120 Comments

1. Brock:

But if we substituted the words “liberal” for “Zionist” in the paragraph above, would there be a problem?

A silly question. The liberal Left would never serve in the military, for then they would cease to be the liberal Left.

Is there a danger that the IDF will be mobilized one day to serve a specific ideology?

Not a danger, but a certainty. The IDF will be mobilized to defend a way of life, a philosophy, that contains within itself, dependent on no outside power, the will and the means of self-preservation. And so that culture will survive, and the culture which lacks the will to preserve will not.

Where the Left meets Zionism, Zionism waits a generation and time will hand it victory. The Left does not reproduce or defend itself from danger. No organism survives such contrary instincts.

Oct 30, 2008 - 2:47 pm 2. mariner:

Which wing do you believe is “ideological”, “dogmatic”, or “immovable”?

Which party do you believe places nation above party?

It seems to me each side sees itself as correct and more moral than the other. They’re not evil for doing so, they’re human.

Oct 30, 2008 - 2:52 pm 3. wretchard:

It seems to me each side sees itself as correct and more moral than the other. They’re not evil for doing so, they’re human.

Culture is a way of achieving consensus outside of the formal political structure. It is the basis of unity within diversity. When a country becomes truly multicultural, that is to say, without a dominant consensus, then all substantial disputes become legal and political ones. Since, for demographic and other reasons, Western societies have increasingly “multicultural” — a word not to be confused with multi-racial — often deliberately so then as you say, “each side sees itself as correct and more moral than the other”.

Whether that’s morally good or bad is beyond the scope of this post. But I think it’s fair to claim that the consequences of such a deep division will result in exactly what Caroline Glick describes, or something like it. Whether that’s advantageous to the nation’s enemies, if the word can still be used, can be more definitely answered than the moral problem.

Oct 30, 2008 - 3:02 pm 4. NahnCee:

I wonder — do we really need each other, the two sides? What would happen if we designated Country A to be liberal and invited all liberals to relocate and live there, and Country B to be conservative and asked all conservatives to relocate and put down roots in B-Land? Then if a liberal found themselves living in B-Land with the conservatives, there’d be no one to blame except him/herself.

So we’d have all the educators, journalists, actors, and NGO-ers living in liberal A-Land. And all the cops, Wall Street tycoons, and entrepreneurs living in conservative B-Land. I wonder where the doctors, nurses and dentists would go. Or the computer tech-y types. The welfare recipients and all of their enabling bureaucracies would go to A-Land, of course.

Personally, I think I could live very happily for the rest of my life without interacting ever again with another actor, social volunteer, teacher or newspaper person, and just don’t see the need of a country where they are fellow citizens at all.

Oct 30, 2008 - 3:02 pm 5. Bret:

NahnCee,

I’ve been contemplating that as well lately. I think that the problem is that both sides will be unhappy unless they can control the other. In other words, conservatives want to make sure that nobody has abortions and liberals want to make sure that money is confiscated from conservatives to fund their utopian welfare state.

If that wasn’t the case, the solution is simple and much less disruptive. We could just revert back to federalism, with the central government doing nothing but national defense and the states handling everything else. The federal tax rates would then be very low and the states tax rates would be higher, but with substantial variance state to state. Some states are already fairly liberal and some fairly conservative and everybody could move between them as they saw fit.

Again, won’t and can’t happen because the liberals need to milk conservatives for their welfare state and conservatives hope to impose their moral viewpoint on liberals.

Oct 30, 2008 - 3:29 pm 6. exhelodrvr:

So in Israel, their conservatives are also bitter gun-clingers. Who’d a thought?

Of course, our military also has a disproportionate breakdown of political leanings relative to the population at large.

Oct 30, 2008 - 3:41 pm 7. wretchard:

We could just revert back to federalism, with the central government doing nothing but national defense and the states handling everything else. The federal tax rates would then be very low and the states tax rates would be higher, but with substantial variance state to state. Some states are already fairly liberal and some fairly conservative and everybody could move between them as they saw fit.

The principal obstacle to this solution is the size of the federal government itself. It’s been an expanded on a bipartisan basis since the 1940s and will be be intentionally expanded by an Obama Presidency and perhaps unintentionally but fecklessly by a McCain Presidency. Either way, the huge size of the Federal Government limits the areas in which people can go their own way and makes of everything a zero-sum game.

Many commenters on previous posts have made a reduction in the Federal government a central tenet for any future reform. But if this initiative is to become mainstream, the push will have to come from the conservative side. The liberals will not see any conceptual problem in a larger Federal Government. Indeed, they will long for it.

Oct 30, 2008 - 3:53 pm 8. fred:

The above two comments kind of oversimplify the problem. Most people have views and preferences that can be all over the map. For example, what do you make of someone who is generally conservative on economic issues, but might believe in some modicum of a social safety net, who is generally not pro-abortion yet believes in there being a right to it if it is truly medically necessary? The real issue, folks, is a society so fractured that the various groups cannot conceive of a world in which they give up something in order to preserve civil society and a general consensus about our principles. The problems seem to mostly stem from the Soft Left and the Far Left not really believing that the received institutions, traditions, documents, religions, and economy are worth defending and preserving. So much so that when a 1,400 year old cult/ideology is feeling its oats again and goes on the warpath that the target societies lack the strength of culture to resist the invader. The only way that the West is going to survive is if the Left is defeated, since it is committed to opening the door to the invader. You just cannot have those who wish to defend and those who wish to let the invader win coexist side by side. It cannot be done. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

In the case of Israel, just as the condition that exists here, there are individuals and groups that want to defend what we have against this totalitarian invader, and others who either lack the energy or the will to oppose the invader.

The group that is stronger will have to win. In Israel, if the non-Leftist Jews are the ones who wish to defend their country, then they will ultimately prevail IF THEY ARE WILLING TO DO WHAT IS NECESSARY. The political diddling can only go on for so long until the urgency of the situation, forced by the external enemy, makes it necessary to take strong measures against the enervating elements.

We are rapidly approaching the same dilemma here. Perhaps the majority in this nation do not really believe in the nation. They believe in something very different and wish to put the Constitution into the dustbin of history. A very large minority remain determined to not let this happen, and are even more determined that no external enemy should render us impotent, a client state, or perhaps even part of the Ummah. But this condition of paralysis and non-consensus cannot endure for long. I am a big believer that those who sense the urgency of survival the most will do whatever is necessary to effect that outcome.

As in Israel, so it is here: the Left does not know how to fight, has no will to fight, and will, in the end, not fight, either effectively or at all. They can fight in the courtroom, paying their legions of lawyers the hefty fees to chip away at our documents and our institutions, but when Islamic jihad comes to call they’ll cower while we do the heavy lifting. If they try to stop us it will be a serious miscalculation on their part.

In Israel the young people on the Left will not fight for the nation, but the Left is not reproducing enough there – or here – to matter that much. Real Christians and Jews are having more children and are passing on the heritage that is worth defending.

The ideologies of parasitism and their culture of death, I believe, will go down in defeat in the end. It’s just that we who resist them may have to sacrifice a lot and perhaps do more of the kinds of things we would really rather not do under normal circumstances.

Oct 30, 2008 - 4:13 pm 9. Shivermetimbers:

I just came from meeting one of my clients in NY, a leading name in the world’s financial markets. The head of IT is Indian and on each and every floor I visited, the staff were all Indian and Chinese with an occasional Russian.

We get our MBA’s thinking we will be in the ‘Front Office.’ Pretty soon, the Front Office will be in Bangalore and Shanghai as well.

Oct 30, 2008 - 4:13 pm 10. whiskey:

Wretchard — Johnson, Glick, and I think yourself are ignoring what is happening inside Western societies. The appeals of liberalism and the hard left don’t just happen by “magic.” There is no “march of history” that makes Western society deeply vulnerable to hard left idiot ideas out of the Universities, Media centers, and Hollywood.

Instead, the politics of Israel are like every other Western nation driven by the ways in which men and women relate to each other — and those ways are radically different in the past, thus shaping the politics radically different. India and China will likely at some point follow the same path — but for now they are too poor and tradition bound to have radically different ways in which men and women relate to each reorder society.

What we have in the West is ABSOLUTE personal freedom, in ways never imagined, for personal conduct and relations between men and women. It leads inexorably to a consumerist approach by both, though power in the sexual marketplace holds to women while they are younger, men when they are older.

Take Israel’s big TV hit, remade for American TV, “the Ex List.” In it, a woman meets a Psychic who tells her that she will either marry one of her exes, or never marry at all. The woman is in her early thirties, and single. The plot line has each episode, the woman reconnects with an ex, sleeps with him, and finds him unsuitable for one reason or another.

This would have been simply impossible to televise for Israeli or American society during the mid 1960’s. Because sexuality was controlled, limited, if nothing else by the concern men and women had over censure by their peers/families/bosses/religious leaders etc. Men less than women, but still there was a social control.

This is the society of great wealth and power, with no threat conceivable. A society of affluence, where anything is affordable, even absolute personal freedom from traditional social controls. As in relationships between men and women, in politics.

In some ways this is self-limiting. That sort of society will simply vanish, if say half or 3/4 of Israel is nuked out of existence in an Iranian first strike from Lebanon and/or Syria. Which I view highly likely. Such a dead canary would induce fear and fleeing of big fat targets, i.e. the urban job centers and status-driven dating markets that dominate Western culture.

If, as the Smiths sang in the 1980’s, if it’s not love then it’s the bomb that will bring us together, well, there’s no shortage of candidates for THAT happening.

The excluded middle is a luxury of forty years of uninterrupted peacetime economic expansion. Real hardship of one sort or another tends to erase those luxuries, as J.G. Ballard’s “Empire of the Sun” put it.

Oct 30, 2008 - 4:14 pm 11. Joshua:

NahnCee and Bret: Three more problems with physically divorcing “red” and “blue” America are worth noting:

(1) You’d have to break up untold numbers of extended, if not immediate families to achieve this,

(2) You’d also have to arrange it so that all the “red” states are geographically contiguous with one another. Same with the “blue” states. Otherwise you’d have to travel through, over or around enemy territory to get from one part of your country to the other. (See Pakistan and Bangladesh, physically separated by India, before they formally split. See also Canada, where a Quebec secession would cut off the Maritime Provinces from the rest of the Anglophone part of the country.)

(3) Last but not least, too many Americans are still too attached to the idea of “one nation, indivisible” (YMMV on the “under God” part) to accept any permanent partitioning of the nation. I should know; I’m one of them.

Oct 30, 2008 - 4:14 pm 12. fred:

I meant in my opening statement the comments above exhelodrvr and Wretchard. No offense, NahnCee. I happen to be generally conservative in a lot of matters, but I am a pro-choice Catholic who is personally anti-abortion in all but the most serious of medical circumstances.

I can’t think and type quickly enough. A lot of kids are coming by my door “Trick or Treating” at the moment.

I would prefer an America that is not divided. And if faced with serious threats to the nation from enemies domestic and foreign, I still take the oath I took back in May of 1973 seriously… I think most veterans, enlisted and officer, feel the same way.

Oct 30, 2008 - 4:20 pm 13. The Death Of A Secular Society Prefigured » The Ethereal Voice:

[...] h/t The Belmont Club [...]

Oct 30, 2008 - 4:26 pm 14. mts:

NahnCee,

That solution was tried once already. It was called East and West Germany. The trouble was, after over a decade, the more centrist West was doing well, and the leftist East was in poor straits, so the East had to fence its population in, lest it become depopulated forest and grassland. Up to that point, those who wanted communism moved East, and the rest were going West in droves.

Leftists like the Red Army Faction weren’t content to move to the East and enjoy a worker’s paradise; they stayed in the West and tried to get it to submit via terrorism.

Splitting sounds like a fair idea, but it’s been tried and failed. We have economically left leaning and right leaning states, and one can move from one to the other with complete ease. Though I hear California might institute an exit tax to outgoing businesses, since so many have fled. An economical California Wall.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23538.html

Oct 30, 2008 - 4:28 pm 15. RWE:

Multiculturalism today equals cultural Marxism. Some cultures are good at growing food, accessing energy, defending the country, and the hard sciences. Other cultures are good at other things, but it is not clear that those are things we vitally need. We have enough street mimes, musicians playing on the corner, and antiwar protestors but it is not at all clear that we need any at all. And we damn sure have more lawyers than we need.

So it is from each according to his cultural ability and to each according to his cultural need. And some cultures have more needs than others. When you have a country with a lot of design margin, created by the people with the vital capabilities, and thus inevitably by the inherently successful cultures, this is not a problem. When you have a country with less design margin, a condition that inevitably follows from the less successful cultures having too much influence, it is a problem. And when you have a country run by people who think that the problem is that the more successful cultures have too much influence, you end up with negative design margin, which pretty much describes Europe.

The people from China and India who come over here to study are not trying to figure out how to be street mimes.

Oct 30, 2008 - 4:28 pm 16. Chaz:

“A house divided cannot stand. I am not saying that the house will fall, it will only cease to be divided.” — Abe Lincoln

I think a grave problem here is that we’ve all taken the ‘Two Americas’ argument to it’s logical end, and see that the picture it paints isn’t pretty. Fact is, the Middle is increasingly being ignored. Balance is being thrown sharply off. The pendulum of political politics is now in danger of being split, or put on one side permanantly. I don’t like what I’m seeing, but it is what it is at the moment.
If one side won’t budge, there’s no point in the other side asking for a dance. I hate to say it, but Rush was right: there’s no point in making deals with them [the democrats]. They have to be defeated. They’ve sold their soul to a New Party candidate who thinks the constitution is flawed because the founding fathers weren’t happy with redistributionism. I’m sorry. They’re no longer just a loyal opposition any more with rhetoric like that.

Oct 30, 2008 - 4:49 pm 17. cjm:

you want to separate the leftists into their own countries, not within areas of the same country as conservatives. and then they starve away.

Oct 30, 2008 - 4:54 pm 18. mika2k1:

Israel is a high tech society. This needs a lot of schooling. The problem with the IDF is not one of motivation to serve. EVERYONE wants to serve. The problem is keeping highly trained personnel in the non-reserve units when they’re needed elsewhere.

Oct 30, 2008 - 5:22 pm 19. mika2k1:

Just to follow up: Because religious schooling is not as rigorous in the maths and sciences you see more of the religious in the IDF. It’s really a function of education, and not ideology.

Oct 30, 2008 - 5:27 pm 20. Cosmeau Bugleweed:

The liberal/Zionist issue manifests itself in Canada as Canadian-federalist/Quebec-separatist factions.

If a liberal society is one which is unable to defend itself and unable to reproduce then Canada appears to qualify.

Canada finances and encourages a major federal political party whose sole aim is the dissolution of the federation.

Canada gave the Order of Canada award to its most famous abortionist, whose efforts have so far accomplished 31 abortions per 100 live births.

The Canadian Supreme Court dealt with the matter of Quebec secession in a long, windy 9-0 decision, using 154 paragraphs of political platitudes to say that a unilateral secession would be illegal. Fine thus far. However, this was followed by paragraph 155:

Concerning the continued existence or destruction of the Canadian federation, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled in paragraph 155 that should Quebec unilaterally secede from (and therefore destroy) the Canadian federation, the matter is to be resolved by the “international community” or “community of nations” or “community of communities”, or “International Federation of Planets”, I forget which.

Canada is thus reduced to prostrating itself before France, Russia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Slovakia, Slovenia and all the rest of them, and begging for its life in the U.N.

Liberal Canada: unable to rouse itself enough to seriously resist its own destruction and unwilling to reproduce.

Mr. Obama’s position on the issue of abortion, (”partial-birth” and otherwise) is known. One wonders about the reaction of a President Obama to a secessionist movement in his three west coast states. Forget about the Civil War and all that wierd old stuff. That was then. This is now.

The U.S. liberals want a “living tree” constitution? They should look north and memorize paragraph 155.

Cosmeau Bugleweed

Oct 30, 2008 - 5:29 pm 21. slade:

About six years ago I researched the origin of the phrase “man cannot govern himself.”

“I exhort you, therefore, that you abstain from covetousness (cf. Hebrews 13:5; Titus 2:12), and that you be chaste (Titus 2:5) and truthful. “Abstain from every form of evil” (1 Thessalonians 5:22). For if a man cannot govern himself in such matters, how shall he enjoin them on others?” – Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians (AD 65-155)

“If man cannot govern himself, how can he govern others?” Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

“Anarchism repudiates any attempt of a group of men or of any individual to arrange life for others. Anarchism rests on faith in humanity and its potentialities, while all other social philosophies have no faith in humanity whatever. The other philosophies insist that man cannot govern himself and that he must be ruled over.” – Emma Goldman (1869-1940)

I am neither an anarchist nor an advocate of anarchy, given that what was exposed during September/October of this year is many cuts above the anarchy of a college food fight, except as it points in the direction of the lesser of two evils, which as I see it, is less government.

As Wretchard wrote above, morality is one dimension, but the short-term problem is more pragmatic and I voted McCain.

In the meantime, back at the ranch, rumor has it that the McCain campaign is plotting to let Palin take the fall.

But it could be reverse psychological operations to deter Palin supporters.

It also seems to me that only within the last few days has the McCain campaign seen a real window of opportunity and they are now kicking themselves for not taking it – the high road, as Pascal wrote elsewhere – unafraid to shed the “all things to all people” approach and campaign on a strong conservative platform.

As I said, messy.

Oct 30, 2008 - 5:56 pm 22. NahnCee:

Seems to me that we’re going to have to divvy up everything fair and square and then let people choose where they’re going to live and under what laws, or we’ll be shooting each other in the streets. In America, we could just split the country down the Mississippi River and everything to the left is Liberal and everything to the right is Conservative. Then if you want to be a moonbat you’ll have to leave New York, and if you want to be a Republican you’ll have to leave Hollywood. But no one would get shot.

At this point, I just don’t see ANYone backing down or changing their minds or doing a “live and let live” policy which our democracy depends upon, nor even accepting the results of elections any more. Certainly the Democrats have never accepted the results of the last election and worked to make it a better country, and personally I have no intention of accepting the results of next week’s election if Obama wins.

This is sorta/kinda off topic except it sounds like Israel is having the same sorts of problems so I’m wondering if the human race is split in half by left and right, and not just by male and female.

Oct 30, 2008 - 6:07 pm 23. peterike:

Shivermetimbers: The head of IT is Indian and on each and every floor I visited, the staff were all Indian and Chinese with an occasional Russian.

This is routine. And it’s because Indians and Chinese have ZERO romantic notions of cultural diversity or the equality of cultures or peoples (their Ivy educated children may think otherwise). They are firmly convinced their culture and people are the best their is.

It was routine at Microsoft that if an Indian took over development in a particular organization, then quite rapidly the complexion of the org would change. All new hires — all — would be Indians. The whites would get frozen out of advancement or the interesting work, and they would move on to somewhere else in the giant ship of Microsoft. Soon, the organization was almost entirely Indian, with perhaps a few Chinese or someone or other in the mix. Of course, any whites who put up a stink were immediately branded racists and hushed up by Human Resources/Big Brother. And equally of course, Indians hiring 100% Indians isn’t, somehow, discriminatory in the Alice in Wonderland universe of contemporary corporate America.

Chinese do the same.

So seeing IT departments with an Indian or Chinese mono-culture is something you will find all over the place. I’ve even seen it in US Government organizations. And the bottom line is that the Indians and Chinese have not yet been taught that their culture is the cancer of the earth. They don’t feel guilty for an instant stabbing whitey in the back if it means advancement for Prakash or Li.

And it’s why in time they will crush us. From within, but mostly from without.

The one thing that will stall the progress of Indians and Chinese in America itself is that their children DO pick up the foul winds of PC from American media, culture and universities, and they learn to frown on cultural pride. It’s embarassing you know.

If we want to ensure the failure of China and India, what we ought to do is ship them all our education professors and unionized teachers. Their next generation following would be easy marks.

PS – At one time, this cultural unity was a great strength of the Jews in America and to some extent still is. But the corrosive of Liberalism is destroying that as well.

Oct 30, 2008 - 6:17 pm 24. bogie wheel:

NahnCee –
Don’t let the moonbats have the Rockies. That’s just cruel.

Oct 30, 2008 - 6:22 pm 25. E. Nigma:

Right now, we have an Army (and Marines) in the field fighting two skirmishing wars, to keep this country safe from a non-centralized (some say net-centric) terror-political threat based on extreme interpretations of Islam.

While at home, we’re talking about dividing the country. Is this sedition, or treason? Isn’t this what many on the right have criticized the left for the last 6-7 years?

Don’t take such foolish council from your fears. Don’t exagerate the potential of Obama to accomplish all the alleged goals he sets for himself.
The man can’t even keep his own paperwork organized. If he wins, the country will be governed by the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Axis of Inanity. The comic value of their ineptitude will be memorable. They’ll be fighting among themselves within a year, and the Media won’t know whose side to take in that intramural mudfight.
We may be about to make an electoral mistake, but I don’t think that anything is irreversable. Don’t think so ill of all your fellow citizens that all of them can be fooled all of the time.

Oct 30, 2008 - 6:36 pm 26. Peter Boston:

An Obama victory and Congressional supermajority would flood the Federal courts with judicial ideologues. There are hundreds of vacancies.

A major assault on the First and Second Amendments would become an almost trivial exercise because there would be no meaningful opposition within Congress or the judiciary. States stopped being an independent political force decades ago. The Feds can preempt state jurisdiction over anything involved in interstate commerce – and that’s just about everything!

Obama-Pelosi-Reid will do great harm to the Republic. Most American do not deserve to be Americans anymore.

Oct 30, 2008 - 6:42 pm 27. Brock:

E. Nigma,

Certain things are irreversible. When the Reid/Pelosi/Obama Axis appoint all those Judges they prevented Bush from appointing, we will get “Social Justice” for 30 years, and just think of the precedents they will establish. It will be as “reversible” as the New Deal. When they do to Healthcare what they’ve already done to Mortgage Banking, people will die.

If I thought you could actually live free in New Hampshire, I’d go. But alas, Federalism is dead.

Oct 30, 2008 - 6:45 pm 28. fred:

Peter Boston,

So, you’re saying that with an Obama victory the United States will be a completely different country. The vote will formalize it, but in reality it already is a different country, thanks to what the voters who put the Dems over the top think about the United States of America.

So a bunch of dodos voting for Obama pretty much win the war against us conscientious, informed, and educated citizens who know what the country truly has meant. It’s all over. Finis. Nothing we can do about it.

Oct 30, 2008 - 6:46 pm 29. fred:

Brock,

Here in New Hampshire “Live Free Or Die” no longer obtains. The state is COMPLETELY different from what it was twenty or more years ago. The change has been rapid, deep, and probably long-lasting. It is every bit as Blue Democratic as the other New England states now. The Republican Party in New Hampshire has almost completely collapsed. What really stunned me about my state is how much like California it is becoming. It is an intensely anti-war state, all out of proportion to the casualties we have suffered in the wars in the Middle East and beyond.

I have yet to see any published research into how and why this has happened in my state.

Oct 30, 2008 - 6:51 pm 30. wretchard:

A crisis always creates an opportunity. Ronald Reagan saw it; so did Thatcher and John Paul II. My worry is that conservatives are too ill organized to take political advantage of it. Not so the Left. For the Left a real Right Wing dictatorship would be an inestimable windfall. Hitler was a positive godsend to the Left in almost all of the European countries. If the situation were reversed the Left would be licking its chops.

I think the real problem is that there isn’t enough of an organizational culture among conservatives to serve as a nucleus to rise to the challenge. We have to close the NGO gap; have to start taking back the cultural and education institutions. It won’t happen automatically. All this apocalyptic talk may be emotionally gratifying but it’s really a kind of defeatism.

Oct 30, 2008 - 6:54 pm 31. GARRY OWEN DOOLITTLE (GOD_:

Not Zionists but nationalists. Remember your (humanities’) history!

Oct 30, 2008 - 7:13 pm 32. Habu:

The answer to 90% of the debate here has been pointed out before. Here it is. Understanding this document is imperitive to understanding more than just the document.

The Federalist No. 10
The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
Daily Advertiser
Thursday, November 22, 1787
[James Madison]

To the People of the State of New York:
AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.

It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, — is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.

PUBLIUS

——————————————————————————–

Home Contents Previous Next Index

Oct 30, 2008 - 7:13 pm 33. peterike:

fred: I have yet to see any published research into how and why this has happened in my state.

Isn’t it just the invasion of people from Boston moving in to benefit (ironically) from lower taxes?

Oct 30, 2008 - 7:14 pm 34. bogie wheel:

Wretch -
Here again we come up against the dilemma. Small-government conservatives, by definition, would rather be about their daily lives than building the next election’s GOTV database and myBO equivalent, or strategizing & appointing committee captains for the Long 30 Years’ Counter-March Through the Institutions. Government, to us, is a distraction from, and frequently an obstacle to, What Really Matters. While Government, to them, is ALL That Matters.

Not only are we not slugging it out on the same battlefield … we aren’t even deployed on the same battlefield.

Save the government? “What the hell for?” is, I would think, the conservative’s default position. Why should the government be that all-flaming important in the first place?

Have we now reached (or are we about to reach) the point where conservative ideology and temperament are simply unsuited for the task at hand? Does government have to become All That Matters for conservatives as well as leftists?

And which is it? Do we save the government in order to save the country? Or do we save the country in order to save the government? Or are both these questions based on a faulty premise?

Oct 30, 2008 - 7:24 pm 35. Tamquam Leo Rugiens:

In any relationship the person less interested in the relationship sets the rules. It seems to me that society’s relationship to culture is bound by this rule as well. The Left is less interested in their relationship with the culture, in fact they openly scorn it and work to change it. The Right values culture and wants to safeguard and advance the culture. Since tolerance of divergent opinions is a cultural value for the American Right, the Rightist will tolerate the Left precisely because it is a cultural value to do so. The Left has no such expectation, they are free to be utterly intolerant because it is not a value for them. The Left can set about destroying the common culture with impunity because the act of destruction, not the culture, is the higher value.

Oct 30, 2008 - 7:27 pm 36. Zim:

If the US wanted socialism they would have voted for it 100 years ago. Obama is ahead because he is allowing people to fill in their own blanks about him, at least until Nov 5th.

Too many Americans have their hands out, expecting something for nothing. These folks will have to learn that life owes you nothing. I think, in an ironic twist, Obama is just the guy to teach them that lesson.

It will be painful and many innocent people will be hurt, but it will be a lesson well learned, and fully paid.

Oct 30, 2008 - 7:37 pm 37. mika2k1:

Right now, we have an Army (and Marines) in the field fighting two skirmishing wars, to keep this country safe from a non-centralized (some say net-centric) terror-political threat based on extreme interpretations of Islam.
==

That is a bold faced lie.

A bold faced lie propagated by Saudi propagandists, C4 being the prime example on this here blog. This fake war the US is wasting trillions of dollars on, is the result of Saudi money corrupting the American political decision making process. Jihadi interpretations have always been the same. It’s the means to affect these interpretations that has changed.

Oct 30, 2008 - 7:46 pm 38. fred:

I’ve gone back to re-read the Glick article and came away with the sense that Israel is slowly turning away from physicalist, reductionistic atheism and towards a re-animation of the original, traditional Jewish faith. I’m not sure if it will come in time to save Israel from the huge wolf pack now circling for the kill, but maybe it will save them. But at this point, with their enemies becoming nuclear armed so much of their protection now will reside with an unreliable ally: the United States of America. At a time when the new president will throw the Jews under the bus, as his advisers are clamoring for.

I think the people in Israel are slowly coming to the realization that the socialist atheists who want to stomp Zionism out of existence are destroying the nation and their future. People are taking a good, hard look at why the Left has this instinct to destroy the nation. And they are experiencing buyers’ remorse.

Across the world, in more countries than not, socialism is losing ground and legitimacy. But in our country it is gaining momentum. We live in dangerous and crazy times.

Oct 30, 2008 - 8:14 pm 39. wm:

I’ve been wondering if the reason the left is so bitter is precisely because they had a taste of national unity for those weeks after 9-11; but since their habits of thought mean that they can never truly be part of a larger nation, that they now feel alienated from it.

Maybe for a little while the sheer, deliberate evil and hatred of the slaughter couldn’t be denied; but when the country shifted to survival mode, they largely couldn’t make the shift.

This may be an angle worth considering as we think on what is necessary to save the nation. Because I agree, partition is just another way to give up.

We conservatives have things to offer: self-respect, reverence, generosity and strength are a few. Our sinister siblings do not in their heart of hearts feel they have a place in America, or that they themselves deserve such a place.

Perhaps this implies an educational opportunity?

Oct 30, 2008 - 8:30 pm 40. Leo Linbeck III:

Great Federalist post, Habu. One of my favs.

It is interesting to reflect back upon the circumstances faced by the Framers of the Constitution. They had run an experiment in highly decentralized federalism, where the several States had most of the power. Their concern was that without some form of centripetal force holding together the states, their natural centrifugal force would cause them to fly apart, putting everyone’s survival at risk. Their primary existential threat was military, specifically the much stronger British forces that lurked off their coast. However, they were prescient enough to realize that there was also a significant internal threat, in the form of faction.

Madison’s argument was, essentially, an adaptation of Franklin’s warning: “We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” Union was necessary to achieve the size necessary to fend off these internal and external threats. Without this unity, it would be easy for Great Britain and other enemies to simply target the weakest state or faction, establish a foothold, and then conquer the rest in their turn. This had worked well for England in the past; the established mode of English diplomacy in Europe for the past 1,000 years had been to cultivate relationships with the weaker, not the stronger countries.

This belief is expressed in his F10 phrase “the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic.” Madison also goes on to describe something like a “pooling effect” of faction, whereby the risk of a single faction in a small republic is much higher than the risk of a single faction in a large one. These are description of classic economies of scale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale

But, in 1787, there were 3 million people in the US, and only 38,000 voted. This is about the population of my hometown of Houston. What Madison, Hamilton, and the other Framers probably couldn’t conceive is how large the country would grow: 100X in 230 years.

Now, it is well-known that as organizations grow, they continue to reap economies of scale, but at a diminishing rate. And at the same time, as organizations get large, they start to incur diseconomies of scale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomies_of_scale

These diseconomies – things like communication costs, slow response, resistance to change, duplication of effort, isolated decision-makers, top-heavy management, etc. – grow at a faster rate as the organization gets bigger. Interestingly, these were the very characteristics of the British Empire at the time of the American Revolution.

Today, our Federal Government exhibits all of these diseconomies of scale:

Communication costs: It is practically impossible for a congressman or senator to communicate directly with their constituents.
Resistance to change: How long did it take to “end welfare as we know it”? Was it really eliminated, or did it just go dormant?
Duplication of effort: The intelligence community. The military. HHS. Need I go on?
Isolated decision-makers: Self-evident. No comment necessary.
Top-heavy management: See Wretchard’s post “No Way Out.”

