In it she links to this Tweet by Bill Gates praising her. No mention of father, Parviz Sabeti, the Shah of Iran's brutal right hand man who ruthlessly crushed any dissent:
Fascinating! I think the global elite want worldwide control and are engaged in the same class warfare they have been propagating since the European empires began. And yes, it continues in the US. The only realistic solution I know of is a Collaborative Democracy as described in the book End Politics Now, endpoliticsnow.com.
thanks for keeping us in the loop on these connections that the powers that be seem to prefer remain occult to us.
science has always been the handmaiden of the technocratic establishment and that's probably the reason that the center-of-gravity of political debate is always surreptitiously shifted to the "scientific experts"; as a means of circumventing actual defense of given policies but instead advancing them as foregone conclusions on the basis of "data-driven, scientific consensus."
but, obviously, scientific reasoning has little in common with moral reasoning. as Plato observed, somewhat tongue in cheek: a physician qua physician can perhaps heal a patient, but he cannot, qua physician, tell whether the patient would be better off dead. the function of scientific reasoning is to establish certain quantitative correlations between observable phenomena by postulating them and then attempting to falsify them. but we can never derive a moral precept or a basis for action from quantitative correlations between measurable phenomena, and it makes no sense to try. that is solely the province of moral reasoning.
in any case, preserving this distinction and defending it against those who would wish to collapse our ethical consciousness into scientific models seem to me one of the most subversive stands a person can take today against the Leviathan.
An article from 1963 on Behavioral Science and the Law, written by the accomplished legal scholar, historian and philosopher, Walter Berns, reviewing the work in the field of others, warning of the hazards in applying the new, experimental field of Behavioral Science as law. Even more prescient today, the future he speaks of. This gives an insight to the minds of those in power today, who are applying The Science (TM) that Berns describes in his work written sixty years ago. It is a long read. But very insightful. Including the inclusion of the fact that social and behavioral sciences were the justification used by eugenicists who forced sterilization in the US in the 1930's, lauded the field in Nazi Germany. Buck v. Bell. Supported by Supreme Court justices in the US, deemed lawful, constitutional. Even today.
(the first 14 pages - p186-198 - are an exercise in judicial game theory, the most helpful legal and philosophical reasoning is in the remaining 14 pages - p199-212
I've excerpted long passages from the publication below.)
"...and when the social scientists generally are excited at the prospect of playing a new role in the law, that it becomes necessary to enter a word of caution. These thirty-two may state their purpose modestly, but Feuer and Fromm want to reorganize society; Myrdal may disclaim any policy role for his science as science, but Harold Lasswell has in mind the establishment of what one of his critics has called a "psychoanalytocracy"--that is, rule by psychoanalysts.
If men are certain that they know the cure for the ills of society, they are likely to become impatient with traditional legal principles and procedures which have always been thought important precisely because of the great difficulty in knowing what is good for man, and what is good for man here and now. This does not mean that this knowledge is unattainable in principle, but only that, originally, it was thought to be within the competence of only a few exceptional persons to achieve it, and that these persons did not seek political power."
"The school segregation case was not the first occasion on which social scientists had testified in a constitutional case coming from the state of Virginia. More than a quarter of a century earlier Virginia had gone to the Supreme Court with a statute requiring compulsory sterilization of all mentally defective inmates of state institutions. The social scientists involved in the sterilization movement (and it was a national movement) were convinced that human inheritance was governed by Mendel's findings regarding pea plants"
"The Supreme Court's opinion was written by Justice Holmes, and Holmes, like the eugenicists, believed that "wholesale social regeneration... cannot be affected appreciably by tinkering with the institution of property, but only by taking in hand life and trying to build a race." The eugenicists wanted this and something that Holmes would not have wanted.
One of Virginia's "expert" witnesses had plans to sterilize hundreds of thousands of Americans annually. As co-editor of the Eugenical News, he reprinted an entire speech by Dr. Frick, Reichsminister of the Interior, entitled "German Population and Race Politics." An editorial in the same journal stated openly that one "may condemn the Nazi policy generally, but specifically it remained for Germany in 1933 to lead the great nations of the world in recognition of the biological foundations of national character."
"Perhaps the day will come when, as Judge Miller said in the Parmnelee case, "social scientists can advise not only courts, but the people generally; just as physicians ... do today,"" but Buck v. Bell illustrates the hazards potentially involved and as well the failure of the courts to scrutinize a program cast in the language of science. This was science polluted by a vicious brand of politics, but when science asserts itself in the law, there is always the danger, and the strong possibility, that it will become irresponsible."
"Certainly moderation does not characterize the principal work of scientific jurisprudence in our day," Frederick K. Beutel's Experimental Jurisprudence. If Beutel is to be believed, we are on the threshold of a solution to man's most fundamental problems; all that is required is the transfer of "the techniques and knowledge so successfully developed in the physical sciences ... into the field of social control" .... His book is to be understood as a defense and an illustration of such transfer. It is with his defense that we shall be primarily concerned.
Man, he says, has achieved power over nature but not over himself; the "philosophy of social control" has not kept pace with "the revolutionary developments of physical science," which has engendered grave "mental, political and social maladjustments." This disproportion is largely the responsibility of "obsolescent practices," a reliance "upon ancient theories, institutions and dogmas about the nature of man fomented by clerics and philosophers [such as] the Bible, Aristotle, Plato, Adam Smith, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Montesquieu, Bentham, Blackstone and Marx.""
"But what form will this resolution take? For, while we know that some thinkers in the past have argued that knowledge of the right way of life is accessible to unassisted human reason, and that, therefore, on the highest level there will be no "clashes of opinion," these same thinkers did not think that this knowledge is within the reach of everyone; and they did not foresee the time when the opinions that divide men and nations could be reconciled and differences dissolved. How, then, can the "technique of Experimental Jurisprudence" resolve them? Beutel says that when "law as a matter of regular practice enters the field of thought control, as is already the case in some totalitarian states, then the findings of the psychologists as to the working of the mind in reaching subjective choices will be of great use to the jurists."'"
"Looking far into the future, it may be predicted that the methods of legally directed thought control may eventually take over the direction and control of what some now call human values and that this power may be turned to scientific purposes. If this is to be accomplished, it should be along the lines of Experimental Jurisprudence. When this is done, there will no longer be any basis for the belief that social science is impossible because it contains no elements of control such as those found in physical sciences. The means of social control by law are now developing and increasing all about us. Mankind may soon be required to make the choice whether these powers are to be exercised for greed, lust and caprice of individuals or are to be used in the scientific advancement of the race."
"Beutel is not altogether clear as to what he means by the "scientific advancement of the race," and the laws appropriate to this advancement; but he does have a test, of sorts, of good laws:
"The laws to be enacted or recommended should be those which lead to the greatest sum total of satisfaction of needs, demands and desires, in that order of rank. Thus a more complicated person is certain to have greater wants than a simple individual, and his combined interests as a whole will therefore weigh heavier in the scientific scale than those of a less complicated (less intelligent, if you will) individual."
But supposing the "less complicated" people object to this dispensation?:
"If ... sufficient public interest is to be developed in adopting new scientific methods, it will be necessary for this small [at most "six percent of the entire population"] nucleus from which come the able scientists to convince the great majority to agree to types of governmental and legal devices which the overwhelming mass of people cannot even understand. Under the circumstances, the development of popular pressure for adoption of scientific discoveries into the legal and governmental field sufficient to overcome the inertia of those in control of the machinery is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve."
That the scientists should be restrained by the need to get the consent of the ("less complicated") governed is reassuring, but perhaps only temporarily, since we know that this restraint does not derive from any principle to be found in the book. The Declaration of Independence states that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed," but Beutel dismisses its "theories" as mere "fictions," even more "advanced in the realm of fiction" than the notion of the "divine right of kings.' Never lacking in boldness, he goes right on to state his lack of interest in any of these "theories":
"The experimental jurist as such has little interest in the general theories advanced to explain the purposes of government as a whole or to justify certain lines of policy. As a scientist he must recognize that these expressions are largely fictional. While he might possibly desire to examine the factual effectiveness of various devices used to disseminate these fictions in persuading the public to submit to the general policies of a particular government, his immediate attention preferably would be directed toward the effect of a particular law in accomplishing the real purpose for which it was created."
It is much safer, he says, to have "enlightened theories of law and government carefully worked out by rational experimental processes rather than be left to rely on the speculation of cloistered philosophers or the mad dreams of imprisoned fanatics.""
"Rule by experimental jurisprudence is not imminent, and there would seem to be little danger of its ever coming about, at least in all its manifestations. Nevertheless, what this book represents must be taken seriously: an impatience with the "unscientific" aspects of democratic government. It would be possible, by careful selection, to present a thesis from his book that is not wholly incompatible with a certain view of democracy, one in which experimental jurisprudence appears as no more than a means of effecting or of institutionalizing a pragmatic ethics."
"Beutel's book is an almost perfect illustration of the sort of misuse of science that Lee Loevinger must have had in mind when he said that "science has contributed little, if anything, to the solution of social or legal problems," partly because it has been asked "the wrong questions, and set ...the wrong tasks," and specifically because science has been expected "to distill social policies from a test tube or a retort, much as Aladdin summoned a genie by rubbing a magic lamp."" Loevinger makes no such claim for his "jurimetrics," which he nevertheless describes as "the most promising avenue of legal progress in the contemporary world." Rather than to replace the "cloistered philosophers" and the "fictions" of the Declaration of Independence, science's most "promising and immediate contribution ... is in automatic information retrieval.""' The computers will not solve legal problems, and will not make judging obsolete, but they will assist in the solutions and in the task of judging, just as social scientists can provide information that is not available from the computers but may be needed for the wise solution of the problems that confront the courts and the law generally. Such techniques as the public opinion survey undoubtedly facilitate the gathering and collating of information, and there will be times when such information is needed by the law. This may not be an exalted role, but as society becomes ever larger and more complicated, it is necessary and an appropriate role.
Doubtless there have been "phenomenal technical and scientific" advances during the past century, as Beutel says, and that there is a "social lag"; and perhaps it is true that the "general science and art of lawmaking" has not developed "since the days of the Roman Empire"; but this is no reason for law to imitate physics or engineering. On the contrary, a grasp of the fundamental problems might reveal that there is an irresolvable tension between science, in its old or its new sense, and politics, and that any attempt to resolve the tension is likely to have terrible consequences in the political world; that the political world must be ruled not by science but by prudence., This requires at a minimum the recognition that there -will always be a "gap" between theory and practice, and that the recalcitrant or intractable political problems cannot be wholly resolved-at least, not by a government of free men. True, Socrates said that "cities will never have rest from their evils no, nor the human race ... until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy"; but Socrates, who failed even in his attempt to rule his wife, Xanthippe, knew and taught that it is extremely unlikely that the conditions required for the rule of the wise will ever be met. As Leo Strauss has said:"'
What is more likely to happen is that an unwise man, appealing to the natural right of wisdom [to rule] and catering to the lowest desires of the many, will persuade the multitude of his right: the prospects for tyranny are brighter than those for rule of the wise. This being the case, the natural right of the wise must be questioned, and the indispensable requirement for wisdom must be qualified by the requirement for consent. The political problem consists in reconciling the requirement for wisdom with the requirement for consent.
Legal scholars, and even practicing lawyers, know these exceedingly important things; they therefore have more to teach to the new scientists than the new scientists have to teach them."
Magic Carpet rides of the imagination can be fun is what I think (although sometimes things can change on a dime when riding the magic carpet but I digress.....) And "yes"....I also think if there is a forum that allows for it.....certain "minds" or folks with certain "dispositions", or based on one's sentimentality in general......I think when communication is "fair" they have tendency to gravitate towards one another in order to share with like minded souls and learn together based on the experiences of others.
I for one, am most fond of foxes - and that rug.....the coloring of it....the stitchery - looks quite familiar to me....I have a similar rug....two in fact, that I have placed in a small well built old house that I'm so fond of....I think I need to share an image of those magic carpets at some point in the future. Thanks for the wisdom you share.
In that fine image, the stitchery I'm not kidding is most similar to the carpet more conventional from a Persian Rug standpoint that I have laying down on the floor with quite the thick pile of wool I reckon.
Anyhow - you see the "lime greenish bird" underneath the foxes sly doing the fox flirting ritual - do you not? What does that bird have in its beak I wonder? Could it be something to build a nest with? Could it be an image of peace possible as it fly underneath the foxes so fine?
Maybe - hope springs eternal and I've become a paid subscriber because I apparently gravitated to this place so that maybe you and I could have discourse - if not face-to-face at least we can share with each other direct in fair communication.
I play to win and I'm most fond of foxes!
Ken
ps - I can't resist this, the chance to share some personal experience, so please let me say this - one time in my career the consulting outfit I worked with made arrangements with textile companies in the region to help them comply with some new air permitting rules referred to as "Title V". In the effort of that I made some presentation along with others and got to meet some of the finest textile plant folks you can ever hope to meet and I enjoyed their company. Sadly, most of the plants I worked in providing consulting assistance now no longer are operating and that is a shame - because I know those places still have value and truly tis best when products are made local is what I think....but if you can acquire a Persian Rug, and only a fool would refuse such a beautiful piece of artistry is what I think - it holds the value of those who stitched it with craft. I paid a fair price for those carpets and there is no way anybody can ever take away the meaning they have in my mind resolute.
Thank you, Ken. That's so very kind of you, I appreciate that you find my ideas and research I share that valuable! I've not monetized this Substack, I don't even have financials set up for it to receive a pledge. While I get that figured out - it may be a little before I decide to use that feature - I'll let you know. In the meantime I'll enjoy the discourse and direct communication, I grow from intelligent discourse. If you email me at freedomfox@substack.com I believe it forwards through to my personal email.
Well - you must know now, that if you choose to ask for contribution, then I will contribute.
I think SubStack is going through some deliberations regarding exactly how they intend on monetizing the place and really everybody deserves to get compensation for work and effort.
Personally, I have made a choice to limit the number of places I subscribe to, but then if I choose to subscribe to said places, if contributions are desired, then I will contribute.
~
Changing gears, I'll tell you about this place in Wagram, NC. It was run by a company referred to as "WestPoint Stevens" - they had a griffin in their logo. And at this particular site, a modern textile mill built in the 1960's if memory serves near the Cape Fear river (or a major tributary I recall) and at that site they made towels. Cotton towels mostly but they did have some dual-fabric production capability. They started that plant out using coal-fired boilers cause you may not know that it takes a lot of energy to make towels clean and lots of warm water and other energy and steam is great for this purpose and boilers conventional make steam - it can be a various pressures.
Anywho, coal-fired boilers have a lot of side-issues and after that site ran for so many years these side issues associated with waste generated and stack emissions made it such that it was time to change out the boilers and I was there to help my friend, Yancy I think his name was....get the new natural gas boilers installed and holy-moly they did it...but sadly....just a few years later after spending more than 100 million I think that placed got turned into a Walmart distribution center and they don't make towels there anymore - that is a shame but it speaks to what happens when you get into debt over your head.
You should have seen the place near Clemson, SC where they made sheets!
~
Your email is appreciated and noted - I met somebody a few days ago - Marty Zetta or some such - and she shared with me the way to send email direct to other SubStack authors, so thankyou for sharing that.
~
You may not know for sure, but I'm a quick typer and just today I made a huge batch of salsa and I look forward to our future communications.
Just skimmed the history of Wagram, NC, Scotland county. A casualty of the hollowing out of America, textiles and the economic vitality of the area discarded by globalism. Is it hardscrabble land? Descriptions are that's it's very sandy, rocky. But like I said, that was just a quick skim. I know areas of the country like yours make some of the strongest people. Of character, faith and spirit.
I'll share with you the other "clients" I had in the Laurinburg, NC area. Ready?
1. Libby-Owens-Ford - they made industrial glass there - have you ever been looking down on molten glass coming out of the kiln? Let me tell you - tis impressive.
2. Butler Manufacturing - they made steel beams for "lego-like" quick construction of solid buildings. You ever see a laser cut through steel about half inch thick? Let me tell you - tis impressive.
3. Railroad Frictions Product Corp. (part of Wabtec I believe) - this was perhaps the most fascinating place I consulted at and I really loved the folks there - they made brake shoes for the railroad industry - takes a lot of friction to slow a train down as well as hexane which was used at that time as a solvent in the process and being I had some pre-knowledge of the EPA rule making process, I think they got their money's worth out of me and I enjoyed working with them and being at their place there no matter who pissed upon whom.
4. WestPoint Stevens - as already described.
5. There was another place I can't remember the name of it now, but they were grasping at threads trying to keep that place going and I have reports I made for them when they got the contract for postal employee uniforms, but both they and I knew what the fate was going to be - the textile industry was being moved out of North Carolina and the south for that matter. You know the industry started maybe in England (from an Industrial Age standpoint), then went to New England, then the Southern US maybe, then Mejico, Bangladesh, the far east....wherever...wherever labor was the cheapest? I don't think it is just that - what I think is there are funds behind the textile business and new equipment is constantly being developed and so the business follows that script.
I'll tell you this and I'm not kidding around - one time Yancy said to me - we can make it for the same cost as they can in China, but both Yancy and I knew - debt is a killer.
~
Yancy was (and is I hope) a fine man....when the company went bankrupt and could not pay my invoice, Yancy made sure that things worked out in the end because he knew I work hard and he trusted me. I miss him.
More press for Pardis Sabeti. Children's Health Defense's, writer Brenda Baletti published this piece on August 23, 2023:
Gates Foundation, DOD Helping Fund Pandemic ‘Early Warning’ Surveillance System in Africa
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/gates-foundation-sentinel-surveillance-pandemics-africa
In it she links to this Tweet by Bill Gates praising her. No mention of father, Parviz Sabeti, the Shah of Iran's brutal right hand man who ruthlessly crushed any dissent:
https://twitter.com/BillGates/status/1528816410343878656
Like I said, Pardis has an ah-mazing publicist. Though Baletti's CHD piece probably isn't one they originated.
Fascinating! I think the global elite want worldwide control and are engaged in the same class warfare they have been propagating since the European empires began. And yes, it continues in the US. The only realistic solution I know of is a Collaborative Democracy as described in the book End Politics Now, endpoliticsnow.com.
thanks for keeping us in the loop on these connections that the powers that be seem to prefer remain occult to us.
science has always been the handmaiden of the technocratic establishment and that's probably the reason that the center-of-gravity of political debate is always surreptitiously shifted to the "scientific experts"; as a means of circumventing actual defense of given policies but instead advancing them as foregone conclusions on the basis of "data-driven, scientific consensus."
but, obviously, scientific reasoning has little in common with moral reasoning. as Plato observed, somewhat tongue in cheek: a physician qua physician can perhaps heal a patient, but he cannot, qua physician, tell whether the patient would be better off dead. the function of scientific reasoning is to establish certain quantitative correlations between observable phenomena by postulating them and then attempting to falsify them. but we can never derive a moral precept or a basis for action from quantitative correlations between measurable phenomena, and it makes no sense to try. that is solely the province of moral reasoning.
in any case, preserving this distinction and defending it against those who would wish to collapse our ethical consciousness into scientific models seem to me one of the most subversive stands a person can take today against the Leviathan.
https://theoriapress.substack.com/p/on-the-incoherence-of-follow-the
(1/2)
An article from 1963 on Behavioral Science and the Law, written by the accomplished legal scholar, historian and philosopher, Walter Berns, reviewing the work in the field of others, warning of the hazards in applying the new, experimental field of Behavioral Science as law. Even more prescient today, the future he speaks of. This gives an insight to the minds of those in power today, who are applying The Science (TM) that Berns describes in his work written sixty years ago. It is a long read. But very insightful. Including the inclusion of the fact that social and behavioral sciences were the justification used by eugenicists who forced sterilization in the US in the 1930's, lauded the field in Nazi Germany. Buck v. Bell. Supported by Supreme Court justices in the US, deemed lawful, constitutional. Even today.
Law and Behavioral Science
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2953&context=lcp
(the first 14 pages - p186-198 - are an exercise in judicial game theory, the most helpful legal and philosophical reasoning is in the remaining 14 pages - p199-212
I've excerpted long passages from the publication below.)
"...and when the social scientists generally are excited at the prospect of playing a new role in the law, that it becomes necessary to enter a word of caution. These thirty-two may state their purpose modestly, but Feuer and Fromm want to reorganize society; Myrdal may disclaim any policy role for his science as science, but Harold Lasswell has in mind the establishment of what one of his critics has called a "psychoanalytocracy"--that is, rule by psychoanalysts.
If men are certain that they know the cure for the ills of society, they are likely to become impatient with traditional legal principles and procedures which have always been thought important precisely because of the great difficulty in knowing what is good for man, and what is good for man here and now. This does not mean that this knowledge is unattainable in principle, but only that, originally, it was thought to be within the competence of only a few exceptional persons to achieve it, and that these persons did not seek political power."
"The school segregation case was not the first occasion on which social scientists had testified in a constitutional case coming from the state of Virginia. More than a quarter of a century earlier Virginia had gone to the Supreme Court with a statute requiring compulsory sterilization of all mentally defective inmates of state institutions. The social scientists involved in the sterilization movement (and it was a national movement) were convinced that human inheritance was governed by Mendel's findings regarding pea plants"
"The Supreme Court's opinion was written by Justice Holmes, and Holmes, like the eugenicists, believed that "wholesale social regeneration... cannot be affected appreciably by tinkering with the institution of property, but only by taking in hand life and trying to build a race." The eugenicists wanted this and something that Holmes would not have wanted.
One of Virginia's "expert" witnesses had plans to sterilize hundreds of thousands of Americans annually. As co-editor of the Eugenical News, he reprinted an entire speech by Dr. Frick, Reichsminister of the Interior, entitled "German Population and Race Politics." An editorial in the same journal stated openly that one "may condemn the Nazi policy generally, but specifically it remained for Germany in 1933 to lead the great nations of the world in recognition of the biological foundations of national character."
"Perhaps the day will come when, as Judge Miller said in the Parmnelee case, "social scientists can advise not only courts, but the people generally; just as physicians ... do today,"" but Buck v. Bell illustrates the hazards potentially involved and as well the failure of the courts to scrutinize a program cast in the language of science. This was science polluted by a vicious brand of politics, but when science asserts itself in the law, there is always the danger, and the strong possibility, that it will become irresponsible."
"Certainly moderation does not characterize the principal work of scientific jurisprudence in our day," Frederick K. Beutel's Experimental Jurisprudence. If Beutel is to be believed, we are on the threshold of a solution to man's most fundamental problems; all that is required is the transfer of "the techniques and knowledge so successfully developed in the physical sciences ... into the field of social control" .... His book is to be understood as a defense and an illustration of such transfer. It is with his defense that we shall be primarily concerned.
Man, he says, has achieved power over nature but not over himself; the "philosophy of social control" has not kept pace with "the revolutionary developments of physical science," which has engendered grave "mental, political and social maladjustments." This disproportion is largely the responsibility of "obsolescent practices," a reliance "upon ancient theories, institutions and dogmas about the nature of man fomented by clerics and philosophers [such as] the Bible, Aristotle, Plato, Adam Smith, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Montesquieu, Bentham, Blackstone and Marx.""
"But what form will this resolution take? For, while we know that some thinkers in the past have argued that knowledge of the right way of life is accessible to unassisted human reason, and that, therefore, on the highest level there will be no "clashes of opinion," these same thinkers did not think that this knowledge is within the reach of everyone; and they did not foresee the time when the opinions that divide men and nations could be reconciled and differences dissolved. How, then, can the "technique of Experimental Jurisprudence" resolve them? Beutel says that when "law as a matter of regular practice enters the field of thought control, as is already the case in some totalitarian states, then the findings of the psychologists as to the working of the mind in reaching subjective choices will be of great use to the jurists."'"
"Looking far into the future, it may be predicted that the methods of legally directed thought control may eventually take over the direction and control of what some now call human values and that this power may be turned to scientific purposes. If this is to be accomplished, it should be along the lines of Experimental Jurisprudence. When this is done, there will no longer be any basis for the belief that social science is impossible because it contains no elements of control such as those found in physical sciences. The means of social control by law are now developing and increasing all about us. Mankind may soon be required to make the choice whether these powers are to be exercised for greed, lust and caprice of individuals or are to be used in the scientific advancement of the race."
(1/2)
(2/2)
"Beutel is not altogether clear as to what he means by the "scientific advancement of the race," and the laws appropriate to this advancement; but he does have a test, of sorts, of good laws:
"The laws to be enacted or recommended should be those which lead to the greatest sum total of satisfaction of needs, demands and desires, in that order of rank. Thus a more complicated person is certain to have greater wants than a simple individual, and his combined interests as a whole will therefore weigh heavier in the scientific scale than those of a less complicated (less intelligent, if you will) individual."
But supposing the "less complicated" people object to this dispensation?:
"If ... sufficient public interest is to be developed in adopting new scientific methods, it will be necessary for this small [at most "six percent of the entire population"] nucleus from which come the able scientists to convince the great majority to agree to types of governmental and legal devices which the overwhelming mass of people cannot even understand. Under the circumstances, the development of popular pressure for adoption of scientific discoveries into the legal and governmental field sufficient to overcome the inertia of those in control of the machinery is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve."
That the scientists should be restrained by the need to get the consent of the ("less complicated") governed is reassuring, but perhaps only temporarily, since we know that this restraint does not derive from any principle to be found in the book. The Declaration of Independence states that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed," but Beutel dismisses its "theories" as mere "fictions," even more "advanced in the realm of fiction" than the notion of the "divine right of kings.' Never lacking in boldness, he goes right on to state his lack of interest in any of these "theories":
"The experimental jurist as such has little interest in the general theories advanced to explain the purposes of government as a whole or to justify certain lines of policy. As a scientist he must recognize that these expressions are largely fictional. While he might possibly desire to examine the factual effectiveness of various devices used to disseminate these fictions in persuading the public to submit to the general policies of a particular government, his immediate attention preferably would be directed toward the effect of a particular law in accomplishing the real purpose for which it was created."
It is much safer, he says, to have "enlightened theories of law and government carefully worked out by rational experimental processes rather than be left to rely on the speculation of cloistered philosophers or the mad dreams of imprisoned fanatics.""
"Rule by experimental jurisprudence is not imminent, and there would seem to be little danger of its ever coming about, at least in all its manifestations. Nevertheless, what this book represents must be taken seriously: an impatience with the "unscientific" aspects of democratic government. It would be possible, by careful selection, to present a thesis from his book that is not wholly incompatible with a certain view of democracy, one in which experimental jurisprudence appears as no more than a means of effecting or of institutionalizing a pragmatic ethics."
"Beutel's book is an almost perfect illustration of the sort of misuse of science that Lee Loevinger must have had in mind when he said that "science has contributed little, if anything, to the solution of social or legal problems," partly because it has been asked "the wrong questions, and set ...the wrong tasks," and specifically because science has been expected "to distill social policies from a test tube or a retort, much as Aladdin summoned a genie by rubbing a magic lamp."" Loevinger makes no such claim for his "jurimetrics," which he nevertheless describes as "the most promising avenue of legal progress in the contemporary world." Rather than to replace the "cloistered philosophers" and the "fictions" of the Declaration of Independence, science's most "promising and immediate contribution ... is in automatic information retrieval.""' The computers will not solve legal problems, and will not make judging obsolete, but they will assist in the solutions and in the task of judging, just as social scientists can provide information that is not available from the computers but may be needed for the wise solution of the problems that confront the courts and the law generally. Such techniques as the public opinion survey undoubtedly facilitate the gathering and collating of information, and there will be times when such information is needed by the law. This may not be an exalted role, but as society becomes ever larger and more complicated, it is necessary and an appropriate role.
Doubtless there have been "phenomenal technical and scientific" advances during the past century, as Beutel says, and that there is a "social lag"; and perhaps it is true that the "general science and art of lawmaking" has not developed "since the days of the Roman Empire"; but this is no reason for law to imitate physics or engineering. On the contrary, a grasp of the fundamental problems might reveal that there is an irresolvable tension between science, in its old or its new sense, and politics, and that any attempt to resolve the tension is likely to have terrible consequences in the political world; that the political world must be ruled not by science but by prudence., This requires at a minimum the recognition that there -will always be a "gap" between theory and practice, and that the recalcitrant or intractable political problems cannot be wholly resolved-at least, not by a government of free men. True, Socrates said that "cities will never have rest from their evils no, nor the human race ... until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy"; but Socrates, who failed even in his attempt to rule his wife, Xanthippe, knew and taught that it is extremely unlikely that the conditions required for the rule of the wise will ever be met. As Leo Strauss has said:"'
What is more likely to happen is that an unwise man, appealing to the natural right of wisdom [to rule] and catering to the lowest desires of the many, will persuade the multitude of his right: the prospects for tyranny are brighter than those for rule of the wise. This being the case, the natural right of the wise must be questioned, and the indispensable requirement for wisdom must be qualified by the requirement for consent. The political problem consists in reconciling the requirement for wisdom with the requirement for consent.
Legal scholars, and even practicing lawyers, know these exceedingly important things; they therefore have more to teach to the new scientists than the new scientists have to teach them."
(2/2)
Magic Carpet rides of the imagination can be fun is what I think (although sometimes things can change on a dime when riding the magic carpet but I digress.....) And "yes"....I also think if there is a forum that allows for it.....certain "minds" or folks with certain "dispositions", or based on one's sentimentality in general......I think when communication is "fair" they have tendency to gravitate towards one another in order to share with like minded souls and learn together based on the experiences of others.
I for one, am most fond of foxes - and that rug.....the coloring of it....the stitchery - looks quite familiar to me....I have a similar rug....two in fact, that I have placed in a small well built old house that I'm so fond of....I think I need to share an image of those magic carpets at some point in the future. Thanks for the wisdom you share.
Warm Regards,
Ken
Thank you! I follow my instincts, end up places I never thought I'd go. Sometimes whole new worlds open up.
I found the image here. It's of an antique Persian rug:
https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/the-fox-photos-of-persian-antique-rugs-kilims-carpets-persian-art.jpg
When I clicked the image search source it took me to here:
https://fineartamerica.com/art/persian+rug
But I didn't find the rug when scrolling images - maybe it sold and they removed it?
In that fine image, the stitchery I'm not kidding is most similar to the carpet more conventional from a Persian Rug standpoint that I have laying down on the floor with quite the thick pile of wool I reckon.
Anyhow - you see the "lime greenish bird" underneath the foxes sly doing the fox flirting ritual - do you not? What does that bird have in its beak I wonder? Could it be something to build a nest with? Could it be an image of peace possible as it fly underneath the foxes so fine?
Maybe - hope springs eternal and I've become a paid subscriber because I apparently gravitated to this place so that maybe you and I could have discourse - if not face-to-face at least we can share with each other direct in fair communication.
I play to win and I'm most fond of foxes!
Ken
ps - I can't resist this, the chance to share some personal experience, so please let me say this - one time in my career the consulting outfit I worked with made arrangements with textile companies in the region to help them comply with some new air permitting rules referred to as "Title V". In the effort of that I made some presentation along with others and got to meet some of the finest textile plant folks you can ever hope to meet and I enjoyed their company. Sadly, most of the plants I worked in providing consulting assistance now no longer are operating and that is a shame - because I know those places still have value and truly tis best when products are made local is what I think....but if you can acquire a Persian Rug, and only a fool would refuse such a beautiful piece of artistry is what I think - it holds the value of those who stitched it with craft. I paid a fair price for those carpets and there is no way anybody can ever take away the meaning they have in my mind resolute.
Thank you, Ken. That's so very kind of you, I appreciate that you find my ideas and research I share that valuable! I've not monetized this Substack, I don't even have financials set up for it to receive a pledge. While I get that figured out - it may be a little before I decide to use that feature - I'll let you know. In the meantime I'll enjoy the discourse and direct communication, I grow from intelligent discourse. If you email me at freedomfox@substack.com I believe it forwards through to my personal email.
Well - you must know now, that if you choose to ask for contribution, then I will contribute.
I think SubStack is going through some deliberations regarding exactly how they intend on monetizing the place and really everybody deserves to get compensation for work and effort.
Personally, I have made a choice to limit the number of places I subscribe to, but then if I choose to subscribe to said places, if contributions are desired, then I will contribute.
~
Changing gears, I'll tell you about this place in Wagram, NC. It was run by a company referred to as "WestPoint Stevens" - they had a griffin in their logo. And at this particular site, a modern textile mill built in the 1960's if memory serves near the Cape Fear river (or a major tributary I recall) and at that site they made towels. Cotton towels mostly but they did have some dual-fabric production capability. They started that plant out using coal-fired boilers cause you may not know that it takes a lot of energy to make towels clean and lots of warm water and other energy and steam is great for this purpose and boilers conventional make steam - it can be a various pressures.
Anywho, coal-fired boilers have a lot of side-issues and after that site ran for so many years these side issues associated with waste generated and stack emissions made it such that it was time to change out the boilers and I was there to help my friend, Yancy I think his name was....get the new natural gas boilers installed and holy-moly they did it...but sadly....just a few years later after spending more than 100 million I think that placed got turned into a Walmart distribution center and they don't make towels there anymore - that is a shame but it speaks to what happens when you get into debt over your head.
You should have seen the place near Clemson, SC where they made sheets!
~
Your email is appreciated and noted - I met somebody a few days ago - Marty Zetta or some such - and she shared with me the way to send email direct to other SubStack authors, so thankyou for sharing that.
~
You may not know for sure, but I'm a quick typer and just today I made a huge batch of salsa and I look forward to our future communications.
Ken
Just skimmed the history of Wagram, NC, Scotland county. A casualty of the hollowing out of America, textiles and the economic vitality of the area discarded by globalism. Is it hardscrabble land? Descriptions are that's it's very sandy, rocky. But like I said, that was just a quick skim. I know areas of the country like yours make some of the strongest people. Of character, faith and spirit.
I'll share with you the other "clients" I had in the Laurinburg, NC area. Ready?
1. Libby-Owens-Ford - they made industrial glass there - have you ever been looking down on molten glass coming out of the kiln? Let me tell you - tis impressive.
2. Butler Manufacturing - they made steel beams for "lego-like" quick construction of solid buildings. You ever see a laser cut through steel about half inch thick? Let me tell you - tis impressive.
3. Railroad Frictions Product Corp. (part of Wabtec I believe) - this was perhaps the most fascinating place I consulted at and I really loved the folks there - they made brake shoes for the railroad industry - takes a lot of friction to slow a train down as well as hexane which was used at that time as a solvent in the process and being I had some pre-knowledge of the EPA rule making process, I think they got their money's worth out of me and I enjoyed working with them and being at their place there no matter who pissed upon whom.
4. WestPoint Stevens - as already described.
5. There was another place I can't remember the name of it now, but they were grasping at threads trying to keep that place going and I have reports I made for them when they got the contract for postal employee uniforms, but both they and I knew what the fate was going to be - the textile industry was being moved out of North Carolina and the south for that matter. You know the industry started maybe in England (from an Industrial Age standpoint), then went to New England, then the Southern US maybe, then Mejico, Bangladesh, the far east....wherever...wherever labor was the cheapest? I don't think it is just that - what I think is there are funds behind the textile business and new equipment is constantly being developed and so the business follows that script.
I'll tell you this and I'm not kidding around - one time Yancy said to me - we can make it for the same cost as they can in China, but both Yancy and I knew - debt is a killer.
~
Yancy was (and is I hope) a fine man....when the company went bankrupt and could not pay my invoice, Yancy made sure that things worked out in the end because he knew I work hard and he trusted me. I miss him.
Ken
Here is the place I did business with:
https://www.magicrugs.com/?mc_cid=e16a4f59b3&mc_eid=215c8dfbea
Lucky for me they are close by and I remember when the fella delivered both of the Magic Carpets that now lay in a circa 1902 mill home build to last!
Peace
Ken