RedMaistre posted:I don't follow Are you trying to say that all the writers published at the national review (some of whom are jews, catholics, blacks, etc) are klans members or..?
did you know that half of the cops who were involved with the death of freddie gray are black?
RedMaistre posted:I don't follow Are you trying to say that all the writers published at the national review (some of whom are jews, catholics, blacks, etc) are klans members or..?
or are you saying that because obama is black, things that the he does are not technically white supremacist?
RedMaistre posted:If recognizing the difference between countries, even those notionally within the same bloc, is admitted to be important for understanding geopolitics, I am not sure why the same rule does not apply for domestic politics.
you take not issue with baby newton saying "democrats are all a bunch of people roleplaying house of cards" but once someone says the republicans are bad you are very concerned about making sure we are fairly representing the nuanced tapestry of our societal fabric
c_man posted:RedMaistre posted:I don't follow Are you trying to say that all the writers published at the national review (some of whom are jews, catholics, blacks, etc) are klans members or..?
did you know that half of the cops who were involved with the death of freddie gray are black?
And again,what are you trying to imply? That national review writers are plotting Klan-Nazi terror?
c_man posted:RedMaistre posted:If recognizing the difference between countries, even those notionally within the same bloc, is admitted to be important for understanding geopolitics, I am not sure why the same rule does not apply for domestic politics.
you take not issue with baby newton saying "democrats are all a bunch of people roleplaying house of cards" but once someone says the republicans are bad you are very concerned about making sure we are fairly representing the nuanced tapestry of our societal fabric
"Roleplaying house of cards" and " klan membership" are in two different ball parks as far as insults/accusations go.
In any case, if you are upset by that take it up with him that he is lacking in nuance instead of insisting that other people must see the world according to blue and red categories.
c_man posted:RedMaistre posted:I don't follow Are you trying to say that all the writers published at the national review (some of whom are jews, catholics, blacks, etc) are klans members or..?
or are you saying that because obama is black, things that the he does are not technically white supremacist?
No, but I wound't say he's a klanman either.
RedMaistre posted:"Roleplaying house of cards" and " klan membership" are in two different ball parks as far as insults/accusations go.
His comparison was "can only see in terms of political capital" vs "actually able to understand events"
c_man posted:I dunno, what would you call guiding the reactionary element of US foreign and domestic policy?
The people who have been guiding US foreign policy for the last 8 years are "progressive", humanitarian interventionists who wouldn't agree with the critical analysis of their actions in the articles that BHPN was referring to.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421373/illegitimate-libyan-government-funding-terrorists-who-killed-chris-stevens-ann
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427669/obama-isis-strategy-failure
Domestic policy has been somewhat more conflicted because the executive branch has less freedom of action do as it pleases, but again, whatever one may think of it, I don't think anyone would say that the paleoconservative faction at national review are the dominant force there.
c_man posted:RedMaistre posted:"Roleplaying house of cards" and " klan membership" are in two different ball parks as far as insults/accusations go.
His comparison was "can only see in terms of political capital" vs "actually able to understand events"
Again "lacking in understanding" is a much milder accusation that "they are members of a violently anti-Semitic, anti-black terrorist group"
Since you believe that this is an unfair assessment of the democrats, make the case to bhpn why that is so. That argument can be made without insisting that the other mainstream American political formation is a homogeneous bloc of evil, however. We can leave games like that for the professional apologists of the major parties.
http://www.rhizzone.net/forum/topic/13118/?page=1#post-292831
so I wound't draw the line quite as BHPN has done
RedMaistre posted:In bhpn's defense, there's a difference between the national review style conservativism he was talking about and stormfront.
