Open thread centered around a very important question

The holidays continue to make demands on me that take me away from my beloved computer and my blog.  I’ve managed to track enough news, though, to know that Reid managed to get his vote.  My question for you, and one I can’t answer myself, is this:

Will the health care bill, even if it destroys the current crop of Democrat politicians, be an unstoppable juggernaut that will inevitably lead to socializing America, or is this bill the final straw on the electorate’s groaning back that will lead to the revitalization of conservatism in America?

I’d like to think the second but, given the Republican party’s profound ineptitude and ideological weakness, I think Republicans are going to take lemonade and manage to reconstitute it as rotten, sour, unpalatable lemons.


As I finished typing the last paragraph, I got an email from Rob, at JoshuaPundit, with a link to his post about the dangers of despair:

Part of what fuels decadence (and eventual destruction and defeat) is the belief that everything is rotten beyond repair, so why even try anymore? If enough people feel that way, then they contribute to the defeat and it’s over. So it’s important to act with optimism and positive energy even when it seems hopeless.

One of the things that surprised me in reading Winston Churchill’s history of World War II is how frequently he succumbed to despair during the run-up to the Second World War when he could see where things were headed, and afterward,when he finally took power and the Nazis were expected to invade at any moment.

Sir Winston referred to these periods of depression as ‘the black dog’…but he made a point of never sharing these emotions with anyone, and indeed made a point of acting especially cheery and unperturbed when things seemed darkest. And there were plenty of such moments.

He understood instinctively one of William James’ basic principles of psychology, that moods are infectious and affect others and that a positive attitude, even a partially feigned one, can have positive results.

And there are positive results to be had. We have a country to win, and one that’s worth fighting for.

Please read the rest of Rob’s post.  It will make you feel better, as it made me feel better.  We have a wonderful country, and we cannot and should not give up!

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Earl

    Bless Sir Winston….and learn from him.
    I know from personal experience, that ACTING “as if” you’re feeling a lot better and more cheerful than you actually do feel will with surprising speed lead to a genuine improvement in both outlook and sensation.
    I doubt this would be a cure for a broken leg, although your mood could be changed even though the leg would remain the same — and that’s what we’re talking about here.  The state of the country is not likely to change BECAUSE we resolutely refuse to succumb to the discouragement we so understandably feel….but if we ACT “as if” we were more confident than we feel that we can make a difference, our confidence will increase and our mood will improve.  At that point, we are far more likely to ACT to make the difference we want to see, and if we are joined by many others, THAT will give us the best chance of beating the monstrosity that the leftists and the sellouts are trying to foist on us.
    For some realistic information to lift your mood, think of the necessity to rationalize the Senate and the House bill….I do not believe that it will happen, particularly given the President’s Christmas present to the nation – his decision to postpone all this talk of “health-care reform” until after the State of the Union address.  At that point, the election will be in the immediate offing, and the craven will realize that there is NO time for their electorate to “forget” the malfeasance they are tempted to perform.
    Sooooooooooo……..Buck Up!!
    And Merry Christmas to BW and all her readers.

  • suek

    You left out the third option…

  • Lulu11

    I actually think this is an opportunity. Grassroots is important and we need to encourage our Conservative leaders to lead.

  • Al

    Yes, things look dark. Yes, we have an MSM that spues more lies than Goebles’ propoganda machine.(spell?) BUT…
    Evil is not that intelligent because Evil is egotistical.
    And these guys are not that smart and are really egotistical.
    We fight with the truth. We live honestly and fearlessly so that no outward, superficial failure can dishearten us or take away the joy of conscious integrity.
    We will win as long as we continue to fight for individual freedom.

  • Mike Devx

    Consider what a mess our country was in under the Articles Of Confederation.  And out of that came the Constitution, and the rebirth of this great country, worth fighting for.

  • Danny Lemieux

    In the deepest, darkest moments of my life and career, when I spent my own sleepless nights wrestling with Churchill’s black dog, I came to realize that those events were there for a reason, the most important of which was that they forced me to confront my own inner demons and to become a better person. Today’s events may be prove to be a very rough ride for our nation but I am convinced that they also provide teaching moments that will strengthen us as a nation. We can fear tomorrow but we can’t see tomorrow. What tomorrow becomes will be largely up to us to determine. Merry Christmas, everyone.

  • Ymarsakar

    Merry Christmas to those that have or are escaping the belly of the beast and here’s to a restored Republic.

  • Charles Martel

    Al makes good sense when he says that evil may be cunning, but it is not intelligent or principled. At some point, it outs itself, either because people see through it or the fruits of its misbegotten labors are so rotten.

    The question for me is when is “at some point?” I am convinced that the federal judiciary has been pretty much corrupted and co-opted, so we will see massive fraud and theft by ACORN in the 2010 elections. The Democrats will be relying on voters’ forgetfulness, ACORN criminality and judicial complicity to make next year’s elections appear to be much closer than they most likely will be.

    IF they pull that off, and we are stuck with the left’s version of the “Mandate of Heaven,” it will be time to do a Mario Savio (Berkeley Free Speech Movement, 1964) and “throw ourselves on the machinery” and gum up the works: Massive civil disobedience, massive Galtism, massive protests, massive oopsies filing taxes on time, massive disruptions of the bureaucracies and the creation of an underground economy. This won’t involve just a few pathetic Code Pink crones, or cosseted, know-nothing college kids, or permanently indignant San Franciscans, Manhattanites, Ann Arborites, etc. This will involve tens of milllions of decent, fed-up citizens—from which we could perhaps detach two or three million to go pay Congress a personal visit.

    If this brings on government repression, some states will proceed with nullification or even secession. The nancy boys in the Democratic Party are going to have a hard time figuring out how to bring a heavily armed Texas or Utah back into their perfect union.  

    If it comes down to a second civil war, the odds are with us. God forbid we ever reach that point, but if it takes a second catastrophe to save the Union and restore the Constitution, so be it.

  • Ymarsakar

    You can recognize evil quite easily. And the reason why it is dysfunctional is pretty simple.

    Read this:
    Insecure Alphas is a term we picked up from the Dog Whisperer Caesar Millan. (Who, if you want some really good insights into how alpha/beta behavior works in pack animals, we highly recommend that you watch his TV show).

    Basically Caesar’s summation of an insecure alpha is a beta dog that is thrust into a leadership position. This dog lacks alpha attributes. Most of all it doesn’t have the calm assurance of a true alpha. As such it is unstable and overly aggressive. An additional problem with this is other dogs in this situation also become unbalanced and aggressive. [Obama attacking people]

    Now it doesn’t take much imagination to take this out of the kennel and imagine the same dynamics occurring under a bad manager. A stressed out manager, gets the entire department upset and on edge. [A Democrat as leader]

    This concept is especially applicable in a street confrontation, where fear of perceived loss of ‘respect’ will often motivate a beta (who is trying to convince everyone he is an alpha) to over react. [Obama vs Joe the Plumber, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Tea Party]

    Here is where you get into a problem common among what if monkeys, lacking inner calm they project their insecurity onto everyone and assume they will act the way they would. [Everybody on the Left and most Demoncrats]

    Let’s give an example, often violence can be avoided when you take ‘the bad guy’s advice.’  A great deal of violence would have been avoided if, when the bad guy said “You better get out of here,” the other person had just done so. [Avatar]

    The person was given the option to leave or alter his/her behavior … but for whatever reason, decided not to. Believe it or not, the ‘bad guy’ is trying to avoid violence by giving you the chance to leave. Unfortunately all to often the soon-to-be-victim decided something else was a priority and refused. [Show me your ID Mr. Gates]

    When we talk about this in seminars, despite the offer to leave safely (remember trust?) inevitably someone pops up with the question “What if he follows you?”  Usually by someone who is the sort who would refuse to leave for this very reason. Stop and think about that, he could have avoided violence by leaving, but his fear of violence following made him stay, thereby guaranteeing violence to happen!

    We should also point out this is also the kind of person who would feel it necessary to taunt someone for taking up the offer. Feeling the need to ‘get in the last word’ is a great way to get attacked. This turns the other kinds of potential violence into predatory. Not because he meant to be a predator, but because YOU broke the accords. [Doing what the police asks is ‘sucking up to the Man’ as Gates would put it]

    Are there such things as individuals who will follow you? Yes, but the simple fact is those are more predatory to begin with and they never meant to let you go in the first place. But, in comparison to the number of people who provoke the attack by trying to salvage their pride with a parting shot, these are much rarer than you might think.
    Many years ago Marc, his girlfriend and their cats shared a house with a woman; who also had her own cats. What was interesting was that both groups had an alpha cat. Their first meeting was ‘unpleasant.’ But after that both of these large male cats proceeded to share the same space by studiously ignoring each other. One would think that they were invisible to each other, except there was a very subtle pattern of never being in the same place at the same time. Or conveniently being ‘asleep’ (or otherwise occupied) as the other passed through an area occupied by the first. (Incidentally the other passed at a distance, great enough that the first could pretend not to notice).

    However, the constant fighting occurred between the two beta males. Those two cats were not only constantly at each other, but actively sought each other out — to continue the squabble. Both wanted to drive the other out of the territory, but were incapable of doing it, so the war went on and on. In fact, one could say those two cats were obsessed with each other.

    It is interesting to note that you can see the same behaviors among humans. Contrary to what you might think, human heavy hitters do everything in their power to find ways to co-exist. Generally by
    1) Ignoring each other (while at the same time doing the human version
    of what the cats did)
    2) Becoming friends
    3) If not friends, then friendly/polite towards each other in a kind of middle
    ground between these two points.

    It is the betas who get their fur all fluffed and walk stiff legged with their backs up. This basically occurs because betas do not understand the concept of sharing space … yes, we just said they don’t know how to play well with others. What they especially don’t understand is that it isn’t all about them.

    And that is why they end fighting more … with other betas. They aren’t proving that they are alphas when they do this, they’re just jockeying for position in the pecking order.

  • Ymarsakar

    Evil is what happens when human relationships break down into severe dysfunction, and those that caused this to happen are evil, as in they serve what is evil.
    Evil, has some prototypical metaphysical traits, but most commonly it is seen to manifest in people by the actions they take. Evil is then brought to this world by the consequences of such actions. This can be actions that are large scale or small scale, but in all of them, it is the insecurity of the self being expressed in an act that destroys the interests and lives of others.
    Most human dysfunctions are a result of miscommunication and the harmful effects are temporary or easily resolved. These are problems, but they are not evil. Evil, in the end, requires intent and cognition.

  • Mike Devx

    Ymar #10:
    > Evil is then brought to this world by the consequences of such actions. This can be actions that are large scale or small scale, but in all of them, it is the insecurity of the self being expressed in an act that destroys the interests and lives of others.  Most human dysfunctions are a result of miscommunication and the harmful effects are temporary or easily resolved. These are problems, but they are not evil. Evil, in the end, requires intent and cognition.

    I can accept that “insecurity of the self” leads to the destruction of the interests and lives of others, and that those actions are not evil – though they lead to great suffering.

    But I also strongly support the saying “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”  Evil or no, the horrifying result is still great suffering.  We may be too focused on evil: “All that is required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.”   Perhaps we should become as fiercely resolute about the terrible harm done by the misguided.  Tens – hundreds? – of millions dead at the hands of socialist and communist dictators whose cold,gimlet-eyed gaze monitored the suffering and deaths of their citizenry, and these dictators felt nothing.  Perhaps in their own minds they were utterly justified in creating their new world order.  Not murderous, but terribly harmful, we see our own socialists-in-disguise trapping all of us Americans together in webs of forced legalized dependency on each other.  We know where all this leads.  True misery lies at the end of these roads.

    So we must fight or surrender.

    As Earl began in #1 above:  Bless Sir Winston….and learn from him.

    I was heartened by a Dick Morris/Eileen McGann column a few days back.  I’m going to cut and paste its entirety here, because they are channeling Winston Churchill – or at least borrowing from him, and I liked the column very much:



    Published on on December 21, 2009

    If they beat us in the Senate, we will fight them in conference. If they beat us in conference, we will fight them in the House. If they beat us in the House over healthcare, we will fight them over cap and trade. We will fight them over immigration and amnesty. We will fight them over the deficit. We will fight them over the debt. And we will fight them in 2010. We will fight them in the House. We will fight them for Senate seats in Connecticut, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York, and Arkansas. We will fight them in Colorado and North Dakota and California and Washington State. We will fight them in Illinois and in New Jersey. We will never, never, never, never give up! Our country is at stake!

    All our defeats do is to teach us the futility of appealing to moderate Democrats and the necessity — the dire necessity — of replacing them with committed Republicans. There is no such thing as a moderate Democrat in Congress. There are simply those whose votes the leadership does not need in order to promote its socialist agenda.

    We will not place our faith in the Nelsons or the Lincolns or the Liebermans or the Landrieus of the Senate. Nor in the Blue Dogs of the House. All we do when we depend on them is to permit them to raise their price and up the ante for their vote. We will place our faith only in the Republicans who oppose them and who will bring the collective insanity which has gripped Washington to an end.

    But we will continue to fight each battle in Congress because it is only by blunting Obama’s momentum and by demonstrating to the voters of America how their Democratic members of Congress are only automatic votes for socialism that we have a chance to triumph in 2010. And triumph we will. We can only hope that there is still a country to take back!

    Stay with us! Help us! Fight with us!

  • Ymarsakar

    It is important to precisely locate and define the target in order to coordinate large amounts of force to be used against it.
    All the power in the world would be useless without a way to target it and without a way to locate the right target.
    It is important to understand the motivations of those we fight, for the best way to demoralize them and to increase the odds of victory is to use their psychological weaknesses against them. It’s not enough to win elections. It’s not enough to beat them. You have to obliterate them, body, mind, and soul. And that cannot be accomplished if they simply lose in a fight. They have to lose without ever having had a chance to strike back, because their means of resistance was removed when their mind was shattered.

  • Ymarsakar

    It is also important to clearly delineate what is or is not evil, because one can make an ally out of what is not evil but one cannot make an ally out of what is evil. Thus it is important to understand who are those we can create an alliance with to fight for a common cause, as happened in Iraq, and who (the Left) cannot be trusted to co-exist at all with us.

  • Mike Devx

    Y, you say in #13:
    > It is also important to clearly delineate what is or is not evil
    But you said further above in #10:
    > Most human dysfunctions are a result of miscommunication and the harmful effects are temporary or easily resolved. These are problems, but they are not evil. Evil, in the end, requires intent and cognition.

    I’m wondering if you want to revisit #10; or could you state whether you consider the Democrat Party to be evil – requiring intent and cognition?

    I’m asking because it is a struggle for me.  Most liberals I know are convinced they are right.  They are convinced the Democrat policies are honorable.  This seems to be true even of those policies they favor that are hard-left.  So is there actual intent to perform evil?  And cognition of it?

    I guess I’m saying I’m no longer interested in self-recognition of the evil of one’s intent or actions.   You can look at the dictators and tyrants who murdered tens of millions of their own citizenry: Their focus on “social goals” and their utter disregard for their own people allowed them to murder millions of their own.  The Nazis viewed non-Aryans as vermin – especially the Jews – allowing them all to be used as slaves at best and to be worked to death, and slowly exterminated.

    Various flavors of socialism throughout these decades deny the worth of the individual and in then treating all of us as virtual cattle whose lives belong to the government, they believe they are justified in controlling every aspect of our lives that must be controlled to achieve any “social goal”, whatever their current social goals may be.  The key is that whatever the current set of social goals are, they are UTTERLY and COMPLETELY justified in controlling us in any way necessary to achieve those goals.

    So does it even matter whether they view themselves as evil or not, as in “requiring intent and cognition”?

    It seems to me that the winning argument for us is to focus on the worth and dignity of every human being, as a natural right – and for the vast majority of Americans, these natural rights are from God.  That no government can strip away merely to accomplish some current set of social goals.   In the current debate over “universal health care”, the rights of many people will be sacrificed, inevitably, to achieve the social goal.    That simply can’t be right.  That the half of Americans who are worse off can lay claim to ANYTHING that the better-off half have.  That’s what it means, when complete universal health care is deemed a right.

    I believe it is good and civilized to offer what we can offer to all citizens to guarantee some level of basic health care to all.   As with all other goals of providing basic safety nets – so that those in trouble do not fall into ruin – it is civilized to do our best for the unfortunate.  But that is a gift that the rest of Americans give to them; it is not a right.  A government that strips away any American’s right to seek their own health care – by controlling all access to health care – is engaged in an illegitimate action that violates the rights, worth and dignity of the individual.

    It’s hard to limit ourselves to only the safety nets – whether it comes to poverty, or health care, or any other situation where we see other people struggling.  But the alternative is total government control over every aspect of our lives, as those in power pick and choose how each of us is allowed to live; seizing everything they wish from us whenever they wish to – because every social goal has been transformed into a “right”.   That’s so far from what it’s always meant to be American that I can’t see how we’ve arrived at this point.

    All the above would be true even if these social-goal programs *worked*.  But we know throughout history that they don’t work.  They always fail.  Misery for everyone.   Hopefully the American people’s common sense wisdom will come through before it’s too late.

  • suek

    If health care was really the problem to be solved, I think it would be possible to do it without this bill.  For example, how about the government offering scholarships that would double the number of doctors/nurses/medical care workers, and in return require x number of years of service in public hospitals which they’d buy/build either before or after internships that would serve the needy first, and then first come first served..  Not only would that mean an increase in the number of doctors, but other doctors would have to be hired to train said medical workers.  I think this would _not_ require the $$$$ required by the present bill.  The answer, of course, is that health care for everybody is not the goal…economic control is the goal.
    Here’s your ironic comment for the day:


    The answer, of course, is that health care for everybody is not the goal…economic control is the goal.
    If you are going to continue to come up with logical answers and conclusions to the solution, how are we to take you seriously ; )

  • Ymarsakar

    I’m wondering if you want to revisit #10; or could you state whether you consider the Democrat Party to be evil – requiring intent and cognition?

    Slavery is evil. In so far as the Democrat party can be said to be evil, they are evil for perpetrating slavery. True ethics, however, isn’t a matter of declaring something so and thus it is. Ethics is about choice. Evil is only one potential choice people can select. There are others. And the standard to judge what is or is not an evil choice is very simple.
    If slavery was the only economic model available to you, and one had no means to change it for the better, and even when one tried, all that happened was failure and tragedy, then slavery would have to be maintained or some equivalent miserable status quo. But when an opportunity presents itself for a better state of affairs, one that protects the interests of more people rather than less, the human agent has an ethical duty to choose, support, or side with that new opportunity. To do otherwise, to select the easier path, the status quo of misery, or selfish interests, is evil. Because you were given a choice and you chose to go on the path that served entropy rather than the best interests of the human species. How many billions of lives will your decision have affected now and in the future. And in another 10,000 years, how many trillions of additional lives will your decision to destroy rather than create, have affected. That is the metaphysical state of evil, the consequences of it, and it is also the ethical state of an evil choice. It is not the difference over, as the Left tries to claim, a chocolate Louisiana and a vanilla one. It is as fundamental as life and death, light and darkness, creation and destruction, matter and anti-matter.
    Most liberals I know are convinced they are right.

    Most everybody is convinced they are right. The most violent, sadistic, serial killers and sociopaths believe that what they were doing was right, as they saw it. Fake liberals are no different in this than we are, really. There is no special title of nobility the Left can steal to make themselves morally superior. There is no absolute standard of superiority against the standard of the human condition, which cannot be abrogated by any title of nobility, intention, or deed. Unless they think themselves omnipotent godlings, they cannot reshape reality with a wish.
    The only people who have doubts are those with an insufficient ability to self-deceive. Their self-awareness is too high, their sensitivity to the emotions of others is too great. They feel too much because they care too much to pretend to even themselves that it can be otherwise. How many Democrats do you know with such a quality. That haven’t defected to our side already, that is.
    So is there actual intent to perform evil? And cognition of it?

    Evil is not something affected by people’s neuroses. It is what it is. It, like a state of matter, exists in one particular space-time. You can change it, but it requires more than simply wishes. And for the Democrats, it requires far more than just self-deception, narcissism, and anger to make their choices the right choices.
    Aristotle once said that the only way to be virtuous is to behave in a way consistent with the various virtues. Thus if one wishes to be honest, be honest. If one wishes to be courageous, practice courage. If one wishes to have integrity and compassion, practice doing things that are the result of integrity and compassion. Simply sitting around thinking about having these traits is what leads to self-deception and the tragedy of arrogance. On the other hand, one can seek virtue while believing that acting full of vice will accomplish what is virtuous. That’s impossible. One cannot accomplish the Good by doing the Evil, nor is it feasible vice a versa.
    Evil and Good are defined in post-modern models as being solely about what is good for the Self. Thus what is good is whatever the burglar thinks is worth money, and whatever is bad is when the burglar can’t get his hands on money. This mentality infects much of the Democrat party, and it doesn’t matter if they are in leadership roles or are cogs at the bottom.
    Their focus on “social goals” and their utter disregard for their own people allowed them to murder millions of their own.

    They are only examples. People use them partially because they believe that if they have a hate-evil receptacle to hold all the manifestations of harm and corruption (Pandora’s Box) that it then becomes somebody else’s responsibility to handle such. Thus it is Pandora’s fault that humanity’s sins were unleashed, rather than the fault of the idiots that kept it in the box instead of destroying it or counter-acting it. Thus people speak about Hitler when they need to claim that their hands are free and only somebody, like Bush, can be evil.
    It isn’t so, of course. Only fools and those well practiced in self-deception would believe so. When I use the example of Hitler, I am not speaking of preventing people from becoming that kind of individual. That’s impossible, short of killing them. I am speaking of not trusting in a leader that is evil. I am speaking of watching the evil within yourself because you are responsible for the harm you do when you give your power to another to use as they please. When the Left speaks about Hitler, they use it as a shield to direct all negative attributes to us and keep all positive attributes to themselves. That’s unrealistic, unwise, and of no good to those most in need.
    So does it even matter whether they view themselves as evil or not, as in “requiring intent and cognition”?

    It does matter, but not in the fashion you mean. Intent and cognition are objective traits as well as subjective ones. If I gave the Dem useful idiots the choice of siding with evil or siding with us, and they choose evil, they have done evil. It doesn’t matter what they claim as their justification. Either they choose the method that helps the most people and sacrifices the least, or they choose the path that helps themselves the most while sacrificing the most of others. That is an objective context. Something I can feel much as I can see and feel the mass graves of thousands. It exists in the world outside of my inner perception.
    They cannot say that they intended to choose the ‘just side’, because their actions belie their claims. Their intent is to choose the path that benefits them the most, while covering it up with self-deception or outright lies.
    And for those that erroneously believe the Democrat way is the best way, then they have not been offered the choice. They have not seen reality for what it is. But that’s okay, children are also naive and ignorant. But a child is only a child because they lack power to protect themselves. Once you have enough power to extinguish the lives of others, you are no longer a child. You have just become a danger to common safety, if you have the naivete and ignorance of a child, but the power of an adult.
    This is very simple to resolve. Find all these Democrats that claim to believe in things like equality, truth, and justice and TEST them. In this reality, not in their mental fantasies. Test their actions and behavior. And that will judge whether they are or are not, because by their actions you shall know them. Give them the choice that they have refused to be aware of.
    It seems to me that the winning argument for us is to focus on the worth and dignity of every human being, as a natural right – and for the vast majority of Americans, these natural rights are from God.

    God does not exist for the Left. Killing off God was one of the first things the Communists had to do. It may seem that you have won the argument because they seemingly agree with you about ‘natural rights’ but their definition of such is not the same as yours, because they don’t have a God providing the backing for their currency. And there’s no objective standard to prove the existence of God, so there is no ‘winning argument’. The winning argument is a bullet destroying the brain, not theological arguments about religion. Because of free will, it cannot be otherwise if people will not agree to combine interests.
    Without God as the common ground, it is pointless to argue about what did or did not come from God. Thus it is pointless to argue about whether humanity should or should not abrogate what God gave us. Human beings believe in what they see, feel, and hear. There are only two ways to convince people. Make up illusions for them to sense or make them face reality.
    Ethics is all about facing reality and making the right decisions regardless of the different combinations of events or interests. An argument is just words. It is not violene or force. It is not using an overwhelming reality to prevent the resistance of an individual. It is simply words. People believe only if they agree to believe. If they don’t agree, there is no winning argument. The only thing left is force.
    In conclusion, the point is that if ‘winning’ is just based upon the Left agreeing with us, we wouldn’t have this problem in the first place. The issue is that they don’t agree, and the harm they are doing is such that we cannot simply ignore them. If words were enough to convince them, it would have already. The only thing left is force. This can take many forms, such as verbal or physical violence. Or it can take the form of simple reality and the consequences there of. Reality has a force all on its own.
    the rights of many people will be sacrificed, inevitably, to achieve the social goal.

    The rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few. And you’re not going to convince a predominant portion of the Left using only words.
    That’s so far from what it’s always meant to be American that I can’t see how we’ve arrived at this point.

    I can. That is one primary reason I know why words won’t convince the Left of anything except that they can win.
    All the above would be true even if these social-goal programs *worked*.

    If these things worked, meaning they were the best option available to protect the interests of the many, then human nature itself would have changed. Thus ethics would have changed because metaphysics, what is real and not real, would have changed on planet earth.
    Thus all of the above would not be true if the social programs of the Left worked as advertised. Good and Evil is based, primarily, on what is or is not true. There is no compromise on this issue. It is why ethics can sometimes be situational but often times is not. Change the situation and you change what would have been good into evil or vice a versa. The system of ethics, then, is there to create a standard to judge right or wrong in a universal situation. Society easily determines what is right or wrong for each local incident. The law can do it as well.
    For example, take self-defense. It isn’t self-defense if you are fighting, meaning if you were offered an opportunity to avoid the conflict but chose to stay or argue. Thus killing the other person in a fight over what music the jukebox should be playing would be wrong, because you would have chosen to stay to risk your life and to kill him, for some triviality like that, when you could have left. But let’s change the variables around a bit. What if you were given a choice to leave or fight, but if you left, you had to leave all your valuables? What if you were given a choice to leave or fight, but if you left, you would have had to leave the women to be returned tomorrow a ‘little worse for wear’? What if you were given no choice at all. What if your choice is between staying and watching those you care about be tortured and killed, or leaving them to be tortured and killed. What choice will you have then.
    This is the most that can be called ‘situational ethics’. The same kind of choice, with different metaphysics and consequences. Again, change the context or basic underlying foundation of reality, and you change what would have been a good decision to leave the bar over a fight about jukebox music, to a bad one, to an evil one, and so forth.
    I know the general public isn’t taught any of this. And I know why. And it’s one reason why you can’t convince the Left that they are wrong. They were taught otherwise. For them to reject their upbringing would require character traits that are not common in the human species. I’m not interested in convincing them that they are wrong. I am interested in offering them a choice between Good and Evil. And if they choose to do the wrong thing and choose evil, the consequences of their own actions become assured. Before then, I wasn’t certain of where they were. Their words claimed goodness and may have been true or it may have been an Obama lie. To determine the truth, I test them. And if they fail the test, the consequences will have become predictable and certain.

  • Pingback: On the topic of Good and Evil « Sake White()