| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bulba!" |
| Date: |
19 Jun 2005 10:51:47 AM |
| Object: |
The Sorry Bunch |
The Sorry Bunch
Listen and learn from our enemies.
by Victor Davis Hanson
In a single day last week, in various media — the liberal
International Herald Tribune and the Washington Post — the following
information appeared.
A Syrian smuggler of jihadists to Iraq, one Abu Ibrahim, was
interviewed. He made the following revealing statements:
(1) that the goal of the jihadists is the restoration of the ancient
caliphate ("The Koran is a constitution, a law to govern the world")
(2) that September 11 was "a great day"
(3) that two weeks after the attack, a celebration was held in his
rural Syrian community celebrating the mass murder, and thereafter
continued twice-weekly
(4) that Syrian officials attended such festivities, funded by Saudi
money with public slogans that read, "The People ...Will Now Defeat
the Jews and Kill Them All"
(5) that despite denials, Syrian police aided the jihadists in their
efforts to hound out Western influence: They were allowed to enforce
their strict vision of sharia, or Islamic law, entering houses in the
middle of the night to confront people accused of bad behavior. Abu
Ibrahim said their authority rivaled that of the Amn Dawla, or state
security. "Everyone knew us," he said. "We all had big beards. We
became thugs."
(6) that the Syrian government does not hesitate to work with
Islamists ("beards and epaulets were in one trench together")
(7) that collateral damage was not always so collateral: "Once the
Americans bombed a bus crossing to Syria. We made a big fuss and said
it was full of merchants," Abu Ibrahim said. "But actually, they were
fighters."
(8) That once Syria felt U.S. pressure, there was some temporary
cosmetic change of heart: "The security agents said the smuggling of
fighters had to stop. The jihadists' passports were taken. Some were
jailed for a few days. Abu Ibrahim's jailers shaved his beard."
(9) that supporters in Saudi Arabia always played a key role: "Our
brothers in Iraq are asking for Saudis. The Saudis go with enough
money to support themselves and their Iraqi brothers. A week ago, we
sent a Saudi to the jihad. He went with 100,000 Saudi riyals. There
was celebration amongst his brothers there!"
Note how in this one Washington Post story how almost every one of our
Western myths promulgated by the antiwar Left is shattered by a candid
jihadist himself. First, there was always radical Islamic
anti-American hatred that preceded Iraq. Indeed, celebrations were
spontaneous immediately after September 11 on the mere news of
slaughtered Americans.
We have been told that jihadists and secular Baathists have little in
common, and that only our war brought them together. But like the
Japanese and Nazis in World War II, autocrat and jihadist have shared
interests in hating liberal democracies — and well before our response
they were jointly fanning efforts against the United States.
Note too the passive-aggressive nature of Syria that gives into rather
than resists American pressures. When the U.S. threatens, it
backsteps; when we relent, it goes back on the offensive.
Americans worry that captured terrorists have proper Korans and are
allowed traditional grooming. Arab jailors immediately shave the
traditional beards of those they arrest.
Saudi Arabia claims to be our ally, but its Wahhabi roots are so deep
and its oil revenues so vast that much of its multilayered ruling
class could not cease its support for jihad even if it wished. We
forget that their 'war against terror' is a war against Muslim
terrorists who attack Muslims — not necessarily against Muslim
terrorists ("militants") who attack Westerners.
Some claim that anti-Semitism is an exaggerated charge, yet the
jihadists blame the Jews, not just Israel, instinctively.
Westerners also worry about collateral damage; the terrorist Ibrahim
confesses that military operatives routinely count on falsely claiming
civilian casualties.
For more of this sorry bunch, the same day I turned to the
International Herald Tribune. Its headline ran: "For Saudis' promised
liberalizations, a snail's pace." The story followed about the routine
persecution of any who questioned government autocracy and Wahhabist
Islam. We learned once more that there is no freedom of any kind in
Saudi Arabia and that dissidents are routinely jailed for their mere
protests (sentences ranging from six to nine years).
More interestingly, Arab reformers, few though they are, most
certainly don't blame the West for the misery of the Middle East.
Instead, they confess that the Arab world itself is parasitic:
"Western governments, reformers say, should question why curriculums
are so weak and why Arab societies contribute nothing to the world's
scientific or technological advancements."
In the words of one persecuted novelist Turki Al-Hamad, "The problem
is not from the outside, the problem is from ourselves; if we don't
change ourselves, nothing will change."
In the United States, we are told that we have created terrorists.
Saudi liberals would beg to differ. So the theologian Al-Maleky
confesses, "If Wahhabism doesn't revise itself, it will produce more
terrorism."
This is all so strange.
Free-thinking Arabs refute all the premises of Western Leftists who
claim that colonialism, racism, and exploitation have created
terrorists, hold back Arab development, and are the backdrops to this
war.
Indeed, it is far worse than that: Our own fundamentalist Left is in
lockstep with Wahhabist reductionism — in its similar instinctive
distrust of Western culture. Both blame the United States and excuse
culpability on the part of Islamists. The more left-wing the
Westerner, the more tolerant he is of right-wing Islamic extremism;
the more liberal the Arab, the more likely he is to agree with
conservative Westerners about the real source of Middle Eastern
pathology.
The constant? A global distrust of Western-style liberalism and
preference for deductive absolutism. So burn down a mosque in
Zimbabwe, murder innocent Palestinians in Bethlehem in 2002, arrest
Christians in Saudi Arabia, or slaughter Africans in Dafur, and both
the Western Left and the Middle East's hard Right won't say a word. No
such violence resonates with America's diverse critics as much as a
false story of a flushed Koran — precisely because the gripe is not
about the lives of real people, but the psychological hurts, angst,
and warped ideology of those who in their various ways don't like the
United States.
I will pass over quickly the day's other sorry stories, but they were
equally revealing. From Karachi, we learn that Pakistani Shiite
Muslims burned down a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise. You see, a
Sunni suicide bomber had just blown up 19 Pakistani Shia. In reaction
to that attack, the Shiite mob went out and killed six employees of a
business owned and operated by a Pakistani Muslim. Follow the logic of
the Middle East: When you are angry at your own for their murdering,
and are too weak or terrified to do anything about it, go out and
destroy anything remotely American-affiliated.
I read the most of these news accounts last week while sitting in a
Starbucks (Dunkin' Donuts next door) on the eastern side of the
Brandenburg Gate in the former Communist sector of Berlin — watching a
parade of protestors damn the militarism of the United States (a.k.a.
"Top Gun") while a nearby TV blared accounts of a recent German
mystery on state-run television, whose subtext was that the United
States intelligence planned September 11 and blamed it on the poor
jihadists.
So there we have a snapshot of 60 years of American efforts to rid
Germany of Hitler, pour in Marshall Plan money, keep 300 Soviet
divisions out of Germany, and convince skeptical British, French, and
Russians to support reunification: In response, welcome in American
popular culture as you damn the United States in the conveniently
abstract.
A war that cannot be won entirely on the battlefield most certainly
can be lost entirely off it — especially when an ailing Western
liberal society is harder on its own democratic culture than it is on
fascist Islamic fundamentalism.
So unhinged have we become that if an American policymaker calls for
democracy and reform in the Middle East, then he is likely to echo the
aspirations of jailed and persecuted Arab reformers. But if he says
Islamic fascism is either none of our business or that we lack the
wisdom or morality to pass judgment on the pathologies of a
traditional tribal society, then the jihadist and the police state —
and our own Western Left — approve.
The problem the administration faces is not entirely a military one:
Our armed forces continue to perform heroically and selflessly under
nearly impossible conditions of global scrutiny and hypercriticism.
There has not been an attack on the U.S. since 9/11 — despite carnage
in Madrid and over 1,000 slaughtered in Russia by various Islamic
terrorists during the same period.
Rather, the American public is tiring of the Middle East, its
hypocrisy and whiny logic — and to such a degree that it sometimes
unfortunately doesn't make distinctions for the Iraqi democratic
government or other Arab reformers, but rather is slowly coming to
believe the entire region is ungracious, hopeless, and not worth
another American soldier or dollar.
This is a dangerous trend. Despite murderous Syrian terrorists,
dictatorial Saudis, crazy Pakistanis, and triangulating European
allies, and after so many tragic setbacks, we are close to creating
lasting democratic states in Afghanistan and Iraq — states that are
influencing the entire region and ending the old calculus of Middle
Eastern terror. We are winning even as we are told we are losing. But
the key is that the American people need to be told — honestly and
daily — how and why those successes came about and must continue
before it sours on the entire sorry bunch.
---
"The French always place a school of thought, a formula, convention, a
priori arguments, abstraction, and artificiality above reality; they
prefer clarity to truth, words to things, rhetoric to science. ...
They emerge from description only to hurl themselves into precipitate
generalizations. They imagine they understand man in his entirety,
whereas they cannot break the hard shell of their personalities,
and they do not understand a single nation apart from themselves."
- H. F. Amiel
.
|
|
| User: "Ordog" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sorry Bunch |
19 Jun 2005 02:11:13 PM |
|
|
Bulba! wrote:
The Sorry Bunch
Listen and learn from our enemies.
by Victor Davis Hanson
In a single day last week, in various media - the liberal
International Herald Tribune and the Washington Post - the following
information appeared.
