Mr Prager is right. We’re in a great moral struggle, well beyond a political one. And the biggest enemy of goodness is our domestic progressive opponents, who think it more moral to be good little reflexive multiculturalist and accepting of all societies including Iran, than to stand up in protest for women and children living in torturous hell holes.
Progressives embrace moral relativity to conceal their hideous cowardice in the face of evil.
I don’t think we’ll win both Houses. HOR but not the Senate so I think Prager is asking for a miracle. It’s not to be found unfortunately.
SteveH Says:
“Progressives embrace moral relativity to conceal their hideous cowardice in the face of evil.”
Too much credit. They embraced it because it supported the position they wanted to take anyway. They’re quicker to throw good and evil labels around than conservatives… when it is towards a group they actually don’t like.
Seriously, I’m probably bigger on real relativity of cultures than a lefty… because I believe ‘culture’ actually exists.. and that it interplays with instincts to create a society with it’s own (somewhat relative) values. They tend to think people are blank slates that can be programmed into being ‘good’ just like them (or maybe not just like them, as they’re alpha and everyone else should be a beta personality that follows philosopher kings like them / their group)…
Thanks for putting Mr. Prager on your site. He is quite articulate!
Amazing that the obvious, stated well, is so surprising.
“And the biggest enemy of goodness is our domestic progressive opponents, who think it more moral to be good little reflexive multiculturalist and accepting of all societies including Iran, than to stand up in protest for women and children living in torturous hell holes.”
Just who are these progressives you are talking about? I am a liberal and I am all for bombing the shit out of Iran the moment they come close to getting a nuke. I don’t know any liberals who would not protest the way women and children in Iran are treated. You are referring to a very small subset of extreme leftists, not Obama, not Democrats in general and not liberals in general. The most progressive liberal person I have ever met said she would consider military action against Iran if all talks failed. She is crazy progressive, she doesn’t believe their is such a thing as a bad kid. I think she believes in the tabula rasa theory of the brain. She’s a teacher and a lesbian, so I have no idea how she could believe these things. But she still knows Iran is not a good place and that it is a threat that needs dealing with.
I think Simon and his friend he cited are outliers, exceptions to the rule, not indicative of the leftist Democratic American view in general. Their are no Harry Truman, Henry Jackson, or even John Kennedy hawks remaining in the Democrat party.
The talks have failed, as is self evident by Iran’s continuing nuke program. The talks are merely tactics used by Iran for cover as they advance their nuclear program. It worked well for NKorea, so why not them?
Prager’s points are well made, and hopefully some politicians will use a little of his logic. It would be a pleasant adult reprieve from the usual blather from both sides. One can always hope.
Simon,
The problem with progressives like your friend is that they may support action against Iran now, but should the going get tough, they will turn on our country in a minute. They want easy solutions and they want someone else to do the hard work.
Simon,
As Mr Prager says, progressives support the UN as a greater force for good than the US. A UN that puts Iran on the commision on the status of women. Your words, nor the words of any other progressive match your actions. I could care less what progressives say or feel anymore. What is it they do? Undermine goodness in the world.
Agree with him or not, man, is Prager just a great speaker! But it is best if you do agree with him.
Seriously the man must have been a debate captain, the delivery is flawless. Thanks for posting this.
You cant pass down the past if women work and children are given to the state, and they dont have family time to learn their family history and how it fits into real history. that is, what part of the large tapestry did their history fit in.
that was one of the MANY points for feminism…
regardless of what the majority of actual women believe, a minority vote their power and their voice for them for there are no alternatives. this minority IS women the rest are irrelevant because they made themselves irrelevant by becoming collectivists and signing on to being the ones to change society and facilitate what THEY thing will be utopia (and screw the rest of the women who are only reactionaries, religious, and archaic throwbacks – but don’t let them know that’s how the leadership things of them. shhhh).
A daycare worker, a teacher, a nanny (?), a federal safe schools overseer, and all that will not tell my son his family history. my son wont learn from them how various family members and people lived, succeeded, failed, loved, died, and were as meaningful a part of history as the people who decided to take over our biological information networks and force a key society heritage to be removed from the face of the earth.
and quite successfully too… (VERY)
you have the leader of the new black panther party who just got off the hook after being convicted of voter fraud… while there are tapes of him in black neighorhoods telling them if they want to be free, they are going to ahve to kill some white crackers, and cracker babies.
but since that is a oppressed group and whites are the oppressors, they have a right, under the SAME logic as the Germans took from their leaders as a reason to eradicate the jews. disparate outcome (but they called it something else – neo deleted the example i put up from their papers). when you hear in the news of the two attacks on women in riverside park.. they dont point out that they were hit in the head and they were what color? and what color were the different assailants? and have those assailants been listening to such people who have been sanctified by our current politics?
[look what happened in California]
they were the first ones in America as a historical experiment as to what you can do to a people if you erase their history. their history was erased by the progressives first. which is why they dont know about pinkerston, they dont know about Landry parish, they don’t know about the founding father africans. the lawyers and such that were working in the 1700s, and so on. they know a false history from roots. they dont know that african moors kept white slaves, and so they think that only whites kept blacks. they are being told that law in the US does not apply to them as white men made it. but then again they dont know the founding fathers.
AFTER they did the job to them, and it worked out so well… after all, the progressive southerners (and northerners) stacked blacks like cord wood and set the piles on fire… and yet they ahve been able to get them to forget all that and have them help them into the same slavery all the while blaming who? the targeted oppressor class which in truth, abolished slavery.
ask an average african american in a city about the 3/5s of a person thing… they will tell yuo that it was becasue blacks had less value. in truth it was a way to fix the deck AGAINST slavery, and Frederick Douglas, another person they barely know other than name (ask them about web dubois though), gave a 16 page speech in scotland addressing it (and people here complain i am too long).
well, the progessives saw how well that worked and realized in the later years that the next target would be the jews. the key is that you cant get rid of god if the people integrate god into their daily life and living. (trace people and history and whats going on now back to Germany. i pointed out a direct lineage from the safe schools czar and Wiemar, but that was when we were still deciding whether utopia was nigh)
the frankfurt school, and world socialism and such saw that you could not get rid of the jews if you dont get rid of the christians who will defend them. and you cant exterminate people as long as there is this large group of moral people who refuse to accept that there is no such thing as morals.
[got that? they believe that there is no such things as morals. from harmon and volterine and so on. ALL believe that there are no such things as morals. and so ANY moral thing they present is a front. and the only morals that they craft are in terms of their theory that morals and culture are only the methods by which the current power keeps power and defines mankind. so they have no concept of natural, no concept of moral, nothing like that. like a tick tock pragmatic computer they do whatever works and morals, and ethics, are only limitations]
they then moved to women… they decided that one could not eradicate judeo christian Europeans as long as they had their strong family ties and sense of community. you can read the papers that say this and describe it, but they are very large very long, very very boring tomes.
and women not taking women seriously, means that they do not prevent this small cadre from succeeding.
and their success is the common mans downfall and the enslavement of man to their ideals, which due to the extreme nature of them, common women don’t take seriously, don’t oppose, don’t declare to the government that these people do not represent them, and so facilitate the men controlling women, through a group of women betraying women for success… (remember it was blacks who sold blacks into slavery too. its immigrants that prey on their own people more. its women who prey on women. all of these have a predatory advantage due to the false concept of class trust)
you can argue all you want against my point, but the crux of it is, you cant have both. you cant have freedom and equality. you cant have women en masse not being mothers and have a connection to past history, and have a reservoir of preserved genetic progress (like IQ).
20 years ago, most women thought eve Ensler was a nut job… (notice that they even have common hair styles. seeEensler, see the nutjob that shot all her fellow co workers).
you want to know why its ok to call for killing whites, and their babies?
want to know why its ok for women in the same way to call for extermination of men?
they dont see the parallels as they are caught up in the mass frenzy of having an enemy that they can beat on that doesnt actually oppose them.
the jews really didn’t oppose the people attacking them, nor did Christians, whites, and other indigent classes.
how close are we? well our president just facilitated the American equivalent of the nazi action 4… later came the final solution which fulfilled Marx and Engels prophecy that a conflagration (holocaust in later language, shoa by those who isolate their part from the whole) will sweep the world.
that’s all straight out of the history and books of philosophy and ideology.
by supporting feminism, women (as they did in germany) support a strong husband (The state) who promises to take care of them better than others (their real mates), and so on and so forth. (i think its called displacement).
and this big gorilla husband will exterminate the other lesser men and they will all be in a female utopia of very few men (a harem by another perspective their forbidden to even point out. shhhhh). the big man state will pay for them to have children, and to stay home with them and not have to work (hey didnt they ahve that?)… they will have big choices of working or not working, and so on and so on… (a paradise tailored to the group that they are suckering… as they are spoon feeding another paradise to the panthers, and another to the nation of Islam, and so on.. the reason there is no mens version of this, is that men dont respond to this BS. ergo advertisers cant reach them, change them, etc. women are the moldable ones and men adapt to them).
so in essence they set all groups against each other and under hegel cook the book so it always destroys the groups and comes out with socialism/communism/state slavery on top.
[edited for length by n-n]
“The question of souls is old – we demand our bodies, now. We hare tired of promises, God is deaf, and his church is our worst enemy” – Sex Slavery – 1890 – Voltarine de Cleyre
‘Women should unite upon a platform of opposition to the teaching and aim of that ever most unscrupulous enemy of freedom — the Church.’ Matilda Joslyn Gage 1890
‘No Gods — No Masters’ Margaret Sanger 1914 Mother of American Eugenics and whose team advised Hitler on his program…
and with an incredible ability to say something and ignore its application to the self:
“The lesson taught us by these kindly commentators on my present experience is that dogmatic faith compels the best minds and hearts to narrowness and insolence.” Harriet Martineau 1802-1876
Anne Royall 1769 — 1854 a hero of feminism… but in her day… she was “called a virago and a monomaniac” – now that such things are “normalized” we can celebrate her without a concern.
“Agitation is the opposite of stagnation — the one is life, the other death” and
“Ignorance is the evil — knowledge will be the remedy”
One national newspaper called the first women’s rights convention “An Awful Combination of Socialism, Abolitionism and Infidelity” Ernestine L. Rose 1810 — 1892
In 1854 The Albany Register editorialised a convention meeting at which she spoke thus:-
“People are beginning to inquire how far public sentiment should sanction or tolerate these unsexed women, who make a scoff of religion, who repudiate the Bible and blaspheme God; who would step out from the true sphere of the mother, the wife, and the daughter, and taking upon themselves the duties and the business of men, stalk into the public gaze, and by engaging in the politics, the rough controversies. And trafficking of the world, upheave existing institutions, and overturn all the social relations of life.
It is a melancholy reflection, that among our American women who have been educated to better things, there should be found any who are willing to follow the lead of such foreign propagandists as the ringleted, glove-handed exotic, Ernestine L. Rose.
[by the way… all this is from a feminist book… but why would wmoen read their own history, they have already been told what to think!!!! so independent…]
[unsexed women was a reference to lesbians…]
A Defense of Atheism / By Ernestine L. Rose
is an interesting read… and makes dawkins just a current parrot in a long line of parrots from the early 1800s who took their freedom for oppression, and used the freedom they didnt realize they had, to imprison themselves.
Betty Friedan told the world (including the Pope personally) “the church is the enemy.” – Meg Bowman
Of course women were against such male logic as below…
Anger is a wind which blows out the lamp of the mind. Robert Green Ingersoll
Ignorance is the soil in which belief in miracles grows. Robert Green Ingersoll
In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments; there are consequences.
Robert Green Ingersoll
Insolence is not logic; epithets are the arguments of malice. Robert Green Ingersoll
It is a blessed thing that in every age some one has had the individuality enough and courage enough to stand by his own convictions. Robert Green Ingersoll
It is a thousand times better to have common sense without education than to have education without common sense. Robert Green Ingersoll
you can see why they took up the open and unused position against merit… no? for once they tried to compete with merit, they did not win enough races, and so they had to take the competition down to win… and so had to resort to ‘other means’ to ‘level a playing field’ (translation facilitate my winning).
it all has its roots in people who basically wanted to ahve all kinds of deviant sex, and didnt want to work and do all that…
you can basically think of the early femniists and the communal peoples (like harmon, his daughter lilian, and all those FREE-LOVE and FREE-THINKERS), as the Bonobo class of man trying to make bonoboism valid by wrapping it up in all this false moral talk which appeals to selfishness and ignores that others are valid too…
progressivism and feminism at its core is bonoboism… ergo how it has flourished to make us hookup, and use sex as a entertainment system..
after all… if you dont get rid of the idea of sex as a gift between two partners. and you dont get rid of marraige.. and you dont get rid of responsibilities… and you dont get rid of morals, and you dont provide abortion, and so on.
you basically cant turn human society into a bonobo paradise of endless sex between everyone of any age, and not have to care about pregnancy,children, work, or anything else.
THIS is what women have been working for, the things they dont like now ARE the goal… they are now equal to men… they are no longer special, sacred, and are now just as disposable… and taught to rut with anyone, they breed when allowed to mix, which is why later you girls get a room of your own
Two “free-love activists,” Lillian Harman and Edwin Walker, announced a marriage which they had performed in private – they didn’t believe that either the state or the clergy were necessary.
the daughter of moses harmon, author of lucifer bringer of light… and the start of the free love, free thiniing movement that then became marxism, and totalitarianism..
why? for the same reason that the stamford experiment went awry… they presented all their stuff openly, and were rejected.
unwilling to accept the decisino of people they then endeavored to construct this whole paranoid suspersticious thing.. and from that came the decision to be more and more ruthless in forcing their ideas on everyone in any way they can..
their favorite is to tell you that the road your on doesnt lead to where it does.
if you look back at the comments of the opposition then… you will find that like mccarthy, they were right as to the outcome for society. which aligns with the different schools of thought that said that this was waht they were going to do.
and like the extreme feminists and all, they were imagined to be irrelevent and not worthy of attention.
something they know better than to allow the other side.
In their marriage ceremony Harman had declined not only to vow obedience to her husband (such a vow being repugnant both to her feminism and to her libertarian anarchism) but also to vow love unto death: “I make no promises that it may become impossible or immoral for me to fulfill, but retain the right to act, always, as my conscience and best judgment shall dictate.”
She also declined to submerge her individuality in another’s by taking her husband’s last name: “I retain, also, my full maiden name, as I am sure it is my duty to do.” Walker for his part vowed that “Lillian is and will continue to be as free to repulse any and all advances of mine as she has been heretofore. In joining with me in this love and labor union, she has not alienated a single natural right. She remains sovereign of herself, as I of myself, and we … repudiate all powers legally conferred upon husbands and wives.”
In particular he repudiated any right as husband to control his wife’s property; he also acknowledged his “responsibility to her as regards the care of offspring, if any, and her paramount right to the custody thereof should any unfortunate fate dissolve this union.” Harman’s father added: “I do not ‘give away the bride,’ as I wish her to be always the owner of her person.” (Sears, p. 85.)
so we all now beleive what the free sex, free thinker communist utopians believe.
back then they were looked at like the david koresh or moonies….
now that they are NORMALIZED, and the whole of the country is the boundary of the current cult… you cant tell for there is nothing to compare to unless you know very detailed history.
IF THIS IS WHAT THEY BELIEVE, THEN WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO ANY COMMENT THEY MAKE AS TO THEIR BELIEF IN GOD SO AS TO CONNECT WITH THE PEOPLE?
>>I don’t know any liberals who would not protest the way women and children in Iran are treated.>>
So then you can provide us with links to news articles and/or blogs that are “liberal” (Huffpo, eg) that support your position on this? Frankly, all I’ve heard from the Lefties is the sound of silence…
I wonder if Obama chose Greece and Britain when he was taking about exceptionalism as Greece was the Birthplace of Democracy, and Britain with the Magna Carta was the birthplace of many of the freedoms enshrined in the US constitution. It was written by Englishmen after all, and the values of liberty have continued to evolve in Britain, so that they are very much aligned with what Americans believe. Banging on about purely American exceptionalism makes America seem arrogant. I think Obama was just trying assuage this bad impression people have of America.
Saying that though, if Obama had said Chinese exceptionalism and Russian exceptionalism I’d be with Prager 100%.
Just who are these progressives you are talking about? I am a liberal and I am all for bombing the shit out of Iran the moment they come close to getting a nuke.
Could the commentor name a few prominent Progressives who advocate bombing Iran? Who are these hawkish Progressives he is talking about?
I don’t know any liberals who would not protest the way women and children in Iran are treated. You are referring to a very small subset of extreme leftists, not Obama, not Democrats in general and not liberals in general.
Then where are they? Where are the liberal protestors who are protesting the way women and children in Iran are treated, or for that matter the way they are treated in any country in which Islam is the dominant religion? Iran is not the only culprit. There is also Saudi Arabia, Libya, Jordan, Bahrain, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc.
Furthermore, I don’t see any liberals protesting the UN for appointing Iran to Commission on the Status of Women. New York City has a LOT of liberals and the UN is in New York City so it should be very easy for, say, Jessica Valenti or Amanda Marcotte, to organize a permanent protest in front of the UN Headquarters in Manhattan — that is it would be easy if the feminist movement in America was really about emancipating women instead of the Progressive political machine it truly is.
The most progressive liberal person I have ever met said she would consider military action against Iran if all talks failed.
But the “talks,” which have NEVER taken place, HAVE failed. Iran’s totalitarian leaders have indicated in no uncertain terms that they are not interested in “talks” with Obama under ANY terms. I don’t believe Obama sincerely wants “talks,” either. I think the pretense by Obama of his desire for “talks” is simply a way for Obama to stall for time(until it is too late), forestalling a sustained, serious call for military action from America’s Right – because “talks” are always ‘imminent.’
What Obama wants to avoid at ALL cost is a situation where military action against Iran would become feasible or desirable by any significant segment of American opinion, thus the fiction that Iran will be deterred by sanctions, the fantasy that Iran will be swayed by international opinion, the hollow false hope that Iran will ‘like’ Obama if Obama is properly obsequious enough, causing Iran to veer off the nuclear course. Obama is not attempting to stop Iran from nuking up so much as managing potentially damaging(to Obama) public opinion.
She is crazy progressive, she doesn’t believe their is such a thing as a bad kid.
I think she believes in the tabula rasa theory of the brain. She’s a teacher and a lesbian, so I have no idea how she could believe these things.
Here the commentor becomes incoherent. The belief by his lesbian teacher friend in “tabula rasa,” or that there is no “such a thing as a bad kid,” have nothing to do with Iran or foreign policy.
But she still knows Iran is not a good place and that it is a threat that needs dealing with.
Sure, even Progressives know that Iran “is not a good place,” but I haven’t heard many Progressives offer the opinion that Iran “needs dealing with” other than a call for more sanctions, which are ineffective, or more attempts at begging Iran for “talks,” which are never going to take place at any high enough level or under any preconditions that will do any good toward keeping Iran from nuking up.
And no doubt, after Iran has nuked up, the commentor and his friend will regret that Iran will then have the means to destroy Israel, America, or any other nation their totalitarian, jihad-fevered minds decide to destroy. Such is the way of Progressives toward America’s enemies — to bemoan but to carefully do nothing. And of course both will say it is too late and will probably heatedly declare that it is all somehow Bush’s fault.
As for the video: Prager, in just a few words, manages to precisely outline the Progressive Problem.
BTW, it is somewhat gratifying that Neo has chosen to feature a video that I linked to in my comments under one of Neo’s posts of last Tuesday on this blog, “Disillusionment with Obama grows.” Although a commentor on this blog of over 10 years, I don’t believe I’ve ever been quoted by Neo. This is the next best thing.
“”Banging on about purely American exceptionalism makes America seem arrogant””
Simon
It is not brought up because we are born exceptional people. ALL people can be exceptional. What facilitates that exceptionalism is the system on which this country was founded. FREEDOM, LIBERTY and FREE MARKETS. It is responsible for our incredible achievements in an astounding array of endeavors.
What is arrogant is a pissy little manchild like Obama seeing with his eyes that those achievements came under the cutting edge political ideas of America and suggesting it not really special in comparison to the rest of the world.
reference American exceptionalism; Eric Hoffer described America as the only new thing in history. My grandfather put it another way. When my father as a child asked him what the old country was like he answered it was so bad he didn’t to even talk about it, and that was before World War One, before things got worse.
Anyone who doesn’t thank g-d for the US is a fool or knave.
I understand the desire to refute Simon, but I’d like to look at this a different way. You’re close, dude. Really. You retain common sense, you know something about Western values, and you’re not afraid to stand up. Here’s the missing piece: You still believe liberals’ words instead of their actions. Of course everyone is in favor of fighting off danger, just as everyone is in favor of trying to reason and negotiate their way through without resorting to violence if they can. The key is what they actually do. Watch their hands, as they say. Quote: “I am a liberal and I am all for bombing the shit out of Iran the moment they come close to getting a nuke.” I believe you. But it’s too late. That train left the station months ago. That is, with any definition of “close” that is not an evasion. What happens is that the goalposts keep moving, and “close” keeps being redefined.
I know it seems to you that there are many, even a majority of reasonable liberals out there, who do not adhere to or believe the more extreme views that conservatives accuse them of. You are in one sense correct. There are few spouters, aggressive evangelists for liberalism, among the everyday folk you hang with. But there are two important things to note: 1. Not only do they continue to vote for Democrats with more extreme views (largely for the social reason of being convinced that it is Republicans who are extreme and unreasoning, because we don’t “get it” socially) but there is an absence of condemnation of the extremists in your midst. When absolutely nutcase elected officials say dangerously radical things, decent liberals turn their head and whistle abstractedly, just shrugging this off and telling themselves that there are very few. And because no one challenges the radicals in any public way, what is accepted in the national discourse drifts ever more leftward. 2. There is a quiet evangelism of liberal causes that is tolerated as normal background in everday speech. Where I work, the mildest advocacy of anything conservative is heard as jarring, greeted by uncomfortable silence, snickers, or direct confrontation. But any number of liberal comments – that the SCOTUS stole the 2000 election, that Iraq was a war for oil, that Tea Partiers are secretly racist, pass by without comment.
Here’s the test, if you are ready for it. Espouse some conservative idea openly, and without excessive qualification, among those liberals and watch what happens. I don’t mean to adopt some idea falsely, but to give voice to something you really do agree with – about abortion, or guns, or Palestine, or rules of engagement – you know, any of the bad ideas.
Sometimes you don’t even have to go that far. Sometimes just expressing full-throated reservation about a liberal surety will be enough.
Oh, BTW, don’t make up Obama’s excuses for him about British and Greek exceptionalism. That’s how he gets by, with smart people finding his rationales for him. Make him earn it. There is no indication from any source that this is what he had in mind. You are floating a hopefulness because you want to believe. And because you’re smarter than he is.
AVI said “And because no one challenges the radicals in any public way, what is accepted in the national discourse drifts ever more leftward.”
Exactly. Liberal ideology is being defined and refined at a breakneck pace by being accepting of anything but conservatism. If you look at the broad spectrum of democrat supporters, it’s an amazing coalition of decent people and whackos. And each individual in it thinks he represents the whole and where it’s heading (see Simon). Nevermind that whackos are steering the ship.
I think that what most of us are missing is that real human beings are not ‘liberals’, or ‘conservatives’, or neo this or archaic that, or anachronistic about some something.
the majority of us, are not like the person here claiming to be a ‘liberal’. the majority of us are not anything, and so our use of a certain label is to help convey a leaning to our thinking and become intimate with others by exposing and making easy understanding us, or making the others theory of mind easier.
others will use it to try to slap a label on it, and cubby hole, pidgeon hole, or whatever, substantiating it long enough only to have a target they think they can grasp.
if we were to actually try to use the labels correctly with qualification we would sound like one of those bozos in a starbucks coffee skit where they order this long line of things to make a special formula coffee… except that most of us would have to qualify each special category, or pastiche it.
the people who are not progressive, have not self oppressed themselves into conforming to some 200 year old ideal when we were headfull and thought we had solved all of physics, medicine and the future would be some moping up and we would have to figure out how to live in a stagnated existence… and so the progressive plan… a life loop detached from history, with sex as the main entertainment of top pleasure (1820s after all, they could not fathom VR and digital electronics… they thought they had already invented everything of importance)
they were taught and told of an ideal of what man would be. Then they try to pretend they are that ideal, though their failure to even represent it a little is completely absent to their view. they believe that by knowing this ideal and pretending it, that they somehow have acquired the qualities of that ideal.
the rest of us wonder why such idiots think that by imposing on themselves a false ideal that is more oppressive and destructive than any other, somehow sets them free from the other oppressions that this new oppression seeks.
the rest of us are not liberal, conservative, or anything. we dont really know what we support under those labels, as most dont know the history and lineage… (blows the mind when you dig though).
we like to think we know and we can pick a label, but the problem is that in practice we try to pick a fashionable label to wear, then end up trying to conform to it to stay fashionable.
being drunk and stupid is no way to go through life 🙂
fly over country and most real people just cant be defined these ways, which is why you cant predict an election by the labels.
in truth if it wasn’t for the constant harping of the labels and such from politicos, like a song screaming “pick a side”, we wouldn’t much think at all what we were, and would go to work, have opinions that would differ, and go about our business never thinking of it at all…
there would be all the labels and categories, some right and wrong in accuracy. but we would return to the classless america were a few idiots were real racists, and most avoided them… and most got along even if they never agreed, as there wasnt much to talk about in the abstract for them to wrestle about (except maybe god and sermons – just kidding).
funny thing is that the progressives use these labels once attached as ways of moving pieces on the table and working groups based on their affinity to certain messages expressed as they gravitate to different forms of the same thing (they think are different).
if the teaparty had no name… what would they do?
i dont know whats going to happen, there is some real nasty potential in the near future… and as i have pointed out, all progressive philosophical stuff does not plan on the uncooperative other state… it only assumed they are kindred friends IF they mention them at all… which they almost never do.
[with all the egg heads at the CFR you would think that one of them might notice what this autodidact sees glaringly]
they are not the future and by trying to be they doom the future from being anything like what the majority now think is THE way future man should be
Its not who has the higher numbers, its who makes a louder noise, that counts in a free state.
“Its not who has the higher numbers, its who makes a louder noise, that counts in a free state.”
Frequently that’s true but only when no one like Prager with a greater degree of insight into the actual problem and the requisite articulateness and soapbox fails to speak out.
The greater the degree of insight and articulateness and exposure, to that degree shall the truth’s impact be felt among the public.
BTW, I’ve been an admirer of Prager for years and this was no fluke. He speaks this clearly and articulately every day. As he puts it, it is clarity he seeks, not agreement.
Truly an under appreciated voice on the right.
Geoffrey,
as nice as that sounds, its not valid.
the germans of early last century were much better thinkers than americans of today… today, americans cant understand the explanation your referring to.
F Douglas speech was 16 pages long as a rebuttal of a prior speech. if people wont read a page to get information they dont know, they certainly arent going to listen to an erudite speaker repudiating their lifetime of school education absent being in a family any more.
24% didn’t know what country the US gained independence from
in England they believe Churchill was fiction, and Sherlock Holmes was real.
I find that smart people tend to self sort, and so they do not wander around in the more common groups. if you have a 120 iq, your not going to hang out with 85s and if you have 140, you tend not to hang out with 100s as much… and if your higher, you tend not to hang out at all (or if your like me, you hide it and hang out with everyone as you wander from group to group belonging to none).
james fennimore coopers leather stocking and Mahicans books are at 13th grade reading level and were considered kids books, as was treasure island, huck finn, etc.
today the kids cant read them. in fact they no longer have the reading and comprehension level to understand the bible (the Koran is a lot simpler).
Georgia is first (I don’t believe the number)
Cuba, Estonia, Latvia tie for second
(i don’t believe the Castro number)
isreal is 59
united states is number 29
The majority of people have switched over how they look at the world in the US. they no longer actually try to catch lies. what they do is try to decide who is lying sounds best to them, and then once decided, be loyal to their football teams. rah rah
they give to parties, not people…
(so parties decide who not us)
they cant understand fundemental terms… i miss being younger when there were a lot more educated older people around (who have died since).
take a look at glenn becks succcess…
why is he doing a better job than the history channel?
because that game of selecting lies never ever can see the holes in knowlege.
for years i have been quite isolated from discourse because the VALID history i know and learned does not match the sovietized one people know.
i went to bronx science is not to brag its to convey a different childhood (if one is not too busy being jealous, envious, pc, or any other BS other than understanding what points fully imply). i had to learn things outside what school teaches or else not be able to take college level courses coming out of grade school.
i am autodidactic
which is the key to being able to do all the things i do, and know and all that, and why others dont believe it. THEIR education wasnt anywhere near as full, complete, and without holes given to me by teachers.
i collected text books and so i was reading and comparing histories from a young age. soviet text books, american text books from different eras, etc etc etc.
and so, unlike most, it was like following a progressive around, and hearing them change their story and presentation depending on who they were talking to. each person talked to only had ONE perspective, one view, and completely believe the sincerity of the talker and think they are always that way. they don’t compare notes….
we have been raised by movie fair whose DOMINANT propaganda message (whether or not intentional), is that one can always get out of a situation at the last second. as we see ourselves the hero of our own story, what kind of thinking and behavior does this tend to lead to? lack of being serious as you can always get out the last second, lack of preparing and doing, as you can always crack a book and learn and so on, and lack of any knowledge that there is such a thing as going to far and having no return.
one of the FATAL mistakes people make, and hitler, lenin, and stalin, and mao mention it if you read them. Is that they think others are like them and know what they know… while this is more or less true of contemporaries, its a complete and wrong judgment of the YOUNG.
its not what you an older person responds to or thinks or believes, its what younger people know, think, respond to and believe. you sir are irrelevant and dont know it (i am too but i know it).
when prager talks about Winston Churchill, what do the people who don’t believe he existed think?
where does the idea that people will respond to insight and articulateness?
first of all, if half of the knowledge necessary to understand the references of the insight is missing, then how does insight, REAL INSIGHT, not wit that titillates the brain and pretends insight, then achieve?
when i read your post all i could think about is that your the professors in Pygmalion…
and you dont remember what happened in the BEGINNING of Pygmalion where doolitle and elisa could barely communicate without setting each other off.
and if the ones you want to talk to have been told that your an oppressor and an oppressor is going to lie, and to say nice things, and to get you to be reasonable and understand, so as to stop you. that thats what oppressors do, and why you are poor and where you are. which is why you have to go out and kill some crackers, and cracker babies…
you think that your insight and articulate will reach those people? worse… if your insight and articulate man was on the street with a bull horn like those who DO draw in people, who would people listen to?
there is a reason why they gather numbers and you can hear crickets in the halls of the insightful and articulate…
[edited for length by n-n]
>>When absolutely nutcase elected officials say dangerously radical things, decent liberals turn their head and whistle abstractedly, just shrugging this off and telling themselves that there are very few.>>
Kind of reminds me of all the “moderate muslims” out there…
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Mr Prager is right. We’re in a great moral struggle, well beyond a political one. And the biggest enemy of goodness is our domestic progressive opponents, who think it more moral to be good little reflexive multiculturalist and accepting of all societies including Iran, than to stand up in protest for women and children living in torturous hell holes.
Progressives embrace moral relativity to conceal their hideous cowardice in the face of evil.
I don’t think we’ll win both Houses. HOR but not the Senate so I think Prager is asking for a miracle. It’s not to be found unfortunately.
SteveH Says:
“Progressives embrace moral relativity to conceal their hideous cowardice in the face of evil.”
Too much credit. They embraced it because it supported the position they wanted to take anyway. They’re quicker to throw good and evil labels around than conservatives… when it is towards a group they actually don’t like.
Seriously, I’m probably bigger on real relativity of cultures than a lefty… because I believe ‘culture’ actually exists.. and that it interplays with instincts to create a society with it’s own (somewhat relative) values. They tend to think people are blank slates that can be programmed into being ‘good’ just like them (or maybe not just like them, as they’re alpha and everyone else should be a beta personality that follows philosopher kings like them / their group)…
Thanks for putting Mr. Prager on your site. He is quite articulate!
Pingback:The 2010 Election is Important — Dennis Prager Tells Why. « American Elephants
Amazing that the obvious, stated well, is so surprising.
“And the biggest enemy of goodness is our domestic progressive opponents, who think it more moral to be good little reflexive multiculturalist and accepting of all societies including Iran, than to stand up in protest for women and children living in torturous hell holes.”
Just who are these progressives you are talking about? I am a liberal and I am all for bombing the shit out of Iran the moment they come close to getting a nuke. I don’t know any liberals who would not protest the way women and children in Iran are treated. You are referring to a very small subset of extreme leftists, not Obama, not Democrats in general and not liberals in general. The most progressive liberal person I have ever met said she would consider military action against Iran if all talks failed. She is crazy progressive, she doesn’t believe their is such a thing as a bad kid. I think she believes in the tabula rasa theory of the brain. She’s a teacher and a lesbian, so I have no idea how she could believe these things. But she still knows Iran is not a good place and that it is a threat that needs dealing with.
I think Simon and his friend he cited are outliers, exceptions to the rule, not indicative of the leftist Democratic American view in general. Their are no Harry Truman, Henry Jackson, or even John Kennedy hawks remaining in the Democrat party.
The talks have failed, as is self evident by Iran’s continuing nuke program. The talks are merely tactics used by Iran for cover as they advance their nuclear program. It worked well for NKorea, so why not them?
Prager’s points are well made, and hopefully some politicians will use a little of his logic. It would be a pleasant adult reprieve from the usual blather from both sides. One can always hope.
Simon,
The problem with progressives like your friend is that they may support action against Iran now, but should the going get tough, they will turn on our country in a minute. They want easy solutions and they want someone else to do the hard work.
Simon,
As Mr Prager says, progressives support the UN as a greater force for good than the US. A UN that puts Iran on the commision on the status of women. Your words, nor the words of any other progressive match your actions. I could care less what progressives say or feel anymore. What is it they do? Undermine goodness in the world.
Agree with him or not, man, is Prager just a great speaker! But it is best if you do agree with him.
Seriously the man must have been a debate captain, the delivery is flawless. Thanks for posting this.
You cant pass down the past if women work and children are given to the state, and they dont have family time to learn their family history and how it fits into real history. that is, what part of the large tapestry did their history fit in.
that was one of the MANY points for feminism…
regardless of what the majority of actual women believe, a minority vote their power and their voice for them for there are no alternatives. this minority IS women the rest are irrelevant because they made themselves irrelevant by becoming collectivists and signing on to being the ones to change society and facilitate what THEY thing will be utopia (and screw the rest of the women who are only reactionaries, religious, and archaic throwbacks – but don’t let them know that’s how the leadership things of them. shhhh).
A daycare worker, a teacher, a nanny (?), a federal safe schools overseer, and all that will not tell my son his family history. my son wont learn from them how various family members and people lived, succeeded, failed, loved, died, and were as meaningful a part of history as the people who decided to take over our biological information networks and force a key society heritage to be removed from the face of the earth.
and quite successfully too… (VERY)
you have the leader of the new black panther party who just got off the hook after being convicted of voter fraud… while there are tapes of him in black neighorhoods telling them if they want to be free, they are going to ahve to kill some white crackers, and cracker babies.
but since that is a oppressed group and whites are the oppressors, they have a right, under the SAME logic as the Germans took from their leaders as a reason to eradicate the jews. disparate outcome (but they called it something else – neo deleted the example i put up from their papers). when you hear in the news of the two attacks on women in riverside park.. they dont point out that they were hit in the head and they were what color? and what color were the different assailants? and have those assailants been listening to such people who have been sanctified by our current politics?
[look what happened in California]
they were the first ones in America as a historical experiment as to what you can do to a people if you erase their history. their history was erased by the progressives first. which is why they dont know about pinkerston, they dont know about Landry parish, they don’t know about the founding father africans. the lawyers and such that were working in the 1700s, and so on. they know a false history from roots. they dont know that african moors kept white slaves, and so they think that only whites kept blacks. they are being told that law in the US does not apply to them as white men made it. but then again they dont know the founding fathers.
AFTER they did the job to them, and it worked out so well… after all, the progressive southerners (and northerners) stacked blacks like cord wood and set the piles on fire… and yet they ahve been able to get them to forget all that and have them help them into the same slavery all the while blaming who? the targeted oppressor class which in truth, abolished slavery.
ask an average african american in a city about the 3/5s of a person thing… they will tell yuo that it was becasue blacks had less value. in truth it was a way to fix the deck AGAINST slavery, and Frederick Douglas, another person they barely know other than name (ask them about web dubois though), gave a 16 page speech in scotland addressing it (and people here complain i am too long).
well, the progessives saw how well that worked and realized in the later years that the next target would be the jews. the key is that you cant get rid of god if the people integrate god into their daily life and living. (trace people and history and whats going on now back to Germany. i pointed out a direct lineage from the safe schools czar and Wiemar, but that was when we were still deciding whether utopia was nigh)
the frankfurt school, and world socialism and such saw that you could not get rid of the jews if you dont get rid of the christians who will defend them. and you cant exterminate people as long as there is this large group of moral people who refuse to accept that there is no such thing as morals.
[got that? they believe that there is no such things as morals. from harmon and volterine and so on. ALL believe that there are no such things as morals. and so ANY moral thing they present is a front. and the only morals that they craft are in terms of their theory that morals and culture are only the methods by which the current power keeps power and defines mankind. so they have no concept of natural, no concept of moral, nothing like that. like a tick tock pragmatic computer they do whatever works and morals, and ethics, are only limitations]
they then moved to women… they decided that one could not eradicate judeo christian Europeans as long as they had their strong family ties and sense of community. you can read the papers that say this and describe it, but they are very large very long, very very boring tomes.
and women not taking women seriously, means that they do not prevent this small cadre from succeeding.
and their success is the common mans downfall and the enslavement of man to their ideals, which due to the extreme nature of them, common women don’t take seriously, don’t oppose, don’t declare to the government that these people do not represent them, and so facilitate the men controlling women, through a group of women betraying women for success… (remember it was blacks who sold blacks into slavery too. its immigrants that prey on their own people more. its women who prey on women. all of these have a predatory advantage due to the false concept of class trust)
you can argue all you want against my point, but the crux of it is, you cant have both. you cant have freedom and equality. you cant have women en masse not being mothers and have a connection to past history, and have a reservoir of preserved genetic progress (like IQ).
20 years ago, most women thought eve Ensler was a nut job… (notice that they even have common hair styles. seeEensler, see the nutjob that shot all her fellow co workers).
you want to know why its ok to call for killing whites, and their babies?
want to know why its ok for women in the same way to call for extermination of men?
they dont see the parallels as they are caught up in the mass frenzy of having an enemy that they can beat on that doesnt actually oppose them.
the jews really didn’t oppose the people attacking them, nor did Christians, whites, and other indigent classes.
how close are we? well our president just facilitated the American equivalent of the nazi action 4… later came the final solution which fulfilled Marx and Engels prophecy that a conflagration (holocaust in later language, shoa by those who isolate their part from the whole) will sweep the world.
that’s all straight out of the history and books of philosophy and ideology.
by supporting feminism, women (as they did in germany) support a strong husband (The state) who promises to take care of them better than others (their real mates), and so on and so forth. (i think its called displacement).
and this big gorilla husband will exterminate the other lesser men and they will all be in a female utopia of very few men (a harem by another perspective their forbidden to even point out. shhhhh). the big man state will pay for them to have children, and to stay home with them and not have to work (hey didnt they ahve that?)… they will have big choices of working or not working, and so on and so on… (a paradise tailored to the group that they are suckering… as they are spoon feeding another paradise to the panthers, and another to the nation of Islam, and so on.. the reason there is no mens version of this, is that men dont respond to this BS. ergo advertisers cant reach them, change them, etc. women are the moldable ones and men adapt to them).
so in essence they set all groups against each other and under hegel cook the book so it always destroys the groups and comes out with socialism/communism/state slavery on top.
[edited for length by n-n]
“The question of souls is old – we demand our bodies, now. We hare tired of promises, God is deaf, and his church is our worst enemy” – Sex Slavery – 1890 – Voltarine de Cleyre
‘Women should unite upon a platform of opposition to the teaching and aim of that ever most unscrupulous enemy of freedom — the Church.’ Matilda Joslyn Gage 1890
‘No Gods — No Masters’ Margaret Sanger 1914 Mother of American Eugenics and whose team advised Hitler on his program…
and with an incredible ability to say something and ignore its application to the self:
“The lesson taught us by these kindly commentators on my present experience is that dogmatic faith compels the best minds and hearts to narrowness and insolence.” Harriet Martineau 1802-1876
Anne Royall 1769 — 1854 a hero of feminism… but in her day… she was “called a virago and a monomaniac” – now that such things are “normalized” we can celebrate her without a concern.
“Agitation is the opposite of stagnation — the one is life, the other death” and
“Ignorance is the evil — knowledge will be the remedy”
One national newspaper called the first women’s rights convention “An Awful Combination of Socialism, Abolitionism and Infidelity” Ernestine L. Rose 1810 — 1892
[by the way… all this is from a feminist book… but why would wmoen read their own history, they have already been told what to think!!!! so independent…]
[unsexed women was a reference to lesbians…]
A Defense of Atheism / By Ernestine L. Rose
is an interesting read… and makes dawkins just a current parrot in a long line of parrots from the early 1800s who took their freedom for oppression, and used the freedom they didnt realize they had, to imprison themselves.
Betty Friedan told the world (including the Pope personally) “the church is the enemy.” – Meg Bowman
Of course women were against such male logic as below…
Anger is a wind which blows out the lamp of the mind. Robert Green Ingersoll
Ignorance is the soil in which belief in miracles grows. Robert Green Ingersoll
In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments; there are consequences.
Robert Green Ingersoll
Insolence is not logic; epithets are the arguments of malice. Robert Green Ingersoll
It is a blessed thing that in every age some one has had the individuality enough and courage enough to stand by his own convictions. Robert Green Ingersoll
It is a thousand times better to have common sense without education than to have education without common sense. Robert Green Ingersoll
you can see why they took up the open and unused position against merit… no? for once they tried to compete with merit, they did not win enough races, and so they had to take the competition down to win… and so had to resort to ‘other means’ to ‘level a playing field’ (translation facilitate my winning).
it all has its roots in people who basically wanted to ahve all kinds of deviant sex, and didnt want to work and do all that…
you can basically think of the early femniists and the communal peoples (like harmon, his daughter lilian, and all those FREE-LOVE and FREE-THINKERS), as the Bonobo class of man trying to make bonoboism valid by wrapping it up in all this false moral talk which appeals to selfishness and ignores that others are valid too…
progressivism and feminism at its core is bonoboism… ergo how it has flourished to make us hookup, and use sex as a entertainment system..
after all… if you dont get rid of the idea of sex as a gift between two partners. and you dont get rid of marraige.. and you dont get rid of responsibilities… and you dont get rid of morals, and you dont provide abortion, and so on.
you basically cant turn human society into a bonobo paradise of endless sex between everyone of any age, and not have to care about pregnancy,children, work, or anything else.
THIS is what women have been working for, the things they dont like now ARE the goal… they are now equal to men… they are no longer special, sacred, and are now just as disposable… and taught to rut with anyone, they breed when allowed to mix, which is why later you girls get a room of your own
Two “free-love activists,” Lillian Harman and Edwin Walker, announced a marriage which they had performed in private – they didn’t believe that either the state or the clergy were necessary.
the daughter of moses harmon, author of lucifer bringer of light… and the start of the free love, free thiniing movement that then became marxism, and totalitarianism..
why? for the same reason that the stamford experiment went awry… they presented all their stuff openly, and were rejected.
unwilling to accept the decisino of people they then endeavored to construct this whole paranoid suspersticious thing.. and from that came the decision to be more and more ruthless in forcing their ideas on everyone in any way they can..
their favorite is to tell you that the road your on doesnt lead to where it does.
if you look back at the comments of the opposition then… you will find that like mccarthy, they were right as to the outcome for society. which aligns with the different schools of thought that said that this was waht they were going to do.
and like the extreme feminists and all, they were imagined to be irrelevent and not worthy of attention.
something they know better than to allow the other side.
In their marriage ceremony Harman had declined not only to vow obedience to her husband (such a vow being repugnant both to her feminism and to her libertarian anarchism) but also to vow love unto death: “I make no promises that it may become impossible or immoral for me to fulfill, but retain the right to act, always, as my conscience and best judgment shall dictate.”
She also declined to submerge her individuality in another’s by taking her husband’s last name: “I retain, also, my full maiden name, as I am sure it is my duty to do.” Walker for his part vowed that “Lillian is and will continue to be as free to repulse any and all advances of mine as she has been heretofore. In joining with me in this love and labor union, she has not alienated a single natural right. She remains sovereign of herself, as I of myself, and we … repudiate all powers legally conferred upon husbands and wives.”
In particular he repudiated any right as husband to control his wife’s property; he also acknowledged his “responsibility to her as regards the care of offspring, if any, and her paramount right to the custody thereof should any unfortunate fate dissolve this union.” Harman’s father added: “I do not ‘give away the bride,’ as I wish her to be always the owner of her person.” (Sears, p. 85.)
so we all now beleive what the free sex, free thinker communist utopians believe.
back then they were looked at like the david koresh or moonies….
now that they are NORMALIZED, and the whole of the country is the boundary of the current cult… you cant tell for there is nothing to compare to unless you know very detailed history.
Edwin C. Walker: American Atheist
http://www.atheists.org/Edwin_C._Walker:_American_Atheist
i ask one question to end this post.
IF THIS IS WHAT THEY BELIEVE, THEN WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO ANY COMMENT THEY MAKE AS TO THEIR BELIEF IN GOD SO AS TO CONNECT WITH THE PEOPLE?
>>I don’t know any liberals who would not protest the way women and children in Iran are treated.>>
So then you can provide us with links to news articles and/or blogs that are “liberal” (Huffpo, eg) that support your position on this? Frankly, all I’ve heard from the Lefties is the sound of silence…
I wonder if Obama chose Greece and Britain when he was taking about exceptionalism as Greece was the Birthplace of Democracy, and Britain with the Magna Carta was the birthplace of many of the freedoms enshrined in the US constitution. It was written by Englishmen after all, and the values of liberty have continued to evolve in Britain, so that they are very much aligned with what Americans believe. Banging on about purely American exceptionalism makes America seem arrogant. I think Obama was just trying assuage this bad impression people have of America.
Saying that though, if Obama had said Chinese exceptionalism and Russian exceptionalism I’d be with Prager 100%.
Just who are these progressives you are talking about? I am a liberal and I am all for bombing the shit out of Iran the moment they come close to getting a nuke.
Could the commentor name a few prominent Progressives who advocate bombing Iran? Who are these hawkish Progressives he is talking about?
I don’t know any liberals who would not protest the way women and children in Iran are treated. You are referring to a very small subset of extreme leftists, not Obama, not Democrats in general and not liberals in general.
Then where are they? Where are the liberal protestors who are protesting the way women and children in Iran are treated, or for that matter the way they are treated in any country in which Islam is the dominant religion? Iran is not the only culprit. There is also Saudi Arabia, Libya, Jordan, Bahrain, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc.
Furthermore, I don’t see any liberals protesting the UN for appointing Iran to Commission on the Status of Women. New York City has a LOT of liberals and the UN is in New York City so it should be very easy for, say, Jessica Valenti or Amanda Marcotte, to organize a permanent protest in front of the UN Headquarters in Manhattan — that is it would be easy if the feminist movement in America was really about emancipating women instead of the Progressive political machine it truly is.
The most progressive liberal person I have ever met said she would consider military action against Iran if all talks failed.
But the “talks,” which have NEVER taken place, HAVE failed. Iran’s totalitarian leaders have indicated in no uncertain terms that they are not interested in “talks” with Obama under ANY terms. I don’t believe Obama sincerely wants “talks,” either. I think the pretense by Obama of his desire for “talks” is simply a way for Obama to stall for time(until it is too late), forestalling a sustained, serious call for military action from America’s Right – because “talks” are always ‘imminent.’
What Obama wants to avoid at ALL cost is a situation where military action against Iran would become feasible or desirable by any significant segment of American opinion, thus the fiction that Iran will be deterred by sanctions, the fantasy that Iran will be swayed by international opinion, the hollow false hope that Iran will ‘like’ Obama if Obama is properly obsequious enough, causing Iran to veer off the nuclear course. Obama is not attempting to stop Iran from nuking up so much as managing potentially damaging(to Obama) public opinion.
She is crazy progressive, she doesn’t believe their is such a thing as a bad kid.
I think she believes in the tabula rasa theory of the brain. She’s a teacher and a lesbian, so I have no idea how she could believe these things.
Here the commentor becomes incoherent. The belief by his lesbian teacher friend in “tabula rasa,” or that there is no “such a thing as a bad kid,” have nothing to do with Iran or foreign policy.
But she still knows Iran is not a good place and that it is a threat that needs dealing with.
Sure, even Progressives know that Iran “is not a good place,” but I haven’t heard many Progressives offer the opinion that Iran “needs dealing with” other than a call for more sanctions, which are ineffective, or more attempts at begging Iran for “talks,” which are never going to take place at any high enough level or under any preconditions that will do any good toward keeping Iran from nuking up.
And no doubt, after Iran has nuked up, the commentor and his friend will regret that Iran will then have the means to destroy Israel, America, or any other nation their totalitarian, jihad-fevered minds decide to destroy. Such is the way of Progressives toward America’s enemies — to bemoan but to carefully do nothing. And of course both will say it is too late and will probably heatedly declare that it is all somehow Bush’s fault.
As for the video: Prager, in just a few words, manages to precisely outline the Progressive Problem.
BTW, it is somewhat gratifying that Neo has chosen to feature a video that I linked to in my comments under one of Neo’s posts of last Tuesday on this blog, “Disillusionment with Obama grows.” Although a commentor on this blog of over 10 years, I don’t believe I’ve ever been quoted by Neo. This is the next best thing.
http://tinyurl.com/25sp97g
“”Banging on about purely American exceptionalism makes America seem arrogant””
Simon
It is not brought up because we are born exceptional people. ALL people can be exceptional. What facilitates that exceptionalism is the system on which this country was founded. FREEDOM, LIBERTY and FREE MARKETS. It is responsible for our incredible achievements in an astounding array of endeavors.
What is arrogant is a pissy little manchild like Obama seeing with his eyes that those achievements came under the cutting edge political ideas of America and suggesting it not really special in comparison to the rest of the world.
reference American exceptionalism; Eric Hoffer described America as the only new thing in history. My grandfather put it another way. When my father as a child asked him what the old country was like he answered it was so bad he didn’t to even talk about it, and that was before World War One, before things got worse.
Anyone who doesn’t thank g-d for the US is a fool or knave.
I understand the desire to refute Simon, but I’d like to look at this a different way. You’re close, dude. Really. You retain common sense, you know something about Western values, and you’re not afraid to stand up. Here’s the missing piece: You still believe liberals’ words instead of their actions. Of course everyone is in favor of fighting off danger, just as everyone is in favor of trying to reason and negotiate their way through without resorting to violence if they can. The key is what they actually do. Watch their hands, as they say. Quote: “I am a liberal and I am all for bombing the shit out of Iran the moment they come close to getting a nuke.” I believe you. But it’s too late. That train left the station months ago. That is, with any definition of “close” that is not an evasion. What happens is that the goalposts keep moving, and “close” keeps being redefined.
I know it seems to you that there are many, even a majority of reasonable liberals out there, who do not adhere to or believe the more extreme views that conservatives accuse them of. You are in one sense correct. There are few spouters, aggressive evangelists for liberalism, among the everyday folk you hang with. But there are two important things to note: 1. Not only do they continue to vote for Democrats with more extreme views (largely for the social reason of being convinced that it is Republicans who are extreme and unreasoning, because we don’t “get it” socially) but there is an absence of condemnation of the extremists in your midst. When absolutely nutcase elected officials say dangerously radical things, decent liberals turn their head and whistle abstractedly, just shrugging this off and telling themselves that there are very few. And because no one challenges the radicals in any public way, what is accepted in the national discourse drifts ever more leftward. 2. There is a quiet evangelism of liberal causes that is tolerated as normal background in everday speech. Where I work, the mildest advocacy of anything conservative is heard as jarring, greeted by uncomfortable silence, snickers, or direct confrontation. But any number of liberal comments – that the SCOTUS stole the 2000 election, that Iraq was a war for oil, that Tea Partiers are secretly racist, pass by without comment.
Here’s the test, if you are ready for it. Espouse some conservative idea openly, and without excessive qualification, among those liberals and watch what happens. I don’t mean to adopt some idea falsely, but to give voice to something you really do agree with – about abortion, or guns, or Palestine, or rules of engagement – you know, any of the bad ideas.
Sometimes you don’t even have to go that far. Sometimes just expressing full-throated reservation about a liberal surety will be enough.
Oh, BTW, don’t make up Obama’s excuses for him about British and Greek exceptionalism. That’s how he gets by, with smart people finding his rationales for him. Make him earn it. There is no indication from any source that this is what he had in mind. You are floating a hopefulness because you want to believe. And because you’re smarter than he is.
AVI said “And because no one challenges the radicals in any public way, what is accepted in the national discourse drifts ever more leftward.”
Exactly. Liberal ideology is being defined and refined at a breakneck pace by being accepting of anything but conservatism. If you look at the broad spectrum of democrat supporters, it’s an amazing coalition of decent people and whackos. And each individual in it thinks he represents the whole and where it’s heading (see Simon). Nevermind that whackos are steering the ship.
I think that what most of us are missing is that real human beings are not ‘liberals’, or ‘conservatives’, or neo this or archaic that, or anachronistic about some something.
the majority of us, are not like the person here claiming to be a ‘liberal’. the majority of us are not anything, and so our use of a certain label is to help convey a leaning to our thinking and become intimate with others by exposing and making easy understanding us, or making the others theory of mind easier.
others will use it to try to slap a label on it, and cubby hole, pidgeon hole, or whatever, substantiating it long enough only to have a target they think they can grasp.
if we were to actually try to use the labels correctly with qualification we would sound like one of those bozos in a starbucks coffee skit where they order this long line of things to make a special formula coffee… except that most of us would have to qualify each special category, or pastiche it.
the people who are not progressive, have not self oppressed themselves into conforming to some 200 year old ideal when we were headfull and thought we had solved all of physics, medicine and the future would be some moping up and we would have to figure out how to live in a stagnated existence… and so the progressive plan… a life loop detached from history, with sex as the main entertainment of top pleasure (1820s after all, they could not fathom VR and digital electronics… they thought they had already invented everything of importance)
they were taught and told of an ideal of what man would be. Then they try to pretend they are that ideal, though their failure to even represent it a little is completely absent to their view. they believe that by knowing this ideal and pretending it, that they somehow have acquired the qualities of that ideal.
the rest of us wonder why such idiots think that by imposing on themselves a false ideal that is more oppressive and destructive than any other, somehow sets them free from the other oppressions that this new oppression seeks.
the rest of us are not liberal, conservative, or anything. we dont really know what we support under those labels, as most dont know the history and lineage… (blows the mind when you dig though).
we like to think we know and we can pick a label, but the problem is that in practice we try to pick a fashionable label to wear, then end up trying to conform to it to stay fashionable.
being drunk and stupid is no way to go through life 🙂
fly over country and most real people just cant be defined these ways, which is why you cant predict an election by the labels.
in truth if it wasn’t for the constant harping of the labels and such from politicos, like a song screaming “pick a side”, we wouldn’t much think at all what we were, and would go to work, have opinions that would differ, and go about our business never thinking of it at all…
there would be all the labels and categories, some right and wrong in accuracy. but we would return to the classless america were a few idiots were real racists, and most avoided them… and most got along even if they never agreed, as there wasnt much to talk about in the abstract for them to wrestle about (except maybe god and sermons – just kidding).
funny thing is that the progressives use these labels once attached as ways of moving pieces on the table and working groups based on their affinity to certain messages expressed as they gravitate to different forms of the same thing (they think are different).
if the teaparty had no name… what would they do?
i dont know whats going to happen, there is some real nasty potential in the near future… and as i have pointed out, all progressive philosophical stuff does not plan on the uncooperative other state… it only assumed they are kindred friends IF they mention them at all… which they almost never do.
[with all the egg heads at the CFR you would think that one of them might notice what this autodidact sees glaringly]
they are not the future and by trying to be they doom the future from being anything like what the majority now think is THE way future man should be
Its not who has the higher numbers, its who makes a louder noise, that counts in a free state.
“Its not who has the higher numbers, its who makes a louder noise, that counts in a free state.”
Frequently that’s true but only when no one like Prager with a greater degree of insight into the actual problem and the requisite articulateness and soapbox fails to speak out.
The greater the degree of insight and articulateness and exposure, to that degree shall the truth’s impact be felt among the public.
BTW, I’ve been an admirer of Prager for years and this was no fluke. He speaks this clearly and articulately every day. As he puts it, it is clarity he seeks, not agreement.
Truly an under appreciated voice on the right.
Geoffrey,
as nice as that sounds, its not valid.
the germans of early last century were much better thinkers than americans of today… today, americans cant understand the explanation your referring to.
F Douglas speech was 16 pages long as a rebuttal of a prior speech. if people wont read a page to get information they dont know, they certainly arent going to listen to an erudite speaker repudiating their lifetime of school education absent being in a family any more.
24% didn’t know what country the US gained independence from
in England they believe Churchill was fiction, and Sherlock Holmes was real.
I find that smart people tend to self sort, and so they do not wander around in the more common groups. if you have a 120 iq, your not going to hang out with 85s and if you have 140, you tend not to hang out with 100s as much… and if your higher, you tend not to hang out at all (or if your like me, you hide it and hang out with everyone as you wander from group to group belonging to none).
james fennimore coopers leather stocking and Mahicans books are at 13th grade reading level and were considered kids books, as was treasure island, huck finn, etc.
today the kids cant read them. in fact they no longer have the reading and comprehension level to understand the bible (the Koran is a lot simpler).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate
Georgia is first (I don’t believe the number)
Cuba, Estonia, Latvia tie for second
(i don’t believe the Castro number)
isreal is 59
united states is number 29
The majority of people have switched over how they look at the world in the US. they no longer actually try to catch lies. what they do is try to decide who is lying sounds best to them, and then once decided, be loyal to their football teams. rah rah
they give to parties, not people…
(so parties decide who not us)
they cant understand fundemental terms… i miss being younger when there were a lot more educated older people around (who have died since).
take a look at glenn becks succcess…
why is he doing a better job than the history channel?
because that game of selecting lies never ever can see the holes in knowlege.
for years i have been quite isolated from discourse because the VALID history i know and learned does not match the sovietized one people know.
i went to bronx science is not to brag its to convey a different childhood (if one is not too busy being jealous, envious, pc, or any other BS other than understanding what points fully imply). i had to learn things outside what school teaches or else not be able to take college level courses coming out of grade school.
i am autodidactic
which is the key to being able to do all the things i do, and know and all that, and why others dont believe it. THEIR education wasnt anywhere near as full, complete, and without holes given to me by teachers.
i collected text books and so i was reading and comparing histories from a young age. soviet text books, american text books from different eras, etc etc etc.
and so, unlike most, it was like following a progressive around, and hearing them change their story and presentation depending on who they were talking to. each person talked to only had ONE perspective, one view, and completely believe the sincerity of the talker and think they are always that way. they don’t compare notes….
we have been raised by movie fair whose DOMINANT propaganda message (whether or not intentional), is that one can always get out of a situation at the last second. as we see ourselves the hero of our own story, what kind of thinking and behavior does this tend to lead to? lack of being serious as you can always get out the last second, lack of preparing and doing, as you can always crack a book and learn and so on, and lack of any knowledge that there is such a thing as going to far and having no return.
one of the FATAL mistakes people make, and hitler, lenin, and stalin, and mao mention it if you read them. Is that they think others are like them and know what they know… while this is more or less true of contemporaries, its a complete and wrong judgment of the YOUNG.
its not what you an older person responds to or thinks or believes, its what younger people know, think, respond to and believe. you sir are irrelevant and dont know it (i am too but i know it).
when prager talks about Winston Churchill, what do the people who don’t believe he existed think?
where does the idea that people will respond to insight and articulateness?
first of all, if half of the knowledge necessary to understand the references of the insight is missing, then how does insight, REAL INSIGHT, not wit that titillates the brain and pretends insight, then achieve?
when i read your post all i could think about is that your the professors in Pygmalion…
and you dont remember what happened in the BEGINNING of Pygmalion where doolitle and elisa could barely communicate without setting each other off.
and if the ones you want to talk to have been told that your an oppressor and an oppressor is going to lie, and to say nice things, and to get you to be reasonable and understand, so as to stop you. that thats what oppressors do, and why you are poor and where you are. which is why you have to go out and kill some crackers, and cracker babies…
you think that your insight and articulate will reach those people? worse… if your insight and articulate man was on the street with a bull horn like those who DO draw in people, who would people listen to?
there is a reason why they gather numbers and you can hear crickets in the halls of the insightful and articulate…
[edited for length by n-n]
>>When absolutely nutcase elected officials say dangerously radical things, decent liberals turn their head and whistle abstractedly, just shrugging this off and telling themselves that there are very few.>>
Kind of reminds me of all the “moderate muslims” out there…