PDA

View Full Version : A little somethin' somethin' on Alger, nicky g, et al


Gamblor
12-03-2003, 02:32 PM
Marxism incorporates, at the verbal level and the intellectual level, the values of liberal democracy in its assault on liberal democracy and this is precisely why it entraps so many Western intellectuals who are themselves serious liberal democrats. Thus the slightest restriction on, let's say, the presumption of innocence of the accused is said to demonstrate the absence of the rule of law. The slightest failure of an electoral system demonstrates contempt for political equality. Any use of force in international affairs establishes the lawless character of the society. Now, it is a short step from having demonstrated that a country like the United States is not a law-abiding society to demonstrating that it is lost and that it is like any other lawless society. The Soviets can always claim "We are no worse than you. Even if we are a lawless society, you too are a lawless society, we are no worse than you." This is the "logic" of the doctrine of moral equivalence. If practices are measured by abstract, absolute standards, practices are always found wanting. The communists who criticize liberal democratic societies measure our practices by our standards and deny the relevance of their practices to judgments concerning the moral worth of our own society.

...It's perfectly clear that the tendency to self-debasement, self-denigration which has been so brilliantly commented upon by the French scholar Jean Francois Revel and others recently is rooted in this practice of measuring Western democratic societies by utopian standards. There is simply no way that such measurements can result in anything but chronic, continuous self-debasement, self-criticism, and finally, self-disgust. The problem of dealing with this is complicated by the fact that the values in question are our own values. The response, of course, must be that it is not appropriate to judge actual social practices by utopian standards of political values.

- from The Myth of Moral Equivalence, by Jeane Kirkpatrick, Imprimis, January 1986, Vol. 15, No. 1

Israel's enemies appear to be poised to secure through skillful use of moral equivalence and other techniques of ideological warfare what they could not do with tanks, missiles and warplanes. The Arabs' goal remains the acquisition of territory vital to Israel's security and, in the process, the delegitimation of the underpinnings of Zionism -- that is, the 'historical connection of the Jews to Palestine....'

...The Israeli leadership and many in the American Jewish community have unintentionally played into this latest bid to establish moral equivalence between the principally Jewish victims of the Holocaust and the so-called "victims of Zionist aggression."

- Frank J. Gaffney, Center for Security Policy Director, U.S. Senate Caucus Room, 16 March 1994

At the end of the [Pope's] historically significant visit [to Israel], the bystander's conclusion must be that the pontiff was admirably evenhanded. He urged an end to "anti-Jewish feeling among Christians and anti-Christian feelings among Jews" - as if persecutor and persecuted can be considered on the same moral plane.
He likewise seemed to balance the suffering of the Palestinians, which he judged as excessively prolonged, with the suffering of the Jews at Christian hands, which had gone on for 2,000 years and which culminated in the Holocaust.

Even if only remotely implied, this equation is in itself a colossal affront. It not only dwarfs the Holocaust but imposes culpability on its Jewish survivors. It sins by omitting the basic fact that the Arabs were belligerents, and cruel aggressors at that. The Jews never harmed Germany.

- from ANOTHER TACK: Masters of our fates, by Sarah Honig in The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition, April 7 2000


In the United Nations, of course, genocide is regularly charged against Israel and only Israel is regularly described as violating the Geneva Convention. Along with the terms go the documents in which the values are enshrined and codified. What further complicates this is the effort not only to redefine values but to eliminate any epistemological standard - any standard of proof - by which events might be objectively observed and through which we might have appeal to the double bind in which the semantic falsification puts us. Totalitarian ideologies, including Marxism, are inevitably, invariably, anti-empirical. Not only do they deny that there is any sort of objective truth, they deny effectively empirical verification and procedures of empirical verification because they make truth, and not only truth, but reality, dependent on power relations, i.e., truth and objective reality are ultimately defined in a totalitarian ideology by those people who hold power.

- from The Myth of Moral Equivalence, by Jeane Kirkpatrick, Imprimis, January 1986, Vol. 15, No. 1

Cyrus
12-04-2003, 04:52 AM
"Marxism incorporates, at the verbal level and the intellectual level, the values of liberal democracy."

Right off the bat, from the get-go, you start with a howler!

Marx, and then Lenin, more forcibly, argued not for the "values of liberal democracy", which they both detested, but for the uncontested and unrestrained rule of one social class over all others. Equating liberal ideology with the dictatorship of the proletariat has been a known conservative staple in the effort to smear liberalism. Ever since 1917.


I will skip readers to the end of your thumbsucker which concludes with a Jeanne Kirkpatrick (!) reference. 'Nuff said.

Gamblor
12-04-2003, 10:22 AM
Marx, and then Lenin, more forcibly, argued not for the "values of liberal democracy", which they both detested, but for the uncontested and unrestrained rule of one social class over all others.

You certainly aren't one to finish sentences, are you?

Allow me to continue: Marxism incorporates, at the verbal level and the intellectual level, the values of liberal democracy ...in its assault on liberal democracy

Simply being a neocon is enough to indict Kirkpatrick? Ad hominem, eh?

Cyrus
12-06-2003, 07:30 PM
"Allow me to continue "

My favorite Gamblor phrase!

"Marxism incorporates, at the verbal level and the intellectual level, the values of liberal democracy ...in its assault on liberal democracy."

Wrong, again, as expected -- but you asked to continue! Marx argued against bourgeois liberal ideology and morality; and Lenin was famously much more dismissive. All the standard liberal notions of majority rule and moral considerations in social affairs had no place in the Marxist (and particluarly Leninist) ideology. THERE WAS NO TRICKERY : Marx did not call for liberty of the individual or for political parties competing freely or for the state helping out the poor; Marxism/Leninism called for the destruction of the state and for a dictatorship. Where do you get those strange notions that Marx or Lenin were "incorporating values of liberal democracy" to attack liberal democracy? (Quick, what was the regime of Germany and Russia at the time of Marx's writings?)

Are you gonna read some Marx before making such a complete embarassment of your writings? (He was one of the most important Jews ever, for pete's sake!)

"Simply being a neocon is enough to indict Kirkpatrick?"

Actually, Jeanne Kirkpatrick qualifies as paleo-con but we should not be talking about ladies' age. It's not polite (to the bitch).

--Cyrus

ACPlayer
12-06-2003, 08:28 PM
Like most of your posts -- you have mathematically proven your case.

andyfox
12-07-2003, 03:13 AM
"Simply being a neocon is enough to indict Kirkpatrick"

Simply being Ms. Kirkpatrick is enough to indict her. Her words speak for themselves. If they're our bastards, they're not really bastards, they're "authoritarians." Not to worry about them. Only their bastards are truly totalitarians. Her entire academic and public career was built on 1984esque lies like this one.

A truly despicable character.

Gamblor
12-08-2003, 11:19 AM
Are you gonna read some Marx before making such a complete embarassment of your writings? (He was one of the most important Jews ever, for pete's sake!)

You have got to be kidding.

Marx was hardly a Jew, in fact he is the very definition of a Jew-hater, so much so, that he had the gall to write:

What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money."

In every way, he viewed the secular Jew as a self-interested response to Christian rule. And yet, at the same time, he thought Christians were the same as Jews, in fact, more Jewish themselves, for they were simply the theoretical extension of the practicality of Judaism.

The man was, by all accounts, a total nutbar.

Cyrus
12-08-2003, 02:02 PM
"Marx was ... the very definition of a Jew-hater, so much so, that he had the gall to write: "What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money."

Where did Marx ever wrote that thing?? Do you get your sources from the Ohrana archives?

"[Marx] was, by all accounts, a total nutbar."

I expect from you, of course, nothing less than such nonsense. And worse.

MMMMMM
12-08-2003, 02:24 PM
Whether Marx was a nut I don't know.

I did read something rather interesting recently though: that the Communist Manifesto was written by two young men who had never worked a day in their lives, yet had the temerity to presume to speak on behalf of "the workers." Whether that is entirely accurate I do not know, but somehow it wouldn't surprise me very much.

Gamblor
12-08-2003, 03:03 PM
On the Jewish Question by Karl Marx (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/)

nicky g
12-09-2003, 07:08 AM
It isn't accurate. Engels had worked for his father as some sort of factory manager.

Cyrus
12-11-2003, 05:08 PM
Thanks for the link, didn't know about that website. (The texts appear to be put together a little rashly. Will have to check.)

The article actually is nothing like what your feverish paranoia and closed-mindedness make it out to be. Marx is not being "a Jew hater" or "an anti-semite". All Jews that did not abide by the standard Zionist creed of national supremacy and irredentism were labeled as such, or worse.

Read the article (a review by Marx, actually). He calls for total emancipation of bourgeois society, an emancipation that will also free the marginalised strata, and the women, the Jews, etc. Marx does not accept that an individual can really be free in a non-free society.

Und varum nicht?