GLM> Hate-lit rests on a premise that "them" are fundamentally different
GLM> critters from "us" and thus, by being "them-like" they, as a
GLM> classification, "bring it on themselves" for us to "correct" them by
GLM> any means gruesome we might choose, after all, it's not /us/ pulling
GLM> the trigger, it's "them", right?  I've heard Bush say this (verbatim)
GLM> more than once, and with a straight face.
Personally, I don't know where you got that from.  Here's how I
grokked the whole piece.   A theory (in this case, that fantasy was
the propagating force/drive?) behind a given act, that from those not
in the fantasy seems morally outrageous, repugnant or unjustified.
He listed many examples, oldies and goodies.   I don't think the
author meant to come off at the point that you seem to be
conjecturing -- that this is purely an 'other' offense.   I certainly
didn't read it that way, but it _did_ bother me that he did not
include some of the examples I listed, or as Damien? mentioned on an
earlier post, the whole collective fantasy of capitalism.
GLM> Call it gay-bashing or whatever, it's convenient tunnel-vision and
GLM> lies to justify violence against a creature genetically, morally and
GLM> intellectually indistinguishable from your sister.  Go ahead, peel the
GLM> skin off a random daughter of each of them and lay them side by side
GLM> on the pavement, and you tell me which one was racially guilty, which
GLM> one carried the "infection" the "plague" (note, not the "antigen" or
GLM> the "hormone", which have similar metaphoric effects to philosophy,
GLM> but they chose the fear-charged words)
This article never got into the bones & blood of what humans are Gary.
You're assuming too much, dearie.  His was all a psychological game.
I'd be willing to wager that, his point was merely psychological.
That there is a distinguishing characteristic (the fantasy) about
those who are perpetually deluded into a preconceived notion of how
the world needs to work -- his examples were very clear -- a
psychopathological individual and on a lesser extreme, the father who
fantasizes his son as a football player.   I kinda read 'levels' into
that distinguishing characteristic though.   Meaning, just because
you believe in the/a fantasy, does not mean necessarily that you're
going to be an evil terrorist.   It just means you're playing alittle
game in your head, and because of that you are a bit different from
the rest of the wavelengths floating around in the cosmos at that
moment.
GLM> "Make no mistake about it" it oozes rhetorical vehicles to obfuscate
GLM> it's lack of bits paragraph after paragraph in pushing an agenda to
GLM> /excuse/ "our" violence and suspension of human rights to 'clense'
GLM> ourselves of "them", the 'non-human' (or lesser-human) objects of its
GLM> hate.
I didn't read cleanse or nonhuman anywhere.   Mind telling me where
you saw those words?   Sure, I'll bite that the article had rhetoric.
I'll also bite that he wasn't fair entirely with his theory.   If he
meant it to be a universal (capable of including even the common
father with a football complex dream) he should have included our
delusions in all of this.   But honestly, where in the hell did you
get 'cleanse ourselves of 'them', the 'non-human' (or lesser-human)
objects... ?
GLM> What else shall we call it?  Just anti-liberal?
Lots of things can be anti-liberal and not be bad.  :)
GLM> Better question: What if, as in physics, the laws of human behaviour
GLM> are the same everywhere in the Universe?  What if Al Queda is in fact
GLM> more like our mafia or biker gangs or school board trustees?
Well, as sinister as the schoolboard is, they didn't go kill 4k+
people.   Lets put some of this moral relativism de jour into
perspective here.   Al'Qaeda had a fantasy.  This fantasy involved a
whole mess of 'others' not in their collective fantasy.   This _is_
much like the mafia's collective fantasy about brotherhood and
organized crime, or the biker gang's fantasy about being badasses on
the road or the school board's fantasy about indoctrinating your
children with Jesus, but its not equivalent.
The terrorists went out, and purposely destroyed things, and killed
people.   This is bad, I don't care what universe you're in.   While
the aspect of 'fantasy' can be applied to all groups, and that label
can be equivalent, the perpetration of the fantasy has different
effects and must be judged differently.   Otherwise, whats a genocide?
Just a father-son complex gone terribly awry?
GLM> What if they operate by the same neural-annealing Maxima-Minima
GLM> gratification mechanisms as you or I and every other creature on this
GLM> planet?
They just may, that doesn't dispute that their fantasy was a deadly
one.
GLM> What if, instead of magically and uniquely alien, they are, just like
GLM> our own captains and leaders, really only in it for the money, for
GLM> trade rights-of-way and for power over minions who will foolishly make
GLM> it all happen, minions whom they can once again dup with /virtually/
GLM> /identical/ rhetoric ... except we call theirs "fundamentalist islam",
GLM> and they call ours "imperialist satanism"?
GLM> When both sides can call the other "evil" to the cheers of their local
GLM> public and media, you can bet something's rotten in the state of Denmark.
So your whole point is we too live in a fantasy.  Sure.   No
questions.  Its the thing that bothered me about the article.   I
think the difference between our fantasy and theirs, is that there are
folks out there, in our fantasy allowed to voice their opinons about
the 'fantasy' and keep folks a bit grounded in the real versus the
made-up.   From what I gather, there are no such guards, or
protections on their end.   Thats the problem with some regeimes over
others.   THey all have bad points -- Ours is in a collective fantasy
that we need to control the oil, masking the intentions behind a very
clever, albiet convienent other fantasy of 'terrorism'.   Point is,
Gary, the 'terrorism' fantasy really happened.  People really died.
I won't argue we're innocent in the perpetration of our fantasy, but
I'll argue that we're not just blindly 'cleansing' 'non-humans'.
GLM> I guess that's why I live in the woods.  Bears and racoons I
GLM> understand, but I really just don't 'get' people.
Too bad bears and racoons don't protect you from the silly fantasies
of people, yours or others.
--
Best regards,
bitbitch                            mailto:bitbitch@magnesium.net
http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork