Cultures aren't equal

[DesertFox]

Michael Barone
US News & World Report
15 Aug 05

Anyone who has been keeping up with British opinion since the July 7 bombings will have noticed that "multiculturalism" is under sharp attack. Multiculturalism preaches that we should allow and encourage immigrants and their children to maintain and celebrate their own culture apart from the national culture. Society should be not a melting pot but, in the phrase of former New York Mayor David Dinkins, "a gorgeous mosaic." That mosaic, of course, looked less gorgeous as people surveyed the work of the British-born-and- raised bombers. ...

Writers in other tolerant countries have been noticing the blowback from multiculturalism. The Dutch novelist Leon de Winter wrote that as traditional Calvinist discipline frayed and Muslim immigrants rejected Dutch tolerance, "the delicate mechanism of Holland's traditional tolerant society gradually lost its balance." In The Age, the Melbourne, Australia, newspaper, Pamela Bone wrote, "Perhaps it is time to say, you are welcome, but this is the way it is here." The Age's Tony Parkinson quoted the French writer Jean Francois Revel's Cold War comment: "A civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself." Tolerating intolerance, goodhearted people are beginning to see, does not necessarily produce tolerance in turn. ...

Multiculturalism is based on the lie that all cultures are morally equal. In practice, that soon degenerates to: All cultures all morally equal, except ours, which is worse. But all cultures are not equal in respecting representative government, guaranteed liberties, and the rule of law. And those things arose not simultaneously and in all cultures but in certain specific times and places--mostly in Britain and America but also in other parts of Europe.

In America, as in Britain, multiculturalism has become the fashion in large swaths of our society. So the Founding Fathers are presented only as slaveholders, World War II is limited to the internment of Japanese-Americans and the bombing of Hiroshima. Slavery is identified with America though it has existed in many societies, and the antislavery movement arose first among English-speaking evangelical Christians.

More (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/050815/15barone.htm)

[PaulRevere]

The misguided theory that all cultures are equal is promoted by the same socialists that think all people should be equal -- equally poor, that is. Multiculturalism is a tool that the global elitists are using to subordinate all people to the domination of the socialist globalcrats.

[markus3622]

I'm a liberal and I don't think all cultures are equal - far from it.

[Etaoin]

I'm a liberal and I don't think all cultures are equal - far from it.

Define your connotation of "Liberal!" Each of us on this board consider ourselves to be "Flaming Liberals" in the classical meaning of the word.

The Fabian Socialists corrupted the meaning of the word by applying the respected term "liberal" to their Socialist programs! The left is continuing to pervert the meaning of pleasant words that are (were) respected such as CHOICE, FAIR and GAY, by applying them to their political goals.

[Kathy29]

Saying that all cultures are equal is misleading. All cultures are equal. They are all cultures that confer a benefit on the society in which they exist.

What they are, is incompatible. A culture that serves its people well in one place simply is not compatible with another culture in another place. Multiculturalisim says that all cultures must be accepted by everyone. This is plain silliness. It just can't happen. A culture that celebrates female mutilation for instance will never be accepted by Western civilized nations.

[ConservativeYouthMovement]

Although liberal hasnt meant less government for over 100 years, we are liberal in the sense that the creators of this country were liberals who believed in freedom. Now freedom is the precedent and liberals are those who oppose it.

[markus3622]

I define liberal in the sense that most people would argue it. I'm for freedom, for decent education, for fairness, etc. They're pretty much "hooray" words. My definition of liberalism would come from the type of liberalism espoused by the likes of Gladstone and Lloyd George, and they weren't fabians.

I certain don't think conservatives have any claim on the word "liberal", just because conservatives have bought into a few of the aspects of liberalism.

Classical liberalism and conservatism are not synonomous - far from it.

[Trevelyan]

Although liberal hasnt meant less government for over 100 years, we are liberal in the sense that the creators of this country were liberals who believed in freedom. Now freedom is the precedent and liberals are those who oppose it.

I hear similar arguments, and I still do not understand. Do oppose abortion? Do you oppose same-sex union performed by the government? If the answer is yes, then how is that supporting everything freedom oriented?

I would also like to say, in regards to the above, that I specifically said same-sex "unions" and not "marriage." Also, from past experiences on other forums, some people seem to think money is synonymous with freedom, so I would not be opposed to some sort of system in which those who support the unions can allocate a certain amount of their taxes towards it, and those who do not wish to can do what they will.

[nene]

Of course, all cultures are not equal. Some are completely inferior.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

I define liberal in the sense that most people would argue it. I'm for freedom, for decent education, for fairness, etc.

I certain[ly] don't think conservatives have any claim on the word "liberal", just because conservatives have bought into a few of the aspects of liberalism.

Classical liberalism and conservatism are not synonomous - far from it.

Contemporary American conservativism is classical liberalism; it is the socio-political philosophy of the Founders, of Locke, of Burke. . . . It is the classical concept of natural law, the heart and soul of the Anglo-American political Enlightenment, extrapolated from Judeo-Christianity’s theological constructs.

If you don’t know that, it’s because you’re historically and cultural illiterate, deluded or pathologically dishonest.

But then we have the above from one who doesn't know that the Nazis were socialists; that Iran is a leftist regime; that Saddam’s Iraq was a leftist socialist state. This is a person who thinks the Nazis embraced the traditional family values of Western Christendom, or at least I think that's what he means. No telling really. This is a person who apparently doesn't know that abortion was first legalized in Europe by the Soviets from the very beginning and re-legalized in 1955. Stalin was the exception, not the rule. It was legalized in Germany by the Nazis, and except for the socialist republics of the Islamic world, it has always been a standard policy of socialist regimes the world over.

I certain[ly] don't think conservatives have any claim on the word "liberal", just because conservatives have bought into a few of the aspects of liberalism.

No, son, now you’re obviously talking about contemporary “liberalism”: radical egalitarianism, religious ambivalence, moral relativism and economic collectivism. These principles do not comprise the classical liberalism of the Founders, and conservatives have most certainly not bought into any of that rubbish. It’s you lefties who have bought into some classical principles, while abandoning most, favoring the concept of natural law from the French Enlightenment and the Marxist concept of human rights, mostly out of ignorance and a warped sense of reality that cannot comprehend what the actual outcomes of the kinds of ideas you think you understand would be.

The French Republic of the 18th Century crashed and burned in less than a decade. The Soviet Union is gone. Socialist Continental Europe has remained hobbled by entrenched unemployment and economic stagnation for twenty years! Get over it. Put your toys away and grow up. Put down your delusion and step away from the scene. There’s nothing to see there but fantasies. In America, we conservatives, we Lockeans, keep this nation afloat. You leftists are parasitic nuisances, historical retards who never learn from history’s ideological failures no matter how many times they are played out before you.

[DesertFox]

:claps:

[Pendragon_6]

Define your connotation of "Liberal!" Each of us on this board consider ourselves to be "Flaming Liberals" in the classical meaning of the word.

The Fabian Socialists corrupted the meaning of the word by applying the respected term "liberal" to their Socialist programs! The left is continuing to pervert the meaning of pleasant words that are (were) respected such as CHOICE, FAIR and GAY, by applying them to their political goals.__Etaoin

:claps: Give that girl a cigar.

:claps: Blue_Moon: eloquent as always.

[Lestat]

Awesome post BM!

[UnkHiram]

What we have here is an early favorite for POM (Blue Moon Rising)

[markus3622]

BlueMoon

You might want to let some of your conservatives in on the secret. You're a libertarian. I've read your posts before and they're very interesting. I agree that "classical Liberalism" is pretty much synonymous with libertarianism.

I was disappointed how you applied ad hominem attacks - they only generate more heat than light. You would enjoy the personal correspondance of Karl Marx - he used to write a little like you then - fun to read!

The idea that the Nazis were socialists is a bit of a chuckle. It's as if you define anything that isn't libertarian as socialist, which doesn't make much sense to me, or many historians. There seems to be a rosy view of conservatism, much divorced from a broader picture.

Classical liberalism was born of the enlightenment (and more specifically the Anglo-American enlightenment as you say), and I can easily think of a few examples where there are strong elements in modern american conservatism differ from classical liberalism.

Modern american conservatism (and especially the conservatism of the religious right) and libertarianism are not synomymous.

The two major themes that I can think of are anti-intellectual/anti-science positions, and secondly, a strongly militaristic outlook. I can see how you might disagree with these positions in conservatism, but you don't represent all of conservatism.

I'm sure some of the regulars on this board could give you a more eloquent explanation of why conservatism isn't the same as classical liberalism

[S-T]

I hear similar arguments, and I still do not understand. Do oppose abortion? Ah, the "pro-lifers against freedom" whine. Must we :bdh: again?

Should murder be legal? How about rape? Should slavery be decriminalized?

Government has the right and obligation to make it illegal to kill people or otherwise violate their human rights. Abortion is a violation of human rights, therefore it should be banned.

[Lazarus]

The misguided theory that all cultures are equal is promoted by the same socialists that think all people should be equal -- equally poor, that is. Multiculturalism is a tool that the global elitists are using to subordinate all people to the domination of the socialist globalcrats.My friend Paul has said it accurately and concisely... I have nothing to add to his very excellent comment...

[Trevelyan]

Ah, the "pro-lifers against freedom" whine. Must we :bdh: again?

Should murder be legal? How about rape? Should slavery be decriminalized?

Government has the right and obligation to make it illegal to kill people or otherwise violate their human rights. Abortion is a violation of human rights, therefore it should be banned.

Why, because you believe it is human? What about the people who believe it is not human until it takes its first breath?

Also, what about my other point?

I furthermore believe I, and anyone else who wants to, should be able to give tax money towards stem-cell research. It could be something similar to what I said in regards to homosexual unions.

Anyway, are you pro-death penalty? If so, then please do not refer to yourself as a "pro-lifer", because the term does not truly apply.

[Etaoin]

MOON, That was MARVELOUS! My compliments on your articulate presentation of the Reality of the world. Reality is that which the left persists in trying to distort and bend to their delusional view of reality.

[DoctorDoom]

The idea that the Nazis were socialists is a bit of a chuckle.Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP, a name that Hitler chose for his party in 1920. In English, it's National Socialist German Workers Party.

Keep trying, kid. You might be right one day, if only by accident.

[Etaoin]

Trevelyan]Why, because you believe it is human? What about the people who believe it is not human until it takes its first breath?

Would it have been killing a human had YOU been aborted at 8 mos. pregnancy?


I furthermore believe I, and anyone else who wants to, should be able to give tax money towards stem-cell research. It could be something similar to what I said in regards to homosexual unions.

Whether in your view, that of the evolutionists or the creationists, THE FACT IS THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE SEXUAL DESIRE IS PROCREATION! While it is obvious that some can get their "jollies" with the same sex, with Animals, Children or with cadavers, any rational view must come to the conclusion that such deviant laisons are a perversion of the natural order of life!


Anyway, are you pro-death penalty? If so, then please do not refer to yourself as a "pro-lifer", because the term does not truly apply.

I am PRO-LIFE, but, bear in mind those of criminal aspect who have murdered or tortured have forfeited their claim to humanity and should be removed from the face of the earth! Society is neither the cause nor culpable for those who have forsaken their humanity. Ergo, it is stupid to penalize society for their criminal behavior! Those who have committed crimes serious enough to warrant the death penalty should be tried and executed with a minimum of delay. It is irrational and illogical to coddle, imprison and attempt to rehabilitate them! That is penalizing society for that for which it is not responsible! Yes, I regret every miscarriage of justice, but I regret more every recidivist who is freed to further prey on the innocent!

Tell me, does each recidivist make you feel better because HE wasn't executed but is released to kill again? The death penalty may not reduce crime, but it sure as hell assures that a criminal is not freed to repeat his crimes!

[Trevelyan]

Would it have been killing a human had YOU been aborted at 8 mos. pregnancy?

In my and your view yes.

Whether in your view, that of the evolutionists or the creationists, THE FACT IS THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE SEXUAL DESIRE IS PROCREATION! While it is obvious that some can get their "jollies" with the same sex, with Animals, Children or with cadavers, any rational view must come to the conclusion that such deviant laisons are a perversion of the natural order of life!

Ok..... :question:


I am PRO-LIFE, but, bear in mind those of criminal aspect who have murdered or tortured have forfeited their claim to humanity and should be removed from the face of the earth!

I just knew someone was going to say this.

[markus3622]

Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP, a name that Hitler chose for his party in 1920. In English, it's National Socialist German Workers Party.

Keep trying, kid. You might be right one day, if only by accident.

The name argument, LOL. I suppose you thought the Soviet Union really was a workers' paradise (because they said it was) and that the Deutsche Demokratische Republik really was democratic!

Actually it's the reverse of the argument that BlueMoon and Etaoin have been trying to push. They believe they are Classical liberals, which is very different to liberals today. By your logic, I could say you're all Classical Liberals,and hence you're all liberals (in today's sense of the word), which mean that you're all socialists, which is very similar to Nazism. Of course, I wouldn't use that argument, but it shows how illogical it is to call the Nazis socialists, using the name argument.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

BlueMoon

You might want to let some of your conservatives in on the secret. You're a libertarian. I've read your posts before and they're very interesting. I agree that "classical Liberalism" is pretty much synonymous with libertarianism.

I was disappointed how you applied ad hominem attacks - they only generate more heat than light. You would enjoy the personal correspondance of Karl Marx - he used to write a little like you then - fun to read!

The idea that the Nazis were socialists is a bit of a chuckle. It's as if you define anything that isn't libertarian as socialist, which doesn't make much sense to me, or many historians. There seems to be a rosy view of conservatism, much divorced from a broader picture.

Classical liberalism was born of the enlightenment (and more specifically the Anglo-American enlightenment as you say), and I can easily think of a few examples where there are strong elements in modern american conservatism differ from classical liberalism.

Modern american conservatism (and especially the conservatism of the religious right) and libertarianism are not synomymous.

The two major themes that I can think of are anti-intellectual/anti-science positions, and secondly, a strongly militaristic outlook. I can see how you might disagree with these positions in conservatism, but you don't represent all of conservatism.

I'm sure some of the regulars on this board could give you a more eloquent explanation of why conservatism isn't the same as classical liberalism.

In what sense do you think I'm a libertarian? In the contemporary sense? Contemporary libertarianism has lost its ever-loving mind, for example, stupidly advocating that we empower the government to impose a whole new regime of civil rights protections based on sexual behavior beyond the norm against the natural expression of fundamental human rights touching on private property and free association. Legalize narcotics in the face of an entrenched nanny state? Not me, Bubba. I'm a proponent of the Hamiltonian-Jeffersonian synthesis of classical American liberalism. For example, I oppose abortion on demand, knowing it to be a flagrant violation of human dignity and the foundational principles a liberty. By definition it is not an act of freedom, it, like homosexuality, is a crime against God and nature. On the other hand, I oppose compulsory military service -- the draft -- so that we the people hold the ultimate check against domestic tyrants and unseemly military adventurism abroad. I often identify myself as a conservative-libertarian because in the topsy-turvy world of post-19th-century popular culture -- where up is down and pigs can fly, where socialists are liberals and conservatives are fascists, where Madame Defrag is a saint and Washington, a slave-owning demon from hell -- "conservative-libertarianism," in so far as we are talking about the Anglo-American version of it, best describes in contemporary terms the governing philosophy of John Locke.

Let me repeat that name, John Locke, the undisputed father of classical liberalism, the preeminent sage of the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence and of the institutional constructs -- explicitly stated powers and separation of powers, checks and balances -- incorporated into the Constitution of the United States.

John Locke and his natural ideological heirs -- most of America’s Founding Fathers, Burke, Smith, Heyek, etc. -- were not moral relativists and, therefore, did not advocate the same brand of natural law as that espoused by the atheist thinkers of Continental Europe during the Enlightenment era. Theoretically, Voltaire, Rousseau and others are classical liberals in the sense that they argued for limited government relative to their opposition of absolute monarchy and the entanglement of church and state, for example, and in the sense of their humanist concerns and historical setting. But there is a huge difference between the mostly secular and radically iconoclastic liberalism of the Continental Enlightenment and that of the Anglo-American tradition, beginning with their respective views of private property, no less.

Locke sought to unify the political and economic realities that delineate the proper limits of political power, which in turn serve to define and advance the rightful prerogatives touching on individual liberty and private property reserved to human beings against the purview of the state. His ultimate goal was to tie these concerns to a singular principle that was irrefutable, absolute, universal, ironclad! That principle is divinity, nature’s God, the Source and Guarantor of fundamental human rights. As nature’s highest expression on Earth, mankind stands head and shoulders above all the rest of God’s creatures, a free moral agent, howbeit the property of God, not that of the state . . . or even that of nature, as man is nature’s divinely appointed caretaker. He’s the boss of it. Nevertheless, he is not above the law of nature, as it is the express will of God given to man for his benefit, placed in his hands to execute and adjudicate. Natural law pertains to the common obligations and punitive sanctions to which all men are subject. The degree to which any community observes these obligations and the speed in which it justly imposes these sanctions is the degree to which its members are liberated from the law of the jungle, the degree to which they are free to live in mutual tranquility, secure in their lives, their expressive liberties and their property.

As man in nature is both mind and body, both will and physical appetite -- he is endowed by his Creator to freely express his will upon nature and partake of the fruits of his labor . . . in so far as he does not violate the will or the property of others. Should one violate the rights of another, one violates the rights of all. Should one resort to the law of the jungle, one becomes subject to its justice. In other words, should a man violate the rights of his community, he may be justly stripped of the practical exercise of his own and be made to suffer physical incarceration, corporal punishment or death.

The duty of the state, therefore, is not to determine the rights of men, but to uphold and defend them against domestic terrorists -- criminals -- and foreign aggressors. While it is wise that social contracts provide for majority rule with respect to the management of community property, no individual’s fundamental human rights may be abridged except in the case capital crimes and never in the absence of due process. The individual’s civil rights may not be suspended in the absence of due process. Hence, the powers of the state must be explicitly circumscribed in the community’s social contract, and this concern is threefold, pertaining to (1) the forbidden powers, those the state may never exercise against the people, (2) the unusual powers, those the state may only exercise in accordance with the rules and limitations of due process and (3) the necessary powers, those the state is obliged to routinely exercise at the behest of the majority.

The state’s practical functions -- or powers -- are judicial, administrative and legislative. The responsibility of wielding these powers must be divided among three distinct branches of government, whereby the responsibilities of each branch are equally checked and balanced, each against the other, according to explicitly established rules which further circumscribe the limits of the powers that each may exercise.

The state is established by the consent of the governed, and its preeminent duty, like that of any good cop, is to protect and serve the people’s lives, expressive liberties and property. Moreover, it is to pursue only those policies that cause the people’s fundamental interests to flourish, that serve to maximize the potential of liberty’s pursuits for every individual, and encourage the production and accumulation of private wealth.

Classical Anglo-American natural law 101. :grin:

While English and American thinkers emphasized individual liberty and private property (capitalism), the Continental European thinkers of 18th-Century liberalism emphasized state enforced egalitarianism and economic collectivism. While the former held that human rights were endowed by the Creator, the latter made the state the arbiter of human rights.

In short, what we have here, ladies and gents, is what has come down to us as the right and left wings of Western classical liberalism. We have American conservatives -- and those libertarians who still hold the state’s feet to the iron with respect to the defense of heterosexual marriage and the sanctity of human life -- on the right, and American “liberals” on the left.

markus, my personal values are quite traditional and conservative. As for others, as long as they keep their pants on in public -- keep their privates private -- and mind my personal space, I’m pretty much a live and let live kind of guy. But that’s the problem with you lefties, you guys insist on waving your privates in everyone else's faces . . . on their dime, making it your business to mind the business of others . . . and call it freedom.

Further, the idea that Nazis are anything but socialists is stupid; you're confounding totalitarian forms of socialism with democratic socialism. No one on this broad is arguing that they are identical, but that they are the extremes of the same political strain. Both emphasize political and economic collectivism against individualism and laissez-faire capitalism. It is a matter of degree.

And you cannot "think of [any] examples where there are strong elements in modern american conservatism [that] differ from classical liberalism." All that you can possibly be doing in that mind of yours is confounding the difference between the liberalism of 18th-Century Continental Europe with that of the Anglo-American tradition. There is a difference! And the overwhelming majority of American evangelical, charismatic and even most fundamental Christians are firmly standing on the Lockean worldview. After all, Locke extrapolated his political theory from the socio-political implications of Judeo-Christianity's theological constructs.

Have you never noticed that among the nations of the West America has always been the most capitalistic, individualist . . . and religious? What do you suppose that's all about? Huh? Nowadays, even Canada is more like the socialist democracies of Continental Europe than is the socialist democracy of Great Britain! <font size=1>Nothing ever takes with the Canadians.</font>

Finally, there is nothing anti-intellectual or anti-science about American conservativism. You're daft! You best take a close look at your anti-capitalist, anti-technology, anti-development dipshit brethren on the left. For crying out loud! American leftists -- steeped in the anti-rational claptrap of intellectual and moral relativism -- delude themselves with their pretense of sophistication.

markus: I'm sure some of the regulars on this board could give you a more eloquent explanation of why conservatism isn't the same as classical liberalism.

Bring 'em on. They can sit at me feet as well. Tell them to bring their own popcorn.

[Trevelyan]

You’re confusing freedom with nihilist libertinism in which case, you do not possess the freedom to overthrow society just because you do not agree with it.

Well I am just going to have to go ahead and disagree with you. This is the problem with a term as vague as "freedom." It can mean a lot of things.

Another example of less "freedom", according to my view of the word, is the fact a foreign born citizen can never run for President.

[marvin_pa]

Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP, a name that Hitler chose for his party in 1920. In English, it's National Socialist German Workers Party.

Keep trying, kid. You might be right one day, if only by accident.

But then again Doom, you are a literalist when it comes to the words used by these people. And you even take the Nazi's on their own word, which might not be a very wise thing to do. Taking them to be socialists (whatever that may mean in this case). Just because the party chose to use that word, doesn't make it so. Nazi Germany was a perfectly sound Capitalist dictatorship. Krupp, IG Farben and Thyssen, aswell as Basf and most of the great industrialists of that age could tell you so. No possesion of means of production by the masses or the state was even contemplated in that period. So the only arguments you have for calling the Hitler regime socialist are:

a) their own propaganda, directed to the traditionally large Social Democrat caucus in Germany, as it developed in the days of the Emperors (since 1905) and the Weimar Republic (1919-1933)

b) Your own wishfull thinking to have them on a side you would not want to be associated with. (Why not, I ask? It is not a stigma to call yourself Right in a political sense, just because Hitler is generally associated with it in a more extreme way, Many people do it and feel perfectly comfortable about themselves)

c) Your adherance to the terms left and right as being meaningfull in this matter.

They are not. Left and Right is a binary system, used to discribe a world of politics that is more complicated than that. Too simplifying and not helpfull when it comes to general understanding of complex things.

[DesertFox]

Left and Right is not a binary system, but a binary continuum. Huge difference. A binary system is yes-no, one or the other, black and white; a binary continuum slides along from one point to another and you can't always easily tell when one point ends and the next begins. It admits of shades of gray.

It's still a simplification, but then everything that is named is a simplification of what it names. Words are concepts that stand in for reality, and they always, always simplify. The important thing is that the Left-Right continuum does not oversimplify.

The binary continuum of Left and Right fits American politics -- and world politics -- just fine. It's actually a highly complex continuum, discussed already in Flame Wars in connection with something similar. The extreme Left end of the continuum is occupied by totalitarian atheistic systems such as Stalin's and Hitler's. The extreme Right end is occupied by totalitarian theistic systems such as the Middle Eastern mullocracies. The exact center would represent something we've never seen on earth, but the closest thing to it was the America as the Founders envisioned it. America today is on the Left side but not the extreme Left. Prior to FDR America was on the Right side but not the extreme Right.

Hitler's Germany wasn't capitalist but monopolist, which is the precise opposite of capitalism on a political economy continuum. Unsurprisingly, socialism is also the precise opposite of capitalism on a political economy continuum. A capitalist economy is dominated by capitalists; Hitler's German economy was dominated by the govt, as are all totalitarian economies.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Hitler's Germany wasn't capitalist but monopolist, which is the precise opposite of capitalism on a political economy continuum. Unsurprisingly, socialism is also the precise opposite of capitalism on a political economy continuum. A capitalist economy is dominated by capitalists; Hitler's German economy was dominated by the govt, as are all totalitarian economies.

Excellent post, Fox. Of course, German Nazism was a bit of an aberration as totalitarian socialism goes, in that it collectivized human rights and the major industries, but left small business in the hands of the people, as long its owners served the needs of the Fuehrer when called upon. Also, Hitler allowed most of the Aristocracy to retain its titles and holdings, which of course had more to do with the agreement worked out between the two parties should the latter support the ascension of the former and the former eradicate the communists who would not have left the Aristocracy its titles and holdings. The Aristocracy saw the writing on the wall -- or did they in reality help write it? -- believing that the Weimer Republic would fall to one totalitarian faction or the other.

[Federal Farmer]

Of course, German Nazism was a bit of an aberration as totalitarian socialism goes, in that it collectivized human rights and the major industries, but left small business in the hands of the people, as long its owners served the needs of the Fuehrer when called upon.
Exactly. Hitler used industrialists in the beginning, but step-by-step the Nazi regime was taking over the economy. Businessmen were told what to do (production, price), taxed highly, and made "contributions" to the Party. Of course if you did not want to do the above....Hardly a laissez-faire capitalist state.

[PatrioticAmerican]

If all cultures are equally valuable, I guess Libs would consider my throat culture to be on equal footing with the Palestinean culture.

[marvin_pa]

Exactly. Hitler used industrialists in the beginning, but step-by-step the Nazi regime was taking over the economy. Businessmen were told what to do (production, price), taxed highly, and made "contributions" to the Party. Of course if you did not want to do the above....Hardly a laissez-faire capitalist state.

Well, remember however that no state that involved in a World War can remain laissez-fair capitalist. In Britain and the US a certain degree of guided economy was necessary during that period. I don't think Hitler collectivezed the large industries though.
It is not an exact science as terms like right and left are used. A lot of it can be (and is) bended at will.

[DoctorDoom]

Why, because you believe it is human?Obviously the product of the fertilization of a human ovum by a human spermatozoon is human. What else could it be? Is it an elm tree? A mosquito? A lion, tiger or bear, oh my?

What about the people who believe it is not human until it takes its first breath?What about the idiots? The only people who make such "arguments" are the ones who rabidly defend the nonexistent "right" to murder children in the womb, and are trying to justify their trafficking in infanticide.

I furthermore believe I, and anyone else who wants to, should be able to give tax money towards stem-cell research.You're creating a typical liberal smokescreen. SCR is NOT the issue. EMBRYONIC SCR is. IAC, feel free to specify that your tax money will go to that purpose, and lots of luck dictating to Big Gov how your taxes will be spent.

It could be something similar to what I said in regards to homosexual unions.It's time to stop catering to the queers and to tell them, "Go back in your closets, lock the doors behind you, and keep your perversion to yourself."

Anyway, are you pro-death penalty?Absolutely.

If so, then please do not refer to yourself as a "pro-lifer", because the term does not truly apply."I furthermore believe I, and anyone else who wants to, should be able to give tax money towards" frying the sorry asses of bastards who forfeit their lives by committing crimes worthy of the DP.

There is no rational comparison between abortion and the DP.

[DesertFox]

Trevelyan, the death penalty is merely an expression of societal self-defense against murderers. The whole concept of criminal law starts with a society's right to defend itself against criminals. Law has always, from the very beginning, recognized the right of individual AND societal self-defense.

To equate the death penalty with abortion can only be done by equating the murderer -- against whom the death penalty is to be applied -- with the murderer who is carrying out the abortion. In each case there is a murderer, but you're attributing the act of murder to the wrong party. You seem to think that murder should not be punished with death but an innocent person -- one still in the womb -- should be.

Regarding abortion itself, let's use extreme cases to illustrate a point. Unlike most Freecers, I think you can argue reasonably that the zygote stage of human development precedes "humanity" and aborting it is not murder. But you can't argue reasonably that partial-birth abortion is anything but murder.

Somewhere in the development of the protoplasmal blob a human being emerges. I used to think, before the evidence of modern sonography, that six months was a reasonable standard. So long as the fetus was no more than six months along, abortion wasn't killing a person.

I no longer think that. I still don't know enough to know just where to date the beginning of fetal "personhood," but it's clearly well before six months, well before five months, before four months and probably before three months.

The more I've seen of the development of a fetus, the further and further back I have to date the beginning of personhood. I think anyone who really does value human life will have to do the same.

[Federal Farmer]

Well, remember however that no state that involved in a World War can remain laissez-fair capitalist. In Britain and the US a certain degree of guided economy was necessary during that period. I don't think Hitler collectivezed the large industries though.
It is not an exact science as terms like right and left are used. A lot of it can be (and is) bended at will.
I used that term half in jest to point out one extreme as opposed to another, as Hitler's Germany was. The American war industrial effort was one of cooperation, the Nazi Germany war industrial effort one of force.

[DesertFox]

Um, Fed, not really. There was a long tradition of authoritarian govt in the German states into which Hitler his first several years fit without forcing. The captains of German industry worked, as Albert Speer wrote in Inside the Third Reich, on the "principle of self-responsibility" under which they were trusted to "do the right thing." It was accepted that any patriot would want the war effort to succeed, and industry eagerly did its part -- not only for money, but for patriotic reasons. Many industries were turned from production of this to production of that, and many thousands of laborers were moved from this factory to that one, but they didn't desist because they still made money and they wanted to contribute to the war effort.

It's true that had an industrial leader wanted to desist, he'd probably have been removed and put into a camp; but none even wanted to desist. The only arguments that came up were how-to questions.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Trevelyan, the death penalty is merely an expression of societal self-defense against murderers. The whole concept of criminal law starts with a society's right to defend itself against criminals. Law has always, from the very beginning, recognized the right of individual AND societal self-defense.

Spoken like a true Lockean. :thumb:

As I have said:

Natural law pertains to the common obligations and punitive sanctions to which all men are subject. The degree to which any community observes these obligations and the speed in which it justly imposes these sanctions is the degree to which its members are liberated from the law of the jungle, the degree to which they are free to live in mutual tranquility, secure in their lives, their expressive liberties and their property. . . .

As man in nature is both mind and body, both will and physical appetite -- he is endowed by his Creator to freely express his will upon nature and partake of the fruits of his labor . . . in so far as he does not violate the will or the property of others. Should one violate the rights of another, one violates the rights of all. Should one resort to the law of the jungle, one becomes subject to its justice. In other words, should a man violate the rights of his community, he may be justly stripped of the practical exercise of his own and be made to suffer physical incarceration, corporal punishment or death.

The duty of the state, therefore, is not to determine the rights of men, but to uphold and defend them against domestic terrorists -- criminals -- and foreign aggressors. . . .

The state is established by the consent of the governed, and its preeminent duty, like that of any good cop, is to protect and serve the people’s lives, expressive liberties and property.



Fox continues:

To equate the death penalty with abortion can only be done by equating the murderer -- against whom the death penalty is to be applied -- with the murderer who is carrying out the abortion. In each case there is a murderer, but you're attributing the act of murder to the wrong party. You seem to think that murder should not be punished with death but an innocent person -- one still in the womb -- should be.

Regarding abortion itself, let's use extreme cases to illustrate a point. Unlike most Freecers, I think you can argue reasonably that the zygote stage of human development precedes "humanity" and aborting it is not murder. But you can't argue reasonably that partial-birth abortion is anything but murder.

:thumb:


The community has every right under God and in accordance with the sanctions of natural law to defend innocence and human life against renegade states and individual criminals. Capital punishment -- in the terms of natural law -- is a limited act of war against a renegade individual who has committed an act of war against the community and in violation of the terms of the social contract.

[Stetson]

...A culture that serves its people well in one place simply is not compatible with another culture in another place...


how does "Honor Killings" benefit the people of islam?
how does "Stoning to death" benefit the people of islam?

just two examples, both charges can be made, without proof, by any male

[Trevelyan]

Now if you believe that you’re right in your view, then society has developed a system to allow you to put forth your proposition for change, the democratic system. And when society rejects your proposition, then that’s it, you either abide or move someplace more congenial to your views.

Well ok.... does abiding mean you shouldn't voice your disagreement, because I don't think I am doing anything more than that. :grin:

[Trevelyan]

Obviously the product of the fertilization of a human ovum by a human spermatozoon is human. What else could it be? Is it an elm tree? A mosquito? A lion, tiger or bear, oh my?

Well yes it is obviously so to you and me, but to others it isn't. I have the same attitude in regards to evolution, yet many seem to believe something else that I feel is irrational.

What about the idiots? The only people who make such "arguments" are the ones who rabidly defend the nonexistent "right" to murder children in the womb, and are trying to justify their trafficking in infanticide.

Well, please respond to this. Depending on what you say, I may make an attempt to reevaluate my stance.

"<!--StartFragment --> In Leviticus 27:6 a monetary value was placed on children, but not until they reached one month old (any younger had no value). Likewise, in Numbers 3:15 a census was commanded, but the Jews were told only to count those one month old and above - anything less, particularly a fetus, was not counted as a human person. In Ezekiel 37:8-10 we watch as God re-animates dead bones into living soldiers, but the passage makes the interesting note that they were not alive as persons until their first breath. Likewise, in Genesis 2:7, Adam had a human form and a vibrant new body but he only becomes a fully-alive human person after God makes him breathe."

You're creating a typical liberal smokescreen. SCR is NOT the issue. EMBRYONIC SCR is. IAC, feel free to specify that your tax money will go to that purpose, and lots of luck dictating to Big Gov how your taxes will be spent.

Ok, for future reference, whenever I speak of "stem-cell research" in this context, I am referring to embryonic stem-cell research.

"I furthermore believe I, and anyone else who wants to, should be able to give tax money towards" frying the sorry asses of bastards who forfeit their lives by committing crimes worthy of the DP.

There is no rational comparison between abortion and the DP.

Saying someone who commits a certain crime loses their status as human is, to me, as idiotic as anyone who believes there is not human life formed after fertilization. The very thought that innocent people have been wrongly put to death is enough for me to oppose it.

[markus3622]

In what sense do you think I'm a libertarian? In the contemporary sense? Contemporary libertarianism has lost its ever-loving mind, for example, stupidly advocating that we empower the government to impose a whole new regime of civil rights protections based on sexual behavior beyond the norm against the natural expression of fundamental human rights touching on private property and free association. Legalize narcotics in the face of an entrenched nanny state? Not me, Bubba. I'm a proponent of the Hamiltonian-Jeffersonian synthesis of classical American liberalism. For example, I oppose abortion on demand, knowing it to be a flagrant violation of human dignity and the foundational principles a liberty. By definition it is not an act of freedom, it, like homosexuality, is a crime against God and nature. On the other hand, I oppose compulsory military service -- the draft -- so that we the people hold the ultimate check against domestic tyrants and unseemly military adventurism abroad. I often identify myself as a conservative-libertarian because in the topsy-turvy world of post-19th-century popular culture -- where up is down and pigs can fly, where socialists are liberals and conservatives are fascists, where Madame Defrag is a saint and Washington, a slave-owning demon from hell -- "conservative-libertarianism," in so far as we are talking about the Anglo-American version of it, best describes in contemporary terms the governing philosophy of John Locke.
....

Finally, there is nothing anti-intellectual or anti-science about American conservativism. You're daft! You best take a close look at your anti-capitalist, anti-technology, anti-development dipshit brethren on the left. For crying out loud! American leftists -- steeped in the anti-rational claptrap of intellectual and moral relativism -- delude themselves with their pretense of sophistication.



Very interesting BlueMoon. If you could suggest one book on your political beliefs, what would it be? If I can get it at the local library I'll promise to read it and comment. You inspired me to do some reading over the weekend, and your definition of Conservatism sounds interesting, but I can't help feel you've missing things out (not deliberately, mind you).

Why American conservatism has been so successful is that it has managed to merge several strands of thought. Speakly very broadly, you have come down through a libertarian-conservative stream, but that's just one tributary in modern conservatism.

You write that there's nothing anti-science in modern conservatism - that's just not true. Young earth creationism (and creationism in general) is an anti-science movement, coming mainly from conservatives.

I'm not suggesting for a minute that your brand of conservatism is anti-intellectual, but there are other strands, that I can name.

Conservative opposition to civil rights movements in the 60s, in journals like the National Review didn't come from Locke.

Conservative militarism and nationalism doesn't come from Locke, neither does conservative protectionism in trade.

There are large swathes of conservative thought, especially the authoritarian line of conservative thought that doesn't come from Locke.

Now, on Fascism, I've never said it's part of conservatism, but it is largely a movement of the right, if we look at the left-right spectrum from the typical vista. It was a movement opposed to the rationalism of the enlightenment and cherished national myths. It was racist (unfortunately, this is a motif of the right - that's not to say that all right wingers are racists), elitists, certainly not anti-capitalist. Its take on religion varied on its location. No doubt an american fascism would be very pro-protestant. That there was some coordination of the economy doesn't make it a movement of the left - fundamentally the left-right axis isn't about control over the economy.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

markus: You write that there's nothing anti-science in modern conservatism - that's just not true. Young earth creationism (and creationism in general) is an anti-science movement, coming mainly from conservatives.
I'm a creationist, though not an advocate of young earth creationism as, among other things, I believe there to be sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that certain types of evolutionary-like processes have occurred in the past. My view -- like the history of biological development itself -- is complex. Creationism is neither inherently nor generally anti-scientific. You're merely speaking from the prejudices of your own religion now -- perhaps an atheistic secular humanism -- and from certain underlying assumptions about origins which may not be true, are by nature theological and are consequently no more subject to scientific falsification than are the theological claims of Judeo-Christianity, a fact that fanatical evolutionists can never seem to wrap their heads around.

I'm not suggesting for a minute that your brand of conservatism is anti-intellectual, but there are other strands, that I can name.
No. What you can name are strains of thought that are identified as being "conservative" relative to the indigenous traditions -- religious, cultural and political -- of this or that tribe or nation. Now you're talking about "conservativism" in terms of its basic, ideological meaning. I'm talking about the socio-political school of thought generally espoused by contemporary American conservatives, which is the classical liberalism of the Anglo-American Enlightenment.

Moreover, I can point out any number of examples of hostility toward scientific and technological discovery on the part of leftist ideologues, especially as they touch on economic development, the sort of attitude that conservatives scornfully reject. Get real, markus. Aside from the allegedly benighted view of evolutionary theory sported by many American conservatives, in what other area of scientific inquiry and technological development are they not in fact quite enthusiastic? Indeed, it is most especially because of the mindless obstructionism of leftist ideologues, for example, that we are perhaps decades behind where we might otherwise be in terms of the development and exploitation of nuclear energy, the only viable alternative to fossil fuels that can practically satisfy the needs of general demand! Hell, if not for the counter-obstructionism on the part of conservatives, 'ol lefty would deep-six space exploration. When it comes to the hard sciences and technologies, we conservatives tend to be the man. Stick to your humanities and your extra-scientific musings about origins. Besides, creationist thought is not monolithic.

Conservative opposition to civil rights movements in the 60s, in journals like the National Review didn't come from Locke.
Buzz. Wrong. John Locke did not argue that the state's role was to conceive and enforce special rights. His position was quite the opposite. You are confused about the difference between civil rights and fundamental liberties. The former are invented by the state and more often than not obnoxiously conflict with the necessary and natural expression of the latter. Now you're talking about the interests of the liberal tradition inspired by the Continental European political Enlightenment -- read Rousseau and Voltaire.

Conservative militarism and nationalism doesn't come from Locke, neither does conservative protectionism in trade.
This is also wrong . . . or at least muddled. Locke had nothing against nationalism in and of itself, as a healthy dose of it is indispensable to any nation that wishes to thrive. Protectionism?! Though some conservatives have always supported it in some form or another, in some area of commerce or another, most conservatives have historically opposed it! Hello! We struggled to beat down the Democratic Party's opposition to free trade for sixty years. Where the hell have you been? Finally, as for "[c]onservative militarism", I have no idea what you're talking about, unless you mean that conservatives typically believe in maintaining a strong defense, that they believe that we should never allow ourselves to be dependent on any other for our own defense, especially in the face of the sort of dangers that lurk outside our borders in today's world. The preeminent duty of the state, according to Locke, is to defend the people from domestic terrorists and foreign aggressors. Locke lived at a time when military technology was such that it could not theoretically annihilate an entire nation in a matter of days. Nevertheless, he insisted that the maintenance of both a permanent armed militia among the people and a permanent state-directed army and navy were indispensable to the defense of the people's liberty against the state on the one hand and the ambitions of foreign aggressors on the other. The check against the state-directed military establishment was that it could not compel military service on the people. Such service was to be wholly voluntary, driven by the people's self-interest in the face of serious threats. Now let's see: Is it mostly conservatives or "liberals" who have historically insisted on maintaining a permanent military draft? :question:

There are large swathes of conservative thought, especially the authoritarian line of conservative thought that doesn't come from Locke.
Uh-huh. And contemporary American conservatives are not authoritarians, they're Lockeans. So what does the so-called conservativism of other theological, cultural and political traditions have to do with them? Answer: Nothing.

Why American conservatism has been so successful is that it has managed to merge several strands of thought. Speak[ing] very broadly, you have come down through a libertarian-conservative stream, but that's just one tributary in modern conservatism.
No. American conservativism -- a.k.a., the classical liberalism of the Founding Fathers -- has once again, after decades of socialist influence, enjoyed some limited success because the classical liberalism of the Founding Fathers works and the inevitable outcome of the liberalism of the Continental Europeans -- socialism -- doesn't. I am aware of only two major tributaries of Western liberal thought. The Anglo-America stream has branched out into contemporary conservativism and libertarianism. These schools of thought distinguish themselves, one from the other, by emphasizing certain aspects of Lockean theory over others. The Continental European stream has branched out into what has become democratic socialism and despotic socialism. The latter expresses itself in the more orthodox form of communism or in the aberrant form of fascism.

Now, on Fascism, I've never said it's part of conservatism, but it is largely a movement of the right, if we look at the left-right spectrum from the typical vista. It was a movement opposed to the rationalism of the enlightenment and cherished national myths. It was racist (unfortunately, this is a motif of the right - that's not to say that all right wingers are racists), elitists, certainly not anti-capitalist. Its take on religion varied on its location. No doubt an american fascism would be very pro-protestant. That there was some coordination of the economy doesn't make it a movement of the left - fundamentally the left-right axis isn't about control over the economy.
This paragraph is riddled with so many errors that it's hard to know where one might begin to address them in order to cover them all without writing a book in the process.

As I have already observed, fascism is a leftist ideology, for it, like the liberalism of Continental Europe, is essentially a secular or even atheistic ideology relative to its attitude toward the historical Anglo-American view of the theological claims on the limits of the powers of the state against the practical and expressive liberties of the people. Hence, it is not to the right of contemporary American conservativism. It is to the right of mainstream Continental European liberalism, to the right of democratic socialism. Further, contrasted against Marxism, it is an aberrant form of despotic socialism. That it can dress itself up in the trappings of an essentially secularized, apostate "church" is of no import. The teachings of orthodox Christianity -- which recommend the advancement of individual liberty and property rights against the state -- are no less anathema to fascism than they are to any other form of socialism, from the relatively mild to the monstrously extreme.

It was a movement opposed to the rationalism of the enlightenment . . .
As is communism.

. . . and cherished national myths.
It's an aberrant form of socialism.

It was racist (unfortunately, this is a motif of the right - that's not to say that all right wingers are racists), elitists, certainly not anti-capitalist.
No. Racism is a motif of socialism period. Its foundational premise, the very heart and soul of its appeal, regardless of the actual form it takes, rests entirely on the idea that it is the state's responsibility to right supposed injustices against whatever racial, ethnic or economic class that currently suits its purpose. The collectivism of Continental Europe, from its milder, classical form to its extreme, post-modern form, is essentially nothing more than an orgasmic hissyfit, a childish tantrum, against the evil of this world, the true nature of which it does not comprehend and with which it cannot even begin to contend without enslaving us all.

That's not to say that all left wingers are overtly elitist and racist. While most are, some aren't. By definition and practice all forms of socialism are anti-capitalistic. As for fascism, once again, it's an aberrant form, as it advocates a state-directed form of monopolism, and the political and economic laissez-faire championed by Locke and his American ideological heirs, contemporary American conservatives and libertarians, is vehemently, diametrically opposed to such economic arrangements.

lais·sez-faire:
1 : a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights
2 : a philosophy or practice characterized by a usually deliberate abstention from direction or interference especially with individual freedom of choice and action (Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online)

cap·i·tal·ism:
1 : a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights
2 : a philosophy or practice characterized by a usually deliberate abstention from direction or interference especially with individual freedom of choice and action (Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online).

. . . fundamentally the left-right axis isn't about control over the economy . . .
:rolleyes:
Fundamentally, the left-right axis is ultimately all about defining how the various systems control the economy. Everything else is about the means.

[DesertFox]

I would interject that racism is inherent in the human condition and must be fought against constantly by ALL systems. Hitlerism used the already-ingrained ideas of Slavic inferiority and Jewish alienness, notions long part of the atmosphere in Europe, to further his political aims, which simply amounted to Germans ruling everybody else. But Stalin was doing much the same thing in the Soviet Union. He used Jews, then pretty much wiped them out. He starved seven million Ukrainians to death in order to impose his system. A Georgian himself, he became a Great Russian chauvinist.

I would suggest that we look at racism a whole 'nother way: It is sin. Hence it will turn up everywhere in sinful man, justified or not.

But a further amplification: It isn't really racism we're talking about, but bigotry. Racism, properly understood, developed to explain the extraordinary differences in advancement between Europe and Africa. The differences were undeniable: No African society had so much as developed an alphabet, while Europe was developing technology and conquering the world.

Thomas Sowell has shown why the disparity developed -- the huge distances in Africa combined with the lack of navigable rivers simply isolated the tribes, and the lack of interaction with others meant that the only development a given tribe ever made had to come from within. No single tribe or group anywhere in the world ever developed much just by itself, but if you add the concept of zero from India and the stirrup from Arabia and gunpower from China and seafaring from Phoenicia and writing from wherever that came from -- all those small contributions by small clans add up when they come together in Europe, where the small landmass and the navigable river systems bring the clans together both in war and in commerce.

But it took an unusually smart man like Sowell to grasp that. In the days of European slave trading, the explanation was that the black peoples just weren't smart enough to develop what the white peoples had. With no prior thinking on the subject to work from, it wasn't an outrageous idea and it did not spring from evil in the heart, but from the observation of the eyes. That they got it wrong isn't surprising -- almost nothing in the history of the world worked right the first time it was tried.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Very interesting BlueMoon. If you could suggest one book on your political beliefs, what would it be? If I can get it at the local library I'll promise to read it and comment. You inspired me to do some reading over the weekend, and your definition of Conservatism sounds interesting, but I can't help feel you've missing things out (not deliberately, mind you).

markus, I'm well aware that the perspective you're getting from me strikes you as a bit skewed relative to the way you're used to thinking about the socio-political spectrum. But I would challenge you to understand that post-modern popular culture in the West confounds the distinction between the liberal tradition of English and American thinkers with that of most Continental European thinkers. There's a difference, and that difference is above all else theological in nature. And it effects the way in which each views the limitations of the powers of the state and the nature and extent of the people's political and economic freedoms.

While those on the left side of the political spectrum are wont to think of aberrant forms of socialism as being to the right of Anglo-American conservatism, this sort of thinking makes no sense whatsoever to those of us on the right side of the historical dispute between classical liberals. In truth, this way of thinking is directly tied to the rise of Marxism and an attempt by fellow travelers in the West who eschew Anglo-American laissez-faire to conceptually separate themselves from the aberrant -- authoritarian-like -- forms of socialism.

Until just recently, I myself thought of theocratic socialist states as being to the left of democratic capitalism, by which I mean the political and economic laissez-faire of the the Anglo-American tradition. No longer, it makes sense to place them to the right of it. Fascism is essentially secular, atheistic; it is therefore a leftist ideology, merely an aberrant form of socialist despotism.

We conservative-libertarians simply tend to view the spectrum of the left-right parallel and that of the horizontal bar of the political axis differently, holding that Anglo-American classical liberalism is the ideal center. As it goes, I’m currently rethinking the entire spectrums of the axis in terms of theological, economic and political concerns. It may be that two separate schema -- one for socialism and one for laissez-faire -- are required, or at least must be considered separately before they can be sensibly reintegrated into a single axis.

In any event, suggested reading:

Two Treatises of Government, John Locke
The Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu (A French rarity)
The Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson
The U.S. Constitution, James Madison et. al.
The Federalist Papers; James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay
Reflections on the Revolution in France and Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs, Edmund Burke (Jefferson and Paine were wrong.)
Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of The Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Adam Smith
The Road to Serfdom, Friedrich Hayek


Also, you might want to check out the works of a black political activist and educator, Booker T. Washington, who embraced the classical Anglo-American model of revolution and reconstruction, as opposed to the radical egalitarianism of the French model, the latter being the one that Washington’s wayward contemporaries -- Frederick Douglas and W. E. B. Dubois -- embraced instead, foolishly insisting that American whites owed blacks a rather extensive and complex sum of political and economic payback. Welcome to the welfare plantation, boys, and don’t forget to tip your hat to your new white liberal masters. Washington was a giant. Douglas allowed bitterness to overrule his otherwise innate good sense. And Dubois was a crybaby.

Think about it: We went into slavery pagans, we came out Christians. We went into slavery pieces of property; we came out American citizens. We went into slavery with chains clanking about our wrists; we came out with the American ballot in our hands. . . . Notwithstanding the cruelty and moral wrong of slavery, we are in a stronger and more hopeful condition, materially, intellectually, morally, and religiously, than is true of an equal number of black people in any other portion of the globe. – Booker T. Washington, Up From Slavery

[Bluemoon_Rising]

DesertFox, you put your finger right on it.

