Socio-political rants
I am currently reading John Gray’s “Al Qaeda and What it Means to Be Modern” and one of the ruling premise of the book is that “modern thought” is a purely western paradigm -a holdover from enlightenment. It has left many of us and most notably Americans feel that technology will create a better world and we will progress as time goes on. Guilty as charge, I felt it was a definite attack on my personal view on life and that it’s true that Chinese, Muslim and other world views do not assume we will improve as time goes on, and that life and time is cyclical.
It made me wonder if I am mistaken, and whether my vision of a more liberal, open world where individuals will continually gain increasing power of the state, corporations and other institutions, that we will continue to be more multicultural, accepting, open and society will continue to fragment into a global space of conversation to be completely wrong.
What if China increasingly gains power and expands, fundementalism Muslim rhetoric wins, the Republican party is voted into office continuously for the next 20 years, a return of neo-Nazism sweeps over Europe as it has done so in Austria and Italy? At the same time the developing world continue to be subjugated by the industrial powers exploited for resources and cheap labor through IMF and other “International” trade treaties and organizations and the trend continues until I die?
Then the decade which I own, the decade which I will always be a part of, the generational time that I was in, would be the last decade where individual based liberalism bloomed for a few decades hence at least. What if the nineties only occurred because it was the ten years before the millennium and with the changes wrought by September 11th and other factors will propel the world into seeking a increasingly authoritarian regimes because the public wants and needs to be protected, that personal freedoms and privacy becomes secondary to safety?
What if the 90s was just an anomaly and we are destined for a conservative future?
Will I be as outdated as a Berlin Cabaret dancer in Nazi Germany? A Flapper girl in the depression? A believer of the republic in a time of communism? Would we watch, just as those in the jazz age did, economic depression, the creation of fascist states, war, and many decades of ultra conservatism on the rise?
Then I would say, “In the nineties, it was like this, and we used to be able to do this, and we felt this way, and how the world has changed and not for the better.” I never even entertained the idea that it could go the other way around for the rest of my life. That the excitement, hope and joys of my youth would simply be an past with no momentum, my future children and grandchildren will be born into a world of increasingly restrictive rules and paradigms of constraint. It just might. Nothing is set in stone, progress and continual liberalism is not a manifest destiny, the conservative 50s came after the roaring 20s too.
Guardian Review of “What it Means to be Modern”
Yan Sham-Shackleton Online 
No, there is no alternate cycles of liberalism and conservatism though it makes good academic sense and more easy to research. Mankind’s history is, I believe, areas and periods of mankind’s indomitable spirit breaking out against socio-cultural strictures that the patrician class enforces and hardens in order to control the plebeians and in order to hold onto control, authority and power. Look at China, the feudal patrician class giving way to the republican patrician class and that in turn giving way to the power of the proletariat, which, horror of horrors, installing itself as the new patrician class to lord it over the new plebs. The likes of Voltaire and Lenin would be turning in their graves; good for them!
I find it hard to agree with the Guardian’s reviewer re: “It is self-evident that al-Qaeda is a phenomenon of the twenty-first century, but it is essentially anti-modernist.”
Al Qaeda is NOT a phenomenon of the 20th century. The Al-Qaeda spirit is evident since Islam’s birth. It is a recurrence of the need of a militant proselytizing religion to break out of the motherland in the middle eastern crescent. Throughout Islam’s history, all followers wherever they may be are enjoined to struggle towards that ideal of world domination AND the end justifies the means. Setbacks were aplenty but the struggle is clear. It is an all out struggle, no-holds-barred, till, what the Muslims call, Qiamat or Domesday.
LikeLike
Woohoo, I’m in Jersey for the summer and I’m free of TypePad blocking mainlanders. That, plus Cartoon Network got cooler in my absence. Besides that, the U.S. is still freaky.
On the other hand, Edmund, take your islamophobia and shove it. Your generalization that Islam is predicated on “world domination AND the ends justifies the means” is the sort of blanket condemnation of a respectable and diverse group of peoples that got the whole world in this goddamn conflict in the first place. In the case of China, you have a reasonable if again overgeneralized point about the new ruling class, but in that case you are talking about current developments in a nation state, which Islam is not. Besides which, that’s how nations work. Someone is always ruling, and everybody else has to just deal. Wow. That’s a revelation, thanks buddy. That cleared that all up for me, I can sleep peacefully now.
