Lesson In Logic
In reply to Mr. Giltinan's dispensation
of lessons in logic, one might
point out that to "prove" the
weaknesses of liberal logic does not
necessarily render radical leftist
logic accurate and right. This has
nothing to do with defending
liberal "philosophy" or "non philosophy"
but rather with
questioning what Mr. Giltinan
offers as an alternative to liberal
"philosophy" and to question it on
the same grounds that he attacks
liberalism.
Mr. Giltinan's alternative to
liberal "philosophy" is radical
violence (Mr. Wenzl's actions are
really not the issue but rather what
his actions represent in the eyes of
Mr. Giltinan and in the eyes of the
"liberals"). So, to liberal indecisiveness,
Giltinan proposes violence, a
violence that is "good" because it is
leftist. How, then, does that violence
square with all the wars that
have been fought, with the violence
of the Christian Inquisition, with
the violent implementation of
Bolshevism in Russia and Nazism in
Germany and Italy, with the
slaughter of the American Indian or
the suppression of American blacks
or Viet Nam? Do not the leftist
radicals condemn the fruits of these
violent undertakings? Yet all of
these events were accomplished by
violence in the name of good and
justice and of a higher truth. It's
actually quite a time-honored tradition.
It is not surprising, then, that Mr.
Giltinan is inclined to treat the
radical conservative or reactionary
with considerably milder invective
than that accorded the liberal for
they are at one in their moral
superiority. The conservative and
the reactionary, explains Mr.
Giltinan, "can't hold a candle to
the liberals when it comes to
sophistry . . . " for "The Conservative
. . . believes that good violence
is that which is for a good cause,
like thwarting the International
Communist Conspiracy of Godless
Aggression, or showing the nigras
their place." A perfect description
of Mr. Giltinan's "alternative"
philosophy if one will simply
replace the above mouthful of
rhetoric for: "believes that good
violence is that which is for a good
cause, like thwarting the Establishment's
Insensitive and Inhumane
Military-Industrial Complex."
But then Mr. Giltinan certainly
would not deny this simplistic
formula; i.e., substituting the right's
violence (bad) with the violence of
the left (good). In his own words:
"one would still hope that people's
criteria for determining what was
good and what was bad violence
would at least be rational (!) and
objective (!), as opposed to merely
selfish."
Mr. Giltinan, there are a lot of
us out here waiting; unfortunately,
we do not have that firm grasp on
ultimate truth which you have; yet,
we are just as discouraged with
liberalism's ineffectiveness and
"sophistry" as you are. But your
attack on liberalism with your
superior (?) logic of "violence on
the right is bad, non-violence in the
middle is bad, but violence on the
left is good," convinces me that we
are fated to wait a while longer.
