--[Edited for Flynt by Mulder]--

Mulder: Scully, the following handwritten notes, almost certainly written by Zoe Alexander, are scribbled on the backs of a (a) printout of the NY Times Book Review article by Professor J. Gordon Liddy and (b) some stock quotes, both of which are copied below. I believe these are notes for a speech which she gave, or intended to give, at a meeting of the Branch Parfitians.

Scully: Mulder, you are truly an idiot. When are you going to begin doing your homework? You are as sloppy as ever. (1) First, “Liddy's article” is plagiarized word for word by Liddy from an article with the same title published on the internet, by the Watergate felon and ex-con Charles Colson, as Breakpoint Commentary #90628 --with the exception, that is, of the first paragraph and all of the sentences and phrases that mention Erin Hughes and Zoe Alexander. Colson you will recall is the guy who said he'd run over his mother to get Nixon re-elected president. To repeat: Colson wrote everything word for word except the first pp and all references to Erin and Zoe. Presumaby Liddy did write what he did not plagiarize-- it certainly is his style. Got that? (2) Secondly, to anyone who has read Erin's new book, or for that matter, who has actually read these handwritten notes, it is obvious that Erin wrote them (not Zoe). Erin tackles issues head on and mulls them over and over so that even though it can be tough to slog through it, if you pay attention your conceptual scheme will be cleaner by the time you are done whereas Zoe free associates so much that reading her notes can make you dizzy but if you hang on you sometimes get into new territory.--

--interrupt [Mulder: their styles strike me as identical. Actually I have been wondering if you were really transcribing their words or putting both of them in your own words. Are you sure you're not describing these “differences” in order to mask your inability to transcribe correctly? --

Scully: Anyway it is the same thing talking with them in person.]--

--interrupt [Mulder: And just what, Scully, would you know about talking with them in person?

--As I was saying, Hughes probably jotted down these notes before the appearance with Liddy on CNN's Crossfire that erupted in the fist fight in which she broke his nose. Please do not ask me to explain how these notes ended up in Carson's Jeep.--Maybe Erin and Carson secretly were having an affair. Maybe she hires him as a gigolo now and then, perhaps on weekends. Maybe she too is an alien, surreptiously in alliance with Liddy and Carson!! Maybe Joe and Zoe took Erin for a ride to the grocery store!!!!!!!!!!! (3) Finally if I may be permitted a small editorial comment about the content of the following article and notes, it seems to me that aspects of a violent culture, including how high school students behave, is not unrelated to our generally complacent tolerance of institutional violence exemplified, Mulder, by the fact that (and the ease with which) you requisitioned Sparkly Tear Gas #62 yesterday “just in case we need to use some against the Branch Parfitians” (whoever the hell they are). By the way, let me figure something out here. Let m3e see: Yes, when you torched that religious sect down in Waco those kids in Littleton, Colorado, who later began to identify with the Nazis and then killed their classmates would have been about 10 or 11 years of age. Yeah, they probably saw the whole Waco thing on tv. That could make an impression on a little kid, especially coming on the heels of when 99% of the goddam nation was cheering on the little war against Iraq upon which Bush insisted after turning a deaf ear & blind eye to the peace-making efforts of the late King Hussein of Jordan in the Persian Gulf. That could make an impression on a little kid.

Mulder: Settle down, Scully.

>NY Times Book Review Online

>Will Nietzsche Win: Why Worldview Matters

>by J. Gordon Liddy

>It has fallen or befallen to me to write a review of a book, or >rather, to get to the point more simply, to review a book by Erin >Hughes, friend of the libelous Zoe Alexander, I might add, which >from the first word onwards does not speak highly of the book, >needless to say. To this end I can hardly could do no better, I >mean no worse, which is to say I hardly could do better than to >summarize the main points I made at a milestone of sorts for me >and my oldest grandson when I spoke at his high school >bachelorreate service (which usually occurs, if I am not >mistaken, the evening before the wedding).

