Today we will discover the extent to which our nation has maintained or lost its intellectual contact with the roots of its freedom.
After several generations of cultural conviction of its entitlement vs. its responsibilities, educational degradation of the memory of history and a 60% drop-out rate, and the end of journalistic integrity altogether, the resulting vacuum is set to be filled with a completely Leftist government: single party rule under unabashed socialist leadership.
If the visions of Dewey, a century ago, are brought to fruition in this election, the damage will take generations to repair, if it can be at all. Single party rule has rarely been allowed by the American people, who seem to view a stalemate as preferable to a run-away ideology. But now single party rule appears within reach. The disenfranchisement of fully half of the population is possible, in this election.
Disenfranchisement is dangerous stuff as Obama realizes. He has proposed a national police force, larger, stronger and more capable than the U.S. Armed Services. This would be under the direction of the Leftist single party rule.
Escape from monolithic rule previously required a migration plus a war of separation. But now there is no place left as a migration destination. The war would necessarily be fought here. It would not be a legal war – the courts will be firmly under the single party. It will not be a cultural war – hate crime laws will prevent that. The type of war it would be should be obvious.
The savior-messiah complex of Obama’s mission to “change the world” is not questioned by a significant surging mass of ignorant Americans – ignorant of Obama’s history, his ideology, his objectives, all due to the collapse of integrity in the Leftist media and the intellectual vacuum created by the government schools for the past several generations. Obama's charisma and hollow message (“change without definition”) resonates in the knowledge vacuum created by the Left for just this moment.
We will see today whether a free society can maintain itself in the face of a constant onslaught of Leftist assault.
4 comments:
Hi Stan,
I think Obama will win the election. At least, it's my impression (maybe my impression is flawed, remember that I don't live in U.S. and I don't know what people thinks there)
I've always asked myself why the intellectual community and media are, as a rule, leftist. Specially, in U.S. that, supposely, is the mecca of capitalism.
My own position about poltical topics is a little bit indefinite, but I do believe that socialism is flawed from a economical point of view.
I have some books of Ludwig von Mises, a libertarian philosopher. In his book "Socialism", he presents the best arguments (most of them economical arguments) against any kind of socialism. In other book titled "Interventionism", he refutes arguments in favor of "mixed economies".
Mises's anti-leftist arguments seem to be very convincing. But I'm not sure yet that a unrestricted free market is a good system. It could be, but I'm not 100% convinced yet.
In any case, it's curious the strong connection between materialism-atheism-leftist-burocracy-academia-media.
It's a very interesting topic to research. Is marxism, in its current versions, so influential in those fields?
ZC
Hello ZC,
In the internet age it is possible for anyone in the world to be as informed as any U.S. citizen, and more informed than a great many.
It has been shown that early polls tend to over estimate Democrat numbers by a small percentage. But no one knows just how much. That is one thing that McCain is depending on, that and second thoughts at the poll itself.
I suspect that what ever the results today, it will be challenged by the loser - the Republicans will charge Acorn corruption; the Democrats will charge poll discrimination and machine malfunction.
It could be a while before we know what the answer is.
As for Marxism, class envy has always been a big Democrat selling point. If they get a fully Democrat government, we will probably see wealth redistribution based on class structures as the Democrats define it. But just like in 1917 - 1920's Russia, there will not be a worker's revolution; classes will have to be defined and specified for oppression. both here and in Russia the move is more fascist than marxist.
As for the media and the academic/intellectual community, the elitism of the "cult of self" is the attraction to the Left. The elitist atmosphere within these groups is self-sustaining by discriminating against non-Leftists who are eliminated from the communities. An immense personal arrogance based on the presumption of superiority of intellect, knowledge, and ultimately, morality pervades the community and locks it down. Contrary thought no longer exists inside the walls, because they "already know all the answers" to everyone else's problems. So they also feel that they should rule, in a manner that would allow them full control to implement their "answers".
As for the free market, the U.S. has not had a free market for a very long time. I doubt that anyone would really want to repeal anti-trust laws or eliminate the regulation of market behaviors. The "deregulation" was only partial, not a complete return to anarchy. The credit collapse was at least partially a result of the Clinton-era Democrat pressure to "extend the American Dream to all Americans" by providing loans to those classes who couldn't afford to pay them back. It appears that it was, in fact, an abortive attempt to redistribute wealth through the amorphous banking and credit system. It is possible that we, the people, will never know exactly what political shenanigans went into the making of this economic crisis. But Barney Frank probably does. It's not an accident that hatred is being directed - via Congress - toward banks and Wall Street, by those who actually were instrumental in its creation... Democrats.
A bit off topic I'm afraid, but I was just wondering as I find your blog very interesting, but would you now consider yourself a Christian?
anonymous,
this answer is way longer than necessary, probably, and also likely not really to be an answer. But I enjoyed the challenge of addressing the issue.
For purposes of the website and blog, I am an anti-Atheism enthusiast; pro-logic and rational thought; and a rational dualist.
I do not consider myself to be a "Christian" in the ecclesiastic sense. I am as anti-ecclesiastic as any Atheist: human institutions might reflect a basis in truth but they do not produce or own truth. And Atheism is as ecclesiastic as any religion, only Atheists don't seem to recognize that.
I am reluctant to reveal my full non-material conclusions for several reasons. Foremost, it is not the conclusion that I find necessary to promote; it is the validity and truthfulness of the intellectual pathway. A valid path will arrive at a valid conclusion.
My life as an Atheist was strewn with rationalizations and false logic. My urge is to provide an impetus to others to learn the process of real logic and rational thought, then think through the impact of such irrational thought, and finally proceed to learn and use valid, linear thinking, while abandoning agendas in favor of finding true conclusions.
Since it is necessary for such thinkers to do the heavy mental lifting themselves, it is both not necessary and possibly damaging to lay out my conclusions at the outset, before they have had a chance to take the pathway on their own.
In my opinion wisdom is not a destination such as the conclusion of Atheism believes it is. Wisdom is the understanding that (1) discernment must always be in play before a conclusion is reached; (2) wisdom is a process, never completed, and so is not a steady state of existence.
An Atheist once told me that wisdom does not exist, only knowledge of scientific factoids exists. And that is the case if wisdom is a state of being. But it seems not to be, it is a process of discernment and judgment, and it is possible to slip in and out of it.
So my final response is that I am a pursuer of wisdom, with the understanding that although wisdom exists as a process, I can't dwell in it. But I can possibly recognize it when I see it, if I can manage to get myself into the process.
Post a Comment