A Syrian smuggler of jihadists to Iraq, one Abu Ibrahim, was
interviewed. He made the following revealing statements:
(1) that the goal of the jihadists is the restoration of the ancient
caliphate ("The Koran is a constitution, a law to govern the world")
(2) that September 11 was "a great day"
(3) that two weeks after the attack, a celebration was held in his
rural Syrian community celebrating the mass murder, and thereafter
continued twice-weekly
(4) that Syrian officials attended such festivities, funded by Saudi
money with public slogans that read, "The People ...Will Now Defeat
the Jews and Kill Them All"
(5) that despite denials, Syrian police aided the jihadists in their
efforts to hound out Western influence: They were allowed to enforce
their strict vision of sharia, or Islamic law, entering houses in the
middle of the night to confront people accused of bad behavior. Abu
Ibrahim said their authority rivaled that of the Amn Dawla, or state
security. "Everyone knew us," he said. "We all had big beards. We
became thugs."
(6) that the Syrian government does not hesitate to work with
Islamists ("beards and epaulets were in one trench together")
(7) that collateral damage was not always so collateral: "Once the
Americans bombed a bus crossing to Syria. We made a big fuss and said
it was full of merchants," Abu Ibrahim said. "But actually, they were
fighters."
(8) That once Syria felt U.S. pressure, there was some temporary
cosmetic change of heart: "The security agents said the smuggling of
fighters had to stop. The jihadists' passports were taken. Some were
jailed for a few days. Abu Ibrahim's jailers shaved his beard."
(9) that supporters in Saudi Arabia always played a key role: "Our
brothers in Iraq are asking for Saudis. The Saudis go with enough
money to support themselves and their Iraqi brothers. A week ago, we
sent a Saudi to the jihad. He went with 100,000 Saudi riyals. There
was celebration amongst his brothers there!"
Note how in this one Washington Post story how almost every one of our
Western myths promulgated by the antiwar Left is shattered by a candid
jihadist himself. First, there was always radical Islamic
anti-American hatred that preceded Iraq. Indeed, celebrations were
spontaneous immediately after September 11 on the mere news of
slaughtered Americans.
We have been told that jihadists and secular Baathists have little in
common, and that only our war brought them together. But like the
Japanese and Nazis in World War II, autocrat and jihadist have shared
interests in hating liberal democracies - and well before our response
they were jointly fanning efforts against the United States.
Note too the passive-aggressive nature of Syria that gives into rather
than resists American pressures. When the U.S. threatens, it
backsteps; when we relent, it goes back on the offensive.
Americans worry that captured terrorists have proper Korans and are
allowed traditional grooming. Arab jailors immediately shave the
traditional beards of those they arrest.
Saudi Arabia claims to be our ally, but its Wahhabi roots are so deep
and its oil revenues so vast that much of its multilayered ruling
class could not cease its support for jihad even if it wished. We
forget that their 'war against terror' is a war against Muslim
terrorists who attack Muslims - not necessarily against Muslim
terrorists ("militants") who attack Westerners.
Some claim that anti-Semitism is an exaggerated charge, yet the
jihadists blame the Jews, not just Israel, instinctively.
Westerners also worry about collateral damage; the terrorist Ibrahim
confesses that military operatives routinely count on falsely claiming
civilian casualties.
For more of this sorry bunch, the same day I turned to the
International Herald Tribune. Its headline ran: "For Saudis' promised
liberalizations, a snail's pace." The story followed about the routine
persecution of any who questioned government autocracy and Wahhabist
Islam. We learned once more that there is no freedom of any kind in
Saudi Arabia and that dissidents are routinely jailed for their mere
protests (sentences ranging from six to nine years).
More interestingly, Arab reformers, few though they are, most
certainly don't blame the West for the misery of the Middle East.
Instead, they confess that the Arab world itself is parasitic:
"Western governments, reformers say, should question why curriculums
are so weak and why Arab societies contribute nothing to the world's
scientific or technological advancements."
In the words of one persecuted novelist Turki Al-Hamad, "The problem
is not from the outside, the problem is from ourselves; if we don't
change ourselves, nothing will change."
In the United States, we are told that we have created terrorists.
Saudi liberals would beg to differ. So the theologian Al-Maleky
confesses, "If Wahhabism doesn't revise itself, it will produce more
terrorism."
This is all so strange.
Free-thinking Arabs refute all the premises of Western Leftists who
claim that colonialism, racism, and exploitation have created
terrorists, hold back Arab development, and are the backdrops to this
war.
Indeed, it is far worse than that: Our own fundamentalist Left is in
lockstep with Wahhabist reductionism - in its similar instinctive
distrust of Western culture. Both blame the United States and excuse
culpability on the part of Islamists. The more left-wing the
Westerner, the more tolerant he is of right-wing Islamic extremism;
the more liberal the Arab, the more likely he is to agree with
conservative Westerners about the real source of Middle Eastern
pathology.
The constant? A global distrust of Western-style liberalism and
preference for deductive absolutism. So burn down a mosque in
Zimbabwe, murder innocent Palestinians in Bethlehem in 2002, arrest
Christians in Saudi Arabia, or slaughter Africans in Dafur, and both
the Western Left and the Middle East's hard Right won't say a word. No
such violence resonates with America's diverse critics as much as a
false story of a flushed Koran - precisely because the gripe is not
about the lives of real people, but the psychological hurts, angst,
and warped ideology of those who in their various ways don't like the
United States.
I will pass over quickly the day's other sorry stories, but they were
equally revealing. From Karachi, we learn that Pakistani Shiite
Muslims burned down a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise. You see, a
Sunni suicide bomber had just blown up 19 Pakistani Shia. In reaction
to that attack, the Shiite mob went out and killed six employees of a
business owned and operated by a Pakistani Muslim. Follow the logic of
the Middle East: When you are angry at your own for their murdering,
and are too weak or terrified to do anything about it, go out and
destroy anything remotely American-affiliated.
I read the most of these news accounts last week while sitting in a
Starbucks (Dunkin' Donuts next door) on the eastern side of the
Brandenburg Gate in the former Communist sector of Berlin - watching a
parade of protestors damn the militarism of the United States (a.k.a.
"Top Gun") while a nearby TV blared accounts of a recent German
mystery on state-run television, whose subtext was that the United
States intelligence planned September 11 and blamed it on the poor
jihadists.
So there we have a snapshot of 60 years of American efforts to rid
Germany of Hitler, pour in Marshall Plan money, keep 300 Soviet
divisions out of Germany, and convince skeptical British, French, and
Russians to support reunification: In response, welcome in American
popular culture as you damn the United States in the conveniently
abstract.
A war that cannot be won entirely on the battlefield most certainly
can be lost entirely off it - especially when an ailing Western
liberal society is harder on its own democratic culture than it is on
fascist Islamic fundamentalism.
So unhinged have we become that if an American policymaker calls for
democracy and reform in the Middle East, then he is likely to echo the
aspirations of jailed and persecuted Arab reformers. But if he says
Islamic fascism is either none of our business or that we lack the
wisdom or morality to pass judgment on the pathologies of a
traditional tribal society, then the jihadist and the police state -
and our own Western Left - approve.
The problem the administration faces is not entirely a military one:
Our armed forces continue to perform heroically and selflessly under
nearly impossible conditions of global scrutiny and hypercriticism.
There has not been an attack on the U.S. since 9/11 - despite carnage
in Madrid and over 1,000 slaughtered in Russia by various Islamic
terrorists during the same period.
Rather, the American public is tiring of the Middle East, its
hypocrisy and whiny logic - and to such a degree that it sometimes
unfortunately doesn't make distinctions for the Iraqi democratic
government or other Arab reformers, but rather is slowly coming to
believe the entire region is ungracious, hopeless, and not worth
another American soldier or dollar.
This is a dangerous trend. Despite murderous Syrian terrorists,
dictatorial Saudis, crazy Pakistanis, and triangulating European
allies, and after so many tragic setbacks, we are close to creating
lasting democratic states in Afghanistan and Iraq - states that are
influencing the entire region and ending the old calculus of Middle
Eastern terror. We are winning even as we are told we are losing. But
the key is that the American people need to be told - honestly and
daily - how and why those successes came about and must continue
before it sours on the entire sorry bunch.
---
"The French always place a school of thought, a formula, convention, a
priori arguments, abstraction, and artificiality above reality; they
prefer clarity to truth, words to things, rhetoric to science. ...
They emerge from description only to hurl themselves into precipitate
generalizations. They imagine they understand man in his entirety,
whereas they cannot break the hard shell of their personalities,
and they do not understand a single nation apart from themselves."
- H. F. Amiel
Just so we understand each other:
You have posted your little rant to the following NGs:
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater, alt.atheism,
alt.society.liberalism, alt.fan.noam-chomsky, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
alt.france, soc.culture.europe, soc.culture.israel,
alt.terrorism.world-trade-center, talk.politics.european-union Why?
I am not saying that your topic is totally irrelevant.
Yes, people are capable of doing very nasty things to each other in the
name of religious ideologies. People are also capable of following lots
of other very dangerous ideas like racism, chauvinism, fascism, monopol
capitalism and communism. Once you have personally experienced a
dictatorial regime (not just read editorials about it in the American
press) then you can make better analysis of the present state of World
politics. Unfortunately you were lead by your nose in believing
propaganda. The big problem of any state sponsored propaganda is that
after a while even those who create it actually start to believe their
own bullsh.t.
Let me bring you down to Earth. USA is not the saviour of the World.
America has helped Europe to get rid of Hitler and that was good. But
after WW2 the US foreign politics were just a long series of blunders
and unfortunate wars. The latest example, Iraq is something the USA
should not be very proud of! You can trumpet any propaganda you wish at
home but the rest of the World won't believe you, rest assured.
Only an American can really believe that Afghanistan and Iraq have
suddenly became fully functioning democracies. These countries are
still under military rule to a large degree. To have a democracy you
need the support of the people. A country which has never previously
experienced such a political system needs time, a lot of time to
adjust.
Democracy does not work by military coercion from the outside.
Let me come to the final point I wanted to make:
Your rightwing Republican propaganda is lost on many of the people
participating in the NGs you have just posted to.
Ordog
"Beware of the man whose God is in the skies." Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bulba!" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sorry Bunch |
19 Jun 2005 06:00:09 PM |
|
|
On 19 Jun 2005 07:11:13 -0700, "Ordog" <odbok001@sneakemail.com>
wrote:
capitalism and communism. Once you have personally experienced a
dictatorial regime (not just read editorials about it in the American
press) then you can make better analysis of the present state of World
politics. Unfortunately you were lead by your nose in believing
propaganda. The big problem of any state sponsored propaganda is that
after a while even those who create it actually start to believe their
own bullsh.t.
I have had enough experience with state-sponsored propaganda,
and much of it was not made bad at all actually, so don't
lecture me about it, OK?
Let me bring you down to Earth. USA is not the saviour of the World.
Gee, no, really? Thanks for enlightening me!
You see, I'm not even American.
America has helped Europe to get rid of Hitler and that was good. But
after WW2 the US foreign politics were just a long series of blunders
and unfortunate wars.
No. Really. That can't be.
The latest example, Iraq is something the USA
should not be very proud of! You can trumpet any propaganda you wish at
home but the rest of the World won't believe you, rest assured.
Well I happen to live in that rest of the world. I have never
been to America actually.
Only an American can really believe that Afghanistan and Iraq have
suddenly became fully functioning democracies.
Well then you have just had this 'principle' overturned.
These countries are
still under military rule to a large degree. To have a democracy you
need the support of the people.
If the radical Muslims had it, they would just have won the elections
there, just like they did in Algeria, and then legally delegalized
democracy.
Besides, this is not even an issue whether USA is savior
of the world or not.
The point here is are deep similarities between Islam and
broadly defined left-wing mentality. And the threat
it poses.
I'm more worried about that threat to Europe actually,
as I live here, than a threat it poses to USA.
A country which has never previously
experienced such a political system needs time, a lot of time to
adjust.
Democracy does not work by military coercion from the outside.
Err, historically it worked precisely that way. Except its origins in
Athens maybe.
Let me come to the final point I wanted to make:
Your rightwing Republican propaganda is lost on many of the people
participating in the NGs you have just posted to.
You're an ignorant moron.
---
A rich man can afford to ignore me. A hungry leftist can't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sorry Bunch |
21 Jun 2005 02:09:14 PM |
|
|
"Bulba!" <bulba@bulba.com> wrote in message
news:s8cbb1toqgofrb1bou5tgg7qqp68pc2o1d@4ax.com...
On 19 Jun 2005 07:11:13 -0700, "Ordog" <odbok001@sneakemail.com>
The point here is are deep similarities between Islam and
broadly defined left-wing mentality.
Uh huh.. and what are they then? If you mean dogma then that is HARDLY
limited to one end of the political spectrum, you purblind fool.
Oh, hang on, I remember you now - You're the gibbering maniac who tried to
argue that Hitler was a left winger..ROFL
ckm00t$49g$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bulba!" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sorry Bunch |
22 Jun 2005 09:30:08 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 16:09:14 +0200, "tw" <no@no.com> wrote:
"Bulba!" <bulba@bulba.com> wrote in message
news:s8cbb1toqgofrb1bou5tgg7qqp68pc2o1d@4ax.com...
On 19 Jun 2005 07:11:13 -0700, "Ordog" <odbok001@sneakemail.com>
The point here is are deep similarities between Islam and
broadly defined left-wing mentality.
Uh huh.. and what are they then?
I pasted my short essay on that below.
If you mean dogma then that is HARDLY
limited to one end of the political spectrum, you purblind fool.
***** you, ignorant moron.
-----------------------------------------------
I clicked on this when I was reading this article on Michel
Foucault and Iranian revolution.
--------------
Islam: 1300 years old progressivist movement
Key similarities between the framework of Muslim mentality and the
framework of broadly understood mentalities of progressivists:
* unity, harmony matter over truth – Muslims of the world unite
transforming society according to a given set of ideals
* radical agenda – it attempts to transform everything; this is not
the goal of conservative or libertarian people
* the ideals seem archaic from the contemporary point of view, but
they had their place in much more brutal world; hence what we see
today as reactionary and conservative, at the time was actually
progressive
*class warfare – Islam against House of War
* Sayed al Qutb – let's reach for the 'true' Islam; it's calling for a
desired platonic, form of an ideal to be implemented; that form is
always enigmatic and pure, it's an expression like 'let's come back to
the true, deep roots of our movement', repeated time after time when
implementation of revolutionary ideal fell short of expectations
* fatwas are akin revolutionary decrees: what is doctrine-kosher and
what is not
* coercion as means of revolution is OK; like Werner Schiffauer noted,
the professed principle of non-violence is fundamentally alien to
Islam
* truth doesn't really matter: lying is OK in Islam, since everybody
is completely immersed in his 'class consciousness', bourgeoise /
House of War vs proletarian / Muslim.
* the “laws of motion of history” are overwhelming in socialism,
fighting against them is pointless, you can only choose sides;
similarly the conflict between House of War and Islam is endless and
it's not possible to sit on barricade, you have to choose sides and
going your own way is not an option, you have to submit to higher
force
* it aims to be complete in explanation of reality, no loose ends are
left
* it is intellectually totalist, looking for exhibition/expression of
this factor everywhere, be it God/class consciousness in every
encountered phenomenon
Where those are different: Western progressivists are almost always
materialist-progressivists, whereas Islam is spiritual-progressivist.
Both have claims on material and social domains, however.
Capitalism, classical liberalism, libertarianism and American
Revolution are all obviously philosophically anti-progressive: your
life? Do whatever you like with it, just no violence. Liberty? It's
your right. There is no grand, master plan to set you up the correct
way or any duty for you to use your life to do this or that. It would
be nice and it is recommended that you commit yourself to some nice
ideal or work, but you are not forced to do it; the social work is
advocated as moral duty flowing from compassion for your fellow human
being, not as legal duty. Pursuit of happiness? It's self-explanatory.
I would call this underlying laid-back approach to life, liberty and
property as “conservatist”, to stress its passive, non-interventionist
nature.
Not so with Islam. The action may be revolutionary; but its goal may
be radical or conservatist or moderate or authoritarian. It's about
purpose behind the action, not the methodology, evolutionary or
revolutionary about the action.
People mistakenly mix revolution with progressivism. The progressivist
may have the greater need to reach for revolutionary means. But by no
means revolutions are exclusively progressivist.
Progressivism and revolutions are actually orthogonal: in essence they
are independent of each other, and the actual action is the
superposition of those two component vectors. The movement may be
evolutionary and progressivist (social democracy), revolutionary and
progressivist (socialist/communist), evolutionary and conservatist
(contemporary American conservatives) or revolutionary and
conservatist (libertarians).
Islam at the time was squarely located in the revolutionary and
progressivist category. It merely grew old and stagnant, because its
progressivism failed so systematically. Due to those systematic
failures it had to grow an extensive system of coercion, laws,
regulations and punishments for not conforming to the radical agenda
in the same manner the Stalinist system had to grow its coercive
apparatus; otherwise, people simply would not follow it.
Nobody claims that Institutional Revolution Party of Mexico is
conservative in any way, except perhaps in the most basic sense of
holding onto power.
Islam is definitely radical: it aims to penetrate every corner of
life. Its clerics are taking on issues like “Did the American flight
to the moon reach the Koranic heaven? Because the scripture defines
heaven in such way, that it seems the Apollo rocket may have passed
the boundary between heaven and Earth”.
This question cannot remained unanswered. The doctrine has to answer
and explain everything. An American conservative or a classical
liberal or libertarian would laugh fool's head off for such a
question: where does the “Apollo rocket vs our idea of Heaven” problem
fit in the relevant political doctrine?
In those polititical views there is not even way to express this
problem, as the doctrines themselves do not say anything about
political meaning of space flight per se or the political
ramifications of idea of metaphysical heaven. Islam and communism,
however, do feel the need to address such question, about political
'component' in space flight as well as about religion as expresion of
reactionary politics.
Non-progressivist doctrines do not attempt to explain everything in
life. The progresivist doctrines do: and so, both Islam and communism
look for evidence of counter-revolution in cultural phenomenons like
music, communists accusing the atonal contemporary music of being
reactionary and Iranian Revolution Guard making sure you don't listen
to rock-and-roll (which was also branded counter-revolutionary by
Stalinists).
Like all failed progressivist revolutions, Islam had to systematically
develop a system of coercion that would restart the the radical
attempts of transforming each point and stage in life of society. It
grew Soviet in its application of power and its totality. Czeslaw
Milosz finds similarity between Islam and Soviet communism in the way
the individuals evade the totalist method of ensuring political
preferences of every individual follow the doctrinal standards, so
called 'ketman'.
Michel Foucalt was enamored with Iranian revolution precisely because
it embodied progressivist ideals of radical transformation according
to 'the will of the people' motivated by progressivist moral
sentiment. The actual ideals, like treatment of women, may not have
been entirely compatible with his set of preferred ideals, nonetheless
to him it was expression of ''the perfectly unified collective will''
of the Iranian people. Better such radical, progressivist,
transformational revolution than none. His later refusal and
disenchantment with Iranian Revolution was akin to Herbert Marcuse'
“great denial” after the doctrine failed his expectations.
Ergo, this kind of people fall out of the progressivism and the
progressivist movements solidifies around the 'cement heads' (many
people under Soviet system referred to party apparatchiks that were
dense-skulled, fierce and blindly following the doctrine as 'party
concrete') who in accordance to principle of negative selection do not
fall out of the movement.
The mullahs are actually progressivist intellectuals in position of
power, relying on the typical political emotions of the type:
disregard for facts and common sense and putting the inner-felt
platonic, top-down, moral-sentiment-based social ideals as valuable
enough to justify massive coercion necessary to attain them.
Socialism, various versions of communism and especially 'social
justice' are immensely popular among Muslims precisely because of the
same intellectual framework of axioms and paradigms that underlie
progressivist doctrines and Islam.
Hence there's the endless stream of apologists of Islam among the
leftist and American left-liberals.
There's no principle comparable to Christian dogma free will in Islam.
Islam means 'submission'. In this regard, Christian doctrines are
conservativist, anti-progressivist.
Hence even the slightest suspicion about Christian's 'reactionary'
tendencies, like slightest suggestion there's smth wrong with
homosexualism cause howls of rage from left-liberals, while the
totally atrocious and ruthless treatment of homosexuals in Islam is
entirely ignored.
The Christian critique of abortion from the moral viewpoint makes
left-liberals red with rage, while none of them seems to have ever
squeaked a single word about abortion being categorically banned in
Islam:
http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=5561
It seems that radical, extensive transformation of society according
to some kind of doctrine, including using violent means if necessary,
is actually more important to a progresivist than the content of
ideals themselves.
To reiterate, the left is so prone to forgiveness towards the Islam,
because the two are the mental cousins, variations of the same
underlying worldview bent on radically transforming the society,
resorting to violent and brutal means if necessary.
-----------------------------------------------
Oh, hang on, I remember you now - You're the gibbering maniac who tried to
argue that Hitler was a left winger..ROFL
First they laugh at them... and then they win.
Hitler was a nationalist left-winger. His ideology contained socialism
as important component. The other important component was extreme
nationalism. That's the proper way to look at Hitler, given both
his ideology and his actions.
---
A rich man can afford to ignore me. A hungry leftist can't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sorry Bunch |
22 Jun 2005 11:58:56 AM |
|
|
"Bulba!" <bulba@bulba.com> wrote in message
news:dnbib1led7mduuesraomboags9ej6i6fus@4ax.com...
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 16:09:14 +0200, "tw" <no@no.com> wrote:
"Bulba!" <bulba@bulba.com> wrote in message
news:s8cbb1toqgofrb1bou5tgg7qqp68pc2o1d@4ax.com...
On 19 Jun 2005 07:11:13 -0700, "Ordog" <odbok001@sneakemail.com>
The point here is are deep similarities between Islam and
broadly defined left-wing mentality.
Uh huh.. and what are they then?
I pasted my short essay on that below.
If you mean dogma then that is HARDLY
limited to one end of the political spectrum, you purblind fool.
***** you, ignorant moron.
And what is ignorant about pointing out that dogma isn't consigned to one
end of the political specturm, you moronic son of the cheapest ***** in all
of Gdansk?
I clicked on this when I was reading this article on Michel
Foucault and Iranian revolution.
--------------
Islam: 1300 years old progressivist movement
Key similarities between the framework of Muslim mentality and the
framework of broadly understood mentalities of progressivists:
* unity, harmony matter over truth – Muslims of the world unite
transforming society according to a given set of ideals
How is that a "deep similarity between Islam and broadly defined left-wing
mentality." Anyone with a dogma automaticall inherits a "given set of
ideals", you dumb, dumb *****.
* radical agenda – it attempts to transform everything; this is not
the goal of conservative or libertarian people
Actually, Islam is essentially conservative, like most monotheistic
religions. YOu dumb, DUMB *****.
* the ideals seem archaic from the contemporary point of view,
Woudln't that be a description of conservatism again?
but
they had their place in much more brutal world; hence what we see
today as reactionary and conservative, at the time was actually
progressive
*class warfare – Islam against House of War
What?!
* Sayed al Qutb – let's reach for the 'true' Islam; it's calling for a
desired platonic, form of an ideal to be implemented; that form is
always enigmatic and pure, it's an expression like 'let's come back to
the true, deep roots of our movement', repeated time after time when
implementation of revolutionary ideal fell short of expectations
Again, could aplly equally to a "leftist" or a "rightist" mentality - see
Right Wing Hitler and his evocation fo Siegfired etc..
* fatwas are akin revolutionary decrees: what is doctrine-kosher and
what is not
What? Please attempt to write intelligibel english, there's a good chap.
* coercion as means of revolution is OK; like Werner Schiffauer noted,
the professed principle of non-violence is fundamentally alien to
Islam
Are you claiming the principle of non-violence is an intrinsic part of all
rightist regimes?
* truth doesn't really matter: lying is OK in Islam, since everybody
is completely immersed in his 'class consciousness', bourgeoise /
House of War vs proletarian / Muslim.
History clearly show that rightist are no more likely to be more honest than
leftists and vice versa.
* the “laws of motion of history” are overwhelming in socialism,
LOL, hardly! Stalinism maybe, and it's interesting to note they were a large
part of Hitler the Right Winger's ideology too. And Reagan's (SU as the
"Empire of Zog" for example)
fighting against them is pointless, you can only choose sides;
similarly the conflict between House of War and Islam is endless and
it's not possible to sit on barricade, you have to choose sides and
going your own way is not an option, you have to submit to higher
force
* it aims to be complete in explanation of reality, no loose ends are
left
Again, no different from right wing polemic.
* it is intellectually totalist, looking for exhibition/expression of
this factor everywhere, be it God/class consciousness in every
encountered phenomenon
Again, no different from right wing doctrine
Where those are different: Western progressivists are almost always
materialist-progressivists, whereas Islam is spiritual-progressivist.
Both have claims on material and social domains, however.
Capitalism, classical liberalism, libertarianism and American
Revolution
Revolution , eh? I thought you said this wasn't the goal of conservative or
libertarian people`?
are all obviously philosophically anti-progressive: your
life? Do whatever you like with it, just no violence.
Actually, capitalism invites violence as there are bound to be clashes over
limited resourse. Natural competition and all that.
Liberty? It's your right. There is no grand, master plan to set you up the
correct
way or any duty for you to use your life to do this or that. It would
be nice and it is recommended that you commit yourself to some nice
ideal or work, but you are not forced to do it; the social work is
advocated as moral duty flowing from compassion for your fellow human
being, not as legal duty. Pursuit of happiness? It's self-explanatory.
Again, there is nothing in the above that is intrinsically left or right
wing.
I would call this underlying laid-back approach to life, liberty and
property as “conservatist”, to stress its passive, non-interventionist
nature.
Then you simply don't understand the terms you are using.
<snip remaining pseudo-intellectual babble>
Oh, hang on, I remember you now - You're the gibbering maniac who tried
to
argue that Hitler was a left winger..ROFL
First they laugh at them... and then they win.
Hitler was a nationalist left-winger.
And Bulba continues to struggle with reality...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bulba!" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sorry Bunch |
22 Jun 2005 03:22:21 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 13:58:56 +0200, "tw" <no@no.com> wrote:
"Bulba!" <bulba@bulba.com> wrote in message
news:dnbib1led7mduuesraomboags9ej6i6fus@4ax.com...
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 16:09:14 +0200, "tw" <no@no.com> wrote:
"Bulba!" <bulba@bulba.com> wrote in message
news:s8cbb1toqgofrb1bou5tgg7qqp68pc2o1d@4ax.com...
On 19 Jun 2005 07:11:13 -0700, "Ordog" <odbok001@sneakemail.com>
The point here is are deep similarities between Islam and
broadly defined left-wing mentality.
Uh huh.. and what are they then?
I pasted my short essay on that below.
If you mean dogma then that is HARDLY
limited to one end of the political spectrum, you purblind fool.
***** you, ignorant moron.
And what is ignorant about pointing out that dogma isn't consigned to one
end of the political specturm, you moronic son of the cheapest ***** in all
of Gdansk?
That it is irrelevant in the issue that was:
" The point here is are deep similarities between Islam and
broadly defined left-wing mentality."
...in order to escape into the usual, cheap tripe about 'dogmas'
(like in 'dogmatic thinking', bc 'dogma' is the term correctly
used in the religious sense of established set of beliefs, but
since your broken brain obviously meant constrained, inflexible
thinking systematically separated from evidence, you used it
incorrectly), you filthy litter of a diseased cow, fucked into
existence by a drunk vet using retractable baton carrying a load
of rotten cuckoo sperm?
I clicked on this when I was reading this article on Michel
Foucault and Iranian revolution.
--------------
Islam: 1300 years old progressivist movement
Key similarities between the framework of Muslim mentality and the
framework of broadly understood mentalities of progressivists:
* unity, harmony matter over truth – Muslims of the world unite
transforming society according to a given set of ideals
How is that a "deep similarity between Islam and broadly defined left-wing
mentality." Anyone with a dogma automaticall inherits a "given set of
ideals", you dumb, dumb *****.
The point here, you dense *****, is not even whether it is dogma
or not, in terms of religious dogma or just plain belief or worldview;
the point is what it IS. It IS a fact that in general Muslims value
harmony over truth:
http://www.opendemocracy.org/democracy-turkey/article_679.jsp
Again, you missed the point of HOW people think, while the
primary problem in this context is WHAT they think.
* radical agenda – it attempts to transform everything; this is not
the goal of conservative or libertarian people
Actually, Islam is essentially conservative, like most monotheistic
religions. YOu dumb, DUMB *****.
Actually, Islam is not conservative except in the most basic
sense, clinging to the old solutions.
By your line of 'thinking', dipshit, democracy should be more
conservative than Islam, because it is much older than Islam.
* the ideals seem archaic from the contemporary point of view,
Woudln't that be a description of conservatism again?
No, you idiot, because archaic doesn't automatically mean
conservative, you single-dimensional moron.
but
they had their place in much more brutal world; hence what we see
today as reactionary and conservative, at the time was actually
progressive
*class warfare – Islam against House of War
What?!
Dar-al-Harb, that means House of War, a territory under
control of non-believers that may be conflicted with Islam.
Everything that isn't Dar-al-Islam minus Dar al-Sulh (area
that has sort of peace treaty with areas under Islamic
law). Initially it may have meant "inner struggle", too, but today
it basically means what it says.
Islam is the same in this regard as communism: the area
that is not controlled by communism (assumed by particular
commie sect as correct) is assumed to have been infiltrated
by bourgeoise class interest.
* Sayed al Qutb – let's reach for the 'true' Islam; it's calling for a
desired platonic, form of an ideal to be implemented; that form is
always enigmatic and pure, it's an expression like 'let's come back to
the true, deep roots of our movement', repeated time after time when
implementation of revolutionary ideal fell short of expectations
Again, could aplly equally to a "leftist" or a "rightist" mentality -
No, not really.
see
Right Wing Hitler and his evocation fo Siegfired etc..
Hitler was a left-winger, so it is failed analogy. In fact, this
idealism of 'purity' in both race and social arrangement (we
ain't having any stinking Jews and capitalists here, we
have our own clean German institutions) is exactly what
makes Hitler leftist. A conservative like American conservative
or the archetype of conservatives, Edmund Burke, or a classical
liberal, or a libertarian do not have the need for this sort
of platonic 'purity' nonsense in some area. Reality is basically
accepted as it is. There are bad tendencies, but struggle
against them is not
* fatwas are akin revolutionary decrees: what is doctrine-kosher and
what is not
What? Please attempt to write intelligibel english, there's a good chap.
What's so unclear about that? Fatwas tell Muslims what is proper
in context of doctrine and what is not. E.g. interest. A conservative
or a libertarian has no need for such doctrines; it may be an
interesting problem to analyze, but it is not taken as article
of faith that every follower is supposed to follow or else.
Fatwa / revolutionary decree is taken as ABSOLUTE TRUTH
and is supposed to APPLY UNIVERSALLY in the whole society
and is supposed to be put in motion by the FOLLOWERS of
the doctrine in the SOCIAL ACTION.
Where a rightwinger might see a problem with diagnosis
or a technical screwup or inherent imperfection of people
or shortcomings of an idea, a left-winger sees INADEQUATE
FAITH or INADEQUATE SOCIAL ACTION.
The standard adage of left-wingers is "bad people";
same as Muslims. "not enough faith".
That is NOT an explanation favored by rightwingers,
be it conservatives or libertarians: that the doctrine
itself might be wrong (typically favored by libertarians)
or people themselves imperfect and/or impossible to
perfect (typically favored by conservatives).
For a marxist, profit, including but not limited to interest, is an
'unpaid portion of the working day' of a proletarian and therefore
doctrinally un-kosher. Same as interest for Muslim.
The above attitude characterised all three: Nazies, Muslims
and commies. The doctrine itself can't be wrong, it is taken
as 'kosher', meaning doctrinally correct and no further analysis
is required, except perhaps in context of more doctrinal
analysis.
* coercion as means of revolution is OK; like Werner Schiffauer noted,
the professed principle of non-violence is fundamentally alien to
Islam
Are you claiming the principle of non-violence is an intrinsic part of all
rightist regimes?
Yes, in terms of liberty: coercion is only justifiable as a form
of broadly defined self-defense. At least since times of Magna
Carta. The coercion is NOT seen as acceptable means of
social engineering. The most aggressive application of force
is acceptable only when fighting with a grand social-engineering
project, e.g. communism during Cold War, or Islam in Iraq
now.
The rightwinger regimes do use interventions: e.g. in
Chile - not as means of social engineering, but as means
of opposing social engineering.
* truth doesn't really matter: lying is OK in Islam, since everybody
is completely immersed in his 'class consciousness', bourgeoise /
House of War vs proletarian / Muslim.
History clearly show that rightist are no more likely to be more honest than
leftists and vice versa.
Here you lost your marbles and can't pick the point up.
The main point isn't whether the rightwinger regimes are more lying
or not.
The point is, which doctrine values truth higher and which
values some social goal, e.g. social harmony (Islam) or
"control over means of production" more than truth.
The point is rooted in the problem whether one believes
in one, universal logic and truth, or separate logics and
truths, specific to particular group (Dar-al-Harb / Dar-al-Islam,
or bourgeoise / proletarian).
If you belong to the latter group, then you are certainly
more likely to lie: and so communist regimes have surpassed
everyone else in lying, and Muslims are definitely telling
more lies than people in other cultures.
fighting against them is pointless, you can only choose sides;
similarly the conflict between House of War and Islam is endless and
it's not possible to sit on barricade, you have to choose sides and
going your own way is not an option, you have to submit to higher
force
* it aims to be complete in explanation of reality, no loose ends are
left
Again, no different from right wing polemic.
No. It is different. I gave a specific example: no libertarian
or American / English conservative needs to explain the political
nature of space flight per se. While commies and Muslims
do.
The right-wingers instinctively accept that the knowledge
is open. The left-wingers don't. They treat their current
doctrine as basically complete. They may leave some open
questions in e.g. physics maybe, but that is off the point, as
what they are concerned with is the practical social reality.
And even the basic nature of science is "understood" as
complete, even if particular detailed question are not
worked out yet. I.e. doctrine is treated as if it were
closed.
In the social realm their doctrines are supposed to be
complete, no loose ends are left.
* it is intellectually totalist, looking for exhibition/expression of
this factor everywhere, be it God/class consciousness in every
encountered phenomenon
Again, no different from right wing doctrine
You just repeat your denial like a monkey.
I don't look for signs of Satan or class consciousnes
in everything. Even Deng Xiaoping I think had enough
common sense to try to limit it "one should not talk of
class struggle as if it were everything; not everything
in life is expression of class struggle".
What right-winger would need to say something
like this? You need to say that only when your
doctrine is totalist, when it aims to explain the
entire life as we know it.
Clearly, your denial can't stand after actual examination
of the subject in question.
Where those are different: Western progressivists are almost always
materialist-progressivists, whereas Islam is spiritual-progressivist.
Both have claims on material and social domains, however.
Capitalism, classical liberalism, libertarianism and American
Revolution
Revolution , eh? I thought you said this wasn't the goal of conservative or
libertarian people`?
You again show yourself to be dumb as box of rocks: I have
carefully explained the difference between being RADICAL
(in terms of scope of the policy transforming the entire
society according to a progressivist agenda) and EXTREMIST
(revolutionary in use of the means). It seems it went over your
head.
are all obviously philosophically anti-progressive: your
life? Do whatever you like with it, just no violence.
Actually, capitalism invites violence as there are bound to be clashes over
limited resourse. Natural competition and all that.
Actually, you are dumb as box of rocks and understand nil of
economics. I'd have to write three volumes to explain why.
Liberty? It's your right. There is no grand, master plan to set you up the
correct
way or any duty for you to use your life to do this or that. It would
be nice and it is recommended that you commit yourself to some nice
ideal or work, but you are not forced to do it; the social work is
advocated as moral duty flowing from compassion for your fellow human
being, not as legal duty. Pursuit of happiness? It's self-explanatory.
Again, there is nothing in the above that is intrinsically left or right
wing.
Yes there is, as communism doesn't leave you any choice: you're
either on the side of radical proletarian project, or you're a
lapdog of bourgeoise; in Islam, you either submitted to Allah
and are proper Muslim, or you're a non-believer.
I would call this underlying laid-back approach to life, liberty and
property as “conservatist”, to stress its passive, non-interventionist
nature.
Then you simply don't understand the terms you are using.
No, it's just you who is utterly obsessed and want to substitute
things that are there with things you wish to see.
<snip remaining pseudo-intellectual babble>
What, don't like the evidence? Like:
----
Hence even the slightest suspicion about Christian's 'reactionary'
tendencies, like slightest suggestion there's smth wrong with
homosexualism cause howls of rage from left-liberals, while the
totally atrocious and ruthless treatment of homosexuals in Islam is
entirely ignored.
----
Oh, hang on, I remember you now - You're the gibbering maniac who tried
to
argue that Hitler was a left winger..ROFL
First they laugh at them... and then they win.
Hitler was a nationalist left-winger.
And Bulba continues to struggle with reality...
And you, screwed, delusional *****, continue
your attempts of lying. Attempts, I stress, not
successes in making lies convincing.
---
A rich man can afford to ignore me. A hungry leftist can't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sorry Bunch |
23 Jun 2005 08:12:37 AM |
|
|
* Sayed al Qutb – let's reach for the 'true' Islam; it's calling for a
desired platonic, form of an ideal to be implemented; that form is
always enigmatic and pure, it's an expression like 'let's come back to
the true, deep roots of our movement', repeated time after time when
implementation of revolutionary ideal fell short of expectations
Again, could aplly equally to a "leftist" or a "rightist" mentality -
No, not really.
see
Right Wing Hitler and his evocation fo Siegfired etc..
Hitler was a left-winger, so it is failed analogy.
...and that's all you need to know about Bulba's fantasy world..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bulba!" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sorry Bunch |
23 Jun 2005 09:10:13 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:12:37 +0200, "tw" <no@no.com> wrote:
* Sayed al Qutb – let's reach for the 'true' Islam; it's calling for a
desired platonic, form of an ideal to be implemented; that form is
always enigmatic and pure, it's an expression like 'let's come back to
the true, deep roots of our movement', repeated time after time when
implementation of revolutionary ideal fell short of expectations
Again, could aplly equally to a "leftist" or a "rightist" mentality -
No, not really.
see
Right Wing Hitler and his evocation fo Siegfired etc..
Hitler was a left-winger, so it is failed analogy.
..and that's all you need to know about Bulba's fantasy world..
Coward.
---
A rich man can afford to ignore me. A hungry leftist can't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sorry Bunch |
23 Jun 2005 12:38:00 PM |
|
|
"Bulba!" <bulba@bulba.com> wrote in message
news:d3vkb15hujjd22niobqsng2reijc0us097@4ax.com...
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:12:37 +0200, "tw" <no@no.com> wrote:
* Sayed al Qutb – let's reach for the 'true' Islam; it's calling for
a
desired platonic, form of an ideal to be implemented; that form is
always enigmatic and pure, it's an expression like 'let's come back
to
the true, deep roots of our movement', repeated time after time when
implementation of revolutionary ideal fell short of expectations
Again, could aplly equally to a "leftist" or a "rightist" mentality -
No, not really.
see
Right Wing Hitler and his evocation fo Siegfired etc..
Hitler was a left-winger, so it is failed analogy.
..and that's all you need to know about Bulba's fantasy world..
Coward.
Not at all. Why argue with someone as clearly deranged as you? I could claim
Stalin was a rightist using the same arguments you used about Hitler, but
what would be the point?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bulba!" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sorry Bunch |
23 Jun 2005 01:14:51 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 14:38:00 +0200, "tw" <no@no.com> wrote:
* Sayed al Qutb – let's reach for the 'true' Islam; it's calling for
a
desired platonic, form of an ideal to be implemented; that form is
always enigmatic and pure, it's an expression like 'let's come back
to
the true, deep roots of our movement', repeated time after time when
implementation of revolutionary ideal fell short of expectations
Again, could aplly equally to a "leftist" or a "rightist" mentality -
No, not really.
see
Right Wing Hitler and his evocation fo Siegfired etc..
Hitler was a left-winger, so it is failed analogy.
..and that's all you need to know about Bulba's fantasy world..
Coward.
Not at all.
Yes, you're a coward: I debunked your objections point by
point. Which again leads to conclusion you don't want to
see, but you're not the man enough to go there.
Why argue with someone as clearly deranged as you?
Chicken.
I could claim
Stalin was a rightist using the same arguments you used about Hitler, but
what would be the point?
No, you couldn't claim that _reliably_, because the argument
wouldn't add up.
---
A rich man can afford to ignore me. A hungry leftist can't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sorry Bunch |
23 Jun 2005 01:24:34 PM |
|
|
"Bulba!" <bulba@bulba.com> wrote in message
news:4bdlb15vp6l7338keg9a39v5564nsjftvm@4ax.com...
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 14:38:00 +0200, "tw" <no@no.com> wrote:
* Sayed al Qutb – let's reach for the 'true' Islam; it's calling
for
a
desired platonic, form of an ideal to be implemented; that form
is
always enigmatic and pure, it's an expression like 'let's come
back
to
the true, deep roots of our movement', repeated time after time
when
implementation of revolutionary ideal fell short of expectations
Again, could aplly equally to a "leftist" or a "rightist"
mentality -
No, not really.
see
Right Wing Hitler and his evocation fo Siegfired etc..
Hitler was a left-winger, so it is failed analogy.
..and that's all you need to know about Bulba's fantasy world..
Coward.
Not at all.
Yes, you're a coward: I debunked your objections point by
point.
In your pointy little head, maybe...
Which again leads to conclusion you don't want to
see, but you're not the man enough to go there.
Why argue with someone as clearly deranged as you?
Chicken.
Choosing not to argue with someone insane is chicken? Ok, colour me yellow
then...
I could claim
Stalin was a rightist using the same arguments you used about Hitler, but
what would be the point?
No, you couldn't claim that _reliably_, because the argument
wouldn't add up.
...as I said, it woudl be equivalent to your argument taht Hitler was a
leftist..
---
A rich man can afford to ignore me. A hungry leftist can't.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "leo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sorry Bunch |
19 Jun 2005 11:13:05 PM |
|
|
About democracy imposed by a military force.
I am in favor of the point of view of Buba.
I am also a European, but my own ideas are not average either.
I do not like the American Republicans for their long association with
the religious freaks. I consider myself lefty but not so much as to
loose my sense of reality. There is a lot of ***** in leftist
doctrines, as it is in all sorts of religions.
My point is that we are facing a treat from religious fanatics. How
serious is this treat? It is difficult to see it clearly.
Ordog says "we cannot make a nation democratic by military
pressure." Perhaps not. Mostly because the enemies of a democratic
system don't want to loose their former privileges, like it's the
case of the Sunnites in Iraq. They were the dominant group for
centuries in spite of being a minority. But Sunnites are not the only
enemies of democracy. Among the Shiites there are one or two small
groups that don't want democracy, for democracy is the enemy of an
Islamic dictatorship, and they want to create an Islamic State. But
the left wing people like to say "the people want this" and "the
people want that". In general, is not the real people that make
democracies or dictatorships, but are some small armed groups who
impose the systeme on them.
These are what I call "virtual states". There are always a lot of
virtual states in the world, and they are always ready to find the
occasion to impose their own system of government to a country or to
the world. So the paranoia of Republicans is based on a real
perception of society and the world; that is my point.
On the other hand, the apparent disregard of the left saying everybody
is nice and good, only the US government is composed by a bunch of sons
of bitches... Well, I don't share this point of view.
About those wars, like that of Vietnam, where the left have sanctified
the Vietcong and demonized the American troops, I don't buy that.
For a time I got problems to disentangle this mess, "the North
Vietnam was right the South was wrong".
I don't mean I will have go to this war happily. I will not. I
don't want to go to any war whatever. But I do not see any reason to
sanctify the Viet Cong or the North Vietnam in this war.
When you read the words of Ho Chi Ming saying "we will kill an
American soldier and they will kill ten of our soldiers, then we will
kill again another American soldier, then they kill ten of our soldiers
and so on till they tired and *****" then I saw this man was a
great *****.
I do not see that the American government was composed of nice
gentlemen. To fight any war, you have to be a *****. There
is not other way to do it.
The trouble here is how to analyze each case to see who was the most
criminal. This is important if we think there are not good guys and
one side and bad guys on the other.
If you take the trouble to analyze the situation you can see that for a
population of US of more than 330 million people you got only about 60
thousand soldiers dead, while the Vietnamese, for a total population of
11 or 13 million people sacrificed in this war 2.5 million people.
You have to make some divisions and you see, the American rate of deads
was about 1,8 dead soldiers per million inhabitants, while the Viet
rate was about 20 % So if you divide both rates, you can see that the
Vietnam communists were more than a thousand times evil and murderous
than the American government.
These rates of murdering were the measure of wickedness of each
ideology. So, the rightfull, as well as the wickedness, is a question
of numbers. It has not meaning if you do not have numbers to express
it. It is like the earthquakes, what grade was the earquaked? How
many people died? That's it we need numbers.
So, dear Ordog says "you cannot impose a democracy to the people of a
country." This phrase suggest that people have the political system
they like most. If people want a democracy they got a democracy, if
they want a dictatorship they got a dictatorship. This way of
reasoning looks to me pure rubbish.
In general, a system is held upon the people by a minority in power
with soldiers and a political police. Even in the case od democracies.
The most easy and general condition is that "people of any country
can be jailed for centuries with not democracy at all".
On the other way, you can see a few cases, where democracy was imposed
by a military occupation. That is the case of Japan, and even in
Germany. If not were by the American military occupation, Japaneses
and Germans could be still under a militarist rule.
So it is not that farfetched that Iraq could end being a democracy, or
even in Agfanistan.
On the other hand, the dominant rulers in Saudi Arabia, or other
theocratic dictatorships have a realistic fear of democracy and try to
slow the process of going there as much as they can. They having been
submitting their people to religious and other traditional customs by
aversive controls and they fear to loose any future elections.
And that fear is not unrealistic; it was based on a realistic
assumption. Any government that controls his people with aversive
means become aversive itself.
Any group that imposes a traditional dictatorship has to use aversive
means. And produce a lot of hate on some people that had suffered any
punishment from the police.
That's why the US government got out of Viet Nam, all those young
people hated the idea of dying in this fucking war. They did not like
to die; neither liked the idea of coming back home mutilated. This was
an understandable fear. So the way things were running the government
have to force these young people into the war. And to achieve this
they had to be very aversive. But Vietnam population had not any
options, the communists could do as they pleased, they were Stalinist.
They could ***** their people as much as they wanted for they had not
any need of elections. This was a dictatorial system.
leo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ordog" |
|
| Title: Re: The Sorry Bunch |
20 Jun 2005 12:08:34 PM |
|
|
leo wrote:
About democracy imposed by a military force.
I am in favor of the point of view of Buba.
I am also a European, but my own ideas are not average either.
I do not like the American Republicans for their long association with
the religious freaks. I consider myself lefty but not so much as to
loose my sense of reality. There is a lot of ***** in leftist
doctrines, as it is in all sorts of religions.
My point is that we are facing a treat from religious fanatics. How
serious is this treat? It is difficult to see it clearly.
Ordog says "we cannot make a nation democratic by military
pressure." Perhaps not. Mostly because the enemies of a democratic
system don't want to loose their former privileges, like it's the
case of the Sunnites in Iraq. They were the dominant group for
centuries in spite of being a minority. But Sunnites are not the only
enemies of democracy. Among the Shiites there are one or two small
groups that don't want democracy, for democracy is the enemy of an
Islamic dictatorship, and they want to create an Islamic State. But
the left wing people like to say "the people want this" and "the
people want that". In general, is not the real people that make
democracies or dictatorships, but are some small armed groups who
impose the systeme on them.
These are what I call "virtual states". There are always a lot of
virtual states in the world, and they are always ready to find the
occasion to impose their own system of government to a country or to
the world. So the paranoia of Republicans is based on a real
perception of society and the world; that is my point.
On the other hand, the apparent disregard of the left saying everybody
is nice and good, only the US government is composed by a bunch of sons
of bitches... Well, I don't share this point of view.
About those wars, like that of Vietnam, where the left have sanctified
the Vietcong and demonized the American troops, I don't buy that.
For a time I got problems to disentangle this mess, "the North
Vietnam was right the South was wrong".
I don't mean I will have go to this war happily. I will not. I
don't want to go to any war whatever. But I do not see any reason to
sanctify the Viet Cong or the North Vietnam in this war.
When you read the words of Ho Chi Ming saying "we will kill an
American soldier and they will kill ten of our soldiers, then we will
kill again another American soldier, then they kill ten of our soldiers
and so on till they tired and *****" then I saw this man was a
great *****.
I do not see that the American government was composed of nice
gentlemen. To fight any war, you have to be a *****. There
is not other way to do it.
The trouble here is how to analyze each case to see who was the most
criminal. This is important if we think there are not good guys and
one side and bad guys on the other.
If you take the trouble to analyze the situation you can see that for a
population of US of more than 330 million people you got only about 60
thousand soldiers dead, while the Vietnamese, for a total population of
11 or 13 million people sacrificed in this war 2.5 million people.
You have to make some divisions and you see, the American rate of deads
was about 1,8 dead soldiers per million inhabitants, while the Viet
rate was about 20 % So if you divide both rates, you can see that the
Vietnam communists were more than a thousand times evil and murderous
than the American government.
These rates of murdering were the measure of wickedness of each
ideology. So, the rightfull, as well as the wickedness, is a question
of numbers. It has not meaning if you do not have numbers to express
it. It is like the earthquakes, what grade was the earquaked? How
many people died? That's it we need numbers.
So, dear Ordog says "you cannot impose a democracy to the people of a
country." This phrase suggest that people have the political system
they like most. If people want a democracy they got a democracy, if
they want a dictatorship they got a dictatorship. This way of
reasoning looks to me pure rubbish.
In general, a system is held upon the people by a minority in power
with soldiers and a political police. Even in the case od democracies.
The most easy and general condition is that "people of any country
can be jailed for centuries with not democracy at all".
On the other way, you can see a few cases, where democracy was imposed
by a military occupation. That is the case of Japan, and even in
Germany. If not were by the American military occupation, Japaneses
and Germans could be still under a militarist rule.
So it is not that farfetched that Iraq could end being a democracy, or
even in Agfanistan.
On the other hand, the dominant rulers in Saudi Arabia, or other
theocratic dictatorships have a realistic fear of democracy and try to
slow the process of going there as much as they can. They having been
submitting their people to religious and other traditional customs by
aversive controls and they fear to loose any future elections.
And that fear is not unrealistic; it was based on a realistic
assumption. Any government that controls his people with aversive
means become aversive itself.
Any group that imposes a traditional dictatorship has to use aversive
means. And produce a lot of hate on some people that had suffered any
punishment from the police.
That's why the US government got out of Viet Nam, all those young
people hated the idea of dying in this fucking war. They did not like
to die; neither liked the idea of coming back home mutilated. This was
an understandable fear. So the way things were running the government
have to force these young people into the war. And to achieve this
they had to be very aversive. But Vietnam population had not any
options, the communists could do as they pleased, they were Stalinist.
They could ***** their people as much as they wanted for they had not
any need of elections. This was a dictatorial system.
leo
I shall ignore Buba wherever he is posting from. He is a sorry human
being.
As answer to your arguement I will make only a few comments.
1 I have lived in the USA and I have also lived under a dictatorial
regime in an other country so I have some personal experiences I can
relate to.
2 I still insist that there is no such a thing as democracy enforced by
the military. "Modern" democracies are not perfect at all but they are
better than dictatorships. However if a government has to resort to
military law and armed terror (see state sponsored secret commandos in
several countries in South and Central America) the result is just as
good as a dictatorship. There is of course always a very fine line of
divide between two system of governments. Just think anout Pakistan.
3 Government propaganda is never a good thing in any country be it a
{so called}
democracy or a dictatorship. Good governments seldom need strong
propaganda because their policies convince the electorate sufficiently
to get them reelected (I am not refering here to any election campaingn
where all parties say wild things quite publicly).
4 The Vietnam war was a sad story. However it was not about anybody's
freedom but about struggle between the two super powers. USA could have
prevented getting involved in that war but it was paranoid about the
SU. The same is true about Castro's Cuba. Castro would have been very
happy to maintain close ties with the USA. Washington's inability to
make proper use of Castro's naive attitude to World politics drove him
to the Soviets. Etc. Etc, Etc.
5 Islam in all its fundamentalist forms, but also Christianity and
Judaism are big problem for the future of man kind. I was always
suspicious about Islam even when the USA was selling modern weapons to
the insurgent religious fanatics in Afghanistan. But of couse back then
religious fundies were the great allies of the USA against the vile
communists! Lovely!
Ordog
"Beware of the man whose God is in the skies." Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bulba!" |
|
| Title: A Nation of Crazy People? |
23 Jun 2005 04:37:32 PM |
|
|
Somebody's fishing for taxpayer's money and/or more political
influence.
I wonder what the study ran with exactly the same methodology
but in other countries would yield - that over the half of world's
population is crazy?
---
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/741ankmo.asp?pg=1
A Nation of Crazy People?
From the June 27, 2005 issue: Overestimating mental illness in
America.
by Paul McHugh
06/27/2005, Volume 010, Issue 39
AS THE NEW YORK TIMES reported recently, psychiatric epidemiologists
from the Harvard Medical School have published studies purporting to
demonstrate that some 55 percent of Americans suffer from mental
illness in their lifetime. These studies--which cost $20 million, most
of it out of the taxpayer's pocket--are based on a survey of 9,282
randomly selected English-speaking subjects over the age of 18 who
were seen in their homes by technicians trained to ask specific
questions about symptoms believed to indicate mental illnesses. The
results led Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental
Health, the studies' primary sponsor, to note that indeed "mental
disorders are highly prevalent and chronic." More than half the people
of the United States, in other words, have been or are mentally ill.
What should we make of this?
Not to put too fine a point on it, we should take the study's
conclusions with a huge grain--perhaps a silo would be required--of
salt. Diagnostic exaggeration dogs psychiatry today and will not
subside until research psychiatrists use ways closer to those of
practicing clinicians for recognizing mental disorders and
differentiating the serious from the trivial in mental life. Let me
explain.
The survey technicians were instructed to fill in a questionnaire by
asking the subjects about mental symptoms such as depression and
anxiety that they might have experienced in their lives. Such
technicians, sticking to the prescribed inventory, essentially act as
secretaries, recording what people say they recall from their past.
The techs gather no sense of the persons
[AD-IMG]
they are meeting--no appreciation of their life circumstances, the
issues they have dealt with, what strengths they brought to bear, or
what vulnerabilities they overcame, in dealing with the good and bad
fortune life brought them. The individual's family, social
circumstances, temperament, character, opportunities, successes, and
disappointments are all outside the attention of these interrogators.
Instead, the technicians run down their checklist of symptoms with no
thought to causes, simply recording a yes or no answer to each. This
is not a psychiatric examination; it is barely a census. The
assessment does not rest on a trusting relationship, it presumes
honesty and openness in the replies, and it assumes that both the
subjects and the technicians understand the questions the same way the
experts who constructed the inventory did. Finally, by focusing solely
on symptoms--indications of disease or disorder--these inventories
tend to direct attention to human frailty rather than to human
strengths and to emphasize the burdens and obscure the gifts that life
has brought these subjects.
At Johns Hopkins, we became aware of these problems after the last
national attempt to do a census of the mentally ill--the so-called
Epidemiological Catchment Area Study (ECA) of the early 1980s. We
followed up similar questionnaires with a complete examination by
qualified psychiatrists of a sample of the subjects previously
assessed. These examinations produced diagnoses that failed miserably
to match those generated by the less thorough and clinically
inexperienced technicians. The questionnaires depicted individuals who
were distressed but could neither accurately identify the nature of
their distress nor make confident claims about any mental impairment.
Nothing in the present study indicates that its expanded version of
the old questionnaires can do any better at diagnosing the subjects.
But this simply raises the question, Why would anyone dream that an
inventory of psychic aches and pains would reliably identify mental
impairments and distinguish them from the kinds of mental distresses
that are part of every person's life?
In addition to relying solely on respondents' yes or no answers to a
checklist, the investigators are committed to employing the official
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders--Fourth Edition
(abbreviated DSM-IV), which bases all psychiatric diagnoses on
symptoms and their course, not on any fuller knowledge of the person.
It is as if public health investigators studying the prevalence of
pneumonia over time in the American population were satisfied to call
every instance of a cough with a fever and a mucoid sputum a case of
pneumonia.
Internal medicine gave up on symptom-based diagnosis more than a
hundred years ago, replacing it with diagnosis that rests on knowledge
of pathology and what produces it. Thus, internists no longer speak of
coughs as racking, brassy, or productive, but as produced by viral or
bacterial infection, allergies, or vascular congestion. They no longer
differentiate Tertian, Quotidian, and Continuous Fevers but fevers
from infection, neoplasia, dehydration, and so on.
DSM-IV makes no attempt to classify mental symptoms or complaints by
cause. As a result, it mingles serious and impairing conditions with
other forms of mental distress in one hopeless and scientifically
indigestible stew. When this diagnostic method is employed for a
census of mental disorders in the citizenry, it ominously exaggerates
the incidence and the nature of mental
[AD-IMG]
troubles. It leaves the public wondering: If more than 50 percent of
Americans have at some point been mentally "impaired," what
constitutes a "normal" mental life?
Another way of stating the problem is that DSM-IV is the medical
counterpart of a naturalist's field guide--say, Roger Tory Peterson's
Field Guide to the Birds. To develop his guide, Peterson asked expert
bird watchers what features of shape, coloring, voice, and range they
used to distinguish one warbler from another, and he arranged his
guidebook accordingly. As a result, bird watchers became more precise
in the terms they used to describe what they saw. But as Peterson
noted, amateurs relying on the way birds look often confuse varieties
with separate species, while ornithologists turn to biology to make
more fundamental distinctions.
Similarly, clinical psychiatrists in 1980 wanted to find a way to
apply their diagnostic terms consistently. With DSM-IV, they agreed on
which symptoms they would use as criteria for each diagnosis, and thus
increased their diagnostic consistency. But the best clinicians apply
DSM-IV diagnostic terms only after they have fully examined the
patient and come to see these symptoms in context. They do not simply
run down a checklist of symptoms, count them up, and attach a
diagnosis, as did the technicians from Harvard.
Psychiatrists are right now rewriting the diagnostic manual. I believe
they will move closer to internal medicine, classifying patients
according to what has provoked their symptoms rather than according to
the symptoms alone. Only then will scientific and epidemiologic
studies in psychiatry improve.
In the meantime, while scientists are working to lift psychiatry
beyond the level of a field guide, epidemiologists should stop
expending time and money repeating surveys that purport to measure the
prevalence of psychiatric disorders but instead only mislead and alarm
the public. They should spend their efforts in more productive areas
of psychiatric research.
They might, for example, start following people over time, as cohorts
with particular life circumstances: They might consider the long-term
performance of children with particular classroom-identified
dispositions or children exposed to various forms of deprivation or
trauma early in life, seeking to discover how these people manage the
hurdles they face and which vulnerabilities to mental problems and
which resiliencies they manifest in later life. Epidemiologists should
attend to studies where patients with particular characteristics--such
as temperament, upbringing, or stress--are compared with nonpatients
with similar characteristics (so called case-control studies) testing
whether these characteristics provoke, protect against, or are
incidental to the patients' mental unrest or illness. They should
enhance cross-cultural knowledge of how mental impairment, as opposed
to mental distress, is expressed by people of differing cultures and
exactly what measures help to prevent or treat the case examples.
Analytic studies like these could accomplish much more than
descriptive surveys that do little in the long run but exasperate the
public and make ephemeral headlines. Along the way, with these more
specific studies we would likely discover not that the majority of
people are impaired but just how remarkably resilient most of us are
and what distinct and wonderful assets most people bring to life. To
conduct more of the same kind of empty surveys as are now being done
is, I'm afraid, a little crazy--with crazy defined as doing the same
thing again and again and expecting a different result.
Paul McHugh is a university distinguished service professor of
psychiatry and behavioral science at the Johns Hopkins School of
Medicine and former psychiatrist in chief of the Johns Hopkins
Hospital.
---
A rich man can afford to ignore me. A hungry leftist can't.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bulba!" |
|
| Title: Beware of good intentions - how Live Aid unwittingly helped mass murder |
22 Jun 2005 08:00:31 AM |
|
|
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=6937&AuthKey=5267c20a662d127c16c31162b4e18bca&issue=507
Prospect Magazine
Dangerous pity
The millions donated to Ethiopia in 1985 thanks to Live Aid were
supposed to go towards relieving a natural disaster. In reality,
donors became participants in a civil war. Many lives were saved, but
even more may have been lost in Live Aid's unwitting support of a
Stalinist-style resettlement project
David Rieff is the author of "A Bed for the Night: Humanitarianism in
Crisis" (Vintage)
Isn't it better to do something rather than give in to despair or
cynicism and do nothing? This is the reproachful question familiar to
anyone who has criticised organisations that view themselves as
dedicated to doing good in the world. To those UN agencies, relief
organisations and development groups working in crisis zones from
Afghanistan to Aceh, any "non-constructive" criticism, especially the
kind that implies that it might have been better for the would-be
Samaritans to refrain from acting at all, is so much nihilist piffle.
Edmund Burke's dictum that for evil to triumph all that is required is
"for good men to do nothing" (a favourite quotation of Kofi Annan's)
encapsulates this view. The standard argument is that to do nothing is
to acquiesce in whatever horror is unfolding, from Saddam Hussein's
Iraq to the mass killings in present-day Darfur. Whether it derives
from the missionary impulse, so ingrained in western culture, or the
purported lesson of the Holocaust—"never again"—this view of what the
American legal philosopher John Rawls called "the duty of assistance"
has become virtually unassailable. Yet an alternative case can be
made: in the global altruism business it is, indeed, sometimes better
not to do anything at all.
Of course, those who believe it is always better to do something tend
to believe that the negative consequences of their action arise from
not doing enough. The most frequently heard complaint of activists is
that western countries, both on a government and a popular level,
remain too indifferent to the crises of hunger and debt that make life
hell for several billion people. For most activists, the appropriate
question does not concern the value of action, but rather how to
mobilise people and focus pressure on the governments of rich
countries so that more gets done. For over 30 years—as long as
humanitarian action has been a principal response in the west to the
crises of the poor world—a favourite metaphor has been to "wake people
up" to what was really going on. Thus, in the Guardian in July 2004,
the paper's media correspondent, Matt Wells, could write that the
reporting of the BBC's Michael Buerk in 1984 had "woken the world to
the famine in Ethiopia." The particular nature of the "wake-up call"
in question was that Buerk's reporting got picked up by hundreds of
media outlets the world over and is generally agreed to have inspired
the Irish pop singer Bob Geldof to launch his Band Aid and Live Aid
charity projects on behalf of famine-stricken Ethiopians. (Band Aid
was the name of the group set up by Geldof and Midge Ure in 1984 to
perform the single "Do They Know It's Christmas?" which raised around
?8m. The Band Aid trust then organised the Live Aid concerts in July
1985—held at Wembley stadium in London, the JFK stadium in the US and
and several other international venues. The total sum raised is said
to be between ?50m and ?70m.)
Activists who bemoan what they see as the selfishness and
self-absorption of life in the rich world often point to Live Aid as a
sign of how compassion fatigue can be beaten. In the words of one aid
worker: "Humanitarian concern is now at the centre of foreign policy.
We may not have an ethical foreign policy, but no political leader can
fail to respond to the humanitarian constituency. Bob Geldof deserves
a lot of credit for that."
This is certainly Geldof's own view. He believes that the Live Aid
"experience" was a profound social innovation that helped to shape the
views of those western politicians who have shown real interest in
addressing the crisis of development, above all in sub-Saharan Africa.
As he put it late last year: "We have a Live Aid prime minister who
sat in and watched it on TV all day. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are
served notice that Britain, through its greatest artists, wants the
situation [poverty and famine in Africa] changed."
That said, Geldof, to his credit, has bridled at all the "Saint Bob"
talk that has surrounded him since Live Aid days, and has often
insisted that it was a disgrace that he had to carry the torch for
Africa. But Geldof was, and still is, more than just a campaigner. His
view of what Live Aid accomplished—and his critique of what has
happened in Africa since the 1980s—is so mainstream that Geldof was
not only made a member of Blair's Africa Commission ( | |
