It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Politics/Legislation/Elections => Topic started by: OLJingoist on May 17, 2011, 09:02:18 AM
-
I would like a lively debate on the issue.
Is the American public suffering from shock and awe as to how many wrong things are happening. spurred on by the poser and his Gangsta Guvmint?
My short answer is ... YES ... anyone else have any thoughts on the question?
-
YOU need to get out of my head! ::thumbsup::
I was just now thinking that's exactly what's going on, and particularly, that as a people, we're counting on the usual processes to rectify the current state of affairs. What I observe, as well, is that none of the usual institutions is working as they're designed - Congress is in on Duh Wun's fundamental transformation of the country; the court system is not only not doing its job to reign in the worst of the excesses, it's exacerbating them; the press is actively aiding, abetting and obfuscating.
So, here's the question: when none of our institutions are inclined to do their jobs, is it not incumbent upon the people, as the last bastion of liberty, to do ours?
-
Patience.
Until the middle 40% figure it out there will be to few. At this time there is about 10% of the 30% an ineffective number. Eric would ban thoughts like that. A sign will be his change of mind.
-
Alas, most people are naturally averse to confronting adverse reality let alone acting in the face of it, often not doing either until it is literally being slammed into them! But the short answer is, yes, it is incumbent upon We the People, to act. But people need leaders to rally around. No leader is stepping forward from the usual sources one would expect during a time of peace to show the path that needs to be taken. If we wait until the SHTF there may be too many sectarian leaders to allow all the disparate groups to coalesce behind one central figure. Not that it would be impossible, just that it would be much harder. Better to lead from the front at the get-go and have people rally to you when the need arises. I fear we are lacking the proper person with the proper roadmap and people seem to be just waiting it out.
-
Patience.
Until the middle 40% figure it out there will be to few. At this time there is about 10% of the 30% an ineffective number. Eric would ban thoughts like that. A sign will be his change of mind.
Eric who? And why would I give a royal rat's patoot what this "Eric" would or would not ban?
-
I think he means Erica Holder, that uppity folk like us would ignite his national socialist genes and have us ushered into the ovens.
-
I think he means Erica Holder, that uppity folk like us would ignite his national socialist genes and have us ushered into the ovens.
Thanks for the clarification, Libertas.
Notwithstanding, Erica's inclination to "ban" is an additional goad to a careful reconsideration of the available options because I'm asking how long we can wait it out.
I'm in mind of the Russian (whose name eludes me) who wrote of how different things may have gone for the Jews if, when the jackboots had come in the night, the cowerers had armed themselves with whatever was available and made it too dear for that particular group of government thugs.
I'm afraid we're out of time. We're "allowed" our elections, still. Rah. How's that working out?
-
Erickson, he doesn't want any talk like that, it's inappropriate, take it somewhere else. We have a process.
ETA: there must be more and there must be leaders until then there will only be vulnerable enclaves
-
Erickson, he doesn't want any talk like that, it's inappropriate, take it somewhere else. We have a process.
ETA: there must be more and there must be leaders until then there will only be vulnerable enclaves
And further clarification, from the source (thanks CO), which is as I suspected.
Any reason why you felt the desire to post Erickson's policy on forbidden thoughts here?
-
All I know for sure is that the time is somewhere between extremely short and already gone! I don't want to wait until it's too late but without one defining moment the majority of people will continue to wait it out.
-
Erickson, he doesn't want any talk like that, it's inappropriate, take it somewhere else. We have a process.
ETA: there must be more and there must be leaders until then there will only be vulnerable enclaves
Who is Erickson?
-
Is the American public suffering from shock and awe as to how many wrong things are happening.
I think for shock and awe to work, the people in general would have to be smart enough to understand they are under attack. I do not feel a democratic system requires a well educated populace. In the time of the Founder's the "uneducated" had horse-sense, and weren't so narcissistic and arrogant to ignore the fact they were unschooled. In fact, not being schooled made most a bit wary of the educated.. afraid they would try to "put one over on them" and hence were even more alert, quick to pick up on demagoguery, and to demand argument and facts. The transcripts and notes from the ratifying conventions ( where "simple farmers" were elected to represent their districts) and the Lincoln-Douglas debates demonstrate that these men could follow complicated questions and ask pertinent questions without formal schooling. Those sort of people don't exist anymore, for a number of reasons:
1) Our lives are so easy, the country is so wealthy, and the social programs are so prevalent, that the school of hard knocks has become the school of coddled babies- no one learns "horse sense" the hard way
2) Our main institutions of formal learning have been transformed into indoctrination centers where feelings take precedence over reason, facts and logic. They no longer teach common fallacies, and "debates" are used to train children into socially punishing dissenters- not to weigh different ideas. Most people in this country no longer have the contrained vision talked of by Thomas Sowell (http://www.amazon.com/Conflict-Visions-Ideological-Political-Struggles/dp/0465002056/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1305643936&sr=8-1) and feel all cultures are equal and morality is situational
3) Human Nature sucks. The founders gave the republic 50 years - till the people would forget the value of liberty and give it up again. Jefferson and Adams both knew the check of the judiciary was inadequate before they died. People would far rather be happy than right- they are fine with being sheep in a herd as long as the see the Shepard as benign. And there is significant evidence that tendency is genetic (http://the-discourses.blogspot.com/2010/10/meet-drd4-liberal-gene.html) ( Literally it found the more social you are as a kid, the more likely you are to become liberal . Of course the liberals fit that info into their world view and claim knowing more people gives you a wider outlook - but seriously, think about high school - were the most popular kids the free thinkers who spent time with every and any clique? Or were they the ones obsessed with following the trends, gaining acceptance, social ladder climbing, and persecuting (or at least ignoring) those who didn't conform to whatever norms where perceived as popular? Its a gene for herd behavior.. for wanting to fit in-- Liberals don't ask anymore about why they believe what they believe than a teenage worries about why a certain brand of shoe is popular - it is, and that is what you do to fit in. End of story.) Now add to that the idea that 80% of people are unable to realistically assess the situation that faces them (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/opinion/15Sharot.html?_r=1)
For these reasons, the American people are not suffering from Shock and Awe. Most of them are too stupid to know ( or to care) what will happen next. That is the Shepard's job after all (or parents' or teacher's etc. the good of the herd is the responsibility is that of the heard leader, not personal responsibility) . Two years ago I was frantic about getting a teotwaki place - but I realize now that was my own self-centered outlook that assumed that, because I see the danger, others would too. Some did of course, but most people in my neighborhood are still talking about whose community pool is cleaner - ours or shelbyville's, and are comparing who has the best maid service, and what fabulous resort they will visit this summer, and the MSM is helping them along. Just like the cool kids in high school - if it isn't on their radar, it doesn't exist, or at least shouldn't. We have an entire population whose emotional growth was stunted and halted somewhere between kindergarten and 10th grade. When they voted for Borat, - they voted for the most popular kid in town, with all of the introspection and effort you put into voting for the Prom King and Queen. . Ever try to shock or awe a teenager? They already are convinced they know everything- hence nothing shocks them, and since what they know is the center of the universe, they are the most awesome thing they encounter. Oh sure, they see their neighbors loosing their jobs, and the tent cities on the way to work, just like the used to see the unpopular kids doing whatever they did in school. Those people don't count, do they? Its certainly not popular to be poor is it? They won't be shocked and awed till they are living on food stamps in a tent,and even then it will be someone else's fault - Bush, Wall Street, Corporations, Banks- anyone but them.
There is a reason the American Revolution was carried out by 3% of the population.. and that was a population self-selected - a population that chose a hard life in another land full of unknowns. Those without that gene to "belong".. now the genome has caught up to us, and its going to be hard to live as we want again untill we have Fireflys and a way to self-select ourselves off this rock, or 3% of us decide to attack the other 97%
-
Erickson, he doesn't want any talk like that, it's inappropriate, take it somewhere else. We have a process.
ETA: there must be more and there must be leaders until then there will only be vulnerable enclaves
Who is Erickson?
Erick Erickson, RedState.
One would suggest it instructive that a clash of viewpoints resulted in a certain contingent being banned.
-
Erickson, he doesn't want any talk like that, it's inappropriate, take it somewhere else. We have a process.
ETA: there must be more and there must be leaders until then there will only be vulnerable enclaves
And further clarification, from the source (thanks CO), which is as I suspected.
Any reason why you felt the desire to post Erickson's policy on forbidden thoughts here?
Until the middle 40% figure it out there will be to few. At this time there is about 10% of the 30% an ineffective number. Eric would ban thoughts like that. A sign will be his change of mind.
He was an illustration of how far removed from most people, even conservatives minds, the thought of severe problems. Much less addressing them.
-
Ahhhhhh. More tone wars.
Meh!
People deny reality at their own peril! Problem is, I don't want to be endangered by their ignorance!
-
Is the American public suffering from shock and awe as to how many wrong things are happening.
I think for shock and awe to work, the people in general would have to be smart enough to understand they are under attack. I do not feel a democratic system requires a well educated populace. In the time of the Founder's the "uneducated" had horse-sense, and weren't so narcissistic and arrogant to ignore the fact they were unschooled. In fact, not being schooled made most a bit wary of the educated.. afraid they would try to "put one over on them" and hence were even more alert, quick to pick up on demagoguery, and to demand argument and facts. The transcripts and notes from the ratifying conventions ( where "simple farmers" were elected to represent their districts) and the Lincoln-Douglas debates demonstrate that these men could follow complicated questions and ask pertinent questions without formal schooling. Those sort of people don't exist anymore, for a number of reasons:
1) Our lives are so easy, the country is so wealthy, and the social programs are so prevalent, that the school of hard knocks has become the school of coddled babies- no one learns "horse sense" the hard way
2) Our main institutions of formal learning have been transformed into indoctrination centers where feelings take precedence over reason, facts and logic. They no longer teach common fallacies, and "debates" are used to train children into socially punishing dissenters- not to weigh different ideas. Most people in this country no longer have the contrained vision talked of by Thomas Sowell (http://www.amazon.com/Conflict-Visions-Ideological-Political-Struggles/dp/0465002056/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1305643936&sr=8-1) and feel all cultures are equal and morality is situational
3) Human Nature sucks. The founders gave the republic 50 years - till the people would forget the value of liberty and give it up again. Jefferson and Adams both knew the check of the judiciary was inadequate before they died. People would far rather be happy than right- they are fine with being sheep in a herd as long as the see the Shepard as benign. And there is significant evidence that tendency is genetic (http://the-discourses.blogspot.com/2010/10/meet-drd4-liberal-gene.html) ( Literally it found the more social you are as a kid, the more likely you are to become liberal . Of course the liberals fit that info into their world view and claim knowing more people gives you a wider outlook - but seriously, think about high school - were the most popular kids the free thinkers who spent time with every and any clique? Or were they the ones obsessed with following the trends, gaining acceptance, social ladder climbing, and persecuting (or at least ignoring) those who didn't conform to whatever norms where perceived as popular? Its a gene for herd behavior.. for wanting to fit in-- Liberals don't ask anymore about why they believe what they believe than a teenage worries about why a certain brand of shoe is popular - it is, and that is what you do to fit in. End of story.) Now add to that the idea that 80% of people are unable to realistically assess the situation that faces them (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/opinion/15Sharot.html?_r=1)
For these reasons, the American people are not suffering from Shock and Awe. Most of them are too stupid to know ( or to care) what will happen next. That is the Shepard's job after all (or parents' or teacher's etc. the good of the herd is the responsibility is that of the heard leader, not personal responsibility) . Two years ago I was frantic about getting a teotwaki place - but I realize now that was my own self-centered outlook that assumed that, because I see the danger, others would too. Some did of course, but most people in my neighborhood are still talking about whose community pool is cleaner - ours or shelbyville's, and are comparing who has the best maid service, and what fabulous resort they will visit this summer, and the MSM is helping them along. Just like the cool kids in high school - if it isn't on their radar, it doesn't exist, or at least shouldn't. We have an entire population whose emotional growth was stunted and halted somewhere between kindergarten and 10th grade. When they voted for Borat, - they voted for the most popular kid in town, with all of the introspection and effort you put into voting for the Prom King and Queen. . Ever try to shock or awe a teenager? They already are convinced they know everything- hence nothing shocks them, and since what they know is the center of the universe, they are the most awesome thing they encounter. Oh sure, they see their neighbors loosing their jobs, and the tent cities on the way to work, just like the used to see the unpopular kids doing whatever they did in school. Those people don't count, do they? Its certainly not popular to be poor is it? They won't be shocked and awed till they are living on food stamps in a tent,and even then it will be someone else's fault - Bush, Wall Street, Corporations, Banks- anyone but them.
There is a reason the American Revolution was carried out by 3% of the population.. and that was a population self-selected - a population that chose a hard life in another land full of unknowns. Those without that gene to "belong".. now the genome has caught up to us, and its going to be hard to live as we want again untill we have Fireflys and a way to self-select ourselves off this rock, or 3% of us decide to attack the other 97%
If the wishy-washies try to sit it out, isn't it the hardcore left vs the freedom-loving right, and whatever numbers those two groups represent being the only argument?
::whatgives::
-
Weisshaupt, what you describe was addressed by none other than Mamet himself, i.e. maintaining one's position "in the herd".
Which comes right 'round to Erickson's similar concern about his positioning, so he chose to part company with those whose intransigence threatened him by association.
I suggest there are more than 3%, but the onus to stifle oneself obfuscates this.
Samizdat.
-
Ahhhhhh. More tone wars.
Meh!
People deny reality at their own peril! Problem is, I don't want to be endangered by their ignorance!
It's not tone, it's awareness. Whatshisname illustrates this lack of awareness and a bellwether.
There is a reason the American Revolution was carried out by 3% of the population..
Wasn't it 30% participation?
-
Weisshaupt, what you describe was addressed by none other than Mamet himself, i.e. maintaining one's position "in the herd".
Which comes right 'round to Erickson's similar concern about his positioning, so he chose to part company with those whose intransigence threatened him by association.
I suggest there are more than 3%, but the onus to stifle oneself obfuscates this.
The Conversion of David Mamet (http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/converting-mamet_561048.html?nopager=1) unfortunately is the only sort I ever hear of - in other words, its not a conversion. That article tells the story of my "conversion" as well - I was a liberal, tried to fit in the liberal herd, read Thomas Sowell, had the light bulbs burst and became conservative, not because of any change of heart: “I think he has the same values today that he did before,” Steele said. “He’s said to me he thinks he might have always been conservative without knowing it. All that happened was, he finally found a politics that suited his values.”
I have yet to find any documentated case of conversion of someone who was liberal and became conservative- someone who was of the herd and then left it. . They are always "I think I was always conservative" , or "i never really felt I belonged" - and some event causes them to examine thier lives and values more closely. There is probably more than 3% of us out there, but how many are willing to take up arms? this (http://news.discovery.com/human/do-intelligent-people-drink-more-alcohol.html) may also be related.
-
There is a reason the American Revolution was carried out by 3% of the population..
Wasn't it 30% participation?
My understanding is 1/3 were Rebels or actively supported then, 1/3 were Tories supporting the Crown, and 1/3 were fence sitters waiting to see with which side the fortunes of war would go. It is also my understanding that these are typical numbers for any decision like this within a population: 1/3 for, 1/3 agin', and 1/3 voting 'present'. It's getting that 1/3 voting 'present' off their @sses and into the trenches that presents the biggest hurdle.
-
If the wishy-washies try to sit it out, isn't it the hardcore left vs the freedom-loving right, and whatever numbers those two groups represent being the only argument?
Participation is key. How many liberals are willing to become Jackboots? Hitler didn't have any problem recruiting into his herd - known rules for belonging,rules for achivement, security and force in numbers. You see it in the Union membership right now. The right, by its nature, is incohesive. Ultimately all we want from each other is the right to live our own lives without interferrence. We don't want to change the world, impose a utopia, or force others into our tribe. Good is dumb (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1qVJ8bTwuw#)
And don't forget our original population had an unusual number of freedom loving types through self selection- many who left England for a reason and were not sympathetic to the King to begin with. We love our Country. We love our system of government ( if it were practiced as we agreed) - Face it, we need an event that will cause us to hang together or face hanging separately. An event that clearly shows that our Government is the equivalent of King George.
-
This is good:
Which comes right 'round to Erickson's similar concern about his positioning, so he chose to part company with those whose intransigence threatened him by association.
...
Rush is talking about gNewt is positioning himself for the afterloss and how 2 wks ago he was already picking his VIP.
-
Wasn't it 30% participation?
sort of (http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-is-three-percenter.html)
30% supported, 10% actively supported, and 3% actively bore arms.
-
This is a good topic. Yes, the Left is "flooding the zone" and attacking us on a hundred different fronts simultaneously. It's absolutely intentional and coordinated. Think Cloward-Piven. They are trying to demoralize us. Normal Americans can't conceive of such a degree of deliberate destructive evil. Meanwhile, the Republican leadership resembles a deer in the headlights.
Many Americans (I have no idea how many) understand perfectly well what is happening. No one wants to be the one to fire the first shot, however. Glenn Beck has been cautioning us against that, and I think it is good advice. The Left desperately wants the Patriots to be the first to get violent, and then they will have their opportunity to launch a wholesale crackdown. The media has already written those stories, and they tipped their hand in the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, when they all immediately and simultaneously blamed the "right" without a shred of evidence. They're counting on the ignorant "sheeple" to swallow their propaganda whole, and I'm afraid that a lot will.
We mustn't give them the satisfaction. We have to hold our fire until the Left gets overtly violent, as they most assuredly will. Even then, the media will still cover for them. We should remember Bunker Hill: "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes."
-
Ahhhhhh. More tone wars.
Meh!
People deny reality at their own peril! Problem is, I don't want to be endangered by their ignorance!
Good luck with that.
-
This is a good topic. Yes, the Left is "flooding the zone" and attacking us on a hundred different fronts simultaneously. It's absolutely intentional and coordinated. Think Cloward-Piven. They are trying to demoralize us. Normal Americans can't conceive of such a degree of deliberate destructive evil. Meanwhile, the Republican leadership resembles a deer in the headlights.
Many Americans (I have no idea how many) understand perfectly well what is happening. No one wants to be the one to fire the first shot, however. Glenn Beck has been cautioning us against that, and I think it is good advice. The Left desperately wants the Patriots to be the first to get violent, and then they will have their opportunity to launch a wholesale crackdown. The media has already written those stories, and they tipped their hand in the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, when they all immediately and simultaneously blamed the "right" without a shred of evidence. They're counting on the ignorant "sheeple" to swallow their propaganda whole, and I'm afraid that a lot will.
We mustn't give them the satisfaction. We have to hold our fire until the Left gets overtly violent, as they most assuredly will. Even then, the media will still cover for them. We should remember Bunker Hill: "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes."
With a scope I can see the whites much better.
-
With a scope I can see the whites much better.
Indeed.
The wait and uncertainly is killing me.
-
The media has already written those stories, and they tipped their hand in the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, when they all immediately and simultaneously blamed the "right" without a shred of evidence. They're counting on the ignorant "sheeple" to swallow their propaganda whole, and I'm afraid that a lot will.
Speaking of that, have you all noticed the total absence of any news about the shooter, Jared Loughner? That's about as much proof as you could ask for that he is not in any way a right wing sort. I imagine the media are quite frustrated that this guy has not supplied rant material for them to drone on about in the news, because we all know if there was anything offering even the most tenuous connection to conservative philosophy the MSM would be running with it.