Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: c.hinton who wrote (238110)	7/28/2007 10:33:22 AM
From: bacchus_ii	Respond to of 281500

Just for the fun of it.... :-) RE: bacchus why do you even bother.......?

To: c.hinton who wrote (238110)	7/28/2007 11:26:11 AM
From: el_gaviero	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Wherein lies the scandal here? Is it that Bacchus quoted Hitler? Or is it that a quote, which comes from Hitler, accurately describes Nadine’s style of argument? It is the second and not the first. In my view you all have a shaky grasp of logic. The character of a person does not determine the validity of an argument, or the accuracy of a description. The fact that a quote from Hitler captures with deadly accuracy Nadine’s style of argument should make Nadine wonder about herself, about her methods, and about her manner of proceeding. But of course it will not. She confirms the accuracy of the quote by her response to it. This is not to say, however, that the quote itself is free of problems. Hitler seems to be saying that the style of argument that he describes applies to a particular people, the Jews. In this I think he is wrong. The problem is somewhat different. His quote applies to a person with a particular mind-set. He of course is probably the best example of that particular mind set. This matter of mind sets is important. That is to say, it is important to understand what is going on. In my opinion the great Spanish philosopher, Ortega y Gasset supplies understanding in this realm. (He is writing about Europe in the 1930s, but the argument still applies.) “In the guise of labor movements and fascism there has appeared in Europe ... a type of man who doesn’t want to offer reasons nor be right, but who, simply, is determined to impose his opinions. What is new about this is his insistence upon the right to be wrong, the offering up of reasons grounded in the absence of reason. I see in this one of the most concrete expressions of the new manner of being of the masses, who are determined to run the show although without capacity for it.” From Rebellion of the Masses. The key phrase here is “without capacity for it.” Lack of capacity is the unifying idea that pulls together, and lets us put under one heading, a lot of different people, e.g., Hitler, the neo-cons, Nadine, most inside the beltway types, the Israeli political leadership. None of these people have capacity to do what they are trying to do, yet they do not cede power nor do they ever shut up. Fascism of the 1930s = Political Correctness of the 2000s = “neocon-ism” of today. All share a common trait. They are attempts to hold on to power based upon ideas no longer believed in, therefore the ideas are used only by people who lack integrity. In any case, this is a long-winded way to say that the scandal of Nadine is that she won’t shut up. (Through the miracle of the internet here is the above quote from Ortega, directly as he wrote it rather than my quick, not very good translation: Bajo las especies de sindicalismo y fascismo aparece por primera vez en Europa un tipo de hombre que no quiere dar razones ni quiere tener razón, sino que, sencillamente, se muestra resuelto a imponer sus opiniones. He aquí lo nuevo: el derecho a no tener razón, la razón de la sinrazón. Yo veo en ello la manifestación más palpable del nuevo modo de ser las masas, por haberse resuelto a dirigir la sociedad sin capacidad para ello.)