I would interject that racism is inherent in the human condition and must be fought against constantly by ALL systems. -- DesertFox

I totally agree, as any system, including the best of them -- though not in actuality, but in the way in which they might be interpreted and applied as a result of indigenous biases -- can readily be subverted or twisted into something they were never meant to be by human nature. Indeed, this very thought crossed my mind -- your qualification --but I already had enough on my plate as it was and chose to leave that observation for others to make.

Also, the distinction you make between racism and bigotry is sensible, as bigotry derives from the sins of anger and bitterness, while racism derives from a sinful sense of superiority based on ignorance and is not necessarily violent or hateful, just ill-informed.

[DesertFox]

That's a superb clarification, Moon. Eugene Genovese in his Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made (1972), presents several facts I've seen nowhere else. He points out that the slaves, far from just rolling over and waiting for the massuh to rub their bellies, developed sophisticated techniques of using massuh's guilt against him. Under the most degrading of conditions they created lives with meaning and dignity. This was an achievement of the first order in world history, along the lines of "their finest hour."

Their finest hour -- at least, until Hank Aaron and Mike Jordan came along. :D

It seems to have been forgotten that in the Old South, black women breast-fed white kids along with their own. Generations of Southern whites grew up not really distinguishing their black mammy from their white mama until they were old enough to go into society. You don't hate people when you feel that kind of love for them. Southern whites generally -- there were always exceptions, of course -- were racist but not vicious in their attitudes towards blacks.

Margaret Mitchell captured the relationship perfectly in Gone with the Wind. Mammy exercised a real authority second only to Mrs O'Hara's at Tara and even beyond, as when she accompanied Scarlett to Atlanta and continued to work at keeping the willful Scarlett within "fittin'" bounds. Scarlett, cold-hearted toward everybody else, including her own sisters, couldn't bear the tears of the black slaves who minded her. Even Rhett put great store on mammy's opinion because of the love he harbored for his own mammy when he was kid.

Racism, certainly; but not bigotry. No anger and hatred, just dismal, if loving, ignorance.

[Federal Farmer]

Um, Fed, not really. There was a long tradition of authoritarian govt in the German states into which Hitler his first several years fit without forcing. The captains of German industry worked, as Albert Speer wrote in Inside the Third Reich, on the "principle of self-responsibility" under which they were trusted to "do the right thing." It was accepted that any patriot would want the war effort to succeed, and industry eagerly did its part -- not only for money, but for patriotic reasons. Many industries were turned from production of this to production of that, and many thousands of laborers were moved from this factory to that one, but they didn't desist because they still made money and they wanted to contribute to the war effort.

It's true that had an industrial leader wanted to desist, he'd probably have been removed and put into a camp; but none even wanted to desist. The only arguments that came up were how-to questions.
DF, I made reference to the fact that Hitler's regime was taking over more and more of the economy; marvin pa made an allusion to the American war effort being "guided" as well, and I then made a comparison between the two as cooperative, and forced. With that recap in mind...

Both industrialists in the US and Germany were moved to help the war effort and because of self-interest were not against prosperity returning to both themselves and their country after the Depression. Certainly patriotism can be said to be a part of it for either country. It can be said that both sides, German and American, had two things in common those being a government that wanted a war machine and industrialists that wanted to make a profit.

The American war effort saw the setting up of boards to coordinate the effort, and for the US industrialists to cooperate through, but the American industrialists did not have to deal with an unstable political situation that would result in an arbitrary government with long-term conflicting goals. Although the Great Depression and FDRs' policies had brought change in the American system, America was still grounded in the Anglo-American tradition of the rule of law and representative government founded upon the Lockean principles that influenced the Constitution.

Pride in the Fatherland was one trait that it could be said the industrialists and Hitler had in common. But the German war effort was a forced relationship in one respect in that both sides, the National Socialists and the industrialists, reluctantly needed each other even though there existed underlying tensions caused by ulterior and conflicting long-term goals. The industrialists, out of self-interest, looked to Hitler to hold off the communists who had just gained in the 1932 elections and to provide the effective authoritative government that had been lacking in the face of political and economic hardship. They chose Hitler although Gustav Krupp had been hedging his bets by spreading money around to other parties.

Hitler looked to construct a war machine that would build for him a totalitarian socialist German Empire, and he had no choice but to accept the industrialists as his movement needed the money if their mad dream was to have any chance at reality. But Hitler's comment on businessmen, that they were "stupid fools who cannot see beyond the wares they peddle," and Goebbels' comment on manufacturers as, "liberal, Jew infested, capitalistic, and reactionary" or his at one time including the demand of "confiscation of all war profits" in the Party platform are indicative of their real intolerance of these industrialists. Further, law or orders meant little but rather the will of the Fuhrer was supreme and since Hitler was unstable and, as paranoid dictators will, constantly changing power among organizations those in the inner circle could never even be certain of their own position in the power hierarchy.

When given the post of Military Economic Leader, Krupp was forced to sign one of Hitler's declarations that he stood "by the National Socialist conception of the State" and had "not been active in any way against the interests of the people." He had to correspond with Hitler's private secretary, Martin Bormann, a convicted murderer. Krupp also had to deliver Bormann's warning that industrialists had to "contribute" four million reichmarks immediately "under compulsion if it should not be forthcoming voluntarily." Krupp always came off to me as one who was looking to uphold pride in the family tradition, in keeping the House of Krupp from falling down; yet, although he did have some arguments with the Nazis for example about changing over a truck plant to tanks, he impressed me as obsequious as he took on the Nazi ways to conform to the power in place that helped bring prosperity to that House. Some things go beyond patriotism and living in a country used to authority, such as the declaration he signed which I always took as a means to later setup Krupp for a fall. All of this when at one time Krupp's wife would not have tea with Adolph, the one who kept company with low lifes. How the mighty of German high society had fallen rubbing elbows with street thugs. I look at Krupp as an industrialist looking for profit and to uphold the family reputation, not a man looking for a new religion, but a new religion he got.

The relationship was forced then in a second respect in that German industrialists had to deal with an arbitrary governmental power that practiced deceit, and not with a government based upon the rule of law. The arbitrariness of totalitarianism is a useful tool as it keeps even the "faithful" guessing whether the terror will strike at them, or as Hannah Arendt put it, "...nobody, not even the executors, can ever be free of fear...." You can perhaps join the mob willingly, but you cannot then get out. The industrialists were useful idiots. Had Hitler won the war and the Empire he had dreamed of, I doubt that Krupp could have complained about anything the SA or SS did and gotten away with it. That Hitler listened to the industrialist once concerning things political says nothing about what the Third Reich was planned to be for the future, a totalitarian state of terror and murder. It is not incidental that Hitler called Stalin "the genius."

The nature of the totalitarian regime, even over things economic, that existed in Nazi Germany precludes wholesale comparison of the German government-industry relationship with that of the American circa 1941-1945.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

That's a superb clarification, Moon. Eugene Genovese in his Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made (1972), presents several facts I've seen nowhere else. He points out that the slaves, far from just rolling over and waiting for the massuh to rub their bellies, developed sophisticated techniques of using massuh's guilt against him. Under the most degrading of conditions they created lives with meaning and dignity. This was an achievement of the first order in world history, along the lines of "their finest hour."

Their finest hour -- at least, until Hank Aaron and Mike Jordan came along. :D

It seems to have been forgotten that in the Old South, black women breast-fed white kids along with their own. Generations of Southern whites grew up not really distinguishing their black mammy from their white mama until they were old enough to go into society. You don't hate people when you feel that kind of love for them. Southern whites generally -- there were always exceptions, of course -- were racist but not vicious in their attitudes towards blacks.

Margaret Mitchell captured the relationship perfectly in Gone with the Wind. Mammy exercised a real authority second only to Mrs O'Hara's at Tara and even beyond, as when she accompanied Scarlett to Atlanta and continued to work at keeping the willful Scarlett within "fittin'" bounds. Scarlett, cold-hearted toward everybody else, including her own sisters, couldn't bear the tears of the black slaves who minded her. Even Rhett put great store on mammy's opinion because of the love he harbored for his own mammy when he was kid.

Racism, certainly; but not bigotry. No anger and hatred, just dismal, if loving, ignorance.

If I were to make a list of the 100 American historical figures whom I most admire, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson and Robert E. Lee would rank among the top ten. Why? They were utterly committed to the American ideal of individual liberty, and like Washington, they were the perfection of physical courage. But that’s just the beginning.

Stonewall, for example, was not only a brilliant tactician but a fiercely ruthless warrior with piercing blues and ice in his veins. No matter how intense the encounter, he ceaselessly surveyed and calculated the ever-changing tactical dynamics around him and as coolly as you please -- lead flying everywhere -- directed his troops accordingly. Yet off the battlefield, in spite of the fact that he was more reserved and sterner than most, he was known to be loving and tender-hearted, especially gentle with children. Stonewall was a passionately devote Christian of impeccable character who led his troops from the front. And though less intense, more approachable, Lee, in his own fashion, was all these things as well. He was every bit the proper Southern gentlemen, but one who unabashedly loved his men. Only a military leader of incomparable character could get away with being as emotionally demonstrative as Lee often was before his troops and retain their undying adoration and respect. It wasn’t just his noble bearing and his strategic genius in the field that made him great, but his utter transparency. I can’t think of any other military leader like him. Who else but Lee ever so completely -- so naturally and successfully -- integrated these two seemingly incongruous styles of leadership?

After the war, Lee and his wife devoted themselves to evangelism and charitable works.

These men were giants! And not simply because they were braver and smarter than most, but because they were kind and generous and selfless, exceptionally fine human beings in every respect. In short, they were truer to themselves and to others than most.

And yet they both came from slave-owning families and regarded blacks to be their intellectual and spiritual inferiors. While they were not cruel like many others, while they taught their slaves the lessons of Christianity and treated them accordingly, they otherwise remained very much the products of their culture and upbringing.

Now, which is the greater evil? To despise these men? denounce their arrogance and dismiss them as racists or even bigots? Or to overlook their failings and defend their reputations against those who would?

[DesertFox]

Excellent rundown, Fed. You know your stuff about Hitlerian Germany. Few do. I have no problem now accepting your earlier statement. Thanks.

Moon, thanks for the character sketch of Stonewall Jackson. I knew nothing much about him and not a whole lot more about the Civil War itself. Maybe that'll occupy my old age.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Well, like you said, Fox, most pre-war Southerners were not bigots. Sure there was racism. But mostly, these were good people, many of whom made the very best of what they knew, and most of what they knew was true.

[DesertFox]

Curiously, that comes thru in literature about the Civil War. With few exceptions, Southerners come across as people you'd like to meet, Northerns as assholes. That's not altogether untrue even today about people from the South or the North. Sorta like Northern Germans (Hamburgers, say, or Prussians) and Southern Germans (Bavarians, for example).

[markus3622]

While those on the left side of the political spectrum are wont to think of aberrant forms of socialism as being to the right of Anglo-American conservatism, this sort of thinking makes no sense whatsoever to those of us on the right side of the historical dispute between classical liberals. In truth, this way of thinking is directly tied to the rise of Marxism and an attempt by fellow travelers in the West who eschew Anglo-American laissez-faire to conceptually separate themselves from the aberrant -- authoritarian-like -- forms of socialism.

Until just recently, I myself thought of theocratic socialist states as being to the left of democratic capitalism, by which I mean the political and economic laissez-faire of the the Anglo-American tradition. No longer, it makes sense to place them to the right of it. Fascism is essentially secular, atheistic; it is therefore a leftist ideology, merely an aberrant form of socialist despotism.

Interesting discussion above from everyone. I just wanted to comment here on the spectrum. A political spectrum has to be a paradigm, and as such it's pretty arbritrary. The one that made the most sense to me (and I think it's the one that most people use when they place Nazis on the extreme right and communism on the extreme left) is that the spectrum is about equality, and how much inequality is acceptable.

The communists wanted to make everyone equal (equally poor, I would say), and in used the state to force people to achieve that goal, which led to liquidations and absolute horrors that we saw in the Gulags. The Nazis believed in hierarchies. The Aryan race was superior to the Jews, which led to the holocaust. If I understand it, there was a different reasoning behind the atrocities committed in those two regimes.

In america, the debate over left and right seems to over equality. Conservatives argue that a greater amount of inequality is necessary to stimulate business, whereas the left wish to see smaller inequalities.

The government interference paradigm doesn't work for me. Plenty of conservatives (Bush - think steel tariffs, Carl on this board, Pat Buchanan) have supported protectionist measures, and I don't doubt their conservative credentials, and I don't assume they flit between left and right. They're on the right because they want to protect the current hierarchies (America being the richest in the world) by subsidising agriculture, steel, etc.

In the 20th century, there's a been a tendency for those on the left (socialists) to argue for more state intervention in the economy, and for the right to very pro-trade, but for me, it isn't the defining variable, as in different situations, that can change.

Anyway, you've given me a lot to think about

[DesertFox]

The spectrum is about liberty from govt oppression, markus -- freedom to act without undue govt interference. It has nothing to do with equality.

Bush isn't now and never has been a conservative. He's a Republican.

Stalin believed in hierarchies as much as Hitler did -- as the means of control. He could only have exercised his tyranny thru hierarchies. You might want to read Antony Beevor's Stalingrad, to get a flavor of Stalin's reverence for hierarchy. He treated the captured German generals most decently, downright humanely. The lower the rank, the worse the treatment. Ordinary German soldiers starved by the tens of thousands in Soviet captivity.

[markus3622]

Already read it! Great book. Have you read Berlin by Beevor as well. I've got Gulag by Anne Applebaum on my shelf at the moment, so I'll hold out my judgement on differential treatment right now. There have certainly been those on the right who have been pretty blase about liberty to counter your example.

On the point about Stalin's totalitarian regime, I've just read Stalin's biography by Simon Sebag Montefiore. If I understand correctly, Stalin's means (authoritarianism, murder, etc) may have been the same as Hitler's, but the intended ends were different. Stalin murdered Kulaks, not because he viewed them as inferior, but because they were getting in the way of collective farms, whereas Hitler murdered Jews, homosexuals, etc, because he believed them inferior. Hitler's aim was a superior German race, but it wasn't the case for Stalin. I don't think he thought Russians were actually superior to Americans and Brits. That's why I'm still happy to stick to my view as Hitler on the extreme right, and Stalin on the extreme left. Communism doesn't suggest racial differences, but it was at the heart of Nazism.

The point is that any political spectrum has to be arbritary, but I feel equality makes more sense than liberty as the defining variable. I'm fairly sure when most people refer to Hitler as on the right (as you have to admit, most do) they're referring to the equality scale. I've always felt that intendend aims are important than looking at the actual means when looking at the spectrum, and why I place more value on looking at liberty than equality. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying we're working from different paradigms.

[DesertFox]

Yes, I've read Beevor's Berlin. The guy's good. The best treatment of Stalin I've seen, in terms of breadth, was Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago. It's three volumes and each is thick, but worth studying.

- - - - - - - - - -

Intentions mean nothing. Real-world acts and their consequences matter. That's why it's important to elect people who look at what actually results from a policy rather than just the stated intentions of its sponsors -- not only must policy adjust to what actually happens in the real world, but sponsors have been known to lie for political gain. It happens regularly.

The only "equality" that matters is equality before the law. If Bill Gates, George Bush and I all steal cars, we should all face equal consequences after the same kind of due process. No other meaning of "equality" is realistic.

The theory goes that Stalin wiped out the kulaks because he hated them on ideological grounds. The fact is that Stalin liked brutality and he liked being boss. He used the Communist Party apparatus to ensure his own ascendance, just as Hitler used the Nazi Party and Castro and Mao and all the rest used their Parties. The only one of them all with any real "ideas" was Hitler, and none of his "ideas" were new.

All were racist. That only Hitler put racism at the center of his loony beliefs reflects Germany of that era -- all those "ideas" had long been part of the culture. Similar ideas had also long been part of Russian and Polish (Slavic, generally) culture, witness the countless pogroms over the centuries.

The difference between Hitler's rise to power and Stalin's was that Hitler's took place in the democratic Weimar Republic. He had to publicly justify what he said he would do, so he just used the ideas everybody was already thinking. Stalin never had to justify anything to anybody, publicly or otherwise, so there was no need to state any rationale.

It's true that Stalin and Communists are more "Oh yeah; that, too" racist whereas Nazism put racism front and center. But that doesn't matter. Murder for unfair, unjust racist motives leaves one just as dead as if murdered for unfair, unjust class motives. Absolutely no effort was made in either system to make sense. Both were rooted in hatred and the hunger to dominate. Both were sick and murderous. Any differences were purely cosmetic.

[markus3622]

I agree that the outcomes matter, but for a different reason. Let's use a less extreme case. Consider conservative and liberal policies towards teenage pregancy. Both sides agree that it's a bad thing and want to eliminate it. The left advocates a policy of sex education in the high schools, free condoms given out, and so on, and the right opt for abstinence only education. I'm not going to discuss which is more successful. Let's say that one of these policies is implemented and the teenage pregancy rate goes up. Does that mean that the group that supported that policy wanted an increase in teenage pregnancy rates all along? It's more likely that the group was wrong.

Intent has to play a part in how we define ideologies, and I'd say quite a large part. One clearly has to look at what the intent is, and what the outcome is, but I think you get your ideology from looking at the former, and choose your specific policies and politicians by looking at the latter.

I would suspect conservatives share the same underlying values but differ on how to get there (and so on for the left).

Going back to communism again, I believe that communism will always fail because it always leads to totalitarian systems, but that wasn't what Marx intended when he was laying out the basic ideas. Communism is an extreme left ideology because of its intent, but it's incorrect, because it fails to produce the egalitarian society it advocates. Nazism is an extreme right ideology in that it aims for hierarchy of nations, peoples and races. And in the short term, it's correct, because it got what it aimed for (the holocaust). It was what Hitler intended when writing Mein Kampf.

Anyway, I was thinking of reading Solzhenitsyn bit I thought I'd have a shorter introduction first (500 pages) with Applebaum.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Consider conservative and liberal policies towards teenage pregancy. Both sides agree that it's a bad thing and want to eliminate it. The left advocates a policy of sex education in the high schools, free condoms given out, and so on, and the right opt for abstinence only education. Let's say that one of these policies is implemented and the teenage pregancy rate goes up. Does that mean that the group that supported that policy wanted an increase in teenage pregnancy rates all along? It's more likely that the group was wrong.

The ultimate concern of many, if not most, conservatives is that sexual activity outside of marriage is immoral, period. High teenage pregnancy rates are merely one of the many problems associated with sexual immorality. The government has no business being involved in our children's sexuality, period. And such conservatives are never wrong, period, if for no other reason than because they say so. The government has no business telling their children otherwise; passing out free condoms like candy tells their children otherwise. Lefty doesn't “advocate a policy of sex education"; he advocates the teaching of his sexual morality, period. He needs to mind his own business.

In any event, conservatives provide sex education for their children and typically train them to respect themselves and their future spouses, as that is what sexual virtue is ultimately all about.

As for equality: equality of opportunity is 10% the government and 90% the people; equality of outcome is governmentally imposed morality, the real outcome of which is the tyranny of mediocrity.

[markus3622]

BM,

I'm working on "equality of opportunity", rather than "equality of outcome" primarily. The American Dream is based on the idea of equality of opportunity. The fact that social mobility has decreased in the US should be of concern to all who believe in the American Dream.

http://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v82y1992i3p393-408.html

[DesertFox]

"Social mobility" ain't no thang. What matters is economic opportunity. The rest is up to the individual.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

BM,

I'm working on "equality of opportunity", rather than "equality of outcome" primarily. The American Dream is based on the idea of equality of opportunity. The fact that social mobility has decreased in the US should be of concern to all who believe in the American Dream.

http://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v82y1992i3p393-408.html

Agree. Although I'm not sure that mobility is a major factor. Would you give me more on that?

Remind me to never get mad at you, markus. You and I may disagree on some things, but you've been a good sport -- thoughful, decent and civil throughout. I have a temper, and just lost it on another thread. :grin:

[markus3622]

No worries BlueMoon. Thank you for your interesting thoughts. Most of my best friends are conservatives!

