Commenter Archive

Comments by b-psycho

On “IS or ISIL or ISIS or Daesh as “existential” threat

If some Americans kidnapped & murdered a visiting Pakistani journalist, would the government of Pakistan have the same cause for retaliation you're saying the US has?


Right, real perspective would go much deeper into the history of western intervention in the region (including covert operations) & its results, farther than any satirical show could ever do while still being funny. That said, the fact that the "ally" Saudi regime dishes out much the same head chopping brutality that's being cited as reason to especially fear I.S. has a dark stroke of humor to it.



On “Fighting “The Islamic State”

"Islamic State" gets across what indeed their goal is -- a state that imposes their particularly brutal form of Islam. If anyone has standing to argue against that name it'd be on grounds of rejecting their claim to Islam, rather than their claim to statehood.

At least people seem generally to realize that.

On “genocide and democracy

Seems like there's an unspoken, assumed characteristic to the democracy that they describe as strong against repression. Which means it'd be a particular type of democracy, a democratism modified. To not bother to explain the modification they have in mind is quite the oversight on their part. Embarrassing even.

On ““What we would expect…” – terrorism and poverty

Quite so for most leftist movement in general, though I would say that any left anarchism speaking of a "vanguard" or "leadership" at all has missed the green & lost its ball in the water.


Interesting argument about the division between the grievances and the ones responding to them. Would you say that applies beyond violent measures too? That'd appear to have difficult implications for virtually any viewpoint claiming to be born from struggle if so...

The world of well enough spread connection, abundance, and leisure to render using it for harm pointless is an appealing thought. If only we could pursue it.

On “Incredibly Obvious Solutions to Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

No. They are deficient and unworthy because according to them they must oppress people to survive. It's like declaring oneself a cancer or a parasite.

To go back to the original example: there are Israeli politicians right now that call for evicting Palestinians by force, with any survivors forced to sign loyalty oaths to Israel as a Jewish State. Presumably these politicians feel that necessary for Israel's continued existence. I'm saying that such a justification is inherently invalid. Why should people who are not Jewish be expected to be loyal to an officially Jewish state when no one (other than white supremacists) would expect blacks to to be loyal to a slavery or segregation regime? How does the end of maintaining Israel -- or any other nation-state -- justify prejudice?


What CK said, for the most part.

By stating the oppression of others as needed, one undermines the construct they're arguing in favor of. Why should people who would be subject to its burden, or oppose applying such, be expected to recognize their claim to authority? Similar issue came up in the US with slavery, & then Jim Crow afterwards; there were people that said each were necessary, that they were around for an existential reason -- blacks and those opposed to our being enslaved & oppressed openly disobeyed those laws. That is in effect to condemn to ashes any state in which the argument from the defenders of those laws was correct.

Indeed I would say the same of other states. To any member of the ruling class of one of the Islamic theocracy regimes who said without forcing their favored interpretation of Islam the country could not survive, I'd say "then I'll happily watch it fall".


I admit that the odds of them trying the tactic of peace and equality isn't very likely...


While Freddie does appear to imply that a rich states oppression is morally different from that of a poor state, that doesn't discredit the entire account. Israel should change their policies not because of income, but because they are unjust.

Claims to the effect of "without those policies the state of Israel cannot survive" are, IMO, synonym for saying that the state of Israel should not survive. Any entity that requires the subjugation of others, justice roots for its failure.

This isn't to say that they're uniquely bad, mind you. If anything the shame is in being all too common. Hell, look at the expressions of solidarity some Palestinian folks have been sending all the way over here to occupied Missouri...

On “ideal liberalism cannot derive a positive content from its own concept

That seen consistently there is no such thing as a liberal argument in favor of the state is basically why the US has "progressives" now. Concept of government force for them is a given need just as admitted conservatives claim, for maintenance of a certain "order" at all costs, the only detours being mere culture fight & coincidence. They head to the rare position nodding at individual liberty not because they feel the proper authority is no authority, but because the other cultural group Cannot Win.

After the specific preferences, difference between them and the Right is moot. It's force, hierarchy & bowing to one's declared betters all the way down.

On “Osama Bin Laden’s Interesting Argument (1)

That competition is going to kill us all eventually.


Initiation of force is wrong. Holding others to standards you yourself constantly violate is conduct to be ashamed of. There is never a legitimate reason to manipulate people, foreign or not, for the monetary gain of your friends.

Clear enough?

On “ever higher (interlude on Binladenism and Gaza)

The countries you mention not prompting sufficient marching and protest are effectively at war with themselves. I'm puzzled what such a hypothetical protest about those could conceivably have as a goal beyond generic "stop fighting!" remarks.

On “Osama Bin Laden’s Interesting Argument (1)

Are you saying that you believe that at some point of expressed, recorded, or otherwise verified consensus, the representational fiction would be or become valid or simply have to be considered valid?

If the decisions & procedures of the US government were thrown completely naked for the entire populace, and it were expressed clearly, directly, that if a threshhold were not met of explicit, knowing support, then they would drop the proposed ideas -- basically "we will have empire, we will be the largest arms dealer on the face of the earth while complaining about others arming themselves, we will back Israel regardless of whatever they do up to and including damn near genocide, we will interfere in other nations on the basis of politically connected domestic and/or corporate interests, etc" -- entirely, and this were directly, knowingly, agreed to...

If that were what America agreed to unquestionably, then 1) yes, and 2) we would be marking ourselves as parasites the world would have no hope whatsoever of living in peace with. I could no longer blame the rage of others on a misinterpretation of the US then, and would have to conclude that a critical mass of my fellow citizens were simply terrible people who the world needs to defeat, rather than naive people who just need to learn.


Bin Laden clearly swallowed a chunk of propaganda as if it were fact, and over interpreted the meaning of US elections with regard to foreign policy. The US government has a record of actions that rightfully angered people in that part of the world most of which we were kept in the dark about at the time.

If the average American had such power, if people power within alleged representative government were true and the result were STILL empire? Then fine, we're damned. But in reality we generally don't matter much and tend toward incoherence the rare times otherwise.

The responsibility factor to me sounds like what Obama's spokesman said about Abdurrahman Awlaki being murdered -- and is equally as absurd.

On “The 1.x-State Solution

For how you responded to my remarks about it, I didn't expect you to basically admit that the Israeli government has as long term goal erasure of the Palestinian people.

On “Scrapheap 2014.05.12 – People like Bundy, Eich, Sterling, Robertson, Deen, and Spinoza

miguel cervantes: the New Black Panther Party, our version of Boko Haram

Some NOI lamers in wannabe Panther garb that no one takes seriously, and you equate them with a heavily armed band of murderers & child rapists because...?


Good point on Sterling though. I suspect that the combination of the Clippers still sucking back then & the league wishing to play apolitical blocked doing the heavy lifting when he was caught doing concrete harms. I recall a recent column observing how different the tradeoff between commercialism and identity is among players now (I.E.: Jordan "Republicans buy shoes too" vs LeBron adding voice by demonstration to the Trayvon Martin case).
The punishment by now is more about the absurdity of someone who disrespects blacks running an NBA team.

As for the rest of them (Deen, Eich, Robertson)? Hey, boycotting works, oh well.


If the comparison is between a condition of freedom being imminent & freedom not being forthcoming then it's obvious which situation is better. That is not the comparison Bundy made though. His was one between a condition of being in literal chains vs figurative chains of dependency. As terrible as the latter can be based on the system constructed that necessitates such conditions in the first place (that is, the dispossession, marginalization & latent force threats holding people to need state "help", not the "help" in and of itself), the hope of liberation in the former was intentionally & directly to be beaten out of those so held -- in a literal sense even. Without the merest dangle of hope for better in the dependency scenario, its subjects would come to question the system itself & eventually seek to destroy it.

I could at least understand if the question were which *system* is/was more fragile, and the description of each were more accurate. But that would be expecting way too much of someone in Clive Bundy's position. From him & in the way he said it, it cannot help but sound like punching down, or at best the clueless butting in of a man who simply doesn't (and arguably CAN'T) Get It.

I think you confuse statements to the effect of an oppression being more honest from black nationalists and radicals with it being measurably "better". Any that would actually call it better I'd say are morons, as I said before. Systemic analysis along the way to consider terms of how to fight what came after is a different can of beans.

On “National-Imperial vs Neo-Imperial

Billions in U.S. tax dollars going to Israel for its military is our overriding interest. The criticism serves as demonstration of why the support should not continue, end the support & the interest ends with it.

On ““Not a Bug Splat” – Drone Warfare and Utopia

If your definition of the global order is that expansive then their existence should be enough, they'll do as they will. Any further asked of them & it is inherently political -- thus challengeable.


I'd say that the fear in areas susceptible to bombings goes beyond musing on mortality & ones place in the world. There's the knowledge that you won't live forever and consideration of global order, and then there's "I could die *today*, violently". Abstraction threatening to cease being abstract.

Whatever the global order is called, to extent there is a plan for it, there are (and always will be) people who want no part of it, who wish to be left alone. If there is a problem with granting that which justifies overriding such a desire for the sake of the order, then that order itself has a fatal flaw.


The counter-image as affirmation of humanity works as art, but it clearly has a purpose in making that affirmation: hope that the humanity of the drone operator prompts reconsideration of their actions, if not skepticism about the strategy that put them in that seat in the first place, due to reminder of the real human costs. To fully internalize the message being sent would lead to the Fire button not being pressed.

As for "higher socialization", to be honest I can't imagine those living in a war zone and literally fearing death from above thinking much about the concept. Fight or Flight conditions don't tend to be fertile ground for long range discussion. I get the feeling though that if given respite from such and exposure to the strategy as you describe it they would likely have one question: "Why?"
Even if there were some long run benefit to the people of Waziristan as you suggest, who but them are appropriate to make such a call on their way of life? Suppose they hear of the globalization context and they reject it?

On “His Husband, Her Wife

To add: conservative call for that type of individual negation also marks their public scream against collectivism as grossly inconsistent.

*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.


From the Featured Archives


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins