Get PJ Media on your Apple

Spengler

Dr. Dre and Putin

May 9th, 2014 - 4:12 pm

Unlike Pat Buchanan and some other conservatives, I don’t think that Vladimir Putin’s support of traditional values makes him a good guy. Freedom comes first. I also support traditional values but I don’t want the government to shove them down my throat. Banning obscenity from entertainment media, Putin’s latest ukase,  would keep Shakespeare, Goethe and Dante out of circulation in their original form, not to mention Rabelais or Villon.

What we do with our freedom is another thing. Apple has just bought Dr. Dre’s earphone company for $3.2 billion, making the rapper one of the country’s wealthiest men. One presumes that the selling point of his earphones is not their superior technical characteristics but their association with Dre’s rapping, which is too disgusting to illustrate on this site; readers may satisfy their prurient curiosity here.  Dre raps about drug use, rape, pimping and violence: he is a repulsive degenerate whom a healthy society would excrete and forget. Dre’s $3.2 billion score gauges the popularity of evocations of rape and murder.

There is no guarantee that freedom will prevail over dictatorship. I reviewed some of the history here.

Democracies do not necessarily field the most efficient or enthusiastic armies. The French under Napoleon and the Germans under Hitler were the best soldiers of their day. Democracies have one important advantage, namely the capacity to correct errors. Democracies do not necessarily make better decisions than dictatorships in each case, but they are less like to perpetuate errors. It is easy to replace an elected leader who goes mad; not so a charismatic tyrant. This makes the ultimate victory of democracies more probable, but hardly inevitable. It may be likely that a charismatic tyrant will make decisive errors, but it is far from assured that such error will be made soon enough to make it possible to defeat the tyrant at the right moment. I like to think that providence was at work during the Second World War, but that sort of question is above my pay grade.

A people can will itself out of existence democratically as well as by any other means: France did so during the 1930s, and survived the clutches of Nazi Germany thanks to the Allies.

Putin’s mission is to save Russia from dissolution. Ten years ago, with a fertility rate of just 1.2 children per female and fourth-world life expectancy for men, Russia seemed doomed. The fertility rate since has recovered to 1.7, for reasons we do not adequately understand. Part of the reason surely is renewed national self-confidence.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
What we have in Putin is a clear example of an evil man doing good things.

What we have in Dr. Dre (if the sale turns out to be fact--which hasn't been confirmed of this writing) is a case of the market, separated from moral commitments, doing evil things.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Freedom comes first. I also support traditional values but I don’t want the government to shove them down my throat."

I think we are learning by experience that virtue comes first, before freedom. We have, or have had plenty of freedom but as we have lost virtue and self control that freedom becomes anarchy. To ameliorate the effect of anarchy we get increasing authoritarianism in the name of increasing freedom.

I also don't want the government to shove virtue down my throat, but of course that is the opposite of what the government is doing now. The US Government is institutionalizing perversion and wickedness. Note the celebration of P-Riot, a group which desecrated a Cathedral. Its not just the government of course, witness Harvard sponsoring the conjuring up of a demon: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/feastofeden/2014/05/harvard-can-do-better-than-give-a-platform-to-a-black-mass-promoter-who-ridicules-sex-abuse-victims/ .
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm less worried about Dr Dre than I am of the faculties at American universities. They have the minds of our children for four of their most formidable years. That's scary!
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (102)
All Comments   (102)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Spengler here has proposed an argumentation that floats between a pragmatic justification of democracy and categorial value assertions, e.g. "Freedom comes first". Indeed, "DEMOScracy" is simply equated with "freedom". For my part I find DEMOScracy objectionable where not severly limited by non-democratic features of a constitutional republic (such as the US used to be, cf. Thomas Woods' "Who Killed the Constitution?").

Democracy is justified by Spengler as a pragmatic means of correcting errors. The idea hits my Germanic mind that Hitler used the democratic forms of the Weimar Republik to become the Chancellor and then got the legislature to vote democratically to dissolve itself permanently, thus making him the "Führer" for life (something like Julius Caesar did in becoming "democratically" the dictator for life--thereby ending the Roman res publica). I do not see how "democracy" an sich could have corrected that quaint error of electing Hitler as the "Führer" (any more than I see now how democracy in Germany and Europe can correct the European rush into a transnational bureuacratic superstate [relative to which Putin's "nationalistic" reaction has gained some applause from "conservatives" here, yet outside the German democratic parties which have disarmed any real conservative particiapation in opposition]). But back to the democratically elected Führer.

Democracy expresses the "demos" by allowing the members of said body "freely" to chose their leader, new or not. The essential point is the "freely" constituted unity of the will of the people, this is the democratic moment. Such unity is the expression of democracy-freedom. I had an "ah-hah" moment on this watching the long documentary on the 1938 Nazi Party "meeting" at Nurnburg with a couple of hundred thousand attending. The propaganda reminded me of an American political convention whipping up the faithful for their democratically voted candidate. Well, after much propaganda and the stirring speech of a certain leader, the masses in one democratic act cried out "We, the demos, elect Hitler". Whoops, they really said "Heil Hitler", which I have but translated into democratic terms. The (at that time) freely experienced choice for Hitler was an expression of the FREE will of those attending, democratic to the core, only the "Volk" replaced the "Demos" as the terminology. I have gone back to Nazi democracy (sic), viz., Volkswille" in part to have a strong counter to Spengler's thesis and in part hopefully to suggest successfully that more is involved that (non-defined) "freedom", particularly the seemingly uncritical idenfication of freedom with democrary.

Enough for the moment. Freedom is NOT first! That is libertine-ism. Freedom with virtue is first or, as Hegel noted, freedom with(in) law, that duality is first. But virtue or law here is not just what the vox populi have decided, rather derived higher values (such as the non-democratic "inallienable"). Since 1973 American democracy (sic) has enabled the mass murder of 50++ millions of innocent humans by abortion. This development is a function of genuine "freedom" in a ''democracy" >> a "freedom" that makes me feel UNfree, well knowing that democracy will change nothing. No, Spengler needs to define terms if the fine theme is to become more than a stimulus for prejudices.
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Banning obscenity from entertainment media, Putin’s latest ukase, would keep Shakespeare, Goethe and Dante out of circulation in their original form, not to mention Rabelais or Villon."

versus:

"Dre raps about drug use, rape, pimping and violence: he is a repulsive degenerate whom a healthy society would excrete and forget. Dre’s $3.2 billion score gauges the popularity of evocations of rape and murder."

Let's do a quick check:
Rabelais - wrote satire so "obscene" it was banned
Villon - a career criminal who murdered a man and wrote poetry about it
Goethe - wrote about suicide and making a deal with the devil
Dante - a political schemer who condemned his enemies to torture for all time in his poetry
Shakespeare - rape and murder are merely the beginning, with incest, regicide, familicide, and more abounding in his plays

Pot, meet Kettle.
Kettle, this is Pot.

You have met the enemy that is cultural arrogance promoting censorship for the common good and he is Spengler.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
Say what you will about Putin. But the reality is that
Europe is a rotting carcass of atheist degeneracy
A few short years away from its flesh being
Picked clean by the Muslim beasts from the Middle East.
The Ukrainians would be sadly mistaken to hitch their
Wagon to .the Euro-carcass.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
Re Fail Burton's comments on the USA fighting a massive war all alone against Japan....Japan also was fighting on many fronts throughout WW2. They had a massive army trying to conquer China, they had to garrison all of South East Asia, they fought Australian forces in Papua New Guinea, and they were trying to conquer British India. By 1944 they had three armies in Burma facing the British armies along the Indian border. Their defeat at Imphal in Burma in that year was their biggest defeat in the war up to that time. They also needed to keep an army in Manchuria to watch the Soviet Union, and some of their fleet was engaged in the Indian Ocean to protect their communications from the British naval forces operating out of Sri Lanka (Ceylon).
I suggest that Washington's Pacific war was against most of Japan's navy but only a small fraction of its land and air forces, and it is wrong to think that the Americans fought Japan's full strength all alone.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
As America becomes less and less a European nation, and more and more a vast third world banana republic, we're going to be seeing a lot more of this kind of sentiment. Personally, I feel no allegiance whatsoever to the culture that spawned Dr. Dre, and have no interest in contributing to it or defending it if push comes to shove. Honestly, as a white middle class man of the right, I feel like a man without a nation.

I really think we're facing a civilizational split in our future, as people who don't want to follow the path of Obamanation increasingly secede from the USA begin to forge new institutions and a new nation from the ruins of this one. As far as I'm concerned, it can't come soon enough. Soon, I expect right-wingers to join Muslims in chanting "death to Amerika!" as I've been doing for some time now.

The America I respected was killed by the cultural revolutions of the past 50 years that brought dregs like Obama and Dr. Dre to the top; ideologically and culturally it's a zombie nation now, awaiting its collapse to take more visceral forms. If a shooting war with Russia comes, I for one will either revolt or join the other side. There's absolutely no chance I'll fight against fellow Europeans to defend a nation as far gone as the US(S)A.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
I would suggest that Dre, whatever you think of him, looked at the lay of the land, took advantage of the situation and made a billionaire out of himself.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Conservative" is kind of an awkward fit for Buchanan, he's got these odd little tics that take precedence over what would ordinarily be considered Conservative principle. It's like he's Irish first, pointedly eccentric second, American third, Conservative fourth.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
Good grief. Dr. Dre has done exactly we want the underclass to do, make money (legally) and lift themselves out of poverty. We should be praising Dre, not cursing him (and by the way, he hasn't had an album in 15 years).
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm pretty sure people didn't have hate-speech and the over-the-top vulgarity of the Checkered Demon brought into the real world public arena in mind when they talked about boot-straps.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
We went into poor neighborhoods and replaced fathers with government checks. Now rather than compete for wives by offering stability and perhaps the hope of upward mobility, poorer men compete with a floor of about $40K in welfare payment value (in the north-east). Women can get this so long as there is not a man in the house.

If men cannot compete for women on the basis of resources, they must compete on the basis of what is left, aggression, manipulation and physical prowess. Additionally, while it is difficult for an low skilled husband to support more than one family, it is easy for one aggressive male to inseminate many women. Thus, we have designed a system that utterly marginalizes all but the most violent or manipulative males below a certain threshold level of wealth. Why? Because poor women are fairly rational actors, and the government magic check writing machine will not abandon them. Certainly welfare reform started to deal with this problem, but we've pretty well gotten back to the bad old days under Obama.

So, young men in poor areas are basically stuck in a cage match trying to attract the attention of women who essentially want only the most defiantly anti-social of their number...and all this is sponsored by the state that puts them in jail for the very anti-social acts that its policies drive...

...and we wonder why Rap Music exalts rape and shooting the police? It would be a miracle if it did not.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
Again, Napoleon wasn't Hitler, he never programmed a genocide of populations like the Nazis did, like Stalin did for political opponents. He even wasn't a tyran for his soldiers like any prussian general was then. He was loved and respected by his soldiers, because he knew how to talk to them.

The only comparison with the Nazis that is acceptable is his Russian Campain, like the Germans he hired europeans soldiers, half of them came from Germany Italy, Spain, Poland..., and these preferred the french military rules, because they weren't punished like they were under their own military chiefs rules

Of course his russian campain was the too much campain, if he'd asserted his position in occidental Europe, may-be today the world would have been different.

But we would still be at war with Britain , Napoleon was the biggest threat to their hegemonial Empire, the Brits got ruined from then they had to borrow money to the RothSchild bankers, that they still are repaying today

And for defeating Napoleon , it needed a whole european coalition of monarchies, a lot of money from the Brits to bribe them into war

Napoleaon is the Anglo-Saxons "black beast", while he is reverred in China
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
You are forgetting there was a perception, very real whether misplaced or not, that Napoleon in 1800 threatened (via Egypt) one of the richest sources for the British aristocracy - India. French Jacobin troops threatened the British with garrisons side by side with the British in Hyderabad with its diamond mine and via Tipu Sultan, who had wreaked havoc on the British for years. The Egyptian Battle of Aboukir Bay was the result, with the British winning.

This happened again around 1840 when the British became convinced the Russians would threaten India, leading to the disaster in Afghanistan William Darymple documents in "Return of a King."
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
in 1800, there wasn't such a route through Egypt for India, the Nile canal was built more than half a century later, by the French Ferdinand de Lesseps BTW, while the Brit army only arrived i the 1880 years in Egypt.

Their strengh was mainly on seas

Also the Brits bribed the Ottomans to go into war with Napoleon there too, and sorry, Aboukir was a french victory

In India the French and the Brits were concurrents, not really for occupying territories (the French), but for securing some coastal harbours and lands for trades

in the 1840 years, the French and the Brits weren't ennemies anymore, they fought together the Crimea war over the Russians, at the Ottomans request

So from this perspective we can say that there were 4 major concurrent powers trying to extend their influence over seas, in Europe, Africa, Asia : Britain, France,Russia, the Ottomans. Austria wasn't a sea power
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
Napoleon can take credit for reviving the idea of a Jewish state in the world. When he came up to then Palestine from Egypt to fight the Turks, his troops were not in good shape. He made a proclamation in which he promised to re-established the state if the Jews would join his army. And they did. Unfortunately the one Jew who could help was the commander of the troops at Acre and he wouldn't switch sides. If Napoleon had broken through he couldn't taken down the Ottoman Empire then but he was defeated at Acre, his only defeat until Waterloo. After that the concept of Jewish state became a reality in world affairs and Moses Hess, after he founded Communism, laid the basis for political Zionism. Napoleon was not an anti-Semite.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
yes, he who authorised Jews to join the army and the administrations in France
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
>>>>>Again, Napoleon wasn't Hitler

I think the writer's point was merely than both Napoleon's France and Hitler's Germany were not democratic and had good armies, not that Napoleon is morally the same as Hitler.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
what were such " "Democracy", two centuries ago?

if Napoleon had lived in the 20th century, his regime would have likely some de Gaulle's sort
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
Napoleon's France was a Republic. Napoleon fought a Duke at Waterloo. That Duke killed and colonized Hindus in India. That Duke had a King. The differences are largely symbolic, since Napoleon also dreamt of colonization, empire, and was a de facto king, etc.

American's not only fought as good as Nazis, they had a combined strategic/tactical weapons philosophy that outgunned Nazis at point of contact, e.g., aircraft carriers, four-engine bombers, organic anti-aircraft defenses at the divisional (or below) level. We clearly out-thought Nazis when it came to war.

And, I'd like to see Nazi divisions storm Iwo Jima 9 kazillion miles from home while acting like they were in Des Moines. That is if the Nazis had the logistical/operational means to do so - which they didn't.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
the Americans came in 1944 june, when the soviets had already weakened enough the Nazis war machine

if they had come in 1942, they would have been massacred like the Canadians attempt in Dieppe
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
Part 2: Let's assume the Americans have Halsey, Nimitz, and MacArthur in the Med and N. Sea and turn both into an American lake. We flank the Germans out of Italy or isolate them there, rather than a direct attack. Suddenly the British Isles as our sole logistics base obviates the need for Normandy to bear the brunt of our power.

Instead of only Normandy, we launch 4 equally powerful attacks through Normandy, Denmark, Marseille, and Croatia. With all those Essex class fast fleet carriers, scores of other surface ships, all those transports, we would've had logistical and strategic bases in the Med equal to the U.K. The Germans would've been rolled up into a ball.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
I am aware of your first sentence. But you are being disingenuous. The Soviets had no second front. They were able to bring the full brunt of their empire onto the Nazis. Secondly, they did so with the material help of the Americans, who funneled thousands of trucks, engines, raw materials, foodstuffs, etc. into the Soviet Union. AND, the Americans and British were pinning down German forces and destroying German industry.

The important point is the Americans were also fighting a massive war in the Pacific - alone. Had we brought the full brunt of our power down onto the Germans, all those divisions, all those planes, all those ships and aircraft carriers and submarines, all that industry from the Pacific down onto Europe, there would've been no massacre other than that of the German army, and in short order.

Despite their great tactical abilities, the Germans had nothing like the combined arms tactical and strategic system the Americans had. The Soviet Union and Germans fought an unsophisticated and brutal war compared to what the Americans brought to the table. Neither the Soviets or the Germans were able to touch each other's industrial centers.

Without the Americans bombing the Germans and pinning down their forces FROM 1942 from England and N. Africa on, then what do the Soviets do? All those battles in the Soviet Union in '42-'43 were very near things. Has the Germans been able to devote their full attention to the Soviet Union, there is little doubt there would've been stalemate. As it was, the Soviet Union was coming to the end of their manpower in '45. Subtract a million German casualties in the East and add a million Soviet casualties and what do you have?
(show less)
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
disingenuous? No, objective.

BTWPutin is coming for the next 6th June festivities, that will be funny to watch the western hypocrits facing him then.

Of course the Soviets had the biggest one front war, and were helped by the American contribuations for arms deliveries, and that the Americans had a two fronts war to sustain, though they priviledged the Asian front first and Roosevelt wasn't unhappy to let the Russians getting exhausted on the european front, cuz that would make them weaker and less numerous for a future confontation with the US

The Germans were the first to make a tactical war with combined forces, such Infantry+ tanks + planes, though Leningrad siege and sStalingrad siege was more like a conventional war, where starving the Russians was the objective

The german attention was focused on the soviets but sufferered from delays, Had the Italians being able to secure their position in Greece, and had the Battle of Britain been easier, the Barbarossa campain would have been more successful, the main fightings would have been made during the warrmest months. From Leningrad failure , the Nazis were loosing, and it was a question of months and or of aa couple of years that they would be completely defeated.

The Brit RAF did the major bombing work, the Americans came later on the job
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 5 Next View All