login join help ad
Now with 67% more lameness!.

September 21, 2007

Goldstein Nails it to the Wall

Every so often, someone will be SO VERY RIGHT that it sets off a sort of harmonic throughout the blogosphere.

The linked article at ProteinWisdom is one such instance. That ol' harmonic be a buzzin' and a' jumpin'.

Rather, it is simply to point out that, philosophically, at least, there is a vast area of intellectual overlap between the foundational principles informing most every totalitarian movement — and that, to many Muslims, bin Ladenism is a form of “progressivism,” though when placed in the paradigm of Islamic thinking, that “progressivism” leads backward rather than forward (and so to western eyes appears reactionary rather than radical — one of the reasons, one can argue, that it is frequently tied to social conservatism). Still, it is a kind of reform movement aimed at the excesses of capitalism and western liberalism — a way to control the natural diversity of outcome brought about when freedom is allowed to govern in fact (instead of being worn like a friendly facade) — and in its core foundational assumptions finds common cause with other material manifestations of those same principles.

Which is why, I suppose, bin Laden sounds so much like Chomsky. The only difference is the godhead and the place of worship.

There you have it, in a nutshell.

Posted by: Joseph at 12:53 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Jeff's entry was good, but he still doesn't understand the underlying reason for the moral confusion of today, which is pretty much the same confusion as the 1930s.  I think <a href=" http://www.amazon.com/How-Should-We-Then-Live/dp/1581345364/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-6662205-4100007?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190755301&sr=8-1">Francis Schaeffer</a> provides the answer.

Posted by: PRCalDude at September 25, 2007 01:22 PM (8jRjS)

2

One might argue that much of our own 'progressive' confusion stems from Thomas Jefferson's neutral views on religion in culture and politics.

Jefferson was very much a champion of religious freedom, but he was also a champion of generic religion.  His views on separation of church and state are most often misinterpreted to say that he didn't embrace religion in politics, which is not what he was doing.  Yet, his support of religion was as much philosophical as it was theological.

Ironically, the progressives here in our culture are often the most like the progressive Bin Ladens of other cultures.  Any wonder why our progressives are more interested in fighting the 'fundamentalist' Christians within American politics than they are in fighting Muslim terrorist in the Middle East?

  

Posted by: Lawrence at September 30, 2007 06:24 AM (FTC7F)

Hide Comments | Add Comment






10kb generated in 0.8425 seconds; 27 queries returned 33 records.
Powered by Minx 1.1.2-pink.