Items Posted by Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu Feb 15 13:31:56 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id NAA24687
for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:31:50 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Thu Feb 15 13:31:50 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 PAA25712;
Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:30:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-146-106.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.146.106] id <1621682> 15 Feb 2001 15:25:04 EST
Message-ID: <000601c0978e$fa1c9020$6a92ca97@tower>
From: "James Kalb"
To: Do
References: <38.120e5c34.27bd3546@aol.com>
Subject: Re: three cheers for Yale!
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:36:23 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: RO
Thanks for the note!
Thanks for your story. Sounds like you've learned something from life. I
suppose people have always turned their brains off in connection with sex
and they do it now more than ever. A big advantage of saying that whatever
you do is ok after all is that it justifies not thinking and not taking any
action to change anything.
Accusations of hypocrisy have the same advantage. If someone raises an issue
you attack him personally. If his views have always been he same then he
shouldn't speak because he hasn't tried it and he's just being arrogant and
making himself the universal standard. If his views change, and he thinks
some of the things he was involved in in the past were wrong, then he's a
hypocrite because what he says now and what he did then are different.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
Re: Re: American Tradition
Friday, 16-Feb-01 17:25:19
151.202.145.169 writes:
The issue as to ethnicity seems complicated. Some thoughts:
I suspect it's less protestantism than history and location that may
make the north and west of Europe more prone to racialism than some
other places. (Does Kuehnelt-Leddihn include the Balkans in the
circuit of Greek Orthodoxy? The Turks among the Mohammedans?)
Like Japan, where ethnicity also counts a lot, NW Europe is on the
continental edge. As a result, it's been a long time since there have
been significant movements of peoples there. That meant a public order
could arise that presumed a public with lots of beliefs, attitudes,
customs, loyalties, etc. in common - as a practical matter, common
ethnicity.
In the S and E of Europe, and even more in the Levant, there have
always been more comings and goings. As a result the public order has
been weaker and there has been more emphasis on very small scale and
non-territorial order - village, extended family, the "amoral
familism" some people see in S Italy, or the millet system of
autonomous ethno-religious communities as in the Levant.
I am very much attached to the kind of public order that has
characterized NW Europe. That makes me less inclined to celebrate
diversity than a lot of other people are. Of course, the game might be
up, in which case the emphasis should be more on building up very
small-scale order than trying to save or restore a public order that
is now quite degraded and in any event can't possibly retain its
coherence under modern conditions (instant worldwide communication,
fast, cheap and easy transportation, etc.)
Jim Kalb
Re: Re: American Tradition
Saturday, 17-Feb-01 09:47:32
151.202.194.38 writes:
The radically multi-ethnic situation you describe is not the necessary
nature of the modern world in general but a local consequence of
government policies that could be otherwise. That I take it is the
basis for the Chronicles view of immigration.
Given the situation, you rightly form alliances based on what seems
most important, which as you point out probably won't be ethnicity if
the choice is between post-modern Americans and people from more
traditional esp. traditional Christian cultures.
One problem with the situation itself though is that the connections
and community are sub-political. Radically multicultural societies
tend to be despotic since there is no political community, only rulers
and the ruled. They are also non-progressive, since private life tends
simply to repeat itself in the absence of a public sphere. Compare the
Eastern Orthodox Church, which grew to be the way it is in regions
subject to invasion and rule by radically different peoples, with the
Roman Catholic Church.
Non-progress can of course preserve precious things, as the Orthodox
Church also shows, and human life can go forward better in the
interstices of despotism than in MTV-land, if MTV-land is what public
life has become. Still, substantive public life, as in classical
Greece, Renaissance Italy and modern Northern and Western Europe, has
given rise to other very precious things. It never lasts forever, it's
true, but it's horribly painful to think it's dying, and it seems
wrong simply to assume it's dead and not do your best to revive it.
Another point: the good qualities of the good guys in your
neighborhood didn't come out of nowhere or out of individual
negotiations among the inhabitants of a multicultural situation. The
bad qualities of the bad guys are more likely to arise from that. The
bad guys after all are the Americans who chose to move to your
multicultural neighborhood and so can be presumed to have an affinity
for such situations. Your neighbors' good qualities were fostered by
the life of settled communities. All this raises a question for the
future. How will all the happy Buddhist children you mention turn out
growing up in a neighborhood with no settled standards, with lots of
things on offer their parents reject and lots of economic
opportunities that take them wholly out of any community they're used
to? How about their children?
The alliances you mention are the germ of a new revived culture. As
such they are admirable because they show that life always rebuilds
itself. To develop into an actual culture though capable of sustaining
future generations there must be a continuity, reliability and density
of relationships that requires boundaries between communities. Those
who oppose restrictions on immigration don't like geographical
boundaries. That makes no sense to me. Geographical boundaries are
much less restrictive and much less offensive than other types that
come to mind.
As you say, politics are the art of the possible. Still,
multiethnicity makes community more difficult and on the face of it
humane limitations on multiethnicity (e.g., more restricted
immigration) are possible. Why not accept them? They aren't the
solution to everything but to the extent a revived common culture
would be a good thing they would help.
Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Feb 20 14:07:34 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id OAA19857
for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:07:28 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Tue Feb 20 14:07:28 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 QAA20247
for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:06:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-145-235.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.145.235] for jkalb@nyx.net id <1674666> 20 Feb 2001 16:01:01 EST
Message-ID: <003001c09b81$e78ae5a0$eb91ca97@tower>
From: "James Kalb"
To: "Jim Kalb"
Subject: Fw: The War Against Boys--liberalism or leftism?
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:12:58 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: O
> It seems to me the desire for equality creates and uses class hatred and
so
> is more fundamental. It never occurred to anyone to hate men simply as
such
> until radical egalitarianism became the sole and inevitable moral outlook.
> Once the latter happened then men became the evil oppressors and every
> inequality and annoyance could be grouped together and built into a
> structure of hatred.
>
> Boys may be having problems now but girls are too, and on the whole it's
> still mostly men who run things and no special sign that will change
anytime
> soon. So men are still the oppressors if that's the way you look at
> everything.
>
> Jim
>
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Feb 20 14:06:25 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id OAA19728
for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:06:19 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Tue Feb 20 14:06:19 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA04142
for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:05:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-145-235.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.145.235] for jkalb@nyx.net id <1674635> 20 Feb 2001 15:59:52 EST
Message-ID: <002601c09b81$be211720$eb91ca97@tower>
From: "James Kalb"
To: "Jim Kalb"
Subject: Fw: The War Against Boys--liberalism or leftism?
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:11:48 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: O
> "But don't you also see a different side of feminism, the collective
> self-worship of women as a sex or a class, in addition to the individual
> self-worship that late liberalism encourages? Think of the Goddess cults
> and all that. Such things simply cannot be explained in terms of the
> dynamic that you seem to see as the sole motivating impulse of feminism.
>
> Once again, I am not at all disagreeing with your overall analysis but
> trying to add another dimension to it."
>
> "Sole motivating impulse" is much too strong. "Sufficient explanation of
> main features" or some such is more like it.
>
> I agree there's self-worship, hatred of men, lesbianism, what have you in
> feminism, just as there has been Jewish hatred of the goyim in a variety
of
> progressive movements. I just don't think either are what has
fundamentally
> been going on.
>
> There is always friction, annoyances etc. among people of different kinds
or
> for that matter the same kind. When hatred and aggression of one kind or
> another become licensed, the question to my mind what has happened to
> license that particular thing. Why do the Supreme Court, the Congress, the
> EU, all reputable social authorities believe gender should be made
> irrelevant to social position to the extent they can't conceive a contrary
> view? That's an incredibly bizarre outlook, and most of them aren't
> man-hating lesbian goddess worshippers.
>
> jk
>
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Feb 19 06:00:54 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id GAA03283
for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 06:00:52 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Mon Feb 19 06:00:52 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 HAA07348;
Mon, 19 Feb 2001 07:59:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-143-193.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.143.193] id <1654994> 19 Feb 2001 07:54:15 EST
Message-ID: <006401c09a74$bc006440$c18fca97@tower>
From: "James Kalb"
To: "La
References: <000301c09a35$d768fce0$4679580c@h6l3p>
Subject: Re: The War Against Boys--liberalism or leftism?
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:06:11 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: O
It seems to me the desire for equality creates and uses class hatred and so
is more fundamental. It never occurred to anyone to hate men simply as such
until radical egalitarianism became the sole and inevitable moral outlook.
Once the latter happened then men became the evil oppressors and every
inequality and annoyance could be grouped together and built into a
structure of hatred.
Boys may be having problems now but girls are too, and on the whole it's
still mostly men who run things and no special sign that will change anytime
soon. So men are still the oppressors if that's the way you look at
everything.
Jim
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri Feb 23 14:28:47 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id OAA22492
for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:28:42 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Fri Feb 23 14:28:42 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 QAA07556;
Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:27:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-193-234.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.193.234] id <1732170> 23 Feb 2001 16:22:10 EST
Message-ID: <000f01c09de0$679ab080$eac1ca97@tower>
From: "James Kalb"
To: "La
References: <000401c09db9$230f74e0$b454580c@h6l3p>
Subject: Re: [Paleo] Economics
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:34:23 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: O
There are a couple of questions:
1. Where you look to find out what the fundamental principles of public
order are,
2. The relation between those principles and the souls of the citizens.
It seems to me that in a free society the fundamental principles of public
order are the principles that justify the institution to which the citizens
owe their most fundamental loyalty. That is the institution that has - to
which, since it is a free society, the citizens voluntarily give - the first
and most authoritative claim on their lives and property. In the case of the
United States that is the federal government, because of the direct action
of the federal government on individuals, the supremacy clause, the broad
taxing power, and the plenary and all but exclusive power of the federal
government in military and foreign affairs.
So if we are free citizens we have pledged our allegiance, backed by our
lives and property, to the federal government. That pledge of all we have
and are makes sense only if we accept the principles on which the federal
government is founded as constitutive of what we hold most dear. Otherwise
we would be subordinating the more precious to the less. A man who pledged
his all in support of say King Charles in the English Civil War did so
because the principles that gave Charles his right to the throne were the
same as the principles - say a hierarchical understanding of society under
God - the man held most dear. Something like that must also be true of a man
who freely undertakes the obligations of citizenship - who is a free
citizen - in a world in which right must be vindicated by force and thus
ultimately by sacrifice of life.
The fact that the federal government was founded apparently on this-worldly
contractual and utilitarian principles (we the people decided to set it up
to promote tranquility, the general welfare, the freedom to do as we please,
etc.) and without anything higher therefore becomes very troubling.
Is that any clearer or have I become murkier yet?
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri Feb 23 08:47:40 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id IAA03277
for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:47:38 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Fri Feb 23 08:47:38 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 KAA02069;
Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:46:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-145-192.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.145.192] id <1726242> 23 Feb 2001 10:41:14 EST
Message-ID: <002801c09db0$c5dbdfa0$c091ca97@tower>
From: "James Kalb"
To: "La
References: <004e01c09d2c$d4f63140$4179580c@h6l3p>
Subject: Re: [Paleo] Economics
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:53:29 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: O
"Your first point, which you've also made to me, is the most interesting:
that it's not a matter of their intentions but of the nature and inherent
tendencies of the thing they set up."
The second point [(open ended power to tax)+(supreme power of the
sword)=>sovereignty=>supreme worldly loyalty, at least if the society is a
free one] strikes me as the substantive point. It's the one that tells you
that when Founders made the federal government godless the choice was
eventually going to transform society as a whole.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri Feb 23 03:45:41 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id DAA23928
for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 03:45:36 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Fri Feb 23 03:45:36 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 FAA01940;
Fri, 23 Feb 2001 05:44:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-144-229.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.144.229] id <1723803> 23 Feb 2001 05:39:14 EST
Message-ID: <008b01c09d86$95bddb40$e590ca97@tower>
From: "James Kalb"
To: ael
References: <3A95D77A.3E83@provide.net>
Subject: Re: Capitalism and Traditional Family Values
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 05:51:31 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: O
An odd article. Dionne seems to be a true partisan - someone who is truly
unable to stand back from disputes he's involved in and figure out his own
views on fundamental issues.
His point seems to be that it doesn't matter what thinkers, experts,
teachers, respected authorities etc. believe is good, right and true, it
just matters what the people who influence day-to-day life actually do. If
so it'sa dumb point. He also seems unable to think coherently about the
moral status of sex, and deals with the problem by pointing the finger at
people he views as the other side.
It's a silly opposition in this setting. Philosophical liberalism takes the
principles of the marketplace - individual preference as the standard of the
good and contract as the basis of social order - and applies them to
everything. So the dispute between capitalists and liberals while sometimes
real and important is a fairly superficial one. On the whole I suppose
capitalists are stricter in sexual matters than liberals, but they tend to
corrupt others for the sake of making money. At least that's what viii-ix of
Plato's Republic would say, and it seems to fit in with people's impressions
today. On the other hand, liberals try to corrupt people too, if treating
sex as morally trivial is corruption, so what sense does Dionne's
finger-pointing make?
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu Feb 22 13:47:03 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id NAA21784
for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:46:57 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Thu Feb 22 13:46:57 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 PAA04281;
Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:46:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-144-229.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.144.229] id <1716131> 22 Feb 2001 15:40:28 EST
Message-ID: <001001c09d11$65638640$e590ca97@tower>
From: "James Kalb"
To: paleo@yahoogroups.com
References: <004301c09ce4$46d318d0$88c5d1d1@mark> <000801c09cfe$4b0f6420$e590ca97@tower> <000f01c09d09$d1b4fde0$0cc5d1d1@mark>
Subject: Re: [Paleo] Economics
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:52:38 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: O
Mark A. Thomey writes:
"So, Jim, are you insinuating that Madison, and all the other Founders, were
simply spectacular LIARS who wrote and spoke eloquently and laboriously
in favour of a union, a compact between sovereign and independent States,
just so they could then turn around and say, 'Gotcha!! You're now an
unwitting member of an inescapable, indivisible, consolidated
nation-state!'?"
Not at all, only that when you set up a constitutional structure what you do
is more important than what you think you're doing. You are going to be
replaced and eventually die, the structure and its fundamental nature and
tendencies are going to continue.
A lot of the quotes had to do with the relative bulk of powers at the
federal and state levels, which I don't think matters much. Subordinate
authorities typically busy themselves with more things than the supreme
authority, which doesn't make them any the less subordinate. It seems to me
the nature of the claims of each jurisdiction is more important than their
initial volume, and under the constitution the federal government has direct
first claim on the lives and property of the people and deals with the most
momentous affairs. If the structure was going to last at all it seems to me
inevitable that loyalty to the union would eventually trump state loyalty.
Other quotes had to do with how the federal jurisdiction came into being,
which is interesting, but I think that what it is that came into being is
more important than how it arose.
As to "pursuant to," it seems to me that interposition is a non-starter as a
legal principle. Otherwise the supremacy clause, which is essential to the
structure the Founders set up, can be trumped by any of the states and so
means nothing. If you set up something like the federal government at all
it's going to be judge of its own juridiction unless you go to the trouble
to set up other formal arrangements, which they didn't do.
The most interesting question to me in all this is what it would take to set
up a federal system that remains federal and neither dissolves nor
consolidates. For example, would an explicit procedure for secession do the
job? Or would that either become a dead letter or lead to disintegration
depending on other features?
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu Feb 22 11:46:22 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id LAA15496
for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:46:16 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Thu Feb 22 11:46:16 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 NAA21668
for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:45:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-144-229.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.144.229] for jkalb@nyx.net id <1713932> 22 Feb 2001 13:39:53 EST
Message-ID: <003c01c09d00$8c97e6e0$e590ca97@tower>
From: "James Kalb"
To: "Jim Kalb"
Subject: Fw: [Paleo] Economics
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:51:58 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: O
Mark A. Thomey writes:
"The constitution was meant to create a union of free, sovereign, and
independent States - not a 'nation' in the sense of contemporary
understanding."
Which is important, what they intended to do or what they actually did? The
federal government even as originally constituted acted directly on
individuals. Its constitution, laws and treaties were the supreme law of the
land. It had very broad taxing powers and plenary authority in military and
foreign affairs. It thus had first claim of any government on the lives and
fortunes of the people.
Whatever the founding fathers said or thought they were doing it seems clear
they weren't setting up a compact among sovereignies that remained
sovereign. What kind of sovereign is it that disarms itself? That yields
first claim on its citizens to someone else?
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri Feb 23 16:33:13 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id QAA28251
for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:33:10 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Fri Feb 23 16:33:10 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 SAA01408;
Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:32:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-193-234.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.193.234] id <1733926> 23 Feb 2001 18:26:44 EST
Message-ID: <004c01c09df1$cece9c60$eac1ca97@tower>
From: "James Kalb"
To: ae
References: <3A95D77A.3E83@provide.net> <008b01c09d86$95bddb40$e590ca97@tower> <3A96BC2B.3766@provide.net>
Subject: Re: Capitalism and Traditional Family Values
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:39:00 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: O
"It is clear that he DOES
think it matters what thinkers, teachers etc. believe is good,
right and true; vis: "This show is far worse than lascivious. It
turns human relationships into trivial, commercialized exchanges
in which couples trade what are supposed to be committed
relationships for a free vacation.""
He contrasted the show, a commercial enterprise like say prostitution, with
"liberals," apparently meaning people with explicit views about things that
they articulate and present to the world. Thinkers, teachers etc. are in the
latter category. The point of the piece is to say it's someone else, someone
other than the thinkers and teachers, who's doing the damage.
"The moral phenomena at
issue may be (and I suspect probably is) just as abhorred by him
as it is by you."
He seemed strangely indefinite and confused on the subject. He clearly looks
down on people (Falwell, Robertson etc.) who object to the moral phenomena
of casual sex categorically and simply as such. He says there's nothing
wrong with sex, which I suppose is OK as an abstract proposition along the
lines of "there is nothing wrong with money and power," and that it's
pleasant to look at attractive people without many clothes on, which again
is no doubt true, but the point of saying those things is left vague. It
seems to be a matter of wanting to distance himself from those other people,
the bluenoses.
He speaks as if it is the element of commerce and payment that makes
trivialized sex a bad thing. That doesn't make much sense to me. He's
bothered I think by what is in fact the liberal attitude toward sex, that
like all moral life it's essentially a contractual matter subject to
egalitarian constraints. He doesn't want to deal with fundamentals though,
because (in my interpretation) it would call too much into question. So the
way he deals with the situation is by attributing the bad things to the
people he views as bad guys, letting the good guys, his own class of
well-placed pontificators, experts, thinkers, etc., off the hook.
"Except that liberalism has different domains. There is economic
liberalism, and cultural liberalism. There can exist varying degrees
of each."
Don't know of many cultural liberals whose efforts point toward anything but
the moral trivialization of sex. For a cultural liberal to justify his class
by pointing the finger at someone else seems wrong to me.
"large institutional
and structural forces (like the apparatus of capitalism) can and
do have an impact on people and their ("individual") behaviors..."
Agree 100%. There are lots of problems. One basic problem is how to limit
the reach of the standards of the marketplace. The basic objection to
liberalism - I mean advanced contemporary liberalism - is that it
generalizes the fundamentals of those standards, the reduction of the good
to individual preference and the contractual understanding of social
relationships, and extends them to everything.
"Seems to me that it would be a much bigger stretch
-- much less plausible -- to suggest that "the [capitalist]
imperative to exploit our collective fascination with sex", of
which Dionne writes, has *nothing* do with people's behavior or
with moral decay."
Obviously the world's a complicated and mixed place. I certainly don't
defend Fox, their conduct is disgusting. I also think that love of money
needs to be restrained somehow or other. It seems to me for that very reason
that the theories about things presented by authoritative people -
well-placed prize-winning journalists like E.J. Dionne for example - are
very important. At present it is very difficult to protest effectively
against commercial exploitation of sex because the common moral
understanding held by all respectable and intellectually influential people
is that sex is up to the individual. Given that, it's hard to see why sex
work and the sex industry should be subject to discrimination rather than
treated as a business like other businesses. People like Falwell who think
the contrary and say so loudly and consistently are not respectable, they're
considered repressive bigots. So for someone in the class of respectable
opinionmakers to disclaim responsibility and to blame it all on those other
people, the capitalists, the people who have a different kind of power from
his own on whom he likes to blame things anyway, seems to me outrageous.
[An aside, in the nature of an explanation - I just finished a couple of
projects, which leaves me some free time, and injured my finger, which
leaves me in a somewhat worse humor than usual. Hence to some degree no
doubt the speed and manner of these responses. I think the things I say can
be justified though.]
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
Re: Traditions and coexistence
Tuesday, 20-Feb-01 09:56:24
151.202.145.235 writes:
The issue to my mind is what kind of public space commercial standards
can create. It seems to me the public space they create is the bazaar
- a space in which commerce takes place, and not much else, certainly
nothing that touches us deeply, and in particular not politics.
Politics, after all, requires common goods and identities sufficient
to motivate self-sacrifice, and commerce cannot provide such things.
That is why the normal form of government in bazaar societies is
dynastic despotism, a form in which the public plays no significant
role.
The United States is I think moving in that direction. If the trend
continues then I think a tolerable life will be possible, as in other
bazaar societies, only within the walls of inward-turning
ethnoreligious communities, and there will be enough of a premium on
such arrangements that that will be the direction things go.
Other possibilities include a single dominant world religion, one
perhaps accepted by a ruling elite governing a mass of superstitious
squabbling commoners, or conceivably a rebirth of the small state with
border controls and restricted citizenship. Or maybe some combination
of all the above.
Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri Feb 23 16:33:13 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id QAA28251
for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:33:10 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Fri Feb 23 16:33:10 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 SAA01408;
Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:32:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-193-234.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.193.234] id <1733926> 23 Feb 2001 18:26:44 EST
Message-ID: <004c01c09df1$cece9c60$eac1ca97@tower>
From: "James Kalb"
To: ae
References: <3A95D77A.3E83@provide.net> <008b01c09d86$95bddb40$e590ca97@tower> <3A96BC2B.3766@provide.net>
Subject: Re: Capitalism and Traditional Family Values
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:39:00 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: RO
"It is clear that he DOES
think it matters what thinkers, teachers etc. believe is good,
right and true; vis: "This show is far worse than lascivious. It
turns human relationships into trivial, commercialized exchanges
in which couples trade what are supposed to be committed
relationships for a free vacation.""
He contrasted the show, a commercial enterprise like say prostitution, with
"liberals," apparently meaning people with explicit views about things that
they articulate and present to the world. Thinkers, teachers etc. are in the
latter category. The point of the piece is to say it's someone else, someone
other than the thinkers and teachers, who's doing the damage.
"The moral phenomena at
issue may be (and I suspect probably is) just as abhorred by him
as it is by you."
He seemed strangely indefinite and confused on the subject. He clearly looks
down on people (Falwell, Robertson etc.) who object to the moral phenomena
of casual sex categorically and simply as such. He says there's nothing
wrong with sex, which I suppose is OK as an abstract proposition along the
lines of "there is nothing wrong with money and power," and that it's
pleasant to look at attractive people without many clothes on, which again
is no doubt true, but the point of saying those things is left vague. It
seems to be a matter of wanting to distance himself from those other people,
the bluenoses.
He speaks as if it is the element of commerce and payment that makes
trivialized sex a bad thing. That doesn't make much sense to me. He's
bothered I think by what is in fact the liberal attitude toward sex, that
like all moral life it's essentially a contractual matter subject to
egalitarian constraints. He doesn't want to deal with fundamentals though,
because (in my interpretation) it would call too much into question. So the
way he deals with the situation is by attributing the bad things to the
people he views as bad guys, letting the good guys, his own class of
well-placed pontificators, experts, thinkers, etc., off the hook.
"Except that liberalism has different domains. There is economic
liberalism, and cultural liberalism. There can exist varying degrees
of each."
Don't know of many cultural liberals whose efforts point toward anything but
the moral trivialization of sex. For a cultural liberal to justify his class
by pointing the finger at someone else seems wrong to me.
"large institutional
and structural forces (like the apparatus of capitalism) can and
do have an impact on people and their ("individual") behaviors..."
Agree 100%. There are lots of problems. One basic problem is how to limit
the reach of the standards of the marketplace. The basic objection to
liberalism - I mean advanced contemporary liberalism - is that it
generalizes the fundamentals of those standards, the reduction of the good
to individual preference and the contractual understanding of social
relationships, and extends them to everything.
"Seems to me that it would be a much bigger stretch
-- much less plausible -- to suggest that "the [capitalist]
imperative to exploit our collective fascination with sex", of
which Dionne writes, has *nothing* do with people's behavior or
with moral decay."
Obviously the world's a complicated and mixed place. I certainly don't
defend Fox, their conduct is disgusting. I also think that love of money
needs to be restrained somehow or other. It seems to me for that very reason
that the theories about things presented by authoritative people -
well-placed prize-winning journalists like E.J. Dionne for example - are
very important. At present it is very difficult to protest effectively
against commercial exploitation of sex because the common moral
understanding held by all respectable and intellectually influential people
is that sex is up to the individual. Given that, it's hard to see why sex
work and the sex industry should be subject to discrimination rather than
treated as a business like other businesses. People like Falwell who think
the contrary and say so loudly and consistently are not respectable, they're
considered repressive bigots. So for someone in the class of respectable
opinionmakers to disclaim responsibility and to blame it all on those other
people, the capitalists, the people who have a different kind of power from
his own on whom he likes to blame things anyway, seems to me outrageous.
[An aside, in the nature of an explanation - I just finished a couple of
projects, which leaves me some free time, and injured my finger, which
leaves me in a somewhat worse humor than usual. Hence to some degree no
doubt the speed and manner of these responses. I think the things I say can
be justified though.]
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
Tradition and Concrete Politics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think of traditionalism as mostly an intellectual movement, more one
that ought to happen than one that actually exists. When liberalism
absolutely dominates public discussion, so that nothing at odds with
it can be seen as rational or well-meant, it's hard to defeat it or
even slow it down. So I think that making a principled contrary case
could be surprisingly effective.
There's also of course the traditionalism of private life. In addition
though we all have a day-to-day public role as voters and so on. So
are there any specific parties, causes, issues and so on that
traditionalists should support and be active in?
Jim Kalb
Re: Tradition and Concrete Politics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that's right. There aren't any large rightwing organizations,
everyone wants to set up his own. Maybe that's the curse of
particularism. I notice you've picked up on the British spelling
though, which I suppose is a concrete way of flying the flag.
How's the response to Southern nationalism or whatever version you favor?
Jim Kalb
Re: Tradition and Concrete Politics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The thought is that liberal dominance rests on the unavailability of
any other outlook. The function of PC, sensitivity training etc. is to
keep other outlooks unavailable. Liberalism has to keep up the
appearance of open discussion while suppressing the substance, since
the arguments for liberalism today aren't what they were. That's not
easy.
To the extent all that is true then insisting on some other outlook
could knock out one of the major props of liberalism. Your activity in
starting an alternative publication is an example of the sort of
intellectual activism that if duplicated often and everywhere could I
think change things.
Jim Kalb
Re: AntiFeminism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I take it you are in Europe? There seem to be many educated converts
to Islam there.
Most of the ones I know of seem to be attracted to Sufism, perhaps
because it is esoteric and mystical and so presents an alternative to
the absolutely public, demonstrable and this-worldly modern world.
Also I suppose because all it is supported by a definite public law
and system of life. I speak as an outsider though.
Jim Kalb
Re: on coexistence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The obvious precedent is the traditional middle east, where various
traditions lived cheek-by-jowl and survived by withdrawing into
separate walled inward-turning communities ruled collectively by some
dynastic despotism. Not ideal, but better than perpetual MTV, and
maybe we'll end up with something similar.
Jim Kalb
Re: more about coexistence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This really isn't anything that can be planned. The thought is that if
the public culture is all-intrusive but can't sustain life because it
can't support non-hedonistic standards then separatists - people who
put up barriers around the way they live high enough to keep out TV,
public education etc. - will be at an advantage. They will be the only
ones with functional families raising socialized children in
sufficient numbers to carry forward a coherent way of life. What works
prevails, so eventually groups of such people would become dominant.
Such people of course would not participate in public life. That's
what would define and save them. So in the public sphere you would
basically have pursuers of private satisfactions, lumpenproletarians,
self-seeking careerist yuppies, and maybe a few idealists, whose
idealism could be no more than a personal quirk. I don't think that's
enough to sustain a free government.
It's not a matter of preference. I prefer the Western type of society
with a free government and active public life. I just doubt such a
thing can continue to exist. Dissolute multicultural empires are not
free societies. The question then becomes how a somewhat tolerable
life can be carried on under such conditions.
Jim Kalb
Re: coexistence and practical politics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The discussion has wandered a bit. We have just been talking about
likely long-term consequences if current trends continue. Those trends
are long-standing and powerful, so they have to be taken seriously.
The point of concrete political action though is to provide an
alternative.
Obviously traditions differ. Particular standards are necessary for
any actual society, though, and some particular tradition must be at
the base of any particular set of standards. One could have a
Christian society, an Islamic society, or a contemporary liberal
society (if you ignore for the sake of discussion the intrinsic
incoherence of such an arrangement), but not one that is all three or
even one that satisfies the demands of two of the three.
Every society therefore must have some dominant tradition. The
arrangement of which I was just speaking, the traditional Levantine
arrangement of inward-turning ethno-religious communities ruled by a
dynastic despotism, is less a society than a collection of
nonterritorial societies. Liberalism is a tradition like any other,
one that like all traditions claims authority for its own particular
standards. It also claims to provide universally tolerant
metastandards but that's obviously an illusion. It just buys its
standards a sort of invisibility at the price of vacancy.
To the extent one prefers public life and a free society, which I do,
he will therefore work toward a society in which a particular
substantive tradition is dominant, or at least in which a family of
traditions is dominant with their conflicts mitigated by a federal
scheme.
In America I think that means a Christian society. The alternative is
a purely liberal society, which I don't think can remain free because
the moral vacancy of the public sphere won't support political life.
Naturally you can't simply force a Christian society into existence.
However, the standard extreme-right agenda would help:
1. Repeal of equal opportunity laws would permit cultural standards to
have authority in particular places and within particular institutions
even when views on such things differ among various groups within the
society.
2. Ditto for state's rights, greater local control of schools, greater
subsidiarity generally.
3. Cutting back on welfare and state education would increase the
practical necessity of family ties, and family is the fundamental
vehicle for transmission of substantive tradition.
4. Restrictions on immigration would limit diversity and allow the
various groups already here to accommodate themselves to each other.
5. Tariffs and other restrictions on participation in the world market
would also encourage those already here to establish connections to
each other and otherwise work together.
6. Abandonment of world empire would reduce the need for
centralization and permit government to be more responsive to the
people.
7. Getting rid of enforced secularism goes without saying.
All these amount - in various ways - to fighting the universal
rational hedonistic egalitarian empire.
Concrete enough for you?
Jim Kalb
Feminism in Islam and Christianity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Continuation of a discussion started elsewhere]
I can see that Islam offers clearer specific guidance on the relation
between the sexes, because it has a comprehensive system of law that
defines a specific way of life. On the other hand it seems to me that
feminism in anything like its current form is at odds with
Christianity as well, and in fact is part of a general abandonment of
Christianity through transformation into modern secular liberalism.
Jim Kalb
Re: This will get me branded
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously there's a lot of gross dishonesty about everything connected
with race.
It seems to me the best thing would be to restrict immigration
radically and get rid of the antidiscrimination laws. (I hope it goes
without saying, but maybe it doesn't since discussion of these issues
is so bizarre, that the ordinary laws for the enforcement of
contracts, against murder, etc. should be enforced equally for all.)
If that were done accommodations among various ethnic groups could be
worked out, people could deal with the people they found most
rewarding to deal with, and troubled communities would be put more on
their own resources, which I think would be beneficial to them at
least as much as to others. Another major benefit would be that if
there were no requirement that 27% of all brain surgeons be Bulgarian
when 27% of the population is Bulgarian there would be no particular
demand for theories why the requirement isn't met, which always make
people very annoyed with each other.
Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Mar 12 17:55:26 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id RAA22450
for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 17:55:21 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Mon Mar 12 17:55:21 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 TAA26533;
Mon, 12 Mar 2001 19:56:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-6-221.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.6.221] id <1949531> 12 Mar 2001 19:49:46 EST
Message-ID: <002401c0ab58$8f2c70e0$0762fea9@pavilion>
From: "James Kalb"
To: Cr
References:
Subject: Re: Fw: [Paleo] Just a reminder
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 19:57:18 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: RO
Paleoconservatism isn't much of a movement, I agree. As a practical
political movement it doesn't exist, and since there's no particular need to
be responsible some people become stupid and self-indulgent. To me though
it's mostly a question of where and with whom it's possible to raise the
issues and discuss the ideas I find worthwhile so I don't much care what
would happen if Lew Rockwell became president.
The basic problem I think is that there isn't much prospect for moderation
in an age in which for starters all reputable authorities consider it
absolutely fundamental to public morality to abolish gender and particular
culture as principles of social order.
Given that, the ideal is the administered society. Maybe free markets can
play an important role within the limits set by the administrators but
there's really no prospect for limited government, rejection of social
engineering, civility, or substantive public discussion. Civility means a
common code of manners, which isn't multicultural, and substantive public
discussion means the people are free to overrule the administrators, which
isn't the idea at all.
It seems to me the role of moderates is mostly to reduce friction and put a
good face on things by making it seem that there's been some thought
involved. Why bother? Understanding the issues, raising them with anyone who
will listen and maintaining principle seems to me more important because
it's more likely to broaden the possibilities of what can be done when
favorable circumstances do arise.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Mar 12 10:13:13 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id KAA12318
for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 10:13:11 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Mon Mar 12 10:13:11 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 MAA17789
for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:14:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-6-221.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.6.221] for jkalb@nyx.net id <1942094> 12 Mar 2001 12:07:40 EST
Message-ID: <002201c0ab17$fe128d00$0762fea9@pavilion>
From: "James Kalb"
To: "Jim Kalb"
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:15:09 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: RO
You're right of course that this all needs to be developed with examples
etc. Thanks for taking the trouble to look at these very early notes.
It does seem to me that equality and freedom are the perfect formal
principles because what they tell us is not to look at considerations other
than themselves. Equality says "nothing else is relevant because you have to
come to the same answer anyway" and freedom says "nothing else is relevant
because there are no external controls."
You say:
"Maybe you're answer would be that of anti-transcendent systems, only
liberalism claims to be involved in discourse, aka free speech (classical
liberalism) or "conversation" (post-modern liberalism)."
That's most of the answer. What makes that answer stronger is that
liberalism has won because it was the right way to reject the transcendent,
the way that best maintained the fundamental principle of the prior
situation, the position of the Word, while still abolishing transcendence.
Fascism tried to make pure decision do duty for transcendence. Communism
tried to make human material need (the conception of man as essentially a
worker who transforms nature in order to satisfy his material needs). Both
responses became incoherent to the point of unworkability much sooner than
liberalism.
If my responses are also incoherent to the point of unworkability I
apologize.
jk
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Mar 12 05:41:50 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id FAA27833
for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 05:41:48 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Mon Mar 12 05:41:48 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 HAA00473;
Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:42:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-6-221.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.6.221] id <1938609> 12 Mar 2001 07:36:15 EST
Message-ID: <005101c0aaf2$181f83e0$0762fea9@pavilion>
From: "James Kalb"
To: "La
References: <000201c0aaa1$298f7d20$995d580c@h6l3p>
Subject: Re: absolute discourse
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:43:51 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: O
Thanks for the comments!
"The distinction you make between the Bible-related religions and the
Eastern religions is ok and worth making, but at most as a kind of general
setting of the stage."
[Agreed. The point of raising it is to show the absolutely fundamental role
of the Word in human life by a brief survey of the various possibilities.
It's hard to get a perspective on fundamentals and this seemed a way to do
it.]
"I'm not sure it's correct to suggest a link between Eastern religions as
such and conventionalism such as that of the Mohists you describe."
[The intention of the passage as a whole was to suggest that China is
religiously somewhat like the West (in comparison to India), since Heaven
has purposes in human life and does particular things, and since it was
fundamental for Confucius that words had true meanings known through
tradition. In Mohism (socialism) and Legalism (fascism) the meaning of words
becomes established by human will. In China loss of connection to the
transcendent thus had consequences for the status of the Word that
correspond somewhat to its consequences in the West.]
"(Fitting Seraphim Rose's wonderful definition of liberalism in its aspect
as an early stage of nihilism--that liberalism denies the essence of truth
but still keeps the form of truth.)"
[That seems accurate to me.]
">The absolute word must be authoritative and independent of all else. That
>means that discourse must procede in accordance with purely formal rules
>that determine everything in advance. Recent talk about "dialog" and
>"conversation" as the basis for all things is not mistaken but somewhat
>misleading. Since no substantive considerations can be relevant - otherwise
>the discourse would depend on something outside itself and thus not be
>absolute - the outcome of the dialog must be determined by its conditions
if
>it is to be of any use - come to any conclusions - at all.
You are making a huge leap here, from the assertion of an autonomous human
discourse in rejection of God to the idea that such discourse must be
formalistic. That may be true, but it's such a startling idea that it seems
to me you need to build up to it, not just announce it."
[It seems to me the argument is there - the discourse must be independent of
everything external to itself but nonetheless dispose of all issues. That
means it must be able to decide everything without reference to any
substantive considerations, which could only originate in something outside
the discourse. It must therefore be subject to formal - nonsubstantive -
requirements that decide everything in advance.]
">The principles of dialog must therefore be equality and freedom, equality
>because it denies the relevance of substantive distinctions and freedom
>because it denies merely given limitations. Those things - substantive
>distinctions and merely given limitations - must be denied for human
>discouse to be absolute because if they were not denied the authority of
>something outside the discourse would be recognized. Freedom and equality
>are therefore necessary principles. And once they are admitted they
>determine all else.
The above is even more provocative. You're saying, once there is such
absolute discourse, its content will necessarily be that of liberalism. But
why couldn't absolute discourse have a content of monarchy or oligarchy or
race worship or whatever?"
[For discourse to be absolute, in the absence of God, how it comes out must
be independent of whose discourse it is. Otherwise you would have created a
new God. That's another reason it must be totally formalistic and
preordained in all respects. In particular it can involve no decisions.
Otherwise it becomes fascism - pure worship of power - which is based on the
act and not the word.
So the absolute discourse has to give you answers without bringing in
substantive considerations or making a decision. That can happen only if
distinctions are irrelevant and external limitations nonexistent, that is
only if equality is and freedom apply. Monarchy etc. involve a decision and
therefore correspond to discouse that is not absolute.]
">Postmoderns who believe only in conversation
Did this come from the anecdote I told you about my conversation with my
relative's husband?"
[It's in the air. One keeps hearing references to such ideas. Your
relative's husband does not seem an original thinker.]
">The role of the chattering classes, the media, spin, buzz, the
>concentration on the sociology of knowledge - establishing truth by
>political means, positioning people who reliably say the right things as
the
>experts.
Here the fact that you don't follow contemporary media very much may limit
the evidence you have at hand to back this assertion up. But it is a very
fruitful area for you to explore your thesis of a purely formal truth. I am
referring to the incredibly formalistic format of most stories in the major
news media
[Do you know of a good written summary of this aspect of the media?]
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Sat Mar 10 09:48:51 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id JAA02633
for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 09:48:50 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sat Mar 10 09:48:50 2001, Sender=James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 LAA13993
for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 11:49:57 -0500 (EST)
Message-id: <1927168@doc.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 10 Mar 2001 11:43:23 EST
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: A henpecked husband (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69)
To: jkalb@nyx.net
Status: RO
Thanks for your note.
I agree that feminism like the rest of modern political, social and moral
thought is basically an aspect of atheism. I also agree that the opposition
between atheism and nonatheism dwarfs other differences.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat Mar 10 07:08:23 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id HAA20455
for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 07:08:21 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sat Mar 10 07:08:21 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 JAA18556
for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 09:09:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-68-74.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.68.74] for jkalb@nyx.net id <1926531> 10 Mar 2001 09:02:54 EST
Message-ID: <004901c0a96b$d3b01120$0762fea9@pavilion>
From: "James Kalb"
To: "Jim Kalb"
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 09:10:13 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: RO
Andy Fear writes:
"Surely in the
60s all that happened in the rebel colonies was that the government decided
to take the notion of the separation of religion and state seriously whereas
in the past it had merely nodded towards this in a formal manner."
I'm not altogether sure what you mean by rebel colonies, I'm not sure what
loyalty we ever owed to the Elector of Hanover, but if it's the United
States you're referring to it wasn't so much formal => serious as serious =>
absolute.
I doubt that you'd be interested in the history. One point does seem worth
making though. Liberalism is a secular ideology. It is therefore hard to
maintain the idea that although true and authoritative it is not wholly
within our grasp and so in principle impossible to implement directly and
comprehensively. Unlike religion, liberalism like other secular ideologies
lacks an inner principle of limitation and humility and so tends toward
overreaching and fanaticism.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu Mar 8 20:21:38 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id UAA08560
for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 20:21:36 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Thu Mar 8 20:21:36 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 WAA13806;
Thu, 8 Mar 2001 22:22:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-78-110.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.78.110] id <1909220> 08 Mar 2001 22:16:02 EST
Message-ID: <001d01c0a848$42405d40$0762fea9@pavilion>
From: "James Kalb"
To: "La
References: <00ef01c0a83c$c2454e80$6355580c@h6l3p>
Subject: Re: absolute discourse
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 22:23:04 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: O
I'm not sure either what if anything it adds to what's been said already.
Seems worth pursuing though at least for a while. Here are some notes I put
together. If any of it makes sense to you, fine, if not, that's fine too at
this stage.
1. Liberalism is the attempt to make human discourse as such absolute.
The word is what commands, and what settles meaning. It is therefore at the
foundation of any meaningful world and so of any world that matters to us.
Since liberalism abolishes the transcendent it must make the human word a
standard beyond which there is no other.
2. Major Western religions recognize the Divine Word as fundamental:
In the beginning was the Word
The Koran as the uncreated word of Allah
Orthodox belief that God made the world in accordance with Torah
Liberalism is secularized Christianity. The absolute Divine Word must
therefore be replaced by the absolute human word.
Eastern religions that do not treat the word as fundamental - Hinduism,
Buddhism, Taoism - do not see a personal righteous God at the bottom of
things and tend to treat the world as illusory. They are not political
religions and do not give rise to political ideologies.
In spite of Taoism, China is on the whole an intermediate case. Its religion
is not wholly impersonal. Confucius for example accepted the authority of
Heaven, which had plans and intentions, could be pleased or displeased, and
intervened in human affairs. In China the
rectification of names was therefore an important issue.
