This is an insightful post on hatred. It hints at the fact that the leftist class's treatment of hatred as the cause of racism is backwards. Hatred is a consequence of racism not its cause. The cause of course is an idea, the idea that a person's bloodline causes what he thinks. No it doesn't. The cause is collectivism, the notion that a man's value is to be determined by some group (collective) to which he belongs.
The Diverse Hatreds of the Democrats
stat counnnter
Sunday, September 23, 2018
Thursday, September 06, 2018
Kavanaugh Hearings.
I haven't watched today's hearings but did watch Wednesday morning and all day Tuesday. It was almost laughable the way the Democrats kept posturing as great defenders of justice while for the last ten years looking the other way as the DNC rigged the 2016 election against Bernie Sanders, as Hillary moved government documents from government servers to her own private server-a felony-as she had that server destroyed along with some cell phones while they were under subpoena-another felony-as she paid for the creation of a phony dossier meant to frame Trump and who knows what else.
It was obvious from the beginning the Democrats were only interested in delaying the hearings until after the Nov elections in hopes that Trump would be impeached and the Dems could then appoint a progressive judge to the bench. Several Democrats made motions to delay or suspend the hearings. Fortunately chairman Grassley didn't allow it. You can be sure the Democrats would never allow it if rolls were reversed.
Senator Feinstein tried hard to push the idea that certain weapons can only be classified as assault weapons and not as defensive. She has to evade a lot of reality to promote that notion. Common sense should tell anyone that any weapon can be used for assault or defense. What she is promoting is a very narrowly defined, out of context definition. It requires a concrete bound mentality that seeks to define something by focusing on only one of its essential characteristics, assault, while ignoring the other, defense. Thus it is a concept designed to deceive.
If a weapon can be reclassified as exclusively an 'assault' weapon in the mind of a public conditioned to use its eyes as tools of thought, then that public will be influenced by the notion that if assaults are to be stopped, then those 'assault' weapons should be banned. It should be obvious that banning such weapons is blaming the weapons for causing the assaults. Senator Feinstein is evading more than just self defense, She evading the human element. She ignores the fact that humans have free will and can choose to use any weapon for good or evil. It is human choice that is the causal factor in all assaults and defenses.
I don't think Sen Feinstein invented this invalid concept of 'assault weapon'. More likely it was thought up by some progressive intellectual. She heard it and bought into it completely because it relieves her of the responsibility of asking why do people choose evil? That question requires a lot of heavy conceptual thinking for which most of our leaders are not equipped. I thought judge Kavanaugh handled it well as could be.
The Republicans offered heavy praise to the Judge citing his many accomplishments and endorsements. The Democrats seemed totally uninterested. If the hearing doesn't end today I might look at some of it tomorrow. Maybe.
It was obvious from the beginning the Democrats were only interested in delaying the hearings until after the Nov elections in hopes that Trump would be impeached and the Dems could then appoint a progressive judge to the bench. Several Democrats made motions to delay or suspend the hearings. Fortunately chairman Grassley didn't allow it. You can be sure the Democrats would never allow it if rolls were reversed.
Senator Feinstein tried hard to push the idea that certain weapons can only be classified as assault weapons and not as defensive. She has to evade a lot of reality to promote that notion. Common sense should tell anyone that any weapon can be used for assault or defense. What she is promoting is a very narrowly defined, out of context definition. It requires a concrete bound mentality that seeks to define something by focusing on only one of its essential characteristics, assault, while ignoring the other, defense. Thus it is a concept designed to deceive.
If a weapon can be reclassified as exclusively an 'assault' weapon in the mind of a public conditioned to use its eyes as tools of thought, then that public will be influenced by the notion that if assaults are to be stopped, then those 'assault' weapons should be banned. It should be obvious that banning such weapons is blaming the weapons for causing the assaults. Senator Feinstein is evading more than just self defense, She evading the human element. She ignores the fact that humans have free will and can choose to use any weapon for good or evil. It is human choice that is the causal factor in all assaults and defenses.
I don't think Sen Feinstein invented this invalid concept of 'assault weapon'. More likely it was thought up by some progressive intellectual. She heard it and bought into it completely because it relieves her of the responsibility of asking why do people choose evil? That question requires a lot of heavy conceptual thinking for which most of our leaders are not equipped. I thought judge Kavanaugh handled it well as could be.
The Republicans offered heavy praise to the Judge citing his many accomplishments and endorsements. The Democrats seemed totally uninterested. If the hearing doesn't end today I might look at some of it tomorrow. Maybe.
Blogroll update
I just added this awesome blog to my blogroll. It's by Peter Schwartz author of the book "In Defense of Selfishness" and many in-depth articles on currant events from an Objectivist perspective.
http://peterschwartz.com/ HT https://www.hbletter.com/ Enjoy!
http://peterschwartz.com/ HT https://www.hbletter.com/ Enjoy!
Saturday, September 01, 2018
From freedom by right to tyranny by majority rule
Why is the Progressive left calling for no borders, abolishing ICE and the border patrol and demanding sanctuary cities?
Every nation needs borders if for no other reason than to define where its law enforcement authority starts and ends. Otherwise the Mexican government could cross our old, now nonexistent border and start enforcing its laws on what used to be American citizens. Conversely, our government could do the same to Mexican citizens. This of course would lead to chaos.
Now, I can imagine if all other nations adopted the principles in our two founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the principle of unalienable individual rights, then a borderless globe might be plausible, maybe. But wouldn't that mean a one world government? For me, a scary thought.
Or we could throw away our founding structure of a constitutional republic and just join all the other "Democracies" practicing majority rule. We can ignore the fact that history shows us democracies eventually collapse into dictatorships or blind chaos of one kind or another (see Venezuela here).
This--the repudiation of our founding structure however--is the real goal of the progressives' call for no borders and sanctuary cities. Read any newspaper, any radio or television talk or news show and you will hear a steady refrain on how our "democracy" is in danger or how we must elect Democrats to save our democracy.
That America is and should be a democracy is now taught in our schools. In the public mind we are no longer a constitutional republic but rather, a democracy, a fait accompli for majority rule. Students are coming out of school unaware of the concept of a constitutional republic.
But some will say a democracy can have protections for minorities so it's OK to have a democracy. Not really. As soon as the government tries to protect a minority from some injustice, the majority will scream something like 'since when does a minority dictate to a majority? That's not democratic.'
You see, progressives understand that democracy is majority rule. In all democracies the people are forced to segregate into waring groups all fighting each other for control of government to get their group's needs serviced, usually at the expense of other groups through taxes and regulations.
It is for this majority rule that the progressives in the media, academia and politics lust. They can't force us into their socialist utopian dictatorship unless they become the majority. That's why we see the all out, no holds barred, anything goes assault on Trump and the public who elected him. And it is the public who elected him that is their main target.
In 2016 the collectivist left believed they were only inches away from their socialist utopia. But the voters saw something in Donald Trump they liked more. Perhaps it was Trump's willingness to punch the left in the mouth and keep on punching (with his tweets).
Or maybe it was an emotional response one feels at the sight of an image one has yearned to see for a long time, a man with a spine. For sure Trump is his own man and doesn't mind going up against all odds. This image has to be attractive to many voters. (Yes Trump definitely has a spine but is wrong on trade deficits and tariffs. He needs to read Keith Weiner at Monetary Metals and John Tamny at National review).
But thinking in images is not enough to save a nation or even a presidency. What's needed is a public that can think in principles, that is, general truths on which other truths depend. Our founders studied political philosophy. They could see the truth of democracy's failure in the history of Athens. So they decided to create a constitutional republic based on a set of principles.
A constitutional republic is one where the government is restricted to a set of principles, precisely what the progressives who now dominate the Democrat Party seek to destroy. Without principles people can only act on whims and feelings. They really do want to act on these. Remember Nancy Pelosi's "Can't we just deem the bill to be passed?" In other words, let's pretend. More recently, Maxine Waters' claim that "An impeachable offense is whatever congress says it is." So as a member she gets to act on her feelings! Reality will become what she says it is.
The Declaration of Independence was a document of principles by which the Constitution was to be written. Although the founders made some mistakes, their identification of two major principles made America's freedom happen. They were the principle of unalienable individual rights and the principle that the government gets its just powers from the consent of the governed. Both principles revolutionary in human thinking.
Today it is fashionable to regard the principles in the Declaration as having no legal import. This has lead to the implicit notion that legislators can ignore that document when writing laws. That they have consistently done so is obvious.
Slowly, Americans are waking up to the fact that our schools are no longer teaching students how to think in terms of principles, that principles don't matter, that one must act on the range of the immediate moment regardless of consequences ( Pragmatism).
If Americans want to save America from Progressivism and majority rule, they must attack it at is source, Progressive Education in our schools. It must be replaced by a rational philosophy of education.
For that I would recommend this course.
A valuable first step is to shut down the federal Dept of Education and turn education over to the states. This will do two things. First it will begin the process of decentralization which should continue within each state. Second and best of all, states will do things differently from each other. Best practices will have best results. Those results will be out there for all to see, debate and copy. What's not to like about that?
At least we need to write to our politicians and school boards and demand our schools teach the differences between a democracy and a constitutional republic.
Every nation needs borders if for no other reason than to define where its law enforcement authority starts and ends. Otherwise the Mexican government could cross our old, now nonexistent border and start enforcing its laws on what used to be American citizens. Conversely, our government could do the same to Mexican citizens. This of course would lead to chaos.
Now, I can imagine if all other nations adopted the principles in our two founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the principle of unalienable individual rights, then a borderless globe might be plausible, maybe. But wouldn't that mean a one world government? For me, a scary thought.
Or we could throw away our founding structure of a constitutional republic and just join all the other "Democracies" practicing majority rule. We can ignore the fact that history shows us democracies eventually collapse into dictatorships or blind chaos of one kind or another (see Venezuela here).
This--the repudiation of our founding structure however--is the real goal of the progressives' call for no borders and sanctuary cities. Read any newspaper, any radio or television talk or news show and you will hear a steady refrain on how our "democracy" is in danger or how we must elect Democrats to save our democracy.
That America is and should be a democracy is now taught in our schools. In the public mind we are no longer a constitutional republic but rather, a democracy, a fait accompli for majority rule. Students are coming out of school unaware of the concept of a constitutional republic.
But some will say a democracy can have protections for minorities so it's OK to have a democracy. Not really. As soon as the government tries to protect a minority from some injustice, the majority will scream something like 'since when does a minority dictate to a majority? That's not democratic.'
You see, progressives understand that democracy is majority rule. In all democracies the people are forced to segregate into waring groups all fighting each other for control of government to get their group's needs serviced, usually at the expense of other groups through taxes and regulations.
It is for this majority rule that the progressives in the media, academia and politics lust. They can't force us into their socialist utopian dictatorship unless they become the majority. That's why we see the all out, no holds barred, anything goes assault on Trump and the public who elected him. And it is the public who elected him that is their main target.
In 2016 the collectivist left believed they were only inches away from their socialist utopia. But the voters saw something in Donald Trump they liked more. Perhaps it was Trump's willingness to punch the left in the mouth and keep on punching (with his tweets).
Or maybe it was an emotional response one feels at the sight of an image one has yearned to see for a long time, a man with a spine. For sure Trump is his own man and doesn't mind going up against all odds. This image has to be attractive to many voters. (Yes Trump definitely has a spine but is wrong on trade deficits and tariffs. He needs to read Keith Weiner at Monetary Metals and John Tamny at National review).
But thinking in images is not enough to save a nation or even a presidency. What's needed is a public that can think in principles, that is, general truths on which other truths depend. Our founders studied political philosophy. They could see the truth of democracy's failure in the history of Athens. So they decided to create a constitutional republic based on a set of principles.
A constitutional republic is one where the government is restricted to a set of principles, precisely what the progressives who now dominate the Democrat Party seek to destroy. Without principles people can only act on whims and feelings. They really do want to act on these. Remember Nancy Pelosi's "Can't we just deem the bill to be passed?" In other words, let's pretend. More recently, Maxine Waters' claim that "An impeachable offense is whatever congress says it is." So as a member she gets to act on her feelings! Reality will become what she says it is.
The Declaration of Independence was a document of principles by which the Constitution was to be written. Although the founders made some mistakes, their identification of two major principles made America's freedom happen. They were the principle of unalienable individual rights and the principle that the government gets its just powers from the consent of the governed. Both principles revolutionary in human thinking.
Today it is fashionable to regard the principles in the Declaration as having no legal import. This has lead to the implicit notion that legislators can ignore that document when writing laws. That they have consistently done so is obvious.
Slowly, Americans are waking up to the fact that our schools are no longer teaching students how to think in terms of principles, that principles don't matter, that one must act on the range of the immediate moment regardless of consequences ( Pragmatism).
If Americans want to save America from Progressivism and majority rule, they must attack it at is source, Progressive Education in our schools. It must be replaced by a rational philosophy of education.
For that I would recommend this course.
A valuable first step is to shut down the federal Dept of Education and turn education over to the states. This will do two things. First it will begin the process of decentralization which should continue within each state. Second and best of all, states will do things differently from each other. Best practices will have best results. Those results will be out there for all to see, debate and copy. What's not to like about that?
At least we need to write to our politicians and school boards and demand our schools teach the differences between a democracy and a constitutional republic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)