David Thompson
Subscribe

Categories

Blog powered by Typepad

« Friday Ephemera | Main | Three Snippets from One Paper »

August 16, 2013

Comments

Connor

I don't have to listen to this straight white male.
/sarcasm

Anna

"The people who taught me at Princeton 1960-1964 were probably disproportionately individuals of the left, but none of that was obvious from their curriculum, from their syllabi, or from their teaching. They did not see their task as producing disciples and clones in a classroom. In my sophomore year at Princeton, I took a course from a distinguished Marxist professor on 20th century European History. He gave us a remarkably diverse set of readings. One or two of which were things he himself had written. When he gave back the midterms, he stood before the class and he said you have shamed me. You've all written what you thought I wanted to hear. So I'm changing the final exam. I'm going to make one quarter of it on the work I most disagree with about the 20th century. I'm not going to ask you to critique that work. I'm going to ask you to recreate its arguments with intellectual empathy, so that I can be certain that you know views that are antithetical to my own. The book was Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom."

I can't see that happening much now. Progress!

David

Progress!

Quite. As Kors says in an interview with Reason,

I have always voted to hire people who think radically differently from myself, who are asking questions that I wouldn’t ask. The problem is that a lot of those people wish to clone themselves in their department and see voices that are dissident to their own orthodoxies as uncollegial.

He also notes that if Reason were published on a campus they’d most likely be defunded and be “up on harassment charges every other week.”

Kevin B

The sad thing is that the radical left - not those nice left of centre people currently on the board of FIRE, but the radical left - will soon march through this particular institution, like they marched through every other institution from the Sierra club to the NAACP, and pretty soon FIRE will be just another organisation pushing leftism.

dicentra

I have a minor quibble with his use of the term "evolved" to describe the impartial rule of law: if he's using "evolved" to mean "superior" (rather than describing its long process of development), then he's misreading the concept of evolution in the same way the progressives and Nazis did a century ago.

"Evolution" means only change over time in response to new conditions: it's adaptation, not improvement. You can't say that a poley bear is superior to a brown bear, only that each bear is well adapted to the particulars of its environment. (Poley bears are actually brown bears with polar adaptations; where their ranges meet, they mate and produce fertile offspring. Consequently, if the ice caps do disappear, poley bears will melt back in with the brown-bear population whence they came, thus preserving the genome.)

Likewise, it would be improper to rank Darwin's Galápagos finches in order of superiority: you can only observe the utility of each adaptation in its context.

If he means that impartial rule of law is "evolved" in the sense that it's the product of centuries of trial and error to find the best solution, then maybe his usage is correct.

However, it would be incorrect to assume that impartial rule of law developed in response to changing conditions — it didn't. It developed in response to a desire for justice without prejudice and bias and favoritism, which does NOT come naturally to the human creature. Those who inevitably seize power are despotic in nature, and rule of law is a threat to their lust for power.

A desire to form a just society appears to be a mutation that should have selected itself out, because according impartiality even to one's enemies is a non-entropic state. It is not the path of least resistance, nor does it improve one's personal fortunes.

Just spit-ballin' here. What else are Friday nights for?

ChicagoRefugee

A desire to form a just society appears to be a mutation that should have selected itself out

Looking at current birthrates, I think you could make the case that's a work in progress.

For Hume the Bell Tolls

Mr Thompson -- thanks for your reply at Unamusement Park and sorry for thinking it was you rather than spam software behind my inability to reply previously.

What I said on the Detroit thread also applies here. Free speech is like all other aspects of culture: whether it exists in a society is determined by genetics (in a necessary-but-not-sufficient sense). Free speech was invented by white Protestant and post-Protestant males and as those males lose their power and influence in the US and UK, free speech is lost too. Individuals -- and I stress "individuals" -- from other groups can support free speech and are sometimes even sincere, but those other groups, as groups, are bad for it. It doesn't exist in either China or Zimbabwe, for example. But China can succeed economically and scientifically, because of Chinese genetics and higher average Chinese IQ. Laurie Penny would disagree, of course, but then Laurie Penny doesn't believe in free speech or in free enquiry and has no understanding of genetics or of human evolution. She prefers to treat science like a branch of morality or religion. And she shares that ignorance and that preference with more than a few on the so-called right.

I've replied to dicentra and cm on the Detroit thread.

dicentra

Mr. F Hume tBT:

I categorically deny that my discourse on the usage of "evolution" was referring to DNA or physiological genetics or anything like unto it. Your insistence that virtues such as prizing free speech inhere in a genome is a lie, pure and simple.

Your caveat that "of COURSE individuals of other genomes can be into free speech" doesn't improve your argument, because the inverse is just as true, which renders the assertion null and void.

Free speech was invented by white Protestant and post-Protestant males

So were Marxism, Nazism, Fascism, etc.

The utter cruelty that we saw in the Very Aryan Hitler from Lutheran Germany is matched perfectly in Chinese Mao and Cambodian Pol Pot and all of the various Arabian despots, plus their counterparts in Africa.

From the Detroit thread, in response to me:

Scientific statements can be true or false or somewhere in-between. Scientific statements cannot be "wicked", except to ideologues who want to close debates they are unable to win.

Scientific-sounding statements of dubious veracity most certainly ARE wicked, because it is upon lies and half-truths that the horrors humans visit on each other are based.

The idea that one group of people is statistically more likely to prize free speech is no different from the idea that Jews are genetically predisposed to be the enemies of humanity.

Do you see how I hedged my statements with likelihood? Does that cleanse them from the stain of racism?

The only "DNA" or "heritage" that matters is "cultural." Either you see the world a particular way or you don't, and worldview resides in the frontal lobes, where we have the highest degree of conscious control.

And the highest degree of flexibility. People begin in a state of ignorance and then learn new things. People are persuaded to new ways of thinking and therefore behaving. People have individual desires and priorities, none of which are influenced by their genome.

Don't hide behind The Bell Curve: that was one study that was conducted at one point in time in a single temporal instance. Go backwards 300 years or 1000 years or 5000 and the results could be as different as can be. You can't legitimately draw a trend line through one point.

guinspen

I know I shouldn't ask, but does it toll for Brit, Cronyn, or Illinois?

Or maybe even for three?

Rich Rostrom

dicentra: A desire to form a just society appears to be a mutation that should have selected itself out, because according impartiality even to one's enemies is a non-entropic state. It is not the path of least resistance, nor does it improve one's personal fortunes.

Just societies are more successful than unjust societies. Injustice benefits a few in the short term, but it injures more directly, and injures nearly all in the long term. That is why justice is, generally, evolutionarily conserved.

elberry

Mr Hume von Bell

i'm interested in how, for example, a Chinese individual can genuinely support free speech, but a group of Chinese people can't. Let's say they are 100% genetically Chinese but their parents were born in England, and they were raised in England. Let's say they don't speak Chinese and have never visited China, and were raised without any Chinese cultural influence - so there can be minimal cultural interference. Culturally, they are English. Would it be possible for each individual to support free speech, but if enough of them were gathered together in one place, they would suddenly find free speech ludicrous and insane? How many individuals would this require? What is the threshold? Two? Three? Ten? A hundred? Ten thousand? Also, how has this group-perspective been determined? Is it purely by anecdotal observation, or have studies been conducted?

Thanks in advance, i look forward to your response.

T.K. Tortch

Well the comments here took an unexpected turn. Anyway:

I was in college in the '80s when the notion of speech codes emerged and I remember that it was derided by everybody, whatever their political bent. It seemed so obviously contrary to everybody's "free speech" ground rules it hardly needed to be argued against; the idea of a "code" for speech was the proposition's own damning critique. Most people regarded it as just another screwy academic efflorescence that would wither.

But, some people I knew then are academics now and work at universities with vigorous speech codes, even though they had said they would never endure such a thing. Worse, even though they are too ironical to use the phrase "speak truth to power", that's what they think they're good for.

Imagine that - educated persons who regard themselves as tribunes; free speaking voices of scouring truth - when at home they practice the art of biting the tongue.

How in hell did they get to that place? That's just the cautionary fable told by Huxleywell, right, it doesn't actually happen to people you know, it happened to historical people who didn't know better.

It is distressing.

Upthread Dicentra wrote I have a minor quibble with his use of the term "evolved" . . .

Quibble shared. Darwin should have used a different word. Anyway, I'm pretty sure the Progressives of today regard their every movement of the goalposts as another inevitable, evolutionary step towards what is Just, Proper, and Good.

For Hume the Bell Tolls

@dicentra -- 1) your grasp of logic and statistics; 2) your deep commitment to polishing and parading your ethical purity; 3) your love of rhetorical flourishes lead me ineluctably to the conclusion that you're either a big big fan of Theo Dalrymple or should definitely check Da Doc widda Dee out at your earliest convenience.

Your caveat that "of COURSE individuals of other genomes can be into free speech" doesn't improve your argument, because the inverse is just as true, which renders the assertion null and void.

Only to people with no grasp of logic. Look, all groups of human being can (and do) throw up individuals with high IQ and high mathematical ability. But blacks and Australian aborigines do not win Nobel Prizes for Physics. Nor could they, on their own, create such fields as maths and physics. Mutatis mutandis, the same reasoning applies to free speech and other aspects of liberal democracy.

Free speech was invented by white Protestant and post-Protestant males

So were Marxism, Nazism, Fascism, etc.

Oh no they weren't! Nazism and fascism were adaptations of Catholicism by Catholics and post-Catholics. Marx came from a Jewish background and Marxism was an adaptation of Judaism. Like Nazism, Marxism does not appeal to Protestant societies. The soil in which authoritarian, absolutist ideologies flourished was Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, Confucian, etc. Spinoza could be a heretic and survive in Holland because Holland was run by Protestants. If Spinoza's own folk had been in charge, he would not have lasted long. Nor would he have lasted long in Portugal.

The idea that one group of people is statistically more likely to prize free speech is no different from the idea that Jews are genetically predisposed to be the enemies of humanity.

Yes, the good old argumentum ad Hitlerum. As I said you're part of the lefty crew on this topic. But your claim isn't even intelligently expressed from your point of view. Obviously some groups are statistically more likely to "prize" free speech, or wouldn't exist in different degrees among different groups. The question is WHY that is the case. My explanation is genetic. Chicago is like Zimbabwe and New Zealand is like England for genetic reasons. Cultures differ because genes differ. (And vice versa.)

@elberry: Thanks in advance, i look forward to your response.

And it will arrive in due course. In the meantime, I recommend:

http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/start-here/

http://unamusementpark.com/2013/07/race-iq-flyer-rachel-jeantel-college-scholarship-edition/

http://unamusementpark.com/2013/07/race-crime-flyer-trayvon-martin-memorial-edition/

WTP

The question is WHY that is the case.

Because it works better and leads to a more efficient economic environment. Adopting elberry's reasoning, why would people who are genetically Chinese, Jewish (especially that one), or African who see that connection be less inclined to support it? Are they genetically blind to the connection and thus incapable of understanding it? What genetic mechanism causes a biological agent to refuse to take advantage of an advantage? Would not natural selection weed such out of the population?

cm
I've replied to dicentra and cm on the Detroit thread.

I replied on the Unamusement thread. (We'll see if it ever comes out of moderation. I have a backup!)

But for now I'm off to sunny Spain.

Y Viva Espana.

Yes, I am that evil. :-)

dicentra

Dude:

How often in the history of the world has "free speech is sacrosanct" arisen in political structures?

ONCE.

And one data point provides you with exactly zero trend lines.

You might as well call it the Hand of God what caused the Enlightenment to arise in Europe such that it would birth This Great Nation (U.S.A.). It's just that idiosyncratic

Nazism and fascism were adaptations of Catholicism by Catholics and post-Catholics.

Holy smack.

Protestantism is also genetic? Catholicism?

That sounds like the reasoning of a schizophrenic, and I mean that clinically. Seeing solid connections where the data absolutely doesn't support it.

Do you also explain the differences between languages as genetic? The tendency for Asians to use character-based writing? The gendering of language among Indo-Europeans? The right-to-left directionality of the Semites?

Yes, I'm very much "polishing and parading [my] ethical purity," but given the material you've provided, it's a pretty low bar to clear.

Dr Cromarty

Nazism and fascism were adaptations of Catholicism by Catholics and post-Catholics.

Yeah, of course. Eugenics, racism and euthanasia are core Catholic doctrines.

Read Mit brennender sorge, dumbass.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge_en.html

dicentra

If the bell-tolling Hume really wants to tout his exquisite scientific method, he will demonstrate the means by which his theory can be falsified.

For Hume the Bell Tolls

You know, dicentra, if I were controlling what you said I could hardly do a better job of making you look, um, well, not exactly bursting with logical skill.

Nazism and fascism were adaptations of Catholicism by Catholics and post-Catholics.

Yeah, of course. Eugenics, racism and euthanasia are core Catholic doctrines.

Read Mit brennender sorge, dumbass.

Yes. Now try:

Christianity was an adaptation of Judaism by Jews and post-Jews.

Yeah, of course. Ritual cannibalism, worship of mother-goddesses and antisemitism are core Jewish doctrines.

Read the Torah, dumbass.

And try:

Whales and bats are adaptations of a land-dwelling quadruped mammal by natural selection.

Yeah, of course. Diving to 2,000 metres, sonar and powered flight are core mammalian features. So are flippers and wings.

Read the Book of Genesis, dumbass.

Does it begin to sink in, Mr Logic? Protestantism also grew out of Catholicism. That doesn't mean Protestant doctrine is a perfect copy of Catholic doctrine. It's an ad-ap-ta-tion of Catholic doctrine. Sometimes that means completely reversing what Catholics think. Evolution works like that.

Oh, and you might what to check your claim that Mr A. Hitler came from "Lutheran Germany". I recommend Wikipedia.

@WTPThe question is WHY that is the case.

Because it works better and leads to a more efficient economic environment.

I can't remember Mill, Milton, the Founding Fathers, Voltaire et al putting it quite like that. But then they weren't autistic libertarians, I suppose, and they did actually institute free speech, rather than help (inadvertently and otherwise) to destroy it.

@elberry: You are obviously also part of the lefty crew, piously believing that human beings are blank slates and differ only because of environmental influences. Let's apply your thought-experiment to the question of IQ. Putting it crudely, say the average English IQ is 100 and the average Chinese IQ is 105. What average IQ would your "100% culturally English" group of Chinese individuals have? 105, not 100. See adoption studies. They would also have, on average, stronger tendencies to the psychological traits underlying the collectivism and authoritarianism seen in China and not in England (or not among the English, at least). OTOH, the average IQ of a "100% culturally English" group of blacks would be well under 100. See adoption studies. The blacks would also have stronger average tendencies to violence and criminality. As groups, both blacks and Chinese are bad for free speech and Anglophone civilization. So are people like you, WTP and dicentra, in fact. The fact that you don't know makes you even better at the job.

Also, how has this group-perspective been determined? Is it purely by anecdotal observation, or have studies been conducted?

Yes. There's a thing called history (HISS-tor-ee), conducted by historians (hiss-TOR-ee-unz). There's also a thing called statistics (sta-TIS-tics), conducted by statisticians (sta-tis-TISH-unz). I'm puzzled that you're never come across them. For example, the US has free speech thanks to the Founding Fathers (FAUND-ing FAH-dherz), who were white Protestant (and post-Protestant) males and largely of English stock. But Chinese and other Asians in the US vote overwhelmingly for the authoritarian, collectivist Democrat party, which is no friend of the First Amendment. Ditto Hispanics. Hispanics are not as intelligent as Asians and so not as economically successful, but they support authoritarianism and collectivism in a similar way. In short, Asians and Hispanics are bad for free speech in the US. In the UK, minorities vote overwhelmingly for the authoritarian and collectivist Labour party and are similarly bad for free speech.

So yes: to the extent that your thought-experiment has been conducted in reality, the results support my claims, not yours. The Democrats and Labour are both committed enemies of free speech. Rather like you and dicentra, tho' you two are enemies of free speech by ignorance and stupidity rather than with active malice. For example, people like you excuse black failure and accept mass immigration. "It's the POLICIES applied to non-whites, not the non-whites themselves, that cause problems in historically white nations, innit? When we get the POLICIES right (and we will (one day)), Muslims in Europe and Hispanics in the US will turn into fans of J.S. Mill, Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, Detroit will rise Phoenix-like from the ashes, etc, etc."

Sorry, you're wrong: it's the genetics, not the culture. And even if it were just the culture, a white society that accepts mass immigration and black misbehaviour does not have the will or the self-belief to enforce white norms on minorities, so the train-wreck takes place just as surely.

IOW, you can have free speech or you can have non-whites with political power. You can't have both, as is becoming increasingly apparent.

sackcloth and ashes

If I edited the 'Guardian' this man would have a column.

WTP

But then they weren't autistic libertarians
Yeah...not following your point there. Perhaps Mill, Milton, the Founding Fathers, Voltaire et al couldn't put it quite like that because they existed in an environment of expanding tolerance of speech. Trees in a forest.

Dr Cromarty

@FHTBT

I won't waste valuable time addressing false analogies.

Look up the following:
Prussian militarism
Post-war anti-Bolshevism
Volkisch movements
Nietzsche
Freikorps

Then read Mit brennender sorge.

Then get back to me about your Catholicism/Nazism theory.

For Hume the Bell Tolls

@sackcloth and ashes: If I edited the 'Guardian' this man would have a column...

Ay mi -- it's the self-righteous blowhard Sackcloth. Still a Christopher Hitchens fan, s&a? Still fighting the good fight for Gaseous Adolescent Egocentricism 24/7? (Don't worry: those questions are Purely Rhetorical.)

WTP: ...existed in an environment of expanding tolerance of speech etc

As I said, they weren't autistic libertarians. Milton tended not to use English like a programming language, for example.

@dicentra -- ah, I apologize for thinking Dr Cromarty's idiotic comment was one of yours. But it was easy to make the mistake, I'm afraid:

How often in the history of the world has "free speech is sacrosanct" arisen in political structures?

ONCE.

And one data point provides you with exactly zero trend lines.

Yes, it's good that you know the jargon. But it would be even better if you understood the jargon. Try this:

How often in the history of the universe has the universe arisen?

ONCE.

And one data point provides you with exactly zero trend lines.

So presumably cosmology is impossible and we can investigate neither the origin nor the fate of the universe. Indeed, science as a whole is impossible. There's only "one data point", after all: the universe. And the human race is only "one data point", so presumably science can't investigate human beings either.

Look, the fact that "free speech" is a single phrase does not mean free speech, as a phenomenon, is a "single data point". You're being a lefty again and a) confusing words with reality; b) not even understanding the words you're confusing reality with. In fact, there are numerous "data points" in free speech that supply "trend lines" and can be investigated scientifically. For example, what are the psychological traits that permit its existence? Individualism is one. Is individualism influenced by genetics? Yes. HBD-chick is the go-to girl for all this:

http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/start-here/

Free speech is part of liberal democracy, which depends on traits like individualism, foresight, self-control, the ability to trust strangers, high average intelligence, and so on. So you'd falsify the theory by demonstrating that the psychological traits underlying liberal democracy are not under genetic influence. Good luck with that. The theory also says that liberal democracy is impossible for violent, impulsive groups like blacks, with low average IQ. If Zimbabwe and Detroit were flourishing liberal democracies, the theory would be falsified. But they weren't the last time I checked. If the violence, impulsivity and low average IQ of blacks were shown not to be genetic, the theory would be falsified. Unfortunately for liberals such as yourself, the evidence only gets stronger that all of it is genetic:

http://unamusementpark.com/2013/07/race-iq-flyer-rachel-jeantel-college-scholarship-edition/

http://unamusementpark.com/2013/07/race-crime-flyer-trayvon-martin-memorial-edition/

The problem seems to be that you've never thought seriously about free speech and don't understand how science works.

@dr cromarty: I won't waste valuable time addressing false analogies.

Glad to hear it. But another half-witted response would have been fun.

Nietzsche...

Oh, no. Did Nietzsche influence the Nazis? Heavens. One lives and learns. He was brutally anti-Christian, wasn't he? Well, that blows my theory about Nazism and Catholicism out of the water, because we all know that ideologies can never have more than one influence, particularly when those influences are antagonistic. That's why Christianity, which venerates a crucified man and involves drinking blood and eating flesh, has nothing at all to do with Judaism, which is horrified by that kind of thing.

Then get back to me about your Catholicism/Nazism theory.

No, I'm happy to leave things as they are. One of us has demonstrated that the other is a half-wit and both of us know who it is.

elberry

"@elberry: You are obviously also part of the lefty crew, piously believing that human beings are blank slates and differ only because of environmental influences"

Actually, I'm often accused of being a Nazi, a fascist, and a racist, and i don't believe people are born as blank slates. I just don't ascribe scientific validity to pseudo-scientific theories which make no distinction between cultural influence and genetics. And I studied Psychology BSc, which included a year-long study of statistical analysis an scientific method.

But you seem to be one of those people who think ad hominem slurs are some kind of logical argument. Good luck with that.

WTP

One of us has demonstrated that the other is a half-wit and both of us know who it is

After reading much of what I had previously skipped over, I now see where you're coming from. The above statement about sums it up. Thanks.

Dr Cromarty

@FHTBT

One of us has demonstrated that the other is a half-wit and both of us know who it is

Thanks for clarifying. At least you've some insight. There's hope for you.

Spiny Norman

Oh, lawdy! What the hell is going on in here?

No, I'm happy to leave things as they are. One of us has demonstrated that the other is a half-wit and both of us know who it is.

Half-wit? I've read through your posts and I can clearly see you give yourself far too much credit. You are a puffed-up insult to half-wits.

On the other hand, if you're just taking a piss, which anyone would have to be who has any notion of who David and his readers are (and their political leanings), you're some sort of comic genius. An Einstein among faux-trolls.

For Hume the Bell Tolls

@spiny norman

Half-wit? I've read through your posts and I can clearly see you give yourself far too much credit. You are a puffed-up insult to half-wits.

Oh, Spiny. That's cruel. I hope that tongue of yours is licensed.

On the other hand, if you're just taking a piss, which anyone would have to be who has any notion of who David and his readers are (and their political leanings), you're some sort of comic genius. An Einstein among faux-trolls.

No, I toll, I don't troll. I'm well aware of the "political leanings" here. You're: 1) sternly anti-Guardianista; 2) bursting with up-to-the-picosecond scientific knowledge; and 3) big big fans of hardcore conservatives like Mark Steyn and Theodore Dalrymple.* Which is why the application of genetics to free speech and Detroit's collapse has gone down so well with you.

[*And maybe Melanie Phillips? Or is she a bit lightweight for mega-minds like you, dicentra, elsberry, doc cro et al?]

@elsberry:

Actually, I'm often accused of being a Nazi, a fascist, and a racist,

Good. Like Richard Dawkins, you're lefty but not far-lefty. I.e., you're not entirely in thrall to liberalism: reality slips past the filter now and then.

and i don't believe people are born as blank slates. I just don't ascribe scientific validity to pseudo-scientific theories which make no distinction between cultural influence and genetics.

Good again. Disagreement from a Psychology BSc is a v. healthy sign. "Pseudo-scientific" seems to play pretty much the role for you as "racist", "fascist" etc for the far left: it means "I don't like this. Nuff said."

But you seem to be one of those people who think ad hominem slurs are some kind of logical argument.

Yes, "slurs" do tend to be "ad hominem", dear. An example of your own grasp of logic. "Wicked", "lie", "schizophrenic", "dumbass" and (worst of all) "potential Guardian columnist" have all come my way above. And I've responded with "stupid", "ignorant", "half-witted" and "liberal". The difference is that a) I'm teasing; b) my "slurs" are accompanied by reasoned argument. Youse lot don't understand or accept the argument. Fine. I'd expect nothing less from fans of hardcore conservatives like Theo D and Mark S (and possibly Mel P).

And I studied Psychology BSc, which included a year-long study of statistical analysis and scientific method.

Glad to hear it. But unimpressed. Which makes two of us, I'm sure.

@dr cromarty: Thanks for clarifying. At least you've some insight. There's hope for you.

Hold on. Is that irony you're attempting there? And here's me thinking you were British or something.

Btw, Doc: you'll already know, I'm sure, that Nietzsche loathed and abominated: 1) Christianity; 2) antisemitism; 3) German nationalism. He was also an extreme individualist and an advocate of miscegenation. So how is it possible that he influenced the Nazis, who were (or so the rumour runs) pretty relaxed about antisemitism and German nationalism? Might Nietzsche have issued some equivalent of Mit brennender sorge if he'd been around to see the Brownshirt Boyz misappropriating his writing? Seems pretty likely.

However -- and here's the $1.25 question -- would it be honest of a Nietzschophile Naziphobe to claim that Nietzsche had no influence on Nazism? Would it be objective?

I'll leave you to think that over. Take a break if you start feeling dizzy.

For Hume the Bell Tolls

P.S. None of you (at the moment) is capable of understanding and accepting my "political leanings" or the science I've described above. But I think I understand your ideolog-y/-ies. That's why I predict that you'll nod (or have already nodded) wisely in agreement at Nick "The Neo" Cohen's recent piece in the Specky -- trust me, the ethical purity positively throbs off the screen:

Richard Dawkins attacks Muslim bigots, not just Christian ones. If only his enemies were as brave

... One day there will be a reckoning. One day, thousands who have suffered genital mutilation, religious threats and forced marriages will turn to the intellectual and political establishments of our day and ask why they did not protect them. The pathetic and discreditable reply can only be: ‘We were too busy fighting Richard Dawkins to offer you any support at all.’

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9000431/forget-about-richard-dawkins-fight-the-real-fanatics/

Note neo-Biblical repetition of "One day". I only wish Harry's Place employed an ethicist of such intellectual distinction and literary magisteriality. (Beside sackcloth, that is.) But after nodding wisely in agreement at that, you'll laugh heartily (or have etc) at this:

As a Democrat, I am disgusted with President Obama

I do care about security. I survived the attack on the World Trade Center and I believe 9/11 was allowed to occur through a failure of intelligence. I thank TSA agents for searching me: applause for security theater. I defend government's necessary secrets. By the way, I also defend Obamacare. I should be an easy ally, but your exercise of power appalls me. When I wrote about your credibility deficit recently, I was shocked that among the commenters at that great international voice of liberalism, the Guardian, next to no one defended you. Even on our side of the political divide, I am far from alone in urgently wondering what you are doing.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/22/democrat-disgusted-with-president-obama1/

It's hilarious. And only gets more so when he announces that he wanted Hillary instead. But even funnier, in a way, are anti-liberals who don't realize how much they have in common with liberals. I really do recommend that you look up and ponder the term "useful idiot". Verb. sap.

P.P.S. These are funny too:

Help, I've got three sexist children!

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/aug/17/help-got-three-sexist-children/

#SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen: women of color's issue with digital feminism

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/14/solidarityisforwhitewomen-hashtag-feminism/

Dr Cromarty

@FHTBT

P.S. None of you (at the moment) is capable of understanding and accepting my "political leanings" or the science I've described above.

Thanks. You've pretty much confirmed what I was thinking. Any clues how you might enlighten those who dwell in darkness, O Wise One?

[No answer required.]

Tom Foster

For Hume:

You keep sneering at people for being 'fans' of various writers. What exactly is your objection to, say, Theodore Dalrymple?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blogroll