Damned Multiculturalists

By -
Leon Hadar excoriates globalists at Taki's Magazine.

I second his emotion with the following remarks:

Man, those multi-culturalists! I recall the story of one Jewish dude who apparently was not satisfied with his local folkways. He imported a melange of ideas from Greek philosophy and Eastern religion into his native inheritance and came up with some weird hybrid mix. His followers, after his death, immediately became "rootless cosmopolitans," trotting all around the Mediterranean world, asserting that the culture you came from didn't matter as long as you accepted their new "globalist" creed. They sucked into their "ideology" an obviously incompatible blend of Greek philosophy, Roman civic and political ideas, and Hebrew revelation.

Good thing that nonsense had no lasting impact on the world!

Comments

  1. Leon Hadar11:06 PM

    That's a very clever
    historical(?) analogy. I wasn't excoriating cosmopolitan types. Some of my best friends are...I was arguing that they will be "standardized" as part of the globalization process was an unrealistic expectation. I suppose that on certain level, Jesus ended up caught in the struggle between civilizations and created a new one. I'm wondering whether you'll welcome a new synthesis between Christianity and Islam and come up with something new? I didn't think so.

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah5:16 AM

    I think it was more that he was caught up in a civilizational breakdown.

    "I'm wondering whether you'll welcome a new synthesis between Christianity and Islam and come up with something new? I didn't think so."

    And why didn't you think so? I believe the more important synthesis (happening already) is between Christianity and Buddhism,but I suppose there will be some Islam in there as well.

    ReplyDelete
  3. gcallah7:32 AM

    And lest you think I'm getting all New Agey, that synthesis had already started with Schelling.

    ReplyDelete
  4. TGGP8:33 PM

    I think it might have been Paul rather than Jesus who added in those other bits. Or my radical Protestant past is still warping my brain long after I stopped believing in God.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous9:27 PM

    How is a religion that demonized non-believers in any way "multi-cultural" in the sense used today?

    ReplyDelete
  6. gcallah4:05 AM

    OK, anonymous, first of all, Christianity never 'demonized' non-believers, you historical nitwit. Second of all, a Jewish cult that accepted gentiles on an equal basis with Jews is certainly 'multi-cultural.'

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous4:19 AM

    "Or my radical Protestant past is still warping my brain long after I stopped believing in God."

    Fortunately for you, tggp, God has not stopped believing in you, so that you have not vanished from existence!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more