Items Posted by Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri Mar 30 11:05:31 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 LAA07033
for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:05:29 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Fri Mar 30 11:05:29 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 NAA07700;
Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:05:37 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:05:37 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200103301805.NAA07700@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-68-39.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.68.39] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <2222822> 30 Mar 2001 13:05:34 EST
From: Jim Kalb
To: upstream-list@cycad.com
In-reply-to: <3AC4269F.177F@issues-views.com> (message from Elizabeth Wright on Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:24:32 -0400)
Subject: Re: [Upstream] UK Telegraph on Jessee Dirkhising
References: <3AC41364.23E8BF60@tscnet.com> <3AC4269F.177F@issues-views.com>
Status: RO
"'You succeeded where the communists failed', is a frequent refrain."
Isn't it interesting? It turns out that a self-organizing system has the
same advantage over communism in thought control that it has in
economics. Totalitarianism it seems is a matter of the extension of the
industrial system to the whole of life, and not of anything that has
generally been identified as totalitarian ideology.
In a free system, as now conceived, you let the efficient producers
acquire the dominant position their capacity justifies, instead of
letting political leaders try to enforce their preconceived notions of
what is to be produced, how and by whom. In the particular case of the
production of opinions and of what counts publicly as truth, that means
that the media professionals, who are in a position to produce what
seems to be truth, decide what everyone should think. They then produce
opinions that favor their own interests, as extended and modified by
whatever common interests and alliances they find in their interest, for
example with experts, activists, legal and bureaucratic elites, whoever.
The result is a really quite wonderful system that puts power in the
hands of those who can and do wield it, to be used for their own
interests. So perfect is the system that it's hard to imagine dissidence
could ever become a serious issue, at least until the final collapse of
the system due to its inability to stop pulling the wool over its own
eyes.
What we have seems to be an updated version of the one-horse shay.
Wonder how long it will last?
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu Mar 29 09:37:54 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 JAA11630
for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:37:45 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Thu Mar 29 09:37:45 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 LAA03127;
Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:37:57 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:37:57 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200103291637.LAA03127@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-79-167.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.79.167] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <2204086> 29 Mar 2001 11:37:54 EST
From: Jim Kalb
To: paleo-right@yahoogroups.com
In-reply-to: <200103290950370370.04A1FFCD@mail.naxs.net> (seth@swva.net)
Subject: Re: [paleo-right] Anti-Defamation League
References: <001001c0b7dc$76ae5ac0$ee2bf7a5@com> <3AC27377.9715F17C@mindspring.com> <003001c0b7e0$d0340000$ee2bf7a5@com> <001601c0b81a$68b61dc0$386bcc3f@deirdre> <200103290950370370.04A1FFCD@mail.naxs.net>
Status: RO
Seth W. writes:
"if you REALLY want something to worry about, read "The Abolition of
Man" by C.S. Lewis and think about the current efforts to clone human
beings. THAT, I submit, is something to worry about, because it offers
the potential to, literally, abolish mankind permanently as created in
God's image."
I think there are reasons to think genetic technologies are likely to
have narrower limits than many people expect:
1. The remarkable stability and discreteness of species in the fossil
record, suggesting that living species are in fact natural kinds that
can only be manipulated so far before you end up with something that
just doesn't work.
2. The surprisingly small number of genes in the human genome,
suggesting that for the most part genes operate less through discrete
(and therefore manipulable) individual effects than through a web of
causes that may prove as difficult to manage as say the stock market
or weather.
3. Problems with cloned animals. There was something in the news
recently on this. As they get older things start going wrong with
them.
Science is powerful but not omnipotent. Some things - like complex
systems - are much harder to get hold of by the scientific method than
others. It seems to me a social science that is anything like the
natural sciences is impossible. It also appears that there are severe
limits on any science of controlling the weather. Why shouldn't there be
limits on what the life sciences are capable of?
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Mar 28 05:43:44 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 FAA01481
for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 05:43:39 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Wed Mar 28 05:43:39 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 HAA04755;
Wed, 28 Mar 2001 07:43:57 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 07:43:57 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200103281243.HAA04755@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-78-193.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.78.193] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <2183741> 28 Mar 2001 07:43:56 EST
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: a reader asks what I meant by transcendent truth
References: <003a01c0b72c$04413440$6156580c@h6l3p>
Status: RO
The thought could be extended - without the transcendent the policeman
isn't even a man with a gun, since the quality of being a man or gun
can't be seen, touched, smelled, etc. Without the transcendent language
becomes impossible. To my mind that's the significance of the Tower of
Babel. Try to abolish the distinction between heaven and earth and
communication becomes impossible.
It might of course be taking the point too far to go into that with this
correspondent.
jk
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Mar 27 18:45:22 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 SAA05080
for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 18:45:19 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Tue Mar 27 18:45:19 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 UAA14477
for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 20:45:38 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 20:45:38 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200103280145.UAA14477@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 <2179177> 27 Mar 2001 20:45:35 EST
From: Jim Kalb
To: jkalb@nyx.net
Subject: Re: [Upstream] Racial Train Wreck]
Status: RO
------- Start of forwarded message -------
- --- Elizabeth Wright wrote:
And this will be the amazement to those who dig up this civilization in
a thousand years -- the nature of the demise itself. Whites haven't
pushed back? To say the least! They have no way of doing so? They're
too busy participating in bringing about the demise.
- --- end of quote ---
That's been true of the great revolutions though, the French and Russian
revolutions for example. Not to mention the collapse of communism and the
current situation in the Christian churches. Those who had been in control
decide there's no point in being what they are so they promote the rise to
power of their opposites.
My own interpretation of the situation is that for a number of reasons,
conceptual and psychological, men need to be essentially connected with
something that transcends them, that cannot be reduced to what they actually
are here and now. If they no longer see their society as embodying something
transendent they look elsewhere, and if the whole notion of transcendence has
come to seem impossible then self-negation and worship of the Other comes to
seem attractive, because those things cannot be reduced to what one actually is
here and now, and so constitute a sort of substitute transcendence.
------- End of forwarded message -------
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Mar 27 18:44:24 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 SAA05036
for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 18:44:22 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Tue Mar 27 18:44:22 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 UAA07579
for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 20:44:41 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 20:44:41 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200103280144.UAA07579@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 <2179167> 27 Mar 2001 20:44:37 EST
From: Jim Kalb
To: jkalb@nyx.net
Subject: Re: revised passage]
Status: RO
------- Start of forwarded message -------
- --- You wrote:
Now you're confusing me! Are you now changing your mind and saying that
religion of humanity _is_ a valid description after all? Or are you saying
that you agree with my modified description, i.e. not using "religion of
humanity," but still referring to a global system bringing maximum individual
freedom for everyone?
- --- end of quote ---
I don't think I've changed positions, what I said was that the religion of
humanity was merely sentimental. Sentimentality does have a function though,
it's a way of pretending you care about something when you have no intention of
taking it seriously. It makes it easier to ignore in fact the thing you
pretend to care about. So the R of H does hang on as sort of a placeholder for
the transcendent. Friedman doesn't talk about it because he fancies himself a
grand realist.
------- End of forwarded message -------
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Mar 27 18:43:22 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 SAA05008
for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 18:43:20 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Tue Mar 27 18:43:20 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 UAA04122
for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 20:43:39 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 20:43:39 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200103280143.UAA04122@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 <2179152> 27 Mar 2001 20:43:35 EST
From: Jim Kalb
To: jkalb@nyx.net
Subject: GB to enforce ethnic quotas on museum visitors]
Status: RO
------- Start of forwarded message -------
The Brits seem to be doing us a few better in the fight against racism. Over
here I've mostly noticed the effect of quotas in theatrical casting, coal-black
Norwegians in visually realistic productions of Ibsen etc. and no doubt some of
the gender-bending.
I saw a rather good production of the Orestiad recently, one of the themes of
which is the replacement of the irrational maternal deities of earth and hearth
by rational paternal deities of Olympus and the city. They couldn't bear it
and so cast a man as one of the furies and a woman as one of the members of the
court of the Areopagus. You can't get grants without that sort of thing. I
saw a copy of the letter they wrote to apply for a grant to put on the Orestiad
and the thought in the letter was that the play could help in the fight against
racism. It had to do with justice and rational standards you see.
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat Mar 31 10:53:33 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 KAA25864
for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 10:53:31 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sat Mar 31 10:53:31 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 MAA11384;
Sat, 31 Mar 2001 12:53:37 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 12:53:37 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200103311753.MAA11384@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-68-188.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.68.188] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <2233236> 31 Mar 2001 12:53:35 EST
From: Jim Kalb
To: st
Subject: Re: Sv:
References: <001801c0b9cd$25917da0$124436d4@elecomp>
Status: RO
Hello!
I read your open letter and thought you made some very good points, for
example on her whole system as a mirror image of what she says she
opposes.
What she presents is as you say her private views dressed up in
objective form. It is also a front for the interests of a class, a class
of experts, managers and financiers, that wants to turn all Europe and
beyond that the whole world into a single fully managed system embracing
all human concerns. All non-economic concerns, including loyalty to
national heritage, must be abolished because they cannot be managed as
part of the system. It is the same reason that 17th century science did
away with "secondary qualities" like color in favor of "primary
qualities" like mass and distance that could be made part of a single
fully mathematical scheme.
One can't cover everything in an open letter though. (I do wish, by the
way, that I knew an English equivalent for "Zwangvorstellung"!)
jk
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Apr 4 07:03:32 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id HAA14911
for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 07:03:22 -0600 (MDT)
From: kalb@aya.yale.edu
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Wed Apr 4 07:03:22 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA30022
for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 09:03:16 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 09:03:16 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200104041303.JAA30022@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-6-6.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.6.6] for jkalb@nyx.net id <2280567> 04 Apr 2001 09:03:13 EDT
Sender: James.Kalb@DAD'S
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Voegelin: On the Nature of the Law
References: <984452515.317995@irys.nyx.net> <9Inr6.403$zX3.281570@nntp2.onemain.com> <%xpr6.738$vc.390214@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net> <9066D1CC91535@24.132.64.38>
Status: RO
.yale.edu> <9068A79C21535@24.132.64.38> <90697D9941535@24.132.64.38> <986083796.669801@irys.nyx.net> <9077DD1CC1535@24.132.64.39> <9078AF05A1535@24.132.64.37>
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 04 Apr 2001 08:02:47 -0500
Message-ID:
Lines: 31
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
In-Reply-To: psychrophiles@hotmail.com's message of "3 Apr 2001 13:56:21 GMT"
psychrophiles@hotmail.com (M) writes:
> > What you call "liberalism proper" I view as only a stage in a
> > very long-term development.
>
> Please substitute 'in any consistent form' for 'proper'.
Maybe that's the difference between us. I view liberalism in all its
forms as internally inconsistent and unstable.
> What people want is closely related to what they conceive of as
> their interests and heritage etc.
True enough. The problem is that if the good is defined as what is
wanted simply as such then heritage and all non-hedonistic conceptions
of personal interest become viewed as oppressive and so lose their power
over what people want.
> A feasibility-assessment of the liberal state might imho perhaps be
> compared to finding a greatest common denominator: If you end up
> with 1, the liberal state is not feasible
I think this is a useful way of looking at it. The current regime of
course intentionally reduces the GCD to 1 - that is the significance of
multiculturalism etc. The effect is to make the power of the regime
absolute since free cooperation becomes impossible and nothing can work
unless everything is absolutely controlled.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Apr 3 16:04:06 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 QAA21764
for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:04:03 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Tue Apr 3 16:04:03 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 SAA09571;
Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:03:59 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:03:59 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200104032203.SAA09571@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-6-6.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.6.6] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <2272047> 03 Apr 2001 18:03:50 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: st
Subject: Re: Sv:
References: <001801c0bc7c$91e75f40$1f4436d4@elecomp>
Status: RO
"..more in conceptual implications than in historical development...",
you say. True, but its also true, the way I read your essay(s), that the
axiomatic basis of your chains of thought is loyalty to the fact, that
mans life can only be understood as a historical fenomenon. Man is no
abstract thing, as you say, and I couldn't agree more. So I should think
it more appropriate to say, that your thoughts are conceptual
expressions of historical reality; the first conditioned by the latter.
When I write something I try to squeeze in everything I think is true
and relevant and make it all coherent. It comes out however it comes
out. So maybe others can say what I do better than I can, since I am too
close for perspective.
One thing I try to do though in talking about liberalism is to show how
basic liberal concepts lead to catastrophe, and to develop the
demonstration in a way that enables the reader to verify it from what he
sees around him. Another thing I have attempted is to show that
catastrophe must result from any attempt to reduce the world to
something we can simply possess, and that moral life must rest on faith
and common understandings that cannot be given the kind of clarity and
evidence one demands in say the natural sciences. Still another is to
show that those common understandings - in essence, tradition - must be
regarded as our way of knowing things we need that exceed our grasp -
the transcendent. Otherwise the world and our actions have no meaning,
and we cannot regard them that way.
