Items Posted by Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri Jun 1 14:53:25 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id OAA01216
for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 14:53:22 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Fri Jun 1 14:53:22 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 QAA06256;
Fri, 1 Jun 2001 16:53:21 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 16:53:21 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200106012053.QAA06256@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-78-31.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.78.31] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <3162347> 01 Jun 2001 16:53:17 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: co
In-reply-to: <20010601130347.68492.qmail@web14704.mail.yahoo.com> (message from Igor Radionov on Fri, 1 Jun 2001 06:03:47 -0700 (PDT))
Subject: Re: My questions etc.
References: <20010601130347.68492.qmail@web14704.mail.yahoo.com>
Status: O
I am not familiar with the particular statements you mention.
In general, I would say that Irving and Mrs. Kristol (Gertrude
Himmelfarb) belong to a faction of conservatism called neoconservatism
that tends to view religion, morality, etc. as very good things - for
other people. The extreme case is the Straussians, who envision a
philosophical elite of nihilists whose nihilism is esoteric and whose
public teaching encourages the people to be pious, moral, patriotic,
etc. I don't consider such views either good, beautiful or true. I
should say in fairness though that the Kristols do not seem to belong to
the extreme faction.
On the general subject, it seems to me the question "when is illicit sex
OK" is like the question "when is lying OK." It seems easier to accept
that it sometimes happens, because we are not angels, than to define a
rule that justifies it. Like lying it should be viewed as something that
degrades human relations and constitutes an injury to one's integrity
and honor. Also like lying it should be viewed as something that is
often tempting, sometimes irresistably so, but not to be justified, and
all the more dangerous because it easily becomes a habit. Those who
avoid such things are to be admired and lapses to be regreted and when
they seem serious condemned.
As to pornography, it seems to me only scholarly motives can justify
reading it. Habitual consorting with prostitutes also seems to me a
serious vice. "The essence of conservatism is enjoyment" refers to
seeing what is good in actualities, not lawless hedonism.
I heard the rumors about G.H.W. Bush but always doubted them - if there
was evidence for them we would have heard all about it from the
Democrats during the Clinton scandals.
A general comment - the difficulty of attaining perfection or legally
enforcing many things does not mean they should be given up as
standards. What should be is not the same as what is. None of us ever
succeeds in living altogether as he should. That does not mean that our
view of how we should live should change or that we do not have an
obligation to guide ourselves by it. It is the Left that tries to
establish a perfect consistent system that can be legally enforced and
perfectly realized here and now. Conservatives know that is impossible.
It is impossible to be completely virtuous or consistent but we should
not give up virtue and consistency or redefine them.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri Jun 1 11:58:41 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id LAA10912
for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 11:58:38 -0600 (MDT)
From: kalb@aya.yale.edu
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Fri Jun 1 11:58:38 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 NAA15187
for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 13:58:36 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 13:58:36 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200106011758.NAA15187@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-78-31.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.78.31] for jkalb@nyx.net id <3158623> 01 Jun 2001 13:58:34 EDT
Sender: James.Kalb@DAD'S
Newsgroups: alt.politics.british,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union
Subject: Re: The greatest perversity of the European Union
References: <20010522173139.17324.00000832@ng-fk1.aol.com> <990569881.183929@dionysos> <990721949.995561@dionysos> <
Apparently-To:
Status: O
3b0f7a7f.0@interalpha.net> <9epojc$irs$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <3b12b5b7.0@interalpha.net> <9f36gb$jmh$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk> <9f3pi3$71c$1@plutonium.btinternet.com> <9f604u$saj$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk> <9f7e5u$i1s$1@plutonium.btinternet.com> <9f8ils$rd$1@uranium.btinternet.com>
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 01 Jun 2001 13:58:47 -0400
Message-ID:
Lines: 11
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
In-Reply-To: "anton"'s message of "Fri, 1 Jun 2001 18:18:42 +0100"
"anton" writes:
> >It seems to me many EU proponents really do think of the EU as
> >"Europe," as the embodiment of everything permanently and universally
> >valuable in Europe and so as the real Europe.
>
> Oh- so you're saying that they *are* mentally confused?
Only to the extent being wrong implies confusion.
Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri Jun 1 11:17:48 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id LAA05611
for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 11:17:46 -0600 (MDT)
From: kalb@aya.yale.edu
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Fri Jun 1 11:17:46 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
Received: from doc.Dartmouth.ORG (doc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.27])
by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (8.9.3+DND/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA31706
for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 13:17:43 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 13:17:43 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200106011717.NAA31706@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-78-31.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.78.31] for jkalb@nyx.net id <3157843> 01 Jun 2001 13:17:40 EDT
Sender: James.Kalb@DAD'S
Newsgroups: alt.politics.british,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union
Subject: Re: The greatest perversity of the European Union
References: <20010522173139.17324.00000832@ng-fk1.aol.com> <990569881.183929@dionysos> <990721949.995561@dionysos> <
Apparently-To:
Status: O
3b0f7a7f.0@interalpha.net> <9epojc$irs$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <3b12b5b7.0@interalpha.net> <9f36gb$jmh$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk> <9f3pi3$71c$1@plutonium.btinternet.com> <9f604u$saj$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk> <9f7e5u$i1s$1@plutonium.btinternet.com> <9f8gp0$85d$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 01 Jun 2001 13:17:51 -0400
Message-ID:
Lines: 22
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
In-Reply-To: "Paul Hammond"'s message of "Fri, 1 Jun 2001 17:38:19 +0100"
"Paul Hammond" writes:
> Since in the discussion we are having, the only "Europe" on the table
> is the European Union, I think the necessity for these distinctions
> does not arise.
But the point of the discussion is the future of "Europe" as a
geographical and cultural complex as well as "Europe" as the EU. Without
the distinction you can't discuss whether the EU is a good thing for
European civilization in general. That question seems important unless
you think it's already been decided that the EU is the necessary destiny
of Europe as a civilization summing up its meaning for the world (which
does seem to me the view of many EUphiles).
> "in Europe, but not run by Europe"?
In both instances "Europe" could refer to Europe as a social, cultural
and economic complex. Hague wants to be part of that complex while
maintaining a certain critical distance and independence. An admirably
nuanced view I think.
Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri Jun 1 10:42:27 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id KAA01397
for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 10:42:25 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Fri Jun 1 10:42:25 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 MAA24090
for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 12:42:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-78-31.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.78.31] for jkalb@nyx.net id <3157248> 01 Jun 2001 12:42:19 EDT
Sender: James.Kalb@DAD'S
Newsgroups: uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union
Subject: Re: tell me I am a liar now!
References: <3b15559f.6317083@news.ntlworld.com> <3b16a3ad.1926773@news.u-net.com> <9f7r6p$2oc3r$1@ID-90293.news.dfncis.de> <9f8aio$2r3vb$1@ID-90293.news.dfncis.de>
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 01 Jun 2001 12:42:32 -0400
Message-ID:
Lines: 56
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
In-Reply-To: "Nelson Menezes"'s message of "Fri, 1 Jun 2001 15:58:20 +0100"
Apparently-To:
Status: O
"Nelson Menezes" writes:
> What logic? That the "single authority" would be evil and oppressive?
That the separate nations of Europe would amount to less and less
politically, that more and more decisions would be made farther and
farther away from any broad public that is coherent enough to debate and
act effectively, and that ruling elites would have far greater autonomy
in dealing with the people while becoming more answerable to each other.
Maybe that will be all to the good to the extent the elites act as
enlightened despots.
> Do you know what is Idaho's view on the new Missile Defense Programme? Nope;
> it's not its task to have a view on that. What we're trying to build in
> Europe is a process by which member-states participate in the formation of
> policies at all levels, having a joint end result, hence a much higher
> political strenght to work. Look at the German model of federalism to have
> an idea of how it could work.
How much do the German laender participate in the formulation of foreign
policy? Will it be realistic for all the 20+ members of an expanded EU
to participate, if the EU is to take its place on the world stage, speak
with a single voice, and act effectively, using military force (as
apparently is planned) thousands of miles from its borders when needed?
People usually think foreign and military affairs require unity of
conception, decision and command. Is that just a mistake?
> Well, firstly, no European country wants to be an Ohio or a California.
> Cultural identity and interests will prevent that (thank god!).
Don't understand. I thought that opposition to discrimination was a
fundamental EU commitment, that the single currency was going to require
far greater economic unity, including greater labor mobility, that the
Europeans weren't reproducing themselves and would have to rely
increasingly on immigrants, and that multiculturalism was catching on in
Europe. Am I just mistaken? If not, I'm not sure cultural identity is a
long-term winner.
If you think cultural identity is here to stay in Europe as a legitimate
dominating factor in politics, what will support it? How will it be
institutionalized? Why will the authorities cooperate with it instead of
trying to weaken it as an obstacle to solidarity and rational economic
planning throughout the EU?
> Secondly, there is no programme to make a "superstate", simply because
> the logic of "state" does not work at this level
This sounds like a decision not to apply the word rather than an
argument. I agree independent countries can cooperate voluntarily, but
that isn't what the EU is about. If that were what the EU is about, why
the Euro? Its main function appears to be making separate policies
unsustainable and so forcing centralization of authority.
Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue May 29 05:31:46 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id FAA11761
for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 05:31:44 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Tue May 29 05:31:44 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 HAA28519;
Tue, 29 May 2001 07:31:42 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 07:31:42 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200105291131.HAA28519@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-79-184.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.79.184] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <3089792> 29 May 2001 07:31:41 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: la
In-reply-to: <000401c0e802$dbe0df20$7056580c@h6l3p> (la@att.net)
Subject: Re: query
References: <000401c0e802$dbe0df20$7056580c@h6l3p>
Status: O
you're making the rather astounding suggestion that the clergy had a
prior desire to abolish the transcendence of the divine in favor of a
man-centered universalism, and then the civil rights movement came
along and fit the bill. While that's an awful lot to see _implied_,
rather than being based on evidence of things the clergy said and so
on
Is it that astounding? In Anglicanism think of Honest to God, in the
Roman church think of post-VII tendencies. There was also The Secular
City. I'm told that the first had an enormous effect in the C of E, so
the explicit substitution of human relations for the transcendent must
have been something that was waiting to happen.
