The View From 1776

Racism, The All-Purpose Excuse

Liberal-progressive social policies have allowed too many blacks to avoid reality and to continue self-destructive cultural patterns.  Liberal-progressivism has worked assiduously to wipe out the spirit of individualism and self-reliance that was this nation’s founding ethos.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/24 at 03:58 PM
  1. Note that it is "A Benevolent and omnipotent cadre of intellectuals (who) are to decide what is best for each economic and racial class and to provide a uniform, prison-like standard of living for all those who remain loyal serfs to the Democratic-Socialist Party."

    None of the ordinary common citizens ever came up with the Big Government theories--it was abstract theorists--intellectuals--who came up with the varied theories of a utopian world. Those intellectuals have been the plague that undermined the successful societies throughout history.

    Note that America, from 1620-1920, for 300 years, grew from a wilderness to world supremacy--without intellectuals, big government, or an income tax. And for most of this period there were no public schools, and yet we produced a nation of extraordinary strength. That is why I maintain that ordinary people create successful nations and intellectuals come later, feed off the new affluence, and make them collapse!

    Racism is just one of the alleged societal weaknesses that the elite claim to resolve, along with poverty, anxiety, and help in parenting, feeding the family, avoiding loan sharks, and, gasp, the danger of too hot coffee spilled on one's lap!

    Daniel Boone and Paul Bunyan where are you? Americans have become sheep!
    Posted by BILL GREENE  on  08/24  at  08:32 PM
  2. Thomas,

    Since you often refer to the Democratic party as the "Democratic-Socialist" party, (presumably to append a pejorative to make your argument stronger), it caused me to wonder what the converse descriptor for the other side might be, in your view. "Republican-Patriot" party? Republican-Conservative" party? "Republican-Angelic" - party? "Republican-Reactionary" party.

    I fully appreciate that you actually don't use the word "Republican" much at all, and generally confine your comments to how terrible the liberals are, so this may be a wasted effort to start a dialog.

    Best wishes!
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/25  at  09:22 AM
  3. Mr. Jay, I hardly know what to call the Republicans, who can't seem to get out of their own way. It's a version of "my enemy's enemy is my friend."
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/25  at  02:32 PM
  4. J. Jay,

    While you are at it, why not call us ‘Nazis’, ‘fascist’ or the ‘Neanderthal Party’? Of course, that won’t work for you, as anyone with half a brain will see right through such slander.

    Thomas’ calling your party “Democratic-Socialist” was not an insult. If anything, it was a sop to a hypersensitive ego and a whole lot less ‘offensive’ than he might have said. If you don’t like being tagged a socialist, then, perhaps the solution is to stop defending socialism while hiding behind the ‘democratic’ mask. Your party calling itself ‘democratic’ is a lie as insults the intelligence of anyone not of that party. Nor is it appropriate you calling yourselves ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’ when you are nothing of the sort. It may still be valid calling a minority of your party’s followers by these labels (especially among the oldest generation), but those are a dying breed. For a long time it could be claimed your party had been hijacked, with its leadership and a small coterie of radicals doing the hijacking, whereas the overwhelming majority of its members were clueless as to the transformation made in their name. That is no longer the case, however, because today’s typical democrat rabidly supports socialism in all its guises and implications, in the uniform conviction socialism and democracy are one and the same thing, and without the slightest notion of the harm this does to an already well-advanced political system. So, whereas the rank-&-file democrat of yesteryear was plausibly insensible to the frauds committed in his/her name, today’s typical democrat is either in on the fraud, else just plain and uncaringly clueless.

    That makes Thomas’s label for you paradoxically both appropriate and inappropriate. It is appropriate in the sense and to the degree most socialists view socialism and democracy as the same (or nearly so); and, by extension, that what they espouse is democracy. It is also appropriate in the sense it comes closer to the truth regarding what you are (collectively, though not individually) than does allowing you to call yourselves simply ‘democratic’ unchallenged (effectively forcing the rest of us into accepting that term for you). It is entirely inappropriate in the sense socialist-democracies are varyingly despotic (i.e., the more socialist, the more despotic). This might be forgivable assuming those democrats who push socialism under the guise of ‘advancing democracy’ were really as ignorant of this harm as you pretend, but we know otherwise. And, we know that for the simple reason we have cautioned you (and others) endlessly against this folly for as long as you have howled for it. You are not democrats, and have not been democrats (except that vanishing vestige) for a very long time. So, it is high time you drop the masquerade, and call yourselves by that moniker which accurately describes you and your program; which is ‘socialists’ and ‘Socialist Party’. You won’t, of course, so we must.

    You (democrats) claim to be the party of ‘choice’, and unfailingly portray us as ‘anti-choice’ (instead of the more accurate and appropriate ‘pro-life’). Rather than admitting our valid ‘skepticism’ regarding your warming theories, you react by calling us ‘deniers’ (with the unmistakably reprehensible association that term has with Holocaust deniers). You (personally) accuse us of unfairness and injustice at every turn, when, in fact, your claims of unfairness and injustice are built on a false and perverted logic as makes victims of pirates and pirates of the hardest working and highest achievers. Commonly used synonyms for ‘conservative’ and ‘Republican’ by Democrats include such delights as: ‘homophobe’, ‘racist’, ‘bigot’, ‘uncle Tom’ (for black-conservatives), fascists, pigs, &c. With regularity and relish you absurdly accuse us of being anti-poor, anti-female, anti-elder, anti-child, anti-worker, warmongering and inhuman. Aren’t you, then, just as guilty of this re-labeling of which you admonish Thomas? Any wonder, then, your demand for ‘civility’ (on our part only, of course) falls on deaf ears? Now, we’re supposed to apologize for calling you by what you are rather than by your pretense. And, why, then, the offended sensibilities? Are you that ashamed of admitting to your ideology, an ideology you go to such lengths defending?

    The problem for you isn’t that Thomas maligned your party, the problem is his use of the hyphenated term blows your cover (truth’s a b^tch, ain’t it?). Calling Republicans (and, by implication, conservatives) ‘reactionary’ may satisfy your need for a tit-for-tat response for the presumed insult of calling you by a label more fitting to your party’s credo. However, it is just as pathetically false as you clinging to the notion your party’s ideals are still, in some wise, ‘democratic’, or that it champions and/or defends ‘democracy’ against all comers (including the widely held Democrat delusion regarding ‘reactionary’ old conservatives bent on dragging you back to some prehistoric hell). In fact, conservatives (including most Republicans) are far more ‘democratic’ and more deserving of that term than almost anyone from your party. As to being reactionary – to the contrary, we are no more ‘reactionary’ for defending our beliefs, our rights, our republic, our ‘democratically’ elected offices, our country and its proven and ‘evolved’ system than you are by clinging to failed socialist models. The so-called ‘progressivism’ of which you are so enamored is a fool’s paradise; and the fool who reacts to opposition to that program by dragging others (kicking and screaming) into its abyss is the true reactionary ruffian. If we have sometimes been guilty of standing in the way of ‘popular change’, that is a far lesser offense than forcing change on others recklessly, without the slightest concern for individual liberties, and with only the slimmest of majorities (and usually no majority).
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/27  at  09:12 PM
  5. Bob-- Note that Jay admits that adding "Socialist" to the term "Democratic Party" is a PEJORATIVE!

    Thus he know that their policies are harmful, unworkable, and undesired. Thus he is the ultimate "denier!"

    Posted by BILL GREENE  on  09/01  at  08:17 AM
  6. Bob--Great post--but you omitted the fact that the Communist/Socialist leaders have always needed a large cadre of "useful idiots" to support their destructive policies-- because their utopian nature and historic failures are so evident to anyone with an ounce of Common Sense.
    Posted by BILL GREENE  on  09/01  at  08:22 AM
  7. Bill,

    As always, there is always something more that can be said,. However, I was trying to stay on topic and to the points J. Jay actually made; that is, to setting the record straight. While your point is also topical, the 'idiot' factor is somewhat subjective and open to rebuttal of a negative sort. Think of this like the way lawyers build cases, and refrain from putting out anything that knowingly gives the other side openings they can then exploit. Moreover, and despite the harsh tone, I really was trying to avoid insults in favor of constructive criticisms; and hoped they'd be be taken in that spirit.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/01  at  05:00 PM
  8. Bob, I meant no criticism, but had to add my 2 cents worth! But, the "useful idiot" comment by the communist leader is very telling. Even he knew that his policies and destructive programs needed a public backing and "idiots" might be the only ones out there.

    Plus, it speaks volumes about the many academics and intellectuals who supported the Russian experiment in massive central planning--and still cling to the concept of socialism. Ann Coulter makes this point directly in "70 Years of Treason" where she points out that for almost a century, Western intellectuals supported the USSR's destructive inhuman programs. Thus, in the face of constant failure and unprecedented brutality, they looked the other way, glossed over the butchery, and defended the Communists. This group must have had an abstract, reality-avoiding mentality that allowed them to be so wrong for so long!

    70 years is a couple generations who kept coming forward to criticise America and praise Russian communism. What types of minds were these?

    Norman Podhoretz was asked once why it took him 20 years to gradually convert from a radical leftist to an almost right wing conservative. He replied that, being an intellectual, it took some time to recognize reality, something he added that the common person would accomplish immediately! The sad truth is that many intellectuals never recognized or admitted the evils of the USSR for over 70 years, and many still won't. Such denial of obvious failure and evil is a form of insanity,.
    Posted by BILL GREENE  on  09/02  at  10:23 AM
  9. Thomas,

    Thanks for the civil response. I appreciate that the Republicans seem to be a bit disorganized and in need of focus.

    Bob, my innocent question seems to have released a surprising amount of venom, although I appreciate your later clarification to Bill G. that you were attempting to "avoid insults."

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/02  at  08:46 PM
  10. J.,

    I for one meant no "venom" toward you personally. Though to the extent you support the Marxist policies being followed by this Democratic administration it could be inferred that you are "useful" to their terrible agenda. But I have always assumed you were much wiser and very different from those so-called "idiots" made famous by--was it Lenin or Trotsky? Indeed I have argued on this site that sooner or later you will see the light and abandon your overly compassionate nature that has led you to support the Mammoth Mama State. Hopefully, you will get there in less time than it took Norman Podhoretz!

    I'm not sure if Bob's comment represents venom: "The so-called ‘progressivism’ of which you are so enamored is a fool’s paradise; and the fool who reacts to opposition to that program by dragging others (kicking and screaming) into its abyss is the true reactionary ruffian." This was aimed at "you" but I don't believe he meant to call you a "fool," but merely to point out the folly of most socialist policies, and that those who support them are living in a vain and foolish world that cannot succeed. The unattainability of paradise, or a utopian world, seems clear--most experiments to create such societies have failed, but it is natural to wish for such a world. That may be why "heaven" has such a wide appeal!

    But to support policies that one wishes would work, to gain a world that cannot exist, is folly. Such support epitomizes the attraction of abstract concepts and ideological striving for un-realistic goals. As they say, a 19 year old is heartless if he isn't a liberal, and a 30 year old is stupid if he still is!

    Curiously, Scot Adams, of Dilbert fame, points out that we cannot assume people are rational. They will endorse, he says, programs that make them feel good, support causes that mean well even if they know they will not work, and they will vote for people who say things they want to believe in even if they know the speaker is lying and does not actually mean anything he promises.
    Posted by BILL GREENE  on  09/02  at  09:32 PM
  11. Bill,

    Thanks for the note. I actually am a big Scott Adam's Dilbert fan and enjoy his take on what makes up a typical day at the office. And it is probably true that we all have our irrational sides, hoping that good will triumph when we secretly know that the chances of success are low.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/04  at  09:52 AM
  12. No good will triumph as long as the president let's Wall Street bankers run the treasury and federal reserve bank. Many issues arthecommongenius.come debatable, but allowing the big banks to run the financial sector is folly if not criminal.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/04  at  02:23 PM
  13. Bill,

    You and I actually fully agree on the point that the mega banks are too powerful. Dodd-Frank attempted to make some reforms, but the laws need to be strengthened to weaken the power of the big banks. Your view is also held by Elizabeth Warren, who may gain more prominence in future electoral cycles by promoting reduction in the power of the big banks.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/06  at  02:17 PM
  14. Mr. Jay, note that there is an uneasy balance between power of the big banks and government control of big banks.

    I'm all for returning as much as possible to the pre-1970s relationship banking in which banks looked to the character and capacity of borrowers, rather than dealing with abstract billions of dollars over a trading desk.

    If we take the Fed's manipulation of monetary supply and Dodd-Franks strangling grip into account, the government already fully controls Wall Street.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/06  at  03:01 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.