From: Jonathan Davis (jonathan.davis@lineone.net)
Date: Sun Sep 28 2003 - 09:12:11 MDT
"[Roger Scruton] has a reputation as a first class professional
philosopher among other academics of all political persuasions" guardian
profile quoted in your earlier hatchet job post [
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4082791,00.html ].
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Hermit
Sent: 27 September 2003 22:56
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re:virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
[Jonathan Davis 1] You, like Kharin, have stooped to defamation over
content. Scruton is a first and foremost an philosopher, and a superb one at
that. I can testify to this as I have read the book in question.
[Hermit 2] Nope. Scruton isn't a "superb" philosopher. He is a media figure
who plays the role of a philosopher on programs appealing to Fux TV viewers.
He is probably most famous for accepting money from Japan Tobacco
International to write pro-smoking articles in the various newspapers that
murder trees on his behalf. And then getting found out. Said newspapers
ended up sacking him for his pains. (Kharin's contribution.)
[Jonathan 3] The tobacco thing is completely irrelevant. It was a crude
attempt at the same sort of well poisoning I complained about earlier.
[Hermit 4] It is not at all irrelevant. Neither was it poisoning the well.
The man takes short cuts in all directions and uses his spurious "authority"
to make a never ending stream of assertions accepted approvingly only by
people infested with a similar political ideology. His work is not regarded
as exceptional by any significant academic group and his character is viewed
as flawed. The mention of his history suffices to prove that this is neither
a stretch nor a new phenomenon. In science at least, but in academia
generally in my experience, reputation is jealously guarded, because you
have only one. Scrunton has one, but it smells a bit like last week's hake.
[Jonathan 4] You claim the man takes short cuts yet you offer no support for
the ad hominem. It was you who took the shortcut by prejudging the book by
its title. Here you do nothing but make desperate and false claims about
Scruton:
Claim: Scruton's work is not regarded as exceptional by any significant
academic group.
Comment: Scruton's work is acknowledged highly exceptional and downright
brilliant by scholars across the world. I can prove this, but I would prefer
to do so AFTER you have defined "academic group" and demonstrated how one
can show a scholar to be considered exception by such a group. How do you
respond to the claim in the Guardian profile posted above?
Claim: The man takes short cuts in all directions and uses his spurious
"authority" assertions accepted approvingly only by people *infested* with a
similar political ideology.
Comment: I invite you to support this claim of yours. It is you who is
making a stream of claims about Scruton which are completely false
(bordering on the hilarious). In the book in question, touted by some as a
modern classic, Scruton is acknowledged by writers on the left and right as
having delivered a superb, highly argued analysis. You however are GUESSING
because you have not even read the book.
Claim: Scruton's reputation stinks
Comment: I have already posted some comments by reviewers on Scruton and his
work that show this to be a bald lie. He is a widely acknowledged master of
his craft and one of Britain greatest living philosophers. He is a
contrarian, iconoclast and heterodox. One day he will be a Virian saint, or
at least should be.
[Jonathan Davis 1] Why you inserted the irrelevant comments about race
consciousness I do not know. Redefining the out-group is easy when I can
force you into the in-group at spear point.
[Hermit 2] Not when the tip is irrefutably entangled somewhere in your own
anatomy.
[Jonathan 3] Yes, but why did you put it in?
[Hermit 4] If you meant the tip, I think it was a self inflicted injury on
your part.
[Jonathan 4] I use firearms, I am not a savage after all. Now, why did you
insert that material on race consciousness? Please answer the question.
[Hermit 4] If about Toynbee, then perhaps you don't realise that Scruton
only has one song, and this is of his neverending nostalgia for a supreme
Anglican Western world he imagines was superior to every other culture and
any other time. This has many serious problems, but the most glaring is that
the world he writes about in rounded periods has never existed except in his
imagination, A counter exanple should have served to show that his
assertions are invalid. The UK practically invented modern racism, and
Christianity was responsible for the preservation of ignorance and bigotry
until well into the "enlightenment." As Toynbee indicated the values Scruton
wishes to reserve for the west were held by the Muslim much earlier. So much
for Scrunton.
[Hermit 2] Having told two people whom you regularly characterize as
intelligent, fair, experienced and articulate that they are engaging in
defamation - which you should recognise is always stupid - something seems
to be out of kilter.