As to "prior desire" - I suppose in most people it was unconsious and
inarticulate in many ways. The stuff I mention in the previous paragraph
was all a bit after the civil rights stuff got started. Still, when
people recognize that something like the civil rights movement speaks to
them and seems more important than anything else they are doing, and
when something spreads and develops like the "spirit of Vatican II," it
shows something about what had been going on.
jk
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Jun 3 17:19:08 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id RAA02304
for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2001 17:19:06 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sun Jun 3 17:19:06 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 TAA03394
for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2001 19:19:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-76-6.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.76.6] for jkalb@nyx.net id <3180311> 03 Jun 2001 19:18:57 EDT
To: jkalb@nyx.net
Subject: [uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union] Re: tell me I am a liar now!
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 03 Jun 2001 19:19:15 -0400
Message-ID:
Lines: 29
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
Status: RO
"Nelson Menezes" writes:
> I think all coherence that is necessary is that we all are human
> beings and we all want to have food, a place to live, dignity, justice,
> freedom...
That seems to me the ultimate issue - if you have hundreds of millions
of people in an area stretching over thousands of miles who share only
their humanity and whatever goes with that, can those people be united
under a free and orderly government?
I don't think so. It seems to me there are good reasons free and orderly
government has been so uncommon. It requires settled habits of
cooperation and common understandings and loyalties that are difficult
to achieve without a common history, without feelings of concrete
kinship, without membership in a community that understands itself as
distinct from other communities. I don't think simple humanity, or even
simple humanity plus universal ideals and rational procedures, is
enough.
Why should anyone care about the public good instead of just his own
good? It seems to me to give up something for the sake of the political
society of which you are a member you have to view your membership as
part of what makes you the specific person you are. If the political
society is just a matter of being a human being then you won't view your
membership that way and it isn't likely to inspire the loyalty a free
society needs to exist.
Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Jun 3 17:17:57 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id RAA02250
for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2001 17:17:56 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sun Jun 3 17:17:56 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 TAA26794
for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2001 19:17:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-76-6.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.76.6] for jkalb@nyx.net id <3180303> 03 Jun 2001 19:17:46 EDT
To: jkalb@nyx.net
Subject: [uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union] Re: tell me I am a liar now!
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 03 Jun 2001 19:18:04 -0400
Message-ID:
Lines: 31
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
Status: RO
Ricardo G Alves writes:
> The EU is not meant to be multicultural. Current EU ideology prefers
> to speak of common european heritage and values, which, they believe,
> are self-evident.
Multiculturalism seems to have become dogma in Britain. I just wonder
how long the Continent can hold out. It's an area in which things can
move very quickly. The presumptions behind the public statements of
European leaders and journalistic treatments I've seen (admittedly I'm
thinking about British journalists) seem to imply multiculturalism.
"Common European heritage and values" strikes me as a good first step
toward abolishing the actual heritage and values of the particular
European peoples. So far as I can tell, their suggested content is
altogether abstract and universalizable - economic growth, a large
welfare state, human rights, etc. It's not clear to me why a Chinaman
couldn't sign on to it as easily as a Greek or Irishman or Gypsy and so
become just as good a participant in the CEH&V. In fact, letting him do
so seems to me a necessary implication of the CEH&V if I'm right about
their content.
> The EU does not want to be an haven for immigrants from other
> continents looking for work. On the opposite, it has erected very high
> walls and very efficient police cooperation to stop them.
I think it's true that high unemployment rates in Europe are likely to
have a big effect on the issue. I'm not sure though what the Europeans
will do when they run out of workers to support retirees.
Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Jun 3 17:16:38 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id RAA02214
for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2001 17:16:36 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sun Jun 3 17:16:36 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 TAA18033
for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2001 19:16:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-76-6.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.76.6] for jkalb@nyx.net id <3180294> 03 Jun 2001 19:16:27 EDT
To: jkalb@nyx.net
Subject: [uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union] Re: tell me I am a liar now!
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 03 Jun 2001 19:16:44 -0400
Message-ID:
Lines: 25
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
Status: RO
fg@990.00 writes:
> 1. remoteness of Euroland government from people
> 2. stubborn state governments' self-serving resistance to change
> that would diminish 1.
Regardless of how things are set up, how could an EU government be
anything but remote from the people? To the extent they are governed by
the EU, each European people except at most one will be subject to a
government that doesn't speak its language, doesn't share its religion,
doesn't much care about its history, is indifferent to its heroes and
great men, treats it as something to be managed, and would rather do
away with its particular ways of doing things because they complicate
things.
Democracy is rule by the people, or at least government answerable to
the people. What sense does it make to talk about that if there is no
people? To what extent do the peoples of Europe constitute a single
people capable of common deliberation and decision? How about after EU
expansion? Isn't it obvious that no matter what the arrangements for
voting etc. the EU necessarily involves rule by an elite with its own
interests and understanding of things basically answerable to
themselves? It simply can't work any other way.
Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Jun 3 17:11:33 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id RAA01902
for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2001 17:11:28 -0600 (MDT)
From: kalb@aya.yale.edu
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sun Jun 3 17:11:28 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 TAA04149
for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2001 19:11:27 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 19:11:27 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200106032311.TAA04149@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-76-6.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.76.6] for jkalb@nyx.net id <3180252> 03 Jun 2001 19:11:19 EDT
Sender: James.Kalb@DAD'S
Newsgroups: uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union
Subject: Re: tell me I am a liar now!
References: <3b15559f.6317083@news.ntlworld.com> <3b16a3ad.1926773@news.u-net.com> <9f7r6p$2oc3r$1@ID-90293.news.dfncis.de> <9f8aio$2r3vb$1@ID-90293.news.dfncis.de> <9fahet$2um5n$1@ID-90293.news.
Apparently-To:
Status: RO
dfncis.de> <9fe38h$3g9mi$1@ID-90293.news.dfncis.de>
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 03 Jun 2001 19:11:21 -0400
Message-ID:
Lines: 29
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
In-Reply-To: "Nelson Menezes"'s message of "Sun, 3 Jun 2001 20:30:06 +0100"
"Nelson Menezes" writes:
> I think all coherence that is necessary is that we all are human
> beings and we all want to have food, a place to live, dignity, justice,
> freedom...
That seems to me the ultimate issue - if you have hundreds of millions
of people in an area stretching over thousands of miles who share only
their humanity and whatever goes with that, can those people be united
under a free and orderly government?
I don't think so. It seems to me there are good reasons free and orderly
government has been so uncommon. It requires settled habits of
cooperation and common understandings and loyalties that are difficult
to achieve without a common history, without feelings of concrete
kinship, without membership in a community that understands itself as
distinct from other communities. I don't think simple humanity, or even
simple humanity plus universal ideals and rational procedures, is
enough.
Why should anyone care about the public good instead of just his own
good? It seems to me to give up something for the sake of the political
society of which you are a member you have to view your membership as
part of what makes you the specific person you are. If the political
society is just a matter of being a human being then you won't view your
membership that way and it isn't likely to inspire the loyalty a free
society needs to exist.
Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat Jun 2 07:02:29 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id HAA12997
for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 07:02:27 -0600 (MDT)
From: kalb@aya.yale.edu
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sat Jun 2 07:02:27 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 JAA19784
for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 09:02:26 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 09:02:26 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200106021302.JAA19784@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-78-31.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.78.31] for jkalb@nyx.net id <3168286> 02 Jun 2001 09:02:24 EDT
Sender: James.Kalb@DAD'S
Newsgroups: uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union
Subject: Re: tell me I am a liar now!
References: <3b15559f.6317083@news.ntlworld.com> <3b16a3ad.1926773@news.u-net.com> <9f7r6p$2oc3r$1@ID-90293.news.dfncis.de> <9f8aio$2r3vb$1@ID-90293.news.dfncis.de> <9fahet$2um5n$1@ID-90293.news.
Apparently-To:
Status: RO
dfncis.de>
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 02 Jun 2001 09:02:43 -0400
Message-ID:
Lines: 82
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
In-Reply-To: "Nelson Menezes"'s message of "Sat, 2 Jun 2001 12:08:06 +0100"
"Nelson Menezes" writes:
> > That the separate nations of Europe would amount to less and less
> > politically, that more and more decisions would be made farther and
> > farther away from any broad public that is coherent enough to debate and
> > act effectively, and that ruling elites would have far greater autonomy
> > in dealing with the people while becoming more answerable to each other.
>
> But you see, that's what is not wanted by anyone. Political union does not
> mean that all power would come from the centre to the states. On the
> contrary. States put their individual interests forward to the centre, where
> the decision for the common interest is taken.
It seems to me the effect of what people do is more important than what
they think they want. A single consolidated government for the whole
world could be described as a situation in which people put their
individual interests forward to the center, where the decision for the
common interest is taken.
To the extent there is to be a single policy for the whole Union, the
decisions will be made at the center. Continuity and rationality will
require the decisions to be made by some stable group of policymakers.
Since the policymakers are to represent no particular nationality they
must develop among themselves their own understanding of things. That
understanding will be based (in their own mind) on their position as
knowledgeable custodians and defenders of the public interest of all
Europe.
It follows that there will be a ruling elite with attitudes and
loyalties quite different from those of the peoples they rule, one that
views the peoples as parochial and unable to see things in their true
proportions. For that elite popular attitudes will be something to be
managed but not on the whole something to take seriously in their
substance. It is an elite that will care about "democratic legitimacy"
but not democracy. After all, how can you have democracy when there's no
coherent people to whom the governors respond?
> The fact that you have multiculturalism does *not* erase centuries of
> history, national languages, religious differences, etc. It does provide for
> tolerance and for finding common grounds where decisions can be taken
> together for greater efficiency. Beyond that, each cultural/social group
> should have as much freedom as possible.
Multiculturalism means depriving every particular culture of authority
so that everyone of whatever culture can feel equally at home and
equally a participant in the society. Any other outcome would, in the
current view, be discriminatory.
Bringing about that outcome requires deconstructing the dominant culture
- presenting it as a mixture of things that have always changed and
accepted new influences, playing down its symbols and giving the symbols
of other cultures at least equal prominance, publicizing its weaknesses
and failures and the strengths of other cultures, teaching school
children about other cultures at least as much as about their own, etc.
If that's not done minority cultures will always feel at a disadvantage,
which in the current view is unjust and destructive of social peace.
The effect is the same as an attempt to erase centuries of history,
national languages, religious differences, etc. The point is to deprive
all those things of any public function. If they had a public function
then there would be ethnic, linguistic, religious etc. discrimination
because the dominant group would have a privileged relation to the
public order.
I'm not sure exactly how far that process has gone on the Continent. In
the UK it seems fairly well advanced. I don't see why it should be
different elsewhere. It's quite logical given the principles of the EU,
its emphasis on integration, its desire for mobility of labor, its
understanding of human rights, etc. And in any event I don't know how
much national culture can amount to when each of the European states has
large and increasing numbers of residents of other cultures who must all
be treated equally, when economic and political life are increasingly
denationalized, when both popular and high culture are international,
etc.
> A "state" usually involves a strong sense of identity from its
> citizens towards it.
That's a nation state. Multinational empires usually lack such a sense
of identity. I agree that the EU will not become a nation state.
Jim Kalb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: x
The Jefferson/Adam Smith form of liberalism is my example b., near the
beginning of the piece. They were liberal for the time because their
main emphasis was a demand for freedom and equality in opposition to the
particular inherited institutions that were then in question, as well as
their general philosophical commitments (at least in the case of
Jefferson). Remember that I define liberalism more as a principle of
change than as a particular system existing at a particular time. I do
think though that we are approaching the fulfillment of liberalism.
I know little enough about Wilson except his version of world order
which certainly seems consistent with liberalism. And Green - about whom
I know even less - was perhaps a transitional figure between classical
and modern managerial liberalism, both of which I deal with. Whatever
views they have that don't fit in with the picture I suppose I could
dismiss as noise.
I agree that what I call liberalism is a lot like what other people call
modernization. So from that point of view the claim is that liberalism
has won because it best implements the modern.
I think communitarianism and civic nationalism will go nowhere except
maybe as obfuscation. They're the equivalent of the red flags, popular
celebrations, and ritualistic elections the communists used to put on.
Centrally planned nondiscriminatory popular attachments in support of
something already worked out just don't seem persuasive.
Posted on 05/23/2001 11:48:27 PDT by JimKalb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: who_would_fardels_bear
The liberal insistence that you can only make decisions that don't
affect anything is absolutely central. After all, if your decision
affected anyone else he might disagree with it and find it oppressive so
his equal freedom means that you shouldn't be allowed to make it. That's
the importance of sexual libertinism. It gives people a realm of
freedom, and also has the advantage of making the connections among
people less reliable so they're more dependent on the state and less
likely to organize and cause trouble. Maybe the bonobos as you describe
them are a good analogy.
The liberal countries have enormous material and organizational
advantages, and liberalism seems to spread with prosperity, so I'm not
sure a non-liberal power would be able to win. I think praetorian rule
may be a danger. After all, liberalism can't justify self-sacrifice, so
whoever guards the state will base what he does on loyalty to his
general and comrades rather than civic loyalty. Presumably he'll have
contempt for civilians. On the other hand maybe the insistence on PC
within the army and police force may defang that particular threat
although at the cost of making those institutions less effective. Also,
if coercion becomes more technological maybe the military will lose
something of its separate identity. Who knows how it will all work out?
23 Posted on 05/24/2001 01:52:11 PDT by JimKalb
Re: JimK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Paleo" refers specifically to an American conservative tendency that
takes American history and conditions into account, specifically:
1. The enormous size of the United States.
2. The diversity of the American population.
3. The secular, contractual, and utilitarian nature of American
government, especially the federal government.
4. The history of localism, decentralization, etc.
All these things mean that the United States of America can't be a
nation-state on the European model. The main way particular culture and
religion can play a role in American life is locally.
I agree the contrast is not absolute. Not even the most limited of
federal governments can be culture-free, and things like large-scale
immigration (especially from the third world) that reduce cultural
coherence make free government more difficult in America as elsewhere.
Still, I think there is a difference in emphasis.
Jim Kalb
Re: Race and the Church
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's also a lot of material on my website not about race that's
anti-Catholic, morally repugnant, or whatever. Khomeini, Mussolini and
the Unabomber were none of them good moral Catholics for example. The
function of the links is not advocacy, it's opening up areas for
discussion that in America in 2001 are pretty much closed. Material that
touches on questions or includes material or gives leads that seem
important is in even if there's something basically wrong with it.
I have nothing against a fire department with a non-discrimination
policy or a political entity adopting such a policy in its own
operations or insisting on it for its instrumentalities. My basic
objection to antiracism is its extirpationism. What particular people or
agencies find it appropriate to do is not the issue.
I have no objection to the analysis in the article to which you link. I
don't know what you mean by moral taint though. Everything in politics
is morally tainted. One must nonetheless do something.
Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Jun 4 19:18:42 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id TAA04760
for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 19:18:38 -0600 (MDT)
From: kalb@aya.yale.edu
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Mon Jun 4 19:18:38 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 VAA25423
for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 21:18:36 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 21:18:36 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200106050118.VAA25423@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-76-6.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.76.6] for jkalb@nyx.net id <3203839> 04 Jun 2001 21:18:26 EDT
Sender: James.Kalb@DAD'S
Newsgroups: uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union
Subject: Re: tell me I am a liar now!
References: <3b15559f.6317083@news.ntlworld.com> <3b16a3ad.1926773@news.u-net.com> <9f7r6p$2oc3r$1@ID-90293.news.dfncis.de> <9f8aio$2r3vb$1@ID-90293.news.dfncis.de> <9fahet$2um5n$1@ID-90293.news.
Apparently-To:
Status: RO
dfncis.de> <9fe38h$3g9mi$1@ID-90293.news.dfncis.de>
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 04 Jun 2001 21:18:45 -0400
Message-ID:
Lines: 31
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
In-Reply-To: "Till M Ruessmann"'s message of "Tue, 5 Jun 2001 00:37:57 +0100"
"Till M Ruessmann" writes:
> Just go back to the roots of how socities came into being (Plato's Republic
> comes to my mind) and it becomes obvious that self-interest and the division
> of responsibilities was the driver.
>
> The EU came into being by exactly the same mechanism, and even today is the
> EU no philantropic institution. Rather it is a club of rather
> hard-bargaining countries that look for their respective economic and
> political advantages.
So in addition to humanity as such we are to have self-interest and
division of responsibilities (and consequent mutual dependence) as the
basis for politics. I agree the EU could have all those things.
The question is then whether a tolerable political order can rest on no
more than human needs, human rights, and commerce. I don't think so,
because a political order must be able to motivate sacrifice or it will
be despotic and corrupt. It will be despotic because no one will be
willing to risk anything for the public good, so the people will be easy
to enslave, and corrupt because no one will be willing to give up
personal advantage at public expense.
I don't think those things by themselves can motivate sacrifice because
(as discussed) we sacrifice ourselves only for the things that make us
what we are, and universal human rights and needs, and the desire to
pursue our goals in cooperation with others, don't tell us anything
definite about who we are. Also, commerce has to do with self-interest
and not sacrifice.
Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Jun 5 06:57:23 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id GAA05468
for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 06:57:21 -0600 (MDT)
From: kalb@aya.yale.edu
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Tue Jun 5 06:57:21 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 IAA27729
for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 08:57:20 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 08:57:20 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200106051257.IAA27729@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-76-6.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.76.6] for jkalb@nyx.net id <3209935> 05 Jun 2001 08:57:09 EDT
Sender: James.Kalb@DAD'S
Newsgroups: uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union
Subject: Re: tell me I am a liar now!
References: <3b15559f.6317083@news.ntlworld.com> <3b16a3ad.1926773@news.u-net.com> <9f7r6p$2oc3r$1@ID-90293.news.dfncis.de> <9f8aio$2r3vb$1@ID-90293.news.dfncis.de> <9fahet$2um5n$1@ID-90293.news.
Apparently-To:
Status: RO
dfncis.de> <9fe38h$3g9mi$1@ID-90293.news.dfncis.de>
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 05 Jun 2001 08:57:29 -0400
Message-ID:
Lines: 50
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
In-Reply-To: "Till M Ruessmann"'s message of "Tue, 5 Jun 2001 09:13:17 +0100"
"Till M Ruessmann" writes:
> I can't follow you here. Where is the self-sacfice in your country? For this
> doubtful honour I would not even consider the soldiers dying for your
> country. Perhaps Mother Teresa et al.?
By "self-sacrifice" I just meant any willingness to give up something of
one's own for the public good. A public official who doesn't steal or an
ordinary citizen who reports his income accurately for tax purposes when
each is confident he could get away with doing the opposite is engaging
in an everyday form of self-sacrifice.
Sometimes of course much more is required. Government involves use of
force to settle conflicts, so it always presents the possibility of a
life and death struggle. Free government requires a people that is
willing voluntarily to support it in such a crisis; at some point that
means citizens who are willing to risk their lives for it. If there are
no such people then the government will either fall or base itself on
use of force, fraud and terror against the people to get them to do what
must be done.
There are many intermediate cases of course.
Many people are willing to engage in some sorts of self-sacrifice simply
because they have integrity and want to live honestly. I don't think
that's enough though. Most people will give up something serious for
their government only if their government represents something special
to them that is important to them personally.
The question I was raising was whether a government based only on
universal human rights, universal human needs, and self-interest will
have enough of a personal hold on the people to arouse the loyalty a
free government needs to survive. I don't think it will.
All this may be so abstract you see no point in discussing it. It does
seem to me though that more and more Western governments are trying to
base themselves on nothing more than self-interest and universal rights
and needs. It also seems to me the result has been less self-government,
less public spirit, and more corruption in public and private life. In
the extreme case of armed conflict it has meant military forces
unwilling to accept any casualties whatever, as in the conduct of the
Balkan War. Can that work forever?
The relevance of course is that the EU seems an extreme case of what I
am talking about. So if the theory holds water, it will tend to become a
tyranny mitigated by corruption and ineffectuality due to unwillingness
to defend its principles and interests in any crisis in which it faces
serious opposition.
Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Jun 12 14:58:52 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id OAA13448
for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:58:50 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Tue Jun 12 14:58:50 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 QAA21658
for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:58:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-68-11.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.68.11] for jkalb@nyx.net id <3442831> 12 Jun 2001 16:58:32 EDT
Sender: James.Kalb@DAD'S
Newsgroups: talk.politics.european-union,alt.activism.death-penalty
Subject: Re: Europeans Protest McVeigh's Execution
References: <9g44oa$eq7@dispatch.concentric.net> <3b25beaf$0$17547$4d4ebb8e@news.nl.uu.net> <3b267c1a$0$17545$4d4ebb8e@news.nl.uu.net>
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 12 Jun 2001 16:59:24 -0400
Message-ID:
Lines: 50
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
In-Reply-To: "Rodrigo Calvo de No"'s message of "Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:25:26 +0200"
Apparently-To:
Status: RO
"Rodrigo Calvo de No" writes:
> The problem is that the electors aren't supposed to be "his", but the
> voters'. By a voting system fluke, more Republican than Democratic
> electors were chosen, but nothing should have stopped them from doing
> the decent thing and elect the choice of a slim, but real majority of
> the voters.
It is not the voters at large but the voters of the separate states who
choose the electors and to whom they should be answerable. Switching
votes on grounds of the elector's private theory of consolidated
national democracy would not be at all decent. It would violate his duty
to the constitutional system in which he is participating.
The effect of the Electoral College is that the President is not elected
by the people of the United States at large, but by the peoples of the
several states. The way electors are apportioned also gives the smaller
states somewhat more say than they would otherwise have. As a result
candidates have to pay attention to the people and interests of each of
the states rather than simply pursuing the big population centers. Those
who say they prefer a federal to a centralized EU should agree that
these are worthwhile things.
> Ahem, but the whole point is that the US *isn't* a parliamentary
> system.
Nor is it a consolidated national system. It is a federal system that
refuses to decide all issues by nationwide majorities. Not a bad idea
when you have hundreds of millions of people spread out over a whole
continent. I've been assured that Eurocrats understand the point and
take it seriously.
> >Also, it's doubtful that Gore actually got more votes. The claimed
> >margin was minute, well within the range of possible error
>
> A couple of hundred thousand votes?
So a left-leaning mathematician has assured me.
> Well, if you are trying to defend the integrity of the American democratic
> system, "voter fraud problems" is not a good defense...
No system has every possible problem. The US system has the deficiencies
as well as virtues of localism. To some extent consistency of principle
is helpful - voter fraud in Philadelphia can't dilute the effect of
votes in Iowa because Pennsylvania and Iowa electors are chosen
separately.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Jun 12 12:07:32 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from noc.nyx.net (mail@noc.nyx.net [206.124.29.3])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id MAA04688
for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:07:30 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Tue Jun 12 12:07:30 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mail@noc.nyx.net [206.124.29.3]
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by noc.nyx.net (8.9.1a+3.1W/8.9.1/esr) with ESMTP id LAA03301
for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 11:46:39 -0600 (MDT)
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 NAA24706
for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 13:44:57 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 13:44:57 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200106121744.NAA24706@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-68-11.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.68.11] for jkalb@nyx.net id <3433712> 12 Jun 2001 13:44:52 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: jkalb@nyx.net
Subject: stuff
Status: O
Re: Race and the Church
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think part of the problem is that you seem to have little theoretical
or scholarly interest in things. That's OK, not many people do, but it
leads you to misinterpret those who approach ideas differently. When I
present a list of things I've found it helpful to think about in coming
to a position and understanding its implications you mistake it for a
list of things I approve.
It seems to me that there is a comprehensive orthodoxy today that to a
greater or lesser degree has a grip on all of us. It is very difficult
to distance oneself from that orthodoxy since so many of the habits of
thought and even turns of expression we have learned support it.
For some of us a necessary part of dealing with the situation and
getting beyond it is knowing what the ideas are that oppose the
orthodoxy and to some degree working through them. In the nature of
things most of those ideas will have something wrong with them. As
expressions of rebellion they will be presented in a one-sided way. On
the other hand, those who present them will raise important concerns
that the existing orthodoxy suppresses. If they go wrong then where they
go wrong is important as well.
I don't see including a link in a very long and diverse list of links as
giving a public platform, any more than putting something in a
bibliography is giving it a public platform. In any event the danger to
civilization today does not seem to me to come from fascists. If Haider
is the best threat the Left can come up with then there aren't any
fascists to speak of.
Some comments on your particular examples:
Fascism - an attempt to recapture something of the transcendent within
modernism. Instead of God though it must depend on aesthetics, arbitrary
decision, and in the end violence. In a sense it is modernism's
understanding of traditionalism. Since almost all thought today starts
with modernism I think it's worth knowing something about.
Nationalism - a fragmentary break with modernism. Modernism is
universalizing and denies the cultural and social particularity that
human life demands. So one natural response is to make particularity the
standard. It's an insufficient standard so it makes up for what it lacks
by speaking loudly and getting pushy. That's not good, but even so
nationalism vividly expresses something that is missing in modernism and
through its limitations and failures points to what further is needed.
Radical Environmentalism - A vivid expression of the impossibility of
comprehensive universal management of the world. A modern way of saying
that it is something greater than us that made us and not we ourselves.
Neo-Paganism - a protest against the this-worldly universalism of
modernism. Neo-paganism treats the monotheistic God as a rational
concept that can be fully grasped here and now, the claims of which to
be the Supreme Being must therefore be rejected. As such it points to a
genuine issue.
Eugenicism, Biological Determinism - highlight the conflicts among
liberal this-worldliness, liberal egalitarianism, liberal belief in the
efficacy of social manipulation, and the appeal to science. If it drives
liberals up the wall it must be important for understanding the problems
of their position.
If you don't find it useful to think about any of these things in
understanding what's wrong with liberalism and modernism, and why any
worthwhile comprehensive response must involves tradition and the
transcendent, that's OK. I do, and I think others may as well.
The bit about the extreme right and the cause of humanity is on a page
that does not include links to fascists or the Unabomber, that outlines
a position, and on which I am speaking in my own voice but taking an
explicitly combative stance.
Look higher up on the page for reasons for accepting the extremism label
and for treating the established orthodoxy as essentially a program for
abolishing humanity. Opposing the abolition of humanity counts as an
extreme right cause today - your opposition to sexual egalitarianism
would count as extreme right, for example - and the slogan at the end
makes the point in as striking a way as possible. It also uses large red
letters and an exclamation point.
I try to say what I think as clearly as possible. If you want to know
what I think all I can suggest is read what I have written. Look at
www.freespeech.org/antitechnocrat/jk_publications.html. There's even a
search engine. If something puzzles you you can ask questions. If you
insist on believing that I think something other than what I say - and
this discussion has gone on for quite a while now - I can't help you.
Jim Kalb
Re: Brief comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By lack of theoretical inclination I meant a tendency not to be
interested in ideas simply as such, on their own terms and in their
interconnections, mutual implications, and oppositions. Not many people
have such an interest. It's not a matter of time or intelligence or
learning or whether one is a good person. It is something though that
has a use in the overall scheme of things.
A single document or web page can't do everything. The traditionalist
page is something like a bibliography of antiliberalism. There's very
little discussion or evaluation of the various positions. That's the
nature of such a compilation. It's not an attempt to create a coalition.
If it were I'd say I want to create a coalition and I don't say that. I
don't think there's a basis for a coalition at this point except I
suppose on specific limited goals, and I'm not a practical politician
who spends his time trying to organize such things.
I suppose the traditionalist page is in some ways an attempt to create a
groundwork for discussion. The thought is that in discussion the more
complete view should have an advantage, that those who hold it should
learn how to use that advantage, and that among its adherents there
should be some who hold it with consciousness of what happens when one
part or another is left out and why other views seem convincing to many
people.
The page doesn't set forth a system of anything though. It doesn't
profess to present a doctrine or even an argument. It's also not
something I spend a lot of time on. It's mostly an accumulation of
things that have seemed relevant to me in my own thinking and that
others may find relevant as well. I spend much more time on my writing.
My writing attempts to start within the present world and work through
its implicit suggestions and contradictions to a vision of something
better. It is based wholly on human reason and not at all on revelation
or dogma. That's a very slow approach that finds it hard to come to a
definite conclusion, but I think in a world in which people have faith
only in human reason it's a necessary one. If you say it's not
sufficient that's fine but one man can't do everything.
I explicitly state that the problems created by the attempt to abolish
the transcendent, and the human need for concreteness and authority,
make a religious understanding of things an unavoidable necessity. I
don't go on to evangelize but that's not the aspect of things on which I
am working. We can't all do everything. Our gifts and what we are
capable of adding to the conversation differ. It seems to me an enormous
catastrophe has befallen Western thought and social life. If I can help
clarify the nature of the catastrophe and what caused it and suggest a
direction to go I will have done a great deal. If you object that I've
left out a lot I agree. I just don't see why that's much of an
objection.
Part of your problem seems to be that although I don't say I agree with
(say) the European New Right, and when it becomes directly relevant to a
discussion I'll say what I think is wrong with it, I don't write essays
denouncing it, and I seem willing to associate with it.
Most of the answer is the relative power of the ENR and liberalism - why
join the attack on the former when it is despised and utterly powerless
and the attack is part of an enormously successful attempt by the latter
to create a universal tyranny? It seems to me that rational discussion
of issues like ethnicity and particularism is impossible today in
mainstream discourse and that's a big problem. In order to understand
things that haven't been discussed you have to encourage people to say
what they think and try to elicit what is valid in their views. I agree
fascist skinhead thugs can't add much to the conversation but it's false
to say that the ENR are simply fascist skinhead thugs.
As to the permanent benefits of liberalism - what they are remains to be
seen. If people are only allowed to say (i) liberal things, and (ii)
other things whose truth has somehow already been assured, it will never
be determined. It seems to me the natural tendency in a liberal world is
to try to concede to liberalism as much as possible so that some core of
nonliberal truth can be preserved and made to appear publicly
legitimate. It seems to me John Paul tends to do that. I think it's a
bad strategy, since if you concede everything but things that you know
are core truths a lot of what you concede will be true as well and will
turn out to be necessary for the practical defense of the core truths.
Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Jun 12 15:20:12 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from noc.nyx.net (mail@noc.nyx.net [206.124.29.3])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id PAA14952
for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:20:10 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Tue Jun 12 15:20:10 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mail@noc.nyx.net [206.124.29.3]
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by noc.nyx.net (8.9.1a+3.1W/8.9.1/esr) with ESMTP id IAA24009
for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:10:58 -0600 (MDT)
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 KAA23224;
Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:09:16 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:09:16 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200106121409.KAA23224@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-68-11.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.68.11] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <3424367> 12 Jun 2001 10:09:14 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: go
Subject: Re: Fw: Paper and Reminder for June 11 Study Group
References: <000501c0f01c$4898d520$235810ac@etown.edu>
Status: O
Thanks for the copy of the paper, which I liked very much. PC human
rights imperialism does seem enormously powerful, and I don't think it's
going to go away. If these principles are the basis of the regime it'll
take something really major to get them to change. And if they override
all traditions and particularisms at home, and they don't like borders
anyway, why shouldn't they have something to say about the rest of the
world?
One question is when, where and how they will break down, and what then.
Will we end up with a sort of late Soviet situation, or will some other
tradition of social order be able to maintain enough integrity to fill
the gap when this one fails?
Difficult to foresee, at least for me. Sorry you missed the Telos
conference, by the way. It was an interesting assortment of
presentations.
jk
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Jun 12 15:21:03 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from noc.nyx.net (mail@noc.nyx.net [206.124.29.3])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id PAA15105
for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:21:02 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Tue Jun 12 15:21:02 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mail@noc.nyx.net [206.124.29.3]
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by noc.nyx.net (8.9.1a+3.1W/8.9.1/esr) with ESMTP id GAA20876
for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 06:40:13 -0600 (MDT)
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 IAA08147;
Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:38:32 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:38:32 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200106121238.IAA08147@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-68-11.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.68.11] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <3422101> 12 Jun 2001 08:38:30 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: co
Subject: Re: Clinton Rossiter etc.
References: <20010611104815.91130.qmail@web14702.mail.yahoo.com>
Status: O
If I were doing a formal dissertation on conservatism I suppose I might
have sections on:
1. Man - nature of man as a creature who needs to be part of a society
ordered by a coherent stable functional system of symbols and practices
and meanings.
2. Knowledge - how we come to have practical local knowledge, especially
of the human world. Note that the human world is constituted in part by
the practical knowledge itself, so knowledge and participation and
commitment are not altogether distinct.
3. Cosmos - how the world as a whole must be conceived to justify
traditionalist epistemology (religiously, I think).
4. Here and now - application to particular political and social issues.
Acceptance of cultural particularity, emphasis on stable personal
loyalties (family life) and settled systems for restraining and
socializing impulses (sexual morality), dislike of bureaucratic forms of
social organization (welfare state).
The above deals with conservatism in general. Actual American
conservatism normally incorporates liberal themes as well - liberty,
equality, independence.
The big question is whether that is coherent. Can American ideals of
liberty and equality be thought of as the particular symbolism
constituting the American tradition and limited by other parts of the
tradition rather than as universal abstractions that make ever-growing
and ever more insistent demands on everyone everywhere? Can the
traditionalist concerns outlined above show how to stabilize the
American constitutional order so that it remains consistent with human
nature and thus able to survive?
I don't know how to get in touch with Kristol, Himmelfarb or Bork.
Kristol is editor of _The Public Interest_ and they have a website, so
you should be able to reach them that way. Himmelfarb has an academic
position somewhere (New York University? New York City College?). Bork
may be associated with the American Enterprise Institute and reachable
through them. I suggest doing a web search, finding out for sure, and
getting in touch that way.
It seems to me by the way that the big difference between
neoconservatives like Kristol and traditionalist conservatives like me
is that the neocons believe that there is a rational propositional
knowledge accessible to an elite (like them) that is higher and more
comprehensive than symbolic knowledge, and traditionalist conservatives
do not. Neocons in the end believe in philosophy, trads in religion.
Good luck!
jk
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Mon Jun 11 06:53:20 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from noc.nyx.net (mail@noc.nyx.net [206.124.29.3])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id GAA17686
for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 06:53:18 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Mon Jun 11 06:53:18 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mail@noc.nyx.net [206.124.29.3]
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by noc.nyx.net (8.9.1a+3.1W/8.9.1/esr) with ESMTP id GAA27343
for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 06:53:35 -0600 (MDT)
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 IAA05843
for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 08:51:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-81-112.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.81.112] for jkalb@nyx.net id <3376653> 11 Jun 2001 08:51:50 EDT
Sender: James.Kalb@DAD'S
Newsgroups: talk.politics.european-union
Subject: Re: Myths, Legends and Reality (PART 2)
References: <9fsv7d$bsl$1@usenet.otenet.gr> <20010610091538.22804.00003557@ng-mj1.aol.com> <9fvt3g$1ng$1@usenet.otenet.gr> <3B24AA1B.6BBB4A44@mbit.nl> <3B24B108.D41BCFAE@archangelis.com>
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 11 Jun 2001 08:52:35 -0400
Message-ID:
Lines: 34
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
In-Reply-To: Olivier laurent's message of "Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:52:40 +0200"
Apparently-To:
Status: O
Olivier laurent writes:
> What I really dislike is that some EU politicians are using a US-EU conflict
> to define an European Identity.
But that's a natural tendency when someone's trying to create political
unity that goes beyond the social and cultural unity that already
exists. Public life becomes cruder and more violent and aggressive.
Think of the examples:
Unification of China under Shih Chin Huang Ti (221 B.C.) - first
totalitarian empire in a more or less modern sense.
Greece - after Alexander, end of Greece as a great civilization.
Rome - public anarchy and disappearance of free institutions as a result
of growth of empire.
Spain - expulsion of the Jews and creation of the Spanish Inquisition.
America - Gilded Age suceeding 1861-65 war that created America as a
consolidated nation-state.
Germany - militarism, cruder culture and public life.
Italy - resort to fascism as remedy for continuing disunity.
The obvious non-material bases for European unity are opposition to
America and some version of universal human rights. The latter is an
aggressive ideology that tries to remake the world abroad as well as at
home.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sun Jun 10 20:37:15 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from noc.nyx.net (mail@noc.nyx.net [206.124.29.3])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id UAA02154
for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:37:14 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sun Jun 10 20:37:14 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mail@noc.nyx.net [206.124.29.3]
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by noc.nyx.net (8.9.1a+3.1W/8.9.1/esr) with ESMTP id UAA06874
for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:37:33 -0600 (MDT)
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 WAA14125
for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:35:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-68-57.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.68.57] for jkalb@nyx.net id <3361545> 10 Jun 2001 22:35:35 EDT
Sender: James.Kalb@DAD'S
Newsgroups: talk.politics.european-union
Subject: Re: What has the EU been good for?
References: <25039137.0106100735.ae374d6@posting.google.com> <9g0rc5$1mel$1@rivage.news.be.easynet.net>
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 10 Jun 2001 22:36:15 -0400
Message-ID:
Lines: 120
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
In-Reply-To: "KAding"'s message of "Mon, 11 Jun 2001 00:09:21 +0200"
Apparently-To:
Status: O
"KAding" writes:
> All issues concerning welfare are controlled by the EU nations and not
> by the European Commision, nor are there any plans to shift authority
> on this matter to the European level.
I think what the situation demands is more important than the specific
plans anyone has announced. Single market and single currency mean
common economic management, which includes taxation and therefore
general level of social benefits. With 20+ members there will have to be
some way of determining such things authoritatively and enforcing them.
Fiscal and social dumping must be forbidden after all. So there will
have to be a system of rules member states have to comply with.
Free movement of labor and the right of EU citizens to go and live
anywhere in the EU requires further harmonization of social benefits.
Otherwise there will either be discrimination against non-nationals or
what insurance companies call "adverse selection" - the poor will go to
the countries with the best income supports, the sick will go to those
with the best medical benefits, the old to those with the best programs
for old people, etc.
The principle of solidarity that you tell me about also requires
harmonization of social welfare arrangements. It would offend solidarity
for poor, sick and old people to be treated very differently in
different parts of the EU.
> > > There has been an enormous economical liberalisation in Europe. The
> > > European Commision has played a vital role in breaking down national
> > > monopolies. Monopolies indiviual countries do not dare to touch, or
> > > worse are promoting.
> But it is not independent of politics. All departments of the European
> Commision (including the monopoly watchdog) are headed by a politician (a
> commisioner) that was appointed by the European governments.
By "politics" I meant control of what government does by society at
large. European governments aren't society at large. The EU is among
other things a union among ruling elites that increases their
independence and autonomy over against the rest of society and therefore
makes government less political. That is the basis for its claim of
technocratic superiority, e.g. its achievements as to liberalization.
> In what way is this different from all the US government agencies (The
> federal bureau of this and the National Agency of that)?
It's quite similar, except that the extreme diversity of populations in
Europe in comparison with the US means that an EU agency will be more
independent of social control. There's no coherent EU-wide public to
control it.
> You seem to forget that National governments aren't going to be
> abolished. There will still be the national level, just like there
> will be the regional one. There isn't gonna be a European centrally
> controlled super-state.
Again, the issue I think is less what anyone says the plan is than what
is needed for the EU to be successful in achieving its accepted goals.
The EU strategy throughout has been less to create political union
directly than to create situations that make political union necessary.
A common foreign policy and military force, a common currency, a single
market, including a single labor market, no internal borders, right to
reside anywhere and protection from discrimination, a common social
policy featuring extensive social protections, 20+ members - put all
these things together and you need a centrally controlled super-state to
make them work.
> You must not forget that many European countries already are
> federations, Belgium (where I am from) has 3 languages and 3
> equivalents of US states. In switserland they speak German, French,
> Italian and a local language and have have several autonomous regions.
> The UK is a collection of the English, Scots and Welsh.
I thought in Belgium national unity was a problem, but you know better
than I. In any event it's something that only has to be negotiated
between two major groups. The unity of the UK has taken a long time to
achieve, and as to Ireland it has notoriously been a bloody failure.
Switzerland does seem a success but the conditions seem special.
Generally, it seems easier to bring about a successful federation where
there is either reasonable unity of language and culture, as in Germany
and America, or special geographical circumstances, as in Switzerland.
Extensive multinational states (Old Russia, Austria-Hungary, the former
Yugoslavia) tend to be neither free nor stable.
It also seems that the modern tendency toward extensive state
intervention in economic and social life would increase the difficulty
of free political life in an extensive multinational state. It increases
the tendency toward centralization, since intervention requires central
control to ensure rationality and fairness, and also multiplies the
number and importance of political issues.
> In both systems the European authority will be restricted to certain
> areas where cooperation can bring benefit.
The issue I see is that the "certain areas" include the major functions
of modern government - foreign policy, and economic management and
whatever is subsidiary to that (which today includes almost everything
government does). Also, with 20+ members "cooperation" can not mean
negotiation among the members with veto powers to make sure it's all
voluntary. It means central control with compulsion for those who don't
like it.
> Trust me, the nations aren't going anywhere. They do not want to
> disappear, and because they themselves control the future of 'Europe'
> it will not happen either.
It's a very interesting issue. The communists used to say that
workingmen have no country. That turned out to be false. The question
today is more whether financial and bureaucratic elites have a country.
If they don't then the nations may not want to disappear but it won't
matter much because those in control of the nations think otherwise.
Again, there doesn't have to be a plan to undermine the nations. It's
all a matter of the logic of the situation. Nor does anything have to
change in form.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat Jun 9 08:26:35 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from noc.nyx.net (mail@noc.nyx.net [206.124.29.3])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id IAA28995
for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 08:26:33 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sat Jun 9 08:26:33 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mail@noc.nyx.net [206.124.29.3]
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by noc.nyx.net (8.9.1a+3.1W/8.9.1/esr) with ESMTP id IAA26325
for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 08:26:52 -0600 (MDT)
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 KAA05915;
Sat, 9 Jun 2001 10:25:16 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 10:25:16 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200106091425.KAA05915@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-6-142.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.6.142] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <3341223> 09 Jun 2001 10:25:14 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: paleo-right@yahoogroups.com
CC: paleo-right@yahoogroups.com
In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.20010609084955.00d8b7c8@pop.mindspring.com> (message from Jim Langcuster on Sat, 09 Jun 2001 08:49:55 -0500)
Subject: Re: [paleo-right] Re: Noonan on the End of England
References: <3.0.1.32.20010608192652.00de3e4c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20010609084955.00d8b7c8@pop.mindspring.com>
Status: O
Jim Langcuster writes:
I think it was Peter Brimelow who pointed out how closely our
social-democratic elites are conforming to the charge the late Bertholdt
Brecht once leveled against the East German communists: that (through
immigration policy) they had set about electing their own people at the
expense of the old one.
Another way to look at it is that it's a kind of term limits move. When
people get too settled in office - and citizenship is an office - they
begin to act like they owned the place so you have to replace them on
some regular schedule.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat Jun 9 05:14:19 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from noc.nyx.net (mail@noc.nyx.net [206.124.29.3])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id FAA24401
for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 05:14:17 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sat Jun 9 05:14:17 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mail@noc.nyx.net [206.124.29.3]
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by noc.nyx.net (8.9.1a+3.1W/8.9.1/esr) with ESMTP id FAA21474
for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 05:14:36 -0600 (MDT)
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 HAA02955;
Sat, 9 Jun 2001 07:13:00 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 07:13:00 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200106091113.HAA02955@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-6-142.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.6.142] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <3340435> 09 Jun 2001 07:12:57 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: Al
In-reply-to: <3d.cd79429.2852d5d1@aol.com> (Alli21233@aol.com)
Subject: Re: your anti-feminist views?
References: <3d.cd79429.2852d5d1@aol.com>
Status: O
So what do you think about stay-at-home dads? Say the man stays at
home and does housework while the mother goes to work and comes home
to a man who loves and supports her and accepts the idea that he is
provided for by a woman.
That would be fine if men and women were the same psychologically. They
aren't though. Social habits and expectations have to be based on the
natural tendencies most people have. They can't fit every person, but
they can't ignore what most people are like.
If women were supposed to stay at home to take care of the family,
why were they given the brains that can make them doctors and
scientists?
Whatever you do, you always could have done something else that someone
might think is better. The question is what really is better, at least
usually. You seem to think paid employment is always better than
anything else, that it is the thing that is truly important and worth
admiring. Why is that? Why is being a doctor or scientist so wonderful?
If Mary doesn't do the job Johnny will, so why is it so important that
Mary do it?
Yes there are more divorces now, but before 1970, divorce was considered a
taboo. It was mostly unheard of. Just because there were less divorces back
then, it doesn't mean that the woman in the relationship was happy. Many
times they were in abusive relationships that resulted in mental problems.
Divorce wasn't unheard of. People thought it was a very bad thing and
you had to show some very serious reason to get one. You are right that
some people were unhappy - some people are always unhappy. The question
is what setup fits most people most of the time. It seems to me that
there are more abusive relationships and more mental problems today than
years ago. If there is no settled way for men and women to relate, and
there is nothing they feel they have a right to expect from each other,
there will be more abuse, more anxiety, more suspicion, more
manipulation etc.
Nowadays it is more accepted that a woman can divorce the man or vice versa
so that they can get out of an unhappy or doomed marriage.
But whether an marriage becomes unhappy or doomed depends on the
understandings and attitudes of the couple and the people around them.
If those things support stability by telling the couple what they have a
right to expect from each other things are more likely to go well.
I have a question: Didn't you say that women were more personal and that they
based most of their actions on emotions? If women were so happy with being
housewives in the past, then why do most women choose to work?
Money. As soon as some women work then the others have to work too or
their families will fall behind financially. Also, girls today are told
they should work because it is dangerous to depend too much on a man.
That is true if social beliefs like feminism and the importance of
independence make men unreliable. Also, people usually like to do what
is praised and respected and it is paid employment that is praised and
respected. Feminism has made being a housewife disreputable.
I think that a person SHOULD look at their own happiness as their top
priority because in order to be in a good, loving, relationship with someone
else, you have to first be fufilled and heppy with yourself. You can't give
to others unless you are first content with yourself. This is not
selfishness.
No, it's the reverse. You won't be happy and fulfilled unless you have
good relationships with other people and unless you feel you are part of
something worthwhile in the world. Putting your own feelings first
simply doesn't work. It doesn't make you happy. It goes nowhere.
And finally, men have generally been the leaders of countries. With men
being the leaders, haven't we had many wars and conflicts? If women are more
intersted in the personal side of things, then why not put a women in office
and see how many wars we will have then?
Women are perfectly capable of fighting. As a man the last thing I ever
want to get involved with is a fight between two women.
Still, I think it's true that women are usually more cautious than men.
What's involved in government is so complicated though that I can't help
but think that it will go better if the people involved are by habit and
inclination interested more in public than private things.
jk
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Sat Jun 9 04:39:33 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from noc.nyx.net (mail@noc.nyx.net [206.124.29.3])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id EAA23691
for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 04:39:31 -0600 (MDT)
From: kalb@aya.yale.edu
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sat Jun 9 04:39:31 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mail@noc.nyx.net [206.124.29.3]
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by noc.nyx.net (8.9.1a+3.1W/8.9.1/esr) with ESMTP id EAA20664
for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 04:39:49 -0600 (MDT)
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 GAA29127
for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 06:38:10 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 06:38:10 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200106091038.GAA29127@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-6-142.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.6.142] for jkalb@nyx.net id <3340317> 09 Jun 2001 06:38:05 EDT
Sender: James.Kalb@DAD'S
Newsgroups: talk.politics.european-union
Subject: Re: Berlin To Baghdad - Part 4
References: <3B10CC33.DD040AF7@archangelis.com> <3B119CA0.DD314F43@archangelis.com> <9wEQ6.18043$Qp1.266889@nntp1.ch
Apparently-To:
Status: O
ello.se> <3B135BBD.7C323D2C@archangelis.com> <3B162C14.EF0D8475@net.sapo.pt> <3B17B3B4.66EAF394@archangelis.com> <83hey06vyi.fsf@theopc5.desy.de> <3b215d75$0$16513$4d4ebb8e@news.nl.uu.net>
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 09 Jun 2001 06:38:56 -0400
Message-ID:
Lines: 21
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
In-Reply-To: "Rodrigo Calvo de No"'s message of "Sat, 2 Jun 2001 01:23:44 +0200"
"Rodrigo Calvo de No" writes:
> You seem to ignore what the real debate in Europe is. Despite what
> impression Americans may get from British sources, in most of the EU,
> and indeed in most of Europe (don't forget that 12 other states are
> queuing to enter) the question isn't whether the EU is good or bad,
> but how decisions inside the EU ought to be taken.
I haven't had much interest in that debate because I question to what
extent (1) the EU as a comprehensive and ever-deepening union is
beneficial, and (2) popular answerability is even possible, regardless
of institutional arrangements, given the absence of a minimally coherent
people to which government could be answerable.
Naturally this is all up to the Europeans. Still, America is by origin a
European country, and our civilization and culture depend in many ways
on that of Europe, so it seems an American can take an interest in the
matter.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri Jun 8 14:35:27 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from noc.nyx.net (mail@noc.nyx.net [206.124.29.3])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id OAA27257
for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 14:35:26 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Fri Jun 8 14:35:26 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mail@noc.nyx.net [206.124.29.3]
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by noc.nyx.net (8.9.1a+3.1W/8.9.1/esr) with ESMTP id OAA18357
for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 14:31:53 -0600 (MDT)
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 QAA26992;
Fri, 8 Jun 2001 16:30:19 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 16:30:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200106082030.QAA26992@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-6-142.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.6.142] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <3326210> 08 Jun 2001 16:30:16 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: Al
In-reply-to: <11c.aa33c.28526514@aol.com> (Alli21233@aol.com)
Subject: Re: your anti-feminist views?
References: <11c.aa33c.28526514@aol.com>
Status: O
So then what are your views? I am really confused. How is feminism a
threat to a better world with more human happiness? Do you believe in
the biblical teaching that the man is the head of the household and
that the woman is the meant to care for the children? I am not saying
that a social change is needed. Because, frankly, women are already
equal and independent(and when I say independent I mean, one who
looks towards her own happiness as her major priority). Do you
believe that a woman would make a good president? Why or why not.
Unless families hang together and work together the world will be
unhappy. Families are much more likely to hang together and work
together if men and women have different jobs in the family and everyone
knows in advance what those jobs are. Otherwise it will be much harder
to say who's right and who's wrong when there's a disagreement.
Also, men are mostly different from women and both will usually be
happier if each can feel he has a right to expect something from the
other that fits what he needs - if women can feel they have a right to
be supported by their husbands so they can raise their children securely
and if men can feel that if they go out and work they will have a home
and wife and children waiting for them to come home to.
Today there are many more divorces and many more children being born to
unwed mothers than before 1970. That causes a lot of misery. I think a
lot of the problem is feminism for making it more difficult for men and
women to stick together and know what to expect from each other.
Something like the biblical teaching is right I think. I never use it in
arguments though because many people don't believe in the bible and
others read it differently.
I think people are happier if they don't look to their own happiness as
their major priority. Selfishness doesn't bring happiness. So if women
(or men) are independent as you describe it that is a bad thing.
It's possible a woman could be a good president (Elizabeth I of England
was a good Queen and Margaret Thatcher a good prime minister) but less
likely than for a man because usually women are less politically minded
than men and more interested in the personal rather than public side of
things.
jk
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri Jun 8 06:24:14 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from noc.nyx.net (mail@noc.nyx.net [206.124.29.3])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id GAA11047
for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 06:24:12 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Fri Jun 8 06:24:12 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mail@noc.nyx.net [206.124.29.3]
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by noc.nyx.net (8.9.1a+3.1W/8.9.1/esr) with ESMTP id GAA26013
for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 06:23:28 -0600 (MDT)
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 IAA23079;
Fri, 8 Jun 2001 08:21:50 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 08:21:50 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200106081221.IAA23079@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-6-142.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.6.142] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <3279813> 08 Jun 2001 08:21:48 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: Al
In-reply-to: (Alli21233@aol.com)
Subject: Re: your anti-feminist views?
References:
Status: O
"I am a freshmen girl in high school. I am quite confused about your
views concerning feminism. I wish you would please write me back. I
can't say I agree with what your website says, so please respond. What
drives you to believe the way you do?? Why do you frown upon the
independent, sucessful woman? Sure you may believe strongly in
tradition. But do you also believe in slavery? That was tradition. Times
change."
Thanks for your note, Allison.
I am driven to my beliefs by the same things that drive other people to
their beliefs - hope for a better world with more human happiness, and
dislike of whatever seems to threaten that.
No one is independent except maybe a hermit living in a cave in the
mountains and living on roots and berries. Everyone else depends on
other people in all sorts of ways.
If a woman stays home and looks after home and children, or perhaps only
works part-time, she is dependent on her husband to bring home his
paycheck. Her husband is dependent on her to look after the home and
children and do whatever else she does to benefit the family.
If she works full time then she is dependent on her boss and coworkers
for her job and what it's like, on a nanny or on day care workers to
look after her children, and on her husband to cooperate with her in
dealing with whatever the problems are in having two people working full
time.
If she has no husband or children she's still dependent on the people at
work. Also, she's dependent on her friends to be a substite family for
her and on other people to have children so that the world won't come to
an end because nobody's having children. If she loses her job she'll
probably be dependent on welfare.
So people depend on each other. It's not just something forced on women.
Women like men to be dependable. Young women today complain that men
"won't commit." Does that mean they frown on independent men?
So to me the question is not how to make people independent of each
other, since that won't happen, but how to make them able to depend on
each other in building a happy life together. That won't happen if they
try to make independence the absolute standard.
As to success, I believe people should be successful in doing things
that add up to a good life and also help make life good for others. That
applies to women as well as men, and I don't frown on it at all.
I agree tradition is not a magical guaranteed way to get all good things
but neither is anything else. Do you believe in social change to bring
about equality? Communism was social change to bring about equality and
it killed 100,000,000 innocent people. So we must always go behind the
slogans.
Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Jun 6 09:59:33 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id JAA22645
for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:59:25 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Wed Jun 6 09:59:25 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 LAA01220;
Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:59:24 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:59:24 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200106061559.LAA01220@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-76-6.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.76.6] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <3234129> 06 Jun 2001 11:59:14 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: paleo-right@yahoogroups.com
In-reply-to: <003c01c0ee84$3f4a46a0$89884ed8@ags.bellsouth.net> (LRA@lrainc.com)
Subject: Re: [paleo-right] Steele on politics and morality
References: <003c01c0ee84$3f4a46a0$89884ed8@ags.bellsouth.net>
Status: O
conservatism is essentially a discipline of principles while modern
liberalism is very often an intervention against principles.
Very neat formulation. One limitation is that it does not say which
principles. PC is a discipline of principles. John Rawls also proposes a
discipline of principles.
Maybe one way of putting it is that classical liberalism, which is
mostly what Steele has in mind as "conservatism," was a discipline of
principles making self-government possible - restraint, respect,
honesty, industry, property, religion, family values, and so on.
Were conservatives of the last generation fastidious about principles
when segregation prevailed as a breach of every known democratic
principle, including merit?
But not so much a breach of principles of self-rule like local autonomy
and local social cohesion. So Steele's position then is a sort of
democratized classical liberalism that makes self-rule a strictly
individual matter. The laws should enforce a comprehensive national
scheme that makes individual merit, discipline, hard work etc. determine
what happens to each individual.
This liberalism is essentially an apologia, and its appeal is that it
gives American institutions a way to show remorse.
Why make things so complicated psychologically? The complications are
there but seem secondary. Contemporary liberalism gives American
institutions the right to abolish self-government and run everything.
What's not to like? You might have to go through some contortions to
explain why it is that unlimited universal freedom and equality mean you
have the right to tell everyone what to do, but the contortions are
worth it. Paris was worth a mass, and if you're one of the managers the
managerial state is worth a few professions of guilt.
win moral authority by proving their effectiveness against those
great enemies of the nation's promise: racism and poverty. It is a
culture war that pits principle against social engineering, one in
which each side hopes to prove itself against the challenge of
inequality.
This is really hopeless. He's right that you'll get nowhere unless you
act like you believe in your principles but once inequality is made the
challenge that provides the standard of proof self-rule in any form is
dead.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Jun 5 09:30:06 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id JAA14294
for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 09:30:00 -0600 (MDT)
From: kalb@aya.yale.edu
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Tue Jun 5 09:30:00 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 LAA27807
for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 11:30:00 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 11:30:00 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200106051530.LAA27807@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-76-6.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.76.6] for jkalb@nyx.net id <3212697> 05 Jun 2001 11:29:41 EDT
Sender: James.Kalb@DAD'S
Newsgroups: uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union
Subject: Re: tell me I am a liar now!
References: <3b15559f.6317083@news.ntlworld.com> <3b16a3ad.1926773@news.u-net.com> <9f7r6p$2oc3r$1@ID-90293.news.dfncis.de> <9f8aio$2r3vb$1@ID-90293.news.dfncis.de> <9fahet$2um5n$1@ID-90293.news.
Apparently-To:
Status: O
dfncis.de> <3B193B1C.E49C1C24@net.sapo.pt> <3B1CE30D.44F98705@net.sapo.pt>
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 05 Jun 2001 11:29:58 -0400
Message-ID:
Lines: 100
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
In-Reply-To: Ricardo G Alves's message of "Tue, 05 Jun 2001 14:47:57 +0100"
Ricardo G Alves writes:
> You should read more than "The Guardian". Try the german "Frankfürter
> Allgemeine Zeitung" (there´s an english-language version on the web).
> In Germany, things like force-feeding immigrants with german language,
> culture, and "constitutional values" are considered desirable. It may
> even become a requirement to award resident permits(*).
You're right, and thanks for the suggestion. Any others would be
welcome. I do read German, although not quickly, so I'll look at both
versions.
I thought though that the notion of a German "Leitkultur" was extremely
controversial, and that it had been toned down by its proponents to the
notion of a "Leitkultur" in Germany, which apparently would blend into
the constitutional values you mention. I also thought the constitutional
values weren't all that distinct from universal human rights, with not
much that is specifically German or non-universalizable.
> The welfare state, no way. The EU has been dismantling it. Democracy,
> of course not, it would be a nuisance. The 1939-45 war is also
> considered part of the "historical heritage", even though four out of
> the present fifteen EU members did not take part in it. Holding the
> nation-state has the culprit of all European wars is also part of EU
> ideology.
I agree that welfare state protections are being cut back and that is
likely to continue. The welfare state can't be quite dead though since
government continues to spend 40-50% of national income in the EU
states. It seems to me that one of the grounds on which the EU claims
legitimacy is that it establishes a large protected area within which
more of a welfare state can exist than seems compatible with global
markets absent protectionism. So failure to deliver a satisfactory
welfare state is likely to be a serious political problem.
I also agree that the symbolism of the 1939-45 war and the consequent
evil of nationalist and other particularisms is absolutely fundamental
to Western political life today.
> Honestly, I don´t think you are right about their content and about
> the way it operates. No EUropean country is ready to let go its national
> culture. At most, some politicians have spoken vaguely of having
> the so-called "EUropean culture" a level above the national cultures.
Maybe because I am at a distance I have a simpler view of the situation
that might or might not be helpful. Also, I seem to recognize in Europe
a process that has gone much farther here in America. People can keep
saying "no" and "of course not" while one seduces the other, so what
they are willing to contemplate may be different from what they
actually cooperate in doing.
National culture can be redefined. French culture can mean liberty,
equality and fraternity, while the Leitkultur in Germany can turn out to
be Verfassungspatriotismus, which in can turn out to be acceptance of
universal ideals and of the 1939-45 war as the decisive event in
history. In England people are claiming that they've always been
multicultural, because there were the Romans and the British and the
Angles and Saxons and Normans and Huguenots, that chicken curry is now
the national dish, that the term "British" is implicitly racist, and so
on. Why shouldn't those tendencies continue, when it's agreed all round
that nationalism is inexcusably evil and not really different from
Nazism? And if they continue, what will be the practical difference
between the various national cultures?
Culture is in the hands of the ruling elites, after all. Women work, so
children are raised more and more by childcare centers and schools. Also
by popular entertainment. Why shouldn't the people who control such
things use their control to advance their idea of the public good?
Especially if the public good happens to coincide with the elite
interest in a rationally manageable Europe with no significant national
differences to cause trouble.
> No "EU citizenship" rights are to be awarded from nationals of
> countries not in the EU. Therefore, Gypsies are not to be considered
> EUropeans, obviously.
What about expansion of the EU? If that goes forward millions and
millions of Gypsies will suddenly be EU citizens.
> They will continue running into the abyss, or they will allow workers
> in without giving them any political or cultural rights.
It's a very interesting issue. The latter seems radically opposed to the
stated principles of European politics - human rights, the centrality of
the 1939-45 war etc. Those are not only the stated principles, but
people really seem to believe them. It's also opposed to the interests
of European elites, who I presume would rather make people more or less
interchangeable so they're easier to manage, and would rather not have
things like ethnic cohesion that they can't manage and might cause
disturbances.
My guess is that elites will continue to make soothing noises about how
of course the diversity of our national heritages will be preserved
while redefining those heritages so the diversity has no substance.
Eventually there will be radical change in the treatment of foreign
workers. It will be like the American civil rights movement.
What would keep that from happening?
Jim Kalb
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Fri Jun 22 10:29:28 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id KAA07197
for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 10:29:26 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Fri Jun 22 10:29:26 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 MAA04826;
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 12:27:58 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 12:27:58 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200106221627.MAA04826@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-76-25.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.76.25] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <3696117> 22 Jun 2001 12:27:56 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: upstream-list@cycad.com
In-reply-to: <3B336353.62FA@issues-views.com> (message from Elizabeth Wright on Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:25:08 -0400)
Subject: Re: [Upstream] Call to ban right-wing UK Political Party
References: <3B336353.62FA@issues-views.com>
Status: RO
Elizabeth Wright writes:
Whatever, Mr. Leftist, you think you're seeing in England right now
in terms of union dissidence, the political left will never rise
again anywhere. The managerial state will see to that and, with its
global impact, there will be no stopping it. Leftism will only exist
in its current form as repressive P.C. --a phenomenon that is most
helpful to the establishment.
It's interesting at least for me to speculate on long-term tendencies.
So if you'll forgive grandiose theorizing:
The current tendency is toward universal commercialization - universal
covertibility of all things into money so absolutely everything
everywhere can be integrated into a single fully comprehensible
universally rational system of production and consumption. The pursuit
of profit is the engine driving that transformation, and a powerful
engine it is.
Once that happens what then? The glorious new world will have both a
managerial and a possessing class, the former acting through
transnational bureaucracies and the latter through world markets. I
leave the worker bees out of account since they will have bread and
circuses, and since the point of PC is to eliminate the significance of
any connections among them (family, religion, particular culture, ethnic
or national loyalty) that might spoil the perfection of the system by
interfering with the absolute dominion of the two ruling classes. The
freedom of the worker bees will consist in the ability to make
consumption choices the dominant classes don't care about and pursue
their private addictions.
The managerial and possessing classes won't really have the same
interests. So there will be a struggle between them that will duplicate
the struggle between socialists and capitalists that has taken place in
national societies.
It seems to me the advantage in that struggle is with the managerial
class. They're smarter, better educated, more unified, more visionary,
more influential among opinionmakers, better able to make utopian
promises and pass out goodies, more willing to sacrifice profit for
power, and more able to get their way by force. Also, the size of modern
enterprises means that the possessing class must act mostly through
members of the managerial class. And I think in fact the managerial
class has tended to win the struggle within national societies, although
outside competition and globalization have recently caused reverses.
In the new order of world markets and transnational bureaucracies there
will of course be no outside competitors and no possibility of anything
corresponding to globalization. So it seems to me the managers are
likely to end up having things their own way, and that socialism does
have a future.
This is done in broad strokes, and a major problem with the whole
analysis is that corruption will make the system far less rational than
I suggest. I don't know which way that points though. Kleptocracy?
Military rule? Mafia domination?
Time will tell. Isn't it exciting?
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Thu Jun 21 07:38:07 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id HAA13482
for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 07:38:05 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Thu Jun 21 07:38:05 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 JAA17729;
Thu, 21 Jun 2001 09:36:46 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 09:36:46 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200106211336.JAA17729@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-76-105.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.76.105] for jkalb@nyx.net,... id <3663969> 21 Jun 2001 09:36:44 EDT
From: Jim Kalb
To: upstream-list@cycad.com
In-reply-to:
Subject: Re: [Upstream] Link between rape and pregnancy - BBC
References:
Status: RO
"We have to be very careful about making inferences of this type because
there is a danger that they will reinforce some people's views about the
myths surrounding rape."
I love this kind of comment. In theory you could make it about any
finding whatever, but in fact it's a marker for conclusions that (the
authorities have decided) must stay the same no matter what.
Does anyone know why "rape is violence and oppression and absolutely
nothing else to any extent whatever" is such an important point? Some
years back I posted a mild-mannered comment on soc.women I think it was
that rape must have *some* sexual component, because after all a man
could not do the deed unless he were sexually excited, and got
unbelievably abusive and sick responses from several people, mostly men.
Somehow I was in favor of doing it with broken coke bottles or whatever.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
http://counterrevolution.net and http://www.human-rights.f2s.com
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Jun 20 13:41:46 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id NAA23746
for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:41:44 -0600 (MDT)
From: kalb@aya.yale.edu
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Wed Jun 20 13:41:44 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 PAA12194
for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 15:40:27 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 15:40:27 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200106201940.PAA12194@mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU>
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-68-251.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.68.251] for jkalb@nyx.net id <3649495> 20 Jun 2001 15:40:24 EDT
Sender: James.Kalb@DAD'S
Newsgroups: talk.politics.european-union
Subject: Re: European and American
References: <69a1bdff.0106160654.64f1bfbb@posting.google.com> <69a1bdff.0106180613.46c45667@posting.google.com> <69a1bdff.0106182358.24f6e9b5@posting.google.com>
Status: RO
4rtcsma2.fsf@aya.yale.edu> <69a1bdff.0106200841.11bb6204@posting.google.com>
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 20 Jun 2001 15:41:48 -0400
Message-ID:
Lines: 43
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
In-Reply-To: eowine@my-deja.com's message of "20 Jun 2001 09:41:56 -0700"
eowine@my-deja.com (Eowine Eomundsdottir) writes:
> Along comes a little solidarity, sets up a fund and helps those who
> need it without requiring gratitude, without creating an unbalance
> between have's and have not's. Without solidarity, gratitude would be
> the price to pay.
Everything comes at a price, though. Basing the system on simple
solidarity purifies help of personal involvement, which avoids many
complications. It also reduces the practical significance of concrete
human ties, which is not all good.
In addition, it turns receipt of payment for not having a job or for
persuading a factfinder that one suffers from some disadvantage into a
simple right one has. The consequences are rising costs, resentful
taxpayers, cutbacks, resentful recipients, and mutual distrust about
which very little can be done because of the very feature you praise -
the absence of any concrete connection or mutual knowledge among payers
and receipients.
Such problems may be deferred in a small society with a long tradition
of social cohesion and definite standards of conduct. They are likely to
become far worse in an extensive multicultural socially liberal society,
which seems to be the condition to which the EU aspires.
> Yet a feeling of solidarity has more than once sparked vehement
> protest from right across he globe. Amnesty International would be the
> perfect example.
How can that be an important part of politics? The politics of
uninformed outrage is not trustworthy or necessarily beneficial.
Vehement outbursts from people very far away with only the remotest
personal connection are unlikely to have much consistency and
continuity. They are necessarily manipulable. As for AI - human rights
groups I'm more familiar with seem to me ideological organizations
rather than vehicles of simple human solidarity. I'm not sure why AI
should be different although of course anything is possible.
In all this I mostly repeat myself so future replies if any are likely
to be shorter. I must say that your manner reminds me of old-line 5th
and 6th grade teachers I remember. Ditto your degree of understanding.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Wed Jun 20 05:02:29 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id FAA26625
for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 05:02:24 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Wed Jun 20 05:02:24 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 HAA10510
for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 07:01:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from client-162-83-170-131.nyc.client.bellatlantic.net [162.83.170.131] for jkalb@nyx.net id <3637689> 20 Jun 2001 07:01:12 EDT
Sender: James.Kalb@DAD'S
Newsgroups: talk.politics.european-union,rec.org.mensa,alt.society.conservatism,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: European and American
References: <9gei59$2np9$1@scavenger.euro.net> <9gfelk$6j0$2@news.panix.com> <3b2e5280$0$17540$4d4ebb8e@news.nl.uu.net> <3b2fde51$0$17546$4d4ebb8e@news.nl.uu.net>
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 20 Jun 2001 07:02:27 -0400
Message-ID:
Lines: 35
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
In-Reply-To: marc_and_98@hotmail.com's message of "20 Jun 2001 03:31:24 -0700"
Apparently-To:
Status: RO
"Rodrigo Calvo de No" writes:
> More relevantly, they tend to make human rights absolute and thus
> restrict the power of all authorities taken together. And this has
> worked well on the past (see the Civil Rights movement in the '60s). I
> personally fail to see why a local tyranny should be better than a
> central tyranny. In fact, if I had to live under a tyrant, I would
> rather take a distant one than somebody living next door.
You seem to think of human rights as disembodied abstract principles
written in the nature of things that somehow manage to reach down and
regulate what people do. That's obviously not so. Human rights are
decisions made by particular people or classes of people. The function
of calling them human rights is to make them prepolitical, that is, to
make those who determine them not answerable to anyone. Cui bono?
The Civil Rights movement is one of the holy objects of the current
political order and so is never discussed critically. It and its effects
were far more ambiguous than advertised. And even aside from that it's
unclear why it's a good thing to make it a fundamental political symbol.
Its basic pattern was overthrowing a social order by use of local
activism to create a crisis, leading to intervention by a superior
jurisdiction to resolve the crisis. Not, I would think, a pattern to
extend indefinitely.
Government is not by nature tyrannical. The absolute, peremptory and
ever-expanding human rights we now have are so - that is, they create
over all political life an open-ended power that in principle rejects
external control. I'd much rather have something that is not necessarily
tyrannical - government without the current system of human rights -
than something that is. So the choice is not between a near and a
distant tyrant but between a possible and a certain tyrant.
--
Jim Kalb (kalb@aya.yale.edu)
From kalb@aya.yale.edu Tue Jun 19 09:19:52 2001
Return-Path:
Received: from mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6])
by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with ESMTP id JAA29877
for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 09:19:50 -0600 (MDT)
X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Tue Jun 19 09:19:50 2001, Sender=kalb@aya.yale.edu, Recipient=, Valsender=mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]
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 LAA24488
for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 11:18:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by doc.Dartmouth.ORG (Blitz.Dartmouth.ORG) via SMTP from adsl-151-202-76-117.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.76.117] for jkalb@nyx.net id <3614243> 19 Jun 2001 11:18:42 EDT
Sender: James.Kalb@DAD'S
Newsgroups: talk.politics.european-union
Subject: Re: European and American
References: <69a1bdff.0106160654.64f1bfbb@posting.google.com> <3B2B9A22.E17411FD@mbit.nl> <3B2C7F96.ED69E1B@mbit.nl>
<69a1bdff.0106190023.30825a1@posting.google.com>
From: Jim Kalb
Date: 19 Jun 2001 11:19:21 -0400
Message-ID: