WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY AND KENNETH MINOGUE part 3

[forgottenbooks]

As a person of Indian origin, I will have to say that the British rule in India was both bad and good. The bad that they did was exploiting Indian peasants and thus ruining the economy and mistreating the natives in many heinous ways. The good that they did was mostly indirect. Their intention in introducing modern technology was to make their own lives easier. But Indians learned to use it to their advantage.

[forgottenbooks]

@forgottenbooks Indian society at the time was terribly superstitious and was mired in social evils, many of which were eliminated during the British rule - because of it, but not by its conscious effort.

[Aaronthegreatest]

It's sort of sad that both of these gentlemen think that the rule of the British Raj in India wasn't something to be considered "oppressive"....instead of musing about the subject themselves, they should have asked the Indians. It's true that the British may have brought the advancements of civilization to the subcontinent, but I think that people should agree that it is often preferred by people to live in a backwards state ruled by natives, than in an improved one ruled by foreigners.

[kihadat]

It's not the fact of the matter - it's the application of the fact that is offensive and incorrect. Of course the British were entirely oppressive. They COLONIZED India. What you call improvement is really a Eurocentric notion of improvement with Britain as the ideal.

[kihadat]

This is disgusting. Two men, talking as if ideology is an affliction of the Other - the proles, women, Communists, socially liberals - anyone that isn't a socially conservative, rich, White market liberal. I'm appalled by the NAIVETE of it all.

[cmgollatz]

Kinda gross how you came to that conclusion after only part 3. You are way over your head. But keep it up. It's entertaining.

[kihadat]

I came back to place this comment where it is most evidently applicable. And please get that annoying condescending tone out of your voice. You are no better than anyone else. That's a lesson the men in these videos could learn, too.

[cmgollatz]

wow. Name calling. Impressive.

[kihadat]

Huh? Calling you an equal is name-calling?

[cmgollatz]

You are too vague and bore me. Sorry.

[kihadat]

wow. Name calling. Impressive. Most impressive.

[cmgollatz]

Impressive I am thanks. You done yet?

[kihadat]

Are you?

[cmgollatz]

I'm just having fun watching you exersize your freedom of speech and from the looks of it, you really don't have much to say. I think I'd cut your mic as well for wasting everyones time.

[kihadat]

No, I guess you aren't.

[cmgollatz]

I stopped after my first post. This is just target practice now and I am going to have to start using a sling-shot because you're so slow.

[Stacker26]

I was able to take most of this with a grain of salt until they both agreed that the British Raj wasn't "entirely oppressive" in India, and that the English made it a more pleasant place to live.  Amritsar, anyone? What fucking world do these guys live in?

[bm359]

This is the first I've heard Minogue. He's rather insightful.

[grazie55555]

What a perfect example of academic masturbation. Minogue basically creates his own concept of ideology and uses it to dismiss and cheapen the opinions of people who don't agree with his conservative view (which IS an ideology also). Typical Buckley. A lack of substance disguised in linguistic and semantical masturbation.

[DocteurLariviere]

He claims to be an expert in ideology,

while you claim to be an expert in Onanism.

Ergo: if he has an ideology... you are an Onanist.

[grazie55555]

I don't claim to be an 'expert' in Onanism. I'm a seasoned veteran though.

The thing is this. EVERYONE has an ideology. It's unavoidable. Such is the reality of the human mind.

Minogue takes the term and uses it as a weapon to attack and dismiss philosophies he clearly doesn't agree with. It's intellectually and academically dishonest, but the beautiful, beautiful, irony of it all is that in doing so he exposes his own "ideology".

[DocteurLariviere]

Why should I or anyone else believe you?

That's just your ideology you're spouting, isn't it?

[grazie55555]

Not really. It's an attempt at an objective view of ideology, something which Mr Minogue seems to struggle to achieve.

If you want me to spout my ideology I'll be more than happy to. Msg me. :)

[rssucksteet]

brilliant. thanks for uploading this.

[chel3SEY]

Hilarious. Ideology as seen from the persepctive of a conservative ideologist! All ideologies think they are just true, and not ideological. Minogue is a classic case, just like Marx himself.

[mainsqueeze1977]

Where in particular did Minogue propose any ideology. I have heard him only deconstruct ideology without proposing anything positive.

[chel3SEY]

True, Minogue doesn't make his conservatism explicit here. But his biases are clear. He cites only left-wing examples of ideology, whereas Buckley's suggestion that the British in India were not ideological is "plausible". His description of ideology stresses the use of terms like "domination" and "oppression", typical of left-wing ideologies. Minogue clearly believes that ideology is a pathology of the left-wing mind, and ONLY the left-wing mind.

[mainsqueeze1977]

I don't know right now whether only leftist ideologists were mentioned, but they were certainly the overwhelming majority. But in any case, the main object was the Communism, the big one. But that needn't trouble you. It would only be bias if Minogue would avoid an ideology he supported, but there is no such ideology. Remember "right" does not equal conservative.

that that position could be argued.

[chel3SEY]

You have a selective memory. You first wrote to point out to me that you "heard him only deconstruct ideology without proposing anything positive". Now you "don't know whether only leftist ideologists were mentioned". So watch it again. ONLY LEFT-WING IDEOLOGIES ARE MENTIONED.

[mainsqueeze1977]

Of course I have a selective memory, any memory is.

I didn't keep a left-right book because, quite honestly, it is an irrelevant task. If only leftists are mentioned so be it. Doesn't change my point: Minogue did not propose any ideology himself. Conservatism, as he understands it, is not an ideology (except in the general sense he addressed in the very beginning.)

[chel3SEY]

You are a literalist. By "selective memory" I don't mean the ordinary laspes we all experience. I mean that you are deliberately remembering only those parts of Minogues interview that support your account and conveniently "forgetting" the parts that don't.

[chel3SEY]

Conservatism is an ideology. Minogue is a conservative. Ergo, he is an ideologist.

[mainsqueeze1977]

Depends on the definition. But it is a plausible view. Still, totally irrelevant to the issue.

[chel3SEY]

Everything depends on definitions. Say something useful. Besides, Minogues describes himself as a conservative.

Totally irrelevant to the issue YOU are interested in, whatever that is. (It's far from clear to me.) Why assume I care about that?

[scott2233]

Your first premise is highly contentious. Conservatism has been defined (by Russell Kirk, among others) as the "negation of ideology." Your first premise is the conclusion of another argument; what are its premises

[grazie55555]

And that's where he displays his bias. He may not come right out and espouse conservatism positively, but he reaches the same conclusion by what he DOESN'T focus on. Chelsey is absolutely right, the whole thing is a subtle attempt to suggest only left leaning philosophies are ideological. The truth is that conservatism can be just as dogmatic as the rest of them. His singular focus on the left exposes him as someone with an intellectually dishonest agenda.

[outrider52]

I suppose you are right but everyone has a bias. At least he is willing to let the other guy talk. Do you think Bill O'reilley would?

[grazie55555]

He lets the other guy talk because he agrees with him. Bill O'Reilly is all for freedom of speech as long as you agree with him. If you don't? "Cut off his mic!"

[cmgollatz]

LOL. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with how many seconds a talk show hosts allows another to respond. Hurry quick. Better respond before Bill deletes your posts.

[jamesc426]

@outrider52 .....lol only an ignorant person would seriously compare Bill O'Reilly and William Buckley.....the problems conservatives have today, is that they have no one who can intelligently debate their positions like Buckley could...as far as that goes, neither do the liberals - we've just lowered ourselves to insults and hate speech...real debating of positions no longer really take place...just sound bites in the media...

[mainsqueeze1977]

"Oppression" is not only present in leftist ideologies. Nazis talked about that too. Also, Buckley didn't say the Raj was not ideological but that it was somewhat benign. Minogue said that such a position could be argued.

[chel3SEY]

How often did Nazis denounce oppression!? Come on. That's really stretching things. The word is essentially (if not absolutely exclusively) a term of left-wing denunciation.

Minogue's oddly Marxist view of ideology would preclude it being both benign and ideological.

[mainsqueeze1977]

Constantly, the oppression of the German and other Aryan people and other stuff. The difference is that they did not suggest ending oppresion but merely wanted to change things around. You don't have to agree with their talk to accept that they did.

Your second sentence is a perfect example of putting words into someone's mouth. You might draw that conclusion, but a) do not attribute it to someone else, b) do not use that as a basis for claiming that someone said something which he didn't.

[chel3SEY]

Your messages are perfect examples of refusing to see (or rather admit) what is obvious: that Minogue (like Marx) is using the concept of ideology in an ideological way, to stigmatise views he disagrees with. That is typical of ideologists. He only sees instances of ideological distortion on the left. You refuse to admit that, owing to your selective bad memory. I suggest you watch the interview again.

[chel3SEY]

I know enough about Minogue to know that he is a conservative (which you acknowledge) and highly partisan. I am NOT putting words in his mouth. I have read several of his books (including "Alien Powers", his study of ideology). You seem to assume that I am only commenting this one interview. I am not. I am not putting words in his mouth. If you read his work, you would know that.

[djomg]

Cool. That's what I always told my brother when I was beating the shit out of him: "You're just buying into an ideology of oppression, you dork!"

Then I smacked him for being an idealogue.

[mr1001nights]

so if you don't look at the oppression of systems like slavery, corporations or bolshevism only as a product of "bad apples" (rather than the system itself) you are being an "ideologue"... what nonsense. Minogue is the real ideologue

[horsie111]

I think the ideologue blames it on a system because he wants to replace it with a new system of his own. Blaming it on the actions of individuals is not sufficient justification for this (not consciousness-raising enough!). For example feminists provide only their own form of social engineering as an alternative to that which already exists - the Patriarchy, whose sex roles are socially engineered to oppress women. Only by blaming it on such a *system* do they justify their own.

[horsie111]

Because, also, their system is a created order. If the actions of "bad apples" are recognized for what they are, this appeals to an external reference, either within or even independent of that society's, which leaves them no room for creating their own. Only by blaming it on a system can they give sufficient authority to their own system as a remedy for evil.

[BCVChannel1]

I think ideology is better understood, following your line of argument, that the problem of "bad apple" is not isolated to a bad apples alone. It proposes for reexamining the "apple farm" and the "apple farmer" more comprehensively.