Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

THE AGE OF FUNDAMENTALISTS

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • THE AGE OF FUNDAMENTALISTS

    If the results are final and true ...

    The triumph of Bush is the next victory of Osama bin Laden. He will have millions of new followers as the outcome "proves" the Americans have chosen "Satan" to lead them.
    Fundamentalists need each other, one presupposes the other, it doesn't matter who started.
    The worst case scenario is we're a further step into another world war ... Iran, Syria and North Korea as next targets, and some terrible terror attack from the other side to begin with. Not necessarily in that order...

    But there's hope too: we are already one day closer to the 2008 elections!

    A very (for once) pessimistic L'Etranger




    Unless they abolish voting as a national risk, of course!
    Google ergo sum


  • #2
    (I apologize in advance to our conservative members.)

    Next in the political soundbite news...

    Q: What was wrong with the Democrat strategy?
    ----------------
    Answer: Who cares what the "experts" say?

    This country is ruled by a handful of rich white men.

    Apparantly FEAR is a better motivator than optimism and hope.

    If 9/11 never happened, there's no way that Bush would have been re-elected. I could be wrong (This country is ruled by a handful of rich white men.) It's a moot point anyway. However...

    > It also seems ignorance and blind faith are majority characteristics in the American population, more so than logic, common sense, and an understanding of the truth of the matters.*

    > I can't believe how much deception and blatant lying led to a victory
    > for the Republican party.
    >
    > American politics is ugly.

    _____________________
    *I mean, look at all of the states that are red-- filled with people like the truck driver that was kidnapped in Iraq:

    "Ahm struggling with money. That's why I went to Iraq to drive trucks so that I can support mah family better. Ah just thank Gahd for everythin. At least ah have Gahd an my family..."
    (not his exact words, but something like that; it is the gist)

    Irony. The man lives in poverty because he lives in a state with a shitty economy; the politicians have something to do with that. He is uneducated and dumb. Something the politicians can help stop, so at least the man's son(s) and daghter(s) don't have to be like him. In short, he is an ignorant country bumpkin, just like the rich white men who control things want it!

    ==========================
    Christina (Lewiston, ME )...

    I do not, in any way, regret choosing John Kerry -- I do not think we chose the wrong man. It doesn't matter WHO it was, Bush was going to win this, because either (A) The majority of Americans are ignorant and are continuing to vote on only one important issue to them and they do not acknowledge all the documented corruption in our administration, or (B) This race was fixed, rigged, or however you want to say it. But the latter would always remain conspiracy theory, so it doesn't matter, I guess.

    But I do not regret supporting John Kerry. I think he took an appropriate time to deliberate and then to concede. He would make himself and the party look foolish to not do so. That's why even the Dems recommended concession. If it turns his way later, fine. But better than getting raked throught the coals for the next week.

    I still support Kerry and feel badly for him -- I think he really believed this country wanted change. I did, too.

    And now I can say, for the first time in my life, I'm ashamed to call myself an American.
    \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
    Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview

    Comment


    • #3
      Today has been odd, to say the least.

      I think the title of this thread is very appropriate. I'm very sad that "moral values" was the reason most cited for votes. I always thought that social justice, peace, and human rights were moral values.

      Clearly the appeal to less complex values was an excellent campaign strategy. However, we live in a very complex world. I seriously wonder if people will think that abortion and gay marriage are really the key issues in their lives if things continue the way they are going. Reverting to fundamentalism is a sign of a nation turning inward on itself, unhealthily, trying desparately to hold on to what it thinks it is, whether or not that notion reflects any kind of reality.

      Fundamentalism is a retreat. By definition it is anti-progress. I'm not sure I like the implications for the US.

      Comment


      • #4
        I love the way insulting the people she disagrees with, stands in for an actual argument. Kerry lost because he had no clear message other than "Bush Sucks." Apparently that wasn't enough. It very easy to say that voters were ignorant or uniformed, but wasn't it Kerry's job to inform them?
        Originally posted by Jerico
        ==========================
        Christina (Lewiston, ME )...

        I do not, in any way, regret choosing John Kerry -- I do not think we chose the wrong man. It doesn't matter WHO it was, Bush was going to win this, because either (A) The majority of Americans are ignorant and are continuing to vote on only one important issue to them and they do not acknowledge all the documented corruption in our administration, or (B) This race was fixed, rigged, or however you want to say it. But the latter would always remain conspiracy theory, so it doesn't matter, I guess.

        But I do not regret supporting John Kerry. I think he took an appropriate time to deliberate and then to concede. He would make himself and the party look foolish to not do so. That's why even the Dems recommended concession. If it turns his way later, fine. But better than getting raked throught the coals for the next week.

        I still support Kerry and feel badly for him -- I think he really believed this country wanted change. I did, too.

        And now I can say, for the first time in my life, I'm ashamed to call myself an American.

        Comment


        • #5
          I want to be the next Independent candidate. I will disguise myself with more conservative traits. I will say that I love this country and love Jesus and don't approve of homosexuality and abortion.
          Cool!

          Oh wait. I have brown skin. There's nothing I can do to disguise that, unless you thought Eddie Murphy looked convincing as a white man in that old SaturdayNight Live skit.

          I'm not rich either. :( Well I could get some rich guys to back me, and have all the 527s (did I say the right number?)

          Oh forget it, still can't disguise my phenotypes...
          \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
          Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by TheAdlerian
            blaming the very citizens that got killed by blaming their country.
            I don't quite see the logic of this, I'm afraid. I'm not responsible for what my country does (apart from in the very minimal way that I voted for the party in government), so I don't personally feel blamed for, well - invading Iraq for example. Also, we must not forget that the citizens of a great many countries were killed in the twin towers, including Muslims.

            It is indeed true, however, that some on the left rationalised 9/11 as an act which could be morally justified, to their shame.

            By the way, is homosexuality really that unusual? I though Kinsey settled that. And heterosexuals get up to some pretty unusual things as well (including priests and rabbis!) But I have noticed that some of society's victims are more "fashionable" than others.
            \"...an ape reft of his tail, and grown rusty at climbing, who yet feels himself to be a symbol and the frail representative of Omnipotence in a place that is not home.\" James Branch Cabell

            Comment


            • #7
              Doc, you are right to remind us that the "Fundamentalism" theme has not merely to do with external affairs like the war against the opposing fundamentalists. It is very much an internal problem, but external and internal are well connected. The Bushovik message does appeal because of its simplifications. "You're either for us or against us". People translate that into "safety" and "being protected". Like you feel more protected (and apparently not manipulated, under surveillance and comntrolled) in the arms of your local church congregation. Not need to think for yourselves, not need to take decisions, all's seen to, if you just believe ...!

              Michael Moorcock wrote in 2001 (in another context) :
              "Sometimes complexity can be represented by simplicity, but never by simplification. The era of simple ideas we have just left behind was the bloodiest we have known. (...) Nazism and other forms of bigotry elevated to political policy pretend to simplify. (...) We know from experience what complicated and sometimes devastating consequences these simple policies have.
              Simple ideas attract those of us baffled by the world's complexities and paradoxes, but real simplification results in a dumbed down and dysfunctional model of the world. It simply falls apart on us."

              I see this as a very valid warning for today.
              Needless to point out how simplified the messages of the opposing fundamentalists are, offering safety in a world that changed too radically, too fast and threatened to topple age-old values. Now that the "villain" has a name for either side it is fiesta time for fundamentalists.
              Google ergo sum

              Comment


              • #8
                A victory for the America's rich and powerful to the detriment of the majority (both in the U.S. and elsewhere).

                Is it not ironical that the religious vote in the U.S. goes to the republicans?
                Who was it who said that, if God exists then he's a Socialist?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Liberal thinkers seem to try to push the most unusual things on the public first.
                  I don't think the liberals are at fault for this. It's the conservatives that always start with the whole gay issue (and the abortion issue, etc.) and liberals have to go in and defend it because people demand to know where they stand on it.

                  By the way, is homosexuality really that unusual? I though Kinsey settled that. And heterosexuals get up to some pretty unusual things as well (including priests and rabbis!) But I have noticed that some of society's victims are more "fashionable" than others.
                  I agree, heterosexuals can be pretty darn strange too. Also, many heterosexuals also participate in the same sexual activities as homosexuals...they just do it with the opposite sex.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Radical Right Agenda http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/11/09/right/index.html

                    A realigned Supreme Court will mean much more than just the end of nationwide abortion rights. Laws affecting all aspects of American life are at stake. Scalia and Thomas have consistently voted to narrow the scope of the Voting Rights Act and of other laws banning racial and gender discrimination. In the 5-4 Grutter vs. Bollinger decision, the two of them were part of a minority that ruled against allowing affirmative action in higher education. Lawrence vs. Texas, which ruled that states can't jail gay people for having sex in their own homes, was decided 6-3, with both Scalia and Thomas dissenting. "With the change of a justice or two, Lawrence would be overturned and states would be allowed to criminalize sodomy," says Neas.

                    That's not all. "We're talking about clean water, we're talking about clean air, we're talking about privacy, about opportunities with respect to fair housing and voting," says Neas. "There's been a failure to communicate how radical this administration is and what a radical effect it will have on our personal lives."

                    http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...ght/index.html
                    \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
                    Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      You scare me. I hope the anarchists are right when they say that repression is good because it increases resistance and radicalizes the general population. Please tell me that there are good chances that the present justices will stay in office for four more years...
                      You can't spell "politically correct" without "correct".

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        http://www.sorryeverybody.com/
                        \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
                        Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Politics is a bunch of pundit bullshit slinging...

                          We weren't dumb enough to vote Kerry
                          By Mark Steyn
                          (Filed: 09/11/2004)

                          "Last week, you may recall, I quoted Bob Kerrey - not the Kerry who was running for president, but a fellow senator and Vietnam veteran and a big backer of his near-namesake. This Kerrey was on television a couple of days before the election and claimed to have the pulse of the man in the street.

                          "I was in Gallia, Ohio, down in the southeastern part of Ohio," he said. "They don't give a damn about the war in Iraq. They're terrified about the loss of their job, health care, their pensions. That's what's bothering them."

                          I begged to differ: "In fact," I wrote, "the people - in Gallia, Ohio and many other places - understand the relevance of Iraq and Afghanistan to their well-being rather more clearly than the Democratic leadership do."

                          Just for the record, on Tuesday, in Gallia County, Ohio, George W Bush won 62 per cent of the vote.

                          It wasn't the economy, stupid. It was the stupidity, stupid. No man is an island, but the Democrats expect voters to act as if they are. Don't think about national security and war and Iraq and Iran and North Korea - that's all way beyond a loser like you. You're too "terrified" about your job to be bothered with the foreign pages. It's practically the Depression out there.

                          OK, it's not. But it's a recession. OK, it's not. But there aren't any jobs out there......"

                          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...ixopinion.html

                          _________________
                          If it's the case that if you win, then anything you say (no matter how full of shit) about your victory is true, then politics really is inherently fucked up and full of shit too.
                          \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
                          Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Oversimplification is the hallmark of politics. It's next to impossible to get people to understand the complexity on nuances of various issues, so people simplify by using labels. The term Neo-Con is a great example of this. It's bandied about a lot on this forum as if it explains a large group of voters when it's really just another oversimplification.
                            Originally posted by LEtranger

                            Michael Moorcock wrote in 2001 (in another context) :
                            "Sometimes complexity can be represented by simplicity, but never by simplification. The era of simple ideas we have just left behind was the bloodiest we have known. (...) Nazism and other forms of bigotry elevated to political policy pretend to simplify. (...) We know from experience what complicated and sometimes devastating consequences these simple policies have.
                            Simple ideas attract those of us baffled by the world's complexities and paradoxes, but real simplification results in a dumbed down and dysfunctional model of the world. It simply falls apart on us."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ReaveTheJust
                              A victory for the America's rich and powerful to the detriment of the majority (both in the U.S. and elsewhere).
                              Don't be blinded by your party line. Rich and powerful white men win regardless of who gets elected.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X