So man has necessary historical and transcendent dimensions. Neither can
be subjected to human will. Liberalism and modern thought try to subject
the world wholly to human control through clear concepts and
well-defined procedures. To respond I think it is necessary to have
clearer concepts, so that we can see how the attempt breaks down on its
own terms. Some of my favorite thinkers are those like Pascal and Simone
Weil who had clear scientific minds and for that reason understood all
the better the limits of exact thought and human mastery.
My professor-friend is marked by a life of studies in totalitarian
regimes and there true spirit and often takes part in the danish
discussion - very sharply.
Since my essay included a theory of liberal totalitarianism I am glad he
did not think it was wholly wrong.
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Apr 3 13:09:56 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 NAA12784
for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 13:09:54 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Tue Apr 3 13:09:54 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 PAA15075;
Tue, 3 Apr 2001 15:09:48 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 15:09:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200104031909.PAA15075@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-6-6.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.6.6] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <2268989> 03 Apr 2001 15:09:45 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: religion of the other
References: <000201c0bc6e$493f8d20$c172580c@h6l3p>
Status: RO
It's an interesting point that I haven't seen covered, so I'm glad
you're dealing with it in your book.
An odd sidelight is that there's also a religion of me in current
liberal catholicism. People speak of the eucharist for example as the
"sacrament of what we are."
Jim
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Apr 3 07:02:46 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 HAA23214
for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 07:02:40 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Tue Apr 3 07:02:40 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 JAA23512
for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 09:02:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-6-6.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.6.6] for jkalb@nyx.net id <2261229> 03 Apr 2001 09:02:36 EDT
To: jkalb@nyx.net
Subject: [alt.revolution.counter] Re: Voegelin: On the Nature of the Law
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 03 Apr 2001 08:02:42 -0500
Message-ID:
Lines: 26
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
Status: RO
psychrophiles@hotmail.com (M) writes:
> >This I think is an example of a basic problem of liberalism (in
> >the American sense explicated by say John Rawls), that its intent
> >to be wholly formal means that it can't give definite answers to
> >concrete questions without arbitrariness and dogmatism.
>
> This doesn't seem especially a feature of liberalism proper, but
> rather of a corruption of it -- euphemistically labeled
> multiculturalism.
What you call "liberalism proper" I view as only a stage in a
very long-term development.
I think the basic impulse all along, throughout the modern period, has
been to identify the good with what individuals want. That means that
politics and morality can only be a matter of formal arrangements for
accommodating the various goals people have. As time goes on the formal
arrangements become more and more abstract and the primacy of desire
simply as such becomes greater and greater until conceptions like
individual integrity and responsibility that were so important in
classical liberalism fall apart.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Apr 2 12:12:40 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 MAA06097
for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:12:38 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Mon Apr 2 12:12:38 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 OAA23480;
Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:12:37 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:12:37 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200104021812.OAA23480@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-6-6.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.6.6] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <2250292> 02 Apr 2001 14:12:35 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: a typical line from a conservative
References: <000f01c0bb88$aa131ea0$c474580c@h6l3p>
Status: RO
But isn't it looking at things from too metaphysical a perspective to
say that even when blacks are seeking racial power as blacks they are
really seeking to abolish race?
Oh, I wouldn't say that. I'd say though that their efforts are able to
take effect only within an overall setting the tendency and guiding
purpose of which is to abolish race.
In other words, I'm willing to discuss the issue from both aspects, as
racialism and as liberalism. But it seems to me you're only willing to
discuss it from one aspect.
It seems to me that when discussed from the aspect of black racialism
the liberal setting has to be kept in mind. Otherwise it all becomes too
mysterious. Exactly how is it that blacks are able to exert so much
antiwhite influence when most of the money, power, etc. is in the hands
of whites? There is the Jew theory, but then the question becomes how
Jews got to have those magical powers. So I think to retain rationality
the metaphysical perspective has to remain part of the thought.
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Apr 2 09:01:30 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 JAA25702
for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 09:01:28 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Mon Apr 2 09:01:28 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 LAA24483;
Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:01:29 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:01:29 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200104021501.LAA24483@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-6-6.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.6.6] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <2246467> 02 Apr 2001 11:01:27 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: a typical line from a conservative
References: <002d01c0bb7d$62bc7d40$0b79580c@h6l3p>
Status: RO
Neither side wants to improve race relations, both want to abolish race.
The leftists are simply more realistic about how much would be needed to
abolish race and everything related to race as a socially relevant
category. You can't just define it as a non-issue, you have to find
every point at which it seems in fact to have an effect (percentage of
physics Nobel prize winners, famous historical figures or whatever) and
institute a comprehensive system for reversing that effect.
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Apr 2 06:45:24 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 GAA20886
for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 06:45:22 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Mon Apr 2 06:45:22 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 IAA10727;
Mon, 2 Apr 2001 08:45:23 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 08:45:23 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200104021245.IAA10727@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-6-6.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.6.6] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <2244568> 02 Apr 2001 08:45:22 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: singing the industrial age
References: <000201c0bb07$0e62e020$4f5a580c@h6l3p>
Status: RO
There was an age of heroic materialism in the late 19th c. (I think
"heroic materialism" was Kenneth Clark's phrase.) For me the cast iron
facades in SoHo are the symbol of that age.
I suppose Bolshevism and the glorification of the industrial worker
picked up on the idea in a cruder form. For a late vulgar and
unbelievably stupid version see 412 in the 1982 Episcopal hymnal.
jk
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Apr 1 12:05:06 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 MAA10038
for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 12:05:01 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sun Apr 1 12:05:01 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 OAA32065;
Sun, 1 Apr 2001 14:05:05 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 14:05:05 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200104011805.OAA32065@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-6-6.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.6.6] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <2238783> 01 Apr 2001 14:05:02 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: upstream-list@cycad.com
In-reply-to: <004e01c0ba6b$462a05c0$9ef3343f@sba.oakland.edu> (Schwartz@Oakland.edu)
Subject: Re: [Upstream] 'The ad' appeared today - REPARATIONS
References: <3AC5253B.4AC@issues-views.com> <004e01c0ba6b$462a05c0$9ef3343f@sba.oakland.edu>
Status: RO
"Howard Schwartz" writes:
Well, yes, but exactly what are people afraid of? The really weird thing
about it is that they are afraid of themselves. They are afraid of being
called racist, but who are they worried about being called a racist by? If
that term didn't register with white folks, it would lose its power as an
insult and there would be nothing to be afraid of. So the white folks
individually are all afraid of the the white folks collectively.
Part of the problem is that white folks are afraid of authoritative
white folks, and authoritative white folks favor antiracism because
antiracism supports authority by discrediting popular habits, attitudes
and initiatives. What AWFs lose as whites they more than get back as
authorities.
In order to rebel white folks would have to reject their own leadership
and put up new leaders who could not be co-opted. It's hard to imagine
how that could happen.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat Mar 31 18:27:51 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 SAA13690
for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 18:27:48 -0700 (MST)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sat Mar 31 18:27:48 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 UAA01141
for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 20:27:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-6-6.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.6.6] for jkalb@nyx.net id <2235644> 31 Mar 2001 20:27:51 EST
To: jkalb@nyx.net
Subject: [alt.revolution.counter] Re: Voegelin: On the Nature of the Law
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 31 Mar 2001 20:30:07 -0500
Message-ID:
Lines: 26
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
Status: RO
psychrophiles@hotmail.com (M) writes:
>The enforcement of positive Human Rights (such as universal access to
>food, housing and education) is often in conflict with the enforcement of
>negative human rights (such as protection against illegal dispossession of
>wealth etc.) as the former involves redistribution which might be viewed upon
>as an infringement of the later. So all that remains of 'universal human
>rights' is the claim to universality and so universal enforcement.
An interesting way of putting it.
This I think is an example of a basic problem of liberalism (in the
American sense explicated by say John Rawls), that its intent to be
wholly formal means that it can't give definite answers to concrete
questions without arbitrariness and dogmatism. When you introduce
arbitrariness and dogmatism though you get conflicting answers with no
way to reconcile them, and since tradition and implicit common
understandings about things that cannot be proved have been abolished
as social authorities the only hope for social peace comes to lie in
the absolute submission of mind and body to authority.
So cheer up, your arrest had deep philosophical causes. You were the
guest of honor at the fundamental social ritual of the NWO.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat Apr 14 09:00:07 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 JAA00999
for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 09:00:02 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sat Apr 14 09:00:02 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 LAA17649;
Sat, 14 Apr 2001 11:00:01 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 11:00:01 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200104141500.LAA17649@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-76-42.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.76.42] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <2442663> 14 Apr 2001 10:59:58 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: sk
In-reply-to: <003201c0c4dd$df70c4e0$a4dd6f83@magd.cam.ac.uk> (sks23@cam.ac.uk)
Subject: Re: Feminism
References: <2406188@doc.Dartmouth.ORG> <000f01c0c337$d72ad520$a4dd6f83@magd.cam.ac.uk> <200104131938.PAA00163@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU> <003201c0c4dd$df70c4e0$a4dd6f83@magd.cam.ac.uk>
Status: RO
Ah you must be an American. "Why do I need to run to foreign languages...".
Oh dear. Well for your information there is a world outside your borders,
It's interesting that I find the poses the English strike far less
annoying when it's a woman. Not annoying at all, in fact.
The point of my original comment, of course, is that if I want to study
fast food I don't have to go and read Italian theoreticians of the
semiotics of dining, no matter how clever they are. The best thing for
me to do is to look around myself. And if I get a note from someone
saying there is no such thing as fast food that can be discussed,
because Arthur Treacher and Colonel Saunders are competitors and besides
Brillat-Savarin liked some things that can be prepared very quickly, I
begin to suspect that my correspondent is trying to avoid something.
and I put it to you that American feminism, with a few exceptions, is the
most banal you can find. French feminism is the most sublime.
What's sublimity got to do with modern political life? Feminism is basic
to human rights, the moral ideal now established as authoritative, and
human rights intends to establish a comprehensive universally-binding
legal framework that appeals to nothing beyond the most ordinary desires
and practices and overrides all particularity and thus all culture.
Universal compulsory banality is what the future is about. Sublimity is
obfuscation, and anti-Americanism is scapegoating, a way to distance
oneself from his own commitments.
(a) DIFFERENCE FEMINISM: men and women are biologically different and as
they have different life expectations, should have different roles in life.
If you have read Genealogy of Morals, you will know what I mean when I say
that my personal opinion is that this is a form of bad conscience and slave
morality
I'm not sure how this is different from what is conventionally referred
to as "sexism." And my opinion is that dislike of essences and roles,
which is what complaints about "bad conscience" seem to be about,
doesn't get you very far. It's like complaining that reality is
linguistically constructed so some truer truth is available by rejecting
language.
(b) EQUALITY FEMINISM: hold that in everything that is important, men and
women are the same and should be granted equality of opportunity. Which is
fair enough as women still only get 80% mens pay.
In everything that rationalizing administrators and those who idealize
the universal market want to be important, because otherwise their
preferred institutions would have limited validity, men and women are
the same. The demand that everything be convertible into everything else
in accordance with rational abstract measures like money has ethical
implications, of course, one of which is the conception of justice to
which you refer.
You should drop the 80% figure, by the way, or at least look into what
happens when it's adjusted for hours worked, continuity of job market
participation, etc.
And btw, if you are interested in gender roles I think that you
should read Michel Foucault's history of sexuality It is most
interesting, in that it argues that gender is socially rather than
biologically determined.
I'll no doubt have to read Foucault if I want to continue to discuss
things with certain people. The argument you mention looks silly on its
face, though, except in a sense in which food is also socially rather
than biologically determined. What counts as food, and its significance
and social role, differ after all from time to time and place to place.
Just do something for me. I am a politics student. I want you to
define "politics" in no more than 100 words and stick to the rules
that you have applied to feminist theory. No contradictions.
Coherent. Complete. See if you can do it.
I'll define modern politics as the abolition of particularity in the
name of otherness, as a result of which everything as a practical
institutional matter is to become interchangable with everything else
and therefore rationally manageable in accordance with a single
self-contained universal system. Feminism is integral to that process.
I am getting fond of you even if you are a misogynist (is that a
generalisation?)
It's namecalling based on fantasy and in fact bad faith. Needless to say
I don't hold it against you.
jk
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri Apr 13 13:39:47 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 NAA29500
for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 13:39:45 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Fri Apr 13 13:39:45 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 PAA22595;
Fri, 13 Apr 2001 15:39:44 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 15:39:44 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200104131939.PAA22595@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-79-175.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.79.175] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <2432721> 13 Apr 2001 15:39:40 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: sk
In-reply-to: <000f01c0c337$d72ad520$a4dd6f83@magd.cam.ac.uk> (sks23@cam.ac.uk)
Subject: Re: Feminism
References: <2406188@doc.Dartmouth.ORG> <000f01c0c337$d72ad520$a4dd6f83@magd.cam.ac.uk>
Status: RO
Thank you for the cites. Some concerns.
I put it to you that you cannot generalise about the subject of feminism as
the topic is so diverse. I am a feminist who cannot STAND Andrea Dworkin,
and wish in no way to be associated with what she believes. I think you
should develop the capacity to view feminist arguments in sections. If I may
be so bold as to suggest:
Actually, I don't mind AD. She's insane but at least has a clear
vigorous logical mind and prose style to match. I found her rather a
relief in comparison with many other feminists.
"Cannot generalize" seems a conversation stopper. Why not? What is the
function of telling people they can't talk about feminism in general?
Why try to prevent systematic unifying thought about a particular range
of issues? What I define as essential feminism, rejection of the
authority of gender, is really quite abstract. Even if that abstraction
doesn't capture the whole of everything called feminism, it seems to me
an important force in the world today. Do you object to my examining it?
Would it help if I called it "schmeminism" instead of "feminism"?
(a) French philosophical feminism and the importance of difference. I
recommend Luce Irigaray and Simone de Beauvoir. Read them in French if you
can.
Feminism has transformed understandings of society, law, human rights,
etc. throughout the world. It has become fundamental to the Western
legal and public moral order and exerts increasing influence elsewhere.
Since there's so much of it around, why should I have to run to foreign
languages to see what it is and understand it? Can it be something so
abstruse? Or is the attempt to make it so really an attempt to avoid
recognition of obvious realities?
The problem I have with "difference" in general as some sort of ultimate
category is that as a practical institutional matter it seems to lead to
the abstract individual and the equal value of preferences as the sole
realities institutionally and legally cognizable as a common measure
among the differences, and therefore to straightforward liberal
political and moral theory, which I view as destructive in all sorts of
ways.
(b) Linguistic feminism. How language defines the boundaries of what we know
to be real, and how linguistic feminists seek to break out of this
conceptual sphere. Mary Daly and Dale Spender are good here. Also read
Nietzsche's "On the Genealogy of Morals" for information on the Eternal
Return and slave morality which is also significant. Try to read Nietzsche
in the original German.
Here I can oblige you, since I *do* read Nietzsche in German. Bracing
and penetrating but incoherent is my general view. He doesn't solve any
problems or even particularly support one thing rather than another.
Saying language defines reality doesn't help anyone except mystics break
out of anything. It leaves all the issues where they were.
(c) legal feminism. Joan Smith in "Misogynies" is a good bet. You are wrong
about women's legal rights btw. In rape cases the defendant can question the
woman as to her sexual history and paint her as a whore, whereas evidence of
previous convictions is inadmissible in English law.
The point of legislation against sex discrimation, which is now viewed
as a fundamental part of the legal order, is that the authority of
gender must be utterly abolished. That is the same as what I call
feminism.
The rule as to rape cases has been changed in response to feminism in
the jurisdictions with which I am most familiar. In contrast the
interrogation of President Clinton's sexual activities was founded on
feminist legislation regarding sexual harrassment that C. himself
favored and signed.
Finally, may I add that I think that you are being conned by a populist form
of feminism, as you cannot condense any feminism down to one core belief,
and your attempt to do so makes you look as ridiculous and ignorant as the
women you condemn as "feminists". Are you seriously suggesting that the IRA
speaks for all Catholics? I hope not.
The Church has its creeds, though, Jesus had his two great commandments
and his golden rule, the Buddists and Marxists have their formulas.
What's wrong with trying to define the fundamental principle of a great
social movement and examine the implications and consequences of that
principle? I never identified feminism with man hating or the politics
of resentment. I do think though that feminism tends strongly toward the
view that sexual distinctions - "gender" - are basically just
superiority and inferiority, simple oppesiveness. That is why it wants
to abolish them - and that view, incidentally, is *my* idea of banality.
Philosophical feminism is where it's at really, but it is conceptually very
complex, especially Irigary's Speculum de l'autre femme, but give it a try.
A basic knowledge of Freud, Plato's hustera, Descartes, Nietzsche, and
Foucault is useful in order to understand feminist discursive theory. By the
way "complex" does not mean "incoherent". That is a common misconception
among stupid people and an opinion that does not do you justice.
I do thank you for the recommendations. It is extremely valuable to read
the things one is inclined against in their best form. Thanks also for
the flattery. A stupid question though - what is hustera?
jk
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Wed Apr 11 06:28:12 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 GAA22670
for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 06:28:10 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Wed Apr 11 06:28:10 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 IAA11316
for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:28:09 -0400 (EDT)
Message-id: <2392954@doc.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 11 Apr 2001 08:28:08 EDT
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: articles
To: pd
Status: RO
Hello!
I have a discussion and collection of resources at
http://www.freespeech.org/antitechnocrat/sex.html
I've got a few more I'll be adding in within the week, including some pieces by
Englishmen (as I recall, Theodore Darymple and Roger Scruton).
It's difficult to get a substantive discussion of sexual issues going. Those
who take a traditionalist view are reticent. In the absence of strong
intellectual leadership, which doesn't exist, they lose the ability to
articulate their position. Those on the sexual Left in contrast are quite
articulate, since their views follow immediately from the basic tendencies of
political and moral thought today. They also have the very great advantage of
being able to say "there's nothing that has to be discussed here, because
nothing's a problem. If everyone does whatever he happens to feel like doing
there aren't any issues, so we can all forget this and think about other
things."
So anyway good luck in trying to get something started. The effort is a
valuable one. Do let me know how it goes.
Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu Apr 5 10:36:18 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 KAA17569
for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:36:16 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Thu Apr 5 10:36:16 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 MAA08771
for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 12:36:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-78-233.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.78.233] for jkalb@nyx.net id <2301171> 05 Apr 2001 12:36:03 EDT
To: jkalb@nyx.net
Subject: [alt.revolution.counter] Re: Voegelin: On the Nature of the Law
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 05 Apr 2001 11:36:08 -0500
Message-ID:
Lines: 29
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
Status: RO
psychrophiles@hotmail.com (M) writes:
> Could liberal democracy not be viewed as a good-weather system that
> requires a high degree of 'moral alignment' to work, but that also
> result in high productivity in fields like the sciences and
> innovative industrial production when it works?
Makes sense. "Let 'em do what they want" works fine if people are
generally public-spirited and there are informal ways to sanction or at
least withhold support from antisocial behavior. It clears the way for
productive initiatives.
The difficulty is that nothing lasts forever. Once "let 'em do what they
want" becomes the fundamental ethical principle it eats away at public
spirit and informal sanctions and so destroys the conditions of its own
success.
> > The current regime of
> > course intentionally reduces the GCD to 1 - that is the
> > significance of multiculturalism etc.
> Why need there be intention?
It appears to exist in fact. I don't see the the distinction between
"celebrate diversity" and "reduce the GCD" as slogans.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Apr 16 07:02:27 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 HAA07896
for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 07:02:25 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Mon Apr 16 07:02:25 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 JAA15587;
Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:02:23 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:02:23 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200104161302.JAA15587@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-6-23.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.6.23] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <2453546> 16 Apr 2001 09:02:22 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: upstream-list@cycad.com
In-reply-to: (AlBoyd2@aol.com)
Subject: Re: [Upstream] Single in Scandinavia
References:
Status: RO
Al Boyd writes:
If illegitimacy and fatherlessness are the chief cause of inner-city
decline in the US, why are we not seeing this same pattern in
Scandinavia, where out-of-wedlock births are now about 50%? Are the
fathers actually staying around and forming de facto nuclear
families, or is there some other factor at work?
There is incomparably more crime in Scandanavia than several decades
ago. I don't know much about other social pathologies. It does seem that
a more homogenous and cohesive - and originally more disciplined -
culture should dampen the effects of looser family ties at least for a
while.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Apr 29 12:42:34 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 MAA17199
for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 12:42:32 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sun Apr 29 12:42:32 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 OAA21052;
Sun, 29 Apr 2001 14:42:31 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 14:42:31 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200104291842.OAA21052@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-68-143.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.68.143] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <2686160> 29 Apr 2001 14:42:29 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: paleo-right@yahoogroups.com
In-reply-to: <9chl41+d63k@eGroups.com> (amsmith9737@my-deja.com)
Subject: Re: [paleo-right] Re: Perpetual Culture War?
References: <9chl41+d63k@eGroups.com>
Status: RO
amsmith9737@my-deja.com writes:
The blurring of the roles of the two sexes and the encouragement of
homosexuality seem new -- though of course there were inimations in
the 1890s and 1920s -- but the older conception of marriage as
sacramental and permanent has been in trouble for some time. Probably
since the 1920's again, although it probably wasn't until no fault
divorce came in in the 1960's or 1970's that the problem became more
general. But of course, divorce is something that has affected more
people for a longer period than either homosexuality or androgeny, so
the change seems more substantial and irreversible, though less
radical or truly novel.
Androgeny and its corollary gay marriage complete the conceptual
abolition of marriage, which is what we're seeing now. I think it was
the '70s, with the emphasis on women's independence and the growing
acceptability of shacking up, that saw the abolition of marriage as a
substantive union of two persons. Up until then the fact two people were
married was thought to provide a reason for loyalty etc. beyond the
reasons provided by the informal aspects of the relationship (common
concerns and emotional ties they happened to feel or whatever).
In a sense, marriage as a contract implies all that, but one could
distinguish marriage as a legal and moral institution and claim that
originally marriage as a contract had to do with the former. Certainly
in some states of society the distinction is an important one.
I agree that everything in liberalism, including the abolition of
marriage, appeared very early. You can find it all in John Locke. It's
just taken a while to work its way into social practice.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Apr 29 12:20:47 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 MAA16504
for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 12:20:45 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sun Apr 29 12:20:45 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 OAA15126
for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 14:20:44 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 14:20:44 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200104291820.OAA15126@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-68-143.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.68.143] for jkalb@nyx.net id <2686049> 29 Apr 2001 14:20:41 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: jkalb@nyx.net
Subject: [kalb@aya.yale.edu: Re: [paleo-right] Re: Perpetual Culture War?]
Status: RO
------- Start of forwarded message -------
amsmith9737@my-deja.com writes:
That is certainly counter to the traditional Christian understanding
of marriage, but how does it differ from the ancient Roman view of
marriage?
Don't know a lot about their view. Tacitus treats it as an enormity when
Nero is wed to another man, and there was a stereotype of the virtuous
Roman wife, the existence of which seems inconsistent with the current
view that abolishes distinct roles for men and women and the radical
distinction between the married and unmarried state.
And indeed, how does it differ from the Protestant conception of John
Milton and others?
Adam and Eve in Paradise had different roles, at least in the poem,
which is inconsistent with the current view. Also, it would surprise me
if Milton viewed marriage as simply a formalization of a substantive
relationship (cohabitation) that in itself was perfectly legitimate.
Still, I don't know much about his view any more than the Roman one.
Maybe others can help me out.
Hasn't this condition been percolating for a long time? How long have
we had civil marriage and easy access to divorce in the country? Or
to put the question another way, how long were we able to have civil
marriage without easy access to divorce?
You're right that current liberal ideals are rooted in liberal views and
practices that have been developing for quite a long time. It's not as
if there's a sudden conspiracy to abolish everything decent. That
doesn't mean liberalism hasn't radically transformed things.
[I just got too lazy to add a quote, in answer to your other question.
Should I start again?]
- --
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat Apr 28 09:58:21 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 JAA22943
for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 09:58:19 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sat Apr 28 09:58:19 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 LAA12886
for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 11:58:18 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 11:58:18 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200104281558.LAA12886@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-6-170.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.6.170] for jkalb@nyx.net id <2679947> 28 Apr 2001 11:58:16 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: jkalb@nyx.net
Subject: [kalb@aya.yale.edu: Re: [paleo-right] Re: Perpetual Culture War?]
Status: RO
"Mark A. Thomey" writes:
this Union. The parties in this conflict are not merely
Abolitionists and Slaveholders; they are ATHEISTS,
SOCIALISTS, COMMUNISTS, RED REPUBLICANS AND
JACOBINS on the one side, and the FRIENDS OF ORDER
AND REGULATED FREEDOM ON THE OTHER. In one word,
It's interesting that Emerson basicaly agreed. In his journal, I think
about 1857, he comments that behind every reform lurks some more
terrible reform, that dares not yet name itself, and that in the case of
antislavery the lurking question was that of property generally.
- --
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat Apr 28 05:37:28 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 FAA15584
for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 05:37:26 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sat Apr 28 05:37:26 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 HAA14795
for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 07:37:22 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 07:37:22 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200104281137.HAA14795@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-6-170.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.6.170] for jkalb@nyx.net id <2678906> 28 Apr 2001 07:37:21 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: jkalb@nyx.net
Subject: [kalb@aya.yale.edu: Re: [paleo-right] Re: Perpetual Culture War?]
Status: RO
amsmith9737@my-deja.com writes:
I do have to wonder if "abolition" is the right word or the best word
to describe what is going on. Does one really expect marriage to be
abolished? And what would society look like after the abolition?
If sexual conduct is understood as legitimately a purely individual
choice, and the distinction between men and women is understood as
illegitimate to the extent it has any practical consequences, then I
would say that traditional sexual arrangements have been abolished.
That's already happened as regards the formal public commitments of our
society - our most admired legal principles, what is taught in the
schools, etc.
Marriage of course is part of traditional sexual arrangements. How much
of it is left now in principle? It seems to amount to a formal procedure
for recognition of domestic partnerships among any two persons for the
period the partnership lasts, with provisions for what happens when it
dissolves. The procedure is optional - some choose it and some don't. If
the partnership lasts a while people usually end up going for the formal
recognition, which confers certain employee and social welfare benefits
and also clarifies mutual obligations.
You could call that marriage if you want but to me it seems radically
different in substance and function from what has been so called in the
past.
- --
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Apr 25 07:40:56 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 HAA09682
for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 07:40:53 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Wed Apr 25 07:40:53 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 JAA10418;
Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:40:52 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:40:52 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200104251340.JAA10418@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-78-212.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.78.212] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <2629361> 25 Apr 2001 09:40:50 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: paleo-right@yahoogroups.com
In-reply-to: <3AE6CB18.91BA6E9@mindspring.com> (message from Jim Langcuster on Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:03:20 -0500)
Subject: Re: [paleo-right] Re: Perpetual Culture War?
References: <9c56ss+9k10@eGroups.com> <200104251155.HAA26990@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU> <3AE6CB18.91BA6E9@mindspring.com>
Status: RO
It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I agree with Jim L. that
gay marriage dramatizes the abolition of traditional sexual
arrangements, including marriage, in a specially vivid way. On the other
hand the people who dominate what passes for our public life explicitly
favor the abolition of traditional sexual arrangements. Those who oppose
it don't know how to articulate their views, because they would have to
oppose everything preached by everyone respectable from Supreme Court
justices to kindergarten teachers, so to preserve comfort they've become
practiced in explaining things away.
I suppose the question is what to do. To my mind one thing needed is to
develop the arguments against liberalism generally, including feminism
and what is praised as sexual tolerance, so that people find it easier
to articulate their objections to things like gay marriage, and so those
on our side of the culture war become more aware of their common ground.
It's all one struggle after all.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Apr 25 05:55:30 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 FAA05155
for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 05:55:25 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Wed Apr 25 05:55:25 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 HAA26990;
Wed, 25 Apr 2001 07:55:24 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 07:55:24 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200104251155.HAA26990@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-78-212.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.78.212] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <2627911> 25 Apr 2001 07:55:22 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: paleo-right@yahoogroups.com
In-reply-to: <9c56ss+9k10@eGroups.com> (oldwhig@mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: [paleo-right] Re: Perpetual Culture War?
References: <9c56ss+9k10@eGroups.com>
Status: RO
"Jim Langcuster" writes:
I do believe gay "rights" will be the flash point in the culture
war for several reasons, namely because contention over this issue
tends to present the culture war in real and very stark terms for most
people but also because -- and I truly believe this --
acquiescing to homosexual marriage, by diluting the very basis on
which our moral order is based, will portend the end of what remains
of Western civilization.
It's a flash point, but how much of a flash will there be and for how
long?
Gay rights makes much less immediate practical difference than things
like liberal feminism, contraception, abortion, and the general
principle of sexual freedom. There's very little articulate opposition
to any of that, except abortion, and the opposition to abortion has to
do with life and not sexual issues.
If we've been able to swallow the other things without gagging, why not
gay rights? How would it be possible to deal with gay rights without
dealing with the rest of it, which no one's done and no one seems able
to do? The reason gay rights are so widely accepted is that they simply
carry out principles that have already become authoritative and that
people think should transform everything else.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed May 23 06:38:13 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 GAA29773
for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 06:38:11 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Wed May 23 06:38:11 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 IAA16593;
Wed, 23 May 2001 08:38:06 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 08:38:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200105231238.IAA16593@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-76-103.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.76.103] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <3022352> 23 May 2001 08:38:03 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: upstream-list@cycad.com
In-reply-to: <3B0B32CE.CDCEC285@tscnet.com> (rgleiser@tscnet.com)
Subject: Re: [Upstream] Ban Sought on Racial Profiling
References: <3B0B32CE.CDCEC285@tscnet.com>
Status: RO
What will the effects be?
Presumably, officials will say the ban helped them in their work,
because it forced them to concentrate on good police practices, and
patrolmen etc. will undergo constant re-education that will teach them
at least that they have to keep their mouths shut.
What about actual crime though? What occurs to me is the "zero
tolerance" situation. If common sense is forbidden then some combination
of arbitrary power and rigid control becomes necessary. So I think we're
likely to see more of the things they're introducing in Britain -
surveillance cameras, mass DNA testing, abolition of common-law
protections like presumption of innocence and trial by jury (the last is
a rarety anyway). Also multiplication of vaguely-defined crimes with
draconian penalties to facilitate whatever plea-bargained result the
authorities decide they want. I'm sure there are lots more possibilities
that just don't occur to me offhand.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue May 22 07:40:37 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 HAA19287
for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 07:40:34 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Tue May 22 07:40:34 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 JAA08476;
Tue, 22 May 2001 09:40:29 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 09:40:29 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200105221340.JAA08476@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-76-60.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.76.60] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <3005047> 22 May 2001 09:40:27 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: pe
Subject: Re: William Jennings Bryan Was Right
References: <004001c0e1fb$acded720$0257580c@h6l3p> <000401c0e273$6450b0a0$df1d0e3f@default>
Status: RO
"There is no limit to the variation sexual reproduction can produce over
time."
If this were true it seems there'd be no limit on what could be done
through selective breeding. Is that so?
I meant to comment though on your suggestion about sterilization
bounties. The general problem I have with that kind of techno-fix is
that in order to deal with one issue it causes problems for the system
as a whole.
The idea treats sex, and therefore eventually the relation between the
sexes and among parents and children, as a utilitarian matter of
individual preference and choice. If that's the way things are though
then people will end up more miserable than ever - marriages won't last,
children won't be born at a replacement rate, and the ones who are born
won't be raised in a proper environment.
The basic issue I think is whether the most fundamental aspects of human
life - birth and death, loyalty and sacrifice, etc. - can be dealt with
in an individualistic and technically rational matter. I don't think
they can.
jk
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat May 19 05:07:49 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 FAA13761
for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 05:07:47 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sat May 19 05:07:47 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 HAA02749
for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 07:07:46 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 07:07:46 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200105191107.HAA02749@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-81-177.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.81.177] for jkalb@nyx.net id <2973524> 19 May 2001 07:07:44 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: jkalb@nyx.net
Subject: [kalb@aya.yale.edu: Re: Tradition: Coloradoan 2001-5-6]
Status: O
>Why can't any group of people who
>are attached to each other be recognized as family?
Over tens of thousands of years, many arrangements have been tried. The
groups with a better arrangement displaced competing groups. The
traditional family wins.
Probably the best start, but I think it's necessary to at some point to
say why. After all:
1. If the traditional family is in decline now, which it is, this
argument shows that it's not really the better arrangement.
2. People claiming to be experts will always say there is no such thing
as "the" traditional family, just a variety of arrangements that have
changed from time to time.
3. People believe in progress, and there's been a big effort to debunk
the past. In modern times there have been changes and reforms of
ancient and unquestioned institutions like the abolition of slavery
and those have given us the great world of today. The traditional
family is sexist, and people have gradually realized that has to
change until today everyone agrees about that except a few
backwoodsmen. Until very recently it was - even legally - racist,
since miscegenation was illegal. Why not reform it still more and get
rid of the homophobia of the traditional family as an institution?
Pointing out that things are probably the way they are for a reason is a
good way to start a discussion but it's not going to end it.
This is the time to develop our defenses and arguments.
Agreed.
- --
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed May 16 13:45:28 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 NAA05475
for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 13:45:26 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Wed May 16 13:45:26 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 PAA20771;
Wed, 16 May 2001 15:45:24 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 15:45:24 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200105161945.PAA20771@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-120-194.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.120.194] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <2931097> 16 May 2001 15:45:21 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Tradition: Coloradoan 2001-5-6
References: <002501c0de2a$aeee0100$685c580c@h6l3p>
Status: O
The primary argument must be focussed on homosexuality
itself.
I think that's right. A difficulty is that by the time homosexuality
becomes the issue so much ground has been given up that the argument
from principle is hard to make.
In the case of homosexuality, it seems to me that emphasizing the
fundamental importance of the family, as Perry does, is good. But then
it would help to say why it's necessary for the family to be based on a
sexual tie between a man and a woman. Why can't any group of people who
are attached to each other be recognized as family? If for some reason
you insist on a sexual tie to strengthen the union why not any sexual
tie?
To do that you have to be able to say that men and women are essentially
different and complementary, that "gender" is not a social construct,
that sex, in all its meanings, is a system with a natural function, that
all these things are basic to what we are and we can't make them
otherwise by choosing to do so, that they are worthy of social support,
and that if we ignore them in the name of freedom and equality there are
going to be very major problems.
So I think it's difficult to resist effectively at a single point
without a counterattack across the whole front.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon May 14 07:18:43 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 HAA01432
for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 07:18:41 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Mon May 14 07:18:41 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 JAA19024;
Mon, 14 May 2001 09:18:40 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 09:18:40 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200105141318.JAA19024@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-79-145.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.79.145] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <2886716> 14 May 2001 09:18:38 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
In-reply-to: <000201c0dc6d$54bb9760$3e55580c@h6l3p> (la@att.net)
Subject: Re: a unified theory of liberalism
References: <000201c0dc6d$54bb9760$3e55580c@h6l3p>
Status: O
The fundamental principle of liberalism is to deny substantive moral or
cultural differences in the name of individual freedom or inter-group
harmony. But because this "value-neutral" position is based on false
assumptions about the nature of existence, it must lead, not to the
utopian neutrality and universality it promises, but, first, to the
construction of a false equivalence between the Other and one's own,
between Evil and Good, between lies and truth, and, ultimately, to the
active support for the Other over one's own, for Evil over Good, for
lies over truth. This same pattern manifests over and over again in
every area of life and politics.
a.. In the "peace process," there is the refusal to recognize the
substantive truth about the Palestinians, which is that they don't want
Israel to exist. Palestianians and Israeli behavior must always be
painted as equivalent, which in practice means covering up Palestinian
murder and terrorism and painting Israeli self-defense as their
equivalent.
b.. In race relations, there is the refusal to recognize the
substantive truth about black behavior, which in practice means covering
up the truth of black behavior and portraying white behavior as its
equivalent.
c.. In moral and social relations, substantive moral differences
cannot be recognized, which in practice means covering up wrongful
behavior or portraying good behavior as the equivalent of bad behavior.
Slogans such as "Everybody does it" are the means by which this is
carried out. Other common slogans that suppress substantive moral
judgment are "People can do what they like," "Lighten up," and "It's
time to move on."
That's the equivalence stage, which makes good and evil equivalent. The
next stage is to consider good uniquely evil, since it provides the
framework of existence, and so is hegemonic and oppressive. Evil in
contrast is parasitic, and so can always portray itself as justified
rebellion against the judgmental hegemony of the good, as a praiseworthy
assertion of freedom.
Another point - God is the Absolute Other. Do away with good that
transcends us, try to make this world a self-contained system, and the
human other or maybe the non-human world can become in effect the
Absolute Other. Hence Gaia worship and the worship of the old Latin
American peasant woman on the Catholic web page we discussed. Another
possibility, since order and good create the world we inhabit, is to
make disorder and evil the Absolute Other and worship them.
jk
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed May 23 07:10:12 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 HAA03938
for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 07:10:10 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Wed May 23 07:10:10 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 JAA20656
for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 09:10:09 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 09:10:09 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200105231310.JAA20656@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-76-103.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.76.103] for jkalb@nyx.net id <3022683> 23 May 2001 09:10:07 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: jkalb@nyx.net
Subject: [kalb@aya.yale.edu: Black ancestry of Britons]
Status: O
I rather liked this. The study shows that
1. If an Englishman had a black or Asian ancestor he can scientifically
be picked out of a crowd 2000 years later.
2. In spite of thousands of years of trade, migrations, imperialisms,
etc. very few Englishmen have black or Asian ancestors.
The conclusion, of course, is that it's nonsense to talk about racial
distinctions among Englishmen, blacks and Asians.
DNA Shows Black Genes in White Britons
Reuters
May 19 2001 10:28PM
LONDON (Reuters) - One in every 100 "white" Britons is directly
descended from an African or Asian, a study into DNA has found.
The study's author, Bryan Sykes, professor of human genetics at Oxford
University, believes the DNA originates in Africans brought to Britain
as soldiers and slaves by the Romans, the Sunday Times said.
The study, which looked at the DNA of more than 10,000 people, found
that many who believed their ancestry to be completely British were
actually far more diverse.
"This makes nonsense of any biological basis for racial classification,"
the newspaper quoted Sykes as saying. "We are all a complex mixture and,
at the same time, we are all related."
Among those whom Sykes found with a strong selection of African genes
were a dairy farmer from Somerset in southern England whose British
ancestry could be traced back hundreds of years.
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed May 23 07:09:12 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 HAA03772
for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 07:09:09 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Wed May 23 07:09:09 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 JAA28606
for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 09:09:08 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 09:09:08 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200105231309.JAA28606@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-76-103.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.76.103] for jkalb@nyx.net id <3022675> 23 May 2001 09:09:07 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: jkalb@nyx.net
Subject: [kalb@aya.yale.edu: Re: Genuine and fake moderation]
Status: O
I think it's true that the left in the end has to rely - and does rely -
on the authority of the status quo simply as such, and it must construct
that status quo manipulatively.
After all, they need some kind of authority to rule, and there's nothing
else that can be authoritative. "Emancipation" etc. are wholly empty
concepts that in the end can be given meaning only in the way Sade gives
them meaning. So it follows that hewing to the mainstream is the only
way to avoid limitless catastrophe. The mainstream has no essence,
though, the left abolishes all essences as oppressive. So those who rule
necessarily define an essence for it manipulatively, as prolefeed, and
suppress all questioning.
jk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Hugh Akston
The ultimate goal of liberalism is maximum equal satisfaction of
preferences, and it seems to me that that does follow from a desire to
go as little as possible beyond universally demonstrable features of
human action. We all have preferences, we can all recognize the
preferences of others, we can probably all agree that having a
preference is a reason for doing something. Liberalism tries to take
that and make a complete moral and political system out of it, without
appeal to transcendent goods that can't be demonstrated and that people
argue about endlessly.
That approach to the basics of morality does seem to me in line with
scientific method - the standard of appeal is to things that are equally
recognizable by all trained observers, and you don't bring in additional
things if you can at all avoid it. It also seems to me ultimate goals
are the most basic thing about a political view. Therefore my comment
that liberalism is fundamentally an extension of the scientific outlook.
I agree that in the long run liberalism doesn't work, that it results in
the opposite of what it originally intends. As I say, it starts with
religious freedom and separation of powers and ends with enforced
nihilism in a totally administered society, and as you suggest it ends
up utterly irrational and obscurantist. To me those are simply signs
that you can't extend the methods of modern natural science to
fundamental moral and political issues, not that liberalism doesn't
start intending to be rigorous and demonstrable and universal in the way
science is.
As for my comment about conservatives, note that's about what I call
"simple conservatives," by which I mean people who don't propose some
standard of the good other than the liberal standard of satisfaction of
preferences and so can't really respond effectively to liberal claims
that all other views are intolerant, oppressive, hateful, etc. All they
can do is try to slow down liberal reforms, and the consequence has
always been that the liberals win in the end.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: KC_Conspirator, B.A.Conservative
If you want to oppose liberalism you should try to understand what it
is, and why so many people have been convinced for so long that it's
obviously right and everything else is obviously wrong. Otherwise you
won't know what you're opposing and what its real strengths and
weaknesses are.
Liberalism has a fundamental point. Why call an attempt to nail down
that point and why so many people are persuaded by it "the politics of
meaning" or whatever?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: KC_Conspirator
For example, take any campus radical - the only thing they are liberal
about is sex and drugs. They want to control everything else in your
life, or as you put it "reduce the amount of choices" whether it be the
flushing power of your toilet, the food you eat, or the land you live
on.
But that is consistent with the fundamental liberal philosophy of
freedom and equality. You can have as much sex and drugs as you want, of
whatever kind, and that doesn't diminish the amount or variety of sex
and drugs available to other people. On the other hand there's not an
unlimited amount of water, so what there is has to be split up somehow,
and what kind of food McDonald's or whoever makes available isn't a
personal choice but it establishes the setting in which people make
personal choices and so constrains their choices. Liberals therefore
think those things are OK to regulate. In fact, it's good from a liberal
standpoint to regulate them as much as possible, because then people
will be able to make more choices without having to think of the
consequences, so then the choices will be freer, and since the choices
won't be allowed to have any consequences they won't make anyone
unequal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: x
Thanks for the comments.
I define "liberalism" as a constant principle of change that produces
different effects in different settings, but eventually leads to what we
have now. I agree that to account for any state of affairs you need to
know the inherited situation a principle of change is working on as well
as the principle itself. I gave a (very brief) account in the piece
about how it leads at different stages to both the classical liberalism
of the Founders and the modern (or post-modern) managerial liberalism we
have today.
I agree old-time liberals would not have understood my definition or
would have thought it an outrageous distortion, but I think old-time
critics of liberalism would have seen its point. It seems to me that
events support the critics more than their opponents. "Follow individual
interpretation and conscience" has I think turned out in the long run to
be in effect the same as "go for what you want, whatever that happens to
be" because there can be no public objective principle to distinguish
the two.
I don't see why there shouldn't be something after liberalism. Nothing
lasts forever. Why should liberalism? The fact we can't conceive of
anything beyond it doesn't matter if it creates problems that make it
increasingly non-functional, which seems to be the case. It just means
there'll have to be more of a breakdown of the established order and
maybe more of a period of disorder before something else comes along.
I think of gaia-worship etc. as marginal - basically, it functions as a
cheap substitute for the transcendent that liberalism destroys but
people always necessarily feel the need for. I don't think it's serious
except in a few extreme cases in which it does become opposed to
liberalism. I do believe liberalism leads to a post-cultural situation -
that's how it destroys itself. And after liberalism there could still be
individual freedom, since there is some individual freedom in all times
and places, but not as an ultimate standard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: x
I agree that Plato gives the best description of the social devolution
liberalism brings about. The only thing I add is a more definite basis
for the process, Ockham's razor and modern natural science and its
amazing success. It also seems to me that the wealth and technical skill
of modern society means the process can go much farther than was
possible when Plato first conceived it.
Obviously there are people and views that don't fit what I say very
directly, so I have to claim that they all eventually became unimportant
because they weren't in line with what was basically going on. Other
liberalisms attempted to combine things that really wouldn't hold up.
I don't claim that the liberal order of the past few centuries will
evolve into something else, but that it will stop working and disappear
because of inability to inspire loyalty and sacrifice, inability to
reproduce itself in the next generation, etc. If it's not there any more
it won't matter what advantages it would have if it were still with us.
One possible successor would be something like traditional Levantine
society, in which radical heterogeneity meant no public life, just
fluctuating dynastic despotisms, with social life beyond the life of the
bazaar carried on within separate inward-turning communities.
As to science fiction, I agree that if strong artificial intelligence is
right then none of this matters, we'll all be replaced by robots who'll
do whatever they do. I don't think AI is possible though, for reasons
like those Penrose goes into in The Emperor's New Mind. The new forms of
consciousness will look very much like old forms I think.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: On to Tradition? Well yes, but how?
The clearest analysis is that it is impossible to cure Western society
as it stands, through development of its own principles and
institutions. Instead, new principles and institutions must grow up, or
at least non-mainstream principles develop, to the point of replacing
those now dominant. That would happen because they are more functional.
I suppose the idea is that revolution has come to seem more workable
than reform. That, I suppose, is the meaning of counterrevolution. An
historical analogy would be to the growth of Christianity within Rome.
Jim Kalb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One problem is that achievement of a view of things at odds with the one
established is a big job.
Take the problem of "ignorance" for example. Right-wingers are
notoriously "ignorant." The reason is that what is recognized as
knowledge today is expert knowledge. Experts are defined as such by
their relation to the bureaucracies and media organizations that rely on
them so that their activities can be well-informed and relatively
thoughtful. Their expertise therefore takes a form that makes it useful
to their patrons - it's explicit, publicly demonstrable, and has to do
decisions and procedures that can be carried out by functionaries.
Implicit and personal knowledge, and knowledge of things that transcend
us and can only be expressed indirectly, is therefore excluded. They're
not things you'll be taught in school or hear about from recognized
authorities or on TV. In particular, tradition is excluded as a source
of knowledge. To act based on such things is to act ignorantly because
the action is not backed by expertise, which is the authoritative form
of knowledge.
A consequence is that institutions like the family, which are based on
implicit and personal knowledge and on tradition, lose their legitimacy
and are viewed as oppressive because they are based simply on ignorance.
Ditto for standards that support the family, like traditional sexual
morality. Skepticism as to the equal worth of homosexuality is
"ignorant" not because it ignores any particular knowledge but because
it represents rejection of expertise as the only authoritative
knowledge.
So we have a bit of a chicken and egg problem. We can't have a movement
until people's notion of what knowledge is changes, and that can't
happen until there's a social base for a different conception. Which, I
suppose, is the significance of projects like that being pursued by the
Society of St. John.
Jim Kalb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethnicity and State
The "paleo model" would be 2. plus limited government, federalism and
localism. The significance of ethnicity would then become a matter of
custom, local accommodations, etc.
The reason you don't like any of the models may be that all seem to
accept the state as a sort of social absolute and the position the state
gives ethnicity therefore becomes an absolute as well. That doesn't seem
to work, since ethnicity while in many respects objective also has
gradations, is subject to interpretation, has important subjective
aspects, etc. So nailing it down and giving it a fixed legal
significance (or compulsory insignificance) seems to miss something.
Jim Kalb
Re: Stereotypes and Anti-Inclusiveness
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've avoided prescribing what the relationships between ethnic groups
should be because they vary so much with circumstances. Should I condemn
strictly orthodox Jews for being such separatists? Gypsies for
considering all outsiders unclean? That would put me in the position of
proposing that those groups abolish themselves.
Also, it seems to me that I would have a hard time persuading the
reasonable people you mention of my good faith in any event. Not many
people are willing to respond to what is actually said. If you take
issue with orthodoxy on these issues people feel justified in reading
between the lines, picking up on code words, etc., and attributing the
worst motives imaginable. If you protest that you didn't mean XYZ they
see through you immediately.
Still, you may have a point. I've written things criticizing
antidiscrimination orthodoxy and defending the necessity of prejudice,
stereotypes, and so on, but nothing describing how a possible more
sensible arrangement might work and defending it as better than what we
have now. So it's worth some thought. Jim Kalb
Re: Christian Order, Racial Ideology, and Disclaimers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I could certainly deny being a racial ideologist, one who believes race
is more important than common humanity. I could even deny believing that
race has any very definite implications.
What people demand though - on pain of extremely unsympathetic
reading-between-the-lines - is wholehearted acceptance of the view that
(1) race should be socially irrelevant, and (2) it is an overriding
moral imperative to bring about by all effective means a situation in
which race is socially irrelevant.
That seems wrong to me, for reasons given in my essays "Freedom,
Discrimination and Culture" and "Anti-racism". As I see it, the basic
problem is that a tolerable society requires the legitimacy of
particular culture, all particular cultures have an ethnic connection,
because culture and ethnicity both arise through the long life together
of a particular group of people, and ethnicity always has racial
implications because it's something held in common by a particular group
of people. If race is to be made truly irrelevant, which is what's
demanded, then the same goes for ethnicity and particular culture.
Social life must be carried on on purely abstract principles. That, it
seems to me, leads to a totalitarian hell.
So race, I think, must be allowed to have social relevance. I don't
think Christianity tells me anything different. Christianity isn't
Islam, which creates a single people observing a single body of laws and
traditions. It allows the social more autonomy and particularity. That
can be seen in the distinction between the things of Caesar and the
things of God, and in the practice of the church in baptizing local
observances - the rites of gods and goddesses became rites of saints,
Easter went from a pagan spring festival to the holiest day of the
Christian year. Christianity accepts loyalties and connections that are
not specifically Christian - if you have a pagan wife or master before
you become a Christian you still do afterwards. Christianity tells the
members of one family or people not to hate the members of other
families and peoples but not that it is illegitimate for them to exist
as a separate family or people and feel a distinction between members
and non-members.
