Longtime readers of this site will recall that I’ve often tied progressivism (specifically by way of its philosophical assumptions) to totalitarianism, arguing that the resurgence of progressivism as a viable political force is, at least in part, tied to the linguistic turn — a rethinking of where “meaning” is grounded that gave us the kind of structural-linguistic arguments (incoherent and pernicious as they are) that came to undergird our very thinking, and so to insinuate themselves into the political and civic culture in ways that have allowed them to move easily into legislation and court rulings.
Of course, totalitarianism was not always considered evil — particularly among early twentieth century Progressives and, most famously, Mussolini. But after WWII, the term took on darker implications — and so when the linguistic movement that led to its resurgence began to gain traction, its adherents (who, incidentally, were almost uniformly leftists or ethical purists, who took their justifications from academics) were clever enough to use the vernacular of freedom and liberty to couch what is, in effect, a quite illiberal project: “opening up” the text’s meaning to an “interpretive community” at the expense of original intent was cast as “democratizing” interpretation — breaking away from the tyranny of authorial intent. It was liberating and progressive, moving us past the stale old conventions of doing interpretive grunt work at the behest of some dead white guy.
Which, though it sounds high minded, is, upon closer examination, simply a clever ploy to turn meaning into something that can be decided upon by committed “communities,” who in turn can, once their response theoretics is run through Said’s Orientalism filter, become controllers of given master narratives — a move that allows them to bracket competing observations and interpretations by way of appeals to “authenticity,” claims to “ownership” over a particular narrative based upon some essential quality to those in a given interpretive community. Out of such a confection of faulty ideas is spun the gossamer and intellectually cloying cotton candy of identity politics.
All of which I bring up to point back to a previous node in American history — prior to the linguistic turn — at which time identity politics was tied to the soft-fascist political philosophy of the earlier Progressives, the ones who greatly admired the European move toward totalitarianism. Again, from Liberal Fascism:
[Woodrow] Wilson’s vision of “self-determination” has been retroactively gussied up as a purely democratic vision [much as reader response theory, which shifts the locus of meaning making unto the receiver of the speech act, is described as “democratizing” the reading experience, when what it really does is enacts a linguistic coup – ed]. It wasn’t. It was in important respects an organic, Darwinian-Hegelian vision of the need for peoples to organize themselves into collective spiritual and biological units — that is, identity politics. Wilson was a progressive both at home and abroad. He believed in building up nations, peoples, races into single entities. His racial vision was distinct from Hitler’s — and obviously less destructive — but just as inseparable from his worldview.
Wilson’s status as the most racist president of the twentieth century is usually attributed to the fact that he was a southerner, indeed the first southern president since Reconstruction. And it is true that he harbored many Dixiecrat attitudes. His resegregation of the federal government, his support for antimiscegenation laws, his antagonism toward black civil rights leaders as well as antilynching laws, and his notorious fondness for D.W. Griffith’d Birth of a Nation all testify to that. But in fact Wilson’s heritage was incidental to his racism. After all, he was in no way a traditional defender of the South. He embraced Lincoln as a great leader — hardly a typical southern attitude. Moreover, as a believer in consolidating federal power, Wilson, in his opinion on state’s rights, ran counter to those who complained about the “War of Northern Aggression.” No, Wilson’s racism was “modern” and consistent both with the Darwinism of the age and with the Hegelianism of his decidedly Germanic education. In The State and elsewhere, Wilson can sound downright Hitlerian. He informs us, for example, that some races are simply more advanced than others. These “progressive races” deserve progressive systems of government, while backward races or “stagnant rationalities,” lacking the necessary progressive “spirit,” man need an authoritarian form of government (a resurgence of this vision can be found among newly minted “realists” in the wake of the Iraq war). This is what offended him so mightily about the post-Civil War Reconstruction. He would never forgive the attempt to install an “inferior race” in a position superior to southern “Aryans.”
Wilson was also a forthright defender of eugenics. As governor New Jersey — a year before he was sworn in as President — he signed legislation that created, among other things, the Board of Examiners of Feebleminded, Epileptics, and Other Defectives. Under the law, the state could determine when “procreation is inadvisable” for criminals, prisoners, and children living in poorhouses. “Other Defectives” was a fairly open category.
And the bulwark against such a “progressive movement” was…?
Discuss.
if i am good for nothing else, at least i am good for post fodder.
;)
perhaps judeoxian ethics were a good bulwark for that timespecific example.
but here in this slice of spacetime those same ethics have devolved to reactionary ludditry.
like i said, Goldberg presents a genealogy based on history.
i have no brief for that, it is fixed, static.
judeoxian ethics weren’t a particularily good bulwark against slavery now, were they?
again, culture doesn’t shape society so much as society shapes culture according to its needs.
When I wasn’t glowing over Lightworker Jimmy Carter, I helped found my campus ACLU chapter; but that was when the ACLU’s mission was protecting American freedoms, not destroying American values.
“judeoxian ethics weren’t a particularily good bulwark against slavery now, were they?”
Because you know like it was christianists who like um started you know that whole abolitionist thing.
like i said, Goldberg presents a genealogy based on history.
As opposed to a genealogy based on… what?
judeoxian ethics weren’t a particularily good bulwark against slavery now, were they?
Who do you think let the movement to outlaw slavery, nishfong? Your ignorance of history is beyond appalling.
Was, is, and ever shall be…hmmm…how about selfish opposing human interest, beavering away for its own perceived gain?
At least, to the extent that truth is no defense.
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 6/7 @ 11:26 am #
The word is “judeochristian”, you retarded marmoset.
“judeoxian (sic) ethics weren’t a particularily good bulwark against slavery now, were they?”
Well, yeah, they were.
The Abolition movemment was founded by Christians and Jewish leaders.
Please, please, please, learn some history, you retarded marmoset.
dur, slavery is in teh Bible, right?
it was justified for a long, long time.
“Comment by nishizonoshinji on 6/7 @ 11:44 am #
dur, slavery is in teh Bible, right?”
Well, no it wasn’t.
Please, please, please, learn some history, you retarded marmoset.
William Wilberforce just red lined at 11,000 RPM.
ION – Scientists have identified what they are calling “a black hole of stupidity” which will suck all intelligence from the known universe within a matter of months if it is not successfully plugged. They are frantically chasing clues to its whereabouts by tracing the origin of certain comments on the internet…
Comment by Rick Ballard on 6/7 @ 11:46 am #
I’m still convinced that nisidiot arrived here via a wormhole connected to Teh Stoopid Universe.
i mean, we had slavery for nearly 200 years in this country, right?
“From 1654 until 1865, slavery for life was legal within the boundaries of the present United States”
some bulwark.
Yeah, it was the Christians Makin’ all them Jews into slaves in the Bible.
Idiot
“mean, we had slavery for nearly 200 years in this country, right?”
1787-1863
“From 1654 until 1865, slavery for life was legal within the boundaries of the present United Statesâ€Â
It was prior to 1654 also. That is beside the point.
source dre? mine came from the wiki
“Comment by nishizonoshinji on 6/7 @ 11:55 am #
source dre? mine came from the wiki”
The Constitutional convention.
Please, please, please, learn some history, you retarded marmoset.
still, heres the defn of bulwark–
1: a solid wall-like structure raised for defense : rampart b: breakwater, seawall
2: a strong support or protection
dur, moes, that is the judeoxianists came to america, hehe.
It’s still justified by the Koran. There are still slave markets in Muslim countries, while Christians organize efforts to liberate slaves.
Not really up on your American history, are you? What happened in 1787? C’mon! It shouldn’t be that hard! There was even a special episode of Night Court celebrating its 200th anniversary!
The word is Judeochristian, you retarded marmoset.
nishi
Nice little bulwark you have there defending your idiocy.
The point, one more time, nishfong, is not whether the abolitionist movement was fast enough to suit your attention span, the point is THAT THE GLOBAL MOVEMENT TO ABOLISH ALL SLAVERY WAS LEAD BY CHRISTIANS. Christianity was the bulwark against slavery, it may not have been good enough to satisfy your lofty aspirations, but it was a helluva lot better than your Islam.
In what countries in the 21st century is human chattel slavery still practiced?
dur, nishfongz, slavery was practiced here long before there were Christians.
Slavery initially came to North America via the land bridge to Siberia – 12 – 15,000 years ago (depending upon which archeoligist is telling the tale.
Woodrow Wilson was a progressive who believed that non-whites (and low-browed whites as well) should be sterilized for the “good” of the Scientifically Progressive United States. Many scientists of the time were involved in creating statistical fantasies based upon doctored datasets in support of the scientific facts in which Wilson believed. The state of the science regarding eugenics in 1900 is similiar in many respects to the state of science regarding climate today.
Scientists are, therefore, the only portion of the population fit to determine the logical process necessary to bring about human perfection under Gaia’s all knowing eye.
QEF or something.
Who were the slavers on the African continent?
In any case…
In what way are modern eugenics different from historical eugenics? As far as I can see, the difference is only on who’s considered “inferior”. Then it was based on your parents or particular health conditions; now it’s based on your beliefs. It’s still eugenics, it’s still wrong, it’s still the imposition of your will on others.
That you’re not permitted to experiment with your offspring is no more oppressive or “luddite” than not being allowed to molest your children is oppressive or “uptight”.
Black and white existential bunny droppings
Or Buddhism, or Hinduism, or ancestor worship, or all the myriad forms of paganism.
Who were the slavers on the African continent?
And when was slavery outlawed on the African continent?
Well, yes, actually, it was. Abraham and his wife had slaves. There are provisions for slave ownership in the Passover rules. There are prohibitions against overly harsh punishment of slaves in Exodus 21 and 23, and the extensive book of civic and religious law in Leviticus 25 includes rules on how long you can own a slave.
So, again: yes, slavery is in the Bible. Quite a lot. King David and King Solomon had slaves. There’s really so much in the Bible about slavery that it would take far too much space here to cite them all. I recommend you go to Biblegateway.net and search any version of the Bible you please.
judeoxian ethics weren’t a particularily good bulwark against slavery now, were they?
And even discounting that fight against slavery was born out of Christian ethics, The Bible (you know, the one Muhammed cribbed from when writing the Koran) doesn’t encourage or condone slavery. You ignore that the Bible is history, ethics, allegory and how to live in the bigger non-monothiest culture. Slavery was a fact of life so the Bible is specific how one is to treat one’s slaves. First time slaves were actually thought of as something more than animals. (even animals get a cultural boost up in the Bible – anti-animal cruelty movements were also begun by Christians).
Free Markets?
Nishfong is talking about Christianity, Slart. As far as I remember the New Testament there wasn’t much endorsement for slavery there.
Ah. Well, the Bible does have an Old Testament, as well as a New.
You know: the Judeo part.
actually that is a good point…is it eugenics when you do only to yourself?
that is transhumanism of self
is it eugenics when you do it to your germline?
transhumanism of progeny….but it is your progeny.
that is eugenics to me, personal choice.
we are gettin back into the rights of the unborn.
As for New Testament, here’s Colossians 3:
There isn’t ringing endorsement for slavery, but there is recognition that there is slavery. There may be condemnation of slavery, but I can’t recall offhand where that might be.
Jesus does use master/slave relationship as allegory in the New Testiment.
But the slavery of Roman times was quite a bit different than either chattel or bond slavery of the 17th and 18th centuries.
You know, if you were dissing the rights of the unconceived, I might have some empathy for you. As it is, though, the unborn do have rights, and there are quite a lot of people who’d agree that the unborn must be protected. Rather fewer support that unborns must be protected from those who are wanting to kill them on purpose, but most would (bizarrely, IMO) agree that some random stranger killing an unborn child equates to murder.
Colossians 3 wasn’t the words of Jesus. Otherwise, I agree that slavery then might not equate to slavery in the US in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Although if you’d seen Ben-Hur, you might think it was.
For Catholics, see the Apostolic Letter condemning the slave trade, written by Pope Gregory XVI and read during the 4th Provincial Council of Baltimore, December 3, 1839.
Paul’s plea to Philomen on behalf of Onesimus indicates the path away from slavery.
I don’t think there’s any outright condemnation of slavery in the NT. Off the cuff, I think Paul kinda sorta wafts a vauge dissaproval of it at some point. But in the Roman era, if I remember my classics classes, a lot of people thought slaves were better off than freemen. Because a slave had value, and life, back then had very little. Kinda like now, unless you are in prison, an animal, or inclined to wear exploding shirts out to get a pizza. But YMMV.
Buy me a coke Rick
oops “Testament”
……..
Mattew 24:45-47
24:45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?
24:46 Blessed [is] that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
24:47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.
————
“Servant” is used interchangebly with “slave” in many of the translations. The Greek version of Matthew (whether Matthew was written in Greek or the Greek translation came from a Hebrew or Aramaic original) uses two different words to mean either a bondslave or a hiredservant.
well, no…u guyz bringin the judeo-xian-greco-roman ethic
jews had slaves
greeks had slaves
romans had slaves
xians, not slaveholders? just in america, from 1654 to 1867, right?
The other thread is apparently dead, so I will cross-post this as something else to chew on:
but what about the rights of the indiviual not to have downs?
that is what genetic engineering offers.
a cure for genetic disease.
But is Downes Syndrome really a disease? You can cure a disease without changing the identity of the afflicted. If you do something as radical as what you are suggesting, you aren’t really curing a disease, you are altering the DNA so as to make a different person, it isn’t the same individual anymore. I am not saying it is wrong, I am just saying you should consider the implications, and talk about it terms that are honest.
Modifying your germ line forces those modification on your progeny. They have no choice.
Jefferson was quite clear that we have no right to make choices for future generations; they must be free to make them themselves.
He was also pretty clear on the idea that if the majority decides something’s illegal (like, say, cloning and genetic tinkering on humanity), then it’s the responsibility of the minority to abide by that decision.
Curiously, by my reading of the Virginia Statute, he didn’t think it would be illegitimate to revoke that law and give VA an official religion. He thought it would be wrong, and unwise, but makes it clear that future generations may do so.
What religion lead the movement to abolish slavery worldwide, nishfong? Just answer that one question, stop acting like a retarded parrot, and we can move on to some manner of intelligent discussion.
What religion lead the movement to abolish slavery worldwide?
No.
But you’re ignoring that Christianity was the motivation for opposing it. It was also the motivation for opposing eugenics and for supporting civil rights. Certainly there were people who claimed to be arguing as Christians on the other side of those issues, but the results give us a good idea who had the better argument.
And that, of course, is the point. We live in a democratic republic; if you dislike the choices of the majority, it’s your responsibility to persuade them to change their minds. Insults, unsupported assertions, and semi-literate drooling isn’t going to do it, and judicial dictat or the annunciation of a “philosopher king” is not the way to do it.
In fact, Jefferson was quite clear that those methods are what lead to anarchy and tyranny.
We tend to think of slavery the way it existed in 18th century America … chattelslaves who were little more than beasts of burden on plantations.
That went for bondslaves too (the Click family were sold into bond out of English debtors’ prison in 1697. Came through New York and sold to work on a Viginia plantation)..though they could eventually pay off their bonds (took my family 60 odd years to do that)
But Roman slavery, as harsh and as cruel as it was, was a different institution. A Roman citizen didn’t have something like “power of attorney” nor could hire someone to legally represent himself. One had a slave, educated, trained and trusted to run the household and represent his master. Roman slaves were sent to apprentice with artists, or sent to learn the art of gourmet cooking, or gain knowledge and teaching skills, to return to the master’s household to maintain it, prepare food or teach the master’s children. An excellent slave would earn money and freedom from his master … a public manumission making the slave a full citizen of Rome, usually with enough capital and skills to become a businessman.
Well, as usual I’m at the back of the class, but I was thinking along the lines of the Matthew Yglesias’ piece that included:
…it was former political allies of Wilson’s who became horrified by what progressive politics turned into during that period who founded the ACLU (Paul Starr tells this story well in his Freedom’s Power). Along the same lines, liberal turned against the eugenicist strain of progressive thought for reasons of individual liberty and autonomy, rightly rejecting the eugenicist movement’s vision of society as horribly authoritarian and intrusive.
“liberal turned against the eugenicist strain of progressive thought for reasons of individual liberty and autonomy, rightly rejecting the eugenicist movement’s vision of society as horribly authoritarian and intrusive.”
Who is this liberal and does this liberal support eliminating any federal funding of Planned Parenthood?
So Jeff’s Wilson example was no good because it was based on history, so we went on discussing the history of slavery?
What’s really sad is that nishi probably believes she’s being incredibly clever and witty here.
The bulwark against Soviet Bolshevism seems kinda ex-post facto, when you think about it. It screws you over for 70 years and finally collapses of its own awful dead weight. Hayek masterfully demonstrates how this will always happen with totalitarians due to the frightening complexity of economies in ‘The Road to Serfdom’. The problem for us is figure out how to persuade enough of our fellow citizens to read the book and heed the warning. It could be taught in High Schools for crying out loud, since the concepts involved are not terribly difficult in themselves. At the least every college undergraduate could read the book and take away the message. Quite a few do already, but enough? We’ll soon see.
How racist was another progressive, Brandeis?
Salt Lick,
The progs continue eugenics through abortion rather than sterilization. The stats are here (PDF pages 12-16) but the presentation clouds (obscures? hides?) the fact that 44,645,825 white women aborted about 460,000 babies while 7,960,575 black women aborted about 415,000. Woodrow Wilson and Margaret Sanger would both be so progressively proud. Shoot, Adolph might get off a solid round of applause for those results. Progs are such good people – helping all those poor (or is it defective?) women out of a tight spot.
IMO the bulwark against totalitarianism is the pamphlet. Samizdat.
andrea-
How racist was another progressive, Brandeis?
Ever heard of “Zionism”?
MayBee
I suppose we went off on a tangent.
Another interesting thing about Wilson is that identity politics played a role for that Democrat, too. He needed to get the Irish (almost all Dems) behind him to support American entry into WWI and promised them he’d champion Ireland independence from Britain … then he turned around and betrayed that promise…ALONG with saying nasty things about “hyphenated” Americans.
heh.
Fletch
Zionism is not racism.
“Ever heard of “Zionismâ€Â?”
oh no you di’nd.
A cultural/empirical inclination to call “Bullshit!” on stupidity?
This is interesting:
Brandeis was always a staunch critic of controlled economies, which he considered inefficient and dangerous to American values. As a liberal Supreme Court justice in the New Deal era, Brandeis and a band of prominent admirers, including Felix Frankfurter, argued that central planning was inimical to American values and interests.
But many New Deal liberals disagreed. They favored central planning and wanted Washington to dictate to a few large corporations rather than thousands of small ones. Brain Truster Raymond Moley, for example, ridiculed the Brandeisian notion that “America could once more become a nation of small proprietors, of corner grocers and smithies under spreading chestnut trees.” In the end, the Brandeis view lost ground and central planners played major roles in the New Deal.
You don’t say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Brandeis
It was just an interesting re-direction by Miss nishi, Darleen.
Where was the non-religious bulwark against slavery? What is the non-religion based argument against it now? I mean we certainly can’t say “Humans have always found slavery unacceptable! or Slavery is unacceptable everywhere today!”. That’s obviously false.
We could look at slavery and wonder if there was some validity there, because the few benefitted the many. Certainly we will head that way when it comes to genetic experimentation and JD’s beloved ‘flipper babies’. I imagine seeing argument then that a delivered flipper baby was worth it because it may lead to saving thousands of Parkinson’s patients.
Finally, were the slaveholders left to decide their own ethics? Surely they were the most knowledgeable about how much they needed slaves to aid the economy.
MayBee
To your “Finally, were the slaveholders left to decide their own ethics? Surely they were the most knowledgeable about how much they needed slaves to aid the economy.”
It is not at all certain that slaveholders were the most knowledgeable w/regard to slaves aiding their economy. Their economy may well have done much better than they could hope to do under slavery conditions had they chosen to make freemen of the slaves they held, given them access to ordinary public schooling, freely co-operated with them in building businesses and farms, traded goods and services in the ordinary way. They would not have had to spend the awful sums of human and economic capital on war, and this capital could then be put to more productive use.
Sferr: the book to read is Time on the Cross, by Robert Fogel.
“Comment by nishizonoshinji on 6/7 @ 12:22 pm #
actually that is a good point…is it eugenics when you do only to yourself?”
No, that’s masturbation.
“It is not at all certain that slaveholders were the most knowledgeable w/regard to slaves aiding their economy. Their economy may well have done much better than they could hope to do under slavery conditions had they chosen to make freemen of the slaves they held..”
Just reading about U. S. Grant and the author, Fuller sited statistics that AFTER the Civil war, the productivity of the South actually doubled.
[I’m gonna have to be vauge about that ’cause I don’t have the book right here.]
Sdferr, I’m certain the slaveholders would have told you they couldn’t compete- and therefore the American economy couldn’t compete- with other countries if slavery weren’t allowed.
And yes, of course I agree with you that the slaveholders weren’t and shouldn’t have been the final authority on what was acceptable w/r/t slavery and agriculture.
I’m pointing to an old argument we’ve had on this board before, about groups (scientists in particular) being able to set their own ethics because they are the ones doing the work (the science).
– You really do not have to work very hard to see the rank comparison of slavery versus free in regards to “economical success”, as just one sort of societal measure, than simply looking at North and South Korea.
– But then who knows. Maybe in time using a percentage of your populace to tend large blocks of stone, set along both sides of all major roadways, will turn out eventually to be an economic goldmine.
about groups (scientists in particular) being able to set their own ethics because they are the ones doing the work (the science).
no, my argument is that we HAVE our own ethics. basic homosapiens sapiens ethics that common to the speciies, and that YOUR PARTICULAR JUDEOXIAN ethics just aren’t relevent to the work.
“actually that is a good point…is it eugenics when you do only to yourself?”
Its more than a ‘good point.’ Its basically what makes the argument so ridiculous.
Modifying your germ line forces those modification on your progeny.
b-b-b-but….don’t i own my germplasm?
right now Ivy league co-eds are sellin their gametes for 5k each.
;)
Don’t I own my DNA?
I promise, I am not advocating for slavery as good economic policy. I’m saying that slaveholders, the people doing the agriculture, would have said they needed slavery to compete. If left to be their own arbiter of morality with regard to slavery, they would have deemed themselves ethical and moral because they were performing a greater good and only harming those that didn’t know better.
We have seen this argument before, with regard to scientists. In this case, I think history is yet another good reminder of what can happen if you let only those directly involved have final say. As you all point out, the results can be surprising.
– Scientists are not equipped in any special way, any more than any other segment of the citizenry, to make far reaching decisions that unavoidably envolve questions of life and death.
– Rather, they are more likely to be poor arbitors of such things, since they tend to think in terms of simple mechanical success, not moralism or practical long term planning.
– In fact the word “practical” is considered a sort of epistemological “blasphemist” word to a scientist. They do what they do for the “purity” of their discipline. Practical is an enemy.
Finally, were the slaveholders left to decide their own ethics?
yup….and they did….even the judeoxian ones…for about 200 years here in the contiguous statez of ‘maerica, right?
Maybee
I didn’t intend to address the ethical question you raised, merely the economic one. The Fogel and Engerman book referred to in Sheep Nazi’s post seems to show that compared to free labor northern and southern farms, slave labor farms are on the order of 28% more productive, that the living conditions we project back onto the slaves were not as bad as we think, that the story of the south’s economy being on the verge of collapse pre-war is hooey, etc. I have done no particular study of this period so I’m only guessing here. I don’t know whether Fogel and Engerman account for the loses to war in human capital, financial capital, and opportunity cost. Thus far it doesn’t appear so.
. basic homosapiens sapiens ethics that common to the speciies
That don’t exist. Slavery was a basic ethic that was acceptable and practiced for a much longer period than it has been unacceptable. There’s nothing about being against slavery that is inherently to our species.
– Most scientists, if they are honest, would avoid ever allowing scientists to make such decisions.
Fine, sdferr. I’m sure we cross posted, but I’m not positing that I think there was a good economic argument for slavery, only that slaveholders would have told you there was.
#48
do you know anyone with Downs? i do. one of my SIL’s has a younger brother.
he’s 30 now.
he’s never learned to read, lives at home, he’s pretty lowend.
guess what? he’d still like to have a wife and family.
he understands the concept of abnormal, of different.
he’d like to be like everyone else.
:(
O’K ,Jeff.
Socialism is just like fascism without racism , anti-semitism and expansionism
yup….and they did….even the judeoxian ones…for about 200 years here in the contiguous statez of ‘maerica, right?
And did the results meet a high standard of morality, one that stood the test of time? Or is it seen today as a horrible error?
Yes MayBee and I understood that. And at no time did I think you were advocating for them.
–“Socialism is just like fascism without racism , anti-semitism and expansionism”
– Which simply means it offers nothing of value to anyone, saint or sinner.
jews had slaves
greeks had slaves
romans had slaves
So did Egyptians, Indian (American and subcontinent), Africans of all kinds, Arabs, Chinese, Japanese…
The people which put an effective end to slavery were almost all white, Christian and Jewish males.
The few places where slavery still exists are overwhelmingly Muslim.
Sorry if that conflicts with “teh narrative”, nishit.
Don’t I own my DNA?
No. You didn’t create it.
Write your own from scratch and I’ll concede that it is your property.
well, there you go maybee.
that is why scientists are coming up with things like transhumanist ethics.
because a 2000 year old branch(judeoxians ethics) in the evolution of culture went down a dead end as far as i can tell.
cite hitler and stalin all you want….it just isn’t relevent to questions like– do i own my DNA? do i own my gametes?
– And you don’t have the right to do as you please with your DNA either, since it very well could pollute the entire gene pool.
“The people which put an effective end to slavery were almost all white, Christian and Jewish males.”
No good deed goes unpunished.
he understands the concept of abnormal, of different.
he’d like to be like everyone else.
And my heart aches for him, it really does. But my point is, he can’t be like everyone else. If you had went in and altered his DNA to that point, someone else would have been born. You aren’t just “curing a disease”, and you need to keep that in mind when discussing these things.
“do i own my DNA”
Do you own the head that’s in your rectum?
in the evolution of culture went down a dead end as far as i can tell.
Too bad you’re too pig-ignorant to have a valid opinion on this subject. As you are with all other subjects that have come up for discussion on here.
I’d place more weight on ethical guidelines proposed by a special needs King Charles Spaniel, frankly.
Thanks, Sdferr. And your point actually enhances mine, I think.
If a being owns their own DNA shouldn’t you get their permission before you start playing with it?
“The people which put an effective end to slavery were almost all white, Christian and Jewish males.”
Warms the heart.
Don’t know how many times you need to be told this, sashal, but Mussolini was a socialist — a rather prominent one, in fact — and fascism in Italy didn’t have an anti-semitic component until late in the game, out of necessity. Mussolini was a bit appalled by Hitler’s anti-semitism, in fact.
Progressives were drawn to fascism and totalitarianism before those became dirty words. This is an historical fact. And today, progressives make up part of the party of self-described “liberals”. Another fact.
Read the book. Progressives may no longer describe their methods as fascistic or totalitarian, but that doesn’t mean that the philosophy that underpins their movement doesn’t track that way. Hell, watching the cult of personality build around Obama should be making your skin crawl.
If you own your own DNA, nishi, who owns the stuff scientists are playing around with?
Not possessing a bone fide spirituality prevents knowing otherwise, of course. Again: without an aim, stuff gets kinda aimless.
because a 2000 year old branch(judeoxians ethics) in the evolution of culture went down a dead end as far as i can tell.
Ending slavery was a dead end?
“Hell, watching the cult of personality build around Obama should be making your skin crawl.”
He’ll have his regime dead enders, just like the present ones. But we won’t be seeing “Pray for President Obama” threads on daily kos the way we see em on freerepublic.
Ending slavery was a dead end?
Why, sure it was, MayBee. Along with creating the technology which ended the eternal cycle of regular famines, wiping out smallpox, promoting equality under the law for all and widespread education… All useless, in the nishit scheme of things.
There’s nothing about being against slavery that is inherently to our species.
Exactly. The notion that slavery was bad grew out of the Christian belief, refined by Martin Luther when he rejected the need for priests as intermedaries, that every human has a soul. It is that soul, not skin color or IQ, that makes us equal before God, and therefore equal before the law. That is why systems of belief that discard revelation to the soul as a possible path to moral knowledge inevitably spiral down — instead of up, as ours did from slavery — into authoritarism and further slavery; to them there is nothing more “holy” about a human than there is about a finely pedigreed horse.
Jeff, Liberal Fascism is mildly interesting history.
however, judeoxian ethics are simply useless for dealing with new issues in modern technology.
like Aldo said,
And the rest of the world will go right ahead and develop biotech. And then people from the US will just go buy the technology there.
And it will be just like the gays that get married in cali next month and go back home to NYC.
;)
judeoxian ethics are simply useless for dealing with new issues in modern technology.
Sure they are, nishit.
You’d prefer what, nishit? Chicom ethics? Islamofascist ethics?
For starters.
The aggressive non-Christian typically cannot accept that honest, organic Christianity simply gives voice to the highest spiritual yearnings, truths, and principles. That the faith gets derailed into so much sheer bullshit is the handy lever with which detractors demolish the entire thing. Whatever.
…conservative religious and political dogma…may be the single greatest bulwark against eugenic schemes.
that simply isn’t true anymore.
the reason i say judeoxian ethics are deadended, is that they are simply too rigid and inflexible to deal with the coming tsunami of biotech.
-You see nishi. Thats the very reason that you are up against such abdurant opposition in your desire to play god.
– Suppose for the sake of argument you find a way to manipulate genetics in such a way that all future generations are completely rid of Downs. Suppose it also turns out that eradicating Downs has the unfortunate additional result of increasing susceptibility to some other biological agent because the same mutation that causes Downs on rare occasions also happens to suppress certain forms of cancer among a widespread populace. You save a few thousand, but potentially cause the early death of millions, maybe multiple millions, because you can’t readily discover the genetic answer to the problem you have caused.
– Your experimenting cannot be guaranteed to be limited to just you. For that reason I would not give you permission to dick around with things. You’d be making decisions, with no moral guidance, that could effect every living person, as well as everyone that comes after.
– Genetic engineering, sans all the hysteria and hype, really is that burdened with unknowns.
– The fact you so willingly dismiss that, exactly proves the point of why you should be severely limited at all times.
And the rest of the world will go right ahead and develop biotech
In case you haven’t noticed, nishit, “the rest of the world” is a net exporter of scientists, Europe is most definitely included in that group.
Guess where they move to, nishit?
Hint: it’s not Teheran or Pyongyang.
You’d prefer what, nishit? Chicom ethics? Islamofascist ethics?
I am still waiting for her example of a tribal system of ethics and morality that didn’t develop from a religious source.
Jeff, that is wrong info you have got from Jonah.
The anti-semitism was associated with Mussolini’s fascism right from the beginning.
Yes , they did not kill jews indiscriminately, but they sure made them second class citizens.
Don’t believe me, read about it or watch for the examples in Italian neorealists movies about that time, say “Garden of Conti-(?)Fonzi”(not sure how it spelled here).
Again , I am not arguing about comparison of totalitarian socialism and fascism , or that Mussolini was a member of the socialist party at the beginning.
SBP, how do you deal?
did you read about the English couple that went to India for in vitro because the brit healthcare system dealt them out because of age?
they had twin girls after they got back to the UK.
and promptly gave them up, because they had wanted a boy. ;)
sure, you can make it so we dont do it here, but you will never be able to prevent the elites from going and buying it elsewhere and bringing it back an new, improved, citizens.
;)
Why the fuck do you guys waste your time arguing with this fucking brainfart?
“the reason i say judeoxian ethics are deadended, is that they are simply too rigid and inflexible to deal with the coming tsunami of biotech.”
That’s how it lasted 2000-5000 years by being rigid and inflexible.
did you read about the English couple that went to India for in vitro because the brit healthcare system dealt them out because of age?
they had twin girls after they got back to the UK.
and promptly gave them up, because they had wanted a boy. ;)
“Deal” with what? That’s unethical behavior under the “judeoxian” moral code. I wouldn’t associate with them, speak to them on the street, or hire them for my business, because I’d figure that their poor system of ethics would extend into other areas.
How would your Brave New World “ethics” “deal” with them, nishit?
It’s a running freeway car crash, ahem. Can’t look away… ;o)
SBP, u are totally nuts if you think China and SK aren’t passing us in biotech right now.
using our own stuff to do it, like the technique Johns Hopkins pioneered for obviating the need for mouse feeder cells in ESC lines.
do you honestly think the US has a lock on all the bright ppl in the world?
asian mean IQ is 3-6 points higher than cauc IQ.
See?
“The anti-semitism was associated with Mussolini’s fascism right from the beginning.”
Wrong:
“Ideologically Italian fascism did not discriminate against the Italian Jewish community: Mussolini recognised that a small contingent had lived there “since the days of the Kings of Rome” and should “remain undisturbed”.[32] There was even some Jews in the National Fascist Party, such as Ettore Ovazza who in 1935 founded the Jewish Fascist paper La Nostra Bandiera[33] (“Our Flag”). However by 1938, the enormous influence Hitler now had over Mussolini became clear with the introduction of the Manifesto of Race. The Manifesto, which was closely modeled on the Nazi Nuremberg laws[14], stripped Jews of their Italian citizenship and with it any position in the government or professions. The German influence on Italian policy upset the established balance in Fascist Italy and proved highly unpopular to most Italians, to the extent that Pope Pius XII sent a letter to Mussolini protesting against the new laws.[34]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini
SBP, u are totally nuts if you think China and SK aren’t passing us in biotech right now.
Funny, all the Chinese scientists and grad students I know (and I know a lot of them) will do anything within their power to avoid being sent back to China.
But then, I know real scientists. You read crap like “Scientific American” (two lies in one title) and “New Scientist” (which should be called “Old Mysticism”).
There’s a difference there, nishit. Really.
We saw a hint of China’s medical/scientific ethics during the SARS crisis. Lately, the pet food additive gave us another peek at their ethics. Are we going to compete at their level just because we want to win? I say shoddy ethics leads to shoddy work, even if it seems faster.
By the way, nishit, ESC is only a very tiny corner of the vast field of biotech. The fact that you repeatedly conflate the two is yet another proof of your essential ignorance of the discipline.
/sigh
SBP, if you make laws against cloning or designer babies or lifehacking, US citizens that can afford it will just go buy it elsewhere and come back to the States.
judeoxian ethics cannot deal with the fact that a fertilized egg is not a person, or that between-group variation and genetic determinism are real.
how can it possibly deal with the ownership of germplasm or cloning or the rights of silicon intelligences or chimeras?
God! Jeff’s almost as opaque and clueless as Jonah Goldberg himself. Here’s Goldberg again:
[Woodrow] Wilson’s vision of “self-determination†. . . was in important respects an organic, Darwinian-Hegelian vision of the need for peoples to organize themselves into collective spiritual and biological units  that is, identity politics.
Retranslating this tripe back into usable English, Goldberg is saying that once various areas in Africa and Asia were freed from colonialism, “nations” (“collective spiritual and biological units”) would be formed and the people in those countries would be patriotic (i.e., practice “identity politics”). Goldberg is trying to make Wilson’s ideas seem a lot more portentous than what they were. Maybe he should have asked himself what else was going to happen when the empires were broken up.
