December 9, 2010

"Palin is still talking about how much she loves C. S. Lewis."

"What is up with this? Chunky Bobo is always talking about C. S. Lewis too. Is he the new Edmund Burke? I read a bunch of C. S. Lewis books when I was a kid and I don’t see what makes them so conservative, aside from all the Jeebus stuff."

Sayeth DougJ. For a couple of seconds, I was all "who's Chunky Bobo?" but I figured it out.

***

Here's there underlying story about Palin. (She's on Barbara Walters' "10 Most Fascinating People of 2010." Ah, but how influential is she in Madison ?)

Here's a really nice — giftable — book collecting the works of C.S. Lewis. And here's a "daily readings" collection. And here's "The Portable Edmund Burke."

74 comments:

Treacle said...

a link please on amazon to the john edwards dildo cast from his giant cock.

Fen said...

You forgot to log out your sockpuppet, "Treacle".

GMay said...

Geeze, why not put an Amazon tag on this one?

TMink said...

Wow. From C.S. Lewis, a thoughtful man of God, to Treacle.

Wow.

Trey

edutcher said...

Chunky bobo? She's neither chunky, nor bobo.

Now that's projection.

PS Treacle thinks he's Julian Assange. His rubber leaks, too.

(How dast she not genuflect at the Shrine of St Elizabeth of the Carolinas)

Fen said...

I read a bunch of C. S. Lewis books when I was a kid and I don’t see what makes them so conservative, aside from all the Jeebus stuff.

He's only thinking of the Chronicles of Narnia.

jayne_cobb said...

I can't say that I've read much of his work but he did come up with one of my favorite quotes:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Big Mike said...

Ah, but how influential is she in Madison?

If it turns out she can coach football, she'll move smartly up the top ten list.

Speaking of which, are you and Meade going to Pasadena for New Years Day?

ricpic said...

It must be mortifying for the svelte (as he sees himself) David Brooks to be "outed" as chunky. What could be worse for a beautiful person? Not a thing.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


Not to rain on this guy’s parade, but liking C S Lewis has got NOTHIN’ to do with being “Conservative.” It has EVERYTHING to do with being “Christian.” Just like “Republican” and “Conservative” are not homonyms, neither are “Christian” and “Conservative.” Palin might just being saying she liked “Narnia” and the “Screw Tape Letters.” What marginal tax rates Lewis supported are irrelevant to ones like or dislike of the Christian message of Lewis.

kent said...

""Palin is still talking about how much she loves C. S. Lewis.""

[Insert Pavlovian Leftist Frothing Here]

Sigivald said...

I'm an atheist, and I quite enjoyed reading Lewis' Apologia.

I've never read his fiction, oddly enough.

(Also, Chesterton. If Palin wants me to really respect her, she should get on a Chesterton kick.)

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


I might like the fact that Tolkien was a Christian, but I might abhor Tolkien’s political Conservatism…his “Lord of the Rings” is very, Conservative, in the Pre-Lockean, rather Burkean sense of “Conservative.” Whether the Battle of Pelennor Fields is good or bad fiction, or at least enjoyable, is very different from a discussion of Tolkien’s support for the Rule of the Good and the Wise, and his support for an Agrarian Utopia.

tim maguire said...

If you want to know how influential she is in Madison, have her come speak and see how many people show up.

rsb said...

...Here's there ?

Gabriel Hanna said...

I enjoy reading C. S. Lewis, despite not being a Christian. It is amazing to me that so many people who preen themselves on their education think that C. S. Lewis only wrote children's books.

But they also thought Sarah Palin was the stupid one for saying the Boston Tea Party was in 1773...

Hagar said...

If you go on camera with Baba Wawa, you get to talk on her level.

At that, why did Ms. Sarah do it? Walters is hardly an improvement on Katie the Anchorgirl.

c3 said...

The linked comment was an ignorant one. Before you comment, how about doing some research on who CS Lewis was and what are some of his seminal works.

This in the same vein as someone saying they were inspired by TS Eliot's writing and then a critic stating:

I don't get how the poet who's works lead to a silly Broadway musical would inspire anyone

c3 said...

And appropos our "discussion" re: Elizabeth Edwards, I would highly recommend to anyone who's suffered the loss of a deeply loved one to read A Grief Observed

(and no, I don't get any kickbacks for recommending it.)

Misty said...

I'm a big fan of C.S.Lewis (non-fiction and fiction) and it has nothing to do with politics. I even enjoyed his less known sci-fi trilogy. I also can't wait for the Dawn Treader to come out in theaters.

wv - apingo - "apingo ate your baby"

Alan said...

"I read a bunch of C. S. Lewis books when I was a kid..."

Somehow, I don't think The Abolition of Man or The Great Divorce was one of Doug J's "bunch".

paul a'barge said...

Why in the name of all that makes sense would you read anything on Balloon Juice, a sucking pit of Libtard lunacy?

Suburbanbanshee said...

Re: Tolkien, that's a ridiculous comment. LoTR is a fantasy, set in an imaginary world whose people have strange powers not shared by us, and its own history. You can't really make much of an inference of his real-world views, from that.

However, it's also pretty plain that when it comes to successful societies, the Shire is vastly more successful being a part time democracy with some gentry landowners, than Numenor or even the Elven kingdoms were, when it came to devolving into tyranny.

If you think Tolkien's all for rule by the officially Good and Wise, you obviously weren't paying attention to Saruman's fate, Galadriel's reasons for refusal, or indeed anything else in the story.

TMink said...

Banshee, I see your point, but the king archetype is by its very nature executive in function. The kingly line had abdicated the lands and given them over to lesser stewards who were overcome with hopelessness in the face of evil.

Aragorn accepted his kingly duties and performed them prior to becoming king. He faced and vanquished evil.

Given the recent British history that was certainly in Tolkien's psyche as he wrote this, it may not be neccessary to call the politics conservative, but they are at the very least Churchillian.

Are you buying it?

Trey

Jim S. said...

Lewis has some interesting short political essays in Present Concerns. Very worth the read. And here's a summary of Lewis's fiction for adults.

Alex said...

Sarah Palin reads books? Stop the presses!

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Subrubanbanshee:

If you think Tolkien's all for rule by the officially Good and Wise, you obviously weren't paying attention to Saruman's fate, Galadriel's reasons for refusal, or indeed anything else in the story.

Nobody "rules" the Shire. Hobbits have innate good sense, are somewhat curmudgeonly, have little ambition, and work just hard enough to be comfortable. There's the Mayor of Michel Delving, who presides over banquets; the Shirriffs, who deliver mail, round up stray cattle, and turn away strangers from the borders; and the Thain, who doesn't do ANYTHING, since his own family is so huge and sprawling it takes up all its time. And that's the extent of it.

The Shire orders itself, and people obey the Rules because they ARE the Rules and always have been, and they desire nothing but to left alone.

It amazes me how people misread Tolkein. It goes to show that they can't get anything out of what they read but what they insist on putting in. And so we have endless accusations of racism and sexism, because these people are so chained to the present they can't read anything in the spirit in which it was written.

As Larry Niven said, there is a technical term for those who attribute the views of the author's characters to the views of the author: idiot.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Sorry, Suburbanbanshee, Tolkien is a hopeless Conservative…please note it is the Good and Wise who decide what needs to be done, and then do it. They don’t enlist anyone, they don’t debate with anyone.
Who has Technology, the Bad Guyz…the Shire is an idyllic little agrarian Utopia, spoiled by Sandyman’s Mill and belching smoke. Tolkien is a Conservative, opposed to Modernity, associating things “modern” with the Orcs and the like. Having read the Quadrilogy about 10 times, I’d stack my knowledge of the work against yours.
Galadriel turns down the One Ring, not because she’s some kind of democrat, but because she realizes its seductive power to corrupt her. Were it not the work of Sauron, she MIGHT have accepted it.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
As Larry Niven said, there is a technical term for those who attribute the views of the author's characters to the views of the author: idiot.
No, not always, SOMETIMES the views of the AUTHOR are in the characters…Piers Anthony presents his view of the soul in several of his works, via characters. Certainly, CS Lewis is making an argument for or against things, with his characters in Narnia or the Space series. It’s funny, you should mention Niven, as his co-author, Pournelle is D@mned near a F@scist, read any of Pournelle’s works and discover a disdain for democracy, a reverence for the military, and a desire for oligarchal rule.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Joe:

It’s funny, you should mention Niven, as his co-author, Pournelle is D@mned near a F@scist, read any of Pournelle’s works and discover a disdain for democracy, a reverence for the military, and a desire for oligarchal rule.

I have read Jerry Pournelle for many years, and he is no way, shape, or form a fascist. He is a conservative libertarian. If you want to know what he thinks read his blog, as I do daily, instead of extrapolating from his stories what you choose to put in there.

Larry Niven was talking about YOU.

Beth said...

You can follow CS Lewis Daily on twitter: http://twitter.com/CSLewisDaily

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
I have read Jerry Pournelle for many years, and he is no way, shape, or form a fascist. He is a conservative libertarian. If you want to know what he thinks read his blog, as I do daily, instead of extrapolating from his stories what you choose to put in there.

Larry Niven was talking about YOU.

I guess he was, but sadly you and he are wrong, I’m NOT an idiot and yes, authors ARE expressing their views thru characters. And yes, Pournelle is d@mn near a fascist…
Find ONE decent democratic leader in his Condominium Series…I’ll wait. Who saves the Human Race, ADMIRAL LERMONTOV and the Condominium Space Navy, and John Christian Falkenberg. What replaces the CoDo, why the Empire of Man, with an Emperor….and Nobles….Sure his little utopia is Sparta, but it’s ruled by Kings. You don’t want to argue Pournelle with me either, I’ve read a lot of his, fiction-wise. Beyond being d@mn-near a f@scist, he can’t finish a series, which is also galling…

No one likes “Christian Johnny” and his Sergeant-Major more than me. I like all his works, just Like I liked LoTR, but that doesn’t mean that the political philosophy espoused by the author’s can’t be easily seen and discussed, for what it is. In Tolkien’s and Pournelle, an Anti-Modernism, that looks askance at the current political scene.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Joe:

Three words you will find continually used by Jerry Pournelle on his blog:

transparency
subsidiarity
Republic

The man is not shy about his opinions. You don't have analyze the characters and plots in his books. You might as well say Anne Rice thinks we should be vampires as say that Pournelle thinks we should be ruled by soldiers and kings.

Again, Larry Niven is talking about YOU.


Here's some of yesterdays, arguing that Wikileaks is protected by the First Amendment. Some fascist.

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/2010/Q4/view652.html

One thing is certain: The Wikileakers certainly qualify as "press" within the meaning of the constitution. Make no mistake about that. What the Framers intended by "press" was pamphleteers, people like Franklin with a printing press in the basement, or Tom Paine, or -- in other words, they did not mean the organized press, newspapers, magazines, and the like: they meant people writing pamphlets and distributing them. Freedom of the Press shall not be infringed.

You might also look up the episode in American history regarding the Alien and Sedition Acts, and the Genet Affair. We used to get those in 6th Grade but our public schools are much improved now, and it's more important to have diversified social studies or whatever they teach instead of American History now.

It's time for lunch. More later. We also need to discuss the obesity blame game and insurance: obesity complications account for roughly 10% of America's health care costs. Think of ways to prevent this. Time for lunch.

===================

We're all still a bit under the weather so I got less done than I intended.

The Wikileaks action remains complex. There is certainly no question of the liability of those who stole the documents and passed them to Wikileaks; but it is a much more complicated situation with regards to the Wikileaks organization and staff. They are journalists under any reasonable definition; Wikileaks is a "press" within the meaning of the First Amendment.

Revenant said...

The Narnia books were good, with the exception of "The Horse and His Boy" and "The Last Battle". He kind of crossed the line from storytelling to preaching with those two.

The space trilogy had a similar problem, starting out as an interesting religious science fiction story in "Out of the Silent Planet" and descending into heavy-handed messaging in the latter two.

His apologetics are better. Like Ayn Rand, he's better when he doesn't blur the line between telling a story and making an argument.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Revenant:

See "Auld Hornie, FRS" by J. B. S. Haldane for a good reaction to the Perelandra trilogy--though somewhat spoiled by Haldane's dangerous naivete regarding the Soviet Union.

ricpic said...

What is this thread -- Nerds 'R Us?

Gabriel Hanna said...

@ricpic:

What is this thread -- Nerds 'R Us?

It is now. It will likely stay that way unless Herself has a problem with it.

tim maguire said...

Interesting all this talk about the Shire without reference to the fact that the Hobbits slept peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men and elves stood ready to do violence on their behalf.

Revenant said...

The kingly line had abdicated the lands and given them over to lesser stewards who were overcome with hopelessness in the face of evil.

That's not the correct interpretation of what happened to Denethor.

A theme running through the Middle Earth books is that everybody is vulnerable to the corrupting influence of evil, manifested as Morgoth and his followers (e.g. Sauron). Time and again, powerful men and women become convinced that they are mighty enough to withstand it, and without exception they are corrupted or killed. That's what happened to Denethor.

It isn't a question of the stewards being "lesser". The same thing happened to Saruman (who was the Tolkien equivalent of an lesser angel), to Isildur (a king, and Aragorn's ancestor) and to numerous other characters. That's why it is significant that the Ring was ultimately destroyed by a halfling of no significant power or lineage.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

You might as well say Anne Rice thinks we should be vampires as say that Pournelle thinks we should be ruled by soldiers and kings.


But he does say it, continually...he and SM Sirling...

Revenant said...

Find ONE decent democratic leader in his Condominium Series

It is funny how many people encounter disdain for democratic rule in libertarian writing and assume it is the "democratic" bit that bothers the author, rather than the "rule" bit.

Most would-be rulers, elected or otherwise, are worthless bastards.

Treacle said...

edutcher: "Treacle thinks he's Julian Assange. His rubber leaks, too"

me: i don't wear condoms. skin on skin for me.

Kirk Parker said...

DougJ clearly never understood a word of what he read back then, apparently. Not conservative? Abolition of Man?? That Hideous Strength??? NOT conservative?????

Revenant said...

And yes, Pournelle is d@mn near a fascist…

You should form a club with AlphaLiberal, Seven Machos, and the other Althousians who don't know what the word "fascist" means.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Joe:

But he does say it, continually...he and SM Sirling...

How much of his blogging on current events do I need to quote?

This is not the way a Republic acts. Our previous attempts to deal with people like Ghailani were not all that reassuring, but at least they did have the merit that when the detainees are no longer dangerous, they can be released. Ghaliani was acquitted of being a mastermind but was convicted of somehow being involved: now he faces twenty years to life, which I suspect is about the same result that would have been obtained had he been convicted on all counts.

The Administration seems determined to establish its control over everything according to policy, not to law. While making life difficult for the troops who have to fight the war, the Administration is determined to give more and more power to Federal Officers over American citizens, making certain these uppity citizens understand they are not subjects and all potential terrorists. The TSA says so.


Seriously, go read what the man SAYS FOR HIMSELF his opinions are, and shut up until you did so.

Why is it impossible for you to grasp that he writes about soldiers and kings and wars because they make for good stories? Jesus Christ.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Joe:

More of Pournelle's "fascism":

I find the recent furor a bit inexplicable: we agreed long ago to allow these collaborators to treat us as subjects, not citizens, and even when the insanity led to the attempted confiscation of a retired general's Medal of Honor as a possible dangerous weapon. We didn't abolish this Gomer Gestapo then. We didn't treat TSA agents -- all of them -- as we would treat collaborators with an occupying power. We accepted it as if this would somehow make us safer. We still accept TSA agents as patriots, not quislings. Of course Vidkung Quisling believed he was a patriot, and one supposes that Marshal Petain thought he was working for the good of France.

Of course there is no end to what powers the TSA needs in order to make us safe so long as it tries to intercept objects rather than terrorists. On the other hand, we haven't looked at all at the implications of installing "real security" of the kind used by Israel's Shin Bet and the former Bureau of State Security of the Republic of South Africa. Those are not without costs either.

All of which is to say: Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free. But many of us have known this for a long time.


You have proved Larry Niven's point. At any time you could have read the man's own opinions expressed by himself, but instead you decided to read tea leaves in his FICTION.

And you're DOUBLING DOWN ON IT!

Kirk Parker said...

Rev, your 2:22 comment is priceless. I'm going to be quoting that in in the future, if you don't mind.

Revenant said...

"That Hideous Strength" isn't conservative so much as it is just embarrassing.

Revenant said...

Thanks, Kirk.

Chip Ahoy said...

Robert Sabuda's pop-up version of the Chronicles of Narnia is a must for every serious collector. It is a perfect Christmas gift for kids of all ages. Be sure to use the Amazon search box provided on the front page.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Were you saying something Gabriel, because IF, as most folks don’t, you don’t read his Blog, but you only read his fiction, the thing for which he is FAMOUS, well you come to the exact opposite conclusion….I’ve read the fiction, YOU read the blog.

But I tell you what, you ask most folks about Pournelle, it ain’t going be his blog postings they know…and I suspect that Niven, wrote what he wrote, so people wouldn’t accost him about Pounrnelle’s F@scism...

Again is Niven a F@scist no, heck I don’t think Pournelle is, I just think he is over-enamoured of an authoritarian vision of the future…oh and BTW, you might want to contact Wiki, because well they discuss Pournelle AND Heinlein’s views of society, FROM THEIR FICTION. Run on over there and you just quote them Larry Niven, why don’t you?

People write fiction to advance world views…if they just wanted to tell you what was best they’d write for the NYT. Mayhap you’ll next explain that Dickens wasn’t saying anything about Industrialization and Humanity in his works…..

blake said...

I still don't get it: Chunky Bobo?

Is there a particular Bobo he has in mind who is chunky? Uh...Rush?

Chip Ahoy said...

Joe, it is true, authors do write fiction to advance world views, but often in opposite speak so that the readers form their own opinions about how bad or ridiculous things can be when fully imaginatively developed. I am convinced many authors intend to be read this way.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Joe:

Who knows what Pournelle thinks better: he himself, or idiots like you who engage in armchair psychoanalysis of fiction? He can tell you himself why he writes what he writes, but oh no--you and another passel of idiots know better.

Keep digging, you're bound to get out of the hole eventually.

Methadras said...

BoBo'a are basically the new generation of Yuppies. Big whoop.

bgates said...

I don’t see what makes them so conservative

Well, there's this, from "The Last Battle":

"No, no, no," howled the Beasts. "It can't be true. Aslan would never sell us into slavery to the King of Calormen."

"None of that! Hold your noise!" said the Ape with a snarl. "Who said anything about slavery? You won't be slaves. You'll be paid - very good wages too. That is to say, your pay will be paid into Aslan's treasury and he will use it all for everybody's good." Then he glanced, and almost winked, at the chief Calormene. The Calormene bowed and replied, in the pompous Calormene way:

"Most sapient Mouthpiece of Aslan, The Tisroc (may he-live-forever) is wholly of one mind with your lordship in this judicious plan."

"There! You see!" said the Ape. "It's all arranged. And all for your own good. We'll be able, with the money you earn, to make Narnia a country worth living in. There'll be oranges and bananas pouring in - and roads and big cities and schools and offices and whips and muzzles and saddles and cages and kennels and prisons - Oh, everything."

"But we don't want all those things," said an old Bear. "We want to be free. And we want to hear Aslan speak himself."

"Now don't you start arguing," said the Ape, "for it's a thing I won't stand. I'm a Man: you're only a fat, stupid old Bear. What do you know about freedom? You think freedom means doing what you like. Well, you're wrong. That isn't true freedom. True freedom means doing what I tell you."

"H-n-n-h," grunted the Bear and scratched its head; it found this sort of thing hard to understand.

Drew said...

Yep, my guess is DougJ thinks that Lewis wrote Narnia and . . . that's about it. I invite DougJ to attempt "The Abolition of Man" or "The Problem of Pain," . . . or heck, if he wants fiction, try "Till We Have Faces."

It might be futile, though. "You can lead a lefty to Lewis, but you can't make him think."

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Joe, it is true, authors do write fiction to advance world views, but often in opposite speak so that the readers form their own opinions about how bad or ridiculous things can be when fully imaginatively developed. I am convinced many authors intend to be read this way.
I would agree, HOWEVER, when the bulk of an author’s heroes are military authoritarians and the bulk of its feckless and corrupt are politicians, thru time, I tend to get the idea that the author is “saying something.” That various protagonists may advance various world views within a work goes without saying, but when Pournelle or Ayn Rand write it’s pretty obvious who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.

Oh there’s another one Gabriel, trot on over to the Objectivists and tell them that just because Ayn Rand wrote the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, in a certain way, by no means demonstrates her support or opposition to John Galt or Howard Roark. Or Heinlein’s Starship Troopers, please tell me that Heinlein wasn’t laying out an anti-Marxist and somewhat libertarian Utopia there, Gabriel. Or in poetry, Gabriel, “Captain My Captain” it’s NOT about Abraham Lincoln…Or TS Eliot’s the Wasteland, or the Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock….Antigone is simply a story about a burial gone wrong, and Sophocles wasn’t saying anything in that or Oedipus Rex….The more I think on Niven’s statement the goofier it gets. He should probably just stick with the hard Science Fiction, or the Man-Kzin Wars and leave it at that.

Kirk Parker said...

Gabriel,

Oh, stop distracting us with the facts! :-)

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Joe:

I tend to get the idea that the author is “saying something.

The reason you are an idiot, Joe, is that you do not consider that there are ARTISTIC reasons for what writers write.

Jerry Pournelle writes extensively on what his views on government and society are. You have chose to IGNORE that, and attribute to him entirely different views which HE HIMSELF DENIES HOLDING based on his fiction.

Ayn Rand, however, explicitly told people that her novels reflected the ethics and opinions she personally held. Ayn Rand would shout them at you even if you put your hands over your ears--it was no mystery that had to be dug up by literary psychoanalysis.

Again, Larry Niven is specifically talking about you.

Revenant said...

Gabriel,

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Revenant:

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I defer to your wisdom, sir. Others will read what I have written, what Joe has written, and what Jerry Pournelle says about what he has written, and draw their own conclusions.

Wrestling with a pig gets you muddy and doesn't bother the pig any...

Gabriel Hanna said...

I leave you with a little more from that "fascist" Pournelle:

Bastiat said long ago that you can have a society in which the few plunder the many (which is eventually what all societies become), the many plunder the few (which is unstable but obviously popular), everybody plunders everybody (which is what we have developed from the Old Republic), and nobody plunders anybody. The latter was what he favored, and is in theory the goal of the Libertarians, but it is a difficult state to achieve. In part because that's because we don't really agree on plunder, and we don't really agree on what services government ought to provide. I thought of an example of that while on my walk this morning: a young mother was getting her small child into the car. The amount of equipment it takes legally to transport a small child is astonishing. All my children grew up in an era in which seat belts were an option available on a new car for a price, and car seats didn't exist at all. They survived. Is it freedom or irresponsibility to allow parents to drive children without a federally approved car seat? Is enforcing that restriction a legitimate act of government? I suspect there would be wide disagreement on this even among the Tea Party people.

[Aside: to me, the answer to most of that is obvious: leave it to the States. Get the Federal government out of that business, and dismiss the federal employees involved in enforcement. If California and Rhode Island want that kind of protection for children being transported, let them do that, and let them pay for it. And if it is contended that it's much more efficient to centralize all this (and will make it much easier as well as more lucrative for manufacturers) let us have a real national debate on the whole concept of what the federal government is for (other than for paying federal workers) and what it is not for. But then my view is that transparency and subsidiarity are among the most important principles of real conservatism. ]

Europe abandoned the two-party system long ago. The result has been socialism and bureaucracy. Multi-party systems are not the answer. For a very long time the Republic was stable. A two party system was key to that, and in my judgment is important for a return to the Old Republic.


Yeah, sounds like a real fascist.

c3 said...

It will likely stay that way unless Herself has a problem with it.

If she offers you turkish delight don't eat it.

Pogo said...

Is C. S. Lewis the new Edmund Burke?

No, but for DougJ, ignorant is the new black.

traditionalguy said...

Lewis is the favorite author for quotes among the better educated Christians. It seems that Cambridge at Oxford has produced some great Christian teacher/writers. It is Anglican based and therefore students attend services where scriptures are read many times a week. Another famous Oxford Professor who became a Christian author is named Derek Prince. I suspect that Palin needs to temper the accusations that her brand of Christianity is a weird redneck faith. By bringing in C. S. Lewis, she can remain a Christian in the eyes of the weird rednecks while she is associated with a very well educated thinker.

MamaM said...

Most would-be rulers, elected or otherwise, are worthless bastards.

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

If not experience, then unsubstantiated generalities based on experience or knowledge gained from the experiences of others.

Kirk Parker said...

Derek Prince was an Ox Prof? I did not know that...

Bruce Hayden said...

Again is Niven a F@scist no, heck I don’t think Pournelle is, I just think he is over-enamoured of an authoritarian vision of the future…oh and BTW, you might want to contact Wiki, because well they discuss Pournelle AND Heinlein’s views of society, FROM THEIR FICTION. Run on over there and you just quote them Larry Niven, why don’t you?

If you think that "fascist" means authoritarian, then how about "Marxist" or "Leninist"? As Hayek pointed out almost 70 years ago, these economic philosophies share authoritarianism because they share socialism, i.e. authoritarianism is the natural result and consequence of socialism.

I will admit that the authoritarianism of the fascists is a bit less onerous than that of the Marxists, and, in particular, the Leninists and Maoists. And, that may be because their vision of a crony capitalist version of socialism is a bit less onerous.

I have long wondered why authoritarian regimes are considered fascist and thus right wing, when the reality is that communist versions of socialism are even more authoritarian. Could it be because communism is sexy and attractive to those on the left, while fascism is less so? And possibly because of the fight between those different views of socialism in the 1930s into the 1940s? And that communism is still acceptable to the academy despite its horrific death toll throughout the 20th Century? Or that the Holocaust prevents Jewish intellectuals from supporting fascism over communism?

Joe said...

Lewis is very quotable, but I find his logical arguments weak.

opfor311 said...

If you are interested in C.S. Lewis' view of his own life, you need to read 'Surprised By Joy' and 'The Pilgrim's Regress'. It would also be good to read George MacDonald, since it was what Lewis found there that turned his life around.

wv: leaketk - what causeth thee to call the plumber.

traditionalguy said...

Kirk...I Googled Prince and correct the statement that he was a Professor...he held a teaching fellowship in Philosophy at Kings College, Cambridge where he had graduated with honors.That was interrupted by WWII for service with the Army in North Africa. After the War when he returned, the old job and career path was offered to him again, but he turned it down.

Kirk Parker said...

Teaching fellowship? That's still not chopped liver.

happyvalleynews said...

I believe that Chunky Bobo is Ross Douthat. 'Chunky' because of some comment he made a ways back about making out with a "chunky Reese Witherspoon" (and because he's an endomorph) and 'Bobo' because he is a poor man's David Brooks.