| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"William Flax" |
| Date: |
14 Jan 2008 11:16:03 AM |
| Object: |
Wish Lists & Reality! |
Fellow Americans:
Reality is a multi-dimensional thing. Ideology--the framework of ideas and
ideals, which one applies to reality--can be a confusing intellectual
morass; precisely because one is introducing a host of new variables into a
foundation, never completely mastered. Thus it should surprise no one, that
there are wide differences in how different analysts categorize ideological
movements, parties and spokesmen.
Thus, today, we have many nominally Conservative writers, employing
modifying terms to whom they consider at all Conservative. There are
references to economic-Conservatives, fiscal-Conservatives,
social-Conservatives, Paleo-Conservatives, and even--although most of us
will smirk at the very notion--neoconservatives, or reformed Trotskyites,
whose only "Conservatism" is that they have broken with the rest of the
Marxist influenced underworld.
Those who frequent the "Return Of The Gods Web Site," know that we reject
all of these modifications. Conservatism, the ideological bent--more than a
movement--that seeks to preserve the valid cultural and material
achievements of any people's past--is not really divisible. Individuals,
however, have different priorities, and there may be people who are not
really Conservative, who hold Conservative thoughts on one or more facets of
the socio/political/cultural conflicts of our time. True Conservatives will
welcome their support on the ad hoc bases available; but that single or
several issue support should not be confused with a genuine Conservative
bent.
Through the years, many have relied on a Left/Right definition, to seek
clarity. But there too, both terms have often been misapplied. For
example, the German National Socialist movement was one of the most Leftwing
in human history, yet the other Leftists of the era succeeded via the Nazi's
own propaganda, in painting the movement as "Rightwing." (We discuss the
absurdity of this at some length in Chapter 7, of the Conservative Debate
Handbook (http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/lies.htm), which is entitled,
"The Lies Of Socialism.")
Our purpose, here, is to suggest a different approach to definition--one
that will both clarify issues, and put the present campaign of Congressman
Ron Paul in the most appealing light. The one thing that has always been
essential to the true Conservative is truth; and the reason is obvious. We
seek to preserve; and you cannot preserve that which does not exist and
never has existed. Our strength, our mission--if you need a mission--is
truth: the realities of human existence, the laws of nature, the
interrelationships of phenomena. On the other hand, the one common
denominator of all Leftist movements, other than their compulsion for
uniformity, is a desire to impose their wish lists on others. While there
are many ways to define the reasons why planned economies always fail; why
the Welfare State has been a disaster; why the "Civil Rights" movement has
set back the interests of recognizable minorities, etc.. All of such
definitions may be summed up under the heading of "Reality." Each of the
grand Leftist schemes sought to substitute a "wish" for how the world
"should" work, for how the world actually does work.
The concept is readily applicable to the present campaign. Ron Paul goes to
the Constitution, the source of all legitimate Federal power; while those
who are driven by the wish lists of factions and special interests, ignore
that reality--as well as their sacred oaths. Ron Paul explains why the
dollar is plummeting; why we are going to see far worse inflation in the
future, unless we go back to an understanding of economic and fiscal
reality; while those who are driven by the wish lists of factions and
special interests, ignore that reality, in the vain and foolish hope, that
the politicians and central bankers will somehow be able to so juggle
things, that they will put off the inevitable till the next generation.
(The heirs of the leaders of France in the time of Louis XV, paid a terrible
price for the similar folly of their fathers.)
Ron Paul explains how the murderous thugs, calling themselves "Al Qaida,"
actually manage to recruit a seemingly endless supply of fresh blood to
throw against us; while those who are driven by wish lists, revive the early
wish lists of the Kennedy/Johnson Administration, and once again embark on
the madness of trying to reconstruct the cultures of other
peoples--apparently blind not only to the stark tragedies resulting from the
Dean Rusk foreign policy in that era, but to the over three centuries long
British experiment in Ireland. They are, of course, also blind and deaf to
the sage wisdom of George Washington
(http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/debate2.htm, "George Washington Debates
George W. Bush"), and to the clear benefits of treating others with respect.
It is because we have allowed our supposed representatives in Washington to
pursue Quixotic wish lists, that we have the "No Child Left Behind,"
madness, confusing educational priorities at enormous expense, when everyone
reading this understands that no two non-identical twins have the same
scholastic aptitudes. But enough, take your pick of any of the grandiose
schemes to solve everyone's problems since FDR, and you will come to the
same conclusion. It is only because the Left wishes--desperately
wishes--that we were indeed all interchangeable, that the Federal
Government--even in the time of a National Security crisis--fails to guard
our Southern Border effectively.
For the America that we believe in, consider the Ron Paul campaign. Win or
lose, every vote we can garner is a step, not only in the right direction,
but in an absolutely essential effort to wake up our fellow citizens.
William Flax
Cincinnati, Ohio
.
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Wish Lists & Reality! |
14 Jan 2008 01:06:12 PM |
|
|
"William Flax" <krtq73aa@prodigy.net> wrote:
Reality is a multi-dimensional thing.
That is in the realm of science, and has nothing to do with politics.
Ideology--the framework of ideas and ideals, which one applies to reality
No ideology pertains to reality.
Thus it should surprise no one, that
there are wide differences in how different analysts categorize ideological
movements, parties and spokesmen.
It is easy to analyze: they are ALL wrong.
Thus, today, we have many nominally Conservative writers, employing
modifying terms to whom they consider at all Conservative. There are
references to economic-Conservatives, fiscal-Conservatives,
social-Conservatives, Paleo-Conservatives, and even--although most of us
will smirk at the very notion--neoconservatives, or reformed Trotskyites,
whose only "Conservatism" is that they have broken with the rest of the
Marxist influenced underworld.
Those who frequent the "Return Of The Gods Web Site," know that we reject
all of these modifications. Conservatism, the ideological bent--more than a
movement--that seeks to preserve the valid cultural and material
achievements of any people's past--is not really divisible.
Of course it is. The division is based on differences in which
"cultural and material achievements" are valid, which are threatened
and which are in need of preserving. Each flavor of conservatism
reacts to a different perceived threat to the status quo
Social conservatives consider a more Victorian morality and in most
cases a fundamentalist Christian one consider that morality to be not
merely valid, but fundamental and vital, and the currents trends
threatening to that moral structure. Fiscal conservatives consider a
lower taxes and balanced budget valid and necessary because it
preserves the material achievements, and thus see taxation and
government spending as threats. Neoconservatives are those who want
to preserve the power structure of the last several decades when
America's superpower status increased its power and wealth. They see
the rise of hostile competing nations to be the main threat.
Our purpose, here, is to suggest a different approach to definition--one
that will both clarify issues, and put the present campaign of Congressman
Ron Paul in the most appealing light.
You cannot possibly put that campaign in an appealing light to the 95%
of the population that rejects libertarianism as an extremist
ideology.
The one thing that has always been
essential to the true Conservative is truth;
Truth is a label that applies only to religion, ideology, and
mathematical logic, all arenas in which the assumptions are invented
so as to achieve the "truth" one wishes to achieve, regardless of
whether they have anything to do with the real world.
We seek to preserve;
Nonsense. Paul wants to destroy government.
On the other hand, the one common
denominator of all Leftist movements, other than their compulsion for
uniformity, is a desire to impose their wish lists on others.
Sounds like Paul is a Leftist.
While there are many ways to define the reasons why planned economies always fail;
They don't. And one does not "define" reasons unless one is an
ideologist.
why the Welfare State has been a disaster;
It hasn't.
why the "Civil Rights" movement has set back the interests of recognizable minorities, etc.
So you think blacks were better off under Jim Crow, and women were
better off barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen?
All of such definitions may be summed up under the heading of "Reality."
No. They are summed up as "ideology" which pretends to be able to
redefine the world to match some ideals.
Each of the grand Leftist schemes sought to substitute a "wish" for how the world
"should" work, for how the world actually does work.
The world actually works by some power taking control in the absence
of sufficient opposition, whereupon that power is labeled
"government", and opposed by all those who wish they had managed to
get power instead.
Ron Paul goes to the Constitution,
No. He goes to an ideological interpretation of the Constitution.
the source of all legitimate Federal power;
"We the people" are the source of all legitimate Federal power. The
Constitution was just our means of implementing that power.
It is only because the Left wishes--desperately
wishes--that we were indeed all interchangeable,
I don't know any of the Left who wishes that. Most of those I know on
the Left tend to revel in their NON-interchangeableness, aka
"diversity".
that the Federal
Government--even in the time of a National Security crisis--fails to guard
our Southern Border effectively.
The Federal government has NEVER guarded its borders "effectively" by
your standards.
For the America that we believe in, consider the Ron Paul campaign. Win or
lose,
He'll lose.
every vote we can garner is a step, not only in the right direction,
but in an absolutely essential effort to wake up our fellow citizens.
They've already gone back to sleep. Paul has peaked in his
popularity.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Flax" |
|
| Title: Re: Wish Lists & Reality! |
14 Jan 2008 03:45:19 PM |
|
|
My, but how you prove my point! See below:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:fnano3hqrlfs6d2meermbui09g3iscijc5@4ax.com...
"William Flax" <krtq73aa@prodigy.net> wrote:
Reality is a multi-dimensional thing.
That is in the realm of science, and has nothing to do with politics.
To say that the pursuit of understanding reality has nothing to do with
politics, is to embrace the politics of Alice In Wonderland's Mad Hatter.
Ideology--the framework of ideas and ideals, which one applies to reality
No ideology pertains to reality.
No Leftwing ideology pertains to reality--they seek to change it. But the
verb I used was "applies."
Thus it should surprise no one, that
there are wide differences in how different analysts categorize
ideological
movements, parties and spokesmen.
It is easy to analyze: they are ALL wrong.
All wrong? Do you even claim to know all analysis of ideological movements?
Thus, today, we have many nominally Conservative writers, employing
modifying terms to whom they consider at all Conservative. There are
references to economic-Conservatives, fiscal-Conservatives,
social-Conservatives, Paleo-Conservatives, and even--although most of us
will smirk at the very notion--neoconservatives, or reformed Trotskyites,
whose only "Conservatism" is that they have broken with the rest of the
Marxist influenced underworld.
Those who frequent the "Return Of The Gods Web Site," know that we reject
all of these modifications. Conservatism, the ideological bent--more
than a
movement--that seeks to preserve the valid cultural and material
achievements of any people's past--is not really divisible.
Of course it is. The division is based on differences in which
"cultural and material achievements" are valid, which are threatened
and which are in need of preserving. Each flavor of conservatism
reacts to a different perceived threat to the status quo
That is my point about different priorities. But I have defined
Conservatism, not in terms of individual priorities, but in terms of an
ideological bent. The true Conservative--that is the one who has the
personality bent to conserve rather than change--may also have definite
priorities; but he or she will not feel the need to distance themselves from
other Conservatives, who have other priorities. The efforts to distinguish
between those whose priorities are more social than economic--assuming that
one really believes that they do not actually flow together, if correctly
understood--are among those who really aren't that Conservative, just issue
driven.
Social conservatives consider a more Victorian morality and in most
cases a fundamentalist Christian one consider that morality to be not
merely valid, but fundamental and vital, and the currents trends
threatening to that moral structure. Fiscal conservatives consider a
lower taxes and balanced budget valid and necessary because it
preserves the material achievements, and thus see taxation and
government spending as threats. Neoconservatives are those who want
to preserve the power structure of the last several decades when
America's superpower status increased its power and wealth. They see
the rise of hostile competing nations to be the main threat.
Note, my previous comment on your previous comment.
Our purpose, here, is to suggest a different approach to definition--one
that will both clarify issues, and put the present campaign of
Congressman
Ron Paul in the most appealing light.
You cannot possibly put that campaign in an appealing light to the 95%
of the population that rejects libertarianism as an extremist
ideology.
That is just plain silly. The Founding Fathers considered themselves
libertarian, referred to themselves as Whigs--before the Party of that
name--or classic "liberals." Since they created an American norm, we
Conservatives, today, seek to preserve it. Thus there is no dichotomy
between American Conservatism, such as represented by Harry Byrd in
Virginia, Barry Goldwater in Arizona, or Ronald Reagan in California, and
the libertarian values of the Founding Fathers. I have been politically
active for over half a century, and have never encountered the hostility you
claim to be out there.
The one thing that has always been
essential to the true Conservative is truth;
Truth is a label that applies only to religion, ideology, and
mathematical logic, all arenas in which the assumptions are invented
so as to achieve the "truth" one wishes to achieve, regardless of
whether they have anything to do with the real world.
That statement is absurd. While human personalities may not be defined with
mathematical precision, they are real. While resources, means of
production, money, climate and weather may not be perfectly mathematically
quantified, they are certainly real, and may be addressed either in pursuit
of truth, or in pursuit of someone's wish list. Conservatives--those truly
seeking to preserve--will pursue what is true in making policy decisions
that govern our treatment of such.
We seek to preserve;
Nonsense. Paul wants to destroy government.
That is equally absurd. Living by the word of the Constitution is living by
the legitimate life of Government.
On the other hand, the one common
denominator of all Leftist movements, other than their compulsion for
uniformity, is a desire to impose their wish lists on others.
Sounds like Paul is a Leftist.
While there are many ways to define the reasons why planned economies
always fail;
They don't. And one does not "define" reasons unless one is an
ideologist.
why the Welfare State has been a disaster;
It hasn't.
You won't find very many productive citizens who would agree with you about
that. But look at the harvest!
Look at the percentage of births that have been outside the traditional
family structure, among the poorer classes in America, and see a part of the
product. Look at the families, where no one has held a regular job for
generations, and you will see another part of the product, etc..
why the "Civil Rights" movement has set back the interests of
recognizable minorities, etc.
So you think blacks were better off under Jim Crow, and women were
better off barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen?
The "Civil Rights" movement was not just aimed at the South--although many
blacks were better off in the South before the movement--but at all of us.
And anyone looking at the deterioration in the family structure; in the
increase in hostility between the races in the inner cities; in the loss of
pride, reflected in many aspects of the devolving social structure in urban
America, should see what the loss of freedom and responsibility, which was
inherent in the movement, has done.
All of such definitions may be summed up under the heading of "Reality."
No. They are summed up as "ideology" which pretends to be able to
redefine the world to match some ideals.
Each of the grand Leftist schemes sought to substitute a "wish" for how
the world
"should" work, for how the world actually does work.
The world actually works by some power taking control in the absence
of sufficient opposition, whereupon that power is labeled
"government", and opposed by all those who wish they had managed to
get power instead.
Ron Paul goes to the Constitution,
No. He goes to an ideological interpretation of the Constitution.
the source of all legitimate Federal power;
"We the people" are the source of all legitimate Federal power. The
Constitution was just our means of implementing that power.
Your "taking control," your "We the people," etc., shows a profound
confusion. In America, we established "Rule of Law," i.e. the Constitution,
which defines control, defines Government, defines who actually are "We the
people." Absent the Constitution, we were 13 independent and only barely
associating States. Absent the respective State Constitutions, and the
recognition of State sovereignty in the Treaty of Paris, and we devolve into
a myriad of separate communities, without any necessary common purpose.
It is only because the Left wishes--desperately
wishes--that we were indeed all interchangeable,
I don't know any of the Left who wishes that. Most of those I know on
the Left tend to revel in their NON-interchangeableness, aka
"diversity".
If the Left really believed in "diversity," as a positive value, they would
not be imposing social value systems like "the Civil Rights" movement, which
you appear to champion, on all Americans; they would not be pursuing various
movements that tend towards a World Government; they would not be seeking to
impose our contemporary political concepts on other Nations. Jefferson
believed in actual diversity, and a foreign policy that treated others with
respect. Washington, in his Farewell Address explained why such a policy is
important, even essential to our well being.
that the Federal
Government--even in the time of a National Security crisis--fails to
guard
our Southern Border effectively.
The Federal government has NEVER guarded its borders "effectively" by
your standards.
Not so. Although the Immigration Law of 1965 undermined our traditional
attitudes, and may have contributed to a certain laxity.
For the America that we believe in, consider the Ron Paul campaign. Win
or
lose,
He'll lose.
every vote we can garner is a step, not only in the right direction,
but in an absolutely essential effort to wake up our fellow citizens.
They've already gone back to sleep. Paul has peaked in his
popularity.
lojbab
Again, that is hardly evident. Every day, I find new Paul support; growing
interest.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Wish Lists & Reality! |
14 Jan 2008 09:00:13 PM |
|
|
"William Flax" <krtq73aa@prodigy.net> wrote:
My, but how you prove my point!
You have no point.
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:fnano3hqrlfs6d2meermbui09g3iscijc5@4ax.com...
"William Flax" <krtq73aa@prodigy.net> wrote:
Reality is a multi-dimensional thing.
That is in the realm of science, and has nothing to do with politics.
To say that the pursuit of understanding reality has nothing to do with
politics,
Politics has nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with
manipulating appearances and subjective opinions.
is to embrace the politics of Alice In Wonderland's Mad Hatter.
Did the Mad Hatter have any politics? If he did, it probably made
more sense than loonytoonianism.
Ideology--the framework of ideas and ideals, which one applies to reality
No ideology pertains to reality.
No Leftwing ideology pertains to reality--they seek to change it. But the
verb I used was "applies."
If it doesn't pertain, then it doesn't apply.
Thus it should surprise no one, that
there are wide differences in how different analysts categorize ideological
movements, parties and spokesmen.
It is easy to analyze: they are ALL wrong.
All wrong? Do you even claim to know all analysis of ideological movements?
They are all wrong because the inherent concept of ideology is wrong.
Our purpose, here, is to suggest a different approach to definition--one
that will both clarify issues, and put the present campaign of
Congressman
Ron Paul in the most appealing light.
You cannot possibly put that campaign in an appealing light to the 95%
of the population that rejects libertarianism as an extremist
ideology.
That is just plain silly. The Founding Fathers considered themselves
libertarian,
No they didn't. The word wasn't invented back then.
referred to themselves as Whigs--before the Party of that name--or classic "liberals."
Which of course has nothing to do with libertarianism.
I have been politically
active for over half a century, and have never encountered the hostility you
claim to be out there.
Barry Goldwater was defeated by a landslide. Candidates running under
the libertarian label have never gotten more than around 3% of the
vote. Paul managed less than 10% of the minority party in a state
noted for a concentration of libertarians. I doubt if he'll do that
well in any other state.
The one thing that has always been
essential to the true Conservative is truth;
Truth is a label that applies only to religion, ideology, and
mathematical logic, all arenas in which the assumptions are invented
so as to achieve the "truth" one wishes to achieve, regardless of
whether they have anything to do with the real world.
That statement is absurd.
That statement is fact.
While human personalities may not be defined with mathematical precision, they are real.
They are subjective and variable. "Truth" is in the interpretation
and is based on assumptions.
We seek to preserve;
Nonsense. Paul wants to destroy government.
That is equally absurd. Living by the word of the Constitution is living by
the legitimate life of Government.
The other 97% of the country disagrees with you as to what is
"legitimate"
why the Welfare State has been a disaster;
It hasn't.
You won't find very many productive citizens who would agree with you about
that.
Apparently you have a strange definition of "productive", since "we
the people" keep electing representatives who continue the welfare
state, and the surest way to get defeated is to threaten any of its
key programs.
Look at the percentage of births that have been outside the traditional
family structure,
[Yawn] I study genealogy, I have thus learned just how little the
"traditional family structure" actually entailed. In ye goode olde
days, a somewhat higher percentage of kids were born in wedlock, but
the percentage of kids who were raised to adulthood by two parents was
probably not much higher than what we have now.
among the poorer classes in America, and see a part of the product.
Back in the goode olde days, the poorest class in America was the
slave class, and they had a lot of births outside the traditional
family structure, probably a higher percentage than blacks have today.
The typical African-American has around 20-30% white ancestry. Guess
where all those "white genes" came from.
Look at the families, where no one has held a regular job for
generations,
Why don't you try providing evidence that there are such families?
why the "Civil Rights" movement has set back the interests of
recognizable minorities, etc.
So you think blacks were better off under Jim Crow, and women were
better off barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen?
The "Civil Rights" movement was not just aimed at the South--although many
blacks were better off in the South before the movement--but at all of us.
There was racism outside the south, believe me. There was racism
where I grew up in California, and there was racism where my dad grew
up in Michigan, and there was racism where my mom grew up in New York
City.
And anyone looking at the deterioration in the family structure;
It hasn't deteriorated.
in the increase in hostility between the races in the inner cities;
The bloodiest race riot in history was the draft riot of 1863 in New
York City.
in the loss of pride, reflected in many aspects of the devolving social structure in urban
America,
The social structure is NOT devolving.
should see what the loss of freedom and responsibility, which was
inherent in the movement, has done.
There has been no loss of freedom, and if anything there has been
increases in responsibility without increases in the community support
structure.
Your "taking control," your "We the people," etc., shows a profound
confusion.
Not at all.
In America, we established "Rule of Law,"
Rule of Law existed before America. Ever heard of Blackstone?
i.e. the Constitution, which defines control, defines Government,
Actually not. It defines the Federal government. In 1787 there were
essentially no limits on state governments. There was an established
church in Massachusetts. States could abridge free speech and free
press, and they did so.
defines who actually are "We the people."
Actually, citizenship was NOT defined in the original constitution,
which is why Taney was able to make the Dred Scott Decision. The 14th
amendment is what defined who is a citizen.
Absent the Constitution, we were 13 independent and only barely
associating States. Absent the respective State Constitutions, and the
recognition of State sovereignty in the Treaty of Paris, and we devolve into
a myriad of separate communities, without any necessary common purpose.
And prior to the Civil War, things hadn't improved all that much.
Just enough to keep the society coherent as long as people could
escape by moving west.
It is only because the Left wishes--desperately
wishes--that we were indeed all interchangeable,
I don't know any of the Left who wishes that. Most of those I know on
the Left tend to revel in their NON-interchangeableness, aka
"diversity".
If the Left really believed in "diversity," as a positive value, they would
not be imposing social value systems like "the Civil Rights" movement
It seems to me that you have no clue what the word means, not to
mention the "movement".
they would not be pursuing various movements that tend towards a World Government
[Yawn] There is no such movements.
they would not be seeking to impose our contemporary political concepts on other Nations.
That's Bush's thing.
Jefferson believed in actual diversity, and a foreign policy that treated others with
respect. Washington, in his Farewell Address explained why such a policy is
important, even essential to our well being.
These are your interpretations of what they said. I should note that
Jefferson and Washington were on the opposite sides of the political
fence by the time Washington left office.
The Federal government has NEVER guarded its borders "effectively" by
your standards.
Not so. Although the Immigration Law of 1965 undermined our traditional
attitudes, and may have contributed to a certain laxity.
There were essentially no immigration controls until the 1920s, except
with respect to Orientals, and that didn't start until the 1880s.
Again, that is hardly evident. Every day, I find new Paul support; growing
interest.
Feel free to continue your wishful thinking. But despite all the
money he has, the votes aren't be there.
Current polls on rasmussenreports.com:
Florida 5%
South Carolina 5%
Michigan 8%
nationally 3%
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Flax" |
|
| Title: Re: Wish Lists & Reality! |
15 Jan 2008 03:38:58 PM |
|
|
I earlier responded, point by point to Mr. LeChevalier's argument--such as
it was. When he goes so far as to deny--let us hope in ignorance and not
deliberate deception--to deny, the damage that the Welfare programs, etc.,
have done to the inner city family structure--he has truly fallen down the
rabbit hole with Alice.
So that my originial post does not get lost in his denial of reality, I have
reposted it here. See Below:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:fnano3hqrlfs6d2meermbui09g3iscijc5@4ax.com...
"William Flax" <krtq73aa@prodigy.net> wrote:
Fellow Americans:
Reality is a multi-dimensional thing. Ideology--the framework of ideas and
ideals, which one applies to reality--can be a confusing intellectual
morass; precisely because one is introducing a host of new variables into a
foundation, never completely mastered. Thus it should surprise no one, that
there are wide differences in how different analysts categorize ideological
movements, parties and spokesmen.
Thus, today, we have many nominally Conservative writers, employing
modifying terms to whom they consider at all Conservative. There are
references to economic-Conservatives, fiscal-Conservatives,
social-Conservatives, Paleo-Conservatives, and even--although most of us
will smirk at the very notion--neoconservatives, or reformed Trotskyites,
whose only "Conservatism" is that they have broken with the rest of the
Marxist influenced underworld.
Those who frequent the "Return Of The Gods Web Site," know that we reject
all of these modifications. Conservatism, the ideological bent--more than a
movement--that seeks to preserve the valid cultural and material
achievements of any people's past--is not really divisible. Individuals,
however, have different priorities, and there may be people who are not
really Conservative, who hold Conservative thoughts on one or more facets of
the socio/political/cultural conflicts of our time. True Conservatives will
welcome their support on the ad hoc bases available; but that single or
several issue support should not be confused with a genuine Conservative
bent.
Through the years, many have relied on a Left/Right definition, to seek
clarity. But there too, both terms have often been misapplied. For
example, the German National Socialist movement was one of the most Leftwing
in human history, yet the other Leftists of the era succeeded via the Nazi's
own propaganda, in painting the movement as "Rightwing." (We discuss the
absurdity of this at some length in Chapter 7, of the Conservative Debate
Handbook (http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/lies.htm), which is entitled,
"The Lies Of Socialism.")
Our purpose, here, is to suggest a different approach to definition--one
that will both clarify issues, and put the present campaign of Congressman
Ron Paul in the most appealing light. The one thing that has always been
essential to the true Conservative is truth; and the reason is obvious. We
seek to preserve; and you cannot preserve that which does not exist and
never has existed. Our strength, our mission--if you need a mission--is
truth: the realities of human existence, the laws of nature, the
interrelationships of phenomena. On the other hand, the one common
denominator of all Leftist movements, other than their compulsion for
uniformity, is a desire to impose their wish lists on others. While there
are many ways to define the reasons why planned economies always fail; why
the Welfare State has been a disaster; why the "Civil Rights" movement has
set back the interests of recognizable minorities, etc.. All of such
definitions may be summed up under the heading of "Reality." Each of the
grand Leftist schemes sought to substitute a "wish" for how the world
"should" work, for how the world actually does work.
The concept is readily applicable to the present campaign. Ron Paul goes to
the Constitution, the source of all legitimate Federal power; while those
who are driven by the wish lists of factions and special interests, ignore
that reality--as well as their sacred oaths. Ron Paul explains why the
dollar is plummeting; why we are going to see far worse inflation in the
future, unless we go back to an understanding of economic and fiscal
reality; while those who are driven by the wish lists of factions and
special interests, ignore that reality, in the vain and foolish hope, that
the politicians and central bankers will somehow be able to so juggle
things, that they will put off the inevitable till the next generation.
(The heirs of the leaders of France in the time of Louis XV, paid a terrible
price for the similar folly of their fathers.)
Ron Paul explains how the murderous thugs, calling themselves "Al Qaida,"
actually manage to recruit a seemingly endless supply of fresh blood to
throw against us; while those who are driven by wish lists, revive the early
wish lists of the Kennedy/Johnson Administration, and once again embark on
the madness of trying to reconstruct the cultures of other
peoples--apparently blind not only to the stark tragedies resulting from the
Dean Rusk foreign policy in that era, but to the over three centuries long
British experiment in Ireland. They are, of course, also blind and deaf to
the sage wisdom of George Washington
(http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/debate2.htm, "George Washington Debates
George W. Bush"), and to the clear benefits of treating others with respect.
It is because we have allowed our supposed representatives in Washington to
pursue Quixotic wish lists, that we have the "No Child Left Behind,"
madness, confusing educational priorities at enormous expense, when everyone
reading this understands that no two non-identical twins have the same
scholastic aptitudes. But enough, take your pick of any of the grandiose
schemes to solve everyone's problems since FDR, and you will come to the
same conclusion. It is only because the Left wishes--desperately
wishes--that we were indeed all interchangeable, that the Federal
Government--even in the time of a National Security crisis--fails to guard
our Southern Border effectively.
For the America that we believe in, consider the Ron Paul campaign. Win or
lose, every vote we can garner is a step, not only in the right direction,
but in an absolutely essential effort to wake up our fellow citizens.
William Flax
Cincinnati, Ohio
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Wish Lists & Reality! |
15 Jan 2008 09:48:03 PM |
|
|
"William Flax" <krtq73aa@prodigy.net> wrote:
So that my originial post does not get lost in his denial of reality, I have
reposted it here.
And I will reiterate the reply here. And I will continue to do so
when you post it.
"William Flax" <krtq73aa@prodigy.net> wrote:
Reality is a multi-dimensional thing.
That is in the realm of science, and has nothing to do with politics.
Ideology--the framework of ideas and ideals, which one applies to reality
No ideology pertains to reality.
Thus it should surprise no one, that
there are wide differences in how different analysts categorize ideological
movements, parties and spokesmen.
It is easy to analyze: they are ALL wrong.
Thus, today, we have many nominally Conservative writers, employing
modifying terms to whom they consider at all Conservative. There are
references to economic-Conservatives, fiscal-Conservatives,
social-Conservatives, Paleo-Conservatives, and even--although most of us
will smirk at the very notion--neoconservatives, or reformed Trotskyites,
whose only "Conservatism" is that they have broken with the rest of the
Marxist influenced underworld.
Those who frequent the "Return Of The Gods Web Site," know that we reject
all of these modifications. Conservatism, the ideological bent--more than a
movement--that seeks to preserve the valid cultural and material
achievements of any people's past--is not really divisible.
Of course it is. The division is based on differences in which
"cultural and material achievements" are valid, which are threatened
and which are in need of preserving. Each flavor of conservatism
reacts to a different perceived threat to the status quo
Social conservatives consider a more Victorian morality and in most
cases a fundamentalist Christian one consider that morality to be not
merely valid, but fundamental and vital, and the currents trends
threatening to that moral structure. Fiscal conservatives consider a
lower taxes and balanced budget valid and necessary because it
preserves the material achievements, and thus see taxation and
government spending as threats. Neoconservatives are those who want
to preserve the power structure of the last several decades when
America's superpower status increased its power and wealth. They see
the rise of hostile competing nations to be the main threat.
Our purpose, here, is to suggest a different approach to definition--one
that will both clarify issues, and put the present campaign of Congressman
Ron Paul in the most appealing light.
You cannot possibly put that campaign in an appealing light to the 95%
of the population that rejects libertarianism as an extremist
ideology.
The one thing that has always been
essential to the true Conservative is truth;
Truth is a label that applies only to religion, ideology, and
mathematical logic, all arenas in which the assumptions are invented
so as to achieve the "truth" one wishes to achieve, regardless of
whether they have anything to do with the real world.
We seek to preserve;
Nonsense. Paul wants to destroy government.
On the other hand, the one common
denominator of all Leftist movements, other than their compulsion for
uniformity, is a desire to impose their wish lists on others.
Sounds like Paul is a Leftist.
While there are many ways to define the reasons why planned economies always fail;
They don't. And one does not "define" reasons unless one is an
ideologist.
why the Welfare State has been a disaster;
It hasn't.
why the "Civil Rights" movement has set back the interests of recognizable minorities, etc.
So you think blacks were better off under Jim Crow, and women were
better off barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen?
All of such definitions may be summed up under the heading of "Reality."
No. They are summed up as "ideology" which pretends to be able to
redefine the world to match some ideals.
Each of the grand Leftist schemes sought to substitute a "wish" for how the world
"should" work, for how the world actually does work.
The world actually works by some power taking control in the absence
of sufficient opposition, whereupon that power is labeled
"government", and opposed by all those who wish they had managed to
get power instead.
Ron Paul goes to the Constitution,
No. He goes to an ideological interpretation of the Constitution.
the source of all legitimate Federal power;
"We the people" are the source of all legitimate Federal power. The
Constitution was just our means of implementing that power.
It is only because the Left wishes--desperately
wishes--that we were indeed all interchangeable,
I don't know any of the Left who wishes that. Most of those I know on
the Left tend to revel in their NON-interchangeableness, aka
"diversity".
that the Federal
Government--even in the time of a National Security crisis--fails to guard
our Southern Border effectively.
The Federal government has NEVER guarded its borders "effectively" by
your standards.
For the America that we believe in, consider the Ron Paul campaign. Win or
lose,
He'll lose.
every vote we can garner is a step, not only in the right direction,
but in an absolutely essential effort to wake up our fellow citizens.
They've already gone back to sleep. Paul has peaked in his
popularity.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Wish Lists & Reality! |
15 Jan 2008 03:47:32 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:38:58 GMT, "William Flax"
<krtq73aa@prodigy.net> wrote:
I earlier responded, point by point to Mr. LeChevalier's argument--such as
it was. When he goes so far as to deny--let us hope in ignorance and not
deliberate deception--to deny, the damage that the Welfare programs, etc.,
have done to the inner city family structure--he has truly fallen down the
rabbit hole with Alice.
It almost compares to what capitalism and slavery did to them.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Wish Lists & Reality! |
15 Jan 2008 03:48:07 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:38:58 GMT, "William Flax"
<krtq73aa@prodigy.net> wrote:
So that my originial post does not get lost in his denial of reality, I have
reposted it here. See Below:
You really do like reposting the same schlock over and over, don't
you?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Wish Lists & Reality! |
14 Jan 2008 12:07:49 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:16:03 -0500, "William Flax"
<krtq73aa@prodigy.net> wrote:
The concept is readily applicable to the present campaign. Ron Paul goes to
the Constitution, the source of all legitimate Federal power; while those
who are driven by the wish lists of factions and special interests, ignore
that reality--as well as their sacred oaths.
Reality check! Ron Paul's a nut case and has no chance of higher
office.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Wish Lists & Reality! |
14 Jan 2008 12:07:07 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:16:03 -0500, "William Flax"
<krtq73aa@prodigy.net> wrote:
Those who frequent the "Return Of The Gods Web Site," know that we reject
all of these modifications.
And preach racism and other nastiness under euphemisms like ancestral
heritage.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Wish Lists & Reality! |
14 Jan 2008 12:10:27 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:16:03 -0500, "William Flax"
<krtq73aa@prodigy.net> wrote:
Wow! What a peace of work.
we start with the fear mongering:
Ron Paul explains how the murderous thugs, calling themselves "Al Qaida,"
actually manage to recruit a seemingly endless supply of fresh blood to
throw against us;
Lead into framing the opposition
while those who are driven by wish lists, revive the early
wish lists of the Kennedy/Johnson Administration,
(as opposed to those libertoon wish lists?
and once again embark on
the madness of trying to reconstruct the cultures of other
peoples-
"The culture of other peoples"? Hear the racism coded in there?
Yech. wow!
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Flax" |
|
| Title: Re: Wish Lists & Reality! |
14 Jan 2008 01:09:28 PM |
|
|
See Below:
<stuff_stuff@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:u89no3hjdcarlbjq722gckoh1olcbiro4g@4ax.com...
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:16:03 -0500, "William Flax"
<krtq73aa@prodigy.net> wrote:
Wow! What a peace of work.
we start with the fear mongering:
Ron Paul explains how the murderous thugs, calling themselves "Al Qaida,"
actually manage to recruit a seemingly endless supply of fresh blood to
throw against us;
Lead into framing the opposition
while those who are driven by wish lists, revive the early
wish lists of the Kennedy/Johnson Administration,
(as opposed to those libertoon wish lists?
and once again embark on
the madness of trying to reconstruct the cultures of other
peoples-
"The culture of other peoples"? Hear the racism coded in there?
Yech. wow!
Could anyone ask for a clearer example of the intellectual confusion of the
doctrinaire "Liberal," than to equate respect for other people's cultures
as "racism." If respect is "racism," what is the contempt that has been
reflected in efforts to socially reengineer other people's societies? You
know, the contempt that led to genocide in the lands the Kennedy/Johnson
Administration patronized with their wish lists. But, of course, the
sloganized "thinker," can't worry about thousands butchered in Katanga,
hundreds of thousands in Biafr, or half a million or so Tutsi in Rwanda.
Mr. Stuff Stuff would have been very comfortable as a "newspeaking"
automaton in Lenin or Hitler's new order.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Higgins" |
|
| Title: Re: Wish Lists & Reality! |
14 Jan 2008 12:26:31 PM |
|
|
William Flax wrote:
Fellow Americans:
<snip>
Get a life!
--
Civis Romanus Sum
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
