Hierarchy

The most important thing that can be said of hierarchies is that once established, their tendency is to hold on to power. But the second most important thing to be said is that hierarchies are never eternal, never truly static, as there are always continually uprising currents of change either influencing the hierarchy to return to its roots or seeking to annihilate it altogether. Sometimes established hierarchies don’t notice undercurrents of change soon enough to incorporate them into their established ways. Such seems to have been the case with the aristocracy of France before the Revolution, which though cognizant of and even catering to the Enlightenment and the radical new ideas of the intellectuals of the time, thought their status as arbiters of power would remain unchanged. And, such seems to be the case within the Republican Party, albeit with some notable exceptions. Within a mere year and a half, the Tea Party movement has shaken American politics to the foundations. However, some within the Party hierarchy still remain oblivious to or distinctly dismissive of the significance of the political revolution happening under their noses. They maintain a Louis the XVI posture of, “What? You say the Bastille has fallen and peasants with pitchforks are at the gates of the palace? Nonsense! Tell the guards to shoo them away.” Too many within the established Republican hierarchy still expect matters will go on as usual, with elderly statesmen who’ve duly waited in line a lifetime for the opportunity to be nominated expecting their due anointment. But those who have been waiting in the wings may never get their cue to enter stage Left, never be that “poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more,” much less fill their long expected central roles. As Richard Land, a prominent leader within the powerful southern Baptist church has said, “We’re not going to do what we normally do, nominate the steady beau. As the grassroots Tea Party movement showed in state after state in the 2010 congressional elections, this is no longer a hierarchical party. And the field of contenders doesn’t overwhelm anyone. All the major candidates have significant problems.” Land gets it. Old hierarchical political models will no longer work. That’s because the rising revolutionaries have crashed the gates. Certainly the new (actually, quite old and traditional conservative) revolutionary principles have been brought to bear in Delaware, where Tea Party, conservative favorites overthrew establishment candidates. While the results were not, to state the obvious, what the conservative movement desired; nonetheless, the hierarchy cannot remain what it was, should not expect to maintain old ways. It has to change if it is to remain relevant. It has to move toward the “new” conservatism. There are positive signs some respected Republican leaders in Delaware “get it.” For instance, the appearances of Pete DuPont and Charlie Copeland at the Tea Party rally last year at least indicate an acknowledgement of Tea Party power and principles. But diehard “moderates” within the hierarchy continue to resist, expecting conservatives to continue their old patterns of behavior, believing conservatives will fall into line with their votes and money. Resistance, however, will ultimately prove futile, as the burgeoning power of the conservative movement nationally and within the state continues to grow. “Moderates” must join the emerging revolution or permanently be left out in the cold. All the above doesn’t mean the conservative upstarts should put the members of the old hierarchy into tumbrels headed off to the guillotine, but it does mean the momentum is with conservatives, not with the “moderates” who have dominated the party structure for so long. It means “moderates” will have to, well, “moderate” according to conservative principles if they are to remain relevant to the Party. To put it another way, the ancien regime run by “moderates is done for. It’s time for them to move with the new political currents or be left behind, consigned to near irrelevancy while holding on to an ever shrinking power base. In the meantime, rising conservatives should forsake vengeance and use every power of persuasion to bring moderates into the conservative camp; not vice versa. Conservatives also should extend olive branches whenever they can—but without compromising or abandoning principles as they have done so often in the past.

53 thoughts on “Hierarchy”

  1. The GOP establishment can help but the clowns in the so called leadership have to go and maybe after Kovach loses they can finally get the hint.

    The Tea Party event in 2009 and 2010 were good ones. It was a stroke a genius to have Gov duPont at the event I am not sure who was responsible for that one but nice job. The weather was much better also.

    The best thing about today is we no longer have to put up with Mike Castle. I hope the other GOP pseudo elites leave also.

  2. The Tea Party has a long way to go before its influence in Delaware matches the power it has brought to bear in places like Utah, where it essentially now owns the state Republican Party.

    For now, power in the party belongs to those who name the convention delegates, the representative district chairs. Who they choose to send to next year’s convention will determine whether the old order stays or goes.

    And there seems to be very little turnover in that group going into 2011 from the 2009 convention that re elected Tom Ross without opposition. Change comes from the bottom up. So far in Delaware, the Tea Party has earned little influence in the party itself.

    Kent and Sussex are more likely to send more Tea Party delegates than is New Castle. But 55.34% of Delaware’s Republicans live in New Castle. Without change here, where the Tea Party is weakest, the Republican establishment will remain strongest, and therefore dominant statewide.

  3. Without change here [NCC] , where the Tea Party is weakest, the Republican establishment will remain strongest, and therefore dominant statewide.

    True, but K & S will ultimately decide- in the primary; SOS Wilmidelphians won’t turn-out at the Slower Lower pace.

  4. Fay
    An extremely amusing, very interesting and appropriately accurate analogy of Delaware’s current political debacle.
    However the French chose to guillotine everyone as an answer and that is not an option in our fair state and it is quite bloody.
    I chuckled slightly as I considered the answer to Delaware’s unique situation. As the hierarchy would have it, money should control who is electable and who is not. As the Tea Party would have it; the idealist is supreme and we should be able to choose who represents us based upon the principles on which they stand and upon the Constitution.
    As fate would have it, money does indeed count. But on the other when the peasants are fed up and demand their way, the nobility gets edgy and that causes problems.
    If anybody has an accurate and WORKABLE answer, I would certainly be interested in hearing it.
    The peasants are divided; they like the freedom of being able to choose their own candidates but they have come to love the money that it takes to elect them. Grinning in the background is of course, the nobility with the money, offering tidbits, like kitty treat to feral cats.

  5. “Such seems to have been the case with the aristocracy of “France before the Revolution, which though cognizant of and even catering to the Enlightenment and the radical new ideas of the intellectuals of the time, thought their status as arbiters of power would remain unchanged.”

    Ah yes, the age of enlightenment or “The Renaissance”, a time of new ideas and great strides in science art, thought and religion. This period of history truly improved humanity.
    Today we are living in the age of “The False Enlightenment”. For the last decade or more I have kept a rough journal of things that I think fit into the category of “False Enlightenment”. The realization of this “False Enlightenment” funny as it may seem started with the birth of my son and the fact that I was socially pressured, through common practice of the day, to witness this birth close up and personal. I considered this obligation an example of false enlightenment and although I participated with enthusiasm, I couldn’t help thinking that a good old fashioned waiting room would have sufficed .
    In the day of my parents and grandparents, the anxious “parent to be” waited nearby as the experts handled the situation. Cigars where handed out, and everybody was happy.
    This is around the time when I started to take notice and question the wisdom and enlightenment of modern society compared to our parents and grandparents, who by the way where considered in today’s terms as the “greatest generation”. The journal contains things ranging from science and medicine, to entertainment and religion. Some day it may make a good book. Maybe the title could be ‘The age of False Enlightenment” or “If It Ain’t Broke Don’t Fix It”. I guess it is natural for people to place a jaded importance to existing society since we of course are living it in the present, but in my opinion we are just a minute notch on the time line and if you take a close look we are truly living in “The Age Of False Enlightenment”
    P.S sorry if I went off topic.

  6. I AGREE. I would love it if you emailed me a guest post on it to wet our tastes. I wonder sometimes about what is meaningful and what is not. Life has meaning but some not always were we put it. I had better follow my own rules and make at least an on topic statement.

    I think Pete Du Pont and Charlie Copeland share our values. A lot of people do. If we hold the banner high in an inspirational way not a demanding way, we will get more rallying to it. It is not about forming a club with a pure membership. It is about forming a governing coalition which will advance our values and protect the traditions and foundations of which give us liberty.

    We have a non-left majority in Delaware. Let’s wed that to a governing majority rooted in modern common sense conservatism.

  7. FBH, I forget who said it, but the quote goes something like the following: Each age is possessed by a madness that becomes clearly apparent only to later generations.

    I rank fathers being designated as pregnant along with their wives–“We’re pregnant”–and being expected to participate in the birth process as a wee bit mad.

    Love the term “False Enlightenment,” but, hey, I also have my doubts about the first Enlightenment. (Insert heresy notice here.)

    Michael, I am speaking of the conservative movement as a whole, not just the Tea Partiers, though I may not have been absolutely clear. I truly believe conservatism is in the ascendancy and that the hierarchy will change.

    Now, back to sharpening those pitchforks…

    😉

  8. “Love the term “False Enlightenment,” but, hey, I also have my doubts about the first Enlightenment. (Insert heresy notice here.)”
    FVoshell ,don’t have doubts about the “first Enlightenment”. The “Age Of Enlightenment” and the “Renaissance” are interchangeable terms, and this period marked the rebirth and building of knowledge that was almost lost in the “dark ages” if not for a small segment of society (mainly ecclesiastical ).
    With the advent of a more free and thriving society this knowledge blossomed . I believe we are technically still in “The Renaissance” period. As a case in point, there has been exponential findings in medicine and science in the last century ,and we have just started to explore space.
    The problem is that we may now be sowing the seeds to the end of this period.

  9. The “Age Of Enlightenment” and the “Renaissance” are interchangeable terms, and this period marked the rebirth and building of knowledge that was almost lost in the “dark ages”….

    A summary of a different view of history based on evidence having to do with technology and the like:

    In many ways the term “Scientific Revolution” is as misleading as “Dark Ages.” Both were coined to discredit the medieval Church. The notion of a “Scientific Revolution” has been used to claim that science suddenly burst forth when a weakened Christianity could no longer prevent it, and as the recovery of classical learning made it possible. Both claims are as false as those concerning Colombus and the flat earth. First of all, classical learning did not provide an appropriate model for science. Second, the rise of science was already far along by the sixteenth century, having been nurtured by devout Scholastics in that most Christian invention, the university. As Alfred W. Crosby pointed out, “in our time the word medieval is often used as a synonym for muddle-headedness, but it can be more accurately used to indicate precise definition and meticulous reasoning, that is to say, clarity” (his emphasis). Granted that the era of scientific discovery that occurred in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was indeed marvelous, the cultural equivalent of the blossoming of a rose. However, just as roses do not spring up overnight but must undergo a long period of normal growth before they even bud, so, too, the blossoming of science was the result of centuries of normal intellectual progress…. Copernicus provides an unsurpassed example of this point.
    (For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch Hunts and the End of Slavery by Rodney Stark :134-135)

    For the past two or three centuries, every educated person has known that from the fall of Rome until about the fifteenth century Europe was submerged in the “Dark Ages”–centuries of ignorance, superstition and miser–from which it was suddenly, almost miraculously rescued, first by the Renaissance and then by the Enlightenment. But it didn’t happen that way. Instead, during the so-called Dark Ages, European technology and science overtook and surpassed the rest of the world!
    The idea that Europe fell into the Dark Ages is a hoax originated by antireligous, and bitterly anti-Catholic, eighteenth-century intellectuals who were determined to assert the cultural superiority of their own times and who boosted their claim by denigrating previous centuries…
    …until very recently, even dictionaries and encyclopedias accepted the Dark Ages as historical fact. Some writers even seemed to suggest that people living in, say, the ninth century described their own time as one of backwardness and superstition.
    Fortunately, in the past few years these views have been so completely discredited that even some dictionaries and encyclopedias have begun to refer to the notion of Dark Ages as mythical.
    (The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism and Western Success by Rodney Stark :35)

  10. The Conservative Tea Party movement, I believe is true enlightenment. Even though it should, it doesn’t take the traditional Republican Party Establishment as a whole very seriously. It is considered now by many as not only being useless but detrimental to any movement toward freedom. Most people in this new movement feel that it is too difficult to fix the party, and are now straddling the middle with conservatives who want to move on.
    A separate and new movement of Tea Party and Delaware 9-12 Patriots, mixed with committeemen and party members have emerged, calling themselves the Conservative Caucasus, and consider that power has shifted from the party. The meeting has doubled in size in one month and is expected to double again next month. The new movement is speckled with professionals and people who view America the way of the nationalistic movement in the 1770’s. They have now settled down to business and started taking serious action.
    It has become a despised fact that money rules the Republican Party’s view of freedom. Freedom and the Republic have been linked inextricably together , leaving the Republican Party alone on the outside like a stranger knocking on the door.
    At first people who joined the new movement were cloaked in secrecy but have now thrown caution to the wind and work hard toward unity.

  11. …funny as it may seem started with the birth of my son and the fact that I was socially pressured, through common practice of the day, to witness this birth close up and personal. I considered this obligation an example of false enlightenment and although I participated with enthusiasm, I couldn’t help thinking that a good old fashioned waiting room would have sufficed……fightingbluehen

    And that’s your problem, shared by most of your fellow ‘moderates.’ You succumb to liberal fads when common sense dictates otherwise. Get a backbone and stand fast against liberal ‘social pressure.’ The very survival of your civilization depends upon it.

  12. Rick
    Moderate or Conservative, we all are Republicans and live in Delaware. I am a Conservative but also realize that all of us think and define conservatism a little differently.
    As the recent past has proven, if we stay separated, we will never elect conservative or moderate republicans to any position higher to state offices.
    It is time to listen to one another and put aside petty differences because in the long run only the goal of a free America is important, not the petty differences that we harbor that divide us.

  13. Politically, Delaware is insignificant in the overall scheme of things. I’d rather have principles in fact than Republicans in theory.

  14. Rick
    I agree with you on that point but we live in Delaware and the state legislature makes the laws that we must live with in our daily lives.
    It stands to reason that, in Delaware we must be cohesive as a party to accomplish basic freedom and conditions that allow us to prosper and be healthy. Now, the Democrats have a Super Majority and can sit back and pass any law and we are forced to live with it.
    Whose fault is it? Ours, I say, because we have failed as a party to form enough of a Caucasus to work with one another. We need to stay free at the local level so we can maintain freedom at the national level.

  15. Whose fault is it?

    SOS Wilmidelphians; their fatuous belief in big government as a result of their vulnerability to big-media and ‘academic’ propaganda. So many here call them smart; in actuality, they’re idiots. Why else would they elect a moron like Biden for 35 years?

    The left can’t completely ruin Delaware, thanks to the balanced budget requirement.

    In Sussex, the beaches are essentially free, the taxes are low, the roads are smooth and the variety of business and services is great. Sure, there’s traffic in summer, but I dealt with D.C. traffic for years. I don’t much care what goes on in Dover; Delaware is irrelevant in a national sense.

  16. FBH,

    The interpretation of the enlightenment as the intellectual Sun beaming anew on a Western civilization which had lain in the dark for centuries has long been abandoned. The Early and High Middle Ages have reclaimed their position in academia as legitimately great ages whose contributions to Western culture are incalculable.

    The image of the Middle Ages as “Dark” is a fictionalized and revisionist history of the Middle Ages put forth by the followers of the Enlightenment’s secularist intellectuals and followers who wished to discredit the accomplishments and particularly the theology of the Middle Ages, substituting not only the revisionist history, but savaging Christianity while creating hagiographies for their inconoclastic heroes such as Voltaire and the philosophes.

    The destructive philosophical trends of the Enlightenment were to culminate in the French Revolution, during which the anti-authoritarian and anti- ecclesiastical fervor once confined to salons burst forth into gruesome violence against the aristocracy and the clergy.

    In turn, the French Revolution laid down a heritage of inhumanity and attempted extermination of the metaphysical that was imitated by all “isms” of the 19th and 20th centuries.

    That “heritage” continues this day in the forms of communism and socialism, both of which have proved to be dead end variants of Enlightenment philosophies.

    Last, the terms, “Age of Enlightenment” and “Renaissance” are not interchangeable, as the Renaissance predates the Enlightenment and contains within its philosphical traditions, the seeds of thought which nurtured secularist Enlightenment philosophy.

    (Hmmm…I see Mynym has stolen my thunder. And, hey, if you’re not careful, I’ll sic my daughter, a superb scholar specializing in the study of the Middle Ages, on you. 🙂

  17. Don, #11

    Good news and proof positive the conservative revolution proceeds apace.

    Rick, I don’t think we can despise the day of little things, as from small acorns mighty oaks grow.

    How many revolutions have been sparked by seemingly insignificant groups of people?

    One small revolution started with only twelve and revolutionized the entire Roman empire.

    Who knows what tiny Delaware can accomplish?

  18. Hmmm…I see Mynym has stolen my thunder.

    Hmmm, not really, I’ll be the lightning.

    With respect to this:
    ….substituting not only the revisionist history, but savaging Christianity while creating hagiographies for their iconoclastic heroes such as Voltaire and the philosophes.

    That’s true. And if you’re going to imagine mythologies of Progress instead of deal with actual facts then why not imagine yourself at the top? Why not imagine those who laid the foundation of your civilization as ignorant and yourself as knowledgeable, invoking dark and light and so on? If one is interested in the truth then that’s another matter.

    The interesting thing about people who believed mythologies of Progress in the past is that they would hardly agree with progressives now. For example, Jefferson and other deists would hardly agree with the abysmal philosophical ignorance and scientism typical to modern atheistic “liberals.” They also said that a non-sectarian “public religion” should be encouraged for the sake of American civilization while modern progressives tend toward the exact opposite view. I.e. an ignorant view of separation of church/”personal values and myths” and state/”objective reality and scientific facts” more consistent with the form of separation in Nazi Germany than the American view. The original American view would look something more like a separation of church/”a higher order of thinking and being which must remain free” and state/”something prone to corruption which must be limited.”

  19. In turn, the French Revolution laid down a heritage of inhumanity and attempted extermination of the metaphysical that was imitated by all “isms” of the 19th and 20th centuries.

    This caused Americans to comment:

    And what was their Phylosophy? Atheism; pure unadulterated Atheism . . . . The Univer[s]e was Matter only and eternal; Spirit was a Word Without a meaning; Liberty was a Word Without a Meaning. There was no Liberty in the Universe; Liberty was a Word void of Sense. Every thought Word Passion Sentiment Feeling, all Motion and Action was necessary. All Beings and Attributes were of eternal Necessity. Conscience, Morality, were all nothing but Fate. (Letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson (Mar. 2, 1816), in The Adams-Jefferson Letters)

    It’s also interesting that physicists don’t necessarily agree with the scientism that progressives naturally tend toward. E.g.

    One of the first actions of those who proclaimed the ‘Enlightenment’ was the ‘deification of Newton.’ Voltaire set the example by calling him the greatest man who ever lived. Thus began an unexcelled outpouring of worshipful prose and extravagant poetry. David Hume wrote that Newton was ‘the greatest and rarest genius that ever rose for the ornament and instruction of the species.’ As Gay noted, ‘the adjectives ‘divine’ and ‘immortal’ became practically compulsory.’ […] In 1802 the French philosophe Claude-Henri de Sain-Simon (1760-1825) founded a Godless religion to be led by scientist-priests and called it the Religion of Newton (his pupil Auguste Comte renamed it ’sociology’).
    However, as the ‘Enlightenment’ became more outspokenly atheistic and more determined to establish the incompatibility of science and religion, a pressing matter arose: what was to be done about Newton’s religion? Trouble was that Newton’s religious views were not a matter of hearsay or repute. He had, after all, in 1713 added a concluding section to the second editions of his monumental Principia, the ‘General Scholium’ (or proposition), which was devoted entirely to his ideas about God. In it, Newton undertook to demonstrate the existence of God, concluding that:
    ‘…the true God is a living, intelligent, powerful Being….’
    ‘…he governs all things, and knows all things that are done or can be done.’
    ‘….He endures forever, and is everywhere present.’
    ‘…As a blind man has no ideas of colors, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things.’
    …. In the ‘Bentley Letters’ Newton ridiculed the idea that the world could be explained in impersonal, mechanical terms. Above all, having discovered the elegant lawfulness of things, Newton believed that he had, once and for all, demonstrated the certainty that behind all existence there is an intelligent, aware, omnipotent God. Any other assumption is ‘inconsistent with my system.’
    (For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch Hunts and the End of Slavery by Rodney Stark :167-168)

    Ironically, people who now believe in Darwinian creation myths have continued progressing toward ignorance to the point that they often assert that their pseudo-science is the epistemic equivalent of the theory of gravity.

  20. Charlie Copeland and Gov. Pete du Pont have been great supportes of the Tea Party movement. Copeland would make an excellent new State Party Chairman. He supports our values while he would also be able to convince moderates that Tea Party conservative values are a step in the right direction.

  21. “people who now believe in Darwinian creation myths”

    Why must a person “believe” in one or the other? You are creating a false dichotomy, and relegating all who disagree with you into a single category. It’s possible to “believe” in both or neither.

  22. Yes the Renaissance predates the” Enlightenment” but the Enlightenment is just an extension of the Renaissance. Sorry for using the term “Dark Ages” but that’s what it was called when I was in school. There is a great void in written history and art, as well as a lack of building between the times of Classic Roman antiquity, and the Renaissance, and I guess people just label that time period as a ‘dark’ time in Europe.
    I understand that contributions to western culture where maid during these times but it is my understanding that hardly anyone, including the nobility, could read or write except for a scant few that were mostly connected to Christian monasteries.
    I saw a documentary recently which theorized that the decline in population due to the “Black Death” led to easier pickins for the remaining population and that this lead to more free time for creativity and innovation which in turn led to the Renaissance.

  23. Why must a person “believe” in one or the other?

    It’s a matter of logic. Darwinists and progressives who believe that the metaphysical is merely an illusion brought about by what seem to them to be purely physical processes cannot simultaneously believe that the metaphysical impacts or sustains physical reality.

    The view of Darwinists:

    All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight; he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind’s eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all.
    (The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins :5)

    The condition that creates choice is the mindless “voting” of differential reproduction. It is the opportunity for reproduction that lets the lineages of our visitors “change their minds” or “reconsider” the choices they have made, by “exploring” alternative policies. My host cells, however, have been designed once and for all by a single vote at the time my zygote was formed. If, thanks to mutation, dominating or selfish strategies occur to them, they will not flourish (relative to their contemporaries), since there is scant opportunity for differential reproduction.
    (Darwin’s Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennett :459)

    Of course choice cannot be “mindless” just as genes are not “selfish” and natural “selection” cannot make selections as if it were a sentient being and so on. But I suppose that one cannot expect much from someone who wrote about the “point of view” of trees in the paragraph preceding that one. (I’ll consider the point of view of trees when a tree tells it to me.)

    People who try to overlook or deny the inalienable nature of the metaphysical are usually about as successful as you were in trying portray the objectively disordered nature of zoophilia as a matter of consent and so on.

  24. I would also note that people who deny the inalienable nature of the metaphysical and the philosophy typical to American civilization are not successful. So Darwinists say (and not without reason) that everything they say is based on ignorant processes lacking in scientia/knowledge and yet:

    …consider the following representative statements made by leading sociobiologists. Richard Dawkins, easily the best-known spokesman for this movement, writes that ‘we are…robot-vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes,’ and again that we are ‘manipulated in order to assure the survival of our genes.’ The same writer also says that ‘the fundamental truth [is] that an organism is a tool of DNA.’ (That is, of the DNA molecules which are the organism’s genes.) Again, Dawkins says that ‘living organisms exist for the benefit of DNA.’ Similarly, E.O. Wilson, an equal or higher sociobiological authority, says that ‘the individual organism is only the vehicle [of genes], part of an elaborate device to preserve and spread them….The organism is only DNA’s way of making more DNA.’
    I will mention in a moment some other passages in which sociobiologists imply that genes are beings of more than human intelligence and power, but that implication should be clear enough already from the passages just quoted. According to the Christian religion, human beings and all other created things exist for the greater glory of God; according to sociobiology, human beings and all other living things exist for the benefit of their genes.
    (Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution by David Stove: 248)

    To see the contrast of the typical American focus on unifying a metaphysical natural law with physical reality vs. Nazi Germany’s focus on laws of nature imagined to be physical read:
    (The Pure Society: from Darwin to Hitler by Andre Pichot) or
    (From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany by Richard Weikart)

    It’s important to point out that Darwinian pseudo-science is often based on imagining things about the past. I note this because many people seem to believe that one should deny Darwinism and try to be altruistic although it’s actually true. Ironically it’s actually false, to the extent that imagining things* about the past was falsifiable in the first place.

    *E.g.

    …the anthropological fable is a work of imagination, a historical scenario, yet offered as an explanation of one or another social phenomenon of either that time or our own. It is a kind of reverse science fiction, situated in the past rather than in the future. …

    What claim can this kind of historical fiction make to be scientific? It simply cannot, even in the loosest sense of science. It is just that the anthropological fable appeals to ideas of competition, struggle, selection, etc., ideas of Darwinian biology–or rather, socio-economic ideas that Darwinism borrowed and naturalized, thus giving them scientific backing. Returned to the sociology from whence they came, they are endowed with a kind of scientific aura, and their use in anthropological fables confers on the latter a dignity to which they have no right.

    The problem is that Darwinism, properly speaking, resorts to just this kind of historical scenario in its explanation of the origin of species. The simplest of these scenarios, in its modern form, sees a certain characteristic as appearing by chance mutation and, once shown to be favourable to its individual bearer, being preserved by natural selection. This basic model can be given added sophistication, mathematical for example, but the fact remains that the Darwinian explanation still consists in imagining a historical scenario… To criticize the explanatory principle that the anthropological model provides in social Darwinism [i.e. Nazism] is equally to criticize the Darwinian principle that explains the evolution of species by reconstructing historical scenarios. It thus amounts to an attack on science (since Darwinism is deemed scientific, at least among biologists)….
    (The Pure Society: from Darwin to Hitler by Andre Pichot :47-49)

  25. Hen,

    Has Charlie Copeland expressed any interest in the position?

    FBH,
    Yeah, I was taught the same thing about the “Dark” Ages. But it just isn’t true.

    But concerning the Enlightment’s vilification of the Middle Ages as it is applicable to the current conservative revolution here in Delaware and across the nation: Revisionist tactics are the key.

    As soon as the Tea Party movement began, attempts to sideline it by negativity also began. The Left as well as many “moderates” instantly characterized it as, among other things, violent and racist, a fringe group of elderly white fanatics, homophobic and against Hispanics.

    In other words, the attempt was instantly made to delegitimize the actual concerns and intellectual arguments of the Tea Party as well as to disparage any possible contributions they might make to the political scene.

    A “Dark” group, in other words, in contrast to which progressives sought to make themselves look like the only truly “Enlightened.”

    Some things never change.

