Actually, somewhere I have an answer I got from Noam Chomsky that answered a question I asked him, probably in the book I was reading at the time - whatever that was. Maybe my family will find it when they disassemble my collection of books someday. The day after it was announced that the Reagan Administration stooge, Violeta Chamorro, had won the election in Nicaragua, a result of the terror war that Reagan waged against the original and authentic Sandinista government, I asked Noam Chomsky how he managed to not be discouraged after his massively documented witness to the U.S. sponsored terror machine in Latin America. He told me that, as a comfortably placed, American, he had no right to become discouraged.
I was not expecting an answer. I was amazed that someone as busy as Chomsky was, someone who was so involved in writing and speaking and research would take the time to answer a question from someone he'd never seen before or heard, a nobody.
-----
In other hate mail, it is one of the few good results that have come out of the past fifteen years of neo-atheist propaganda, coercion and diatribe that a lot of people have taken a hard look at what the results of atheist-materialist orthodoxy have been. I can tell you that in 2000 I had not the least idea of looking critically at atheist-materialist orthodoxy and asking the questions about it that I would any other ideology that had gained the stranglehold it has on academia, the media and the judicial establishment. I had no idea that looking hard at what the atheists, themselves claimed and said in the past century would lead me from being a casual observer of that hegemony to being a total opponent of it. Literally, every single instance of that materialist-atheist ideological assertion was obviously damaging to American style liberalism, either in the atheist ideologues acting as a useful and perfectly foolish foil for the reactionaries or, on the other hand, insisting on ideological ersatz scientifically "proven" ideas that not only undermined and hollowed out the moral foundation of that liberalism, but utterly destroyed it. The long parade of lefties who went from atheist-materialist ideologies purportedly of the left to right wing reactionary politics is far longer than the one going the other way. The recent case of Christopher Hitchens isn't the last and it is far from the first of those.
I will note that a prominent member of the younger generation of those would seem to be in a funk over his advancing middle age, I'll do penance for that later. It's no wonder in that his ideological framing of politics and life leads to nihilistic stasis and oblivion. You can't build a successful liberal politics on nihilistic stasis, that is what took over from the last period of success under an explicitly Christian movement for civil rights. I don't think there is anything logically or rationally shocking in that it is the line of legal theories promoted by atheists who call themselves "secularists", legal theories that were often pushed in the theoretical interests of Marxists or non-Marxist atheists which have proven so useful for the purpose. The weapons that the Rehnquists, Roberts, Kennedys and Scalias have used to destroy the progress of the past century were handed to it by that supposed faction of the alleged left.
I am entirely convinced that there is a real and very basic reason that the progress of the 1960s gradually petered out. A large part of that is the scandalous idiocy of the left defending and even promoting "fairness" to Marxists even as Marxists supported some of the most brutal dictatorships in the history of the world, governments which not only denied hundreds of millions of people the rights that their supporters in the West demanded for themselves, but even the most basic rights to personal safety and life. The common consensus on that point in the despised plebs, the rejection of those notions, so heavily promoted in entertainment media and the alleged liberal media was far more rational than the assertions that the People should consider the possibility of reproducing that here. That there was insufficient liberal opposition to Marxism that the issue was claimed by the opponents of civil liberties in the United States is the real tragedy of the McCarthy period. The reaction to the excesses of the anti-Communists in that period led to further idiocy as it faded.
I don't think it's any coincidence that so many of the same figures involved in all of that were materialists. I think it's a logical result of their ideological holdings which will produce the dishonesty that is the foundation of that March of Folly which the left has made so often in the wake of the 19th century.
In reviewing all of the stuff that the play-leftists said over the past century, of reading the alternatives to them, I have become far, far more egalitarian, far more radical than I ever was as a conventional, academically, officially leftish-media nurtured agnostic-socialist. From where I stand now, I can see that a lot of them are far less radical than they ever thought they were, they've got a lot in common with the pre-neo-con Christopher Hitchens than they would ever want to imagine.
No comments:
Post a Comment