Glazov exposes the Left

[Chinaski]

That is ridiculous, I agree, but I don't think it's indicatory of the entire "left" sphere of political thought, as other members have already argued.

[al-rawandi]

his is a strange comment. The founder of the Salafi brand of literalism is one of the most famous names in Islam - I would imagine there are very few people in Saudi Arabia who are ignorant of him. As it happens, the two people who have answered me so far on this subject are an Egyptian and an American ex-convert, and even they are not ignorant of him.

They know the name... I am to be impressed by that alone? Unfortunately the Salafi movement of Rashid Rida, Muhammad Abduh, Hassan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb was largely centered the anti-colonial intellectual inheritance of Sayyid Jamal al-Din al-Afghani. Bin Abd al-Wahhab had no interest in any of this as he had no contact with outsiders, no Jews, no Christians, no coloialists (he lived in a backwater area known as the Najd, from the backwater tribe of Tamim). Bin Abd al-Wahhab was largely concerned with perturbations in the practice of Islam, internally. So in this sense you are failing at identifying what exactly Salafism is. In fact "Wahhabi" is a pejorative term applied to the followers of Bin Abd al-Wahhab by the Ottomans then later the British, recently the "Wahhabis" have attempted to claim they are "Salafists" which they aren't, because I believe these features aren't expounded in the various writings of Bin Abd al-Wahhab, although Bin Abd al-Wahhab was certainly a traditionalist.

As for the over simplification of what I said.... What I said was that the propagation of Islam for the Saudi family is second to their desire to remain atop the heap and continue looting the coffers. The US strategy (both Republican and Democrat) has been to secure the free flow of oil. Any change in government in Saudi Arabia would likely disrupt this. I think this may be a worthy goal, in that a sudden spike in the price of oil would affect the shipments of food and other critical goods around the globe (affect in terms of price), this would be a disaster. Now, no one in these administrations ever said the Saudis were the pinnacle of human rights... to bring us back to the point.

[al-rawandi]

That is ridiculous, I agree, but I don't think it's indicatory of the entire "left" sphere of political thought, as other members have already argued.

Nor do I. I never argued that. People here seem to think that is what I am arguing. What I am saying is that as one moves "left" on the political spectrum one sees more and more of this kind of behavior. Of course many parts of the right are characterized by blind patriotism. But that is a different topic.

[charlou]

If these accusations of the left supporting obviously immoral leaders are true, it doesn't seem to be out of a shared immorality rather than ignorance of the immorality they are supporting.

I think the accusation is of deliberate ignorance.

'Deliberate ignorance' is an oxymoron.

[Trolldor]

That is ridiculous, I agree, but I don't think it's indicatory of the entire "left" sphere of political thought, as other members have already argued.

Nor do I. I never argued that. People here seem to think that is what I am arguing. What I am saying is that as one moves "left" on the political spectrum one sees more and more of this kind of behavior. Of course many parts of the right are characterized by blind patriotism. But that is a different topic.

But that is not what Glazov is arguing. He just blames the left, any left. The left right, the left left, the right left, the left centrists, the centrist leftists. He probably doesn't even turn left down the street if he can help it.

[Hermit]

I believe you have missed my point. My point was that not a single rightist has stepped forward to support a murderous regime on MORAL grounds.

And you have missed mine. I was addressing the claim in the thread's title that "Glazov exposes the Left". He does no such thing. His stereotyping of members of "the left" as "the believer" and the resultant tarring of every member of "the left" with the same brush precludes him from making a valid argument, and so as far as you assert that Chomsky et al is representative of "the left", you are making the same mistake.

Looks like I need to repeat: Your mistake is to say: "Let me make this point rather clear. The difference between right and left is as follows...." What follows, is a list of people like Gerald Horne, Barbara Foley, Mark Lewis Taylor and Norman Mailer, and claiming that they are representative of "the Left" at large. It ignores the huge schisms within parties of "the Left" that resulted from the Soviet Union's invasion of Hungary and Checoslovakia, the rejection of Stalinism and Maoism by millions of "lefties" and the general disillusion with leftist governments by millions more. Get my point?

[al-rawandi]

That is ridiculous, I agree, but I don't think it's indicatory of the entire "left" sphere of political thought, as other members have already argued.

Nor do I. I never argued that. People here seem to think that is what I am arguing. What I am saying is that as one moves "left" on the political spectrum one sees more and more of this kind of behavior. Of course many parts of the right are characterized by blind patriotism. But that is a different topic.

But that is not what Glazov is arguing. He just blames the left, any left. The left right, the left left, the right left, the left centrists, the centrist leftists. He probably doesn't even turn left down the street if he can help it.

I am not disputing that. What I am saying is that Glazov makes a good point even though he goes overboard. The fact remains that members of the left have rooted for our enemies for years, whether or not this is indicative of the entire left... I would agree with you it isn't. I am a lefty and I don't root for our destruction. In fact there are a number of Marxists and Socialists who have come forward to say all societies are not equal and that we must fight Islamism. Hitchens said that it was the duty of the left to stand with the leftists in Iraq who supported an invasion, namely the Kurdish socialists. I made this point in another thread saying that the Vietnamese Communists purged local councils of Trotskyists. So I happen to agree with Hitchens on the matter.

[Trolldor]

Oh I would agree with you that there is no question some leftists jump on the band wagon, only to pretend it never happened when the body count starts to roll in.


The right who seek the appointment of despots don't just seek the appointment, they actively move to make it so. They bring the full weight and power of their Governments to bring their puppet in to being, or to keep him there. What seperates the right from the left is that this element of the left are idealists, they believe change in their favour is inevtiable. The depostic element of the right believe that they alone have the right to make change.
Left aligns with left when they share a view but can easily become disillusioned, but the right doesn't care for ideals or morality. They don't care how many suffer, nor whether that suffering will even end, because they want their money or their oil or their regional influence.
Most of the left align with despots through cardboard placards, and those who align in force are usually those who have suffered under the old regime.

[Chinaski]

Psi, don't stir the teacup.


I never said he was right wing, that was ghost. What I said was it is a biased piece, and one without the necessary balance that makes it worth looking at, especially when the terms 'comprehensively destroyed' are bandied about.

Still awaiting the 'necessary balance', sir.

For you to decry my use of 'comprehensively destroyed', then you'd probably do well to substantiate your quoted comment. Don't you think?

You'll also do well, perhaps, to realise that midway between two extremes is not necessarily the answer, but that one of those extremes may be entirely the truth.

Your thus having all your work ahead of you, and hopefully without censorious moderating influence, I await your answer, if you can come up with a proper one.

Styrer

No extreme is ever 'truth', especially in the matters of ideology. History has supported that view countless times.
Secondly, you're own bias is hilariously obvious. Substantiate? I'm waiting for you to actually display any worth behind this book or its arguments, and then I might actually consider arguing against it. Until then I'm going to continue saying that the book is biased and not worth looking at, because that is what all the evidence you have presented points to.

This is a rather laughable post. You haven't read it and yet you issue all sorts of judgements.

Let me make this point rather clear. The difference between right and left is as follows.... Who was it the flocked to Soviet Russia to proclaim it a bastion of decency and human rights. Liberals went to Russia and wrote how wonderful the prisons were, so wonderful that prisoners refused to leave. The same for Maoist China, the left flocked, Chomsky wrote that Mao's collectivism in the great leap forward saved lives when in fact in ended 70 million innocent lives... often at the end of a machine gun or starvation. Leftists flocked to Castro's CUba to explain how it was a paradise on earth while Castro ran concentration camps for homosexuals, the details of which were expounded in numerous publications. The same went for Khomeini's revolution, Michel Foucault lauded the theocratic takeover of what was once a progressive Middle Eastern society. More and more leftists came out of the woodwork to defend the Sandinistas (the despicable Chomsky led the way again) while they slaughtered their own people. Chomsky defended Pol Pot's hideous regimes saying that the forced march from Phnom Penh "actually saved lives" (a familiar refrain from this bottom dwelling twat) when in fact the forced march actually cost 800,000 people their lives. Chomsky said Hanoi was the "Eternal City" And let us not us forget 9/11 where the leftist refrain was that we deserved it, Ward Churchill saying that the twin towers were filled with "little Eichmanns". But let us quickly review this reaction to 9/11 from the left in the US:

About 9/11 Gerald Horne of UNC said; "the bill has come due, the time of easy credit is up. It is time to pay."
Barbara Foley of Rutgers said it was a result of US "fascism".
Mark Lewis Taylor of Princeton Seminary said the WTC was a justifiable target because it was a "symbol of today's wealth and trade"
Norman Mailer said the suicide attackers were "brilliant" and that the attack was understandable. Saying further; "Everything wrong with America led to the point where the country built that tower of Babel which consequently had to be destroyed."

The greatest difference between right and left is that the right has repeatedly supported unpleasant regimes (Saddam Hussein being case and point) but never did so on moral grounds... "he is a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch." But as you can see leftists support the most awful regimes on MORAL grounds. They justify or deny their atrocities, and the sole reason for this is their own self loathing. The need to destroy their own culture, to see the ashes of western society upon which would be built a grand society... one that would accept them.

I could write a whole novel on what is wrong with the right if that would make you feel better about "fairness". But as you can see "fairness" has never been a concern of the left.

Just wondering... Do you have sources for what Chomsky allegedly said?

[Trolldor]

Chomsky is a self-righteous, petulant slime.

[Chinaski]

Chomsky is a self-righteous, petulant slime.

As far as I know he's a highly respected intellectual. Am I ignorant of some of his opinions?

[Trolldor]

Chomsky is a self-righteous, petulant slime.

As far as I know he's a highly respected intellectual. Am I ignorant of some of his opinions?

"Highly respected intellectual"

Heh... heheheheh....

Unless you fawn over him, he doesn't care much for you.

[klr]

Psi, don't stir the teacup.


I never said he was right wing, that was ghost. What I said was it is a biased piece, and one without the necessary balance that makes it worth looking at, especially when the terms 'comprehensively destroyed' are bandied about.

Still awaiting the 'necessary balance', sir.

For you to decry my use of 'comprehensively destroyed', then you'd probably do well to substantiate your quoted comment. Don't you think?

You'll also do well, perhaps, to realise that midway between two extremes is not necessarily the answer, but that one of those extremes may be entirely the truth.

Your thus having all your work ahead of you, and hopefully without censorious moderating influence, I await your answer, if you can come up with a proper one.

Styrer

No extreme is ever 'truth', especially in the matters of ideology. History has supported that view countless times.
Secondly, you're own bias is hilariously obvious. Substantiate? I'm waiting for you to actually display any worth behind this book or its arguments, and then I might actually consider arguing against it. Until then I'm going to continue saying that the book is biased and not worth looking at, because that is what all the evidence you have presented points to.

This is a rather laughable post. You haven't read it and yet you issue all sorts of judgements.

Let me make this point rather clear. The difference between right and left is as follows.... Who was it the flocked to Soviet Russia to proclaim it a bastion of decency and human rights. Liberals went to Russia and wrote how wonderful the prisons were, so wonderful that prisoners refused to leave. The same for Maoist China, the left flocked, Chomsky wrote that Mao's collectivism in the great leap forward saved lives when in fact in ended 70 million innocent lives... often at the end of a machine gun or starvation. Leftists flocked to Castro's CUba to explain how it was a paradise on earth while Castro ran concentration camps for homosexuals, the details of which were expounded in numerous publications. The same went for Khomeini's revolution, Michel Foucault lauded the theocratic takeover of what was once a progressive Middle Eastern society. More and more leftists came out of the woodwork to defend the Sandinistas (the despicable Chomsky led the way again) while they slaughtered their own people. Chomsky defended Pol Pot's hideous regimes saying that the forced march from Phnom Penh "actually saved lives" (a familiar refrain from this bottom dwelling twat) when in fact the forced march actually cost 800,000 people their lives. Chomsky said Hanoi was the "Eternal City" And let us not us forget 9/11 where the leftist refrain was that we deserved it, Ward Churchill saying that the twin towers were filled with "little Eichmanns". But let us quickly review this reaction to 9/11 from the left in the US:

About 9/11 Gerald Horne of UNC said; "the bill has come due, the time of easy credit is up. It is time to pay."
Barbara Foley of Rutgers said it was a result of US "fascism".
Mark Lewis Taylor of Princeton Seminary said the WTC was a justifiable target because it was a "symbol of today's wealth and trade"
Norman Mailer said the suicide attackers were "brilliant" and that the attack was understandable. Saying further; "Everything wrong with America led to the point where the country built that tower of Babel which consequently had to be destroyed."

The greatest difference between right and left is that the right has repeatedly supported unpleasant regimes (Saddam Hussein being case and point) but never did so on moral grounds... "he is a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch." But as you can see leftists support the most awful regimes on MORAL grounds. They justify or deny their atrocities, and the sole reason for this is their own self loathing. The need to destroy their own culture, to see the ashes of western society upon which would be built a grand society... one that would accept them.