  26. I saw a documentary recently which theorized that the decline in population due to the “Black Death” led to easier pickins for the remaining population…

    That sounds similar to theories about abortion creating wealth or the state creating jobs. If such theories are true in any way they would only explain an illusion of growth in the short term. Misanthropic Malthusian theories are typically wrong or we’d probably all be eating each other by now. Fortunately they’re more often the material of satire instead:

    You probably also think that the English civil war of the seventeenth century grew out of tensions between parliament and the court, dissent and the established church, republic and and the monarchy. Nothing of the sort, you see: it was a resumption of “the struggle for existence between man and man.” Cromwell and King Charles were competing with each other, and each of them with everyone else too, à la Darwin and Malthus, for means of subsistence. So no doubt Cromwell, when he had had the king’s head cut off, ate it. Uncooked, I shouldn’t wonder, the beast. And probably selfishly refused to let his secretary John Milton have even one little nibble.
    (Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity, and Other Fables of Evolution by David Stove :7-9)

  27. “concerning the Enlightment’s vilification of the Middle Ages as it is applicable to the current conservative revolution here in Delaware and across the nation: Revisionist tactics are the key.”

    Works both ways.

  28. A “Dark” group, in other words, in contrast to which progressives sought to make themselves look like the only truly “Enlightened.”

    The transcendent view that history tends to bring will probably vindicate the Tea Party more quickly. I’m pretty sure that I read that members are more likely to be knowledgeable, despite the usual mythology. I wish that the old mythologies of Progress were invoked more often, I miss the symbolic Cave Man and so on.

  29. Works both ways.

    There’s a difference between revising history based on evidence and seeking the truth as opposed to inventing more manufactured narratives for political reasons.

  30. “There’s a difference between revising history based on evidence and seeking the truth as opposed to inventing more manufactured narratives for political reasons.”

    In which category would you put retitling the estate tax as the “death tax,” or, from the other side, calling the government option the “public option”?

  31. In which category would you put retitling the estate tax as the “death tax,”…

    If it’s anything like “death panels” then perhaps liberals themselves will admit that it’s an accurate description. They may have to snivel about it for a while first because that’s often their answer to accurate descriptions of reality. E.g. partial birth abortion, etc.

  32. ….from the other side, calling the government option the “public option”?

    Shrug, it seems to be the nature of the “left hand path” to blur language and do away with the word. It’s too bad for the Left that Orwell pointed out the sinister aspects of the image, otherwise the Left could create images portraying how they care more about our health than we do. There again, maybe funding for indoctrination about how great their care for our health will be is in the bill that they didn’t read.

  33. Clearly not an accurate description (nor is “death panel,” for that matter) unless you want the words to mean something other than what they mean. The tax is on estates, not death itself; there are no “panels” that go along with the proposal to which the term “death panel” was attached.

    As usual, you lump all your strawman enemies under the heading “liberals.” Since you consider yourself so intelligent, I’m sure you realize that.

    What, pray tell, is a “partial birth”? For someone with such a black-and-white view of the universe, that seems an odd oversight. Isn’t it simply a birth that’s uncompleted to obfuscate infanticide? Why not simply call it infanticide?

  34. I believe your analysis applies equally to both camps here. The urge to propagandize is not confined to any one political persuasion.

  35. If it’s anything like “death panels” then perhaps liberals themselves will admit that it’s an accurate description.

    Such a lie, and one that can only be put forth by someone who has lived a charmed existence. End of life counseling and hospice are vital supports to most people… and will be for you one day. Count your blessings over your ignorance.

  36. The tax is on estates, not death itself…

    That’s like saying that all taxes are on abstraction like money, not real people and actions. There’s nothing unreasonable about the description. It’s based on reality. You live and are taxed when you generate wealth based on labor, you die and the wealth that you mixed your labor with is taxed again.

    ….there are no “panels” that go along with the proposal to which the term “death panel” was attached.

    Again, there’s nothing unreasonable about the description which is why a liberal commented on the direction of Obamacare: “In the years ahead we’re going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes.” –Paul Krugman

    It’s interesting to note that Obama actually doesn’t necessarily care about your health after all, despite talking about health “care” constantly. I would also point out that you cannot necessarily buy caring with wealth, especially if you’re bankrupt. Ironically, Christian hospitality and therefore hospitals didn’t come about based on buying caring anyway. And they certainly didn’t come about because the State forced people to care.

  37. End of life counseling and hospice are vital supports to most people… and will be for you one day.

    I’m not going to go to progressives for advice on such things. After all, you have a poor history in these matters as only a short time ago you were trying to eliminate the weak in the finest, most womanly and caring way.
    See:
    (“In The Finest, Most Womanly Way:” Women
    in The Southern Eugenics Movement
    by Edward J. Larson
    The American Journal of Legal History,
    Vol. 39, No. 2. (Apr., 1995) )

  38. I believe your analysis applies equally to both camps here.

    Shrug, it applies to both camps but not equally due to the natural tendencies of the Left.

