Is Sam Harris a Freindly Fascist?

[x359594]

In 2004, Sam Harris' first book The End of Faith said society should demote Christian, Muslim and Jewish belief to an embarrassment that "disgraces anyone who would claim it," in doing so catapulting him from obscure UCLA grad student to national voice of atheism.

Harris also embraced the "war on terror" and constructed arguments to show that torture is ethically permissible. He also advocates for an elite body of decision makers because the masses are backward and emotionally immature. The rabble are to be kept in line by a mix of propaganda and repression and war or the threat of war.

The term "friendly fascism" was coined by Bertram Gross to describe the ruling class agenda of breaking labor unions, depressing wages, imposing a rightist ideological monopoly over the media, abolishing taxes for the big corporations and the rich, eliminating government regulations designed for worker and consumer safety and environmental protection, plundering public lands, privatizing public enterprises, wiping out most human services, and left-baiting and race-baiting all those opposed to such measures.

There is enough evidence to indicate that Harris fits the bill as a friendly fascist, although he may not advocate every single point in the ruling class agenda.

[escapingNihilism]

I don't know, does it matter? I have enough self-confidence to filter our ruling ideology, though I do avoid being subjected to it in its most vulgar and avoidable form (ie, advertising). but Harris is a decent writer and writes useful things, so I don't understand the impulse to blacklist.

also this reminds me, I've been meaning to download his latest work 'Free Will.' thanks for the unintentional reminder.

[x359594]

I don't know, does it matter?...Harris is a decent writer and writes useful things, so I don't understand the impulse to blacklist...

No black listing involved. The header is framed as a question. The point is to provoke discussion.

What exactly are the useful things he writes?

[Positivist]

Friendly fascism just sounds like basic anarcho-capitalism

[Deicide]

He also advocates for an elite body of decision makers because the masses are backward and emotionally immature. The rabble are to be kept in line by a mix of propaganda and repression and war or the threat of war.

Where?

[Proletariat]

Friendly fascist, never heard of one.

[escapingNihilism]

No black listing involved. The header is framed as a question. The point is to provoke discussion.

What exactly are the useful things he writes?

I heard a discussion on community radio in March, which went into the social-political implications of the belief in free will, and how belief in free will fits well within the 'rugged individualist' ideology which in turns justifies a massive punitive prison complex in the USA. while they had qualms with elements of Harris' recent work on the topic, they generally were positive about it and even more positive just about the fact that it could be a gateway to make a free will debate rise to the surface of mainstream consciousness.

I am too young to link, but check out naturalism dot org for more on the guy who was interviewed on the show I am citing.

[x359594]

Friendly fascist, never heard of one.

It's an expression used to describe contemporary US fascism. Gross (see above) wrote a book of the same name that attempted to locate fascist tendencies within the emerging neo-liberal economic consensus coupled with the accompanying ideological shift that was taking place, namely the "crisis of democracy" that there was "too much" democracy. Gross used "friendly" because fascism would arrive without the classical identifiers of uniforms, insignia, and rhetoric. Instead, it would be sold to the public in the form of security, well being, and tranquility: "We're from the national security state. We're here to help you. Just leave evrything to us."

[x359594]

Where?

In The End of Faith, Harris echoes the position taken by the Bush II administration, branding illegitimate any attempt to analyze the social and political factors motivating the 9/11 attack. Instead, he simply declares that Islam itself is responsible for the atrocity.

For example, Harris writes: “Given the vicissitudes of Muslim history, however, I suspect that the starting point I have chosen for this book—that of a single suicide bomber following the consequences of his religious beliefs—is bound to exasperate many readers, since it ignores the painful history of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. It ignores the collusion of the Western powers with corrupt dictatorships. It ignores the endemic poverty and lack of economic opportunity that now plague the Arab world. But I will argue that we can ignore all of these things—or treat them only to put them safely on the shelf—because the world is filled with poor, uneducated, and exploited people who do not commit acts of terrorism, indeed who would never commit acts of the sort which has become commonplace among Muslims; and the Muslim world has no shortage of educated and prosperous men and women, suffering little more than their infatuation with Koranic eschatology, who are eager to murder infidels for God’s sake.” (p. 109)

The implications are clear: it is the Islamic faith that is responsible for terrorism. Throughout the book, Harris conflates Islam and “the Muslim World” with terror. But, of course, if it is the “Muslim world” that is responsible for terrorism, repressive actions against this “Muslim world” are justified.

Thus we have Harris’ extraordinary declaration that in dealing with religious extremism, it may be necessary to employ military force, even extermination. He states on pages 52-53: “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live.”

Harris goes on to use this statement as a justification for US military aggression: “There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. That is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.”

Harris’ principal targets are Muslims, largely because this focus provides a rationale for American foreign policy. In his Letter to a Christian Nation Harris makes statements, to take a couple of examples, that “insofar as there is a crime problem in Western Europe, it is largely the product of immigration. Seventy percent of the inmates of France’s jails, for instance, are Muslims,” he writes (pp. 43-44). Thus we are to conclude that Muslims in France are a bunch of criminals, and Harris says nothing about the repression and racism directed against the Muslim population and encouraged by the French government.

At the end of this work Harris assures the “Christian Nation” that he stands “beside you, dumbstruck by the Muslim hordes who chant death to whole nations of the living.” It is clear where Harris stands politically here, regardless of his subsequent declaration that he is also dumbstruck by the irrational beliefs of Christians.

So Harris delivers a handy scapegoat, the Muslims (and their civil libertarian sympathizers,) very much in the fascist manner. The crusade against Muslims provides a rationale for "regime change" in Syria, Iran, and all the other countries in the Middle East who don't cooperate with the imeperial project.

[Hexen]

Friendly fascist, never heard of one.

It's a oxymoron.

[Tenka]

Sam Harris: Now you don't have to believe in the will of G. dubya's God in order to put your moral support behind the west's oil wars terrorising large populations of Muslims across the globe.

I wouldn't call him a fascist though, just a sort of neocon pundit for the "free-thinking" crowd.

[x359594]

...I wouldn't call him a fascist though, just a sort of neocon pundit for the "free-thinking" crowd.

I actually agree with you, but I thought it might be more provocative to raise the question.

[NGNM85]

In 2004, Sam Harris' first book The End of Faith said society should demote Christian, Muslim and Jewish belief to an embarrassment that "disgraces anyone who would claim it," in doing so catapulting him from obscure UCLA grad student to national voice of atheism.

Yeah, basically, that we should cease to quietly tolerate insane truth claims made by Theists. I think that’s probably a pretty good idea.


Harris also embraced the "war on terror"

Again; this is extremely misleading. The ‘War on Terror’ beyond being generally absurd, etc., is an extremely broad term referring to any number of actions taken by the United States under the professed aim of combating terrorism, both legitimate, and illegitimate. (Most of which I would file under the latter category.) Sam Harris has always been opposed to the war in Iraq, he has criticized the Bush administrations’ conduct, and condemned the abuses at Abu Ghraib, etc, etc. So, again; to say that, without elaborating, is extremely misleading, at best.


and constructed arguments to show that torture is ethically permissible.

Get serious. Everyone here agrees, at the very least, that there are theoretical scenarios where torture is permissible. (For example; the ‘Ticking Time Bomb Scenario.’) However; unlike those on the far Right, Harris does not leap from this sensible, and fairly innocuous conclusion to the radical idea that, therefore torture should be permissible in a whole host of circumstances that bear little resemblance to the original hypothetical. There is no hypocrisy in this. I would consider myself generally opposed to homicide. However; there are circumstances where homicide is ethically permissible, or where one might actually be ethically bound to kill. In practice, Harris says;

…I think that torture should remain illegal…’ and that; It seems probable, however, that any legal use of torture would have unacceptable consequences.’

(My emphasis.)

He goes on to propose the following rule;

‘We will not torture anyone under any circumstances unless we are certain, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the person in our custody has operational knowledge of an imminent act of nuclear terrorism.’

(Again; my emphasis.)

Most people who identify as opponents of torture would agree with that, (Including myself.) including you, I would suspect.


He also advocates for an elite body of decision makers because the masses are backward and emotionally immature. The rabble are to be kept in line by a mix of propaganda and repression and war or the threat of war.

I have no idea to what you’re referring to, (Conveniently, you’ve forgone any kind of attribution.) but I seriously doubt this is an accurate characterization.


The term "friendly fascism" was coined by Bertram Gross to describe the ruling class agenda of breaking labor unions, depressing wages, imposing a rightist ideological monopoly over the media, abolishing taxes for the big corporations and the rich, eliminating government regulations designed for worker and consumer safety and environmental protection, plundering public lands, privatizing public enterprises, wiping out most human services, and left-baiting and race-baiting all those opposed to such measures.


There is enough evidence to indicate that Harris fits the bill as a friendly fascist, although he may not advocate every single point in the ruling class agenda.

He doesn't meet any of your proposed criteria.

[bricolage]

‘We will not torture anyone under any circumstances unless we are certain, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the person in our custody has operational knowledge of an imminent act of nuclear terrorism.’
who is 'we'?

[NGNM85]

who is 'we'?

It doesn't really matter. The context implies that he is referring to the United States government. However; there's nothing specifically 'American' about it. Frankly; this would be a good rule of thumb for everybody.

[x359594]

... Everyone here agrees, at the very least, that there are theoretical scenarios where torture is permissible. (For example; the ‘Ticking Time Bomb Scenario.’)...

Speak for yourself. Even professional interrogators don't place much credence in confessions extracted by means of torture.

[NGNM85]

Speak for yourself. Even professional interrogators don't place much credence in confessions extracted by means of torture.

That has no relationship to the statement you've quoted. I grant that torture is far from the most accurate means of acquiring intelligence. (Which is not to say that it never works, which is, obviously, bullshit.) That in no way proves, or even implies, that there aren't even hypothetical scenarios where torture would be ethically permissible. (Which I'm nearly certain you don't actually believe.)

[NGNM85]

In The End of Faith, Harris echoes the position taken by the Bush II administration, branding illegitimate any attempt to analyze the social and political factors motivating the 9/11 attack. Instead, he simply declares that Islam itself is responsible for the atrocity.

That’s inaccurate. He simply says that political grievances, alone, are insufficient to explain it.


For example, Harris writes: “Given the vicissitudes of Muslim history, however, I suspect that the starting point I have chosen for this book—that of a single suicide bomber following the consequences of his religious beliefs—is bound to exasperate many readers, since it ignores the painful history of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. It ignores the collusion of the Western powers with corrupt dictatorships. It ignores the endemic poverty and lack of economic opportunity that now plague the Arab world. But I will argue that we can ignore all of these things—or treat them only to put them safely on the shelf—because the world is filled with poor, uneducated, and exploited people who do not commit acts of terrorism, indeed who would never commit acts of the sort which has become commonplace among Muslims; and the Muslim world has no shortage of educated and prosperous men and women, suffering little more than their infatuation with Koranic eschatology, who are eager to murder infidels for God’s sake.” (p. 109)

The implications are clear: it is the Islamic faith that is responsible for terrorism.

No, he says that there is a subculture of violent religious extremism in Islam. There’s a subculture of violent religious extremism in Christianity, as well, it’s just a smaller demographic, nowadays.


Throughout the book, Harris conflates Islam and “the Muslim World” with terror. But, of course, if it is the “Muslim world” that is responsible for terrorism, repressive actions against this “Muslim world” are justified.

Harris never claims that Muslims have a monopoly on terrorism, or even religious terrorism. I’m not even going to bother to try and decode the rest.


Thus we have Harris’ extraordinary declaration that in dealing with religious extremism, it may be necessary to employ military force, even extermination. He states on pages 52-53: “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live.”

Harris goes on to use this statement as a justification for US military aggression: “There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. That is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.”

This is, largely, taken out of context.

From Response to Controversy;
This paragraph appears after a long discussion of the role that belief plays in governing human behavior, and it should be read in that context. Some critics (http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/what-the-new-atheists-dont-see/) have interpreted the second sentence of this passage to mean that I advocate simply killing religious people for their beliefs. Granted, I made the job of misinterpreting me easier than it might have been, but such a reading remains a frank distortion of my views. Read in context, it should be clear that I am not at all ignoring the link between belief and behavior. The fact that belief determines behavior is what makes certain beliefs so dangerous.
When one asks why it would be ethical to drop a bomb on Osama bin Laden or Ayman Al Zawahiri, the answer cannot be, “because they have killed so many people in the past.” These men haven’t, to my knowledge, killed anyone personally. However, they are likely to get a lot of innocent people killed because of what they and their followers believe about jihad, martyrdom, the ascendancy of Islam, etc. As I argued in The End of Faith, a willingness to take preventative action against a dangerous enemy is compatible with being against the death penalty (which I am). Whenever we can capture and imprison jihadists, we should. But in most cases this is impossible.
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/ (http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/)


Harris’ principal targets are Muslims, largely because this focus provides a rationale for American foreign policy.

Correlation doesn’t equal causation.


In his Letter to a Christian Nation Harris makes statements, to take a couple of examples, that “insofar as there is a crime problem in Western Europe, it is largely the product of immigration. Seventy percent of the inmates of France’s jails, for instance, are Muslims,” he writes (pp. 43-44). Thus we are to conclude that Muslims in France are a bunch of criminals, and Harris says nothing about the repression and racism directed against the Muslim population and encouraged by the French government.

This is really disturbing. So far I’ve given you the benefit of the doubt, but this is hedging very close to calculated deceit. I can only hope that you are receiving this second-hand, and, are, thus, unaware of how you are horribly distorting what you are citing. In the chapter you are quoting (Out of context.) Harris is debunking the bogus claim of theists that they are more moral, that it is necessary to have religious faith in order to have strong moral values. He immediately follows the remarks you cited to further argue that the United States, which is unique, in the western world, in terms of religious ideation, (In this respect it shares more in common with Saudi Arabia, or Iran.) has the highest rates of crime, etc. Furthermore; many of the areas most afflicted by homicide, etc., are in the most devoutly religious areas, the so-called ‘Red States.’. So, you’ve basically completely twisted what was actually being said. Again; the only possible excuse is that you never actually read the aforementioned passage.


At the end of this work Harris assures the “Christian Nation” that he stands “beside you, dumbstruck by the Muslim hordes who chant death to whole nations of the living.” It is clear where Harris stands politically here, regardless of his subsequent declaration that he is also dumbstruck by the irrational beliefs of Christians.

I don’t think you have the slightest clue where he stands, politically. This is also another fantastic example of your affection for quote-mining.


So Harris delivers a handy scapegoat, the Muslims (and their civil libertarian sympathizers,) very much in the fascist manner.

More hyperbole…


The crusade against Muslims provides a rationale for "regime change" in Syria, Iran, and all the other countries in the Middle East who don't cooperate with the imeperial project.

As far as I know; Sam Harris has not endorsed, or suggested overthrowing any of these foreign governments. As you’ve, predictably, again, declined to source, or attribute your claim, and given the history of your ‘scholarship’ on the subject, I’m more than a little skeptical.

On a personal note; I think you’d probably be better off if you familiarized yourself with the subject matter beforehand.

