Items Posted by Jim Kalb
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Thu Sep 7 14:49:21 2000
Return-Path:
Message-id: <11057867@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 07 Sep 2000 14:48:09 EDT
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: [Paleo] Derbyshire and anti-Semitism (forwarded from kalb@aya.yale.edu)
To: jk@panix.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: OR
--- paleo@egroups.com wrote:
Not on hearing
anti-Semitic remarks, but plenty of raised eyebrows, comments about the
Israeli lobby, etc. I hear them much more than in the 1980's, though perhaps
because I no longer travel in neo-con circles. And John is right about
Asians-- Chinese and Japanese both--who often lack the kind of inhibitions
those raised in the Post ww2 America have on the subject.
--- end of quote ---
Partly it's where you are and who you're talking to, I suppose. Seth and Bill
seem to be talking mostly about ordinary people in mid-America or the South,
where there aren't many Jews and Goldman Sachs, Norman Podhoretz and Michael
Eisner seem very far away, Where there's no issue there's no discussion. That
in itself suggests we're not talking about "antisemitism," meaning some
deeply-rooted irrational cultural symbolic whatever.
Also, a lot depends on definitions. If someone complains that orthodox Jewish
landlords in NYC don't treat their tenants right and don't seem to care about
people who aren't Jews, is that antisemitism?
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Sat Sep 9 08:26:30 2000
Return-Path:
Message-id: <11098136@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 09 Sep 2000 08:25:52 EDT
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: [Upstream] The Inevitable Eve (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- "mark nelson" wrote:
The 'Eve Hypothesis' states that all human populations are derived from a
single female ancestor some 100,000 years ago. Although in researching the
topic more fully on the net, one frequently sees the figure of 200,000 years.
Nevertheless this amazing discovery borne of an analysis of mitochondrial DNA
from ethnically diverse individuals forces the acceptance that all humans are
essentially the same race. It underpins the proposition that no meaningful
differences could have had time to develop within our species.
--- end of quote ---
Is there ever any argument to show why it is that the existence of an Eve
100,000 years ago means that current human populations could not have
differences in average intelligence and other behavioral propensities as great
as Eve might have noticed among her grandchildren?
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Sat Sep 9 08:27:23 2000
Return-Path:
Message-id: <11098140@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 09 Sep 2000 08:26:45 EDT
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: W. and Clintonism (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
I recall after the Waco business Janet Reno became a folk hero, or so we were
told, because she said "I take full responsibility." Absolutely nothing
followed from her doing so, and she didn't imply she was actually responsible
for anything except in a general formal way, but that was enough. Say the
magic formula and all unpleasantness is avoided and you're even admired. Not
that what W. is doing is the same but it has something of the same quality of
spin, word magic, avoiding giving discomfort at all costs.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From jk@panix.com Wed Sep 20 19:55:24 EDT 2000
Article: 14738 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix3.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Conservative v. Reactionary
Date: 20 Sep 2000 19:53:23 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <8qbilj$hds$1@panix3.panix.com>
References: <8qaguc$lsv$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix3.panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 969494003 29952 166.84.0.228 (20 Sep 2000 23:53:23 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Sep 2000 23:53:23 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.6 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14738
In <8qaguc$lsv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> OperationUSA.com writes:
>I had a college professor who claimed a conservative is one who
>believes in Burke (fundamental truths from time immemorial to time
>immemorial, reliance on history, and resistance to change), and a
>reactionary is one who is somehow "more conservative" than Burke,
>believing that Burke was too progressive, compromised too much, and
>there had been by his lifetime too much change already.
>I would like to know Jim Kalb's take on this. I would also like to know
>where traditionalist conservatism falls into this; is a traditionalist
>conservative a reactionary? Or are conservatives and reactionaries too
>far apart to be considered collectively?
None of these words have well-settled definitions. "Conservative" tends
to refer to an inclination to stick with what is settled and known, so
there can be Marxist-Leninist conservatives or whatever, if
Marxism-Leninism is what's been established for a while. My
"traditionalist conservatism" tries to make conservatism more principled
and consistent, so that you stick with what's settled and known only if
consistent with the principle of what you're sticking with (if you stick
with being a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary because that's what you're
used to you're really betraying your own revolutionary principles). I
suppose you could say that reaction makes conservatism dogmatic, so that
some particular state of affairs in the past becomes the standard that
must be restored.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu and http://www.counterrevolution.net)
"Rem tene; verba sequentur" -- Cato
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Thu Sep 21 14:28:43 2000
Return-Path:
Message-id: <11391284@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 21 Sep 2000 14:27:52 EDT
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: Article on development America's Idea-Worship from medieval Christianity (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
The piece raises some interesting issues. I suppose the evolution is communion
with God =>possession of true propositions about God=>possession of true
propositions about universal man, who has now replaced God=>communion with the
divine Self. So propositions can be a method of distancing oneself from
something. You treat things scientifically when you're abandoning them. The
owl of Minerva flies at dusk. Another point is that at each end of the process
communion involves emphasis on the suffering of the Divine. Communion and
compassion are closely related, perhaps because we are alike in our sufferings
and because whatever else salvation involves it must overcome and transform
suffering.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Thu Sep 21 14:29:00 2000
Return-Path:
Message-id: <11391292@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 21 Sep 2000 14:28:09 EDT
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: one further point (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- You wrote:
There's a book I have somewhere called America, Free, White and Christian. It
goes through state constitutions up through late 19th century and shows the
explicit provisions limiting citizenship rights variously to whites, men, and
Christians or non-atheists.
--- end of quote ---
It would be interesting to know more. At this point I would interpret it as a
demonstration that it takes a long time for universalistic secularism to
penetrate and transform everything even though the society -- meaning I suppose
its most authoritative part -- has authoritatively chosen it. It took until
the early 60s to get prayers out of the schools and blacks into the polling
places everywhere.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Thu Sep 21 14:29:14 2000
Return-Path:
Message-id: <11391304@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 21 Sep 2000 14:28:24 EDT
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: my own suggestion (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- You wrote:
I think it could have been done by including in the documents the same sort of
thing the leaders were constantly saying and writing: that, while there was to
be no established church because of the diversity of sects, this form of
government nevertheless presumed a religious and Christian people, even while
protecting the basic citizenship rights of non-Christians
--- end of quote ---
This is cultural Christianity. As it is stated it leaves the government wholly
secular, wholly unconcerned with man's transcendent interests. If membership
in the political community ("citizenship rights") has nothing to do with
Christianity neither can the purposes of that community. God becomes an
outside support to government rather than something properly at the center of
government as of other human activities.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Thu Sep 21 14:29:48 2000
Return-Path:
Message-id: <11391319@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 21 Sep 2000 14:28:57 EDT
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: one further point (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- You wrote:
Well, you're parodying the idea of course, but what do _you_ think? I remember
having a similar conversation 10 years ago, that the founding documents needed
explicit statement of particularity. Could it have been done in some way?
--- end of quote ---
I don't think I was parodying the idea, there's nothing wrong with the preamble
I suggested, I just think it's not what anyone would have done. It seems to me
anything of the sort would have seemed extrinsic to the document. If course
that's just a restatement of my basic view, that the change had already
happened although no-one recognized it.
It would be somewhat interesting I suppose to look at contemporaneous state
constitutions in this connection.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Thu Sep 21 14:30:18 2000
Return-Path:
Message-id: <11391333@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 21 Sep 2000 14:29:17 EDT
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: one further point (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- You wrote:
The way you put it, it's kind of devastating: that, regardless of what they
believed and felt and said, they set up a government in which secular
principles would be fully sufficient. It's always been my feeling that the
founding was flawed in not making the ethnic and religious elements of the
society explicit rather than implicit.
--- end of quote ---
I suppose an issue for factual investigation is how they came to do that.
Could the error you mention have been corrected at the time? Could the
preamble of the Constitution have gone "In the name of the Father, Son and Holy
Ghost, we the English settled in these United States, in order to protect
public order under God and preserve our inherited religion and laws, do ordain
and establish this constitution"?
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Thu Sep 21 14:30:37 2000
Return-Path:
Message-id: <11391358@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 21 Sep 2000 14:29:46 EDT
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: excerpt (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- You wrote:
Sandoz is a good place to start, and would certainly give you another side of
things that I feel you're currently lacking.
--- end of quote ---
I read Sandoz, I believe the work you mentioned, and found him very intelligent
and interesting but to me the question seemed still to be what actually
fundamentally happened rather than how they thought about it or talked about it
at the time. I agree the questions are important and specifics must be dealt
with, and I do read things about the Founding from time to time. This
discussion makes it more likely I will do so again sooner than I otherwise
would have.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Thu Sep 21 14:31:04 2000
Return-Path:
Message-id: <11391369@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 21 Sep 2000 14:30:13 EDT
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: excerpt (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- You wrote:
I'm tempted to reply to this cleverly that yes, you conceded that CC view
bulked the largest, but only in the sense that the inert gas nitrogen comprises
the majority of the atmosphere!
--- end of quote ---
Maybe my claim is that the constitution makes the CC view into nitrogen,
something not essential because the active principle is something quite
different although it might be helpful in a variety of ways and certainly
affects appearances. But then the question becomes why someone would decide to
do that. Did the CC view, which had been foundational until then, suddenly
become nonfunctional (as far as the public order is concerned) without anyone
noticing?
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Thu Sep 21 14:32:10 2000
Return-Path:
Message-id: <11391402@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 21 Sep 2000 14:31:20 EDT
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: excerpt (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- You wrote:
Meanwhile you won't make a single concession to my arguments. You won't be
content until I concede that the CC view was basically of no importance at all
during the Founding period. And on that you're wrong and need to do more
reading.
--- end of quote ---
I thought I conceded somewhere that the CC view bulked the largest, so that it
was indeed the context of things. I'm ready to concede that if Tom Paine had
run for office on a "let's have an atheistic society" ticket he would have lost
and even been run out of town. I'm ready to concede I should do more reading.
I'm not sure what *facts* I could uncover would make a fundamental difference
though. None of the claims I've heard or read seem to me to affect much. To
me it seems mostly a philosophical issue, how you identify what choice someone
or some group of people is actually making. I suppose then there's the
succeeding question, whether the choice was somehow a big mistake or
inadvertency or irrationality, or whether it just makes concrete what had
already in essence happened.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Thu Sep 21 14:32:27 2000
Return-Path:
Message-id: <11391412@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 21 Sep 2000 14:31:37 EDT
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: excerpt (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- You wrote:
Nevertheless, those secular principles were, during the Founding period, still
experienced within a larger social/spiritual environment that profoundly shaped
the way people understood them, though the principles spelled the overthrow of
the environment.
--- end of quote ---
Could one also describe the situation by saying that people didn't understand
what they were really doing?
The problem perhaps was that since the secular principles were universal and
self-evident, and sufficient to ground a constitution (unavoidably so since the
colonists were claiming the right to set up a new political order and so had to
appeal to something that transcended the actual political order), the context
became optional.
But still, the novus ordo seclorum wasn't just a trap people somehow wandered
into. After all, when they asked themselves "what should political society be
based on" a set of secular principles was their answer.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Thu Sep 21 14:32:44 2000
Return-Path:
Message-id: <11391424@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 21 Sep 2000 14:31:53 EDT
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: excerpt (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- You wrote:
Of course, in the Const. itself there is nothing christian. But the founding
period, including the writing of the Const, including the commencement of the
government, was imbued with the CC spirit.
--- end of quote ---
My point I guess is that isn't the principle upon which they agreed to act and
make the basis of future cooperation, upon which they erected their Novus Ordo
Seclorum. The strict secular outlook may have been small in bulk but it was
what was in fact made the basis of all public authority. They intended to set
up a system that didn't need anything else. That's the significance of the
religion clauses of the 1st amendment.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Thu Sep 21 14:33:31 2000
Return-Path:
Message-id: <11391460@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 21 Sep 2000 14:32:40 EDT
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: excerpt (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
OK. One point or at least issue is how you decide what a group of people
really believe as a group and as a practical matter, what the maxim of their
conduct is. I suppose it's the principle upon which they cooperate, and my
understanding is that the principle upon which the Founders cooperated was a
strictly secular rather than a Christian/classical principle. That's what the
preamble to the constitution seems to say and what emerges for me from the
debates over the constitution. The reason that's important is that what they
were doing was founding a government, not say a league for some limited
purpose. The federal government had the power to raise and support armies and
declare war on its own, in fact its right to do so was primary, and thus it had
the right to command final loyalty and ultimate sacrifice. The Founding was a
decision that those things could be put on a secular basis, or so it appears to
me. After the Founding secularism *had* to win. Christian, Jew, Turk or
skeptic, we were all Americans, and that was what counted, what our final
serious objective publicly valid loyalty was.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Thu Sep 21 14:33:55 2000
Return-Path:
Message-id: <11391471@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 21 Sep 2000 14:33:04 EDT
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: excerpt (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- You wrote:
I would certainly ask you, for example, how Federalist Number 10 is a secular
democratic rather than Classical Christian document, with its profound
understanding of the intrinsic flaws in human nature and the need to contain
them.
--- end of quote ---
It seems to me the dividing line in political thought (e.g. between Christian
classical thought and what we have now) is not whether you think human nature
is basically good or basically flawed, since Hobbes and Machiavelli thought
there were some major problems with human nature, or whether you think
government should be limited by law and distribution of power or whatever,
since that's what Hume thought, but whether you think there's an objective
transcendent good to which politics like other rational human activities is in
the end oriented. I haven't read Federalist 10 for a while, but don't recall
the latter view in the Federalist generally.
You did speak of secular democracy. It's true that the constitution isn't
altogether democratic and later things got much more democratic. But to me
that seems a lesser point that doesn't put the constitution on the Christian
classical side. It's the radical secularism that's fundamental. If there is
no transcendent that matters in politics then it's all a question of power and
success and you can view egalitarian hedonism -- "secular democracy" -- as
simply the view that power and success can be maximized on an aggregate basis
for society as a whole by giving people their preferences as much as possible.
Another line of thought: if the Classical Christian view is really what was
fundamental to the outlook of the founders how come the outlook morphed so
readily into Secular Democracy? Were the Federalist 10 Madison and the later
Madison two different people? Was Jefferson a weirdo ideologue so that
choosing him to articulate the reasons for separation was just one of those odd
historical contingencies? It seems to me the 60s were implicit in what we had
in the 50s, and affirmative action in the "noble colorblind vision of MLK."
I'm inclined to view the relation between the Founding and what came later in
the same way.
I should admit by the way that my scholarship in this area is even worse than
my scholarship elsewhere, so if you quote books at me I'll have read very few
of them. Luckily though my view is based on very general considerations
regarding wherefundamental divides are in politics, so I think I'm able to have
a view on the subject.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Thu Sep 21 14:34:19 2000
Return-Path:
Message-id: <11391484@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 21 Sep 2000 14:33:28 EDT
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: excerpt (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- You wrote:
If the Sec democratic view had been dominant during the writing of the
Constituiton, it would have been a very different document.
--- end of quote ---
The pieces of the debate over the constitution I've read (the Federalist and
some of the anti-federalist writings) seem to me more consistent with a secular
democratic than a Christian/classical outlook. It seemed to me the latter (as
well as experience with human affairs) mitigated the former but among the
leading thinkers and actors the former was the fundamental loyalty.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Thu Sep 21 14:35:10 2000
Return-Path:
Message-id: <11391525@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 21 Sep 2000 14:34:19 EDT
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: A Rousing Renovation (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- You wrote:
Congratulations on your revamped web page. I haven't visited it in some
time and the changes make it very lively. I especially commend you on
the Liber project.
I apologize for never responding to your last email (from late last
year, I think). It seemed like we were speaking past one another.
I think I might try to write an essay which explores Jeffrey Hart's
description of Mel Bradford as a 'Confederate Voegelin.'
Have you read any of David Walsh's stuff?
--- end of quote ---
Thanks for the note, and glad you like the page. I should pull myself together
and continually update it -- there's the section at the beginning on the
continuing struggle. Also I haven't scanned any texts lately.
I agree we were speaking somewhat past each other. My current tendency is to
think that somehow at the center of the American Revolution -- in its smallest
but most authoritative part -- was the germ of all we have seen since then.
I'm ashamed to say I haven't read much MB or any DW. I usually don't read the
people I tend to agree with except for absolute classics like say Plato or when
I'm looking to see if something I'm writing has been done before. I'm more
likely to read my opposites, or at least people who take a very different tack.
The book that excited me most when I read it was Kojeve's Introduction to the
Reading of Hegel, and Kojeve is generally thought the metaphysician of the NWO
(he was also a Stalinist agent). I'm thinking of rereading it and writing on
it.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Thu Sep 21 14:35:32 2000
Return-Path:
Message-id: <11391543@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 21 Sep 2000 14:34:41 EDT
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: [Paleo] Lasciate ogni speranza (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- Jim Lancuster wrote:
we simply
can't assume we can push merrily along building an alternative culture,
much as the Irish did in Medieval times, without significant degree of
interference from the central state. It's simply no longer possible in the
present age.
--- end of quote ---
I think the one bit of hope we have is the intrinsic corruption of the NWO. It
excludes all principles that can give rise to loyalty, honor, etc. As in so
many other respects, the Clinton people are only the beginning. And extreme
corruption means -- luckily -- extreme inefficiency.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Thu Sep 21 14:36:14 2000
Return-Path:
Message-id: <11391569@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 21 Sep 2000 14:35:24 EDT
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: excerpt (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- You wrote:
this is something really unique in history, for a population to adopt the ethos
(at least the public ethos, as you've pointed out the importance of that
distinction) that in any other period only low-level trash would have, and at
the same time to hold on to a middle-class life style.
--- end of quote ---
It seems part of the logical development of liberalism, of the extreme
public/private distinction with the public constructed by contract and all
other concerns becoming private feelings. That can't work of course, and what
is publicly authoritative (the goodness of doing whatever you feel like doing
as long as it's consensual) eventually comes to dominate private feelings as
well.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Thu Sep 21 14:37:21 2000
Return-Path:
Message-id: <11391602@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 21 Sep 2000 14:36:16 EDT
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: possible solution (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
You're pointing to one of many problems liberalism creates by its onesidedness.
If you try to abolish one side of an unavoidable dualism you don't abolish it,
you just force it into a form that you don't recognize or maybe that you refuse
to recognize. The attempt at abolition will only succeed in abolishing all
intelligent connection and mutual limitation between the side of the dualism
you're attempting to abolish and its contrary side. That's why in abolishing
inequality liberalism subjects everything to control by an irresponsible elite,
and when it tries to get rid of oppression it establishes newspeak, thought
control, and re-education programs. So when it gets rid of higher unities it's
quite natural for it to create a totally integrated and all-powerful whole.
So I think the problem for you is one of presentation. If you want to say both
"liberalism is anti-unity" and "liberalism is pro-unity" you have to explain
what that means and how opposition to one sort of unity brings another sort of
unity. If you don't want to add the complication I think your possible
solution works. Or maybe you could add to your possible solution another
sentence like "For the unity in diversity of tradition, ordered by reference to
transcendent realities variously symbolized, the NWO substitutes a chaos of
impulses made publicly manageable by their own futility and by the soulless
principles of money and bureaucracy."
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Thu Sep 21 14:37:36 2000
Return-Path:
Message-id: <11391621@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 21 Sep 2000 14:36:46 EDT
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: W. and Clintonism (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69) (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
I recall after the Waco business Janet Reno became a folk hero, or so we were
told, because she said "I take full responsibility." Absolutely nothing
followed from her doing so, and she didn't imply she was actually responsible
for anything except in a general formal way, but that was enough. Say the
magic formula and all unpleasantness is avoided and you're even admired. Not
that what W. is doing is the same but it has something of the same quality of
spin, word magic, avoiding giving discomfort at all costs.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Thu Sep 21 14:39:13 2000
Return-Path:
Message-id: <11391681@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 21 Sep 2000 14:38:22 EDT
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: recent discussions (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Status: O
A couple of points on our recent conversations:
1. Unisex bathrooms in dormitories -- most of the people at the table probably
had children who went through that, and people resist very strongly the idea
that there's anything wrong with anything they sent their children into and
that their children accepted. They might say they're miserable offenders in
the confession but that's not really how they look at things.
2. On current intellectual life -- I suppose Orwell had it down in 1984, the
bureaucratized control of the past, the conceptual reshuffling and
reconstruction of language to make criticism of the dominant order unthinkable,
the abolition of independent thought.
jk
From jk@panix.com Thu Sep 21 17:31:01 EDT 2000
Article: 14741 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix2.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Conservative v. Reactionary
Date: 21 Sep 2000 12:42:31 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <8qddpn$pbu$1@panix2.panix.com>
References: <8qaguc$lsv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8qbilj$hds$1@panix3.panix.com> <8qcnp0$i7m$1@weber.a2000.nl>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix2.panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 969554552 13497 166.84.0.227 (21 Sep 2000 16:42:32 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Sep 2000 16:42:32 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.6 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14741
In <8qcnp0$i7m$1@weber.a2000.nl> psychrophiles@hotmail.com (vtnet) writes:
>'Conservatism' seems to oppose 'progressivism' rather than liberalism,
>as even liberalism can become institutionalized and entrenched and than
>finds its (reactionary) defenders among those having individual rather
>than communual gain in mind.
"Traditionalist conservatism" is intended among other things to prevent
attachment to liberalism, Maoism or whatever from qualifying as
conservatism.
What are the features of the world, human life, etc. that make
attachment to the familiar, loyalty to what is long-established,
etc. political virtues? T.C. attempts to answer that question and so to
make the conservative disposition reasonable and more principled than
rejection of change simply as such. One consequence is that it becomes
impossible to be a conservative defender of views like liberalism and
Maoism that make the conservative disposition a vice rather than a
virtue, because they hold that society should be constructed by reason
or will rather than evolve slowly and with stability an important
concern.
>Is the mere reliance on traditions ('what was') as an justification not
>dogmatic and therefore by your own definition reactionary?
Libertarianism believes in markets as the means of accumulating and
articulating implicit social knowledge and valuations to get the best
results possible. Pure democracy believes in voting and socialism in
bureaucracy as the best means for the same purpose.
Traditionalist conservatism believes that tradition -- practices and
attitudes etc. that grow up mostly informally, the bases of which are
usually difficult clearly to articulate -- are a necessary part of the
process, so that tradition has its own proper authority that can't be
replaced by the authority of bureaucracy, market or ballot box. It
believes there are fundamental truths that cannot otherwise be known and
made concrete in human life, because they involve considerations that
are too comprehensive, subtle, complex etc.
I don't see anything dogmatic about that view.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu and http://www.counterrevolution.net)
"Rem tene; verba sequentur" -- Cato
From jk@panix.com Sat Sep 23 03:38:07 EDT 2000
Article: 14743 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix6.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Conservative v. Reactionary
Date: 22 Sep 2000 08:25:40 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <8qfj44$315$1@panix6.panix.com>
References: <8qaguc$lsv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8qbilj$hds$1@panix3.panix.com> <8qcnp0$i7m$1@weber.a2000.nl> <8qddpn$pbu$1@panix2.panix.com> <8qfe47$sfa$1@weber.a2000.nl>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix6.panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 969625541 1103 166.84.0.231 (22 Sep 2000 12:25:41 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Sep 2000 12:25:41 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.6 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14743
In <8qfe47$sfa$1@weber.a2000.nl> psychrophiles@hotmail.com (vtnet) writes:
>Traditionalist political views are obviously more conservative (less
>progressive) than liberal and socialist views for the simple reason
>that the later were dreamed up and experimented with only recently in
>political history -- probably under the influence of previously
>unparalleled circumstances.
By "progressive" you seem to mean "responsive to new circumstances" or
some such. A traditionalist conservative obviously rejects that view.
A response to circumstances is not determined simply by the
circumstances -- it has to do with all sorts of things, what you think
man and the world are like, what the human good is, etc. etc.
A TC thinks of liberal and socialist views as "progressive" only in the
sense of extending a particular line of thought and action that he
believes fundamentally mistaken. One aspect of the liberal/socialist
line of thought is a sort of superrationalism -- the belief that the
world can fully be captured in propositions that we can manipulate,
thereby enabling us to recreate it as we please. Liberal/socialist
thought is thus utopian. A TC of course rejects that line of thought
and believes it leads to radical mistakes in dealing with situations.
>So conservatives claiming reason as their prime asset in political
>discourse seems a little propagandistic. (They can and will of course
>offer reasons for their reliance on proven methods rather than on
>innovations, but that seems a different story.)
If they do the latter and the reasons are persuasive then why doesn't
reason become their asset?
>But an implication is nevertheless that within the scope of political
>discourse it means a moving away from inovation based on reasonable
>argument in favor of conserving for its own sake -- on the ground, of
>course, that that's the reasonable thing to do.
TC does give tradition -- settled practices and attitudes that
characteristically seem important to those brought up in them even
though the reasons they articulate seem inadequate -- its own
independent authority. As a political philosophy it attempts to show
that doing so is more reasonable than not doing so. If it succeeds then
reason really is on its side.
Suppose a man chose his wife and friends solely relying on psychological
tests, his food relying only on chemical analysis, etc., etc., etc. It
seems to me such a man would not be reasonable. He would in fact be
insane.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu and http://www.counterrevolution.net)
"Rem tene; verba sequentur" -- Cato
From jk@panix.com Sat Sep 23 03:38:07 EDT 2000
Article: 14746 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix6.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Conservative v. Reactionary
Date: 23 Sep 2000 03:37:02 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <8qhmiu$171$1@panix6.panix.com>
References: <8qaguc$lsv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8qbilj$hds$1@panix3.panix.com> <8qcnp0$i7m$1@weber.a2000.nl> <8qddpn$pbu$1@panix2.panix.com> <8qfe47$sfa$1@weber.a2000.nl> <39cc4c1c$0$34968$2a0ee87e@news.tdin.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix6.panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 969694622 18252 166.84.0.231 (23 Sep 2000 07:37:02 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Sep 2000 07:37:02 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.6 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14746
In <39cc4c1c$0$34968$2a0ee87e@news.tdin.com> "Tony W. Frye" writes:
>Progressivism, or more properly stated the Englightenment, may have
>made it possible to alterate the political conditions to sprout a
>Napoleon or Stalin, but Hitler was not a progressive and he certainly
>did not base his ideas on reason.
Hitler it seems wanted to construct a New Order based on force and will
and using science. To my mind that puts him on the same side as the
progressives.
If you make the standards of reason too narrow, which is what
antitraditionalists do, nothing ever measures up. As a result, one
thing becomes as reasonable as another and you have irrationalism. So
seems to me radical irrationalism like Hitler's is a likely consequence
of radical rationalism. The latter destroys the complex of
accommodations between the things that can be fully described, grasped
and dealt with and things that somewhat or altogether elude us but the
effects of which we must nonetheless live with. That complex is in fact
the content of tradition. Give it up and you end up with the moral
subjectivism that makes Hitler's or Jeffrey Dahmer's goals as good as
anyone else's.
>unless you are a strict rationalist like Bertrand Russell, reason will
>not be the foundation of your beliefs.
Some beliefs are nonetheless more reasonable than others, and those that
are more reasonable can justly claim to have reason on their side even
though they are not rationalistic. Rationalism, if "rationalism" is the
belief that reason has all the answers, is in fact against reason.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu and http://www.counterrevolution.net)
"Rem tene; verba sequentur" -- Cato
From jk@panix.com Sat Sep 23 08:37:38 EDT 2000
Article: 14750 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix3.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Conservative v. Reactionary
Date: 23 Sep 2000 08:25:06 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <8qi7f2$s44$1@panix3.panix.com>
References: <8qaguc$lsv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8qbilj$hds$1@panix3.panix.com> <8qcnp0$i7m$1@weber.a2000.nl> <8qddpn$pbu$1@panix2.panix.com> <8qfe47$sfa$1@weber.a2000.nl> <39cc4c1c$0$34968$2a0ee87e@news.tdin.com> <8qhmiu$171$1@panix6.panix.com> <39cc848b$0$34968$2a0ee87e@news.tdin.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix3.panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 969711906 21188 166.84.0.228 (23 Sep 2000 12:25:06 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Sep 2000 12:25:06 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.6 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14750
In <39cc848b$0$34968$2a0ee87e@news.tdin.com> "Tony W. Frye" writes:
>He wanted to construct a racial order based on ancient tribalism
The Aryan German was a modern invention and not ancient tribalism. Only
modern methods of propaganda could have made it serve the role it did.
Such methods, about which Hitler was very intelligent, were not a
feature of ancient tribalism. They represent a technological approach
to social relations.
>A belief can only be deemed more rational than another if it is based
>on rationality, or if the other belief is quantifiably less logical.
>It is not based on rationality if it is merely a subjective view with a
>rational stamp reasonably offered to hide a motive. Rationalism as a
>base demands an objectivity that simply does not exist in most of the
>political realm and arguably nowhere outside of the hard sciences.
Thank you for a demonstration how the progressivist demand for
hyperrationality leads quite quickly to the view that rationality really
has nothing to do with politics (or presumably morals etc). The natural
implication is that the master of force, propaganda, striking images etc
wins and anything one says against his victory is just another instance
of special pleading and manipulation. In other words, victory becomes
the sole standard. Sieg Heil! as they used to say.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu and http://www.counterrevolution.net)
"Rem tene; verba sequentur" -- Cato
From jk@panix.com Sat Sep 23 08:37:38 EDT 2000
Article: 14751 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix3.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Conservative v. Reactionary
Date: 23 Sep 2000 08:35:32 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <8qi82k$sb7$1@panix3.panix.com>
References: <8qaguc$lsv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8qbilj$hds$1@panix3.panix.com> <8qcnp0$i7m$1@weber.a2000.nl> <8qddpn$pbu$1@panix2.panix.com> <8qfe47$sfa$1@weber.a2000.nl> <8qfj44$315$1@panix6.panix.com> <8qi127$n6a$1@weber.a2000.nl>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix3.panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 969712532 21291 166.84.0.228 (23 Sep 2000 12:35:32 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Sep 2000 12:35:32 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.6 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14751
In <8qi127$n6a$1@weber.a2000.nl> psychrophiles@hotmail.com (M) writes:
>And giving tradition its own 'independent authority' (that is,
>independent of reason) goes seems much the same as saying giving an
>existing (even if corrupted) social order its 'independent authority'.
The world's a going concern when we're born into it, and we have no
choice but recognize in general the social authorities that form the
world we live in. Luckily no society is wholly or even mostly corrupt;
if it were it would disappear immediately, just as a man would die
instantly if he weren't 99+% healthy, if almost all of his biological
processes weren't functioning normally. Evil is always parasitic.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu and http://www.counterrevolution.net)
"Rem tene; verba sequentur" -- Cato
From jk@panix.com Sat Sep 23 18:23:23 EDT 2000
Article: 14753 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix3.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Conservative v. Reactionary
Date: 23 Sep 2000 12:47:06 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <8qimqa$bq5$1@panix3.panix.com>
References: <8qaguc$lsv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8qbilj$hds$1@panix3.panix.com> <8qcnp0$i7m$1@weber.a2000.nl> <8qddpn$pbu$1@panix2.panix.com> <8qfe47$sfa$1@weber.a2000.nl> <8qfj44$315$1@panix6.panix.com> <8qi127$n6a$1@weber.a2000.nl> <8qi82k$sb7$1@panix3.panix.com> <8qifue$jpn$1@weber.a2000.nl>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix3.panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 969727627 24588 166.84.0.228 (23 Sep 2000 16:47:07 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Sep 2000 16:47:07 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.6 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14753
In <8qifue$jpn$1@weber.a2000.nl> psychrophiles@hotmail.com (M) writes:
>jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) wrote in <8qi82k$sb7$1@panix3.panix.com>:
>> The world's a going concern when we're born into it, and we have no
>> choice but recognize in general the social authorities that form the
>> world we live in.
>Thus seen, we certainly have a choice and probably even a
>responsibility to defy and oppose what is evil -- even if evil happens
>to be the status quo at some point in history.
Sure. That's the point of my "in general". And if evil weren't the
status quo it wouldn't exist so we wouldn't have to worry about it. My
point though is that even in fighting existing evils we must remain
social -- conscious that there are comprehensive and pervasive goods to
be preserved as well as evils to be fought. That is a point that
revolutionary movements tend to forget, and modern philosophies like
liberalism that demand that social order be a fully explicit rational
construction are intrinsically revolutionary. Whatever they don't have
consciously in mind doesn't exist for them, so while progressing toward
their particular goals they create general degradation.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu and http://www.counterrevolution.net)
"Rem tene; verba sequentur" -- Cato
From jk@panix.com Sun Sep 24 14:08:40 EDT 2000
Article: 14755 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix2.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Conservative v. Reactionary
Date: 24 Sep 2000 08:24:03 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <8qkrp3$8ek$1@panix2.panix.com>
References: <8qaguc$lsv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8qbilj$hds$1@panix3.panix.com> <8qcnp0$i7m$1@weber.a2000.nl> <8qddpn$pbu$1@panix2.panix.com> <8qfe47$sfa$1@weber.a2000.nl> <8qfj44$315$1@panix6.panix.com> <8qi127$n6a$1@weber.a2000.nl> <8qi82k$sb7$1@panix3.panix.com> <8qifue$jpn$1@weber.a2000.nl> <8qimqa$bq5$1@panix3.panix.com> <8qis5t$9ej$1@weber.a2000.nl>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix2.panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 969798243 9315 166.84.0.227 (24 Sep 2000 12:24:03 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Sep 2000 12:24:03 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.6 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14755
In <8qis5t$9ej$1@weber.a2000.nl> psychrophiles@hotmail.com (M) writes:
>the good is rooted in the moral, and the moral both precedes and
>transcends temporal society.
I would say the moral is rooted in the good, although it's unclear
whether we have a real dispute. Also, I would say that the good is one
of the transcendent conditions of not only of temporal society but of
human life generally. (Actually I would go beyond that even. Plato
tells us the good is beyond essence, which is about as transcendent as
you can get, and I'm not going to argue with him on the point.)
>Although, the moral seems a matter of taste (stemming from nature and
>creation) rather then of reason, since the reason for being cannot be
>discovered by the agency of reason as reason, like all human faculties,
>stems ultimately from 'being'. And 'being' separates the perceived from
>the perceiver -- a separation that might well be viewed as the origin
>of consciousness without which both reason and morality cannot exist.
Is "taste" really the word you want? It suggests that the moral changes
in accordance with how people feel about it, that there's nothing to it
beyond our feelings.
I would say the moral is a matter of a kind of discernment that you do
not include in what you call reason. That refusal is a mistake, I think
-- it reduces reason to formal logic, which is useless unless
interpreted by principles that from the standpoint of formal logic are
arbitrary. All human action and belief therefore becomes arbitrary and
thus irrational.
Your reflections on being are somewhat obscure to me. Perhaps part of
your thought is that as transcendent the moral is beyond discursive
thought -- it precedes the distinction of subject and object and
therefore cannot be adequately expressed propositionally.
>liberals, to the best of my knowledge, might well accept nonempirical
>instruction as valuable.
To my mind a defining feature of liberalism is its insistence on
explicitness -- if you view all social relations as contractual then you
have to be able to say what the contract is. The only nonempirical
principles they will accept are fully formal principles like equality
and the categorical imperative.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu and http://www.counterrevolution.net)
"Rem tene; verba sequentur" -- Cato
From jk@panix.com Fri Sep 29 09:47:52 EDT 2000
Article: 14770 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix6.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Say No To Extinction...