  39. For awhile i opined regularly. I have now quit. (Yes again, but i will not be back any longer)
    The broom rider lovers will not ever appreciate winning political expediancy.
    i can raise money, deploy volunteer’s and conduct polling/direct mail/voter id. They cannot. If they’d volunteer we could work together but instead they carp/cry/lie and moan. Their conspiracy theories belong in a Vince Flynn novel. If you can’t raise money – you volunteer. That’s how it works.
    In effect they are like Cromwell’s Roundheads. They knew nothing about governing, but wanted to make damn certain no else governed. They didn’t last long and Englands next King was Dutch.
    They loathe compromise and will sulk on election night in the losers corner versus having shredded even one precious principle.
    Good thing the Founders didn’t feel that way otherwise the 3/5ths slave/vote compromise allowing for the Declaration to be passed wouldn’t have happened.
    My formal involvement in the GOP is now ended. Free agency beckons.
    As they say it’s been real and it’s been fun but it’s no longer real fun.
    For you loser whiners who will say good riddance, I agree.

  40. Clearly not an accurate description (nor is “death panel,” for that matter) unless you want the words to mean something other than what they mean. The tax is on estates, not death itself…

    Uh…the tax on the estate occurs only upon the death of the property holder(s). Get it? ‘Death tax.’

    …there are no “panels” that go along with the proposal to which the term “death panel” was attached.

    Or course there are, or soon will be. The dispensation of medical care will be based upon economic factors assessed by bureaucratic ‘panels’ (or whatever you care to call them).

    What, pray tell, is a “partial birth”…[w]hy not simply call it infanticide?

    Euphemisms hide the ugly truth; liberals prefer ‘a woman’s right to choose.’

  41. My formal involvement in the GOP is now ended. Free agency beckons.

    Thank God. Please, pleasejoin the Democrats- Republicans need all the help they can get.

    For you loser whiners who will say good riddance, I agree.

    Losers? Remember Biden, Carper, Minner and Markell?

    As for ‘whining,’ you are the prom queen.

    “Squeak”

  42. NBH,

    I’m sorry to see you go, and hope you find success in your new endeavors.

    If you would reconsider returning, the door is always open.

  43. “the tax on the estate occurs only upon the death of the property holder(s). Get it? ‘Death tax.’ ”

    Wow, you ARE stupid. It occurs upon the death of about 2% of estates, so it’s not a tax on death; it’s a tax on estates that exceed a certain value. Get it? Probably not; too stupid.

    “The dispensation of medical care will be based upon economic factors assessed by bureaucratic ‘panels’ (or whatever you care to call them).”

    They already are, for that matter, though those panels (or individuals) work for private insurance companies. But that’s not what Sarah Palin was terming “death panels” — she was referring to counseling sessions laying out end-of-life options. Once again you reveal your lack of familiarity with the issues. Is there ANYTHING you can do right?

  44. “Shrug, it applies to both camps but not equally due to the natural tendencies of the Left.”

    Now we’re talking about your unsupported biases again. But you’re so smart you already knew that.

  45. Wow, you ARE stupid. It occurs upon the death of about 2% of estates, so it’s not a tax on death; it’s a tax on estates that exceed a certain value. Get it? Probably not; too stupid.…BalloonBoy

    Why do liberals like you take everything literally, and attempt to turn the simple into the complex? The ‘death tax’ occurs only after someone dies. Get it? ‘Death tax.’

    Is there ANYTHING you can do right?

    Obamacare is foot-in-the-door legislation, and eventually, federal bureaucrats will make life-or-death medical decisions. Is there ANYTHING the government can do ‘right?’ Not much.

    Now, eat another cupcake and calm down.

  46. If the term was meant as you claim it is — and it’s not, it’s the product of extensive market testing — then it would be called the “after-death tax.” We name taxes based on the product or activity being taxed — a gas tax is on gasoline, property taxes are on property, income taxes on income, ad infinitum. So the tax on estates should be called — the death tax?

    Are you unable or unwilling to understand this?

    Can we make it a doughnut instead?

  47. Good God, why create a debate when there is none? Obviously, the term ‘death tax’ has a political purpose; it is intended to invoke the image of the government as a greedy grave robber. But, the term is not illegitimate; when some people die, their estates are taxed. The taxation does not occur during their lifetimes; when applicable, the tax is triggered by one event, and one event only- death.

Comments are closed.