July 20, 1969: I was there

Not the Moon, on which the crew of the Apollo 11 spacecraft would land as that Sunday drew to a close (almost 11:00 P.M. Eastern Time). No, Mount Morris Park (renamed Marcus Garvey Park four years later) for one very memorable afternoon, part of that summer’s Harlem Cultural Festival.

On my way home from high school a few days before, I saw an ad on the No. 27 Bronx bus that took me from the IRT’s Sound View Avenue Station on Westchester Avenue and dropped me off at the Academy Gardens (at the Randall Avenue stop just before the bus makes a left turn onto Rosedale Avenue).

By Gind2005 – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=25730097

Around noon the day Neil Armstrong would do the first “Moonwalk,” I took the No. 6 train (of J.Lo’s debut album fame; she was born four days later) from the same station (now Morrison-Sound View Avenues) to 125th Street to enjoy a Soul Music concert of arguably historic proportions. After the Beatles craze, to which I had succumbed as a pre-teen in 1964, my musical tastes migrated, not to Rock, but to Soul. That set me up for my first Jazz concert in 1971.

If there were other white people among the myriads of black folks forming a sea of ebony across the green field, I didn’t see them. When I asked a gentleman for directions back to the 6 after the show, he nearly lost the cigarette that dangled from his lips. That sort of thing. Distributors of The Black Pantherthe newspaper of the The Black Panther Party, not the superhero comic book, which actually predates the Party—hawked their wares indiscriminately and therefore to me.

According to blogger kamau [whose blog has since been deleted from the web] in 2009, “producer Hal Tulchin took over 50 hours of footage of the festival, but was unable to get it aired on the American TV networks of the day. Currently that footage lies languishing in vaults; apart from Nina Simone’s performance [on August 17th] that is making the rounds of YouTube . . .  most of that footage has not seen the light of day.”

Below is the text of the original press release.  (The area code for the whole city then was “212”; “718” for the “outer boroughs” came in 1984.)

The “headliner,” Stevie Wonder, was just 18; Chuck Jackson, now 81, turned 32 two days later.

UPDATE: In 2017, Bryan Greene, General Deputy Assistant Secretary at U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and fellow soul music fan emailed me about my post as it appeared on an old jazz site. We set up a time for a phone interview about my experience; he wrote up the result in an article that captures the time’s politics and culture. It’s in the April-June 2017 issue of his newsletter, Poverty & Race, available online. I hope some of you will take a peek.

The festival is also Greene’s point of departure for a recent Smithsonian article about the Moon anding and the alternative uses that he and others wish NASA’s funds would be put. As you might guess, I’m against governmental boondoggles on principle, but at least the $24 billion mulcted from taxpayers led to a Moon landing; $15 trillion later, U.S. poverty rates are about what they were when President Lyndon Johnson declared a “war on poverty.” 

And the beat goes on. (Yeah, that was from ten years later.)

The above modifies and expands a 2009 post on another site.


City of New York
Administration of Parks,
Recreation and
Cultural Affairs
Arsenal, Central Park 10021

For Release

UPON RECEIPT

For Further Information:

Janice Brophy – 360-8141

SOUL FESTIVAL IN HARLEM

Harlem will host the sounds of soul this Sunday, July 20th, at 2:00 p.m. at Mount Morris Park, 124th Street and Fifth Avenue. The concert climaxes “Soul Music Festival Week.” proclaimed by Mayor Lindsay for July 15th to July 20th.

Stevie Wonder, David Ruffin, Chuck Jackson, Gladys Knight and the Pips, and the Lou Parks Dancers are featured at the Soul Festival, the third concert in the Harlem Cultural Festival 1969, sponsored by the New York City’s Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs Administration and Maxwell House Coffee, and produced and directed by Tony Lawrence. Admission is free.

The Harlem Cultural Festival 1969 will continue through the summer with three more concerts at Mount Morris Park, all at 2:00 p.m. A Caribbean Festival on July 27th, featuring Mongo Santamaria, Ray Barretto, Cal Tjader, Herbie Mann, and the Harlem Festival Calypso Band; a Blues & Jazz Festival on August 17 with Nina Simone, B. B. King, Hugh Masakela, and the Harlem Festival Jazz Band; on August 24th, a Miss Harlem Beauty Pageant & Local Talent Festival, featuring La Rocque Bey & Co., and Listen My Brothers & Co.

Christ, Capital & Liberty: A Polemic

Christ, Capital & Liberty: A Polemic is out today in paperback; xx + 331 pages, 42 chapters, four appendices. A Kindle edition is in the works. The following paragraphs should answer basic questions like, “What’s this about?”

From my Introduction:

From March 8, 2011 to September 10, 2012, nineteen months in all, I blogged my criticism of The Church and the Libertarian, Christopher A. Ferrara’s slanderous and ignorant attack on the Austrian School of Economics. He argued that no faithful Catholic could be a sincere libertarian of the ASE persuasion. One day I had promised Mr. Ferrara that if he published a book to that effect, I’d answer it. Across almost ninety posts I fulfilled that promise, and this book reincarnates them.

After a year and a half, however, I decided that life was too short to sacrifice other projects on the altar of this polemic. The issues were (and are) important, and I found researching and writing about them congenial, but I could no longer sustain the effort. . . .

This book is the record of an effort in pro-market apologetics (in the classic sense of “defense against intellectual attack”). All interference in market exchange, not only outright state control of the “means of production,” but also violent robbery, involves a degree of “socialization” of the costs of acquiring a good or service. To impose costs on individuals who have not chosen to bear them, be they contemporaries or later generations, is to “socialize” those costs. Calculating these (usually hidden) costs falls to the economist. “Socialism” and “communism” are but frank labels for the systematic, territory-wide state interference with the market exchanges of individuals. That is, it differs in degree, not of kind, from the predations of garden-variety gangsters.

From Gerard Casey’s Foreword:

Anthony Flood’s Christ, Capital and Liberty: A Polemic is a spirited and detailed defence of the fundamental compa­tibility of Catholicism and Austro-Libertarianism. . . .

Flood is critical not only of Ferrara’s conclusion, but also of the argumentative methods that Ferrara employs. “Several thorough readings,” writes Flood, “have convinced me that it is such a bad book, morally as well as stylistically, that it arguably ought to be ignored rather than critically reviewed. Its tone is continuously inflammatory, its arrangement of material lopsided . . . and his use of sources tendentious. The last-mentioned trait includes either unawareness or evasion of evidence relevant to his topic but inconvenient to his purpose.” Flood is especially critical of Ferrara’s epistemically uncharitable failure to employ responsible internal criticism of his opponents’ positions and also of his inadequate grasp of various historical controversies. . . .

Tony’s book will be of interest to many people, but perhaps especially (but not only) to those who are Catholic and who are also attracted to the intellectual coherence of Austro-Libertarianism, but are concerned that the two systems of thought may be irreconcilable. Polemical writing is not everybody’s favourite form of reading, but the multiple, mostly short, chapters of Christ, Capital and Liberty provide so many insights, engage the perspectives of so many thinkers and attack the central topic of the compatibility of Catholicism and Austro-Libertarianism from so many angles that no reader can fail to achieve a greater insight into the matter after reading it than he had before he began.

Gerard N. Casey MA, LLM, PhD, DLitt.
Professor Emeritus, University College Dublin
Associated Scholar, The Mises Institute, Auburn, Alabama
Fellow, Mises UK

And finally, at least for this post, the table of contents:

Part One: Setting the Table

Chapter 1      A Question of Tone

Chapter 2      In Few Things, Charity?

Chapter 3      A Question of Competency

Chapter 4      Sound Bites, Panic Buttons, Scare Quotes

Chapter 5      An Inconvenient Jesuit

Chapter 6      An Overview of an Overview

Chapter 7      Demonize and Delete the Austrians

Chapter 8      Value-Laden and Value-Free

Chapter 9      Adventures in Meta-Ethics

Chapter 10    Aquinas’s Proto-Liberal Concerns

Chapter 11    An Inconvenient Anarcho-Catholic

Chapter 12    Doctorates, “Dummies,” and Defamation

Chapter 13    On Not Seeing the Forest for the Woods

Part Two: Main Course

Chapter 14    Capitalism: a Post-Christian Structure?

Chapter 15    Conflating Science and Ethics

Chapter 16    Disparaging Imaginary Constructions as Illusions

Chapter 17    “Statism” versus “Greed”

Chapter 18    Confusion or Calumny?

Chapter 19    The Kevin Carson (Side-)Show

Chapter 20    What Do We Mean by “The Free Market”?

Chapter 21    If I Had a Hammer: Hayek on Tool-Ownership

Chapter 22    Rothbard on Enclosure

Chapter 23    The Hammonds, T. S. Ashton, and Emily Litella

Chapter 24    Grand Theft Monastery

Chapter 25    Dismissive of the New, Evasive of the Old

Chapter 26    Lie, Rinse, Repeat

Chapter 27    Sudha Shenoy on Enclosures

Chapter 28    The Gnat of Enclosure, the Camel of Slavery

Chapter 29    Lock(e), Stock, and Jesuit

Chapter 30    Slavery, Real and Bogus

Chapter 31    If This Is Infallibility . . . .

Part Three: Dessert and Leftovers

Chapter 32    Save Money, Live Better, Just Do It

Chapter 33    Corporations as “Psychopaths”

Chapter 34    Enclosing Debate

Chapter 35    Rothbard Shaves Ferrara’s Quasi-Marxist “Beard”

Chapter 36    Shall We Prefer Government by Naked Coercion?

Chapter 37    Slavery for the Corporation?

Chapter 38    The Corporation as “Sociopath”

Chapter 39    Railroading the Free Market

Chapter 40    (Fan)Fanning the Embers of Fascism

Chapter 41    Scrooge on Externalization

Chapter 42    Ferrara’s Reserve of False Notes

Appendices

Appendix A    Murray Rothbard on Abortion

Appendix B    A Profound Philosophical Commonality

Appendix C    Lord Acton: Libertarian Hero

Appendix D   Is Anarchy a Cause of War?

Discovering Otis Q. Sellers: an autobiographical vignette

March 22, 1978. A crisp 50-degree Wednesday in the Big Apple. Jimmy Carter was President. Saturday Night Fever was in the movie houses.

A New York University grad, I was studying for a doctorate in philosophy at the City University of New York’s graduate school. Still living at home in Bronx, I earned my keep by sorting and internally delivering mail at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson—“Sargent Shriver’s law firm,” I’d tell friends and family. (Never saw him: he was based in the Washington, DC offices.) Fried, Frank was then leasing several floors of the Equitable Building, 120 Broadway. In chapter 8 of Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution Antony Sutton devoted a chapter to the conspiracies that transpired in that storied edifice. I remember reading that book during my tenure in the law firm’s mail room. (See my post on this.)

During one lunch break I encountered Gabe Monheim, a semi-retired engineer from Red Hook, Brooklyn, then in his early 40s. The temperamental and cultural opposite of Otis Q. Sellers (1901-1992), an elderly Los Angelino formerly of Wellston and Cincinnati, Ohio.

Otis Q. Sellers, 1901-1992

It was where Wall and Broad Streets intersect, a crossroads for me between philosophy and the Bible, a dividing line I’d crisscross many times. But for Gabe, I may never have heard of Sellers. And you wouldn’t be reading this. (I mention Gabe in a post that complements this one.)

Gabriel Monheim, 1936-2015

I had been working in the financial district for three years, and Gabe had been preaching there (and further south at the Battery) for even longer (having once worked at the engineering firm Ford, Bacon & Davis), but I never noticed him. We pay attention to what we’re looking for, and I wasn’t yet looking for what he was offering. I wasn’t attuned to his message. At a distance, all street-corner preachers looked and sounded alike.

