Salon interviews Chris Hedges about his latest book criticizing neo-con atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris.

I think a lot of their popularity stems from a legitimate anger on the part of a lot of Americans toward the intolerance and chauvinism of the radical religious right in this country. Unfortunately, what they've done is offer a Utopian belief system that is as self-delusional as that offered by Christian fundamentalists. They adopt many of the foundational belief systems of fundamentalists. For example, they believe that the human species is marching forward, that there is an advancement toward some kind of collective moral progress -- that we are moving towards, if not a Utopian, certainly a better, more perfected human society. That's fundamental to the Christian right, and it's also fundamental to the New Atheists.

You know, there is nothing in human nature or in human history that points to the idea that we are moving anywhere. Technology and science, though they are cumulative and have improved, in many ways, the lives of people within the industrialized nations, have also unleashed the most horrific forms of violence and death, and let's not forget, environmental degradation, in human history. So, there's nothing intrinsically moral about science. Science is morally neutral. It serves the good and the bad. I mean, industrial killing is a product of technological advance, just as is penicillin and modern medicine. So I think that I find the faith that these people place in science and reason as a route toward human salvation to be as delusional as the faith the Christian right places in miracles and angels.

I've seen a few YouTubed lectures from Harris that I liked, but I was unaware of his suggestion that the West bomb the Arab-Muslim world. Does anyone else know about this? If true (and Hedges is a principled journalist, so it probably is), I'm pretty appalled.

As for Hitchens, well...he's a prick. What else is new?

Sidney Blumenthal laments the effects of neocon foreign policy on U.S. influence in the world:

Gone are the days when the stern words of a senior U.S. official prevented rash action by an errant foreign leader and when the power of the U.S. served as a restraining force and promoted peaceful resolution of conflict. In the vacuum of the Bush catastrophe, nation-states pursue what they perceive to be their own interests as global conflicts proliferate.

While recognizing the severity of violent conflicts Blumenthal alludes to and not to underestimate the problems an "errant foreign leader" like Musharraf has created, shouldn't we acknowledge that a sovereign nation's exercise of independence, regardless of our preferences, is a good thing? Hasn't our problem been all along -- since the days of the Cold War when we propped up dictators like the Shah of Iran and Pinochet of Chile, to name only a couple of dozens we supported -- that we empower tyrannical oligarchies for short-term foreign policy objectives at the expense of democracy, human rights, social justice and the popular will?

Seriously, we wonder why the world is pissed at us, we construct fantasies that they "hate our freedom" and that just by sheer force of our military strength, economic prowess and Yankee good will, we can make the world in our image. Neoliberals like Blumenthal can point the finger all they want at the neocons, but the delusions of Richard Perle et al. are only an exaggeration of a hubristic myth that pervades the national ideological spectrum, infecting Clintonites as well as Bushies. I don't dispute Blumenthal's diagnosis of neocon imperialist fallacies -- and I share his alarm that "under Bush, the administration has equated international law, the system of justice, and lawyers with terrorism" --, but he seems myopically ignorant of neoliberal globalization "have cake and eat it, too" fantasies of alleviating global suffering while increasing the breadth and power of transnational corporatism, all with a superpower America as the benevolent master. This is the fantasy underlying Democratic arguments for restoring America's place and influence in the world, justifications for the various free trade agreements, and advocacy for an international system.

If you think I'm dissing globalization in toto, think again. I am dissing the concept that the U.S. or any country should "lead" a naively conceived New World Order in which international banking institutions wreck local economies, multinational corporations are granted free hand to exploit desperate workers, and NGOs are expected to salvage what they can. Certainly neocons have made things worse, but this is the situation neoliberals want to bring us back to.