Date: 29 Sep 2000 09:47:07 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <8r26gr$96m$1@panix6.panix.com>
References: <39CE1F16.97846821@innocent.com> <8r111q$87g$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix6.panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 970235227 22561 166.84.0.231 (29 Sep 2000 13:47:07 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Sep 2000 13:47:07 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.6 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14770
In "Cyberia Edinburgh Public Mail" writes:
>Apart from structural
>constitutional changes to bring about direct democracy we have to confront
>the domination of the media by large corporations which create an
>establishment hegemony. Eventually this must be done by the State but whilst
>in opposition we need to build a counter culture and alternative news
>network.
I'm a bit worried about structural constitutional changes done by the State to
bring about direct democracy. The State will certainly never be a matter of
direct democracy, not if it rules more than a few thousand people, and it will
always represent an establishment hegemony. So if its supervision of social
relationships is comprehensive enough to make direct democracy the rule it
will also be comprehensive enough to make direct democracy a fraud.
I do agree that we should all build CCs, ANNs, etc., and that the internet's
an opportunity to get such things started.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu and http://www.counterrevolution.net)
"Rem tene; verba sequentur" -- Cato
From jk@panix.com Sun Oct 1 18:18:21 EDT 2000
Article: 14779 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix6.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Conservative v. Reactionary
Date: 1 Oct 2000 18:14:02 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <8r8cva$4go$1@panix6.panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix6.panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 970438442 7625 166.84.0.231 (1 Oct 2000 22:14:02 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Oct 2000 22:14:02 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.6 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14779
In <8r89ho$8h8$1@nnrp1.deja.com> eric_the_first@my-deja.com writes:
>These
>elements came from the left, while the theory of fascism comes from the
>right.
To me fascism seems an odd mix. By its emphasis on struggle and will and on
the absolute character of the state it seems to want to recognize a
transcendent ethical reality, but also to treat that reality as a wholly
this-worldly human construction. It recognizes the problem (the necessity of
the transcendent) that motivates traditionalism but tries to solve that
problem in a wholly modern manner. So it seems to me that one might classify
it as rightist, if the Left is taken to stand for denial of the transcendent,
but also as progressivist, if progressivism is taken to stand for faith in the
limitless capacity of the human will.
>Apparently you've never read the republic, it's about the flaws of
>democracy and the benefits of class distinction.
It's about a whole lot of things. It is I agree a revolting misreading to
treat it as a precursor of the Soviet Union.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu and http://www.counterrevolution.net)
"Rem tene; verba sequentur" -- Cato
From jk@panix.com Mon Oct 2 19:59:21 EDT 2000
Article: 14782 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix2.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: nature of fascism
Date: 2 Oct 2000 04:14:09 -0400
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <8r9g4h$svj$1@panix2.panix.com>
References: <8r8cva$4go$1@panix6.panix.com> <8r8l62$h3o$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix2.panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 970474450 16079 166.84.0.227 (2 Oct 2000 08:14:10 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Oct 2000 08:14:10 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.6 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14782
In <8r8l62$h3o$1@nnrp1.deja.com> eric_the_first@my-deja.com writes:
>I've never seen fascism as accepting the limitless capacity of human
>will, since it acknoledges the enivitability of war.
True, "limitless capacity" was the wrong expression. Maybe "creative
power" would be better.
>I consider it
>part of the right due to its opposition to conventional progressive
>views and relation to older theory, such as the works of Hobbes and
>Plato
I would put Hobbes on the same side as the Left -- he made society a
wholly human construction for purely material purposes that are common
to all men. Fascism as a sort of mixture of Plato and Hobbes is an
interesting angle though.
>By emphasising the need for enlightened dictators and respect for
>soldiers, I view the republic as being closely tied to fascism. I
>cannot comprehend how it could be tied to communism.
But the Republic makes contemplation rather than will and struggle the
final standard. Its fundamental purpose is utterly different from
fascism. As to communism, private property is abolished among the
ruling group described in the Republic. And I suppose one could point
out that communist governments have in fact emphasized the military and
put all power in the hands of an elite that supposedly has special
knowledge and moral character. Again though the purpose of the exercise
is utterly different than in the Soviet Union.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu and http://www.counterrevolution.net)
"Rem tene; verba sequentur" -- Cato
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Sun Oct 22 06:13:49 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0891148AAA
for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 06:13:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG (sneezy.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.23])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA31466
for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 06:13:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-id: <12148453@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 22 Oct 2000 06:12:26 EDT
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: Human Rights Website [was "Belated Thanks"] (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: OR
--- You wrote:
One question
I would have is with your concession (?) that some conception of universal
human rights is necessary today. Is this principled, or a pure concession?
The problem with it as a concession, in my view, is that it may be fighting
the battle on the adversay's terrain. That is, is it possible to imagine a
statement of universal human rights without accepting the liberal project of
devising them by theoretical reason, without due appreciation of the social
conditions that have led to certain things being valued (recognized as rights)?
I can't help but wonder how much
of a protection against liberal understanding the Statement will be;
"security of the person" is the phrase Canada's Liberal court used to find a
right to abortion.
--- end of quote ---
It seems to me that under modern circumstances there is in fact a world society
that of necessity has standards, notions of right and wrong, etc. that its
members view as applicable to each other. That's simply a statement of what
happens when people have continuous extensive dealings with each other. The
question is what to do about it. I don't think it is helpful to ignore the
question of international standards or to claim they can't legitimately exist.
I think some account is necessary which limits them but recognizes they have a
place. In response to bad theorizing about them good theorizing is needed. It
seems to me abuses like the Canadian decision you mention are far more likely
to the extent no more satisfactory conception of human rights than the liberal
one is available.
As to what sort of standards make sense regarding for example treatment by
governments of their own people, it seems that true universality is very hard
to combine with concreteness. I suppose there's a universal
rationally-determinable human right not to be treated simply as raw material
for making catfood, and maybe that kind of right has enough bite to let you say
that some of the major events of the past century violated universal rational
knowable public law or some such concept. Still it seems to me that most human
rights principles necessarily have a positive content and that should be
clearly recognized. Liberalism I think is failure to recognize that that is
the case.
If that *is* recognized then I think it will be far more difficult to use
"human rights" to override particular religious and cultural traditions and it
will be more obvious what's going on when it's proposed to enforce human rights
rather than simply state them as ideals and aspirations. Also there will be
more room for thoughts like the ones expressed in the quote you gave from your
dissertation. Human rights could include respect for local particularism,
since the social good is realized in particular ways in concrete social
settings which therefore should not be wantonly destroyed. Much of liberal
human rights law could become recognized as a violation of the universal human
right to live in a non-liberal society -- that is, one that accepts
particularism.
There are of course problems: the feeling that the universal is superior to the
particular, the tendency on the part of superior jurisdictions to extend their
power, the temptation (if you're someone like a lawyer or expert or journalist
or judge whose place in the world is based on developing ideas and applying
them to things) to take some general idea like human dignity and develop it
into a system that enables you to tell everyone what to do. So there's lots to
mull over and so far there doesn't seem to have been nearly enough mulling.
So anyway thanks much for your comments. Any others would be very welcome.
Also any references.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From jk@panix.com Thu Nov 2 06:31:14 EST 2000
Article: 14820 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix3.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Review: Manufacturing Consent
Date: 2 Nov 2000 06:30:57 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <8trj9h$b64$1@panix3.panix.com>
References: <3A024102@MailAndNews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix3.panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 973164657 20622 166.84.0.228 (2 Nov 2000 11:30:57 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Nov 2000 11:30:57 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.6 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14820
An aspect not considered is the class viewpoint and interests of those
who work in the media. After all, the media are enormously powerful.
People spend hours a day watching TV, and those who think they're a cut
above the average get their info and (at least implicitly) ideas from
the New York Times, Newsweek magazine, whatever. Journalists are
conscious of themselves as a class -- there are formal standards of
behavior, journalism schools, common heroes, a common mythology, etc.
Also, GE or whoever it is who owns CBS might not want unfavorable
coverage of the specific things they do but doesn't much care about
general biases. Businessmen are not farsighted about general
intellectual and cultural issues.
All that being the case, why should media people represent the viewpoint
and interests of anyone but themselves and those with whom they can make
common cause?
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu and http://www.counterrevolution.net)
"Rem tene; verba sequentur" -- Cato
From jk@panix.com Sat Nov 4 20:55:42 EST 2000
Article: 14825 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix6.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Review: Manufacturing Consent
Date: 4 Nov 2000 20:50:28 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <8u2ed4$gh8$1@panix6.panix.com>
References: <3A040461@MailAndNews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix6.panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 973389028 3241 166.84.0.231 (5 Nov 2000 01:50:28 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 5 Nov 2000 01:50:28 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.6 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14825
In <3A040461@MailAndNews.com> "S.T. Theleis" writes:
>class viewpoint of media operatives does not diverge from
>that of their employers. Class antagonisms aside, as a
>practical matter nowadays, that is built into the
>employer/employee relationship. Do their class interests
>diverge? Perhaps in fact they do, but not as _they_ see it
>-- or they wouldn't long remain as journalists. The "market"
>would let them go. That's the central insight of this book.
Don't really agree. Employers and employees do not as such have the
same interests. Marx was right at least on that. Not that they're
altogether in conflict. What the market wants is media people who will
get viewers, and so make money, and not infringe directly on specific
interests of their employer. That leaves a lot of room for producers
etc. to angle things in a way that seems satisfactory to them.
>That there is a class dynamic at work is not something
>I dispute. It would be wrong to think, for example, that the
>Jews are so powerful that they could achieve what they have
>achieved without the extensive cooperation of White elites.
Obviously interests converge. The ethnic interest for secular Jews I
think favors an extensive multicultural empire with both a strong
centralized state bureaucracy and a prosperous and somewhat free
econony. Jews have done very well in such situations for a very long
time. The media as media prefers such a situation as well, because the
abolition of localism and weakening of traditional institutions (the
"extensive multicultural" part) means that more things become public
issues (the "strong centralized bureaucracy" part) and people rely on
the media more to understand and deal with them. The media thus become
absolutely central to the social order. As for prosperity, it means
more advertisers and more money devoted to extras like entertainment.
So the media as such and secular Jews as such aren't likely to be at
odds.
>But these many phenomena we see are not totally explainable
>in terms of class conflict, I don't believe. A more adequate,
>more complete explanation is one that takes into account the
>biology of race, a biology which is manifested in culture.
It seems to me a small group like the Jews is unlikely to be able to do
more than enhance existing tendencies, it's hard to know how much.
Plato gave what seems to me an adequate description of the general
social, cultural etc. evolution we see around us without reference to
any special group, except implicitly I suppose the Greeks.
>But in another sense, you are wrong, because they do care very
>much about general biases. That is why the agenda of political
>correctness and multiculturalism is so aggressively promoted by
>the media.
What PC and multiculti mean is that money and bureaucracy are the only
principles of social order. All other principles (family, religion,
ethnic culture) are abolished as "hate." It seems to me the corporate
media would favor that even if the Jews all moved to Madegascar and were
replaced by Swedes. GE and Peter Jennings might argue over the relative
proportions of money and bureaucracy in the governing mix, but neither
has much reason to favor say family values.
>But if you
>are not a Jew, then seeing things from what is habitually a Jewish
>perspective may not be much to your taste. From a racial point of
>view, it can even be suicidal.
Actually, it seems to me that the tendencies you attribute to Jews (and
I think secular Jews generally do support PC, multiculturalism,
globalization, moral permissiveness, etc.) are suicidal for Jews as
well. The Jews are no doubt special in some ways, but I don't think
they're as special as you think.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu and http://www.counterrevolution.net)
"Rem tene; verba sequentur" -- Cato
From jk@panix.com Tue Nov 7 09:21:18 EST 2000
Article: 14830 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix6.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Review: Manufacturing Consent
Date: 7 Nov 2000 09:14:28 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <8u92o4$c9f$1@panix6.panix.com>
References: <3A0A8C92@MailAndNews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix6.panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 973606469 9550 166.84.0.231 (7 Nov 2000 14:14:29 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Nov 2000 14:14:29 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.6 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14830
In <3A0A8C92@MailAndNews.com> "S.T. Theleis" writes:
>The attempt to reduce and explain these social phenomena solely in
>terms of class struggle, when coming from those who claim to be on
>the right, is just crypto-leftism.
I haven't done so. I've pointed out institutional and class interests
of the media and media professionals, and said that ownership by GE or
whoever still leaves a great deal of autonomy to pursue those interests.
The "class interests" I mentioned, by the way, are not specially
interests over against employers and have nothing special to do with
economic status. They are class interests in the sense in which
weathermen have a class interest in changeable and extreme weather. The
media would like a world in which the media is as important as possible,
and that world is what their activities promote.
>Second, you seem to be saying that media would necessarily have
>a lesser role, or be less profitable, in a racially pure state.
In a decentralized state, in a state in which public policy and public
administration had less of a role, in a state that took concrete local
traditional institutions like the family and religion more for granted.
Therefore in a non-multicultural state.
Racial purity isn't the key. The point is that how important the media
are depends on how personal and social life is organized, and that in
turn depends in large part on the factors just mentioned.
>Attempts to preserve White culture and save the
>White race from genocide through miscegenation are characterized as
>"hate". But the Jews and their culture remain sancrosanct, as far as
>the media is concerned. Attempts to save Jews from the same fate
>is seen as laudable, conscientious.
The overall goal I think of respectable modern political life is to do
away with all culture in the interests of hedonism and of formal
institutions like state and world market. The first step is to deprive
culture of public authority, which as a practical matter means depriving
the dominant culture of authority. That has two aspects: saying the
dominant culture is bad, and saying minority cultures are good.
Minority bigots, Jewish and otherwise, naturally join in the campaign
for their own reasons. That doesn't mean that viewing "Merry Christmas"
as bad and "Happy Kwanzaa" as good is simply a matter of minority
bigotry. The minorities are going to be destroyed too. Have you looked
at the state of the black family, or (in the case of the Jews) at
intermarriage and birth rates? How many Jews do you think there will be
in 100 years?
>How anyone
>can believe that Israel would have been handed the free pass it has
>been if media ownership were not in the hands of Jews, is beyond me.
I *do* think Israel gets better publicity and more support than it would
if Jews were less influential. I don't think Israel and other
specifically Jewish issues are the major parts of understanding what's
going on in the world. Also, I don't think there would be nearly so
many influential Jews if the interests and outlook of secular Jews were
not so consistent with the interests and outlook of predominant
institutions.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu and http://www.counterrevolution.net)
"Rem tene; verba sequentur" -- Cato
From jk@panix.com Tue Nov 7 09:21:18 EST 2000
Article: 14831 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix6.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Cato
Date: 7 Nov 2000 09:19:24 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <8u931c$cm8$1@panix6.panix.com>
References: <3A040461@MailAndNews.com> <8u2ed4$gh8$1@panix6.panix.com> <20001106.2134.1553snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix6.panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 973606764 9623 166.84.0.231 (7 Nov 2000 14:19:24 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Nov 2000 14:19:24 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.6 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14831
In <20001106.2134.1553snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> raf391@bloxwich.demon.co.uk (rafael cardenas) writes:
>> "Rem tene; verba sequentur" -- Cato
>That reminds me: what is the Carthago of the Cato Institute?
Dunno. Must republican virtue have a Carthage? If so it's probably
Washington DC.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu and http://www.counterrevolution.net)
"Rem tene; verba sequentur" -- Cato
From jk@panix.com Fri Nov 10 13:45:22 EST 2000
Article: 14833 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix2.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Review: Manufacturing Consent
Date: 9 Nov 2000 22:15:57 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <8ufp9d$l01$1@panix2.panix.com>
References: <3A2854EA@MailAndNews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix2.panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 973826157 10721 166.84.0.227 (10 Nov 2000 03:15:57 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Nov 2000 03:15:57 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.6 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14833
In <3A2854EA@MailAndNews.com> "S.T. Theleis" writes:
>> The
>> media would like a world in which the media is as important as possible,
>> and that world is what their activities promote.
>So would their Jewish bosses, so the interests don't differ there.
My general point is that Jews are not the explanation, because general
institutional interests lead to the same results you attribute to them.
>The technological state will always be impelled to centralize
>those things for resultant gains in efficiency.
I just don't think the attempt will be permanently successful. It's too
antihuman. A system that can't successfully produce human beings won't
work long term, and I think that's increasingly true of the current
state of affairs.
>So, if
>one would hope to fractionate the state with religion, that would
>need to change, and it's hard to see how the present situation can
>be reversed.
It's not necessary to reform the present situation, only for there to be
ways of thinking and acting that lead to group success. Then those ways
of thinking and acting will prevail even if to begin with they're
completely marginal and lacking in any conceivable influence. Modern
secular men don't have children so they will disappear. Secular people
who have lots of children because they can't control their lives will
disappear too, because they can't support themselves. That will leave
non-secular separatists to inherit the earth.
>Can family oppose? Perhaps, but this is what is meant by racial
>purity. For what is race but an extended family? It is telling
>that the elites are so frightened of race being the one force that
>is potentially able to oppose them that they are now bending every
>effort to destroy it.
I agree it's interesting that elites are so obsessed with race. It
seems to me though that race has limits as a principle of social order.
It doesn't tell you much of anything. It's an aid to cohesion but far
>from sufficient.
>But they cannot arise autochthonously either
>unless, as I indicate above, 1) the technological system is restricted
>or abandoned on a global scale and 2) society is broken down along
>racial lines.
As suggested, it seems to me the technological system will be restricted
because groups that give it free reign in their lives will be unable to
reproduce themselves as groups with a culture that is definite enough to
make them functional, and most likely even biologically, since their
members won't choose to have children. Restricting technology in the
interests of definite culture will be possible only for exclusive
inward-turning groups. So it is such groups that will come to
predominate. They will no doubt on the whole have ethnic attributes but
I don't see why race in a biological sense should be the key.
>> the dominant culture of authority. That has two aspects: saying the
>> dominant culture is bad, and saying minority cultures are good.
>This is not true in Israel, for example, or Iran.
Iran does not buy into the liberal project. Whether that lasts time
will tell. I've seen reports from Israel suggesting that liberal
universalism and inclusiveness is making headway there among advanced
thinkers, as it certainly has among American Jews. I expect that to
continue. Secular Jews have given up their religion and need a
substitute, and liberal universalism and inclusiveness is what's on
offer. I don't think pure ethnic loyalty is enough, because pure ethic
loyalty doesn't guide you toward anything very definite and stable.
>The cultural style of blacks is to have no family, in the White sense
>of that word. Absent fathers are the norm. Look at Africa.
>Read Rushton on r-K reproductive strategies.
>From my standpoint this is simply a claim that blacks are particularly
vulnerable to liberalism and have particular difficulties in
technological society. That may be so.
>the Jew *survives*.
They certainly have for a very long time, while they kept their religion
and their specific way of life, including family arrangements, and while
everyone else cooperated in keeping them a people apart. They don't
have magical qualities though.
>The interests and outlook of predominant institutions come, in large
>part, from the characters of those in control of them.
In America we have lots of Jews, in other Western countries they have
many fewer. Nonetheless, the interests and outlook of predominant
institutions don't seem that different. English TV for example is at
least as PC, "inclusive," and devoted to abolition of traditional
decencies as ours.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu and http://www.counterrevolution.net)
"Rem tene; verba sequentur" -- Cato
From jk@panix.com Thu Nov 16 03:07:52 EST 2000
Article: 14839 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix6.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Review: Manufacturing Consent
Date: 12 Nov 2000 04:23:56 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <8ulnjc$k3o$1@panix6.panix.com>
References: <3A4CA724@MailAndNews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix6.panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 974021036 12939 166.84.0.231 (12 Nov 2000 09:23:56 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Nov 2000 09:23:56 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.6 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14839
In <3A4CA724@MailAndNews.com> "S.T. Theleis" writes:
>showing almost exclusive ownership and control of major news media in
>America to ethnic Jews.
Jews are certainly influential in the media. The question remains how
important specifically Jewish issues are and how different Jewish
interests are from those of the institutions in which they prosper. It
seems to me that Jews mostly do well by advancing the interests of
whoever it is they're working for. Like other people they do well where
their outlook fits in with what's wanted.
>I also pointed out that Israel's invasion of Palestine
It's not much of a reason to think the Jews are the explanation for why
the world is the way it is. If it weren't happening the world wouldn't
be that different overall.
>This occurs in a framework in which the extermination of up to
>60 million Whites in Soviet Russia, largely at the hands of Bolshevik
>ethnic Jews, is all but unknown to Americans.
If the communist exterminations were basically the Jews' doing, then it
becomes hard to explain events in China and Cambodia. You would have to
take the view that similar events called by the same name and with
institutional and ideological connections really had little to do with
each other. It becomes hard to explain the number of Jews who the
communists killed in Russia. Lots of top communists were Jews, but top
communists were particularly likely to die, so it's hard for me to
interpret what happened as fundamentally a campaign to advance the
ethnic or other interests of those who controlled the party. It also
becomes hard to explain why in the later years of the Soviet Union so
many Jews wanted out if the whole thing was their own construction.
It really does seem to me you believe the Jews are magical in some way.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu and http://www.counterrevolution.net)
"Rem tene; verba sequentur" -- Cato
From jk@panix.com Sat Nov 18 12:38:38 EST 2000
Article: 126401 of soc.rights.human
Path: news.panix.com!panix3.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: soc.rights.human
Subject: Re: Human Rights Must Become Non-Liberal
Date: 18 Nov 2000 06:41:41 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <8v5ptl$8hi$1@panix3.panix.com>
References: <8v40ko$p7n$1@panix6.panix.com> <3a15fd72$0$9973$272ea4a1@news.execpc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix3.panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 974547702 24404 166.84.0.228 (18 Nov 2000 11:41:42 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Nov 2000 11:41:42 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.6 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com soc.rights.human:126401
In <3a15fd72$0$9973$272ea4a1@news.execpc.com> ron_p@earth.execpc.com (Ron Peterson) writes:
>Rights are limitations on the power of the state. You want to establish
>a system that would impose laws and your ideology on others.
With regard to your first sentence, you might read the comments of Mary
Robinson, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, linked at
http://www.freespeech.org/antitechnocrat/news.html.
Rights can be against anyone, not just the state. Whatever government
does can be called enforcing rights. Also, anything whatever can be
called a limitation on the power of the state. One might say the state
is forbidden to deny access to health care, which means in effect that
it is required to establish a system of socialized medicine, or that the
state is forbidden to countenance sexism, which can mean it must use
whatever means necessary to change social attitudes, family
arrangements, etc. Think of what would be involved in enforcing a right
to an environment free of sexism.
With regard to your second sentence, I favor local autonomy.
>Liberals don't exist as a group, because they have no common ideology.
Don't understand. "Liberal" seems to refer to a point of view that
implies political goals, and those who hold that point of view have it
in common and, at least to the extent they recognize that they have
common goals and cooperate in working toward them, exist as a group. In
any case I don't see how anything I say depends on liberals existing as
a group.
>Your effort to demonize them makes one suspect your motives.
Don't understand. Where's the demonization? It is true that I give a
brief but unflattering account of the reasons that make liberalism as
successful as it is among many of the powerful.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://human-rights.20m.com
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Sun Nov 19 07:03:52 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6BF78F47
for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 07:03:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG (sneezy.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.23])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA29366
for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 07:03:52 -0500 (EST)
Message-id: <12876207@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 19 Nov 2000 07:02:01 EST
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: Sexual morality in antebellum america. (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- You wrote:
We have read comments that regular sexual activity by young men was
considered desirable by medical opinion of the day for reasons for health.
We are seeking references to that subject in the literature, and wonder if
you might suggest appropriate sources.
--- end of quote ---
I don't have references and don't know much about the subject. A comment
though: the 1840s were a very New Agey period, and I wouldn't doubt that the
opinion of some doctors was to that effect. I would be cautious in accepting
claims that was the general medical view though. On the somewhat related topic
of abortion there have been serious incidents of distortion by well-known
historians for the sake of undermining the claim that the view that abortion is
a serious evil simply as such was really the traditional view. There's a book
by Marvin Olasky that deals with the issue. Not with yours though.
Good luck!
