A Lively Exchange
I thought everyone would enjoy an exchange I`ve been having with a liberal who read my Deathheads article. The thing I find odd is that I can`t imagine a conservative going to a very partisan left-wing site and pestering the author of an article like the liberals have done here. We would just read it, comment to ourselves on the idiocy of the writer, and move on. The left, on the other hand, trolls conservative sites as an act of espionage; they want to see what we are thinking in order to craft a line of attack. My correspondent Ironlion shows himself to be a thoughtful and courteous liberal, but he is unwilling to see the ugly truth behind his beliefs. I may have been a bit too terse with him in my final response; I`ve been sick and had a toothache, and my patience was a bit thin. Anyway, read and enjoy.
FROM IRONLION
I just read your article on the "deathheads". Brave New World is Aldous Huxley's vision of a distopia. You claim that Huxley attempted to portray a model of the left's idea of the perfect society. I'm curious. Have you ever read or heard of Aldous Huxley's Island? Island is Aldous Huxley's vision of a REAL utopia. In this book, the people living on the island take magic mushrooms to understand life, and the islanders children don't have to live with their parents, they can leave and live with other adults if they're having problems with theirs. I suggest you read this book, along with looking at some quotes and other information on Aldous Huxley. I think you'll find that if Aldous Huxley were around to read your article, he would be utterly disgusted at the way you misrepresented his work.
Maybe you just don't understand the point he was trying to get across. Try looking at the novel and comparing it to todays society. Alpha's, Betas, Deltas etc. are mirrored by our classes. We are all cogs in a giant machine. This machine is made up of multi-national corporations that take advantage of the consumerism and materialism we all suffer from. We even have a drug called soma along with a large number of other anti-depressants that merely serve to allow us to accept our servitude and forget about our low-quality of life. Your article makes it clear that there is a distinct discontinuity between the corporate and religious right. Sadly, you and yours have been had. The current administration is a corporation's administration. They preach one thing and practice another.
I find it rather silly that you would even bring up stem-cell research. If it were not for people like you perhaps Schiavo would be able to speak and walk and we would not be having this national debate. Your article also shows the hypocricy of much of the religous right. "The SL crowd believes life is a precious gift from God, and that Man does not have the right to choose the time and place for death", you claim in your article. May I ask you, are you for or against the death penalty? If you are not, what would you guess is the position of most Christians on the right side of the political spectrum? Does that position seem contradictory to you? Because it sure does to me. It just let me make it clear: nobody likes a murderer.
There are crazy people on both sides of the spectrum, that is for sure, but the position of the left cannot be characterized as "pro-death" just as there is no such thing as "pro-abortion". The left advocates never getting pregnant in the first place. But the right's hypocracy reveals itself again in their opposition to intelligent sex educaiton. It's common sense to teach abstinence. Abstinence works 100% of the time. If you are going to have sex, why not do you're best to not get pregnant so that you don't have to have an abortion or risk raising a child in poverty or having to give it away to someone else.
You're right about the left's love of the renaissance and the principles associated with it. Do you know why that is? Humanism created democracy in Athens. Humanism is liberalism.
Oddly enough, you undermined one of your own key arguments in the Schiavo case: Michael Schiavo is in it for money or some other immoral reason. You said, "...fairly early on Robert Herring, a stem-cell advocate, offered Michael Schiavo one million dollars to end his quest to kill his wife (which he refused)". If he was offered and refused one million dollars then what on Earth could be the reason for his desire to end the life of his wife? He could have just accepted the money and transfered Terri's guardianship over to her parents. I can only assume from what I know (and, like you, I know very little about him, his wife, or his wife's family), that he believes that it is what Terri would want to happen.
Lastly, the only thing this entire ordeal has in common with the death penalty is that it has to do with someone dying. The point is not that she is being punished, the point is that this is what she would have wanted (if that is indeed the case, which is what the courts have decided time and time again).
I don't expect you to respond to this E-mail, but I hope you will at least read it.
Dear Ironlion,
First off, let me thank you for responding to my article (even if you don`t agree). I would like to take
your points and anwer them as briefly as possible (I could write a book the length of War and Peace on this subject without too much effort if I wanted. Brevity will be difficult, but brief I shall be!)
1. I have heard of Island, although I have never read it. I know Huxley was in fact a Socialist and drug abuser, and that he never really followed up on Brave New World. Yes, he probably would have been disgusted at my using his words against him (I categorically deny misrepresenting him) but, then, Huxley was himself an object of disgust, so I think I shall not lose any sleep over his feelings. Still, none of this matters; Huxley wrote what he wrote, and you can`t deny that this nightmare vision he created was a Socialist Utopia gone mad. This was not a Capitalist state, or any other ``conservative`` society. Huxley understood where Fabian Socialism was taking the World, and he eloquently articulated it. That a man may later reject what he himself has said does not necessarily make it any less true. Pop psychology, false pseudo-religion, mind control, easy euthanasia, free, unfettered sex are all out of YOUR tradition-not mine.
2. Sorry, but the Liberals are the ones who try to pidgeonhole everyone into classes. Blacks have to think a certain way to be black, Hispanics have to be hispanics, women have to think like NOW. We have gay culture, fat culture, little people, etc. The liberal is the one who tries to pin these people into these particular slots. High taxation guarantees people can`t save or better their lives; who supports high taxes? Yes, we do have multinational corporations, but we also have Mom and Pop small businesses, and these began blossoming thanks to the REMOVAL of onerous government regulations. Your way PROMOTES the large corporation. Oh, and which side opposes drug use, and which side laughs it off?
3. I didn`t bring up stem-cell research, I brought up EMBRYONIC STEM-CELL RESEARCH. We have been hearing from your friends about the miracles to be wrought if only we had MORE embryonic stem-cell research. Your side rails against Bush, falsely accusing him of stopping research in this direction (it`s a lie; Bush was the first President to FUND this research-he just limited it to a certain cell line. You guys can`t seem to tell the truth on this one.) The fact is, if the proponents of embryonic stem-cell research were as confident in these miracles as they say they would DEMAND Terri be kept alive because a cure would be right around the corner. They have been strangely silent. Why? Because this has always been about justifying abortion and human cloning. They know full well that Adult stem-cells offer as much promise. They have insisted on using embryos because it would solidify their justifications for CONTROL of life and death. YOU know that as well as I do.
4. I agree with you on abstinance. I do not agree with you on ``intelligent`` sex education. I knew early on about sex, and about the causes of pregnancy. I expect you did, too! These kids are far more savvy than I ever was thanks to a sex-drenched culture, Cinemax, and Howard Stern. What sex-ed does is PROMOTE sex. It titilates kids while teaching them the manner to indulge their urges. I don`t argue sex should be off limits, but sex-ed is certainly not the way to go. Putting condoms on bananas and teaching about ``alternate lifestyles`` is hardly affecting out of wedlock births.
5. You should read my blog, if you think I undermine my own argument. First off, no-where in my article did I accuse Michael Schiavo of doing it for the money (you haven`t been paying attention!) But since you bring this matter up....
Michael Schiavo sued for medical malpractice and won a dandy settlement. He immediately began lobbying to remove Terri`s feeding tube after that. Michael has life insurance which will pay out on Terri`s death, and Michael will have a book deal, speaking engagements, a movie of the week, etc. If he had taken the deal and walked away from Terri he would be known as a scoundrel. Now he walks away rich, and a hero as well.
6. This ordeal has a great deal to do with the death penalty. This is about the power of the State to take someone`s life. In both cases the law is ordering someone`s death. The convicted criminal is being killed because of a heinous crime which demands justice. Terri is being killed because one man, Michael Schiavo, wants her dead. She is being KILLED, not allowed to die, as so many on your side assert.
Given the length and obvious anger in your reply I must conclude I have touched a nerve. It seems I am more right than I know.
I don`t expect you to reply to this, but at least read it!
FROM IRONLION
I'm glad you responded. Thank you.
Huxley was not a hypocrit. Brave New World does not contradict Huxley's views in the slightest. You must be crazy if you believe that I, with my liberal attitude, would ever support a society like the one represented in Brave New World. I assure you that no liberal would support that kind of world and, in fact, we would utterly oppose and attempt to stop its creation. You can also be sure that there are no liberals that would champion what happened in the former Soviet Union under Stalin. It is also ridiculous to say that nazism is anything like liberalism. I'm surprised that you don't know: fascism is a political ideology of the far right.
On your second point: I find it humorous when people on the right try to turn us into the racists and classists(?). It's not a bad thing to recognize differences. Today, gay people do have their own culture, most likely because they are marginalized by people like you. We liberals say Blacks have to think a certain way to be black? This is a huge issue that has much to do with African Americans trying to create an identity after more than 3 centuries of discrimination, racism, and slavery. We DO make people aware of classes. People who are stuck on the bottom must be aware that they are being pinned down. The liberal tradition is one of mind control? Please, I would love you to tell me how that is. Our tradition is one of FACT. Perhaps you are speaking of the propaganda in the Soviet Union under Stalin, or under Hitler in Nazi Germany. Well, both Stalin and Hitler were dictators. Liberalism and Authoritarianism are not in any way related to one another. Please, I would like you to imagine a hippi ordering millions of Jews killed, or political opponents rounded up and shot. That should be hard to imagine. Ours is a tradition of pseudo-religion? If I had any idea what that meant, I'm sure I could counter it. What is false religion? Buddhism? Islam? Judism? Anything that isn't fundamentalist Christian? I'm afraid you're rigth about unfettered sex. Liberals are all for allowing people to make their own decisions. I for one am not for outlawing sex out of wedlock. It is a free country after all.
Bush is the first president to fund stem-cell research because he's the first to have the opportunity to. If Clinton had had the chance, I guarantee you it would have gotten many times more funding along with more freedom to research. I can tell you why stem-cell advocates weren't begging Michael Schiavo to stop. Stem cells have a lot of potential to cure many different diseases. However, Terri Schiavo's problem is in her brain, unlike someone like Chritopher Reeves, who broke his back. Perhaps in the far future stem cells could help someone like Terri Schiavo, but not any time soon. Suggesting that there is some conspiracy to justify abortion and especially human cloning honeslty sounds downright paranoid. Do you honestly believe that scientists want to use embryonic stem cells to have some control over life and death? Do you think that was on their mind? I can assure you it was not.
Europe has sex education that goes much further than just abstinence. Their teen pregnancy rates are MUCH lower than those in the US. Are their men and women just less furtile, or could their low pregnancy rate be because they use protection? Less pregnancies mean less abortion. European TV has MUCH more nudity than that in the US. They even have sex in commercials, and yet their teen pregnancy rate is still lower than ours. It works. It's fact. If you don't want your children to have sex out of wedlock, than you are always free to teach them.
