Author Topic: "Resistance"  (Read 391 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline pjohns

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
"Resistance"
« on: April 04, 2017, 11:57:34 AM »
I was born in 1948--over 69 years ago--yet, in all this time, I have never before seen an organized "resistance" to any president.

 There have been some Republican presidents, and some Democratic presidents, since 1948; but never before has one encountered organized "resistance."

 I suppose the hard left is just now showing its true colors.

 And, of course, the efforts of George Soros and other committed socialists should not be overlooked...

Offline Hondo69

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,047
  • The more I know the less I understand
Re: "Resistance"
« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2017, 06:57:36 AM »
Rules For Radicals can be tricky business in a semi-free society.  Most often the shadows is the proper place to hide your tactics for as long as possible.  When it no longer becomes possible to keep them hidden anymore you must wear them on your sleeve for the whole world to see.  Then it is boom or bust and you let the cards and the bodies fall where they may.

Offline Mod2

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
Re: "Resistance"
« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2017, 07:23:45 AM »
Moved to Editorials - Members' Original Content, as there's no sourced article.

Online geronl

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,549
Re: "Resistance"
« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2017, 09:01:21 AM »
I don't think this is anything new.

Online EasyAce

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,423
  • I'll play the blues for you . . .
Re: "Resistance"
« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2017, 06:46:42 PM »
I was born in 1948--over 69 years ago--yet, in all this time, I have never before seen an organized "resistance" to any president.

 There have been some Republican presidents, and some Democratic presidents, since 1948; but never before has one encountered organized "resistance."

 I suppose the hard left is just now showing its true colors.

They just didn't call it "resistance" during the Johnson and Nixon administrations.

Offline Hondo69

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,047
  • The more I know the less I understand
Re: "Resistance"
« Reply #5 on: April 17, 2017, 04:23:00 AM »
The biggest protests during the 60's and 70's were about civil rights and the Vietnam war.  Some of the protestors and some of their leaders were calling for "resistance" and "revolution".  Today we see a few groups that have similarities to those of the past.

The biggest difference, however, is that today elected officials at all levels are stoking the fires of revolution.  It is no longer just leaders of individual protest groups.  From city council members to governors to the top of the Democratic Party we hear calls of revolution going out far and wide.  And the media is playing their role right along with them.

While downplaying the bigger picture of revolution the media carefully orchestrates the ideas and causes of revolution.  We have an illegal president who stole the election, we have widespread racial prejudice, the killing of cops can be justified, terrorists are people too and just need a hug, Wall Street always tips the scales in their favor, and all the violence we see is always perpetrated by the Right, never the Left.

Personally, I find all these activities disgusting to the Nth degree.  But more than anything, the full out frontal attack on the Freedom of Speech is the worst of them all.  And it all began during the Clinton administration.

Online EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20,793
  • Does Sartre validate his own parking?
Re: "Resistance"
« Reply #6 on: April 17, 2017, 04:50:05 AM »
But more than anything, the full out frontal attack on the Freedom of Speech is the worst of them all.  And it all began during the Clinton administration.

With respect, my friend, the assault on Freedom of Speech started before the ink was fully dry. It's an aberration.
Anyone who tells you you can't buy happiness has never been in a book store or an animal shelter.

You are the result of 3 billion years of evolutionary success. Act like it.

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline Hondo69

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,047
  • The more I know the less I understand
Re: "Resistance"
« Reply #7 on: April 17, 2017, 05:03:08 AM »
With respect, my friend, the assault on Freedom of Speech started before the ink was fully dry. It's an aberration.

Well, I'm sure you're right.  But your comment gave me a chuckle because it depends upon one's perspective.  And oddly the whole world doesn't exactly revolve around me for some strange reason.  Sometimes I forget that.    :laugh:

Online geronl

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,549
Re: "Resistance"
« Reply #8 on: April 17, 2017, 08:32:15 AM »
criminalizing the opposition is a time-honored trait of tyrants.

Online EasyAce

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,423
  • I'll play the blues for you . . .
Re: "Resistance"
« Reply #9 on: April 17, 2017, 02:25:32 PM »
But more than anything, the full out frontal attack on the Freedom of Speech is the worst of them all.  And it all began during the Clinton administration.

Full-out frontal attacks on freedom of speech were around (and nefarious) long before Droopy Drawers Clinton
got that first slap on the ass from the doctor who delivered him.

Offline LateForLunch

  • GOTWALMA Get Out of the Way and Leave Me Alone! (Nods to Teebone)
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 787
Re: "Resistance"
« Reply #10 on: April 20, 2017, 03:03:57 PM »
Full-out frontal attacks on freedom of speech were around (and nefarious) long before Droopy Drawers Clinton
got that first slap on the ass from the doctor who delivered him.

Much insight into how leftists think, plan and operate may be taken from two sources, Madison Avenue advertising/marketing principles and trial law.

The left practices Alinskyite focus on "soft warfare" by mastering/controlling mass media terminology.

The left for instance, never refers to itself as such. Leftist news organizations NEVER refer to radical leftists as being  "far left". If they must refer to them pejoratively, it is always with terms having nothing to do with politics. Anti-conservative leftist fanatics who engage in mass murder for instance,  become troubled individuals (without any affiliation with any leftist group even if the themselves claim it).

Conversely, any anti-leftist group such as say Breitbart, becomes a "right wing" organization, as the L.A. Times described it just today, because Breitbart published the tweets of a radical far-leftist college professor who stated that, "Donald Trump needs to hang!" The professor was not called "left wing"  or "extremist" for his anti-government, pro-homicidal views, yet Brietbart was "right wing" for reporting them!! The professor was mildly deemed "outspoken" and a, "respected academic," who was called a "nice guy" by his friends.
 
So even leftists who advocate murder are at worst, "liberals". Even a far leftist who spouts Marxist doctrine is simply "very liberal" never "far left".

The term "resistance" has modern affiliation with Star Wars (the rebel alliance fighting the oppressive fascist Galactic Empire is also called "the Resistance"). The left loves to dabble in and borrow terms from pop-kulture. Also in WWII the guerilla forces fighting the Nazis were aka "the Resistance". So naturally they claim that term for their own.

When the federal government was run by the 'Crats, those who opposed the Eightball Obama and his cohorts were called "anti-government extremists" not, "the resistance".

Same behavior, different labels. That is pure Madison Avenue - labeling and packaging is everything.
The other source of leftist strategery (sic) is trial law.  Every article or news story is drenched in advocacy, endless spin. Nothing is simply reported - it is "explained" and "interpreted" ( i.e., changed in content to suggest some sort of moral judgment or substantive conclusion).
« Last Edit: April 20, 2017, 03:14:15 PM by LateForLunch »
GOTWALMA Get out of the way and leave me alone! (Nods to General Teebone)

Online EasyAce

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,423
  • I'll play the blues for you . . .
Re: "Resistance"
« Reply #11 on: April 20, 2017, 03:39:31 PM »

If only this book could be returned to print, and if only Mr. Hentoff had lived to update it . . .

Offline LateForLunch

  • GOTWALMA Get Out of the Way and Leave Me Alone! (Nods to Teebone)
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 787
Re: "Resistance"
« Reply #12 on: April 20, 2017, 04:17:48 PM »
If only this book could be returned to print, and if only Mr. Hentoff had lived to update it . . .
I dunno, I am somewhat of the school of Joseph Sobran on matters of right and left. Sobran used to say that it better serves the aspirations of the left to couch political debate in terms of right and left.

The spectrum of political ideology is not represented well by using the terms right and left for a lot of reasons. The spectrum which probably suits reality better may be with anarchy on one end and a fascist police state on the other. It makes little difference whether either one is placed to the right or the left, the only good place to be is in the middle - along with Goldilocks.

