| (Close Window) |
| Topic: What is the world's most powerful and violent "ism"? |
|
||
| Http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-liberal-way-to-run-the-world-improve-or-we-ll-kill-you |
|
||
| Important to understand that Pilger's criticism of "liberalism" is a critique from the left of liberalism. Pilger's politics roughly approximates Noam Chomsky's. |
|
||
|
It's not clear exactly what Pilger's target is. I think he means liberalism as in the family of political theories for which the basic unit of worth is the individual--the sense in which all mainstream Western political parties are liberal. (With "neo-liberalism" being the target of many anti-free market thinkers and activists.) I don't know enough of Pilger to say more. |
|
||
| After reading a bit of Pilger's work, I'd say he fits into landmark's definition of [url=http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?forum=32&topic=578784&start=120#20]radical[/url]. |
|
||
| After reading a bit of Magnus Eisengrim's and Landmark’s work, I'd say it fits the definition of argumentum ad hominem. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Feb 16, 2015, tommy wrote: After reading a bit of Magnus Eisengrim's and Landmark’s work, I'd say it fits the definition of argumentum ad hominem. [/quote] What the hell are you talking about, tommy? I'm trying to make sense of his article. What are you trying to do? |
|
||
| Government regulated Capitalism, by far. |
|
||
| Try reading the substance of the article, old boy, rather than trying to read where Pilger himself stands on the political side and it might you get further in you effort in understanding. Before beginning this exercise, it might also help you to take a relaxing walk in the fresh air. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Feb 16, 2015, tommy wrote: Try reading the substance of the article, old boy, rather than trying to read where Pilger himself stands on the political side and it might you get further in you effort in understanding. Before beginning this exercise, it might also help you to take a relaxing walk in the fresh air. [/quote] I did, old boy. Pilger's article does not offer sufficient substance for evaluation. Placing it in the larger context of his other work helps considerably. More to the point: your charge of ad hominem is nonsense as neither landmark nor I have expressed opinions about the substance of the Pilger article. Neither of us attacked or praised him. Reading. Thinking. They're good. |
|
||
| Progressivism |
|
||
|
If placing it in the larger context of his other work helps you considerably, my boy, then why are you still trying to make sense of his article? Your claim that Pilger's article does not offer sufficient substance for evaluation is obviously true for you. More to the point my charge of ad hominem is not nonsense as you say you don't know enough of Pilger to say more about it which shows up your ad hominem thinking. |
|
||
| LOL tommy, you are so cute when you try to be clever. |
|
||
|
You walked into the party like you were walking onto a yacht Your hat strategically dipped below one eye Your scarf it was apricot |
|
||
| Shall we gavotte, tommy? |
|
||
|
“The liberal way to run the world - "improve" or we'll kill you” Ain’t that the truth? Liberals you can’t argue with them. They dictate to you what you’re supposed to believe, what you can or cannot say. It is 1984 doublethink, you see? John of course, he just can’t, he can't get past the doublethink of it and that is why he can’t understand the article. Liberty eh. :pirate: |
|
||
|
[quote]On Feb 16, 2015, tommy wrote: “The liberal way to run the world - "improve" or we'll kill you” Ain’t that the truth? Liberals you can’t argue with them. They dictate to you what you’re supposed to believe, what you can or cannot say. It is 1984 doublethink, you see? John of course, he just can’t, he can't get past the doublethink of it and that is why he can’t understand the article. Liberty eh. :pirate: [/quote] Perhaps, tommy, if you pull your head out of your rear end for a moment, we can discuss the meaning of the word "liberal" in this context. Then perhaps we can discuss the relevant evidence. And then we could make some informed judgments. But your ad hominem attacks are rather tedious. |
|
||
| LOL |
|
||
| Racism, Chauvinism, unregulated Capitalism, Fascism, Fundamentalism, and Neo-Conservatism. |
|
||
| FISM |
|
||
| Sexism |
|
||
| Nazism. Next topic. |
|
||
|
Without explicitly spelling it out, I'll say the most powerful 'ism' is the one that gave us all life. :) Next topic. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Feb 16, 2015, balducci wrote: Without explicitly spelling it out, I'll say the most powerful 'ism' is the one that gave us all life. :) Next topic. [/quote] I like it, and I smiled. But it doesn't fly with the violence part. |
|
||
|
My bad. You're correct. I missed the violence mention in the topic heading. :( |
|
||
|
[quote]On Feb 16, 2015, balducci wrote: My bad. You're correct. I missed the violence mention in the topic heading. :( [/quote] It might have been a violent *ism |
|
||
| Are liberals really trying to make sense of his article or they willfully ignorant? |
|
||
|
[quote]On Feb 17, 2015, tommy wrote: Are liberals really trying to make sense of his article or they willfully ignorant? [/quote] Thoughtful people are working out what he means by "liberals". I believe that he means most of us here, as classical liberalism is the doctrine that the individual is the fundamental unit of concern in a society. (As opposed to, say, communitarians who believe that a collective is the fundamental unit.) Pilger seems to be arguing that the aggressive exportation of rights-based politics (e.g. liberal in this sense) is the most dangerous force in the world. I doubt it, but it's a reasonable position. I suspect that Pilger doesn't see much difference between the party-loyalists who call themselves Liberal or Conservative. Are individual rights dangerous? Is it morally wrong to try to bring the world to acknowledgment of individual rights? What do you think? |
|
||
| I think that in your case John you do not choose not to see what is in front of you, I rather think you have been trained not to. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Feb 17, 2015, tommy wrote: I think that in your case John you do not choose not to see what is in front of you, I rather think you have been trained not to. [/quote] I think Tommy, you are unable to understand what you've never read or studied. But have it your way. If you think that the Liberal party fits Pilger's description better than the Conservative party (or Labour or what have you), feel free. |
|
||
| I think John, you are unable to understand what you've read or studied. |
|
||
| I think, tommy, you are playing the role of the little boy shouting at the big boys because the attention is so delicious. |
|
||
| Oooh dear get on him thinking he is a big boy and turning all powerful and violent. Come on John, calm down now and get back into your cupboard. |
|
||
|
:) But seriously folks. [quote]What is the world's most powerful and violent "ism"? The question will summon the usual demons such as Islamism, now that communism has left the stage. The answer, wrote Harold Pinter, is only "superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged", because only one ideology claims to be non-ideological, neither left nor right, the supreme way. This is liberalism. In his 1859 essay On Liberty, to which modern liberals pay homage, John Stuart Mill described the power of empire. "Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians," he wrote, "provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end." The "barbarians" were large sections of humanity of whom "implicit obedience" was required. The French liberal Alexis de Tocqueville also believed in the bloody conquest of others as "a triumph of Christianity and civilisation" that was "clearly preordained in the sight of Providence".[/quote] He's clearly talking about the exportation of war in the name of individual liberty in that passage. He slips quite comfortably to partisan ship [quote]"It's a nice and convenient myth that liberals are the peacemakers and conservatives the armongers," wrote the historian Hywel Williams in 2001, "but the imperialism of the liberal way may be more dangerous because of its openended nature - its conviction that it represents a superior form of life [while denying its] selfrighteous fanaticism." He had in mind a speech by Tony Blair in the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks, in which Blair promised to "reorder this world around us" according to his "moral values". At least a million dead later - in Iraq alone - this tribune of liberalism is today employed by the tyranny in Kazakhstan for a fee of $13m.[/quote] But, of course, Blair was from the Labour party (falling nicely outside the Liberal-Conservative binary he constructed in the previous sentence. Blair's liberalism is "small l liberalism"--the kind that all Western Liberals, Conservatives, Labour, etc. espouse. Has considerable harm been done in the name of liberty? Duh, yes. And in the name of empire. And of economics. And religion. None of this excuses anything; but it does call into question Pilger's main claim--that war and politics enacted in the name of liberty is the most destructive of all. |
|
||
|
“Liberals pay homage, John Stuart Mill...” That Big boy wanted to put people into institutions and knock them into the shape of his of his choice. Well clearly we are free at last! Free at last! Thank god almighty, we are free at last! He is talking about it is alright to be a despot in order to civilize them. That liberates them you see and that takes you back to 1984 doublethink, clearly. |
|
||
|
Mill was a man of his age in some respects, yet a leader beyond it in others. Mill placed individual liberty at the heart of democratic life and utterly changed the dynamic of political discourse in the West. He was also an early advocate for women's rights. I'm not sure your reference to institutions, Tommy. Can you be more specific, or provide a reference, please? |
|
||
|
Radical Islamic Terrorism. Especially when you pretend it does not exist. |
|
||
|
Pilger quotes Mill in the article. "Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end." - John Stuart Mill John Stuart Mill argued that barbarians have no rights as a nation, except a right to such treatment as may, at the earliest possible period, fit them for becoming one.” That includes barbarian women. The barbarians, well they are the people, the people who are different than the civilized liberals of course. The barbarians, they are the people who are just simply dictated to and told what they are supposed to believe and what they can and cannot say by the liberal institutions. Once they do as they are told well then they are deemed to be liberated. Then they are no longer barbarians such as I. http://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlLbty1.html http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/readings/mill.html |
|
||
|
Absolutely Tommy. Mill was very intelligent and wise. In spite of that, he was dead wrong about a number of things. We should be very cautious of attributing perfection to any of our forbears, be they philosophers, religious leaders, fathers of our nations, or even our favourite contemporary agitators. Study them line by line, and be critical at all junctures. You can't rule out the whole body of work because of these critical errors; and you should adopt anyone's work uncritically. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Feb 16, 2015, balducci wrote: My bad. You're correct. I missed the violence mention in the topic heading. :( [/quote] You obviously haven't seen 50 shades. (OK, actually, neither have I.) |
|
||
| Totalitarianism |
|
||
| Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR5ApYxkU-U |