For all its religious fervor, this is a dangerous kind of nostalgia. Blake's utopia, rendered as Albion 2 covering the earth, sounds a bit like any other imperialist campaign, and his imagination of "bright Japan and China" just another stop along the Silk Road. There is a fine line between Blake's imagined Jerusalem-at once the holy city and London, at once a temple and a financial exchange--and the imperialism it aims to disavow; it may at first seem there is little room between eternity and global capitalism. Blake is generally saved from charges of imperialism by recourse to his "madness"; a self-proclaimed prophet is not imagined to have much use for the Real World.
Though his is a spatial poetry littered with chasms, voids, abysses, vacuums, and shells--its lands, books, and bodies described in terms of contraction, circumference, and direction , it is easy to read Blake's spatiality as metaphorical and apolitical, "imaginative" in the sense of being impossible.
His geographic orientations are materially unimaginable--"West, the Circumference: South, the Zenith: North, the Nadir: East, the Center"--and appear symbolic: the directions are aligned alternately with the senses, the features of the face, and the limbs of the body. This metaphoricity seems to suggest that Blake's spatial interest is in the eternal rather than the "real," the symbolic rather than the material. Rather than reduce Blake's insistent focus on the material conditions of England and his equally insistent use of visionary language to one or the other, either the literal or the metaphorical, I suggest that the imaginary process proposed in Jerusalem is the move by which the visionary city becomes the material city.
The outline of the door is white line against a dark background in all of the monochrome copies; here it is black line. The picture is not the same in this important respect: what is here black is there white. The same reversal of white and black appears in several other plates, and more than merely local effects are involved.
In all of the monochrome versions, the rays of the sun on the horizon line are white lines against a black sky; these lines are made by printing from an engraved plate. In contrast, in copy E, those rays are black lines drawn on the paper not the copper plate across a sky of white and pale gray.
Another case in which the differences are spectacular between the watercolored Jerusalem and the monochrome versions is the wonderful design of plate In all of the monochrome copies, the sun, the clouds, and the flames are defined as white spaces; the definition is achieved by black lines printed from the etched plate.
In contrast, in copy E the flames are drawn very sharply on the paper—in water color applied with a fine brush and in india ink applied with a pen. The flames and the sun are defined as colored spaces, outlined in black; and the sun, which in all of the monochrome copies is white against a black sky, is here painted black. These differences are vitally important in several ways: obviously a picture consisting of white forms against a dark background is very different from a picture consisting of colored forms against a white background; further, the lines themselves, whatever their color, are very different.
Printed ink from the copper plate copy E is printed in orange ink, and copy A in black makes lines very different in texture, definition, thickness, and appearance from lines that are drawn on paper after the printing, by a pen or fine-pointed brush. Water color washed or brushed over a printed surface creates a very different effect from printed lines; and the combination, in a single picture, of several media printed ink, water color, pen-applied india ink, and liquid gold creates extraordinary depth and complexity. These reversals could have been achieved in a number of ways.
For example, a plate on which lines are incised, for the letters of words and the outlines of pictorial figures, can produce dark letters and lines if the plate is wiped before printing; pressure on the paper transfers ink from the incised lines. The result is, like a photographic negative, white on one impression where there is ink on the other, and ink where there was white.
This process is difficult, because the plate must be inked carefully to avoid getting ink into the incisions, but it is possible. I would like to thank Professor Essick for additional information, provided in correspondence, which has been helpful to me in the interpretation of the visual differences and in the preparation of this review. In a dark-line relief etching, such as Blake normally made, the letters and pictorial outlines stand up three-dimensionally on the copper plate. These raised surfaces are inked, and the result is a dark-line print on the paper. Blake could and did use both dark-line and white-line methods in etching Jerusalem , on different plates and sometimes within a single design.
Despite the total reversal of inked and white areas, the white-line frontispiece for Jerusalem was evidently made from the same copper plate as the dark-line version which is in copy E. Faint traces of the deleted inscription in the arch near the top of the design are discernible under the water color of the design in copy E; this fact suggests that the same plate was used here and in the white-line engraving which is now in the Fitzwilliam Museum.
Furthermore, when I have overlain exactly sized transparent photocopies of the white-line version and the dark-line version, I have found that the images are so similar in detail that it is unlikely that they were made from two different metal plates. Instead, Blake has evidently expended effort and skill in transforming the visual effect to produce a different pictorial effect for this copy of Jerusalem.
These differences between dark and light, positive and negative, are perhaps important in conceptual and thematic terms as well. As Joseph Anthony Wittreich, Jr. Reversed writing appears in several plates, as in the backward poem on the scroll on plate 41, and in the deleted inscriptions on the frontispiece. In the work of this artistic revolutionary, such tropes of inversion are laden with meanings, transformative and even insurrectionary.
For the first time, this relatively inexpensive set of color reproductions makes many of the most important of these visual tropes both visible and accessible. I said, our national character is different. We will make our errors in a different way. Fairies are given as one primary example, and apparently some of the South African colonists had similar stories about the natives they wiped out.
Indian policy of the late 19th and early 20 centuries undeniably violated the principle that would later be set forth in Article 2 e of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. As were the Texas child protection people who took three hundred children away from their parents during the FLDS mess. My problem is that Hannah Arendt, like Plato writing about Socrates, is too interesting and intelligent and sophisticated herself to be a very reliable narrator.
I feel like, right now, the people who value science or art or literature or rationality or liberty or anything else worthwhile need all their intellectual firepower—and the proprietor and readers of this blog have a pretty good stockpile—focused on the common threat to civilization and what to do about it. Can we come to an agreement on what art, science, liberty and civilization are, first? And what the most significant threats to their existence are?
One of the things that enabled the Nazis was that people on right closer to the center who would ordinarily argue with them felt like they had to focus their intellectual firepower on the common threat to civilization, Bolshevism. So, this is not as humorous a rebuttal as it might have seemed. Given what happened to the intellectuals who were caught in the middle , it becomes at least darkly ironic. Nobody wants to be the guy who spoke up when they came for the socialists, and then wondered why the socialists came for him anyway.
Or Wil Wheaton. But nobody wants to be Wil Wheaton. To be fair to the center right Germans, they probably erred on the side with the lower fatality rate overall…. Because that side lost. Generalplan Ost would easily have killed more people than Stalin ever did if the Nazis had been in a position to carry it out. Back to Arendt again.
This is not exactly right. First of all, Generalplan Ost changed repeatedly over the course of its life, in direct response to the conditions of the war. Second, Stalin spread immense death and destruction wherever he went, as did his ideological immitators. If you want to take generalplan Ost as a worse case scenario for german crimes, then you have to take the worst case for stalinist as well, which is stalin does to the whole world what he did to lavtia.
If what Stalin did to Latvia plays a role in your beliefs, then what Hitler did to Poland should do as well. It does, but not every country has as many jews as poland did. Kulaks, bourgeoisie, and wreckers, however, are thick on the ground just about everywhere. Bush was a Nazi. I am suddenly very interested in the physical safety of Nazis. So how far would this go? What do we do with the possibility that the Nazis may have been the less bad choice, or at least the more personally rational one?
Probably a lot like East Germany during the Cold War. Terrible for civil liberties, okay on standard of living, no genocides, militaristic but not particularly aggressive. Why do you say that? They probably would have been worse than East Germany. Had they taken power in the early 30s, there likely would have been purges. They would have sent political opponents to camps — just as the Nazis did. There would not have been genocides. Poland, however, would still have been screwed — after all, the Nazis and Soviets were cool about splitting Poland down the middle.
Obviously, would not have invaded the USSR, so fewer deaths there. The only thing I would say for sure is that there would not have been genocide. Worse for whom, is the question, and in what way. Worse in the sense that it might have tipped the Communists over the edge into winning the 3-way war instead of allowing Modern Liberal Democracy to defeat Fascism and Communism in turn, maybe.
Worse for the specific Jews killed in concentration camps, probably not. About the only scenario I can imagine Germany going Communist is the one that actually happened — Germany was massively defeated in a war. No country has ever voted a totalitarian Communist government into power with the possible exception of the Czechs. If the Nazis never come to power, could the Communists have provoked a civil war in Germany in the s?
Possibly, but even in that scenario I suspect Germany would have just fallen apart into various pre states. Hence many people who had previously voted for the center-right agrarian party most people in the countryside did voted for the communists instead. Most Czech people did not know what communists are really like back then. At best they had no information, at worst they had the same extremely biased information about the Soviets which was spread by the left-wing intelligentsia in Europe and which for example Orwell criticized.
However, they got the hold of most important ministries — defence and interiour and started systematically replacing the people in the army and in the police force by their own. They also assassinated some of their opponents, most notably Jan Masaryk they threw him out of the window , of course it was all undercover and masked as accidents. Then the non-communist ministers gave up their functions as a sign of protest.
You are guilty of not using the word defenestration whenever possible. The punishment is defenestration. The governors victimized in the second defenstration of Prague were unharmed although suffered a Biff-Tannen like humiliation. Wikipedia has a list that includes fiction, rumor and fact. Scott posts an article about the horrors of Nazism. Other Scott posts a comment in agreement, fearing the rise of right-wing nationalism.
Close; this is about how the true outgroup here is SJWs, so any discussion of anything bad will gravitate to be about how the real enemy. But he will also do good things, or at least things a lot of people want to happen and so finding a way around that is at this juncture a bad idea. I personally think the more reasonable target of this post is, say, Richard Spencer, who currently argues for peaceful ethnostatism — basically, in the same way that the German Nazis eventually moved away from that, the American Nazis likely would as well.
I mean, no offense, but which country wants to take African-Americans which reside in ghettos? So genocide it is then. Anyhow, in that spirit I respect this piece. Though if people would stop going on about punching Nazis it might be a better time. Now where did I put my bowel disruptor? A lot of people can want bad things to happen, as per the example of Romanian pogrom. What is the common threat to civilization? Leftists said George W. I know this goes against the conventional wisdom here, but while there certainly were people who were willing to call Bush Hitler, I seem to recall substantially fewer of them, especially before the run-up to Iraq.
The rage factories are working overtime these days. No social media back then. Things look bigger now. I really do think it put the kibosh on mass demonstrations, at least in America, for a while. And as much as Obama gets the blame for leaving Iraq and allowing the Islamic State to rise in its wake, the ultimate blame has to go to the architects of the invasion. I agree. There was a lot of unhappiness on the left when Bush was elected, but not on the scale of what is happening this time. But is that outrage because Trump is really that much worse or because the tribalism has gotten worse?
Oh the tribalism has indeed ramped up, but no doubt an important contributor is because Trump is neither a member of the Inner nor Outer Party, and therefore threatens the gravy train of everyone. DTW was not just an empty promise and it suits the purpose of those whose livelihoods are threatened to gin up outrage even beyond the usual. There were also a lot of people who were against going to war in Iraq and considered it a war of aggression, and so likened Bush to Hitler in the invading Poland sense.
A Democracies are one rightist electoral victory from Nazism. Why monarchy would be a defensive move against mass-murdering? George W. Bush started a war of aggression that killed between a half-million and a million people. Obama failed to bring about the apocalypse or take all the guns or fill up those FEMA concentration camps. No, but he get get tens of thousands of Libyans killed, and had a strong hand in getting half a million and counting Syrians killed?
Is there evidence sanctions would have limited this? I think this thread is about stopping Hitler from the inside. Please follow the links; Iraq Body Count counts people directly killed in the conflict; the studies that find higher numbers count the people who died because of less-direct effects of the war.
The left complained about things that really did happen, and the right complained about pants-on-head black-helicopter made-up fever dreams. By the standard you just posed, WW2 was a war of aggression by the western allies. The left was afraid of Hitlery things; the right was afraid of black-helicopter FEMA camp antichrist nonsense.
The former happened at least a little in the sense of an aggressive, unnecessary war. The latter is about as real as Pizzagate. It was a terrible false equivalence. At this point, it looks like the American left says mean things and gets people fired, and the American right starts Land Wars in Asia. The left knocks over middle-eastern countries by fomenting revolution, the right sends in the troops.
Not to excuse those parts of the Right that fell for it, but I first saw the FEMA camp conspiracy theory during the Bush years, in email forwards from some very leftist acquaintances. Nornagest: The FEMA Camp black helicopter UN takeover stuff goes back to at least the Clinton years, when it was circulated in newsletters that were popular with certain segments on the right. But of course you have, say, the John Birch Society, and there are bound to be much earlier examples of this kind of thinking, left and right.
Technically, the allies actually entered the war in self-defense, if one includes declaring war if an ally is attacked as self-defense.
Germany and Italy then declared war on the US. To repeat, there is nothing hiltery about invading a country, hanging its genocidal dictator, then leaving. The french and brits were not defending against an armed attack against them. I believe that there is a huge difference between declaring war if an alliance member is attacked vs making demands on a sovereign nation and then declaring war if they do not comply.
Besides, if the invasion of Iraq makes George W. Bush Hitler, we already lived through one Nazi America with zero domestic atrocities, speech bans or suspended elections, so why be terrified of President Trump? People seemed to take them seriously at the time. He was just more Hitler than Obama was the Antichrist, which is, admittedly, a low bar. Left-wing fears about Bush were less wacky than right-wing fears about Obama.
Google hit counts are not particularly reliable, sadly. A lot of it apparently fear mongering from Zero Hedge. Nornagest: of course, ngrams would have been my first choice, but the data only go up to I feel like this contradicts one of the major theses of the piece: wasting time and arguing is a good thing. Yeah, it seems like Aaronson is not considering the possibility that he may be the one who is pointing his weapons at the wrong target, becoming misguided due to groupthink.
Or that you have two targets that both need to be opposed.
All we can do is minimize the harm of the resulting hysterical thrashing. Trump is busily bypassing critical checks and balances and centralizing decision making while simultaneously establishing the irrelevance of the courts to his decision making process. And never during those years did I ever say W was another Hitler or Mussolini in the making.
Much less doing it mainly to rob whatever public coffers are unguarded or solicit any bribes he feels inclined to accept. Which if it happens is just another source of friction into any efforts to slow him down. Obama declared his candidacy relatively earlier, but this turns that up to eleven. And btw, I hated Obama almost as badly as W. And finding to my surprise I care a little. Not enough to anticipate doing anything significant. And trying to sound all glib and know it all is an exercise in self aggrandizement that comes at the expense of the facts.
Trump is in the middle of some really scary stuff. I just had a comment eaten by something in the site interface banned word? Just two links taken together. Find me a case where parallel charges were made against previous presidential administrations of either party. Mockery in the place of discussion about the facts is exactly the sort of problem the second link talked about.
And how Trump is attempting to change the Overton Window so that people regard talking about the facts as futile. That it uncritically cites the bullshit story about a purge of the State Department does not speak well of its trustworthiness. Yes, Onion , but the story is real. Remember how everyone shied away from Clinton because she felt corrupt? Can we apply a little of that principle here?
- Navigation menu.
- Precision Machining VI.
- Hitlers Armies: A history of the German War Machine 1939-45;
- To the Jews. Selections from 'Jerusalem'. William Blake. The Poetical Works.
- Discipline and Punishment in Global Politics: Illusions of Control.
I, too, thought this was a great example. Except when I looked it up, I found that Carter gave up control of the farm by handing it off to family members. That sounds familiar. You will check it out just enough to be satisfied with your priors. Can you amplify why the Guardian story is bullshit? Two left just after the new year. The chart linked has a couple of errors but it is largely correct. This may not be a trivial distinction.
But to just quietly throw a major organ of government into disorder and have no explanation why it has to be this way sound sketchy. As the Guardian points out, this has an important and likely not accidental effect: it leaves the State Department entirely unstaffed during these critical first weeks, when orders like the Muslim ban which they would normally resist are coming down.
So Trump was supposed to keep around a bunch of appointees that would do everything in their considerable power to undermine his policies? Institutional inertia to the point where the nation can survive a bad leader or two is a feature , not a bug. A sitting chief executive cannot instigate a coup. Imagine Trump declared martial law, used the military to imprison Congress, seized control of the media and declared the Democratic party illegal. Trump is already the head of government and the head of state. If he attempts to seize powers denied him by the Constitution, it would be an autocratic act, but not a coup.
The United States government is deliberately partitioned such that power is apportioned among three branches; any one of the three violently seizing power from the others is, by definition, a coup. Then why did the author of the medium piece bring up the State Department — which is part of the executive branch?
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. So the judge in Brooklyn is the one who attempted a coup — against both the executive and legislative branches. Fortunately the judicial branch controls insignificant military power and can easily be ignored.
Russia has been talking about selling 19 percent of Rosneft for a long time — at least as early as There are clearly ghosts at that McDonalds! In that case I retract my comment and claim the opposite. Sorry for the mistake, I deemed it good for my sanity not to follow the stories around Trump too closely. I appreciate that this sounds like FUD.
Have you actually read it?
Not to mention far bigger consequences. Both of those links are laughably implausible, and include what seem to be mandatory left-wing tropes with no basis in fact. Breitbart, for example, is not a white nationalist site. Crying wolf is still counter productive. The slippery slope is still a fallacy. He has constructed a convincing narrative that his opponents are dishonest and untrustworthy, willing to say anything to defeat him, so all their complaining should be ignored. Being hysterical about him just proves the point.
If you accuse him of being literally Hitler, and he is anything less than literally Hitler, he can point to your dishonesty and hyperbole and rightly claim to have exceeded expectations. There are two interpretations of it, and one of them is worse than Stockholm syndrome. Or starving 60 million peasants to death in the name of a revolution to benefit the poor and oppressed. Well, yes. Everyone is the hero of their own story. Although there are of course no reliable polls, I find this implausible, especially in and afterwards when the Holocaust was in full swing. Rather they were drafted and of course within the army itself there was a considerable degree of social pressure to do as your fellow soldiers did.
It is a fair estimate that the vast majority of Wehrmacht members, especially those who at one point served in the Soviet Union and the Balkans were aware that crimes were being committed. It is also a fair estimate that a considerable number of those who at one point served in the Soviet Union or the Balkans especially the later were involved in some form of crime, i. However, in a strictly legal sense not all of these were complicit in these crimes.
In a historical sense, one can say that they were though and also in a certain moral sense. While this is only one unit and one set of people, given that their social make-up was similar to many a unit in the Wehrmacht, it could be said that this is the closest we can come to an estimate of participation in crimes in individual Wehrmacht units.
Possibly a reference to the Austrian election where the Nazis got a very high vote after banning other parties, etc. I think that this differs by country and by time period. Individualism has certainly increased a lot since WW 2. I especially dislike the constant references to Nazi Germany, which are invariably delivered with an implied wink and nudge — this, you avoided handily. Thanks for the interesting article! I hope.
People who trust that authority is legitimate, will follow its orders more willingly. In this respect I agree with you, Scott — the US is probably going to be fine, eventually, under Trump, although he can do a lot of damage, especially in foreign relations. The ones at most grave danger of abuse of authority that is being followed by the people, are the highly organized East Asian countries where confucianism has instilled a high degree of trust in authority.
I agree with your interpretation of Milgram. I think the refugee issue is a thornier one than you seem to be treating it as. I tend to place the blame for crimes on those who commit them. They can then splendidly disagree on where to draw that line and whether it is a line. And then it seems to lead to annoying discussions when some people are trying to debate causation and counterfactuals and some people are trying to ascertain ultimate responsibility.
If there is a moral position that would have accidentally prevented the worst of the holocaust, then that is a powerful consideration. For example, the US greatly restricted immigration with the Johnson-Reed act and Canada did the same around that time. In Europe there were also a lot of restrictions. As the policy was targeting economic migrants, they could have made an exception for refugees. But that would be a politically unpopular move for several reasons, including anti-Semitism.
Before the Conference the United States and Britain made a critical agreement: the British promised not to bring up the fact that the United States was not filling its immigration quotas, and any mention of Palestine as a possible destination for Jewish refugees was excluded from the agenda. The Australian delegate T. Although the overwhelming majority of US citizens were opposed to attacks on Jews such as occurred on Kristallnacht, in a Roper poll in the United States, only thirty-nine percent of the respondents agreed that Jews should be treated like everyone else.
Kristallnacht inspired many Jews to emigrate from Germany, and in the United States the issue of immigration had risen. Sixty-seven percent of those polled opposed admitting any refugees to the United States, and sixty-seven opposed a one-time admission of ten thousand refugee children. Libertarian panic makes the checks outlined above work robustly. The relative paucity of such panic under Obama, compared to Bush, explains a bit why Obama was able to push the margins of executive power more successfully than Bush. Yeah, having a republican in office is excellent for civil liberties, because the people in a position to make a fuss suddenly start caring.
I agree with you to some extent, but also wonder how much of avoiding those reactions was simply a result of using executive power in a way those institutions favored. He realizes the lawyer is a staunch Republican, and the only other guy there is another client, some very wealthy rancher fellow also an anti-commie Republican. Miller goes to Washington anyway out of principle or something. It is interesting to note that Israelis have an excellent relationship with Germans, French etc. Truly, an unfortunate and illogical stance. None of the Arab nations but Iran is trying to harm Israel and even then in non-existential ways.
Then you have the Palestinians who are not an existential threat, although they resist.
Jerusalem: The Emanation of the Giant Albion - Zurich Open Repository and Archive
Oppressing people and stealing their land tend to lead to resistance. Then portraying yourself as the victim of their resistance is nice rhetoric, but quite flawed. The rhetoric against Iran is also not helping Israel be any safer, as it just leads Iran to feel unsafe and wanting to achieve military parity with Israel.
Israel displaced a bunch of now-dead people 70 years ago in a war. Obviously making them citizens is not an option since most Palestinians support genocide of the Jewish people. There is extensive documentation of crimes committed by Israel against the Palestinian population, both by commission such as mistreatment of Palestinian civilians by IDF soldiers as well as omission as an occupying force, Israel is obliged to protect the Palestinian civilians from attacks by colonists, which they often fail to do.
I am not excusing the attacks on civilians, but I do want to point out that the rocket attacks actually kill very few people. So they are closer to harassment than heavy terrorism. Of course, you merely cherry pick the violence by Palestinians, which in my experience is typical of Americans who wish to discuss this issue, strongly suggesting a strong bias in your media which greatly sympathizes with one side, to wit:.
That is propaganda and you fell for it hard. If you do have an actual survey which actually asked whether they wanted actual genocide and actually got an actual majority to actually say yes, please show it. Also, the independent Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions has found that many Israeli property laws are used to confiscate land. You also have the opportunity to go to their site and read their report s.
The Jews were generally orderly and resigned enough to go relatively quietly while the Roma would run, jump around, and basically be a huge pain in the dick to kill efficiently. He was originally IV-B-3, I think, the guy responsible for monitoring the Freemasons which were treated like a sect , but quickly transferred. Roma who were considered criminals might fall under the purview of the Kripo, the criminal police of the SS.
But a major point to understand about the KZ, the concentration camps, is that their role was explicitly extrajudicial. The party went to great pains to make sure people understood concentration was not a judicial punishment. Even criminals sent to the KZ would only be sent there after their jail sentence was finished. And at least at first, they were put in charge, so everyone knew that there was no role for justice in the logic of the camp, only power. Arendt talks a lot about this in her earlier book Origins of Totalitarianism.
So Roma were rounded up and sent there essentially because they were seen as the purest manifestation of the undesirable, but not because they were organized enemies of the Reich or competing enters of power like the churches, or competing ideologies like Communism. The Communists had an expert too, but not most of the other victim classes. Most of the people bearing responsibility for the other groups would have overlapped.
Albania had a tiny pre-war Jewish population about in a country of just over a million. It did take in a large number of German and Austrian Jewish refugees, so the Jewish population of Albania after the war was over 2, about Jews had been killed. For most of the war Albania was under Italian occupation. Jews were prohibited from joining the Fascist Party which was the only legal political party.
Portraying a black person as a monkey touches on issues of racism, which has its own idiosyncratic etiquette. Joking about it inherently has non-joking implications about how close your Overton window is to such people.
Albion and Jerusalem: The Anglo-Jewish Community in the Post-Emancipation Era
The Trump is Hitler joke appears in a context where lots of people seriously think Trump is comparable to Hitler. Scott has written an entire post arguing against that claim, and defended it just recently. So, that would be an unlikely possibility. Scott and pretty much every person here self-identifies with a political movement that contains people outside Slate Star Codex. If that was an intentional bucket of cold water to make people less susceptible to unconscious persuasion, credit to him for including it.
OK, but the big big difference is that the horribly racist example is itself really racist. Whereas the trump-is-hitler meme is offensive only by being a joke in the middle of a serious post. That might or might not be a bad idea, and probably does hurt some people, but is not obviously a big ban-worthy thing. Monkeys are not considered people and are not seen as having human rights or, by many people, any moral significance at all.
Dictators, even terrible ones, are considered morally blameworthy, but not inherently subhuman. Counter-examples of politically opposing — but less clever — jokes will miss the mark for this reason. By now we just have to accept that Scott is hopelessly addicted to puns. Ismah or does it? I was actually born on Krypton and sent here by my father, Jorel, to save the planet Earth.
Oh for crying out loud. Nothing to do with political correctness.
- Jerusalem. The Emanation of the Giant Albion/Plate 46a!
- Jerusalem, Plate 77, "To the Christians".
- Book Review: Eichmann In Jerusalem!
In school we were shown a movie that was supposedly based mostly off of transcripts from the Wannsee Conference. In the movie, there were at least two guys that I can remember who opposed extermination, and only buckled when it was made clear that a unanimous vote was required.
Further study is needed. This seems like a good argument in favor of real diversity of thought, culture, and maybe ethnicity. What makes relatively homogeneous cultures like Germany and Japan unusually peaceful, harmonious, and efficient in peacetime may also make them unusually vulnerable to evil memes, almost like an agricultural monoculture where, if you only have one strain of corn, you have the convenience of it all ripening at the same time but the inconvenience that, if a blight comes along, it takes out the whole crop.
Just common ownership with the fey canoes of WaPo or did they themselves do something? A significant section is Catholic. Even so they had to back down on euthanasia because of Catholic opposition. Part of what seems to make that unimaginable is our diversity of thought, culture, etc. But part of what makes it unimaginable may be a relatively strong historical notion, in America, that political dissent is normal, healthy, and even patriotic. The newborn German state tried very hard to change this and create a unified German culture, but that never was successful. But that is not the important point.
France is a lot more culturally homogeneous except for Brittany and parts of the South , but I highly doubt a dictatorship in France could be nearly as effective as the Nazis. And with long tradition; it is said that Napoleon was so appalled by how dirty it was there that he promptly made a law forcing its citizens to regularly clean the streets….
Oh, come on. Though, if true, that also means diversity, per se, is not a good defense for the US if we lose our notion of patriotic dissent. And I was exaggerating a bit to highlight regional differences…. To be fair, it definitely seems to be representative of what people from elsewhere in Germany think about Cologne. Which, come to think of it, should make me suspicious about all the horrible things they keep saying about Bavaria….
Mobs screaming for murder? Outside of the one or two times a BLM march did the pigs in a blanket chant, that strikes me as more than an exaggeration. His kind must not rise again. As I recall at least one leftist blog had an article along the same lines which came out right before the election… oops. For liberals, the question now is how to deal with the losers in the culture wars.
And taking a hard line seemed to work reasonably well in Germany and Japan after I should note that LGBT activists in particular seem to have settled on the hard-line approach, while some liberal academics defend more accommodating approaches. When specific battles in the culture wars were being fought, it might have made sense to try to be accommodating after a local victory, because other related fights were going on, and a hard line might have stiffened the opposition in those fights.
Of course all bets are off if Donald Trump becomes President. But if he does, constitutional doctrine is going to be the least of our worries. I hate and fear Trump, but think the chances of him doing anything more violent than mass deportations in the domestic sphere is very, very low. TenMinute- I went to check out your quote and it has a different title and a big section that you deleted. Nothing about murder you dumb-ass. The culture wars are over; they lost, we won.
Remember, they were the ones who characterized constitutional disputes as culture wars see Justice Scalia in Romer v. Evans, and the Wikipedia entry for culture wars, which describes conservative activists, not liberals, using the term. And they had opportunities to reach a cease fire, but rejected them in favor of a scorched earth policy. The earth that was scorched, though, was their own.
I assume the we here is liberals. Conservatives control the federal government and most state governments. In two years conservatives might have enough power in state governments to get a constitutional amendment passed. If conservatives wish to re-fight cultural wars they will easily win. What might save liberals here is conservatives not caring enough about cultural issues to bother. It looks to me like a call to pass whatever laws liberals think right without any consideration to whether they offend conservatives.
Meanwhile, the mayor of Berkeley responds to a violent riot against a speaker by celebrating.
Related Oxford Albion And Jerusalem
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved