Neutrality - Revision history

Illegitimate Barrister: /* B */ QUOTE ADDED.

2025-10-13T14:51:02Z

B: QUOTE ADDED.

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:51, 13 October 2025
Line 21:		Line 21:
	* [[Friedrich Hayek\|Hayek]] forced into public discourse the question of the compatibility of [[democracy]] and statism. And unlike [[James Burnham\|Burnham]], he made no pretense of neutrality about the phenomena he described. … In responding to Burnham and Hayek … liberals were in fact responding to a powerful strain of [[Jeffersonian]] anti-statism in American political culture … The result was a subtle but important shift in [[liberal]] thinking.		* [[Friedrich Hayek\|Hayek]] forced into public discourse the question of the compatibility of [[democracy]] and statism. And unlike [[James Burnham\|Burnham]], he made no pretense of neutrality about the phenomena he described. … In responding to Burnham and Hayek … liberals were in fact responding to a powerful strain of [[Jeffersonian]] anti-statism in American political culture … The result was a subtle but important shift in [[liberal]] thinking.
	** [[w:Alan Brinkley\|Alan Brinkley]], ''The End of Reform : New Deal Liberalism in Recession and War'' (1995)		** [[w:Alan Brinkley\|Alan Brinkley]], ''The End of Reform : New Deal Liberalism in Recession and War'' (1995)

			*Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.
			**[[George W. Bush]], [https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html speech to Joint Session of Congress and the Country] (20 September 2001)

	== C ==		== C ==

Hamish: (GR) File:Libertarian Socialist Flag.svg → File:Libertarian Socialism Flag.svg Criterion 1 (original uploader’s request) · original uploader’s request

2025-07-03T16:42:35Z

(GR) File:Libertarian Socialist Flag.svg → File:Libertarian Socialism Flag.svg Criterion 1 (original uploader’s request) · original uploader’s request

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:42, 3 July 2025
Line 160:		Line 160:
	== Y ==		== Y ==
	== Z ==		== Z ==
	[[File:Libertarian ~~Socialist~~ Flag.svg\|thumb\|It is a [[world]] of clashing interests – [[war]] against [[peace]], [[nationalism]] against internationalism, [[equality]] against [[greed]], and [[democracy]] against [[elitism]] – and it seems to me both impossible and undesirable to be neutral in those conflicts. ~ [[Howard Zinn]] ]]		[[File:Libertarian Socialism Flag.svg\|thumb\|It is a [[world]] of clashing interests – [[war]] against [[peace]], [[nationalism]] against internationalism, [[equality]] against [[greed]], and [[democracy]] against [[elitism]] – and it seems to me both impossible and undesirable to be neutral in those conflicts. ~ [[Howard Zinn]] ]]

	* Surely, we want to be objective if that means telling the truth as we see it, not concealing information that may be embarrassing to our point of view. But we don’t want to be objective if it means pretending that ideas don’t play a part in the social struggles of our time, that we don’t take sides in those struggles.<br /> '''Indeed, it is impossible to be neutral.'''		* Surely, we want to be objective if that means telling the truth as we see it, not concealing information that may be embarrassing to our point of view. But we don’t want to be objective if it means pretending that ideas don’t play a part in the social struggles of our time, that we don’t take sides in those struggles.<br /> '''Indeed, it is impossible to be neutral.'''

GreenMeansGo: /* K */ upright

2025-04-04T12:13:14Z

K: upright

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:13, 4 April 2025
Line 66:		Line 66:

	== K ==		== K ==
	[[File:Gonzo.svg\|thumb\|No one took the [[voice]] of the [[journalist]] further away from "neutral background" (or seemed less able to stop himself doing it) than [[Hunter S. Thompson]]. Even at the start of his career, he was no [[believer]] in journalistic neutrality. ~ [[w:Hari Kunzru\|Hari Kunzru]] ]]		[[File:Gonzo.svg\|thumb\|upright\|No one took the [[voice]] of the [[journalist]] further away from "neutral background" (or seemed less able to stop himself doing it) than [[Hunter S. Thompson]]. Even at the start of his career, he was no [[believer]] in journalistic neutrality. ~ [[w:Hari Kunzru\|Hari Kunzru]]]]

	* '''[[Dante]] once said that the hottest places in [[hell]] are reserved for those who, in a period of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.'''		* '''[[Dante]] once said that the hottest places in [[hell]] are reserved for those who, in a period of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.'''

Xefon: /* R */

2025-04-04T11:48:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:48, 4 April 2025
Line 98:		Line 98:
	== Q ==		== Q ==
	== R ==		== R ==
	[[File:Photo 04 (The "Shame" Album).jpg\|thumb\|The [[peace]]-loving [[nations]] must make a concerted effort in opposition to those violations of treaties and those ignorings of humane instincts which today are creating a state of international anarchy and instability from which there is no escape through mere isolation or neutrality. ~ [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] ]]

	* The peace-loving nations must make a concerted effort in opposition to those violations of treaties and those ignorings of humane instincts which today are creating a state of international anarchy and instability from which there is no escape through mere isolation or neutrality.		* The peace-loving nations must make a concerted effort in opposition to those violations of treaties and those ignorings of humane instincts which today are creating a state of international anarchy and instability from which there is no escape through mere isolation or neutrality.
	** [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], in [[w:Quarantine Speech\|Quarantine Speech]] (1937)		** [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], in [[w:Quarantine Speech\|Quarantine Speech]] (1937)

Ekedjade: better image

2024-04-03T17:21:16Z

better image

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:21, 3 April 2024
Line 91:		Line 91:
	== O ==		== O ==
	== P ==		== P ==
	[[File:~~Anti~~-~~dictatures2~~.~~svg~~\|thumb\|right\|If we extend unlimited [[tolerance]] even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant [[society]] against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. ~ [[Karl Popper]] ]]		[[File:G-Antitota.jpg\|thumb\|right\|If we extend unlimited [[tolerance]] even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant [[society]] against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. ~ [[Karl Popper]] ]]

	* '''The so-called ''[[paradox]] of [[freedom]]'' is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek.''' The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in [[Plato]].<br> Less well known is the ''paradox of [[tolerance]]'': '''Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are [[intolerant]], if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.''' — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by [[rational]] argument and keep them in check by public [[opinion]], suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the ''right'' to suppress them if [[necessary]] even by [[force]]; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but [[begin]] by denouncing [[all]] [[argument]]; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. '''We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.''' We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the [[law]], and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as [[criminal]], in the same way as we should consider incitement to [[murder]], or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the [[slave]] trade, as criminal.		* '''The so-called ''[[paradox]] of [[freedom]]'' is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek.''' The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in [[Plato]].<br> Less well known is the ''paradox of [[tolerance]]'': '''Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are [[intolerant]], if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.''' — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by [[rational]] argument and keep them in check by public [[opinion]], suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the ''right'' to suppress them if [[necessary]] even by [[force]]; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but [[begin]] by denouncing [[all]] [[argument]]; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. '''We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.''' We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the [[law]], and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as [[criminal]], in the same way as we should consider incitement to [[murder]], or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the [[slave]] trade, as criminal.

TheAlderaanian: /* I */ Hastings Ismay

2023-12-28T21:18:52Z

I: Hastings Ismay

Okthen-trytryagain: /* Z */ in house links & unboled- Howard Zinn quotes

2023-03-07T21:22:35Z

Z: in house links & unboled- Howard Zinn quotes

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:22, 7 March 2023
Line 160:		Line 160:
	[[File:Libertarian Socialist Flag.svg\|thumb\|It is a [[world]] of clashing interests – [[war]] against [[peace]], [[nationalism]] against internationalism, [[equality]] against [[greed]], and [[democracy]] against [[elitism]] – and it seems to me both impossible and undesirable to be neutral in those conflicts. ~ [[Howard Zinn]] ]]		[[File:Libertarian Socialist Flag.svg\|thumb\|It is a [[world]] of clashing interests – [[war]] against [[peace]], [[nationalism]] against internationalism, [[equality]] against [[greed]], and [[democracy]] against [[elitism]] – and it seems to me both impossible and undesirable to be neutral in those conflicts. ~ [[Howard Zinn]] ]]

	* ~~'''~~Surely, we want to be objective if that means telling the truth as we see it, not concealing information that may be embarrassing to our point of view.~~'''~~ But we don’t want to be objective if it means pretending that ideas don’t play a part in the social struggles of our time, that we don’t take sides in those struggles. <br /> '''Indeed, it is impossible to be neutral.''' In a world already moving in certain directions, where wealth and power are already distributed in certain ways, neutrality means accepting the way things are now. '''It is a world of clashing interests – war against peace, nationalism against internationalism, equality against greed, and democracy against elitism – and it seems to me both impossible and undesirable to be neutral in those conflicts.'''		* Surely, we want to be objective if that means telling the truth as we see it, not concealing information that may be embarrassing to our point of view. But we don’t want to be objective if it means pretending that ideas don’t play a part in the social struggles of our time, that we don’t take sides in those struggles.<br /> '''Indeed, it is impossible to be neutral.'''
	** [[Howard Zinn]], in ''Declarations of Independence: Cross-Examining American Ideology'' (1990), p. 6 <!-- also in ''Passionate Declarations'' (2009), p. 6 -->		** [[Howard Zinn]], in ''Declarations of Independence: Cross-Examining American Ideology'' (1990), p. 6 <!-- also in ''Passionate Declarations'' (2009), p. 6 -->

			*In a world already moving in certain directions, where wealth and power are already distributed in certain ways, neutrality means accepting the way things are now. It is a world of clashing interests – war against peace, [[nationalism]] against [[internationalism]], [[equality]] against [[greed]], and [[democracy]] against [[elitism]] – and it seems to me both impossible and undesirable to be neutral in those [[Conflict\|conflicts]].
⚫	* ~~'''~~I don't believe it's possible to be neutral.~~'''~~ The world is already moving in certain directions, and to be neutral, to be passive in a situation like that, is to collaborate with whatever is going on. And I, as a teacher, do not want to be a collaborator with whatever is happening in the world. I want myself, as a teacher, and I want you, as students, to intercede with whatever is happening in the world.
			** [[Howard Zinn]], in ''Declarations of Independence: Cross-Examining American Ideology'' (1990), p. 6 <!-- also in ''Passionate Declarations'' (2009), p. 6 -->

		⚫	* I don't believe it's possible to be neutral. The world is already moving in certain directions, and to be neutral, to be passive in a situation like that, is to collaborate with whatever is going on. And I, as a teacher, do not want to be a collaborator with whatever is happening in the world. I want myself, as a teacher, and I want you, as students, to intercede with whatever is happening in the world.
	** [[Howard Zinn]], in ''Howard Zinn: You Can't be Neutral on a Moving Train'' (2004)		** [[Howard Zinn]], in ''Howard Zinn: You Can't be Neutral on a Moving Train'' (2004)

Mdd: + Link(s)

2022-12-17T00:31:42Z

+ Link(s)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:31, 17 December 2022
Line 55:		Line 55:
	== I ==		== I ==
	== J ==		== J ==
	* [[Donald Judd]] spoke of a "neutral" surface, but what is meant? '''Neutrality must involve some relationship (to other ways of painting, thinking?)''' He would have to include these in his work to establish the neutrality of that surface. He also used "non" or "not" – expressive – this is an early problem – a negative solution or – expression of new sense – which can help one into – what one has not known.''' "Neutral" expresses an intention.'''		* [[Donald Judd]] spoke of a "neutral" surface, but what is meant? '''Neutrality must involve some relationship (to other ways of painting, thinking?)''' He would have to include these in his work to establish the neutrality of that surface. He also used "non" or "not" – expressive – this is an early problem – a negative solution or – expression of new sense – which can help one into – what one has not known.''' "Neutral" expresses an [[intention]].'''
	** [[Jasper Johns]], in ''Book A'' (sketchbook), p 31, c 1963: as quoted in ''Jasper Johns, Writings, Sketchbook Notes, Interviews'' (1996), edited by Kirk Varnedoe, p. 50		** [[Jasper Johns]], in ''Book A'' (sketchbook), p 31, c 1963: as quoted in ''Jasper Johns, Writings, Sketchbook Notes, Interviews'' (1996), edited by Kirk Varnedoe, p. 50

	* People say that my works are "neutral". But if you paint something, it is "something", and it cannot be neutral. '''Being neutral is a mere expression of a form of intention.'''		* People say that my works are "neutral". But if you paint something, it is "something", and it cannot be neutral. '''Being neutral is a mere expression of a form of [[intention]].'''
	** [[Jasper Johns]], as quoted in ''Jasper Johns in Tokyo'' (August 1964), by Yoshiaki Tono; later in ''Jasper Johns, Writings, Sketchbook Notes, Interviews'' (1996), edited by Kirk Varnedoe, p. 101		** [[Jasper Johns]], as quoted in ''Jasper Johns in Tokyo'' (August 1964), by Yoshiaki Tono; later in ''Jasper Johns, Writings, Sketchbook Notes, Interviews'' (1996), edited by Kirk Varnedoe, p. 101

Rupert loup: Moving to Net neutrality in the United States]

2019-10-20T21:21:11Z

Moving to Net neutrality in the United States]

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:21, 20 October 2019
Line 18:		Line 18:
	* '''A [[guilty]] [[system]] recognizes no [[innocents]]. As with any [[power]] apparatus which thinks everybody’s either for it or against it, we’re against it.''' You would be too, if you thought about it. The very way you think places you among its enemies. This might not be your fault, because '''every society imposes some of its values on those raised within it, but the point is that some societies try to maximize that effect, and some try to minimize it.''' You come from one of the latter and you’re being asked to explain yourself to one of the former. '''[[Prevarication]] will be more difficult than you imagine; neutrality is probably impossible.''' You cannot choose not to have the politics you do; they are not some separate set of entities somehow detachable from the rest of your being; they are a function of your existence. I know that and they know that; you had better accept it.		* '''A [[guilty]] [[system]] recognizes no [[innocents]]. As with any [[power]] apparatus which thinks everybody’s either for it or against it, we’re against it.''' You would be too, if you thought about it. The very way you think places you among its enemies. This might not be your fault, because '''every society imposes some of its values on those raised within it, but the point is that some societies try to maximize that effect, and some try to minimize it.''' You come from one of the latter and you’re being asked to explain yourself to one of the former. '''[[Prevarication]] will be more difficult than you imagine; neutrality is probably impossible.''' You cannot choose not to have the politics you do; they are not some separate set of entities somehow detachable from the rest of your being; they are a function of your existence. I know that and they know that; you had better accept it.
	** [[Iain Banks]], in ''[[w:The Player of Games\|The Player of Games]]'' (1988), Ch. 2 “Imperium”, p. 215		** [[Iain Banks]], in ''[[w:The Player of Games\|The Player of Games]]'' (1988), Ch. 2 “Imperium”, p. 215

	* [[Democracy]] depends on [[freedom of speech]]. Freedom of connection, with any application, to any party, is the fundamental [[social]] basis of the Internet, and, now, the society based on it. <br /> Let's see whether the United States is capable as acting according to its important values, or whether it is, as so many people are saying, run by the misguided short-term interested of large corporations. <br /> '''I hope that Congress can protect net neutrality, so I can continue to innovate in the internet space. I want to see the explosion of innovations happening out there on the Web, so diverse and so exciting, continue unabated.'''
	** [[Tim Berners-Lee]], in [http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144 "Net Neutrality: This is Serious" (June 2006)]

	* [[Friedrich Hayek\|Hayek]] forced into public discourse the question of the compatibility of [[democracy]] and statism. And unlike [[James Burnham\|Burnham]], he made no pretense of neutrality about the phenomena he described. … In responding to Burnham and Hayek … liberals were in fact responding to a powerful strain of [[Jeffersonian]] anti-statism in American political culture … The result was a subtle but important shift in [[liberal]] thinking.		* [[Friedrich Hayek\|Hayek]] forced into public discourse the question of the compatibility of [[democracy]] and statism. And unlike [[James Burnham\|Burnham]], he made no pretense of neutrality about the phenomena he described. … In responding to Burnham and Hayek … liberals were in fact responding to a powerful strain of [[Jeffersonian]] anti-statism in American political culture … The result was a subtle but important shift in [[liberal]] thinking.
Line 35:		Line 32:
	== E ==		== E ==
	== F ==		== F ==
	* '''Net neutrality is the First Amendment issue of our time.''' Today, a blog can load as fast as the Wall Street Journal — and, if the blog is good, it can get more traffic than any media conglomerate. But if bigger companies can pay for faster, priority Internet access, that blogger no longer has a shot. And these big companies know that when they pay for access, they win. They want preferred treatment on the Internet like the preferred treatment they get in the rest of their lives.
	**[[Al Franken]], in [http://www.franken.senate.gov/?p=news&id=1044 "Sen. Franken's Speech to Free Press Group in Minneapolis" (19 August 2010)]

	* I've said that net neutrality is the most important free speech issue of our time. It's true. If Republicans have their way, large corporations won't just have the loudest voices in the room. They'll be able to effectively silence everyone else. Every small business they'd prefer not to compete with. Every blogger who publishes something they don't like. We have to stop them.
	**[[Al Franken]], in [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-franken/net-neutrality-is-under-a_b_1082225.html "Net Neutrality Is Under Attack... Again" in ''The Huffington Post'' (8 November 2011)]

	== G ==		== G ==

Butwhatdoiknow: /* W */ remove overlinks, invert emphasis

2019-10-07T16:43:18Z

W: remove overlinks, invert emphasis

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:43, 7 October 2019
Line 136:		Line 136:
	== V ==		== V ==
	== W ==		== W ==
	* ~~'''~~Most [[people]] [[understand]] the [[need]] for [[neutrality]]. '''The real [[struggle]] is not between the right and the left — that's where most people assume — but it's between the party of the [[thoughtful]] and the party of the jerks. '''And no side of the political spectrum has a [[monopoly]] on either of those [[qualities]].~~'''~~		* Most people understand the need for neutrality. '''The real struggle is not between the right and the left — that's where most people assume — but it's between the party of the thoughtful and the party of the jerks. '''And no side of the political spectrum has a monopoly on either of those qualities.
	** [[Jimmy Wales]], in [http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/37 "How a ragtag band created Wikipedia" TED Talk (July 2005)]; this has sometimes appeared paraphrased as "The real struggle is not between the right and the left but between the party of the thoughtful and the party of the jerks."		** [[Jimmy Wales]], in [http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/37 "How a ragtag band created Wikipedia" TED Talk (July 2005)]; this has sometimes appeared paraphrased as "The real struggle is not between the right and the left but between the party of the thoughtful and the party of the jerks."

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:18, 28 December 2023
Line 10:		Line 10:

	== B ==		== B ==
	* '''Neutrality is too often assumed to require the bleaching out of all traces of [[faith]], excluding [[religious]] [[belief]] and discourse from public [[life]].''' But it doesn't, and we can see why by appeal to the notion of public [[reason]], articulated most clearly by the late political philosopher [[John Rawls]]. Rawls was quite clear that the religious have no obligation at all to keep their faith entirely to themselves. <br>"'''Reasonable comprehensive doctrines, religious or non-religious, may be introduced in public political discussion at any time'''," he wrote, "provided that in due course proper political reasons – and not reasons given solely by comprehensive doctrines – are presented that are sufficient to support whatever the comprehensive doctrines are said to support."		* '''Neutrality is too often assumed to require the bleaching out of all traces of [[faith]], excluding [[religious]] [[belief]] and discourse from public [[life]].''' But it doesn't, and we can see why by appeal to the notion of public [[reason]], articulated most clearly by the late [[Political philosophy\|political philosopher]] [[John Rawls]]. Rawls was quite clear that the religious have no obligation at all to keep their faith entirely to themselves. <br>"'''Reasonable comprehensive doctrines, religious or non-religious, may be introduced in public political discussion at any time'''," he wrote, "provided that in due course proper political reasons – and not reasons given solely by comprehensive doctrines – are presented that are sufficient to support whatever the comprehensive doctrines are said to support."
	** [[w:Julian Baggini\|Julian Baggini]], in [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/14/is-religion-really-under-threat?INTCMP=SRCH "Is religion really under threat?" in ''The Guardian'' (14 February 2012)]		** [[w:Julian Baggini\|Julian Baggini]], in [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/14/is-religion-really-under-threat?INTCMP=SRCH "Is religion really under threat?" in ''The Guardian'' (14 February 2012)]

Line 41:		Line 41:
	**[[Alexander Hamilton]], in ''[[w:The Federalist Papers\|The Federalist Papers]]'' [[w:Federalist No. 11\|No. 11]] (23 November 1787)		**[[Alexander Hamilton]], in ''[[w:The Federalist Papers\|The Federalist Papers]]'' [[w:Federalist No. 11\|No. 11]] (23 November 1787)

	* It was an axiom of "containment" that no part of the known world could be considered neutral. "Neutralism" was among the Cold Warriors' gravest curse words, applied with caustic hostility to [[India]] and even [[France]]. Those who were not with were against, subjected to intense economic and ideological — and sometimes military — pressure to fall into line.		* It was an axiom of "containment" that no part of the known world could be considered neutral. "Neutralism" was among the [[Cold War\|Cold Warriors]]' gravest curse words, applied with caustic hostility to [[India]] and even [[France]]. Those who were not with were against, subjected to intense economic and ideological — and sometimes military — pressure to fall into line.
	**[[Christopher Hitchens]], in "How Neo-Conservatives Perish" (1990), later republished in ''For the Sake of Argument : Essays and Minority Reports'' (1993)		**[[Christopher Hitchens]], in "How Neo-Conservatives Perish" (1990), later republished in ''For the Sake of Argument : Essays and Minority Reports'' (1993)

Line 54:		Line 54:

	== I ==		== I ==

			* In order to get the proper perspective, we must take a quick glance at the past. Seven years ago, [[Western Europe]] faced the threat of imminent [[War of aggression\|aggression]] by [[Soviet Union\|Soviet]] forces of overwhelming strength. In that hour of mortal danger the North Atlantic Treaty was signed. The decision to accede to the Alliance required great vision and great courage on the part of many of the members. For the [[United States]], it meant abandoning their traditional policy of [[isolationism]] from the affairs of [[Europe]]. For [[Norway]] and others it meant abandoning their tradition of neutrality. The free world owes a deep depth of gratitude to the Statesmen of the Western Democracies in these days. Their vision has reaped a rich reward for us all. The Alliance which they brought into being saved the free world from the unfathomable disaster which threatened it. [[Peace]] in Europe has been preserved. Soviet westward expansion has been halted. A shield of armed forces has been built up which, though not yet strong enough to resist an all out attack, is at least a significant deterrent to aggression. The forces of [[NATO]] are no longer a dream, they are a reality.
			** [[Hastings Ismay]], [https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/1956/s19560515.htm Speech to the Norwegian Atlantic Committee in Oslo], 15 May 1956

	== J ==		== J ==
	* [[Donald Judd]] spoke of a "neutral" surface, but what is meant? '''Neutrality must involve some relationship (to other ways of painting, thinking?)''' He would have to include these in his work to establish the neutrality of that surface. He also used "non" or "not" – expressive – this is an early problem – a negative solution or – expression of new sense – which can help one into – what one has not known.''' "Neutral" expresses an [[intention]].'''		* [[Donald Judd]] spoke of a "neutral" surface, but what is meant? '''Neutrality must involve some relationship (to other ways of painting, thinking?)''' He would have to include these in his work to establish the neutrality of that surface. He also used "non" or "not" – expressive – this is an early problem – a negative solution or – expression of new sense – which can help one into – what one has not known.''' "Neutral" expresses an [[intention]].'''
Line 64:		Line 68:
	[[File:Gonzo.svg\|thumb\|No one took the [[voice]] of the [[journalist]] further away from "neutral background" (or seemed less able to stop himself doing it) than [[Hunter S. Thompson]]. Even at the start of his career, he was no [[believer]] in journalistic neutrality. ~ [[w:Hari Kunzru\|Hari Kunzru]] ]]		[[File:Gonzo.svg\|thumb\|No one took the [[voice]] of the [[journalist]] further away from "neutral background" (or seemed less able to stop himself doing it) than [[Hunter S. Thompson]]. Even at the start of his career, he was no [[believer]] in journalistic neutrality. ~ [[w:Hari Kunzru\|Hari Kunzru]] ]]

	* '''[[Dante]] once said that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a period of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.'''		* '''[[Dante]] once said that the hottest places in [[hell]] are reserved for those who, in a period of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.'''
	** [[John F. Kennedy]], [http://www.bartleby.com/73/1211.html misquoting Dante] at the signing of a charter establishing the German Peace Corps, Bonn, West Germany (24 June 1963). Dante placed those who "''non furon ribelli né fur fedeli''" [were neither for nor against God] in a special region near the mouth of Hell; the lowest part of Hell, a lake of ice, was for traitors.		** [[John F. Kennedy]], [http://www.bartleby.com/73/1211.html misquoting Dante] at the signing of a charter establishing the German Peace Corps, Bonn, West Germany (24 June 1963). Dante placed those who "''non furon ribelli né fur fedeli''" [were neither for nor against God] in a special region near the mouth of Hell; the lowest part of Hell, a lake of ice, was for traitors.

Line 70:		Line 74:
	** [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], in [[w:Letter from a Birmingham Jail\|Letter from a Birmingham Jail]] (1963)		** [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], in [[w:Letter from a Birmingham Jail\|Letter from a Birmingham Jail]] (1963)

	* Rationalizations and the incessant search for scapegoats are the psychological cataracts that blind us to our sins. But the day has passed for superficial patriotism. He who lives with untruth lives in spiritual slavery. Freedom is still the bonus we receive for knowing the truth. "Ye shall know the truth," says [[Jesus]], "and the truth shall set you free." Now, I've chosen to preach about the [[w:Vietnam War\|war in Vietnam]] because '''I agree with [[Dante]], that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality.''' There comes a time when silence becomes betrayal.		* Rationalizations and the incessant search for scapegoats are the psychological cataracts that blind us to our sins. But the day has passed for superficial patriotism. He who lives with untruth lives in spiritual slavery. Freedom is still the bonus we receive for knowing the truth. "Ye shall know the truth," says [[Jesus]], "and the truth shall set you free." Now, I've chosen to preach about the [[Vietnam War\|war in Vietnam]] because '''I agree with [[Dante]], that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality.''' There comes a time when silence becomes betrayal.
	** [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], in [http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16183.htm "Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam", as speech at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia (30 April 1967)]; in this he refers to the [[Dante]] misquote which originated with [[John F. Kennedy]].		** [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], in [http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16183.htm "Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam", as speech at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia (30 April 1967)]; in this he refers to the [[Dante]] misquote which originated with [[John F. Kennedy]].

Line 77:		Line 81:

	== L ==		== L ==
	* '''In their book-length analysis of ''[[Doctor Who]]'', [[w:John Tulloch (lecturer)\|John Tulloch]] and [[w:Manuel Alvarado\|Manuel Alvarado]] characterize the political outlook of the program as consistent with the BBC's particular brand of [[political]] neutrality: skeptical, aggressive, quizzical, and amused towards all forms of political power.''' In ''Doctor Who'' the attitude gets further flavored by the Doctors "Romantic" hero mystique. This characteristic allows him to adopt a "liberal-populist role in criticizing 'sectionalist' forces of 'Left' and 'Right,' and in rebuking the 'official' and the powerful, whether in big business, the military, government or 'militant' unions." … The political form that most resembles these critiques is liberal democracy, which places sovereignty in the hands of the people.		* '''In their book-length analysis of ''[[Doctor Who]]'', [[w:John Tulloch (lecturer)\|John Tulloch]] and [[w:Manuel Alvarado\|Manuel Alvarado]] characterize the political outlook of the program as consistent with the BBC's particular brand of [[political]] neutrality: skeptical, aggressive, quizzical, and amused towards all forms of political power.''' In ''Doctor Who'' the attitude gets further flavored by the Doctors "[[Romanticism\|Romantic]]" hero mystique. This characteristic allows him to adopt a "[[Liberalism\|liberal]]-[[Populism\|populist]] role in criticizing 'sectionalist' forces of '[[Left-wing politics\|Left]]' and '[[Right-wing politics\|Right]],' and in rebuking the 'official' and the powerful, whether in big [[business]], the [[military]], [[government]] or 'militant' [[Trade unions\|unions]]." … The political form that most resembles these critiques is [[liberal democracy]], which places [[sovereignty]] in the hands of the people.
	** David Layton, referring to ''Doctor Who : The Unfolding Text'' (1984) by [[w:John Tulloch (lecturer)\|John Tulloch]] and [[w:Manuel Alvarado\|Manuel Alvarado]], in ''The Humanism of Doctor Who: A Critical Study in Science Fiction and Philosophy'' (2012), Ch. 10 : Politics		** David Layton, referring to ''Doctor Who : The Unfolding Text'' (1984) by [[w:John Tulloch (lecturer)\|John Tulloch]] and [[w:Manuel Alvarado\|Manuel Alvarado]], in ''The Humanism of Doctor Who: A Critical Study in Science Fiction and Philosophy'' (2012), Ch. 10 : Politics

	== M ==		== M ==
	* And it will always happen that he who is not your friend will invite you to neutrality, while he who is your friend will call on you to declare yourself openly in arms. Irresolute Princes, to escape immediate danger, commonly follow the neutral path, in most instances to their destruction.		* And it will always happen that he who is not your friend will invite you to neutrality, while he who is your friend will call on you to declare yourself openly in arms. Irresolute [[Prince\|Princes]], to escape immediate danger, commonly follow the neutral path, in most instances to their destruction.
	** [[Niccolò Machiavelli]], in ''[[The Prince]]'' (''c''. 1513), Ch. XXI: How a Prince Should Bear Himself So As to Acquire Reputation		** [[Niccolò Machiavelli]], in ''[[The Prince]]'' (''c''. 1513), Ch. XXI: How a Prince Should Bear Himself So As to Acquire Reputation

Line 102:		Line 106:
	** [[Theodore Roosevelt]], in [[s:The New Nationalism\|The New Nationalism]], a [http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=501 speech at Osawatomie, Kansas (31 August 1910)]		** [[Theodore Roosevelt]], in [[s:The New Nationalism\|The New Nationalism]], a [http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=501 speech at Osawatomie, Kansas (31 August 1910)]

	* Information smacks of safe neutrality; it is simple, helpful heaping of unassailable facts. In that innocent guise, its the perfect starting point for a technocratic political agenda that wants as little exposure for its objectives as possible. After all, what can anyone say against information?		* [[Information]] smacks of safe neutrality; it is simple, helpful heaping of unassailable facts. In that innocent guise, its the perfect starting point for a [[Technocracy\|technocratic]] political agenda that wants as little exposure for its objectives as possible. After all, what can anyone say against information?
	** [[w:Theodore Roszak (scholar)\|Theodore Roszak]], ''The Cult of Information: The folklore of computers and the true art of thinking'' (1968), p. 19		** [[w:Theodore Roszak (scholar)\|Theodore Roszak]], ''The Cult of Information: The folklore of computers and the true art of thinking'' (1968), p. 19

	* Most of us are not neutral in feeling, but, as human beings, we have to remember that, if the issues between East and West are to be decided in any manner that can give any possible satisfaction to anybody, whether Communist or anti-Communist, whether Asian or European or American, whether White or Black, then these issues must not be decided by war. We should wish this to be understood, both in the East and in the West.		* Most of us are not neutral in feeling, but, as human beings, we have to remember that, if the issues between East and West are to be decided in any manner that can give any possible satisfaction to anybody, whether [[Communism\|Communist]] or anti-Communist, whether [[Asia\|Asian]] or European or [[Americas\|American]], whether [[White people\|White]] or [[Black people\|Black]], then these issues must not be decided by war. We should wish this to be understood, both in the East and in the West.
	** [[Bertrand Russell]], [[w:Russell-Einstein Manifesto\|Russell-Einstein Manifesto]]		** [[Bertrand Russell]], [[w:Russell-Einstein Manifesto\|Russell-Einstein Manifesto]]

Line 134:		Line 138:
	** [[Richard Weaver]], in ''Language is Sermonic'' (1970), “The Power of the Word,” p. 37		** [[Richard Weaver]], in ''Language is Sermonic'' (1970), “The Power of the Word,” p. 37

	* The eloquent Lysias, posing as a non-lover, had concealed designs upon Phaedrus, so that his fine speech was really a sheep’s clothing. [[Socrates]] discerned in him a “peculiar craftiness.” '''One must suspect the same today of many who ask us to place our faith in the neutrality of their discourse.'''		* The eloquent Lysias, posing as a non-lover, had concealed designs upon [[Phaedrus (fabulist)\|Phaedrus]], so that his fine speech was really a sheep’s clothing. [[Socrates]] discerned in him a “peculiar craftiness.” '''One must suspect the same today of many who ask us to place our faith in the neutrality of their discourse.'''
	** [[Richard Weaver]], in ''The Ethics of Rhetoric'' (1953), “The Phaedrus and the Nature of Rhetoric,” p. 22		** [[Richard Weaver]], in ''The Ethics of Rhetoric'' (1953), “The Phaedrus and the Nature of Rhetoric,” p. 22