'structural'
The brick wall I always run into with this stuff is trying to think of it in solid terms whilst being aware of its centrelessness. You either go down the conspiratorial route and find a "Them" to pin it all on, or you spend the whole time grappling with this nebulous mass with no clear targets.
craner
Beast of Burden
I think so.
luka
Well-known member
That's something no one would disagree with. It sounds reasonable and rational but does it help us explain why certain ideas gain ascendency over others? Why has cultural Marxism assumed this prominence? Why did neliberalism have its decades of dominance? Etc etc
mvuent
Void Dweller
still seems to me like there's a major divide where the right uses language of personal responsibility and the left uses this vague language about structures. which terms you want to think in determine which echo chamber you'll fall into. maybe the latter is becoming more ubiquitous but i still think the divide is very noticeable.
like i signed up for the trump email list just to see what they'd say and the language is all "the president is counting on YOU to STEP UP and donate" and "the president is disappointed you haven't donated, but there's still time to show that you're his most loyal supporter" etc. whereas the warren list i was on was always about "big structural change". i think that was like the exact phrase they always used.
like i signed up for the trump email list just to see what they'd say and the language is all "the president is counting on YOU to STEP UP and donate" and "the president is disappointed you haven't donated, but there's still time to show that you're his most loyal supporter" etc. whereas the warren list i was on was always about "big structural change". i think that was like the exact phrase they always used.
luka
Well-known member
It's not a contemptible position is it. It has an explanatory power. Material interests. It's like sex with Freud. You can explain everything with sex if you choose to.
luka
Well-known member
That's why I think it's useful to try and pin Craner down.
luka
Well-known member
Why were the architects of the Iraq war interested in Niall Fergusons views on empire? Why were the mega rich interested in trickle down theories of economics? This kind of thing. Ideas being just PR for brutal acquisition and conquest
craner
Beast of Burden
My problem with this is that the centre quite quickly becomes Jewish.
luka
Well-known member
That's not an adequate criticism. It doesn't disprove anything. It doesn't even disprove that the centre actually is Jewish
craner
Beast of Burden
They weren't.
craner
Beast of Burden
Hang on, I'm on the phone.
He's right though. That's why it's a brick wall. You either become a horrible conspiracy theorist and just decide it's the fault of the Jews or whoever, or you become paralyzed by uncertainty. With the former, it's bollocks and immoral so isn't a viable option, with the latter you have so little direction you can never really do anything.
luka
Well-known member
He's right but it doesn't solve anything. It's just an observation of a trend. It doesn't prove that there is no Enemy. The question of whether or not there is an Enemy is still live.
chava
Well-known member
As you said. Your digust response. And positive feedback
craner
Beast of Burden
Ok, I'm back.
The idea that the 'neocon cabal' put forward was that the Arab Middle East was ripe for democratic revolution in a way that was analogous to the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe. They believed that America could be an agent in this process and that Iraq, being a totalitarian regime with an advanced middle class, could be the catalyst for the downfall of all the other authoritarian regimes and theocracies. They would be replaced, as in Eastern Europe, by liberal democracies open to the free market. Everybody would benefit. It was America's historical liberal mission. I think that the clearest articulations of this view are David Wurmser's Tyranny's Ally and Robert Kagan's Paradise and Power:
Bush, Rice and Cheney all took on board this analysis (Rumsfeld less so) and the other writers who had great influence in that administration included Victor Davis Hanson, Bernard Lewis, Natan Sharansky and Fouad Ajami. This is where you would have to look for the intellectual influence of the pro-war neocons, not Niall Fergusson.
The idea that the 'neocon cabal' put forward was that the Arab Middle East was ripe for democratic revolution in a way that was analogous to the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe. They believed that America could be an agent in this process and that Iraq, being a totalitarian regime with an advanced middle class, could be the catalyst for the downfall of all the other authoritarian regimes and theocracies. They would be replaced, as in Eastern Europe, by liberal democracies open to the free market. Everybody would benefit. It was America's historical liberal mission. I think that the clearest articulations of this view are David Wurmser's Tyranny's Ally and Robert Kagan's Paradise and Power:
Bush, Rice and Cheney all took on board this analysis (Rumsfeld less so) and the other writers who had great influence in that administration included Victor Davis Hanson, Bernard Lewis, Natan Sharansky and Fouad Ajami. This is where you would have to look for the intellectual influence of the pro-war neocons, not Niall Fergusson.
Last edited: