Items Posted by Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Apr 17 07:03:03 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.2/8.12.2/fnord) with ESMTP id g3HD31je020910
for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 07:03:02 -0600
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 JAA28472;
Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:03:01 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:03:01 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200204171303.JAA28472@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-213-175.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.213.175] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <10643883> 17 Apr 2002 09:02:58 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: future-of-christianity@yahoogroups.com
In-reply-to: <200204161837.g3GIbZlr021478@mailrtr04.ntelos.net> (message from Seth Williamson on Tue, 16 Apr 2002 14:37:29 -0400)
Subject: Re: [future-of-christianity] More stuff
References: <200204161837.g3GIbZlr021478@mailrtr04.ntelos.net>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.11
Status: O
"Seth" == Seth Williamson writes:
>> I just wonder whether that's so. In the absence of someone who can
>> decide things authoritatively (there hasn't been an ecumenical
>> council the Orthodox recognize for a very long time) and with the
>> corresponding tendency to reject rational philosophy the emphasis
>> has to be on holding to tradition. In America in 2002 that doesn't
>> seem so bad.
Seth> What is it that you think needs to be decided by an ecumenical
Seth> council? Not counting major theological definitions (which is
Seth> what such councils are for), the local bishop is the authority.
I agree with you on the purpose of ecumenical councils. Sometimes
however it's very useful to be able to make a decision authoritative for
the whole church on something that isn't a major theological definition.
So far as I know the EO have no appropriate way to do that.
One example would be which calendar to use. I understand that has been a
serious unresolved issue within Eastern Orthodoxy. Other issues would
include responses to major new intellectual movements, what sorts of
theological speculations and reformulations are legitimate and what
sorts clearly break with the faith. Or acceptance of new religious
movements and communities, which sometimes involve some rethinking of
discipline and ritual. Missions to the non-Christian world would be
another setting.
It seems to these latter issues are even more important and complex than
which calendar to use. A priori I would therefore expect the EO to find
it difficult to deal with them adequately and so tend to avoid them more
than they should. My impression is that that has been the case--that
there's no idea of an Eastern Orthodox university as there is of a
Catholic university, that EO monasticism is simply EO monasticism,
without much variation of organization and purpose, and that there
hasn't been much EO mission work since the conversion of the Slavs.
I might be wrong on all those points, so perhaps I should have
formulated them as questions. If I *am* wrong, though, I would be
interested in learning how the EO get around the absence of an
authoritative decisionmaker to settle disputes that come up in dealing
with changing circumstances once changes are admitted to be relevant to
what the church does.
Seth> I'm not sure what you mean by "rejecting rational philosophy." I
Seth> don't see anything resembling this. Do you mean rejecting some
Seth> aspects of scholasticism?
I thought I was parroting your comment that from the EO standpoint all
Western Christianity attempts to rationalize things too much. I suppose
I was also parroting EO comments I've seen here and there to the effect
that science/religion is not much of a problem for the EO because the
two procede on different principles and don't come in contact. (By
"rational philosophy" I meant the attempt to order all knowledge in a
comprehensive system. All such attempts fail, but I think it's a human
necessity to make them.)
Seth> The
Seth> Orthodox believe the Church is here to help us a) repent and b)
Seth> achieve theosis insofar as we are able. Period. Anything else
Seth> good that might happen--and of course this is a large
Seth> category--happens as a consequence of that primary goal.
It seems to me the transformation of life is aided by an understanding
of life with reference to the principle of transformation. So Christian
philosophizing about science and politics seems to me a necessary thing,
even though it's not the most necessary thing. So the Church has to
recognize Christian philosophy and have something to say about it.
Therefore it must be able to respond to changes in ways of thinking etc.
Seth> Certainly first among equals, in a collegial system. But not an
Seth> emperor or a dictator by any stretch of the imagination.
I certainly agree the pope shouldn't act like an emperor or dictator. It
seems to me Paul VI acted that way when he effectively abolished the old
latin mass in favor of a new form composed by some committee, and he
shouldn't have done it. Still, he also nailed down the position on
contraception as JP II did on the all-male priesthood and I'm not sure
how else that would have happened. Certainly the current pope tries to
avoid being dictatorial--he makes trips and writes encyclicals but goes
to all lengths to avoid imposing anything.
Church government is government, and I tend to understand it that way.
One question in government is whether there has to be a power somewhere
capable of dealing decisively with emergencies, exceptional situations,
irreconcilable conflicts, radical threats to the community etc. in ways
that can't be defined in advance. Political philosophers from Locke to
Carl Schmitt have thought there does, and even political societies like
our own that reject the idea in theory accept it in practice.
So I suppose the question is whether there's enough analogy between
secular and church government to require such a power in the latter. If
there is, you get the pope, and the formal statement of his powers (once
enough questions have been asked about them over a long enough period)
will be pretty much the one Rome gives. I agree it is a bad thing for
those powers to be viewed as the essence of the life and government of
the Church just as I think it is a bad thing for tanks, H bombs, gas
chambers, jails etc. to be viewed as what American society is all about
even though we can't get along without something of the sort.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://rightsreform.net
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Apr 17 07:12:50 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.2/8.12.2/fnord) with ESMTP id g3HDCnje021815
for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 07:12:49 -0600
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 JAA30034;
Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:12:47 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:12:47 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200204171312.JAA30034@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-213-175.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.213.175] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <10644190> 17 Apr 2002 09:12:42 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: future-of-christianity@yahoogroups.com
In-reply-to: <00ae01c1e5c6$57496e40$0201a8c0@ekklesia>
Subject: Re: [future-of-christianity] The future of which christianity?
References: <00ae01c1e5c6$57496e40$0201a8c0@ekklesia>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,SUBJ_ENDS_IN_Q_MARK,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.11
Status: O
"gt" == GregoryThomas Williams writes:
gt> If you want to establish any ruling body with exercising authority
gt> over your fellow man whether a village or a new world order then
gt> you stray from the path and return to the mire.
Church government is not the purpose of the church, it's true. Still,
Christ gave Peter power to loose and bind, Paul wrote letters telling
people what to do, and when there was a dispute about Jewish law they
had a council to decide the matter authoritatively.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://rightsreform.net
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Apr 17 07:39:03 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.2/8.12.2/fnord) with ESMTP id g3HDd2je024065
for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 07:39:02 -0600
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 JAA22406;
Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:39:01 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:39:01 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200204171339.JAA22406@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-213-175.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.213.175] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <10644771> 17 Apr 2002 09:30:41 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: future-of-christianity@yahoogroups.com
In-reply-to: <200204161610.MAA18962@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU> (message from Jim Kalb on Tue, 16 Apr 2002 12:10:36 -0400 (EDT))
Subject: Re: [future-of-christianity] More stuff
References: <200204161438.g3GEcicM018709@mailrtr04.ntelos.net> <200204161610.MAA18962@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.11
Status: O
[Did this go through? Anyway, here it is again.]
"Seth" == Seth Williamson writes:
>> I just wonder whether that's so. In the absence of someone who can
>> decide things authoritatively (there hasn't been an ecumenical
>> council the Orthodox recognize for a very long time) and with the
>> corresponding tendency to reject rational philosophy the emphasis
>> has to be on holding to tradition. In America in 2002 that doesn't
>> seem so bad.
Seth> What is it that you think needs to be decided by an ecumenical
Seth> council? Not counting major theological definitions (which is
Seth> what such councils are for), the local bishop is the authority.
I agree with you on the purpose of ecumenical councils. Sometimes
however it's very useful to be able to make a decision authoritative for
the whole church on something that isn't a major theological definition.
So far as I know the EO have no appropriate way to do that.
One example would be which calendar to use. I understand that has been a
serious unresolved issue within Eastern Orthodoxy. Other issues would
include responses to major new intellectual movements, what sorts of
theological speculations and reformulations are legitimate and what
sorts clearly break with the faith. Or acceptance of new religious
movements and communities, which sometimes involve some rethinking of
discipline and ritual. Missions to the non-Christian world would be
another setting.
It seems to these latter issues are even more important and complex than
which calendar to use. A priori I would therefore expect the EO to find
it difficult to deal with them adequately and so tend to avoid them more
than they should. My impression is that that has been the case--that
there's no idea of an Eastern Orthodox university as there is of a
Catholic university, that EO monasticism is simply EO monasticism,
without much variation of organization and purpose, and that there
hasn't been much EO mission work since the conversion of the Slavs.
I might be wrong on all those points, so perhaps I should have
formulated them as questions. If I *am* wrong, though, I would be
interested in learning how the EO get around the absence of an
authoritative decisionmaker to settle disputes that come up in dealing
with changing circumstances once changes are admitted to be relevant to
what the church does.
Seth> I'm not sure what you mean by "rejecting rational philosophy." I
Seth> don't see anything resembling this. Do you mean rejecting some
Seth> aspects of scholasticism?
I thought I was parroting your comment that from the EO standpoint all
Western Christianity attempts to rationalize things too much. I suppose
I was also parroting EO comments I've seen here and there to the effect
that science/religion is not much of a problem for the EO because the
two procede on different principles and don't come in contact. (By
"rational philosophy" I meant the attempt to order all knowledge in a
comprehensive system. All such attempts fail, but I think it's a human
necessity to make them.)
Seth> The
Seth> Orthodox believe the Church is here to help us a) repent and b)
Seth> achieve theosis insofar as we are able. Period. Anything else
Seth> good that might happen--and of course this is a large
Seth> category--happens as a consequence of that primary goal.
It seems to me the transformation of life is aided by an understanding
of life with reference to the principle of transformation. So Christian
philosophizing about science and politics seems to me a necessary thing,
even though it's not the most necessary thing. So the Church has to
recognize Christian philosophy and have something to say about it.
Therefore it must be able to respond to changes in ways of thinking etc.
Seth> Certainly first among equals, in a collegial system. But not an
Seth> emperor or a dictator by any stretch of the imagination.
I certainly agree the pope shouldn't act like an emperor or dictator. It
seems to me Paul VI acted that way when he effectively abolished the old
latin mass in favor of a new form composed by some committee, and he
shouldn't have done it. Still, he also nailed down the position on
contraception as JP II did on the all-male priesthood and I'm not sure
how else that would have happened. Certainly the current pope tries to
avoid being dictatorial--he makes trips and writes encyclicals but goes
to all lengths to avoid imposing anything.
Church government is government, and I tend to understand it that way.
One question in government is whether there has to be a power somewhere
capable of dealing decisively with emergencies, exceptional situations,
irreconcilable conflicts, radical threats to the community etc. in ways
that can't be defined in advance. Political philosophers from Locke to
Carl Schmitt have thought there does, and even political societies like
our own that reject the idea in theory accept it in practice.
So I suppose the question is whether there's enough analogy between
secular and church government to require such a power in the latter. If
there is, you get the pope, and the formal statement of his powers (once
enough questions have been asked about them over a long enough period)
will be pretty much the one Rome gives. I agree it is a bad thing for
those powers to be viewed as the essence of the life and government of
the Church just as I think it is a bad thing for tanks, H bombs, gas
chambers, jails etc. to be viewed as what American society is all about
even though we can't get along without something of the sort.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://rightsreform.net
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu Apr 18 05:33:26 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.2/8.12.2/fnord) with ESMTP id g3IBXGje004178
for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 05:33:25 -0600
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 HAA13592
for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 07:33:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-213-175.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.213.175] for jkalb@nyx.net id <10677249> 18 Apr 2002 07:33:15 EDT
Sender: James.Kalb@VECTRA
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox
Subject: Re: WCC & EU Against Israel
References: <3CBE1662.50E116A6@cris.com>
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 18 Apr 2002 07:33:12 -0400
Message-ID:
Lines: 24
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,UNDISC_RECIPS version=2.11
Status: O
"AA" == Alexander Arnakis writes:
AA> Israel *ought* to be sanctioned for its Nazi-like tactics against
AA> the general Palestinian population. Europeans, all across the
AA> political spectrum, are in agreement about this.
Israeli tactics are plainly not Nazi-like. Going after enemy fighters in
populated areas the most effective way you know how and leaving it up to
civilians to get out of the way may for all I know qualify as a war
crime but it's not Nazi-like. It's not even as bad as Allied tactics in
WWII. Shooting prisoners *does* qualify as a war crime but it's a common
enough practice to make "Nazi-like" a silly expression to use.
As for the Europeans, they're convinced that all problems can be solved
administratively if you just get the right people in control and keep
everyone else quiet with some combination of bribes and manipulation. So
they get annoyed and irrational when that doesn't happen and blame
anyone who happens to be on the scene and looks like he ought to be a
responsible adult. Typical European childishness and naivete. They ought
to learn how the world works--study some history maybe.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://rightsreform.net
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu Apr 18 08:16:41 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.2/8.12.2/fnord) with ESMTP id g3IEGeje022621
for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 08:16:40 -0600
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 KAA14738;
Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:16:39 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:16:39 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200204181416.KAA14738@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-213-175.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.213.175] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <10681331> 18 Apr 2002 10:16:37 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: future-of-christianity@yahoogroups.com
In-reply-to: <200204171911.g3HJBbg5020428@mailrtr04.ntelos.net> (message from Seth Williamson on Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:11:32 -0400)
Subject: Re: [future-of-christianity] More stuff
References: <200204171911.g3HJBbg5020428@mailrtr04.ntelos.net>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.11
Status: O
Thanks for your comments. Grand pronouncements on how things have worked
out overall for the EOs and RCs are beyond me at the moment so I can't
add that much to what I've already said.
Some thoughts though on the future of Christianity:
1. Eastern Orthodoxy, because of its aversion to abstraction, its
preference for a complex of particular practices ("just do it") over a
system of formalized doctrine, does seem to me to depend, more than
Western Christianity, on ties to particular concrete ways of life that
are inevitably ethic. If so, what does that mean for the future?
Possibilities:
a. That's bad for the EO, because ethnic particularity is necessarily
dying in the age of the internet. Therefore to survive and remain
coherent Christianity will have to rely on more formal statements
capable of application in various settings as well as an authority
capable of resolving conflicts regarding application.
b. That's good for the EO, because this one-world stuff isn't going to
work anyway. Universal commercial/bureaucratic culture is non-culture,
and people can't live in it. So one way or another particularity will be
the wave of the future, as it has been in other situations of ethnic and
religious mixing (e.g., the historical Middle East) and Eastern Orthodox
favors particularity and gives it a soul. It is therefore the wave of
the future.
c. That's irrelevant for the EO, because the ethnic character of Eastern
Orthodoxy is just an historical artifact. If the Russian Orthodox Church
sent missionaries to Melanesia any issues that arose wouldn't be any
different and wouldn't need to be handled any differently than in the
case of the RCs, Presbyterians or Baptists.
I'm probably just repeating something you said you don't see the point
of. Still, it's an issue that seems real to me and so I thought I'd
restate it in somewhat different words.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://rightsreform.net
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu Apr 18 10:32:17 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.2/8.12.2/fnord) with ESMTP id g3IGWFje007292
for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:32:16 -0600
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 MAA12823
for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:32:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-213-175.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.213.175] for jkalb@nyx.net id <10686412> 18 Apr 2002 12:32:10 EDT
Sender: James.Kalb@VECTRA
Cc: jkalb@nyx.net
Newsgroups: alt.recovery.catholicism,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
Subject: Re: Sex scandals may lead Catholics in US to defy Rome
References: <4NOu8.45824$To6.12877400@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com>
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 18 Apr 2002 12:32:04 -0400
Message-ID:
Lines: 33
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Posted-To: alt.recovery.catholicism,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,GAPPY_TEXT,MISSING_HEADERS,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.11
Status: RO
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to alt.recovery.catholicism,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic as well.
"Apostate" == Apostate writes:
>> >> "It is undoubtedly the greatest crisis in the modern Catholic
>> >> Church since Henry VIII split from Rome," said Father Richard >>
>> McBrien, a liberal theologian at the Catholic University of Notre
>> >> Dame in Indiana.
>>
>> Isn't this claim patently ridiculous?
Apostate> Getting all your news from a.r.c.r.-c., then?
Actually I just looked into it for the first time a day or so ago.
Unlike the protestant reformation and for that matter the aftermath of
Vatican II as a whole the situation doesn't raise any fundamental
problems. For an institution that has lasted almost 2000 years
occasional bouts of gross corruption are not a fundamental problem.
American bishops are like American college presidents. They head big
rich respectable institutions that want to stay that way even though
very influential people in prominent positions have rejected the theory
on which the institution is founded. As a result they think their basic
responsibility is papering over impossible contradictions so everything
will keep on looking good. That situation can't last forever, and the
sooner it blows up the better. If there are a lot of people who are
devoted to the purpose of the institution and think it more important
than anything else it will regroup and be stronger for the blowup, while
the people who rejected the purposes of the institution and were along
for the ride will drop out.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://rightsreform.net
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri Apr 19 06:48:18 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.2/8.12.2/fnord) with ESMTP id g3JCmHje024486
for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 06:48:17 -0600
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 IAA06752;
Fri, 19 Apr 2002 08:48:17 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 08:48:17 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200204191248.IAA06752@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-212-221.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.212.221] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <10711747> 19 Apr 2002 08:48:15 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: future-of-christianity@yahoogroups.com
In-reply-to: <200204181906.g3IJ6aR24236@mailrtr02.ntelos.net> (message from Seth Williamson on Thu, 18 Apr 2002 15:02:55 -0400)
Subject: Re: [future-of-christianity] More stuff
References: <200204181906.g3IJ6aR24236@mailrtr02.ntelos.net>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.11
Status: O
If I make a suggestion about Eastern Orthodoxy and for you it rings no
bells then the discussion probably won't repay the effort.
Thanks again for your comments.
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu Apr 25 11:15:39 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.2/8.12.2/fnord) with ESMTP id g3PHFaje005466
for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 11:15:37 -0600
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 NAA22609;
Thu, 25 Apr 2002 13:15:35 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 13:15:35 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200204251715.NAA22609@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-213-216.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.213.216] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <10883426> 25 Apr 2002 13:15:31 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: paleo-right@yahoogroups.com
In-reply-to: <3C54150C.778D2806.374EB743@aol.com> (Burkeanwhig@aol.com)
Subject: Re: [paleo-right] Re: Presidential IQ's
References: <3C54150C.778D2806.374EB743@aol.com>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.11
Status: RO
"jl" == Burkeanwhig writes:
jl> The left screams "intolerance!" whenever someone like Charles
jl> Murray raises the dreaded specter of IQ, even as they go to
jl> lengths emphasizing the intellectual disparities between GW and
jl> Gore -- even ferreting out their respective IQ scores (a presume d
jl> 119 for GW; 135 for Gore). There was even a hoax perpetrated on
jl> the net shortly after Bush's inauguration in which a bogus think
jl> tank had determined the IQ's of every U.S. president back to FDR.
jl> Predictably, all of the Democratic presidents had IQ's r oughly 10
jl> to 20 points higher than the Republicans. Bush was supposed to
jl> have the lowest score at 91. The Guardian (UK) even published it
jl> as fact.
Interesting comment.
I think it relates to a conflict within liberalism. The basic notion of
liberalism is that there isn't any good or evil, there's just what
people want. That has two consequences:
1. The point of politics is to turn the whole world into a rational
machine for the maximum equal satisfaction of desire.
2. All desires are equal, and all human beings are equal, since their
desires are equally desires and it is desire that is the source of
value.
Point 1 justifies absolute rule by a meritocracy, since politics becomes
a purely technical issue of a kind to which a meritocracy is best
suited.
Point 2 means that the power and even existence of the ruling New Class
meritocracy has to be denied, since otherwise some people are being
viewed as better than others since they are given the right to rule
others without consent.
So we're left in this position in which the most important thing in the
world is having a high IQ and being part of the meritocracy that rules
everything, but it's also absolutely necessary to deny that's so, that
there is a ruling meritocracy or that IQ means anything.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
Weblog: http://www.nyx.net/~jkalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Apr 28 19:07:02 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g3T16xJP027332
for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 19:07:00 -0600
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 VAA19884;
Sun, 28 Apr 2002 21:06:58 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 21:06:58 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200204290106.VAA19884@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-216-102.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.216.102] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <10954139> 28 Apr 2002 21:06:53 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: paleo-right@yahoogroups.com
In-reply-to: <20020428153215.15f25a9c.wmcclain@salamander.com> (message from Bill McClain on Sun, 28 Apr 2002 15:32:15 -0500)
Subject: Re: [paleo-right] Skills of the managerial elite
References: <20020428153215.15f25a9c.wmcclain@salamander.com>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level:
Status: O
"BMcC" == Bill McClain writes:
BMcC> Is the managerial elite constituted by what they know, or by how
BMcC> they behave? And in either case, what is "it"?
As I understand it, the "managerial elite" are top-level bureaucrats and
functionaries and their adjuncts and hangers-on. They're the people who
run big rationalized institutions not because they own them or get
elected or rally popular support but because they are appointed to their
positions in accordance with some routine procedure. So they're defined
by function, what kind of authority they have, and to some extent by how
they get where they are.
They're important because the kind of institution they run is important.
You could define who's in the class and who isn't in various ways.
Obvious examples of members would be managers of large corporations,
high civil servants, members of the Federal Reserve Board and officials
of transnational organizations like the World Bank or UN.
Since power finds auxiliaries you could include other groups as well. To
the extent comprehensive social management becomes important the
professions become part of management. "Social policy" means
independence has to be abolished. So to the extent universities are
bureaucracies of expertise and training for the managerial state their
administrators and professors tend to assimilate to the managerial
elite. You could say something similar about media people, lawyers, etc.
Truth be told I don't know just what Francis' usage is or where he would
draw lines. I haven't seen the article or read anything by him on the
subject recently.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
Weblog: http://www.nyx.net/~jkalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Apr 29 07:07:10 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g3TD77JP031255
for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 07:07:07 -0600
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 JAA24662;
Mon, 29 Apr 2002 09:07:06 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 09:07:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200204291307.JAA24662@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-213-41.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.213.41] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <10961302> 29 Apr 2002 09:07:04 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: seth@swva.net
In-reply-to: <200204291155.g3TBtKQ27364@mailrtr03.ntelos.net> (message from Seth Williamson on Mon, 29 Apr 2002 07:55:14 -0400)
Subject: Re: [paleo-right] Skills of the managerial elite
References: <200204291155.g3TBtKQ27364@mailrtr03.ntelos.net>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level:
Status: O
I think they're pretty much the same people but the theory's a bit
different. The "managerial elite" theory puts managers (corporate
managers, government bureaucrats, union officials) at the center and
then adds the others because they facilitate and extend managerial
control of society. The "knowledge class" theory puts experts and
communicators (academics, foundation officials, media people, lawyers)
at the center and then adds in corporate managers etc. because their
power is based on application of expert knowledge.
Jim
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Apr 29 07:15:56 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g3TDFsJP032544
for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 07:15:54 -0600
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 JAA23492;
Mon, 29 Apr 2002 09:15:52 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 09:15:52 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200204291315.JAA23492@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-213-41.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.213.41] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <10961755> 29 Apr 2002 09:15:49 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: paleo-right@yahoogroups.com
In-reply-to: <20020429072146.4182c604.wmcclain@salamander.com> (message from Bill McClain on Mon, 29 Apr 2002 07:21:46 -0500)
Subject: Re: [paleo-right] Skills of the managerial elite
References: <20020428153215.15f25a9c.wmcclain@salamander.com> <200204290106.VAA19884@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU> <20020429072146.4182c604.wmcclain@salamander.com>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level:
Status: O
"BMcc" == Bill McClain writes:
BMcc> A "warrior elite" would have skills in battle that only some
BMcc> could attain. A "technocratic elite", say in an ancient desert
BMcc> kingdom, would have the engineering knowledge to bring in water.
BMcc> A "scribal elite" would be the few who know how to read and
BMcc> write.
BMcc> What does a "managerial elite" have? Is it a craft? What is that
BMcc> craft?
All those elites have whatever skills are necessary for their function,
but it's the function and not the skills that define them. A warrior
elite carries on war, an ancient technocratic elite in the desert builds
and maintains irrigation works, a managerial elite manages big
rationalized institutions.
So your question is what's involved in managing big rationalized
institutions and whether it can be described as a craft. I don't think
it's quite so well defined, although B schools try to pin it down and
make it something that can be taught.
Forget about Dilbert - the point of the strip is that he's *not* part of
any elite.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
Weblog: http://www.nyx.net/~jkalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Apr 29 09:07:00 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g3TF6xJP019521
for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 09:06:59 -0600
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 LAA23938;
Mon, 29 Apr 2002 11:06:57 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 11:06:57 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200204291506.LAA23938@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-213-41.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.213.41] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <10965141> 29 Apr 2002 11:06:54 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: paleo-right@yahoogroups.com
In-reply-to: <6E1AC7BD.66DE4363.374EB743@aol.com> (Burkeanwhig@aol.com)
Subject: Re: [paleo-right] Skills of the managerial elite
References: <6E1AC7BD.66DE4363.374EB743@aol.com>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level:
Status: O
"jl" == Burkeanwhig writes:
jl> But whether this "craft" is well defined or not, the functions
jl> associated with managing big, rationalized institutions tend to be
jl> heavily "g" loaded. Likewise, ascending to the ranks of this class
jl> requires a lot of smarts and a prodigious amount of prepar ation,
jl> most often at one of the premiere business schools.
Agreed. Whether what they do is a well-defined craft or not the
managerial elite tries to make everything a matter of expertise so that
it can be dealt with through a rational orderly procedure. That applies
to personnel matters too, so they emphasize B school and similar
credentials.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
Weblog: http://www.nyx.net/~jkalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri Apr 26 14:51:12 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g3QKpAJP002177
for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 14:51:11 -0600
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 QAA05974;
Fri, 26 Apr 2002 16:51:08 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 16:51:08 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200204262051.QAA05974@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-213-216.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.213.216] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <10922444> 26 Apr 2002 16:51:02 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: "root causes" and anti-anti-Communism
References: <000301c1ed4f$d22dc9e0$7412fea9@h6l3p>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level:
Status: RO
I do think there's a connection between anti-anti-crime and
anti-anti-communism, and that it's a possible subject of an article.
It seems to me the connection is that neither can bear making a
statement, because that would exclude the truth of the opposing
statement, and that would be unbearable because if there weren't
something to the other statement no one would say it.
Maybe one way to sum it up would be to say it's all an application of
the theory James Carroll applies to Christianity--to exist is an act of
hatred and exclusion.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
Weblog: http://www.nyx.net/~jkalb
From James.B.Kalb.69@alum.dartmouth.org Sun Apr 28 06:16:51 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from epdefault ([66.70.67.30])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g3SCGoJP010431
for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 06:16:50 -0600
Received: from alum.dartmouth.org ([141.157.216.102]) by epdefault with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2966);
Sun, 28 Apr 2002 05:15:32 -0700
X-Mailer: ePrompter
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 8:17:17 -0400
To:
From:
Subject: Fwd: Re: an interesting analysis of the relationship between left and liberals
Message-ID:
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Apr 2002 12:15:33.0171 (UTC) FILETIME=[6524B830:01C1EEAE]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.6 required=5.0 tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,NO_REAL_NAME,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: ***
Status: O
= = = Original message = = =
It's true the two need each other. The hard left gives the soft left
weight and force, while the soft left gives the hard left cover.
The NYT still treats its connection to Walter Duranty as something to
brag about. That wouldn't be so if there weren't some basic need.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
Weblog: http://www.nyx.net/~jkalb
___________________________________________________________
Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software.
Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Apr 28 06:41:02 2002
Return-Path:
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 08:40:44 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200204281240.IAA26512@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-216-102.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.216.102] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <10945227> 28 Apr 2002 08:40:42 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Defining evil as intolerance makes it impossible to oppose evil
References: <000401c1ee36$d149bd80$7cccfea9@h6l3p>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level:
Status: O
I agree with the subject line and think it's a point worth hammering
home, so good luck with the article.
I continue however to interpret everything as a matter of conceptual
necessity rather than historical contingency. So for me multiculturalism
is not Hitler's bequest to us. Rather, our image of Hitler is the
creation of multiculturalism.
Defining intolerance as the fundamental evil in Naziism wasn't a
"mistake" in the sense that it was a decision that could as easily have
gone some other way. Rather, intolerance-as-ultimate-evil is implicit in
the liberal view that human desire is what makes things good.
Since it is desire that makes things good, and all desires are equally
desires, my good and your good and Andrew Sullivan's good, all equally
self-chosen, are all equally good. Intolerance denies that, and so makes
the neutral management of society on the basis of the equal validity of
desires impossible. It is therefore the fundamental sin from a liberal
standpoint.
Where does such a view come from? James Carroll's basic problem is his
hatred of existence. That hatred is equivalent to liberal opposition to
intolerance - existence as such is intolerant, because "yes" is
intolerant of "no." Conversely, "intolerance" is simply an assertion of
existence. You don't start hating existence though because you make a
mistake as to the nature of Nazi evil. Rather, you interpret Nazi evil
as you do because of your fundamental attitude toward things.
It could just as easily have been Stalin who became the great devil
figure. Why was it Hitler instead?
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
Weblog: http://www.nyx.net/~jkalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Apr 28 19:27:03 2002
Return-Path:
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 21:27:00 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200204290127.VAA31804@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-216-102.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.216.102] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <10954347> 28 Apr 2002 21:26:53 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Fw: Defining evil as intolerance makes it impossible to oppose evil
References: <000201c1ef12$e44d3740$9fd3fea9@h6l3p>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level:
Status: O
I agree there's a connection between PC liberalism and Nazism. The same
movement of thought, the abolition of the transcendent, that produced
Nazism also produced PC liberalism as its other ultimate possibility.
Nazism therefore clarified to liberalism its understanding of what the
alternative to liberalism really is, within the world of thought which
liberalism inhabits, by perfectly displaying that alternative.
jk
From James.B.Kalb.69@alum.dartmouth.org Mon Apr 29 04:25:09 2002
Return-Path:
X-Mailer: ePrompter
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 6:25:38 -0400
To:
Subject: Re: the article on fine of Hyde Park speaker you mentioned at your blog
Message-ID:
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Apr 2002 10:23:49.0689 (UTC) FILETIME=[F3F84A90:01C1EF67]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.6 required=5.0 tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,NO_REAL_NAME,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: ***
Status: O
I'm inclined to believe it. They ordered the placard destroyed.
So British law it appears requires the destruction of a writing
that says "stop homosexuality." The theory possibly is that since
it's left undefined how the stopping is to be done someone addicted
to homosexual practices might well feel exposed and nervous,
and that's enough for harrassment.
Surprising things do happen in Europe. Le Pen got fined for his
"detail" remark, which wasn't any sort of threat to anyone and
was arguably true (it's true that in a long history of WW II
the gas chambers likely won't take more than a few lines, and
it's true that it's a detail gas chambers were often used rather
than shooting, starvation, etc.)
= = = Original message = = =
I can't believe this as it's reported here. All he said was
"stop homosexuality." There must have been something more abusive
to get him fined. If not, then Britain truly is not a free country
any more.
___________________________________________________________
Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software.
Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Apr 29 06:37:56 2002
Return-Path:
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 08:37:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200204291237.IAA06790@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-213-41.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.213.41] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <10960679> 29 Apr 2002 08:37:49 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: Defining evil as intolerance makes it impossible to oppose evil
References: <001301c1ef38$568d6a80$9fd3fea9@h6l3p>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level:
Status: O
"la" writes:
>> I agree there's a connection between PC liberalism and Nazism. The
>> same movement of thought, the abolition of the transcendent, that
>> produced Nazism also produced PC liberalism as its other ultimate
>> possibility. Nazism therefore clarified to liberalism its
>> understanding of what the alternative to liberalism really is,
>> within the world of thought which liberalism inhabits, by perfectly
>> displaying that alternative.
la> Liberals are terrified of the
la> possibility of real, incurable inequality because, lacking any
la> traditional and transcendent order in which to assimilate human
la> inequality, they fear that the conviction of inequality must
la> lead to mass murder. If there's nothing higher than ourselves,
la> then there's no reason not to kill or enslave people who are
la> inferior to ourselves. This is truly what liberals think and
la> fear, whether or not they articulate it in those terms.
Actually, things go beyond that I think. The abolition of the
transcendent makes the conquest, enslavement and extermination of whole
populations not only unobjectionable but the ground of renewed moral
order.
Maistre's emphasis on the central social role of the executioner
somewhat foreshadows the situation although Maistre unlike the Nazis
didn't try to make the executioner the sole sufficient basis of social
order. As a Catholic reactionary he thought there were other things
involved too.
Anyway, the point of Nazism is that if there's no transcendent good or
evil then good and evil are either a matter of pure individual desire or
pure social construction. Liberalism takes the former tack, so it gives
us the ideal of the universal technocratic state that brings about the
maximum equal satisfaction of individual desire. That's dull, and it
can't last because it can't arouse conviction or loyalty, so who needs
it.
Nazism in contrast views good and evil as social constructions and tries
to construct them as authoritative social realities. Unfortunately, it
has to do that without any initial content for "good" or "evil." So it
asks what the general qualities of authoritative good and evil are and
tries to recreate them within the limits of the modern scientific
worldview.
What are those general qualities? If there is someone whom all must take
into account and obey he is authority. If the authority can dispense
that which all desire by his mere will he is the authoritative possessor
of all good. He is in fact God. So to construct a new moral order all
you need do is construct God.
The empirically effective way to create someone whom all must take into
account and obey is to give someone the ability to inflict limitless
suffering and death on anyone anywhere and let him use it frequently so
people will be aware of it. By dealing out evil lavishly he also becomes
the source of all good, simply by not murdering someone.
Nazism is therefore the re-creation of God in the form of a this-worldly
caricature Jehovah through whom order is restored. That's why there are
those - not stupid or plainly crazy people - who consider Hitler an
avatar of Vishnu. (Stick "Hitler," "avatar" and "Vishnu" into Google.)
Advanced liberalism, like Nazism, makes Hitler and the Holocaust
fundamental to its understanding of reality. For both views H & H are
the final unsurpassible revelation of the nature of things. Each
therefore views the other as the alternative to itself - they inhabit
the same world and accept the same revelation but one gives it a
positive sign and the other a negative. So each would have to create the
other if the other didn't exist.
la> But observation begs the question, was this terror
la> present in liberalism before World War II?
It wasn't present after WW II either. It was several decades before
Hitler and the Holocaust took on their present role, and then it was the
civil rights movement that led to a setting in which H & H became such
compelling images as to become the key to all morality. The power of the
H & H symbol seems to me a result rather than cause of the postwar
liberation movements.
la> What do you think? Am I making an "historian" out of you? :-)
Dunno. What would have happened if Hitler had never been born? After
all, someone who rejects the Hitler-as-avatar-of-Vishnu theory has to
reject the idea that the concrete existence of Hitler is a metaphysical
necessity. And it's true that the images of Hitler and the Holocaust are
uniquely compelling for liberalism, so much so that without them
liberalism could not have attained its perfection so easily. Still, I
can't help but think that liberalism would have ended up pretty much the
way it has even without those images.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
Weblog: http://www.nyx.net/~jkalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Apr 30 08:33:35 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g3UEXPJP022346
for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 08:33:34 -0600
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 KAA19680;
Tue, 30 Apr 2002 10:33:19 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 10:33:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200204301433.KAA19680@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-213-41.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.213.41] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <10999089> 30 Apr 2002 10:33:18 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: paleo-right@yahoogroups.com
In-reply-to: <38020FAC.2AC3115D.374EB743@aol.com> (Burkeanwhig@aol.com)
Subject: Re: [paleo-right] Re: Despair
References: <38020FAC.2AC3115D.374EB743@aol.com>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level:
Status: O
"jl" == Burkeanwhig writes:
jl> The left has won utterly,
jl> despite the remaining pockets of resistance.
The question is whether the victory has led to something that can be
stable, or whether the existence of the left still depends on the things
it destroys. Their increasing hysteria suggests that at bottom they
realize things aren't at all secure and have no idea what to do about
it.
jl> Yes, we end up with sickened souls as a result,
jl> but even this ultimately may be circumvented (or, at least,
jl> mitigated to a significant degree) with the advent of more
jl> sophisticated pharmacology and, even more disturbing, genetic engi
jl> neering.
Sure, that's the question - can technology, which works by concentrating
on issues that can be isolated and manipulated, manage all things
comprehensively? For that matter, is strong AI possible? If so, then man
will successfully be abolished. I don't see any reason to think it'll
happen though. It's impossible in principle to manage the weather. How
can it be possible to manage human society?
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
Weblog: http://www.nyx.net/~jkalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Apr 30 16:36:34 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g3UMaWJP024633
for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 16:36:33 -0600
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 SAA30596;
Tue, 30 Apr 2002 18:36:31 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 18:36:31 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200204302236.SAA30596@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-213-41.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.213.41] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <11017207> 30 Apr 2002 18:36:28 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: paleo-right@yahoogroups.com
In-reply-to: <03cf01c1f08e$020ccc60$1a29fc80@dpmccart>
Subject: Re: [paleo-right] Re: Despair
References: <03cf01c1f08e$020ccc60$1a29fc80@dpmccart>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level:
Status: O
"DMcC" == Daniel McCarthy writes:
DMcC> Even if liberal democracy is not self-sustaining, barbarism may
DMcC> well be.
The advantage of barbarism is that it is corrupt, incompetent and
short-sighted, and so can't be totalitarian.
DMcC> By which I just mean that we cannot expect
DMcC> the collapse of liberal democracy alone to make things better,
DMcC> they could get worse.
Oh, I agree. I think things on the whole are likely to get worse than
they are now. They won't get worse from every point of view though.
There's no such thing as a perfect system of evil. I think the ambition
to establish a perfect system will drop out and with it the spectre of
the abolition of man. And that offers hope for the future. Maybe the
distant future, we just don't know, but hope for the future nonetheless.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
Weblog: http://www.nyx.net/~jkalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Apr 30 18:36:56 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g410atJP011189
for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 18:36:55 -0600
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 UAA30912;
Tue, 30 Apr 2002 20:36:54 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 20:36:54 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200205010036.UAA30912@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-213-41.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.213.41] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <11019972> 30 Apr 2002 20:36:51 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: paleo-right@yahoogroups.com
In-reply-to: <20020430194343.SM02500@seth> (message from Seth Williamson on Tue, 30 Apr 2002 19:44:00 -0400)
Subject: Re: [paleo-right] Re: Despair
References: <20020430194343.SM02500@seth>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level:
Status: O
"sw" == Seth Williamson writes:
sw> The mania for over-arching explanatory systems seems to be in
sw> abeyance at the moment. Although it is a permanent temptation,
sw> especially of intellectuals--it's a form of gnosticism.
I think we still have the mania for over-arching system, although maybe
the coherent explanations have dropped out. Think of "diversity,"
feminism or the EU.
sw> Of course, with continual scientific progress, it will shortly be
sw> possible--if it's not already--for nearly anyone or any group to
sw> make weapons of mass destruction.
Sounds like barbarization has even more advantages than I thought, as
long as it goes far enough.
I've wondered whether this possibility will make extensive empires
impossible because they offer too many big targets. I suppose the plan
is to control everything everywhere as needed to prevent this. That
sounds like another plan to set up a perfect system though.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
Weblog: http://www.nyx.net/~jkalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed May 1 06:59:05 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g41CwpJP006655
for ; Wed, 1 May 2002 06:59:04 -0600
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 IAA12805;
Wed, 1 May 2002 08:58:50 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 08:58:50 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200205011258.IAA12805@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-213-41.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.213.41] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <11031179> 01 May 2002 08:58:48 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: io@btopenworld.com
Subject: Re: fish/neuhaus
References: <000b01c1f07e$c9319560$2179073e@oemcomputer>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level:
Status: RO
Hello!
Thanks for your note.
I wouldn't trust anything Fish says, and agree with a lot of what you
say. Nonetheless it seems to me that the Christian outlook is not simply
continuous with a secular outlook, but is in many ways opposed to it,
for two reasons:
1. Grace completes nature, but it is not determined by nature. It
therefore makes demands that nature doesn't make. A system that
recognizes grace thus conflicts as a practical maer with one that
recognizes only nature.
2. Nature is not self-sufficient, but needs grace for its completion.
Those who aempt to make nature a single self-sufficient system
therefore distort even nature (Romans 1:19 ff.) by trying to make it
do what it can't do. So Christianity disagrees with secularism not
only in recognizing what grace requires but also in its
interpretation of what nature itself tells us.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
Weblog: http://www.nyx.net/~jkalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu May 2 11:47:46 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g42HliJP005257
for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 11:47:45 -0600
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 NAA16284;
Thu, 2 May 2002 13:47:43 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 13:47:43 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200205021747.NAA16284@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-215-124.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.215.124] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <11078520> 02 May 2002 13:47:40 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: la@a.net
In-reply-to: <000301c1f188$88fb4760$43ccfea9@h6l3p> (la@a.net)
Subject: Re: antiracism targets whites
References: <000301c1f188$88fb4760$43ccfea9@h6l3p>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level:
Status: RO
I don't think undoing of the dominant group and enhancement of the
subordinate group is a pure double standard, since it can be given a
principled basis - prevention of tyranny through creation of a balance
of power in which there is no dominant group. You're probably right
though there'll never be a turnaround, because with the undoing of the
white race society will become too incoherent to enforce anything
comprehensive like liberalism.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
Weblog: http://www.counterrevolution.net/blog
From James.B.Kalb.69@alum.dartmouth.org Mon May 6 14:05:14 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from epdefault ([66.70.67.30])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g46K5DJP016441
for ; Mon, 6 May 2002 14:05:14 -0600
Received: from alum.dartmouth.org ([141.157.213.41]) by epdefault with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2966);
Mon, 6 May 2002 13:04:00 -0700
X-Mailer: ePrompter
Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 16:05:05 -0400
To:
From:
Subject: Re: An essay you might enjoy
Message-ID:
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 May 2002 20:04:01.0576 (UTC) FILETIME=[2A5CF280:01C1F539]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.6 required=5.0 tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,NO_REAL_NAME,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: ***
Status: RO
Hello!
One point: you say modern politics makes peace the highest goal
and also that it's founded on will. But if there's no independent
standard of the good it's not clear why peace should be the highest
goal. Why not the triumph of the will, which doesn't seem a peaceable
notion? For that maer, why I should listen to a theoretician
who tells me anything other than how to get my own way, and why
I shouldn't assume that the theoretician is interested in the
truth of the case and not totally motivated by self-interest?
To resolve the difficulty, or at least explain why very intelligent
men have thought they could get by it, I think you'd have to
touch at least briefly on Kant's notion that a purely formal
morality is enough. That's why I think liberalism is so important
- it's based on that kind of move, which enables people to argue
e.g. that the modern state does protect friendship because it
establishes a regime in which people can pursue whatever they
want and those who like friendship can pursue it and pursuade
others to do the same.
For my own part I don't think that works - formal considerations,
without reference to any substantive goods at all, just don't
tell us enough to decide much of anything. Still, that kind of
reasoning is what contemporary government is based on so it has
to be dealt with.
Jim
___________________________________________________________
Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software.
Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue May 7 05:18:48 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g47BIkJP009878
for ; Tue, 7 May 2002 05:18:47 -0600
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 HAA09239;
Tue, 7 May 2002 07:18:44 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 07:18:44 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200205071118.HAA09239@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-213-41.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.213.41] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <11186956> 07 May 2002 07:18:43 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: tk@p.net
In-reply-to: (message from Thaddeus Kozinski on Mon, 06 May 2002 16:49:45 -0400)
Subject: Re: An essay you might enjoy
References:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level:
Status: RO
I've read Rawls' Liberalism. To me it seems he just packs everything
into what he calls reasonableness. I don't think it's an independent
criterion - if his system can accommodate something it's reasonable and
otherwise no.
You can have the most illiberal comprehensive view imaginable, the idea
is, as long as you respect a few basic principles like tolerance so that
other very different views don't get suppressed. Intolerant people of
course are unreasonable. The problem though is that tolerance turns out
to dictate all public life and all serious interpersonal relations. So
you're allowed to hold your illiberal comprehensive view as long as it
doesn't touch those things. What good is that?
Will look at your second paper. What's the topic of your dissertation?
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
Weblog: http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue May 7 05:24:45 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g47BOiJP010735
for ; Tue, 7 May 2002 05:24:44 -0600
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 HAA28562;
Tue, 7 May 2002 07:24:44 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 07:24:44 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200205071124.HAA28562@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-213-41.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.213.41] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <11187033> 07 May 2002 07:24:42 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: tk@p.net
In-reply-to: (message from Thaddeus Kozinski on Mon, 06 May 2002 16:58:23 -0400)
Subject: Re: An essay you might enjoy
References:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level:
Status: RO
Well, yes - that's why I think politics should be based on religion,
because whatever it's based on will turn out to be in effect the
accepted conception of God anyway so why not deal with the situation
directly. The genius of liberalism though is that it deals with all
significant issus before they even get raised. If you point that out
people get alarmed.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
Weblog: http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue May 7 12:29:38 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g47ITaJP005260
for ; Tue, 7 May 2002 12:29:37 -0600
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 OAA11299;
Tue, 7 May 2002 14:29:35 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 14:29:35 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200205071829.OAA11299@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-213-41.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.213.41] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <11201115> 07 May 2002 14:29:31 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: tk@p.net
In-reply-to: message from Jim Kalb on 07 May 2002 07:18:47 -0400
Subject: Re: An essay you might enjoy
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level:
Status: RO
They're a largish institution so they have to exist in a big
institutional world and need to maintain at least enough
respectability to operate as part of it. So they can't accept the
position that those big institutions are fundamentally misdirected.
I don't have any substantive comments that wouldn't make things worse
from that perspective. I think for example that there's an almost
mechanical reason why the principles of the polis, if it is to endure,
*must* become authoritative everywhere. The reason is that the polis has
the power of the sword and so must claim obedience and therefore loyalty
in life and death maers. Mentioning that would seem to tinge the
argument with violence though.
You may underestimate the extent to which the regime is coercive.
Suppose it's treated as a disciplinary maer when an unmarried student
gets pregnant? Suppose the college wants to hire a priest for some
position that isn't purely sacramental and so could be performed by
anyone, and someone complains about sex discrimination? Suppose an
employee comes out as a homosexual and says he feels harassed by
pronouncements that his way of life is objectively disordered? It would
complicate things.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
Weblog: http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue May 7 18:52:43 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g480qYJP030754
for ; Tue, 7 May 2002 18:52:42 -0600
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 UAA14908;
Tue, 7 May 2002 20:52:33 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 20:52:33 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200205080052.UAA14908@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-213-41.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.213.41] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <11212753> 07 May 2002 20:52:29 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: tk@p.net
In-reply-to: (message from Thaddeus Kozinski on Tue, 07 May 2002 17:04:38 -0400)
Subject: Re: FW: On Immigration -- must-read
References:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level:
Status: RO
It's hard to know what his complaint is. Fred Reed's piece doesn't claim
to be a discussion of philosophical liberalism, he's just vigorously
arguing - in a fairly reasoned if popular and colorful way - that some
factually very influential positions of actual non-philosophical
liberals don't make sense and make life worse.
It's impossible to deal with all conceivable arguments and rejoinders at
once. I think it's legitimate to present a simple comprehensive forceful
argument against things you think are fundamental in liberal thought or
any other kind of thought. By doing so you don't settle the whole
argument but you may clarify the issues for some readers by laying them
out in a particular clear order and that's a necessary function.
I certainly agree that if you want to discuss liberalism seriously you
should read Rawls, Locke, etc., etc. You ought to understand what their
arguments are and to the extent possible be able to say what they would
say in response to objections etc. I don't think however that wisdom
necessarily lies in sympathy with positions you think are fundamentally
wrong.
In any case, for most people the point of interest is not liberal theory
but liberalism, a movement of politics and thought based on things like
individualism, equal rights etc. that has had and is continuing to have
an enormous effect on the world around us. Liberal thinkers no doubt
know a lot about the movement they're part of but they don't have
privileged access to it that trumps the way anyone else might look at
it.
So I think it's legitimate to characterize liberalism in ways few
liberals would be inclined to characterize it. Why is that worse than
characterizing anything, the stock market or traditional gender roles or
the British Empire or whatever, in a way participants don't or didn't
characterize it? Liberalism after all is something we all have to live
with so saying what it is isn't the sole privilege of those who like it.
Again, one view or argument or essay isn't going to settle all issues
but if someone finds a line of thought particularly persuasive and
others learn something from it I don't see the objection.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
Weblog: http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue May 7 19:01:40 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g4811dJP032000
for ; Tue, 7 May 2002 19:01:40 -0600
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 VAA25362
for ; Tue, 7 May 2002 21:01:39 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 21:01:39 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200205080101.VAA25362@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-213-41.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.213.41] for jkalb@nyx.net id <11212925> 07 May 2002 21:01:35 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: jkalb@nyx.net
Subject: [kalb@aya.yale.edu: Re: An essay you might enjoy]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.4 required=5.0 tests=MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: ****
Status: RO
------- Start of forwarded message -------
Date: 07 May 2002 20:18:56 -0400
From: Jim Kalb
To: tk@p.net
In-reply-to: (message from Thaddeus
Kozinski on Tue, 07 May 2002 15:15:12 -0400)
Subject: Re: An essay you might enjoy
"tk" writes:
tk> Do you really think they HAVE to deny the position we take
tk> on the regime as part of prudence? Or do you think it is an
tk> illegitimate compromise that they accept to remain alive? Or is
tk> it just a suitable acceptance of a lesser degree of perfection for
tk> the college to preserve whatever good they can? I am not sure I
tk> understood your statement.
I just meant that if you're going to have something that's recognized as
a legitimate institution of higher education that's accredited, grants
degrees that are given credence elsewhere, participates in various
subsidized student loan programs etc. then you're going to have to fit
in with the system in a lot of ways. And you're not going to be able to
do that unless institutionally you believe in the system. For example
you're going to have to comply with the civil rights laws and that
raises the possibilities I touched on in my last note. In addition, it's
impossible to hold the civil rights laws at arms' length - unless you
act like you believe in them you aren't really complying with them.
That's what the affirmative action and anti-harassment rules mean.
Whether in view of that it would be better to do something else and what
that other thing might be I can't say.
tk> Have you read Charles DeNunzio's on-line book about American
tk> culture and Catholicism?
I skimmed through part of it. He does seem to treat everything too much
like a geometrical demonstration.
tk> Sometimes it is hard to see where prudence ends
tk> and illicit compromise begins. The more I read
tk> non-integrist-Catholic authors, the more I see that the situation
tk> is almost infinitely complicated.
Agreed it's complicated. It seems to me best to try to be clear about
ultimate goals and existing problems,and then make whatever contribution
you can.
- --
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
Weblog: http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr
------- End of forwarded message -------
From James.B.Kalb.69@alum.dartmouth.org Wed May 8 03:53:18 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from epdefault ([66.70.67.30])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g489rHJP000890
for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 03:53:18 -0600
Received: from alum.dartmouth.org ([141.157.213.41]) by epdefault with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2966);
Wed, 8 May 2002 02:52:13 -0700
X-Mailer: ePrompter
Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 5:53:29 -0400
To:
From:
Subject: Re: On Immigration -- must-read
Message-ID:
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 May 2002 09:52:13.0496 (UTC) FILETIME=[0777F380:01C1F676]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.6 required=5.0 tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,NO_REAL_NAME,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: ***
Status: RO
Actually I'm glad you sent me his note - it's a common kind of
comment and it's good to have responses to common comments.
One formulation: there's a distinction between the implicit logic
of liberalism and the systems liberal theoreticians present.
It's like the distinction between the grammar of the English
language and particular grammarians' accounts of it. A grammarian
who's a native speaker might come up with a grammatical description
that's not nearly so accurate or complete as one a foreigner
might come up with. There's nothing privileged about the native
view of the maer. There might be local biases, blindnesses
etc. that distort his understanding that an outsider might be
free from. The foreigner's grammatical description might procede
on different principles and so initially seem rather odd to native
grammarians. It might nonetheless be superior.
jk
___________________________________________________________
Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software.
Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri May 10 12:20:26 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g4AIKLJP014095
for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 12:20:25 -0600
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 OAA04862;
Fri, 10 May 2002 14:20:19 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 14:20:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200205101820.OAA04862@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-214-68.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.214.68] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <11303264> 10 May 2002 14:20:16 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: la@a.net
CC: GJRussello@aol.com, carol.iannone@a.net, carneyaway@hotmail.com,
jgary@lehman.com, frissell@panix.com
In-reply-to: <005601c1f836$b15d78e0$46f6fea9@h6l3p> (la@a.net)
Subject: Re: fortuyn's death pinpoints the paradoxes of liberalism
References: <005601c1f836$b15d78e0$46f6fea9@h6l3p>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level:
Status: RO
It seems to me she hasn't thought it all through.
She wants a true liberalism, a moderate liberalism. She specifically
says that "the treatment of women, freedom of speech, the separation of
private and public values, and tolerance of homosexuality" are all
non-negotiable liberal fundamentals. So what she wants is a sort of
classical liberalism plus moderate civil rights, moderate feminism,
moderate gay liberation, moderate everything.
All she wants is to keep moral self-restraint, norms of sexual behavior,
family values, and rejection of nihilism and libertinism. Apparently
these things are going to come from a common civic identity within which
immigrants, whom the West will continue to welcome, can pursue their own
culture and traditions.
Where's that civic identity going to come from though? The phrase sounds
like it'll be something generated by and for the benefit of liberal
institutions, so it can't go beyond what's implicit in those
institutions. I don't see how she gets family values out of that. How do
you extract sexual restraint out of consent, fair procedures and equal
treatment, which are the principles of liberal institutions?
She's right that liberalism needs family values etc. to survive. That
just shows that liberalism depends on things that aren't liberal just as
exact science depends on things that aren't exact science. What follows
from that though is that the whole idea of a liberal civic culture as
sufficient for social order is crazy.
I agree it's important that people are starting to think about these
things. They're starting to realize that you have to be able to assert
something that's non-neutral and make it publicly binding. You can't
always be neutral. But if you can do that, what in the end becomes of
the arguments for liberalism even in the West? The claim to neutrality
has been essential to liberal dominance. The assumption seems to be that
liberalism simply *is* the Western tradition, so that's not an issue.
That's obviously not so though.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
Weblog: http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun May 12 19:06:18 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g4D16HQW021709
for ; Sun, 12 May 2002 19:06:18 -0600
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 VAA15813;
Sun, 12 May 2002 21:06:16 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 21:06:16 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200205130106.VAA15813@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-214-68.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.214.68] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <11337119> 12 May 2002 21:06:13 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: la@a.net
In-reply-to: <00b701c1f9e1$4f4ba580$31e3fea9@h6l3p> (la@a.net)
Subject: Re: freedom and equality
References: <00b701c1f9e1$4f4ba580$31e3fea9@h6l3p>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level:
Status: RO
"la" == la writes:
la> Freedom
la> and equality are one.
Exactly so. Liberal freedom is just recognition that all impulses are of
equal value and so should get equal play. None should be suppressed in
the interests of any other. (The reason they are of equal value is that
it is the simple fact that something is an impulse that gives it value
and all impulses are equally impulses.)
jk
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
Weblog: http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu May 16 06:29:02 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g4GCT0QW018995
for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 06:29:01 -0600
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 IAA08530;
Thu, 16 May 2002 08:28:59 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 08:28:59 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200205161228.IAA08530@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-214-68.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.214.68] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <11451500> 16 May 2002 08:28:57 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: la@a.net
CC: carol.iannone@a.net
In-reply-to: <002201c1fc7a$142ba9a0$a66bfea9@h6l3p> (la@a.net)
Subject: Re: Amending Washington's letter to the Jewish community of Newport
References: <002201c1fc7a$142ba9a0$a66bfea9@h6l3p>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level:
Status: RO
"la" == la writes:
la> "It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the
la> indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the
la> exercise of their inherent natural rights, for happily, the
la> Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no
la> factions, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they
la> who live under its protection should demean themselves as good
la> citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual
la> support."
la> "May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in the land
la> continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other
la> inhabitants while every one shall sit in safety under his own
la> vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid."
la> [George Washington, A Collection, p. 548]
I'm not sure it really means equal participation as citizens. Not
everyone had the vote then, and he's emphasizing the non-political
aspects of political society and not rights of political participation.
"Every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there
shall be none to make him afraid" just means that each has a natural
right to property and personal security that will be protected in return
for supporting the agency that protects it.
The whole thing depends on a very limited role for government. I suppose
what I'm saying is that Washington had the notion of neutral government
based on universal principles of natural right. That notion didn't raise
problems in his mind because he didn't think government had to do much,
just protect life, liberty and property. He thought those things were
self-defining. Problems arose later because it turned out that you can't
define what's appropriate to protect life, liberty and property without
defining the good life, and neutral liberal principles can define the
good life only as getting what you want.
I think even foaming-at-the-mouth let's-have-a-state-church religious
rightists can sign on to what Washington actually says here. There *are*
natural human rights that don't depend on what religion you adhere to,
that's always been recognized in Christendom, and any government should
protect those rights so that Turk or Jew can sit under his own vine or
fig tree without fear. I think you just need the additional recognition
that there can't be a government that does no more than protect
universal natural human rights and to that extent religious outlook
becomes relevant to participation in government.
jk
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
Weblog: http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr
From James.B.Kalb.69@alum.dartmouth.org Thu May 16 07:58:33 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from epdefault ([66.70.67.30])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g4GDwWQW030474
for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 07:58:32 -0600
Received: from alum.dartmouth.org ([141.157.214.68]) by epdefault with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905);
Thu, 16 May 2002 06:56:30 -0700
X-Mailer: ePrompter
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 9:58:35 -0400
To:
From:
Subject: Re: Amending Washington's letter to the Jewish community of Newport
Message-ID:
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 May 2002 13:56:31.0274 (UTC) FILETIME=[7B7D60A0:01C1FCE1]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.6 required=5.0 tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,NO_REAL_NAME,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: ***
Status: RO
On reading W's actual words it struck me how much he was thinking
of government as a very limited institution and its relation
to "citizens" or persons "liv[ing] under its protection" as one
of protection of life, liberty and property on the one side,
which he didn't think were controversial concepts, and support
on the other. The goal was to enable every man to live quietly
and unmolested on his own.
It does seem to me that to the extent government does only what
he thinks it does his words are acceptable. There is indeed a
universal human right not to be subjected to random robbery,
abuse, persecution etc. The problem is that government is a lot
more than that, and it has to be more than that even to define
"liberty" and "property" and what's involved in protecting those
things. So I suppose what I was trying to do was to agree with
Washington as much as possible and only point out things he left
out that have since become impossible to avoid.
___________________________________________________________
Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software.
Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat May 18 05:20:54 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g4IBKkQW022064
for ; Sat, 18 May 2002 05:20:54 -0600
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 HAA05352;
Sat, 18 May 2002 07:20:45 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 07:20:45 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200205181120.HAA05352@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-214-68.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.214.68] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <11516617> 18 May 2002 07:20:45 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: la@a.net
In-reply-to: <000201c1fe02$edd2f620$5f3efea9@h6l3p> (la@a.net)
Subject: Re: UN conference on children
References: <000201c1fe02$edd2f620$5f3efea9@h6l3p>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level:
Status: RO
"la" == la writes:
la> Notice the name of the document, "A World Fit For Children,"
la> suggesting that the world is not now a place fit for children,
I like the name, it's right up there with "making the schools safe
places for all our children" (i.e., promoting homosexuality).
la> Also, see the quote from the Convention on the Rights of the
la> Child, which already has been passed I believe, though we
la> haven't ratified it.
The CRC has been ratified by every country in the world other than the
United States and (as I recall) Somalia. It's well worth reading -
children have the right to information and free association, for
example, so if Mom tells Junior he can't play with little Joey or watch
Dawson's Creek she's just violated international law. It's like Dutch
antidiscrimination law, you have to look for yourself because otherwise
you won't believe how bad it is.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
Weblog: http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat May 18 05:39:39 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g4IBdcQW024399
for ; Sat, 18 May 2002 05:39:38 -0600
Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA13936;
Sat, 18 May 2002 07:39:37 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 07:39:37 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200205181139.HAA13936@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-214-68.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.214.68] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <11516747> 18 May 2002 07:39:36 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: la@a.net
CC: carol.iannone@a.net
In-reply-to: <000301c1fcda$ccc028a0$eebefea9@h6l3p> (la@a.net)
Subject: Re: The double standard is not the result of a process, but is an immediate corollary of equality.
References: <000301c1fcda$ccc028a0$eebefea9@h6l3p>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level:
Status: RO
"la" == la writes:
la> classical liberalism, the liberalism of equal rights and equality
la> under the law, is not hypocritically neutral, it is truly
la> neutral. But when equality morphs from the belief in the
la> equality of rights to the belief in substantive equality, then
la> you have the double standard and the hypocrisy.
Classical liberalism is neutral if "life liberty and property" are
neutral. That doesn't seem to be so, though, since what interests get
protected under those headings and what is thought to violate them
depends on the substantive understanding of human life. Is it a
violation of life, liberty and property to have no money, no food, no
place to live? To get fired for being a Jewish communist homosexual? To
be unable to go into public places certain times of the year without
having people say "Merry Christmas" to you?
I think it's the consideration that "life liberty and property" are not
neutral, that they can't be turned into concrete rules without favoring
some people and some ways of life over others, that leads
philosophically from classical to contemporary liberalism.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
Weblog: http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu May 16 07:29:11 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g4GDTAQW026593
for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 07:29:11 -0600
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 JAA31533;
Thu, 16 May 2002 09:29:08 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 09:29:08 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200205161329.JAA31533@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-214-68.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.214.68] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <11453143> 16 May 2002 09:28:51 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: la@a.com
In-reply-to: <000201c1fbcd$4a6b54a0$216afea9@h6l3p> (la@a.com)
Subject: Re: chapter on Jews
References: <000201c1fbcd$4a6b54a0$216afea9@h6l3p>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level:
Status: RO
I'm still inclined to think that the basic problem is not this or that
habit or cultural particularity of the Jews but the circumstance that
they are an energetic and capable community living within a civilization
one of whose pillars they reject as part of their self-definition. If
that's so then the old American dream (basically Protestant society in
which Jews are welcome and participate fully in all respects) seems to
require an improbable amount of mutual deference in the long run.
jk
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
Weblog: http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr
From James.B.Kalb.69@alum.dartmouth.org Thu May 16 09:05:47 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from epdefault ([66.70.67.30])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g4GF5lQW005980
for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 09:05:47 -0600
Received: from alum.dartmouth.org ([141.157.214.68]) by epdefault with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905);
Thu, 16 May 2002 08:03:51 -0700
X-Mailer: ePrompter
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 11:05:56 -0400
To:
From:
Subject: Re: chapter on Jews
Message-ID:
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 May 2002 15:03:52.0164 (UTC) FILETIME=[E40C4240:01C1FCEA]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.6 required=5.0 tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,NO_REAL_NAME,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: ***
Status: RO
It seems to me that what you write about immigration and the
American identity takes the point of view of defending the old
American arrangement . That arrangement involved conventions
and accommodations that I think aren't likely to be restored.
I don't object to someone defending the way things were though,
a lot was lost when we moved from it to what we have now, and
from that point of view you'd have to say something rather like
what you do. So I don't know that it's true to say I disagree
with you. In fact maybe your line of thought points hte way toward
a Christian society in which non-Christians and even anti-Christians
are treated decently.
Was that answer vague enough? I suppose my basic thought at the
moment is that the ideal of full equal welcoming participation
of Jews in all aspects of American society is just a form of
multiculturalism. Jews can't be happy as Jews unless society
is definitively deChristianized, which means the abolition of
the West. So then the question becomes, for those who'd rather
not see the West abolished, whether Jews can be told "no" in
a humane way that preserves mutual respect etc. Maybe America
used to have a way of doing that, or maybe it was always just
a matter of time until America either decisively rejected inevitable
Jewish communal aspirations or committed suicide.
Now I've rambled myself, so enough for now.
jk
___________________________________________________________
Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software.
Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon May 20 12:54:12 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g4KIsAQW022392
for ; Mon, 20 May 2002 12:54:11 -0600
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 OAA07883;
Mon, 20 May 2002 14:53:57 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 14:53:57 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200205201853.OAA07883@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-213-7.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.213.7] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <11560914> 20 May 2002 14:53:21 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: ca
Subject: Re: Why liberals consider all conservatives to be bigots
References: <002201c1fdd8$d18b11c0$5f3efea9@h6l3p> <200205172036.QAA13983@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU> <007801c20022$8cd43240$de52580c@61lvi>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level:
Status: RO
"ci" writes:
ci> Why is it though that liberals have these patterns in which they
ci> do indeed villainize an "other," and do indeed have a concept of
ci> evil, albeit a stupid one, as in men, whites, white men,
ci> capitalists, rich people, and so on? I guess that's not called the
ci> "other," since those are the "dominant" groups?
Part of it I think is that as rational universalists - people who think
their political positions are based plainly and directly on principles
that no one could reasonably dispute (which is why it's natural to
enshrine those positions in constitutional interpretation, international
human rights conventions, etc.) they have no place in their conceptual
universe for sane, well-informed and well-intentioned opposition.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
Weblog: http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu May 23 04:42:14 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g4NAg4QW031851
for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 04:42:13 -0600
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 GAA14545
for ; Thu, 23 May 2002 06:42:04 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 06:42:04 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200205231042.GAA14545@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-216-76.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.216.76] for jkalb@nyx.net id <11651704> 23 May 2002 06:41:58 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: jkalb@nyx.net
Subject: [James.B.Kalb.69@alum.dartmouth.org: Re: Does Europe Need More Immigrants]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.4 required=5.0 tests=MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: ****
Status: RO
It's not psychological like mania, it's more metaphysical. If
it were psychological it would be a temporary passing fad and
it wouldn't have the quality of absolute necessity that the pro-immigration
view does have.
The problem is that if you don't insist that immigrants be welcomed
in large numbers on economic or humanitarian grounds and fully
integrated into all aspects of social life at the expense of
whatever stands in the way then you're admitting that there are
human connections, attitudes, habits etc. that matter and are
worthy of respect that can't be reduced without remainder to
the technical requirements of the efficient functioning of markets
and bureaucracies. But if you admit that you screw up your whole
metaphysics and ethics, not to mention your understanding of
what constitutes an acceptable social order. You also destroy
the absolute right to rule of the class of managers and experts
of which you are a member.
Jim
___________________________________________________________
Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software.
Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.
------- End of forwarded message -------
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon May 27 09:15:44 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g4RFFZQW020586
for ; Mon, 27 May 2002 09:15:43 -0600
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 LAA02705;
Mon, 27 May 2002 11:15:34 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 11:15:34 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200205271515.LAA02705@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-217-94.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.217.94] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <11738009> 27 May 2002 11:15:33 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: la@a.com
Subject: Re: the wages of self-sufficiency
References: <005d01c20447$45490e40$9e80fea9@h6l3p>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level:
Status: RO
"lr" == la writes:
lr> Yet the sheer
lr> "well-made-ness" and self-sufficiency of the Constitution also
lr> pointed the way toward an increasingly autonomous and secularized
lr> order.
That's a good way of putting it. You could connect the issue to Pascal's
comment: "I cannot forgive Descartes. In all his philosophy he would
have been quite willing to dispense with God. But he had to make Him
give a fillip to set the world in motion; beyond this, he has no further
need of God." Also to Laplace, who said didn't need the God hypothesis
in his account of the world.
jk
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
Weblog: http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr
From James.B.Kalb.69@alum.dartmouth.org Mon May 27 13:56:48 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from epdefault ([66.70.67.30])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g4RJulQW023543
for ; Mon, 27 May 2002 13:56:47 -0600
Received: from alum.dartmouth.org ([141.157.217.94]) by epdefault with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905);
Mon, 27 May 2002 12:55:06 -0700
X-Mailer: ePrompter
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 15:57:33 -0400
To:
From:
Subject: Re: Fw: on D'Souza's redefinition of America and conservatism
Message-ID:
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 May 2002 19:55:06.0900 (UTC) FILETIME=[66589D40:01C205B8]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.6 required=5.0 tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,NO_REAL_NAME,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: ***
Status: RO
He's intelligent though, and I think he tries to be honest although
he's not necessarily reasonable, so it could be an interesting
discussion.
Locke of course was the father of all liberals, Burke not at
all a liberal in the same sense. He reinterpreted talk of society
as a contract for example to mean society as not a contract.
A primeval contract that includes the dead is not a contract.
The Bohemian ethos is a fact. Is it a self-consistent fact, one
that could be thoroughly accepted by the whole of society, or
is it necessarily parasitic? Is it an oppositional culture that
depends on the thing it opposes? Could you have a society that
consists of nothing but market, bureaucracy, and purely individual
and sentimental associations and pursuits?
The thing that confronts the Bohemian ethos is a complex of habits,
attitudes and beliefs inherited from the past and rooted in the
civilization of Christendom. I don't see that as less a fact
than the Bohemian ethos. The basic political question today is
the nature of man and the good life - whether the former or latter
shall be viewed as authoritative publicly. A secondary question
is the extent to which government should support or suppress
one or the other.
___________________________________________________________
Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software.
Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue May 28 13:38:22 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g4SJcLQW009050
for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 13:38:21 -0600
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 PAA20787;
Tue, 28 May 2002 15:38:19 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 15:38:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200205281938.PAA20787@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-216-98.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.216.98] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <11767959> 28 May 2002 15:38:16 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: la@a.com
In-reply-to: <005a01c20668$9bf0a500$d459fea9@h6l3p> (la@a.com)
Subject: Re: D'Souza Goes Left
References: <005a01c20668$9bf0a500$d459fea9@h6l3p>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level:
Status: RO
Good answer.
Another way of putting it: conservatism isn't a special kind of outlook,
it's just good sense in dealing with a world in which we know some
things but not others, in which we have to make comprehensive judgements
but can focus on things enough to judge them only by leaving out a great
deal.
In such a world making judgments simply by applying abstract
propositions is disastrous because it leaves out so much. Therefore
reasonableness requires our judgments to be tied to a system of actual
life that makes their meaning and consequences concrete while implicitly
taking into account all the human affairs and experience to which they
are tied.
Tying judgements to a system of actual life doesn't mean we are wholly
at the mercy of what's actually being done around us right now. Systems
of life have internal standards, complexities and contradictions, and
they extend over time. They are also oriented to something beyond
themselves, to some conception of what man and the world are. So without
launching ourselves into outer space we can reject one aspect of how
things are done now (acceptance of libertinism) because it conflicts
radically with other aspects of tradition and actual practice both today
and historically (e.g., religious tradition, everyday decencies, the
family loyalty upon which social order still depends and must depend)
that have better claim to authority. For example, a tradition of
rejecting tradition and deciding things based on abstract propositions
is obviously suspect from the conservative standpoint.
Conservatism doesn't mean not thinking and it's not about itself. It has
to do with how we think and know things that we would otherwise find it
difficult to get a grip on.
jk
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
Weblog: http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr
From James.B.Kalb.69@alum.dartmouth.org Tue May 28 15:21:43 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from epdefault ([66.70.67.30])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g4SLLgQW025297
for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 15:21:42 -0600
Received: from alum.dartmouth.org ([141.157.216.98]) by epdefault with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905);
Tue, 28 May 2002 14:19:58 -0700
X-Mailer: ePrompter
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 17:22:35 -0400
To:
From:
Subject: Re: Fw: D'Souza Goes Left
Message-ID:
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 May 2002 21:19:58.0969 (UTC) FILETIME=[6BDE6E90:01C2068D]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.6 required=5.0 tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,NO_REAL_NAME,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: ***
Status: RO
Good for him!
I'd say, basically, yes. Specific institutional arrangements
like the role and status of the states and thus how senators
are chosen are very important, but other things were more important
to the polity the Founders established.
For example, limited government and local and popular self-rule
were more important. The latter require a moral people with stable
loyalties and strong sense of personal responsibility who are
able to look after themselves and rely on those around them when
they need assistance. I haven't the faintest idea how you achieve
those things unless you have strong family ties, and I have no
idea how you'll have strong family ties as a general thing that
can be relied on unless you have something very much like traditional
sexual morality.
He's right of course that the normalization of homosexuality
is not the single thing that wrecks all else and everything else
that's ever happened has been tolerable. It's hard to see how
normalization of homosexuality can be reconciled with a free
self-governing society though.
___________________________________________________________
Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software.
Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.
From James.B.Kalb.69@alum.dartmouth.org Thu May 30 12:42:35 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from epdefault ([66.70.67.30])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g4UIgXQW014034
for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 12:42:34 -0600
Received: from alum.dartmouth.org ([141.157.217.42]) by epdefault with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905);
Thu, 30 May 2002 11:40:56 -0700
X-Mailer: ePrompter
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 14:42:37 -0400
To:
Subject: Re: Comments2
Message-ID:
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 May 2002 18:40:57.0223 (UTC) FILETIME=[895F0970:01C20809]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.6 required=5.0 tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,NO_REAL_NAME,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: ***
Status: RO
The Blut und Eisen business I think is so far off as to be just
a pretense unless he only means to observe that all political
order involves force. That's not particularly philosophical though
although it's something philosophy has to take into account.
It can't just be Blut und Eisen or even Blood and Steel and the
Ideal of Liberty. By themselves these conceptions are inhuman.
There's also the network of human relationships, habits, attitudes,
language, beliefs, history etc. that make a people a people and
encode an understanding of the good life. And beyond that every
system of human habits and relationships points beyond itself.
So there is also necessarily an orienation to the transcendent.
___________________________________________________________
Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software.
Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.
From James.B.Kalb.69@alum.dartmouth.org Mon Jun 3 09:35:25 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from epdefault ([66.70.67.30])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g53FZODn023908
for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 09:35:25 -0600
Received: from alum.dartmouth.org ([141.157.217.42]) by epdefault with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905);
Mon, 3 Jun 2002 08:33:54 -0700
X-Mailer: ePrompter
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 11:36:09 -0400
To:
Subject: Re: high mass
Message-ID:
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jun 2002 15:33:55.0034 (UTC) FILETIME=[1213E3A0:01C20B14]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.6 required=5.0 tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,NO_REAL_NAME version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: *
Status: O
One thing that's shocking in America here and now is seeing something
that's obviously the peak of a highly developed civilization
presented and accepted as a living ceremony.
= = = Original message = = =
I attended a special Tridentine high pontifical mass several
years ago at St. Patrick's conducted by Cardinal Stickler. It
was an unforgettable event.
___________________________________________________________
Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software.
Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.
From James.B.Kalb.69@alum.dartmouth.org Tue Jun 4 14:11:40 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from epdefault ([66.70.67.30])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g54KBdDn018909
for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2002 14:11:39 -0600
Received: from alum.dartmouth.org ([141.157.214.226]) by epdefault with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905);
Tue, 4 Jun 2002 13:09:05 -0700
X-Mailer: ePrompter
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 16:10:11 -0400
To:
From:
Subject: Re: Anarchism traditionalist?
Message-ID:
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jun 2002 20:09:05.0940 (UTC) FILETIME=[ADC1F540:01C20C03]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=SUBJ_ENDS_IN_Q_MARK,FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,NO_REAL_NAME version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: *
Status: O
Do I say it is anywhere? Anyway the argument would be that a
stateless society would have to be a traditionalist society since
there would be no other way to organize human relations and expectations.
The market can only do so much; things that can't really be handled
by contract have to be handled either by tradition or state authority,
and if the latter is lacking tradition becomes all the more necessary.
= = = Original message = = =
BF>How is anarchism traditionalist?
Bates
___________________________________________________________
Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software.
Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.
From James.B.Kalb.69@alum.dartmouth.org Wed Jun 5 03:54:57 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from epdefault ([66.70.67.30])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g559stDn015876
for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 03:54:56 -0600
Received: from alum.dartmouth.org ([141.157.214.226]) by epdefault with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905);
Wed, 5 Jun 2002 02:52:26 -0700
X-Mailer: ePrompter
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 5:50:53 -0400
To:
Subject: Re: Anarchism traditionalist?
Message-ID:
Status: O
Why should I have to square it with her claims? I think her basic
understanding of the world is wrong, and I'm not an anarchist,
so I shouldn't have to reconcile two views neither of which I
agree with.
It seems to me if someone is an anarchist he'll recreate in his
imagined stateless society whatever his view of human nature
is. If he's a socialist it'll be a socialist anarchy but a libertarian
(market-oriented)or traditionalist anarchist would think otherwise.
How did this discussion get started? What in anything I've written
are you referring to?
= = = Original message = = =
BF>How do you square this with the claims of Emma Goldman and
co.? You know,
the Left-wing anarchists who, in all fairness, coined the concept
of
anarchism?
Bates
James.B.Kalb.69@alum.dartmouth.org wrote:
> Do I say it is anywhere? Anyway the argument would be that
a
> stateless society would have to be a traditionalist society
since
> there would be no other way to organize human relations and
expectations.
> The market can only do so much; things that can't really be
handled
> by contract have to be handled either by tradition or state
authority,
> and if the latter is lacking tradition becomes all the more
necessary.
>
> = = = Original message = = =
>
> BF>How is anarchism traditionalist?
___________________________________________________________
Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software.
Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Jun 5 10:59:16 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g55Gx6Dn015298
for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 10:59:15 -0600
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 MAA08759
for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 12:59:04 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 12:59:04 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200206051659.MAA08759@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-214-226.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.214.226] for jkalb@nyx.net id <12004544> 05 Jun 2002 12:59:01 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: jkalb@nyx.net
Subject: [James.B.Kalb.69@alum.dartmouth.org: Re: hate crimes calls]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.4 required=5.0 tests=MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2 version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: **
Status: O
To interpret anything it has to have a stable setting you're
familiar with. For that reason it's obvious you can't have popular
government without strictly limited government that's as local
as possible.
= = = Original message = = =
You prove my point. It's hard even for smart people to keep
track of these things. Imagine what it would be like if we were
part of the EU, and such laws were not even being passed by elected
legislators but invisible commissioners.
That's one of my worst nightmares. That scares me even more
than the thought of being overwhelmed by third-world immigration.
From James.B.Kalb.69@alum.dartmouth.org Mon Jun 10 06:46:36 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from epdefault ([66.70.67.30])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g5ACkZDn007871
for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 06:46:35 -0600
Received: from alum.dartmouth.org ([141.157.214.226]) by epdefault with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905);
Mon, 10 Jun 2002 05:44:10 -0700
X-Mailer: ePrompter
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 8:46:29 -0400
To:
Subject: Re: About Jews
Message-ID:
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jun 2002 12:44:11.0167 (UTC) FILETIME=[84E95AF0:01C2107C]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.6 required=5.0 tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,NO_REAL_NAME version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: *
Status: O
Can't think of any pro-Israel/pro-white sites. Horowitz's probably
comes as close as any. I should say that it's not hard to see
why someone who thinks there's a particular European people and
civilization that should be defended might have some issues with
the Jews, or why someone might not feel like supporting Israel.
If someone decides to move into a hornet's nest and live there
that's great but why is it my responsibility to help him?
Still, there are lots of complications and people do get batty
on the subject. I think one problem if someone makes the European
people his ultimate cause is that ethnicity by itself doesn't
tell him to do anything in particular. It's a condition and not
a purpose. As a result if his ultimate standard is ethnicity
his practical politics are likely to become a matter of identifying
and attacking enemies, and since enemies at home are more dangerous
than foreign enemies those are the ones he'll go after. So it
seems to me that unless loyalty to white civilization is tied
into some more universal scheme of things it's likely to become
everything left-wingers accuse it of being - narrow, suspicious,
xenophobic, obsessively antisemitic, etc., etc., etc.
= = = Original message = = =
(2) Every site I have seen on the web, other than David Horowitz's
Frontpage, that opposes hatred of whites, supports the achievements
of whites, defends the right of the peoples of Europe to restrict,
stop or even reverse Third World immigration, and the
right of the US to do much the same, etc., is so wedded to anti-Semitism
that it opposes both the US "war on terror" and the Jewish state.
___________________________________________________________
Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software.
Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Jun 10 11:31:44 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g5AHVZDn020159
for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:31:43 -0600
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 NAA16805
for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:31:34 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:31:34 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200206101731.NAA16805@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-214-226.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.214.226] for jkalb@nyx.net id <12188777> 10 Jun 2002 13:31:31 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: jkalb@nyx.net
Subject: [James.B.Kalb.69@alum.dartmouth.org: Re: Fw: your new poll]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.4 required=5.0 tests=MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2 version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: **
Status: O
The internal threat is worse, other things being equal, so I'd
choose human rights ideology. Human rights ideology acts coherently
and is in command of all authoritative institutions in the West.
Radical Islam is mostly thousands of miles away, and they're
all screw-ups who hate each other anyway.
jk
= = = Original message = = =
Another way of phrasing this question would be, when I was walking
through the shopping arcade in Tower 2 of the World Trade Center
last summer on the way to our meeting at Foxhounds, and noticed,
within one second of each other, a shop maniquin with nipples
visible through its blouse, and a Muslim woman passing me with
her head covered, which represented the greatest threat to our
culture?
I see the first (i.e. complete freedom and rights) as having
opened up the doors to the second (i.e. letting in everyone,
even people who would destroy all our freedoms). So I guess
the human rights is the greater danger.
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Jun 12 10:34:09 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g5CGXtDn022371
for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:34:08 -0600
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 MAA21760;
Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:33:54 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:33:54 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200206121633.MAA21760@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-214-226.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.214.226] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <12329012> 12 Jun 2002 12:33:51 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: ca
Subject: Re: Tuesday meeting
References:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2 version=2.20
X-Spam-Level:
Status: O
Missed you! (Not to mention all others who couldn't make it.) It
was a productive discussion nonetheless. I've summarized some ideas we
kicked around in my most recent post to View from the Right:
http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/000481.html#000481
We also talked about how we got into the situation we are in, in which
the definition of America is that it's a place anyone in the world can
come to and do whatever he wants, and if there are any limitations on
that then it proves we're a failure as a nation. A lot of the discussion
was really a rehash of Larry's comment at
http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/000460.html#000460
Once it had become absolutely fundamental that blacks and whites had to
be equal in all respects, so that substantive equality regardless of
group differences had become a supreme value that trumped everything
else, it was hard to see why everyone in the world shouldn't be
absolutely equal in all ways, and the highest meaning of America became
that it's a place that includes everyone and makes them all equal. So
treating mass 3rd world immigration, multiculturalism etc. as other than
supreme political goods becomes unAmerican.
jk
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
Weblog: http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu Jun 13 14:39:14 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g5DKctDn023267
for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:39:13 -0600
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 QAA06394;
Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:38:54 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:38:54 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200206132038.QAA06394@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-214-226.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.214.226] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <12421953> 13 Jun 2002 16:38:51 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: what do you think?
References: <001601c212f9$1fdb0800$4221fea9@h6l3p>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,SUBJ_ENDS_IN_Q_MARK,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2 version=2.20
X-Spam-Level:
Status: O
"la" writes:
la> What do you think of my article on the Church scandal?
It pulls a lot together. The bishop's comment does I think show that he
identifies the Church as an organization pretty much identical to the
people (i.e. the clerics) who compose it. That's subphilosophical to the
point of brainlessness but it does reflect a philosophical background,
the destruction post-Vat II of consciousness of the Church as a
transcendent reality not reducible to the people in it here and now.
I thought it was good to bring in Romans I - some of the specifics are
very much to the point. That's usually so when one reads St. Paul with
some serious church problem in mind.
Vatican II is a big topic. It seems to me a very strange event that can
be interpreted in all sorts of ways. It looks so ill-advised and it's
certainly led to bad things notably the flattening of religion into
something that seems basically this-worldly with maybe a little poetry
and ad hoc ceremony added. Do you have references for your quotes
though? The Paul VI closing speech I could find is different:
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v18.html
As to the pronouncement of the Council itself, a Google search didn't
turn up any documents that had both the phrase "church serves man" and
"phenomenal totality" so it seems likely your translation of the
pronouncement isn't the standard one. Certainly the quotes are very
startling so I would like to see more.
jk
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
Weblog: http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Fri Jun 14 07:29:48 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g5EDTlDn021495
for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 07:29:48 -0600
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 JAA15691
for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:29:47 -0400 (EDT)
Message-id: <12464003@doc.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 14 Jun 2002 09:29:45 EDT
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: I found Paul's speech quoted elsewhere with citation
To: la
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: *
Status: O
The additional language creates a rather different impression, I
think. I would want to read the whole speech. Paul VI mentions the two
sides of Pascal's view of man, his greatness and his misery, and says
that the Council admires his greatness and wants nothing more than to
serve man. All of which seems OK - the greatness is real and salvation
is serving man - as long as other sides of the picture aren't left
out. The Abbe creates the impression other sides were left out by
leaving them out in what he quotes but it appears from the more
extended quote that they were there.
It seems that what Paul VI was doing is the same as what JP II does -
avoid anathemas, and say he approves of almost everything anyone does
anywhere that reflects a search for what is good, beautiful or true
because no human action is coherent or complete without God so
whereever you start if you honestly reflect on what you're really
trying to do you'll end up in the Church. On that line of thought the
best thing is let the inquirer keep on inquiring and propose for his
consideration additional things that you think meet his needs. In the
end truth is one and he'll get to it if he wants it.
You can question how far that line of approach should be pushed but I
don't think it's really a religion of man.
***********************************************************
This message was sent using WebBlitz 4.0a1
Check it out at: https://basement.dartmouth.edu/blitz
***********************************************************
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Fri Jun 14 07:34:29 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g5EDYSDn021935
for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 07:34:28 -0600
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 JAA21235
for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:34:28 -0400 (EDT)
Message-id: <12464118@doc.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 14 Jun 2002 09:34:26 EDT
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Fwd:Re: Islamists and neo-Nazis
To: jkalb@nyx.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: *
Status: O
I saw the piece. It seems to me it tends to present a world
in which there are two alternative, Taleban nazism or the
NWO. To the extent it does it presents an extremist point
of view.
Basically it seems to me that modern politics is innately
extremist because it tries to fit everything into a single
small set of principles that we can fully possess and
implement. That's true of both NWO liberals and radical
Islamicists. I think both are antihuman and destructive and
don't favor either. You can reject the Taleban without
embracing Sade. In the same way, you can reject some of the
things the WTC stood for without any sympathy at all for
the murderers of the people who worked there.
To my mind the alternative to modern extremism is a view
that accepts that we can partially understand things but
not fully, that we depend on things that are bigger and
more subtle than we are, and so we have to trust in
particular evolved understandings that can't be altogether
formulated and turned into ideologies or rational decision
procedures. That is the traditionalist view. I think recent
events make that view all the more necessary.
From James.B.Kalb.69@alum.dartmouth.org Fri Jun 14 11:29:00 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from epdefault ([66.70.67.30])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g5EHSsDn018027
for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:28:59 -0600
Received: from alum.dartmouth.org ([141.157.217.106]) by epdefault with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905);
Fri, 14 Jun 2002 10:26:35 -0700
X-Mailer: ePrompter
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 13:28:55 -0400
To:
Subject: Re: Past Popes Condemn Vatican II
Message-ID:
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jun 2002 17:26:35.0480 (UTC) FILETIME=[A2295580:01C213C8]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.6 required=5.0 tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,NO_REAL_NAME version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: *
Status: O
My theory is still that Paul VI was doing the Pascal greatness
of man/misery of man thing, with emphasis on the first because
his intention was to find common ground with the secularists,
whom he rightly viewed as extremely powerful and increasingly
so in all aspects of life including fundamental philosophy.
With that the case he thought he wasn't going to get anywhere
evangelizing by claiming authority but had to start by saying
"what you say is all wonderful but I've got some additional things
to propose that you may conclude help fill out the picture and
better express what in the end you're really trying to do." The
A. de N. makes his case, I suspect, by quoting the "it's all
wonderful" parts and not the other parts.
The plan was to point out, once the discussion had started, that
while Nature has a certain relative autonomy which we can all
admire because God makes good things it points beyond itself
to Grace, which is needed to perfect it. I don't think there's
anything essentially heterodox about the approach. If the heavens
can proclaim the glory of God and man is made in the image of
God and some truths about God can be known with certainty by
natural reason (a dogma of Vat I as well as Vat II) and Augustine
can say there's a God-shaped hole in the center of each of us
then theology from below is possible at least as part of an overall
effort.
The danger of course, and what has happened, is that the part
becomes the whole, the apologetic strategy becomes the substance,
and we end up with immanent humanism as a religion. One of the
things that has to be proposed is that Christianity is authoritative
and based on revelation, and recent popes have been too much
concerned to find ways to speak to the modern word in ways it
will accept to put that forward. When the issue comes up occasionally
as in Dominus Iesus everyone's shocked because it doesn't sound
like the usual message.
jk
From James.B.Kalb.69@alum.dartmouth.org Wed Jun 19 17:53:02 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from epdefault ([66.70.67.30])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g5JNr1Dn017792
for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 17:53:01 -0600
Received: from alum.dartmouth.org ([141.157.217.106]) by epdefault with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905);
Wed, 19 Jun 2002 16:50:51 -0700
X-Mailer: ePrompter
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 19:53:21 -0400
To:
Subject: Re: question on the relativism discussion
Message-ID:
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2002 23:50:52.0120 (UTC) FILETIME=[250E2580:01C217EC]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.6 required=5.0 tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,NO_REAL_NAME version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: *
Status: O
There's a variety of formulations all of which can be illuminating. My
usual one is no transcendence => the good is simply the desired =>
since all desires are equally desires all goods are equally goods. I
don't know if that makes equality or relativism come first after
abolition of transcendence. If saying "the good is the desired" is
relativism then relativism comes first. If not, and "all goods are
equally goods" is the definition of relativism, then the fact that
desires, which define the good, are equally desires comes first.
___________________________________________________________
Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software.
Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.
From James.B.Kalb.69@alum.dartmouth.org Wed Jun 19 18:01:18 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from epdefault ([66.70.67.30])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/fnord) with ESMTP id g5K01IDn019538
for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 18:01:18 -0600
Received: from alum.dartmouth.org ([141.157.217.106]) by epdefault with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905);
Wed, 19 Jun 2002 16:59:08 -0700
X-Mailer: ePrompter
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 20:01:37 -0400
To:
Subject: Re: the triad that constitutes our world
Message-ID:
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2002 23:59:08.0433 (UTC) FILETIME=[4CE18010:01C217ED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.6 required=5.0 tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,NO_REAL_NAME version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: *
Status: O
It's interesting to concentrate on this. What's the corresponding
trilogy for liberalism? Maybe human desire instead of God, logic
and technique instead of culture, and raw material instead of
nature.
jk
___________________________________________________________
Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software.
Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.
From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Wed Jun 26 06:04:03 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.4/8.12.4/fnord) with ESMTP id g5QC42b7031307
for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 06:04:02 -0600
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 IAA02012
for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 08:04:01 -0400 (EDT)
Message-id: <12958938@doc.Dartmouth.ORG>
Date: 26 Jun 2002 08:03:59 EDT
From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69)
Subject: Re: Prager touches on a question we've often discussed
To: la
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=5.0
tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS
version=2.31
X-Spam-Level:
Status: O
It seems to me though (I repeat myself) that the Left really does like
feminism, homosexuals, democracy (in the sense of equality) etc. They just try
to work out and apply the principles of equality and antitranscendence that
make those things seem like supreme goals in a more comprehensive way. They
therefore favor the overthrow of the hegemony of every historical culture,
which as a practical matter means first and foremost the overthrow of the West.
It's the old argument between radicals and liberals--the radicals want utopia
now, while the liberals want to stabilize gains to date and work toward utopia
by reform. Rather than overthrow the West they redefine it by stages to mean
tolerance. It does seem to me the liberals have become more radical--they think
they can do anything. I suppose a neocon would be someone who's come to think
that the process can't go on forever, that there's some irreducible minimum of
family structure, religious commitment etc. that's needed to make freedom and
equality secure.
He's right of course about the kill-the-father concept. All I'd say is that
Leftism is supported by conceptual as well as psychological considerations. I
was sorry though to have to read once again about James O. Freedman, a truly
disgusting man. (When did "college president" stop being a respectable job?)
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
View from the Right weblog: http://counterrevolution.net/vfr
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri Apr 19 06:42:08 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.2/8.12.2/fnord) with ESMTP id g3JCg7je023880
for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 06:42:07 -0600
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 IAA23937;
Fri, 19 Apr 2002 08:42:06 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 08:42:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200204191242.IAA23937@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-212-221.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.212.221] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <10711595> 19 Apr 2002 08:42:04 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: to
In-reply-to: <3CBF9EB1.6EFC9B88@attbi.com> (message from Paul Duca on Fri, 19 Apr 2002 00:36:00 -0400)
Subject: Re: STUDY FINDS MARRIED WOMEN & CHILDREN SUFFER LEAST ABUSE
Status: RO
"pd" writes:
pd> As well as send the message that if you aren't in
pd> an "approved" social structure, you DESERVE to be
pd> abused...plus, when a "godly" husband hits his wife or kids,
pd> it's an act of love or discipline, i.e. NOT abuse--therefore,
pd> the traditional marriage and family structure is the safest
pd> haven for helpless women and children.
Not sure of your reasoning:
1. If some forms of human relationship work much better than others it
seems right to hold them up as ideals. You seem to be saying that
nothing should be considered better than anything else because if it
is then the people involved in the things viewed as not as good will
be worse off.
That view seems odd to me. Do you think all social standards, all
notions of good and bad conduct, should be abolished because if such
notions exist then people who don't comply will be looked down on and
treated badly?
2. You also seem to be saying that the reason there is much less
violence, abuse etc. in traditional families is that the same things
happen but it is called something else. Do you apply that to
situations in which mom beats baby and baby ends up in hospital or
mom's live-in forces himself on mom's daughter? Those things are much
more common in nontraditional arrangements. Is your claim that lots
of moms beat their babies to death and lots of dads rape their
daughters and everyone thinks it's OK so long as mom and dad are
married and living together?
jk
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Jul 2 05:54:28 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.4/8.12.4/fnord) with ESMTP id g62BsJb7003378
for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 05:54:27 -0600
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 HAA05541;
Tue, 2 Jul 2002 07:54:17 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 07:54:17 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200207021154.HAA05541@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-212-167.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.212.167] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <13171683> 02 Jul 2002 07:54:16 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
Subject: Re: vouchers cont.
References: <002101c22170$98ff09e0$1d9afea9@h6l3p>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0
tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM
version=2.31
X-Spam-Level:
Status: O
My guess is that he thinks the problem ("socialism") is comprehensive
central control of social life, and vouchers plainly represent a move
away from that, one that has actual popular support potentially even
among Democratic constituencies. Your objection is that vouchers will
actually spread certain forms of control, because if you take the
government's money you must do what the government says. His response
might be that strings attached to grants are obviously less invasive
than direct administration, and if grants can go to religious
institutions then government involvement will have to remain far less
invasive than direct adminstration and there will be a strong popular
constituency to keep it that way. Once grants to independent schools
become institutionalized then he no doubt recognizes that the battle to
keep them independent will begin. But to argue that battle will be lost,
he would claim, is to say that creeping socialism always wins. And if
that's so why not just roll up and die right now?
I think part of the reason for his view is that he's not as much at odds
with things the govt is likely to try to enforce as you are. He believes
in colorblindness, would no doubt accept mild affirmative action,
multiculturalism and education for tolerance, has no problem with
acceptance of homosexuality, etc. So it would be natural for him to
think some sort of tolerable compromise on the issue of the strings to
be attached to the vouchers would be within reach.
jk
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
View from the Right weblog: http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Jul 2 18:23:54 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.4/8.12.4/fnord) with ESMTP id g630Nbb7032740
for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 18:23:53 -0600
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 UAA29033;
Tue, 2 Jul 2002 20:23:36 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 20:23:36 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200207030023.UAA29033@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from pool-141-157-212-167.ny325.east.verizon.net [141.157.212.167] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <13197934> 02 Jul 2002 20:23:33 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: to
Subject: Re: Libertarian on tradition
References:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0
tests=IN_REP_TO,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM
version=2.31
X-Spam-Level:
Status: O
Thanks for the paper. I can force myself to read academic liberal theory
only sporadically and out of a sense of duty, so a clear summary of a
basic current dispute that has a sense of historical background is quite
helpful.
A problem with the "tolerant" side of the debate I think is that as
liberals they tend to deny the actual goodness of anything but autonomy
and pursuing one's own tastes, which in fact they view as supreme goods.
One result is that the things that are tolerated (the Amish way of life
or whatever) are viewed as intrinsically not-so-good but simply to be
tolerated on the grounds that (1) it's dangerous to set up the apparatus
needed to uproot them altogether, and (2) it's hard on the people
already involved to tell them they have to knock it off. I think that it
has to bias the direction things are going to take if being Amish, or
apparently recognizing the authority of any sort of tradition, is viewed
as sort of like being addicted to something.
I approve of your new career of debunking health crazinesses, by the
way. And I do hope you manage to get your book published. Never say die!
(Not that you're likely to.)
jk
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
View from the Right weblog: http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr
From James.B.Kalb.69@alum.dartmouth.org Wed Jul 3 03:12:03 2002
Return-Path:
Received: from epdefault ([66.70.67.30])
by anubis.nyx.net (8.12.4/8.12.4/fnord) with ESMTP id g639C2b7003366
for