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Sun Nov 19 06:53:15 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A32248E34
for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 06:53:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG (sneezy.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.23])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA30164
for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 06:53:14 -0500 (EST)
Message-id: <12876175@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 19 Nov 2000 06:51:23 EST
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Comments
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
Many thanks for the comments and references.
Liberalism is an odd thing. It tries to create a social world that
avoids ultimate issues, which can't be done, because as Pascal points
out we always give an implicit answer to the ultimate questions just by
acting one way rather than another.
So what it does first is create a social world in which the ultimate
answers remain what they always were but are now implicit so no one can
fight about them. People are said to be free to choose their own goals,
but it goes without saying (everyone assumes) that there are certain
limits. If that's the world to which you're loyal then you're what is
now called a conservative.
Eventually, however, the principle that there are no answers to ultimate
questions, so "what is good" simply means "what I want," becomes more
demanding. Because all desires are equally desires, and it is simply
desire that makes things good, all deires must be treated equally and
the social order must become a rational arrangement for the maximum
equal satisfaction of desire. Liberalism then becomes totalizing - all
appeals to a standard transcending desire must be rooted out as bigoted
and intolerant, because they deny the principle of egalitarian hedonism
(a.k.a. equality and freedom) on which social order is to be based.
Naturally, that can't be done. It's against human nature and even
impossible in concept to eliminate appeals to the transcendent. So the
result is a PC tyranny in which discussion must be suppressed because it
has become impossible consistent with maintenance of the principles of
the social order.
That I think is where we are today.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://human-rights.20m.com
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Sun Nov 19 06:57:52 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A579748DC3
for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 06:57:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG (sneezy.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.23])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA29188
for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 06:57:52 -0500 (EST)
Message-id: <12876185@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 19 Nov 2000 06:56:01 EST
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: [Paleo] Re: Buchanan-Bush-Gore (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- Louis Andrews wrote:
why are we seeing so many "conservatives"
bemoaning the electoral college? Is this just another example that
shows that much of what passes for conservatism these days is what
used to be called leftist egalitarianism?
--- end of quote ---
I think it's moderately right-wing populism rather than leftist
egalitarianism. No one remembers the notion of constitutionally distributed
power so that's an irrelevancy. Instead we have the classes and the masses,
with the classes insisting on the continuing revolution and the masses
sometimes somewhat balky. So those who don't like the continuing revolution
come to favor majority rule as such, basically because it offers the best shot
at gumming up the works. Not that their position is completely intelligent,
coherent or conscious, or that they would admit to anything but true love of
democracy.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
www.counterrevolution.net
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Sun Nov 19 07:03:20 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2971B48D8A
for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 07:03:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG (sneezy.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.23])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA29354
for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 07:03:19 -0500 (EST)
Message-id: <12876205@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 19 Nov 2000 07:01:28 EST
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: to whom it may concern (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- You wrote:
HELLO MY NAME IS ALEXIS AND i'M A FRESHMAN IN COLLEGE i'M SEARCHIN FOR
INFORMATION ON THE dOUBLE sTANDARD THAT EXSIST SEXUAL BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN.
( wHY Can men have multiple partners and its cool but women with many
partners can be put down?) If you have an information, suggestion, or input
it would be very appreciated.
--- end of quote ---
I can't think offhand of anything very useful written on the subject. Sexual
activity doesn't mean exactly the same thing for the two sexes. Saying that it
should is pointless, it's like saying no one should like sweets because they're
bad for you. Men and women differ sexually -- women carry and nurse the babies
and men don't, so their attitudes toward their own sexual conduct naturally
differ. There are sociobiologists who comment on evolutionary aspects of the
situation. From the standpoint of successful reproduction men's interest is
more to have many partners, women's to get an enduring commitment from one
partner.
Natural differences in inclination aren't the end of the matter of course even
though you can't abolish them and it's necessary to take them into account.
Traditional sexual morality and the institution of marriage -- especially
monogamous marriage -- recognized that stability in family relationships is
very important and that while promiscuity is more of a problem for a woman
men's sexual adventurousness must be limited too to make sure children get
supported and struggles among men over women don't make social life a constant
battle.
Now that traditional sexual morality has been abolished there are big problems.
Men and women don't trust each other, they want different things and their
dealings become a battle of wills and deceptions, children don't get supported,
status and money are all-important because high-status men get harems and
low-status men get nothing. I don't see any solution.
By the way, when you send out a request like this you should make sure your
spelling, grammar and capitalization are correct. You're more likely to get a
considered answer.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Sun Nov 19 07:00:53 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A07A4893C
for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 07:00:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG (sneezy.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.23])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA32269
for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 07:00:53 -0500 (EST)
Message-id: <12876196@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 19 Nov 2000 06:59:02 EST
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: NYT (Bernstein)'s review of Postville ... (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- You wrote:
The situation fits the definition of multiculturalism, which is incompatible
cultures sharing the same space.
--- end of quote ---
To my mind the multiculturalism is intended to be the cooexistence of multiple
cultures in the same space attained by each accepting "tolerance," meaning
abandonment of its own claim to public authority and recognition of the equal
value of the other cultures. So this is a situation in which one of the
parties rejects multiculturalism and so puts itself in the wrong. The only
embarrassing aspect is that the bigoted culture is not European or Christian.
If it had been a bunch of Christian Identity types moving into town and
annoying everyone the situation would have fit the liberal story-line
perfectly.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Sun Nov 19 07:00:31 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53E92488AA
for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 07:00:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG (sneezy.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.23])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA31267
for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 07:00:31 -0500 (EST)
Message-id: <12876195@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 19 Nov 2000 06:58:40 EST
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: NYT (Bernstein)'s review of Postville ... (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- You wrote:
such equality and tolerance must inevitably lead to--indeed, they inherently
signify--the destruction of the majority culture as a culture. So what the
Hasids in this little town are doing is only a more active and explicit
manifestation of the attack on the majority culture that is implied in all
multiculturalism.
--- end of quote ---
But the Hasid attack is a different kind of attack and much more limited. They
don't demand that the local majority give up its religion, moral outlook,
holidays, heroes, symbols, etc. They just act in an annoying, aggressive,
self-centered and exclusionary way.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Sun Nov 19 06:59:34 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75A5248DC3
for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 06:59:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG (sneezy.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.23])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA29601
for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 06:59:34 -0500 (EST)
Message-id: <12876192@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 19 Nov 2000 06:57:43 EST
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: NYT (Bernstein)'s review of Postville ... (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- You wrote:
multiculturalism is a concrete fact in which mutually incompatible groups share
the same space in such a manner that the natural unfolding of the majority
culture is harmed or even ceases to be possible.
--- end of quote ---
The traditional response to this kind of situation is segregation of one sort
or another. In radically multicultural societies you get something like the
traditional middle east -- separate households in separate communities,
everything with walls around it, no overall public life worthy of the name. In
America we had formal or informal racial segregation, understandings as to who
was admitted where, and so on. So the mere fact of common presence is not the
problem until the ways of dealing with it become ideologically and legally
impossible.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Sun Nov 19 06:59:03 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B69C909F
for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 06:59:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG (sneezy.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.23])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA30877
for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 06:59:02 -0500 (EST)
Message-id: <12876190@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 19 Nov 2000 06:57:11 EST
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: NYT (Bernstein)'s review of Postville ... (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- You wrote:
But I think the idea of the majority getting respect--after it's already been
undone and delegitimized as the majority culture--is fraudulent anyway. It
doesn't happen. The "equal value" business is nothing but rhetoric designed to
undo the majority and advance the minorities.
--- end of quote ---
The "equal value" obviously makes no sense. A culture is a scheme of
valuation. If you come to value another scheme equally with your own then by
definition you've given up your own scheme. So then the question is what's
really going on. It seems to me it's not an attempt to put the minorities on
top, since that's impossible too if only because there are multiple minorities
with inconsistent cultures. The minorities are going to be undone as well,
it's just that less effort is needed because they start off on the defensive.
Rather, it's an attempt to eliminate all culture, all settled public systems of
valuation, except technocratic hedonism.
This of course is the dispute or at least difference of emphasis we've already
had as to how principled antiracism is.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Sun Nov 19 06:58:34 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DB2F9054
for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 06:58:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG (sneezy.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.23])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA29231
for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 06:58:33 -0500 (EST)
Message-id: <12876188@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 19 Nov 2000 06:56:42 EST
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: NYT (Bernstein)'s review of Postville ... (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- You wrote:
I meant mutually incompatible groups sharing the same space under conditions in
which there is the assumption that all cultures are equal.
--- end of quote ---
My intended point was that the situation with the Lubavitchers in Iowa is no
embarrassment for multiculturalist orthodoxy because the Lubavitchers reject
that assumption. They do demonstrate that people who are neither western nor
Christian can be "bigots." So to the extent the Times is willing to talk about
the situation it indicates that they are at least somewhat principled in their
multiculturalism -- for them it's a desire to abolish all culture and not
merely white Christian culture.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Sun Nov 19 08:45:29 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 866194871C
for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 08:45:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG (sneezy.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.23])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA04428
for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 08:45:28 -0500 (EST)
Message-id: <12876451@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 19 Nov 2000 08:43:37 EST
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: Mark Steyn has no problem with the browning of Britain--just don't push it artificially (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- You wrote:
I suggest that persecution against Holocaust deniers is not the best example to
use.
--- end of quote ---
It's a minor part of the overall structure that I raise because of its great
theoretical interest. As I said it's a subpage of the links page, one I made
such because it doesn't deserve too much emphasis.
The content of the site is conceptual and to that extent rather dry. It tends
to treat the issues the way a lawyer would treat them. I *am* a lawyer after
all. From some perspectives I suppose that means I treat them in a way at odds
with common sense. It seems to me that Holocaust revisionism is the current
version of blasphemy. To say that is not to defend or mitigate it unless
you're a human rights movement person who thinks blasphemy is good or that
objecting to it is laughable.
I do think it's a very bad thing to obscure the murder of millions of
innocents. The issue though is the attitude of human rights law toward such
conduct. The fact it's legal in the US doesn't seem that relevant to me. Its
legality here strikes me as a particularism, and my interest in the site is
something more general than special features of the US legal tradition. I'm
writing about the worldwide human rights movement, an absolutely central part
of which here as elsewhere is the antihate movement. It seems to me that an
extirpationist antihate movement, one that speaks for example in formal public
documents like international treaties of the overriding priority of eliminating
all forms of discrimination, xenophobia, etc., necessarily contradicts itself
in any number of ways, and blasphemy prosecutions in the name of tolerance seem
to me a particularly clear example.
So I would like to refer to the treatment of Holocaust revisionists in Europe,
and I don't want to go to the trouble of reading their stuff because to me it
doesn't matter, the point regarding human rights theory is the same no matter
what revisionists actually say. I do understand that the prosecutions have
extended to some rather soft-core revisionists and relate to tangential issues,
and for my purposes such situations are of far more interest than the nature of
revisionism in general, which I don't much care about. The point I'm dealing
with after all is not revisionism but rather human rights as an
institutionalized movement. As such, situations in which people are prosecuted
and sent to jail for thought and speech crimes are enormously important,
because they go to the heart of the integrity of the movement. That's why I
included a reference to "historical issues" on the intro page, because US-style
PC, which doesn't treat revisionism specially, didn't seem to highlight the
issue as to the ultimate tolerance of "human rights" as much as situations that
are treated criminally, and revisionism is the only one I know of that's so
treated.
>From my standpoint nothing on the site raises the issue of whether Israel is
good or bad, right or wrong. The middle eastern situation is not close to my
heart. I'm perfectly happy with people believing anything at all about it,
within certain limits of arguable rationality I suppose. I don't propose to
argue it either way.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Sun Nov 19 08:45:47 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6FE59432
for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 08:45:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG (sneezy.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.23])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA05016
for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 08:45:47 -0500 (EST)
Message-id: <12876453@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 19 Nov 2000 08:43:56 EST
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: Mark Steyn has no problem with the browning of Britain--just don't push it artificially (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
Remember that the subpage on Irving's materials is only one item on a page of
links. I did want to include people getting jailed in Europe simply for
expressed beliefs. It seems to me that situation summarizes certain aspects of
"human rights" that are particularly self-contradictory from its own point of
view. Boy scouts aren't jailed. It's very hard at least on the net to find an
overall survey of the European situation, no one wants to seem to take an
interest in this stuff, and the best I could come up with were the materials on
Irving's site (I was referred to them by a guy named Laird Wilcox who writes
books on political extremism).
