Time to move to Argentina?

Israel promises troops legal backing over Gaza war:

JERUSALEM (Reuters) – International calls to investigate Israel over alleged war crimes in the Gaza Strip prompted Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Sunday to promise military personnel state protection from foreign prosecution.[…]

Last week, the military censor ordered local and foreign media in Israel to blur the faces of army commanders in photos and video footage of the Gaza war for fear they could be identified and arrested while traveling abroad.

Israeli media reports said the military had been advising its top brass to think twice about visiting Europe….

Advertisements

16 Comments

  1. Posted January 27, 2009 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

    Kotzko’s cheesy “confessions” and pseudo-catholic BS reveal what a miserable sack of scheisse he and his liberal-frat boys are, as well. “I f-ing hate that, dewd,”. Deep. Who cares about the endless first person drama, either : the Weblog soup kitchen.

    Many are struggling. That’s laissez-faire. Kotzko’s sentimental liberalism (that’s what it is, regardless of his superficial Zizek/pomo hype) doesn’t begin to address anything substantial, even in his own wannabe-a-socialist terms–consider like the usual theologian’s sobs about “economic injustice” compared to Galbraithian analysis (or even Marx’s cool-headed critiques).

    Reasonable humans don’t take up “a career in theology” to make a lot of money, right. The Webloggers are whiny little frauds. The “Friends'” show irony of Benji, sort of a young Elliott Abrams, also should nauseate any self-respecting anarchista and have him reaching for his potassium chlorate.

  2. Posted January 27, 2009 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

    Frauds – do deceive who? why?
    And who wants substantial? Substantial is boring, superficial is usually much more entertaining.

  3. Posted January 27, 2009 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

    Entertainment ? That’s the Oppressor–comedians serve Mammon. So does low-level Sally Fields-like indignation. Colloquial blog chat, pop-irony, frat boy yuks, some movie chat, a bit of penthouse forum soft porn: all symptomatic, man. Of what, you ask? American mommy-boy lib-rawlism. Lazy too. Better even to bounce articles, papers, even older writing, Or just search and destroy servers–now that’s arbeiten ………. or bring back Mao).

  4. Posted January 27, 2009 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

    He-he. You’re entertaining too; good writing, man.
    And a really great quote in your blog; I should read this Grayling guy.

    Are you a ‘militant atheist’ or something?

  5. Posted January 27, 2009 at 10:00 pm | Permalink

    Strongly agnostic, perhaps. The neo-atheists— Dawkin’s/Grayling/Hitchens/Harris, et all–are often rather obnoxious, and I guess reductionist to a degree, and there’s a certain British quality to the neo-ath. gang that I find offensive.

    Regardless, I think theology should always be considered retrogade– (whether from progressive, or even marxist perspective). Grayling has penned some fairly nasty journalistic pieces, but is no slouch in terms of philosophy–he reads Kant as skeptic (if not atheist). His writing on analytical philosophy not bad. He may be a punk, or a bit naive politically, or not the grand continental type ala a Zizek or french postmod, etc. but coherent, scientifically informed, rational, even witty. Some of us haven’t taken the anti-rationalist leap as of yet.

    I’ve read a good bit of SZ’s Parallax, and other things, and find it not merely long-winded and redundant but bo-reeng. SZ’s even botches his beloved germans, I think: Hegel for one was no psychologist (whether Freud, Lacan, etc), and no leftist either. Then marxists have misread Hegel for years as well.

  6. Posted January 27, 2009 at 10:02 pm | Permalink

    That’s Retrograde. Great comrade cred. term.

  7. Posted January 27, 2009 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

    Hey, I’m just an IT guy, I don’t know any fancy stuff. When I read Zizek I skip all the boring and incomprehensible stuff; in my case it’s usually close to half. There was one book I tried that I couldn’t understand at all: The invisible Remainder.

  8. Posted January 27, 2009 at 10:23 pm | Permalink

    I’m an IT guy too. But I suspect you’re pals with Kotzko, and others—given your regular appearance there, the little attempts at insults and defamation, lies started by Kotsko’s uh neo-con pals (in fact via an illegal network sniff–is that cool as well?). But if you’re a postmod xtian ala Kotsko (or wannabe), lying and defamation’s cool when it advances your goals, eh. In fact the usual veiled insult of anyone who doesn’t like uphold xtianity ( decadent, conservative, queer, who knows what): pretty much standard booj-wah fare. Why fly an A, when you’re an X?

