PDA

View Full Version : Classic Neo-Con Argument:




Patriot123
05-24-2008, 03:50 PM
So whenever I'm arguing with a typical McCain or Giuliani Republican, or even some of the more left Democrats (I say left because that's what neocons are, liberal) their typical argument for justification for what we do around the world is simply that "it has to be done." That what we do around the world keeps the world in check. That what we're doing is necessary for restraining man. That the law must fall silent in times of war for the better of the world. This is the basic argument I've gotten from nearly all of the neocons that I've debated. And it's really beginning to bug me, because it's just such warped logic. Does anyone know of any good responses to such a response? That what we do around the world, as the current superpower, is 'necessary' for mankind, likewise for the next superpower?

evilfunnystuff
05-24-2008, 05:42 PM
So whenever I'm arguing with a typical McCain or Giuliani Republican, or even some of the more left Democrats (I say left because that's what neocons are, liberal) their typical argument for justification for what we do around the world is simply that "it has to be done." That what we do around the world keeps the world in check. That what we're doing is necessary for restraining man. That the law must fall silent in times of war for the better of the world. This is the basic argument I've gotten from nearly all of the neocons that I've debated. And it's really beginning to bug me, because it's just such warped logic. Does anyone know of any good responses to such a response? That what we do around the world, as the current superpower, is 'necessary' for mankind, likewise for the next superpower?

flaming bag of dog poo on there doorstep lol

seriously though i dunno beyond trying to educate them

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-24-2008, 08:32 PM
So whenever I'm arguing with a typical McCain or Giuliani Republican, or even some of the more left Democrats (I say left because that's what neocons are, liberal) their typical argument for justification for what we do around the world is simply that "it has to be done." That what we do around the world keeps the world in check. That what we're doing is necessary for restraining man. That the law must fall silent in times of war for the better of the world. This is the basic argument I've gotten from nearly all of the neocons that I've debated. And it's really beginning to bug me, because it's just such warped logic. Does anyone know of any good responses to such a response? That what we do around the world, as the current superpower, is 'necessary' for mankind, likewise for the next superpower?

The significance of the self evident and inalienable truths are that they existed forever before our founding fathers wrote them to paper while they will also exist forever into the future. So, a self evident truth exists beyond any challenge or argument while it is also timeless beyond all past traditions and future occurences. These same truths exist inalienably on the conscience of every human soul. So, we don't have to teach the dumb world about Democracy.

Patriot123
05-24-2008, 09:02 PM
I don't think they were really getting at the whole Democracy thing, but rather the fact that as the world superpower, it's our responsibility to keep countries in check. To basically police the world. To do what we're doing around the world as of now.

driller80545
05-24-2008, 09:08 PM
If they didn't believe in policing the world then they wouldn't be neocons. It is the basis of their whole philosophy. Without imperialism, they have no purpose. I have found no way to argue with them.

Anti Federalist
05-24-2008, 09:37 PM
So whenever I'm arguing with a typical McCain or Giuliani Republican, or even some of the more left Democrats (I say left because that's what neocons are, liberal) their typical argument for justification for what we do around the world is simply that "it has to be done." That what we do around the world keeps the world in check. That what we're doing is necessary for restraining man. That the law must fall silent in times of war for the better of the world. This is the basic argument I've gotten from nearly all of the neocons that I've debated. And it's really beginning to bug me, because it's just such warped logic. Does anyone know of any good responses to such a response? That what we do around the world, as the current superpower, is 'necessary' for mankind, likewise for the next superpower?

Tell them they have the best case in the world.

Tell them they couldn't be more correct.

And then tell them, all the best arguments in the world mean nothing.

We're broke.

And when we collapse, like all empires do, then it will fall to our former "enemies" to keep us in "check".

You probably won't change their minds, but maybe give them something to mull over.

driller80545
05-24-2008, 09:44 PM
I can't seem to get anyone to be concerned about being broke. I think the idea is more than most people will contemplate. Therefore, it is not real to them. I hear it all of the time. "I know that we are broke, but we must police the world, provide health care, etc., etc. anyway. Crazy. It seems like these people are following some invisible pied piper over the cliff.

WRellim
05-24-2008, 09:53 PM
The significance of the self evident and inalienable truths are that they existed forever before our founding fathers wrote them to paper while they will also exist forever into the future. So, a self evident truth exists beyond any challenge or argument while it is also timeless beyond all past traditions and future occurences. These same truths exist inalienably on the conscience of every human soul. So, we don't have to teach the dumb world about Democracy.

Whole thing is just a regurgitation of the whole colonial empire "White Man's Burden" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man's_Burden) -- the BS that the British proposed for why they needed to "rule the world."

Sadly under Woodrow Wilson the American public went temporarily insane and bought into this (for a short period of time)... then they came to their senses and rejected it outright.

But alas, FDR snookered everyone into it again with WWII and then Truman made it all stick (with the aid and abetting of many Republicans) via the whole "Red Scare" and the "Yellow Menace" of Soviet and Chinese Communism... and it has been with us ever since.

And it is bankrupting the US just as it bankrupted Britain.

