Glazov exposes the Left

[Arse]

True, it does sound like a polemic from a right wing ideologue. Probly the kind of book that should be read in conjunction with its opposite number from the Left, whoever that may be.

[Chinaski]

Goddamm do I hate the Republican party.

[Styrer]

True, it does sound like a polemic from a right wing ideologue. Probly the kind of book that should be read in conjunction with its opposite number from the Left, whoever that may be.

And after my banning for 24 hours, and precisely upon my return days later in this censorious place, perhaps you would inform us all: what the fuck is the rightist notion that gainsays Glazov's position?

How nice it would be to hear from you with any points of substance. Is it to a deafening silence that I must look forward?

Styrer

[Psi Wavefunction]

True, it does sound like a polemic from a right wing ideologue. Probly the kind of book that should be read in conjunction with its opposite number from the Left, whoever that may be.

And after my banning for 24 hours, and precisely upon my return days later in this censorious place, perhaps you would inform us all: what the fuck is the rightist notion that gainsays Glazov's position?

How nice it would be to hear from you with any points of substance. Is it to a deafening silence that I must look forward?

Styrer

Perhaps you may consider acting like a more tolerable person this time?

[Trolldor]

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.

[Styrer]

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.

I am well aware of what has now become your refrain. Perhaps, then, you will provide the 'necessary balance' you're on about.

I await your answer with baited breath.

Styrer

[Styrer]

True, it does sound like a polemic from a right wing ideologue. Probly the kind of book that should be read in conjunction with its opposite number from the Left, whoever that may be.

And after my banning for 24 hours, and precisely upon my return days later in this censorious place, perhaps you would inform us all: what the fuck is the rightist notion that gainsays Glazov's position?

How nice it would be to hear from you with any points of substance. Is it to a deafening silence that I must look forward?

Styrer

Perhaps you may consider acting like a more tolerable person this time?

And quite where, sir, would be the fun in THAT? Surely my definition of 'tolerable' would be different from yours.

Styrer

[Styrer]

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

[Rum]

Capitalism is suddenly unpopular because it fucked up (this is the official academic term). The alternative? Well collective interest rather than personal gain and interest. What's this called sorta? Socialism. There are stirrings afoot. For example:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters ... rench.html

[Trolldor]

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.

[Psi Wavefunction]

True, it does sound like a polemic from a right wing ideologue. Probly the kind of book that should be read in conjunction with its opposite number from the Left, whoever that may be.

And after my banning for 24 hours, and precisely upon my return days later in this censorious place, perhaps you would inform us all: what the fuck is the rightist notion that gainsays Glazov's position?

How nice it would be to hear from you with any points of substance. Is it to a deafening silence that I must look forward?

Styrer

Perhaps you may consider acting like a more tolerable person this time?

And quite where, sir, would be the fun in THAT? Surely my definition of 'tolerable' would be different from yours.

Styrer

I object to being called a 'sir' kthx...

So you're implying you come here with a definite intent to shitstir? While I don't mind that elsewhere, I don't really care to use this forum as a battleground of wits or whatever, so I'm staying out of this thread. Perhaps we shall make some sort of indicator that this thread is to be a battlefield, not a café? We here generally expect gentle conversations, not vicious wordfights, so that's why people go a bit at your approach...

Anyway, have fun!

[charlou]

Perhaps we shall make some sort of indicator that this thread is to be a battlefield, not a café?

There's a thought.


Warning added to thread title.

[Hermit]

Glazov is a consummate ranter. All "lefties" are clones to him, safely referred to collectively as "the believer". Look at this excerpt, for example, courtesy of amazon.com.

The believer's totalitarian journey begins with an acute sense of alienation from his own society--an alienation to which he is, himself, completely blind.

In denial about the character flaws that prevent him from bonding with his own people, the believer has convinced himself that there is something profoundly wrong with his society--and that it can be fixed without any negative trade-offs. He fantasizes about building a perfect society where he will, finally, fit in...

A key ingredient of this paradigm is that the believer has failed to rise to the challenges of secular modernity; he has not established real and lasting interpersonal relationships or internalized any values that help him find meaning in life. Suffering from a spiritual emptiness, of which he himself is not cognizant, the believer forces non-spiritual solutions onto his spiritual problems. He exacerbates this dysfunction by trying to satisfy his every material need, which the great benefits of modernity and capitalism allow--but the more luxuries he manages to acquire, the more desperate he becomes. We saw this with the counterculture leftists of the sixties and seventies, and we see it with the radical leftists of today. Convinced that it is incumbent upon society, and not him, to imbue his life with purpose, the believer becomes indignant; he scapegoats his society--and ends up despising and rejecting it.

Just like religious folk, the believer espouses a faith, but his is a secular one. He too searches for personal redemption--but of an earthly variety. The progressive faith, therefore, is a secular religion. And this is why socialism's dynamics constitute a mutated carbon copy of Judeo-Christian imagery. Socialism's secular utopian vision includes a fall from an ideal collective brotherhood, followed by a journey through a valley of oppression and injustice, and then ultimately a road toward redemption.

