High life
In defence of Socrates
Taki
Izzy published his follies in a weekly newsletter until 1971, when heart trouble and failing eyesight forced him to stop exposing the evils of Uncle Sam. Being conservative and thus of a forgiving nature, I absolved Izzy for his past sins, until last week, when my wife arrived in London with a copy of Izzy's latest outrage, The Trial of Socrates. In two seconds flat, Izzy had managed once again to make an Orlando Furioso of me.
As everyone who had ever heard of buggery knows, the death of Socrates had nothing to do with the corruption of youth. It was a political trial whose impact could easily be compared with that of the death of Jesus. The Athenians used Alcibiades as an excuse, but in reality they condemned old Soc to drink the poisoned hemlock because of the latter's progressive — some say revolutionary — teachings.
Back in those good old days, leaders had the right priorities. Just because Socrates had devoted his life to the pursuit of truth and virtue did not mean that he could go around spouting socialist slogans and get away with it. As they say back in Chicago, it blows my mind to think what my ancestors would have done with the lefty intellectuals of today, types who have pursued the big lie throughout and have been as virtuous as some of the women Fidel Castro keeps in his various Havana penthouses. Oh, to think what the 500-man jury of Athenian citizens would have done to Izzy baby.
Like the self-promoter he is, old Izzy knew that if he came up with an outrageous theory about Western Man's premier phi- losopher he was bound to receive an inordinate amount of publicity from jour- nalists who are as familiar with the classics as the average Russian is with glasnost. Izzy's theory, spread over 282 pages, is that Socrates was put on trial because he didn't believe in democracy, but wanted a . . . tyranny instead. According to Izzy, Soc- rates was pro-Spartan (just because Izzy was pro-North Vietnam). Better yet, Izzy contends that Socrates refused to defend himself because his right of free speech would have meant conceding principles he held in contempt. Again according to Izzy, Socrates emerges as an arrogant, conceited snob who was brutal to his wife and cold to his inferiors (which means everyone, I guess) and a man who believed in the class system even more than the first Duke of Wellington did.
Well, so be it. But according to Taki, Izzy is all wet. He applies Freudian princi- ples in trying to unearth the truth, but as everyone who has ever had a wet dream knows, Freud's theories are even more ludicrous than Izzy's. Socrates was not tired of life, nor was he oblivious to vindication, as Stone contends. Socrates drank the hemlock because he knew his death would have the effect it did. He also knew that his buddy Plato would do a St Paul on him.
But why am I wasting my time trying to shoot Izzy's theories full of holes? And why do I feign surprise? At Stanford University, 500 students with the egregious Jesse Jackson at their head were marching last month chanting, 'Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western culture's got to go.' In its place they insist on the classics according to . . . women.
Previous page
