“You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We’d all love to see the plan….
But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait ”
–”Revolution,” The Beatles
One of the best ways to understand our current mess in intellectual life is through what I call the three option situation. In the past, something has been unfair (position one). What should be done according to democracy and Enlightenment values is to correct it by fairness (position two). But instead the dominant ideology wants to make it unfair in the opposite direction (position three). Thus, the situation remains arguably just as bad instead of being made better. The dominant idea of justice is merely to switch victims rather than try to make nobody a victim.
America was founded on the basis that government should be limited, individuals should have the maximum possible rights, and all were created equal. When those precepts were not properly kept — as with slavery or denial of the vote to women — the proper goal was to correct inconsistencies, to treat everyone alike. Liberalism arose in the nineteenth century as a protest against the power of the rulers and in favor of freedom from regime and social controls. How ironic that the word has now been turned into its exact opposite.
On the level of intellectual discourse, the great progress of Western civilization was made by setting up certain guidelines. These included:
–The search for truth is paramount. While no one can perfectly define what is objectively true, they should do their best. But since people will disagree and no one can be absolutely right, the ability of government or society to impose the version held by any individual or group should be limited as much as possible.
–One’s attempt to define truth should be done without fear or favor as honestly and objectively as possible.
–Opinions should be based on the best possible evidence. One should not favor evidence merely because it suits one’s cause, group, interest, or personal preferences.
–Color, gender, religion, national origin, or any other factor should not figure in this process. If such a thing is done, that is a deviation that should be remedied. I like the folksy way a Chinese Communist leader argued for pragmatism against the previous ideological rigidity of the Mao Zedong regime: It doesn’t matter whether a cat is black or white as long as it catches mice.
There are many more principles that could be listed and all of them conflict with political correctness, which is the equivalent of rigging the outcome of an athletic event because somebody judges that one individual or team “ought” to win. It can lead to no good.
These reflections are prompted by something that happened in the case of the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism (YIISA). In an article about the issue, James Kirchik observed:
YIISA was hardly more political or activist than a vast array of programs of dubious academic merit, whether African-American studies, Chicano studies, gay and lesbian studies, and so on, which have long been accepted as integral to American universities.
Kirchik continued that when he asked one critic of YIISA how such a double standard was being justified, the reply was: “Israel is not an oppressed group that we’re supposed to feel this enormous sympathy for, in the same way as gays and lesbians.”
אמן כל הכבוד
If my Hebrew memory serves the above reads, Amen, all the honor. In other words what you wrote is right and deserves respect for being right.
Thanks for the translation. I was lost.
Excellent Mr. Rubin. I always enjoy reading your work.
What you say is true and the inevitable result of any idealist’s vision coming to life.
How many Pol Pots will we have to endure before we learn?
My Grandaddy used to say ” Hell is having your dreams come true”
An extraordinary piece. Thank you.
“Well, aside from utter idiocy, it seems there’s a war going on and ‘we have met the enemy and he is…’ a white man, although the original quote is more appropriate: ‘we have met the enemy and he is us,’ since combating racism by indulging in it oneself in such a cartoonish manner as does the YWCA by foisting all the ills of the world onto white men and furthering the very stereotyping by gender and race the YWCA seems so ardently against hardly seems the road to ‘racial justice.’” – July 12, 2011
http://www.jamesmaystock.com/essays/Pages/YWCA.html
I’m not a professor of PC, but I would think two or three times about accusing someone named “Rubin” of anti-Semitism. What a pack of dolts.
OLd Soldier, a jewish name does NOT a semite make; in fact there are at least TWO Cohens, one Friedmann, and one Chomsky, all of whom boast not only Jewish names but virulently anti-semitic, anti-Israel philosophies.
And this does not even take into account those with Jewish FIRST NAMES and SURNAMES, who live in Israel, who are Israeli born-and-bred, and who may yet be called, absolutely justifiably, anti-Jewish, anti-Semite…
This has always been the curse of the Jewish People throughout time…we are often our own worst enemies…
Now to the article and the idea that Liberalism has been turned on its head in attaching itself to VICTIMHOOD as a political and philosophical raison d’etre…the author is absolutely right.
And we will sum up the idea behind the post in one searing example; In Berkeley, California, the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement, Republicans are simply NOT PERMITTED to speak. Republicans…and the ISRAELI Ambassador…
The Flight of the Intellectuals……
You keep coming back to this topic and although Michael Totten doesn’t digress into the philosophical much, he certainly concurs. He interviewed the author of the the title above some months back.
I find this topic particularly important to me as I personally made the observation more than a decade ago when I asked myself “where does Liberalism end and something different begin?” I consider myself a liberal and yet found much of what was coming from Liberal leadership troubling. The more I looked, the more I saw that progressive extensions of Liberalism appeared somewhat illiberal from the definition of liberal I was accustomed to. And its not that words change their meaning naturally over time. If that were true, black would mean white by now. Orwell certainly touched on this with NewSpeak. I saw NewSpeak around me, even from the mouths of the very teachers who tested me on Orwell.
How to explain it…..
Some think that cooperation is the top priority and certainly our evolution depends on it. Cooperation however, does not mean achieving the lowest common denominator. Starting with the position of Liberal values which you summarized nicely, cooperation requires members in a group to agree to the liberal rules. In competition between groups the largest and most aggressive tend to dominate. Inclusion of more members increases a group’s strength relative to other groups. Some liberals altered the values you stated so more members could enter. Never mind the damage to the values or the decreased cooperation created by distrust and confusion within the group. Slowly these neoliberals loosened the rules by manipulating key words in the liberal narrative to make the weakening of liberal values sound uber liberal…. we saw this play out in the Democratic primary of 2007. We see it now in the Arab Spring and what “liberals” have to say about it.
In fact, after many decades of internationalism being a tad socialist in nature going back to Wilson, FDR to JFK saw a change in which Democratic Peace Theory became Liberal Democratic Peace Theory. Liberal democracies rrely if ever war against each other. In our Cold War we did not make the compromises you identify now. Today, many Liberals champion Pro-Democracy, but they are not so much concerned with women rights and minority rights. They speak less about individual freedom and focus in on self-determination in the collective sense. In short, they no longer advocate those liberal values but seek to reduce the world into democratic voting blocks whether they vote in Sharia or a Police State. They challenge the liberal notion of what a legitimate government is. They scoff at the notion that illiberal democracies are not legitimate and even blast other liberals for advocating human rights and freedom of the Press. “Understanding” trumps principle.
Indeed, a Flight of the Intellectuals…..from the values of Liberalism. Why not? They have a “right” to decide the meaning of words themselves and because they see this “right” as universal, it must be liberals…..
Maxtrue – The problem you are running into about “liberalism” is that the word no longer means what it once used to. To be liberal in the 19th century was to be infavor of liberty, low taxes and small government. The roots of today conservatives are in 19th century liberalism (otherwise know as ‘Classical Liberlism’). In the twentieth century and beyond, the term “liberal” has been captured by “radical progressives” and has morphed into something quite the opposite of what it meant earlier: Today it means liberally telling people what to do (in the name of some greater good), where to get their medical care, and how to spend their money, and liberally spending other people’s money. Today’s liberalism is 180 degress different from Classical Liberalism. So, when you label yourself a “liberal” what kind of liberlism do you mean?
This flip flop reminds me of the final words in The Who’s song “Won’t get fooled again.” They are “Meet the new boss/Same as the old boss.”
Sorry, you are just plain wrong; these people have not become the very thing they revile. They revel in their positions as oppressors and tyrants. It’s not that they hated the former oppressors, they hated the fact that they were not the oppressors. Now they are. They are exactly where they want to be.
You are correct. It is the power they enjoy, to dominate at any cost, and deny the devastating consequences inevitable to their actions, either political or legislative. It amounts to anarchy of ideas, though there may a wisp of truth in their slogans, their objective is to ‘transform’ and trample ethics. We are training whole generations in this ‘progressive’ effort, who will not soon give up the methods they are now embracing. They enjoy the power too much.
So, you “like the folksy way a Chinese Communist leader argued for pragmatism against the previous ideological rigidity of the Mao Zedong regime: It doesn’t matter whether a cat is black or white as long as it catches mice.”? Welp Sir, in my experience among the left, as for about 30yr. on the left coast (PDX), the cat would have to be a leftist cat, and upon the merest of reasons: “Just because”. And if the cat did not catch mice, plainly, that condition would be attributable to the Zionist “occupation” (of their own land).
And perhaps in some clarification of this article’s title, as “The Che” Guevara rode through S. Am., most easily he discerned how that, under mere ostensible cover in blather about freedom vs. oppression—and in the nature of things, with some bullets here and there—the unlearned and unsophisticated indigenous could be dominated and made use of. I submit to your consideration that, as Castro—and many other such—the so-called freedom-loving rebels do not suddenly become reactionary oppressors, but that, if you know where to look and how to view the things most becoming of evidence, they began as reactionary oppressors, merely seeking opportunity, . . .
Correct! The Enlightenment, whatever else it was, was wrong. Human Nature exists; it is innate; and it is immutable. No human being is born a blank slate. and Human Nature is not malleable by altering normal society. Violence is not as American as apple pie — it’s as human as the opposable thumb, and as natural as the instinct for self-preservation. BTW, ditto racism, sexism, homo-whatever, zenophobia, and hierarchical social structures. Justice is treating every person as he deserves to be treated; not treating every person the same as every other (different) person. The ted governementFounders did not believe in limited government — they believed in limiting the Federal Govt. The 1st Amendment guaranteed that Congress would never interfere with officially established religions in the States. Look at voting qualifications in the States, circa 1790. That’s what the Founders believed in — hardly the universal sufferage that was correctly predicted would result in the end of any functioning society. Congress could make no law abridging the freedom of speech, which might possibly interfere with the State laws regarding libel, slander, criminal conversation, and blasphemy. Individual freedom? Fornication, adultery, sodomy, loitering, and vagrancy were crimes, with debtors’ prisons and lunatic asylums awaiting the truly individualistic. If suing for slander or defamation wasn’t your cuppa tea, you could always challenge your foe to a duel. The Founders lived in a normal, natural human society, which enforced its mores and prejudices as every functioning society must. Gguess what? Today, the only functioning societies in the US are the black, Hispanic and possibly Asian ones. White society has dis-integrated. In 1954, the Warren Court was dismayed to find black children preferring to play with white dolls. They were influenced by the fact that white culture/society was dominant. Today, white kids listen to rap music and vote for a black President by large majorities (note that blacks have not assimilated to white culture after 350 years). I hope they enjoy living their future in one big Detroit.
Mr May, I will post in due course at MJT your “After the 2011 Revolution: The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt -Why They Cannot Succeed” There are some things I agree with and some I don’t. You did not mention Logan or the endemic harassment and assualt on women, which for me makes Egyptian Democracy at the moment a farce. Add to that the treatment of minorities. I base this on Liberal principle and do not brush aside the antisemitism you call “a thing about Israel”. I did not bring this up to argue, but to explain how my “liberal principles” reject much of what is going on in Egypt. This week an Egyptian minister claimed Israel was behind the E Coli worry regarding Egyptian grain. I always assumed a certain rationality was required to embrace “liberal values” in a more classical sense. I don’t see it unfolding in Egypt no matter our military personnel.
I did enjoy your YWCA, but I think some of the hostility (not justified) towards “white men” comes from the “W” part of the name. You are certainly right that racism should not be countered with racism.
I didn’t mention what happened to Miss Logan because it didn’t seem relevant to the essay. I did however write Egyptian papers telling them right out that if they made no effort to get to the bottom of what happened to Miss Logan that night it put their own credibility and that of the uprising on the line. The incident happened in front of hundreds of people so somebody saw something and yet there was apparently no effort to get to the bottom of it by the press.
I was in that crowd that night and I cannot account for what happened to Miss Logan but what I can say is that Tahrir Square during the 15 day occupation that ended that night, while at all times happy and festive, was also extremely volatile. Even when I would be laughing and joking with someone, perhaps in mocking anger, I would have strangers from the crowd come up in broad daylight and ask why I was angry. To say they are a nosy bunch and prone to group solidarity when it comes to violence is somewhat of an understatement.
Egyptians do have a “thing” about Israel but if they say they are against Zionism and don’t hate Jews I can only say I don’t read minds. What I can say is that it is curious they kicked Jews out of Egypt at the end of the ’67 War, reportedly in some cases with only a suitcase. How were their own Jewish citizens in any way Zionists and how is Egypt itself not an analogue to Israel or in other words, a muslim version of Zionism? On the other hand no one has ever asked me if I was Jewish so what is one to think?
It seems as if, when one is hanging out with Egyptians, that there is much greater latitude for what one can joke about and criticize then out in a crowd. I don’t know what to make of that either. I am constantly poking fun at them which they take in stride and laugh at – in private. I don’t know how that would go over on a stage in Tahrir. Their are over 80 million people in Egypt and it is often hard to make generalizations.
Not wanting to pay a cop every time you turn around or to fear torture or a beating is not the same thing as wanting a true Democracy – the uprising was about the fear and humiliation, not George Washington and rights for all. Don’t expect any Gay Pride Parades in Tahrir for the foreseeable future.
In my view, Egyptians and muslims in general are prone to believe in what amount to urban myths and they are always on the side of Islam. Joseph Massad, who teaches at Columbia, as much as said that Mossad was behind the bombing at the Two Sisters Church in Alexandria on New Year’s Eve. There are similar urban myths about America that have great currency as well but Egyptians are anti-American much more in the sense of American foreign policy than culturally – they love the culture.
Cairo is not a place for liberalism. They want freedom but this should in no way be construed to be a type of Jeffersonian imperative; they come from a far different place. People who have no faith in their ability to innovate tend towards socialism. Add that to a deeply conservative country both in terms of their values and religion and that is what the revolution will end up with in the end, a socialist entitlement state with issues of rights for religious minorities and women as continuing flash points – this is the centerpiece of the arguing going on about the new Constitution and the Muslim Brotherhood are on the shitty side of that issue. A new and somewhat free society coming about is assuming they can buck the army which is in no way certain at this point.
The reason they continue to go to Tahrir is that they are increasingly feeling that Mubarak was only a figurehead and that the apparatus is still firmly in place. It’s really hard to tell what’s going on here at any given time or what the future will hold. I have no faith the voting will be fair. But, what else can they do but move forward as best they can with what they have which is pretty much nothing after army rule practically since Israel was founded and kings and princes before that?
I do think that in the case of Egypt and the revolution, it is important to remember what we have not seen and that is such things as burning American flags and terrorism. South Sudan is a new country and the Egyptian gov’t has no idea how they are being sandbagged in this regard. They’d better forget about Israel, which is no threat to them whatsoever, and realize a hostile attitude towards the West can be throttled at the Nile.
As far as mob violence and Miss Logan, we have flash mobs wreaking havoc in America and mass gropings and even rapes are somewhat common at big events like music festivals. It does not cancel out Democracy. If you want to make a distinction between one country and another, you should concentrate on other things. “Wilding” is an American term that did not come out of no where.
As I said, the Egyptian lack of curiosity in coming to the bottom of what happened to Miss Logan is disturbing but it is only one of a thousand things people here want answers to and are not getting and what happened to Miss Logan is at the bottom of the list. Some 850 people were reportedly killed and perhaps 6,000 injured, some in gruesome ways, in the 18 days of the uprising and there are few answers to that and they feel they’re still not getting justice for Khaled Said.
What ever happened to ms Logan –it sounds terrible–but she has yet to testify in a court of law.
The president of Israel was convicted of rape –in a court of law–and has been sentenced to prison.
Group rapes happen in all US states, in Asia, Africa etc–these are deplorable
It is silly and pathetic to tarnish Egypt based upon one alleged event.
Egypts challenge is economic–and the wealthy are moving their money to the UK
–Egypt is a very peaceful and law abiding society according to CIA reports
Hmm, I don’t know. Perhaps when a female lawyer suggetst on mainstream TV that Arab men should sexually harass Israeli girls wherever they may be as a form of “resistance” it might have some influence on how Arab men behave:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDqWGtykYNE
“Egypt is a very peaceful and law abiding society according to CIA reports.” How enlightening, thanks Victor.
But I’d still rather my daughter vacationed in the Zionist Entity – she’s nimble enough to duck their convicted rapist president, but a mob of horny law-abiders might be a different story…”
I stopped reading after your claim that Egypt is “a muslim version of Zionism”. You’re wrong about both Egypt and Israel, so apparently you don’t know much. But I’m tired of trying to explain Jewish isn’t just a religion. Maybe if we start saying Israel is a Hebrew state more people will get it. If it’s wrong to have a Jewish state it’s equally wrong to have a British state, a French state, a Spanish state, 22 Arab states etc.
As for Egyptian antisemitism, maybe this clip from mainstream Egyptian TV will help you determine if it exists or it’s just “a thing about Israel”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-fukddJfSs
There is no official religion for the state of Israel? There is no extant constitution for the state of Israel because the religious right thinks such a thing might violate the Torah? That exact same fight which has never been resolved in Israel is happening as we speak in Egypt. Whoa! That’s like 2 alien cultures worlds apart!
Can I, a Catholic, come to live in Israel and marry a Jewish woman? And guess what, there IS no such thing as an official “British state, a French state, a Spanish state.” It’s against the law. Those things are reserved for the middle east and I don’t have a problem with it cuz I don’t have to live in those places and they are not my countries. But to deny it – wow!
The official name of Egypt is the Arab Republic of Egypt and Islam IS its official religion and I, a Catholic, cannot marry a muslim woman.
Actually, the idea that so many muslim states that profess to hate Zionism in fact practice the same thing works in your favor as it shows them for the hypocrites they are but you take the other tack and deny it entirely.
I agree with Victor on two points, you fight a fight where you can show separation. To go after 80 plus million people over Logan and try to exaggerate 20 signs in Tahrir Square with the Star of David on Mubarak’s face as examples of Jew-hatred is not the fight to fight and only demonstrates a predisposition to see a thing not really there or present in other countries as well and has little to do with reality.
Furthermore, to suggest that there are not those on the other side of this equation who don’t have a “thing” about Arabs and Egyptians in light of comments using the words “groveling,” “cowards,”, “pigs,” and “savages” is to assert that one side is using a war to mask Jew hatred but the other side is NOT using that same war to mask Arab hatred. It’s one or the other and what’s good for the goose is good for the gander and taking the moral high ground in that manner is a losing proposition.
Jews don’t blow up stuff in America or cut the heads off of people on video or jail gay people en masse; that’s where you fight your fight and not in uncertain territory. To do otherwise is to cry wolf and lose credibility you actually have but are spending wastefully where it doesn’t matter.
I’m on your side but you prefer to make an enemy out of me like I’m some version of those morons like Alice Walker and the Gazilla. Good luck with winning that war. If it’s your way or the highway I’ll take fair play because a thoroughly one-sided view rises to the level of propaganda and in the end is no view at all, just a side.
With one’s survival at stake, I actually don’t have a problem with that either but at least admit it rather than act like every single fact in the world mysteriously always goes against Islam and in favor of Israel. No one’s buying that and I’m not either cuz the result will simply be another 60 years of a slow motion war. In case you haven’t noticed, my idiotic gov’t is letting in muslims like there’s a fire sale and they are getting organized and in bed with the Left. Better cut your losses and start making friends while it’s still your own idea.
If you think I’m nuts about having loudspeakers strung up in my old neighborhood reminding me of how great God is then you’re nuts but they’re coming and as long as political correctness rules the day in America they won’t stop coming no matter how much stuff they blow up.
“Can I, a Catholic, come to live in Israel and marry a Jewish woman?”
- Surely you can. I personally know a couple of an orthodox Jewish husband and an orthodox christian Russian wife, and a Jewish woman married with a radical Islam arab. There are probably thousands of such couples. Contrarily to what you can learn from the media, we are a very free society.
“There is no official religion for the state of Israel? There is no extant constitution for the state of Israel because the religious right thinks such a thing might violate the Torah?”
- You are right. Though “religious right” is not a correct term. Just religious population, not left and not right. Nevertheless you can buy pork everywhere, and you can marry whomever you want. You can have your formal marriage anywhere abroad or at an embassy, and it is fully recognized. Or you can just live together, and from the legal point of view you will have the same rights.
“And guess what, there IS no such thing as an official “British state, a French state, a Spanish state.” ”
– It is a very difficult question. I am not sure that you are right, especially with respect to Germany. In any case it can only be right during the last 60 years, for it is based on the sincere belief that nobody questions the national character of these states. Unfortunately, it can easily change. Just recall the popular self-determination movements in UK (Scotland, Wells), Spain (Catalonia, Basks), France (Corsica), etc. And especially in Balkans. And mass immigration.
As for Israel, we are surrounded by officially Islamic Arabic states, which do not recognize the very right of non-islamic nations to have a state in the ME. In this reality not to be a recognized Jewish state would be a self-imposed death sentence.
You ignored the video I posted because you don’t want to see or admit that there’s real Nazi-like Jew-hatred in the Muslim world and particularly in the Middle East, inclduing Egypt. It’s not about a few signs, but it’s systematic in the education system, the mainstream media, the mosques, political speeches. You can see many examples in memri.org (website for the Middle East Media Research Institute). You can read a little about some of the roots of it (Islam and Nazism) in Matthias Küntzel’s website:
http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/kategorie/31/?lang=en
And no, there’s no parallel to it in Israel. There might be the occasional expressions against Arabs which are normal for any people in conflict, but there certainly isn’t systematic Arab hatred or Muslim hatred in the education system and media, no anti-Arab propaganda, lies, blood libels and conspiracy theories. The Middle East is a place where “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” are taken to be true and made into a mainstream television series, where you can see on mainstream TV dramas scenes of Jews murdering a gentile child to use his blood for matzo, where everything bad that happens, from a shark attack on Egypt’s beaches to the Swine Flu to 9/11, is blamed on a Zionist conspiracy, and where birds and squirrels crossing the border or found in “sensitive” locations are accused of being Zionist instruments of spying. Jew-hatred in the Middle East is as rife and irrational as it was in Nazi Germany. You choose to be blind to it.
The same goes for your wish to see Israel and the Muslim states as identical phenomena. In Israel there’s freedom of religion. In most Muslim states, including Egypt, there’s a punishment enacted in the law for leaving Islam, often the death penalty. That in itself should illustrate the difference, but you are an Israel hater, no matter what Maxtrue says.
And BTW, two of my cousins are married to non-Jews.
As for Britain, France and Spain not being British, French and Spanish, the multicultural experiment is a relatively recent phenomenon and I don’t believe it’ll last. The heads of states of the 3 leading states in the European Union – Britain, France and Germany – have already declared multiculturalism a failure. In any case all European countries still have less diverse populations than the Israeli population, and all of them still have distinct national and cultural character, distinct language, and distinct traditions and customs. In this sense Britain is British, France is French, Germany is German and Spain is Spanish. My bet it the British people, the French people and the German people will stop the multicutural experiment before the common spoken language in Britain is changed into Urdu and in Germany into Turkish. But if you like to denounce Israel for being a nation state I have no problem with that. It is a nation state, that much is true. As long as you don’t misinform and distort reality I don’t mind.
And I, BTW, support the nation state as the only viable model for peaceful co-exsitence of different peoples with different cultures who were formed over centuries or millennia, even if it isn’t popular these days. I don’t believe multicuturalism works, nor do I believe in one global borderless state. I believe all these alternatives will lead only to either constant conflict or an extremely oppressive dictatorship which will be required to hold it all together, as it was in the Soviet Union or is in Syria. I think the best arrangement is for every “child” to more or less have his own “room” if possible, where he could shape his own destiny rather than fight about the rules within a completely fractured society. I’m for different nation states with equal rights to minorities rather than states with a population made of many different minorities that constantly clash. That’s why I also support a Kurdish state, an Amazigh state and an Assyrian state, just as I support a Jewish state.
In case you haven’t noticed, Leftists believe exactly that it’s wrong to have an English, French, or — most of all, and especially — an American state. No, it’s a third-world sh*t-hole or nothing. Jo’burg or Detroit for everybody!!!!!
James, I have followed some of your posts and I can’t figure out how your visit over at MJT deteriorated into the crap it did. I have not observed Israeli bashing or pro-radical support in your comments over time. At this point, I think everyone at MJT jumped to conclusions before scoping out your deeper thoughts. Victor was never banned so go figure. Sometimes commentators have short fuses and the acrimony kicks in before common sense parses the ideology. You don’t appear like someone who easily backs down. Nor do the commentators.
Thank you for your clear thoughts on Logan which I find quite intelligent. Ironically, Michael took issue with some of his fans in pointing out that Egypt is less violent than the US. I guess the past conflict on MT’s blog was that people’s ideas are never so easy to label. Just take Victor for example. When regulars think they’re getting slammed or there is some pro-ME insanity lurking beneath the comments someone makes people jump to conclusions. I was confused by some of your Southern Border remarks but again, perhaps I didn’t understand the sarcasm or your particular humor. I will ask Michael to reconsider and perhaps we could start over again at MJT because you clearly have some smarts to contribute. Unlike me, you actually spent some time in Tahrir Square. Let me post up your thoughts on Tahrir Square as see the reaction because I think more than a few will be surprised to find them not so different than what Michael (who is there in the square right now) has to say.
Again, thanks for the follow-up post and as far as I am concerned you are a poster worth reading even if I don’t agree or understand all your points. I am sure that could apply to my posts as well. If Victor wasn’t banned at MJT, I don’t remember the logic of why you were. Probably words said in the heat of a rather a stupid pile on.
MAX NYC
I’m not sure what you mean by “Southern Borders” but I can tell you how things deteriorated that night. I was prepping my cameras to go out the next day into chaos and no one knew what would happen. Angry Friday, Jan.28, was one of the most historic days in Egyptian history and dangerous.
I stand out on the street like a sore thumb and anyone who has read subsequent accounts during the 18 days of the uprising of journalists assaulted, beaten, arrested and thrown in jail knows it was no picnic. The secret police are neither gentle nor kind and like to shove broom handles up peoples behinds.
Then I had to listen to how I was a wannabe, a liar, a fake, not even in Egypt, suitable only for photographing gay pride parades and the like.
A man taking photos was shot dead a couple of blocks from me that day at the exact same time I was eating a dozen tear gas rounds and risking my own life confronting riot police. Did I flee Egypt in the subsequent 17 days like 90% of the other photographers or take my embassy’s advice to leave? No.
That night, there was virtually non-stop gun fire in Tahrir and there were nights I couldn’t even stand in front of my hotel because pro-Mubarak supporters were out looking for blood and controlled my neighborhood and the police had completely disappeared.
When I subsequently posted a link to my very real photos were there any apologies or “well done?” No. I was an “asshole” and banned.
I would’ve loved to have these keyboard warriors next to me when I was arrested, brought to a military check point, when I was tear gassed, when I was approached more than once by high ranking military officers with a bunch of men and told, “You have a serious problem.”
I’d love to have them with me in Tahrir Square right now and you can goddam well believe I’d give them a very pretty piece of my mind. I have a sense of humor too but believe me, they wouldn’t like it. I once told a dozen of Mubarak’s secret police who surrounded me to go eff themselves and you know what? They did.
There’s arrogant and there’s cocky. Arrogant is when you put your shoes on in the morning and declare yourself a big wheel with your keyboard. Cocky happens when someone in a foreign country puts a knife right up against your throat and snatches your camera and you end up grabbing him and having your camera nice and snug back in your apartment and the moron sitting in the back of a squad car.
I have no patience or admiration for that despicable blog or its commenters nor any interest in making peace other than hoping for good luck in Tahrir. Neither am I impressed with memoirs detailing the horrrors of being yelled at on the phone by a Hizbollah cocktail waitress. So I’m cocky – so what? You need cocky to run around Tahrir with a camera and a giant flash, especially when you are violating curfew every single night and seeing other journalists marched off to the Cairo museum, well known as a place they tortured people; 99% of the photogs here do NOT use a flash and use long lenses while I use a 28mm wide angle lens and get right up into people’s faces.
Ask Sandmonkey how much fun he had in Talaat Harb Square which I walked through 50 times. This ain’t no picnic and while I don’t need any praise nor seek it I don’t want any reviews either and will defend myself from morons sitting nice and safe 5 thousand miles away.
I agree …Mr. May leaves out a very germane issue. he forgets that egypt like ALL muslim countries are for the man. women do no factor into any discussion (unless discussing the proper methods for beating or honour killing).
this is all one needs to know about egypt and islam. it is a very cruel place and will never be democratic, or safe for women.
all the rest of the platitudes about an “arab spring” are just bullsh!t.
I don’t disagree with that. Women don’t count for much in the eyes of most Egyptian men. In fact, it’s so true I guess I just take it for granted to the extent I fail to point it out, like pointing out the sky.
To whatever extent women are making gains in Egyptian society it is definitely due almost entirely from pressures from outside the culture from the West.
yes I fall into that at times and if it wasn’t for Max’s comment I wouldn’t have thought twice about it either.
Americans are much more concerned out the American economy and the NFL lockout than about this trivial intra-tribal/religious disputes.
Those who are interested can read the JP and Ha’aretz to get the gist of the alien issue
eg ” Lieberman deplores Netanyahu for leaning toward apology to Turkey”
http://www.haaretz.com/
Meanwhile for Americans the good news is that the NFL have a deal and American Congress almost has a deal on the debt–these are important issues for Americans.
Note Mr, Rubin, Victor has just entered and basically mocked your post. He doesn’t give a crap about your thoughts and now introduces both his villain Lieberman and his ideal -Turkey.
In fact, he is rather insulting trying hard to divert this thread and the comments to the NFL and the debt, telling you and us that Americans don’t give a shit about your topic.
He was chased off Totten’s blog rather than being banned. I would suggest readers consider him a troll by just reading what he just posted AS A RESPONSE TO Mr. Rubin’s POST.
HOW
MUCH
ARE
YOU
PAID?
M
Yeah, Victor is obviously a slave to the Leftist Agenda. Note the deceit in every point he tries to make. I sure wish I could locate the farm they grow these cabbages on.
When you figure out if this pitch by Victor is twisted conservatism with an anti-Israeli ME spin or actually a leftist spin, please tell me. We’ve been trying to figure that out over at MJT for some time.
Mr. Rubin: These days, I am not at all surprised by the twisted logic of academics, and in particular, non-science academics (although, when it comes to the climate, even many of the academics in the sciences seem to have drunk the Kool-aid of global warming). Why I am not surprised is the memory of the Duke/lacrosse scandal. Recall how the “academics” at Duke behaved during scandal. The presumption of innocence was dropped for the presumption of guilt. Evidence was not important and the truth was not important. What was important was the meta-narrative of white boys having raped a black woman, DNA (or lack thereof) be damned. So, now too you have been subject to the same kind of meta-narrative (although far less damaging to you than the rape charges leveled at the lacrosse players). Expect it anytime you ruffle the preconceived notions of such “academics.”
Kudos to Barry Rubin! Yet another incisive column. As I was reading this I was thinking back to the day when I was a long-haired hippie. I think that what went wrong is that the freedom-loving hippies were overtaken and shoved aside by the doctrinaire yippies: the Marxian, anti-Western, anti-American leftists you speak of. As I lived those times, it was all about freedom. Freedom to be who you wanted to be, and to live as you wanted to live. Freedom from The Man. Freedom from The System. Freedom to “tune in, turn on, drop out.” We told each other to Question Authority (which is to say, government of any kind). We didn’t like rules, or restrictions, or regulations. In fact, we utterly despised such things. We camped where we wanted to camp and to hell with the freaking Forest Service. We wanted to go back to basics. We wanted to groove on the Now, and soak up the natural world surrounding us. We wanted to bask in the simple pleasures of Mother Earth. We wanted to go back to a simpler, pre-industrial, pre-Super-Power day. Some of us joined communes, cultivated a bit of sweet leaf, and just wanted to be left the hell alone. We didn’t need help or advice from anyone. We were, in short, conservatives, though we didn’t know it. But we felt obliged to the Yippies, I guess because they hated Nixon and The Draft as much as we did. We bought into the whole “Amerika” schtick. WHAT FOOLS WE WERE! We didn’t even realize that we were already living in the freest nation the world had ever known. I forget where I was going with this, but thanks again, Mr. Rubin. You are one of my very favorites. God Bless.
“We were, in short, conservatives, though we didn’t know it”
i would probably say more “libertarian” than “conservative,” nevertheless,
this juicy nugget gives me hope that we can turn the ship around
Those that the gods wish to destroy, first they make mad. Losing the academy to delusional thinking is akin to an entire civilization losing its mind because the academy is the civilization’s brains, and from it all ideas and information, true or false, are gradually diffused throughout the entire society. They will lead that civilization over the cliff because they’re too immersed in their own internal visions and voices and revolutionary destiny to see the cliff.
Most those who call themselves ‘liberals’ these days are Marxists to some degree or another who adopted names like ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’ because if they’ll openly say they’re socialists they won’t have a chance to mainstream their ideas, let alone get elected. Professors say they are liberals and teach their students neo-Marxist ideas. Most students don’t even know what’s the origin of these ideas or that there are any alternatives, so they become sort of “unconscious” Marxists to some degree, still believing they are liberals. Most Marxists don’t appreciate truth per se. They don’t believe it exists. To them there are only narratives and these narratives are just instruments of power. Their purpose, therefore, is to replace the narrative that establishes the hegemony of the ruling class with the narrative that will establish the alternative hegemony of the subaltern groups. Any dissent risks the success of the revolution and therefore is immoral, whether factually accurate or not.
The question is, what do we do to change it?
“The question is, what do we do to change it?”
We win some elections, we demand that the Liberal Arts academy justify its existence, and (as we know that it cannot in any practical sense do that), we defund it. We could start out by defunding all publicly-financed Schools of Journalism, as a trial balloon. Does anyone truly believe that they would be missed? If anything the News Business might revive from the multi-cultie, PC miasma that it presently languishes in.
Since this problem revolving around critical pedagogy and political correctness is entrenched in the American public’s mindset, I propose using essays, smart essays with a more centrist and less aligned voice like Christopher Hitchens to start calling out the “anti-racist” racists who right now have free reign in our colleges, TV and mainstream news sites.
The Left have to be attacked on principles that disallow their hypocrisy and marginalized just like Ward Churchill, the KKK and neo-Nazis. Moral and principled preaching is how the Left insinuated it’s weird socialist/Marxist views and how we can back out. Without attacking this problem in our social institutions, it’s a losing fight. In the 60s such views had some traction and justice but in 2011 it’s just racism, misandry and bigotry. Silence these voices in mainstream life and the problem will solve itself.
You can’t attack Jews or people of color or women as groups and that protection should be extended to all and morality should not be allowed to be doled out to just a few, approved groups. That’s how you take America back, one principle at a time, not congressional districts. You hear utter nonsense about Islamophobia but the black elite in America and feminsts and the Left have whiteophobia that is perfectly fine. That has to end as does entitlements, DREAM Acts and affirmative action. It’s 2011 and everyone needs a new clock.
You can tell that cuz the arguments against white privilege always revolve around the remnants of historical artifacts like lynching, slavery and Jim Crow and not around the real facts of today. The Duke lacross case was a perfect example of taking a lie, attaching it to some plantation view while ignoring the reality of who commits crimes of that nature in this country and it ain’t white lacrosse players who attack stores in mobs.
“Smart essays”? Like ones that end in obscene suggestions to the Minneapolis YWCA? Well begun is half done, huh?
It starts that way too.
Even if you think those personal blog comments were over the top, the basic point is sound. Why further a rather bigoted view under the banner of women rights. Now that is over the top. Just look at the Mexican stand off between representatives West and DW in Florida. What she does is clearly insulting and West flamed out. And the double standard by the DNC regarding Grayson who was voted out is pathetic. FU, by the way isn’t racism, just emotional steam….
I liked the article, Mr. Rubin. Lots of truth.
But “liberalism” hasn’t lost its way, it’s right on track. Sometimes individual liberals wake up and realize it’s all a bunch of lies to seek power, and they imagine an ideal past when it was all genuinely about bettering the human condition.
The modern Left came of the 18th Century “Enlightenment”, when the vicious SOBs of that era wanted to ditch kings and priests and enjoy the fruits of rule themselves. (David Stove’s ON ENLIGHTENMENT is excellent on this topic.)
“Liberalism” requires a whipping boy, white or black, rich or poor. “Vote for us and we’ll fix those #&$*#s for you!” But the #&$*#s never do get fixed, no matter how much power the “liberals” accrue – they just get more threatening, so you have to keep voting.
Blacks aren’t “lucky” now either, for no longer being the whipping boy. If they ever start voting GOP in large numbers again, lynching will be back and the media will be sympathetic.
— The modern Left came of the 18th Century “Enlightenment”
Uh, no. The American Revolution traces to the Enlightenment. American Leftism traces to Marx, Lenin, and European fascism. Perhaps you are confusing the Modern Left with Classical Liberalism?
Uh, no back at you, Doctor. The American Rev traces from 17th Century Locke and the Glorious Revolution. Marx’s basic idea wasn’t original – go wiki Gracchus Babeuf.
Oh, and Doctor – my arm hurts when I go like this! What ought I to do?
Sit on it?
I think what Mr. Rubin is describing is the modern “liberalism” that does not go back to Locke, but rather more socialist and communist thinkers. This morphing became very significant in the last ten years.
Their neoliberal bottom line is to make everything equal, the lowest common denominator. This was not the idea of merit and Liberal Democracy the Democratic leadership embraced in the fifties and sixties. Until Obama, the Left was fairly contained by the DNC, but BDS let the dogs in and they have been there ever since. Is Juan Cole a Liberal or a Leftist? By his definition the former, but by mine the latter. The “Liberal Consensus” after FDR was more classical liberalism on steroids. Let’s not detract from the profound and worthy changes this brought to America. That collapsed with the Vietnam War. And while it appears great fun for many to rip the progressives, let’s not forget that without the Liberal Consensus and the push by Democrats, I rather doubt a black man would be President. Yes, the Dixiecrats were some bunch, but my father wasn’t worried about Democrats keeping him out of the local country club. In dealing with the problems of liberalism today, let’s not re-write history. Self-loathing is hardly why 70% of Jews in America voted for Democrats this last election……
Personally, I will not vote for a leader who thinks the world was created according to the literal story in the OT. Texas today still is debating whether to put creationism or “un”intelligent design in Texas science classrooms. Science is about evidence and scientific method. Name a single experiment that could possible provide ANY evidence for cause and effect between the immaterial and the material. If one can’t even fathom an experiment, it is not something that involves science.
Nor do I think it particularly American for any group to vote merely because of the US foreign policy regarding their religious beliefs. I say this as someone quite supportive of the State of Israel.
Nobody said the modern Left sprang from Locke.
i have always believed that the “modern american left” is the same ideology/philosophy employed by tyrants since the dawn of humanity
the only thing the “moderns” have done is hijack the word “liberalism” (in early nineteenth century terms: “freedom as ultimate goal and the individual as the ultimate entity”– m. friedman) in the 1930′s which replaces “welfare and equality” for freedom
Liberals have hurt blacks more than any other group by paying young girls to become unwed mothers, by busing, which took parents out of the school and children far away from home, and caused anyone who could to move out of the cities, and by all their meddling and promising in order to keep those votes coming.
Leftist/liberal/progressive “rebels” don’t love freedom, they despise it. History has shown that a population that is free to accept or reject their collectivist ideology, will eventually reject it overwhelmingly once exposed to it. Socialism and communism are based on principles that are not compatible with basic human nature. And thus they can only survive through application of force.
The only people that benefit long-term from collectivist political systems are the rebels-turned-oppressors. The perfect recent example is Sandinista rebel Daniel Ortega. This former peasant now has a net worth of several million dollars.
Even here in the USA, there are many examples of self-proclaimed open-minded and freedom-loving “progressives” using oppressive, authoritarian tactics to punish and bully those that exhibit any degree of dissent to their ideology. The most egregious example is the “diversity” agenda being pushed at public universities. Even though students are paying tuition, they are subject to unconstitutional expulsion or disciplinary actions based on the subjective whims of some unaccountable “diversity board”.
“In the past, something has been unfair (position one). What should be done according to democracy and Enlightenment values is to correct it by fairness (position two). But instead the dominant ideology wants to make it unfair in the opposite direction (position three). Thus, the situation remains arguably just as bad instead of being made better.”
Actually, I’d argue that position 1 and position 3 are not just equally bad, they are “essentially” the same: both positions play into the hands of the ruling class; while position 2 is fundamentally different because it tends to limit the power of the ruling class.
On a lighter tone, let me add a couple of sarcastic remarks.
WRT Glenn Beck: the way I know he is no antisemite, is that he is accused of antisemitism by the American media and academia. If he were a real antisemite, he’d be celebrated — as long as his antisemitism was not embarassingly blatant.
WRT George Soros: that he is rich and powerful is both objectively true, and not a reason to criticize him. The reason to criticize him is that he is objectively antisemitic; ie that, intentionally or not, he is promoting antisemitism. (And I could not care less whether it is intentional or not.)
It seemed pretty intentional when he was shuffling off ‘other’ Jews to die in the furnaces and looting their property.
The liberal ideology and practice of the capitalism have turned the world over but have created the great resistance.The forces of collectivism in the forms of leftist`s “social protest”,nationalism,anti-colonialism have turned the western citizen into the “liberal”,whose enemy is the wall-street,and whose ally is the illegal immigrant.The ugly character of the welfare state whose sitizens are feed by the hated capitalism make it`s social science ugly too, that is brilliantly described by Mr.Rubin.
As I watch how the Left works I am more and more convinced that Camus’s “The Rebel” should be core cirriculum in every school. Though I’m sure that “progressives” would find a way to use Camus’s work to defend what they do, instead of seeing themselves as perpetuating the very dynamic he warns against.
Why did you quote the Beatles when you should have quoted The Who?
As we have surrendered our entire justice system to subjective standards differentiating between “hate victims” and other victims, not to mention “hate criminals” versus “non-hate killers, rapists, etc.,” the fight for equality is already lost.
And the second stage of this systematic perversion of the idea of equality before the law — normalizing evermore politicized decisions separating the specially protected (or specially excused) people from the rest of us — is well underway.
Once justice is applied unequally, and the act of doing so is redefined as justice, it’s all over.
Intellectuals are just another bought-and-paid-for special interest group feeding at the money trough of progessivism/marxism/totalitarianism. They are in the same line as trial lawyers, crony capitalists, feminists, “minorities”, unions, gays, welfare addicts, “journalist’s”, and politicians.
Of course, they have a special status, since they do the intellectual dirty work for their masters.
Envy, jealousy leads to hate. This leads to other evils, such as going through anything to put yourself up in front. Failing that, you foment hate.
“But since people will disagree and no one can be absolutely right, the ability of government or society to impose the version held by any individual or group should be limited as much as possible.”
While the entire article was great, this was the money line. We should concentrate on getting government back to its role as a service organization with limited responsibilities. There is no chance to rid the world of control freaks and useful idiots – but we can prevent them from grabbing the controls and steering us all off the cliff.
One of the best ways to understand our current mess in intellectual life is through what I call the three option situation. In the past, something has been unfair (position one). What should be done according to democracy and Enlightenment values is to correct it by fairness (position two). But instead the dominant ideology wants to make it unfair in the opposite direction (position three).
That’s because option 2 is driven by liberalism, while option 3 is actually Leftism, a separate and opposing movement. Don’t be confusing the two.
We should concentrate on getting government back to its role as a service organization with limited responsibilities. There is no chance to rid the world of control freaks and useful idiots – but we can prevent them from grabbing the controls and steering us all off the cliff.
Spot on. After all, the smaller and less powerful the machine is, the less of a disaster it would be if some control freak did grab control of it.
And it’s worth bearing in mind that these control freaks aren’t necessarily stupid; they are looking for positions of power, after all. If government is properly laden in chains, it isn’t that powerful, and therefore attracts fewer control freaks to begin with.
Sharply limited government (federal, state AND local — none of this BS about an unconstrained federalgovernment, as if unconstrained state government was OK) is an objective value, a prima facie necessary component of gaining and keeping a free republic.
Hey There. I found your blog using msn. This is a very well written article. I’ll be sure to bookmark it and come back to read more of your useful information. Thanks for the post. I’ll definitely return.