In rejecting his own society, the believer spurns the values of democracy and individual freedom, which are anathema to him, since he has miserably failed to cope with both the challenges they pose and the possibilities they offer. Tortured by his personal alienation, which is accompanied by feelings of self-loathing, the believer craves a fairy-tale world where no individuality exists, and where human estrangement is thus impossible. The believer fantasizes about how his own individuality and self will be submerged within the collective whole.... As history has tragically recorded, this "holy cause" follows a road that leads not to an earthly paradise, but rather to an earthly hell in all of its manifestations. The political faith rejects the basic reality of the human condition--that human beings are flawed and driven by self-interest--and rests on the erroneous assumption that humanity is malleable and can be reshaped into a more perfect form. This premise spawned the nightmarish repressions and genocidal campaigns of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and other communist dictators in the twentieth century. Under their rule, more than one hundred million human beings were sacrificed on the altar where a new man would ostensibly be created.

This is stereotyping to a degree that has not been perpetrated since fulminations against "the Jew" were all the rage. The mantra-like repetitiveness is probably a device to hypnotise us into a frenzy of hatred against "the believer". I hope Glasov will not be as successful with that con.

[Styrer]

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.

BAA

'The book is biased and not worth looking at'.

Were there any parts in it that you particularly disliked, before granting us this devastatingly profound opinion?

Please tell. I was rather hoping that members who had read the book, such as yourself, would add to the discussion I started. Good to have you on board.

Do you think Glazov's treatment of Islam was entirely fair?

Styrer

[Styrer]

Glazov is a consummate ranter. All "lefties" are clones to him, safely referred to collectively as "the believer". Look at this excerpt, for example, courtesy of amazon.com.

The believer's totalitarian journey begins with an acute sense of alienation from his own society--an alienation to which he is, himself, completely blind.

In denial about the character flaws that prevent him from bonding with his own people, the believer has convinced himself that there is something profoundly wrong with his society--and that it can be fixed without any negative trade-offs. He fantasizes about building a perfect society where he will, finally, fit in...

A key ingredient of this paradigm is that the believer has failed to rise to the challenges of secular modernity; he has not established real and lasting interpersonal relationships or internalized any values that help him find meaning in life. Suffering from a spiritual emptiness, of which he himself is not cognizant, the believer forces non-spiritual solutions onto his spiritual problems. He exacerbates this dysfunction by trying to satisfy his every material need, which the great benefits of modernity and capitalism allow--but the more luxuries he manages to acquire, the more desperate he becomes. We saw this with the counterculture leftists of the sixties and seventies, and we see it with the radical leftists of today. Convinced that it is incumbent upon society, and not him, to imbue his life with purpose, the believer becomes indignant; he scapegoats his society--and ends up despising and rejecting it.

Just like religious folk, the believer espouses a faith, but his is a secular one. He too searches for personal redemption--but of an earthly variety. The progressive faith, therefore, is a secular religion. And this is why socialism's dynamics constitute a mutated carbon copy of Judeo-Christian imagery. Socialism's secular utopian vision includes a fall from an ideal collective brotherhood, followed by a journey through a valley of oppression and injustice, and then ultimately a road toward redemption.

In rejecting his own society, the believer spurns the values of democracy and individual freedom, which are anathema to him, since he has miserably failed to cope with both the challenges they pose and the possibilities they offer. Tortured by his personal alienation, which is accompanied by feelings of self-loathing, the believer craves a fairy-tale world where no individuality exists, and where human estrangement is thus impossible. The believer fantasizes about how his own individuality and self will be submerged within the collective whole.... As history has tragically recorded, this "holy cause" follows a road that leads not to an earthly paradise, but rather to an earthly hell in all of its manifestations. The political faith rejects the basic reality of the human condition--that human beings are flawed and driven by self-interest--and rests on the erroneous assumption that humanity is malleable and can be reshaped into a more perfect form. This premise spawned the nightmarish repressions and genocidal campaigns of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and other communist dictators in the twentieth century. Under their rule, more than one hundred million human beings were sacrificed on the altar where a new man would ostensibly be created.

This is stereotyping to a degree that has not been perpetrated since fulminations against "the Jew" were all the rage. The mantra-like repetitiveness is probably a device to hypnotise us into a frenzy of hatred against "the believer". I hope Glasov will not be as successful with that con.

Glazov devotes his early chapters to developing Hoffer's notion of 'the believer'. The repetition you cite is well explained. I suspect you're not up to speed with at least the early, most important and definitional moments of the book, if you have actually read the whole thing at all. I see some wriggling going on here, and it appears not to be my own, as my bottom is very firmly seated.

Is that the best you've got, SERAPH?, or do you have any more vacuous shite you wish to try to pass off as erudition?

Styrer