Skip to comments.Socially Acceptable Hatred
Posted on 09/09/2012 1:33:24 AM PDT by neverdem
All the liberal Jews I talk to seem to believe that the age of anti-Semitism is over. That is often true, in countries that have mature, democratic political systems. The United States, which all good liberals learn to sneer at, has the single most mature political system in the world -- 230 years of a solid Constitution, which liberals don't much like.
Most of the world lacks a mature, time-tested and tolerant political system. Even the European Union is governed by an unelected ruling class today.
So the United States is the world home of political tolerance today. No other major country (except maybe Switzerland) has had that kind of stability and tolerance for 230 years. Naturally, the left has decided to import hundreds of thousands of the least tolerant people in the world today, so that today in London there are cases of children being sacrificed in witchcraft ceremonies; and there are cases of home-grown Muslim terrorists bombing civilian targets like the London Underground. Britain has now turned itself into a fearsome Big Brother state, with tens of thousands of CCTV cameras all over the cities. They put video cameras in garbage cans over there.
Jewish liberals are just as ignorant of history and politics as all the other liberals you know.
Vast deserts of political ignorance makes liberalism possible.
Liberal Jews love the tolerance they enjoy in this country, and they often harbor a nasty case of guilt and anger against orthodox Jews, who don't assimilate the way liberals do.
Liberalism is a species of mental conformity. It makes thinking unnecessary.
Thinking is scary.
All you need to do is believe the 24/7 media, and you feel like a member of the herd. The herd protects. At least, it protects until it turns against you. The biggest fear...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
“230 years of a solid Constitution”
The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787
The American Civil War (18611865)
1861 minus 1787 = 74 years
Is it unfair to say that despite being a wonderful document the Constitution failed after a measly 74 years requiring the first modern war (which despite historical revisionism wasn’t about slavery, but mostly tarriffs)?
Don't be so rigid, the war came to be the bloodiest in or history. It went on for years, the 75 year old nation was different when it was over.
Something was going on, but I'm not convinced that it is easy to sum up.
Man, it’s pretty hard to write an article against liberals that offends my senses, but this one manages to do it. It’s not the premise, or the conclusion, but the way its written. Its Orwellian preaching with - let’s face it - some pretty loose assumptions, is pretty offensive.
“measly”? 74 years was a lot longer than many at the time thought it would last.
try being a business owner and donating to a pro-family organization then tell me about tolerance
I’d have some waffle fries while I considered who you might mean, but my new favorite restaurant is not open today.
That's in large part because the left which is where most secular Jews reside has gone to herculean lengths to hide the fact that Hitler and the early Nazis were hard core leftists.
The age of anti-Semitism is over???
Oh, thank you - I needed a good laugh.
My BIL is Jewish and the most liberal liberal you’d ever shudder to come across. I don’t get it and he can’t explain it. He admonished me many years back to never, ever speak of the military (in a positive way) in his home. On holidays when I have to be there I sit respectfully in silence. It’s his house after all and my visits are necessarily under 1 hour and less than twice a year.
Same old, same old. History starts at breakfast for liberals.
>> Jewish liberals are just as ignorant of history
Blah, blah, blah, ....
It’s about abortion. Period.
It's amazing, then, isn't it, that people actually involved on both sides at the time said it was about slavery?
The only people saying, at the time, that it was about tariffs were some New York newspapers and generally anti-American foreigners like Dickens and Marx.
But I'm sure Karl knew a great deal more about the causes of conflict in America than Jeff Davis, Alex Stephens or Robert Crittenden.
A major attempt was made in Congress by Senator Crittenden of KY, the political heir of Clay, to duplicate his mentor's "success" with previous compromises. Each part of the Crittenden Compromise addressed slavery. No mention of tariffs.
A 13th Amendment to the Constitution was adopted by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. Two states actually ratified it.
"ART. 13. No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."
No mention of tariffs, obviously.
VA called for a Peace Conference that assembled in 1861. 14 free states and 7 of the slave states remaining in the Union sent delegates. They eventually adopted, by a bare majority of states attending, a resolution calling for (yet another) amendment to the Constitution.
Once again, the entire thing is about slavery. Not even a hint of a mention of tariffs.
Don't you find it odd that in 1860 and 1861 those actually involved in desperately trying to save the Union were unaware the "real issue" was tariff rates rather than slavery? Particularly since the tariff of 1857 had the lowest rates since 1824.
Only after the war, when a war fought in defense of the institution of slavery became socially unacceptable, did southern apologists suddenly "discover" that the war wasn't really about slavery at all!
What I find perhaps most peculiar about this revisionism is its implicit claim that while a war fought in defense of slavery would be morally indefensible, killing 600,000+ young American men over a few percent one way or another in tariff rates was a truly noble, though unfortunately losing, cause.
Nice try at the thread highjack, bud.
Don’t waste your time, Sherman. This guy is just trying to highjack the thread.
The fact remains that after 74 years the nation with this most perfect and wonderful constitution, was torn apart... and a federation of free states was abandoned for a centralized government...
Let’s face it, the USA of today (especially with all her judicial activisim) would be unrecognizable to the founders.
It remains a fine political document, but as with all documents it is really only as good as its interpreters.
Those interpreters have allowed for a bloated federal government, (with 1 in 4 kids on foodstamps), debased currency, wildly invasive (technologically enhanced) surveillance... and a society that has 25% of the world’s prison inmates (despite having less than 5% of the world’s population) which puts a very strange edge on “land of the free.”
Those interpreters have allowed undeclared wars, political correctness (in which - for example - mention of race vis-à-vis crime is considered taboo despite it being a prime cultural factor), uncontrolled immigration (invasion), taxation that makes old King George look incredibly benign.
I guess it might be a consolation that some places in Europe are worse off... but the American political process - this thing called democracy - has become a joke.
Did people really vote to make California (and soon Texas) Hispanic? Did they vote to send such a huge percentage of manufacturing jobs to China (and elsewhere)? Did they vote for the trillions in debt?
Makes one wonder who is really in control. As in most systems, the really important issues are beyond the reach of the people. This was true in UK and Holland (which are being heavily Islamized).
Political Correctness is the “democratic” way of despotism.
Aware of that. Just trying to head it off, but possibly feeding the trolls isn’t the best way to do that.
The entire US government spent $60M in 1860, or less that $2 per person, yet we’re supposed to believe an overbearing federal government was the cause of secession?
Sorry... No intention... Just the first lines of the article got me going... I apologize... and in sign of good faith will refrain from further posting.
See my tag line...
Never apologize for being right.
Well, now you know how to get out of ever having to visit his house ever again...lol!
****yet were supposed to believe an overbearing federal government was the cause of secession?****
Would you agree that an overbearing federal government was the result of secession?
Secession was one of the causes, certainly.
But to assert the steps taken to keep the Union intact were “the” cause of an overbearing government makes the somewhat silly, IMO, assumption that none of the trends that have resulted in expansion of government power worldwide would have occurred had secession and its crushing not happened.
IOW, does anybody seriously contend that had there been no secession and no WBTS something very similar to the Progressive Movement wouldn’t have started up in the late 1800s?
It seems to me those who make this argument are committing the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
X preceded Y, therefore X caused Y, and without X Y would not have happened.
As stated, I think this claim is to some small part true, but it is largely a fallacy. Which can be seen in the fact that for several decades after the War the federal government reverted to a relatively minor role in the country. In fact, the truly massive growth of the government didn’t start till the 20th, and didn’t really get going till WWI.
****In fact, the truly massive growth of the government didnt start till the 20th, and didnt really get going till WWI.****
I agree that in the US, the government began its ballooning in the very early 20th century, the primary example being that of the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913(although from what I understand not really a Federal agency). These issues were festering in our government long before then, and only finally became possible by enough people in power taking over.
It seems true freedom is hard to come by, and the only country in the world to truly achieve it didn’t keep it for long.
You are correct, of course. I was restating it in the way the pro-secessionists use the argument.
“Our present increasingly oppressive government could not have arisen had we stuck to the pre-WBTS system, therefore the WBTS caused our present increasingly oppressive government to come into existence.”
As I believe Winston Churchill said in another context, often a preceding event is necessary but not sufficient.
Would the Nazis have come to power had the Germans won WWI? Nope. Though popular movements of a similar nature were visible in the years before and during the war. Victory might certainly have encouraged their expansion.
Does this mean the German loss caused the Nazi rise to power? Nope again. Their loss was just one of the many factors necessary to bring it about.
And our "leaders" would do the same to us - it's only a matter of time unless the People speak out and put their collective foot down.
Actually, Marx explained at great length that the American CW was about slavery, and that the idea that it was a war of free trade vs. protectionism was originated by London salons. He gave the example of the American sugar industry, based in the South but very dependent on high tariffs to keep cheaper imports out.
The republic of our Framers ended on July 4th, 1861 with Lincolns Message to Congress in Special Session.
It should be common sense that by definition one cannot use force to enforce a contract. (A contract must be a voluntary agreement.)
Try reading: Judge Abel Upshurs Commentaries on the Constitution.
It is in direct response to Judge Joseph Storys Commentaries which was the fundamental hi-jacking of the Constitution by the Northern Confederacy (Essex Junto).
If you think that the National Government can punish the States.
Read Hamiltons Federalist #21.
You are quite right. I don’t know where I got that recollection, but it was obviously wrong.
Here’s a Marxist article from October, ‘61.
With some minor quibbbles, such as his minimization of the number of slaveholders, it’s a quite accurate summation of the events leading up to the war. Which means I largely agree with Karl.
I hate it when that happens.
BTW, I haven’t looked into his more doctrinal type writings recently, but if this article is typical the guy was a hell of a writer.
You’re right about Marx being capable of clear thought and good writing. At other times, I suspect some mental illness and/or simply someone lost in mystical private revelation. Many of his writings on economics ignore obvious conclusions and simply fall back on mystical assertions.
In actual fact, the tariff issue tended to unite the NW with the South (both mainly agricultural regions) against the NE. This allowed the South to dominate national politics for decades before the War.
Then the South very foolishly alienated their otherwise natural allies in the NW by insisting they join them in imposing national policies that would encourage spread of slavery into all territories, if necessary against the wishes of the inhabitants of those territories.
IOW, the South got cocky, underestimated the opposition, and eventually got clobbered for doing so.
He gave the example of the American sugar industry, based in the South but very dependent on high tariffs to keep cheaper imports out.
Amazing how certain things are eternal, regardless of how idiotic they are, isn't it?
Are you calling my confederate ancestors cocky and stupid?
Sure. Just like my confederate ancestors. The atmosphere in the South just before the war is reasonably well portrayed in the opening scenes of Gone with the Wind. The whole “one southerner can whip 10 Yankees” and “all the blood spilled can fit in a lady’s thimble” bit.
If that isn’t being cocky and stupid, I don’t know what is.
Do you seriously contend the decision to declare war on the United States was intelligent and well-considered? One can somewhat reasonably argue that the southern course was the only one they could follow, that they were forced into it.
I don’t think one can reasonably contend that it was wise.one southerner can whip 10 Yankees
The real lesson of the Civil War is how easy it is for a group of states to re-form their own version of a Federal Govt. at will, in a short time, even under extreme duress of war mobilization.
Sorry about the typo.
Yes, there was every reason to believe that fighting a defensive war that eventually an armistice would be reached. The level of death tolerable to the Illinois Butcher , done in the name of the tyranny, is what was under estimated. By todays standards what was done then was a war where 4-5 million died(adjusted for population growth) Do you think we would have accepted that casualty rate in WWII? I doubt it. Let say the liberation of Africa in 1942 had cost a million GI's. How would it have turned out differently? I say things then would have been different. The only belligerent that would tolerate those casualty rates was the USSR. Even Japan gave up.
I know I’ve read somewhere that the CSA declared war on the USA between the attack on Sumter and Lincoln’s call for troops, but I can’t find any documentation of that at the moment.
So I withdraw the assertion for now.
Death toll as % of population WBTS: 2%.
Death tolls in WWII by country:
Germany 8 to 11%
Japan 4 to 5%
Comparing numbers is complicated by numerous factors, such as which deaths should be classified as war deaths, which part of genocidal campaigns, etc.
What springs to the eye for anyone who knows anything about history is how low these percentages are compared to wars in earlier centuries.
Mongol conquest of Central Asia, Iran and Iraq: 50% to 90%.
Most of the “changes of dynasty” in Chinese history reduced the population by 1/4 to 2/3.
30 Years War killed 1/3 to 1/2 population of Germany.
English Civil War killed 10% of England, 20% of Scotland, 30% of Ireland.
Japan did not give up in WWII because the casualty rates were unacceptable.
They gave up because they had lost the ability to fight back effectively and (more importantly) because the moral shock of the A bomb finally gave those who wanted to give in the upper hand over the fight till everybody is dead crowd. And even then the extremists almost prevented the surrender.
Oh, I forgot the deadliest war of modern times.
60% to 90% of population dead. Took place during and after our War. Paraguay picked a fight with an alliance of Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil. Quick look at map indicates this not a good idea.
In what way is it "Orwellian"? Do you mean that it's "prolefeed", an invitation to "Two Minutes' Hate"? Or that it propounds the lesson Orwell learned the hard way, very nearly at the cost of his life, about dealing with the Communists in Spain when they got nasty about pushing the labor-syndicalist leadership of the Spanish Republican forces aside (and executing many of them), and taking over the war in the name of Stalin and Stalinism?
I'm not sure what you mean.
Really bellyfeel old Karl's prolefeed, do you? But you hate it when you realize what you're doing? Mmmmmm, mmmmm, mmmmm.
Yeah, maybe there is a lesson in there somewhere.
So what do you do if you want to break that up?
The term “wedge issue” is usually used to describe a more or less unimportant issue blown out of proportion by the opposition to drive a wedge between two factions of its opponents.
That was not the case here, where slavery and its expansion was a quite genuine issue.
The expansion of slavery was a highly effective wedge, but as an issue it was created by southern and Democratic Party insistence on changing the 30 years settled Missouri Compromise to allow slavery to expand into Kansas and Nebraska.
So it was a wedge issue they created and used against their own interests.
In actual fact the issue was created by the extremist”fire-eaters” of the South whose true goal was to force the South out of the Union. They succeeded in accomplishing their faction’s goals, though very much against the interests of the South as a whole, as it turned out.