09-02-2021, 01:42 PM
(09-01-2021, 05:23 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: There's just no limit to the idiocy of what you post, is there.
First, BusinessInsider is a far left media source.
They're owned by a German media conglomerate. I assume they aren't adequately far right for you, but they certainly are not far left.
continuing in the same vein, John Wrote:Second, the article is about the Fascist Stalinist censorship regime of Joe Biden and the Democrats. It's the most vicious censorship regime in decades or possibly in American history.
Stopping the dissemination of outright lies -- especially ones intended to incite -- is hardly "the most vicious censorship regime in decades or possibly in American history".
continuing in the same vein, John Wrote:In the article, Zabihullah Mujahid is mocking the vicious Democrat censorship regime enforced by Facebook. Donald Trump Jr is agreeing that there is a vicious Democrat censorship regime being enforced by Facebook.
It's almost beyond belief that Donald Trump is being censored by the Democrats, and many conservatives are being censored by Democrats, but
the Taliban terrorists can use Facebook freely. In other words, the Democrat regime is far worse than the Taliban regime, and Donald Trump Jr was agreeing with that. That's what Zabihullah Mujahid was mocking, and Donald Trump Jr was also mocking.
In what way are Democrats involved in stopping Facebook from handing Trump the keys to the castle? Oh yeah; see my previous comment.
continuing in the same vein, John Wrote:Incidentally, you're probably oblivious to this, but this afternoon, Austin and Milley conducted a press conference during which they said that they may be working closely with Taliban. So, as usual, everything you've written is the exact opposite of the truth.
I listened to that press conference, and neither man said any such thing. Their only point in regard to the Taliban has to do with holding them to their word -- which I assume you wish as well.
continuing in the same vein, John Wrote:Your posts are so uniformly stupid that I'm tending to believe that you're using them just to bait me. Even if that's true, I'm happy to respond, since it gives an opportunity to educate any other people who happen to read this thread. In this case, I'm educating them about how the Democrats are worse than the Taliban, and how they're working closely with the Taliban, maybe learning from the Taliban.
On that topic, Michele Goldberg has a great opinion piece in the NY Times. Here it is:
Opinion Columnist Michele Goldberg Wrote:... in the August 27th NY Times
The Right-Wingers Who Admire the Taliban
As the Taliban swept through Afghanistan in August, a Gen Z alt-right group ran a Twitter account devoted to celebrating their progress. Tweets in Pashto juxtaposed two laughing Taliban fighters with pictures meant to represent American effeminacy. Another said, the words auto-translated into English, “Liberalism did not fail in Afghanistan because it was Afghanistan, it failed because it was not true. It failed America, Europe and the world see it.”
The account, now suspended, was just one example of the open admiration for the Taliban that’s developed within parts of the American right. The influential young white supremacist Nick Fuentes — an ally of the Arizona Republican congressman Paul Gosar and the anti-immigrant pundit Michelle Malkin — wrote on the encrypted app Telegram: “The Taliban is a conservative, religious force, the U.S. is godless and liberal. The defeat of the U.S. government in Afghanistan is unequivocally a positive development.” An account linked to the Proud Boys expressed respect for the way the Taliban “took back their national religion as law, and executed dissenters.”
“The far right, the alt-right, are all sort of galvanized by the Taliban essentially running roughshod through Afghanistan, and us leaving underneath a Democratic president,” said Moustafa Ayad, executive director for Africa, the Middle East and Asia at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a think tank devoted to countering violent extremism. They’re looking at Afghanistan, he said, “from a standpoint of us getting ‘owned,’ in the parlance of the internet.”
This is not the first time that right-wing American extremists have been inspired by Muslim militants; several white supremacists lauded Al Qaeda’s attacks on Sept. 11. The difference now is that the far right has grown, and the distance between the sort of right-wingers who cheer for the Taliban and conservative power centers has shrunk.
The Florida Republican Matt Gaetz may be a clown, but he’s also a congressman who was close to the previous president. On Twitter earlier this month, Gaetz described the Taliban, like Trump, as “more legitimate than the last government in Afghanistan or the current government here.”
Twenty years ago, in the aftermath of Sept. 11, the United States embarked on a war that would, in time, sell itself as a battle for democracy. Back then, liberal democracy was almost universally venerated in America, which is one reason we had the hubris to think we could export it by force. Many, especially on the right, worried about the threat that jihadism posed to a modern, open society. The tragic journey of the last two decades began with the loudest voices on the right braying for war with Islamism and ended with a right-wing vanguard envying it.
At least before the devastating terrorist attacks on Thursday, there was a subtler form of satisfaction with the Taliban’s takeover among more respectable nationalist conservatives. They don’t sympathize with barbarism, but were pleased to see liberal internationalism lose. “The humiliation of Afghanistan will have been worth it if it pries the old paradigm loose and lets new thoughts in,” Yoram Hazony, an influential nationalist intellectual whose conferences feature figures like Josh Hawley and Peter Thiel, tweeted earlier this month.
What old paradigm? Well, a few days later he tweeted, “What went wrong in Iraq and Afghanistan was, first and foremost, the ideas in the heads of the people running the show. Say its name: Liberalism.”
Fox’s Tucker Carlson, the most important nationalist voice in America, seemed to sympathize with the gender politics of Taliban-supporting Afghans. “They don’t hate their own masculinity,” he said shortly after the fall of Kabul. “They don’t think it’s toxic. They like the patriarchy. Some of their women like it too. So now they’re getting it all back. So maybe it’s possible that we failed in Afghanistan because the entire neoliberal program is grotesque.” (By “neoliberalism” he seems to mean social liberalism, not austerity economics.)
It turns out that when the government deceptively invokes liberal democracy to justify a war, liberal democracy can be discredited by a grueling defeat. In his new book “Reign of Terror,” the national security journalist Spencer Ackerman draws a direct line between our stalemated post-9/11 wars and the rise of Donald Trump. “Trump was able to safely voice the reality of the war by articulating what about it most offended right-wing exceptionalists: humiliation,” he wrote.
Humiliation is a volatile emotion. Many have written about its role in motivating Al Qaeda. Perhaps it’s not surprising that parts of the right would respond to humiliation by identifying with images of brutal masculinity.
Some of this identification might just be for shock value; the alt-right is adept at using irony to occlude its intentions. But some of it is deadly earnest.
“We’ve come across a lot of content that’s U.S.-based extreme far-right websites saying how good the Taliban victory is, and why it’s good for their cause,” said Adam Hadley, director of Tech Against Terrorism, a U.N.-supported project that monitors extremists online. One neo-Nazi website, which I won’t link to, has a tract hailing the Taliban victory in part for showing that a small band of armed fundamentalists can defeat the American empire.
As for the rest of the pro-Taliban right, the Proud Boys and incels and MAGA splinter factions, some of them are probably just trolling. But as groups like QAnon and the civil war-hungry Boogaloo Bois show, a movement can seem absurd and still be a source of real radicalization. “The classic response to any of this is, ‘Ah, they’re just a fringe group,’ and then when that metastasizes, a lot of people eat their words,” said Ayad.
If there’s one lesson of recent American history, it’s that there’s no such thing as something too ridiculous to be dangerous.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
