Users of
Internet Explorer 6.x
or before should be aware
that this site works best in
Firefox (best choice) or
Internet Explorer 7.x.
Some helpful links:
 |
| IE 7 at Microsoft |
Disclaimers
Site
At the Boyd Conference I had the pleasure of listening to William Lind share his idea of 4GW, was in the context of everything else. Lind is an excellent speaker, and I regret not being able to talk to him in person. (He was clearly in demand). My general impression of him is this limited exclusively to the words in his speech.
Lind does enormous damage to his cause.
Willian Lind is primarily an opponent of multiculturalism, especially in its cultural marxist manifestation. In this he is similar to John Norman, a fellow academic who is primarily an opponent of femnism, especially in its cultural marxist guise. Both Bill and John find themselves essentially as academics, in a world where cultural marxism is very influential and where speaking out against it confines you to an intellectual ghetto.
Unfortunately, both thinkers responded to this with extreme rhetoric unlikely to earn friends, and very likely to further discredit their own idea. Lind and Norman marginalize the opposition to cultural marxism, by transforming intellectual debate into cult membership (in the sociological sense). This may help them attract intellectually vigorous malcontents, but it defeats the purpose.
As a conservative, as an anti-multiculturalist and ant-feminist (at least in the cultural marxist sense), I sympathize with both Norman and Lind. But they cannot be taken seriously. They are the Ayn Rands and Robert Welches of our day
Bill Lind is right that the intellectual environment of the west has been sick since the trenches. We need to get society right. And unfortunately for our sentimentalities, we have to do it without misguided radicals, like Lind. Or Norman, for that matter.
Posted by Dan tdaxp on Jul 15, 2007 10:43 AM
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: William Lind and John Norman.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://dreaming5gw.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/146.
6 Comments
Lind’s discussion of multiculturalism demonstrates he doesn’t understand much about culture. Besides the monarchist aspirations of #177, in #218 he speaks of Western intervention in the Balkans with nationalist sympathies:
The idea that Kosovo is the ancestral homeland of Serbia ignores Constructivist accounts of nation- and state-formation and takes the Primordialist line that all ethnic and kin attachments are timeless and unchanging, and that the ‘Serbian’ nation has existed in present form throughout history. This is the same cultural interpretation of Balkan history held by Serbian ideologues such as Milosevic whose ‘Greater Serbia’ was based on the eradication of Muslim and Croat minorities. (Rae, 2002)
If this is true, how can Lind explain multicultural Core states with sizable ethnic minorities? It seems his understanding of culturalism fails to see how cultural identities can interact peacefully or combatively. Primordialism justifies the ‘ethnic hatreds’ explanation of sectarian conflict, and most often than not, is invoked by 4th Generation actors to justify their own actions. Lind is too deep in the minds of 4GWarriors, and needs to observe how they manipulate culture themselves.
- Heather Rae, State Identities and the Homogenisation of Peoples. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2002.
Steve,
As Bill views computers as diabolical and thus is unlikely to reply, I will try to be a “Lind’s advocate”:
A response: “Ancestral” refers to the geographic area that first experienced the founder’s effect of a population. Thus, it does not matter if the proto-Serbs originally resided near the Urals, as the Serbian founder population were separated from their kin once they reached Kosovo. Further, it may well be true that the Serbs have resided in Kosovo since the beginning of (written) history.
A response: Those societies have low birth rates, and thus are in demographic decline.
Interesting, and likely accurate. Lind reminds me of Huntington in this respect.
The Washington Post has an article about Abu Farhan, a Sunni al-Qaeda cell leader who says Iran is the real enemy, not America. Instead, he imparts a degree of civilizational respect for us since we can make computers. So much for being infedels because of evil technology.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301792.html
Fundamentalism is a modern phenomenon, and around the world fundamentalists tend to be early adopters of new technology.
The sooner we leave Iraq, the sooner the Iraqi people (who the Iranians generally support) liquidate goons like the guy featured in the WashPost feature.
We need to make a distinction here between robust and rotten multiculturalism. Also, I see no reason to bother with the Frankfurt School. This last gasp of Marxism had little effect in space or time beyond the Bader-Mienhof Gang and Red Army Faction.
In my view, the worldwide reaction to these gangs was mostly gratuitous militarism, more harmful than the original threat to civic or world order.
In any case, who cares? Do the Salafists go to the Frankfurt School. Is Osama in communion with MARCUSE?
Get real!
Let me suggest that a more broadly critical and, yet, constructive view of multi-culturalism can be found in the work of “OtherLind” — Michael LIND.
I would really like to see 3/4/5 GW thinking move away from the Free Congress Foundation and more towards the New America Foundation where the Two Linds might collaborate more productively than either alone.
::JRBehrman
There is a lot of interesting domestic policy ideas at he New America Foundation. I’ll have to look into a there non-domestic stuff.