As United States and Israeli air strikes continue to decapitate the leaders and degrade the facilities of the Islamic regime - who for decades have held the Iranian people hostage to their mad religious ideology – I wanted to share a few reflections.
The key one being that many in the West have clearly lost their sense of what is evil and what is good; what is right and what is wrong. The second is that while this conflict may appear far off, this lack of clarity around what is right and good is already having implications here at home.
From earlier protests, but just one of the many Iranians seeking to be free
I will not outline how we reached this current geo-political situation. If you are reading this and do not understand the diabolical history of the Islamic Republic, its daily human rights abuses at home and weekly exporting of terror across the globe, then there is little one more commentator (me) can help you with.
What is becoming clearer however, is that many in the West no longer can tell evil from good. On every measure, the Islamic regime is evil – politically, morally, ethically, socially, and theologically. And yet, as I write, we have politicians, academics, activists, and commentators lamenting the regime’s demise.
Further still, we are seeing deliberate acts of inversion of reality, where those above accuse the likes of the United States or Israel of the crimes that the Islamic Republic has committed.
The acceptance of critical race theory, intersectionality, and cultural Marxist concepts has well influenced many in these ‘elite’ circles. It is a key reason why notions of ‘truth’ and ‘right’ have been replaced with moral equivalence and relativism. In this rather childish but dangerous mindset, the likes of the US and Israel (or New Zealand for that matter) are always wrong; the oppressor. Simultaneously, the Islamic Republic is the oppressed; the misunderstood good actor in all of this. The gross excesses of the regime are explained away by blaming others. We need only think of the recent murders of perhaps more than thirty thousand Iranian civilians by the Islamic regime, and yet where blame by these same elites was attributed, among others things, to the economic sanctions imposed by New Zealand and other countries.
Moral equivalence is also very much in play. Let’s be clear – there is no moral equivalence between this despotic Islamic regime and democracies such as New Zealand. Yet already commentators in sympathy with the regime are quick to say it is a legitimate state; that it should be left alone to deal with domestic matters as it sees fit; and that there is no problem with the regime seeking nuclear weapons. The argument runs that if it is ok for democratic states such as the US or Israel to have nuclear weapons, then it is ok for these mad mullahs to have them too.
What is left of the Ayatollah’s compound in Tehran after
recent strikes, which have seen him and his entourage eliminated.
I have written before that these arguments do not hold any water and require a remarkable degree of self-inflicted blindness to ignore the horrors of this regime. Part of this blindness though derives from deliberately inverting reality. As noted earlier, the crimes of the Islamic regime are transferred to democratic countries. So we have commentators and activists claiming that the United States is a dictatorship, or that Israel if a genocidal nation; that countries like New Zealand are colonial states and where young activists cry of how they hate this democratic land for how bad it is, while busily enjoy the very freedom to say this, and furiously abusing people via their iPhones and social media.
Of course, there is much talk of human rights and so on from the likes of Amnesty International and others. The irony is surely not lost on them, that groups such as the Islamic regime in Iran do not believe in human rights. Human rights are a Judeo-Christian derived concept, and not one the Islamic mullahs subscribe to. It is as clear as the burqas on the women of Iran, that the regime does not believe in equal rights or the rights of women; or the execution of civilians without fair trial; or exporting terror; or killing those who convert from Islam … the list goes on.
This does not mean that Western countries like our own should ignore those same human rights. The very fact that people are debating whether these air strikes are the right thing to do, or legal, is a sign of a healthy democracy. There is no debate in Iran while the Islamic regime endures.
My own view is that these strikes are justifiable.
I do not use these next words lightly, but the Islamic regime is evil, and it is right, good, and proper to eliminate it. Human rights exist for all people, and when we can move towards great freedoms and enfranchisement, then we should. Whether of course these strikes lead to a better Iran is hard to know, but the removal of the likes of Ayatollah Khamenei and his supporters is a positive step for human rights.
We already hear though the appeals to international law and endless hang wringing by academics and others. I fear many think international law functions like domestic law, but that is wrong on so many levels. What they are actually saying, including the UN Secretary General and the likes of Helen Clark, is that they are happy for the status quo – the tyrannical abuses – to continue. They lament the killing of Khamenei yet say little of the tens of thousands of murdered civilians. Another inversion.
These voices will talk of more negotiation, more reports, more UN motions, and diplomatic efforts. They will talk of failures but hope that this time – this time – things will be different. They point to Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) which I could see was idiotic back in 2015, and just as idiotic and ineffective today.
All such talk is willful blindness, shrouded in kindly words, while allowing evil to spread. As Edmund Burke famously said, “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” All the entreaties with the Islamic regime have achieved nothing but the propagation of evil. If you know much of the regime and the Middle East, then you will know that compromise is seen as weakness. As the UN, diplomats, and academic activists endlessly seek more negotiations – even though every earlier session was flagrantly flouted by the Islamic regime - the regime just became more emboldened. Negotiations have only achieved one thing – more time for this despotic regime to build more weapons, continue nuclear ambitions, and kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians.
And paradoxically, these same activist voices are now decrying air strikes against the leaders of the regime. It is as if they prefer the slide towards evil than taking the steps necessary to secure peace.
As I keep suggesting, many have lost a sense of what is evil and what is good. If people cannot see the evil of the Islamic regime, or pretend our own nation(s) are as bad, we know things have been badly inverted and perverted.
Yet this is what we face, including here in New Zealand and not just around the question of Iran. The same dynamics of confusing evil for good; for inverting reality; and embracing the likes of critical race theory exists. To be clear, this is not inflating the horrors of the Islamic regime with what is happening here - but the underlying philosophies are the same, including a disdain of our society’s Western foundations.
The same people here supporting the Islamic regime are amongst the same to say biological men can be women; that children can be chemicalised and mutilated on the altar of gender ideology; or that our country is a corrupt colonial institution. The same ones who demanded New Zealand leave the likes of Afghanistan and now lament the state of women there. The ones who talk so much of ‘fake news’ and yet willingly promote the lies of the Islamic regime or other terrorist groups. The ones who ignore the murderous legacy of the Islamic regime but burst into tears if you use the wrong pronoun.
All of this is what is increasingly referred to as ‘suicidal empathy’ - critiquing one’s own culture into the ground, while ignoring the same or worse in other cultures. The idea that what the Islamic regime has done, and is doing, has any equivalence in the likes of New Zealand, Australia, Israel, or the US is ridiculous. As I wrote in an earlier Substack, it is a serious of deliberate and false moral equivalence.
A final few points. When the Iranian community is calling for freedom, and yet many elites side with the Islamic regime, we know the latter have lost any understanding of what is good and right. It appears to me that their self-indulgent self-interest overrides the clear will of tens of thousands of Iranians here in New Zealand, or those risking their lives within cities across Iran to celebrate. It is also a warning about these same elites’ views on other matters within our own countries.
The Islamic regime is evil. Its downfall will be a cause for celebration, no matter what the future holds. But beyond this regime, we should also have our eyes wide open to those supporting the regime here in New Zealand – explicitly or tacitly – for their reasons embody the same destructive dynamics that are anathema to human flourishing.
Simon O'Connor a former National MP graduated from the University of Auckland with a Bachelor of Arts in Geography and Political Studies . Simon blogs at On Point - where this article was sourced.
I have written before that these arguments do not hold any water and require a remarkable degree of self-inflicted blindness to ignore the horrors of this regime. Part of this blindness though derives from deliberately inverting reality. As noted earlier, the crimes of the Islamic regime are transferred to democratic countries. So we have commentators and activists claiming that the United States is a dictatorship, or that Israel if a genocidal nation; that countries like New Zealand are colonial states and where young activists cry of how they hate this democratic land for how bad it is, while busily enjoy the very freedom to say this, and furiously abusing people via their iPhones and social media.
Of course, there is much talk of human rights and so on from the likes of Amnesty International and others. The irony is surely not lost on them, that groups such as the Islamic regime in Iran do not believe in human rights. Human rights are a Judeo-Christian derived concept, and not one the Islamic mullahs subscribe to. It is as clear as the burqas on the women of Iran, that the regime does not believe in equal rights or the rights of women; or the execution of civilians without fair trial; or exporting terror; or killing those who convert from Islam … the list goes on.
This does not mean that Western countries like our own should ignore those same human rights. The very fact that people are debating whether these air strikes are the right thing to do, or legal, is a sign of a healthy democracy. There is no debate in Iran while the Islamic regime endures.
My own view is that these strikes are justifiable.
I do not use these next words lightly, but the Islamic regime is evil, and it is right, good, and proper to eliminate it. Human rights exist for all people, and when we can move towards great freedoms and enfranchisement, then we should. Whether of course these strikes lead to a better Iran is hard to know, but the removal of the likes of Ayatollah Khamenei and his supporters is a positive step for human rights.
We already hear though the appeals to international law and endless hang wringing by academics and others. I fear many think international law functions like domestic law, but that is wrong on so many levels. What they are actually saying, including the UN Secretary General and the likes of Helen Clark, is that they are happy for the status quo – the tyrannical abuses – to continue. They lament the killing of Khamenei yet say little of the tens of thousands of murdered civilians. Another inversion.
These voices will talk of more negotiation, more reports, more UN motions, and diplomatic efforts. They will talk of failures but hope that this time – this time – things will be different. They point to Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) which I could see was idiotic back in 2015, and just as idiotic and ineffective today.
All such talk is willful blindness, shrouded in kindly words, while allowing evil to spread. As Edmund Burke famously said, “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” All the entreaties with the Islamic regime have achieved nothing but the propagation of evil. If you know much of the regime and the Middle East, then you will know that compromise is seen as weakness. As the UN, diplomats, and academic activists endlessly seek more negotiations – even though every earlier session was flagrantly flouted by the Islamic regime - the regime just became more emboldened. Negotiations have only achieved one thing – more time for this despotic regime to build more weapons, continue nuclear ambitions, and kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians.
And paradoxically, these same activist voices are now decrying air strikes against the leaders of the regime. It is as if they prefer the slide towards evil than taking the steps necessary to secure peace.
As I keep suggesting, many have lost a sense of what is evil and what is good. If people cannot see the evil of the Islamic regime, or pretend our own nation(s) are as bad, we know things have been badly inverted and perverted.
Yet this is what we face, including here in New Zealand and not just around the question of Iran. The same dynamics of confusing evil for good; for inverting reality; and embracing the likes of critical race theory exists. To be clear, this is not inflating the horrors of the Islamic regime with what is happening here - but the underlying philosophies are the same, including a disdain of our society’s Western foundations.
The same people here supporting the Islamic regime are amongst the same to say biological men can be women; that children can be chemicalised and mutilated on the altar of gender ideology; or that our country is a corrupt colonial institution. The same ones who demanded New Zealand leave the likes of Afghanistan and now lament the state of women there. The ones who talk so much of ‘fake news’ and yet willingly promote the lies of the Islamic regime or other terrorist groups. The ones who ignore the murderous legacy of the Islamic regime but burst into tears if you use the wrong pronoun.
All of this is what is increasingly referred to as ‘suicidal empathy’ - critiquing one’s own culture into the ground, while ignoring the same or worse in other cultures. The idea that what the Islamic regime has done, and is doing, has any equivalence in the likes of New Zealand, Australia, Israel, or the US is ridiculous. As I wrote in an earlier Substack, it is a serious of deliberate and false moral equivalence.
A final few points. When the Iranian community is calling for freedom, and yet many elites side with the Islamic regime, we know the latter have lost any understanding of what is good and right. It appears to me that their self-indulgent self-interest overrides the clear will of tens of thousands of Iranians here in New Zealand, or those risking their lives within cities across Iran to celebrate. It is also a warning about these same elites’ views on other matters within our own countries.
The Islamic regime is evil. Its downfall will be a cause for celebration, no matter what the future holds. But beyond this regime, we should also have our eyes wide open to those supporting the regime here in New Zealand – explicitly or tacitly – for their reasons embody the same destructive dynamics that are anathema to human flourishing.
Simon O'Connor a former National MP graduated from the University of Auckland with a Bachelor of Arts in Geography and Political Studies . Simon blogs at On Point - where this article was sourced.
8 comments:
All I can say is GOD BLESS THE USA.
>"Human rights are a Judeo-Christian derived concept"
I don't see much in the OT that supports this position - mass murder of other tribes and taking their young girls as sex slaves was the order of the day. The writings of Paul in the NT contain some references to what may be construed as foundations of human rights but these applied only to the Christian community. One may also wonder to what extent these were influenced by contemporary Roman law especially with regard to the rights of Roman citizens.
I am certainly not denying that Christianity influenced the evolution of the human rights mindset. Often cited in this context are Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau and Paine. It is noteworthy that Voltaire and Paine were deists; Voltaire in particular was scathingly critical of Catholicism. Locke was a Protestant who advocated religious tolerance and freedom. Rousseau had rather nebulous views about religion; he was more inclined towards humanism.
On the whole, it transpires that Protestantism was one of the driving forces of the Enlightenment and its conceptual spin-offs including human rights. This was because Protestantism is individualistic as opposed to the collectivism of Catholicism (which remained the predominant form of Christianity for centuries to come). The same Protestant individualism also laid the foundations for modern capitalism.
BV, this is the second comment you have made, re Iran, under articles, by sperate Authors, based on their considered opinion, on the current situation as it unfolds in Iran.
I know, that their concepts will be based on
news that they have access to, in many cases denied for public consumption, by those within NZ MSM newsrooms of from our Censorship laws.
I would also state, that many use YouTube to gain a better knowledge of what is happening outside New Zealand.
I do.
And all you can present, is "Academic babble", that has other New Zealander's making comment about your statements.
In a previous article, you "posted" that you had spent 17 years in Lebanon, at The American University.
