Lounsbury: On a comment - Contemptible hypocrisy and the pre-fooled

« Bringing Coals to Newcastle - incentive incompatibility | Dollar Bis »

December 09, 2003

On a comment - Contemptible hypocrisy and the pre-fooled

First, it is usually best to actually understand a view before pretending to critique it.

Your statement "You've just posted elsewhere a study that suggests that miserable-failure Bush's view - that nothing makes Muslims inherently less susceptible to the capitalist disease than anyone else - turns out to be more realistic than the views of many self-avowed "realists." is pure khayali crap - glurg regurgitated from the idiots who pimp lies.

The realistic view does not in any way, outside of the childish and idiotic pretended critiques by the drooling morons on the American right, have anything at all to do with inherent incapacity for development, be it political or economic, so please in the future, do spare me the idiocy of the ignoramuses who pimp these distortions.

Now, should you have actual citations to the "realists" who posit that democracy is inherently impossible in the Arab region, or in Islam generally, then please feel free to quote them, with proper identification. I would note in advance that I do require direct quotations, not idiotic posturing by the ideo-pimps of the American neo-Cons and their colleagues in the know-nothing right. Otherwise I shall take it at the same level as your moronic claim there is real intelligence, ex-one moronic pimping of undigested intel by a discreted OSP and ideo-journo, supporting a Sadaam-al-Qaeda connexion (I have not forgotten to respond, it will come my dear innocent). There is a vast difference between understanding real, practical barriers, located in specific cultural-historical and institutional frameworks, and ascribing the word impossible and inherent on development of democracy in the Arabo-Islamic world - specifically the Middle East. Perhaps this requires a level of subtlety in thinking that tends to escape the ideologue, but so be it. I personally am unware of any State Department 'realists' expert in the Middle East who think in such terms - however one does have to be realistic about the barriers, the hurdles and the processes. As the noted paper, if you actually read it, is. It has no relation to khayali shit the Bush Administration is pimping. Rather it addresses a strain of critique rather more popular, before hypocritical expediency changed the tune, popular among the American right in re the culture. But once the political guru changed the tune, bien, il faut le volte face.

As for Gingrich's "critique" - again khayali bullshit. Make excuses as you fucking like - Bush's policies in regards to FP have failed on their execution which depends not on State staffers but the political side. Gratiituous and clumsy alienation of allies is rarely a good thing - and your idiotic, in fact drooling stupid assertion that there was nothing Bush II could have done to achieve a better result diplomaticially is so moronically in the realm of the pre-fooled I almost feel pity for you. Anyone looking to the advice of experienced American FP professionals such as James Baker and Brent Scrowcroft can find substantive and pointed critiques in regards to the completely amateurish, ideological and foolishly short-sighted, moment focused "diplomacy" of the Bush II administration, which stands in stark contrast with the diplomatic skill of Bush I in putting together a real coalition with real legitimacy in the first American Gulf War.

The fact you buy this sordid idiocy of ideological posturing speaks rather poorly of both your information, as well as your critical thinking skills. Look up the fucking critiques from the Bakers and the Scrowcrofts, pre-war, to see it. It is indeed naive khayali bullshit and a sort of almost pitifully charming naivety, if not childish gullibility to assert that a better job could not have been done on the diplomatic front. But the problem is that people like Wolfowitz, a fine fellow personally I may add, I have had beers with him some years back, had contempt for the concept of multilateral action, and indeed rather naively focused on one small and narrow reading of realism, in the context of the Melian dialogues. The criticism by Gingrich and the other whinging ideological posturering hypocrites of the worst order, of State, CIA and others, is nothing but a sad and sordid attempt to shift blame. It is, in short, as we say in French, la politique politicienne. Politicians politics should you not grasp that.

As for the sad blather about the 11 September events, wrap the present idiocy in whatever sad little bloody flag you want, it is idiocy, this present Administration and its policies. Ah yes, let me tell you in advance to spare me any pious posturing over 11 Sep., I too had personal losses, but I reject the sad exploitation of those events to justify idiocy and incompetence. Certainly, I should hope that the voting public does indeed judge FP results practically, for it is rather fucking clear that the Bush Administration has sacrificed real efforts on the front against al-Qaeda organizations for some trumped up farce of a policy based on ideologically bounded and driven policies hypocritically wrapped in the flag of 11 September.

December 09, 2003

On a comment - Contemptible hypocrisy and the pre-fooled

Trackback Pings

Comments

Comment Subscription