1.
The humanities might once have been a place to not think about utility.
Aesthetics isn't at least immediately useful.
The Marxists have indeed colonized the field, and tried to turn it to their advantage. Their success however has come at the cost of destroying the field's prestige.
When we look for friends we don't necessarily think first of utility.
We think about friendship, which I don't think is 100% about utility.
It's about love.
And the humanities should be about that, again. In the broadest sense of the term.
But you can't convince the Marxists of this, or the other utilitarians.
A few people do marry for utility, or choose their friends on the basis of utility, but it's a dumb way to do it, as it destroys the quality of life.
The humanities should be about quality of life, same as friendship, and marriage, and religious faith.
But it's very hard to make this argument in a country where utility is a central criterion, and perhaps the only criterion, from Obama on down to the gas station manager.
I'm a humanities teacher, but am not a Marxist. Marxism's the most utilitarian paradigm imaginable. It turns everyone into a tool of the state, and frequently forbids any private existence (declaring that even the personal is political).
The utility of the humanities should be precisely to make us think about the value of the useless, the things that are ends in themselves: friendship, love, beauty, laughter, the marvelous, prayer, etc.
2.
Certain Lutherans including Soren Kierkegaard have argued that aesthetics is a lower value than the ethical or the religious. Abraham Maslow, a secularist, places aesthetics as the highest, but also the least needed, in his hierarchy of needs.
I can't understand either placement.
Aesthetics is not just a foundation. It is life itself. If life is meaningless, it is ugly. If you have turned yourself or your art into a tool for advancement, you have deliberately cheapened yourself, and ruined your authenticity, in order to become a mere commodity, like any other.
What Christianity argues is that it is another coinage, and that the heads of state that are stamped on our coins have little or nothing to do with our values. Whether it was Tiberius or Nero stamped on the coins of the Roman state, whether it was Caligula or Heliogabalus, the Christian saw his or her soul stamped in Christ, and thus in love, and authenticity.
Our own money still has on it, In God We Trust, even though the head of state is also on it. But at least one of our political figures, Lincoln, was a poet. He had a soul. When we exchange this money, we can do so without trembling as to our inauthenticity. Lincoln is not God, but he looks like God in his monument in Washington DC, and he is probably as close as we will ever come in a secular leader.
The utilitarian argument -- that every moment should be useful, and that we should spend our whole life getting ahead, was critiqued by the hippies as a "rat race." I liked this critique of the hippies and is one of the things that turned me toward them in the early 70s.
But they replaced the rat race with cheap highs having to do with drugs and sexual promiscuity. I thought these things were disgusting.
Having children, being with them, laughing with them, gardening, going for a walk, watching snow fall, watching a woodchuck make its way around the yard, all these beat sexual promiscuity or drug use.
Having a friend, laughing for a few minutes with one, all these things are ends in themselves, like prayer. For me, prayer isn't asking for something. It's just wanting to spend time with God.
Beauty is eternal, and is shot through everything, but we have to leave the utilitarian madness (of which Marxism is by far the worst) in order to notice this.
The economy will right itself.
Our job is to stay alert to other dimensions of life that have to do with the soul, the soul that science cannot measure so will not countenance, the soul that cannot be bought, and so remains forever outside the lucrative. The soul which is not exchangeable, and which is eternal.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
Washington also wrote poetry.
How then, Kirby, do you account for Marxist art (like language=======) poetry that is hardly utilitarian (though also not beautiful)?
M
I think language poets think that their work is utilitarian (helping to right certain race, gender, class errors within the language) and they see themselves as "cultural workers" and they think this work (Michael Andre called language poetry nonsense poetry without the wit) should be lucrative, but can't understand why it is that no one wants to buy or read it. If they had their druthers, I suspect they would assign it to the nation, and shoot anyone who didn't read it, or at the very least boil citizens in cabbage who didn't, while reading it to them, screaming it into their ears with loudspeakers, like the loudspeakers in the killing fields, laughing as their skin flaked off in giant boiling pots, before they cannibalized them, thinking they had thereby improved America.
Moreover, I really think that they would find this to be the most beautiful thing of all -- cannibalizing the people, while screaming their verses at them. Finally, they would have justice.
Pol Pot never realized that what he had done was wrong.
Mass murderers usually go down feeling justified. Can you think of any one of them who experienced true remorse?
I can't!
Language poets do think their work is beautiful, and that it is utilitarian. I'm sure that's true.
As for Washington, most presidents probably wrote a little poetry, or in some cases a lot (Carter). However, it doesn't move anyone else.
Lincoln on the other hand moves most Americans. The G. Address does, at least.
There are some people in the deep south who see him as a mass murderer, though, and nothing. Most of us see those people as a little off.
Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, some people say.
But there has to be a conceptual framework to it, too, and Lincoln's language, and his conceptual framework, are stunning.
At least to 98.6% of Americans.
Outside of academia, most people see Frost's writing as good.
Most see Billy Collins' writing as good.
Lincoln as good.
Does it matter that almost no one reads language poetry outside of academia?
That they don't have a popular audience at ALL?
Does it matter that most Americans think Christianity is a great thing, and that most Americans see the Bible and Shakespeare as great works?
I think that the common human American's perceptions are generally right. I'm with them!
I guess you make me wonder why you are in academia. Why not just leave and get a job and "be" both like and with "common human Americans"? In other words, other than a livelihood (which is obvious), what do you intend to give or get from remaining a professor?
and they think this work (Michael Andre called language poetry nonsense poetry without the wit) should be lucrative, but can't understand why it is that no one wants to buy or read it.
I don't buy that they see it as lucrative, though I agree they see it as utilitarian -- somehow "righting" language or poetry or whatever.
Anyone with a brain can see it sucks balls though.
Speaking of, Billy Collins is hardly revered -- the problem with his work is that no one really knows it. They know his name and that he's kinda famous but his poems are, on the whole, utterly forgettable -- though I do like the one about beating a poem with a hose. Too bad it's unpoetic.
I want to change the field, and make it more open to aesthetic thought, as well as to religious thought, and to see comedy and surrealist thought as important.
We are ordinary Americans in academia -- no better and no worse.
Moreover, this is probably the place where I personally can learn the most. I like it.
Just because I don't agree with most of my peers doesn't mean that I don't want to be with them. I find it exciting to disagree. I don't really think that agreement is either possible or salutory.
I like differences, and seek to promote them.
One of the things I like about Silliman and that I didn't realize about him is that he sees a continuity between his own movement and the objectivists, and also the Beats, and he honors them.
I didn't think he did.
He even likes the likes of Peter Orlovsky, and minor poets in the New American Poets anthology (people like Kirby Doyle, who almost no one at all has read, but who are interesting in their own ways).
So I do see a certain kind of continuity with one big part of his Venn diagram. We overlap in terms of the Beats.
I don't really know the work or mind of Bernstein or the others so well. I've read some of Bernstein's books. I tend to revel in how different my perceptions are from his.
I haven't really read Heijinian. I don't even know if she's unreadable or not.
I loved one of Silliman's poems called The Chinese Notebook. It's a very very good spoof of Wittgenstein -- and in a sense is not so much a spoof, as a rivalrous emulation that shows how well he mastered that discourse, and could marshall it.
I also loved a poem he sent me for real poetik which was about a cauliflower fart.
I cannot understand why he's a socialist, or even what he means by it. So much of what poets write is to manufacture difference and a sense of frisson with a preceding generation that you don't quite know how to take any of it. The deeper you dig, the more you find commonalities, as well as disconcerting differences.
It's fun to emphasize these differences.
I suspect that you yourself did that when you dissed Lincoln to such a degree, GM, and also when you said that slavery and Wal-mart work could not be distinguished.
I still read Silliman's blog every day, and I'm glad it exists. He's got a kind of gadfly personality which covers a lot of turf and isn't so bad.
As for Billy Collins -- he's a poet, and he's good. He's had some best-selling volumes of poetry, which is quite unusual. I think one of his merits is that he tells an entire story.
Few people can do that. He's perhaps a little pat, like O'Henry, but he has a surrealist edge, and is clever. He doesn't let the poem get away from him, which I think many consider to be a fault.
I think he's a positive addition to poetry.
He's somewhat like Bukowski in that B. could also tell a whole story, and sometimes rise to an almost magical level in doing so.
Collins can do that, too.
Collins feels a little more canned, as well as canny, but he's also a little better read than Bukowski, and he isn't such a socialist down deep.
I appreciate anyone in poetry who isn't a communist.
Isn't beauty useful? Beautiful things make me happy, and help me see the joy in God's creation. That's immensely useful. I think that utilitarians have a point of sorts--they're just fooling themselves about what usefulness really means.
Thanks for the honesty, Kirby. I really respect that.
George is right that beauty can be useful. Beauties aren't always useful, though.
I don't know how old George is, but wonder if he remembers Erika Kane in the old TV serial All My Children. She was beautiful, but not so useful. She was evil, if you still feel like you can swallow such a term.
I can!
But that's what I mean by beauty having to be coextensive with ethical and religious thought.
Something has to be beautiful all the way through for it to be beautiful.
Candy coating on poison isn't good for you.
So maybe here we're back to thinking about the behavior of a thing over time in terms of deciding its character, its tendency.
Marxism seems good, but in the long run it isn't, because it's authoritarian, and becomes a runaway train of bad economics.
Obama has spent a trillion dollars or more in his first month at bat.
He can talk a good game, and is outwardly beautiful, but he has used the credit card and mortgaged us for decades into the future. Tons and tons of debt to Communist China, with interest on top of it.
Maybe he's a communist tool, after all.
Sometimes restraint is beautiful.
there should be some kind of law against spending money that we don't have. It's a kind of theft, isn't it?
Sorry, Kirby, Capitalism isn't about love.
Russia was never a Communist country. In fact, there has probably never been a country that followed a truly Communistic format.
"Communist" is a concept that you use as a handle. I'd like to see you define it, each time you use it, in context, instead of playing fast and loose.
You set it up as a paper tiger, and then ritualistically set it afire and dance around gleefully as at a celebration.
Fact is, almost no one cares much about Communism any more. Even China is moving away from it. I predict that China will not even claim to be a Communist nation by 2020.
It's going away. You'll have to come up with a new boogeyman.
Curtis,
I agree. Kirby should use the term "Socialism" because it more accurately reflects government ownership and control of the economy, which is, of course, inefficient and wasteful.
M
Curtis writes:
"Russia was never a Communist [sic] country. In fact, there has probably never been a country that followed a truly Communistic [sic] format.
'Communist' is a concept that you use as a handle. I'd like to see you define it, each time you use it, in context, instead of playing fast and loose."
Curtis apparently has some idiosyncratic or Platonic notion of what a "truly Communistic format" is that he hasn't yet deigned to share, even while he calls on Kirby to define it in context every time he uses the term. In any case, Kirby's initial posting mentioned Marxism, not communism. Presumably that means Marx's ideas as presented in his words and works, as well as the many disastrous historical and present attempts to apply his ideas. Bland assertions like
"[i]t's going away" make little sense if "it" never was.
For me, communism means an autocratic government that controls the economy as well as the press. They tend toward a one-party state filled with self-righteous pricks who are in reality much worse than the people they suppress.
The Soviet Union and its East Bloc were the definition of this in my childhood, but since those governments were toppled by Reagan from outside, and pressure from reform movements from within, liberty of the press and economy has grown in most of those states (liberty of the press in the former Soviet Union is still somewhat in doubt, with journalists regularly getting killed for taking a line that the government doesn't appreciate).
Current governments that fit this definition include Red China, N. Korea, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, Cuba -- to name a few. Tightly controlled access to the media and to universities is key, as is a total suppression of religious life, or any other frame of values other than those dictated by the party. The basic Orwellian nightmare is not always as bad as it is in the former Burma (Orwell's time there is nothing compared to what it's since become).
The Democrats in this country are DRIFTING in that direction -- the idea is that no other party has any decency whatsoever, and should be banned, that religious life is totally stupid, and should be ridiculed at every opportunity, and that the government should control the economy, and that the presses, including the TV stations, should be shut down, or should be silenced, unless they reflect the viewpoint of the party elite.
Academia is also trending in that direction, with humanities departments leading the way. (Some studies show that less than 1% of Humanities professors are Republican.)
I've always wanted to be with the counterculture. Right now Lutheranism and Republicanism are the counterculture.
Kirby,
I'm in my mid-30s. I do in fact remember Erika Cane, but I don't really know anything about her.
Well, I don't know if she's still in the show. She caused a lot of problems in the 70s -- hyper-ambitious and unscrupulous, and generally up to no good. But quite beautiful, externally.
She was the star of the show for decades.
" the idea is that no other party has any decency whatsoever, and should be banned, that religious life is totally stupid, and should be ridiculed at every opportunity, and that the government should control the economy, and that the presses, including the TV stations, should be shut down, or should be silenced, unless they reflect the viewpoint of the party elite"
I don't think I've heard of any major democrats talking about banning republicans - just defeating them at the polls, as is the way of a democracy (or a republic, if you wanna get technical-like).
Obama talked openly, honestly, and often about his religious life. Name me a Democratic politician who's an atheist...
I don't think I've heard of any major democrats trying to shut down the presses or tv stations - They might not go on certain stations at certain points, just as Bush never went on the Daily Show.
I think, Kirby, you need to refine your language - instead of saying 'Democrats' you need to say 'a few loudmouth extremist Marxist douchebags who are not at all representative of the wider Democratic party or liberal movement.'
Democrats Do believe that the government should regulate the economy, and in these really farked up times help banks not totally collapse (something Bush supported...).
I don't equate that with 'controlling' the economy, but at least There you have Some Smidgen of a Smidgen of a point.
Though Republicans are, strangely, more against the Stimulus package than the bailouts (the bailouts leading more directly to something akin to 'government control,') and most of what they're against are tiny or strawman earmarks in the bill.
(Jindal's all happy about rejecting 100 million dollars...while accepting 3.7 billion).
This is perhaps the longest therapy session ever, and perhaps at the end I may be cured of seeing Marxism in every person to the left of me. Let's see.
Last night I was watching Nancy Pelosi interviewed by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC and she was saying that what we want to do is introduce, "Science, science, science, science."
That sentence seems very much to have come at the expense of religion.
Now if she had said, we want to introduce, "science, and religion, science, and religion, science, and religion," it would have seemed more balanced.
As it was, it seemed rather triumphalist and to be a very narrowly coded phrase to indicate, we will eradicate religion, and replace it with science (which is why she said it four times).
Maddow looked happy with the phrase.
But now we find out that science is going to be heavily gender-bent, and that female science is going to get an enormous push in the new administration (even with Larry Summers on board).
It looks like quite a carnival is shaping up.
But yes I do hope that I am cured after years and years of talking about the problems I see, and Cassandra-ing about.
brett's left out some signs of creeping authoritarianism of the Left in academia. The persistence of unconstitutional college and university speech codes (among other techniques of intimidation in the interests of leftist political correctness) proves an unending source of free speech cases for organizations like FIRE. Part of the success of these codes, like campus race quotas and such, depend on the pusillanimous self-censorship of the adversely affected. In academia (and especially in the humanities) it's quite Orwellian and more and more trending in that direction, as Kirby mentioned. I had the good fortune to serve in the military before qualifying as a humanities professor, so campus Marxists and their epigones didn't woof me, though I paid for it in losing several pre-and post-doc preferments for it.
And, contra brett, it's not fringe groups only that wish the government to control mass communications: many Democrats in Congress (e.g., Speaker Pelosi, Sens. Schumer, Durbin, Harker, Stabenow, and many more) have come out in favor of regulating radio broadcast and internet content not currently subject to such laws. The recent compromise in Congress over the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" will open the door to regulating radio broadcast content through sneak control based on "localism," "required public service" (to be decided by the government, of course), or "minority ownership" in the interests of "diversity." The plain aim of all of this is to stifle conservative talk radio, which has done so well in the unregulated free market.
But government control and central planning of the economy is perhaps the greatest threat to liberty of thought and personal freedom. Collectivist thinking and actions present a dire threat to these liberties, but it's difficult to convince others of this Hayekian thesis who are willing to trade these American birthrights of theirs for a handful of food stamps.
Jacques Albert:
I don't think I'm being "bland" at all.
There is nearly universal agreement by now that Russian "Communism" (or, if you prefer, Marxism) was a perversion of Marx's predictions regarding the perfect socialist state. Else how explain its egregious failures and disastrous sins? Would you call Stalin a "good Marxist"?
The Cold War was perpetuated on the presumption that the West was fighting an ideological war based on different visions of how society (in the ideal sense) should be perfected. The reality was that neither the West, nor the Soviet Bloc, lived up to their respective ideals.
Kirby's fight seems to be not with political boogeymen, but Leftist academics in the post-Modern era, whose pedigree is well-known and doesn't need further elaboration.
All I'm really saying is that the "other" vision of society was never honestly tried; even if it had been, there's considerable doubt it could have worked. It's demonstrably a failure at this point. So what beat a dead horse?
Kirby's argument seems really to be about aesthetics, not policy.
Who is it said "Marxism is like an old poem."
Right Curtis:
Kirby conflating the liberal academia with 'Democrats' is one of the main fallacies of his thinking.
He's unable to recognize the two separate kingdoms of the inward-looking academy and the real/existing upswell of Democrats in the actual world.
And science and religion are not mutually exclusive.
And after Bush, there's no need to 'introduce' religion - it's already there! Although Obama has articulated a different, more humble approach to how religion interacts with politics.
But Curtis - I still don't get what seems to be a defense of Communism or Marxism coming from you, being that it, as a government, denies the right to property, free speech, press, assembly, religion, and marriage.
Why does that seem at all okay on paper?
Communism is at its worst when it's acting like communism -
Democracy is at its best when it's acting like a Democracy.
The fact that no government can be in praxis what it tries to be on paper doesn't change the fact that Communism sucks on paper.
In fact, it's better in praxis than on paper because it inevitably can't be perfectly communist, and therefore has some extra good in it -
China, for instance, is better than what Marx was shooting for - even though China still sucks in a lot of ways.
Else how explain its egregious failures and disastrous sins?
Because Marx was wrong.
Occam's razor, man.
Communist/Marxist/Socialist/Controlled-Economy states fail because Marx was wrong.
It's the easiest explanation and also the correct one.
And before you say some silly crap, the US economy is Socialist/Controlled.
Also, ever wonder why so many democratic states fail (like all of them except the european ones?
I bet it's becuase Democracy is also a flawed form of governance. . .
crap, what ever should we do?
Curtis lives in San Francisco, where a consensus might not mean what a consensus would mean in Nebraska, or in Wichita, in terms of what Marxism was, and could still be.
Marxism is (according to the Communist Manifesto) a one-party state. That, in essence, is enough for me to find it dethpicable.
The heart of my concern IS with aesthetics, but it's not the entirety of my concern.
It's also about blocking access to power for those who would take over the state and posit a one-party groupthink lock on power by whatever means necessary. Jacques is on to some of the sneaky ways this is being put forward, and he cites FIRE -- a liberal organization which is having to fight tooth and nail to keep the campuses truly liberal in the sense that Madison and Locke meant.
(Not what Berube means by liberal, and which has nothing to do with Madison and a lot to do with Marxist one-party de facto dicatorship.)
It would be great to trumpet Kierkegaard, if it were safe to do it. But against a massive organization that has had years to coalesce and is now capable of electing abominable socialists at the heighest levels of government, it might be too late.
I don't agree with GM that the government is already a one-party socialist state, but it is trending that way, and it's going to slowly attempt to strangle any remaining voices of individualism.
I don't want to appear here as a single-minded opponent of totalitarian authoritarianism, as was Orwell, for instance, but that's a key part of the project.
I do want to encourage groups to think about how to save the mental life of individuals: surrealists, religious folk, and other dissenters from the menace of nationalization in which a secret inner party pretends to speak for the People, and meanwhile, bans and destroys anyone who tries to speak against their nightmare.
Jacques mentions what it cost him to attempt to do this. He's still speaking under a pseudonym!
I think our greatest potential lies in rallying Lutheran and other Christian groups against the secularist Marxists. That's the alliance I see as the one that will keep the secret Maoist collectives from achieving total and final dominance. They now have it in most of the major universities, but not in the smaller colleges and community colleges.
The Duke Group of 88 is the tip of a massive iceberg which -- if left unchallenged -- will slowly alter everything about American life, and make it much more like Red China. Borrowing money from the Chinese to put us in their debt appears to be the basic strategy at this point. To put us in hock to the tune of trillions, and thus sell America's soul to Red China.
Another key part of the LS strategy is to create a groundswell in which global Christianity becomes a counterculture to the increasing secularization of the Marxists.
Chinese Christians, and Indian Christians (the untouchables), are a key aspect of this global movement. It's true that we are only about a dozen hard-core members at this point, but I'm hoping to create a kind of phalanx of awareness, which causes a ripple of realignment such that the artistic avant-garde becomes Christian, and that Christianity is recognized once more as an avant-garde movement (I think that ethically speaking, it is still in the absolute forefront, and that Jesus was still -- the world's greatest performance artist -- the furthest out in front -- and still with the most shocking and exciting things to say about what humanity can be).
I'm a little nervous about some interpretations of Christianity, but I'm much more nervous about the Marxists, and the lingering feeling of attachment with the intuition that it could still be a good thing -- which lingers for instance even in the minds of some as otherwise sentient as Curtis Faville.
I'm sorry, but you have to conflate liberal academics with democrats (and the givernment in general) because academics are the folks who set policy
or do you know nothing of cabinets and advisors since at least FDR (and arguably Wilson or earlier)?
Anyway, Kirby, our politicians are too deep in the thrall of corporations/policy wonks to act like something much more than a one-party state -- the outer party (R, Pointless) can throw up a president now and then but he really can't/won't do much (because if you honestly believe that Gore's policies would have been radically different from Bush's [except for Kyoto, which would never have been fully ratified or implemented anyway], then you're just plain old dumb.
No, policy is set by the civil service, who is instructed and influence by liberal academia.
That's just the way it is.
You're probably right.
Still, it depends on the legislative district. There are still areas of the country (the south), and rural areas of the north, where Christianity of various stripes trumps what's being taught in colleges.
And there is still a small archipelago of countercultural Christian colleges and seminaries.
There haven't been many Lutherans who've gotten to the top echelons of political or administrative power. We've had a few judges on the Supreme Court, many senators and so on, but never the Prez.
Obama cited Niebuhr, but there were many different phases in Niebuhr's career. Early on he was a socialist pacifist, only changing during World War II to become a major domestic combatant and hawk against communism and communist infiltration.
that later Niebuhr is my neighbor.
His might be the earlier one, if he ever thinks about Niebuhr at all.
Niebuhr was a combo out of a Calvinist-Lutheran German-American denomination.
At first, I thought Palmer must be joking--
"No, policy is set by the civil service, who is instructed and influence by liberal academia."
--but I guess he must be serious.
Palmer, the Federal Civil Service is basically run as a spoils system--the major departmental heads all being replaced with each change in administration.
I worked in the Civil Service for 27 years, and saw all this from a bird's-eye view.
It is perhaps one of the saddest aspects of our government, that our laws and regulations are not faithfully observed, but in fact are selectively enforced and prosecuted with as astonishing bias, which would be hilarious were it not so sad. Even the judiciary is not immune; the Bush Administration attempted to "fire" all its regional attorneys, and replace them with their own lackeys. No one was surprised, except, perhaps, the attorneys themselves, who had mistakenly convinced themselves that they were rated on merit and performance, instead of ideological spin.
The fact (and it is possibly a blessing in disguise) is that our party system does offer choices, if people are intelligent to make the right ones.
"our politicians are too deep in the thrall of corporations/policy wonks"
Well, that's only partly true. The Republicans largely depend upon corporate shills and conservative "think-tank" "experts" to advise them on policy. These hacks do not have the best interests of the electorate at heart, but push their benefactors' agenda instead.
Lobbying--and the big money which greases the wheels of legislation--is the real generator of policy in Washington. The leverage of policy is corruption, in all its guises and disguises. It is only measured by varying degrees.
The venality of the Republicans is not quite matched by the ineptness of the Democrats.
Gore would not have gotten us into two foreign military adventures; indeed, there is good evidence to suggest that 9/11 would never have happened had Gore been "awarded" the election, since the Democrats actually believed their own intelligence, instead of going into denial and manufacturing fake versions in its place.
The Bush know-nothing position on global warming probably set back pollution standards 20 years. They spat on habeas corpus, trashed the environment, gifted the rich with tax largesse, snubbed our allies...I've made these lists before, but it begins to sound like a litany (why bother?).
But my point, again, is that if you believe policy is made by "civil servants" you're truly deluded. Conservatism is one thing; but thinking like yours is beyond Left Field, it's completely outside the stadium.
Kirby, I assume you're just trying to pull my chain here--
"I'm a little nervous about some interpretations of Christianity, but I'm much more nervous about the Marxists, and the lingering feeling of attachment with the intuition that it could still be a good thing -- which lingers for instance even in the minds of some as otherwise sentient as Curtis Faville."
Have you ever seen me say anywhere on the internet that I have any "lingering attachment" to Marxism? Or that any manifestations of it--however confused--might be taken as hopeful signs of improvement?
Please!
I am a social democrat, and am conservative in certain respects: Fiscal policy, immigration, employment, capital and financial regulation. I believe in policy which favors and fosters domestic prosperity.
This is Marxist???
My two big divisions don't allow for much subtlety along the lines that you advocate, Curtis. Everyone is either a de facto fascist or a communist, with all other positions being merely a cover story to make one's real position somewhat more palatable.
I hope I'm joking, but there is a truth in every jest.
情趣用品,情趣,情色,成人,A片,自拍,情趣用品,情趣,色情,成人影片,色情影片,免費A片,情趣用品,情趣,成人網站,A片下載,日本AV,做愛,情趣用品,情趣,美女交友,A片,辣妹視訊,情色視訊,情趣用品,情趣,色情聊天室,聊天室,AV,成人電影,A片,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣
情色,A片,AIO,AV,日本AV,色情A片,AV女優,A漫,免費A片,A片下載,情色A片,哈啦聊天室,UT聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,色情聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,080視訊聊天室,080聊天室,080苗栗人聊天室,免費視訊聊天,上班族聊天室,080中部人聊天室,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天,成人聊天室,一夜情聊天室,辣妹視訊,情色視訊,成人,成人影片,成人光碟,成人影城,自拍
情趣用品,A片,AIO,AV,AV女優,A漫,免費A片,日本AV,寄情築園小遊戲,情色貼圖,色情小說,情色文學,色情,色情遊戲,一葉情貼圖片區,色情網站,色情影片,微風成人, 嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人貼圖,18成人,成人影城,成人圖片,成人影片,UT聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,080聊天室,080苗栗人聊天室,080視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室
情趣用品,A片,aio,av,av女優,a漫,免費a片,aio交友愛情館,a片免費看,a片下載,本土自拍,自拍,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,色情小說,情色文學,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,色情遊戲,嘟嘟情人色網,一葉情貼圖片區,色情影片,情色網,色情網站,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,18成人,成人影城,成人圖片,成人貼圖,成人圖片區,成人小說,成人電影
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品.情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,視訊聊天室
麻將,台灣彩卷,六合彩開獎號碼,運動彩卷,六合彩,遊戲,線上遊戲,cs online,搓麻將,矽谷麻將,明星三缺一, 橘子町,麻將大悶鍋,台客麻將,公博,game,淘,中華職棒,麗的線上小遊戲,國士無雙麻將,麻將館,賭博遊戲,威力彩,威力彩開獎號碼,龍龍運動網,史萊姆,史萊姆好玩遊戲,史萊姆第一個家,史萊姆好玩遊戲區,樂透彩開獎號碼,遊戲天堂,天堂,好玩遊戲,遊戲基地,無料遊戲王,好玩遊戲區,麻將遊戲,好玩遊戲區,小遊戲,電玩快打
麻將,台灣彩卷,六合彩開獎號碼,運動彩卷,六合彩,線上遊戲,矽谷麻將,明星3缺一,橘子町,麻將大悶鍋,台客麻將,公博,game,淘,中華職棒,麗的線上小遊戲,國士無雙麻將,麻將館,賭博遊戲,威力彩,威力彩開獎號碼,龍龍運動網,史萊姆,史萊姆好玩遊戲,史萊姆第一個家,史萊姆好玩遊戲區,樂透彩開獎號碼,遊戲天堂,好玩遊戲,遊戲基地,無料遊戲王,好玩遊戲區,麻將遊戲,好玩遊戲區,小遊戲,遊戲區,電玩快打,cs online
情趣用品,情趣,A片,AIO,AV,AV女優,A漫,免費A片,情色,情色貼圖,色情小說,情色文學,色情,寄情竹園小遊戲,色情遊戲,AIO交友愛情館,色情影片,情趣內衣,情趣睡衣,性感睡衣,情趣商品,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,18成人,成人影城,成人圖片,成人貼圖,成人圖片區,UT聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室 ,哈啦聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,080苗栗人聊天室,080聊天室,視訊交友網,視訊
Post a Comment