[bricolage]

It doesn't really matter. The context implies that he is referring to the United States government. However; there's nothing specifically 'American' about it. Frankly; this would be a good rule of thumb for everybody.
well I think it does matter, 'we' implies some sort of commonality between the author and the american state and, secondly, it is putting forward the idea that there could be a point at which torture by the american state is legitimised by the author. it is ridiculous to assume that the 'beyond any reasonable doubt' could be decided by anyone other than... the reasonable doubt. the problem with things like the 'Ticking Time Bomb Scenario' that you mention is that it is a hypothetical scenario taking place in a vacuum. instead you have to address things like torture in terms of things like a) who are the social actors who are capable of engaging in it and b) to what ends would they engage in it. we have to talk about the real world, not the philosophical one.

[NGNM85]

well I think it does matter, 'we' implies some sort of commonality between the author and the american state and, secondly, it is putting forward the idea that there could be a point at which torture by the american state is legitimised by the author. it is ridiculous to assume that the 'beyond any reasonable doubt' could be decided by anyone other than... the reasonable doubt. the problem with things like the 'Ticking Time Bomb Scenario' that you mention is that it is a hypothetical scenario taking place in a vacuum. instead you have to address things like torture in terms of things like a) who are the social actors who are capable of engaging in it and b) to what ends would they engage in it. we have to talk about the real world, not the philosophical one.

Sam Harris did both. Pretty much everyone who has sat in a jury box, or watched Law & Order understands what; 'beyond a reasonable doubt' means. His proposal is that torture should only be employed if we (me, you, Lady Gaga, whoeverthefuck) have airtight evidence that an individual in custody has vital, specific knowledge about an immanent act of nuclear terrorism. Even in such an extreme case, Harris says, it should still be illegal, however; in such cases, law enforcement probably would simply decline to prosecute.

[bricolage]

Sam Harris did both. Pretty much everyone who has sat in a jury box, or watched Law & Order understands what; 'beyond a reasonable doubt' means.
I've never done either, but hey...
anyway I know what it means in courts, I'm asking you what it means in the context of it being employed by the US state.


His proposal is that torture should only be employed if we (me, you, Lady Gaga, whoeverthefuck) have airtight evidence that an individual in custody has vital, specific knowledge about an immanent act of nuclear terrorism.
but me, you and lady gaga don't have access to methods of torture do we.

[Book O'Dead]

In 2004, Sam Harris' first book The End of Faith said society should demote Christian, Muslim and Jewish belief to an embarrassment that "disgraces anyone who would claim it," in doing so catapulting him from obscure UCLA grad student to national voice of atheism.

Harris also embraced the "war on terror" and constructed arguments to show that torture is ethically permissible. He also advocates for an elite body of decision makers because the masses are backward and emotionally immature. The rabble are to be kept in line by a mix of propaganda and repression and war or the threat of war.

The term "friendly fascism" was coined by Bertram Gross to describe the ruling class agenda of breaking labor unions, depressing wages, imposing a rightist ideological monopoly over the media, abolishing taxes for the big corporations and the rich, eliminating government regulations designed for worker and consumer safety and environmental protection, plundering public lands, privatizing public enterprises, wiping out most human services, and left-baiting and race-baiting all those opposed to such measures.

There is enough evidence to indicate that Harris fits the bill as a friendly fascist, although he may not advocate every single point in the ruling class agenda.

I don't know about Sam Harris, probably because for years now I pay little attention to militant atheists (Richard Dawkins cured me of my atheism, thank Dawks!).

Also, for years I have suspected that some forms of atheism are fundamental to Fascism: The overthrow of a universal God in favor of a more local one dressed in some form of uniform, vested with political and military omnipotence and no legal accountability.

Even though I understand the irony implicit in the "friendly fascist' tag, etc., I can't help myself but thinking that to me no fascist has ever looked "friendly", polite manner and charming demeanor notwithstanding.

[NGNM85]

I've never done either, but hey...
anyway I know what it means in courts, I'm asking you what it means in the context of it being employed by the US state.


but me, you and lady gaga don't have access to methods of torture do we.

It means the same thing for everybody.

Of course we do. It's just highly unlikely that the three of us will ever be in posession of intelligence regarding an immanent act of nuclear terrorism, and take custody of the perpetrator(s).

[bricolage]

It means the same thing for everybody.
ok yes it does, but I think you're missing what I'm getting at here. it is the US (or any state) that is going to de deciding what 'beyond any reasonable doubt is'. what I am trying to say they are not going to define it in the same way that it is in a purely theoretical sense or even how you or I would. this is what you are dealing with.


Of course we do. It's just highly unlikely that the three of us will ever be in posession of intelligence regarding an immanent act of nuclear terrorism, and take custody of the perpetrator(s).
ok yeah well that's what I meant. making the discussion of this in regards to anything but states both academic and a major distraction.

[Book O'Dead]

His proposal is that torture should only be employed if we (me, you, Lady Gaga, whoeverthefuck) have airtight evidence that ....

Lady Gaga can torture me any day or night as long as I get a nice wet juicy knobber from her at the end of the ordeal.

[Franz Fanonipants]

wtf is even going on here is an anarchist seriously advocating that the state has the right to torture (oh wait sorry individuals) if the state is threatened

e: oh wait thats ngnm not an anarchist sorry bros for the confusion

[NGNM85]

wtf is even going on here is an anarchist seriously advocating that the state has the right to torture (oh wait sorry individuals) if the state is threatened

e: oh wait thats ngnm not an anarchist sorry bros for the confusion

1. That's not an accurate paraphrase of what I said.

2. None of my comments were philosophically inconsistent with Anarchism.

3. I know I've said this before; but I really don't see why you bother making this (bogus) accusation. You totally despise Anarchism, (Which is, admittedly, philosophically consistent, in your case.) therefore; my ideological consistency (Incidentally; you've never demonstrated that I am not ideologically consistent.) doesn't really matter.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Nope. What doesn't matter is your posting.

Because you have shown yourself to be one things - ignorant and ridiculous. If you aren't just plain stupid then you're politically useless. Consistantly.

[gorillafuck]

no, Sam Harris isn't a fascist. he's right wing but he's not a fascist.

[NGNM85]

Nope. What doesn't matter is your posting.

Because you have shown yourself to be one things - ignorant and ridiculous. If you aren't just plain stupid then you're politically useless. Consistantly.

There's a certain subjectivity on value judgments. We'd have to share a consensus on what 'matters', which, given the enormous ideological gulf in between is, likely, impossible. Since you brought it up; I happen to have a similar perception of you.

That's two things. Incidentally; when was the last time you said something smart? I'll take the Pepsi challenge with you, anyday. Nine times out of ten, you just insult people. I can't remember you ever making a cogent argument for anything. Ever.

Of course; this has nothing to do with anything.

Back to the matter at hand...

[NGNM85]

no, Sam Harris isn't a fascist. he's right wing but he's not a fascist.

Negative.

‘Perhaps I should establish my liberal bona fides at the outset. I’d like to see taxes raised on the wealthy, drugs decriminalized and homosexuals free to marry. I also think that the Bush administration deserves most of the criticism it has received in the last six years — especially with respect to its waging of the war in Iraq, its scuttling of science and its fiscal irresponsibility.’
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_t...of-liberalism/ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-end-of-liberalism/)

‘There is no doubt that the United States has much to atone for, both domestically, and abroad. …To produce this horrible confection at home, start with our genocidal treatment of the Native Americans, add a couple of hundred years of slavery, along with our denial of entry to Jewish refugees fleeing the death camps of the Third Reich, stir in our collusion with a long list of modern despots, and our subsequent disregard for their appalling human rights records, add our bombing of Cambodia and the Pentagon Papers to taste, and then top with our recent refusals to sign the Kyoto protocol for greenhouse emissions, to support any ban on land mines, and to submit ourselves to the rulings of the International Criminal Court. The result should smell of death, hypocrisy, and fresh brimstone. Nothing I have written in this book…should be construed as a denial of these facts, or as defense of state practices that are manifestly abhorrent.’
-End of Faith, Page 140

[gorillafuck]

Negative.cruise missile leftists are right wingers.

I mean, have you even read the full article you were actually quoting from?

http://www.rationalresponders.com/head_in_the_sand_liberals_by_sam_harris

he is a supporter of Israeli colonialism and it's military actions, a supporter of the war on terror, and believes that western Europe needs to be tough on Muslim immigrants.

[NGNM85]

cruise missile leftists are right wingers.

I’m not going to debate the value of terms you’ve just invented, that, as such, have no objective definitions.

The Left is a lot bigger than you want to acknowledge.

Sam Harris is, essentially, a Liberal. (In the modern sense.) He’s a little more to the right on foreign policy than most Liberals, but only by a few degrees.


I mean, have you even read the full article you were actually quoting from?
http://www.rationalresponders.com/head_in_the_sand_liberals_by_sam_harris (http://www.rationalresponders.com/head_in_the_sand_liberals_by_sam_harris)

Yes.


he is a supporter of Israeli colonialism and it's military actions,

Sort of.


a supporter of the war on terror,

Only if you exclude torture, the war in Iraq, etc., etc. To say that, without qualification, borders on duplicitous.


and believes that western Europe needs to be tough on Muslim immigrants.

That’s somewhat accurate. He said that there is a growing Jihadist subculture, or a culture that sympathizes with Jihadist aims, within the European Muslim community. While I haven’t done any significant research on the subject, that’s probably accurate. He never makes any specific policy recommendations. Moreover; he specifically identifies that virtually all of the European groups that are really fixating on this development, like the English Defense League, are, in truth, fascists. Not only is this characterization totally accurate, but it indicates a significant ideological, and tactical difference between them, and himself.

[SpiritiualMarxist]

Same take I had on Chris Hitchin's bs views on being pro-islamophobia/pro-war. Simply people who have fell for the capitalist/imperialistic agenda because they believe other's to be savages.
That line of argument is how the ruling class duped the masses into doing pretty much everything that rational minded people would find insidious.

Anytime the ruling class paints "others" as savages, you know there's an economic agenda, end of story.

[ennio82]

To Me Harris's defense on torture is really disturbing.
That type of remark it's just counterproductive if not dangerous for Atheism, because it raises ad infinitum the ghosts of Social Darwinism.

[NGNM85]

What's with people resurrecting these old threads, lately?


To Me Harris's defense on torture is really disturbing.

Not this nonsense, again...

From Response to Controversy; (My emphasis)

'...I considered our mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib to be patently unethical. I also think it was one of the most damaging blunders to occur in the last century of U.S. foreign policy. Nor have I ever seen the wisdom or necessity of denying proper legal counsel (and access to evidence) to prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. Indeed, I consider much of what occurred under Bush and Cheney—the routine abuse of ordinary prisoners, the practice of “extraordinary rendition,” etc.—to be a terrible stain upon the conscience of our nation.

... I think that torture should remain illegal...

...It seems probable, however, that any legal use of torture would have unacceptable consequences. '

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/



That type of remark it's just counterproductive if not dangerous for Atheism, because it raises ad infinitum the ghosts of Social Darwinism.

???

[milostvp]

I absolutely agree that Sam Harris, at least in his book 'The end of faith', does display fascist disposition, and even supports his country's establishment.

He even admits that current problematic condition of islamic suicidal fanaticism is a consequence of western (i.e. American) economic/political/military pressures, often in form of installing and keeping in power various fascist leaders, just as they have been doing in many non-muslim countries, scholarly example being South America...

I regret that he is considered one of the 'horsemen' of atheism...