I'm not going to make any more assumtions about Michael Schiavo's motives, and I urge you to do the same. Perhaps he will have a book deal after this ordeal. If he does, it will be because of the opposition and subsequent media coverage of his and what he believes are his wife's wishes. Do you think he knew this entire process would be covered by the national media?
The law is not ordering someone's death in this case, it is merely upholding the decision of Terri Schiavo's guardian.
Finally, you are correct. You have struck a nerve. Not because you are right, but because you are putting words in people's mouths. In your article you are attempting to explain my ideology, and as I read, I saw how completey wrong you were. You are taking stabs in the dark and clearly don't understand the philosophy of the left. If you would like to know our beliefs so that you can tell me what's wrong with them, feel free to ask.
Because you responded to my response, I must assume that I struck a nerve. I must be more right than I know.
FROM ME
I responded to your e-mail because a. you seem like a thoughtful liberal and I hoped I might be able to rescue you from the abyss :) and because I try to respond to everybody who e-mails me about an article I write.
Let me take your points in order.
1. I take Huxley at his word, and accept what he says because I know he is onto something. I realize no liberal would support that type of world-but, as we all know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That is precisely the kind of world we will get if the Liberal Movement triumphs.
Fascism is a Left Wing ideology, and if you understood the roots of the movement you have allied yourself with you would know that. Fascism has it`s roots in Rousseau`s vision of Nationalism. Rousseau wanted to break the power of the aristocracy and the Church, and he advocated a concept which we call supernationalism, which is nothing more than substituting national identity and a mystical concept of nationhood for religion. This was expounded on by the (liberal) German philosopher Nietzche, who taught the concept of the Uberman; the superior Man created by the Will. Most Nazi themes come straight from Nietzche, and he drew his ideas largely from Rousseau. Finally, the Nazi`s drew heavily from Social Darwinism, which was a natural progression in Darwinian thought, and this philosophy gave them a ``scientific`` basis for their racial beliefs. This trio of liberalism, along with a good deal of pagan mysticism, is at the core of Fascist and Nazi ideology. Bear in mind the word Nazi is an abbreviation for National SOCIALIST German Workers Party. If you had a time machine, and go back to 1933 and ask a nazi what side of the divide he was on he would tell you unhesitantly that he was a socialist. You liberals have labored mightily to persuade the public that nazis were right wingers. It is absolutely unprovable. Your only argument is that the fascists were anti-communist. That was true; it was also because communists were rivals for dominance within the liberal movement (and, I would like to point out, there were rivals in the communist movement as well-the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, S.R.`s, etc.)
3. You are the one who went on about how we have been divided up into classes, then you laugh when I point out that YOU are the dividers. You can laugh all you want, but it doesn`t make it less true. Why do you think Huxley HAD those classes in BNW? Because he knew that a segment of the liberal movement wanted to do just that. Margaret Sanger was the big advocate for eugenics. Oh, and pseudo-religion is a faith which substitutes a lesser thing for God or gods. Your belief system substitutes Man and reason-as I pointed out in my article.
4. Liberalism and Authoritarianism go hand in hand; what the hell do you call the most communists?-and yes, I can imagine a hippie ordering deaths; every heard of the Symbionese Liberation Army, the Black Panthers, etc.?
5. I am a standard Catholic, not a fundamentalist Christian. No-one has proposed outlawing sex outside of marriage, as far as I am aware. You are imagining things which aren`t real.
6. The Neural connections in the back work in precisely the same way as those in the Brain. That argument doesn`t wash.
7. The law is ordering someone`s death. She is not being kept alive by life support, and if you would care to look up the Florida statutes on the matter you would see that the courts have overstepped their authority because Florida law says clearly that in the absence of a living will a feeding tube may not be removed. Further, the U.S. Supreme Court said in the Nancy Cruzan case that the courts may not overturn a state statute on the matter. Michael Schiavo did not have the authority to issue this request. And NO-ONE has the right to kill someone by denying them water and food. That is plain immoral, and the determination to carry this murder out proves my point.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but I know your beliefs better than you do.
FROM IRONLION
I can understand your points of view (I resent the last line of your response). I know what I believe, and I know what I stand for better than anyone else.
Here is a definition of fascism written by Mussolini: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html. I'll quote some of it.
"...that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State...."
It can be gathered that Mussolini did not consider himself a liberal, socialist or in favor of democracy. He (the man who carried out fascism in Italy) established that it was not a liberal or socialist government. He established that the government is the absolute authority. You may be thinking "big government: liberal". When the state acts as if it owns the people, that is not a liberal state. That is why the Stalinist Soviet Union was not communist. Communism is to the far left, but there is no example in the world of a truly communist state. Why? Because it never works, it always turns into a dictatorship (far right). Admittedly, there is a fine line between both political extremes. At both sides often begin to resemble one another.
"And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society...."
Does that sound liberal to you?
"The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State...."
Here, a fascist claims that the "Liberal State" is not a directing force. A fascist says clearly that a liberal state is not authoritarian.
So, if you asked Mussolini if he were a socialist, what do you think he would say?
The Nazis were also fascist in the same way. You are correct that they would call themselves socialists. But they were socialist only in name. They're actions speak louder than their words.
Both the Italians and Germans engaged in corporatism, which gives corporations political power, and ends up stifling the lower classes.
These things are not on the left side of the political fence. Much of it did originate on the left, but over time morphed and once in practice, was clearly a right wing political system.
On your sixth point: Are you a doctor? You may be correct that the neural connections in the back and brain work the same way. The difference? The brain is a large 3 dimensional object whereas the spine is a line of cells. Replacing cells in the spine would be a much simpler task than in the brain. Also, because Schiavo suffered a heart attack, my assumption is that her brain damage is due to a lack of oxygen. This would effect all of the cells in her brain. Are you suggesting that they ought to advocate replacing her entire brain? My guess is no.
If you would like to understand the liberal point of view, ask me about my beliefs and why I believe what I do. Perhaps we could come to some sort of understanding. Wouldn't that be crazy?
FROM ME
Haven`t you heard of the dictatorship of the proletariate? You show you have absolutely no concept of what liberalism is. State control is absolutely necessary to your political philosophy because you are compelling people to do that which they would not do of their own accord. Liberalism is about manipulation of society for mankind`s betterment-wether they like it or not.
I notice you completely ignore the opening lines of the piece you site: Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) over the course of his lifetime went from Socialism - he was editor of Avanti, a socialist newspaper - to the leadership of a new political movement called "fascism" [after "fasces", the symbol of bound sticks used a totem of power in ancient Rome].
Oh, I guess Mussolini did a complete 180 and turned Conservative! That`s impressive!
Again, I said Fascism was a rival socialist system to Marxism. You are desperate to deny any connection to your liberalism, so you try (desperately) to argue that because Fascism isn`t Marxism it isn`t part of Liberalism. Mussolini`s claim that fascism isn`t a liberal state hardly divorces it from your movement; it means he is not of the ``progressive`` liberal wing. Sorry, nice try. Show me the conservative roots of fascism-I dare you! You can`t. It is squarely and solidly in the liberal camp. You claim that Nazi`s are socialist in name only. Oh please! They come straight out of YOUR movement, as I explained to you already. I guess it`s tough to explain how a party called the National Socialists aren`t socialist, or even members of the liberal movement.
``These things are not on the left side of the political fence. Much of it did originate on the left, but over time morphed and once in practice, was clearly a right wing political system.``
You have lost any and all credibility with this statement. They are right wing because YOU want them to be right wing! YOU and yours have engaged in a practice that was much employed by Joseph Goebbles. You have repeated a lie, and often, to try to change the the facts. Sorry, but the truth is the truth, no matter how much you may want to deny it.
On the stem-cell issue-you just don`t get the point! YOU PEOPLE are the ones claiming the glorious new era being ushered in by grinding fetal brains for stem cells. I was pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of those on YOUR SIDE. I was making no such claim. We heard ad nauseum about how fetal stem cells were going to cure any and all neurological disorders. Well, if that`s the case, then why aren`t YOUR PEOPLE fighting to keep Terri alive until a cure can be found? YOUR SIDE is the one making all of the great claims. Yet you are strangely silent.
Rob, I have a pretty good idea of what you liberals believe. I do not say all of you are all full of hate or bile. There are many liberals who become liberals because they feel it is more compassionate. I disagree. I think that liberalism is, in the end, terribly destructive. I further KNOW that many liberals DO walk around full of bile. I notice you haven`t asked ME what I believe. I suspect you think conservatives are small, petty, angry, hatefilled religious zealots who enjoy seeing babies starve and brain-damaged women suffer. I`ve studies liberalism extensively; my thesis in college was on the roots of the liberal movement. What do you know of conservatives?
Tim
FROM IRONLION
I just read your article on the "deathheads". Brave New World is Aldous Huxley's vision of a distopia. You claim that Huxley attempted to portray a model of the left's idea of the perfect society. I'm curious. Have you ever read or heard of Aldous Huxley's Island? Island is Aldous Huxley's vision of a REAL utopia. In this book, the people living on the island take magic mushrooms to understand life, and the islanders children don't have to live with their parents, they can leave and live with other adults if they're having problems with theirs. I suggest you read this book, along with looking at some quotes and other information on Aldous Huxley. I think you'll find that if Aldous Huxley were around to read your article, he would be utterly disgusted at the way you misrepresented his work.
Maybe you just don't understand the point he was trying to get across. Try looking at the novel and comparing it to todays society. Alpha's, Betas, Deltas etc. are mirrored by our classes. We are all cogs in a giant machine. This machine is made up of multi-national corporations that take advantage of the consumerism and materialism we all suffer from. We even have a drug called soma along with a large number of other anti-depressants that merely serve to allow us to accept our servitude and forget about our low-quality of life. Your article makes it clear that there is a distinct discontinuity between the corporate and religious right. Sadly, you and yours have been had. The current administration is a corporation's administration. They preach one thing and practice another.
I find it rather silly that you would even bring up stem-cell research. If it were not for people like you perhaps Schiavo would be able to speak and walk and we would not be having this national debate. Your article also shows the hypocricy of much of the religous right. "The SL crowd believes life is a precious gift from God, and that Man does not have the right to choose the time and place for death", you claim in your article. May I ask you, are you for or against the death penalty? If you are not, what would you guess is the position of most Christians on the right side of the political spectrum? Does that position seem contradictory to you? Because it sure does to me. It just let me make it clear: nobody likes a murderer.
There are crazy people on both sides of the spectrum, that is for sure, but the position of the left cannot be characterized as "pro-death" just as there is no such thing as "pro-abortion". The left advocates never getting pregnant in the first place. But the right's hypocracy reveals itself again in their opposition to intelligent sex educaiton. It's common sense to teach abstinence. Abstinence works 100% of the time. If you are going to have sex, why not do you're best to not get pregnant so that you don't have to have an abortion or risk raising a child in poverty or having to give it away to someone else.
You're right about the left's love of the renaissance and the principles associated with it. Do you know why that is? Humanism created democracy in Athens. Humanism is liberalism.
Oddly enough, you undermined one of your own key arguments in the Schiavo case: Michael Schiavo is in it for money or some other immoral reason. You said, "...fairly early on Robert Herring, a stem-cell advocate, offered Michael Schiavo one million dollars to end his quest to kill his wife (which he refused)". If he was offered and refused one million dollars then what on Earth could be the reason for his desire to end the life of his wife? He could have just accepted the money and transfered Terri's guardianship over to her parents. I can only assume from what I know (and, like you, I know very little about him, his wife, or his wife's family), that he believes that it is what Terri would want to happen.
Lastly, the only thing this entire ordeal has in common with the death penalty is that it has to do with someone dying. The point is not that she is being punished, the point is that this is what she would have wanted (if that is indeed the case, which is what the courts have decided time and time again).
I don't expect you to respond to this E-mail, but I hope you will at least read it.
Dear Ironlion,
First off, let me thank you for responding to my article (even if you don`t agree). I would like to take
your points and anwer them as briefly as possible (I could write a book the length of War and Peace on this subject without too much effort if I wanted. Brevity will be difficult, but brief I shall be!)
1. I have heard of Island, although I have never read it. I know Huxley was in fact a Socialist and drug abuser, and that he never really followed up on Brave New World. Yes, he probably would have been disgusted at my using his words against him (I categorically deny misrepresenting him) but, then, Huxley was himself an object of disgust, so I think I shall not lose any sleep over his feelings. Still, none of this matters; Huxley wrote what he wrote, and you can`t deny that this nightmare vision he created was a Socialist Utopia gone mad. This was not a Capitalist state, or any other ``conservative`` society. Huxley understood where Fabian Socialism was taking the World, and he eloquently articulated it. That a man may later reject what he himself has said does not necessarily make it any less true. Pop psychology, false pseudo-religion, mind control, easy euthanasia, free, unfettered sex are all out of YOUR tradition-not mine.
2. Sorry, but the Liberals are the ones who try to pidgeonhole everyone into classes. Blacks have to think a certain way to be black, Hispanics have to be hispanics, women have to think like NOW. We have gay culture, fat culture, little people, etc. The liberal is the one who tries to pin these people into these particular slots. High taxation guarantees people can`t save or better their lives; who supports high taxes? Yes, we do have multinational corporations, but we also have Mom and Pop small businesses, and these began blossoming thanks to the REMOVAL of onerous government regulations. Your way PROMOTES the large corporation. Oh, and which side opposes drug use, and which side laughs it off?
3. I didn`t bring up stem-cell research, I brought up EMBRYONIC STEM-CELL RESEARCH. We have been hearing from your friends about the miracles to be wrought if only we had MORE embryonic stem-cell research. Your side rails against Bush, falsely accusing him of stopping research in this direction (it`s a lie; Bush was the first President to FUND this research-he just limited it to a certain cell line. You guys can`t seem to tell the truth on this one.) The fact is, if the proponents of embryonic stem-cell research were as confident in these miracles as they say they would DEMAND Terri be kept alive because a cure would be right around the corner. They have been strangely silent. Why? Because this has always been about justifying abortion and human cloning. They know full well that Adult stem-cells offer as much promise. They have insisted on using embryos because it would solidify their justifications for CONTROL of life and death. YOU know that as well as I do.
4. I agree with you on abstinance. I do not agree with you on ``intelligent`` sex education. I knew early on about sex, and about the causes of pregnancy. I expect you did, too! These kids are far more savvy than I ever was thanks to a sex-drenched culture, Cinemax, and Howard Stern. What sex-ed does is PROMOTE sex. It titilates kids while teaching them the manner to indulge their urges. I don`t argue sex should be off limits, but sex-ed is certainly not the way to go. Putting condoms on bananas and teaching about ``alternate lifestyles`` is hardly affecting out of wedlock births.
5. You should read my blog, if you think I undermine my own argument. First off, no-where in my article did I accuse Michael Schiavo of doing it for the money (you haven`t been paying attention!) But since you bring this matter up....
Michael Schiavo sued for medical malpractice and won a dandy settlement. He immediately began lobbying to remove Terri`s feeding tube after that. Michael has life insurance which will pay out on Terri`s death, and Michael will have a book deal, speaking engagements, a movie of the week, etc. If he had taken the deal and walked away from Terri he would be known as a scoundrel. Now he walks away rich, and a hero as well.
6. This ordeal has a great deal to do with the death penalty. This is about the power of the State to take someone`s life. In both cases the law is ordering someone`s death. The convicted criminal is being killed because of a heinous crime which demands justice. Terri is being killed because one man, Michael Schiavo, wants her dead. She is being KILLED, not allowed to die, as so many on your side assert.
Given the length and obvious anger in your reply I must conclude I have touched a nerve. It seems I am more right than I know.
I don`t expect you to reply to this, but at least read it!
FROM IRONLION
I'm glad you responded. Thank you.