RedMaistre posted:The people who have been guiding US foreign policy for the last 8 years are "progressive", humanitarian interventionists who wouldn't agree with the critical analysis of their actions in the articles that BHPN was referring to.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421373/illegitimate-libyan-government-funding-terrorists-who-killed-chris-stevens-ann
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427669/obama-isis-strategy-failure
Domestic policy has been somewhat more conflicted because the executive branch has less freedom of action do as it pleases, but again, whatever one may think of it, I don't think anyone would say that the paleoconservative faction at national review are the dominant force there.
if you think they're on the money about libya you should read them on iraq. maybe, just maybe, their uniquely powerful capacity for understanding events is actually rooted in jockeying for political capital. while also being the public face of the stormfront demographic
elemennop posted:C_man stop making getting into a fight your only form of discussion. You consistently refuse to give anybody the benefit of the doubt, so your constant outrage on behalf of minority groups comes of as more patronizing than spirited defense.
im not going to seriously and respectfully engage people who think gays are nazi degenerates and that the public face of US fascism is a fertile ground for recruiting for the left
c_man posted:elemennop posted:C_man stop making getting into a fight your only form of discussion. You consistently refuse to give anybody the benefit of the doubt, so your constant outrage on behalf of minority groups comes of as more patronizing than spirited defense.
im not going to seriously and respectfully engage people who think gays are nazi degenerates and that the public face of US fascism is a fertile ground for recruiting for the left
if you have no respect for BHPN, there's no point to talking with him. redmaistre isn't BHPN though, and what BHPN actually said isn't that controversial. he made an observation that some of the american right is easier to talk to about politics, not that it's a "fertile ground for recruiting the left"
swampman posted:Oh, so you think gays are wholesome, fully functional, un-degenerated Nazis? And that the public face of US fascism is too far left and much too progressive to serve as a fertile recruiting ground for the reactionary MLM / third worldist movement? Then I refuse to take you seriously or show you respect, either. Game on.
im posting here so i think its pretty clear that i want neither to be taken seriously or respected
elemennop posted:if you have no respect for BHPN, there's no point to talking with him.
i disagree. if people feel free to mindlessly spew reactionary garbage with no pushback that's just going to keep happening because there are enough people here who actively support it. i dont mind being "mean" to people who do that because i'd rather not have that be the norm.
c_man posted:RedMaistre posted:The people who have been guiding US foreign policy for the last 8 years are "progressive", humanitarian interventionists who wouldn't agree with the critical analysis of their actions in the articles that BHPN was referring to.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421373/illegitimate-libyan-government-funding-terrorists-who-killed-chris-stevens-ann
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427669/obama-isis-strategy-failure
Domestic policy has been somewhat more conflicted because the executive branch has less freedom of action do as it pleases, but again, whatever one may think of it, I don't think anyone would say that the paleoconservative faction at national review are the dominant force there.if you think they're on the money about libya you should read them on iraq. maybe, just maybe, their uniquely powerful capacity for understanding events is actually rooted in jockeying for political capital. while also being the public face of the stormfront demographic
1. There are neocon, Paleocon, and libertarian tendencies at national review that have waxed and waned over the years.
2. Unlike you, neither me or BHPN are arguing a universal proposition. Saying that national review is on to somethig regarding libya doesn't commit us agreeing with them on iraq or anything else.
3. I really don't think the stormfront demographic views the Jew and "cuck" infested national review as its public anything...
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1121495/
4. Not sure what are you are trying to say with the political capital comment. All mags are trying to compete for political capital. You and are trying to compete for political capital right now, in the small Eco-system that is rhizzone. Everyone is (hopefully) doing other things as well, of course, but that's the banal reality nonetheless that doesn't, by itself, serve as a "gotcha."
Edited by RedMaistre ()
Who said anything about "recruiting" anybody?
RedMaistre posted:2. Unlike you, neither me or BHPN are arguing a universal proposition. Saying that national review is on to somethig regarding libya doesn't commit us agreeing with them on iraq or anything else.
4. Not sure what are you are trying to say with the political capital comment. All mags are trying to compete for political capital. You and are trying to compete for political capital right now, in the small Eco-system that is rhizzone. Everyone is (hopefully) doing other things as well, of course, but that's the banal reality nonetheless that doesn't, by itself, serve as a "gotcha."
he said
babyhueypnewton posted:I love reading the conservative news. They're so close to reality but can't make the final step. So instead they blame the democrats. I find it much easier to talk to them about politics though since you just have to replace the word "imperialism" with "Obama's foreign policy", neo-liberalism with "Obama's domestic policy" and fascism with "Hillary Clinton future policy". Democrats on the other hand are just bourgeois liberals who simply refuse to see the world as reality instead of a football game where the point is to accumulate the most social capital.
i'm demonstrating that what he's saying is totally absurd because the historical conditions that we live in dictate that the way for his favored interlocutors to cynically accrue "political capital" is to state the obvious and blame it on their direct competitors. its totally ignorant of the way that electoralism mystifies political discourse. switch which party is helming the empire and suddenly the tables have turned and the other group is engaging in cognitive dissonance and cynical political gaming
RedMaistre posted:Who said anything about "recruiting" anybody?
i generally assume that when people talk to other people about politics at least one goal is for the other party to agree with you
c_man posted:RedMaistre posted:2. Unlike you, neither me or BHPN are arguing a universal proposition. Saying that national review is on to somethig regarding libya doesn't commit us agreeing with them on iraq or anything else.
4. Not sure what are you are trying to say with the political capital comment. All mags are trying to compete for political capital. You and are trying to compete for political capital right now, in the small Eco-system that is rhizzone. Everyone is (hopefully) doing other things as well, of course, but that's the banal reality nonetheless that doesn't, by itself, serve as a "gotcha."he said
babyhueypnewton posted:I love reading the conservative news. They're so close to reality but can't make the final step. So instead they blame the democrats. I find it much easier to talk to them about politics though since you just have to replace the word "imperialism" with "Obama's foreign policy", neo-liberalism with "Obama's domestic policy" and fascism with "Hillary Clinton future policy". Democrats on the other hand are just bourgeois liberals who simply refuse to see the world as reality instead of a football game where the point is to accumulate the most social capital.
i'm demonstrating that what he's saying is totally absurd because the historical conditions that we live in dictate that the way for his favored interlocutors to cynically accrue "political capital" is to state the obvious and blame it on their direct competitors. its totally ignorant of the way that electoralism mystifies political discourse. switch which party is helming the empire and suddenly the tables have turned and the other group is engaging in cognitive dissonance and cynical political gaming
You certainly have a point: I liked many opinion makers in the leftwing of the Democrat party better during the Bush years that I do now. Which goes to show you that one should be concerned more with forces, needs, and, of course, truth, than partisan labels.
RedMaistre posted:Which goes to show you that one should be concerned more with forces, needs, and, of course, truth, than partisan labels.
this is what's so strange to me whenever i see this same talking point resurface here every month or so. somehow a forum full of self-proclaimed marxists, presumably and understandably sick of being up to the gills in Democratic triumphalism, posts something about trump having the best foreign policy or whatever, when i would have thought it to be obvious that its just their turn to tell different kinds of lies
c_man posted:RedMaistre posted:Which goes to show you that one should be concerned more with forces, needs, and, of course, truth, than partisan labels.
this is what's so strange to me whenever i see this same talking point resurface here every month or so. somehow a forum full of self-proclaimed marxists, presumably and understandably sick of being up to the gills in Democratic triumphalism, posts something about trump having the best foreign policy or whatever, when i would have thought it to be obvious that its just their turn to tell different kinds of lies
Well that definitely something up take up with BHPN, not me,since i have already made my opinion of donald abundantly clear.
http://www.rhizzone.net/forum/topic/13046/?page=7#post-292630
c_man posted:i hope thats from the edx maoism class
yep.
I spoke to Colonel Abdul Raziq al-Nadori, Haftar’s rough-hewn chief of staff, at a sprawling base outside Tobruk. “Dignity started because our soldiers were being slaughtered and beheaded,” he said. “We had no intention of fighting our brother revolutionaries, but they joined those terrorists, so we had no choice.” Like Haftar, Nadori believed that the war would have to be won in Tripoli, but he hoped that civilian casualties could be kept to a minimum, if people fled the city. He regretted the reticence in Washington. “We want good relations with the U.S. It was Qaddafi, may God not rest his soul, who prevented us from having those relations. But the U.S. sees the Muslim Brotherhood as a moderate force. We see them as snakes with smooth skin.” Nadori had been trying, without success, to schedule a meeting with David Rodriguez, the head of the U.S. Army’s Africa command. “There are ISIS training camps here in Libya—Rodriguez himself has said so,” he told me. “So what are you waiting for? We’re not asking you to bomb them. We’ll do it. Just give us the military equipment and backup support we need to do the job, like you’re doing in Iraq.”
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/23/unravelling