- Like
- Digg
- Del
- Tumblr
- VKontakte
- Buffer
- Love This
- Odnoklassniki
- Meneame
- Blogger
- Amazon
- Yahoo Mail
- Gmail
- AOL
- Newsvine
- HackerNews
- Evernote
- MySpace
- Mail.ru
- Viadeo
- Line
- Comments
- Yummly
- SMS
- Viber
- Telegram
- Subscribe
- Skype
- Facebook Messenger
- Kakao
- LiveJournal
- Yammer
- Edgar
- Fintel
- Mix
- Instapaper
- Copy Link
12 Responses
Two thumbs down for consenting to speak to this unsavory character with a track record of sowing deception and division, Dr. Daniels. Discussing poverty and other lower-class social ills with a far-right demagogue is about as worthwhile as giving a talk to ISIS supporters on the decadence of western society, or to a KKK meeting on the defects of modern African-American culture. I refuse to listen to this.
Wow. If he qualifies as either “far” right or a “demagogue”, these terms can have no meaning.
Or, at least, where must the centre be in one’s mind to arrive at that characterization of Anthony Daniels.
For the record, last year in Ottawa one of the local low rent communist groups [literally, it was in the name] posted handbills claiming that “no one should have to pay just to exist”.
I faced an existential and paralyzing crisis leaving me unable to choose among four replies, had I ever had the chance:
1. Neither should anyone be paid just to exist.
2. No one is in fact paying just to exist. They exist for free. They pay for goods and services like food, clothing and shelter provided by others. Who are not obliged to do so for free, though they may wish to do some charitably.
3. One must earn one’s keep somehow, and that should remain the case under any social model. As, it happens, it has remained an assumption even in the most theoretical experiments in socialism let alone the socialist states.
I don’t recall anything Daniels ever said more extreme than those, and I have no doubt Lenin would endorse them in some degree. even the second one.
Lol. Somebody’s firing on all cylinders today.
Probably he was misled by your execrable writing style.
Orange seems to be the only flavour of kool-aid you won’t drink, mate, the neomarxist one you seem to have drunk to the last drop.
I think both you and the other Edison need to learn how to read, and while you’re at it, mate, take five minutes to look up who Charlie Kirk is. It’s Kirk and his followers I was calling bad eggs, not Dalrymple.
Yes, I, at least, gathered that. So what? This pretty uninteresting Charlie Kirk fella could be Satan himself, and I would still want to read his Dalrymple interview (maybe with even added interest, and not because I’m a raging satanist). Your american tribal politics and struggle sessions surrounding “platforming” opponents are very boring, not everybody is a neomarxist puritan living in California.
Well you’re entitled to claim that it doesn’t matter to you, honest to God, but most people recognize that the medium on which a message is heard affects that message, and most people do discriminate with respect who they choose to do things with. It’s not censorship when a publisher turns an author down, even (you’d better believe it) for reasons of intellectual compatibility. Nor is it close-mindedness or snobbery when a speaker or even an entertainer declines an invitation to appear at a venue. The reality of life is that people care about reputations because they matter, and when you choose to be associated with someone who has a poor reputation (whether for incompetence or wrongdoing), that reflects on you as well.
Your accusation is an immature regurgitation of things that have no relevance here. I never called for anything like Charlie Kirk to be denied a platform. It’s an exaggeration in the same vein as those lefties you claim you don’t like yelling about repression and a police state, so good job for taking a page out of their playbook.
Well, allow me to demonstrate what I believe to be your very american-centric neomarxist cultural imperialism in action.
I am brazilian. Dalrymple became a very famous author here, along with other geniuses such as Roger Scruton, due solely to the writings of right-wing (you would certainly call him “far right”, if you could read portuguese) author Olavo de Carvalho. The latter became irreversibly entwined with the former president’s government (you probably would also call him “far-right”, even while not being able to pronounce his name, much less properly read local perspectives about him – fyi, I consider him to be little more than an utterly venal, mentally handicapped career politician turned populist clown act for cheap votes), and in turn influenced some upstart right-wing news outlets such as Revista Oeste, for whom Dalrymple now writes a somewhat regular column.
I am assuming, with 100% confidence, you knew nothing of this, and that the minutiae of the dismal and ludicrous politics of Brazil would, quite rightly, never have interested in you the slightest, nor tarnished your appreciation for Dalrymple’s brilliant writings and insights.
Your boogeyman Charlie Kirk, I’m sorry to say, is as irrelevant to the world as Revista Oeste. Unless you can find me an actual column by the man praising Mussolini or something (and it is nowhere near as hard finding lefties praising or excusing Stalin, Mao et al), spare me the struggle session, if you would be so kind.
1. I’m very sorry to disappoint you, but you aren’t telling me anything I don’t already know. This very website, NER, is right-wing, as are some of the other English-speaking sites Dr. Daniels consents to be published on, like The Epoch Times.
2. If you want to deny basic common sense, that’s your right, but most people have no difficulty comprehending the quite simple concept that partnering with a bad person might undeservedly give them credibility or strengthen their position, or at best deepen complacency. This includes some of history’s great writers.
An example that easily comes to mind is when authors withdrew their manuscripts from Novy Mir, the Soviet literary journal, in the early seventies after its liberal-leaning editor was sacked and replaced with a hard-line communist. Or Alexander Solzhenitsyn (Nobel Prize winner and protege of the same publication) carefully calculating where he would consent to have his work published. In his memoir he remarks, “if I should see Right Hand [a short story critical of early Soviet repression] published by the gendarmes’ press [i.e. a publication that is a regime mouthpiece], I wouldn’t be ashamed”. The implication clearly being that a more neutral and innocent work would effectively be a gesture of support and thus dishonorable.
You can make your silly claims about fanaticism and close-mindedness, and pretend you don’t see any importance in the choice of medium and partnership, but I’m pretty sure if Dr. Daniels got on the program of somebody you think is a really bad influence you would suddenly grasp the concept.
By the way, it so happens that the editor of this website just revealed that she agrees with this view, so feel free to head on over there and whine at her for being a leftist puritan who censors those she doesn’t like. That wingnut Rectenwald will be glad to have your support.
Oh, NO! Not RECTENWALD! Isn’t he, like, LITERALLY HITLER?!
(… sorry, who’s this particular nobody again? Is he as evil as some Charlie Kirk?)
And THE EDITOR? She AGREES with you?! Golly, I must be awfully wrong, then!
(… and this nobody who apprently should dictate my opinions, is?)
Since you are a neomarxist extremist, let me enlighten you: the assumption that people will automatically side with their “class consciousness”, or that all opinions except for the marxists’ is “ideology” or an “espistheme” disguising power, is horseshit. I’m a former marxist, and I realize exactly how much projection goes into that, which is about 95%.
I read (and this is nothing to brag about, rather an unavoidable reality – even if you wanted to avoid it) leftist publications every single day. There aren’t many alternatives, after the Long March. I read Olavo, the guy you clearly never heard of, in one of the dozen far-left newspapers of Brazil, and there stumbled across Dalrymple. He could publish his texts in the Pravda or Granma and I would read them with the same pleasure, though making sure they didn’t get a dime from me.
Funniest part is, Kirk is very, very, VERY boring and uninteresting. He only seems a deranged, nazi extremist to someone so far left of the Overton Window who might think Mao and Stalin were misunderstood samaritans.
“If stigma is wrong, a better world should be altogether free of it. But a world without stigma would be a world without shame, and a world without shame would a world in which standards of behaviour could not long be maintained.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20140130002748/https://salisburyreview.com/Theodore_Dalrymple/stigma.html