This Is Profound

Next time you get a break, wrap your brain around Politics as Pathology.

Not an easy read, but worth your time.  Some nuggets:

 . . . the contrasting views of man’s essential nature as either innately fixed; self-focused; self-reliant and responsible for his actions and their consequences; or alternatively, as compliant with, and amenable to, improvement under the (assumed benevolent) direction of a “morally superior breed of leaders”.

Much of the contentiousness between the Conservative/Right and the Liberal/Left can be understood on the basis of our re-defined appellations of Conservatives as Logical-Rationalists (objectivists) vs. Liberals as (subjectivist) Emotional-Intuitives. The former assemble available information and reason sequentially to a conclusion based on the available facts. In political matters the latter respond more emotionally to issues and intuitively arc to a conclusion based on feelings. Whatever information seems to support those feelings is selected post hoc and all else rejected as unimportant, wrong or outright lies.  Exasperation is often the only product when the two face-off in debate. No one gets their mind changed.

It has been the extreme Left that has been the socially disruptive, historically deadly, nihilistic and revolutionary political force throughout the twentieth century. It is the radical Left which insists on jettisoning a highly productive capitalist system and replacing it with a collectivism that has been an abysmal failure wherever it’s been tried. [54] It is therefore essential to question the motivations of those who press that agenda.

H/T: Blair at American Thinker, 04:23.

Advertisements

5 Comments

Filed under Idea War

5 responses to “This Is Profound

  1. Grimmy

    I’m probably more of a hybrid.
    I’m not terribly self examining, but it seems that my own pattern is to watch the trend until I get good and pissed off and then attack. Screw the details once the fights on. The only objective in a fight is to close with, and destroy the enemy by whatever means necessary.

    Makes me a bad guy, I know, but screw it.

    Anyhoo, what follows is something I’d like some of y’all more stable folk to work over to see if it is appropriate.

    This idea that anything ideological is protected by the 1st Amend, regardless of how destructive it is has to be one of the greater issues misjudged by our SCOTUS.

    No nation, no people, no culture, no society can be required to tolerate and protect the preaching and spreading of an ideology that demands their own destruction as its base premise, and hope to survive.

    That, seems to me, to be as incompetent as declaring anyone refusing hungry predators full and unfettered access to their children to be guilty of wanton cruelty to animals.

    The “War of Ideals” can only be waged in the intellectual arena if both sides are committed to honorable contest. The ideologies of the socialist utopians have not, ever, raised to that level. Ends justifies the means is their sole and only strategy.

    There will always be useful idiots who have no ability to think any deeper than their own bellies or any further than the reach of their own gonads. These will always be the prey item and recruitment pool for those who work to destroy us from within and without. Making their recruitment and indoctrination a protected practice is the most direct aid and comfort an enemy can possibly be given.

  2. 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.

    But

    Congress enacted the Sedition Act (40 Stat. 553), which amended the Espionage Act, on May 16, 1918. Most notably, it added a variety of prohibited acts to Title 1, section 3, including writing or uttering:

    any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy of the United States, or any language intended to bring [any of the above] into contempt, scorn, contumely, or disrepute.

    And before that

    SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled. That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States, which are or shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any person holding a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from undertaking, performing, or executing his trust or duty: and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise, or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanour, and on conviction before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment during a term of not less than six months, nor exceeding five years; and further, at the discretion of the court, may be holden to find sureties for his good behaviour, in such sum, and for such time, as the said court may direct.

    SECT. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter, or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered, or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering, or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either House of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either House of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States; or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the Constitution of the United States; or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act; or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

    I think, Grimmy, that you and I will soon have cause to hope a Cultural Revolutionary/Logical-Rationalist version of the American Civil Liberties Union arises to defend our opposition to the coming regime.

  3. Many thanks Cannoneer No. 4 for the positive words regarding my Squrespace blog. Very much appreciated. I’m new at this so I’m still learning the etiquette, protocols and simple mechanics of managing a website, I’ll make sure to come back and visit you here from time-to-time. I like what I see here. Thanks again & Best wishes.

  4. I’m not terribly self examining, but it seems that my own pattern is to watch the trend until I get good and pissed off and then attack. Screw the details once the fights on. The only objective in a fight is to close with, and destroy the enemy by whatever means necessary.

    Tim Larkin, a former SCARS master instructor, went and founded a private business to teach violence as a tool of defense in the civilian sector; he also has the same philosophy as you do, Grimmy.

    Many people separate war and peace out, but all in all, the principles are still the same. With war, you should only start one if you plan on finishing it. In peace and civilian life, the same is true when using violence and since there will always be criminals and people like Ginsberg, violence will always be a fact of life. Whether you are in a war zone or are back in the States.

    You can still die, except here in the States, a criminal thug will shoot you and then be free to milk the system, whereas in war, if you live by shooting thugs, you’ll be the one required to defend yourself against the system.