You might say that about anything almost anyone here says about anything. Probably the only regular participant here whose opinions are ever sought here is Doug's, and of course even his make no discernible difference. (As a law prof I do get occasional calls from the press to pronounce on matters that impinge on politics, though.) So let's just shut up about everything, not bother to analyze politics or come to conclusions, abstain from action, and go cultivate our gardens. I seem to recall that advice from Candide.
--- Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 11:05 -0700, andie
> nachgeborenen wrote:
> > OK, so, since we cannot do that right now, we
> should
> > support reactionary religious regimes? And this
> > follows how? I must be missing a premise
> somewhere.
>
> The Islamic Republic isn't asking for our "support"
> here
> on lbo-talk, and our support or lack of it won't
> make any
> difference. For me at least it's mostly a matter of
> trying
> to think clearly, and do whatever little we can
> (which may
> be vanishingly close to zero, of course) to avert
> another
> imperial war.
>
> One may believe that the IR is "reactionary" --
> though
> it seems to me more of a mixed picture than that --
> but
> surely there's no doubt that the Iranian revolution
> was
> a considerable setback for the Empire, and that the
> IR's
> continued existence and prestige are a thorn in the
> Empire's flesh. This seems like a Good Thing.
>
> Joining our voices to the chorus of execration
> for the IR, just to show how bien-pensant we are,
> seems pointless to me -- nobody is asking for our
> opinion on the subject -- and, to the extent that it
>
> has any effect at all, counter-productive (if the
> goal
> is to avert war). Yes, I know, we always follow up
> our
> execrations with a solemn, po-faced assurance that
> we're anti-interventionist, but it's a little too
> much like running with the hare and hunting with the
>
> hounds for my taste. Our execrations and
> protestations
> tend to cancel each other out and reduce whatever
> near-zero effect we might have had to absolute
> zero, or less.
>
> More generally, I think we should cut out the bien-
> pensant thing and try a little harder for bloody-
> minded. Cheering on Ahmadinejad & Co. is about as
> bloody-minded as you can get and it suits me fine.
>
> If anybody asks, But what about the way they treat
> gay folks? And women? I just say yeah, I wish they
> wouldn't do that stuff, but it's for them to sort
> out,
> not us. People either agree with that -- at which
> point
> I've achieved _my_ goal -- or they don't. If they
> don't,
> with luck this eventuates in a concrete discussion
> of
> the actual history, motives, and consequences of
> intervention under high-minded pretexts, rather than
>
> some abstract, schematic, and -- I think --
> insufferably
> presumptuous attempt to issue the IR a report card.
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com