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

Out with the Neo-Con We Say!

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

  • Jerico
    replied
    Good one, mate

    Leave a comment:


  • Mikey_C
    replied
    I must say I find it a bit sad people are falling out over this. Such is the nature of "political" threads I guess. If I can risk getting psychological may I suggest there's some fear behind some of this? Not surprising perhaps in an unstable world, but dangerous as a motivator.

    I also get the impression that noone on this thread (certainly not I!) is or even claims to be an expert on Islamic culture or religion, still we live in democracies (just about) and have a right to express ourselves about what is one of the biggest issues around (I would be tempted to say the biggest, but I think it is tiny in comparison to ongoing genocides caused by starvation and preventable diseases and the impending likelihood of environmental catastrophe).

    I'm afraid if anyone is going to use the "Nazi" comparison they need to be incredibly precise and outline exactly where the similarities lie. Otherwise it's just below the belt emotionalism. I hear this said about Israel too, and reject it there as well. Also, talking about the pre-WW2 scenario this opens up wide debate about how much the Holocaust could have been foreseen, or was even preplanned at that stage. My personal impression is that it could have been and it was, but that just might reflect my own prejudices as the "appeasors" were largely on the Right at that time. Certainly it was plain that Hitler's economic policies were expansionary but we'll let that lie.

    At the end of the day I think we're all agreed on the fact that religious extremism and communal politics of any shape or form are a Bad Thing. We differ on whether we agree with the benevolence or effectiveness of a belligerent US / British foreign policy in dealing with this. Now if the US is now dedicated to spreading sweetness and light throughout the world, as some of the well-intentioned left(ish) apologists for Mr Blair would have us believe - at which point did this change - as the record proves otherwise. Let's not forget who built up Bin Laden, supported and armed Saddam Hussein, etc, etc, surely all this doesn't need to be repeated?

    My personal view is the world's being suckered. I don't think there's any great conflict of interest behind Islamic fundamentalism and US corporatism. The neo-cons can gains support at home through the fear they create, meanwhile shafting everyone with their free-market lunacy, whilst the Islamic Fundamentalists can seize control and repress their own population by exploiting legitimate grievances against the West. Once in power, they could strike some deals together. Anyone read "1984"? Nothing like a war to keep us under control. We had this with Maggie and the Falklands. Without that war, she'd have been out and the world could look very different. "Oh by Jingo!"

    Please, people - drop the fear and look at what's going on.

    Leave a comment:


  • Omaru
    replied
    Originally posted by Jerico
    I'll stop the world, I melt with you. You've seen the difference and it's getting better all the time.

    The future is open wide
    lol
    Thanks, Jerico. It was beginning to bore me, too.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jerico
    replied
    I'll stop the world, I melt with you. You've seen the difference and it's getting better all the time.

    The future is open wide

    Leave a comment:


  • PsychicWarVeteran
    replied
    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    Psychology moment: This was meant to be humorous.
    Really? I didn't get that. I guess use a smiley or something next time.

    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    It turns out that I was right though (as I place my Dr. Evil pinky to my lips).

    Talk about arrogant with a little blindness thrown in.
    Huh? Now I'm all kinds of confused. Whatever. You're not interested in debate; you're interested in trolling. I'm getting bored.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doc
    replied
    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    I?m not sure if people voted for Bush because he is or they are religious. I think that they voted for him because he ?sounds? religious. This is more about religious feeling than by the book religion. Bush sounds moral and interested. I don?t think people really care that much about if he is or if they themselves are. People operate on a lot of feelings rather than facts or hard ideas.

    So, I think that this is an example of religion getting really watered down in this culture. I bet almost no one reads the bible, but instead they want to hear biblical kind of things. You would think that folks would be more interested since god wrote the bible! However, they aren?t or they never think about it. So, I propose that taking a religion from dogma to feeling is a sign of it?s end.
    Exit polls showed Bush's faith to be a key factor in people's decision to vote for him. Whether or not that translates to anyone's religious beliefs is irrelevant, because as you say, people operate more on feelings than facts or hard ideas. Not coincidentally, religion, too, is based more on feelings than facts or hard ideas. Dogma ossifies those feelings, which stagnates them. Many religious scholars argue that a return to feeling-based spirituality is a direct response to hard-line, text-based fundamentalism. It is still fundamentalism of a different sort, but that is a sign of its entrenchment, not its decline, and certainly not its end.