I could write a whole novel on what is wrong with the right if that would make you feel better about "fairness". But as you can see "fairness" has never been a concern of the left.

Just wondering... Do you have sources for what Chomsky allegedly said?

Which bit? There are a number of items in there ...

Chomsky is a self-righteous, petulant slime.

As far as I know he's a highly respected intellectual. Am I ignorant of some of his opinions?

I'm afraid the answer is probably "yes". "Highly respected" depends on who you talk to.

Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Noam_Chomsky

[al-rawandi]

Psi, don't stir the teacup.


I never said he was right wing, that was ghost. What I said was it is a biased piece, and one without the necessary balance that makes it worth looking at, especially when the terms 'comprehensively destroyed' are bandied about.

Still awaiting the 'necessary balance', sir.

For you to decry my use of 'comprehensively destroyed', then you'd probably do well to substantiate your quoted comment. Don't you think?

You'll also do well, perhaps, to realise that midway between two extremes is not necessarily the answer, but that one of those extremes may be entirely the truth.

Your thus having all your work ahead of you, and hopefully without censorious moderating influence, I await your answer, if you can come up with a proper one.

Styrer

No extreme is ever 'truth', especially in the matters of ideology. History has supported that view countless times.
Secondly, you're own bias is hilariously obvious. Substantiate? I'm waiting for you to actually display any worth behind this book or its arguments, and then I might actually consider arguing against it. Until then I'm going to continue saying that the book is biased and not worth looking at, because that is what all the evidence you have presented points to.

This is a rather laughable post. You haven't read it and yet you issue all sorts of judgements.

Let me make this point rather clear. The difference between right and left is as follows.... Who was it the flocked to Soviet Russia to proclaim it a bastion of decency and human rights. Liberals went to Russia and wrote how wonderful the prisons were, so wonderful that prisoners refused to leave. The same for Maoist China, the left flocked, Chomsky wrote that Mao's collectivism in the great leap forward saved lives when in fact in ended 70 million innocent lives... often at the end of a machine gun or starvation. Leftists flocked to Castro's CUba to explain how it was a paradise on earth while Castro ran concentration camps for homosexuals, the details of which were expounded in numerous publications. The same went for Khomeini's revolution, Michel Foucault lauded the theocratic takeover of what was once a progressive Middle Eastern society. More and more leftists came out of the woodwork to defend the Sandinistas (the despicable Chomsky led the way again) while they slaughtered their own people. Chomsky defended Pol Pot's hideous regimes saying that the forced march from Phnom Penh "actually saved lives" (a familiar refrain from this bottom dwelling twat) when in fact the forced march actually cost 800,000 people their lives. Chomsky said Hanoi was the "Eternal City" And let us not us forget 9/11 where the leftist refrain was that we deserved it, Ward Churchill saying that the twin towers were filled with "little Eichmanns". But let us quickly review this reaction to 9/11 from the left in the US:

About 9/11 Gerald Horne of UNC said; "the bill has come due, the time of easy credit is up. It is time to pay."
Barbara Foley of Rutgers said it was a result of US "fascism".
Mark Lewis Taylor of Princeton Seminary said the WTC was a justifiable target because it was a "symbol of today's wealth and trade"
Norman Mailer said the suicide attackers were "brilliant" and that the attack was understandable. Saying further; "Everything wrong with America led to the point where the country built that tower of Babel which consequently had to be destroyed."

The greatest difference between right and left is that the right has repeatedly supported unpleasant regimes (Saddam Hussein being case and point) but never did so on moral grounds... "he is a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch." But as you can see leftists support the most awful regimes on MORAL grounds. They justify or deny their atrocities, and the sole reason for this is their own self loathing. The need to destroy their own culture, to see the ashes of western society upon which would be built a grand society... one that would accept them.

I could write a whole novel on what is wrong with the right if that would make you feel better about "fairness". But as you can see "fairness" has never been a concern of the left.

Just wondering... Do you have sources for what Chomsky allegedly said?

I do. I have to get on a plane, I won't be back on for a day or so, but I will provide those with citations when I get internet access again.

Thanks.

[al-rawandi]

Chomsky is a self-righteous, petulant slime.

I like the cut of your jib mate.