NP? modernity, terrorism, truth and relevance?

[bandwraith at aol.com]

Interesting. The motives and methods of Al Qaeda could certainly use better explanation then I, at least, have been able to come across. It's been sort of like the caution not to speculate on the motives and rationales of Hitler for fear of making him appear sympathetic, or at least human. Get more mileage from a Defense and National Security funding perspective by painting Al Qaeda as pure evil- beyond understanding, rather than trying to understand them, which might lead to counter strategies that actually work. But my liberal skirt is showing...



-----Original Message-----
From: rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com>
To: Bandwraith at aol.com <bandwraith at aol.com>
Cc: “pynchon-l at waste.or 
g“ <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Sun, Apr 21, 2013 3:54 pm
Subject: Re: NP? modernity, terrorism, truth and relevance?



john gray wrote an interesting book on al aqaeda


here's a reviewers description of relevance from the Independent

How, then, can al-Qa'ida be "modern", or Western-influenced? John Gray explains that it is "a by-product of globalisation ... Its most distinctive feature – projecting a privatised form of organised violence worldwide – was impossible in the past. Equally, the belief that a new world can be hastened by spectacular acts of destruction is nowhere found in medieval times. Al Qaeda's closest precursors are the revolutionary anarchists of late 19th-century Europe". 
Gray continues, "Though it claims to be anti-Western, radical Islam is shaped as much by Western ideology as Islamic traditions. Like Marxists and neoliberals, radical Islamists see history as a prelude to a new world. All are convinced they can remake the human condition... [Soviet Communism, National Socialism and radical Islam] have all been described as assaults on the West. In reality, each of these three projects is best understood as an attempt to realise a modern European ideal" – that is, to use a central, state authority to reorder human societies according to knowable principles (no matter how insane they might be).





On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 3:05 PM, <bandwraith at aol.com> wrote:

I agree. These issues are complex and morally challenging, and require work to sort out. It's not just a matter of the politically expedient: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," for example, is not necessarily true. 



-----Original Message-----
From: kelber <kelber at mindspring.com>
To: pynchon-l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Sun, Apr 21, 2013 10:47 am
Subject: Re: NP? modernity, terrorism, truth and relevance?


What's stupid? The idea that there can be many disparate reasons to oppose 
odernity, in its latest incarnation - the megacorporation?  I didn't say that 
acifists and al Qaeda, or that feminists and religious fundamentalists are 
omrades-in-arms - they can't be. But in a world where nation-states are going 
ankrupt, where Nature (water, the genetic code) is being privatized, where 
ormerly democratic bodies are being bought off, where slavery (sex slaves, 
hild labor, prison labor immigrant internment camps) is a significant 
ontributor to world "prosperity," there are bound to be some strange bedfellows 
n opposition. Who's opposed to sex slavery, for example? Feminists and 
eligious fundamentalists who think women should be kept veiled and locked up.
Laura

----Original Message-----
From: alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com>
Sent: Apr 21, 2013 8:51 AM
To: pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Subject: Re: NP? modernity, terrorism, truth and relevance?

Wha?

You can't be serious. This is stupid.

> On the other side, all those who hate the Globocracy: political progressives
> (who can get confused, because they're fighting against people who support
> many of the progressive issues they feel most passionate about),
> environmentalists, supporters of human rights, pacifists, humanists,
> Christian wingnuts, fascists, rightwing nationalists, Muslim
> fundamentalists, Orthodox Jews, and racists and hate-mongerers of all
> stripes. Much as I loathe who's lumped into this side, it's the side I most
> support. It's clearly the losing side. Pynchon, with his romanticizing of
> indigenous cultures, his disgust at colonialism, clearly falls into this
> side.





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130421/2782ecc4/attachment.html>