POLITICS Re: Dirty Secrets of H1N1 Vaccine?

[Guest guest]

Bill,

> > Where did you find this definition of fascism?? This is not at all what

> > classic fascism is typically defined as. And as far as the Birch

> > society goes, where are you getting your information about that

> > organization? I'm no expert on that group, but I've read a very well-cited

> > book by one of its members on globalism and know one or two people that are

> > members, and they and the book all represent what I understand the group to

> > be about and that is that they are extremely anti-globalism and pro-liberty

> > Which, by default, would mean they are anti-fascism as well.

>

> The essential shared viewpoint of fascist groups is an extreme nationalism

that targets enemies " within " who allegedly seek a >conspiratorial takeover on

behalf of international communism or some comparable globalist conspiracy. The

Birch society is >the classic American case of that. You'll note that

Hofstadter discusses the Birchers explicitly. This is not just being

anti->globalist in preference, but seeing enemies everywhere, including

" liberals " who allegedly are willing or naive dupes of >conspiratorial

communists, targeting civil rights legislation in particular as a communist

conspiracy and a violation of the >Constitution. They also go on quite a bit

about banking conspiracies as a communist plot and the like. Standard fascist

rhetoric. >See

> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=_Birch_Society

While all the emotive rhetoric is interesting, nothing you write above

makes the Birch Society or any group that has the above as an

" essential shared viewpoint " - fascist. In fact fascist governments

would likely put the JBS on their enemies list, because however you

define it, it is not compatible with limited government. There are

some items that do define fascist thinking:

Secret prisons

Torture

Spying on all citizens

Arrests and indefinite imprisonment without trial

Rampant militarism

Secret detention

Enforced disappearance

Denial and restriction of habeas corpus

Prolonged incommunicado detention

Unfair trial procedures

Now I would bet the house that none of that describes the core ideals

of the Birch Society. And I haven't even dealt with the actual

definition of fascism, a word so loosely employed today as to be

almost unrecognizable in popular use.

Also note that all the above is a current feature of modern American society.

In many respects not much different than Germany about 10 years before

all hell broke loose and no one thought such a sophisticated society

that had survived for a thousand years would ever see its government

morph into the beast it became since it was exercising its newly

acquired powers " judiciously. "

> A few scary quotes:

> " In April 1966, the New York Times reported....

I'm scared alright, not because of the quote from the NY Times, but

because someone is quoting the New York Times authoritatively.

> on " the increasing tempo of radical right attacks on local government,

libraries, school boards, parent-teachers associations, >mental health programs,

the Republican party and, most recently, the ecumenical movement. … The Birch

Society is by far the >most successful and 'respectable' radical right

organization in the country. It operates alone or in support of other extremist

>organizations whose major preoccupation, like that of the Birchers, is the

internal Communist conspiracy in the United States. "

That is just a bunch of hyped up rhetoric that doesn't define terms,

assumes the reader already shares an interventionist point of view

(which is a very good assumption), and panders heavily to emotional

platitudes designed to get people worked up who are statist to the

core - governmentalists - totalitarian progressives, whatever you want

to call them. Which is to say a large chunk of American society,

though they normally like to call themselves Democrats and

Republicans.

The quote would be slighty more honest if it read like this:

" ...on " the increasing tempo of radical right attacks on

**tax-funded** local government, **tax-funded** libraries,

**tax-funded** school boards,**tax-funded** parent-teachers

associations, **tax-funded** mental health programs, the **tax- loving

war mongering** Republican party and, most recently, the **statist

loving state worshipping** ecumenical movement. … "

> and

> " Today the Birch Society still sees communism as a threat, and sees the

collapse of communism in Russia and Eastern >Europe as false and " planned " by

the Russian/Eastern European governments which it sees controlled by " the

insiders " . "

So that means that seeing communism as a threat in the past was either

wrong or no longer necessary. If the former then we know the NY Times

and its ilk were clearly wrong as has recently been shown even within

the ranks of our own government during the McCarthy years. If the

latter that can only mean at some point in the past the Birch

Society was correct and the NY Times agreed with the JBS.

> This is where the Birchers are coming from and I can't see any way to see

this as benign and it is definitely paranoid.

Well of course **you** can't see it any other way given the quote you

pasted and its presuppositions you undoubtedly share.

> But then I like civil rights laws, libraries, international cooperation, and

probably a whole host of other unAmerican things.

Since I have already spilled much cyber ink on this board over the

years regarding civil rights and the true origin of our liberties, I

will just skip to libraries. It is interesting that you can't even

envision private libraries though they were the precursors to the

state mandated tax funded institutions we have today.

http://itotd.com/articles/343/membership-libraries/

http://www.redwoodlibrary.org/memlib.htm

At any rate, all you demonstrated was that you don't agree with where

the JBS is coming from, not that they are fascists.

http://nutrition-and-physical-regeneration.com/blog

[Guest guest]

>

> He was not a communist historian, sorry. He opposed Beard's class-based

> economic analysis of American history. And his appeal to psychology in

history is

> about as far from Marxism as you can get. Just googling his name and

seeing that

> he was a communist member in his youth doesn't count. That applies to a

whole

> group of eventual neoconservatives from that era.

Granted it might, but are you saying he became a NeoCon? I seemed to find

conflicting information on his political leanings at the time he wrote the

work you referenced.

> Nor is the point of my post to endorse his political views, but to refer

you to the

> classic analysis of the topic of the paranoid style and

anti-intellectualism in

> American politics, since you asked.

It well may be a classic analysis, but everything I read about him has

critics saying there's very little empiricism in his work and essentially

that his works are written by an armchair intellectual. You may not endorse

his political views, but you did use his view of far right " paranoia " to

criticize Iserbyt's work in a way that suggested you agree with his

viewpoint on that topic. Here, perhaps this is a more accurate view of his

bias:

" Irrational fear

The Idea of a Party System (1900) describes the origins of the First Party

System as reflecting fears that the other political party threatened to

destroy the republic. The Progressive Historians: , Beard, Parrington

(1968) systematically analyzes and criticizes the intellectual foundations

and historical validity of Beard's historiography; the book

" signalled a growing support for neoconservatism " . In the event, ,

said that, as an historian, Hofstadter, no longer was a useful

guide, because his ideas were too-isolationist, and too often had " a pound

of falsehood for every few ounces of truth " . [15]

His dissertation director Merle Curti noted about Hofstadter that: " His

position is as biased, by his urban background . . . as the work of older

historians was biased by their rural background and traditional agrarian

sympathies " . [14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/_Hofstadter

Assuming the quotes are correct, perhaps they are a better critique of his

bias at the time he wrote the book on paranoia.

The comparison of a noted historian with a

> demagogue who can't reason is actually typical of this kind of

anti-intellectualism he

> talked about.

Translation: " I'm smarter than youuuu areeee....na na nah boo boo.......! "

Gee Bill, very kind of you to call me " anti-intellectual " because I don't

accept your sources uncritically or because you perceive my skepticism of

what appear to be very biased sources as insufficient critical thinking. At

least Gene has the good sense not to guise his insults in transparent

intellectual condescension but rather just calls people an " idiot "

straightforwardly.

That said, you missed my point in the comparison - it wasn't to compare the

prowess of two individuals' intellects (hardly an objective matter as it is)

but rather to compare their degree of bias. Granted I might have been wrong

in my perception of Hofstadter's political leanings, but that's hardly due

to " anti-intellectualism " and has everything to do with time constraints.

>Critical thinking is not just figuring out what political slant an author

> has (or had) and adding appropriate " penalty points. "

It's a strawman argument to suggest that I was in any way arguing that

critical thinking is entirely just figuring out authors' biases. Having said

that, it's par for the course to know the bias of your sources. A necessary

part of ascertaining what information is accurate. It is in no way the

entirety of critical thinking, but it's an important component.

Here is the thing - I see these accusations of " paranoia " and " conspiracy

theorists " thrown around a lot - most often out of ignorance, at other times

due to an agenda and at other times due to other factors. This is what made

me immediately suspect a particular bias or possible agenda by Hofstadter.

Obviously there are unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that do exist and

there are truly paranoid people that do exist, but there are also

evidence-based conspiracy theories and real situations which warrant concern

that are not due to some sort of psychological defect such as paranoia. I

think establishment academia and the corporate press in this country have

infused the term " conspiracy theory " with a derogatory meaning as if any

conspiracy theory whatsoever simply can't be true by the simple fact that it

IS a conspiracy theory. I've seen this sentiment expressed time and again

and used to think this way myself until I was able to, with time and effort,

get over that strongly ingrained mental block.

Empiricism is my number one criteria when evaluating theories, as I

personally think it should be for any scientist or any evaluator of

information. If a theory doesn't have empirical evidence to back it up, then

it should be discarded for a better substantiated theory. The main criticism

I read about Hofstadter, as mentioned above, even by his supporters(!), is

that he doesn't pay much attention to empirical evidence and is mainly an

armchair intellect. Whether that criticism is earned or not, from what

little I do know about him, he's earned my critical eye - " noted " historian

or not. (WHO decides who's noted or not? Does " noted " by a certain group

make one's work somehow more accurate?)

Suze

[Guest guest]

>

> Granted it might, but are you saying he became a NeoCon? I seemed to find

> conflicting information on his political leanings at the time he wrote the

> work you referenced.

He believed political consensus defined American history at any time and that

psychological motives drive history, not economic class conflict. In other

words, he was anti-communist in his approach to history, hence his conflicts

with Beard. This is like the neocons, but he was not one. I'd guess he'd be

considered broadly liberal in politics. Not sure what that proves, since, again,

the point was to identify a tendency in American political life that he

dissected.

>

American politics, since you asked.

>

> It well may be a classic analysis, but everything I read about him has

> critics saying there's very little empiricism in his work and essentially

> that his works are written by an armchair intellectual. You may not endorse

> his political views, but you did use his view of far right " paranoia " to

> criticize Iserbyt's work in a way that suggested you agree with his

> viewpoint on that topic.

There's plenty of empiricism in his work--he's just not an archival historian,

which professional historians make a big deal about now.

Here, perhaps this is a more accurate view of his

> bias:

>

> " Irrational fear

>

> The Idea of a Party System (1900) describes the origins of the First Party

> System as reflecting fears that the other political party threatened to

> destroy the republic. The Progressive Historians: , Beard, Parrington

> (1968) systematically analyzes and criticizes the intellectual foundations

> and historical validity of Beard's historiography; the book

> " signalled a growing support for neoconservatism " . In the event, ,

> said that, as an historian, Hofstadter, no longer was a useful

> guide, because his ideas were too-isolationist, and too often had " a pound

> of falsehood for every few ounces of truth " . [15]

You'll note this has him moving closer to neoconservatism and being an

isolationist. This according to Beard and company. Beard is famous for

introducing a quasi-Marxist (without the label) approach to American history,

with an economic analysis of the Constitution, etc. If we're just going to

compare whether we agree with an author's politics, this makes Hofstadter closer

to your position, not mine.

> His dissertation director Merle Curti noted about Hofstadter that: " His

> position is as biased, by his urban background . . . as the work of older

> historians was biased by their rural background and traditional agrarian

> sympathies " . [14]

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/_Hofstadter

You seemed to have missed my point about " bias. " So-called bias is an essential

part of history, indeed all scientific endeavour. It's pointless to search for

the historian who writes without a point of view and whose interpretations don't

show a focus on some facts rather than others. We hope that the community

structure of science will bring different points of view to the table, as his

supposed " urban " bias enriches the discussion previously dominated by a " rural "

bias. The argument stands by itself, in any event. It can be illuminatng to

consider an author's background, but not if we're just gonna play " gotcha. "

>

> Assuming the quotes are correct, perhaps they are a better critique of his

> bias at the time he wrote the book on paranoia.

>

>

> The comparison of a noted historian with a

> > demagogue who can't reason is actually typical of this kind of

> anti-intellectualism he

> > talked about.

>

> Translation: " I'm smarter than youuuu areeee....na na nah boo boo.......! "

>

> Gee Bill, very kind of you to call me " anti-intellectual " because I don't

> accept your sources uncritically or because you perceive my skepticism of

> what appear to be very biased sources as insufficient critical thinking. At

> least Gene has the good sense not to guise his insults in transparent

> intellectual condescension but rather just calls people an " idiot "

> straightforwardly.

>

> That said, you missed my point in the comparison - it wasn't to compare the

> prowess of two individuals' intellects (hardly an objective matter as it is)

> but rather to compare their degree of bias. Granted I might have been wrong

> in my perception of Hofstadter's political leanings, but that's hardly due

> to " anti-intellectualism " and has everything to do with time constraints.

And, again, you missed my point. Instead of asking whether Hofstadter is right

or if his perspective has anything to offer, we immediately begin the game of

seeing if he has a " bias " and using what we find to discount the argument. And

this is part and parcel of what's wrong with American political culture now, and

it is related to the paranoid and anti-intellectual strains of the American

political tradition that Hofstadter first brought attention to. Worse, you take

snippets out of wikipedia without being able to put them into context. First,

you point out that he was a communist as a young man, missing that he

articulated the alternative historiographical framework to Beard, the closest

that mainstream history had come to embracing the Marxist perspective. So he was

one of the most important anti-Marxist historians of his era. Second, you pull

out a variety of alleged biases that have little relevance from wikipedia, other

than that we can call them biases, though they seem reflect differences of

interpretation with other historians. Third, you ask me to account for these

biases, as if referring to the tradition of anti-intellectualism he identifies

requires me to sign on to all of these " biases " as my own.

>

> >Critical thinking is not just figuring out what political slant an author

> > has (or had) and adding appropriate " penalty points. "

>

> It's a strawman argument to suggest that I was in any way arguing that

> critical thinking is entirely just figuring out authors' biases. Having said

> that, it's par for the course to know the bias of your sources. A necessary

> part of ascertaining what information is accurate. It is in no way the

> entirety of critical thinking, but it's an important component.

>

> Here is the thing - I see these accusations of " paranoia " and " conspiracy

> theorists " thrown around a lot - most often out of ignorance, at other times

> due to an agenda and at other times due to other factors. This is what made

> me immediately suspect a particular bias or possible agenda by Hofstadter.

> Obviously there are unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that do exist and

> there are truly paranoid people that do exist, but there are also

> evidence-based conspiracy theories and real situations which warrant concern

> that are not due to some sort of psychological defect such as paranoia. I

> think establishment academia and the corporate press in this country have

> infused the term " conspiracy theory " with a derogatory meaning as if any

> conspiracy theory whatsoever simply can't be true by the simple fact that it

> IS a conspiracy theory. I've seen this sentiment expressed time and again

> and used to think this way myself until I was able to, with time and effort,

> get over that strongly ingrained mental block.

Well, I think there is a conspiracy to ban raw milk, but I don't think there was

a conspiracy to dismantle the Soviet Union as a secret plan to better insinuate

communism into the world. The first can be shown as the result of actions taken

by bureaucrats in a position to do something about it and the second requires a

complete break with reality to believe. That is what the Birch Society

believes and it really seems to be in the category of mental illness.

>

> Empiricism is my number one criteria when evaluating theories, as I

> personally think it should be for any scientist or any evaluator of

> information. If a theory doesn't have empirical evidence to back it up, then

> it should be discarded for a better substantiated theory. The main criticism

> I read about Hofstadter, as mentioned above, even by his supporters(!), is

> that he doesn't pay much attention to empirical evidence and is mainly an

> armchair intellect. Whether that criticism is earned or not, from what

> little I do know about him, he's earned my critical eye - " noted " historian

> or not. (WHO decides who's noted or not? Does " noted " by a certain group

> make one's work somehow more accurate?)

Empiricism is a bad philosophy of science--the evidence matters, but that

doesn't mean that the evidence is not subject to interpretation or that better,

more accurate theories only get developed by those who look at the evidence

without theoretical preconceptions. This is why Francis Bacon's super-inductive

approach to science could never work (collect lots of evidence of examples of

things that have heat until the form of heat pops out). And this is why

historiography courses spend so much time examining why history is not just fact

collecting. When historians criticize Hofstadter's empiricism, they mean that he

did not write massive, archival-driven tomes that are the new way to prove

yourself in a competitive, professionalized discipline. It's got nothing to do

with such works being more objective or closer to the truth, since looking at

all the evidence in a messy reality may make it harder to pull out individual,

causal strands. They may have no clue what it all means.

But let the more comprehensive discussion of anti-intellectualism in U.S.

political history proceed, as I'm sure it has. The work is noted because it

provided fodder for latter historians who agree or disagree with the analysis to

refine our understanding of the topic. That's how knowledge advances, but none

of this has very much to do with my reference to the work, which was to point

you to the basic discussion of a concept I invoked in describing the Birch

Society.

Bill

>

>

> Suze

>