"A part of Quick recalled an essay he had read years before, on how intellectuals are chronically fascinated by violence as an instrumentality..." (p. 221)
- and:
"...when a conflict of which [intellectuals] approve (and they approve of most) does erupt, they take the lead in cheering on the warheads and calling for more soldiers to feed the furnace." (ibid.)
I have come across other statements of this sort. A social group called "intellectuals" is not defined but is referred to in a disparaging way. Presumably, an intellectual is someone who has some measure of intelligence and, usually also, of education, who is theoretically rather then practically inclined and who thinks, whether professionally or on his own time. That does not tell us either what he thinks or even what he thinks about. Thus, some intellectuals - at least! - might abhor violence rather than be fascinated by it. Indeed, surely some of them, not of course all, are pacifists - and are derided for that? Do intellectuals as a group approve of most conflicts? Do they even cheer them on and call for more of them? Some people do all of these things but are those people to be identified with "intellectuals"?
I find disparaging generalizations about "intellectuals" puzzling. I expect to find people of intellect on every side of every argument and within every social group differentiated by its particular beliefs and attitudes. So who are these "intellectuals"?
32 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
The phenomenon should not puzzle you. It was intellectuals like Lenin who became one of the greatest monsters of history, cheering on mass slaughter.
And I'm not forgetting or forgiving the "intellectuals" in the US who happily approved of the 10/7 massacres of Jews by Hamas.
I could go on and on, listing monster intellectuals!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But are there not intellectuals on every side of all such conflicts - including, of course, approving the slaughter of Palestinians by illegal settlers and the IDF?
Paul.
Also non-monstrous intellectuals.
Kaor, Paul!
Of course, but I can't think of any Burkean style conservative intellectuals as monstrous as the ones as the ones as the ones I cited above.
I don't think the Nazis had many intellectuals before Hitler rose to power. Besides the autodidact Adolf I can only think of Goebbels and maybe the editor of the Party newspaper.
Ad astra! Sean
Seam,
But I'm not trying to find intellectual monsters across the political spectrum, just to separate intellectuals from monsters.
Paul.
Sean
Kaor, Paul!
But so many intellectuals since the hideous French Revolution were monsters, or defenders/enablers/excusers of monsters. Such as the intellectuals who blubbered over the monstrous Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge in 1974-75.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Really? Many academics have been "monsters"? And have "blubbered" about Pol Pot? I have been in Universities where there have been conservative and nonpolitical lecturers and professors.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, many. I still remember with disgust the creatures who praised Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge as noble "agrarian reformers." Bah!!!
Since at least the end of WW II the dominant zeitgeist in most US universities has been hostile to conservatives, libertarians, Christians, and, lately, Jews.
William F. Buckley" GOD AND MAN AT YALE (first pub. around 1951) was an early examination of this hostility.
Ad astra! Sean
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It is not currently hostile to Jews. There is certainly criticism of Israel.
Paul.
Sean,
I do not know the facts in all of these cases, e.g., I do not know how many "creatures" praised Pol Pot and continued to do so against the evidence.
However, I am confident that quite a lot of what you call "hostility to conservatives, libertarians, Christians and Jews," I would describe as political disagreement with conservatives, libertarians, Christians and Zionists. When you dislike some group's disagreement, you direct hostility against that group with language like "creatures" and "blubbering" and charges of antisemitism. This hardly makes for clarity in discussion.
I was honestly puzzled by the way some people use the term, "intellectuals," and did not expect this level of response. I still think that intellectuals as a very large category of people have the full gamut of political views (or none) and that we should not let the word, "intellectual," effectively degenerate into a term of abuse.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I am convinced that is not true of you, but criticism of "Zionism" is often code for antisemitism. Esp. among leftists.
The contemptible creatures, leftists, who were fawning over Pol Pot in 1974 had to shut up by mid 1975 as it became impossible to deny the genocidal slaughter of the Cambodians by Pol Pot and his Communists.
I meant exactly that, hostility, even hatred by "liberals" for anyone who dares to disagree with them. In all candor let me say you are not familiar with how American leftists often think, speak, and act.
Many US conservatives, libertarians, Christians, etc., dislike the very word "intellectual." Because it has been so often appropriated by leftists only for those who think as they do, people who have the "right" views, attitudes, ideas, etc. Meaning any who dare to think otherwise are not "intellectuals."
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
I should have concluded my above comments by citing Jonah Goldberg's book LIBERAL FASCISM (pub. 2008) as a good examination of how American leftists think.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Anti-Zionist leftists are not antisemitic. They are automatically smeared as such.
There does seem to be a lot of hatred...
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree, I saw a lot of hatred for Jews from American leftists and their dupes.
Ad astra! Sean
I think you were mistaking opposition to Israel with antisemitism.
In my experience, leftists have allies, not dupes. Part of this is just that we are looking at things very differently.
Kaor, Paul!
No, you are still insisting that "anti-Zionists" cannot be antisemites, and that is not true. Many of the "anti-Zionists" I saw and read about after 10/7 could only be called antisemites. Like the miserable creatures who tore down those pictures of the children kidnapped by the Hamas terrorists.
Again, no. I recall how the USSR used Marxist ideology to recruit true believers to work for Moscow as spies and traitors. I do call them dupes!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No. I am not insisting that ant-Zionists (no quote marks needed) cannot be antisemites. I am insisting from my own knowledge and experience first that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism and secondly that the anti-Zionist movement as a whole is not antisemitic. Large contingents of visible self-professed Jews attend regular large Palestine Solidarity Campaign marches through London.
Again, no. Of course the "USSR" dictatorship misused Marxist ideas. I am talking about leftists now, not that bureaucratic dictatorship then. We participate with larger numbers of people in broader campaigns on specific issues. They know that we are "leftists." We know that they are not leftists and that they agree with us on some issues but not on others. No one is duping anyone else. One of our local political allies is a Palestinian businessman and property developer, certainly not a leftist or a dupe of leftists. But we are united on one main issue at present.
You keep telling me about leftists instead of asking me about them. I can tell you a lot from my own experience of which you are unaware.
"Miserable creatures" in Israel and the IDF mock the suffering of Palestinians.
You and I ought to be able to break out of this irreconcilable confrontation and build some common understanding.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But I was not talking about you, or the people you personally know. I was thinking of the disgusting persons in the US who use "anti-Zionism" to hide their hatred of Jews. And these tend to be, in the US, to be either Muslims or leftists.
You need to concede leftists too can be antisemites.
Ad astra! Sean
When people dislike something that has been said, they tend to misquote and misrepresent it which does not help. I should not have to continually say, "I did not say that. I said something else." Each of us should respond to what the other did say.
I need to concede that some leftists CAN be antisemites? Of course they can. Just as many Christians have been. Where does that get us? The accusation of "antisemtism" has become such a major issue right now only because there is (rightly) so much anti-Zionism.
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't believe it's wrong to be pro-Zionist, as I am. And antisemitism is what I have been seeing in the US since 10/7.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You are pro-Zionist and don't think that's wrong. I think that every state should be secular and neutral and should equally serve the interests of everyone within its borders (whether permanently or temporarily) and therefore that no state should be Jewish, Muslim, Protestant, White etc.
I think that, if you were in the UK, then you would be "seeing" antisemitism here because you would be perceiving our massive pro-Palestinian demonstrations as antisemitic which they are not. Many Jews attend and support them but media coverage suppresses the fact. The media certainly would make you think that it was us against Jews.
Paul.
Paul: neutral states are effectively impossible because the very -concept- of the nation-state was and is... ah... national. Which is the 'highest form of tribalism'.
Nor are the bulk of Palestinians in favor of a 'neutral' state; they want an Arab, Palestinian, Islamic state in which Jews would be mostly dead. The people of Gaza -elected- Hamas. Once, as Hamas promised.
They've consistently rejected every compromise offered for the past century and more -- in the 1930's, for example, the Mandate authorities offered them a state which would have had 80% of the Mandate's territory, and the Jews a postage-stamp around Tel Aviv.
They rejected it and attacked and killed every Jew they could.
They should have kept in mind the axiom that "half a loaf is better than no bread". They didn't, so the saying 'too stupid to live' applies.
So they're the authors of their own miseries and deserve, collectively speaking(*), everything they've gotten and more.
(*) and war is a collective activity. Individuals don't count in war.
What I would like to see, a single, secular, democratic state, is not what many people out there would like to see. Sure. That has got to be true. I would be having arguments if I lived there just as I have here. But there are some secularists everywhere as well.
Kaor, Paul!
That is not going to happen. Convinced Muslims are not going to act and behave as you would like them to. People with that mindset will either ignore you or kill you. You would do far better debating with Israelis!
However, the recent anti-Hamas protests in Gaza gives some evidence that the catastrophe brought on them by the Hamas thugs has shocked some Gazans out of that sterile mindset. But they also run the risk of being suppressed by the Hamas criminals. I've read of at least one anti-Hamas protestor being tortured and murdered by those loathsome creatures.
Ad astra! Sean
What I think should happen and what is going to happen are of course two different things. I have been encountering this distinction all my life.
Paul: if it's vanishingly unlikely, what you want to happen becomes somewhat... abstract, to put it politely.
You have to chose between credible alternatives when supporting something, or you get -severely- negative consequences.
You are effectively supporting things you really, really, really don't want.
But there is still a difference in meaning between: "What do you think is likely to happen?" and "What do you think would be the best thing to happen?"
Besides, human events do not just happen like the weather. We do them and can influence the outcomes. Nazi organizations have been consistently pushed back in Britain by persistent campaigns against them unlike in other European countries.
What is vanishingly unlikely? The overthrow of Apartheid? The dismantling of the Berlin Wall? The collapse of the USSR? The downfall of every dictator who has seemed unassailable until he was brought down?
"The future is another country." I think that it is possible that the world will be a better place 100 years from now but we have to do something about that now,
"Better" is subjective, of course, but I can't spell out what I think would better. (I won't deliver a sermon or a lecture here and now, though.)
Sorry. I CAN spell out what I think would be better.
Kaor, Paul!
And my belief remains that most of what you so strongly want to exist, such as an impossible communal mass democracy, is vanishingly unlikely to ever exist. The best we are likely to have that has a chance of working will remain, sometimes, congresses and parliaments.
No more abstract Utopian impossibilities!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
And my belief remains that technology, society and individual psychologies can change in positive ways over time. This is obviously not impossible. If fundamental change were impossible, then unconscious matter would not have become conscious and sensorially conscious animals would not have become self-conscious.
Every time you state that it is impossible, I can restate reasons why I think that it is possible. Either we engage in further discussion without any preconceived conclusions or, surely, we stop just forcefully repeating ourselves?
Paul.
Post a Comment