Jochen Bittner, WSJ Opinion Journal:
[…] In contrast to most post-modern nation states, Islamic fundamentalism offers the kind of warm hearth for which many shaken Western souls might yearn: community instead of individualism. Moral certainty instead of moral arbitrariness. And hasn’t the fulfilling sense of fighting a “cold evil” always held great attraction for young idealists? Take the revolutionary companeros around Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. The anti-globalization movement, which never ceases to denounce “unmerciful neo-liberalism,” is another example.
But can we seriously compare the political appeal of social revolutionary groups with theocentric al Qaedism? Let’s try a test. Who is the source of the following quote: “This is why I tell you: as you liberated yourselves before from the slavery of monks, kings and feudalism, you should liberate yourselves from the deception, shackles and attrition of the capitalist system.” Karl Marx? Hugo Chavez? Noam Chomsky? In fact, the words are Osama bin Laden’s, spoken on a video that appeared shortly before the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. The al Qaeda chief went on to denounce in great detail the excesses of unbridled capitalism and “global warming” before inviting all Americans to convert to Islam. Bin Laden offers some kind of “counter-globalization”: The security the Muslim Umma promises, the global village of all believers.
American progressivism — because we can’t readily see its “enlightened” (though not “Enlightenment”) end point — does a better job of hiding its inexorable political denouement than does the bald and explicit totalitarianism of theocratic Islamism. But make no mistake: the kernel assumptions and sub-structural imperatives of the current “progressive” movement — the privileging of a given interpretive community in defining “truth” and “meaning”; a consensus, group-driven conception of “reason” and “authenticity”; a repudiation of individualism; a willingness to invert the concept of “free speech” until it becomes state-sanctioned speech; the re-framing of “tolerance” as punitive rather than accommodating; the use of “diversity” to suggest an admixture of thought that is in fact nothing more than intellectual pied piperism — provide the preconditions for the kind of soft totalitarianism that western, transnational progressivism aims to erect as a governing paradigm.
Of course, very few self-styled progressives — the foot soldiers of the netroots, eg. — acknowledge that the philosophical underpinnings of their “movement” lead inexorably to such an end. And in fact, I rather doubt many of them have followed to their logical conclusions the premises upon which they base their entire political world view — preferring instead to live in the heady subjunctive of their fantastical present, where “activism” appears a kind of righteous protest against the ostentatious inequity of outcome, a howl directed at the cruel face of capitalist excess, whose invisible hand these egalitarian warriors believe should be broken and reset by benevolent social surgeons until it is capable of doing no more than gently cupping those poor souls who might otherwise fall.
But whether or not they see the end game, such a political inevitability is, in fact, predetermined by the implicit demands of their philosophy — and so it is no surprise to find that the kind of stifling religious totalitarianism promoted by al Qaeda and its cohort is informed by Gramsci and socialism, and finds common plaint with Chomsky, Michael Moore, and the anti-globalists (who, moreso than Tom Tancredo or Michelle Malkin, are the real nativists of the 21st century).
None of which is to say that progressives believe themselves actively in cahoots with al Qaeda, of course. Nor are they, for the most part — though in practical effect, their political maneuvers have demonstrably aided the jihadists, enough so that bin Laden was willing to scold them for not following through on their political promises.
Rather, it is simply to point out that, philosophically, at least, there is a vast area of intellectual overlap between the foundational principles informing most every totalitarian movement — and that, to many Muslims, bin Ladenism is a form of “progressivism,” though when placed in the paradigm of Islamic thinking, that “progressivism” leads backward rather than forward (and so to western eyes appears reactionary rather than radical — one of the reasons, one can argue, that it is frequently tied to social conservatism). Still, it is a kind of reform movement aimed at the excesses of capitalism and western liberalism — a way to control the natural diversity of outcome brought about when freedom is allowed to govern in fact (instead of being worn like a friendly facade) — and in its core foundational assumptions finds common cause with other material manifestations of those same principles.
Which is why, I suppose, bin Laden sounds so much like Chomsky. The only difference is the godhead and the place of worship.
(h/t Terry Hastings)
This one oughta stir things up a bit, eh?
Ever since you got sick you’ve been totally in your zone, posting-wise. What’s up with that?
This alludes to an aspect of jihadism that has never been fully explored, IMO. It is essentially a cult, and it attracts young adults who fit the well-known psychological profile of those who are vulnerable to joining mind-control cults.
In my view, OBL’s foot soldiers would probably be Scientologists (or environmental extremists, or fill-in-the-blank cult ideology)if they were born in the West, rather than the Islamic world.
When did Chomsky die?
Absolutely spot-on Jeff. Thank you.
What the left and the jihadists have in common is a violent desire for:
“a way to control the natural diversity of outcome brought about when freedom is allowed to govern in fact”
… because, left up to nature, their ideas and actions leave them on the low-end of that diverse spectrum of outcomes. They just cannot seem to get over the fact that who they are and what they think just doesn’t work very well. It reminds me, somehow, of the time I saw a female PhD student screaming “they’re not real” at a TV screen with Jenny MCCarthy on it.
Re: #2, I should add that the people who are actually carrying out the suicide missions, are often, contrary to what we would expect based on prog talking points, not poor Palestinians from the massive refugee camps, but middle-class young men from cosmopolitan backgrounds in their early twenties who are going through crises of identity.
Learn to speak English mother fucker. You sound like a literary theorist.
There’s this dread of liberty among the left. I guess the responsibility of it is just too much work.
Bingo Sarah. Responsibility.
Nasty dark meat, that stuff.
Waiting for Nanny Bloomberg to show leadership and abolish it.
Well, life is much easier when you don’t need to do all that pesky thinking…
Uh, so which hand do I hold the 3 stones in?
It was “denouement” that pushed you over the edge, wasn’t it, Jack?
Jack:
You clearly haven’t read any literary theory in the last ten years. Trust me, Jeff’s writing is like a drink of clear water compared to what passes for wisdom in literary circles today.
1. I second comment #6.
2. Your basic point that change seldom equates to greater freedom is sound.
3. If well-trodden ground.
4. And somewhat myopic as presented here.
5. But, nevermind, your point isn’t really as broad as your comparison suggests – because you really aren’t interested in the implications of your comparison.
6. You’ve also written much, much more interesting things than this, which is pretty close to teh crap.
Help, help! Jack is choking on the big words!
Is there a literary theorist in the house?!?
Somehow this seems apposite:
The times, they aren’t a-changin’.
Was it “denouement” for you, too, von? Or was it “subjunctive.” I got all flourishy there, didn’t I?
By the way, I am interested in the implications of my comparison. But how can I know what they are until someone like you lays them out for me.
— Wait. Did something meta just happen?
Man, I totally LOVE this medium!
“Which is why, I suppose, bin Laden sounds so much like Chomsky. The only difference is the godhead and the place of worship.”
Ouch! That’s gonna leave a mark. :-D
(Unfortunately, it’s a mark Chumpski will undoubtedly be proud of.)
Pointless, I know — this isn’t something that can be argued; you either see it like this or not — but once again…
These “philosophical underpinnings” and “core foundational assumptions” are no more “premises” for politics than the particular shape of the Nazi swastika is determinant of the aims of German fascism.
Has anyone ever moved, premise by syllogism, from the discovery or adoption of some onto-linguisto-abracadabro concept to gassing the Jews? No. They want to gas the Jews, fuck knows why, and they make the other shit up because they’re cowardly and self-deceptive, or to test your loyalty, or to mess with your head so you’ll join them at the levers — or line up at the shower door. It doesn’t matter.
As a philosophy-talkin’ guy, it hurts to know this, but no one has a philosophy. It’s the magician’s assistant’s shiny drape of politics. People only speak philosophically to conceal themselves, and to coerce others. No one means any of it.
Here’s your “foundational principle,” “material manifestation,” and “inexorable denouement”: Almost everyone wants to enslave and destroy almost everyone else, and so they try to do it, and we call this trying “politics.” The rest is dancing girls.
If they sound alike, it may well be that’s because Adam Gadahn wrote the speech and before he was an Islamic nutter he was a Gramsci influenced one. That’s not to say your central thesis is incorrect–at heart they are similar. OTOH, I think Bin Laden’s been dead for 2 years, never had any real philosophy, but was a rich dunce Zawahiri used as his pay master-sock puppet.
Was it “denouement†for you, too, von? Or was it “subjunctive.†I got all flourishy there, didn’t I?
The general banality. Oh, and the terrible sentence structure. And the fact that you don’t really know what “subjunctive” means (in English, that is). It kinda all added up.
By the way, I am interested in the implications of my comparison. But how can I know what they are until someone like you lays them out for me.
Can’t do it, ‘fraid to say. I’m also uninterested.
Obsidian Whinge
Sent it to all my “Progressive” friends.
all one of them.
Yes, Von, do tell us all about those pesky implications…
I thought my point #3 made this clear: If I’m bored by the expressions, why would I be more interested in the implications? I leave deconstruction and other masturbatory pursuits — well, of a literary nature, at least — to the professionals. Like Jeff.
(But I should make the point again that I’m usually a happy reader of Protein Wisdom, and only happened to comment in the negative on this occasion because, well, Jeff indicated he wanted to stir it up. So I oblige.)
LIBRULS ARE THE NEW TOTALITARIANS!!!1! is a new, interesting, and tightly-reasoned argument.
Sorry, psychologizer —
Much as I understand what you’re saying — and agree with it on a certain level — I still think that there are certain premises that, once adopted, seem as natural to us as breathing, and inform our intellectual behavior just as surely as taking in enough air informs our physical behavior.
Examining such things from whatever critical distance one can manage to affect — and in doing so, declaring them a mere description of a self-deception used as a justification for innate nihilism — is really no different than examining such things from that same critical distance and concluding that they inform the very beliefs that lead one to conclude that the examination itself is post hoc rationalization for something that, for all practical purposes, is atavistic.
Or —
MARX!~
Obsidian Whinge
Should point out that I’m no longer active on that website, which is now decidedly on the left. See: http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2007/07/claps-hands.html.
Uh oh. I know I’ve done something when I start getting the critiques of my writing style.
My use of “subjunctive” was thus: subjunctive mood (sometimes referred to as the conjunctive mood) is a verb mood that […] typically expresses wishes, commands (in subordinate clauses), emotion, possibility, judgement, necessity, and statements that are contrary to fact at present.
See, for instance, the future subjunctive. Or my poem, “Were he a subjunctive gardener.”
Again, it was a flourishy thing, but I kinda dug it.
And I rather like my sentence structures. They’re so bendy.
I feel lately that events are a film noir, but instead of British royalty and aeroplane heroes toadying at fascist feet, it is Hollywood and academia who seek the direction from fascism that liberty denies them. It is history repeating itself, as if those who hate Western liberalism need a few decades of repeated lies between immolations before they can herd enough followers into the pit for another failed Götterdammerung.
Ah, well, that’s why they make Jim Beam.
So, when is it time to man the barricades?
And that Moops thing, where the argument is reduced to a caricature. That’s a sign, too.
By the way, Moops, I don’t find progressives at all liberal. So you might want to rephrase. Something like, “Pr0grssvs r teh new FASCISTs!!1!
But by all means, don’t deal with the argument. Just dismiss it offhandedly as not adequately reasoned.
Mind you, I’m not saying it is, necessarily. Hell, I don’t sit down and map these posts out. But what I haven’t seen is any indication why it’s not.
Though so far I’ve found that I used too many big words, an irritating sentence structure, and have managed to make the whole enterprise both banal AND incongruous.
Which, you have to admit, takes MAD SKILZ!
Von,
I’ll admit, I had to look it up on dictionary.com *and* wikipedia, but I was able to figure out what Jeff meant by their “heady subjunctive”. Other than that, the fact that you dropped in to throw down some bald assertions and refuse to engage in a reasoned debate when Jeff oh-so-politely invites you just shows you to be, well… I’m trying to stop swearing.
“I’m no longer active on that website”
Sorry, Von. You might want to change the url you’re using in the comment box. It still directs to OW. Still a whinge though.
Also, I really don’t know what is “deconstructive” about this post. Nor do I find it masturbatory to examine how language is used to promote and reinforce world views, which world views in turn promote and reinforce everything from action to resistance to something more concrete, like legislation (which has its own effect on reinforcement, one that is more difficult to shake, given that the law commands the kind of fidelity from those under its auspices that philosophy need not, necessarily).
See? This is why I generally prefer to stick shivs in hobos as a hobby. Sure they tend to squeal and carry on, but it’s genuine pain…
Of course Chomsky sounds like bin Laden – those who desire power to force other men to change, for their own good, are the same. And if those others prove recalcitrant and don’t change in the proper way at the proper speed, well comrade/brother, they must be chastised.
It is for their own good, you know.
Don’t hit “von” too hard. He used “uninterested” correctly, which probably puts him in the top 0.1% of the population as regards usage. And if I am incorrect about his gender, I am in the bottom 50%, I guess.
Jeff –
And I rather like my sentence structures. They’re so bendy.
FTR, I generally like them too.
My use of “subjunctive†was thus: subjunctive mood (sometimes referred to as the conjunctive mood) is a verb mood that […] typically expresses wishes, commands (in subordinate clauses), emotion, possibility, judgement, necessity, and statements that are contrary to fact at present.
Yup, that’s a definition for subjunctive. Unclear, however, is why you think it doesn’t prove my point.
This is just rich. I always thought that “globalization” was a brilliant term to describe the spread of unfettered free market economies because anyone who opposes it can immediately be tarred as “isolationist” and “nativist.”
Why don’t you actually do some reading into the economic arguments of the anti-globalists? Are you even aware of what the IMF and NAFTA did to Mexico? It’s arguably why we have such a huge problem with illegal immigration in the first place. You can start here, where even the WSJ admits that neoliberal capitalism increases poverty and inequality in almost every country it’s implemented in. See also this, this, and this.
Well, first off, because that’s the way I was using it. Think future subjunctive: If I were, If you were, If only we were, If only we were able to, If you were willing to admit, If only we were able to overcome.
Also: “the subjunctive is used in English to express a command, desire, hypothesis, purpose, doubt, or supposition.”
Now, combine the above with the following, and really, really apply yourself: “preferring instead to live in the heady subjunctive of their fantastical present […]”.
You can make the connection. I have faith.
I don’t want to enslave anybody. It’s just too much responsibility.
Where are the dancing girls?
My days of guard duty/manning the barricades are over. I don’t want to change. It took me a lifetime of trial and error to get where I am, and I like myself just fine.
Oh, but I have done such reading, AJB. I just find the arguments unpersuasive. And when I hear anti-globalists mimicking Pat Buchanan, I take pause.
Also, I really don’t know what is “deconstructive†about this post. Nor do I find it masturbatory to examine how language is used to promote and reinforce world views, which world views in turn promote and reinforce everything from action to resistance to something more concrete, like legislation (which has its own effect on reinforcement, one that is more difficult to shake, given that the law commands the kind of fidelity from those under its auspices that philosophy need not, necessarily).
Yes, but your post is obscuring on this point rather than illuminating. Is bin Laden trying to restrict freedom? Sure. Is Chomsky? Yup as well. Are they comparable in their methods? No. Their goals? No (Admittedly; for even you acknowledge there’s a difference between “hard” and “soft” totalitarianism.) Will their preferred societies, if they ever come to pass, look alike? Again, no.
The fact that two different things are bad does not mean that they are bad in the same way or bad to an equal extent. (A conclusion that is preemptively reinforced by my using the term “two different things” — but you get my point.) Chomsky doesn’t sound a thing like bin Laden in either the generalities or particulars. Indeed, they are only equatable at the broadest, least meaningful view.
The bottom line is that “soft totalitarianism”* is all that’s on offer these days — indeed, has ever been on offer. The Noble Savage is not only dead; he never lived. The best we can do is up the threadcount — and beat back the folks who are offering hard totalitarianism.
*I use this term under protest.
But by all means, don’t deal with the argument.
A meandering chain of sweeping and unsupported assertions is not really an argument worth dealing with, in my view.
By the way, Moops, I don’t find progressives at all liberal.
Yes, yes, you’re a classical liberal. A conservative who likes porn and dabbled in drugs. Fascinating as that is, I’ll nonetheless decline to indulge your heady subjunctive regarding a departure from the common contemporary usage of the word.
Von, it’s clear to me he was using the term “subjunctive” to indicate “something that could be” just as one would use “imperative” to indicate “something that should be”.
Perhaps if you could stop with the assertions and actually, you know, explain yourself…
MarkD:
You cannot resist the change that is for your own good, to rid you of those false beliefs. I’ll be there to help you through this difficult period if I have to kill you.
Your pal,
Osama bin Chomsky
Jeff, my point re: subjective (since you demand it spelled out): you’re using an adjective that describes a verb tense. One doesn’t live in a “heady subjunctive” of anything.
Wow, that’s what I get for taking a few minutes to post… Von actually explained what he meant about Jeff not exploring the implications… I take it all (well, most of it) back.
“Von, it’s clear to me he was using the term “subjunctive†to indicate “something that could be†just as one would use “imperative†to indicate “something that should beâ€Â.”
Yes (and this will be my final post on this particular subject), “subjunctive” does not actually mean “something that could be.” It refers to a way of expressing something that could be, as in, “I wish you were able to understand the subjunctive mood!”
Uhm, subjunctive is a noun too… look at dictionary.com notes on usage and you’ll see “Were in the phrase as it were, meaning “in a way,†is a subjunctive” where the word is clearly used as a noun. Maybe I don’t take it back after all…
See: Jane Hamsher et al
Were you correct, I might…
Where do they meander? How are they sweeping? Maybe I need to go through and link the assertions to the individual arguments I’ve made for each of them a number of times here. But that’s just making me do clerical work while you pretend, in the interim, that I haven’t actually ever argued these various points concretely and at greater length.
You seem to have me confused with some of the cats over at Reason.
I’m actually a classical liberal because I’ve dabbled in a defense of classical liberalism. Drugs and porn are just items in the gift basket you get for being invited to the ceremony.
I get the feeling, though, you would have preferred it if I’d gone with future indicative. Which, sorry, that just didn’t have the aesthetic punch I wanted.
Matt
1. Thanks for making me a liar (re, my statement “this will be my final post on this particular subject”).
2. Yes, you can leave the word “mood” unstated and simply use the term “subjunctive” to refer to the subjunctive mood, as Dictionary.com notes. This is not preferred, however. I also don’t see how “subjunctive mood” differs in any substantive way (or, indeed, any way) from “subjunctive [mood].” In both cases you are describing a way of expression, not an expression itself.
I feel Jack’s (6) pain. My wife criticizes me for speaking in footnotes.
Jeff, you are exactly correct in content. It’s the parenthetical phrases and 81-word sentences that set people like Jack off.
A single sentence with phrases set off with commas, em-dashes and parentheses is truly difficult to read and does come off a bit like the literary theorist.
The big difference between you and the literary theorist is that you actually have something to say: the left loves totalitarianism. How else can anyone explain Columbia inviting Mahmood I’manutjob to be an honored speaker at their altar of higher learning?
Oh I get it – if you’re in favor of universal health care, protecting the environment, etc you must also be in favor of beheadings and suicide bombing.
GO RUDY!!!!
In English, the future is always a function of the present tense. Hence, “the heady subjunctive of a fantastical present” — or, a way of expressing something that could or should be — from within the constraints of a present tense that one wishes was able to approach a more pure futurity. It is a kind of linguistic chimera.
The whole thing may even be a metaphor. Or not.
Von,
Given that one of the 2 noun definitions for subjunctive is “a subjunctive construction” I will continue to resist your conclusion. It seems clear to me that it is not solely limited to the usage you’ve dictated.
I think you were premature in granting yourself a check in the “get it” box.
The whole thing may even be a metaphor. Or not.
Or it could simply be a use of fancy words and circuitity to obfuscate. Consider my post 43 in which, contra all wisdom, I’ve delved into the substance of your post.
And yes, I do actually enjoy arguing over this trivial bs :)
That, and I strongly disagree with your statement that Jeff’s post was “teh crap” and therefore enjoy being a thorn in your side.
(Yes, I appreciate the self-irony of bemoaning Jeff G.’s use of “fancy words” while use fancy words myself.)
And somehow, I think we’ve drifted off the subject. Not that my daring use of “subjunctive” isn’t fascinatingly Joycean.
But come now. There has to more than blithe dismissals from von and Moops, or the embarrassing straw man constructions of people like Paul, who wouldn’t recognize gray were black and white to fuck right there on his bed and leave behind a puddle of their amorous cominglings.
And, re: 43, I don’t think Jeff’s point was to compare and contrast, or even to draw a lot of parallel’s, but to argue that “there is a vast area of intellectual overlap between the foundational principles informing most every totalitarian movement”. And I think he did so clearly.
Or were you genuinely puzzled why Jeff didn’t purse the implications and try to guess whether Chomsky and Bin Laden would both champion the same universal health care system?
“heady subjunctive” is poetic yo, like the rest of the paragraph. Jeff does that sometimes when he accidentally takes a double dose of Klonopin. It could happen to anyone.
The fact that two different things are bad does not mean that they are bad in the same way or bad to an equal extent.
It is true that OBL and Chompsky have different Utopias in mind, but the point we’re making here is that in both cases, Step One is to destroy the West and Capitalism, which are standing in the way of both.
The Left is wittingly or unwittingly piggy-backing on the jihad’s nihilism, fanaticism, and brute force. They might even have in the foreground of their minds the belief that if the jihadis succeed in collapsing capitalism and/or the current government, the Left can rush in and glue the pieces back together in their preferred order. It’s how the Taliban took Afghanistanâ€â€take advantage of the chaos someone else caused, then fill the power vacuum with your iron fist.
There’s this dread of liberty among the left. I guess the responsibility of it is just too much work.
That’s only half of it, and perhaps less than half. Liberty is scary because it allows people to do things you don’t want them to do, think things you don’t want them to think, say things you don’t want them to say, and be things you don’t want them to be. (People in religious communities often have this problem as well, so it’s not limited to the Left.)
The real repulsion to liberty that many on the Left have, especially those already in leadership-type positions, is that it deprives them of the control over others that they crave. It’s much simpler (conceptually) to force people to all be the same than it is to learn to cope with their differences. Which, by the way, drives much of the Muslim world’s resistance to change as well.
It’s a terrible characteristic of human nature, but what are you going to do except do as the Founders did and hamstring the power-seekers by spreading out the power and relying on the desire for control to keep others in check?
Where do they meander? How are they sweeping?
Here you go:
Those are all broad-brush indictments, meandering from one pet peeve to another with little connection between them except for the bare assertion that the ideas which with you disagree inexorably (such a great word you had to use it twice!) lead to totalitarianism.
The irony of this whole line of thought is that it’s essentially the same rhetorical move that causes such indignation when employed by that Caric guy to claim that you’re a racist because some of your arguments and positions may echo those of genuine racists.
Don’t bother. It would just be a regression: you’d link to another post where you made similar unfounded assertions, and that post would have links to yourself saying the same thing at an earlier point, and so on. Differance de wingnutte.
Correction: “Chompsky” should be spelled “Chumpsky.” My bad.
Sorry, von. I missed comment 43, caught up as I was in the intricacies of the subjunctive mood and its implication for various tenses — specifically as they relate to a rather glancing description.
So allow me to correct that oversight:
Which methods are you talking about here? I wasn’t obscuring anything at all when I pointed out that the foundational assumptions of ALL totalitarian movements overlap, and that the methods (linguistic or rhetorical) used to build these movements are not, in fact, different.
I think I see your problem. They will “look different” because, though they are relying on the same philosophical principles, they are using those principles to push for a totalitarianism that is based around a particular set of self-annoited rulers, whose ideal society would look quite different while not operating at all differently.
You are foregrounding the superficial. I’m interested in the structural.
Not so. Or rather, only if you’re interested in the content. What I’m interested in is the content of the form — and it is on that level that they are equitable in ways I find MOST meaningful. Though we may not be talking about the historical Chomsky so much as the Chomsky understood by bin Laden (or his speechwriting proxy).
My, how pessimistic. I think you are wrong, though: I don’t think soft totalitarianism is at all a foregone conclusion. And I think were we to follow our own founding documents and principles, we’d find a very clear outline of how to avoid falling into its traps.
Beyond that — and more to the kernel of my own argument — I think it all went bad when we let language get away from us. And I think a change in how we see language functioning will, if and when that paradigm shifts, bring about a refutation of the kind of soft totalitarianism I allude to here as an outgrowth of incoherent linguistic ideas. And it will do so organically.
Which is, like, good for the environment. So there’s even a Green bonus!
“Oh I get it – if you’re in favor of universal health care, protecting the environment, etc you must also be in favor of beheadings and suicide bombing.”
Well, per OBL’s latest propaganda missive from beyond the grave, yes.
And, re: 43, I don’t think Jeff’s point was to compare and contrast, or even to draw a lot of parallel’s, but to argue that “there is a vast area of intellectual overlap between the foundational principles informing most every totalitarian movementâ€Â. And I think he did so clearly.
Your premise is false. One cannot establish “a vast area of intellectual overlap between the foundational principles informing most every totalitarian movement” without, at a minimum, comparing those movements (and perhaps contrasting them as well).
There has to more than blithe dismissals from von and Moops
Did you miss comment 43, Jeff?
It is true that OBL and Chompsky have different Utopias in mind, but the point we’re making here is that in both cases, Step One is to destroy the West and Capitalism, which are standing in the way of both.
Not true. Step One for Chomsky and bin Ladin is not the same, in that the means, ways, and results of the desired “destruction” are not at all the same.
The Left is wittingly or unwittingly piggy-backing on the jihad’s nihilism, fanaticism, and brute force. They might even have in the foreground of their minds the belief that if the jihadis succeed in collapsing capitalism and/or the current government, the Left can rush in and glue the pieces back together in their preferred order. It’s how the Taliban took Afghanistanâ€â€take advantage of the chaos someone else caused, then fill the power vacuum with your iron fist.
I think that your term, “the Left” is either so narrow so as to reference only the smallest handful of folks or so inapt as to be useless. The Left, as the term is commonly understood, has not thought through its goals and is not organized either. You are ascribing Chomsky’s views to a large number of people who don’t share them, or even know that they exist.
I am certainly no Chomsky fan — I’m a classic liberal — but there is a bunch of sloppy thinking going on here. There’s also the needless picking of fights during a time of war, which is not particularly useful.
Luckily there is no confluence between the left and the jihadis. Because if there were, I’d have to note the irony of a progressive commenter choosing the name “moops”, the misprinted-by-one-letter answer on the Trivial Pursuit card read by George Costanza. The question? Something about the Islamic conquerers of Spain.
Moops —
Oh, come now. I’ve already addressed this. Do I really need to go back and find links to posts where I discuss in detail each of what here appear as “broad brush indictments”? I consider this site an ongoing conversation, and I oftentimes rely on readers to do the work of bringing with them in their minds the arguments made in previous posts. Keeps me from having to repeat myself.
I have, on numerous occasions, outlined precisely how I believe all of that litany lead to totalitarianism. Your rebuttal is to point out that I haven’t done so here, so therefore, I must not have done so.
From there, you are able to claim (disingenuously, because I know you read this site) that these various “peeves” are disjointed and merely assertive.
I expect better from you.
Actually, it’s nothing of the sort. Caric simply asserts. I make all the connections, and explain how I believe they work. I have done this beginning at the hermeneutic level, and from there moved outward to explain how rhetoric is informed by how we believe language works.
Whereas Caric argues circularly. There is no comparison between the two — unless, of course, you first claim that I am merely asserting. Which you know not to be the case.
And that, I suspect, is why you tell me not to bother going back and linking to those posts. Doing so would give lie to your entire critique.
But I really must go away for a bit. Be back later.
I’ll grant that Jeff threw in a lot of fifty-cent words on this one, but the argument boils down to the same one he’s been making for five years: there are groups who’ve elected themselves arbiters of what will be considered acceptable or mainstream ideas, and these groups are successfully quashing “undesirables” in any realms where they’ve managed to accumulate power.
Summers is persona non grata on the contemporary progressive-controlled campus. So is Rumsfeld. So are the Minutemen. The Progressives keep them out because they have the social power to decide what ideas are acceptable, and the political power to enforce their orthodoxy on campus. They don’t need to threaten physical violence because they’ve already driven out those who would stand against them.
I don’t think it’s a great stretch, nor an unfair comparison, to examine the ways in which these campus groups use the same tools to the same ends as tyrants around the world. Nor do I think it unfair to compare their secular zealotry to the religious zealotry of the Islamic fundamentalist. The analogues are obvious to anyone willing to make an honest comparison.
There is no accusation that our progressive friends want to see true liberals (in the individual liberty sense) locked in re-education camps or beheaded for their apostacy. The accusation is that their foundation and their political structure are totalitarian in nature, and the concern is that if they are successful in broadening their control to the wider body politic, they will be putting into place a structure so easily subverted by a true “hard” totalitarian as to make such a subversion unavoidable.
Did you miss my admission to missing 43, von — and my addressing of its arguments?
Something about the Islamic conquerers of Spain
Yes. And by the generally sneering, intemperant tone of moops’ comments, is it possible he just might be “Bubble Boy?”
I think I see your problem. They will “look different†because, though they are relying on the same philosophical principles, they are using those principles to push for a totalitarianism that is based around a particular set of self-annoited rulers, whose ideal society would look quite different while not operating at all differently.
But they are not relying on the same philosophical principles, because there is no principle called “totalitarianism.” Rather, totalitarianism is a result of the application of principle, and different kinds of totalitarianism come from the application of different kinds of principle. Sharia law is terrible in some ways, but not the same ways as Chomsky-law (or lack of a better term) would be.
Though we may not be talking about the historical Chomsky so much as the Chomsky understood by bin Laden (or his speechwriting proxy).
That was pure propoganda, and badly done by OBL.
My, how pessimistic. I think you are wrong, though: I don’t think soft totalitarianism is at all a foregone conclusion. And I think were we to follow our own founding documents and principles, we’d find a very clear outline of how to avoid falling into its traps.
Frankly, one man’s “soft totalitarianism” is another man’s “Freedom!” (One reason why I dislike the term “soft totalitarianism”.)
