Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Dennis Prager...A MOST important video you really should see


I thought I'd start the month of June with something positive and uplifting. Dennis Prager gets it SO RIGHT.............please watch and send to your friends, family and, especially, your kids. "We have not passed on what it means to be American to this generation." Amen. (Watch the whole thing, it gets better and better....)

z

101 comments:

Faith said...

Well, you got me sobbing my heart out with inspiration and hope (for a change from the usual despair). What an amazingly apt analysis of what has gone wrong. If only we could recover what we've lost. Maybe the most amazing thing is that the guy is Jewish. But then that gets me back into despair. Because ALL of our freedoms and our goodness began with America's CHRISTIAN CHARACTER. The churches have to wake up.

Faith said...

Yes, this election coming up is crucial. I think the primaries are the pivotal point of the crucial. I think we need the most solidly conservative candidates we can get if we're really going to change things. Here in Nevada we may get by with Sue Lowden or Danny Tarkanian to replace Harry Reid, but Sharron Angle is the one with the proven record on all the right issues. I'm hoping.

Mustang said...

Perhaps not 100 years ago, although it may have started back then ... when America began to brainwash their children in socialist pap given to them by their public education system. Perhaps also, when we stopped demanding that Americans serve their country ... when we said, "Let's have an all volunteer military."

I don't care whether individuals serve their country in uniform; I do care that individuals serve their country in some fashion. If our people will not do that, precisely because they are completely self-centered, then in my view, they have not earned a piece of America. If they will not do it out of patriotism, then we should require that they do it anyway; if we do not, then our country becomes —as it already has become, a nation of parasites.

Always On Watch said...

The November 2010 election: "the greatest fight in our history" (closing remark by Prager).

He's so correct in everything he said on this video! You know that part about education resonates with me. Our education system, both public and private, the latter to a lesser extent most of the time, is a huge part of the problem with America. We aren't training up our young people in American principles (as Prager pointed out).

God help us if we don't overturn Congress in 2010.

Great find, Z.

Anonymous said...

I can't agree that somebody like Prager upholds altruism as a value while pretending that's something that America should embrace. The primary tenet of any collectivist in the war against the sovereign individual is to put the collective above the individual. Has America been so moved to the collectivist line of thinking that it embraces altruism as a value and declares the rights of the individual null and void?

All collectivists use this idea to place the interests of the group or the state as being above all else — including Adolph Hitler. I'm sure even the most rabid of leftist posters would embrace the likes of a collectivist like Dennis Prager.

And I profoundly disagree with his demonizing of collectives like the broad brush depiction of other "nations" as being the embodiment of what he considers evil. A more intelligent man would critique the ideas he disagrees with and not try to demonize whole countries — he sounds like a rabid war monger, IMO.

Waylon

Brooke said...

Prager very often hits the nail on the head, and I believe this time was no exception.

Joe_Agnost said...

He's a lunatic... thank god fools like that won't get anywhere near ~real~ power!

Enjoy the fringes people - it doesn't get better than that! Just ask Sarah Palin!

Z said...

I'm glad most of you agree and enjoyed the video.

Waylon, I absolutely don't see where you get what you're saying.

Bloviating Zeppelin said...

Dennis Prager speaks, as does Hugh Hewitt, from a background of education, training and EXPERIENCE. They speak with a background of FACTS and not EMOTIONS. They are fully cognizant that EVIL EXISTS in the world and that should you deign to NOT challenge Evil then Evil shall win for lack of the fight. Simply taking a stand for the advocation of "peace" frequently results in lots of dead people. There are elements on the planet that respect naught but power and the wielding of power. There are many who believe in the phrase "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine unless you have the power to STOP me from taking it." And that includes not just land or resources but PHILOSOPHY as well.

Those are just a FEW of the things that Leftists and Progressives shall never understand.

November is INDEED crucial.

BZ

Anonymous said...

I don't think I heard it wrong, Z. The minute I hear somebody advocating "altruism" I immediately think of the war against individualism waged by ideologies promoting collectivism.

I thought it was common knowledge that collectivism recognizes the supremacy of the tribe, the group, the nation, etc. to which the individual must conform. The most monstrous ideologies put into practice in the 20 Century all did what they did because they were able to convince their goosestepping followers to follow those that always "know better" what is good for the individual.

Do you support the idea of "service" to the country advocated by President Obama? Same idea, IMO.

Waylon

Z said...

Waylon, i listened again and must be missing the word altruism somehow...

I do hear him talking about individuals and how important it is we have small government ... he talks about our giving to others but only because we're a good country with good values..

Bloviating Zeppelin said...

I don't believe Prager mentioned altruism. I don't believe in altruism except in Mother Teresa, and she's dead.

BZ

Sam Huntington said...

I don’t know what Waylon is talking about. Prager asserts that it is impossible for one to behave altruistically (selflessly) when he or she is consumed with selfishness; what is there not to understand about that? I’m so glad he didn’t use the word niggardly; otherwise half of your patrons would be beside themselves right now, and the others would be making an appointment with a civil rights attorney.

Anonymous said...

Z, at about 2:35 mark he discusses the "selfish" motives of the French for having the temerity to ask about vacations or other benefits to their job and says these are not "altrusitic" motives. Don't most people work for selfish reasons like bettering their life? Does he not imply that one should altruistically toil for the bigger cause — as defined by the collective?

President Obama and Rahm Emanual is on record calling for youth to prepare to "serve" their country. What that service is has yet to be clearly defined, but the idea is there.

Waylon

Z said...

Waylon, I think there's a fine line between doing things for your country because you love your country and doing things for your country because you're mandated by your leaders.

I've listened to Prager enough over many years to know that, with the French information he mentions, he means they don't even work hard for themselves, that all they care about is their paycheck and when they can get vacation time, depending on the STATE...

By the way, Prager does have a high disdain for European countries and, at the risk of bringing my friends here down on my head, he's got a distorted view and is usually unreasonable about his views. He and Mr. Z had several email exchanges a few years back about Germans and how there aren't any conservatives there and Mr Z kept sending him articles by conservative editorialists, bothering to translate the articles into English for Prager ...finally showing Prager was dead wrong and Mr. Z didn't even get a THANKS, YOU WERE RIGHT. Still, we admire him for so much else that he says.....he just gets a little silly on Europe, though, of course, he's not all wrong.

Ducky's here said...

Though to pick out the choicest cuts from that buffet. I really like it when these low functionals start going off on Dewey (not that they ever read him).

Why would any one object to the emphasis on philosophy as a practical method of inquiry, a system which allows us to enhance happiness?

But Dewey was a thinker, an important thinker and the right is not strong on thought.

The invasion of Iraq stopped the rise of evil in the world. And you tell me the far right doesn't function purely on emotion? Utter insanity.

Ducky's here said...

I can't agree that somebody like Prager upholds altruism as a value while pretending that's something that America should embrace. The primary tenet of any collectivist in the war against the sovereign individual is to put the collective above the individual.

--------------

I knew that would really freak the Randoids.

Anyway Waylon, the task is to find the balance between individualism and community.

Not too tough to figure that out as a premise. Not too tough for a thinking individual too know that the Libertarians have gone way too far to the cult of the individual.

Pitch till you win.

Z said...

"He (Dewey)didn't negate his intel-
lectual integrity. Dewey faulted the narrow isolationism and materialism of "America First," which had contributed to the world's desperate condition."

Wow, that AMERICA FIRST selfishness sure did a lot for the Jews after the holocaust, didn't it...and sure did help during the tsunami, and sure did stop the Japanese from annihilating their enemies and ...well.....please, Ducky.

The man was a socialist and understood getting kids while they're young is the key.
I've read a lot about him , pro and con, and I can certainly see why you'd be a devotee......

Z said...

Ducky, stop the insults, I've asked you many times and it's turned some of my commenters off my blog because they don't want to be bored or bothered by your dithering...you say "But Dewey was a thinker, an important thinker and the right is not strong on thought."
How dare you? We're NOT STRONG ON THOUGHT because we don't agree with you?
I believe you meant Iraq and I'd venture a guess that the 'far right' was less emotional than it was physical, understanding what needed to be done...maybe the left could have chanted and Saddam would have gone away, or had enough shish kebab with Saddam like Penn did to change him into a very sweet guy, like Penn said?

The left's really 'strong on thought'...right, Ducky.

Anonymous said...

"The children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone would be interdependent."
– John Dewey, American educator

That quotation should warm the heart of any Bolshevik collectivist Marxoid, no, Ducky?

Why pitch to you if you can't hit the ball?

Waylon

Anonymous said...

Just for Ducky:

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is hard business. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."
– Rudyard Kipling

Kipling must be another "Randoid, I suppose.

Waylon

Ducky's here said...

Notice that the examples you give are primarily from the second world war. Interesting choice since we stayed out of it long enough to assure we'd be the only economy left standing and we squandered that advantage pretty quickly, didn't we z?

Yes we acted after the war and it's worth pointing out that:

1: We were the only ones with the economic wherewithal to do so.

2. The Marshall Plan was hardly a right wing idea.

As for our being contributing during crises? Yes, and so do other nations. It seems fitting that a nation with so small a proportion of the worlds population and so high a level of consumption give some of it back, no? Or is our consumption level and the unsustainable economy it promotes ordained?

Ah yes, Dewy was indoctrinating the little dears. Anyone not teaching a laissez-faire tempered Calvinism is indoctrinating the little dears. Dewey did want to emphasize cooperation in solving mutual problems but somehow that is evil because it conflicts with your Spencerian social Darwinism.

No z, I'm afraid you have this poorly thought out.

As for insults, I said nothing insulting to Waylon, I merely pointed out that when Libertarians take it too far they become as destructive as communists. Nothing can prosper on the extremes and Prager is so extreme that he should be dismissed out of hand.

Z said...

"The children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone would be interdependent."
– John Dewey, American educator

No wonder you admire him, Ducky.
Rag all you want..
And, no, we didn't squander anything, the LEFT squandered what we had in Europe.
Things were fine until your side started apologizing and appeasing; until then they had a healthy respect for this great country, which has come down so many notches and now has a president eager to give us to the UN. Ya, I know, Ducky "PROVE IT, Z"
You prove he isn't, Ducky.

As for insults?
stop. The right thinks just fine, thanks...we just don't happen to agree with you and yours.

beamish said...

As for insults, I said nothing insulting to Waylon, I merely pointed out that when Libertarians take it too far they become as destructive as communists.

Even if we erroneously deduct the left-wing labor activist Adolf Hitler's body count total from the legacy of leftism, you're still talking about a body count some 300 million higher than libertarianism's zero.

Destructive as communists? Ah yes, the magical fairy "capitalist exploitation" outside communist societies made Pol Pot accidently slaughter 3 million Cambodians.

Wine corks are smarter than you, Ducky.

Elmers Brother said...

I believe what he was referring to is a notion being floated in Europe that everyone is entitled to a taxpayer paid vacation. It is being floated as a RIGHT. Rights don't require you to work.

Opus #6 said...

Very nice, Z. Excellent video.

Elmers Brother said...

As for individualism...I might suggest Kierkegaard

Ducky's here said...

Have to watched it with Kierkegaard though, Elmo.

He despised the church as a state institution so getting back to the insane Prager who opened this thread you aren't going to find much of an ally.

Ducky's here said...

We have a president eager to give us to the U.N? See, when you go over the high side like that, z, it's simply impossible to have a serious dialog.

There is no dialog possible with a conspiracy theorist.

Faith said...

Dewey was one of the major influences against our Christian heritage, changing the basis of American education, just as a new breed of judges, also around the turn of the century, changed the basis of our justice system from its original grounding in God's law to one grounded in the absurd idea of law evolving with the times. This sea change can be traced largely to the effects of Darwinism, that massive attack on the Christian worldview.

Then as Prager points out, there was also the influence of Europeans coming into our universities with no understanding or appreciation of the American heritage, and teaching a whole generation or two of American students. Included in this was the suspiciousness of success that attended the Marxist worldview and became a bludgeon against American prosperity itself, teaching our children to regard it as evil. The Communist Party, and today's ACLU, and the mentality of our President and many of his cronies, are all of a piece in their anti-Americanism. And most people hold some version of all this new teaching these days, including conservatives, without being aware of it. We need to recapture our history.

Prager was very right to point out that no country in Europe was ever regarded as the hope of the world, but America was. While America's foundations were inherited from generations of European law, they were also explictly designed to counter European mistakes. They came out of a peculiarly American brand of English Protestantism. European thinking could never have invented America, Catholicism could never have invented America, Judaism could never have invented America, nor could any other religious tradition.

Getting back to our origins, the worldview that made America the exceptional nation that was recognized around the world for a couple centuries, is not going to be an easy task even if we find the energy and the perspective to pursue it, which isn't looking terribly likely to me at the moment.

But I hope I'm wrong. Prager's speech is a good sign. I'd also recommend people look into The Truth Project, which is a series of lectures designed to show us our Christian heritage and how far we've gone from it.

Ducky's here said...

Faith, I think you forgot to add , our "white" Christian heritage.

Elmers Brother said...

He despised the church as a state institution so getting back to the insane Prager who opened this thread you aren't going to find much of an ally.

the church as a state institution yes and except for the roving bands of Calvinists you probably wont' find anyone here who would support a state sponsored church

and Prager is a friend to Christianity but you'd know that if you listened to him on a regular basis

Faith said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Elmers Brother said...

There is no dialog possible with a conspiracy theorist.

Which begs the question?

Why do we talk to you then?

Faith said...

Oh I don't think so, Ducky. The heritage I have in mind has no color. Anyone could learn and practice it, even you.

But what a typical leftist type comment from you, to reduce noble ideas to race, a major source of the destruction of America I'm talking about.

Anonymous said...

Oh dear. I must have made a wrong turn at the last intersection. Here I am at The Ducky Blog.

Lynde

Z said...

Elbro, I'd like to see info re; a taxpayer paid vacation in Europe, I've never heard of that. I know what he meant is what I said because I've listened to Prager for YEARS....but you could be right...
he might have meant both..xx

Ducky, I don't mean give us literally...thought you'd catch my drift...he's willing to put the UN in charge where we have stepped in otherwise..you know that.
There is no dialogue possible with one who can't get his head out of his own conspiracies about the Right.
By the way, Ducky, there are many excellent Black Christians who are more a part of the Christian heritage in America than you or I am.....
what's woefully not taught in our schools, too, is what a big place they played in the founding of this country...even the 3/5 law has been lied about in our schools and I"ll be blogging on that soon... you've just bought into the liberal "Blacks can't do anything right so they need our help$$" nonsense.
Yes, the Christian heritage has largely been the good in this country. No doubt about it..as it's waned, so has America.

Faith, thanks for your thoughts on this, I agree, it will be very hard to become America again after Obama...maybe futile.

Ducky's here said...

Sorry, elmo, Prager is just barely this side of theocracy.

Z said...

Lynde, I can't have a Conservative echo chamber here, sorry...I hope you make this turn again, with Ducky around we learn from the other conservatives who pluck his feathers so well and so frequently. Join in!

Elbro, you're so right..Prager is a great respecter of Christianity and he and Michael Medved, both very devout Jews of high moral character and excellent values, both credit that heritage with the greatness of this country. (though I don't always agree with MM!)

Faith, it was sort of typical of Ducky to read your excellent thoughts and reduce it to the race card, isn't it...

Z said...

Ducky, then maybe you'd best start listening to Prager....or maybe you should actually listen to the video?

He's no more a theocrat than I am..or Elbro. Please tell us when any of us, or Prager, has suggested an all-Christian America.
Will we suggest it would be a better place with Judeo-Christian values, absolutely......but this country was founded on freedom of religion...not freedom FROM the religion of the founders.

Elmers Brother said...

Elbro, I'd like to see info re; a taxpayer paid vacation in Europe, I've never heard of that.

the stupid dem congressman who suggested during the healthcare debate that Republicans just want people to die is making a similar proposal in Florida. He's wanting businesses to give employees one week of paid vacation for every year they work for the company.

duhkkky, give me a quote of Prager suggesting that he wants a theocracy.

my guess is that duhkky would suggest that because of something like...because we're pro life that means we're forcing our religion on everyone else.

Z said...

Elbro "my guess is that duhkky would suggest that because of something like...because we're pro life that means we're forcing our religion on everyone else."
yes, you're right on that.
Odd, isn't it?...what's even odder is that people who WANT to kill babies run roughshod and slam those who don't, even feeling threatened...now THAT is a corker!

But, Elbro...BUT you said taxpayer paid vacations...are you sure?
aND..what? sOme guy wants one week for every year? SO, the guy who's worked for 20 years will get five MONTHS OF VACATION? PAID VACATION?
Well, there's one thing we know for sure..the great liberal brain again: Anybody working more than five years will have a good reason found by his boss to FIRE HIM, right?

Anonymous said...

Didn't poor Sarah Palin or Hugh Hewitt EVER get a chance to say ANYTHING?

They looked almost ridiculous just sitting there in absolute silence while Mr. Prager made his oration.

As for altruism, it is the ONE thing the people need MOST to cultivate in themselves as INDIVIDUALS.

Coerced altruism is a contradiction in terms. The real thing is a supreme virtue -- perhaps THE supreme virtue. Some of us would prefer to define it as Love.

All that aside, I doubt very much if any of us would REALLY like to live back in the early-nineteenth century, UNLESS we happened to be a member of the landed gentry.

A life of relentless, unremitting drudgery is hardly the summum bonum.

Yes. Ideological poison was introduced into our proverbial well over a hundred years ago, but to reject every aspect of Progressivism is tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Good and evil always have and always will live side-by-side. We never did achieve a perfect state of blessedness.

Unfortunately the attempts to right the many things that were, indeed, wrong have merely resulted in producing a whole new set of toxicities.

Life is a never-ending BATTLE. We will NEVER achieve Perfection in this earthly life.

What was wonderful in the past was wonderful only for SOME people. For others it was a living hell.

We must do the best we can with the cards we've been dealt by life.

In other words "God help those who help themselves."

And it really is as simple as that.

~ FreeThinke

Z said...

FT..one of THE biggest problems in America today is the fact that the Left thinks evil must not exist, bad things should never happen...and they will keep legislating these things until we have no freedoms left at ALL.

As for the Palin and Hewitt attendance on the panel...they had spoken and Prager's speech was the focus of the videographer but it says clearly at the end that they'll now hear from all of them in the order in which they spoke...and, again, prager was the star of his video; it's probably lifted from his site :-)

Anonymous said...

Dennis Prager's clarity of thought is powerful, and a treasure. His main point is, that we have a couple of generations who have not been imbued with what it is to be an American.

To mistake his message of nationalism with collectivism, is short sighted and IMO, that is some of what has been expressed here.

Nationalism, or love of country is not a bad thing. It only becomes evil if one advocates evil in the name of his country.

The same is true if one advocates evil in the name of religion, political ideology, or in the name of maintaining a collective society such as world governance or socialism.

What Dennis was expressing, was that today, many don't appreciate what it is to be an American. They have not been taught American values.

They have been taught that America does not deserve the fruits of her labors and sacrifices, in building the most successful and prosperous nation on earth.

What he meant by his remarks about the French, or the Greeks, is that the people now demand their government perks such as early retirement, and vacations all provided by the government or more precisely, by the collective.

They do not cry for their countries which are in a state of chaos, and economic disaster, they cry for themselves alone.

They aren't willing to sacrifice those perks for the good of their countries, or the future for their children, they want their "stuff".

This is what has not been taught to too many in America. If we love our country, we will not accept the government providing what we want, we will, as Americans and free people, work for those things, and make our own way, we will as individuals, earn it. But we must be free to do it.

And, I pray that we will put our country first in her hour of need. If we do not, we will fail in providing an American legacy for our children. It's our responsibility to teach our children to be Americans. This is what Dennis Prager meant.

He's right. This election of 2010, is a watershed election. An election of huge significance. There is no denying it.

Pris

Elmers Brother said...

here is some info on European vacations on the taxpayer

BTW secular humanists consider Secular Humanism a religion...check out the Humanist Manifesto

wonder if duhkkky is afraid of gangs of benevolent humanists?

Elmers Brother said...

They do not cry for their countries which are in a state of chaos, and economic disaster, they cry for themselves alone.

so well said Pris. Brava!

Elmers Brother said...

But, Elbro...BUT you said taxpayer paid vacations...are you sure?
aND..what? sOme guy wants one week for every year? SO, the guy who's worked for 20 years will get five MONTHS OF VACATION? PAID VACATION?
Well, there's one thing we know for sure..the great liberal brain again: Anybody working more than five years will have a good reason found by his boss to FIRE HIM, right?


you forgot that the unions will intervene

Elmers Brother said...

as told by Fox News

Dan said...

With appropriate hand wringing: "So few have so much," a tip that your talking to a robot programed by a quite-comfortable-tenured-hypocrite-communist-professor. To cause this robot's American-hating-indoctrination program to seize, just ask him why this is wrong. He will do one of two things. He will insult the person asking the question-a good indication that he has no answer and has lost the argument. Or he will throw out his opinion as if it is the reference point that ought to be the arbiter of good and evil for the whole universe. But his argument will without a question be from nothing which is one reason that, historically, communism has such a bloody history, and misery for the survivors, cause in the end all that is left is might makes right.

Wayland

I'm not getting why you don't think America should embrace Altruism. (if I am understanding you correctly) Isn't altruism a tool that can be used for something horrible-like say those who carried out the murderers of millions in the name of collectivism, or for something good-those who felt so strongly against the scourge of slavery that they risked, and so therefore lost, their lives in a war to rid the nation of it? The definition (1) would also indicate that it is ultimately a good thing. What if a person willingly gives his life in defense of the rights of the individual?

I ask these things because I see the West as living in a post national era, and especially so in the US. Prager actually points this out in the video in the "there is no why". I think this is why the left is able to co-opt so many otherwise good things and corrupt them so, altruism being but one, and use it for evil. With no objective reference point the very concept of good is reduced to opinion. So anything, like altruism, or even good works like feeding the poor, could be used to accomplish evil ends. I also think Westerners, and again, especially many, if not most, Americans, naively see the very existence of a nation, even their own, a precursor to war as in providing a sense of something worth fighting for. The waning of altruism in America, even myself, I think, confirms my suspicions of this.

The note: (1) Just for quick reference:

Merriam Webster:
Altruism- unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others.



Geeeezz

I at one time differed with Prager on many issues, but even if I didn't, I'm always interested in what people who disagree with me are thinking, assuming that they are. I don't ever want to be a robot. I don't see him as a full fledged conservative, at least I at one time didn't; but of coarse he has for years been in the process of abandoning errors in his thinking-his admission, not my accusation. I love to listen to him because he teaches anyone, even lefties in the unlikely event that they are open minded enough to learn, the art of civil debate-which, we can all hope anyway, will produce wisdom rather than cliches and insults from faux intellectuals and quoting dilettantes.

FrogBurger said...

I love Denis Prager. I think he's right on point. Europeans being concerned by their vacation and how much money they'll get from gov are selfish questions. Goes back to my point about the left criticizing Libertarians for being selfish. No! Self reliance is the least selfish thing you can do for society. Welfare is the easy way out. It is the selfish solution,

Z said...

Elbro, that's real new news in Europe and IT STINKS..I LITERALLY couldn't read more than a few lines here and there because it made me SO queasy...OH< MY GOSH

Pris, so well said again...2010 IS a watershed , for sure....it's so important and I fear what the media might be coming up with..as much dirt as they POSSIBLY can against every conservative candidate..and, of course, the Tea Parties SO maligned that any independent would have to think twice of voting for anybody they endorse...
AND we have GOPers supporting such NONConservative YOYOs..when I THINK of Palin supporting McCain, I could SPIT.

I've got to go for a while, I'm eager to read Elbro's link and Dan's comments...will be back!

Ducky's here said...

They do not cry for their countries which are in a state of chaos, and economic disaster, they cry for themselves alone.

-------------------

Sounds pretty American to me. And there will be tears here, Pris. There will be copious tears.

Meanwhile you continue the tradition. You talk about "American values" and imply what they are not but never state what they are.

It's always something like "small government" and "low taxes". I never get a sense of vision from the right.

Here's mine:

1. A resource efficient SUSTAINABLE economy.

2. More equitable wealth distribution.

Unfortunately, in order to resolve those we must decrease our consumption even though most see excess consumption as either an expression of freedom (perversion of the idea) or ordained by God (Calvinism, a distinct minority and never a strong force in Western history).

I know most of the Libertarians despise government because they are never going to b rich and the need government as a scapegoat for their failure but I don't know what your story is.

What's your world in 25 words or less and what are "American values".

Elmers Brother said...

Sounds pretty American to me. And there will be tears here, Pris. There will be copious tears.


the difference here is duhkkky is that we're crying for less government and less entitlements

Elmers Brother said...

....or ordained by God (Calvinism, a distinct minority and never a strong force in Western history).

uh oh break out the tin foil hat again

beamish said...

Here's mine:

1. A resource efficient SUSTAINABLE economy.

2. More equitable wealth distribution.

Unfortunately, in order to resolve those we must decrease our consumption even though most see excess consumption as either an expression of freedom (perversion of the idea) or ordained by God (Calvinism, a distinct minority and never a strong force in Western history).


Ah. Take a vow of poverty so the Pope can afford more gold knick knacks for his palatial city than his $350 million annual income can pay for without charging admission for the rubes to gawk at.

Serious question, Ducky. Do you think? Ever?

Dan said...

"And there will be tears here, Pris."

Bing!!! and there's two times I agree with ducky.

"A resource efficient SUSTAINABLE economy."

Expound please.

"More equitable wealth distribution."

That sounds good and all but why ought people agree to this?

And why don't people like George Soros, Warren Buffet, Al Gore, Harry Reed, Danny Glover, Nancy Pelosi, Martin Sheen, Barbra Streisand, Barack Obama, Chris Mathews, Bill Clinton, Denzel Washington etc. etc. etc. and so on in the Hollywood Rich, Media Elite Rich, Wall Street Rich and liberal politician rich crowd - and I'm just scratching the surface of those who preach to everyone else-lead the way by example and start giving their wealth away to the poor? When they start living what they preach perhaps they will gain a smidgen of credibility.

No, just like the old communist countries where the Utopian vision never materialized, the only thing that will change in your vision is WHO ends up unequal. Somehow I'm not seeing any of these fat-cats riding the bus to the government non-profit grocery store to stand in line for their chunk of government cheeze. But hey, you're free to dream, just leave room for the tears.

Faith said...

1. A resource efficient SUSTAINABLE economy.

"Progressive" [read Communist] Speak for stealing from the rich to support the poor.

2. More equitable wealth distribution.

Again Progressospeak for stealing.

Unfortunately, in order to resolve those we must decrease our consumption even though most see excess consumption as either an expression of freedom (perversion of the idea) or ordained by God (Calvinism, a distinct minority and never a strong force in Western history).

Calvinism did indeed have an impact on the American economy, with its emphasis on frugality and good stewardship and the work ethic, and the production of great wealth is the result of such policies. If we are now more consumers than producers that's not Calvinism, and I may be inclined to agree that it's not a good thing.

But there's nothing to the idea that we have to curtail our consumption in order to take care of the poor. That's to treat wealth as limited, or the rich as taking from the poor, which is false economic theory. Work and free enterprise increase wealth and the more wealth increases overall the better off all classes of society are. Socialism has the whole thing upside down.

Z said...

Dan, are you kidding?

"More equitable wealth distribution" is something you agree with?

It's one thing to give because we have all we need and want to give to others, it's a whole other thing to give because the government's telling you "THAT guy isn't working so you have to give him part of your hard-earned income", don't you think?

Sure, we should help...and most people DO! But, "EQUITABLE" is scary...it means no more jobs from those companies taxed out of business, it means telling kids they shouldn't do as well as they possibly can because the next kid's got his hand open for their bucks, it means everybody's miserable instead of some very happy and others just decent, hard working working people...what the heck's WRONG with that? Some get, some don't....it's been like that since the beginning of time and I don't want to give because I HAVE to..it's against human nature, it creates resentment, and it sets up a Maoist society I want nothing to do with.

Dan said...

The only thing I agree with Ducky on here is there will be more tears, especially as we become a more and more socialist country with a government spending printed money like a drunk sailor in the French Riviera. Of coarse like the evil doctor that comes to your rescue with a pair of crutches after he broke your legs, so is Duckys claims that socialism is the solution to all our problems.

Yet I can see why some people think wealth redistribution sounds good, it sounded good to me when I was a naive idealistic teenager. Reality has a way however of penetrating the fog of those Utopian distortions; for some of us anyway. One one day realizes what I pointed out: that the loudest crusaders for equality are not very equal partakers of the economic pie themselves, they are in fact hypocrites of the highest order.

Dan said...

I hate it Z that I was misunderstood, I always think I did a poor job of getting my point across. Does my explanation make sense?

I personally don't have a problem with the material possessions of any of these crusaders. I just don't like them, after they got theirs, sanctimoniously telling everyone else of modest means that they need to give more to rich government elites so that they can spread it all around the "right" way; after they take their profits off the top of course.

Z said...

Dan, you'd said "Two times you agree with Ducky" then you listed two things and I thought those were what you meant...I see now that's not the case! Sorry about that.
you did a stellar job giving your viewpoint and I wasn't as sharp as I like to think I am...!
Thanks for coming back and explaining, I'm relieved :-)
You're a good guy...I hope some of my readers go to your blog...it's a good one.

Anonymous said...

"What's your world in 25 words or less and what are "American values"."

American values are: We were born with unalienable rights from our creator. Not from our government. They lead with our consent. We are autonomous as individuals, and practice voluntary compliance with the law.

Americans are not guaranteed happiness, we are guaranteed pursuit of happiness.

In America we pursue equal justice under the law. Not social justice.

My world? A man's home is his castle. I'm free to own property, to live my life under the law, and to live unencumbered by interference from the government. I earn what I have, and am not responsible for people who are not willing to do the same. I am a free person.

Pris
PS. You didn't really expect someone as wordy as me to answer in 25 words or less did you? As if more than 25 words negate the meaning of what I say?.

Funny, Ducky, your definition is based on money, mine is based on freedom.

Money is icing on the cake. But first you have to bake the cake.

You see what you wish to see. I cry for my country and my children, and if you look closely, you'll see others doing the same. In a way, I pity you.


Pris

Elmers Brother said...

you're right Faith...but duhkkky has this tinfoil hat notion that there are Calvinists waiting in the wings, even now setting up a secret army, preparing to take the government over and install a theocracy.

My guess is duhkkky's idea of Cavinism stems from Max Weber, he was a neo-marxist who believed that Calvinists created capitalism and a Protestant work ethic as a substitute for true Christianity. In other words they made capitalism a 'god'. Weber is considered one of the fathers of modern social science. He wrote a book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.

Elmers Brother said...

More equitable wealth distribution.

Again Progressospeak for stealing.


right, either at the point of a gun or by shenanigans like climate change or higher taxes.

as long as people like duhkkky equate compassion with gubmint social spending (dipping into someone else's pocket) why should he care...he doesn't have the courage of his convictions anyway. if he really cared he'd take that supposed six figure salary of his and move to Cuba where they'd confiscate his salary for their vaunted health care system.

beamish said...

My guess is duhkkky's idea of Cavinism stems from Max Weber, he was a neo-marxist who believed that Calvinists created capitalism and a Protestant work ethic as a substitute for true Christianity. In other words they made capitalism a 'god'. Weber is considered one of the fathers of modern social science. He wrote a book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.

This is pretty much the same path of sophistry Karl Marx cooked up in his "World Without Jews" essay, where he equated the religion of Judaism with the worship of money (Mammon), a theme also found in Proudhon's and Bakunin's left-wing alternatives to rationality.

And of ocurse, we all know what the left-wing labor activist Adolf Hitler did with the thought of "Judaism = Capitalism" in his own war to express the sentiments contained in his famous May Day speech...

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

To the leftist mind, "destroying the system of capitalism" requires a world without religious freedom, and most especially a "world without Jews."

Reduced to type, leftists are the quintessential definition of mindless imbecilic barbarians with an anti-Semitic mating call masquerading as economic theory.

FrogBurger said...

"I know most of the Libertarians despise government because they are never going to b rich and the need government as a scapegoat for their failure but I don't know what your story is."

Go fuck yourself Ducky.

Go fuck yourself for your blatent lack of logic. I thought being rich was bad. I thought greed was bad.

I am not rich indeed. I'm not blaming gov for it. I can only blame myself for not being that interested in being rich.

I am more interested in being free from little fuckers and fascists like you.

Money doesn't come with me in my tomb. But having led a free light will be a nice thing the day I pass.

So yes I blame government for reducing my freedom.

God you're such a despicable little fuck.

Sorry to all of you for my words but if Ducky is such a parasite of this planet, and an idiot on top of that, that I can't take it.

FrogBurger said...

Sorry Z for my crude language. If you think my bad mouth is offensive, you can beep the bad words.

French Socialism is not in my bones but the boiling blood is still there.

beamish said...

The bourgeois is about to leave the historical stage. In its place will come the class of productive workers, the working class, that has been up until today oppressed. It is beginning to fulfill its political mission. It is involved in a hard and bitter struggle for political power as it seeks to become part of the national organism. The battle began in the economic realm; it will finish in the political. It is not merely a matter of pay, not only a matter of the number of hours worked in a day-though we may never forget that these are an essential, perhaps even the most significant part of the socialist platform-but it is much more a matter of incorporating a powerful and responsible class in the state, perhaps even to make it the dominant force in the future politics of the Fatherland. The bourgeois does not want to recognize the strength of the working class. Marxism has forced it into a straitjacket that will ruin it. While the working class gradually disintegrates in the Marxist front, bleeding itself dry, the bourgeois and Marxism have agreed on the general lines of capitalism, and see their task now to protect and defend it in various ways, often concealed.

We are socialists because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for our people, not a question of cheap pity or insulting sentimentality. The worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces. We have no intention of begging for that right. Incorporating him in the state organism is not only a critical matter for him, but for the whole nation. The question is larger than the eight-hour day. It is a matter of forming a new state consciousness that includes every productive citizen. Since the political powers of the day are neither willing nor able to create such a situation, socialism must be fought for. It is a fighting slogan both inwardly and outwardly. It is aimed domestically at the bourgeois parties and Marxism at the same time, because both are sworn enemies of the coming workers' state. It is directed abroad at all powers that threaten our national existence and thereby the possibility of the coming socialist national state.

Socialism is possible only in a state that is united domestically and free internationally. The bourgeois and Marxism are responsible for failing to reach both goals, domestic unity and international freedom. No matter how national and social these two forces present themselves, they are the sworn enemies of a socialist national state.

We must therefore break both groups politically. The lines of German socialism are sharp, and our path is clear.

We are against the political bourgeois, and for genuine nationalism!

We are against Marxism, but for true socialism!

We are for the first German national state of a socialist nature!

We are for the National Socialist German Workers Party!
- Joseph Goebbels

Note the familiar "true socialism has never been tried before" riff in Goebbels still parroted by his fellow leftists today.

beamish said...

"National and socialist! What goes first, and what comes afterwards?" Goebbels asked rhetorically in a debate with Theodor Vahlen, Gauleiter (regional party head) of Pomerania, in the Rhineland party newspaper National-sozialistische Briefe (National-Socialist Letters), of which he was editor, in mid-1925. "With us in the west, there can be no doubt. First socialist redemption, then comes national liberation like a whirlwind… Hitler stands between both opinions, but he is on his way to coming over to us completely." Goebbels, with his journalistic skills, thus soon became a key ally of Strasser in his struggle with the Bavarians over the party program. The conflict was not, so they thought, with Hitler, but with his lieutenants, Rudolf Hess, Julius Streicher and Hermann Esser, who, they said, were mismanaging the party in Hitler’s absence. In 1925, Goebbels published an open letter to "my friends of the left," urging unity between socialists and Nazis against the capitalists. "You and I," he wrote, "we are fighting one another although we are not really enemies."

Left-wing insanity.

Elmers Brother said...

it's ok FB, November is just around the corner

Anonymous said...

tiddley pom

A.A. Milne

Z said...

Elbro..you said "as long as people like duhkkky equate compassion with gubmint social spending (dipping into someone else's pocket) why should he care...he doesn't have the courage of his convictions anyway."

It seems that way, doesn't it....
Anyway, those with REAL money won't notice a higher tax...but those with average incomes will have to close their job-creating businesses under the load of their higher taxation. I wish the left would think before they act.

Beamish, it's always that, isn't it "Socialism WILL work, it's just never been done properly"
You can't make up the naive mind of the left, especially in America, where they've seen it fail across the board already and , as Mr. Z used to say so often,"why can't American liberals see Europe's failures and run from them instead of adapting them?"

Anonymous said...

Dan, I agree with you that is one definition of altruism. But even your source expands the definition, which you conveniently omitted.

Altruism — "2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species"

I don't think one has to be a "Randoid" to recognize that coercion, either physical or moral to force the individual to conform and submit to the tribe or group has resulted in most of the murderous destruction rained upon mankind throughout history. But one would be required to be a rational human being whose mind is able to recognize that it is the power of the individual mind that exercises free choice which move the world forward.

I'll leave it up to you and Ducky to define any tribe, group or collective without reference to the individual components which comprise that collective.

I think this perfectly defines the "educated" leftist or collectivist "thinking" exhibited by poster Ducky:

"Where once a tyrant had to wish that his subjects had but one common neck that he might strangle them all at once, all he has to do now is to 'educate the people' so that they will have but one common mind to delude."
– Richard Mitchell, "The Underground Grammarian"

Waylon

Anonymous said...

Sometimes a simple truth expressed long ago can become an over used cliche — such as the idea that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Too many people embracing the evil doctrines of altruism — even the worst and bloodiest tyrants of the 20 Century could never have ascended to power without pretending it was for the benefit of the tribe or class they represented.

Do you think it's an accident that today most of the population lives in wretched poverty or slavery while he altruistic do-gooders wring their hands while pointing to their misery? Those same do-gooders are usually in the front lines condemning freedom and capitalism while calling for "relief" of those enslaved either to miserable poverty and/or socialism. Why would the elite of the collective enemies of capitalism and liberty call for the de-industrialization of western economies as a "moral imperative"?

This is for Ducky and his atruistic groupies (even though they pretend to be otherwise:

"Most of the harm in the world is done by good people, and not by accident, lapse, or omission. It is the result of their deliberate actions, long persevered in, which they hold to be motivated by high ideals toward virtuous ends."
– Isabel Paterson

Ducky, I don't think the lady was a "Randoid" but she may have been an intellectual mother to the original "Randoid" — and also one perceptive American writer.

Waylon

Z said...

Waylon, both those quotes are amazing and so true.
Thanks for taking the time/trouble to post your words, and those authors/thinkers, as they're very enlightening and important.

So many of the left's "high ideals" make such a mess for all of us....but we apparently don't count.

Dan said...

Geeez

I see your point, I did list two things that followed. Actually one time a while back Ducky stumbled onto something that I agreed with-kind of like the broken clock managing to be right twice a day-that was the first time.

Dan said...

Waylon

I still don't think that altruism in and of itself is a problem.

(I left off the second definition because I didn't think it applied. It seemed to me to be a reiteration of the first definition as applied to the animal kingdom.)

I can see how you are applying it to those who are propagating poverty. But I don't think the definition fits your proposition. If it did then there would be no well to do socialists, they would have led the way by sacrificing THEIR riches for the poor instead of everyone eles's. No, they are selfish and want to feel as though they did something good, but not altruistic, by giving other people's money to the poor. I know you agree with me that there are many well to do socialist. Altruism is not a base emotion like envy, self-centeredness, jealously, and such, all of which I think are the motivating factors that cause masses of people to fall in behind socialist do-gooders, not altruism. The necessity for them to muster Altruism will come when they pick up their guns and start shooting at us; something that I believe that they will eventually do; peace and love be damned. It would be nice to know in such a situation that there will be some with altruistic convictions on our side to start shooting back lest we all end up slaves.

I really would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

Anonymous said...

Dan, I agree with you that there are plenty of rich socialists. Even Ducky claims to be a man of wealth — but obviously impoverished in most other areas.

I'll point to the latest incarnation of the socialist movement — man global warming — to make my point. It's a movement directed by the wealthiest of the wealthiest elite on the planet. It contains the element of altruism since it calls for the "saving of the planet". It even incorporates a new "religion" and calls for the sacrifice of the wealthiest most successful countries for the benefit of the poorest or neediest.

One of the tenets calls for the de-industrialization of western economies as a moral imperative — that from one of the founding fathers of the eco movement, Maurice Strong. To reach this envisioned new paradise on the planet he calls for the reduction of the population from currently over 6 billion people to a more eco friendly number of 1.6 billion people. To me the tyrants of the 20 Century were mere pikers in terms of their atrocities — if the planet is to be saved as these new tyrants are successful in gaining complete control of life on the planet.

I'll let you point me to something good to be found in those who advocate altruism — in the proper definition of the term.

Waylon

Z said...

Hey, Dan...thanks for coming back to this, "Actually one time a while back Ducky stumbled onto something that I agreed with-kind of like the broken clock managing to be right twice a day-that was the first time."

That is EXACTLY what I gathered.
And, frankly? I should have known better, knowing your thoughts thru your writings!

Waylon...would you consider Mother Theresa an altruist? Someone who gives and doesn't want anything back? Or am I being naive?

Faith said...

Marxism was in a sense an attempt to secularize Christian principles, as Marx had a liberal Christian upbringing, kind of alongside his Jewish upbringing I think, including some rabbis in the family.

Government stealing from the rich to give to the poor is one way this plays out, the only way it can play out in a fallen world although among Christians giving is voluntary.

The natural equality of followers of Christ is aped in the attempt to force equality on fallen human nature, and calling people racist is part of the agenda.

Freedom is natural in a Christian context but in a secular context it gets twisted to "liberate" sin itself, loudly condemning Biblical objections to abortion, sexual sin, homosexual sin and so on, as if the sin were to call sin sin.

Also, of course, it has to be remembered that when all this came to America it did have the explicit aim of destroying our heritage. David Horowitz writes about that.

Z said...

Faith you say "Freedom is natural in a Christian context but in a secular context it gets twisted to "liberate" sin itself, loudly condemning Biblical objections to abortion, sexual sin, homosexual sin and so on, as if the sin were to call sin sin."

I've rarely heard it that well put...thanks for that. "...as if the sin were to call sin sin"...holy cow, that's so true...

Ducky's here said...

Good job Faith, you confuse Marxism with Social Democracy (Note: Not Democratic Socialism).

Come back later when you do a little research.

Elmers Brother said...

Good job Faith, you confuse Marxism with Social Democracy

perestroika

Elmers Brother said...

the only thing she may have failed to do is suggest Marxism is the root of social democracy but may differ from the modern form

Many parties in the second half of the nineteenth century described themselves as social democratic, such as the General German Workers' Association and the Social Democratic Workers' Party of Germany (which merged to form the Social Democratic Party of Germany or SPD), the British Social Democratic Federation and the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. In most cases these parties were avowedly revolutionary socialist, seeking not only to introduce socialism, but also to introduce democracy into nations lacking democratic institutions. Most of these parties were to some extent influenced by the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who were at that time working abroad, in London, to influence Continental European politics.

Faith said...

Yeah I probably confuse a few things in my understanding of the history of these ideas. I tend to jump from purist Marxism to the Cultural Marxism of the 60s for instance, and don't pay much attention to other developments in the same arena, such as the fact that liberal Christianity in America also came up with its own forms of socialism about the same time Marx did his thing, and Roger Baldwin who founded the ACLU came out of that kind of background and naturally found Marxism rather compatible with his thinking.

Hard to trace the genealogy of the ideas unless you're a scholar of it all, which I'm not. It was Cultural Marxism (Marcuse, Gramsci, Adorno, Benjamin, Reich) that brought in the Sin Liberation Movement of the 60s. Purist Marxists disown them but so what, they considered themselves to be developing Marxist ideas on the cultural level, and they agreed with the purpose outlined in the earlier American Communist Party to undermine America, so it's all the same in the end as far as the theme of this thread goes that Prager is right about.

Glad you enjoyed my remark about the sin of calling sin sin, Z. SO Cultural Marxist, that.

Elmers Brother said...

It can be a little daunting trying to keep up with all of it Faith...Third Way...etc etc

Mustang said...

Social Democracy is reformist Socialism; the purpose of socialism is communism, which is also referred to as Marxism. The term democratic socialism is no more than the lipstick you people use to disguise your pig. Now stop it Ducky before you confuse yourself again.

FrogBurger said...

Glad Ducky makes the distinction and reminds us he's in favor of the former Soviet block. Because Europe is not socialist enough.

beamish said...

Yeah Faith, how could you forget! Marxism is the turds with tree bark in them, and Democratic Socialism is the turds with government "cheese food product" in them.

Keep your shit straight. ;)

Faith said...

Excellent distinction, beamish.

Faith said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Z, you's have to tell me if Mother Theresa is a true altruist or just another run-of-the altruist frauds. She is not one that I've ever held in high esteem, so I'm not the person to ask.

Waylon

Dan said...

Wayon

I'm sure there were Germans fighting in WWII that demonstrated the altruistic behavior of self sacrifice. They also used guns. But in the end neither the altruism or the guns were the ultimate evil.

Although I agree with your take on the Climate change foolishness, I don't think that the brain washing of so many can be attributed to altruism, although the brainwashees are capable of demonstrating altruism in the furtherment of their cause. Actually, a little aside here, I would contend that the vast majority who support climate change legislation do so because they have been convinced that they can change the temperature of the planet without making ANY personal sacrifices. That is obviously absurd on its face, even if we all did stop emitting CO2. I've seen more than one SUV driving around that has a "We Vote Pro Environment" sticker on its bumper. This is the opposite of Altruism.

I would also say in clarifying my understanding of Altruism that altruism is personal. It ultimately is a personal decision to sacrifice ones self in the effort to save or help others. This is contrary to the base inclinations of selfishness, envy, and jealousy, of any given person. All of these base inclinations are the foundation of socialism, which as far as I'm concerned, is only a transitionary ism between capitalism and communism.

You asked for examples. Here are three worthy of note:
Monti C. Jared
CHARLES G. ABRELL
and Lewis Kenneth Bausell

Z said...

Faith, i"m getting such positive reactions to the email I sent with that line of yours about sin...thanks...it was really a good one.

I had to delete a comment here today...I'll take the F word here ANY DAY OF THE WEEK over comments talking about excrement, so please,...stop. thanks. I won't embarrass who it was by saying whose comment I deleted.
Remember, it's my blog and please don't slam me for doing that...I don't think anybody needs to show a lack of respect toward me here, and you usually don't,so..please.

Anonymous said...

I just adore being subjected to double standards. I realize it's a tremendous compliment to me to be held to a higher standard than most others.

"To whom much is given, of him much will be required."

Thanks for reminding me how special I am once again.

Love,

Unhoo ;-)

Z said...

"Anonymous", if you'd like to make a big thing about this, we sure can. I was trying to be polite in the face of the most disgusting comment I've ever had here...by far.

Ah, the old "double standard" defense. I expected more.

Faith said...

Double standard, ha! Beamish's use of the offending terms had a point, yours didn't.

Anonymous said...

Dan, the way I see it, there is a distinction between that should be made between compassion or charity which would be an individual's choice, and those aspects of an individual's character which show an empathy or caring about fellow human beings who may be suffering or be in need. I'm not speaking about that. Altruism is not that.

Altruism is more a primitive tribal moral code which demands the individual surrender to the interests of the group, however that group defines those interests. If you consider yourself as a responsible and reasonable individual capable of understanding reality, the world around you, should that be surrendered to the tribe or group? Or is that exhibiting "greed" and being "selfish" as defined by the moral code of the altruists?

Waylon

Dan said...

"If you consider yourself as a responsible and reasonable individual capable of understanding reality, the world around you, should that be surrendered to the tribe or group? Or is that exhibiting "greed" and being "selfish" as defined by the moral code of the altruists?"

I guess I don't understand what you mean by the moral code of the altruist. That said I will answer that it is neither being greedy selfish or altruistic. I heard Prager use the word altruistic the first time I watched the video. The reason being that the word Altruism, like the word greed, are neon words to me. I think they are both misunderstood words by liberals. (see my Dictionary I will add altruism soon as a result of this conversation.) Greed does exist, but I think it is probably more prevalent in the liberal ranks i.e. Ducky, Madoff.

Altruism, as you are defining it, that is, the surrendering your individuality, would be a thing I would strongly reject. The examples I gave however had nothing to do with surrendering individuality.

I think we probably differ at the core of where it is that we derive morality. I believe that we were created by God, that that God is good, and in being good he didn't leave us here to wonder what is good by who wins elections or accumulates the power to decree what is "good" by some other means. I believe that America, as it was founded, provides a place for the individual to flourish within the confines of that morality and as such is worth fighting and dieing for. Until Obama I didn't realize just how much I felt this to be true. This is how I understand altruism. As I said earlier, our ire can be misplaced when we think that guns or altruism is the problem.

Your freedoms are under attack, but that does not set this age apart as an anomaly in history for this fact has always been the case for those fortunate enough to live free. But fighting those who would take your liberty is always going to be a group effort whether it is with bullets or votes. To reject the group, or loyalty to it, out of hand is to reject any hope of liberty.

Your thoughts?

beamish said...

Profanitese is an elegant language, easy to use yet so hard to master.