That's a great story, and it's so important to discuss it with regard to education, because I argue that there's a HUGE difference between academic achievement (which is a reward-based thing, like the free market version of education)... and LEARNING, which is all about personal responsibility and personal reward.

Somewhere along the line, everyone forgets that information, knowledge, and truth, equals power. People are lazy, and don't want to work, but if you press them, they always want to LEARN. Even slacker yutes. There IS information that they seek and go after voraciously. We think it's complete garbage, but it's actually knowledge. It takes dedication to learn it.

My favorite example is this: you remember when Jay Leno used to go out on the street and find retards to ask simple questions like "who's the vice president?" And inevitably, he'd find somebody who didn't know.

Ha ha. Yes, there are retards--excuse me, profoundly ignorant people... dudes, bimbos... dumb blondes. But if you take any one of them, any idiot who can't answer the simplest general knowledge question. Take a female porn star for instance... and if you press them for what they DO know, they'll have a depth of knowledge in SOMETHING that will put you to shame.

I knew a stripper who could tell you every dress designed by top fashion designers, in minute detail... she could tell you about jewelry, or perfumes, tattoos, piercings, whatever... she could ask YOU questions that you'd never know. Some detail or trivia about cars or how much diamonds cost per karat.

Dumb as a box of rocks, until you find out what knowledge they have sought. That's the trick. We have a lot of morons, who devote all their knowledge-quests to material, pop-culture, tabloid jackass shit. Or conspicuous consumption. Guys who want to be rappers, know everything about every rapper... chicks who want to live the celeb red carpet lifestyle, know about clothes and shoes and other bullshit.

Now, there was a time, when Americans wanted to learn about the world, about history, about science, space, math, all kinds of things. Now? Not so much. Nobody in this culture will seek knowledge or information about shit they don't care about.

But actually, that's part of a bigger con job. Put in place by elites who want everyone to STAY dumb as a box of rocks, because they're easier to exploit that way.

The reason schools fail, is because they're trying to accommodate postmodern culture, rather than culture their students. School is like doing jailtime for most students. They fail to teach the most important lesson of all: that learning is a personal journey, and it's based on what you want out of life.

Bimbos can get what they want by being dumb, learning about breast implants and fancy shoes. They collect the knowledge that makes them into increasingly effective bimbos.

But a kid has to want to be a scientist, to learn science. Has to want to be an artist to learn about art. I was a truant. Until I found a love of art, comics... you couldn't stop me. I read everything. I spent hours drawing. I took the train to museums. Not because I HAD to, but because I was so damn interested in the subject, that it consumed me.

What consumes kids now? Video games? Great. There's all kinds of excuses to learn valuable shit, simply by saying that's what you want. Rap music? Wonderful. Same thing. You'll be a BETTER rapper if you go after it with all your heart and soul and learn how to read and write (in order to rhyme)... learn music, theory, learn about business.

You can't make a kid WANT to learn, but you can find out what they care about.

I know kids who care about basketball, I know kids who care about pot, hanging out with their friends... no teacher is gonna change that. But a teacher can be there when a student suddenly wakes up one day and says, you know what? I love math problems, or chess, or romance novels... or sci fi, or rockteering. Any of those passions stimulate academic PURSUIT, which is what's really lacking these days.

Everyone has a talent. It's just that we tend to be too politically correct to tell a young girl, well, if that's what you're interested in, you should drop out of school and become a whore. You'll have enough for a Ferrari in a year... we get too locked up in controlling destinies, instead of letting people write their own.

quote:

Dumb as a box of rocks, until you find out what knowledge they have sought.

Yes, I totally agree with that approach.

quote:

I took the train to museums.

Mark Levin the other day was going on and on about how as a young kid he would take the train to Philadelphia and walk amongst the great historic places in American history. And not just a couple times but he figured 80 or so times. He's probably as dumb as a brick when it comes to breast implants, but he knows American history.

Although some types of knowledge are perhaps "glamour" knowledge and mark one as erudite and sophisticated, but I don't believe any of that stuff. The shoe cobbler is as intelligent in his own way as the Constitutional scholar. The area of intersect is that if we are to be a self-governing people who don't let our freedoms fritter away, we're going to have to have a greater commitment to maintaining our society than listening to Keith Olbermann. Whether we like it or not, becoming a rudimentary scholar of America 101 is part of our curriculum and if we don't learn this stuff we're just putty in the hands of the headlines of the LA or New York Times.

quote:

You can't make a kid WANT to learn, but you can find out what they care about.

And to a very large extent, developing the basic (reading, writing, 'rithmatic, history, geography, etc.) are essential in order to produce the ability to care about anything on a sufficient level to do something about it. Some of this is just about eating your spinach because it's good for you. It's great when people's passions and interests light up. But how sad it is that getting an education and pursuing one's interests in various fields is though of as "acting white." There is this rot and the rot where much of academia is dumbed-down or more concerned with indoctrinating people into the pseudo-religion of leftism. Not good, as far as I'm concerned.

quote:

Whether we like it or not, becoming a rudimentary scholar of America 101 is part of our curriculum and if we don't learn this stuff we're just putty in the hands of the headlines of the LA or New York Times.

So true. And it's because now it's essential knowledge. Just the way learning to navigate the web is now. EVERYONE has to have rudimentary computer or cellphone skills to survive in the culture. You know it's essential now, because even seniors can email and use a cell phone.

American History is really going to separate the gullible from the incredulous. It's going to incite the constitution-lash.

How long have I been saying that you have to look back to go forward? You have to build on the lessons of the past. The biggest mistake Apple made, was abandoning the original AHIGs from the legacy. That was a soul-selling, cynical, "politically" expedient move. They made money, but they did not benefit customers. Which is another way to make money.

The same way as political power can benefit politicians, or us. It depends on the character of those who wield it.

I agree basic learning skills are essential. If you can't command the language enough to pick up a book, you're pretty much dead meat. I struggle with even simple math sometimes, and it always causes me trouble. To the point where, I'm seriously considering a math tutor. I have no problem picking up learning I need as I go.

Yutes need that same attitude. Right now they're taught to have a total disdain for school and learning. Probably because it's free, and run by liberal democrats. The information you gain at school is seen as totally worthless. And I must say, I honestly think public school kids would probably be better off on their own, or home-schooled. Private schools are much better, but still suffer from basic philosophical flaws.

I'd love to see the public education system dismantled and rethought. Semi-privatized. Either itinerant teachers, or teleconferencing in the classroom.

Remember, everything Glenn Beck knows about American history, he picked up on his own, from books, since 1995 or so. There's really not that much to learning if you've got reading skills, and access to a library. There's kind of a sham to the idea that you need a school in order to learn.

Here's a portrait of the quintessential suck-ass politician. He (or she) is the kind who views elected office as something you achieve by fooling people or playing them, and not by believing in something substantial. This article paints Florida Governor Charlie Crist as the very disease we're fighting now.

Makes my blood boil. Out. Especially these emm-effing RINO Republicans.

quote:

American History is really going to separate the gullible from the incredulous. It's going to incite the constitution-lash.

How long have I been saying that you have to look back to go forward? You have to build on the lessons of the past....Remember, everything Glenn Beck knows about American history, he picked up on his own, from books, since 1995 or so. There's really not that much to learning if you've got reading skills, and access to a library.

Speaking of which, Beck mentioned today that there are several books on American history in Amazon's bestseller book list at the moment including A Patriot's History of the United States. A few books that have been recommended to me or that I've heard about are Samuel Adams: A Life, Vindicating the Founders, and What's So Great About America? And speaking of Dinesh D'Souza, here's an article (I hope the link works) by D'Souza and Brother Lowry: An Exceptional Debate.

I hope to get to one or two of those eventually.

You mixed up your Roman Catholic Indians.

That last one is (edited by?) Ramesh Ponnuru, a Kansan. Senior Editor for the National Review.

D'Souza is more our age, born in Mumbai.

They all look alike to me. But one section of that essay I thought was extraordinary:

quote:

These dueling critiques point to a paradox at the heart of American conservatism. We aren’t Tories, concerned with preserving the prerogatives of an aristocratic elite or defending tradition at all costs. Instead, we’re advocates of the dynamism of an open society. Through most of human history and still in many places in the world, that would make us the opposite of conservatives. Not in America.

That's a huge point. And that's why labels (even labels such as "conservatism") are often difficult, misleading, and sometimes near worthless. Conservatism in Russia is a quite different thing to American conservatism. "Advocates of dynamism of an open society" is a pretty good description, along with the idea of more-or-less gradual change as well as acknowledging that there are some timeless and essential principles that should not change. Tricky stuff, but not impossible. That's one reason this discussion about American liberty can and should go on.

I think those vocabulary words are meaningless. You talk to any progressive, and utter the words: "Advocates of Dynamism of an Open Society", and they will claim total allegiance to that. They'd argue that moving away from (subtext: evolving, improving) the Constitution is "Dynamism"... and that "Advocacy" amounts to an embracing of their typical utopian social justice. As for "open society"... we've seen even Obama sit there and talk about openness and transparency and how "free" our society will be when government frees us.

I've said this like a bajillion times, but this is about more than semantics. Discourse and dialog is more than vocabulary. Sure, vocabulary is a part of it. And I recognize cynically that he who controls the terminology controls the debate... but that's an elitist idea that needs to be debunked.

The democrats' reliance on renaming shit is fast becoming tired. Take ACORN's response to corruption and loss of government funding... uh, guys, let's change our name! That belies a belief that the American people are too stupid to see what they're up to. And that if they choose the right name, like the 'coalition for freedom loving lost kitten and orphan children solidarity peace and love and empowerment league'... then people will fall for it.

Obama believes that calling the next stimulus a "jobs bill" is going to give it a better chance of passing than calling it a stimulus. They polled word-associations, and stimulus rated low.

That's how these guys operate. We, as a nation, have to be savvier than hearing a few pretty phrases, and going, hmmm, sounds good! Sign me up! The nazis called concentration camps "work camps"... they spun mass murder into things that sounded like a carnival atmosphere.

Politics in America is becoming something where yes means no, no means yes, and "social justice", "freedom", etc, are the exact opposite of those things.

It's far better to challenge every buzzword, blow up every PC-approved term. If it's "free", Mr. President, you tell us HOW it's free. Does it, for example, free us from Taxes? Does whatever you're hawking reduce the debt? Does this or that government program have evidence that it works or doesn't work?

Relying on simply the vocabulary words is dangerous. Because you can call feces chocolate frosting.

You really have to ask Beck-like questions. How do we KNOW this is frosting? Where did you get the ingredients? It smells like shit, not chocolate, what's up with that?

Did you hear that gaffe of Biden's during the healthcare "summit" where he said that being Vice President was easy? There was nothing to do, it was like being the grandpa rather than the parent? That is so telling on so many levels. A) That means he sees the President as the Parent. That's nanny-state true-color revealing right there. B) We obviously pay him to sit around and do nothing, so maybe we could cut grandpa's pay...

quote:

They'd argue that moving away from (subtext: evolving, improving) the Constitution is "Dynamism"... and that "Advocacy" amounts to an embracing of their typical utopian social justice.

Yes, I'll easily concede that. Brother Jonah does such an admirable job of explaining the near addiction to change for change's sake that so many yutes of today fall for. And not just yutes, of course, but a lot of stupid overgrown hippies and such.

What's the difference between typical American dynamic change and the "dynamic" change of the Progressives? Well, the former comes almost entirely from the private sector while the later is considered the prime function and purpose of government. To the extent that government facilitates building infrastructure (such as railroads, canals, and highways), it can remain dynamic and non-Communistic especially because the whole point of that infrastructure is not cementing government in place but facilitating private industry. But things such as "health care reform" are all about cementing government in place. Big difference, and an easily detected one unless one is gullible and programmed, has drunk the socialist kool-aid, and now equates compassion with government action, and primarily only government action. And there are lots and lots of rubes and useful idiots out there who are slouching this country towards the Gomorrah of socialism. Sorry if I insulted anyone out there. I just really don't care anymore. It's time to fight back.

quote:

The democrats' reliance on renaming shit is fast becoming tired. Take ACORN's response to corruption and loss of government funding... uh, guys, let's change our name!

I think you're right. But I also submit that this is so primarily because there is so much of it going on in such a relatively compressed timeframe. Had the Marxist-socialist Democrat fiends on the left been a bit more patient, they would have smothered us in gradualism – just like they've been doing for the last 50 years. Hell, they even had Republicans doing it. George W. ran up huge deficits while adding entitlements. And useful idiots such as McCain were always too ready to reach across the aisle and slip his hand into the trousers of Ted Kennedy. It's disgusting. But what the fiendish Marxist-socialist Democrats did (along with Bush and other useful idiots) was to break from gradualism and hit us with several huge things all at once: TARP, the bail-outs, "stimulus," economic self-festering mismanagement (with the resultant high unemployment), corruption (there have been several noted incidents including the dirtbag governor of Illinois), the global warming scam, cap-and-trade, and, last but not least, the attempted socialist takeover of 1/6 of the economy otherwise euphemistically known as "health care reform." The sleeping giant woke up finally but it took someone pissing into his mouth in order to do so. That's how stupid most of us had become. But many are indeed waking up now.

quote:

Obama believes that calling the next stimulus a "jobs bill" is going to give it a better chance of passing than calling it a stimulus.

He did get the not-too-clever Scott What's-His-Name to fall for it.

quote:

That's how these guys operate. We, as a nation, have to be savvier than hearing a few pretty phrases, and going, hmmm, sounds good! Sign me up!

No shit. Put that as Item #1 on the Republican Party Platform.

quote:

…"social justice", "freedom", etc, are the exact opposite of those things.

Brother Sowell has so debunked those terms and others (such as "equality") in his books and articles. A brilliant man.

And one shouldn't forget that this dependence on vocabulary-changing shows the left's fundamental dishonesty. Sure, we all try to package things up nice with nice words sometimes. But with the left it's in their bloodstream. Dishonesty is who they are. They have to hide what they want and package it under false titles. People generally will not vote for their own imprisonment and loss of freedom.

Politics from either side is a profession not vastly different from prostitution, but still there are many good people who do get involved in politics. But for the left, if there really is evil in this world, the devil uses them as one of his front organizations. There is an endemic lack of truth, integrity, and decency amongst the left. And it shows. And nothing good ever comes from leftism. The most they can do is try to package their pain so that it fools people. Or – like they are doing now – simply pass the costs on down the road until it all collapses. (Yet another crises that these leftists bastards will be sure not to waste.) Yes, you can seduce people with entitlements. But it's not a sustainable way of life. That's why all this debt is being rung up. It's the only possible way to keep the scam afloat.

Morality matters. Treating people with dignity and respect matters, at least to our advanced Western way of life. But to the left, people are not something to be honored (something that the individual-oriented American Constitution and ideals does indeed honor). With leftists, people are sheep to be led and sheared as needed. There is no reason to be truthful to people who you consider your inferiors. And it is a credit (discredit?) to the capacity of the human mind and imagination that leftists can convince themselves that what they are doing is good and right. And it's equally amazing they can convince the people who vote for them (while they are still able to vote) that they are supporting good and right causes. But there is a human proclivity for getting cheap accolades. True, some people are sincerely compassionate and just misguided about leftist claims and causes. But many more are simply engaging in what Sowell calls "moral exhibitionism." They're far more concerned with thinking of themselves as good people than actually helping people. And it shows. Just look at Detroit. Or New Orleans. Or anywhere where nearly 100% Democrat liberalism has been in place and in control. But your typical gullible and stupid emotion-enchanted liberal (or liberal supporter) won't acknowledge that. It's pathetic, but that is the nature of human nature.

We conservatives can do better. Whether talking the vibe of Judeo-Christianity or humanism, a thoughtful person does not fall easily for scams and thinks it is a worthy thing to try to rise above the chimp. And he or she knows that bullshit word-changing and labeling things differently is not the same thing as change, or good, or rising above the chimp.

quote:

Although some types of knowledge are perhaps "glamour" knowledge and mark one as erudite and sophisticated [...]

Sapienti sat.

Difference Between Liberals & Conservatives

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a person of color is conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative decides he needs healthcare, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that providesit.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he's in labor and then sues.

If a conservative reads this, he'll show it to his friends and have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he's "offended."

quote:

Sapienti sat.

I couldn't have said it better myself…if I knew what you had said. But learning Latin is the exact opposite of the dumbing-down that is rampant in our culture. You are in good stead, Yabor. Frenditi mundango.

An exchange from a Facebook thread which encapsulates some things I said here recently:

quote:

I feel about the same as Ayn Rand in this quote: "Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others, the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is LEGALIZED makes it morally worse, not better".....

That's a pretty good Ayn Rand quote there, Timothy. Contrary to popular Pravda-fed media belief, conservatives don’t want to starve children and throw the elderly out into the street. But if the only measure of compassion is how much money one will tax from some to give to another then one is a fool. Do-gooders often forget the costs borne by those who are the taxed ones. In many cases, they are being put upon for playing by the rules while others sponge off the system. The easiest thing in the world is to take some money from somebody else, give it to others, and then to declare to the world and to oneself "What a good boy am I." That, in short, is the Democrat's method of gaining office. Thomas Sowell calls this kind of mindless do-gooderism "moral exhibitionism" where people are far more concerned with thinking of themselves as good and generous people rather than actually helping people. If you look at the places in America (Detroit, New Orleans) where nearly 100% Democrat liberalism has been in place and in control, you'll see a situation that is anything but compassionate. It's do-gooderism run rampant.

A good read is Thomas Sowell's "The Quest for Cosmic Justice." In short, liberals are dredging up all sorts of hobgoblins and raising to the level of a "civil rights issue" what most normal folk understand as: Life isn't perfect, life is hard, life isn't perfectly fair, and if you want something you have to work for it. The American experiment is to try to guarantee equality under the law and equality of opportunity. The rest is up to you. Within this general outlook there is a place for a "social safety net," but as a local guy Dori Monson said, "but not a socialist safety net." It is indeed compassionate to give, but it is even more compassionate to hold people to the expectation of taking care of themselves and to facilitate this (sometimes even by withholding easy handouts). It's the "give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day…teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime" principle. Democrats are generally quite happy to keep people dependent on the fish they hand out. That is not compassion. This aspect of it must be entered into the equation when setting up any kind of a "social safety net" or else it just becomes a "socialist safety net" that is anything but safe for the people and society. It is usually good merely as a way for Democrats to secure votes.

quote:

Why is it then that the White House is talking up reconciliation and a new (or not so new) proposal? The answer has nothing to do with the hope of a Rose Garden signing ceremony, but the hope of holding on to what they really have: Senate seats in blue states like Washington, Illinois, Nevada, and California. Attempting to shore up his liberal base, the President is making one last public effort to push through his liberal legislation.

I think Limbaugh and others have nailed the true reason for this push: Socialized medicine would fundamentally change the relationship between people and the government. It would ensnare people in another entitlement that they would become used to. And this one is like the Holy Grail of entitlement programs for Marxist-socialists because nearly anything in society can be considered impacting upon our health (sugar, fast food, donuts, our brand of toothpaste, etc.) and thus you have the opening for Democrats to control anything and everything about our lives. Bye bye freedom.

I think as Mark Steyn pointed out in a recent article, once ensnared in state-controlled Marxist-socialist medicine, people (as they do in Britain) don't necessarily fault socialism for the problem of the diminishing quality and availability of health care. They just buy into the idea that enough money isn't being thrown at it which then strengthens the socialist grip on people even more.

Socialized medicine is a scam. It's not about improving anything. Picture these Democrats in Congress and the White House as a wacko fringe comet cult. They simply believe some very odd things, and have some very ignoble motives, but they know that if they can suck you in, you are theirs for life.

Here’s a terrific article by Dennis Prager. Not only is it terrific because he sounds like me. It’s terrific because I think he’s nailed the truth very nearly exactly.

Democrats' Policies Based on Dogma, Hopes, Dreams, not Reality

Here are a couple more outstanding articles by Prager. But be forewarned. He uses the “g” word.

Government, Yes! The Divine and Parents, No!
By Dennis Prager

What I Said to the Republican Members of Congress
by Dennis Prager

quote:

And this one is like the Holy Grail of entitlement programs for Marxist-socialists because nearly anything in society can be considered impacting upon our health (sugar, fast food, donuts, our brand of toothpaste, etc.) and thus you have the opening for Democrats to control anything and everything about our lives. Bye bye freedom.

I keep thinking about that crappy Stallone movie "Demolition Man" where Sly is a cop who gets wrongly imprisoned and cryogenically frozen for decades... the cops unfreeze him in the mid 21st century to catch a super criminal from the past (Wesley Snipes).

The future world is utopian, totally government controlled. Everything that's bad for you is illegal... there's a little machine that listens to your speech, and fines you (issuing a little paper citation) should you dare to swear.

The whole culture is a culture of arrested-development wussies. Completely unable to handle the violence and brutality of Snipe's character: Simon Phoenix.

As terrible as that movie was, I think it was prophetic as far as what happens if leftist utopians run things. There's peace, serenity, but no freedom. Beneath the goody-goody double-plus good happy joy joy life, people are being oppressed. There's an arrogant elite ruling class of ultra-wealthy, wearing robes and eating at fancy restaurants ("Taco Bell" in the future has cornered the market on restaurants, and they're all ultra-gourmet sushi places).

