The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 John Derbyshire ArchiveBlogview
Courage and Connections: Paul Gottfried’s REVISIONS and DISSENTS
paul-gottfried-1472224260-565x372
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Professor Paul Gottfried is well-known to VDARE.com readers for his mordant commentaries on our present political culture. I seem to have known Paul for ever, although our personal acquaintance can’t actually be much older than my review of his 2009 memoir Encounters, in which I described him as a “modest and good-natured” man through whose books there none the less run “currents of disillusion and despair.”

Recently, since the Alt Right was dragged into the foreground of public attention by Mrs. Clinton last year, Professor Gottfried has become more widely known as the person who first came up with “Alternative Right” as a descriptor. (The shortened form was Richard Spencer’s idea.)

Paul’s feelings about the movement he christened—or perhaps, since he’s Jewish, one should say “brised”—can be inspected in a column he wrote for us last year. Those feelings are mixed, although, as he wrote, “I make no bones about preferring Altright [sic] (warts and all) to Conservatism, Inc.”

Neocons have a correspondingly low opinion of Paul. A National Review editor, responding I think to my review of Encounters, told me that Paul is “the house Jew of the Buchananites.” Charity is not a distinguishing characteristic of respectable conservatism.

Paul describes himself, in this new book, as “a European historian specializing in the nineteenth century.” That greatly understates the depth and breadth of his knowledge.

Here, to take a letter at random from the alphabet, are the personal names listed under “H” in the book’s index.

Jürgen Habermas, Nathan Hale, Alexander Hamilton, Victor Davis Hanson, F.J.C. Hearnshaw (author of Conservatism in England), Hegel, Heidegger, Henry IV (of France), Gertrude Himmelfarb, the Hindenburgs (father and son), Hitler, Hobbes, Hölderlin, Francois Hollande, Evander Holyfield (Paul has, he writes, “a passion for boxing matches”—at age eight he briefly sparred with middleweight champ Jake LaMotta, the “Raging Bull”), and Mike Huckabee.

That’s a pretty good range for a historian: wide enough to impress a much-less-well-read person—this reviewer, for example. And Paul has of course read the Germans in the original German, as well as Aristotle in the original Greek, and, it seems from the fact that I can’t find any translation on the internet, Fisichella’s La democrazia contro la realtà in the original Italian.

Bertrand Russell once opined that he would rather be reviewed by his worst enemy among philosophers than by a friend ignorant of philosophy. I very much hope Paul does not nurse some similar preference.

Revisions and Dissents contains fourteen essays on different subjects, though all are in the broad general area of political science.

Fourteen is the number of lines in a sonnet. I hope the author won’t mind if, with no better excuse than that, I sonnetize his Table of Contents, one line per chapter. (To get the scansion right you need to know that “Bagehot” is pronounced “Badge-ot.”)

Biography: the Prof’s a small-town lad.

Sociology: does Nisbet vanquish Kirk?

The neocons usurped true rightists—sad!

History without contingency won’t work.

Equality! they promise us, while power they seek.

What’s a state? Ask Oakeshott, Hobbes, de Tocq.

Charles Maurras was no Burke, but worth a peek.

Present-centered history’s a crock.

The Euro-right is rising—up they go!

Walter Bagehot didn’t trust the proles.

Bobos are a class, says Murray. No!

Popes were never Nazis—different goals.

Strauss, Heidegger: as thinker, who’s ahead?

Trump’s triumph means the Right is not yet dead!

It’s that last essay, on Donald Trump’s capturing of the U.S. presidency, to which most readers will turn first.

That’s a shame: not because the essay is bad in any way, only because most of it—ten of its twelve pages—was written early in the primary season last year, so that subsequent events have weakened its interest.

The essay is still worth reading, though, for its predictive insights into last year’s election.

The demand for equality is by no means a strictly leftist thing. That demand is equally prevalent on the populist Right … Why can’t the blue-collar Evangelical in Alabama, who correctly sees his group as despised by present leftist elites while his economic prospects continue to fall, have an equally valid claim to democratic equality?

In the final two pages of this essay, added on November 24th last, Paul looks to the future. He voices the thought, which a lot of us have been having, that Trump may be merely a transitional figure.

Let’s also not think that if Trump turns out to be something less than what his followers … were hoping for, it would mark the end of their revolt against distant elites with antitraditionalist values and alien economic interests. We may be witnessing what is only the beginning of a populist insurgency from a transformed, energized Right.

The most grueling essay, for this general reader, was the book’s penultimate one, a review of philosopher Richard Velkley’s 2011 book Heidegger, Strauss, and the Premises of Philosophy.

I have, as I’ve often confessed, a head that’s impervious to abstract philosophy. Writes Paul:

Despite his predilection for resonant or emotive German phrases about what is fated, the focus of Heidegger’s existentialism remains on the individual searching for ontological authenticity.

Is it remiss of me never to have searched for ontological authenticity? I hope not.

On the evidence of these essays, Paul’s keenest passion is not so much for history—about which of course he knows a very great deal—as for historiography: the way we do history, the way our minds form patterns and narratives from what we find in history.

Probably there are patterns and narratives to be uncovered. The human mind, though, no doubt for reasons to do with the evolutionary history of our species, is so compelled to seek patterns and to draw emotional satisfaction from narratives that some “overshoot”—finding what is not there—is inevitable.

ORDER IT NOW

The task of the historiographer is to distinguish those false patterns from true ones. This is by no means easy. It is, in fact, one of the greatest challenges the human intellect can take on; the more so as the temptation to erect political platforms on historical—or pseudo-historical—foundations seems to be well-nigh irresistible.

The best-known instances of historical narrative-finding are Karl Marx’s “modes of production” model and Herbert Butterfield’s The Whig Interpretation of History (title of Butterfield’s 1931 book). Butterfield’s book criticized the view of history as an upward progress towards modern constitutional democracy.

Revisions and Dissents has only a few passing references to Marx—who, goodness knows, has been sufficiently well annotated this past hundred years—but gives over an entire chapter to Butterfield. “I experienced second thoughts about what for me was once a mind-changing book,” Paul tells us.

He shares those second thoughts with us in a very engaging way, showing some of the contradictions in Butterfield.

Rarely do historians approach their activity as a detached scientific exercise … We should observe that Butterfield, even in his assault on Whig history, writes in a recognizably Whiggish spirit.

This short chapter—it’s only six pages—conveys to the reader a very good feel for the difficulty of writing objectively about history, for picking apart the tangled skein of contingency to uncover true cause and effect.

It’s in Chapter Four, “The Problem of Historical Connections,” that Paul gives his fullest attention to the historiographical task as I’ve defined it. This is the longest of the fourteen essays, and the one in which the author engages his material with the most impressive virtuosity.

Jonathan Steinberg’s 2011 biography of BismarckThe inspiration for this chapter is historian Jonathan Steinberg’s 2011 biography of Bismarck (which I have not read). Steinberg, according to Paul:

… leaves the impression that Bismarck’s insincere or inadequate devotion to nineteenth-century liberalism and his reliance on military power led ineluctably to Hitler’s savage tyranny.

Now that’s a narrative, one that Paul tells us he’s been familiar with since his graduate work at Yale fifty years ago.

No matter what aspect of German history was under consideration, we were expected to uncover a path leading to the Third Reich.

Paul tosses and gores this narrative across several pages that are as entertaining as they are instructive. At one point he introduces an intriguing alternative history.

Because Germany in 1914 had the largest socialist party in Europe, probably the world’s best educated working class, the highest wages in Europe, and the best organized worker’s unions, it could have developed like its Nordic neighbors even if it had kept its monarchy. Sweden—which once had a more autocratic monarchy than the German imperial government, together with a strong work ethic and collective identity—went from being a military power to a centralized social democratic administrative state. This is an alternative path that Germany might have taken in the twentieth century.

Paul concludes this chapter, this small masterpiece of historiography, with a three-page classical flourish. He gives us the Hellenistic historian Polybius (second century B.C.), who imposed a narrative on the rise of Rome as having been willed by key leaders with a grand expansionist design.

The anti-Polybius would I suppose be nineteenth-century British essayist John Seeley, who opined that his countrymen had “conquered half the world in a fit of absence of mind.”

Prof. Gottfried weaves his way between these contrasting approaches to history with great skill and erudition. You will find yourself arguing back at him on some points, but that’s part of the fun of reading him.

In that chapter on Whig history, for example, he frowns disapprovingly at Butterfield’s writing that “the greatest menace to our civilization is the conflict between giant organized forms of self-righteousness.” That, says Paul, is “mixing value judgements into the writing of history.”

I see Paul’s point, but I’m bound to say that I chuckled with pleasure on reading Butterfield’s aphorism.

The book closes with a short afterword that moves from reminiscences of a Catskills summer camp in the 1950s, via notes on some famous boxers, to a call for courage—the first of the virtues, according to Aristotle. To his students, Paul tells us,

I contrasted the courage of pugilists to the slithering cowardice of career politicians.

That’s a rhetorical right hook from an author well-tested in academic disputation.

The only fault I can find with Revisions and Dissents is typographical. The preposition pace should, it seems to me, be set in italics to distinguish it from the identically-spelled English noun and verb of completely different meaning.

This is a judgement call, I’ll allow; but I don’t think pace is in sufficiently common usage to justify the dropping of italics.

John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. He’s had two books published by VDARE.com: FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle) and From the Dissident Right II: Essays 2013. His writings are archived at JohnDerbyshire.com.

(Republished from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Conservative Movement, Neocons, VDare Archives 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
    []
  1. Reading John Derbyshire, traditionally I learn a lot of words,
    which were unfamiliar to me.
    In particular here is what Google suggests for “brise”

    Only later I decided to click to the link, provided by John D.
    Previous occasion was about 10 years ago, with the word “mohel”,
    in one of Derb’s articles.
    Now I feel an advance in my knowledge of English.
    My previous attempts to read Gottfried’s works,
    attempts also inspired by Derb’s reviews,
    left me with a deep feeling of inferiority.
    Still, I will give Gottfried another try:
    I ordered through Amazon his “Revisions and Dissents”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/courage-and-connections-paul-gottfrieds-revisions-and-dissents/#comment-1902297
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Derbyshire:

    http://johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/HumanSciences/raceiq.html

    From there:

    As Jane Austen observed, “One half of the world cannot understand the pleasures of the other.” Same with interests. Here is a snippet from the Letters column of my favorite papo-paleo-con magazine, Chronicles:

    The Catholic Church teaches that, by and through the hypostatic union, Christ’s soul possessed immediate knowledge of God from the very moment of His conception; and that, from this, He could not possess the theological virtues of faith and hope. In his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott explains, “Christ as the Originator and Completer of Faith (Hebr. 12, 2), could not Himself walk in the darkness of faith. The perfection of the self-consciousness of the man Jesus can be explained only on the understanding that He possessed immediate knowledge of the Godhead with which He was united.” In other words, our Lord Jesus Christ knew he was the Son of God.
    Got that? I quoted that because it is as far from being of interest to me as anything I have encountered in [...]

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    Fancy knowing so much about Jesus! Some people are happy just to wonder whether he existed.
    , @Anonymous Nephew
    Some of the church disputes seem to be about power. Does it really matter whether the Trinity ALWAYS existed, or whether an omnipotent God created* His Son to show the Way, the Truth and the Life to fallen man (i.e. "the Arian heresy") - and if it does matter, how on earth can we tell which is true?

    Yet the Church had people killed and excommunicated over this (to me) abstruse point.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism


    * "begotten, not created" as the carol puts it.
  3. Heh. Simple questions, simple answers. The quest for “ontological authenticity” is formed from the question “Am I really here?” — the answer being a thoughtful “Well, yes and no.”

    Sumer is icumen in, Lhude sing cuccu!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Definition of amount of information transmitted:
    Change of probabilities after receiving the message in comparison with those before receiving it.
    What were the a priory answers to the question "Am I really here?"
    Did you change the probabilities of validity of one or the other variant of answer
    by your thoughtful ... ?
    So what is the information content of your comment ?
    BTW, can you kindly translate apparently Latin sentence?
  4. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @John Jeremiah Smith
    Heh. Simple questions, simple answers. The quest for "ontological authenticity" is formed from the question "Am I really here?" -- the answer being a thoughtful "Well, yes and no."

    Sumer is icumen in, Lhude sing cuccu!

    Definition of amount of information transmitted:
    Change of probabilities after receiving the message in comparison with those before receiving it.
    What were the a priory answers to the question “Am I really here?”
    Did you change the probabilities of validity of one or the other variant of answer
    by your thoughtful … ?
    So what is the information content of your comment ?
    BTW, can you kindly translate apparently Latin sentence?

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    What were the a priory answers to the question “Am I really here?”
     
    Did you mean a priori? A "priory" is something else entirely.

    "Probability of validity" is a non sequitur. Validity and probability do not intersect.

    'Taint Latin, It's Old English.
    , @Paul Yarbles
    Shannon's mathematical definition of information is of no use here. I understood a bit* more about "ontological authenticity" after reading JJS's comment and that's what's important.


    * - no pun intended
    , @englishmike
    Is that you, "Anonymous"?
    Are you really here?
    Or there?
  5. @Anonymous
    Definition of amount of information transmitted:
    Change of probabilities after receiving the message in comparison with those before receiving it.
    What were the a priory answers to the question "Am I really here?"
    Did you change the probabilities of validity of one or the other variant of answer
    by your thoughtful ... ?
    So what is the information content of your comment ?
    BTW, can you kindly translate apparently Latin sentence?

    What were the a priory answers to the question “Am I really here?”

    Did you mean a priori? A “priory” is something else entirely.

    “Probability of validity” is a non sequitur. Validity and probability do not intersect.

    ‘Taint Latin, It’s Old English.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    By "a priory" I meant "before you made your enlightened comment".
    , @Neil Templeton
    Validity and discovery rarely intersect, almost always of trivial interest. Probability and understanding often intersect, generally of significant interest. Certain discoveries of significant interest are rare finds, and the ground has already been carefully scoured.
  6. Essentially irrelevant: I just noticed Aristotle’s comment in Politics, “Eventually out of a false good arises a true evil.”

    Read More
  7. Butterfield’s book criticized the view of history as an upward progress towards modern constitutional democracy.

    History from the dark ages through the entire time of the Whig historians and up to 1914 was essentially just upward progress on almost every front. Even Marx, writing before 1914 as well, also saw history as upward progress.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    If we ignore the Black Death, witch burning, heretic burning, Thirty Years War, Napoleonic Wars, ....
    , @iffen
    Even Marx, writing before 1914 as well, also saw history as upward progress.

    What does this mean? Case closed?
    , @Randal

    History from the dark ages through the entire time of the Whig historians and up to 1914 was essentially just upward progress on almost every front.
     
    Unlikely many Chinese would agree with that assessment.

    Even Marx, writing before 1914 as well, also saw history as upward progress.
     
    Difficult to see that as an endorsement. Perhaps if he'd had a better understanding of human existence his policy suggestions would have been less damaging.
    , @englishmike

    Even Marx, writing before 1914 as well, also saw history as upward progress.
     
    Well, as a Marxist, he would, wouldn't he? He was on the right side of history.
    Until history put him on the wrong side.
  8. @Anonymous
    Definition of amount of information transmitted:
    Change of probabilities after receiving the message in comparison with those before receiving it.
    What were the a priory answers to the question "Am I really here?"
    Did you change the probabilities of validity of one or the other variant of answer
    by your thoughtful ... ?
    So what is the information content of your comment ?
    BTW, can you kindly translate apparently Latin sentence?

    Shannon’s mathematical definition of information is of no use here. I understood a bit* more about “ontological authenticity” after reading JJS’s comment and that’s what’s important.

    * – no pun intended

    Read More
  9. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    What were the a priory answers to the question “Am I really here?”
     
    Did you mean a priori? A "priory" is something else entirely.

    "Probability of validity" is a non sequitur. Validity and probability do not intersect.

    'Taint Latin, It's Old English.

    By “a priory” I meant “before you made your enlightened comment”.

    Read More
  10. @Immigrant from former USSR
    Derbyshire:
    http://johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/HumanSciences/raceiq.html
    From there:

    As Jane Austen observed, "One half of the world cannot understand the pleasures of the other." Same with interests. Here is a snippet from the Letters column of my favorite papo-paleo-con magazine, Chronicles:

    The Catholic Church teaches that, by and through the hypostatic union, Christ's soul possessed immediate knowledge of God from the very moment of His conception; and that, from this, He could not possess the theological virtues of faith and hope. In his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott explains, "Christ as the Originator and Completer of Faith (Hebr. 12, 2), could not Himself walk in the darkness of faith. The perfection of the self-consciousness of the man Jesus can be explained only on the understanding that He possessed immediate knowledge of the Godhead with which He was united." In other words, our Lord Jesus Christ knew he was the Son of God.
    Got that? I quoted that because it is as far from being of interest to me as anything I have encountered in [...]
     

    Fancy knowing so much about Jesus! Some people are happy just to wonder whether he existed.

    Read More
  11. @Lot

    Butterfield’s book criticized the view of history as an upward progress towards modern constitutional democracy.
     
    History from the dark ages through the entire time of the Whig historians and up to 1914 was essentially just upward progress on almost every front. Even Marx, writing before 1914 as well, also saw history as upward progress.

    If we ignore the Black Death, witch burning, heretic burning, Thirty Years War, Napoleonic Wars, ….

    Read More
  12. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “Am I really here?”
    reminds me conversation in the bed:
    -John, do you love me ?
    -And what do you think am I doing right now ?

    Read More
  13. @Lot

    Butterfield’s book criticized the view of history as an upward progress towards modern constitutional democracy.
     
    History from the dark ages through the entire time of the Whig historians and up to 1914 was essentially just upward progress on almost every front. Even Marx, writing before 1914 as well, also saw history as upward progress.

    Even Marx, writing before 1914 as well, also saw history as upward progress.

    What does this mean? Case closed?

    Read More
  14. C0urage is in a sense the first of the virtues for Aristotle, because it is the first virtue that Aristotle discusse in the Nicomachean Ethics. But Aristotle discusses it first because it is the lowest of the virtues; it is the beginning of the ascent from the base virtues (available to all men) to the higher virtues, such as magnanimity and philosophy. The reason that we tend to think of courage as an ingredient in all of the virtues is because we are all Nietzschean warriors who eat danger for breakfast.

    Read More
    • Replies: @mcohen
    Hey B J.....

    I have been known to eat courage for breakfast.at the crack of dawn to be more precise
    You need courage first and foremost to take the first steps up the ladder of enlightenment
  15. This is a judgement call, I’ll allow; but I don’t think pace is in sufficiently common usage to justify the dropping of italics.

    I’m a little undecided on this myself. I think I’ve used the word both italicised and straight in (admittedly very informal) online commenting.

    My justification for dropping the italics has been laziness (where html is needed for italics) and the feeling that there was no plausible way the meaning could be mistaken, in the context in which the word was used.

    Read More
  16. @Lot

    Butterfield’s book criticized the view of history as an upward progress towards modern constitutional democracy.
     
    History from the dark ages through the entire time of the Whig historians and up to 1914 was essentially just upward progress on almost every front. Even Marx, writing before 1914 as well, also saw history as upward progress.

    History from the dark ages through the entire time of the Whig historians and up to 1914 was essentially just upward progress on almost every front.

    Unlikely many Chinese would agree with that assessment.

    Even Marx, writing before 1914 as well, also saw history as upward progress.

    Difficult to see that as an endorsement. Perhaps if he’d had a better understanding of human existence his policy suggestions would have been less damaging.

    Read More
  17. @Immigrant from former USSR
    Derbyshire:
    http://johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/HumanSciences/raceiq.html
    From there:

    As Jane Austen observed, "One half of the world cannot understand the pleasures of the other." Same with interests. Here is a snippet from the Letters column of my favorite papo-paleo-con magazine, Chronicles:

    The Catholic Church teaches that, by and through the hypostatic union, Christ's soul possessed immediate knowledge of God from the very moment of His conception; and that, from this, He could not possess the theological virtues of faith and hope. In his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott explains, "Christ as the Originator and Completer of Faith (Hebr. 12, 2), could not Himself walk in the darkness of faith. The perfection of the self-consciousness of the man Jesus can be explained only on the understanding that He possessed immediate knowledge of the Godhead with which He was united." In other words, our Lord Jesus Christ knew he was the Son of God.
    Got that? I quoted that because it is as far from being of interest to me as anything I have encountered in [...]
     

    Some of the church disputes seem to be about power. Does it really matter whether the Trinity ALWAYS existed, or whether an omnipotent God created* His Son to show the Way, the Truth and the Life to fallen man (i.e. “the Arian heresy”) – and if it does matter, how on earth can we tell which is true?

    Yet the Church had people killed and excommunicated over this (to me) abstruse point.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

    * “begotten, not created” as the carol puts it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Derbyshire continued in the article cited:

    Got that? I quoted that because it is as far from being of interest to me as anything I have encountered in, oh, at least ten years: farther than the text of the 300-page booklet my life insurance company sends me every year to explain their policies; farther than that report from the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development that I found waiting for me at the NR office one morning; farther than the collected speeches of Kim Il Sung. Yet it's of interest to — is absolutely fascinating to — a lot of people. I know some of them. I bet the letter writer (Jerry C. Meng of Imlay City, Mich. — Hi there, Jerry!) thinks about that stuff for hours at a time. I bet he could give you an impromptu lecture on it. I bet he knows the difference between homousion and homoiousion. (Please do not email in to tell me! I don't want to know! For pity's sake, please!) That's his interest, that's his pleasure. Jolly good luck to him.

    Science is just as far away from most people's interest as hypostatic union and Dr. Ludwig Ott's lucubrations are from mine. And that's fine. It's a free country. Chacun à son goût. But don't call me a white supremacist just because I'm curious about human nature.
     

    I.f.f.U.: reading this 10 years ago, I learned the word "lucubrations".
  18. @Anonymous Nephew
    Some of the church disputes seem to be about power. Does it really matter whether the Trinity ALWAYS existed, or whether an omnipotent God created* His Son to show the Way, the Truth and the Life to fallen man (i.e. "the Arian heresy") - and if it does matter, how on earth can we tell which is true?

    Yet the Church had people killed and excommunicated over this (to me) abstruse point.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism


    * "begotten, not created" as the carol puts it.

    Derbyshire continued in the article cited:

    Got that? I quoted that because it is as far from being of interest to me as anything I have encountered in, oh, at least ten years: farther than the text of the 300-page booklet my life insurance company sends me every year to explain their policies; farther than that report from the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development that I found waiting for me at the NR office one morning; farther than the collected speeches of Kim Il Sung. Yet it’s of interest to — is absolutely fascinating to — a lot of people. I know some of them. I bet the letter writer (Jerry C. Meng of Imlay City, Mich. — Hi there, Jerry!) thinks about that stuff for hours at a time. I bet he could give you an impromptu lecture on it. I bet he knows the difference between homousion and homoiousion. (Please do not email in to tell me! I don’t want to know! For pity’s sake, please!) That’s his interest, that’s his pleasure. Jolly good luck to him.

    Science is just as far away from most people’s interest as hypostatic union and Dr. Ludwig Ott’s lucubrations are from mine. And that’s fine. It’s a free country. Chacun à son goût. But don’t call me a white supremacist just because I’m curious about human nature.

    I.f.f.U.: reading this 10 years ago, I learned the word “lucubrations“.

    Read More
    • Replies: @efim polenov
    Middle aged vet said: The quotation in question (regarding the simple word hypostasis) was nothing less than the most recent articulation of the honest thoughts of many people, some of whom had lived lives of great love and holiness, reflecting on a book which is widely considered divine in origin, describing events that are widely recognized as accurate and true, reflecting generally acknowledged realities that have survived dozens of generations of hatred, comforting people with love in their hearts who have been discouraged by the hatred surrounding them. Mock all you want, but when was the last time you expressed an opinion, based on the opinion of many people who had lived good lives, reflecting on a book which is widely and, for all you know, correctly considered divine in origin? Look, I have run across quite a lot of cynical old guys who lived in the USSR - although, this being 2017, there aren't really all that many of them left - (cheap lousy cigarettes, cheap semi-poisonous alcohol, and nagging wives are murder on mortality rates) - and I get it, I get the desire to feel young again and to engage in adolescent mockery of Christians. I am sure you are just a simple old country boy who just wants to have some vodka and a few cigarettes and a good evening with friends before heading to work the next day for the Despised Boss, cursing out in the mean time anyone and everyone you can, because it makes you feel real and good. I am sure you are admirable in many ways. But just because you spent much of your life in a country devoted to lies does not mean that the good people who have lived and died lives of sacrifice and love for the last 2,000 years should be ridiculed. Grow up, my young friend. "Lucubrations" - what a big word, so badly used!!!!
  19. Because Germany in 1914 had the largest socialist party in Europe, probably the world’s best educated working class, the highest wages in Europe, and the best organized worker’s unions, it could have developed like its Nordic neighbors even if it had kept its monarchy. Sweden—which once had a more autocratic monarchy than the German imperial government, together with a strong work ethic and collective identity—went from being a military power to a centralized social democratic administrative state. This is an alternative path that Germany might have taken in the twentieth century.

    The potential strength of the disunited nation of Germany, situated between powerful enemies who feared and therefore hated it, led to half Europe– Sweden included–marching across Germany. When Sweden was strong it invaded the Germany nation to maintain the balance of power(ie to keep it weak ). The Germans get fed up with being invaded and unified. Then they repaid their neighbours, with interest.(Europe: The Struggle for Supremacy by Brendan Simms)

    “Of the gods we believe, and of men we know, that by a law of their nature wherever they can rule they will, This law was not made by us, and we are not the first who have acted upon it; we did but inherit it, and shall bequeath it to all time, and we know that you and all mankind, if you were as strong as we are, would do as we do” The Melian Dialogue
    [Excerpted from Thucydides, Benjamin Jowett, tr. A. P. Peabody, ed. (Boston: D. Lothrop & Co., 1883), bk. 5] https://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Melian.html

    The exception to the aforementioned law is Germany in 1905, when it did not attack Russia (then in chaos) despite excellent prospects of winning a war*. (Mearsheimer, Tragedy Of Great Power Politics ).

    (*The moment when the Kaiser should have exercised a la Schmitt, the prerogative of exception and order an attack. )

    Read More
  20. Germany before WWI was indeed ‘on top of the world’.
    Therefore already in 1907 Balfour said to the USA ambassador ‘that war might be the cheapest way to preserve British prosperity’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    ...Balfour said to the USA ambassador ‘that war might be the cheapest way to preserve British prosperity’.
     
    Especially if they could sucker the Americans into supporting them in every way possible.

    Certain Brits were undisputed masters of diplomacy. Dirtball diplomacy, that is. Talk about an evil empire!!!
    , @Sean

    in 1907 Balfour said to the USA ambassador ‘that war might be the cheapest way to preserve British prosperity
     
    Citation please! Balfour (at 21 the richest young man in England) may not have even made his most well known remark ("Nothing matters very much and few things matter at all") but it at least summed up his attitude.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Balfour
    Balfour is thought to have formulated the basis for the evolutionary argument against naturalism. Balfour argued the Darwinian premise of selection for reproductive fitness cast doubt on scientific naturalism, because human cognitive facilities that would accurately perceive truth could be less advantageous than adaptation for evolutionarily useful illusions.

    [There is] no distinction to be drawn between the development of reason and that of any other faculty, physiological or psychical, by which the interests of the individual or the race are promoted. From the humblest form of nervous irritation at the one end of the scale, to the reasoning capacity of the most advanced races at the other, everything without exception (sensation, instinct, desire, volition) has been produced directly or indirectly, by natural causes acting for the most part on strictly utilitarian principles. Convenience, not knowledge, therefore, has been the main end to which this process has tended
     

     
    As for planning for war the Germans were told by Tirpitz that it would be better Admiral of the Fleet John Arbuthnot "Jacky" (or "Jackie") Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher, proposed a preemptive strike against Germany,in 1904 and 1908.Fisher was forced to retire on reaching 70 years of age in 1911. That year he predicted that Germany would start a war in October 1914, following the anticipated completion date of work to widen the Kiel Canal to allow the passage of German battleships. The Kiel Canal was completed in July, and Germany started the war in August 1914.
    As I asserted above Germany made a serious mistake in not crushing Russia in 1905, but they were not so stupid as to think that a war could be avoided, they just were wrong about the importance of sea power and the value of waiting until Tirpitz completed his preparation.
  21. Why is the Kindle ebook $29.00, but Amazon will send you a hard copy paperback for twenty six dollars? That’s the big question that needs to be answered.

    Read More
  22. Good piece, thanks! As for the supposed distinction between history and historiography, I think it is useful to remind oneself that all history is historiography. Given the fact that most historians choose topics and periods for reasons they may not seem conscious of, but which derive from their own personal biographies, I would venture to state that “all historiography is biography” or at least metabiography.

    Read More
  23. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “This is an alternative path that Germany might have taken in the twentieth century.”

    Indeed…. “what might have been”–but for Franz Ferdinand’s assassination, after which Germany plunged into a war that Bismarck prophesied twenty years before as a consequence of Wilhelm II’s insisting upon hitching his wagon to a decrepit Austria-Hungary–over Bismarck’s recommendations (which got him fired as we know).

    Read More
  24. @jilles dykstra
    Germany before WWI was indeed 'on top of the world'.
    Therefore already in 1907 Balfour said to the USA ambassador 'that war might be the cheapest way to preserve British prosperity'.

    …Balfour said to the USA ambassador ‘that war might be the cheapest way to preserve British prosperity’.

    Especially if they could sucker the Americans into supporting them in every way possible.

    Certain Brits were undisputed masters of diplomacy. Dirtball diplomacy, that is. Talk about an evil empire!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    No suckering needed:
    Henry Morgenthau, 'Ambassador Morgenthau's Story', New Yirk, 1918
    Heath W. Lowry, 'The story behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story', Istanbul 1990
    Enough anti German USA citizens.
  25. @jacques sheete

    ...Balfour said to the USA ambassador ‘that war might be the cheapest way to preserve British prosperity’.
     
    Especially if they could sucker the Americans into supporting them in every way possible.

    Certain Brits were undisputed masters of diplomacy. Dirtball diplomacy, that is. Talk about an evil empire!!!

    No suckering needed:
    Henry Morgenthau, ‘Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story’, New Yirk, 1918
    Heath W. Lowry, ‘The story behind Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story’, Istanbul 1990
    Enough anti German USA citizens.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @Sean

    http://spartacus-educational.com/FWWmaxse.htm
    Leo Maxse favoured an alliance with France against the threat of Germany. Andrew S. Thompson has pointed out: "Fear of Germany's economic and military strength developed into an unhealthy obsession with conspiracy theories. A keen spy-hunter, on one occasion he is even said to have advised a close friend to dispense with the services of his German nanny, whose lengthy bicycle rides in the English countryside were enough to convince Maxse that she was a secret agent."

    During the First World War [Leo] Maxse claimed the existence of a secret society called the Unseen Hand. As Ernest Sackville Turner, the author of Dear Old Blighty (1980) has pointed out: "One of the great delusions of the war was that there existed an Unseen (or Hidden, or Invisible) Hand, a pro-German influence which perennially strove to paralyse the nation's will and to set its most heroic efforts at naught... As defeat seemed to loom, as French military morale broke and Russia made her separate peace, more and more were ready to believe that the Unseen Hand stood for a confederacy of evil men, taking their orders from Berlin, dedicated to the downfall of Britain by subversion of the military, the Cabinet, the Civil Service and the City; and working not only through spiritualists, whores and homosexuals."

    This view was supported by Lord Northcliffe (the owner of The Times, The Daily Mail and London Evening News), Lord Beaverbrook (The Daily Express), the journalist, Arnold Henry White (the author of The Hidden Hand), Ellis Powell (the editor of the Financial News), Horatio Bottomley (the editor of John Bull) and the former soldier, Harold S. Spencer, that the Unseen Hand was working behind the scenes to obtain a peace agreement with Germany.
     

    Maxse (son of an admiral) was the greatest German hater and he loathed Balfour. Although a deluded conspiracy theorist, Maxse was right nonetheless, Germany had to be crushed.
  26. @jilles dykstra
    Germany before WWI was indeed 'on top of the world'.
    Therefore already in 1907 Balfour said to the USA ambassador 'that war might be the cheapest way to preserve British prosperity'.

    in 1907 Balfour said to the USA ambassador ‘that war might be the cheapest way to preserve British prosperity

    Citation please! Balfour (at 21 the richest young man in England) may not have even made his most well known remark (“Nothing matters very much and few things matter at all”) but it at least summed up his attitude.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Balfour
    Balfour is thought to have formulated the basis for the evolutionary argument against naturalism. Balfour argued the Darwinian premise of selection for reproductive fitness cast doubt on scientific naturalism, because human cognitive facilities that would accurately perceive truth could be less advantageous than adaptation for evolutionarily useful illusions.

    [There is] no distinction to be drawn between the development of reason and that of any other faculty, physiological or psychical, by which the interests of the individual or the race are promoted. From the humblest form of nervous irritation at the one end of the scale, to the reasoning capacity of the most advanced races at the other, everything without exception (sensation, instinct, desire, volition) has been produced directly or indirectly, by natural causes acting for the most part on strictly utilitarian principles. Convenience, not knowledge, therefore, has been the main end to which this process has tended

    As for planning for war the Germans were told by Tirpitz that it would be better Admiral of the Fleet John Arbuthnot “Jacky” (or “Jackie”) Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher, proposed a preemptive strike against Germany,in 1904 and 1908.Fisher was forced to retire on reaching 70 years of age in 1911. That year he predicted that Germany would start a war in October 1914, following the anticipated completion date of work to widen the Kiel Canal to allow the passage of German battleships. The Kiel Canal was completed in July, and Germany started the war in August 1914.
    As I asserted above Germany made a serious mistake in not crushing Russia in 1905, but they were not so stupid as to think that a war could be avoided, they just were wrong about the importance of sea power and the value of waiting until Tirpitz completed his preparation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    This constant demanding that commenters furnish citations for every book they have read in the last 30 years is just arrogant and tacky. Who are you to demand proof of something another poster wrote? Are you grading term papers and demanding footnotes?

    And all the morons who think they are such intellectuals because the can google, copy and paste Wikepedia articles are just pathetic losers.

    By constantly demanding citations you arrogantly imply that posters are just making things up. And again, Wikepedia is very superficial and often dead wrong.

    Even 7 th graders are discouraged from using it and told to use actual books for research.

    Too many posters in this site just want to start fights and one up others. You are rude, tacky, arrogant and a typical ignorant user of Wikepedia
  27. Strauss, Heidegger: as thinker, who’s ahead?

    “Every fundamental order is a spatial order. One speaks of the constitution of a country or a piece of earth as of its fundamental order, its Nomos. Now, the true, actual fundamental order touches in its essential core upon particular spatial boundaries and separations, upon particular quantities and a particular partition of the earth. At the beginning of every great epoch there stands a great land-appropriation. In particular, every significant alteration and every resituating of the image of the earth is bound up with world-political alterations and with a new division of the earth, with a new land-appropriation.”
    ― Carl Schmitt, Land and Sea: A World-Historical Meditation

    Germany was caught in the middle, and worse, strong enough to constitute a potential European hegemon. Schmitt seems to understand the basis of the German problem had nothing to do with whether existence proceeds essence.

    “The understanding of every type of representation disappears with the spread of economic thinking.” ― Carl Schmitt, Rm̲ischer Katholizismus Und Politische Form

    Schmitt could sound very like Heidegger.

    Read More
  28. @jilles dykstra
    No suckering needed:
    Henry Morgenthau, 'Ambassador Morgenthau's Story', New Yirk, 1918
    Heath W. Lowry, 'The story behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story', Istanbul 1990
    Enough anti German USA citizens.

    http://spartacus-educational.com/FWWmaxse.htm
    Leo Maxse favoured an alliance with France against the threat of Germany. Andrew S. Thompson has pointed out: “Fear of Germany’s economic and military strength developed into an unhealthy obsession with conspiracy theories. A keen spy-hunter, on one occasion he is even said to have advised a close friend to dispense with the services of his German nanny, whose lengthy bicycle rides in the English countryside were enough to convince Maxse that she was a secret agent.”

    During the First World War [Leo] Maxse claimed the existence of a secret society called the Unseen Hand. As Ernest Sackville Turner, the author of Dear Old Blighty (1980) has pointed out: “One of the great delusions of the war was that there existed an Unseen (or Hidden, or Invisible) Hand, a pro-German influence which perennially strove to paralyse the nation’s will and to set its most heroic efforts at naught… As defeat seemed to loom, as French military morale broke and Russia made her separate peace, more and more were ready to believe that the Unseen Hand stood for a confederacy of evil men, taking their orders from Berlin, dedicated to the downfall of Britain by subversion of the military, the Cabinet, the Civil Service and the City; and working not only through spiritualists, whores and homosexuals.”

    This view was supported by Lord Northcliffe (the owner of The Times, The Daily Mail and London Evening News), Lord Beaverbrook (The Daily Express), the journalist, Arnold Henry White (the author of The Hidden Hand), Ellis Powell (the editor of the Financial News), Horatio Bottomley (the editor of John Bull) and the former soldier, Harold S. Spencer, that the Unseen Hand was working behind the scenes to obtain a peace agreement with Germany.

    Maxse (son of an admiral) was the greatest German hater and he loathed Balfour. Although a deluded conspiracy theorist, Maxse was right nonetheless, Germany had to be crushed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Although a deluded conspiracy theorist, Maxse was right nonetheless, Germany had to be crushed.
     
    It did? What's the basis of that claim?
  29. Of all the proposed Paths to the Third Reich, the least-studied, for obvious reasons, is the one through the commies. The left started a fight it couldn’t finish, unlike in Russia. The Nazis finished it, for a little while, because the weak and shortsighted German ruling class didn’t feel up to fighting itself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Indeed, we fought the wrong guys in WWII Europe.

    We're talking about an alleged '6M Jews & 5M others' ... 11,000,000.
    There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, 1,250,000 at Auschwitz, or 250,000 at Sobibor) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.
  30. Jul 28, 2016 How Did The U.S. End Up With A Two-Party System?

    Democrats and Republicans dominate the American political system, leaving third parties behind. So why is there a two party system?

    Read More
  31. Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Again, & again, & again.

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-files-massive-indictment-against-jcc-bomb-hoaxer-for-thousands-of-counts-of-threats-extortion-fraud/

    JCC bomb hoaxer charged with vast list of offenses, including threats to execute children, blow up planes
    US-Israeli teen hacker accused in Israeli court of making over 2,000 intimidating calls to Jewish institutions, malls, schools, airlines and police in US and worldwide; threatening US senator and top defense official

    Jew arrested for dozens of fake 'hate crimes'
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/23/israeli-jew-19-arrested-antisemitic-hate-crime-hoax-spree/
    excerpt: "last month concerned a suspect who allegedly vandalized Chicago’s Loop Synagogue and was apparently caught on surveillance video camera. The man, already facing a March trial on unrelated charges, was charged with a hate crime.
    In December, a synagogue was vandalized with feces in Santa Monica, California. No arrest has yet been made in that case.
    Almost all of the other hate crimes in recent weeks and months have been false bomb threats. Now, Israeli police believe they have identified the person responsible for most of those threats, which sparked panic worldwide."

    Staged 'antisemitic' crimes are the rule, not the exception.
    As a rule, these are never 'crimes' that are tried in courts of law.

    These are only what some people 'report' as 'hate crimes', not what was actually charged against someone & tried in court.
    IOW, if someone doesn't like what someone said, they then report it as 'racist, antisemitic, anti-whomever' and voila! ... instant 'hate crime' statistics.

    Is mentioning that Israeli immigration laws allow JEWS ONLY considered a 'hate crime', how about Israel's huge WALL?

    The question to ask is: 'Who Benefits?'

  32. @guest
    Of all the proposed Paths to the Third Reich, the least-studied, for obvious reasons, is the one through the commies. The left started a fight it couldn't finish, unlike in Russia. The Nazis finished it, for a little while, because the weak and shortsighted German ruling class didn't feel up to fighting itself.

    Indeed, we fought the wrong guys in WWII Europe.

    We’re talking about an alleged ’6M Jews & 5M others’ … 11,000,000.
    There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, 1,250,000 at Auschwitz, or 250,000 at Sobibor) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Graves?
    Haven't you heard the Germans skinned them for lampshades, boiled off the fat for soap, ground up the bones for fertilizer and used the muscles, cartilage, ligaments and organs for food for the vicious German shepherds that tore the 6 million billion to shreds?

    That's why there are no graves.
  33. @Priss Factor
    Yes, again.

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-suspects-arrested-over-swastika-graffiti-on-synagogues/

    Again, & again, & again.

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-files-massive-indictment-against-jcc-bomb-hoaxer-for-thousands-of-counts-of-threats-extortion-fraud/

    JCC bomb hoaxer charged with vast list of offenses, including threats to execute children, blow up planes
    US-Israeli teen hacker accused in Israeli court of making over 2,000 intimidating calls to Jewish institutions, malls, schools, airlines and police in US and worldwide; threatening US senator and top defense official

    Jew arrested for dozens of fake ‘hate crimes’

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/23/israeli-jew-19-arrested-antisemitic-hate-crime-hoax-spree/

    excerpt: “last month concerned a suspect who allegedly vandalized Chicago’s Loop Synagogue and was apparently caught on surveillance video camera. The man, already facing a March trial on unrelated charges, was charged with a hate crime.
    In December, a synagogue was vandalized with feces in Santa Monica, California. No arrest has yet been made in that case.
    Almost all of the other hate crimes in recent weeks and months have been false bomb threats. Now, Israeli police believe they have identified the person responsible for most of those threats, which sparked panic worldwide.”

    Staged ‘antisemitic’ crimes are the rule, not the exception.
    As a rule, these are never ‘crimes’ that are tried in courts of law.

    These are only what some people ‘report’ as ‘hate crimes’, not what was actually charged against someone & tried in court.
    IOW, if someone doesn’t like what someone said, they then report it as ‘racist, antisemitic, anti-whomever’ and voila! … instant ‘hate crime’ statistics.

    Is mentioning that Israeli immigration laws allow JEWS ONLY considered a ‘hate crime’, how about Israel’s huge WALL?

    The question to ask is: ‘Who Benefits?’

    Read More
  34. @bjdubbs
    C0urage is in a sense the first of the virtues for Aristotle, because it is the first virtue that Aristotle discusse in the Nicomachean Ethics. But Aristotle discusses it first because it is the lowest of the virtues; it is the beginning of the ascent from the base virtues (available to all men) to the higher virtues, such as magnanimity and philosophy. The reason that we tend to think of courage as an ingredient in all of the virtues is because we are all Nietzschean warriors who eat danger for breakfast.

    Hey B J…..

    I have been known to eat courage for breakfast.at the crack of dawn to be more precise
    You need courage first and foremost to take the first steps up the ladder of enlightenment

    Read More
  35. @Sean

    http://spartacus-educational.com/FWWmaxse.htm
    Leo Maxse favoured an alliance with France against the threat of Germany. Andrew S. Thompson has pointed out: "Fear of Germany's economic and military strength developed into an unhealthy obsession with conspiracy theories. A keen spy-hunter, on one occasion he is even said to have advised a close friend to dispense with the services of his German nanny, whose lengthy bicycle rides in the English countryside were enough to convince Maxse that she was a secret agent."

    During the First World War [Leo] Maxse claimed the existence of a secret society called the Unseen Hand. As Ernest Sackville Turner, the author of Dear Old Blighty (1980) has pointed out: "One of the great delusions of the war was that there existed an Unseen (or Hidden, or Invisible) Hand, a pro-German influence which perennially strove to paralyse the nation's will and to set its most heroic efforts at naught... As defeat seemed to loom, as French military morale broke and Russia made her separate peace, more and more were ready to believe that the Unseen Hand stood for a confederacy of evil men, taking their orders from Berlin, dedicated to the downfall of Britain by subversion of the military, the Cabinet, the Civil Service and the City; and working not only through spiritualists, whores and homosexuals."

    This view was supported by Lord Northcliffe (the owner of The Times, The Daily Mail and London Evening News), Lord Beaverbrook (The Daily Express), the journalist, Arnold Henry White (the author of The Hidden Hand), Ellis Powell (the editor of the Financial News), Horatio Bottomley (the editor of John Bull) and the former soldier, Harold S. Spencer, that the Unseen Hand was working behind the scenes to obtain a peace agreement with Germany.
     

    Maxse (son of an admiral) was the greatest German hater and he loathed Balfour. Although a deluded conspiracy theorist, Maxse was right nonetheless, Germany had to be crushed.

    Although a deluded conspiracy theorist, Maxse was right nonetheless, Germany had to be crushed.

    It did? What’s the basis of that claim?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    The Germans were planning a war, several years before 1914 and ending up fighting most of the world and getting ground down in WW1, didn't stop them starting WW2. Hence Merkel's refugee crisis initiative , a blitzkrieg of soft power against other European nation. They are at it again.
  36. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Sean

    in 1907 Balfour said to the USA ambassador ‘that war might be the cheapest way to preserve British prosperity
     
    Citation please! Balfour (at 21 the richest young man in England) may not have even made his most well known remark ("Nothing matters very much and few things matter at all") but it at least summed up his attitude.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Balfour
    Balfour is thought to have formulated the basis for the evolutionary argument against naturalism. Balfour argued the Darwinian premise of selection for reproductive fitness cast doubt on scientific naturalism, because human cognitive facilities that would accurately perceive truth could be less advantageous than adaptation for evolutionarily useful illusions.

    [There is] no distinction to be drawn between the development of reason and that of any other faculty, physiological or psychical, by which the interests of the individual or the race are promoted. From the humblest form of nervous irritation at the one end of the scale, to the reasoning capacity of the most advanced races at the other, everything without exception (sensation, instinct, desire, volition) has been produced directly or indirectly, by natural causes acting for the most part on strictly utilitarian principles. Convenience, not knowledge, therefore, has been the main end to which this process has tended
     

     
    As for planning for war the Germans were told by Tirpitz that it would be better Admiral of the Fleet John Arbuthnot "Jacky" (or "Jackie") Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher, proposed a preemptive strike against Germany,in 1904 and 1908.Fisher was forced to retire on reaching 70 years of age in 1911. That year he predicted that Germany would start a war in October 1914, following the anticipated completion date of work to widen the Kiel Canal to allow the passage of German battleships. The Kiel Canal was completed in July, and Germany started the war in August 1914.
    As I asserted above Germany made a serious mistake in not crushing Russia in 1905, but they were not so stupid as to think that a war could be avoided, they just were wrong about the importance of sea power and the value of waiting until Tirpitz completed his preparation.

    This constant demanding that commenters furnish citations for every book they have read in the last 30 years is just arrogant and tacky. Who are you to demand proof of something another poster wrote? Are you grading term papers and demanding footnotes?

    And all the morons who think they are such intellectuals because the can google, copy and paste Wikepedia articles are just pathetic losers.

    By constantly demanding citations you arrogantly imply that posters are just making things up. And again, Wikepedia is very superficial and often dead wrong.

    Even 7 th graders are discouraged from using it and told to use actual books for research.

    Too many posters in this site just want to start fights and one up others. You are rude, tacky, arrogant and a typical ignorant user of Wikepedia

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    A quote that, for example Cheney said a massive terror attack on the the US was required to get proper government would require a citation and those who use such quotes without citing the source can depend on a challenge.

    Balfour was a truly great philosopher who put his finger on the reason human cognitive facilities cannot be trusted.

  37. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Wally
    Indeed, we fought the wrong guys in WWII Europe.

    We're talking about an alleged '6M Jews & 5M others' ... 11,000,000.
    There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, 1,250,000 at Auschwitz, or 250,000 at Sobibor) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.

    Graves?
    Haven’t you heard the Germans skinned them for lampshades, boiled off the fat for soap, ground up the bones for fertilizer and used the muscles, cartilage, ligaments and organs for food for the vicious German shepherds that tore the 6 million billion to shreds?

    That’s why there are no graves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @mcohen
    https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/sites/default/files/MMWG_Killing_Sites.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjKnfTk2sPUAhVGW5QKHQBiBfwQFgghMAE&usg=AFQjCNE4XEGCQgjtdE3rb6Oib5DeUsWmYw

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2087735/British-archaeologist-discovers-fresh-evidence-mass-graves-World-War-Two-death-camp-Treblinka.html

    https://ajcberlin.org/en/programs/forgotten-mass-graves-holocaust-eastern-europe

    Just a few links not including Lithuania which i personally know off.

    http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/312166/excavation-of-jewish-mass-grave-halted-in-lithuania/

    http://www.lzb.lt/en/2016/09/02/holocaust-mass-grave-in-vilnius-region-hidden-by-bushes/
  38. Yes the penny has dropped.trump was elected to stay in office long enough to give russia a free hand in syria.

    America collects the arab payout for weapons in exchange.what could possibly go wrong .

    The iranians could upset the apple cart in yemen.or afghanistan.

    Read More
  39. @Anonymous
    Graves?
    Haven't you heard the Germans skinned them for lampshades, boiled off the fat for soap, ground up the bones for fertilizer and used the muscles, cartilage, ligaments and organs for food for the vicious German shepherds that tore the 6 million billion to shreds?

    That's why there are no graves.
    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Claimed mass graves with no human remains to be seen in those laughable, Zionist fake news links.
    Show us the claimed human remains that Jews say are there.
    You cannot because they are not there, never were.

    - We're talking about an alleged '6M Jews & 5M others' ... 11,000,000.
    There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, 1,250,000 at Auschwitz, or 250,000 at Sobibor) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.

    recommended:
    another Potemkin Village / Treblinka exhibit on Sturdy-Colls bogus 'excavation'
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10737

    Treblinka: Caroline Sturdy-Colls lied.
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11121

    1000 year old Viking mass graves excavated, identified, etc., but no such 'holocaust' mass graves. Why? / +Treblinka
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10137
  40. @John Jeremiah Smith

    What were the a priory answers to the question “Am I really here?”
     
    Did you mean a priori? A "priory" is something else entirely.

    "Probability of validity" is a non sequitur. Validity and probability do not intersect.

    'Taint Latin, It's Old English.

    Validity and discovery rarely intersect, almost always of trivial interest. Probability and understanding often intersect, generally of significant interest. Certain discoveries of significant interest are rare finds, and the ground has already been carefully scoured.

    Read More
  41. @jacques sheete

    Although a deluded conspiracy theorist, Maxse was right nonetheless, Germany had to be crushed.
     
    It did? What's the basis of that claim?

    The Germans were planning a war, several years before 1914 and ending up fighting most of the world and getting ground down in WW1, didn’t stop them starting WW2. Hence Merkel’s refugee crisis initiative , a blitzkrieg of soft power against other European nation. They are at it again.

    Read More
  42. @Anonymous
    This constant demanding that commenters furnish citations for every book they have read in the last 30 years is just arrogant and tacky. Who are you to demand proof of something another poster wrote? Are you grading term papers and demanding footnotes?

    And all the morons who think they are such intellectuals because the can google, copy and paste Wikepedia articles are just pathetic losers.

    By constantly demanding citations you arrogantly imply that posters are just making things up. And again, Wikepedia is very superficial and often dead wrong.

    Even 7 th graders are discouraged from using it and told to use actual books for research.

    Too many posters in this site just want to start fights and one up others. You are rude, tacky, arrogant and a typical ignorant user of Wikepedia

    A quote that, for example Cheney said a massive terror attack on the the US was required to get proper government would require a citation and those who use such quotes without citing the source can depend on a challenge.

    Balfour was a truly great philosopher who put his finger on the reason human cognitive facilities cannot be trusted.

    Read More
  43. @Anonymous
    Definition of amount of information transmitted:
    Change of probabilities after receiving the message in comparison with those before receiving it.
    What were the a priory answers to the question "Am I really here?"
    Did you change the probabilities of validity of one or the other variant of answer
    by your thoughtful ... ?
    So what is the information content of your comment ?
    BTW, can you kindly translate apparently Latin sentence?

    Is that you, “Anonymous”?
    Are you really here?
    Or there?

    Read More
  44. @Lot

    Butterfield’s book criticized the view of history as an upward progress towards modern constitutional democracy.
     
    History from the dark ages through the entire time of the Whig historians and up to 1914 was essentially just upward progress on almost every front. Even Marx, writing before 1914 as well, also saw history as upward progress.

    Even Marx, writing before 1914 as well, also saw history as upward progress.

    Well, as a Marxist, he would, wouldn’t he? He was on the right side of history.
    Until history put him on the wrong side.

    Read More
  45. Thanks to Derb and Prof. Gottfried.

    Why can’t academics solve problems? I used to ask myself that and questions like that while thinking about the $2.5 billion spent on higher education the last decade in my small metro area, population about 600,000. All that money seemed to have no effect on the quality of life and quality of the people.

    “No matter what aspect of German history was under consideration, we were expected to uncover a path leading to the Third Reich.” Prof. Gottfried pretty much says the unthinkable here, that some academic thought is expected to conform to popular and elite opinion, which, in effect, whitewashes truth, gives untruth a high-IQ varnish, and sabotages freedom of inquiry.

    No one need wonder why even shithole Third World countries and Communist thug states have their polytechnics, institutes, colleges, and universities.

    Read More
  46. History from the dark ages through the entire time of the Whig historians and up to 1914 was essentially just upward progress on almost every front.

    Sure. Ask anyone in Chicago how much “progress” has been made on the murder front, for example. Or anyone in Iraq how much “progress” has been made on the Democratic Gummint front. Or any Muslim about “progress” on the women’s front.

    Read More
  47. “Why are we Americans since 1945 not living in a Golden Age”? That’s a question I’d like to ask Prof. Gottfried, but I gather he’s mostly answered that in his published works, which I unfortunately know only from Amazon reviews, his occasional writing here, and references to his thinking by other writers.

    My guess is most Americans are pretty much okay with having ceded their full powers of thought and moral acuity to our overlords in exchange for discretionary uncome for consumer goods, unearned tax and other legal preferences, standardized “narratives” issuing from government, media, and corporate managers that they can parrot as though they still retained civic agency. The price for that is blindness and extreme vulnerability. The onetime corporate types I’ve known didn’t know they were getting the ax until they got the ax.

    I’ve thought of a constitutional convention as perhaps one of the few ways of restoring moral agency to Americans, and had a letter published locally suggesting that. Any suggestions from Prof. Gottfried?

    Read More
  48. @mcohen
    https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/sites/default/files/MMWG_Killing_Sites.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjKnfTk2sPUAhVGW5QKHQBiBfwQFgghMAE&usg=AFQjCNE4XEGCQgjtdE3rb6Oib5DeUsWmYw

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2087735/British-archaeologist-discovers-fresh-evidence-mass-graves-World-War-Two-death-camp-Treblinka.html

    https://ajcberlin.org/en/programs/forgotten-mass-graves-holocaust-eastern-europe

    Just a few links not including Lithuania which i personally know off.

    http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/312166/excavation-of-jewish-mass-grave-halted-in-lithuania/

    http://www.lzb.lt/en/2016/09/02/holocaust-mass-grave-in-vilnius-region-hidden-by-bushes/

    Claimed mass graves with no human remains to be seen in those laughable, Zionist fake news links.
    Show us the claimed human remains that Jews say are there.
    You cannot because they are not there, never were.

    [MORE]

    - We’re talking about an alleged ’6M Jews & 5M others’ … 11,000,000.
    There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, 1,250,000 at Auschwitz, or 250,000 at Sobibor) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.

    recommended:
    another Potemkin Village / Treblinka exhibit on Sturdy-Colls bogus ‘excavation’

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10737

    Treblinka: Caroline Sturdy-Colls lied.

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11121

    1000 year old Viking mass graves excavated, identified, etc., but no such ‘holocaust’ mass graves. Why? / +Treblinka

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10137

    Read More
  49. @Immigrant from former USSR
    Derbyshire continued in the article cited:

    Got that? I quoted that because it is as far from being of interest to me as anything I have encountered in, oh, at least ten years: farther than the text of the 300-page booklet my life insurance company sends me every year to explain their policies; farther than that report from the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development that I found waiting for me at the NR office one morning; farther than the collected speeches of Kim Il Sung. Yet it's of interest to — is absolutely fascinating to — a lot of people. I know some of them. I bet the letter writer (Jerry C. Meng of Imlay City, Mich. — Hi there, Jerry!) thinks about that stuff for hours at a time. I bet he could give you an impromptu lecture on it. I bet he knows the difference between homousion and homoiousion. (Please do not email in to tell me! I don't want to know! For pity's sake, please!) That's his interest, that's his pleasure. Jolly good luck to him.

    Science is just as far away from most people's interest as hypostatic union and Dr. Ludwig Ott's lucubrations are from mine. And that's fine. It's a free country. Chacun à son goût. But don't call me a white supremacist just because I'm curious about human nature.
     

    I.f.f.U.: reading this 10 years ago, I learned the word "lucubrations".

    Middle aged vet said: The quotation in question (regarding the simple word hypostasis) was nothing less than the most recent articulation of the honest thoughts of many people, some of whom had lived lives of great love and holiness, reflecting on a book which is widely considered divine in origin, describing events that are widely recognized as accurate and true, reflecting generally acknowledged realities that have survived dozens of generations of hatred, comforting people with love in their hearts who have been discouraged by the hatred surrounding them. Mock all you want, but when was the last time you expressed an opinion, based on the opinion of many people who had lived good lives, reflecting on a book which is widely and, for all you know, correctly considered divine in origin? Look, I have run across quite a lot of cynical old guys who lived in the USSR – although, this being 2017, there aren’t really all that many of them left – (cheap lousy cigarettes, cheap semi-poisonous alcohol, and nagging wives are murder on mortality rates) – and I get it, I get the desire to feel young again and to engage in adolescent mockery of Christians. I am sure you are just a simple old country boy who just wants to have some vodka and a few cigarettes and a good evening with friends before heading to work the next day for the Despised Boss, cursing out in the mean time anyone and everyone you can, because it makes you feel real and good. I am sure you are admirable in many ways. But just because you spent much of your life in a country devoted to lies does not mean that the good people who have lived and died lives of sacrifice and love for the last 2,000 years should be ridiculed. Grow up, my young friend. “Lucubrations” – what a big word, so badly used!!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lucubration
    laborious or intensive study; also : the product of such study —usually used in plural.
    *
    efim polenov:

    Grow up, my young friend.
     
    *
    Не учился. И поскольку,
    Был восмидесяти лет.
    Он не рос уже нисколько.
    Укорачивался дед.

    *
    Твардовский. Тёркин на том свете.
  50. @efim polenov
    Middle aged vet said: The quotation in question (regarding the simple word hypostasis) was nothing less than the most recent articulation of the honest thoughts of many people, some of whom had lived lives of great love and holiness, reflecting on a book which is widely considered divine in origin, describing events that are widely recognized as accurate and true, reflecting generally acknowledged realities that have survived dozens of generations of hatred, comforting people with love in their hearts who have been discouraged by the hatred surrounding them. Mock all you want, but when was the last time you expressed an opinion, based on the opinion of many people who had lived good lives, reflecting on a book which is widely and, for all you know, correctly considered divine in origin? Look, I have run across quite a lot of cynical old guys who lived in the USSR - although, this being 2017, there aren't really all that many of them left - (cheap lousy cigarettes, cheap semi-poisonous alcohol, and nagging wives are murder on mortality rates) - and I get it, I get the desire to feel young again and to engage in adolescent mockery of Christians. I am sure you are just a simple old country boy who just wants to have some vodka and a few cigarettes and a good evening with friends before heading to work the next day for the Despised Boss, cursing out in the mean time anyone and everyone you can, because it makes you feel real and good. I am sure you are admirable in many ways. But just because you spent much of your life in a country devoted to lies does not mean that the good people who have lived and died lives of sacrifice and love for the last 2,000 years should be ridiculed. Grow up, my young friend. "Lucubrations" - what a big word, so badly used!!!!

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lucubration

    laborious or intensive study; also : the product of such study —usually used in plural.
    *
    efim polenov:

    Grow up, my young friend.

    *
    Не учился. И поскольку,
    Был восмидесяти лет.
    Он не рос уже нисколько.
    Укорачивался дед.

    *
    Твардовский. Тёркин на том свете.

    Read More
    • Replies: @middle aged vet
    And yet - I was not happy that the recent Penguin anthology of Russian poetry left out Tvardovsky. One of my favorite poets, although rather high on the self-regarding parameter, don't you think?
    Our friend may have lived to 80. Good for him. My grandparents, together, lived 300 years (5 of those spent in the Czarist army tending to horses - thanks, Granddad!). Sadly, I have not heard many good things about them - they were, all in all, merely average people, likable at times, not so likeable at other times - but, while they were below average in almost every way, I never heard that they ever once classed themselves above the people who said what needs to be said, and accurately, about what Mr Derbyshire belittingly called the object of lucubrations (the hypostatic union). How would you feel if you called your daughter Tanya and someone thought it would be funny to make fun of the word Tanya as being too intellectual?
    Derbyshire is a brilliant person and he knew what he was doing when he used the word lucubration. In English, it has overtones of other words, none of them laudatory.
    Also, real Russian poets stay away from words like ookarachivat'sya. Not that the editor of Novy Mir was not a real Russian poet .... but still: ookarachivat'sya? Sophomoric, I would say. Maybe I am missing something, though ...And "grow up, my young friend" was not addressed to you! It was addressed to your much younger self , maybe, but rhetorically primarily to my own much younger self - the rhetorical device has a simple description - Ya stal dostupen' ooteshenyoo, na shtaw menya Bawga mennya rahpteyt', Kagda khot' odnomoo tvarenneeyoo, ya mawk svabawdoo darohvat' (I have become accessible to consolation, why should I murmur against God if even to a single creature the gift of freedom I could give?) . God is good and the summer night is beautiful.
  51. @Immigrant from former USSR
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lucubration
    laborious or intensive study; also : the product of such study —usually used in plural.
    *
    efim polenov:

    Grow up, my young friend.
     
    *
    Не учился. И поскольку,
    Был восмидесяти лет.
    Он не рос уже нисколько.
    Укорачивался дед.

    *
    Твардовский. Тёркин на том свете.

    And yet – I was not happy that the recent Penguin anthology of Russian poetry left out Tvardovsky. One of my favorite poets, although rather high on the self-regarding parameter, don’t you think?
    Our friend may have lived to 80. Good for him. My grandparents, together, lived 300 years (5 of those spent in the Czarist army tending to horses – thanks, Granddad!). Sadly, I have not heard many good things about them – they were, all in all, merely average people, likable at times, not so likeable at other times – but, while they were below average in almost every way, I never heard that they ever once classed themselves above the people who said what needs to be said, and accurately, about what Mr Derbyshire belittingly called the object of lucubrations (the hypostatic union). How would you feel if you called your daughter Tanya and someone thought it would be funny to make fun of the word Tanya as being too intellectual?
    Derbyshire is a brilliant person and he knew what he was doing when he used the word lucubration. In English, it has overtones of other words, none of them laudatory.
    Also, real Russian poets stay away from words like ookarachivat’sya. Not that the editor of Novy Mir was not a real Russian poet …. but still: ookarachivat’sya? Sophomoric, I would say. Maybe I am missing something, though …And “grow up, my young friend” was not addressed to you! It was addressed to your much younger self , maybe, but rhetorically primarily to my own much younger self – the rhetorical device has a simple description – Ya stal dostupen’ ooteshenyoo, na shtaw menya Bawga mennya rahpteyt’, Kagda khot’ odnomoo tvarenneeyoo, ya mawk svabawdoo darohvat’ (I have become accessible to consolation, why should I murmur against God if even to a single creature the gift of freedom I could give?) . God is good and the summer night is beautiful.

    Read More
  52. Correction to my Russian spelling:
    восмидесяти —> восьмидесяти.
    I wrote it by memory; did not copy from anywhere.
    I.f.f.U.

    Read More
  53. Middle aged vet said: Immigrant from former USSR – Actually, it is Ifu, not iffu – and I think your punctuation in the Russian quote was off (period where a comma should be, that sort of thing). Anyway, from the great long poem (Vasilii Tyorkin in the Afterworld) by the editor of Noviy Mir:

    “Well he never went in for learning. And to the extent that he was 80 years old, and hadn’t really grown up at all, he reproached himself.”

    (The tone is not mockery, it is subtle regret and a depiction of an admirable and simple, although (from the mistaken view of the poet) limited retrospective view of an important aspect of the ‘subject’ of the quote’s life (in an American context, whether one hung out with one’s buddies talking about stupid stuff or whether one tried to figure out the important things of life, with an extra fillip of making subtle fun of schools and books as being the place where one “studies” life. Remember Radar and “Ah Bach” – that is the neighborhood these four lines are in).

    The problem with the word “reproached” in the original Russian is that it belittles the subject of the four lines. If he indeed thought in terms of “reproaching” himself, he also had the background knowledge – the years as a peasant child in a poor but spectacularly beautiful Russian hinterland, the memory of, one hopes, saintly loving grandparents who died in poverty, and so on, that should be added to the word “reproached” to make it poetically satisfying.

    Non-Russian readers probably have no idea who the editor of Noviy Mir was. The closest American equivalent I can think of is a mix of Snoopy as the “simple country boy” who grew up to be a WWI biplane pilot and Bill Maudlin, heavier on the Bill Maudlin side, but just a poet, and about ten times more popular than Rod McKuen or Jodi Picoult.

    There is not a single good line in Russian poetry – and I have read tens of thousands of lines of good Russian poetry – in which that particular verb (reproached oneself) is used well. It is ok in the Bible but not in 19th or 20th century poetry. IF anyone has a counterexample I would be interested.

    Thanks for reading, Immigrant from USSR.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Limbaugh and company certainly entertain. But a steady diet of ideological comfort food is no substitute for hearty intellectual fare.
Once as a colonial project, now as a moral playground, the ancient continent remains the object of Great Power maneuvering