From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Sat Dec 2 06:30:33 2000 Return-Path:Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]) by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F103930F for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 06:30:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA31624 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 06:30:33 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <746249@doc.Dartmouth.ORG> Date: 02 Dec 2000 06:28:58 EST From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69) Subject: Re: Human rights movement -comment To: l Status: OR Thank you very much for your note. I agree it's very hard to fight something as widely supported and comprehensive as the new order of human rights, transnational bureaucracies, world markets etc. that is emerging now. It seems to me the basic impulse that supports it is the same as what supported communism - the desire for a re-engineered, conflict-free world that is fully rational and under human control, which in practice is the same as the desire for a limitless universal tyranny. That's what people seem to want today, certainly everyone with position and power. Still, conditions are always changing, we can't know the future, and we should do what we can. Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu) http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Sat Dec 2 13:33:13 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]) by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0A1795C6 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 13:33:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA32277 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 13:33:12 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <747893@doc.Dartmouth.ORG> Date: 02 Dec 2000 13:31:35 EST From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69) Subject: Re: From the Managerial to the Therapeutic State To: jk@panix.com Status: OR Some random comments for whatever they're worth: 1. It's particularly important to emphasize as you do that the current regime demands comprehensive and indeed totalitarian control of thoughts, attitudes, social customs, etc. and that it has broad and strong support. 2. A foreign example that can be put beside our own Susan Okun: UNHCHR Mary Robinson, who thinks it's just wonderful that international human rights law is abolishing the public/private distinction and the government action/inaction distinction. I have a couple things by her at http://www.human-rights.f2s.com/robinson.txt. Also, I seem to recall an Austrian law, enacted within the past couple of years, that obligates husbands and wives to do equal amounts of housework. 3. On the need for constant vigilance and intervention - there's a conviction among advanced liberals that the Nazis are always about to come out of the woodwork. I think that's in part an implicit acknowledgement of their inner kinship to Nazism: they themselves are convinced that if you deviate from their views just a little you become a Nazi. The connection I think is that both advanced liberalism and Nazism base good and bad on will, the right to choose or the triumph of the will, rather than some transcendent standard. So any deviation from equality means that some wills are to be preferred to others, presumably (since will is the source of value) simply because they choose their own superiority. If strict equality is rejected life therefore becomes a battle of will against will for supremacy, the victory of one will over all others, and supremacy becomes the highest good, with conquest, enslavement, torture, extermination etc. as its purest manifestation. This line of thought may seem somewhat farfetched but I'm convinced something of the sort is behind the mythic status of Nazism among liberals and the strength of political correctness. Otherwise, why would any deviation from radical egalitarianism inevitably suggest Auschwitz? 4. Why so much space on Bavarian crucifixes? I'm not sure the details add much for an American reader not familiar with German political culture. It seems like a less developed form of what we already have in America, so it's interesting to the extent it shows PC human rights are becoming dominant everywhere but less so as a demonstration of what PC human rights are in themselves. 5. The Fox-Genovese view that "public control of entitlements sets up the rest, including the abdication of self-government" is I think true and important, but maybe a very short account of why that is so would be helpful to the average reader, who after all is not used to looking at things that way. My view is that a function of entitlements is to undermine the importance of traditional loyalies and obligations, which is part of an overall transformation in which markets and bureaucracies become the sole principles of social order in a universal rational system for maximum equal satisfaction of preferences. That transformation means that self-government except for strictly individual choice has to go, since it interferes with the perfect rationality of the system, and that in turn requires among other things abolition of the family and all traditional standards relating to sex and gender. 6. You say that what is being (has been?) abolished is the bourgeois order. That's true just it was true that the 60s turned their back on the 50s but I think it goes farther than that. It really looks to me like the abolition of man. Possibly you put it as you do because of your preference for historical concreteness. 7. The connection to liberal protestantism is an interesting point. What in your view is the best treatment of the claim made by the European New Right (and others like Nietzsche and Harvey Cox) that Christianity itself is what ultimately leads to what we have now? 8. On the reasons for the absence of effective protest - one aspect is the isolation of individuals and the difficulty of creating an effective political movement without cooperation from the mass media. That's part of the abolition of all local and institutional autonomy in the interests of universal rationality. The liberal protestant aspect you raise is an interesting one that I need to think about more. Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu) http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Tue Dec 5 21:33:38 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]) by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A91693BB for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 21:33:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA13777 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 21:33:37 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <786436@doc.Dartmouth.ORG> Date: 05 Dec 2000 21:31:49 EST From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69) Subject: Re: Religious_Foundations_o#2D8.doc (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69) To: jk@panix.com Status: OR I'm still not convinced that PC fundamentally has to do with late-Protestant religiosity although it does make use of it. Certainly PC in America will tend to take a late-Protestant form. I can't help but think though that it could find something in almost any tradition that it could turn to its purposes. Certainly self-criticism sessions and re-education campaigns have been features of some recent non-Protestant and even non-Christian societies. I'm assuming here that PC basically has to do with debunking traditional institutions, hierarchies and standards in the interests of technically-rational egalitarian hedonism. It does seem PC started in Protestant America and has done best there and in the Protestant north and west of Europe. Maybe the two have a common cause, for example both doing best in places where family and local tradition are weaker and a sense of individualism on the one hand and national civic community on the other stronger. Maybe rather than Protestantism causing PC both are caused by some common underlying condition, one that is at its height in NW Europe and decreases as one goes south and east until it reaches its nadir in say Syria. >From the standpoint of someone who (alas) attends an Episcopal church it appears that the present public spiritual situation is more a matter of church progressives taking their cues from the secular Left than the reverse. It seems to me theologians like lawyers have developed manipulative skills sufficient to make anything turn into anything else in a couple of decades and seem completely normal as long as the right people control the machinery of administration and communications and it fits in with general cultural trends. I should provide alternate theories on why PC is accepted by "oppressors": 1. The class interests/sociology of belief theory. Certainly one reason Southern Baptist guilt for the Holocaust is accepted by at least the Southern Baptist leadership when it speaks publicly is that the national media and expert classes think it should be. All public thought is based on the knowledge and ideas those classes supply and carried on through the institutions they dominate, and as it happens those classes benefit from destruction of traditional arrangements that don't need newspapers or psychologists to function. Therefore all public thought favors the destruction of traditional institutions, which puts those who speak publicly for those institutions in a very odd position and makes them say odd things. Eventually the lack of articulate alternatives leads people to believe the odd things they are forced to say. 2. The bizarre perversion theory. Pure hedonism is boring unless suffering adds another dimension. Sade is authority for that, maybe Nietzsche too. Actual suffering is too painful, though, so people prefer vicarious suffering. Unfortunately, the suffering of another is overly abstract unless a concrete personal connection is introduced. It's therefore not unusual, as the word "sadism" suggests, for people to find it rewarding to think of themselves as the cause of suffering in another. And blaming yourself for victimization gives you a mild and safe version of the concrete personal connection to the suffering of another otherwise obtainable only through sadism. The small degree of pain self-blame causes becomes on this view another benefit. 3. A more conceptual version of the bizarre perversion theory - in current thought suffering and oppression are the only serious moral issues. One obtains weight and dignity through connection to those things. Therefore one must claim to be a victim, or if the social drama that has grown up does not permit that, one must embrace his identity as an oppressor. To fail to do so is to be inauthentic, unreal, irrelevant, whatever. You cite comments of some German lady theologian that support this view. Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu) http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com From jk@panix.com Wed Dec 6 05:33:51 2000 Return-Path: Received: from panix6.panix.com (panix6.panix.com [166.84.0.231]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ED2A488D3 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 05:33:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix6.panix.com (8.8.8/8.7.1/PanixN1.0) id FAA01884; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 05:33:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 05:33:45 -0500 (EST) From: Message-Id: <200012061033.FAA01884@panix6.panix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 To: jk@panix.com Subject: Traditionalist Conservatism Forum X-URL: http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb414560&MyNum=976098742&P=Yes&TL=976078303 Status: O Thanks for your note, Sara. There have been matrilineal societies but not, so far as I know, matriarchal ones. For discussion and resources see Robert Sheaffer's patriarchy page and especially the stuff by Steven Goldberg. Ignore Mr. Sheaffer's style, there actually is a lot of useful material there. The page is near the top of the list of links on the antifeminist page. Jim Kalb From jk@panix.com Wed Dec 6 05:34:06 2000 Return-Path: Received: from panix6.panix.com (panix6.panix.com [166.84.0.231]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D531C487BB for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 05:34:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by panix6.panix.com (8.8.8/8.7.1/PanixN1.0) id FAA01891; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 05:34:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 05:34:01 -0500 (EST) From: Message-Id: <200012061034.FAA01891@panix6.panix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 To: jk@panix.com Subject: Traditionalist Conservatism Forum X-URL: http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb414560&MyNum=976053538&P=Yes&TL=976050196 Status: O The proposed revised declaration doesn't say there's a universal obligation to be a member of a family, only that there's no universal human right for family membership to be voluntary. The revised declaration wouldn't prevent a particular society from making it voluntary. Actually, it seems to me family membership shouldn't be voluntary - should parents for example be able to divorce their children or children their parents? Brothers their sisters? Would making such basic relations voluntary make the world a better place? It seems to me that the freedom you gain from family entanglements would be outweighed by increased dependence on the state. The existing UDHR of course says that no one can be forced to be a member of an association. As with so much in that document it's not really clear what that means. Does it mean for example that I could declare myself a citizen of nowhere and have it stick? Also, it seems at odds with the statement also in the existing UDHR that the family is natural, since "natural" seems to imply "not voluntary." Basically, though, my objection is that the statement that all association is voluntary seems to me to make the anthropological errors that define liberalism - it makes man fundamentally non-social, and makes what he chooses the sole thing that determines what he is. Unless "universal human rights" are to mean simply "advanced liberalism" it has to go. Jim Kalb From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Wed Dec 6 08:47:50 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DB1E487BC for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 08:47:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA16381 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 08:47:49 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <791046@doc.Dartmouth.ORG> Date: 06 Dec 2000 08:46:00 EST From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69) Subject: Column at lewrockwell.com To: joe@sobran.com?Subject=The.Silent.Revolution (Please forward to Joe) Status: OR Hello! Just a comment - I don't think what's happened is really the rise of the arbitrary rule of 9 justices, in part because they don't have enough in common to be a ruling clique and in part because their influence depends so much on opinion. The justices normally act collectively on the basis of some statement of principles - that is, by issuing decisions backed by opinions. They are not however much of a collectivity. Each is there for life and owes nothing to the others. Each attained his position independently of the others without particularly aiming at it, through appointment and confirmation by different presidents and senatorial majorities. So to work together they have to emphasize principle of some sort. In the absence of other common ground, for example substantive legal principles recognized as binding, the principles they agree on will mostly be the ones they think will preserve and promote the influence of the court. That means they will try to act in ways that both make them look judicial and also get support from enduringly influential, articulate and well-placed groups. The effect I think is that the "living constitution" means the court is to represent national governing elites collectively to make sure legal doctrine and fundamental institutional arrangements work together to give them what they think right. You can criticize that situation on the grounds that it's not what the people have agreed too, at least not formally, or on any number of other grounds, but I think it's a mistake to emphasize the element of personal arbitrariness. The latter criticism misses what's really at issue, which is whether the American people should be governed by an elite, and by *this* elite for *these* purposes. Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu) http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Thu Dec 7 09:01:39 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]) by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7980090C5 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 09:01:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA03474 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 09:01:39 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <807897@doc.Dartmouth.ORG> Date: 07 Dec 2000 08:59:46 EST From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69) Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re: George + Nietzsche/Derleth/K=9Dnig Artus?= To: kshatriya-owner@listbot.com (Kshatriya) Status: OR --- You wrote: Die Gefahr der Askese um der Askese willen, die Evola bei Nietzsche diagnostiziert, scheint heute gebannt - wo gibt es noch Askese? Die Gefahr der Kunst um der Kunst willen, scheint noch virulent zu sein. --- end of quote --- These are interesting points. It seems to me the place of pure ascetism is now taken by liberal guilt and various forms of privileging the other - multiculti, animal rights, whatever. As to art for art's sake, I think it's disappeared. What we have now is mostly art for politics' sake or money's sake. That can be worked into a larger analysis. Healthy art, art for the sake of something transcendent that can be manifested no other way, corresponds to a religiously-based society. Art for art's sake corresponds to a fascist society, one based on a self-generating this-worldly form of quasi-transcendence like the Life Force or the state as an aesthetic object. And in the current form of society in which appeals to the transcendent have become rhetorical assertions for personal advantage art follows suit. Thanks for distributing your newsletter, btw. It's good to keep in touch with doings in Europe. Also - this is a silly personal note - it's about the right length for someone like me who reads German rather badly. Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu) http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com From fn Received: from relay1.UU.NET by sun.Panix.Com with SMTP id AA27290 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Mon, 12 Apr 1993 20:01:23 -0400 Received: from spool.uu.net (via localhost.UU.NET) by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA00859; Mon, 12 Apr 93 20:01:21 -0400 Received: from smds.UUCP by spool.uu.net with UUCP/RMAIL (queueing-rmail) id 195937.15560; Mon, 12 Apr 1993 19:59:37 EDT Received: by smds.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA17132; Mon, 12 Apr 93 16:07:44 EDT Date: Mon, 12 Apr 93 16:07:44 EDT From: fn Message-Id: <9304122007.AA17132@smds.com> X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (6.4 2/14/89) To: jk@Panix.Com Subject: Sex and Free Love / Liberation Status: OR Dear Mr. Kalb, I've quoted a posting of yours below. --------------------- Your article -------------------------------------- > Things have gotten slow in this newsgroup lately, even with religious > arguments, so I thought I would say something about sex. After all, the > latest issue of _Chronicles_, a leading paleoconservative publication, > has a picture of a naked woman on the cover. (Some might call it a > photograph of a female nude in bronze, but that art stuff cuts no ice > with me.) What I wrote is long-winded and abstract enough to satisfy > all you Spengler fans, but maybe not many others. If anyone wants to > read it, though, I would be interested in comments. > > > > Liberation > > In this country the movements for women's liberation and for the > relaxation of traditional sexual morality have made remarkable progress > without serious opposition. Such success exemplifies the serious > practical consequences in America today of the poverty of thought on > morality and social issues and the progressive expansion of > egalitarianism and hedonism. > > How men and women can live together happily and productively is a basic > problem in social organization. The well-being of both sexes and their > ability to raise children successfully depends upon the solution to this > problem. If, as women's liberation demands, the relation between men > and women is to be based on the elimination of socially-recognized sex > roles, the problem becomes insoluble. > > If there are no set sex roles, so that a man and a woman as such have no > special rights and obligations regarding each other, their relations are > their private affair. They can have dealings with each other or not as > they choose, and the terms on which they deal are determined by mutual > consent. Traditional family arrangements, which brought with them > extensive and unavoidable duties, are replaced by private agreements to > cooperate as to particular aspects of one's life. In other words, > something like a free market obtains in relations between the sexes. > > In such a free market, it is imprudent to stake much upon agreements > regarding sexual matters because they can't be enforced. Agreements > regarding economic matters are enforceable because the interests of the > parties can be reduced to money, which provides a standard for > determining the intent of the parties and the appropriate remedy when > the agreement is breached. In sexual and family life, however, > objectively determinable interests and purposes are so interwoven with > those that are subjective and personal that determining what the parties > agreed on and the appropriate remedy for a breach is usually quite > difficult. > > The consequence is that that after liberation relations between men and > women become distant. Since it takes a rare degree of faith to treat > something wholly private as real, people in general no longer rely on > such relationships. In the economic sphere the free market requires > participants to deal with each other at arm's length and to exercise > shrewdness and self-reliance to avoid being taken advantage of. In the > sphere of sexual and family relations the free market requires yet more > distrust, because the disappearance of the publicly enforceable element > in sexual relationships means that such relationships last only as long > as both parties wish them to last, and people's wishes change. > > The attachment between mother and child is an exception to the rule that > family attachments disappear after liberation. Children are incapable > of independence, and mothers have a natural attachment to their children > that is reinforced by the child's dependency. Liberation causes this > relationship to deteriorate, however. Since in an egalitarian society > there is no social support for unconditional relationships with other > people, a mother has no grounds for thinking that her child will > maintain an attachment to her when he no longer needs her, and feels > exploited because she is giving her love unconditionally and has no > grounds to expect the like in return. She may react to such painful > feelings by anger against the child, by withdrawal, or by attempting to > make the relationship permanent (perhaps by incapacitating the child for > independence). Each alternative is bad for the child. > > The difficulties of raising children are made worse by the distance or > absence of the child's father, which will be the norm in a sexually free > and equal society. A father's connection to his child is initially > indirect. In the past a father might have been tied to his child by a > web of social relations, or more concretely by his need for a helper in > his business or desire for heirs; today the tie is through the mother. > If that relationship is broken easily, for practical purposes the child > will lack a father. If the child is a boy he will grow up without a > model for how he can contribute to society. Whether a boy or girl, the > child will not grow up in a domestic order embracing two adults and so > will have no intimate experience of objective moral standards. > Accordingly, he is likely to find it hard to participate in community or > to form relationships based on mutual respect. As a result, relations > between the sexes and between parents and children will sink over time > into what one would expect among people who have no respect for > themselves or others. > > The degradation of sexual life brought about by the circumstances of > family life just discussed is aggravated by the ordinary effects of a > free market. A free market is based on participants choosing freely in > accordance with the tastes that they happen to have. To reject the free > market as an ideal is to reject the view that all tastes are equally > valid and therefore to reject egalitarianism. To accept it is to accept > the tastes people have -- their consumer preferences -- as an ultimate > standard that requires no justification. > > The natural effect of such an ideal is self-seeking hedonism. If my > tastes, whatever they may be, are beyond criticism by others, they are > also beyond my own criticism, and the only ground for my choices is my > immediate pleasure. Also, the normal effect of a free market is to > diversify tastes, to increase aggregate consumption, and to increase the > importance placed on consumption generally, while making taste cruder > and reducing the significance of particular acts of consumption and of > the manner of consumption. Extended to sexual relations, the free > market thus eliminates intellectually the categories of sexual license > and perversion while fostering the conduct that would fall into such > categories if they still existed. It makes sex incapable of functioning > as a sustaining part of a durable bond between men and women. > > Since sexual liberation and egalitarianism damage or destroy the family, > the repair of the family requires that relations between the sexes be > governed by the principle that it is right to treat men and women as > differing in nature -- that is, in accordance with authoritative sex > roles -- and both social custom and legal institutions should conform to > that requirement. Since sex roles are necessary for a tolerable > society and in most cases correspond to the characteristics individual > members of each sex in fact possess, by nature and nurture, the fact > that they do not fit some people is not a sufficient reason for > rejecting them. > > The details of such roles will vary in accordance with circumstances. > Objections to truly outmoded sex roles can be accommodated, but the > basic features will continue to be be the traditional ones based on the > innate differences that in general distinguish the sexes. For example, > women are generally better adapted to caring for small children. They > carry and give birth to the baby, and in the natural course of things > nurse it during the first months of life, and so have a necessary > physical connection to the child. The emotional effect of this > connection is heightened by women's diffuse sensuality, which is engaged > by the baby and by the close physical contact of tending and nursing it. > Women's responsiveness to immediate feeling and sensation and the > vagueness of their sense of themselves as persons separate from those > they love further enhances their sympathy for small children. This > special relationship to small children readily grows into a special > responsibility for the home in general as the setting for the immediate > and intimate relations in which both women and children tend to feel in > their element. > > Conversely, men tend to be more interested in the instrumental than the > immediate, and their relations to others tend toward a mixture of > competition and cooperation that suits the marketplace. Since it is > less characteristic of men to take pleasure in immediate personal > relationships than pride in protecting those who rely on them, they are > more suited to be the ultimate authority in the family as well as its > breadwinner and primary representative to the public world. > > Such a restoration of traditional sex roles has its difficulties. Sex > presents vividly the contradiction in man's nature as animal and as > rational agent, and the dogma of sexual equality eliminates the > difficulty of thinking about sex by eliminating thought. Also, the > decline in the immediate economic and social importance of family > relationships makes it easier to avoid thinking about the difficulties > created by sexual freedom and equality, and a democratic consumer > society takes short views. > > Nonetheless, there are contradictions within the revolution against > traditional sex roles that would facilitate their restoration. Like > other people, feminists recognize that women are fundamentally different > from men and this recognition has become increasingly explicit recently. > Only feminist illogic and the difficulty of rational thought about > questions relating to basic social organization have preventing wide > recognition that different roles for men and women are appropriate. > > For example, we have seen that the well-being of mothers is inconsistent > with formal equality of rights between the sexes and freedom in their > dealings with each other. In addition, the rise of pornography and > sexual harassment as feminist issues demonstrate an increasingly > explicit awareness that such formal liberty and equality can hurt > women. Monogamy, and sexual restraint generally, is more egalitarian in > substance than sexual freedom but will not exist unless marriage is > binding, which it can not be unless it is thought of as the union of two > different sorts of person that need each other to form a complete whole. > > Moreover, the government can contribute to a restoration simply by > ceasing to undermine traditional sex roles. Anti-discrimination > measures, and the welfare state generally, are intended (among other > things) to make women economically independent of particular men and > therefore to help realize the goals of women's liberation. Abandonment > of such measures would contribute to a better life for all by helping > knock the props out from under the illusion of equality. > > The rejection of liberation in sexual matters may also be aided by > popular rejection of egalitarianism and hedonism on account of their > inability to give people what they really want. In addition to more > direct effects the recognition of such inability may have, it is likely > to prompt a search for and eventual acceptance of transcendental values > as authoritative. If transcendental values are taken seriously, people > will be less likely to view the working world -- the organized > production and distribution of publicly recognized and transferable > goods -- as the sole source of dignity, and something like their > traditional and necessary roles are likely to become more palatable to > men and women. > -- > Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) > "Rem tene; verba sequentur." (Cato) > From jk Wed Feb 5 09:03:45 1997 Subject: Re: mailto:jk@panix.com To: ma Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:03:45 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Georgie Stanford" at Feb 4, 97 11:46:15 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1133 Status: OR > And yes we talk among ourselves. But the professional organizations, > just like the NEA, the unions and academia are heavily influenced by > leftist elements. I'd guess APA membership in my home state is > something like 50% of the shrinks, 'cause there is just no "forum" > for dissent over such basic values in that organization any more than > you'd see in the Teamsters. The lawyers have the Federalist Society as an alternative to the ABA, academics have the National Association of Scholars, and I think they've organized a counter-Modern Language Association as well. Still, the problem is that the people who believe most strongly in grand schemes and national organizations with comprehensive social goals are the leftists. Other people mostly want to do something for whoever it is they're working with. I think in the long run the internet and such things are going to have quite an effect on all this though. People who dominate national organizations will just have less influence on discussions. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Plan no damn Madonna LP. From jk Thu Feb 20 09:31:57 1997 Subject: Re: reply to Jim Kalb To: F Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 09:31:57 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2199 Status: OR > GKC's style does take a lot of getting used to, but I find it very > amusing and thought provoking. For my taste it's a bit too much non-stop amusement and paradox. A superficial complaint maybe since I admire the substance. On the other point: I can't help but wonder though whether it's a mistake to stress the Jewish angle so much. It seems to me that if the Jews had all moved to Mars 200 years ago we'd be in about the same position we are now anyway. Secular Jews naturally like the New World Order because that's what they placed their bets on when they abandoned their faith after the French Revolution. Their existence doesn't *explain* the NWO though. As it is, the NWO is destroying the Jews, except for the strictly Orthodox who aren't much of a threat to anyone, just like it's destroying all other peoples. Between intermarriage and low birthrate in a hundred years there won't be enough of them to notice. So to my mind rather than portraying the struggle as a struggle among peoples it would be better to portray it as a struggle of all peoples against certain principles and beliefs (materialism, rational hedonism, etc.), the institutions based on them, and the elites that control and benefit from those beliefs. The spiritual struggle is far more basic than any ethnic struggle. The fact that the NWO uses immigration and its version of "equal rights" to destroy a nation doesn't mean that the national struggle is primarily against immigrants. It's against the view of life that makes deracination look like a step forward -- it wouldn't do much good to stop immigration if otherwise that view still controlled things. The fact that lots of leading NWO fans are Jews doesn't mean that Jews are the enemy -- if they all grew beards and sidelocks tomorrow and moved to Madegascar they would simply be replaced. There will always be enough eager applicants. I'm sure you've heard these arguments before, so excuse the rant and thanks again. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Rise, Sir Lapdog! Revolt, lover! God, pal--rise, sir! From jk Tue Apr 22 21:57:03 1997 Subject: Re: Your page. To: sd Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 21:57:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 4039 Status: OR > Your page and the general concept of distributivism intrigues me, > especially the connection to Chesterbelloc. And the balance with > which you approach conservatism, with a Catholic/Christian context, > is much more complete to me. Conservatism seems to me to go well with catholic Christianity. Both oppose sectarianism. Modernism is sectarian because it tries to reduce everything to one or two principles that can be fully possessed by one or a few men. A difficulty with distributism I think is seeing how a legal order could grow up that would promote it while avoiding general state administration of economic and social life (which would destroy it). > Have there been sweeping liturgical changes in the Episcopalian > Church since the 1960's as in the Roman Church? There was a new Book of Common Prayer in 1979 that was rather a break from what preceded. I would say the changes have been less sweeping though -- what was being changed was less distinctive than the traditional Latin Mass, and besides Episcopalians tend toward formalism. > Second, would you consider yourself High Church/Anglican, or > Low-Church? Things are too much a mess within ECUSA to give a good answer. I like my parish, and my immediate family and my sister are Episcopalians. Otherwise I'm not sure what I'd do. I suppose by inclination I'm more high churchy, because hierarchy and sacraments seem to me necessary, but unfortunately the actual ECUSA hierarchy aren't what one would wish so one finds himself relying on Christ's promise that he would be among us whenever two or three are gathered in his name. My parish actually is more charismatic than anything else, which isn't my own taste, but it means they take their religion personally and seriously in a way that's natural to Americans. > I am not sure of this, but didn't a group of Anglicans get together > last year and decide that hell doesn't exist? I think some English bishops announced that their teaching was that "Hell" is actually termination of existence or some such thing. > It is an interesting thing to meet an Episcopal who is not a liberal It's a liberal church because by origin it's a national established church and so identifies with whatever the ruling group and conceptions are. Also upper class respectable people don't like to be inconvenienced or made uncomfortable or associated with anything that isn't as respectable as they are. There's some stuff though about Episcopalians who aren't liberal on the Traditionalism page. > I hope these questions aren't off putting. No. There are big problems in ECUSA. Still, Anglicanism has its own gifts and beauties and can be understood as part of catholic Christianity, a form it has taken in the English-speaking world. It may be in its final decline now but if so that is horribly sad. Still, other churches are having problems too, even (some say) the Roman, and it's not over till it's over. > I hope sincerely hope that this doesn't offend your protestant > sensibilities, but Rich's counter-revolution is along the lines of > the neo Counter-Reformation forming in Catholicism to deal with the > rancid aftermath of Vatican II, which mainly exhibits itself with an > ecumania in trying to reconcile Catholicism with Lutheranism and > Anglicanism. No offense: our beliefs are certainly different, and I > as a Catholic have not a great deal of interest in making the Church > protestant. The differences between classical Catholicism, Lutheranism and Anglicanism seem to me minor in comparison with those between any of them and religious liberals in any denomination. So if someone says he wants pre-VII Catholicism instead of what's been going on lately that strikes me as to the good. > I have noticed the defining characteristic of liberalism is gross > hypocrisy on almost every level of thought and action. A lot of it is a remarkable lack of self-awareness. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Do not start at rats to nod. From jk Fri Apr 25 23:07:46 1997 Subject: Re: Tage Lindbom? To: ku Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 23:07:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2879 Status: OR > I just wondered if your page (I really liked it) is representative for > some kind of organisation, international or not(?), and why don't you > mention Ren=E9 Gu=E9non.=20 I'm glad you like it -- praise is always pleasing. The page has no organizational affiliation, it's just my own attempt to bring order out of chaos. I don't say anything about Guenon because I don't know enough about him and because there's not a great deal about him on the web. I think he's mentioned on the San Casciano page and in Denis Costales' Integral Traditionalism bibliography both of which are listed on my page. > If you know anything about it, it would be great to know how many > American=B4s that agree with you in the basic ideas. And of course if > Lindbom's writings are known to the American's more that "extremes" like > you. Not many agree with me or even know enough about my kind of position to disagree, but I think the ideas have a future here. Liberalism is the established outlook in America; what is called "conservatism" is an older form of liberalism with some traditional morality and religion tacked on. Liberalism is in crisis -- by its nature it can't survive its victory, and people hate it even though they're always being told how wonderful it is. No one can imagine what could replace it though. I don't think the attempts to save liberalism (e.g. communitarianism, neoconservatism) are going to get anywhere. Lindbom isn't well known in America. As I understand the matter it's quite uncertain whether his recent book on modernism will get published here -- apparently it depends on how _The Myth of Democracy_ sells. Speaking of numbers, how many Swedes are Catholic traditionalists or anything like it? > Do you think something going to happen to the world soon? Things will happen. What depends on where. The situation in Europe for example seems to me unstable -- it is harder for you than for us to deal with immigration, your unemployment is very high, and the welfare state (which is turning out to be unsustainable) is far more a part of the moral basis of your social order. Also it seems that nothing much can change, which means that when changes come they will be fast and uncontrolled. As to America, it's hard to predict. It's a big country in which the people increasingly find they have no respect or confidence in their rulers and not much in common with each other. On the other hand the political and economic systems seem more flexible than those in Europe so we may last longer without radical changes. > PS. I am so sorry for my language, or spelling. If I have misunderstood > your position totaly I appologies... Any problems with language and spelling are very minor and I see no misunderstandings. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Do not start at rats to nod. From jk Sat Aug 2 08:15:13 1997 Subject: Unworthy ministers To: mi Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 08:15:13 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 3020 Status: OR >>Article XXVI--Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not >>the effect of the Sacraments. >Would a polite traditionalist mind communicating with me in private >email (if this is an old-news type of topic) explaining why female >priests would not be acceptable under this article? I don't come up to the level of being a traditionalist or much of anything else, but I think I can respond. The article is irrelevant, because the objection to ordaining women is not that women are unworthy or evil but that they have not been commissioned and authorized by Christ to be priests. The same of course is true of the great majority of men. Me, for example. Also St. Joseph, St. Stephen, and many other worthies. To say to a traditionalist "Bishop X went through a form of ordination with this woman, so she's a priest" is somewhat like saying "Bishop Y went through a form of ordination with the Boy Scouts of America, so the BSA is now a priest" or "the Vestry appointed this man to preside over the Eucharist, so he's our priest." The woman and man may be saints and the BSA a splendid organization that is full of saints. All three may to all appearances be able to do everything a priest does superlatively well (the BSA of course through appointed agents). None of that matters, though, and Articles XXVI doesn't tell us anything to the contrary. The arguments on women's ordination are I think mostly historical (the priesthood has been male from the earliest times; bishops and their representatives the priests are successors to the Apostles, who were male; Christianity as a religion of the Incarnation should take such concrete realities seriously; the male priesthood is a fundamental enough point to be part of the constitution of the Church, and the Church isn't something we made and can reconstitute). There are also of course backup discussions of why what is taken to be the fact of male priesthood makes sense (e.g., the male priesthood supports the divinely promulgated image of God the Father and the historical reality of God who became a man, that image is important because neuter images of God make him an abstract principle and female images end up blurring the distinction between God and his creation too much, the male priesthood preserves a masculine element in a religion that tends toward the feminine, what have you.) I think in the background is a feeling that recent developments in the view of sex and gender, although they've swept all before them in public discussions, are unsound because they trivialize things that are fundamental to human life. Therefore they should not be taken as a guide. I've rambled on, mostly for my own purposes. I wanted to clarify my own thoughts and made your request an occasion to do so. I hope this has been at least somewhat helpful. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson From jk Mon Aug 4 19:08:15 1997 Subject: Re: Unworthy ministers To: mi Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 19:08:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1723 Status: OR > Thank you very much for your response on women's ordination. It's > such a tough issue. I'm not sure I support it, but I certainly don't > oppose it -- it seems sort of... well, I'd definitely leave the > church if it tossed out Jesus or the Trinity, but I'm not sure female > priests are a condemned-to-hell compromise, a _necessary_ to the > faith. It's not the sort of thing a layman ought to have to worry about. I have my own problems. The difficulty is that I don't trust the higher-ups in ECUSA. Maybe that shows I ought to be someplace else, but I like my parish and I've got bigger worries than female priests which my parish doesn't have anyway. If forced to decide I suppose I'd be against. The cause seems too closely tied to too many things which seem to me clearly wrong, for example current understandings of sex and gender and the tendency to identify some combination of psychological therapy and late-20th-century conceptions of political justice as the content of Christian faith. The ECUSA hierarchy doesn't remind me very vividly of the saints and prophets I've read about. Also, the historical argument combined with suggestions as to why things *should* be that way seems persuasive. I agree that in itself it doesn't look like a do-or-die issue. It occurs to me than an argument I left out is the "priest as an icon of Christ" argument. Like the others that seems to me an add-on to the historical argument and the "who are these guys anyway who are suddenly making all these changes" argument. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson From jk Tue Sep 16 22:03:40 1997 Subject: Re: NYC Right To: r Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 22:03:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1027 Status: OR > You're right in the ultimate sense. However, people like Sam > love this civilization. The love is only this-worldly but it is real. > These materialist defenders of our world can't see past this vale of > tears. True enough. But they can love and fight for the same > this-worldly manifestations of Truth that we do together with us, > don't you think? I do think it's possible to love something without seeing the presuppositions and implications of the thing you love. Also, I favor finding all possible common ground. What inspired my comment I suppose is that in what little I've read by Sam Francis (just his pieces in _Chronicles_) there's been less love visible than analysis of power and strategy. Not that the love may not be there or that he's required to put everything he thinks and feels into everything he writes. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances." -- Emerson From jk Fri Jun 4 21:08:48 1999 Subject: Re: Hi To: tw Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 21:08:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1868 Status: OR > Thankfully, it looks as if I at least have a community college job > for now, which pays surprisingly well and which will give me a base > from which I can get my own dissertation published, and then go out > and get a real job. Congrats. Seems like a horrible grind. Be strong etc. Where will you be? > I'd be very interested in your thoughts on an article Seems like a good review of the situation. The Catholic Church's position on contraception is a strong reason to take their claims seriously. Creation and the Incarnation mean the body and its natural functioning have to be taken seriously or it's not clear what reality they can have for us. The issue as I see it is that man is not just an abstract individual, the locus of sensation and will. That's what contraception, the modern attitude toward sex and marriage, for that matter modern ethics generally, the moral status of the civil rights laws for example, make of him. According to those views particularities, our bodies for example, fundamentally don't touch us. If modern moral views are correct I don't see how a God who is both transcendent and concretely present in the world can come into the picture. Why should God be more concrete than we are? -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That's a 19th-century idea, and we're trying to transition into the 21st century, and we're going to do it with multi-ethnic states." (General Wesley K. Clark) From jk Mon Jul 5 06:06:25 1999 Subject: Re: French Jew to run Kosovo To: la Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 06:06:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2531 Status: OR > It's the same total surrender of identity and existence, across the > board. All so odd. It's not purely political in a narrow sense. It seems everything today is biased against stable conceptions of identity. Possible reasons: 1. Individualistic and economic understanding of life. The former goes back a long way. The Icelandic sagas have a very strong individualist streak and Christianity makes much of the individual soul. The economic outlook seems to follow from radical individualism that denies the transcendent -- two men who don't have much in common can nonetheless make deals that further the goals each happens to have. 2. Technological outlook. You analyze things and think of inventive ways to put them back together to get what you happen to want. Nothing is sacred. 3. Pragmatic and antiplatonic outlook. There are no essences or preordained universals, just classifications determined by the goals we happen to have. 4. Public life is carried on through TV. That means the public order loses all complexity. Everything between the immediate individual situation and the all-knowing universal vanishes. All that remains is impulses and their fulfilling or thwarting and the demand for a universal rational order to organize their fulfillment. I'm writing an essay on antiracism that goes into causes and presuppositions. I'll email a copy fyi when I'm done with the current revision. As to the Jews, I wonder: 1. Younger generations seem to me inferior to those who grew up in the pre-TV rights days before antisemitism was thought so inconceivably monstrous. Less cultured certainly, even if their formal education is much more impressive. 2. Destruction of identity seems to affect them also. They have low birthrate and high intermarriage. Can the life of a community really be built on the religion of the Holocaust? 3. The effect of extreme social rationalization is to leave basic impulses unaltered while destroying the habits and attitudes that civilize them. That's why relations between the sexes are bad now and why the Soviet Union by trying to eliminate economic self-interest brought about mafia rule. Perhaps something similar will happen in the case of race. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "If the treasonous (hence alien), childish, mentally ill felon in the White House gets to have nuclear weapons to play with, why can't the rest of us who happen to be aliens, children, mentally ill or felons possess assault rifles?" From jk Wed Oct 6 16:29:48 1999 Subject: Re: Nixon and the Jews To: la Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:29:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 812 Status: OR It's such an odd thing, the ability to take an eccentric position (i.e., there's something super-special about Jews, and one feature of their super-specialness is that it's unbelievably wicked to think their specialness is not an absolute benefit to everyone) and make it stick. One could ask how the "antisemitic" statement would sound if "Catholic," "fundamentalist" or whatever were substituted for "Jew." Or how about "peasant"? It's a term of abuse, and modern tyrannies have exterminated many more peasants than Jews. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "If the treasonous (hence alien), childish, mentally ill felon in the White House gets nuclear weapons to play with, why can't the rest of us who happen to be aliens, children, mentally ill or felons possess assault rifles?" From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Thu Dec 7 10:34:17 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]) by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45A5692B0 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 10:34:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA06602 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 10:34:17 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <809197@doc.Dartmouth.ORG> Date: 07 Dec 2000 10:32:24 EST From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69) Subject: Re: Column at lewrockwell.com (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69) To: jk@panix.com Status: OR It was just that, a column about how the constitution has disappeared and now it's just the arbitrary whim of judges. I think part of the problem is that conservatives don't put enough effort into understanding how liberalism works, why it's successful, how it looks from the inside. Another part is that it's hard to present arguments that can't fit into a newspaper column and be understood without effort or attention. You can present them I suppose but who will print or read them? Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu) http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Thu Dec 7 15:39:38 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]) by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D55793E3 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 15:39:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA20348 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 15:39:38 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <814384@doc.Dartmouth.ORG> Date: 07 Dec 2000 15:37:44 EST From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69) Subject: Re: Religious_Foundations_o#2D8.doc To: go Status: OR --- You wrote: I am not convinced that a regression into the past is possible. What must be done is to prevent more evil from occurring by continuing to move in a bad direction. --- end of quote --- A straightforward regression isn't possible I agree. Still, a more positive goal is needed than putting sand in the gears. It seems to me advanced liberalism denies fundamental human needs, things ranging from immediate connectedness to others to authoritative symbols of the transcendent. If I'm right, and those really are fundamental needs, and society becomes impossible without them because no one will defend it or for that matter have children and raise them properly, advanced liberalism won't last. Something nonliberal will follow, and I think a vision of what that might be is needed even for effective resistance today. Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu) http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com Re: Human rights Friday, 08-Dec-00 09:24:23 151.202.52.208 writes: Human rights declarations don't find common ground, they make advanced liberal standards universally binding. I go into the issue in the discussion page on my human rights site and in my essay on The Tyranny of Liberalism. The consequence is that the dominant culture among ruling elites - egalitarian technological hedonism, a.k.a. advanced liberalism - crushes everything. What you've done - which is quite interesting, actually - is point to a respect in which a basic liberal proposition, that man is not essentially social, works to the advantage of groups that deny their social ties to the larger society and enforce their principles internally by breaking social ties with offenders and treating them as nonpersons. So while liberal human rights destroy all cultures that include public life as an essential component, which includes all Confucian, all Islamic, all Roman Catholic and all except the most extreme Protestant cultures, because they deny those cultures authoritative public expression, one might argue that they give security to inward-turning strict separatist cultures. So you could have a world much like the traditional Middle Eastern world, with inward-turning etho-religious communities living and running their own affairs in separate villages or walled urban quarters and minimal government that does little but collect taxes and enforce crude public order. The problem with that vision is that liberal human rights, which is what we have, are not radical libertarian human rights. The convention on discrimination against women for example requires governments to take whatever action is needed to eradicate cultural or religiously-based sex roles. For commentary you might look at what the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has to say on the subject. If I were a strict Orthodox Jew or Amish I wouldn't feel my way of life had that much legal security under a human rights regime. You seem to think that the alternative to universal rule by the principles dominant among ruling elites is a regime based on universal human rights. I claim those two are in fact the same. What I would prefer is local autonomy, which means that if people in Bhutan believe in male primogeniture outsiders should not prevent them from establishing that as the legal rule even though the Muslim or advanced liberal view is different. If the Bhutanese can work out an accommodation to let minority communities do things their own way, that's great, but I don't believe that there should be some universal legal principle that makes the advanced liberal view compulsory in Bhutan or even tries to define just how accommodations will be worked out. Jim Kalb Re: Anti-feminism Friday, 08-Dec-00 09:33:31 151.202.52.208 writes: Thanks for your note. I think people today are bombarded by propaganda from all directions and it's important for them to try to get clear on what they think is good and why. If they do then what feminists or masculinists say will matter much less. The feminist and masculinist complaints are based on the same error, that men and women are just separate individuals pursuing their separate interests, so any differences in role are unfair, abusive, oppressive, whatever. In fact we are naturally social and the family is naturally the basic social unit, so sex role differences are also natural. Each sex contributes, but not exactly the same thing. If you don't like that you don't like human life, or so it seems to me. Jim Kalb Re: Public moral standards Saturday, 09-Dec-00 08:10:22 151.202.52.208 writes: I don't see why it's easier to choose a reaction to two men kissing - I assume you mean plainly sexual kissing - than to soda cans and burger wrappers by the highway. To me it seems more difficult to do so, since sexuality touches us and our relationships to others more deeply than candy wrappers lying around on the grass or whatever. As to leaded gasoline, the point is that if one person uses it it make no difference at all to anyone. So whether an act can be forbidden can't be a matter of the direct consequences of the particular act. It can bring in considerations of how things would be if that kind of act were generally accepted. Back to public homosexuality - man is a social and a cultured animal. Part of what that means is that his life mostly has to do with participation in systems of common understandings and practices. As a general thing, and subject to lots of other considerations, acts that break down such systems can be regulated or forbidden. Such acts include public indecency. I don't think it's a novelty that threatens to send us down a slippery slope to treat public homosexuality as indecent. It didn't lead to catastrophe last time it was tried, which was pretty the whole of our past history. An advantage of tradition, by the way, is that the considerations regarding social relations and the human good are infinitely complex, and we can't know where we are if we abandon longstanding systems of practice and feeling and try to reduce the considerations to clear explicit universal principle as liberalism does. Jim Kalb Re: Human rights and minority communities Saturday, 09-Dec-00 08:27:19 151.202.52.208 writes: But my proposal does uphold cultural federalism, local autonomy, the right to move someplace else, etc. See the final point of item 2 and items 4 and 6 of my proposed system and articles 1, 13 and 23 of the revised declaration. The point of the proposal, by the way, is to investigate what could be part of a universal code. I say several times in my pages that I think some such thing is probably inevitable in the modern world, so the issue becomes what it should include. This thread began when I said that the universal code should not insist that family membership be voluntary. If you're down on universal codes you should approve that exclusion and demand even more exclusions. Your complaint should be that I'm still buying too much into the liberal system of universal human rights. Jim Kalb From jk@panix.com Thu Dec 7 09:12:46 2000 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 09:12:45 -0500 (EST) From: To: jk@panix.com Subject: Traditionalist Conservatism Forum X-URL: http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb414560&MyNum=976126772&P=Yes&TL=976050196 Status: OR Re: Re: Re: Human rights Wednesday, 06-Dec-00 13:19:32 151.202.55.190 writes: You're demanding universal principles that require that all legal systems everywhere be equally suited to all possible religions and cultural practices, that law have no moral content, because if it did the moral views of some people subject to the law would be disadvantaged. That can't be done and shouldn't be tried. Why should public recognition of family ties, for example enforcement of obligations of support, depend on what the Amish want? Would you require similar universal indulgence in the case of groups that practice infanticide, human sacrifice or whatever? What is the point of federalism if local law isn't allowed to reflect local values? If the Amish can work out some arrangement with their host society that lets them live as they want that's fine, otherwise they are free to emigrate. I don't think the arrangement and its terms can sensibly be compelled from outside, though. In any event it will be impossible to keep the law from having moral content and infringing on someone. Advanced liberal legal systems attempt to avoid value judgements and let everyone do what he wants. The result is a PC requirement of public neutrality that tyrannizes over everyone except egalitarian hedonists. But why should egalitarian hedonism get preferential treatment? The attempt to treat all moral views equally ends in self-contradiction. Jim Kalb From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Mon Dec 11 08:03:38 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]) by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 717248EDA for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 08:03:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA13735 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 08:03:38 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <846281@doc.Dartmouth.ORG> Date: 11 Dec 2000 08:01:31 EST From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69) Subject: Re: excerpt from Stevens' dissent and my comment (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69) To: jk@panix.com Status: OR --- You wrote: Seems like something of a leap. You seem to be saying that any lying political statement is to be understood as a manifestation of advanced liberalism and its denial of transcendence, rather than as just a lying political statement. Could you show the connection between your general idea about the denial of transcendence and this particular lie (i.e. the lie of describing dimpled ballots already counted as non-votes, as "legal votes")? Remember, I'm a forest-and-trees man! --- end of quote --- The thought was that when as the basis for a proposed resolution to a dispute a judge uses language visibly devised by one of the parties to encode an answer to the point in question he's given up on language as a means for common discussion of a common moral world in favor of language as manipulative rhetoric. Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu) http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Mon Dec 11 08:04:03 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]) by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C96758EDA for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 08:04:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA01147 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 08:04:02 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <846285@doc.Dartmouth.ORG> Date: 11 Dec 2000 08:01:56 EST From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69) Subject: Re: (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69) To: jk@panix.com Status: OR Thanks for sharing! You might reflect, by the way, that the view that human nature can be transformed politically, that it's not something we just have to live with, has led to the murder of scores of millions of innocents in the past 80 years or so. Makes sense - if "man" is a social construct, so it only has the meaning and importance those in power put on it, why shouldn't the same be true of particular men? All the best, Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu) http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Mon Dec 11 08:04:31 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]) by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C63C08EDA for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 08:04:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA28156 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 08:04:30 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <846289@doc.Dartmouth.ORG> Date: 11 Dec 2000 08:02:24 EST From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69) Subject: Re: excerpt from Stevens' dissent and my comment (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69) To: jk@panix.com Status: OR It's a problem. Advanced liberalism arises as part of a process in which language loses meaning and principled action becomes impossible. All there is that language and principle can manifest is will after all. Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu) http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com From jk@panix.com Tue Dec 12 19:53:08 EST 2000 Article: 14916 of alt.revolution.counter Path: news.panix.com!panix2.panix.com!not-for-mail From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter Subject: Re: New website on human rights Date: 11 Dec 2000 17:26:07 -0500 Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences Lines: 18 Message-ID: <913k9v$7s9$1@panix2.panix.com> References: <90u2ct$gm2$1@panix3.panix.com> <912f25$nvo$1@doppler.a2000.nl> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix2.panix.com X-Trace: news.panix.com 976573568 12785 166.84.0.227 (11 Dec 2000 22:26:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Dec 2000 22:26:08 GMT X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.6 (NOV) Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14916 In <912f25$nvo$1@doppler.a2000.nl> psychrophiles@hotmail.com (Maarten) writes: >The fallacy behind your draft seems to me that on the one hand you suggest >universal negative and even some positive human rights, but on the other >hand you want to relegate responsibility for enforcement away from the >center by stressing subsidiary. It seems however, that rights deemed >universal can only be enforced by some universal ('central') power. I don't think that's so. There can be commonly accepted ways of thinking and even statements of principle commonly accepted as authoritative without a central power to enforce them. Think of the Bible among Protestant churches or the Bible plus lots of other stuff among the Eastern Orthodox. I suppose other examples would be scientific method, the grammar etc. of languages, the rules of many games, etc. -- Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu) http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com From jk@panix.com Tue Dec 12 19:53:08 EST 2000 Article: 14920 of alt.revolution.counter Path: news.panix.com!panix6.panix.com!not-for-mail From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter Subject: Re: New website on human rights Date: 12 Dec 2000 06:48:21 -0500 Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences Lines: 28 Message-ID: <9153a5$qqg$1@panix6.panix.com> References: <3A37D2AA@MailAndNews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix6.panix.com X-Trace: news.panix.com 976621702 24432 166.84.0.231 (12 Dec 2000 11:48:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Dec 2000 11:48:22 GMT X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.6 (NOV) Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14920 In <3A37D2AA@MailAndNews.com> "S.T. Theleis" writes: >But maybe he should have said that the rights are only >_meaningful_ when enforced by a central power. Otherwise the sorts of >universal assents to authoritative principle you cite can mean almost >anything You seem to take the view that everything is a matter of power, that common commitments and understandings last only as long as they point in the same direction as one's interests anyway and so have nothing additional to contribute, in effect that man is not fundamentally social. All that seems wrong to me. More to the point from your standpoint, perhaps, is that it's a losing outlook since cooperation among those who accept it will be so unstable. They will never for example be willing to sacrifice for a common cause. >I'll admit though that I'm not much interested in the idea of making >moral pronouncements or grand declarations about such things. People do make such pronouncements and feel compelled to do so if only because otherwise their world seems unfurnished. It seems to me they have influence and serve a function. That being so, their content is naturally a matter of concern. -- Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu) http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com From jk@panix.com Tue Dec 12 19:53:08 EST 2000 Article: 14921 of alt.revolution.counter Path: news.panix.com!panix6.panix.com!not-for-mail From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter Subject: Re: New website on human rights Date: 12 Dec 2000 06:57:02 -0500 Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences Lines: 14 Message-ID: <9153qe$r2u$1@panix6.panix.com> References: <90u2ct$gm2$1@panix3.panix.com> <912f25$nvo$1@doppler.a2000.nl> <913k9v$7s9$1@panix2.panix.com> <914675$1nm$1@darwin.a2000.nl> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix6.panix.com X-Trace: news.panix.com 976622222 24525 166.84.0.231 (12 Dec 2000 11:57:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Dec 2000 11:57:02 GMT X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.6 (NOV) Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14921 In <914675$1nm$1@darwin.a2000.nl> psychrophiles@hotmail.com (Maarten) writes: >But you obviously did not attempted to describe or codify an existing >state, but rather a state that you suggest should exist and should >therefore be enforced. And this implies a (new) mechanism of enforcement. I described and criticised an existing state of affairs, the existing human rights regime with its innate tendencies. That state of affairs seems dangerous to me, so I suggested how it could be improved by cutting human rights theories down to size and leaving more room for other understandings of social life. -- Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu) http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com From jk@panix.com Tue Dec 12 19:53:08 EST 2000 Article: 14926 of alt.revolution.counter Path: news.panix.com!panix6.panix.com!not-for-mail From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter Subject: Re: New website on human rights Date: 12 Dec 2000 19:48:22 -0500 Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences Lines: 36 Message-ID: <916h0m$3jt$1@panix6.panix.com> References: <90u2ct$gm2$1@panix3.panix.com> <912f25$nvo$1@doppler.a2000.nl> <913k9v$7s9$1@panix2.panix.com> <914675$1nm$1@darwin.a2000.nl> <9153qe$r2u$1@panix6.panix.com> <20001212.2325.2193snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix6.panix.com X-Trace: news.panix.com 976668503 7257 166.84.0.231 (13 Dec 2000 00:48:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Dec 2000 00:48:23 GMT X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.6 (NOV) Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14926 In <20001212.2325.2193snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> raf391@hormel.bloxwich.demon.co.uk (rafael cardenas) writes: >What I found interesting is that you still feel that it is necessary to >have a declaration of human rights at all, and the resemblances, >rather than the differences, bwteen your draft and the existing declaration. It's >as if one can choose between Complex Instruction Set and Reduced Instruction >Set, but can't go back to hand calculations, as it were. Actually, I'm not quite sure what to do with the UDHR. For reasons I mentioned in the website here and there it seems to me that some sort of worldwide conception of the principles of legitimate government is inevitable. Such principles would include how governments treat their people, and where we're starting right now is with the UDHR and its various progeny. So I tried to cut the UDHR back to something more reasonable, which meant crossing out the parts that seemed wrong, and then denouncing human rights fundamentalism, which means taking the language of such proclaimations literally, viewing them as eternally valid, etc. >But one needs an optimistic outlook in which we expect that certain kinds >of behaviour will become unthinkable among civilized people, just as it >would no doubt be unthinkable for Mr. Theleis to eat a Jew. It was precisely >the weakening of that optimism from the late 19th century onwards, and >especially after 1914, that encouraged the promulgation of normative >declarations (the U.D. having been added to an existing and slowly >developing framework of international law, including Geneva Conventions and >the like). Yet the normative declarations assume that there is still a >reasonable majority among nations. Oh, there will always be atrocities. The issue I think is the actual effect of various systems proposed to prevent atrocities. Claims that goals are noble, morally compelling or whatever don't do away with the necessity of thinking politically. -- Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu) http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com From jk@panix.com Wed Dec 13 11:44:59 EST 2000 Article: 14930 of alt.revolution.counter Path: news.panix.com!panix6.panix.com!not-for-mail From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter Subject: Re: New website on human rights Date: 13 Dec 2000 08:31:57 -0500 Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences Lines: 43 Message-ID: <917tod$1jm$1@panix6.panix.com> References: <90u2ct$gm2$1@panix3.panix.com> <912f25$nvo$1@doppler.a2000.nl> <913k9v$7s9$1@panix2.panix.com> <914675$1nm$1@darwin.a2000.nl> <9153qe$r2u$1@panix6.panix.com> <20001212.2325.2193snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> <916hr2$pej$1@boile.a2000.nl> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix6.panix.com X-Trace: news.panix.com 976714317 17520 166.84.0.231 (13 Dec 2000 13:31:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Dec 2000 13:31:57 GMT X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.6 (NOV) Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14930 In <916hr2$pej$1@boile.a2000.nl> psychrophiles@hotmail.com (Maarten) writes: >The point being that the drafting >of some code, especially a universal one, should, at least among free men, >be at the end of a process of reconciliation rather than being the basis >for it. Oh, I agree. That's why the page with the suggested language describes it as a means of focusing discussion. >why should one further insist on a corruptible universal code based on >these principles rather then directy cooperate the principles in local law >-- unless of course there's some central institution with sufficient >authority to test local code against higher principles in a systematic >manner? Nonbinding proclamations of principle aren't that rare. International law has typically consisted of agreements and proclamations without specific means of enforcement. Such things serve a function if they stand for general consensus and a system of cooperation that people actually value. If they don't they're just forgotten. I'm glad you and Raphael raised the issue though. There are real issues with having "human rights" as part of international law since such things aren't obviously part of a system of international dealings in the way commercial law or the law of war and peace are. To some extent they are or might be part of the normal course of international dealings and not something superimposed by a central authority. Country A might not want to buy or sell things to country B if country A finds the setup in country B utterly disgusting. If Country A's moral sensibility is sufficiently widespread generally-accepted standards could arise regarding such things. There are also standards of honor or respectability. Such things are particularly common and useful in free societies, and if you oppose imperialism you want world society to be a free society. Human rights standards could be part of a system of honor or respectability applied internationally. In fact, that's mostly what they are today although there are grounds for worrying about the future. -- Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu) http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com From jk@panix.com Wed Dec 13 11:44:59 EST 2000 Article: 14931 of alt.revolution.counter Path: news.panix.com!panix6.panix.com!not-for-mail From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter Subject: Re: New website on human rights Date: 13 Dec 2000 08:53:54 -0500 Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences Lines: 42 Message-ID: <917v1i$3ns$1@panix6.panix.com> References: <90u2ct$gm2$1@panix3.panix.com> <912f25$nvo$1@doppler.a2000.nl> <913k9v$7s9$1@panix2.panix.com> <914675$1nm$1@darwin.a2000.nl> <9153qe$r2u$1@panix6.panix.com> <20001212.2325.2193snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> <916h0m$3jt$1@panix6.panix.com> <3a36fd5e$0$1502$2a0ee87e@news.tdin.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix6.panix.com X-Trace: news.panix.com 976715634 17791 166.84.0.231 (13 Dec 2000 13:53:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Dec 2000 13:53:54 GMT X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.6 (NOV) Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14931 In <3a36fd5e$0$1502$2a0ee87e@news.tdin.com> "Tony W. Frye" writes: >It is already taking place--only it is not centered around the UDHR, but >on the globalization of the U.S.'s Uniform Commercial Code. Human >rights legally does not exist at the international level. Not true - the UDHR has been followed by various treaties and conventions that have binding legal status at least among signatories. And there is increasing talk of customary international human rights law that binds states that haven't signed anything. The Balkan war for example was justified by an emerging right (or obligation) of humanitarian military intervention said to be part of customary international law. Binding international human rights law has been around for a while, actually - it was behind the Nuremberg trials for example. The international criminal court when it becomes effective will be a permanent tribunal for human rights crimes that will be subject to prosecution regardless of what the state involved thinks or has agreed to. >I don't hold out their eventual elevation to legal >status, but globalization and the creation of a global community depends >too heavily on institution building, which in this context serves the >interests of the stock holders (as the Multilateral Agreement on >Investment illustrates). Human rights law is part of the process of building One World, billions of individual worker/consumers organized and managed by world markets, and transnational bureaucracies. I'm not sure why stock holders as a class should object. >And there will always be murder and rape. That doesn't mean we should >ditch our criminal codes Sure. The only point is that saying X is anticrime does not automatically justify X. One must think through what it would be like to live with X as an institution and what its actual effects and implications would be. -- Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu) http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com From jk@panix.com Wed Dec 13 11:44:59 EST 2000 Article: 14932 of alt.revolution.counter Path: news.panix.com!panix2.panix.com!not-for-mail From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter Subject: Re: New website on human rights Date: 13 Dec 2000 11:44:46 -0500 Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences Lines: 11 Message-ID: <91891u$2ln$1@panix2.panix.com> References: <90u2ct$gm2$1@panix3.panix.com> <912f25$nvo$1@doppler.a2000.nl> <913k9v$7s9$1@panix2.panix.com> <914675$1nm$1@darwin.a2000.nl> <9153qe$r2u$1@panix6.panix.com> <20001212.2325.2193snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> <916hr2$pej$1@boile.a2000.nl> <917tod$1jm$1@panix6.panix.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix2.panix.com X-Trace: news.panix.com 976725887 20460 166.84.0.227 (13 Dec 2000 16:44:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Dec 2000 16:44:47 GMT X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.6 (NOV) Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14932 In <917tod$1jm$1@panix6.panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes: >the page with the suggested language describes >it as a means of focusing discussion. I just revised the proposal page to make it clearer what the status of the suggested pronouncements is intended to be. Thanks much to Raphael and Maarten for their comments. -- Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu) http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Wed Dec 13 11:46:04 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]) by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7816E8EE2 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:46:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA17439 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:46:04 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <879309@doc.Dartmouth.ORG> Date: 13 Dec 2000 11:44:19 EST From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69) Subject: Re: Ledeen replies. You're not going to believe this ... (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69) To: jk@panix.com Status: OR --- You wrote: the point is not to change the world but to understand it. --- end of quote --- I grow more and more impressed by how important fundamental philosophical issues are, like whether comtemplation is the highest form of life as premoderns thought or an impossibility as moderns think. Is man at his best a knower or a maker? Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu) http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Wed Dec 13 11:46:53 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]) by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5125F912C for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:46:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA07553 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:46:52 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <879319@doc.Dartmouth.ORG> Date: 13 Dec 2000 11:45:08 EST From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69) Subject: Re: Remember These 'Terrible People' (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69) To: jk@panix.com Status: OR Is it just my imagination, or something very temporary due to the mess in Florida, or are rightwingers really getting more radical? Not so much as a matter of program, but in the sense that they understand more and more that that the Left has breached the social contract, that leftist principles in fact deny the very possibility of a social contract, that it really has been a war but one so far carried on only by one side. Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu) http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Wed Dec 13 11:48:16 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]) by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC7949150 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:48:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA03929 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:48:15 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <879340@doc.Dartmouth.ORG> Date: 13 Dec 2000 11:46:29 EST From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69) Subject: Re: a neocon responds ... (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69) To: jk@panix.com Status: OR --- You wrote: I refuse to give the Left a monopoly on "revolution." Since they are trying to undo the victories of the American Revolution, they are counterrevolutionaries. --- end of quote --- It's not clear what to make of it. Strikes me as mostly as unprincipled use of language, due possibly to indifference to history or trying to seize a rhetorical advantage. Of course if you're unprincipled and mostly look for advantages and don't much care what happened in the past you're unlikely to reject whatever fundamental views are currently dominant. Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu) http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Wed Dec 13 11:48:46 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DA4448AF1 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:48:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA04548 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:48:45 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <879351@doc.Dartmouth.ORG> Date: 13 Dec 2000 11:46:56 EST From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69) Subject: Re: more on Ledeed (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69) To: jk@panix.com Status: OR --- You wrote: Ledeen's reply "I refuse to give the left a monopoly on revolution," is similar in its personalistic form to many statements Norman Podhoretz has made over the years. That is, Ledeen doesn't refer to what he believes is objectively true, or to what the common understandings of the word "revolution" are, but rather to the drama of his own willfulness: "I refuse to give ..." With the neocons, it always comes down to THEMSELVES. --- end of quote --- I think it's true that the neocons take the career as the fundamental ethical reality. Think of of N. Podhoretz's _Making It_. In part also it's taking a manipulative approach to language and ideas - they're all part of a personal campaign. You could also view it as a solipsistic collapse of middle-of-the-road conservatism. The view used to be that settled social views and practices were the standard; now it's one's own settled views and practices. Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu) http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com From jk@panix.com Thu Dec 14 08:33:05 EST 2000 Article: 14937 of alt.revolution.counter Path: news.panix.com!panix3.panix.com!not-for-mail From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter Subject: Re: New website on human rights Date: 13 Dec 2000 18:20:00 -0500 Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences Lines: 16 Message-ID: <919070$q6h$1@panix3.panix.com> References: <3A409655@MailAndNews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix3.panix.com X-Trace: news.panix.com 976749600 27315 166.84.0.228 (13 Dec 2000 23:20:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Dec 2000 23:20:00 GMT X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.6 (NOV) Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14937 In <3A409655@MailAndNews.com> "S.T. Theleis" writes: >Truly idiotic gibberish, making nonsense of your supposed stand >for freedom and "particularism". If everyone must be bullied into >agreement with the same standard Some common standards are inevitable, because man is social. A free society, and a society of nations that respects particularism, relies mostly on standards that arise through growth of common understandings and commitments and are "enforced" through preferential dealings based on affinity. Like supporters of the antidiscrimination laws you identify the latter with coercion and bullying. That's only one of the fundamental positions you share with the Left. -- Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu) http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com From jk@panix.com Thu Dec 14 08:33:05 EST 2000 Article: 14942 of alt.revolution.counter Path: news.panix.com!panix3.panix.com!not-for-mail From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter Subject: Re: New website on human rights Date: 14 Dec 2000 08:29:58 -0500 Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences Lines: 46 Message-ID: <91ai0m$6bv$1@panix3.panix.com> References: <90u2ct$gm2$1@panix3.panix.com> <912f25$nvo$1@doppler.a2000.nl> <913k9v$7s9$1@panix2.panix.com> <914675$1nm$1@darwin.a2000.nl> <9153qe$r2u$1@panix6.panix.com> <20001212.2325.2193snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> <916h0m$3jt$1@panix6.panix.com> <3a36fd5e$0$1502$2a0ee87e@news.tdin.com> <917v1i$3ns$1@panix6.panix.com> <3a38a3ae$0$1509$2a0ee87e@news.tdin.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix3.panix.com X-Trace: news.panix.com 976800598 9233 166.84.0.228 (14 Dec 2000 13:29:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Dec 2000 13:29:58 GMT X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.6 (NOV) Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14942 In <3a38a3ae$0$1509$2a0ee87e@news.tdin.com> "Tony W. Frye" writes: >Nowhere in international law is a declaration legally binding. Just so. However, since the UDHR there have been a number of human rights conventions that have a different status. >Humanitarianism was merely >the diplomatic-propaganda rationale by which NATO (or US since the US >provides over 60% of its military budget and an American is always the >Commanding General) utilized to excuse the bombings. "Human rights" often and to a large extent have to do with something else. What else is new? The argument regarding an emerging obligation in customary international law of humanitarian intervention was presented and taken quite seriously by leading PC regimes and commentators. Why claim it has nothing to do with the human rights institutions and principles those same people are pushing? >If you are a stockholder in Nike and some NGO >starts complaining about child labor, you'd see why they would quickly >object to any accountability. I don't see the problem for shareholders or large transnational financial institutions generally. What deprives Nike of a competitive edge gives the advantage to someone else. Also, international standards help large international enterprises, since they are concerned with image and public relations and would rather not have to worry about competition from say Chinese enterprises if they get pressured into complying with minimum standards to which the latter are not subject. Big corporations in the US *like* affirmative action etc. Why should such attitudes stop at the water's edge? More generally, international standards facilitate a more standard worldwide way of doing business, which is a genuine gain in efficiency for transnational business organizations. And most generally, "human rights" as now understood promote a uniform worldwide individualistic consumer society without borders. The ultimate reason they do so, I think, is that they posit rational economic man - the rational self-seeking pursuer of individual satisfaction - as the standard for human nature. It should be obvious that "human rights" express the same philosophical and institutional tendencies as world markets and contemporary transnational bureaucracies generally. -- Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu) http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com Re: Re: Re: Public moral standards Saturday, 16-Dec-00 14:05:51 151.202.98.249 writes: Comments: 1. Nobody is really willing to live with a scheme whereby only those acts that cause direct physical harm to human beings are subject to regulation. It wouldn't cause direct physical harm to anyone if I scattered newspapers and burger wrappers along the highway, or never paid my taxes, or put up billboards everywhere decorated with images from some of Sade's more imaginative scenes, or tortured cats to death for fun, or launched a campaign of slander against someone who annoyed me, or locked my children into their bedrooms for years on end (but fed them etc.) 2. I'm not sure how the principle would apply to public activities other than criminal law and national defense. Do you think education is legitimately addressed in the public sphere? If it is, then *all* moral issues become legitimately part of the public sphere, since education necessarily includes moral education. 3. One source of confusion is the technological outlook people have today. If someone says something is a public concern people think he's proposing that a program be engineered to deal with it comprehensively. Not so. Honesty for example is a public concern because (like - to choose an arbitrary example - sex) it is one of the basic things having to do with people's relations with each other. That doesn't mean there must be a comprehensive program to define what honesty calls for and stamp out everything that doesn't fit the standard. It does mean that some kinds of dishonesty are illegal, that when the issue comes up it is treated with disfavor, that people who are annoyed by dishonesty aren't automatically thought of as bigots and busybodies (although it would of course be possible for someone to be a busybody about honesty), that teachers praise honesty and are expected to set an example of it, that when popular entertainment presents dishonesty in a neutral or favorable light people complain, etc., etc., etc. Overall, I would say that the view of traditionalist conservatism is that it's very hard to exclude something categorically from public concern, but there's a limit to what regulation, public administration, etc. can achieve. That's why social moral customs are so important. Jim Kalb Re: transcendence, carts, and horses Wednesday, 20-Dec-00 15:30:53 151.202.52.144 writes: By "transcendence" I understand aspects of the world that we don't and can't fully understand but are nonetheless implied by our judgements of what is good, beautiful and true. Since we don't and can't fully understand them our access to them involves reliance on faith and tradition (tradition being accumulated habits, attitudes, understanding, practices etc. that can't be fully articulated or specifically justified but seem concretely to embody the good, beautiful and true). Social order necessarily involves judgements of what is good, beautiful and true. That's because man is social, and such judgements are essential to being human. Social order therefore necessarily involves reliance on faith, tradition and the transcendent. Your point seems to be that faiths, traditions and conceptions of the transcendent differ. True enough, and so do systems of law, conceptions of justice etc. It's as realistic to think that a social order can be equally hospitable to all of the latter as to all of the former. The reason is that (since man is a social being whose body and soul cannot be altogether separated) the former and the latter implicate each other. Liberalism of course claims to provide a conception of law and justice that abstracts from conceptions of the good, beautiful and true and treats them all, and therefore all faiths and traditions, equally favorably. The claim is obviously false. Liberalism is certainly no more neutral and tolerant than say Roman Catholicism. It seems to me less so. If you're interested I discuss this kind of issue in The Tyranny of Liberalism. To summarize, you seem to want to claim that a public order based on faith and tradition is impossible today. I'm not sure why the same objection would not lie against a liberal public order. Jim Kalb Re: Re: transcendence, carts, and horses Wednesday, 20-Dec-00 17:29:42 151.202.52.144 writes: What about those whose consciences are affronted by liberal beliefs? That includes most people who have ever lived. So what happens to people who live in a state based on liberal beliefs? You seem to be confusing a state's understanding of human and moral reality with the degree to which the state demands that its subjects agree with that understanding. You also seem to be stretching the conception of theocracy beyond recognition, so that every state becomes a theocracy of some kind. It is necessary that a state have a particular understanding of human and moral reality. Otherwise it could not act at all, at least not coherently. On that point liberalism seems to claim neutrality but the claim to the extent it is really made is plainly fraudulent. You have I think in effect admitted as much, in your observation (I think it was yours) that liberalism establishes strict public moral standards. So as to tolerance the real issue is the extent to which the state demands consent to its view of things, the view on which it bases the laws when it acts in a principled way. On that issue Christian states can afford to be tolerant, since they do not think consent is necessary for political obligation. In contrast, liberalism bases authority on its claim to have the consent of the people. It must therefore view a citizen who does not consent to liberalism as dangerous, and in fact alien to the social order. Hence for example the emphasis in liberal states on public education. I don't believe I have anywhere argued for religion as a means to public order. I have asserted that some religious understanding, some understanding of ultimate things, is behind every public order. Such a view might motivate someone who started with an interest in politics to look more seriously into more basic things. It does not mean that those things are not more basic. I don't suggest abolition of the private. I just say a strict distinction of public and private is impossible. You seem to admit as least as much in your apparent view that the only way to guard private freedom is strict public neutrality. To the extent the public/private distinction is workable it would not be that hard to combine a confessional public square with private liberty. If it's not workable then public "neutrality" wouldn't be neutral either, since it would pressure private life to become "neutral" as well. Jim Kalb Re: Re: Human rights and minority communities Wednesday, 20-Dec-00 17:42:33 151.202.52.144 writes: We are speaking of the extent to which there are to be worldwide standards applicable to every political society everywhere. I weaken those standards on one point. Some jurisdictions would no doubt allow parents and children to divorce each other, but I would permit other jurisdictions not to allow such a thing. On the face of it, weakening universal standards in that way would permit more variation among societies. You seem to want extensive protections. Extensive protections mean extensive controls, though, and so normally less diversity. I don't see why this case should be different. Jim Kalb Re: Re: transcendence, carts, and horses Thursday, 21-Dec-00 15:41:48 151.202.105.111 writes: You seem to believe that a liberal public square need not infringe on private belief and practice, while a confessional public square must do so to a greater extent. I don't see why. I don't see what it is about putting all one's hope in the things of this world and denial of divine providence that would lead people to let things take their own course. Nor do I see what it is about individual freedom, universal equality, inclusiveness, nondiscrimination, social