rfmcdonald | [BRIEF NOTE] More on Adam Yoshida (Reply)

The odyssey of Adam Yoshida--first noted on this livejournal in this post just before he managed to get expelled from Livejournal, then here when I noted his bizarre plan to build up US military assets in space to prepare for, among other things, preemptive genocides of extra-terrestrials--continues.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with dear Adam, see the first post. In particular, see the apt comments made by

countess_sophia back in October 2003 to the effect that Adam's writings consist of "[r]ightwing neo-con cant mixed with liberal - he'd hate that word to be used about him - doses of bigotry, hatred and empty macho posturing which completely fails to hide obvious massive social and sexual insecurity."

I admit that I don't follow Damelon Kimbrough's sage advice on linking to sites and blogs run by eccentric people. Perhaps I have a perverse sense of humour. Perhaps I don't shock easily. Certainly, I don't care just how utterly badly Adam is soiling his online reputation.

I am impressed by how Adam is consistent, at least, about his desire to subjugate non-human cultures. See his comments in the comments thread associated with a post where he wished that an abused inmate at Abu Ghraib had died:

What's wrong with enslaving actual aliens?

Certianly human rights, even in their broadest conception, can't be extended to people who are not human.

He was perhaps inspired by this to write an entire post devoted on this theme, ostensibly about native Americans:

The history of humanity is the history of the destruction of weaker cultures and civilizations by stronger ones. This is not something to be mourned or regretted, for it is this very process of creative destruction which drives us forward though time.

[. . .]

Given the limited supply of usable land on the Earth, any land which is inhabited by no more than a scattering of savages must be considered Terra Nullius- no man’s land. It is the right and, indeed, the duty of superior civilizations to seize that land and to bring the blessings of modern life to it.

This is an important point to consider because we are on the verge of an age of great space exploration. The cult of Indian victimhood, if it is allowed to endure, is very likely to deter our descendents from simply displacing by force alien primitives they might encounter on some far away and Earth-like world. It is only though the re-interpretation of our history (or, more accurately, the re-re-interpretation of our history) that we can make it clear to those who come after us that they have a sacred duty to conquer and civilize the lands of primitives. It would be the height of folly to abandon useful land for the sake of a few scattered tribes.

It’s time to stop feeling guilty about our history. After all, none of us would even be here had history turned out differently. The Indians simply met their destiny and, in the end, their decedents get to live in a civilization which is a hundred times greater than anything that they, on their own, ever could have provided.

Oh, I know I will be attacked as “unfeeling” and “uncaring” for this, but I truly don’t care. Countless cultures and civilizations have been destroyed over time and I see nothing which does not suggest that all this was to our great benefit. The only reason we care more about the Indians then, say, the lost glories of Abyssinia or Carthage is that the North American Indians have better press. Hell, Carthage and Abyssinia are bad examples in that they were actual civilizations. We mostly don’t know the names of the European equivalents of the Haida or Sioux since they were pretty much all dealt with, one way or another, long before anyone was keeping real records. The level of sophistication displayed by the North American Indian is comparable only to that of African tribes, and who cares about them?

Wow. Impressive stuff, innit?

The irony--and, for anyone who isn't Adam Yoshida, the sad truth--is that as Adam's posts increasingly lose contact with conventional concepts of geopolitics, morality, reality, et cetera, he does increasing damage to the cause of people like myself who like the United States, thanks to the abundance of quotable material he provides. As Tyge wrote,

[Adam]'s sort of argumentation [. . .] is counterproductive both to those of us on the right side of the political playground in general and to advocates of specific goals, be that a constructive American role in leading the world, space exploration, education reform, protection of liberty etc.

Such people might well end up harming, in what limited power they ever have, what they seek to protect. Some friends are worse than enemies. I mean, show some of the stuff to a suitably deranged anti-american fanatic and I bet they won't be less inclined to shoot a defender of the United States, like the guys and girls on duty putting their life at risk in Iraq.

And not only deranged fanatics, I'd add. Quite a few middle-of-the-road Iraqis who were vaguely pro-American immediately after last year's invasion lost their Ameriphilia as soon as they say the photos of sexual and physical abuse at Abu Ghraib. One can only hope that Adam's rantings don't get nearly as broad an audience as those photos.