Tag: books

Quote of the Day

KevinLeave a comment

Quote of the Day

Part III of excerpts from the chapter entitled “The Road to Nowhere” from David Horowitz’s The Politics of Bad Faith:

Stalinism is not just a possible interpretation of Marxism. In the annals of revolutionary movements it is without question the prevailing one. Of all the interpretations of Marx’s doctrine since the Communist Manifesto, it is overwhelmingly the one adhered to by the most progressives for the longest time. Maoism, Castroism, Vietnamese Communism, the ideologies of the actually existing Marxist states — these Stalinisms are the Marxisms that shaped the history of the epoch just past. This is the truth that leftist intellectuals like you are determined to avoid: the record of the real lives of real human beings, whose task is not just to interpret texts but to move masses and govern them. When Marxism has been put into practice by real historical actors, it has invariably taken a Stalinist form, producing the worst tyrannies and oppressions that mankind has ever known. Is there a reason for this? Given the weight of this history, you should ask rather: How could there not be?

Quote of the Day

KevinLeave a comment

Quote of the Day

Part II from David Horowitz’s The Politics of Bad Faith.

First, for those of you who will not read the entire piece, an introduction:

A philosopher of exceptional brilliance and moral courage, (Lezsek) Kolakowski had been the intellectual leader of our political generation. Even the titles of his writings –“Responsibility and History,” “Towards a Marxist Humanism”– read like stages of our radical rebirth. By 1968 those stages had come to an abrupt conclusion. When the Czechs’ attempt to provide Communism with a human face was crushed by Soviet tanks, Kolakowski abandoned the ranks of the Left. He did more. He fled — unapologetically — to the freedoms of the West, implicitly affirming by his actions that the Cold War did indeed mark a great divide in human affairs, and that the Left had chosen the wrong side.

Here’s the QotD:

Kolakowski published Main Currents of Marxism, a comprehensive history of Marxist thought, the world view we all had spent a lifetime inhabiting. For three volumes and fifteen hundred pages Kolakowski analyzed the entire corpus of this intellectual tradition. Then, having paid critical homage to an argument which had dominated so much of humanity’s fate over the last hundred years (and his own as well), he added a final epilogue which began with these words: “Marxism has been the greatest fantasy of our century.” This struck me as the most personally courageous judgment a man with Kolakowski’s history could make.

Yeah, It’s About Time to Re-read Dune

KevinLeave a comment

Yeah, It’s About Time to Re-read Dune


I’m not a paintballer, but I do enjoy reading The Whiteboard.

I love Dune. I think it is perhaps the most finely crafted novel I have ever read. However, the rest of the series does absolutely nothing for me. I used to re-read it annually, but now it’s gotten to the point that I pick it up again about every five years.

Enjoying a Fight

KevinLeave a comment

Enjoying a Fight

Back in 2005 I wrote Fear: The Philosophy and Politics Thereof. The general topic was the fact that the gun-control philosophy is based on just that – fear. As I said then:

It’s important to understand this: We call ourselves “gun nuts” – embracing the label thrust upon us by the ignorant, anti-gun bigots – but many of them really believe it. We’re “potentially dangerous” because we like guns.

I think that’s something most gun owners don’t really grasp. I know it initially took me a while to get my mind around the idea.

The Brady Campaign linked to several gunbloggers yesterday. (No link, on purpose. You can find it below if you want.) The author was horrified at that famous letter to the editor, but even more horrified that we gunbloggers didn’t “denounce it as morally degenerate and unrepresentative of gun owners at-large”.

And we didn’t.

Our dedicated opposition is made up of people who actually believe there is (or ought to be) a Right to Feel Safe. The fact that there are people around them, armed and willing to use violence scares the crap out of them. As I’ve noted before, they either refuse or are unable to distinguish between “violent and predatory” and “violent but protective”. They see only violence, and violence is bad, mmmmkay?

But what really gives them PSH are people who aren’t afraid of fighting. It’s taken me a while, but I swear that half the antipathy the Left has for the modern military must come from the fact that soldiers are trained to fight, and volunteer for the training. When I wrote Fear there had been a Great Outrage at the pronouncement of Marine Lt. Gen. James Mattis that:

You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them. Actually, it’s a lot of fun to fight. You know, it’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right upfront with you, I like brawling.

One typical response was from Juan Cole:

Just as few priests are pedophiles, few soldiers are sadists. Mattis has brought dishonor on the US Marine Corps with his words. Killing is never appropriately called “fun.” I think he should resign.

As I said then, according to the Left, enjoying the practice of violence is the definition of insane.

Eric S. Raymond posted today on this topic. He’s got some interesting insights. Here’s a taste:

It used to bother me that I like fighting. I had internalized the idea that while combat may sometimes be an ethical necessity, enjoying it is wrong — or at least dubious.

So I half-hid my delight from myself behind a screen of words about seeking self-perfection and focus and meditation in motion. Those words were all true; I do value the quasi-mystical aspects of the fighting arts very much. But the visceral reality underneath them, for me, was the joy of battle.

In 2005 I finally came to understand why I enjoy fighting. And — I know this will sound corny — I’m much more at peace with myself now. I’m writing this explanation because I think I am not alone — I don’t think my confusion and struggle was unique. There may be lessons here for others as well as myself, and even an insight into evolutionary biology.

If that’s not enough of a teaser, you’re not interested in the topic.

Eric is not alone, but I don’t count myself among that group. I don’t like fighting. I haven’t been in a physical altercation since I was probably 12. I have no idea how I would perform in an actual combat situation. I’d like to think I’d be adequate, but I don’t expect more from myself than that. I remember reading W.E.B. Griffin’s series Brotherhood of War. In the first book, The Lieutenants, a soldier is sent to Greece in the immediate post WWII period during America’s initial, stumbling efforts to check the spread of Communism. He is sent as a liaison to the Greek army during their civil war. He was not supposed to be a combatant, but his position comes under major attack, and there are numerous casualties. During WWII he had not been exposed to battle, but in the hills of Greece, he comes under mortar and small-arms fire.

And he shits himself.

Then he picks up his Garand, and goes to war anyway.

That was not the behavior I was expecting from a major character in a war novel, but it rang true.

If the S does HTF, all I can hope for myself is that I do what is right, but I’ll remember what I learned from Lt. Col. Dave Grossman’s book On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society – about 2% of the population is able to kill without hesitation and without remorse. Half of those are clinically insane. But the other half are perfectly sane, and they’re the ones who lead in battle. I suspect Eric is one of that 1%. But the rest of us can do violence, if it’s necessary.

What decides that is the philosophy (or lack thereof) you live by.

On Revolution

KevinLeave a comment

On Revolution

…revolutions are not won by enlisting the masses. Revolution is a science only a few are competent to practice. It depends on correct organization and, above all, on communications. Then, at the proper moment in history, they strike. Correctly organized and properly timed it is a bloodless coup. Done clumsily or prematurely and the result is civil war, mob violence, purges, terror.

—

Organization must be no larger than necessary – never recruit anyone merely because he wants to join. Nor seek to persuade for the pleasure of having another share your views. He’ll share them when the time comes . . . or you’ve misjudged the moment in history. Oh, there will be an educational organization but it must be separate; agitprop is no part of basic structure.

As to basic structure, a revolution starts as a conspiracy; therefore structure is small, secret, and organized as to minimize damage by betrayal – since there always are betrayals. – Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Quote of the Day

KevinLeave a comment

Quote of the Day

I once asked a mother on food stamps what she would do without them. “I’d get a husband,” she replied matter-of-factly. Here was news, I thought – a tantalizing bit of evidence of welfare’s corrosive effect on the inner-city family. But when I recounted this exchange in an article for one of the nation’s most influential newspapers, the editor ordered me to leave it out. Quoting it, he said, would “stigmatize the poor.” – Heather MacDonald, the opening paragraph of her book The Burden of Bad Ideas: How Modern Intellectuals Misshape Our Society

This promises to be an interesting read.

Quote of the Day

KevinLeave a comment

Quote of the Day

She knows what she is doing. A lawyer who goes to the shooting range. The worst kind. – Michael Crichton, Next, pg. 500

A great quote from one of the more disturbing novels I’ve read this year.

Hell, this decade.

No, They Don’t.

KevinLeave a comment

No, They Don’t.

Dr. Helen links to this interesting PJM column by Mike McNally, Teaching Human Rights to Toddlers. Here’s the portion I take exception to:

According to the UK’s Telegraph, the project “will see teachers explaining to children as young as three that people across the world live different lives but everyone has a right to food, water, and shelter.”

No. They don’t. If they did, some other entity would be obligated to provide them. They have the right to seek food, water, and shelter, but no inherent right to have them.

Further down in McNally’s piece comes this gem of observation:

Parents reading about this new obsession with teaching “rights” could be forgiven for thinking that schools should focus on doing a better job of teaching the existing three R’s before adding a fourth to the syllabus. Because, while a decade and more of bar-lowering by Labour has led to more British pupils leaving school with more paper qualifications every year, anecdotal evidence from universities and employers suggests that educational standards are plummeting.

And the rot begins in primary school. A government report last year revealed that forty percent of British children struggle to write their own name, or form simple words such as “dog,” by the age of five, while a quarter fail to reach the expected levels of emotional development for their age.

And with British teenagers leading most of Europe in binge drinking, violence, teenage pregnancy, and abortions, it could also be argued that instead of teaching children about “rights,” or worrying about their tolerance of food from other cultures, schools should be more concerned with teaching them “right,” as distinct from wrong.

Robert Heinlein published Starship Troopers in 1959, and from it came this canny observation:

The basis of all morality is duty, a concept with the same relation to group that self-interest has to individual. Nobody preached duty to these kids in a way they could understand — that is, with a spanking. But the society they were in told them endlessly about their ‘rights.’

Looks like we’re still right on schedule.

UPDATE: Rachel has another example of a society where children are told endlessly about their rights, and nothing about their duties.

‘You can’t touch us, we’re 15, we can do what the f*** we like.

Heinlein would be so proud…

Quote of the Day

KevinLeave a comment

Quote of the Day

Prelude:

If big business is so right-wing, why do huge banks fund liberal and left-wing charities, activists, and advocacy groups, then brag about it in commercials and publicity campaigns? How to explain that there’s virtually no major issue in the culture wars – from abortion to gay marriage to affirmative action – where big business has played a major role on the American right while there are dozens of examples of corporations supporting the liberals side?

That’s the lede for this:

Indeed, the myth of the right-wing corporation allows the media to tighten liberalism’s grip on both corporations and the culture. John McCain perfectly symbolizes this catch-22 of modern liberalism. McCain despises the corrupting effect of “big money” in politics, but he is also a major advocate of increased government regulation of business. Apparently he cannot see that the more government regulates business, the more business is going to take an interest in “regulating” government. Instead, he has concluded that he should try to regulate political speech which is like decrying the size of the garbage dump and deciding the best thing to do is regulate the flies. – Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, pp. 312-313.