United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Civility…or Servitude?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jan 24, 2011
Author: William L. Anderson
Post Date: 2011-01-24 16:11:01 by Capitalist Eric
Keywords: None
Views: 10380
Comments: 23
In the wake of the Tucson shootings, there has been a new call to "tone down" political rhetoric. Of course, much of the call to "civility" has come from the left – accompanied by hateful, uncivil rhetoric – which seeks to both politically exploit the situation as well as shut down its opposition. One of the loudest voices for "civility" comes from Jim Wallis and the Sojourners group, which seek to espouse a "Progressive Gospel" in which Christianity is melded with the Welfare State. After the shooting, Wallis wrote that it was "an attack on the soul of the nation," which is nothing less than a declaration that the only Gospel is a political gospel. (I give credit to Wallis for not joining in with the New York Times in blaming Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin for the shooting, and the rhetoric on his own "God’s Politics" blog has been more conciliatory than what one sees elsewhere from the Left. I also support Wallis’ criticism of the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and his condemnation of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.) Nonetheless, I do find the latest "call to civility" from Wallis and his group to be interesting, given the history of Sojourners and the political viewpoints that have come from the magazine Sojourners over the years. What I find is not that they support civility for its own sake; rather, "civility" is a political tool by which people accept the worst of what the state does, and do it quietly. In 1979, the government of Vietnam was attempting to impose its communist "vision" upon unwilling people, and the government used summary executions, concentration camps, and other acts of coercion. The result was grinding poverty, starvation, and an exodus of refugees, called "the boat people." Many people saw this refugee crisis as a natural outgrowth of tyranny, but Wallis saw things differently. The "boat people," you see, were nothing more than slaves to capitalism. He wrote: "Many of today's [Vietnamese] refugees were inoculated with a taste for a Western lifestyle during the war and are fleeing to support their consumer habit in other lands." (Sojourners, September 1979, signed editorial) To be honest, the idea that people would put their very lives at risk to take rickety boats onto the open seas, to be possibly murdered by pirates, and to live for years in squalid refugee camps so that they might have the opportunity to shop at Wal-Mart (which Wallis also hates) is an obscenity. However, his statement, as well as events that have occurred since then, also provides a window into his view of political "civility." One does not have to look to Vietnam to understand that Wallis openly endorses predations by "Progressive" governments against its citizens. After the Waco massacre in 1993, I scoured a number of issues of Sojourners, trying to find any mention of the worst government-caused domestic bloodbath since Wounded Knee of a century before. There was nothing; it is as though Waco and its aftermath never happened. The political left supported Janet Reno and her assault on the Branch Davidians, so in the view of Wallis and others, they got what they deserved. Likewise, I have read nothing in Sojourners that deals with the police excesses of the Drug War. (The latest issue deals with the racial disparities of the Drug War as well as the issue of mass incarceration, but it does not go to the heart of the problem: the expansion of the power of the state itself. Instead, Sojourners calls for restraint upon whom the government arrests to be accompanied by the growth of state power to control what people eat, think, and do. No one there seems to notice the irony.) Although the magazine and Wallis have condemned any kind of violent rhetoric that is aimed at expansion of the U.S. welfare state apparatus (even if that expansion is accompanied by state-sponsored violence), nonetheless they also have given almost uncritical support to some of the most violent and murderous regimes in history. Pol Pot wiped out a quarter of the population of Cambodia in the name of establishing communism? This act of genocide totally was ignored by Sojourners while taking place. For that matter, Wallis openly supported the worst excesses of Mao’s China (while endorsing the same kind of economic program imposed by Mao in his "Great Leap Forward" that led to the slaughter of millions), and he has had no problem with both violent rhetoric and violent revolution in the name of imposing communism. "Civility" applies only to silence people who believe that the "Progressive" state also is a violent state. Wallis was not even willing to apply the rules of civility to himself and Marvin Olasky from World magazine when Olasky found that Wallis’ organization was receiving money from George Soros’ Open Society Institute, which pushes atheism and abortion on demand. In return, Wallis publicly called Olasky a "liar" until Olasky published the tax records and other official statements that proved beyond a doubt that Wallis had received $325,000 from Soros, not a trifling sum. (After being fully exposed, Wallis apologized.) So, in seeing Wallis and his organization through the years, we come to understand that if the state seems to impose a "Progressive" vision through expansion of the welfare-security state, any opposition to such a vision is illegitimate. If one speaks against the "death panels" that always seem to accompany state-controlled medical care, then one is lying. If one objects to the massive new influx of criminal penalties that will be used to enforce the worst provisions of "ObamaCare," then one is both a liar and also an "uncivil" person. In other words, "civility" is a one-way concept. The state – and especially the state that imposes a "welfare" vision upon others – is free to engage in violence, use violent rhetoric, and kill or imprison anyone who stands in the way of such a "vision." One is not "uncivil" unless he or she opposes such a regime, even if the opposition is only in the form of words. Wallis does not want a "civil" society in which people respect one another and serve each other. Instead he agitates for a society in which the state is a master and everyone else is to be subservient to the implementation of raw state power. "Civility" and mutual respect for each other does not come from such a political and social arrangement, but I think that Wallis understands that point perfectly. And like the poor boat people, if we don’t like this kind of regime, then it is our own fault. However, we are not free to leave, and we certainly should not be free to say publicly (or privately) that we don’t like it. Instead, we must learn to love Big Brother.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Capitalist Eric (#0)
So you are telling us your side can't make a point without showing up at a rally with a gun and threatening the other side with hints armed violence? In other words, take away the kook anger factor and you have nothing? Is this an admission that your politics are based on generating anger and hatred and can not survive without that crutch?
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
One need only look at the side bar article titles for conformation that certain members of the radical right are incapable of civility.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
I am still waiting for the right wingers to tell us on here why they feel its wrong to profile them when they are showing up at political rallies with weapons and signs threatening armed insurrection? Why ar ethey upset when we take them at their word they are - according to their own rhetoric - just one straw away from their back breaking from the tyrannical federal govt? It's like they are telling us, yes some time in the near future we will kill Americans who work for the federal govt but not yet so don't blame us for the current violence! There were plenty of signs that said that the "Tea Party came unarmed...this time". OK let me know when you Tea Party revolutionaries do come armed so I can blame you without you feeling upset about it.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
I don't know. I think its what happens when one embraces slogans and abandons thought.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
I agree - but why are they so tone deaf to their own slogans - unless in their minds this display of weapons at rallies is just not real - deep down inside they know they are wussies who would not act like revolutionaries and this is just a phallic symbol for them?
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Somebody once told them all the slogans they repeat had to do with freedom. They don't hear the words or consider what the words mean any more than a talking doll knows what "I love you" means - it is just programed to say the words when its button is pushed.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~Thomas Jefferson Government officials are supposed to feel threatened. If the progressives aren't up to the job, then it falls to patriots to do it. There is a reason why "the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", but government may be disarmed, fired, and their funding cut off, by act of congress or a Constitutional amendment. We the people retain the right to alter or abolish our government.
In that case, Europeans are freer than Americans.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
So, should not you right wingers feel proud that you are the first suspects when a congressperson is shot? Why do you react in horror and anger when you types are considered the first suspects? Is that not the image you are going for?
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
We the people retain the right to alter or abolish our government. Bravo, sir! Considering nine comments, and yours is the only one I see, the Socialists must have REALLY gravitated to this thread... like flies on shit. It doesn't matter what they say. What matters is what we may be forced to DO, should they fail to heed the lessons of history.
ME: Thanks for admitting that you ARE trying to spin this (AZ shooting, and terrorism) onto Palin, and conservatives in general. "There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." -- go65, LF's answer to Ben Bernanke --
You're amazing. I've never seen anyone post as much here as a newbie, trying to dominate the board with the socialist doublethink and newspeak, as you. And yet in the end, all you're doing is touting the same old tired cliche's of a failed political ideology. Oh, to be sure, you attempt to package it in different clothes, hoping that someone will be so fucking stupid as to not notice that you're a con-man selling the same old snake-oil... But your pathetic attempts fool no-one. The other socialists on this board will commiserate with you, how you can't seem to "reach" those people who have the capacity for rational thought... And other socialist ninnies like lucysmom will try to "comfort" you- the lead socialist/communist- in the best way she can.... But in the end, nobody buys your bullshit. It took me all of a couple of posts on the first day, to discover that you're a mental midget, and bozo you accordingly. Finding your posts when I bother to look on one of my home PCs, made for some amusing reading... But ultimately, you certainly belong on the bozo list. You can keep the other clowns happy, including lucysmom, In the end, you and your ilk will NOT succeed. And THAT'S a fact.
ME: Thanks for admitting that you ARE trying to spin this (AZ shooting, and terrorism) onto Palin, and conservatives in general. "There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." -- go65, LF's answer to Ben Bernanke --
What exactly are you saying?
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
What matters is what we may be forced to DO, should they fail to heed the lessons of history. What exactly are you saying? Again, with the violence talk. Then we wonder if it's not one of them that goes postal on a politician....and they get offended that we point this out after they make these threats.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
It is telling that an invitation to think about, and work through their philosophical inconsistencies results in threats.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
Here is the point I am hammering on. You have these certain 'right wingers' who constantly use the language of armed violence aka warfare to describe their political reactions: "The tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of patriots, Dont tread on me, we came unarmed this time, 2nd amendment solutions, etc" OK, so when a violent act happened where a politician in the party they are against (the Democrats) gets shot - especially one "targeted" by Sarah - don't retreat, reload" Palin then it is perfectly logical to think these guys are the likely suspects - why do they get offended? Also, when will they be responsible for over throwing the federal tyranny (by killing fellow Americans one presumes)? I mean when is this imagined "Red Dawn" meets the TV show "Jericho" meets the "Turner Diaries" scenario supposed to take place?
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Brain damage? (I would add that their violent rhetoric is supported by an increase in the sale of guns and bullets.)
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
I think they're almost all complete posers, even if they are buying bullets and whatnot. They will storm around and act tough, and probably even believe it themselves, but when action is required they won't do anything. And of the few who will do something they will need someone compelling to follow or else they won't do anything. A few will go crazy and shoot some people once in a while. We've seen that happening for a while now. The common thread I've noticed among them is that they are incredibly stupid, and I don't mean that as an insult, I mean they have very very limited ability to think. Eric here is a prime example, yet he can't see that and never will -- in fact he thinks he's an elite thinker, so what can you do to convince these people of anything, especially something like recognizing what Godwinson's trying to point out.
He's a prophet crying out in the wilderness. Sorry, I block all images posted on this site. The words are hardly worth reading and the images are usually worse, lol.
That's a pretty good summary of your life. Typical for leftists, though.
ME: Thanks for admitting that you ARE trying to spin this (AZ shooting, and terrorism) onto Palin, and conservatives in general. "There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." -- go65, LF's answer to Ben Bernanke --
You think you think. That's the mistake in your logic (a laughable term, on its face, where you're concerned). As to what others will do when the SHTF...? You can pontificate all you want, and it means dick. LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm sorry, that was just TOO funny.... Facts are quite simple: 1. I do out-think you (not that that's saying much, mind you, since damn-near everybody can truthfully make that claim)... 2. We get what "godwinson" says, where he's coming from... and we REJECT his delusions, 3. As to being incredibly stupid, let's just say you're hardly one to judge the intelligence (or lack thereof) in others. When it comes to "elite" thinking, your above comments demonstrate who truly has the elitist attitude... Which is common for 'you people' of the left. Reality's gonna' REALLY suck for you. And that makes me happy.
ME: Thanks for admitting that you ARE trying to spin this (AZ shooting, and terrorism) onto Palin, and conservatives in general. "There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." -- go65, LF's answer to Ben Bernanke --
Capitalist Eric, do you renounce violence against any politician or political group and the use of language that also hints of such violence like "We came unarmed this time"?
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Looks like Abu has your number.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
In the wake of the Tucson shootings, there has been a new call to "tone down" political rhetoric.
#2. To: Godwinson (#1)
Is this an admission that your politics are based on generating anger and hatred and can not survive without that crutch?
#3. To: lucysmom (#2)
(Edited)
#4. To: Godwinson (#3)
#5. To: lucysmom (#4)
(Edited)
I don't know. I think its what happens when one embraces slogans and abandons thought.
#6. To: Godwinson (#5)
but why are they so tone deaf to their own slogans
#7. To: Godwinson (#3)
showing up at political rallies with weapons and signs threatening armed insurrection?
#8. To: hondo68 (#7)
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~Thomas Jefferson
#9. To: hondo68, lucysmom (#7)
(Edited)
Government officials are supposed to feel threatened.
#10. To: hondo68 (#7)
(Edited)
Government officials are supposed to feel threatened. If the progressives aren't up to the job, then it falls to patriots to do it. There is a reason why "the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", but government may be disarmed, fired, and their funding cut off, by act of congress or a Constitutional amendment.
Brian S(ocialist): I have never hidden that fact...
#11. To: Godwinson, lucysmom bimbo (#1)
TRULY.
war, fartboy, rhino, calcon and bad-lie.
Brian S(ocialist): I have never hidden that fact...
#12. To: Capitalist Eric (#10)
What matters is what we may be forced to DO, should they fail to heed the lessons of history.
#13. To: lucysmom, Capitalist Eric (#12)
Capitalist Eric (#10)
#14. To: Godwinson (#13)
Again, with the violence talk. Then we wonder if it's not one of them that goes postal on a politician....and they get offended that we point this out after they make these threats.
#15. To: lucysmom, Capitalist Eric, go65 (#14)
It is telling that an invitation to think about, and work through their philosophical inconsistencies results in threats.
#16. To: Godwinson (#15)
OK, so when a violent act happened where a politician in the party they are against (the Democrats) gets shot - especially one "targeted" by Sarah - don't retreat, reload" Palin then it is perfectly logical to think these guys are the likely suspects - why do they get offended?
#17. To: lucysmom, Godwinson (#16)
#18. To: Abu el Banat (#17)
something like recognizing what Godwinson's trying to point out
#19. To: hondo68 (#18)
#20. To: Abu el Banat, hondo68 (#19)
The words are hardly worth reading and the images are usually worse, lol.
Brian S(ocialist): I have never hidden that fact...
#21. To: Abu el Banat (#17)
I think they're almost all complete posers, even if they are buying bullets and whatnot.
I mean they have very very limited ability to think. Eric here is a prime example, yet he can't see that and never will...
Brian S(ocialist): I have never hidden that fact...
#22. To: Capitalist Eric, lucysmom, Godwinson (#21)
#23. To: Capitalist Eric, Abu el Banat (#21)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]