Confucius treated meanings as having an element of truth known through
tradition. In contrast, Mohists and Legalists treated meanings as
conventional and established by the ruler, in accordance with the desires
and needs of the people in the case of the Mohists or the will and interests
of the ruler in the case of the Legalists. They therefore tended, like
liberals and indeed leftists generally, to take the absolute human word as a
substitute for the divine word.
3. What can it possibly mean to treat human discourse as absolute?
First, note that it is necessary that it be absolute if we are to inhabit
(as we demand) a moral cosmos but that cosmos is nonetheless to be secular.
We therefore insist that it have the characteristics of the absolute even if
that doesn't make sense.
The absolute word must be authoritative and independent of all else. That
means that discourse must procede in accordance with purely formal rules
that determine everything in advance. Recent talk about "dialog" and
"conversation" as the basis for all things is not mistaken but somewhat
misleading. Since no substantive considerations can be relevant - otherwise
the discourse would depend on something outside itself and thus not be
absolute - the outcome of the dialog must be determined by its conditions if
it is to be of any use - come to any conclusions - at all.
The principles of dialog must therefore be equality and freedom, equality
because it denies the relevance of substantive distinctions and freedom
because it denies merely given limitations. Those things - substantive
distinctions and merely given limitations - must be denied for human
discouse to be absolute because if they were not denied the authority of
something outside the discourse would be recognized. Freedom and equality
are therefore necessary principles. And once they are admitted they
determine all else.
3. Evidence:
The Founding Documents of the United States, conceived as somehow bringing
themselves into existence and creating our political cosmos.
The consequent role of the judiciary in modern American government.
The demand for absolute expressive freedom, together with PC.
Postmoderns who believe only in conversation, and just refuse to talk to
people who aren't liberals (Rorty).
Academic theories about self-referentiality etc.
The role of the chattering classes, the media, spin, buzz, the
concentration on the sociology of knowledge - establishing truth by
political means, positioning people who reliably say the right things as the
experts.
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu Mar 8 06:34:49 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id GAA12012
for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 06:34:43 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Thu Mar 8 06:34:43 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 IAA23237;
Thu, 8 Mar 2001 08:35:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-123-206.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.123.206] id <1896833> 08 Mar 2001 08:29:06 EST
Message-ID: <002b01c0a7d4$bbe31260$6464fea9@dads>
From: "James Kalb"
To: paleo@yahoogroups.com
References:
Subject: Re: [Paleo] Digest Number 235
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 08:36:07 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: RO
Andy Fear writes:
"Even what now seems trivial often turns out not to be. I
would still contend that one of the roots of conservatism is a wish to cling
to the familiar, regardless of its "worth"."
I agree that conservatism simply as such is the view that the past and
tradition have their own authority. How much authority though? What do you
do when there are other considerations? How do you respond to objections and
carry on political life when not everyone is a conservative? In order to
deal with such questions coherently an actual conservative viewpoint has to
have other roots as well, and include an articulate defensible notion of the
relative importance of things. Principles like everything else effectual are
both dangerous and indispensible. Without them conservatism I think reduces
to pure useless hand-wringing scepticism.
"What worries me
is when people take the claims of religion seriously. That will then lead to
the unravelling of the conservative project."
You seem to want to make the conservative project perfectly safe through
adoption of principles that abolish its inner instabilities. That can't be
done.
Any non-despotic society in a world subject to contingency and conflict has
to have common commitments and understandings sufficient to motivate serious
personal sacrifice. It seems to me that the commitments and understandings
have to go beyond the given facts of the society and its history, and that
they have to be something that can be shared, stated, taught, expressed in
watchwords, thought about, and on reflection taken seriously enough to
justify risk of life. They have in fact to be something very like religion,
something not reducible to social fact that can indeed conflict with social
fact and so risk unravelling all sorts of things.
If you have to have something very like religion, it seems to me best for it
actually to be religion. Religion after all involves the view that there is
truth, to which we owe absolute loyalty, but it is not with us it is with
God. That is why for us here and now, when we necessarily see through a
glass darkly, there are things of Caesar as well as things of God, and
especially in matters involving social relations dogmatism and self-will are
to be avoided and mutual forbearance cultivated (see Paul's letters on
social relations within self-governing communities).
"> I don't understand the apparent claim that most forms of religious belief
> hold that not only can we know correct doctrine but we can also possess it
> fully so that out of its explicit internal self-contained resources it
gives
> a us a comprehensive set of answers.
But most religions do make those claims in their serious forms, it's just
that mercifully they have to compromise with the real world. This is why I
used the word sectary. Most people give a nodding acceptance to religion."
You seem to have your own definition of serious religion. To my mind serious
religion is religion that forms one's grasp of what the world is about, so
that it seriously affects thought and conduct. It does not mean that secular
sciences, including the science of politics, are not allowed their own
methods and subject matter. I don't think that view's my own invention.
Thomas Aquinas, to pick an example, recognizes the need for a positive human
law in addition to divine and natural law and quotes Augustine in support.
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Mar 7 10:24:21 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id KAA22449
for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 10:24:19 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Wed Mar 7 10:24:19 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 MAA15129;
Wed, 7 Mar 2001 12:25:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-122-176.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.122.176] id <1883622> 07 Mar 2001 12:18:39 EST
Message-ID: <002201c0a72b$9d17f840$6464fea9@dads>
From: "James Kalb"
To: "La
References: <000c01c0a725$bc62e440$b159580c@h6l3p>
Subject: Re: your reply to jonah goldberg at lewrockwell
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 12:25:28 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: RO
"The absence of an external or internal check on one's opinions is a
culture-wide phenomenon that precedes the Internet."
Agreed. The letters to the editor column of any newspaper is a horrible
example. Hardly any of those who write to the Times and get their letters
published seem ever to have had the experience of having to explain and
defend themselves, or to think through their positions and make them the
least bit coherent and defensible. They don't even seem aware of such things
as possibilities.
jk
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Mar 7 07:35:43 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id HAA13650
for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 07:35:41 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Wed Mar 7 07:35:41 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 JAA19539
for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 09:36:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-80-80.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.80.80] for jkalb@nyx.net id <1880389> 07 Mar 2001 09:30:04 EST
Message-ID: <004b01c0a714$119473a0$6464fea9@dads>
From: "James Kalb"
To: "Jim Kalb"
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 09:36:58 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: RO
Michael Smith writes:
"Is big government always opposed to the majority culture of its subject
population, or is this a recent development? Was this opposition manifest
or implicit in 1913 or 1933, 1941, 1947 or 1964 or did it come about later?"
My impression is that there was a change in the 60s. The "conformist 50s"
means that big government sided with the majority culture. The effect of the
school prayer decisions was to recognize government as an absolute rather
than subordinate element in the moral cosmos, and the effect of the civil
rights laws was to declare the duty of government to reconstruct the social
order comprehensively. Given that the majority culture had nothing to stand
on and its authority had to be eliminated as a hindrance to the
reconstructive project.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Mar 7 07:32:23 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id HAA13474
for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 07:32:21 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Wed Mar 7 07:32:21 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 JAA04656;
Wed, 7 Mar 2001 09:33:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-80-80.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.80.80] id <1880342> 07 Mar 2001 09:26:42 EST
Message-ID: <003701c0a713$9976f0a0$6464fea9@dads>
From: "James Kalb"
To: paleo@yahoogroups.com
References:
Subject: Re: [Paleo] romance
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 09:33:37 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: RO
Andy Fear writes:
"Conservatism is about hanging onto the
past in the sense of not wishing to have a radical break with it."
Since the past leads up to the present there is never a radical break in the
abstract, barring foreign conquest or maybe sectarian coup d'etat. In the
United States and in England we have had neither, at least not for a very
long time. So this statement seems to tell us nothing in the absence of a
vivid sense of what it is that is valuable in the past.
I don't see how useful such a sense of things can be unless it can be talked
about, argued over and taught, which seems to require that it take the form
of stable principles. If you put the sense of the past in that form though
you get something authoritative that is not altogether reducible to the past
and I don't see how it can be distinguished from a religious doctrine. The
short of it is that I don't see how a society without some sort of
established religion or something very like it can be conservative.
"Religious
sectaries are happy to break with the past because they have decided that
their narrow view of humanity is so perfect that nothing can be learnt from
it. This seems to me a radically non-conservative attitude. It is of course
the correct attitude for most forms of religious belief "
I don't understand the apparent claim that most forms of religious belief
hold that not only can we know correct doctrine but we can also possess it
fully so that out of its explicit internal self-contained resources it gives
a us a comprehensive set of answers. That kind of belief seems to make
nonsense of things like humility and prayer, not to mention tradition, which
some religious beliefs do consider important.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Mar 7 07:02:54 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id HAA12392
for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 07:02:52 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Wed Mar 7 07:02:52 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 JAA06971;
Wed, 7 Mar 2001 09:03:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-80-80.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.80.80] id <1879967> 07 Mar 2001 08:57:13 EST
Message-ID: <002f01c0a70f$7ade2220$6464fea9@dads>
From: "James Kalb"
To: paleo@yahoogroups.com
References: <200103070100.RAA02799@mail4.bigmailbox.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [Paleo] Shamrocks=hate crimes
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 09:04:07 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: RO
Michael Smith writes:
"Is big government always opposed to the majority culture of its subject
population, or is this a recent development? Was this opposition manifest
or implicit in 1913 or 1933, 1941, 1947 or 1964 or did it come about later?"
My impression is that there was a change in the 60s. The "conformist 50s"
means that big government sided with the majority culture. The effect of the
school prayer decisions was to recognize government as an absolute rather
than subordinate element in the moral cosmos, and the effect of the civil
rights laws was to declare the duty of government to reconstruct the social
order comprehensively. Given that the majority culture had nothing to stand
on and its authority had to be eliminated as a hindrance to the
reconstructive project.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Mar 7 06:37:36 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id GAA11582
for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 06:37:34 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Wed Mar 7 06:37:34 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 IAA17935;
Wed, 7 Mar 2001 08:38:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-80-80.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.80.80] id <1879620> 07 Mar 2001 08:31:55 EST
Message-ID: <001101c0a70b$f1900400$6464fea9@dads>
From: "James Kalb"
To: "St
References: <000901c0a6fd$507a4160$d64e36d4@elecomp>
Subject: Re: For your information
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 08:38:48 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: RO
Good luck in Denmark. It's horrible to watch one's country being abolished
by its own leaders.
That seems against nature. How can it happen? I suppose part of it is
getting used to experts and the state running things. Experts and the state
don't like nationality, the family, etc. because the latter represent
competing principles of social organization, so they do everything they can
to weaken and eventually get rid of them.
Also I suppose it's a consequence of prosperity and technology, leading to
the consumer society - short-term individual gratification becomes abundant
and easy to get, so that's what people pay attention to.
I think it will end horribly, tyranny mitigated only by corruption, but
nothing is inevitable. I am happy to hear from someone who is resisting, and
even happier if anything I have written can help people understand what is
going on.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Mar 6 14:59:48 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id OAA05917
for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 14:59:45 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Tue Mar 6 14:59:45 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 RAA11980;
Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:00:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-122-210.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.122.210] id <1871931> 06 Mar 2001 16:53:59 EST
Message-ID: <004e01c0a688$e5e61c80$6464fea9@dads>
From: "James Kalb"
To: "La
References: <002f01c0a681$6fa12e40$f556580c@h6l3p>
Subject: Re: more lincoln
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:00:33 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: RO
It's true I haven't worked through the thought at all well yet.
Part of the difficulty is that there is of course no absolute discourse
(except the Divine Word). So in a sense whatever it is I'm talking about
can't have a definition because it doesn't exist.
What does exist is a demand that human discourse purely as such create the
world and a bunch of attempts to make things comply with the demand. All of
which is no doubt clear as mud, which is my fault.
jk
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Mar 6 11:06:10 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id LAA21746
for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:06:07 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Tue Mar 6 11:06:07 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 NAA24963;
Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:06:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from 151.202.122.0 [151.202.122.0] id <1867861> 06 Mar 2001 13:00:22 EST
Message-ID: <002e01c0a668$41d8a2e0$6464fea9@dads>
From: "James Kalb"
To: paleo@yahoogroups.com
References: <200103061729.JAA07592@mail10.bigmailbox.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [Paleo] Shamrocks=hate crimes
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:07:04 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: RO
Michael Smith writes:
"This raises a question about communitarianism and multiculturalism. People
are encouraged to be more a part of a "community," but then so many of the
symbols of communities are attacked as being "exclusive" by the same
authorities who profess to encourage community spirit. Can there be a
community without some exclusivity? Do away with so many expressions of
community spirit or pride and what's left?"
But it's only the symbols of some communities that get suppressed. There's
quite a large menorah that the Lubavitchers put up displayed on public
ground in Grand Army Plaza in Brooklyn every year and no one seems to mind.
The distinction doesn't seem altogether unprincipled though. The rule is
that the symbols of the dominant culture get suppressed, those of minority
cultures promoted, with the ultimate goal the creation of a totally
administered and therefore wholly a-cultural form of society. It is the
essence of culture that it provides common standards, so multiculturalism is
simply the abolition of culture.
As for communitarianism, it doesn't exist except as a distraction.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Mar 6 06:00:59 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id GAA07597
for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 06:00:50 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Tue Mar 6 06:00:50 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 IAA04930;
Tue, 6 Mar 2001 08:01:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-121-4.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.121.4] id <1863667> 06 Mar 2001 07:55:08 EST
Message-ID: <004c01c0a63d$9e5413e0$6464fea9@dads>
From: "James Kalb"
To: "La
References: <001c01c0a5fa$3671ab40$f054580c@h6l3p>
Subject: Re: more lincoln
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 08:01:53 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: RO
It's a good statement of the point I think.
I note that it also presents America as a polity based on word magic that
transcends all other considerations and has only a strictly formal content -
formal because equality denies distinctions, freedom limitations,
universality both, so the three together deny a substantial moral world.
In short, absolute discourse - America itself is the word made flesh!
jk
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Mar 5 14:30:32 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id OAA00954
for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 14:30:27 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Mon Mar 5 14:30:27 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 QAA11060
for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 16:30:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-123-166.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.123.166] for jkalb@nyx.net id <1855913> 05 Mar 2001 16:24:05 EST
Message-ID: <006201c0a5bb$8ada3ec0$6464fea9@dads>
From: "James Kalb"
To: "Jim Kalb"
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 16:30:34 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: RO
Some people there's not much point talking to. What's worse is that
manipulating the attempt to find common ground has become a skill. What that
shows I think is that you're not going to set things straight by next week.
You can say what you have to say, talk to whoever is willing to listen, but
it doesn't make sense to waste time trying to have an effect on people who
basically aren't interested.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Mar 5 13:11:40 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id NAA26464
for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 13:11:37 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Mon Mar 5 13:11:37 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 PAA15469;
Mon, 5 Mar 2001 15:12:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-123-166.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.123.166] id <1854537> 05 Mar 2001 15:05:47 EST
Message-ID: <000e01c0a5b0$98ed75a0$6464fea9@dads>
From: "James Kalb"
To: "La
References: <000801c0a585$b0326520$ed74580c@h6l3p>
Subject: Re: Lincoln on persuasion
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 15:12:22 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: RO
"I'll have to think more about what you mean by "make discourse absolute."
But on first reading what you're saying reminds me of an incident I'm sure
I've mentioned to you"
Making discourse absolute is of course a phantasy, like making any other
human institution absolute. "In the beginning was the Word" only applies to
the divine Word. So in a sense it's hard to say just what it means, although
I think it can be shown to be a goal that any number of things point toward.
I'll try to develop the idea more . I'm glad that you have run into someone
who not only believes in the phantasy but is articulate enough to express it
as such. (Actually, you hadn't told me the story.)
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Mar 5 08:33:37 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id IAA10761
for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:33:35 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Mon Mar 5 08:33:35 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA28364;
Mon, 5 Mar 2001 10:34:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-122-201.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.122.201] id <1849972> 05 Mar 2001 10:27:48 EST
Message-ID: <000201c0a589$c240c0a0$6464fea9@dads>
From: "James Kalb"
To: "La
References: <000b01c0a534$da0de500$7358580c@h6l3p>
Subject: Re: revised notes on Lincoln's political philosophy--delete previous message
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 09:07:26 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: RO
Looked at your notes. Lincoln seems to me to represent the basic American
problem, the problem of explicit liberal principles that to make sense need
a traditionalist background that they undermine.
His notion of rising in the world seems to require a world within which one
rises that makes the rise social and moral and not simply a matter of
individual advantage. The notion doesn't make much sense if both the family
and all notion of legitimate social distinctions have been abolished.
The problem is that Lincoln doesn't seem (I am no Lincoln scholar) to
recognize and take into account the necessity of that background, he takes
it for granted, and so his principle that we should be able to make
ourselves, free of the limitations imposed by circumstance, tends to expand
without limit.
That expansion should not be attributed to Lincoln if there was something at
least implicit within his thought that could limit it. What though would
that have been? As to religion he was a freethinker, so that doesn't seem to
help much. The relations between the races and sexes raise the issue of the
limitations of individualism most vividly. As to race, Lincoln tended I
think to want to send blacks back to Africa, which means he didn't want to
deal with the issue. As to sex I don't know what his views were. If he ever
said much on the matter I suppose we would have heard about it. If that's
right then it appears he may simply have been a conventionalist - again, a
failure to deal with the issue.
So all we're left with to limit the expansion of the principle of man making
himself is that it can't expand to the point of incoherence. That's not a
workable limitation, though, which is the problem the Republicans have.
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Mar 5 05:41:59 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id FAA04972
for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 05:41:54 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Mon Mar 5 05:41:54 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 HAA01603;
Mon, 5 Mar 2001 07:42:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-80-54.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.80.54] id <1848187> 05 Mar 2001 07:36:09 EST
Message-ID: <000e01c0a571$c7af0f00$6464fea9@dads>
From: "James Kalb"
To: "La
References: <001601c0a522$78b25c80$2e73580c@h6l3p>
Subject: Re: Lincoln on persuasion
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 07:42:45 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: RO
"I think what you're hinting at is that the very idea of reasoned discourse,
of "finding a common center," that Lincoln is appealing to, has turned been
turned by the dominant culture into a vast orchestrated project to define
acceptance of leftism as the only acceptable view and effectively shut down
all genuine discourse."
Just so. The outcome of the discourse is implicit in what are said to be its
conditions - "tolerance" etc.
I suppose a clearer statement of how the vast project is maintained would be
useful. Partly it seems to be an attempt to make discourse simply as such
absolute. The discoursing classes of course would approve, and technology
has enormously strengthened their position. Discourse can be absolute
however only if substance is irrelevant and there is nothing that transcends
discourse. Hence the formalism of contemporary thought and its resolute
rejection of the transcendent and the ineffable, which it can understand
only as irrational prejudice.
Hope that's abstract enough for you. I think there may be something to it,
though. To account for a vast orchestrated project you need an utterly
simple principle that is identical with the interests of a dominant class.
My "make discourse absolute" theory seems to satisfy the requirement. It
also seems to be consistent with current academic literary theories.
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Mar 4 07:11:33 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id HAA15709
for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 07:11:31 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sun Mar 4 07:11:31 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 JAA17996
for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 09:11:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-120-57.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.120.57] for jkalb@nyx.net id <1842229> 04 Mar 2001 09:05:44 EST
Message-ID: <006b01c0a4b5$1ceffe60$6464fea9@dads>
From: "James Kalb"
To: "Jim Kalb"
Subject: Re: whites skip black history program
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 09:12:13 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: RO
Good for them! I expect though that the effect will be like the effect of
the publication of The Bell Curve, a deeper realization of how much needs to
be done to eradicate racism and the ways of thinking that give rise to it,
and renewed determination to make the necessary changes.
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Mar 4 07:10:57 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id HAA15694
for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 07:10:55 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sun Mar 4 07:10:55 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 JAA08485
for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 09:11:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-120-57.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.120.57] for jkalb@nyx.net id <1842227> 04 Mar 2001 09:05:08 EST
Message-ID: <006801c0a4b5$07118b40$6464fea9@dads>
From: "James Kalb"
To: "Jim Kalb"
Subject: Re: Taliban keep getting wackier
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 09:11:37 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: RO
This is really too bad. They are fine statues, with really beautiful
frescoes up around the heads (They are set into the cliffside that they
were carved out of, so the area is protected and the climate's very dry.)
The comment in the article about the faces is odd since they were sawed off
centuries ago in an earlier bout of Islamic iconoclasm. As I recall though
(it's been 30 years) only the top half of the faces were taken off so maybe
it's the remainder they're talking about.
The best hope is that it simply won't happen. In the old days in Afghanistan
public projects tended not to come off and I really can't think things are
organized better now.
jk
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Mar 4 07:09:54 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id HAA15680
for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 07:09:52 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sun Mar 4 07:09:52 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA19583
for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 09:10:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-120-57.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.120.57] for jkalb@nyx.net id <1842223> 04 Mar 2001 09:04:05 EST
Message-ID: <005d01c0a4b4$e18481c0$6464fea9@dads>
From: "James Kalb"
To: "Jim Kalb"
Subject: Re: [Paleo] Bruce Frohnen on T. S. Eliot and Culture
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 09:10:33 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: RO
Matthew Richer writes:
"I don't see how you can retain the old ways without retaining
the fundamental commitments that gave rise to them in the first place."
