|
5c6e259
|
[W]hat makes patriotic and religious fanatics such dangerous opponents is not the deaths of the fanatics themselves, but their willingness to accept the deaths of a fraction of their number in order to annihilate or crush their infidel enemy.
|
|
war
death
radicalism
fanaticism
|
Jared Diamond |
|
55f0ed6
|
The only real radicalism in our time will come as it always has--from people who insist on thinking for themselves and who reject party-mindedness.
|
|
independence
politics
radicalism
partisanship
|
Christopher Hitchens |
|
777ffea
|
"To those who suspect that intellect is a subversive force in society, it will not do to reply that intellect is really a safe, bland, and emollient thing. In a certain sense, the suspicious Tories and militant philistines are right: intellect is dangerous. Left free, there is nothing it will not reconsider, analyze, throw into question. "Let us admit the case of the conservative," John Dewey once wrote. "If we once start thinking no one can guarantee what will be the outcome, except that many objects, ends and institutions will be surely doomed. Every thinker puts some portion of an apparently stable world in peril, and no one can wholly predict what will emerge in its place." Further, there is no way of guaranteeing that an intellectual class will be discreet and restrained in the use of its influence; the only assurance that can be given to any community is that it will be far worse off if it denies the free uses of the power of intellect than if it permits them. To be sure, intellectuals, contrary to the fantasies of cultural vigilantes, are hardly ever subversive of a society as a whole. But intellect is always on the move against something: some oppression, fraud, illusion, dogma, or interest is constantly falling under the scrutiny of the intellectual class and becoming the object of exposure, indignation, or ridicule." --
|
|
criticism
intellectual
radicalism
intellectualism
intellectuals
|
Richard Hofstadter |
|
276b81e
|
How is the United States at once the most conservative and commercial AND the most revolutionary society on Earth?
|
|
radicalism
conservatism
united-states
|
Christopher Hitchens |
|
9e794b4
|
Today I want to puke when I hear the word 'radical' applied so slothfully and stupidly to Islamist murderers; the most plainly reactionary people in the world.
|
|
radicalism
islamism
|
Christopher Hitchens |
|
9184fc3
|
The matter on which I judge people is their willingness, or ability, to handle contradiction. Thus was better than Burke when it came to the principle of the French revolution, but Burke did and said magnificent things when it came to Ireland, India and America. One of them was in some ways a revolutionary conservative and the other was a conservative revolutionary. It's important to try and contain multitudes. One of my influences was Dr Israel Shahak, a tremendously brave Israeli humanist who had no faith in collectivist change but took a Spinozist line on the importance of individuals. Gore Vidal's admirers, of whom I used to be one and to some extent remain one, hardly notice that his essential critique of America is based on Lindbergh and 'America First'--the most conservative position available. The only real radicalism in our time will come as it always has--from people who insist on thinking for themselves and who reject party-mindedness.
|
|
india
influence
humanism
politics
contradiction
charles-lindbergh
collectivism
edmund-burke
israel-shahak
radicalism
spinozism
ireland
gore-vidal
partisanship
conservatism
french-revolution
free-thought
united-states
individualism
thomas-paine
revolution
israel
|
Christopher Hitchens |
|
5bf7601
|
The idea of labor, of hard work, leading to increased productivity was so novel, so radical, in the overall span of Western history that most ordinary people, most of those who labored, could scarcely believe what was happening to them. Labor had been so long thought to be the natural and inevitable consequence of necessity and poverty that most people still associated it with slavery and servitude. Therefore any possibility of oppression, any threat to the colonists' hard earned prosperity, any hint of reducing them to the povery of other nations, was especially frightening; for it seemed likely to slide them back into the traditional status of servants or slaves, into the older world where labor was merely a painful necessity and not a source of prosperity.
|
|
radicalism
labor
prosperity
|
Gordon S. Wood |