    As for you anger management comment to PWV--

    Put people under the magnifying glass when they ask. Get over yourself and don't use your credentials as some kind of weapon, especially when you use them to make an unfounded argument. That is the last resort of someone with nothing to support what they think. It cheapens what you say and insults the people here with baseless arrogance.

    Leave a comment:


  • PsychicWarVeteran
    replied
    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    Hey if it’s true it’s true!
    But you have no proof it is. Only unfounded speculation.

    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    I doubt that many people have ever read the whole bible in most of the Christian or Jewish world... Be honest, how many people can you say that you know that study the bible and can relate it’s mandates to daily living?
    Many. Myself included. I know the Bible very well (especially the New Testament). I try to live my life off the teachings of Christ, as well as the moral teachings of other great spiritual leaders such as Gautama Buddha. Am I a rare individual in this aspect? I don't think so. I think a great deal of people in this world actually are attempting to find enlightement, salvation. You have a much more cynical view about that than I do, I guess.

    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    Accusing me about being well read on the subject is hardly an insult.
    Never accused you of that. Quite the contrary, actually.

    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    Accusing others of not being well read on a subject that they are commenting on is a fair thing to do.
    Not if it's just speculation on your part. You use "I bet" and "it's my guess" a lot. Knowwhatimean?

    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    Psychology moment: do you have anger problems PWV?
    Har! You really are into psych, aren't you? Nice try.

    No, I haven't had a problem with anger management since I stopped drinking a year and a half ago. But, see, I am currently on this "love thy neighbor" kick and it's troubling to me when I backslide and say hurtful things to people. It's tough, the spiritual path, and I have a long way to go. So, you know, every now and then when someone says something (or several things, in your case) that I perceive as obtuse, close-minded, or outright racist, I lose a bit of control. I hate that. That's why I want you to start arguing with facts and leave your specualtions out of the debate. It'll greatly help my spiritual growth. :D

    <Bill Bixby voice>
    Believe me, Adlerian, you've never seen me actually get angry.
    </Bill Bixby voice>

    Leave a comment:


  • PsychicWarVeteran
    replied
    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    I’m not sure if people voted for Bush because he is or they are religious. I think that they voted for him because he “sounds� religious... I don’t think people really care that much about if he is...
    I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I think Bush believes God put him in office and I think many of his constituents back him solely because they themselves are fundamentalist Christians and see him as the bitch of the Religious Right.

    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    I bet almost no one reads the bible...
    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    How many of you out there have read more than a paragraph of your government’s constitution? I bet not many.
    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    ...it is clear to me that you have never picked up a source book on Islam...
    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    ...my guess is that you have never even picked up a copy of the text that millions of people are taught...
    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    I am on a crusade against ignorance.
    I'm spotting a trend. You make a lot of assumptions about how well-read (or not so well-read) people are. Ironic, considering the site you've selected to post your views.

    Know what I think? I think you want to believe you're more well-read than everyone else. I think you believe everyone around you to be a bunch of ignorant boobs, including those of us here who occasionally disagree with you. Please stop assuming everyone is a lazy illiterate. Please? It's distracting and makes me say mean things back.

    Leave a comment:


  • PsychicWarVeteran
    replied
    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    I don't know about that Doc. I'm 38 and have seem a significant decline in religious belief here in the US.
    Gotta disagree with you there. The National Survey of Religious Identification and the American Religious Identity Survey report that from 1990 - 2001 in the United States, there was a +109% shift in Islam, +170% shift in Buddhism and a +237% shift in Hinduism. Agnosticism went the other direction: -16%. A +110% change in secularism during that same period seems insignificant by comparison. Further, Christianity made up over 75% of the total US population in 2000.

    Sadly, there's not a lot of more recent data to be found.

    http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions

    What I do see is a continuing trend anti-intellectualism in the US which, in my opinion, goes hand-in-hand with a rise in organized religions.

    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    Also, if you can get democratic government in that will start to take away the false power of religious authority.
    That would be nice, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, the majority of the people wanted Mr. Divine Mandate in office another four years, so there goes that idea, huh?

    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    ...it must happen because of the one world gov that almost has to happen.
    Perhaps, but that will likely take the thousand years you said you didn't want to have to wait out. :lol:

    Leave a comment:


  • Doc
    replied
    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    I have said before that I don't want to see all Muslims punished. I want to see it watered down like the other western religions. I do not know how to do that unless direct action is taken. I don't want people (especially me) to have to wait another thousand years before their fantastic nonsense wears out.
    You can't "water down" systems of ideas and ideals through direct action. Ideals don't have a physical location--action always does. You could try to overtake every Muslim leaning nation on the globe and you'd still have millions of followers in other nations.

    The Crusades proved how fruitless a war on Islam could be, but a more apt parallel lies with our present War on Terrorism (whatever that means) which is promising to be as futile as our War on Drugs. The common link being, of course, that national boundaries mean nothing to religion, terrorism, or drugs.

    Leave a comment:


  • PsychicWarVeteran
    replied
    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    About the baseball bat thing: conspiracies are illegal. You can’t plan to sell drugs or murder someone. I knew plenty of guys that were in prison just because they were caught planning something. It’s much the same isn’t it?
    If the person actually told you he was going to rape your girlfriend when you weren't around, then he has threatened you; that is an attack upon you. If you're simply assuming he's going to rape your girlfriend, then you are in the wrong to attack him first.

    I see your analogy as it applies to terrorists, but not all Muslims are terrorists. It is possible for a Muslim to never kill another person, whether they see them as an infidel or not.

    You want to punish a whole group of people based on the actions of a few. Should the entire nation of America be condemned for the deplorable actions of Bush and his administration? How would it be any different than what you suggest regarding Islam?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jerico
    replied
    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    It’s my thought that if we here were oppressed that we would never get out from under it. Where would we get weapons from? You can’t really make machine guns or rockets in you basement. I still say that someone would have to help.

    I think that preemptive strikes are good publicity for the US. It’s not good for our moral image, but it does send the message that if anyone tries anything we will totally ruin your good time. I think this message works well for rulers of other countries. Do you want to live it up and leave us alone or would you care to challenge us and end up in some prison with on money. Even if we loose some of these conflicts the people in charge of rival regimes loose even more.

    I don’t think that any of this stuff is right in a moral sense but it might be a good way to deal with some leaders that are on narcissistic power trips or involved in a fantasy world. It’s interesting and worth talking about.
    Woah boy! And how do you describe Bush and cronies?

    Leave a comment:


  • PsychicWarVeteran
    replied
    Originally posted by mordenkainen
    I'm afraid you're into realpolitik there, pard. I don't know if Adler would like that.
    Careful! I tried to say that yesterday (in different words) and got a bunch of condescension back for my trouble...

    Leave a comment:


  • mordenkainen
    replied
    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    I’m curious about something to you there in Spain. How did the population and government react to the train bombing and what were your personal feelings?
    My personal feelings are not really relevant as i'm not spanish, but i can tell you what i observed here.
    The context here was radically different. First, the spanish have lived with their own terrorists - the ETA, basque separatist group- for decades. It was not all brand new to them.
    The former government (j.m. aznar's) messed things up by trying to blame it on the ETA. They had engaged spain in the war in iraq against a vey large majority of the spanish opinion, and the bombing took place just a few weeks before an election they thought they would lose if they could be blamed for what had happened. which was the case.
    So the first "emotive" reaction went against the ETA, and then when it became obvious that aznar had lied, his people turned onto him. The bombing was considered a direct consequence of spain's participation in the war. There's a bit of what you called "making friends with the bully so you won't get bullied" here, but then, the spanish were against the war from the very start.
    The war is still very impopular now, and the general feeling is, i think, that the US are responsible for exacerbating islamism and anti-occidental feelings in the arab world. You have to remember the spanish - and most of the european - opinion is traditionally in favour of the arabs against israel. Our relation to the arab world is not as abstract as yours, for obvious historical and geographical reasons.
    Besides, anti-americanism is a tradition of ours, too. Our leaders used US imperialism a lot as a cheap excuse for their own subscription to the capitalist ideology. And, ironically enough, the spanish have a strong connection to south america and the history of US interventions there does not plead in your favour.

    anyway.....I'm afraid you're into realpolitik there, pard. I don't know if Adler would like that.

    Leave a comment:


  • PsychicWarVeteran
    replied
    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    However, I can go over to his place and hit him in the head with a baseball bat and toss him out the window.
    But wouldn't you then be wronging him, since he didn't actually ever do anything to wrong you? Wouldn't hitting him be immoral since it was unjustified?

    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
    There is an old Zen saying that instructs a person to take care of laundry first and Zen second.
    Ugh. That in no way condones violent pre-emptive strikes. This is a matter of deciding what is practical and what is not. IMHO, it isn't practical nor moral to go around hitting people just to keep from being hit. That's actually a good definition of 'evil.'

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X