Exactly the problem with pure conservatism. Scruton seems to suggest a sort
of ancestral piety and general reverence but I don't know how much you can
get out of that. The Confucianists were able to rely on unquestioned
cultural dominance and their administrative role in a settled imperial
despotism.
Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Mar 4 07:08:09 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id HAA15643
for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 07:08:07 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sun Mar 4 07:08:07 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA03229
for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 09:08:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-120-57.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.120.57] for jkalb@nyx.net id <1842218> 04 Mar 2001 09:02:21 EST
Message-ID: <004e01c0a4b4$a382c9e0$6464fea9@dads>
From: "James Kalb"
To: "Jim Kalb"
References: <97bu6i+i6e3@eGroups.com> <003301c09f7a$ab1ced00$14c8fea9@dads>
Subject: Re: [paleo-right] Re: the UN tin god
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 09:08:49 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: RO
Karen De Coster writes:
"People who have long claimed these domain name rights have
homesteaded these names, and have a right to any profits that they
therefore may reap off of them."
There seems something odd about ownership of a name though. It seems that if
it's going to be recognized at all it ought to have something to do with
whether it's *your* name - the one you've been using all these years that
brings you to people's minds.
Libertarians I thought liked the kind of property rights that grow up and
get recognized in a common-law system, which I suppose are rights that
reflect common practices that exist because they minimize friction and
maximize freedom consistent with the freedom and settled customary interests
of others. It's not obvious to me that in such a system I could exclude you
from using www.KarenDeCoster.org simply by being the first one to announce
that I owned that particular string of characters. Why would my claim to
ownership be stronger than yours? Wouldn't I be simply telling you that you
couldn't use a variant form of your own name? Isn't that kind of ownership a
state creation in any event?
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Mar 4 07:07:38 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id HAA15613
for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 07:07:36 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sun Mar 4 07:07:36 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 JAA16296
for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 09:08:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-120-57.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.120.57] for jkalb@nyx.net id <1842215> 04 Mar 2001 09:01:49 EST
Message-ID: <004b01c0a4b4$909f4740$6464fea9@dads>
From: "James Kalb"
To: "Jim Kalb"
References: <97c5a6+tpri@eGroups.com> <000c01c09f87$d49f87c0$14c8fea9@dads>
Subject: Re: [paleo-right] Re: the UN tin god
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 09:08:18 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: RO
"it's ownership of a registered web domain, which is essentially a string of
chosen characters."
Sure. And how is it that someone, without state intervention, becomes owner
of an arbitrary string of characters? Just by announcing he is the owner?
Why does that make him owner? Is it a matter of natural right?
How far does this first public claimant theory go, if that's the theory? A
number I suppose is just an arbitrary string of characters. There are lots
of numbers no-one has ever thought about, spoken or written down. Can I own
numbers just by being the first to claim them?
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Mar 4 07:06:52 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id HAA15568
for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 07:06:50 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sun Mar 4 07:06:50 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 JAA05642
for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 09:07:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-120-57.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.120.57] for jkalb@nyx.net id <1842212> 04 Mar 2001 09:01:03 EST
Message-ID: <004801c0a4b4$75374980$6464fea9@dads>
From: "James Kalb"
To: "Jim Kalb"
References: <97c6nb+bsvg@eGroups.com> <000c01c09f9b$e2f18440$561bfea9@dads>
Subject: Re: [paleo-right] Re: the UN tin god
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 09:07:32 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: RO
Matthew Richer writes:
"Arnold tried to replace religion with "culture." I'm puzzled by the large
number of people on the Right -- Bennett, Lynne Cheney, who hold Arnold up
as some kind of defender of tradition. He was more a sign of the decay of
culture than anything else."
But isn't that what conservatism as such tries to do, to retain old ways
because of the value that permeates them, but without the same fundamental
commitments that gave rise to the old ways?
Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Mar 13 06:46:40 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id GAA00532
for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 06:46:38 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Tue Mar 13 06:46:38 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 IAA04346
for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 08:47:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-6-221.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.6.221] for jkalb@nyx.net id <1954341> 13 Mar 2001 08:41:01 EST
Message-ID: <009101c0abc4$51376b20$0762fea9@pavilion>
From: "Jim Kalb"
To: "Jim Kalb"
Subject: Re: Voegelin: On the Nature of the Law
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 08:48:36 -0500
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: RO
"Normative jurisprudence is represented by
Kelsen's "Pure Theory of Law". Norms derive from
the constitution, which is the origin of the legal
order. Questions of true and untrue, or just and
unjust order do not belong in the science of law,
or in any other science."
But the taxonomy doesn't deal with the current legal system based in theory
on universal human rights, which are neither positivistic nor grounded in an
order transcending human desires.
I suppose the current situation might be viewed as a variation on Hobbes.
Instead of the postulate of peace serving as the autonomous substance of
order we have the postulate of justice, where justice is understood as equal
treatment of persons, and therefore (since man is understood as constituted
by his desires) equal facilitation of desires within the limits of logical
and technical possibility.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri Mar 16 15:06:07 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id PAA23547
for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 15:05:59 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Fri Mar 16 15:05:59 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 RAA26703
for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 17:06:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-76-179.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.76.179] for jkalb@nyx.net id <2007394> 16 Mar 2001 17:06:45 EST
Sender: James.Kalb@DAD'S
Cc: jkalb@nyx.net
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Voegelin: On the Nature of the Law
References: <984452515.317995@irys.nyx.net> <9Inr6.403$zX3.281570@nntp2.onemain.com> <%xpr6.738$vc.390214@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net> <9066D1CC91535@24.132.64.38>
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 16 Mar 2001 17:07:50 -0500
Message-ID:
Lines: 25
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
In-Reply-To: psychrophiles@hotmail.com's message of "16 Mar 2001 20:38:17 GMT"
Posted-To: alt.revolution.counter
Status: RO
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to alt.revolution.counter as well.
M writes:
"Thus, human rights are a religion based on the faith that a particular
trait exists in human nature that makes it especially suitable for a
certain kind of order involving these rights."
The trait is not much more than having preferences and being able to
form plans and assert claims.
The idea seems to be that since the universe is not a moral order human
preferences are the sole source of value. Since all preferences are
equally preferences, they should all be equally respected and furthered.
To ensure that there should be a universal order promoting maximum equal
satisfaction of preferences.
That I think is the theoretical justification of the NWO. World trade
and global markets produce wealth, and thus maximize satisfactions,
while human rights impose a principle of equality. Political disputes
between "right" and "left" have to do with means and the relative
weighting of the two goals. Personally I think it's all horrible.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu Mar 15 10:16:43 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id KAA21695
for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 10:16:38 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Thu Mar 15 10:16:38 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 MAA16050;
Thu, 15 Mar 2001 12:17:36 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 12:17:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200103151717.MAA16050@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-6-221.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.6.221] id <1989199> 15 Mar 2001 12:10:44 EST
From: Jim Kalb
To: paleo@yahoogroups.com
In-reply-to: <001b01c0ad66$2402b300$235810ac@etown.edu> (gottfrpe@etown.edu)
Subject: Re: [Paleo] Sam Francis on reparations
References: <00f001c0ac94$05dbc4c0$89884ed8@ags.bellsouth.net> <001f01c0acf7$c266f200$f928f7a5@com> <00c801c0ad5c$fc306380$89884ed8@ags.bellsouth.net> <005701c0ad5e$c431c120$2d32f7a5@com> <200103151530.KAA12258@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU> <001b01c0ad66$2402b30
Status: RO
0$235810ac@etown.edu>
PG writes:
"racial hate has worked effectively because blacks buy into it. The
frightening thing is that whites don't seem to care that the media and
government both fan and reward black hate vented against them.While I
don't favor white racists, I think it would be useful if whites began
noticing this campaign of hatred"
I agree with all this. Majority Americans need to become more conscious
of themselves as a group with interests distinct from other groups,
including their rulers. Bad conduct by blacks and attacks on whites
simply as such should certainly be part of the discussion.
It seems to me though that viewing it as black power versus white power
doesn't make much sense, and SF seemed to be taking that view. On the
whole, blacks have power only to the extent others act on their behalf
or use them as an excuse. It's the others - the ruling classes - who are
the more essential part of the picture. Unless the distinction between
whites and the mostly white ruling class is treated as fundamental
complaints that blacks collectively are victimizing whites just sound
odd.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu Mar 15 08:29:33 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id IAA02003
for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 08:29:27 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Thu Mar 15 08:29:27 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 KAA12258;
Thu, 15 Mar 2001 10:30:25 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 10:30:25 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200103151530.KAA12258@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-6-221.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.6.221] id <1987285> 15 Mar 2001 10:23:34 EST
From: Jim Kalb
To: paleo@yahoogroups.com
In-reply-to: <005701c0ad5e$c431c120$2d32f7a5@com> (mricherny@mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: [Paleo] Sam Francis on reparations
References: <00f001c0ac94$05dbc4c0$89884ed8@ags.bellsouth.net> <001f01c0acf7$c266f200$f928f7a5@com> <00c801c0ad5c$fc306380$89884ed8@ags.bellsouth.net> <005701c0ad5e$c431c120$2d32f7a5@com>
Status: RO
"I don't see why thinking blacks could not be a part of this countervailing
power. Why would it have to be exclusively racial or white."
In principle I think that makes sense. The struggle seems to me less
between blacks and whites than between all historical communities and a
ruling class - that is in fact mostly white - that wants to establish an
order of things in which there are as a practical matter no historical
communities, no ethnicities or historical religions, just markets and
administrators.
Black racism is a means of attacking white dominance, but in the end the
point is less to attack whites than to attack particular historical
culture as relevant to social order.
In practice it may be unlikely that many blacks would join the
countervailing power, but I think it's important to maintain the
principle because at this point principle is all we have.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Mar 13 13:22:42 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id NAA23494
for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:22:39 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Tue Mar 13 13:22:39 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA20132
for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 15:23:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-6-221.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.6.221] for jkalb@nyx.net id <1960948> 13 Mar 2001 15:16:59 EST
Message-ID: <007801c0abfb$a45be240$0762fea9@pavilion>
From: "James Kalb"
To: "Jim Kalb"
Subject: Fw: Voegelin: On the Nature of the Law
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 15:24:41 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: RO
"Normative jurisprudence is represented by
Kelsen's "Pure Theory of Law". Norms derive from
the constitution, which is the origin of the legal
order. Questions of true and untrue, or just and
unjust order do not belong in the science of law,
or in any other science."
But the taxonomy doesn't deal with the current legal system based in theory
on universal human rights, which are neither positivistic nor grounded in an
order transcending human desires.
I suppose the current situation might be viewed as a variation on Hobbes.
