« Do they do the "perp walk" in Israel? | Main | HARPER: A REMINDER OF THE OBSCENE POWER OF THE ISRAEL LOBBY »

14 November 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Yes I do understand the difference.



The blog post is about media coverage of Roy Moore vs. coverage of Harvey Weinstein and a multitude of democratic supporters. You have mentioned nothing about either. You have filled the comment thread by extensive comments on subjects far off the topic of the post. That is a quite common troll tactic. A second is being arguemenative with other commenters anda third but by no means last is resorting to victimization when called out.


indeed, there are many examples in the literature touching upon this topic of sexual exploitation - e.g. Emile Zola' "Nana" , or Frank Thiess' "Der Leibhaftige". The latter is especially interesting because it just predates the Hollywood control of movie industry, and describes the miserable "Twenties" (1920's) in post WW1 Germany.


"...their talk of this tribe settling here and this there and physically displacing or killing all the natives, always looked unlikely."...
If I may qualify, or understand better - I understand that many Celtic tribes were annihilated by Cesar in his conquest of Gallia. The Roman invasion of England was also bloody, maybe not that wholesale eradication of existing celtic people, but the remaining population adopted the roman civilization, willy nilly. In Asia at the time of Mongol expansion, many tribes were also either eradicated or forcefully incorporated into the victorious mass.


"...teach their fans to be sluts."

more insidious, tho less grotesque, are the role models promoting aspirations to power over as opposed to power to in both [all??] genders.

English Outsider

Pacifica Advocata - always possible. The material we're referring to is pretty basic though. Well trodden ground. On the other hand there are always fresh studies coming out. In particular it's a year or two since I read about the DNA side so it's more than possible I'm out of date. If you've come across anything new that changes the picture you might care to give the reference. This is neutral ground and there can be no objection to fresh surveys.


It'w the persistent influence of Wilhelm Reich, and his followers in the Frankfurter School, on the boomer education, media, entertainment elite who promote what they consider the basis of a liberal mindset--orgasmic bliss. At least Hugh Heffner appreciated the art of wooing.

The comedeines Key and Peale did a perceptive skit about a fictional popular female singer empowering young women to free themselves sexually. The singer turns out to be a male grooming young women to lose their inhibitions.

Eric Newhill

Never discount the influence of Soros.


And how come Soros' influence in our democratic processes isn't a crime, but Russia's is?

English Outsider

Fanto - Thank you for your reply. Could well be you know more about the subject than I do. More than likely, on the Colonel's site. In any case I'm diffident about pressing my view too far - I'm suspicious even of those who study this subject, when they get too confident, because I've so often seen them proved wrong later.

I should say that my approach to this subject is slightly indirect in that it's an approach through the OE texts. Those I go for. Close enough to our present speech to give confident access after a bit of fussing with the pronunciation and grammar. Remote enough to give unmediated access. The scholars dig around in them for their own purposes and the students groan through them if they can't avoid it, but few just read them for what they are. The Lit Crit mob keep clear, or at least I haven't seen them around and don't propose to go looking for them, so for someone who doesn't like to be told what to think it's good territory. Technically I think OE alliterative verse reaches levels seldom matched in English literature since. It fits the language. Just my view.

The history side is moving very fast. That I do know. David Habakkuk's recent comment shows how radically. Accounts that were accepted as gospel only a few decades ago are now overturned, although those accounts have inevitably left their traces in the current popular view of the period. Above I've ventured the opinion, which I hope is not too fantastical, that the heavy duty Voelkerwanderung view is due for revision. Shan't get too upset if I'm wrong.

But this exchange of comments leads one to ask whether this interest so many of us have in our origins and in the origins of our culture is anything more than stamp collecting. Fun, interesting, but nothing to do with us today, with our political problems, or with our present predicament. I'd accept Henry Ford's view that history is bunk, at least to the extent of agreeing that much of it is PR, but I would not accept it entirely. It's not all a form of aimless cultural tourism either.

One perhaps useful function of the reading of history is that it does allow refutation of those who pervert the subject. When the Prog tells us that mass immigration is going to be just fine because Huguenot, or the ultra-Zionist tells us it's OK to demolish villages because King David, it's handy to be able to say "Bullshit. Go and get your historical facts straight", Not that handy though - fake history pressed into the service of an ideology sticks like glue. The Biletsky fan who thinks it his moral duty to clear his country of foreign Vatniks is scarcely likely to sit down with the history books and get himself straightened out on the subject. And you could argue that pressing history into the service of contemporary politics in that way is so wrong-headed that you shouldn't enter the debate on those terms in the first place.

No, the prime function of this quiet communion with our past that is the reading of history is to enable us to find our way around our present. When a modern lawyer talks of Common Law as a process of discovery rather than the application of prescription, as I have seen done recently, you don't need to say "What the hell's all that about?" and give up. The mind goes back to that period when customary law was emerging from its mainly local application and our lot back then were formalising the process of adapting it - "discovering" how their practice, derived from their sense of what was right or usual, had to change to match changing circumstances. So too with constitutional development. It wasn't "blueprint" stuff, not stuff that we passively accepted from some ideology-ridden theorist or from some cabal of would be do-gooders. It got hammered out by us, and unless we give up on that too and merely let ourselves be jostled into a future we have no part in shaping, it still matters. There's a point, therefore, in reading how they did it then. Those people lived under our skies and in our skins. They'll talk to us, from way back, if we let them. We only have to listen.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

December 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
Blog powered by Typepad