[Jonathan 3] Not at all. There is no deliberate malice on your or Kharin's
part. I see such things as mistakes, rhetorical devices that are unfair.
[Hermit 4] No. I (and I am certain Kharin) both are quite capable of looking
at a charletan and identifying him as such to the satisfation of anyone
prepared to either accept what we illustrate, or doing the necessary
research to validate it for themselves. Neither of us delude ourselves that
those unprepared to challenge their preconceptions will derive any benefit
from what we say. But warning people that Scruton is a loathsome, second
rate hack preaching to a clearly identified choir is a long way from
"defamation".
[Jonathan 4] I suspect you and Karin both attacked the book because you
prejudged it based on its title and the previous defamation of the author by
left-wing politicos. It was a mistake on your part and you have been
fighting a retreat ever since. You have not read the book, but instead fly
in the face of your supposed sceptical credentials and judge it by its
cover. What is even more telling is that you utterly dismissed my
recommendation. My authority counts for naught with you. It is useful to
know where I stand and how radical you are. You chose to attacked
reflexively and in bad faith. I am making you part for it now. Karin was
sensibly left this in alone.
[Hermit 2] My recommendation was for you to read some Toynbee in order to
try to get a better handle on history before you decide that Scruton
represents a pinnacle of historical excellence upon which you can base your
entire opinion of the field.
[Jonathan 3] That is completely fair, but not what you said (or at least
what was communicated to me). Firstly, I would have corrected you: I was not
basing my my entire opinion of any field on any one person or book.
[Hermit 4] Given that the arguments you raised are not new, seem derivitive,
and have deceived nobody I have met with actual knowledge of the situations
they involve, I concluded you were propagating an opinion based on your
acceptance of the authority of Scranton's book you claim to have read.
[Jonathan 4] Here you make yet another dries of mistakes, escorted by
fallacies and gelled together by ad hominem. I recommended a book to Karin.
You and he attacked the book and its author (in fact worse, you attacked
other books by the same author!). You did not be anything on argument
because you have not read the book, neither is Kharin. Instead you chose
your customary mode of attack - ad hominem. I am patiently exposing your
methods and being cheered for it off list. Scruton's arguments are utterly
compelling, but you would not know would you? You have not read them. You
are acting in by *faith*. Shame on you, and you a putative sceptic who mikes
up his own mind huh.
[Hermit 4] Given your advocacy of Scranton as providing "answers", I
reached the further tentative conclusion that you were singing the same song
as Scrunton. If that is not the case I'd appreciate your attempting to
explain why you saw fit to mislead us about your motivations?
[Jonathan 4] I agree strongly with Scruton on some matters. Read the book
and find out why.
[Jonathan 3] Secondly, I recommend Scruton's book "To understand why these
agreements are being undermined". These agreements referred to certain
agreements and notions in western politics. Scruton examines what happens to
consensus models when pre-political loyalties are dissolved.
[Hermit 4] The people turn away from Jesus, the world goes to hell in a
handbasket, and it is the end of civilization as he imagines it. We know
that. But why did you advocate this perspective and Scrunton's book if you
disagree with Scrunton? Conversely, why do you attempt to reject the
importance of Scrunton in forming your views if you are indeed singing the
same song?
[Jonathan 4] Hermit, this is pure straw man. He says nothing of the sort. I
invite you to support these claims (like so many of these challenges, I
expect silence or evasion from you). I have not rejected Scruton in forming
my views. He an I do indeed sing the same song at times (on other matters I
do not agree with him at all. You should understand that, you know
black/white/grey and all). The problem is that you in your profound
ignorance and prejudice have no idea of what that song is because you have
not read the work we are discussing, and even if you do now you will never
be able to admit I am right because of this confrontation.
[Jonathan Davis 1] As a scientist, sceptic and atheist perhaps you would be
better advised expounding on Toynbee's "use of myths and metaphors as being
of comparable value to factual data and his reliance on a view of religion
as a regenerative force" http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=406334
[Hermit 2] Perhaps you were unaware that Toynbee was an atheist and a
skeptic - and probably the first historian to attempt a modern scientific
approach to history on a grand scale (i.e. looking at the macro-event
level). Perhaps that is why I appreciate him.
[Jonathan 1] I will try and get hold of some of his volumes or perhaps an
abridged work.
[Hermit 2] Look in a mirror. Observing that myth and metaphor is important
and plays a huge role in life and history is no more, and certainly no less,
than what the CoV is engaged in. What else is "memetics" other than myth,
metaphor and their effects on their carriers.
[Jonathan 3] Perhaps. That is a different albeit interesting discussion
perhaps as a topic for a chat.
[Hermit 2] In any case, I suggest that somebody's perspective is flawed and
that cognitive dissonance is almost certainly at work. Particularly when it
comes to your repeatedly rejected strange idea that I advocate any Theistic
religions. The difference between you and I, it seems, is that I condemn
them all equally, rather than reserving a fondness for the Anglicans. This
includes recognizing that your (and that of your sources) blanket
condemnation of Middle Eastern and Asian culture is rooted in your
apparently shallow perspective. Had you been brought up in, e.g. The PRC,
your opinion would no doubt be different. Which allows me to condemn your
judgements, They are not measured, but are rooted in cultural prejudice.
[Jonathan 3] Here you revert to the standard charge that those who disagree
with you suffer from a pathology of some sort. I do not blanket condemn
anything. Neither does Scruton. It would be useful if you could serve some
examples as I do not think they exist.
[Hermit 4] What pathology? I have told you repeatedly that I don't support
any Theistic systems, but reject all of them equally. You continuously
repeat your assertion that I prefer Islam (with the nasty insinuation that I
am a traitor to my self).
[Jonathan 4] Here you are projecting (to use that awful psychology term).
You make a series of claims about me. I reject them and you come straight
beck at me saying it is me making claims about you. This is the mirror
method. Re-read the three paragraphs above. They tell their own story.
As for you and Islam, I think it is a simple use of my enemies enemy is my
friend.
[Hermit 4] So something must be preventing you from comprehending my simple
straightforward words. That something is called cognitive dissonance.
[Jonathan 4] Round and around. Same old charge. "You disagree, you must be
dilly!"
[Hermit 4] And it is morphological rather than pathological. Your brain
keeps telling you that what you see must match what you believe - or it
should be rejected. The mechanism is well understood. Indeed your accusation
that I "charge that those who disagree with you suffer from a pathology of
some sort" and that this is standard, is simply your cognitive dissonance
getting in the way again. You are misinterpreting reality and I suggest that
it is apparent to most of the people reading this.
[Jonathan 4] Here you keep up chant that I am somehow insane or suffering
cognitive dissonance. It is a convenient ad hominem, but you have spent
yourself with this tactic. What you do not know and (or maybe cognitive
dissonance gets you) is that your reputation for using bullying ad homimens
is the single biggest complaint about you. This thuggery blights your
otherwise great work. You can choose to believe me or not. I don't care
because I know it to be true. You would do well to believe it.
[Hermit 4] If you knew more about the non-Western world, it would seem to me
that you should be able to do a better job of perceiving the world as
projected through their perspective.
[Jonathan 3] You can label me or my perspective whatever you like (shallow
etc.) The vehemence of your contempt does not actually help your arguments
all. I could, but shall not, make exactly the same plausible claims about
you that you are making about me. It is specious and unhelpful.
[Hermit 4] When an analysis is based in understanding the motivations of the
protagonists, then it has validity. But the perspective that you and Scruton
portray is not based on that at all. Rather, at least in Scruton's case, it
is based in the fact that they are not nicely behaved democratic Anglican's.
In your case, the statements you have made about Islam lead me to think that
you don't understand it sufficiently to condemn it effectively.
[Jonathan 4] Here you are exposing yourself again as buffoon. Your
prejudices about Scruton (and me?) Are driving you into a cognitive trap.
You seem unable to free yourself from mad notions about what Scruton is
said. You are in no position to judge me on anything, least of all Islam or
politics. Your biases are the butt of jokes. Read Scruton and take a pop at
your own armoured prejudices. You and Scruton agree on much. It is only your
prejudices that prevent you from discovering an ally.
[Jonathan Davis 1] Or is your selective quoting of Toynbee just a case of a
quoting another set of scriptures for one's own purposes?
[Hermit 2] The man was prodigiously productive, having written upwards of
100 works, many of them seminal. I recall your complaining of a few
paragraphs of summary recently - on the grounds you had no time to read
them. If you don't want a flood which will make Dees look restrained, I
suggest that you be glad that I am selective.
[Jonathan 3] You may be incontinent if you choose. I do have delete but
after all and a fast internet connection.
[Hermit 4] Not everyone here has. Quotation serves no purpose if it is not
read (I have a delete key). And it seems to me that you are the person most
likely to complain that you don't have the time to read a few paragraphs to
be able to argue on a factual basis (see e.g. the discussion on the
instantiation of the Universe).
[Jonathan 4] I need to be careful about what I choose to discuss. A sense of
duty will drive me to fight the good fight on any matter, so I prefer to
keep it on topics I am interested in. As for the discussion on the
instantiation of the Universe, my points were made and accepted. That you
chose to build and then bash a straw man was nothing to do with me.
[Hermit 2] As for quoting Toynbee, he serves as a counterpoise to Scruton
and Co, reminding you of their "western universalist" position. While your
knowledge of Islamic history as portrayed here is so flawed as to render
discussion meaningless until you obtain a better background, bigotry and
prejudicial interpretations abound, and you seem to have soaked up and in
consequence appear to be advocating some percentage of it.
[Jonathan 3] Instead of calling me names and talking up your boy Toynbee,why
don't you do something substantive like support an assertion or craft an
argument?
[Hermit 3] Toynbee is not anybody's, "boy". Toynbee is regarded as
significant. A search on google for "historiography Toynbee" will show you
why. Toynbee and Wells founded the twentieth century school of
Historiography. Toynbee, Wells, Spengler, Krober, Malinowski and McNeill are
regarded as the primary modern historians, and a reference to any citation
index will reflect that most academics regard Toynbee as the most
significant of them. Your slighting references to Toynbee, like your
comments about Islam, point to an almost total lack of knowledge of the
field.
[Jonathan 4] Your boy Toynbee is yesterdays man. A titan in the world of
myth making and narrative historiography, a crypto-theist, and Gibbon clone.
Free up bandwidth for something useful. Ditch this discredited dinosaur. No
serious historians can even cite him, so low has his reputation sunk.
Toynbeeism has degraded into World Systems Theory and is a laughing stock.
You whiter on about Toynbee as though he is a Messiah and his ten volumes
holy books. It is like Goggling Jesus loves and asking me to believe that
Jesus exists and two that he loved.
In honour of Jewish new year, Toynbee Schmoynbee*
[Jonathan 3] You make claims about Toynbee, yet I read he is a buffoon. I
give you (and Toynbee) the benefit of the doubt, you respond with name
calling. I am not allowed to mention your bigotries and prejudices in case
you accuse me of risking your life.
[Hermit 3] I am probably one of the least bigoted and prejudiced people you
are likely to meet.
[Jonathan 4] ROFL!!!! Yeah yeah yeah
[Jonathan Davis 1] I find it delightfully ironic that you approving quote
Toynbee's reference to Islamic universalism -namely the surrendered are all
equal before Allah (hence no need for other classifications like race or
nation), yet for Toynbee "the West's universalist pretensions" are
disgusting.
[Hermit 2] Think about what you say - or better, research it. Preferably not
in a book written by an ahl al-q'itab with his own problems - and writing
out of field. Who defeated the alchemists and Jews of Medieval Europe? Where
did they flee? What is the purpose of jizya? Can somebody "conquered" be
subjected to "Dhimmitude" and "equal in surrender"? I know the answers. Do
you?
[Jonathan 3] Yes. The answer is 42. This display of cut and paste
"learning" does not wash. Scruton crafts superb arguments based on real
learning. Hint: That is the way you can earn my respect.
[Hermit 4] Without understanding that "Dhimmitude" can only occur in people
who have surrendered (not been conquered!) and that the alchemists and Jews
of Europe fled the persecution of the Christians to the havens of Moorish
nations, where they were absorbed into the population, the only difference
between them and the moors being that they paid a poll tax, jizya, in order
to make up for the fact that the Muslims donated to charities providing
social services as a part of the beliefs on a voluntary basis, you wouldn't
understand how ignorant of Islam your question made you appear.
[Jonathan 4] You forget your own masters, O' pupil. It was I who gave you
your most thorough introduction to Dhimmis an Dhimmitude by back in 2001
when we were debating Afghanistan ["Look up Dhimmitude." I instructed in the
thread "Civilized behaviour? was On the "bright wisdom" of our mainstream
politician"]. Given that one of my all time favourite writers is sir John
Glubb, one of the greatest Arabist, a man on whom the honoraries like
"Pascha" were bestowed by the Arabs, I am a great believer in the Babylon
model, protected minorities and over-arcing moral/political order in
multicultural states.
But it is useful to post now what I posted two years ago when you true the
same tack:
The much vaunted Muslim tolerance of Dhimmis.
http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/dhimma.html
"His words tellingly describe the fate of non-Muslims living under Islamic
rule --
"dhimmitude". His assassination in itself is an example of the fact that the
condition of
dhimmitude was one of abasement and humiliation, and was maintained by
severe punishment
of all those challenged it.
Islamic law divides mankind into three groups:
a.. the believers;
b.. the dhimmis, the followers of other monotheistic faiths (like Judaism,
Christianity,
and sometimes Zoroastrianism)
c.. and the infidels (polytheists, Hindus).
While kafirs merit immediate death, dhimmis can live under Islam, provided
they agree to
abide by a humiliating pact called the dhimma, which involves several of the
disabilities
Gemayel has referred to in his speech, and many others. The people of India
should
technically have been kafirs (and thus despatched long ago), but were too
powerful - so
powerful that the school of Islamic law current in India (the Hanbalite law)
decided to
grant dhimmitude to the kafirs of India. Some of the humiliating conditions
that the
dhimmis were subject to involved:
a.. A poll tax - the jeziya
b.. Vestimentary discriminations (dhimmis have to wear distinctive
clothing, so that
they could be distinguished from the Muslims
c.. Prohibition of the right to bear arms
d.. Prohibition of the right to repair houses of worship
e.. Discrimination in matters of testimony - dhimmi testimony would not be
acceptable as
equal to that of the believers
f.. Dhimmis had to convert to Islam upon marrying a Muslim, for the
marriage to be valid
g.. A convert to Islam would automatically inherit all the family wealth,
to the
detriment of family members who remained dhimmis
But perhaps the most significant problem was the psychological effect of
dhimmitude on the
dhimmis. Dhimmis who learned to endure these disabilities had to learn to
see things from
the point of view of their Muslim overlords. Their lands were turned by
jihad into fayy -
a trust which the Muslim Umma held for posterity. The dhimmis were reduced
to the position
of subalterns in their own ancient homelands, notwithstanding their long and
glorious
history, which may have involved far greater things than camel herding. They
grew to hate
themselves, and pretend to the world that all is well. They mocked at the
world, which was
a perennial reminder of the reality, and the world in turn mocked at them by
ignoring
their plight. This has been the fate of the Hindus of Kashmir. This has been
the fate of
the Hindus of all India. The way out is the way suggested by President
Gemayel to his
people.
Ref: The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam, Bat Ye'Or, Fairleigh
Dickinson
University Press, 1985 "
From
http://www.swordoftruth.com/swordoftruth/archives/byauthor/sohailbanglori/d.
html
I posted this on the 3rd October 2001. My how cyclical things are. Maybe
Toynbee got one thing right?
[Hermit 4] And I suggest that your comments about Toynbee, and my 'cut and
paste "learning"' make it appear that you wouldn't recognise "real learning"
even if somebody force fed you on it. Respect is important, but seeking
respect from the incapable is the hallmark of a terribly insecure person. So
you may keep yours, an you will.
[Jonathan 4] I do not seek your respect, neither do I seek reflected respect
according to who I champion. You cut an paste verbiage to overwhelm and
tire. It is a tactic that works on some, fools others. I am immune, and I
have noticed you have nearly stopped doing it with me. Looks like that of
training manual works!
[Jonathan Davis 1] I am alarmed that how you are so forgiving and even
admiring of our deadliest and fastest growing competitor - Islam. Do you
really mean to side with this militant religion against our secular, Western
model of politics?
[Hermit 2] You shouldn't be alarmed. You certainly shouldn't imagine that
Islam is deadly - except in a rather boring sense. Like any other belief
system, its adherents adapt it to fit their situation and justify their
actions. When living repressed in a brutal environment, it can be used to
justify suicide bombing.
[Jonathan 3] Yes. The problem is that actions are often unjustified and
reasons faulty. Being a pampered fat and rich Saudi can justify attacks on
towers. The justifications can be as bizarre and they are numerous.
[Hermit 4] The reasons were clearly articulated. The trouble is not that
reasons were in short supply, but that the complaints were ignored and the
causes exacerbated. Have you noticed that some of the "message" of 911 got
through? The last US combat forces were recently withdrawn from Saudi
Arabia, and the US has apparently been trying (ineffectively, but trying) to
do something about their rogue Israeli friends and the Isreali Palestinian
situation. Your sneering dismissal of bin Laden, whose competence is proven,
only makes you look silly and is the kind of attitude which tends to lead to
the kind of situation the US is in today with all the world arrayed against
her.
[Jonathan 4] As I noted elsewhere, things are going very well for us (that
is people like me). Islamic terror is disrupted, hundreds of terrorist
caught or dead. Whole countries liberated. So much achieved in such a short
time! As for everyone arranged against the USA, what new? The big guy is
always the villain (see British Empire). Enmity is not new, only the US
finally pushing back after 50 years of having to careful because of the
Soviets. Time to even the score a bit.
Who know the real objectives of the WTC attackers? We can only guess. They
wanted an isolationist cowered America licking he wounds. Instead they and
their brethren are getting their arses kicked across the globe. Long may it
continue.
[Hermit 2] Just as Christianity justified revolution in England and the
forcing of China to purchase opium from the English
[Jonathan 3] The Opium Wars were part of the larger British Empire strategy
of forcing global trade. It has next to nothing to do with Christianity.
[Hermit 4] As usual, your pronouncements are utterly wrong.
[Jonathan 4] As usual, you start with an insulting and false claim. Then you
fail to follow through with fact or argument.
[Hermit 4] The missionaries were right in the thick of it. Read some Twain
or search on google for "missionaries opium". Either might open your eyes.
Look particularly for articles mentioning Robert Morrison and Karl Friedrich
Gutz both missionaries pushing bibles and opium while employed by the East
India company along with appeals from "Chinese Christians" for the British
to act against the Q'ing.
[Jonathan 4] That Christians were present and profiting as a side effect of
the action is the "next to nothing" bit. The historical forces driving the
war was global commerce, not Christianity. I might say the Crusades were
about commerce because merchants used the secured trade routes ply trade.
[Hermit 2] and apartheid lead to the necklacing of teachers by "rational
atheistic humanists"
[Jonathan 3] Those teachers were necklaced by bloodlust aroused mobs
scapegoating.
[Hermit 4] Deliberately engineered and instigated by the ANC as part of
their "No education before normalization" campaign to make the country
ungovernable. The degree of success achieved by this campaign are tragically
visible today. But the bloodshed was directly attributable to the ANC
leadership (including the Sainted Mandela).
[Jonathan 3] Indeed. Point?
[Hermit 2] and economic crises and belief in racial superiority lead the US
to justify nuking Japan.
[Jonathan 3] I don't man to object to your examples. I know it is bad
manners and distracting, but how can you justify this sort of statement. It
strikes me as..well..a joke? An economic crisis in 1945? Racial superiority
justified the bomb? Are you for real?
[Hermit 4] Economic considerations in the 1920s lead to the isolation of
Japan and interdiction of her access to raw materials, particularly oil.
This, together with FDRs strategy to get into the war by provoking Japan
into attacking America and the Allies lead to the Japanese involvement in WW
II. Truman, a fundamentalist Christian, whose prejudii and desire for
"Christian leaders" (which accounts for Chiang, the only Christian warlord
in China and another fundamentalist Refer e.g.
http://www.monarch.net/users/miller/ww2/history/allied.html). arguably
contributed massively to the communist take-over of China and the Korean and
Vietnamese debacles confided to his diary, "Uncle Harry hates the heathen
nips, and so do I". Truman, who overrode his staff and the military in
deciding to nuke Japan, undoubtedly agreed with Fleet Admiral William
Halsey's regret that the war "ended too soon because there are too many Nips
left". This has been discussed at great length on the CoV previously.
Consult our archives. As I mentioned to Jubangalord, I reccomend Arthur
Goddard's Harry Elmer Barnes Learned Crusader: The New History in Action
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879260025/thechurchofvirusA) in
order to counter a US-centric education. Review here -
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard27.html - and the review itself
is well worth wading through for the gems which it includes (and which are
not all in the book).
[Jonathan 4] This is another tactic of yours. Throw a book at someone and
say "My argument is in there". This does not wash. Your chain of facts is
too far far too tenuous and the arguments specious. Please, succinctly,
justify your claim:
"Economic crises and belief in racial superiority lead the US to justify
nuking Japan"
Go on then, in your own words.
[Hermit 4] I recommend you go to the above review, search for "One of
Barnes' most important contributions to Cold War Revisionism" and read that
and the following 4 or 5 paragraphs which pertain to the bombing.
[Hermit 2] When times are better, the very same beliefs might lead to quiet
discussions over tea and cucumber sandwiches with the Imam.
[Jonathan 3] Yes. Humans are situational creatures.
[Hermit 4] So when the situation is ghastly, people react badly. Condemning
the societies which arise from such situations is not appropriate or
helpful. Neither is attempting to "defeat" such societies. Only by altering
the situation can you expect to see any change in the people involved.
[Jonathan 4] Obviously those people create their own societies. If I
challenge the cultural assumptions, ignorance or stupidity that underlies
what makes their society ghastly, it might be seen as defeating their
society but it is actually defeating their oppressor within.
[Hermit 2] As a second issue, you need to read the news from time to time.
[Jonathan 3] On the contrary, I need to read it less. I have such a range of
sources and feeds that I tire from analysing them all.
[Hermit 4] Then how do you imagine that the twin debacles, Afghanistan and
Iraq are doing well, that the threat of terrorism is reduced, or that
current US strategy has improved the global outlook for peace? e.g.
Jonathan Davis, "Unilateralism", Reply #2, 2003-09-27
(http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=293
36) "Everything is working out beautifully."
[Jonathan 4] Afghanistan and Iraq have been liberated. They are both
transforming quickly (benchmark this against German in 1946). Terrorism is
greatly reduced with no major attacks in the west since 9/11. Israel is more
secure. We are more secure. Teething problems in Iraq and Afghanistan are to
be expected. I read reports of great work on the ground. Both sets of people
have a chance now. If they blow it ,it is their own fault - in Afghanistan,
back to the primitive horror they have he for 2000 years. In Iraq, back to
despotism - but Western friendly. As good a deal as any. It is up to them.
[Hermit 2] Neither of the two global "B"s (i.e. the smirking chimp and his
poodle) hide the fact that they were called by a Middle Eastern god to save
the world from itself. So much for a secular Western model of politics.
[Jonathan 3] Using puerile labels for Bush and Blair is fine, if a little
sad. That they think that their actions are ordained in a guess.
[Hermit 4] Not at all.A month after the World Trade Center attack, World
Magazine, a conservative Christian publication, quoted Tim Goeglein, deputy
director of White House public liaison, saying, "I think President Bush is
God's man at this hour, and I say this with a great sense of humility." Time
magazine reported that "Privately, Bush even talked of being chosen by the
grace of God to lead at that moment." The net effect is a theology that
seems to imply that God is intervening in events, is on America's side, and
has chosen Bush to be in the White House at this critical moment. Belief.net
(http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?pageLoc=/story/121/story_12112_1.html
&storyID=12112&boardID=51717) Even more frightening, In the 2003-06-26
Ha'aretz reported, "According to Abbas, Bush said: 'God told me to strike at
al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam,
which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle
East. If you help!
me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus
on them.'"
[Jonathan 4] Because a flunky kisses constituent arse, it dos not translate
into Bush or Blair believing they are messiahs.
[Hermit 4] And as for Blair, [quote]Blair, a committed Christian who keeps
the Bible by his bed, knows he is taking a risk by revealing the importance
he places on religion in informing his politics. He also knows that many of
his key officials feel uncomfortable about the central role that God plays
in his life. There were furrowed brows of consternation when Blair, asked
who he would answer to for the deaths of British soldiers, replied: 'My
Maker'.[/quote The Guardian
(http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1011460,00.html)
Jonathan 4] Again, where does it say Blair believes he is on a mission from
god?
[Jonathan Davis 1] Your words remind me of something Orwell wrote:
[Jonathan Davis 1] "why is it that the worst extremes of jingoism and
racialism have to be tolerated when they come from an Irishman? Why is a
statement like "My country right or wrong" reprehensible if applied to
England and worthy of respect if applied to Ireland (or for that matter to
India)? For there is no doubt that some such convention exists and that
"enlightened" opinion in England can swallow even the most blatant
nationalism so long as it is not British nationalism. Poems like "Rule,
Britannia!" or "Ye Mariners of England" would be taken seriously if one
inserted at the right places the name of some foreign country, as one can
see by the respect accorded to various French and Russian war poets to-day."
[Hermit 2] Actually that could be another example of bigoted jingoism (and
possibly your cognitive dissonance flaring up again). As a half-Scotsman, I
reject the idea that England is synonymous with Great Britain! And if you
had comprehended anything I have written on politics, you would be aware
that I regard all "nationalistic jingoism" as being equally harmful to
humans. Indeed, doubly harmful, in that "nationalism" by itself is a curse,
and "jingoism" a disease of the intellect.
[Jonathan 3] He does not make them synonymous at all so as a half-Scot you
let your nationalism cool again. The paucity of objections suggests you
agree with him.
[Hermit 4] Not at all. I don't know how you can take "I regard all
"nationalistic jingoism" as being equally harmful to humans. Indeed, doubly
harmful, in that "nationalism" by itself is a curse, and "jingoism" a
disease of the intellect." as agreement.
[Jonathan 4] You agree because 1. Orwell shares your views, but importantly
2. The point was about hypocrisy and double standards. You got that right?
You chose to misinterpret me here didn't you? <Jonathan smiles indulgently>
[Hermit 4] speaks directly to either the aforementioned 'cognitive
dissonance', insufficient intellect to comprehend a clear expostulation of
my opinion, or a deepseated intellectual dishonesty. Like to make a choice?
[Jonathan 4] I am not one of you claque, libel to fall for this old trick.
Incidentally, do you still scratch your piles with sandpaper or has your
anal fissure driven you to apply caustic soda? <wink>
[Jonathan Davis 1]As for you Hermit, oppugnancy is damaging you. Perhaps
"surrender" is what you really need?
[Hermit 2] Despite it having become the norm in American politics, your
diagnosis appears as flawed as the idea of the inmates running the asylum.
All right thinking people recognise that the world is neither black nor
white, but a rather attractive shade of grey. Perhaps it is difficult to
recognise when you are running around with beams in your eyes. Maybe an
optician could assist you?
[Jonathan 3] [Side Note: "All right thinking people" - So many kooky
conspiracy theories, fallacies and extremist rants have this marker imbedded
in them it is a useful shortcut for discarding bunk at the scanning phase.
Simply scan for it and if found, hit delete. ]
[Jonathan 3] Again, irony creeps into our discussion. No sooner have you
reminded me of your being Scottish than you commit the "No True Scotsman
Fallacy". Priceless.
[Hermit 4] You have to be asserting a presumption that that the following
statement is incorrect whenever you assert a fallacy. In other words, for
the "all true scotsman" fallacy to be present, the assertion must fail when
it is reexpressed removing "all true" preamble. So reexpressing the
statement as, "Thinking people recognise that the world is neither black nor
white, but a rather attractive shade of grey." Unless you aver that this is
not the case, your assertion of fallacy here is as faulty as all of your
other assertions.
[Jonathan 4] Thinking people may well find that there are certainly
contraposed and axiomatic absolutes through relation (black and white). You
have presumed all along that Scruton's book set the world in terms of black
and white. That it is based on the authors view of the world in absolute
terms. You are utterly wrong and your unthinking attack based on prejudice
and spite has cost you plenty of time and effort. It is a fitting
punishment.
[Hermit 4] But you inpire me. Pity you left it so late in the article. Had I
seen it 6 hours ago, I could have saved 6 hours. grep 'Jonathan Davis' >
/dev/nullrus-l>
[Jonathan 4] Surrender accepted.
* This was written entirely in jest to mock your style and methods. You may
have detected an irreverent tone in this response. It is the mirth that
accompanies insight.
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 28 2003 - 09:13:20 MDT