Recent Responses & Dialogue Concerning My Posts
Responses and Dialogues with readers that bring more to the conversation than my original posts. And one response I hope might bring more to the conversation.
Concerning my post “The Leader and the Led”
Writes Don’s SubstackNov 18·edited Nov 18Liked by ken taylor
Ken,
Your essay is profound. Considering this powerful word—profound—gives us an example of the linguistic warfare you allude to. Its power is attacked by adding a connotation of “pretentiousness” on the part of the user. I want to call out that deliberately hostile connotation as an example of linguistic warfare. Making the connotation explicit is a way of fighting it.
Part of the anti-communitarian corruption that arose with the Neolithic Revolution (and its growth of economic inequality, political inequality, and “religious inequality” (the rise of the priest class as the explicit leader of morality) was the discrimination of the few high-born from the many. Not only were these people special because of their individual qualities or “achievements”, but they were special because of their ancestors’ qualities or achievements. In fact, a low-born individual of exceptional qualities could expect his qualities to be discounted or resisted because of this corruption.
Regarding this ancient discrimination, consider the origin and development of the terms “villain” and “vulgar”:
Online response to “etymology of the word villain”: The word villain comes from the Late Latin word villanus, meaning "farmhand" or someone who worked on a large estate. It was borrowed into Old French as vilein, which meant "peasant, farmer, commoner, or churl". These words had a negative connotation of being low-born or rude, and eventually came to mean "a wicked or evil person" in English. (Wikipedia): A villain (also known as a "black hat" or "bad guy"; the feminine form is villainess) is a stock character, whether based on a historical narrative or one of literary fiction. Random House Unabridged Dictionary defines such a character as "a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime; scoundrel; or a character in a play, novel, or the like, who constitutes an important evil agency in the plot". The antonym of a villain is a hero.
Online response to “etymology of the word vulgar”: late 14c., "common, ordinary," from Latin vulgaris, volgaris "of or pertaining to the common people, common, vulgar, low, mean," from vulgus, volgus "the common people, multitude, crowd, throng," for which de Vaan offers no further etymology. The meaning "coarse, low, ill-bred" is recorded by 1640s, probably from earlier use (with reference to people) in the meaning "belonging to the ordinary class" (1520s). Chaucer uses peplish for "vulgar, common, plebeian" (late 14c.). Related: Vulgarly. What we have added to human depravity is again a thoroughly Roman quality, perhaps even a Roman invention: vulgarity. That word means the mind of the herd, and specifically the herd in the city, the gutter, and the tavern. [Guy Davenport, "Wheel Ruts"]
(Someone online recently pointed out that in the novel, The Great Gatsby, Fitsgerald has some acquaintances of Gatsby describe him as “vulgar”. Surprising since nothing in the novel suggests any crudity on his part, but these “high-born” acquaintances were referring to his plebian origin.)
From the time of royalty and nobility to modern oligarchy and “libertarian” ideology (massively weaponized by Citizens United and other Supreme Court abominations that threw open the doors of dark money), that decries progressive taxation of the wealthy, we witness this deep and long persistent corruption throughout the world. It certainly exists in the United States. Think of Franklin Delano Roosevelt being described as a “traitor to his class” for his New Deal legislation, and the persistent efforts (becoming successful since Ronald Reagan) to reverse everything that FDR accomplished.
The linguistic war involves creating or redefining words, aiming at making them useful by becoming “viral”. On the communitarian side a moderately useful invention was “it takes a village”. A very powerful anti-communitarian trope was the redefinition of “socialism” as synonymous with bolshevism. This abusive connotation is endlessly hammered on. Another interesting one is “personal responsibility” which sounds so wholesome, a term that’s been with us forever. Actually, it was coined by tobacco attorneys during their defense of that despicable industry against class-action suits.
In the context of a supposedly democratic system, it is necessary to co-opt the “low-born” by creating some out-groups, using racism or nativism or a combative “morality”(anti-choice, antigay, etc.), that they can consider themselves superior to. These are basic tools of populism. To quote an unsavory source (Lenin), they are “useful idiots” of the ultimate puppet-masters: the “one percent” (or the one percent of the one percent, in particular) who seek to preserve their privileged economic position.
Nov 18Author
There is not much here to add to from my perspective. One thing about the word "vulgar" that you do not mention and possibly might be unaware of. When Jerome translated the bible into the spoken language of Latin from its Greek and Hebrew roots, it was referred to as the Biblia vulgata. , which of course was the "Bible in the common vernacular'. Some latin to English dictionaries of today say that "vulgata" might mean "popular", but I do believe that is stretching its interpretation, not that vulgata did not necessarily something popular, but that the term popular as generally understood today is not similar, anymore, that, as you point out, the word vulgar of course meant in its original connotation, something that was common or commonplace.
As for villian, I think I might suggest, not the word, but the meaning can descend to the greek attitude of the peasant. The παληάνθρωπος (palianthropos) is the greek word for peasant. Greejk philosophers thought that παληάνθρωπος were of even lesser value than slaves to the society. But what would a palianthrope be in English? Although rarely even known in modern English, it can be a molestor of a woman (from Le Morte d'Arthur); and of course the modern greek translation would be-villian. But it classical greek, as i said it was used for a peasant or person who became dirty by his labors, a farmhand, or peasant in other words. So yes, people of "culture" have over time refrained such words to mean that those who are "common" are inferiorly "dirty" or "evil".
The first vulgar book was (not really but the first one I'm familiar with) was of course the translation of the Bible into a language that could be comprehended. And of course, in both Greek and Latin the word for an evil person is a person who "becomes dirty through his labor", a peasant or farmhand who by connotation of interpretation of the elite does and did even then, equate not only to a person of lower status, but a person of evil status. They did not see any difference between the two.
Concerning the post “Disappointment”
Writes Don’s SubstackNov 20·edited Nov 20Liked by ken taylor
Ken,
You're certainly right about the unfathomable stupidity of the reason that Judge Wallace used to choose not to remove Trump from the Colorado ballot, after making good decisions on the substantial issues like Trump's involvement in July 6th criminal behavior. But Glenn Kirschner has pointed out that her good decisions, before the concluding blunder, are now part of the record. When her verdict is appealed, Kirschner says the discussion will focus on her final weird argument, so her judgement will inevitably be more "useful" than if she had disagreed on the substantial issues.
I agree, Ken. if the President is not an elected officer of the Government of the United States, what the hell is he? The President is not a lackey, or a bystander. The President has many "official" jobs, Chief of the Armed Forces, Signatory of legislation and has a duty to see that legislation both enacted and enforced. If these and other "official" jobs like head of State makes the President the Chief Officer of the State. I do somewhat agree with Minnesota Judge who was unwilling to keep his name off the primary ballots but inferred in his decision that the elective ballot was another matter in which Trump's name could be removed because of his criminal activities between November 4, 2020 up to January 20, 2021 and continuing.
Nov 19Author
Yes there is some merit to the argument that parties are political. The problem however is that parties end up in control of who can thereafter appear on the general ballot and in this sense, parties shouldn't be allowed to support candidates who are otherwise, or should otherwise be, ineligible. The parties oversized role in the selection of those candidates should be taken into consideration. Therefore can the party have the right to put Enrique Tarrio on the ballet for their candidate if cannot otherwise be eligible for the position they have nominated him. Also more and more states are defining eligibility to voting in the primaries to be able to be cross-voted by independents or members of other parties as long as they vote in only one primary. But my primary disagreement with accepting that the candidates should not be subject to removal in primaries is that primary candidates still have to submit to state regulations of eligibility and be placed on state ballots and that it is the state and not the parties that administer primary elections, i.e. it appears to be primaries are not private affairs of political parties, but public affairs administered by the public government.
If you remember the bygone days, state parties often met in private, closed affairs administered by the parties to select the candidate the state party officials would put forth as their candidate at a national official. Primaries were put forth as a opportunity for the entire members of a party to be able to choose their candidate through a public vote and to eliminate these closed selections by the top party officials within a state. I.e., party nomination primaries are not private, but public electoral contests that the parties themselves opened to the public control through initiation of primary elections that actively seek state support to insure the success and openness of the elections.
continue the conversation. Your input is as important as any ideas of my own. often more so, because they enable me to refine and development my own ideas.
On “Thoughts Since Being Away & My Thoughts on the Colorado 14th Amendment Trial”
First a reminder, Trump was successfully impeached for the second time, between January 6 and January 20, 2021. In both impeachment trials he was found not guilty by the slim majority 51 to 49 in the Senate. The only recourse for the People (meaning those of us not in government) is to prevent him from running for office by invoking Amendment 14, section 3. In Minnesota it was ruled we could not keep his name off the "primary" ballot because that determines only his right to run in the general election, therefor it is only in the General Election that Amendment 14, Section 3 applies. So, if he in fact is nominated by the FRP at their nominating convention, then we can go after him in court to prevent his name from being on the ballot for the actual election. For their sake, I hope the FRP has a back up nominee - otherwise Biden wins by default.
ken taylor Nov 17Author
well not necessarily since RFK Jr. seems to be standing at an unbelievable 17%. Unfortunately Biden's stand in the Israeli-Hamas conflict also appears to be causing a great loss of support amongst the youth vote. The Minnesota court may be possibly correct about primary elections, however when on the 6th Circuit, Neil Gorsuch wrote an opinion that stated that states could remove unqualified candidates from the primary ballot. Minnesota wouldn't necessarily be controlled by the 6th, but Colorado is and the case in question that brought about Gorsuch's interpretation was actually a case from Colorado and did concern a presidential candidate, I believe. Another thing is that states often have other qualifications that can eliminate candidates from primary beyond the 3 constitutional elgibility requirements for president. And while not a primary, those other qualifications allowed six or seven states to not place Ralph Nader on the ballot. There are a multitude of factors involved. The Colorado does seem to be the most promising (according to Judge Luttig and Neil Katyal) to actually make its way to the supreme court because Colorado law allows citizens to challenge the ballot placement of a candidate that should grant standing some other courts are denying and from what I ascertain the citizens who are challenging the case in Colorado also have standing as Republicans to challenge Trump's standing in the primary. So I will be interested in the judge's ruling which she says will come next week. Either way, of course, the case is sure to be appealed. I quite imagine that if scotus decides the case, as most expect they will, it will almost certainly be before the first primaries begin. So I doubt the republicans will not have a presidential candidate to run in '24.
As for the second impeachment trial, the senate trial took place after he left office, and as much as I totally abominate Trump's attempted coup, I find I agree with Mitch McConnell (for maybe the only time ever) someone cannot be successfully convicted of impeachment that would have removed Trump from the presidency if he was no longer president. Once he was no longer president I think it was now the law that needed to prosecute Trump as McConnell said.
On “When the Answer Answers Itself”
Writes Nordic Pagan SoldierOct 29
Judeo-messianism has been spreading its poisonous message among us for nearly two thousand years. Democratic and Communist universalisms are more recent, but they have only reinforced the old Jewish narrative. They are the same ideals . . .
The transnational, transracial, transsexual, transcultural ideals that these ideologies preach to us (across peoples, races, cultures) and which are the daily sustenance of our schools, in our media, in our popular culture, at our universities, and on our streets, have ended up reducing our biosymbolic identity and ethnic pride to their minimal expression.
Jewish bankers flooded Europe with Muslims and America with third-world garbage . . . Exile as punishment for those who preach sedition should be restored within the legal framework of the West.
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are death cults originating in the Middle East and totally alien to Europe and its peoples.
One sometimes wonders why the European left gets along so well with Muslims. Why does an often overtly anti-religious movement take the side of a fierce religiosity that seems to oppose almost everything the left has always claimed to stand for? Part of the explanation lies in the fact that Islam and Marxism have a common ideological root: Judaism.
It seems that Don Rumsfeld was right when he said, "Europe has shifted on its axis," it was the wrong side that won World War II, and it is becoming clearer every day. What has NATO done to defend Europe? Absolutely nothing . . .
My enemies are not in Moscow, Damascus, Tehran, Riyadh or some ethereal Teutonic boogeyman, my enemies are in Washington, Brussels and Tel Aviv . . . Fuck you and your Jewish god.
My response to Mr. Spangle is that you are certainly welcome to disagree with what I write. I certainly however understand with what you are disagreeing. I understand you don’t like many things and blame many people but I am not sure exactly what you do support in lieu of what you don’t. I don’t know what points in my article you are disagreeing with since the article was about trying to point out that misunderstandings are often due to presupposing answers are correct and then criticizing others that don’t accept given answers because they cannot supply. I believe I wrote, “We aren’t supposed to believe Hitler had it right, we aren’t supposed to believe in anti-semitism. But those who do, those who believe in anti-semitism, those who believe in racism, those who believe what is currently being tossed around as fascism; can we merely assume their belief is wrong and that they should believe in democracy, they should believe in tolerance and acceptance, that they are just unruly extremists who believe against the grain of belief. Or can we once again toddlerize ourselves and question, “Why?” But not just the why of their intolerance, the why we fail to meet their expectations that create that intolerance.
Because otherwise we merely are answering the question with the answer. The question is why do they not believe our answer? And maybe that question leads us to question our answer, that “our democracy” is not a satisfactory answer.” Your reply seems to be an example of exactly what I am attempting to question. My article was written exactly so you could explain why the answer is not satisfactory and to encouraging listening and/or trying to understand why the answers that have been supplied are not satisfactory to you. Your reply seems to be telling me the answers are unsatisfactory, which my article is attempting to point out, but you seem to have no conception of why they are unsatisfactory, only that they are. Unfortunately that creates perhaps a misconception that you are somehow incapable of having any alternatives. That is unfortunate because it will lead to people thinking the alternative you reject must be correct because your own “answer” is meaningless beyond your expression of dissatisfaction with the answers you reject? But why are the answers wrong? What olive branch of ideology would make you more fulfilled. I dislike plenty of answers, I question a great deal of answers but unless I open my hand to listening I make no friends, I create no solace for myself but turn myself only into defining my enemies with no opportunity of finding my fiends, or giving my enemies the opportunity to become the friends I need.
You can see me as your enemy, or you can see anyone as you will to be your enemy, but in doing so you make yourself an enemy to yourself because when you deny an offer of friendship in preference of seeking out those you despise you will only find those to despise. My offer is to listen and to promote you as a friend if you wish to seek friends instead of only the enemies you at present have located in your life.
But maybe that offer makes me even more of an enemy to you. Sometimes it does.
But please if the other is your enemy, you are the one who makes them so, not the one you perceive as the enemy, it is you who perceives the others that you perceive to be your enemy. In doing so they become so. And in animosity, animosity grows and consumes you into finding no questions that could remove you from your own pain.
The last reply is unsatisfactory. I wish I had the wand to wave that could remove all of the pain society has inflicted on each other. Share your thoughts to Mr. Spangler, reach out to him, help him to find the questions he needs to ask to help him away from his own answers, void of any questions that create his own self-animosity. Admittedly I have spent a lifetime unable to suggest the right questions to Mr. Spangler to help him do so. He must remain more important than I, as long as I fail him, as democracy fails him, as our system has failed him from being able to find the questions to his own pain.