Friday, May 8, 2009

The Country's Divide

If you watch television, listen to radio or read a newspaper you quickly understand that there are two polar opposite views of the direction this country is taking. It could be argued that this has been brewing since the 60's when as a country we decided that what was more important then the family is the individual. And actually that would be the individual that agreed with liberal view points and not the old fashioned non-progressive standard bearing person. I think that once the courts said a baby in the womb can have its skull punctured at the whim of the mother our nations nucleus began to fall apart.

Abortion is another topic but its interesting to look at today's problems and ask questions like what people are in jail and why? Why are our children's education behind other country's? Why are so many people in debt beyond reasonable? Why do 50% of American not pay taxes? I believe the answer lies in the family. Once we diminished the importance of a two parent mother and father family, blurring each ones roles and taking away the parents right to parent along with the self centered mandates handed down by legislatures we began the fast track to self destruction.
So where are we right now? I see two completely different teams that are currently choosing up sides. One I will call the revolutionists. The strategy for this team is to get back to basics such as downsizing homes, purchasing guns, growing gardens, homeschooling, anything that will make them less dependent on the government and more self sufficient.


The other team I will name the progressives. Their game plan is of an aggressive nature, to isolate each player of the opposing team by demonizing them either as greedy companies, religious extremists, or red necked mountain people who cling to their guns. Their intent is to make the other team provide for all their desires.

Each team will not allow for moderation. You cannot be a member of the revolutionists or the progressives without being fully committed to how the game will be played. And don't think you can sit this game out. Oh no, one thing each team can agree on is if you don't want to play ball your the first one who gets his ass kicked.

2 comments:

  1. Pietro...I have to call time out for a name change. Personally I prefer conservatives and statists. Conservatives are not revolutionaries. Conservatism, a commitment to individualsim and liberty supported by a limited federal government enforced by the now all but historical balance of branch powers, is not revolutionary. It is what inspired the Founders. The statists believe in the power of the state over the individual. Statists believe that the state confers individual liberty and rights. The true statist does not believe in natural law, natural order, or a Judeo-Christian God. The statist believes the state has ultimate authorty over the individual and laughs at the notion that individuals have any right to express authority over the state.

    Progressives is too beneficient a term. Under statists we can include the socialist, the communist, the fascist, the islamist. The statist is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions over the last century. Supporters of the massive expansion of federal powers we are now witnessing may wish for us to call this liberal fascism, or socialism, "progressive". It is anything but. It is regressive and marks an astounding inability to learn from the past and ongoing failures of other statist experiments.

    I think your Russian Prof is a bit of a homer. Russia is a failed state which while it maintains significant nuclear capability, military might and is very dangerous, is incapable as constructed of supporting itself or its people.

    I suspect a Muslim Prof would draw quite a different map, and it might be much more accurate. Looking at demographics, Europe will be Eurabia, not the Europena Union, in 20 years. Moscow has much to fear from the rising Islamist tide. A Muslim Prof would likely predict a caliphate that includes an Israel destroyed in 2010 with the support of the BHO administration. Included in the caliphatre would be Europe and significant portions of the former Soviet Union, including Russia, by 2040.

    China is a wild card. They have the Islamist threat to deal with as well. They are supporting numerous Islamist regimes across the world for many reasons. One of the major factors is their need for oil. When the Chinese believe American will is broken, and they already feel it (see North Korea), they will be much more aggressive in asserting their will over Muslim domains. It is tricky business, however, feeding the Muslim crcodile always hoping it will eat someone else.

    Bio and nuclear weapons are great equalizers. Iran is near to joining the club, Pakistan is continuing its Islamist descent with nukes possibly in the hands of Taliban barring a show of courage from the US (or someone lese willing to recognize the danger of this threat...China or Russia...but they are feeding the crocodile as well). Syria has its eye on the prize and the Saudi's no doubt are desparately trying to determine how they can fast track such weapons given the Iranian threat and America's self-emasculation.

    Quaere Verum

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well said here. I agree with Quaere above in the importance of delineating conservatism vs. statism.

    ReplyDelete