Took Britain 40 to 50 years to recover (and some would say they are still suffering the after effects, but it is arguably more due to current insane politics more than past idiocy -- if we go the same socialist route as Britain did after WWII, then the rest of this century is gonna suck big time in the USA).

WRellim
05-24-2008, 09:55 PM
I can't seem to get anyone to be concerned about being broke. I think the idea is more than most people will contemplate. Therefore, it is not real to them. I hear it all of the time. "I know that we are broke, but we must police the world, provide health care, etc., etc. anyway. Crazy. It seems like these people are following some invisible pied piper over the cliff.

That's because they are still able to run a "deficit" in their own PERSONAL finances... everything still seems fine.

They have no CLUE what a coming depression in the US will be like.

So, yes... lemmings being led of the cliff... because for everything else there's MasterCard. :(

James Madison
05-24-2008, 09:57 PM
That's what neoconservative philosophy is. If human beings are left to their own devices the wickedness inside us will invariably lead to our loss of rights and eventual destruction. So, the people must be "kept in line" through coersive means whether it be through religion, social pressure, or phony boogie-men.

Anti Federalist
05-24-2008, 10:00 PM
I can't seem to get anyone to be concerned about being broke. I think the idea is more than most people will contemplate. Therefore, it is not real to them. I hear it all of the time. "I know that we are broke, but we must police the world, provide health care, etc., etc. anyway. Crazy. It seems like these people are following some invisible pied piper over the cliff.

You could be very right driller.

The concept of being in the hole for 10 trillion is hard to comprehend I suppose.

Hell, I have hard time with it myself.

Anti Federalist
05-24-2008, 10:03 PM
That's what neoconservative philosophy is. If human beings are left to their own devices the wickedness inside us will invariably lead to our loss of rights and eventual destruction. So, the people must be "kept in line" through coersive means whether it be through religion, social pressure, or phony boogie-men.

Very Hobbesian outlook they have, no doubt.

scotto2008
05-24-2008, 10:03 PM
Whole thing is just a regurgitation of the whole colonial empire "White Man's Burden" -- the BS that the British proposed for why they needed to "rule the world."

Sadly under Woodrow Wilson the American public went temporarily insane and bought into this (for a short period of time)... then they came to their senses and rejected it outright.

But alas, FDR snookered everyone into it again with WWII and then Truman made it all stick (with the aid and abetting of many Republicans) via the whole "Red Scare" and the "Yellow Menace" of Soviet and Chinese Communism... and it has been with us ever since.



Unless you believe as I do that wars are almost always founded on lies and manipulation by governments, it makes sense to be a neo-con.

That is, if you really believe that the world's plotting to kill us, you fight.

I don't think neo-con leaders actually believe that though. That's just their cover for Straussian dominance.

WRellim
05-24-2008, 10:07 PM
That's what neoconservative philosophy is. If human beings are left to their own devices the wickedness inside us will invariably lead to our loss of rights and eventual destruction. So, the people must be "kept in line" through coersive means whether it be through religion, social pressure, or phony boogie-men.

You understand that this is REALLY just them doing a psychological "projection" of their OWN innate personal inner evil.

Seriously, think about it.

If you know that YOU are unfaithful, promiscuous, etc. then you tend to inherently relieve your own guilt by believing that EVERYONE DOES IT. But that leads to only TWO possible outcomes... either you therefore SANCTION it, or you try your best (via force, politics, etc) to restrict and CONTROL it.

However, if you are NOT so tempted or afflicted -- and/or you do have solid control over your own such "passions" -- then (and only then) are you likely to believe that your fellow man can (and will) be able (in general) to have equal self-disciplined control.

So, the argument I have frequently made to various "prudes" and "scare-mongers" is to question their own past and/or current status vis-a-vis whatever thing it is they are in a panic over. Normally their protest and denials are so vehement that it is virtual proof of their hypocrisy.



It comes down to this: Do you HOPE others are like yourself? Or do you FEAR it?


.

WRellim
05-24-2008, 10:09 PM
Unless you believe as I do that wars are almost always founded on lies and manipulation by governments, it makes sense to be a neo-con.

That is, if you really believe that the world's plotting to kill us, you fight.

I don't think neo-con leaders actually believe that though. That's just their cover for Straussian dominance.

Sure. But there is a name for that condition: PARANOIA



And agreed on the neocons... the BIG LIE and using it to manipulate the masses is what they (and others) are all about.


P.S. "Unless you believe as I do that wars are almost always founded on lies and manipulation by governments, " Well to ME, that is not a matter of "belief" it is a matter of cold, hard, historical FACT. Seriously, pick a war (every U.S. war... including BTW the American Revolution) and you will find a core group of people using one or more MAJOR LIES and DISTORTIONS to manipulate the population to support the war, and the agenda and ambitions of the war party's core group.

Anti Federalist
05-24-2008, 10:16 PM
Whole thing is just a regurgitation of the whole colonial empire "White Man's Burden" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man's_Burden) -- the BS that the British proposed for why they needed to "rule the world."

Sadly under Woodrow Wilson the American public went temporarily insane and bought into this (for a short period of time)... then they came to their senses and rejected it outright.

But alas, FDR snookered everyone into it again with WWII and then Truman made it all stick (with the aid and abetting of many Republicans) via the whole "Red Scare" and the "Yellow Menace" of Soviet and Chinese Communism... and it has been with us ever since.

And it is bankrupting the US just as it bankrupted Britain.

Took Britain 40 to 50 years to recover (and some would say they are still suffering the after effects, but it is arguably more due to current insane politics more than past idiocy -- if we go the same socialist route as Britain did after WWII, then the rest of this century is gonna suck big time in the USA).

As empires rise and fall more rapidly, the only "upside" to all this is that when a fatherland does collapse, it seems less likely to result in the complete destruction of the home state.

At least sometimes.

That is why we must separate. There must be some form of secession, or, barring that, individual "secession" in the form of bailing out, becoming ex-pats or what have you.

If we stick around, these "walking dead" will drag all of us down with them.

Anti Federalist
05-24-2008, 10:20 PM
You understand that this is REALLY just them doing a psychological "projection" of their OWN innate personal inner evil.

Seriously, think about it.

If you know that YOU are unfaithful, promiscuous, etc. then you tend to inherently relieve your own guilt by believing that EVERYONE DOES IT. But that leads to only TWO possible outcomes... either you therefore SANCTION it, or you try your best (via force, politics, etc) to restrict and CONTROL it.

However, if you are NOT so tempted or afflicted -- and/or you do have solid control over your own such "passions" -- then (and only then) are you likely to believe that your fellow man can (and will) be able (in general) to have equal self-disciplined control.

So, the argument I have frequently made to various "prudes" and "scare-mongers" is to question their own past and/or current status vis-a-vis whatever thing it is they are in a panic over. Normally their protest and denials are so vehement that it is virtual proof of their hypocrisy.



It comes down to this: Do you HOPE others are like yourself? Or do you FEAR it?


.

Bingo!

voytechs
05-24-2008, 10:24 PM
You could be very right driller.

The concept of being in the hole for 10 trillion is hard to comprehend I suppose.

Hell, I have hard time with it myself.

10 Trillion? Try $70T.

voytechs
05-24-2008, 10:25 PM
I simply tell them, they've been watching too much MSM. Its not good for their mental health.

coyote_sprit
05-24-2008, 10:29 PM
10 Trillion? Try $70T.

The neocons could care less even if it was in the quadtrillions. They'd still say it wasn't that bad for the is the nature of a liberal.

Anti Federalist
05-24-2008, 10:30 PM
10 Trillion? Try $70T.

Oh I hear you.

10 trillion is the bill that is on the desk.

The other 60 is the bill that's in the mail.

James Madison
05-24-2008, 10:47 PM
You understand that this is REALLY just them doing a psychological "projection" of their OWN innate personal inner evil.

Seriously, think about it.

If you know that YOU are unfaithful, promiscuous, etc. then you tend to inherently relieve your own guilt by believing that EVERYONE DOES IT. But that leads to only TWO possible outcomes... either you therefore SANCTION it, or you try your best (via force, politics, etc) to restrict and CONTROL it.

However, if you are NOT so tempted or afflicted -- and/or you do have solid control over your own such "passions" -- then (and only then) are you likely to believe that your fellow man can (and will) be able (in general) to have equal self-disciplined control.

So, the argument I have frequently made to various "prudes" and "scare-mongers" is to question their own past and/or current status vis-a-vis whatever thing it is they are in a panic over. Normally their protest and denials are so vehement that it is virtual proof of their hypocrisy.



It comes down to this: Do you HOPE others are like yourself? Or do you FEAR it?


.

This is one of the major flaws of neoconservatism. The belief that men can't be trusted with his rights yet the government can be. If you think about it, this philosophy has been around way before the later half of last century and more that matter even Woodrow Wilson. Neoconservatism goes back to the earliest of days as it provided an excuse for despots and tyrants to consolidate power for themselves while treating their fellow man as sub-human.

WRellim
05-24-2008, 10:58 PM
This is one of the major flaws of neoconservatism. The belief that men can't be trusted with his rights yet the government can be. If you think about it, this philosophy has been around way before the later half of last century and more that matter even Woodrow Wilson. Neoconservatism goes back to the earliest of days as it provided an excuse for despots and tyrants to consolidate power for themselves while treating their fellow man as sub-human.

Certainly, it is a self-negating philosophy for anyone HONEST enough to think it through. Since governments themselves are composed of Men, who are by this philosophy's own definition creatures who cannot be trusted, then the power placed in the hands of those "government-men" can only create further (and greater) problems. That this is TRUE in historical fact is probably understood by the neocons themselves... but they either do not believe it is true of they THEMSELVES, or they have gone completely overboard and no longer care, seeing it as only a useful tool.

Well, certainly this BS philosophy is older than Wilson... Plato and his "elitist Republic" are ancient, and one can take it much further back than that in demonstrable terms to virtually every instance of government.

The American Republic was unique in that it was the first (and virtually only) government instituted by men who seemed at the time to be at least aware of this major failing of governments... and attempted to therefore "tame" it and "cage" it. That they in fact failed to do so adequately is also demonstrable.

(It would be my contention -- and some of theirs {Jefferson certainly seems to recognize this} -- that it is not even possible to do in a static permanent fashion, for just as one can dam a river for a time... be it delayed for years or decades... eventually the dam will crack & burst, and the water WILL find a way around.)

evilfunnystuff
05-24-2008, 11:11 PM
including BTW the American Revolution) and you will find a core group of people using one or more MAJOR LIES and DISTORTIONS to manipulate the population to support the war, and the agenda and ambitions of the war party's core group.

really got a link or some keywods/names to look up

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-24-2008, 11:43 PM
Whole thing is just a regurgitation of the whole colonial empire "White Man's Burden" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man's_Burden) -- the BS that the British proposed for why they needed to "rule the world."

Sadly under Woodrow Wilson the American public went temporarily insane and bought into this (for a short period of time)... then they came to their senses and rejected it outright.

But alas, FDR snookered everyone into it again with WWII and then Truman made it all stick (with the aid and abetting of many Republicans) via the whole "Red Scare" and the "Yellow Menace" of Soviet and Chinese Communism... and it has been with us ever since.

And it is bankrupting the US just as it bankrupted Britain.

Took Britain 40 to 50 years to recover (and some would say they are still suffering the after effects, but it is arguably more due to current insane politics more than past idiocy -- if we go the same socialist route as Britain did after WWII, then the rest of this century is gonna suck big time in the USA).

If a truth exists as a self evident natural law, it has no argument. This self evident truth, as John Locke would argue, reduces to be inalienably written not just on every American soul as a "natural right" but on every human soul. So, we aren't sending missions today to spread the culture of the American people but to spread the culture of the tyranny ruling over us. Instead, we should be insuring that we survive. After all, we aren't spreading a mysterious thing that is in our nation's best interest or our vague concepts of freedom or Democracy or even a concept of our Federal Republic. We are spreading self evident and inalienable truths.

scotto2008
05-25-2008, 12:16 AM
P.S. "Unless you believe as I do that wars are almost always founded on lies and manipulation by governments, " Well to ME, that is not a matter of "belief" it is a matter of cold, hard, historical FACT. Seriously, pick a war (every U.S. war... including BTW the American Revolution) and you will find a core group of people using one or more MAJOR LIES and DISTORTIONS to manipulate the population to support the war, and the agenda and ambitions of the war party's core group.

Depends on how you define "cold, hard, historical fact." History books and documentaries are filled with "facts" that just ain't so, as you and I know.

But they are cold and hard. That's my point. You can't have a true debate until you agree on what the underlying presumptions are. And to the average neo-con sympathizer, they have the "facts" on their side.

On the other hand, the neo-con leaders know we're right. They're not stupid. Just evil.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-25-2008, 12:33 AM
Certainly, it is a self-negating philosophy for anyone HONEST enough to think it through. Since governments themselves are composed of Men, who are by this philosophy's own definition creatures who cannot be trusted, then the power placed in the hands of those "government-men" can only create further (and greater) problems. That this is TRUE in historical fact is probably understood by the neocons themselves... but they either do not believe it is true of they THEMSELVES, or they have gone completely overboard and no longer care, seeing it as only a useful tool.

Well, certainly this BS philosophy is older than Wilson... Plato and his "elitist Republic" are ancient, and one can take it much further back than that in demonstrable terms to virtually every instance of government.

The American Republic was unique in that it was the first (and virtually only) government instituted by men who seemed at the time to be at least aware of this major failing of governments... and attempted to therefore "tame" it and "cage" it. That they in fact failed to do so adequately is also demonstrable.

(It would be my contention -- and some of theirs {Jefferson certainly seems to recognize this} -- that it is not even possible to do in a static permanent fashion, for just as one can dam a river for a time... be it delayed for years or decades... eventually the dam will crack & burst, and the water WILL find a way around.)

We need to learn to differentiate between that which was ancient Greece and that which was the timeless period of the Greek Zenith. Most of the mysteries created during that period of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle became lost in history only to be later introduced in Western Europe by Spanish Arab Moors in the 13th Century ACE. So significant were these works to a primitive Western Europe that they had to create Universities to unravel their mysteries because schools built during the age of faith were Christian. So, while the philosopher Plato did write his dialogues during an ancient time, a primitive Western Europe didn't begin to wake up to them until Jean Rousseau's enlightenment in the 18th century ACE. So, don't think back 2500 years but to their renaissance some 250 - 750 years.

I think we need to quit reading about American government and start meditating on an American mantra instead. Our founding fathers didn't create a complex government based on a political science; rather, they designed a government on a simple truth which they created through the use of natural laws. Natural law or Law of Nature was the type of metaphysical science used to create scientific conclusions during that time.

Mantra: This truth was declared by our founding fathers as self evident beyond all questions and challenges while it also reduced as a natural right to be inalienably imprinted on the conscience of every human soul. This truth because it is self evident and alienable is also timeless in that it existed forever in every human soul before our founding fathers even wrote it to paper while it will continue to exist forever into the future likewise. So, the self evident and inalienable truths are timeless in that they will endure every past tradition and every future occurence.

WRellim
05-25-2008, 01:07 AM
really got a link or some keywods/names to look up

What, you want an entire history book?

Most of my posts are already TL/DR territory. :D


Go dig into a lot of Thomas Woods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Woods) books (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Politically_Incorrect_Guide_to_American_Histor y) and audio (http://www.mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=79) for great stuff on virtually the entire American History, jeepers Pat Buchanan's books pretty much explains the WWII lies, lots of online resources on the problems with Korea and Vietnam.

Going further back, there was certainly a LOT more behind the War of 1812 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_War_of_1812) that you are NOT taught (or even given any "hint" of) in any bog-standard U.S. History book.

On the American Revolution, well, there you gotta do a bit more work digging around -- Woods is one resource, there are others that are (of perhaps questionable validity) from a socialistic side (Gore Vidal, etc).

But there are also extensive works (mainly obscure stuff dealing with Benjamin Franklin and his testimony before Parliament, etc) that explain the MAIN complaints the American "Colonists" had with Great Britain {the whole laundry list of "He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good." etc} had less to do with the "Stamp Act" and more to do with the "Currency Act" the basis of the local economies and the desire of the certain groups of colonists to create their own "banks" and then issue "fiat" paper money (which was frequently devalued, scarfed up & later profiteered upon by "speculators" like Hamilton, et al) than with anything else.

Sidebar: Which "experiment" the Continental Congress was able to then engage in wholeheartedly ASAP -- to the conclusion that "not worth a Continental" was the result... a lesson wholeheartedly forgotten now -- and one that you are VERY unlikely to run across in any bog-standard history... Can't have those founding fathers be UNETHICAL in any way you know, that would be "blasphemy" -- plus you can't go letting people realize that post 1913 and DEFINITELY post 1971 our "Federal Reserve" dollars can be equated to the old "Continental" paper money... :eek:



Key in my opinion is to come to the ROOT realization that NO ONE is so "noble" that they do not have a "mixture" of motives for their actions.

Very few people are ever so purely "evil" nor so purely "good" that their actions are dictated by ANY single motive or line of reasoning.

Once you TRULY understand THAT... add into it the fact that any given GROUP of individuals who agree on some given course of action will have found (or claim to have found) some "common view" that then becomes the PUBLICLY accepted and promoted justification (even though the other motives may in fact be either common knowledge or at least "commonly understood" -- but are not discussed, as some elephant in the room, or something you don't speak of "when the children are present") and you have your whole stew. It may (or may not) be a partial (or 99.9% pure) fictional stew (or "Stone Soup"), but provided that group "wins the day" (or at least manages to stay in power) then that will become the "accepted" reasoning behind their actions... and thus accepted "History."

Until (at least) another generation or two has passed, all of those other "untoward" motivations are likely to remain hidden or buried (and if they get resurrected, they become "revisionist" history).

So add all of that up, and realize that there is NO truth to the "American Exceptionalism" and... well there you have it.


And see... even THIS post was too long! :D

evilfunnystuff
05-25-2008, 01:34 AM
On the American Revolution, well, there you gotta do a bit more work digging around -- Woods is one resource, there are others that are (of perhaps questionable validity) from a socialistic side (Gore Vidal, etc).

this is all i was looking for thanx any specific works you can recomend from him regarding lies and distortion in support of the american rev.

WRellim
05-25-2008, 02:20 AM
If a truth exists as a self evident natural law, it has no argument. This self evident truth, as John Locke would argue, reduces to be inalienably written not just on every American soul as a "natural right" but on every human soul. So, we aren't sending missions today to spread the culture of the American people but to spread the culture of the tyranny ruling over us. Instead, we should be insuring that we survive. After all, we aren't spreading a mysterious thing that is in our nation's best interest or our vague concepts of freedom or Democracy or even a concept of our Federal Republic. We are spreading self evident and inalienable truths.

This may seem like an off-beat answer, but it joined in with my recent re-reading of an obscure but excellent book by C.S. Forester (of Horatio Hornblower series fame) but entitled "The Captain from Connecticut" (of all things, about an American ship captain in 1812)...

...and (where this connects) is that in the text one runs across his repeated references (via the main character) to the "understood" American Pantheon of pagan-like "gods" -- in the form of "Liberty" and "Providence" (as well as the "minor" ones... the various "virtues" Prosperity, Frugality, Chastity, Charity, etc.)


And it again made me reflect that during that early period of American history, such words were always Capitalized and frequently referred to in a way that "personified" or "anthropomorphized" them as either "gods" (or at least a form of "angelic beings") in an almost Greek-Pantheon type way.

You see abundant evidence of this in the writing of the time in certain phrases "Liberty only give her gifts to the vigilent/brave/stouthearted" etc. Certainly Poor Richard and other writings of Franklin (and Paine et al) are filled with such things. And they are reflected on by various "foreigners" as well, such as Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" (and of course the already cited obscure C.S. Forester book).

That there was a "real" aspect to this personification is obvious in the coinage and the various sculptures (striding Lady Liberty, etc) atop buildings, of the time, which taper off only after the Civil War. The "Lady Liberty" in the form of the hollow statue donated by France in the late 1800's was only ONE such personification, and perhaps a belated one at that.


But -- and here is where we get to the meat of the matter -- over time, it seems that that "original pantheon" of wholly abstract concepts personified was replaced by an entirely different pantheon.

Beginning with Washington, and adding in Franklin, and later Jefferson, Adams, and even Madison... the pantheon of "virtues" was replaced by a pantheon of mythologized "founding fathers" -- the ultimate blasphemy, of course, being Mount Rushmore and the inclusion of Lincoln and T. Roosevelt (who was dead LESS than a decade at the time the dynamiting began -- one is almost surprised that FDR didn't have the hubris to have his own image added in alongside the others while he was yet alive!) After that, of course the heads and names of ex-Presidents began appearing on everything from coins to ships.

I've pondered that transition -- from seeing "Lady Liberty" everywhere, to the point that we now name Aircraft Carriers and Submarines after Presidents who are STILL LIVING -- it's the proverbial equivalent of the difference between Greece and the later Roman Empire. {One wonders how long it will be before an American President has the literal gall to have HIS OWN image placed upon a coin or currency or public statue while he is still in office. When (and if) that happens, will be the marker of the absolute END of the last vestige of our "Republic."}


And concurrent with THAT change was the change in how American's thought -- both of ourselves and the rest of the world. America was no longer the country smiled upon by a pantheon of personified "deities" of Providence, Liberty, Equality, etc -- but rather it was somehow "Democracy" UNpersonified in anything other than a gun or a "President" who was to somehow dictate terms to the greater world...

And it has progressed so FAR that even those of us who are attempting to return to that "Spirit of '76" see ourselves more as the inheritors of the pantheon of "founding fathers" in the sense of Mt. Rushmore heads -- than we do as the "children" of that personified pantheon of Liberty, Providence, Freedom, Equality.


Indeed we have gone so FAR from that, that most of the people reading this will have only the vaguest idea (if any) of what the heck I am even talking about.


But, to get back to this relevance to your point... in the early days of the US, these were the way in which the "self evident and inalienable truths" were seen and spread... it wasn't simply some "technocratic" implementation of a democratically elected system of government... but rather the "personified" ideals of Liberty, et al. And THAT is what we seemed to have entirely lost all perception or even awareness of... that "mind-set" capable of thinking of these things not as simply un-embodied abstract "concept" words (with technical definitions) -- but as literal "embodied" truths.

In losing that... we've lost everything.

(And for those who say "Bah... Statues of Pagan Gods" ...well, like it or not, we're surrounded by pagan God statues anyway... but now they are the totally INANE ... "Santa Claus" and "Frosty the Snowman" -- not to mention "Snoopy" and "Garfield" -- "Barbie" the "American Girl Dolls" and "GI Joe" -- all images and "statuary" that connote nothing, convey NOTHING, but are just as pagan and at least as blasphemous. And on our coins instead of "ideals" and "virtues" we have enshrined a bunch of politicians, most of whom couldn't keep their pants on, or their hands out of the till... and we are diminished by it all.) </SOAPBOX>

WRellim
05-25-2008, 02:27 AM
Depends on how you define "cold, hard, historical fact." History books and documentaries are filled with "facts" that just ain't so, as you and I know.

But they are cold and hard. That's my point. You can't have a true debate until you agree on what the underlying presumptions are. And to the average neo-con sympathizer, they have the "facts" on their side.

On the other hand, the neo-con leaders know we're right. They're not stupid. Just evil.

True. And eloquently stated.

To paraphrase Ayn Rand: "You have to define your terms."

As to the neo-cons... well it depends on WHO you are defining by that term.

If you mean Irving Kristol? Then I agree... Evil.

If you mean the local GOP chairman who "loves Bush" and thus totally believes in the "Iraw War" -- probably more stupid (actually I would even say "ignorant" and deceived) than actually fully evil.

But of course that is me giving them the benefit of the doubt... and thinking that they (like me) have the capacity to learn. I certainly could be wrong, and doubtless some of the local types have "sold their souls" just as equally as the Kristols and Bushes.

Mr. Coolidge
05-25-2008, 06:18 PM
Whole thing is just a regurgitation of the whole colonial empire "White Man's Burden" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man's_Burden) -- the BS that the British proposed for why they needed to "rule the world."

Sadly under Woodrow Wilson the American public went temporarily insane and bought into this (for a short period of time)... then they came to their senses and rejected it outright.
Yes, I have read that Woodrow Wilson and even Teddy Roosevelt before him believed that it was their moral duty to "bring civilization to the savage brown peoples" of the world--almost a direct quote.

Mr. Coolidge
05-25-2008, 06:32 PM
I've pondered that transition -- from seeing "Lady Liberty" everywhere, to the point that we now name Aircraft Carriers and Submarines after Presidents who are STILL LIVING -- it's the proverbial equivalent of the difference between Greece and the later Roman Empire. {One wonders how long it will be before an American President has the literal gall to have HIS OWN image placed upon a coin or currency or public statue while he is still in office. When (and if) that happens, will be the marker of the absolute END of the last vestige of our "Republic."}
Another great point! You are on a roll, sir. :cool:

klamath
05-25-2008, 07:06 PM
You understand that this is REALLY just them doing a psychological "projection" of their OWN innate personal inner evil.

Seriously, think about it.

If you know that YOU are unfaithful, promiscuous, etc. then you tend to inherently relieve your own guilt by believing that EVERYONE DOES IT. But that leads to only TWO possible outcomes... either you therefore SANCTION it, or you try your best (via force, politics, etc) to restrict and CONTROL it.

However, if you are NOT so tempted or afflicted -- and/or you do have solid control over your own such "passions" -- then (and only then) are you likely to believe that your fellow man can (and will) be able (in general) to have equal self-disciplined control.

So, the argument I have frequently made to various "prudes" and "scare-mongers" is to question their own past and/or current status vis-a-vis whatever thing it is they are in a panic over. Normally their protest and denials are so vehement that it is virtual proof of their hypocrisy.



It comes down to this: Do you HOPE others are like yourself? Or do you FEAR it?


.

Very well put.

jon_perez
05-25-2008, 08:39 PM
So whenever I'm arguing with a typical McCain or Giuliani Republican, or even some of the more left Democrats (I say left because that's what neocons are, liberal) their typical argument for justification for what we do around the world is simply that "it has to be done." That what we do around the world keeps the world in check. That what we're doing is necessary for restraining man. That the law must fall silent in times of war for the better of the world. This is the basic argument I've gotten from nearly all of the neocons that I've debated. And it's really beginning to bug me, because it's just such warped logic. Does anyone know of any good responses to such a response? That what we do around the world, as the current superpower, is 'necessary' for mankind, likewise for the next superpower?Nothing but simply power gone to their head.

They seem to have forgotten the ideals [of a republic] that the United States were founded upon and which were [supposedly] responsible for the great prosperity and way of life its people enjoy. The US did not become stronger because it aimed at becoming an empire. It did so because it provided an environment where people could accomplish and achieve their best. Self-development rather than projection of external power. When the politicians start to steer the goal of the State towards dominating others, that is when wars start. Ron Paul absolutely has a point when he asks "how can the US call itself a superpower and yet be so insecure that it has to start all these wars all over the world?"

In this age where technology has given us so much prosperity and way way more than what we need to survive, why do we still find the goal of world peace so paradoxically elusive? Perhaps we should look to what they are teaching in Political Science classes. The elite who determine the policies for the most powerful countries in the world are educated intellectuals, and these elites currently in charge have been subscribing to the wrong philosophies (Straussian supposedly for the neocons), toxic (not merely intoxicating) ones.

Once you are able to see through all the scaremongering and rationalizing of policies, you will realize that it is simply people in charge of the State gone drunk with power, trying to enlarge and strengthen the State for its own sake, at the expense of the people's liberties and using the money from their pocketbooks. It seems that more enlightened ideals such as those of preserving a republic have been swept under the rug and discarded as being outmoded or old-fashioned. These have to be revived and put in the intellectual spotlight.

That, I believe, is a big part of what the Ron Paul Revolution is all about, not the presidency per se, but a battle for mindshare - an intellectual battle - regarding what foundational values, policies and philosophies should guide the governance of the most powerful (but currently the most neurotic, it seems...) nation on earth.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-26-2008, 09:59 AM
This may seem like an off-beat answer, but it joined in with my recent re-reading of an obscure but excellent book by C.S. Forester (of Horatio Hornblower series fame) but entitled "The Captain from Connecticut" (of all things, about an American ship captain in 1812)...

...and (where this connects) is that in the text one runs across his repeated references (via the main character) to the "understood" American Pantheon of pagan-like "gods" -- in the form of "Liberty" and "Providence" (as well as the "minor" ones... the various "virtues" Prosperity, Frugality, Chastity, Charity, etc.)


And it again made me reflect that during that early period of American history, such words were always Capitalized and frequently referred to in a way that "personified" or "anthropomorphized" them as either "gods" (or at least a form of "angelic beings") in an almost Greek-Pantheon type way.

You see abundant evidence of this in the writing of the time in certain phrases "Liberty only give her gifts to the vigilent/brave/stouthearted" etc. Certainly Poor Richard and other writings of Franklin (and Paine et al) are filled with such things. And they are reflected on by various "foreigners" as well, such as Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" (and of course the already cited obscure C.S. Forester book).

That there was a "real" aspect to this personification is obvious in the coinage and the various sculptures (striding Lady Liberty, etc) atop buildings, of the time, which taper off only after the Civil War. The "Lady Liberty" in the form of the hollow statue donated by France in the late 1800's was only ONE such personification, and perhaps a belated one at that.


But -- and here is where we get to the meat of the matter -- over time, it seems that that "original pantheon" of wholly abstract concepts personified was replaced by an entirely different pantheon.

Beginning with Washington, and adding in Franklin, and later Jefferson, Adams, and even Madison... the pantheon of "virtues" was replaced by a pantheon of mythologized "founding fathers" -- the ultimate blasphemy, of course, being Mount Rushmore and the inclusion of Lincoln and T. Roosevelt (who was dead LESS than a decade at the time the dynamiting began -- one is almost surprised that FDR didn't have the hubris to have his own image added in alongside the others while he was yet alive!) After that, of course the heads and names of ex-Presidents began appearing on everything from coins to ships.

I've pondered that transition -- from seeing "Lady Liberty" everywhere, to the point that we now name Aircraft Carriers and Submarines after Presidents who are STILL LIVING -- it's the proverbial equivalent of the difference between Greece and the later Roman Empire. {One wonders how long it will be before an American President has the literal gall to have HIS OWN image placed upon a coin or currency or public statue while he is still in office. When (and if) that happens, will be the marker of the absolute END of the last vestige of our "Republic."}


And concurrent with THAT change was the change in how American's thought -- both of ourselves and the rest of the world. America was no longer the country smiled upon by a pantheon of personified "deities" of Providence, Liberty, Equality, etc -- but rather it was somehow "Democracy" UNpersonified in anything other than a gun or a "President" who was to somehow dictate terms to the greater world...

And it has progressed so FAR that even those of us who are attempting to return to that "Spirit of '76" see ourselves more as the inheritors of the pantheon of "founding fathers" in the sense of Mt. Rushmore heads -- than we do as the "children" of that personified pantheon of Liberty, Providence, Freedom, Equality.


Indeed we have gone so FAR from that, that most of the people reading this will have only the vaguest idea (if any) of what the heck I am even talking about.


But, to get back to this relevance to your point... in the early days of the US, these were the way in which the "self evident and inalienable truths" were seen and spread... it wasn't simply some "technocratic" implementation of a democratically elected system of government... but rather the "personified" ideals of Liberty, et al. And THAT is what we seemed to have entirely lost all perception or even awareness of... that "mind-set" capable of thinking of these things not as simply un-embodied abstract "concept" words (with technical definitions) -- but as literal "embodied" truths.

In losing that... we've lost everything.

(And for those who say "Bah... Statues of Pagan Gods" ...well, like it or not, we're surrounded by pagan God statues anyway... but now they are the totally INANE ... "Santa Claus" and "Frosty the Snowman" -- not to mention "Snoopy" and "Garfield" -- "Barbie" the "American Girl Dolls" and "GI Joe" -- all images and "statuary" that connote nothing, convey NOTHING, but are just as pagan and at least as blasphemous. And on our coins instead of "ideals" and "virtues" we have enshrined a bunch of politicians, most of whom couldn't keep their pants on, or their hands out of the till... and we are diminished by it all.) </SOAPBOX>

Our founding fathers concluded that the power in the ideal of the greater Self Evident and Inalienable truths superceded the power of a real corrupt tyranny. The subtlety expressed here is how the American system is not one based on a political science of moving people around, like Marxism for example, but a system based on the concrete truths established through the scientific reasoning of "natural laws." While Marxism theorized the possibility of "becoming" citizens, our founding fathers established "being" citizens.

So the roots of our government go deep as they follow the unique reasoning developed out of the ancient Greek philosophers and the Christian philosophers who later followed after them.

Rightfully or wrongfully, Plato's dialectical "Theory of the Forms" were used by the Christian philosopher St. Augustine to establish a foundation for a new Christian religion. His purpose was to better define the contents of the bible by seperating them into formal and informal contents. One example of this seperation was the development of the "H"oly "Spirit" which was distinguished by a capitalized "S" and that of the "h"uman "spirit" which was not.

In his dialogue "Symposium," Plato depicts how Socrates developed the informal, carnal idea of "beauty" which was expressed in a lower case "b" to that of a formal, more inward "Beauty" which was express with a "B." Therefore the idea of "Platonic love."

Ultimately, Plato reasoned paradoxically that the formal, ideal world beyond ours is more real than the practical informal world we experience with our senses. In other words, our real, approachable, informal world is but an animated product created out of an ideal, unapproachable, formal world -- The Forms.

So, a greater sovereign power is established in the ideal of the self evident, inalienable truths than is established in the corrupt power of a tyrant king.

This is why our founding fathers and others during that time experimented with the development of an "i"nformal reality to that of a greater "F"ormal ideality.

This is also why I depict the greater power of "T"he "P"eople as a "C"ivil "P"urpose while I depict the informal, corrupt power of "t"yranny as menial "l"egal "p"recedents in comparison.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-26-2008, 11:10 AM
Very well put.

Very well put?
First off, the idea of "psychological projection" is not a science.
Secondly, psychology didn't exist while our founding fathers were creating the greatest government in the world. In fact, the age of epistemology based on the ideas of Immanuel Kant were just beginning.
Thirdly, one can argue that the psycho babble of the cognizant sciences have grown to endanger our system of government.
And, finally, because these cognizant sciences don't have limited numbers of theories like the natural sciences but seemingly endless methodologies instead, this would be good reason to reestablish them as arts.