[Air-Warrior]

Having lived, visited and/or served militarily in more than a dozen foreign countries, I feel secure in verifying that no cultures I experienced are superior to that of the United States. I doubt that any are better, not even the pampered/sheltered Swiss.

[LightHorseman]

What is the "culture" of the U.S.?

[Air-Warrior]

What is the "culture" of the U.S.?If you have to be told, you probably have to have lived overseas and then come 'home' to identify it...assuming you count America as your home.

Additionally, if you have proof of macroevolution, please PM it to me. I will go and get very rich off the reward and the Nobel Prize I am sure to win.

[Kathy30]

To liberals, America has no culture and therefore cannot be superior to any other culture. America should just adopt any other culture the world "community" likes to foist on it at any particular time.

Reaons 444499966677 to dislike liberals.

There is no such thing as equality of culture. It's like equality of color, or equality of musical notes. Whether or not a culture is superior or inferior is largely a matter of personal preference. Someone raised in another culture might certainly feel that their culture is superior to ours.

Witness the oppressive and increasing latinization of the United States. It was brought here as another culture, a culture that latins feel is superior to the American culture. So superior, that through a maze of organizations, increasingly bizarre protective laws which force Americans to adapt rather than hispanics, the hispanic culture has been literally forced in an unwilling public.

Cultures cannot be equal, or inferior or superior. What they are is different. Sometimes so different as to be completely incompatible as we are finding out with the hispanic culture.

There is no such thing as equality of opportunity. It was a mistake to even dream up such an insane concept. Because there is no such thing as equality of opportunity, we had to create equality of outcome. We started out bamboozled!

Most successful people create their own opportunities. Most great success comes from people who see a need and if none exists, create a need, and then fill it. How can you possibly have equality of opportunity, when most opportunity itself comes from the mind of the opportune?

[LightHorseman]

If you have to be told, you probably have to have lived overseas and then come 'home' to identify it...assuming you count America as your home.

I just don't think you can say that America has one big homogenous culture is all.

As for macro-evolution, theres tonnes of evidence, aleady well established. What would you like to know? (happy to move threads if you want to learn)

[DoctorDoom]

I just don't think you can say that America has one big homogenous culture is all.We could have one if we didn't suck up to every piddly-assed foreign culture and try to balkanize the country in the name of multiculti.

The downfall began when it became common to hear, "For English, press 1." F**K the foreigners. If they want to live here, let them learn English and become citizens. If they can't be bothered, let them get the hell out. This is the USofA. We don't have to press 1 for English in America.

[LightHorseman]

We could have one if we didn't suck up to every piddly-assed foreign culture and try to balkanize the country in the name of multiculti.

The downfall began when it became common to hear, "For English, press 1." F**K the foreigners. If they want to live here, let them learn English and become citizens. If they can't be bothered, let them get the hell out. This is the USofA. We don't have to press 1 for English in America.

Yeah... good... but just having the same language doesn't make a country's culture homogenous...

America, Canada, Britain and Australia all speak English (more or less) but there are many cultural differences between these nations, and a few within them.

So, lots of people in this thread refer to "American culture", and I wonder what they mean, specifically, by that term?

[DoctorDoom]

Additionally, if you have proof of macroevolution, please PM it to me. I will go and get very rich off the reward and the Nobel Prize I am sure to win.All you need to understand about the "science" of evolutionism is depicted here.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/UFOs/IWantToBelieve.jpg

The evolutionism forum is the milieu for this particular junk science.

[DoctorDoom]

... having the same language doesn't make a country's culture homogenous...Maybe not, but it goes a hell of a long way toward breaking down the walls of isolationism that multiculti erects. Does anyone suppose that in France, one hears, "Pour le Français, appuyer sur une"?

[Air-Warrior]

Maybe not, but it goes a hell of a long way toward breaking down the walls of isolationism that multiculti erects. Does anyone suppose that in France, one hears, "Pour le Français, appuyer sur une"?
And I can 100% guarantee you that you have no such options in Turkey, or Saudi Arabia.

DD, in France they have a language board at the federal level that moderates the language and it's use. They refuse to adopt even one more "foreign" word into their "culture/language." Yes, the French will be the FIRST to tell you that their language is an integral part of their culture. Many of the colloquial expressions used in America aren't known in any other country except here. Some foreign countries pay their ENGLISH teachers top dollar if they can teach American English as opposed to UK-speak or Aussie-speak. So yes Virginia, there is a significant difference in English-speak and the cultures attached to the lingo.

[Air-Warrior]

I just don't think you can say that America has one big homogenous culture is all.

As for macro-evolution, theres tonnes of evidence, aleady well established. What would you like to know? (happy to move threads if you want to learn)There is NOT a ton of evidence....there's not even records of transitory animals to explain how one creature becomes another kind.

But you apparently have it stuck in your craw that these fossil records exist somewhere, and that we could somehow show that one transitory creature found another transitory creature to mate with and produce offspring (just one of twenty or 30 unanswered questions about macroevolution)...bottom line pal, it is proven fact, why is it still referred to as THEORY? Hmmm?

[DoctorDoom]

They refuse to adopt even one more "foreign" word into their "culture/language."Does that mean that they'll never know about "cheese-eating surrender monkeys"? :evilgrin:

[LightHorseman]

Maybe not, but it goes a hell of a long way toward breaking down the walls of isolationism that multiculti erects. Does anyone suppose that in France, one hears, "Pour le Français, appuyer sur une"?

I agree.

Bit of a shit storm here t the moment over the "mufti of Australia", who has AGAIN put his foot in it... hes been here since the early 80s I believe and still doesn't speak English.

However, even amidst English speaking people, there is quite a vast range of cultural differences...

So, when you say "American Culture", what do you mean, xactly?

[LightHorseman]

There is NOT a ton of evidence....there's not even records of transitory animals to explain how one creature becomes another kind.

Thousands of them. Would you like to move to a different thread and I would be happy to give you links to as many examples as you like.

But you apparently have it stuck in your craw that these fossil records exist somewhere, and that we could somehow show that one transitory creature found another transitory creature to mate with and produce offspring

Evolution deals with population trends and transmission of genes... I don't think you quite have a handle on it from your description...

)...bottom line pal, it is proven fact, why is it still referred to as THEORY? Hmmm?<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

Because everything in science is a theory... nothing is PROVEN correct, although things can be proven wrong, we are constantly expanding our knowledge, and as more evidence comes to light on a huge range of subjects, theories are changed, updated, and occasionally, discarded. Anyone who says evolutionary theory is PROVEN FACT is wildly mistaken. It is, however, very well supported.

Anyway, even if we come up with a knock down scientific proof that evolution is a flawed theory, that STILL wouldn't support Biblical creationism. So, rather than going down an evolution tangent, if you have any, I am sincerely interested to see any scientific evidence supporting Biblical Creationism anyone may have. Do you have any?

[Wyatt_Junker]

So, when you say "American Culture", what do you mean, xactly?

Its an amalgam. But let's start with the cultural trinity of either sex, drugs & rock-n-roll or its predecessor; baseball, apple pie and Brittney Spears. Your choice.

Now that that's out of the way, we can explore it further.

I would start with Route 66 as a primer.

American culture is based on a certain idealism, a hope in what is often referred to in 4th world shitholes as 'the American dream' or 'your little slice of heaven', which is more of a belief in entrepreneurialism. But what that really means is a lack of regulation(or it used to be) and an injection of free market systems aka capitalism, where any first generationer could get rich. Just unfold a card table at a busy intersection and slap some watermelons on it with a cardboard sign. Now, its not as easy.

As to what came out of that mindthink? Well, American culture is FAST. Its even based on advertising itself. And its getting faster. American culture is also a bit trashy which is why I like it. I don't like sophisticated, pretentious cultures. Fuk opera. Why would you go to an opera when you can go see Aerosmith at any major town with an aging ampitheater?

American culture in terms of sloganeering and logos is based on freedom, being out of control, and independent all the way from the 'don't tread on me' snake to the American eagle to the confederate flag. Sure the blue cities are trying to erase their past, but at what price? Becoming more like a faux-France franchise? Its sad, really. But there is a cultural schism between the euro-wannabe-faggots and the card carrying members of the white trash contingent(and I mean that as a compliment).

[LightHorseman]

Interesting to hear someone put that in writing.

[DesertFox]

Why would you go to an opera when you can go see Aerosmith at any major town with an aging ampitheater? Why do either? Just sit home with yer ax and a beer and yer lady and croon your heart out.

[d'urville]

Define "macro-evolution".

Yes, the French will be the FIRST to tell you that their language is an integral part of their culture. Many of the colloquial expressions used in America aren't known in any other country except here. Some foreign countries pay their ENGLISH teachers top dollar if they can teach American English as opposed to UK-speak or Aussie-speak. So yes Virginia, there is a significant difference in English-speak and the cultures attached to the lingo.

European countries did have a homogeneous culture-mostly white, educated, and affluent. All that's changing now. Watch.

Religion, history, geography, language(s) are all cultural factors.

There is an "American culture", which is understandably hard to define. I can give it a try? It will have generalizations:

Individualistic population, a misplaced shame of the past, an isolationist outlook, a mainly Christian population, Enguish the de facto common language, a tolerance for dissent, an experimental government?

[Air-Warrior]

There is an "American culture", which is understandably hard to define. I can give it a try? It will have generalizations:

Individualistic population, a misplaced shame of the past, an isolationist outlook, a mainly Christian population, Enguish the de facto common language, a tolerance for dissent, an experimental government?It's easier to define when you return from living in a foreign country, seriously.

MTV (hip-hop), materialistic, entertainment industry-driven, hedonism. Obviously there are numerous subcultures but the "big picture" that people see, from the outside looking in, is what I just stated.

BTW, most countries have proportionately-sized subcultures that are roughly equivalent to our subcultures. If some lib here starts arguing that we ONLY have subcultures and no main culture, they need to go see how most other countries live. Very few (other than rigidly Islamic countries) countries have a totally homogenous culture any more.

[DesertFox]

Television has wrecked everything and is polluting our precious bodily fluids.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Television has wrecked everything and is polluting our precious bodily fluids.

You must have cable, all access including the man channels.