Glazov exposes the Left

[al-rawandi]

With all due respect, what the fuck are you on about?

Let's see if I can clarify for you. It looks pretty jumbled to me, too.

These people loath their societies because they have been rejected. They seek out minority status, their guilt over their own privilege has led them to seek out imaginary oppression. How many American's have claimed to be part Native American and it turned out to be a lie? Who desperately seeks such a thing? Again I shall mention the fraud Ward Churchill who said the occupants of the WTC (9/11) were "little Eichmanns"... Churchill claimed he was of Native American descent (Cherokee and Creek) and a genealogy was produced showing that Churchill had NO Indian descent. Why would he pretend to be Indian? He hated being white that much.

There was a woman at a sit in with Mario Savio at Berkeley back in the Vietnam war era. The police arrested a few of the protesters, but not her so she shouted "Arrest me too you male supremacists?" Who seeks to be thrown in jail?

Societies don't reject people. Societies don't have minds or the unity we ascribe to them. A society is a collection of coincident individuals. We build myths about our societies and when they fail to fit our myths, or when we find those myths distasteful, we feel rejected. But there is no actual act of rejection which takes place. Groups of people are not homogenous enough to reject us. Our tendency to stereotype ourselves and others is responsible for this feeling of rejection, coupled with a general negative cognitive bias. If those people who felt rejected would pull their heads out of their asses and begin thinking in terms of individuals rather than groups, they would find that reality simply does not conform to their expectations, that they've been fools, and that they have not been rejected to the extent that they believe they have.

There is no trait which can be ascribed to white people aside from the color of our skin- and even that trait is far more variable than we perceive it to be. There is no trait which Native Americans have that cannot be had by a white person. This whole phenomenon of rejecting our perceived race and adopting another is a very good example of growing up with useless and dishonest myths and judging ourselves by them.

In short, this whole thread is about people growing up to demonstrate that the computer truism, GIGO, is also applicable to people. We have all grown up with garbage data and we can all count on passing the trash on to our children. The degree to which we achieve happiness is, in my opinion, wholly dependent upon our ability to discard the garbage we've grown up with and make some fresh garbage of our own.

Okay that made a lot more sense. The society does not "reject" them. They FEEL rejected by society. The self loathing, the search for other victims, the search for alternate identity is a product of this. Styrer is absolutely right, Glazov exposes this pathology quite well.

Where Glazov is wrong is when he says this is true of secularism in general (he leaves this area bereft of citation). He berates secularism as being the same as Stalinism. It is dead wrong, but this doesn't change the fact that the left is pock marked with self loathing terrorist sympathizers.

[ScholasticSpastic]

Where Glazov is wrong is when he says this is true of secularism in general (he leaves this area bereft of citation). He berates secularism as being the same as Stalinism. It is dead wrong, but this doesn't change the fact that the left is pock marked with self loathing terrorist sympathizers.

(color mine)
Whoa! What? I understand the self-loathing bit, but the terrorist sympathizer bit kind of came out of left field ( ) for me. Where did that come from? There's a big difference between being a terrorist sympathizer and acknowledging that our governments (and, by extension, ourselves) aren't entirely blameless for the current situation. There's also a very huge difference between being a terrorist sympathizer and asserting (correctly) that it isn't a good idea to give up our civil liberties for a illusion of safety.

Understand that I do not align myself with the "Left" as it has currently defined itself or allowed itself to be defined. There are as many Leftist progroms I find patently offensive as there are Rightist progroms I feel similarly about. We need to remember that fascism can be aproached 'round either side of the political circle and that the extremism embodied by the vocal minorities of both viewpoints is a big step toward fascism.

[Arse]

A wasted post. I already answered this, but to further exhaust myself with the mundane I shall do it again.

Sorry for wasting your time, oh great one.

Yes the right supported both Saddam and the Saudi Regime, and Pinochet, and numerous others. But they did it on pragmatic grounds or economic ones. For instance they supported the Saudi Regime not for the benefit of the Saudis but for the benefit of the free flow of oil, which is directly correlated to the well being of the US and the world. The right did not support these regimes on MORAL grounds. They didn't claim Saddam was a humanitarian, the way Joseph Davies praised Stalin. Do you see the difference?

Yes, I do. The difference is purely in motivation, not in effect. The right supporting the Saudis for selfish, or as they see it, pragmatic grounds, while the Saudis are using their oil money to spread Salafi ideology all over the world through mosques, schools, book shops, dawaganda projects etc, has done enormous damage to many societies around the world. The sons of apes and pigs aren't enthused by an apologia of the right that squeals "we were only being selfish".

Chomsky said the Pol Pot SAVED lives. He said Mao SAVED lives. These were fundamentally untrue. He attempted to claim moral superiority for the worst totalitarian regimes on the planet, simply because they were antithesis of the society he hates most.... his own. The same goes for Harry Belafonte and Francis Coppola who said Castro and his regime were MORAL. They were not, they destroyed the society and brought misery to the population.

Three stupid bastards that live in ivory towers and claim to be left because it makes them more popular and rich. Fuck them.

There is a difference. You can call the right greedy and corrupt and you would be right but they never said that totalitarianism was MORAL, merely beneficial to their interests.

There's an element of truth in that. The right isn't snogging the King of Saudi Arabia because they are under any illusion that he's not a dictator. They just don't care what he does to his own people as long as they get what they want out of him. The leftists you so despise, OTOH, are deluded enough to think that the likes of Castro are doing great things for their own people. Stupid I know, but its arguably less despicable than someone who knows they are supporting an immoral tyrant for immoral reasons, and just doesn't care.

[al-rawandi]

Where Glazov is wrong is when he says this is true of secularism in general (he leaves this area bereft of citation). He berates secularism as being the same as Stalinism. It is dead wrong, but this doesn't change the fact that the left is pock marked with self loathing terrorist sympathizers.

(color mine)
Whoa! What? I understand the self-loathing bit, but the terrorist sympathizer bit kind of came out of left field ( ) for me. Where did that come from? There's a big difference between being a terrorist sympathizer and acknowledging that our governments (and, by extension, ourselves) aren't entirely blameless for the current situation. There's also a very huge difference between being a terrorist sympathizer and asserting (correctly) that it isn't a good idea to give up our civil liberties for a illusion of safety.

Understand that I do not align myself with the "Left" as it has currently defined itself or allowed itself to be defined. There are as many Leftist progroms I find patently offensive as there are Rightist progroms I feel similarly about. We need to remember that fascism can be aproached 'round either side of the political circle and that the extremism embodied by the vocal minorities of both viewpoints is a big step toward fascism.

Yet another very good post. But I would say that in the end, they are sympathizers. I got to a point myself where I was watching the Iraqi sniper videos of American soldiers being shot dead. I got to a point where it was so morbid that I simply couldn't persist. I say this because I lived it. If you would like more detail on my personal insights I can send a PM to you detailing this a little better.

[al-rawandi]

A wasted post. I already answered this, but to further exhaust myself with the mundane I shall do it again.

Sorry for wasting your time, oh great one.

Yes the right supported both Saddam and the Saudi Regime, and Pinochet, and numerous others. But they did it on pragmatic grounds or economic ones. For instance they supported the Saudi Regime not for the benefit of the Saudis but for the benefit of the free flow of oil, which is directly correlated to the well being of the US and the world. The right did not support these regimes on MORAL grounds. They didn't claim Saddam was a humanitarian, the way Joseph Davies praised Stalin. Do you see the difference?

Yes, I do. The difference is purely in motivation, not in effect. The right supporting the Saudis for selfish, or as they see it, pragmatic grounds, while the Saudis are using their oil money to spread Salafi ideology all over the world through mosques, schools, book shops, dawaganda projects etc, has done enormous damage to many societies around the world. The sons of apes and pigs aren't enthused by an apologia of the right that squeals "we were only being selfish".

Chomsky said the Pol Pot SAVED lives. He said Mao SAVED lives. These were fundamentally untrue. He attempted to claim moral superiority for the worst totalitarian regimes on the planet, simply because they were antithesis of the society he hates most.... his own. The same goes for Harry Belafonte and Francis Coppola who said Castro and his regime were MORAL. They were not, they destroyed the society and brought misery to the population.

Three stupid bastards that live in ivory towers and claim to be left because it makes them more popular and rich. Fuck them.

There is a difference. You can call the right greedy and corrupt and you would be right but they never said that totalitarianism was MORAL, merely beneficial to their interests.

There's an element of truth in that. The right isn't snogging the King of Saudi Arabia because they are under any illusion that he's not a dictator. They just don't care what he does to his own people as long as they get what they want out of him. The leftists you so despise, OTOH, are deluded enough to think that the likes of Castro are doing great things for their own people. Stupid I know, but its arguably less despicable than someone who knows they are supporting an immoral tyrant for immoral reasons, and just doesn't care.

First regarding your "apes and pigs" comment. These leftists I speak of are as anti-Semitic as the Muslim fundamentalists. Again if you want details PM me and ask, because I have some insight on this matter. But let us say that the Right would ignore this anti-Semitic bull shit, these leftists would explain it and apologize for it.

As for Saudi Arabia in particular....... the free flow of oil is paramount. Can you imagine if it suddenly cost 3 times as much to ship food???? How many would die? So yes oil is important. And yes some Shi'a in al-Ahsa' died, but how many lived through good relations with the Sauid regime?

[charlou]

The truth appears to be in opposition to our understanding: The more I have cast away the myths of my childhood (and I'm talking about a lot more than my religious upbringing) the happier I become and the more people like me. Our myths are not what gives us cohesion as a society- that is the role of our humanity. Unfortunately, our humanity is one of the things which suffers most under the pressures of our culture's mythology.

That is at the heart of what makes me ache about what we as humans do to our children's egos, by the imposition of our traditionally held prejudices and misconceptions.
It's our preoccupation with, and emphasis on, good and evil that gives both such prominence in our behaviour. From the cradle (even as early as during pregnancy) we are endowed with value laden labels, described as either good or bad (naughty), an angelic child or a little devil, depending on our demeanor and behaviour and how that is interpreted by those who bestow the labels, without consideration of the surrounding issues, of why we are the way we are or do the things we do, nor the effect that such attitudes and labeling has upon the the behaviour it seeks to label, and upon the psyche. We carry that baggage around with us throughout our lives, accumulating more and more along the way. In our quest to divest ourselves of such a burden we must acknowledge that we are neither inherently good or bad, and reconstruct our sense of self from a perspective of who we are in relation to the natural world, not who we are in relation to the imposed values and ideals of others.

[Arse]

First regarding your "apes and pigs" comment. These leftists I speak of are as anti-Semitic as the Muslim fundamentalists

I already know they are, but you don't seem to notice that there are rightists who share the same nasty ideology.

But let us say that the Right would ignore this anti-Semitic bull shit, these leftists would explain it and apologize for it.

No, let us not generalise to the extent that we tell lies. There are some on the left who behave like that, there are some who would ignore it in the same way as your stereotypical rightist. there are also some who would definitely oppose it. The right contains all the same mixture. PM me if you want details of nasty and deliberate anti-Semitism from the rightists.

As for Saudi Arabia in particular....... the free flow of oil is paramount. Can you imagine if it suddenly cost 3 times as much to ship food???? How many would die? So yes oil is important. And yes some Shi'a in al-Ahsa' died, but how many lived through good relations with the Sauid regime?

Saudi Arabia is exporting the most dangerous form of ideological warfare against the West, against any muslim country that doesn't follow their version of Islam, and against any country where neither Islam nor Western ideals hold sway. They are far more dangerous than Communism - and they have oil revenue and western "pragmatism" backing them all the way.

I do despise sloppy western leftists that lionise Castro and Che Guevara, but I think cynical western neo-Cons who turn a blind eye to Saudi dawa are far more dangerous. PM me if you want examples.

[Trolldor]

Nice rant, but you see when you write an argument it is necessary to enforce a reasonable amount of qualification in your statements, not to mention the fact that this 'left' is ill-defined at best. The 'left' is not a hivemind. Because one element of the left made a move it does not, therefore, constitute that the entirety of left-wing politics follows that. He blames 'The Left', what 'Left'? Only an asshole ignores the fact that just like any other ideology there are dozens, maybe hundreds of different factions within factions.
Or, by your logic anyone who identifies with the right-wing is directly responsible for and part of the right-wing christian movement.

This quivering apology doesn't really help at all. It is the LEFT, however you define it that produces some segment of its ranks who flock to the most wretched theocratic and dictatorial regimes in an attempt to invert reality and root for their own destruction. How come it is the LEFT exclusively that produced Stalin's most unwavering supporters, and Mao's, and Castro's, and Tomas Borge's, and Hamas'? What is it about being a liberal that makes one more likely to become such a worthless sack of shit?

Now I can go on about the right wing's duplicitous use of "Christian" issues to win elections for their own big business interests, but that is another topic. Let's stick to the fact that it was only ever leftists who cheered the terrorists on 9/11 and call al-Qaeda in Iraq "revolutionaries" and "minutemen".

How come it is the RIGHT that has repeatedly interfered in South American Politics and destroyed any chance at stability purely because they didn't want to lose their puppet Governments?
It is not THE RIGHT. It is one faction who express themselves as THE RIGHT.
You're ignorance is hilarious, and for someone who claims to be 'more left than the left' it's suprising how little you understand that there is no holistic banner.

[al-rawandi]

First regarding your "apes and pigs" comment. These leftists I speak of are as anti-Semitic as the Muslim fundamentalists

I already know they are, but you don't seem to notice that there are rightists who share the same nasty ideology.

But let us say that the Right would ignore this anti-Semitic bull shit, these leftists would explain it and apologize for it.

No, let us not generalise to the extent that we tell lies. There are some on the left who behave like that, there are some who would ignore it in the same way as your stereotypical rightist. there are also some who would definitely oppose it. The right contains all the same mixture. PM me if you want details of nasty and deliberate anti-Semitism from the rightists.

As for Saudi Arabia in particular....... the free flow of oil is paramount. Can you imagine if it suddenly cost 3 times as much to ship food???? How many would die? So yes oil is important. And yes some Shi'a in al-Ahsa' died, but how many lived through good relations with the Sauid regime?

Saudi Arabia is exporting the most dangerous form of ideological warfare against the West, against any muslim country that doesn't follow their version of Islam, and against any country where neither Islam nor Western ideals hold sway. They are far more dangerous than Communism - and they have oil revenue and western "pragmatism" backing them all the way.

I do despise sloppy western leftists that lionise Castro and Che Guevara, but I think cynical western neo-Cons who turn a blind eye to Saudi dawa are far more dangerous. PM me if you want examples.

Yes there are anti-Semites on the right. I think Pat Buchanan comes to mind.

My point about using a PM would be revealed if you care to do so privately. As I said I have some insight on the matter that I would much prefer be revealed in a private arena, these forums can be viewed by anyone. If you would care to know my personal insight on leftism send me a PM, I assure you it would be worthwhile. In any event you can continue to use it as a sarcastic jab if you so wish.

Actually Saudi Arabia is a cluster fuck. A country of which you know nothing about, which explains your parroting of Stephen Schwartz here. Saudi Arabia has no need to export such ideologies, as a political entity. They do so to placate Ahl al-Shaykh so they can make sure their King is Khadim al-Haramayn for the foreseeable future. Beyond this there is slight benefit for them. Granted they involved certain elements in Bosnia and Chechnya. Beyond this the Saudis are primarily worried about solidifying future cash flow. The export of Islam is a distraction from that. But they certainly are a problem, but one which is monitored by intelligence agencies in the west. Again, regarding Saudi Arabia, I have some personal experience that may be worthwhile if you care to correspond on a personal level.

[al-rawandi]

Nice rant, but you see when you write an argument it is necessary to enforce a reasonable amount of qualification in your statements, not to mention the fact that this 'left' is ill-defined at best. The 'left' is not a hivemind. Because one element of the left made a move it does not, therefore, constitute that the entirety of left-wing politics follows that. He blames 'The Left', what 'Left'? Only an asshole ignores the fact that just like any other ideology there are dozens, maybe hundreds of different factions within factions.
Or, by your logic anyone who identifies with the right-wing is directly responsible for and part of the right-wing christian movement.

This quivering apology doesn't really help at all. It is the LEFT, however you define it that produces some segment of its ranks who flock to the most wretched theocratic and dictatorial regimes in an attempt to invert reality and root for their own destruction. How come it is the LEFT exclusively that produced Stalin's most unwavering supporters, and Mao's, and Castro's, and Tomas Borge's, and Hamas'? What is it about being a liberal that makes one more likely to become such a worthless sack of shit?

Now I can go on about the right wing's duplicitous use of "Christian" issues to win elections for their own big business interests, but that is another topic. Let's stick to the fact that it was only ever leftists who cheered the terrorists on 9/11 and call al-Qaeda in Iraq "revolutionaries" and "minutemen".

How come it is the RIGHT that has repeatedly interfered in South American Politics and destroyed any chance at stability purely because they didn't want to lose their puppet Governments?
It is not THE RIGHT. It is one faction who express themselves as THE RIGHT.
You're ignorance is hilarious, and for someone who claims to be 'more left than the left' it's suprising how little you understand that there is no holistic banner.

So apparently you are allowed to malign me personally, while Styrer is denied similar privileges. Hopefully the moderators come to their senses and warn your for your above personal attack on me.

---Mods please warn the above poster about personal insults, as you have so diligently done to Styrer---

In any event let's continue:

The Right interfered in South American politics to stop the spread of Communism in the region. For instance their support of the Contras in Nicaragua. You look at things in the historical (20/20) lense. At the time Communism was a serious threat to freedom and the rightist governments (as well as the less rightist, such as the Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy administrations) moved to stop this threat to freedom, unfortunately they used despicable tyrants to do so. They never made a case for the tyrants on moral grounds, merely on the grounds of the justifiable policy of containment.

And for your information, I never suggested a holistic banner.

I look forward to your warning being issued... I am MORTALLY offended by your personal slight. I will take time to remind you that this forum does not tolerate such attacks on a member's person. I am offended, and this is not the way in which we conduct debate. I am shocked, simply shocked that you would resort to name calling here, as you are a regular poster and must be fully aware of the policy. I will be contacting the moderators personally to remind them of their duty to warn you and to urge them to carry out their charge. Good day.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

BAA,

I agree with al rawandi that your post (specifically the phrase 'You're ignorance is hilarious') was a direct personal attack rather than a challenge to his arguments. Please watch this in future.

Consider this an official reminder.

[ScholasticSpastic]

Shit, I missed that.

[cowiz]

Shit, I missed that.

We all saw that and we are all laughing at you

[ScholasticSpastic]

Shit, I missed that.

We all saw that and we are all laughing at you

I am suppressing my urge to continue this banter and reminding both of us, instead, that this is a derail. Yes, I started it. I consider myself warned. I will proceed to spank myself. No pics. It never happened.

[Arse]

Yes there are anti-Semites on the right. I think Pat Buchanan comes to mind.

Yes, but he's hardly the only one.

My point about using a PM would be revealed if you care to do so privately. As I said I have some insight on the matter that I would much prefer be revealed in a private arena, these forums can be viewed by anyone. If you would care to know my personal insight on leftism send me a PM, I assure you it would be worthwhile. In any event you can continue to use it as a sarcastic jab if you so wish.

You are free to PM me with any information you think is germane to the subject. If you don't want to, and you have some reason for not wanting to post it, then don't bother mentioning it.

Actually Saudi Arabia is a cluster fuck. A country of which you know nothing about, which explains your parroting of Stephen Schwartz here.

I have no idea who Stephen Schwartz is. You are trivialising my previous post by associating it with this dude who I have never even heard of. Don't do that again. Kthanx.bai.

Saudi Arabia has no need to export such ideologies, as a political entity. They do so to placate Ahl al-Shaykh so they can make sure their King is Khadim al-Haramayn for the foreseeable future. Beyond this there is slight benefit for them. Granted they involved certain elements in Bosnia and Chechnya. Beyond this the Saudis are primarily worried about solidifying future cash flow. The export of Islam is a distraction from that. But they certainly are a problem, but one which is monitored by intelligence agencies in the west. Again, regarding Saudi Arabia, I have some personal experience that may be worthwhile if you care to correspond on a personal level.

You have used two Arabic terms in your post. I can ask my Arab friends on the ex-muslim forum to translate them for me, but maybe you would like to explain first why you used them. They are both perfectly translatable into english, after all.

Ahl al-Shaykh

Khadim al-Haramayn

I will ask my Saudi Arabian friends to translate them into english, and also show them your post. Then we can talk.