apologies dave,
i was being a bit simpleminded myself by skimming your email instead of
reading it more thoroughly
cheers
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, 27 January 2002 12:50
Subject: RE: MD Is Society Making Progress?
> Keith and 3WD
>
> Keith wrote...
> i think that the institutions that were attacked and the hegemony they
> represent are essentially a social value. the military, economic and
> political control of the world is more hegemonic and less democratic than
> has ever been the case in my short life. the locus of power is
concentrated
> in so few hands it is almost the divine right of kings all over again.
> many terrorist actions and the great majority of opposition to US/UK led
> imperialism around the world is rationally based. the relative evil is the
> people in power in the US/UK and elsewhere (IMF, World Bank, WTO); the
> relative good is the opposition to these forces of control.
> the religious question - as is so often the case - is a smokescreen and
> simplification that appeals to the simpleminded and fuels fundamentalism.
>
> Right. Economic and military institutions are features of the social
level.
> Didn't mean to suggest otherwise. (assuming your comments are directed at
> me.) I also agree that there are good rational reasons to oppose
> Anglo-American hegemony, although I wouldn't go so far as to say that
> terrorist actions themselves are rational. (But kudos to you for having
the
> guts to say that.) While there is certainly such a thing as rationally
based
> unconventional warfare, I don't think the 9-11 attack can be considered as
> such. It was so symbolic that it represents something like mythological
> thinking. They destroyed the perfect symbols of economic and military
power.
> On that level, it was brilliant. But as an act of war it was relatively
> ineffective and highly immoral. Not sure what you mean about the religious
> question. Are you refering to my comments about reactionary ideologies? If
> so, how is it simpleminded and how does it fuel fundamentalism?
>
> Thanks for the welcome, 3wd. I'll disagree with your claim that the MOQ
> accomodates political and religious views without bias. Pirsig praises
> Lincoln, Ghandi and MLK and he describes Fascism as anti-intellectual
> reaction, as social values gone mad. I think its easy to see a certain
bias
> in that and it doesn't take too much imagination to extrapolate his
> political views where more moderate ideologies are concerned. Plus I saw a
> Ralph Nader bumper-sticker on his car. Just kidding.
>
> And this is for Keith, 3WD and anyone who might be interested. There is a
> very interesting little test you can take that will put your political
views
> in perspective. (Keith, aren't you the one who calls yourself a socialist
> libertarian? The test puts Ghandi right there too. A good place to be.)
> Anyway, check it out for your self. It only takes about ten minutes.
> http://www.politicalcompass.org/
>
> DMB
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:47 BST