Leftists, Rousseau, and Islamicist totalitarianism: brothers under the skin
[NOTE: I ran out of time today for Part II of the Cronkite piece. My plan is to have it appear tomorrow. In the meantime…]
There are several banned trolls whose comments I ordinarily delete here as a matter of course. But every now and then one writes something that I decide to leave up as an example of a certain type of thinking.
Thus, this recent effort from one of my most loyal non-fans in Toronto:
‘Militant’ Islam isn’t going to go away as long as the U.S and Israel continue to control the region through it’s military and corrupt policies.
Given that, there is no U.S chance of winning a military victory there. None.
I’m hoping this site will still be around in a few years when defeat is total and humiliating…
A pithy rendition of a certain type of leftist thinking that, like a snake swallowing its own tail, would devour itself if what it wished for came to pass. Because make absolutely no mistake about it: if this commenter had his way, and defeat of the current effort being mounted by the US were to be “total and humiliating,” and the other side (Islamicist totalitarianism) were to get its way and become victorious in its goal of a worldwide caliphate, not only would there be no sites left like this, the commenter would find his freedoms curtailed so forcefully that he would no longer be able to exercise his own freedom to be a troll. And that would be the least of his (and our) worries.
I’ve often wondered about the failure of the Left to understand this very simple fact. Surely, they are interested in the Enlightenment values of reason, human rights (such as for homosexuals and for women) and individual freedom? Surely they understand what sharia law is all about? Surely they understand that these people are quite serious?
But no; the highlighted comment demonstrates all the basic elements of leftist thought: the attribution of all third-world violence and ills to the always-dastardly doings of those twin repositories of all that’s really evil: the Great and Little Satans, the US and Israel. These beliefs of the Left are offered as a matter of faith, without even an attempt to back them up with facts or logical argument (although if what passes for logical argument is the work of Chomsky and the like, they needn’t bother). Yes, yes, yes, of course; it’s the corruption of the US and Israel that is the cause of all the flaws of the Arab world, and if those things went away all the other problems would magically go away–(or perhaps “wither away,” in the old Marxist phrase).
What’s going on here? I believe that at least part of the answer lies in the philosophical underpinnings of Leftist thought. One of these days I hope to write a long post on its origins in the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who had a similar reductionist theory of human nature and history (I’ve been wading through this book on the subject, which I highly recommend).
To Rousseau, civilization and society (and reason itself, to a certain extent) were corrupting influences, and must be reformed to better reflect the condition of pre-civilized humanity–a relatively happy state of nature in which people were at peace and non-exploitative towards each other. Civilization led to power inequities and private property (very important to Rousseau, as well as to his heirs, the Jacobins, the Left, and the Communists) and all sorts of unfairness that needed redressing by a state that was not afraid to use Draconian measures and subordinate the people to its will.
In Rousseau’s seminal Social Contract (which, along with Hobbes’ Leviathan, we were made to read in public high school; somehow I doubt whether that’s still the case) he writes [my emphasis]:
…whoever refuses to obey the general will will be forced to do so by the entire body [the public and the state]; this means merely that he will be forced to be free…[if the leaders of the state say to the citizen] “it is expedient for the state that you should die,” he should die.
So the resemblance of the Left to Islamicist fundamentalist totalitarianism isn’t such a stretch after all. The similarity is their profound dislike of modernism, jettisoning of individual freedom for a sort of mythical collective freedom that will be expressed in the general will, the embrace of violent methods for achieving this heaven on earth, and the glorification of feeling over reason. It’s all there in their hero, Rousseau–whether they’ve read him or not.
Cleaning up the verbal litter of people like justa is a real service. But sometimes, like the Anonymous mini-rant that occasioned this post originally, it’s worth preserving at least a fragment or two just for their illustrative value, or their unintentional humor, or both. E.g.:
Sally, do you ever justify your broad sweeping accusations….
The Likudists that you so lionise are little better than Nazis.
Interesting that US actions are considered the determining factors of everyone else’s lives. I’m not sure we’re that important.
I’ve often wondered about the failure of the Left to understand this very simple fact. Surely, they are interested in the Enlightenment values of reason, human rights (such as for homosexuals and for women) and individual freedom? Surely they understand what sharia law is all about?
Freedom has certain paradoxes associated with it. Sharia law may well be contrary to individual freeedom (of women for example). But if a woman willingly and freely chooses to embrace that loss of freedom, a freedom-lover has to honor the choce that that woman is freely making.
Consider an analogy. When a woman becomes a nun, or a man becomes a monk, she/he gives up certain freedoms. One could even say that monastic life is contrary to “individual freedom”. But a proponent of individual freedom cannot, on that basis, prohibit people from becoming monks and nuns, as long as the choice to become monk/nun is freely made.
The important point here is whether coercion is involved or not. If a Muslim woman willing chooses to wear the veil, she should definitely have the right to do so. I would not have made that choice myself, but I have to respect that choice. If she is coerced into wearing it, then and only then should there be external intervention — not otherwise.
“Sharia law may well be contrary to individual freeedom (of women for example). But if a woman willingly and freely chooses to embrace that loss of freedom, a freedom-lover has to honor the choce that that woman is freely making.”
No. Never.
The mistake you make is not understanding reversibility. Sharia is not reversible, she can’t just opt out when she wishes. In monastic life, one can leave when one wishes.
People like Rousseau — to be equally reductionist — are basically people who are unhappy because they don’t have a big enough piece of the pie.
The leaders of a revolution are usually intelligent, and often trained professionals, who cannot find a place in the given regime. One of the reasons why the US is so great is that our regime is very fluid. If you have talent, you will rise. In most countries where revolutions occur, there is a blockage, and, yes, it usually involves wealth (hence the obsession with property).
Of course, a revolutionary leadership is not enough. Debatably, Russia had a revolutionary leadership from the time of the Dekabristi, but they didn’t have anyone to lead. All that changed by the end of the 19th Century, when there were tens of millions of workers and peasants who wanted a change.
I don’t want to cast aspersions on another poster, but my guess is that an individual who identifies with a potentially revolutionary situation is oftentimes an unsatisfied individual.
On a related note, President Bush has finally caved on my demand for increasing the size of the ground forces of the armed forces of the United States. However, the numbers being discussed are tiny.
I’ve often wondered about the failure of the Left to understand this very simple fact. Surely, they are interested in the Enlightenment values of reason, human rights (such as for homosexuals and for women) and individual freedom?
Not really. They are interested in so much as it benefits them. Which is very short sighted, and as Sanity noted, very narcissistic.
Surely they understand what sharia law is all about? Surely they understand that these people are quite serious?
Surely not, Neo.
the Great and Little Satans, the US and Israel.
We are more like Baatezu Devils than satanic demonic ta’narri, Neo.
Yes, yes, yes, of course; it’s the corruption of the US and Israel that is the cause of all the flaws of the Arab world, and if those things went away all the other problems would magically go away–(or perhaps “wither away,” in the old Marxist phrase).
if America the Empire controlled this planet defacto as well as de jure, when every nation on this earth may petition for protectorship status or State status under the United States, all problems would melt away, Neo. Major ones anyway.
The similarity is their profound dislike of modernism,
I prefer the term cosmopolitanism rather than modernism, because most modern things are not good. Technology is good, but that isn’t what affects human beliefs and behavior.
I made a collation blog effort here Neo.
In it, this was the link that was very important to see how to tie in the beliefs of the Left into one coherent Unified Field Theory. Check it out. The stuff in my collation post was the positive good stuff.
Down the rabbit hole we go, where we stop, nobody knows
Assistant Village Idiot:
Yes how the rest of the world views us is truly bizarre. I spent some extended time in New Zealand. From their broadcast television you would have thought that Americans are Olympian Gods, capable to striding the oceans and altering the course of rivers on a whim. If anything was wrong in the universe it was merely because we did not decide to fix it. It wasn’t the unceasing Anti-Americanism and hatred of the BBC. It was really an underlining and unrealistic awe at our supposed power. It was like Superman was real. No concept of our limited resources or conflicting desires. It certainly wasn’t admiration, but … I don’t know … not the anger of a child with their parent (although some of that was in it) … maybe the bemused annoyance of a poor neighbor that the ultra rich neighbor isn’t repaving their shared lane? It was just odd.
On a different note, in 1985 in high school the thought of having us “read” Locke and Rousseau was not even a entertained. There works were explained to us over (maybe) a week, maybe 2 days. But reading them, that wasn’t going to happen. And I was in the AP courses.
I’ve often wondered about the failure of the Left to understand this very simple fact.-Neo
Neo, with statement like this, it’s clear you’ve lost your mind. Who is this “Left” you speak of. Who in congress believes this. What thinktank is pushing this. How do you extrapolate aything from an anonymous post on your blog.
At this point your just sticking pins in a vodoo doll.
Your becoming a parody satellite, transmitting further and further away from any sense of reality.
Donkey, meet Kong. Kong, meet Donkey. You, all you.
Neo, Neo, Neo… As soon as I read:
“I’ve often wondered about the failure of the Left to understand this very simple fact. Surely, they are interested in the Enlightenment values of reason, human rights (such as for homosexuals and for women) and individual freedom?”
…I knew what the “progressive” answer was; “What war? What Islamofacism?”
Neo–Take a look at Talmon’s book “Totalitarian Democracy” on Rousseau, the French Revolution and how true believers want to “force us to be free,” by killing anyone who stands in the path to their utopia.
Good post, neo. Rousseau, it’s important to remember, is also a product of the Enlightenment, and as such, reflects its dark side in a sense. That side was really a reaction to the light of reason and to the emergence of the modern individual, which brought with it, for many, the modern sense of alienation and meaninglessness. Classical liberalism represented the real progressive force of the Enlightenment, and of human development generally; socialist, Marxist, and later fascist, totalitarianism represented the real reactionaries. Fascism, of course, ended with a bang just before the middle of the last century, and the socialist/Marxist variant ended with a whimper just less than 50 years later. Little wonder, then, that the forces of reaction are looking to embrace a new savior, and that the self-styled “progressives” (now there’s an irony!) of the Western left should be so protective of anything that appears to attack their own hated culture.
For an illustration of just how damaged that left has become, by the way, you could hardly do better than the robotic ravings of the various obsessive/compulsive trolls above.
Whoa! Pete’s gotten really robotic…reposting drivel from another thread!
Again, Pete…what’s YOUR real name? What’s YOUR address? Some buds of mine and me want to see your house; I hear it’s made of good Norweigan wood….
“good Norweigan wood”
It’s not a threat, by the way; just a joke, Neo.
Good post, neo. Rousseau, it’s important to remember, is also a product of the Enlightenment, and as such, reflects its dark side in a sense. That side was really a reaction to the light of reason and to the emergence of the modern individual, which brought with it, for many, the modern sense of alienation and meaninglessness.
I think the sense of alienation and meaninglessness has a lot more to do with such things as industrialization, bureaucratization, urbanization, and the division of labor, than Enlightenment ideas per se. I mean, Enlightenment ideas — like any other ideas — become popular for a reason.
Alienation and meaninglessness were a staple of a lot of mid-19th Century literature, see Melville (“Bartleby”), Dostoevsky (“Crime and Punishment” and others), Gogol (all the Petersburg stuff), and probably a host of others. But it’s hard, when you read it in literature, to think that it’s just due to “ideas” — conditions of life has a lot to do with it.
Another person who thinks it’s “all about ideas” is Daniel Pipes, which is why he thinks that terrorism is all about bad ideas, conditions being irrelevant. His most recent article has fingered the Muslim Arab population of Israel as “Israel’s Domestic Enemy” but of course neither he nor his Israeli counterparts can be criticized, lest the critic be accused of being what they in fact are.
The answer should be obvious. Someone who tosses epithets around can do that.
Some of the comments I see above are toxic and shameful, and are inappropriate for any forum. (They may be deleted by the time someone reads this.)
To change the subject I point to a good essay supporting negotiations with Syria and Iran, and which also underscores my judgment about the difficulty for Israel in giving Syria access to Lake Tiberias (aka Sea of Galilee) here.
Again, in the context of comments made, I would underscore the author’s credentials as an American Jew.
Those who blame all evils of this world on some social, political and economic conditions implicitly or explicitly deny reality of the most important factor of human existence: freedom of will. This denial is ideological root of any Leftist thought, from Rousseau to Marxism and modern secular humanism, its hallmarks being “root causes”, “oppression” and “inequality”. Such things, of course, exist, but they can not justify any crime and irresponsibility. We, humans, are not Pavlov’s dogs or wild beasts; in any circumstances, harsh or not so harsh, we have a choice between good and evil, and are responsible for our behaviour. This is principle central to any decent religion, to morality in general, and its negation is absolutely immoral, evil and heretical. For me, the best modern moralist and philosopher on this subject is Viktor Emil Frankl. This Holocost survivor, founder of the Third Vienna school of psychoanalysis, wrote several books on this topic, which I recommend to everybody:
“From death-camp to existentialism. Boston, Beacon, 1959-1962”;
“Man’s Search for Meaning. N.Y.:Simon and Schuster, 1984.”
See also logotherapy.univie.ac.at/
The whole message of Dostoevsky’s writing, and especially “Crime and Punishment” and “Karamasov Brothers”, is centered around personal responsibility and role of “bad ideas” in making humans criminals and sinners. Steve’s failure to understand this is the best illustration of ideological blindness of Leftist thought.
I think some of those who neo thinks of as leftists are really just Islamists among the Muslim community in North America. Especially when they write things like:
Simple question: do hardships that German citizen suffer in 1930es (unemployment, hyperinflation, national humilation of Versaille treatise) in any way justify Nazi atrocites? These “root causes” were real, and they played major role in Hitler ascend to power. If we apply Leftist logic, we should blame Antanta for Holocaust, not Germans themselves. But consensus of international opinion holds it otherwise. Now we have a very close situation in Arab world: as a whole, it is in pre-Nazi condition, with cult of violence, genocide and world-wide hegemony ideological aspirations. In Iran and Sudan this ideology is aready official, and to defeat it WWII-like conflict, with complete military destruction of enemy forces, is required.
Steve: I think the sense of alienation and meaninglessness has a lot more to do with such things as industrialization, bureaucratization, urbanization, and the division of labor, than Enlightenment ideas per se. I mean, Enlightenment ideas — like any other ideas — become popular for a reason.
Just to add a little to what Sergey has already well-said, Steve is again unwittingly demonstrating another failure of leftist thought, this one going back to the very origins of the “left” as such: the artificial separation between ideas and conditions. The good Marxist, of course, was always taught to think that ideas were merely secondary by-products of conditions, meaning that even his own pet ideological project was just the after-effect of “forces of production”. But, as both Marxism and fascism have demonstrated with bloody emphasis, ideas have a very real force of their own, and can drive conditions just as conditions drive ideas. How, after all, do you imagine that phenomena like “industrialization, bureaucratization, urbanization, and the division of labor” happened in the first place? They might just as easily themselves be seen as by-products of the growing efficacy of reason, as embodied first in “natural philosophy” and then science, and then in technology, and in the shrinking away of the vestiges of traditional society, which had always provided people with roles and meaning. In this sense, then, trying to separate conditions from ideas is as pointless as trying to assign priority to the chicken or the egg.
Applying that, as Steve is wont to do, to the present issue with terrorists/Palestinians, we see that conditions can give rise to a variety of ideas, some good and some bad — e.g., the idea to embrace the modern world and all the possibilities it offers to escape from poverty and oppression (as many Israelis have done), or to reject it in a cult of death and destruction (as many Palestinians have done). We can also see that ideas give rise to a variety of conditions, some good and some bad — causing a desert to bloom, on the one hand, or “living” in misery and squalor, nursing a perpetual, self-destroying hate, on the other.
Something that would be worth your time to research is the difference in treatment and tollerance for treason, defeatism, enemy sympathy and cowardice demonstrated by cultures that survive hostile conflict and those that dont.
The question no one wants to ask is:
How can we hope to defeat a foriegn enemy when we cant even bring ourselves to face up to the fact that we have a large and vocal domestic enemy, every bit as much dedicated to our (and their own) destruction?
Neo,
Good post. I have wasted too much time, I suppose, speculating on the nature of leftwing pathology. The solipsism of many leftists, like that of your troll, strikes me as akin to the co-dependency common to children raised by alcoholics. “They hate us because of what we do” being “Daddy drinks because I’m bad” writ large. But I think there are other sources to the pathology, even as there are other expressions.
Regards
That Rousseau can (as in the quote cited) advocate the “general will” and then without a blink segue to “the leaders of the state” exemplifies his illogic.
There is an unbreakable chain of pathological thought that runs through human history. It is not eradicable, as your present citation of Rousseau shows.
I conclude this proves the existence of evil.
Steve I was waiting to see if anyone would give you props for Bush’s new admission of the need for more troops.
But I’m not surprised it didn’t happen – the peanut gallery is always more loyal to the cause than their king himself.
I tried to read Chomsky and find it impossible to a mathematician with habits of demanding rigor in logic and definitions of basic concepts. This is complete gibberish, fireworks of sophisms and wiggling self-deception. I humanitarians hold this clown as a Wise Person, it tells a lot about deficiency of mathematical education in US, especially in humanities departments.
Anonymous – chomsky always seems persuasive when you don’t know the other side of the story. He is masterful at picking and choosing his data to give the false impression that the balance scales are weighted entirely on one pan.
He uses the same tactic in discussing linguistics – where I happen to essentially agree with him, BTW. One comes away from a Chomsky essay feeling that he has demolished the opposition, piling up mounds of evidence that would need to be countered. Then you actually read the opposition, and are surprized at how much Chomsky left out. He does not refute his critics. He usually simply ignores them – at best, he sets them up as straw men for demolition. The one thing you will not find from Chomsky on any topic is a discussion of the evidence, followed by reasoning why he prefers one side to another.
I suggest Peter Collier’s “The Anti-Chomsky Reader.”
“So yes – I support the Iraqi resistance against U.S troops.” (Anonymous)
Then go fight along with them, jihadiboy, instead of boring us all to death.
Why is it that everytime neo mentions “trolls” in her posts, they come out in droves? Are they narcissist or what?
Sally:
Classical Marxism holds that all ideological components are conditioned (“caused”) by economic relations. I am not sure that I accept that idea, but I do not believe in the normal scheme of things that ideas run independent of human events.
Your argument was that the Enlightenment caused alienation and a sense of meaninglessness. IOW, your argument was that ideas (which is how the Enlightenment is perceived; i.e., we are not talking about the Industrial Revolution here) caused the ideas of alienation and sense of meaninglessness.
My demurral was based on the fact that a sense of alienation and meaningless are much more the product of the conditions under which people are forced to live in urban environments, which are material facts, not ideas. The literature on this in sociology is massive, and you should look into it.
The main reason the Palis can’t make the desert bloom is that the Israelis won’t allow it. Even Israelis are not allowed to just grab a piece of the Negev and start growing things. The government will come by and tear up your crops. It all comes down to water resources.
Sergey:
#1 First of all, I am not a leftist, I am a republican conservative Catholic. I find it odd that people conclude that anyone who disagrees with them must be a “leftist.”
#2 Concepts of Free Will are all well and good for the sake individual responsibility, the recognition of Sin, and the idea of Good and Evil. It is useless on the macro-political scale.
#3 To illustrate simply, all one has to do is observe the case of Dostoevsky, who found redemption in a reactionary political stance at the end of his life. True, the subtext of many of his novels was that redemption was achievable only through religion, but it is hard to read “Poor Folk”, “The Double” all the way through the big five novels and conclude, from D’s own descriptions, that the circumstances of these people’s lives was paramount in the alienation these people felt, which was the topic under discussion, that, and the source of the educated class that fuels revolutions.
#4 The problem with Dostoevsky’s retreat from humanism, and retreat into the reactionary world of the Orthodox Church and its followers, it that it was a quietistic social vision that basically said that the misery of the Russian masses was their own problem, or, better, salvation, since it was ordained by God. Thus the highest goal was the reconcile oneself with misery! I should also add that Dostoevsky and his reactionary colleagues were virulent anti-semites, since they associated Jews with change, and, not being Christian, they could never achieve salvation through faith.
#5 Next we have what I find a poor comparison, in which the argument is to “justify” (which was never the point at issue) German support for Hitler, Nazism, Holocaust, etc. etc. Apart from being an egregious violation of Godwin’s Law, there is a confusion between explanation and justification. In the same way, if we conclude that smoking causes lung disease, but that it has more to do with physical addiction than sheer contrarian choice (“explanation”) we are not, at the same time, encouraging people to smoke (“justification”).
A simpler example. Millions of Germans supported a government that murdered millions. Millions of Russians also supported a government that murdered millions. Why? According to one school of thought, these nations embraced “evil” because “evil ideas” were unleashed upon the land. According to a more common-sensical school, that, BTW, has nothing to do with secular humanism but rather with the earth-bound tendencies of Anglo-Saxon empiricism, the German and Russian masses were unhappy and struggling and supported a strong leader who improved their condition, while, incidentally, murdering millions of others. A “Free Will” analysis would say, and rightly so, that they “should not have done that.” But they did it, and what we have to do in the meantime is to defuse such conditions when they arise — as they have arisen — and that means addressing root causes, in addition to other things. Failure to recognize that there ARE root causes leads to a perception where success is right around the corner, as soon as we kill the Bad Guy of the Week (it hasn’t helped the US or the Israelis), or as soon as we kill/intimidate enough people. But reality simply is not like that.
