Golden rule internationalism and suicide bombing

Folklore has it that Jesus Christ was a Jew and his second coming is due to liberate the people of Palestine. 41% of Amerikans believe that Jesus will show up again and be known by 2050.(1)

Noam Chomsky fits the bill. MIM has spoken of his Golden Rule internationalism before. “Do unto others as you would have done to yourself” is Chomsky’s implicit version of internationalism. For most questions of imperialist oppression, Chomsky’s approximation of internationalism is fine by MIM.

I have persynally witnessed Chomsky formally cast out of the Jewish community by fellow Jews for his remarks on Palestine at a Brandeis University speech. I$rael also prevented him from entering and making a speech recently.

At MIM, we say that internationalism emerges better from scientific practice than the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule may work with many people to approximate a correct path forward, but there are always the cases of people we would not want to give that much trust.

For example, in World War II, Germans could have decided to suicide bomb the Jews to death, in a total genocide. There is nothing in the Golden Rule against that. Hence, it would be better to go more deeply into social questions and see if we can find a better path than the Golden Rule.

The response to genocide becomes a competitive fascism or nationalism or Liberalism. Competitive fascism would just be “no, we will suicide bomb you to death first.” Another approach would be to keep the golden rule but say it only applies within the chosen nation, Aryan or Jew for example. Finally, Liberalism with its double standards or multi-standards is another way to fudge the issue.

The beauty of the Golden Rule is that it applied to the whole planet. It also has an inherent Protestant spin, because it eliminates the church hierarchy in making decisions.

For MIM, there is no “Islamo-fascism” yet, because of class issues. There is no Islamic imperialism. Germany and Italy had reached the finance stage of capitalism so bedeviling the planet right now with its derivatives, currency speculation and Ponzi schemes. It would not be an Iran causing a Great Depression, but no one doubts that the United $tates is of that economic nature where it could cause a global depression. Even little Switzerland or Luxembourg with their banks could cause a global collapse. Recently, Hillary Clinton was also right in pointing out the threat to the entire planet by global warming, which may end up killing far more people than World War II.

Scientific internationalism emerges from scientific practice. We cannot have counts that vary by nation or other subjective boundary. So if a ton of carbon goes into the atmosphere in the United $tates it has to count equally as a ton in Switzerland. If local customs cause a scientist to count the Swiss ton as two tons strictly for Amerikkkan nationalist reasons, then science goes out the window. We also won’t be able to tell what methods work best for reducing carbon emissions without scientific internationalism. What we want to do is measure emissions per capita to come to a global standard.

In another article, I showed that the Amerikkkan neo-conservatives have written entire books saying that children born out-of-wedlock is the number one issue of Amerika. In both Korea and Iran, the out-of-wedlock birth rate would be around 1% compared with the U.$. 40% rate. Yet it is Iran that the same neo-conservatives have called for attacks on.

If out-of-wedlock births is the issue, then neo-conservatives would be better off having Iran impose its culture on the United $tates than the other way around. The only way out is to count every Iranian out-of-wedlock birth as 50 out-of-wedlock births, a nationalist distortion of the facts. So that’s why I say internationalism flows from scientific practice, scientific integrity.

I’ve already discussed how “hypocrisy” is an over-used concept unfit for scientific usage. It drifted far from its original usage. We should not refer to the neo-conservatives as “hypocrites” for wanting to attack Iran while having a higher out-of-wedlock birthrate in the United $tates. Rather we say the neo-conservatives are unscientific, self-contradicting and lacking in internationalism.

If we listen carefully to fascists, they will say “good, science and internationalism are not desirable.” In the end, we would say that Chomsky is as far left as one can go within the left-wing of parasitism. I have not seen him take up scientific work on class, and without that it’s pretty hard to be a real left-winger. Even on a pre-Marxist basis, I have not seen the left-wing of parasitism acknowledge the meaning of the U.$. trade deficits or government deficits run decades at a time. This resistance to Marxist science on labor appropriation and accumulation is fatal to leftist advance.


Noam Chomsky is also famous for opposing behaviorism.
I recently wrote how psychology distracts too many people and creates openings for fascism. The irrationality of ad hominem thought pervades Amerika and so we need more Pavlov and behaviorism.

Instead of concepts like the Golden Rule or “hypocrisy,” we should choose the communist goal of harmony and measure progress toward it. Readers will notice that when I argued with neo-conservatives, I did not have to question their goal, as long as it was not a nationalist or other parochial goal–something like the Aryan idea or an inaccessible spiritual idea. The neo-conservatives have argued that without intact families, children will be out of discipline; education standards will fall and crime will increase. We can take that idea and say “fine, then the dictatorship of the proletariat of the oppressed nations is what you want; help MIM impose it.” Less Hollywood and U.$. media and more Egypt would do the trick.

I did not argue pre-scientifically with the neo-conservatives on why they placed so much emphasis on out-of-wedlock births. “God, family and country” have been conservative mantras for centuries now. I just asked “if that’s your goal, why do you neo-conservatives want to attack Iran?”

At the moment, class overlaps with nation in dangerous ways. The way out is for the imperialist nations to surrender. They are the 10% against the global 90%. Even with the Golden Rule we cannot rule out suicide bombing, so we need to go into the causes of violence.

Notes:
1. http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2010/06/23/Poll-41-percent-expect-Jesus-by-2050/UPI-35091277311916/

Advertisements

%d bloggers like this: