Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Quotes from the Greatest Progressive to Ever Live. [View all]freshwest
(53,661 posts)26. Is 'Negative Nationalism' similiar to this?
The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States
~ George Orwell
Would the first sentence explain the opposition to any government action, and negate a 'just war,' even if in self-defense?
Because it appears no one believes there was ever any 'just war.' Of course, most of us would simply prefer no war to exist. And I suspect there will never be a WW3, as it could never be organized due to lack of resources. But in its stead, will be small, brutal conflicts that people will justify, excuse or ignore unless they see a gun in their own face.
Would the premise of the second sentence describe people who admire Putin or other strong men - just the simplicity of it all?
The third sentence appears to be all that matters now. Hitler = Roosevelt = Stalin = Bush = Obama in current conspiracy theories. Because of LIHOP. It is defended with vehemence.
There is a place where critical thinking is stymied by a reactive emotion and why discussions on these matters end up being not discussions, but brawls and namecalling.
~ George Orwell
Would the first sentence explain the opposition to any government action, and negate a 'just war,' even if in self-defense?
Because it appears no one believes there was ever any 'just war.' Of course, most of us would simply prefer no war to exist. And I suspect there will never be a WW3, as it could never be organized due to lack of resources. But in its stead, will be small, brutal conflicts that people will justify, excuse or ignore unless they see a gun in their own face.
Would the premise of the second sentence describe people who admire Putin or other strong men - just the simplicity of it all?
The third sentence appears to be all that matters now. Hitler = Roosevelt = Stalin = Bush = Obama in current conspiracy theories. Because of LIHOP. It is defended with vehemence.
There is a place where critical thinking is stymied by a reactive emotion and why discussions on these matters end up being not discussions, but brawls and namecalling.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
58 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I don't think I've ever seen anyone call him "The greatest progressive ever to live."
Scootaloo
Oct 2014
#4
I'm a Greenwald fan but I have never seen anyone call him the Greatest Progressive to Ever Live
Autumn
Oct 2014
#5
I believe these to be Greenwald's quotes, but given your history, you need to provide a link.
DisgustipatedinCA
Oct 2014
#6
Yes, It has been obvious to all non-Greenwald Fanboys what he was about from the beginning, sir
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#15
Partially, yes. Orwell's full notes on nationalism where he describes negative nationalism
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#28
Thanks very much, I will search out all on that link to define this better for myself.
freshwest
Oct 2014
#29
Not just wrong, it would mean Dean was furthering “the great project of the modern right” and
Chathamization
Oct 2014
#37
That Would Be The Effect, Sir, Viewed Coldly, If Any Action Were Taken On The Proposition
The Magistrate
Oct 2014
#38
Right, so Dean’s exempt from the “right-wing libertarian” label because he isn’t anti-war.
Chathamization
Oct 2014
#42
Of course Greenwald's endorsement of multiple Democrats and praise of Obama doesn't matter to you
Chathamization
Oct 2014
#54
I've debunked all of that before. Here and now we have a chance to see what Greenwald and Snowden
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#31
You've debunked exactly nothing, and neither has been caught in a lie
DisgustipatedinCA
Oct 2014
#32
I have multiple times. And now we have an opportunity to see more of what they are about.
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#33
Telling that all the quotes are from ’05, since Greenwald has since said were uninformed and wrong
Chathamization
Oct 2014
#36
Like Some Others, Sir, He Seemed To Think That A Step Towards Making Single-Payer Viable Politically
The Magistrate
Oct 2014
#47
I'd say the onus is on the person digging up the 9 year old comment to: 1. Not truncate it in an
Chathamization
Oct 2014
#49
Do you have ANY evidence that "He mis-characterized Gov. Dean, in an attempt to make his own views
Chathamization
Oct 2014
#56
There Is No Evidence, Sir, For Describing Gov. Dean As A 'Fervent Proponent Of State's Rights'
The Magistrate
Oct 2014
#57