From: Hermit (virus@hermit.net)
Date: Sat Sep 27 2003 - 15:56:24 MDT
[Jonathan Davis 1] You, like Kharin, have stooped to defamation over content. Scruton is a first and foremost an philosopher, and a superb one at that. I can testify to this as I have read the book in question.
[Hermit 2] Nope. Scruton isn't a "superb" philosopher. He is a media figure who plays the role of a philosopher on programs appealing to Fux TV viewers. He is probably most famous for accepting money from Japan Tobacco International to write pro-smoking articles in the various newspapers that murder trees on his behalf. And then getting found out. Said newspapers ended up sacking him for his pains. (Kharin's contribution.)
[Jonathan 3] The tobacco thing is completely irrelevant. It was a crude attempt at the same sort of well poisoning I complained about earlier.
[Hermit 4] It is not at all irrelevant. Neither was it poisoning the well. The man takes short cuts in all directions and uses his spurious "authority" to make a never ending stream of assertions accepted approvingly only by people infested with a similar political ideology. His work is not regarded as exceptional by any significant academic group and his character is viewed as flawed. The mention of his history suffices to prove that this is neither a stretch nor a new phenomenon. In science at least, but in academia generally in my experience, reputation is jealously guarded, because you have only one. Scrunton has one, but it smells a bit like last week's hake.
[Jonathan Davis 1] Why you inserted the irrelevant comments about race consciousness I do not know. Redefining the out-group is easy when I can force you into the in-group at spear point.
[Hermit 2] Not when the tip is irrefutably entangled somewhere in your own anatomy.
[Jonathan 3] Yes, but why did you put it in?
[Hermit 4] If you meant the tip, I think it was a self inflicted injury on your part.
[Hermit 4] If about Toynbee, then perhaps you don't realise that Scruton only has one song, and this is of his neverending nostalgia for a supreme Anglican Western world he imagines was superior to every other culture and any other time. This has many serious problems, but the most glaring is that the world he writes about in rounded periods has never existed except in his imagination, A counter exanple should have served to show that his assertions are invalid. The UK practically invented modern racism, and Christianity was responsible for the preservation of ignorance and bigotry until well into the "enlightenment." As Toynbee indicated the values Scruton wishes to reserve for the west were held by the Muslim much earlier. So much for Scrunton.
[Hermit 2] Having told two people whom you regularly characterize as intelligent, fair, experienced and articulate that they are engaging in defamation - which you should recognise is always stupid - something seems to be out of kilter.
[Jonathan 3] Not at all. There is no deliberate malice on your or Kharin's part. I see such things as mistakes, rhetorical devices that are unfair.
[Hermit 4] No. I (and I am certain Kharin) both are quite capable of looking at a charletan and identifying him as such to the satisfation of anyone prepared to either accept what we illustrate, or doing the necessary research to validate it for themselves. Neither of us delude ourselves that those unprepared to challenge their preconceptions will derive any benefit from what we say. But warning people that Scruton is a loathsome, second rate hack preaching to a clearly identified choir is a long way from "defamation".
[Hermit 2] My recommendation was for you to read some Toynbee in order to try to get a better handle on history before you decide that Scruton represents a pinnacle of historical excellence upon which you can base your entire opinion of the field.
[Jonathan 3] That is completely fair, but not what you said (or at least what was communicated to me). Firstly, I would have corrected you: I was not basing my my entire opinion of any field on any one person or book.
[Hermit 4] Given that the arguments you raised are not new, seem derivitive, and have deceived nobody I have met with actual knowledge of the situations they involve, I concluded you were propagating an opinion based on your acceptance of the authority of Scranton's book you claim to have read. Given your advocacy of Scranton as providing "answers", I reached the further tentative conclusion that you were singing the same song as Scrunton. If that is not the case I'd appreciate your attempting to explain why you saw fit to mislead us about your motivations?
[Jonathan 3] Secondly, I recommend Scruton's book "To understand why these agreements are being undermined". These agreements referred to certain agreements and notions in western politics. Scruton examines what happens to consensus models when pre-political loyalties are dissolved.
[Hermit 4] The people turn away from Jesus, the world goes to hell in a handbasket, and it is the end of civilization as he imagines it. We know that. But why did you advocate this perspective and Scrunton's book if you disagree with Scrunton? Conversely, why do you attempt to reject the importance of Scrunton in forming your views if you are indeed singing the same song?
[Jonathan Davis 1] As a scientist, sceptic and atheist perhaps you would be better advised expounding on Toynbee's "use of myths and metaphors as being of comparable value to factual data and his reliance on a view of religion as a regenerative force" http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=406334
[Hermit 2] Perhaps you were unaware that Toynbee was an atheist and a skeptic - and probably the first historian to attempt a modern scientific approach to history on a grand scale (i.e. looking at the macro-event level). Perhaps that is why I appreciate him.
[Jonathan 1] I will try and get hold of some of his volumes or perhaps an abridged work.
[Hermit 2] Look in a mirror. Observing that myth and metaphor is important and plays a huge role in life and history is no more, and certainly no less, than what the CoV is engaged in. What else is "memetics" other than myth, metaphor and their effects on their carriers.
[Jonathan 3] Perhaps. That is a different albeit interesting discussion perhaps as a topic for a chat.
[Hermit 2] In any case, I suggest that somebody's perspective is flawed and that cognitive dissonance is almost certainly at work. Particularly when it comes to your repeatedly rejected strange idea that I advocate any Theistic religions. The difference between you and I, it seems, is that I condemn them all equally, rather than reserving a fondness for the Anglicans. This includes recognizing that your (and that of your sources) blanket condemnation of Middle Eastern and Asian culture is rooted in your apparently shallow perspective. Had you been brought up in, e.g. The PRC, your opinion would no doubt be different. Which allows me to condemn your judgements, They are not measured, but are rooted in cultural prejudice.
[Jonathan 3] Here you revert to the standard charge that those who disagree with you suffer from a pathology of some sort. I do not blanket condemn anything. Neither does Scruton. It would be useful if you could serve some examples as I do not think they exist.
[Hermit 4] What pathology? I have told you repeatedly that I don't support any Theistic systems, but reject all of them equally. You continuously repeat your assertion that I prefer Islam (with the nasty insinuation that I am a traitor to my self). So something must be preventing you from comprehending my simple straightforward words. That something is called cognitive dissonance. And it is morphological rather than pathological. Your brain keeps telling you that what you see must match what you believe - or it should be rejected. The mechanism is well understood. Indeed your accusation that I "charge that those who disagree with you suffer from a pathology of some sort" and that this is standard, is simply your cognitive dissonance getting in the way again. You are misinterpreting reality and I suggest that it is apparent to most of the people reading this.
[Hermit 4] If you knew more about the non-Western world, it would seem to me that you should be able to do a better job of perceiving the world as projected through their perspective.
[Jonathan 3] You can label me or my perspective whatever you like (shallow etc.) The vehemence of your contempt does not actually help your arguments all. I could, but shall not, make exactly the same plausible claims about you that you are making about me. It is specious and unhelpful.
[Hermit 4] When an analysis is based in understanding the motivations of the protagonists, then it has validity. But the perspective that you and Scruton portray is not based on that at all. Rather, at least in Scruton's case, it is based in the fact that they are not nicely behaved democratic Anglican's. In your case, the statements you have made about Islam lead me to think that you don't understand it sufficiently to condemn it effectively.
[Jonathan Davis 1] Or is your selective quoting of Toynbee just a case of a quoting another set of scriptures for one's own purposes?
[Hermit 2] The man was prodigiously productive, having written upwards of 100 works, many of them seminal. I recall your complaining of a few paragraphs of summary recently - on the grounds you had no time to read them. If you don't want a flood which will make Dees look restrained, I suggest that you be glad that I am selective.
[Jonathan 3] You may be incontinent if you choose. I do have delete but after all and a fast internet connection.
[Hermit 4] Not everyone here has. Quotation serves no purpose if it is not read (I have a delete key). And it seems to me that you are the person most likely to complain that you don't have the time to read a few paragraphs to be able to argue on a factual basis (see e.g. the discussion on the instantiation of the Universe).
[Hermit 2] As for quoting Toynbee, he serves as a counterpoise to Scruton and Co, reminding you of their "western universalist" position. While your knowledge of Islamic history as portrayed here is so flawed as to render discussion meaningless until you obtain a better background, bigotry and prejudicial interpretations abound, and you seem to have soaked up and in consequence appear to be advocating some percentage of it.
[Jonathan 3] Instead of calling me names and talking up your boy Toynbee,why don't you do something substantive like support an assertion or craft an argument?
[Hermit 3] Toynbee is not anybody's, "boy". Toynbee is regarded as significant. A search on google for "historiography Toynbee" will show you why. Toynbee and Wells founded the twentieth century school of Historiography. Toynbee, Wells, Spengler, Krober, Malinowski and McNeill are regarded as the primary modern historians, and a reference to any citation index will reflect that most academics regard Toynbee as the most significant of them. Your slighting references to Toynbee, like your comments about Islam, point to an almost total lack of knowledge of the field.
[Jonathan 3] You make claims about Toynbee, yet I read he is a buffoon. I give you (and Toynbee) the benefit of the doubt, you respond with name calling. I am not allowed to mention your bigotries and prejudices in case you accuse me of
risking your life.
[Hermit 3] Obviously you didn't read far enough. Aside for a lack of time for people who are ignorant and don't realise it (or won't acknowledge it), and a preference for those able to communicate effectively, I am probably one of the least bigoted and prejudiced people you are likely to meet. Whatever misanthropy I embody, like my philanthropy, is universal.
[Jonathan Davis 1] I find it delightfully ironic that you approving quote Toynbee's reference to Islamic universalism -namely the surrendered are all equal before Allah (hence no need for other classifications like race or nation), yet for Toynbee "the West's universalist pretensions" are disgusting.
[Hermit 2] Think about what you say - or better, research it. Preferably not in a book written by an ahl al-q'itab with his own problems - and writing out of field. Who defeated the alchemists and Jews of Medieval Europe? Where did they flee? What is the purpose of jizya? Can somebody "conquered" be subjected to "Dhimmitude" and "equal in surrender"? I know the answers. Do you?
[Jonathan 3] Yes. The answer is 42. This display of cut and paste "learning" does not wash. Scruton crafts superb arguments based on real learning. Hint: That is the way you can earn my respect.
[Hermit 4] Without understanding that "Dhimmitude" can only occur in people who have surrendered (not been conquered!) and that the alchemists and Jews of Europe fled the persecution of the Christians to the havens of Moorish nations, where they were absorbed into the population, the only difference between them and the moors being that they paid a poll tax, jizya, in order to make up for the fact that the Muslims donated to charities providing social services as a part of the beliefs on a voluntary basis, you wouldn't understand how ignorant of Islam your question made you appear. And I suggest that your comments about Toynbee, and my 'cut and paste "learning"' make it appear that you wouldn't recognise "real learning" even if somebody force fed you on it. Respect is important, but seeking respect from the incapable is the hallmark of a terribly insecure person. So you may keep yours, an you will.
[Jonathan Davis 1] I am alarmed that how you are so forgiving and even admiring of our deadliest and fastest growing competitor - Islam. Do you really mean to side with this militant religion against our secular, Western model of politics?
[Hermit 2] You shouldn't be alarmed. You certainly shouldn't imagine that Islam is deadly - except in a rather boring sense. Like any other belief system, its adherents adapt it to fit their situation and justify their actions. When living repressed in a brutal environment, it can be used to justify suicide bombing.
[Jonathan 3] Yes. The problem is that actions are often unjustified and reasons faulty. Being a pampered fat and rich Saudi can justify attacks on towers. The justifications can be as bizarre and they are numerous.
[Hermit 4] The reasons were clearly articulated. The trouble is not that reasons were in short supply, but that the complaints were ignored and the causes exacerbated. Have you noticed that some of the "message" of 911 got through? The last US combat forces were recently withdrawn from Saudi Arabia, and the US has apparently been trying (ineffectively, but trying) to do something about their rogue Israeli friends and the Isreali Palestinian situation. Your sneering dismissal of bin Laden, whose competence is proven, only makes you look silly and is the kind of attitude which tends to lead to the kind of situation the US is in today with all the world arrayed against her.
[Hermit 2] Just as Christianity justified revolution in England and the forcing of China to purchase opium from the English
[Jonathan 3] The Opium Wars were part of the larger British Empire strategy of forcing global trade. It has next to nothing to do with Christianity.
[Hermit 4] As usual, your pronouncements are utterly wrong. The missionaries were right in the thick of it. Read some Twain or search on google for "missionaries opium". Either might open your eyes. Look particularly for articles mentioning Robert Morrison and Karl Friedrich Gutz both missionaries pushing bibles and opium while employed by the East India company along with appeals from "Chinese Christians" for the British to act against the Q'ing.
[Hermit 2] and apartheid lead to the necklacing of teachers by "rational atheistic humanists"
[Jonathan 3] Those teachers were necklaced by bloodlust aroused mobs scapegoating.
[Hermit 4] Deliberately engineered and instigated by the ANC as part of their "No education before normalization" campaign to make the country ungovernable. The degree of success achieved by this campaign are tragically visible today. But the bloodshed was directly attributable to the ANC leadership (including the Sainted Mandela).
[Hermit 2] and economic crises and belief in racial superiority lead the US to justify nuking Japan.
[Jonathan 3] I don't man to object to your examples. I know it is bad manners and distracting, but how can you justify this sort of statement. It strikes me as..well..a joke? An economic crisis in 1945? Racial superiority justified the bomb? Are you for real?
[Hermit 4] Economic considerations in the 1920s lead to the isolation of Japan and interdiction of her access to raw materials, particularly oil. This, together with FDRs strategy to get into the war by provoking Japan into attacking America and the Allies lead to the Japanese involvement in WW II. Truman, a fundamentalist Christian, whose prejudii and desire for "Christian leaders" (which accounts for Chiang, the only Christian warlord in China and another fundamentalist Refer e.g. http://www.monarch.net/users/miller/ww2/history/allied.html). arguably contributed massively to the communist take-over of China and the Korean and Vietnamese debacles confided to his diary, "Uncle Harry hates the heathen nips, and so do I". Truman, who overrode his staff and the military in deciding to nuke Japan, undoubtedly agreed with Fleet Admiral William Halsey's regret that the war "ended too soon because there are too many Nips left". This has been discussed at great length on the CoV previously. Consult our archives. As
I mentioned to Jubangalord, I reccomend Arthur Goddard's Harry Elmer Barnes Learned Crusader: The New History in Action (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879260025/thechurchofvirusA) in order to counter a US-centric education. Review here - http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard27.html - and the review itself is well worth wading through for the gems which it includes (and which are not all in the book).
[Hermit 4] I recommend you go to the above review, search for "One of Barnes' most important contributions to Cold War Revisionism" and read that and the following 4 or 5 paragraphs which pertain to the bombing.
[Hermit 2] When times are better, the very same beliefs might lead to quiet discussions over tea and cucumber sandwiches with the Imam.
[Jonathan 3] Yes. Humans are situational creatures.
[Hermit 4] So when the situation is ghastly, people react badly. Condemning the societies which arise from such situations is not appropriate or helpful. Neither is attempting to "defeat" such societies. Only by altering the situation can you expect to see any change in the people involved.
[Hermit 2] As a second issue, you need to read the news from time to time.
[Jonathan 3] On the contrary, I need to read it less. I have such a range of sources and feeds that I tire from analysing them all.
[Hermit 4] Then how do you imagine that the twin debacles, Afghanistan and Iraq are doing well, that the threat of terrorism is reduced, or that current US strategy has improved the global outlook for peace? e.g. Jonathan Davis, "Unilateralism", Reply #2, 2003-09-27 (http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29336) "Everything is working out beautifully."
[Hermit 2] Neither of the two global "B"s (i.e. the smirking chimp and his poodle) hide the fact that they were called by a Middle Eastern god to save the world from itself. So much for a secular Western model of politics.
[Jonathan 3] Using puerile labels for Bush and Blair is fine, if a little sad. That they think that their actions are ordained in a guess.
[Hermit 4] Not at all.A month after the World Trade Center attack, World Magazine, a conservative Christian publication, quoted Tim Goeglein, deputy director of White House public liaison, saying, "I think President Bush is God's man at this hour, and I say this with a great sense of humility." Time magazine reported that "Privately, Bush even talked of being chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment." The net effect is a theology that seems to imply that God is intervening in events, is on America's side, and has chosen Bush to be in the White House at this critical moment. Belief.net (http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?pageLoc=/story/121/story_12112_1.html&storyID=12112&boardID=51717ore frightening, In the 2003-06-26 Ha'aretz reported, "According to Abbas, Bush said: 'God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the el
ections will come and I will have to focus on them.'"
[Hermit 4] And as for Blair, [quote]Blair, a committed Christian who keeps the Bible by his bed, knows he is taking a risk by revealing the importance he places on religion in informing his politics. He also knows that many of his key officials feel uncomfortable about the central role that God plays in his life. There were furrowed brows of consternation when Blair, asked who he would answer to for the deaths of British soldiers, replied: 'My Maker'.[/quote The Guardian (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1011460,00.html)
[Jonathan Davis 1] Your words remind me of something Orwell wrote:
[Jonathan Davis 1] "why is it that the worst extremes of jingoism and racialism have to be tolerated when they come from an Irishman? Why is a statement like "My country right or wrong" reprehensible if applied to England and worthy of respect if applied to Ireland (or for that matter to India)? For there is no doubt that some such convention exists and that "enlightened" opinion in England can swallow even the most blatant nationalism so long as it is not British nationalism. Poems like "Rule, Britannia!" or "Ye Mariners of England" would be taken seriously if one inserted at the right places the name of some foreign country, as one can see by the respect accorded to various French and Russian war poets to-day."
[Hermit 2] Actually that could be another example of bigoted jingoism (and possibly your cognitive dissonance flaring up again). As a half-Scotsman, I reject the idea that England is synonymous with Great Britain! And if you had comprehended anything I have written on politics, you would be aware that I regard all "nationalistic jingoism" as being equally harmful to humans. Indeed, doubly harmful, in that "nationalism" by itself is a curse, and "jingoism" a disease of the intellect.
[Jonathan 3] He does not make them synonymous at all so as a half-Scot you let your nationalism cool again. The paucity of objections suggests you agree with him.
[Hermit 4] Not at all. I don't know how you can take "I regard all "nationalistic jingoism" as being equally harmful to humans. Indeed, doubly harmful, in that "nationalism" by itself is a curse, and "jingoism" a disease of the intellect." as agreement. Indeed, it speaks directly to either the aforementioned 'cognitive dissonance', insufficient intellect to comprehend a clear expostulation of my opinion, or a deepseated intellectual dishonesty. Like to make a choice?
[Jonathan Davis 1]As for you Hermit, oppugnancy is damaging you. Perhaps "surrender" is what you really need?
[Hermit 2] Despite it having become the norm in American politics, your diagnosis appears as flawed as the idea of the inmates running the asylum. All right thinking people recognise that the world is neither black nor white, but a rather attractive shade of grey. Perhaps it is difficult to recognise when you are running around with beams in your eyes. Maybe an optician could assist you?
[Jonathan 3] [Side Note: "All right thinking people" - So many kooky conspiracy theories, fallacies and extremist rants have this marker imbedded in them it is a useful shortcut for discarding bunk at the scanning phase. Simply scan for it and if found, hit delete. ]
[Jonathan 3] Again, irony creeps into our discussion. No sooner have you reminded me of your being Scottish than you commit the "No True Scotsman Fallacy". Priceless.
[Hermit 4] You have to be asserting a presumption that that the following statement is incorrect whenever you assert a fallacy. In other words, for the "all true scotsman" fallacy to be present, the assertion must fail when it is reexpressed removing "all true" preamble. So reexpressing the statement as, "Thinking people recognise that the world is neither black nor white, but a rather attractive shade of grey." Unless you aver that this is not the case, your assertion of fallacy here is as faulty as all of your other assertions.
[Hermit 4] But you inpire me. Pity you left it so late in the article. Had I seen it 6 hours ago, I could have saved 6 hours. grep 'Jonathan Davis' > /dev/null
---- This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29259> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 27 2003 - 15:56:53 MDT