justice, etc. that make for limited government. It seems clear to me that such views have the opposite tendency. They present a comprehensive view of how things should be that extends right down to the day-to-day lives of every individual and his relations to coworkers, family members and everyone else he has dealings with, and makes the achievement of that state of affairs an imperative that overrides everything. What aspect of morality can those who accept such views leave alone? I have read major liberal theoreticians, for example, who claim that children should be given a liberal education regardless of the views of their parents. I don't know of major Christian theoreticians, past or present, who have claimed that (for example) Jewish and Muslim children should be given a Christian education against their parents' wishes. Which is more tolerant? Look at the major human rights conventions and proclamations. They demand, among other things, that gender distinctions be abolished as a significant principle, and that governments do what's needed to change social and cultural views and practices that stand in the way of that goal. Given that kind of demand, how much room is left for private life As for disfavored communities - if the Anglican religion (for example) is accepted as the basis of the state then those who reject it will probably be allowed only very limited participation in political life. On the other hand, if liberalism is the basis of the state then those who fundamentally reject liberalism are also going to be excluded. In Europe they tend to do that directly - look at the thousands who are fined or imprisoned in Germany for speech crimes, or the response to Haider's very minor deviation from correctness. In America we rely more on national habits of conformity, and on civil rights laws that demand "good faith efforts" and creation of an inclusive environment, and so supervise attitudes. You seem to believe liberalism is intrinsically more tolerant than say Roman Catholicism, so that if the public square is liberal RCs will be OK but if it's RC liberals won't be OK. Why is that? It seems to me clear that a political outlook that makes political obligation disappear if there is no consent is going to be less tolerant of dissent than one that thinks political obligation has nothing much to do with consent. In the former case the existence of dissent in and of itself strikes at the root of the regime. Jim Kalb From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Thu Dec 21 14:44:27 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]) by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 662039334 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:44:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA14469 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:44:26 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <977376@doc.Dartmouth.ORG> Date: 21 Dec 2000 14:42:16 EST From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69) Subject: Re: W's legitimacy (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69) To: jk@panix.com Status: OR --- You wrote: One of the fatal flaws of Republicans is that they tend to keep mechanically repeating their OWN position, while failing to respond to or refute the beliefs of their opponents. --- end of quote --- It's a problem, imagination isn't their strong suit. There's an assumption that everyone's going to be reasonable and public spirited as they understand those things. If they understood how deep the problems and divisions went they wouldn't be able to imagine that they're part of a mainstream that includes almost everyone. They'd have to ask what their own views are and what the basis of those view is other than believing in America. In other words they wouldn't be Republicans. Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu) http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Thu Dec 21 14:44:52 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8F8048CD5 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:44:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA26897 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:44:43 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <977381@doc.Dartmouth.ORG> Date: 21 Dec 2000 14:42:33 EST From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69) Subject: Re: Cuomo and the degradation of language (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69) To: jk@panix.com Status: OR The problem I think is that he really does want to be a serious man and a Catholic, and also part of the respected admired moral mainstream. If you try to do all that lying and distortion of language are inevitable. Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu) http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Thu Dec 21 14:55:47 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EE2A48D62 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:47:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA29056 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:47:45 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <977417@doc.Dartmouth.ORG> Date: 21 Dec 2000 14:45:35 EST From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69) Subject: Re: Liberalism (forwarded from James B. Kalb 69) To: jk@panix.com Status: OR Thanks for your thoughts. It's a big question whether Christianity has failed. It seems to me it answers the big questions better than any other outlook, that glorious though Islam may be it tries to avoid problems by oversimplification so that Islamic thinkers have to smuggle back in by way of Sufism the parts of Christianity Islam cut out. So it seems to me what we have is a corruption of Christianity, as of the rest of the Western heritage, and not the necessary outcome of those things except in the sense that corruption is necessary. The problem is to restore what has been lost. The point of the conclusion of my essay is that the solution is not completely up to us. Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu) http://www.counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Sat Dec 23 19:48:31 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CEBD48E78 for ; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 19:48:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA10086 for ; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 19:48:12 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <995542@doc.Dartmouth.ORG> Date: 23 Dec 2000 19:45:54 EST From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69) Subject: RE: Nazis To: jk@panix.com Status: OR --- You wrote: I think if anything the Nazis were more vehement about eliminating the friend/enemy distinction than others (the "fraternity" in liberty, equality, fraternity), and came to the practical conclusion that in order to eliminate the f/e distinction you have to eliminate liberalism's enemies. --- end of quote --- You can't be a militarist though without the friend/enemy distinction. Like other Godless voluntarists (I'll have to think of a snappier name, I feel compelled to retain the "Godless" because Muslims are voluntarists too except they think it's God's will that arbitrarily makes things good or bad) the Nazis couldn't deal sensibly with the friend/enemy distinction and so required absolute unity within society and merciless war against those outside. I think it's the situation within society that you are referring to. I think they explicitly recognized the necessity of outsiders though, otherwise they wouldn't have been the Herrenvolk. Liberalism proper denies that necessity. In fact of course liberalism requires outsiders as well (bigots or whatever), and views them as Untermenschen, but it refuses to recognize the fact. That refusal is I think the distinction. Liberalism recognizes that the principle of inclusiveness is what distinguishes it from Nazism, which is why it believes that "discrimination" leads straight to Auschwitz. Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu) http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Sat Dec 23 15:16:46 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]) by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2703D94C9 for ; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 15:16:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA10720 for ; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 15:16:42 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <994672@doc.Dartmouth.ORG> Date: 23 Dec 2000 15:14:25 EST From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69) Subject: Nazis To: ma Status: OR As I think I said at dinner it seems to me liberalism and Nazism have a great deal in common. Both abolish the transcendent and so make choice - the Triumph of the Will - the basic moral principle. That has consequences. Since all wills are equally wills, and it's simply their being wills that is the source of their authority, and since for a will as such there is no standard other than getting its own way, both liberalism and Nazism naturally tend to appeal to equality and freedom as ultimate moral principles. I think your argument could be improved by referring to that common ground. Just quoting Hitler invites the response "well it's notorious he consciously used lying as a political technique." Develop the notion that there's a reason freedom and equality were the principles he found helpful and his potential supporters found appealing. You say there must have been such a reason but you don't develop what it is. I think it's confusing to refer to Nazism as a form of liberalism. Both are forms of something bigger, a sort of Godless voluntarism. So looking at things that way I suppose the question is whether the distinction between liberalism and its evil twin Nazism is one that stands up and makes liberalism as reliably good as Nazism is evil. I suppose the difference between the two is that liberalism claims to abolish the friend/enemy distinction. Since Godless voluntarism abolishes any common human nature transcending manmade differences it tends to make the f/e distinction go to extremes and in fact become downright Nazi in character. If that's right the question becomes whether abolition of the distinction is possible and whether it has its own horrible implications. I don't think it's possible. Think of how liberals, Hollywood stars for example, talk about Republicans, racists, 'phobes, etc. And its implications are horrible. With no f/e distinction there are no politics. There can be no moral disputes and therefore no moral life. The notion of self-government becomes absurd. Humanity become a mass of manipulated consumers and functionaries. Luckily it's hard to force mankind into that mold. Unluckily the effort is necessarily tyrannical and is unlikely to remain nicely so. Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu) http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Sat Dec 23 15:23:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B191348728 for ; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 15:23:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA07399 for ; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 15:23:10 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <994698@doc.Dartmouth.ORG> Date: 23 Dec 2000 15:20:53 EST From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69) Subject: liberalism discussion To: jk@panix.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched Content-Disposition: inline Status: O First comment: "Liberalism has become the modern embodiment of the Tower of Babel." This is an enormously important point I think. We learn from others, and in particular we learn our limitations by dealings with others. At Babel there were no others because there was a universal world society ( all were of the same tongue). Therefore man collectively confused himself with God and tried to abolish the transcendent (built a tower to heaven). The situation rectified itself through its necessary consequences. Language lost meaning, because without reference to the transcendent meaning doesn't exist. So humanity became divided again and relative humility and sanity were restored. From James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG Sun Dec 24 07:56:38 2000 Return-Path: Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8716487EA for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 07:56:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27]) by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA02714 for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 07:56:29 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <996949@doc.Dartmouth.ORG> Date: 24 Dec 2000 07:54:11 EST From: James.B.Kalb.69@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (James B. Kalb 69) Subject: RE: Nazis To: ma Status: OR --- You wrote: I don't understand the justification of the idea that liberalism is not militaristic. --- end of quote --- Nazism had the explicit notion of the Herrenvolk which liberalism does not. Liberalism may have the notion of superior and inferior groups implicitly but explicitly it rejects it indignantly. It doesn't even have a proletariat to act as the bearer of the new order. It therefore doesn't foresee permanent struggle, which the Herrenvolk notion requires, or even necessary armed struggle. It has an ideal of ultimate peace, brotherhood and equality that it expects actually to be realized. Also it tends toward legalism, toward this idea of abstract order realizing itself through reason. I agree that by pushing incoherent ideas here or there you can end up anywhere. But Nazism, Bolshevism and liberalism all agree that liberalism differs from the other two along these lines. Each denounces the other two bitterly. The difference is not merely one of situation. John Locke had plenty of traditionalist residues to deal with but he didn't look for a Leader as the embodiment of the will of the English nation. In Germany there were liberals, Nazis and Bosheviks battling each other simultaneously. Liberalism believes that if it rejects inclusiveness it becomes Nazism and if it rejects reform through law it becomes Bolshevism. Why not accept that these are differences among the three? Their unity as forms of voluntarism may be more fundamental but there are distinctions as well. Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu) http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
Let me know if you have comments of any kind.
Back to my archive of posts.