I often mentioned to foreigners that certain Americans have more trust for our fellows than Europeans or Australians do for their fellow countrymen.
I also don’t like JJ’s definition of evil. By that logic, the Nazis were only evil and a problem when they started actually doing oven stuff. Before, when they were just being socialists and getting elected and planning a coup de tat of the Weimer Republic, that was “okay”. I don’t think one can entirely detach the consequences from the planning stages here. Being elected is democracy. Chancellor Hitler was thus, just playing the same game everyone else was playing. No problems there. That’s what people back then thought. And that’s what JJ’s logic affirms and justifies. But there was something fundamentally different about Hitler’s faction playing politics and the rest of the Weimar Republic’s factions playing politics. If you can’t even make corrections to judgment when you already know what happened in the historical past, I don’t think any future judgments of anyone else’s evil goals or what not, is going to hold much water. The future is much more nebulous and ambiguous than the past, even with historical rewriting based on Utopian ethics going on. It’s easy to say that people should have recognized the Nazis for being evil or crazy back when, because it is obvious to us now. But that’s not how humans work. Even now the US government is very vague and ambiguous about Al Qaeda vs Islam vs Islamic extremism (muslim brotherhood). So they can easily use JJ’s logic to say that since all of Islamic extremism hasn’t done anything bad to the US and is not at war with the US, just “some” factions like AQ… then only AQ is evil and the rest are just “doing business as usual”.
Moving to the next topic….
The fundamental principle behind the American experiment is of individual freedom, and free will does not exist without the ability of the individual to judge, by himself, for himself, what is or is not true.
Thus We Don’t Have to Do Anything of the sort when it comes to recognizing “evil” or “good” or whatever it is people say we should “recognize” about what we see as “evil”. That is an individual decision, that is not up to strangers, priests, governors, or anyone’s pet totalitarian government to make for other people.
If a person chooses to attempt to understand the viewpoint of their enemies, that is their choice to make. And the consequences, good or bad, will be for them to suffer. People in general or anyone else here, have no business talking about what choice people besides themselves should be making as part of some automatic exercise. This business, and that business, two different things. It is not the business of strangers to dictate the consciences of other people. Yet people feel free to do so all the time, and yet continue to speak of valuing freedom. Mutual annihilating contradictions are unseen.
There are no requirements, epistemologically or ethically, for a person to understand their enemies’ motivations. Putting morality on the table here in order to constrain people’s free will, isn’t going to convince anybody of anything. All it does is force people to obey, to do as they are told. And if they are told to do good, they do it. And if they are told to do evil, they’ll do that too. The idea that forcing people to obey by some rule, allows for personal virtue, individual ethics, and character strength to grow, is an untrue idea.-A comment I wrote in 2011
Before, when they were just being socialists and getting elected and planning a coup de tat of the Weimer Republic, that was “okay”.
Then I wrote that, I was directly thinking of the Obama Regime. In an effort to sound mainstream and reasonable, instead of crazy and easily picked up by the government goon squad (NSA scanners), I tried to only write about the primary topics at hand. But I was thinking of the Left in the US always.
The Leftist alliance in America isn’t doing normal things via their elections and planning. They weren’t normal in the past and it isn’t going to be normal from now on either. People now understand what those references are to, when it comes to totalitarian references and contexts.
The rather unfortunate stilted nature of my writing back then, was also an attempt to distance myself from my own emotions and strip away signs and clues that might otherwise be picked up. Without that cleansing, I might have started to rant in uncontrollable themes on Leftist totalitarianism. Given that this wasn’t the norm (yet) on blogs, I would have been filtered as an “outlier”. Now a days it is safer, though not really safe, since everyone and their monkey is talking about crazy stuff in the US.
One of the ancient lessons I learned from martial arts and Japanese culture is that the nail that sticks out is hammered down. Don’t be the guy in the crowd the mob can pick out, cause you’ll be stampeded first.
The gun article deals with fundamental self defense as it relates to evil, and I just wanted to write about some nostalgic past events.
Allow me, please, to add a second, related question: Does evil exist?
The answer to this question represents a fundamental dividing line between conservatives and socialists (for that is what the contemporary Democratic Party has sadly become). Socialists believe that human beings are inherently racist, sexist, and a variety of other ists, but are perfectible. This utopian perfection can be reached if only there is sufficient (absolute or near absolute) governmental power and the right kinds of taxes, redistribution of wealth, laws and regulations to make people behave in appropriate ways, to perfect them for their own good, a good they are unable to recognize or seek unaided. These laws and regulations will be composed and enforced by a small class of elite socialists who are already, by virtue of their education, sophistication, beliefs and highly attuned sense of social justice (generally best understood as whichever social and economic policies elite socialists prefer at the moment), perfected.
Therefore, for the socialist, the only true evil is resistance to the evolved social consciousness of the elite socialist.-Stately article blog post
Notice that “Life” is the first of the three Thomas Jefferson chose to make explicit. This is important in that if there is no unalienable right to life, your life is forfeit to any person, to any government that chooses to take it, for it is such a government’s whims that dictate who is worthy of continued existence. It should also be noted that even if the laws and legal traditions of the state do recognize a right to self defense, if the state denies citizens the most effective means to exercise that right, or so restricts its exercise as to make it impractical in application—as is currently the case in Washington D.C. (NOTE: Chicago and Illinois have been dragged, kicking and screaming, by the courts into recognition of the Second Amendment, though complete recognition is still very much in-process) and California–there is little difference to the individual between that state and one that recognizes no right at all.
If there is no right to self defense, no right to mere survival, your life is forfeit to the whims of those cruel and strong enough to take it. This may not be a concern if you are a young, strong, physically imposing male well schooled and practiced in the martial arts. However, even the strongest may be overcome by force of numbers or trickery (ask Samson about that), and no one is young forever, as Edmond Rostand made plain in Cyrano De Bergerac. If you are not young, strong and physically capable, things are rather different. In this understanding we can find the ultimate women’s issue, for women are quite simply and undeniably in trouble where physical size, strength and aggression are the primary determinants of mere survival.
Some–primarily Democrats–would have us believe that refusing to pay with tax dollars for every woman’s contraception–which is cheap and available at every pharmacy in the nation–constitutes a “war on women.” The real war on women is being imposed by those that continually seek to deny women the most effective means to preserve their very lives.
And if there is no right to self defense—no right that government may grant or rescind–can any other right, inalienable or otherwise, truly be said to matter? It may reasonably be argued that if a right is not inalienable, it is merely a privilege to be granted and rescinded by the state, but do we really want the state to treat our lives with the caring, efficiency and humanity employed by the EPA, the IRS and the TSA, as it body searches three-year old girls with spina bifida in wheelchairs (oh yes: they seized her stuffed animal too), or in the regulation of our privilege to drive?
One of the most important political understandings any free man can have is that government has no conscience; it cares nothing for any individual. No matter how much a given politician claims to care deeply for the welfare of “the people,” “the people” are at best an abstraction, as any one of “the people” may discover when they demand that government recognize and uphold their individual rights. This understanding is the necessary beginning of personal autonomy. Without it, one will always be a vassal of the state, the state the worth of whose vassals is measured always only in their utility to the transient goals of the state.-preceding topic
Those two sections phrases things in a way I might not have, but it is agreeable nonetheless.