It really is like a journey into Obama future.

quote:

The whole culture is a culture of arrested-development wussies. Completely unable to handle the violence and brutality of Snipe's character: Simon Phoenix.

I like the way Sandra Bullock plays the typical citizen-rube in that movie. And although it might not have been the most masterfully crafted movie, I thought it was very entertaining.

quote:

As terrible as that movie was, I think it was prophetic as far as what happens if leftist utopians run things. There's peace, serenity, but no freedom.

According to Brother Steyn in When Responsibility Doesn't Pay, the socialist utopias of the modern age seem destined to doom themselves through bankruptcy even before all freedom has lapsed. His article is quite a read. With all due respect to the people in Europe (love the people, hate the EU), I roll my eyes at these nitwits in America who say we should be more like Europe. God no.

quote:

Beneath the goody-goody double-plus good happy joy joy life, people are being oppressed. There's an arrogant elite ruling class of ultra-wealthy, wearing robes and eating at fancy restaurants ("Taco Bell" in the future has cornered the market on restaurants, and they're all ultra-gourmet sushi places).

I'm reading another biography of Francis of Assisi right now. And this one reminds me a bit of "The Pillars of the Earth" because it steeps you a bit in the medieval feudal system. Life was brutal, violent, disease-ridden, and relatively short, to roughly paraphrase Hobbes. And there wasn't much freedom as we understand it today. But everyone had their place and were expected to stay in it.

Where the story picks up, there is the start of a budding middle class. Money is staring to be circulated. There is something starting to sprout in between the uber-poor and the landed and titled gentry. It's a middle class. It's the start of modernism where a man (or woman) could go as far as their drive and talents would take them.

Now I look at these socialist governments, particularly in Europe, and they seem a step back to the Middle Ages. They control more and more of people's lives. They may be serfs with better benefits, but that ponzi scheme on those benefits is running out fast. Greece is just the tip of the iceberg. The debt and entitlements that we and the other socialist democracies are running up are unsustainable. These socialist governments, not unlike Middle Age lords or the Church, control more and more of the wealth and have centralized much of the power. And while the comforts are there, people are seduced by that and are generally fine with this trade of freedom for security. But they're running out of money.

And Stage 2 of the dystopia will then start. Either people in these socialist states will have their own Tea Party or they can be sure that when the collapse comes – and it is coming and is happening now in Greece – the Marxist-socialists, in true Rahm Emmanuel style, will not waste that crises. Then the "soft" friendly nanny-state fascism of the left could turn into a harder one. Socialism, as I see it, is little more than a new kind of feudalism.

quote:

And there wasn't much freedom as we understand it today. But everyone had their place and were expected to stay in it.

That's exactly the game. The left today is all about having plenty of freedom for themselves, but they want the people they feel are beneath them to know their place and stay in it. They'd rather be benevolent overlords, than purveyors of freedom.

But it's a character of human nature to belly roll to the rich and powerful. The medieval period was rife with this. People would work all their lives for a lord, and gave him their loyalty and devotion as if they deserved it. There was no chance in hell that these people or their children would ever grow up to BECOME lords themselves, that's not the way the world worked.

But there was always the threat of the peasantry rising up against the ruling class. Always that threat of the bonfire of the vanities. And history shows us all the variegated ways that people in power mollify the subjugated. Religion/cult of personality is just ONE of those. It's easier to serve a legend than a regular schmoe.

So right off the bat, maintaining that kind of power is a con game.

I think you'll find with Assisi and the monk/priestly class, that faith and devotion became ways to bypass the normal feudal order of things. A particularly religious, devoted guy could actually gain power in society by adherence to Christian moral principles. By crafting a legend (or having that legend grow in popular culture)... miracles and deeds are just some of the ways this happened.

Bravery on the battlefield was another. The idea that a squire could launch himself into battle and win over a fully titled knight, could make a kid famous, gain him power. Going off to the crusades, all kinds of stuff in medieval culture could get people out of that "know your place" jive. But it was dangerous.

A saintly life was the equivalent of a jackass life now. Where now people can get instant viral fame by doing some boneheaded stunt in front of the video camera, back then, pious deeds and eventual martyrdom made people superstars.

If I had to guess, in the modern political climate, what's coming is that the Mr. and Ms. Smiths of the world, who roll up their sleeves and wade into big government and fight for the American people, are going to be the heroes of this generation. Their legends and power will grow. It's all a question of whether they'll have the character to wield that power for the freedom of their countrymen, or if they'll be corrupted by it.

quote:

They'd rather be benevolent overlords, than purveyors of freedom.

It's sometimes hard to fathom the creepy and just plain wrong things that people such as Obama believe, but when they're not just being disingenuous for the purposes of owning as much power as they can, I really do think there is a mal-educated core of people out there who really do think there is this big pile of wealth out there that simply can be spread around. And we're all a victim of that mal-education to some extent. We need to do like Glenn Beck did and educate ourselves. I think that one dash of Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" or one or two books by Sowell is the remedy. This isn't difficult stuff. It just a matter of exposing the lies.

My latest Jew-loving venture has me reading some Dennis Prager. In Taxes Are a Moral Issue Prager says:

quote:

Principle One: The left, as distinct from traditional liberals, is not, and has never been, interested in creating wealth. The left is no more interested in creating wealth than Christians are in creating Muslims or Muslims in creating Christians. The left is interested in redistributing wealth, not creating it. The left spends the wealth that private enterprise and entrepreneurial risk-taking individuals create.

The left does not perceive that poverty is the human norm and therefore asks, "Why is there poverty?" instead of asking the economic question that matters: Why is there wealth? And the obvious result of the left's disinterest in why wealth is created is that the left does not know how to create it

Poverty is indeed the norm and doesn't require explaining, per se. The generation, maintenance and exploitation of a low, poor, and/or powerless class by "their betters" is another human relationship that doesn't need explaining. It's been the norm. What needs explaining (especially to all those gullible voters out there who keep voting for these Marxist-socialists) is that American-style freedom is unique, it works, and it has created a very high standard of living along with a very high moral society. Until one absorbs this truth, there is not much of an argument that you can have with the left. All they want to do (and this is perverse) is to find fault with freedom, America, free markets, free speech, you name it. Why some people want to look at the 1% of bad and define our country by that and overlook the 99% of good is perplexing, but that defines the leftist mindset and those who have been indoctrinated into that mindset, whether they have read Marx's "Communist Manifesto" or not. (That's where the term "useful idiot" is quite relevant.)

quote:

But it's a character of human nature to belly roll to the rich and powerful. The medieval period was rife with this. People would work all their lives for a lord, and gave him their loyalty and devotion as if they deserved it. There was no chance in hell that these people or their children would ever grow up to BECOME lords themselves, that's not the way the world worked.

I think that subservient nature comes a bit too easily and naturally. In many respects, I think the American Dream (anyone can grow up to be president) mindset has to be taught. What seems to be natural is to do what your supposed betters tell you to. One of the healthiest things in the world is to question one's leaders and to have the freedom to do so. That's is why all those songs of children singing praise to Obama is so creepy and so anti-America.

quote:

It's easier to serve a legend than a regular schmoe.

So right off the bat, maintaining that kind of power is a con game.

Without a doubt.

quote:

I think you'll find with Assisi and the monk/priestly class, that faith and devotion became ways to bypass the normal feudal order of things. A particularly religious, devoted guy could actually gain power in society by adherence to Christian moral principles. By crafting a legend (or having that legend grow in popular culture)... miracles and deeds are just some of the ways this happened.

Francis was apparently a deep and sincere believer in the Christian doctrine. But he needed special dispensation from the Pope to teach people to live like it says Christ did (and taught others to do) in the Bible. The God Aristocracy was very very nervous and self-conscious (living in the golden palaces that they did) about anyone going around teaching the goodness of poverty. And after centuries of Church BS (it was a running joke how corrupt and sinful the typical parish priest was), Francis' message began to become very appealing, and not just to the rank-and-file poor. And yet the cynicism in many places was so deep, when Francis started his normally outdoor sermon with "Peace unto you" the people would sneer, spit, and catcall. But Francis quickly developed a reputation for sincerity. And the people who only months earlier had spat on him, or threw him physically out of town, were later not only welcoming him back, but some rich nobles actually gave all they had to the poor and joined him. Imagine that. Although many Christian liberals use Francis and Jesus as a Marxian socialist symbol of leftist "equality," they were just the opposite. What they asked was voluntary and it was to be done at the personal level. Liberals try to find their Jesus moment through confiscating and redistributing other people's wealth.