friends:
dymphna's letter disappoints me, for reasons i will go into in a little while and which points to an intellectual complacency i find wide spread in the conservative blogosphere: it is the most human of failings.
smugness.
irish cicero, the nom de plume of bruce hanify at "washington rebel", is the person that has angered me: his only motivation seemingly to take a cheap shot when he thought that he would profit personally from it, by a very public show of public support "for gates of vienna." now, i think dymphna wrong in her remarks, which i will address, but i do not question her right to assert her position, even to the entire mailing list. nor do i take any exception to the tenor of her remarks, ... , she wanted to make her points. and, for the same reasons, ultimately, i will make no apology for mine, ... , i just wanted to make my points, which i will iterate below.
it appears to me that 'ish cis', however, was just trying to gain a little favor, ... , spoken plainly, he was just kissing a little important ass, in his estimation. let me see if i can demonstrate this.--
dymphna wrote her letter to me, the one that started the whole contretemps on thursday 07.08.2010, at 2.22 p.m. in that letter she stated, amongst many things, the following.
POINT #3
when starting almost six years ago, more experienced bloggers were generous in
offering advice. Here are a few tips they gave us which we continue to use:a) the best way to attract readers is to fill a particular niche and to do so
consistently.
b) Post every single day no matter what.
c) Link to other bloggers whenever possible. Not the Bigs necessarily but
others out there who’re slogging away too.
d) Hat tip everyone, no matter how tenuous that original tip might be.IOW, there are a bajillion blogs out there, all looking for readers. In
striving for readership, it behooves us to write about things other people want
to read. [we will come back to this, but for right now it is not germane to hanify, for another topic, e.g., the "established" bloggers.:jjjay.]Writing about things they *should* read, as you seem to demand? Not so good...
Unless maybe you're P.J. O'Rourke or Walter Williams and have The Gift for
making make any subject entertaining.[same point as immediately above: jjjay.]
bruce hanify chimed in with the following remarks on thursday 07.08.2010, at 9.40 p.m. with the following helpful remarks, and establishing himself as part of the dutiful chorus:
Dymphna's remarks are like a textbook on how to blog. I am reading and re-reading them with great pleasure. [there is no mention here that he has read them before, savoring them as old familiar nostrums, rather the impression is of fresh novelty. why read them and re-read them, if they are familiar? my point? see below: jjjay.]
The only thing I can add is that communication is like mathematics, soldiering, or training animals: there are the champs . . . .
And there are the poseurs.
Only the poseurs are impressed with themselves.
Bruce Hanify aka Irish Cicero
Washington Rebel
now, if hanify has held these views for a while, including the opinion that i am a "poseur" he has been remarkably silent about it, and extremely reticent to voice them. he and i have gone round and round on the "no caps" issue before, but he has never had the gumption to address me like this.
there is one other little piece of the puzzle, if you are still with me on this.
bruce hanify, a/k/a irish cicero posted the following at his blog on 07.09.2010, at 8.34 a.m., the article entitled, "cicero's blog of the week: gates of vienna." in it, 'ish cis' waxes rhapsodic of his destiny to be born a blogger, and his love for bloggers, and of previous correspondence he's had with wonderful bloggers, including dymphna, of the gates of vienna.
says the "cis" with typical voluble enthusiasm about previous correspondence he's had with dymphna, on learning how to blog:
In corresponding with Dymphna one time, she shared observations about blogging:
When starting almost six years ago, more experienced bloggers were generous in offering advice. Here are a few tips they gave us which we continue to use:
a) the best way to attract readers is to fill a particular niche and to do so consistently.
b) Post every single day no matter what.
c) Link to other bloggers whenever possible. Not the Bigs necessarily but others out there who’re slogging away too.
d) Hat tip everyone, no matter how tenuous that original tip might be.Here is stated a basic courtesy that displays intelligence and integrity. We practice those rules around here as best we can . . . . though I'm not sure what niche we fill!
if you will please compare the quoted missive from dymphna, as garnered by hanify from "... corresponding with dymphna one time ..., " you will note that it is almost keystroke for keystroke identical to the paragraph dymphna sent me, and everybody else, just the day before, ... , except that the paragraph starting with "when starting" now has a rather more decorous capital "W" in hanify's version, ... , "When starting... ." look, if you will, at subparagraph (a) in the almost identical texts. it begins with a small "t" in "the" whereas the words beginning the other subparagraph's begin with capital letters.
you may say, well, maybe dymphna just sent me the same canned message she sends everyone, and that she'd sent hanify earlier. well, why didn't hanify crow about it earlier, and extol the virtues of "gates of vienna" earlier, and thank dymphna profusely for her sage advice, earlier? trust me on this assertion, but hanify is not one to hide his light under a bushel, and not one to hold back on an opportunity to crow. and, if this text is canned text she sends everybody, why does hanify's text begin with a capital letter, and mine with a small letter. it would seem if you are a stickler on "caps" as dymphna asserts she is, the very first letter of a paragraph would receive some attention.
you make up your own mind, but, it looks to me that hanify has simply cribbed the text sent to me by dymphna, so that he could have a pretext to fabricate the "corresponding w. dymphna one time" post, and further add to the favor gained with dymphna and the baron and the fans at "gates of vienna." in short, the whole post appears to me a classic case of apple polishing. in polite circles this is described as "networking," in less polite circles as "ass kissing."
in short, when hanify saw dymphna and the baron jump on my neck it looked an opportune time to him to do some jumping as well.
well, that is hanify's role in this. if i am wrong that he used this as a chance to do a little apple polishing, and if i am wrong that his post was fabricated on the pretext of having received identical correspondence from dymphna as i did in drawing her censure, then let hanify and/or dymphna produce the email or written correspondence to support and substantiate his assertions to that effect.
this friends, is also how blogs and blogging relationships are built, though not so glowingly described by dymphna to me.
and, i want to treat of the other topic alluded to above, when i put in bold a portion of the missive dymphna sent to me, above.--
bear with me, but et's go back to dymphna's screed to me.
"in striving for readership, it behooves us to write about things other people want to read."
"unless maybe you are p.j. o'rourke or walter williams ... ."
now, in all of this conniption fit back and forth between the parties, you'll read not one word about what i have written. not one word.
the gist of the whole thing has been, simply stated, an assertion from dymphna that 1.)you cannot talk to me like this, and 2.)i am not going to read what you send me unless you are a big shot, or we have a relationship. in short, don't ask me to waste my time reading something unless i am in agreement with it, i am familiar with it, and unless i am prepared to use it to reinforce previously held convictions.
and, this gets us right to the matter i said i wanted to talk about at the front of the post. and that is the stultifying orthodoxy that besets the conservative blogosphere. i cannot talk to dymphna about the jihad, or the catholic catechism, because she knows everything there is to know about it, and she is not going to read me because i don't have anything to talk about, and also because i am not "authoritative." it is beyond peradventure that i am not, in fact, either p.j. o'rourke or walter williams, and i am not therefore of much utility in advancing previously establishing orthodoxy.
in short, the peasant does not confront the lord of the manor about what the lord doesn't know. now, just for shits and giggles, i am going to send this out to the same mailing list, and i am going to write all the people on it, whether or not they have ever posted on the topics i raised in my initial letter. i expect that i will receive no replies indicating that they have, unless it is from a gun blog or from david b. kopel, or perhaps pamela geller and robert spencer.
and, i am also going to pose the question, if any of them have every considered the right of the individual to assert his own individual defense to jihad and jihad aggression, in either a philosophical or ethical or legal context.
i do not know for certain, but i think that i will not receive one answer positively indicating that to be so. and, i will paint my blue and wear a funny hat all day long, if i am mistaken on this. but, my research on this matter indicates to me that my opinions on the subject are fairly novel, in as much as the topic is not one which is "well considered."
hey, when i googled it, i found hits to philosophical journals and to david b. kopel and to grand ayatollah sayyed muhammed hussein fadlallah. that's it. i have written on the subject in connection with my analysis of the political thought of john locke, and i have the posts to prove it, here, here and here.
now, that infamous piece of excrement died this sunday last in beruit, and some people have discussed his death, and his relation to the marine barracks bombing in beruit that killed 241 u.s. marines, ... , but, no one, and i mean no one, discussed fadlallah's position on self defense.
friends, the simple truth is this. if they haven't learned it from the coterie, or from someone "authoritative" in their coterie, they simply are not going to entertain it, or learn it.
the discussions between bloggers tend to reduce themselves to a rigorous orthodoxy of people quoting each other with approval, and bloggers being too damned busy with their career building and building of readership to learn anything new. you want an example? got to washington rebel, and you will find a blog comprised of contributor's beside bruce hanify who write pretty damned thoughtful pieces, while hanify is giving short descriptions of an almost endless stream of links, and quoted paragraphs from other sources.
i will give this to hanify. when he writes, he writes very well, and when he considers a subject at length he is gifted with clarity of exposition and he is, to my mind, quite persuasive. he is entertaining, if not rigorously analytical. but, mostly his writing is geared toward gaining a wider sphere of accepted influence, and that means the continual citing of work and thought done by others. but, it is not, and let me get sniffy here, so much a search for truth as it is the distribution of favored nostrum.
in this, irish cicero is not much to be distinguished from other blog proprietors, who are involved in an endless circle jerk to improve their circulation, by endlessly quoting each other. washington rebel is even involved in a self congratulatory little circle who spend endless hours congratulating themselves on how many female breast they picture over the course of the week. and, to fit the pattern, there are many other blogs involved in this little mechanism, precisely calculated to increase the number of hits and recorded links.
hey, it is how it is done.
the business with the titties is all perfectly harmless, and entertaining, and i don't mind at all.
but, this is what i do mind.
the exchange of intellectual information is handled in exactly the same way, and with one end, and one end only, and that is to increase the number of hits, and the number of links every day.
this is how blogs are ranked.
now, there are several blogs that do not do this, to such an extent. atlas shrugs run by pamela geller does not, and neither does jihad watch run by robert spencer, and neither does yidwithlid run by jeff dunetz, nor fausta's blog nor alcibiades. and, these have learned something else, that the rest of the blogs are only dimly aware of, and only vaguely interested in changing their way of business to emulate.
and, that is called "community organizing." but, that's another subject.
now, this has been a very round about way of getting to my last point.
and, that is to explain my letter. i do not mean to try to justify it before you, that is your decision to decide if i am an obnoxious bastard or not. but, go back and read.
read my posts. read my letter. read dymphna's letter in response. she is right in one sense, we are not communicating. she thinks it is because i refuse to learn. i think it is because she is incapable of learning from me, because she absolutely refuses to read me. in all of this, i have no indication that any of the bloggers to whom i distributed my circular have read the materials provided.
they actually do not read so much for content, as to scan as quickly as possible to assess other material for suitability in being linked and repeated.
except of course, in the case of dymphna and the baron at "gates of vienna" when they found it expedient to publish a very lengthy post i wrote defending them from charles johnson's withering attack on them, which they would not have survived without pamela geller's support, for an absolute certainty, and which they might not have survived without my substantive analysis of why charles johnson had his head up his ass.
that, dymphna was interested in reading. since then, i have generated very little of interest from them.
they simply refuse to comprehend or apprehend that which is not in their comfort zone. now, i read "gates of vienna" from time to time, and what they do they excel at. they have some of the very best writing on their pages to be found anywhere. and, i find the sepia tones and graphics and layout of the blog quite interesting. and, the message soothing to my intellectual bent. and, that is the nature of orthodoxy, is it not, to reassure one of the rightness of his intellectual position. but, when it is to the extent that it will not admit of novel thought, or even entertain it, such orthodoxy is disquieting, because it hints of one final step in the establishment of an orthodoxy which has become an "accepted truth." and, that is, it becomes something to be enforced, adhered to, and not departed from except by the edict of those who control it.
this was the evil of charles johnson at little green footballs. and, unfortunately, this is where orthodoxy tends. and, this is where the danger of little coteries of thinkers, who become resistant to consideration of other view points, must be challenged.
every with a modicum of effrontery.
yes, i remain quite unrepentant. and, though i keep a very short shit list, you can be sure that bruce hanify is on it, indexed at "sorcerer's apprentice."
john jay @ 07.12.2010
p.s. if you have time, please read this. you will not find it treated many places, and it is not linked many places, but it is pretty well written. the title: "the right of the individual under 'locke's' natural law concepts to wage defensive war against islam." the link: http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2008/04/the-right-of-th.html . written april 27, 2008.
and this link: http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2008/04/a-personal-righ.html . written april 7, 2008.
i have not come to this inquiry just recently. and, friends, dymphna and the baron, and the rest, haven't a clue. for you see, it just doesn't "scan," this type of writing.
Comments