My reply to onomasticator

Commenters below have take a new tack in trying to bury this story. The goal-posts of course have to keep changing: any and all manner of chaffe has been thrown up to distract and mis-direct: from Russo-phobia to Seth Rich to the intelligence-agencies-don’t-agree and now to “well, even if they do agree, it’s probably just like the Iraq WMD intel”.

It took me several times, in reading your comments, to reach the tentative conclusion that what is presented in the above paragraph, as the vehicle for your description of the rhetorical/political strategy of your opponents is really a revelation of your own strategy!

Or more pointedly, the strategy adopted by Neo-Conservative guru Leo Strauss, who willfully misread the Philosophical Tradition:

And his American acolytes, like the late Allen Bloom, of ‘The Closing of the American Mind’, being just one. Poor Mr. Bloom, a pretender to the status of Philosopher King, and his camp followers attacked students as being addled by rock music and galloping narcissism. But don’t forget Strauss’ active students, via Bloom and others like Harvey Mansfield, in the rough and tumble of the debates in this century: Robert Kagan and Francis Fukuyama! Your rhetorical sophistication doesn’t quite measure up to these two, but is serviceable

In sum the Neo-Conservative uses ‘evidence’ with the aid of the strategically usable tangential to render the argument as opaque as possible. In your case, the reduction of this strategy is to name the arguments of your antagonists as ‘chaff’ and to dismissively characterize them as  ‘irrelevant’. Although your arguments in this exercise in self-justifying verbosity, are of interest, the point is not exposition but self-serving obfuscation. Not to speak of your self-confessed ignorance of who one of the Founding Fathers, James Monroe* was, in your reply to one of my comments!

(c) have no idea who Monroe was

Happy New Year!


*Revised 01/02/17 1:26 PDT

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.