Instead of the postulate of peace serving as the autonomous substance of
order we have the postulate of justice, where justice is understood as equal
treatment of persons, and therefore (since man is understood as constituted
by his desires) equal facilitation of desires within the limits of logical
and technical possibility.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Mar 13 12:53:46 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id MAA21689
for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:53:43 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Tue Mar 13 12:53:43 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 OAA15885;
Tue, 13 Mar 2001 14:54:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-6-221.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.6.221] id <1960439> 13 Mar 2001 14:47:58 EST
Message-ID: <000b01c0abf7$96b21960$0762fea9@pavilion>
From: "James Kalb"
To: "La
References: <001601c0abea$5faacd20$6d56580c@h6l3p>
Subject: Re: question on formalism
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 14:55:42 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Status: RO
They seem like particular applications. The basic formalism in the media
they point to is that the plot line - the never-ending battle against
hatred, discrimination and oppression - is known in advance. All material of
any kind is fitted into that plot line. As you point out, even the language
used is enough to settle all issues before any particular facts are
mentioned. So the second story is really a better example.
That formulaic treatment rests on a deeper moral formalism. The reason that
it's possible and even necessary to treat everything that way is that it's
known in advance that all substantive differences among people and kinds of
conduct ought to be socially irrelevant, and all restraints on satisfaction
of desire ought to be abolished. Substance is to be driven out of moral
life. The only exceptions to the "anything goes, and the answer is always
the same" principle are those considerations and restraints generated by the
liberal system for maximum equal satisfaction of preferences. Those
considerations and restraints are of course themselves formal, at least from
a moral standpoint, because all that counts are considerations of logical
coherence and practicability, and that something be a preference.
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri Mar 23 06:38:21 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id GAA15247
for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 06:38:19 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Fri Mar 23 06:38:19 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 IAA25580;
Fri, 23 Mar 2001 08:38:52 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 08:38:52 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200103231338.IAA25580@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-6-180.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.6.180] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <2091053> 23 Mar 2001 08:38:25 EST
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: O.W. Holmes' nihism
Status: RO
This is interesting. Violent death for the sake of a senseless and
therefore pure duty as the highest moral standard. Fascination with
death is of course a romantic theme, Sade added ultraviolence as a means
of transcendence, and Kant thought consequences and tangible motives
polluted moral purity. So Holmes achieved a philosophical grand slam.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu Mar 22 11:15:18 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id LAA11935
for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 11:15:15 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Thu Mar 22 11:15:15 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 NAA13847;
Thu, 22 Mar 2001 13:15:51 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 13:15:51 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200103221815.NAA13847@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-6-185.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.6.185] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <2080210> 22 Mar 2001 13:15:26 EST
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
In-reply-to: <000701c0b2f4$61908740$f472580c@h6l3p> (la@att.net)
Subject: Re: Ted and Caroline claim right to JFK's image and voice
References: <000701c0b2f4$61908740$f472580c@h6l3p>
Status: RO
"You mean, in a society in which there is no public order, in which self
is all, and in which image is the chief token and means of acquiring
wealth and power, the estate of a deceased president should have an
absolute right to the use of his image."
I'm taking a more institutional view just now. More and more the social
world is constructed through intangible property produced and
potentially owned by particular persons or institutions. On a Marxist
view (and no doubt on more limited theories) property relations to
change to favor the modes of production that are coming to power.
Therefore we should expect to see a growth in the protection granted to
property in images etc.
Take the image of John Kennedy. That image isn't just the face, voice
and public record of a particular man, it's the creation of a whole
enterprise, the enterprise that created Camelot and has since created
Teddy. "JFK" was an intentional construction for a purpose, like Betty
Crocker, and as such it's not as crazy to think it might be owned as at
first appears.
jk
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu Mar 22 10:02:52 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id KAA05988
for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 10:02:51 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Thu Mar 22 10:02:51 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 MAA32006;
Thu, 22 Mar 2001 12:03:27 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 12:03:27 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200103221703.MAA32006@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-6-185.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.6.185] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <2078952> 22 Mar 2001 12:03:03 EST
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
In-reply-to: <006d01c0b2e8$39a44e80$de5d580c@h6l3p> (la@att.net)
Subject: Re: Ted and Caroline claim right to JFK's image and voice
References: <006d01c0b2e8$39a44e80$de5d580c@h6l3p>
Status: RO
It really calls for some study - maybe that's a way I could reclaim my
legal training? I suppose one would look at trends in the law, as well
as the treatment of copyright etc. in the common law. Also maybe Marxist
analyses of the relationship between dominant modes of production and
property relations.
The 75 => 100 years change was an unbelievable outrage. I used to keep
my kids from copying videogames etc. Now I make no complaint about
Napster and CD burners.
jk
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu Mar 22 08:30:00 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id IAA28645
for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 08:29:55 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Thu Mar 22 08:29:55 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 KAA30746;
Thu, 22 Mar 2001 10:30:28 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 10:30:28 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200103221530.KAA30746@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-6-185.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.6.185] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <2077369> 22 Mar 2001 10:30:04 EST
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
In-reply-to: <008301c0b29b$4c2bfc80$cd57580c@h6l3p> (la@att.net)
Subject: Re: Ted and Caroline claim right to JFK's image and voice
References: <008301c0b29b$4c2bfc80$cd57580c@h6l3p>
Status: RO
It may be part of a trend. Quite aside from the MLK estate claiming
ownership of everthing he ever plagarized, the increasing power of the
media, electronic images and other intangibles seems to go with more
extensive property rights for those who own them.
The (already overly-long) limit for copyright was 75 years. A couple of
years ago Congress extended that to 100 years, apparently mostly at the
instance of Disney, who were worried about Mickey Mouse etc. going into
the public domain. Genes are patentable now, there have been attempts to
patent business plans. It's worth watching.
jk
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Mar 18 20:04:31 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id UAA12411
for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 20:04:26 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sun Mar 18 20:04:26 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 WAA16295;
Sun, 18 Mar 2001 22:05:14 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 22:05:14 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200103190305.WAA16295@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-76-170.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.76.170] for kalb@aya.yale.edu,... id <2021480> 18 Mar 2001 22:05:01 EST
From: Jim Kalb
To: GJ
CC: kalb@aya.yale.edu
Subject: Re: attachment
References: <29.12004c00.27e6c918@aol.com>
Status: RO
No trouble at all, they were well worth reading and besides it's good to
know what people are doing.
I haven't read Budick and I don't doubt his sincerity just as I don't
doubt the sincerity of social services types who say that their goal is
to help families. I think though that the issue of authority you point
to is the key.
If you refuse to grant authority to tradition and its representatives -
not necessarily absolute authority but authority that makes them
something more than a source of suggestions, insights, etc. - then your
study and explanation of tradition will always be just another way of
subverting it and explaining it away and replacing it by the authority
of the omnicompetent ego or class of experts or whatever.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From jk@panix.com Sun Mar 18 19:28:58 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mail3.panix.com (mail3.panix.com [166.84.0.167])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id TAA11193
for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 19:28:45 -0700 (MST)
From: jk@panix.com
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sun Mar 18 19:28:45 2001, Sender=jk@panix.com, Recipient=, Valsender=mail3.panix.com [166.84.0.167]
Received: from panix3.panix.com (panix3.panix.com [166.84.0.228])
by mail3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA1489819C
for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 21:12:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix3.panix.com (8.8.8/8.7.1/PanixN1.0) id VAA26143; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 21:12:28 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 21:12:28 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200103190212.VAA26143@panix3.panix.com>
To: jkalb@nyx.net
Subject: Conservatism Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.6 (NOV)
Status: RO
>Path: news.panix.com!panix6.panix.com!not-for-mail
>From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
>Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
>Subject: Re: Conservatism Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
>Date: 16 Mar 2001 17:30:21 -0500
>Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
>Lines: 14
>Message-ID: <98u45t$mor$1@panix6.panix.com>
>References: <97lqtb$m5t$1@panix2.panix.com> <3aa9d435$0$14451$272ea4a1@news.execpc.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: panix6.panix.com
>X-Trace: news.panix.com 984781831 25871 166.84.0.231 (16 Mar 2001 22:30:31 GMT)
>X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
>NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Mar 2001 22:30:31 GMT
>X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.6 (NOV)
>Xref: news.panix.com alt.society.conservatism:316656
In <3aa9d435$0$14451$272ea4a1@news.execpc.com> Robert Lane writes:
>What a load of crap. Yes, you spelled out what it means to be a
>Conservative. Alas, the message was all between the lines.
Here's a good example of the bigotry of the Left. Mr. Lane refuses to
deal with the arguments and views actually presented, and instead
invents something else (something "between the lines" that perhaps he
inferred from "code words" or whatever) that he attributes to the FAQ
and serves as a justification for refusing to deal with what it actually
says.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Mar 18 17:52:14 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id RAA00944
for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 17:52:05 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sun Mar 18 17:52:05 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 TAA05131
for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 19:52:47 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 19:52:47 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200103190052.TAA05131@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-76-170.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.76.170] for jkalb@nyx.net id <2020720> 18 Mar 2001 19:52:35 EST
From: Jim Kalb
To: jkalb@nyx.net
Subject: [kalb@aya.yale.edu: Re: (no subject)]
Status: RO
------- Start of forwarded message -------
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 17:42:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
To: Be
Subject: Re: (no subject)
I'm not sure what your complaint is.
The point of the statistic and the statistic on crime is that the
fundamental problems of black people have gotten worse in the new
post-60s moral order. I was responding to claims that their situation
shows the necessity of "inclusiveness," which is basic to that new
order.
As you point out, other people's problems have gotten worse as well. I
don't see how that hurts my argument though.
- --
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
------- End of forwarded message -------
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Mar 27 13:24:39 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id NAA16390
for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 13:24:36 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Tue Mar 27 13:24:36 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 PAA29527;
Tue, 27 Mar 2001 15:24:55 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 15:24:55 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200103272024.PAA29527@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-68-117.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.68.117] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <2173831> 27 Mar 2001 15:24:52 EST
From: Jim Kalb
To: Fr
In-reply-to: <003e01c0b6ec$de49f5e0$1334fea9@bee006> (FrankButash@email.msn.com)
Subject: Re: CT Public Hearing on Homosexual 'Civil Unions'
References: <001501c0ae9a$55d394a0$1334fea9@bee006> <005401c0b025$1f8ebaa0$25f93ad0@madjim> <003e01c0b6ec$de49f5e0$1334fea9@bee006>
Status: RO
My answer would be that "limited government" doesn't mean government
can't recognize moral truths and act on them when relevant to what
government is set up to do. It just means government isn't set up to do
a lot of things. It not the job of the Department of Roads to tell
everyone what pi or the laws of nature are, but when the Department of
Roads does something that involves pi and the laws of nature (designing
a bridge or whatever) it is entitled to take a view on the matter and
act on it. Similarly when other departments of government decide what
social arrangements are worthy of support, if it's already been decided
it's appropriate for government to support some social arrangements.
Do let me know if you have comments of any kind.
Back to my archive of posts.