I certainly agree with OldWorldRus.com that some of the links on the
Traditionalist Conservatism page set forth views that should be
rejected. As the introduction to the page says its function is to raise
issues and provide material for thought and discussion rather than to
persuade. It seems to me ethnicity is one issue that should be dealt
with, and one on which discussion is now suppressed. There's a lot of
insanity about ethnicity just as there's a lot of insanity about sex,
religion and politics. The basics of human life are like that. It seems
to me important to explore the issues. If I only included links to views
I agreed with there wouldn't be many links and the issues - including
both dangers and truths that have fallen into the hands of cranks
because no-one else will discuss them - wouldn't be brought out
adequately.
When you talk about basic things, especially basic things you're not
supposed to talk about because everything is supposed to have been
resolved already, you can't expect universal agreement. The most you can
hope for is to raise issues so people will do their own thinking and the
outcome will be something more intelligent than the established dogma.
If the materials I've put together contribute to that goal I will be
more than satisfied. If someone thinks some other collection of
materials would advance the goal better comments are welcome but won't
always be followed. Each is free to present what seems best to him.
Jim Kalb
Re: Is race socially relevent?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no very settled views on these questions. Some thoughts though:
1. I think ethnicity and therefore the ethnic prejudice and
discrimination required to maintain ethnic boundaries have a future
because ethnicity is the concrete existence of a tradition comprehensive
enough to order a whole way of life, and form a people capable of common
deliberation and action, and those things are difficult to do without.
2. In Western Europe, where until very recently populations had been
settled with no major movements of peoples for 1000 years, ethnic
distinctions have mostly been maintained the way you mention. That's had
advantages - for example it has permitted the existence of an important
public sphere in which fairly free discussion was possible.
3. Elsewhere, in the traditional Middle East and South Asia for example,
mixture of populations has meant that the survival of definite
traditions has required more explicit boundaries - the division of
society into separate inward-turning communities, the millets of the
Ottoman Empire or the castes of India. That's had disadvantages. The
differences between the public sphere in Europe and the East is the
difference between the public square and the bazaar, or between a
European state and a dynastic despotism. In both cases I prefer the
former. Still, a tolerable life is impossible without coherent
traditions, and the latter must be maintained in whatever way
circumstances permit.
These considerations are of course speculative, and they don't suggest
any grand vision it makes sense to campaign for. To my mind they do
suggest that open borders, forced integration, antiracism etc. are bad
ideas, which is all I've ever argued for. In a way they repeat the
suggestion you make about feminism, that liberal attempts to abolish
fundamental human distinctions end up bringing the distinctions back in
a less civilized form.
Jim Kalb
Re: Exaggerating ethnicity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Jeff,
It seems a lot of what you and I say seems at cross purposes. That's OK,
because it brings out issues, but it means most of the issues just sit
there because one or the other of us doesn't have a concrete position he
wants to argue for, just a collection of more or less relevant concerns.
You're quite right that my definition of ethnicity is not essentially
biological. If some long-lived tyrant cross-bred the human race for 20
generations, so that there were no racial differences, and then dropped
the project and left things to go their own course, distinctions would
appear that in time would be ethnic although not (at least until a much
longer time had passed) racial in nature.
The reason I treat ethnicity as important is that culture is important.
Since moral and religious truth is transcendent it exists for us
concretely in particular cultural forms that must be authoritative for
us but cannot claim to exhaust all truth. It is best therefore that
there be multiple cultures, which means multiple cultural communities
that maintain their coherence and mutual distinctiveness over the
generations and are guarded by particularist loyalties. I don't see any
real difference between saying that and saying there should be multiple
ethnicities that maintain their distinctiveness from other ethnicities.
If there were only a single worldwide culture I think it would be bad
because it would believe too much in its own self-sufficiency. It would
suffer from a form of blindness. The story of the Tower of Babel is very
much in point - when man was one he lost a sense of his own limitations
and of the transcendent, and thought he could abolish the distinction
between heaven and earth. As a result he became unable even to think
rationally - language itself lost its meaning, social order disappeared
and man was scattered. In this connection it seems to me that one
feature of Christianity is that unlike Islam it does not of itself
establish a particular culture. It permits and indeed relies upon
particularity within itself. When we see God face to face there will be
only one culture, but while we see through a glass darkly it is
essential that we realize that there are different perspectives.
So my comments have to do with conditions that somehow or other must be
satisfied in the long run for man to live a truly human life. Most of
your comments have to do with practicalities in a particular situation.
So our comments don't necessarily conflict, although ultimately each
should take the other into account. Working out a comprehensive view
that includes both relevant general considerations and specific tactics
and strategy would be a lot of work and I've never done it. All I've
done is say that ethnic prejudice and discrimination are not per se
evil, any more than gender prejudice and discrimination are, and that
the antidiscrimination laws should be repealed. Those it seems to me are
minimal consequences of my general view.
On multiculturalism - it seems to me clear that its function is to
abolish separate cultures and thus the existence of separate peoples by
forcing all significant social institutions to give equal consideration
to every particular culture. The result is that every historical culture
becomes a private hobby, with no public authority, and the constructed
culture of liberalism becomes the universally authoritative public
culture which everyone is required to accept.
Jim Kalb
Re: More on ethnic prejudice and discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think I've given my version of "what to do about it" several times -
get rid of antidiscrimination legislation and restrict immigration, and
after that let people act (within the limits of the laws etc. otherwise
applicable) in accordance with their sense of belonging and whatever
other motives they have. As to race, ethnicity etc. it's a libertarian
approach, except that it recognizes that free political life is aided by
common understandings, common loyalties, a common history, and so on. I
suppose it's a 19th c. liberal approach, since 19th c. liberals tended
to prefer states that corresponded to ethnic peoples.
I agree that sex is more fundamental than ethnicity, just as I would
agree if the issue were raised that food is normally more fundamental
than clothing and shelter. I do think though that multiculturalism and
antiracism generally attack the possibility of particular culture and
therefore the possibility of a tolerable human way of life. They must
therefore be fought, and a necessary part of fighting them is pointing
out that prejudice and discrimination sometimes serve a positive and
indeed necessary function in human life. I don't think I've done more
than that.
I prefer "ethnicity" to "culture" because it emphasizes the tie between
culture and a particular group of people living together, and to the
concrete personal prerational ties among those people, in opposition to
the tendency today to dematerialize everything and make it abstract.
That tendency leads to the view that we can make everything into
whatever we want just by redefining or reinterpreting. As to people who
give race too much importance or base their views on race hatred or
contempt, everyone's hysterical about them anyway. I don't think I need
to campaign against them too.
Do bounce back from your cold!
Jim Kalb
Re: American conservatism = religious liberalism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is that in America government is in principle
antiparticularistic, utilitarian and secular, and the farther up the
governmental hierarchy you go the more that way it becomes. I think
that's inevitable in a country that began as a federal union among
religiously diverse local societies and since then has taken in a lot of
immigrants, first from all over Europe and now from all over the world.
So it's very difficult for an American conservative to favor a strong
hierarchical government. In America such institutions necessarily oppose
everything conservatives care about - personal loyalty, cultural
particularity, moral and religious tradition, and the like. Here those
things exist locally, informally and privately, so anything that reduces
the scope of the local, informal and private injures them. Hence the
tendency toward libertarianism among American conservatives.
Conservatives here don't object to social responsibility, they object to
giving it legal and bureaucratic form.
I say things are that way in America, but I'm not sure it's so different
in Europe now. From what I see it appears that strong hierarchical
European governments are more and more becoming strong hierarchical
enforcers of multiculturalism and the rest of it. The European tendency
toward the centralized state makes the EU especially alarming, I think.
Are you sure of what you say about European liberals and secularism? My
impression was that anticlericalism was basic to continental liberalism.
Jim Kalb
Re: re
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, yes, in Sweden and other European countries you had traditional
hierarchical social arrangements with monarchy, aristocracy, state
church, and so on, so conservatives tend to favor something that reminds
them of that. In America we never had anything of the kind. Here big
government with many responsibilities basically means socialism. I do
think these differences are lessening though as the Ancien Regime in
Europe becomes more and more a distant memory.
I had an essay on the nature of American conservatism and its relation
to liberalism in the Swedish magazine Contextus a couple of years ago. I
think the magazine has folded, certainly their website has disappeared,
but the English version of the article is still online.
Jim Kalb
Re: Totalitarian Future
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To my mind as well there is a very serious danger of a totalitarian
future. I'm inclined to think that the intrinsic corruption of the
advanced liberal state is probably our most reliable ally.
The corruption arises because liberalism can't provide reasons for
loyalty or self-sacrifice, and doesn't like to make any serious demand
for personal moral discipline. The Clinton administration showed us
where we are and hinted at what the future is likely to be.
The advantage of corruption in a totalitarian regime, of course, is that
it prevents it from carrying out its fundamental commitments.
Jim Kalb
Re: Totalitarian Future
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A big question is how much life independent of the regime will be
permitted. The Soviet Union is an alarming example, because it allowed
so little, and you can see what the consequences of that are in the
state of post-Soviet society.
I doubt we'll simply retrace the steps of Soviet society. For one thing
corruption is setting in and discipline being lost much earlier in the
process of centralization. For another the declared ideology is much
more adverse to forcible measures and takes letting people do what they
feel like doing much more seriously. Jim Kalb
Re: Totalitarian Future
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree, on the whole. What makes the situation more dangerous is that
liberalism is more consistent than you suggest so it have fewer inner
conflicts that might weaken it.
Its basic principle is equal freedom. When it's traditional values that
are at issue equal freedom means we can all ignore them and do what we
feel like doing, so you get the 60s radical individualism you mention.
When the question is traditional distinctions like the distinction
between men and women, though, equality comes to the fore and the
freedom of men to be sexist and of women to cooperate with sexism must
be limited by everyone's right to a non-sexist environment that
guarantees the equality of freedom. Jim Kalb
Re: Totalitarian Future
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberalism is certainly biased toward equality. Another point is that it
demands a certain sort of rationality in which everything is comparable
and in fact interchangeable with everything else so that things can be
controlled and justice assured.
That means it doesn't like motives other than individual desires for
gratification, because other kinds of motives - non-individual
non-economic motives like loyalty to a people or to God or to a
non-liberal vision of order - complicate things. Everyone has to become
a liberal agent whose goal in life is to pursue his private preferences
consistent with the equal ability of others to pursue theirs, and one
function of PC is to root out every motive inconsistent with that. Other
motives are identified with hatred and bigotry.
Jim Kalb
Re: Universal Enfranchisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A couple of other ideas:
1. The moral demand for the universal franchise is mostly based on the
idea that what's good and bad is basically a matter of what people want.
Telling someone he can't vote is the same as telling him what he wants
doesn't matter. After all, no one knows better what he wants than he
does.
There are lots of very good reasons to reject the idea that what's good
is what people want. Once the idea is rejected the extent of the
franchise becomes more a matter of its practical effect than basic
justice.
2. The universal franchise makes it look like the government and the
people are the same, which is a fiction and a harmful one because it
supports unlimited government.
3. To the extent you can't get sensible answers from the people, and
"the people" don't have any common identity because they automatically
include absolutely everybody and have nothing much in common and are
getting more diverse all the time, the people will not in fact rule or
even have a very definite influence on what happens. Real power will be
in the hands of judges, bureaucrats, and people who can manipulate the
system.
Jim Kalb
Re: Problems with Representative Government
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree that federalism and localism by themselves are not an answer but
they're helpful. They tend to favor concrete experience and personal
connections over universal rationalizing institutions, and today I think
that's all to the good. Jim Kalb
Re: Problems with Representative Government
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure that leftist localism is really a possibility in the long
run. Leftist "liberty" tends to mean freedom from particular ties, and
"equality" equality in opposition to the distinctions people make in
day-to-day life. It follows that the Left relies at least in concept on
universal rationalizing institutions that trump everything particular
and local. Jim Kalb
Re: Problems with Representative Government
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huge left-leaning universities exist because of taxes and the demand for
experts and for trained and graded personnel to man large bureaucracies.
They favor the expansion of the rationalizing institutions of the
activist state, since that what supports their existence and prosperity.
In short, Berkeley, Madison, Austin and Evanston wouldn't be what they
are if localism were stronger.
Jim Kalb
Re: Problems with Representative Government
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The culturally liberal places I can think of are tied to centralizing
institutions and industries. Apart from the universities these include
government and the other branches of the information and
symbol-manipulating industries - publishing, advertising, law, the media
generally. Those industries like centralization because the growth of
universalizing abstract rationalizing institutions increases their
importance.
Big cities are usually more liberal than smaller and rural places. Again
the reason I think is that personal ties and immediate contacts tend to
be replaced by larger and more abstract relationships.
I don't believe any of the European societies of the past had a public
sector on remotely the scale of what we have now. More generally,
centralized admistration by nature is at odds with tradition because it
favors explicit rationalized standards applied uniformly.
And apart from all the rest, if your views are not the dominant ones
you'll probably do better in a system that has less machinery for
enforcing the dominant views universally.
Jim Kalb
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.
Could we continue the discussion of anti-feminism in the forum on Sex
and Gender at pub54.ezboard.com/ftradit...forumfrm4?
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
Re: coexistence and practical politics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, I'm perfectly happy with repeal of the inheritance tax. Don't see
anything wrong with a platform that won 1% of the vote in the last
election though. It's important to keep carrying the flag. In national
politics the most important single thing just now is to broaden the
range of considerations, arguments and issues that can be raised. Minor
parties can do that. Would I be better off with no voice at all speaking
for me?
Jim Kalb
Re: coexistence and practical politics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glad to see you're getting into the swing of it with snappy logos, etc.
My offhand prejudice would be to have a very high inheritance tax
exemption, $10,000,000 or so, or say some floating amount determined by
reference to the size of the 1000 largest fortunes. Maybe that kind of
provision would have the effect of legitimizing expropriation of large
fortunes, though, which could be the wrong principle to establish.
Nothing I've ever thought much about. I certainly agree than in
isolation inheritance tax repeal or reform wouldn't do much.
It does seem to me important though to maintain the principled big
ticket platform as a possibility. More possibilities makes politics more
spacious, and paves the way for smaller and more realistic things.
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: Christianity and Patriarchy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree that feminism is a way station. Do away with the habits and
arrangements that order and civilize our impulses and what you get is
primitivism and brutality.
I think though that the immediate effect of the deterioration of the
relations between the sexes that feminism and liberalism generally have
brought is to strengthen feminism and liberalism. That's why our
situation is so serious. The seeds of hope for the future you see are
nonetheless real. Jim Kalb
Re: femasculininization
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Radeechie,
The bad things are happening less as an immediate result of particular
personal vices like laziness or because of someone's omnipotence than
through a disordered system that gives no way for the inclinations and
impulses men and women have to link into a coherent and productive
whole.
Human character needs more than one thing, and men and women are not
exactly the same. The emotional support men give their offspring is not
exactly the same as what women give. Men are more political, women more
personal. Women supply more of what you seem to refer to as "nurturance"
- immediate closeness and standard-free approval, men more of the things
that have to do with people's separateness from each other - respect,
expectation that standards will be met, justice.
Both are absolutely essential. The masculine and feminine side of things
are not the same, but they must form a whole in each of us and in
society. If you abolish the political and structural side of the family,
which is what feminism does, that won't happen and you won't fill the
gap by insisting that men become emotionally women. Something will be
lost that is essential to the socialization of children, and the result
will be children who are not socialized. Which is a catastrophe.
Jim Kalb
Re: Two Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Radeechie,
I agree that many people don't hear what's actually said about sensitive
topics like sex because their position and experience makes them fearful
and suspicious. Still, all any of us can do is speak the truth as best
he can and hope others will understand it in the same spirit.
As to my goal, it is stable, satisfying and productive relations between
men and women, so they can live happily and so their children can be
brought up well. That requires an arrangement of which both men and
women on the whole approve.
What sort of arrangement should it be? Certainly, one that makes use of
their complementary qualities, but nothing that can be designed in
advance dogmatically or in detail, because life doesn't work that way.
Most of how people live has to establish itself because people find that
it works.
It can't be an arrangement that literally lets everyone be what he
chooses, because there is no such arrangement. Children are always
brought up with some definite way of life in mind, and we are always
judged by others - by women as well as by men - in accordance with
standards that have to do with how we act in relation to the way of life
people generally think right. Judgement is impossible to abolish since
without it life lacks all reason. Besides, the judgement that judgement
is bad is itself a judgement and so refutes itself!
The question liberal feminism raises is whether the standards and
expectations must necessarily be the same for both sexes. I see no
reason why they should and every reason why they should not. They never
have been identical - why is everyone suddenly so sure we are so much
smarter than people used to be? Is there so much more domestic happiness
now than there was pre-liberation?
In ancient literature of every culture the men and women are immediately
recognizable to us today as men and women like ourselves. That in itself
is enough to refute the notion that "gender" is simply a social
construct that can be reconstructed at will. Customs relating to sex and
the sexes differ as customs relating to food differ, but not without
limit. The fact menus differ in French and Chinese restaurants does not
mean that the place of food in human life can be changed to whatever one
wishes. So it seems to me the ways people find best in the future will
have a lot in common with those they have lived by in the past.
Jim Kalb
Re: Argument against legalized prostitution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People add to the argument for by saying "well, if you think government
can legitimately control what people do with their bodies then maybe you
think forcible sterilization and forcible abortion or maybe forcible
organ donations are OK." I think in the end to respond to that kind of
argument you have to argue that every government must be based on some
moral understanding and that the right moral understanding is the
Christian or maybe Catholic natural law one. You have to argue there's
nothing specially neutral or universal about liberal morality, and that
the system you prefer is in fact preferable.
As to the argument against, you have to expand on the social damage done
by legalized prostitution, for example go into what the beneficial moral
understandings are that legalized prostitution would undermine. By
unusually good fortune there's something on the web that presents views
I agree with here.
Jim Kalb
Re: Need Desperate help
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your note, Omar, and thanks for bringing up the issue.
Some random thoughts:
Ahmadis are certainly human beings and have whatever rights human beings
have as such. Also, from what I understand of their treatment in
Pakistan, I don't like it. I think it's bad.
There ought in concept to be some universal natural law limit on
compulsion in matters of religion. I'm not sure just what that limit is.
Certainly, though, if something seems wrong to me I ought somehow to be
able to say so.
In Germany and many Western countries it's illegal to use Nazi symbols
or the Nazi salute, to own a copy of Mein Kampf, etc., because Nazism is
a very bad thing and the authorities want to guard against it. In
Pakistan it's illegal for some people to use Islamic symbols or an
Islamic greeting, to recite the Quran, etc., because the people and
authorities have decided that orthodox Islam is a very good thing and
they want to protect it. I expect enforcement is much less brutal in the
West than in Pakistan, and that's certainly an important issue, but the
real dispute between Western countries and UNESCO on the one hand, and
Pakistan on the other, seems to be whether it's human rights or Islam
that should be the fundamental authoritative view that deserves legal
protection.
On that point I'm at odds with both sides. It seems to me though that
today, in 2001, militant Islam is less of a threat to the world at large
than human rights. The countries that back the human rights movement are
more imperialistic and have a lot more money, H-bombs, cruise missiles,
etc. Also, I think an intolerant Islamic regime is better than the
intolerant PC regime at which the human rights movement aims. Islam is
superior, I think, to human rights as a view of things because it better
suits the nature of man and the world.
So I'd like to make some gesture on behalf of the Ahmadis but not one
that would also be a gesture on behalf of the United Nations, liberal
human rights, and so on. I'm not sure what would make sense.
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 Sat May 26 10:40:20 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 KAA28547
for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 10:40:18 -0600 (MDT)
From: kalb@aya.yale.edu
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sat May 26 10:40:18 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 MAA24053
for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 12:40:16 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 12:40:16 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200105261640.MAA24053@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-76-153.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.76.153] for jkalb@nyx.net id <3070973> 26 May 2001 12:40:15 EDT
Sender: James.Kalb@DAD'S
Newsgroups: alt.politics.british,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.british,nz.politics
Subject: Re: The greatest perversity of the European Union
References: <3b0d9270.0@interalpha.net> <9emkru$j6m$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk> <9emo8m$5s1$1@news8.svr.pol
Apparently-To:
Status: RO
.co.uk> <9eo98g$q9t$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 26 May 2001 12:43:12 -0400
Message-ID:
Lines: 9
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
In-Reply-To: "Peter Bancroft"'s message of "Sat, 26 May 2001 13:57:54 +0100"
"Peter Bancroft" writes:
> We are devolutionists. We want to see power as low as possible.
It's difficult for me to see why a devolutionist would favor the Euro,
the main point of which seems to be the creation of problems that will
require centralization to solve.
Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat May 26 10:02:12 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 KAA27046
for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 10:02:10 -0600 (MDT)
From: kalb@aya.yale.edu
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sat May 26 10:02:10 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 MAA21068
for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 12:02:01 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 12:02:01 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200105261602.MAA21068@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-76-153.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.76.153] for jkalb@nyx.net id <3070809> 26 May 2001 12:01:59 EDT
Sender: James.Kalb@DAD'S
Newsgroups: talk.politics.european-union
Subject: Re: What's it all about?
References: <3B0D9AB2.35B4A78D@archangelis.com> <9emkvf$64p$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk> <9eo11l$r6i$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk> <9eo8mk$cph$1@n
Apparently-To:
Status: RO
ewsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 26 May 2001 12:05:11 -0400
Message-ID:
Lines: 25
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
In-Reply-To: "Peter Bancroft"'s message of "Sat, 26 May 2001 13:48:22 +0100"
"Peter Bancroft" writes:
> What I objected to was the term superstate. Now you're
> referring only to a central authority (whilst allowing and consulting
> national, regional and local authorities..). The EU does not have to become
> a superstate (and what on earth is a superstate anyways) and will not become
> one.
By "superstate" I meant a state with respect to which the current states
of Europe are subordinate parts, like California in the US. I meant
"state that is above the existing states."
> Here we're going back to the debate over powers of the
> executive/President/head.
Not an issue I'm concerned with. The claim really is that there's
something very important politically about the power to use violence in
support of policy, and the level of government at which that power is
located will also claim to be the ultimate object of political
obligation. So if the EU has a common foreign and military policy that
the members are bound to against their individual wills and can't opt
out of then it will be silly to claim that the members are states while
the EU is something less.
Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat May 26 05:55:41 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 FAA18901
for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 05:55:37 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sat May 26 05:55:37 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 HAA22612
for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 07:55:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-76-153.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.76.153] for jkalb@nyx.net id <3069898> 26 May 2001 07:55:34 EDT
To: jkalb@nyx.net
Subject: [talk.politics.european-union] Re: What's it all about?
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 26 May 2001 07:58:45 -0400
Message-ID:
Lines: 55
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
Status: O
"Peter Bancroft" writes:
> > Can you give an example of something that isn't a state that has an
> > active foreign policy?
>
> The UN Security Council is able to persue quite an active foreign policy,
> and the European Union obviously has much closer ties than bodies *just* in
> the UN. NATO in addition has quite serious strike capabilities - as the WEU
> has for some time.
> Those are just meant to deal with crises though, the European Union will be
> able to take the idea forward into dealing with prevention as well, working
> on diplomacy and peace-promoting programmes in troubled regions. In
> addition in areas where sanctions of some sort are on the table it is
> apprpriate to do this at EU level because of the Common Market.
I agree it is possible for a group of states to agree to consult or ally
themselves to deal with crises. When that is the case, each time there
is a crisis what is to be done is a matter for specific negotiation. As
you observe, what is planned for the EU is something far more
continuous, unified and comprehensive. That makes specific negotiation
impossible. There has to be a continuing central authority.
> > Foreign policy involves matters of war and peace, life and death, the
> > survival of the political community, and so on. It seems unavoidable
> > that whatever level of government carries on foreign policy be able to
> > claim ultimate political allegiance.
>
> In a feudal world this may be, but things have changed rather a lot, in
> particular since the 19th century. Countries are no longer completely
> sovereign under their rulers and free to invade whoever they like. The EU
> in itself is no great new paradigm in terms of military co-operation, it's
> just a more advanced step than many other people have tried before.
Don't understand the relation between the first two sentences. An
outstanding feature of the feudal system is that political entities are
not completely sovereign. The theory of political sovereignty is a
creation of modern (post-medieval) times. It's no doubt in decline, and
that changes some things, but not everything. In particular, it doesn't
abolish war as a continuing possibility in international affairs.
In spite of fantasies that everything can be managed, it remains true
that at times life-and-death decisions have to be made. If that's so,
they must be made by someone, and whoever makes them isn't going to be
able to make them stick unless he has some very special position in the
system of political obligation. Whoever has the sole right to carry on
foreign policy needs a pre-eminent right to call on the lives, property
and trust of the people. Otherwise there will be nothing that requires
other powers to take the policy seriously. In a crisis there will be no
option but to back down.
I thought one of the goals of the EU was to give Europe more of its own
role on the world stage. That's fine, I just suggest thinking through
what's involved in that.
Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri May 25 18:12:59 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 SAA10288
for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 18:12:57 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Fri May 25 18:12:57 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 UAA14166
for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 20:12:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-76-153.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.76.153] for jkalb@nyx.net id <3067109> 25 May 2001 20:12:53 EDT
To: jkalb@nyx.net
Subject: [talk.politics.european-union] Re: What's it all about?
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 25 May 2001 20:16:01 -0400
Message-ID:
Lines: 17
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
Status: O
"Peter Bancroft" writes:
> > But an active foreign policy for Europe as a whole really will require
> > the creation of a superstate.
>
> Today's discussion point: justifying that rahter contrived comment above.
Can you give an example of something that isn't a state that has an
active foreign policy?
Foreign policy involves matters of war and peace, life and death, the
survival of the political community, and so on. It seems unavoidable
that whatever level of government carries on foreign policy be able to
claim ultimate political allegiance.
Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri May 25 12:49:09 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 MAA19445
for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 12:49:07 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Fri May 25 12:49:07 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 OAA20096
for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 14:49:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-76-153.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.76.153] for jkalb@nyx.net id <3063392> 25 May 2001 14:49:03 EDT
Sender: James.Kalb@DAD'S
Newsgroups: talk.politics.european-union
Subject: More thoughts on what it's all about
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 25 May 2001 14:52:05 -0400
Message-ID:
Lines: 27
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
Apparently-To:
Status: O
The EU seems based more on what European governing elites find fitting
in general than on specific practical issues for which cooperation is
needed. If that's right, then what's so fitting about it?
Some possibilities:
1. In union there is strength. Who is it that the EU unifies, though?
Institutions of governance and those who man them. The EU is
therefore an alliance of European governing elites over against their
people, to whom in theory they are responsible. The EU reduces the
role of popular opinion and cultural particularity while expanding
the scope of rational management. It is therefore a good thing.
Although governing elites recognize that "democratic legitimacy" is a
practical need they believe its practical relevance should be
minimized in every possible way because they know better.
2. European governing elites believe they know better because they are
technocratic. That means they identify more with general standards of
economic and bureaucratic rationality and with an ideal of
comprehensive social management in the interests of comfort and
security than with any particular local or national society. Those
standards and ideals have become a sort of lowest common denominator
of what now passes for European civilization, so governing elites are
happy to view themselves as "European," but anything more particular
seems constricting and irrelevant.
Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri May 25 12:14:49 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 MAA16312
for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 12:14:46 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Fri May 25 12:14:46 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 OAA32388
for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 14:14:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-76-153.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.76.153] for jkalb@nyx.net id <3062830> 25 May 2001 14:14:41 EDT
To: jkalb@nyx.net
Subject: [talk.politics.european-union] Re: What's it all about?
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 25 May 2001 14:17:44 -0400
Message-ID:
Lines: 36
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
Status: O
Olivier laurent writes:
> Would you call it "minor" if for example the Chicago Stock Exchange was using
> another currency than Wall street? Or that IBM should deal with different
> currencies in each US state?
I don't see stock exchanges as a problem since currencies are hedgable
and modern technology makes them instantly translatable. Anyway, the
exchanges are free to use whatever they want - they could require that
prices be quoted in gold or bushels of wheat if some universal unit were
what people wanted.
I agree a common currency makes things easier for IBM. So then the
question is how much the European political order should be driven by
the goal of sparing large companies a manageable administrative problem
- one that doesn't stand in the way of their doing anything they want
but does add somewhat to the bookkeeping.
Governments add to the book- and recordkeeping requirements of
businesses all the time, and not necessarily for good reasons. So it's
hard for me to think this kind of practical issue really plays much of a
role except as a talking point in favor of something people want for
other reasons.
> Not a superstate, a federation.
A federal state, and once that is achieved I'm not sure why the bias
toward centralization should not continue. It makes things simpler for
IBM, after all.
It does seem to me the common foreign policy and common military force
are important since they tend to centralize the right to engage in
large-scale violence in the EU, which would make it the most serious and
authoritative level of government.
Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri May 25 12:14:17 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 MAA16258
for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 12:14:15 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Fri May 25 12:14:15 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 OAA21979
for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 14:14:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-76-153.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.76.153] for jkalb@nyx.net id <3062822> 25 May 2001 14:14:11 EDT
To: jkalb@nyx.net
Subject: [talk.politics.european-union] Re: What's it all about?
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 25 May 2001 14:17:14 -0400
Message-ID:
Lines: 43
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
Status: O
Olivier laurent writes:
> But the Economic aspect can't be forgotten. There are more and more European
> companies having their HQ in Amsterdam, their Helpdesk Centre in Dublin, and
> something else somevwhere else ;). The Euro will help Euroland countries to
> make a real common market. It will make life easier for big fish.
>
> Another example is the new EURONEXT stuff. Euronext is going to integrate
> Paris, Amsterdam and Brussels Sotck exchanges. All stocks will be labelled
> in Euro.
These issues seem minor to me - computers etc. mean currencies can be
translated instantly, and exchange risks can be hedged. If someone
wanted to price stocks in terms of a basket of European currencies he
could do so with no government or EU participation at all. I don't see
that there's a serious reason for the Euro other than the polical one of
contriving a situation that forces political integration.
> Human rights are protected by another institution: The European Human Rights
> court (Strasbourg based) is "not" an EU institution. The council of Europe
> (where it comes from) is another thing (An UN like covering the whole
> Europe)
Sure, which means that granting jurisdiction over human rights in the
Amsterdam Treaty to the European Court of Justice and the recent Nice
proclamation of a Charter of Fundamental Rights was not a response to a
need but rather part of the process of making the responsibilities of
the EU more comprehensive so it would be more like a government.
> 1 Get rid off Nationalist Wars in Europe once for all.
If there are no nations there can be no nationalist wars. Still, it
doesn't seem to me the threat is so great under present circumstances to
justify the loss. It's your business and not mine, though.
> 2 Give European countries the place that they deserve on the world stage.
But an active foreign policy for Europe as a whole really will require
the creation of a superstate. If that's what the Europeans want I have
no grounds for complaint but it seems surprising. Also if you're worried
about wars it seems to me you've just moved the danger.
Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri May 25 12:13:31 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 MAA16197
for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 12:13:28 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Fri May 25 12:13:28 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 OAA17723
for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 14:13:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-76-153.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.76.153] for jkalb@nyx.net id <3062802> 25 May 2001 14:13:23 EDT
To: jkalb@nyx.net
Subject: [talk.politics.european-union] What's it all about?
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 25 May 2001 14:16:25 -0400
Message-ID:
Lines: 24
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
Status: O
Hello!
I'm an American with no personal stake in the matter, but I've been
asked to write something about the EU and I'm a bit puzzled about why
people think it is a good thing.
I can understand the value of particular sorts of economic cooperation -
a free trade area say - but the idea goes far beyond that. The Euro, for
example, isn't a response to any practical issue and there don't seem to
be strong economic arguments in its favor. So far as I can tell, its
main purpose is to create problems that can't be dealt with without a
closer political union, and so to force the issue.
Common European citizenship is another example of an innovation that
plainly serves a broad political rather than any particular practical
purpose. Ditto the addition of separate human rights guarantees to EU
law and for that matter the name change from EC to EU.
So why is the comprehensive political integration of Europe so
important? Have people become tired of being Belgians, Italians,
whatever, and it seems a burden to them, so they'd rather just be
Europeans?
Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri May 25 06:30:31 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 GAA05693
for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 06:30:29 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Fri May 25 06:30:29 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 IAA02648;
Fri, 25 May 2001 08:30:28 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 08:30:28 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200105251230.IAA02648@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-76-153.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.76.153] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <3057521> 25 May 2001 08:30:27 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: pe
Subject: Re: What's it all about?
References:
Status: RO
Thanks for your note. I think the EU is a horror but wanted to see what
people had to say in its favor.
because they have an idealised view of the great empire of
Charlemagne being reborn under their guidance and they wish to
compete with the USA as a superpower.
The EU is basically intended as the vehicle of a self-assertive ruling
class, I agree.
the idea is to build a political entity and as few want this [less
that 20 per cent of the people] it is bound to fall on the rocks of
protectionism and crippling socialism
I agree socialism is a problem. They think they can manage everything
but the high rate of unemployment shows they can't.
human rights underwritten by the state define them as anything than
"rights".
I agree current notions of human rights are destructive. Their effect is
to abolish all social institutions other than bureaucracy and market.
Any appeal to national cohesion is xenophobia, any reliance on
particular culture or religion is bigotry, any support for habits and
attitudes that support the family is sexist, homophobic, intolerant or
whatever, any objection to making the bureaucratic welfare state the
thing people ultimately rely on is greedy oppression of the poor.
"Human rights" mean none of us has any serious connection to each other,
we all depend wholly on the market and still more on the universal
bureaucracy. Very nice from the standpoint of the ruling class.
I ask you to realise the EU is a terrible misjudgement of human
nature and to see the corresponding rise in neo - nazism across
Europe as the inevitable consequence of the people having been
silenced and no attempt made for a political debate on the issue.
I'm not sure how it will end. I see the hysteria about the "extreme
right" as an attempt to pre-empt discussion and lay the groundwork for
censorship and continual re-education of the people. At some point the
EU will collapse, and to my mind the question is whether is will last
long enough so the aftermath will be like what you see in the former
Soviet Union - all the attitudes and habits that make freedom possible
have been rooted out, and the consequence is mafia rule.
jk
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu May 24 09:26:18 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 JAA01894
for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 09:26:16 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Thu May 24 09:26:16 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 LAA21708;
Thu, 24 May 2001 11:26:14 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 11:26:14 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200105241526.LAA21708@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-76-153.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.76.153] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <3042941> 24 May 2001 11:26:12 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: Upstream-List@cycad.com
In-reply-to: <01a601c0e3e3$4f40c4e0$7a48e740@user> (monastyrskyj@sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: [Upstream] Democracy, polygamy & sexual constitution
References: <01a601c0e3e3$4f40c4e0$7a48e740@user>
Status: O
It's an odd argument in a way, since he doesn't contest the abolition of
the sexual constitution of society in general but only one aspect of it.
He mentions the other stuff but doesn't call it into question. So it
would be OK and worthy of support for any group of people to set up
housekeeping on any basis, and for anyone to have sexual relations with
anyone else, so long as no household involved a long-term sexual tie
between one of the members and two or more members of the opposite sex.
That doesn't make much sense to me. You can announce that's the rule,
but would anyone take it seriously?
I suppose though that making it an objection to polygamy alone could be
viewed as an opening for the more general claim that libertine sexual
mores are inconsistent with a free society, which I think is true. The
particular points he makes, that in a libertine society men don't
socialize properly and women are in a weaker position, are I think
well-taken.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon May 28 07:56:20 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 HAA26255
for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 07:56:18 -0600 (MDT)
From: kalb@aya.yale.edu
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Mon May 28 07:56:18 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 JAA17473
for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 09:56:17 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 09:56:17 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200105281356.JAA17473@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-78-215.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.78.215] for jkalb@nyx.net id <3081509> 28 May 2001 09:56:15 EDT
Sender: James.Kalb@DAD'S
Newsgroups: alt.politics.british,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.british,nz.politics
Subject: Re: The greatest perversity of the European Union
References: <9epopf$j06$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <9ercck$9eq$1@diamond.ewlab.usna.edu> <3B119497.C36474BF@mbit.nl>
Status: O
h.fsf@aya.yale.edu> <3B120C9D.6B1C758B@mbit.nl> <3B1243FA.4898A01D@mbit.nl>
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 28 May 2001 09:59:45 -0400
Message-ID:
Lines: 33
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
In-Reply-To: Nils Zonneveld's message of "Mon, 28 May 2001 14:26:27 +0200"
Nils Zonneveld writes:
> Maybe it's just a cultural misunderstanding. A Dutch tabloid calls
> itself "de gezond verstand krant" (common sense paper?), so the
> connotation towards the Nazi regime of the term "das gesundes
> volksempfinden" may have eroded over time to my ears.
I misinterpreted you then.
> But the point is that Prof. Whitaker claimed that Common Law, in
> contrast to the continental system was there to protect the people from
> the government. I dispute that. The most important guarantee for the
> integrity of the justice system is the Trias Politica which is a foreign
> concept to Common Law.
But the Common Law does conceive of the law as a body of neutral rules
preceding administration, policy and even government. One manifestation
of that is the role of the judge in criminal cases as an arbiter between
the prosecution and the defendent. That "adversarial" system contrasts
with the more inquisitorial role of the judge on the Continent, which
seems to make him less a disinterested arbiter than a vindicator of
public order and thus a representative of the state.
The European Court of Justice has described its ultimate purpose as
enabling 'the Community interests enshrined in the Treaty to prevail
over the inertia and resistance of Member States'. From a Common Law
standpoint that is is an outrageous statement.
[I should add that the ideal of law as a neutral arbiter has been in
decline, certainly in the United States, but it nonetheless retains a
certain force. It's a complicated story.]
Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon May 28 06:05:19 2001
Return-Path: