The View From 1776

Ann Coulter is Right

Whatever you may think about her aggressive writing style, the main point in Ann Coulter’s new book “Godless: The Church of Liberalism” is dead on target.

The only surprising thing is that so many people are surprised to see liberalism as a religion.  American liberalism is simply our sect of the international religion of socialism, and liberal-socialists have openly proclaimed since the early 19th century that atheistic, materialistic socialism is a religion.

American Social Gospelists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries declared that Christianity had failed and was being displaced by socialism.

Liberal-socialism has all the elements of other religions: prophets, sacred writings, and a catechism of social justice that promises salvation and perfection (here on earth) of humanity.

For full details, see Socialism: Our Unconstitutionally Established National Religion.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/19 at 05:49 PM
  1. I like liberalism as a religion. It has united the world. Conservatism, on the other hand, has been an divisive religion.

    However, conservatism, as I have always said, has its glories. Living under the umbrella of liberalism, it consummates and consolidates the best liberalism has had to offer. Conservatism lives in the context of liberalism. For instance, conservatives would have never given women the vote or equal rights. Now that liberals have done so, conservative treat that development as only natural.

    I have never been afraid to show my conservative side, unlike many conservatives who are afraid to show their inherent liberal nature and tendencies.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  06/20  at  08:05 AM
  2. It all depends on what you are trying to conserve and what you are trying to force-feed on others.

    Socialism has a track-record of oppression and elitism. Anti-freedom and death. Ignoring Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot examples, brings a dull clunk to your bell of 'courage.'

    If the principles of 1776 were not conserved and implemented, women and black Americans would still be 2nd class humans. Socialism/humanism measures human value by the group. American principles by the individual. Worthy of conservation and application in a yet unknown future...?

    Life is still an I.Q. Test. Afraid? Never mind 'courage.' Go for pride of intelligent (non-manmade) criteria.
    Posted by Choicemaker  on  06/20  at  10:25 AM
  3. Please explain what you mean by "liberal-socialism". This is an oxymoron!; popular in the lexicon of socialists and conservatives alike.

    Socialists like the blurring of distinctions it provides between their ideology and its antithesis, because it fools people into thinking their freedom isn't diminished by it. They have been foisting the usage, on those gullible enough to listen, that socialism is the complement of liberty rather than its bane. Conservatives seem to use it purely as an ironic device. Unfortunately, doing so gives to socialism exactly what it needs to thrive.

    Liberalism is fundamentally the philosophy of personal autonomy, requiring little in the way of regulation. Socialism is the philosophy of collective administration (i.e., regulation of everything and everyone down to the least detail), in which the individual is reduced to a cog in a great machine. These are distinct and diametrical opposites, and nowhere is it possible for these two to intersect. Yet, modern socialists are convinced of such implausibilities while conservatives repeatedly give credance to it through conceding terms like 'liberal-socialism'. It can be liberal or it can be socialist, but it can't be both.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  06/20  at  11:50 AM
  4. Anyone who has lived a few years in America and the world has experienced the difference between classic liberalism and the self-proclaimed 'liberals' who make up today's Democratic Party. Do you think they are the same as Classic Liberals? Confused by 'words?'

    The current trend in the party is to claim to be 'Progressives.' Will that also confuse you? Will you credit anyone with a virtue who merely claims a 'title?' If so, they have accomplished their purposeful word-game in your value-system.

    Virtue is not owned by words or word-smiths but by deeds and behavior. Thus, with the lack of virtue.

    Socialists, liberals, and humanists (2006) all drink from the same pot. Free kisses? No thanks.

    semper fidelis
    Posted by Choicemaker  on  06/20  at  06:12 PM
  5. Jan,

    Didn't really need it explained, I was being facetious. I know what liberals are implying by it. I was pointing out we needn't make it easy for them to get away with it.

    Perhaps, I was being a bit too heavy with the irony. Sorry.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  06/21  at  12:21 PM
  6. David,

    You know perfectly well that liberalism has done no such thing, and socialism has united the world even less. What liberalism has done (and here I speak only of classic liberalism) is to liberate countless millions from the kind of autocratic rule that was the norm prior 1776. Socialism has, at best, imposed a high degree of regimentation on millions more and, at worst, caused more than 33 million deaths.

    What has united countries(not people) into various alliances, leagues, and covenents is mutual suspicion. This is no different from the alliances of the past. A better barometer of peace is the suspension of such alliances. A world without fear will have no need to be united.

    The only other thing to united us across borders is commerce. Commerce has done more to bring us together than all the alliances, covenants, pledges, and ideologies combined. But, don't make the mistake of thinking it is some kind of panacea or guarantee. It is a byproduct of a free-market, which is virtually impossible to replicate by any kind of political means. Politics can impose 'peace' or negotiate for it at best. Commerce is vitally important to peace, yet it is sufficient of itself, and there are literally thousands of variables that go into creating and maintaining an environment of peace and commerce. No human agency is capable of identifying, tracking and adjusting all of these variables in such a way that all others will take as perfectly just. Any system or ideology that proposes to harness and control such a beast is out of its collective mind. Instead, we are forced to accept that the world is going to continue full of uncertainty, yet confident nothing to horrible will come of it ... unless it is of our own making.

    I know you would like modern-liberalism (aka, socialism) to get the credit that belongs to classic-liberalism, but we're not about to let that one slide. Nice try, buddy.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  06/21  at  12:47 PM
  7. Bob,

    I would have liked to respond to your comment because there were things you said that had merit. However, as soon as I read your closing statement "Nice try buddy" I read a dismissive attitude that made it unpalatable. A comment like that is really condescending and trite. Such a comment is insulting and it sounds as though it is intended that way.

    Earlier I read you accusing me of a similar clipped behavior and here you are doing the same thing.

    I will say one thing, though, I don't equate liberalism with socialism as you do. This is a blurring I don't understand.

    One more thing, don't you belief in some kind of brevity when you write.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  06/21  at  02:09 PM
  8. Sorry you took it that way. I meant it in the spirit of friendly sparring partners. Just because I like you, doesn't mean I'm going to give you easy points. My apologies, and your point taken.

    Liberalism, in the modern context, is socialism and nothing like classic-liberalism. The only thing it has borrowed from the earlier form is terminology; which it has altered to give thoroughly dissimilar meanings. This is far more than a slight shift from the original, it is an entirely opposed model for society. Liberalism was about the freedom of individuals to act independently, constrained principally by social interactions and conscience. This is why the founders said it was an ideology for a godly (i.e., highly moral) people and unsuited to a people untutored in moral principles. For the same reason, it is unsuitable to cultures steeped in relativism or without Judeo-Christian ideals of justice and charity. Liberalism leaves people free, to the maximum possible, to determine all questions of the market, charity, ethical conduct, and social interaction. Socialism begins from the presumption people require the state to guide, determine and control these things (hence, statism). Only anarchism is less statist than classic-liberalism. You, yourself, have advocated these things, so there is no pretending you do not give modern-liberalism this connotation. You have said we need a society that is a mix of conservatism (aka, classic-liberalism) and liberalism (aka, socialism). For my part, I grant that socialism is not identical with communism (as some do), but that is a distinction based mainly on the extremes of coercion communism employs to impose virtually the same things.

    Forgetting the labels for a moment, it comes down to which specific formula you propose for society; whether it is for maximum freedom of action or maximum control, or something neither here nor there. Something neither here nor there is but one step in the direction of maximum control, from which it is always hard to return. It is always easy to give the state more power, it usually takes bloodshed and sacrifice to get it back.

    We conservatives understand we will not get unrestricted freedom back, and we aren't advocating insurrection (at least not until the tyranny gets so bad there's no other choice). Nor are we anti-statists, like the anarchist. To us, government has valid functions that need to be filled; and these are specified in our Constitution. But, we are determined to hold the line against further encroachment and to rollback un-granted government whenever opportunity presents itself. It often seems the whole world has gone mad with the new religion of socialism, and it is up to us to awaken them from that dream before it overtakes us all. Perhaps if the radicals weren't dragging the rest of us with them, we wouldn't care so much; but it doesn't work that way.

    Finally, as to brevity, it is hard to give these ideas due justice in brief form, particularly when we give different meanings to the same things. With somebody of the same mind, I will say these things in a few sparse phrases. With someone tutored in an ideological opposite, we spend much of these dialogs establishing which terms are correct or contentions valid.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  06/22  at  08:50 AM
  9. Bob,

    Can you explain this " Only anarchism is less statist than classic-liberalism". You have said I have said as much. Not So.

    Anarchism is in a league of its own. I think you are confusing anarchism with activism. Liberalism does call for activism but not for anarchism.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  06/22  at  10:52 PM
  10. On November 30, 1928 the War Department published a training manual (TM 2000-25) regarding Citizenship to enable the training of personnel drawn from those that had immigrated to this nation and knew little of the Republican form of government. In that manual the difference between a Democracy and a Republic was stated as follows:
    Democracy:
    .A government of the masses.
    Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of
    "direct " expression.
    Results in mobocracy.
    Attitude toward property is communistic-negating property
    rights.
    Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate,
    whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, preju-
    dice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences..
    Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

    Republic:
    Authority is derived through the election by the people of public
    officials best fitted to represent them.
    Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights,
    and a sensible economic procedure.
    Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with
    fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to
    consequences.
    A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be
    brought within its compass.
    Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or: mobocracy.
    Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and
    progress.
    In 1935, the same year that the Social Security Act was signed into law (August 14, 1935) President Franklin Delano Roosevelt ordered that all copies of training manual TM 2000-25 be destroyed. It is then that the government began to set out to deceive the American people. As time went on the theft of the government was intensified in World War II via the Liberty Tax. Since that time through a constant stream of propaganda and lies the burden of theft on the American people has grown heavier and heavier, as Thomas Jefferson had foretold.
    Samuel B. Pettengill, Democratic Congressman from Indiana, 1930-1938, was a vocal critic of the New Deal and published a detailed attack on its economic policies and "planning" in 1940. He was clear about the parallels with mercantilism and fascist corporatism, writing "the second or third New Deal is fundamentally fascist." All such systems of central economic regimentation--fascist, Nazi, Soviet--were antithetical to the American form of government. He noted the Nazi regime
    Posted by Ronarl  on  06/23  at  06:38 PM
  11. David,

    Surely, you are not implying you are anything other than pro-socialism. For example, you wrote elsewhere, "The New Deal was a reform that America much needed. It didn
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  06/27  at  08:02 PM
  12. David, (continued)

    Going back to your earlier statement, you next wrote:
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  06/27  at  08:11 PM
  13. Notice that my new url is as follows:

    http://rlweston.cedhost.com

    The major document is "ABC's of Government Theft" and contains much more information using facts, not myths. It contains the following chapters:

    Posted by Ronald L. Weston  on  12/14  at  07:19 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.