Maverick Philosopher

David Berlinski on Evolution

Under three minutes.  Nice production job.

Related: David Gelernter, Giving Up Darwin.  Wasn't Gelernter one of the recipients of a Unabomber package?

Part of being an American conservative in my sense of the phrase is a commitment to the respectful but critical evaluation of whatever passes for orthodoxy in science, in religion, in philosophy, in literature and the arts, and wherever else.  Of course, that is not to say that the heterodox, as such, is credible.  In fact, being conservative, I am open to the notion that there is a  defeasible presumption in favor of the orthodox and traditional. If you have no idea what 'presumption' means, see Presumption and Suspension of Judgment. 

Note the adjective 'respectful'; it goes a long way toward distinguishing my type of critical stance from that of the leftist.

Why Secure the Border?

For many good reasons, none of them 'xenophobic' or 'racist.' Here is one that will certainly be ignored by the Sino-compromised Biden administration. Gordon G. Chang reports.

I'm no socialist, but here I present -- wait for it -- a socialist argument for border control. 

Cat Blogging Lives! Tuxies at the Door

The tuxedo cat is the most 'iconic' of cats; so it is  only fitting that Max Black and his brother Manny K. Black should guard the entrance to the inner sanctum.

Felix was a tuxie as was Sylvester. And who can forget Socks the presidential pussy when the Clintons occupied the White House? 

Like all cats the tuxie has nine lives; what distinguishes him is that he is always dressed to the nines. All dressed up with nowhere to go.

How to Write a Good Comment

I offer a comment of mine as an example.  It is a brief response to a Substack entry by Elliot Crozat.  Here is the comment:

Very nice post, Elliot. Your reconstruction is valid. You say that (2) is "solid." It is, but it is not self-evident. For one epistemically possible view is that the dead are nonexistent objects: they do not exist, but they have being, and have properties. Indeed, they actually have properties; it is not just that they could have properties. So on this view, there is no bar to a dead person's having the property of being communal or standing in the communal relation to other dead persons. This quasi-Meinongian view is skillfully developed by Palle Yourgrau in Death and Nonexistence (Oxford, 2019). It of course has problems of its own.

(5) and (7) are undoubtedly true.

And I agree with you that (1) is reasonably rejected on eternalism which is a plausible alternative to presentism. Surely wholly past individuals are not nothing despite their not being temporally present. They exist, but not at present. Presentists, despite a lot of fancy footwork, have a hard time accounting for this plain fact. This is one reason why eternalism is well-represented among contemporary philosophers. Eternalism allows for a watered-down personal immortality which has been embraced by Einstein, Charles Hartshorne, and most recently by John Leslie. The main difficulty of eternalism is to give a clear account of existence simpliciter. But it appears that the presentist faces the same difficulty assuming that "Only the present exists" is not a miserable tautology that boils down to "Only what exists (present tense) exists (present tense."

As for Aristotle, he is standardly taken to be a presentist (see Feser, e.g.) and thus your invocation of the Stagirite in support of eternalism is questionable.

PROVISIONAL PHILOSOPHICAL REFLECTIONS

 

Time, Death, and Existence

 

Cormac McCarthy’s The Sunset Limited contains many good lines. Here’s one from near the end of the play: “You can’t be one of the dead because what has no existence can have no community.” As I take it, “one of the dead” means “one belonging to a community of dead persons.”

 

 

JUNE 27, 2023

 

............................

 

So what makes my comment good?

 

1. I interact directly with what the  author has written.

2. In doing so, I show that I have made a good faith attempt to understand him.

3. I tell him whether I agree or disagree and why.

4. I do not go off on irrelevant tangents.

5. I keep my comments brief and to the point.

6. I try to be helpful.

7. I do not use his site to promote myself or to advertise my wares or to dump large undigested quotations from other writers.

Politics and Philosophy

Top o' the Stack

By the way, don't confuse politics with political philosophy. The latter is philosophy; the former is not.

Separation Anxiety

I hope I don't consume half the day pondering this excellent but disturbing entry by Malcolm Pollack. Important internal linkage. Comments are good too.  A nasty, but welcome, time-sink. Thanks, Malcolm!

UPDATE:  Malcolm informs us here that Michael Anton has replied to Anonymous.

Leftism Exposed

The following statement is both well-written and accurate in every particular (emphasis added):

Leftism is a totalitarian force. Wherever leftism is in a position of power it tends to invade every private corner and force every thought into a leftist mold. In part this is because of the quasi-religious character of leftism: everything contrary to leftist beliefs represents Sin. More importantly, leftism is a totalitarian force because of the leftists’ drive for power. The leftist seeks to satisfy his need for power through identification with a social movement and he tries to go through the power process by helping to pursue and attain the goals of the movement. But no matter how far the movement has gone in attaining its goals the leftist is never satisfied, because his activism is a surrogate activity. That is, the leftist’s real motive is not to attain the ostensible goals of leftism; in reality he is motivated by the sense of power he gets from struggling for and then reaching a social goal. Consequently the leftist is never satisfied with the goals he has already attained; his need for the power process leads him always to pursue some new goal. The leftist wants equal opportunities for minorities. When that is attained he insists on statistical equality of achievement by minorities. And as long as anyone harbors in some corner of his mind a negative attitude toward some minority, the leftist has to re-educate him.

Let me add a second example to the one the author gives in illustration of the general point expressed in the italicized passage. His example is that equality of opportunity is not enough; a new goal must be posited by the 'progressive' who cannot rest content with anything, the goal of so-called 'equity' or equality of outcome, and this in defiance of the ineluctable reality of individual and group differences in attitudes and abilities.

My example is the one presently paraded before us by the so-called 'pride' contingent. Unsatisfied with being tolerated and left alone, they now demand to be accepted, affirmed, and celebrated for their depravity and corruption of children. But even this won't be enough for them: driven by a vicious intolerance at odds with the toleration they initially demanded,  they aim to replace the superior culture whose excesses spawned them and whose decadence is seemingly impotent to stop them. But it ain't over til it's over and we who are sane and reasonable have not yet begun to fight. Too many of us, lost in our private lives, have yet to wake up to the 'woke' madness. But wake up we will.  

But who made the statement quoted above?  You may be surprised.  I was. I now hasten to add that the truth of a statement and the soundness of an argument are logically  independent of the psychology of the one who makes the statement or gives the argument. To think otherwise is to commit the genetic fallacy.

Grievance and a Life Well-Lived

A life well-lived cannot have grievance as its organizing principle.

Nat Hentoff on 'Hate Crime' Laws

An oldie but a goodie less than six minutes long by the late,  great Nat Hentoff, civil libertarian.*  We of the Coalition of the Sane and Reasonable need to punch back hard against the willfully self-enstupidated wokesters who confuse dissent with hate. As Hentoff points out, 'hate crime' is thought crime.

Here is a recent example of what we are up against:

“Under the proposed statute, ‘intimidate and harass’ can mean whatever the victim, or the authorities, want them to mean. The focus is on how the victim feels rather than on a clearly defined criminal act. This is a ridiculously vague and subjective standard,” he said.

“The absence of intent makes no difference under this law. You are still guilty of the crime because the victim felt uncomfortable.

“The bill will lead to the prosecution of conservatives, pastors, and parents attending a school board meeting for simply expressing their opposition to the liberal agenda,” Kallman said.

The proposed statute is obviously insane and anti-civilizational as any reasonable person will immediately discern. Like it or not we are now in the Age of Feeling.  

Let it be noted en passant that 'liberal agenda' is not quite the right phrase; 'hard' Left' and 'woke' are more fitting adjectives.  To say it again: don't confuse a classical with a contemporary liberal. The latter slouches toward the Gomorrah of wokery. A pox be upon all who so slouch.

Related: The Age of Feeling or the Age of Pussies?

_____________________

*Your humble correspondent first encountered the erudite hipster Hentoff in the pages of Down Beat magazine in the mind-'60s. If memory serves, he attended Boston Latin.

Sam Harris and the Problem of Disagreement

Is conversation our only hope?

Substack stack-leader

Excerpt:

What about ethical instruction?  Only a liberal fool would advocate conversations with young children about theft and murder and lying and bestiality as if the rightness or wrongness of these acts is subject to reasonable debate or is a matter of mere opinion.  They must be taught that these things are wrong for their own good and for the good of others. Discussion of ethical niceties and theories comes later, if at all, and presupposes ethical indoctrination: a child who has not internalized and appropriated ethical prescriptions and proscriptions cannot profit from ethical conversations or courses in ethics.  ‘Indoctrination,’ contrary to ‘woke’ dogma, is not a dirty word. To have had sound doctrines inculcated in one at an early age is obviously a good thing. You cannot make a twenty-year-old ethical by requiring him to take a course in ethics.  He must already be ethical by early upbringing, and thus by indoctrination and example without conversation.

Body, Soul, and Self Revisited

On 4 December of last year, a Substack entry of mine entitled Care of Body and Soul occasioned a comment by Tony Flood to which I replied on 10 December in Body, Soul, Self. Today, 25 June 2023 Tony responds to my response in a piece entitled Man's "True Self": A Reply to Critics.

Now at the moment I do not have the time or the energy to examine Tony's article in detail. But in the last few days I have been reading Hans Urs von Balthasar who has illuminating things to say on the topic. So for now I will simply add to the mix by referring Tony and anyone who is interested to Chapter 2 ("Flesh and Spirit") of Part III of Balthasar's Prayer (Ignatius Press, 1986) which includes the line "scripture itself seems to legitimize the adoption and christening of Hellenic terms at the very outset, especially in the Pauline use of 'flesh' (sarx) and 'spirit' (pneuma, nous)." (pp. 260-61)

Does Doubt Have a Role to Play in Religion?

Substack latest

I list six such salutary roles.

Rod Dreher on (Loss of) Faith in Institutions

Here (emphases added)

I was pleased to see the all-Muslim city council in Hamtramck, Mich., stand up to the progressive sleazebags and say no, they are not going to fly Pride flags over city property. It’s against local moral standards, they say — and they’re right. More and more, we see Muslim parents standing up and doing the job of speaking out that Christians will not do. People who never read Michel Houellebecq’s controversial 2015 novel Submission think mistakenly that Muslims are the villains, because it’s about a democratic Islamist takeover of France. They’re not the heroes, but not villains either. The demoralized, secularized, gutless French are the villains. They are spiritually and morally exhausted, and surrender to Islamist government because they don’t know what else to do.

Me, I absolutely don’t want to live under Islamic government, but if I had to choose between living under the governance of the Hamtramck City Council or the Los Angeles city council (see below), that wouldn’t be a hard call. Twenty-two years after 9/11, I can hardly believe I typed that line, but here we are.

Why are we Christians so soft, and so uncaring about decadence? I don’t get it. I really did think that the Left going after kids to sexualize them was the bright red line that was going to make most people revolt against the sexual orientation/gender identity madness, but it hasn’t, not really. It may yet, but we’re going to have to sink even deeper into the filth before we hit bottom. We are still being lied to, constantly, by our government, by the medical establishment, and by the media about transitioning kids — and most people just chew their cuds and carry on. A federal judge in Arkansas just overturned the state’s ban on transing kids. Big Trans and its allies among elites are going to have their way — and most of us yawn and move on. It makes no sense. Do people ever think that their kids might end up on Pensacola beach, doing dildo ring toss with the dykes, or getting drunk and engaged in group masturbation?

Of the great religions, Islam is the worst, and Sharia law is antithetical to classical American values. BUT, if we need to make common cause with (moderate, non-terrorist) Muslims to defeat the utterly destructive, anti-civilizational Woke-Left and their globalist enablers, then so be it! I'll say it again: we need a broad coalition of the sane and the reasonable to defeat our enemies.  Hell, even the socialists over at The Militant are talking more sense than the wokesters!

Saturday Night at the Oldies: Winning and Losing

From great music, music that appeals to the highest in us (Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart and a few others) to the people's music. My German neighbor when I lived in Freiburg im Breisgau, Frau Schmidt, upon hearing the strains of Beethoven, let loose with the expletive, Scheissmusik! There is no disputing (lack of) taste.

Hank Williams, You Win Again, 1952.  Jerry Lee Lewis' 1979 interpretation. Flashy, but lacks the authenticity of the original.

Emmy Lou Harris, If I Could Only Win Your Love

Allman Bros., Win, Lose or Draw

Beatles, You're Gonna Lose that Girl

Beatles, I'm a Loser

Hank Williams, Lost Highway

So boys don't you start your ramblin' around/ On this road of sin are you sorrow bound/ Take my  advice or you'll curse the day/ You started rollin' down that lost highway.

Tom Petty pays tribute to Hank.

Marty Robbins, Born to Lose

Steely Dan, Rikki Don't Lose that Number.   Great guitar solo.  It starts at 2:56.

New Lost City Ramblers, If I Lose, I Don't Care

Brenda Lee, Losing You

Intimations of Elsewhere: Sensible Reminders of Hidden Beauty

Salzburg, Austria, December 1971. A young Austrian girl, radiant and beautiful, walked into the kitchen. I lost all desire for the food I had prepared.  My soul sprouted wings. The visible beauty triggered a memory of a timeless Beauty. Anamnesis pierced for a moment the amnesia induced by the bodily senses.

Dayton, Ohio, 1978. Gripped by the audible beauty of the Beethoven Violin Concerto in D major, the solo passage near the beginning of the Larghetto (26:33), upon return from a long, hard run, I could not eat the huge salad I had prepared. I set it down, my appetite gone.

Simone Weil (FLN, 318): "When once the whole of one's desire is turned toward God, one has no desire to eat when one is hungry."

The metaphysical elsewhere: beyond space, before time. Space- and time-bound as we are 'at present,' we must use spatial and temporal language to point beyond the spatiotemporal.

The intimations are rare. Don't ignore them, record them, honor and remember them. To dismiss them as the worldly are wont to do strikes me as the height of spiritual foolishness.

A Question about Hell

If hell is separation from God, why wouldn't a body held in thrall by sensuous pleasure do as well as a body wracked with pain?  Absorbed in sensuous pleasure, one is arguably farther from God than when in pain.

The Beauty of the Solitary Life

Thomas Merton, The Journals, vol. 6, 24 June 1966, p. 344: "The beauty of the solitary life . . . is that you can throw away all the masks and forget them until you return among people."

For, as one of my aphorisms has it, "The step into the social is by dissimulation."

Before I quit my cell, I put on my face, don my mask, go gray, and try not to appear too intense.

Nietzsche on Conviction

Top o' the Stack

Of Fox and Fellatio: A Fox News First?

This is the first time I have heard fellatio referred to on a major TV network. The sweet and wholesome Kayleigh McEnany reports. The fellatio reference is around 2:34.  Joey B, "devout Catholic" in journo lingo, stars as Porn Enforcer and takes a brave stand against book burning.

UPDATE (6/23)

Do you remember when our illustrious prez hung out with rapper Cardi B?  Click here to revisit the high-level discourse that flowed between these two cultural 'icons.' Birds of a feather . . . . Speaking of which, wouldn't John Fetterman, feeble and fettered in body and mind, make a good running mate for Uncle Joe in 2024? Our kakistocracy would be well-served by the dynamic Dementocratic duo. As for those of you who voted for Joe knowing all that you did or should have known, I am in too good a mood at the moment to tell you what I really think of you.

Referring to Two Things

Ed writes,

Does ‘these two things’ refer to two things, or not? (Suppose the things are shoes.)

Perhaps not. For there are the two things, but also the plurality of them. The plurality is one thing, identical with neither the first thing, nor the second.

So the phrase ‘these two things’ actually refers to three things? Makes no sense to me.

BV:  Perhaps it makes no sense to you because  you think that 'thing' can only mean 'material thing.'  We agree that 'these two shoes' refers to exactly two shoes, each of which is a material thing, and that there is no third material thing of which they are members.  So if that is what our nominalist means when he denies that the two shoes form a plurality, then we agree.

Here is a slightly more complicated example. You have a bolt B and a nut N that fits the bolt, i.e., N can be screwed onto B.  Now there is clearly a difference between B, N unconnected and B, N connected. But even here I will grant that there is no third material thing wholly distinct from B and wholly distinct from N when B, N are connected.  There is no third material thing 'over and above' the connected bolt and nut.  Here is exactly what you have and no material third thing in addition:

Disagreement may begin to set in when I point out that the weight of the object depicted above is strictly greater that the weights of the bolt and the nut taken separately.  The total weight is additive such that if the nut weighs 2 ounces and the bolt 16 ounces, then the weight of the object depicted is equal to 2 + 16 = 18 ounces. The predicate '___weighs 18 ounces' is not true of the nut, and it is not true of the bolt, and it is not true of any material third thing 'over and above' the object depicted, and this  for the simple reason that there is no such third material thing.

So what is the predicate '___ weighs 18 ounces' true of?  I say that it is true of the plurality the sole members of which are N and B.  I am not further specifying the nature of this plurality. Thus I am not saying that it is a mathematical set, nor am I saying that it is a mereological sum.  I am saying that there is a distinction to be made between a plurality of items and the items.

Note that if our nominalist were to say that a plurality is exhausted by, or reduces to, its members, then will have given up the game by his use of 'its.'  So he has to somehow avoid that locution.

Our nominalist will grant that the predicate '___weighs 18 ounces' is not true of the nut, not true of the bolt, and not true of any third material thing  wholly distinct from the bolt and the nut.  But he might say that it is not true of anything. The predicate is flatus vocis, a mere word, phrase or sound to which nothing extramental and extralinguistic corresponds.  I reject this view. It implies that the nut threaded onto the bolt has in objective reality no weight that is the sum of the objective weights of the nut and bolt taken separately.

Our nominalist seems committed to an intolerable linguistic idealism. Suppose all language users were to cease to exist. It would remain that case that the weight of our nut-bolt combo would equal 18 ounces. It would remain the case that Earth is spheroid in shape and has exactly one natural satellite.

But why is he a nominalist in the first place? Is it because he thinks that only material particulars exist? If that is true then of course there cannot be a plurality of two material particulars.  Hilary Putnam: "Nominalists must at heart be materialists . . . otherwise their scruples are unintelligible." (Phil Papers, vol. I, 338)

Is he a nominalist because he is an empiricist who thinks that only sensible particulars exist?  I see the nut, I see the bolt, I see the nut threaded onto the bolt; but I don't see any plurality of material particulars. Is our man restricting what exists to that which is empirically detectable via our senses and their instrumental extensions (e.g., microscopes, telescopes, etc.)? 

Is he both a materialist and an empiricist? How do those two positions cohere?

'Equity' Can be Deadly

Words of 'woke' from Oceangate CEO. Surely qualifications and experience can't matter much.  Surely. Might there be some hubris in naming  a submersible Titan? 

I dilate further at Substack.

In other news, armed IRS agents seize gun purchase records from Montana gun shop. Some say we are now living in a police state. I recommend that you read Stephen P. Holbrook, Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and Other Enemies of the State.  Three brief reviews here.

My Pronouns?

Up yours!

The point, of course, is to not validate, by answering, the stupid question.

This can be done in more or less polite ways.

You might say, politely, "Your question rests on a presupposition that I reject, namely, that the DEI agenda is a good thing. Now move along and have a nice day."

Yesterday I received a solicitation for funds from an alma mater. I wrote back, "I am in a position to make a substantial contribution, and will do so, but only on condition that you publicly renounce the DEI agenda and return to the true purposes of the university." 

Why Shouldn't the Vatican Go 'Woke'?

The RCC is already a joke with a clown at its head; why then should it not go 'woke'?  It has needed defunding for a long time now. It is up to us to make it true that 'go woke, go broke.' Story here:

VATICAN CITY — An unprecedented global canvassing of Catholics has called for the church to take concrete steps to promote women to decision-making roles, for a "radical inclusion" of the LGBTQ+ community . . . .

The document also asked what concrete steps the church can take to better welcome LGBTQ+ people and others who have felt marginalized and unrecognized by the church so that they don't feel judged: the poor, migrants, the elderly and disabled, as well as those who by tribal or caste feel excluded.

Perhaps most significantly, the document used the terminology "LGBTQ+ persons" rather than the Vatican's traditional "persons with homosexual tendencies," suggesting a level of acceptance that Francis ushered in a decade ago with his famous "Who am I to judge" comment.

Satanists must feel terribly marginalized by the RCC even at this late date. They need to be recognized so that they don't feel judged.  'Catholic' means universal; so shouldn't everyone be included?  Diversity, equity, inclusion!  In fact, Satanists are more worthy of inclusion than New Atheists (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris, et al.) because the former, unlike the latter, believe in the super-natural, the meta-physical.  In any case, the New Atheism is so passé! Hell, nobody knows what it is is anymore. Satanism is the current thing and must be honored as such. Diversity demands the inclusion of Satanists! And (superlunary) equity, equality of soteriological outcome, for all, regardless of merit or demerit!

Moral judgment must be avoided at all costs since, as we all know now, there is no difference between making moral judgments and being judgmental, and no bien-pensant wokester wants to be perceived as judgmental.

"LGBTQ+ persons" absolutely must replace the Vatican's traditional "persons with homosexual tendencies," because of the latter's implied distinction of tendency/disposition and exercise.  It was traditionally held that there is no sin in having the innate homosexual tendency or disposition; the sin consists in exercising or acting upon it. But this distinction is quite obviously homophobic and hateful because it marginalizes those who act upon their inherent homosexual desires. Besides, it's a bogus distinction; it sounds like some dusty punctilio from some superannuated scholastic manual of the sort the beatific Bergoglio rightly excoriated.   Both disposition and exercise are to be, not tolerated, but celebrated.  By her own astute admission, Karine Jean-Pierre, as the first black, female, lesbian WH press secretary, is a historic figure.  No doubt about it, and qualifications for the job have nothing to do with it.

See? I'm a clown! Who am I to judge?

More on the Dumbassery of 'Smart Homes'

Here:

Amazon locked a Microsoft engineer out of his smart home devices for nearly a week after a delivery driver accused him of uttering a racial slur.

Via Malcolm Pollack, who is always worth reading.

A Little Learning

by Alexander Pope

A little learning is a dangerous thing ;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring :
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.
Fired at first sight with what the Muse imparts,
In fearless youth we tempt the heights of Arts ;
While from the bounded level of our mind
Short views we take, nor see the lengths behind,
But, more advanced, behold with strange surprise
New distant scenes of endless science rise !
So pleased at first the towering Alps we try,
Mount o’er the vales, and seem to tread the sky ;
The eternal snows appear already past,
And the first clouds and mountains seem the last ;
But those attained, we tremble to survey
The growing labours of the lengthened way ;
The increasing prospect tires our wandering eyes,
Hills peep o’er hills, and Alps on Alps arise !

Is Nothing Sacred?

The Los Angeles Dodgers, in 'go woke, go broke' mode, have foolishly breathed new life into the late Christopher Hitchens and the  blasphemy question.

Substack latest.  

But will the 'woke' go broke?  That depends on us.  

As our institutions continue to shove deviancy and degeneracy into our faces, the meaningful question is: Will the Right pledge to fundamentally transform the country? Unless a dramatic realignment takes place—unless Americans as a people reassert their sovereignty and discover the morality that must be present for republican government to have success—the sinews of civil society will snap.

Stunts like what the Dodgers pulled off (and Target tried to do) will continue save for the Right offering a long-term, systematic plan of resistance that changes the behavior of those sitting atop the state-corporatist power structures.

Why Do We Tolerate Crime?

WE don't tolerate it; our political enemies do.  Check this out. The miscreant is black, no? If yes, then he enjoys carte blanche to be just as baaad a badass dude as he wants to be. The incident also begs raises the secondary question: why are there so many Somalis in the Twin Cities? Might those girls have been safer in Somalia?

We are warned that the video is "disturbing." Really? Are you disturbed by it? It's par for the course! Are we not all by now inured to such 'disturbance'? Or are you a Rip van Winkle who just 'woke' up?

You want disturbance? That comes later.

Debate, Disagreement, and the Limits of Rational Discourse

I wrote a few months back,

. . . the wisest policy is not to debate leftists. Generally speaking and admitting exceptions, leftists need to be defeated, not debated. Debate is worthwhile only with open-minded truth seekers. Truth, however, is not a leftist value. At the apex of the leftist's value hierarchy stands POWER. That is not to say that a leftist will never speak the truth; he will sometimes, but only if it serves his agenda. 

Tony Flood replied that the above quotation reminded him "of [Eric] Voegelin's stance on this very issue, about which I blogged a few years ago."  In that post Tony reproduces the first paragraph of Voegelin's Debate and Existence as follows. [note to AGF: your hyperlink is busted: 404 error]  Tony breaks Voegelin's one paragraph into four.

 

Life and Thought

And their irremediable sublunary tension.

Top o' the Stack.

Should We Discuss Our Differences?

Pessimism versus optimism about disagreement.

Substack latest.

Saturday Night at the Oldies: Monterey Pop Festival June 16-18, 1967

It transpired 56 summers ago, this June, the granddaddy of rock festivals, two years before Woodstock, in what is known as the Summer of Love. Your humble correspondent was on the scene. Some high school friends and I drove up from Los Angeles along Pacific Coast Highway. I can still call up olfactory memories of patchouli, sandalwood incense, not to mention the aroma of what was variously known as cannabis sativa, marijuana, reefer, tea, Miss Green, mary jane, pot, weed, grass, pacalolo (Hawaiian term), loco weed, and just plain dope. But my friends and I, students at an all-boys Catholic high school that enforced a strict dress code, were fairly straight: we partook of no orgies, smoked no dope, and slept in a motel. The wild stuff came later in our lives, when we were better able to handle it.

I have in my hand the program book of the Festival, in mint condition. Do I hear $1,000? On the first page there is a quotation from Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice:

How sweet the moonlight sleeps upon this bank! Here we sit and let the sounds of music creep in our ears; soft stillness and the night, become the touches of sweet harmony.

Ah yes, I remember it well, the "sweet harmony" of the whining feedback of Jimi Hendrix's Fender Stratocaster plugged into his towering Marshall amps and the "soft stillness" of the The Who smashing their instruments to pieces. Not to be outdone, Jimi lit his Strat on fire with lighter fluid. The image is burned into my memory. It shocked my working-class frugality. I used to baby my Fender Mustang and I once got mad at a girl for placing a coke can on my Fender Deluxe Reverb amp.

On the last page of the program book, a more fitting quotation: the lyrics of Dylan's The Times They Are A'Changin', perhaps the numero uno '60s anthem to youth and social ferment. (Click on the link; great piano version. Live 1964 guitar version.) Were the utopian fantasies of the '60s just a load of rubbish? Mostly, but not entirely.

"Lately it occurs to me, what a long strange trip it's been."

Tunes and Footage:

The Who, My Generation. "I hope I die before I get old."

Mamas and Papas, California Dreamin'

Mamas and Papas, I Call Your Name

Canned Heat, Rollin' and Tumblin'

Byrds, Chimes of Freedom

Otis Redding, Try a Little Tenderness

Scott MacKenzie, San Francisco

Jefferson Airplane, Embryonic Journey

YouTuber comment: 

For all the people getting sad nostalgia from this, whether it’s from missing friends or missing the good days, please don’t be sad, be happy that you got to live through this time and experience it with your friends, I’m 16 and feel so out of place in this generation, yes I have lots friends but for them fun is crammed in someone’s basement blasting dubstep and fighting over games of pong, you guys did well, be proud of it.

Thanks. We're proud. Perhaps too proud.

The hipster-monk Tom Merton would have found good things to say about the festival. He was 52 in '67.

How sweet the moonlight sleeps upon this bank! Here we sit and let the sounds of music creep in our ears; soft stillness and the night, become the touches of sweet harmony.

Ah yes, I remember it well, the "sweet harmony" of the whining feedback of Jimi Hendrix's Fender Stratocaster plugged into his towering Marshall amps and the "soft stillness" of the The Who smashing their instruments to pieces. Not to be outdone, Jimi lit his Strat on fire with lighter fluid. The image is burned into my memory. It shocked my working-class frugality. I used to baby my Fender Mustang and I once got mad at a girl for placing a coke can on my Fender Deluxe Reverb amp.

On the last page of the program book, a more fitting quotation: the lyrics of Dylan's The Times They Are A'Changin', perhaps the numero uno '60s anthem to youth and social ferment. (Click on the link; great piano version. Live 1964 guitar version.) Were the utopian fantasies of the '60s just a load of rubbish? Mostly, but not entirely.

"Lately it occurs to me, what a long strange trip it's been."

Tunes and Footage:

The Who, My Generation. "I hope I die before I get old."

Mamas and Papas, California Dreamin'

Mamas and Papas, I Call Your Name

Canned Heat, Rollin' and Tumblin'

Byrds, Chimes of Freedom

Otis Redding, Try a Little Tenderness

Scott MacKenzie, San Francisco

Jefferson Airplane, Embryonic Journey

YouTuber comment: 

For all the people getting sad nostalgia from this, whether it’s from missing friends or missing the good days, please don’t be sad, be happy that you got to live through this time and experience it with your friends, I’m 16 and feel so out of place in this generation, yes I have lots friends but for them fun is crammed in someone’s basement blasting dubstep and fighting over games of pong, you guys did well, be proud of it.

Thanks. We're proud. Perhaps too proud.

The hipster-monk Tom Merton would have found good things to say about the festival. He was 52 in '67.

How sweet the moonlight sleeps upon this bank! Here we sit and let the sounds of music creep in our ears; soft stillness and the night, become the touches of sweet harmony.

Ah yes, I remember it well, the "sweet harmony" of the whining feedback of Jimi Hendrix's Fender Stratocaster plugged into his towering Marshall amps and the "soft stillness" of the The Who smashing their instruments to pieces. Not to be outdone, Jimi lit his Strat on fire with lighter fluid. The image is burned into my memory. It shocked my working-class frugality. I used to baby my Fender Mustang and I once got mad at a girl for placing a coke can on my Fender Deluxe Reverb amp.

On the last page of the program book, a more fitting quotation: the lyrics of Dylan's The Times They Are A'Changin', perhaps the numero uno '60s anthem to youth and social ferment. (Click on the link; great piano version. Live 1964 guitar version.) Were the utopian fantasies of the '60s just a load of rubbish? Mostly, but not entirely.

"Lately it occurs to me, what a long strange trip it's been."

Tunes and Footage:

The Who, My Generation. "I hope I die before I get old."

Mamas and Papas, California Dreamin'

Mamas and Papas, I Call Your Name

Canned Heat, Rollin' and Tumblin'

Byrds, Chimes of Freedom

Otis Redding, Try a Little Tenderness

Scott MacKenzie, San Francisco

Jefferson Airplane, Embryonic Journey

YouTuber comment: 

For all the people getting sad nostalgia from this, whether it’s from missing friends or missing the good days, please don’t be sad, be happy that you got to live through this time and experience it with your friends, I’m 16 and feel so out of place in this generation, yes I have lots friends but for them fun is crammed in someone’s basement blasting dubstep and fighting over games of pong, you guys did well, be proud of it.

Thanks. We're proud. Perhaps too proud.

The hipster-monk Tom Merton would have found good things to say about the festival. He was 52 in '67.

Sunset Crater

Better the Visitor's Center than Flagstaff!

 

Do Not Underestimate Russia's Resolve

An American Thinker article by our friend, James Soriano.   

The two camps differ not only on the cause of war, they have completely different world views as to how a system of sovereign states works.   Russian war policy is the epitome of a broader realist approach to international affairs:  states have interests, not friends, and they must rely on self-help to do what is necessary to protect themselves.  Accordingly, Russia went to war not to conquer, but from a no-nonsense threat assessment.  By contrast, the United States entered the fray with an ideologically charged missionary spirit.  The U.S. has long seen itself as the savior of the world, the “indispensable nation,”  Its diplomatic discourse often lapses into moralizing rhetoric.  It believes that a world filled with more democracies would be a safer and better place than it is today.  It is disdainful of traditional balance of power politics and favors a “rules based” world order.  The Russian view of power politics is “bottom up” and conservative.  It insists that a state’s historical and geographic circumstances must be taken into account.  It grapples with the question, “What is there?”  The American view of the world is “top-down” and revolutionary.  It is less concerned with historical contexts than with hypothetical theorizing about how people and states ought to behave.  It grapples with the question, “What should be there?”

[. . .]

One side is saying that world peace is served when the great powers exercise self-restraint and are respectful of other powers’ security.  The other side is saying that maintaining a sphere of influence is implicitly an aggressive act.  One side is saying that tension between the great powers is not the result of the particular character of their regimes, but rather is built into the international system whenever a great power veers out of its lane.  The other side is saying that a regime’s character is exactly the point, because different characters affect the relations among the states in different ways.  One side emphasizes historical and geographic circumstances as a constant in world affairs.  The other side de-emphasizes these in favor of an overlay of law and ethical precepts.

Many Russians believe that U.S. talk about “spheres of influence,” and respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty, and the need for a “rules-based” international order is only a moralizing cover for what the United States really wants — which is regime change in Moscow.  Russia has suspected this all along.  Ironically, it sees the United States pretty much as the United States sees itself:  as a messianic power spreading the good news of democracy around the world.  Russia knows that if it had acquiesced to Ukraine’s joining NATO, if it had been passive in allowing an opposing military alliance to push itself right up against its fence, then Russia would permanently lose its freedom of action and any claim to great power status.  It would have to fit pliantly into an American-designed world order.  It would have to go along with the U.S., rather than to present itself as an alternative to it.  Going back to Napoleon, Russia has a history of opposing hegemonic power bidders.  If it had gone along with NATO-on-the-Dneiper it would have prostrated itself to one.   It would become like Europe, another American appendage. 

The Russian people get this.  They sense that the battle in Ukraine is not just about Ukraine.  It in an existential fight, a struggle of life or death, between them and the West.  To them a challenge originating in the West has once again reared up to put Russia under overwhelming pressure.  They believe that losing this fight would not amount to just a setback from which Russia could later recover; it would be tantamount to Russia’s losing its historical identity, not merely as a country but as a civilization, for Russia is a civilization culturally distinct from that of the West, and not, as many Westerners mistakenly believe, an un-democratized expanse on Europe’s eastern edge.

Extremism and Leftist Projection: Capital Punishment

This is the second in a series.  (The first is here.) You will have noticed that leftists call us extremists though there is nothing extreme about our views. They are all of them moderate. What our political enemies do is to project their extremism into us. Projection is a well-known psychological defense mechanism. What I am doing in this series is cataloging political forms of projection as practiced by hard-leftists, 'wokesters,' 'progressives,' whatever you want to call them.

So consider capital punishment. At the one extreme are those who deem  it always and everywhere wrong. This bunch includes every Democrat politician at the present time.  (I am open to correction if you can prove me mistaken.) At the opposite extreme, or in the vicinity of the opposite extreme, are those who readily employ capital punishment for all manner of supposed 'crimes.' There are of course plenty of historical examples, but at the present day the Iranians have distinguished themselves in this regard, which is not to say that other Muslim countries are much better.

Under Iran's penal code, people can be executed for crimes that are not considered among "the most serious" under international law, such as drug trafficking.

The UN expert said vague charges, such as "enmity against God" and "corruption on Earth", were meanwhile used to sentence individuals to death for participation in protests, for other forms of dissent or where there was a lack of evidence for the accusations.

Judges trying capital and other cases also relied heavily on forced confessions extracted through torture and other forms of duress to prove guilt, he added.

[. . .]

At least 17 women were executed in total, eight more than in 2020, it adds. They included Zahra Esmaili and Maryam Karimi, who were convicted of murdering abusive husbands. Esmaili's lawyer is cited as saying that she suffered a heart attack as she watched several men being executed in front of her, and that officials still hanged her lifeless body.

Two men convicted of crimes committed when they were children were also put to death, according to the report. One of them, Arman Abdolali, found guilty of murdering his girlfriend in 2013 when he was 17, was taken to the gallows seven times in the months prior to his execution, it says.

In Iran, homosexuals are executed. By contrast, here in the decadent USA and elsewhere in the decadent West, homosexuals are not merely tolerated  but officially celebrated, celebrated by the government, as if their 'lifestyle' were on a moral par with every other 'lifestyle.'  

And so again we see that the position of  what I call the American conservative is moderate, sane, and reasonable. As an American conservative rooted in the principles and values of the Founding documents, I  say you are morally obtuse if you think that there is no conceivable circumstance in which capital punishment would be justified. And I say that you are both morally and intellectually obtuse if you agree with Roman, Nazi, or Iranian penology. This American conservatism itself avoids two extremes, that of throne-and-altar reaction (and its close cousin 'post-liberalism') and an extreme laissez-faire libertarianism-libertinism that overvalues the economic while undervaluing if not suppressing the cultural.  It takes on board the best of classical liberalism while avoiding the noxious extremes.

The Assault on Reality

Man wins first place in women's cycling event.  Why not, if there is no biological difference between a man and a woman?  If a man can 're-imagine' himself into woman so as to enter into athletic competition with them, then surely an adult can 're-imagine' himself into a child for the same purpose, as in the prescient Seinfeld episode in which Kramer dominates the dojo.

And if there is no biological difference between men and women, how could anyone reasonably kvetch  that 'man,' 'men,' and 'he' exclude women? You can't exclude what doesn't exist. By the same token, 'woman' does not exclude men.

Tucker on Twitter

Ep. 3 America's principles are at stake

Extremism and Leftist Projection: The Border

Mainstream leftists promote extreme ideas and policies; mainstream conservatives do not. But this fact does not stop leftists from projecting their extremism into us. They call us extremists! Uncomfortable with their extremism, and not wanting to admit it, they suppress their awareness of  their extremism by projecting it into us. There are numerous examples of this political-psychological projection. This entry will discuss just one. 

Consider the question of national borders. My thesis is that conservatives at the present time in the USA are moderates on all or most questions pertaining to national borders and their enforcement.

A moderate position is one that is more or less midway  between two extremes. One extreme is the de facto if not de jure open borders  view according to which anyone at any time may immigrate  without being in any way vetted as to health status, criminal status, or in any other way. The opposite extreme is the closed border view according to which no immigration of anyone at any time is permitted by law and the law is strictly enforced. 

Now no one is for the second extreme. No one in the USA holds that all immigration should be illegal, than no one should ever be granted political asylum, etc.

But the Biden administration's position is very close to the first extreme. That cannot be denied by anyone who is  both well-informed and intellectually honest.

The conservative position is commonsensical and moderate, lying as it does between the extremes. Conservatives, to harp on the obvious, are not opposed to immigration; they are opposed to illegal immigration. Among conservatives there are debates as to how latitudinarian immigration policy ought to be. But that is a further question.

I could go on from here and show that on every or almost every issue that divides the nation, mainstream conservatives are moderates. I solicit your help. Tell me in the ComBox what those further issues are and how the mainstream conservative treads the via media.

What Motivates George Soros?

What could motivate anyone to use his billions to bankroll the unravelling of the fragile fabric of civil society?  

Miranda Devine explained last night on Fox that Soros is a utopian who believes that only after the status quo is razed to the ground can we start over and build utopia. But utopia is "Like, nowheresville, man" as Maynard G. Krebs once remarked. Or at least it is nowhere we can get to by individual or collective effort. The eschaton is not up for immanentization. 

The deepest metaphysical error of the Left is the conceit that there is no reality antecedent to human beliefs and desires, and that everything is susceptible to human manipulation and production, to something like Heideggerian Machenschaft. 

Devine on Soros. Check out the photos. "Birds of a feather flock together." 

Kamala with Soros scion.

Memo to useful idiots: if you vote Dem, you should know what you are voting for.  You need to wake up to wokery.

The Smart Home Blues

Sino-styled surveillance is upon us. No up-to-date police state without it. So only a dumbass would spring for a 'smart home.' Be smart, and keep your house dumb.  How dumb? As dumb as a ding-dong dumbbell Dem.

In today’s world of politically correct insanity, it’s truly baffling that a significant number of Americans willingly invite in their homes these advanced devices that constantly eavesdrop on their conversations and actions. Yet, that’s become the norm with gadgets like Echo and Alexa, which feel like creepy spies sitting in the corner, recording every noise you make. Well, one guy learned the hard way just how risky that idea can be when his doorbell accused him of being “racist” and Amazon completely shut down his entire “smart home.” The guy’s name is Brandon Jackson, and he gave a detailed account of what went down that fateful day.

Story here.

The Difference between Philosophy and Polemics

Top o' the Stack. 

Tony Flood comments:

Congrats on another vital post, Bill. You referred to our spectatorship and to theoria without adverting to the etymological connection between them. (You can't do everything in one post! (:^D) ) In Philosophy after Christ, p. 39n1, I noted: 

The Greek theoreō (θεωρέω) means to look at; gaze; spectate; form a picture. “Theory” comes from the noun for “spectacle” and the verb “to behold,” theaomai (θεάομαι), from which we get “theater.” A theoros is a spectator. “When all the people who had gathered to witness this spectacle (θεωρίαν, theōrian) saw what took place, they beat their breasts and went away” (Luke 23:48). “He [Jesus] beholds (θεωρεῖ) a commotion with people crying and wailing loudly” (Mark 5:38).

 

You'll no doubt see other implications.

Saturday Night at the Obituaries

Astrud Gilberto, the Girl from Ipanema, has passed on at age 83. The genre, Bossa Nova, was popular from the late '50s to the mid-'60s. 

"Blame It on the Bossa Nova" is a song written by Cynthia Weil (lyrics) and Barry Mann which was a 1963 hit single for Eydie Gormé, reaching number 7 on the Hot 100 in Billboard in March 1963. 

'Route 66' actor George Maharis is dead at 94.  

Jack Kerouac in a letter from 17 January 1962: "Everybody is making money off my ideas, like those "Route 66" TV producers, everybody except me . . . ." (Selected Letters 1957-1969, ed. Charters, Viking 1999, p. 326; see also p. 461 and pp. 301-302.) 

Here is the Nelson Riddle theme music from the TV series.  And here is part of an episode from the series which ran from 1960-1964.  George Maharis bears a striking resemblance to Jack, wouldn't you say? And notice Maharis is riding shotgun.  Kerouac wasn't a driver.  Neal Cassady (The Dean Moriarty of OTR) was the driver.

Now dig Bobby Troup.  Chuck Berry, the Rolling Stones, Dr. Feelgood,  and others have covered the tune. How should we describe the good doctor's performance? Energetic? Nay, manic. Makes this old man want to hit the road, which he will be doing before too long. Every true American loves the open road. And if you don't? Then you are not a true American. The version by Asleep at the Wheel is especially good.  "Four on the road, one in the hand," as Neal Cassady says somewhere. 

Tina Turner died recently at 83.  Some of us remember her mainly in connection with the abusive Ike. 

It's Gonna Work Out Fine 

Enough death for one night.

We Need a Broad Coalition to Defeat the Left

Substack latest.

Tony Flood comments, with characteristic erudition:

A good case, Bill. I wouldn't say I'm looking for atheists to work with, but a conservative's atheism would be no barrier to my doing so. While reading, I thought of Antony Flew (not to be confused with Anthony Flood), once a target of academia's cancel culture. In 2001, the Mises Institute, then run by trad Catholic Lew Rockwell, awarded him its Schlarbaum Prize. His 1981 The Politics of Procrustes tore into Rawls's Theory of Justice. This was all before he went deistic, as was his 1995 "The Terrors of Islam." My friend David Gordon's brief notice of Flew's death credits the influence of David Conway to his abandonment of his long-held atheism.

I have the Politics of Procrustes in my library and drew upon it when I taught political philosophy at Case Western Reserve University. Flew had a salutary influence on my thinking in those days, as did Robert Nozick, although I find libertarians too 'economic' in their thinking and insufficiently appreciative of cultural considerations. 

If Tony has Conway's book and is willing to part with it, he can contact me. By the way, if you are bookman looking to get hitched, make sure you marry a woman who won't mind living in a library. 

And a bookman these days is well-advised to develop some ancillary skills.

Collective Guilt

Are there such things as collective guilt and collective responsibility? In Black Reparations, I put forth the following principle:

Only those who are victims of a crime are entitled to reparations for the crime, and only those who are the perpetrators of a crime are obliged to pay reparations for it.

A commenter, not impressed by the principle, offers this by way of rebuttal:

(show)

I steal $100,000 from you. I give it to my son, and head for the hills. My son is $100,000 richer than you. Do you have a right to ask for it back? Why? He didn't take it from you - he is no perpetrator. He is innocent. [. . .] Where do you draw the line? One can extrapolate individualism to absurd, unworkable levels - a baby may have no milk that he hasn't earned, for instance. No, if it is possible for your children and friends to benefit from your actions, then by benefiting from unjust actions, they become connected to the injustice.

There are many cases in which one who does not directly commit a crime, aids and bets the commission of a crime. The case mentioned above could be subsumed under 'trafficking in stolen goods.' One who knowingly does this, though not as guilty as the thief, is also guilty. Or suppose two enraged men are engaged in a violent dispute that threatens to become physical. I hand one of the men a loaded revolver, and he shoots the other. Have I done anything wrong? Of course. Even though I have not shot anyone, I have aided an abetted a shooting.

What is Philosophy Good For?

A Substack protreptic.

A protreptic is an exhortation.

From the late Latin protrepticus hortatory, encouraging, from Greek protreptikos, from protrepein to turn forward, urge on, from pro- + trepein to turn. (Miriam-Webster)

Confuse Hate and Dissent and You Will Find Hate Groups Everywhere

Did you know that Moms for Liberty is a hate group?  

At least that’s the view of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a far-left political organization, which is drawing scorn for labeling Moms for Liberty and other parental rights organizations as “extremist organizations,” including them on the same “hate map” as neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan.

Like many SPLC critics, [Vivek] Ramaswamy dismissed the attack as “a farce.”

“The SPLC is a tentacle of the woke-industrial complex,” he told NHJournal. “I’m proud to be the first candidate to sign the Moms for Liberty Parent Pledge. Tomorrow [Thursday, June 8], I’ll be in New Hampshire hosting a Parents Rights Town Hall with my favorite ‘hate group’ (badge of honor).”

Here is what these domestic terrorists and insurrectionists look like. Call me naive, but they strike me as sweet, loving, and lovable suburban mommies who want what is good for their children and have a healthy sense of the difference between good and evil.

Just for fun check out this SPLC Hate Map. It includes a nifty search utility. Look up how much hate is in your state! Fun for the whole family. In Arizona in 2022 there were 39 hate groups, including a chapter of Moms for Liberty in Pima County. Yikes!

The SPLC calls these groups "anti-government groups." The SPLC-ers are the kind of people who think that being FOR limited government is being AGAINST government. 

Are you anti-government? I'm not. I'm anti-police state. Can you wrap your head around the difference? 

ComBox open. I want your opinion. Is the USA at the present time a police state? Dan Bongino says it is. Agree? Adduce evidence  for and against.

Addenda (6/9)

Dan Bongino: The Police State is here. 

"You have to understand what's going on," Bongino added. "The timing here is not accidental. Evidence came out today, hard evidence that the president of the United States, while he was Obama's vice president, was involved in the biggest political payoff in human history and a political scandal.

"This is all about making Trump go away and covering up for not just Biden, but covering up for Obama. Remember, Biden was the vice president. If he was paid a bribe for policy decisions, what policy decisions? He can't make them. He was Obama's vice president.

"Everything is about covering up for the Obama-Biden regime. That's all this is. The timing here is not accidental."

Rudy Giuliani: We're a 'Banana Republic,' 'Fascist'

"We have these allegations of massive bribes to Joe Biden," Giuliani said. "I mean, I've seen them. I know them. I've heard them. I've heard them on tape. To me, it's astounding. And the FBI has been investigating these for four years. And done nothing.

"Never did a search warrant. Never interviewed a witness, and now they're taking a document dispute, and trying to make it into a federal crime. I mean, there's no comparison between the $5 million bribe and a document dispute; the $31 million from China and the document dispute.

"It's ridiculous. I mean, we're a banana republic and a fascist country. If we do things like this and let them get away with it."

John Hinderaker: Trump Indictment Watch

The criminal prosecutions of Trump are thin if not entirely baseless, and they obviously are politically motivated. Nevertheless, they illustrate why Trump should not again be president.

Reader J.I.O comments and I basically agree:

No, Mr. Hinderaker. You are writing nonsense and I can prove it to anybody:

Turn all that you opine around and ask: "Do you want anyone so weak towards the heat in the kitchen, in the kitchen?" I sure don't.

 

Trump, no if's and's or but's, has the best and best enduring interests of the United States at heart, full speed ahead. And that's best for all the nations of this world as well.

 

Now let's examine a little more the track of 'candidates' along the lines you favor. They're thinking of that brass ring out there so they are NEVER focused on the task at hand. 

 

Hence you can count on two things, 1. their work is not their best, or, 2. they fob it off on someone else, so it's not really their work, they sit as a figure head, you know, that statue on the prow of an old sailing ship, a superstitious talisman. To sum up your favored candidates self-screening process: one finger in the wind, one eye looking backwards, the other eye looking WAY down the road at their all-along real goal.

 

Trump alone can turn things around. He has proven over four years that he can.  He cannot be bought. He is tough as nails and can withstand the withering hatred directed at him from all sides. He doesn't need the job. He is not a career politician. He can have at most one term in office. He loves his country, and, contrary to the brazen lies of the filthy Dems, he is moderate in his views. There is nothing extreme about them.

 

The question to put to well-meaning useful idiots like Hinderaker and so many other yap-and-scribble never-trumping pseudo-cons is: which side are you on, man?  Grow a pair and man up. Are you not embarrassed to be a lapdog of the Left?

The Leftist as Denier of Distinctions

The denial of distinctions is the subversion of thought.

A Substack quickie.

One distinction the wokeassed cannot process is that between hate and dissent. To dissent from what you say is not to hate you.  Failure to grasp this simple distinction is predicated on a further failure, that of failing to grasp the distinction between a proposition and a person. 

'Wokeass' is appropriate invective because an ass is a donkey and the home of the 'woke' in the USA is the Democrat Party the symbol of which is the jackass. Communists could not win here under the Hammer and Sickle but they are winning under under the sign of the Donkey.

Astride the Jackass at present is a man multiply defective: feeble in body, non compos mentis, morally corrupt to the core, devoid of principle, a traitor in dereliction of duty, and the mere puppet of hidden masters. Our geopolitical adversaries are licking their chops and preparing to pounce.

When you vote Dementocrat you are voting for the suicide of the West.

Those Useless Masks Now Have a Use

Did you throw away your useless made-in-China COVID face masks? Yes? Too bad. They now have a use in places like New York City.

If someone is firing a shotgun at you it would be futile to take cover behind a chain link fence. But if you are being pelted by baseballs, the fence would prove barrier enough.

Smoky places unsought are the problem; those sought not so much.

A Mistake of Memory

One mistake we sometimes make is to confuse a memory of a decision to do something with a memory of having done it. "I thought I did that! No, my man, you merely thought of doing it." 

One morning I wasted time searching for an article I had printed out the day before. But I was searching for a nonexistent object. I hadn't printed it out; I had merely resolved to do so. I confused resolve with result.

Memory, then, is fallible. But it is via memory that we know this. The non-veridical memory of having printed the document is known to be non-veridical by comparison with the veridical memory of having intended to print it. So while fallible, memory is a source of knowledge, and generally reliable, although its powers vary from person to person. 

Veridical memory  of wholly past events gives the lie to presentism, the view that the present alone exists. For if the present alone exists, then the wholly past does not exist. But what does not exist cannot be known. Given that some memories are veridical, presentism is false. 

"So what are you saying, man? That the past is real?"

Anti-'Woke' Parents versus Antifa 'Wokesters'

Here:

Antifa members who showed up outside a public meeting for the Glendale, California school system on Tuesday got beat down by the Armenian parents who showed up to voice their opposition to LGBTQ+ curriculum in the classroom.

Andy Ngo comments:

Local sources tell me it was this use of Armenian colors/symbols mixed with LGBTQI+, pup play pride in the shape of a Christian cross that incensed Armenian-American families in Los Angeles & caused them to mobilize against the school boards.

Historical comparisons are tricky and in any case I'm no historian. Are we in something like a Weimar period? You know what came after that.  Or are we in something like the waning days of the imperium romanum? You know what came after that too. 

Is there an historian in the house? 

One thing is clear: we have a government that gives aid and comfort to anti-civilizational elements.  At the head of this government we have a man who is not only morally corrupt personally, but also in dereliction of his constitutional duties. A little south of this entry I quoted David Horowitz on Joe Biden:

He began with a brazen lie that he would unify the country and represent both those who voted for him and those who did not.

Then he issued a series of executive orders that illegally and unconstitutionally nullified our immigration laws, and welcomed a flood of unvetted illegals from 200 countries to invade our country. This was the greatest crime ever committed by our government against its own people.

The fish stinks from the head as the proverb has it, and in this case it stinks to high heaven.

More footage.

On 'Breaks Down'

Headline from a fairly high-level conservative publication: RFK Jr. Breaks Down His Stance on 2nd Amendment.

Surely that is bad writing. I don't object to the use of 'breaks down' to mean 'analyze,' although the overuse of the former expression by journalists is becoming tedious  and all-too-indicative of what language lemmings they are. But what the headline reports is not analysis but explanation. 'Explains' is the word. Or one of them. 

No wonder journalists can't think worth a damn: they can't write worth a damn. The worst, of course, are the leftists. I deprecate them as 'journos.' The conservatives I call 'journalists.' They are a couple of cuts above the journos, but that is not saying much. Neither term is approbative in my book.

The visage of 'Walter' above signals a language rant, so that you may bail if such is not to your taste.