Glazov exposes the Left

[Hermit]

Glazov builds on Hoffer, and defines the Believer as one who is alienated from his own society, and therefore rejects its values, including democracy and individual freedom.

My main objection to Glazov stems from his stereotyping every individual on the left as "the believer". By doing so he reveals himself as a right wing ranter whose blind fury misses its mark in rather spectacular fashion.

As I said before, "the (stereotypical) believer" can be found among christians, racists, libertarians, milleniarians, communists, fascists, gandhiists, capitalists, republicans, monarchists, rationalists et cetera. "The believer" is not only found on the left, nor does "the believer's" alienation from society always result in a rejection of democracy and individual freedom. Conversely, none of the abovementioned groups consist exclusively - in many cases not even mainly - of a bunch of undifferentiated individuals known as "the believer". No, I have not read a lot of Glazov's book, and going by what I did read of it and by what you told us about it, I can think of plenty of other things to waste my time on before I'll get around to wasting it on his junk.

[al-rawandi]

el-oh-el.
If it focuses on the left, it's biased. That's what bias is, focusing on one perspective.
Especially the language used - that is not neutral language.

What stark raving lunacy. Are you REALLY saying that DISCUSSION of particular views must needs result in unfairness? And what the fuck are you talking about in regard to LANGUAGE?

Get a fucking grip before you get back to me.

Styrer

It's not a discussion if there's no return, and as he so clearly focuses solely on the left he supplies no return himself.
It's a biased piece, plain and simple.

So what? It only deals with the left, and because of this you dismiss it. I believe this attitude of yours is addressed in the book, rather ironically.

[Trolldor]

It's not addressed at all, as I'm not left-wing.

[Mysturji]

We need to learn how to attract a better class of troll.

[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.

[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.

[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".

[Arse]

What about the Right's complicity in supporting Saudi Arabia and similar regimes? They even supported Saddam at one point.

[al-rawandi]

What about the Right's complicity in supporting Saudi Arabia and similar regimes? They even supported Saddam at one point.

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

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?

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.

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.

[Don't Panic]

Guys, sorry for butting in with a stupid question but why do you keep going on about the left did this, the right did that, most of the stuff you're talking about was done by individuals or groups with power. Their professed political leanings are mostly irrelevant.

[ScholasticSpastic]

Guys, sorry for butting in with a stupid question but why do you keep going on about the left did this, the right did that, most of the stuff you're talking about was done by individuals or groups with power. Their professed political leanings are mostly irrelevant.

Seconded. Just because some power-maggot puts on his "Right" hat to get the plebes to follow him, that doesn't mean that their actions, or the support of those who call themselves "Right-wing" reflects the actual agenda of that group which has arbitrarily been assigned status as "The Right." Same with Left-wing power-maggots and Left-wing plebes. Basically, it's a lot of dogs following each other around in circles with their noses burried in each others' asses.

Our very human tendency to create pointless and often destructive power structures which excell in doing everything but addressing the real problems we face is perhaps my least favorite artifact of our evolutionary heritage.

[al-rawandi]

Guys, sorry for butting in with a stupid question but why do you keep going on about the left did this, the right did that, most of the stuff you're talking about was done by individuals or groups with power. Their professed political leanings are mostly irrelevant.

Seconded. Just because some power-maggot puts on his "Right" hat to get the plebes to follow him, that doesn't mean that their actions, or the support of those who call themselves "Right-wing" reflects the actual agenda of that group which has arbitrarily been assigned status as "The Right." Same with Left-wing power-maggots and Left-wing plebes. Basically, it's a lot of dogs following each other around in circles with their noses burried in each others' asses.

Our very human tendency to create pointless and often destructive power structures which excell in doing everything but addressing the real problems we face is perhaps my least favorite artifact of our evolutionary heritage.

How do you explain this self loathing group which coalesces around political beliefs that are termed liberal by all?

For instance a mainstay of liberal politics has been homosexual rights... yet liberals flocked to the defense of regimes that actively persecuted homosexuals. What is the self destructive element here?

The point being there is a segment of western society that is so totally self loathing that it reaches out to the enemy in the hopes of destruction. I am well aware of the psychology as I was a former sufferer. I lived it.

[ScholasticSpastic]

How do you explain this self loathing group which coalesces around political beliefs that are termed liberal by all?

For instance a mainstay of liberal politics has been homosexual rights... yet liberals flocked to the defense of regimes that actively persecuted homosexuals. What is the self destructive element here?

The point being there is a segment of western society that is so totally self loathing that it reaches out to the enemy in the hopes of destruction. I am well aware of the psychology as I was a former sufferer. I lived it.

I blame stereotyping. We're constantly exposed to stereotypes about who we should be and what should make us happy and who other people are. The one constant with stereotypes is that they're applical only to a very small minority. So most of us do not fit the stereotypes and yet we've grown up in societies which hold these unrealistic images up as an ideal. We loath ourselves because we were born into an untennable situation. We cannot discard the myths we grew up with because we (mistakenly) believe that those myths are what bind us together.

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.

I just reread over the preceeding two paragraphs. They seem sanctimonious to me. I'm certainly not claiming to have thrown off all the myths I grew up with, and even if I were to make that claim there could be no reassurance that what I have assumed to be true in my new understanding of the world isn't also myth- just not so old and stinky. Nor do I claim that there is a truth to be found beneath our myths. I'm just sayin' that most of the stupid stuff we do is because we're born naive and then our parents fill us full of useless shit (for all they don't mean to). We would probably benefit from giving birth at a more advanced stage of our development. I find it ironic that those of us who are most able to benefit from a long experience of the world are also those who are most likely to have deformed children. Intelligent designer, my hairy ass.

[al-rawandi]

How do you explain this self loathing group which coalesces around political beliefs that are termed liberal by all?

For instance a mainstay of liberal politics has been homosexual rights... yet liberals flocked to the defense of regimes that actively persecuted homosexuals. What is the self destructive element here?

The point being there is a segment of western society that is so totally self loathing that it reaches out to the enemy in the hopes of destruction. I am well aware of the psychology as I was a former sufferer. I lived it.

I blame stereotyping. We're constantly exposed to stereotypes about who we should be and what should make us happy and who other people are. The one constant with stereotypes is that they're applical only to a very small minority. So most of us do not fit the stereotypes and yet we've grown up in societies which hold these unrealistic images up as an ideal. We loath ourselves because we were born into an untennable situation. We cannot discard the myths we grew up with because we (mistakenly) believe that those myths are what bind us together.

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.

I just reread over the preceeding two paragraphs. They seem sanctimonious to me. I'm certainly not claiming to have thrown off all the myths I grew up with, and even if I were to make that claim there could be no reassurance that what I have assumed to be true in my new understanding of the world isn't also myth- just not so old and stinky. Nor do I claim that there is a truth to be found beneath our myths. I'm just sayin' that most of the stupid stuff we do is because we're born naive and then our parents fill us full of useless shit (for all they don't mean to). We would probably benefit from giving birth at a more advanced stage of our development. I find it ironic that those of us who are most able to benefit from a long experience of the world are also those who are most likely to have deformed children. Intelligent designer, my hairy ass.

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

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?

[ScholasticSpastic]

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.