[matis]

I've just read a short history and brilliant analysis of leftist politics, especially in the United States.

This article describes the values, motives, world-view and modus operendi of the exceedingly dangerous movement in our midst.

They are dedicated to carving us into their ideal, "socialist man (and woman)" that the Soviets spilled so much blood working for.

You're worried about our gun rights? Read this and see what may really await us.

Warning: it's a bit long -- but this guy is brilliant and I think you'll you'll be glad you read this article.

Matis


Taking On The Neo-Coms, Part I
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 1, 2003


(Part II: Neo-Communism Made Simple, will run tomorrow in our Friday weekend edition)

How to identify the political left? Current usage refers to everyone left of center as "liberal." Yet what are currently identified liberals liberal about except hard drugs and sex? In regard to everything else, they are determined to intervene, regulate and control your life, or redistribute your income. Obviously, when terror-hugging radicals like Ramsey Clark and Communist hacks like Angela Davis are referred to as "liberals" – as they routinely are – the obfuscation works to their advantage and against the interests of veracity and democracy. The term "liberal" should be reserved for those who occupy the center of the political spectrum; those to the left should be referred to as leftists, which is what they are.

This is the easy part of rectifying the political lexicon. There is another more difficult aspect, however, which is how to identify the "hard" left, which is to say, those who are dedicated enemies of America and its purposes? In practice, it easy to identify such leftists and it is not difficult to describe them. They are people who identify with hostile regimes like North Korea, Cuba, and China, or – more commonly -- believe the United States to be the imperialist guardian of a world system that radicals must defeat before they can establish "social justice" on the planet.

Adherents of this anti-American creed variously describe themselves as "Marxists," "anti-globalists," "anti-war activists" or, more generally, "progressives." Their secular worldview holds claims that America is responsible for reaction, oppression, and exploitation across the globe and causes them to regard this country as the moral equivalent of militant Islam’s "Great Satan." This explains the otherwise incomprehensible practical alliances that individuals who claim to be avatars of social justice make with Islamo-fascists like Saddam Hussein.

Among the intellectual leaders of this left are Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Gore Vidal, Edward Said and Cornel West; among its figureheads, Angela Davis and Ramsey Clark; among its cultural icons, Tim Robbins, Barbara Kingsolver, Arundhhti Roy and Michael Moore; among its political leaders, Ralph Nader and the heads of the three major "peace" organizations (Leslie Cagan, Brian Becker and Clark Kissinger); among its electoral organizations, the Green Party and the Peace and Freedom Party; among its elected officials Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-California) and Congressman Dennis Kucinch (D-Ohio); among its organizations, the misnamed Center for Constitutional Rights and the National Lawyers Guild; among its publications and media institutions, The Nation, Z Magazine, The Progressive, Counterpunch, Pacifica radio, Indymedia.org and commondreams.org. Like the Communist Party in the heyday of the Soviet empire, the influence of the hard left –intellectually and organizationally – extends far beyond the institutions, organizations and publications it controls.

Yet what to call them? One of the hard left’s survival secrets has been its ability to embargo attempts to identify it by labeling those who do "red-baiters" and "witch-hunters," as though even to name it is to persecute it. These same people, on the other hand, think nothing of labeling their opponents "racists" and "fascists," or calling the President of the United States a "Nazi" puppet of the oil cartel. Yet their defense strategy is highly effective in the tolerant democracy they are determined to destroy. I myself have been called a "red-baiter" and "McCarthyite" for pointing out that the current "peace" organizations like International ANSWER and Not In Our Name are fronts for the Workers World Party – a Marxist-Leninist vanguard that identifies with North Korea -- and the Revolutionary Communist Party, a Maoist sect. The facts are obvious and unarguable, but their implications are unpleasant and therefore suspect.

Nothwithstanding this difficulty, a more significant concern is that the term "Communist" in the context of the contemporary left can be misleading. While the Communist Party still exists and is even growing, it is a minor player and enjoys nothing approaching its former influence or power in the left. Even in the hard left, the Communist Party USA is only a constituent part of the whole whereas once, along with its front groups, it dominated progressive politics.

In these circumstances, for reasons I will soon make apparent, the best term to describe this left is "neo-communist," or "neo-coms" for short.

The place to begin an understanding of the neo-coms is the period following 1956, when the left sloughed off its Communist shell and became first a "new left" and then what might be called a "post-new left." In my own writings, particularly Radical Son and The Politics of Bad Faith I have shown that the "new left," was in reality no such thing. While starting out as a rejection of Stalinism, by the end of the Sixties the "new left" had devolved into a movement virtually indistinguishable from the Communist predecessor it had claimed to reject. This was as true of its Marxist underpinnings, as its anti-Americanism or its indiscriminate embrace of totalitarian revolutions and revolutionaries abroad.

