A few days ago, Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch roundly criticized a certain asymptotic analyst of Islam.
That asymptotic analyst is James K. Glassman, new under secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs. The overarching problem with Glassman is his axiomatic guideline when it comes to analyzing the danger of terrorism. In his own words:
We also should not shrink from confidently opposing poisonous ideas—even if they are rooted in a twisted interpretation of religious doctrine.
As Spencer put it:
That the jihadists are proceeding according to a "twisted interpretation" of Islam, rather than according to core and mainstream principles of the religion, is of course an iron and never-to-be-questioned dogma at State. . .
While Spencer’s analysis of Glassman’s analytical shortcomings is correct, it is interesting that at least on one level, Glassman’s asymptoticism is the same as that of the Daniel Pipes model by which our problematic threat—“Islamism”—is to be distinguished and detached from what is not only not a threat, but what he touts to be a positive solution to the problem of “Islamism”—namely, good old Islam. Spencer and Fitzgerald do not criticize this Pipes model, except in markedly mild and/or oblique manner; yet it is basically the same model as Glassman’s. (Irrespective of Glassman per se, I previously explored this general problem in Pot shots at the Pipe dream.)
Now, neither Pipes nor Glassman invented this model. There probably is no single “inventor” of this model. It is in fact the logical premise and conclusion that over the past half century or so has become prevalent and mainstream throughout the West. The premise is an axiom: Islam must be a harmless religion—for it is the ethnic religion of over a billion Third World peoples. From this axiom flows the conclusion—a conclusion that serves simply to bolster the premise: Any sociopolitical pathology that seems to be emanating out of the Islamic orbit cannot possibly be due to Islam itself—therefore the true causes and nutritive contexts of any such pathology must be located elsewhere—in economic factors, geopolitical factors, sometimes “cultural” factors unrelated to Islam, statistically accidental factors of individual psychology; etc.
In numerous essays on this blog I have analyzed this model and the Politically Correct Multi-Culturalist (PC MC) paradigm into which it fits. For brevity’s sake, its framework stands on two pillars: irrationally sentimentalist deference to non-Western non-white cultures, coupled with a morbidly excessive self-criticism of Western civilization. With this framework firmly in place as it has become throughout the West, it should be no surprise that when Islam comes along—or rather returns—to the radar of our Western awareness, it is axiomatically and apodictically accorded all the protections inherent to that PC MC paradigm and its framework.
Spencer in a more recent essay on Jihad Watch approvingly quotes, without any qualifying amendment, Ed Morrissey’s characterization of another influential analyst, Grover Norquist, as:
. . . responsible, more than any other individual, for the infiltration of Islamic supremacists into the highest levels of the U.S. government.
and:
The continuing general ignorance among conservatives of the political aspects of Islam, and of the efforts by Islamic jihadists to impose political Islam, piece by piece, over the West, can largely be attributed to the baneful influence of Norquist.
This kind of characterization only makes sense to the degree that the wider and deeper mainstream prevalence of PC MC is ignored. Without that prevalence, Norquist’s machinations would not have found the traction they have found; and so, while we may give Norquist an A+ for seditious effort, we cannot grant him anything more than an average grade for insinuating his influence into the corridors of power, for those corridors were already long since corroded by PC MC before Norquist came along to simply exploit that fact. (And while Norquist is not even an asymptotic analyst of the problem of Islam but a blatantly sinister apologist for Islam, he is able to exploit the asymptotic analysts among us like Glassman who also derive their sociopolitical traction from the mainstream dominance of PC MC.)
This Norquist article on Jihad Watch contains direct allusions to Glassman, for it was reported there that Glassman gave a lecture to influential persons—including Norquist and his Muslim wife—at the New America Foundation, and that lecture of course was a ringing endorsement and reiteration of the PC MC axiom, or “dogma” as Spencer termed it, that utterly detaches a good Islam from all bad and therefore un-Islamic things that might be seen, mistakenly (not to mentioned bigotedly), to flow from Islam.
It is ironic that, while Glassman on one level at least agrees fundamentally with Pipes about this model, his fellow traveller Norquist as reported in that article (citing Frank Gaffney) considers Pipes (and Spencer) to be among the Islam critics who are “bigots”, “haters” and “racists”. This raises the question, is this vilification among fellow asymptoticists, who all share the asymptotic model, a matter of degree? I.e., is it because Pipes is just incrementally less asymptotic that he therefore earns the vilification of Norquist, while Glassman escapes such vilification; and conversely mirror-image-wise, is it because Pipes is incrementally more asymptotic that he earns Spencer’s and Fitzgerald’s respect, while Glassman earns their formal and detailed condemnation? Our questions here are further complicated by the asymptoticism in Spencer and Fitzgerald themselves (the latter in latter days coming perilously close to jumping the asymptotic ship altogether and joining us holistic analysts).
At any rate, the needlessly complicated haze and obscurity of the Pipes dream through a Glassman darkly could be rendered refreshingly transparent—and perhaps therefore more morally clear, effectively inspirational and ultimately pragmatic—for those in the anti-jihad movement, were they to simply leave the comfort of the asymptotic model behind and embrace the holistic model. For the guiding principle of the holistic model is simply this: that the problem, and menace, is Islam itself and that this logically includes all Muslims who either actively support it or passively enable it—with no ifs, ands or buts.
Islam, the whole Islam, and nothing but Islam.
Further Reading:
Quite a few excellent analyses by Lawrence Auster of the many holes in Daniel Pipes (more holes than James Caan's corpse at the end of The Godfather or Warren Beatty's and Faye Dunaway's at the end of Bonnie & Clyde)
14 comments:
Spencer has stated that the return to Pipes' moderate Islam as opposed to current Islamism needs to be created, since none exists. There is a difference, even though neither Spencer nor Pipes belabour it.
I understand your analysis here and how you see inherent contradictions, but I maintain that you are looking to closely and trying too hard.
awake
I understand the big picture similarities and the big tent concept that you're trying to maintain, but this issue looks to me more like one about how to solve the fabled Gordian knot problem [for those who don't know, it was the intangible knot which Alexander the Great resolved by cutting it with his sword, and thereby fulfilling a prophecy that the solver of the knot would conquer the (known) world.]
Erich's solution - Islam, the whole Islam and nothing but the Islam - is the Alexandrian way of solving this problem. Pipes' issue is trying to untie the intangible parts, while pretending that there are tangible parts that aren't the problem. Spencer's approach is that the intangible parts need to be highlighted so that the inheritors of the knot will work towards making them more tangible, if not untying it altogether, as well as pointing out that the seemingly tangible parts are in fact a lot more intangible than they seem.
I simply don't see any solution where the jihad infrastucture is dismantled with Islam remaining intact. Do you think the '5 pillars' for instance, alone would be adequate to support anybody's 'spiritual' needs? I'm in much more agreement with Ali Sina, who bluntly states that only getting all Mohammedans to jettison Islam, thereby leaving it in the dustbin of history, is the soluition. Even though Ali used to aim his efforts at Mohammedans, these days, he seems to recognize that enlightening Infidels is more important, and has shifted the focus of his efforts accordingly.
Nobody(IP),
I hear you and I think we agree. The only question is how to most expeditiously arrive at the conclusion... the near complete neutering of Islam for I do not believe that it can be destroyed utterly.
Did you see the entire GoV posting today? Good stuff:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-can-we-do.html
Also, the Auster entry at VFR:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/011077.html
Enjoy.
Regards,
awake.
Awake
We agree and disagree. My point (I'll let Erich speak for himself) is that the goal should be the elimination of Islam, while at the implementation stage, practical or politically viablity will determine whether that goal can be completely or only partially achieved. But the way I read the asymptotic analysts, such as Pipes, Spencer and Glassman is that the goal itself should be the containment, rather than the evisceration of Islam. This is a subtle, but very stark difference! In other words, with the 'Purists' (for want of a better term), the goal is absolute, while the results may or may not fall short of that goal. However, with the 'Realists' (I'll use that term here if only to keep the asymptotic analysts satisfied), the goal itself is partial, and my point is that when the goal itself is incomplete, the results are likely to be even more disappointing.
I read the original proposal from Westerner, as spelt out by him in the Gates of Vienna, and agree completely with his goals, if not its complete implementation. For instance, on the question of nuking Mecca and Medina, I believe that it's a mis-application of the 80/20 rule, where 80% of the efforts go into solving 20% of the problem. For one thing, the populations of Mecca and Medina, even counting tourists during Haj, wouldn't be more than, say 10m, out of a world total of 1.3b. So if these 2 cities were nuked, it would do nothing about the Mohammedans worldwide, who may indeed react like they did to the cartoons and the movie Fitna. However, note that unlike Auster or Bodansky, I do not think it is immoral to destroy those cities, and would certainly not complain were that to ever happen. That itself is a very major difference.
My implementation of the same process would be different. For starters, instead of nuking, I'd capture Mecca & Medina, and expel all Mohammedans from there, and ban them from going there, period. That alone would heavily demoralize them, since their holiest shrines would be under infidel occupation, and while they may be angered, they'd be demoralized as well. This will take a lot less force than nuking, and at any rate, with the Saudis being militarily the paper tigers that they are, they won't be able to defend Mecca. Just expel all Mohammedans from those cities, and issue shoot at sight orders for all who dare appear. Reason I believe it'll work is that Mohammedans believe that when they destroy infidel churches, synagogues, temples, et al, that infidels would be demoralized. Just as people in the West make assumptions about Islam based on what they see in Christianity or Judaism, similarly, Mohammedans made and continue to make assumptions about Infidels based on how they themselves would react if the shoe was on the other foot. For this reason, I have in the past on JW and DW advocated 'reverse shariah', where we take shariah law, interchange Mohammedan and Infidels, and then apply them, and watch the ummah screech. For this reason, if Mecca and Medina became totally infidel cities, and the Ka'aba and the tombs of Mohammed, Abu Baqr, Aisha, Umar I and Uthman were demolished, they would be sick to their stomachs. Besides, the nukes could then be used elsewhere.
Now, lets go to the ummah that resides outside Mecca and Medina. Since >50% of the Ummah resides in the Indian subcontinent and the East Indies, start there. While I agree with the proposals to take out Iran's nukes, the same has to be done with Pakistan. It does not make sense to argue that Iran can't be a nuclear power, but Pakistan can. The way to do it is to bomb both their military and civilian nuke facilities, as well as take out their air force and command centers. The mistake a lot of people make is that since Pakistan has nukes, if Karachi was bombed, NY or LA would be bombed in response. But this is only a valid concern if the country comtemplating such an attack was India. Because while Paki missile systems would cover most of India, it wouldn't come anywhere near the US, so the US could attack Pakistan and disable them militarily like Israel did its neighbors in 1967, without risking a Paki military counter-strike on US cities. Once this was done, the goal would be to launch major attacks on Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Malaysia and make it clear that the only thing that would stop it would be these countries going Infidel. If they refused, it would be followed by nukes on their most heavily populated/major cities, such as Karachi, Dhaka, Rawalpindi, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur and a neutron bomb on Lahore (Also, India would need to be read the riot act and told in no uncertain terms that unless they ban the practice of Islam within India, they too risk a fate similar to Pakistan: even they are not likely to put the survival of their Mohammedans above their own). This threat alone would make millions of Mohammedans jettison Islam, and that population would have gone down by about 500k.
Now for the rest of the world's ummah, since they are widely dispersed, the method there would be to read the major populated countries - Egypt, Turkey, Iran, et al the riot act, and maybe even accompanied by bombing major cities, like Teheran, Cairo, in addition to taking out Iran's nuke program. As far as the gulf goes, like I suggested, seizing Mecca, Medina and Arab and Iranian oilfields would accomplish the job of de-funding, as well as demoralizing them. While it's debatable as to how many Mohammedans would jettison Islam simply given a choice, the question of how many of them would do so at the barrel of a gun is another one altogether. And here, their own taqiyya would work against them, since it'll be the Mohammedans who will be at a loss to detect the genuine apostates who would jettison Islam simply given a chance, from the fakes, who may just be practicing taquiyya.
In short, my disagreement with Westerner is more on implementation details, rather than the morality of their goals themselves. I don't agree with either Auster or GoV: if they agree with us that Islam is on the whole evil, then they don't have a leg to stand on by advocating that it's immoral (rather than impractical) to destroy Islam, nuke Mecca, threaten to massacre Mohammedans or actually do it, et al.
Now, going from what we might theoretically have done had most people agreed with us, to what we can do given the reality of the fact that most don't, is a bleak answer - not much. The biggest problem in bilad ul Kafir has been PCMC, and there really isn't a way to combat Islam without destroying PCMC (which is the real gordian knot here). I did on occasion discuss this in the past on JW with Erich himself, and we agreed that if (I)/when (Erich) we did confront Islam, it would be as a result of what Mohammedans themselves did, rather than anything we anti-Islam advocates do. I hate to sound like a pessimist, but I just don't see the evidence that the Infidel world - be it the West, Israel, India, Thailand, et al - would react to Islam. [Right now, I'm posting this from India, and as I write, there have been bombings in 2 cities, several bombs diffused in some others, and the media having a pool on which city is next on the list. For India, I believe that only a successful attack on major Indian political leaders, similar to the 2001 attack on the Indian parliament but resulting in assassinations of top political leaders from both alliances, would provoke any needed reaction, and as far as the West or Israel goes, I don't believe that even that is a threshold. Not because India is any better, but because their pols are more self centered.]
As a result, I think that Infidel opinion - both Western and Eastern - is going to be determined by the actions of the Mohammedans themselves, and not by essays from Spencer, Hugh, Raymond, Pipes, Bodansky, Auster, Erich or anyone else. So while I recommend one thing as a logical extension of my conclusions, what I actually expect is a world of difference.
Typo correction: I meant Baron Bodissey, not Bodansky. My bad!
nobody,
"if they agree with us that Islam is on the whole evil, then they don't have a leg to stand on by advocating that it's immoral (rather than impractical) to destroy Islam, nuke Mecca, threaten to massacre Mohammedans or actually do it, et al."
I would just add that more than only "evil" is required (for there are groups that are "evil" like Satanists but who don't pose massive threats to society) -- Islam passes the test of 3: it's evil, unjust and dangerous. Any given group can be any one, or any combination of two, but groups are rarely all three -- particularly with the qualifier that the danger Islam poses is massive, not merely circumscribed and local.
Otherwise, I agree largely with your overall comment, although some of your concrete speculations of tactics I might have some disagreements about.
Nobody,
I loathe Islam, as you do, and as Erich does, but the goal of completely obliterating it is not feasible for it is a belief, unless you can figure out a way to read minds and exterminate on that basis.
The solutions are varied and they differ in degree, primarily.
Erich does not condone the nuclear option, nor do I. Erich supports the separationism policy, even at a greter degree than Auster does. I do also.
Muslims in totality will not abandon Islam. It is satisfactory as an example of a supremict ideology to which some people will always aspire and subscribe to.
My issue is Erich's asymptotic versus holistic labels. I don't doubt the differentiation, but rather the overwhelming negative view of one as opposed to the other. You can condone one view over the other, as Erich does, without refuting the other outright, especially since nither model has proven to be more effective in the fight against Islam to date.
Labeling Spencer as an asymptotic analyst, without understanding the potential underlying reasons for him doing so, is shoddy analysis in my opinion.
At GoV, Erich, who explicitly does not suport the nuking of Mecca because he believes this will only incite the Mohammedans even further (to which I agree), but also because I believe that to get to that point of consideration, a stepped process through the revelation of Islam's true objective must occur (to what Erich does not agree with).
I recall a comment from a provacateur about nuking Mecca that appeared for just over an hour at JW that was used the same evening by Hooper on CNN. Spencer's higher profile makes him more dangerous to the Mohammedans than others, and with greater power comes greater responsibility.
At GoV, the discussion was seriously contemplating the nuclear option, but Erich and I don't agree. Imagine the backlash if Spencer ever put this forth and was picked up by a main news source like CNN in this climate of PC MC?
Game over for Spencer. Likewise if he were to claim that Islam is evil in totality, to which it isn't anyway, he would be relegated to the sidelines as a lunatic on the fringe.
There may come a day where the suggesting of the nuking of Mecca becomes an adopted mainstream idea, but we are nowhere even close to that reality.
Spencer's positions are maintained by him for a particular reason, and I do not think he is a closeted second-tier Dhimmi or closeted apologist for Islam in any way. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as opposed to trying to get him to bend to my explicit positions.
It is Spencer who is out in the open, yet forced to live in a secure, undisclosed location, under threats o death, not you or I, or even Erich.
On the contrary, Erich's critical writings of Spencer have drawn considerable praise from the likes of Islamists and Islamic apologists, alike.
Therein lies an important distinction.
awake wrote:
"On the contrary, Erich's critical writings of Spencer have drawn considerable praise from the likes of Islamists and Islamic apologists, alike."
He has only, in recent times past when adverting to this same complaint, named one person from each of the two categories he cites. That hardly constitutes "considerable".
And secondly, the "praise" was quickly withdrawn from those two individuals, when they realized which side I was on.
And thirdly, it wasn't "praise". They simply thought, stupidly, that my site was generally on their side. That is not "praise". The word "praise" denotes very strong support, with clapping of hands and singing hosannas. No such support was evident here from those stupid individuals who came here mistakenly thinking I was on their side against Spencer -- and they rather quickly either slinked away, or started to attack me (as with "Jim Sutter").
The person "awake" is either sloppy and obtuse with his English language (and his elementary logic), or he is consciously twisting the truth. There is no third alternative. I will be charitable and assume the former.
con·sid·er·a·ble –adjective
1. rather large or great in size, distance, extent, etc.: It cost a considerable amount. We took a considerable length of time to decide.
2. worthy of respect, attention, etc.; important; distinguished: a considerable person.
Worthy of attention, indeed. Your over-critical and personal attacks on Spencer gave those people the impression that you were on their side.
I also see that you, just like Auster does, didn't actually address any of my argument about why Spencer does what he does and how he does it. No, it was far easier to belittle my use of language and my logic and reasoning skills.
You did the very same on your last response post to CS and myself at GoV, implying that "reasonably intelligent" people would do things that I am unwilling or capable of doing.
What I am finding to be typical with you, is that you talk about non-personal disinterested objective critical analysis, yet your words are laced with insuklts and ad hominem, like they were just above.
It is unfortunate, really.
awake,
"I also see that you, just like Auster does, didn't actually address any of my argument about why Spencer does what he does and how he does it. No, it was far easier to belittle my use of language and my logic and reasoning skills."
That's because we've already hashed this out before (about how Spencer really is a holistic analyst but is just maintaining a politic impression of being an asymptotic analyst in order to avoid giving ammunition to critics who would marginalize him even more), and we disagree. Both of us have expressed our respective positions on this before. There's nothing more to be said. Your expectation that I address this again either demonstrates amnesia or a desire to repeat what we've already said more than once before (juxtaposed with a moral condemnation of me for not wanting to repeat what I've already said to you more than once before). Engaging in these kinds of sub-meta-debates is time-consuming enough, without having to repeat myself more than once.
In addition:
Your last post presented various modulations of definition for the word considerable from the dictionary. Of these modulations, you chose one, "worthy of attention".
Then in the next sentence, you clearly implied that your use of the adjective considerable was meant to modify my cumulative critiques of Spencer. However, your previous comment on this topic clearly used the adjective considerable to modify the praise expressed by the Islam apologists:
"...Erich's critical writings of Spencer have drawn considerable praise from the likes of Islamists and Islamic apologists, alike."
In the patent context of modifying the (putative) praise expressed by the Islam apologists for my critiques, then, the adjective considerable most reasonably would denote another modulation of definition from among those you adduced from the dictionary -- to wit, the modulation I have bolded from your paste of the dictionary definition:
1. rather large or great in size, distance, extent, etc.: It cost a considerable amount. We took a considerable length of time to decide.
2. worthy of respect, attention, etc.; important; distinguished: a considerable person.
Thus, the most reasonable inference to be drawn from your previous comment on this topic was that you were chiding me for eliciting a large quantity of support from a large quantity of anti-Islam apologists. That's why I pointed out that, in fact, there were only two guys, and the quantity of their support was small (the Muslim guy wrote one or two short comments before he found out I was not on his side, then vanished; while the majority of comments from Jim Sutter were attacking me once he realized I was not on his side (he even honored me, as I recall, with a place on his "Hall of Shame" blog and threats to shut me down)).
Even if your position is now that the adjective considerable modifies my critiques as being "worthy of attention", your position still flounders on the pitifully small quantity (two measly guys) whose quality of attraction to me, furthermore, was very brief once they realized I was not on their side. This kind of tiny quantity & quality is exceedingly insufficient to establish that my critiques have been considerable in the sense of being "worthy of attention" -- at least from unsavory pro-Islam ilk.
OK, we agree to disagree on Spencer. My response was to Nobody, anyway.
I don't appreciate the lessons in linguistics, especially since you speak from a position of being superior.
Two commenters out of about the ten that have posted here is approximately 20%. If we were discussing 20% of Muslims as jihadists it would certainly be considerable.
Your responses are attacks on grammar and syntax rather than substance.
I also don't appreciate the insults. They are unbecoming of you.
I made my argument to Nobody about the value of holistic versus asymptotic analysists and how neither has been proven to be noticably more effective to date, therefore leaving the suggestion for both to still be valid and worthwhile.
You didn't provide your counter-argument as to why asymptotics are inferior and should be abandoned.
I am not saying that you have to, just that you did not in this thread.
You routinely accuse me of never presenting an argument.
awake
Just to set the record straight, while I share some of Erich's criticisms of Spencer on being asymptotic on the issue of Islam, I don't share the conclusion that Spencer is 'soft' on Islam, or falls in the same category as Pipes, Glassman, et al: I agree with you that he isn't a closet dhimmi nor an apologist, although the way he sometimes papers over some objections of Islam critics leaves at least a bit to be desired. However, I do think that some of his approaches set misleading goals, as opposed to mere alternative approaches to the same. But like Erich, I think we can agree to disagree on this one.
As for the goal of obliterating Islam, my point was to make it as unfashionable and dangerous to openly profess it, so that the only ones who would harbor such sentiments would be the al Qaeda types. Today, there are a number of Nazis worldwide, but outside dar ul Islam, it's not fashionable to express pro-Nazi sentiments. That's the sort of thing I have in mind. While it's one thing to outlaw it in Western countries, it would have to be stamped out from Islamic countries with a threat of anhilation, not a mere diplomatic or even low intensity military exchange. And with the ummah, a mere threat is never adequate - it would have to be accompanied by a demonstrated willingness to do the ultimate, which is what I outlined above.
Also, while it's one thing to avoid calls for nuking Mecca, I'll state that I do have issues with those who condemn those who advocate such measures on moral as opposed to PR driven tactical grounds. I don't doubt for a moment that you, Erich, Marisol, Robert, Auster, et al are genuine about your aversion to Islam, but I do groan when I see such people condemn such calls, as opposed to simply state that it's a bad strategy. E.g. there was one occasion when I said on JW that talks of burning Qur'ans were bad strategies, rather than immoral, and it fell under Marisol's scimatar. There is a difference between condemning something as a tactic (which I can agree with) vs. condemning something on moral grounds (which I can't).
On the larger issue of holistic vs asymptotic approaches, I don't have a problem with an asymptotic approach as a tactic to enlarge the anti-Islam ranks, as long as the recognition of the problem itself is holistic. But Pipes and Glassman have an asymptotic recognition of the problem itself, while Spencer, while seeming holistic from the bulk of his work, sometimes appears to claim an asymptotic recognition (like in the 'Islam is not evil' threads that I originally pointed out to Erich on JWW). As you say, both holistic and asymptotic approaches have a place in the anti-Islamic 'jihad' (what an apt term!), but an asymptotic recognition of the issue risks leaving Islam largely unscathed, which is what I (and I believe Erich and other such critics) have an issue with.
nobody,
"I don't doubt for a moment that you, Erich, Marisol, Robert, Auster, et al are genuine about your aversion to Islam, but I do groan when I see such people condemn such calls, as opposed to simply state that it's a bad strategy."
Just for the record, I don't believe I have ever said that it's immoral to do things like bomb Mecca or burn the Koran. With bombing Mecca, I think tactical considerations militate against it until we can extract Muslims from the West and at least reduce the hold of PC MC on our culture.
As for asymptotic analysis, it seems that people like awake think there is no alternative to these two things:
1) Spencer maintains a careful presentation that helps to avoid giving his critics ammunition to make him seem like an extremist flake
or
2) Spencer stands on a rooftop with a bullhorn screaming "Islam is evil!!!"
There is a vast spectrum in between these two, including many ways for Spencer to cleverly express a holistic position without coming off as a hysterical extremist. I have offered examples before of how he could do this. It's fairly easy, and I have confidence that Spencer could do so -- in fact, he's quite good at lawyer-like slippery language. Surely he could couch his position in a way that would not provide traction for hostile critics to exploit. Or: Spencer could simply abstain from putting on the hat of Analyst -- that would be another way of avoiding the problem. Instead, he has done neither, and that's the problem I have with him, for when he dons the hat of Analyst, he has not helped matters. All this I have exhaustively demonstrated with evidence and argumentation on several essays on JWW.
Post a Comment