Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Donald Trump is F*cking Crazy


I don't know how Youtubes are playing on the computer of anyone else but the past day commercials have been getting through my ad blocker, if you're getting commercials, I apologize but it's not my fault. 

I may have to rethink posting Youtubes if they are going to carry commercials.  Some of the ones I've gotten are really awful.

Question I Haven't Heard Anyone Answer Or Ask

Why isn't anyone slamming any of the conservatives in Hollywood and show biz for not outing Harvey Weinstein?   It doesn't seem to have been a secret among them. 

Citations of Natural Selection - A response

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

NATURAL SELECTION. KILL all retards, people w/ brain fuck ups, drug adics, people cant figure out to use a fucking lighter. GEEEAWD! people spend millions of dollars on saving the lives of retards, and why. I don't buy that shit like "oh hes my son though!" so the fuck what, he aint normal, kill him, put him out his misery. he is only a waste of time and money, then people say "But he is worth the time, he is human too" no he isnt, if he was then he would swalow a bullet cause he would realize what a fucking waste and burden he was. --  Eric Harris's Journal 4/10/98

 Isnt america supposed to be the land of the free? how come, If im free, I cant deprive a stupid fucking dumbshit from his possessions If he leaves then sitting in the front seat of his fucking van out in plain sight and in the middle fucking nowhere on a Fri fucking day night. NATURAL SELECTION. Ibid. -- 4/12/98

Harris was wearing a white T-shirt with the words "Natural Selection'' on the front, black combat boots and a black glove on his right hand with the "fingers cut away.''   Denver Post on the release of the coroners report on Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.

I chose that Darwin quote out of many others amounting to the same thing because it's possible it was as much as someone like Harris understands about natural selection.   It certainly would seem to be what even college credentialed comment tread commentators understand about it and its role in the human species.  People dying and getting killed.  That's what Darwin said it was about, confirmed by his most scientifically qualified successors, people such as Galton, Haeckel, Huxley, Karl Pearson....  Eric Harris just put the same thing in cruder language.  If anyone but the sacred Darwin had said it they would be considered a Nazi.

It wasn't reading that Eric Harris's psychopathological thinking was inspired by the idea of natural selection that led me to doubt it was anything but a British aristocrat's imposition of the homicidal British class system on nature, though it should have led me to wonder about it.  When you read the statements of Darwin, including the idea of huge numbers, the disabled, the poor, many races and ethnic groups being murdered through natural selection and that the results would be good for the survivors, it's really just what Harris said in academic and scientific language.   If you google "Eric Harris shirt," you can find shirts saying "Natural Selection" on sale to their fans, even today.




Monday, October 16, 2017

Donald Trump is the Harvey Weinstein of Washington


Hey, as far as I'm concerned Duncan Black is the man who has let Steve Simels peddle the lie that I'm an anti-Semite for more than five years, as far as I'm concerned, he's become the kind of thing Media Whores Online targeted only on a tiny scale.  

He's aging shit in a grey pullover. 

Sunday, October 15, 2017

Hate Mail

I don't care what Duncan's blog rats say about anything.   They spew old, worn out, predigested attitudes, they never challenge their prejudices or assertions they took on in conformity to the milieu they chose to be a part of, some as long as a half century ago.   They never test their ideas. They're just a different flavor of bigots,  they're the failed past that pissed away the progress made by real radicals like Diane Nash, the Reverend Martin Luther King jr. and so many others.  As people wedded to the millstone that sank the left, they're less than undeserving of attention. As persistent and insistent  agents of futility, they are best ignored.   

Insisting on doing the same things over and over again and expecting a different result.  Nothing will ever come out of that but more failure. 

Ralph Vaughan Williams - Symphony No.9


Royal Philharmonic Orchestra
Malcolm Sargent, conductor

Vaughan William's last symphony, completed shortly before his sudden death.   Not bad for an 85 year old man.   It's a work of someone in full control of musical materials, especially the very large orchestra he chose to write it for.

I was dared to post something by RVW.  Why the dare?  No idea.

When Darwinists Call Darwin A Liar

The claim is made that the infamously proto-Nazi assertion of Darwinism by Darwinism's foremost proponent in Germany, Ernst Haeckel, is a complete distortion of the theory of Charles Darwin and its consequences for the world and, most relevantly to my posts on it, human, their societies and their countries.   That claim is obviously a lie, it can be known to be a lie because Charles Darwin endorsed Ernst Haeckel's interpretation of his theory of Natural Selection and common ancestry* in letters written to him in the 1860s and, in fact, for the rest of Charles Darwin's life, his son Francis attests to the agreement of his father and Haeckel on these things from his first person witness accounts of Haeckel's visits with his father, and, most of all, Darwin's citations of Haeckel, especially his glowing, complete endorsement of one of his most extreme, racist and homicidal volume published during Darwin's life,  Haeckel's The History of Creation.

That he agreed with Haeckel' social Darwinism is also known by the letter Darwin wrote to Haeckel on reading what was Haeckel's most overt statement of that published during Darwin's life, His "Freedom in Teaching and Science," in which Haeckel said that Darwinism didn't support socialism or democracy but supported the inequality of an aristocratic system.   His idea of such a Darwinian aristocracy included those he regarded as superior murdering huge numbers of those he regarded as inferior, that's something he had asserted in his scientific books and would, in fact, continue to assert during the rest of his life, ending the very year Nazism was first organized 1919.  That is especially true of what was probably his best seller,  The Riddle of the Universe, which went through many editions in German during the formative years of the boys and girls who would become the Nazi leadership and the true believers in it.  Of that book, the scholar of the rise of Nazism, Daniel Gasman said:

The common understanding among historians about the connection between Haeckel and Hitler is this: Adolf Hitler (b. 1889) came of age during the decade and a half following the publication in 1899 of Ernst Haeckel’s Riddle of the Universe, a runaway best seller that over the next two or three decades sold more copies internationally than the Bible and profoundly shaped the consciousness of the modern world. Haeckel’s book imparted a rigid Social Darwinist message purportedly derived from science: politics is applied biology, the Jews were an inferior race compared with the Aryans, Christianity was a religion of weakness, and that eugenic action was necessary to protect the racial composition of society.

That reading of Haeckel will be confirmed by that rarest of events in the life of any true-believing Darwinist, honestly reading Darwin and those people he cites, especially Haeckel.  Though Darwin was reluctant to be specific about which races he believed were bound for extinction, though he named a number of smaller groups in the South Pacific and a few others, Haeckel, in books Darwin promoted as reliable science, was not so shy about starting an extermination list.

For anyone, especially today, who wants to deny that Haeckel's thinking was genuinely Darwinian, he could, if he were still around, point to numerous letters from Charles Darwin endorsing his excellence in articulating Darwin's theories,  praise for his boldness and appreciation for the promotion of Haeckel of Darwin's theories in Germany.   He could also cite Darwin's second in command, Thomas Huxley naming him the "chorus leader" of Darwinism on the Continent and, as mentioned, Francis Darwin's first hand testimony about his father's agreement with Haeckel.   No one today has the authority to deny that all of the evidence, up to and including Charles Darwin's own assertions, is that he accepted Haeckel's view of Darwinism and his assertion of its logical consequences for human, individually, in societies and between racial groupings, including that it was supportive of salubrious and progressive violent struggle, murder and genocides.

I, from time to time, look closer at the English language and German phenomenon of Darwinism and, over and over again, find confirmation of that characteristic of it, producing ideas and theories and ideological assertions that produced anti-democratic movements and, yes, Nazism.   When I started writing on this nine years ago, I was hesitant to make that connection but every year since then has only confirmed that connection and that it is obvious.

Note:  I think Robert J. Richards attempt to rehabilitate Haeckel so as to exonerate Darwin is one of the most blatantly dishonest things I've ever looked into.  It is blown up by doing what I've always advocated, reading the primary documentation and looking up the primary documents cited in those.  I think it is truly stunning that someone who has done what he has is accepted as a legitimate scholar, who can work at a major university.   While I think Gasman was too reluctant or unwilling to note that Darwin endorsed pretty much everything Haeckel said up to the time of his death - and, in fact, most of the worst things he said he'd already said in one form or another by that time - his take down of Richards is quite convincing.

* I believe in the latter, with the caveat that the ultimate nature of that is unknowable for the earliest life on Earth, I have become ever more skeptical of the former.

Update:  Unlike you, unlike Robert Richards, unlike all of Darwin's post-war hagiographers who want to disassociate them,  Ernst Haeckel knew Darwin, met him, conversed with him, first-hand as Darwin's honored guest at his home, he corresponded with Darwin and had letters from him endorsing his understanding and articulation of Darwin's theories and ideas.  He had the confirmation of his understanding of that from Darwin's closest British colleagues and, in fact, Darwin's children, as well.

Your claims in that matter, separating Haeckel and Darwin and, in fact, even Daniel Gasman's has to give way to the superior claims that Haeckel could make in that regard.  Richards is right in so far as he associates Haeckel and Darwin, he is not merely wrong but dishonest in asserting that both men didn't assert some of the most putrid of racist, elitist and violent assertions ever to be taken up as legitimate science and acted on politically and legally by politicians and jurists and military figures on the strength of those ideas identification as having the reliability of scientific knowledge.   That couldn't possibly be clearer from reading the primary documentary evidence.

Saturday, October 14, 2017

Saturday Night Radio Drama - Roger Hall - Book Ends





I know, I promised I'd get back to stand-alone plays this week but people liked the two series I posted the past two weeks so here's a short one.  It's a bunch of old farts of a literary sort who have solitary work and who meet to try to maintain a connection with the world.  It's pretty good, going past a scenario that could turn really quaint and cosy but which turned out to be better than that.   It's by New Zealand's most successful living playwright. 

Roger Hall (1939 –), New Zealand's most successful playwright, Roger Hall was born in Essex and moved to New Zealand in 1958. As well as stage plays, Roger has also written scripts for radio and television, and for children. His writing is known for its comedy, political and social purpose, and underlying pathos. His plays have toured widely and have been performed at international venues. His biggest success was with Middle Age Spread that ran for 18 months in London's West End and won the award for Comedy of the Year (1979). Hall has been the recipient of awards and fellowships in recognition of his work. Book Ends was first performed at Dunedin’s Fortune Theatre in 2014.

Hate Mail

I am aware of Robert Bannister's revisionist and seriously wrong idea that Darwinism and social Darwinism are not equivalent and claiming that Darwin and his closest associates were not racists.  I think one of the problems is that the old regime of pre-internet scholarship which could more easily assert an ideological agenda as scholarship is running into the problem of primary documentation that gives away their game being freely available and easily found.  The post-war revisionist Charles Darwin is a construct that depended on the unavailability and even obscurity of that documentation but that's over and done with. 

The first idea is, as I have had to point out over and over again, not only contradicted by no one less than Charles Darwin, himself, when he explicitly said, in HIS 5th edition of On the Origin of Species he said that Natural Selection was the same thing as Survival of the Fittest and that he repeatedly asserted that natural selection was at work in human societies and in human institutions in The Descent of Man and in his correspondence, going so far as to express opposition to such ideas as equal pay and organized labor as a hindrance of his struggle for existence.  That is enough to dispel anything claiming otherwise.   His racism is also on full display all through The Descent of Man and in his correspondence, any claims to the contrary by any scholar of the subject is, in my opinion, a discreditable distortion for clearly ideological purposes.   The example you sent me, of Bannister claiming that the infamously racist essay of Thomas Huxley was not racist is absurd and clearly obvious to anyone who read it. 

Not only that but it is also disconfirmed in the understanding of Darwin's closest colleagues, his children and in other people who knew the man as well as the next several generations of Darwinists who never knew him but certainly knew his work, it is also disconfirmed by many of his critics who, as well, perhaps even more so, did a close reading of his scientific writing and his other written legacy.  It is certainly disproved in the Darwinian character of eugenics, something whose origin in Galton's and Schallmeyer's reading of On the Origin of Species we know, beyond question, by their own assertions and that Darwin agreed with eugenics by his own written approval sent to Galton on the publication of Hereditary Genius and his citations in The Descent of Man praising that work, the two articles in Macmillan's Magazine which Galton marked as his first eugenics publication as reliable science in The Descent of Man.  From Francis Darwin, Charles' son and the first collector of his correspondence,  we have confirmation that he supported George Darwin's very early eugenics proposals published in a magazine article calling for the legal dissolution of marriages - even against the will of those so married - in the event of a mental illness in one of the partners, even if such a person were held to have recovered from it.   We also have Leonard Darwin's assertions that his eugenics activity was something his father would have approved of and that he was continuing his father's work in it. 

Bannister can claim many things, as any present day scholar can, he and they can't, however, claim to have superior knowledge of what Charles Darwin thought as compared to people who knew him intimately, even his own children.   Nothing he claims can reasonably be said to overturn what they said, nothing short of Charles Darwin, himself, contradicting their claims, in writing.   That record will stand as long as the book and articles and letters written by Charles Darwin, Galton, Haeckel, Huxley, Francis, George and Leonard Darwin, etc. exist.  And all of that evidence is fully available now, online, where it can be known through a fairly simple online search.  

The cover up of Darwinism's relation with eugenics, scientific racism and social Darwinism that was mounted by academics in the wake of the reaction against crimes of the Nazis and English speaking eugenicists is over, for good.   You don't have to "cherry pick" or "quote mine" or depend on secondary sources and tertiary and lower junk to make that case, it is best made by a full reading of the original source material which is almost all available online.  The pre-internet cover-up of that kind is over in so far as anyone wants to honestly know the truth about it.

Again, as I have said recently, I could fill this short piece with citations and links so that virtually every word of it would how up red on my blog.  Perhaps it's time for me to do another comprehensive index of the pieces I've written on this topic, each of them with citations and links to primary documentation of what I said, but there are so many of them.   I'm absolutely certain on this, you can be when you find the exact word confirming that in Darwin's own writing and that of those he cited as having the reliability of science. 

Friday, October 13, 2017

Robin Eubanks - X-Base


trombone: Robin Eubanks
bass: Kenny Davis
guitar: Kevin Eubanks
drums: Marvin "Smitty" Smith
horns: Randy Brecker, Antonio Hart

For N. - Thomas Tallis - Third Mode Melody - Sung to "Why F'umth in fight" a paraphrase, kind of, of Psalm 2

Theater of Voices
Paul Hillier, conductor

The "Theme of Thomas Tallis" which Ralph Vaughn Williams wrote his fantasia on, originally one of nine 4-voice pieces Tallis wrote to be sung to metrical paraphrases of the psalms in Archbishop Parker's Psalter.  The same setting could be used for any text that shared the same metrical structure.  This one is notable for being in the third, of Phrygian mode which, in my analysis, gives it the distinctive feel it has and which gives it both a definite feeling of  non-repose and harmonic motion, even though the actual melody dwells and lingers on the fifth degree,  a feeling of active not altogether easy meditation.  Though Tallis, like William Byrd, remained a faithful Catholic for the entire period of the Tudor persecution of Catholicism, he also wrote music used by the Protestant establishment.  Williams included it in the Anglican song book that he edited in 1906 set to a much later hymn by John Addison, as well as his Fantasia. 

The Anti-Gay KKK Is Emblematic of The Anti-Christ Here And Now In The Republican-Fascist-Putin-Nazi Axis

For even the most hardened atheist and anti-Christian and, perhaps most resistant of all, liberalish member of the First Church of the Brunch* one prophesy in the Bible is on full display, in real life, in the clearest of terms, manifesting in the world,  starting today.

For most of my life I've considered the last book of the Christian Bible, what we called The Apocalypse, what most Protestants call Revelations, to have been a big mistake.  The often misunderstood, easily and often sensationalized vision of some guy named John, is among the most abused books in the collection.  When I was young I thought it was just silly to believe in it, that is at the childish and historically and literarily ignorant hermeneutic of believing it was to be taken as literally true, a literal prophesy of things that were to come.  But those habits of reading, which modern atheism holds in common with modern Biblical fundamentalism aren't the terms under which it was brought into the cannon of Biblical scriptures, it was brought in because it was understood that the book was not literally describing future events but it was a poetic description of how disaster would come, a description, in figures, illusions, symbols, numerological implication, etc. of any enormous disaster, even ultimate, cataclysmic environmental destruction on top of  horrendous violence, oppression, moral decay and mass slaughter on a, well, these days the journalists like to say, "Biblical scale". 

But it was during the 2010 BP oil catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico that, hearing the description and seeing the aerial footage of the oil pollution that my thoughts went to the passage that says,

The second angel poured out his bowl on the sea, and it turned into blood like that of a dead person, and every living thing in the sea died. (16:3)

though that wasn't the first thing that led me to think maybe the author was on to something, it was witnessing the degenerate association of Christianity, of Jesus, with the corporate-Republican agenda that had co-opted the Biblical fundamentalists, integralist Catholics and others who, together with their other political allies made a pretty convincing anti-Christ. 

The "Values" Voters Summit, who turn hate and depravity and injustice and inequality into a perversion of "values" is a particularly evil hate group, well connected, well financed, and powerful, perverting the name and superficial trappings of Christianity to pretty much try to do the evil work of destroying any progress made to make The Gospel, the Law and the Prophets real in law and in life in the United States.   It is addressed by a whole host of people who could either stand in for or easily represent figures in the Book of Revelation as a manifestation of evil, using lies and deception and superficial appearance to sucker the gullible, the foolish and, most of all, those whose own moral failings make them easy prey for Satan or The God of the World or any of the other names given to evil and its emanations in the book.   In that reading of the Apocalypse or The Revelation, I believe completely because I see it unfolding before our eyes and have seen it unfolding my whole life and in recent history. 

It is unfortunate that, with our modern and simplistic expectations of literal truth that the poetic language of the author and the seemingly bizarre and easily and facilely ridiculed aspects in those do more to blind people to the truth behind them than to inform them.  The condemnation of wealth and its accumulation - often expressed in the contemporary equivalent of our billionaire class, kings, emperors and other rulers - and the moral degeneracy and disaster that they promote and practice couldn't possibly be clearer, once you get past the language of dragons with stars on their heads.  Though that can be useful, too.  If Putin is taken to equal "Babylon" Trump would certainly be a good candidate to be his whore, or, in contemporary terms, "his bitch".   I think once you take it on its own terms and see it as a general analysis of what happens when great fortunes rule the world instead of a one-off event in the extended future, there's an enormous amount to learn from it.  John could have written it as a political science or sociological treatise instead of giving it a poetic treatment but, really, who would read it now except for old farts writing papers in little read journals? 

For the record, I don't think a single person who is going to address that coven of anti-Christians really believes in anything they're going to say, they're either trying to rope in the dopes like a carny huckster or they're going through the motions for their patrons.  The whole thing is an exercise in lies on behalf the father of lies, as Jesus, recorded by another John said:

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

I've come to understand a lot more about that most troublesome of the Gospels, too, looking at the signs of the times and to appreciate much that is found in it. 

* The estimable Garrison Keillor's phrase is perfect.  That sort of nominal Christianity,  in its easy-going liberal wing, is not enough to fight against real evil.  It's to busy with keeping up buildings, salaries, etc.  It can, at its worst, be sort of like Trump during the campaign going back to the Presbyterian church where he made a pro-forma profession of faith in his youth but, it having since become a majority minority congregation, he had to ask the pastor if Presbyterians were Christians during the campaign. 


Thursday, October 12, 2017

Is Mueller Trying to Stop Trump From Pardoning People?


I For One Hope That Barack Obama Doesn't Attempt To Lead The Resistance To Trump

I can't agree with Charles Pierce that having Obama "joining the resistance full time" would be a good thing, if that were going to help then why didn't it during the eight years he held actual power?  In his piece, yesterday, Pierce noted that Barack Obama, instead of being engaged in full time efforts to resist the destruction of American democracy and the world has been engaged in socializing with the A+++ list of celebrities and giving $400,000 speeches to bankers and the such, which, given his presidency which never challenged the utra-rich and ultra-powerful at any basic level should surprise no one.  It's what a golden-boy preppy-Ivy leaguer who became and remained president for two term could be expected to do, that is the dominant culture of his class.  I was really disturbed earlier in the year reading that his idea of resistance was unleashing the Wall Street lap dog, Eric Holder.   To be fair, I was just as skeptical about the idea of Bill Clinton being any kind of effective opponent of George W. Bush.  While I wouldn't say that Barack Obama is someone I would like to never hear from again, something I have said about Bill, though not Hillary Clinton, I can't see him as being any more effective in opposing what, out of power, he did little to nothing to fight against while in power. 

No, I think any leadership in opposition to Trump has to come from someone who isn't a member of the elite which has never been an effective opponent of that kind of thing.  I suspect the set of all former elite law school grad and faculty such that they might be effective in leadership in opposition to Republican-fascism might be pretty much limited to one member, Elizabeth Warren.  And the null set, but that's just a formality of set theory.

Obama is a figure of the past, a great campaigner, while he was running for office but one who I heard many down ballot politicians complain about being unwilling to help them with resources or even lists.  In office he did a good job of setting low bars, achieving easy wins, being unwilling to play political hard ball for even his own signature agenda items, more interested in courting Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and making nice with Republicans who regularly spat in his face than even trying to get the votes from stray members of his own party in the Congress.  By comparison with Trump, I certainly miss him, as the leader of the Democratic Party I see what he squandered and gave away.   If he and Holder had held the wall street crooks accountable, if he had pursued a full and extensive economic recovery instead of giving away huge chunks for the non-support of Snowe and Collins, if he had put the screws to conservative Democrats and passed a really great healthcare bill which would be more resistant to sabotage, we wouldn't be where we are right now.

So, please, Barack Obama, don't try to do now what you refused to do then.  Obama's big mistake wasn't what Charles Pierce noted, giving the country absolution without penance, though that is a good idea, too, it is that he decided to play statesman while he was holding a political office during a time when statesmanship was never going to work.  I always said I'd give him 2009 before I gave up hope.  That was a long, long time ago and hope deferred evaporates. 

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Wednesday Lecture - Walter Brueggemann - Truth-Filled Futures

So much said in less than 16 minutes.  

I have decided to get back to posting lectures, sermons, interviews on a more regular basis.  This is one given by Walter Brueggemann which I listened to recently while doing some otherwise boring chore.   I've listened to it several more times.  While listening  the first couple of times, I was impressed with the expansive interpretation that Brueggemann gave to what is implied in those troublesome, often exclusively interpreted texts where Jesus said no one came to God except through him, and which have been abused so often to say that no one but a small circle of believers were eternally damned.  His association of Jesus as conceived of as The Logos in John with Wisdom in Proverbs Chapter 8 and the association of Jesus with the justice and mercy and compassion that Wisdom created as fundamental attributes of the universe and that THAT is what we have to conform ourselves and our lives to or there will be disaster is the first time I've ever felt entirely comfortable with the idea.  NOT that Brueggemann's interpretation is more comfortable or easy or untroubling than the tradition that interprets that as being baptized and claiming that you're a Christian.   It's not easier, it's to throw yourself against the machine of the powerful, the rich, governments, societies that oppose those, "the world of power" which Brueggemann says, so well, "is dedicated to phoniness".   By the time he gets to the part about Jesus saying "it's all mine" and that he will give it all to us, Brueggemann associates that distribution with conformity to justice, compassion, generosity.

Particularly worth noticing is what he says about the folly of that American, modernist virtue "self sufficiency" and how destructive and stupid that ultimately is.

Here's the talk, I'll probably transcribe parts of it to discuss some ideas in it later, when I'm not feeling so exhausted.



P.S. 

It happened that just the other day I listened to another lecture session that was much longer, William Lane Craig on "God and the Platonic Host" which got into the concept of The Logos and much more, in which Craig talked at length about his years long philosophical study of the nature of abstract objects and the aseity of God, which is extremely interesting and pretty convincing on an intellectual level but, much as I appreciated what Craig was saying I didn't find nearly as useful.  



Both of these did leave me more convinced than ever that materialism, scientism and atheism are symptoms of intellectual vacuity and the dumbing down of intellectualism.  I have some profound disagreements with William Lane Craig about specific things but he is intellectually heads and shoulders above the atheist competition in the realm of ideas.  To a large extent that could be the result of most of his debate opponents being trained in some narrow aspect of the sciences and so-called sciences, relieved of any in depth knowledge of even the areas of philosophy that deal with logical argument.  As I pointed out not long ago, when he has an argument with another philosopher I've found the atheist was far less prone to arrogantly make an ass of himself, maybe unknown to his own audience but obvious to anyone who has read much philosophy or dealt in rigorous self-criticism of thier own thinking.  I specifically wouldn't include someone like Daniel Dennett or John Shook in that category, I think that Shook in particular is someone who should never have been given an undergraduate degree in philosophy, nevermind a PhD.   I have to confess that I've come to be skeptical of anyone who has a philosophy degree from the University of  Buffalo. 


Tuesday, October 10, 2017

What Mike Pence’s Cynical Anthem Stunt Cost


Dietrich Buxtehude - Suite in e minor


Wim Winters, clavichord

I played this on organ many, many years ago and once in a while on piano since then (not for performance) along with some of the other Buxtehude suites.  It's virtually certain that Buxtehude wrote the suites and associated variations, etc. in the collection this was found in for a small, fretted clavichord with a short octave in the bass (some of the fingering issues on a modern keyboard make that evident) which was the commonest domestic keyboard instrument in Germany at the time.  J. S. Bach, also wrote many of his pieces in the range that would fit that instruments, including many of his most well known works.  His earliest biographer documents that people who knew him said he favored the clavichord for practice.   His son, C.P.E. Bach as well favored the instrument, though I believe his music is generally for an unfretted instrument with the range of a harpsichord.

Score

Score of the manuscript  in tablature.

This suite, unlike most of the others in the unique tablature containing them, is also known in a lute tablature in which the music is somewhat different. 
If you hadn't guessed, I'm not feeling very well the past couple of days.   Truth be told, I have a serious illness that is going to knock me down every once in a  while.   Nothing to get my enemies hopes up so far but I have to take it easy a bit.  

Monday, October 9, 2017

Fré Focke - Tombeau de Vincent van Gogh


The player isn't listed, the comments carry a speculation but I don't know so I won't pass it on.

Fré Focke was one of Anton Webern's students and while the pieces here are very short, as Webern's were, they are quite different from his style.   I think it's a sign of a great composition teacher that their students don't end up copying them.

I'd never heard of Focke until last weekend when I was reading about Webern's little known conducting career.  This is his only piece I managed to listen to.   The pictures represented are listed by the person who posted this as:

Barques aux Santes-Marie
Iris
La moisson
La café de nuit
Les blés verts
La berceuse
La cueillette des olives
Le pont-Levis
Les lavandières
Nuit étoilée
Verger
L'arbre
La route aux Cyprès
Champ d'oliviers
Tige d'amandier fleuri
L'homme à l'oreille coupée
Jeune fille assise
Les paveurs
Paysage à Auvers
Champ de blé aux corbeaux.
 
There are many evocative and distinct moments in the music, the composer was clearly talented.  

The Truth About Pence’s Despicable NFL Stunt


B B King and Stevie Ray Vaughan - Texas Flood


Stevie Ray Vaughan Live at Montreux 1985



That's my answer.

Sunday, October 8, 2017

23 Of These Die Every Month To Keep Donald Trump In Hair

Image result for troll doll blonde

Dave Holland Quintet - How's Never


Dave Holland - bass
Robin Eubanks - trombone
Chris Potter - saxophones
Steve Nelson - vibraphone
Nate Smith - drums

Prime Directive 


They Bite But I Won't

I am told that Duncan's Daycare for Dotty Duffers, aka "the braintrust," is snarking on my description of Neil Gorsuch as a pretty face the Federalist fascists chose to put on their sheer evil. 

Well, I'm not going to go to a lot of trouble to answer it, but I'm not the first person who noticed that  For example there is this from Ari Berman in The Nation on March 21:

Neil Gorsuch Is Not Another Scalia. He’s the Next John Roberts.

Gorsuch puts a handsome face on an ugly ideology.

Duncan's day care isn't so big on doing any reading, not even looking at the headlines of a word search online, they'd rather trash talk without any thought behind it.  I have huge problems with The Nation magazine and its direction under the trustafarian leadership of Katrina Vanden Huevel, just as I've come to look back and see it was hardly a great source of non-ideological  truth under Victor Navasky (another reputation that fades under a wider reading and consideration of his writing) but they make a few points, now and again.  I don't play the game of cooties that is the mainstay of Eschatonian discourse.   It's not only post literate, it's post truthiness.

Neil Gorsuch Is Such An A-Hole And Republican-Fascists Have Guaranteed That He Is The Future Of The Supreme Court

Jeffrey Toobin said it so well that I don't think I have much to add.

The argument had gone on for nearly an hour when Gorsuch began a question as follows: “Maybe we can just for a second talk about the arcane matter of the Constitution.” There was a rich subtext to this query. Originalists and textualists such as Gorsuch, and his predecessor on the Court, Antonin Scalia, often criticize their colleagues for inventing rights that are not found in the nation’s founding document. Gorsuch’s statement that the Court should spare “a second” for the “arcane” subject of the document was thus a slap at his ideological adversaries; of course, they, too, believe that they are interpreting the Constitution, but, in Gorsuch’s view, only he cares about the document itself.

Gorsuch went on to give his colleagues a civics lecture about the text of the Constitution. “And where exactly do we get authority to revise state legislative lines? When the Constitution authorizes the federal government to step in on state legislative matters, it’s pretty clear—if you look at the Fifteenth Amendment, you look at the Nineteenth Amendment, the Twenty-sixth Amendment, and even the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2.” In other words, Gorsuch was saying, why should the Court involve itself in the subject of redistricting at all—didn’t the Constitution fail to give the Court the authority to do so?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is bent with age, can sometimes look disengaged or even sleepy during arguments, and she had that droopy look today as well. But, in this moment, she heard Gorsuch very clearly, and she didn’t even raise her head before offering a brisk and convincing dismissal. In her still Brooklyn-flecked drawl, she grumbled, “Where did ‘one person, one vote’ come from?” There might have been an audible woo that echoed through the courtroom. (Ginsburg’s comment seemed to silence Gorsuch for the rest of the arguments.)

In one cutting remark, Ginsburg summed up how Gorsuch’s patronizing lecture omitted some of the Court’s most important precedents, and Smith gratefully followed up on it: “That’s what Reynolds v. Sims and Baker v. Carr did, and a number of other cases that have followed along since.” In these cases, from the early nineteen-sixties, the Court established that the Justices, via the First and Fourteenth Amendments, very much had the right to tell states how to run their elections.

In short, Ginsburg was saying to Gorsuch that he and his allies might control the future of the Supreme Court, but she wasn’t going to let them rewrite the history of it—at least not without a fight.

Ok, you know me better than to think I won't have something to say.  This is a good example of how the fascists will use the language of the Constitution to destroy democracy, installing de facto one party rule and a government that greatest desideratum of the rich, the powerful and the mainstream of the American media and much of legal academia, government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

About the only glimmer of light I see in this is that Gorsuch is such a callow. conceited and sanctimonious asshole that I think he's going to be unpopular with even some of his fellow fascists.  I recall reading that in his first session of oral arguments that even Alito lashed out at his idiotic and superficial dismissal of the complexity they were dealing with.  The boy is a pretty face put up by the Federalist Fascists because they knew they could run him and his looks would conceal the banality of evil to people trained to think by show-biz.

Update:  RMJ's comment shows how good it is for us non-lawyers to listen to people trained in the law.

I wanted to add to RBG's comment: "Or judicial review, for that matter?" Which is a product of Marbury v. Madison, and a doctrine hotly opposed by Jefferson, among others, as not being a part of the Constitution at all.'

"Originalists" are very proof-texting assholes. Nothing "originalist" in Scalia's Heller opinion. It's convenient bit of sophistry for saying "I'm right and you're wrong" no matter what the Constitutional issue is
.


I will confess that my respect for the kind of logical thought that can come with a good legal training wielded for honest purposes has risen even as my disgust at how a stupid scientism has become the "civic religion" of so many has grown, a direct result of being able to read more scientists and their lay faithful on the alleged left, online.

For the LORD hears the poor, and does not spurn those in bondage. Psalm 69

I
Save me, God,
for the waters have reached my neck.
I have sunk into the mire of the deep,
where there is no foothold.
I have gone down to the watery depths;
the flood overwhelms me.
I am weary with crying out;
my throat is parched.
My eyes fail,
from looking for my God.
More numerous than the hairs of my head
are those who hate me without cause.
Those who would destroy me are mighty,
my enemies without reason.
Must I now restore
what I did not steal?

II
God, you know my folly;
my faults are not hidden from you.
Let those who wait in hope for you, LORD of hosts,
not be shamed because of me.
Let those who seek you, God of Israel,
not be disgraced because of me.
For it is on your account I bear insult,
that disgrace covers my face.f
I have become an outcast to my kindred,
a stranger to my mother’s children.
Because zeal for your house has consumed me,
I am scorned by those who scorn you.
When I humbled my spirit with fasting,
this led only to scorn.
When I clothed myself in sackcloth;
I became a byword for them.
Those who sit in the gate gossip about me;
drunkards make me the butt of songs.

III
But I will pray to you, LORD,
at a favorable time.
God, in your abundant kindness, answer me
with your sure deliverance.
Rescue me from the mire,
and do not let me sink.
Rescue me from those who hate me
and from the watery depths.
Do not let the flood waters overwhelm me,
nor the deep swallow me,
nor the pit close its mouth over me.
Answer me, LORD, in your generous love;
in your great mercy turn to me.
Do not hide your face from your servant;
hasten to answer me, for I am in distress.
Come and redeem my life;
because of my enemies ransom me.
You know my reproach, my shame, my disgrace;
before you stand all my foes.
Insult has broken my heart, and I despair;
I looked for compassion, but there was none,
for comforters, but found none.
Instead they gave me poison for my food;
and for my thirst they gave me vinegar.
May their own table be a snare for them,
and their communion offerings a trap.
Make their eyes so dim they cannot see;
keep their backs ever feeble.
Pour out your wrath upon them;
let the fury of your anger overtake them.
Make their camp desolate,
with none to dwell in their tents.
For they pursued the one you struck,
added to the pain of the one you wounded.
Heap punishment upon their punishment;
let them gain from you no vindication.
May they be blotted from the book of life;
not registered among the just!

V
But here I am miserable and in pain;
let your saving help protect me, God,
That I may praise God’s name in song
and glorify it with thanksgiving.
That will please the LORD more than oxen,
more than bulls with horns and hooves:
“See, you lowly ones, and be glad;
you who seek God, take heart!
For the LORD hears the poor,
and does not spurn those in bondage.
Let the heaven and the earth praise him,
the seas and whatever moves in them!”

VI
For God will rescue Zion,
and rebuild the cities of Judah.
They will dwell there and possess it;
the descendants of God’s servants will inherit it;
those who love God’s name will dwell in it.

Saturday, October 7, 2017

Saturday Night Radio Drama - Lauren Shippen - The Bright Sessions





People liked Limetown last week and I decided to post another series that are really popular.   These are in the form of recordings of therapy sessions.   All the ones I've listened to are what are called "two handers" more talking than action, though there's lots of internal action.   One big bonus is that the scripts are posted, too. 

I'll get back to posting longer stand-alone plays next week.

Alban Berg - Violin Concerto op 36

I was thrilled beyond any description when I found this Youtube of a cleaned up recording of the second performance of the famous Berg Violin Concerto, played by the man who commissioned it, Louis Krasner and conducted by Berg's fellow student of Schoenberg and most perhaps careful interpreter,  the great composer Anton Webern conducting the BBC orchestra.



It's certainly not modern digital quality but the recording from old acetate recordings owned by Louis Krasner reveal levels of detail in both Krasner's playing and Webern's conducting that make them an essential document for anyone intending to perform the work or to have a deeper knowledge of the music.  I think it also should inform people about how Webern may have seen his own music. It certainly isn't the cool to chilly kind of interpretation that people associated with Webern back when I was in college.   I remember listening to the great pianist Alfred Brendel saying that he believed the reason people didn't like Schoenberg's music wasn't because it was cold and "mathematical," pointing out the monodrama Erwartung and, if I recall, the Three Pieces op. 11, he pointed out that it is some of the most intensely emotional music ever written.

The Berg Concerto was written over a number of years, to be dedicated to the memory of Manon Gropius, the daughter of  Alma Mahler and her second husband Walter Gropius (see picture on the Youtube posted below).   It was finished after the start of the heart disease which would kill Berg not long after he completed the piece, it is full of the experience of facing the loss of loved ones and our own eventual death.  By the time in the second and last movement that he quotes the J. S. Bach chorale, Es Ist Genug it is almost unbearably sad and disturbing music. I don't know much about Berg's ideas about the afterlife but Webern, a Catholic mystic, certainly believed in it.  But there isn't any way to talk about this piece in words that comes near to the point of it, you have to listen to the piece to begin to understand that and this recording, for all its shortcomings is the best way I've ever heard into it.  I've listened to it scores, maybe hundreds of times but this is like hearing it for the first time.  There are many other recordings of the piece on Youtube if you want to hear a cleaner recording, it is one of the most often performed and recorded violin concertos of the 20th century.  Krasner performed recorded it with many other conductors.

Here is a more hi-fi recording of it, which is among the best I know of.





Henryk Szeryng, violin
Symphonie-Orchester des Bayerischen Rundfunks, Rafael Kubelik, conductor

These recordings all sound better on a disc than they do on Youtube.  I'm not sure if the first one has been made available in a good transfer but if it is I'm ordering it as soon as I get this posted.

The Berg Concerto is the one piece that I've heard people who declare they hate "12-tone" or "atonal music" or "academic serialism" (the stupidest of all musical labels, used almost exclusively by idiots) make an exception for  It is a work of transcendent greatness.


Call It The Tim Murphy Memorial Operation: How To Fight Against Trump's Attacks On Women's Health Care

1.  Start holding men who father children out of wedlock fully responsible for their financial support, including child care.

2.  Let the assholes know that they and their sonny-boys will be fully responsible for the financial support of the children they produce.   Really drill it into their stupid minds, over and over again so that they really believe it will be done. 

You do that and I guarantee you, a significant amount of Trump's support, Republican-fascist support for destroying women's access to healthcare, including reproductive health care, will melt away.  You won't get all of them but I'll bet it would drive his support down, perhaps into the 20%s and that's the beginning of the end for the scum bag.   If Donny jr. or Eric produced an inconvenient or potentially costly pregnancy,  Donald Trump would probably have his thugs pressure the woman to have an abortion, probably offering to pay for it. 

OH MY ..... ISN'T HE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A DEGREE IN THE STEM SUBJECTS? Or Is That Claim Just For Blog Rat Purposes?

Perhaps it's considered outré in the smart set, the transitive law of mathematics and logic, but in my primitive rural school, we were taught:

If a = b and b = c then a = c.  

Darwinism  = natural selection (by definition) and natural selection = survival of the fittest (also social Darwinism, by definition) (Darwin, editions 5 and 6 of On the Origin of species). 

Therefore Darwinism = "social Darwinism". 

The history of that claim that there is a difference between Darwinism and social Darwinism is something I looked into but not extensively, if it didn't originate after WWII and the need to rescue St. Darwin from his and his theories association with the atrocities of the Nazis, it gained currency in that period up till today.  The lie is ubiquitous among allegedly educated people though a lie exposed by that one thing that they oddly don't encourage for St. Darwin, reading what he wrote, in full and in the context of his own citations. 

That eugenics was founded on Darwinism is not only a matter of reason, because the invention of eugenics would have no motivation and make no sense at all if natural selection were not assumed, it is confirmed by the ultimate of authorities in the matter, the inventor of eugenics, Francis Galton.  That is confirmed, again, by Darwin's citation of Galton's earliest works in eugenics (again, on the authority of Francis Galton identifying them as such), his support for his son George's eugenic articles and his own promotion of eugenic ideas, though he favored the method of extermination of the "savage races" at the hands of the "civilised" murderers who would prove their superiority through that act of killing off their rivals to more benign methods of eugenics.   Charles Darwin was firmly opposed to contraception because he thought that if women could have sex without risk of pregnancy, they'd enjoy it and slip around a bit.  

It would help if you actually read what your idol, your man god, your plaster St. Charles Darwin had actually said instead of what people have lied to cover that up. I can give quotes and citations and, in fact, have, over and over again, to the same idiots who refuse to read what their atheist idol said. 

I am kind of fascinated by the phenomenon of easily refuted lies which are sold and bought through the venue of English language education, at least in the United States and Britain, though my experience online is that it is common to Australia and Canada, as well.   That the towering figure of Charles Darwin is "known" through falsifying what the man himself said, through people, today, who never met the man contradicting what his own children, his closest professional colleagues said about him is a window into just how much secular, materialist, scientistic, atheist mythology is passed on by people who claim to own fact and evidence based knowledge, disdaining unevidenced belief .   

Quite a bit more of it than should be allowed is complete and utter lies and bull shit.  And yet they wonder why people don't believe them on important things, like man made climate change. 


Friday, October 6, 2017

The Roots of Trump’s Prejudice


When You Don't Have The Facts, Try To Deflect With A Lie

Freki, not having any refutation as to what I said, posted an accusation of misogyny against me at Duncan Black's blog, of course it's a. a lie, b. irrelevant, c. just another one of her many lies.

It's so funny because not two weeks ago I had this exchange at Echidne of the Snakes, the feminist blog I used to write for.

Anthony McCarthy • 11 days ago
You might want to look at Eliza Burt Gamble's early critique of Darwin's theory of male supremacy in her book The Evolution of Women.

https://ia800206.us.archive.org/21/items/cu31924031728763/cu31924031728763.pdf

While a lot of her assumptions are based on outmoded science - as were Darwin's- her arguments, taking the same purported phenomena as Darwin based his male supremacy on and showing how they could be interpreted as indicating that women were demonstrating superior intellectual power through them. It's interesting to consider the extent to which all of it is based on biased reporting of phenomena, if phenomena they are instead of lore, cultural biases and the inherent male supremacy of science at the time of Darwin. I think her argument took many of the same things for granted when that wasn't warranted but her arguments are worth considering as a possible different interpretation of evidence and critique of methodology.


Crissa  Anthony McCarthy • 11 days ago
I know of no references which can be authenticated of Darwin writing about a superiority of male over female, aside from his critique on Mill's work.

Hardly an unequivocal support for male dominance.

Anthony McCarthy  Crissa • 10 days ago
Off hand, I can cite:

The Descent of Man Chapter XIX

- Man is more courageous, pugnacious, and energetic than woman, and has a more inventive genius.

- The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than woman can attain—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music,—comprising composition and performance, history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation of averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on ‘Hereditary Genius,’ that if men are capable of decided eminence over women in many subjects, the average standard of mental power in man must be above that of woman.

- If they always held good, we might conclude (but I am here wandering beyond my proper bounds) that the inherited effects of the early education of boys and girls would be transmitted equally to both sexes; so that the present inequality between the sexes in mental power could not be effaced by a similar course of early training; nor can it have been caused by their dissimilar early training. In order that woman should reach the same standard as man, she ought, when nearly adult, to be trained to energy and perseverance, and to have her reason and imagination exercised to the highest point; and then she would probably transmit these qualities chiefly to her adult daughters. The whole body of women, however, could not be thus raised, unless during many generations the women who excelled in the above robust virtues were married, and produced offspring in larger numbers than other women. As before remarked with respect to bodily strength, although men do not now fight for the sake of obtaining wives, and this form of selection has passed away, yet they generally have to undergo, during manhood, a severe struggle in order to maintain themselves and their families; and this will tend to keep up or even increase their mental powers, and, as a consequence, the present inequality between the sexes.

Crissa  Anthony McCarthy • 10 days ago
It seems to me the latter quote rather suggests that inequality in training and culture is kinda bigger than anything evolutionary.

Anthony McCarthy  Crissa • 9 days ago
Actually, it says exactly the opposite. "so that the present inequality between the sexes in mental power could not be effaced by a similar course of early training; nor can it have been caused by their dissimilar early training".

Darwin noted, before he said that, that any increase in intelligence that came from women of greater intelligence having more children than those of less intelligence but that those qualities would be passed on to their children of both gender.

Darwin did not believe that women, on average, are the equal of men, on average. His citation of Galton and the refusal of both of them to consider that the status quo of their time, from which they drew the closest thing to "data" that they cited, was the product of social, legal and culturally produced inequality insured they would take that inequality to be the product of biological inheritance and the material differences in the bodies of males and females.

The Darwin that most of us were taught to believe in is a post-WWII myth. Reading him, reading the things he cites as reliable science produces a rather stunning disconfirmation of that idealized myth.

I had thought of doing a post about the odd concurrence of devoted Darwin worship with a clear inability to read what the man wrote.  I mean, I quoted and cited the man as saying essentially the same crap that just about all misogynists say.  I had noted his condescending dismissal of the very superior understanding of the moral consequences of Darwinism by Frances Cobbe.  But politics and other depravity intervened.

I have read Darwin.  I have read much of the surrounding literature.  I don't say things about it I can't back up, with full quotes and citations.  Those dolts haven't.


The motto of Eschaton should be, "no lie too obvious to tell". 

Freki is Simp's only competition for biggest liar on Duncan's blog.  Though there are some close runners up.   No Miss Congeniality there. 

"in consequence how much the Human race, viewed as a unit, will have risen in rank"

It is very true what you say about the higher races of men, when high enough, replacing & clearing off the lower races. In 500 years how the Anglo-saxon race will have spread & exterminated whole nations; & in consequence how much the Human race, viewed as a unit, will have risen in rank. 

Charles Darwin, letter to Charles Kingsley   February, 6 1862

Oh, that doesn't surprise me, Simels tells variations on that lie with remarkable frequency.   Anyone who has ever read my blog - which means just about none of the idiots at Eschaton who snark about it - knows I never said anything remotely like, "Nazis aren’t anti-Semites. They’re Darwinists."

Unlike Simps and the Eschatots I am aware that people can be both.  Just off the top of my head a list of Darwinists who were anti-Semites would include Karl Pearson, Charles Davenport, Alfred Ploetz (he became an anti-Semite as a result of his Darwinism),  Eugen Fisher,  Konrad Lorenz, James Hervey Johnson, William L. Pierce, Kevin MacDonald, If my memory serves me right, David Irving, though that's from memory I don't have time to do research.  Since Darwinism is practically synonymous with a belief in natural selection and natural selection is the foundation of eugenics, any eugenicist who is also an anti-Semite is, admittedly or not, a Darwinist who is an anti-Semite.

I haven't researched the Darwin corpus for signs of anti-Semitism.  I suspect he, always something of a social climber wouldn't have said anything of the sort after Disraeli became prime minister, or maybe it wasn't done in Darwin-Wedgewood circles.   I do know of one instance of petty anti-Semitism in his correspondence, probably someone saying it today would be forever damned by Simels as an anti-Semite.

I have just balanced my 1⁄2 years accounts and feel exactly as if some one had given me one or two hundred per annum: this last half year, our expenses with some extras has only been 456£, that is excluding the new Garden wall; so that allowing Christmas half year to be about a 100£ more, we are living on about 1000£ per annum: moreover this last year, subtracting extraordinary receipts, has been 1400£ so that we are as rich as Jews. 

This, from the Holocaust Museum site's Encyclopedia, is worth considering, especially in light of Charles Darwin, himself, saying that Spencer's formulation which would become known as "social Darwinism" was exactly what he meant when he said "Natural Selection," somewhat regretting that he'd not used the phrase "Survival of the Fittest" in place of his original name for his theory.   And why, after Darwin published his books On the Origin of Species and, even more so The Descent of Man, that anti-Semitism changed, drastically.  I think that Darwinism both confirmed and furthered the superstitions of post-romantic would-be scientific racism that arose, originally, out of early 19th century linguistic-racial theory in Germany.

ANTISEMITISM IN HISTORY: RACIAL ANTISEMITISM, 1875–1945

With the development during the last quarter of the nineteenth century of technological progress and scientific knowledge, especially about human biology, psychology, genetics, and evolution, some intellectuals and politicians developed a racist perception of Jews. This perception developed within a broader racist view of the world based on notions of "inequality" of "races" and the alleged "superiority" of the "white race" over other "races."

Belief in the superiority of the "white race" was both inspired and reinforced by the contact of European colonist-conquerors with native populations in the Americas, Asia, and Africa, and buttressed as pseudo-science by a perversion of evolutionary theory known as "social Darwinism." "Social Darwinism" postulated that human beings were not one species, but divided into several different "races" that were biologically driven to struggle against one another for living space to ensure their survival. Only those "races" with superior qualities could win this eternal struggle which was carried out by force and warfare. Social Darwinism has always been the product of bogus science: to this day, despite a century and a half of efforts by racists to find it, there is no biological science to support social Darwinist theory.

These new "antisemites," as they called themselves, drew upon older stereotypes to maintain that the Jews behaved the way they did—and would not change—because of innate racial qualities inherited from the dawn of time. Drawing as well upon the pseudoscience of racial eugenics, they argued that the Jews spread their so-called pernicious influence to weaken nations in Central Europe not only by political, economic, and media methods, but also literally by "polluting" so-called pure Aryan blood by intermarriage and sexual relations with non-Jews. They argued that Jewish "racial intermixing," by "contaminating" and weakening the host nations, served as part of a conscious Jewish plan for world domination.

Though secular racists drew upon religious imagery and stereotypes to define hereditary Jewish "behavior," they insisted that alleged Jewish "traits" were handed down from generation to generation. Since "Jews" did not form a religious group, but a "race," the conversion of an individual Jew to Christianity did not change his racial "Jewishness" and was therefore by nature an insincere conversion.

In the late nineteenth century in Germany and Austria, politicians took advantage of both traditional and racist antisemitism to mobilize votes as the electoral franchise widened. In his political writings during the 1920s, Adolf Hitler named two Austrian politicians who most influenced his own approach to politics: Georg von Schönerer (1842–1921), and Karl Lüger (1844–1910). Schönerer brought the racist antisemitic style and content to Austrian politics in the 1880s and 1890s. Lüger was elected mayor of Vienna, Austria, in 1897, not only because of his antisemitic rhetoric, which for him was primarily a political tool, but because of his oratorical skills and populist charisma that permitted him to communicate his message to broad sectors of the population.

I do know that Schönerer was a eugenicist after 1880 and that eugenics is, as mentioned above, inseparable from Darwinism.  I am not anything like a scholar of his putrid life and thinking so I don't know the extent to which he might have made that connection.  And, as I said, eugenics was invented out of the theory of natural selection, that is a hard, historical fact, so that any eugenicist as well as any "social-Darwinist" is a Darwinist.

From that quote at the top of the page, it's obvious that while he might have quibbled with the list of races whose extermination would lead the human species to have "risen in rank" Darwin was essentially not different in his view of salubrious genocide from Hitler, who merely believed it would be the "Anglo Saxon's" near cousins who would do the killing and come out on top.   Darwin said as much on more than one occasion, over the course of many years.  That idea entered into science with him.

Looking for The Answer In Paddock's Brain Won't Tell You How He Did It, It Won't Even Tell You Why He Did It

The media frenzy to try to determine what was wrong with Stephen Paddock's brain is focusing on the wrong thing, what they should be asking is what is wrong with the soul and mind of a country which allows someone like him to amass the kind of murderous potential, in de facto machine guns (based on legal fiction based in quibbling about words and not in reality) and modern explosives that could be combined to produce enormous and murderous explosions. 

Paddock's brain could have been in a dangerous state (which is assuming that's where the problem lies) and he could have had access to no more than the kind of gun that the idiot founders knew or a knife and he couldn't have killed and maimed the number of people he did with legally obtained guns legally modified into de facto machine guns - you want to bet that the idiots in the Congress don't pass an effective ban on bump stocks or, if they do, that the Republican Supreme Court won't overturn it?   Or that gun nuts like the one who invented the bump stock won't come up with something that will, in lawyer-ville but no where in real life, not make a "semi-automatic" into an automatic rifle? 

And that's not to mention the kind of explosive he bought in large enough quantities to produce a huge or even smaller but equally murderous bombs?  The stuff, like the bump stock, is advertised as being for thrill seeking hobbyists but its potential for killing people, either by terrorist intention or idiots getting their kicks is well known.

The United States through a media driven libertarian denial of reality has gone insane, the what I hope is a majority of sane people not able to cut  through to sane, rational government  facing the present libertarian interpretation of the Constitution, the modern manipulation of marginal people, gerrymandering congressional districts, corporate "personhood" and a myriad of other means of people rigging the system to produce The United States of Insanity. 

I've been studying the life and career of Oliver Wendell Holmes jr. because I've come to the conclusion that he, as much as anyone, embodies some of the most damaging of trends in thought and, more so, legal pretense that have produced this kind of depravity.  His second most famous declaration that the life of the law wasn't reason but experience combined with his ideological materialism, his Darwinist belief that a struggle in which the strong would crush the weak would produce salubrious results, and his pathological attachments to a concept of hyper masculinity (I wonder if it isn't all an expression of his daddy issues, a result of his revolt against his poet daddy).  I've come to the conclusion that he, perhaps, did as much as anyone to create the phenomenon of the one place in life that the post-modernist mode of thinking has gained purchase, the law, legal scholarship, judicial scribbling and the such.   The frequent complaint that the Supreme Court and other courts and judges often issue rulings based on clear insanity, often for the benefit of the powerful and those with influence, often clearly harmful to those whose right to justice is violated in their decisions could be explained in terms of Holmes. 

The fact is that even lawyers and judges and justices and legal scholars who spout this kind of Holmesian neo-modernist drivel would never put up with anyone treating them in the same way.  I recently listened to a lecture that William Lane Craig gave where he made that point, that no one lives their own life as if they believed that post-modernist anti-logic, anti-meaning, etc. were true.  It's only when it comes to people with law licenses and judicial appointments and people with appointments to Supreme Courts, state and federal, want to use that to do bad things that that pretense is upheld.  I believe the only reason we have put up with it is because they have managed to make the law some kind of mystery cult, the dicta of which, handed down by the priesthood, based on the scripture of the founders, which is to be taken as final truth.  In that we see even they don't believe in their de facto post-modernism even as they practice it.   In that they could be doing one thing that Holmes loved to pretend he was doing, imposing scientific methods to the law.  Only he and his fellow lawyers and judges took the worst thing that scientists do, issue such dicta that is to be taken as true on their say so, to be accepted by an ignorant and naive public as settled truth.

I will admit that reading the words of Madison, of Holmes, of the other gods of that cult has brought me to a state of profoundly pessimistic disrespect for those idols of civic, secular,  neo-paganism.  It's the paganism of atheist materialist modernism.  Another thing that Craig said in pointing out that even the post-modernists didn't live according to their declarations (I'll bet especially when seeking tenure, negotiating salary and benefits and conducting their business affairs) that the whole thing was just a shell game to avoid dealing with the crises brought about by the depravity of modernism. 

While they're looking for a lesion pressing against Paddock's amygdala, they'll ignore how he did what he did in looking for a why which that won't provide.  As I said, he chose to kill people in a deliberate act, look at what he was also choosing to watch and listen to, it might give you some idea as to how he came to figure he should do what he did, why he wanted to do it.  And you should look at what's wrong with this country that has done nothing with an annual body count in which 58 dead is a drop in the ocean of blood.   It's also why we have Donald Trump and a country that can watch him provoke nuclear war and not remove him from office.  It's the Donald Trump margin of pathology,  international Stephen Paddocks among them, by the million,  who can contemplate reigning down on Koreans what Paddock did in Las Vegas, only with millions dead.   And it's not a physiological problem. 

Wednesday, October 4, 2017

Hate Mail - How Sad It Is When Stupid People Think They're Smart And Tell Each Other That

Ah, Simels has to lie about what I said because he can't argue against what I actually did say.  Duncan's dumb bells never read anything before they wax wrong about it.  It's what Stupy relies on, it's what Duncan doesn't care about.  The guy's a lazy putz.  He's long reminded me of those early people on TV whose careers were over by the early 60s but who deluded themselves that they were some kind of celebrities for the rest of their lives.  I remember seeing one in some kind of 50 years of TV thing and it was about as sad a spectacle of self-delusion as I've ever seen.  Dave Garroway, after Today, always seemed like a bit of a sad embarrassment only he never stopped trying.  

Even "The Horse" of Media Whores Online, even the far more durable Bart Cop are fading and compared to Duncan, they were once something.   They had to stop or die before fading.  Duncan chose to fade, figuring he'd still be able to go on making money from his one trick cash cow. 

Update:  "It's like Wack-a-Mole."  

Actually, since it's Simps it's more like miniature golf.   

Who Needs ISIS When Mitch McConnell Will Make Future Stephen Paddocks Able To Get The Means Of Killing Us?

The Republican Party is the enemy of the American People, it is the party of the psychopathic factions whose paranoia is used by the gun industry, the NRA and other gun promotion groups to put guns, de-facto machine guns into the hands of people like Stephen Paddock and Adam Lanza.

This is the Republican Party using the gun crazy in order to win elections and to take power and if it isn't Republicans in the House and Senate and in state legislatures, it is the thoroughly politicized Republican members of the Supreme Court, Roberts, Alito, Thomas Gorsuch and Kennedy. 

When ISIS was claiming that this gambling yahoo and getting the FOX Republican-fascists in full distraction from reality mode, my first thought was who needs ISIS to do this when our own government is in the hands of people who enable and encourage the mass murderers to kill more of us than ISIS or Al Qaeda together could hope to?   Republicans the NRA that pulls their strings and the strings of Republican voters, the Republicans on the Supreme Court and lower courts who do the bidding of the gun industry are the Mammonist ISIS in North America, the ones who ISIS and other terror groups depend on to arm the few fanatics who are incited by them and the many times more incited by American entertainment and American Nazism to kill many more of us. 

I've mentioned the time I realized that someone murdered under Stalin or Mao was as murdered as someone murdered under Hitler and that that erased the phony political science distinction between mass murdering regimes.  Well, the Republican Party is doing to the United States the same thing that Al Qaeda did and which ISIS would like to do so they are really engaged in the same thing, the Republicans on the Supreme court, most of all are doing what they are doing using the language of the United States Constitution to get us killed in huge numbers, many, many 9-11s every year, every few weeks. 

It's time to stop pretending that the Republican Party and any government under them is anything but an entity that enables this to happen, over and over and over and over again. 

Last night Mitch McConnell accused the Senators who will try to bring up a bill outlawing bump fire stocks such as Stephen Paddock used to kill dozens and wound hundreds at a concert in Las Vegas of "politicizing" the event.  Well, it's about as disgusting a thing for a politician to be saying when the protection of the American People is supposed to be the first item in the responsibilities of an American politician.  It's contained in that preamble to the Constitution as a promise that that is why the document was written and proposed for adoption.  This is exactly the thing that should become a political concern.  If that part of the Constitution is considered moot, then the thing is totally useless and needs to be replaced with one that will allow for it and for the removal of politicians who act in concert with the gun industry, the modern Murder Inc. of the NRA and other enemies of the American People who kill us.

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

How To Deal With The Erudition Of The Internet Age

I need to make a sign and put it over my computer screen for whenever I'm trying to figure out what Simps and his cohort mean when they send the hate my way, it was something one of my fellow music majors said to someone who was trying to figure out why someone was being such a idiot, the advice was


THINK LESS HARD  

Or, as William Cobbett put it

The taste of the times is, unhappily, to give to children something of book-learning, with a view of placing them to live, in some way or other, upon the labour of other people. Very seldom, comparatively speaking, has this succeeded, even during the wasteful public expenditure of the last thirty years; and, in the times that are approaching, it cannot, I thank God, succeed at all. When the project has failed, what disappointment, mortification and misery, to both parent and child! The latter is spoiled as a labourer: his book-learning has only made him conceited: into some course of desperation he falls; and the end is but too often not only wretched but ignominious.   William Cobbett  1833

Only ignominy requires more of an effort than they want to put into anything and exposure of their babble to people intelligent enough to understand its status as silliness.  That's something they don't risk doing in the little cul-de-sacs they choose to inhabit. 

Trump is Not Planning to Rebuild Puerto Rico


Hate Mail's In

The contention that what the man who CHOSE to kill and try to kill hundreds of people also CHOSE to watch and listen to and, perhaps, though I doubt nearly as much so, read wouldn't tell you more about how he made his choice than dredging up his long gone bank robber daddy seems to be a rather stupid choice on your part.  The same man chose to do all of those things, he didn't chose his father. 

Anyone who considers himself an expert on country music and just, somehow, didn't seem to encounter the myraid of country songs themed on guns, encouraging gun use, killing people with guns, solving problems with guns, asserting rights to carry guns, etc. is just a bit too stupid to take seriously  As it is, I didn't say that the guy in Las Vagas was motivated by country music but the gun culture that prevents us from keeping weapons out of the hands of the insane, the fascist the violent, the jealous boyfriend-husband, the pathological male with a sense of being entitled to kill people, etc. that is influenced by the large body of country songs that do encourage that just as any other genre of music that carries the same messaging.  I don't have problem with the idea that skinheads who murder people are influenced by the hate-rock they listen to, either.  

You are as stupid as the "Freedom" Caucus of the House, only pretending you're on the left and a lot more pretentious and conceited.  And, since it works so much better for them than the left, all the stupider for pretending it works for the left. . 

Night Thoughts On The American Cold Civil War - Look At What The Killer Watches On TV and Online If You Want To Know Why He Did It

While they're trying to figure out what motivated the mass murderer in Las Vegas to use his "Second Amendment rights" to murder close to 60 people and injure many more, trying to square an old, white man who was a millionaire, living the materialistic good life such as the United States affords to old while men like him, I'd like to know what movies and TV and other entertainment media he watched because it's more than possible that was what provided him with the idea to do such a thing, such media has certainly inspired previous violence.  Timothy McVeigh and Dylan Roof got their inspiration from The Turner Diaries, I would wonder what this Paddock was reading and watching. I suspect that might provide a more fruitful avenue to trying to piece together a motive than looking at his bank robber daddy.

But I doubt that will be done, the major news venues are all owned by people and are staffed by people who produce such content or they, otherwise, benefit from the absurd idea that the propaganda that any mass media is entirely innocuous even when it spreads the most obviously pathological glamorization of violence.  They claim it has no known effect on behavior, sometimes doing that in between the commercials it carries, those 20 second messages broadcast in order to effect behavior.

The images of manliness sold by the media, the movies, TV, novels, pop songs, are intimately involved with the cold-civil war we are in.  I don't know anything about the singer whose concert was attacked, other than what I've looked up in the lyrics he sang, things like "Dirt Road Anthem" (I didn't listen to him, I just read the words as found online) and there was no specific advocacy of guns, though I didn't look at the lyrics of everything he sang.   But when he was described as a "country" singer, the frequent advocacy of armed, gun-packing, manliness manliness in "country" music was one of the first things I thought of.  Country music as much as other pop styles promote what is contained in their content. 

And, never let anyone get away with pretending that any advocacy of gun ownership and use is anything but the advocacy of violence,  violence is the only reason guns exist, it is what they are made and scientifically enhanced to produce.   And the scientists and engineers who invent and design guns are as much a part of the chain of violence that killed and injured those people and all others who get shot have as much blood on their hands as anyone.

So, we know 64 year old, white real-estate millionaire who liked to gamble and go to shows in Las Vegas, who has an Asian girlfriend committed what is, for now, the largest single mass murder by gun in American history.  People are expressing shock and surprise that someone of his discription did such a thing but, given that he probably grew up on American TV and entertainment, such a thing shouldn't be surprising.   Such a person is likely to feel a sense of entitlement that might lead them to do this.

I would especially look to see if he liked watching things like cable crime-shows, the kind that describe real-life crimes and focus on the criminals as if they were celebrities.  After the man murdered the Amish school girls in what blurs into the tapestry of mass gun death under the Second Amendment I wrote that to probably a tiny but dangerous number of the audience members, those shows carry both a how-to set of instructions and a pathological notion of glamor and celebrity that might be emulated.  I would like to not be proven right in that suspicion but since the Supreme Court, the Republicans in congress and elsewhere, the gun industry and the "civil liberties" industry provide the phenomenon, the possibility of testing that is constantly provided.   I am afraid that for the future mass murderers in the cable TV audience, on the sewer levels of the internet, they'll see this guy as someone to learn from and to try to top to take his position.  I wouldn't bet against those people being in the audience.  What else would they be watching?