The Decay and Fall of the West
Is our society losing its way? An interview with psychiatrist and thinker Dr. Theodore Dalrymple.
In terms of erudition and perspicacity, Dr. Theodore Dalrymple is one of the most accomplished conservatives in the world. Dr. Dalrymple recently retired to France after spending the majority of his career as a prison psychiatrist in Birmingham, England. He continues to write voluminously and has just authored Not With a Bang But a Whimper: The Politics and Culture of Decline. In 2007, he published In Praise of Prejudice: The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas and remains a regular contributor to The New Criterion, City Journal, New English Review, and The Spectator. Even whilst fully employed, Dr. Dalrymple was far more productive than the average writer. In recognition of his importance, a website now exists to celebrate his work.
BC: Dr. Dalrymple, congratulations on the release of your latest book. Most of its essays concern England but would you say that we, in the United States, are but a few years behind your native land in terms of societal degeneration? Is Western culture, on aggregate, on the brink of suicide?
Dr. Dalrymple: Thank you for your congratulations and support over the years. Certainly Britain appears to be suicidal, but I am more hopeful about other countries. Britain is performing a valuable service, by setting such an obviously bad example for others to avoid.
I am always worried about predicting decline and fall, because men of my age seem constitutionally liable to do so. Nevertheless, there certainly does seem a thinning out of our culture, and a terrible narrowing of horizons. Here is just one very small example: a friend of mine who teaches Cambridge medical students — the elite of the elite — tells me that in many years he has met about three who have heard of Chekhov. The tragedy is that, when he tells them to read some, they love it; in other words, our educational system has deliberately failed to inculcate an interest in literature in them, though they are more than capable of developing one, and indeed are probably avid for something of the kind. This has not come about accidentally; it is the result of an ideology that has insinuated itself into power.
BC: Many Americans are Anglophiles and find dispiriting the diminishment of Britain. In one of your later chapters you discuss the eradication of Britishness. You elucidate that its values include “a tradition of tolerance, compromise, civility, gentlemanly reserve, respect for privacy, individuality” and “a ready acceptance of and even affection for eccentricity.” Why is it that only a negative view of the past survives? For what reason do elites ignore the positive aspects of England’s history?
Dr. Dalrymple: I think a large part of it stems from disappointment: the disappointment that follows the loss of power. A world power for two or three centuries such as Britain is now reduced to the third rank. Incidentally, loss of power is a threat to American self-confidence as well, and in this situation babies get thrown out with bathwater.
The negative view of history is not unique to Britain. For very obvious reasons, it exists in Germany: all of German history and achievement being seen as but a prelude or preparation for Hitler. The same gloominess exists in France, which indeed has many skeletons in its historical cupboard, but which nevertheless has a record of achievement almost unequaled by any other country. And, of course, there are American historians with an entirely negative view of American history.
I think this negative historiography is extremely important and destructive. One of its functions, of course, is to aggrandize public intellectuals.
BC: In your analysis of the asylums that once housed the mentally ill you refer to Michel Foucault’s work and discuss power in general. Would you say that the will to acquire power and control others is indigenous to humanity? Or, contrarily, would you say that the need for pervasive control is only present within pathological persons?
Dr. Dalrymple: I think the drive to power is very common, though not universal. I also think that it has increased and spread among the population, as ideologies such as feminism have spread. Power is increasingly regarded as the only thing really worth having; if you have no power, then you are unimportant, oppressed, etc. I have noticed that, in institutions such as hospitals, power struggles, which have always existed, have become much more prevalent. Once they were confined to a relatively small number of people; now they have become universal. As the desire for power increases, so does the personality deformation that thirst for power brings with it.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Bernard Chapin wrote Women: Theory and Practice and Escape from Gangsta Island, along with a series of videos called Chapin’s Inferno. You can contact him at veritaseducation@gmail.com.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
69 Comments
1. jonesy55:I’m not sure what he means about Chekov, I know that he was part of the syllabus for students as recently as the mid 90s, many of my friends studied him as part of their theatre studies A-level and I read him because they introduced me to him although I wasn’t doing the course. Maybe medical students are just concentrating on science and medicine but it would be wrong to extrapolate their experiences to the whole body of society.
I do think that there is a more narrow specialisation of knowledge now, i’ve met many people who while being very experienced in their particular field, know very little of anything else. I think that this is at least in part driven by the increasing specialisation demanded by a modern economy, Adam Smith’s pinhead makers gone to the extreme.
He is quite right about the ridiculous ‘celebrity’ culture too but overall he is too pessimistic, I see much in this same society he is condemning that is positive along with the undoubted negatives. As he very fairly points out, this type of lamenting of a utopian bygone era seems to be a speciality of men of his age throughout the years.
Dec 10, 2008 - 12:26 am 2. Jonesy55:lol, that’s meant to be Chekhov of course rather than Chekov, maybe things really are as bad as Mr Dalrymple likes to think!
Dec 10, 2008 - 1:30 am 3. Mary Jackson:Theodore Dalrymple is pessimistic, of course, and yet optimistic in one respect: he thinks that people can change, and overcome the most terrible circumstances. The socialist view is that deprivation leads automatically to criminality “like the earth and the falling apple”, which is actually a more pessimistic view.
Dec 10, 2008 - 2:12 am 4. Typewriter King:I’ve got to wonder why we’d buy his collection of essays, when the essays are in various webbed publications right now.
I actually blame in part a romanticized misreading of Nietzsche that flooded the pop culture in the first three decades of the twentieth century. Forgotten now are some of the plays written of supermen that bravely took leaps of faith from the old morality from the horse-and-buggy era, to realize their true potential as super-empowered individuals. The very first manuscript containing the All-American folk hero Superman was such a tale.
Not to make too Randian a point of it, but this reactionary primal jump was a direct rebellion from an oppressive orthodoxy in party fueled by Emmanuel Kant, for convincing several generations of society that virtue comes solely from serving others, sacrificing for them always.
In a primal rage from these shackles, beating an innocent passerby to death can be celebrated as an act of liberation.
‘Pathology’ is the right word to use, and I believe at the core the problem is that the West is in a thorough state anomie, existent to varying degrees throughout society since the Great War.
However, a great traumatic war in itself cannot be the cause, as a war nearly as traumatic, the American Civil War, only a number of decades earlier did not break down society in the same manner. In fact, (and I don’t mean this racially, though I can count on all to deliberately misinterpret it that way), the American South seemed better adjusted than other regions the better part of the epoch.
It all makes me wish moral philosophy hadn’t been abandoned in academic life.
Dec 10, 2008 - 3:31 am 5. Jonesy55:“Theodore Dalrymple is pessimistic, of course, and yet optimistic in one respect: he thinks that people can change, and overcome the most terrible circumstances. The socialist view is that deprivation leads automatically to criminality “like the earth and the falling apple”, which is actually a more pessimistic view.”
People CAN change and overcome terrible circumstances, that much is undoubtedly true but it would be dangerous to then make the leap to saying that this renders terrible circumstances irrelevant to problems such as crime.
For it is also true that there is a strong correlation between circumstances such as poverty – of education, ambition and self-esteem at least as much as material deprivation- childhood abuse etc and later criminality.
These phenomena do not work in absolutist terms (poor and abusive upbringing automatically leads to criminal adult) but in trends (poor and abusive upbringing is MORE LIKELY to result in a criminal adult than a comfortable and loving upbringing). That’s my own take on it anyway.
Dec 10, 2008 - 4:00 am 6. Webutante:This is one of the best pieces I’ve seen on Pajamas in a while. And very salient in my opinion, if not a dreary commentary on the obvious decline of Western Civilization. Some would say we are in a cultural regression that will only begin to turn around when we’ve endured a lot more pain and suffering.
Dec 10, 2008 - 4:27 am 7. epb:Theodore Dalrymple, “son” of G.K. Chesterton,… Read Junior, and study Senior.
Dec 10, 2008 - 4:41 am 8. Tony R:From the last paragraph….
“Mr. Obama strikes me as a Blair figure rather than, say, a Leninist. This will lead to a swamp of corruption very difficult to eradicate because it will be legalized corruption….”
That little beauty of a combination of sentences will get the PJM’s resident trolls jumping up and down and insulting Dr Dalrymple from all angles as they cover their ears to avoid hearing the truth. As usual.
Very good article and some wise words from the doctor….”celebrities, who are often people of little obvious merit or achievement”…… Nice!
Dec 10, 2008 - 4:57 am 9. Marie Claude:The negative view of history is not unique to Britain. For very obvious reasons, it exists in Germany: all of German history and achievement being seen as but a prelude or preparation for Hitler.
I think your misunderstanding what is going on in Germany, since the both Germany reunified, a feeling of nationalism is rising up. The Germans appear to be self confident and don’t bother to refer to EU when it comes to their personal interests, be in trading and making political alliances with States that are still considered as unacceptable by western standards
The same gloominess exists in France, which indeed has many skeletons in its historical cupboard, but which nevertheless has a record of achievement almost unequaled by any other country. And, of course, there are American historians with an entirely negative view of American history
many skeletons ??? what are they that UK don’t share ?
seems that we were both equally implicated with colonial ambitions, also that the Frenchs weren’t perceived as so arrogant, since they get well along with the indigenous, ie share their habits, their cookings… no discriminative tea-time with chosen people !!!! it doesn’t empech the Frenchs from being ferm with the immigrants as far as communitarist requests are concerned
You elucidate that its values include “a tradition of tolerance, compromise, civility, gentlemanly reserve, respect for privacy, individuality” and “a ready acceptance of and even affection for eccentricity.”
so far it’s acknowledgeable that some Brits papers still speak anything against but the Frenchs, and there isn’t any comparable exercice in the french press, so tolerance ??? one would laugh !!!
good, that our Brit hero Theodore Dalrymple could find asile on the french territory, I nonetheless hope that he minded to study our language before, cause most of our Brit immigrationners don’t bother, lazyness or contempt? I would rather opt for the later.
I have an anecdote, in my twenties, I went into the perfid Albion to improve my english, found a half brit family where to stay (not typical english though) and look for english courses for foreigners, which I attended a few weeks, but decided to give up when I heard the teacher explaining that the Frenchs are a barbaric population. I thought then what a dumb head, and privilegiated my english courses with the every-day sort of people I met while wandering in London, they weren’t any “real Englishs”, cause at this time theses avoided any contact with foreigners. So I find it odd that they nowadays succomb under foreign charms, ie shariah laws…
Dec 10, 2008 - 6:21 am 10. AJ:“our educational system has deliberately failed to inculcate an interest in …”
Pick ANY topic — other than ethnic studies and other “studies” that surround anti-americanism
solid interview.
I love talking with Anglo-philes here in America, like last night at a conference, who LOVE Britain, but still enjoy a lavish life here that they’d never leave
hypocrites
Dec 10, 2008 - 6:37 am 11. dan:except for his opinion that emily dickinson is the greatest american poet, i agree with virtually everything dalrymple writes. this is mainly due to having something of a self-discovery experience cognate with the leftist-leaving-the-left variety, although mine relates to culture rather than politics, or political culture (although I learned that my aversions often led back to political influences, chiefly Communism).
i can only say that those who do not agree with dalrymple simply cannot have the high cultural background – or rather, whatever it is that impels someone to constantly cultivate his cultural depth – necessary to recognize the degredation of popular culture as it has manifested for at least a couple of decades. there is simply no longer any mooring to the kind of grand battle on the plains of heaven engaged in by the great philosophers, poets, and – especially – composers and artists, not even to the faint extent it was when I was even a teenager (I am 32). it just isn’t there.
and now it’s even gotten to the point – this occurred in the late 90s but went largely unrecognized – even the popular culture has no correspondance at all with folk culture, the way led zeppelin or the beatles had with folk and british traditions, however transformed. the episodes of rebellion have become the reference points, or the thing has simply been given over to money, and now everything is just plastic crap.
i know that’s been a common sentiment throughout cultural history, but there are times when it really is the case, and now is one of them. and so goes the public moral personality. i mean the main problem now is that everyone popular in these enterprises – whether popular with Aunt Fannie or popular with hipster Dan – is really just a superficial assh*le.
Dec 10, 2008 - 6:43 am 12. misanthropicus:A good companion piece for this interview is here on PJM, Mary Grabar’s “Professors indoctrinating students? Not in this University”
Dec 10, 2008 - 7:23 am 13. JED:60 years of peace and prosperity has to be unusual and hard on any given culture. When mere survival falls off of the table, the struggle to live is supplanted by the struggle to consume more. The challenges of life and death become the challenges of how to tolerate extranious behavior in a jaded population. Degenerative changes must pursue the over abundance of cradle to grave hyper-security. The culture looks to exaggerated personality as the power to thrive and away from the basic leadership of securing their immediate world and bettering their existences. Our time is limited, our existence is not assured, our history is long and mutable.
Dec 10, 2008 - 7:32 am 14. Mike:“One of the effects of the concentration on the lives of celebrities, who are often people of little obvious merit or achievement, is that it transforms ambition into daydreams.”
Great! Especially the “little obvious merit” part.
4. Typewriter King:
Dec 10, 2008 - 7:46 am 15. jonesy55:I like your comments about the Great War which I assume you are referring to WWI. I have always been fascinated by the quote from Lord Edward Grey about the “lamps going out all over Europe”. They may have not been lit yet.
——————————————-
By the way, I hope all you rich liberals out there are going to pay a bunch of taxes because Joe Biden said it’s your patriotic duty to do so and I am waiting for my share of the free stuff Obama promised me.
Marie Claude
“I think your misunderstanding what is going on in Germany, since the both Germany reunified, a feeling of nationalism is rising up. The Germans appear to be self confident and don’t bother to refer to EU when it comes to their personal interests, be in trading and making political alliances with States that are still considered as unacceptable by western standards”
Although there might have been some small change recently, it still must be said that Germany is probably one of the least nationalistic/jingoistic countries on the planet, the whole WWII experience had a profound effect on the German psyche that still resonates today.
Also the EU is full of nations all looking out for self-interest, this is one of the reasons for its paralysis, Germany is certainly not alone in this attitude and indeed as the main bankroller of the project it has often been more willing than most to sacrifice its own narrow interest for what it sees as the greater good of Europe. Whether you agree with that assessment of the greater good is a separate matter
“many skeletons ??? what are they that UK don’t share ?
seems that we were both equally implicated with colonial ambitions, also that the Frenchs weren’t perceived as so arrogant, since they get well along with the indigenous, ie share their habits, their cookings… no discriminative tea-time with chosen people !!!! it doesn’t empech the Frenchs from being ferm with the immigrants as far as communitarist requests are concerned”
Well, without wanting to get into a pointless “who was the least brutal colonialist” argument, French rule was hardly the benign exercise of recipe swapping that you portray any more than British colonialism was. The ruling elites of colonial Algeria, Vietnam and Senegal were racially European implants, not indigenous peoples.
“so far it’s acknowledgeable that some Brits papers still speak anything against but the Frenchs, and there isn’t any comparable exercice in the french press, so tolerance ??? one would laugh !!!”
This is true, the xenophobia and general crassness of the British tabloid press is legendary and doesn’t do our country any credit. This is not the whole story of tolerance or the lack of in a country though.
“good, that our Brit hero Theodore Dalrymple could find asile on the french territory, I nonetheless hope that he minded to study our language before, cause most of our Brit immigrationners don’t bother, lazyness or contempt? I would rather opt for the later.”
Actually I think that many do learn French, and in many cases rural communities in France have been saved from demographic and economic decline by British immigrants, the British people with contempt for the French are very unlikely to be the same British people who choose to live there.
“I have an anecdote, in my twenties, I went into the perfid Albion to improve my english, found a half brit family where to stay (not typical english though) and look for english courses for foreigners, which I attended a few weeks, but decided to give up when I heard the teacher explaining that the Frenchs are a barbaric population. I thought then what a dumb head, and privilegiated my english courses with the every-day sort of people I met while wandering in London, they weren’t any “real Englishs”, cause at this time theses avoided any contact with foreigners. So I find it odd that they nowadays succomb under foreign charms, ie shariah laws…”
Well, your anecdote is interesting but again it seems strange that you base your opinion of a population on a teacher that you heard talking a few decades ago. There is some anti-French xenophobia in Britain, this is undeniable, ‘not being French’ has often been one of the defining characteristics of being English over the centuries. You can also see much anti-French sentiment in the USA, reading this site is clear evidence of that.
I cannot speak for everybody in decades past (and neither can you) but I would say that English people today do not at all avoid contact with foreigners, they are generally pretty open and welcoming.
Dec 10, 2008 - 7:48 am 16. Heather:English people today do not at all avoid contact with foreigners, they are generally pretty open and welcoming.
Too welcoming. Britain’s going to be a Muslim nation by 2050.
Dec 10, 2008 - 8:31 am 17. Alyssa del Fintergloss:All of Europe will be controlled by a vocal and violent Muslim minority within the next two decades. Europeans do not procreate, but the new teeming class of Muslim welfare recipients procreate beyond all expectation.
The inchoate coalition between radical environmentalists and radical islamists will sweep all other continental interests before them.
If the Americans can rid themselves of the Obamanation before that time, they may be in a position to ride out the jihad of all jihads. Otherwise, the dark ages are upon us.
Dec 10, 2008 - 9:05 am 18. The Historian:NATIONS UNITED AGAINST THE WEST
The UN is not worth the investment, effort or real estate. It’s time to move on:
http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2008/12/un-only-united- against-west.html
Dec 10, 2008 - 9:42 am 19. tanstaafl:I have loved reading T. Dalrymple for a long time, including his thoughts on the practice (and mal-practice) of psychiatry in Great Britain. (altho’ the spelling and consonants in a row of his last name have been tough for me
)
A clear voice, directness and common sense.
…therefore, to distinguish himself from the man in the street, the intellectual has to sympathize with the criminal, by turning him into a victim of forces which only he, the intellectual, has sufficient sophistication to see…but it is not true compassion towards him (the criminal) to turn him into an inanimate object that could have reacted to those circumstances only in the way he did.
Thus is explained the continuing justification of the vicious acts & agenda of the Radical Islamist, an attitude still very much in evidence in the offerings of our (not so esteemed) Entrenched Media and self-anointed “intellectuals” following Mumbai.
(I don’t think even a knife held at their own throats will shake today’s ivory tower élitists into reality.)
…the degradation of popular culture as it has manifested for at least a couple of decades. there is simply no longer any mooring to the kind of grand battle on the plains of heaven engaged in by the great philosophers, poets, and – especially – composers and artists, not even to the faint extent it was when I was even a teenager…
O. Spengler’s has some thought provoking ideas on decline of culture and loss of historical consciousness.
Dec 10, 2008 - 9:49 am 20. Marie Claude:jonesy55,
an article from a german think tank :
“Unilateral Germany Threatens to Weaken Europe”
Charles Grant, Centre for European Reform | December 5, 2008
Germany’s increasingly unilateral foreign policies are causing unrest within the EU and Atlantic alliance. ++ The US, UK and France are frustrated by Berlin’s reluctance to impose sanctions on Iran as well as its limited efforts in Afghanistan. ++ The impending election is a partial explanation for this refusal to engage in bold policies. ++ The generational shift means that today’s politicians see the EU as a tool rather than a principle. ++ This attitude is not threatening; it simply mirrors the French and British brands of nationalism.
a comment from a German :
It is only natural that a unilateral Germany weakens the strength of the EU – given the way our country performed in the past. When a country devoted to shouldering the main burden suddenly discovers its own interests, the base of the alliance must be weakened. In my opinion this is a positively sobering weakness. Our european neighbours could not rely on our submissiveness forever, especially after reunification.
Anyone thinking ahead more than 2 years at European affairs in 1990 must have expected this development.
I agree that the concept of pure national states does not really work with our international economy – and the same applies vice versa. But when no working political solutions to the current economy are found, isn’t a big economical crisis going to cut international trade back to a level manageable by the national states?
The ruling elites of colonial Algeria, Vietnam and Senegal were racially European implants, not indigenous peoples
yes, I agree, though as far as the every-day life is concerned seems that the Frenchs never took their distance from these indigenous, this is the paradox of the latin colonials, you find the same approach with the Portugeses in Brazil, may-be a bit lesser with the Spanishs
and in many cases rural communities in France have been saved from demographic and economic decline by British immigrants, the British people with contempt for the French are very unlikely to be the same British people who choose to live there.
for some part it’s true, though that made the prices getting too high for a French that wanted to buy an old house, which he thought belongs to our patrimoine, that’s also why there were some complainings.
Also, the Brits that can speak french are generally the “upper-class” ones, as far as the popular class , wether they gave up their french class, wether they don’t care.
well, as soon I started to surf on international sites, mainly on anglo-saxon speekings’, I got surprised how this anti-french sentiment was maintained, also often by people who do know nothing about our life and history, or by people who had/have the agenda to undermine us for political needs
Anyway, thanks for your kindness
Dec 10, 2008 - 10:01 am 21. Ferd:Oh come on. I am so sick of my fellow conservatives’ infatuation with this character. “Theodore Dalrymple”/Anthony Daniels has been hitting the same note-in-a-minor-key over and over again for many, many years. He’s a fountain of bile. He does nothing but vomit loathing on the supposed inferiors that surround him. I really think he believes he’s Charleton Heston in The Omega Man… the last man in a world populated by hateful hippie zombies.
I would find his work much more interesting if it was leavened with some awareness of the world beyond the beer- and piss-filled gutters in which he wallows. Are American and British cultures now dumber and coarser and than in the recent past? It is self-evidently so. But, there are millions of people, native born and immigrant, who are keeping the aspidistra flying and quietly living productive, happy bourgeois lives–or even providing strokes of genius that help renew our civilization. They are invisible to this preening, wordy adolescent who can’t escape his own nihilism. Daniels doesn’t light a candle. He doesn’t even curse the darkness. He revels in the darkness. He seeks out and, in effect, celebrates the blackest corners of his culture as the most significant.
To boot, as a writer, this man is very, very tiresome. It astonishes me that he has received so many plaudits for rewriting *the same column* a thousand times. It shocks and disappoints me that he is adored by so many estimable people who work and write for fine outfits like City Journal, The New Criterion, and Pajamas Media.
What a shame.
Dec 10, 2008 - 10:20 am 22. Tony R:Ferd,
I assume you are one of those small little “intellectuals” that is offended by Dalrymple because he’s nailed your little ego-trips right to the mast.
That was a seriously petty diatribe you’ve just spewed out. Embarrassing stuff.
Dec 10, 2008 - 11:38 am 23. Bernard Chapin:Personally, I think Dr. Dalrymple is one of the most important 6 or 7 conservatives writing today. I am quite pleased he took the time to be interviewed but am euphoric that he continues to write. The guy does more in retirement than most of us do in our whole lives. He is the essence of the word “profound.” Every essay I’ve read from him is different and every essay I’ve read has something to teach. I’m learned much from him as can anybody whose mind is open to the study of human nature. Thanks for reading!
Dec 10, 2008 - 11:38 am 24. Jim:Good day to you. I say GOOD DAY to you, SIR!
Dec 10, 2008 - 1:28 pm 25. Miklos Hollender:Sorry for the childish term, but: Theodore just ROCKS.
There were four people who converted me to Conservatism from my previously Liberal worldview:
Pim Fortuyn – not himself, but watching how European Liberal media attacked him, despite that he was a Liberal, but a Liberal who really took his principles seriously and did not agree to the hypocritical Mainstream Liberal attitude that only rich, white, Christian, hetero men are to blame: he attacked intolerance and opression wherever and everywhere he saw it; and he saw most of it amongst Muslim immigrants in Holland – and that was enough to make most Liberals hate his guts, from which I was forced to conclude that they do no take their principles seriously.
Charles Murray and Irving Kristol: because they have a unique talent for representing Conservative and Libertarian ideas in a way that it’s understandable for a typical, non-religious, urban Liberal like Iwas, they can kinda wrap these ideas into the package of urban Liberal language, so to speak,
Theodore Dalrymple, because he managed to plausibly explain the spiritual and cultural poverty I was shocked to experience as a previously strongly and uncritically Anglophile Hungarian immigrant in Britain. (It helps that I live in the West Midlands too, surely it’s the worst part of Britain. Things look a bit better in York or Exeter.)
I’d like to make an interview with him for the Hungarian Conservative portal konzervatorium.hu – would the author please be so good and send me his e-mail address so that I can contact him? To miklos DDOOTTT hollender AATTT gmail DDOTTT com? Thank you in advance.
Dec 10, 2008 - 1:30 pm 26. John Stephens:“However, a great traumatic war in itself cannot be the cause, as a war nearly as traumatic, the American Civil War, only a number of decades earlier did not break down society in the same manner.”
After the American Civil War, there was still a frontier for the losers to go to. Immigration and crime are the two great cures for a blighted and pointless life. Unfortunately, there are no more frontiers, so any immigrating will have to be of the armed conquest variety. Crime still has bright domestic prospects though.
Dec 10, 2008 - 2:09 pm 27. fred:I am not one of those people who is long or deeply exposed to Mr. Dalrymple’s writings. I am one of those people who was a Marxist from the late Seventies through the mid-Eighties, who left the Left and is now a little Right-of-Center (I don’t even know why any of use use terms like “Left” or “Right” anymore, since the real continuum is between collectivism vs. individual liberty). I read the interview and I found that it just wasn’t meaty enough. He does touch on some interesting findings, but in the main the suicide of our civilization is really a complicated process that is not reducible to just psychological factors. We have to be careful, whatever our background, of falling into the trap of reductionism. Typically, reductionism, I believe, is rooted in intellectual sloth. All of us will read something or hear a lecture and think “Wow! Here is THE explanation for thus and such…” The sloth involved is the result of a failure of critical thinking and a lack of imagination. We want the easy way out, whether it be milking someone’s theory to cover everything or being unable to appreciate its limitations.
So, I mean no insult to Dr. Dalrymple, who strikes me as a very serious man who has some worthwhile things to say to us. But having at one time been a member of the cultural Marxist Left, I know well the temptations of reductionism. Knowing the kind of people involved in hating America, our Western Civilization, Christianity, Judaism, and capitalism, I know the multitude of influences that play a role in destroying our confidence in the unique heritage we have benefited from.
My experience has been that people find themselves grappling with “meaninglessness” for either one of these two reasons: either some trauma or host of traumas have inflicted great pain on them, or they are just people who are bored with life and have no concept of the very idea of “giving thanks to God” for the good things and comforts they do have. If you live in a culture within which God and Christianity have been eviscerated from daily habits of mind and behavior, after awhile a sense of wonder and thankfulness are diluted to point where they disappear altogether.
Among the many reasons why I left the Marxist camp was that I had reached a point where I knew the attacks by fellow socialists against Christianity (and my Roman Catholicism) were not going to go away. The sly and subtle contempt I encountered wore me out and opened my eyes. An ideology and its adherents hostile towards the very One who gave us life and so much to be thankful for cannot commend itself as producing a New Moral Man. The evidence of this illusion inside of socialist countries and societies is conclusive on that point.
And so today, having undergone arthroscopic surgery on my right knee, and now at home resting, reading this article and the comments, I know that I have another thing to give thanks to God for. I am blessed and I know it. I never was and am not now ever bored with life. I drew towards Marxism because of traumatic experiences – my own and my own sense of solidarity with those others who have suffered. But I encountered very many people in the cultural Marxist movement who were, quite frankly, very crappy human beings whose faux concerns for the oppressed were very obvious.
Dec 10, 2008 - 2:15 pm 28. Miklos Hollender:fred,
“I don’t even know why any of use use terms like “Left” or “Right” anymore, since the real continuum is between collectivism vs. individual liberty”
I disagree. That’s only one axis – generally and by large, the axis of economics and economic legislation.
But there are others.
For example, the axis of the free pursuit of individual pleasure vs. the idea of virtues – and this is what TD is writing about. This is the cultural axis.
And there are more.
Dec 10, 2008 - 2:28 pm 29. Typewriter King:RE John Stephens: “After the American Civil War, there was still a frontier for the losers to go to.”
Yeah, I’ve called Manifest Destiny a great escape valve for more-or-less that reason. Expanding West offered a great reset button that, uh, couldn’t find a passing lane in the rat race.
And I enjoyed Fred’s comment greatly.
Dec 10, 2008 - 2:35 pm 30. Austin:” disagree. That’s only one axis – generally and by large, the axis of economics and economic legislation.”
Well, that’s not what Fred meant.
I agree with your instinct though – Marx is materialistic – and the tendency is to counter Marx and other collectiv-isms using materialistic arguments on an axis.
Dec 10, 2008 - 2:46 pm 31. David Johnson:Don’t worry. After the west falls, the east will fall. Then man will go extinct. Then all Earth-life…then the Sun…then the Galaxies…then the Universe…and not only will it be like it had never been, but even the “been” will be gone.
Dec 10, 2008 - 3:02 pm 32. Whitehall:Interesting observation on the widening pursuit of power. I would think this is part of a spread on information and understanding about the nature of political power. It was formerly an off-color topic. One never admitted to admiring Machevilli in polite company but now he’s considered TOO polite.
There will be a correction, given enough time. since one secret of America’s success has been the perservation of boundaries on individual freedom, which is another way of reservation of personal power over one’s self.
Dec 10, 2008 - 3:33 pm 33. fred:I think that wanting to have power over other people is an evil instinct. That means I am using a moral category to name a phenomenon – and clearly my categories of moral distinctions and my universe of ethics derives from a tradition that is being mocked and driven into marginality in the West.
The only person I want to have power over is myself. Being master of how one behaves, thinks, and feels is more than enough of a challenge for any human being. And clearly those who want power over others are not masters of themselves.
Dec 10, 2008 - 3:42 pm 34. Kate:Marie-Claude, Dr Dalrymple is married to a French woman and has chosen to retire to France. He has written about how he finds it more pleasant than England, and I think he is fluent in French.
Dec 10, 2008 - 3:43 pm 35. venividivici:When I consider Dalrymple’s work, the author he most reminds me of (and I haven’t read all of Dalrymple by any means) is Wyndham Lewis, although, compared to Lewis, Dalrymple is an optimist.
Lewis wrote that “Western Man” was already dead in 1945, the fatal blow having been administered in 1914. But, he also wrote a book called “Time and Western Man”, which really lays out the dichotomies anyone defending “The West” needs to confront, particularly around one’s approach to truth and history. “Western Man” has to be a credible defender of eternal verities or he ceases to exist and is reduced to the flux of history and time. Some would argue that the US has been the exception to this and there’s some little truth in that, although American pragmatism has always been very accepting of flux and change, even though we do hold certain truths to be self-evident, and thus eternal.
Lewis also wrote a very good book on America called “America and Cosmic Man”. His profile of Franklin Roosevelt, whom he calls the “Clubman-Caesar” is priceless.
Dec 10, 2008 - 5:28 pm 36. Bob T:America’s success has been the perservation of boundaries on individual freedom, which is another way of reservation of personal power over one’s self.
I think that wanting to have power over other people is an evil instinct.
These excerpts from Whitehall and Fred capsule what most conservatives and many who call themselves libertarians are struggling to raise to primacy in our culture. As Fred noted, with the effort led by collectivists to eliminate religion from our culture, and with great success in Europe, less in the US, the struggle for individual liberty is made difficult. Economic globalization has fed the appetite for power within the political and business realms and the recent economic downturn is unveiling the widespread corruption within these realms.
If we have a major worldwide downsizing as a result, we may then have a real opportunity to begin to recover from our suicide mission and regain an understanding and be able to differentiate the real from the plastic.
I’m cautiously optimistic.
Dec 10, 2008 - 6:14 pm 37. fred:If you are going to assign a date for when Western Civilization IN EUROPE was dead, try the year 1789. The totalitarian thought embedded in the corpus of Rousseau’s utopianism nailed the coffin shut. Christian values were in decline after that. And that was well before WWI. The uber nationalism that is the defining characteristic of Europe at that time in no way derives from Christianity. The State was god in Europe. WWI did not involve a just cause in any sense. It was a free for all of careless slaughter, largely instigated by Russia, Germany, and Austria, dragging in France and Great Britain, eventually the United States.
In Germany and Russia, in particular, the State had become the Absolute instead of the God of the Bible. Europe was already a seething pot of resentments and blood lust that just needed a trigger to light it up.
Dec 10, 2008 - 6:21 pm 38. Lord Jim:Bubba, I am 53 years old. Fifty years ago my father was a auto mechanic. He was also a musician, a photographer, a businessman, a pilot (small planes) a sportsman and much more. Suscribed to the New Yorker(in Texas !!??). The man down the street, who was an engineer, knew how to work with his hands. Average people today are dumb. Smart people are morons.
Dec 10, 2008 - 6:47 pm 39. Michael Canzano:Ferd , if there is one thing Liberals / Socialists fear it is the truth. Dr. T. tells it and as always people like you deny it. Move to Russia.
Dec 10, 2008 - 7:31 pm 40. venividivici:American Christian Infidel
Michael Canzano
fred,
I’m no fan of Rousseau, but Europe still had a chance to turn from the totalitarian end-point of his and all Romanticism up until WWI started. Switzerland, for being the place where Rousseau was born, did pretty well avoiding his excesses, although it definitely had unique circumstances.
Dec 10, 2008 - 7:38 pm 41. Marie Claude:Kate, thanks, I wonder if his books are translated into french, or may-be he appears under his real name here
Dec 11, 2008 - 12:18 am 42. Marie Claude:Fred, um 1789 wasn’t the end of the EU civilisation, but rather the end of a regime and of certain a cast privileges.
If you read our civil code (also caled Napoleon code), you would see that it contains laws of the ancient regime, revolution, and post-revolution, that is well spraid in EU, and still the basis of the EU society rules.
If you examine Rousseau state theory, the law system is the basis of democraty, though it must be separated from the state governance to keep its credibility as universal reference, and also only enlightened and wise persons should take care of it.
According to Rousseau,a state mus’t be too big to be well governed, neither too small to maintain its life by itself.
Dec 11, 2008 - 4:01 am 43. Chuck Pelto:TO: All
RE: Exclusion Is the Problem
I’m reminded of President Reagan’s comment….
And that applies most especially to England, where a homeowner is not allowed to defend themselves, their family nor the property if they are attacked.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Dec 11, 2008 - 4:11 am 44. Jonesy55:[Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as a heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere. Destroy this spirit and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors. -- Abraham Lincoln]
Chuck,
You might want to read this to clear some misunderstandings you seem to have.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/Publications/docs/intruder_leaflet2005.pdf
The right to self-defence is tempered by the concept of ‘reasonable force’ just as in the USA but self-defence is not banned, far from it.
Dec 11, 2008 - 6:16 am 45. Assistant Village Idiot:I have liked reading Dalrymple, but ferd makes some reasonable criticisms. Fred, who I am concluding is a different person, sums them up pretty well.
Dec 11, 2008 - 6:20 am 46. Jonesy55:Miklos Hollender
“It helps that I live in the West Midlands too, surely it’s the worst part of Britain. Things look a bit better in York or Exeter.”
I would qualify that slightly, parts of the urban West Midlands are not very pleasant, but much of Worcestershire, Warwickshire, Shropshire etc are very nice places indeed. Birmingham city centre itself is also fine and indeed a large improvement on what it was like 20-30 years ago. The areas which are really depressing are the poorer inner suburbs just out of the city centre, beyond them many of the middle class outer suburbs are also fine if not my favourite parts of Britain.
Maybe you were not around in the UK during the 1980s which might explain why you see decline while others do not. You are comparing to an idea of Britain that you had in your head while others compare to the reality of some decades ago.
Dec 11, 2008 - 6:48 am 47. Jonesy55:Alyssa del Fintergloss
“Europeans do not procreate, but the new teeming class of Muslim welfare recipients procreate beyond all expectation.”
Europeans do procreate, at varying rates most of which are below replacement level it is true. This is not a phenomenon restricted to Europe though, the developed societies of East Asia – Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, the cities of China’s eastern seaboard all have very low fertility rates.
Most of these countries are, like Europe, densely populated places where a constantly rising population is not conducive to a good quality of life as it may be in the western USA for example. But even in countries such as Canada and Australia (as well as many US states), total fertility rates are well below replacement.
Lowering fertility rates are indeed a worldwide phenomenon, and in the developing world rates are rapidly declining.
Indeed in all of the ‘Eurabia’ panic that afflicts many observers on the right, several key points are often ignored.
1) Total fertility rates in the Islamic world have been plummeting more rapidly than most other global regions (albeit from a higher base in many cases). Birth rates in Tunisia, Turkey, Iran, Algeria, Lebanon etc are now as low or lower than many European nations.
2) Fertility rates of minorities in Europe (as elsewhere) tend to converge with the overall population after a couple of generations, the fertility rates of pakistani-born women in the UK are twice as high as british-pakistanis born in the UK but who had parents born in Pakistan. Those whose parents were also born in the UK display fertility rates even closer to the national average. There is no guarantee that the rates will converge totally but the gap will be much smaller than the figures for first generation immigrants meaning that demographic change will be nowhere near as rapid or overwhelming as some like to claim.
3) Mass migration from the Islamic world to Europe actually stopped a couple of decades ago. Most new migration is either by marriage (or illegal) and on a much smaller scale than during the 1950s to 1970s period.
Dec 11, 2008 - 7:15 am 48. Jonesy55:Apologies, in point 1) I meant that Total Fertility Rates in those countries were as low or lower than in Europe, birth rates are still higher as young people make up a higher proportion of the population in those countries. It is TFR though that will determine the long-term population growth of these countries.
Dec 11, 2008 - 7:43 am 49. Chuck Pelto:TO: Jonsey55
RE: Yeah?
The problem would seem to lie in who gets to define ‘reasonable’ with respect to force.
As an indicator of the goat-rope England enjoys, compared to US, try this datum….
Then we have this as well….
.
Furthermore, as I recall, England has VERY STRICT laws regarding ownership of a firearm, as in hand-guns. The indications are that only the police, military and criminals have them. Law-abiding people don’t.
So, are you suggesting that a law-abiding homeowner confronted with a home invasion, defend themselves, their family and their property with a kitchen knife?
Indeed, I recall hearing reports from Merry Old England that some idiots want to ban the pointy variety of those.
So…
….please….
…try not to be a complete idiot.
Hope that helps. But based on our encounters here in the past….well…you know….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Dec 11, 2008 - 8:22 am 50. Chuck Pelto:[Only an idiot would bring a BLUNT knife to a gunfight. -- Sean Connrey, in The Untouchables (paraphrased)]
TO: All
RE: Bad Link
It appears that the Wall Street Journal does not allow for recovery of items published longer than a year ago.
That item titled No Guns Please, We’re British was from James Taranto’s Best of the Web Today on 26 January 2007.
Apologies for not realizing they are so ‘odd’, but I guess they can’t keep EVERYTHING on line.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Dec 11, 2008 - 8:30 am 51. Chuck Pelto:[Out of memory. We wish to hold the whole sky, But we never will. - Haiku Error Msg]
TO: All
RE: Eureka!
I found a GOOD link by using a search of the web instead of the WSJ’s search engine.
Here is the full Best of the Web Today (26 Jan 2007).
Enjoy,
Chuck(le)
Dec 11, 2008 - 8:35 am 52. Chuck Pelto:[You step in the stream, but the water has moved on. This page is not here. - Haiku Error Msg]
TO: Jonsey55
RE: Cute Pamphlet
Question: But where in it does it say anything about using a gun to protect yourself in your own home.
Answer: Nowhere.
It gets back to the question about how gets to define ‘reasonable force’. Three guesses….first two don’t count.
Thanks for allowing me to fisk you like that.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Dec 11, 2008 - 8:44 am 53. Jonesy55:P.S. I recall that Redskins player who confronted home invaders who had guns with a machete. Guess who was buried…..
Chuck, ok I get the point, you are obsessed by guns to the exclusion of all other factors.
Prepare for a detailed response in good time my friend but suffice to say that there are lies, damn lies and statistics. In the meantime, have a pleasant day.
Dec 11, 2008 - 9:50 am 54. Chuck Pelto:TO: Jonesy55
RE: Obviously….
….you DON’T ‘get it’.
And, maybe someday before you are confronted by a gun-wielding assailant, you’ll learn better.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Thanks for playing into my hand. You substantiated my initial comment about Dr. Dalrymple being spot-on with regards to idiots telling people they can’t defend themselves in England.
P.P.S. Looking forward to another opportunity to correct you in the public venue…..
Dec 11, 2008 - 10:11 am 55. The Historian:IS LIBERAL CALIFORNIA THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG?
The country might be able to preview it’s future in the current mess on the left coast:
http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2008/12/california-liberals-utopia.html
Dec 11, 2008 - 4:19 pm 56. Chuck Pelto:TO: The Historian
RE: Yeah….
….that and England.
Good thing we here in other states don’t HAVE to follow their lead….
….to Hell.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Dec 11, 2008 - 4:32 pm 57. Jonesy55:[Hell is empty and all the devils are here. And they're leading US on the way back 'home'. -- The Tempest (paraphrased)]
“TO: Jonesy55
RE: Obviously….
you DON’T ‘get it’.
And, maybe someday before you are confronted by a gun-wielding assailant, you’ll learn better.”
But the thing is Chuck, that over here I am far far less likely to be confronted by a gun-wielding assailant than I would be in your neck of the woods because, among other reasons, of tighter gun control.
Dec 12, 2008 - 5:04 am 58. Jonesy55:Total number of violent crimes in the USA: 6,094,390 a rate of 24.67 per 1,000 (based on 247m over 12s in the USA)
Total number of violent crimes in England & Wales: 2,164,000, a rate of 49.18 per 1,000 (based on 44m over 16s in E&W)
So yes, assault rates are around double in E&W. In terms of victimisation the chances of going through a year without being the victim of any violent crime were 96.4% in England and Wales and 97.9% in the US, pretty good in both cases.
In both countries this is a steep decline from the peaks of the early to mid 1990s and indeed the 2007-08 figures for E&W show that 96.8% of people did not experience violent crime in that year, I haven’t used that report as the 2008 US figures are not available.
However, if we look a little deeper though we see that the most serious crimes are more widespread in the USA while in E&W the crimes are not as serious. If you are unlucky enough to be one of those 2.1% of Americans who is a victim of violence, the likelihood is that it will be much more serious than if you are unlucky enough to be in the 3.6% of English people who are victims of violent crime.
In the US, weapons were used in 25% of all violent crimes, firearms were used in 8.8%, this equates to around 500,000 firearms offences or 167 per 100,000 population. Firearms caused a staggering 10,086 deaths in the US during the year.
In E&W, weapons were used in 24% of all violent crimes, but firearms were only used in a total of 9,608 offences, this equates to 0.44% of violent offences or 17.8 per 100,000 population. Only 61 homicides were caused by firearms in E&W during the year.
In the USA there were 445,125 recorded robberies (a rate of 1.48 per 1,000) while in the UK there were 101,370 recorded, (a rate of 2.35 per 1,000)
In the US though, firearms were used in 42.8% of robberies compared to only 3.8% of robberies in England & Wales.
Maybe this explains the reason why many more Americans see gun ownership as a necessary tool for self-defence and more English people are not very concerned by this, the rate at which criminals themselves use firearms is almost 10 times as high in the US and the rate at which criminals kill using firearms is nearly 30 times higher. So it is simplistic to say that tighter gun control affects only legal users of weapons, there is plenty of evidence here to suggest that criminals too use guns much less when they are less widespread in society.
Civilian gun ownership might deter some less serious casual crime but it clearly does not seem to deter the hardcore criminal who is intent on causing serious violence, instead it causes an ‘arms race’ between civilian and criminal resulting in more fatal and near-fatal outcomes.
Robbery and firearms offences in E&W are very concentrated geographically, 62% of robbery and 55% of gun crime occurs in just 3 metropolitan police areas home to 23% of the population. Combine this with the overall much lower rates than the US and you will see that most people living in England and Wales the possibility of facing down an assailant with a gun is so rare that it is not a major concern and thus there is no clamour to introduce more guns into society.
Dec 12, 2008 - 5:11 am 59. Jonesy55:The most serious offence is homicide.
In E&W there were 755 homicides, a rate of 1.4 per 100,000 people. The region of E&W with the highest homicide rate was Greater London with 2.3 per 100,000. Many other police areas had rates of less than 1.0 and several had rates under 0.5 .
In the US there were an astonishing 16,929 homicides, a rate of 5.6 per 100,000, a full four times higher than E&W. This ranged from 1.1 in New Hampshire to 14.2 (!) in Louisiana. If the UK was a US state it would rank above only NH and Iowa for homicide rate.
In the US 68% of murders were committed using firearms, in E&W that figure is 8%.
Of course if you are making the point that many more guns makes a safer society then it seems to be a bit of a ‘straw man’ argument to hold up England & Wales, which is one of the most violent societies in Europe as a comparison. As I have shown, on many measures even E&W is less violent than the US but why not try a comparison with Portugal, Slovenia, Germany, Austria, Japan, or South Korea? Murder and violent crime in these countries are much lower than either the UK or US.
I am always open to suggestions for how to reduce violence and crime in my country but with all due respect, I think that I will look first for ideas to those countries which have a significantly better record on this rather than copying the policies of one of the few places that is often as bad or on some measures much worse.
As for property crime, in E&W there were 726,000 domestic bulglaries in 06-07 (a rate of 3,156 per 100,000 households)
In the USA there were 3,560,920 burglaries in 2007, a rate of 3,020 per 100,000 households.
So the rates are pretty similar and again the trend in both countries (as in most of the rest of the developed world) has been sharply down since the mid 1990s peak. No evidence of any significant ‘civilians with firearms deterrent’ here.
Dec 12, 2008 - 5:12 am 60. Jonesy55:Figures from:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus06.pdf&fileName=cvus06.pdf
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb1107.pdf
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/index.html
Dec 12, 2008 - 5:14 am 61. Jonesy55:Chuck,
“AS FOR THE European disdain for our criminal culture, many of those countries should not spend too much time congratulating themselves. In 2000, the rate at which people were robbed or assaulted was higher in England, Scotland, Finland, Poland, Denmark and Sweden than it was in the United States. The assault rate in England was twice that in the United States.”
So that is 6 European countries with higher rates than the US, does your friend mention how many have much lower rates? Why compare yourselves with only the worst Europe has to offer, are your ambitions really that low?
Dec 12, 2008 - 5:17 am 62. Jonesy55:Chuck
“There was also a rapid and unexplained increase in the number of times householders were confronted in their own homes by armed criminals. Residential firearms robberies show a 46% leap, a record 645 cases in England and Wales–up 204 on the previous year and four times the level recorded in 2000-01″
645 cases in the whole of England and Wales (population 53.8m) in a year, how does this compare to levels in the USA. What does that say about the deterrent effect of widespread firearms ownership?
Dec 12, 2008 - 5:20 am 63. Jonesy55:Incidentally, that ‘unexplained increase’ is not unexplained at all it turns out.
“The rise in armed residential robberies from 345 in 2003-04 to 645 last year is an alarming trend but it may partly be accounted for by a similar decline of 200 incidents recorded by the police as firearm burglaries. The long-term decline in the number of armed robberies on banks, post offices and building societies revealed in the figures spells the death of the elite “blag”.
Also
“[Figures] show that the risk of becoming a victim of crime in England and Wales has gone up from 23% to 24% but remains at a historically low level after peaking at 40% in 1995.
The homicide figures show that 766 people were murdered in 2005-06, including the 52 victims of the July 7 London suicide bombings, a fall of 9% on the previous year. This is the third year in succession that the murder rate in England and Wales has fallen after a sustained 40-year rise from the 1960s, which peaked in 2002-03 at more than 1,000, including the 172 victims of Harold Shipman.
The fall in gun crime, down from 11,371 incidents to 9,728 in the year to last September, was welcomed by the Home Office minister Tony McNulty. But he acknowledged the small increase in residential robberies involving firearms: “We have some of the toughest firearms legislation in Europe. Anyone convicted of having a prohibited firearm faces a minimum five-year sentence.”
The number of armed bank robberies has fallen from 240 in 1995 to only 59 and those involving post offices are also down, from nearly 400 to 108 over the same period. The decline is not explained by branch closures but rather by much improved security measures which have made such premises a “hard target”.”
Dec 12, 2008 - 5:28 am 64. Smilla:A wise and observant man, Theodore Dalrymple. Power play even occurs when walking down the street or driving on the roads. People are loath to give way, to let an elderly person go first getting on a train for instance. Various ‘rages’ are the result. (True, you see exceptions, but you know what that means.)
His comments on the rise of corporatism are also very accurate. Business interests have been made synonymous with the public interest.
Dec 12, 2008 - 1:45 pm 65. Paul_Unalaska:‘In the US, weapons were used in 25% of all violent crimes, firearms were used in 8.8%, this equates to around 500,000 firearms offences or 167 per 100,000 population. Firearms caused a staggering 10,086 deaths in the US during the year.’
This information is interesting. Though it is so vague, people will come to their own conclusions regarding them.
Do these numbers lump together ’suicides’, ‘defending one’s self from house intruders’ or ‘accidental shootings, misfires, etc’?
I ask these questions because often, these numbers are usually narrow minded and only address what their agenda is alluding to.
Dec 12, 2008 - 3:07 pm 66. Ann:AMERICAN society is not “losing its way”. It’s being overwhelmed by those who have no interest in America–its heritage, opportunities and melting pot culture. (And I’m not just referring to immigrants–there are those who were born and raised here who don’t know our history and don’t care to be a part of our heritage.)
Dec 13, 2008 - 7:15 am 67. Micha Elyi:Why do people who claim to oppose the death penalty so strongly support a Death In Prison penalty?
Dec 13, 2008 - 3:11 pm 68. Peter Boston:You have to be in denial to not be apprehensive about the future of America.
We just elected a middle age man who has never held an executive position or been responsible for the operation of any organization, or so far as we know, even held a private sector job that exceeded the period of his election campaign. Irrespective of this person’s political leanings the electorate has made an extraordinary leap of faith in a completely unproven package of ability.
The most important and influential organs of public opinion have deliberately either failed to investigate Obama’s past or have deliberately withheld the information. Most people seem to accept this massive lack of journalistic integrity as a given without concern for the consequences.
I read recently that Google will make editorial decisions about its search results. This is a staggering blow to those who saw the internet as an alternative to the MSM. Google displays the majority of internet search results in the USA and Europe. Given the leftward political allegiance admitted to by Google’s decision makers and we can reduce again by half the number of Obama unfriendly stories that we will ever see, regardless of merit.
If talk radio is successfully shut down, as Pelosi and other Democrats have promised, then the American public will have the same access to real news that Soviet citizens had under the Communists.
In a restricted news environment anybody who publicly comments on a story that is unfavorable to the Obama (or any other) administration will be labeled a crackpot dealing in conspiracy theories.
By fiat we have already passed from a market economy to a political economy. No need to wait for that transition. Henry Paulson and his successors will pass out billions upon billions of public money to supplicants with the best connections. President Bush intends to hand $14 billion to Detroit by fiat even after Congress said No. If a Republican president will pass out billions to corporations like so many gumdrops what should we expect from the statist Democrats? Dalrymple was right on target with this observation.
Too bad Brave New World is copyrighted because that there is where we are.
Dec 14, 2008 - 10:28 am 69. Lurker:Jonesy55 – self defence in the UK is not ‘tempered’ by reasonable force.
Reasonable force is whats replaced the presumption of self-defence. If I wake up at 3am and find a strange man lurking in my house where my child is asleep it should, in the first instance, be up to me how to deal with the situation. I might ask him to leave, if he doesnt I might choose to shoot him 5 times with a 9mm. It should be my call, and he willing assented to the arrangement by breaking in. Self-defence leaves that call to me.
Reasonable force allows someone after the event to decide that no, I shouldnt have shot him, or that I could have shot him 4 times, fair enough, but 5, no sir, thats just going tooooo far.
Sometimes the principle of self-defence may lead to an innocent being killed, but reasonable force will lead, does lead, to just as many casualties. A law abiding citizen will be that one least likely to confront any intruder and therefore and up injured themselves.
As for your crime statistics, the missing factor you are groping for is race, not the number of guns. I believe the case in the US is that if you take the black-on-black and the black-on-white violence out of the equation the level of violent crime drops to the same as Scandanavia or somewhere.
I dont suppose you want to hear anything about that. Much cosier to believe that with the right conservative principles in place then all those blacks, hispanics and asian muslims who currently bulk up crime stats will settle down and become valuable citizens. Its that, ultimately liberal, delusion so many conservatives are willing to buy into that will bring the west to the very brink of disaster.
Dec 25, 2008 - 5:26 pm