Monthly Archives: November 2010

Nietzsche Had The Advantage Of Suffering From Neurosyphilis

Monday Books blogs another Second Opinion excerpt:


There has been an epidemic of swallowing lately. One poor deluded soul swallowed a battery because he thought he was a robot and needed power. Another poor deluded soul thought he could elude the attentions of the police by swallowing the evidence, in this case heroin wrapped in condoms. He refused to have blood tests until his solicitor was present.

In the prison the day before, a prisoner informed me that he had swallowed a bottle of washing-up liquid. I asked him why.

‘My cellmate said he’d beat me up if I didn’t.’

This, of course, brings us to the interesting question as to why anyone would demand of another that he drink a bottle of washing-up liquid. I suppose it would take a Nietzsche to answer that particular question; but then Nietzsche had the inestimable advantage, from the point of view of explaining human behaviour, of suffering from neurosyphilis.


 

Solidarity Forever

In City Journal, both satire and prophecy on the rioting of French students.


[The crowd] was racially very mixed, at least if the photographs published in the newspapers were anything to go by (which, of course, they might not be). Furthermore, again for the first time, members of the female gender participated fully and—according to reports—just as violently as the males.

There’s progress for you, and on two fronts—race and gender—simultaneously!…Now all that’s needed is that the transsexuals should join in.

Someone somewhere is making these arguments in all seriousness.

h/t Dominic R.

When Irish Eyes Stop Smiling

In today’s Wall Street Journal Dalrymple comments, as he did recently in National Review, on the collapse of the Irish debt bubble. He makes the case that


Considering the scale of the debacle, public expressions of anger in Ireland have been muted…[A]part from the odd insult thrown at the political class—particularly at members of Fianna Fail, the overwhelmingly dominant political party that is a textbook illustration of the eternal verities of Orwell’s “Animal Farm,” whose revolutionary porkers became establishment men—the reaction has been remarkable, and impressive, for its moderation.

And this is somewhat mind-boggling:


The Royal Bank of Scotland, by itself, extended loans in Ireland amounting to $12,000 for every man, woman and child in the country: loans that would have amounted to $3,600,000,000,000 if applied to the United States[.]

Catching up with the British Medical Journal

We haven’t posted Dalrymple’s last four BMJ pieces, partly because their site was malfunctioning for more than a week. So here they are (subscription required):

“The Advantages of Solitude”, November 3rd, on Solitude Considered, with Respect to Its Influence on the Mind and the Heart by Johann Georg Zimmermann (1728-95).

“Famous for Nothing”, November 10th, on Sir George Clark (1788-1870), physician to Queen Victoria and John Stuart Mill.

“Who are the sane?”, November 17th, on The Psychiatrist by Machado de Assis (1839-1908), which sounds like a very entertaining book.

“Lacking moral fibre”, November 23rd, on Sir Charles Symonds’s Studies in Neurology.

The ear-biting incident was not without interest

Dalrymple combs the pages of a local British newspaper and finds plenty of new source material. Some quotes that he tees off on:


A Yeovil man who took a car without consent, drove it without insurance and while disqualified and made off from a petrol station without paying has been sentenced.

His defence?


He thought his driving ban had expired.

Well then, that settles that.

Common People

In another new piece in the Spectator, Dalrymple decries English vulgarity in speech, dress and manners, which he calls “the ruling characteristic” of the country.


It is as if the English had adopted vulgarity as a totalitarian ideology, a communism of culture rather than of the economy. This vulgarity is insolent, militant and triumphant, will brook no competition and tolerate no dissent. It exercises a kind of subliminal terror to discourage any protest.

We Americans are certainly not perfect in this respect. Our attire seems to get more casual by the day, with sweatsuits and pajamas becoming common on airplanes, and our pop culture descends steadily toward the gutter. But I don’t think the vulgarity here has reached the militant level.

Hat tip to Michael P. and Christine C.

Fear of the unseen

Dalrymple has written a couple of new pieces for the Spectator, the first of which is a review of the new book The Mind’s Eye by Oliver Sacks, a fellow doctor-writer whom Dalrymple has always admired. He says the new book might give people false hopes about the healthy adjustments patients often make in response to tough diagnoses but that Sacks “remains a master narrator”.

A Version of Conversion

In the New English Review, Dalrymple analyzes “one of the most peculiar recent cases of religious conversion, that of Lauren Booth, half-sister-in-law to Mr Anthony Blair, former Prime Minister of Great Britain, to Islam”. He calls her conversion shallow and egotistical, driven not by a belief in the truth of Islam but by, among other reasons, her desire to find a religious reason to give up her excessive drinking while also avoiding Christianity:


…there is a lot of cultural pressure on people nowadays to appear not to conform to what were once the mores of society, especially among those who come from discontented or resentful sectors of society. Individuality, the most desired but elusive of attainments in mass society, seems to require the repudiation of what was once deemed respectability. It is not respectable to be respectable. And you would have to be very tone-deaf to the music of western society not to realise that conversion to Islam is a good way to alarm it, not to be respectable.

Read it here


 

Blogger calls Dalrymple evil, journalists endorse

As some of you know, New Statesman columnist Laurie Penny tweeted the following on November 5th:

“Sharing a copy of The Spectator w some hoodie-wearing yoofs on the bus. After some discussion, we all agree that Theodore Dalrymple is evil.”

Note the moral authority the adult writer ascribes to some slovenly-dressed kids and the pathetic attempt to garner “street credibility” by deliberately misspelling the word “youth” in slum fashion (exactly the “downward cultural aspiration” of which Dalrymple has written).

The message was re-tweeted by Guardian contributor Dan Hind and New Statesman legal correspondent David Allen Green.

Hind’s retweet drew a sharp rebuke in the Telegraph from Katharine Birbalsingh, the teacher sacked last month for criticizing the British educational system at the Conservative Party conference. Calling Hind a friend, she pointed out that Dalrymple “spent many years working with the poorest of the poor as a psychiatrist in British prisons” (though in fact this greatly understates his decades of work among the poorin AfricaEngland and elsewhere). She added, “Theodore Dalrymple helped the poor every day of his working life, but I’m not sure whether my friend can say the same for himself. Does working for big publishing houses and attending champagne parties equal working in the squalor of British prisons day in, day out?”.

(Birbalsingh did not name Hind directly, but it is clear that she was referring to him. She tweeted on November 8th that “Dan says Theodore Dalrymple is evil and it has made me so angry I have written a blog”. Hind is the only Dan she was following on Twitter. Other publicly-available communication between the two on this matter explicitly confirms this.)

It’s no surprise that these particular writers strongly disagree with Dalrymple. The New Statesman is an avowedly radical leftist magazine. Hind has no idea who committed the 9/11 attacks. Penny, a self-described deviant socialist reprobate, “incensed with rage” and seemingly at war with the world, is the author of such measured and reasonable statements as “the Tories have just imposed a Final Solution on the urban poor.” She tweeted the following from Wednesday’s protest-turned-riot at Conservative Party headquarters at Millbank Tower:

“Right outside millbank tower. Windows smashing. Smoke bombs going off. Anarchy in the UK!”

“This is simultaneously terrifying and the most beautiful thing I have ever seen.”

“This is the violence of the disposessed. They are not a minority. They are young and scared and angry. Listen before condemning.”

“No I don’t like violence. But this is what happens when govt decides it can override the people. It’s tragic, yes.”

“there was violence on both sides. I’m not condoning or condemning it. It’s just sad that it’s come to this.”

Got that? Sufficiently outraged to shout “evil” at someone like Dalrymple, but strictly non-judgemental about riots and terrorist attacks. One would think this lunacy would prevent Penny, Green and Hind from being taken seriously. In fact, Penny is on the short list for an Orwell Prize for blogging, Green is a judge for it, and Hind spoke last week at the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA). So in the end, the whole affair merely confirms Dalrymple’s warnings about the modern intellectual establishment.