Huxley was not a hypocrit. Brave New World does not contradict Huxley's views in the slightest. You must be crazy if you believe that I, with my liberal attitude, would ever support a society like the one represented in Brave New World. I assure you that no liberal would support that kind of world and, in fact, we would utterly oppose and attempt to stop its creation. You can also be sure that there are no liberals that would champion what happened in the former Soviet Union under Stalin. It is also ridiculous to say that nazism is anything like liberalism. I'm surprised that you don't know: fascism is a political ideology of the far right.
On your second point: I find it humorous when people on the right try to turn us into the racists and classists(?). It's not a bad thing to recognize differences. Today, gay people do have their own culture, most likely because they are marginalized by people like you. We liberals say Blacks have to think a certain way to be black? This is a huge issue that has much to do with African Americans trying to create an identity after more than 3 centuries of discrimination, racism, and slavery. We DO make people aware of classes. People who are stuck on the bottom must be aware that they are being pinned down. The liberal tradition is one of mind control? Please, I would love you to tell me how that is. Our tradition is one of FACT. Perhaps you are speaking of the propaganda in the Soviet Union under Stalin, or under Hitler in Nazi Germany. Well, both Stalin and Hitler were dictators. Liberalism and Authoritarianism are not in any way related to one another. Please, I would like you to imagine a hippi ordering millions of Jews killed, or political opponents rounded up and shot. That should be hard to imagine. Ours is a tradition of pseudo-religion? If I had any idea what that meant, I'm sure I could counter it. What is false religion? Buddhism? Islam? Judism? Anything that isn't fundamentalist Christian? I'm afraid you're rigth about unfettered sex. Liberals are all for allowing people to make their own decisions. I for one am not for outlawing sex out of wedlock. It is a free country after all.
Bush is the first president to fund stem-cell research because he's the first to have the opportunity to. If Clinton had had the chance, I guarantee you it would have gotten many times more funding along with more freedom to research. I can tell you why stem-cell advocates weren't begging Michael Schiavo to stop. Stem cells have a lot of potential to cure many different diseases. However, Terri Schiavo's problem is in her brain, unlike someone like Chritopher Reeves, who broke his back. Perhaps in the far future stem cells could help someone like Terri Schiavo, but not any time soon. Suggesting that there is some conspiracy to justify abortion and especially human cloning honeslty sounds downright paranoid. Do you honestly believe that scientists want to use embryonic stem cells to have some control over life and death? Do you think that was on their mind? I can assure you it was not.
Europe has sex education that goes much further than just abstinence. Their teen pregnancy rates are MUCH lower than those in the US. Are their men and women just less furtile, or could their low pregnancy rate be because they use protection? Less pregnancies mean less abortion. European TV has MUCH more nudity than that in the US. They even have sex in commercials, and yet their teen pregnancy rate is still lower than ours. It works. It's fact. If you don't want your children to have sex out of wedlock, than you are always free to teach them.
I'm not going to make any more assumtions about Michael Schiavo's motives, and I urge you to do the same. Perhaps he will have a book deal after this ordeal. If he does, it will be because of the opposition and subsequent media coverage of his and what he believes are his wife's wishes. Do you think he knew this entire process would be covered by the national media?
The law is not ordering someone's death in this case, it is merely upholding the decision of Terri Schiavo's guardian.
Finally, you are correct. You have struck a nerve. Not because you are right, but because you are putting words in people's mouths. In your article you are attempting to explain my ideology, and as I read, I saw how completey wrong you were. You are taking stabs in the dark and clearly don't understand the philosophy of the left. If you would like to know our beliefs so that you can tell me what's wrong with them, feel free to ask.
Because you responded to my response, I must assume that I struck a nerve. I must be more right than I know.
FROM ME
I responded to your e-mail because a. you seem like a thoughtful liberal and I hoped I might be able to rescue you from the abyss :) and because I try to respond to everybody who e-mails me about an article I write.
Let me take your points in order.
1. I take Huxley at his word, and accept what he says because I know he is onto something. I realize no liberal would support that type of world-but, as we all know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That is precisely the kind of world we will get if the Liberal Movement triumphs.
Fascism is a Left Wing ideology, and if you understood the roots of the movement you have allied yourself with you would know that. Fascism has it`s roots in Rousseau`s vision of Nationalism. Rousseau wanted to break the power of the aristocracy and the Church, and he advocated a concept which we call supernationalism, which is nothing more than substituting national identity and a mystical concept of nationhood for religion. This was expounded on by the (liberal) German philosopher Nietzche, who taught the concept of the Uberman; the superior Man created by the Will. Most Nazi themes come straight from Nietzche, and he drew his ideas largely from Rousseau. Finally, the Nazi`s drew heavily from Social Darwinism, which was a natural progression in Darwinian thought, and this philosophy gave them a ``scientific`` basis for their racial beliefs. This trio of liberalism, along with a good deal of pagan mysticism, is at the core of Fascist and Nazi ideology. Bear in mind the word Nazi is an abbreviation for National SOCIALIST German Workers Party. If you had a time machine, and go back to 1933 and ask a nazi what side of the divide he was on he would tell you unhesitantly that he was a socialist. You liberals have labored mightily to persuade the public that nazis were right wingers. It is absolutely unprovable. Your only argument is that the fascists were anti-communist. That was true; it was also because communists were rivals for dominance within the liberal movement (and, I would like to point out, there were rivals in the communist movement as well-the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, S.R.`s, etc.)
3. You are the one who went on about how we have been divided up into classes, then you laugh when I point out that YOU are the dividers. You can laugh all you want, but it doesn`t make it less true. Why do you think Huxley HAD those classes in BNW? Because he knew that a segment of the liberal movement wanted to do just that. Margaret Sanger was the big advocate for eugenics. Oh, and pseudo-religion is a faith which substitutes a lesser thing for God or gods. Your belief system substitutes Man and reason-as I pointed out in my article.
4. Liberalism and Authoritarianism go hand in hand; what the hell do you call the most communists?-and yes, I can imagine a hippie ordering deaths; every heard of the Symbionese Liberation Army, the Black Panthers, etc.?
5. I am a standard Catholic, not a fundamentalist Christian. No-one has proposed outlawing sex outside of marriage, as far as I am aware. You are imagining things which aren`t real.
6. The Neural connections in the back work in precisely the same way as those in the Brain. That argument doesn`t wash.
7. The law is ordering someone`s death. She is not being kept alive by life support, and if you would care to look up the Florida statutes on the matter you would see that the courts have overstepped their authority because Florida law says clearly that in the absence of a living will a feeding tube may not be removed. Further, the U.S. Supreme Court said in the Nancy Cruzan case that the courts may not overturn a state statute on the matter. Michael Schiavo did not have the authority to issue this request. And NO-ONE has the right to kill someone by denying them water and food. That is plain immoral, and the determination to carry this murder out proves my point.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but I know your beliefs better than you do.
FROM IRONLION
I can understand your points of view (I resent the last line of your response). I know what I believe, and I know what I stand for better than anyone else.
Here is a definition of fascism written by Mussolini: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html. I'll quote some of it.
"...that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State...."
It can be gathered that Mussolini did not consider himself a liberal, socialist or in favor of democracy. He (the man who carried out fascism in Italy) established that it was not a liberal or socialist government. He established that the government is the absolute authority. You may be thinking "big government: liberal". When the state acts as if it owns the people, that is not a liberal state. That is why the Stalinist Soviet Union was not communist. Communism is to the far left, but there is no example in the world of a truly communist state. Why? Because it never works, it always turns into a dictatorship (far right). Admittedly, there is a fine line between both political extremes. At both sides often begin to resemble one another.
"And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society...."
Does that sound liberal to you?
"The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State...."
Here, a fascist claims that the "Liberal State" is not a directing force. A fascist says clearly that a liberal state is not authoritarian.
So, if you asked Mussolini if he were a socialist, what do you think he would say?
The Nazis were also fascist in the same way. You are correct that they would call themselves socialists. But they were socialist only in name. They're actions speak louder than their words.
Both the Italians and Germans engaged in corporatism, which gives corporations political power, and ends up stifling the lower classes.
These things are not on the left side of the political fence. Much of it did originate on the left, but over time morphed and once in practice, was clearly a right wing political system.
On your sixth point: Are you a doctor? You may be correct that the neural connections in the back and brain work the same way. The difference? The brain is a large 3 dimensional object whereas the spine is a line of cells. Replacing cells in the spine would be a much simpler task than in the brain. Also, because Schiavo suffered a heart attack, my assumption is that her brain damage is due to a lack of oxygen. This would effect all of the cells in her brain. Are you suggesting that they ought to advocate replacing her entire brain? My guess is no.
If you would like to understand the liberal point of view, ask me about my beliefs and why I believe what I do. Perhaps we could come to some sort of understanding. Wouldn't that be crazy?
FROM ME
Haven`t you heard of the dictatorship of the proletariate? You show you have absolutely no concept of what liberalism is. State control is absolutely necessary to your political philosophy because you are compelling people to do that which they would not do of their own accord. Liberalism is about manipulation of society for mankind`s betterment-wether they like it or not.
I notice you completely ignore the opening lines of the piece you site: Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) over the course of his lifetime went from Socialism - he was editor of Avanti, a socialist newspaper - to the leadership of a new political movement called "fascism" [after "fasces", the symbol of bound sticks used a totem of power in ancient Rome].
Oh, I guess Mussolini did a complete 180 and turned Conservative! That`s impressive!
Again, I said Fascism was a rival socialist system to Marxism. You are desperate to deny any connection to your liberalism, so you try (desperately) to argue that because Fascism isn`t Marxism it isn`t part of Liberalism. Mussolini`s claim that fascism isn`t a liberal state hardly divorces it from your movement; it means he is not of the ``progressive`` liberal wing. Sorry, nice try. Show me the conservative roots of fascism-I dare you! You can`t. It is squarely and solidly in the liberal camp. You claim that Nazi`s are socialist in name only. Oh please! They come straight out of YOUR movement, as I explained to you already. I guess it`s tough to explain how a party called the National Socialists aren`t socialist, or even members of the liberal movement.
``These things are not on the left side of the political fence. Much of it did originate on the left, but over time morphed and once in practice, was clearly a right wing political system.``
You have lost any and all credibility with this statement. They are right wing because YOU want them to be right wing! YOU and yours have engaged in a practice that was much employed by Joseph Goebbles. You have repeated a lie, and often, to try to change the the facts. Sorry, but the truth is the truth, no matter how much you may want to deny it.
On the stem-cell issue-you just don`t get the point! YOU PEOPLE are the ones claiming the glorious new era being ushered in by grinding fetal brains for stem cells. I was pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of those on YOUR SIDE. I was making no such claim. We heard ad nauseum about how fetal stem cells were going to cure any and all neurological disorders. Well, if that`s the case, then why aren`t YOUR PEOPLE fighting to keep Terri alive until a cure can be found? YOUR SIDE is the one making all of the great claims. Yet you are strangely silent.
Rob, I have a pretty good idea of what you liberals believe. I do not say all of you are all full of hate or bile. There are many liberals who become liberals because they feel it is more compassionate. I disagree. I think that liberalism is, in the end, terribly destructive. I further KNOW that many liberals DO walk around full of bile. I notice you haven`t asked ME what I believe. I suspect you think conservatives are small, petty, angry, hatefilled religious zealots who enjoy seeing babies starve and brain-damaged women suffer. I`ve studies liberalism extensively; my thesis in college was on the roots of the liberal movement. What do you know of conservatives?
Tim
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 4:20 PM
4 Comments:
(Dude, are you smoking crack or something?)
Is that a "snappy comeback" or what?
Fascism/ Nazism was a totalitarian regime based on nationalism with socialism at its core. The Soviet Union was a totalitarian regime based on communism with nationalism at its core. It’s a rather nuanced difference but you libs ought to love this nuance crap.
To Dadahead,
First, let me start by saying that crack smoking generally falls in the province of you on the left side of the aisle.
Second, you`re great with the one-liners, but I suspect you couldn`t find your rear end if you had a map.
1. I never called anyone a troll-I guess crack is making you hallucinate.
2. If you knew anything about historical political philosophy you would know that Nationalism is an outgrowth of liberal doctrine. I believe that was rather plainly explained in my e-mail. Guess you missed it because you were taking a toke.
3. Nietzche believed in the perfectability of Man, he believed in the supremecy of Reason, he opposed God, he believed in Human Will and the ability to recreate Man and society. This is clearly in the liberal camp. Nietzche was the intellectual heir to Rousseau. You should probably refrain from spouting off on topics you clearly don`t know anything about.
4. Darwinism was indeed a scientific theory, and has been used by the Left for innumerable social experimentation. It is YOUR pet theory. It has everything to do with politics.
5.OK, you don`t want to call the Black Panthers hippies. Fine, maybe I should provide you with another example, how about, oh, Charles Manson and his Family.
6. Since it`s o.k. to withhold food and water from someone who can`t get it for themselves, I suppose we can kill young children, elderly, people who are laid up for whatever reason and can`t get to a refrigerator or water tap. If there was ever a statement which proved my point and showed liberalism for the horror that it is it was that last by you, Dadahead.
7.Show me where Scalia has proposed making extramarital sex illegal, show me or admit that your lying.
8.Liberalism and leftism come from the same source and are degrees of the same critter. Nice try, though.
9.That`s rich; you don`t have the foggiest idea of where your belief system came from and you say I don`t understand polital philosophy! I think you are projecting your own faults here, dadahead.
10.Sorry, but the phrase Liberal Education doesn`t mean a left-wing indoctrination, which is pretty clearly what you engaged in. Try cracking (no double ententre` intended)a history book, or a book on philosophy once in a while. Try reading To The Finland Station, or any other book on political philosophy. You might be surprised by how little you know.
I`m going to stop now, because this is just too easy.
To dadahead,
You are quite simply a fool! You know nothing but what you hear on "Air America"! Your remark that nationalism is associated with the right wing and not the left wing shows an astonishingly weak understanding of history, although this is understandable for someone of your infantile mentality.
Nationalism was born during the French Revolution, it was a liberal ideology. The established institutions in the west loathed nationalism and after the defeat of Napolean they banded together to fight this pernicious ideology. Conservatism was the reaction of the bedrocks of the west against the virus of liberalism embodied by the nationalism of the Jacobins and their supporters. I suspect that you probably think that the French Revolution was a healthy development and a great step forward for mankind, rather than the heinous iniquity that it really was, but I believe there is no sense trying to salvage an intellectual shipwreck like yourself. See hello to Al Franken, Janeane Garofalo, Michael Moore and the rest of the double-digit IQ crowd for me too!
Regards,
Brian Birdnow
Dadahead,
You crazy liberals don`t bother to research and understand the roots of your own movement. If you had any sense you would know that Naziism comes straight out of your camp-and this is easily verified. You liberals are the ones who remove things from your posteriors; you do it on a regular basis. ``George Bush is the most right wing president in history`` riiight! ``Terri Schiavo was on life support``really! ``George Bush stole the election from Al Gore, then stole the election fro Kerry in Wisconsin``grow up! ``the war in Iraq was about making money for Bush`s oil buddies``-sorry to point it out but your side prevaricates constantly. Who pulls what from where?
I notice you never answer when you`ve been corrected. Why is that, Dadahead? Because you CAN`T! Liberalism is always about the easy answers, the feel-good responses. You can bask in your moral righteousness and intellectual superiority, and tell yourself that you are part of the intelligentsia, but what you can`t do is win a substantive argument. You were forced to engage in name calling at the end because, ultimately, that`s all your side has. Liberalism is intellectually and morally bankrupt and you can`t defend it so you have to attack on personal lines.
The problem is it doesn`t work for you anymore because you no longer have a stranglehold on the dissemination of information. The world is coming to know your beliefs, and finds them most repugnant. The gig is up, Dadahead.
If I`m such a crazy radical, why are you here wasting your time? I suspect it is because, deep down, you fear I`m right.
Post a Comment
<< Home