As for your general emphasis on the form: People aren’t motivated by the form. Nor are they consistent in the application of the form. They are motivated by ideas, and also (even primarily) by bonds of culture. It is meaningless to fight the form because the forms are not only different in several respects, but because any form is implemented, if best, imperfectly. Humans are not robots. They love to make exceptions.
Well put, Squid.
Did you miss my admission to missing 43, von  and my addressing of its arguments?
We cross posted.
I just painted my garage, and I need to spray something on it to make it dry really fast. Who’s got the big can of von?
I’ll grant that Jeff threw in a lot of fifty-cent words on this one, but the argument boils down to the same one he’s been making for five years: there are groups who’ve elected themselves arbiters of what will be considered acceptable or mainstream ideas, and these groups are successfully quashing “undesirables†in any realms where they’ve managed to accumulate power.
But doesn’t this prove far, far too much? Didn’t Rupert Murdock “elect himself” (to adopt your term) as “an arbiter[] of what will be considered acceptable or mainstream ideas”? And doesn’t he have a far better soapbox than any academic around? I mean, what happened to Larry Summers was a load of crap, but come on. If you ask 95% of American who Larry Summers is, they’ll answer, “Git ‘er done!”
The fact is that people with power have always tried to discriminate against folks without power to advance their ideas. This is not new, or “progressive” in any sense of the word. (Which is not to say that so-called progressives don’t do it, of couse.)
What if there were a way to use “subjunctive” to illustrate a state of mind. Hmmm. If it were so, I might explain it to you.
because there is no principle called “totalitarianism.â€Â
Absolute gibberish.
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=totalitarianism
Read that last post as if I were communicating with von.
You’re using the conditional mood, Sarah W. It’s similar to, but not the same as, the subjunctive mood.
ThomasD, I might have been imprecise, but I meant “principle” in the same sense Jeff G. was using the term, as in ideological principle.
And the original Fascists. There was quite a bit of admiration for Hitler and Mussolini among the “Progressives” of the early 20th century. They particularly considered the Nazi eugenics programs as a dream come true.
Jeff, would you describe yourself as a subscriber to the Whorfian hypothesis? You talk so much about language that I wonder at times…
Okay, I really, really must go, but before I do, I’ll note that not only are von and I cross posting, but we seem to be talking past each other.
Quickly:
Who said totalitarianism was the principle? In fact, my argument was precisely that totalitarianism comes “from the application of different kinds of principle.” Or, in my formulation, from the adoption of particular kernel assumptions which in turn inform and reinforce principles, and lead, once adopted, to totalitarianism. I’ve spelled out those principles on a number of occasions, beginning with the move to unmoor meaning from intent and place it with an interpretive community who has the power to both define it and turn it back on its proper owner.
You have this backwards, I think. Either that, or you are misunderstanding me. Of course people are motivated by ideas. But it is my argument that those ideas are inevitable once certain kernel assumptions are adopted. Those kernel assumptions, incidentally, are themselves ideas — but they are ideas that have managed to become invisible, so entrenched are they. Put another way, they are the skeletal structure of any paradigm. And so they provide the shape for any argument coming out of that paradigm. This is what I mean by the content of the form.
Thanks, Jeff G. I have to go as well, but hope to respond to your latest comment over the weekend.
No, as I said, I’ve seen those posts, or some of them. And they are chiefly conclusory assertions of the same type we see here. And those posts have links to previous posts where the same conclusions were asserted. This isn’t the case with all your posts, just these more grandiose ones that seek to characterize the intellectual underpinnings of the entire “progressive movement”.
Or it could simply be a use of fancy words and circuitity to obfuscate. Consider my post 43 in which, contra all wisdom, I’ve delved into the substance of your post.
Circuitity? WTF?
“Are you tryin’ ta say capisce? Well, don’t… ’cause it hurts when you do that.”
– James Caan, “Mickey Blue Eyes”
I think that your term, “the Left” is either so narrow so as to reference only the smallest handful of folks
I do not mean, by “The Left,” to impugn everyone who votes Democrat, who is against the war, who believes in Global Warming, or who looks wistfully at Canadian healthcare. Many of us regulars keep coming back to PW because we, like Jeff, have endured the Leftism of academia and find it dangerous if it ever gets its hands on the levers of power. More hands, that is.
People aren’t motivated by the form….They are motivated by ideas
The ideas that motivate people vary from time to time, but the structure recurs with depressing tedium. They’re like those plaster cows (fish/buffalo/etc.) that cities give to artists to decorate: they all have different designs, colors, themes, media, etc., but the same form. In the end, they’re all cows.
Frankly, one man’s “soft totalitarianism” is another man’s “Freedom!”
Only if you subscribe to the post-modern concept of language, where words are chosen not for their denotation but for their emotional impact. That’s how we get people calling the Baathist terrorists “freedom fighters” event though they were fighting to put their boot back on the neck of the Iraqis, or saying that Bush “lied” even though he merely was wrong, or that General Petreus is a traitor because they could make “betray” rhyme with his name.
Von,
I think you mistook me. I was saying that you were chastising Jeff for not pursuing the superficial implications while seemingly oblivious to his argument that *foundationally* there was a lot of overlap, and therefor it was not surprising that, even though they seem so radically unsimilar superficially, it should be no surprise that one would adopt some of the rallying cries of the other in order to advance their own agenda. And I’m not sure Jeff intended to say this was a 2-way street, but it seems obvious to me that it is.
Uh, “complete and unrestricted power in government” is an ideological principle.
Well, Moops. I’ll find them and link them anyway, and then we’ll let the jury decide.
But not until I eat lunch and finish some business that I’ve been putting off by answering all these criticisms.
Don’t take my upcoming silence personally.
The fact is that people with power have always tried to discriminate against folks without power to advance their ideas. This is not new, or “progressive” in any sense of the word.
Actually, you’ve just articulated one of the primary ideas that “progressives” take as a base assumption. First is the Marxist-based tendency to see everything in terms of powerâ€â€who’s kicking whomâ€â€rather than in who is telling the truth.
Second, the word “discriminate” used to mean “distinguish among options and evaluate them according to merit”: only in contemporary politics did it come to mean “be bigoted towards.” I don’t use the term the latter way except ironically.
And third, unless I miss my guess, “progressive” refers to those ideas, policies, and practices that lead one “ahead,” towards an idealized vision of society that cannot be achieved without the use of force, whether it be military, legal, political, or social.
Von, dear, the construction “If I were” uses the past subjunctive.
“If I were glad to see you, I would say so” –
“If I were” is past subjunctive
“I would say” is conditional
I think dicentra, Sarah, squid, Matt, et al. can handle things for me in my absense.
At least one academic in that mix, and a whole lot of smart folk whom I trust understood what I wrote and what it was I was arguing.
There once was a site, Protein Wisdom,
insightfuly noting which “isms”
are id more than ego
without superego
to temper extremes of the “ism.”
Though many may long to have power
o’er others to force them to cower,
it’s not universal.
For some, mere reversal
is sought from the grips of such power.
Though many would bend to their will
the choices of others, there still
are many who deem
what “liberty” means
to be merely “live and let live.”
To argue, instead, that we “all”
desire the oppresson of all
excepting ourselves
condemns one to dwell
adrift in the concept of “all.”
Though proof of free will to devise
the ways above id to arise
might not be conclusive,
it’s not so elusive
when one for another one dies.
It’s rare, if at all, that in science
there’s “absolute” ground for reliance
on claims using “all”
or “none” to enthrall
a list’ner with trappings of science.
At whom am I limerick deviser?
The one who perceives himself wiser
than insights described
on “isms” contrived.
His nom de plume? “Psychologizer.”
Do you think it was the words “Chomsky” and “Moore” in the post that attracted them? Like a sort of Google bug lamp?
Or is this a likely consequence of the Brainwash thing? Haven’t spent much time there yet, kind of like not having met the new neighbors but noticing a lot of different cars parked there every day.
Wish I had time to digest all the wonderfully sesquipedalian arguments, but just one point – the argument that the form of the hypothetical utopian futures of Old Ben Laden and the Original Chomperor are different, therefore they are not analogous…
For some bizarre reason, probably deeply significant, the left makes the assumption that the desired result of the “revolution” will come to pass, despite pretty much all history pointing and laughing at that assertion.
The “right” (in our rigidly defined cubby, third up, second out from the wall, with the tape on the edge) assume that, as usual, the result of utopian revolutions will all be pretty much the same, degredation, suffering, blood, death, and angst.
And there appears to be more than enough evidence of a willingness to, shall we say, “go there” on the part of both the left and the, well, sort of jihadi kind of folks, as well as the intellectual defense of that path on both parts (you know, all those word things people say when they get together) for people to look and say “Hey, look, underpinnings!”
To sum up, y’all are willing to go through the same Hell to get where you’re going, and we’re saying it’s like a roach motel, you can check in but you can’t check out.
Sort of a quagmire, if you will.
Which, as the host so eagerly pointed out, is not to say that the left and the jihadis are in the same boat, just that their boats are headed the same place and they ain’t exactly trying to stop each other getting there.
And every so often they shout encouragement back and forth, “You can do it, keep rowing! Just a little bit longer!”
“Google bug lamp” lol
I’m gonna frame that.
First, Jim, great stuff.
To argue, instead, that we “all”
desire the oppression of all
excepting ourselves
condemns one to dwell
adrift in the concept of “all.”
I generally don’t aspire to positions of power, and in fact turned down an management position and the raise that went with it because I didn’t want to have to deal with clients and math stuff.
However, I did once end up in a lower management position 20 years ago, and I’m ashamed to say that I did abuse that position a bit. Not cynically, mind, or illegally, nor strictly immorally: I just went ahead and played favorites a little because I wasn’t strong enough to tell some people no, and I took some plum assignments when I should have divvied them up among my charges.
It was surprisingly easy to do, too, and no alarms went off when I neared or crossed that line. Which is why so many people and organizations, once they get some power, take liberties with it, no matter how well-intentioned or ostensibly against the abuse of power they are.
Okay, just re-read my post. Not seeing the troublesome big words. Really. Maybe it’s my own blindspot, but there is really no jargon here, nor are any of the concepts particularly specialized.
That being said, I’m looking into hiring an illustrator just the same.
Thank you for your patience.
[…] “Among the Believers†– Protein Wisdom […]
“…Will their preferred societies, if they ever come to pass, look alike? Again, no.
– Well make yjay “no” if you busy yourself over details of the sociatal structures that result, and exist temporarily.
– If, however, you tend to care more about “results” then the answer would switch to “tes”, beacuse in either case the group enclave would last about as long as it takes for some pissed of gaggle of unhappy subjects to decide, as they always have and always will, “Fuck this shit….we can take this bastard out and run things better ourselves”.
– The only structure that seems to work, and here we have only a sparse amount of factual data to go on, is a sociatal construct in which the denizens are at least three meals away from civil war, and 50% of the time feel content enough to opt for peaceful activities.
– As it happens what we are doing, regardless of the lable you want to festoon it with, has worked fairly well for almost as long as any other. Everything else is someone trying to control someone else. In fact if you just assign the tag “control freak” to every activiat movement extant, you would usually be correct, if somewhat simplistic, 100% of the time.
– The real fatal flaw in all cult movements is that they all lack the sort of payoff, even illusionary type payoffs, that it takes to hold the herd in check. The only real difference between all of them is how many bodies will pile up before they inevitably fail.
“Will their preferred societies, if they ever come to pass, look alike? Again, no.”
– Well make that “no” if you busy yourself with sociatal structures that result and exist temporarily.
– If however you tend to care more about “results”, then the answer would swith to “yes”, because in either case the group enclave would last about as long as it takes for some pissed off gaggle of unhappy sunjects to decide, as they always have and always will, “Fuck this shit…We can take this bastard out and run things better ourselves.”
– The on;y structure that seems to work, and admittedly here we have only sparse data to go on, us a sociatal construct in which the denizens are at least three meals away from civil war, and 50% of the time feel content enough to opt for peaceful activities.
– As it happens what we are doing, regardless of the leable you want to festoon it with, has worked fairly well for almost as long as any other. Everything else is someone trying to control someone else. In fact if you just assign the tag “control freaks” to ecery activist movement extant, you would usually be correct, if somewhat simplaistic, 100% of the time.
– The real fatal flaw in all cult movements is that they all lack the sorts of payoffs, even illusionary type payoffs, that it takes to hold the herd in check. The only real difference between them is how fast the bodies pile up before they enevitably fail.
Exatly.
It matters much less what specific ‘ideological principles’ are in question when the stated goal is totalitarian in nature. Since totalitarianism, in form and essense will ultimatly encompass all aspects of social existence the means become all but irrelevant as they are entirely subservient to the ends.
Alternately,
Does it matter by what manner you would choose your enslavement?
“Yes, yes, you’re a classical liberal. A conservative who likes porn and dabbled in drugs.”
Piss off, junior, my washing machine has eaten more drugs than you will ever see.
“The Progressives keep them out because they have the social power to decide what ideas are acceptable, and the political power to enforce their orthodoxy on campus. They don’t need to threaten physical violence because they’ve already driven out those who would stand against them.”
They don’t need to threaten physical violence because of the basic decency of their avowed enemies, so they feel themselves righteous like Gandhi. I wonder if maybe someone should force their hand, and take away that false moral advantage/
WRT your last point, B Moe, it’ll happen, and it won’t be pretty.
The history of Ugly ain’t over yet, and no doubt we’ll live through some more of it. With any luck we’ll at least be able to experience a little schadenfreude before it’s our turn under the wheel.
And just as a reminder as to what this post is actually about, take note of the poster:
http://tinyurl.com/2zas4x
and stay focused on the real enemy of the people.
Does it matter by what manner you would choose your enslavement?
Poisons currently available:
From the Left
• Speech codes that prevent you from expressing any hint of racism, sexism, homophobia, ageism, or whatever -isms are held to be bad
• An economic system where you have no control over your advancement or decline, where work is not rewarded and sloth is not punished
• Businesses that cannot profit from their actions because that would be “unfair”; industries such as Pharmas and such fold because the hassle is no longer worth it
• A rigid set of truisms about the nature of reality that can neither be proven or denied; harsh punishments ensue for “heresy”
• A concept of women and men wherein they are considered to be indistinguishable from one another, and their relationships must reflect same
• Strict prohibition on tampering with the natural world or despoiling Gaia in any way
• Healthcare dictated by people who cannot be fired; care is rationed; people suffer or die unnecessarily
• Dietary strictures that exclude tobacco, meat, trans-fats, preservatives, additives, or anything not grown organically
• Government education for your children, whether you agree with their message or not
From Islamofascism
• Speech codes that prevent you from expressing any hint of doubt regarding who is God and the identity of his prophet
• An economic system where you have no control over your advancement or decline, where work is not rewarded and sloth results in starvation
• An economy that cannot thrive because usury is forbidden
• A rigid set of truisms about the nature of reality that can neither be proven or denied; harsh punishments ensue for “heresy”
• A concept of women and men wherein men are inherently superior to sluttish, foolish women, and their relationships must reflect same
• Strict prohibition on public displays of affection, music, dancing, dogs, movies, art, and entertainment
• Healthcare that is provided to men only; male doctors cannot examine women, and women cannot become doctors; only science provided by Islam is acceptable
• Dietary strictures that exclude pork, alcohol, and anything else haram
• Education for men only, and the only subject of study is the Koran
Both systems, by the way, would serve to stifle scientific thought and innovation about equally well. Say goodbye to blogs either way.
dicentra, fair enough, mostly, and nicely said, but I’m no Lefty, and I still think trans fats suck. Wouldn’t ban ’em, though.
Trans fat may suck, but a pork chop fried in Crisco from down at Wilson’s Soul Food in Athens, GA is about as close to heaven as I think you can get, culinarily speaking.
In honor of Big Bang, may I memorialize this:
“If however you tend to care more about “resultsâ€Â, then the answer would swith to “yesâ€Â, because in either case the group enclave would last about as long as it takes for some pissed off gaggle of unhappy subjects to decide, as they always have and always will, ‘Fuck this shit…We can take this bastard out and run things better ourselves.'”
I propose that the new verb “swith” means that public sentiment (swiths): to embrace an autocracy, because it forces a people to reject the autocracy.” It’s like bulemia, without the cavities.
Not a big fan of pork chops. Loves me some honey-baked ham though. Bacon, mmmmm bacon.
Think I’m gonna fry me up a whole package of bacon, chop it up and cook it into some spaghetti sauce. Yum.
What were we talking about?
… and dicentra, good points. I would dispute some, of course.
Wait, it’s Friday and cynn is witty, pleasant and charming.
I don’t cope well with change!
:)
Ha on you, Merovign, just hit the right vintage.
– Would have been so much more “tolorant” if I would have typed “swish”. Must be a freudian thing, since “switch” holds an entirely different meaning for me, which we will not go in to.
– And cynn is always witty, pleasent, and charming. Just not generally when I’m around, so its me.
Good lord Merovign, quit drinking already!
Your beer goggles are set to ‘X-ray vision’.
Hey cynn, let me know what ya found, I’ll see if I can send you a case. :)
You will do what I tell you to do for your own good, and if you balk you will be punished.
The means may vary but the ends are the same. For our own good, according to our enlightened betters.
Do you know what the difference is between a concentration camp and a gulag? The name of one is spelled with Roman letters, the other using a Cyrillic alphabet.
Yeah, the swish thing could be MoveOn territory. Don’t wanna venture there.
Or, does it matter which ideology is followed by the guy wearing the boot when he is stomping on your face?
It only matters where I should bury him and I would do it respectfully. Your point?
LOL, I think cynn is a righty trapped in a cool kids body.
B Moe, you may be right: I haven’t declared. To be honest, I simply haven’t been able to politcize sex. So it’s in a holding pattern, like the nastiest jumbo jet you ever saw, just circling, waiting for landing instructions.
Oops, I wish to withdraw that. Didn’t mean to mention sex. Or race, color, age, creed, religion, or sports affiliation.
“I simply haven’t been able to politcize sex.”
Nor should you. And if you need instructions, you are doing it wrong, in my opinion sex is the only thing in life that is obvious, which is why I don’t judge other views of it.
B Moe has its prorities straight (:(
Well, at least we aren’t discussing the meaning of “subjunctive” anymore.
“Sex isn’t necessarily dirty – but it is if you’re doing it right.”
— Woody Allen
– I made the mistake of politisizing sex once with my red haired Irish sweety. Why is it sofa’s only feel lumpy when you have to sleep on them?
I think though at its denouement, it is as likely that it would be the right that delivers the totalitarian masterstroke, if I get what you’re saying. It’s these preconditions less so than the ideology from which they derive that are dangerous to the classical liberal ideal, no?
The preconditions for a kind of soft totalitarianism were realized I think in Switzerland, and now we read…
(link to follow)
It’s hard to draw an exact parallel, and I don’t know-don’t care if this article characterizes the crux of the matter in Switzerland correctly or not, but I think your post isn’t particularly explicit that when the institutions you point to are debased, totalitarianism is no longer as much a function of ideology as a function of opportunism. This is my way of reflecting on what that guy said at #18.
http://news.independent*.co.uk/europe/article2938940.ece
I’m totally confused by the timestamps going on here. Are we on Venezuela time?
There are certainly those on the right who exhibit the kind of thinking I think is foundational to progressivism. And when they do, I try to call them on it. An example: when Bill Bennett was being excoriated for his comments about blacks and abortion and crime, the White House and Bill Kristol and others on the right pointed out that, though he didn’t intend anything racist, he should have known better than to say anything that his opportunistic political opponents could use against him.
This argument, banal and pragmatic as it seems, was of great concern, inasmuch as it signaled a willingness to accept the rules of the game set up by post structural theorists, who had successfully changed the locus of meaning.
No! Said I.
And I will continue to say it, whenever I’m not too drunk to recognize it.
26 minutes ahead of PST.
Cool, I’ve enveloped Jeff’s response with the warm glow of irrelevancy. And clocks.
Which rhymes with something, but frankly that belongs on another of today’s posts.
Merovign —
I have no idea why the clock is like it is. But it seems almost fitting around this place, doesn’t it?
Yes. The flag-burning amendment thing gives me pause like that. And the ephedra ban, but that could mostly just be in my head.
I think many in the “conservative” coalition came out against the flag banning amendment. One of the perks of carrying hawkish libertarians and classical liberals.
… and dicentra, good points. I would dispute some, of course.
No. NOOOOOO! I forbid it! Fatwa!
And a rack ‘o ribs. See, both types of totalitarian would deprive me of that ambrosia: the jihadis because it’s a pig and the Lefties because it’s the flesh of a being with more inherent right to live than I have.
I guess the clocks are now officially an in-joke. :)
Flag banning amendment? :)
When did Chomsky die?
Around the time he got tenure, by all indications.
Brilliant (if flawed*) early work. Tenure in 1960 or so. 45 years of dullwitted leftoid political rants.
* The Chomsky hierarchy is a pretty good model for computer languages. For natural languages, not so much.
The fact that people are taking their cues on American History from a linguist is awfully telling.
– Merovign – This is a countinuation of “Teh post-modern totalitarian intentionalism and core beliefs transposed to reality accomidation for the furtherence of teh cause, with special attention to hueristic signing, its meanings and entropy, from author to interpreter, and onward to Newark” disscusion that never ends.
– Therefore, nothing anyone posts is irrelevant. Just wait long enough and the thread will slide your way. Trust me on this.
26 minutes ahead of PST
Roughly Las Vegas, NV solar time.
a linguist consulted and quoted in Real Simple magazine a few months ago, no less. I can’t remember what the article was about, talking to people or some crap. Just thought it was amusing… hmmmm, yes, I’m going to accept relationship advice from this dude.
Or is that time the other way around?
Or not at all?
Too drinky.
Real Simple is a Time Inc. book. Is the stock of the editor who solicited Chomsky rising or falling there you think?
guinsPen: So, what happens in Protein Wisdom stays in Protein Wisdom? :)
My point cynn? The details of the ideology is irrelevant when the goal is power over others. You would think that Chomsky and bin Laden could never agree when their ideologies are so far apart, but the Islamofascism of bin Laden and the Marxism of Chomsky are not that far apart in their goals – power to direct all aspects of human life. Or maybe you should ask yourself why so many supposed leftists support Islamofascism, why do they make common cause with those who should be their enemies?
BTW, is “soft totalitarianism” similar to “a little pregnant”? I doubt that soft totalitarianism will be that way when they find someone who says no.
MikeyNTH: The details of the ideology is irrelevant when the goal is power over others.
Got it in one. Abnegation of the self is another common factor.
I strongly recommend Hoffer’s The True Believer for those who want more insight into the minds of these people.
Sorry about the broken italic tag, btw.
I just found this, via Michelle Malkin. Apparently, progressives have been legitimizing fascists for generations. It takes a heady subjunctive haze for anyone to offer advocates of hate implicit validation. It seems to be a tradition at Columbia.
Jack Star wrote:
“Learn to speak English mother fucker.”
Actually, Jeff speaks English Mother Fucker quite fluently.
“Of course, very few self-styled progressives  the foot soldiers of the netroots, eg.  acknowledge that the philosophical underpinnings of their “movement†lead inexorably to such an end. And in fact, I rather doubt many of them have followed to their logical conclusions the premises upon which they base their entire political world view…”
Exactement.
Some of whom are simply led (as “useful idiots”), some of whom are weak minded “losers” who are attracted to the notion of a central authority re-distributing wealth & calling all the shots so they can (finally) get a cut, some are individuals attracted to an absolute and universal “moral” or otherwise code offered by Islam or “progressives” or Noam Chomsky, take your pick…
The version of “life” that they all seek is, in fact, a form of death.
And many, tanstaafl, want inclusion in the Club of the Smart People, those who by virtue of their tastes, ideas, and interests are superior to the rest and therefore should be in charge. Those who see themselves as intellectuals are terrified of being thought fools, and it is much, MUCH easier to accept the community-based reality than to persuade your peers that you can believe differently than they (and have a taste for country music, NASCAR, and the military life) and still be an intelligent being, worthy of their company.
“…but the Islamofascism of bin Laden and the Marxism of Chomsky are not that far apart in their goals – power to direct all aspects of human life.”
“isms” being fundamentally the same in intent, just differing in subject matter.
Or, a related albeit slightly different view from that famous French guy…
“plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose”
Yes, dicentra, not different from your observations the other day as to the ersatz feel good attributes progressives ascribe to.
And the notion that they are (VERY !) skin deep.
I do believe that the self-anointed Club of the Smart People includes quite a few blue state “intellecktuals” and more than a few newspaper editors (who will go unnamed, of course :-))
Tho’ unelected they seem to naturally assume they should be calling the shots.
“Or maybe you should ask yourself why so many supposed leftists support Islamofascism, why do they make common cause with those who should be their enemies?”
Because they share the common goal of hatred of the United States and everything she is or was conceived to stand for ?
Because they’re losers (in the case of bin laden and zawahiri, outcasts and criminals) who must attack and destroy because it’s all they have ?
(just some guesses)
(adios)
And yet unthinkable that Saddam would work with Al Qaeda…
dicentra, about #112, Big Pharma markets hundreds of percent more psychiatric prescriptions today to children — through every possible angle it can arrange via its lobby, including behavioral drug conscription being a condition of education, if not legal innocence (see HillaryCare) — then it did ten years ago. And I do mean hundreds of percent.
The problem isn’t always Big Business going under for want of freedom; the problem is just as often Big Business buying legislation which makes them vastly wealthy imposing statist, nannyist bullshit on ordinary people.
My mom taught school and would not be happy when she could tell a kid had been sent to school without his meds. It’s hard to argue with a teacher at the end of her day is all I’m saying. Well also my point is mostly that it’s way more than Big Pharma that has propelled this trend.
1) Yo, von! Call me if you’re ever back in town, if you’re so inclined. Or not, if not.
2) I’d like a signed copy of the comingling comment, please.
Just subjunctively thinking this subjunctive stuff through, and I’m begging to question:
Has anyone seen Chomsky and Osama in the same room at the same time?
Just sayin’ …
BTW, I had subjunctivitis once. Your eyes turn all dialectical and stuff, and you have to stop eating corn.
agip: I had adjunctivitis once. The primary symptom is extreme claustrophobia, exacerbated by being quarantined in a tiny office cum broom closet with several other sufferers.
I had conjugativitis once. Couldn’t invert a quaternion rotation for weeks.
I had disjunctivitis when I was an undergrad. I was forced to design a complicated circuit using nothing but NOR gates. Man, that sucked.
Well alrighty then. Can we just skip the politics and cut straight to the dancing girls? ‘Cause I’m not really up for the ‘enslaving people’ part. Too much work and they whine..
Dang! I’m checking the mail again, but I’m pretty sure I didn’t get an invitation. Can I get the gift basket anyway? Oh, and the dancing girls..
Well sure. The sheep want a shephard and nobody really believes that they’ll provide the evening’s lamb chops. They are hopin’ they’ll be invited to dinner though..
Eggzactly! When somone has their boot on your neck do you really care whose boot it is? We should hope for a kinder, gentler boot?
Frog hair should be so fine as this distinction, at least so far as the ‘benefactors’ of these different kinds of totalitarianism are concerned.
How very comforting.
A very strange definition of “freedom” that. Sort of like “academic freedom” as currently construed though.
Well sure. Both the progressives then and the progressives now believe in the perfectability of humans. And if you prove imperfect they’d like to make sure your genes don’t get to swim in the pool.
They’ve probably heard that bit “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again” and they are nothing if not persistent. Sort of like a bad rash that way.
For sure. “Power corrupts” wouldn’t be cliche if it weren’t true. As good a reason as any to be a bit wary of anyone who wants power, and a darn good reason to make sure that government power stays as small and decentralized as possible.
I think you’ve got that first bit backward. The ends differ but the means are the same. However, I agree that oppression feels pretty much like oppression — the ol’ “boot heel” — regardless of the intent of the oppressors. [Ah, I see. If you define the goal as power for its own sake, yes, the goals don’t differ much either.]
Well, you are a man ahead of his time. Unlike me, who’s a day late to the party as usual.
Pertinent quote at the Armavirumque blog today: “History is strewn with the wrecks of nations which have gained a little progressiveness at the cost of a great deal of hard manliness, and have thus prepared themselves for destruction as soon as the movements of the world gave a chance for it.”
“Or maybe you should ask yourself why so many supposed leftists support Islamofascism, why do they make common cause with those who should be their enemies?â€Â
Because they share the common goal of hatred of the United States and everything she is or was conceived to stand for ?
And that hatred stands revealed as more fundamental to their movement than what their PR would have us believe. Substitute every other co-opted liberal movement for “feminism” — civil rights, gay rights etc. — and the pattern repeats.
 and the pattern repeats.
Well, it doesn’t quite repeat… but it damned sure rhymes.
Jeff,
As others have pointed out, liberalism took hold in the 1920s and 1930s in this country, and led to the delayed response against the threats of its day, including Nazism, and the collusion with Communism.
Many Christian thinkers, such as Francis Schaeffer, have argued that this was the beginning of the end for Western Civilization. Higher critical thinking of the Bible in continental Europe was well under way in the late 19th century and made it’s way to the US in the 20s and 30s. It successfully removed the presuppositional underpinnings of the West, i.e. the idea that man is made in the imago Dei and is not just some brute animal. Granted, Darwinism didn’t help matters, but ultimately, you can trace the rise of liberalism in society to the rise of it in the church. Christian liberalism has to do with believing in the errancy of Scripture, but epistemilogically, it makes sinful Man the ultimate arbiter of truth. In light of various scientific fads, man in this period ultimately decided that many of the Biblical accounts were likely not true, thus there was no point in believing the Bible, around which the West has loosely formed.
Jeff,
These two books might be useful in explaining my comments, as well as providing an underlying reason for your conclusions. Though the authors are long dead, and the books old, they predicted the future pretty accurately.
“Among the Believers”…
Jeff G. examines modern progressivism and it’s unwitting (or perhaps not) collusion with the Islamists. Jews, please take note.&……
…
What a hilarious pile of intellectual dung. I don’t think I ever read a blog that said so little of merit so eloquently.