Isaiah Berlin conference: Michael Walzer

I attended about 70% of the Isaiah Berlin conference at Harvard September 25th and 26th. In many ways, the conference was an amazing statement of accountability, right from the first Michael Walzer talk.

The discussants admitted that Cold War Liberal Berlin was not just a scholar, but a Zionist and British diplomat responsible for the careers of several Harvard scholars. We can think of some of the recent commemorations such as for diplomatic historian Ernest May as a peek into the Harvard-CIA kingdom, as if MIM were in a tight alley-way with the CIA and causing the CIA to cough up the keys. All of the CIA-invested scholars MIM has discussed before showed up and more.

The international proletariat can stand proud knowing that on September 25, 2009, philosopher Michael Walzer again had to speak about “utopianism”‘s dangers, and the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” It were as if the CIA trotted out the same old original Star Trek cast of the Cold War for an encore.

From the Berlin discussion, one would not know that communism died. For that matter, the Islamists can be proud because these same Liberals said that the radical Islamism replacing communism is even worse.

From our perspective, Walzer is more utopian than MIM. Adam Smith wrote about free trade more than two centuries ago, but it is still a pipe-dream — thanks to the rise of the labor aristocracy in the imperialist countries.

Walzer talked about freedom and choice in a country with the highest imprisonment rate, again because the labor aristocracy voted for it.

Walzer also echoed Berlinisms by saying Liberalism is “dull and safe.” Let me admit that a friend of mine said I only eat because I’m bored, so when the Liberals psychologize my being a communist as a need for thrills, they may have a little shred of something.

Nonetheless, it is Liberalism that is dull and dangerous, not scientific communism. It is Liberalism providing the justification for a global free market in weapons, including inevitably, nuclear weapons. It is supposedly Liberal Amerikkka that used those nuclear weapons as no other country has. It is Liberalism that thinks there is some “safe” option for corporate control of nuclear weapons, that we live under now. And it is Liberalism that started the wars on Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan and Pakistan while trying to blame scapegoats like myself for the reactions they bring on themselves in their wars. Often times we have to remind these Liberals that we are at war and they started it.

Liberals like Berlin mostly immune to quantitative reasoning of any kind advocate the dangerous state of living in a society with half its possible life expectancy — given that these Liberals opposed Stalin and Mao and Stalin and Mao doubled the life expectancies of their peoples.

It is also the dangerous pluralists dividing the oppressed nations and allowing I$rael to continue on course, in an ongoing if somewhat lower intensity version of the Algerian war.

And of course it was the cursed Liberals who caved on Iraq and jumped into Afghanistan thereby assuring that millions of Arabs and Muslims will have legitimate grudges to bear decades into the future. Who knows if the one to buy and set off a nuclear weapon has not already cut his or her teeth against the Amerikans in Baghdad.

Against all that, it was MIM that said the only sensible thing on 9/11. It was MIM explaining Clinton lies about weapons of mass destruction that Bush continued, while the Liberal media got it wrong. Yet it is us communists who are supposedly “dangerous.”

While the general tone of the Walzer discussion was co-optation, there was also an admission that at least with the situation of I$rael, no one can say what is the right degree of co-optation and hence the situation is inherently unstable.

By comparison with Berlin, Karl Popper was a social-democrat for “progressive empire.” He condemned Zionism. Hence, the Liberals show their “elasticity,” an idea not invented by Avakian but the upper reaches of the CIA running the intellectual warfare of the Cold War. As we now know the CIA recruited everyone from Hollywood to Popper type socialists to Trotskyists.

The admirers of Berlin admitted that Berlin got his views of “melting pot” topics from Counter-Enlightenment Herder. This was a concession to MIM’s attack on Berlin as leading to post-modernism and identity politics.

We must grant the Liberals one point — that the United $tates has a case for saying it has religious freedom, if one does not count the killing off of indigenous peoples and their religions. In other words, within a narrow class range, Amerikkkans are allowed the religion of their choice.

All other claims of the Cold War Liberals regarding liberty and freedom could not be more false, whether imprisonment, free trade issues or lies in the media generated by the state and leading to war. And as the world just saw, the 2008 election was pre-arranged by corporate media complete with lynching.

Given the delusional nature of Liberals, except possibly on the religion question where we will give them a 51% or higher grade, it is not surprising that they clamor as if not at war that they started. They believe there is a right to tell lies to ruin Palestinian diplomatic cards and then they wonder why there is “extremism.”

It is not extremist to fight for diplomatic cards. It is in fact a step toward peace in a polarized situation. What is “extremist” is fanatic Democrats and other fanatic Liberals using lynching toward such minor marginal ends. It is the spying on me, the using of the mafia, the conspiring of attorneys and the encouragement of post-modernism among ex-girlfriends who in some cases never said a negative word to me–that is the real extremism.

For the facts and their references in this article see the old MIM web page on spying and our FAQ.

Note:
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/home/news-and-notices/news/press-releases/may-06022009.shtml

Advertisements

%d bloggers like this: