Jan 9, 2022·edited Jan 9, 2022Liked by Wm. J. Beck III
"The socialists have no serious regard for dissent of any sort, and they reject ideas, especially. They do not value human morality: theirs is the morality (if we call it that) of predatory animals."
Whether it's done anyone one damned bit of good or not, I've been telling people since I read (far too recently) _The State and Revolution_ to quit wasting time and breath calling the socialists hypocrites. In fact, their morality is completely internally consistent: what is moral is what advances the interests of the (Uni)Party (which makes your description as accurate as any).
Which brings to mind Herman Wouk's formulation (paraphrased from _War and Remembrance_): "War is the process of scaring your enemy, via a lot of murder, into doing your will." If a moral appeal is bound to fall on deaf ears....
Sorry to ramble, but per your characterization of the Declaration and the Constitution: I just started reading The Anti-Federalist Papers, so I'm looking forward to digging deeper. I read a book about a decade ago (frustratingly, the title escapes me now) about the ratification period. The author's argument was that the Anti-Federalists were out-organized and outmaneuvered by the Federalists (which figures, if you think about it). It was quite good, and if I can ever dredge up the title (it was a scholarly work but accessibly written, published by some university press -- I had it from the Cleveland State University library) I'll look to buy a copy second-hand.
the way i look at it is, non-violence will never defeat a violent foe. in the examples you cited, ghandi and king, if their foes were committed to violence they would have accomplished nothing. it's like if the allies during wwII had tried to sit around a campfire with the axis singing kumbaya. but with trumpet telling his followers to be civil, peaceful, nice and non-violent america is in real trouble. if trumpet instead told his 80 million or so followers to go to war and acted like a general instead of a pussy the future could be very different. on a different note, in the last paragraph i think the word you want is admonition, not admonishment but i totally agree with the concept, if you're going to be treated like a criminal then you might as well be one.
"The socialists have no serious regard for dissent of any sort, and they reject ideas, especially. They do not value human morality: theirs is the morality (if we call it that) of predatory animals."
Whether it's done anyone one damned bit of good or not, I've been telling people since I read (far too recently) _The State and Revolution_ to quit wasting time and breath calling the socialists hypocrites. In fact, their morality is completely internally consistent: what is moral is what advances the interests of the (Uni)Party (which makes your description as accurate as any).
Which brings to mind Herman Wouk's formulation (paraphrased from _War and Remembrance_): "War is the process of scaring your enemy, via a lot of murder, into doing your will." If a moral appeal is bound to fall on deaf ears....
Sorry to ramble, but per your characterization of the Declaration and the Constitution: I just started reading The Anti-Federalist Papers, so I'm looking forward to digging deeper. I read a book about a decade ago (frustratingly, the title escapes me now) about the ratification period. The author's argument was that the Anti-Federalists were out-organized and outmaneuvered by the Federalists (which figures, if you think about it). It was quite good, and if I can ever dredge up the title (it was a scholarly work but accessibly written, published by some university press -- I had it from the Cleveland State University library) I'll look to buy a copy second-hand.
the way i look at it is, non-violence will never defeat a violent foe. in the examples you cited, ghandi and king, if their foes were committed to violence they would have accomplished nothing. it's like if the allies during wwII had tried to sit around a campfire with the axis singing kumbaya. but with trumpet telling his followers to be civil, peaceful, nice and non-violent america is in real trouble. if trumpet instead told his 80 million or so followers to go to war and acted like a general instead of a pussy the future could be very different. on a different note, in the last paragraph i think the word you want is admonition, not admonishment but i totally agree with the concept, if you're going to be treated like a criminal then you might as well be one.