The new left imploded at the end of the Sixties a victim of its own revolutionary enthusiasms, which led it to pursue a violent politics it could not sustain. America’s withdrawal from Vietnam in the early Seventies, deprived the left of the immediate pretext for its radical agendas. Many of its cadre retired from the "revolution in the streets" they had tried to launch and entered the Democratic Party. Others turned to careers in journalism and teaching, the professions of choice for secular missionaries. Still others took up local agitations and discrete campaigns in behalf of saving the environment, feminist issues and gay rights -- without giving up their radical illusions. In the 1980s, spurred by the Soviet-sponsored "nuclear freeze" campaign and by the "solidarity" movements for Communist forces in Central America, the left began to regroup without formally announcing its re-emergence or proclaiming a new collective identity as its Sixties predecessor had done.

At the end of the decade, the collapse of the Soviet empire ushered in an interregnum of confusion for the left, calling a temporary halt to this radical progress. In the Soviet debacle "revolutionary" leftists confronted the catastrophic failure of everything they had believed and fought for during the previous 70 years. Even those radicals who recognized the political failures of the Soviet regime, believe in what Trotksy had called "the gains of October" – the superior forces of socialist production. But the leftist faith proved impervious to this rebuttal by historical events. Insulated by its religious devotion to the progressive idea, the left survived the refutation of its socialist dreams. Instead of acknowledging their wrongheaded commitment to the socialist cause, they looked on the demise of what they had once hailed as "the first socialist state," as no more than an albatross that providence had lifted from their shoulders.

In short, having defended the indefensible for 70 years, they were suddenly relieved that they would no longer have to defend it. Turning their backs on their own past, they pretended it was someone else’s. They said, "The collapse of socialism doesn’t prove anything because it wasn’t real socialism. Real socialism hasn’t been tried." This subterfuge rescued them from having to make apologies for abetting regimes that had killed tens of millions and enslaved tens of millions more. Broken eggs with no omelet to show for it -- not a workable socialist result. Better yet, there was no need to acknowledge that the country whose efforts they had opposed and whose actions they had condemned had liberated a billion people from the most oppressive empire the world had ever seen. They had no need for second thoughts about what they had done. They just went on to the next destruction, the newest incarnation of the radical cause.

This act of cosmic bad faith was the foundation of the left’s revival in the decade that followed. It was the necessary premise of its re-emergence as leader of the anti-globalization and "antiwar" movements that came at the end of the Nineties and the beginning of the millennium. The hard left was now ready to resurrect its internal war against America at home and abroad.

If one looks at almost any aspect of this left – its self-identified intellectual lineage (Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx, Heidegger, Fanon, Gramsci -- in sum, the totalitarian tradition), its analytic model (hierarchy and oppression), its redemptive agenda (social justice as state-enforced leveling) and its enemies – imperialist America and the American "ruling class" -- one would be hard put to find a scintilla of difference with the Communist past. Of course leftists themselves will have none of this. Most of them will proclaim their anti-Stalinism (even as they embrace its practices); and will not defend the Communist systems that have in any case collapsed. But so what? The Soviet rulers denounced Stalin. Were they any less Communists for that?

It seems appropriate, therefore, to call the unreconstructed hard-liners, "neo-communists" --a term that accurately identifies their negative assaults on American capitalism and their anti-American "internationalist" agendas. It may be objected that the term "neo-communist" does not describe a group, which itself identifies with the term, but then neither does "neo-conservative." There is, for example, no current movement calling itself "neo-conservative," nor do the individuals so designated refer to their own ideas as "neo-conservative." "Neo-conservative" is, in fact, a label that was imposed by the left on a group of former Democrats, loosely grouped around Senator "Scoop" Jackson who left the party fold at the end of the Seventies to join and support the Reagan Administration. It was accepted out of necessity for a while, because the left so dominates the political culture that resisting it was futile. But it is no longer used by neo-conservatives because, as Norman Podhoretz long ago observed, "neo-conservatism" is indistinguishable from conservatism itself. No "neo-conservative" that I am aware of has challenged Podhoretz’s conclusion. Yet others insist on describing conservatives – particularly those whom they regard as "hard-line" conservatives -- with this label. If the "neo" shoe can be made to fit conservatives, why not the hard-line left?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Horowitz is the author of numerous books including an autobiography, Radical Son, which has been described as “the first great autobiography of his generation,” and which chronicles his odyssey from radical activism to the current positions he holds. Among his other books are The Politics of Bad Faith and The Art of Political War. The Art of Political War was described by White House political strategist Karl Rove as “the perfect guide to winning on the political battlefield.” Horowitz’s latest book, Uncivil Wars, was published in January this year, and chronicles his crusade against intolerance and racial McCarthyism on college campuses last spring. Click here to read more about David





Matis

[CZ-75]

Scum.

[Preacherman]

Matis - very good article. Thanks for posting it.

CZ-75: No, not scum... The tragedy of this situation is that those involved in this movement actually, truly BELIEVE in what they're doing. They are misguided to the point of ludicrousness (perhaps even insanity in some cases), but they really are "true believers", in a religious sense (although most of them have no time for religion whatsoever). They're on a crusade, and they welcome the kind of opposition that calls them "scum", because then they can feel oppressed, and that reinforces their beliefs about the corruption and worthlessness of a system that would allow others to be oppressed.

I submit that the only way to deal with these folks is to keep a very sharp eye on what they're doing and saying, and put as many civilized, democratic roadblocks in their path as we can. Thereafter, ignore them! Don't call them names, don't denigrate them, don't even speak to them - just ignore them. There's nothing more galling to them than to be ignored.

[Wildalaska]

They are also your neighbors, the people down the street, many hardworking, sometimes your friends, family, fellow Americans, who have the right to beleive what they want, just like we do..

Amazing how ppeople talk leftists to task for hurling invective, yet then hurl the same themselves.

WilcivilityisniceAlaska

[BigG]

Fundamentally dishonest, evil people who want to enslave others.

Preacherman: You are describing the enablers, the useful idiots who allow the irretrievably evil ones to do their damage.

[CZ-75]

The tragedy of this situation is that those involved in this movement actually, truly BELIEVE in what they're doing.

So did many of the Nazis.

I'll stand by my assertion.

There's nothing more galling to them than to be ignored.


I'm ahead of the curve, then. I ignore all the ones at work with a vengeance. I don't find this hard b/c, from personal experience, I've found the large majority of folks who openly profess a "liberal" or "progressive" ideology are beneath contempt in their daily behaviors.

I'm guessing pretending to "care" more and being morally superior assuage their troubled consciences. All armchair psychoanalysis on my part, though.

They are also your neighbors, the people down the street, many hardworking, sometimes your friends, family, fellow Americans, who have the right to beleive what they want, just like we do.

And when they act on what they believe, they become criminals. Their ideology couldn't flourish w/o usurping the rights of individuals. What's the difference between taking someone's wallet at gunpoint or having the govt. do it for you?

SteveallwetagainCochran

[Preacherman]

BigG, CZ, don't forget that we're on the same side! I'm not saying these leftists should be allowed to get away with riding their agenda rough-shod over those who don't agree with them. However, in our democratic society, they have the right to believe whatever they wish, and to speak about their beliefs, and to attempt to convince others to join them in supporting their beliefs. If we demand the right to do this with regard to Second Amendment issues, we have to concede the same right to them. It's only when they step outside the law and the Constitution in their efforts that we can justifiably demand that they be stopped.

I accept that there are indeed fundamentally evil and dishonest people in this movement - but then, wouldn't you agree that there are fundamentally evil and dishonest people on "our side" as well? Timothy McVeigh comes to mind... before Oklahoma City, many would have regarded him as a right-wing patriot in the mold of some of our more extreme Founding Fathers! (There was a good article about this some years ago: unfortunately, I can't recall where I saw it. If anyone can post a link, please do.)

In his article, Horowitz does a great job of analyzing the leftists in our midst. I look forward to the second instalment. I will also read an article by a Leftist source describing the rightists in our midst, and try to learn from that too... Balance is important, guys, even if only on the principle of "Know your enemy"!

[Bikeguy]

What are Left-Liberals really? The exact same thing, but with a different presentation, as Right -Conservatives. Make no mistake, they all want to take away your liberty and impose their morality on you.

[Derek Zeanah]

they all want to take away your liberty and impose their morality on you.Yep! The difference is what kinds of control they believe are legitimate. It wouldn't be so bad if one party would dismantle legislation put out by the other party as power shifts, but instead we have a ratcheting effect where we're seeing advances on both fronts with each year, and we never win back ground we lost.

We're just getting squeezed in the middle. :(

[BigG]

Preacherman: Of course we are on the same side, buddy!

Bikeguy: What you wrote is so far from the truth you must consider yourself a libertarian. :neener:

[Khornet]

that the essence of conservatism today is that people should be maximally free to make their own decisions. That used to be liberalism.

Conversely, the essence of today's liberalism is that people should be made to do what's best for them, as determined by the elite enlightened ones like Hillary, Schumer, et. al.

The most vicious tyranny is that which does things to you for your own good.

[Joe Demko]

What are Left-Liberals really? The exact same thing, but with a different presentation, as Right -Conservatives. Make no mistake, they all want to take away your liberty and impose their morality on you.

The difference is what kinds of control they believe are legitimate. It wouldn't be so bad if one party would dismantle legislation put out by the other party as power shifts, but instead we have a ratcheting effect where we're seeing advances on both fronts with each year, and we never win back ground we lost.

I'm with you boys.

[Derek Zeanah]

that the essence of conservatism today is that people should be maximally free to make their own decisions. That used to be liberalism.Unless you're talking about abortion. Or religion (Wicca, anyone?). Or alcohol. Or recreational drug use. Or medicinal drug use. Or pornography. Or language and violence in film/music. Or the right of gays to marry. Or...

I'd argue that the closest thing to an 18th century "liberal" is a libertarian.

Conversely, the essence of today's liberalism is that people should be made to do what's best for them, as determined by the elite enlightened ones like Hillary, Schumer, et. al.Where the "right" is concerned with issues of "pollution," the left is concerned with the best way to spend your money for you (likely on causes you're not in agreement with). Of course, it helps if those nasty right-wingers have less say in the world, and no-one really needs the means to defend themselves against us. We're goooooooooooooood.

The most vicious tyranny is that which does things to you for your own good.Yep, but we're getting it from both sides. That is, in those areas where the democrats and republicans actually disagree...

[BigG]

I'd argue that the closest thing to an 18th century "liberal" is a libertarian. Maybe so, but neither actually exist in nature. They are 1) historical, and 2) a theoretical construct. :neener:

[Bikeguy]

BigG - spoken like a true, blinded right winger. You probably think that the Democratic filibuster to block the nomination of Bush appointees is unconstitutional, yet snickered with delight when the Republicans have done the same thing in the past.

"I think I am right and you are wrong, therefore I am good and you are evil!"

I am a civil libertarian. So is everyone else who believes in the entire Constitution.

[PATH]

I think Mike Savage said it best when he described liberalism as not so much a political persuasion as much as it is a form of mental illness.

Great article.

[Dorrin79]

Big G -

how is a libertarian a theoretical construct?

I agree that the main difference between a lot of conservatives and liberals is merely how they want to control you.

That said, there are some neoconservatives who are basically indistinguishable from libertarians on political issues (even if their ethical systems differ from mine)

[BigG]

how is a libertarian a theoretical construct?

Drop me a line when the first one wins one of the 535 seats on the hill or one of the 50 governorships. Then it will be a historical reality like an eighteenth century liberal.

[BigG]

a true, blinded right winger Mebbe so, but as long as I've paid taxes I've abhorred the use they have been put to by the Democrats far more than the worst of the Republicans. Third party antics like Perot gave us the likes of Clampett, er Clinton.

[Chris Rhines]

The only difference between liberals and conservatives are the specific groups that they want to use the power of the state to destroy.

Needless to say, many liberals and conservatives object to this observation, true though it be.

- Chris

[BigG]

Chris, your observation could well be applied to the individual as to which persons/groups he would like to destroy if he were free to exercise his will. Govt is necessary to curb EVERYBODY'S impulses. That's why it is a NECESSARY EVIL.

[Bikeguy]

Mebbe so, but as long as I've paid taxes I've abhorred the use they have been put to by the Democrats far more than the worst of the Republicans. Third party antics like Perot gave us the likes of Clampett, er Clinton.

Taxes are just one of a myriad of issues. And if you think Republicans are responsible with your tax dolars, you are not paying much attention. They may not throw it around like Dems do, but they sure as heck like to spend it whenever it suits their fancy. I sure have not seen a bunch of huge budget cuts from this Congress. As a matter of fact, they seem to want to throw money at things like a Federal Amber Alert and new Federal Kiddie Porn laws. Things the the FEDERAL government does not have any busines messing with anyway.

And if taxes are your main concern, then you should be a Libertarian.

By the way, I am not a Libertarian, nor Dem., nor Rep.

[Chris Rhines]

Curious... BigG, were you free to indulge your impulses, which groups would you destroy?

Me, I wouldn't destroy anyone. Save, of course, for those who would attack me without provocation.

I don't need government to restrain my impulses. If other people do, that is their problem. They have no moral right to impose their vision of a perfect society on me.

- Chris

[BigG]

With good intentions we will all begin as tolerant, Chris. When somebody crosses us, cuts in front of us, decides to help themselves from our goods, we will become a little more intolerant.

We are not talking about YOU or ME individually we are talking about whenever TWO or more are gathered - GROUPS. Then we have to agree on rules. Since nobody agrees there needs to be an arbiter so people do not come to blows or worse. For better or worse everybody needs government, some to restrain them and others to keep predators from preying on them.

[Pendragon]

If I was free to impose my impulses, I would make putting cilantro in any food a capital crime punishable by summary execution.

But thats it, I swear! ;)

[Sir Galahad]

Derek, your statement regarding religious freedom under the Right/Conservatives is somewhat, well, broad and makes an assumption that one or two remarks by Jesse Helms defines an entire belief system. For the record, my wife and I are both Pagans (yes, that's capital "P" Pagans.:D ) We are both conservative Republicans. To date, no fellow Republican has tried to deny us our right to believe as we wish. To date, no Republican has told us we HAVE to believe in Christianity. My wife and I are the ones you're speaking of being possibly "repressed" by the Right and we'd like to say, thank you, but we are not repressed. We're doing just fine, thanks.:D

Now, just because Jesse Helms says something doesn't make it true for a whole belief. Just like everything that Starhawk:rolleyes: says does not define the entire spectrum of Pagan religion. In fact, many liberals think that if you're a Pagan, you HAVE to be a leftist Democrat. So who's pressuring who?

Just wanted to speak up and say that we Pagan Republicans are doing just fine. Thanks for your concern, though.:D

[Derek Zeanah]

Just wanted to speak up and say that we Pagan Republicans are doing just fine. Thanks for your concern, though.Glad you're happy with your party. Wiccan friends of mine in a "conservative" part of the country (Birmingham, AL) just prior to clinton would have disagreed with you in very strong terms (the local "alternative" bookstore was the only store fined under the blue laws that regulated commerce on Sundays -- seemed the local officials weren't as offended by Sears selling clothes on SUnday though). I live in Florida now and after listening to "community leaders" educate me on what an evil person I am for following Islam, I choose to believe we're not much better off. Then there's my sister's best friend who moved from So Cal to Vidalia, GA and was brought up to the front of her history class so the rest of the class could see what a Jew looked like...

Most of the "right" I see down here is of the Jesus-fearin' kind. For the most part, they're really nice folks. That is, until they find out that you're not the Jesus-fearin' type (try walking out of church's Sunday dinner after the blessing was offered and coming back with a big mac because it was a "dear jesus" sort of blessing, then try to explain...)

I'm glad things are better 1,500 miles west. :)

[Sir Galahad]

Well, I got some news for ya, Derek. A LOT of those folks in the South you're referring to are actually Democrats (heard the term "Dixiecrat", or "Southern Democrat"?) Some of them have never forgotten that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and will not vote Republican. Some of those folks are still fighting the Civil War.

Some other things are that you will find prejudice anywhere you go and it's not limited by race, creed, color, or religion. EVERY race and belief has bigots. For me, the worst problems were with skinheads. Most of those guys don't even know what a polling place is. I think you're confusing the Far Right for the Right in general. To me, the Far Right and Far Left meet in the middle in the back. Extremists are extremists whether they're Right, Left, Libertarian, Whig, or what-have-you. That's why they're called "extremists".:D

You know, there are some Wiccans that tend to walk around with some very in-your-face attitudes about their religion. I'm not saying that's what your friend was doing, but some people see only those, yep, extremists. People that run around with hubcap-sized Pentacles around their neck blaming every Christian they see for something that happened over 500 years ago (i.e. "The Burning Times".) Of course, it's convenient for them to forget that plenty of ancient Pagans have just as much blood on their hands. Hey, we're all human. Everyone---and all faiths---have made mistakes. Some of them very horrifying ones. Truth be known, my wife and I actually have more in common with many Christians than we do with some Pagans. We're not Wiccans, by the way. I am not offended if a Christian discusses his/her faith with me. It doesn't bother me. I'm not going to melt if a Christian says a prayer in front of me. I respect their right to do so and show respect by being silent during the prayer. It's called filial piety. Each chooses the God to whom he feels closest. Without getting into religion here (though I already have, I'm afraid), that's the way we live. Nonetheless, I have never heard George W. Bush say anything that leads me to believe he is going to repress my wife and I because we follow a different God than he does. Just because he prays to his in public does not offend us. In public prayers, who actually knows Who anyone is praying to anyway? Again, each chooses the God to whom he feels closest.

Anyway, you'll find that there are actually quite a lot of people among Republicans that don't fit the stereotype of your "average Republican". :D

[cordex]

edited because I needed to reread a post better

[Derek Zeanah]

A LOT of those folks in the South you're referring to are actually Democrats (heard the term "Dixiecrat", or "Southern Democrat"?) Some of them have never forgotten that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and will not vote Republican. Some of those folks are still fighting the Civil War.Well, what Lincoln/Sherman/Et Al did can never really be forgotten or forgiven... :neener:

You're right, and if I said "republican" then I mis-spoke. I'm talking about those who generally refer to themselves as being on the "right." No digs against either wing here either -- everyone has the chance to make up their own minds about issues. My point above (since lost) is that "the right," as a group, is no less controlling than "the left." They just pursue different issues.

[cordex]

Okay, going to rephrase what I was trying to say before.
Most of the "right" I see down here is of the Jesus-fearin' kind. For the most part, they're really nice folks. That is, until they find out that you're not the Jesus-fearin' type (try walking out of church's Sunday dinner after the blessing was offered and coming back with a big mac because it was a "dear jesus" sort of blessing, then try to explain...)
If you don't want to sit through what you describe as "dear jesus" blessings, maybe you shouldn't go to a christian church's dinner party, eh?

[Pendragon]

I like the thread about Fascism. The test was originally designed to try and identify "Authoritarian Personalities"

Personally, I have a fetish interest in Meyers Briggs personality typing (based on the classical "plegmatic", "sanguine", etc but extended)

In this system, four dimensions are used to describe the aspects of personality and temperment: http://keirsey.com/pumII/dimensions.html

The fourth dimension: http://keirsey.com/pumII/jp.html describes a persons preference for either judgement and scheduling "J" or perception and probing "P". It is my theory that the J factor is a strong component in the authoritarian personality.

I come from a conservative christian family of almost all "J" types - who all tend to be authoritarian. Myself, my brother and my wife are the only "P" types and we are much more libertarian than the rest.

It is said that the "P" factor seeks to understand people where the "J" factor wants to classify people.

Anyway - thats probably pretty wacky to some of you, but its a pretty popular theory for understanding temperment and personality.

[Khornet]

took that test during my Navy Leadership course. Came out as "ISTJ". How does that square with my Fascism score of 2.9?