You have convinced me though that I should (1) modify the item on suppression
of speech on the intro page to eliminate the reference to historical questions,
so that it just talks about say "hateful thoughts", and (2) include the stuff
about the new crime of blasphemy and the dangers of extirpationism to the
general discussion, so that the Irving page really does become just a subpage
of the links page rather than a page that includes substantive discussion.
On the arguments for throwing them in the clink - much more than the Nazi party
is illegal, the laws are not just in Germany, whether the gas chambers at
Auschwitz were fakes or a footnote to the history of WWII is extremely
tangential, and anyway the war has been over 55 years and there have been no
signs of life in Nazism since then while the strictures have been getting
stronger. The US communist party was not illegal as such, it was illegal to
advocate overthrowing the govt by force. I think there were also registration
requirements. At the time there actually *was* a Soviet Union, there had very
recently been high-placed communist spies and agents in the govt and numerous
very well-placed sympathizers etc. Saying all that may put things again in the
wrong light, though, since the point is not that it is in itself evil to
prosecute people for distorting important historical events but that the human
rights movement can not coherently do so. The latter is not my main point but
it is a point, and as such worth including.
Thanks for the comments btw. They made me rethink specific relevance and
presentation.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Sun Nov 19 08:47:06 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BC4D487FE
for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 08:47:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG (sneezy.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.23])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA03060
for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 08:47:06 -0500 (EST)
Message-id: <12876459@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 19 Nov 2000 08:45:15 EST
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: further thoughts on institutions, the transcendent, and what destroys both (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- You wrote:
>[Another name for what you're calling pure rationality is technological
>reason.]
Well, that's a little high fallutin' for what I'm trying to say. Isn't there a
more common term for the type of rationality that is reductive, rationalistic?
Rationalism I guess.
--- end of quote ---
Rationalism means that now because people think reason means formal logic plus
modern natural science or some such. I'm not sure what the best term would be
if you wanted both to be comprehensible and also hold open the possibility of
an expanded conception of reason. Flattened rationality?
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Sun Nov 19 08:48:18 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF44290D9
for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 08:48:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG (sneezy.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.23])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA03314
for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 08:48:18 -0500 (EST)
Message-id: <12876466@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 19 Nov 2000 08:46:27 EST
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: Comment on Shelby Steele article (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- "LA" wrote:
It is remarkable and fascinating that W, an unprepossessing, non-intellectual,
easy-going fellow, would turn out to be not just a president but a major
historical figure. I think that is going to happen. While I like him as a
person, and probably some good things will come out of his new politics, we
must oppose him.
--- end of quote ---
My current theory about W is that he accepts high class advice from reasonable
well-situated experienced men, which means that whatever he presents will not
reject the established order but attempt to integrate concerns about the way
things have been going and whether advanced liberalism can really work into the
way things are. So that's what we're seeing now. I don't think the
integration can work because the logic of equality and the administered society
are too strong but when everyone's comfortable it's hard to do anything as a
practical politician other than integrate whatever it is into what they're
comfortable with.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Sun Nov 19 08:49:23 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9A8F90D9
for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 08:49:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG (sneezy.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.23])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA00210
for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 08:49:23 -0500 (EST)
Message-id: <12876470@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 19 Nov 2000 08:47:32 EST
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: people don't care about facts (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- You wrote:
How is it that in the public sphere there is this total absence of the minimal
degree of rationality and interest in facts, but just passive acceptance of
empty slogans that NO ONE would ever stand for if, say, someone came into his
business and said, I think you need to run your business like this instead of
like this.
Does this relate to what Jim Kalb says about the difference between the public
order and the private sphere: that just as transcendence and order have only
been rejected in the _public_ sphere, not in the private sphere, so also
rationality and concern about facts has only been rejected in the public, not
the private sphere?
--- end of quote ---
Good quote from Pierce. Whatever problems the guy's got stupidity isn't one of
them.
I'm not sure what the relation is to public rejection of transcendence. One
thought: the mind has to end its reasonings and come to rest somewhere, and
the normal ultimate resting place is paradoxical statements accepted on faith
because that's where you end up when reason reaches its limits. Maybe if
transcendence is rejected a false transcendence grows up that must consist of
statements that are self-contradictory and groundless because otherwise one
could easily go beyond them and so there would be no final resting place.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Sun Nov 19 08:50:05 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5519190D9
for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 08:50:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG (sneezy.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.23])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA04273
for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 08:50:05 -0500 (EST)
Message-id: <12876475@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 19 Nov 2000 08:48:13 EST
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: people don't care about facts (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- You wrote:
I think (though I'm not sure, I'm writing this too late at night) that your
point is different from mine. I was making an analogy between (1) loss of
public transcendence combined with survival of private transcendence and (2)
loss of public rationality combined with survival of private rationality. By
contrast, you're saying the loss of public transcendence leads to the loss of
public rationality. People need the experience of "just believing." Since
they've been deprived of the experience of "just believing" in transcendent
truth, they seek the experience of "just believing" in vicious (or comforting)
transparent political lies instead.
--- end of quote ---
I think the points are closely related. I'm saying we need a complete
structure of thought, so that an area of rationality, which must be finite
because you can't have an infinite series of reasons and since reasons must
start with something substantive, is anchored or bounded or whatever by
something nonrational that we nonetheless grasp sufficiently to orient
ourselves. So private reason, which extends to all things reason can deal
with, is bounded and anchored by private understandings of transcendence,
expressed in paradoxical propositions that point to the inarticulable.
Public reason must have the same structure, but there's no transcendence, so it
must be bounded and anchored by propositions that are self-contradictory and
point to the meaningless (and thus parody transcendence, paradox and the
inarticulable). Unfortunately the craziness infects the rest of public reason,
so that it becomes irrational through and through. So your analogy is a strong
one that reflects identity of formal structure between public and private
thought. Or such is the theory.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Sun Nov 19 08:51:09 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F15B748787
for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 08:51:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG (sneezy.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.23])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA02679
for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 08:51:08 -0500 (EST)
Message-id: <12876478@sneezy.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 19 Nov 2000 08:49:17 EST
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: My shocked notes on Bloom circa 1987 (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- You wrote:
The philosopher is necessarily ambiguous and not honest, since he really does
not believe in the gods of the city. His survival depends on a contingent who,
though conventionally pious, still see something good in him despite his
impeity and irony
--- end of quote ---
The East Coast Straussians seem to talk that way. I think it's cheap
self-glorification.
Strauss himself said he was a scholar and not a philosopher and didn't think
the issue between philosophy and revelation could be decided by neutral
rational means. Pascal would have said the same, and actually the thing by
Strauss I read most recently seemed to echo Pascal in a number of places.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From jk@panix.com Tue Nov 21 21:20:15 EST 2000
Article: 126436 of soc.rights.human
Path: news.panix.com!panix6.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: soc.rights.human
Subject: Re: Human Rights Must Become Non-Liberal
Date: 20 Nov 2000 15:28:43 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <8vc1hr$gkn$1@panix6.panix.com>
References: <8v40ko$p7n$1@panix6.panix.com> <3a15fd72$0$9973$272ea4a1@news.execpc.com> <8v5ptl$8hi$1@panix3.panix.com> <3a194e3f$0$8052$272ea4a1@news.execpc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix6.panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 974752124 10191 166.84.0.231 (20 Nov 2000 20:28:44 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Nov 2000 20:28:44 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.6 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com soc.rights.human:126436
In <3a194e3f$0$8052$272ea4a1@news.execpc.com> ron_p@earth.execpc.com (Ron Peterson) writes:
>: With regard to your first sentence, you might read the comments of Mary
>: Robinson, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, linked at
>: http://www.freespeech.org/antitechnocrat/news.html.
>The URL isn't working.
Sorry, the reference should have been to
http://human-rights.20m.com/news.html
>Other parts of your web site indicate that you
>support the extreme religious right.
Namecalling is not argument. Also, it seems odd that you think (1)
"liberal" has no content, so people who use the word are just being
abusive, while (2) "extreme religious right" is descriptive and includes
the stuff on my website.
>If someone robs me, they have committed a crime. Government makes laws
>protecting me from that type of crime. Rights are what we need to protect
>us from the government.
Do look at Mary Robinson's comments. She's not a fringe figure. Also
read some of the international human rights conventions and the like,
not to mention academic rights theorists and for that matter the civil
rights laws and their interpretations. Whatever might be true of
usenet, most of the people who talk about rights in the world aren't at
all libertarian.
>: With regard to your second sentence, I favor local autonomy.
>Do you feel that citizen rights guaranteed by the nation should be able to
>be put aside by local government?
The issue of course is what rights should be guaranteed internationally,
nationally, locally.
>"Liberal" just means change from the status quo, just as "conservative"
>means to resist change.
Obviously false. Some changes would be liberal, some conservative. The
same is true of aspects of the status quo. Do you think it's impossible
to think of changes conservatives would want to make?
>Liberal and Libertarian refer to approximately the same ideas.
Certainly not in American political discourse.
>The powerful are usually against change and hence not liberal.
What's the point of power if you don't do something with it - that is,
make changes? If you have power, why not do things to entrench it -
that is, make changes? Why shouldn't the people who get power tend to
be the people who want power - that is, the capacity to make changes?
>It would be
>better for you to propose any rights that you are advocating one at a time
>so that we can have a reasonable discussion free from political bias.
I don't know what you have in mind. There are lots of specific
proposals on my site, human-rights.20m.com.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://human-rights.20m.com
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Sun Nov 26 15:07:17 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51F8D48983
for ; Sun, 26 Nov 2000 15:06:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA04498
for ; Sun, 26 Nov 2000 15:06:12 -0500 (EST)
Message-id: <664825@doc.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 26 Nov 2000 15:04:48 EST
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: a anarchist view of conservatism (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: OR
Hello!
Thanks for the comments. My responses are in brackets. Lack of time keeps me
from responding to everything.
--- You wrote:
Tradition is hardly the only thing that provides a "collection of useful
habits" or "extensive experience and thought." many areas of tradition have
opposed progress and advance. nontheless that the traditions that conservatisms
draw upon are those that have served a historical role for oppresion, ie the
state, capitalism, religion etc.
[A "collection of useful habits" almost of necessity has to be a tradition, at
least when it attains any sort of comprehensiveness. Ditto for "extensive
experience and thought," when it's so extensive as to be social. Such things
aren't planned out or fully understood. They can't be, because planning and
understanding is always based on the system of thought, feeling, belief etc.
that already exists - that is, on tradition. Useful habits and experience
accumulates based on experience and observation, on things we pick up from
other people, on fundamental purposes and commitments. In order to be
comprehensive enough to establish a way of life they require more than one life
to grow up, which means they must develop and be passed on as a tradition.
As for oppression, anti-traditionalist societies that try to establish a New
Order are normally more oppressive than traditionalist societies, which after
all tend to accept the habits people have built up and are attached to - an
approach to things that's as little oppressive as possible. There's nothing
specifically traditional about the state or capitalism, although I suppose like
all comprehensive practices they can't work without support of traditions.]
Emperical investigation aka scientific methods is done injustice by simply
saying "theory" in the case of science, medicine etc it was traditional
knowledge that had to be eliminated for knowledge to be made. " Traditions" run
unchecked by the scientific method or any other check, tradition almost by
definition is a consensus of individuals in a community. for this reason
"tradition" is an unreliable way to base any claim, nontheless politics which
entails a set of complex sociological theories (where tradition and common
knowledge is almost always wrong).
[Scientific method doesn't have that much to do with politics or social and
moral life generally. It's notorious that "social science" isn't science. And
it's not true there's no check on tradition - things that don't work and don't
satisfy decline as traditions.]
Political systems are indeed increasingly complex, which shows demand for
scientific analysis. to assume a society cannot be changed wholesale is a truth
(though to a degree im confident Is less than what you think) however to make
sure that a system "works" makes little sense. would it be the goal of
conservatives to "make the system work" under a brutal dictatorsip? or under a
communist society? I take the above quote as typical ahistoricism of
conservative philosophies; "existing systems" have been set up for the select
benefit of a few, ideologies for them (which eventually translate into
tradition) do the same. the state has not been a product of tradition, but a
institution which upholds class privelige. much the same can be said of
organized religion when one looks from a historical viewpoint. it seems when
conservatives talk about perserving "tradition" or "society" it is never taken
into account for whom society (meaning the state) is organized for.
[Social-scientific analysis is rarely of much use except maybe rhetorical use,
as a way of confirming whatever it is that someone wants confirmed. As said,
social science is not science. And if as you appear to believe all societies
up to now have simply been instruments of class privilege why think anything
better is attainable? The political movements that have take that view most
seriously have murdered 100 million people over the past 80 years.
Why not suspect there's a connection between their basic understanding of man
and social life and their crimes? You reject tradition, that is to say the
habits, attitudes, beliefs, loyalties that grow up as people deal with each
other, because tradition is tainted, and you apparently want to substitute
social-scientific analysis and suspicion. Who will do the scientific analysis?
Who will be above suspicion? It seems to me your view inevitably leads to the
dictatorship of a small self-righteous revolutionary party.]
Would conservatisms support goverments such as the pre revolutionary france, or
any other european imperial power because sweeping change is not appropriate?
[Certainly pre-revolutionary France was better than the Jacobins or Napoleon.
Ditto in Russia, China etc. Abuses can be dealt with short of revolution. In
France everyone was ready to do so.]
The current left demanding that the family be abolished is again a straw man,
though one with a part of truth to it.
[Don't agree it's a straw man.]
It should be of note however the leftists postmodernists share quite a similar
view of the world as conservatism (or at least represented in this FAQ) that
knowledge is obtained by cultural traditions and "society" and that all
cultures values are equal (I dont think conservatives accept that.)
[The FAQ doesn't suggest all cultures' values are equal, and to say knowledge
(of morals say) is attained through cultural traditions is not at all to adopt
the pomo view that it's simply a social construction.]
Yes all societies have engaged in sex role stereotyping, but does that make it
something which is wanting? All (or most) societies have also engaged in war,
racism, less womens rights etc. "stable functional units for the rearing of
children" is also dubious, why should the purpose of males (or females) by to
rear children and not live to their own wants? all of this besides the fact is
contradicted by the evidence, as if men or women havehad "bad consequences" of
more diverse sex roles? id be interesting if you could recite to me some.
[If you don't like some fundamental feature of how people live, sex roles,
hierarchy, private property, war or whatever, that's OK but serious attempts at
abolition never work and generally lead to catastrophe. Obvious bad effects of
weaker sex roles and consequent family disorganization include child abuse and
other forms of domestic violence, badly-raised kids and consequent crime etc.,
and very low birth rates among responsible and capable people. For references
look at the resources sections of my pages on antifeminism and sexual morality
(http://www.freespeech.org/antifeminism.html and sex.html). As to living to
one's own wants, you have to stand back and ask whether that view works if
generally adopted. Is pursuit of self-interest enough for a tolerable social
life? Also whether it even makes sense personally. Does it make anyone
happy?]
I take this up not because of the fallacies that a conservative society would
be the "best way" to achive such results, but on what is claimed that a
conservative society has emphasized. conservatism through history has supported
regimes with the most high level goverment control, and drenched in bureacracy.
Consrvative defensesof monarchy as "the true system" ring a bell, not to
mention support of Reagan who greatly increased the role of the federal
goverment in all areas but social programs. Again as probaly my main point with
this FAQ is that the "traditions" of conservatism have been that of coercive
states and unjust social orders. Something that needs alot of "conserving" to
stay afloat!
[Progressive and revolutionary regimes obviously need more central control and
bureaucracy than traditionalist societies. After all if you want to abolish
existing habits and attitudes and substitute something new and scientific you
have to do a lot of managing. Consider for example the amount of bureaucracy
in socialist countries. And do look at Hans-Hermann Hoppe's libertarian
defense of monarchy (a web search ought to turn it up.)]
What about market bureacracy? a corporation in essence is no diffrent from a
goverment bureacracy, both are structured from the top dwn, and act for the
benefit of a privileged minority and not their base. "Conservatives" have
historicaly not een against central control but its largest supporters,
imperial european powers, the US military machine, on and on and on have been
most staunchly defended by conservatives. Indeed to "conservve" what is
demanded by conservative ideologies requires a large level of force, direct or
indirect.
[To the extent a corporation starts displaying the vices of bureaucracy, so
those who have dealings with it find their needs aren't met, it will normally
lose ground to competitors. And it hasn't been conservatives who have expanded
the size of government - number of functionaries, breadth of responsibilities,
etc. Were FDR and LBJ conservatives?]
The logic behind this is flawed, would people be 'relying on goverment instead
of themselves" if it is goverment that controls the fire department, police
department etc? why would this be any diffrent with welfare or any other social
program? Besides the fact that those on welfare do not result from "moral
chaos" but the dysfunction of the capitalist economy. On the last 35 years of
"interventionist liberalism" leading in a reductin of poverty, education etc is
another falsehood, do you have anything to back this claim? internationalist
liberalism does have its terrors, lack of reform however is not one of them.
[The difference between fire department etc. and social programs is the breadth
of the interests in which govt is involved. Does government take care of a few
specific points which it is specially qualified to deal with, or does it have
bottom-line responsibility for the general well-being of every individual? On
the last point look at the Statistical Abstract of the United States. There's
also a volume on US historical statistics also put out by the government that
compiles similar figures for much longer periods. They're interesting
reading.]
--- end of quote ---
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Sun Nov 26 15:07:19 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F81B48A40
for ; Sun, 26 Nov 2000 15:06:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA05346
for ; Sun, 26 Nov 2000 15:06:54 -0500 (EST)
Message-id: <664828@doc.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 26 Nov 2000 15:05:31 EST
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: Real-life illustration of technological reason (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: OR
Rather nice that the two appeared back-to-back.
The quotes are very suggestive. One thing they show is how in liberalism the
self, for the benefit of which the whole liberal enterprise was undertaken,
disappears. We already knew that values are not part of the active choosing
self, since in liberalism they are to be freely chosen by the self. The quotes
show that personality is not part of the self either, it's something the self
constructs to present to others and so achieve its goals. In the end it seems
the liberal self becomes at most a vanishingly small point of pure
arbitrariness.
On another front, I've revised the human rights pages and they've started to be
listed by search engines and get hits. So if you had any comments on the
revised versions I'd be grateful.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://human-rights.20m.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Nov 27 14:59:14 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from msx3.delphi.com (msx3.delphi.com [199.93.4.213])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3BC148B38
for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:59:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from PickupDirectory by msx3.delphi.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21)
id VCYB921V; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:44:05 -0500
From:
To:
Subject: New Page!
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:44:04 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Message-Id: <20001127195903.D3BC148B38@mail1.panix.com>
Status: OR
Thanks for your note.
As to religious morality, it seems to me there are issues that can't be
avoided. Any social order is going to be based on a common understanding
of man and the world and is going to have ultimate principles that
everyone accepts, at least everyone who is going to be treated as someone
with something legitimate to say. If that's so - and I think it's as true
of a liberal, libertarian, socialist or whatever social order as any
other - I don't know how much is added by calling the common understanding
"religious."
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu
www.freespeech.org/antitechnocrat and pages.about.com/antitechnocrat
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Wed Nov 29 12:49:00 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21EAD48C2D
for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:48:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA23474
for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:48:45 -0500 (EST)
Message-id: <705337@doc.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 29 Nov 2000 12:47:17 EST
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: [Paleo] Chronicles, RIP? (forwarded from paleo@egroups.com)
To: jk@panix.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: O
--- CP wrote:
The statement of ownership in the current issue lists an average of 5,626
subscribers with a total distribution of 6,536.
--- end of quote ---
That's more than the New Criterion or Public Interest have, at least last time
I looked, and Chronicles puts out more issues than either. It doesn't take
that many subscribers to get ideas in play, depending on who the subscribers
are.
Naturally it would be nice if there were 10 or 100 times as many.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://human-rights.20m.com
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Wed Nov 29 12:54:25 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BE0A8F0E
for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:54:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA29096
for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:54:24 -0500 (EST)
Message-id: <705456@doc.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 29 Nov 2000 12:52:57 EST
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: more on Gore (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- You wrote:
Gore himself said a few months back, to the effect that evil is coiled around
everyone's heart and it has to be uprooted. He means, of course, not evil as
we understand it, but that everyone is deep inside a racist, fascist etc. and
it's his job to change that.
--- end of quote ---
This is a central point. I am reminded of the last ECUSA convention and the
todo about how we are all recovering racists in need of further healing.
Liberalism is at odds with human nature, because man does not live by hedonism
and formal logic alone but also by particular beliefs and loyalties. Once
liberalism is accepted though its opposition to human nature is a great
strength because it makes all men and all human societies hopelessly sinful and
in need of salvation through liberalism.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Wed Nov 29 12:54:49 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45CA48F56
for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:54:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA27555
for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:54:48 -0500 (EST)
Message-id: <705463@doc.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 29 Nov 2000 12:53:22 EST
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: good newsmax column (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
Interesting comment on Cohen, and I think it's probably right that unruly
Republicans had their effect. My own impression though is that what's probably
at the back of his mind is not an effective self-organizing self-conscious
rebellion of the white middle classes but rather unpleasantness, squabbling,
delay and wasted energy in the inevitable advance of the liberal cause. I
think the liberals are rightly confident in their ability eventually to control
overall public understandings of events and to disrupt opposition before it
becomes effective. Cohen just thinks that taking care is a necessary part of
the process.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Wed Nov 29 12:55:16 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADF1D90B3
for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:55:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA19587
for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:55:15 -0500 (EST)
Message-id: <705468@doc.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 29 Nov 2000 12:53:48 EST
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: more on Gore (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- You wrote:
Here is the psychology of the Satanic rebellion against reality
--- end of quote ---
I think that's it really. The attitude of Clinton and Gore toward truth and
their political success are related. The rule seems to be that whoever is best
and most convincing at constructing reality wins, and pathological liars have a
natural advantage in that game. The reason that is the game is that everyone
wants a constructed reality, because they don't accept that there is anything
good at the heart of what actually is. C and G are representative men.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Wed Nov 29 12:55:52 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E4C58FDF
for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:55:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA25549
for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:55:50 -0500 (EST)
Message-id: <705483@doc.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 29 Nov 2000 12:54:24 EST
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: the slickmeister takes the cake again (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- You wrote:
being impeached is like being a homosexual ... Thus according to Clinton,
officials enforcing the basic laws of the land are equated with bigots, while
the lawbreaker is like a discriminated-against minority.
--- end of quote ---
And thus according to NR Online those who object to homosexuality are bigots,
and those who identify with it are a discriminated-against minority.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Wed Nov 29 12:56:06 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D35E48976
for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:56:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA31710
for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:56:05 -0500 (EST)
Message-id: <705487@doc.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 29 Nov 2000 12:54:39 EST
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: the slickmeister takes the cake again (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jk@panix.com
Status: O
--- You wrote:
I think you've misunderstood. NR was characterizing Clinton's inference, not
making that inference itself.
--- end of quote ---
It seems to me they rejected the inference but implicitly accepted the
characterization of the situation regarding homosexuals. Admittedly it would
have gotten complicated if they had tried explicitly to reject both the
inference and the characterization. Suppose though Haider addressed Waffen SS
vets and said "after what I've been through I know what it's like to be
unfairly maligned." Would the other NR (New Republic) have said "Thus
according to Haider, EU officials standing up for the basic commitment to human
rights are equated with political bigots, while the antidemocratic extremist is
like a discriminated-against minority"? Of course not, because the other NR
thinks SS vets are bad guys too.
Jim
Do let me know if you have comments of any kind.
Back to my archive of posts.