The Moral Confusion Of Julia Ebner

As of this writing, Julia Ebner is a Senior Researcher at Quilliam Global —

---

https://www.quilliaminternational.com/about/staff/julia-ebner/
https://archive.is/g6EZz

---

Quilliam Global is supposedly "the world’s first counter-extremism organisation" (emphasis added) —

---

https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/Quilliam_(think_tank)
https://www.quilliaminternational.com/about/
https://archive.is/08fhI

---

Notice that the name 'Quilliam' comes from Abdullah Quilliam, a British convert to Islam, who argued for a global 'Caliphate' —
     https://www.google.com/search?q=Abdullah+Quilliam

But notice that a 'Caliphate' is an Islamic theocracy, and is therefore a form of religious extremism, since it requires religious oppression —
     https://www.britannica.com/place/Caliphate
     https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/caliphate
     https://www.google.com/search?q=caliphate

So it is no surprise that a 'Senior Researcher' at an organization named for a follower of Islam, would make no attempt to criticize Islam.  For example, notice the absurd moral confusion from Julia Ebner in the quote below, and apply her thinking to WW II, as just one other example of extremist world views (the quote begins at about 5:20 in the video) —

---

https://youtu.be/GtZQsReyUiA?t=321

"... they are also consistent with the other extreme's world view.  Islamist extremists tell us the West is at war with Islam.  While the far-right tells us that Islam is at war with the West.  Well, they're perfectly complementary.  If we go back to our 'Star Wars' example, whether you are on the 'light' or on the 'dark' side of 'the force' doesn't really change the story. The only thing that does is the perspective.  The same is true for far-right and Islamist extremists — they are in the same movie, reinforcing the same story.  And thus helping each other as story tellers. ..."

---

Notice that "the dark side", using Ebner's reference to the 'Star Wars' movies, was synonymous with "the empire" and evil — that is, "the dark side" in Ebner's reference, is completely consistent with statism and tyranny, where an evil regime thought nothing of destroying entire planets as an exercise in coercing rebel leaders (like Princess Leia) —

---

https://youtu.be/lAAXorA4pg8

---

But that one side was fighting to enforce tyranny and create destruction, while the other was fighting for freedom, did not "really change the story" for Julia Ebner — it is just a story about a fight between two groups of extremists.

And notice that Julia Ebner was using her 'Star Wars' reference as a denigrating example of a cultural phenomena — that is, that people too readily respond to oversimplified world views, that eliminate confusing details, to create simple black and white assessments of world events (the image below appears at 3:30 in Ebner's TEDx video) —

---

https://youtu.be/GtZQsReyUiA?t=210

"... In an increasingly complex world, black and white narratives, that eliminate all confusing gray zones can be comforting.  We all love binary world views.  Just think about the most successful movies in history.  'Star Wars', you have the light and the dark side of the force.  It's simple.  I even understood the narrative at the age of 6 and thought it was great. ..."

---

Julia Ebner claims to have understood the "simple" 'Star Wars' narrative at the age of 6, yet she still is not able to keep the dramatic differences between the two sides straight, and that their goals, methods, and practices, completely contradict one another — as opposed to being "complementary".  That is the whole point.  That is, self-defense is not complementary with aggression — self-defense is a response to aggression to restore freedom, whereas aggression is the initiation of force to end freedom (whether from a petty criminal or a state).   The conflict in movies like 'Star Wars'  is extreme to make it simple for the audience to take sides.  This does not mean the conflict is simple, or that people have a "binary world view" — it means that any sane person can easily tell who the bad guys are — despite that Julia Ebner still seems to be having trouble with this.

Now apply Julia Ebner's thinking to WW II — since the Allies would have told us that they were at war with the Axis powers, while the Axis powers would have told us that they were at war with the Allies, they represent two extremist groups "in the same movie".  So according to Julia Ebner's perverse logic regarding "storytelling", the Allied and Axis powers (most especially Nazism under Hitler's Germany), would be "complementary", "reinforcing the same story, and thus helping each other as story tellers."   Should this make sense to any sane person?

And Notice that the definition of 'complementary' is:

 "combining in such a way as to enhance or emphasize the qualities of each other or another."

So can any sane person explain how Islamist "extremists" (with their support for religious theocracy under Sharia Law), and Western "extremists" (with their support for secularism, free speech, and free elections), enhance the qualities of one another?

Obviously, this is completely absurd — any religious theocracy (never mind Islam and its violent Sharia Law (e.g. death to apostates)) is completely antithetical to the Western value of freedom (especially religious freedom).   There is no reasonable way anyone could argue that the conflicts over such contradictory world views are somehow "complementary", as Julia Ebner has attempted to do.  But following Ebner, anyone who points out these obvious conflicts and contradictions, between the West and Islam, or the Allied and Axis powers, or the "light" and "dark" sides of "the force" in 'Star Wars', and takes sides against aggression, is a "far-right extremist".   And per Ebner, these "extremists" are all "... reinforcing the same story ... they're perfectly complementary" — the stories do not conflict.

As if all this were not enough, notice that Julia Ebner suggests a moral equivalence between Donald Trump and the militant Sunni terrorist Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi —

---

https://youtu.be/GtZQsReyUiA?t=474

"... So yes, maybe after all it wouldn't be so absurd to see Trump and al-Baghdadi celebrate their triumphs together. ..."

---

Does Julia Ebner honestly believe that Donald Trump would like to establish some kind of Christian dictatorship, that is somehow equivalent with the Islamic theocracy that Al-Baghdadi would like to establish?  Or is Julia Ebner simply lying?

And does Julia Ebner think that such asinine hyperbole would embolden those like Trump and his supporters, or somehow make them go away?   Such irony — in a talk that is supposedly about "extremist" groups feeding off one another, the speaker casually drops extreme statements comparing the head of state of a free country, to a militant terrorist who wishes to establish a religious theocracy.   It is no surprise that someone like Julia Ebner would be too blind to see her own role in what she calls "extremism".

So much for being a "Senior Researcher" at an organization which is supposedly aimed at "counter-extremism".   Julia Ebner's work is best described by the phrase 'advocacy research' — research attempting to promote a political agenda, rather than the truth —
     https://www.google.com/search?q=advocacy+research

Liberal Dishonesty

Discussing government with co-workers recently, I commented that the often heard complaint that America 'is divided' is a kind of absurdity, given that so many view government as a kind of father figure that should be distributing economic benefits and special privileges.

Given that view, disagreement and a fight over who is going to be forced by government to give what to whom follows by necessity — so it makes no sense to complain about 'divisions' when you demand that government use one person for the sake of another.

One so-called 'liberal' minded co-worker looked at me quizzically, as if I had said something that was obviously false — but other than that, he did not respond to my point.  It was as if he believed that if someone did not agree with his chosen distribution of other people's labor, there was no point in even discussing it — never mind if there were any justification for an initiation of force from government to begin with.

There is a kind of dishonest denial here — it is as if many would throw a match into a large bucket of gasoline, and then complain about the ensuing explosion.  If you do not desire an inevitable outcome from a particular action that you engage in, it makes no sense to complain about that outcome, as if you did not participate in producing it.

If you do not like the divisions created by government from the exploitation of one individual for the sake of another, then you should stop supporting government policies that pit people against one another.  That is, you should be fighting to minimize government power, as well as attempting to educate people regarding their dishonest sense of entitlement to a particular quality of life — as if even bare subsistence is not a product of human labor, and so can trivially be provided without initiating force against others, and thereby violating their rights.

Here is a tweet which provides a good summation of the liberal mindset.  It supposedly contains a quote from John F. Kennedy, but for the purposes of this discussion who said it is not relevant — only that such statements resonate with many so-called liberal minded people —

---

https://twitter.com/PIWillia/status/840964106777694212
https://archive.is/PZuWQ

---

Notice that the tweet above, and the quote it contains, are perfect examples of moral preening — that is, posturing to create the impression in the minds of others of a caring, thoughtful person.

If you really care about the welfare of other people, like, say, their housing, for example, then you take action to facilitate the production of affordable housing, or you contribute to charities that take action in that regard.  You might contribute to, or volunteer for the 'Habitat For Humanity', as just one example —
     http://www.habitat.org/volunteer/near-you/find-your-local-habitat

That is, you actually do something yourself to improve the welfare of others — you do not just tell others that you care, because obviously that accomplishes nothing with regard to improving anyone's welfare — other than make you feel superior to others (and it is baffling why it would even do that).

And then you might tell others about your work with that charity (tweeting or otherwise), or the value of contributing, and how that charity actually helps real people.  That is, you show your concern for real action, and actual impacts, rather than attempting to create an impression in the minds of others that you care.

And certainly, you never try to use the political process to create an initiation of force from government to achieve your supposed goals regarding helping others, since that stands in direct contradiction to the supposed concern for 'the welfare of the people — their civil rights, and their civil liberties', as stated in the tweet above.

Of course, that is the liberal lie — the primary goal of a majority of liberals is to initiate force against others, in order to make a public display of their supposed caring — that is, to engage in moral preening.  The actual outcomes created by such attacks on individual rights and liberties are not a concern for the typical liberal — the public pretense of displaying their morals is what is key.

As demonstrated by the content of the tweet shown above, the goal is to posture to others as to what 'I am ...', and not to succeed at any actual achievement.  As the old saying goes: 'Actions speak louder than words.'   And it should be obvious why — nothing is easier than talking, but following through with action can take a great deal of time and effort — but only action proves an intention.

And when liberal action is aimed primarily at initiating force against others, to make them pay, what intention does it prove?
A concern for the welfare of others does not come to mind.

Happily Biting A Helping Hand

An associate editor at Reason, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, posted a tweet pointing out protesters she encountered in Washington DC, who purchased goods at a business that is a product of capitalism and free markets, while simultaneously protesting capitalism.  Not surprisingly, her tweets generated some controversy, confusion, and dishonesty (mainly dishonesty) —

---

https://twitter.com/ENBrown
https://twitter.com/ENBrown/status/822535666441613317

https://twitter.com/ENBrown/status/822583329849544704

---

The dishonesty in the responses is almost too ridiculous to be believed.  One tweet in reply was that somehow one is forced to patronize capitalist businesses as a result of living under free market conditions — as if freedom compels interaction with businesses.  How many people expect any other even remotely sane person to be convinced by such nonsense?

"surely you understand that fighting against capitalism doesn't change the fact that we currently must exist under capitalism"    https://twitter.com/ENBrown/status/822535666441613317

It is hard to believe, but one person seemed to not understand the original intention of Elizabeth's tweet — as if the hypocrisy of the supposed 'protesters' was not obvious, and the business they had patronized was not a product of what they were protesting.  What is going on here?  Do some people actually believe that businesses like 7-Eleven are some kind of government run, socialist enterprise — i.e. that they are not a product of a free market and capitalism? —

---

https://twitter.com/ENBrown/status/822582930723766273

---

To those who honestly do not understand, perhaps part of Elizabeth Nolan Brown's original intent was to point out the very common hypocrisy among people of denouncing that which they happily use and receive a benefit from.

Notice the completely nonsensical, and even aggressively stupid reply from Michael Curry.   Curry did not address the original comment that someone would patronize a nationwide business that only exists because of capitalism and free markets, while simultaneously protesting capitalism and free markets — but instead Curry implies that it is absurd to think that people should not take benefit from that which they think is harmful, as if there is no other way for them to satisfy a particular need —

      Curry: "If capitalism is so bad, why do you eat food?  Checkmate!"

Notice the explicit idiocy here, relative to Elizabeth Nolan Brown's original tweet — you either buy some food at a nationwide, capitalist business, or you starve.

The point is not what was being purchased, but that the mechanics of the production and distribution of the product (i.e. private property and free markets) was being denounced, and yet still patronized.

This is exactly like protesting a slaughterhouse, while simultaneously eating a steak.
This is exactly like protesting slavery, while simultaneously buying a slave at auction.

This is exactly like protesting a violation of individual rights, while simultaneously destroying the private property of individuals.

That the good was food was incidental — the same point would have applied if the protesters had been buying any number of other things — lug nuts, fertilizer, tennis balls, etc.

In an attempt to pretend that he has a point, Curry (like many others) drops the context of Elizabeth Nolan Brown's original comment — in this case, a purchase from an institution that is a product of what what was being protested.

If you fill in the details that Curry conveniently leaves out, in his attempt to sound reasonable, you see that he has no point —

If capitalism is so bad, why would you buy anything (including food) from nationwide, or even global institutions that are a product of capitalism?

In short, if capitalism is so bad, why do you happily take its benefits, when you are not compelled to do so?

And notice the absurd irony of those who claim 'we must exist under this capitalist system', when a free society (i.e. one that has free markets and is actually capitalist) is the only society under which one could actually establish a 'commune' with like minded individuals (or whatever one calls their supposed non-capitalist paradise).  It cannot be done under communist dictatorships like North Korea or Cuba, for obvious reasons — completely socialist governments (i.e. governments that own the means of production), will not allow anyone to produce anything without their control.

Perhaps that is what is revealed by all of this willful blindness in the responses to Elizabeth Nolan Brown's original tweet — that many wish to force everyone else to operate under their dictates.

Many seem to have some bizarre delusion that they will be the ones controlling the initiation of force in their twisted socialist dream, and that somehow, magically, they will be able to control the power they are dreaming of, but only at the expense of everyone else.

As Elizabeth Nolan Brown replied in a tweet to a dishonest responder: "you're willfully misreading what I say.  Why?"

When you prefer a lie, that is what you do.