This is where “reader response theory” is much more useful than Jeff G. thinks. For an incompetent (at least from the excerpt here) book like Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, the book’s readers often would have more interesting and meaningful things to say than the original authors.
Too bad that’s not the case with Jeff though.
SBP, if you make laws against cloning or designer babies or lifehacking, US citizens that can afford it will just go buy it elsewhere and come back to the States.
If we make laws against having sex with eight year old prostitutes, US citizens that can afford it will just go buy it elsewhere and come back to the States.
You’re saying we should take those laws off the books, too?
Moron.
“SBP, u are totally nuts if you think China and SK aren’t passing us in biotech right now.”</i?
– You are advocating for tickling the tail of the dragon nishit. And I don’t mean the Chinese dragon.
– If some totalitarian regime gets its biological tit in a wr4inger, instead of bragging about how easy it will be to do an end run on sanity, you better hope we can find an answer quick.
– I tended to think you were arguing with sincerity at first. But the fact you’re so steeped in your blind, almost religious faith in science, tells me you’re just a dumb amoral fuck.
And your myopic Nihilism can? I mean, by other than pronouncements of a globe out steamrolling anything you don’t approve of. (But I repeat, well, the entire comment thread…)
Say, Caric: did you ever turn up any actual black people in your neck of the woods?
Just curious.
BBH, we do understand perfectly the causes of downs syndrome.
you analogy is specious.
but consider the Ashkenazai.
Ashkenazai jews have 2std on general population IQ.
and they also have various easily recognizable genetic diseases, resulting from the eugenics process of inbreeding over time.
in theory some of the things that cause Ashkenazai genetic diseases also probably cause increase in IQ.
in theory, we could use the genetic diseases to tease out gene interactions and gene expressions that would boost IQ.
“Maybe he should have asked himself what else was going to happen when the empires were broken up.”
Oh you create countries like Iraq with four or five ethnic components.
What’s your meaning of life, nuggie?
Now, what’s the meaning of life?
in theory some of the things that cause Ashkenazai genetic diseases also probably cause increase in IQ.
In theory, you’re a babbling moron. In practice, too.
BBH, sex tourism is different.
sex tourists dont bring back new genetically engineered citizens with them,
and sex tourists are not genetically engineered themselves upon return.
If we make laws against having sex with eight year old prostitutes, US citizens that can afford it will just go buy it elsewhere and come back to the States.
You’re saying we should take those laws off the books, too?
Well, nishit? What do you say? Guess those “Mormon babyraping patriarchy daddies” have nothing to worry about in nishiland, eh?
I mean, according to you, since they could always just travel to a country where marrying 12 year olds is legal, there’s no point in having laws against it, right?
Going to respond, moron?
Didn’t think so.
BBH, sex tourism is different.
No, it isn’t. You argued that there was no point in having a law since they’d just travel to another country to commit the crime.
People have been doing that for a long, long, time, nishit. But we still have laws.
Why is that?
“BBH, we do understand perfectly the causes of downs syndrome.
you analogy is specious.
– That statement proves you know next to less than nothing. No real scientist would make such a silly statement. You need desperately to be carefully controlled and guided.
Retranslating this tripe back into usable English…
You aren’t lecturing a bunch of eastern Kentucky hillbillies here, Perfesser. We can read for ourselves just fine, so your shit won’t work here. Have you figured out what an apostate is, yet?
/sigh
all i want is for Jeff to admit that clinging to judeoxian ethics just aint gonna work much longer.
they make a damn poor bulwark against a lot of things, like samesexmarriage and biotech eugenics.
how can it possibly deal with the ownership of germplasm or cloning or the rights of silicon intelligences or chimeras?
You still haven’t answered MayBee or my questions on ownership of DNA, nishfong. Who owns the DNA you want to play with?
all i want is for Jeff to admit that clinging to judeoxian ethics just aint gonna work much longer.
And all I want is to have sex with Jessica Alba.
It’s a real shame that the world doesn’t operate according to our whims, isn’t it?
As noted before: you have the emotional development level of a badly-spoiled two year old, nishit.
all i want is for Jeff to admit that clinging to judeoxian ethics just aint gonna work much longer.
What is the ethic system you propose to use? And what secular tradition did it evolve from?
SBP, its exactly the same argument.
like the sextourists the patriarchy daddies cant bring their victims back here.
but the rich will be able to have their designer babies right here, and the babies will grow up to be designer citizens.
What is the ethic system you propose to use? And what secular tradition did it evolve from?
As far as I can tell, the answers are a) “Simon (or nishit) says” and b) the narcissism of an undisciplined and immature infant.
Who owns the DNA you want to play with?
right now, anyone that donates it or sells it.
dre, interesting wikipedia article.
there is more:
Mussolini said he felt by 1919 “Socialism as a doctrine was already dead; it continued to exist only as a grudge”.[9] On March 23, 1919, Mussolini reformed the Milan fascio as the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento (Italian Combat Squad), consisting of 200 members.[8]
Blackshirts and Mussolini 1922
Blackshirts and Mussolini 1922
An important factor in fascism gaining support in its earliest stages, was the fact that it opposed discrimination based on social class and was strongly opposed to all forms of class war.[10] Fascism instead supported nationalist sentiments such as a strong unity, regardless of class, in the hopes of raising Italy up to the levels of its great Roman past. This side of fascism endeered itself to the aristocracy and the bourgeois as it assured to protect their existence, after the Russian Revolution they had greatly feared the prospect of a bloody class war coming to Italy by the hand of the communists and the socialists. Mussolini did not ignore the plight of the working class however and gained their support with stances such as those in The Manifesto of the Fascist Struggle, published in June 1919.[10] In the manifesto he demanded amongst other things; creation of a minimum wage, to show the same confidence in the labor unions (which prove to be technically and morally worthy) as was given to industry executives or public servants, voting rights for women, as well as the systemisation of public transport such as railways.[10]
like the sextourists the patriarchy daddies cant bring their victims back here.
We have laws against smuggling, nishit.
Try harder.
then it becomes property of whoever bought it or recieved it as a donation.
right now, anyone that donates it or sells it.
I don’t know of many people who would object to experimenting on DNA freely given or sold by the owner, if as you previously assert a person owns their own DNA. Not even Christians.
The sex tourists leave their victims behind.
Just as an unethical scientist in Sciencelandia will leave the dead experiment victims in Sciencelandia when the American couple returns home with their perfect baby.
– Morality, and questions of social responsibility, have always been “messy” in the minds of scientists.
– Thats simply because science is totally preoccupied with results. Its not certainly as Marxist as the ends justifies the means. No scientist with a brain in his head is going to mix two agents that he isn’t sure won’t blow up in his hands.
– But the problem is, its the combination you don’t know about that will lay waste to your lab, and scientists for all their knowledge are not given to crstal ball gazzing any better than the rest of humanity.
– Unfortunately they will, and do, take chances at moments, in the interest of the pursuit of the craft. That is where the decision making must be taken out of their hands.
– As a scientist, I really don’t care if spme asshole blows himself up. just as long as he or she doesn’t take any innocents with them. But the problem with Genetics is its a whole lot of bombs just waiting to go off.
– and nishi. I don’t think the argument that some stupid group of Marxists in China may set off a massive kill by playing with genetic fire is a good argument for you to be allowed to do the same.
So if you create a fetus with two sets of scientist-owned DNA, who owns the fetus?
What is the ethic system you propose to use?
i said, the Republic, sans religion.
Aldo nailed it.
I don’t know of many people who would object to experimenting on DNA freely given or sold by the owner, if as you previously assert a person owns their own DNA. Not even Christians.
just GW and his bioluddite council.
just GW and his bioluddite council.
Whatever you say, nishit.
Hint: which countries have banned GM foods?
Oh, look: China’s on the list. The U.S., on the other hand, has a few local and state laws in heavily hippie-dominated areas.
#155, the two scientists would share property rights as long the fetus/embryo/blastula was in vitro.
once the fetus was implanted in intent to be carried to full term, some atandard arangement would have to be worked out with the host mother.
??
gm foods has nothing to do with human biotechnology, SBP.
ur throwing chaff.
I proposed that our system of ethics be based on the humanist proposition that all people are ends unto themselves, and not to be used as means to any other end.
You really going to stick to that, nishfong? Are you so illiterate ethically that you don’t even understand what that says?
#155, the two scientists would share property rights as long the fetus/embryo/blastula was in vitro.
once the fetus was implanted in intent to be carried to full term, some atandard arangement would have to be worked out with the host mother.
So you don’t own your own DNA, then. At least not until nishfong deigns to declare you are a you.
“some standard arrangement would have to be worked out with the host mother.”-(cft)
– So nishi. At what point does the fetus own its own DNA? Or do you consider the fetus as a genetic slave?
gm foods has nothing to do with human biotechnology, SBP.
Nice goalpost shift attempt, nishit. Won’t work.
You claimed that China was kicking our asses on “biotech”, but they won’t even allow experiments on friggin’ RICE.
I already pointed out, above, that ESC is only a very tiny corner of the vast field of biotech. The fact that you repeatedly conflate the two is yet another proof of your essential ignorance of the discipline.
In other words, you have your head several feet up your ass. As always.
Still waiting for your explanation of why we have laws against smuggling, also why we have import tariffs on certain items.
however, judeoxian ethics are simply useless for dealing with new issues in modern technology.
Sorry for joining late, but had to note the absolutely mandatory leftist fallback to “this time it’s different”.
should have added some quotes around the nishi bit, just so no one thinks I’m the idiot that came up with that.
You haven’t answered either of the questions I put to you in this thread, nuggie. Given that you assert right by the use of majority, I want to know by what standards my ruler will be my master.
Lemme see…professor Caricature teaches a variety of political science courses at the elite Morehead State University, which sits smack in that haven of the elevated mind…bringing up Google Earth…northeastern Kentucky? Oh, yes. Roughly equidistant from Lexington, Kentucky and Mud River, West Virginia.
Remind me again why he’s coming by here.
B Moe
A note on 145 in this thread and 338 in Provocateurism 1 at 344 in Prov. 1
Not suggesting it for use in establishing new moral code, just interesting, I thought.
Just a little word, then I have to go plant the excessive numbers of plants that I just bought.
The term “Christianity” is not the same as “Christendom.” Slavery was practiced on the American continents by those in Christendom. But none of them were converts to Christianity, they were just born into it. When you have a situation like that, the behavior of the population in Christendom will generally follow the same bell curve as you find outside Christendom.
Or in other words, within Christendom you had functional atheists, people who might have given lip service to the religion but who did as they pleased. Look at the Italian mob, who are “Catholic” in name only, and who might observe some of the customs but who do what they want.
no, my argument is that we HAVE our own ethics. basic homosapiens sapiens ethics that common to the species,
Which are?
And, if you’ve been paying attention, tend to change with the wind, especially in modern cultures. We tend to chase what appears to be “new,” regardless of whether it’s a good idea.
But that’s not a new thing.
The cult of novelty is interesting and it provides a lot of excitement, but we’re supposed to grow out of that starting in our mid-20s, when our own weaknesses and stupidity begin to be heartily evident. Nishi obviously has not been humbled by her own offspring yet. Well, neither have I, but I’ve become well acquainted with how foolish and weak I can be, even though I went to Cornell.
The purpose of organized religion is to provide an anchor against the chaotic currents of history.
But you don’t have to believe in deity to be rightly mistrustful of the alleged wisdom of those who would rule over us. If you’re foolish enough to thing that we are progressing in a straight line through history instead of being subject to cycles of rising and falling, you need to talk to the ancient Egyptians, the Maya, the Romans, the Chinese, the Persians, and whoever else has created an advanced civilization that has fallen, and all its knowledge is lost with it.
It could happen to us unless we practice Constant Vigilance. Nishi is walking proof of this.
How old are you anyway, honey? Early 20s?
Oops. The citation on that last is Ephesians 4.
“How old are you anyway, honey?”
Morally and ethically? She’s not even a zygote yet.
– So nishi. At what point does the fetus own its own DNA? Or do you consider the fetus as a genetic slave?
– *crickets*
Okay, I’ll bite: anybody have any idea what this douche is talking about?
I mean, dividing people up into conveniently purified identity groups, when coupled with an historically provable hardon for eugenics, seems to me to be a recipe for the very kind of fascist disaster that elsewhere went a bit, shall we say, awry.
As for response theoretics, I have never once argued that what people can do with texts without paying attention to authorial intent can’t be interesting. I myself have written some nice Curious George essays that still make me giggle. And there’s always origami.
What I have said is that when we disregard authorial intent, we are creating new texts, not “interpreting” an existing one. Here, what Caric has to say in response to Goldberg, so long as it takes into account what he believes Jonah (or me) to be saying, is just another example of intentionalism. In fact, one wouldn’t be “responding” at all if one didn’t believe that the argument was being made by some agency.
Sadly, Caric, being a third-rate hack with a fifth rate mind and a eighth rate comb-over, is unable to make that necessary distinction, and so is probably infesting another generation of students with incoherent ideas about language — even as he fills their heads with all sort of grievance narratives.
What a sad little life, when you come to think on it.
This is why reading Goldberg makes you stupid:
No, Jonah, that’s not at all what Wilson meant, no matter how many times you repeat the words “Hegelian” and “Darwinian.” In fact, if Jonah were to think about those sentence for a minute, he’d see the flat-out make no sense. In the book Jonah cites but, I surmise, hasn’t read, Wilson argues that progress is linked to the conflict between races, such that superior defeats the inferior. I don’t see how that qualifies as “identity politics,” currently practiced.
Um, did Jonah read anything Wilson wrote? He believed, strongly, that governments cannot impost a system upon a people not primed to live under it. His disdain for the French Revolution stems from the fact that its organizers believed “government is a matter of contract and deliberate arrangement, where in fact it is an institute of habit … It assumes that government can be made over at will, but assumes it without the slightest historical foundation.” His theory of government is often called “historicist” for precisely the reason that he believed in a divinely-ordered plan — hence his reverence for Hegel — was working itself out in history in an organic and evolutionary manner. Governments, he believed, should govern the citizens they had, not the ones they wanted.
Don’t fall for Jonah’s bait-and-switch just because it’s ideologically flattering, Jeff. Unless, of course, you want me to write about who it was that supported the sterilization of epileptics, the feebleminded, &c. (Hint: They wanted to “safeguard the marriage relation.”)
In 1910, who doesn’t this describe?
Seriously. Jonah even gives away the game when he (mistakenly, but whatever) calls this part and parcel of “the Darwinism of the age.” If you wanted to, you could tar anybody with that brush.
Hey! Remember this?
Nothing.
The only not entirely bullshit answer is something like “the Constitution.” A handful of racist laws that were blatantly in violation of it were finally, eventually, over a period that stretched from the Civil War era to the 1970s, recognized as such.
Those laws could just as easily have gone on as they had for so many decades before, mooning the plain text of the thing, if the state was in the mood for it. But it wasn’t, anymore. It made some strategic marginal concessions, to preserve and expand its power. Which it has, un-bulwarked.
Crediting any kind of ethics with what little anti-state bulwarking has happened — and it’s infinitessimally little — is fucking preposterous. Ethics may, maybe, may be why some people aren’t racists, or whatever. Good for them. The state evinces no such concerns. It goes on, humming the chorus to “Hold on Loosely.”
“The only not entirely bullshit answer is something like “the Constitution.†A handful of racist laws that were blatantly in violation of it were finally, eventually, over a period that stretched from the Civil War era to the
1970s1960’s, recognized as such.”Those laws were protected with vengeance, unmatched until til the swamp land of ANWR were threaten, by the FUCKIN’ DEMOCRAT PARTY!
“Those laws could just as easily have gone on as they had for so many decades before, mooning the plain text of the thing, if the state was in the mood for it.”
You Democrats are blocked all Civil Rights law until you got your plantation back.
Probably because you don’t account for the advent of identity politics itself, as it is currently practiced, being part of an ongoing example of the battle Wilson describes. After all, identity politics has moved beyond mere aims at “equality” to a point where certain groups are literally privileged in law. If this is a conscious strategy — that is, if these once “inferior” groups have learned to game the system to their advantage — one can see the relationship. I’m not sure I would make the argument, but I can’t say I don’t see it. Think of it as a soft form of Wilsonian social Darwinism.
Right. And some of those governments had citizens that just weren’t fit for certain kinds of progress that a state, under the right conditions, would provide.
Just need to do away with some of the undesirables first, you see.
Wilson was among those. He in fact signed the legislation.
Of course there were others, and if you’d like to write about them, go ahead. But I’ve never argued that there haven’t been “progressives” who self-identify as being on the “right.” In fact, I’ve noted that McCain is, in my estimation, one of those.
Actually, I believe he notes those who weren’t calling for Darwinism to be used as some ready template for social engineering and eugenics.
If you want to argue that Darwinism didn’t play a role in the thinking of the eugenicists, among whose number Wilson counted himself, have at it.
But really, Scott. Why not take these things up with Goldberg? I’m not trying to speak on his behalf. That’s why I haven’t answered nishi’s charge that I agree with Goldberg’s conclusion about what does or does not act as a bulwark, and why I have ended these posts with the very inviting (and value-neutral) “discuss.”
Do I believe progressivism has an ideological kinship to fascism? Yes. And I’ve explained why at length in myriad other posts. GOOGLE IT!
Nishi’s getting two similar things confused. First, there are ethical questions not covered under current values codified as law. As an example, what is the legal status of a sentient artificial intelligence (silicon or biological)? In part, these include factual questions, such as “is the construct truly intelligent?”, but they also include non-factual value determinations. These ethical questions will have to be addressed by American society as a whole, with scientists and engineers providing the factual answers. Judeo-Christian-Ethics, in fact any current system of ethics, does not provide an answer to these specific questions because there is no answer at all yet, yet we can look at the way current questions of ethics are answered to provide analogies for future questions. Because we do not know the details of the future technology, however, no answer can truly be supplied in advance.
Secondly, there are ethical questions that have been raised by current technology for which Nishi does not like the American answer. We’ve looked at the issue of whether taxpayer funds should be allocated to experiments on human corpses (I’m being intentionally scientifically illiterate here, and looking at it from the laypersons view), and have decided that federal funding should not be used on experiments involving new corpses, but only on material from corpses already in the system. This ruling can be changed through the democratic process. Nishi does not like that answer.
I’m in the habit of replacing Nishi’s poorly spelled Judeo-Christian ethics (or my preferred Judeo-Christian-Greek ethics) with American ethics when I read comments. As I said in the previous thread, the current American society and its ethical system are based on a melting pot of different cultural traditions alloyed together to the point where one cannot separate shared ethical values by the source from which they derive, or separate religious ethics in an individual from non-religious ethics. You can’t remove religion from the Republic without destroying the Republic.
But really, Scott. Why not take these things up with Goldberg? I’m not trying to speak on his behalf.
I tried, both pre- and post-publication. His response has been, shall we say, decidedly unresponsive.
“I tried, both pre- and post-publication. His response has been, shall we say, decidedly unresponsive.”
Not that your word here isn’t up there with Allah, got email?
– Who among us are so absolutely sure of our positions that we expect an unchallenged pass without the slightest debate.
-?
-?
– Oh….Ohhhhhh. ~O~!
We have a few examples that prove the point. Wilson’s invasion of Haiti, brought the mulatto country under Jim Crow dominance, which would subside after FDR, who as Asst. Secretary of the Navy wrote their constitution! pulled the troops out. This would ultimately to the more militant ethnic nationalist of the Duvaliers, triumphing
over the ‘cafe aulait’ set. With another
junior official that Wilson brought into
politics, Breckenridge Long, who would be Il Duce’s best bud, as Ambassador and the 20th century version o Tancredo/
Buchanan at State’s immigration bureau.
For comparisons’ sake, we didn’t see this transference of Jim Crow to say the
Phillipines under Roosevelt or Taft. The
odious ‘botella’ of no-work sinecures did come from Ohio’s political machine under James Magoon, not the other way around.
In case anyone’s still interested in the slavery part of the discussion, I did an analysis of Biblical slavery some time back that might be relevant.
http://wheatchaff.blogspot.com/2004/08/biblical-slavery.html
He believed, strongly, that governments cannot impost a system upon a people not primed to live under it.
That’s a distinction without a difference in this case.
In either case, Wilson believed that those backward darkies just weren’t up to handling “white folks” concepts like representative democracy, yes?
See: “soft bigotry of low expectations”.
troy
“We have a few examples that prove the point. Wilson’s invasion of Haiti, brought the mulatto country under Jim Crow dominance, which would subside after FDR, who as Asst. Secretary of the Navy wrote their constitution! pulled the troops out. This would ultimately to the more militant ethnic nationalist of the Duvaliers, triumphing
over the ‘cafe aulait’ set. With another
junior official that Wilson brought into”
You DEMOCRATS had power in the congress from 1932-1994. You are an idiot!!!!!
Wilson promoted a patriotism based on ethnic-nationalism, which is nothing but state-level multiculturalism, and thus racially and ethnically essentialist. I.e., people must be represented by those who look like them and share their bloodlines. Thankfully, not all versions of patriotism are so intrinsically wretched.
“You Democrats are blocked all Civil Rights law until you got your plantation back.”
You you you. And one of the voices in the supreme court for ruling against Brown (and for that board of education) was a young Progressive fascistclerk named William Rehnquist.
“After all, identity politics has moved beyond mere aims at “equality†to a point where certain groups are literally privileged in law.”
Do you mean “literally” like, literally?
Yes. As in, in actuality. Special dispensation made manifest in policy, that sort of thing. You know, literally.
Sdferr, just saw your post 169 and followed it back. Cool stuff, more web searching and books to buy now. Thanks.
Isn’t andrea cute, trying to sit up at the big table like the grown-ups do!
“Isn’t andrea cute, trying to sit up at the big table like the grown-ups do!”
The Internet delivers.
“Wilson promoted a patriotism based on ethnic-nationalism, which is nothing but state-level multiculturalism, and thus racially and ethnically essentialist. I.e., people must be represented by those who look like them and share their bloodlines. Thankfully, not all versions of patriotism are so intrinsically wretched.”
Seems to be what the liberal fascists in the bush admin are putting together in Iraq. Ie, what people there want. I admit I only have a surface view of this, but it doesnt look like we’re imposing a sunni awakening, shiite parties or kurdish autonomy on Iraq. It looks like its the way they want to be — set free, they’re organizing politically along the ways they exist in other dimensions. By example, it argues for Wilson more recognizing the way people wanted to be, than imposing something ‘essential’ onto them. It’s at least a step forward from colonialism.
But maybe Roger Taney was a liberal fascist too.
Or maybe you don’t understand the hasty generalization fallacy of the association type. I wonder which it could be?
Liberal fascists believe some identity groups should get special treatment under the law.
Roger Taney believed some identity groups should get special treatment under the law.
Therefore Roger Taney was a liberal fascist.
Let’s try this another, shall we?
Nazis wore shoes.
You wear shoes.
Therefore you are a Nazi.
Cool! I like this new form of logic to which you have introduced me. So much better than that evil white male logic that I’ve been stuck with up till now.
“Or maybe you don’t understand the hasty generalization fallacy of the association type. ”
It is true that I haven’t read Jonah’s book.
It is true that I haven’t read Jonah’s book.
And we segue directly into argumentum ad hominem.
Yawn.
Apropos of further up the thread, I went and looked up a picture of nishi.
Fourth panel, on the left.
Regards,
Ric
Can’t wait to see Bush’s opposition to antilynching laws.
You seem content to sit back and snipe, andrea. Please, engage. You’ll find that most of here are very willing to flesh out our arguments.
For my part, I have entire categories dedicated to such things. Which is why I let little oblique attempts at anklebiting roll right off me like custard off of Michael Moore’s pork chop-greased belly.
The problem with Goldberg’s book is that Paul Johnson already covered this sort of ground in “Modern Times,” and seems to understand the development far better than Goldberg does. His treatment of Rousseau in “Intellectuals” also showed a greater understanding of the godfather of the philosophical foundation for the modern state than Goldberg–essentially, that Rousseau’s complete failure as a father for his bastard kids required, in Rousseau’s mind, a state that would provide for them instead. Ultimately, the state would take responsibility for ALL normal societal functions that had normally been considered the province of the individual, and that those who did not stand in concert with the state (as measured by those in charge, of course) by their own free will would be justifiably marked as enemies of the state or would be coerced into supporting it.
Johnson discusses growth of fascist/communist totalitarianism during the 20th century as an outgrowth of this philosophy combined with the Nietzchian will to power and the moral relativism that emerged during the early 20th century. The acceptance of this philosophy on a global scale is what led to the fascist govts of the 1930s, the Communist governments of the 1920s to 1970s, and the mass slaughters that took place over the course of last 100 years. Goldberg’s book makes a valiant effort at trying to draw all these threads and spinning them into a quilt that he can lay at the progressives’ feet, but the fact of that matter is that, unfortunately, we simply do not live in a world anymore where government interference in daily life is considered to be undesirable.
Warren harding and Calvin Coolidge were the last presidents to actually decrease the size of government, but no person running for president now could get away with this sort of thing. We’ve become a nation of Rousseauian citizen-infants, dependant on the government to set up a “program” or “commission” to solve our problems rather than taking resposibility for our own actions.
And the bulwark against such a “progressive movement†was…?
Economics.
When you appropriately consider the period, it becomes clear that from a practical economic standpoint that this movement never had a chance. From the beginning to the end these ideas would have encountered several challenges on the economic merits.
The up-front cost associated with implementing some of these ideas would have exorbitant for any time, much less Wilson’s. The return on that investment would have been well off into some future date with absolutely zero guarantees, compared to the known (or knowable) value of dealing with things as they were, making it a difficult proposition to sell.
I’m sure there was stiff resistance to any notion that would euphemistically call for “down-scaled production capacity near term”.
In Short, the progressive movement made about as much economic sense then as it does now- none.
Adding to the point:
Notice how Global Warming initiatives are receiving more scrutiny now that some agency has placed a $45 Trillion price tag on it. Before this week it was all about the personification and emotions connected with lowering your personal impact on Mother Earth. Now that some bean counters have put pencil to paper, we can all anticipate that cooler heads will prevail- (pun intended).
As far as the hardcore environmentalist are concerned, the War just went HOT with a nuclear blast from the opposition. There is no easy way to account for $45 Trillion- it’s what we call a non-starter.
i fail to see how this example butresses Goldberg’s argument, Jeff, that judeoxian morality is the bulwark against eugenics.
when societies held slaves, they made laws about slaves, romans, grecians, christians and jews. When societies believed in the inferiority of sub-demes of citizens, they made laws about that. Miscegenation and segregation spring to mind.
Are slavery and miscegenation and segregation laws eugenics?
Or only pogroms and forced sterilization of defectives and cloning?
I wonder exactly what Goldberg’s definition of “eugenics” is.
i dont remeber seeing it laid out in the book….a little help here?
someone that reads his website?
The point is that a group of Americans, including a high percentage of deeply religious Christians and Jews, went and saw that a value that had been held by most human cultures for thousands of years (slavery is permissible) was no longer ethical, and went out and persuaded a majority of Americans of their belief. Values, ethical systems, and cultures change and evolve. Judeo-Christian ethics (as you call it), which at the time formed a greater component of American ethics than it does today, changed and evolved to deal with the changing world around it, and yet the change was one that didn’t change the root values of Judeo-Christian culture. In fact, the change was driven by the root values of Judeo-Christian culture. The change wasn’t perfect; the American system and the level at which slavery was rooted in parts of the American culture made the change to a color-blind system painful and drawn out.
American culture will change and evolve to deal with changes in technology. You might not agree with those changes and the end results. But you have two choices: you can engage with those you disagree with to persuade them of your point and compromise with them on a solution that while not perfect is better for both sides, or you can fight them and together end up destroying the American system.
Victor @ # 204
And the bulwark against such a “progressive movement†was…?
Economics.
Victor,
From what I see here in Europe, the progressive movement is alive and unfortunately well. The bulwark against the movement has not, up to now, been economics (although you may well argue that not enough time has been allowed to lapse). I think the only serious bulwark has been the Second Amendment. You won’t find an analogue over here.
and sex tourists are not genetically engineered themselves upon return.
I and my new bumpy profile would tend to disagree.
“And we segue directly into argumentum ad hominem.”
No that was about his book, not him.
“Can’t wait to see Bush’s opposition to antilynching laws.”
I don’t think he has that ridiculous of a view of the commerce power.
“You’ll find that most of here are very willing to flesh out our arguments.”
The responses so far have been quite encouraging.
This claim assumes, wrongly, that poverty is the root of all unrest. The fact so many splodeydopes from Camelfuggistan have been highly educated and from wealthy families tends to undermine that assumption.
When you appropriately consider the period, it becomes clear that from a practical economic standpoint that this movement never had a chance
I dunno, Victor., I think Silver Whistle on to something. This movement that never had a chance went ahead and now dominates Euro policy/thought and owns one major party here. Heck, it has a heavy influence on the other (think “compassionate conservatism”).
In the US, it may be, however, that progs sometimes bite off more than they can chew and get, unelected, or something comes up that resolves the issue they’re supposedly solving (WWII is generally considered to have finished off the Great Depression).
McGehee
Why equate poverty and economics? What do wealthy deluded suicides from Arabia have to do with the impossibility of central control of a modern industrial economy?
Jdm
It appears the Irish are about to vote ‘No’ on the EU. Encouraging, or not?
“WWII is generally considered to have finished off the Great Depression”
All problem with government spending and direction of the economy did end once the bombs fell on pearl.
Sdferr, it is.
I would note, however, that those thankless bastards of the Green Isle have had less time to, um, appreciate the whole package of EU control. In spite of that, being a smaller country, they’ve probably already discovered that their influence on the EU doesn’t mean shit.
jdm
I don’t follow the euro political scene very closely, but aren’t there a good number of ‘old europe’ govs that have either put the eu constitution to a vote and gotten a no, or polled the question before putting it to vote and withdrawn the vote proposal in fear of losing?
Ya know, it wasn’t just Judeo-Christian ethics that brought about the end of slavery. The development of mechanical power to replace muscle power made it clear there was an alternative; the existence of the alternative let the ever-present argument against slavery to gain wider acceptance.
Victor Davis Hanson has made a similar argument in re migrant workers — restricting them would drive farmers to mechanize the harvests they currently bring in with subsidized cheap labor. I suspect the development of cost-effective mechanization would also drive people to notice the myriad ills associated with illegals and migrant workers.
Something the Progressives noted about WWI, BTW, and an observation which has led to them declaring “war” on various social ills ever since. The “War on Poverty” was so named in order to co-opt the willingness to accept extraordinary measures during war time.
(As, arguably, was the “War on Drugs”. Leftists would no doubt add the War on Terror, but it actually involves, you know, a foreign enemy, so I’m not as willing to accept that argument.)
“All problem with government spending and direction of the economy did end once the bombs fell on Pearl.”
Yeah, there was certainly no complaining to be heard over wartime commodity rationing!
well…i think slavery IS eugenics, unless you strictly define eugenics as ESCR, cloning and nazi/stalinist pogroms and forced sterilization of defectives.
silver whistle is correct.
i think you might be able to define religious conservatism as a bulwark against progressivism, if you like.
But it didn’t do squat against slavery for hundreds of years and it won’t do squat against biotech advances with its antique dated religious/anti-science ethics.
the dykes will crumble, just like they are crumbling vis a vis samesexmarriage.
Lets face it, America is the last bastion of religious conservatism. Australia and NZ don’t embrace religious conservatism. Europe has gone secular.
With this election, you guys are on the ropes.
Religious conservatism is going to go the way of the dodo.
Because it is inflexible and cannot adapt.
I think Goldberg would like pose religious conservatism versus the simple set of the horrors of nazi eugenics, but that is a false apposition, a red herring.
Secularism is on the rise everywhere except the US.
My hypothesis is that this strongly correlated with family size. In the US, families have greater than replacement growth, and the children are under parental control for religious indoctrination for the formative 7-13 year age grouping. Even after formal higher education, the early indoctrination holds.
But the current state of congress and culture seems to point to a profound loss of control by religious conservatives, this year.
It will be interesting to see if America takes the British path.
“Lets face it, America is the last bastion of religious conservatism. ”
No we’re helping it blossom in Iraq too.
Normally, I wouldn’t thread-jack – at least, intentionally – but this one has had a good run and there are some shiny new baubles to attract nishi, cynn, et al
I don’t follow the euro political scene very closely, but aren’t there a good number of ‘old europe’ govs that have either put the eu constitution to a vote and gotten a no, or polled the question before putting it to vote and withdrawn the vote proposal in fear of losing?
Yes. The Big Decision for the moment is the new EU constitution. Both France and Holland defeated the first version. In the time-honored “we’re going to keep voting on this until you get it right”, a new one was crafted (one that
“should be unreadable”). Some countries are not putting it to a vote, but letting the government decide (UK, Denmark).
See? In a true prog world, you are not even allowed to vote against your best interests. As determined by others. Because you’re stupid.
i think slavery IS eugenics
and nishi makes another nonsensical statement.
:::yawn:::
The base problem as i see it is the inflexibilty of the religious conservatism model.
It seems unable to adapt gracefully to societal pressures and trends.
For example, samesexmarriage.
To the next generation, homosexuallity is just not a big deal.
There is song gettin airtime now, I Kissed a Girl(and i liked it).
A harbinger.
Culture evolves.
hahaha, yup, Andrea, but it definitely isn’t judeoxian religious conservatism–the Iraqis have shari’a law as part of their constitution.
;)
jdm
Thread jacking or no, I thank you.
Though not from Kansas myself, my Dad was, so I guess some of his “wazzamatta” rubbed off on me. And I am stupid, as you can see.
There’s a disconnect between what you’re describing as effects of differences between culture and your observed causes. Despite America’s “backwards” nature, it’s still vastly ahead of Europe in a lot of ways with regards to science. What are the comparable levels of research funding? I know for a fact that American colleges are turning out ever-increasing numbers of scientists looking to do biomedical research. For a more specific example, Nishi, what’s Germany’s policy on ESCR research?
And that’s ignoring the status of religion throughout Latin America / Africa / Middle East / South Asia. If you’re looking for religious conservatives, you’re missing a lot.
That’s it? That’s your big comeback? Despite those icky conservatives you hate, American society is increasingly moving towards a more liberal policy on same sex marriage. America has adopted and will adopt, secular and religious, liberal, progressive, classical liberal, conservative and libertarian (both real libertarians and your definition). What you’re saying is that you don’t like that religious conservatives think differently than you do. America’s government value framework was built to change gracefully; it doesn’t adopt overnight. While this makes it slow to change, it protects America from hasty, ill-conceived changes, adopted by whim.
okfine, i get it.
goldberg attempts to identify eugenics with the proggressive movement.
this is simple religious identity politics.
like Orson Scott Card says, marxism and naziism are just atheist religions.
yup. civilis, and that is why the evangelicals are losing power this year, never to return.
my point is, stickin your heads in the sand and refusing to give credibility to genetic determinism and the transhumanist manifesto will doom religious conservatism even in this country.
“because god said to” wont work in this country any more.
the 550 page report from the presidents council on bioethics includes frickin quotes from the bible!!!
how can you not see how anachronistic and reactionary that is?
it’s a joke!
i loathe religious conservatives.
if the republicans had stayed the true party of conservatives and libertarians you wouldn’t be on the brink of losing the executive after losing both houses.
my point is, stickin your heads in the sand and refusing to give credibility to genetic determinism and the transhumanist manifesto will doom religious conservatism even in this country.
Oh yeah, an epidemic of acute transhumanism has already wiped out several counties of Baptists down here in Georgia. They are worried it may go national.
Seriously, nishfong, rapid fanatics such as yourself, loudly and proudly devoid of any sense of morality, ethics or history, are going to drive people to religious values when you start publicly salivating over the prospect of making genetic monsters of their children.
If you were as smart as you say you are you would shut the fuck up and start lobbying in a more productive manner.
They are worried it may go national.
it already has.
but not for them, for their children.
;)
transhumanist manifesto
If you uttered these words to 1,000 random Americans, how many would even know WTF you were talking about.
Really, nishi, I would pay you to go to one of Obama’s town halls and ask him about this.
*rabid fanatics*
you start publicly salivating over the prospect of making genetic monsters of their children.
au contraire, im salivating over the prospect of the designer baby carrot destroying religious conservatism in this country.
;)
Yeah, that will be great…. until something goes wrong:
Designer Babies: Best Thing for Pregnant Mothers Since Thalidomide!
That’s old history, B Moe.
well..another epiphany for me from the Jeff epiphany engine.
Liberal Fascism is just an attempt to convolve historical atrocities involving eugenics as a bulwark for judeoxian religious conservatism against proggressive encroachments on the will of the electorate.
instead of genetic (ie racial) identity politics, its memetic identity politics!!
hahaha
tribalism all the way down.
;)
Europe has gone secular.
Wrong yet again .
Old Europe had empty churches, but soon there will be a mosque on every corner.
Comment by Silver Whistle- 209
From what I see here in Europe, the progressive movement is alive and unfortunately well. The bulwark against the movement has not, up to now, been economics (although you may well argue that not enough time has been allowed to lapse).
I would say that the Europeans were working from a unique baseline that allowed them to consider the investment America was putting into it’s military as something like an “off the books” asset in their accounting. Had there been more of an imperative for a large scale investment, we would have seen more resistance earlier (IMO). Still, it’s hard to ignore the example of Thatcher or the most recent positions of the French Government that was/is seeking to rollback or modify many of the established social programs with the main thrust of their arguments resting on economics.
Would Progressives say that China or Russia has “regressed”? Again we see that in the case of countries like China, Russia, and India that the primary reasoning for scraping progressive policies is based in economics.
While the European model has been largely vindicated, in the sense that they didn’t need a large GDP investment into their military establishment, that same model is unable to account for competing in a global economic environment.
Nishi, did you look up the answer to my question on progressive secular German ESCR policy? I won’t shame you into giving us the answer, I just wanted to know if you looked…
“Seems to be what the liberal fascists in the bush admin are putting together in Iraq. Ie, what people there want. I admit I only have a surface view of this, but it doesnt look like we’re imposing a sunni awakening, shiite parties or kurdish autonomy on Iraq. It looks like its the way they want to be  set free, they’re organizing politically along the ways they exist in other dimensions. By example, it argues for Wilson more recognizing the way people wanted to be, than imposing something ‘essential’ onto them. It’s at least a step forward from colonialism.”
Setting aside I said nothing about Bush – the U.S. line is actually a loose federation, we’d go for a strong federation if the local divisions weren’t already so strong. We aren’t promoting ethnic nationalism, we’re promoting a civic Iraqi nationalism.
Wilson and the victors of World War I had a chance to reform three decaying empires, instead they engineered the worst peace-settlement in human history. And he had no ‘idea of what the people wanted,’ not even having a cursory familiarness with Eastern or Central Europe, let alone the Ottoman empire. Like a true progressive, he projected his own desires on them and worked from that assumption.
1919—>1939.
No. Not better than colonialism, let alone liberal multi-national states.
Nishi, you’re too smart by half. The activist religious right is surely no prize. By activist, I mean those who don’t simply want to be left alone, but want to impose themselves through government. There are still, thankfully, plenty of traditionalist conservatives who realize they probably aren’t going to win in the long term by empowering the government. Neither, however, is the activist religious left, of which Obama has positioned himself as a member of, but may or may not be at heart depending on his cynicism on this point.
That he has to do so is to some extent indicative of the fact that professed belief in religion in this country has actually been on the upswing for a few decades, right and left. Even if people are not willing to live by traditionalist religious tenets and proclaim themselves believers nonetheless. Cynical and honest people in the Democratic party have been as willing to dress their own actions today in a religious garb as the Religious Right have, though this isn’t as surprising historically since the activist Evangelicals are actually late-comers to the Conservative movement.
Setting all this aside, it appears highly unlikely to this agnostic that, if traditionalist religious types were to disappear tomorrow, the victorious group dancing on its head would be any prize themselves. The outcomes of these sorts of things are highly unpredictable, the extent to which any true libertarian should be intrinsically aware of. Nonetheless, I believe it highly unlikely in these circumstances that the victors will be consitutional libertarians (of whom I believe you like to consider yourself a member). At the very least it should give you some modesty, assuming your ego allows it.
Nishi’s biggest problem is that she’s hung up on looking at individuals entirely as members of distinct tribes, as a sort of micro identity politics. She pigeonholes individual tribes, the “geek tribe”, the “religious conservative tribe”, and so forth. Unfortunately, most Americans exist as a combination of “tribal” influences, and as such the tribal distinctions fail. Also, since almost all of the members of each of her “tribes” are also members of other tribes with other values, trying to identify the values of a particular tribe fails. Coupled with her absolute ignorance of anything other than a rough caricature of tribes other than her own, and her dogmatic focus on a particular issue to the exclusion of all else, she can’t observe the situation objectively.
As an example, Nishi caricatures “religious conservatives” as a group by opposition to biotechnology (through the proxy of right-to-life issues) and opposition to gay marriage. She lumps evangelical Protestant denominations in with Catholics in her group, as Catholics in general form the largest single religious denomination that holds both those values sacred. Catholics, however, don’t fit the conservative mold in other areas, such as social, justice and international relations policies, where their beliefs largely match the Democratic party line. With these issues increasingly in the forefront of politics, individual Catholics are increasingly voting Democratic. If these issues subside, they will largely go back to the Republican party. Their values have not changed, but the relative importance of the values in the political debate has. If Iraq ceases to be a priority, and the Democrats get their social agenda securely passed (universal healthcare, open borders immigration, etc.) the Catholics will all go right back to being evil religious conservative types. (I have my own rant about the stupidity of Catholic social policy as applied to politics, but that’s for another day).
“tenets, they’ll proclaim themselves believers nonetheless”
I’d preach humility as well, but that may be a bridge too far for now.
includes frickin quotes from the Bible
I think that probably has something to do with the “ethics” part. There can be some overlap between ethics and morality, and you can get some good insights into the American idea of morality by reading that book, in spite of all the God stuff in there. Also, you may want to read up on the French Revolution, the Spanish American War, President McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressive movement, particularly a guy named William Jennings Bryan. You’ll like him, put aside his anti-darwinism, because it never really suited his politics. Don’t forget to read up on the Prohibition movement. There’s another book, by a guy named Shirer that might give you some idea of what happens when progressives and populists mate. Goldberg wasn’t the first guy to pick up on the whole “progressivism leads to dictatorship” thing, it’s pretty standard stuff. Then Google “Gm food and the EU” and “Climate change and EU” explain to me how exactly europe is anywhere near 100% secular. Your job is to connect the dots.
ow look at your whole “transhumanist” bullshit and while you are reading your manifesto recite the pragmatic maxim. Take three shots of vodka, do it again then sleep for an hour. You’ll feel better.
Can I be horribly cynical for a moment?
When I was but a young lass, I remember grown ups clutching their pearls about the rise of he “New Right” – a post-Nixon “conservative backlash” to the excesses of the 60s and 70s that was on the move and gathering steam. In my teens, I started to notice some of the slightly paranoid articles and even a few books comparing conservatism to fascism. Through the Clinton presidency and then the Bush presidency, the whole “conservatism is fascism” meme became de rigueur. Some of the books and articles made really compelling cases, but I would look out the window to see my neighbor across the street – who voted consistently Republican all of his life – waving happily to me while he buckled his kids in the car for soccer practice, I would think, “This article whole idea is complete bullshit – conservative people are conservative…nothing more nothing less.”
Now, I may be wrong. But the political pendulum appears to be swinging left. This is not a false start, like the Clinton years. But appears to be a true swing. We have been swinging left or right in this country every few decades since forever. And the people who see the pendulum swinging away from THEIR way of thinking always cry about how the other guys are fascists and we are headed for some fresh Totalitarian Hell. I am inclined to think that Jonah Goldberg’s book is the first in what will probably be decades full of shrieking about the insidious fascism of Teh Left. This also ties into my theory that we don’t do well with accepting that perhaps we have lost our preeminence. We generally go shrieking wildly into the night – being terrible sports…accusing the other side of cheating, brainwashing, and yes…fascism.
Lisa,
Fascist.
Hee hee Rick.
If the term fascism is just being used as a political bludgeon by the typical marginally literate partisan of either side, then I would agree with you, Lisa, but the fact is that the left side is where real fascism resides. Look at the political spectrum in terms of individualism/less government vs. populism/more government. I realize this is not an exact analogy of today’s Republican – Democrat split, but it is how most of the regulars here see things, I believe. To the extreme right lies anarchy- no government, maximum individual rights. The opposite, to the left, would be totalitarianism- all government, no individual rights. Most definitions of fascism lie on the left side of that spectrum. The biggest problem with trying to discuss these things, and the reason I usually try to stay out of the Goldberg debate, is the definitions of fascism, liberal, conservative, and even left and right are so vague and broad these days as to make a serious discussion impossible, it seems to me.
When conservatives govern conservatively you end up with functioning economies, strong national defense, and functioning society.
I agree there may well be a swing to the hard left. We have two parties splitting the political landscape… but to any more call the current minority “conservative” is just too great a reach. So what comes of Leftist, progressive governance?
Detroit.
Gary.
Philadelphia.
D.C.
Any questions? I’m off; reloading to do, and my water barrels are probably ready to be rinsed and filled.
Your cynicism aside, Lisa, Goldberg’s book is a reaction to the right getting labeled “fascists.” For my own part, I remember how taking a certain position got me labeled a “wingnut” for the first time, even though I’d been rather politically disengaged, and had, by default (as a proud member of the humanities) considered myself a liberal.
Well, it turns out I am a liberal, but most of those who have coopted the term are not — at least, not in the classical sense, which is the liberalism upon which this country’s founding principles are built.
Goldberg uses the term “fascist” not to mean “evil” but to identify a particular form of government and ruling philosophy. The designation has been notoriously tricky to define (see, for instance, sashal’s constant complaints that unless there is racism/anti-semitism, a given paradigm cannot rightly be called fascist, even though Fascist Italy began as anything but racist or anti-semitic), so Goldberg is careful to offer a definition, and then build his argument around it.
Having taught argument classes, I would, were I desirous of attacking his thesis, likely do as sashal has and go after Goldberg’s definition of fascism. Or perhaps I would do as SEK and Caric have (above) and throw out some semantic challenges, which mostly entail “summarizing” Goldberg’s points in ways that make them sound more caricaturish than they truly are, then taking aim at my own summaries.
— Or, and here’s where you come it, I could try to dismiss the whole argument as “both sides always try to tar the other with the fascist label, so let’s just throw both of these arguments out as cranks” — a rhetorical maneuver that, though you might actually believe it, fails to take into account that just because both sides do it doesn’t mean that one side isn’t correct in making the argument (or at least, more correct than the other).
Rousseau vs Hobbes. That’s what this boils down to. And there is no mistaking the connections between the fascism that represented the next step of taking socialism and nationalizing it and what the Progressive party in the US was up to.
Pauline Kael wrote that Dirty Harry was a “fascist” movie; but what Harry Callahan was doing was fighting against a bureaucracy he came to see as impossibly fascistic itself — albeit it, the kind of fascist govenment with the smiley face that graces the cover of Goldberg’s book. Whether or not you bought Kael’s argument depended upon how you defined fascist, and she seemed (to me, at least) to be using the word loosely, attaching it to a “right wing” attitude, even while comparing it to nazism.
If anything, though, what made Dirty Harry so popular was its sating of populist fantasies in an era where crime was rampant, and a liberal establishment (it was no accident the story is set in SF) was addressing the issue by throwing up more red tape, and worrying themselves over the rights of criminals. Populism vs liberal establishment in a fantasy that uses a violent vigilante cop ready to break the rules in the name of justice I might argue is, getting back to Goldberg’s point about Fascism being on the right wing of the left, the stuff of an internecine battle between factions on the left. Once Dirty Harry cleaned things up, he most surely couldn’t be kept in decent society. He was a necessary evil — an agent of liberal wish fulfillment that bridged the gap between a conscience that believed itself interested in social justice and the basic human realization that violence oftentimes works, and is in fact needed.
At the end, Harry throws away his badge — just as Gary Cooper had done in High Noon. For the Cooper character, the townspeople didn’t deserve him; for Harry Callahan, he recognized that he was an anachronism, that justice was something that had been essentially defined away by Utopian bureaucrats, and that he would always be the devil they unleashed to do their dirty work, even as, once that work was done, they disavowed him.
What all this has to do with liberal fascism, I don’t quite know. I got to rambling. But the overarching point is, that I think you need to read the book and decide for yourself if Goldberg’s argument is compelling. To simply dismiss it in tu quoque fashion is, I think, too lazy for someone of your intellect.
“For my own part, I remember how taking a certain position got me labeled a “wingnut†for the first time, even though I’d been rather politically disengaged, and had, by default (as a proud member of the humanities) considered myself a liberal.”
I dont remember the first time I was called a traitor, so I cant say whether I deserved it.
“But the overarching point is, that I think you need to read the book and decide for yourself if Goldberg’s argument is compelling. To simply dismiss it in tu quoque fashion is, I think, too lazy for someone of your intellect.”
I’ve read a bit of the back and forth about the book, including Jonah at the Corner. The problem it leaves me with is that while I can follow along the arguments of Jonah and his opponents, I’m not quite capable of coming up with the counter-arguments myself. Which means that reading the book may be too one-sided of an exercise for me, and leaves me less informed than if I had instead read the back and forths.
Any recommendations for that predicament?
not being so gullible?
Any recommendations for that predicament?
Wait for the movie.
Who called you a traitor, andrea?
As for recommendations, I’d say read the book AND read the back and forth. Think of the dynamic as a kind of new-media take on a hypertext novel.
Read the book. There is no harm in entering into honest debate knowing as much as is possible what you are talking about.
Note I said “honest” debate.
If you some how feel you are too “one sided”… looks like you have more reading to do. And then the important part: making YOUR call.
Then you get to defend that.
“not being so gullible?”
Thanks for trying to give me advice. My lack of background in, say, the academic arguments over how Fascism is defined could be a lot of things, but this is the first time I heard it called gullibility. I thought it was just because I’m not familiar with the historical era that Goldberg is accused as presenting in caricature form.
Andrea
Read Goldberg. Check his bibliography, then read from that list, starting with your interests, going to the oldest well-springs of the controversy you haven’t yet read.
Andrea,
How comfortable are you with works antecedent to the early 1900’s? Hegel, Rousseau, LeComte, Marx etc.? Are you as familiar with Burke, Smith or, on a seemingly parallel track, Locke, Bentham and Mill? Mussolini’s split of the Italian Socialists into a national (his) faction contra the Leninist international faction didn’t occur ex nihilo. Nietsche and Heidegger played some small part (as did James, Spinoza and Freud).
The “history of the period” is, IMO, somewhat less interesting than the fact that all the fruit of that time was falling rotten from Hegel’s tree.
But damn it Rick, they all meant well!
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
pfft
Im fine with Goldberg’s historical genealogy.
I object vehemently to his rationalizing the convolution of judeoxian ethics with conservatism and libertarianism.
and with classic liberalism.
It is not constitutional, it is not what the Founders intended, and it has effectively destroyed the republican party.
“they all meant well!”
They sure as hell did! And it was scientific! And founded upon solid application of Hegelian synthesis to produce a better world!
Even better, the racist Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood Clinics perform their design function today better than any Grand Kleagle backed by Woodrow Wilson could ever have hoped! No political movement on earth has ended the lives of as many blacks as has the Progessive Liberal Movement. True paragons of efficiency – no more nasty sterilizations, just make sure that they’re not born.
and, FYI, rousseau and hobbes were both asshats.
And the ones who are born? No fathers, no education (thanks to the teacher’s unions), and priced out of the job market!
#256: No you aren’t rambling. I get what you are saying. I and I would agree that fascism is notoriously tricky to define. I would posit that because of this, it invites varied and sundry clowns to take a shot at it.
I admit that I am being very cynical and very dismissive. Perhaps I am wrong. But I cannot work myself into any more than an eyeroll when I hear about the new “fascists du jour”. Perhaps that is why Abe Foxman is so distressed at the idea of smiley-faced Hitlers on books and Bushitler t-shirtsd and all Hitler/Franco/Mussolini comparisons that we lightly toss around. He is afraid that we are watering down our understanding of real evil in our incessant pursuit to prove that our political opponents are bad, bad people.
Before readin all 200+ comments I want to make note that the Ninth Regiment, US Cavalry, was a fighting unit of black soldiers, there were at least two I know of. During the Span-Am War those units served. But sometime between 1898 and 1917 (the US entry to WWI) there were no black combat units.
I do not know when combat arms were denied to blacks, but it was sometime in the twenty years between those wars, and somehow I doubt either Theodore Roosevelt or William Taft did that. Based on what I know of Woodrow Wilson my guess is he did that.
It was Harry Truman, a Missorian who was free in his language about blacks that desegregated the US armed forces, and he did so because he was outraged about the treatment of black veterans when they got home, and he used his authority to desegregate the US military.
Not getting on about political parties, but Truman had a hard core of integrity, and despite his raising (Hi, Ric Locke!) he did what was right, no matter how it hurt him politically. That inner core of decency is why I will always like him; much like I like John McCain – the inner core is solid live oak, old hickory, as it were.
An inner core of decency that will not be denied is what I like. A conscience.
Lisa
Speaking of taking fascist evil seriously, did you read Michael Ledeen in the wall st journal today?
#271: Excellent.
What Nishi doesn’t like is that some people have opinions different than hers. Having differing opinions from Nishi isn’t unconstitutional.
In Baltimore Harbor is an old sloop-of-war, the USS Constellation. Before the US civil War she made a number of Atlantic patrols, as other ships of the US Navy did; as the Royal Navy of Britain did. Those patrols were to intercept and capture slave ships. The transporatation of slaves was made illegal because those with the power to do so made it illeagal.
And those slaves who took control of the Amisted? Their lawyer was John Q. Adams, a US representative, former Sec. of State, former President, son of John Adams; J.Q. was known as old man eloquent. He did not approve of slavery,
@272: I did read that this morning. I was interested in how he skipped over the evil, literal wiping out of entire groups of people that is going on on the continent of Africa. He makes a compelling case for action in the Middle East, but why is genocide or the potential for it only important in the Middle East?
I am uncertain whether I am capable of answering your question on Ledeen’s behalf, as I am fairly certain he would tell you that whatever I should say in that regard is wrong, and not my place to begin with.
I can give you my takeaway though. Just my own opinion.
I don’t think Ledeen’s failure to mention the mass murder going on in Africa (and there are many such, and they vary as to cause and history)is nearly equivalent to asserting that those events and circumstances are not important. They are of course important, certainly to those suffering the depredation, but also to you , to me, and I would venture, to Ledeen. His failure, however, I would attribute to this “…Then, as now, the initiative lies with the enemies of the West. …”
This, for the purposes of his article, is his focus. Now Robert Mugabe may not like the USA at all, but he does not threaten us. Ditto Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan.
Just today I read a passage in Dan Dennett’s “Freedom Evolves” that may be appropriate here. While mulling the question of altruism he points to the oft encountered pre-flight instruction to passengers. In the event that the oxygen masks drop down, put yours on first (parents) and then turn to take care of anyone needing assistance (children).
Ledeen, I would guess, recognizes that neither time nor resources are unlimited and we must therefore, prioritize our actions to accord with our most pressing problems in order to be around to get to our less pressing problems when we can. In the meantime, of course, the current Administration in not exactly doing nothing vis a vis the various goings on in Africa. But, sadly, the bad guys can afford to focus on it full time and thus get the jump on us all.
That’s my take, for what it’s worth.
P.S. We might wonder why our wealthy allies in Europe and Asia do not have the capability of dealing with at least a few of these thugs and murderers. It is clear they do not, however, nor seem for the moment, to want to get that capability. See in this regard R. Kagan ” Of Power and Paradise”
gotta go, thunderstorm outside now lottsa lightening yikes.
I guess I should close out saying I like people with iron integrity best. A Washington, a Lincoln, a J.Q. Adams, a H. S. Truman. Humans, that despite their faults, despite their upbringing, understand the people around them and treat them as fellows; and call them to something higher and better.
The call will not go so far, as we are all humans, but to still have that call given out? Aye, I like that.*
*And my one major beef with GW Bush is he did not make that call. If he did he would have found the people of this nation willing. I remember seeing the National Cathedral service after 9/ii and the recessional was ‘The Battle Hymn of The Republic’, and the service colors were trooped out to that. Right then I was willing to do anything if called (heck, I tried again to get into the Coast Guard Reserves**). Right then the nationh was ready to answer the call, if it was given, and the call was…carry on as usual.
Such a waste.
**After the TIA last year that will never happen unless there is an enemy landing in CONUS.
#277: I think Ledeen would be very satisfied with your response. You are dead on when you say that the threat is what elevates one atrocious actor over others. And yes, these people are a big fucking threat. But I think it is disingenuous to say that the oppression going on in Iran should be enough to get us up off of our asses. We have allowed them to do exactly what they wanted to their citizens since 1979. There was even a movement to lift sanctions so that US oil companies could do business with them in the late 90s. I suppose my beef is not that he is wrong. There was just a note of false humanitarianism and an overeagerness to make Iran the next Nazi Germany – just like pre-war Iraq was the next Nazi Germany. Our rhetoric is starting to get so overheated that we won’t know our ass from a WMD, eventually.
Yeah, I don’t think he’s aiming at humanitarianism overmuch. But nor do I think he’s aiming at nazism per se. It’s the totalitarian impulse, he points to. And as to Iraq after all, Saddam was an actual student of Stalin and Hitler in the sense that he studied their methods and copied them to the tee. (I got that bit from Kanan Makiya’s “Republic of Fear” I think.) Once the structural knowledge of totalitarian rule is known (kinda like the knowledge of building nuclear weapons in this respect) it’s kinda hard to limit who has access to it.
The Baath Party has dipped its bucket in all those streams. If Baath political theory was once intended to be beneficent it has long since been thoroughly perverted by the likes of Saddam and the Assad pere et fils.
#279 Lisa. There is always the pull between doing what is right and doing what is expedient. Mnay of the old realists operate under expediency, as if the old Soviet Union was still about. I prefer (if we can) to doing right and trying to help that along.
In the long run which we live in (and the realists don’t) that is the best solution. Alas, we cannot answer all problems that way as our strength isn’t infinite. But to send a bloody-handed dictator to trial and then the rope? That is still a good thing.
Oh! – And if doing so ceases to be a good thing, then western civilization isn’t worth defending.
Hanging dictators, I mean.
MikeyNTH
The DoD is standing up AfricaCommand, both to take some of the load off CentralC and to have warriors dedicated to doing something about the particulars in Algeria, Morocco, Somalia, etc, etc.
Oh! What’s a TIA?