When these two lines cross, and diseconomies are greater than economies, the organization must be restructured or it will stop growing and begin to die. The key objective of such a restructuring is to maximize the economies while minimizing the diseconomies.

For the American colonists, these lines crossed at the point of when duplicative taxes used to support the top-heavy management were imposed by a Parliament that didn’t listen to the taxpayers, and then refused to change their views. The restructuring was an break-up (independence) of existing assets (the States) to current management (Patriots). Radical change.

Later, this same strategy was attempted by the South, but it failed because by then there was sufficient centripetal force in Washington (barely) to keep the whole together.

It is unlikely that a partition or break-up strategy would work today. If anything, the centripetal force is even greater than in 1861.

So what then? If there is not a break-up in our future, what change will happen and what will trigger the change?

As I’ve written before, I believe there is a restructuring in my lifetime. That change will be driven from the bottom, from a grassroots effort that will result in passing and ratifying Amendments to the Constitution designed to dramatically constrain the size and scope of the Federal Government. This restructuring will build upon the Constitution, not throw it out wholesale, but will address the problems the Framers did not envision, the problems of diseconomies of scale and the corruptions that flow from the accumulation of excessive economic and political power. The network design of this effort will be peer-to-peer, and its battle cry will be “Give Me Subsidiarity, or Give Me Death.” [Ed: That's a bit over the top. Consider revising.]

Historically, the change has usually been triggered by a financial crisis: excessive taxes in 1776, abolition of slavery (a huge elimination of wealth) in 1861. It is plausible that the current financial turmoil, the coming recession, and regulatory overreach, combined with greatly increased taxes and spending, will cause mild deflation and much increased unemployment, and that will be the trigger in 2009 or 2010.

There doesn’t seem to be any call for such a change today. Perhaps this is so because, right now, the productive elements of our society are gainfully employed in activities that focus on creating economic value. But when recession comes, two things will happen:

1. Physical labor demand will fall, freeing up people to work at the grassroots.
2. Intellectual labor demand will fall, because “active” investments like equities and real estate become unfavorable relative to “passive” investments like bonds and cash. This frees up people to lead the grassroots effort.

With the internet, we have a mechanism today for coordinating this freed-up labor. What I expect to see is some “political entrepreneur” who will pull together these human resources, raise the financial resources, and coordinate both in a manner that effects real structural change.

The question, though, is one of timing. When will these forces align? When will the time be right?

I don’t know. It’s a mystery.

L3

Oct 30, 2008 - 9:07 pm 41. Derek:

Someone mentioned Canada as an example, but it goes even farther than said.

English Canadian laws and jurisprudence are based on the old english common law tradition. In Quebec, it is based on the Napoleonic code tradition. Vast difference in real terms.

During WWII the french canadians didn’t want to fight for king and country, and rebelled against the draft, whereas english canada fully supported the war effort.

More recently, when the question of supporting the Iraq war was broached, the then Prime Minister went with the prevailing opinion in Quebec and stayed out, where the prevailing opinion in the rest of Canada was to support the US.

Interestingly, the efforts to keep the two solitudes united has probably caused more problems than it has solved.

For one thing, the diagnosis of the reasons for division were wrong. Quebec before the 50’s was in some ways comparable to some muslim backwater states; non violent, non productive and the church/mosque being the source of direction and oppression. How Quebec managed to wrest control of their society away from the church peacefully and with full support of the deeply devout quebecois may contain answers on how to deal with radical islam. But I digress. Efforts were made to answer problems that didn’t exist.

The most important part to remember of this whole mess in Canada is that one political party structured their raison d’etre on the continuing festering problem, presenting themselves as the only viable solution. The Liberals needed to be viewed as the bulwark against Quebec nationalism, dividing the political landscape in two, and forcing the issues during elections to be for or against a separate Quebec. Both the Liberals and the Quebec nationalist parties were left leaning. This prevented the natural range of political viewpoint from being represented. There wasn’t a center, or right wing choice to be had, because destruction was to be upon us all unless the Liberals gained power and kept us safe.

The Conservatives have changed the equation. Liberals have a few seats, conservatives have a few, the nationalists have the majority.

The problem always lies in those who seek power.

Israel’s problem is proportional representation that encourages hard radical viewpoints which garner low double digit election returns. To form a coalition, these small parties have outsized influence, and have no reason to seek the middle.

The US is in an interesting situation. Both parties deserve to lose badly. The elitist left deserves a sucker punch, the fat irresponsible republicans deserve a long march in the desert. Both thrive on nurturing divisions. But one will win. Such a shame.

Derek

Oct 30, 2008 - 9:45 pm 42. Derek:

Further to this, Obama represents a lost opportunity.

The Democratic party had the opportunity this time around to build a coalition that would break down some of the red/blue divisions. A centrist candidate, fiscally responsible, representing the political mass of the US. A southern governor with experience, competence, and the ability to talk without looking down on those who dared support the ugly republicans.

They would be in a position to win 55% or so right now.

Republicans deserve to lose. They had power, and blew it. Over spent, corrupt. Humiliation is good.

But we have someone the true believers in red state caucuses carried to the nomination, and a left leaning media and establishment supported presidential campaign, which enforces division.

Both sides are pushing the other into the extremes.

Derek

Oct 30, 2008 - 10:00 pm 43. Doug:

“It seems to me each side sees itself as correct and more moral than the other. They’re not evil for doing so, they’re human.”

Chana and Simon Love Their House, but . . . They Loathe Each Other –

Oct 30, 2008 - 10:20 pm 44. Eggplant:

Derek said:

“… Obama represents a lost opportunity. The Democratic party had the opportunity this time around to build a coalition that would break down some of the red/blue divisions. They would be in a position to win 55% or so right now.”

That’s the crazy thing about this election. If the Democrats had nominated a moderate, they would have crushed McCain. Instead, they nominated B. Hussein the crypto-Marxist with no prior executive history and loads a skeletons rattling around in his closet. If the economy had not plunged –or– the MSM had done its job then McCain would be winning.

Why did the Democrats willfully try to throw away this election? Was it too many moonbats in control? Were they mezmirized by Hussein’s skin color? Had Bush Derangement Syndrome completely driven them nuts?

It’s a mystery.

Oct 30, 2008 - 10:54 pm 45. newscaper:

Bret said:
“In other words, conservatives want to make sure that nobody has abortions.”

I have to disagree with this characterization somewhat and reverse it: it is liberals who want to ensure conservative parents can have no influence over their own minor daughter’s abortions.

If that crap, plus ‘partial birth’ were dropped, there would still be disagreement, but a lot less harmful of the harmful divisiveness. Why? Because most people are somewhere in the middle on abortion, simultaneously believing that it should not be completely done away with, and that it is a ‘bad’ thing (just perhaps sometimes not as bad as other things in life — there are unhappy tradeoffs).

My proposed experiment on the issue of teen abortion w/o parental consent is this: tell a die-hard feminist a story about a doctor doing breast implant surgery on a 16 year old without her mother’s consent, and listen to the outrage.
Then ask her why abortion is different. There is no logically satisfactory case to be made that the two are different. None.

Peterike:
About departments being ‘taken over’, at least by Indians, is that in my experience, working with/for a few upper-middle mgt Indians, is that most ‘native’ Americans would not want to work for them long. They were almost uniformly sexist, and basically brought their caste system baggage with them. They were generally shitty to their subordinates, and the most disgusting shameless ass-kissers — and door mats — to their superiors on the food chain. There was completely un-American attitude toward work relationships: if you’re on the bottom you should fully expect to be crapped on — just the way it is — and your only goal, should you get the chance, is to move up so you can be the one doing the crapping, which you are then justified in doing with a vengeance.

Oct 30, 2008 - 10:57 pm 46. Doug:

The Kos MoveOn Madmen got exactly what they wanted.
Alinsky-Cloward-Piven provided the strategy.
30 years of practice using other people’s money honed the candidate.
The Democrat Caucus System provided the forum.

Oct 30, 2008 - 11:00 pm 47. newscaper:

I always thought center-right politics would give cover to the first black President, as in “only Nixon could go to China”.

Instead what we got was electing the black man for racial ‘healing’ giving cover to electing a more-or-less commie.

Oct 30, 2008 - 11:00 pm 48. nelson:

Sorry for getting somewhat outside the main subject of the thread.

But thinking about possible tests for the next US president, what happens if, under a BHO administration, OBL gives CNN an exclusive interview declaring he is alive, well and living in Teheran?

Say that the mullahs and ayatollahs confirm his story and, when asked to extradict him, they refuse. What then?

Imagine something even funnier. OBL gives himself up voluntarily in Belgium, France or the UK. The US wants his extradiction, but the local government, backed by 100% of the local media, people and the EU, says: fine, we’ll give him up but only if America assures us of a fair trial, no death sentence and ni imprisonement for life.

What would president BHO do then?

The same if a nuclear device traceable to Iran destroys Tel Aviv. Would he do everything in his power to deter Israel from retaliating?

Oct 30, 2008 - 11:01 pm 49. Doug:

Obama site encourages IP address forgery from donors

Oct 30, 2008 - 11:35 pm 50. Doug:

HillBuzz

Oct 31, 2008 - 12:46 am 51. Doug:

Tito the Builder – Don’t Pretend the American People Are Stupid

Oct 31, 2008 - 12:56 am 52. Doug:

Tito the Builder w/Palin

Oct 31, 2008 - 1:10 am 53. Doug:

- Tito’s Proud to be a US Citizen – (not the first time)

Oct 31, 2008 - 1:23 am 54. Doug:

Obama Worker Explains Tactics
– Comment 18

Oct 31, 2008 - 1:40 am 55. 3Case:

“…because the liberals need to milk conservatives for their welfare state and conservatives hope to impose their moral viewpoint on liberals.”

I’m an anarcho-capitalist libertarian, am regularly identified as a conservative, and I have no desire to inflict my moral viewpoint on another, though I very sincerely believe that abortion conflicts with the phrase “…all Men are created equal….” (emphasis added) with “created” meaning something on the oppositie end of the timeline from “has a prebooked ride home from hospital”.

I don’t believe that conservatives want to impose their moral viewpoints on liberals. Our current morass is tremendous proof opposite.

Oct 31, 2008 - 3:12 am 56. Doug:

William Ayers’ forgotten communist manifesto – Prairie Fire

Oct 31, 2008 - 3:33 am 57. Doug:

The Axelrod Axis-Who Is Behind the Man Behind Obama

Oct 31, 2008 - 3:35 am 58. peterike:

newscaper: Totally agree with your comment re: Indians. Definitely ass kissers up the chain and brow beaters below. That adds to the effect, surely. But oh, of course, that’s just their culture, and all cultures are equal, except for Western culture which is less equal than others.

It always amazed me how liberals are so eager to flood the country with people from places that are resolutely anti-woman, anti-gay, unconcerned with the environment and brutally abusive to animals. Odd. But then, they vote for Democrats, so I guess it’s ok.

Oct 31, 2008 - 5:21 am 59. Pseudo-Polymath » Blog Archive » Friday Highlights:

[...] Israel as canary. [...]

Oct 31, 2008 - 6:03 am 60. Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e38v5:

[...] as canary and also from Israel … the dog that didn’t bark in the [...]

Oct 31, 2008 - 6:06 am 61. RWE:

Eggplant: They did it because they did not have anything else. The philosophy of modern Liberalism is ultimately about believing in less and less and finally you get to believing in nothing but seeking personal power. Bill Clinton came in and delivered the deathblow.

Newscaper: I think that American blacks are going to be really P.O.ed in the long run. If Obama wins his inevitable screw-ups will make no one want to elect a black for dogcatcher. If he loses, his presentation of the “new” face of Black Political Power – dishonest, virulently anti-American, and Marxist, will have damaged them irreparably. And then there are the attitudes toward race relations; with I have no problems with black people and met another black man with whom I have much in common just the other day. But if Obama wins I will never meet another one without thinking “You gave us that Marxist liar.” Going from Condelezza Rice to Barak Hussien Obama is a blow from which they will never recover.

Oct 31, 2008 - 6:22 am 62. copperhead:

Derek,

Although my request is a little off-topic, I would be interested if you had the time to go further into your comments about Quebec history, the church, and radical Islam. Perhaps in a later thread if it suits better. I am usually silent under my rock here, but I appreciate the perspective you bring to the discussion. Your recent posts regarding the public health care system were absolute truth.

Oct 31, 2008 - 6:58 am 63. Alexis:

wretchard:

NGO gap?

The traditional word for NGO is church. An official church would be a state sponsored NGO. Until the 1960’s, churches were generally bulwarks of cultural conservatism. The cultural revolution of the 1960’s changed that. Churches were challenged on their own ground. The effect wasn’t a leftist takeover of churches, but instead the gradual polarization of churches to the point where they became ineffective as sources of moral authority.

It’s the Bishop Spong effect. Once a fellow such as Bishop Spong can get away with challenging the core ideas of a church, a church doesn’t stand for much of anything. As it is, there is a bastion of conservatism in Western thought. It just happens to be in Africa, South America, and East Asia — against the power of Western Europe. And the United States of America just happens to be a “battleground” between the European “left” and the Third World “right”.

The very polarization within the United States makes it difficult for the United States to accomplish anything. The effect may very well be that the center of gravity of the “International Right” could gravitate to France or Brazil.

The fact is that there is a large conservative “establishment” in Washington once called the “counter-establishment” back in the 1970’s. There are right-wing NGO’s such as the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the National Review, the Weekly Standard, et cetera. They haven’t been ineffective, and it may be possible for them to spin off more NGO’s to challenge leftist NGO’s. Yet, they face the problem of sounding like a broken record.

Those who advocate socialism usually go out of their way to equate their ideology with social justice. And all too often, their opponents fall into the trap of equating any opposition to the power of the richest families with “Communism”. There’s the polarization. Actually, the polarization we see today has been part of Western culture since 1914 with the Great War and institutionalized in the Cold War. (One could argue that the Cold War raged in France from 1789 to 1968.) The collapse of the Soviet Union only heralded the end of the Soviet empire, not the end of the Cold War, because the Cold War had become so institutionalized in Western thought by 1989 that it wasn’t going to stop.

Since 1912, the United States has been caught in tussle between “progressives” who proclaimed a right to rule by a secular priesthood of university graduates and “conservatives” who proclaimed a right to rule by an alliance of plutocrats and graduates of military academies. Twentieth century Latin America was riven in civil war between graduates of the University (the Left) and the Military Academy (the Right), a fight that could have been settled better on the soccer field than in a guerrilla war. The 1979 Revolution in Iran could be seen as a coup by theology seminaries against the power of secular academies. When caught between the claims of rival claimants with their powerful cultural organs, the cacophony masks a silence. A dead silence of those who regard both sides as lacking the right to rule. The dead silence of those who oppose the plutocracy of the Right and the secular theocracy of the Left. The dead silence of those who quietly resist the fashion police from centers of media power.

Part of the polarization of the West comes from its very political structure. Is there room for any political party other than the Left Party and the Right Party? One wonders if the effect of parliamentary democracy in and of itself tends toward bipolar politics. Sweden and Poland were once great powers, and yet parliamentary factionalism in the 1760’s sapped their strength. Will the Democrat-Republican rivalry of the US be seen as the equivalent of the Swedish power struggle between the Caps and the Hats (with outside powers funneling money into domestic political campaigns)? Time will tell.

Oct 31, 2008 - 7:11 am 64. newtland:

Nahncee,

It’s been too long since I read “Atlas Shrugged”. Where did John Galt and the gang make their new home?

Thanks.

Oct 31, 2008 - 7:51 am 65. peterike:

Doug’s link at #49 is a must read in terms of O’s fraudulent internet cash vacuum. Really, really amazing what is going on.

If the MSM paid ANY attention to this they could sink this bum in a day.

Oct 31, 2008 - 7:53 am 66. Wadeusaf:

Is there an excluded middle of Arabs, or Muslemen? What effect will the Iraqi Government have on the Iranian revolutionary Islam, and upon Snobby Syrian hegemony in Lebanon? Is the middle in Pakistan about to give the Taliban the finger? Will Bush be validated in time to be witnessed to by “Oh”?

Or has the Lefts usurpation of Islamic method gone too far for their own salvation?

Oct 31, 2008 - 8:05 am 67. Roderick Reilly:

Nahncee:

“”"”"”And all the cops, Wall Street tycoons, and entrepreneurs living in conservative B-Land”"”"”"”

Wall Stree “tycoons” are, more often than not, liberal Republicans (”RINOs” if you will), and Democrats. They are denizens of Manhattan, Connecticut and the Hamptons, after all. Can you say “Mayor Bloomberg?”

Enetrepreneurs are a truly mixed bunch politically. Ironically, the more spectacularly successful ones tend to be “liberals” as that word is now defined. Go figure.

Oct 31, 2008 - 8:11 am 68. Roderick Reilly:

“”"”"”"Don’t take such foolish council from your fears. Don’t exagerate the potential of Obama to accomplish all the alleged goals he sets for himself.
The man can’t even keep his own paperwork organized. If he wins, the country will be governed by the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Axis of Inanity. The comic value of their ineptitude will be memorable. They’ll be fighting among themselves within a year, and the Media won’t know whose side to take in that intramural mudfight.
We may be about to make an electoral mistake, but I don’t think that anything is irreversable. Don’t think so ill of all your fellow citizens that all of them can be fooled all of the time.”"”"”"”"

E. Nigma, you may have a good point. The Obamabots have already proven themselves to be obnoxious and arrogant to amny Democratic Party faithful, so there may well be serious intramural infighting.

Oct 31, 2008 - 8:16 am 69. Roderick Reilly:

FWIW:

The U.S. miltary combat elements could be said to be “over-represented” by “red state” working-class and middle class whites. The over-representation is not as pronounced as the IDF situation, but it’s real. It doesn’t show up statistically because Caucasians in the military are not subdivided in any surveys that way.

Also, America is said to have a “warrior class” from those with strong Scotch-Irish roots.

Oct 31, 2008 - 8:45 am 70. Charles:

in Western society. Although the context of his essay is the financial meltdown, he raises issues similar to the ones discussed in this post. Johnson’s main thesis is that in order to survive, the West must overcome a “moral crisis”, not just a financial one.

The financial crisis, detonated by greed and recklessness on Wall Street and in the City of London, is for the West a deep, self-inflicted wound.
………..

Actually Jesus attack on the money changers in the temple in Jerusalem sealed his fate. (Similiarly Paul got in a lot of trouble with the greek temple business people in asia minor and greece. temples were big business during that period.)

The Gospel of John gives the most detailed account of Jesus attack on the money changers.

“When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the Temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords and drove all from the Temple, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said: ‘Get out of here.’ (John 2:13-16)

Matthew’s gospel does not detail the kind of animals that were being sold for slaughter, but it gives the same order of events.

“Jesus entered the Temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. ‘It is written,’ he said to them, ‘My house will be called a house of prayer but you are making it a den of robbers.’” (Matthew 21:12-13)

The same account is given in the gospel of Mark who, like Matthew, also reports that Jesus accused those at the Temple of making God’s house into a “den of robbers.”

Mark 11:15-17

15On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 17And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written:
” ‘My house will be called
a house of prayer for all nations’[a]? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’

The “house of prayer for all nations” is a reference to
Isaiah 56:7
the ‘den of robbers’ is a reference to Jeremiah 7:11

It bears mentioning that Jesus has much to say about the proper handling of money.

We are well served to have on our “In God We Trust” on our money.

Oct 31, 2008 - 9:23 am 71. Charles:

Here is a picture of a late Roman coin.
The logo/legend on the coin reads roughly
“Happy days are here again.”

Oct 31, 2008 - 9:39 am 72. Eggplant:

Here’s nice article by Charles Krauthammer:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/neither_candidate_an_economic.html

From the perspective of Belmont Club, he’s preaching to the converted. However it’s nice to find a few rational/honest people speaking from the MSM.

NahnCee’s idea of partitioning the nation between moonbats and rational people would never work. The ultimate problem is that young adult children like to be different from their parents (it’s programmed into their DNA and actually a good thing). The children of moonbats are sometimes times rational. Likewise, rational people are sometimes afflicted with moonbat children.

I see moonbat ideology as a form of waste heat or entropy. It’ll always appear as a byproduct of a normally functioning social system. A sufficiently clever social scientist could probably prove this based upon the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Just as an automobile engine needs a radiator to dissipate waste heat, so does a heathly social system need mechanisms to dissipate moonbat ideology. Where a social system gets into trouble is when too much waste heat accumulates and the moonbats actually gain control of the political system. Unfortunately that’s almost about to happen in the United States.

If the radiator fails with a car engine, you either turn the engine off, let it cool down and repair it or turn on the heater and run the engine real slow. If you take no action, typically the cylinder head will crack or the engine fails due to loss of compression or the engine oil will start to burn.

Oct 31, 2008 - 10:04 am 73. mika2k1:

Actually Jesus attack on the money changers in the temple in Jerusalem .
==

Sealed his fate with the Romans, sure enough. As the attack was clearly directed at Rome and the use of Roman coinage. “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” Caesar and his coinage belongs in Rome, not in Israel, and certainly not the Temple.

Jesus was openly received and hosted everywhere he, his wife, his brothers and companions went. Never caused any riots. Yet, everywhere Paulus Tarsus goes he causes riots in the Jewish community. Why is that, Charles?

Oct 31, 2008 - 10:08 am 74. Charles:

Oldest Hebrew Text Discovered at King David’s Border Fortress

A good read. Apropos to this discussion King David ended the the technological advantage that the Philistines held over the Israelites during the period recorded in the book of judges. Principle among these Philistines advantages was the ability to make Iron tools & weapons.

The Romans were also more technologically advanced than Israel during the 1st century AD/CE.

Today it is the national policy of the Israeli government to retain a technological advantage over their neighbors.

Something recognized and encouraged in the US is that the better part of our ability to spread freedom around the world is a function of our technological/industrial/military strength. This in turn comes from our scientific and technological research & development and the ability to turn science and invention quickly into the products and goods of war and peace.

Some of the best investment of government dollars in the future of this country goes to R&D.

Oct 31, 2008 - 10:09 am 75. mika2k1:

den of robbers
==

Perfectly describes Rome.

Oct 31, 2008 - 10:12 am 76. Agoraphobic Plumber:

“Will Bush be validated in time to be witnessed to by “Oh”?”

I certainly believe Bush will be not only validated, but held up as an example for future presidents, at least with regard to his foreign policy. His spending, maybe, not so much.

I voted for Gore, and did not have any love for Bush whatsoever at that time. But I liked his way of offhandedly dismissing the UN and his penchant for “pulling back from the world” so to speak. Not isolationism, really, just sort of getting tired of all the social diseases and opting out of a lot of the international scene for awhile.

I LOVED how he handled 9/11. I love that he FINALLY got the US serious about fixing Iraq after all the useless UN resolutions and with the sanctions rapidly crumbling.

I also tired of hearing all the Bush-bashing. Not that there’s anything wrong with bashing a president…it’s a time-honored pastime. But to twist circumstances, deny facts, lie and cheat…well, it hardened me against the bashers. Bush did NOT “lie” about WMD in Iraq. If the ones that were found weren’t enough for you, well, if Bush “lied” then so did everybody else in all countries before the war.

Don’t get me wrong. I’ll jump on the anti-Bush wagon readily, if someone can give me a good reason. All I’ve seen so far are a bunch of yahoos who have convinced themselves that Bush is evil incarnate and think they can convince everybody else through constant repetition. Nope. Won’t work here.

Which is why it’s kind of funny to me that they keep trying to tie Bush to McCain. Okay, if that’s the way you want it. I guess McCain will respond firmly to provocations by bad Actors, depose dictators, fight Jihadis with our military and so forth.

If McCain could be Bush with a little spending restraint, I’d actually volunteer with his campaign. As it is, he certainly has my vote.

Okay. I’m done now.

Oct 31, 2008 - 10:29 am 77. buckets:

RE: imposing your viewpoint on another

William F. Buckley said it best – “A liberal is someone who wants to reach in and adjust the shower temperature for you.”

Oct 31, 2008 - 10:31 am 78. NahnCee:

Wretchard says: “I think the real problem is that there isn’t enough of an organizational culture among conservatives to serve as a nucleus to rise to the challenge. We have to close the NGO gap; have to start taking back the cultural and education institutions.”

Michael Yon is saying the same thing – that we need to start organizing and fighting back instead of making war-like threats and ululating in distressed panic.

I’m thinking about it but it seems to me that the problem is what it’s always been: Republicans have jobs, Democrats don’t. Therefore, the group that has time to organize and march and hack government e-mails is the group with the largest proportion of the idle and unemployed. And that group historically has been the loudest which sometimes translates into the most successful.

Which leads me to the next step which is why have the Democrats been allowed to take over the internet and 21st Century technology when that is *exactly* what employed and lacking-in-time Republicans need to be doing to get their mojo back.

I don’t see anyone posting on Belmont Club traveling to Chicago to demonstrate in front of Obama’s home like the Dem’s did in Crawford, but I *do* see us making time to spend at the computer if there was something concrete to accomplish. I’m also not thrilled about the idea of making cold phone calls or knocking on doors like a bunch of religious missionaries.

Surely there must be some next level of political activism above and beyond what politicians have done for the last 250 years that conservatives with a job and time commitments could do to organize.

Oct 31, 2008 - 10:51 am 79. Charles:

73. mika2k1:

Actually Jesus attack on the money changers in the temple in Jerusalem .
==

Sealed his fate with the Romans, sure enough. As the attack was clearly directed at Rome and the use of Roman coinage. “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” Caesar and his coinage belongs in Rome, not in Israel, and certainly not the Temple.
……………..
Mark 11

15On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 17And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written:
” ‘My house will be called
a house of prayer for all nations’[c]? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’[d]”

18The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.
…………….
good christian congregations will find blame to go around to both the romans and the temple authorities. And if the pastor really knows what he’s doing he will get everyone to recognize that they in fact themselves crucified Jesus. Why? We are born enemies of God. We have in the record two rebellions against God. The rebellion of Satan and the rebellion of Adam. God loved us while we were still his enemies.

It is natural as breathing for men to blame or to impute to others their problems/evil. It is the great gift of Jesus to impute his righteousness to all who believe in him. In Jewish terms — Jesus is the passover lamb. Believe in Jesus and the Angel of Death passes over.

It was no coincidence that Jesus was crucified on Passover.

Oct 31, 2008 - 10:51 am 80. Pelted:

You said: “But if we substituted the words “liberal” for “Zionist” in the paragraph above, would there be a problem? Therein lies the rub.” Yes, I think that would also be a problem. I wouldn’t wany my army going around giving people daisies. But frankly I think this is a legitimate worry. This week the Isreali army evicted a group of illegal settlers, and in reprisal other settlers rioted in a Palestinian town, and called repeatedly for the killing of Isreali soldiers who attempt to tear down illegal settlements. Do you want their kids running the IDF? The most infamous political assination in Israeli history, that of Rabin, was carried out by an extremely conservative religious jew. This is not to say the most religious Isrealies are all, or even mostly, or even largely irrational extremists. But it is clearly much more common than it is amongst the secular population. The Isrealis I know are smart enough not to dismiss these sorts of concerns out of hand. They know they have an extremist problem, because they’re living with it.

Oct 31, 2008 - 11:01 am 81. Charles:

It may be no coincidence that David defeated the Philistines as the Greeks were entering the Mycenaean dark ages.

Oct 31, 2008 - 11:03 am 82. Charles:

It may be just a coincidence that David defeated the Philistines as the Greeks were entering the Mycenaean dark ages.

Oct 31, 2008 - 11:03 am 83. Charles:

For the next five hundred years Israel’s problems came from being stuck between two superpowers camped along the Tigris/Euphrates and the Nile.

Oct 31, 2008 - 11:08 am 84. Charles:

For the next five hundred years Israel’s problems came from being stuck between two superpowers camped along the Tigris/Euphrates and the Nile respectively.

Oct 31, 2008 - 11:08 am 85. Peter Boston:

The push back must come from where the conservatives have their most enduring strength – the culture. We have the experience of 3,000 years of Ancient Wisdom to draw from. The lesson plan on how to build a workable civil society is fully contained within the Hebrew Bible and the Judeo-Christian value system.

We have to work harder to make it understood, and it doesn’t have to be religious.

Oct 31, 2008 - 11:14 am 86. mika2k1:

It was no coincidence that Jesus was crucified on Passover.
==

But it was total coincidence that cut palm branches used as roofing in Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles) were everywhere. Or that the “Last Supper” was held in the Upper Room, the roof Sukkah. Also total coincidence is that Tarsus Paul, the great self proclaimed Pharisee scholar, is totally oblivious as to the significance of that.

Oct 31, 2008 - 11:18 am 87. Wadeusaf:

Agoraphobic Plumber:

Re:that VETO Pen of President Bush, the ink dried up and the nib rusted from lack of use. I think that perhaps even if it had been ill used, it would be better than not used at all. And there is the rub, we knew that about President Bush as that is how he ruled in Texas. We needed a stronger Congressional delegation…, committed to conservatism and committed to debating and denying the excesses of government.

I am almost of a mind that “Oh” will be President Bush’s legacy, Instead of the much more deserving legacy of a peaceful and self actualized Middle East he worked and our soldiers paid such a great price for.

I think I see how you could read my words as a bashing of President Bush. Believe me, It is not.

Oct 31, 2008 - 11:30 am 88. Unsk:

Happy Halloween everyone!

My costume tonight will be that of a member of our newly ordained OBAMA FORCE. The visionary new civilian national security force proscribed by our hallowed all merciful Messiah.

I will be canvassing our neighborhood, ferreting out that pernicious deviant and recalcitrant right wing behavior everyone I know is so frightened of. Violators will be issued a referral to the wonderful new Obama Department of Social Justice, that replaces that worn out and socially disappointing US Department of Justice.

Trick or Treat!

Oct 31, 2008 - 11:52 am 89. heather:

You know, the most interesting question is: where do those huge Obama crowds come from, and what do they expect to receive from the Messiah???

Among African Americans, is it the fruit of years of hate sermons by such as the Rev Wright?

Is it the financial meltdown, especially among the elderly whose savings have vanished?

Is it a general opinion among the upwardly mobile African Americans that they are being held back by racism (at least partially resulting from affirmative action policies that have ignored basic education requirements; see Thomas Sowell’s writings).

Is it Isolationism’s resurgence, just a vast resentment over “the War”, which never goes away, and the concomitant responsibilities of being the world’s municipal policeman?

Is it a feeling that no matter what you do, you will never be as beautiful or as rich or as sparkling, as those people on TV??

Is it BOREDOM, a feeling that all that stuff you can buy is just not “enough”, that what you want is something more, ie HOPE and CHANGE?

Oct 31, 2008 - 12:03 pm 90. Pascal:

Alexis @63: Is there room for any political party other than the Left Party and the Right Party?

My God yes!

You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down–up to a man’s age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order–or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course. — Ronald Reagan, late October, 1964 (excerpt begins at 3:30 of this 27:50 minute link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt1fYSAChxs)

Additionally, of particular concern to this thread, Ronald Reagan expanded upon this thought in another speech circa 1983. In it he suggested the means by which you and I could break the Left and Right monopoly of the political stage.