So what do you lecture on - me thinks nothing on = (quote > "Human rights are a Judeo-Christian derived concept - end quote) as such topics would not have been welcome in an Arabic Nation.
You also, at the time of expressing this point, claimed to have "Sympathy" for Hezbollah, which over time has been proven to be an "armed group of terrorists" , under the management of the Iranian Regime.
People who both read articles & post what they consider 'reasonable comment' will be tired of a person who writes comments that are "demeaning" to the ideas, concepts, beliefs, they have.
My conclusion - "is cease & desist", you have had your time.
Vigorous discussion and debate are the lifeblood of democracy.
An opinion is as good as the knowledge and understanding that underpin it. In my case, that's a considerable amount given 5 degrees and half a dozen diplomas across the science/social science/humanities board and 71 years of life experience in 5 continents. (If I don't have an adequate knowledge base about something, I button my lip.)
As a very well informed person, my take is often a bit different from those of the mainstream. However, you will find that they are remarkably similar to other well-informed people who have spent decades building up their knowledge bases, such as the old Middle East crowd at the BBC.
Forget the ad hominem and focus on the assertions I make. If you can refute them, do so. If you can't, do some serious homework on the issue; or if that's too much like effort, do us both a favour and belt up.
The informed stand to gain nothing from the uninformed. Let them be the ones who "cease and desist".
And by the way, I was commenting on another writer about the derivation of the human rights concept - as I make plain in that submission, I regard the claim as simplistic and misleading.
Barend
Your academic record is indeed impressive and generally speaking you use it well when interpreting the implications of world events.
However, by contrast, my 80 years of life experience has taught me a few valuable lessons about intellectual opinions on anything .
Although l have worked with some of the brightest people in academia, the most successful have almost always been those who remain grounded and, as such, able to learn from history rather than pontificating about likely outcomes.based on intellectual arrogance.
I am not saying your comments fall into that category, but anyone dismissing the opinions of fellow commentators based on a self proclaimed superior interpretation of history.most certainly does.
In that context, it is not surprising that Trump, for all his faults, has confounded his critics simply by appealing to the common man’s sense of logic and fair play. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand the logic of a simple strategy.
It isn’t the smooth talking of an Obama or Al Gore but it does resonate with a public who more often than not see issues as either “black or white”.
If you are going to commit a nation to war then you’d better ensure that they understand what is at stake and the best way to do that is to explain the issues in simple terms.
That way your support base will grow with every success on the battlefield if it wasn’t already there in large numbers at the start.
Conversely, you are less likely to be blamed for failures that were due to things beyond your control
Simple really.
>" ... it does resonate with a public who more often than not see issues as either “black or white”.
There's problem 1, Clive - the simplistic portrayal of complex situations. Catering to that simplemindedness is a form of manipulation when it is realised by the manipulator that things ain't as simple as that.
As I have noted a few times in these annals, the MENA region (one could argue most of the developing world) presents us not with good/bad options but with bad/worse ones. Yemen, Libya and now Syria are perfect examples of countries that have gone from the frying pan into the fire following the demise of long-established regimes.
A true understanding of these complex situations also requires empathy with both sides. Empathy does not connote agreement or approval, simply understanding how another party perceives a situation. That's hard for Westerners who have not been immersed in cultures other than their own (or who have, but cling to their own cultural perceptions).
In this current conflict I can empathise with both parties. It all comes down to whether one accepts the legitimacy of the Quranic or the Biblical (OT) version of who 'owns' Palestine. Both parties are 'right' according to their own initial premises.
Nothing simple about it really.
Your closing observations are about US domestic politics - not on my radar screen!
Barend
Whether we like it or not, the fact remains that the overwhelming number of affected innocents are incapable of understanding things like “empathy” which tend to be regarded as important only by scholars like yourself.
They don’t regard themselves as being manipulated until they find out they have been lied to.
Trumps success has always been (unlike people such as Obama, Bush and Blair who portrayed themselves as trustworthy using a false narrative) that he creates an atmosphere of credibility and justification for his actions that the domestic market understands.
In that context, it has everything to do with domestic politics.
>"... things like “empathy” which tend to be regarded as important only by scholars like yourself."
No no no......... Remember when you were a small child and your Mum or Dad asked you how you would feel if someone did whatever unpleasant to you? That's an early step in the development of empathy which has been regarded by people at large as an essential attribute for a socially and emotionally mature adult.
As adults our capacity for empathy needs to take into account such factors as the belief systems that people operate by. This can be quite difficult when aspects of those clash with our own but we should try nonetheless.
What you say about politics is quite correct and reminds me of Churchill's observation that the best argument against democracy is a 5-minute talk with the average voter.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.