Comments on: underwater http://antipopper.com/blog/underwater/ for the unconditional military defence of numerous things Sat, 07 Nov 2009 08:28:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: jebni http://antipopper.com/blog/underwater/comment-page-1/#comment-919 jebni Mon, 09 Aug 2004 05:30:58 +0000 http://antipopper.com/blog/underwater/#comment-919 <p>Well, he's a Pentecostal, born-again Christian, and I call such Christianity "fundamentalist" by definition. By even having a concept of social justice, Garrett does go against the grain of how fundamentalist conservatism is usually configured, but that's nothing new -- for example, reactionary Islamism usually runs under the banner of anti-imperialism. Indeed, one thing that the current wave of worldwide Islamophobia has done is actually <em>collapse</em> any critical terrain around Islam. Reactionary Islamist movements are now just the "natural" expression of crazy, barbaric Arabs, rather than something that could have fooled Michel Foucault into supporting Khomeini in 1979. That mistake needs to be unpacked for what it was and faced squarely (and also distinguished from less reactionary movements that involve Muslims), rather than simply become evidence of "Arab backwardness" (just as fascism in Europe needs/needed to be faced squarely and not used as evidence of "European backwardness").</p> <p>I'm not suggesting that Garrett is in any way as reactionary as Khomeini was, but in the context of his current political prominence, I'd think that important questions need to be asked of his politics and their relationship to his religion. What are his sexual politics? His stance on abortion? On feminism? On the economy? Is he in favour of the globalisation of justice, or of ecoprotectionist nationalism? Why does his advocacy of conservation, hand in hand with his vivid image of black/white custodianship of the land under the banner of "one country", have a whiff of eco-fascism about it?</p> <p>Don't get me wrong -- I'm obviously still a fan, and Midnight Oil's anti-imperialist declarations certainly played a part in my political education.</p> Well, he’s a Pentecostal, born-again Christian, and I call such Christianity “fundamentalist” by definition. By even having a concept of social justice, Garrett does go against the grain of how fundamentalist conservatism is usually configured, but that’s nothing new — for example, reactionary Islamism usually runs under the banner of anti-imperialism. Indeed, one thing that the current wave of worldwide Islamophobia has done is actually collapse any critical terrain around Islam. Reactionary Islamist movements are now just the “natural” expression of crazy, barbaric Arabs, rather than something that could have fooled Michel Foucault into supporting Khomeini in 1979. That mistake needs to be unpacked for what it was and faced squarely (and also distinguished from less reactionary movements that involve Muslims), rather than simply become evidence of “Arab backwardness” (just as fascism in Europe needs/needed to be faced squarely and not used as evidence of “European backwardness”).

I’m not suggesting that Garrett is in any way as reactionary as Khomeini was, but in the context of his current political prominence, I’d think that important questions need to be asked of his politics and their relationship to his religion. What are his sexual politics? His stance on abortion? On feminism? On the economy? Is he in favour of the globalisation of justice, or of ecoprotectionist nationalism? Why does his advocacy of conservation, hand in hand with his vivid image of black/white custodianship of the land under the banner of “one country”, have a whiff of eco-fascism about it?

Don’t get me wrong — I’m obviously still a fan, and Midnight Oil’s anti-imperialist declarations certainly played a part in my political education.

]]> By: 2fs http://antipopper.com/blog/underwater/comment-page-1/#comment-918 2fs Mon, 09 Aug 2004 04:05:53 +0000 http://antipopper.com/blog/underwater/#comment-918 <p>Re Garrett: Perhaps there's semantic drift from your part of the planet to mine, but...as an atheist I've always glossed "fundamentalist Christian" as entailing: belief in the literal truth of the Bible, often accompanied by a disdain for intellect, and most often an extreme social conservatism. Garrett is a Christian, yes - but not all Christians are "fundamentalist Christians." But given his current political prominence, you're probably more aware of his beliefs than my brief googling could cough up. What aspects of his beliefs strike you as "fundamentalist"?</p> Re Garrett: Perhaps there’s semantic drift from your part of the planet to mine, but…as an atheist I’ve always glossed “fundamentalist Christian” as entailing: belief in the literal truth of the Bible, often accompanied by a disdain for intellect, and most often an extreme social conservatism. Garrett is a Christian, yes – but not all Christians are “fundamentalist Christians.” But given his current political prominence, you’re probably more aware of his beliefs than my brief googling could cough up. What aspects of his beliefs strike you as “fundamentalist”?

]]>