubt that my concept of living in a muslim country is anything like the reality of living in such a country. And my concept has been molded bu none other than western media.

(March 3, 2016 at 9:02 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: You're quite right; I stand corrected. 

Insane religious ideologies (including Leninist-style Marxism, which is an economic concept elevated to the level of cult/religion) carried out by leaders who are True Believers™ may indeed be a primary influence of the guy who decides where to send the fodder, and why.

According to Malia and Aron marxism wasn't economic concept as such but rather millenarian philosophy with stron religious overtones, i.e. proletariat being class destined by it's suffering to end the alienation and immutable laws of history. Also entire concept of proletariat as unified class is flawed - workers in this case are like atheists, apart from absence of belief they have nothing in common.

(March 3, 2016 at 9:02 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Perhaps we should think of it as an aggravating factor to the horrors of war.

We could think about in such way if not for what was happening in USSR in years of peace. Marxism-leninism preached utopia, and for achieving it no cost are too big. More to the point there can be no compromise with those who stood in the way of humanity coming into earthly paradise; you could try compromise with political opponent but you can't reason with one who is holding back entire mankind.

I would say that Marxism-leninism was more aggravating in peace as evidenced by the Great Terror or collectivization. Brutality of Red Army I would ascribe to Nazis mean of waging war and brutality of war itself. M-l (or it stalinist interpretation) again came to the fore after ending of WW II, during the war ideology on allied side mattered not for they were simply fighting against aggressor who indeed was waging ideological conflict.

(March 3, 2016 at 9:02 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Even the Nazis were originally motivated by economics; the hatred stuff was just to help coalesce the feelings of anger and frustration over the economic situation toward a common enemy against whom the Germans could rally.

I would say that they were motivated more by feeling of national humiliation and finding the means of reversing it. Imperialism, antisemitism and wanting to belong also were important things. Economy I see as means to an end with end being lebensraum and egalitarian society where every party comrade was judged on the merit not birth.

I would say that they cared about economy much like the Soviets were - economy was subjected to the ideology, it was more or less on permanent war footing. Nazis armed to invade, Soviets to defend, though according to Oleg Khlevniuk book Stalin: New Biography of a Dictator aggression wasn't out of question when time will be right.

Your view is supported by Gotz Aly in his Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State or at least I interpret his book as supporting you. Primacy of ideology, again from what I understand could be found in Richard Evans Coming of the Third Reich. Interesting tidbits could be also found in Martin Malia History's Locomotives: Revolutions and the Making of the Modern World which I consider one of better books that I read.

(March 3, 2016 at 9:02 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: That their Furher also was a True Believer™ does mean I need to correct my assertion that only the fodder cares about those factors.

Timothy Snyder in his Black Earth paints Hitler as believer, but not in the way we commonly think. If I remember right he supposedly didn't care much about national humiliation or the rest of party rhetoric but was social darwinist for whom struggle was everything. Also seeing Jews as a disease was supposed to be genuine. Hitler in Snyder book is believer who perfectly use mood of the masses in furthering agenda in which he believed. His agenda though isn't something that German nationalist would like.

(March 3, 2016 at 9:02 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: I'd say that today's situation, about which Atlas complains, is also the product of economics. We (the Western powers) have dominated those nations and played chess with the peoples of those nations for so long, it's hardly surprising that leaders have arisen among them to feed the aggravating factor of their underlying religious sentiments such that they begin to see us as The Enemies of God™, to be destroyed at all costs. What I meant by that "the fodder" quip was that religious ideology is what it takes to push most of the people of a nation into doing what the leaders want (even if, as you point out, the leaders are also similarly motivated in addition to their economic interests in the conflict), so they will Die Selflessly For The Mother/Fatherland™.

I don't know much about history of that nations but arguing about whether ideology or economy are primary causes is something that I seen in many books. I would say that there are strong argument for both being equally important and in some times it is ideology which at least for a time ruled economy like it was the case in USSR or it could be argued in III Reich where population was spared from economical hardships associated with war thanks to belief that it would rebel if life will became too hard. [Aly, Hitler's Beneficiaries...]

Having said that I don't disagree with your view. But for me it's ideology or way of thinking that is more important; capitalism isn't only about means of production but they way of thinking. You wrote about colonialism and it economic consequences - but weren't sometimes colonies matters of prestige rather than economical gain? Think of pre I WW Germany? Were their colonies matter of Imperial pride and something that Bismarck didn't saw as useful or were they net gain for country finances.

(March 3, 2016 at 9:02 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: ETA: It's clear to all of us that Atlas' tirades on here are skewed by a heavy-handed propaganda-set he's been fed by such leaders and their cronies/followers, under the guise of religious "wisdom", that is trying to rally the Muslim peoples against the Hated Western Powers™ by teaching them false and overgeneralized information about us and how we think/operate. Which makes it that much more heartbreaking, since he's clearly a smart guy.

Forgive me banality but every debate is skewed by perceptions we have, trick is in recognizing it and realizing that other side also has or could have a point.

(March 3, 2016 at 2:48 am)robvalue Wrote: Right.

Atlas has a problem with secularists who support things he is opposed to.

The implication is either that he has no problem with non-secularists who support things he is opposed to; or he assumes anyone against such things must be a secularist.

The first option is insane; the second shows a complete failure to understand what secular means. Take your pick, I'm going with the second. It's sad what propaganda can do to a person. When you can't use a word without adding a paragraph of unfounded agenda to it, you're off the rails.

Well, to be fair, even liberal secularists disagree on how to combat religious bigotry and bad claims. The west even with all it's problems still does a better job of protecting pluralism, my only problem with the left is when they insist on "never say this" as a blanket solution in all contexts. 

But the misunderstanding of the word "secular" was a result of the cold war, it took the original Enlightenment idea of "neutral" meaning "neither for or against, but equal" and demonized it equating it to "sectarian" which is the real evil that threatens an open society.

"Sectarian" is commonly used by media right now referring to the Middle East, and the Sectarian, meaning two competing sub sets of Islam, "sects" in Sunni's and Shiites, that is the real evil. But "sectarian" can also refer to one party rule, such as the monochromatic state of North Korea. It places on type of rule, one "sect" of the population as the absolute rule.

But even in referring to Iraq under Saddam they called Iraq WRONGFULLY "secular" which was fucking absurd because the Bathists were hardly goddless, their one party rule was still religious.

Even Cuba is a SECTARIAN state and is hardly "neutral" on political issues. And even they didn't kick out ALL religions and the Pope last month visited a CATHOLIC CHURCH! Cuba hardly lacks religious people.

"Secular" does not mean godless. http://www.au.org is a NEUTRAL and pluralistic organization that values government NEUTRALITY on the issue of religion. It includes EVERY major religion including atheists. 

The confusion many have because of the cold war scare cased the bullshit argument "If you claim church and state should remain separate then you are making the state the god"

NO NO NO NO NO, western secularists still also value the right to hold ALL our local, state, congress and even the president up to scrutiny, no matter the party, not even the state should be blindly worshiped.

"Sectarian" be it a religious sect or political sect or a combo of both, is the real evil, "Sectarian" merely means "neutral and equal, neither for or against" "Secular" isn't godless, it is an anti monopoly idea.

Interesting.

For sure, I'm not trying to suggest that "secular" ="automatically good person", or anything like that. And secularism can be done badly.

You can be a secular murdering rapist. But Atlas has had that "with us or against us" mentality bashed into him for so long (I imagine) that the subtly is completely lost on him.