All The Devils, All Together, All At Once
G*rd*n
Heidegger, Bin Laden, Pol Pot, Hardt, Negri, & the kitchen sink....
Postmodern Jihad
What Osama bin Laden learned from the Left.
by Waller R. Newell
MUCH HAS BEEN WRITTEN about Osama bin Laden's Islamic
fundamentalism; less about the contribution of European Marxist
postmodernism to bin Laden's thinking. In fact, the ideology
by which al Qaeda justifies its acts of terror owes as much
to baleful trends in Western thought as it does to a perversion
of Muslim beliefs. Osama's doctrine of terror is partly a
Western export.
To see this, it is necessary to revisit the intellectual brew
that produced the ideology of Third World socialism in the
1960s. A key figure here is the German philosopher Martin
Heidegger (1889-1976), who not only helped shape several
generations of European leftists and founded postmodernism,
but also was a leading supporter of the Nazis. Heidegger argued
for the primacy of "peoples" in contrast with the alienating
individualism of "modernity." In order to escape the yoke of
Western capitalism and the "idle chatter" of constitutional
democracy, the "people" would have to return to its primordial
destiny through an act of violent revolutionary "resolve."
Heidegger saw in the Nazis just this return to the blood-and-soil
heritage of the authentic German people. Paradoxically, the
Nazis embraced technology at its most advanced to shatter the
iron cage of modernity and bring back the purity of the distant
past. And they embraced terror and violence to push beyond
the modern present--hence the term "postmodern"--and vault
the people back before modernity, with its individual liberties
and market economy, to the imagined collective austerity of
the feudal age.
This vision of the postmodernist revolution went straight from
Heidegger into the French postwar Left, especially the works
of Jean-Paul Sartre, eager apologist for Stalinism and the
Cultural Revolution in China. Sartre's protégé, the Algerian
writer Frantz Fanon, crystallized the Third World variant of
postmodernist revolution in "The Wretched of the Earth" (1961).
From there, it entered the world of Middle Eastern radicals.
Many of the leaders of the Shiite revolution in Iran that
deposed the modernizing shah and brought the Ayatollah Khomeini
to power in 1979 had studied Fanon's brand of Marxism. Ali
Shari'at, the Sorbonne-educated Iranian sociologist of religion
considered by many the intellectual father of the Shiite
revolution, translated "The Wretched of the Earth" and Sartre's
"Being and Nothingness into Persian." The Iranian revolution
was a synthesis of Islamic fundamentalism and European Third
World socialism.
In the postmodernist leftism of these revolutionaries, the
"people" supplanted Marx's proletariat as the agent of
revolution. Following Heidegger and Fanon, leaders like Lin
Piao, ideologist of the Red Guards in China, and Pol Pot,
student of leftist philosophy in France before becoming a
founder of the Khmer Rouge, justified revolution as a therapeutic
act by which non-Western peoples would regain the dignity they
had lost to colonial oppressors and to American-style materialism,
selfishness, and immorality. A purifying violence would purge
the people of egoism and hedonism and draw them back into a
primitive collective of self-sacrifice.
MANY ELEMENTS in the ideology of al Qaeda--set forth most
clearly in Osama bin Laden's 1996 "Declaration of War Against
America"--derive from this same mix. Indeed, in Arab intellectual
circles today, bin Laden is already being likened to an earlier
icon of Third World revolution who renounced a life of privilege
to head for the mountains and fight the American oppressor,
Che Guevara. According to Cairo journalist Issandr Elamsani,
Arab leftist intellectuals still see the world very much in
1960s terms. "They are all ex-Sorbonne, old Marxists," he
says, "who look at everything through a postcolonial prism."
Just as Heidegger wanted the German people to return to a
foggy, medieval, blood-and-soil collectivism purged of the
corruptions of modernity, and just as Pol Pot wanted Cambodia
to return to the Year Zero, so does Osama dream of returning
his world to the imagined purity of seventh-century Islam.
And just as Fanon argued that revolution can never accomplish
its goals through negotiation or peaceful reform, so does
Osama regard terror as good in itself, a therapeutic act,
quite apart from any concrete aim. The willingness to kill is
proof of one's purity.
According to journalist Robert Worth, writing in the New York
Times on the intellectual roots of Islamic terror, bin Laden
is poorly educated in Islamic theology. A wealthy playboy in
his youth, he fell under the influence of radical Arab
intellectuals of the 1960s who blended calls for Marxist
revolution with calls for a pure Islamic state.
Many of these men were imprisoned and executed for their
attacks on Arab regimes; Sayyid Qutb, for example, a major
figure in the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, was executed in
Egypt in 1965. But their ideas lived on. Qutb's intellectual
progeny included Fathi Yakan, who likened the coming Islamic
revolution to the French and Russian revolutions, Abdullah
Azzam, a Palestinian activist killed in a car bombing in 1989,
and Safar Al-Hawali, a Saudi fundamentalist frequently jailed
by the Saudi government. As such men dreamed of a pure Islamic
state, European revolutionary ideology was seldom far from
their minds. Wrote Fathi Yakan, "The groundwork for the French
Revolution was laid by Rousseau, Voltaire and Montesquieu;
the Communist Revolution realized plans set by Marx, Engels
and Lenin....The same holds true for us as well."
The influence of Qutb's "Signposts on the Road" (1964) is
clearly traceable in pronouncements by Islamic Jihad, the
group that would justify its assassination of Egyptian president
Anwar Sadat in 1981 as a step toward ending American domination
of Egypt and ushering in a pure Islamic order. In the 1990s,
Islamic Jihad would merge with al Qaeda, and Osama's "Declaration
of War Against America" in turn would show an obvious debt to
the Islamic Jihad manifesto "The Neglected Duty."
It can be argued, then, that the birthplace of Osama's brand
of terrorism was Paris 1968, when, amid the student riots and
radical teach-ins, the influence of Sartre, Fanon, and the
new postmodernist Marxist champions of the "people's destiny"
was at its peak. By the mid '70s, according to Claire Sterling's
"The Terror Network," "practically every terrorist and guerrilla
force to speak of was represented in Paris. . . . The Palestinians
especially were there in force." This was the heyday of Yasser
Arafat's terrorist organization Al Fatah, whose 1968 tract
"The Revolution and Violence" has been called "a selective
precis of 'The Wretched of the Earth.'"
While Al Fatah occasionally still used the old-fashioned
Leninist language of class struggle, the increasingly radical
groups that succeeded it perfected the melding of Islamism
and Third World socialism. Their tracts blended Heidegger and
Fanon with calls to revive a strict Islamic social order. "We
declare," says the Shiite terrorist group Hezbollah in its
"Open Letter to the Downtrodden in Lebanon and the World"
(1985), "that we are a nation that fears only God" and will
not accept "humiliation from America and its allies and the
Zionist entity that has usurped the sacred Islamic land." The
aim of violent struggle is "giving all our people the opportunity
to determine their fate." But that fate must follow the
prescribed course: "We do not hide our commitment to the rule
of Islam, . . . which alone guarantees justice and dignity
for all and prevents any new imperialist attempt to infiltrate
our country. . . . This Islamic resistance must . . . with
God's help receive from all Muslims in all parts of the world
utter support."
These 1980s calls to revolution could have been uttered last
week by Osama bin Laden. Indeed, the chief doctrinal difference
between the radicals of several decades ago and Osama only
confirms the influence of postmodernist socialism on the
latter: Whereas Qutb and other early Islamists looked mainly
inward, concentrating on revolution in Muslim countries, Osama
directs his struggle primarily outward, against American
hegemony. While for the early revolutionaries, toppling their
own tainted regimes was the principal path to the purified
Islamic state, for Osama, the chief goal is bringing America
to its knees.
THE RELATIONSHIP between postmodernist European leftism and
Islamic radicalism is a two-way street: Not only have Islamists
drawn on the legacy of the European Left, but European Marxists
have taken heart from Islamic terrorists who seemed close to
achieving the longed-for revolution against American hegemony.
Consider Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, two leading
avatars of postmodernism. Foucault was sent by the Italian
daily Corriere della Sera to observe the Iranian revolution
and the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Like Sartre, who had
rhapsodized over the Algerian revolution, Foucault was
enthralled, pronouncing Khomeini "a kind of mystic saint."
The Frenchman welcomed "Islamic government" as a new form of
"political spirituality" that could inspire Western radicals
to combat capitalist hegemony.
Heavily influenced by Heidegger and Sartre, Foucault was
typical of postmodernist socialists in having neither concrete
political aims nor the slightest interest in tangible economic
grievances as motives for revolution. To him, the appeal of
revolution was aesthetic and voyeuristic: "a violence, an
intensity, an utterly remarkable passion." For Foucault as
for Fanon, Hezbollah, and the rest down to Osama, the purpose
of violence is not to relieve poverty or adjust borders.
Violence is an end in itself. Foucault exalts it as "the
craving, the taste, the capacity, the possibility of an absolute
sacrifice." In this, he is at one with Osama's followers, who
claim to love death while the Americans "love Coca-Cola."
Derrida, meanwhile, reacted to the collapse of the Soviet
Union by calling for a "new international." Whereas the old
international was made up of the economically oppressed, the
new one would be a grab bag of the culturally alienated, "the
dispossessed and the marginalized": students, feminists,
environmentalists, gays, aboriginals, all uniting to combat
American-led globalization. Islamic fundamentalists were
obvious candidates for inclusion.
And so it is that in the latest leftist potboiler, "Empire,"
Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri depict the American-dominated
global order as today's version of the bourgeoisie. Rising up
against it is Derrida's "new international." Hardt and Negri
identify Islamist terrorism as a spearhead of "the postmodern
revolution" against "the new imperial order." Why? Because of
"its refusal of modernity as a weapon of Euro-American hegemony."
"Empire" is currently flavor of the month among American
postmodernists. It is almost eerily appropriate that the book
should be the joint production of an actual terrorist, currently
in jail, and a professor of literature at Duke, the university
that led postmodernism's conquest of American academia. In
professorial hands, postmodernism is reduced to a parlor game
in which we "deconstruct" great works of the past and impose
our own meaning on them without regard for the authors'
intentions or the truth or falsity of our interpretations.
This has damaged liberal education in America. Still, it
doesn't kill people--unlike the deadly postmodernism out there
in the world. Heirs to Heidegger and his leftist devotees,
the terrorists don't limit themselves to deconstructing texts.
They want to deconstruct the West, through acts like those we
witnessed on September 11.
What the terrorists have in common with our armchair nihilists
is a belief in the primacy of the radical will, unrestrained
by traditional moral teachings such as the requirements of
prudence, fairness, and reason. The terrorists seek to put
this belief into action, shattering tradition through acts of
violent revolutionary resolve. That is how al Qaeda can ignore
mainstream Islam, which prohibits the deliberate killing of
noncombatants, and slaughter innocents in the name of creating
a new world, the latest in a long line of grimly punitive
collectivist utopias.
Waller R. Newell is professor of political science and
philosophy at Carleton University in Ottawa.
Ned Ludd
news:9t5u84$hb7$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>
[snip]
>
I didn't find the kitchen sink in there. But most of the other
stuff was.
"Derrida, meanwhile, reacted to the collapse of the Soviet
Union by calling for a "new international." Whereas the old
international was made up of the economically oppressed, the
new one would be a grab bag of the culturally alienated, "the
dispossessed and the marginalized": students, feminists,
environmentalists, gays, aboriginals, all uniting to combat
American-led globalization. Islamic fundamentalists were
obvious candidates for inclusion..."
Oh yeah. With the gays and the feminists. In the hot tub.
Ha. And, "...deadly postmodernism"! Had to laugh. Postmodernism
couldn't find its ass with both hands.
Well, maybe if this view becomes widespread it will give pomo
some identity. (Which it has, imo, sorely lacked.)
Ned
P.S. Really the only pedal chord uniting all of that melange is
the (perhaps justly imagined) fear of multinationals/globalization.
Why don't they just say that and forget about all the Heidegger-
Marxism-Islam-Revolution claptrap? Just hate the big dog. And
the big dog is not just US. The French/German/British/Japanese
multinationals are just as terrifying as anything in the US. And
their virus is carried on TV, the Internet, and CD Roms, which
might properly be viewed as the real corrupting agent.
James A. Donald
> > "Derrida, meanwhile, reacted to the collapse of the
> > Soviet Union by calling for a "new international."
> > Whereas the old international was made up of the
> > economically oppressed, the new one would be a grab bag
> > of the culturally alienated, "the dispossessed and the
> > marginalized": students, feminists, environmentalists,
> > gays, aboriginals, all uniting to combat American-led
> > globalization. Islamic fundamentalists were obvious
> > candidates for inclusion..."
Ned Ludd:
> Oh yeah. With the gays and the feminists. In the hot
> tub.
Sounds right. The protests against the World Trade
Organization had nazis, commies, and eco anarchists all
mingled together (as well as some more legitimate
protestors). Of course if they actually got with in scent of
power, they would promptly start killing each other, but for
the moment they are united by a common enemy -- freedom.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
Y/c2D4XihY1bazjB7TT9sVGuvQ0t3u69oNjv6Dpq
4/FnGwHcpyzggUXADzQd7QHevwN8QJhh5A6fUNE3V
------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
Brique Noir
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:3bf9aa21...@west.usenetserver.com...
> --
> > > "Derrida, meanwhile, reacted to the collapse of the
> > > Soviet Union by calling for a "new international."
> > > Whereas the old international was made up of the
> > > economically oppressed, the new one would be a grab bag
> > > of the culturally alienated, "the dispossessed and the
> > > marginalized": students, feminists, environmentalists,
> > > gays, aboriginals, all uniting to combat American-led
> > > globalization. Islamic fundamentalists were obvious
> > > candidates for inclusion..."
>
> Ned Ludd:
> > Oh yeah. With the gays and the feminists. In the hot
> > tub.
>
> Sounds right. The protests against the World Trade
> Organization had nazis, commies, and eco anarchists all
> mingled together (as well as some more legitimate
> protestors). Of course if they actually got with in scent of
> power, they would promptly start killing each other, but for
> the moment they are united by a common enemy -- freedom.
>
'illegitimate' one. No don't bother, I can guess.....
G*rd*n
|>>> Soviet Union by calling for a "new international."
|>>> Whereas the old international was made up of the
|>>> economically oppressed, the new one would be a grab bag
|>>> of the culturally alienated, "the dispossessed and the
|>>> marginalized": students, feminists, environmentalists,
|>>> gays, aboriginals, all uniting to combat American-led
|>>> globalization. Islamic fundamentalists were obvious
|>>> candidates for inclusion..."
Ned Ludd:
|>> Oh yeah. With the gays and the feminists. In the hot
|>> tub.
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
|> Sounds right. The protests against the World Trade
|> Organization had nazis, commies, and eco anarchists all
|> mingled together (as well as some more legitimate
|> protestors). Of course if they actually got with in scent of
|> power, they would promptly start killing each other, but for
|> the moment they are united by a common enemy -- freedom.
"Brique Noir" <briqu...@freeuk.com>:
| I'm curious as to how you distinguish a 'legitimate' protestor from an
| 'illegitimate' one. No don't bother, I can guess.....
It's easy. If one has a totalitarian world view, then any
opposition to one's ideology, which is totally good and right,
must be part of a corresponding unitary conspiracy of total
evil, no matter how disparate and variegated the opposition
may appear to be. Thus, the Nazis had no trouble connecting
Communists with bankers and industrialists through myths about
Jewish conspiracy. Just so, to totalitarian liberals opposition
to capitalism and plutocratic liberalism must stem from a
single source and be part of one community, even if it consists
of people as radically at odds as Gay rights activists and
Islamic fundamentalists. The script is not merely propaganda;
it legitimates acts of repression -- note that "nazis, commies,
and eco anarchists" are associated with protests against the
WTO just above, and in the kitchen-sink script with all the
other evildoers except Satan himself (or did I miss something?)
Hence, a person who protests, however peacefully, against the
WTO or any other form or appearance of domination by Capital,
can be treated as if she had personally destroyed the World
Trade Center. And in the United States, laws to this effect
have been moved through the legislatures.
The interesting question here is why Capital, victorious
everywhere, feels it needs this extra level of repression,
surplus repression as it were, to survive.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 8/30/01 <-adv't
Ronald J. Bartle
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:9t5u84$hb7$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Eh - do you mean the sort of individual liberty that the average citizen in
Saudi Arabia enjoys. I don't mean the car-driving females. One of the
strongest
symbols of individual liberty IN THE USA is the motor car. As a woman in
Saudi Arabia what she thinks of this liberty.
> and market economy, to the imagined collective austerity of
> the feudal age.
Not for one moment do I want to give the false impression that I am
supporting Hi*ler faschism - but are you really saying that his intention
was to creat and form of austerity for the German people?
Could you please explain this entirely novell conecpt of Marxists being
somhow against materialism. This is truely new ground. We have all been
tought
that the Marxists were oh so evil and dangerous BECAUSE of *thier*
materialistic
interpretation of things. Or has everybody else in the world forgotten
allready how the
arguments from the USA used to be phrased during the cold war? No really -
this is
quite an odd line of argument you are following.
A purifying violence would purge
> the people of egoism and hedonism and draw them back into a
> primitive collective of self-sacrifice.
>
> MANY ELEMENTS in the ideology of al Qaeda--set forth most
> clearly in Osama bin Laden's 1996 "Declaration of War Against
> America"--derive from this same mix. Indeed, in Arab intellectual
> circles today, bin Laden is already being likened to an earlier
> icon of Third World revolution who renounced a life of privilege
> to head for the mountains and fight the American oppressor,
> Che Guevara. According to Cairo journalist Issandr Elamsani,
> Arab leftist intellectuals still see the world very much in
> 1960s terms. "They are all ex-Sorbonne, old Marxists," he
> says, "who look at everything through a postcolonial prism."
Can you clarify a little what your real intent is with your constant
juxtapositioning of Islam/Terror and European Socialism?
> Just as Heidegger wanted the German people to return to a
> foggy, medieval, blood-and-soil collectivism purged of the
> corruptions of modernity, and just as Pol Pot wanted Cambodia
> to return to the Year Zero, so does Osama dream of returning
> his world to the imagined purity of seventh-century Islam.
> And just as Fanon argued that revolution can never accomplish
> its goals through negotiation or peaceful reform, so does
> Osama regard terror as good in itself, a therapeutic act,
> quite apart from any concrete aim. The willingness to kill is
> proof of one's purity.
But shurely a person of Osama's intellect would be aware - that at least
since
November 1989 - it has been prooved once and for all that a revolouion
*can* be carried through with little or no bloodshed.
> According to journalist Robert Worth, writing in the New York
> Times on the intellectual roots of Islamic terror, bin Laden
> is poorly educated in Islamic theology. A wealthy playboy in
> his youth, he fell under the influence of radical Arab
> intellectuals of the 1960s who blended calls for Marxist
> revolution with calls for a pure Islamic state.
Really - please do tell me where you have read history? You are lumping
Islamists - Hitler and Marxism (- alternatively refered too in the 1930's in
Europe
as Bolschevism) into one camp.
If one takes the trouble to go to source texts - for instance to Hi*lers
manifesto in
"Mein Kampf" you will see that his big enemie was the so-called
Jewish-Bolschevik
comspirators etc etc..
How on Earth do you manage to get Hitler lined up in the same camp as
Marxists.
I remember a chat back in the early 1980's with a young US College graduate
who also
somehow had lined up Hitler Faschism and World Communism at the *same* end
of
the political spectrum. Ludicrous!
> Many of these men were imprisoned and executed for their
> attacks on Arab regimes; Sayyid Qutb, for example, a major
> figure in the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, was executed in
> Egypt in 1965. But their ideas lived on. Qutb's intellectual
> progeny included Fathi Yakan, who likened the coming Islamic
> revolution to the French and Russian revolutions, Abdullah
> Azzam, a Palestinian activist killed in a car bombing in 1989,
> and Safar Al-Hawali, a Saudi fundamentalist frequently jailed
> by the Saudi government. As such men dreamed of a pure Islamic
> state, European revolutionary ideology was seldom far from
> their minds.
Myself - not claiming to be able to see inside other peoples minds - or
wanting too,
am a little amazed that the Islamists spend all thier time spouting
fundamentalist
interpretations of Islam and boasting of having assasinated the only realy
forcefull
Marxist Arab leader (Egypt) of recent years.
I do beg your pardon kind sir - but there is a distinct whiff of cattle
excrement in your arguments if I might say so!?
Wrote Fathi Yakan, "The groundwork for the French
> Revolution was laid by Rousseau, Voltaire and Montesquieu;
> the Communist Revolution realized plans set by Marx, Engels
> and Lenin....The same holds true for us as well."
>
> The influence of Qutb's "Signposts on the Road" (1964) is
> clearly traceable in pronouncements by Islamic Jihad, the
> group that would justify its assassination of Egyptian president
> Anwar Sadat in 1981 as a step toward ending American domination
> of Egypt and ushering in a pure Islamic order.
Really - you need too sort out the apples and pears. Sadat was the leader
of a Pan-Arab
Marxist Movement that these Islamic Radicals exterminated!
In the 1990s,
> Islamic Jihad would merge with al Qaeda, and Osama's "Declaration
> of War Against America" in turn would show an obvious debt to
> the Islamic Jihad manifesto "The Neglected Duty."
>
> It can be argued, then, that the birthplace of Osama's brand
> of terrorism was Paris 1968, when, amid the student riots and
> radical teach-ins, the influence of Sartre, Fanon, and the
> new postmodernist Marxist champions of the "people's destiny"
> was at its peak.
`It can be argued..' that Pinnochet came to power by honest open democratic
Elections
and have The First Lady sing the praises of all the Good Works done by the
Contras
for the poor oppressed and deluded civilians in Nicaragua - but....!?
By the mid '70s, according to Claire Sterling's
> "The Terror Network," "practically every terrorist and guerrilla
> force to speak <If I can just help you out a little here..."except for
the CIA and its
bloody henchmen.." has been left out...> of was represented in Paris. . . .
The Palestinians
> especially were there in force."
This was the heyday of Yasser
> Arafat's terrorist organization Al Fatah, whose 1968 tract
> "The Revolution and Violence" has been called "a selective
> precis of 'The Wretched of the Earth.'"
>
What is the exact link between this - and the UN resoloutions calling on
Israel to
return to its pre-1970 boarders?
> While Al Fatah occasionally still used the old-fashioned
> Leninist language of class struggle, the increasingly radical
> groups that succeeded it perfected the melding of Islamism
> and Third World socialism.
Are you honestly trying to link Arrafat and Islamic Fundamentalism....!
That's a funny one.
Their tracts blended Heidegger and
> Fanon with calls to revive a strict Islamic social order. "We
> declare," says the Shiite terrorist group Hezbollah in its
> "Open Letter to the Downtrodden in Lebanon and the World"
> (1985), "that we are a nation that fears only God" and will
> not accept "humiliation from America and its allies and the
> Zionist entity that has usurped the sacred Islamic land." The
> aim of violent struggle is "giving all our people the opportunity
> to determine their fate." But that fate must follow the
> prescribed course: "We do not hide our commitment to the rule
> of Islam, . . . which alone guarantees justice and dignity
> for all and prevents any new imperialist attempt to infiltrate
> our country. . . . This Islamic resistance must . . . with
> God's help receive from all Muslims in all parts of the world
> utter support."
>
Nothing particularly conspiratorial or Macheviellian about that
open statment of intent. Don't forget that the UN Security Council
has come out basically with a very similar statement of resolve.
> These 1980s calls to revolution could have been uttered last
> week by Osama bin Laden. Indeed, the chief doctrinal difference
> between the radicals of several decades ago and Osama only
> confirms the influence of postmodernist socialism on the
> latter: Whereas Qutb and other early Islamists looked mainly
> inward, concentrating on revolution in Muslim countries, Osama
> directs his struggle primarily outward, against American
> hegemony.
What was that - "American hegemony...." but I beg you sir - where did you
get the idea into your head that the USA is exercising some kind of
hegemony.
What an unfreindly thing to say about the mild mannered regimes of recent
years
in the USA? Tut tut ..you have been reading too much I see...!
While for the early revolutionaries, toppling their
> own tainted regimes was the principal path to the purified
> Islamic state, for Osama, the chief goal is bringing America
> to its knees.
>
There are times when most people of good faith find that some
self-examination and
if called for - heartfealt repentance - can clear the way to a more upright
stance in the future.
In the more traditional Christian circle this would indeed be a process done
more often
from the kneeing position! Or?
> THE RELATIONSHIP between postmodernist European leftism and
> Islamic radicalism is a two-way street: Not only have Islamists
> drawn on the legacy of the European Left,
Carefull Messers Blair and Schroeder - he is going for you now!?
but European Marxists
> have taken heart from Islamic terrorists who seemed close to
> achieving the longed-for revolution against American hegemony.
- angain that nasty foreign H-word!!
> Consider Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, two leading
> avatars of postmodernism. Foucault was sent by the Italian
> daily Corriere della Sera to observe the Iranian revolution
> and the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Like Sartre, who had
> rhapsodized over the Algerian revolution, Foucault was
> enthralled, pronouncing Khomeini "a kind of mystic saint."
> The Frenchman welcomed "Islamic government" as a new form of
> "political spirituality" that could inspire Western radicals
> to combat capitalist hegemony.
>
> Heavily influenced by Heidegger and Sartre, Foucault was
> typical of postmodernist socialists in having neither concrete
> political aims nor the slightest interest in tangible economic
> grievances as motives for revolution. To him, the appeal of
> revolution was aesthetic and voyeuristic: "a violence, an
> intensity, an utterly remarkable passion." For Foucault as
> for Fanon, Hezbollah, and the rest down to Osama, the purpose
> of violence is not to relieve poverty or adjust borders.
> Violence is an end in itself. Foucault exalts it as "the
> craving, the taste, the capacity, the possibility of an absolute
> sacrifice." In this, he is at one with Osama's followers, who
> claim to love death while the Americans "love Coca-Cola."
No Arab has ever drunk Coca-Cola - for shure no Taxi Driver in Bahrein
in 1967 had a whole cold-box full of that - at least too cover the illicit
beer or two at the bottom of the pile. No no - these Arabs are not upset by
the repression, dissposession and slaughter of Palestinians - or the death
of
tens of thaousands of Iraqi children. Now it is out! The are against
Coca-Cola,
Apple-Pie and Marlborough.
Pooooh Baaah.
>
> Derrida, meanwhile, reacted to the collapse of the Soviet
> Union by calling for a "new international." Whereas the old
> international was made up of the economically oppressed, the
> new one would be a grab bag of the culturally alienated,
But sir - how mistaken of you - we all know there can be no
culturally alienated in our free market - democratic ideal societies
of today.. how rediculous you are becomming.
"the
> dispossessed and the marginalized": students, feminists,
> environmentalists, gays, aboriginals, all uniting to combat
> American-led globalization.
This gent has obvously never met a gay stock-broker or heard of
the Australian Aboriginals who are making a packet selling thier
art-work - unhindered and with growing popularity all over the world
via the Internet!?
Still - a person who is openly down on such a large group as
"students" - can hardly be expected to have benefited from
all that big an excess of that kind of life style and its impediments?
Islamic fundamentalists were
> obvious candidates for inclusion.
>
> And so it is that in the latest leftist potboiler, "Empire,"
> Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri depict the American-dominated
> global
eh .. did I hear right... thee is some cause to beleive the stuff about
"American- domination!?" Another ground-breaking concept.
order as today's version of the bourgeoisie. Rising up
> against it is Derrida's "new international." Hardt and Negri
> identify Islamist terrorism as a spearhead of "the postmodern
> revolution" against "the new imperial order." Why? Because of
> "its refusal of modernity as a weapon of Euro-American hegemony."
How do you define "modernity" - the drop in the a v e r a g e US citizens
real
standard of living the last 20 years while the top 3% have increased thier
share of
the national wealth by more than 40% - that sort of *progress!?*
<I really must shut the window - such pungent farmyard smells are unusual
here in the city.>
> "Empire" is currently flavor of the month among American
> postmodernists. It is almost eerily appropriate that the book
> should be the joint production of an actual terrorist, currently
> in jail, and a professor of literature at Duke, the university
> that led postmodernism's conquest of American academia. In
> professorial hands, postmodernism is reduced to a parlor game
> in which we "deconstruct" great works of the past
- I thought that was what the fascination with the stock-market to the
detriment of real ecconomies had been doing the last 20 odd years?
and impose
> our own meaning on them without regard for the authors'
> intentions or the truth or falsity of our interpretations.
> This has damaged liberal education in America.
Well at lest some progress has been made.
Still, it
> doesn't kill people--unlike the deadly postmodernism out there
> in the world. Heirs to Heidegger and his leftist devotees,
> the terrorists don't limit themselves to deconstructing texts.
> They want to deconstruct the West, through acts like those we
> witnessed on September 11.
>
> What the terrorists have in common with our armchair nihilists
> is a belief in the primacy of the radical will, unrestrained
> by traditional moral teachings such as the requirements of
> prudence, fairness, and reason.
Yes of course.. pure "prudence, fairness and reason" like in Chile, Vietnam,
Panama, Iraq, Cambodia, Nicaragua,
Haiti and .. eh .. well Afgahnistan of course.
The terrorists seek to put
> this belief into action, shattering tradition
"...like in Chile, Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, Cambodia, Nicaragua,
Haiti and .. eh .. well Afgahnistan of course." <I must resist the
temptation to repeat myself.
I must resist the temptation to repeat myself.
I must resist the temptation to repeat myself.
I must resist the temptation to repeat myself.
> through acts of
> violent revolutionary resolve. That is how al Qaeda can ignore
> mainstream Islam, which prohibits the deliberate killing of
> noncombatants, and slaughter innocents in the name of creating
> a new world, the latest in a long line of grimly punitive
> collectivist utopias.
>
>
> Waller R. Newell is professor of political science and
> philosophy at Carleton University in Ottawa.
- and has considerable agricultural attributes too imho.
ron b.
>
Ronald J. Bartle
/ - /
> Hence, a person who protests, however peacefully, against the
> WTO or any other form or appearance of domination by Capital,
> can be treated as if she had personally destroyed the World
> Trade Center. And in the United States, laws to this effect
> have been moved through the legislatures.
>
> The interesting question here is why Capital, victorious
> everywhere, feels it needs this extra level of repression,
> surplus repression as it were, to survive.
>
Must be the conviction that European-style socialism really could offer
some competition. We all know how wonderfully the WTO encourages
a level-playingfield for all forms of competition from any quarter dont we
know.
"..... Did I get you right- your asking us to invest 750.000US$ in an
African managed plant that will build 40t trucks - better than a Scania to
retail at 11.000$ with a 22% p.a. nett profit on our investment.
Get out of here you bl*** bastard!"
rb
Clark
| Just as Heidegger wanted the German people to return
| to a foggy, medieval, blood-and-soil collectivism
___
Talk about misreadings. I'd say that the closest parallels to Heidegger in
the medieval period were those the medievalists persecuted the most. Folks
like Meister Eckhart (whom Heidegger quoted a lot). Heidegger was looking
for a return to the pre-Socratic thinkers. The "foggy medieval" mind was
extremely rationalistic, although since so few have actually read medieval
writers few seem to realize it.
While heaven knows Heidegger has huge problems (his association with Nazism
being the obvious one), I'm not sure that tossing him in like this is apt.
Certainly the connection with National Socialism ought to make us wary of
adopting Heidegger uncrtitically. However to call him a "leading supporter
of the Nazis" seems a tad misleading.
I also don't see in Newell's article how, exactly, Islamic extremists have
mixed Heidegger with third world socialism. I don't deny that there may be
some people producing tracts arguing this. If so though, I'd certainly
enjoy seeing their arguments.
Reading between the lines in the article, it seems as if Newell sees in
Islamic radicalism an expression of a kind of "will to power" as found in
many misreadings of Nietzsche. An expression of power for its own sake.
I admit that I know little or nothing about the thinking behind Islamic
radicalism. However my sense is that Newell doesn't either.
James A. Donald
> > > > Islamic fundamentalists were obvious candidates for
> > > > inclusion..."
Ned Ludd:
> > > Oh yeah. With the gays and the feminists. In the
> > > hot tub.
James A. Donald:
> > Sounds right. The protests against the World Trade
> > Organization had nazis, commies, and eco anarchists all
> > mingled together (as well as some more legitimate
> > protestors). Of course if they actually got with in
> > scent of power, they would promptly start killing each
> > other, but for the moment they are united by a common
> > enemy -- freedom.
Brique Noir:
> I'm curious as to how you distinguish a 'legitimate'
> protestor from an 'illegitimate' one.
The molotov cocktails hurled at seemingly random targets are
good clue.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
WPuqhZQ/vsua3rk4KHial3mtYiB4dmGBQ6vutKVD
4qUcrteymg4MAMJJpjGr5Z8o8NE1BLfoKiRhcX+Po
Levtraro
>Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Sartre, Fanon, Foucault, Derrida,
>Heidegger, Bin Laden, Pol Pot, Hardt, Negri, & the kitchen sink....
>
>Postmodern Jihad
>What Osama bin Laden learned from the Left.
>by Waller R. Newell
[snip]
> MANY ELEMENTS in the ideology of al Qaeda--set forth most
> clearly in Osama bin Laden's 1996 "Declaration of War Against
> America"--derive from this same mix. Indeed, in Arab intellectual
> circles today, bin Laden is already being likened to an earlier
> icon of Third World revolution who renounced a life of privilege
> to head for the mountains and fight the American oppressor,
> Che Guevara.
Actually, it's imperial agents who liken Osama to Che Guevara.
Paul Majendie - Reuters - Oct 15.
Ex CIA agents declared to the Washington Post that the best result
would be that Pakistani or anti-taliban Afghani would find and kill
Bin Laden. "Remember the Che Guevara case?", one ex-CIA commented,
"We found him and the Bolivians killed him while one of our men
observed. That's what we've got to do here."
Levtraro
James A. Donald
> ___ Waller Newell ___
> | Just as Heidegger wanted the German people to return
> | to a foggy, medieval, blood-and-soil collectivism
> | purged of the corruptions of modernity. . .
On Sat, 17 Nov 2001 21:49:27 GMT, "Clark" <Cl...@lextek.com> wrote:
> Talk about misreadings. I'd say that the closest parallels to Heidegger in
> the medieval period were those the medievalists persecuted the most. Folks
> like Meister Eckhart (whom Heidegger quoted a lot). Heidegger was looking
> for a return to the pre-Socratic thinkers. The "foggy medieval" mind was
> extremely rationalistic, although since so few have actually read medieval
> writers few seem to realize it.
I believe the reference to foggy medievalism was to an imagined past,
for example the mythical teutonic knights as imagined by Hitler and
others, rather than the real past of Aquinas and company. Heidegger
seems to me to reject reason and rationalism, though other disagree.
> While heaven knows Heidegger has huge problems (his association with Nazism
> being the obvious one), I'm not sure that tossing him in like this is apt.
Heidegger is the link connecting the modern post marxist socialist
movement to nazism, and thus to the Taliban. Osama Bin Laden is quite
recognizable as modern identity politics, as practiced in Berkeley
university today. He is not recognizable as class politics, as
practiced in the 1950s.
> Certainly the connection with National Socialism ought to make us wary of
> adopting Heidegger uncrtitically. However to call him a "leading supporter
> of the Nazis" seems a tad misleading.
He dressed up in full nazi drag, gave inspiring nazi speeches to the
assembled students, and was one of the leading philosophers of nazism.
> I also don't see in Newell's article how, exactly, Islamic extremists have
> mixed Heidegger with third world socialism.
Socialism directly and unambiguously contradicts the Koran. However
Islamic fundamentalists tend to weasel around this by proposing some
third way, neither capitalism nor socialism. Their weaseling does
not quite make them socialists, but they lean as close to socialism as
they can without slipping into blatant heresy.
> I admit that I know little or nothing about the thinking behind Islamic
> radicalism. However my sense is that Newell doesn't either.
Islamic fundamentalists would be horrified by the suggestion that
their movement is a branch of western ideology.
However, although they see it as a return to an imaginary pure islamic
past, it is in fact part of the Islamic effort to absorb the modern,
akin to the earlier Islamic nationalism and Islamic anti imperialism.
As with nationalism and anti imperialism, they swallowed, but failed
to digest, great lumps of western ideology, and told themselves it was
islamic and anti western.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
8RzzrR7PSgHRiVex+b0zaFXX21ppgPUJWoKvOKBm
41DLAorVeIk0UQH12ICe3UScjr7Mg4abRQQVnERBa
Kyle
wrote:
> --
>> > > > Islamic fundamentalists were obvious candidates for
>> > > > inclusion..."
>
>Ned Ludd:
>> > > Oh yeah. With the gays and the feminists. In the
>> > > hot tub.
>
>James A. Donald:
>> > Sounds right. The protests against the World Trade
>> > Organization had nazis, commies, and eco anarchists all
>> > mingled together (as well as some more legitimate
>> > protestors). Of course if they actually got with in
>> > scent of power, they would promptly start killing each
>> > other, but for the moment they are united by a common
>> > enemy -- freedom.
>
>Brique Noir:
>> I'm curious as to how you distinguish a 'legitimate'
>> protestor from an 'illegitimate' one.
>
>The molotov cocktails hurled at seemingly random targets are
>good clue.
You don't even know what you're talking about. The only things the
_vast_ majority of people at the WTO protests threw were tear-gas
canisters back at the police, that is when the police weren't spraying
them with pepper spray, shooting them with rubber bullets, kicking
them in the nuts or clubbing them in order to serve and protect their
capitalist masters.
With the possible exception of about a dozen so-called 'anarchist'
street kids (who would have probably been raising hell that week with
or without the wto), everyone there was a 'legitimate protester'. It
was an extremely well-behaved and self-restrained crowd for being
almost 50,000 people.
Trust me, I was there. It was one of those personal experiences that
always comes back to me when you anarcho-capitalists start pretending
that capitalism doesn't involve violence and coercion.
.....................................................
Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and
proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone
gets busy on the proof.
- John Kenneth Galbraith
Clark
| It was one of those personal experiences that always
| comes back to me when you anarcho-capitalists start
| pretending that capitalism doesn't involve violence
| and coercion.
Exactly what is an "anarcho-capitalist?"
And what does it mean to involve violence. If you mean tracing back through
a genealogy of causes, then exactly what aspect of existence doesn't involve
violence and coercion. If you mean immediate involvement, then aren't you
making the fallacy of composition? (Some X do Y, therefore All X do Y).
Kyle
> ___ Kyle ___
>| It was one of those personal experiences that always
>| comes back to me when you anarcho-capitalists start
>| pretending that capitalism doesn't involve violence
>| and coercion.
> ___
>
>Exactly what is an "anarcho-capitalist?"
I'd define it as a person who, for some as yet unascertained reason,
believes that economic hierarchies don't really count as a hierarchy.
You'll probably get other responses from the anarcho-capitalists,
though ;-)
They are pretty much 'libertarians'. Here are a couple of admittedly
biased, but informative and kind of funny links on them.
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Styx/5592/looney.html
>And what does it mean to involve violence. If you mean tracing back through
>a genealogy of causes, then exactly what aspect of existence doesn't involve
>violence and coercion.
The first thing that comes to mind is: the pacifist aspect of
existence.
>If you mean immediate involvement, then aren't you
>making the fallacy of composition? (Some X do Y, therefore All X do Y).
I mean immediate, though often 'buffered', violence and coercion. I
don't think I'm guilty of making the fallacy you bring up, though,
because I'm not accusing all X of doing Y, I'm just accusing all X of
supporting a system in which some X are paid by A to do Y to Z.
I think that capitalism requires enforcement, and that the
anarcho-capitalists are in denial when they pretend that, without a
state, the violence and coercion necessary for the multi-nationals to
'keep the rabble in hand' would just go away through competition or
something.
What's your take on this stuff?
-----------------------------------
I believe in equality for everyone,
except reporters and photographers.
- Mahatma Gandhi
Levtraro
So you deny 'legitimacy' to those who fight against the system just
for the hell of it.
>It was an extremely well-behaved and self-restrained crowd for being
>almost 50,000 people.
Thus 'the crowd' needs to be well-behaved and self-restrained to
'legitimately' protest against the system.
You seem to look down on those who fight for the fun of raising hell.
Personally, i side with those kids, and i was one of them not long
ago, rather than with the syndicalists, the greens, the commies, or
other 'serious protesters' who will set up a power system at the first
opportunity, just like democrats/capitalists and other collectivists
have done.
Levtraro
Kyle
>>You don't even know what you're talking about. The only things the
>>_vast_ majority of people at the WTO protests threw were tear-gas
>>canisters back at the police, that is when the police weren't spraying
>>them with pepper spray, shooting them with rubber bullets, kicking
>>them in the nuts or clubbing them in order to serve and protect their
>>capitalist masters.
>>
>>With the possible exception of about a dozen so-called 'anarchist'
>>street kids (who would have probably been raising hell that week with
>>or without the wto), everyone there was a 'legitimate protester'.
>Levtraro wrote:
>So you deny 'legitimacy' to those who fight against the system just
>for the hell of it.
>Kyle wrote:
>>It was an extremely well-behaved and self-restrained crowd for being
>>almost 50,000 people.
>Levtraro wrote:
>Thus 'the crowd' needs to be well-behaved and self-restrained to
>'legitimately' protest against the system.
>
>You seem to look down on those who fight for the fun of raising hell.
>Personally, i side with those kids, and i was one of them not long
>ago, rather than with the syndicalists, the greens, the commies, or
>other 'serious protesters' who will set up a power system at the first
>opportunity, just like democrats/capitalists and other collectivists
>have done.
Point taken, for the most part. I guess I shouldn't have automatically
accepted James's original framing of the issue. I think I kind of
subconsciously re-interpreted 'legitimate' as 'non-violent', because
non-violence is a goal of mine.
For that matter, they weren't even really being violent, as far as I'm
concerned. They just broke a few windows and trashed a starbucks.
But, yeah, I see your point, and protest is protest, regardless of the
form it takes.
However, if somebody goes out 'fighting for the fun of raising hell',
do you really think they'll give a shit if I happen to accidentally
lump them in the 'illegitimate protester' category in a usenet
argument a couple years later?
James A. Donald
On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 00:36:59 GMT, Kyle <re...@t.com> wrote:
> I shouldn't have automatically accepted James's original
> framing of the issue. I think I kind of subconsciously
> re-interpreted 'legitimate' as 'non-violent', because
> non-violence is a goal of mine.
Firstly, I am not in favor of non violence. I am in favor of
appropriate violence. The protestors did enormous damage to
the property of numerous people who had nothing to do with
the quarrel, and probably would have done damage to those
people if they had been around to protect their property.
Secondly, I used illegitimate in with multiple meanings --
one meaning was the illegitimacy of means, such as the
destruction of the property of people who had no connection
to the quarrel, whose property was not in the way of any
legitimate goal of the protestors. The other was the
illegitmacy of ends. Many of the protestors were not
opposed to some particular objectionable activities of the
WTO. of which there are many, but to world trade itself --
hence my reference to nazis, commies, and eco anarchists.
Granted there is a lot to dislike about the WTO, but many of
the protestors hate it for its virtues, not its vices.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
C16L5ZtpjJrI4qO0D19uogHPnYxFvZ2rGp8MaD/r
4iRo6djcv+FJpz12KIhh2nMapMFN/kyAxGJfUCEvk
Nark
other than the obvious 'raising hell' purpose. Tougher law enforcement
would limit this baseless destruction.
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:3bf70408...@west.usenetserver.com...
Kyle
>Indubitably. Most of the protesters really don't know why they protest,
>other than the obvious 'raising hell' purpose. Tougher law enforcement
>would limit this baseless destruction.
And you base this 'bold statement', on.... Hmm, on what, exactly?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In the fight between you and the world, back the world.
- Frank Zappa
Nark
"Levtraro" <in...@pen.com> wrote in message
news:9oodvtgjhop9nhc0l...@4ax.com...
> On 17 Nov 2001 10:03:32 -0500, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>
> >Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Sartre, Fanon, Foucault, Derrida,
> >Heidegger, Bin Laden, Pol Pot, Hardt, Negri, & the kitchen sink....
> >
> >Postmodern Jihad
> >What Osama bin Laden learned from the Left.
> >by Waller R. Newell
>
> [snip]
>
> > MANY ELEMENTS in the ideology of al Qaeda--set forth most
> > clearly in Osama bin Laden's 1996 "Declaration of War Against
> > America"--derive from this same mix. Indeed, in Arab intellectual
> > circles today, bin Laden is already being likened to an earlier
> > icon of Third World revolution who renounced a life of privilege
> > to head for the mountains and fight the American oppressor,
> > Che Guevara.
>
> Actually, it's imperial agents who liken Osama to Che Guevara.
>
Most America-haters compare their leaders to Guevara. But unlike the 'new
man', most America-haters don't truly live according to their ideals.
Levtraro
The State and revolutions against it are ESSENTIALLY based upon
organized violence, 'legitimate' violence as they call it, large-scale
permanent violence done in the name of the community.
On the other hand, personal rebellion MAY take the form of individual
violence, done for example for the fun of showing disrespect for the
established authority, including disrespect for the 'property rights'
of those who enjoy an enormous part of the privileges afforded by this
authority in the form of 'property rights'.
>However, if somebody goes out 'fighting for the fun of raising hell',
>do you really think they'll give a shit if I happen to accidentally
>lump them in the 'illegitimate protester' category in a usenet
>argument a couple years later?
I did care .
:-)
Levtraro
Nark
> It's easy. If one has a totalitarian world view, then any
> opposition to one's ideology, which is totally good and right,
> must be part of a corresponding unitary conspiracy of total
> evil, no matter how disparate and variegated the opposition
> may appear to be. Thus, the Nazis had no trouble connecting
> Communists with bankers and industrialists through myths about
> Jewish conspiracy.
In fact, the Jews did dominate the Bolshevic Revolutionary leadership, as
well as the banking system. The problem was that Hitler was hateful and
jealous. The 'conspiracy' is not evil, it just is. And we can all benefit
from it.
> Just so, to totalitarian liberals opposition
> to capitalism and plutocratic liberalism must stem from a
> single source and be part of one community, even if it consists
> of people as radically at odds as Gay rights activists and
> Islamic fundamentalists. The script is not merely propaganda;
> it legitimates acts of repression -- note that "nazis, commies,
> and eco anarchists" are associated with protests against the
> WTO just above, and in the kitchen-sink script with all the
> other evildoers except Satan himself (or did I miss something?)
> Hence, a person who protests, however peacefully, against the
> WTO or any other form or appearance of domination by Capital,
> can be treated as if she had personally destroyed the World
> Trade Center.
Do you have some basis for this last sentence. That is one heck of an
extension (and exaggeration).
> And in the United States, laws to this effect
> have been moved through the legislatures.
We have protests here in the US. Guess what, the people aren't treated like
they destroyed the WTC. They are treated with respect and restraint.
>
> The interesting question here is why Capital, victorious
> everywhere, feels it needs this extra level of repression,
> surplus repression as it were, to survive.
Capital has feelings? Please explain this point further, it's very
interesting.
"The right to search for the truth implies also a duty. One must not conceal
any part of what one has recognized to be true." -- Albert Einstein
James A. Donald
On 17 Nov 2001 19:20:07 -0600, "Nark" <bar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Most of the protesters really don't know why they protest,
> > other than the obvious 'raising hell' purpose. Tougher law enforcement
> > would limit this baseless destruction.
On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 01:32:09 GMT, Kyle <re...@t.com> wrote:
> And you base this 'bold statement', on.... Hmm, on what, exactly?
Perhaps he bases it on large holes in Genoa.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
aN4LAZcDeO6KcEyOqn1uuLuHF9r8auq7OFTZr0c8
4D/2XPKxTbONZetpE8xTpjLz1X0+6QQR+eEVae09p
James A. Donald
> On 17 Nov 2001 10:03:32 -0500, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>
> >Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Sartre, Fanon, Foucault, Derrida,
> >Heidegger, Bin Laden, Pol Pot, Hardt, Negri, & the kitchen sink....
> >
> >Postmodern Jihad
> >What Osama bin Laden learned from the Left.
> >by Waller R. Newell
>
> [snip]
>
> > MANY ELEMENTS in the ideology of al Qaeda--set forth most
> > clearly in Osama bin Laden's 1996 "Declaration of War Against
> > America"--derive from this same mix. Indeed, in Arab intellectual
> > circles today, bin Laden is already being likened to an earlier
> > icon of Third World revolution who renounced a life of privilege
> > to head for the mountains and fight the American oppressor,
> > Che Guevara.
On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 11:29:37 +1300, Levtraro <in...@pen.com> wrote:
> Actually, it's imperial agents who liken Osama to Che Guevara.
No, it is the usual "Death to America" fans of communism and terror:
See, for example:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3bf63fb7.21250686%40news.world-online.no
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=A7YI7.1417%24BH.192398%40news.uswest.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9sq4hd%241ao5%241%40pencil.math.missouri.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3bea62d9%240%2421076%24ba620e4c%40news.skynet.be
And so on and so forth.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
BrNiCcDAkHZgq0BtT0YW2Bc5bm/hDjCeOUs5rXs4
4Lp3MajdgIyUMgCuYzXex2FOarH5bmP8ydKPV9kDu
James A. Donald
On 17 Nov 2001 20:13:27 -0600, "Nark" <bar...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> In fact, the Jews did dominate the Bolshevic Revolutionary
> leadership, as well as the banking system.
"Dominating" the banking system under Lenin meant immediate
death. Before long all the leading jewish bolsheviks were
dead as well.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
f1vO54r2IMt/jUzuaMeECmOsPwQ/zlDurIj5KNor
4YSc0vRGwKkJm8uhW/tNGLufkkRVP/4iC6i2mXHxV
G*rd*n
"Nark" <bar...@yahoo.com>:
| Capital has feelings? Please explain this point further, it's very
| interesting.
| ...
Capital-C Capital. Another synonym for the ruling class(es)
of a capitalist / liberal community, in this case the world.
I thought everyone would be able to figure it out, but --
this is Usenet.
Levtraro
wrote:
> --
>> On 17 Nov 2001 10:03:32 -0500, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>>
>> >Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Sartre, Fanon, Foucault, Derrida,
>> >Heidegger, Bin Laden, Pol Pot, Hardt, Negri, & the kitchen sink....
>> >
>> >Postmodern Jihad
>> >What Osama bin Laden learned from the Left.
>> >by Waller R. Newell
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > MANY ELEMENTS in the ideology of al Qaeda--set forth most
>> > clearly in Osama bin Laden's 1996 "Declaration of War Against
>> > America"--derive from this same mix. Indeed, in Arab intellectual
>> > circles today, bin Laden is already being likened to an earlier
>> > icon of Third World revolution who renounced a life of privilege
>> > to head for the mountains and fight the American oppressor,
>> > Che Guevara.
>
>On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 11:29:37 +1300, Levtraro <in...@pen.com> wrote:
>> Actually, it's imperial agents who liken Osama to Che Guevara.
>
>No, it is the usual "Death to America" fans of communism and terror:
>
>See, for example:
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3bf63fb7.21250686%40news.world-online.no
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=A7YI7.1417%24BH.192398%40news.uswest.net
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9sq4hd%241ao5%241%40pencil.math.missouri.edu
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3bea62d9%240%2421076%24ba620e4c%40news.skynet.be
Liar.
Actually, none of your 4 webpages shows a comparison being made by
""Death to America" fans of communism and terror" between Guevara and
Osama.
You are lying again James. I thought you were a sincere fanatic.
But you lie and lie.
My quote on the other hand:
Paul Majendie - Reuters - Oct 15.
Ex CIA agents declared to the Washington Post that the best result
would be that Pakistani or anti-taliban Afghani would find and kill
Bin Laden. "Remember the Che Guevara case?", one ex-CIA commented,
"We found him and the Bolivians killed him while one of our men
observed. That's what we've got to do here."
is correct.
Levtraro
James A. Donald
> >On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 11:29:37 +1300, Levtraro <in...@pen.com> wrote:
> >> Actually, it's imperial agents who liken Osama to Che Guevara.
James A. Donald:
> >No, it is the usual "Death to America" fans of communism and terror:
> >
> >See, for example:
> >http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3bf63fb7.21250686%40news.world-online.no
> >
> >http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=A7YI7.1417%24BH.192398%40news.uswest.net
> >
> >http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9sq4hd%241ao5%241%40pencil.math.missouri.edu
> >
> >http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3bea62d9%240%2421076%24ba620e4c%40news.skynet.be
Levtraro
> Liar.
> Actually, none of your 4 webpages shows a comparison being made by
> ""Death to America" fans of communism and terror" between Guevara and
> Osama.
> You are lying again James. I thought you were a sincere fanatic.
> But you lie and lie.
Al-Jazeera regularly does shows calling for the destruction of the US,
and they liken Guevera to Osama
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3bf63fb7.21250686%40news.world-online.no
"Vox Populi" is a stalinist, an advocate of every almost every
totalitarian regime we have seen over the past few decades, and he
likens Osama to Guevera.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=A7YI7.1417%24BH.192398%40news.uswest.net
In that post he identifies himself both with the Taliban regime AND
with the North Vietnamese regime.
And similarly for the rest of them, though "Vox Populi" is probably
the clearest example.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
Pun6ILqDEkUS1VgzgvKjVYfmSoMoHlgZbL/B9V6V
41VSDL7MmctlC0itF5yAPsoLX2cTHD1MQgwepKNT5
pollarda
___ Waller Newell ___
| Just as Heidegger wanted the German people to return
| to a foggy, medieval, blood-and-soil collectivism
| purged of the corruptions of modernity. . .
|
| I'd say that the closest parallels to Heidegger in the
| medieval period were those the medievalists persecuted
| the most. Folks like Meister Eckhart (whom Heidegger
| quoted a lot). Heidegger was looking for a return to
| the pre-Socratic thinkers. The "foggy medieval" mind
| was extremely rationalistic, although since so few
| have actually read medieval writers few seem to realize
| it
|
| I believe the reference to foggy medievalism was to an
| imagined past, for example the mythical teutonic knights
| as imagined by Hitler and others, rather than the real
| past of Aquinas and company. Heidegger seems to me to
| reject reason and rationalism, though other disagree.
I think some people see him as being wrong and sometimes irrational, but
anyone saying he rejects reason and rationalism is simply engaging in
polemics. Certainly he recognizes their limits and attempts to transcend
them. But then so did Anselm and many others. Even Aquinas was famous for
his ecstatic vision that ended his philosophy. Don't get me wrong - I don't
buy into the near mystic aspects of the later Heidegger. (Although they are
at minimum interesting)
If Newell was appealing to some weird notion of Heidegger fanning the flames
of some goofy myth of Teutonic knights then that does seem to be a bit much.
I don't claim to be a Heidegger expert, but while he was for use of
aesthetical creation on a national scale, I don't think that parallels
either Nazi myth or the equivalent Islamic dream of a return to the early
Ottomans.
___ James ___
| Heidegger is the link connecting the modern post marxist
| socialist movement to nazism, and thus to the Taliban.
___
It is a rather weak link, however. It seems to me that most postmodern
socialists see politics quite differently than Heidegger and the Nazis did.
Also realize that Heidegger critiqued National Socialism and differed from
it in many important ways. (This is not to trivialize his involvement -
merely to point out that there need not be a "guilt by association" with his
philosophical observations). For instance the Nazis (as with most
socialists) had a priority of the people. Their slogan was "Everything must
be at the service of the people." (Obviously with a very restricted view of
who the people were) To Heidegger this was a manifestation of nihlism.
Now I recognize that postmodern socialists are a rather different beast than
traditional socialists. (As Newell alludes) I think Heidegger would see,
for instance, Libertarians as simply a different manifestation of the same
phenomena as Socialism. However to then paint a guilt by chain of
association ( PM Socialists -> Heidegger -> Nazism ->???-> Taliban ) seems
rather questionable. It certainly seems fallacious reasoning.
Heidegger's criticism of Nazism ends up being that because they have put the
Ayrian people into the highest goal they have lost a life-defining goal.
(Echos of Neitzsche's "if a goal for humanity is still lacking, is there not
still lacking humanity itself?) Realize that this was Heidegger way back in
1936, so we aren't talking about apologetics here. Heidegger explicitly
rejects man being the measure of things than humanism requires.
Now perhaps someone could argue that in this rejection of humanity as the
measure Heidegger matches Islamic fundamentalism who put God first. But
then the great majority of the world who are neither extremist nor
postmodern do the same.
___ James ___
| Osama Bin Laden is quite recognizable as modern identity politics,
| as practiced in Berkeley university today. He is not recognizable
| as class politics, as practiced in the 1950s.
___
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "identity politics." My experience with
folks at Berkely is more that they adopt a kind of naive hypocrisy. But
then I confess my pragmatism in all things political. When ideology starts
driving politics rather than practicality I get nervous. (Whether from the
left or right)
If by identity politics you mean "identify with an oppressed 'group'" then I
think Bin Laden certainly has parallels, although I think it tends to ignore
the underlying theological issues that make this possible. Certainly the
appeal to the "oppressed group" (whether African-American, homosexual,
Islamic, etc.) often parallels what the Nazis did. And the Nazis were the
textbook example of such a delineation of "us vs. them" causing not only the
elevation of "us" but the attack on the "other." (For the Nazis the Jews,
homosexuals and so forth being "other" - for most American liberals the
"others" are Protestants, Republicans, and so forth)
However this sense of identity seems to me to be the very thing that
Heidegger is against. Those most influenced by Heidegger have been
facination by this division between self and other. Post-structuralism, if
it does anything, tends to show how unstable these barriers really are.
Indeed this is partially why I think traditional Marxism was unable to
withstand the assault of postmodernism in academia. But it was this
dividing that Bin Laden seems to practice and that appeared to be the
ultimate aim of the 9/11 attacks. (An attempt that failed thanks to caution
on the part of Bush Jr.)
___ James ___
| He dressed up in full nazi drag, gave inspiring nazi speeches
| to the assembled students, and was one of the leading
| philosophers of nazism.
___
As I mentioned Heidegger and Nazism were at odds philosophically. He was a
leading philosopher who was a Nazi. That is quite different from being a
leading philosopher of Nazism. I think the general consensus is that
Heidegger was attempting to use Nazism for his own aims. I suspect that
there were many who wanted a German revitalization but who didn't want
Nazism as it was. In the same way I suspect that many people sympathetic to
Bin Laden want an Islamic rejeuvenation and revolution but reject the
revolution as practiced by Bin Laden. (Indeed that seems the commonest view
from what I've read in the mid-eastern press)
Even in Heidegger's Rectorial address (1933) he warns that Nazism was in
danger of looking back rather than forward. As I mentioned, by 1936 he had
pulled back from politics a great deal because of the way Nazism evolved.
Don't get me wrong. I think that personally Heidegger was a sleaze. I'm
very bothered at how even in his later apologetics he never said a word
criticizing the holocaust. I can fully understand why his student Levinas
never forgave him. However it is funny how Levinas (a Rabbi) in attempting
to "correct" Heidegger ends up coming to the same underlying approach to
metaphysics. In any case, even though I think Heidegger downplays his
connection with Nazism too much, it does seem that by 1934 there was a break
between the two. That break is rather significant for understanding the
influence of Heidegger on philosophy - especially given the connection
between the later Heidegger's mystic turn and philosophers like Derrida.
___ James ___
| Islamic fundamentalists would be horrified by the suggestion
| that their movement is a branch of western ideology.
___
Well perhaps. Clearly Islam is part of the western tradition. The main
philosophers and theologians adopted the thinking of Plato and Aristotle
just as they did in Judaism and Christianity. Even their mysticism is quite
similar. The very approach Islamic fundamentalism makes in "nation
building" bears much more resemblance to what went on in European and
near-Eastern history than what you find in the Americas or the East. While
I'm prepared to be wrong, I personally can't see much postmodern in
Fundamentalist Islam. Certainly the desire for a "scriptural" basis
justifying ones political actions is de rigour in European history. Such
prooftexting and re-interpretation is hardly postmodern nor alien to western
idology.
___ James ___
| However, although they see it as a return to an imaginary pure
| islamic past, it is in fact part of the Islamic effort to
| absorb the modern, akin to the earlier Islamic nationalism and
| Islamic anti imperialism. As with nationalism and anti
| imperialism, they swallowed, but failed to digest, great lumps
| of western ideology, and told themselves it was islamic and
| anti western.
___
Well said. Western to them isn't western thinking but rather a false "us
vs. them" creation in which they don't recognize that they are already
contaminated. The difference between Jewish, Christian or Islamic
fundamentalism seems rather minor from what I can see. The only difference
are the texts appealed to.
pollarda
| Exactly what is an "anarcho-capitalist?"
|
| I'd define it as a person who, for some as yet unascertained
| reason, believes that economic hierarchies don't really count
| as a hierarchy.
| They are pretty much 'libertarians'.
Ah - OK. Sounds like what a neo-Marxist might call them. <Grin>
I prefer to allow for economic hierarchies, but feel that they are unstable
and are often given more weight than they are due. Too many people tend to
give such hierarchies too great a foundational position in their systems of
political thought. It is a rather unstable foundation.
I never really cared for Libertarians. They are definitely one of those
groups who put ideology above practicality. Further they tend to have a
notion of "self" that is rather unjustiable.
___ Clark ___
| And what does it mean to involve violence? If you mean
| tracing back through a genealogy of causes, then exactly
| what aspect of existence doesn't involve violence and
| coercion.
___ Kyle ___
| The first thing that comes to mind is: the pacifist aspect of
| existence.
___
Umm - aren't you simply restating the question a different way? I ask, what
is the pacifist aspect of existence and you say the pacifist one. <Grin>
Obviously I don't think there is such an aspect - althought I think that on
pragmatic levels the violence varies dramatically in degree. Certainly
there is a difference between a Christian missionary going door to door
tracting and a mugger beating pedestrians for their wallets. Yet both have
coercive aspects. Its just that in the day to day aspects of life we can
call "pacifist" that which is not.
My complaint about the so-called "anti-Globalists" is that they apply a
double-standard when analyzing such violence. (I certainly don't deny that
violence is present, however)
___ Kyle ___
| I mean immediate, though often 'buffered', violence and coercion.
___
You give but then take back. If it is buffered, then how is it immediate?
___ Kyle ___
| I don't think I'm guilty of making the fallacy you bring up,
| though, because I'm not accusing all X of doing Y, I'm just
| accusing all X of supporting a system in which some X are
| paid by A to do Y to Z.
___
In other words there is a system that allows Y to happen. Yet you then
blame those who support this system for Y. That seems guilt by association.
While I don't know your own political beliefs, I'd suspect that whatever
system you replace things with also allows things as bad as Y to happen as
well.
___ Kyle ___
| I think that capitalism requires enforcement, and that the
| anarcho-capitalists are in denial when they pretend that,
| without a state, the violence and coercion necessary for the
| multi-nationals to 'keep the rabble in hand' would just go
| away through competition or something.
___
Oh, I agree. Adam Smith's comments on monopolies are certainly apt here.
Effective capitalism requires regulation to function. I think that many of
us simply think that, as with deserts, too much of a good thing is bad for
ones health. <grin>
James Whitehead
> Waller R. Newell is professor of political science and
> philosophy at Carleton University in Ottawa.
>
phenomenon with post-modernity which lacks any politics. "Political"
actions like 11/9/01 are in post-modernity nostalgic echoes of world
wars and such of the previous epoch. The terror of 11/9/01 is made
virtual by the media - it is unreal. Consumers demand the right to kill
themselves - in post modernity the suicidal conspiracy that kills
hundreds of thousands of Americans is their requirements for fast cars
and malbro lites - not wars for justice or whatever - what is going on
in political science now is reconstruction using actors and fake sets -
a sham - the university is Disneyland for adolescents. Waller R.
Newell prowls the campus in his costume amusing his customers - its what
he has to do for a living - unfortunately of less significance globally
than Manchester United. Perhaps the Taliban should learn to play soccer.
--
James Whitehead
G*rd*n
G*rd*n:
| > ....
| > Hence, a person who protests, however peacefully, against the
| > WTO or any other form or appearance of domination by Capital,
| > can be treated as if she had personally destroyed the World
| > Trade Center.
"Nark" <bar...@yahoo.com>:
| Do you have some basis for this last sentence. That is one heck of an
| extension (and exaggeration).
G*rd*n:
| > And in the United States, laws to this effect
| > have been moved through the legislatures.
"Nark" <bar...@yahoo.com>:
| We have protests here in the US. Guess what, the people aren't treated like
| they destroyed the WTC. They are treated with respect and restraint.
This is a very brief rundown which I got from a mailing
list. Some of the particulars have been noted in these
newsgroups in recent weeks. Right now, I am short of time,
but more particulars will be forthcoming in the future.
The list omits the ominous provision of military tribunals
with the power to try and condemn, without appeal, review, or
due process, any non-citizens anywhere in the world for whatever
the American authorities may consider to be a crime.
Capital is showing its mailed fist. After awhile, if you're
submissive enough, it may put the velvet glove back on
again.
USA
- Military courts for terrorist suspects
The USA Patriot Act
- Administrative detention of non-citizens committing offences
(including violation of visa conditions if they cannot be deported)
- Reduction of judicial supervision over official surveillance of
telephone and internet communication
- Criminalisation of membership and support for 'terrorist groups'-
Vague legal definition of terrorist group to include any 'violent
activity' including by domestic groups
- Secret surveillance of private financial information with no judicial
scrutiny
- Removal of almost all restrictions on police access to information on
students
Britain
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
- Indefinite detention of foreign 'suspected terrorists'
- Law against incitement of religious hatred
- Forcible photographing of arrested suspects
- Police power to demand removal of clothing that obscures identity
- Expansion of jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence police
- Unrestricted access for police to electronic and telephone
communication data for all investigations
- New offence of failure to supply police with information regarding
terrorism
- Powers to seize funds belonging to suspected terrorists
Canada
Anti-Terrorism Act
- Wide definition of terrorism including acts committed out of
jurisdiction
- Legal designation of 'terrorist groups' and criminalisation of
participation in them
- Increased police surveillance powers over electronic data
- Widening the Official Secrets Act
- New offence of failure to supply police with information regarding
terrorism
- Preventative detention of suspected terrorists
- Criminalisation of computer hacking
- New 'hate propaganda' offences
Australia
- Increased police surveillance powers over electronic and
telecommunications data
- Deployment of military against asylum seekers
- Restrictions on legal appeal rights of asylum seekers
- Offshore detention camps for asylum seekers
- Legal immunities against suit and prosecution for secret services and
political police
- Offence to identify secret service personnel
- Authorisation for intelligence services to spy on Australian citizens
overseas
Germany
- New offence of membership of foreign 'terrorist group'
- Increased police surveillance powers over electronic data
- Ending immunities enjoyed by religious groups
- Power for domestic deployment of army
(partial list)
Constantinople
Levtraro wrote:
Well, the first link shows a comparison being made between Guevara and Osama.
I have not checked the other links. So the question is whether the comparison is made by
death-to-america fans of communism and terror. Well, the channel is described in
the article this way: "Al Jazeera [. . .] may not officially be the Osama bin Laden
Channel -- but he is clearly its star". This and other comments make it pretty clear
that, at least in the view of the author, the channel which compared Guevara and
Osama strongly supports Osama. So there we seem to have "death-to-america fan of
terror" (though I suppose you, Levtraro, could be arguing that Osama is not a terrorist,
or
possibly you are arguing something else, but whatever it is, you have not made it clear).
>
> You are lying again James. I thought you were a sincere fanatic.
> But you lie and lie.
>
> My quote on the other hand:
>
> Paul Majendie - Reuters - Oct 15.
> Ex CIA agents declared to the Washington Post that the best result
> would be that Pakistani or anti-taliban Afghani would find and kill
> Bin Laden. "Remember the Che Guevara case?", one ex-CIA commented,
> "We found him and the Bolivians killed him while one of our men
> observed. That's what we've got to do here."
>
> is correct.
>
No imperial agent is quoted, though. An unidentified ex-agent is quoted. It's
surprising if this is the best you can do. By the way, your quote is not a quote
but a paraphrase, being a re-translation of a translation. I'm still trying to puzzle
out why we have a Reuters article with information given to the Washington
Post. That suggests there must be an original Washington Post article...? So
where is it?
>
> Levtraro
Joseph MacKay
"Nark" <bar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3bf70c0d$0$70033$45be...@newscene.com...
> Indubitably. Most of the protesters really don't know why they protest,
> other than the obvious 'raising hell' purpose. Tougher law enforcement
> would limit this baseless destruction.
>
Yes, it would. The status quo under the Third Reich and the Warsaw Pact
regimes would constitute excellent examples of this sort of law enforcement:
get 'em for protesting, rather than figuring *why* they're protesting. After
all, why acknowledge that potest has aims if that means you might have to
take those aims into account?
The problem with 'tougher' law enforcement is that it isn't tough in any
specific way or to any specific end. Clubbing and gassing protesters, given
enough gas and enough clubs, would put a stop to a whole lot, but it doesn't
differenciate between those who protest for a reason and a few folks who
probably are just in it to baselessly smash stuff. If you were in power and
you didn't agree with the folks rioting in the streets (or, worse yet,
marching peacefully and legally), wouldn't you rather not ask any questions?
Jeez, I'm glad you cleared that up. Cuz I thought law was derived from the
decisions of democratically elected officials and not from baseless appeals
to what someone might (arbitrarily) take to be our "animal" nature.
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > Heidegger seems to me to reject reason and rationalism,
pollarda
> I think some people see him as being wrong and sometimes
> irrational, but anyone saying he rejects reason and
> rationalism is simply engaging in polemics.
Heidegger, like Trotsky, denies the existence of the
objective world, independent from those interpreting it, and
thus the possibility of different groups resolving
disagreements of the truth of some matter by evidence.
But if truth is merely agreement within what we now call the
interpretive group, what are you going to do when members of
the interpretive group disagree? If agreement is merely
loyalty, the unstated implication of this that disagreements
about various facts is not error but disloyalty and therefore
that the way to resolve disagreement is not by experiment, by
the senses, but instead by stringing up the disloyal on piano
wires. This is not a conclusion that Heidegger explicitly
draws, but when lots of people did draw this obvious
conclusion, and acted accordingly, I do not see him
disagreeing, rather I see him terrorizing his colleagues
> If Newell was appealing to some weird notion of Heidegger
> fanning the flames of some goofy myth of Teutonic knights
> then that does seem to be a bit much.
Heidegger was fanning the flames of goofy myths in general,
rather than one specific goofy myth in particular, seeking to
transcend such minor matters as facts and evidence. In
particular, since truth comes from the authority of the what
we would now call the interpretive group, rather than sense
data, then in practice goofy myths giving one's identity
group self esteem and cohesion are superior to any mere facts
-- a theory highly visible both in Berkeley and in the caves
of Afghanistan.
> It is a rather weak link, however. It seems to me that
> most postmodern socialists see politics quite differently
> than Heidegger and the Nazis did. Also realize that
> Heidegger critiqued National Socialism and differed from it
> in many important ways. (This is not to trivialize his
> involvement - merely to point out that there need not be a
> "guilt by association" with his philosophical
> observations). For instance the Nazis (as with most
> socialists) had a priority of the people. Their slogan was
> "Everything must be at the service of the people."
> (Obviously with a very restricted view of who the people
> were) To Heidegger this was a manifestation of nihlism.
The fans of Heidegger seem disagree as to whether he differed
from the nazis in being more socialist than the nazis or less
socialist than the nazis.
> However to then paint a guilt by chain of association ( PM
> Socialists -> Heidegger -> Nazism ->???-> Taliban ) seems
> rather questionable. It certainly seems fallacious
> reasoning.
Newell's argument might be guilt by association. I don't
think my argument is.
> Heidegger's criticism of Nazism ends up being that because
> they have put the Ayrian people into the highest goal they
> have lost a life-defining goal. (Echos of Neitzsche's "if a
> goal for humanity is still lacking, is there not still
> lacking humanity itself?) Realize that this was Heidegger
> way back in 1936, so we aren't talking about apologetics
> here. Heidegger explicitly rejects man being the measure
> of things than humanism requires.
I see. So Heidegger was not a nazi because nazis are
humanists? That is one I had not heard before.
Well equally he was not a taliban, or a postmodern socialist,
but the point of this thread is the important commonalities,
rather than the trivial differences
James A. Donald:
> > Osama Bin Laden is quite recognizable as modern identity
> > politics, as practiced in Berkeley university today. He
> > is not recognizable as class politics, as practiced in
> > the 1950s.
pollarda
> If by identity politics you mean "identify with an
> oppressed 'group'" then I think Bin Laden certainly has
> parallels, although I think it tends to ignore the
> underlying theological issues that make this possible.
> Certainly the appeal to the "oppressed group" (whether
> African-American, homosexual, Islamic, etc.) often
> parallels what the Nazis did. And the Nazis were the
> textbook example of such a delineation of "us vs. them"
> causing not only the elevation of "us" but the attack on
> the "other." (For the Nazis the Jews, homosexuals and so
> forth being "other" - for most American liberals the
> "others" are Protestants, Republicans, and so forth)
Exactly so Those germanic aryans had plenty of grounds to
view themselves as oppressed -- Treaty of Versailles, the
Kulturkampf. Their argument was a lot better than that which
Berkeley blacks could present -- and it was very much the
same argument as Bin Laden presents. He, like them, argues
unjust treaties and kulturkampf
> However this sense of identity seems to me to be the very
> thing that Heidegger is against. Those most influenced by
> Heidegger have been facination by this division between
> self and other. Post-structuralism, if it does anything,
> tends to show how unstable these barriers really are.
If the barriers are truly unstable, then truth is a political
outcome, not a fact, leading directly modern identity
politics, leading to twentieth century Trotskyism, and
Nazism -- and, arguably, modern Islamic fundamentalism, which
looks back not to the actual Islam of the prophet, but to a
glibly reinvented Islam as fictitious as Hitler's Teutonic
knights.
> As I mentioned Heidegger and Nazism were at odds
> philosophically.
I don't think so. I don't think Heidegger thought so either.
Rather, it seems to me he thought that the Nazis failed to
give his views the credit, reverence, and importance that
were due to him as a profound and vital theorist of nazism.
It was not so much that nazism rejected vital philosophical
tenets of Heidegger but rather that the Nazis, like Lenin and
Stalin, were not as much troubled by theory as purists
thought they should be. It is often said that nazism had no
theory. Of course that is not true, but there is a grain of
truth in it, and this small grain of truth, rather than any
specifics of the theory, are the core of any disagreements
between Nazism and Heidegger.
> He was a leading philosopher who was a Nazi. That is quite
> different from being a leading philosopher of Nazism. I
> think the general consensus is that Heidegger was
> attempting to use Nazism for his own aims.
This is both true and false. Nazism was, among other things,
a philosophy. Thus to be a philosopher and a nazi is to be a
nazi philosopher. In that sense, your words are untrue. Of
course it is also true that Heidegger's philosophy was more
than just nazism, which is precisely why Newel links it to
both Islamic fundamentalism, and left wing identity politics,
and in that sense your words are true.
> I suspect that there were many who wanted a German
> revitalization but who didn't want Nazism as it was. In
> the same way I suspect that many people sympathetic to Bin
> Laden want an Islamic rejeuvenation and revolution but
> reject the revolution as practiced by Bin Laden. (Indeed
> that seems the commonest view from what I've read in the
> mid-eastern press)
Their views are untenable, much like those numerous modern
leftists who proclaim they oppose the Soviet Union and
everything it has done, while denying any Soviet wrongdoing
in any particular matter, and endorsing Soviet foreign policy
on every matter where the Soviet Union came in conflict with
the West.
Bin Laden is right that everyone must choose sides, and wrong
about which side they must choose. The West in general, and
the US government in particular, is able to act decisively
and act with impunity, bombing muslims and arranging the
slaughter of POWs as suspected terrorists, because the people
of Islam are divided in their hearts, and so dither
ineffectually between the self destructive course of action
that they desire to follow -- bigotry, tyranny, nationalism,
and socialism, and the course of action they know they should
follow -- openness, tolerance, democracy and capitalism. They
do neither, and so remain paralyzed, mired in inaction, self
inflicted poverty, ignorance, and powerlessness.
They are not standing on the middle ground, but instead
falling helplessly into the gap between these two views,
paralyzed by hypocrisy and divided purpose.
> However it is funny how Levinas (a Rabbi) in attempting to
> "correct" Heidegger ends up coming to the same underlying
> approach to metaphysics.
Similarly, it is funny how so many zionists have a marked
resemblance to nazis.
> The very approach Islamic fundamentalism makes in "nation
> building" bears much more resemblance to what went on in
> European and near-Eastern history than what you find in the
> Americas or the East.
Nations and nation building are an imported western ideology.
You will find no trace of this before the imperialists
overran the Islamic world. For example Afghanistan was not a
nation with any particular borders until the British insisted
it become one.
Today's efforts to make a nation of Afghanistan, whether by
the Taliban or the West, face considerable difficulty.
In this operation the Taliban and its Arab soldiers were as
much the foreign soldiers of an alien western ideology as US
peacekeeping troops would be should the US find itself too
heavily involved in nation building.
> While I'm prepared to be wrong, I personally can't see much
> postmodern in Fundamentalist Islam. Certainly the desire
> for a "scriptural" basis justifying ones political actions
> is de rigour in European history. Such prooftexting and
> re-interpretation is hardly postmodern nor alien to western
> idology.
I heard a number of Afghans make the theological complaint
that the Taliban insists that the Koran is literally true
without worrying themselves too much about what it actually
says, which does sound rather postmodern. Bin Laden's truth
seems akin to that of Trotsky -- truth is whatever the party
says it is at that particular moment.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
9yZDMgyeOZ79940kbB0gZfjG0FqPPjMpqRzIvwXA
4opBw6WXFpQYRIgJDT4GLPWEsvl09avEVDWM0HSUI
James A. Donald
On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 13:18:55 +0000, James Whitehead
<jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I think the professor [Waller R. Newell] is confusing
> post-modernity which lacks any politics.
it is unclear to me what, if anything, you are saying. Your
lack of clarity leads me to suppose that you are a post
modernist, though the opponents of post modernism are
sometimes equally unintelligible.
If you are saying that post modernism is a apolitical
doctrine, that is silly.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
+MiP1xVRnKn/CBm01lWvO67ht1bQkchYkugQUTYb
4x1FEyUScnnr5qbMQYlRxNLYqfntD17EUz+79vzwe
Ronald J. Bartle
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3bfaf2b9...@west.usenetserver.com...
> --
> James A. Donald:
> > > Heidegger seems to me to reject reason and rationalism,
> > > though others disagree.
/ - /
The West in general, and
> the US government in particular, is able to act decisively
> and act with impunity, bombing Muslims and arranging the
> slaughter of POWs as suspected terrorists, because the people
> of Islam are divided in their hearts,
When the US govt. goes on the rampage - as it has quite frequently in the
past outside its own boarders at least.. is that not a matter that the US
voter
and taxpayer should be addressing. How come that is somehow a mistake of
the Islamic
peoples or nations?
> and so dither ineffectually between the self destructive course of action
> that they desire to follow -- bigotry, tyranny, nationalism,
> and socialism, and the course of action they know they should
> follow -- openness, tolerance, democracy and capitalism.
- I was under the opinion that many in the west are concerned that
corporatist capitalism was itself a real threat to representative and
effective democracy?
Are there not western nations with huge deficits in the matter of real
democracy and limits on their degree of openness?
If one put questions to the vote per referendum in the western nations -
like:
Do we want to continue to look away from the problems of poverty and
homelessness in our nation?
or -
Should we devote enough of our GNP to solving these problems in short
order..?
I am pretty sure there are enough decent people who would vote for the
latter.
But none of our so.-called democratic leaders put such elementary questions
to the test.
Perhaps they see a negative impact on their own group - which is often
associated with capital and production - who of course tend to want to have
large numbers of
poor and homeless to keep the working people in place and psychologically
willing to accept low wages - for long hours etc etc.
I can't help but see these calls for the world to embrace (especially US
style-) capitalism and democracy - the way it is run just now - as being
some sort of ideal situation. For the haves it might be - the majority of
people on this planet are not amongst the relative few who are really *on
the make* in the western capitalist system.
>They do neither, and so remain paralysed, mired in inaction, self
> inflicted poverty,
- I thought the poverty in many less developed nations comes from the fact
that they have to pay top bucks for an infrastructure and industrial plant
they buy from the west - while selling their own raw materials for cents -
and if they manage to produce manufactured goods themselves - often being
excluded from the market in the western industrial nations.
How is this so "self-inflicted."
The moment any nation within easy striking distance of the USA starts to
stand on it's own feet and really improve the lot of the majority of its
population - there is a seditious or military intervention to restore the
tradition role of subservience to the interests of the relatively few
wealthy corporate clans in the USA...or?
>....ignorance,
Funny you use the word ignorance - one doesn't have to be a US- style
capitalism to be educated or smart.
If I remember rightly - at least a few years ago there were more (medical
field-) patents being issued in Cuba - per head of population - than in any
other nation at that time. This is just one example.
>... and powerlessness.
Well powerlessness in a military sense is a difficult one to argue with -
cos any really civilised and progressive system would not want to squander
a cent more on its own defence than necessary and people of good will would
not see even a need or desire to impose their interest over the legitimate
interests of other nations anyhow.
When people define themselves as "productive" and also as parents for
instance - then there would be little place in such a persons concept for
foreign military adventurism.
On the other hand - a corporate director - or head of something like the CIA
can see 1001 good reasons to spend other peoples productive efforts on
foreign military interventions.
> They are not standing on the middle ground, but instead
> falling helplessly into the gap between these two views,
> paralysed by hypocrisy and divided purpose.
>
Maybe nations like individuals can actually benefit by spending some time -
more than once in a lifetime - in soul-searching and reflection to make
sure they - individually and collectively are really heading in the right
direction and aiming for goals that are worthy and sustainable. Could it
not be that when you talk of some falling helplessly - and paralysed etc -
threat these folks are in a phase of re-consideration, reflection and
new-orientation. We could all do with a little more of that I feel.
> > However it is funny how Levinas (a Rabbi) in attempting to
> > "correct" Heidegger ends up coming to the same underlying
> > approach to metaphysics.
>
> Similarly, it is funny how so many Zionists have a marked
> resemblance to nazis.
>
> > The very approach Islamic fundamentalism makes in "nation
> > building" bears much more resemblance to what went on in
> > European and near-Eastern history than what you find in the
> > Americas or the East.
>
> Nations and nation building are an imported western ideology.
> You will find no trace of this before the imperialists
> overran the Islamic world. For example Afghanistan was not a
> nation with any particular borders until the British insisted
> it become one.
- and what good has that done the average Afghan one might ask?
>
> Today's efforts to make a nation of Afghanistan, whether by
> the Taliban or the West, face considerable difficulty.
>
> In this operation the Taliban and its Arab soldiers were as
> much the foreign soldiers of an alien western ideology as US
> peacekeeping troops would be should the US find itself too
> heavily involved in nation building.
>
> > While I'm prepared to be wrong, I personally can't see much
> > post-modern in Fundamentalist Islam. Certainly the desire
> > for a "scriptural" basis justifying ones political actions
> > is de rigour in European history. Such prooftexting and
> > re-interpretation is hardly post-modern nor alien to western
> > ideology.
>
> I heard a number of Afghans make the theological complaint
> that the Taliban insists that the Koran is literally true
> without worrying themselves too much about what it actually
> says, which does sound rather post-modern. Bin Laden's truth
> seems akin to that of Trotsky -- truth is whatever the party
> says it is at that particular moment.
Very true I am sure -
Assuming that the guiding light of social development should hinge on what
NBC/CNN tells us is true each moment - with no greater values or enduring
standards that the quarterly "bottom line" - is also no way to build a
future
for humanity - or?
ronb.
Dan Clore
> > And in the United States, laws to this effect
> > have been moved through the legislatures.
>
> We have protests here in the US. Guess what, the people aren't treated like
> they destroyed the WTC. They are treated with respect and restraint.
Which is communicated through beatings, tear gas, pepper
spray, jail time, and misrepresentation as rioters and
terrorists in the mass media.
--
Dan Clore
mailto:cl...@columbia-center.org
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
News for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608
Brique Noir
"Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
news:3BF8439E...@columbia-center.org...
> Nark wrote:
>
> > > And in the United States, laws to this effect
> > > have been moved through the legislatures.
> >
> > We have protests here in the US. Guess what, the people aren't treated
like
> > they destroyed the WTC. They are treated with respect and restraint.
>
> Which is communicated through beatings, tear gas, pepper
> spray, jail time, and misrepresentation as rioters and
> terrorists in the mass media.
Thats what he said, they are treated with respect and restraint !
>
> --
> Dan Clore
> mailto:cl...@columbia-center.org
>
> Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
> http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
>
> Lord We˙rdgliffe:
Clark Goble
| Heidegger, like Trotsky, denies the existence of the
| objective world, independent from those interpreting
| it, and thus the possibility of different groups
| resolving disagreements of the truth of some matter
| by evidence.
I don't quite see how the former entails the later. Certainly he thinks
that the traditional subject - object taxonomy breaks down. But how does
that mean that you can resolve disagreements by evidence? In some cases I
suppose it might. But if you think that it means I can't talk about whether
I'm at a house or not then you are mistaken.
Sometimes philosophical position don't have the effect on everydayness that
some think. For practical matters I think most postmodern people end up
talking about things in the same way as those in the analytic tradition.
Recognizing that discussions of truth entail discussions of value is
important I think. Overstating that significance can be misleading,
however.
___ James ___
| But if truth is merely agreement within what we now
| call the interpretive group, what are you going to
| do when members of the interpretive group disagree?
___
I don't see how this is any different with an "objective truth." Even with
objective truth people disagree. Why should disagreements in postmodernism
be treated differently? All the postmodernists do is point out that appeals
to evidence are really appeals to interpretations of evidence. Evidence
doesn't speak of itself.
___ James ___
| If agreement is merely loyalty, the unstated implication
| of this that disagreements about various facts is not
| error but disloyalty and therefore that the way to
| resolve disagreement is not by experiment, by the senses,
| but instead by stringing up the disloyal on piano
| wires.
___
Why not simply persuade one that the method of interpretation is wrong and
that there is a better way?
I'd also add that you but bring up one mechanism for dealing with "error."
Surely you don't think that is the only one. The alternative is simply to
let people believe what they will and continue on the way one wishes. What
you suggest seems to be "true" only if one actually thinks that ones
position is so superior to the others that they must be forced to accept
yours. But that seems to then descend into a kind of objectivity. If
agreement is merely loyalty (which I don't agree with - I think agreement is
merely a degree of correspondence - loyalty implies a kind of directedness
that agreement doesn't) then shouldn't we discuss the ways in which loyalty
is imparted? Loyalty often comes strongest from love, not terror.
___ James ___
| In particular, since truth comes from the authority of
| the what we would now call the interpretive group,
| rather than sense data, then in practice goofy myths
| giving one's identity group self esteem and cohesion
| are superior to any mere facts
___
It seems your positions are self-refuting, even if we adopt them as
"Heidegger's view." If truth comes from the interpretive group and that is
a truth then isn't that very statement unstable? Thus how can it be the way
things are? Why is self-esteem and cohesion superior to "facts"? Isn't
that based upon some stable notion of value? Couldn't the group simply
value them in a different heirarchy?
You want to say Heidegger rejects truth but then require him to hold fixed
truths to make your points. I don't think this method of argument works too
well.
___ James ___
| The fans of Heidegger seem disagree as to whether he
| differed from the nazis in being more socialist than
| the nazis or less socialist than the nazis.
___
Allow me an analogy. Consider a square and circle of equal area. The
square differs from the circle by being farther away from the center at some
angles and nearer the center at others. In the same way if Heidegger's
philosophy isn't nazism then we shouldn't be surprised to see it more like
it than some other idea in some ways and less like it in others.
So if you take this as a significant "fact" I merely point out that what
seems important is that it differs.
___ James ___
| So Heidegger was not a nazi because nazis are
| humanists? That is one I had not heard before.
___
The Nazis, as with so many groups put the nation first. Heidegger adopted a
view common to many religious movements which saw that something greater
than man must give man his goal. For Heidegger this was thinking Being.
For religious people this greater thing that gives us a life defining goal
is God.
He's rather explicit about this in his criticisms of the Nazis. Have you
read his criticisms?
___ James ___
| Well equally he was not a taliban, or a postmodern
| socialist, but the point of this thread is the
| important commonalities, rather than the trivial
| differences
___
However we seem rather unable to agree upon what is trivial and what is
important. At best we can agree that there are differences. Since I seem
to have no loyalty to you nor you loyalty to me, can we test your assertion
of what followers of Heidegger ought to do next? I give you the right to
believe as you will. Does this undercut your assertion of value?
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > the people
> > of Islam are divided in their hearts,
> > that they desire to follow -- bigotry, tyranny, nationalism,
> > and socialism, and the course of action they know they should
> > follow -- openness, tolerance, democracy and capitalism.
On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 23:00:23 +0100, "Ronald J. Bartle"
<RBa...@t-online.de> wrote:
> - I was under the opinion that many in the west are concerned that
> corporatist capitalism was itself a real threat to representative and
> effective democracy?
A view very popular among those who in seventies cheered the most
murderous and brutal tyrannies the world has yet seen, and spat upon
their victims.
> Are there not western nations with huge deficits in the
> matter of real democracy and limits on their degree of
> openness?
Except as compared with the entire rest of the world.
> If one put questions to the vote per referendum in the western nations -
> like:
>
> Do we want to continue to look away from the problems of poverty and
> homelessness in our nation?
>
> or -
>
> Should we devote enough of our GNP to solving these problems in short
> order..?
>
> I am pretty sure there are enough decent people who would vote for the
> latter.
San Francisco is controlled by people who have the same ideology as
yourself. It has a massive homeless problem, largely caused by rent
control. They attempted to solve the problem by throwing enormous
amounts of money at it. Very little of this money seems to have
reached the homeless, and if it did they would probably drink
themselves to death.
If the state guaranteed sand for all in the sahara, there would soon
be sand shortage. Indeed, where do we seem famines today? We see
them in war of course, but in countries at peace, we see famines only
in countries like North Korea where the government guarantees food for
all.
But we have digressed far afield from the issue of Heidegger and the
Taliban.
James A. Donald:
> >They do neither, and so remain paralysed, mired in inaction, self
> > inflicted poverty,
Ronald J. Bartle
> - I thought the poverty in many less developed nations comes from the fact
> that they have to pay top bucks for an infrastructure and industrial plant
> they buy from the west
And where did the west get its plant and infrastucture from?
The social democratic countries of Europe decided to make Tanzania a
showcase of non capitalist, non totalitarian, economic development.
They poured colossal amounts of aid upon Tanzania, producing only
poverty, fear, and misery.
> The moment any nation within easy striking distance of the USA starts to
> stand on it's own feet and really improve the lot of the majority of its
> population - there is a seditious or military intervention to restore the
> tradition role of subservience to the interests of the relatively few
> wealthy corporate clans in the USA...or?
Pretty obviously the kind of regimes that you seek, for example Castro
in Cuba, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, cause ruin and poverty.
During the last sixty years the US meddled in Latin America response
to Soviet meddling, Nicaragua being the classic and extreme example.
Now that the Soviet Union has ceased to exist, so, for the most part,
has US meddling in Latin america.
Those countries of the world that accepted a political and economic
system like that of the USA are rapidly catching up, Chile being a
good example.
Compare Chile with Cuba. What is the cause of Latin American
poverty? Before the communists took power, Cuba was vastly richer
than Chile. Look at Cuba now!
> If I remember rightly - at least a few years ago there were more (medical
> field-) patents being issued in Cuba - per head of population - than in any
> other nation at that time. This is just one example.
I went to Cuba. Saw their medical system. Merely moderately good by
the standards of the average third world right wing military
dictatorship, except that at the time ordinary Cubans were prohibited
from seeking better. As for Cuban statistics -- in Cuba at that time
it was death to speak the truth, with the result that even Castro had
no idea what the truth was.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
vQEpc4BoDk2/rxqheAfbmM53YhF8JGLbuCxJ1NKn
4ihHEFZJxew6Jnmt/qeuUf3x/5SlEjTBR3Fc2HfRh
Nark
>
> > > And in the United States, laws to this effect
> > > have been moved through the legislatures.
> >
> > We have protests here in the US. Guess what, the people aren't treated
like
> > they destroyed the WTC. They are treated with respect and restraint.
>
> Which is communicated through beatings, tear gas, pepper
> spray, jail time, and misrepresentation as rioters and
> terrorists in the mass media.
>
True Nuff, except for the "rioters" as "terrorists" part. And this jail
time, as well as the other 'communications' are very mild. I have been
pepper-sprayed. It's bad. But not THAT bad. The US Government is hardly
oppressive when compared with the rest of the world. That's all I'm saying.
It's a great place to protest. Very safe indeed. True or not?
Nark
"Kyle" <re...@t.com> wrote in message
news:2d4evtssp4qpl1k39...@4ax.com...
> On 17 Nov 2001 19:20:07 -0600, "Nark" <bar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Indubitably. Most of the protesters really don't know why they protest,
> >other than the obvious 'raising hell' purpose. Tougher law enforcement
> >would limit this baseless destruction.
>
> And you base this 'bold statement', on.... Hmm, on what, exactly?
On personal experience. I took a video camera to Seattle and I interviewed
protesters. The vast majority literally did not have a basis for
protesting. Most just 'came with friends'. The people who did have some
understanding of the issues, were mostly young white kids from wealthy
upbringings. White guilt I suppose. Truthfully, the anarchists make the
most sense, in terms of their consistency.
Nark
> "Nark" <bar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3bf70c0d$0$70033$45be...@newscene.com...
> > Indubitably. Most of the protesters really don't know why they protest,
> > other than the obvious 'raising hell' purpose. Tougher law enforcement
> > would limit this baseless destruction.
> >
>
> Yes, it would. The status quo under the Third Reich and the Warsaw Pact
> regimes would constitute excellent examples of this sort of law
enforcement:
> get 'em for protesting, rather than figuring *why* they're protesting.
No, "get 'em for" destroying the property of others, regardless of "*why*
they're protesting" or what their idealogy is. Don't put words in my mouth,
it only weakens your position further. Your assumptions are baseless and
invalid.
> After
> all, why acknowledge that potest has aims if that means you might have to
> take those aims into account?
Law enforcement is for the purpose of -- drumroll -- enforcing laws. It is
not for the purpose of acknowledging the aims of protests or taking those
aims into account.
What I am saying is that if someone breaks the law, they should be
prosecuted. Of course you are welcome to continue your deranged, yet
imaginative, rants further. But it is an exercise in futility.
>
> The problem with 'tougher' law enforcement is that it isn't tough in any
> specific way or to any specific end. Clubbing and gassing protesters,
given
> enough gas and enough clubs, would put a stop to a whole lot,
You speak of stopping the whole lot. I speak of "limit(ing) the baseless
destruction." Do you see a difference?
> but it doesn't
> differenciate between those who protest for a reason and a few folks who
> probably are just in it to baselessly smash stuff.
Again, it's not illegal to protest. It's illegal to smash other people's
stuff. So law enforcement would come into play when -- another drumroll --
laws are broken. Not peaceful protesting.
> If you were in power and
> you didn't agree with the folks rioting in the streets (or, worse yet,
> marching peacefully and legally), wouldn't you rather not ask any
questions?
I don't care about their purpose as long as they don't take away my liberty.
Protest away, just don't destroy the property of others.
Please let me know if I ever express an opinion that mentions preventing
peaceful protests. Because if I believe that, I would like to know. Then I
could quit going to these things that you claim I am against.
In the future, please read my words without adding your own creative
storyline to them. I say exactly what I mean to say.
James Whitehead
<jam...@echeque.com> writes
> --
>On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 13:18:55 +0000, James Whitehead
><jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> I think the professor [Waller R. Newell] is confusing
>> politics - which is a modernist phenomenon with
>> post-modernity which lacks any politics.
>
>it is unclear to me what, if anything, you are saying. Your
>lack of clarity leads me to suppose that you are a post
>modernist, though the opponents of post modernism are
>sometimes equally unintelligible.
Its nice to get involved in a cross posting and meet new people - being
post-modern is like being victorian - its not a matter of choice.
>
>If you are saying that post modernism is a apolitical
>doctrine, that is silly.
Politics has its origins in polis and the greeks - on/in which modernity
saw its roots/foundations. Belief in a "good" in universal terms in
which the political contests took place. Post-modernity - marks the end
of this epoch.
--
James Whitehead
Brique Noir
Joseph MacKay
Now now, lets calm down and look and this again. Law enforcement is for
enforcing laws. Now what are laws for? One the whole, they're for protecting
the people. On the whole, the people in this case don't seem to like the
laws much (hence protest, peaceful or otherwise). Now the people we're
talking about are in three groups. Peaceful protesters, not-so-peaceful
protesters, and folks whose storefronts got busted in. What has tended to
happen at WTO protests is that most folks are peaceful marchers (union
members and such) who will, all too often, end up getting gassed, batonned,
sot with rubber bullets, etc, on the basis of a few folks throbing rocks. I
think we're agreeing here that the rock throwers have gotta go. So, however,
does the tear gas, and about 90% of the batonning.
It's always struck me as strange that riot police are expected to quell
angry (or not so angry) mobs. When directed at a croud, they tend to
produce mass histeria, and well they should. Violent behavior (ie, both the
police AND the vandals) will tend to beget violence. The willful use of riot
police in this case, is enormously effective, but in pretty undesireable
ways. It disperses both peaceful and non-peaceful protesters, while making
them appear rampantly violent when they turn up later on the news, thereby
discrediting their cause.
>
> >
> > The problem with 'tougher' law enforcement is that it isn't tough in any
> > specific way or to any specific end. Clubbing and gassing protesters,
> given
> > enough gas and enough clubs, would put a stop to a whole lot,
>
> You speak of stopping the whole lot. I speak of "limit(ing) the baseless
> destruction." Do you see a difference?
>
Certainly. My mistake. Frankly though, you didn't allow for a category of
peaceful protests in your original comments. Instead you resorted to vague
generalizations about the intentions of "most of the protesters", while
refusing to ascribe to them any political will at all. Frankly, my comments
about the Third Reich, etc, don't seem too far from the mark here. In order
to recognise protesters as legitimate, one has to recognise them as having a
political will. Rather than showing that they don't, you assume they don't
and then condemn them for acting baselessly. Such is the political status
quo in a totalitarian state: those in power refuse to recognise those in the
streets as having a valid political position, then repress them for acting
out.
> > but it doesn't
> > differenciate between those who protest for a reason and a few folks who
> > probably are just in it to baselessly smash stuff.
>
> Again, it's not illegal to protest. It's illegal to smash other people's
> stuff. So law enforcement would come into play when -- another
drumroll --
> laws are broken. Not peaceful protesting.
>
The problem here, again, is that when one protests again laws, they tend to
get broken. Now in this case, some of the wrong laws got broken. I think we
agree on this. However, civil disobedience has a pretty long (not to mention
relatively successful) track record. It is not always peaceful, and the
not-so-peaceful component can end up on both sides of the law. The dogs,
fire hoses, etc at the Birmingham civil rights protests weren't too
peaceful, were they? Democracy is not reducible to a vote once every four
years and the right to an opinion. It is based on the will of the people to
reject
>
> > If you were in power and
> > you didn't agree with the folks rioting in the streets (or, worse yet,
> > marching peacefully and legally), wouldn't you rather not ask any
> questions?
>
> I don't care about their purpose as long as they don't take away my
liberty.
> Protest away, just don't destroy the property of others.
>
This is an interesting little hallmark of civil libertarian thought. (Not
sure it applies to you, but in any case...) "Liberty" all-too-easily reduces
to property rights. Property rights have a long history of violating civil
rights (slavery, for example). Most folks engaging in political action are,
I think, likely to recognise rights that curtail property rights--the right
to life, freedom of speech, etc. I know that *you* don't care about what's
being protested. That's fine. What I'm concerned about is that the folks in
power, who can reinforce or violate one's rights pretty easily, won't
recognise what's being protested against precisely because they don't want
to. People have gotta be heard, and the folks at WTO protests, despite one
helluva lot of noise, don't seem to get any of the right attention, at least
not from those that count. As for protests, I don't think I did claim you we
re against them, I suggested that the governments involved were. (The 'you'
above was one of those hypothetical-type 'you's. No confusion, I hope.)
> Please let me know if I ever express an opinion that mentions preventing
> peaceful protests. Because if I believe that, I would like to know. Then
I
> could quit going to these things that you claim I am against.
>
I didn't say you were against peaceful protest. In fact, I don't think my
post ascribed any views directly to you at all. Rather, it implied the views
of authoritarian leaders. My concern, rightly or wrongly, is that you're
post seemed to leave a little too much room for just that sort of thinking.
I don't think I have put words in your mouth. Please don't put them in mine.
Nark
>
> Now now, lets calm down and look and this again. Law enforcement is for
> enforcing laws. Now what are laws for? One the whole, they're for
protecting
> the people. On the whole, the people in this case don't seem to like the
> laws much (hence protest, peaceful or otherwise).
Protests should be to let fellow citizens and political leaders know about
the concerns of the protesters. Law Enforcement is simply tasked with
enforcing laws. Legislation can be affected by educating fellow consituents
and voting. Writing letters to representatives is another option. You see,
in a democracy, the people will ultimately decide which laws are written or
eliminated, indirectly.
> Now the people we're
> talking about are in three groups. Peaceful protesters, not-so-peaceful
> protesters, and folks whose storefronts got busted in. What has tended to
> happen at WTO protests is that most folks are peaceful marchers (union
> members and such) who will, all too often, end up getting gassed,
batonned,
> sot with rubber bullets, etc, on the basis of a few folks throbing rocks.
I
> think we're agreeing here that the rock throwers have gotta go. So,
however,
> does the tear gas, and about 90% of the batonning.
One depends upon the other. Eliminate violence on the part of the
protestors, and the law enforcement personnel will behave accordingly. In
this country they are already over-scrutinized. We practically have to
force them to do their jobs anymore.
>
> It's always struck me as strange that riot police are expected to quell
> angry (or not so angry) mobs.
As opposed to letting the mobs rule?
> When directed at a croud, they tend to
> produce mass histeria, and well they should. Violent behavior (ie, both
the
> police AND the vandals) will tend to beget violence. The willful use of
riot
> police in this case, is enormously effective, but in pretty undesireable
> ways. It disperses both peaceful and non-peaceful protesters, while making
> them appear rampantly violent when they turn up later on the news, thereby
> discrediting their cause.
The bad apples discredit the cause. Peace is a must for rational
discussion.
> > >
> > > The problem with 'tougher' law enforcement is that it isn't tough in
any
> > > specific way or to any specific end. Clubbing and gassing protesters,
> > given
> > > enough gas and enough clubs, would put a stop to a whole lot,
> >
> > You speak of stopping the whole lot. I speak of "limit(ing) the
baseless
> > destruction." Do you see a difference?
> >
>
> Certainly. My mistake. Frankly though, you didn't allow for a category of
> peaceful protests in your original comments. Instead you resorted to vague
> generalizations about the intentions of "most of the protesters", while
> refusing to ascribe to them any political will at all. Frankly, my
comments
> about the Third Reich, etc, don't seem too far from the mark here. In
order
> to recognise protesters as legitimate, one has to recognise them as having
a
> political will. Rather than showing that they don't, you assume they don't
> and then condemn them for acting baselessly.
True enough. But, the destruction is baseless, isn't it?
> Such is the political status
> quo in a totalitarian state: those in power refuse to recognise those in
the
> streets as having a valid political position, then repress them for acting
> out.
Again, prosecuting the destruction of property has nothing to do with
repression of anything except baseless violence.
>
>
> > > but it doesn't
> > > differenciate between those who protest for a reason and a few folks
who
> > > probably are just in it to baselessly smash stuff.
> >
> > Again, it's not illegal to protest. It's illegal to smash other
people's
> > stuff. So law enforcement would come into play when -- another
> drumroll --
> > laws are broken. Not peaceful protesting.
> >
>
> The problem here, again, is that when one protests again laws, they tend
to
> get broken.
Vote for people that support your position. Contribute to PACs. Lobby your
representatives. But don't break laws to protest other policies.
> Now in this case, some of the wrong laws got broken.
Most of my point.
> I think we
> agree on this. However, civil disobedience has a pretty long (not to
mention
> relatively successful) track record. It is not always peaceful, and the
> not-so-peaceful component can end up on both sides of the law. The dogs,
> fire hoses, etc at the Birmingham civil rights protests weren't too
> peaceful, were they? Democracy is not reducible to a vote once every four
> years and the right to an opinion. It is based on the will of the people
to
> reject
The protests did not accompish what the voting did. The will of the people
had to change, and it did.
>
> >
> > > If you were in power and
> > > you didn't agree with the folks rioting in the streets (or, worse yet,
> > > marching peacefully and legally), wouldn't you rather not ask any
> > questions?
> >
> > I don't care about their purpose as long as they don't take away my
> liberty.
> > Protest away, just don't destroy the property of others.
> >
>
> This is an interesting little hallmark of civil libertarian thought. (Not
> sure it applies to you, but in any case...)
Indeed it does.
James Whitehead
<joem...@accesswave.ca> writes
>
>Now now, lets calm down and look and this again. Law enforcement is for
>enforcing laws. Now what are laws for? One the whole, they're for protecting
>the people.
Not in the UK - they are for protecting property. This may involve
people but they were essentially roman property laws, maybe the USA is
different in its constitution which was written under the influence of
the enlightenment - however the "people" were originally white slave
owning males who the laws were made to protect.
>On the whole, the people in this case don't seem to like the
>laws much (hence protest, peaceful or otherwise). Now the people we're
>talking about are in three groups. Peaceful protesters, not-so-peaceful
>protesters, and folks whose storefronts got busted in. What has tended to
>happen at WTO protests is that most folks are peaceful marchers (union
>members and such) who will, all too often, end up getting gassed, batonned,
>sot with rubber bullets, etc, on the basis of a few folks throbing rocks. I
>think we're agreeing here that the rock throwers have gotta go. So, however,
>does the tear gas, and about 90% of the batonning.
Rock throwing is how those who made the laws got there in the first
place, rock throwing is a definitive human trait - haven't you seen
2001.
>
>It's always struck me as strange that riot police are expected to quell
>angry (or not so angry) mobs. When directed at a croud, they tend to
>produce mass histeria, and well they should. Violent behavior (ie, both the
>police AND the vandals) will tend to beget violence. The willful use of riot
>police in this case, is enormously effective, but in pretty undesireable
>ways. It disperses both peaceful and non-peaceful protesters, while making
>them appear rampantly violent when they turn up later on the news, thereby
>discrediting their cause.
Looking carefully the rioters - protesters.. are mostly young males -
who are not i suspect interested in justice or the overthrow of capital/
communism / Israeli occupation/ American imperialism ... Politics is
the art of manipulating such a mob of which Hitler was an exemplar. The
english solution of using soccer as a pretext for the mod was good in
that it removed the potential of such politicians to manipulate the mob,
and allowed the sportswear and lager manufactures to take their place.
--
James Whitehead
David Graeber
<briqu...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> "Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
> news:3BF8439E...@columbia-center.org...
> > Nark wrote:
> >
> > > > And in the United States, laws to this effect
> > > > have been moved through the legislatures.
> > >
> > > We have protests here in the US. Guess what, the people aren't treated
> like
> > > they destroyed the WTC. They are treated with respect and restraint.
> >
> > Which is communicated through beatings, tear gas, pepper
> > spray, jail time, and misrepresentation as rioters and
> > terrorists in the mass media.
>
> Thats what he said, they are treated with respect and restraint !
After all, they rarely actually shoot them. Well,
until recently...
DG
David Graeber
<bar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes, and I've been in lots of actions where clueless
idiots walked up to me with a video camera and asked
questions which made it clear they had no idea whatever
why people were there, and decided to blow them off because
it would take fifteen minutes of patient exposition to even
begin to get them to understand what was going on and then
they'd probably ignore it. Hate to burst your bubble, kid,
but I strongly suspect that's what happened to you.
The several hundred people who actually engaged in
property destruction in Seattle had in fact done months of
research towards identifying specific targets which they
felt combined a history of both economic and ecological
destructiveness. Whatever else you might say about it
it was hardly random violence. The fact that you didn't
pick up on this seems more a sign of your own limits
as an observer or interviewer, I might suggest.
Speaking as an anthropologist (currently a prof at
Yale - wouldn't normally make a thing out of this but as
long as we're dealing with arrogant folk who fancy themselves
intellectually superior...) who's been at pretty much
everything since Seattle - A16, R2K, J20, Quebec City,
Genoa... - I can say that the activists I've come to know
tend to have an extraordinarily sophisticated analysis
of what's going on. It's just so radical, and therefore
has a center of gravity so different from either the
"policy" discourse of the NGOs or WTOs of the world, or
the traditional Marxist-style analysis of earlier
revolutionary groups, that to understand it you would
actually have to _think_ a little. Maybe that's just not
your forte. Or more likely you just didn't care to.
DG
David Graeber
<bar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Now the people we're
> > talking about are in three groups. Peaceful protesters, not-so-peaceful
> > protesters, and folks whose storefronts got busted in. What has tended to
> > happen at WTO protests is that most folks are peaceful marchers (union
> > members and such) who will, all too often, end up getting gassed,
> batonned,
> > sot with rubber bullets, etc, on the basis of a few folks throbing rocks.
> I
> > think we're agreeing here that the rock throwers have gotta go. So,
> however,
> > does the tear gas, and about 90% of the batonning.
>
> One depends upon the other. Eliminate violence on the part of the
> protestors, and the law enforcement personnel will behave accordingly. In
> this country they are already over-scrutinized. We practically have to
> force them to do their jobs anymore.
The police in Seattle began systematically attacking
protestors engaged in Gandhian tactics of non-violent
civil disobedience well before anyone smashed any storefronts.
At A16, no one even smashed anything; the whole thing
was non-violent; but it didn't stop the cops from beating the
shit out of scores of people, doing random sweep arrests of people
marching in the street and cuffing them in torture positions, and
etc etc etc. At neither action did anyone actually attack the
police themselves, even after the cops started assaulting them.
I could go on forever with examples. What you say is simply flagrantly
untrue. It is the usual kind of lie which is used to justify
extreme violence against people whose opinions one disagrees
with.
DG
James A. Donald
> being
> post-modern is like being victorian - its not a matter of choice.
"post-modern" is not an period like "victorian", it is an
intepretation of a period -- an interpretation that never had anything
going for it except being fashionable, and has now ceased to be
fashionable.
> Belief in a "good" in universal terms in
> which the political contests took place. Post-modernity - marks the end
> of this epoch.
Evidently you have not heard that the age of irony is over.
Your "argument" is not an argument, but merely an appeal to fashion --
and I am now ahead of you in the fashion race.
Clark
___ James Whitehead ___
| . . , being post-modern is like being victorian - its
| not a matter of choice.
|
___ James A. Donald ___
| "post-modern" is not an period like "victorian", it is
| an intepretation of a period -- an interpretation that
| never had anything going for it except being
| fashionable, and has now ceased to be fashionable.
___
Well I thought the term "Victorian" did mean an interpretation of a period -
the Victorian period of Britain.
My own opinion is that being post-modern is like being existential - it is
so vague and general that unless put in some other context it doesn't mean
much at all.
Nark
> >
> > > Now the people we're
> > > talking about are in three groups. Peaceful protesters,
not-so-peaceful
> > > protesters, and folks whose storefronts got busted in. What has tended
to
> > > happen at WTO protests is that most folks are peaceful marchers (union
> > > members and such) who will, all too often, end up getting gassed,
> > batonned,
> > > sot with rubber bullets, etc, on the basis of a few folks throbing
rocks.
> > I
> > > think we're agreeing here that the rock throwers have gotta go. So,
> > however,
> > > does the tear gas, and about 90% of the batonning.
> >
> > One depends upon the other. Eliminate violence on the part of the
> > protestors, and the law enforcement personnel will behave accordingly.
In
> > this country they are already over-scrutinized. We practically have to
> > force them to do their jobs anymore.
>
> The police in Seattle began systematically attacking
> protestors engaged in Gandhian tactics of non-violent
> civil disobedience well before anyone smashed any storefronts.
Were you there? I was and your statement is untrue.
> At A16, no one even smashed anything; the whole thing
> was non-violent; but it didn't stop the cops from beating the
> shit out of scores of people, doing random sweep arrests of people
> marching in the street and cuffing them in torture positions, and
> etc etc etc. At neither action did anyone actually attack the
> police themselves, even after the cops started assaulting them.
Sure, there were abuses. But here in America, cops who screw up are
prosecuted.
http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/local/cop21.shtml
> I could go on forever with examples. What you say is simply flagrantly
> untrue. It is the usual kind of lie which is used to justify
> extreme violence against people whose opinions one disagrees
> with.
How do you define 'extreme violence'. This was no Tienamen Square. Not
even close. And it won't be as long as it's a capitalist democracy.
I'm not lying, I was there. I've been to a lot of protests where there were
no anarchists, and there was no violence. Don't ignore cause and effect.
Nark
You don't know me and you don't know my purpose. You assume, based on
limited information and a defensive frame of reference, that I fit some
profile of ignorance, while everyone who protests fit your ideal profile as
the disciples of the intellectual elite. I understand the WTO issues and I
don't totally disagree with the problems people have, but I'm objective.
But you don't understand that some protesters just go along for the ride.
The protesters are no more politically astute than the average American
citizen, contrary to your belief.
> The several hundred people who actually engaged in
> property destruction in Seattle had in fact done months of
> research towards identifying specific targets which they
> felt combined a history of both economic and ecological
> destructiveness. Whatever else you might say about it
> it was hardly random violence.
So why were retail businesses attacked simply because they were
geographically near the designated protest site? You are either ignorant or
naive. And you're definately a human optimist in terms of what you think
people understand. At least, YOUR people.
I'll bet that any protest that conflicted with your ideology would have you
wildly ranting about how uneducated the protesters were. I will be there to
point out the truth, regardless of the issue.
> The fact that you didn't
> pick up on this seems more a sign of your own limits
> as an observer or interviewer, I might suggest.
> Speaking as an anthropologist (currently a prof at
> Yale - wouldn't normally make a thing out of this but as
> long as we're dealing with arrogant folk who fancy themselves
> intellectually superior...) who's been at pretty much
> everything since Seattle - A16, R2K, J20, Quebec City,
> Genoa...
Okay, now I understand. You are part of the arrogant intellectual elite
whose self-righteous value-based policies are causing havoc on the poor in
this country.
For your information, I might have a Masters in Anthropology from New Mexico
State University. I may have worked in Greece, Spain, France, and Costa
Rica. Do you know me? Maybe I was working in Seattle. Maybe I was trying
to study, objectively, exactly what the protesters were personally trying to
accomplish. Maybe I had high hopes that were shattered when I was faced
with the reality that -- again -- most of the protesters didn't have a clue
why there was a protest.
Again, your baseless assumptions are shown to be invalid, and your position
is weakened even further. I only respond to your credentials, which I don't
respect, because I want to show you how ignorant you are. Your position
depends upon me being what you would consider a simpleton. Your disdain for
the uneducated and disrespect for the working class are transparent. You
are no better than me or anyone else on this planet.
Your ilk in the Ivy League make a profession out of pontificating how to
'improve' mankind -- all while being sheltered from the real world. Well, I
don't want your 'help', and I don't respect your position, only because it
is based on nothing except your viewpoint of me, which just happens to be
completely wrong. At least TRY to provide an argument for your ideology or
don't waste time responding to people like me, who are ready to have their
ideologies scrutinized for the sake of truth.
> - I can say that the activists I've come to know
> tend to have an extraordinarily sophisticated analysis
> of what's going on. It's just so radical, and therefore
> has a center of gravity so different from either the
> "policy" discourse of the NGOs or WTOs of the world, or
> the traditional Marxist-style analysis of earlier
> revolutionary groups, that to understand it you would
> actually have to _think_ a little.
Maybe you don't consider it possible for anyone outside of the Ivy League to
'think_ a little'. But that is your loss, because regular people know how
to think just fine. My working-class parents are the people that make this
world go round, while your kind are completely useless blobs of flesh that
simply waste resources.
In fact, I'll bet your base of knowledge is probably limited in scope to the
extreme. And on top of everything, your 'Marxist-style' ideals have been
proven to fail since they were concieved. While your motives may be pure,
your abiltiy to learn from history as well as your arrogance disgust me.
> Maybe that's just not
> your forte.
I think my forte is thinking, in fact. The difference is that because I
understand higher mathematics, physics, chemistry, some history and computer
science, I don't think I'm better than anyone else. You see, I regonize
that I don't understand gardening, plumbing, carpentry, or many other things
where you "actually have to _think_ a little." And the fact that you
probably don't even understand a basic concept like what mass is, in a true
sense -- much less, General Relativity -- I don't think that relates to your
intelligence or your ability to "think". Rather, I understand that higher
education is only relevant in a specialized way, and regular people have an
understanding of countless things which aren't taught in school. In your
higher learning endeavor, you certainly sacrifice many other valuable
things; including -- most likely -- common sense.
But if you'd like to settle this on the chess board, log on to the Internet
Chess Club and challenge me, (TeK). This will no doubt prove your true
intelligence, right?
> Or more likely you just didn't care to.
Most likely you're a pompous ass.
Nark out.
G*rd*n
| ...
| Your "argument" is not an argument, but merely an appeal to fashion --
| and I am now ahead of you in the fashion race.
James is very concerned with being with-it these days.
You're just too post-post, James. Do try to relax
a little. You'll get there.
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > "post-modern" is not an period like "victorian", it is
> > never had anything going for it except being
> > fashionable, and has now ceased to be fashionable.
Clark
> Well I thought the term "Victorian" did mean an
> interpretation of a period - the Victorian period of
> Britain.
A chair is literally victorian if it was built and used
during the reign of queen Victoria. Other uses of the word
"Victorian" are a metaphor, or comparison.
What makes a chair "post modern"?
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
ht9HCJbD3LEVXq4pKoQci4UwUeadgQ6yD1RybLuN
4uTfVOPR5xbku0RznPFSvkcTsYn1L0kGAk0QAmMl7
Clark
| Well I thought the term "Victorian" did mean an
| interpretation of a period - the Victorian period of
| Britain.
|
| A chair is literally victorian if it was built and used
| during the reign of queen Victoria. Other uses of the
| word "Victorian" are a metaphor, or comparison.
I believe though that there were general styles from that period and from
that generality people talk about Victorian furniture as referring to a
certain resemblance to that style.
However I was more thinking of the frequent use to refer to social norms and
values. Those norms form a general interpretation based upon the historical
period. So when, for example, feminists talk of Victorian ideas or so
forth, they are referring to the interpretation of the era to form
generalities.
However if we want to get picky we could ask, what the boundaries of
Victorian period. For instance you say Britain, but what is Britain. For
instance were all chairs made in Canada Victorian? (It was part of the
empire) How about Scotland? Did chairs made in the same pattern cease to
be Victorian if they were finished the day after she died? There is a
necessary fuzziness in the definition which requires some intervention.
That intervention requires interpretation.
James Whitehead
Donald <jam...@echeque.com> writes
>James Whitehead:
>> being
>> post-modern is like being victorian - its not a matter of choice.
>
>"post-modern" is not an period like "victorian", it is an
>intepretation of a period -- an interpretation that never had anything
>going for it except being fashionable, and has now ceased to be
>fashionable.
Only in some circles - universities - and literature departments- was it
fashionable - and it was more the proto-po-mo theorists and not the
actual event. Americans have a thing about the french... there was even
a musical about this.
>
>> Belief in a "good" in universal terms in
>> which the political contests took place. Post-modernity - marks the end
>> of this epoch.
>
>Evidently you have not heard that the age of irony is over.
Evidently you've not been looking at the news.
>
>Your "argument" is not an argument,
sure - its opinion - an argument would be both longer and part of the
modernist programme.
> but merely an appeal to fashion --
which is the only appeal in post modernity that cuts ice.
>and I am now ahead of you in the fashion race.
no - the fashion race is run on a circular track... just try wearing a
kipper tie long enough and you'll see i'm right.
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<jam...@echeque.com> writes
>A chair is literally victorian if it was built and used
>during the reign of queen Victoria.
>What makes a chair "post modern"?
In modernist terms a chair built and used during the period called
post-modern - which in art/furniture design equates with the period
following the high modernism of Bauhaus and the like. It would be
typified by the re-introduction of decoration and perhaps amusing
features - for instance a references to Star Trek or use of kitsch 50s
detail - it could even employ victorian references - or for that matter
references back to the Bauhaus - in light hearted vein.
www.design-council.org.uk
www.tecta.de
--
James Whitehead
Dan Clore
Or at least use nice, soft rubber bullets.
G*rd*n
| > > protestors engaged in Gandhian tactics of non-violent
| > > civil disobedience well before anyone smashed any storefronts.
"Nark" <bar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| > Were you there? I was and your statement is untrue.
Margaret <marg...@example.com>:
| Really? And is Paul Hawken's untrue, too?
| http://www.thomhartmann.com/hawken.html
|
| Hawken is a capitalist. A millionaire entrepreneur
| (Erewhon Foods, Smith & Hawken), author, and
| philosopher of economics. Are those credentials good
| enough for you, Nark? Probably not -- he's saying
| something your religion forbids you from hearing.
The truth is malleable, however, when you own the media.
If you pay attention you can watch it being reshaped.
Nark
Joseph MacKay
>
>
> > >
> > > > Now the people we're
> > > > talking about are in three groups. Peaceful protesters,
> not-so-peaceful
> > > > protesters, and folks whose storefronts got busted in. What has
tended
> to
> > > > happen at WTO protests is that most folks are peaceful marchers
(union
> > > > members and such) who will, all too often, end up getting gassed,
> > > batonned,
> > > > sot with rubber bullets, etc, on the basis of a few folks throbing
> rocks.
> > > I
> > > > think we're agreeing here that the rock throwers have gotta go. So,
> > > however,
> > > > does the tear gas, and about 90% of the batonning.
> > >
> > > One depends upon the other. Eliminate violence on the part of the
> > > protestors, and the law enforcement personnel will behave accordingly.
> In
> > > this country they are already over-scrutinized. We practically have
to
> > > force them to do their jobs anymore.
> >
Which should be the case. Guys on the government payroll walking around with
guns *should* be scrutinized. Their job is important, and they should be
required (and allowed) to do it properly and thoughtfully.
> > The police in Seattle began systematically attacking
> > protestors engaged in Gandhian tactics of non-violent
> > civil disobedience well before anyone smashed any storefronts.
>
> Were you there? I was and your statement is untrue.
>
> > At A16, no one even smashed anything; the whole thing
> > was non-violent; but it didn't stop the cops from beating the
> > shit out of scores of people, doing random sweep arrests of people
> > marching in the street and cuffing them in torture positions, and
> > etc etc etc. At neither action did anyone actually attack the
> > police themselves, even after the cops started assaulting them.
>
> Sure, there were abuses. But here in America, cops who screw up are
> prosecuted.
> http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/local/cop21.shtml
>
Tell that to the family of Amadou Diallo. As for the above link, a two day
suspension is a pretty pitiful punishment for a violent abuse of authority.
>
>
> > I could go on forever with examples. What you say is simply flagrantly
> > untrue. It is the usual kind of lie which is used to justify
> > extreme violence against people whose opinions one disagrees
> > with.
>
> How do you define 'extreme violence'. This was no Tienamen Square. Not
> even close. And it won't be as long as it's a capitalist democracy.
>
> I'm not lying, I was there. I've been to a lot of protests where there
were
> no anarchists, and there was no violence. Don't ignore cause and effect.
>
Correlation is not causation. Certainly not anecdotal corrolation based on
the observation of one highly opinionated observer.
G*rd*n
"Nark" <bar...@yahoo.com>:
| You don't know me and you don't know my purpose. You assume, based on
| limited information and a defensive frame of reference, that I fit some
| profile of ignorance, while everyone who protests fit your ideal profile as
| the disciples of the intellectual elite. I understand the WTO issues and I
| don't totally disagree with the problems people have, but I'm objective.
| But you don't understand that some protesters just go along for the ride.
| ...
Heh.
Brique Noir
"James Whitehead" <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:YIyR0WAb...@jliat.demon.co.uk...
He probably does, and he probably wouldn't.
> --
> James Whitehead
David Graeber
<cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> David Graeber wrote:
> > In article <100612749...@eos.uk.clara.net>, "Brique Noir"
> > <briqu...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> > > "Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
> > > news:3BF8439E...@columbia-center.org...
> > > > Nark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > And in the United States, laws to this effect
> > > > > > have been moved through the legislatures.
> > > > >
> > > > > We have protests here in the US. Guess what, the people aren't
treated
> > > like
> > > > > they destroyed the WTC. They are treated with respect and restraint.
> > > >
> > > > Which is communicated through beatings, tear gas, pepper
> > > > spray, jail time, and misrepresentation as rioters and
> > > > terrorists in the mass media.
> > >
> > > Thats what he said, they are treated with respect and restraint !
> >
> > After all, they rarely actually shoot them. Well,
> > until recently...
>
> Or at least use nice, soft rubber bullets.
Those rubber bullets are hard as hell! And big too:
the ones they used in QC were like four inches long.
I got grazed by one and it felt like someone was
breaking a bottle over my head - well, they'd pepper-
bombed us first, which goes right through your gas
mask, and then when you pick up your head to breathe
they open fire. Videos showed the laser sights were
trained precisely on people's heads and groins to
inflict maximum pain. Good thing codeine is available
over the counter in Canada!
I still have the one that hit me - carry it as
a good luck charm. It's bright green for some reason
and extremely solid plastic.
DG
Nark
> Heh.
>
Hmmm.
Nark
> > > > One depends upon the other. Eliminate violence on the part of the
> > > > protestors, and the law enforcement personnel will behave
accordingly.
> > In
> > > > this country they are already over-scrutinized. We practically have
> to
> > > > force them to do their jobs anymore.
> > >
>
> Which should be the case. Guys on the government payroll walking around
with
> guns *should* be scrutinized. Their job is important, and they should be
> required (and allowed) to do it properly and thoughtfully.
Umm... Okay? Anyway, I said "over-scrutinized". Look at the results of
your 'scrutiny' and my 'over-scrutiny'. In Cincinnati, among other cities,
the PD won't even enforce crime unless they are specifically dispatched to
do so. It's a real problem, which is a real result of -- drumroll --
'over-scrutiny'.
> > Sure, there were abuses. But here in America, cops who screw up are
> > prosecuted.
> > http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/local/cop21.shtml
> >
>
> Tell that to the family of Amadou Diallo. As for the above link, a two day
> suspension is a pretty pitiful punishment for a violent abuse of
authority.
>
Are you suggesting we don't have law enforcement officers, or are you
suggesting that everyone should just be perfect? Oh yeah, then we wouldn't
need law enforcement officers.
> >
> >
> > > I could go on forever with examples. What you say is simply flagrantly
> > > untrue. It is the usual kind of lie which is used to justify
> > > extreme violence against people whose opinions one disagrees
> > > with.
> >
> > How do you define 'extreme violence'. This was no Tienamen Square. Not
> > even close. And it won't be as long as it's a capitalist democracy.
> >
> > I'm not lying, I was there. I've been to a lot of protests where there
> were
> > no anarchists, and there was no violence. Don't ignore cause and
effect.
> >
>
> Correlation is not causation. Certainly not anecdotal corrolation based on
> the observation of one highly opinionated observer.
>
Research it and you will find peaceful protestors, like my wife, who put up
web sites entirely devoted to squashing the anarchists so real issues can be
discussed. Respectfully, you are in denial my friend.
Clark
| In Cincinnati, among other cities, the PD won't even enforce crime
| unless they are specifically dispatched to do so. It's a real
| problem, which is a real result of -- drumroll -- 'over-scrutiny'.
Personally I like it best when the police enforce law, not crime. I don't
know about out in Cincinnait, but here we call police enforcement of crime
corruption. But you're right, with lots of public scrutiny there is far
less corruption. . . <grin>
(OK, I know what you meant - but it was an opening too good to pass up)
David Graeber
<bar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Now the people we're
> > > > talking about are in three groups. Peaceful protesters,
> not-so-peaceful
> > > > protesters, and folks whose storefronts got busted in. What has tended
> to
> > > > happen at WTO protests is that most folks are peaceful marchers (union
> > > > members and such) who will, all too often, end up getting gassed,
> > > batonned,
> > > > sot with rubber bullets, etc, on the basis of a few folks throbing
> rocks.
> > > I
> > > > think we're agreeing here that the rock throwers have gotta go. So,
> > > however,
> > > > does the tear gas, and about 90% of the batonning.
> > >
> > > One depends upon the other. Eliminate violence on the part of the
> > > protestors, and the law enforcement personnel will behave accordingly.
> In
> > > this country they are already over-scrutinized. We practically have to
> > > force them to do their jobs anymore.
> >
> > The police in Seattle began systematically attacking
> > protestors engaged in Gandhian tactics of non-violent
> > civil disobedience well before anyone smashed any storefronts.
>
> Were you there? I was and your statement is untrue.
Actually I wasn't but I have hundreds of friends who
were. The fact that the cops started attacking people
before the Black Bloc smashed windows was documented by
every newspaper which gave detailed reporting of that day
and is accepted as historical fact by just about everyone
who is seriously interested in historical fact. Even the
police admit to it, actually - they acknowledge they began
to use "pain technology", tear gas, rubber bullets and the
like hours before the property destruction and all reports
also indicate that they didn't use it against the people
who were actually engaging in property destruction in almost
every case but rather against people engaged in passive
blockading and lockdowns. You seem to be alone on this one -
well, except for loony right-wing commentators who also
claim we were throwing molotov cocktails and whatnot.
>
> > At A16, no one even smashed anything; the whole thing
> > was non-violent; but it didn't stop the cops from beating the
> > shit out of scores of people, doing random sweep arrests of people
> > marching in the street and cuffing them in torture positions, and
> > etc etc etc. At neither action did anyone actually attack the
> > police themselves, even after the cops started assaulting them.
>
> Sure, there were abuses. But here in America, cops who screw up are
> prosecuted.
> http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/local/cop21.shtml
>
No one was prosecuted for the violence in DC. No one
was prosecuted for the destruction, violence, and
torture in Philadelphia. Not one in a thousand cases of
police violence against peaceful protestors leads to
charges and of those, almost none ever lead to
convictions. This is what I love about the internet -
all these people willing to speak with utmost authority
about things they clearly know nothing about.
>
>
> > I could go on forever with examples. What you say is simply flagrantly
> > untrue. It is the usual kind of lie which is used to justify
> > extreme violence against people whose opinions one disagrees
> > with.
>
> How do you define 'extreme violence'. This was no Tienamen Square. Not
> even close. And it won't be as long as it's a capitalist democracy.
>
> I'm not lying, I was there. I've been to a lot of protests where there were
> no anarchists, and there was no violence. Don't ignore cause and effect.
I've seen lots of protests where there were lots of
anarchists and there was no violence too. I've seen
protests were there were lots of anarchists and no
violence except on the part of the police. I am sure this
is quite the way it would work in Communist China as well:
they tend to single out people they dislike ideologically
for special treatment as well. If you feel that
as long as the police don't actually kill anyone, but only
break their heads open with sticks, shoot out their tracheas
with plastic bullets or tear off their fingers as in Quebec
City, poison them with chemical weapons, chain their legs
backwards to their wrists and tighten the bonds until their
hands turn purple (for the crime of marching down the
street, in many cases), break their fingers, rub pepper
spray directly in their eyes while they are in lockdown
and various other activities which if performed in any other country
would surely be condemned in the US as torture, intentionally
starve them in freezing cells, etc etc... Yes, I call that
extreme violence. When you walk up to someone who is simply
blockading a street, holding hands with other protestors,
or who is locked down and can't even use their hands, and
start breaking their bones with sticks, I call that extreme
violence. Maybe you don't think it's violence if people merely
break arms, destroy eyeballs and the like but do not actually
murder them, but I would say that's a pretty weird standard to
apply - especially when the violence is applied to people whose
actual "crimes" are not even misdemeanors but infractions on about
the same legal level as parking violations.
DG
James A. Donald
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 14:47:55 -0400, "Joseph MacKay"
<joem...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
> It's always struck me as strange that riot police are
> expected to quell angry (or not so angry) mobs. When
> directed at a croud, they tend to produce mass histeria,
> and well they should. Violent behavior (ie, both the police
> AND the vandals) will tend to beget violence. The willful
> use of riot police in this case, is enormously effective,
> but in pretty undesireable ways. It disperses both peaceful
> and non-peaceful protesters, while making them appear
> rampantly violent when they turn up later on the news,
> thereby discrediting their cause.
The program is as follows. A large group proceeds to march
someplace. A small cadre dispersed and hidden within the
group attacks some target that the police are obliged to
defend, in this case the property of some random unfortunate
shopkeeper. Police turn up, cadre melt back into crowd.
Police order crowd to disperse, or order it to stay clear of
potential targets.. it does not. Police thump people in
crowd. Most of those who get thumped are not members of the
cadre. Later, cadre has lots of recruits from among those
thumped.
The attacks on property, police, and bystanders are not
mindless vandalism, but rather a recruiting tactic, designed
to manipulate police into conduct that will create more
recruits for the organizations that destroyed the property.
Been there, done that, got the T shirt. I have been on the
inside and the outside. We knew full well what we were up
to.
The correct countertactic is for police to use better
targeted violence -- get fewer people, but do those few
people much more severely. They should only thump people they
are going to arrest, and should only arrest people they can
then subject to draconian penalties, penalties likely to
deter any future bad behavior. Since most of those arrested
are rich, they should inflict jail time and a lasting
criminal record, rather than fines.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
bFomrmsh4CqWOxEM3DQxMJ3dI8Kj+xxFoF3SjcNG
4s3+Dp26tkSmA5wg7xvcnaPfRRR8fchKeg85C7eVG
David Graeber
<bar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What a lot of nonsense. First of all I stated clearly
that I was simply stating what I "suspected" to be the
case - it is you have been constantly making flat-out
statements of fact about things you clearly do not know
very much about (which is, in turn, the basis of my
_suspicion_ that you were equally clueless in Seattle.)
Note how practically in the same breath as falsely
accusing me of making definitive statements about your
lack of understanding, you then go on to make a false definitive
statement about my lack of understanding ("you don't
understand..."). Actually, it is perfectly obvious that
at an event with 50,000 people different individuals will
have radically different levels of background information,
sophistication of analysis, awareness of different sorts
of issues... A lot of the students there were no doubt
drawn by a broad sense that institutions like the WTO
are inherently undemocratic, based in a rejection
of all public institutions dominated by business elites, and
not backed by any real knowledge of its workings. Though saying
this makes their protest less legitimate is a bit like saying
no one has the right to oppose Stalinism unless they have
read the works of Marx. Some people reject the entire
paradigm. What I found particularly ridiculous was the
suggestion that people were just there to have fun and
fuck shit up - the folk in Black Bloc were in most
cases full-time squat-dwelling dumpster-diving tree-sitting
anarchists who had been preparing for the event for some
time; the students and others who just showed up had
nothing to do with the property destruction and didn't
know it was going to take place, though a few spontaneously
joined in, and the overwhelming majority of the thousands
of people who did direct action were practicing pacifist
Gandhian tactics like blockades and lockdowns which
they knew perfectly well would make them the targets of
violence on the part of the police, and serious danger
of pain, injury, and jail time with all the perils that
leads to. Do you really mean to suggest they were doing
it just for fun?
>
>
> > The several hundred people who actually engaged in
> > property destruction in Seattle had in fact done months of
> > research towards identifying specific targets which they
> > felt combined a history of both economic and ecological
> > destructiveness. Whatever else you might say about it
> > it was hardly random violence.
>
> So why were retail businesses attacked simply because they were
> geographically near the designated protest site? You are either ignorant or
> naive. And you're definately a human optimist in terms of what you think
> people understand. At least, YOUR people.
>
> I'll bet that any protest that conflicted with your ideology would have you
> wildly ranting about how uneducated the protesters were. I will be there to
> point out the truth, regardless of the issue.
No, you will be there to make arrogant statements based
on personal impressions and biases. Here for example is a
statement by one of the main groups engaged in the property
destruction.
---------
insert
---------
--------------
N30 Black Bloc Communique
by ACME Collective 10:48am Sat Dec 4 '99
A communique from one section of the black bloc of N30 in Seattle
On November 30, several groups of individuals in black bloc attacked various
corporate targets in downtown Seattle. Among them were (to name just a few):
* Fidelity Investment (major investor in Occidental Petroleum, the bane
of the U'wa tribe in Columbia)
* Bank of America, US Bancorp, Key Bank and Washington Mutual Bank
(financial institutions key in the expansion of corporate repression)
* Old Navy, Banana Republic and the GAP (as Fisher family businesses,
rapers of Northwest forest lands and sweatshop laborers)
* NikeTown and Levi's (whose overpriced products are made in sweatshops)
* McDonald's (slave-wage fast-food peddlers responsible for destruction
of tropical rainforests for grazing land and slaughter of animals)
* Starbucks (peddlers of an addictive substance whose products are
harvested at below-poverty wages by farmers who are forced to destroy
their own forests in the process)
* Warner Bros. (media monopolists)
* Planet Hollywood (for being Planet Hollywood)
This activity lasted for over 5 hours and involved the breaking of
storefront windows and doors and defacing of facades. Slingshots, newspaper
boxes, sledge hammers, mallets, crowbars and nail-pullers were used to
strategically destroy corporate property and gain access (one of the three
targeted Starbucks and Niketown were looted). Eggs filled with glass etching
solution, paint-balls and spray-paint were also used.
The black bloc was a loosely organized cluster of affinity groups and
individuals who roamed around downtown, pulled this way by a vulnerable and
significant storefront and that way by the sight of a police formation.
Unlike the vast majority of activists who were pepper-sprayed, tear-gassed
and shot at with rubber bullets on several occasions, most of our section of
the black bloc escaped serious injury by remaining constantly in motion and
avoiding engagement with the police. We buddied up, kept tight and watched
each others' backs. Those attacked by federal thugs were un-arrested by
quick-thinking and organized members of the black bloc. The sense of
solidarity was awe-inspiring.
[snip]
ON THE VIOLENCE OF PROPERTY
We contend that property destruction is not a violent activity unless it
destroys lives or causes pain in the process. By this definition, private
property--especially corporate private property--is itself infinitely more
violent than any action taken against it.
Private property should be distinguished from personal property. The latter
is based upon use while the former is based upon trade. The premise of
personal property is that each of us has what s/he needs. The premise of
private property is that each of us has something that someone else needs or
wants. In a society based on private property rights, those who are able to
accrue more of what others need or want have greater power. By extension,
they wield greater control over what others perceive as needs and desires,
usually in the interest of increasing profit to themselves.
Advocates of "free trade" would like to see this process to its logical
conclusion: a network of a few industry monopolists with ultimate control
over the lives of the everyone else. Advocates of "fair trade" would like to
see this process mitigated by government regulations meant to superficially
impose basic humanitarian standards. As anarchists, we despise both
positions.
Private property--and capitalism, by extension--is intrinsicly violent and
repressive and cannot be reformed or mitigated. Whether the power of
everyone is concentrated into the hands of a few corporate heads or diverted
into a regulatory apparatus charged with mitigating the disasters of the
latter, no one can be as free or as powerful as they could be in a
non-hierarchical society.
When we smash a window, we aim to destroy the thin veneer of legitimacy that
surrounds private property rights. At the same time, we exorcize that set of
violent and destructive social relationships which has been imbued in almost
everything around us. By "destroying" private property, we convert its
limited exchange value into an expanded use value. A storefront window
becomes a vent to let some fresh air into the oppressive atmosphere of a
retail outlet (at least until the police decide to tear-gas a nearby road
blockade). A newspaper box becomes a tool for creating such vents or a small
blockade for the reclamation of public space or an object to improve one's
vantage point by standing on it. A dumpster becomes an obstruction to a
phalanx of rioting cops and a source of heat and light. A building facade
becomes a message board to record brainstorm ideas for a better world.
After N30, many people will never see a shop window or a hammer the same way
again. The potential uses of an entire cityscape have increased a
thousand-fold. The number of broken windows pales in comparison to the
number broken spells--spells cast by a corporate hegemony to lull us into
forgetfulness of all the violence committed in the name of private property
rights and of all the potential of a society without them. Broken windows
can be boarded up (with yet more waste of our forests) and eventually
replaced, but the shattering of assumptions will hopefully persist for some
time to come.
Against Capital and State,
the ACME Collective
"Peasant Revolt!"
-----
end insert
------
Well, whatever you think of the argument, it makes it
pretty clear who was targeted and why. It's also true some
kids from poor neighborhoods in Seattle later joined to do
some impromptu looting which was much less discriminate, but
this is something of another issue...
I made no assumptions about you whatever - it is you who
constantly declare your personal impressions to be "objective"
(whatever that means) facts. I simply stated my impressions
as impressions.
Actually, I don't assume you are a simpleton at all -
tho you write as someone who seems incredibly intellectually arrogant,
and who has a real hard time getting your head around perspectives
much different from your own. Everything you've written so far
seems to suggest this, anyway. Since you were as arrogant people are
wont to do treating me like I was an idiot, I felt obliged
to point out that according to any socially-accepted measure
I would be considered someone who is not an idiot. True, it is
always somewhat amusing to watch arrogant people caught with
their pants down - lecturing someone like a child when it turns
out the person they are lecturing has a hundred times the amount
of information they do.
Anyway, it seems to me that you are someone who went to one event
and talked to some people who didn't much impress you and has now formed
a grand conclusion about an entire movement; yet you seem to feel
this gives you the ability to dismiss the observations of a person
who has done to dozens of such events by now, and operated inside
the groups organizing them on a daily basis for years now.
You are familiar with the psychological term "projection"?
Probably so. You seem to be accusing me of the exact things
you've just been caught doing yourself.
>
> Your ilk in the Ivy League make a profession out of pontificating how to
> 'improve' mankind -- all while being sheltered from the real world. Well, I
> don't want your 'help', and I don't respect your position, only because it
> is based on nothing except your viewpoint of me, which just happens to be
> completely wrong. At least TRY to provide an argument for your ideology or
> don't waste time responding to people like me, who are ready to have their
> ideologies scrutinized for the sake of truth.
You have no idea what my ideology is. Nor did you offer
to engage me in ideological debate - so it seems a bit odd
to accuse me of not doing so. I suppose this is the net
equivalent of flailing about desperately. You got caught
with your pants down and now you're mad so you're trying to
figure out _some_ way to hit out? I guess it must be
something like that.
You also have no idea what my life experience is - all
you know about me, actually, is that at the moment I have a
job at Yale, and that I have been at a lot of actions. The
the rest is once again fantasy and bias presented as fact.
Which once again confirms my initial suspicion: that you
are a person who does not form opinions based on a sincere
attempt to understand others but rather on fantasy and bias
presented as fact.
>
>
> > - I can say that the activists I've come to know
> > tend to have an extraordinarily sophisticated analysis
> > of what's going on. It's just so radical, and therefore
> > has a center of gravity so different from either the
> > "policy" discourse of the NGOs or WTOs of the world, or
> > the traditional Marxist-style analysis of earlier
> > revolutionary groups, that to understand it you would
> > actually have to _think_ a little.
>
> Maybe you don't consider it possible for anyone outside of the Ivy League to
> 'think_ a little'. But that is your loss, because regular people know how
> to think just fine. My working-class parents are the people that make this
> world go round, while your kind are completely useless blobs of flesh that
> simply waste resources.
None of the activists I am referring to are in the Ivy League.
Very few of them are professional intellectuals.
I have recently written a document (actually reproduced by
Dan Clore on the anarchy newsgroup right now) which explicitly says
that the activists are way ahead of the intellectuals in a lot
of ways nowadays and the intellectuals had really better do
some catching up. I merely point this out to demonstrate just
how much you are - yet again - substituting your own
fantasies and biases for any sort of informed comment on what
you are actually dealing with. Yet again, my initial suspicions
that this is what you also did in Seattle are reinforced
by empirical evidence.
>
> In fact, I'll bet your base of knowledge is probably limited in scope to the
> extreme. And on top of everything, your 'Marxist-style' ideals have been
> proven to fail since they were concieved. While your motives may be pure,
> your abiltiy to learn from history as well as your arrogance disgust me.
>
Oh you just have to set yourself up for a fall every
time don't you! Now I have Marxist ideals! This is great!
Check out the same paragraphs where I say the intellectuals
have a lot to learn from the activists and you will find that
it contains a critique of Marxist-style thinking as well,
and suggests that the kind of anarchist organizational
principles employed by globalization activists might well
provide an effective way to move away from the whole style
of thought that comes with this failed Marxist sectarian
logic.
Pretty funny, overall. You have by now managed to create
an entire fantasy version of me which has next to nothing
to do with reality. I am apparently a product of the Ivy
League (in fact my alma mater was SUNY Purchase), who has
lead a sheltered existence (in fact my dad was a sailor,
then truck driver, then plate stripper and my mom a
seamstress; I've lived everywhere from the South Side of
Chicago to rural Madagascar...), who has Marxist ideals (in fact
I am an anarchist who is extremely critical of Marxist
approaches to political action) - all the time accusing
me of being the sort of person who makes assumptions about
others on no empirical basis!
>
> > Maybe that's just not
> > your forte.
>
> I think my forte is thinking, in fact. The difference is that because I
> understand higher mathematics, physics, chemistry, some history and computer
> science, I don't think I'm better than anyone else. You see, I regonize
> that I don't understand gardening, plumbing, carpentry, or many other things
> where you "actually have to _think_ a little." And the fact that you
> probably don't even understand a basic concept like what mass is, in a true
> sense -- much less, General Relativity -- I don't think that relates to your
> intelligence or your ability to "think". Rather, I understand that higher
> education is only relevant in a specialized way, and regular people have an
> understanding of countless things which aren't taught in school. In your
> higher learning endeavor, you certainly sacrifice many other valuable
> things; including -- most likely -- common sense.
>
> But if you'd like to settle this on the chess board, log on to the Internet
> Chess Club and challenge me, (TeK). This will no doubt prove your true
> intelligence, right?
>
Oh, you do natural science!
Okay, that could explain a lot.
Natural scientists do often, in my experience, go into
that kind of arrogant dismissive mode when they try to
address social issues. Not used to issues where there are
complex gradations of possible legitimate opinions, perhaps?
I'm not really sure but I have seen it before. Note too that
the kind of thinking I was referring to involved trying to
understand radically different points of view, which on the
scale of different sorts of intelligence (there are so many;
that is if you think the term has any meaning at all which
I go back and forth on) seems about as far removed as one can
get from mathematics.
Anyway, I'd better put an end to this. Years ago I used
to waste my time by posting to groups like this all the time
- well, for years I was an impoverished grad student working
three jobs so I didn't have much of a life - but I've
gotten a bit tired of the sneering arrogance you always
have to deal with on the part of... oh, let's just say some
of the more aggressive posters. So I'll just say hello to
Dan and Gordon and any other old friends who are still around
and go back to the real world now.
Bye all.
David
James A. Donald
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 13:12:58 -0500, dgra...@rcn.net (David
Graeber) wrote:
> The police in Seattle began systematically attacking
> protestors engaged in Gandhian tactics of non-violent civil
> disobedience well before anyone smashed any storefronts.
Perhaps, I have seen police do much worse than that, but if
so it is odd that another protestor claims that the
storefronts were carefully selected months in advance, which
sounds more like situations where I have seen police exercise
remarkable restraint in the face of well planned and
carefully organized provocation.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
p51Qik9iKLVTvwZdvkgbFmYMxNUwMLq6NiRmK4LJ
4We7hMtY0StWGkpNNcGrd+zx/+Coxdns3TTDQaiKN
James A. Donald
James A. Donad:
> > But appeal to objective truth does provide an agreed
> > mechanism to resolve such disagreements.
Clark Goble
> In some cases. However more often than not our ignorance
> precludes such an appeal.
Ignorance can be remedied by observation and experiment.
> And of course appeal to common agreement resolves many
> disagreements as well.
No it does not. Only the ignorant and stupid are impressed
by such appeals -- and by the ignorant and stupid I do not
mean the masses, who though stupid enough, are too sane to be
impressed by such appeals. The masses are impressed by right
authority, such as the dictionary or the encyclopedia, but
are unimpressed by appeals to common agreement, whether that
agreement is real or spurious.
Further, it is striking that "postmodernists", who in
practice rely primarily on appeal to positions that they
allege everyone agrees to, claim a common agreement on
matters were they are in reality a tiny and insignificant
minority and always have been.
> More seriously, however, is the issue of whether we have
> unfettered access to "objective truth."
A typical rhetorical trick, to attribute to your opponent an
absolute and extreme argument. No one suggests we have
unfettered access to the truth. We have access, but often
have to work at it.
James A. Donald:
> > In practice, postmodernists use appeals to allegiance in
> > place of theory and empirical evidence, they use a
> > procedure that has often resulted in dreadful
> > consequences during the twentieth century.
Clark Goble
> Theory is a form of "allegiance." It is allegiance to an
> idea.
Such nonsense is too silly to merit any rebuttal.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
TWJvF/P4uvp5ndvzygtqLZ52NXuAcAYnctq+TK6u
4T46uFD7NbJw6J8NXTcqzaCqpvDt6MH4Uyf8rpC8l
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > A chair is literally victorian if it was built and used
> > during the reign of queen Victoria. Other uses of the
> > word "Victorian" are a metaphor, or comparison.
Clark
> I believe though that there were general styles from that
> period and from that generality people talk about Victorian
> furniture as referring to a certain resemblance to that
> style.
Victorian may means a period, and also may mean a style
characteristic of that period.
"Post modern" only means a style, not a period. There is no
postmodern period, no period where "postmodernism" was widely
accepted, characteristic, or dominant.
"Postmodern" sounds like a era, but it is merely a bluff. By
pretending to be characteristic of an era, the postmodernist
implies: "Agree with me, or you will be hopelessly out of
fashion and no one will take you seriously."
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
6R4ZeHtw94JZQvZhjK0GuGbdF9gNI0F4bu1ndl6t
4PQSKmCNgjEFY9drgMUMk5XyZPCfI+ZGupzs88i5/
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> >Your "argument" is not an argument,
James Whitehead
> sure - its opinion - an argument would be both longer and
> part of the modernist programme.
Postmodernists do not need arguments or evidence to support
their opinions.
James A. Donald:
> > but merely an appeal to fashion --
James Whitehead:
> which is the only appeal in post modernity that cuts ice.
You are sadly out of fashion.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
cV61YM12oqSEJzSJFRf5ek5aE9Z8UaqupBwtz3d3
4k57hn/r8V93Q+1toMrXOTt2cQwYVmz3svi2T1o15
Clark
| Ignorance can be remedied by observation and experiment.
Well with a comment like that I'll bow out. <LOL> While that sometimes is
true, in general that is simply naive. There are plenty of mysteries. If
what you suggest is true then we'd quickly know nearly everything there is
to know. Heavens, even in my own field of physics that isn't true. There
are plenty of things we don't know.
___ Clark ___
| Theory is a form of "allegiance." It is allegiance to an
| idea.
|
___ James ___
| Such nonsense is too silly to merit any rebuttal.
___
<LOL> If it is "nonsense" it is at least "nonsense" that gets a rather wide
hearing in philosophy of science - although clearly I'm oversimplifying
somewhat.
Joseph MacKay
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:3bfe4803...@west.usenetserver.com...
You are a tribute to machiavellian authoritarian conservatism. May I tip my
hat?
Joe
Nark
>
>
>
>
>
Nark
> breaking a bottle over my head -
Good thing you weren't in Marxist China. You wouldn't be here to tell your
anecdote. Isn't freedom wonderful?
Nark
"Margaret" <marg...@example.com> wrote in message
news:k63rvtci7roct0qt9...@4ax.com...
> dgra...@rcn.net (David Graeber) wrote:
>
> > Anyway, I'd better put an end to this. .... So I'll just say hello to
> > Dan and Gordon and any other old friends who are still around
> > and go back to the real world now.
>
> many folk like Nark around here, and too few like you.
>
You're so blind to any way that differs from your own. I'm only here to
have my beliefs scrutinized for the sake of evolution. If you don't like
it, don't bother reading anything posted by 'Nark'. As you can see, I try
not to respond to you anymore, only because of your closed, and judgemental,
mind.
James Whitehead
<jam...@echeque.com> writes a piece of post-modern literature and signs
it thus-
>--digsig
> James A. Donald
> 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
> TWJvF/P4uvp5ndvzygtqLZ52NXuAcAYnctq+TK6u
> 4T46uFD7NbJw6J8NXTcqzaCqpvDt6MH4Uyf8rpC8l
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<jam...@echeque.com> writes
> --
>James A. Donald:
>> > Heidegger, like Trotsky, denies the existence of the
>> > objective world, independent from those interpreting it,
>> > and thus the possibility of different groups resolving
>> > disagreements of the truth of some matter by evidence.
>
>Clark Goble
>> I don't quite see how the former entails the later.
>> Certainly he thinks that the traditional subject - object
>> taxonomy breaks down. But how does that mean that you can
>> resolve disagreements by evidence? In some cases I suppose
>> it might. But if you think that it means I can't talk
>> about whether I'm at a house or not then you are mistaken.
>>
>> Sometimes philosophical position don't have the effect on
>> everydayness that some think. For practical matters I
>> think most postmodern people end up talking about things in
>> the same way as those in the analytic tradition.
>
>When they are talking about boiling a pot of coffee, they
>talk as those in the analytic tradition talk. When they are
>talking about homelessness, exploitation, alienation, or
>whatever, they do not.
Not so coffee has become politicised and also a lifestyle statement -
hence starbucks has to offer such a wide range to match the self-image
of its customers. You cant just go in and just get "a cup of coffee" =
there is no objective truth.
>
>James A. Donald:
>> > But if truth is merely agreement within what we now call
>> > the interpretive group, what are you going to do when
>> > members of the interpretive group disagree?
>
>Clark Goble
>> I don't see how this is any different with an "objective
>> truth." Even with objective truth people disagree.
>
>But appeal to objective truth does provide an agreed
>mechanism to resolve such disagreements.
Its been seen to be just a subjective truth marketed as objective - as
in Henry Ford's "Any colour so long as its black"
>
>> Why should disagreements in postmodernism be treated
>> differently?
>
>I think I have explained why, and in practice they are
>treated differently. In practice, postmodernists use appeals
>to allegiance in place of theory and empirical evidence,
No they dont! They say thats been the problem in modernity...
>they
>use a procedure that has often resulted in dreadful
>consequences during the twentieth century.
Again wrong - they point out that modernists objectiveness has been the
cause of the horrors of both the 19th and 20th century s. The slave
trade was defended objectively... and so too the final solution... the
use of nuclear weapons...
>
>> All the postmodernists do is point out that appeals to
>> evidence are really appeals to interpretations of evidence.
>> Evidence doesn't speak of itself.
>
>Not all interpretations are equally legitimate. Where there
>is more than one legitimate interpretation, this problem can
>usually be fixed by getting more evidence.
>
>
fixed being the operative word here. Blacks in southern states are
persecuted for minor drug abuse which results in criminal prosecution
which disenfranchises them... cute!
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<jam...@echeque.com> writes
> --
>James A. Donald:
>> > A chair is literally victorian if it was built and used
>> > during the reign of queen Victoria. Other uses of the
>> > word "Victorian" are a metaphor, or comparison.
>
>Clark
>> I believe though that there were general styles from that
>> period and from that generality people talk about Victorian
>> furniture as referring to a certain resemblance to that
>> style.
>
>Victorian may means a period,
only if your subjected to its imperialism. I imagine some tribes lived
right through the western Victorian period in complete ignorance - were
they in error - they could have even called that period ubakkuwallooo -
were they in even more error?
>and also may mean a style
>characteristic of that period.
like gothic architecture?
>
>"Post modern" only means a style, not a period.
well Victorian is a style - you say ... so styles can mark off one
period from another - e.g. The Baroque
> There is no
>postmodern period, no period where "postmodernism" was widely
>accepted, characteristic, or dominant.
Its the one we are in - you only have to see your doctor to realise this
- ask about "alternative medicine" and you will see some such doctors
saying that there might be something in it.
>
>"Postmodern" sounds like a era, but it is merely a bluff.
that's true!
> By
>pretending to be characteristic of an era, the postmodernist
>implies: "Agree with me, or you will be hopelessly out of
>fashion and no one will take you seriously."
not so - there is no fashion - that's the fashion - punk was part of its
very beginning - as for being taken seriously - that's not possible
either - like being new or original.
--
James Whitehead
James A. Donald
James A. Donald
Joseph MacKay
> You are a tribute to machiavellian authoritarian
> conservatism.
If so, there are a lot of similar conservatives still
organizing the world trade protests.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
Zxk9dFDNR4oTO6fJhr1Txvdzd/1HWVGu9Oc2+OBq
4e6YhQF078JsRYMZlwMGva1KpdalDkDQQyi6iY3ls
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > In practice, postmodernists use appeals to allegiance in
> > place of theory and empirical evidence,
James Whitehead
> No they dont! They say thats been the problem in
> modernity...
Their account of "modernity" is nonsense.
James A. Donald:
> > they use a procedure that has often resulted in dreadful
> > consequences during the twentieth century.
James Whitehead:
> Again wrong - they point out that modernists objectiveness
> has been the cause of the horrors of both the 19th and 20th
> century s.
Perhaps they think that the horrors of the twentieth century
were caused by the declaration of independence?
Since communism and fascism were both subjectivist movements
how can "objectiveness" be the cause of the horrors of the
twentieth century? Consider for example Trotsky's "their
morals and ours", Consider Heidegger's denial of the
bounds between subjective and objective Consider Maurice
Barres' argument that the group defined reality and truth.
Trotsky told us that truth was the will of the party. While
Stalin did not take that position too seriously, nonetheless
denying it was defined to be a thought crime, and people were
executed for committing that thought crime. Likewise observe
the similarity between Hitler's concepts of "Jewish" science
and "Aryan" science, and such postmodernist nonsense as
"phallocentric" science.
As Mises sarcastically observed:
:: "In the eyes of the Marxians the Ricardian theory
:: of comparative cost is spurious because Ricardo
:: was a bourgeois. The German racists condemn the
:: same theory because Ricardo was a Jew, and the
:: German nationalists because he was an Englishman.
:: Some German professors advanced all these three
:: arguments together against the validity of
:: Ricardo's teachings. "
Those commies and nazis sounds very postmodern to me.
> > > All the postmodernists do is point out that appeals to
> > > evidence are really appeals to interpretations of
> > > evidence. Evidence doesn't speak of itself.
