Music Banter - View Single Post

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 05-16-2015, 06:43 PM

this is gonna be a long one...

sorry it took so long for me to respond but i've just been moving so i had a transition period without internet

ok, tbh i have approached this thread in a sort of half assed and haphazard way because things have been so hectic and i haven't had time to dedicate to really fleshing out exactly what my views are and presenting them in an organized and coherent manner.

instead i've been responding here and there with what i had the time and energy to type out at the moment. as a result i think this argument is getting a bit convoluted, so i'm going to try to clarify some stuff with this post.

i don't necessarily dismiss/ disagree with your point that people often have ideological motivations. in fact in a recent conversation with frownland i made the overt argument that islamic terror is predominately fueled by a certain brand of radical islamic ideology, rather than just being a natural response to american foreign policy and imperialism. not that american imperialism doesn't also factor in, but i think that many/most islamic radicals are reacting just as much to modern liberal values as they are to political instability or poverty/violence/etc.

so with this idea in mind, i agree with you that ideology can be a driving force for an individual's actions. yet i would point out that this application of the emphasis on ideology undermines some of the incentive of the united states not to act as a global superpower out of fear of 'blowback', a CIA term commonly invoked in anti-imperial rhetoric to describe the idea of US foreign policy motivating terror attacks against the united states and causing collateral damage. because if these militants are to be taken at their word, and their ideology is to be taken serious, then presumably there isn't much incentive to resist engaging with them because regardless of our foreign policy we will remain their natural enemies and targets just on purely ideological grounds alone.

now, is that actually the case? i'm not 100% sure. surely people who want to see the islamic caliphate do genuinely believe in their ideology... but maybe they were more inclined towards this ideology because of the reduced geopolitical status of the islamic world in modern times, and thus have a sort of inherent interest in pursuing this type of ideology because it goes hand in hand with what they see as ways to promote their own geopolitical status.

so, this is to say, the 'geopolitical narrative' doesn't necessarily require that world leaders be devoid of ideology. the geopolitical narrative is that other strategic constraints, strengths and goals manifest again and again one way or another, and that these ultimately shape the course of history. if ideology is thrown into the mix then ideology seems to tend to conform with these constraints and goals.

the nazis had an ideology that promoted a german empire that used eastern europe as a bread basket and ultimately drove them to war and eventual self-destruction in the pursuit of making this happen. there were certain ethnic, cultural and political forces at work that were shaping their thoughts and actions, to be sure, but it's not a coincidence that both the germans and the soviet empires had their eyes on the same tract of land to feed and fuel their respective empires and that each had a completely different yet corresponding ideology that drove them to war over this conflict.

so maybe leaders are sometimes machiavellian manipulators pursuing an agenda, and sometimes they are ideologues determined to put their theory to work, and it just so happens that their ideology also happens to conform with/be shaped by the external constraints and goals that are presented by geography and other logistical challenges. or maybe it's some of both. or maybe it's one or the other. or maybe neither.

but regardless, history has a trend where rational, stable states relentlessly maneuver and compete for their strategic best interest, and that trend needs to be accounted for.

as for checks and balances, basically the requirement we have in modern democratic countrries is a popular narrative that conforms with popular morality. so if the masses believe that we engaged in war in vietnam/korea/cambodia/iraq/afganistan, instigated coup detats in iran, south america, etc, support puppet dictators around the world when it is convenient for us and then impose an embargo on cuba for 'human rights', effectively contributing to the starvation and poverty of the cuban lower class, if they think we did all this cause we want to make the world a better and more free and democratic place, then all is good. as far as 'checks and balances' goes. doesn't matter if any of that is true... just as long as people believe it. if leaders themselves believe it too, even better. basically the US has to continue to pursue its own strategic interests while conveying a popular narrative with a bit more heart and soul to it.

but non of that addresses the bottom line that the nation has grown incredibly prosperous over the last 100 years pursuing exactly this model. so how exactly is it that you guys don't see how imperialism benefits us again? or do i have your stance wrong?

05-16-2015, 06:43 PM	#31 (permalink)
~~John Wilkes Booth~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 2,235	this is gonna be a long one... sorry it took so long for me to respond but i've just been moving so i had a transition period without internet ok, tbh i have approached this thread in a sort of half assed and haphazard way because things have been so hectic and i haven't had time to dedicate to really fleshing out exactly what my views are and presenting them in an organized and coherent manner. instead i've been responding here and there with what i had the time and energy to type out at the moment. as a result i think this argument is getting a bit convoluted, so i'm going to try to clarify some stuff with this post. i don't necessarily dismiss/ disagree with your point that people often have ideological motivations. in fact in a recent conversation with frownland i made the overt argument that islamic terror is predominately fueled by a certain brand of radical islamic ideology, rather than just being a natural response to american foreign policy and imperialism. not that american imperialism doesn't also factor in, but i think that many/most islamic radicals are reacting just as much to modern liberal values as they are to political instability or poverty/violence/etc. so with this idea in mind, i agree with you that ideology can be a driving force for an individual's actions. yet i would point out that this application of the emphasis on ideology undermines some of the incentive of the united states not to act as a global superpower out of fear of 'blowback', a CIA term commonly invoked in anti-imperial rhetoric to describe the idea of US foreign policy motivating terror attacks against the united states and causing collateral damage. because if these militants are to be taken at their word, and their ideology is to be taken serious, then presumably there isn't much incentive to resist engaging with them because regardless of our foreign policy we will remain their natural enemies and targets just on purely ideological grounds alone. now, is that actually the case? i'm not 100% sure. surely people who want to see the islamic caliphate do genuinely believe in their ideology... but maybe they were more inclined towards this ideology because of the reduced geopolitical status of the islamic world in modern times, and thus have a sort of inherent interest in pursuing this type of ideology because it goes hand in hand with what they see as ways to promote their own geopolitical status. so, this is to say, the 'geopolitical narrative' doesn't necessarily require that world leaders be devoid of ideology. the geopolitical narrative is that other strategic constraints, strengths and goals manifest again and again one way or another, and that these ultimately shape the course of history. if ideology is thrown into the mix then ideology seems to tend to conform with these constraints and goals. the nazis had an ideology that promoted a german empire that used eastern europe as a bread basket and ultimately drove them to war and eventual self-destruction in the pursuit of making this happen. there were certain ethnic, cultural and political forces at work that were shaping their thoughts and actions, to be sure, but it's not a coincidence that both the germans and the soviet empires had their eyes on the same tract of land to feed and fuel their respective empires and that each had a completely different yet corresponding ideology that drove them to war over this conflict. so maybe leaders are sometimes machiavellian manipulators pursuing an agenda, and sometimes they are ideologues determined to put their theory to work, and it just so happens that their ideology also happens to conform with/be shaped by the external constraints and goals that are presented by geography and other logistical challenges. or maybe it's some of both. or maybe it's one or the other. or maybe neither. but regardless, history has a trend where rational, stable states relentlessly maneuver and compete for their strategic best interest, and that trend needs to be accounted for. as for checks and balances, basically the requirement we have in modern democratic countrries is a popular narrative that conforms with popular morality. so if the masses believe that we engaged in war in vietnam/korea/cambodia/iraq/afganistan, instigated coup detats in iran, south america, etc, support puppet dictators around the world when it is convenient for us and then impose an embargo on cuba for 'human rights', effectively contributing to the starvation and poverty of the cuban lower class, if they think we did all this cause we want to make the world a better and more free and democratic place, then all is good. as far as 'checks and balances' goes. doesn't matter if any of that is true... just as long as people believe it. if leaders themselves believe it too, even better. basically the US has to continue to pursue its own strategic interests while conveying a popular narrative with a bit more heart and soul to it. but non of that addresses the bottom line that the nation has grown incredibly prosperous over the last 100 years pursuing exactly this model. so how exactly is it that you guys don't see how imperialism benefits us again? or do i have your stance wrong?