[eDebate] frankly, sanchez is stupid and never was a debater of note
Sat Jun 27 15:47:18 CDT 2009
because 20 people have died, we need to believe zizek that mousavi is authentic islamic democracy. you're a fool and you suck. where's your mousavi good to back up zizek? there is none because you're helter skelter and you're running to the next bullshit. don't worry. nobody expects you to defend you being yourself an asshole on foucault and invoking his iranian writings solely for the sake of appearing critical. because you can't.
the death of 20 people is a nice mawkish appeal but it has nothing to do with any of the debating going on here. i'm not the president. i won't make an official statement mourning their deaths. i never made the argument ahmadinejad=good or iran gov't=perfect. the deaths don't prove significant vote fraud or a stolen election. the deaths are at least partially attributable to the stoking discontent by foreign speculation on a rigged outcome. given a predictable crackdown, why stoke?
first you invoke foucault's coverage of the iranian revolution to counter my documented statements that this "uprising" is the manipulation of discontent by the CIA and mossad with money, misinforming media and twitter.
" if that's what old strega labels as adopting the role of a 'universal intellectual', then zizek should be happy to consider himself one - as was foucault when he spoke positively of the '79 revolution, no? "
and, then, when i cite the key concept from foucault's iran writings, you ramble in your helter skelter critical discourse which reflects your helter skelter knowledge of foucault and other primary sources. your statement:
"moments of these sort are often inaccurately conceptualized as manifestations of 'the will of the people' or even as the dictates of a single leader."
i'll be real simple for a real stupid person. the political will makes sense as a concept in practical terms, NOT A WORD GAME FUCKFACE, when an entire population (NOT 30% PARTIALLY BACKED BY IMPERIALISTS), evicts a imperially installed dictator like the shah. the political will means the convergence of many disparate groups into a single purpose. in iran, that will achieved its goal and a revolution happened. to compare, mousavi and this movement to that is a bit premature and historically lax. anti-imperialism post-gandhi has forged the strongest political wills yet. the current movement lacks that will and US imperial meddling and presence in neighboring countries actually feeds the hardliners. so the situation is, in part, reverse.
another aspect of the political will in iran was the religious dimension.
i'm glad my only debate notoriety wasn't on edebate like sanchez. i get the sense you are an exhibitionist. you expected hester to treat me like i'm treating you. you waited and then you jumped in out of jealousy. problem is you have nothing to say.
here's one of the many quotes from foucault on the iranian political will of the late 70s which is the key concept you indicted in your last post. HAVE YOU EVER READ THIS OR ARE YOU JUST THE BIGGEST FAKE EVER?
I do not feel comfortable speaking of Islamic government as an "idea" or even as an "ideal." Rather, it impressed me as a form of "political will." It impressed me in its effort to politicize structures that are inseparably social and religious in response to current problems. It also impressed me in its attempt to open a spiritual dimension in politics.
Hotmail? has ever-growing storage! Don?t worry about storage limits.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman