Megan McArdle (Replying to: John Aislabie) August 28, 2009 9:21 AM
The Nation of Islam, et al., are black nationalists, which is a left-wing movement, not a right wing one. Al Sharpton, who is certainly on the left, helped incite the anti-semitic riot that killed Yankel Rosenbaum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Heights_riot.
There are fringe antisemitic strains on both sides. Both have been waning for decades. Neither is representative of any significant number of members any longer.
A left-wing movement. Really. A movement of the left. Something that moves, from the left. The Nation of Islam, a religion. Is of the left. A anti-Semitic organization, of the left. An authoritarian religion, a separatist movement, a sect that believes in UFOs and prophesies and says that white people are potential humans who haven't evolved yet--that's liberal. That's progressive. That's the left.
Jesus.
13 comments:
If we can arbitrarily assign craziness to sides, then McArdle has to take Phillip Garrido the Abducting Sex Slaver as a Rightwinger and a Libertarian.
After all, he has a religiously themed blog that talks about the government and mind control.
http://voicesrevealed.blogspot.com/
He's a rightie!
I'm not clear that Islam is in left field as opposed to right field. What makes me say this is that Islamics believe that there should be no separation of church and state and further that the edicts of the church should rule superior to those of the state. This is directly opposite of liberal thought, and in line with conservative--or at least neo-conservative--thought. Americans seem to harbor much confusion over the differences between Marxism, communism, nihilism etc. Now add Islamism to that confusing mosaic.
That reminds me of Ann Althouse, Megan's fellow traveler in a magic kingdom of narcissistic crazy, claiming that " To be a great artist is inherently right wing,"
Yes, Anonymous, Americans are confused about a lot of things.
Althouse--now there's a bucket of crazy.
Anon,
Islamics believe
FYI, that's where you revealed yourself as a fucking idiot. The rest, like talking about the 'church' in connection with Islam, is just your average stupid.
Susan,
it's not just Americans. Rightwing fucktards here in Europe will argue with a straight face that Fascism is a left-wing ideology because a) the Nazi party had socialism right there in the name, b) right wing philosophy is all about individual rights, while Fascism is so not. Hence Fascism = left.
No doubt because Black Islam was associated with Black Nationalism, and BN being associated with civil liberties of the 60's, well, that would be the leftist connection. The Weathermen were unabashedly leftists, and no doubt the right remembers that too.
My problem is the equivocation of forty plus year old movements with current movements. The right has a whole bunch of crazy movements that are in the here and now. The worst that can be said about the left is PETA and Greenpeace. It has been a long time since a leftist killed someone.
This McArdle no doubt has to twist herself like a contortionist to keep herself aligned with the right. Most libertarians, I have found, do the same.
Let's also note that a large percent of neo-cons were communists in the 60s and 70s, which means the Weathermen were a phenomenon of the right!
Guys, if you haven't seen this, read it. I practically needed a cigarette by the end.
Do not miss Thomas Levenson's piece, to which clever pseud links.
If I were McArdle, and somehow read Levenson's piece--
I'll start again.
As always, when I contemplate these clowns, I wonder: Do they mean it, or are they hacks grinding it out for pay?
I think MM means it, but is simply too lazy--intellectually, morally, and physically--to be anything other than the knee-jerk, argument-deforming glibertarian she plays on tv.
If my work were sliced and diced the way Levenson juliennes hers, I would burn with shame and resolve to work harder and get better. I'd have to. His criticisms are irrefutable, and to knowingly continue to publish rank bullshit when it's been demonstrated to be such is to commit writer-suicide.
But I don't think she'll read it, and if she did, I don't think she'd heed it. She's a teenage girl who is thrilled to hang out with the adults, and she's doing the best she can, the poor dear. I blame The Atlantic.
Oh, that was wonderful. And he's right, she throws out so much crap that it's impossible to refute it all. Hey, it worked for Bush and Cheney. The liar with no conscience will always have the advantage, it seems.
McArdle cannot change, because her self-image is based on her assumption of superiority. To admit fault is to admit that the entire basis of her life is a fraud, and most people would rather kill than do that.
As long as there are people that inexplicably find her shoddy writing quality enough for professional publication and she continues to be paid by the Atlantic, she's got zero incentive to change. She's shown that she has no interest in doing so; if she was, you'd at least see some improvement in her work. There's been nothing of the sort.
There's something incredibly narcissistic about that. Her mistakes are never her fault; she is never wrong, merely misunderstood. She's grossly immodest and can't help but remind us all of how wonderfully educated and sophisticated she is. She won't change because she doesn't believe she needs to. She is a perfect, elite specimen who cannot be improved upon. It's kind of pathetic when you think about it.
What a racket. Spend millions on a prestigious magazine, move it and hire new staff, and quietly rent it out to advertisers. It's like my shiny neighborhood give-away magazine, that features stories about local scouts and socially prominent couples, and has articles on how safe botox is right next to advertisements for botox clinics.
Post a Comment