Comments on: Dreams Shattered

By: Janice

Janice — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:55:45 +0000

““Over the long term, the real critique of those who supported the latest Iraq war is that they killed off any hope, for now at least, of garnering support to use force where massive violations of fundamental human rights are taking place. It is not sufficient to label the US as “the chief inheritor of the legacy of violent white supremacy”. The more obvious conclusion – if such a claim is to be made – is that those who are on the receiving end of what Seymour perceives as US excess have, through the acts of their own governments, or their failure to object, contributed to their own oppression.””

I’m not sure I can agree with this.

By: Marko Attila Hoare

Marko Attila Hoare — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:25:56 +0000

‘I hope no necessary connection is being postulated between corpulence and the tendency to allow left-wing positions to get swamped by sympathy for Islamofascism. I am 5 ft 9, 17 stone and a roaring Islamophobe.’

Seymour doesn’t much like Muslims either, when it’s a question of ordinary Bosnian Muslims being slaughtered in Serb concentration-camps; he regrets we didn’t all simply let Karadzic and Mladic get on with it.

He does, on the other hand, like the the sort of Muslims who blow up innocent civilians in Iraq or Israel…

By: occasional reader

occasional reader — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:28:41 +0000

I note that Lenin has just linked to a more favourable review – more a hagiography to be honest – of his book by none other than Louis Proyect

http://www.swans.com/library/art15/lproy52.html

“To get straight to the point, Richard Seymour’s The Liberal Defence of Murder is a masterpiece of intellectual history”

Hmm

By: Cipriano

Cipriano — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 00:33:18 +0000

I hope no necessary connection is being postulated between corpulence and the tendency to allow left-wing positions to get swamped by sympathy for Islamofascism. I am 5 ft 9, 17 stone and a roaring Islamophobe.

By: Pies not peace

Pies not peace — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:18:16 +0000

Perhaps Lenin’s celebrity status could be confirmed in future via the sobriquet ‘hefty lefty’ appended to his name ie. “Hefty lefty Richard Seymour weighs into the debate (geddit?) on …” etc.

By: Pies not peace

Pies not peace — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:14:54 +0000

Don’t get me wrong, I mean, Aaronovitch, Hitchens and Cohen aren’t exactly the slimmest around the commentary circle. But they are at least over 40…

(one thing not remarked upon is that while Seymour was prepared to be interviewed by Galloway, did he not celebrate the SWP decoupling from Respect on his own blog with some aplomb, ie. saying thank god he didn’t have to defend him anymore etc. Short memories…)

By: Nearly Oxfordian

Nearly Oxfordian — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 20:54:09 +0000

Well, if you define lunatic fantasies as ‘thoughts’, Joanne ;-)

By: Joanne

Joanne — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 20:00:27 +0000

I couldn’t help thinking of a video of Galloway’s show The Real Deal, in which he interviews Seymour, and highly recommends the book. He referred to it as “erudite,” or something to that effect.

My God, such mediocrity in the world. I guess standards don’t really matter if the writer is on your side. If he echoes your own thoughts eloquently, you’re going to think he’s brilliant

By: Andrew Murphy

Andrew Murphy — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:54:11 +0000

me here wrote, “how some lefty “thinkers” (in effect, media pundits) grew increasingly aligned with their old ideological opposites.”

That certainly describes Richard Seymour. The Left used to be against religious fundamentalism and for the liberation of women. Seymour et la are now in bed with the far right when it comes to such issues, granted, he probably is soild on such issues when it comes to white, Anglo-Saxons but Arabs on the other hand don’t deserve it.

By: me here

me here — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:31:50 +0000

I quite like Sands’ stuff when I come across it. And him, when he’s in full flow with the right interviewer, but he is a bit obsessed (as expected after a lifetime in the trade) with the legal aspects of IR rather than the real politique and the tragic history of “morally motivated foreign policy”.

I’m not sure if the Guardian should have chosen Sands as the reviewer because he does seem to miss the point – Seymour’s book is about the period after the fall of the USSR and how some lefty “thinkers” (in effect, media pundits) grew increasingly aligned with their old ideological opposites.

It’s that realignment that’s important.

It DOES do a very good expo on the imperialist ambition behind “humanitarian military intervention”. It does explain REALLY WELL how liberal thinkers helped to shape and embroider the arguments for politicians and it’s very good on how/when/where they created a reasoned “moral” and intellectual “justification” in the english speaking west. But only in the west.

I, personally, am a veh veh old person and do recall Hitch going head to head with Reagan’s neocon samurai on a Clive James show sometime in the 1980s… when James tried to do intellectual TV on BBC2 – and they wiped the floor with him. And I recall Nick Cohen getting womped by NewLabour in the mid 1990s (because he dared to crit their betrayal of their class and ideology). And I think it hurt both men. And, more importantly, it left them fearing they may lose their audience. An audience. Any audience. See Francis Fukuyama, Niall Ferguson et al, once the neocon tide went out. Watch our cheer leaders for Banking & the City backtrack or be replaced.

And, in a way, that’s what this book should really have been about – and that is a harsh criticism.

But what do I know, I is just some twat who wastes time writing on a pro-zionismistic bloggy site comment page for a bunch of feral hasbara merchants sooo keeeen to join a lynchmob against perceived enemies they donevenbovver to read the book first.