Anarchy is really a transitional state because it never lasts for long. Some other form of rule always comes along before too long to replace anarchy. The most common replacement has always been fascist oligarchy (tyrannical rule of the few over the many).

Our Founders envisioned a government that was just right - not too powerful to oppress and bully the populace forcing them to do and be things they didn't want or need to be. And neither would it be too weak, providing nothing in structure to ensure longevity or enforce civilized morality on a hard, cruel competitive world.

Furthermore, I submit that no genuine conservative would ever identify with repressing free speech because genuine conservatives are idealists, not ideologues. The difference is of course enormous. An ideologue sees good as only coming from the enforcement of their own specific, rigid doctrine and nowhere and nothing else. Therefore, an ideologue thinks nothing of eradicating any and all order or law which impedes or conflicts with their faction's preferences.

An idealist takes as their own some aspects of ideology, but more importantly and more precisely idealists live by PRINCIPLES founded in firm foundations of morality which do not essentially change according to situations or context.

For an idealist who believes in the rule of just laws, murder is and always will be wrong and illegal. But for an ideologue, committed to the notion of enforcing their own beliefs on everyone else, murder in order to accomplish that "perfect world" would be in many cases, entirely justifiable and proper.

So I guess my quibble is with the use (or misuse) of the term "right" in relation to conservatism. A doctrinaire person who favors repressive measures to enforce their own specific notions of order or social good, be they notions derived from Stalin, Marx, Rousseau, Mao, Trotsky, Saddam Hussein, Simon Bolivar, Hannibal or Alexander the Great would all be the same essential nature of "excessive government", not right or left.

See, assigning the identity of "political right" to something equating to  nothing more than the opposite of the "political left" is unwieldy and (forgive me) virtually meaningless. There is no opposite of morality except immorality - and neither the self-described political right nor left ever describe themselves as being amoral.

Only a doctrinaire Constitutionalist, or fundamentalist religionist, or militant non-interventionalist etc. would be accurately described as "far right" or "extremist" in my view. To be extreme in any ideological direction automatically excludes one from being a conservative, and therefore, not a qualified "rightist" in the modern classical sense of the term "political conservative".

If we use the ideals of Classical Liberalism as the base, then any ideology that is outside the middle (moderate government which enforces those ideals) would be non-conservative. If conservatism is an ideal associated with the right, then no ideology which ascribes to excessive governance, ultra vires actions or other means outside Constitutionally sanctioned behavior would be considered "rightist". The term right would only apply in terms of "right vs. wrong" not "right vs. left".
« Last Edit: April 20, 2017, 04:34:26 PM by LateForLunch »
GOTWALMA Get out of the way and leave me alone! (Nods to General Teebone)

Online Sanguine

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,739
  • Native Texan
Re: "Resistance"
« Reply #13 on: April 20, 2017, 04:35:43 PM »
I dunno, I am somewhat of the school of Joseph Sobran on matters of right and left. Sobran used to say that it better serves the aspirations of the left to couch political debate in terms of right and left.

The spectrum of political ideology is not represented well by using the terms right and left for a lot of reasons. The spectrum which probably suits reality better may be with anarchy on one end and a fascist police state on the other. It makes little difference whether either one is placed to the right or the left, the only good place to be is in the middle - along with Goldilocks.

Anarchy is really a transitional state because it never lasts for long. Some other form of rule always comes along before too long to replace anarchy. The most common replacement has always been fascist oligarchy (tyrannical rule of the few over the many).

Our Founders envisioned a government that was just right - not too powerful to oppress and bully the populace forcing them to do and be things they didn't want or need to be. And neither would it be too weak, providing nothing in structure to ensure longevity or enforce civilized morality on a hard, cruel competitive world.

Furthermore, I submit that no genuine conservative would ever identify with repressing free speech because genuine conservatives are idealists, not ideologues. The difference is of course enormous. An ideologue sees good as only coming from the enforcement of their own specific, rigid doctrine and nowhere and nothing else. Therefore, an ideologue thinks nothing of eradicating any and all order or law which impedes or conflicts with their faction's preferences.

An idealist takes as their own some aspects of ideology, but more importantly and more precisely idealists live by PRINCIPLES founded in firm foundations of morality which do not essentially change according to situations or context.

For an idealist who believes in the rule of just laws, murder is and always will be wrong and illegal. But for an ideologue, committed to the notion of enforcing their own beliefs on everyone else, murder in order to accomplish that "perfect world" would be in many cases, entirely justifiable and proper.

So I guess my quibble is with the use (or misuse) of the term "right" in relation to conservatism. A doctrinaire person who favors repressive measures to enforce their own specific notions of order or social good, be they notions derived from Stalin, Marx, Rousseau, Mao, Trotsky, Saddam Hussein, Simon Bolivar, Hannibal or Alexander the Great would all be the same essential nature of "excessive government", not right or left.

See, assigning the identity of "political right" to something equating to  nothing more than the opposite of the "political left" is unwieldy and (forgive me) virtually meaningless. There is no opposite of morality except immorality - and neither the self-described political right nor left ever describe themselves as being amoral.

Only a doctrinaire Constitutionalist, or fundamentalist religionist, or militant non-interventionalist etc. would be accurately described as "far right" or "extremist" in my view. To be extreme in any ideological direction automatically excludes one from being a conservative, and therefore, not a qualified "rightist" in the modern classical sense of the term "political conservative".

If we use the ideals of Classical Liberalism as the base, then any ideology that is outside the middle (moderate government which enforces those ideals) would be non-conservative. If conservatism is an ideal associated with the right, then no ideology which ascribes to excessive governance, ultra vires actions or other means outside Constitutionally sanctioned behavior would be considered "rightist". The term right would only apply in terms of "right vs. wrong" not "right vs. left".

That's a QFT.
There are no safe spaces in real life.   - LMAO

Walk in Wisdom
See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil.

But the noble make noble plans, and by noble deeds they stand.

Offline LateForLunch

  • GOTWALMA Get Out of the Way and Leave Me Alone! (Nods to Teebone)
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 787
Re: "Resistance"
« Reply #14 on: April 20, 2017, 06:54:25 PM »
That's a QFT.
Coming from you Sanguine, that is high praise indeed. I'm deeply humbled. TYVM!!

If I had to guess, I'd say that you and millions of other true conservatives are sick and tired of having howling far-leftist media lump apolitical sociopathic anarchists (who happen to be white), qualified meth-smoking-tattooed-white-supremacists, doctrinaire-scowling-misanthropic -Spanish-Inquisition-religionists, inflexible literalists / legalists quoting this or that text from some favored source document, or hair-on-fire extremists of any kind who claim to be the only "true believers" worthy of carrying forth the standard of "true conservatism" as "the right" or "ultra-conservative". PTUI!

Indeed it is arguable that the terms "hard line" or the qualifier "ultra" and the term "conservative" are almost universally incompatible. This since reverence for the Rule-of-Law, intelligence, cooperative partnership, critical thinking and morally straight compromise to achieve a genuine Hegelian dialectic (as opposed to some infernal, sophistic / Marxist dialectic) are part-in-parcel of genuine conservatism (in the sense of conserving that which is worthy / valuable in all things).

There are only two wings of the political landscape in the USA and those are not right and left - they are right and wrong (albeit with some shades of nuance in the middle subject to interpretation of law and meaning).

I use as my guide for the more-precise demarcations of the Founders' intent for the nation's direction according to the Constitution's original intent, to be the Federalist Papers.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2017, 07:08:27 PM by LateForLunch »
GOTWALMA Get out of the way and leave me alone! (Nods to General Teebone)

Online Sanguine

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,739
  • Native Texan
Re: "Resistance"
« Reply #15 on: April 20, 2017, 07:35:54 PM »
Coming from you Sanguine, that is high praise indeed. I'm deeply humbled. TYVM!!

If I had to guess, I'd say that you and millions of other true conservatives are sick and tired of having howling far-leftist media lump apolitical sociopathic anarchists (who happen to be white), qualified meth-smoking-tattooed-white-supremacists, doctrinaire-scowling-misanthropic -Spanish-Inquisition-religionists, inflexible literalists / legalists quoting this or that text from some favored source document, or hair-on-fire extremists of any kind who claim to be the only "true believers" worthy of carrying forth the standard of "true conservatism" as "the right" or "ultra-conservative". PTUI!

Indeed it is arguable that the terms "hard line" or the qualifier "ultra" and the term "conservative" are almost universally incompatible. This since reverence for the Rule-of-Law, intelligence, cooperative partnership, critical thinking and morally straight compromise to achieve a genuine Hegelian dialectic (as opposed to some infernal, sophistic / Marxist dialectic) are part-in-parcel of genuine conservatism (in the sense of conserving that which is worthy / valuable in all things).

There are only two wings of the political landscape in the USA and those are not right and left - they are right and wrong (albeit with some shades of nuance in the middle subject to interpretation of law and meaning).

I use as my guide for the more-precise demarcations of the Founders' intent for the nation's direction according to the Constitution's original intent, to be the Federalist Papers.

You make me blush, sir.

Seriously, this is well said and well-thought out.  We need to understand what we believe in as conservatives.
There are no safe spaces in real life.   - LMAO

Walk in Wisdom
See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil.

But the noble make noble plans, and by noble deeds they stand.

Offline LateForLunch

  • GOTWALMA Get Out of the Way and Leave Me Alone! (Nods to Teebone)
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 787
Re: "Resistance"
« Reply #16 on: April 20, 2017, 08:13:55 PM »
We need to understand what we believe in as conservatives.

AAAA-f-ing-MEN!! If we can't answer the question "what is a conservative" clearly, then how can it be explained or popularized to those who are curious about it !?!

In once sense, conservatives are legitimately defined by being anti-leftists ( and ergo anti-socialist). Conservatives are generally anti-socialism not so much because of any prejudice or emotional repugnance, but because socialism ( especially radical, revolutionary socialism such as Communism) is a synonym for failure, disaster, horror and catastrophe.

But we are also pro-Capitalism because it WORKS!!! Free-market Capitalism has done more for the lowest echelons of the economic classes than any other single thing in the history of humanity. IMO that last truth cannot be repeated often enough or too much. Anyone who disputes that fact about how Capitalism has significantly elevated the standard-of-living for  poor people more than anything else, is either an ignoramus or a filthy liar.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2017, 08:26:27 PM by LateForLunch »
GOTWALMA Get out of the way and leave me alone! (Nods to General Teebone)

Offline Hondo69

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,047
  • The more I know the less I understand
Re: "Resistance"
« Reply #17 on: April 21, 2017, 03:32:36 AM »
Some exceptionally great posts upthread - worth reading several times.  IMO they're getting down to the heart of the matter.

In the past I've made my case about class warfare being at the root of the last presidential election and still believe it today.  Peeling back a layer of the class warfare argument lies its most critical core tenet - morals. 

While we can talk about economic divisions, structural disintegration and even race wars these arguments all revolve around a single idea when it all gets boiled down.  And that idea is moral values. Some say these values go back to the Ten Commandments, others the Bill of Rights.  We can also cite The Federalist Papers and even Spanish monks who proposed the idea that human beings have a soul.  I say yes, yes, yes to all of the above.

White noise is all around us these days and its easy to get caught up in the chaos.  But it's not that complicated when you strip away the distractions.  When is murder justified?  According to Bill de Blasio assassinating cops can be rationalized away in his twisted mind as a perverted form of "justice".  The press plus a large portion of the population will agree with de Blasio and devise obtuse arguments to back him up.  How do you feel about rape?  Well, liberals tell us, that depends upon . . .

Stop.  It's not that complicated.  Those of us with strong moral underpinnings are not confused on these matters one bit.  The real war being waged these days is a full out frontal attack on our moral values.  And this goes back to a statement from above:

We need to understand what we believe in as Conservatives.

Online Doug Loss

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,143
  • Proud Tennessean
Re: "Resistance"
« Reply #18 on: April 21, 2017, 10:36:06 AM »
AAAA-f-ing-MEN!! If we can't answer the question "what is a conservative" clearly, then how can it be explained or popularized to those who are curious about it !?!

In once sense, conservatives are legitimately defined by being anti-leftists ( and ergo anti-socialist). Conservatives are generally anti-socialism not so much because of any prejudice or emotional repugnance, but because socialism ( especially radical, revolutionary socialism such as Communism) is a synonym for failure, disaster, horror and catastrophe.

But we are also pro-Capitalism because it WORKS!!! Free-market Capitalism has done more for the lowest echelons of the economic classes than any other single thing in the history of humanity. IMO that last truth cannot be repeated often enough or too much. Anyone who disputes that fact about how Capitalism has significantly elevated the standard-of-living for  poor people more than anything else, is either an ignoramus or a filthy liar.

Well, I wrote this sometime ago, for a similar purpose.  I submit it again for your examination:

My political philosophy:

1) I'm not bothering anybody.
2) It's none of your business.
3) Leave me alone!

Online Sanguine

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,739
  • Native Texan
Re: "Resistance"
« Reply #19 on: April 21, 2017, 11:13:35 AM »
Well, I wrote this sometime ago, for a similar purpose.  I submit it again for your examination:

@Doug Loss, didn't you also start a thread here on this topic?
There are no safe spaces in real life.   - LMAO

Walk in Wisdom
See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil.

But the noble make noble plans, and by noble deeds they stand.

Online Doug Loss

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,143
  • Proud Tennessean
Re: "Resistance"
« Reply #20 on: April 21, 2017, 11:15:34 AM »
@Doug Loss, didn't you also start a thread here on this topic?

Yup, some time ago.  I think it was called, "Expanding Our Reach."  I was writing some columns for a website, thyblackman.com, but in the past few weeks I've been quiet (too many other things demanding my attention).
My political philosophy:

1) I'm not bothering anybody.
2) It's none of your business.
3) Leave me alone!

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 19,721
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: "Resistance"
« Reply #21 on: April 21, 2017, 11:21:46 AM »
With respect, my friend, the assault on Freedom of Speech started before the ink was fully dry. It's an aberration.

Quite true my brother! And it has been relentless from the beginning!  :beer:
 
“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.” —Voltaire

Online endicom

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,425
Re: "Resistance"
« Reply #22 on: April 21, 2017, 11:29:29 AM »
I was born in 1948--over 69 years ago--yet, in all this time, I have never before seen an organized "resistance" to any president.

 There have been some Republican presidents, and some Democratic presidents, since 1948; but never before has one encountered organized "resistance."

 I suppose the hard left is just now showing its true colors.

 And, of course, the efforts of George Soros and other committed socialists should not be overlooked...


Trump threatens their institutions, their power bases, within government and without. That is unique in perhaps the last hundred years.


Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 19,721
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: "Resistance"
« Reply #23 on: April 21, 2017, 11:29:59 AM »
@pjohns @Sanguine @Doug Loss @LateForLunch @Hondo69

I'm not going to respond to each of you individually but simply say instead that THIS is the most personally gratifying thread I have read here in a LONG time!

Bravo! and  :beer: all around!

PS: Pjohns and I are the same age but don't tell anyone!

« Last Edit: April 21, 2017, 11:31:07 AM by Bigun »
“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.” —Voltaire


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf