R. Joseph Hoffman wrote that “some could argue that the neocon revolution was a rarefied and acute intellectual moment in American culture, packaged as grits.” Who might these some be that might be making that preposterous argument – as “grits” no less? Rarefied and yet also acute? Shall we talk to the million of dead Iraqis? Can’t, of course. How about the half of the world that lives in complete poverty – are they the ones to speak up for the imperialist war cons? Who then?
These types of kids-are-so-dumb prof essays always founder on the question: so now the learned, brilliant prof and his kind are the true and the brave? Then why are their own home and personal lives in such disarray? Why do they cash paychecks from such a bloated, incompetent system of credentialing obvious morons? Why has this invention of so much sitting around listening to droning pedants produced such abysmal results?
Excellent piece by Christopher Orlet on the barbarians (i.e. my ancestors, as I’m English). The assumption that classical learning was stifled because the Western Empire fell always seemed a little odd when I looked at a chronological series of maps and noticed the Eastern Empire chugging along nicely for centuries. But I suppose the Christian apologists will have the usual array of stock responses. Let me guess: Orthodox Christians aren’t proper Christians (one for the American fundies); you can’t just an entire religion just because everyone in it happens to do something bad repeatedly for a few hundred years; and the medieval church preserved ancient learning during a ‘bad patch’ for civilization in general.
Nice piece, Joey, but as you well know, there is no place for the silver-tongued in America outside of the academy. We need a person in these times who can communicate with 20 year old retards as well as 80 year old retards. You know who could communicate, for all in the “You Can’t be Conservative and Intellectual” crowd? William F. Buckley, Jr. He wasn’t an intellectual heavy-hitter, but he knew rhetoric like the back of his hand, and so do the rest of that clan. It’s a formula, not a conspiracy. Read the National Review and you’ll know everything you need to know about intellectualism and conservatism. That magazine has been behind almost every shift in values, in Middle America, since its founding.
The word should be ‘tenets’, not ‘tenants’. It is frustratingly annoying when such erros creep into an otherwise interesting document and raise flags of sloppy scholarship and carelessness.
The word should be ‘errors’, not ‘erros’. It is frustratingly annoying when ‘such an error’ raises a flag of carelessness with such a pointed erring finger.
Btw, your comment should have read; ‘when such an error’ etc… The ruddy pot is now calling the Cuddy kettle black!
There is no anti-intellectualism in America per-se because “intellect” is not recognized in America. We have always worshiped at the Temple of the Dumb; our adoration of the rustic, the plainsman, the westerner. We adore the myth of the simple tinkerer tirelessly trying again and again until he builds by a combination of hard work,and luck, the airplane, the car, the atom bomb. We are all taught to believe that with “grit” we could do the same things, if we wanted to. Every boy (and girl) a potential hero, even President. I think that what we have institutionalized in this country is a sense of entitlement that no one has to work for anything anymore. Not grades, not reputation, not satisfaction: That you can buy these things, in fact anything can be bought including that most elusive though Constitutionally guaranteed “happiness”.
Mm, close, I think, Ben, but not quite. People often like a person “in his place.” If you are “the smart kid” reared by a bunch of “hard-workers”, you end up the Hard Working Smart Kid. The myth of the simple-tinkerer works, I think. I’d rather people believe in that than the myth of the Mad Scientist. Intellectualism out of context is not valued, and frankly, I begin to wonder why it should be. Intellectuals in America are often nothing more than the spoiled, moderately intelligent brats of spoiling parents. I worship at the altar of new and better thoughts, wherever their origin.
Ahmadis are heretical Muslims, and thus are under a death sentence. And when in Pakistan this became the subject of the evening news, the results were lethal. “PAKISTAN: Two persons murdered after an anchor person working for a prominent television channel proposed the widespread lynching of Ahmadi sect followers,”
from the Asian Human Rights Commission.
The targets are followers of the Muslim Ahmadi sect, a group which has been declared non-Islamic under the constitution of Pakistan. The first killing happened within 24 hours of the broadcast, and just under two days later a district chief of the Ahmadi was murdered.
Judging by the reports in the “quality” national British papers, Prof Reiss may not have emphasised the point made by HF. Interestingly, the online BBC News did report this in October 2006:
>Prof Reiss says the rise of creationism is partly down to the large increase in Muslim pupils in UK schools. He said: “The number of Muslim students has grown considerably in the last 10 to 20 years and a higher proportion of Muslim families do not accept evolutionary theory compared with Christian families.
“That’s one reason why it’s more of an issue in schools.”
Incidentally, Reiss, and the Royal Society, have stated that his comments were misrepresented:
“Some media reports have misrepresented the views of Professor Michael Reiss, Director of Education at the Society expressed in a speech yesterday,” the Royal Society declared in a statement on 12 September 2008.
The Rev Professor Reiss said: “Some of my comments about the teaching of creationism have been misinterpreted as suggesting that creationism should be taught in science classes. Creationism has no scientific basis. However, when young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis.”
Prof Steve Jones reports from the “Godless College”, February 2008:
Creationism is boring and empty, and I usually ignore it, but this week at University College London it’s hard to do so.
The place is plastered with posters from the medical students’ Islamic Society inviting us to celebrate the “collapse of the evolution theory” with a lecture by a creationist in “the very building dedicated to Charles Darwin, on the spot he once lived”.
UCL, the Godless College of Gower Street, insists (just as all religions do) on freedom of speech, so they are welcome to their meeting. We biologists choke, though, on the idea of such buffoonery in the Darwin Building; instead, it has been moved to a theatre used to teach medieval history.
Hmm. I agree, OB, but I also think the work of the body is often dismissed. Good work is good work, and ideas do come from the brain. But I get irritated with people who believe that the university is the sole cradle and preserver of the intellect. A lot of progress comes from outsider oddballs.
ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.
Sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.
“To politicise freedom of expression by setting State boundaries on what is acceptable in terms of assertions about historical events is preposterous.”
This should be self-evident in a liberal democracy as a matter of principle, but one would have thought that Western European politicians who advocate a holocaust denial law would recognize that it puts them in a weak position to argue against illiberal elements proposing more wide-ranging laws on the basis that they are “offensive” to one group or other.
Unfortunately, an illiberal mindset on this issue is to be found in the EU:
‘Brigitte Zypries, Germany’s justice minister, said: “We have always said that it can’t be the case it should still be acceptable in Europe to say the Holocaust never existed and that six million Jews were never killed.”
‘ “The European Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs, Franco Frattini, has pledged its support for the German push. A spokesman said: “This would give a good signal that there are no safe havens for racists or xenophobes in Europe.” ‘
That was in 2007. Fortunately it failed to get universal agreement in the EU:
‘However other countries, including the UK, Denmark and Sweden, had misgivings fearing that freedom of speech would be compromised.’
but one would have thought that Western >European politicians who advocate a holocaust denial law would recognize that it puts them in a weak position to argue against illiberal elements proposing more wide-ranging laws on the basis that they are “offensive” to one group or other.>
They are not that retareded. To the contrary it is precisely because it puts them in a strong position to pass such laws that they keep hammering the pseudo-problem of holocaust-denying. They have a real one which they can’t handle.
The European Union has drawn up guidelines advising government spokesmen to refrain from linking Islam and terrorism in their statements. Brussels officials have confirmed the existence of a classified handbook which offers ‘non-offensive’ phrases to use when announcing anti-terrorist operations or dealing with terrorist attacks. Banned terms are said to include ‘Jihad’, ‘Islamic’ or ‘fundamentalist’.”
While on the whole I agree with this position, I do have a few reservations. Firstly, the quote from Chomsky is inappropriate if only because Faurrison’s freedom of speech was never the issue: no one was trying to silence him; he was merely fired as an incompetent historian. Secondly, with respect to Austria and Germany’s stance re nazism, they might argue that they paid a rather heavy price for tolerating it in the 1920s and 30s. After all, the Nazis didn’t seize power in a bloody coup like the Bolsheviks or after a long and bloody ‘protracted war’ like Mao, but through attacking, manipulating and perverting (with lies and populist demagoguery, etc.) the very democratic culture which Standing (and I too for that matter) defend. And once in power, which they achieved without ever coming close to majority electoral support, they simply changed the rules and went about arresting and silencing all those who espouse such values and fredoms.
>Secondly, with respect to Austria and Germany’s stance re nazism, they might argue that they paid a rather heavy price for tolerating it in the 1920s and 30s.<
One can understand why Austria and Germany introduced a holocaust denial law in the immediate post-WW2 period, and maybe why repealing them may be difficult in those countries (the governments might be accused of pandering to neo-Nazi sentiment), but the situation in Western Europe is simply not comparable to that in 1930s Germany and Austria.
What we are talking about are contentions about historical events. As Edmund Standing argues, repellent views in this sphere should be challenged on the basis of historical evidence, not the law courts.
While we’re on the issue of historical contentions… :-)
Eric wrote:
>After all, the Nazis didn’t seize power in a bloody coup like the Bolsheviks…<
If I recall correctly, the coup in question was remarkably unbloody. It took place against a weak Provisional Government which was distracted by events outside the capital.
That, of course, didn’t make it any less a coup, or the ensuing events any less bloody.
Considering the treatment of, not holocaust deniers, but critics, like Norm Finkelstein, it seems that somehow the holocaust profiteers, the many in Israel who were willing to sullen the memory of those who died in the camps by falsely claiming compensation for murdered relatives that didn’t exist, should really be the ones exposed.
The problem with the holocaust is that somehow the number of Jewish victims seems inflated, and also that the Jews are the ones that scream the loudest. There were many others given the same mistreatment, but somehow the Jews suffering seems to be collective whereas the others’ seem individual.
So maybe a proper investigation to establish the facts about the holocaust would be the road to go down.
And have the Israelis hand back all and any money they swindled from the Germans.
Ankara – Turkish internet users have been blocked via a court order from accessing the site of prominent British biologist Richard Dawkins after complaints from lawyers for Islamic creationist author Adnan Oktar, the website of Turkish television station NTV reported on Wednesday.
A court in Istanbul ordered that Turk Telekom block access to the site and since the weekend Turkish internet users seeking the site have been redirected to a page that says in Turkish ‘access to this site has been suspended in accordance with a court decision’.
…After all, the Nazis didn’t seize power in a bloody coup..And once in power… they simply changed the rules and went about arresting and silencing all those who espouse such values and fredoms.>
This an example of the inherent loopholes and flaws of democracy as a political system (and these flaws were already pointed out 2300 years ago by Plato in The Republic).
By default a majority (like the 1930s Germans) can always vote (de jure or de facto by electing appropiate leaders) to exterminate a minority (the Jews). Yet just because it has been first voted a murder doesn’t become a morally right thing to do.
The fact that most people believe something to be true or right doesn’t necessarily mean that it is true or right.
HF: You wrote: “By default a majority (like the 1930s Germans) can always vote (de jure or de facto by electing appropiate leaders) to exterminate a minority (the Jews).”
The last time the German people had a vote (plebiscite) on Hitler’s taking over the state was in 1934. Whatever view one takes of the large proportion of the electorate who voted in favour of the Nazi hold on power, they were not voting to exterminate the Jews. The “final solution” policy decision was only taken during World War 2 (1942, if memory serves me right). In the years between 1933 and 1939 Hitler’s policy was to cow the Jews by brutal repression. In this period some sixty percent of Jews left Germany, something Hitler would not have allowed had his intention been, during that period, the extermination of Jews. His policy, rather, was to make Germany “Jew free”, and terrorising them into leaving the country sufficed for that purpose.
So whatever recriminations may be laid at the door of the majority of the German people in the 1930s, that they voted to exterminate the Jews is not one of them.
The “final solution” policy decision was only taken during World War 2 (1942, if memory serves me right)…
Very subtle technical point. As if it wasn’t clear for every German who listened Hitler’s speeches, or read Mein Kampf, on what direction he was taking Germany.
“Very subtle technical point. As if it wasn’t clear for every German who listened Hitler’s speeches, or read Mein Kampf, on what direction he was taking Germany.”
You wrote that the majority of the German people voted (de jure or de facto by electing appropiate leaders) in 1934 (the last opportunity they had to vote on who held power in German in the 1930s) in favour of exterminating the Jews.
There is absolutely no evidence that the majority of the German people, however anti-semitic, wished for the extermination of all Jews.
That you dismissed my whole argument against this by saying it amounted to a “very subtle technical point” indicates why I shall not continue to respond to what you write on this issue.
R. Joseph Hoffman wrote that “some could argue that the neocon revolution was a rarefied and acute intellectual moment in American culture, packaged as grits.” Who might these some be that might be making that preposterous argument – as “grits” no less? Rarefied and yet also acute? Shall we talk to the million of dead Iraqis? Can’t, of course. How about the half of the world that lives in complete poverty – are they the ones to speak up for the imperialist war cons? Who then?
These types of kids-are-so-dumb prof essays always founder on the question: so now the learned, brilliant prof and his kind are the true and the brave? Then why are their own home and personal lives in such disarray? Why do they cash paychecks from such a bloated, incompetent system of credentialing obvious morons? Why has this invention of so much sitting around listening to droning pedants produced such abysmal results?
Excellent piece by Christopher Orlet on the barbarians (i.e. my ancestors, as I’m English). The assumption that classical learning was stifled because the Western Empire fell always seemed a little odd when I looked at a chronological series of maps and noticed the Eastern Empire chugging along nicely for centuries. But I suppose the Christian apologists will have the usual array of stock responses. Let me guess: Orthodox Christians aren’t proper Christians (one for the American fundies); you can’t just an entire religion just because everyone in it happens to do something bad repeatedly for a few hundred years; and the medieval church preserved ancient learning during a ‘bad patch’ for civilization in general.
Nice piece, Joey, but as you well know, there is no place for the silver-tongued in America outside of the academy. We need a person in these times who can communicate with 20 year old retards as well as 80 year old retards. You know who could communicate, for all in the “You Can’t be Conservative and Intellectual” crowd? William F. Buckley, Jr. He wasn’t an intellectual heavy-hitter, but he knew rhetoric like the back of his hand, and so do the rest of that clan. It’s a formula, not a conspiracy. Read the National Review and you’ll know everything you need to know about intellectualism and conservatism. That magazine has been behind almost every shift in values, in Middle America, since its founding.
awesome
The word should be ‘tenets’, not ‘tenants’. It is frustratingly annoying when such erros creep into an otherwise interesting document and raise flags of sloppy scholarship and carelessness.
The word should be ‘errors’, not ‘erros’. It is frustratingly annoying when ‘such an error’ raises a flag of carelessness with such a pointed erring finger.
Btw, your comment should have read; ‘when such an error’ etc… The ruddy pot is now calling the Cuddy kettle black!
There is no anti-intellectualism in America per-se because “intellect” is not recognized in America. We have always worshiped at the Temple of the Dumb; our adoration of the rustic, the plainsman, the westerner. We adore the myth of the simple tinkerer tirelessly trying again and again until he builds by a combination of hard work,and luck, the airplane, the car, the atom bomb. We are all taught to believe that with “grit” we could do the same things, if we wanted to. Every boy (and girl) a potential hero, even President. I think that what we have institutionalized in this country is a sense of entitlement that no one has to work for anything anymore. Not grades, not reputation, not satisfaction: That you can buy these things, in fact anything can be bought including that most elusive though Constitutionally guaranteed “happiness”.
The correct term is “tenets,” not “tenants.”
“subjugated,” not “subjegated.”
Mm, close, I think, Ben, but not quite. People often like a person “in his place.” If you are “the smart kid” reared by a bunch of “hard-workers”, you end up the Hard Working Smart Kid. The myth of the simple-tinkerer works, I think. I’d rather people believe in that than the myth of the Mad Scientist. Intellectualism out of context is not valued, and frankly, I begin to wonder why it should be. Intellectuals in America are often nothing more than the spoiled, moderately intelligent brats of spoiling parents. I worship at the altar of new and better thoughts, wherever their origin.
The origin of new and better thoughts is the intellect. Without the intellect, the thoughts may be new but they won’t be better.
allahu’ akhbar ! kill’em ! kill’em !
Ahmadis are heretical Muslims, and thus are under a death sentence. And when in Pakistan this became the subject of the evening news, the results were lethal. “PAKISTAN: Two persons murdered after an anchor person working for a prominent television channel proposed the widespread lynching of Ahmadi sect followers,”
from the Asian Human Rights Commission.
The targets are followers of the Muslim Ahmadi sect, a group which has been declared non-Islamic under the constitution of Pakistan. The first killing happened within 24 hours of the broadcast, and just under two days later a district chief of the Ahmadi was murdered.
http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2008/2999/
Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons, rather than excluded, says the director of education at the Royal Society.
Professor Michael Reiss says that if pupils have strongly-held beliefs about creationism these should be explored.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7612152.stm
The BBC will never say it outright, but that “increasing percentage” of children who won’t accept evolution are mostly from Muslim families
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/11/religion.darwinbicentenary?gusrc=rss&feed=commentisfree
Judging by the reports in the “quality” national British papers, Prof Reiss may not have emphasised the point made by HF. Interestingly, the online BBC News did report this in October 2006:
>Prof Reiss says the rise of creationism is partly down to the large increase in Muslim pupils in UK schools. He said: “The number of Muslim students has grown considerably in the last 10 to 20 years and a higher proportion of Muslim families do not accept evolutionary theory compared with Christian families.
“That’s one reason why it’s more of an issue in schools.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7028639.stm
Incidentally, Reiss, and the Royal Society, have stated that his comments were misrepresented:
“Some media reports have misrepresented the views of Professor Michael Reiss, Director of Education at the Society expressed in a speech yesterday,” the Royal Society declared in a statement on 12 September 2008.
The Rev Professor Reiss said: “Some of my comments about the teaching of creationism have been misinterpreted as suggesting that creationism should be taught in science classes. Creationism has no scientific basis. However, when young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis.”
I omitted the link to this:
Scientist and Royal Society say creationism comments were misreported
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/7705
Prof Steve Jones reports from the “Godless College”, February 2008:
Creationism is boring and empty, and I usually ignore it, but this week at University College London it’s hard to do so.
The place is plastered with posters from the medical students’ Islamic Society inviting us to celebrate the “collapse of the evolution theory” with a lecture by a creationist in “the very building dedicated to Charles Darwin, on the spot he once lived”.
UCL, the Godless College of Gower Street, insists (just as all religions do) on freedom of speech, so they are welcome to their meeting. We biologists choke, though, on the idea of such buffoonery in the Darwin Building; instead, it has been moved to a theatre used to teach medieval history.
http://tinyurl.com/2hw5no
Hmm. I agree, OB, but I also think the work of the body is often dismissed. Good work is good work, and ideas do come from the brain. But I get irritated with people who believe that the university is the sole cradle and preserver of the intellect. A lot of progress comes from outsider oddballs.
it’s not a prank
ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.
Sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.
Edmund Standing:
“To politicise freedom of expression by setting State boundaries on what is acceptable in terms of assertions about historical events is preposterous.”
This should be self-evident in a liberal democracy as a matter of principle, but one would have thought that Western European politicians who advocate a holocaust denial law would recognize that it puts them in a weak position to argue against illiberal elements proposing more wide-ranging laws on the basis that they are “offensive” to one group or other.
Unfortunately, an illiberal mindset on this issue is to be found in the EU:
‘Brigitte Zypries, Germany’s justice minister, said: “We have always said that it can’t be the case it should still be acceptable in Europe to say the Holocaust never existed and that six million Jews were never killed.”
‘ “The European Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs, Franco Frattini, has pledged its support for the German push. A spokesman said: “This would give a good signal that there are no safe havens for racists or xenophobes in Europe.” ‘
That was in 2007. Fortunately it failed to get universal agreement in the EU:
‘However other countries, including the UK, Denmark and Sweden, had misgivings fearing that freedom of speech would be compromised.’
http://tinyurl.com/59slms
How long before the European Commission has another try to universalise this form of free speech denial among EU states?
but one would have thought that Western >European politicians who advocate a holocaust denial law would recognize that it puts them in a weak position to argue against illiberal elements proposing more wide-ranging laws on the basis that they are “offensive” to one group or other.>
They are not that retareded. To the contrary it is precisely because it puts them in a strong position to pass such laws that they keep hammering the pseudo-problem of holocaust-denying. They have a real one which they can’t handle.
The European Union has drawn up guidelines advising government spokesmen to refrain from linking Islam and terrorism in their statements. Brussels officials have confirmed the existence of a classified handbook which offers ‘non-offensive’ phrases to use when announcing anti-terrorist operations or dealing with terrorist attacks. Banned terms are said to include ‘Jihad’, ‘Islamic’ or ‘fundamentalist’.”
While on the whole I agree with this position, I do have a few reservations. Firstly, the quote from Chomsky is inappropriate if only because Faurrison’s freedom of speech was never the issue: no one was trying to silence him; he was merely fired as an incompetent historian. Secondly, with respect to Austria and Germany’s stance re nazism, they might argue that they paid a rather heavy price for tolerating it in the 1920s and 30s. After all, the Nazis didn’t seize power in a bloody coup like the Bolsheviks or after a long and bloody ‘protracted war’ like Mao, but through attacking, manipulating and perverting (with lies and populist demagoguery, etc.) the very democratic culture which Standing (and I too for that matter) defend. And once in power, which they achieved without ever coming close to majority electoral support, they simply changed the rules and went about arresting and silencing all those who espouse such values and fredoms.
Eric Phillips writes:
>Secondly, with respect to Austria and Germany’s stance re nazism, they might argue that they paid a rather heavy price for tolerating it in the 1920s and 30s.< One can understand why Austria and Germany introduced a holocaust denial law in the immediate post-WW2 period, and maybe why repealing them may be difficult in those countries (the governments might be accused of pandering to neo-Nazi sentiment), but the situation in Western Europe is simply not comparable to that in 1930s Germany and Austria. What we are talking about are contentions about historical events. As Edmund Standing argues, repellent views in this sphere should be challenged on the basis of historical evidence, not the law courts.
While we’re on the issue of historical contentions… :-)
Eric wrote:
>After all, the Nazis didn’t seize power in a bloody coup like the Bolsheviks…< If I recall correctly, the coup in question was remarkably unbloody. It took place against a weak Provisional Government which was distracted by events outside the capital. That, of course, didn’t make it any less a coup, or the ensuing events any less bloody.
David Foster Wallace
I don’t think anyone knows his reasons. Such decision seems absurd, but how would we know, who are we to judge him. He left no note, no explanation…
Considering the treatment of, not holocaust deniers, but critics, like Norm Finkelstein, it seems that somehow the holocaust profiteers, the many in Israel who were willing to sullen the memory of those who died in the camps by falsely claiming compensation for murdered relatives that didn’t exist, should really be the ones exposed.
The problem with the holocaust is that somehow the number of Jewish victims seems inflated, and also that the Jews are the ones that scream the loudest. There were many others given the same mistreatment, but somehow the Jews suffering seems to be collective whereas the others’ seem individual.
So maybe a proper investigation to establish the facts about the holocaust would be the road to go down.
And have the Israelis hand back all and any money they swindled from the Germans.
Jonn Mero writes:
“So maybe a proper investigation to establish the facts about the holocaust would be the road to go down.”
As if the Holocaust wasn’t one of the most fully researched episodes in modern history…
the terrible Turk
Ankara – Turkish internet users have been blocked via a court order from accessing the site of prominent British biologist Richard Dawkins after complaints from lawyers for Islamic creationist author Adnan Oktar, the website of Turkish television station NTV reported on Wednesday.
A court in Istanbul ordered that Turk Telekom block access to the site and since the weekend Turkish internet users seeking the site have been redirected to a page that says in Turkish ‘access to this site has been suspended in accordance with a court decision’.
…After all, the Nazis didn’t seize power in a bloody coup..And once in power… they simply changed the rules and went about arresting and silencing all those who espouse such values and fredoms.>
This an example of the inherent loopholes and flaws of democracy as a political system (and these flaws were already pointed out 2300 years ago by Plato in The Republic).
By default a majority (like the 1930s Germans) can always vote (de jure or de facto by electing appropiate leaders) to exterminate a minority (the Jews). Yet just because it has been first voted a murder doesn’t become a morally right thing to do.
The fact that most people believe something to be true or right doesn’t necessarily mean that it is true or right.
HF: You wrote: “By default a majority (like the 1930s Germans) can always vote (de jure or de facto by electing appropiate leaders) to exterminate a minority (the Jews).”
The last time the German people had a vote (plebiscite) on Hitler’s taking over the state was in 1934. Whatever view one takes of the large proportion of the electorate who voted in favour of the Nazi hold on power, they were not voting to exterminate the Jews. The “final solution” policy decision was only taken during World War 2 (1942, if memory serves me right). In the years between 1933 and 1939 Hitler’s policy was to cow the Jews by brutal repression. In this period some sixty percent of Jews left Germany, something Hitler would not have allowed had his intention been, during that period, the extermination of Jews. His policy, rather, was to make Germany “Jew free”, and terrorising them into leaving the country sufficed for that purpose.
So whatever recriminations may be laid at the door of the majority of the German people in the 1930s, that they voted to exterminate the Jews is not one of them.
The “final solution” policy decision was only taken during World War 2 (1942, if memory serves me right)…
Very subtle technical point. As if it wasn’t clear for every German who listened Hitler’s speeches, or read Mein Kampf, on what direction he was taking Germany.
HF writes:
“Very subtle technical point. As if it wasn’t clear for every German who listened Hitler’s speeches, or read Mein Kampf, on what direction he was taking Germany.”
You wrote that the majority of the German people voted (de jure or de facto by electing appropiate leaders) in 1934 (the last opportunity they had to vote on who held power in German in the 1930s) in favour of exterminating the Jews.
There is absolutely no evidence that the majority of the German people, however anti-semitic, wished for the extermination of all Jews.
That you dismissed my whole argument against this by saying it amounted to a “very subtle technical point” indicates why I shall not continue to respond to what you write on this issue.
Quote of the week:
“The professor [Denise Spellberg] said she did not espouse censorship of any kind…”
http://tinyurl.com/4ho9jx
The latest article by Gina Khan on B&W is superb.
Her articles keeping us in touch with developments on Muslim affairs in the UK are invaluable.