Pharyngula

Posted by: loocas | November 2, 2010 2:03 PM

Was that from one of his letters?

Posted by: cervantes | November 2, 2010 2:06 PM

Ahh, who are you quoting there? Is this a pseudonym for a current writer? How come no specific attribution?

That's kind of an enigmatic post, PZ.

Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED | November 2, 2010 2:06 PM

@Tualha: And Thomas Jefferson kept slaves, but we still heart our First Ammendment.

People can say really fucking stupid things and ALSO say really goddamn correct stuff. 'cause, you know, the world isn't split into perfect people and utter monsters.

Lovecraft was a horrible bigot, but also a fantastic writer, an imaginative world-builder, and it would seem a cutting-edge political commentor.

Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED | November 2, 2010 2:11 PM

And?

His racism influences his criticism of the Republicans... how?

Posted by: Tualha | November 2, 2010 2:12 PM

I'm sure most of the people here agree with HPL on this particular point. Sadly, that does not constitute a valid argument in support of our opinion of the Republican Party.

I would also point out that an opinion about the GOP of 1936 says very little about the GOP of 2010.

Posted by: Yoritomo | November 2, 2010 2:14 PM

I too would ask for a specific attribution of that quote. And while I'm at it, how about a specific attribution for his racism, too? He does seem a bigot, but I had the impression that in his stories he ranted about "degenerate" whites just as much as about people of other "races".

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmZwO9K6Xa6rTEyEaKJp_KNEzvBGJSlhy4 | November 2, 2010 2:15 PM

What's the source for this quote?

Re: racist views. He was pretty typical for his time. He also seems to have had pretty bad relations with the rest of humanity in general and considered almost everybody despicable.

Posted by: Tualha | November 2, 2010 2:18 PM

@12 - see third quote here:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/H._P._Lovecraft

Posted by: tytalus | November 2, 2010 2:26 PM

Re: Tualha, #10

I would also point out that an opinion about the GOP of 1936 says very little about the GOP of 2010.

Indeed. The GOP of 2010 may well have earned H.P.'s admiration, if your charges of racism on his part are true. :)

Posted by: david.morning | November 2, 2010 2:28 PM

I find it interesting that he mentions the issue of resource distribution. I had assumed (not being American, quite possibly wrongly) that this revulsion towards the idea of distributing wealth came from the McCarthy era and the demonisation of socialism, but here we have Lovecraft talking about the exact same issue before the cold war had even started. What is with the right wing and this obsession?

Posted by: joel.mueller | November 2, 2010 2:29 PM

@12 - I love Lovecraft's work for the most part, but it's simply not possible to read the ending to Medusa's Coil without coming to the conclusion that he was a racist, at least at that point in his life.

http://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/fiction/mc.asp

Posted by: tigrrr73 | November 2, 2010 2:32 PM

Aww, Howard. That's a nice quote.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | November 2, 2010 2:33 PM

I would also point out that an opinion about the GOP of 1936 says very little about the GOP of 2010.

True. That said, I find it fascinating that the description still holds a modicum of apparent truth. I would've expected much more divergence.

Posted by: What a maroon | November 2, 2010 2:35 PM

One prominent difference here is that Jefferson was a product of his time, and progressive for his day, as very little as that says.

Posted by: Opisthokont | November 2, 2010 2:37 PM

Tualha (@10): This is a reasonable point: all that we (or at least those of us who are not political scientists and/or historians) can say is that this is a magnificent invective against a political party of 74 years ago that happens to match the description of a political party of today. As it happens, the parties are one and the same, but it also happens that (apparently, if Lovecraft is to be trusted) that party has not changed much. Except that the Republican Party of today adds a religious element (paradoxically appealing both to fundamentalist Protestants and to Catholics) to it, just to make matters worse.

Posted by: yeahchrisbo | November 2, 2010 2:44 PM

@Tualha

HP Lovecraft is dead, and can't give you any examples which are pertinent today. Did he give examples in his time? Probably. Not within that specific, out of context quote.

But I think that any thinking person can figure out several points that he makes in that quote which are relevant today.

For example:

and revel in (consciously or unconsciously) mendacious assumptions (such as the notion that real liberty is synonymous with the single detail of unrestricted economic license or that a rational planning of resource-distribution would contravene some vague and mystical 'American heritage'...)

Anyone who has listened to a teapartier for any duration *knows* this one to be true. The dire warnings about restraining the free market, and the promises of restoration of our country if only we put our faith in the invisible hand. As for the vague and mystical American heritage, well, how often have you heard it claimed that we're being turned into a socialist country, and how this is some kind of perversion of our heritage.

I really don't need to explain all this, do I?

Posted by: gussnarp | November 2, 2010 2:45 PM

There's a bit on Wikipedia (I know) referencing some biography that says that Lovecraft changed his views later in life. 1936 would have been later in his life. Wikipedia also suggests that Lovecraft was classist as well as racist, something this quote speaks against, at least slightly. It's true that humans are complex, and sometimes the brightest can be terribly wrong, and the most generally wrong occasionally right. For example, Bill Maher on religion versus Bill Maher on vaccines. Even Glen Beck has occasionally said some intelligent and insightful things. Very occasionally. I for one tend to eschew the writings of those who are particularly bigoted, even when they are occasionally useful. I do think this reference shows up because the quote itself is amusingly accurate of todays GOP, and well, you now, Cthulu, tentacles, etc.

Posted by: Tulse | November 2, 2010 2:49 PM

the quote pointed out by PZ is just plain wrong on so many levels

And if he had provided a quote by Seneca, would you have said that we should ignore it because he kept slaves, slept with married women, and advised Nero?

Posted by: yeahchrisbo | November 2, 2010 2:54 PM

@Doc

Again, all this means is that his political beliefs should be taken on their own merits. Where his political beliefs were informed by his racism he is likely to be wrong, and I will disagree with him there. But the fact that some of his beliefs were influenced by his racism does not justify the blanket dismissal of everything he says concerning politics.

But, regardless, whatever he's saying needs to be actually considered before it can be dismissed. You need to dismiss racist statements and ideas, not racist people. People are complex, and frequently hold a mix of good ideas, bad ideas, and many which are somewhere in between. Ergo, you have to look at the idea, not the person. If it was informed by his shortcomings then it should be obviously wrong.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | November 2, 2010 2:55 PM

@Guss

"Rarely" and "*VERY* rarely" would have been clearer word choices. "Very occasionally" implies an event that happens often.

Posted by: gussnarp | November 2, 2010 2:58 PM

I occasionally use quotes from religious people and leaders. Sometimes overtly religious quotes, simply because the ideas in them are so profound, and as a tool for speaking to people who share a religious heritage the are very effective. Like these:

“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -Siddharta Guatama Buddha

“We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living." -General Omar Bradley

“To rejoice over a victory is to rejoice over the slaughter of men." -Lao Tzu, The Art of War

“In the name of Allah, the beneficent, the merciful.
Praise be to the Lord of the Universe who has created us and made us into tribes and nations that we may know each other, not that we may despise each other. If the enemy incline towards peace, do thou also incline towards peace, and trust God, for the Lord is the one that heareth and knoweth all things. And of the servants of God, most gracious are those who walk on the Earth in humility, and when we address them, we say, ‘PEACE.’" -The Koran

I don't throw away useful tools because the toolmaker was an ass. But then again, I would be highly unlikely to quote Hitler for anything. I have now Godwinned the thread.

Posted by: gussnarp | November 2, 2010 3:03 PM

@Ing - Hmm, I've never heard "very occasionally" used that way. I may never have heard it used at all. I started from occasionally and went to "very occasionally" as a bit of a play on words. Didn't really think of that meaning, but I guess it is literally correct.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | November 2, 2010 3:08 PM

I don't throw away useful tools because the toolmaker was an ass. But then again, I would be highly unlikely to quote Hitler for anything. I have now Godwinned the thread.

"People will believe any lie provided it is a big enough lie"~Hitler

That and his term "useful idiots" tend to actually be of value. Not for the reasons Hitler intended of course, but still.

Posted by: jesnider | November 2, 2010 3:13 PM

And there's even a t-shirt available with that quote on it.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | November 2, 2010 3:18 PM

DOH! I meant to say that. I also had a sentence about how it's valuable to read the writings of evil assholes because occasionally they're the best source for insights on tyranny and being an evil asshole!

Posted by: mikeyB | November 2, 2010 3:32 PM

Cmon - psychoanalyzing HP Lovecraft - that wasn't the point. The quote was spot on.

My only hope the next couple years is the tea party wackadoodles elected to congress will engage in so many of the theatrics of the past - eg Terry Schaivo, shutting down the government, endless investigations, that the amnesiatic uninformed public will relearn what ill prepared loons they are (unless the policies are to cut taxes and regulations to corporations) even better if Sarah Palin decides to run for president.

Posted by: See Nick Overlook | November 2, 2010 3:33 PM

Vote for the Louise Party. They drives 5 mph slower than the Thelma Party.

Posted by: moonkitty | November 2, 2010 3:47 PM

@Steven Mading

To an evolutionary biologist, that shouldn't evoke a sense of horror at all. It should evoke a shrug of the shoulders and a "Tell me something I didn't know"

The fact that you know it means you feel nothing about it? You're crossing the street and a speeding truck appears and it's heading your way; you shrug and think, well, I knew I was gonna die sometime?

Posted by: gussnarp | November 2, 2010 3:59 PM

@Doc On what levels is the quote wrong? It is mostly opinion, but it seems about right to me:

"frightened" of homosexuals, immigrants, and Muslims. Check

"Greedy" depends on exactly who you mean. The corporate executives responsible for the Chamber of Commerce attack ads and lots of donations to Republican candidates in hopes of legislation that will benefit their bottom line, like Corrections Corporation of America who basically wrote the Arizona immigration law to keep their prisons full, I think could be easily described as greedy. Check.

"nostalgic huddle of tradesmen and lucky idlers" Well, nostalgic, yes, hearkening back to the Reagan years, or the 50s, or all the way back to the late 19th Century in some cases. Tradesmen, not as much anymore, but some. Lucky idlers? What else would you call George W. Bush?

"Who shut their eyes to history and science" - Global warming, stem cell research, evolution, rewriting history in Texas school books. Check.

"Steel their emotions against decent human sympathy" See positions on extending unemployment benefits, health care for 9-11 responders, health care regorm, equal pay for equal work, abortion rights. Check.

"cling to sordid and provincial ideals exalting sheer acquisitiveness and condoning artificial hardship for the non-materially-shrewd" - What else would you call Republican economic policy? Check.

"Dwell smugly and sentimentally in a distorted dream-cosmos of outmoded phrases and principles and attitudes based on the bygone agricultural-handicraft world" - Witness Reagan and Bush "working" their ranches, positions on States' rights, etc. Check

"and revel in (consciously or unconsciously) mendacious assumptions (such as the notion that real liberty is synonymous with the single detail of unrestricted economic license or that a rational planning of resource-distribution would contravene some vague and mystical 'American heritage'...) utterly contrary to fact and without the slightest foundation in human experience?" - Again, a perfect description of Republican economic policy. Check.

"Intellectually, the Republican idea deserves the tolerance and respect one gives to the dead." - Q.E.D.

Posted by: Cor (formerly evil) | November 2, 2010 4:11 PM

The Republican Party of 1936 contains everything you need to know about the Republican Party of 2010.

Posted by: truthspeaker | November 2, 2010 4:39 PM

Posted by: Tualha Author Profile Page | November 2, 2010 2:12 PM

I'm sure most of the people here agree with HPL on this particular point. Sadly, that does not constitute a valid argument in support of our opinion of the Republican Party.

I would also point out that an opinion about the GOP of 1936 says very little about the GOP of 2010.

I don't entirely agree. Sure, the party has changed in some respects, but it is still the party of the privileged classes and the economically advantaged.

Posted by: Ichthyic | November 2, 2010 4:47 PM

The Republican Party of 1936 contains everything you need to know about the Republican Party of 2010.

indeed.

IIRC, wasn't congress at the time pushing for legislation of rampant market excesses that were so obvious in light of the market crash?

...and weren't there basically large, well funded, efforts to stir the populace against that legislation?

sure strikes a chord.

Posted by: LarianLeQuella | November 2, 2010 5:12 PM

I rode my liberal, commie, pinko, socialist bicycle to the polling station. I voted, and I got a nice American flag sticker.

I wonder. Was the sticker made in China? :P

Posted by: mikeyB | November 2, 2010 5:14 PM

You can quote mine lots of people from the past and suggest they were racist, sexist etc. The probably were by today's standards. The question to me is how did they compare to their times. I'm no expert on Lovecraft, so don't know how he fits in.

For example Abraham Lincoln:
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."

Or Churchill:
I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.

Posted by: F | November 2, 2010 5:34 PM

truthspeaker

It's the only one of his pathologies that relates to politics. It's especially relevant because back in the 1930s, the Democratic party was much more racist - it was a populist position.

So, his positions on sex, women, general misanthropy, and feeling that things were better in the Classical world and have only degenerated since, have no bearing on politics? OK, if you say so.

Posted by: JRD | November 2, 2010 6:44 PM

Link, please? Or at least a cite?

Posted by: MadScientist | November 2, 2010 6:54 PM

Do as in the presidential elections of 2004 and make sure you vote to keep the fear alive! Oh yeah, I can sense everyone's missing Dubbyah. Why are people so bent on finding things to be scared of? If anything, such needless fears only leads to a worse economic position (thanks for invading Iraq, Dubbyah).

Posted by: Lynna, OM | November 2, 2010 7:15 PM

So, Rand Paul won. Ditto for Jim Demint.

Demint is associated with C-Street/The Family. He's a big mover and shaker in the Tea Party movement. That's one nasty win.

DeMint has donated more than $5 million through his political action committee to 11 upstart conservative, tea party candidates who lacked mainstream GOP support early in the election cycle....
      DeMint will lead a small but vocal group of committed conservatives who favor drastic spending cuts, limited government and free-market capitalism.
     The group could oppose Democrats and Republicans it considers ideologically "impure," putting DeMint at the head of the Senate’s rightward march....
     A string of tea party victories in Tuesday’s Senate races would allow DeMint to “carve out a new identity for himself as an ideological leader within the party," Pitney said. "He would develop a strong following outside of the Senate."...
     The Senate candidates DeMint is backing are: Dino Rossi in Washington state, Sharron Angle in Nevada, Mike Lee in Utah, Ken Buck in Colorado, Joe Miller in Alaska, Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, Marco Rubio in Florida, Rand Paul in Kentucky, Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania and Ron Johnson in Wisconsin.
Paul, Angle, Buck, Johnson and Rubio are seen as having the the strongest chances for victory.

Posted by: Ichthyic | November 2, 2010 7:19 PM

Rand Paul won handily.

ugh.

Posted by: Asclepias | November 2, 2010 7:45 PM

We lonely Democrtats out here in Wyoming vote against people more than we vote for them, but it doesn't really make any difference. I look forward to the day we get Cynthia "I Don't Follow The Republican Leadership In Washington, They Follow Me" Lummis out of office.

Posted by: James F | November 2, 2010 8:00 PM

This one goes out to Senator Rand Paul.

Blue Buddha.

Posted by: John Morales | November 2, 2010 8:08 PM

A view from Oz: Change predicted as mid-term count begins.

One of the comments there seems to me to sum up our general sentiment:

Oh, America. They're like that cousin that you love dearly, and they're a good person, but they just keep making stupid decisions over and over and ruining their own life, and you just have to stand back and watch the fallout

Posted by: Katharine | November 2, 2010 8:31 PM

...That free vibe looks a lil' weak. We prefer to play with power, like Nintendo in the 80s. Word.

Oh, it's powerful. I own one.

Posted by: great.american.satan | November 2, 2010 9:01 PM

Katharine-

To continue a conversation that would make our favorite reformed dabbler in witchcraft and lesbianism cry baby jesus tears, How about decibels? Our last ladymoving device was too loud. Made a girl self-conscious. If it is loud, would it work OK through a cloth of some kind?

Posted by: Katharine | November 2, 2010 9:38 PM

It's pretty silent. I can't hear it much under the sheets. (I also live with my folks, one of whom is a frighteningly light sleeper, and they haven't heard anything from the next room, from what I know...)

Posted by: great.american.satan | November 2, 2010 11:20 PM

@Katharine- Thanks. I'm gonna go buy a vibrator. Glad I don't live in Soviet Russia, where vibrator buys you! Peace out y'all.
-

Posted by: Sheila Blige | November 3, 2010 1:53 AM

I would like to offer an alternative (fictional) quote. Other half and I are watching the West Wing on dvd and last night saw episode "Gone Quiet" from season 3. We both cheered after the following exchange between Sam Seabourn and Bruno Gianelli:

Sam Seaborn: Why are you so bent on countering these idiot leaflets?

Bruno Gianelli: Because I'm tired of working for candidates who make me think that I should be embarrassed to believe what I believe, Sam! I'm tired of getting them elected! We all need some therapy, because somebody came along and said, "'Liberal' means soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense, and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to!" And instead of saying, "Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave It To Beaver trip back to the Fifties...!", we cowered in the corner, and said, "Please. Don't. Hurt. Me." No more. I really don't care who's right, who's wrong. We're both right. We're both wrong. Let's have two parties, huh? What do you say?

Good news: I cast my first vote since recently becoming an American citizen. Bad news, my vote failed to oust Rick Perry as Governor of TX. Will try harder next time....

Posted by: defides | November 3, 2010 5:42 AM

I used to think that the problem with American democracy is that the populace taken as a whole was too dumb to realise their country is run by obscenely wealthy people on behalf of fantastically greedy corporations.

After two weeks of BBC Radio 4 daily reports on the US mid-terms, I've now realised that problem with American democracy is that the populace taken as a whole thinks it's a good thing that the country is run by obscenely wealthy people on behalf of fantastically greedy corporations.

Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory | November 3, 2010 7:50 AM

Sorry, blockquote fail. "To an evolutionary biologist..." should be part of the preceding quote. (I did preview, I just missed that bit).

Posted by: gussnarp | November 3, 2010 10:30 AM

@Pierce R. Butler - Doh! Did I really do that?

Posted by: paulofcthulhu | November 3, 2010 12:40 PM

Way to take an early 19th century comment and apply it to a 21st century system. Although Lovecraft is one of my favorite authors and I acknowledge his many faults (xenophobe, racist, etc.). Obviously one must add communist sympathizer to that list as well. In true Lovecraft fashion he uses uses flowery descriptions to describe common ideas (and in this case with a negative light). For example "unrestricted economic license" is simply the free market. The free market has proven more successful that government-run operations time and time again. "Rational planning of resource-distribution" - if I'm not mistaken he's alluding to central planning and the redistribution of wealth and resources... an entirely unconstitutional and repulsive idea. Repulsive that is if you don't support the nanny state.

Posted by: Donovan K. Loucks | November 3, 2010 2:27 PM

“Democrats invariably ape the grotesque crudities of the lower orders and make conspicuous clowns of themselves; jeering at civilised speech, manners, and standards of accuracy and beauty instead of respecting these things and urging their beloved masses to work up toward them. As long as they persist in this position, they will win nothing but the distrust and hostility of men well-disposed toward civilisation and the fullest realisation of the human personality.” (H. P. Lovecraft to Woodburn Harris, 9 November 1929)

Donovan K. Loucks
Webmaster, The H.P. Lovecraft Archive
http://www.hplovecraft.com

Posted by: tajparis | November 3, 2010 4:52 PM

@104

What is interesting about that quote you provide is that it could apply to the current republican party every bit as well as the quote offered by PZ. Not so much to the modern dems.

One party has changed, the other...

Posted by: Ichthyic | November 3, 2010 5:04 PM

The free market has proven more successful that government-run operations time and time again.

yeah, the depression of the 30's sure proved that!

fucking libertarians, how do they work?

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/Z5ZA2tlvketPsnG3G8EVJbgYwGEUHH4E#13219 | November 3, 2010 7:07 PM

Well, if not the racist site, try this one:
http://www.contrasoma.com/writing/lovecraft.html
There is no shortage of sites discussing this topic.

Posted by: Kseniya | November 3, 2010 11:27 PM

The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist. *shudder*

The Free Market is a pretty effective economic engine, but history shows again and again that unrestricted free-market capitalism is an imperfect engine for social justice, environmental protection, and various other aspects of human well-being. Is this not painfully obvious to anyone with zero or more eyes and a mind?

Posted by: Ichthyic | November 4, 2010 2:20 AM

there has also never, ever, been:

a pure communist government, or a pure democracy.

life don't work in a vacuum.