I don’t think that’s quite right. Blacks are still seen as oppressed because of their poor outcomes. If they suddenly became wealthier than whites they would become white-adjacent like Jews and Asians and no longer be seen as oppressed.
Not sure about that. Very successful blacks still see themselves as oppressed. Michelle Obama and Whoopi Goldberg are the two most recent examples that come to mind.
It is hard to think of Michael Jordan as oppressed. He's worth over $3 billion. Even his inability to sell his Chicago house isn't oppression. It's his own stupidity to personalize an ugly house that'll need to be knocked down.
British writers, like Macaulay, Russell, Churchill, Gibbon, Hume, and Bacon, are really, really good.
I think your observation that Raymond Chandler combined British literary sophistication with American commercial energy also applies to the half-American Churchill.
Yes. She got around, too. Fun and games with the Prince of Wales. Churchill's brother, Jack, was probably fathered by another man. Jennie Churchill's second husband was about twenty-five younger than she.
"One of the persistent delusions of mankind is that some sections of the human race are morally better or worse than others. This belief has many different forms, none of which has any rational basis."
The irony is that he wrote this in 1937, just on the eve of WW2, where the consensus now states that it was one of the worst wars in human history in terms of total death count. During this war, some major atrocities occurred. From the Holocaust to atomic bombs being dropped on two Japanese cities. Ironically enough toward the end of his life, Russell would take part in the peace movement and against nuclear proliferation. By his own logic, what gives him the right to presume that his side is morally superior to those who develop and drop nuclear weapons on innocent civilians? Unless of course, there really is such a thing as objective moral values/ethics, and that some sections of society are morally/ethically correct in presuming that their side is better than the others, or those who would not only wish to stockpile more and more weapons but would in turn use them vs other nations.
Steve speaking of Charles at Balmoral, have you watched The Crown? I found it pretty astounding. American expatriate and Anglophile Gillian Anderson delivers an amazing rendition of Margaret Thatcher as does John Lithgow of a geriatric, retrograde Winston Churchill.
Prime Minister John Major gets a distinguished, sharp portrayal and Prince Phillip is a god among men.
The clear message is that Elizabeth II, and Princess Anne, are the last of their kind.
Yeah, The Crown is really good. Peter Morgan (IIRC) has been writing this kind of royal family stuff for a long time (at least since the movie with Helen Mirren as Elizabeth II) and he's excellent at it.
Actually QE 2 was a harbinger of modern Uk : she supported stronger sanctions against white South Africa to appease her commonwealth fellow leaders. The series has a scene where QE2 quarrels with the wiser Thatcher who opposed tougher sanctions as Thatcher did not want to crash the economy and put Blacks out of work. So QE2 like her her son Charles prioritizes appeasing Blacks regardless of cost … her son Charles prioritizes Islam.
The UK crown as head of UK , head of the Christian Anglican Church , head of the Commonwealth are clearly conflicted about whose interests to represent . Although Charles and the other Royals lose little sleep and always disregard the interests of Whites — their core supporters … hence never a word about demographic transformation
( Enoch Powell notices this, but thought better of pointing this out as it was very hard to win a debate with the monarchy in the early 80’s.
A.J.P. Taylor’s “English History 1914-1945” makes the point that there was a high degree of randomness to the British left’s embrace of national self-determination during the First World War. The Liberal party had committed Britain to open-ended war with Germany ostensibly to guarantee Belgian independence. The longer the war dragged on and the higher cost it exacted the less that seemed sufficient. So, what was Britain fighting for? Obviously, a new world! What did that new world consist of? Er… “the liberation of the Italians, as also of the Slavs, Roumanians, and Czechoslovaks from foreign domination.” (South Slavs were left off the list to avoid offending Italy.) “Few knew anything of these distant races, and still fewer cared. But they regarded the war as a crusade…and a crusade turned inevitably against the Turk and the Habsburg.”
Prime Minister Lloyd George was far from an idealist, so he outsourced the drafting of Britain’s war aims to his minister of propaganda, Lord Northcliffe, the founder of the Daily Mail. Northcliffe in turn turned towards his favourite leader writer, H. G. Wells, whom the more sceptical Russell had broken with at the start of the war.
Ukraine, Hobbits, illegal Immigrants (don’t get me started on the movie Knives Out), African Villages say in contrast to rural America, Hamas - sorry I mean Palestinians, Muslim minorities - but not Christian minorities, Kurds - you know the guys that perpetrated the Armenian genocide, Detroit Lions, strangely not Zebras, Antelopes and Hyenas, 18th century Highlanders, African national soccer teams, Jeremy Lin, Jerry, Susan Boyle, your passive aggressive little brother or sister.,
"The past is never really dead. It's not even past." Wasn't that William Faulkner?
As for linking Bertrand Russell's grandfather, Prime Minister John Russell, to Napoleon, the last of President John Tyler's grandsons died about a month ago. John Tyler was our ninth president. Tyler had a son late in life who also had sons late in life. Tyler was friends with Thomas Jefferson.
Russell, of course seems to assume that this quintessential WEIRD trait is universal. But of course, it's not: one could go broke waiting for the Tibetan chuba fashion to take off in Bejing. Or the Hutus to look back fondly on the good old Tutsi culture. Whatever its dark roots in Western culture--Christianity, chivalry, feminine rape fantasy as survival strategy--it does seem unique to WEIRD peoples. Its political expression over the last 50 years poses a more profound threat to the survival of Western Civilization than any outside force.
So which was the man of the left, and which the man of the right? The British have a long history of co-opting their former enemies. The Highland regiments, the Gurkhas, the Irish Guards, etc.
Russell writes "Children were idealized by Wordsworth and un-idealized by Freud. Marx was the Wordsworth of the proletariat; its Freud is still to come." Eduard Bernstein, a German socialist writing at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century and a critic of Marx, wrote consistently about the moral and intellectual idiocy of the proletariat. His claim was that socialism would certainly improve the material conditions of the proletariat (he was incorrect about that), but that an improvement in material conditions wouldn't necessary change the proles into chattering class intellectuals or moral knights. They would use their new wealth to buy more booze, bed more women, and enjoy themselves in more luxurious ways (not a bad prediction).
I don’t think that’s quite right. Blacks are still seen as oppressed because of their poor outcomes. If they suddenly became wealthier than whites they would become white-adjacent like Jews and Asians and no longer be seen as oppressed.
Well then, it seems their oppression will be eternal!
Not sure about that. Very successful blacks still see themselves as oppressed. Michelle Obama and Whoopi Goldberg are the two most recent examples that come to mind.
It's part of their act. Curly Howard wasn't really stupid but he had to act like an idiot for his Three Stooges Act.
I’ll like your first comment and dislike your second comment. I’m not sure why we need an ad hominem attack on good ole Mike. I like his shoes.
It is hard to think of Michael Jordan as oppressed. He's worth over $3 billion. Even his inability to sell his Chicago house isn't oppression. It's his own stupidity to personalize an ugly house that'll need to be knocked down.
British writers, like Macaulay, Russell, Churchill, Gibbon, Hume, and Bacon, are really, really good.
I think your observation that Raymond Chandler combined British literary sophistication with American commercial energy also applies to the half-American Churchill.
Wasn't Churchil's mom a rich American adventuress? And 1/4 Iroqouis to boot.
Yes. She got around, too. Fun and games with the Prince of Wales. Churchill's brother, Jack, was probably fathered by another man. Jennie Churchill's second husband was about twenty-five younger than she.
Who wrote the paragraph under the pic of Charles?
The supreme virtue belongs to those who champion the oppressed. I'm pretty sure of that.
"One of the persistent delusions of mankind is that some sections of the human race are morally better or worse than others. This belief has many different forms, none of which has any rational basis."
The irony is that he wrote this in 1937, just on the eve of WW2, where the consensus now states that it was one of the worst wars in human history in terms of total death count. During this war, some major atrocities occurred. From the Holocaust to atomic bombs being dropped on two Japanese cities. Ironically enough toward the end of his life, Russell would take part in the peace movement and against nuclear proliferation. By his own logic, what gives him the right to presume that his side is morally superior to those who develop and drop nuclear weapons on innocent civilians? Unless of course, there really is such a thing as objective moral values/ethics, and that some sections of society are morally/ethically correct in presuming that their side is better than the others, or those who would not only wish to stockpile more and more weapons but would in turn use them vs other nations.
No ethics survive first contact with politics.
"Sir, the noblest and most pleasing prospect in all of Scotland is the road to England."
--Dr. Johnson
Highlanders also moved in large numbers to the New World (including three of my grandparents).
Mine too.
Steve speaking of Charles at Balmoral, have you watched The Crown? I found it pretty astounding. American expatriate and Anglophile Gillian Anderson delivers an amazing rendition of Margaret Thatcher as does John Lithgow of a geriatric, retrograde Winston Churchill.
Prime Minister John Major gets a distinguished, sharp portrayal and Prince Phillip is a god among men.
The clear message is that Elizabeth II, and Princess Anne, are the last of their kind.
Yeah, The Crown is really good. Peter Morgan (IIRC) has been writing this kind of royal family stuff for a long time (at least since the movie with Helen Mirren as Elizabeth II) and he's excellent at it.
Re: Mirren, by the end of the movie I could not distinguish her from the real Elizabeth, she is that good.
Actually QE 2 was a harbinger of modern Uk : she supported stronger sanctions against white South Africa to appease her commonwealth fellow leaders. The series has a scene where QE2 quarrels with the wiser Thatcher who opposed tougher sanctions as Thatcher did not want to crash the economy and put Blacks out of work. So QE2 like her her son Charles prioritizes appeasing Blacks regardless of cost … her son Charles prioritizes Islam.
The UK crown as head of UK , head of the Christian Anglican Church , head of the Commonwealth are clearly conflicted about whose interests to represent . Although Charles and the other Royals lose little sleep and always disregard the interests of Whites — their core supporters … hence never a word about demographic transformation
( Enoch Powell notices this, but thought better of pointing this out as it was very hard to win a debate with the monarchy in the early 80’s.
I was born and raised in the "old south". The Faulkner quote has been with me my whole life.
I wish my high school teachers had been aware of the true span of meaningful historical events.
History class would have been a lot easier if I only had to study from 1619 up to Emmett Till.
A.J.P. Taylor’s “English History 1914-1945” makes the point that there was a high degree of randomness to the British left’s embrace of national self-determination during the First World War. The Liberal party had committed Britain to open-ended war with Germany ostensibly to guarantee Belgian independence. The longer the war dragged on and the higher cost it exacted the less that seemed sufficient. So, what was Britain fighting for? Obviously, a new world! What did that new world consist of? Er… “the liberation of the Italians, as also of the Slavs, Roumanians, and Czechoslovaks from foreign domination.” (South Slavs were left off the list to avoid offending Italy.) “Few knew anything of these distant races, and still fewer cared. But they regarded the war as a crusade…and a crusade turned inevitably against the Turk and the Habsburg.”
Prime Minister Lloyd George was far from an idealist, so he outsourced the drafting of Britain’s war aims to his minister of propaganda, Lord Northcliffe, the founder of the Daily Mail. Northcliffe in turn turned towards his favourite leader writer, H. G. Wells, whom the more sceptical Russell had broken with at the start of the war.
The road to the inevitable death of Winston Churchill's beloved Empire was one of the results of World War One, a war he very much wanted to fight.
Your statement is even more true of the Second World War.
Ukraine, Hobbits, illegal Immigrants (don’t get me started on the movie Knives Out), African Villages say in contrast to rural America, Hamas - sorry I mean Palestinians, Muslim minorities - but not Christian minorities, Kurds - you know the guys that perpetrated the Armenian genocide, Detroit Lions, strangely not Zebras, Antelopes and Hyenas, 18th century Highlanders, African national soccer teams, Jeremy Lin, Jerry, Susan Boyle, your passive aggressive little brother or sister.,
"The past is never really dead. It's not even past." Wasn't that William Faulkner?
As for linking Bertrand Russell's grandfather, Prime Minister John Russell, to Napoleon, the last of President John Tyler's grandsons died about a month ago. John Tyler was our ninth president. Tyler had a son late in life who also had sons late in life. Tyler was friends with Thomas Jefferson.
Iran apparently was on the receiving end of several thousand pounds of oppression yesterday. Will they use it to their advantage?
Russell, of course seems to assume that this quintessential WEIRD trait is universal. But of course, it's not: one could go broke waiting for the Tibetan chuba fashion to take off in Bejing. Or the Hutus to look back fondly on the good old Tutsi culture. Whatever its dark roots in Western culture--Christianity, chivalry, feminine rape fantasy as survival strategy--it does seem unique to WEIRD peoples. Its political expression over the last 50 years poses a more profound threat to the survival of Western Civilization than any outside force.
So which was the man of the left, and which the man of the right? The British have a long history of co-opting their former enemies. The Highland regiments, the Gurkhas, the Irish Guards, etc.
That essay of Russell’s is very, very good.
No one answered my question: who wrote the long quote under the picture of Charles? It mentions Russell, so not him.
Russell writes "Children were idealized by Wordsworth and un-idealized by Freud. Marx was the Wordsworth of the proletariat; its Freud is still to come." Eduard Bernstein, a German socialist writing at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century and a critic of Marx, wrote consistently about the moral and intellectual idiocy of the proletariat. His claim was that socialism would certainly improve the material conditions of the proletariat (he was incorrect about that), but that an improvement in material conditions wouldn't necessary change the proles into chattering class intellectuals or moral knights. They would use their new wealth to buy more booze, bed more women, and enjoy themselves in more luxurious ways (not a bad prediction).