If the Anarchy Doesn't Kill You, The Nuance Will

The following is from an article in The New English Review from May 2007 by Theodore Dalyrmple which is a pen name of Anthony Daniels. Daniels is a retired psychiatrist who often writes about culture. I see it as an indictment of the obsession of liberals with nuance. My own personal indictment might be more on the lines of, ‘if you can‘t win with the truth then baffle them with bullshit.’

“In my youth (in which I include my early adulthood), I read a lot of philosophy. . . . .
In those days, the Soviet Union loomed very large in all our imaginations. It was the ruffian on the stair of western civilisation, or a looming presence to the east. And that meant that, for anyone who wanted to understand the world, it appeared necessary to immerse himself in Marxism (actually, it was more important to read the history of the Russian intelligentsia from the time of Nicholas I than to read Marx), since the Soviet Union claimed to be a society founded on Marxist principles.
Marxist writers were not famed for their clarity or elegance of exposition. Indeed, clarity was rather looked down upon by them, for the dialectical nature of the world was inherently hard to understand and therefore to express. For Marxists, clarity was simplification, or worse still vulgarisation. It was the handmaiden of false consciousness that misled the workers into not being revolutionaries.”

This is what liberals frequently espouse: lack of nuance is, "the handmaiden of false consciousness that misleads workers . . . "

Dalyrmple's piece is an interesting comparison of marxism to the teachings of the Egyptian, Qutb, who is often seen as the main intellectual father of radical and jihadist Islam. It can be found at
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=7240&sec_id=7240

It All Depends on Whose Steyn Is Being Gored

Mark Steyn recently wrote a column that identified a new civil right: the right to not be offended. A little thought about this leads me to wonder if, before I speak, I am expected to go to every person in the world and make sure every one of them is OK with what I’m about to say. Just joking. I know those who enforce this ‘civil right’ really don’t care about me suffering offense from other’s remarks. These enforcers are only interested in the thoughts and feelings of a few. What atheists and many nonChristians feel is especially important. The feelings of the members of certain racial groups are trotted out to limit the speech of others. But nuance is important here. Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice might think they are black and I might even think they are. But their feelings are not of any interest to the enforcers: except bonus points are offered to anyone who will offend Condi and Colin.
There is a basic test of someone’s alleged beliefs. If you are willing to extend the benefits to all mankind, not just your friends and allies, then I might be able to accept that it is a truly and firmly held belief. But if the right to not be offended is only extended to a slice of humanity then it begins to look like just another weak assed rhetorical device.