Tossing around words like “militant” and “proselytizing” as universal descriptors of over a billion people is just plain retarded. Unfortunately, you pretty much provide the proof that the whole world is geared for an apocalyptic refusal to consider the other guy human, so I’m gonna go stock up on canned tuna and buy property in a bunker 3 miles below sea level. See ya suckas.
LikeLike
Dave. Go Easy. Point made but can you be a bit nicer around here?
Anyway you can easily get over the typepad blocking with you know proxies.
Yan
LikeLike
I agree that Islamophobia can be taken and shoved. However, I must also say the same about the use of ‘retarded’ as a deraugatory (sp?) insult (the same goes for similar use of the word ‘gay’). When are you trying to establish your adversary as close-minded, Dave, it doesn’t help to employ peurile, grade-school insults.
On the actual topic of this post, it’s a little frightening to ponder if in fact we are becoming less liberal as a world as time goes on. I would go further back than the 90s, I would say (at least in America) that we are less liberal (in some ways at least) than we were in during the revolution. Benjamin Franklin used to write letters to his son telling him that his patriotic duty was to question those in power, and that religion had absolutely no place in the halls of government. Contrast that to George W Bush! Of course, unlike Franklin, Bush doesn’t own black slaves who he regular uses for sexual enjoyment…
The current atmosphere is really frightening right now, actually. What happened to Linda Ronstadt is downright shocking. She wasn’t even allowed to go to her suite to collect her belongings before being escorted out of her hotel. This goes beyond McCarthyism, it’s fascism. How sad that we live in a ‘democracy’ in which our most touted and valued right is the first amendment, and yet people cannot be tolerant of the very idea that someone, somewhere, might have a different opinion than they do. In fact, they have to be punished for it!
Strangely enough, I recall hearing a lot when dubya was first “elected” that if there was anything positive to be taken out of it, that such a hardline conservative government would mobilize average citizens to create a great period of pissed-off activism and art. Just look at the Reagan years- shitty time, but lots of great punk bands. I see it happening. Although the powers in control are pretty scary and getting scarier, on the opposite end of the spectrum you also have a lot more people who are getting pissed off and jolted out of complacency. I have hope!
Sorry this is so long. Damn! I’m bored at work.
LikeLike
PS: Only 49 more days till I move to Hong Kong wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!
LikeLike
The reason why the future looks so scarily conservative is because right now people are acting like ostriches, with their heads in the sand.
Fear is what makes people conservative.
But when people are unafraid, and do not fear death, even if they are in chains, they are more free than the person who has everything in the world but does nothing with it.
Freedom is in your mind. It sounds trite and outdated and arcane, but I see it on a daily basis. Freedom begins first inside your mind.
Yan, don’t be afraid of the future. In fact, don’t be afraid. There is nothing to fear except… you guessed it, fear itself.
Of course, I’m not in Hong Kong, but then again there’s so many Americans who are accepting the slavery of their lives here that I think I might feel freer in a place where you KNOW where the govenment stands, even if it stands opposed to me.
“Free your mind and your ass will follow”– George Clinton
LikeLike
I’d have to agree that fear seems to be a big part of conservative politics, and right now a lot of people are scared. That’s probably understandable given the nature of the terrorists, but the scary part for me is the fact that the fear can drive people towards hate. Ordinary muslims get viewed with a lot of suspicion now and have to carry that around with them.
In Australia, John Howard pretty much is campaigning on the issue of national security, which is important but he seems to be saying you’d better vote for me just in case the bogeyman comes and i’ll handle him. I actually think that if there was a terrorist attack there’s not much we would be able to do to stop it anyway unless we got lucky, hell the US couldn’t prevent 9/11 so what hope is there for the rest of us? Better just to live life the best you can I suppose. I don’t neccesarily think we are headed for a conservative future, I reckon we just need better leaders, and we have the opportunity to do something about that this year.
Oh yeah and the conservative party in Australia are called the “Liberal” Party – go figure!
LikeLike
Mike, it’s funny that in American political circles what was once “conservative” is now liberal, and vice versa! Convoluted, the way dogma is really just lines in the sand that can (in most cases) simply be blown away.
LikeLike
We have the same dilemma here too. In the west Liberal would be “Left” but here the Chinese government is also “Left” as in communist. So by default since I am against the communist rule and want to have democracy does that make me “right?”
A friend said something about her “leftist” politics and it was followed by a huge silence as people were trying to figure out if she meant she was supporting the communist government. When she realized what she had said, she went, “Not real left.. err.. old.. left… as in I am not an old school communist party supporter.”
Having said that, the truth is the China is no longer a communist country anymore, allowing free enterprise, ownership of land etc. So really they are a right wing political country, as in highly authoritarian capitalistic society. So the “old left” actually is against what is happening as it’s veered so far from the original tenets. Which then makes me and the old left bed buddies in a different way. Ha Ha.. Are you all confused now coz I am?
Which really leads to part of the earlier argument, where meaning and ideas change through time which is whether al queda is a “muslim” creation. According to the book, much of today’s jiad mentality can be attributed to one man (name forgotten) from the 60s and he co-opted western idealogy of expansion, mixed it into the rhetoric of muslim religion and then promised how the western world will destroy the world and the true blah blah. THUS Fundemental Muslim ideals is a modern creation.
Yan
LikeLike
OK, Yan, it is your webspace not mine so I’ll keep it toned down. Obviously spending the last two years in Xinjiang (and the fact that one of the only books I had for a year of that was “Orientalism”) has made me a wee bit sensitive to stereotyping of Muslims – hopefully a perspective I can try and keep for all other maligned groups (such as retarded people, none of whom, I admit, despite the diversity of different illnesses lumped under that umbrella term, are paranoid muslim bashers simply because of their handicap).
Anyway, as for the conservatizing (is that a word?) of the world, my parents used to have the same fear in the seventies and the eighties. Granted, now they say this is even worse, but there’s always some kind of kultur-kampf going on.
Erika pointed out the 80s at least brought us punk. I’d argue what about “South Park”? Or nerve.com? Or the data piracy revolution, which is changing the landscape of how we listen to music, watch movies, etc.? There’s always a counterculture, and sometimes its in the mainstream – where you don’t even really think of it as counterculture at all until 20 years later in hindsight.
Or maybe we’re on the road of a large class division between 1% totally wired/shut-in haves living in ignorance and comfort on the backs of 99% menial-labouring/computer-illiterate have-nots. Hence I’m thinking bunker.
LikeLike
When you build your bunker, try to at least put more than one book in it. That would help. 🙂
Yan
LikeLike
Funny you should mention South Park, Dave, because Parker and Stone are actually quite conservative. There’s a great website (forget it now, of course!) that kind of ‘outs’ celebrities who are conservative-on-the-DL, and they are on there. Once you start looking for it, it’s kind of shocking how obvious it is. Behind the smokescreen of fart jokes and sand-in-your-vagina type remarks, the ‘messages’ the show puts across can sometimes be very conservative. I recall one in particular that argues against hate crime legislation. Look, for example, at the difference between Chef and Mrs. Cartman- both like to sleep around, but because Chef is a man, his sexuality is studly and admirable, whereas Cartman’s mom is a slut and a crackwhore (and a source of shame to her son). If you want to get REALLY into it, you could also take the black-man factor into account, since there is this underlying message in the media, and has been since slavery, that people of color are more ‘animalistic’ and therefore can’t help but have a stronger propensity towards unabashed sexuality and virility (and that black men have huge cocks, too).
deep breath. I can’t believe I just got so analytical about freakin’ South Park. A bit of a digression, perhaps…. just a little bit… still bored at work, I suppose.
LikeLike
Funny you should mention South Park, Dave, because Parker and Stone are actually quite conservative. There’s a great website (forget it now, of course!) that kind of ‘outs’ celebrities who are conservative-on-the-DL, and they are on there. Once you start looking for it, it’s kind of shocking how obvious it is. Behind the smokescreen of fart jokes and sand-in-your-vagina type remarks, the ‘messages’ the show puts across can sometimes be very conservative. I recall one in particular that argues against hate crime legislation. Look, for example, at the difference between Chef and Mrs. Cartman- both like to sleep around, but because Chef is a man, his sexuality is studly and admirable, whereas Cartman’s mom is a slut and a crackwhore (and a source of shame to her son). If you want to get REALLY into it, you could also take the black-man factor into account, since there is this underlying message in the media, and has been since slavery, that people of color are more ‘animalistic’ and therefore can’t help but have a stronger propensity towards unabashed sexuality and virility (and that black men have huge cocks, too).
deep breath. I can’t believe I just got so analytical about freakin’ South Park. A bit of a digression, perhaps…. just a little bit… still bored at work, I suppose.
LikeLike
Ack- I did not mean to post that twice! Anyway, still couldn’t find the website listing secretly conservative celebrities, but this site allows you to search by celebrity name to see who has contributed money to which political party and how much.
http://www.fundrace.org/neighbors.php
You can also do a search by US address and find out a lot of interesting info about your neighbors. One guy that lives a quarter mile from my parents has donated over USD 2000 to the republican party, with a cherry on top ($100) just for Dubya. I don’t make that much money in an entire month! Pathetic, I know, but from a world view I’m still quite wealthy.
sorry my posts have been rather US-centric! I’m just going with what I know right now.
LikeLike
Erika, you are right as far as Parker and Stone heaping alot of criticism on the left. They’ve mocked the environmental movement, moralized that Starbucks is a force for good, ridiculed holistic medicine, rainforest activists and Rosie O’Donnell. Actually, I think they provide some good points on how the left has to get their act together to be effective in the U.S. politically, kinda like Saturday Night Live did for Al Gore.
But my point wasn’t about them being “liberal” as in progressive politics; my point was about openness. Even ten years ago you wouldn’t see any show bringing up the topics and language that it does. Yes, the language is for shock value, but it reflects how teenagers and young adults talk far more accurately than Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman, and maybe you disagree with its mocking the environmental movement but that can lead to people at least actively thinking about whether they are right. Sure, lots of frat boys will say “yeah, the rainforest is gay” and mindlessly mimick Cartman, but attacking the rainforest is funny because it is a sacred cow, and it’s subversive because it is a sacred cow. I don’t believe in a “liberal media empire”, but I do believe that for a long time you’d get jumped in certain circles if you questioned global warming. And the people who jumped you would only know a party line, not anything about climate science. One thing South Park pointed out about activism in general that I wish more people would discuss was: “You [activists] only fight these causes ‘cause caring sells”. Unfortunately, there are alot of activists who do exactly that. But no one talks about the shady side, the cashraking and egopumping of the NGO and non-profit sector – and there’s alot of it all over the world. And as far as their views on hate crime, abortion, gay rights, sex ed – at least they discuss the topic, whereas these weren’t things you saw in programming (or polite conversation) for the 18-40 demo until very recently.
LikeLike
hmmmm, okay….
“my point wasn’t about them being “liberal” as in progressive politics; my point was about openness”
That’s completely valid, but if that’s your point, it’s kind of irrelevant to what we were discussing, isn’t it? I wrote about conservative and oppressive goverments fostering a creative backlash and stronger feelings of dissent amongst ordinary citizens. I hardly think an animated show where fourth-graders call eachother douchebags and talk to sentient turds constitutes ‘dissent’. And you seem to agree- it’s not about politics so much as it is about breaking taboos. So tell me again, how is it relevant to, for example, the popularity of the Dead Kennedys during the Reagan administration?
“and maybe you disagree with its mocking the environmental movement but that can lead to people at least actively thinking about whether they are right.”
I personally haven’t commented one way or another on South Park mocking environmentalism, but I really disagree with the idea that by mocking something, you invite your audience to consider the mocked’s point of view. For example, after watching the South Park that made fun of NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association, and yes, a real organization with real members), I didn’t think “hmm, I wonder what compelling arguments NAMBLA has for consensual sex between adult men and minor boys.” No, instead I thought “Jesus fuck! What a bunch of fucking sick pervert wierdos!” I hardly expect other South Park viewers to think after every show “hey, maybe I should look into rainforest preservation, even if Cartman will think I’m a douchebag.”
You also talk about poorly informed activists who would ‘jump all over you’ for saying something controversial, and the NGOs who are all about image and cash. I’ll be the first to acknowledge that those things exist, but because they exist doesn’t mean you can blow off the movements and the very real, very pressing issues these activists/NGOs claim to represent. I for one, am a huge believer in animal rights but absolutely can’t stand PeTA. They’ve given the animal rights movement a very embarassing and disrespectful image.
erm, that’s it for now- I’m going to get kicked off this computer in a mo’.
LikeLike