A Quote by Claire Fox

If you challenge multiculturalism you are seen to be a racist. But it's a political philosophy that needs to be looked at. If you don't, you're taking it on trust, which is intellectually dishonest.
Me, I'm dishonest, and you can always trust a dishonest man to be dishonest. Honestly, it's the honest ones you have to watch out for.
Most contemporary fiction sucks. It's intellectually dishonest, often morally dishonest. It's cheap and easy. It pretends to be deep but is really quite shallow.
The adjective "political" in "political philosophy" designates not so much the subject matter as a manner of treatment; from this point of view, I say, "political philosophy" means primarily not the philosophic study of politics, but the political, or popular, treatment of philosophy, or the political introduction to philosophy the attempt to lead qualified citizens, or rather their qualified sons, from the political life to the philosophic life.
For me, being able to engage with the details when necessary, when there's a challenge, when there's a particularly important pivot, yes, you have to do that. But in general, a leader needs to trust their commanders, needs to trust the team they've assembled, to actually execute in the right way.
[C]ultivated risk-taking represents an 'experiment with trust' (in the sense of basic trust) which consequently has implications for an individual's self-identity. (...) In cultivated risk-taking, the encounter with danger and its resolution are bound up in the same activity, whereas in other consequential settings the payoff of chosen strategies may not be seen for years afterwards.
First of all, "redneck" is a state of mind, not a person. So the "racist redneck" thing is a state of mind, not a geographical location. So I don't mean to imply that it's just Southerners. And if you don't recognize the racist underpinnings and the emotional reactive response you're getting from these teabaggers because we have a black president, then you are either being dishonest, or you've never seen the teabaggers.
Right here at home, we have seen what happens when a politician breaks that public trust, when they are dishonest and corrupt.
I called Donald Trump a racist. Nobody that makes that charge is being intellectually honest, or else they're being intellectually lazy.
If you try to discuss multiculturalism in the U.K., you're labeled a racist.
If you don't recognize the racist element in the teabag movement, you're either dishonest, or you've never seen the teabag movement, or heard of it, or been acquainted with it in any way.
A dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest.
And my point was one I think that you'd agree with, which is there's no room in America for a black racist, a Latino racist, or a white racist, or an Asian racist, or a Native American racist. Now, we're either color blind or we're not color blind.
I just want to say that the multiculturalism - and especially the cultural relativism which is even worse than multiculturalism, the concept that all cultures are equal - is the worst recipe for any society.
Can one understand politics without understanding history, especially the history of political thought, and will this distinguish political philosophy from some other kinds of philosophy (such as, perhaps, logic) to which the study of history is not integral?
Political advertising ought to be stopped. It's the only really dishonest kind of advertising that's left. It's totally dishonest.
Perhaps the worst example of Smithsonian contempt for Jesus Christ is seen in its 1994 publication of a coffee-table book entitled Smithsonian Time Lines of the Ancient World ... This flagrant display of religious bigotry and discrimination in a book officially sponsored by the Smithsonian is intellectually and academically dishonest.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!