  9. Posted January 28, 2009 at 12:14 am | Permalink

    Hmm, I don’t really care if you’re an ‘xtian’ or Satan worshiper, and no, I don’t know any of the Weblog guys personally.

    So, what are these lies they started? Tell me more.

  10. Posted January 28, 2009 at 1:13 am | Permalink

    AS you would have noted from the writing in this thread, I don’t indulge in the confessional BS, man, or the narcissistic whines typical of Weblogger xtians: for that matter, not into the parisian-foucaultian oo lala secret handshake. Porn—str8, not str8, legal, or not–that’s part of financial Babylon as well.

    Let’s put it this way: you fly the big A–have you read any authentic anarchist writers? Say Bakunin, or Kropotkin? No fun and games or college-boy hijinks. You either believe, or not, really: I don’t too much anymore, my views not really even analytical per se (excepting a certain naturalism), but pessimism –democracy is futile, mostly. Yet so are the so-called leftist alternatives. Highly-skilled criminals: that’s what Reason wants.

  11. Posted January 28, 2009 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    Hmm. I probably read some Kropotkin when I was a kid; certainly a lot of Tolstoy. I’m not sure Bakunin wrote anything worth reading. Most recently (still, years ago) I read George Woodcock’s Anarchism. I liked that book.

    Believe what? If I had to pick something, I think like your Grayling guy (if that’s indeed his schtik) I believe that ‘free will’ is highly exaggerated and things change by evolution.

    What do you guys need criminals for? Nah, I’m certainy not a criminal, too late for that.

  12. Posted January 28, 2009 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

    Actually Bakunin’s ideas closer to a deterministic position than Kropotkin’s somewhat utopian visions. Bakunin also quite a grand figure: he survived a few years in various european dungeons, escaped, and had numerous governments seeking his death. MB was no petty apparatchik: he humped aristocratic ladies, participated in street riots, argued with Karl Marx and marxists (calling them bureaucrats from way back). He was a bit romantic, perhaps, but “God and State” quite well-reasoned. He knew the wrong side of Hegelianism. A type of courageous person now pretty much extinct (tho Cactus Ed Abbey sort of tried. Maybe Thomas Pynchon, but I think Capn Tom a bit more theoretical anarchista than the authentic sort. Or to drop other quasi-anarchist names, Chomsky, but NC’s had a comfy academic sinecure for years. That said, I respect Herr Chomsky–quite a bit more than I respect the latest conty. windbag )

  13. Posted January 28, 2009 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

    Right, that’s what I meant – Bakunin was a revolutionary and adventurist, but not much of a philosopher. IIRC even Woodcock says that he didn’t write anything significant.

    But now I looked him up in wikipedia and it appears that perhaps he was indeed an original thinker.

  14. Posted January 28, 2009 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

    BTW, Chomsky sure had a career, but he also spent time in jail, wrote a million books and actually visited most of the hot-spots all over the world. He certainly seems authentic enough to me.

  15. Posted January 28, 2009 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

    MB’s rips of the marxists (was it First International?) sound genuine to me: he calls them schoolmarmies, more or less–even hints at some malevolence, I think. Same thing goes down now: it’s not the hicks, or working class, except a few maybe in urban areas, who quote Marx, but college boys (and boyettes), if not like theological jag-offskos–can ah ah, get a witness?

    Really, I suspect even Marx on occasion late in life pondered whether he had made a faux-pas or two in empowering the chandala of the world. At least Chomsky addresses a few leftist errors (including the error of Stalinism), and avoids the usual teary eyed liberal BS.

  16. Posted January 28, 2009 at 9:24 pm | Permalink

    Well, there’s a whole bunch of things in Marxism. Comprehensive analysis of capitalism, historical materialism, and, of course, its revolutionary ideas, authoritarian in nature. All the controversy, I understand, all those 19c fights were focused on the latter component: revolutionary tactics and strategies, that kinda stuff.

    Not being an activist of any kind, I don’t care much about this particular element, I’m interested in understanding of how things work, and in this area Marxism is it, it still is, no?

    So, I’m afraid, I’m, kinda, with the schoolmarmies. Sorry.


Post a Comment

%d bloggers like this: