J.P. Andrew interviews
Rob Koons and Daniel Bonevac about their two forthcoming books on
Aquinas’s Five Ways.
At The New Yorker, Rachel Aviv reveals
that neurologist Oliver Sacks made up many of the details of his
famous case studies.
Sohrab
Ahmari on
the late Norman Podhoretz, at UnHerd.
At Fusion, Oliver Traldi on John Searle’s
forgotten book The Campus War.
Jacob Savage on the lost generation that DEI created, at Compact.
At Aeon, James Read on why
we need the philosophy of physics.
Charles Fain
Lehman on James
Q. Wilson’s Thinking about Crime at
50, at City Journal.
The New Criterion notes the
passing of David Pryce-Jones.
At Religious Studies, David Oderberg on “Miracles
and the Wooden Leg Problem.”
Philip Clark
on
Steely Dan at the New York
Review of Books.
Michael
Devitt’s Biological Essentialism is reviewed
by Marshall Abrams at Notre Dame Philosophical
Reviews.
The late
science fiction writer Michael F. Flynn, longtime friend of this blog, is remembered at the Prometheus Blog. Also, check out Mike’s entry at The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, and
his blog, which is occasionally
updated by his family.
Ed Simon on buying
more books than one can read, at Literary
Hub.
Robert Zaretsky
on the life and
thought of Arthur Schopenhauer, at The American Scholar.
At Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Fraser
MacBride reviews
the third volume of Scott Soames’s The
Analytic Tradition in Philosophy.
Daniel Flynn’s
new book on Frank S. Meyer is reviewed by
Michael New, at Public Discourse.
At City Journal, Theodore Dalrymple on authoritarianism
in Britain.
Michael Gorman recommends five books on metaphysics. I’m honored that my Scholastic Metaphysics makes the list. (Note, dear reader, that there remain three shopping days until Christmas!)
Merry Christmas to you and your family, Ed.
ReplyDeleteAnd to you and yours, Kiel!
Deletehttps://lithub.com/nothing-better-than-a-whole-lot-of-books-in-praise-of-bibliomania/
DeleteI like that link. I would add that western writer Louis L' amour had a personal library of 10,000 books. The actor Marlon Brando had a library of 3,000 books.
Thanks for your links, Dr. Feser. Merry Christmas.
ReplyDeleteAnon
merry christmas everyone
ReplyDeleteSo you've published on metaphysics, the philosophical foundations of Science, the existence of God, the existence of the soul. Do you plan on building on that to write an apologetic for the Christian faith?
ReplyDeleteYes indeed, it's on the agenda
DeleteHow can a philosopher love Steely Dan so much? I have trouble reconciling their existence with theism.
ReplyDeleteEspecially since we know what a steely dan is.
DeleteThe things that pass for knowledge I don't understand
DeleteIf anyone else has been following Koons' and Bonevac's new books on the Five Ways, I have a question about the modality used in their rendition of the Third Way:
ReplyDeleteBonevac argues that the Third Way doesn't really have anything to do with time, but rather, when translated correctly, it is a straightforwardly modal argument. As such, the basic argument seems to go as follows:
1. Only contingent beings exist. (Assumption)
2. If (1), then, by the principle of subtraction, possibly there can be a world with no beings at all.
3. If, possibly, there can be a world with no beings at all, then, necessarily, no beings are possible at that world.
4. If, necessarily, no beings are possible at that world, then (by the accessibility relation) no beings are possible in any world.
5. But being are possible in at least some worlds.
6. Therefore, by reductio, (1) is false, and at least one non-contingent (i.e. necessary) being exists.
I'm not super tight in my modal logic, so I have some doubts about my rendition of their argument. But the question I have is this:
Premise (3) seems to rely on a notion of possibility where what is possible is grounded in what is actual. There is nothing to cause or be caused, so necessarily, nothing (i.e. no extant beings) would be possible at that world.
Premise (4), however, seems to rely upon the following axiom: ~◇p --> □~◇p. To put it in English, what is impossible at one possible world must be impossible in all possible worlds.
But if we take a view of modality as expressed in my reading of (3), then this axiom seems to be false. What is impossible (or possible) is variant across possible worlds based upon what is already actual within them.
I feel like I'm in a bit of a muddle here, but I'm not quite sure how to untangle it. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
"But if we take a view of modality as expressed in my reading of (3), then this axiom seems to be false. What is impossible (or possible) is variant across possible worlds based upon what is already actual within them."
DeleteI am not conversant in modal logic, so take what I will say with all the possible (heh) caveats.
First, there seems to be a difference between talking about what is possible in a given world (e. g. given that world x is such and such, such and such is possible or impossible in x) and a possible world as such (e. g. such a total state of affairs is possible or impossible). If this distinction is sensible, I do not think your rendering of (4) is not correct. It should read something like: if p is not possible, then necessarily, p is not possible.
Second, possibility is grounded in actuality, but actuality of what? Of God. That some world (e. g. a total state of affairs) is possible is grounded in God (in what He could bring about by His power), so we have an inter-world principle to discern what is possible or impossible, and from there, coupled with some plausibility account, we can/could get to (4).
I agree, largely, with what you say above. But I don't think Koons and Bonevac can likewise agree and also save their argument.
DeleteSay we take your sensible distinction about (1) what is possible in a given world and (2) what is possible as such. Then, let's say there's an empty world E. At E, extant beings are not possible in the first sense you used. However, from E looking out (so to speak), extant beings are possible in the second sense. One could construct a logically compossible state of affairs which includes extant beings.
So possibility in the first sense (what is possible in or at a world) is variant across possible worlds but, in the second sense (some consistent maximal state of affairs), is invariant across possible worlds.
The question is, does their argument rely on only one sense of possibility, and if so, are all of its premises true and cogent on that one sense of possibility? I'd say no. The justification they would give for premise 3 seems to rely upon possibility in the first sense you distinguished. However, premise 4 relies on a conditional whereby the second sense of possibility is used. To put it another way, they seem to be equivocating on what is meant by "possibly."
Now, you mention God as a way to ground possibility in actuality and to make what is ultimately possible invariant between worlds. I 100% agree, and it is a metaphysical position I personally hold. However, when arguing for the existence of God (as the Third Way does), it would be of no help to us if the modal system we use presupposes God in order to work.
Now, maybe the Third Way as they read it is simply wrong. But I'd like to give it the fairest shot I can before writing it off.
I haven't read the relevant books, but I confess I don't really understand Premise 3. If, possibly, there can be a world with no beings at all, then, necessarily, no beings are at that world, by tautology; but to say "If, possibly, there can be a world with no beings at all, then, necessarily, no beings are possible at that world" is to say that from any empty possible world only empty possible worlds are accessible. This would perhaps make sense, on causal grounds, if possible worlds were interpreted as times or something similar, but this does not seem consistent with the intention, nor with how the modality is used in the rest of the argument.
DeleteAlso, nice throwback for the thumbnail: https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/08/links-not-to-miss.html
ReplyDeleteAha, thought I might have used that one before!
DeleteThank You Prof!! Merry Christmas and Cheers!
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Wooden Leg Problem, I keep thinking that this would be a great time for God to send us another levitating saint.
ReplyDeleteCarlos Eire, Yale historian, takes levitation seriously. "They Flew," Yale University Press, 2023
DeleteThanks, Anonymous!
DeleteWooden Leg? I would like to see a human eye appear in a person born without one.
ReplyDeleteWhat are your plans for Christmas tomorrow, Prof?
ReplyDeleteThat Compact article is amusing in its assumptions and indifference ( like all conservatives) to the actual plight of oppressed people in this country. All of a sudden you can speak and marshal evidence for systemic oppression but when Black people tell you the system has never been fair, you tell bootstrap stories, try to justify it with IQ or cultural claims. When companies make explicit attempts to correct these injustices ( a fad as racism is the almighty in this country), you magically don’t resort to the same tactics. Maybe you should. Start with asking why your own negative culture caused you to be left behind; when that is not enough, question your IQ and natural ability, and if that fails, explain it as a consequence of what God wants for you. Easy. That’s what you do.It is utterly shocking to read an article complaining about white men not getting jobs not grappling with why every profession for the most part was dominated by them. Was this just? The fact that there was such a situation where 70-80 were white men was okay to you? Is it just that there are still “firsts” for different ethnic groups in this country? Oh, no, just casually assume white dominance was earned and just, and when there is any respite from this, in very specific fields, your replacements were less qualified. So, again, never grappling with this country’s racism and the institutional systems it created to disadvantage minorities. Horrible. Black women, for example, have been the main victims of Trump’s destruction of the federal work force. They were 12% yet are the ones that are feeling the axe. 300,000 out of the workforce.Were THEY in charge? How could they, since they’re so powerful and DEI has taken over, be so easily cast aside? Because it is a lie. The same power structures remain, with small daylight, at times, for others, and when it happens and others (who are generally much more qualified) get jobs, the white person never thinks “Oh, doors have opened and they won fairly.” It’s always this nonsense. How did Hesgeth now the Secretary of war replace Austin, a man of superior character and accomplishments? What Black man in the world could have as limited career as that man and be put in charge of the Pentagon? Give me a break. Oppressed white journalists are jokers man - just endless whining and assumptions that their big break was taken by someone that doesn’t look like them and STILL isn’t the majority in these professions. Cry me a river the next time gen-x white man are herded into ghettoes, red lined, and laws are made explicitly that keep them from learning. A travesty of an article. My goodness.
ReplyDelete"Cry me a river the next time gen-x white man are herded into ghettoes, red lined, and laws are made explicitly that keep them from learning."
DeleteThe implied threat did not pass unnoticed; ok, you want a tribal war? Segregation in the best case scenario? I can hear already those that come after me saying "Cry me a river next time the Ku Klux Clan stops by your neighborhood, burns a few crosses and strings a couple of you".
And a coward to boot, hiding under anonymity. You truly are the scum of the earth.
grodrigues is right. As far as my limited (I lived in America for 5 years in the 2000s) understanding of the post-civil rights settlement went, the discriminatory laws were torn up and everyone was supposed to do what few places in the world had ever done before. Create a successful multi-ethnic society based of the worth of the individual, not their skin colour.
DeleteBy the time I left the American people had voted in their first Black President, Black and Hispanic people held senior positions in all three branches of your government, and that the past WAS the past.
DEI destroyed that sentiment and now you're reaping the whirlwind of angry young white nationalists who were created out of thin air, you have people who were derided as the 'Christian Taliban' by the coastal elites now deciding that its better to be hung for a sheep as a lamb and have embraced the label and ideology.
@Geeky Catholic:
Delete"DEI destroyed that sentiment and now you're reaping the whirlwind of angry young white nationalists who were created out of thin air"
Jacob Savage, the author of the article, does not place any blame at the feet of the people that benefited from the mandated shift in the hiring practices; presumably, many young white liberals of his age share the sentiment. Maybe he reasons that to correct past injustices, somebody has to loose; whatever one makes of this reasoning, a minimum of consideration is due to the losers. The hacks cheering this on, who grift on the sufferings of those that came before them, being moral idiots with no sense of tragedy, know nothing of this.
Of course, if it is tribal politics, then it is tribal politics for everyone; expecting for tribe X to take it into the chin, in name of who knows what, is idiotic. People will not go gentle into that good night.
Mmm, yeah, I recognize that rhetoric. You've been listening to some bad people, rod. "Everything is tribalism" is just a modern remix of "Your skin color is your uniform". The people telling you this are distorting the facts in order to recruit you into their fascist movement. They always, always talk about how you have no choice, the Jews/Blacks/Gays/Catholics/etc are uniformly, monolithically hateful and aggressive. The only option is to join up with the Nazis or passively accept destruction at the hands of the Dark-Skinned Hordes. They sell this shit and have no scruples at all. They lie, they distort facts, they cherry-pick, they play on your emotions. Ultimately, they do not care about you. They only want to use you as a pawn to advance their Hell-born ideology. The Race War is not real, or at least it doesn't have to be, and if you try to follow it, you will end up a massive loser, like every American Nazi.
Delete@EXE:
Delete""Everything is tribalism" is just a modern remix of "Your skin color is your uniform"."
Did I say "Everything is tribalism"? What I said was "if it is tribal politics, then it is tribal politics for everyone" and then get treated to a condescending lecture about how I have been listening to "some bad people" and "Dark skin hordes" and "nazis" and how "they do not care" about me and yada yada yada. It must be tiresome to be you.
Fine, fine. You don't want "condescension" then? Then what DO you want? Did you lose your job to a minority because of Affirmative Action? That's what it sounds like, though I notice you've been remarkably vague about giving examples of the injustices you go on about so much.
DeleteLook, I realise that I don't know your life or what suffering you've gone through. All I'm saying is that no amount of suffering justifies being a Nazi.
Delete@EXE:
Delete"Then what DO you want?"
What do I want? How about:
I want that beggar's eyes, a winning horse
A tidy Mexican divorce
St. Mary's prayers, Houdini's hands
And a barman who always understands
-- Tom Waits, "The Part you Throw Away"
But since I am a groyper in the making, what I *really* want is the tide of vile Dark-skin hordes repelled, the jews crushed, the blacks back in the plantation and the perfect white pure harmony to reign over the entirety of the world for 1000 years. For the Imperium of Whities! Girls have cooties! For Trump, the Forever-Orange, He-Who-Wears-A-Toupee-Handsomely, Our Fuhrer! Zig Heil! (you cannot see but I have my righ-arm stretched in a roman salute).
Right, well, I can see I'm wasting my time here. Go and do as you will. Just don't expect any sympathy when it all ends in tears.
Delete(1/2)
ReplyDeleteNo, guys, I'm gonna have to agree with Anon here. They're in the right and you two don't know what you're talking about.
To grodriguez: Calm down. No threat was made. The conditions anon described are those historically faced by Blacks in America since the end of slavery. They were obviously saying "you think you're oppressed? Come back when you've experienced what the Black community has gone through". Interpreting that as a threat or intention of harm shows that you are both ignorant of how prejudice against Blacks has played out historically, and also that you are probably paranoid, or at the very least are eager to see threats and malice under every stone.
@EXE:
Delete"To grodriguez: Calm down."
You calm down.
"No threat was made."
Yes, there was.
"Interpreting that as a threat or intention of harm shows that you are both ignorant of how prejudice against Blacks has played out historically, and also that you are probably paranoid, or at the very least are eager to see threats and malice under every stone."
Anonymouse's argument, which you so happily endorse, is that the injustice done against the cohort of young, white liberals like Jacob Savage is a thing of small importance given the past injustices against -- fill in for whatever tribe you care. But if injustice done is a thing of small importance, why should anyone care against the injustices done against -- fill in for whatever tribe you care -- let alone make an effort to atone and correct them? The problem of anonymous is not with injustice, is that his tribe got the wrong end of the stick.
"you are probably paranoid, or at the very least are eager to see threats and malice under every stone."
*I* am eager to see "malice under every stone"? If you weren't an idiot hack, this would even be funny.
Look, rod, I don't know if anything I say can convince you. But I will try, at least once.
DeletePut simply, your claims rest on an uncharitable interpretation of anon's words. What he said is not easily interpreted as "who cares about injustice so long as it doesn't happen to my "tribe"?", it's far more reasonable to read it as "the things you are complaining about are small potatoes compared to what my people have had to go through". You yourself know that such sentiment is reasonable in other situations - if you were down on your luck and met a trust fund kid bewailing the fact that Daddy had cut his massive allowance, you would understandably feel little sympathy for his plight. I'm not going to tell you that your suffering is invalid, but it is selfish to care about your "tribe"'s suffering and not care about the even worse suffering inflicted on another "tribe", particularly if that suffering happens to benefit your "tribe". I think (and correct me if I'm wrong here) that you interpret anon's statements this way because you are predisposed to see the world in terms of tribal conflict, and have been told a story that your tribe is innocent and is being maliciously harmed by traitors and enemies seeking its destruction. No doubt this has been bolstered by personal suffering, as well as outrage-stories designed to reinforce the idea that there is a war between the Woke Left and their minority slaves vs the Whites. Depending on who you've been listening to, the Woke Left may also have been replaced in this story by Jews, or some metaphor that you're expected to mentally substitute with Jews. I've been in these mental spaces before, man. Believe me, the road they're leading you down ends in madness and hate. Their intellectual facade is only paper-thin.
@EXE:
DeleteI am not going to bother to respond to your charges, but I will say something about this:
"I think (and correct me if I'm wrong here) that you interpret anon's statements this way because you are predisposed to see the world in terms of tribal conflict, and have been told a story that your tribe is innocent and is being maliciously harmed by traitors and enemies seeking its destruction."
Let me tell you a story; in April 25, 1974, Portugal had a, surprisingly peaceful, revolution and the old regime was toppled. As a consequence, the new political authorities rushed to make peace in the ongoing war in the, now former, colonies and as a result most of the Portuguese settled there had to come back. They were called "Retornados", a word I will not try to translate because I can barely speak, much less, write English.
You can look up the footage, in the glories of 70's technicolor, of them arriving in Lisbon by plane or ship. What they could get a hold of packed up haphazardly in bags; the exhaustion in their faces; the children dazed and scared. If you went and talked to them you would find what you would expect: some were petty, cruel and small-minded, others were cheerful, kind and with a charity so large that I will count myself blessed if I have even a sliver of it. Some had resigned themselves to their fate, others could barely hide the bitterness and resentment. Some managed to rebuild their lives, some didn't and -- and that is it really, full stop.
But they were the symbols of the old regime; and just like in France everyone at the end of WWII had been a resistance member fighting bravely against the Nazis, so in April 26 every Portuguese had been jailed by the political police and hated Salazar. The political climate was also highly volatile; civil war was avoided almost by miracle. So they were hated, they were scape-goated. In 1986, Portugal joined the CEE, had an economic boom by the inflow of cash, and by then the "Retornados" were a mere footnote of history. Last year, in 2024 we had the celebrations of the 50th year of the revolution. Predictably, barely a single word was spared for those that found themselves on the wrong side of the fence, for the losers of history.
Could the decolonization have gone differently? It is difficult to see how. It seems to me to have been mostly a case of doing the best possible given the circumstances. And consequently, some lost and lost everything.
@EXE:
DeleteSo what is the point of my little story? In the thread above you were charitable enough to treat me to a condescending lecture about not listening to the "bad people" so I will return the favor: you are an idiot, you know nothing about life, tragedy, loss. You want the sins of the fathers to be visited upon the sons? To respond to the cry of injustice from one of your fellow citizens with a passing "Oh but their forefathers suffered much worse" is grotesque. To borrow from Dr. Johnson: clear your mind of cant.
Who is calling for you to be punished for your forefathers' actions? Name them, and show me where they said it. What punishment are they calling for? I do not believe such people are common, or anywhere outside of the lunatic fringe.
Delete(2/3)
ReplyDeleteTo Geeky Catholic: You're describing a fantasy, a narrative created by White Americans to make themselves feel more comfortable. Astonishingly, racist policy did not in fact disappear just because it was made illegal (shocker). It was simply dressed up in respectable euphemisms, such as refusing loans to "risky neighborhoods" that "by chance" just happened to be overwhelmingly full of minorities (oh, and using policy to ensure that these regions remained poor). There's also a tendency to reduce racism to merely its most obvious and extreme manifestations - put another way, just because we don't have lynchings or legally-encoded racial barriers to jobs anymore does not mean racism isn't still a big deal. The election of minority groups to high political office was a step in the right direction, I'll grant, but the idea that it meant that racism had been defeated is extremely naive. Let me elaborate with some concrete examples so that you know precisely what I'm talking about:
The most insidious thing about structural racism is that it doesn't require the people doing it to actually have racist beliefs themselves. If a racist sets up rules based on racist principles in such a way as to disenfranchise minorities, then so long as his successors carry out those same rules, it doesn't matter whether they personally are racist, their actions will have the same consequences as if they were. This is why historical racism is still a big deal - it built the society that you still operate in, and unless an institution was totally torn apart and rebuilt after 1964 its influence is still likely to be felt within them. Take policing, for example: much has been made of the statistics that show Blacks being disproportionately represented in crime and prison. However, this figure is better explained by the much higher scrutiny placed on Blacks and their communities by police. Remember, these figures don't represent who commits crimes, they represent who gets *caught* committing crimes. Due to cultural prejudices, Blacks are frequently treated as inherently dangerous or hostile, leading to them being more likely to be stopped, searched, and arrested in situations where a White person doing exactly the same thing likely would not be. Sometimes they are guilty and sometimes they are not, the point is that they are treated with a scrutiny that Whites are usually not subject to. This then leads to an increase in prison sentences, leading in turn to the entrenchment of poverty, which may well drive a law-abiding person to crime or reinforce the criminal tendencies of someone who actually was a criminal beforehand. This, in turn, leads to a heightened perception that Blacks are criminal, "justifying" even more police scrutiny of the Black community and reinforcing the prejudices that lead to the biased policing to begin with.
This is just me speaking from the outside, actual Blacks would surely be able to share horror stories with you. In essence, Black Americans must operate under the assumption that the police are inclined to be hostile towards them as the default. White Americans do not have to deal with this - they may still suffer at the hands of a bad cop, but the cop is not likely to automatically assume a suspicious attitude towards them on the grounds of their skin color. This is what people are actually talking about when they say things like "White Privilege". Of course, if you've never experienced anything like this, it can be hard to understand, but please, believe me when I say that they're not talking about nothing.
(3/3 - I got the numbering wrong on the first comment)
ReplyDeleteFinally, I assure you that these young men are not simply becoming Desperadoes in response to demonization. This kind of extreme White Nationalism has a long history in America, although after 1964 it had to hide its public face and maintain an air of respectability. Even if we skip over slavery entirely and focus only on the 20th century, we have the Klan, Rockwell's American Nazi Party, the National Alliance, the White Aryan Resistance, the Atomwaffen Division...these groups have always been part of America, they're just becoming more mainstream now. They are not "victims of DEI", and they are not being forced into this by such. That itself is merely a narrative told by the Nazi types in order to encourage young, lost white men to join up.
You are correct, EXE. Research supports what you say. But I think DEI was carried too far and alienated people. And the Far Right exploited that alienation for its own ends.
DeletePerhaps. I'm not sure about that myself. As a personal musing, it seems to me that White Supremacy seems like a kind of "cultural disorder", if you'll pardon the term. By that I mean that it resembles a kind of mental disorder, except passed on culturally. It seems to have originated in the contradictions of early English colonial rule - namely, that slaves were an economic necessity for the kind of society that was being built, but that slavery was also generally regarded as wrong. And what do you do when you need to do something immoral? You rationalize, of course. You make up excuses for why it's OK, at least this time. In other words, regarding Blacks as categorically inferior was "mentally necessary" for the settlers to not feel bad about themselves. That attitude can and does get passed on, and can far outlive the original reason for its creation, since it's just a feeling or sentiment.
DeleteUh, sorry if it seemed like I was trying to show off by telling you about something you already know. That wasn't my intention.
DeleteAgreed. I was born, raised and live in the Deep South. Much has changed here, for the good. But undercurrents of white supremacy remain and will persist until demographics force a change.
DeleteOr until the whole country gets serious about dealing with it. This problem could have been avoided (or at least greatly reduced) if Reconstruction had been carried out properly - the first Klan was crushed, after all, and the Solid South could have been prevented. But at this point I'd just be going into history that you probably already know. Though it is interesting to think about how the seemingly-inevitable Jim Crow South could quite plausibly have been prevented if even a few things had gone differently.
DeleteOr, hilariously, Hispanics get "adopted" into White Supremacy and start maintaining that too. As ridiculous as that sounds, it's possible - though I feel like the "Nordic" Whites would not be able to concede that, at least not quickly enough to deal with the speed of demographic change.
DeleteEXE is not sure about whether DEI went too far. Really? Is EXE in favor of biological males entering women's sports and of gender-affirming care for children without notifying parents? What about the DEI "free Palestine" mob protesting against Israel on October 8th before Israel had done anything to respond to the atrocities on October 7th?
Delete"biological males entering women's sports"
DeleteTrans athletes have participated in the Olympics since 2005, and it had never posed a problem before conservative culture warriors decided to use it as a wedge issue. The actual experts involved in this issue had concluded that after a certain number of years on estrogen, any natural advantage from being born male was negligible. If you think they were wrong, you're free to submit your own research. You do have research, right, rather than a gut feeling? Right?
"gender-affirming care for children without notifying parents"
It's hilarious how you seem to think that "getting transed" is super easy. Even for a fully-independent adult, it can take literal years to even get access to a psychiatrist who, if you do everything right, might possibly be able to refer you to get HRT in a few months. The idea that teachers were sneaking kids off to have their privates cut off during the schoolweek behind their parents' backs is just another bit of Republican scaremongering. Add to that the fact that many kids live with parents who don't accept their gender identity, getting it through their schools might be the only way they CAN get it. Of course, you will probably argue that it's inherently bad and wrong and nobody should get it anyway, but in that case the "kids at school" bit is irrelevant, and should be dropped as the inflammatory rhetoric that it is.
"What about the DEI "free Palestine" mob protesting against Israel on October 8th before Israel had done anything to respond to the atrocities on October 7th?"
Ah, I see, you use "DEI" to mean "Left-wing", which is wrong, but I won't waste my time on that. As for protesting Israel, so what? What's wrong with that? Israel is a colonial apartheid state, built on the violent theft of land, and is currently committing a genocide funded by American taxpayers. I'd rate them as considerably worse than apartheid-era South Africa, and the only reason more people don't regard them similarly is their masterful use of propaganda, especially the weaponization of Jewish identity as a shield for Zionism. For that matter, they can't realistically be reformed without abolishing the entire Zionist ideology, which I'm not sure they're willing to do. That ideology, the one which specifies that the Jewish people have a unique and exclusive right to possess the Holy Land, requires the ethnic cleansing of the natives, which is something that the original thought leaders of Zionism were aware of, and consciously chose to do regardless. Their letters and speeches make it abundantly clear, they just stopped using the word "colony" after WW2, when it became a dirty word. The only way I can see to end the conflict without further bloodshed is to admit Palestinians as full citizens, abandon the Greater Israel dream, and pay massive reparations for the damage done and land stolen. But I doubt that will happen. I suspect they'd sooner enact the Samson Plan than allow that to happen.
Addendum to my previous comment: it appears that the degree to which time spent on estrogen levels the playing field in terms of physical strength is variable, with it being different in some areas than others (better grip strength, worse jump height, higher absolute VO2Max but much lower relative to mass). Thus, it would be more accurate to say that the fairness of such competitions is debatable, with some sports being affected more than others. Still, this wouldn't justify the call for blanket bans, only careful plans sculpted for each sport. Even then, given the extremely low number of trans athletes actually competing, this isn't anywhere near as big of an issue as is often claimed.
DeleteEXE,
DeleteYou have the same position on Israel as Nick Fuentes. He also said that he would vote for Gavin Newsom over J. D. Vance. I guess you are closer to Nick Fuentes's positions than I am.
A risible bit of sophistry. The difference is that Nick Fuentes uses the crimes that Israel commits as cover for his antisemitism, whereas I genuinely just oppose the state of Israel specifically and have no problem with Jewish people. Note that he denies the Holocaust, thinks Hitler was great, and promotes antisemitic conspiracy theories. I don't do or believe any of these things, because unlike him, I'm not a fucking Nazi. Now, assuming you have anything backing you up besides cheap name-calling, please provide it. Otherwise I'm highly unimpressed by your reasoning abilities.
DeleteI also notice that you ignored everything else I said once you thought you could compare me to Fuentes. Nice argument bro, very rational.
EXE,
DeleteNor am I a Nazi, nor a white nationalist but you all but accuse me of being one because I did not accept DEI. The DEI that is taught in universities tries to shame men to feel guilty for being men, to shame whites guilty for being white. That is what I oppose. There is black nationalism (mentioned by another anon); many groups of "Black Hebrew Israelites" are black nationalists. I oppose white nationalists and black nationalists. And your depiction of Israel is itself derived from anti-Semitic conspiracy theories (as accepted by Fuentes and co). The United Nations approved the State of Israel. Anglicans, Puritans, Wesleyans, Moravians, and others knew that the Jews would return to Israel for prophecy to be fulfilled, and this was long before Theodore Herzl. Andre Villeneuve has written material on the Catholic case for Zionism. As to my reasoning, at least I know the difference between a man and a woman, unlike many DEI advocates.
Focus, Anon. The only person in this thread that I've called a Nazi is Nick Fuentes, and I highly doubt he would even contest that label. You haven't shown yourself to be that, not yet at least.
Delete"Trying to shame Whites for being White and men for being men" I heard this line constantly when I was still Conservative, but I've never seen anyone back it up. Care to tell me who, exactly, said this or anything like it? I'd like chapter and verse, please.
It's good that you oppose White nationalism, and what it seems you think Black nationalism is. Yes, the Black Hebrew Israelites are assholes and deserve to be mocked, but they are also a small fringe group that can hardly be said to be representative. Ironically, their theology often mirrors that of White Supremacists (though with the colours swapped, obviously). This we can both agree is bad. The difference is that they have never had the opportunity or power to enforce their beliefs, whereas White Supremacist groups have.
My views on Israel are not based on conspiracy theories, they are based on observable facts. Israel's actions in Gaza. We have abundant video evidence. Their actions have been classified as genocide by a UN Special Committee, a commission of inquiry, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, as well as multiple human rights groups. Are they ALL stuffed to the brim with raging antisemites? Speaking of the UN, they had no right in the first place to give half of Palestine away, and in reality the Zionists had no intention of ever sticking to the partition plan anyway. You can see this reflected in a speech given by David Ben-Gurion in 1938:
"[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state, we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel." - David Ben-Gurion, Prime Minister of Israel (1948-1953, 1955-1963), in a 1938 speech to the Zionist Executive.
As for the fact that Christians have supported Zionism before Theodor Herzl showed up - yes, yes they did. Zionism was a Christian movement before it was a Jewish one, and in fact it didn't catch on in Jewish circles for a very long time. The figures you mention are simply earlier Zionists, I have just as little respect for them as I do for Herzl.
Events proved that the Christian Zionists were correct. God's providence prevailed and the modern state of Israel came into existence in a miraculously short time after the Shoah (which is how most Jews refer to the Holocaust--Shoah means destruction; holocaust means burnt offering; Elie Wiesel himself who first used the term "holocaust" in this context later conceded that shoah is more accurate). The State of Israel is hated by white nationalists and black nationalists alike, but it will endure. The Islamist regime of Iran has been its most implacable enemy of late but it may topple next year; most of the Iranian people hope so.
DeleteYou are aware that Zionists had been settling in Palestine for 60 years by that point, waiting for an opportune moment to strike? Israel was not made up of Shoah survivors, in fact, early Israelis were generally quite disrespectful towards them. They hated the "Diaspora Jew", which they regarded as weak, cringing, and unable to resist the pogroms of Europe. They had a new, hypermasculine concept of Jewish identity, and the heroic society of the "New Jews" had no place for people who had simply "allowed themselves" to be victimized rather than fighting back. 1948 was not some miracle whereby a bunch of ragged survivors somehow defeated a massive Arabic Hydra, or whatever story it is you've been told. It represented the moment when a movement that had been quietly gathering strength for six decades finally saw a chance to strike, as British authority in the region collapsed following WW2. They had extensive paramilitary forces, who were also infamously brutal. For instance, look up this link, if you dare:
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
""Trying to shame Whites for being White and men for being men" I heard this line constantly when I was still Conservative, but I've never seen anyone back it up. Care to tell me who, exactly, said this or anything like it? I'd like chapter and verse, please."
DeleteAre you serious? There are books widely available, sold in mainstream bookshops, with titles such as Why I Hate Men, Stupid White Men, and Mediocre (about white men). I'm not a white nationalist or a Fuentes fan or anything like that, but your question is stunning in its obliviousness. Read White by Richard Dyer as well. Or just go to any campus bookshop or university library and look at the books about masculinity or race.
Maolsheachlann, Dublin.
EXE,
DeleteWikipedia is not a serious source on anything political. It is as biased against Israel as is the BBC, which had to retract over 100 of its news stories on Israel since October 7th 2023.
The “implied threat.” Hilarious. As always, you resort to making up threats, acting on them ( this is the entire rhetoric and action of the Trump administration) and blaming the people you victimize for your brutality. You have been doing this for centuries now, including the lies you tell yourselves. Everyone else made you KKK members and white nationalists. Right.
ReplyDeleteAs always, White Nationalists are pathetic. Why wouldn't they be, when their worldview is fundamentally based on insecurity? Someone who truly believed himself superior by virtue of his race would feel no need to assert that superiority, because it would be obvious, at least to him. Only insecure people feel the need to assert their power.
DeleteAre they any more pathetic than Black Nationalists? Or brown, yellow, or red ones? Is it because they are white, or because they are nationalists? Would just plain "nationalist" be OK if he wasn't white?
DeleteDon't be obtuse. There might be a hypothetical universe in which White Nationalism is a legitimate movement, but in the context of the modern United States, it is nothing more than an expression of White Supremacy, driven mostly by a desire to preserve the White-majority demographics of the USA out of fear. Meanwhile, Black Nationalism in the USA comes out of the fact that, even though their ancestors were from various tribes that felt no common unity with each other, Black Americans are nonetheless treated by the majority as if they were a singular group with a singular culture, and thus they can be said to have a kind of national unity, or at least a common interest. I admit that Black Nationalists can do bad things, and had history turned out differently they could have established a system entirely as unjust as White Supremacy is now. But the fact of the matter is that it didn't happen that way. As it currently stands, White Nationalism is driven by the desire to preserve racial dominance, while Black Nationalism is driven by the desire to not be dominated.
DeleteThis is brilliant. The Christmas present I didn't know I needed. Thank you for providing links to so many stimulating pieces.
ReplyDelete