[BigG]

Derek, those types you noted are more the glassy-eyed conditioned Southern type. Calling them a rep is a stretch. Their minister decides who they vote for, imho. My definition of a rep- and I agree it don't fit em all - is somebody who thinks for himself and votes accordingly.

[CZ-75]

If you don't want to sit through what you describe as "dear jesus" blessings, maybe you shouldn't go to a christian church's dinner party, eh?

Maybe he was invited. If so, politeness and hospitality would dictate giving a blessing to God, rather than Jesus, so a muslim could eat the blessed food.

Common sense, from my non-religious viewpoint, however, would dictate doing this anyway. Why go to the #2 guy when you can ask #1 directly?

[cordex]

Maybe he was invited. If so, politeness and hospitality would dictate giving a blessing to God, rather than Jesus, so a muslim could eat the blessed food.
I don't know all the specifics of the situation.
However:
For the most part, they're really nice folks. That is, until they find out that you're not the Jesus-fearin' type
(bold emphasis mine. italics original)
Perhaps they were not informed as to what Derek's particular religious requirements were.

As for myself, if I decide go to a religous oriented dinner (or the home of someone I know to be devout beleivers in their faith), I will smile and accept whatever blessings the hosts/hostesses choose to offer. Where the food does not conflict with my own dietary choices, I will eat it. The food that I consume can be blessed by/through me however I am comfortable. If I am not in the mood to sit through a "dear jesus" or "dear allah" or "dear yaweh" or "dear god" or "dear vishnu" or "dear great spirit" or "dear buddha" prayer and eat the food thereby "blessed", I'll politely decline the invitation to whatever church has asked me to consume their food.
Common sense, from my non-religious viewpoint, however, would dictate doing this anyway. Why go to the #2 guy when you can ask #1 directly?
*shrug*
Frankly, I don't care who they pray to. Again, if you don't want to eat food blessed in the name of some diety - or that diety's kids - you probably shouldn't go to a dinner with a church group that worships that diety.

[Chris Rhines]

When somebody crosses us, cuts in front of us, decides to help themselves from our goods, we will become a little more intolerant.

Curiouser and curioser, said Alice...

BigG, do you have such an impulse control problem that you risk becoming violent when someone cuts in front of you in the buffet line? If so, perhaps you do need a government. I don't need one.

There are people out there who are really, truly incapable of self-governance. I think that we (I'm breaking my own rule here and refering to collective society,) that we should do everything possible to encourage this subspecies of humanity to die out.

We are not talking about YOU or ME individually we are talking about whenever TWO or more are gathered - GROUPS. Groups are nothing more than collections of individuals. The same modes of thought apply.

Then we have to agree on rules. Since nobody agrees there needs to be an arbiter so people do not come to blows or worse. Sure, fine, make your rules. If you want to subject yourself to someone else's idea of correct behaivor, feel free. Just don't try to rope me into it.

For better or worse everybody needs government, some to restrain them and others to keep predators from preying on them. You still have yet to give me any logical reason why I need any government beyond that of my own mind. (And of course, you won't give me any such reason in the future, becasue baby, there isn't one!)

- Chris

[Sir Galahad]

Derek, it's like this:

You certainly wouldn't define the whole of Islam by the actions of al Quiada or Hezbollah, would you?

Neither can you define the entire Right by the actions of a few extremists.

[Derek Zeanah]

Neither can you define the entire Right by the actions of a few extremists.Nor am I trying to do so.

Here's a review: in response to the statement that the "right" was about freedom and the "left" is about control, I offered the following:
Unless you're talking about abortion. Or religion (Wicca, anyone?). Or alcohol. Or recreational drug use. Or medicinal drug use. Or pornography. Or language and violence in film/music. Or the right of gays to marry. Or...I'll stand by that. In my experience (and experiences relayed by friends) this represents the viewpoint of the stereotypical self-described "right-wing conservative."

You're welcome to disagree, but I'm not the only one who thinks that the "right" is also about control. The issues they promote are just different from those of the left. I wish I hadn't mentioned religion because the "r" word is almost guaranteed to cause thread drift...

If you believe you're representative of the "right," and that one of your core beliefs is that each man should be free to live as he chooses, then it's worth some serious thought as to whether you are willing to let others have that freedom. Can they create music with naughty words in them? How about watching movies where people show their naughty bits (and sometimes let them touch for reasons other than procreation)? How about if other men decide to marry each other? What if the old woman down the street can control her pain by smoking weeds she grows in her garage? What if it's some 25-year-old who wants to smoke the same weeds? What if they want to publish books that present a worldview different than yours? What if the local school is going to read a book about Holden Caulfield? What if that other guy wants to practice a religion you disagree with? What if some of your neighbors want to make the statement that they don't like what the US is becoming, and choose to burn a flag? What if they want to hang Bush/Clinton/Whoever in effigy? What if that guy makes a mistake, pays the price society has determined he needs to pay, and now wants the right to protect his family from criminals? What if he believes that it's prudent to put his 14-year-old daughter on birth control? What if he wants to teach his 14-year-old son about peyote, vision quests, and the religious background of his people? What if he and his wife agree that she should make extra money by sharing her naughty bits with other men? What if he wants to share his naughty bits with other men for money too? What if...

(Note I didn't mention abortion this time -- another topic destined to cause thread drift).

It goes on. There are a number of issues where the mouthpieces of the "right" represent anything but "freedom." I'm often amused by the ideas those on the "left" (like my sister, hard-core leftist out on the left coast trying to make the world a better place) designed to make the world a better place. At the same time, of late I've become more and more conscious of what those on the "right" advocate as well. Leftists seem a little out of touch with reality, believing that they can ignore human nature and history in search of a better world. Those on the right seem to want a better world through increased economic freedom, increased military might, and increased control in private matters (arguably also ignoring history and human nature). They mean well too.

{deleted}

I believe that it's sufficient to say that if you truly want to live your life unmolested by others, in a "free" society, neither the "left" or the "right" are going to be comfortable with that...

Edited to remove yet another comment likely to cause thread drift.

[BigG]

Derek, I think you've put your finger on a lot of inconsistencies across the spectrum. Everybody is a hypocrite. Period. Even a [fillintheblank] is smug in their little holier than thou opinion of themselves. :(

[Derek Zeanah]

Derek, I think you've put your finger on a lot of inconsistencies across the spectrum. Everybody is a hypocrite. Period. Even a [fillintheblank] is smug in their little holier than thou opinion of themselves. I'm not even trying to say that, and I don't know that I'd even try to make that argument. I believe that most of us probably qualify as a hypocrite as the standards we try to hold ourselves to are those that take most of us a lifetime to reach...

What I ways trying to say (and I must be doing a bad job of it) is that, in general, people want to control other people. "wouldn't it be better if..." is something everyone thinks occasionally, and it's an important question to ask yourself or your peers. The problem comes in when you try and apply that idea to everyone else via the use of force. Mandating prayer in school probably qualifies, as does prohibition, and confiscatory taxes that enable government to do "good things" with the money.

Everyone thinks they know how to make the world a better place. In practice, though, the government that strives to leave its citizens alone as much as possible seems to be the best system we've ever devised. Theocracies and communism are both significantly worse in practice than a government that strives to do as little as possible -- both make individuals subservient to a ruling class (in one case it's to guide the country by abiding by God's will, in the other it's to make decisions that benefit society as a whole) and invariably turn to tyrrany.

I agree with the original statement that the "left's" problem is that they seek a more controlled society that's off in the direction of (social | commun)ism and that by definition that's bad. I just wanted to point out that the "right" wants to move society in another direction, where you might keep more of your money but you'll be less able to spend it the way you like. And by the way, that frightens a lot of those on the left. I was surprised how much.

[Sir Galahad]

Yes, Derek, "what if". What if a woman in Saudi Arabia wants to drive a car? What if a man in Egypt wants to be a homosexual? What if a man in Saudi Arabia wants to drink alcohol? Or smoke weed? What if a man in Saudi Arabia wants to be a Wiccan? You can point out the "what ifs" of the Right and I can point out the "what ifs" for Muslim countries. At the end of the day, we'll be "what iffing" until doomsday. But, see, many in the Muslim faith to which you belong do the very things you are criticizing the Right for. Not consistant, in my opinion. Not to turn the thread to religion, but it has relevance to the discussion. It's easy to point out the "what ifs" , Derek, but theocracies are corrupt no matter who's running them. The difference is, here, we're not beheading the people we disagree with. As far as the content of music, you'll have to ask Tipper Gore about that. She's a Republican, right?

:D

[BigG]

What I was trying to say ...in general, people want to control other people.

I must be doing a bad job of communicating because I was agreeing with you. When I called people (in general) hypocrites, I meant people that claim to be doing one thing while secretly doing another. Politics is mostly about controlling others while letting yourself do whatever you are particularly turned on by.

The laissez faire system that has run America for most of its history just pisses lots of people off. They can't stand to see other people enjoying themselves, getting ahead, and minding their own business.

[Derek Zeanah]

You can point out the "what ifs" of the Right and I can point out the "what ifs" for Muslim countries. At the end of the day, we'll be "what iffing" until doomsday.See my comments above about theocracies.

But, see, many in the Muslim faith to which you belong do the very things you are criticizing the Right for. Not consistant, in my opinion.Well, if "muslim" the way I use it meant "practices the same as arab muslims, and gives the 'sayings of the prophet' equal weight to the Qur'an, then you'd probably be right. As is, you're not. "Muslim" pretty much means "one who follows Islam." Islam is pretty much "submission to the will of God."

I'll be happy to discuss my personal beliefs, but we can do it in the PM system so as not to go way off topic here. My prediction? You'll be surprised.

Derek, but theocracies are corrupt no matter who's running them.Bingo!

"Morality" is something each person has to come to grips with; using the state to enforce your particular set of morals is tyrranical. Does this mean we agree?

[Derek Zeanah]

The laissez faire system that has run America for most of its history just pisses lots of people off. They can't stand to see other people enjoying themselves, getting ahead, and minding their own business.Heh. We were agreeing. :o

[Sir Galahad]

Yes, we agree in a roundabout fashion. I find people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (and Jesse Helms) to be along the same bent as Torquemada and Matthew Hopkins WitchFinder General. But they're not running the government. And you'll find most of the neo-Puritans are on the Left these days using the "health issues" and "children" issues to restrict everything from soda to tobacco to "junk food" to ammo to SUVs. If you read National Review, or do a search on their online magazine, you'll find that a large number of conservatives are actually in favor of drug legalization or, at the least, decriminalization.

[dustind]

So i guess i am one of the few pro freedom types :fire: :banghead:

Why cant more people leave others the :cuss: alone. :banghead:

Both sides are evil, for lack of a better word. IMHO, the right is the better of the two, because atleast they will let you keep some of your money.

Good article about the left. I have studied them too, they never take human nature or history into account, and IMHO are way out of touch with reality. Example, the war with Iraq, many of them think we are fighting the people (all of the civilians) of Iraq too. They also don't seem to care about reality, example the .50 ban.

www.democratunderground.com to see them in action.

[HBK]

Left-liberals are nothing more than socialists.

[goon]

Well, according to the world's smallest political quiz, I am sort of a left wing libertarian, or a right wing one. It depends on what I am thinking about when I take the quiz. Either way, my philosophy is that you should be able to live your life the way that you want in peace without any interference.
Either way, I am sure that I am a libertarian. I have been called worse.
A true leftist would only really concern themselves with government as far as it affects the economy. They would pretty much let you be otherwise.
The right wing would pretty much only worry about restricting your personal life to what they see as moral behavior, and let you be on other issues.
I would say that most of the so called left wingers that we see are really left authoritarian.
Bear in mind, I am just one more jack-a$$ on the internet, so don't take my opinions to heart.

[goon]

Then there's my sister's best friend who moved from So Cal to Vidalia, GA and was brought up to the front of her history class so the rest of the class could see what a Jew looked like...

Just goes to show you that some people are idiots no matter what they call themselves, or where they are.
I apologize for the mistreatment that has been dealt against you, your Wiccan friends, and your sister's friend by so called "christians".
People like that are the reason that there are ethnic, racial, and religious issues in this country, and in the world.
Those things are only issues if you make them issues.
I just wish that other people could see that.

[HBK]

Libertarian seems definately the way to go, but hard to get elected.

[dustind]

people who don't like libertarians seem to not like them because they look at it at the most extreme ends. If we look at dems or repubs at the most extreme ends they are worse, imho. libertarians are way too upfront about who and what they are, and scare people off.

Me, i am a card carrying libertarian:cool:

[MicroBalrog]

Hey, I'm a Liberal, and I ain't any of those terrible things?:rolleyes:

[ravinraven]

We have a hotbed [or is that 'coldbed' this far north?] of the super left up here. Of course they hang out in the usual haunts and push the usual poison. I have gotten a few of them a-boiling by laughing at everything they say in this one little weekly rag that they cling to.

I will read one of their letters to the editor and come back congratulating them on their ability to find humor in such or such a circumstance. I praise their ideas as 'high comedy.' The following week there'll be about three of these ____________[fill in the blank}__s stomping me with every four-letter word that they can get by with I'll get one more shot in which I use their answers as examples of the evil I'm trying to point out and thank them for being so observant. By the next week, they have to publish the rag on asbestos. Then the editor cuts me off so I can't stir the t*** any more. I've been through about three cycles of this in the past two years.

I started this "fun with Lefties" thing a few years ago when a bunch of animal rights _________{f.i.t.b.}__s were ranting about the rest of us eating decent food. I promoted a fictional P.E.T.A. [People Eating Tasty Animals] bar-b-que in the park after which we would march on the local grocery outlet and liberate all the broccoli. Then I went down to the park at the appointed time. [there was no picnic in reality]. There stood a few of these F.I.T.B.s and the police kept cruising by.

I really caught it the next week in the rag.

I realize that proding those who are less intelligent than I, at least FUNCTIONAL INTELLECT-wise is probably a sign that I've been living alone too long, but, what the heck. It's something to do.

rr

[Preacherman]

...after which we would march on the local grocery outlet and liberate all the broccoli
ROTFLMAO!!! That's too beautiful... I'd love to see you post that down here in Louisiana - the entire local population would die laughing, even the Lefties, who are not by any means as far gone as those in more rarified climates!

[goon]

Hey, I'm a Liberal, and I ain't any of those terrible things?

Perhaps you are a real Liberal, instead of the usual "I'm a Liberal until it doesn't feel good anymore" variety.
Strickly speaking, a liberal should support the 2nd Ammendment, since they claim to support the rest of the BOR.
How is it that in the BOR, you have 9 Ammendments that protect the rights of the people, and another in the middle that protects the gov't.?
No logic to that argument folks.

[MicroBalrog]

But I do support welfare, and the FBI, and a large federal gvt. and all? How come I ain't evil?

[dustind]

I am liberal, in the true sence of the word, either that or a libertarian, i guess a mix of both.