From Urthshu in the comments, here’s a guy who, from the outward signs, might be considered a moonbat, except that he gets it. I’d reproduce some here, but it’s a tight thesis and you should read the whole thing. As Urthshu says, it’s almost as if he’s been reading Protein Wisdom.
Schadenfreudelicious aside: It appears, from things I’ve read recently, that Sully’s come ’round to the view that Obama’s not on board regarding the only thing that matters. If his disappointment becomes too obstreperous, he’s going to discover the difference between being ridiculed for your views and attempted silencing. Buon appetito!
At the University of Our Lady, elderly priest arrested. I’m glad that my dad, Class of ’53, is blind, so that he can’t see this.
Dude’s a fricken outlaw, man. He’s one of us.
He had to add that nugget of wisdom. Because non Europeans never do stuff like that.
I live and work with lots of liberals like him though. I like them because they are straight up and honest about it. I dislike leftists through and through, because at the heart of it they are deluded and wannabee bullies.
OMG, that guy is on freakin fire. That article was all sorts of awesome. Everyone needs to go read it.
Spent a bit too much time establishing his bona fides, but the policy and rhetoric bits were spot-on. It’s encouraging to learn that there are a few people out there with open eyes.
If this guy had a drunken armored sidekick and red pills beneath the couch cushions, he’d be damn near perfect!
Nihil obstat. He seems to understand that the left has abandoned the British radical tradition. “The influence of the Crown [substitute your form of state power here] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.” (Dunning’s parliamentary resolution, 1780)
Squid, I think he needed to do that in order to firmly establish that he was liberal. Not doubt. It’s so interesting that he can support so much thought which I don’t, yet on principals and foundations- the big idead – we’re copacetic.
idead= ideas
Protestations to the contrary, by arguing that certain principles are valuable precisely because they have served us so well for so long Mr. Strong becomes a conservative. Of sorts.
Since he does so in direct opposition to the progressive/leftist agenda he most certainly will be labeled – and marginalized – as such. All of his heartfelt beliefs and acts counting for naught. Well maybe not naught, his bona fides being precisely the type to get him moved to the head of the line going into the first camps.
Didn’t anyone explain to him that they own the language?
I got bored with the listing of social liberal PC bonafides (just get to the point will you), but I did like the article. I agree with Dan, I think he might be peeking into PW now and again.
He’s spot on with his analysis and understanging of modern academia and his understanding of classical liberalism, unlike most modern academics and modern liberals.
He has it exactly right. There’s liberalism, and then there’s socialism (What he calls Leftism). These are the creeds of our age. These fight in the arena for the soul of post-feudal civilization. The one learned the Great Lesson from ancient and medieval examples as to the limits of authority, the other believes, typically, that “more funding is needed.”
So Jonah Goldberg’s book title is exactly wrong?
Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to The Politics of Meaning.
Seems to me Goldberg combines the liberalism and leftism, I wonder why?
Jonah should have called his book Leftist Facsism. But what can you do.
Entitlements are the hurdle Team Obama needs to take on.
But they will not.
With the systems breaking down around 2016, my prediction is Team Obama kicks that can down the road. Meanwhile, Sully is still blaming Bush for (I guess) the expansion of the prescription drug entitlement. I won’t link it but here is a snippet of Sully baiting Reynolds to gin up some traffic:
Little bit of denial on the left? Do they think they can beat Bush and Cheney like drums for the next four years? I guess so.
easyliving, did you recur to the origin of the phrase “Liberal fascism” which Goldberg cites as his source? There ought to be no problem making the connections you are after once that’s done.
Glad you liked it! He writes here as well. Kind of a new Liberal-Libertarian site.
I really hope we’ll see a change towards that direction nationally. Coalition between disaffected Right & Left might be the only way it comes about, though.
Fascism is less a political ideology but more a poisonous economic mechanic. Any political philosophy can become infected with it when that government decides it’s “necessary” to control the market.
I’ve come to enjoy the look on the smug faces of the enlightened folk when they hear that I don’t consider them to be liberals. Most are speechless to be considered fundies. Try it sometime – it puts the “fun” in fundamentalism. Aahh. Good times.
Easyliving is a bit dense. Someone hold his hand and walk him through this.
I do the same thing waterfalls. And when they get all indignant and stammery and demand clarification I tell them that the only thing they’re liberal about is the taking the fruit of other people’s labor. They get this look on their faces as if their tails have been cut off with a carving knife. Precious.
So can we all each and every one of us stop referring to leftists as liberals? Please? It’s important.
It is important. It’s handing away our heritage to scoundrels.
So, perhaps we should ask those who come here to debate to identify whether they are a leftist or a liberal.
Carin, you can’t, because they don’t know.
That’s why Goldberg titled his book “Liberal Fascism”. As Strong points out in his essay, the Left has for all practical purposes hijacked “liberal” as a self-description — and, as a result, there are a lot of people who think of themselves quite honestly as “liberal” who are nothing of the kind. It doesn’t help that the hijacking has been quite successful from the point of view of the Right — it’s pretty standard to see a Rightist fuming about “pointy-headed liberals” when, if you examine what he’s on about, it’s really Leftism.
So when you challenge them, they’ll give you a wide-eyed stare and say, “Well, of course I’m a liberal!” Then they’ll go back to advocating Marxism, or more properly Leninism, suitably camouflaged in faux-liberal verbiage.
I don’t know if Strong reads PW (it’s nice to think he might) or if he came up with his thesis independently. There’s no reason he shouldn’t invent it for himself. By his own statements he’s had something of the same career path as Jeff has.
Regards,
Ric
A good read. My only quibble is he is confining the problem to the campuses. True that is where the takeover originated and is where the positions he espouses must reclaim their legitimacy if the battle against the left is to be won. However this,
cannot happen just from breaking the logjam in the academe. Because of it’s infiltration and now control of the educational systems many of those “politicians, journalists, NGO leaders and workers, educators, media personalities, business leaders,” are now activists for the left, cloaked by titles, by words. In the same way the left used the word “liberal” and the connotations it invoked to insinuate itself into the political discourse. They have caused the very ability to effectively, correctly speak about political positions to be destroyed.
Even the “left” is another cloak. A brand name that is being used by people who seek to establish no particular political position. Their only cause is power, personal power. The “left” is simply the most readily available and useful vehicle to get there. Fascist is probably the closest term we have to think about their “brand”. A Prime Divider (h/t dicentra) society is their goal with themselves being on top of course.
Ric, I would hope, though, that by positing the liberal/leftist dichotomy, we could hope to bring them/some to a rational discussion.
It’s not even Marxism. They don’t have the intellectual discipline for Marxism, or Leninism, which is basically Marxism with Bayonets. What they advocate is a series of hyperreactive, faux-cerebral responses to phenomena which have been part of the human experience since the Neolithic. They believe in something called Social Justice, which like a kodak negative of the old judge’s definition of pornography, you know it when you don’t see it.
Not hating on this guy specifically, but —
That kind, or the “crunchy con” kind, or the “left-libertarian” kind, or the pulling-an-Allah kind of display of anti-con cultural markers is desperate.
There’s a deep, deforming insecurity there that leaks into “policy” eventually (if not already), because among the helpless (e.g., you), policy preference is affiliative. You can’t change what the government does; you can only pick who to side with (or against) in futile objection to it (or superfluous affirmation of it).
When a desperate display of siding against you precedes the “but they do have a point — not them, I mean, but, you know, these prominent antecedents of theirs — not theirs, I mean, but, you know…,” you are not its audience.
How many “Well I voted for Bush and I have a Dylan CD and a Prius and books!” weenies you high-fived four years ago stuck with you when it became Obama vs. Palin? When Rush got Alinsky-ed? When Cheney is getting it now? Two?
How many are OUTLAW!s? None.
Don’t be a prop.
You are correct, Rick Locke. The word “liberal” has been stolen and rendered utterly meaningless. We should understand this first before we try and restore some measure of dignity to the term. If I wrote an essay about how I was gay but not homosexual and furthermore that its wrong to conflate the two, it would just come off as stupid and tedious.
I say we are better off branding the fuckers as liberal and let the word receive the scorn it deserves. Just like if I call you or your clothes gay, its anything but a compliment.
Knowhutimean?
Nice work. I posted this on my facebook page for my”liberal” friends
I posted it on my facebook page too. I don’t think the fuckers should be branded as liberals because I don’t think it’s the word that deserves the scorn.
Has there ever been a shift from Civilized society to a Prime Divider?
Psycho, WTF are you talking about? Every time I read what you say I ask myself why I bother. What the hell does Palin and Rush have to do with Liberal versus Leftist in the article and discussion? Only a Leftist would say that we can’t change what the government does, not a liberal. Are you an American?
The EU is close to it if not past the point of return. I would argue that, for it’s day, the change from the Roman Republic to the Rome of the Caesars was one also. Not everyone was free in Rome but to be a “citizen” meant something in the Republic and not so much after the civil war. YMMV
geoffb, could you point me to the discussion of Prime Divider society you’ve referenced (best of all with a link if you’ve got one, otherwise I’ll chase it down)? I have missed it and would like to get a handle on it.
psycho is terse and elliptical but worth the time and effort to read and try to understand.
Sdferr,
Here for one. Another page. Dicentra brought up the concept in a thread recently and I Googled it.
Thanks much geoff, I appreciate your help.
Sorry I can’t seem to find the PW thread where dicentra mentioned it.
psycho is terse and elliptical but worth the time and effort to read and try to understand.
Seconded.
More specifically, what I think psycho is picking up on is the self denial inherent in the protestations and litanies. The left has so poisoned the notion of being traditional or mainstream that people will go to great lengths to avoid being pigeon holed as a dreaded cultural conservative. Even if the culture you seek to conserve is inherently liberal.
geoffb
thank you for the links, great reads. From the first, under Prime Divider, this leaped out
Perfect example of American entertainment and university cultures, regardless of the lipservice they give to wanting to “help the little people” … they are the first in line to ridicule and trash any commoner that doesn’t defer to them.
We’ve seen this very behavior manifested here at PW on many, many occasions.
ThomasD, the last two sentences rock.
Mind if I borrow them?
Strong’s liberalism is classically tragic. It contains elements of classical liberalism, but it also comprises modernist sentiments that are the seeds of its own destruction. They resulted in the melding of contemporary leftism and classical liberalism into one.
Modernist liberalism motivates disconnection with Natural Law as it promotes indivdual liberty. Having lost validation of mores with a reference to Natural Law, it develops a cultural morality that is mere fashion following the dictates of its elite, an elite which seeks to preserve its status with bread and circuses. It results in assertion of pleasure as the common good, and that, in turn, develops inversion of Natural Law’s right and wrong. We are pretty much there today.
The frightening aspect of this state of affairs, is that this state is not sustainable. Human nature being as it is, unmooring it from true moral norms results not in greater liberty, but in less, as the culture can enforce order only with physical force or its threat of use: a significant number of society’s members will refuse to comply with norms because their personal culture permitted noncompliant but morally superior behavior.
And so it goes.
“The fact is that liberals desperately need to re-think their ideas. They need to return to liberalism…” -Strong
Strong is saying liberal means classical liberal, and this is not what Wells had in mind when he coined the term “liberal fascism” from my reading of LF. I’d be happy to read it again and discuss further, but ‘classical liberal’ fascism is oxymoronic at best and a contradiction in terms otherwise.
Strong ignores the meaning of the term “liberal,” as perceived by the dense and non-dense alike, when those whose intent when saying liberal is clearly leftist.
Does the speaker’s intent mean anything or matter at all in any way, in this instance?
Ah, the elite is all for the Idea of the Common Man.
Actually talking to a common man is really icky and hard, though. And they look like they might smell funny.
I didn’t find psycho’s comment to be confusing in the least.
Hey, the guy’s a curmudgeon. Every group should have one. Groups without curmudgeons include: lemmings, the Peoples Temple, and moveon.org.
L. Strauss’ analysis of Modern Natural Right teaching (Natural Right and History, 5A, p. 169) asserts Hobbes teaching begins with an hedonistic assumption — Hobbes agrees with Epicurus — “He accepts [the Epicurian] view that man is by nature or originally an a-political and even an a-social animal, as well as the premise that the good is fundamentally identical with the pleasant. [there follows an important footnote of explanation that I haven’t recounted here — sdferr]”
This line of reasoning is quite complex in Strauss’ argument taken as a whole, but well worth the effort to understand.
easyliving, the speaker’s or writer’s intent is always going to have a priority around here, which is why when you asked
I took you to be asking about Goldberg, not Strong, as you made no mention of Strong at all. In any case, how would what Strong has to say invalidate Goldberg’s straightforward citation of Wells? Strong, in the quote you’ve just cited: “The fact is that liberals [a] desperately need to re-think their ideas. They need to return to liberalism… [b]â€, seems to be referring to “liberals”[a] as the political left [progressives] we know and love today, who have been referring to themselves as liberals since before I was born, and “liberalism”[b] as the classical liberalism of A.Smith, J.Locke, J.S.Mill, et al, so when you say “Strong is saying liberal means classical liberal…” I don’t think you’ve got that altogether right: after all, what need would an actual “classical liberal” have of “…a desperate need to rethink…” or for that matter, what “…need to return…” to a way of thinking that they have not ceased to do?
I didn’t get that. What I’m seeing is that he isn’t aiming his essay at us — he’s pointing it toward the academics and sloppy thinkers who have allowed leftism to take over “liberal” as a self-label and continue to use it in thoughtless “good faith”. As such, he has to throw them some bones or no-one in his target audience will take him seriously.
TheGeezer’s comment is much more on target. “Tolerance” means “I don’t like this, but I’ll put up with it.” If “liberal” means extending that to “this is just different, neither better nor worse” it leads to societal breakdown. There has to be a basis; the current debate is whether or not this requires a Deity, and the debate is by no means completed.
Regards,
Ric
This line of reasoning is also known as “the pursuit of happiness”.
Man, I hate to bring up Nietzsche again but this is where he identifies a fundamental truth. He just misidentifies it as Christian in origin.
Originally, what was good for a man was good. But, with agriculture and moving into cities, we reversed that for stability. Unfortunately, we changed all of it rather than half of it. The common good became dominant, rather than a consideration.
And, that’s the point of Natural Law and Rights. It once again gave individuals the prerogative they once had implicitly. It stand squarely against the collective or those speaking for the divine or the monarch and said, no, it is inherently moral for a man to act in his own interest. The societal balance is properly found in men recognizing these individual rights in others as well.
Would you agree with this, sdferr?
Here, finally found the reference to Prime Divider by dicentra.
We might say, for instance, that God is beyond good and evil, but that the corollary [for F. N.] is that, there is no God [Christian or otherwise, it matters not] to whom to appeal. For most, all else is trapped in a conventional application of good, over here, and evil, over there.
Which, for my money, doesn’t, can’t, get at any necessarily universal Natural Right.
Geezer, I understand what you’re about. Treacher was backing Carrie Prejean’s claim that she was punished for using her 1st Amendment rights, and people were saying that that didn’t protect her from (even vile) criticism. I pointed out that the backlash was not a matter of depriving her of her rights, but that the founders probably would find it hard to conceive of a society in which a gay man and his media enablers could get away with roughing up a beauty queen in that way for expressing an opinion, because . . . they fucked up. They trusted us.
I was a bit sloppy with my second paragraph at #49 but no matter, as you sometimes bring up the “no physis in the Bible”, I know I didn’t confuse you. I meant to say that the truth Nietzsche came across with his transmutation of values formulation was an almost unavoidable consequence of moving from tribes to cities. And, all religions and societies had to deal with this, not just Christianity.
Hey, guess what? Gotta run, finish making some preparations, and get all cleaned up… because I’m popping the question tonight! Wish me luck. Man, I’m so unbelievably nervous.
It is to be hoped you are politically correctly gay.
You should be nervous, for were you not, I’d think something was queered. :-)!
In all earnest, Good times and good fortune to you and your hoped to be bride Jer.
Oh, how exciting. Good luck!
[…] Dan Collins @ PW crossed from […]
Thanks, buddy. We’ll see what she says. And if I forget the ring or have my fly open all night.
Thanks, Carin.
Okay, definitely have to go now.
Wow, best of luck. Please pop back in if you have the chance and update.
The Natural Right teaching we have been handed began somewhere. Prior to that beginning, it did not exist, or, put another way, hadn’t been recognized and articulated. It has an origin. So, if we want to know what the heck it is we expect to be dealing with when we are dealing with natural right, we’ll likely want to start at the beginning (and fortunately for us, that beginning has been sufficiently preserved down the centuries / not lost altogether, though much matter bearing on the subject may have been lost in fact.) Nietzsche starts in a latter place, a place where the possibility of grasping nature well enough to use it as a ground of all human affairs has been lost or defeated. (Which it happens, we are, in a sense, forced to share with him, for now.)
Still, as far as natural right goes, I think it’s best to start back at the start, see where it comes from, see where it goes to, how it changes down the ages and why (whereupon we will run into F. N. among others) and how we’ve come to be here. But that beginning is vastly different from the teaching the founders took as their model.
The difference between liberalism and leftism is, we haven’t gotten rid of all the damned liberals yet.
Did anyone download FLOW’s .ppt presentation, located at the bottom of his essay? I’m troubled by the transition from the second slide to the third. The author isn’t clear, exactly, who and why one should visit dragonland.
bh. Best wishes, an adventure awaits you both, the best one in life.
I downloaded it. I’m unsure what he considers to be “personal freedom” as opposed to “economic freedom” and how you can have one with out the other. To me they both seem to travel together.
Ever since the left, started by Stalin for his own purposes, muddled up the positions of various political groups the whole Left/Right, Up/Down has never worked out except to the one doing the chart.
Good luck, bh.
Game,set and match to the guy who invented the FLOW schools. The essay was so good that I forgot his name.
She said yes!
She had mentioned a couple times before that she found proposals in front of friends and family to be romantic. So I took advantage of her family reunion this weekend.
She was wearing a new dress and smiling at me all night so I’m pretty sure she’ll explain tomorrow how she knew all along. When I left, she was laughing and talking with her sisters and aunts and her father shook my hand and clapped me on the shoulder. Tomorrow, I will meet a couple dozen new relatives and try to remember all the names.
Thanks for the nice thoughts beforehand, everyone.
Well done (old fart!). Best that your girl is happy, may you keep her so.
Many thanks, Stephen. I hope to.
“…pretty sure she’ll explain tomorrow how she knew all along…” It is uncanny at times how well les femmes read the vibes (or was that hear the DrumsBeatsofaRacingHeart?). Whichever, many’s the time I’ve stood in wonder.
You’re right, it is uncanny. At restaurants or parties, she’ll often tell me what random people are thinking. That is a downright odd ability.
Just how sneaky were you, bh? Did you go to great lengths to hide your doings (ring buying and such) or not so much?
Not sure.
A few weeks ago, we had a half-joking, half-serious discussion about the practicalities of married life. How many kids? How would they be raised? Who would sell their house? It was mainly a humorous conversation on the couch while we were watching a movie.
It got stuck in my head though and “could get married” turned into “should get married” turned into “how do I best propose in the immediate future”. Took about two days in my head.
So, yeah, as to the details, I was pretty sneaky. At the same time, it’s not that hard to imagine her dropping a pebble into the water a few weeks ago and watching the ripples make it to the shore.
Not that hard to imagine dropping a pebble I’m doing a quick translation on that reads hard to imagine not dropping etc.
Heh, yeah. I hope she continues to use these powers for good rather than evil.
bh/
good 4 u
congrats
Thanks, pd, much appreciated.
I’m about to open my one bottle of blue, blended Scotch and listen to some Coltrane.
Good times.
i’m being sarcastic
i’m paraphrasing monty python
are u gonna base that on
some farcical ceremony
involving some watery tart[pebbles/ lady of the lake)
all in good fun
[…] via Protein-Wisdom […]
ahn, congrats bh. you gonna let me come sing “Why don’t we get drunk?”
Hey! How did I miss this?
Congratulations, bh!
“Psycho” is a fucking moron. If he cared about the points he’s trying to make, he’d go for clarity. If there are points buried inside his word salad, he’s doing them disservice.
Congratulations, bh!
CONGRATS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I hope you have enjoyed your life up to this point … ;-)
Thanks, everyone!
It’s very much appreciated. Best commenters in the world, here at pw.