prole

Congratulations! Spoken like a true fundamentalist.

Hey, guess what? An ideology that is not able to gain enough adherents to turn itself into a social movement with agency to act on the historical stage is consigned to the history books. Otherwise we'd just as likely be talking about modern militant French Hugenots (sp.?) or Moonies as Islamic fundamentalists. Again, the interview cited above speaks of a "new Islamic virus". This kind of thinking is really unfortunate among otherwise intelligent people, and speaks to the irrationalism that characterizes the dominant narrative.

If Rushdie is in agreement with most or all of the points made above, then what exactly is the *mistake* being made by leftists? Where/who are the phantom leftists he's on about? bell hooks? Huh? Is it possible that Rushdie's intimate relationship with and personal danger from Islamic fundamentalism has clouded his thinking? On the one hand he makes perfectly sensible arguments and his critique of American power and its use is quite good, on the other he's making unfounded alarmist claims against an absent Left and throwing rational analysis out the window in the discussion of militant Islam. While not a neocon, he seems willing to accept many of their premises that contradict a rational, beneficial reading of the situation. How to explain this contradiction? Maybe he's given himself a Cassandra complex.

More leftist straw-men, JayB? Honestly who the fuck is he talking about? What exactly is the mistake? Who exactly on the left (names?) thinks that Islamic fundamentalism represnts a progressive force? Seems to me that most of the analysis coming from the Left is in crystal-clear agreement with Rushdie on the ideological and political aims of the Taliban, et al. Perhaps the mistake he's refering to is the Left's stubborn refusal to take Rushdie's banal truisms as a cue to accept an ahistorical and reactionary "clash of civilizations"-style foundation for the rise of political and militant Islam. Rushdie accepts that Israel/Palestine is a driving force for recruiting Islamic militants but proceeds to brush that reality (Kashmir and Iraq as well I suppose) aside in favor of some ideological infection these people have caught (the new Islamist virus) removed from any historical context. Is this position helpful? Perhaps the Left's mistake is not following Rushdie down the "clash of civilizations"' primrose path to its logical conclusion: War with the Middle East, a number of which he has supported. If not falling for that line of bullshit and its conclusions is a mistake, then it's one I'll stand by. Where are these Leftists he's on about? His point in a nutshell is that there are "bad people" in the world, they actually exist. Where are those who would deny this? Like the "lock em' up and throw away the key" solution for domestic criminals (damn, why're so many new prisons?), Rushdie would have us accept a decontextualized "Islamofascism" and "wipe em' out" instead of dealing with the past and present realities that are feeding and shaping this conflict. Where has that gotten anyone to this point? I suspect that he's been spending too much time at cocktail parties with the likes of Hitchens and Wolfowitz.

Free Beer

You're kidding right? Is this really how power works in the real world!? I really hope this is a typo. If not, you're better off sticking to supply/demand diagrams and Milton Friedman quotations. If the recognition of minority rights was only contingent upon their power to assert them in direct contravention of a ruthless majority's wishes, then people who found themselves in the numerical minority would never succeed in securing them. When they succeed it's not because those in power lack the capacity to subjugate them, but because they lack the desire to do so. They lack the desire to do so only when subjugating them entails political costs that they are unwilling to bear, namely those which undermine the continuation of their particular party's, class', family's, cabal's, tribe's, etc. power. It is when minority wishes threaten to become mainstream demands that entrenched power takes notice. This, and the fear of this: has provided more incentive for "moral reawakening" than enlightened despots suddenly "seeing the light". You are obviously an intelligent guy, so I hope that one day you aspire to use your intelligence for something more worthwhile than serving as the intellectual equivalent of the towel-boy, or more aptly - the cookie - in Foucault's ideological S&M dungeon where nothing matters except "power relations." Thankfully the leaders of the civil rights movement heeded wiser council than your own and correctly predicted the outcome of an all-out race war waged against the other 90% of society, and chose a moral crusade over a millitant suicide mission. History is full of examples of ruthless minorities that have held subject populations in check indefinitely, but none that I am aware of where a ruthless majority has been brought to heel by a determined minority. If the only perogative that the white majority in this country responded to was power and they were as ruthless and machiavellian as you suggest and seem to believe, then Jim Crow laws would have never gone away. Clearly,and thankfully, MLK did not believe this. How to explain this perspective? Perhaps these political revenge-fantasies are some kind of an intellectual hangover from a youth spent getting one's ass stuffed into a locker - which might explain their enduring popularity amongst academics Have fun playing with words, living the life of the cloistered parlor-radical, and "transgressing the heteronormative boundary conditions" and all that. Yawn. Interestingly, if anyone is guilty of Foucauldian excess in this thread it is you. Your simple majority/minority formula in the case American race relations reeks of “destructuralized power”. Mistaking whiteness for power ignores the ways in which institutionalized racism has subjugated poor and working-class whites throughout American history. Also thrown to the wind are the contributions made to anti-slavery and civil-rights movements by whites. By consigning these folks to the “powerful majority” you turn them into paternalistic do-gooders rather than people fighting what was/is in essence a powerful, highly structured and institutionalized *minority*. Anyway, the Foucault jab was well crafted but way off the mark. Given your easy dismissal of an important thinker coupled with the History Through Fingerpaints you’ve shown us thus far, I think it’s safe to say that you probably haven’t his work or understood it. The reduction of civil-rights struggles to a candy-coated “moral crusade”, the fetishization of non-violence, and simplistic “MLK = civil rights movement” formula speaks volumes about the historical Alzheimer’s disease that passes for the American narrative and conventional wisdom. Where does Malcolm X, SNCC, SDS, the Black Panthers, Weather Underground, race riots in major US cities as well as the smear tactics, clandestine operations, assassination, beatings visited on civil-rights workers by the state fit into your version. Your “moral crusade” and “wise council” wants us to forget that there was actual struggle taking place, that there were elements in the civil-rights movement that scared the shit out of the ruling elite, that history has sharp, pointy, complex edges. But in this turd of a statement you’d have us believe that social change occurs through the power of superior ideas, through moral persuasion, through asking or begging for a seat at the table. You seem to have mistaken the point I was making with the illustration about violent revolutions with advocacy (It seems the mere mention of these historical figures and events is grounds for hysterical condemnation). The point is that these people did not ASK, nor did many blacks, or women in their historical moment. When their struggles resonated (I think you’re right on about the universality of the promise of Liberalism, BTW) with larger groups and more radical elements effectively threatened established power structures, conciliation with the most moderate fractions took place. It’s your confusion of numerical majorities with power that is the problem. I’m not sure what to make of your anti-intellectualism, though it doesn’t surprise me given your technocratic world-view. Are we to take this to mean that intellect and ideas that compete with your own have no place in the discussion of American problems past and present? Or are we just to apply the correct mathematical formuli? Locker-stuffing, armchair radicals, crying “commie”, and the quick turn of phrase might get you points with the likes of Fairweather, but honestly they just make you look like a sap. Spend more time honing your arguments and less time stroking your ego with pithy comebacks. By the way, consigning the rest of the world to barbarity absent Western values is not only offensive AND historically inaccurate, it's also deeply implicated in the endurance of institutions you claim to abhor, such as slavery.

You're kidding right? Is this really how power works in the real world!? I really hope this is a typo. If not, you're better off sticking to supply/demand diagrams and Milton Friedman quotations. If the recognition of minority rights was only contingent upon their power to assert them in direct contravention of a ruthless majority's wishes, then people who found themselves in the numerical minority would never succeed in securing them. When they succeed it's not because those in power lack the capacity to subjugate them, but because they lack the desire to do so. They lack the desire to do so only when subjugating them entails political costs that they are unwilling to bear, namely those which undermine the continuation of their particular party's, class', family's, cabal's, tribe's, etc. power. It is when minority wishes threaten to become mainstream demands that entrenched power takes notice. This, and the fear of this: has provided more incentive for "moral reawakening" than enlightened despots suddenly "seeing the light".

Thank you. Damn, man.

Sorry I did't see that it was small "d" democratic, pot and gay sex for everyone!!!

Only welfare-mothers need apply.

You're kidding right? Is this really how power works in the real world!? I really hope this is a typo. If not, you're better off sticking to supply/demand diagrams and Milton Friedman quotations.

You know how when people are talking and one person says something that reveals their age like, "Oh yeah, I was at that Zeppelin show in '74" and the other person says, "Look out Alan, your're "dating" yourself"? That phrase, "dating yourself"? Yeah? Well I'm wondering, is there a phrase you can use when someone is showing that they're a complete lunatic stark raving asshole dumbfuck?

NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! What good does our alliance with Israel do us, exactly? Depends who you mean by "our" and "us". That discussion aside, none whatsoever. I was being sarcastic.

NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

100% Pure Bullshit. Gotta love it.

Good essay, pretty much sums it up: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Content...4&t=TS_Home My favorite passage:

My bad, I had my wires crossed. I was actually thinking of the Sokal Hoax: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair This is probably the intellectual inspiration for the Post-Modern Essay Generator.

This thing has been around for a few years now. It caused quite a stir and not a little embarassment when one of its jargon-laden nonsensical essays won critical acclaim from some po-mo academics. I'll try to find the story...

Don't forget Jerry! From the Guardian:

you'll never get it. it's not about how "great" the Republicrats are or aren't. the cuntry's run by 2 Oligarchies and those who cheer at the prospect of a slight shift in power as if it were some earthshattering revolution are utterly clueless f**ks who make GWB look like a genius. Oh I get it, and I like how you think. Earthshattering it isn't, but the prospect of Santorum getting a face full of santorum warms my heart.

There will be no wholesale tossing out of a "trainload" of Republicans you stupid ass. At best there would be just enough loss of "close races" to barely shift the balance of power. You'll still have to contend with close to 50% of congress populated by the people you hate so much - and you'll still have to deal with Bush. Choke on that. Wow! You really seem to think that Republican control of Congress and the Executive has been good for the country. Maybe you could provide us "haters" with a short list of some of the Rupublican sponsored policies that have been so sucessful and beneficial to have made you such a fervent supporter! Seriously, what have these guys done for us lately?

Meanwhile, in real news: Misplaced your righteous condemnation again FW? I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll find it.

He was talking about Bush, you pathetic cretin.

Arrogance. I'm sure our troops would love to read such a succinct example of your unbridled contempt. The poverty and ignorance cards you and yours regularly deal are particularly galling. The "support the troops" rallying cry and disciplinary cudgel is the epitome of patronizing contempt for soldiers and their families. It's founded on the notion that those in combat have to know that they are fighting for a just cause, that they and their buddies are not dying in vain, that their sacrifices have been worth it. Can anyone in their right mind say that the catastrophe, chaos, and hell that is the US invasion and occpation of Iraq has been worth it? If the answer is no, then continuing support for this war, staying the course and feeding troops an obvious line of bullshit means you don't support the troops at all, you support their use as cannon-fodder in an illegal war waged for illegitimate ends that the current administration has all but admitted is unwinnable. If you really wanted to support the troops, and here I mean the actual human beings under the uniforms and not the institutions of the armed forces, then you'd be doing your best to get them the fuck out of there. This includes making information that is verboten or unavailable to them available, encouraging organized refusal. The paternalistic "support the troops" rhetoric has extended the shelf life of "Operation Clusterfuck" and therefore put more US troops through the meatgrinder. History has focused primarily on the antiwar movement within the US as a main motor for ending the war in Vietnam. Not suprisingly, the highly effective anti-war movement within the armed forces itself has been largely ignored. Resistance to and refusal of direct orders, going AWOL, etc. in an organized manner was instrumental in ending that horrorshow. These people were no more traitorous than were runaway slaves! The internalization of the idea that human beings could become the property of others, plantation owner or military is fundamentally wrong, downright fucking barbaric. Any notion of really supporting the troops must first dispel this sick, inhumane, and immoral idea. Check out the new film "Sir, No Sir": http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?movieid=70043764&trkid=189530&strkid=268177404_0_0