By SHELBY STEELE
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304173704575578363243019000.html
Whether or not the Republicans win big next week, it is already clear that the "transformative" aspirations of the Obama presidency—the special promise of this first black president to "change" us into a better society—are much less likely to materialize. There will be enough Republican gains to make the "no" in the "party of no" even more formidable, if not definitive.
But apart from this politics of numbers, there is also now a deepening disenchantment with Barack Obama himself. (He has a meager 37% approval rating by the latest Harris poll.) His embarrassed supporters console themselves that their intentions were good; their vote helped make history. But for Mr. Obama himself there is no road back to the charisma and political capital he enjoyed on his inauguration day.
How is it that Barack Obama could step into the presidency with an air of inevitability and then, in less than two years, find himself unwelcome at the campaign rallies of many of his fellow Democrats?
The first answer is well-known: His policymaking has been grandiose, thoughtless and bullying. His health-care bill was ambitious to the point of destructiveness and, finally, so chaotic that today no citizen knows where they stand in relation to it. His financial-reform bill seems little more than a short-sighted scapegoating of Wall Street. In foreign policy he has failed to articulate a role for America in the world. We don't know why we do what we do in foreign affairs. George W. Bush at least made a valiant stab at an American rationale—democratization—but with Mr. Obama there is nothing.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
What Who Why fights terror
MikeNZ (3,076) Says:
October 29th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/
To stand up for something, you must believe in its worth. To stand up to something, you must believe that it is less worthy. If you don’t believe that, then it is easier to sit down, to give in and let them do whatever they want
A long article but this sentence highlights a problem or vacuum we have in Western society today.
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/10/national-survival-for-america-and_4531.html
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Research to Explain a Problem = $$
ben (1,324) Says:
October 28th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Conspiracy has nothing to do with it. The co-ordinating mechanism across science is not an agreement between corrupt scientists, but money that is expressly conditional on finding a problem. No government and almost no companies are interested in funding research that demonstrates there is no problem. Demonstrably so. And any that do are pilloried.
That means all the good, well meaning people who have a theory that finds or explains a problem get money, and $billions of it, and all the good, well meaning people who have a theory that don’t get very little. At no stage do you have conspiracy, you have selection bias among (and largely out of sight of) the well-meaning.
October 28th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Whoops
Red – do you think there is there ANY chance you might be wrong? That it’s not a giant conspiracy?
Conspiracy has nothing to do with it. The co-ordinating mechanism across science is not an agreement between corrupt scientists, but money that is expressly conditional on finding a problem. No government and almost no companies are interested in funding research that demonstrates there is no problem. Demonstrably so. And any that do are pilloried.
That means all the good, well meaning people who have a theory that finds or explains a problem get money, and $billions of it, and all the good, well meaning people who have a theory that don’t get very little. At no stage do you have conspiracy, you have selection bias among (and largely out of sight of) the well-meaning.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Eastern Europe Versus the Open Society
About the Author
Dr. Srdja Trifkovic, an expert on foreign affairs, is the author of The Sword of the Prophet and Defeating Jihad. His latest book is The Krajina Chronicle: A History of the Serbs in Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia.
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2010/10/25/eastern-europe-versus-the-open-society/
Eastern Europe Versus the Open Societyby Srdja Trifkovic
October 25th, 2010 • Related • Filed Under
No Related Post
Filed Under: Featured • News & Views • Srdja Trifkovic
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
Excerpts from a speech to the H.L. Mencken Club, Baltimore, October 23, 2010
Two weeks ago the first “gay pride parade” was staged in Belgrade. Serbia’s “pro-European” government had been promoting the event as yet another proof that Serbia is fit to join the European Union, that is has overcome the legacy of its dark, intolerant past. Thousands of policemen in full riot gear had to divide their time between protecting a few hundred “LBGT” activists (about half of them imported from Western Europe for the occasion) and battling ten times as many young protesters in the side streets.
The parade, it should be noted, was prominently attended by the U.S. Ambassador in Belgrade Mary Warlick, by the head of the European Commission Office, Vincent Degert of France, and by the head of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Mission in Serbia, Dimitris Kipreos. Needless to say, none of them had attended the enthronment of the new Serbian Patriarch a week earlier. Two days later, Hillary Clinton came to Belgrade and praised the Tadic regime for staging the parade.
Mrs. Clinton et al are enjoying the fruits of one man’s two decades of hard work in Eastern Europe. George Soros can claim, more than any other individual, that his endeavors have helped turn the lands of “Real Socialism” in central and eastern Europe away from their ancestors, their cultural and spiritual roots. The process is far from over, but his Open Society Institute and its extensive network of subsidiaries east of the Trieste-Stettin line have successfully legitimized the notions that only two decades ago would have seemed bizarre, laughable or demonic to the denizens of the eastern half of Europe.
The package was first tested here in America. Through his Open Society Institute and its vast network of affiliates Soros has provided extensive financial and lobbying support here for
Legalization of hard drugs: We should accept that “substance abuse is endemic in most societies,” he says. Thanks to his intervention the terms “medicalization” and “non-violent drug offender” have entered public discourse, and pro-drug legalization laws were passed in California and Arizona in the 90s.
Euthanasia: In 1994 Soros—a self-professed atheist—launched his Project Death in America (PDIA) and provided $15 million in its initial funding. (It is noteworthy that his mother, a member of the pro-suicide Hemlock Society, killed herself, and that Soros mentions unsympathetically his dying father’s clinging on to life for too long.) PDIA supports physician-assisted suicide and works “to begin forming a network of doctors that will eventually reach into one-fourth of America’s hospitals” and, in a turn of phrase chillingly worthy of Orwell, lead to “the creation of innovative models of care and the development of new curricula on dying.”
Population replacement: Soros is an enthusiastic promoter of open immigration and amnesty & special rights for immigrants. He has supported the National Council of La Raza, National Immigration Law Center, National Immigration Forum, and dozens of others. He also promotes expansion of public welfare, and in late 1996 he created the Emma Lazarus Fund that has given millions in grants to nonprofit legal services groups that undermine provisions of the welfare legislation ending immigrant entitlements.
Soros supports programs and organizations that further abortion rights and increased access to birth control devices; advocate ever more stringent gun control; and demand abolition of the death penalty. He supports radical feminists and “gay” activists, same-sex “marriage” naturally included. OSI states innocently enough that its objectives include “the strengthening of civil society; economic reform; education at all levels; human rights; legal reform and public administration; public health; and arts and culture,” but the way it goes about these tasks is not “philanthropy” but political activism in pursuit of all the familiar causes of the radical left—and some additional, distinctly creepy ones such as “Death in America.”
Dr. Srdja Trifkovic, an expert on foreign affairs, is the author of The Sword of the Prophet and Defeating Jihad. His latest book is The Krajina Chronicle: A History of the Serbs in Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia.
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2010/10/25/eastern-europe-versus-the-open-society/
Eastern Europe Versus the Open Societyby Srdja Trifkovic
October 25th, 2010 • Related • Filed Under
No Related Post
Filed Under: Featured • News & Views • Srdja Trifkovic
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
Excerpts from a speech to the H.L. Mencken Club, Baltimore, October 23, 2010
Two weeks ago the first “gay pride parade” was staged in Belgrade. Serbia’s “pro-European” government had been promoting the event as yet another proof that Serbia is fit to join the European Union, that is has overcome the legacy of its dark, intolerant past. Thousands of policemen in full riot gear had to divide their time between protecting a few hundred “LBGT” activists (about half of them imported from Western Europe for the occasion) and battling ten times as many young protesters in the side streets.
The parade, it should be noted, was prominently attended by the U.S. Ambassador in Belgrade Mary Warlick, by the head of the European Commission Office, Vincent Degert of France, and by the head of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Mission in Serbia, Dimitris Kipreos. Needless to say, none of them had attended the enthronment of the new Serbian Patriarch a week earlier. Two days later, Hillary Clinton came to Belgrade and praised the Tadic regime for staging the parade.
Mrs. Clinton et al are enjoying the fruits of one man’s two decades of hard work in Eastern Europe. George Soros can claim, more than any other individual, that his endeavors have helped turn the lands of “Real Socialism” in central and eastern Europe away from their ancestors, their cultural and spiritual roots. The process is far from over, but his Open Society Institute and its extensive network of subsidiaries east of the Trieste-Stettin line have successfully legitimized the notions that only two decades ago would have seemed bizarre, laughable or demonic to the denizens of the eastern half of Europe.
The package was first tested here in America. Through his Open Society Institute and its vast network of affiliates Soros has provided extensive financial and lobbying support here for
Legalization of hard drugs: We should accept that “substance abuse is endemic in most societies,” he says. Thanks to his intervention the terms “medicalization” and “non-violent drug offender” have entered public discourse, and pro-drug legalization laws were passed in California and Arizona in the 90s.
Euthanasia: In 1994 Soros—a self-professed atheist—launched his Project Death in America (PDIA) and provided $15 million in its initial funding. (It is noteworthy that his mother, a member of the pro-suicide Hemlock Society, killed herself, and that Soros mentions unsympathetically his dying father’s clinging on to life for too long.) PDIA supports physician-assisted suicide and works “to begin forming a network of doctors that will eventually reach into one-fourth of America’s hospitals” and, in a turn of phrase chillingly worthy of Orwell, lead to “the creation of innovative models of care and the development of new curricula on dying.”
Population replacement: Soros is an enthusiastic promoter of open immigration and amnesty & special rights for immigrants. He has supported the National Council of La Raza, National Immigration Law Center, National Immigration Forum, and dozens of others. He also promotes expansion of public welfare, and in late 1996 he created the Emma Lazarus Fund that has given millions in grants to nonprofit legal services groups that undermine provisions of the welfare legislation ending immigrant entitlements.
Soros supports programs and organizations that further abortion rights and increased access to birth control devices; advocate ever more stringent gun control; and demand abolition of the death penalty. He supports radical feminists and “gay” activists, same-sex “marriage” naturally included. OSI states innocently enough that its objectives include “the strengthening of civil society; economic reform; education at all levels; human rights; legal reform and public administration; public health; and arts and culture,” but the way it goes about these tasks is not “philanthropy” but political activism in pursuit of all the familiar causes of the radical left—and some additional, distinctly creepy ones such as “Death in America.”
Monday, October 25, 2010
Dissident Academic Feels the Warmth of “Social Justice”
http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2010/10/dissident-academic-feels-the-warmth-of-social-justice-.html
Dissident Academic Feels the Warmth of “Social Justice”
Longtime readers of this blog will be familiar with KC Johnson, a Brooklyn College history professor who’s written at length about leftist groupthink in academia, its various pathologies and its imperviousness to correction. Johnson is the co-author of Until Proven Innocent, which documents the infamous Duke “rape” case and its participants’ extraordinary improprieties and political prejudice.
In May 2005, writing for Inside Higher Ed, Johnson drew attention to the emergence of “dispositions theory” and attempts to impose overt political filtering in dozens of teacher-training programmes:
Looking through various teacher-training outlines, the familiar leftist buzzwords appear repeatedly. “Diversity” and identity politics feature prominently and teachers-to-be are referred to as “critical thinking change agents.” These “agents” will use the classroom “to transcend the negative effects of the dominant culture” and will “speak on behalf of identified constituent groups,” becoming “advocates for those on the margins of society.” (Evidently, “critical thinking” should be taken to mean leftist thinking – critical of capitalism, individualism and bourgeois values - not thinking that might also be critical of the left, its methods and its assorted conceits. And one wonders how many liberties will be taken while speaking on behalf of “groups” deemed marginal and oppressed.)
Some programmes encourage teachers to regard themselves as “enlightened leaders” who “must understand the political nature of education,” that “education is a political act,” and thereby “act as change agents,” while “developing emerging theories to support change agentry principles and processes.” The prospective teacher is expected to “serve as an advocate for groups that have been traditionally discriminated against” and to “provide evidence” of their own “commitment to social justice.” This commitment may be fostered by “fully developing candidates, not only academically but also in moral and political senses.”
All of which prompted Johnson to ask the obvious question: Who gets to define this mysterious “social justice”? Who gets to say what a “more just society” might entail and how one might achieve it?
Dissident Academic Feels the Warmth of “Social Justice”
Longtime readers of this blog will be familiar with KC Johnson, a Brooklyn College history professor who’s written at length about leftist groupthink in academia, its various pathologies and its imperviousness to correction. Johnson is the co-author of Until Proven Innocent, which documents the infamous Duke “rape” case and its participants’ extraordinary improprieties and political prejudice.
In May 2005, writing for Inside Higher Ed, Johnson drew attention to the emergence of “dispositions theory” and attempts to impose overt political filtering in dozens of teacher-training programmes:
The faculty’s ideological imbalance has allowed three factors - a new accreditation policy, changes in how students are evaluated and curricular orientation around a theme of “social justice” - to impose a de facto political litmus test on the next cohort of public school teachers.
Looking through various teacher-training outlines, the familiar leftist buzzwords appear repeatedly. “Diversity” and identity politics feature prominently and teachers-to-be are referred to as “critical thinking change agents.” These “agents” will use the classroom “to transcend the negative effects of the dominant culture” and will “speak on behalf of identified constituent groups,” becoming “advocates for those on the margins of society.” (Evidently, “critical thinking” should be taken to mean leftist thinking – critical of capitalism, individualism and bourgeois values - not thinking that might also be critical of the left, its methods and its assorted conceits. And one wonders how many liberties will be taken while speaking on behalf of “groups” deemed marginal and oppressed.)
Some programmes encourage teachers to regard themselves as “enlightened leaders” who “must understand the political nature of education,” that “education is a political act,” and thereby “act as change agents,” while “developing emerging theories to support change agentry principles and processes.” The prospective teacher is expected to “serve as an advocate for groups that have been traditionally discriminated against” and to “provide evidence” of their own “commitment to social justice.” This commitment may be fostered by “fully developing candidates, not only academically but also in moral and political senses.”
All of which prompted Johnson to ask the obvious question: Who gets to define this mysterious “social justice”? Who gets to say what a “more just society” might entail and how one might achieve it?
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Gentle Socialism to --->
Leftists, Progressives and Socialists
Opinion Editorial by Walter E. Williams - Oct 20, 2010 23 ratings from readers
http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/101020-williams-leftists-progressives.php
Despite historical warnings, some refuse to believe that government meddling causes nothing but misery. For those who are hesitant to read Rand, this article is a great introduction to free market morality.
One of the greatest sources of confusion and deception is the difference between leftists, progressives, socialists, communists and fascists. I thought about this as I caught a glimpse of the Oct. 2 "One Nation" march on Washington.
The participants proudly marched with banners, signs and placards reading "Socialists," "Ohio U Democratic Socialists," "International Socialists Organization," "Socialist Party USA," "Build A Socialist Alternative" and other signs expressing support for socialism and communism. They had stands where they sold booklets under the titles of "Marxism and the State," "Communist Manifesto," "Four Marxist Classics," "The Road to Socialism" and similar titles.
The gathering had the support of the AFL-CIO, Service Employees International Union, stalwarts of the Democratic Party such as Al Sharpton and organizations such as the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, Green for All, the Sierra Club, and the Children's Defense Fund.
What goes unappreciated is that socialists and communists have produced the greatest evil in mankind's history. You say, "Williams, what in the world are you talking about? Socialists, communists and their fellow travelers care about the little guy in his struggle for a fair shake! They're trying to promote social justice." Let's look at some of the history of socialism and communism.
Opinion Editorial by Walter E. Williams - Oct 20, 2010 23 ratings from readers
http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/101020-williams-leftists-progressives.php
Despite historical warnings, some refuse to believe that government meddling causes nothing but misery. For those who are hesitant to read Rand, this article is a great introduction to free market morality.
One of the greatest sources of confusion and deception is the difference between leftists, progressives, socialists, communists and fascists. I thought about this as I caught a glimpse of the Oct. 2 "One Nation" march on Washington.
The participants proudly marched with banners, signs and placards reading "Socialists," "Ohio U Democratic Socialists," "International Socialists Organization," "Socialist Party USA," "Build A Socialist Alternative" and other signs expressing support for socialism and communism. They had stands where they sold booklets under the titles of "Marxism and the State," "Communist Manifesto," "Four Marxist Classics," "The Road to Socialism" and similar titles.
The gathering had the support of the AFL-CIO, Service Employees International Union, stalwarts of the Democratic Party such as Al Sharpton and organizations such as the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, Green for All, the Sierra Club, and the Children's Defense Fund.
What goes unappreciated is that socialists and communists have produced the greatest evil in mankind's history. You say, "Williams, what in the world are you talking about? Socialists, communists and their fellow travelers care about the little guy in his struggle for a fair shake! They're trying to promote social justice." Let's look at some of the history of socialism and communism.
Sharing?: Blackmail: Reciprocity?
Fascinating. "Israel's Conflict as Game Theory," by Yisrael Aumann, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2005 for his work on analyzing conflicts using game theory. This piece was posted at Israel Defender on October 23:
http://israeldefender.com/?p=1492
Plus comments and thoughts from other blogs
Two men--let us call them Rick and Steve-- are put in a small room containing a suitcase filled with bills totaling $100,000. The owner of the suitcase announces the following:
"I will give you the money in the suitcase under one condition...you have to negotiate an agreement on how to divide it. That is the only way I will agree to give you the money."
Rick is a rational person and realizes the golden opportunity that has fallen his way. He turns to Steve with the obvious suggestion: "You take half and I'll take half, that way each of us will have $50,000."
To his surprise, Steve frowns at him and says, in a tone that leaves no room for doubt: "Look here, I don't know what your plans are for the money, but I don't intend to leave this room with less than $90,000. If you accept that, fine. If not, we can both go home without any of the money."
http://israeldefender.com/?p=1492
Plus comments and thoughts from other blogs
Two men--let us call them Rick and Steve-- are put in a small room containing a suitcase filled with bills totaling $100,000. The owner of the suitcase announces the following:
"I will give you the money in the suitcase under one condition...you have to negotiate an agreement on how to divide it. That is the only way I will agree to give you the money."
Rick is a rational person and realizes the golden opportunity that has fallen his way. He turns to Steve with the obvious suggestion: "You take half and I'll take half, that way each of us will have $50,000."
To his surprise, Steve frowns at him and says, in a tone that leaves no room for doubt: "Look here, I don't know what your plans are for the money, but I don't intend to leave this room with less than $90,000. If you accept that, fine. If not, we can both go home without any of the money."
Saturday, October 23, 2010
How far do we stretch our beliefs ? ? to the dragon?
“As children tremble and fear everything in the blind darkness, so we in the light sometimes fear what is no more to be feared than the things children in the dark hold in terror”.
Lucretius, On the nature of things (ca. 60 BC)
Famous psychologist Richard Franklin (cited Sagan, 1997, p. 171) while following a group therapy approach, narrated a very interesting fictitious conversation which is as below.
Suppose I seriously make an assertion to you, “A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage”.
“Show me”, you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle but no dragon.
“Where is the dragon?” you ask.
“Oh, that horrible creature is right here”. I reply, waving vaguely and horror in my eyes, “I forgot to mention that it’s an invisible dragon and its fire is also invisible”.
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon’s footprints.
“Good idea”, I say, “but this dragon floats in the air.”
“Then we can use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire”. You proposed.
“Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless.” I replied.
“Then why not spray-paint the dragon and make it visible”? You ask.
“Good idea, except this creature is an ghostly dragon and the paint would not stick”. I again replied back.
“Well, in that case, let me enter the garage and see if it bites me and if I feel the pain, I will know that something is there”. You decided.
“Good idea, but I forgot to tell you, its bite is also painless and even if it eats you, you will not realize that you are eaten and obviously you will look same as before.” Another ready explanation comes from me.
Utterly confused!!!
The above conversation has no end because it can be extended forever. No matter how scientifically and logically you try to approach, always I have a ‘special’ explanation of why it would not work. But by no means I will come out of the idea that the dragon does exist. If you cannot detect, it is your fault, but at any cost the dragon exists.
Where, What is the truth? What has happened to truth? Who controls what truth?
Thursday, October 21, 2010
What the Heck is ‘Social Justice’? + some good comments
What the Heck is ‘Social Justice’?by Rose Marie Berger 03-24-2010
Today I was interviewed by a sociology student who wanted to know more about “social justice.” I was happy to talk to her. My Catholic tradition considers social justice as a central element of faith, public witness, and as integral to Catholic Social Teaching. In our conversation I drew on an article I’d written a few years back: “What the Heck is ‘Social Justice’?” (Sojourners, February 2007).
A starting question when talking about social justice is: What’s the difference between justice and charity?
Justice is the moral code that guides a fair and equitable society. When an individual acts on behalf of justice, he or she stands up for what is right. Charity is a basic sense of generosity and goodwill toward others, especially the suffering. Individual charity is when one responds to the more immediate needs of others — volunteering in a women’s shelter, for example. [See also An Active Faith by Yonce Shelton for more on charity and justice.]
The goal of social charity and social justice is furthering the common good. Social charity addresses the effects of social sin, while social justice addresses the causes of such sins. Brazilian Catholic Archbishop Hélder Câmara famously said, “When I feed the poor, they call me a saint; when I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist.” His phrase indicates the societal pressure to separate charity and justice. The two cannot be separated. It would be like taking the heart out of a body — neither would live for long.
Social charity is sometimes called compassionate solidarity. A church’s decision to buy only fair trade coffee might be considered an act of social charity. It is a communal economic act that addresses the immediate needs of those who are oppressed by an unjust economic system. However, it doesn’t fundamentally change or challenge the unjust structure.
So just what is the definition of social justice?
The principle of social justice, according to Catholic social teaching, requires the individual Christian to act in an organized manner with others to hold social institutions accountable — whether government or private — to the common good. The “common good comprises the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily,” according to Pope Paul VI. However, social justice can become hollow if it is not constantly in touch with real people’s experiences.
How does one “do” social justice?
Social justice issues are determined by “discerning the signs of the times” (Matthew 16:3 "and in the morning, ‘Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times."
After the comments then the following article "Social Justice and the New Morality"
By Berit Kjos - May 23, 2010.... are to get your teeth into.
Also another post and comments by AmericanMercenary.
Today I was interviewed by a sociology student who wanted to know more about “social justice.” I was happy to talk to her. My Catholic tradition considers social justice as a central element of faith, public witness, and as integral to Catholic Social Teaching. In our conversation I drew on an article I’d written a few years back: “What the Heck is ‘Social Justice’?” (Sojourners, February 2007).
A starting question when talking about social justice is: What’s the difference between justice and charity?
Justice is the moral code that guides a fair and equitable society. When an individual acts on behalf of justice, he or she stands up for what is right. Charity is a basic sense of generosity and goodwill toward others, especially the suffering. Individual charity is when one responds to the more immediate needs of others — volunteering in a women’s shelter, for example. [See also An Active Faith by Yonce Shelton for more on charity and justice.]
The goal of social charity and social justice is furthering the common good. Social charity addresses the effects of social sin, while social justice addresses the causes of such sins. Brazilian Catholic Archbishop Hélder Câmara famously said, “When I feed the poor, they call me a saint; when I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist.” His phrase indicates the societal pressure to separate charity and justice. The two cannot be separated. It would be like taking the heart out of a body — neither would live for long.
Social charity is sometimes called compassionate solidarity. A church’s decision to buy only fair trade coffee might be considered an act of social charity. It is a communal economic act that addresses the immediate needs of those who are oppressed by an unjust economic system. However, it doesn’t fundamentally change or challenge the unjust structure.
So just what is the definition of social justice?
The principle of social justice, according to Catholic social teaching, requires the individual Christian to act in an organized manner with others to hold social institutions accountable — whether government or private — to the common good. The “common good comprises the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily,” according to Pope Paul VI. However, social justice can become hollow if it is not constantly in touch with real people’s experiences.
How does one “do” social justice?
Social justice issues are determined by “discerning the signs of the times” (Matthew 16:3 "and in the morning, ‘Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times."
After the comments then the following article "Social Justice and the New Morality"
By Berit Kjos - May 23, 2010.... are to get your teeth into.
Also another post and comments by AmericanMercenary.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
? Mission Statements ?
Mission statements: a thematic analysis of rhetoric across institutional type
Journal of Higher Education, May-June, 2006 by Christopher C. Morphew, Matthew Hartley
..They're Everywhere! They're Everywhere!
I have been roped into a council that now says it needs us to have a mission statement
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb172/is_3_77/ai_n29264175/
Gazette readers write
Mission statements are ubiquitous in higher education. Accreditation agencies demand them, strategic planning is predicated on their formulation, and virtually every college and university has one available for review. Moreover, higher education institutions are constantly revisiting and revising their mission statements: as recently as the mid-1990s, the Association of American Colleges (1994), found that fully 80% of all colleges and universities were making major revisions in their mission statements, goals, curricula, and general education courses. It would seem that not having a mission statement begs the very legitimacy of a college or university. Of course, the crafting (and re-crafting) of such documents consumes considerable institutional resources, particularly that most precious resource: time. So, why bother? Some would argue that articulating a shared purpose is a requisite first step on the road to organizational success. Others are far less sanguine about such efforts and view them as rhetorical pyrotechnics--pretty to look at perhaps, but of little structural consequence. The purpose of this study is to begin an exploration of these hypotheses by first attempting to understand what institutions actually say in their missions and by exploring the relationship between these rhetorical elements and institutional type.
Mission Statements: Half-Full or Half-Empty?
A furor over mission statements swept over corporate America nearly three decades ago (Drucker, 1973; Peters and Waterman, 1982). As is the case with other management trends, such ideas inevitably--and belatedly--found their way into the academy (Birnbaum, 2000). Keller (1983), for example, in his seminal book on strategic planning, argues that mission statements are a necessary part of an institution's strategic planning process. Others point to the value of mission statements in expressing a "vision" for the institution's future (Lenning & Micek, 1976; Schwerin, 1980; Carruthers & Lott, 1981; Martin, 1985; Nanus, 1992). Much of the early research on the utility of mission statements is limited because, as Davies (1986) notes, it fails to recognize "the unexamined presuppositions upon which they are grounded" (p. 85). In short, the researchers take as gospel the notion that such statements are, to quote Martha Stewart, "a good thing" and that their assertions are clothed with threadbare anecdotal evidence.
More recent research on postsecondary mission statements has produced a more nuanced understanding of the role that ideology and purpose play in organizational life. This literature suggests that the process of articulating an institution's mission has two potential benefits. First, it is instructional. A clear mission helps organizational members distinguish between activities that conform to institutional imperatives and those that do not. Second, a shared sense of purpose has the capacity to inspire and motivate those within an institution and to communicate its characteristics, values, and history to key external constituents (Drucker, 1973; Keller, 1983; Parekh, 1977; Smith, 1979; Hartley, 2002). Researchers have also described the experiences of (typically small) institutions whose discussions about institutional priorities and future direction, codified in mission statements, have guided decision making around key issues such as program creation or termination. The mission statement therefore is rightly understood as an artifact of a broader institutional discussion about its purpose.
Of course, other practitioners and scholars see the mission statement glass as half-empty. They view mission statements as a collection of stock phrases that are either excessively vague or unrealistically aspirational or both. From this perspective, mission statements ultimately fail to follow through on or convey any noteworthy sense of an institution's current identity (Davies, 1986; Chait, 1979; Delucchi, 1997). A majority of those who have conducted what little empirical analysis exists of college and university mission statements reside squarely in this camp. They argue that mission statements, rather than providing focus to colleges and universities, offer precisely the opposite. Instead of direction and constraint, college and university mission statements provide a means to an uncertain end. More specifically, the language in mission statements is intended to evoke an all-purpose purpose. Or, as Gordon Davies (1986) puts it, mission statements tend to demonstrate "The importance of being general." In other words, rather than surfacing values that might guide everyday decision making, colleges and universities fashion mission statements that maximize institutional flexibility. They communicate that nothing is beyond the reach of the organization in question. In doing so, they ignore institutional limitations and sidestep any effort at prioritizing current activities or future initiatives.
Even so, sociologists that use institutional theory to explain organizational behavior (e.g., Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Meyer, Deal and Scott, 1981) would argue that an "all-purpose" mission statement nevertheless fulfills an important function for a college or university. From this point of view, the utility and general nature of mission statements go hand in hand. Mission statements are normative--they exist because they are expected to exist, much the same way that students expect colleges and universities to award credit in the form of hours and persons inside and outside higher education expect college campuses to include "quads," well-landscaped gardens, and football stadiums. Institutional theorists point to organizational artifacts like mission statements and knowingly describe them as ritualistic or mythological. From this point of view, mission statements are certainly important but not for the direction they provide. Rather, they serve a legitimating function. Mission statements are valuable because they--and the elements within them--show that the organization in question understands the "rules of the game." And, one of the rules of the higher education game is that you have to have a mission statement if you want to be considered a legitimate college or university by, among others, accrediting agencies and board members.
there is 10 more pages of this
more interesting commentary
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2006/11/parish-mission-statements/
Journal of Higher Education, May-June, 2006 by Christopher C. Morphew, Matthew Hartley
..They're Everywhere! They're Everywhere!
I have been roped into a council that now says it needs us to have a mission statement
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb172/is_3_77/ai_n29264175/
Gazette readers write
Mission statements are ubiquitous in higher education. Accreditation agencies demand them, strategic planning is predicated on their formulation, and virtually every college and university has one available for review. Moreover, higher education institutions are constantly revisiting and revising their mission statements: as recently as the mid-1990s, the Association of American Colleges (1994), found that fully 80% of all colleges and universities were making major revisions in their mission statements, goals, curricula, and general education courses. It would seem that not having a mission statement begs the very legitimacy of a college or university. Of course, the crafting (and re-crafting) of such documents consumes considerable institutional resources, particularly that most precious resource: time. So, why bother? Some would argue that articulating a shared purpose is a requisite first step on the road to organizational success. Others are far less sanguine about such efforts and view them as rhetorical pyrotechnics--pretty to look at perhaps, but of little structural consequence. The purpose of this study is to begin an exploration of these hypotheses by first attempting to understand what institutions actually say in their missions and by exploring the relationship between these rhetorical elements and institutional type.
Mission Statements: Half-Full or Half-Empty?
A furor over mission statements swept over corporate America nearly three decades ago (Drucker, 1973; Peters and Waterman, 1982). As is the case with other management trends, such ideas inevitably--and belatedly--found their way into the academy (Birnbaum, 2000). Keller (1983), for example, in his seminal book on strategic planning, argues that mission statements are a necessary part of an institution's strategic planning process. Others point to the value of mission statements in expressing a "vision" for the institution's future (Lenning & Micek, 1976; Schwerin, 1980; Carruthers & Lott, 1981; Martin, 1985; Nanus, 1992). Much of the early research on the utility of mission statements is limited because, as Davies (1986) notes, it fails to recognize "the unexamined presuppositions upon which they are grounded" (p. 85). In short, the researchers take as gospel the notion that such statements are, to quote Martha Stewart, "a good thing" and that their assertions are clothed with threadbare anecdotal evidence.
More recent research on postsecondary mission statements has produced a more nuanced understanding of the role that ideology and purpose play in organizational life. This literature suggests that the process of articulating an institution's mission has two potential benefits. First, it is instructional. A clear mission helps organizational members distinguish between activities that conform to institutional imperatives and those that do not. Second, a shared sense of purpose has the capacity to inspire and motivate those within an institution and to communicate its characteristics, values, and history to key external constituents (Drucker, 1973; Keller, 1983; Parekh, 1977; Smith, 1979; Hartley, 2002). Researchers have also described the experiences of (typically small) institutions whose discussions about institutional priorities and future direction, codified in mission statements, have guided decision making around key issues such as program creation or termination. The mission statement therefore is rightly understood as an artifact of a broader institutional discussion about its purpose.
Of course, other practitioners and scholars see the mission statement glass as half-empty. They view mission statements as a collection of stock phrases that are either excessively vague or unrealistically aspirational or both. From this perspective, mission statements ultimately fail to follow through on or convey any noteworthy sense of an institution's current identity (Davies, 1986; Chait, 1979; Delucchi, 1997). A majority of those who have conducted what little empirical analysis exists of college and university mission statements reside squarely in this camp. They argue that mission statements, rather than providing focus to colleges and universities, offer precisely the opposite. Instead of direction and constraint, college and university mission statements provide a means to an uncertain end. More specifically, the language in mission statements is intended to evoke an all-purpose purpose. Or, as Gordon Davies (1986) puts it, mission statements tend to demonstrate "The importance of being general." In other words, rather than surfacing values that might guide everyday decision making, colleges and universities fashion mission statements that maximize institutional flexibility. They communicate that nothing is beyond the reach of the organization in question. In doing so, they ignore institutional limitations and sidestep any effort at prioritizing current activities or future initiatives.
Even so, sociologists that use institutional theory to explain organizational behavior (e.g., Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Meyer, Deal and Scott, 1981) would argue that an "all-purpose" mission statement nevertheless fulfills an important function for a college or university. From this point of view, the utility and general nature of mission statements go hand in hand. Mission statements are normative--they exist because they are expected to exist, much the same way that students expect colleges and universities to award credit in the form of hours and persons inside and outside higher education expect college campuses to include "quads," well-landscaped gardens, and football stadiums. Institutional theorists point to organizational artifacts like mission statements and knowingly describe them as ritualistic or mythological. From this point of view, mission statements are certainly important but not for the direction they provide. Rather, they serve a legitimating function. Mission statements are valuable because they--and the elements within them--show that the organization in question understands the "rules of the game." And, one of the rules of the higher education game is that you have to have a mission statement if you want to be considered a legitimate college or university by, among others, accrediting agencies and board members.
there is 10 more pages of this
more interesting commentary
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2006/11/parish-mission-statements/
Monday, October 18, 2010
Social Justice and the New Morality
Global War on Christian Values - Part 2 (Part 1 & 3]
Social Justice and the New Morality
By Berit Kjos - May 23, 2010
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/010/2-social-justice.htm
Emphasis added
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the turbulent sixties, I finished nursing school, married Andy, trekked around the world with him for eight months (about $7 a day), then had two babies. Wanting to use my training, I offered to help at a "well-baby clinic" in a nearby black community. With my infant in a basket, I took my place at the examining table.
Some months later, I attended a community meeting important enough to merit the protective presence of the revolutionary Black Panthers. In awe, I watched its well armed warriors for "social justice" line up on each side of the hall. We, the white volunteers, listened to the organizer's angry words about capitalism, racism, social injustice and radical change. They didn't want our presence any more, so we were told to stay home and raise support for them in our white communities.
I didn't question their values that day. But a few years later, as a "born-again" Christian, I began to wonder. By then, I had been thoroughly exposed to the spiritual bleakness of liberal theology, its transformational agenda, and its hostility toward Biblical Christianity.
I had learned that the vision of "social justice" is infused with deceptive dreams. Promising economic equality, its well-trained "organizers" would destroy personal incentive, undermine family values, twist God's Word, and breed dependence and poverty for all but its elite leaders! There wouldn't be much wealth left to spread. Yet the lie survives -- even in today's churches.
A major advocate for this agenda is Jim Wallis, a member of the President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. He founded the left-leaning magazine, Sojourners, which promotes an idealistic view of "social justice." Its February 2007 issue gave us a glimpse of its position:
Do you wonder what they mean by "common good"? What can we learn from Venezuela? Or Greece?
The Roots and Results of Social Justice
Neither Karl Marx nor Friedrich Engels, the leading change agents behind communism and contemporary socialism, showed compassion for the poor masses that supposedly justified their agenda. Their form of "social justice" was simply their excuse for tyranny. In letters to Marx, Engels referred to peasants as "bumpkins," "a barbaric race," "frightfully stupid," etc. Marx described them as "degenerate rabble."[5] Both despised Christianity and its moral values.
How, then, did socialism survive? Why is it spreading?
Dr. Thomas Sowell gives us a glimpse of its roots. In his article "Race and Resentment," he wisely connects this phenomena to a universal condition: our corruptible human nature:
Perhaps you remember Kurt Vonnegut's short story, "Harrison Bergeron." It magnifies the destructive leveling needed to create a collective society of equals whose achievements offend no one:
Hate and envy serve as driving forces behind socialism. By idolizing the leader (Hitler forced churches to hang his picture over their altars), popularizing solidarity, and inciting rage toward dissenters, socialist dictators have gained unthinkable power. Learning from Soviet triumphs, Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf,
That new doctrine would free the masses from all Biblical morality. Depravity would replace modesty, honesty and integrity. As an angry young revolutionary, Marx admitted that his aim was not to improve the world but to enjoy its corruption:
The Marxist Meaning of Social Justice
Having endured the terrors of the Soviet gulag (prison) system, author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn tried to warn the West. In his Foreword for a Russian book by Igor Shafarevich titled, The Socialist Phenomenon, he explained that,
Igor Shafarevich's book includes a section titled "Socialism is the expression of the quest for social justice." It highlights the conflict between the alluring myth and the harsh reality of social justice:
What kind of social justice is that?
Shafarevich lists four basic socialist principles that show the stark contrast between American freedom and socialist tyranny:
Freedom: The Opposite of Social Justice
In contrast to socialism, the authors of America's Constitution sought genuine freedom for all. It was incomplete, but by 1865, countless thousands had given their lives to free the slaves. By law, all would share the benefits of the First Amendment in our Bill of Rights:[13]
Yet, unless God intervenes, we may soon lose those legal rights. The hollow hope of a more perfect world -- in this case, a tyrannical collective -- has captured the hearts of idealistic Americans as well as revolutionary change agents.
Our children and youth are especially vulnerable. Public schools are training them to think collectively through the mandatory use of the dialectic process. Subjective opinions and feelings replace objective facts and certainties, and compromise becomes a habit. Few children are prepared to stand firm on God's "offensive" moral values.
In other words, America is trading her moral foundation for a changeable set of amoral values that can be twisted in any which way by today's trained facilitators and capricious leaders. Please remember this warning:
God tells us to live by His standard for justice. He has given us clear guidelines to follow them: help the needy, share our resources, and comfort those who hurt with His wonderful promises. The Old Testament prophet Micah summarized it well:
We live in an imperfect world, and a spiritual war is raging all around us. America may never be the same, but those who know God have a place of refuge. And in the midst of it all, we will -- by His grace -- continue to share His joy, comfort, mercy and resources.
The next article in this series will deal with rising global education system and its anti-Christian standards.
See also Global War on Christian Values - Part 1: Unity in an Anti-Christian World?
Creating Community | Smiling at Socialism & Scorning the Bible
Washington's Farewell Address, 1796 | What it means to be a Christian
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. Fredrich August von Hayek, Economic Freedom and Representative Government (1973), http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek
2. Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, p.3. www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm
3. Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited (New York: Harper & Row, 1958), p.41.
4. Rose Marie Berger, "What the Heck is ‘Social Justice’?" Sojourners, February 2007. Also available on this page: http://blog.sojo.net/2010/03/24/what-the-heck-is-social-justice/
5. Igor Shafarevich, The Socialist Phenomenon, p. 224. http://robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html
6. Thomas Sowell, "Race and Resentment," May 04, 2010.
7. Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., "Harrison Bergeron" at www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
8. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (Cambridge: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1943), 582. Note: "Nazis declared support for a form of socialism that is to provide for the nation: economic security, social welfare programs for workers, a just wage, honour for workers' importance to the nation, and protection from capitalist exploitation. Nazism, however, rejected class conflict-based socialism ...." (Wikipedia, footnote 18: Joseph W. Bendersky, A history of Nazi Germany: 1919-1945., p. 40.) See also Hitler was a Socialist
9.Richard Wurmbrand, Was Marx a Satanist? (Diane Books, 1976), p. 24.
10. Igor Shafarevich, The Socialist Phenomenon, p.xii (Foreword by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn) at http://robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html
11. Ibid., pps. 220-221, 223.
12. Ibid., p. 195-196.
13. Human nature, apart from God, is vulnerable to every kind of evil. The "Emancipation Proclamation" didn't end racism and persecution, for absolute perfection is impossible among imperfect human beings. As God's Word tells us, "The heart is deceitful above all things..." (Jeremiah 17:9) But with His Word and Spirit as our life's foundation, peace and love can become a reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Justice and the New Morality
By Berit Kjos - May 23, 2010
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/010/2-social-justice.htm
Emphasis added
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the [legal] safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." Fredrich August von Hayek [1]
"In this book [Rules for Radicals] we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace.... This means revolution.'"[2] Saul Alinsky
“'To be a leader means to be able to move the masses.' Hitler’s aim was first to move the masses and then, having pried them loose from their traditional loyalties and moralities, to impose upon them (with the hypnotized consent of the majority) a new authoritarian order of his own devising."[3] Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited
"...do not be conformed to this world...." Romans 12:2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the turbulent sixties, I finished nursing school, married Andy, trekked around the world with him for eight months (about $7 a day), then had two babies. Wanting to use my training, I offered to help at a "well-baby clinic" in a nearby black community. With my infant in a basket, I took my place at the examining table.
Some months later, I attended a community meeting important enough to merit the protective presence of the revolutionary Black Panthers. In awe, I watched its well armed warriors for "social justice" line up on each side of the hall. We, the white volunteers, listened to the organizer's angry words about capitalism, racism, social injustice and radical change. They didn't want our presence any more, so we were told to stay home and raise support for them in our white communities.
I didn't question their values that day. But a few years later, as a "born-again" Christian, I began to wonder. By then, I had been thoroughly exposed to the spiritual bleakness of liberal theology, its transformational agenda, and its hostility toward Biblical Christianity.
I had learned that the vision of "social justice" is infused with deceptive dreams. Promising economic equality, its well-trained "organizers" would destroy personal incentive, undermine family values, twist God's Word, and breed dependence and poverty for all but its elite leaders! There wouldn't be much wealth left to spread. Yet the lie survives -- even in today's churches.
A major advocate for this agenda is Jim Wallis, a member of the President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. He founded the left-leaning magazine, Sojourners, which promotes an idealistic view of "social justice." Its February 2007 issue gave us a glimpse of its position:
"The goal of social charity and social justice is furthering the common good. Social charity addresses the effects of social sin, while social justice addresses the causes of such sins [inequality, capitalism, free enterprise, etc.]. Brazilian Catholic Archbishop Hélder Câmara famously said, 'When I feed the poor, they call me a saint; when I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist.'”
"Social charity... doesn’t fundamentally change or challenge the unjust structure. The principle of social justice...requires the individual Christian to act in an organized manner with others to hold social institutions accountable... to the common good."[4]
Do you wonder what they mean by "common good"? What can we learn from Venezuela? Or Greece?
The Roots and Results of Social Justice
Neither Karl Marx nor Friedrich Engels, the leading change agents behind communism and contemporary socialism, showed compassion for the poor masses that supposedly justified their agenda. Their form of "social justice" was simply their excuse for tyranny. In letters to Marx, Engels referred to peasants as "bumpkins," "a barbaric race," "frightfully stupid," etc. Marx described them as "degenerate rabble."[5] Both despised Christianity and its moral values.
How, then, did socialism survive? Why is it spreading?
Dr. Thomas Sowell gives us a glimpse of its roots. In his article "Race and Resentment," he wisely connects this phenomena to a universal condition: our corruptible human nature:
"Recent stories out of both Philadelphia and San Francisco tell of black students beating up Asian American students. This is especially painful for those who expected that the election of Barack Obama would mark the beginning of a post-racial America....
"Many of our educators, our intelligentsia and our media -- not to mention our politicians-- promote an attitude that other people's achievements are grievances, rather than examples. When black school children who are working hard in school and succeeding academically are attacked and beaten up by black classmates for 'acting white,' why is it surprising that similar hostility is turned against Asian Americans, who are often achieving academically more so than whites?...
"The same phenomenon is found among lower-class whites in Britain, where academically achieving white students have been beaten up badly enough by their white classmates to require hospital treatment.
"These are poisonous and self-destructive consequences of a steady drumbeat of ideological hype about differences that are translated into 'disparities' and 'inequities,' provoking envy and resentments under their more prettied-up name of 'social justice.'"[6]
Perhaps you remember Kurt Vonnegut's short story, "Harrison Bergeron." It magnifies the destructive leveling needed to create a collective society of equals whose achievements offend no one:
"The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal.... Nobody was smarter... [or] better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General [H-G].
"... the H-G men took George and Hazel Bergeron's fourteen-year-old son, Harrison, away. It was tragic, all right, but George and Hazel couldn't think about it very hard. Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn't think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times.... Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains."[7]
Hate and envy serve as driving forces behind socialism. By idolizing the leader (Hitler forced churches to hang his picture over their altars), popularizing solidarity, and inciting rage toward dissenters, socialist dictators have gained unthinkable power. Learning from Soviet triumphs, Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf,
"The first task of propaganda is to win people for subsequent organization.... The second task of propaganda is the disruption of the existing state of affairs and the permeation of this state of affairs with the new doctrine..."[8, see note]
That new doctrine would free the masses from all Biblical morality. Depravity would replace modesty, honesty and integrity. As an angry young revolutionary, Marx admitted that his aim was not to improve the world but to enjoy its corruption:
"With disdain I will throw my gauntlet full in the face of the world,
And see the collapse of this pygmy giant whose fall will not stifle my ardor.
Then will I wander godlike and victorious through the ruins of the world
And, giving my words an active force, I will feel equal to the Creator." [9]
The Marxist Meaning of Social Justice
Having endured the terrors of the Soviet gulag (prison) system, author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn tried to warn the West. In his Foreword for a Russian book by Igor Shafarevich titled, The Socialist Phenomenon, he explained that,
"...socialism (at least at first sight) turns out to be a glaring contradiction. Proceeding from a critique of a given society, accusing it of injustice, inequality and lack of freedom, socialism proclaims [and produces]... a far greater injustice, inequality and slavery!...
"In the most popular work of Marxism, the Communist Manifesto, one of the first measures of the new socialist system to be proposed is the introduction of compulsory labor."[10]
Igor Shafarevich's book includes a section titled "Socialism is the expression of the quest for social justice." It highlights the conflict between the alluring myth and the harsh reality of social justice:
"Since it is unquestionably true that appeals to justice and the condemnation of the defects of contemporary life occupy a central place in socialist ideology, this question must be formulated more precisely: Is the aspiration for social justice the goal and the driving force of socialism or is the appeal to this aspiration only a means to achieve some other goals?
"...in the socialist doctrines themselves, at least, we should uncover compassion for the sufferings of the victims of injustice and the impulse to lighten their burden. Yet this is precisely what is lacking!...
"At a time when 'bourgeois philanthropists' such as Dickens and Carlyle were fighting against child labor, the... [Communist] First International adopted a resolution composed by Marx: '...In a rationally organized society, each child from the age of nine ought to be a productive worker.'"[11]
What kind of social justice is that?
Shafarevich lists four basic socialist principles that show the stark contrast between American freedom and socialist tyranny:
1. The Abolition of Private Property.
2. The Abolition of the Family.
3. The Abolition of Religion.
4. Communality or Equality.[12]
Freedom: The Opposite of Social Justice
In contrast to socialism, the authors of America's Constitution sought genuine freedom for all. It was incomplete, but by 1865, countless thousands had given their lives to free the slaves. By law, all would share the benefits of the First Amendment in our Bill of Rights:[13]
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Yet, unless God intervenes, we may soon lose those legal rights. The hollow hope of a more perfect world -- in this case, a tyrannical collective -- has captured the hearts of idealistic Americans as well as revolutionary change agents.
Our children and youth are especially vulnerable. Public schools are training them to think collectively through the mandatory use of the dialectic process. Subjective opinions and feelings replace objective facts and certainties, and compromise becomes a habit. Few children are prepared to stand firm on God's "offensive" moral values.
In other words, America is trading her moral foundation for a changeable set of amoral values that can be twisted in any which way by today's trained facilitators and capricious leaders. Please remember this warning:
"... if you do not obey the voice of the Lord your God....[He] will cause you to be defeated before your enemies.... He shall lend to you, but you shall not lend to him..... Because you did not serve the Lord your God with joy and gladness of heart for the abundance of everything, therefore you shall serve your enemies." Deuteronomy 28:15, 44, 47-48 (more
"Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition...." 1 Corinthians 10:11
God tells us to live by His standard for justice. He has given us clear guidelines to follow them: help the needy, share our resources, and comfort those who hurt with His wonderful promises. The Old Testament prophet Micah summarized it well:
"He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?" Micah 6:8That's a far cry from trusting a socialist government to rule our families, assign our activities, monitor our choices, prescribe our beliefs, and redistribute our possessions.
We live in an imperfect world, and a spiritual war is raging all around us. America may never be the same, but those who know God have a place of refuge. And in the midst of it all, we will -- by His grace -- continue to share His joy, comfort, mercy and resources.
"Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. Be kindly affectionate to one another...patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer; distributing to the needs of the saints, given to hospitality. Bless those who persecute you.... Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep." Romans 12:9-15--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next article in this series will deal with rising global education system and its anti-Christian standards.
See also Global War on Christian Values - Part 1: Unity in an Anti-Christian World?
Creating Community | Smiling at Socialism & Scorning the Bible
Washington's Farewell Address, 1796 | What it means to be a Christian
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. Fredrich August von Hayek, Economic Freedom and Representative Government (1973), http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek
2. Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, p.3. www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm
3. Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited (New York: Harper & Row, 1958), p.41.
4. Rose Marie Berger, "What the Heck is ‘Social Justice’?" Sojourners, February 2007. Also available on this page: http://blog.sojo.net/2010/03/24/what-the-heck-is-social-justice/
5. Igor Shafarevich, The Socialist Phenomenon, p. 224. http://robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html
6. Thomas Sowell, "Race and Resentment," May 04, 2010.
7. Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., "Harrison Bergeron" at www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
8. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (Cambridge: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1943), 582. Note: "Nazis declared support for a form of socialism that is to provide for the nation: economic security, social welfare programs for workers, a just wage, honour for workers' importance to the nation, and protection from capitalist exploitation. Nazism, however, rejected class conflict-based socialism ...." (Wikipedia, footnote 18: Joseph W. Bendersky, A history of Nazi Germany: 1919-1945., p. 40.) See also Hitler was a Socialist
9.Richard Wurmbrand, Was Marx a Satanist? (Diane Books, 1976), p. 24.
10. Igor Shafarevich, The Socialist Phenomenon, p.xii (Foreword by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn) at http://robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html
11. Ibid., pps. 220-221, 223.
12. Ibid., p. 195-196.
13. Human nature, apart from God, is vulnerable to every kind of evil. The "Emancipation Proclamation" didn't end racism and persecution, for absolute perfection is impossible among imperfect human beings. As God's Word tells us, "The heart is deceitful above all things..." (Jeremiah 17:9) But with His Word and Spirit as our life's foundation, peace and love can become a reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, October 17, 2010
The Fallacies of Social Justice
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/forcing-change/010/10-social-justice.htm
Berit's Note: This is vital information! The article is long but well worth reading. If you don't have time to read all of it right now, at least read this key section: Marxist Social Justice
Author’s Note: Volumes could be written on the different historical and philosophical applications of “social justice,” and we could easily find ourselves lost in a tangled maze of ideologies and nuances. Hence, this article seeks to examine the core element of social justice as a recent social-economical-political movement.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“…we must understand that the only road to peace and social justice is socialism... With the exploiting classes there will never be social justice; without social justice there will never be peace.” – Celia Hart [1]
“…it is necessary to understand that every modern theory of social justice is ideological. No matter how reasonable or rational it may be, every modern theory of social justice is the rationalization of the interests of a particular group or class.” – William E. Murnion [2]
“…all modern trends point to the specter of a terrifying, bigger and more pitiless conformity.” – Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn [3]
A boiling, seething emotion rose from my chest into my throat. An avalanche of angry words tumbled from my small mouth. My indignation could not be quenched. A final declaration sounded with thick certainty.
“When I’m older, I’m going to do something about this.”
How old was I? Ten: maybe younger? But I had seen enough to know. Gross injustices had been observed.
I well remember the bitter experience. Me, a sensible farm boy – and my grandparents, owners of a small fabric shop in a sleepy prairie town – had traveled to the claustrophobic city of Winnipeg. The purpose: to visit textile outlets and make purchases of cloth. After two days of warehouses and shop floors, I knew this was the end of the world. Working conditions were deplorable: Too little sunshine, poorly chosen paint colors, smelly old merchantmen.
“Here’s some candy, kid.” It tasted stale.
At one critical point Grandma had to shush me. Didn’t she know? Didn’t anybody care? The lone Pepsi machine we had passed in the darkened hall wore a sign of prophetic importance: “Out of Order.” And I was dying of thirst.
Yes, the textile industry – indeed the entire business world – was out of order. How could anybody work in these depressing places? Boredom alone had to be killing people; it was killing me!
As we loaded up with fabric and left this urban wasteland I caught a glimpse of something else. A brick-lined smokestack was silhouetted against the evening sky; and smoke – or steam, it didn’t matter– was belching forth to choke out nature’s life.
That’s when I lost it. Didn’t those people know what they were doing? Didn’t anybody in the government have a brain? Not only was the city a depressing place and the warehouses terrible for workers, but also the factories were going to kill everything! When I grew-up, I was going to put a stop to this madness. Others would join in this desire to change the world. We would save the worker from his intolerable slavery and rescue the environment from the hands of greedy merchantmen. Justice, or vengeance, would be served: whether at home or abroad.
Grandma soothingly patronized me. Grandpa, lips tights, said nothing. He just drove faster.
Bending Minds
Looking back I marvel. As a young mind I had a keen sense of “social rights” and “justice.” And I was a prime candidate to have swung to the more extreme side of the leftist camp. In fact, my impressionable mind was already moving in that direction. Unaware that I was mimicking a Marxist approach – social revolution through mass action – I was emotionally convinced that radical surgery was the only recourse. Where had this come from?
My parents and grandparents were no-nonsense farmers and business owners. They worked very hard at their respective livelihoods, were quick to help anyone who needed assistance, and contributed to the local community in different ways – including, on my Mother’s part, teaching English to Laotian immigrants (those were the days of the Boat People). Both my parents and grandparents emphasized Christian ethics and values, to stand up for the underdog, and remain independent in the face of peer pressure; “You were born an original, don’t die a copy.”
The church I attended had Mennonite roots, but didn’t cater to leftist ideologies. In fact, it had separated itself from a Mennonite denomination in part because of a growing socialist-slant in the larger body. At heart we were probably the only non-pacifist Mennonite church in the district.
Television? No. At that time TV consisted of Bugs Bunny on Saturday evenings, and Dad trying to watch The Lawrence Welk Show while we kids faithfully re-enacted Wile-E Coyote cliff-falls from the top of the couch. There just wasn’t much time for television.
Public school? This was the late 1970s, and “environmental” curriculum was already in play. In the high school across the street The Environmental Handbook was used as a text – complete with overtly anti-Christian, anti-family, and anti-capitalist rhetoric (See Forcing Change, Volume 3, Issue 2). The Environmental Handbook for all practical purposes was a Marxist/Trotskyite call to radical “green” action – “nothing short of total transformation will do much good.” (The Environmental Handbook, 1970, p.330). Other school texts, such as the Prose of Relevance and Worlds in the Making, shaped minds to accept quantum cultural shifts – including the move towards socialist and technocratic ideals.[4]
Elementary school and Junior High also witnessed a steady stream of transforming curriculum. I remember hearing about the growing problems of over-population and the destruction of the ecosystem caused by human greed and pollution. Injustice was occurring in different parts of the world. Nuclear annihilation was around the corner.
The debate continues with good understanding after the jump. At the end of the article is this;-
Biblical justice, on the other hand, never seeks to dismantle class structures. Evil actions are condemned, but this isn’t specific to a particular social strata. Consider the words of Leviticus 19:15. “You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty. But in righteousness you shall judge your neighbor.”
Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson helps put things into perspective.
“[Biblical] Justice not only means that nobody is to be picked on because he is poor or favored because he is rich, but that (contrary to the doctrine of ‘social justice’) nobody is to be picked on because he is rich or favored because he is poor.”[32]
Dr. Hendrickson further elaborates,
“The fundamental error of today’s ‘social justice’ practitioners is their hostility to economic inequality, per se. Social justice theory fails to distinguish between economic disparities that result from unjust deeds and those that are part of the natural order of things. All Christians oppose unjust deeds… [But] it isn’t necessarily unjust for some people to be richer than others.
God made us different from each other. We are unequal in aptitude, talent, skill, work ethic, priorities, etc. Inevitably, these differences result in some individuals producing and earning far more wealth than others. To the extent that those in the ‘social justice’ crowd obsess about eliminating economic inequality, they are at war with the nature of the Creator’s creation.
The Bible doesn’t condemn economic inequality. You can’t read Proverbs without seeing that some people are poor due to their own vices. There is nothing unjust about people reaping what they sow, whether wealth or poverty.
Jesus himself didn’t condemn economic inequality. Yes, he repeatedly warned about the snares of material wealth; he exploded the comfortable conventionality of the Pharisaical tendency to regard prosperity as a badge of honor and superiority; he commanded compassion toward the poor and suffering. But he also told his disciples, ‘ya have the poor always with you’ (Matthew 26:11), and in the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:24-30) he condemned the failure to productively use one’s God-given talents – whether many or few, exceptional or ordinary – by having a lord take money from the one who had the least and give it to him who had the most, thereby increasing economic inequality.
The Lord’s mission was to redeem us from sin, not to redistribute our property or impose an economic equality on us. In fact, Jesus explicitly declined to undermine property rights or preach economic equality when he told the man who wanted Jesus to tell his brother to share an inheritance with him, ‘Man, who made me a judge or divider over you’ (Luke 12:14).”[33]
I must confess that it’s easy to fall into the social justice way of thinking. My childhood rant over what I perceived to be injustices showed me, in retrospect, the power of an emotional ideal. Yet if by some twist I had followed up on my self-righteous outburst, and had become a social justice advocate in the true sense of the phrase, a sad irony would have occurred: In the name of “justice,” I would have promoted socially-sanctioned theft.
Dear Christians, let us act with compassion, be charitable, and pursue true justice; Let us be wise in our actions, clear in our language, and honest in our motives. FC
Berit's Note: This is vital information! The article is long but well worth reading. If you don't have time to read all of it right now, at least read this key section: Marxist Social Justice
Author’s Note: Volumes could be written on the different historical and philosophical applications of “social justice,” and we could easily find ourselves lost in a tangled maze of ideologies and nuances. Hence, this article seeks to examine the core element of social justice as a recent social-economical-political movement.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“…we must understand that the only road to peace and social justice is socialism... With the exploiting classes there will never be social justice; without social justice there will never be peace.” – Celia Hart [1]
“…it is necessary to understand that every modern theory of social justice is ideological. No matter how reasonable or rational it may be, every modern theory of social justice is the rationalization of the interests of a particular group or class.” – William E. Murnion [2]
“…all modern trends point to the specter of a terrifying, bigger and more pitiless conformity.” – Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn [3]
A boiling, seething emotion rose from my chest into my throat. An avalanche of angry words tumbled from my small mouth. My indignation could not be quenched. A final declaration sounded with thick certainty.
“When I’m older, I’m going to do something about this.”
How old was I? Ten: maybe younger? But I had seen enough to know. Gross injustices had been observed.
I well remember the bitter experience. Me, a sensible farm boy – and my grandparents, owners of a small fabric shop in a sleepy prairie town – had traveled to the claustrophobic city of Winnipeg. The purpose: to visit textile outlets and make purchases of cloth. After two days of warehouses and shop floors, I knew this was the end of the world. Working conditions were deplorable: Too little sunshine, poorly chosen paint colors, smelly old merchantmen.
“Here’s some candy, kid.” It tasted stale.
At one critical point Grandma had to shush me. Didn’t she know? Didn’t anybody care? The lone Pepsi machine we had passed in the darkened hall wore a sign of prophetic importance: “Out of Order.” And I was dying of thirst.
Yes, the textile industry – indeed the entire business world – was out of order. How could anybody work in these depressing places? Boredom alone had to be killing people; it was killing me!
As we loaded up with fabric and left this urban wasteland I caught a glimpse of something else. A brick-lined smokestack was silhouetted against the evening sky; and smoke – or steam, it didn’t matter– was belching forth to choke out nature’s life.
That’s when I lost it. Didn’t those people know what they were doing? Didn’t anybody in the government have a brain? Not only was the city a depressing place and the warehouses terrible for workers, but also the factories were going to kill everything! When I grew-up, I was going to put a stop to this madness. Others would join in this desire to change the world. We would save the worker from his intolerable slavery and rescue the environment from the hands of greedy merchantmen. Justice, or vengeance, would be served: whether at home or abroad.
Grandma soothingly patronized me. Grandpa, lips tights, said nothing. He just drove faster.
Bending Minds
Looking back I marvel. As a young mind I had a keen sense of “social rights” and “justice.” And I was a prime candidate to have swung to the more extreme side of the leftist camp. In fact, my impressionable mind was already moving in that direction. Unaware that I was mimicking a Marxist approach – social revolution through mass action – I was emotionally convinced that radical surgery was the only recourse. Where had this come from?
My parents and grandparents were no-nonsense farmers and business owners. They worked very hard at their respective livelihoods, were quick to help anyone who needed assistance, and contributed to the local community in different ways – including, on my Mother’s part, teaching English to Laotian immigrants (those were the days of the Boat People). Both my parents and grandparents emphasized Christian ethics and values, to stand up for the underdog, and remain independent in the face of peer pressure; “You were born an original, don’t die a copy.”
The church I attended had Mennonite roots, but didn’t cater to leftist ideologies. In fact, it had separated itself from a Mennonite denomination in part because of a growing socialist-slant in the larger body. At heart we were probably the only non-pacifist Mennonite church in the district.
Television? No. At that time TV consisted of Bugs Bunny on Saturday evenings, and Dad trying to watch The Lawrence Welk Show while we kids faithfully re-enacted Wile-E Coyote cliff-falls from the top of the couch. There just wasn’t much time for television.
Public school? This was the late 1970s, and “environmental” curriculum was already in play. In the high school across the street The Environmental Handbook was used as a text – complete with overtly anti-Christian, anti-family, and anti-capitalist rhetoric (See Forcing Change, Volume 3, Issue 2). The Environmental Handbook for all practical purposes was a Marxist/Trotskyite call to radical “green” action – “nothing short of total transformation will do much good.” (The Environmental Handbook, 1970, p.330). Other school texts, such as the Prose of Relevance and Worlds in the Making, shaped minds to accept quantum cultural shifts – including the move towards socialist and technocratic ideals.[4]
Elementary school and Junior High also witnessed a steady stream of transforming curriculum. I remember hearing about the growing problems of over-population and the destruction of the ecosystem caused by human greed and pollution. Injustice was occurring in different parts of the world. Nuclear annihilation was around the corner.
The debate continues with good understanding after the jump. At the end of the article is this;-
Biblical justice, on the other hand, never seeks to dismantle class structures. Evil actions are condemned, but this isn’t specific to a particular social strata. Consider the words of Leviticus 19:15. “You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty. But in righteousness you shall judge your neighbor.”
Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson helps put things into perspective.
“[Biblical] Justice not only means that nobody is to be picked on because he is poor or favored because he is rich, but that (contrary to the doctrine of ‘social justice’) nobody is to be picked on because he is rich or favored because he is poor.”[32]
Dr. Hendrickson further elaborates,
“The fundamental error of today’s ‘social justice’ practitioners is their hostility to economic inequality, per se. Social justice theory fails to distinguish between economic disparities that result from unjust deeds and those that are part of the natural order of things. All Christians oppose unjust deeds… [But] it isn’t necessarily unjust for some people to be richer than others.
God made us different from each other. We are unequal in aptitude, talent, skill, work ethic, priorities, etc. Inevitably, these differences result in some individuals producing and earning far more wealth than others. To the extent that those in the ‘social justice’ crowd obsess about eliminating economic inequality, they are at war with the nature of the Creator’s creation.
The Bible doesn’t condemn economic inequality. You can’t read Proverbs without seeing that some people are poor due to their own vices. There is nothing unjust about people reaping what they sow, whether wealth or poverty.
Jesus himself didn’t condemn economic inequality. Yes, he repeatedly warned about the snares of material wealth; he exploded the comfortable conventionality of the Pharisaical tendency to regard prosperity as a badge of honor and superiority; he commanded compassion toward the poor and suffering. But he also told his disciples, ‘ya have the poor always with you’ (Matthew 26:11), and in the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:24-30) he condemned the failure to productively use one’s God-given talents – whether many or few, exceptional or ordinary – by having a lord take money from the one who had the least and give it to him who had the most, thereby increasing economic inequality.
The Lord’s mission was to redeem us from sin, not to redistribute our property or impose an economic equality on us. In fact, Jesus explicitly declined to undermine property rights or preach economic equality when he told the man who wanted Jesus to tell his brother to share an inheritance with him, ‘Man, who made me a judge or divider over you’ (Luke 12:14).”[33]
I must confess that it’s easy to fall into the social justice way of thinking. My childhood rant over what I perceived to be injustices showed me, in retrospect, the power of an emotional ideal. Yet if by some twist I had followed up on my self-righteous outburst, and had become a social justice advocate in the true sense of the phrase, a sad irony would have occurred: In the name of “justice,” I would have promoted socially-sanctioned theft.
Dear Christians, let us act with compassion, be charitable, and pursue true justice; Let us be wise in our actions, clear in our language, and honest in our motives. FC
Saturday, October 16, 2010
"allies of satan" "dammed by God"
Canto28 | October 15, 2010 3:06 PM | Reply
The EU is so absurd. They have laws to to protect (mostly I think) Muslims from "hate speech", under which speech critical of Islam can easily fall, while Muslims revere "sacred" texts which constitute some of the worst hate speech ever held up for praise. In fact Muslims are instructed by Allah to hate non-Muslims who are called "allies of Satan":
" Those who believe fight in the way of God; and those who do not, only fight for the powers of evil; so you should fight the allies of Satan. Surely the stratagem of Satan is ineffective." (4:76)This is no mere criticism of an ideology but a horrid name-calling of all willful non-believers. Imagine if Geert Wilders or Sabaditsch-Wolff would have called Muslims "allies of Satan". Their convictions then would be assured.
"The Jews say: "Ezra is the son of God;" the Christians say: "Christ is the son of God." That is what they say with their tongues following assertions made by unbelievers before them. May they be damned by God: How perverse are they!"(9:30)Imagine if Geert Wilders or Sabaditsch-Wolff would have publicly wished Muslims to be damned by God for their perversity!
The absurd EU wishes to protect Muslims from hate while the cuddled Muslims are haters of every one else by the very "religion" they profess and try to spread!
The EU is so absurd. They have laws to to protect (mostly I think) Muslims from "hate speech", under which speech critical of Islam can easily fall, while Muslims revere "sacred" texts which constitute some of the worst hate speech ever held up for praise. In fact Muslims are instructed by Allah to hate non-Muslims who are called "allies of Satan":
" Those who believe fight in the way of God; and those who do not, only fight for the powers of evil; so you should fight the allies of Satan. Surely the stratagem of Satan is ineffective." (4:76)This is no mere criticism of an ideology but a horrid name-calling of all willful non-believers. Imagine if Geert Wilders or Sabaditsch-Wolff would have called Muslims "allies of Satan". Their convictions then would be assured.
"The Jews say: "Ezra is the son of God;" the Christians say: "Christ is the son of God." That is what they say with their tongues following assertions made by unbelievers before them. May they be damned by God: How perverse are they!"(9:30)Imagine if Geert Wilders or Sabaditsch-Wolff would have publicly wished Muslims to be damned by God for their perversity!
The absurd EU wishes to protect Muslims from hate while the cuddled Muslims are haters of every one else by the very "religion" they profess and try to spread!
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Combined is practised here too ! !
“The Chicago Boyz’ Lexington Green posted last month Murkowski = The Face of the Combine –
“In Illinois, there has long been an expression which describes the relationship between the two political parties: The Combine. Chicago Tribune writer John Kass seems to have originated this expression. See, for example, this article: In Combine, cash is king, corruption is bipartisan. Kass quoted former Illinois Senator Peter Fitzgerald: ‘In the final analysis, The Combine’s allegiance is not to a party, but to their pocketbooks. They’re about making money off the taxpayers,’ Fitzgerald said. Kass went on: ‘He should know. He fought The Combine and lost, and the empty suits running the Republican Party encourage their friendly scribes to blame the social conservatives for the disaster of the state GOP.’” (Underscoring Forum’s .)
Lexington Green cites the case of Alaska senator (and defeated Republican primary candidate) Lisa Murkowski - -
“The way it works is this. The Democrat party is the senior member of the Combine. The GOP is the junior member of the Combine. The game is exactly the same, and whoever is up, or whoever is down, based on the random behavior of those rubes, the voters, does not matter. The game is always exactly the same, and the people who are in on the game, from either party, have a shared stake in defending the game. The Combine is a term that should be more widely used in Illinois. It is also a word that should be more widely used in the USA in general. Lisa Murkowski’s family, and her career, exist because of the Combine.” (Underscoring Forum’s .)
We are grateful to Riehl World View for drawing our attention to the “Combine” through their post last Friday entitled “The Tea Party Is Exposing America’s Combine” –
“This so called combine represents the worst of our politics today, the collusion of both parties to control the politics of a city, state, or, perhaps even a nation. In national terms, think of it as the us versus them mentality that both Democrat and Republican voters often feel when eyeing Washington, DC. This arrangement has long been known to exist in New Jersey politics.”
Reveals blogger Dan Riehl - -
“Enter the Republican minority leader in Nevada’s state senate, Bill Raggio, and his decision to back Reid over Angle based upon professional respect. What profession, Raggio? You’re supposed to be a representative of the people in Nevada and, as a Republican, should feel obligated to support the candidates they, not you, put up for election. And there you have our mostly pathetic political class in America today.”
Well, Tea Partiers and grass-roots conservatives, we have been warned and now the ball is in our court.
* * * * * * * *
PICKING THE RIGHT CANDIDATES FOR THE JOB: COLORFUL PERSONALITIES OR
SOLID CONSERVATIVE ADVOCATES?
“Organizers said that 1,560 people voted in the poll and that Christie won with 14 percent of the vote. Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin followed closely behind with 13.5 percent. Neither Cuccinelli nor McDonnell was included among 15 options presented to straw-poll voters.” — From the Washington Post’s article “Attorney General Cuccinelli’s star keeps rising at Va. tea party gathering(Underscoring Forum’s.)
We have been admirers of governor Chris Christie from the beginning - - True Grit: A Governor Chris Christie for Maryland? as well as governor Sarah Palin - -A Home Run for America . . .
But we just came across Mark Levin’s comments on governor Christie last month which we find a quite sensible guide for the coming months - -
“My position on Governor Christie is quite clear and not very controversial. I believe he is good for New Jersey. I even had him on my show before the election to promote him. But I do not believe he is presidential material given his positions on such important issues as illegal immigration, government-run health care, the Ground Zero mosque (in which he won’t take a position), cap-and-trade, and other matters. He also campaigned for Mike Castle, which is fine, but further underscores the point. Why this is considered controversial I do not know. People will have different opinions. That’s how it works.” (Underscoring Forum’s.)
Our continuing concern is that Tea Partiers and grass-roots conservatives — battered by the last two years of the Obama Administration and rejoicing in a possible major November election victory — will after November 2 focus most of their energies on the various personalities competing for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.
It seems to us, however, that the first job of Tea Partiers and their grass-roots allies will be holding any Republican-led House of Representatives to the conservative promises they have made.
This will be hard work, require much attention to House developments and records of votes, while grass-roots efforts may not be entirely welcomed by every Republican member.
Of course, it is vital to find a strong national Republican presidential nominee. But he or she must also act like a modern conservative and have a record that supports the candidate’s campaign image.
Tea Partiers will have to probe deeper than the sound bites of Fox-News conservatives and do their own digging. Richard Brookhiser a while ago explained “[p]olitical journalism is a combination of policy wonkery and new journalism; its practitioners write about ideology and personality. . . .” We will need a great deal more than “ideology and personality” if we are to begin right-sizing the “permanent government” or the Administrative Branch.
We have seen over the last ten years too many voices speaking for national conservative or center-right organizations who simply could not bring themselves forcefully and publicly to challenge Bush operatives on a wide variety of that Administration’s serious missteps, ranging from the curtailment of political speech, to the expansion of the Medicare entitlement, to the administration’s acquiescence in the Democratic Congress’ 2008 spending, to its capitulation to the Democrats on reforming Fannie and Freddie. (One notable exception is Eagle Forum, continuously vigilant and smart.)
Some of this failure to speak out may have been due to fear of retaliation by the Bush White House. But much more of this timidity, we believe, reflected a very bad civic habit of uncritical deference to any political celebrity who happens to sail under the Republican flag.
“In Illinois, there has long been an expression which describes the relationship between the two political parties: The Combine. Chicago Tribune writer John Kass seems to have originated this expression. See, for example, this article: In Combine, cash is king, corruption is bipartisan. Kass quoted former Illinois Senator Peter Fitzgerald: ‘In the final analysis, The Combine’s allegiance is not to a party, but to their pocketbooks. They’re about making money off the taxpayers,’ Fitzgerald said. Kass went on: ‘He should know. He fought The Combine and lost, and the empty suits running the Republican Party encourage their friendly scribes to blame the social conservatives for the disaster of the state GOP.’” (Underscoring Forum’s .)
Lexington Green cites the case of Alaska senator (and defeated Republican primary candidate) Lisa Murkowski - -
“The way it works is this. The Democrat party is the senior member of the Combine. The GOP is the junior member of the Combine. The game is exactly the same, and whoever is up, or whoever is down, based on the random behavior of those rubes, the voters, does not matter. The game is always exactly the same, and the people who are in on the game, from either party, have a shared stake in defending the game. The Combine is a term that should be more widely used in Illinois. It is also a word that should be more widely used in the USA in general. Lisa Murkowski’s family, and her career, exist because of the Combine.” (Underscoring Forum’s .)
We are grateful to Riehl World View for drawing our attention to the “Combine” through their post last Friday entitled “The Tea Party Is Exposing America’s Combine” –
“This so called combine represents the worst of our politics today, the collusion of both parties to control the politics of a city, state, or, perhaps even a nation. In national terms, think of it as the us versus them mentality that both Democrat and Republican voters often feel when eyeing Washington, DC. This arrangement has long been known to exist in New Jersey politics.”
Reveals blogger Dan Riehl - -
“Enter the Republican minority leader in Nevada’s state senate, Bill Raggio, and his decision to back Reid over Angle based upon professional respect. What profession, Raggio? You’re supposed to be a representative of the people in Nevada and, as a Republican, should feel obligated to support the candidates they, not you, put up for election. And there you have our mostly pathetic political class in America today.”
Well, Tea Partiers and grass-roots conservatives, we have been warned and now the ball is in our court.
* * * * * * * *
PICKING THE RIGHT CANDIDATES FOR THE JOB: COLORFUL PERSONALITIES OR
SOLID CONSERVATIVE ADVOCATES?
“Organizers said that 1,560 people voted in the poll and that Christie won with 14 percent of the vote. Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin followed closely behind with 13.5 percent. Neither Cuccinelli nor McDonnell was included among 15 options presented to straw-poll voters.” — From the Washington Post’s article “Attorney General Cuccinelli’s star keeps rising at Va. tea party gathering(Underscoring Forum’s.)
We have been admirers of governor Chris Christie from the beginning - - True Grit: A Governor Chris Christie for Maryland? as well as governor Sarah Palin - -A Home Run for America . . .
But we just came across Mark Levin’s comments on governor Christie last month which we find a quite sensible guide for the coming months - -
“My position on Governor Christie is quite clear and not very controversial. I believe he is good for New Jersey. I even had him on my show before the election to promote him. But I do not believe he is presidential material given his positions on such important issues as illegal immigration, government-run health care, the Ground Zero mosque (in which he won’t take a position), cap-and-trade, and other matters. He also campaigned for Mike Castle, which is fine, but further underscores the point. Why this is considered controversial I do not know. People will have different opinions. That’s how it works.” (Underscoring Forum’s.)
Our continuing concern is that Tea Partiers and grass-roots conservatives — battered by the last two years of the Obama Administration and rejoicing in a possible major November election victory — will after November 2 focus most of their energies on the various personalities competing for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.
It seems to us, however, that the first job of Tea Partiers and their grass-roots allies will be holding any Republican-led House of Representatives to the conservative promises they have made.
This will be hard work, require much attention to House developments and records of votes, while grass-roots efforts may not be entirely welcomed by every Republican member.
Of course, it is vital to find a strong national Republican presidential nominee. But he or she must also act like a modern conservative and have a record that supports the candidate’s campaign image.
Tea Partiers will have to probe deeper than the sound bites of Fox-News conservatives and do their own digging. Richard Brookhiser a while ago explained “[p]olitical journalism is a combination of policy wonkery and new journalism; its practitioners write about ideology and personality. . . .” We will need a great deal more than “ideology and personality” if we are to begin right-sizing the “permanent government” or the Administrative Branch.
We have seen over the last ten years too many voices speaking for national conservative or center-right organizations who simply could not bring themselves forcefully and publicly to challenge Bush operatives on a wide variety of that Administration’s serious missteps, ranging from the curtailment of political speech, to the expansion of the Medicare entitlement, to the administration’s acquiescence in the Democratic Congress’ 2008 spending, to its capitulation to the Democrats on reforming Fannie and Freddie. (One notable exception is Eagle Forum, continuously vigilant and smart.)
Some of this failure to speak out may have been due to fear of retaliation by the Bush White House. But much more of this timidity, we believe, reflected a very bad civic habit of uncritical deference to any political celebrity who happens to sail under the Republican flag.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
"Dupes" summary
Editorial Reviews
Book Description
In this startling, intensively researched book, bestselling historian Paul Kengor shines light on a deeply troubling aspect of American history: the prominent role of the “dupe.” From the Bolshevik Revolution through the Cold War and right up to the present, many progressives have unwittingly aided some of America’s most dangerous opponents.
Based on never-before-published FBI files, Soviet archives, and other primary sources, Dupes exposes the legions of liberals who have furthered the objectives of America’s adversaries. Kengor shows not only how such dupes contributed to history’s most destructive ideology—Communism, which claimed at least 100 million lives—but also why they are so relevant to today’s politics.
Dupes reveals:
Shocking reports on how Senator Ted Kennedy secretly approached the Soviet leadership to undermine not one but two American presidents
Stunning new evidence that Frank Marshall Davis—mentor to a young Barack Obama—had extensive Communist ties and demonized Democrats
Jimmy Carter’s woeful record dealing with America’s two chief foes of the past century, Communism and Islamism
Today’s dupes, including the congressmen whose overseas anti-American propaganda trip was allegedly financed by foreign intelligence
How ’60s Marxist radicals—Tom Hayden, Mark Rudd, Jane Fonda, Jeff Jones, Bill Ayers, and more—have suddenly reemerged as “progressives for Obama”
How Franklin Roosevelt was duped by “Uncle Joe” Stalin—and by a top adviser who may have been a Soviet agent—despite clear warnings from fellow Democrats
How John Kerry’s accusations that American soldiers committed war crimes in Vietnam may have been the product of Soviet disinformation
The many Hollywood stars who were duped, including Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, Katharine Hepburn, Gene Kelly—and even Ronald Reagan
Soviet records that demonstrate beyond doubt the Communists’ expansionist aims and their targeting of American liberals, especially academics and the Religious Left
How liberals still defend the same Communists who trashed Democratic icons like Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, and JFK—and still attack the anti-Communists who tried to spare them from manipulation
Details on many other dupes (and dupers), including Arthur Miller, Dr. Benjamin Spock, John Dewey, H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Lillian Hellman, Howard Zinn, Walter Cronkite, and Helen Thomas
Packed with stunning revelations, Dupes shows in frightening detail how U.S. adversaries exploit the American home front.
About the Author
Paul Kengor, Ph.D., is the New York Times bestselling author of God and Ronald Reagan, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, and several other books. A professor of political science and the executive director of the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College, he has written for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and Political Science Quarterly, among other publications. Kengor has appeared on Fox News, MSNBC, NPR, C-SPAN, and many other outlets.
Book Description
In this startling, intensively researched book, bestselling historian Paul Kengor shines light on a deeply troubling aspect of American history: the prominent role of the “dupe.” From the Bolshevik Revolution through the Cold War and right up to the present, many progressives have unwittingly aided some of America’s most dangerous opponents.
Based on never-before-published FBI files, Soviet archives, and other primary sources, Dupes exposes the legions of liberals who have furthered the objectives of America’s adversaries. Kengor shows not only how such dupes contributed to history’s most destructive ideology—Communism, which claimed at least 100 million lives—but also why they are so relevant to today’s politics.
Dupes reveals:
Shocking reports on how Senator Ted Kennedy secretly approached the Soviet leadership to undermine not one but two American presidents
Stunning new evidence that Frank Marshall Davis—mentor to a young Barack Obama—had extensive Communist ties and demonized Democrats
Jimmy Carter’s woeful record dealing with America’s two chief foes of the past century, Communism and Islamism
Today’s dupes, including the congressmen whose overseas anti-American propaganda trip was allegedly financed by foreign intelligence
How ’60s Marxist radicals—Tom Hayden, Mark Rudd, Jane Fonda, Jeff Jones, Bill Ayers, and more—have suddenly reemerged as “progressives for Obama”
How Franklin Roosevelt was duped by “Uncle Joe” Stalin—and by a top adviser who may have been a Soviet agent—despite clear warnings from fellow Democrats
How John Kerry’s accusations that American soldiers committed war crimes in Vietnam may have been the product of Soviet disinformation
The many Hollywood stars who were duped, including Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, Katharine Hepburn, Gene Kelly—and even Ronald Reagan
Soviet records that demonstrate beyond doubt the Communists’ expansionist aims and their targeting of American liberals, especially academics and the Religious Left
How liberals still defend the same Communists who trashed Democratic icons like Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, and JFK—and still attack the anti-Communists who tried to spare them from manipulation
Details on many other dupes (and dupers), including Arthur Miller, Dr. Benjamin Spock, John Dewey, H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Lillian Hellman, Howard Zinn, Walter Cronkite, and Helen Thomas
Packed with stunning revelations, Dupes shows in frightening detail how U.S. adversaries exploit the American home front.
About the Author
Paul Kengor, Ph.D., is the New York Times bestselling author of God and Ronald Reagan, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, and several other books. A professor of political science and the executive director of the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College, he has written for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and Political Science Quarterly, among other publications. Kengor has appeared on Fox News, MSNBC, NPR, C-SPAN, and many other outlets.
Peaceful Muslim demands that non-Muslims accommodate violent Muslims
Posted by Robert Spencer on October 11, 2010 6:49 AM
Peaceful Muslim demands that non-Muslims accommodate violent Muslims
Khalid Latif, a chaplain for New York University, here complains that moderate and peaceful understandings of Islam are being unfairly discounted: "As much as Muslims need to acknowledge the existence of a minority voice that is radicalized, so too does a broader society need to acknowledge the existence of a majority voice that is not radicalized and more importantly condemns radical thought."
That's just great, and I am happy to accommodate him in this. It is also worth noting, however, that a few years ago, when NYU students planned to display the Danish cartoons of Muhammad at a campus event, Latif wrote a letter to NYU President John Sexton, asking that he "not allow these cartoons to be displayed in any shape or form." Why not? Because "the potential of what might happen after they are shown is something else that should be considered and not taken lightly." For "the repercussions that would take place outside of the university setting are potentially huge. All over the world Muslims have been coming together over this issue and in New York they would not hesitate in doing the same thing."
This has been widely interpreted as a veiled threat, but let's give Latif the benefit of the doubt: let's just say that he was simply noting the possibility of violence, not threatening violence, if the cartoons were displayed at NYU. Even if that were the case, another problem remains: he was asking Sexton to make sure that non-Muslims changed their behavior to accommodate violent Muslims, rather than directing his efforts to violence-minded Muslims to try to get them to stop the violence.
And that has everything to do with what he is saying here. Because here again, he is saying that it is up to non-Muslims to take due notice of peaceful Muslims. But how effective or helpful are these peaceful Muslims when one of their foremost exponents refuses to stand up to his violent coreligionists, but instead demands that non-Muslims curtail their activities to accommodate them? If Latif is really concerned that non-Muslims don't believe his protestations of peace and moderation, this is why: his unwillingness or inability to stand up to the "radicals" either casts doubt upon his sincerity or demonstrates his impotence.
"My Take: Islam is a religion of peace, or it isn't," by Khalid Latif for CNN, October 11:.............................
------------------------------------
gravenimage | October 11, 2010 8:20 PM | Reply
The Muslim community is by no means monolithic and viewing us as one is problematic. We are diverse.
..................
Muslims are indeed diverse. There are those Jihadists who take the texts of Islam entirely to heart and seek to oppress and murder Infidels. There are those Muslims who are conflicted and are not currently active in oppressing and murdering Infidels, but may do so in the future. There are those who do not plan on directly oppressing or murdering Infidels themselves, but applaud when their co-religionists do so—and may donate Zakat or practice Taquiyya in contribution. There are those Muslims who do not take the texts of Islam terribly seriously, finding them inconvenient. These last are very, very quiet—lest their more zealous Muslim brothers learn of their apostasy.
See? Nothing "monolithic" about Islam at all.
-----------------------
Kinana of Khaybar | October 12, 2010 12:06 AM | Reply
"...so too does a broader society need to acknowledge the existence of a majority voice that is not radicalized and more importantly condemns radical thought."--Khalid Latif
I will not acknowledge the existence of something* for which there is no evidence. Show me credible statistics, for example, showing that the majority of Muslims oppose sharia law, and that this majority is at least vocal in its opposition to sharia, and I will acknowledge the existence of such a "majority voice." However, the statistics from major polls and surveys from credible sources (PEW, World Public Opinion) show that the majority of Muslims want sharia law; only a small percentage oppose it.
*There is a problem here with the ambiguity of the word "radical." If Latif means that the majority of Muslims aren't "radicalized" in the sense that they aren't directly involved in terrorist attacks at the present moment, he would be correct. But supporting sharia (including desiring that a caliphate be reestablished, and including harshly punishing anyone who publicly criticizes Islam), is as far as I'm concerned a "radical" view--yet this is what the polls and surveys indicate that most Muslims want.
-----------------------------------
davidp | October 12, 2010 12:45 AM | Reply
The peaceful muslims are the sea the radicals swim in, and the source of their recruits. Because the moderates know that they are not 'serious' muslims, they admire the serious ones (like Anwar al-Awlaki). As a young man becomes serious about Islam, he can easily be guided into the terrorist group. Alternatively he just becomes part the crowd of stone throwers protesting everything done by the U.S. and protecting the thugs.
Peaceful Muslim demands that non-Muslims accommodate violent Muslims
Khalid Latif, a chaplain for New York University, here complains that moderate and peaceful understandings of Islam are being unfairly discounted: "As much as Muslims need to acknowledge the existence of a minority voice that is radicalized, so too does a broader society need to acknowledge the existence of a majority voice that is not radicalized and more importantly condemns radical thought."
That's just great, and I am happy to accommodate him in this. It is also worth noting, however, that a few years ago, when NYU students planned to display the Danish cartoons of Muhammad at a campus event, Latif wrote a letter to NYU President John Sexton, asking that he "not allow these cartoons to be displayed in any shape or form." Why not? Because "the potential of what might happen after they are shown is something else that should be considered and not taken lightly." For "the repercussions that would take place outside of the university setting are potentially huge. All over the world Muslims have been coming together over this issue and in New York they would not hesitate in doing the same thing."
This has been widely interpreted as a veiled threat, but let's give Latif the benefit of the doubt: let's just say that he was simply noting the possibility of violence, not threatening violence, if the cartoons were displayed at NYU. Even if that were the case, another problem remains: he was asking Sexton to make sure that non-Muslims changed their behavior to accommodate violent Muslims, rather than directing his efforts to violence-minded Muslims to try to get them to stop the violence.
And that has everything to do with what he is saying here. Because here again, he is saying that it is up to non-Muslims to take due notice of peaceful Muslims. But how effective or helpful are these peaceful Muslims when one of their foremost exponents refuses to stand up to his violent coreligionists, but instead demands that non-Muslims curtail their activities to accommodate them? If Latif is really concerned that non-Muslims don't believe his protestations of peace and moderation, this is why: his unwillingness or inability to stand up to the "radicals" either casts doubt upon his sincerity or demonstrates his impotence.
"My Take: Islam is a religion of peace, or it isn't," by Khalid Latif for CNN, October 11:.............................
------------------------------------
gravenimage | October 11, 2010 8:20 PM | Reply
The Muslim community is by no means monolithic and viewing us as one is problematic. We are diverse.
..................
Muslims are indeed diverse. There are those Jihadists who take the texts of Islam entirely to heart and seek to oppress and murder Infidels. There are those Muslims who are conflicted and are not currently active in oppressing and murdering Infidels, but may do so in the future. There are those who do not plan on directly oppressing or murdering Infidels themselves, but applaud when their co-religionists do so—and may donate Zakat or practice Taquiyya in contribution. There are those Muslims who do not take the texts of Islam terribly seriously, finding them inconvenient. These last are very, very quiet—lest their more zealous Muslim brothers learn of their apostasy.
See? Nothing "monolithic" about Islam at all.
-----------------------
Kinana of Khaybar | October 12, 2010 12:06 AM | Reply
"...so too does a broader society need to acknowledge the existence of a majority voice that is not radicalized and more importantly condemns radical thought."--Khalid Latif
I will not acknowledge the existence of something* for which there is no evidence. Show me credible statistics, for example, showing that the majority of Muslims oppose sharia law, and that this majority is at least vocal in its opposition to sharia, and I will acknowledge the existence of such a "majority voice." However, the statistics from major polls and surveys from credible sources (PEW, World Public Opinion) show that the majority of Muslims want sharia law; only a small percentage oppose it.
*There is a problem here with the ambiguity of the word "radical." If Latif means that the majority of Muslims aren't "radicalized" in the sense that they aren't directly involved in terrorist attacks at the present moment, he would be correct. But supporting sharia (including desiring that a caliphate be reestablished, and including harshly punishing anyone who publicly criticizes Islam), is as far as I'm concerned a "radical" view--yet this is what the polls and surveys indicate that most Muslims want.
-----------------------------------
davidp | October 12, 2010 12:45 AM | Reply
The peaceful muslims are the sea the radicals swim in, and the source of their recruits. Because the moderates know that they are not 'serious' muslims, they admire the serious ones (like Anwar al-Awlaki). As a young man becomes serious about Islam, he can easily be guided into the terrorist group. Alternatively he just becomes part the crowd of stone throwers protesting everything done by the U.S. and protecting the thugs.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
No Country for Silly Men
No Country for Silly Men
Submitted by JR Nyquist on Fri, 6 Aug 2010
In Cormac McCarthy's book, No Country for Old Men, a hunter stumbles across dead bodies, a stash of heroin and $2.4 million near the Mexican border. He takes the money and is ruthlessly pursued by Anton Chigurh, an expert killer with East European finesse. A local sheriff who attempts to intervene makes the following observation: "If you were Satan and you were settin around tryin to think up somethin that would just bring the human race to its knees what you would probably come up with is narcotics." The sheriff is troubled by America's abandonment of Christian folkways, sensing a total collapse of moral order. The storyteller knows that the world is coming to an end, and it isn't pretty.
Internal disorder is the key, but the order we are talking about isn't simply moral. It is chiefly intellectual. And we may observe the immediate result in politics. At the same time, those who would make all this about politics have failed to see that the socialist and conservative are cut from the same cloth. The conservative has nothing left to conserve. What he ultimately defends is a culture steeped in entertainment, distraction and consumption. That is what remains to him, and what effectively operates overall. One does not look back to one's ancestors, or ahead to one's posterity. We dwell in the twilight of an eternal present, which is obsessed with up-to-date news (which descends into yet another form of entertainment). Politics has become a sport where you cheer for a team, where critical sense has been supplanted by emotional affiliation. It doesn't matter that the minions of both parties are clueless, that statecraft accommodates the absurdities of Madison Avenue. When all your energy is focused on projecting an image that will impress millions of people, there is no energy left for the reality within and the danger without. The result is a hollow shell, or even worse, a human pastry filled with the spiritual equivalent of rotten custard.
A few days ago a Pentagon specialist, Keith B. Payne, testified before a U.S. Senate committee that the administration's Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty offers numerous loopholes to the Russian side. This is especially alarming because existing U.S. nuclear forces are improperly positioned. Meanwhile, Russia is bolstering its road mobile ICBM forces, developing a new strategic bomber, new ICBM forces, and a cruise missile with a 3,000+ mile range. The U.S. doesn't even possess a road mobile ICBM, and has no plans to develop new strategic forces. How can this happen? Is it the stupidity of one party over another? Here is a reminder, however, that should be noted: Both parties share the same mentality, which was molded by television instead of books, and by the experience of shopping instead of war.
The logic of going downhill, the logic of decline, entails an absolute failure to bite through. It signifies a softening. It is known, as well, that soft people no longer have the stomach for what is necessary. They are focused on shopping. What occurs is a form of denial, in which the realities of politics and war are cast aside in favor of fantasy substitutes, heavily laced with ideological logos of the kind that paralyze all thought. This intellectual failure, born out of spiritual collapse, heralds the end of rational calculation and grand strategy. One does not need strategy to win. Merely, the right kind of publicity is all-in-all sufficient. When something tangible occurs, which may be strategically fatal, the answer is to revile the opposition. There is no analysis, no judgment, no genuine fright at the prospect of death and destruction. Few are those who believe that real destruction is possible. Few suspect that weapons of mass destruction can and will be used against people who are too silly to know, and too careless to consider, who is preparing these weapons against them. Soft people imagine that such weapons cannot be used because the world would end. And nobody wants that. Here is a failure of imagination alongside a dismissal of the concept "enemy," done without any hesitation, with the survival instinct overridden by the daily corruption that attends absolute comfort. Those who are soft cannot see into an enemy that emerges from totally different conditions of life.
Grit is a requirement of attaining good, and where everything has gone soft, goodness is nowhere at hand. What vouchsafes to us something akin to Cormac McCarthy's apocalyptic vision in The Road, which is nothing short of a world destroyed, is the fact that the culture -- from Left to Right -- refuses to contemplate that an impulse of self-disregard and self-annihilation (i.e., nihilism) has taken the upper hand, and under the neurotic banners of various celebrated causes, has become a cudgel in the hands of foreign strategists of whom we know almost nothing.
JR Nyquist
jrnyquist @ aol.com http://www.jrnyquist.com
Other Articles by JR Nyquist
•Clouds In My Coffee
•The Peace Fairy
•Standing Up When It's Too Late
Submitted by JR Nyquist on Fri, 6 Aug 2010
In Cormac McCarthy's book, No Country for Old Men, a hunter stumbles across dead bodies, a stash of heroin and $2.4 million near the Mexican border. He takes the money and is ruthlessly pursued by Anton Chigurh, an expert killer with East European finesse. A local sheriff who attempts to intervene makes the following observation: "If you were Satan and you were settin around tryin to think up somethin that would just bring the human race to its knees what you would probably come up with is narcotics." The sheriff is troubled by America's abandonment of Christian folkways, sensing a total collapse of moral order. The storyteller knows that the world is coming to an end, and it isn't pretty.
Internal disorder is the key, but the order we are talking about isn't simply moral. It is chiefly intellectual. And we may observe the immediate result in politics. At the same time, those who would make all this about politics have failed to see that the socialist and conservative are cut from the same cloth. The conservative has nothing left to conserve. What he ultimately defends is a culture steeped in entertainment, distraction and consumption. That is what remains to him, and what effectively operates overall. One does not look back to one's ancestors, or ahead to one's posterity. We dwell in the twilight of an eternal present, which is obsessed with up-to-date news (which descends into yet another form of entertainment). Politics has become a sport where you cheer for a team, where critical sense has been supplanted by emotional affiliation. It doesn't matter that the minions of both parties are clueless, that statecraft accommodates the absurdities of Madison Avenue. When all your energy is focused on projecting an image that will impress millions of people, there is no energy left for the reality within and the danger without. The result is a hollow shell, or even worse, a human pastry filled with the spiritual equivalent of rotten custard.
A few days ago a Pentagon specialist, Keith B. Payne, testified before a U.S. Senate committee that the administration's Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty offers numerous loopholes to the Russian side. This is especially alarming because existing U.S. nuclear forces are improperly positioned. Meanwhile, Russia is bolstering its road mobile ICBM forces, developing a new strategic bomber, new ICBM forces, and a cruise missile with a 3,000+ mile range. The U.S. doesn't even possess a road mobile ICBM, and has no plans to develop new strategic forces. How can this happen? Is it the stupidity of one party over another? Here is a reminder, however, that should be noted: Both parties share the same mentality, which was molded by television instead of books, and by the experience of shopping instead of war.
The logic of going downhill, the logic of decline, entails an absolute failure to bite through. It signifies a softening. It is known, as well, that soft people no longer have the stomach for what is necessary. They are focused on shopping. What occurs is a form of denial, in which the realities of politics and war are cast aside in favor of fantasy substitutes, heavily laced with ideological logos of the kind that paralyze all thought. This intellectual failure, born out of spiritual collapse, heralds the end of rational calculation and grand strategy. One does not need strategy to win. Merely, the right kind of publicity is all-in-all sufficient. When something tangible occurs, which may be strategically fatal, the answer is to revile the opposition. There is no analysis, no judgment, no genuine fright at the prospect of death and destruction. Few are those who believe that real destruction is possible. Few suspect that weapons of mass destruction can and will be used against people who are too silly to know, and too careless to consider, who is preparing these weapons against them. Soft people imagine that such weapons cannot be used because the world would end. And nobody wants that. Here is a failure of imagination alongside a dismissal of the concept "enemy," done without any hesitation, with the survival instinct overridden by the daily corruption that attends absolute comfort. Those who are soft cannot see into an enemy that emerges from totally different conditions of life.
Grit is a requirement of attaining good, and where everything has gone soft, goodness is nowhere at hand. What vouchsafes to us something akin to Cormac McCarthy's apocalyptic vision in The Road, which is nothing short of a world destroyed, is the fact that the culture -- from Left to Right -- refuses to contemplate that an impulse of self-disregard and self-annihilation (i.e., nihilism) has taken the upper hand, and under the neurotic banners of various celebrated causes, has become a cudgel in the hands of foreign strategists of whom we know almost nothing.
JR Nyquist
jrnyquist @ aol.com http://www.jrnyquist.com
Other Articles by JR Nyquist
•Clouds In My Coffee
•The Peace Fairy
•Standing Up When It's Too Late
Standing Up When It's Too Late or ? ?
Standing Up When It's Too Late
Submitted by JR Nyquist on Fri, 20 Aug 2010
There is a letter by Marcus Tullius Cicero, dated 18 December 50 B.C. This letter was written to his friend Atticus on the eve of the Roman Civil War. He wrote as follows: "The political situation alarms me deeply, and so far I have found scarcely anybody who is not for giving Caesar what he demands rather than fighting it out." To explain the situation in brief, G. Julius Caesar had demanded the right to circumvent the Roman constitution, to break laws with impunity, to extend his command over a large army by using that army to threaten the Senate of Rome. "And why should we start standing up to him now?" asked Cicero. The next day he wrote to Atticus: "We should have stood up to him [Caesar] when he was weak, and that would have been easy. Now we have to deal with eleven legions...." Though he hated the idea of civil war, the only course, said Cicero, was to follow "the honest men or whoever may be called such, even if they plunge."
And who were these "honest men"? "I don't know of any," wrote Cicero in the same letter. "There are honest individuals, but [there are no honest groups]." Then he asked rhetorically if the Senate was honest, or the tax farmers, or the capitalists. None were frightened of living under an autocracy, he lamented. The capitalists, especially, "never have objected to that, so long as they were left in peace." But civil war occurred nonetheless, because people are not free to be dishonest forever. They must admit to certain responsibilities, and oppose the advance of evil. The previous inclination to look away, to do nothing, to shrug off responsibility, proves in the end to be no more than a delaying tactic. They attempted to put off calamity, Cicero suggested, and made it all the more calamitous. That is all.
Why did the Roman Senate suddenly stand up to Caesar? What triggered their resistance? As with all free people, they began with policies of procrastination and appeasement. They hoped that the problem (i.e., Caesar) would go away. In the end, however, they discovered their mistake. Everyone still hoped for peace, though none believed it was possible. Everyone wanted to avoid war, but nobody saw a way out. Pompey stood before the Senate and gave voice to what everyone thought. "If we give Caesar the consulship, it will mean the subversion of the constitution." In other words, it would mean the end of Rome, the end of the republic, the destruction of their country.
In a fitting preface to John Dickinson's Death of a Republic, George L. Haskins wrote, "that the history of Rome is ... the history of the world, that, as all roads lead to Rome, so all history ends or begins with Rome." Why do free people fall into complacency? Why are threats ignored until the eleventh hour?
"Surely," wrote Cicero at the end of Caesar's dictatorship, "our present sufferings are all too well deserved. For had we not allowed outrages to go unpunished on all sides, it would never have been possible for a single individual to seize tyrannical power." Caesar's cause was not right, but evil, Cicero explained. "Mere confiscations of the property of individual citizens were far from enough to satisfy him. Whole provinces and countries succumbed to his onslaught, in one comprehensive universal catastrophe.." As for the city of Rome, Cicero lamented, "nothing is left -- only the lifeless walls of houses. And even they look afraid that some further terrifying attack may be imminent. The real Rome is gone forever."
Republics are slow to defend themselves against enemies that advance, like Caesar, under camouflage. But make no mistake, republics always defend. Groups and categories of men may not be honest or brave, but when they are finally confronted with the truth -- as individuals -- they see no other course. They stand up and fight. We should not be surprised, therefore, that Caesar was struck down in the Senate and killed by thrusting daggers.
"The Death of Julius Caesar," by Vincenzo Camuccini, 1798
It is all too true, of course. "We should have stood up to him when he was weak," Cicero lamented. The problem with republican government is its tardiness; or rather, tardiness in the face of danger. As Machiavelli wrote,
The institutions normally used by republics are slow in functioning. No assembly or magistrate can do everything alone. In many cases, they have to consult with one another, and to reconcile their diverse views takes time. Where there is a question of remedying a situation that will not brook delay, such a procedure is dangerous.
Machiavelli concluded, therefore, "that republics in imminent danger, having no recourse to dictatorship ... will always be ruined when some grave misfortune befalls them." This is the weakness of republican government. Here is the ground on which it dies. An obvious threat, like 9/11 or Pearl Harbor is not the greatest danger. It is the subtle, camouflaged threat, that creeps up from behind. It is this camouflage that gives reluctant men a way out. "We need not fight. We need not make a fuss. There is nothing to fear."
When this is the prevailing view, people who understand a given threat may ask: "What is to be done?"
As long as we are isolated individuals, there is nothing to do. The individual may be honest with himself, but groups are not honest. What prevails overall is an optimistic dismissal. "The threat isn't real." This is how Hitler got so far. This is how Communism took over so many countries, and continues today under camouflage. There is nothing the individual can do that will sway the crowd. And as we are a republic, our political system operates according to the psychology of a crowd. The majority are caught up in the fads and media trends of the moment. Cynical and empty publicity characterizes much of our public discourse.
Are the Russians and Chinese arming themselves against us? Is Venezuela becoming a military bulwark for Communism in Latin America? Is Mexico being destabilized by the Russian mafia (via the Mexican mafia)? Has Canada been infiltrated by Chinese intelligence allied with Chinese organized crime? Are socialist revolutionaries inside the U.S. government subverting the nation's nuclear deterrent, foreign policy, and border security?
The crowd says "no" because that is what they want to believe. But one day the country will awaken. Then, and only then, Americans will stop going along as if nothing serious hangs over them. Will it be too late? Perhaps it will be too late to save the republic. But it will not be too late to save the country.
JR Nyquist
jrnyquist @ aol.com http://www.jrnyquist.com
Other Articles by JR Nyquist
•Clouds In My Coffee
•The Peace Fairy
•No Country for Silly Men
Submitted by JR Nyquist on Fri, 20 Aug 2010
There is a letter by Marcus Tullius Cicero, dated 18 December 50 B.C. This letter was written to his friend Atticus on the eve of the Roman Civil War. He wrote as follows: "The political situation alarms me deeply, and so far I have found scarcely anybody who is not for giving Caesar what he demands rather than fighting it out." To explain the situation in brief, G. Julius Caesar had demanded the right to circumvent the Roman constitution, to break laws with impunity, to extend his command over a large army by using that army to threaten the Senate of Rome. "And why should we start standing up to him now?" asked Cicero. The next day he wrote to Atticus: "We should have stood up to him [Caesar] when he was weak, and that would have been easy. Now we have to deal with eleven legions...." Though he hated the idea of civil war, the only course, said Cicero, was to follow "the honest men or whoever may be called such, even if they plunge."
And who were these "honest men"? "I don't know of any," wrote Cicero in the same letter. "There are honest individuals, but [there are no honest groups]." Then he asked rhetorically if the Senate was honest, or the tax farmers, or the capitalists. None were frightened of living under an autocracy, he lamented. The capitalists, especially, "never have objected to that, so long as they were left in peace." But civil war occurred nonetheless, because people are not free to be dishonest forever. They must admit to certain responsibilities, and oppose the advance of evil. The previous inclination to look away, to do nothing, to shrug off responsibility, proves in the end to be no more than a delaying tactic. They attempted to put off calamity, Cicero suggested, and made it all the more calamitous. That is all.
Why did the Roman Senate suddenly stand up to Caesar? What triggered their resistance? As with all free people, they began with policies of procrastination and appeasement. They hoped that the problem (i.e., Caesar) would go away. In the end, however, they discovered their mistake. Everyone still hoped for peace, though none believed it was possible. Everyone wanted to avoid war, but nobody saw a way out. Pompey stood before the Senate and gave voice to what everyone thought. "If we give Caesar the consulship, it will mean the subversion of the constitution." In other words, it would mean the end of Rome, the end of the republic, the destruction of their country.
In a fitting preface to John Dickinson's Death of a Republic, George L. Haskins wrote, "that the history of Rome is ... the history of the world, that, as all roads lead to Rome, so all history ends or begins with Rome." Why do free people fall into complacency? Why are threats ignored until the eleventh hour?
"Surely," wrote Cicero at the end of Caesar's dictatorship, "our present sufferings are all too well deserved. For had we not allowed outrages to go unpunished on all sides, it would never have been possible for a single individual to seize tyrannical power." Caesar's cause was not right, but evil, Cicero explained. "Mere confiscations of the property of individual citizens were far from enough to satisfy him. Whole provinces and countries succumbed to his onslaught, in one comprehensive universal catastrophe.." As for the city of Rome, Cicero lamented, "nothing is left -- only the lifeless walls of houses. And even they look afraid that some further terrifying attack may be imminent. The real Rome is gone forever."
Republics are slow to defend themselves against enemies that advance, like Caesar, under camouflage. But make no mistake, republics always defend. Groups and categories of men may not be honest or brave, but when they are finally confronted with the truth -- as individuals -- they see no other course. They stand up and fight. We should not be surprised, therefore, that Caesar was struck down in the Senate and killed by thrusting daggers.
"The Death of Julius Caesar," by Vincenzo Camuccini, 1798
It is all too true, of course. "We should have stood up to him when he was weak," Cicero lamented. The problem with republican government is its tardiness; or rather, tardiness in the face of danger. As Machiavelli wrote,
The institutions normally used by republics are slow in functioning. No assembly or magistrate can do everything alone. In many cases, they have to consult with one another, and to reconcile their diverse views takes time. Where there is a question of remedying a situation that will not brook delay, such a procedure is dangerous.
Machiavelli concluded, therefore, "that republics in imminent danger, having no recourse to dictatorship ... will always be ruined when some grave misfortune befalls them." This is the weakness of republican government. Here is the ground on which it dies. An obvious threat, like 9/11 or Pearl Harbor is not the greatest danger. It is the subtle, camouflaged threat, that creeps up from behind. It is this camouflage that gives reluctant men a way out. "We need not fight. We need not make a fuss. There is nothing to fear."
When this is the prevailing view, people who understand a given threat may ask: "What is to be done?"
As long as we are isolated individuals, there is nothing to do. The individual may be honest with himself, but groups are not honest. What prevails overall is an optimistic dismissal. "The threat isn't real." This is how Hitler got so far. This is how Communism took over so many countries, and continues today under camouflage. There is nothing the individual can do that will sway the crowd. And as we are a republic, our political system operates according to the psychology of a crowd. The majority are caught up in the fads and media trends of the moment. Cynical and empty publicity characterizes much of our public discourse.
Are the Russians and Chinese arming themselves against us? Is Venezuela becoming a military bulwark for Communism in Latin America? Is Mexico being destabilized by the Russian mafia (via the Mexican mafia)? Has Canada been infiltrated by Chinese intelligence allied with Chinese organized crime? Are socialist revolutionaries inside the U.S. government subverting the nation's nuclear deterrent, foreign policy, and border security?
The crowd says "no" because that is what they want to believe. But one day the country will awaken. Then, and only then, Americans will stop going along as if nothing serious hangs over them. Will it be too late? Perhaps it will be too late to save the republic. But it will not be too late to save the country.
JR Nyquist
jrnyquist @ aol.com http://www.jrnyquist.com
Other Articles by JR Nyquist
•Clouds In My Coffee
•The Peace Fairy
•No Country for Silly Men
Peace Fairy vs WAR or We Want Commonsense
The Peace Fairy
Submitted by JR Nyquist on Fri, 24 Sep 2010
War is bad, and everybody wants peace. Well, almost everybody. There are, we must admit, people who want to wipe out their neighbors, dominate the planet, or take possession of high-end real estate. But setting these exceptions aside, most of us would like to believe that no serious wars will occur in the foreseeable future; for as all children know, there is a Peace Fairy, who inspires many high officials of the U.S. government.
The Peace Fairy is a cousin of the Tooth Fairy. He attaches to people of childish political disposition who entertain utopian notions. The British essayist and biographer, Thomas Carlyle, referred to such people in a book titled Characteristics. He said that their "generous Affections have become well-nigh paralytic," being subject to "the reign of Sentimentality." They are also quite arrogant, believing themselves morally superior. According to Carlyle, "the luxury of doing good; charity, love, self-forgetfulness, devotedness and all manner of godlike magnanimity -- are everywhere insisted on, and pressingly inculcated in speech and writing, in prose and verse...."
Thursday morning President Barack Obama spoke before the United Nations. His listeners got to see his "generous Affections" under "the reign of Sentimentality." The President's faith in the Peace Fairy was almost as touching as his concern for the global economy. We are told that Obama's primary focus is to rescue the global economy from "potential catastrophe." This can be done by spending enormous sums of money which must be borrowed (see also, the Money Fairy). Since Obama blames Wall Street for the global recession, the best solution is for the U.S. president to make good on other people's losses, even taking responsibility for Third World countries. As crazy as it sounds, that is what Obama believes. How one man can assume such responsibility is unclear. But the President's god-like pose with regard to the global economic crisis is nothing when compared to his "charity, love, self-forgetfulness, devotedness and all manner of god-like magnanimity" in the cause of world peace.
The President's speech touched on the idea of "a world without nuclear weapons." He spoke of joining with Russia to "sign the most comprehensive arms control agreement in decades." He further boasted, "We have reduced the role of nuclear weapons in our security strategy." If only the Iranians and the Chinese would take a similar path. But no matter, President Obama believes in the Peace Fairy:."As part of our efforts on non-proliferation [of nuclear weapons]," he explained, "I offered the Islamic Republic of Iran an extended hand last year...." As if in response, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaking from the same podium a short while after President Obama, suggested that "some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the [9/11] attack." Ahmadinejad further suggested the attacks were orchestrated to reverse a "declining American economy and ... to save the Zionist regime." The U.S. delegation walked out of the hall during Ahmadinejad's speech, along with representatives from Britain, Sweden, Australia, Belgium, Uruguay and Spain." President Obama had already left the United Nations by this time, but later reacted with surprise at the Iranian's "outrageous and offensive" comments. This, of course, is one of the men that Obama wants to make peace with.
According to President Obama, Iran has "failed" to demonstrate peaceful intentions with regard to its nuclear program. So how is this problem going to be resolved? The door remains open for diplomacy, says President Obama, "but the Iranian government must demonstrate a clear and credible commitment, and confirm to the world the peaceful intent of its nuclear program." But the Iranian government is never going to do this, and the President should have no illusions. Even so, he believes in the Peace Fairy; and rather than effectively reducing the nuclear arsenals of others, the President is determined to reduce America's nuclear arsenal (for he has all but admitted that the Russians are going to cheat on the new treaty). It is ridiculous beyond words to have this statesman-child, standing before the United Nations, lecturing representatives from dozens of criminal regimes on the politically correct path to peace. That dreamt of utopia, that magical land where everything wrong has suddenly been "righted," where the hen cuddles with the weasel and the lion lies down with the lamb, is not attainable. It does not exist. To expect the violent psychopaths of yesteryear to transform themselves into peacemakers is a sign of political immaturity. Here, in the supposed Age of Science, our politics has degenerated to a form of pandering in which the panderer no longer recognizes the falsity of his own empty promises, but believes that his own good intentions are all-in-all sufficient. Here, in this dreamt up utopia, there is no struggle for food, no animosity of man against man, no bigotry or religious fanaticism. Victory for all mankind is automatically guaranteed by "the forces of history," or the "dialectics of matter," or by the "science of socialism."
As a true believer, the President spoke of his pledge "to support the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security...." Obama said it was cynical to imagine that Jews and Arabs are too distrustful and too divided internally to forge a lasting peace. According to the President, "Some say ... peace is simply not possible."But, he says, peace must be possible. To the contrary, history teaches that there will be no peace. Common sense tells us the same thing. The Arabs are not reconciled to Israel's existence, even now. As Yaacov Lozowick observed in his book, Right to Exist:
All the Arabic readers I have tell me unanimously that while some Palestinians grudgingly accept that Israel may be here to stay, none of them acknowledge the right of the Jews to be here. Hence, should Israel ever lose her overwhelming military and economic superiority, her very existence will come into question. The late Faisal Husseini ... repeatedly said -- in Arabic -- that making peace with Israel would be merely a stage in the conflict, which would continue by other means.
How can there be an agreement when the Arab side refuses to acknowledge the right of a Jewish nation-state to exist? The Arabs have refused to make peace, noted Lozowick, because of their belief that Judaism is a religion, not a nationality, and therefore the Jews do not need or deserve their own state. On this central point, the most avid peace-makers on the both sides cannot agree. According to Lozowick, "there is nothing left to strive for." President Obama's striving, therefore, is due to his belief in the Treaty Fairy. If Obama leaves good intentions under his pillow the Peace Fairy will deliver up a treaty, signed by the region's chief warmongers and killers. The same type of agreement is supposed to protect us, as well, from a future nuclear war, by removing all nuclear weapons from the earth. It is as if the entire history of mankind, heretofore, was unknown; as if we have learned nothing about ourselves as a species; namely, that mankind easily becomes intoxicated by hatred, which leads to open warfare.
The father of history, a Greek writer named Herodotus, gave us a chronicle of serial murders, massacres and wars. And little has changed since the fifth and sixth centuries B.C. The political despots of antiquity were no different than the despots of today: bloody, cruel, and treacherous. Hitler and Pol Pot were not aberrations. They were part of a long line of killers stretching back to Cyrus the Great. Most Middle East leaders today are no different than those described by Herodotus. But here is an admission that President Obama would dismiss as "cynical." The tragic view of the world, which is the adult view, has no place in the childish mind of a utopian dreamer.
History is merely an account of the way people actually behave. It is not a tale for children. It is strictly for adults. Consider three historical samples: (1) The Roman dictator Sulla, in the act of reinstating the Roman Republic, stacked a large number of decapitated heads on his porch; (2) Julius Caesar cut off the hands of thousands who took up arms against him in Gaul; (3) President Harry S. Truman dropped two atomic bombs on innocent women and children in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Does the reader imagine that we are done with war because we are somehow better than the people living in the age of Sulla or Caesar, or Harry S. Truman? The concern that I have tried to communicate, again and again, has to do with the realization of who man is and what kind of weapons he now has at his disposal. As for massacring innocents, the Americans are not the worst of modern offenders; certainly not worse than the Russians or Chinese. And that is reason for concern as well, if you noticed the ongoing modernization of Russian and Chinese nuclear forces (while U.S. forces are in decline). The best solution, under the circumstances, is to maintain the balance of power (i.e., the nuclear balance). But we have lost interest in doing this, so that our survival is no longer assured. When Russia and China realize they can wage nuclear war against the United States without fear of retaliation, then America will cease to exist. The disappearance of America from history is difficult for Americans to imagine, but it is undoubtedly the direction in which we are headed. The children among us deny all of this. Theirs is a politics of denial. And it seems that these children are now in charge, making policy.
America has become a political Disneyland where fantasy has completely taken the place of reality in terms of (1) deficit spending; (2) "free trade"; (3) government protection for bad investments; (4) open borders; (5) arms control policy (6) the raising of children; (7) the collapse of public education; (8) immigration policy; (9) and tax policy. Even more ominous, we find in our midst a rising tide of misfits, defectives, and slackers. The appearance of such people has been made possible by a massive capitalist machine, which has blessed us with an overabundance of goods and services. Now the machine is blamed by our own president, who seeks universal peace and an economic fix for every country on earth. And he blames Wall Street, the heart of the capitalist machine, for damaging the global economy. Therefore, as he reaches for his utopia, he will cook the goose that lays the golden eggs. Imagine then what will become of this aforementioned mass of unsustainable humanity that has grown up around us.
Perhaps the Free Food Fairy will save us, along with the Money Fairy and the Freebie Fairy.
Thomas Carlyle says of our utopian dreamer, "The barrenest of all mortals is the Sentimentalist. Granting even that he were sincere, and did not wilfully deceive us ... what good is in him? Does he not lie there as a perpetual lesson of despair?"
JR Nyquist
jrnyquist @ aol.com http://www.jrnyquist.com
Other Articles by JR Nyquist
•Clouds In My Coffee
•Standing Up When It's Too Late
•No Country for Silly Men
Submitted by JR Nyquist on Fri, 24 Sep 2010
War is bad, and everybody wants peace. Well, almost everybody. There are, we must admit, people who want to wipe out their neighbors, dominate the planet, or take possession of high-end real estate. But setting these exceptions aside, most of us would like to believe that no serious wars will occur in the foreseeable future; for as all children know, there is a Peace Fairy, who inspires many high officials of the U.S. government.
The Peace Fairy is a cousin of the Tooth Fairy. He attaches to people of childish political disposition who entertain utopian notions. The British essayist and biographer, Thomas Carlyle, referred to such people in a book titled Characteristics. He said that their "generous Affections have become well-nigh paralytic," being subject to "the reign of Sentimentality." They are also quite arrogant, believing themselves morally superior. According to Carlyle, "the luxury of doing good; charity, love, self-forgetfulness, devotedness and all manner of godlike magnanimity -- are everywhere insisted on, and pressingly inculcated in speech and writing, in prose and verse...."
Thursday morning President Barack Obama spoke before the United Nations. His listeners got to see his "generous Affections" under "the reign of Sentimentality." The President's faith in the Peace Fairy was almost as touching as his concern for the global economy. We are told that Obama's primary focus is to rescue the global economy from "potential catastrophe." This can be done by spending enormous sums of money which must be borrowed (see also, the Money Fairy). Since Obama blames Wall Street for the global recession, the best solution is for the U.S. president to make good on other people's losses, even taking responsibility for Third World countries. As crazy as it sounds, that is what Obama believes. How one man can assume such responsibility is unclear. But the President's god-like pose with regard to the global economic crisis is nothing when compared to his "charity, love, self-forgetfulness, devotedness and all manner of god-like magnanimity" in the cause of world peace.
The President's speech touched on the idea of "a world without nuclear weapons." He spoke of joining with Russia to "sign the most comprehensive arms control agreement in decades." He further boasted, "We have reduced the role of nuclear weapons in our security strategy." If only the Iranians and the Chinese would take a similar path. But no matter, President Obama believes in the Peace Fairy:."As part of our efforts on non-proliferation [of nuclear weapons]," he explained, "I offered the Islamic Republic of Iran an extended hand last year...." As if in response, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaking from the same podium a short while after President Obama, suggested that "some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the [9/11] attack." Ahmadinejad further suggested the attacks were orchestrated to reverse a "declining American economy and ... to save the Zionist regime." The U.S. delegation walked out of the hall during Ahmadinejad's speech, along with representatives from Britain, Sweden, Australia, Belgium, Uruguay and Spain." President Obama had already left the United Nations by this time, but later reacted with surprise at the Iranian's "outrageous and offensive" comments. This, of course, is one of the men that Obama wants to make peace with.
According to President Obama, Iran has "failed" to demonstrate peaceful intentions with regard to its nuclear program. So how is this problem going to be resolved? The door remains open for diplomacy, says President Obama, "but the Iranian government must demonstrate a clear and credible commitment, and confirm to the world the peaceful intent of its nuclear program." But the Iranian government is never going to do this, and the President should have no illusions. Even so, he believes in the Peace Fairy; and rather than effectively reducing the nuclear arsenals of others, the President is determined to reduce America's nuclear arsenal (for he has all but admitted that the Russians are going to cheat on the new treaty). It is ridiculous beyond words to have this statesman-child, standing before the United Nations, lecturing representatives from dozens of criminal regimes on the politically correct path to peace. That dreamt of utopia, that magical land where everything wrong has suddenly been "righted," where the hen cuddles with the weasel and the lion lies down with the lamb, is not attainable. It does not exist. To expect the violent psychopaths of yesteryear to transform themselves into peacemakers is a sign of political immaturity. Here, in the supposed Age of Science, our politics has degenerated to a form of pandering in which the panderer no longer recognizes the falsity of his own empty promises, but believes that his own good intentions are all-in-all sufficient. Here, in this dreamt up utopia, there is no struggle for food, no animosity of man against man, no bigotry or religious fanaticism. Victory for all mankind is automatically guaranteed by "the forces of history," or the "dialectics of matter," or by the "science of socialism."
As a true believer, the President spoke of his pledge "to support the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security...." Obama said it was cynical to imagine that Jews and Arabs are too distrustful and too divided internally to forge a lasting peace. According to the President, "Some say ... peace is simply not possible."But, he says, peace must be possible. To the contrary, history teaches that there will be no peace. Common sense tells us the same thing. The Arabs are not reconciled to Israel's existence, even now. As Yaacov Lozowick observed in his book, Right to Exist:
All the Arabic readers I have tell me unanimously that while some Palestinians grudgingly accept that Israel may be here to stay, none of them acknowledge the right of the Jews to be here. Hence, should Israel ever lose her overwhelming military and economic superiority, her very existence will come into question. The late Faisal Husseini ... repeatedly said -- in Arabic -- that making peace with Israel would be merely a stage in the conflict, which would continue by other means.
How can there be an agreement when the Arab side refuses to acknowledge the right of a Jewish nation-state to exist? The Arabs have refused to make peace, noted Lozowick, because of their belief that Judaism is a religion, not a nationality, and therefore the Jews do not need or deserve their own state. On this central point, the most avid peace-makers on the both sides cannot agree. According to Lozowick, "there is nothing left to strive for." President Obama's striving, therefore, is due to his belief in the Treaty Fairy. If Obama leaves good intentions under his pillow the Peace Fairy will deliver up a treaty, signed by the region's chief warmongers and killers. The same type of agreement is supposed to protect us, as well, from a future nuclear war, by removing all nuclear weapons from the earth. It is as if the entire history of mankind, heretofore, was unknown; as if we have learned nothing about ourselves as a species; namely, that mankind easily becomes intoxicated by hatred, which leads to open warfare.
The father of history, a Greek writer named Herodotus, gave us a chronicle of serial murders, massacres and wars. And little has changed since the fifth and sixth centuries B.C. The political despots of antiquity were no different than the despots of today: bloody, cruel, and treacherous. Hitler and Pol Pot were not aberrations. They were part of a long line of killers stretching back to Cyrus the Great. Most Middle East leaders today are no different than those described by Herodotus. But here is an admission that President Obama would dismiss as "cynical." The tragic view of the world, which is the adult view, has no place in the childish mind of a utopian dreamer.
History is merely an account of the way people actually behave. It is not a tale for children. It is strictly for adults. Consider three historical samples: (1) The Roman dictator Sulla, in the act of reinstating the Roman Republic, stacked a large number of decapitated heads on his porch; (2) Julius Caesar cut off the hands of thousands who took up arms against him in Gaul; (3) President Harry S. Truman dropped two atomic bombs on innocent women and children in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Does the reader imagine that we are done with war because we are somehow better than the people living in the age of Sulla or Caesar, or Harry S. Truman? The concern that I have tried to communicate, again and again, has to do with the realization of who man is and what kind of weapons he now has at his disposal. As for massacring innocents, the Americans are not the worst of modern offenders; certainly not worse than the Russians or Chinese. And that is reason for concern as well, if you noticed the ongoing modernization of Russian and Chinese nuclear forces (while U.S. forces are in decline). The best solution, under the circumstances, is to maintain the balance of power (i.e., the nuclear balance). But we have lost interest in doing this, so that our survival is no longer assured. When Russia and China realize they can wage nuclear war against the United States without fear of retaliation, then America will cease to exist. The disappearance of America from history is difficult for Americans to imagine, but it is undoubtedly the direction in which we are headed. The children among us deny all of this. Theirs is a politics of denial. And it seems that these children are now in charge, making policy.
America has become a political Disneyland where fantasy has completely taken the place of reality in terms of (1) deficit spending; (2) "free trade"; (3) government protection for bad investments; (4) open borders; (5) arms control policy (6) the raising of children; (7) the collapse of public education; (8) immigration policy; (9) and tax policy. Even more ominous, we find in our midst a rising tide of misfits, defectives, and slackers. The appearance of such people has been made possible by a massive capitalist machine, which has blessed us with an overabundance of goods and services. Now the machine is blamed by our own president, who seeks universal peace and an economic fix for every country on earth. And he blames Wall Street, the heart of the capitalist machine, for damaging the global economy. Therefore, as he reaches for his utopia, he will cook the goose that lays the golden eggs. Imagine then what will become of this aforementioned mass of unsustainable humanity that has grown up around us.
Perhaps the Free Food Fairy will save us, along with the Money Fairy and the Freebie Fairy.
Thomas Carlyle says of our utopian dreamer, "The barrenest of all mortals is the Sentimentalist. Granting even that he were sincere, and did not wilfully deceive us ... what good is in him? Does he not lie there as a perpetual lesson of despair?"
JR Nyquist
jrnyquist @ aol.com http://www.jrnyquist.com
Other Articles by JR Nyquist
•Clouds In My Coffee
•Standing Up When It's Too Late
•No Country for Silly Men
Monday, October 11, 2010
Clouds in My Coffee, Fear to Fear
Clouds In My Coffee
Submitted by JR Nyquist on Fri, 1 Oct 2010
The leading hit song in 1973 was Carly Simon's You're So Vain. It's about disappointed love, and contains the following line at the heart of the song: "I had some dreams, they were clouds in my coffee...." Last month the Center for Security Policy presented the political equivalent of Simon's song to the national security establishment, titled Shariah, the Threat to America; An Exercise in Competitive Analysis, report of Team 'B' II, which touches many a cloud in our national coffee.
The Team B Report doesn't walk into the party as if onto a yacht, with its hat strategically dipped below one eye; and there isn't an apricot scarf. In fact, there's no concern for fashion of any kind. The vanities of political correctness, multiculturalism, and the lingua franca of self-abnegating tolerance do not appear. We are in a war for our existence, says Team B. We are fighting a subversive and well-organized subset of Muslims. "In keeping with Article VI of the Constitution, [we need to] extend bans currently in effect that bar members of hate groups ... from holding positions of trust in [government]."
But the national security establishment couldn't possibly agree with this. For them, it is unacceptable to identify America's enemies or to deny Muslims coveted posts. Opinion leaders like journalist Fareed Zakaria, as well as President Barack Obama, would rather talk about tolerance and inclusion. After all, if we don't embrace Muslims we will offend them. In that event, the next terrorist attack really will be our fault. And besides, a xenophobic display would damage our position overseas. Here is the main and immediate objection to Team B. As Zakaria explained in The Post-American World: America lacks legitimacy, unlike the rock singer Bono who excels because he is able to "capture the intellectual and moral high ground."
Instead of bogus national power based on military capabilities, we can found our security on the moral high ground, on vanity. Who needs to think of enemies, or the kind of vigilance required in preparing for war? We can do what Denmark, Luxembourg and the Baltic States did in 1940. And to do this all-the-better, we must follow Zakaria's suggestions. We must avoid publicly naming our enemies since this will only serve to unite them into a more compact mass. "Stop cowering in fear," warned Zakaria. Fear is the enemy. There is nothing to fear but fear itself, said FDR. There is nothing to fear because, as President Barack Obama recently told Bob Woodward, "We can absorb [another] terrorist attack...." If thousands die, if skyscrapers fall, if the Pentagon burns -- absorb it! Get over it! Grow up! America's strength is found in its tolerance, not in its ability to strike back.
But before Zakaria and Obama can fly off to Nova Scotia for a total eclipse of the sun, we should consider Team B's comeback. First, the issue at hand is not a matter of a few thousand dead or a few tumbled skyscrapers. It is a matter of life and death for an entire nation; because the United States is in a struggle for its existence. The enemy adheres to an "all encompassing Islamic political-military-legal doctrine known as shariah" which aims at global Islamic supremacy. Of course, a large number of Muslims don't follow the directives of shariah. On the other hand, a large number agree that they ought to. This nuance shouldn't be passed over in silence. Furthermore, as Muslims flood into the United States to live and work, we find ourselves unable to distinguish the moderates from the radicals. According to Team B: "the most difficult attack to defend against is the one that comes from inside the defensive perimeter...." The Report continues, "That is the situation of America today. We have an enemy inside our perimeter." Millions of Muslims live and work in America today. Which of these are enemies, and which are friends? The President says it doesn't matter because we can absorb an attack. Zakaria says it doesn't matter, because our best defense is to let everyone in (and include everyone). But is this really a defense? Or is it clouds in our coffee?
Defectors from the Muslim Brotherhood have already attempted to warn the American people that the Brotherhood seeks to destroy the United States Constitution and replace it with shariah. "These brave men," says the Team B report, "are helping to define the enemy." But the American establishment doesn't want to listen. They do not want definitions. They want inclusion, tolerance, and a blurring of every line of demarcation. They don't want to identify Islam with the cause of the enemy. They don't want to address the issue of forced marriages, honor killings, female genital mutilation, polygamy and domestic abuse. The Team B report says, "Evidence of the extent to which shariah is being insinuated into the fabric of American society abounds, if one is willing to see it."
Does Team B exaggerate the Islamic threat? If you read the Report you'll find that it discusses long-term Islamic subversion, stretching to the end of the present century. The main issues are cultural rather than military. The Report discusses our "national lack of moral certitude." It suggests that a failure to side with one's own society, customs and folkways is tantamount to taking the "other" side in a long-term struggle over values (theirs versus ours). Diversity, under these circumstances, is not automatically good. "Under sway of the multicultural credo, notions of the superiority of Western culture are heretical, an imminent threat to the leveling arrangement that makes the European Union's so-called 'meeting of different civilizations' possible."
But are such things truly possible? In real life, as opposed to childish dreams about life, you have to stand up for yourself. This doesn't mean that you have to be a bully. It means that if you aren't for yourself, then who is? In place of this sort of advice, our president gives the counsel of vanity, attempting to win approval overseas. Should we reconcile ourselves to absorbing a massive terrorist assault for the sake of maintaining what Zakaria calls "legitimacy" (which otherwise belongs to rock stars, and to Luxembourg)? Is national survival and persistence our goal, or do we crave international applause? Should America take a rock star as its model? Or should we sing the words set down by Carly Simon?
JR Nyquist
jrnyquist @ aol.com http://www.jrnyquist.com
Other Articles by JR Nyquist
•The Peace Fairy
•Standing Up When It's Too Late
•No Country for Silly Men
Submitted by JR Nyquist on Fri, 1 Oct 2010
The leading hit song in 1973 was Carly Simon's You're So Vain. It's about disappointed love, and contains the following line at the heart of the song: "I had some dreams, they were clouds in my coffee...." Last month the Center for Security Policy presented the political equivalent of Simon's song to the national security establishment, titled Shariah, the Threat to America; An Exercise in Competitive Analysis, report of Team 'B' II, which touches many a cloud in our national coffee.
The Team B Report doesn't walk into the party as if onto a yacht, with its hat strategically dipped below one eye; and there isn't an apricot scarf. In fact, there's no concern for fashion of any kind. The vanities of political correctness, multiculturalism, and the lingua franca of self-abnegating tolerance do not appear. We are in a war for our existence, says Team B. We are fighting a subversive and well-organized subset of Muslims. "In keeping with Article VI of the Constitution, [we need to] extend bans currently in effect that bar members of hate groups ... from holding positions of trust in [government]."
But the national security establishment couldn't possibly agree with this. For them, it is unacceptable to identify America's enemies or to deny Muslims coveted posts. Opinion leaders like journalist Fareed Zakaria, as well as President Barack Obama, would rather talk about tolerance and inclusion. After all, if we don't embrace Muslims we will offend them. In that event, the next terrorist attack really will be our fault. And besides, a xenophobic display would damage our position overseas. Here is the main and immediate objection to Team B. As Zakaria explained in The Post-American World: America lacks legitimacy, unlike the rock singer Bono who excels because he is able to "capture the intellectual and moral high ground."
Instead of bogus national power based on military capabilities, we can found our security on the moral high ground, on vanity. Who needs to think of enemies, or the kind of vigilance required in preparing for war? We can do what Denmark, Luxembourg and the Baltic States did in 1940. And to do this all-the-better, we must follow Zakaria's suggestions. We must avoid publicly naming our enemies since this will only serve to unite them into a more compact mass. "Stop cowering in fear," warned Zakaria. Fear is the enemy. There is nothing to fear but fear itself, said FDR. There is nothing to fear because, as President Barack Obama recently told Bob Woodward, "We can absorb [another] terrorist attack...." If thousands die, if skyscrapers fall, if the Pentagon burns -- absorb it! Get over it! Grow up! America's strength is found in its tolerance, not in its ability to strike back.
But before Zakaria and Obama can fly off to Nova Scotia for a total eclipse of the sun, we should consider Team B's comeback. First, the issue at hand is not a matter of a few thousand dead or a few tumbled skyscrapers. It is a matter of life and death for an entire nation; because the United States is in a struggle for its existence. The enemy adheres to an "all encompassing Islamic political-military-legal doctrine known as shariah" which aims at global Islamic supremacy. Of course, a large number of Muslims don't follow the directives of shariah. On the other hand, a large number agree that they ought to. This nuance shouldn't be passed over in silence. Furthermore, as Muslims flood into the United States to live and work, we find ourselves unable to distinguish the moderates from the radicals. According to Team B: "the most difficult attack to defend against is the one that comes from inside the defensive perimeter...." The Report continues, "That is the situation of America today. We have an enemy inside our perimeter." Millions of Muslims live and work in America today. Which of these are enemies, and which are friends? The President says it doesn't matter because we can absorb an attack. Zakaria says it doesn't matter, because our best defense is to let everyone in (and include everyone). But is this really a defense? Or is it clouds in our coffee?
Defectors from the Muslim Brotherhood have already attempted to warn the American people that the Brotherhood seeks to destroy the United States Constitution and replace it with shariah. "These brave men," says the Team B report, "are helping to define the enemy." But the American establishment doesn't want to listen. They do not want definitions. They want inclusion, tolerance, and a blurring of every line of demarcation. They don't want to identify Islam with the cause of the enemy. They don't want to address the issue of forced marriages, honor killings, female genital mutilation, polygamy and domestic abuse. The Team B report says, "Evidence of the extent to which shariah is being insinuated into the fabric of American society abounds, if one is willing to see it."
Does Team B exaggerate the Islamic threat? If you read the Report you'll find that it discusses long-term Islamic subversion, stretching to the end of the present century. The main issues are cultural rather than military. The Report discusses our "national lack of moral certitude." It suggests that a failure to side with one's own society, customs and folkways is tantamount to taking the "other" side in a long-term struggle over values (theirs versus ours). Diversity, under these circumstances, is not automatically good. "Under sway of the multicultural credo, notions of the superiority of Western culture are heretical, an imminent threat to the leveling arrangement that makes the European Union's so-called 'meeting of different civilizations' possible."
But are such things truly possible? In real life, as opposed to childish dreams about life, you have to stand up for yourself. This doesn't mean that you have to be a bully. It means that if you aren't for yourself, then who is? In place of this sort of advice, our president gives the counsel of vanity, attempting to win approval overseas. Should we reconcile ourselves to absorbing a massive terrorist assault for the sake of maintaining what Zakaria calls "legitimacy" (which otherwise belongs to rock stars, and to Luxembourg)? Is national survival and persistence our goal, or do we crave international applause? Should America take a rock star as its model? Or should we sing the words set down by Carly Simon?
JR Nyquist
jrnyquist @ aol.com http://www.jrnyquist.com
Other Articles by JR Nyquist
•The Peace Fairy
•Standing Up When It's Too Late
•No Country for Silly Men
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
