Iran at the Crossroads - Christopher Hitchens

[sufiatheart]

ZioNazi propagandist! Voice fo International Zionism

[jettbugg]

...A valuable source of truth...EXCELLENT!

[djguy100]

All religion is fucking bullshit

[captainquirk24]

Not-uh.

[Lingerfoot]

God is just an idea and religion is nonsense. Peace!

[Doyler3]

Hitchens looks like he's going to keel any moment.

[thomaserossi]

The Iranian government was support by the Left. Jimmy Carter supported it. Iranians educated in America and the Europe who identified themselves as Leftists supported the Ayatollah. Why? They speak the same language:

An all caring government.

Hatred of the West.

America is the evil empire.

Capitalism is oppressive.

This is the flaw of socialism (collectivism). The group cannot be more important than the individual in the eyes of the state. This the the nature of tyranny.

[DrTimWhatley]

You need a history lesson. Carter did not support the regime in post-revolution Iran.

Recall that Ronald Reagan sold arms (illegally) to Iran.

[thomaserossi]

I did not know it then perhaps I did not want to know but it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out. Clearly this is what the human rights advocates in the State Department wanted What was I to make of the Administrations sudden decision to call former Under Secretary of State George Ball to the White House as an adviser on Iran? Ball was among those Americans who wanted to abandon me and ultimately my country. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran

FAIL

[DrTimWhatley]

The only failure here is you. Carter's administration did not help the shah fend off the popular uprising led by a disparate group of Iranian clerics, merchants, intellectuals, etc. Unfortunately, R. Khomeini won the post-revolution power grab.

Carter leaving the equally oppressive shah to his own devices is not tantamount to support for the Ayatollah. If they wanted the shah to abandon the country, it's because they knew he would've been a dead man anyway.

[JemyM]

Hogwash. "Left/Right" is oversimplified labels for people who can't grasp complexity.

Pre modern Europe/Russia were ruled by tyrannies. The US was founded on escaping those. In Europe/Russia, Liberalism and Socialism both challenged the system, but played out differently depending on previous tradition (protestant, catholic or orthodox). In west-Europe, social liberalism, and reformed socialism won, that mix capitalism with "positive rights". To east, revolution was seen as inevitable.

[thomaserossi]

Nice try but when someone call THEMSELVES Leftist I'm more than happy to oblige. The Left did destroy Iran. The Leftists in Iran supported the Mullahs. They called THEMSELVES Leftists. Those are THEIR words. Not mine. I didn't come up with it. Are you saying that those who call themselves Leftists cannot grasp complexities?  If that's what you're saying then I agree, but that's not what you're saying at all.

Also, there's not such thing as Social Liberalism. Read Hayek.

[JemyM]

Yes, that's what I am saying. Don't let labels confuse you. In Sweden for example, liberalism is considered right-wing.

3 steps to understand politics:

1. Understand that left/right is an illusion

2. Understand that ideologies are an illusion (there are 4 opposing versions of liberalism, 3 opposing versions of socialism, 2 opposing versions of feminism, at least 5 versions of Islam, loads of Christianities etc).

3. Learn to extract and identify certain ideas, interests and ignore the labels.

[thomaserossi]

Thanks but I'm not confused at all. However, you're stuck on this "illusion" kick. Not everything is an illusion. There are core ideas that separate and unite doctrines. For example:

Socialism/Fascism/Communism all trace their ideological roots to Rousseau. They're all collectivist. That is an ACCURATE label.

The key isn't to ignore labels, it's to ignore those labels that were created by collectivists to stifle debate. Lenin called Fascism right-wing even though it was Marxist.

[JemyM]

No. Socialism can be found as early as Plato's state, and even Acts in the Bible (see Christian Communism).

Fascism begun as a Italian nationalist movement to get back to the old Rome and share identical principles with Catholicism.

Original Communism was a reaction to the class system, which was a reality in 19th century Europe.

"Collectivist" is just a sloppy term for humans natural need to be part of something larger. It's a psychological reaction, not an ideology.

[thomaserossi]

Christian communism is a delusion of the "New Man."

Fascism was a movement that sought to recreate Rome as the French Left recreated France during the Revolution. Mussolini turned to Rousseau, as the French did. However, instead of looking to Sparta he looked to Rome.

Collectivist isn't a sloppy term either. It has a VERY different notion of morality and identity. It's an ideology, not a psychological reaction. Socialism has little place in the Bible, Numbers and Isiah debunk that.

[JemyM]

thoaserossi, don't say "shouldn't be in the Bible" when it is. NT supersedes GT.

It was natural for Christians in ancient times and continue to be today.

You have any sources for Fascism=Rousseau? I doubt it.

Rousseau had had a romantic view on history that was inspired by common ideas in his time. Plato's State came 2100 year before Rousseau.

You might be interested in reading a bit on human behavior, they are as important as ideas, ideas often just correspond to natural impulses.

[thomaserossi]

OMG, you've gone full Libtard.  Just a little bit is quite alright but Full Libtard is just embarrassing.

Sources?

Hitler's Memoirs

Mussolini's "Doctrine of Fascism"

That's off the top of my head. You're dismissed.

[JemyM]

I study intellectual history at the University of Gothenburg. If you are prepared to call an academic study of history "libtard" it tells more about your dogmatic mindset than my credibility.

Rousseau is an influential western thinker, but suggesting everything goes back to him is like suggesting that a cake is made out of water. Hitler and Mussolini were nationalists which is part ideology, part mindset. They draw inspiration from a very long and complex history combined with natural impulses.

[thomaserossi]

Apparently you've never studied the fallacy of authority.

[JemyM]

From dogma to paranoia.

Do you realize the irony of that comment, when you spent the last few comments suggesting that one single person is behind not only the most devastating movements in the 20th century, but also the collectivist mindset?

Suggestion, google "DunningKruger effect". I would have accepted such cognitive dissonance from a teenager, but you are 34 for crying out loud. That said, I have had enough of you.

[thomaserossi]

Yawn...

Now you don't know what Irony means. Great job! Grad student. You've gone from Fallacy of Authority to Ad Hominem. Such a wonderful display of Postmodernism. Which is why the Fallacy of Authority still stands.

[JemyM]

Ad hominem yes. After checking your youtube page I could see that you watch Archive X like it was a documentary. I have no interest in discussing history with you, bye.

[JemyM]

To understand Leninism and Russian Communism you need to understand Russian mentality and how it relates to Orthodox Christianity. When doing so you might also wish to check out why protestant nations tend to go for reformed socialism instead.

[BasijiHunter]

Our mullahs, your minister, and the freaks living in bomb shelters all hear voices. The nuts walking the street, hearing voices packaged as religion can achive anything: Charles Manson, Jerry Fallwell, Khomeni... all the same shit.

In God's name... we rape you, we kill you, we oppress you, we torture you, we exploit you, we molest you. And then we say God is great.

[CountArtha]

Does he *have* to take a shot at religion every time he speaks!?

[InternetArgument]

Don't listen if you don't like it. I don't listen to church sermons...

[utuebmakeustupid]

yes

[bigbowlowrong]

he doesn't have to, he just finds it enjoyable. as do i. ps religion is lame

[FreeInquisition]

That's his forte.

[CountArtha]

Yeah, but it seems almost obligatory, like he felt he had to have a throwaway line about religion. His audience obviously wasn't expecting it, given the long pause before they applauded.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

thought provoking Mr Hitchens

[JoeyPencils]

makes sense

[Mike3303]

Which is rare in modern day.