Until that day.

Continue reading “Discovering Otis Q. Sellers: an autobiographical vignette”

This blog’s direction

I appreciate the feedback some readers gave when I asked what they’d like to see more of/less of on this blog. The received wisdom in the blogosphere is that the blogger must be obsessively reader-centric; this means making readers hungry for one’s next post.

Can I do that? I don’t know.

My interests intersect with yours, or they don’t. Mine do not include financial, health, or romantic advice. I don’t create fiction series. I have no recipes for red velvet cupcakes or tips on saving money on getaways.

This blog’s subtitle is “the dialectical residue of fifty years”: I’m sharing conclusions I’ve reached in fields that most people avoid but I find exciting. If we’ve labored in the same vineyards over part of that time, something I write might resonate with you. If you’re a kindred spirit, I won’t have to coax you to check in from time to time. You will have become (what Jeff Goins calls) a member of my “tribe.”

(Tribalism’s not my thing, but all  Goins is emphasizing is the notion of following someone for what he or she is writing about. I’ve happily acquired the status of tribesman to others.)

But it’s been too long since my last post. (Some of you might mutter, “Not long enough.”) “At least once weekly” was my now-broken rule. As a company of one, I can either produce content or market content, but not both at the same time; there are only so many hours in the day. The work week flashes by like a day, with Monday feeling like breakfast, Wednesday lunch, and Friday dinner; weekend chores beckon, and suddenly it’s Monday.

Turning 88 posts from my 2011-2012 anarcho-catholic blog (now deleted) into a book of 42 chapters, to which a libertarian Catholic philosopher has graciously provided a foreword, exacted a price on this blog. I can spare time for this post because the manuscript for Christ, Capital and  Liberty is out for formatting. The paperback should be available next week on Amazon; the Kindle version, next month. I’ll keep you posted.

Going forward, I face the same dilemma. For most of this year I’ve been researching the life and thought of Otis Q. Sellers (1901-1992), a productive autodidactic Bible teacher I knew forty years ago. I had initially accepted his interpretation, then rejected it, but then re-embraced in 2015. (I refer to him on my About Me page and featured his contrarian interpretation of Romans 13:1-7 a few months ago on what would have been his 118th birthday.)

Otis Q. Sellers, 1901-1992

This project will take me into areas of history, hermeneutics, and theology, all necessary if I am to contextualize Sellers’ maverick interpretation of Biblical prophecy.

 

I intend to solve the productivity dilemma by blogging about the Sellers project. Not exclusively, but mostly. Cannibalizing my notes, I’ll write about aspects of his life and thought in no particular order, hoping this apparent randomness will ward off the paralysis that threatens whenever I face a big, blank canvas.

Sellers’s theology has not enjoyed exposure to an audience beyond his tribe of a few thousand students who, over seven decades, attended his classes and conferences, absorbed his messages, and read his literature. My dual challenge is to expound the thought and write the life of person who is not (yet) notable.  I will meet it through acts of regular, focused writing that will intersect with topics that drew you to this blog in the first place.

To say that I will be interested in your take on this project would be an understatement.

Murray Rothbard: Notes on His Philosophical Starting Point

Complementing last week’s post is another unfinished essay from my Rothbard biography project, aborted two decades ago.


“All of my work has revolved around the central question of human liberty.”1

Reason may be man’s most distinctive attribute, but his liberty, his essential freedom (as distinct from his effective freedom) is his noblest. For it is by his exercise of liberty that man decides either to be faithful to his rational nature or to evade its demands. Man is by nature a knower, but how he ex­presses that nature depends on how he exercises his liberty.

Murray Newton Rothbard denied that liberty was man’s highest end and that it may excuse license. He did believe, however, that man must protect liberty above all else in his political life, the realm of legitimate interpersonal violence. There is of course much more to life than politics. There is, for instance, religion, philosophy, and art, not to mention the love of family and friends. To enjoy them, however, requires liberty. It is therefore incoherent to constrict liberty in the name of art, religion, philosophy, or love. An attack on liberty is an attack on the great goods that presuppose it. Continue reading “Murray Rothbard: Notes on His Philosophical Starting Point”

Murray Newton Rothbard: Notes toward a Biography

JoAnn and Murray Rothbard, 1950s

I may be fairly described as (among other things) road-kill along the way to the definitive biography of Murray Rothbard (1926-1995). In 1997 I sought and gained the cooperation of his widow, Joann, and Lew Rockwell, then president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, to begin that project.

All I managed to do, however, was fulfill the prediction that this effort would overwhelm me. My enthusiasm for the idea of telling Murray’s story and expounding his ideas blinded me to the fact, obvious to everyone but me (and perhaps my mother), that I was not up to the task. The life of Rothbard, an intellectual giant, awaits its Hülsmann. And if the interval between the death of Ludwig von Mises and the production of Guido Hülsmann’s Mises: Last Knight of Liberalism is any guide, the wait is far from over.

On display below is barely refined ore mined from not only from secondary sources but, more importantly, from interviews conducted with people who knew Murray: in the first place JoAnn Rothbard, but also Leonard Liggio, Ralph Raico, George Resch, John McCarthy, and James Sadowsky.  Readers who have profited from Justin Raimondo’s An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard and Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement as well as Murray’s own monograph, The Betrayal of the American Right will discover a fact or two not related in those works, which I highly recommend.

I was pleasantly surprised when, in 2010, Gerard N. Casey, Professor (Emeritus), School of Philosophy, University College, Dublin, and Associate Scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute cited my unfinished essay (first published on my old site in 2008) in his fine monograph Murray Rothbard, a sure milestone on the road to the “definitive biography” project.1


Murray Newton Rothbard was born in the Bronx on March 2, 1926. His father, David Rothbard, a shoe­maker’s son, was raised in Vishigorod, Ukraine, 40 miles north of Warsaw on the Vistula. David, who had attended Hebrew school as a child, abandoned Juda­ism because its scriptures told of a God who had instigated the violent behavior of the Israelites, and that horrified him. Continue reading “Murray Newton Rothbard: Notes toward a Biography”

Sadik Hakim, 1919-1983: Chance Encounter? A Jazz Digression.

It may be, as the Buddhist proverb has it, that when the student is ready, the teacher will appear.  When Sadik Hakim briefly appeared in my life, however, I wasn’t ready, and wouldn’t be for more than a third of a century, that is, until it was too late. So, maybe he wasn’t supposed to be “the teacher,” right? He was certainly, however, “present at the creation” of arguably the world’s greatest music (well, that’s how I’d argue); if I had known then what I learned later, I could have benefited from our chance encounter even more than I did.

He was christened Argonne Thornton a century ago on July 15th in Duluth, Minnesota. On November 26, 1945, this denizen of 52nd Street in its glorious Bebop period had alternated with Dizzy Gillespie on piano on Charlie Parker’s immortal “Ko-Ko” date. (Britt Aamodt tells the story here.)

According to his Wikipedia entry, “Hakim is credited with co-writing Thelonious Monk’s standard ‘Eronel’ and is rumored to have written a few famous bop tunes credited to other composers. He adopted his Muslim name in 1947.”

The most common, and most apt, adjective associated with Sadik Hakim is “unsung.”  Although the average jazz fan cannot recognize his name, I have run into it repeatedly, and unexpectedly, in many jazz biographies. For example, I’ll pick up From Swing to Bop only to read Shelly Manne’s memory of a night at the Onyx on 52nd Street in the early ’40s when big Ben Webster knocked over nearly every table to dissuade some rowdy solider on leave from further pestering his pianist. Or just today, when I consulted Feather and Gitler’s The Biographical Encyclopedia of Jazzfor information on a former music teacher of mine, saxist Paul Jeffrey (with whom I took a single, but valuable, lesson in 1974), I learned that Professor Jeffrey had played with Hakim in 1961.

Some of Sadik’s memories of befriending as well as working with Bird are recorded in Bird: The Legend of Charlie Parker, edited by Robert Reisner. Because I had read this book sometime before November 19, 1976, that I was able to appreciate the good fortune of his striking up a conversation with me, a stranger, that night at Bradley’s (70 University Place, 1969-1996).

I was there to see legendary bop-era guitarist Jimmy Raney, who did not disappoint. (He played Bird’s “Billie’s Bounce” at my request, and his son, Doug, sat in for one or two numbers.) During the second set I was, according to my diary, “joined at my table by Sadik (I think that’s it) who knew all the greats. It was great talking to him. After the second set I walked him over to Sweet Basil’s [88 Seventh Avenue South] where George Coleman was blowing an alto [sax] apart. On the way, I recall [to him] somebody from a book on Charlie Parker who had a Moslem name and who knew Bird well. It turns out it was he!! He doesn’t drink or smoke; he lives his religion.  I was very impressed with him.  He’s going on tour now with somebody.”

He accomplished much more than I can summarize usefully in a post, but a quick search will bring you to the most salient facts.  He passed away in June of 1983, about a year after playing “Round Midnight” at the funeral of Thelonious Monk. (Read Hakim’s “Reflections of an Era: My Experiences with Bird and Prez” on my old philosophy site, where one can also read scans of old clippings.)

In 1976 I could not have imagined paying tribute to him this way. Thank you, Sadik, for going out of your way to touch my life, however fleetingly, not in cyberspace, but at Bradley’s. I wish had gone out of my way to keep in touch, but my self-esteem, or lack of it, wasn’t up to the task. I had foolishly undervalued the evidence of your accessibility and ruled myself out.

Perhaps I’m learning from you after all, Teacher.  Requiescas in pace.

(This post is a slightly  modified version of one that appeared on Tony Flood’s House of Hard Bop” on July 15, 2010; you might also check out my other post on Hakim, “Forgotten Duluthian” from May 8, 2012.)

Did the Apostle Paul argue for God’s existence?

William F. Vallicella (right)

Theistic philosopher Bill Vallicella recently posted again on Apostle Paul’s Letter to the Romans (1:18-20). Here are the concluding sentences:

It ought to be obvious that one cannot straightaway infer from the intelligibility, order, beauty, and existence of nature that ‘behind’ nature there is a supernatural personal being that is supremely intelligent, the source of all beauty, and the first cause of all existing things apart from itself. One cannot ‘read off’ the being instantiated of the divine attributes from contemplation of nature.

Suppose I see a woman. I am certain that if she is a wife, then there is a person who is her husband. Can I correctly infer from those two propositions that the woman I see is a wife?  Can I ‘read off’ from my perception of the woman that she is a wife?”

No, we can’t read off “wife” (a relationship) from her body, but the prior question should be: can we can “read off” her being a woman from . . . what exactly? From nothing: we don’t infer “woman” (female person) from a congeries of sensory phenomena, but rather intuit “woman” immediately.

And we’re responsible for treating her with the respect due every person, and not treat her as though she were an insentient android (on the off chance that the “inference” to personhood is an inductive leap to a falsehood).

We don’t infer God from the world’s existence, organization and beauty, but that’s irrelevant to Paul’s claim. That is, Bill’s report of what’s obvious to him is not germane to Paul’s claim to have revealed something about our epistemological situation.

What is known (gnoston) of God (Roman 1:19) is understood (noumena) by the things that are made (Romans 1:20). It is not that the latter provide materials for an inference to God, but rather that they occasion the occurrence of insight (as Augustus Strong put it).

Continue reading “Did the Apostle Paul argue for God’s existence?”

“Life from non-life”? Without a prayer.

Abiogenesis, a Greek mouthful for “the origin of life,” is according to Wikipedia, “the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter.”

The lack of critical qualification at the outset is startling: non-living matter’s alleged once-upon-a-time issuance in life is asserted as a fact, not a hypothesis. That is, the bald assertion comes first, followed by the admission of the hypothetical nature of the whole business:

While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life, and this article presents several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.

So the devilish details are unknown and there’s no single, generally accepted model for abiogenesis, yet some version of it must be true. That’s the “prevailing hypothesis.” Belief in its having occurred is “uncontroversial among scientists.”

That is to say, abiogenesis is a dogma, not an empirically verified fact. It is a sad commentary on the state of science that a theory with nothing going for it except the culturally regnant naturalistic prejudice is “uncontroversial.”

And by nothing, I mean . . . nothing. For an entertaining retailing of the dues the dogmatists pay for their dogmatism, I cannot recommend too enthusiastically Rice University Professor of Chemistry James Tour‘s lively video presentation (sponsored by The Discovery Institute) available on EvolutionNews.

Antony Flew

Professor Tour’s massive case against “life from non-life” gives one an idea of the “integrated chemical complexity” that led the late philosopher (and long-time atheist) Antony Flew (not to be confused with Anthony Flood) to drop his profession of atheism for deism.

Show me the chemistry!,” Tour demands. So did Flew, but he went away empty-handed.

It doesn’t exist.

The evidence for the existence of God—the God of the Bible, not Flew’s deistic deus—lies in (among many other aspects of creation) scientific inquiry itself, the fit of intelligibility and intelligence. It’s inexplicable apart from the worldview expressed in the Bible. The demonstrated folly of research programs for testing the abiogenesis “hypothesis”—or the dogma masquerading as one—is, at best, a suasive consideration for Christian theism.

So, again, set aside a couple of minutes for the beginning of James Tour’s pedagogical tour de force (sorry!). I defy you not to stay for the whole hour.

Book Launch: “Herbert Aptheker: Studies in Willful Blindness”

My first book went live on Amazon today. Its introduction and first chapter were originally blog posts, but the rest the book consists of essays published over the past five years. If you can help spread the word, please do. I’ll prepare a paperback version. I now append the book description.—Anthony Flood

Herbert Aptheker (1915-2003), a pioneering researcher in African-American slave revolts, was also an American Communist theoretician. Anthony Flood, who attended Aptheker’s lectures a half-century ago, became his research assistant, friend and comrade. Decades after Flood repudiated the comradeship, it dawned on him that Aptheker’s politics had blocked his research in his area of specialization: he failed to recognize The Black Jacobins, the work of C. L. R. James (1901-1989) that chronicled the only successful slave revolt in modern times. The failure was ideological.

In the course of investigating this silence, Flood discovered scholars who admired both writers, but never at the same time. Doing so would have forced them to address the uncomfortable truth that one of their heroes ignored the other. That is, the white radical scholar ignored the black radical scholar who was 14 years his senior. The only explanation, Flood contends, is that Aptheker, the Stalinist, could not bring himself to acknowledge the work of James, the Trotskyist.

There are other problems with Aptheker’s legacy, of course, such as his uncovering the truth about slavery in the Americas while covering it up in the Soviet Union and its satellites. The “dissing” of James, however, undermines his “anti-racism” reputation as well as his argument that “partisanship with the oppressed” makes objectivity in history writing possible. He was a partisan of too many oppressors. He eventually admitted his own “willful blindness” (his words), yet that didn’t stop him from defending, as late as 2000, The Truth about Hungary, his book-length apologia for the Soviet Union’s crushing of the 1956 Hungarian revolution.

Herbert Aptheker: Studies in Willful Blindness includes not only Flood’s essay on Aptheker and James, but also vignettes of his coming into Aptheker’s life as a high school student and that of Sidney Hook (Aptheker’s nemesis and Flood’s philosophy professor). Also included are a review of the first biography of Aptheker and an inquiry into Aptheker’s status as an historian. Appendices include Aptheker’s first essay (in The American Hebrew) and Flood’s first letter on Aptheker (in The Journal of American History).

Herbert Aptheker expressed the ethos of the American Communist Party in its heyday, an atmosphere that pervades “progressive” American politics today. If you want to look at his role in that “progression,” this monograph is a good place to start.