Category Archives: Philosophy
Jihad has blown up The Liberal Utopia.
The visionary liberal land of political and social perfection.
President Obama is not happy – and he isn’t alone.
You know the place.
• The Liberal Utopia is a land where gun background checks prevent mass murder.
• The Liberal Utopia is a land where Islamic fundamentalists have changed their perception of America because the President travels to Muslim nations to give lovely speeches, believes that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere is a wonderful sign of an Arab Spring, and refuses to use the word “terrorist” whether his administration is investigating Ft. Hood, Boston, or Benghazi.
• The Liberal Utopia is a land where a 2009 presidential videoproclaiming a “new beginning” in American relations with Iran will halt the effort to build a nuclear bomb.
• The Liberal Utopia is a land where the good intentions of Social Security will never bankrupt the Social Security Trust Fund.
• The Liberal Utopia is a land where the good intentions of Medicare could not possibility result in trillions of unfunded liability.
• The Liberal Utopia is a land where the War on Poverty was supposed to end poverty – and instead winds up sending violent crime skyrocketing, and, in the words of Thomas Sowell, setting up the American black family for rapid disintegration in the liberal welfare state “that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.”
One could go on… and on and on… spotting those will-o-the-wisp glimpses of The Liberal Utopia (Obamacare here, the Obama stimulus over there, the promise to close Guantanamo way back there) with example after example of this miserably failed attempt to find or create a Liberal Utopia.
Or what our friend Mark Levin deftly calls Ameritopia.
The search for this Liberal Utopia has been going on in this country since at least 1932 and in fact before that when one keeps going on back to Woodrow Wilson’s progressives and beyond to the late 19th century when the progressive movement began to gain political steam with the likes of William Jennings Bryan and a whole host of other if lesser known figures.
The idea is always the same. To quote Levin: “Utopianism is the ideological and doctrinal foundation for statism.”
Or, to simplify: if only Americans are made to do X, The Perfect Society will manifest.
What is X? The above list suffices: background checks, a video sending nice words to Iran, opening up to the Muslim Brotherhood, setting up a government-run Social Security or Medicare or Obamacare, declaring a government-run War on Poverty. The Obama stimulus.
And let’s not forget the Philadelphia abortion scandal where live human babies outside the womb were repeatedly killed – a direct contradiction of the entire Roe.v. Wade sacrament.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
Let’s start with two stories that have dominated the news in the last week: gun control and the Boston Marathon murders.
Recall that after the Senate defeated the Toomey-Manchin background amendment, President Obama, outraged, took to the White House Rose Garden to say this:
“The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill. They claimed that it would create some sort of ‘big brother’ gun registry, even though the bill did the opposite. This legislation, in fact, outlawed any registry.”
Next up was former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who took to the Op-Ed page of the New York Times to say “I’m furious.” Giffords accused the Senate of being in the “grip of the gun lobby” fearful of political consequences.
Gifford’s statement was filled with irony. There are people aplenty out there who have also discussed issues other than guns as being a problem in this area of violence in America. Indeed just this last Sunday Boston’s Cardinal Sean O’Malley not only talked about guns but the role of abortion in what O’Malley called a “Culture of Death.” But did Gabby Giffords want to talk about abortion as a contributing factor? Did the president? Of course not – and for exactly the reason they attributed to those who oppose background checks. Which is to say, pro-choice politicians both, neither Giffords nor Obama have the guts to take on the abortion lobby.
But let’s stay focused on background checks and its role in the liberal Utopia.
Remember the Brady law? So named for President Reagan’s press secretary Jim Brady who was seriously and permanently wounded during the assassination attempt on Reagan.
The Brady law mandated background checks across the country. Challenged in the Supreme Court, the law was mostly upheld in 1997, with the exception of the mandate. States however, were free to do background checks. One of the states that picked up on this – as did most states – was, yes, Massachusetts. In 1998 Massachusetts, headed on that endless journey to The Liberal Utopia, passing what has been called “the toughest gun control legislation in the country.” Reported Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby – just two months ago on February 17, 2013 – the “toughest gun control legislation in the country” was signed into law by the-then Republican governor and praised to the hilt by the Democratic Attorney General, as well as a leading anti-gun activist. Jacoby quoted from the Globe story of 1998 that trumpeted the bill’s signing:
“Today, Massachusetts leads the way in cracking down on gun violence,” said Republican Governor Paul Cellucci as he signed the bill into law. “It will save lives and help fight crime in our communities.” Scott Harshbarger, the state’s Democratic attorney general, agreed: “This vote is a victory for common sense and for the protection of our children and our neighborhoods.” One of the state’s leading anti-gun activists, John Rosenthal of Stop Handgun Violence, joined the applause. “The new gun law,” he predicted, “will certainly prevent future gun violence and countless grief.”
Catch all that? Massachusetts was “cracking down on gun violence.” This “will save lives and help fight crime” in the state’s communities. The new law was a “victory for common sense” that was a “victory for common sense” and “the protection of our children and our neighborhoods.” The law “will certainly prevent future gun violence and countless grief.”
Now let’s leave aside the point of Jacoby’s column – that in fact the law did none of that and that indeed, in Jacoby’s words:
…the law that was so tough on law-abiding gun owners had quite a different impact on criminals.
Since 1998, gun crime in Massachusetts has gotten worse, not better. In 2011, Massachusetts recorded 122 murders committed with firearms, the Globereported this month – “a striking increase from the 65 in 1998.” Other crimes rose too. Between 1998 and 2011, robbery with firearms climbed 20.7 percent. Aggravated assaults jumped 26.7 percent.
Let’s stay focused on the fact that the Boston bombers did in fact have guns.
That’s right, in addition to bombs, the brothers Tsarnaev had guns. And surprise surprise, in spite of all that “toughest” gun law in the country business – you guessed it.
The brothers didn’t apply for a license.
That’s right. As the Huffington Post has noted here:
WASHINGTON – The Boston bombing suspects engaged in a deadly firefight with police last week, possessing six bombs, handguns, a rifle and more than 250 rounds of ammunition. But the Tsarnaev brothers did not have proper licenses to possess the firearms, according to the Cambridge Police Department – a revelation that comes just days after the Senate voted against strengthening and expanding background checks for gun sales.
Cambridge Police Department spokesman Dan Riviello told The Huffington Post that neither Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, nor Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, appeared to have a license to own a handgun.
“The younger brother could not have applied as he is not 21 years of age and the older brother did not have a license to carry and we have no record of him ever applying,” Riviello said.
Got all that?
So in spite of the Brady law, which subjects law-abiding gun owners to all manner of rules and regulations, and in spite of the Massachusetts law, which was “the toughest” gun control law in the country, and in spite of the hundreds (thousands) of other gun control laws that bind the country, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, hell bent on murder and mayhem, never bothered to get a “proper license.” Brother Dzhokhar, of course, wasn’t permitted to have a license because he was just too young.
Yet somehow, without being licensed, the two managed to have “handguns, a rifle and more than 250 rounds of ammunition.” With which the unlicensed brothers shot MIT policeman Sean Collier to death – and came close to killing Boston Transit policeman, Richard Donohue.
Shocker, isn’t it?
Yet there is no more shock in listening to the reasoning of liberals on gun control than there is in listening to their reasoning on Islamic fundamentalists. The subjects may be different – although they happened to become two stories in one this last week – but the reasoning is always the same.
Let’s hear from Andrew McCarthy, who was the Clinton-era prosecutor of the Blind Sheikh, the brains behind the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. Andy later wrote the more than aptly titled book Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad and nowwrites this from National Review in an article headed:
Jihad Will Not Be Wished Away: But willful blindness remains the order of the day.
“Outlook: Islam.” So reads the personal webpage of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who ravaged Boston this week, along with his now-deceased brother and fellow jihadist, Tamerlan – namesake of a 14th-century Muslim warrior whose campaigns through Asia Minor are legendary for their brutalization of non-Muslims.
Brutalizing our own non-Muslim country has been the principal objective of jihadists for the last 20 years. This week marks a new and chilling chapter: the introduction on our shores of the tactics the self-styled mujahideen have used to great, gory effect for the past decade in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Willful blindness remains the order of the day, as it has since the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. It is freely conceded that, when the identities and thus the motivation of the Marathon terrorists were not known, it would have been irresponsible to dismiss any radical ideology as, potentially, the instigator. But in our politically correct, up-is-down culture, to suggest “Outlook: Islam” was unthinkable. So the most likely scenario – namely, that jihadists who have been at war with us for two decades had, yet again, attacked innocent civilians – became the least likely scenario in the minds of media pundits. Instead, they brazenly prayed (to Gaia, I’m sure) for white conservative culprits with Tea Party hats and Rush 24/7 subscriptions.
To borrow from the gun control debate, closing one’s eyes to Islamic fundamentalism is not just displaying a lack of common sense (to borrow a phrase from the gun control debate) – it is indeed, as Andy McCarthy accurately calls it, willful blindness.
And this particular willful blindness on jihadists is lethal.
It is exactly the same as the willful blindness that kept the State Department from understanding that there was a reason for the repeated pleas from the now murdered Benghazi diplomats for security assistance. When the attack came on those diplomats last September, the U.S. government had been willfully blinded – right from the top – that such a thing could be the result of Islamic fundamentalism
Ditto with the attack on Ft. Hood by the Islamic fundamentalist Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army major. Shouting “Allahu Akbar!” – God is Great – as he opened fire, Hasan killed 13 and wounding more than 30. The response from the US government? To declare yet another mass murder in the name of Islam to be “work place violence” – and then have the then-Army Chief of Staff murmur aloud that to treat this as anything else would somehow hurt the military’s diversity push.
And so it goes.
From the promises of Obamacare that you can keep your own doctor to the massive indebtedness of Social Security and Medicare to the War on Poverty that wasn’t and the Obama stimulus that wasn’t either – and on and on and on – liberalism’s Achilles’ heel is that it isn’t about serious, common sense ideas that display an understanding of everyday human reality.
What liberalism is about is creating Utopia.
A Utopian world where gun control stops criminals, being politically correct with jihadists means they won’t attack, the value of helping the aging means Social Security and Medicare cannot possibly be in debt to the tune of trillions, that Obamacare will work just as the War on Poverty worked, and that forcing banks to give millions of Americans the money to buy homes they can’t afford can’t possibly crash the economy.
And on goes the endless parade.
Substituting sentiment for common sense, then watching the results crash and burn in a hurricane of dead Americans, impoverished Americans, massively indebted Americans or continually impoverished, jobless and hopeless Americans.
Does anyone really wonder why so many Americans listen to President Obama say that “the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill” – and believe it’s the President who lies? And that they believe this for the simple reason that all the other liberal Utopian promises haven’t been kept? With a lie just this last week about the results of Massachusetts gun control being all too painfully obvious? Who, based on hard real-life experience with these Liberal Utopians, would ever believe that the Toomey-Manchin bill will never result in what Obama calls “some sort of ‘big brother’ gun registry”? If you believe this, you believe the Boston bombers simply forgot to apply for a license to carry a gun.
The response by liberals to these repeated liberal disasters is to simply ignore the results and walk away. Then finding yet another “problem” on which to visit this same disastrous pattern of emotionally charged non-common sense.
Promising once again that if Americans just do this next X, Utopia will finally arrive.
The question here is whether a majority of Americans will ever come to understand the game.
To know that the real meaning of Utopia is not some visionary system of political or social perfection, as the dictionary says.
Utopianism is, precisely as Mark Levin documents, the ideological and doctrinal foundation for statism.
It is dumb. It is wrong. It is a call to mindless emotion instead of careful, logical thought. It can and will bankrupt. It can and will – and as we have seen this last week it does – kill.
Which makes the ideas of a Liberal Utopia not just wrongheaded.
It makes them dangerous.
Which makes it time to say enough is enough.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/page/3/
As originally posted on: FSK’s Guide to Reality
September 13, 2007
I’ve been reading a bit about the philosophy of agorism, and it seems attractive to me.
The philosophy can be summarized in one sentence: “I want to do useful work, get paid, and not have to report it for taxation, confiscation, and regulation.”
Let’s start with a specific example. Suppose you don’t like the US government’s policy of aggressive wars in Iraq and other countries. You can vote, but voting is ineffective due to various corruptions in the system. The income tax means that the government confiscates 50%-95% or more of everything I produce. Productive work supports the government, even if I disapprove of its activities. I am unable to do any useful economic activity without supporting things I find objectionable.
The government’s policy is completely ridiculous. Citizens may not perform work without reporting it for taxation, confiscation, and regulation. I object to that requirement.
The fundamental goal of an agorist revolution is the creation of wealth that the red market can’t confiscate. This is the only type of revolution that has a legitimate chance of succeeding, because the participants would be profiting and undermining the government at the same time. The red market derives its power by leeching wealth. Creating unconfiscatable wealth undermines the red market’s power.
Currently, the only type of grey market work available is low-paid unskilled labor. The agorist wants to create a grey market for highly-skilled, high-paid labor.
The agorist says that all governments are inherently illegitimate. A government is merely a group of people conspiring to take away my property and my rights. Government employees benefit handsomely from this arrangement, because the salaries and pensions they receive are higher than they would get in the private sector. The people who control large corporations benefit from this arrangement, because their market position is frequently endorsed by the government and its regulations. Wealthy campaign donors love the government-granted perks they get. The Federal Reserve’s policy of inflation benefits the financial industry at the expense of everyone else. Government is merely a group of people conspiring to confiscate the wealth of the productive part of society.
The agorist says that all the functions of government could be more effectively performed by the free market. You can have a private justice system. You can have a private police force. Everyone knows that government is up for sale, manipulated by the wealthy. Why not do away with the pretense completely? Let’s privatize everything.
Why should the government have a monopoly on violence and justice?
For example, instead of paying a 50% income tax, maybe I can pay 2%, or even a fixed fee, to a private police force who will insure my property is protected. The police force would utilize a private justice system, to make sure that they don’t use force needlessly. If two people have a conflict and are subscribing to different police forces, then the incentive is for the businesses to resolve the dispute peacefully rather than violently. If a private police force was misbehaving, then it would be perfectly acceptable for people to start seeking alternate vendors. Some people might pay for protection by several police forces simultaneously, to prevent monopolies from forming.
Suppose there’s no intrinsic legitimacy given to the government. It’s perfectly legitimate to use force to defend yourself, if someone attempts to confiscate your property. Imagine what would happen if tax collectors were met with armed resistance from everyone? What would happen if everyone ceased voluntary compliance with the taxation system?
Right now, the vast majority of people are compliant with the taxation system. That means that red market workers can afford to expend vast resources tracking down violators. It needs to make sure that violators are caught so that the penalty for tax avoidance makes the risk unattractive. However, with taxation rates of 50%-95% or more, tax avoidance starts to be attractive, if it can be done with relatively low risk. I’m not just counting direct noticeable taxes. There are hidden taxes and regulations, which also cost money.
What’s the real risk of getting caught? It’s hard to say. You only hear about the people who got caught. The people who get away with it don’t come forward and admit it, do they? There’s no source of reliable statistics, so you can’t quantify the risk.
How would you make the transition to an agorist economy? There is a problem, because people aren’t going to want to give up their government-granted perks. They are going to resist change as much as they can. People are reluctant to avoid paying taxes and following government rules. However, if there’s a profit to be made, people might be convinced.
The key is to develop a system that allows people to perform productive economic activity without reporting it for taxation and confiscation. The Internet is a useful tool for this, because it would allow people to share information efficiently. It wouldn’t be too hard to write software that would facilitate an agorist economy.
The standard financial system is designed to frustrate attempts to perform economic activity without reporting it for confiscation. Transactions larger than $10,000 must be reported to the government. Repeated small transactions are also reportable. Besides, who wants to trade with worthless paper money? An alternate financial system would need to be developed. This way, transactions can be performed without reporting them to the government. People could still settle transactions with paper money or silver or gold, if they really wanted to. I think the Social Credit Monetary System is the best solution.
Whatever system is developed would need to be as decentralized as possible. As much as possible, information should NOT be stored on a centralized server. A centralized server represents an attack point. As much as possible, communications should be encrypted.
Actually, some information needs to be public. A database listing who trusted whom would need to be public and shared to be useful. On the other hand, maybe a trust database should be private, because it would represent a list of people for red market agents to harass. All transaction records should be private. Ideally, transaction records should be destroyed when completed, so red market agents can’t confiscate them.
There would be an important check that ensures people follow the rules. Just like in the BitTorrent economy, any user who misbehaves would be banned and denied a valuable resource. New users would be admitted only if another user vouched for their trustworthiness. The distributed nature would make it hard to shut it down, even if spies did infiltrate it.
Suppose there was an effective system for facilitating productive work without reporting it for taxation. With such high confiscatory taxation rates, there would be a huge incentive for people to work under such a system. The goal would be to avoid government detection as much as possible. As more productive people started working in this grey market economy, the power of government would decrease.
If the system was sufficiently distributed, there would be low risk even if you got caught. Red market agents might find out about some of your transactions, but not all of them. You could pay back taxes and fines on some of the transactions, and still come out ahead overall.
An agorist grey-market economy would also benefit because it could avoid compliance with all government regulations. It would not need to spend productive effort on regulation compliance. Its only wasted effort would be that spent avoiding detection by red market enforcers.
Ideally, an agorist economy could offer lower prices and higher wages, compared to the white market or pink market. The ability to avoid taxation and regulation should cut expenses by 50% to 95% or more.
Some pink market practitioners have their salaries artificially raised by the red market. For example, doctors need to waste a lot of money on education and spend years training. The supply of doctors is restricted by the red market. A license is required to practice medicine. A grey market doctor would not need the licensing requirement. He would only need to spend a year or two learning what is really needed to help his patients. An agorist doctor would not earn as much as a pink market doctor, but he would save the hassle of years of medical school and a residency. An agorist doctor would not have to deal with HMOs, Medicare, and insurance companies. The free market would help people decide which doctors are good and which are no good; people will share information about their experiences. Currently, the supply of doctors is artificially restricted, so there’s no mechanism for incompetent doctors to be removed from the market. The agorist doctor won’t get busted for “practicing medicine without a license” if his customers don’t turn him in to the red market. Besides, patients can always go to a pink market hospital if they have a problem their agorist doctor can’t handle. Eventually, the agorist hospitals would be better than the pink market hospitals.
Switching to a grey market agorist economy might be necessary for survival. A hyperinflationary crash of the dollar could happen at any time. A substantial amount of untaxed economic activity would facilitate such a collapse.
It probably is not possible for a person to satisfy all their needs in the grey market. However, the larger percentage of their economic activity that they can hide, the more they will benefit. If someone operated both a white-market business and a grey-market business, that would facilitate concealing their grey-market activities. On the other hand, you might be better off not having any official business at all. The IRS frequently cracks down on small business owners; registering yourself as a business owner might just be making yourself a target.
The red market derives its power solely by leeching off the productive members of society. Without them to push around, its power would rapidly collapse.
An agorist revolution has a legitimate chance of succeeding. The agorist market participants would be profiting from their activity. They would be undermining the government and making a profit at the same time. They would profit more than white market participants, because they would be unencumbered by taxes, inflation, and regulations. In that sense, once an agorist movement gets started, it would be self-sustaining. With a leaderless organization structure, it could not be easily shut down by infiltration or force. The agorist needs tools for effective operation, plus a certain number of participants.
An agorist revolution would probably be a peaceful one. Agorist market participants can hide their activity. They would appear to be normal, productive, nonviolent citizens. Agorist market participants would tend to resolve their differences peacefully, both to avoid the attention of red market enforcers, and because non-initiation of violence is part of the philosophy. By the time the agorist economy is large enough to be noticed by red market enforcers, it would have viable systems for competing and replacing government institutions. The agorist market would step in smoothly as the government loses power. The violence would come from red market participants, trying to crack down to preserve their position. However, a large number of red market workers might simultaneously be employed by agorist protection agencies. Typically, corporations infiltrate government by subverting Congress and the President. An agorist movement would infiltrate government by subverting the low-level line workers.
An agorist revolution, once started, would be self-sustaining. The participants would be profiting from their actions.
A lot of websites I read are philosophizing and speculating. I am ready to start writing tools and start using them. I would like to be a participant in an agorist economy, if only I knew other people to trade with! My primary skill is writing software. That’s the skill I’d be offering in trade. Initially, I’ll just write the code I think is needed and release it into the public domain.
Summarizing, I want to do productive work, get paid for it, and not have to report it for taxation and confiscation.
The Wise Words of Churchill – It is Being Played Out Again By Those Who Will Render The USA Defense-less
THE MUNICH AGREEMENT – 1938
Excerpt of the speech given by Churchill in response to this agreement with Germany
Barrack Hussein Obama is willfully and purposely neglecting and dismantling the defense and protection of the United States of America and retreating from our enemies that he was sworn to defend this country from – the same way that politicians did in England prior to World War II and now the United States is being reduced to such a state of weakness that we may never recover. Obama is a lying tyrant and hell bent on the destruction of the United States of America. May God have mercy on us and raise up another Churchill to wake the people of this great country out of their, as Churchill put it, “Chloroformed acquiescence” and stupor administered by a state run press that Obama and his communist cronies control. It may already be too late. ZTW
…It is the most grievous consequence of what we have done and of what we have left undone in the last five years – five years of futile good intentions, five years of eager search for the line of least resistance, five years of uninterrupted retreat of British power, five years of neglect of our air defences.
Those are the features which I stand here to expose and which marked an improvident stewardship for which Great Britain and France have dearly to pay. We have been reduced in those five years from a position of security so overwhelming and so unchallengeable that we never cared to think about it. We have been reduced from a position where the very word “war” was considered one which could be used only by persons qualifying for a lunatic asylum. We have been reduced from a position of safety and power – power to do good, power to be generous to a beaten foe, power to make terms with Germany, power to give her proper redress for her grievances, power to stop her arming if we chose, power to take any step in strength or mercy or justice which we thought right – reduced in five years from a position safe and unchallenged to where we stand now.
… They should know that there has been gross neglect and deficiency in our defences; they should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road; they should know that we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies:
“Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting.”
And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.
We do not want to be led upon the high road to becoming a satellite of the German Nazi system of European domination. In a very few years, perhaps in a very few months, we shall be confronted with demands with which we shall no doubt be invited to comply. Those demands may affect the surrender of territory or the surrender of liberty. I foresee and foretell that the policy of submission will carry with it restrictions upon the freedom of speech and debate in Parliament, on public platforms, and discussions in the Press, for it will be said – indeed, I hear it said sometimes now – that we cannot allow the Nazi system of dictatorship to be criticised by ordinary, common English politicians. Then, with a Press under control, in part direct but more potently indirect, with every organ of public opinion doped and chloroformed into acquiescence, we shall be conducted along further stages of our journey.
From Winston Churchill.Org at: https://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/speeches-of-winston-churchill/101-the-munich-agreement
Found at American Digest:http://americandigest.org/
A guest post by The Reverend David R. Graham, A.M.D.G.
“What kills a skunk is the publicity it gives itself.”
The Church and the churches are not the same. The churches more or less express the Church, which is the Spiritual Community, Bride of Christ, Pure and Elegant, but they are not the Church, as their more or less impurity demonstrates.
During the late 19th Century, the Germanic movement called Liberal Protestantism sought to remake Christianity as palatable to Erasmus’, Rousseau’s and Voltaire’s heirs in scientific humanism, aka, Marxism, which is historiography and planning on the horizontal (male) axis alone, ignoring or bending horizontal the vertical (female) axis.
To accomplish which, Liberal Protestants had to collectivize the thinking of theologians, clergy and laymen: turn Christianity into an expression of Marxism. Charging and converting scientists and humanists into Christians was not their goal. Liberal Protestants wanted to be wanted. Scientific humanism then was ascendant, where still it is, at least as a beneficiary of public and private finance and esteem.
Today no difference exists between thinking in the churches and thinking in, say, the university, media and government. All are collectivist, none is independent. All follow talking points handed down from a leftist political party, none swerves into private investigation of assertions. All believe what they see and hear in media, none suspects media as mouthpiece of university and government.
That is collectivization. Once it was called group think. Now it is called news you can use. Facts. Truth. Choices. For your benefit, no less. Fair and balanced.
There was a brief rebellion against Liberal Protestantism towards the middle of the 20th Century. It was called Neo-Orthodoxy. Barth, Brunner and lesser lights led it. They sought to restore the vertical (female) axis to usage and succeeded, partially and briefly.
When Neo-Orthodoxy reached America from its Germanic roots, it was taken up by Reinhold Niebuhr at The Union Theological Seminary in New York City, an affiliate of Columbia University. Niebuhr was a communist clergyman and labor union agitator with a huge, dominating personality and a wonderful, nimble gift of gab. Niebuhr turned the vertical (female) axis reintroduced by Barth and Brunner on its side so that it paralleled and then merged with the horizontal (male) axis.
(Remarkably, he criticized Liberal Protestants for doing exactly that. Niebuhr was not a self-critical or self-correcting man.)
Niebuhr considered this an accomplishment. His colleague at Union, Paul Tillich, did not. Tillich pointed out that Niebuhr never learned his theology and Niebuhr acknowledge that perhaps, indeed, he had not.
Barth’s and Brunner’s Neo-Orthodoxy was, in any case, top-heavy with Mohammedan-like, inscrutable and intractable “transcendent” dicta and diktats. And so, unsustainable.
With prominent politicians, including Hubert Humphrey, Niebuhr helped found Americans for Democratic Action. It was – still is – a vehicle for running the vertical axis of life as if it was horizontal and bringing American education, media and government into aggressive, messianic, collective conformity with scientific humanism, aka Marxism. Holding those three entities together was seen as the way to control the population and the course of events totally. Collectivism is the method of totalism (aka absolutism, totalitarianism).
Niebuhr anticipated in North America so-called “Liberation Theology” in South America. Both were collectivist, one from Liberal Protestantism (Niebuhr was German Reformed [Calvinist]) and one from Roman Catholicism. Both were generated in academe, which, post-Marx, is almost uniformly leftist.
Liberal Protestant collectivism (aka scientific humanism/Marxism) first made large-scale political force in the United States through Woodrow Wilson, a moral and intellectual superior, in his own mind, of the “common man” – and therefore the empowered director of affairs – if ever one breathed.
Marx was a theologian and a student of Hegel, as was Kierkegaard. The two successfully criticized Hegel’s totalistic system, despite its realistic elegance, but from different directions and with different results. Kierkegaard identified the vertical axis of the unexpected (paradox), which nullifies total systems. Marx identified the vertical axis of free (from historical determinism) intentional purpose (telos), which, also, nullifies total systems.
However, whereas Kierkegaard maintained paradox as an expression of the vertical (female) axis, Marx bent over telos to conform with the horizontal (male) axis. This made Marxism evil and predicts the genocide and misogyny of Marxists in education, media and government.
What Marx did earlier, Niebuhr did later. What Niebuhr did later, James Cone, at Union since 1969, continues through disciples such as Jeremiah Wright and “Barack Obama”: genocide and misogyny.
Collectivism is not a Christian idea or doing. It belongs to Marxism, not Christianity. Yet, the churches have been in its thrall since the middle years of the 20th Century. Since the later years of the 20th Century, the churches are indistinguishable from academe, media and government. The three sectors think alike, promoting government (collectivism/communism) as the universal answer to and refuge from VUCA.
The churches now are willing auxiliaries of government social engineering agencies, media/government propaganda technicians and academic troublemakers. They are secular organizations standing profanum, outside the door to the Sanctuary of the Holy.
No vertical axis. No femininity. No self-correction. No Church, only churches.
The parable of the good Samaritan is not a demand for forced charity. It does not promote collectivism by government edict, income redistribution at the muzzle of a gun. The nature of government is, essentially and rightly, penal. That is not the subject of the parable of the good Samaritan. Nor is its subject smug moralizing about charity.
The parable of the good Samaritan describes personal, voluntary and anonymous charity as desirable. Repeat: PERSONAL, VOLUNTARY, ANONYMOUS. The parable is descriptive, not prescriptive. Nor does it demand charity.
In fact, the parable of the good Samaritan is not about charity. The parable answers the question of who is the brother, that is, who is one’s equal in God’s eyes. It is not about charity. It is about living in gated “communities” and having armed personal security details. The parable condemns those activities. It’s about rich acting smug, superior to and separate from ordinaries.
The parable of the ten talents, on the other hand, does promote, directly and unequivocally, the Pauline, Christian principle, “No work, no eat.”
The voice of Hebrew and Christian Prophetism does not exist in the churches since at least the 1930s. It has been driven out by collectivists. Or, one may say, perhaps more accurately, it has seen historical developments transcend the churches in the direction of universal prayer and concrete Spirit. Religionless, omni-local, agile, unpredictable (as always), definite, practical and moral.
Two Avatars of the Lord have stridden the earth during the last two hundred years – one the x axis, one the x and y axes – and a third is coming – the y axis – I guess (!) in or before the next decade of the 21st Century:
Bear All And Do Nothing;
Hear All And Say Nothing;
Give All And Take Nothing;
Serve All And Be Nothing.
From Camp of The Saints: http://thecampofthesaints.org/
Found at Blazing Cat Fur
In a country run by moonbats, to impose your will on others you have to present yourself as a victim, even if you are the one doing the victimizing. For example:
A lawsuit that challenges the placement of the cross at the site of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center alleges atheist plaintiffs have suffered serious physical and mental illness because the religious symbol has made them feel excluded. …
American Atheists … contends the placement of the 17-foot-tall symbol at the National September 11 Memorial and Museum is making some atheists unbearably sick.
“The plaintiffs, and each of them, are suffering, and will continue to suffer damages, both physical and emotional, from the existence of the challenged cross,” the lawsuit American Atheists v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey states. “Named plaintiffs have suffered … dyspepsia, symptoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish from the knowledge that they are made to feel officially excluded from the ranks of citizens who were directly injured by the 9/11 attack.”
If you don’t believe that the site of the Holy Cross can have this effect on moonbats, just watch what happens when Peter Cushing presents one to Christopher Lee in old Hammer movies.
Militant moonbats don’t need to see the cross in person to be affected:
The suit explains the named plaintiffs “have seen the cross, either in person or on television, are being subjected to, and injured in consequence.”
They want the cross removed completely, but there is a fallback demand in case they don’t get their way: erecting something next to the cross to cancel it out. Reports Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice:
“They even make a bizarre suggestion about erecting a ‘17-foot-high A for Atheists’ to promote their non-beliefs at the site.”
Or is that A for A-holes?
The group has been filing harassment suits against everyone in sight over the cross, including Friar Brian Jordan, who is being sued for having blessed it.
David Silverman explains his group’s behavior:
“As president of the American Atheists organization, I promise to make sure that everyone, even those who are indifferent to our cause … will hate us.”
If that’s his goal, Silverman knows what he’s doing.
On a tip from Jimbo.
Edward Feser from THE LAST SUPERSTITION:
“The mainstream Western religious tradition itself very firmly rests on and embraces reason and science.
“That tradition also insists that religious conviction and moral virtue must be adopted of one’s own free will, not imposed by force; and while it holds that some of the things people choose to do are morally unacceptable, secularists who also profess to believe that there is a difference between right and wrong, hold the same thing. The Protestant John Locke and the Catholic Second Vatican Council (to take just two examples) endorsed religious toleration and democracy, and on theological grounds at that, while secularists are none too happy with democracy when, say, it results in school boards that mandate the teaching of ‘Intelligent Design’ theory alongside evolution.
“So what, pray tell, is distinctively ‘secularist’ about reason, science, free choice, toleration, democracy, and the like? Nothing at all, as it happens. The fact is that secularists are ‘for’ reason and science only to the extent that they don’t lead to religious conclusions; they celebrate free choice only insofar as one chooses against traditional or religiously oriented morality; and they are for democracy and tolerance only to the extent that these might lead to a less religiously oriented social and political order. Again, the animus against religion is not merely a feature of the secularist mindset; it is the only feature.”
David Bentley Hart from ATHEIST DELUSIONS:
“I suspect that our contemporary ‘age of reason’ is in many ways an age of almost perfect unreason, one always precariously poised upon the edge of – and occasionally slipping over into – the purest barbarism.
“I suspect that, to a far greater degree than we typically might imagine, we have forsaken reason for magic: whether the magic of occult fantasy or the magic of an amoral idolatry of our own power over material reality. Reason, in the classical and Christian sense, is a whole way of life, not the simple and narrow mastery of certain techniques of material manipulation, and certainly not the childish certitude that such mastery proves that only material realities exist.
“A rational life is one that integrates knowledge into a larger choreography of virtue, imagination, patience, prudence, humility, and restraint. Reason is not only knowledge, but knowledge perfected in wisdom. In Christian tradition, reason was praised as a high and precious thing, primarily because it belonged intrinsically to the dignity of beings created in the divine image; and, this being so, it was assumed that reason is also always morality, and that charity is required for any mind to be fully rational.
“Even if one does not believe any of this, however, a rational life involves at least the ability to grasp what it is one does not know, and to recognize that what one does know may not be the only kind of genuine knowledge there is.”
For those of you unfamiliar with the name, Edward Feder is that most rare of rarae aves an atheist philosopher who talked himself into the Catholic faith merely by the power of philosophical argumentation.
He was dissatisfied with the naturalist account of certain philosophical problems (cf. if it were true that the cosmos is nothing but matter in motion, how could we ever be certain that this were so?) and slowly came to the conclusion that naturalism has no sound philosophical foundation.
Upon a second and more thorough examination of Aristotle and Aquinas during his maturity, he came to the conclusion that modern philosophy dismisses much of the classical tradition without understanding it (I can attest that this is true — someone on my blog recently dismissed Anselm’s ontological argument on the grounds that Hume had disproved it). Then he began to realize the arguments were stronger and sounder, once understood in context, than they are first appeared, and finally was shocked to find that the arguments were sound.
On the one hand, I am mildly surprised, because my own conversion was not through philosophical argumentation but by divine intervention; but on the other hand, I am not surprised at all, because the Catholic Church holds and teaches as a matter of doctrine that man can reason his way to believing those truths about God which do not require revelation to reveal, such as His benevolence, immaterial nature, unity and simplicity, providence, omniscience, omnipotence, and necessity.
I came across Mr Feser’s account of his road away from atheism here:
From John C. Wright: http://www.scifiwright.com/2012/07/quote-of-the-day-4/#more-6059
Through the demand of nonjudgmentalism
the authorities of Western Civilizationhave taken away your sources of morale:
God, true religion, objective morality, knowledge of philosophically first things, beauty, higher culture, family, nation, honor, and so on. Because the existence of any of these goods requires one to make a judgment that some things are better than others, these goods are not allowed. Our leaders have therefore taken all these goods from you, and replaced them with the false god of nondiscrimination. — Why You are Demoralized and What You Must do About it ｫ The Orthosphere
From American Digest: http://americandigest.org/
By Jeffrey Lord on 4.5.12
Threatened for sticking with Rush, defiant advertiser declares “Battle for America.”
Excerpts from article:
“Mark Stevens is a smart guy — and he quickly realized he was being targeted by somebody using a highly skilled, highly organized campaign that was deliberately designed to make the target feel besieged. When in fact marketing expert Stevens understood he was on the receiving end of a campaign involving a tiny handful of people extremely skilled in making others think dozens were tens of thousands.”
“He had received tens of thousands of e-mails. The bullies — the terrorists –had ramped up. Now they were threatening to send busloads of people to his house, threatening that his personal safety was in danger. “This is crazy,” he said to Kelly. Does this cause you concern, she asked? Replied Mark: “Absolutely no concern. Let them come. Let them come!”
“Something is going on here that has to be, you know, addressed. Because the country is at risk,” he added.”
Mark told me that he was “not a Pollyanna or naïve.” But what really bothered him was that in the flood of tens of thousands of e-mails he had received, overwhelming in support of him, what stood out “was the concern people had for my well-being.” He drafted a response to answer his fellow citizens who had written him with such passion. He sent it to me, and it deserves an audience, so it is reprinted here in full:
Subject line: The Battle for America
Ever since I appeared on the Stuart Varney show in response to the “terrorism” — Rush Limbaugh advertising boycott — directed at me and my company, my team and my clients, it has set off a chain reaction of emails being sent to me from citizens across the country:
* Seals have volunteered to protect our offices.
* Retired police officers are asking if they can help in anyway.
* Citizens want to play a role, join the stand and contribute to the cause. They are thanking me for having the courage to stand up for free speech and for the American Dream.
Thousands upon thousands are writing, calling –frightened that their nation is slipping away.
Sad, angry, suffocated, they no longer feel as if they live in a democracy.
They are tired of the talking heads. Of the politically correct. Of the minority rule. Of the loss of the meaning of the Constitution. Of the weakening of our armed forces. Of the war on business. Of the ass-kissing of America haters.
They are the real Americans. They work. They send their children to war. They pay taxes. They want nothing for free. They are tired of being ignored.
My message helped them see that “they” have the real power. Peaceful but over whelming power. They will use it. We will do so together. We will prevail.
The battle for American values is beginning and we will win.
MSCO | The Art and Science of Growing Businesses
Read the entire article at The American Spectator: http://spectator.org/archives/2012/04/05/mark-stevens-a-profile-in-cour/3
This is from a pamphlet by a Presbyterian minister, William J. H. Boetcker (1873-1962) and entitled The Ten Cannots. It was originally published in 1916 but its message is very fitting to us today
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
You cannot build character and courage by destroying men’s initiative and independence.
And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.
From I Own The World at: http://iowntheworld.com/blog/
“Governments are not always overthrown by direct and open assaults. They are not always battered down by the arms of conquerors, or the successful daring of usurpers. There is often concealed the dry rot, which eats into the vitals, when all is fair and stately on the outside. And to republics this has been the more common fatal disease. The continual drippings of corruption may wear away the solid rock, when the tempest has failed to overturn it…”
Joseph Story – Supreme Court Justice – 1829
Found in the intro of the book – Ameritopia – by Mark Levin
The essay below is the fourth chapter in a series by Takuan Seiyo. The author was unable to publish it in the same venue that hosted the first three chapters, so Gates of Vienna is privileged to offer him a slot for it, and possibly also for the final installment.
The text that follows is the fourth chapter of a long five-part essay that’s my answer to Oswald Spengler’s Der Untergang des Abendlandes. What I lack in comparison to the brilliant German, I tried to compensate for by offering not only an analysis of our decline, but also a suggestion of a peaceful ascent road out of what appears (except to progressing Progressives) as a bottomless pit.
The genesis of this essay lies in my continuous puzzlement why the particular post-modern, post-Christian virus decimates only the Western West, but not the Eastern West of Iron Curtain scars, or the Far East. I was born behind the Iron Curtain but have lived in the West since I was ten, and in the East for the past six years. This is therefore insider’s praxis rather than outsider’s musings.
The subject is so wide that its treatment must be equally eclectic. One who ventures here must be ready to travel with me to Washington and Mount Vernon, Estonia, Saxony, Judea, Rome, Greece, Babylon and China, with a commensurate range of subjects and periods. For that reason, it’s not fair either to the reader or to the writer to start with the text below, but rather one must go to the previous three, as well as have patience for the publication of the fifth one in the near future.
The reader is going to wonder why the fourth chapter is at Gates of Vienna and the previous three are at New English Review.
Different publications have different risk tolerances. NER was brave enough to publish the first three parts, but found the fourth one too hot. No one should condemn it who hasn’t published the kind of “Islamophobic” and other taboo-busting content as NER has. Especially after what happened to Giordano Bruno and Fjordman.
— Takuan Seiyo
The Bee and the Lamb
By Takuan Seiyo
On the edge
The only way to restore vitality to Western Civilization is to recalibrate its yin-yang balance. Just as in Oriental medicine a patient suffering from acidosis (yin) is treated with alkali (yang) foods, so American and European societies must regress to nullify much of the Progressive “progress” that the Long March of the last 100 years has wrought. Not to erase it altogether, for the “progress” itself has been a correcting mechanism to the yang eruptions of two world wars and centuries of harsh religious fanaticism, but to rewind the reel 50 years back, just before excess yin started overflowing.
Jim Crow was wrong, and the WASP ruling elite committed various errors of direction and also of degeneration into a caste of Bertie Wooster sybarites, light on the brain content, or brooding Nick Carraways (of The Great Gatsby). But the antithesis, Black Run America, is much worse: a dystopian disaster, a banana republic without the bananas, a Detroit writ large, a Philadelphia turned Killadelphia.
The WASPs at least had a code of honor and a spirit of noblesse oblige inherited from Roman patricians. The people who rule us now are a multiracial collection of plebeian Looters, Loons and Fools, with the WASPs and Jews there either doing penance for past “unearned privilege” or further repairing the world by carrying water for the loudest looters in the black and brown communities.
Strict meritocracy and race-blind equal rights are just and great, and America did not have them even 60 years ago. But it did, at last, 45 years ago. Very briefly, for it continued hurtling toward the opposite pole. Now it is mired in the suicidal insanity of quotas for minorities and women, engineered equal outcomes, and the disparate impact doctrine proclaiming, essentially, that proper societal measures to promote lawful conduct, civic culture, work ethic, competent workforce etc. are “racism” requiring the federal government’s intervention, if racial minorities fall short of such standards. Showing that a yin-poisoned culture will use any available tool with which to self-eviscerate, in Scandinavia, where there are no indigenous People of Color, the ruling elite has been importing them to fill that vital need. Meanwhile, they mandate 40%-50% quotas for women in politics and corporate governance.
The bipolar amplitude currently in the far zone of yin may be observed in every area of postmodern, post-Reality Western society, with only superficial differences between countries.
The past ostracism of homosexuals and criminalization of homosexuality were wrong. But the current courting of “gays,” “gay” marriage, “gay” Marines, pedophile politicians, deviant promiscuity flaunted before a disgusted but cowed population — they are a cesspool of dissolution. Prudery and sexual repression were a terrible drag too, but seeing 13-year-old girls dressed like whores and Tweeting tales of their latest hookups from a perch at Jamba Juice is a civilizational tragedy.
Back-alley abortions were horrible, but the sanctioned and taxpayer-financed annual murder of 1.2 million fetuses in each of the United States and Europe must inevitably unleash God’s wrath — even if God is just a homeostatic cosmic loop of information sub-particles, not at all like the Bible’s booming Jhvh or Michelangelo’s hirsute old man. If the sheeple just looked away from their brain-macerating LED screens, they could see that God’s wrath is already manifesting as the mathematically verifiable demographic atrophy of Euro-origin peoples.
The restrictive-oppressive educational systems in Europe’s and America’s schools a hundred years ago were stultifying. But the current educational regime of self-esteem, dumbed-down curriculum, non-competitiveness, “inclusiveness,” constant guilt inculcation for the sins of whitey, and the horrors of (White only) testosterone — they all form a path to the trash can of history. We have gone much too far, expanding sixfold what was before contracted twofold.
The same heedless yin expansion is evident in America’s geopolitics. Amazon.com’s editorial review of Robert Kaplan’s Monsoon: The Indian Ocean and the Future of American Power states: “The Indian Ocean area will be the true nexus of world power [snip]. It is here that the fight for democracy, energy independence, and religious freedom will be lost or won, and it is here that American foreign policy must concentrate.”
This leaves me puzzled. Is there a shortage of democracy or religious freedom in the United States? There is an egregious surfeit of both, and both ought to be trimmed for the American people’s own good. Voting rights should be constricted and tied to a positive net worth, proof of English literacy, clean criminal record, and maturity defined as the age of 21. Religious freedom too ought to be curtailed to exclude Islam and voodoo — the one, a blueprint for subjugation of the host population by fanatical practitioners of a hostile ideology; the other, a barbarian cult unfit for a modern country firmly planted in the Christian civilization.
But it’s likely that the reviewer of Kaplan’s book expressed the Neocon — Christian Lamb creed that it’s America’s divine mission to fight for democracy and religious freedom the world over. After all, that’s the standard opiate of America’s ruling Republicrat Party. One might ask with whose taxpayers’ gold ducats and soldiers’ lives such a global fight will be waged, America’s dollar and sovereign debt now forged into manacles of penury due to this kind of madness, and her flyover people tired of the bleeding.
These observations seem outrageous to people relentlessly indoctrinated in the age of gushing yin that has “progressed” to the point of drowning every area of life in the West. However, the age of blowback yang contraction will come, either eased gently by enlightened leaders or slammed painfully on the countries of progressive lemmings by the intractable force of cosmic homeostasis.
The current travails of the West already spell the end of yin madness. Democracy as a governing system is self-terminating, having devolved into kakistocracy: a scorpion catching a river ride on the back of Aesop’s gullible frog.
“Quantitatively eased” fiat paper money and the welfare state are self-terminating, having run out of our peoples’ trust and other people’s money. Financial capitalism is self terminating, having degenerated into the larceny of global leveraged three-card Monte. Ten thousand bright and eloquent Naomi Kleins are waiting in the wings, flogging their competing brand of malignant idiocy, ruinous but tight and coercive for a change, at a dazed populace.
America’s overreaching Empire is ending, the dollar too hollow to support it and the American-built Beijing Frankenstein eager and able to step into the breach. The global troops of jihad are surging, thanking Allah for the fool giant’s last gigantic works on behalf of “democracy” that paved the way for Muhammad pbuh.
Christianity, having taken a radical but wrong turn from its past errors, is wading in pools of irrelevance or deep weirdness, its mainstream just a holding pen for Eloi lambs. The Jews, having forgotten their cosmic destiny as canaries in the coalmine, are self-terminating by supporting and even leading “progressive” ideologies that will blow back at them first, devastatingly.
The sexual revolution and the GLBT foolishness are ending, for the West’s young are ending and their Afghan and Somali replacements have different plans in this matter.
Culture is ending, the polite, old white crowd that savors Bach at the Frauenkirche or Velasquez at the Prado having neither the courage nor the vigor to stop the barbarization of its former domains. The future is writ as the torture of the children of Grieg with the barbarians’ Dika Down Booboo! or their mega-decibel Adhan; the Booboo-Muslim-Morlock crowd multiplying and living off white Eloi’s taxes under Leviathan’s special care.
Education in the West has already ended. It had evolved into a progressive indoctrination Kumbaya Socialist Youth Camp for unemployable Occupiers of Wall Street: their noses full of cow jewelry, egos full of self-esteem, and brains stuffed with Rosa Luxemburg and Rosa Parks, Howard Zinn and Malcolm X, Mumia and Che, Obama and OutKast — but not the multiplication tables.
Nature is slowly being devoured, turning into concrete and particle board beehives built with zero-interest loans from Ponzi socialist rulers to no-risk banksters; its displaced animal kingdom now in zoos, or eating from suburban garbage bins, or being eaten in China’s better restaurants.
All this should give rise to leaders who would ask Lenin’s question, What is to be done? — though answer differently. But there are no such leaders. The leaders the West does have only know how to pour more yin onto flooding yin. More credit expansion to cure the ills of credit expansion. More loans to nations and banksters who can’t repay existing loans. More technological capacity transferred to China. More subsidized college for imbeciles who can’t calculate 24% of 87 or pinpoint Moscow on the map. More retreat before advancing Islam. More appeasement of the barbarians within. More “minorities” in privileged positions in the ruling apparatus of Leviathan. More police facing Mecca. More women in combat, and toy soldiers confiscated from little boys. More gayness in gay Paree. More persecution of the flyover serfs who notice all that.
The question therefore is not what is to be done, but what will be rebuilt on the ruins, some day. For future archeologists will sift through the rubble, and some will rise strong enough to rebuild with the found pieces.
To Read the rest of this great essay go to Gates of Vienna at: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/02/bee-and-lamb-part-4.html#more
The placement of racial politics at the center of liberal advocacy coincided with a growing national prosperity that seemed to be on the way to making class warfare of the old kind irrelevant. Previous liberal civil rights activity had been a subset of class, but class now became a subset of race. And both were a means of liberal self-definition as the people concerned with the plight of the downtrodden.
Futurism and Shoepiles
Posted on 06 February 2012
Too often we Catholics have been criticized, nay, have been savaged, for being mere medievalists, disloyal to the modernism; the Christianity we confess has been dismissed as an anachronism promoting a moral code past its sell-by date.
I confess I am always amused when those who denounce eternal truths as old-fashioned seem not to realize this denunciation was fashionable in the days when Marx and Hegel, bastardizing Darwin, took pen to paper. The idea that truth is relative to its time period belongs to the optimistic Victorian Age. It is an idea long past its sell-by date.
The argument about anachronism is itself anachronistic: the last gasp of grayhaired and dying conformity in no sense fitted for life in the future. It is not an accusation one needs soberly to answer, since it is not a sober accusation.
But I was reminded of this recently. Crisis Magazine has an essay written by Jason Jones that you would do well to read. It is from last month, the dread date of January 22. (Hat tip to Frank Weathers at Why I am Catholic). Allow me to recite some telling paragraphs:
For most of you this weekend contains a date you’ll never forget, along the lines of September 11, or December 7 — anniversaries of profound wounds to our country as a whole, even if we didn’t lose a relative in those surprise attacks or the wars that ensued. For millions of Americans, however, January 22 portends a loss that is much more rawly personal. One woman in three who came of age after Roe v. Wade has exercised the “right” the judges discovered in 1973 to terminate a pregnancy; millions of men took part in those decisions; too often forgotten are men who (like me at 17) were bereaved of our unborn children against our wishes. All those Americans lost a family member in the events of January 22, and so this day will never slip by unnoticed, much as most of us wish it would. We’d rather not “go there,” not dredge up the guilt of many flavors—participant’s, bystander’s, survivor’s. It all feels much the same. If I can speak for the many, let me tell you we’d rather think about almost anything else, be it baseball, stock prices, or shoes.
So let’s talk about shoes.
One of the authors to whom I owe the most intellectually is the political philosopher Hadley Arkes, of Amherst College. Arkes is the world’s leading advocate of a deeply unfashionable theory called Natural Law. You never hear about that notion any more, but it played a major role in certain historic events: the American Declaration of Independence, the Abolitionist movement, the U.N.’s post-war assertion of human rights that transcend the laws of nations, and the U.S. Civil Rights movement. It’s almost stunning to think that an idea with such a pedigree could simply be dropped by the world’s intellectuals, like a toy that a child grew bored with, but that is what has happened. People will still assert human rights, or insist that our government act with justice, plucking fruit from the branches of a tree they pretend isn’t there. (I won’t speculate for the moment why they do this. Just take it from me that “Natural Law” is a term you shouldn’t use in academia, law, or politics. It will brand you as an extremist.) Anyway, in one of my favorite books by my favorite thinker, Natural Rights and the Right to Choose, Arkes starts by talking not about abstract right and wrong but a particular pile of shoes. That has a better philosophical precedent than you might think: One of Heidegger’s most famous essays concerns the making of shoes.
But Arkes isn’t interested in what Germans have thought about crafting shoes, as in the careful way they protected them, kept shoes safe from heedless destruction in time of war, gathered them carefully and avoided wherever they could the needless waste of a single shoe—almost as if each pair had a unique and irreplaceable destiny, a dignity no man could rightly ignore.
You have probably guessed by now where the shoes that interest Arkes were found: piled neatly, outside the gas chamber at an extermination camp. Those shoes, and other personal items like gold teeth, were extracted from the items of human waste those plants efficiently processed into smoke. They remain with us as a testimony to modern economy and thrift. Really, I can think of no other single thing (not a skyscraper or a space ship) that sums up the essence of what it means to be modern as that pile of Jewish shoes.
The age we mark as modernity began with grand, exhilarating gestures: discourses on method that would set us free from the dead hand of tradition (Descartes); declarations of the rights of man (the French Revolutionary Assembly); manifestos rejecting the tyranny of mere economic laws over the lives and labor of men (Karl Marx). The grand progression of the movement Henri de Lubac dubbed “heroic humanism” was full of such golden moments, which moved through the dark night of history like torches leading us forward, ever forward, to a glittering future that would make life at long last worthy of man. At the end of all the struggles, after the next (surely final!) conflict, or the next, we were promised without any irony a brave new world, an earthly paradise. Descartes had no doubt that science would end disease and aging, so men could live forever. Robespierre offered public safety and a reign of absolute virtue. Marx fought to eliminate war, inequality, and even boring jobs: in the stateless, classless Communist endpoint of history, no one would even have to specialize in anything. We could move from one career to another from day to day, and have ample time in the evening to philosophize or write poetry. As Thomas Paine said, “We have it in our power to begin the world over again.”
And we did. That’s what we spent the 19th and 20th centuries doing, energetically. We broke up historic empires into nation-states, where men forgot their loyalty to tiny village or global Church, and learned to think as members of ethnic tribes or aggrieved social classes. After these collectives had done their work, and proved themselves too dangerous (in 1945, and 1989, respectively) we set about smashing them, too. We broke down the ramshackle, inefficient structure of the old extended family to its minimal, nuclear core—and then when that didn’t prove as economically useful, we split that into atoms. When we learned that families have no economic use or political import, we redefined them at last as consensual, temporary alliances of adults—to whom the State contracts the duty of caring for children overnight, in the hours when schools and daycare facilities aren’t open. We have very thoroughly accomplished the job modernity’s founders set us: liquidating every barrier to the assertion of the Self, short of the laws of physics. We have killed all the fathers. We are free to make of ourselves exactly what we will, no less and no more. And here we sit with the treasure we’ve won: this pile of shoes.
From John C. Wright’s Journal at: http://www.scifiwright.com/2012/02/futurism-and-shoepiles/
Via American Digest at: http://americandigest.org/
Jefferson, and the rest of the Founders, knew that they had a choice laid out before them. They could either revolt against tyranny or surrender to it. We are facing exactly the same choice right now, except that the tyranny that we are now facing is far, far worse than anything Jefferson and the Founders were facing. King George never tried to tax the Colonists on their mere existence, as ObamaCare does. King George never tried to force the Colonists to embrace and celebrate sexual perversion. King George never tried to force the Colonists to pay for and even participate in abortion. King George never attempted to import and establish the satanic scourge of islam in the Colonies.
We are so far past and beyond the “long train of abuses and usurpations” that the Colonists and Founders experienced and which necessitated the Revolutionary War that they aren’t even visible in the rear-view mirror. I dare say that being a Colonist in 1775 did not, by definition, break eight of the Ten Commandments or put a person is a probable state of mortal sin.
And so back to the core premise: the government can’t make you do anything. There is always an alternative, and at a certain point, the alternative of non-compliance is not only available, it is REQUIRED. Read the Declaration:
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
It is our right and our DUTY to throw off this government. It is not legitimate and does not possess the consent of the governed, and thus has NO AUTHORITY. This is not to say that this government does not have power – yes it still does have power, but it has NO AUTHORITY. At this point, the only way it can continue to operate is by means of violent coercion, namely property confiscation, imprisonment and execution. This is YOUR country: thieving, murdering criminals running utterly amok, holding their power only through violent coercion and the threat of violent coercion. And it could all be brought to a screeching halt tomorrow if We The People would just turn that intellectual corner and realize that the unjust laws of an illegitimate government need not and should not be followed. They have no power over us. We have power over them, because they derive their JUST powers from the consent of the governed. Withdraw the consent, and the power is gone. Anything remaining is therefore, by definition, UNJUST, and thus must be “abolished” and “thrown off”, to use Jefferson’s words.
Of course you can own and carry a gun. You have the God-given right to your life, and the right to protect yourself, your family and your property. No one can ever, ever take that right away from you except YOU. The state can pass as many laws as it wants banning gun ownership and bearing, but every single one of those laws is illegitimate, and thus should not be followed.
How can the government force you to accept Sharia law, or any evil satanic system? Only YOU decide what you do or do not accept. Obama could write an Executive Order tomorrow declaring that the musloid screech to prayer be blasted from loudspeakers in every city and town five times per day, and the only true use or value that Executive Order would have is as toilet paper. Obama can’t make you accept Sharia law any more than he can make you fly like Superman.
ObamaCare can only force you out of business if you COMPLY with it. The government can only force you into mortal sin if you COMPLY and CONSENT. Obama can mandate that we all buy health insurance, and that all insurance policies cover abortion and contraception. And we can all laugh in his face. His fat wife can further mandate that we all eat celery sticks and tofu on Mondays and Thursdays, and we can likewise laugh in her painted-up-thicker-than-a-tranny face. These people have no power over us. They are slack-jawed, carney-trash gutter filth, and nothing more. Any power they have over us is power that we must specifically consent to give to them. I withdraw my consent. You got a problem with that, Barry? Molon labe.
Finally, back to the theological aspect of all of this, because that’s how I roll up in here. Look at a Crucifix. What you are seeing in a Crucifix is the stark horror of your own freedom and personal sovereignty. You are free to choose, as is every single being made in the image of God. We are so free that God consents to allowing us to choose to torture and kill Him. Oh, yes, we always, always have a choice. And now, because we have allowed it, the choice now stands as this: Either choose to spare yourself the wrath of an evil, illegitimate government or choose to scourge and crucify Christ. Pick up the flagellum and lean into Him. Skin Him. Make Him bleed and shake in pain. Then pick up that hammer and those nails and drive them in. Feel the bones in His feet and ankles crunch as you pound that nail in. And as you’re doing this, look Him in the eye with a big sh**-eating grin on your face. Tell Him how you have no choice, because it’s either this, or you might lose your job, or your 4000 square foot house. And that’s not even a contest, right? I mean, who WOULDN’T torture and kill their best friend, brother, father, spouse, creator and savior in order to stay in the good graces of the IRS and keep a job or a pension income?
The choice is yours. It always has been and always will be. This life will only last for a few more decades at most. What comes after that is eternal. Choose wisely.
From Ann Barnhardt at:
If The Federal Government Can Make It Mandatory For You To Buy Anything…We Will Be Living Under Tyranny and A Dictator
WASHINGTON — If the federal government can require people to purchase health insurance, what else can it force them to do? More to the point, what can’t the government compel citizens to do?
Those questions have been the toughest ones for the Obama administration’s lawyers to answer in court appearances around the country over the past six months. And they are likely to emerge again if, as expected, the Supreme Court, as early as Monday, agrees to be the final arbiter of the challenge to President Obama’s signature health care initiative.
The case focuses on whether Congress overstepped its constitutional authority in enacting parts of the law. Lower courts have reached divergent conclusions.
Even judges in lower courts who ultimately voted to uphold the law have homed in on the question of the limits of government power, at times flummoxing Justice Department lawyers.
“Let’s go right to what is your most difficult problem,” Judge Laurence H. Silberman, who later voted to uphold the law, told a lawyer at an argument in September before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. “What limiting principle do you articulate?” If Congress may require people to purchase health insurance, he asked, what else can it force them to buy? Where do you draw the line?
Would it be unconstitutional, he asked, to require people to buy broccoli?
“No,” said the lawyer, Beth S. Brinkmann. “It depends.”
Could people making more than $500,000 be required to buy cars from General Motors to keep it in business?
“I would have to know much more about the empirical findings,” she replied.
Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, who ended up in dissent, then jumped in. “How about mandatory retirement accounts replacing Social Security?” he asked.
“It would depend,” Ms. Brinkmann replied.
Ms. Brinkmann was cut off before she could elaborate on her answers. In other settings, she and other administration lawyers have described what they see as the constitutional limits to government power, though not typically using concrete examples.
It’s a great piece.
Are there limits to federal power? The question is now before the Court.
Also at Althouse, “Supreme Court takes the Obamacare case“:
If the Court takes down the entire Act, it would do Obama a great favor, which is why I’m predicting the Court will do just that. That was my prediction a few weeks ago, reading, not the the existing doctrine, but “the political forces at play and assessing the Court’s vulnerability to those forces.”
But would John Roberts really want to do Obama a favor? Interesting…
Does the #Occupy Movement Speak for You?
October 25th, 2011 — “Occupy” movement, “The Great Recession”, 1389 (blog admin), CAIR, Canada, communism, economy, Florida, George Soros, leftist-jihadist convergence, mainstream media, Muslim Brotherhood, Nazism, NYC, Obama, the left, tuition bubble, unemployment
Lech Walesa rejects OWS
Some of the #Occupy movement signs and slogans seem to resonate with many onlookers. Maybe it’s because they’ve stolen a few talking points (but very little else) from the Tea Party. Maybe it’s because the sympathetic mainstream media carefully edits out what they don’t want you to see.
Let’s take a closer look.
Is this you?
Are you frustrated and angry about unemployment, inflation, the decreasing economic opportunities, the burden of debt, and the declining standard of living in North America, much of Europe, and elsewhere? Are you worried about the sovereign debt problems that bedevil the international financial system?
So am I.
Do you empathize with those struggling to make ends meet in low-paid, part-time jobs? Do you consider bailouts to be unconstitutional, politically and economically unwise, and morally wrong? Do you believe that the Federal Reserve system puts too much power into the hands of too few people who are not accountable to the voters and taxpayers?
So do I.
The Occupy movement blames our predicament on “billionaires”, “rich corporations”, and “Wall Street bankers”. They offer no basis for their accusations, but merely pander to the temptations of envy, sloth, and greed to which all of us are prone.
I agree with Herman Cain in placing most of the blame on Barack Obama and his failed policies. I also blame other public officials in the US and elsewhere whose policies brought about our financial downfall.
Whose side are they on?
Let’s see…the Occubaggers have got the commies, the socialists, the anarchists, the American Nazi Party, the George Soros front groups including the Open Society Institute, the Tides Foundation, and MoveOn.org, along with Code Pink and Michael Moore, the Muslim Brotherhood and its front group CAIR (more about CAIR and its connections here and here), the SEIU, the AFL-CIO, the leftist establishment media including the New York Times and the Washington Post, Frances Fox Piven, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ayatollah Khamenei, Hugo Chavez, David Duke, and, of course, that architect of failure and scapegoater-in-chief, Barack Hussein Obama himself.
Along for the ride are the aging drugged-out hippies reliving Woodstock, the young drugged-out prep school and college kids looking for a place to fornicate al fresco, the paid shills, the student loan debtors with useless degrees, the trust-fund babies, the anti-Semites, the LGBT nudists, the race-card players, the outdoor urinators and defecators, the pro-abort feminazis, the tree-huggers, the vegans, and the mentally ill. (Many of these categories overlap.) Rounding out the rogue’s gallery are various drug dealers, crackheads, junkies, thieves, rapists, street bums and other lumpenproletariat, and felons hiding out from the law.
None of them speak for me.
Nor do they speak for Lech Walesa.
Former Polish President Won’t Attend #OccupyWallStreet After Citizen Journalists Expose Its Radical Roots
Lech Walesa, former president of Poland, champion in the fight against communism, and winner of the Liberty Medal and Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1989, has decided to not make a trip to New York in support of the Occupy Wall Street protests.
Last week the AP reported that Walesa was backing the Occupy “movement” and considered traveling to New York in support of the growing nationwide mob activity that currently plagues the United States. However, when former Illinois gubernatorial candidate Adam Andrzejewski, (For the Good of Illinois) found out about this, he quickly reached out to his contacts in Poland to alert the former president to the truth behind this radical movement.
“We made the point that the political themes of Occupy Wall Street may have started out with some of the principles that we share, but OWS themes were rapidly being morphed into anti-freedom and anti-liberty messages. At the core is the want for a big, powerful central government to dominate the lives of individual citizens.” -Andrzejewski
In his write-up last night at BigGovernment.com, Andrzejewski stated that with the help of BigGoverment and other sources, he was able to convey an accurate picture of the Occupy movement, particularly that it is “…organized by anarchists, Code Pink, the American Communist movement, jihadists, anti-Israel, socialist, and anti- free enterprise interests.” After reviewing this information about the true nature of the demonstrations, Walesa and his team withdrew their support and will not be attending any Occupy protests.
We were overjoyed to learn that recent Rebel Pundit investigative reports and footage were able to play an an important role in Walesa’s decision. According to Andrzejewski:
“They appreciated the inside info- they weren’t getting that in Poland from the European media.”
From 1389 Blof at: http://1389blog.com/
Excellent article by Daniel Greenfield at Sultan Knish Blog
Note: Highlighted sections by ZTW
“Fight back? But then we’d be no better than them?” If we waterboard then we are no better than the headchoppers and mutilators. If we profile then we are no better than the genocidal jihadists. If we treat our friendly Pakistani and Saudi visitors the way they would have been treated a century ago– then we would be guilty of being un-American.
Connections don’t just store information, they define priorities by reminding us which thing is dependent on the other. They remind us that governments sre instituted to keep laws and laws are implemented to keep the people. Governments serve the law, but the law serves the people. And the people are not some random mass, they are not defined by passports and identity cards or place of birth– the people are the keepers of the flame of their culture. This need not be a matter of birth, immigrants can be among the greatest heroes and natives among the greatest traitors. But no one who is committed to the destruction of the culture, in concrete or abstract terms, in the immediate present or the indefinite future, can enjoy the protection of legal codes that exist to protect the freedom of the individual within the integrity of a free culture.
In the face of such reasoning it is important to remember that we are not better than our enemies because we represent ideals, but because we create ideals along with skyscrapers, paintings, high powered microscopes, novels, better mousetraps, systems of philosophy, muscle cars, musical styles, theorems, charities and sandwiches. We are makers and shapers, movers and thinkers, seers and doers. We reach for the stars and find ways to keep premature babies alive. We are imperfect, dynamic and changing– and the world would be a much poorer place without us in it.
Why Young Americans Can’t Think Morally
By Dennis Prager
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Last week, David Brooks of The New York Times wrote a column on an academic study concerning the nearly complete lack of a moral vocabulary among most American young people. Below are some excerpts from Brooks’ summary of the study of Americans aged 18 to 23. (It was led by “the eminent Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith.”)
“Smith and company asked about the young people’s moral lives, and the results are depressing …
“When asked to describe a moral dilemma they had faced, two-thirds of the young people either couldn’t answer the question or described problems that are not moral at all …
“Moral thinking didn’t enter the picture, even when considering things like drunken driving, cheating in school or cheating on a partner …
“The default position, which most of them came back to again and again, is that moral choices are just a matter of individual taste …
“As one put it, ‘I mean, I guess what makes something right is how I feel about it. But different people feel different ways, so I couldn’t speak on behalf of anyone else as to what’s right and wrong …
“Morality was once revealed, inherited and shared, but now it’s thought of as something that emerges in the privacy of your own heart.”
Continued at Jewish World Review at: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0911/prager092011.php3
…The growing ranks of fundamental Christians and radical Muslims should be of concern to everyone who is not part of these two groups. Everyone. Again, bigotry, discrimination, hatred, coercion, terrorism, slavery, misogyny and everything else that is part and parcel of fundamental Christianity and radical Islam should not be tolerated and anyone who agrees with this needs to adopt extremist points of view that includes the intolerance of their very existence. The only reason these groups exist is because they are allowed to, and we, as a society, are allowing them to…
But the underbelly of fundamentalist Christianity and radical Islam does not operate in the legal system. They don’t respond to lawsuits, letters, amicus briefs or other grass-roots campaigns and they must, must, must be eradicated. As long as they are allowed to exist, we will continue to be inundated with accounts of buses, buildings, markets and abortion clinics being blown up, rape victims being murdered for adultery, wives being beaten (sometimes to death), airplanes being flown into buildings, people being tortured and sometimes beheaded for blasphemy, people being burned for witchcraft and sorcery and all the other horrific, inhumane and insane practices that are part of fundamental Christianity and Radical Islam.
Always ironic for proponents of dismembering babies while conscious lecture about the inhumane, no?
If we don’t take a stand and, as a society, insist that these doctrines and beliefs are treated just the same as they would be if religion were not part of the equation, we will become extinct not due to natural selection, but at the hands of those who believe that the supernatural has made the selection.
Ergo, the atheists want themselves to override natural selection and simply, what – abort Christians beyond the 3rd trimester? If they are successful, there will only be one result many years later – an atheist civil war.
Powers, Principalities, Prayer & ’78 Chryslers:
I am NOT in a state of superior grace from you. In fact, I am almost certain that I am a complete wreck compared to you. I’m the ’78 Cordoba. You are the Firehawk. Here, I contend, is the difference. As much of a piece of de-tuned MOPAR crap with a bad carburetor as I am, I actually put the tranny in gear and GO. Most Christian folks in the U.S. have the SLP Ram-Air 5.7 liter V-8, but never take it out of park. Hmmm. So if what I did, and what I’m doing, constitutes sputtering, crippling along, dying at every light and having to throw it in neutral and get out and push a 4000 pound, 18 foot long monstrosity through the streets . . . just imagine what y’all Firehawks could do if you would JUST. PUT. IT. IN. GEAR. — Ann Barnhardt
Taken From American Digest at: http://americandigest.org/
Top 10 shocking things in Ann Coulter’s book ‘Demonic’ that will drive liberals crazy
Ann Coulter’s books are never tame.
Her latest book, “Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America,” will start enraging liberals with its very title – which is par for the course for the author of such liberal-bashing classics as “Godless” and “Treason.”
The Daily Caller has put together the top 10 quotes and arguments from her latest tome that are most likely to make Chris Matthews’s head explode – and possibly even disturb some on the right.
10.) Democrats are anti-science
Reversing the Democratic mantra that Republicans are “anti-science,” Coulter says it is really the Democratic mob that abhors science and technological innovation.
“The Left’s abject terror of technological development is yet another mob attribute,” she writes.
Quoting Gustave Le Bon, whose theory on mobs is the main intellectual foundation of her book, Coulter writes, “Thus, according to Le Bon, if ‘democracies possessed the power they wield today at the time of the invention of mechanical looms or of the introduction of steam-power and of railways, the realization of these inventions would have been impossible.”
But, Coulter argues, “Our liberals are even worse than Le Bon imagined. Democrats don’t merely want to block scientific progress, they want to stop scientific progress, they want to role it back.”
She then cites, as examples, Al Gore’s call in his “global warming fantasy book Earth in the Balance” for the elimination of the internal combustion engine within 25 years, the Democrat’s 2007 bill to eliminate the incandescent light bulb by 2014, Obamacare, which she says will hamper medical innovation, and the Democrats’ incessant hectoring of the oil and pharmaceutical industries – industries, Coulter writes, that “are two of the most innovative.”
She goes on: “Indeed, the only way to get liberals interested in novel scientific research is to propose going after human embryos,” citing liberals love of embryonic stem cell research over adult stem cell research when the science on the latter is more promising according to her.
9.) Liberals are not apart of the American tradition
“The men behind the American Revolution – the militias, the Minutemen, and the signers of the Declaration of Independence, as well as the framers of the Constitution – were the very opposite of the mob. Today we would call them ‘Republicans,’” she writes at one point in the book
“Liberals’ history is not this country’s history – theirs is the history of the mob,” she writes in another.
8.) Liberal social consciousness manifests itself in the killing of American soldiers
Though a joke, this one will still enrage:
“If the Weatherman had succeeded in transporting their bombs to the Fort Dix dance, instead of blowing themselves up, they would have murdered lots of U.S. serviceman and their dates. For liberals, that’s social consciousness,” she writes.
7.) Republican “Southern Strategy” was not racist
“The entire basis of the liberals’ ‘Southern Strategy’ myth is the sophisticated belief that anyone who votes Republican must be a racist,” Coulter writes.
“If Nixon had planned to appeal to white racists, speeding up desegregation was not an effective strategy. But he turned around and won an even bigger landslide in 1972, running against George McGovern and the party of acid, abortion, and amnesty,” she argues.
6.) The left (and crazy people) are responsible for all political violence in the United States
“Somewhat astoundingly, in the entire nation’s history, there’s never been a presidential assassination attempt by a right-winger. There have been more than a dozen by left-wingers,” she writes.
“Conservatives, we’re endlessly told, create ‘an atmosphere of hatred and fear.’ This is as opposed to liberals who just go around shooting elected officials.”
After spending an entire chapter – entitled “Imaginary Violence From the Right Vs. Actual Violence From The Left” – documenting her case, Coulter concludes,
“What’s confusing is that liberal historians keep telling us that those angry, contorted faces screaming at black people are ‘Southerners’ – probably someone like Phyllis Schlafly. Only when you realize they are all Democrats – usually liberal, progressive Democrats, in the mold of Wilson, Faubus, and Ervin – do the pictures make sense.
“It’s always liberals: Like Robespierre, they commit violence for the greater good.”
5.) Democrats’ schemes are similar to the schemes of history’s worst regimes
In a chapter detailing the 20th century’s most brutal regimes, from Stalin’s Soviet Union to Hitler’s Germany to Mao’s China to Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Coulter writes, “You will note the similarities in all these totalitarian plans to many of the Democrats’ schemes.”
4.) The GOP has always been the party supporting civil rights, not the Democratic Party
“Angry violent mobs are always Democratic: Code Pink, SDS, The Weathermen, Earth First!, anti-war protesters, and union protesters in Wisconsin,” Coulter writes.
“Like them, the Ku Klux Klan was, of course, another Democratic undertaking, originally formed to terrorize Republicans, but later switching to terrorize blacks. It was Democratic juries that acquitted Klansman after Klansman. It was Democratic politicians who supported segregation, Democratic governors who called out the National Guard to stop desegregation, Democratic commissioners of public safety who turned police dogs and water hoses on civil rights protesters.”
Also: “Democrats only came around on civil rights when blacks were voting in high enough numbers to make a difference at the ballot box – and then they claimed credit for everything their party had ferociously blocked since the Civil War.”
3.) Coulter stands up for the killings at Kent State
“On May 4, National Guard officers were trying to disperse thousands of violent protesters in the middle of the campus. According to the recent reporting of James Rosen, the guardsman were fired upon first, leading twenty-nine guardsman to shoot back at the protesters, killing four students in thirteen seconds,” Coulter writes.
“If Louis XVI had been that decisive, 600,000 Frenchmen might not have had to die. As his grandfather, Louis XIV, had said: When war is necessary, it is a ‘grave error to think that one can reach the same aims by weaker means.’ Though decried throughout the land – and in a Neil Young song! – the shooting at Kent State soon put an end to the student riots.”
This fits nicely with a major theme of Coulter’s book, which is encapsulated in its very last words.
“This nation’s heroes knew what Louis XVI did not: A mob cannot be calmly reasoned with: it can only be smashed,” Coulter writes. “When faced with a move, civilized society’s motto should be: Overreact!”
2.) Coulter takes on the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr.
“Martin Luther King Jr. was the heir to Rousseau. He used images in order to win publicity and goodwill for his cause, deploying children in the streets for a pointless, violent confrontation with a lame-duck lunatic: Theophilus Eugene ‘Bull’ Connor,” she writes.
In attacking King’s legacy, Coulter uses the words of liberal icon Thurgood Marshall, who became the first black justice of the Supreme Court, to aid her in tarnishing King’s reputation. “Thurgood Marshall had always disdained King’s methods, calling him an ‘opportunist’ and ‘first rate rabble-rouser,’” Coulter writes. “Indeed, when asked about King’s suggestion that street protests could help advance desegregation, Marshall replied that school desegregation was men’s work and should not be entrusted to children. King, he said, was ‘a boy on a man’s errand.’”
Coulter concludes, “The civil rights movement had made mobs respectable, to the great misfortune of the nation. In no time, liberals began engaging in what I believe Gandhi called ‘active resistance’ every time they didn’t get their way through legitimate legal processes.”
In a later chapter, she says, “If Nixon had been elected in 1960, instead of Kennedy, we could have skipped the bloodshed of the civil rights marches and today we’d be celebrating Thurgood Marshall Day, rather than Martin Luther King Day.”
1.) Expressing understanding of anti-abortion violence
“But more important, abortion clinic violence should not be filed under ‘Political Violence’ at all. It should be filed under ‘Things Liberals Won’t Let Americans Vote On.’…When there is no legal process for pro-lifers to pursue to outlaw abortion – unlike every policy liberals violently protest – some pro-lifers will inevitably respond to lawlessness with lawlessness,” Coulter writes. “In the first few years after [Planned Parenthood v. Casey], about six more people were killed in attacks on abortion clinics. Most of the abortionists were shot or, depending upon your point of view, had a procedure performed on them with a rifle.”
“There were no more constitutional options left to fight judicial tyranny on the little matter of mass murder,” she concludes. “Thus, abortion clinic violence is more akin to the Tiananmen Square protests in Communist China than any liberal riot in America. Want to stop violence at abortion clinics? Repeal Roe and let Americans vote.”
Thanks to Daily Caller at:http://dailycaller.com/
The USA: Last Stop in Western Civilization
“[America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.” These are the words of former President John Quincy Adams.
How far we have strayed from that sound maxim? Intervention has become the hallmark of American foreign policy. As indicated by nascent American intervention in Libya, America has made spreading the ballot box to distant lands and less fortunate peoples its raison d’être, often with disastrous results and in every case damaging America’s ability to project military and economic power when vital to our own national security.
It can even be argued that our efforts to advance democracy have had the exact opposite effect, as demonstrated by the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise to power in Egypt. That worked so well that we’re now “helping” Libya and Syria.
At the heart of this new presumption of global responsibility is a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes democracy or republican government possible.
Americans have replaced democratic values with the worship of the democratic process. It is within this paradigm that policy wonks think that imposition of our democratic system on ancient civilizations with a long history of attitudes contrary to democratic culture, will result in democratic values analogous to our own.
This widely shared view is flawed, for this one simple reason: It is the underlying values that make democracy work, not the process itself, e.g. the Palestinian election of Hamas. The success of the American democratic republic is rooted in the peculiar nature of its founding, conditions particular to America, such as an Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, common culture, religious beliefs, and the moral fortitude of the framers.
As people living in the most powerful nation on Earth, Americans are constantly saturated by a barrage of media proclaiming it the inherent responsibility of the United States to police the world. After all, “With great power comes great responsibility.” But while helping those who cannot help themselves is a noble goal, it is not rational to drown our military in endless conflicts and wars which only bring our own people suffering and loss.
What about our own people? Does being American disqualify us from the same protection we so lavishly afford other nations?
Whatever is said about the Bush Administration, one thing is certain: the policies pursued under his Administration saddled the United States with burdens greater than any empire in history. The Roman Empire collapsed with less strain. This is not to ignore the successes of the Bush years: Not one more terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11, al Qaeda’s base of operations destroyed, and an unprecedented economic recovery following a traumatic national shock culminating in a 4 percent unemployment rate.
But, in his 2002 West Point Address, just one year after 9/11, the President made a startling pledge:
All nations that decide for aggression and terror will pay a price. We will not leave…the peace of the planet at the mercy of a few mad terrorists and tyrants. We will lift this dark threat from our country and our world.
Since when is the US responsible for the “peace of the planet”? Also, when did our enemy become every “tyrant” and “terrorist” on earth? As any thinking person can see, our enemies are not “terrorists,” which are simply employers of a method, but Islamic radicals. This proclamation was a stunning departure from historical US policy. President Bush had just placed America under the weight of empire. And for what was America now laboring?
According to Bush, the men and women of the US Armed Forces would now die, not so that Americans could remain free, but so that the world could become democratic. This is the crux of the now infamous Paul Wolfowitz memorandum, announcing that the US would now act to address “those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations.” The desire to blow things up could also be theoretical justification under this broad construction of American power.
In essence, our leaders have signaled the world that America will intervene in anything and everything that might “unsettle” some arbitrary notion of international balance. We have just made the world our enemies, and for no reason. Take President Bush’s arrogant and potentially suicidal statement at his second inaugural:
So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world. 
It is not wrong to acknowledge that democracy, when adopted under the right conditions, and in the right cultural setting, can be a very beautiful thing for its participants. But, the United States simply does not have the strength to coerce democratic governance the world over, and to believe that we can is folly.
And yet, this is the mindset of former President George Bush, who once said, “We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and nation. The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right … We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people.”  But since when does Saudi Arabia’s brutal regime affect our security, or Burma’s bloodbath?
It is President Bush’s philosophically problematic view that, “Islam … is consistent with democratic rule.” Islamic Sharia, the legal code followed by many Muslim countries, commands death for those who convert to another religion, such as Christianity. Under such a model, fifty-one percent of an electorate can pursue genocide against the political minority. Democratic institutions must be supported with democratic values.
More importantly, while spreading democracy is a noble goal, America cannot sustain the level of economic and military commitment required to achieve such a goal. Are we really to believe that America can coerce democratic reform in every regime, in every nation, when we can’t even eliminate the enemy in a cakewalk scenario like Iraq? Before America puts an end to the genocide in the Sudan, we have to make sure our own people are safe. We can’t help anybody if we’re dead. And with an army with half its former strength after a decade of cuts, American readiness to face asymmetric threats, e.g. Chinese ascendancy, has diminished considerably.
Despite the vast reduction in military power, America is asked to take on even more commitments, exposing Americans to attack. But who else will answer the call of oppressed peoples? Will the European Union, a gaggle of weak and emasculated states more concerned with gender equality and homosexual rights in the military than military lethality? America is the last stop in Western Civilization. Looking out for number one is not selfish; it is essential.
It is not the responsibility of the US to settle the squabbles in Bosnia or the Sudan. It is the constitutional responsibility of our government to defend our people. The world should be thankful that there is an America to liberate distant peoples from oppression. But American patronage is not a “right.” It is a privilege, one that could easily evaporate in the event America takes on too much. Suicide is not a righteous act; it’s suicide. Nobody benefits in the event America collapses from overstretch.