Aeon censors a Black Man objecting to Rent Seeking White 'Diversity'

Alexander Klein, an Associate Professor, recently published a piece on Bertrand Russel in Aeon Magazine.

Below you will find my (somewhat smarmy) comment. Unusually, Aeon has rejected it as not meeting 'Community Guidelines'. No doubt, such Guide or Country Lines are Racist and Ignorant but shrewd enough in their own way. After all, this sort of fraud has to generate Revenue in order not to collapse under its own weight.

Still, I am puzzled as to why they banned the following-

Superbly written! Sadly, wholly unpersuasive. The author makes no mention of Russel's mentor, Frege, perhaps because of the scandal created by the publication of his 1924 diary- i.e. the news that, in old age, Frege became a Nazi avant la lettre.  The other recent development, not mentioned by the author, which causes us to his reject his beautifully written essay, is that Russel’s theory of types finds its completion in Voevodsky’s ‘univalent foundations’ program (https://socioproctology.blogspot.com/search/label/Voevodsky). But, we don’t currently believe it can work as a mathesis universalis. Thus, reactions to the Mochizuki proof of the abc conjecture- but also the way we think of the Continuum hypothesis or many other open problems- tend to confirm us in the notion that there will always be competing ‘languages’ of Mathematics. Intensionality, as a sort of i-language which generates a Chomskian ‘mysterianism’, will always be divorced from extensional ‘pragmatics’ or actual algorithmic decision processes. Thus the Fichte, Hamann, type of Hegelianism would always be separate from the fuzzy, feel good, British, liberal/theological, Idealism whose last represntative was the lovable T.L.S Sprigge.  Russell wrote well but, having had his teeth fixed by an American dentist, he started having sex with women- the ultimate Philosophical sin- and thus did not get why middle aged pedants, following the example of Tyrtaeus, should delight in conjuring up images of hunky young men piled up as marmoreal, gore splattered, corpses on some suitably distant battlefied. What use is a philosophy which involves sex with women and then their having babies whom you don’t want to grow up to die uselessly in some foolish war? At least Wittgenstein beat the shit out of the little kids he tried to teach. Beating kids and hoping that the hunkier males amongst them end up dulce et decorum dead has always been the true calling of the Philosopher ever since Plato inscribed the Lysis.  Our erudite author mentions Huemer but not, Russel’s contemporary, Collingwood who was arriving at the same conclusions while working for the Admiralty planning the destruction of vast numbers of young people’s lives- which task, so he said, cleared his mind wonderfully for Philosophy. I may also point out that Russel was remaining faithful to his family’s Whig tradition as represented by John Morley who resigned at the outbreak of war.  Russell was arrested- rather than ignored- because the introduction of Conscription, and impatience with ‘conshies’, required some sort of symbolic action against the Whig Magnates so the cad, Lloyd George, could have a free hand. It must be said that the Anglo-American philosopher’s ‘war work’ was quite hilarious. But Santayana outdid any Englishman and, among Economists, Stephen Leacock was most brutal. Uranian Wisdom, in those days, furnished its table with red meat and wine headier than its own grapes of wrath. By contrast, our present day puling Psilosophers protesting the Donald, purvey a but watery gruel of grievance.  The author asks after analtickle philosophy’s trajectory. Russel himself had dug its grave. Witlesstein had descended into it to kiss the skull of its Yorick- Frege. Godel and Tarski- but also Gentzen’s ‘Aryan’ inferential role semantics- were essentially writing the project’s epitaph while yet it most burgeoned. Turing, using Brouwer choice sequences, establishes an ‘eidetic’ result- but this buries Husserl. Weyl, perhaps through his wife, was closest to Husserl, but reacting to Relativity and Quantum Mechanism, took an early ‘Fichtean turn’. Russel did not know and didn’t care. As a master of the English language and a great Aristocrat he could and, to his credit, did, make money to pay for the sexual entanglements his American dentist had made possible for him. This was a deplorable outcome. English aristocrats should have terrible teeth and halitosis which kills at a hundred yards. Genuine philosophers must be utterly repulsive to the fair sex. Only in this sense can a Socioproctologist like myself be considered a potential philosopher.  There is no ‘nationalist’ menace today. What obtained was the hazard of ‘universal rights’ without any incentive compatible vinculum juris attaching to an obligation holder. So Government became a Madoff type Ponzi scheme. Everybody was getting entitlement ‘haircuts’ while the pretence was maintained that some class of hapless, possibly terroristic, refugees was living the life of Riley on at the State’s expense. The truth was quite different. It was a case of Main Street bailing out Wall Street.  Families and Neighborhoods and Regions and Nations aren’t a ‘menace’ to anybody. We want them to thrive on the basis of fiscal subsidiarity and ‘Tiebout sorting’. It is not the case that black peeps like me, who have wierd, unpronounceable names, want the West to bankrupt itself in the name of a delusive 'universalistic' Diakonia. Look at the current Chancellor of the British Exchequer. He has brown skin and a Muslim name. He represents the vast majority of genuine Muslims and people from Developing countries. Us guys are the same as everybody else. We love our Mummy and Daddy and the Uncles and Auntys next door and so forth. We have always acted in accordance with the hadith- hubb al watan min al iman- ‘Love of country is part of the Faith’. Compare Lord Russel with Yusuf Ali I.C.S- whose translation of the Holy Quran has great literary merit. Yusuf Ali saved hundreds of thousands of British and Commonwealth lives by his astute diplomacy and purely Islamic ratocination. Islam improved on Aristotle to make a better 'imperative'/alethic distinction (insha vs khabar). Thus no 'Jorgensen dilemma' arises. Nobody need bother with 'Moorean facts'.  What did Russell achieve? At the end of the Second War, he proposed a US atomic attack on the USSR! Like most psilosophers, the man was a moral imbecile. Reason must never be 'the slave of the passions'. It must clearly demarcate 'quid juris' from 'quid facti'. There are no synthetic apriorit truths save in an Occassionalist universe. Consider Godel's proof of God. It is based on 'modal collapse' and, so, provided it is wrong, is useful. What of Russel's 'Free Man's Religion'? It is Pateresque without the egalitarian- thus Christian- edge that Wilde saw in it. In the end, it is a concatenation of cliches worthy of a Pundit- nor a Rishi like Abhinavagupta- but some silly 'Nehru' ignorant of Nahar Dinur. (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Ojl_wsv0x3QC&pg=PT144&lpg=PT144&dq=nahar+dinur&source=bl&ots=GdWOIwZ3YW&sig=ACfU3U1llafK42V3keuU-hBguWcKTnkzlQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwinmLbS77XnAhVOZcAKHVtGD4gQ6AEwDHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=nahar%20dinur&f=false) I am sorry for writing such gibberish at such length in response to a beautifully written article by a very erudite savant. Why have I done so? Perhaps it is the swinish instinct of a poorly educated  ‘drunken helot’ who, by his own disgrace, affirms the Crystaline immutability of an only apparently sublunar epistemic order.  A more charitable view may be that this stupid 'subaltern', tho' merely babbling nonsense, yet is giving voice to the proletariat's demand that savants like this author should tell the truth fearlessly. We, the fex Urbis 'diverse' are asking you to tell ‘Diversity Committees’ to take a hike. Parrhesia is an adornment for Public Intellectuals. It will enable them to autonomously arrive at the Socratic ‘palinode’- that saving gift of sublation which redeems ‘Much Knowledge’ from its karmic consequence which, according to Koheleth, is ‘Much Suffering’. Or, as a supposed hadith, popular amongst lower class Indian people like me, has it- 'The Darkness of the Savants is the Darkness of the Age'.  Having vented my ignorant and noisome spleen, I return to the main point I want to make. This author writes very well. I hope to read more from him- though, of course, I may not be able to make head nor tail of the fundamental philosophical issues at stake. 

Surely that is humble enough- for a Black Man wot didn't even go to Brown?

Why was I censored? I guess it's coz I spoke of Islam in a good light.  Or else I mentioned Philosophy's early involvement with pederasty. Aeon knows which side its bread is buttered. Black proles wot babble about Islam- which re-transmitted Aristotle to us in a manner very productive for Jurisprudence and Civil Society- are worthy of drone strikes by some algorithm, if not an editorial decision.
Or maybe they jus' don' think fucking kids in the ass is a big deal. Who knows? I personally prefer to think they excluded my comment coz I- like many of their readers- knew more than the author. But, all my contributions to it are satirical. The thing is utterly meretricious. Surely, that is the point of this joke?