James A. Donald:
> > Not all interpretations are equally legitimate. Where
> > there is more than one legitimate interpretation, this
> > problem can usually be fixed by getting more evidence.
James Whitehead:
> fixed being the operative word here. Blacks in southern
> states are persecuted for minor drug abuse which results in
> criminal prosecution which disenfranchises them... cute!
A classic postmodern argument. Change the subject
completely, and affirm that ones allegiance is to the correct
side, thus implying that one's adversary is on the evil side.
Since Postmodernists are prohibited from arguing from reality
and the senses, empty rhetorical tricks are the only argument
permitted.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
jgDPvXc4MTq9X9tWKQMhY1mpCIVItgLGTARq1BJw
4HHRMgaCYHOwvmgZhyWuIcInlfzJpdDo4iUuFdOYS
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > Victorian may mean a period, Post modern" only means a
> > style, not a period.
Clark:
> only if your subjected to its imperialism.
Your response is a good example of the postmodernist
substitute for rational argument. You change the subject
completely and affirm your allegiance to the good guys, thus
implying that disagreement constitutes support for the bad
guys.
James A. Donald:
> > There is no postmodern period, no period where
> > "postmodernism" was widely accepted, characteristic, or
> > dominant.
Clark:
> Its the one we are in
If there ever was a time when "postmodern" views were in some
sense dominant and fashionable, it was in about 1930 to 1950.
The name "postmodern" is merely a rhetorical response to the
decline of this fashion. Upon becoming unfashionable, the
fashion renamed itself as the current fashion, just as the
bolsheviks renamed themselves the majority -- a necessary
tactic for a view that holds the truth to be mere fashion.
If it is unfashionable to claim the truth is mere fashion,
you have no place to stand.
The Bolsheviks renamed themselves "Bolshevik Party" meaning
"majority party" because they were very much the minority,
and in the same way so did the post modernists name
themselves postmodern because they found that first the fall
of Nazism and then the fall of communism had rendered them
ever less fashionable.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
lsj7D5HqLopCKioKrPnJ1u7Ix/LH5x3dkLZcGYVN
43L+rBkyF4OpfxHkhp0N471cK4M2B6tiDV9vIVJac
Brique Noir
> --
> James A. Donald:
> > >Your "argument" is not an argument,
>
> James Whitehead
> > sure - its opinion - an argument would be both longer and
> > part of the modernist programme.
>
> Postmodernists do not need arguments or evidence to support
> their opinions.
>
Brique Noir
> --
> James A. Donald:
> > > Victorian may mean a period, Post modern" only means a
> > > style, not a period.
>
> Clark:
> > only if your subjected to its imperialism.
>
> Your response is a good example of the postmodernist
> substitute for rational argument. You change the subject
> completely and affirm your allegiance to the good guys, thus
> implying that disagreement constitutes support for the bad
> guys.
James, the post-modernist Stalinist.
Clark
| . . .they use a procedure that has often resulted in
| dreadful consequences during the twentieth century.
|
| Again wrong - they point out that modernists
| objectiveness has been the cause of the horrors of both
| the 19th and 20th century s.
|
| Perhaps they think that the horrors of the twentieth
| century were caused by the declaration of independence?
Clearly James thinks that the post-modern tragedies are far worse than the
modern tragedies. So, were there more examples of carnage, genocide, and so
forth prior to 1930 or after 1930? Was the slaughter of Indians in the
Americas a postmodern example of appeal to allegiance and subjectivity or a
modern example.
And of course James requires the "period" of postmodernism to end in the
1950's so as to say that the relative peace since (relative being to
operative word) is really modernism's win. And if the Nazis were
postmodernists (was Stalin too?) then what can we say of the Ottomans, and
others in WWI? (The war to *end* all wars) Were they simply ahead of their
time?
And one must ask - how many wars are fought because one group thought their
way right? By claiming to *have* the truth. How many wars were fought by
those who thought there wasn't a truth, that all claims were equal, that
truth was allegiance? Does this democratization of truth that Mr. Donald
condemns lead to war? Do people really fight wars over fashion? Come.
Tell us the naked truth.
And if postmodernism is the appeal to a democratization of truth - an appeal
to allegiance - why would they condemn the *declaration* of independence!
Why would they reject a document which pronouncement an end to allegiance to
the King? An end to being subjects - or rather becoming our own subjects.
That the governing arises from the people up rather than from some singular
pronouncement down to the people. A declaration that announces a new
fashion - that each can think for themselves and *choose* their own
allegiances. That no one can tell them their religion, tell them what is
true. A document that separates truth from the political arena and
recognizes that not all see truth equally.
And which organizations wished a return to prouncing truth? Which movements
tell people what to think? Claim there is a "truth" that must be thought?
___ James Donald ___
| Since communism and fascism were both subjectivist
| movements how can "objectiveness" be the cause of the
| horrors of the twentieth century?
___
Many would say that the subjectivision of the Nazis and Marxists was in
their *claim* to objective views which really were subjective.
Postmodernism claims to allow all to see this. It is the freeing of the
masses from the imperialism of fashion.
___ James Donald ___
| Change the subject completely, and affirm that ones
| allegiance is to the correct side, thus implying that
| one's adversary is on the evil side. Since
| Postmodernists are prohibited from arguing from reality
| and the senses, empty rhetorical tricks are the only
| argument permitted.
___
So you assert that it is wrong to discuss whether postmodernism is good or
bad? You assert that talking about what is fashionable in thought is evil?
I must admit that I am getting quite confused. Are you arguing for
postmodernism or against it? Is your statement "change the subject" an
observation or a command? A pronouncement or a request? Are you saying we
are doing this or allowing us to do it? And if you say we are doign this,
are you calling it evil, good or refraining from making a judgment at all?
And (most importantly) have you *made* an argument? Or have you only given
(call out) names?
Clark
| Clark:
| > only if your subjected to its imperialism.
|
| Your response is a good example of the postmodernist
| substitute for rational argument.
Just a note - I didn't write that. James Whitehead did. He didn't provide
a fully fleshed out argument, but the example he supplied allows us to
quickly flesh it out ourselves. I think he is clearly correct however.
Period is a temporal usage. Yet the period of a style deals not only with a
time period, but also those adopting that style. To expand upon Mr.
Whitehead's example, consider a woodsmith living in Whales who didn't like
the "new fangled" Victorian style, but preferred the older style. Now,
under your use he would still be crafting in a Victorian style. Yet clearly
he isn't, judged by the structure of his work.
Now, let me return the ball to your court. Given your insistence on
"objective truth" that can easily be obtained by evidence, how do you
account for these facts and your usage?
I should add that in the above you see a circularity in the definition and
meaning of Victorian period of a style. The style depends upon those
following it, yet those following it are included because they follow the
style. I shan't flesh that observation out further, but suggest you take it
into consideration as you provide us with the objective truth about
Victorian furniture.
___ James Donald ___
| You change the subject completely and affirm your
| allegiance to the good guys, thus implying that
| disagreement constitutes support for the bad
| guys.
___
Is that an interpretation or an objective fact? It seems to me at a minimum
your fact / example / interpretation requires that we find imperialism bad.
Yet we might well be indifferent or even encouraging of such imperialism.
___ James Whitehead ___
| well Victorian is a style - you say ... so styles can
| mark off one period from another - e.g. The Baroque
___
A period - that is key. Yet what is a "period?" I suspect our Mr. Donald
seeing in period a nice stable objective truth that is in fact anything but
stable. An excellent metaphor / example of this is the period of a
sentence. It delinates one thought from the other, yet it's mission to
create boundaries is always foiled as the meaning of one sentence depends
upon the other and the period as a separator of thoughts or a pause in
message breaks down when we examine it closely allowing us to see the stream
as a whole rather than a collection of parts showing that when examined in
one sense all sets of sentences are really a run on sentence.
___ James Donald ___
| If there ever was a time when "postmodern" views were in
| some sense dominant and fashionable, it was in about 1930
| to 1950.
___
Hmm. So Jacques Derrida and Richard Rorty weren't even the significant
postmodernists and their supposed influence on academia came *after* it had
gone out of fashion and not before. It was the making fashionable of what
was out of fashion. Or were the "true" postmodernists merely fashionable
before anyone appreciated it? Like a person wearing the clothes of the
1990's in the 1980's and being thought odd. Yet is fashionable a measure of
popularity - the view of others looking in - or is it a measure of those
within looking out? The inner elite? If the former, then you seem off in
calling postmodernism fashionable. If the latter, then to the "elite" still
following postmodernism it never went out of fashion.
I can't help but wonder what the period of this postmodernism was. When was
its existence? And are those still practicing postmodernism merely like
those wearing the fashion of yesteryear? A return to a beginning? And if
there are cycles in this fashion, are they anticipating the fashion or have
they merely forgotten to adopt the new fashion? Or worse yet, forgotten the
beginning and ends of the period? Are they unfashionable or fashionable?
Do they worry about fashion or forget it? Do they see the division, miss
it, or merely see the division and find it quite a confusing thing? Like an
unschooled husband being asked to critique the dresses his wife tries on.
Yet does the wife criticize him for being too fashionable, too
unfashionable, or are we left not knowing?
___ James Donald ___
| Upon becoming unfashionable, the fashion renamed itself as
| the current fashion. . .
___
So the current fashion is what is unfashionable. Fashionable now divided
against itself through a boundary of text and apparal. Upon being named
fashionable it ceases to be fashionable - since fashionable as text is the
fashions of the masses which are always quite unfashionable. So the true
fashion is unspoke with the spoken fasion (the observable) being the
unfashionable.
___ James Donald ___
| If it is unfashionable to claim the truth is mere fashion,
| you have no place to stand.
___
Is that claim the fashion of speech? The utterance of making a claim? Or
is it the observation of what is fashionable? In other words are we talking
fashion as a force making an apparal the fashion or are we talking fashion
as the apparal making others "see" it and then "speak" it? i.e. is this
"claim" the claim of the fashion (the apparal) or the claim of the fashioned
(the wearer and speaker). And if we are without fashion - without apparal -
where can we stand? We become like the Emperor who has no Clothes. There
the fashion was totally controlled by the speach but then becomes hopeless
confused about its existence. Yet I still must ask with what the Truth is
clothed? Do we clothe *it* as we speak its fashions or does it speak our
fashions? And if we seek Truth unclothed, unfashioned, are we really
ignoring fashion or are we actually showing an over-concern for fashion?
___ James Donald ___
| The Bolsheviks renamed themselves "Bolshevik Party" meaning
| "majority party" because they were very much the minority,
| and in the same way so did the post modernists name
| themselves postmodern because they found that first the
| fall of Nazism and then the fall of communism had rendered
| them ever less fashionable.
___
So is their error not in what they were but what they called themselves? So
their lack of truth was really in their lack of proper naming of truth - a
lack of apparal? So their lack of concern for fashion was what made them
unfashionable? If so, why is their crime of being "fashionable" met with a
defense in terms of "fashion." If it is the focus on their clothing of
truth rather than the truth of what they were then why do you worry about
fashion?
It seems that postmodernists get the rap of being appeals to fashion when
they don't seem to care about fashion at all. (Recognizing it as mere
fashion that comes and goes, so why value it?) Yet those claiming a greater
foundation are actually the ones who worry about fashion. They need a
specific apparal for their truth.
James A. Donald
James Donald:
> > > > . . .[postmodernists] use a procedure [for
> > > > determining truth] that has often resulted in
> > > > dreadful consequences during the twentieth century.
James Whitehead
> > > they point out that modernists objectiveness has been
> > > the cause of the horrors of both the 19th and 20th
> > > century s.
James A. Donald:
> > Perhaps they think that the horrors of the twentieth
> > century were caused by the declaration of independence?
Clark:
> Clearly James thinks that the post-modern tragedies are far
> worse than the modern tragedies. So, were there more
> examples of carnage, genocide, and so forth prior to 1930
> or after 1930? Was the slaughter of Indians in the
> Americas a postmodern example of appeal to allegiance and
> subjectivity or a modern example.
During the twentieth century, about two hundred million
people were murdered by repressive regimes, almost all of
them by regimes with ideologies that were in some important
sense subjectivist or relativist. For example: "Truth is what
is beneficial to the fatherland and the people. What is
detrimental to the interests of the fatherland and the people
is not truth"
Claims for similar death rates from the slave trade or the
conquest of the Americas are obviously bogus.
You could get a fairly impressive death rate for earlier
times if you throw in native Americans killed by disease, but
that is a bogus comparison, since neither side comprehended
the germ theory at that time, whereas everyone understands
that if you confiscate a peasant's food at gunpoint, the
peasant is apt to starve.
Attempt to conjure up similar death rates for the slave trade
with the west, or imperialism, are obvious bunkum,
transparent propaganda, apologetics for the high totalitarian
death rates, absurd lies that scarcely merit a response. The
entire slave trade with the west resulted in the forced movement of
perhaps ten million people over a period of centuries,
perhaps much less. Stalin moved that many in a year.
> And one must ask - how many wars are fought because one
> group thought their way right?
Most holy wars are fought for the usual reasons -- one group
wants to steal the gold and rape the women of another group..
When they set about doing so, they often adopt relativist
rationales to justify what they are about. Differing
conceptions of the truth scarcely rate a mention. When the
crusaders issued their indictment against the muslims
preparatory to waging war on them, the fact that the muslims
were of a different religion was scarcely mentioned.
> How many wars were fought by those who thought there wasn't
> a truth, that all claims were equal, that truth was
> allegiance?
Nearly all of them.
Almost all the wars of the twentieth century were communist
or nazi regimes against each other, or engaged in aggressive
warfare against normal regimes, or engaged in warfare against
internal groups.
> Does this democratization of truth that Mr. Donald condemns
> lead to war?
Rather obviously, it does. Count the corpses.
> Do people really fight wars over fashion?
When truth is declared to be fashion, this gives those so
declaring it a free hand to fight wars for slaves and loot,
as the twentieth century spectacularly demonstrates.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
j9vTplZDgVyi4EkuAkxRp6ya5fJfxnwTdDpu/BVT
4keAAg5HpWqPQ32MIff2Ef7VmQOm5Tbmh8PNfhXvj
James A. Donald
On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 03:22:57 GMT, "Clark" <Cl...@lextek.com> wrote:
> I think he is clearly correct however. Period is a temporal
> usage. Yet the period of a style deals not only with a
> time period, but also those adopting that style. To expand
> upon Mr. Whitehead's example, consider a woodsmith living
> in Whales who didn't like the "new fangled" Victorian
> style, but preferred the older style. Now, under your use
> he would still be crafting in a Victorian style. Yet
> clearly he isn't, judged by the structure of his work.
>
> Now, let me return the ball to your court. Given your
> insistence on "objective truth" that can easily be obtained
> by evidence, how do you account for these facts and your
> usage?
It is not my usage, and your facts are invented.
If you buy his chair at an auction, it will be rightly called
a Victorian antique, regardless of what style he used. Check
out Ebay. And if you built a chair in victorian style today,
and attempted to sell it at auction, it would not be called
victorian in the auction sheet. The reference to period is
generally considered more real, more authentic, more
significant than the reference to style.
Do a search over ebay for usages of "victorian". Real people
use words to refer to the external world. Postmodernists
purport to believe that people use words to refer to an
internal world.
> I should add that in the above you see a circularity in the
> definition and meaning of Victorian period of a style.
The victorian period is a date and a fact, defined by the
reign of queen victoria. The victorian style is the styles
that were arguably culturally dominant during that period.
No circularity, and the onlly subjectivity is in the fact
that we may sometimes honestly disagree over what style a
work is in, or what was culturally dominant.
James Donald
> > You change the subject completely and affirm your
> > allegiance to the good guys, thus implying that
> > disagreement constitutes support for the bad guys.
Clark:
> Is that an interpretation or an objective fact?
If a similar gimmick occurred just a few times, its meaning
would be a matter of interpretation. But the same gimmick
occurs over and over again in postmodernist writings, in a
wide variety of circumstances, making its meaning
unambiguous.
Further, such gimmicks are a logical consequence of
postmodernist epistemology. "Democratization of truth"
means that no distinction should be made between legitimate
an illegitimate forms of argument, and no odium should apply
to illegitimate arguments. This results in lots of
illegitimate arguments, the one mentioned above being the
most common in postmodernist writings, and characteristic of
them. It is repeated so often as to become a cliche, and
attract ridicule. Because it has become a cliche, a formula,
its meaning is a matter of fact, not interpretation.
James Donalld
> > If there ever was a time when "postmodern" views were in
> > some sense dominant and fashionable, it was in about 1930
> > to 1950.
Clark:
> Hmm. So Jacques Derrida and Richard Rorty weren't even the
> significant postmodernists and their supposed influence on
> academia came *after* it had gone out of fashion and not
> before.
Exactly so.
There was no a big surge in popularity of postmodernism.
There was a big surge in the popularity of using the word
"postmodernism" to describe a fading intellectual fashion.
Derrida and company did not popularize an idea system, merely
popularized the next clever manipulative rhetorical trick in
a fashion, an intellectual chic, that sets great value on
clever manipulative rhetorical tricks, and little value on
truth and knowledge.
"Postmodern" is not a period, merely a bluff, the bluff being
that everyone now accepts the postmodern idea system, though
obviously most do not, and never did.
> I can't help but wonder what the period of this
> postmodernism was. When was its existence? And are those
> still practicing postmodernism merely like those wearing
> the fashion of yesteryear?
Yes. Postmodernism is largely motivated by nostalgia for the
days of Stalin and Hitler, when intellectuals were supposedly
taken seriously and supposedly mattered. Not nostalgia for
those totalitarian systems of course, but nostalgia for a
world where intellectuals were apt to shape such systems.
Much the same motivation as people who collect sixties
kitsch, because they first got laid in the sixties.
Today an intellectual only matters if he invents a more
efficient system for market arbitrage.
I used to wear really long hair. I cut it eventually.
However one of my sons wears really long hair, perhaps in
memory of cultural explosion that he never participated in,
but rather wishes he had, even though we both know it was
ridiculous and pretentious, but a lot of fun. Or perhaps he
wears it just to piss off his father, much as I did. Or
perhaps he wears it because a long time ago it used to piss
off fathers.
James A, Donald:
> > Upon becoming unfashionable, the fashion renamed itself
> > as the current fashion. . .
Clark:
> So the current fashion is what is unfashionable.
No. What is now unfashionable, loudly claims to be the
current fashion, a claim transparently false.
Again, you use a classic postmodernist rhetorical trick of
assuming you adversary agrees with your premises, even though
he has just ridiculed them. That trick is not of course as
characteristic of postmodernists as the loud but irrelevant
claim of allegiance to some noble cause, but it is still very
common among postmodernists.
James Donald
> > If it is unfashionable to claim the truth is mere
> > fashion, you have no place to stand.
Clark
> Is that claim the fashion of speech? The utterance of
> making a claim?
You claim that the truth is mere fashion. But since such a
claim is no longer fashionable, your claim refutes itself.
If it is true, then it must be false. But if it is false, it
also must be false.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
mol5SaHmblnOfKBl1ysDnrtg+jteuzMSnp8zV5w4
4BlbNznHw2wtyi5G7lmd0IshU3c5HqLJLQ5peXCNS
Dan Clore
> dgra...@rcn.net (David Graeber) wrote:
>
> > Anyway, I'd better put an end to this. .... So I'll just say hello to
> > Dan and Gordon and any other old friends who are still around
> > and go back to the real world now.
>
> many folk like Nark around here, and too few like you.
Seconded, most emphatically.
--
Dan Clore
mailto:cl...@columbia-center.org
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
News for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608
Dan Clore
> ___ James Donald ___
> | Since communism and fascism were both subjectivist
> | movements how can "objectiveness" be the cause of the
> | horrors of the twentieth century?
> ___
>
> Many would say that the subjectivision of the Nazis and Marxists was in
> their *claim* to objective views which really were subjective.
> Postmodernism claims to allow all to see this. It is the freeing of the
> masses from the imperialism of fashion.
As I have pointed out a number of times on these newsgroups,
Lenin explicitly argues the objectivist (as opposed to
subjectivist or intersubjectivist) case in his _Materialism
and Empirio-Criticism_, in which he characterized modern
scientific epistemology as a form of Berkeleian idealism.
The book was rebutted by Anton Pannekoek, a well-known
astronomer who also happened to be a libertarian socialist
(council communist) in his _Lenin and Philosophy_. Lenin's
objectivism was endorsed by Stalin and Mao, among others.
--
Dan Clore
mailto:cl...@columbia-center.org
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe:
G*rd*n
jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald):
| ...
| During the twentieth century, about two hundred million
| people were murdered by repressive regimes, almost all of
| them by regimes with ideologies that were in some important
| sense subjectivist or relativist. For example: "Truth is what
| is beneficial to the fatherland and the people. What is
| detrimental to the interests of the fatherland and the people
| is not truth"
|
| Claims for similar death rates from the slave trade or the
| conquest of the Americas are obviously bogus.
| ...
One problem with the competition is that the claims for
deaths due to murder by repressive regimes in the 20th
century are expanded regularly, whereas those for earlier
periods are not, at least not successfully. I assume that's
because the former are still ideologically hot and in tune
with imperial liberalism, whereas the former are not and are
at odds with liberalism's good repute.
I saw the claim for 200 million a few years ago, so it's
obsolete; it should be 300 or 400 million by now. If you
have any access to older liberal propaganda, especially of
the anti-Communist sort, you'll see that the claims of 20 or
30 years ago were relatively modest compared to those made
today. Claims against fascist regimes have remained
relatively static due, I assume, to a decline in their
utility.
The generation and use of such numbers gives every promise
of being a fascinating subject of study; someone should get
to work on it. I see them as a Modernist version of the
atrocity story, where the grisly details of particular
incidents are replaced by cool figures arranged in tables.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 11/22/01 <-adv't
G*rd*n
| ...
jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald):
| ...
| During the twentieth century, about two hundred million
| people were murdered by repressive regimes, almost all of
| them by regimes with ideologies that were in some
important
| sense subjectivist or relativist. For example: "Truth is
what
| is beneficial to the fatherland and the people. What is
| detrimental to the interests of the fatherland and the
people
| is not truth"
|
| Claims for similar death rates from the slave trade or the
| conquest of the Americas are obviously bogus.
| ...
One problem with this competition is that the claims for
deaths due to murder by repressive regimes in the 20th
century are expanded regularly, whereas those for earlier
periods are not, at least not successfully. I assume that's
because the former are still ideologically hot and in tune
with imperial liberalism, whereas the latter are not and are
Brique Noir
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:9toapv$dqm$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Yes, but given the exponential increase in victimhood, it is worrying that
the evident worth of these figures will eventually be undermined by
producing a casuality figure in excess of the population at the time. This I
shall refer to as the 'Well, they woulda if they coulda' point. I suggest a
special prize for the commentator who first breaches this noble barrier. Any
nominees for favourite to attain this august position ?