Category Archives: Intellectualism

Letter of the Week: Murderous Condescension By Prof. Dennis O'Keeffe

Intellectualism, Race, Socialism, South-Africa

I just read your fine and frightening piece on South Africa. The following may not be original, but it needs saying again. No one is more racist and condescending than white socialist intellectuals, strangely called “liberals” in the United States, perhaps because they are so liberal with other people’s money. White conservatives sometimes dislike black people and Asians, though this is a less and less common thing among young conservatives. Such dislike even when it occurs does not work in conjunction with hatred and a desire to hurt people. Socialist intellectuals, of the kind who in Britain control most Broadcasting—and many university departments across a whole range of disciplines—regard black people as virtually subhuman, without souls or conscience or any moral sensibilities. In Britain, Apartheid South Africa was never out of the news. Today the horrors of South Africa never hit the headlines. The point is that the white intelligentsia care only about offences committed by white people. They are seen as the only ones capable of autonomous immorality.

This kind of reasoning explains why Nazism is taken by so many Western thinkers as the surest standard of evil. It is because an unambiguously and self-consciously white race performed the Nazi horrors. The crimes of Communism, in which the numbers murdered were far greater, are dismissed because they were carried out by the semi-Asiatic Russians or by the unambiguously Asiatic and comic Chinese.

Until the world learns to impose the same moral requirements at all people’s doors, regardless of their various racial compositions, we will never get out of this habit of murderous condescension.

Dennis

Letter of the Week: Murderous Condescension By Prof. Dennis O’Keeffe

Intellectualism, Race, Socialism, South-Africa

I just read your fine and frightening piece on South Africa. The following may not be original, but it needs saying again. No one is more racist and condescending than white socialist intellectuals, strangely called “liberals” in the United States, perhaps because they are so liberal with other people’s money. White conservatives sometimes dislike black people and Asians, though this is a less and less common thing among young conservatives. Such dislike even when it occurs does not work in conjunction with hatred and a desire to hurt people. Socialist intellectuals, of the kind who in Britain control most Broadcasting—and many university departments across a whole range of disciplines—regard black people as virtually subhuman, without souls or conscience or any moral sensibilities. In Britain, Apartheid South Africa was never out of the news. Today the horrors of South Africa never hit the headlines. The point is that the white intelligentsia care only about offences committed by white people. They are seen as the only ones capable of autonomous immorality.

This kind of reasoning explains why Nazism is taken by so many Western thinkers as the surest standard of evil. It is because an unambiguously and self-consciously white race performed the Nazi horrors. The crimes of Communism, in which the numbers murdered were far greater, are dismissed because they were carried out by the semi-Asiatic Russians or by the unambiguously Asiatic and comic Chinese.

Until the world learns to impose the same moral requirements at all people’s doors, regardless of their various racial compositions, we will never get out of this habit of murderous condescension.

Dennis

Gottfried on the Why of Systemic vs. Personal Responsibility

Individual Rights, Intellectualism, Morality, Neoconservatism, Socialism

Professor Paul Gottfried offers this insight as to why, “When speaking about crime and culpability (punishment is not an option), left-liberals like Jolie use the passive voice. Crimes are caused, not committed.”

I think Ilana’s observation about the widespread tendency to blame all non-white and non-Western atrocities on abstract causes such as “violence,” “poverty,” and “white racism” serves a necessary function within the context of (non-neoconservative) leftist thinking. This ascription allows the user to blame morally revolting actions on neither the perpetrator nor any specific person or group of persons belonging to the white Western world. It goes without saying that blacks, who form a martyr people within leftist victimology, cannot be called to account by white Westerners because they rape and murder each other. To do so would undermine the reigning anti-fascist, anti-racist ideology. But neither is it wise to lay the blame for Third World atrocities at the door of one’s parents and associates, assuming they are white, if one intends to maintain civil relations. Therefore the problem becomes “structural” or “economic” rather than personal. And this also suggests that everything can be set right by adopting the right socialist, redistributionist policies.

—Paul Gottfried

UPDATED (12/8/2023): Monopolizers And Flyters (November 23, 2005)

Culture, English, Intellectualism, Intelligence, Literature, Media, The Zeitgeist

On the flyting that flew between the two, Christopher Hitchens and George Galloway

Who monopolizes the market place of ideas in the Guardian’s view? The answer is assorted activists, liberal-leftists, statists, feminists, and other lightweights. Read the paper’s top 100 intellectuals and tell me it doesn’t distress.

I don’t profess to have heard of all the characters on the list. Far from it. But of those I recognize, I guess I’d go with German philosopher Jurgen Habermas. This is not to say I endorse his views or all his influences (the unlovely Theodor Adorno comes to mind). But this is not about agreeing with a thinker, only acknowledging his place on this list.

I’d also go with Pope Benedict XVI, and the marvelous Australian art critic Robert Hughes whose profundity, knowledge, and critical faculties are a credit to his Jesuit teachers.

I see Newsweek‘s wishy-washy Fareed Zakaria is considered an intellectual giant. Woe is me! Amos Oz is a popular writer (and not a good one when compared with Meir Shalev or Shy Agnon), but hardly one of the top intellectuals around. But if one is of the Left, one has an advantage in the selection process.

Now hold your horses, will you, because I also admire Christopher Hitchens as a stylist, conversationalist, and an extraordinary flyter. What is flyting, you ask? It’s an ancient Scottish form of invective, a true master of which is the MP George Galloway. I don’t care for his or Hitchens’ ever-shifting views, but I loved the flyting that flew between the two. Galloway called Hitchens a drink-sodden ex-Trotskyist popinjay. Hitchens responded over the pages of an august publication by likening the lickspittle praise Galloway once bestowed on him to spittle flung in place of argument. Later on, the two dueled deliciously on C-Span, where, I’m afraid, Hitchens proved his uncontested superiority in this spontaneous rhetorical art.