Incidentally, what were the evil ideas that allowed Americans to enslave millions of Africans and exterminate Native Americans? The ideas that allowed the enslavement of black people were not extinguished by the Civil War; it has taken 150 years and we aren’t there yet. As to the Native Americans, hey, they were in the way. So much for that. The point is that there were no uniquely evil ideas about that allowed great evil to flourish. As ever.
In Iran and Sudan this ideology is aready official, and to defeat it WWII-like conflict, with complete military destruction of enemy forces, is required.
Fine. You, and whose army?
Yo,unknown blogger! Thank you! 😉
To see what passes for “proof” in Chomsky’s universe, read this:
http://readmejhb.blogsome.com/2006/11/05/the-anti-chomsky-reader/
As all charlatans and illusionists, he always will have success before general public, unaware of this hocus-pocus industry dirty tricks, but never can persuade someone who knows pair of things about sophistry.
“Fine. You, and whose army?”
Who need army in age of ballistic missles, when real destruction is required?
Steve:
The “evil ideas” behind slavery and the near-extermination of Native Americans were simply the ever-present “I’m better than they are” ideas that humans have always had about “others”. If you can convince yourself that someone is sub-human or “not our kind”, you can justify anything, including slavery, massacre, gulags or suicide bombing. One has only to look the philosophy of Rousseau that Neo cites above:
“…whoever refuses to obey the general will will be forced to do so by the entire body [the public and the state]; this means merely that he will be forced to be free…[if the leaders of the state say to the citizen] “it is expedient for the state that you should die,” he should die.”
That’s pretty d**n chilling, don’t you think? And there are a billion people out there whose religion thinks the same way.
By the way…OT for this thread, but did you notice that none of the generals in Iraq share your desire for “more troops”? Seems like they don’t think that’s the answer. I’d bet they’d go for revised ROE, myself.
Steve, the problem is that vast majority of Leftists, including Chomsky, routinely use explanation as justification and disapprove neccessary punitive and self-defensive measures of civilized societies on the grounds of “root causes” of barbarian’s crimes. And I see ridiculous your statement that “German and Russian masses were unhappy and struggling and supported a strong leader who improved their condition, while, incidentally, murdering millions of others”. No improvement of Russian masses conditions follow Bolshevic seizure of power, and murdering of millions in no way was incidental: this was direct application of Marxist “class struggle” concept. And not “others”, but the same Russian peasants and workers were murdered by Bolshevics, 30 mln total. You again follow Chomsky’s excuses of Khmer Rouge atrocites, as if it was not Maoist ideology that fueled mass murders, but some “colonialist” Western sins.
“Alienation” is not some external social or economical condition, this is a state of individual mind almost inevitably resulting from loss of religious faith and traditional morality. The main challenge of the West (including Russia) is not militant Islam itself, but this alienation from our spiritual heritage. If we restore our morality, our religion and our self-confidence, no Jihad would be much treat to us; if we do not, our defeat is sure, and no number of troops and sophisticated weaponry could save us from new Dark Ages.
Sergy, how is that bloodbath you deemed “unavoidable” in Venezuela going? Talk about sophistry!And so ready with the missles!
neo, I am surprised you are such a fan of modernism. I imagine it goes to how you define the term. As for the global caliphate threat, one never knows whether you are being serious. Will I be required to wear a beard and bow to the East? Is this the new Spectre, the new Evil Empire we need to become a military state to ” pre-defend” ourselves against?
“As for the global caliphate threat, one never knows whether you are being serious. Will I be required to wear a beard and bow to the East?”
Well, yeah…either that or die. Your choice.
“Incidentally, what were the evil ideas that allowed Americans to enslave millions of Africans and exterminate Native Americans?”
As a matter of fact, Americans do not enslave anybody. They simply bouhgt slaves from African slave-traders, and enslavement was long-standing African tribal tradition. Evil idea behind Negro slavery was simple: whites do not consider Negroes as human beings. They were animals for them. Now this idea is called racism.
Trout, Chaves is crazy. Such guys do not leave power voluntary. He already made steps to change Constitution so that prolong his rule indefinitely. But because he is crazy, his economical policy is crazy, too, and will destroy the country in couple of years. He follow Allende path, and we all know where it lead.
… a sense of alienation and meaningless are much more the product of the conditions under which people are forced to live in urban environments, which are material facts, not ideas.
The commentor is a bit confused, I think. He describes himself as a “republican conservative Catholic.” Perhaps he is a Catholic, but a Republican and Conservative he is NOT. He should ask a Middle Ages peasant, living in extreme poverty in RURAL areas about “alienation” and meaninglessness in cities. He should ask the millions, perhaps billions, who presently live in RURAL areas under dire and almost surely alienating conditions, about meaninglessness.
The idea of the noble, happy, fulfilled savage living a contented and idyllic life in a pastoral setting as opposed to the evil urban life is a LIBERAL idea that comes directly from Rousseau. Over the years since Rousseau it has evolved into an undeserved contempt for the city and an undeserved reverence for all things bucolic. Rousseau did not realize that if alienation occurs that it necessarily first occurs out in the sticks, that’s why they migrate to the city and incidentally bring that alienation WITH them INTO the city.
No, the commentor isn’t Liberal, he just touts every liberal philosophical and foreign policy idea he comes across, so it’s difficult to see the difference, i.e., People do the bad things they do because they are “forced” to by their sense of “alienation.” Classic Liberalism. The unstated assumption is that those who are well-off and prosperous deserve the blame for the bad things the poor folks do.
Steve keeps saying things like, he’s a “republican conservative Catholic”, and if you just went by his antisemitism-disguised-as-antizionism, that would be at least plausible — see, e.g., Pat Buchanan. But he sounds much more like a college sophomore who’s taken a Sociology course and is now reciting the routine leftism he’s imbibed (which would also explain the anti-semitism, etc., by the way). This would be much more in keeping with his tendency toward the banal, and his “sophmoric” habit of offering up simple panaceas to complex problems about which he knows very little (e.g., “More troops!”).
Even in trying to re-state an argument, he gets confused if the issue is more complex than a simple either-or. E.g., he says, as a counter to what he thinks I’m saying, that he does “not believe in the normal scheme of things that ideas run independent of human events” — well no, neither do I (though some leftist and anti-Israeli “ideas” might provide some curious counter-examples), and it wasn’t what I said. What I did say was that ideas and events or conditions mutually affect each other. So, for example, changes in, or development of, ideas — e.g., ideas relating to individual freedom, mobility, trade, as well as the more obvious inventions — are what lie behind the phenomenal spread of urban society in the modern era. And both the ideas, which eroded the web of traditional culture, and the conseqeunces of those ideas, in urbanization, industrialization, etc., are what lie behind the common complaints of alienation and meaninglessness. Which, by the way, have been staples of literature ever since the Enlightenment (or before — see Hamlet).
Aw, and then as usual he reverts to the plight of the poor Palis, who apparently can do nothing for themselves but strap bombs on their children and send them out to slaughter innocents. It’s their conditions, you see. Nothing to do with the hideous death cults they’ve been breeding in their schools — that’s just an idea! Nothing to do with the corruption and lethal viciousness of their politics — that’s just a moral failing, not “macro-political” enough! Nothing to do with the fact that, while the Jews, for example, have survived centuries of prejudice, oppression and persecution, and generally bad conditions the world over, and have nevertheless managed to contribute immeasurably to almost every field of human intellectual endeavor — i.e., to ideas — and have finally managed to build themselves one nation in the world in which their culture can be protected, the Palis have contributed … what? Edward Said? Little more than a pathetic example?
I’ve said before and will say again: IF the Palis would just stop complaining about “oppression” and “racism” and start DOING something about their “conditions”, they’d be a heck of a lot better off. And it’s not the Israelis that are “controlling the water” that’s stopping them.
The college my dad taught at had plenty of Palestinians studying ground-water hydrology, you know, how to DIG WELLS.
Somebody famously remarked that it would take 20 right-wingers to provide balance to Chomksy in any MSM television appearance.
I think that was Chomsky, wasn’t it?
Justa:
How are the Israelis going to stop Palis from digging wells in the West Bank? Do they drive bulldozers over and crush them, like Rachel Corrie?
Really, are you THAT idiotic?
“We call it ethnic cleansing and military aggression.”
We call you moonbats and loony leftists.
“Chavez is a moderate social democrat in economic terms, Sergey. Similar economic principals as those used in post WW2 Germany.”
In post WW2 Germany neo-classical, free-market Erhard reform was launched. It created German economical wonder. Only after this move created wealth, years and years after, social democratic policy began. But this policy could not hold for long even in rich country. In poor country, like Venezuela, “social democracy” is madness.
“What would you call the colonisation of Palestine if not ethnic cleansing”
In 1949 there were 110000 Palis in Israel. Now there are 1.5 mln of them. Rather strange result of “etnic cleansing”.
Justa, there can be no such thing as neoliberal crony capitalism. Capitalism is either neoliberal (as in Pinochet’s Chile), or crony, as elsewhere in LA. Neoliberalism is minimalizing government interference in economics; crony is just opposite, when only friends and relatives of governing clique are allowed to do buisness.
IF the Palis would just stop complaining about “oppression” and “racism” and start DOING something about their “conditions”, they’d be a heck of a lot better off. (stumbley)
I said it before and I say it again, Pali’s life conditions are better than in many parts of the world. Comparing it to Brazil (the strongest economy in South America) they have higher life expectancy, higher literacy rates (except, I wonder why, for women), less poverty and less violence. Yet there are no Brazilian suicide bombers and plenty Palestinian ones.
Palis don’t really want to do the hard work to build a country, the terrorism industry (which gets them financial help) works much better for their purposes.
Here some of the UN / WHO data:
http://orbistertius.wordpress.com/2006/12/20/palestine-1-x-0-brazil/
A column by Spengler explaining the economic argument for the Palestinian terrorist industry:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HI26Aa01.html
And what I really promoting is US empire where everybody have as many rights as his society’s historical advancement can realistically support without disrupting social order. More advanced societies obviously can afford more rights. This is, really, federalism, which allows different territories have different laws (on schools, guns, abortion, ets.), and develop their own social structures on condition that no nonsense is allowed.
They ARE doing bad things so they MUST be oppressed.:
We see this basic sentiment embedded in a variety of rhetoric – many times unconsciously so because this meme, ubiquitous from the age of Rousseau onward, has become accepted wisdom throughout Western society.
This is why so many find it so easy to accept the “oppressed peoples” explanation for perfidy. Transposed from sociology to foreign policy, it’s one of the reasons the terrorists and the states that use them to wage proxy wars are excused, apologized for and even admired by those, who Neo has pointed out, would be quickly erased in the event the Islamists should win. Not Bonfire but more rather Conflagration of the Vanities.
Hey Justaguy:
Just click on your “Homepage” out of idle curiosity and….
Wow! You’re a Pali – or a Pali sympathizer – yourself. What a strange coincidence.
You would think you would have mentioned it yourself.
“If Americans Knew” SUCH a sexy title.
I had a good laugh over the situation; so in return after all your posting, I shall add the label “WARNING! PROFESSIONAL PALI SYMPATHIZER! LIFESTYLE SUPPORTED BY OFFICIAL PALI-DOM!”
Be Warned…
“Segey, how do you explain the 700,000 (by official UN figures) Palestinian refugees?”
Uh…the fact that the surrounding “Arab brothers” had no use for them, turned them away, and basically let them fester in “refugee” camps for 39 years. By the way, how long can one claim to be a “refugee”? Are Americans still “refugees” from Britain?
Insults are flung at those who fling first.
But please do go on absolutely proving Neo’s thesis for this post. You’re such a swell example.
“I prefer the term cosmopolitanism rather than modernism, because most modern things are not good.”
This is the first time I’ve ever heard of THE LEFT being accused of hating cosmopolitan. Usually THE LEFT is castigated precisely for being cosmopolitan and urban, which are traditionally shorthands for “Jewish” but are more and more now shorthands for “fag.” So THE LEFT is too cosmopolitan, and is not cosmopolitan enough. Guess THE LEFT can’t win, poor guy.
“and would see them expunged from the earth for the sin of being not jewish.”
I don’t believe I’ve EVER advocated “expunging the Palestinians from the earth”. Those are YOUR words. All I’ve ever said is that I wish they’d get their act together and stop blaming everybody else for their problems. You know, it’s YOU who’s blaming the JOOOOOS for everything; them and the hated Americans.
…and speaking of “expunging from the earth”, how are you explaining that Hamas charter, eh?
Moonbat.
justaguy:
I keep my promises.
Ladies and Gentlemen: In Re the above justaguy comment at 7:28pm…
Remember: “WARNING! PROFESSIONAL PALI SYMPATHIZER! LIFESTYLE SUPPORTED BY OFFICIAL PALI-DOM!”
There you go…
justaguy:
I said “lifestyle”, no money may change hands.
Need a dictionary?
And if not a Pali, just what are you…a little green man from Outer Space.
PS…still laughing at your “facts”.
Lotsa fun, guy…
“The Hamas charter does not mention ethnic cleansing, just ridding Palestine of the zionist state.”
… you’re kidding, aren’t you?
Ok, I’ll grant they might not use the actually words “ethnic cleansing”, but
if I recall it does mention a lovely pasage from the Koran, something about killing all Jews.
Will you at least acknowledge that??
“Will you at least acknowledge that??
Uh-huh | 12.20.06 – 9:09 pm | #
No, I won’t, because it doesn’t. It specifically mentions removing the zionist ethno/theocratic regime. i.e. creating a state for all the people of Palestine.
Justaguy ”
————–
http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
Take a look at Article seven.
There’s the quote from the Koran I was talking about.
Acknowledge it’s there.
Hey, at least Hamas is honest. Are You?
Admit it, even if they do not use the word ‘ethnic cleansing’ regarding Jews, they seem to think the idea is really neat. Else why use that verse?
I don’t know if Carter and other such rabid critics of Israel are anti-Semites. But how else explain the relentless, irrational hatred of Israel, and the exacting standards by which Israel and Israel alone is judged? By some estimates, since World War II 25 million people have died in various conflicts. Eight thousand have resulted from the conflict between Israel and Palestinian Arabs, which ranks Israel forty-sixth on the list of lethal conflicts. (To put those 8000 in context, remember that Jordan killed many more Palestinians just during the “Black September” war of 1970.) Yet the U.N. has passed more resolutions condemning Israel than all the other forty-five combined. And let’s not forget that whatever violence Israel has used, or mistakes it has made, has resulted from its attempts to defend itself against much larger national armies and vicious terrorists driven by hatred to “wipe Israel from the map,” as the president of Iran has put it — with nary a peep from the U.N., by the way, which has been just as silent about the conclave of Holocaust deniers recently hosted by Iran.
http://victorhanson.com/articles/thornton122006.html
But nevermind, fools like “anonymous” are immune to rational thought, so it’s better to ignore them.
Problem is, there are people almost as ignorant in the media and Univiersities all over the world. And something’s gott be done abou that. But what?
” Uh-huh. If I may interupt – if a bunch of foreigners occuppied your land after 40 years of brutal occupation including ethnic cleansing, you might be talking about doing some cleansing yourself.
How ’bout you acknowledging that?
Anonymous | 12.20.06 – 10:16 pm | # ”
———
Ah, Ok –I will, but you first dear.
Which is it?
The Hamas folks *Do* advocate ‘ethnic cleansing, (but don’t use those exact words) or they *Do Not*
Article 31… heh.
“Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions – Islam, Christianity and Judaism – to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam. Past and present history are the best witness to that.”
Can you say “Dhimmi” ??
Do you have any clue what under the wing Islam really means?
Way to prove Neo’s point, doofus.
Article 36… heh.
“It will not act against any of the sons of Moslems or those who are peaceful towards it from among non-Moslems, be they here or anywhere else”
Yeah, as long as they pay jizya. For that can be the only proper response of peaceful non-muslims.
Still waiting for you to acknowledge
Article seven “… the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).”
C’mon, embrace your inner Hamas!
Justa, we’ve seen your webpage, we know you’re either a Pali, or a Pali sympathizer.
Therefore, why should we take anything you say seriously?
Still waiting….
Article seven??
Hello??
“dhimmitude canard” ?
Heh.
Riiight.
There has never been any such thing!
g’night dear, I’ll check back tommorow to see if answer.
A lot of islamist commenters pretend to be mainstream leftists. Just as mainstream leftists sometimes pretend to be catholic conservative republicans. When you carry the immutable truth, the ends justify the means. Whatever it takes.
“I don’t know if Carter and other such rabid critics of Israel are anti-Semites.”
*I* know. Several years ago I saw Carter being interviewed by Bill Moyers and he called Jews “the Chosen People” in mocking and sarcastic tones, his face and voice blazing with venomous contempt. It is well known he blames Jews for his loss of the Presidnency in 1980, never mind the fact that most “Reagan Democrats” were blue collar Catholics. Of course blame (credit, actually) for his defeat belongs to neither Jews nor Cahtolics – Carter only needs to look in the mirror. There is no question he is a fanatic antisemite on a par with Buchanan, Duke and Farrakhan.
The concept of making refuge status hereditary is two-sided blade: if you take it seriously, all the world Jews can be considered refuges entitled to right of returning to their homeland after 20 centures long exile, and not only to modern Israel, but to much larger territory of historical Erez Israel.
Steve I was waiting to see if anyone would give you props for Bush’s new admission of the need for more troops.
But I’m not surprised it didn’t happen – the peanut gallery is always more loyal to the cause than their king himself.
unknown blogger | Homepage | 12.20.06 – 11:03 am | #
Steve’s ego is already big enough as it is, no need to inflate it.
Anonymous – chomsky always seems persuasive when you don’t know the other side of the story. He is masterful at picking and choosing his data to give the false impression that the balance scales are weighted entirely on one pan.
I read him as well, Assistant. And I share your conclusions. Chomsky basically uses the controlled source method, at least in the piece I read. He said that the New York Times reported that Afghanistan was X, and then he said on the other hand my view is of Y. Except Y was based upon the New York Times as well. So they were basically the same thing, but it appears like it was balanced. Like he had “many” sources and views to draw upon.
#1 First of all, I am not a leftist, I am a republican conservative Catholic. I find it odd that people conclude that anyone who disagrees with them must be a “leftist.”
James Baker would say he is a conservative. Wouldn’t he?
To people in the moderate majority like Neo, or just me, I think anyone to the extreme is of the Left. Go far enough left and you’ll hit the David Duke right.
Yo,unknown blogger! Thank you!
Steve | Homepage | 12.20.06 – 11:53 am | #
See what I’m talking about with the ego. People really really need to stop scouting around for congratulations and praise. It is really really, bad on a personal development level.
It is about steve, steve thanks Unk for steve. Steve didn’t thank Unk for protecting America or supporting American freedom or supporting Bush’s policies. There’s a difference.
By the way…OT for this thread, but did you notice that none of the generals in Iraq share your desire for “more troops”? Seems like they don’t think that’s the answer. I’d bet they’d go for revised ROE, myself.
stumbley | 12.20.06 – 12:35 pm | #
Things have changed stumb, even if steve has not. Basically the generals need to focus on counter-insurgency and if they need more troops for that, Bush should give it to them. But steve doesn’t base it upon “winning” or “conditions required for victory on the ground”, but upon Steve being right and being praised for right and for the President to “cave in to steve’s demands”. Weird way to look at things, Stumb.
Well, yeah…either that or die. Your choice.
stumbley | 12.20.06 – 1:10 pm | #
He prefers the third option, stumb. Which is, you and the US Marines die, for him, while he lives.
Usually THE LEFT is castigated precisely for being cosmopolitan and urban,
Look up the definition for cosmopolite. The Left is urban, but that is it.
Guess THE LEFT can’t win,
“Cosmopolitan,” from the Greek cosmos, for universe, and polis, for city. Hence, “universal city.” It’s usually THE LEFT who gets accused of preferring a universal humanistic, rather than national or ethnic, basis for identity. And you’re attacking THE LEFT for being against this? Gotcha. Then again, you’re an idiot and 12, so no one really expects you to be consistent or coherent.
Since the Left are all composed of narcissists, they got nothing on universal, except universal lies and universal pathological problems.
You didn’t get it?
Neo and Bookworm are some of the most cosmopolitan people I know. While folks that are prejudiced and racial and are mentally degraded folks like you, are some of the most parochial folks.
LInk
A lot of folks that think they are citizens of the universe, Neo. A lot of folks, did they ever come to you for help?
“prejudiced and racial and are mentally degraded folks”
????????
Racial? Mentally degraded? Nice work, Adolph. Adolph Hitler, that is!!
Did you say something? I successfully skipped it without reading or understanding a word except “skip”. Or was it skip, nevermind. Mission Accomplished.
Ymarsakar, since the left is very parochial, but the right is very cosmopolitan, I was wondering – what are your cosmopolitan bonifides? Speak more than one language? Ever visited another country? Another state? Another county? Commuting from your mom’s house to the local community college does count. Know anyone from another country? Another culture, another religion? Read publications with actual scholarly insights, written by people who actually know what they’re talking about, rather than blogs? Watch foreign movies (anime porn doesn’t count) or television (even if something’s filmed in British Columbia, it doesn’t count)? Read any foreign newspapers, books, journals, or magazines? Ever dated anyone from a different race, culture, or country? Ha! I guess I at least know the answer to the last one.
For a superb book on the right and left split vis a vis Rousseau and Edmund Burke, see Democracy and Leadership by Irving Babbitt.