>

>Last month was a milestone of sorts for me and my >oldest grandson when I spoke at his high school baccalaureate >service. Mingling with students and parents afterwards, I >found only one subject on their minds: Littleton. >Months after the tragedy, Littleton dominates>our thoughts and our fears for our kids. I predict >Littleton will be remembered as a cultural watershed--the >event that signaled the crack-up of postmodernism.

>

>Postmodernism draws inspiration from the 19th-century >philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (who, I might add here, is what >Hughes' book is about, which I am reviewing) who argued that "languages of good and >evil" are rooted in neither truth nor reason, but in the will to >power. Fifty years ago, the Nazis fleshed out Nietzsche's ideas, >just as does Hughes, and a few months ago, two teenagers >displaying Nazi symbols mowed down their classmates in cold >blood. Need I mention that these two teenagers might have gone to >a rave the night before just like Zoe did, even though it was a >school night, since most teenagers have.

>

>Yet the wrenching irony is that these boys were merely >pushing to its logical conclusion the postmodernism of the >surrounding adult culture. I have never understood what >“postmodern” means and unfortunately the word is not mentioned in >Hughes' book, an unfortunate omission, if she intended the book >for adults (however I cannot find any pictures in my copy of the >book). ?? Political scientist Francis Fukuyama says the decline in >traditional morality can be traced most directly to Nietzsche's >view that morality is not objective--that it is culturally >invented as a smokescreen for power struggles. And since >morality is "socially constructed," it must be "deconstructed" to >unmask the underlying power grab.

>

>Thus subverting authority becomes a good thing; breaking >rules, an act of liberation. As another commentator >writes, postmodernists have "transform[ed] sin and evil >into a positive term." >In short, evil is "cool." The late postmodernist Michel>Foucault even praised irrational violence as a way to be >liberated from rules imposed in the name of reason. >As these ideas filter down to popular culture, movies and >rap music begin depicting murderers as confident, >efficient, unflappable. Cool. And eventually kids shoot >down their classmates while joking and laughing.

>

>An historic parallel to Littleton took place seventy-five >years ago, when two college students, Nathan Leopold and >Richard Loeb, murdered a 14-year-old boy. Their defense >lawyer, the infamous Clarence Darrow, made a dramatic >appeal, saying Leopold had absorbed Nietzsche's ideas >at school. "Your Honor," he said, "it is hardly fair to >hang a nineteen-year-old boy for the philosophy that was>taught him at the university."

>

>A startling thought, but a relevant one today. Of course, >teen murderers must be held accountable for their actions. >Yet it's true the Littleton killers were only acting out >the logical consequences of the postmodernism taught today >from university to grade school. One can only wonder if >they had not read Hughes' book, or perhaps at least read >comments on the book's cover (which I read myself more than once) >or probably they saw Zoe on MTV is what happened. They were >acting out concretely what adults advocate in abstract concepts.

>

>The difference between Zoe Alexander and someone like Charles >Colson is that Colson has been held accountable for his actions, >served his time in prison, and been forgiven, whereas, like many >younger people today, Alexander, not having violated the national >trust or committed heinous crimes, not only has not served her >time in prison but additionally has probably not even been >forgiven, and therefore hardly knows whereof she speaks whereas >he certainly does know.

>

>Christian apologist Francis Schaeffer urged Christians to >press people to the logical consequences of their own >beliefs. Littleton illustrates what postmodernism leads to >when lived out in the real world. It's one thing to debate >the topic in a rarefied academic setting, it's quite >another when a Nazi-quoting teenager sticks a gun in your >face. Suddenly, you realize that worldviews do matter.

>

>As I told my grandson's graduating class, Littleton brought >us face to face with two major worldviews competing for our >allegiance--the destructive power of postmodernism >contrasted with the transforming power of Christianity.

>

>Which one will America choose?

>

>

>

>Copyright (c) 1999 Prison Fellowship Ministries

>

--------- End forwarded message ----------

Symbol Name Last Chg %Chg

$INDU Dow Jones Industrials Index 10,102.090 -123.641 -1.21%

$XAX.X Amex Composite Index 931.420 -3.570 -0.38%

$COMPX Nasdaq Combined Composite Index 4,584.600 +34.270 +0.75%

$INX S&P 500 Index 1,349.790 -10.900 -0.80%

ADRX Andrx Corporation 90.000 -2.500 -2.70%

AMAT Applied Materials, Inc. 181.500 +0.500 +0.28%

BMCS BMC Software, Inc. 39.500 -1.625 -3.95%

BTGC Bio-Technology General Corp. 18.000 -0.813 -4.32%

CDO Comdisco, Inc. 35.563 -1.375 -3.72%

CHIR Chiron Corporation 49.438 -2.938 -5.61%

CSCO Cisco Systems, Inc. 136.563 -2.063 -1.49%

DELL Dell Computer Corporation 42.125 +0.750 +1.81%

INTC Intel Corporation 114.000 +4.938 +4.53%

LLTC Linear Technology Corporation 104.063 +1.188 +1.15%

LSI LSI Logic Corporation 57.313 -1.688 -2.86%

MSFT Microsoft Corporation 94.250 unch 0.00%

NITE Knight/Trimark Group, Inc. 38.938 +1.125 +2.98%

ORCL Oracle Corporation 61.625 -1.438 -2.28%

PSFT PeopleSoft, Inc. 22.375 -0.875 -3.76%

SBH SmithKline Beecham plc 55.563 +0.250 +0.45%

SNPS Synopsys, Inc. 40.063 +0.063 +0.16%

SSW Sterling Software, Inc. 35.625 -0.438 -1.21%

STJ St. Jude Medical, Inc. 25.938 unch 0.00%

TSM Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing 54.813 -0.188 -0.34%

WCOM MCI WorldCom, Inc. 45.813 -0.625 -1.35%

**

[Handwritten notes transcribed]

Note for Liddy debate

Where I agree Liddy:

1. Worldviews matter. Definitely. significant differences in worldviews in culture. Makes a big difference what we think. Important enough to fight about. (And if you want a little culture war, I'll fight.--will whup your ass, you fucker--know how to do it too! Especially if imply again Zoe a Nazi. Just because you dont' understand her doesn't mean she responsible for all bad things you don't understand. Put up your dukes & see below--

:)

-- but for moment pointing out where we agree so try to be nice for awhile. The point here: I agree worldviews matter. Not a game.

2. Moral relativism wrong and pernicious. agree about that. There are basic moral universals --as human beings we need to respect and promote. would add: basic respect innate, genetically engrained via natural selection in the evolution of species, cf Chomsky argues some linguistic universals innate, otherwise kids wouldn't learn complex human languages we in fact learn. Of course fact that norms innate doesn't mean that we programmed invariably to respect them. In fact equally may have evolved to have conflicting impulses, or if having evolved to have conflicts too complex, at least evolved so we have them as matter of fact. So going to be inner conflict.--why moral training and examples/ideals are so important --just like kids wouldn't learn any language if they weren't around one spoken.

3. Academics & artists bear some responsibility for culture of violence. (But so do religious people. See below) --high school shootings not on some remote planet. Insofar as relativism wrong, pernicious, so also much of so-called post-modern thought, art -- uncritically assumes and implicitly or explicitly promotes relativism. --Please listen: I AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT THAT. As actually a lot of socalled "postmodern"ers-- [he won't listen-- don't really expect him to!!!]

4. Nietzsche influential in development of uncritical assumption of naive moral relativism by contemporary intellectuals * artists. I agree. It won't work.

Where I disagree with Liddy:

1. Nietzsche, Foucalt, postmodern thought not equivalent to Nazis. Much less Zoe! --Talk about smear job...

2. basic moral precepts objective and universal --yes ( we agree about that part) BUT basic precepts have to be distinguished sharply from complex web of societal values (call it= “traditional morality”) within a society. Otherwise there's trouble in complex diverse modern society. Liddy et. al. don't appreciate this distinction at all!! (see below).

3. basic precepts not very complicated in principle. The complexities/ indeterminacies that pervade real life NOT disputes over most fundamental principles [Show with examples from buddhism, hinduism, ten commandments (nontheistic parts), etc: remarkable.] These basic principles are =:

not to harm = not to take life,

not to be deceptive or malicious,

not to take what's not given,

not to harm sexually.

Period. of course big differences in application. E.g. Jains interpret precept not kill means not to kill ANYanimal, whereas Judeo-Xns only apply human beings in one's local group, with humans in other groups lower status; animals from other species zilch status. Yes, big difference & can debate all night which version better. But don't let THAT debate blind to what all have in common (= not killing is morally significant). Also values re marriage, sex provide good examples where huge disagreements re details but in context of agreement about not to harm sexually.

4. “Traditional morality” encodes societal values, norms, and restrictions etc. easily get confused with basic universal objective precepts. Liddy nowhere close to recognizing distinction between basic universal moral precepts and values of (his) particular group. On the contrary, blurring it essential for his points. (see 6 below.) Likewise some contemporary postmodern writers actually share this feature with Liddy when they ignore distinction, & deserve Liddy's scolding if they simply write off morality altogether (when should just be criticizing provincial norms). Moreover similar point for buddhist theorists who say “ultimately” morality is irrelevant, but “conventionally” it binds us-- gives the impression morality merely conventional: i.e., 2Ts framework no space for distinction between objective moral precepts and societal norms. Universal objective precepts of course dependent for validity, but still not arbitrary whims of those with or seeking power (like N claimed) nor simply arbitrary imperatives emerging from vacuum. Indeed objective moral precepts arise with reality of self in world; indeed objective morality is dependent upon reality of self, just as self dependent upon bodies, etc. [This needs to spelt out but not here.]

5. Nietzsche's critique of moral language as smokescreen for will to power directed primarily at use to promote “traditional morality” where power of individuals/groups dependent upon widespread acceptance of certain specific norms. One can agree with Nietzsche about that, even while refusing to accept his invitation to moral skepticism and/or relativism. This my position. Indeed N himself recognizes there are certain universals-- even in the preface to the Genealogy of Morals itself!!!!! [Take quote --Harming the neighbor has been felt to be preeminently harmful in all the moral laws of different ages, until now the word "evil" is associated primarily with the deliberate harming of the neighbor. --p. 169, Kaufmann’s ed On the Genealogy of Morals] -- never retracts it. (But evenhad retracted it, clearly believes universality is compatible with what critique of use of norms for sake of power.) [not saying he'd agree with me that moral universals objective; my point re N is himself has to rely on distinction between (a) human moral universals and (b) traditional societal morality. But nonetheless he could agree without abandoning his critique of the widespread use of moral language to mask, perpetuatate hierarchical power structures that deny spirit, life, joy, creativity. The reason lit crit types so angry at me =I've shown very father figure wouldn't buy irresponsible superficial rejection of moral universals; also they don't like me saying universals objectively binding. [lighten up on this: dont attack all at once]

6. Liddy trying equate basic morality both with (i) his own religion plus (ii) traditional conventional values of his friends & community. --To exclusion of all other religions & cultures.-- That really bad, ugly. That is ugly. This exactly =petty imperialistic power grab Nietzsche talking about. And yes--that closer to Nazis than anybody [don't say it that way] & is right in spirit of condemning people to hell for not being Xns =the sort of thing against which N was reacting (overreacting).

7. What kids need? Kids need clear instruction about basic moral precepts plus deep radical sense of play & exploration. Liddy's equation of basic moral precepts with his form closed-minded arrogance ugly. Kids will react in all sorts of weird terrible ways to that ugliness.--How to say that, not tur out equally ugly??? [don't call Liddy a Nazi!! --But do say it if he accuses Z responsible for Littleton high school shootings like he did on Charlie Rose]

Am taking this ding dong L too serious?? Try stay cool. If come across equally whacky as L then nobody buys my book.

8. See if made points 2-5 clearly enough in book.

9. Don't forget--mention gun control

10. Make up midterm test for 340H.

11. Call lawyer re agreement / call Tim??

12. See if vouchers available if Z goes 2d grade Country Valley.

13. See can Z stay over while gone

13. Grocery store (shampoo, orange juice, lens solution, red-out eye stuff)

14. Hair ??

15. Pack/ dress??

16. Sell Intel

17. Starbucks

18. Call Z's doctor and get answers

19. Birthday gift Tim's mom ???