If someone here has access to Lexus/Nexus, please let me know. I’d like very much to locate that later speech.

Oct 31, 2008 - 12:09 pm 91. Pascal:

Clarification:

The youtube video that I linked has as its headline: “Ronald Reagan Speech – 1964 Republican National Convention.” This, judging from other sites that report on and transcribe the speech, is incorrect. Also, the size of the auditorium also suggests this could not have been Reagan’s address to the actual convention.

Oct 31, 2008 - 12:19 pm 92. Ken Nelson » Blog Archive » A politicized military:

[...] Israel 50% of IDF company commanders are religious Zionists Is there a risk in such a political weighing to one [...]

Oct 31, 2008 - 12:26 pm 93. Mark:

Wrichard writes: “I think the real problem is that there isn’t enough of an organizational culture among conservatives to serve as a nucleus to rise to the challenge. We have to close the NGO gap.”

Alexis writes: “wretchard: NGO gap? The traditional word for NGO is church.”

Responsa: Wrichard is correct, as is Alexis.

The problem for conservatives is that its non-profit organization of choice is a church or a faith-based initiative. As the First Amendment increasingly “evolves” to mean (grotesquely) “separation of religion from public and political life,” those church-based non-profits will be increasingly marginalized.

President Bush’s faith-based initiative will not endure; or, rather, since a government-funded entity can be created but not defunded, and no good deed can go unpunished, the funding will be directed to “faith-based initiative, 2.0.” I won’t take the time to describe what the redefinition will involve; but if you imagine what it will take to get funding to a particular church (or mosque) in Chicago, you won’t be far off.

Sen. Obama has declared that he will institute a parallel military. What will this involve? Americorps is an example, whereby recent college grads can pick up a government-funded, low-paying NGO job at the local liberal outfit, get some training, and prepare to do some community organizing to increase aid to NGO’s. This work will be defined as a moral equivalency to military service, elevating the community organizer, devaluing service in the military. At this point, the Long March through the institutions will be complete. Brilliant, really. You’d have to have been at ground level over the past decade to really appreciate the process.

Unfortunately, the anti-intellectualism of much of the Republican party blinded it to obvious strategic responses. Republicans were in effect asking, derisively, “How many divisions does the Ivory Tower have?” How many, indeed.

The academics are cheap to buy, really. Any administration could have bought them (and the NGO’s)off for a pittance via grants and fellowships. But no one did. Republicans scorned them instead. Billions in the Interior omnibus go for cattle and sheep grazing; a truly insulting amount goes to the arts and humanities endowments. For want of proper care and feeding of the intelligentia, conservatives will reap the most vile kind of response that the very smart, and very angry, denizens of the ivory tower, leading their useful idiots, can dream up.

Oct 31, 2008 - 12:40 pm 94. Aristide:

heather @ 89

You know, the most interesting question is: where do those huge Obama crowds come from, and what do they expect to receive from the Messiah???

Among African Americans, is it the fruit of years of hate sermons by such as the Rev Wright?

GLENN: We have a ton to go through, but I want to start with a clip with — this is a piece of audio that a person who was at a campaign rally — and in fact, I think it’s the campaign rally in Florida after that 30-minute commercial, you know, where they did the live shot and the crowd in Florida, this is the result of listening to Barack Obama. Ask yourself, does this sound like someone who is at a rally who has just listened to the person who could be the next President of the United States. Listen to what this woman says.

VOICE: It was the most memorable time of my life. It was a touching moment.

VOICE: Why?

VOICE: Because I never thought this day would ever happen. I won’t have to work on putting gas on my car, I won’t have to work on paying my mortgage. You know, if I help him, he’s going to help me.

Glenn Beck

Oct 31, 2008 - 1:49 pm 95. E. Nigma:

The Reagan speech on Youtube was indeed NOT at the Republican convention, but afterward. I watched that convention as a child and Reagan did not speak at the convention. He did however, campaign for Barry Goldwater, and this speech was part of that campaign. It was on TV, and I remember watching that as a child, too.

The title of the speech “A Time for Choosing”, can be found on the internet. It still holds up.

Oct 31, 2008 - 2:07 pm 96. Peter Boston:

Aristede

When you have a charismatic speaker and a stupid electorate you vote to reject Sparta’s peace offer and continue the War for another year.

Oct 31, 2008 - 2:16 pm 97. NahnCee:

“VOICE: Because I never thought this day would ever happen. I won’t have to work on putting gas on my car, I won’t have to work on paying my mortgage. You know, if I help him, he’s going to help me.”

///

The thought occurs that once upon a time, black people in America *did* have massah’s who provided their transportation and housing for free. It was called slavery and we’ve been given to believe that black people did not enjoy being slaves. Indeed, thousands of white people gave their lives in a bloody war so that black people could be responsible for providing their *own* gas and mortgage payments, and not be beholden to an owner/master any more.

So really, what the lady in this video is saying is that not only does she want someone to give her gas and a mortgage payment for free but she doesn’t want to work for it, either on her own time or as a slave.

We need to get the grounds rules straight about what the “change” Obama is promising really means.

Oct 31, 2008 - 2:23 pm 98. Pascal:

E. Nigma;

Seems the question might be fitting for you. Don’t you find it enigmatic for the 2008 RNC publicity committee (gopconvention2008 after all is credited at the link with publishing it) to have posted this video with the inaccurate title?

Thanks for filling in what you remembered.

Now, does anyone remember hearing or seeing the later speech for which I am searching? Any excerpt or transcript fragment from the early 1980s that I recall vaguely. President Reagan not only favored seeing the political spectrum as Up versus Down as an alternative to left or right, but referred to the Down as the “pit of despair,” and the Up as the fresh air of freedom (or liberty). There was considerably more in his analogy and descriptions, but I don’t want to send anyone off in search of faultily recalled key words.

Oct 31, 2008 - 2:25 pm 99. Charles:

But it was total coincidence that cut palm branches used as roofing in Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles) were everywhere. Or that the “Last Supper” was held in the Upper Room, the roof Sukkah.
……………
The significance of Jesus riding a donkey and having his way paved with palm branches is a fulfillment of a prophecy spoken by the prophet (Zechariah 9:9)
Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion!
Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem!
See, your king [a] comes to you,
righteous and having salvation,
gentle and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

John 12:12-16 (NIV) The next day the great crowd that had come for the Feast heard that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem. 13 They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting, “Hosanna! ” “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” “Blessed is the King of Israel!” 14 Jesus found a young donkey and sat upon it, as it is written, 15 “Do not be afraid, O Daughter of Zion; see, your king is coming, seated on a donkey’s colt.” 16 At first his disciples did not understand all this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize that these things had been written about him and that they had done these things to him.
………………………………..
Why the confusion?

The custom of spreading one’s outer garments in the path was reserved for royalty. By shouting “Hosanna” [from Hebrew yasha ("save") + na ("now" or "please") or "save now"], the crowd was pleading for Jesus to save them from Roman oppression and domination; by waving palm branches they were fanning the flames of Jewish nationalism, for the palm symbolized the Macabbean Revolt and the subsequent Hasmonean rule from the 160’s BC to 63 BC. It was as if the people were waving Jewish flags, hoping to see Jesus do to the Romans what Judah Macabbee had done to the Greeks in 164 BC—reestablish an independent Jewish kingdom. Jesus, however, was not a heroic warrior-messiah entering on a horse with battle cries and weapons, but a gentle Prince of Peace, riding humbly on a donkey, bringing salvation.

Oct 31, 2008 - 3:54 pm 100. Charles:

But it was total coincidence that cut palm branches used as roofing in Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles) were everywhere. Or that the “Last Supper” was held in the Upper Room, the roof Sukkah.
………………
The record of the New Testament tells us that Y’shua (Jesus) not only observed the Feast of Tabernacles, but used it as an occasion to teach about His true nature as Savior. Y’shua took the symbolism of the illumination of the Temple, as well as the water-drawing ceremony, and applied it to Himself.

“Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If any man is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being shall flow streams of living water.’ ” But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” John 7:37-39 NASB

We read also, in John 8:12, that Jesus proclaimed,

“I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

Jews For Jesus Blog.

Oct 31, 2008 - 4:07 pm 101. Charles:

But it was total coincidence that cut palm branches used as roofing in Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles) were everywhere. Or that the “Last Supper” was held in the Upper Room, the roof Sukkah. Also total coincidence is that Tarsus Paul, the great self proclaimed Pharisee scholar, is totally oblivious as to the significance of that.
………………
Unlike Peter and James — Paul’s mission was to the gentiles. Every group has different customs.

Paul had big run ins with temple authorities of both the Jews and the Gentiles. Typically he’d go to a city and visit the jewish synagogue first–out of respect. Then he would visit the gentiles. He would visit areas near their temples for Artemis or Athena. He even once preached before the Unknown God in Athens. (The Greeks included an Unknown God just in case they might have missed one.)

Acts 17 (NIV)
16While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. 17So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. 18A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. 19Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean.” 21(All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)

22Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.

24″The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28′For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’

29″Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man’s design and skill. 30In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.”

32When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, “We want to hear you again on this subject.” 33At that, Paul left the Council. 34A few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.

Oct 31, 2008 - 4:43 pm 102. mika2k1:

The record of the New Testament tells us that Y’shua (Jesus) not only observed the Feast of Tabernacles
==

LOL! And that’s what Jesus was doing during the Last Supper, celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles. Only that Paul Tarsus, your lying Imperial Roman propaganda agent and self proclaimed Pharisee, did not know the difference between Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles. This also explains that weird episode of dipping Matza bread into wine.

Oct 31, 2008 - 4:52 pm 103. mika2k1:

Unlike Peter and James — Paul’s mission was to the gentiles.
==

Unlike Peter and James, Tarsus Paul had zero connection to Jesus. He never met Jesus. He never knew Jesus.

Jesus was a fervent Jewish nationalist. He hated Rome and scrupulously avoided the more Hellenized towns and people of Judea. On the other hand, the Tarsus Paul character is a conniving liar, and an agent for Imperial Rome. In Rome’s hands, Jesus and his murder by his Romans tormentors becomes grease to further Roman Imperial ambitions.

The Roman thieves stole Judea. They killed her people. They killed Jesus’ Jewish identity and heritage. They falsified Jesus’ history, the cause of his murder, turned reality on its head, and blamed “THE JEWS” for their murder.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Oct 31, 2008 - 6:39 pm 104. Dave:

Rave and rant Mika. He will still be St Paul
long after you are gone.

Oct 31, 2008 - 7:17 pm 105. mika2k1:

Rave and rant Mika. He will still be St Paul
long after you are gone.
==

But you will never be able to say you did not know. And that’s good enough for me.

Oct 31, 2008 - 7:25 pm 106. Charles:

103. mika2k1:
The Roman thieves stole Judea. They killed her people. They killed Jesus’ Jewish identity and heritage. They falsified Jesus’ history, the cause of his murder, turned reality on its head, and blamed “THE JEWS” for their murder.
……………
From Wikipedia
Pilate appears in all four canonical Christian Gospels. Mark, demonstrating Jesus to be innocent of plotting against Rome, portrays Pilate as extremely reluctant to execute Jesus, blaming the Jewish hierarchy for his death, even though he was the sole authority for this action.[1] In Matthew, Pilate washes his hands of Jesus and reluctantly sends him to his death.[1] In Luke, Pilate not only agrees that Jesus did not conspire against Rome, but Herod, the tetrarch, also finds nothing treasonous in Jesus’ actions.[1] In John, Jesus makes no claim to be the Son of Man or the Messiah to Pilate or to the Sanhedrin.[1]
…………………….
Matthew 26
57Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the teachers of the law and the elders had assembled. 58But Peter followed him at a distance, right up to the courtyard of the high priest. He entered and sat down with the guards to see the outcome.

59The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. 60But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward.

Finally two came forward 61and declared, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’ ”

62Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 63But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ,[e] the Son of God.”

64″Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

65Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66What do you think?”
“He is worthy of death,” they answered.

67Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him 68and said, “Prophesy to us, Christ. Who hit you?”
……………….
John 19
Jesus Sentenced to be Crucified
1Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged. 2The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head. They clothed him in a purple robe 3and went up to him again and again, saying, “Hail, king of the Jews!” And they struck him in the face.

4Once more Pilate came out and said to the Jews, “Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no basis for a charge against him.” 5When Jesus came out wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, Pilate said to them, “Here is the man!”

6As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, “Crucify! Crucify!”
But Pilate answered, “You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him.”

7The Jews insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.”

8When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid, 9and he went back inside the palace. “Where do you come from?” he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer. 10″Do you refuse to speak to me?” Pilate said. “Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?”

11Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”

12From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jews kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.”

13When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge’s seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha). 14It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour.
“Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews.

15But they shouted, “Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!”
“Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate asked.
“We have no king but Caesar,” the chief priests answered.

16Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified.

Oct 31, 2008 - 8:05 pm 107. NahnCee:

I do wish that management would issue some sort of new rule or request banning multiple (or any, actually) Biblical quotations.

To those of us who see the Bible as more of a road-map than a precise step-by-step commandment for daily life — not to mention those of us who may be Buddhist or Hindu or Pagan — it’s annoying as hell and a real waste of time and space.

And a total waste of time because such quotations prove absolutely nothing since they are based upon the faith of the quoter and nothing tangible or provable.

It’s just a silly game of seeing who can piss the furthest translated into who can quote (or Google) the most. Sort of like those poor pathetic Muslims who brag about memorizing the Koran, as if *that* ever helped anyone to do anything either.

Oct 31, 2008 - 8:54 pm 108. exhelodrvr:

“Jesus was a fervent Jewish nationalist. He hated Rome and scrupulously avoided the more Hellenized towns and people of Judea.”

No, he wasn’t. As demonstrated by his healing the centurion’s child, for instance.

Why do you think Judas Iscariot was so frustrated with him?

Oct 31, 2008 - 9:07 pm 109. mika2k1:

No, he wasn’t. As demonstrated by
==

I’ll say it again:

The Roman thieves stole Judea. They killed her people. They killed Jesus’ Jewish identity and heritage. They falsified Jesus’ history, the cause of his murder, turned reality on its head, and blamed “THE JEWS” for their murder.

Nov 1, 2008 - 6:04 am 110. mika2k1:

Btw, how anyone can read that stupefying Roman propaganda nonsense and not have their brain cell walls cave in on themselves is beyond me. And given by the quotes plastered here, beyond the laws of nature.

Nov 1, 2008 - 6:13 am 111. Steve Klein:

Richard, This is an interesting piece. I try not to miss Caroline Glick’s columns in the J. Post.

I would not call Caroline Glick a “religious Zionist.” She supports Benjamin Netanyahu over Moshe Feiglin whom I believe is a religious Zionist. She strikes me as an “ideological Zionist.” I do not know what Israel will look like if or when religious Zionists are in command positions as Glick seems to believe they will be.

I do not understand this statement, “Whoever wins, it won’t be ‘Israel’, unless the word is spelled with qualifiers.” Right now non-ideological, non-religious, non-Zionist traitors are in the command positions and Israel is Israel without qualifiers, though a very sick Israel in my view. Why would Israel not be Israel should ideological and religious Zionists be in command positions? Why the need for qualifiers?

Nov 1, 2008 - 6:30 am 112. Charles:

107. NahnCee:

I do wish that management would issue some sort of new rule or request banning multiple (or any, actually) Biblical quotations.
…………
109. mika2k1:

==

I’ll say it again:

The Roman thieves stole Judea. They killed her people. They killed Jesus’ Jewish identity and heritage. They falsified Jesus’ history, the cause of his murder, turned reality on its head, and blamed “THE JEWS” for their murder.
Nov 1, 2008 – 6:04 am 110. mika2k1:

Btw, how anyone can read that stupefying Roman propaganda nonsense and not have their brain cell walls cave in on themselves is beyond me. And given by the quotes plastered here, beyond the laws of nature.

Nov 1, 2008 - 8:40 am 113. mika2k1:

As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, “Crucify! Crucify!”
But Pilate answered, “You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him.”
==

Poor Pontus Pilate, only doing what he’s told by his Jooish superiors. Judea having apparently completely depleted its reserves stones on all the other Jooish Roman sympathizers.

Nov 1, 2008 - 9:14 am 114. mika2k1:

..depleted its reserves ^of stones..

Nov 1, 2008 - 9:15 am 115. Charles:

One age does not map over on to another perfectly. imho if anything, the years preceding the destruction of the soloman’s temple in 589 bc/bce better maps over on to today’s world for israel than the events that preceded the destuction of Herod’s temple in 70 ad/ce.

but in order to have the temple destroyed — first ya gotta build the temple. kapish?

I have argued on this board several times that this age most closely resembles the early 1500’s because that period marked the furthest advance of islam and also the time when it first started to be turned back in Spain.

The second thing about that period that is similiar to today is the recovery of old documents and archaelogy.the spanish plundered the moors libraries in cadiz and elsewhere and recovered greek texts which were unknown in the west.

Today hardly six months goes by when some inscription is not found in Israel or elsewhere in the middle east that confirms the events of the Old And New Testaments.

Time and again the work of the archaelogists confirm that the both the Old and New Testaments are historically accurate accounts of the ages. Therefor they are helpful source documents in any discussion of the history of that part of the world.

The reason that both the Old and the New Testament engage all the other peoples of the world is that they contain the spirit of truth. They show Israelis in their true light. Warts and all. Therefor they speak to the human condition of all peoples.

This is something very different from the propaganda of the Egyptians the Babylonians Persians Romans etc.

(other reasons that this age imho –most closely resembles the early 1500’s are that 1.) Ptolemy’s astronomy was overturned by Galileo. Something very similar is happening today. 2.)technology advanced along a broad front including things like the printing press. the internet today has much the same effect as the printing press. 3.)the exploration the the new world had begun then as the exploration of space has begun today. 4.) luther began the reformation in worms in 1519. there is no reformation in europe today. but that might happen yet. certainly the glory days of atheism have passed.

Nov 1, 2008 - 10:06 am 116. slade:

certainly the glory days of atheism have passed. – Charles

Amen Brother.

But seriously, to add to your argument, the discoveries within quantum mechanics of the last quarter of the last century should have been enough to put atheism firmly in the skeptic’s corner. (I am agnostic myself but I have an uneasy feeling I might be overly optimistic.)

Nov 1, 2008 - 12:57 pm 117. mika2k1:

the glory days of atheism have passed
==

This has nothing to do with atheism. This has everything to do with Roman propaganda, the falsification of Jewish history by Roman Imperialists, and the highjacking reediting and falsification of Nasorean writings by these Roman Imperialists.

Nov 1, 2008 - 1:25 pm 118. Pascal:

Mika: you are relentlessly in your face despite your protestation .

Persistence of evil
Oct 29, 2008 – 5:37 pm 171. mika2k1:

Mica, you try to sound Jewish in this thread, but your bile for Christians and their faith is consistent with what I’ve pointed out about you in other threads, and in a couple of posts at my own site.
==

Pascal,

My “bile” is directed at Imperialists. It’s true I have little patience for religious superstitions and lies, but as long as those superstitions are kept private and disconnected from Imperial political ambitions, I’m willing to live and let live.

As for Amalek, I’m a fierce Israeli/Hebrew nationalist. I understand why the Jewish religion is central to that cultural ethnic and national identity, and as long as it doesn’t get in face, again, I’m willing to live and let live.

You twice said you are willing to live and let live yet you persist without any provocation. Seeing as how green you have shown yourself to be, Live and let die would be more the style of the anti-natalist greens. But I bet you would be far more proactive if you had the nerve.

You get into every Judeo-Christian person’s face on a regular basis. Amalek is the human embodiment of evil. You can be born of any tribe and still be Amalek; it’s a choice. For that matter, you could claim to be anything you want, but your true Amalekite comes out here daily.

Exception noted: Amalek had nerve; you have something else.

Nov 1, 2008 - 6:17 pm 119. mika2k1:

You get into every Judeo-Christian person’s face on a regular basis.
==

No, it is the Pauline liars and Roman Imperialists that get in my face on a regular basis. Amalek preyed on the weak and defenseless Israelites. It’s quite a different story here, isn’t it. In fact, if anyone in history is deserving of the title Amalek, it would be the Pauline Roman Imperialists.

Nov 2, 2008 - 2:52 am 120. Bob Murphy:

4. NahnCee:
If you had all the cops, entrepeneurs, and other productive types in one country that might be very cool, for awhile.
But then they would have kids…
18 years later you would probably be back to square 1. Parental hegemony would be like a red flag in front of a bull.
Like the mid and late 60s.

Nov 4, 2008 - 6:22 pm

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.