To be honest, I was also somewhat put off by the accumulation of explicitly mentioning other analysts, authors, and personalities by name in such a negative way in your articles. I am not fundamentally uncritical toward content when it comes to an author's image and popularity. Either something meets with my approval, or I arrive at a differing view on other points. But you don't need to engage in ad hominem attacks. Simply quote from a source and refute it with your own arguments. That is sufficient.
My point of view was rather different from Dr. Bob. I provide factual information about the meaning of "kitsch" and it use, with factual references -- since S's "facts" about the meaning of kitsch and its social usage was misleading. Dr. Bob provided factual information about A American history. I also provided factual reference to prove that S's view of American history is actually "kitschified". I attacked S's writing as presentation since he is a public figure. I did not attack him personally. Of course, nobody knows who he is or his background or qualifications. I realized later, of course, that this kind of analysis might be taken as "ad hominem" so I wrote to him to about that --personally -- as I did with Larry Johnson.
You are absolutely right about ad hominem attacks. But you will notice that I try to grant respect to the person, just not to their views or presentation as public figures. I think there is a difference between "person" and "persona". But I probably went too far. Mea culpa, Which is why I contacted Simplicius and Larry Johnson directly, expressing my respect for them.
All my life, many people have had problems with me because I always only say and write what I think and because my thoughts know no boundaries. My thoughts cannot be locked up even by me, and therefore I can also think about the unthinkable, which for most people is usually taboo. .... And my feeling told me that you are exactly the same by nature. Such people attract me because I can gain something for myself from their mental expeditions. Let's call that: "Aha, wow, yes of course, etc." I believe the first article I read by you was: "The Tao of Vladimir Putin". Great article and unconventional at the time.
Many very well-known people earn ten thousand or even several tens of thousands of dollars a month with YouTube and Spotify. I do not claim that this is the motivation of any of the persons mentioned. I also do not claim that it is about vanity with any of the persons mentioned.
I just want to point out to all readers to think critically about everything that is said or written by anyone on the net, to attempt to refute the points mentioned, and depending on the result, to arrive at a PROVISIONAL result. If one moves mentally only in a bubble or a tunnel, one often never gets out of it again.
But my criticism, or rather my unease, was that you occupied yourself too much with the persons. It is something different to try to refute their statements critically with facts and arguments. Quote – claim – fact – argument – different result. Not to occupy oneself with the authors themselves at all.
Otherwise, I will also wait for interesting and exciting articles from you in the future.
Simplicius used to comment on (the departed blog) Seker as Nighthawk. He had great operational analysis of military operations in detail and with great timeliness. I was among his earliest substack subscribers. As he has moved to a publish or perish mentality the overall quality has declined. I'm happy for his success but pine for the fiords, I mean the older, more insightful material.
The problem with your article about Simplicius wasn't that it was wrong; it was that it was trivial. His post that you criticized was a waste of time, and yours was too. He would be crazy to respond to your suggestion that he respond - it could only create a pointless argument and fragment his readership. You're looking a lot like an opportunist in all of this.
An opportunist? How could I gain from this? In criticizing major figures, I know I will get a lot of criticism and inevitably lose supporters. I thought his article was wrong - -but not trivial because his point of view is shared by a lot of people. The belief in American "greatness" is one of those grand delusions that provides a background for war and death and exploitation. IMO. Trump will go -- and be replaced by a Democrat, and will be same old, same old.Death and destruction.
Since you ask… you are inviting Simplicius to bring the attention of however many subscribers to your page, and I note that you did the same thing with Larry Johnson. They’d be putting your name and calling your views to the attention of hundreds of thousands (I guess) of people. Some of those people might take your side, though I think you miscalculated on this one.
I imagine you lost a few supporters with your post as it was (I did suggest you should delete it, though, so you can’t blame me), though it wasn’t the disagreement so much as the tone that most of the commenters objected to as far as I could tell. From an opportunistic viewpoint, you could have risked that loss against a fractional gain of hundreds of thousands of new viewers brought to you by Simplicius or Johnson and hoped to come out far ahead.
The nature of kitsch and an argument about American greatness or lack of same were trivial for you in the same ways they were for Simplicius - he was just posing, and whether America is great or ever has been is purely an academic discussion where, as you say, there is no politically significant disagreement. US policy won’t change whether people agree Trump is a buffoon or not. It will be, as you said, the same old death and destruction.
There are more serious disagreements you could have with Simplicius where you could voice a different opinion on a significant issue and legitimately win over subscribers or change minds. You might weigh in on tonight's post by Simplicius, for example, although you’ll see that divergence from consensus opinion is not exactly popular. And of course I don’t know whether you will diverge from the consensus view, either, though I hope so. He got over 600 comments, almost all of them favorable, for the piece of drivel you attacked.
I admire your Substack because you have few "sacred cows" and oftentimes highlight the fallacies by some in the alt-media. But as a former left-wing radical it is my experience there is a thin line between constructive criticism and the promotion of factionalism and disunity. I have observed too many progressive movements self-destruct because of divisions promoted by elements who focus on what divides arather than what unites. So I support @heikomr advising against the "accumulation of explicitly mentioning other analysts, authors, and personalities by name in such a negative way in your articles." We need to emphasize unity to make a dent against the western dominance of the information sphere; propagandizing our population to support more war and bloodshed between the nations so the the 1% can have worldwide domination and control of the world resources which would otherwise be used to benefit all of us in North nd South.
See my reply to Heikomar. Western dominance of the information sphere is based on this concept of "unity". It is a binary system, like the Two Party System. What we need are facts and debate. Otherwise, the Alternative Media are not 'alternative"-- just following the system used by the MSM. In any case, I have contacted both Larry and Simplicius indicating my personal respect for their efforts and offering them the opportunity to refute me.
I really have to make it clear here that I make mistakes too. The other day I swatted an innocent little fly because I thought it was a mosquito. One moment of inattention and another innocent creature crushed. And of course, it was just an attempt to kill a bloodthirsty, aggressive monster... But that's an excuse; you're not allowed to make yourself a murderer, are you?
Simplicius used to write Dark Futura as well (maybe he still does) in which he would indulge in his most pedantic and snob trains of thoughts about "the universe". This last Garden of Knowledge feels like so. Calling him out might actually be useful so we get more of the other stuff instead of that. Weaving strings of big words together and present it as analysis grows old real fast.
Your commentary on Simpliticus resembles jealousy or envy. I commend you on the pieces which are your original thinking but harpooning another sincere and honest writer for his thoughts resembles yellow journalism. DZ
Simplicius is a public figure. Nobody knows who he/ she, it, they is/ are. Nor their qualifications of background. When public figures speak they must expect criticism. I pointed out facts. I did not attack the person, just their presentation.
If you can't criticize a friend - he's just an acquaintance - honest dialogue is almost extinct. If anyone wants more - www.crushlimbraw.com - start here....but be prepared for DaLongHaul - short hauls are as useless as tits on a bull!
I think people take dr Bob's thoughts as your own, many times folks do the same on Larry's blog if he posts the work of others.
I didnt take it as you were attacking the person, however, many people love drama and are easily offended, I would e more explicit about Dr Bob being someone else when posting for those that cant always pick up on that.
And further because we live in an age of outrage, maybe just ponder the idea without mentioning the author or source though im sure some will complain about that as well.
As far as being called an opportunist, remember the four fingers pointing back when your pointing out someone else's issues or when someone is pointing out yours.
This does go for you and what you've said as well.
I think many of us are sorely lacking in self reflection, that said, you, much like myself have high standards for your own workmanship and criticise yourself freely when you see your own shortcomings.
Much respect for all you do and dont let the bitching get you down, we all have our mistakes and it's seeing them in ourselves that is hardest.
Thanks again for your perspective and daily musings,
You have every right to your opinions and view points and so does Dr Bob.
Youll never make everyone happy so do what makes you happy and those that aren't can be damned.
The US was never as great as Americans believed it to be. As a State it has been slowest of all developed nations to end slavery, give women voting rights and is still almost Third World in terms of its treatment of workers and worker rights and conditions.
What makes a country great is being a great place to live and the US always was for the rich and middle class, which floated on a huge pool of desperate and poor citizens.
Now that the middle class has also been eroded significantly and the US has the highest rates of poverty of any Western nation, some of it Third World, the truth is becoming clear to more Americans. not a lot given the insular nature of the society, the high levels of brainwashing and the poor education system for ordinary Americans.
The US was founded in myth and has functioned in myth. Americans like to believe they are best at everything and while they have thrown up some great achievers, no more so than many others and less than some.
Americans believe they won WWII when they did not, the Russians turned the tide.
They believe they fight for justice and freedom when they do not and have been waging war since they invented themselves to deny justice and freedom to otheres.
They believe that Americans have it better than everyone else when Americans on average have the poorest quality of life in the developed world, the poorest wages, the least worker rights and poorest conditions, the worst universal education system, the least functional universal health care and the most corruption in their political system and Governments of any Western nation.
But we humans find it harder to give up our myths, dreams and stories than any reality and more so when the reality is brutally unpleasant and painful.
I won't quibble - that's entirely possible. I was simply going from memory, which is always subject to incremental error. He was very insightful in the posts I read on Saker's blog.
To be honest, I was also somewhat put off by the accumulation of explicitly mentioning other analysts, authors, and personalities by name in such a negative way in your articles. I am not fundamentally uncritical toward content when it comes to an author's image and popularity. Either something meets with my approval, or I arrive at a differing view on other points. But you don't need to engage in ad hominem attacks. Simply quote from a source and refute it with your own arguments. That is sufficient.
My point of view was rather different from Dr. Bob. I provide factual information about the meaning of "kitsch" and it use, with factual references -- since S's "facts" about the meaning of kitsch and its social usage was misleading. Dr. Bob provided factual information about A American history. I also provided factual reference to prove that S's view of American history is actually "kitschified". I attacked S's writing as presentation since he is a public figure. I did not attack him personally. Of course, nobody knows who he is or his background or qualifications. I realized later, of course, that this kind of analysis might be taken as "ad hominem" so I wrote to him to about that --personally -- as I did with Larry Johnson.
You are absolutely right about ad hominem attacks. But you will notice that I try to grant respect to the person, just not to their views or presentation as public figures. I think there is a difference between "person" and "persona". But I probably went too far. Mea culpa, Which is why I contacted Simplicius and Larry Johnson directly, expressing my respect for them.
All my life, many people have had problems with me because I always only say and write what I think and because my thoughts know no boundaries. My thoughts cannot be locked up even by me, and therefore I can also think about the unthinkable, which for most people is usually taboo. .... And my feeling told me that you are exactly the same by nature. Such people attract me because I can gain something for myself from their mental expeditions. Let's call that: "Aha, wow, yes of course, etc." I believe the first article I read by you was: "The Tao of Vladimir Putin". Great article and unconventional at the time.
Many very well-known people earn ten thousand or even several tens of thousands of dollars a month with YouTube and Spotify. I do not claim that this is the motivation of any of the persons mentioned. I also do not claim that it is about vanity with any of the persons mentioned.
I just want to point out to all readers to think critically about everything that is said or written by anyone on the net, to attempt to refute the points mentioned, and depending on the result, to arrive at a PROVISIONAL result. If one moves mentally only in a bubble or a tunnel, one often never gets out of it again.
But my criticism, or rather my unease, was that you occupied yourself too much with the persons. It is something different to try to refute their statements critically with facts and arguments. Quote – claim – fact – argument – different result. Not to occupy oneself with the authors themselves at all.
Otherwise, I will also wait for interesting and exciting articles from you in the future.
Simplicius used to comment on (the departed blog) Seker as Nighthawk. He had great operational analysis of military operations in detail and with great timeliness. I was among his earliest substack subscribers. As he has moved to a publish or perish mentality the overall quality has declined. I'm happy for his success but pine for the fiords, I mean the older, more insightful material.
The problem with your article about Simplicius wasn't that it was wrong; it was that it was trivial. His post that you criticized was a waste of time, and yours was too. He would be crazy to respond to your suggestion that he respond - it could only create a pointless argument and fragment his readership. You're looking a lot like an opportunist in all of this.
An opportunist? How could I gain from this? In criticizing major figures, I know I will get a lot of criticism and inevitably lose supporters. I thought his article was wrong - -but not trivial because his point of view is shared by a lot of people. The belief in American "greatness" is one of those grand delusions that provides a background for war and death and exploitation. IMO. Trump will go -- and be replaced by a Democrat, and will be same old, same old.Death and destruction.
Since you ask… you are inviting Simplicius to bring the attention of however many subscribers to your page, and I note that you did the same thing with Larry Johnson. They’d be putting your name and calling your views to the attention of hundreds of thousands (I guess) of people. Some of those people might take your side, though I think you miscalculated on this one.
I imagine you lost a few supporters with your post as it was (I did suggest you should delete it, though, so you can’t blame me), though it wasn’t the disagreement so much as the tone that most of the commenters objected to as far as I could tell. From an opportunistic viewpoint, you could have risked that loss against a fractional gain of hundreds of thousands of new viewers brought to you by Simplicius or Johnson and hoped to come out far ahead.
The nature of kitsch and an argument about American greatness or lack of same were trivial for you in the same ways they were for Simplicius - he was just posing, and whether America is great or ever has been is purely an academic discussion where, as you say, there is no politically significant disagreement. US policy won’t change whether people agree Trump is a buffoon or not. It will be, as you said, the same old death and destruction.
There are more serious disagreements you could have with Simplicius where you could voice a different opinion on a significant issue and legitimately win over subscribers or change minds. You might weigh in on tonight's post by Simplicius, for example, although you’ll see that divergence from consensus opinion is not exactly popular. And of course I don’t know whether you will diverge from the consensus view, either, though I hope so. He got over 600 comments, almost all of them favorable, for the piece of drivel you attacked.
I admire your Substack because you have few "sacred cows" and oftentimes highlight the fallacies by some in the alt-media. But as a former left-wing radical it is my experience there is a thin line between constructive criticism and the promotion of factionalism and disunity. I have observed too many progressive movements self-destruct because of divisions promoted by elements who focus on what divides arather than what unites. So I support @heikomr advising against the "accumulation of explicitly mentioning other analysts, authors, and personalities by name in such a negative way in your articles." We need to emphasize unity to make a dent against the western dominance of the information sphere; propagandizing our population to support more war and bloodshed between the nations so the the 1% can have worldwide domination and control of the world resources which would otherwise be used to benefit all of us in North nd South.
See my reply to Heikomar. Western dominance of the information sphere is based on this concept of "unity". It is a binary system, like the Two Party System. What we need are facts and debate. Otherwise, the Alternative Media are not 'alternative"-- just following the system used by the MSM. In any case, I have contacted both Larry and Simplicius indicating my personal respect for their efforts and offering them the opportunity to refute me.
Thanks Julian... Impressive !
I really have to make it clear here that I make mistakes too. The other day I swatted an innocent little fly because I thought it was a mosquito. One moment of inattention and another innocent creature crushed. And of course, it was just an attempt to kill a bloodthirsty, aggressive monster... But that's an excuse; you're not allowed to make yourself a murderer, are you?
Just saying,
Cassandra
I suggest putting out a jar of honey to show regret and feed the flies.
Yes !! It works !
->https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQPqtuCLCZAztVixY7_LsRKOwhXveIzom9j35rQPa5qAg&s=10
Cassandra
"When the rich make war, it’s the poor that die."
– Jean-Paul Sartre
***
The ONLY real divide is CLASS divide.
No struggle but class struggle, no war but CLASS war
Simplicius used to write Dark Futura as well (maybe he still does) in which he would indulge in his most pedantic and snob trains of thoughts about "the universe". This last Garden of Knowledge feels like so. Calling him out might actually be useful so we get more of the other stuff instead of that. Weaving strings of big words together and present it as analysis grows old real fast.
Yes, I liked Dark Futura in the days of the Saker.
Your commentary on Simpliticus resembles jealousy or envy. I commend you on the pieces which are your original thinking but harpooning another sincere and honest writer for his thoughts resembles yellow journalism. DZ
Simplicius is a public figure. Nobody knows who he/ she, it, they is/ are. Nor their qualifications of background. When public figures speak they must expect criticism. I pointed out facts. I did not attack the person, just their presentation.
If you can't criticize a friend - he's just an acquaintance - honest dialogue is almost extinct. If anyone wants more - www.crushlimbraw.com - start here....but be prepared for DaLongHaul - short hauls are as useless as tits on a bull!
Over and out!
The wind that shakes the trees gets rid of the dead wood.
Thanks Windy.
"I know a lot about mistakes, having made most of the mistakes that a human being could make".
Most befitting real humility! But...
There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's perfectly all right; they're the aperture to finding out what's right.
- Carl Sagan
[I]t is by exhausting all the hypotheses that we reach the verifiable one; and after all, the wrong road always leads somewhere.
- Bernard Shaw, Preface to The Dark Lady of the Sonnets, https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1050/pg1050-images.html
Good points as usual.
I think people take dr Bob's thoughts as your own, many times folks do the same on Larry's blog if he posts the work of others.
I didnt take it as you were attacking the person, however, many people love drama and are easily offended, I would e more explicit about Dr Bob being someone else when posting for those that cant always pick up on that.
And further because we live in an age of outrage, maybe just ponder the idea without mentioning the author or source though im sure some will complain about that as well.
As far as being called an opportunist, remember the four fingers pointing back when your pointing out someone else's issues or when someone is pointing out yours.
This does go for you and what you've said as well.
I think many of us are sorely lacking in self reflection, that said, you, much like myself have high standards for your own workmanship and criticise yourself freely when you see your own shortcomings.
Much respect for all you do and dont let the bitching get you down, we all have our mistakes and it's seeing them in ourselves that is hardest.
Thanks again for your perspective and daily musings,
You have every right to your opinions and view points and so does Dr Bob.
Youll never make everyone happy so do what makes you happy and those that aren't can be damned.
Cheers Julian
It's the WAY YOU DO IT that's the problem. You attack the player - not the ball. It smacks of the old English disease of arrogance. Stop it.
I did not attack the player -- just the ball and they way he played it. Also, I am NOT Dr. Bob.
The US was never as great as Americans believed it to be. As a State it has been slowest of all developed nations to end slavery, give women voting rights and is still almost Third World in terms of its treatment of workers and worker rights and conditions.
What makes a country great is being a great place to live and the US always was for the rich and middle class, which floated on a huge pool of desperate and poor citizens.
Now that the middle class has also been eroded significantly and the US has the highest rates of poverty of any Western nation, some of it Third World, the truth is becoming clear to more Americans. not a lot given the insular nature of the society, the high levels of brainwashing and the poor education system for ordinary Americans.
The US was founded in myth and has functioned in myth. Americans like to believe they are best at everything and while they have thrown up some great achievers, no more so than many others and less than some.
Americans believe they won WWII when they did not, the Russians turned the tide.
They believe they fight for justice and freedom when they do not and have been waging war since they invented themselves to deny justice and freedom to otheres.
They believe that Americans have it better than everyone else when Americans on average have the poorest quality of life in the developed world, the poorest wages, the least worker rights and poorest conditions, the worst universal education system, the least functional universal health care and the most corruption in their political system and Governments of any Western nation.
But we humans find it harder to give up our myths, dreams and stories than any reality and more so when the reality is brutally unpleasant and painful.
Simplicius username in the Saker's Blog was Nightvision, not Nighthawk.
Really? Saker was a long time ago. I miss him.
I won't quibble - that's entirely possible. I was simply going from memory, which is always subject to incremental error. He was very insightful in the posts I read on Saker's blog.
Grey areas means your thinking .