In the beginning

Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 October 2004 21:48.

So here we are, online. After four months of planning we have arrived at that precipitate moment. The first post. The one that should welcome, introduce, explicate, commend … and get the blog rolling. The one that, like a best man’s speech, doesn’t need to say too much and doesn’t need to go on too long. Just so that it leaves the reader with a crank-handle sense of something vital and positive having begun.

A tall order, then.

Well, maybe. Maybe not. I’ve looked into a few of these first post offerings lately. They are by no means all successful. Simplicity seems to be the safest if, perhaps, most unadventurous option. You know … just a few spare but elegant phrases that go to the heart of what it means to blog on politics and what, in addition, it will mean to blog here. That ought not to be too challenging.

But the squalid truth about blogging is that, actually, it means dreadfully labour-intensive work for, more often than not, a masochistic level of return. And the truth about bloggers, therefore, is that a wise one will set forth upon his/her/its journey with little expectation of being read, still less of “making a difference”. And of a deposit in the PayPal account the least said the better. Disillusionment is parenthesised at the foot of every post, next to that unfaithful word, “Comments”.

So, it seems, as well as simplicity of expression the first poster would profit from a little humility. Can I, as they say, do humility? Gung ho, anti-factual ad copy, yes. Bombast, certainly. Blind drunk, “take that” bar-room brawling, silly question. But, humility? Let’s not drag personal qualities into this, please. I mean, it’s a blog!

No, the more I think about it the more tricky this first post business becomes.

At some point, I suppose, I shall have to burden you with a play on our title. You know: rights of the majority, the thinking right of the majority, the right thinking of the majority. That sort of thing. Naturally, I should laud that majority for whom those moral aliens of the modern left reserve their most heinous categories of sin. I mean, of course, the majority whose pallid skin, decisive gender or delightful heterosexuality somehow causes it to oppress all other living beings on the planet, and most of the dead ones.

That done, I really ought to level a few grievous insults at the left-sponsoring elites of global capitalism and the international NGO’s … and likewise their servants among the politically craven who we serially elect to tax and legislate us. But after that where does one stop? Gloom is so darned addictive. What of the cult of modernism? Classical liberalism? Democracy? Ultimately, are not these sacred objects of our political age also the silken threads by which western man has become bound?

The English-speaking right has any number of robust philosophical and scientific handholds on all this. But one wonders how these will ever transmogrify into a serious political initiative.

The left has no such difficulty, never has done. Contrast the radical left and right in their responses to globalisation. We revile all that 1968-style street activism in Seattle and Davos. But give those guys their due. They got the issue across in their own characteristically destructive terms. Who “out there” actually knows or cares what opinions are held on the right?

So if the right finds itself marginalized is that only a reflection of failing vigour? I think not. Its beliefs are instinctual and instinct is permanent and no less capable than emotionalism at stirring man to action. But instinct has the quality of the recondite about it. It tends naturally to defensiveness. It does not require to explain itself and the idea of winning over strangers to its point of view is simply nonsensical.

Given these things, political detachment and a lack of language are, perhaps, always a probability for the right. It is in that light that one should view the astonishing success of the left in taking over public discourse. In any event, it is certainly a fact that everything that is said beyond a few, rather reactive catch phrases - “political correctness” is one, the Fontean “transnational progressivism” perhaps another – reflects the cultural casus belli. The politics of nation, family and tradition are simply inadmissible. Without them, inevitably, the right’s politicians are enfeebled. They and, indeed, all of us are admitted to public life only as fellow travellers on the progressive train. From time to time on our journey we eye the emergency cord. But the thought quickly passes and, mostly, we stare through the watery reflection in the window and mourn the countryside that is disappearing behind us.

Well, enough of that. Majority Rights is a blog for people who want to be off the damned train and planting sticks of explosive under the rails. If it succeeds in anything at all I would wish it to be in the free issue of explosive materials.

Now, you would be perfectly entitled to challenge this last statement on the grounds that it is that juvenile notion of making a difference again. All I can offer in mitigation is that I, being a journeyman in every sense, obviously do not aspire to such lofty aims. But Majority Rights is not a blog like other blogs. A glance at the list of diverse talents to the right will tell you that. We have among us some of the freest political thinkers in the English-speaking world along with some of the most committed, right-leaning blog folk.

The result is both a more substantial enterprise than most blogs and one much less singular in its intellectual approach. For example, Jim Kalb, Sean Gabb and the noble Tom Sunic are all men whose work I admire enormously. But, to my mind anyway, the gulf between them is scarcely less than the points of agreement and common purpose. You and I, as incomplete political philosophers and putative saboteurs of Prog Rail, need the insights of all three.

I hope they and all our contributors, including some remarkably interesting and respected guest writers, will make extensive use of this page. In certain, significant respects blogging is a better communicative form than conventional print media. Over time it provides for a rounder understanding not only of a writer’s thoughts or work but of the man himself. It breaks the disassociation between writer and reader. It delivers both from the realms of the abstract. Hell … you, the reader, might get one or two nagging questions answered. You might, of course, put questions that can not be answered.

I am extremely pleased to welcome you to our blog. I hope that you will continue to visit us as the body of written work builds up and that you will find the experience always profitable and always enjoyable.

Tags: Oh Tempora, Oh Mores

Comments:

Posted by http://thrasymachus.typepad.com/thras/2004/10/new_ on Fri, 15 Oct 2004 00:33 | #

The new blog, Majority Rights, is up and running with a first post and everything. Here is a list of contributors. You may find me in there somewhere: James Kalb, Dr. E.Christian Kopff, Dr. Sean Gabb, Martin Hutchinson, Tony Linsell

Posted by Reg Cæsar on Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:15 | #

Best wishes on your new venture. The rail-sabotage metaphor is reminiscent of Gen. Sherman, who tore out and twisted the track in his enemy’s heartland. Having read Ries & Trout’s “Marketing Warfare” (applying Clausewitz to commerce) and later Hanson’s “The Soul of Battle” (the straight-to-the-heart warfare of Sherman, Patton and Epaminondas), it occurred to me from the former that the latter could work in fighting culture wars as well. The enemy is really a lot softer in the belly than he appears, and doesn’t believe much of what he spouts anyway, not in practice. An even juicier metaphor might be the candirú fish of the Amazon, which is said to sneak in ‘round back through the, er, servants’ entrance and proceed to attack the internal plumbing at its most sensitive spot.

I do wish you hadn’t chosen “Rights” for the title, though. Why get in line all the other infantile groups whining for these? This is a strategy particularly unsuited for white men, who are presumed to be—especially by the “politically correct”, though they’d never confess to it—the Grown-Ups of the Planet. Even where respected in full, rights are still optional, with no guarantee their beneficiaries will make use of them. Better yet to start from duty. “Hitch up yer belts and start acting like men, dammit!”

Posted by Phil on Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:59 | #

Reg,

Very well put. But to answer your question: Why do we insist on using the word “rights”?

We do not speak the language of the left. We oppose the language of the left. But we are political and we are here to win converts. This is a political project and we understand the power of rhetoric.

Welcome aboard.

Posted by Guessed on Fri, 15 Oct 2004 23:14 | #

Reg,

Thanks for the good wishes - and congratulations on posting the first ever comment to MR.

I was, of course, waiting for someone to bridle at the concept of group rights and I haven’t had long to wait. You wouldn’t expect me to concede the point without a bit of a fight.

I cling to the stubborn belief that western peoples do indeed enjoy a moral right to live as they wish in peace in their own homelands. We readily concede as much to all other peoples around the world. The only real differences are that we have grown prosperous and decadently liberal, and think we can afford to be forgetful of our native interests. But none of that in the least disqualifies our right.

Similarly, there are other rights we should treasure and protect but somehow do not. The rights to free speech and free association, the right to equality under the law, the democratic right to have our interests actually represented by those we elect … these are serious matters in no way comparable to the miserable, whining entitlements advanced by the left in the name of retributive social justice.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that all the modern confabulations about minorities are insincere. The left does not believe in what it spouts. It “believes” in its egalitarian effect. We are fighting a religion and, to take up Phil’s point, the power of rhetoric is no bad weapon to have by one’s side.

Posted by jonjayray on Sat, 16 Oct 2004 10:21 | #

It would be nice if you would tell members how to post.

Posted by Reg Cæsar on Sun, 17 Oct 2004 08:33 | #

Methinks the gentlemen have misunderstood my objection. It’s not “group rights” vs. “individual rights”. It’s rights, per se, vs. duties. I’m all for rights in the Blackstonean sense so eloquently expressed in a post a few hours ago on this forum by Thrasymachus. But discussion of rights is a losing strategy.

Please indulge a little multiculturalism for a moment—taken from the world champions of cultural survival. There is something “yin” about rights and “yang” about duty. When soldiers go off to defend rights, they are inspired by duty—the yangs are coming, so to speak.

You are in the yang position. If you argue from a yin position, i.e., from rights, you will lose nine times out of ten. Why do men lose their children in 90% of divorces? Pitting “fathers’ rights” vs. “mothers’ rights” is rhetorical suicide. When the issue is framed in terms of fathers’ and mothers’ respective duties, then kids—and often mom—stay with daddy. Don’t believe me? Look at the Arab world. Or Victorian Britain and America. Divorce was rare and men got the kids.

Same with abortion. In that case, the woman is yang, the child yin. Woman’s right vs. fetus’s right—the cause is lost, a million die. Woman’s duty vs. fetus’s duty—the argument is over! Half of all Americans can’t conceive of fetal rights, but all of all Americans can’t conceive of fetal duties. As Sun Tzu advised, take the battle to the field on which you can win. This can be applied to immigration and other national questions. Natives are yang, immigrants yin—no matter how aggressive the latter seem.

Maybe I’m just being cranky because your blogware has split my ligature. A Portuguese Ã? I’m as Lusophile as anyone (Laurindo Almeida’s guitar graces my MP3 as I write), but crimey, “Cæsar” is Latin!

Posted by Niki Raapana on Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:09 | #

Majority Rights.com appears to be faced with the core dilemma of modern language. English has changed so dramatically that many words can no longer be clearly defined. The word “rights” is a perfect example. Everyone has a slightly different concept of it.

Merriam-Webster.com gives 12 entries for rights, with the noun defined as: qualities that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval. When an American hears the term, it’s more likely they are thinking of their bill of rights: a summary of fundamental rights and privileges guaranteed to a people against violation by the state—used especially of the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Bill of Rights doesn’t exactly constitute an ideal of moral propriety. Propriety is: the quality or state of being proper. The U.S. Bill of Rights defines national law that protects individual liberty, and I would argue against including privileges in Webster’s description. A privilege is: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor. In the United States, our rights are not granted, which means to: permit or bestow. Our rights are recognized, which means to: acknowledge formally: as a: to admit as being lord or sovereign b: to admit as being of a particular status c: to admit as being one entitled to be heard: give the floor to d: to acknowledge the de facto existence or the independence of.

If one identifies with global politics, it’s likely they’re hearing human rights: rights (as freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture, and execution) regarded as belonging fundamentally to all persons.

Then again, if we were raised in the 60’s, it’s possible we’re hearing civil rights: the nonpolitical rights of a citizen; especially: the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to U.S. citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress. Or, if we’re a female raised in the 70’s, it’s likely we’re also hearing women’s rights: legal, political, and social rights for women equal to those of men. If it’s our children, raised in the 90’s, it’s likely they’re adding animal rights into the equation, the: fair and humane treatment of animals—often used attributively.

Rights are even more difficult to agree on when they’re combined with the term majority. Did the founders of this blog pick that term knowing there’s an obsolete definition for majority, defining it as: the quality or state of being greater?

English is so thoroughly muddied that the Communitarian Network can claim to be seeking a “balance” between rights and responsibilities while implementing Hegelian solutions. Communitarian guru Dr. Amitai Etzioni says U.S. rights cannot long exist without a communitarian perspective. I’ve often wondered what dictionary he uses to define rights.

Is this blog anything like Scrabble where we all agree on which dictionary we’re using at the beginning of the game?

All above definitions are from Merriam-Webster.com

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:31 | #

Reg,

Portugal is England’s oldest ally as well, royally speaking, as old Christopher’s sponsor. So on the Lusitanian issue you won’t get much argument from this Englishman.

One’s apprehension of rights and duties might also profit from a bit of historical, meaning aetiological, context. Dawkins rooted duties in ethnic nepotism. But rights in the classical sense are arguably not too disassociated from the same phenomenon. In Thrasy’s link we read Scruton thus:-

“Of course, rights in contract and tort ... arise from positive relations between people — relations which create those rights from the raw stuff of human action, but which do not create them universally, for the very reason that they arise from the history of the particular case.”

“Positive relations” stands for or in place of Dawkins’ nepotism. Whether similarly positive relations are sustainable between diverse peoples and would therefore sustain classical rights is a moot question. In the western world, in any case, no attempt at resolving it is being made. The model is cultural marxist or, in Scruton’s less specific wording, “Under the influence of socialist planning and statist theories of the law, another idea of rights has been imported into modern systems of justice — the idea of rights not as freedoms but as claims.”

At this point I wish Jim Kalb would join the thread. I know you, Reg, visit his blog. He argues eloquently to the effect that Hobbes and Locke were the beginning of an ineluctable rot. In my estimation Scruton has it right, though, when he says, “To suppose that there are ‘natural’ and therefore ‘human’ rights which are also claims against others is to make a large and dangerous assumption, one that would certainly not have been upheld by Locke or Kant or the founding fathers of the American constitution.”

The rights culture entered from the unique ethnic perspective of German-Jewish marxist intellectuals. We are now engaged on testing to destruction, possibly our own, the thesis that an ethnically fractured society can maintain itself thereby.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:43 | #

“I cling to the stubborn belief that western peoples do indeed enjoy a moral right to live as they wish in peace in their own homelands. We readily concede as much to all other peoples around the world. The only real differences are that we have grown prosperous and decadently liberal, and think we can afford to be forgetful of our native interests. But none of that in the least disqualifies our right. Similarly, there are other rights we should treasure and protect but somehow do not. The rights to free speech and free association, the right to equality under the law, the democratic right to have our interests actually represented by those we elect … these are serious matters in no way comparable to the miserable, whining entitlements advanced by the left in the name of retributive social justice.” (—Guessedworker, 10/15, 10:14 PM)

Reading passages like this, I know I’m home here.

Posted by Blessed Wife on Fri, 29 Oct 2004 07:45 | #

Very promising blog, fellas.

GuessedWorker, I am glad to see you blogging now. I always enjoyed your comments on Gene Ex.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 29 Oct 2004 08:39 | #

You’re most welcome, BW. You may know I ran into difficulties with godless, which was a pity. I hope he’ll calm down and pay us a visit some time.

Posted by exPF on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 05:31 | #

Woohoo, first blog post! five years ago and more.

Posted by way of reminder not to forget to search around in the archives of threads for all the interesting discussions that have taken place since 2004.

Posted by SM on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 17:48 | #

>Posted by way of reminder not to forget to search around in the archives of threads for all the interesting discussions that have taken place since 2004.

To whom it may concern:

A user name of under three letters can NOT be searched for.

I wish some error message would have told me that when I coined the name ‘SM’ here.

Does anyone know a work around for that?

——-
BTW, congrats on your Blogiversary.

Posted by Light your guiding White candle, St Lucia on Fri, 13 Dec 2019 14:49 | #