Monday, June 1, 2009

When do we get issued our fuzzy hats and cheap vodka??

I mean, Soviet Russia's national newspaper wrote about us screwing ourselves with our current acceleration down the slippery slope into communism.

The writer even details how it's happened without the purging of hundreds of millions of individual citizens to get to the point where the government owns GM and Chrysler now, and will own Citigroup shortly.

"First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics."

I, as a college composition instructor, can speak to this. I commonly use tons of classical references in everyday speech--alluding to everything from the Bible to Shakespeare to classical mythology (i.e., Greco-Roman), to historical documents, to--well, anything that seems to suit the situation.

Most of the time, no one catches what I'm saying. A telling example of this happened in grad school, when a classmate a year ahead of me dressed as a pimp for Halloween. I didn't recognize him, until he called after me, asking about a reading assignment. I responded, "Oh, I'm sorry. I took thee for a fishmonger(referring to Ophelia's father as a pimp)." Without remembering the next line ("Would thou wert so honest a man"--he didn't do his work, and used a criticism jargon-loaded vocabulary to hide it), said classmate, who was writing his thesis on Shakespeare, took it as a compliment: "Oh, you recognized what I was dressed as."

Statistics say that some three-quarters of students entering college need remediation in math before they can do basic level algebra, and two-thirds need remediation in English before they can write a full paragraph. I don't doubt this. Many of my students can barely read, and remediation does not seem to do those who've had that not-for-credit English class any good in forming sentences or paragraphs.

"Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different 'branches and denominations' were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the 'winning' side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another."
Karl Marx himself said that religion is the opiate of the masses. Communists, those who don't believe in anything but their own power and privilege, and who use those who believe in the ideals, sneer at religion in general, and at Christianity in specific. Why? I believe it is because Christianity in specific calls for moral absolutes set by someone other than the government.

And the highest authority is not the government of the land.

I understand, on an intellectual level what the ten commandments say. I understand, on an intellectual level, that there are gray areas in the continuum of right and wrong, but I also understand (even if only on the same, intellectual level) that there are moral absolutes also on that continuum. That it is absolutely wrong to commit murder. It doesn't matter if you're an individual citizen drunk in a brawl, or a mother-to-be on an abortion doctor's table, or a serial killer stalking your profile victim (your mother, usually, or maybe sometimes your father. It is absolutely wrong to steal. It doesn't matter if you steal through sneaking into someone's house while they're not home, through holding a gun to their head, or through someone who isn't willing to work using the government to take money from someone who is by voting in new social safety net spending.

In any case, there are moral absolutes beyond what the government mandates. Communists don't like there being anyone having authority besides thier own self-appointed elite. Especially not God.

"The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe."

This, quite frankly, is appalling and terrifying--especially in that last clause. I'm sure most of my readers are familiar with the term "Weimar Republic," but may not be able to place it in historical context right off the top of their heads. Let me refresh your memories of relatively recent history:

Germany, 1935.

In other words, I'm pretty sure what we're accellerating toward is not Marxism, but national socialism. The parallels are there: a relatively young, charismatic politician that nobody knows anything about elected by violent hoodlums and ignorant twits that bleat for change? Check. Vicious and accellerating recession, heading straight into depression? Check. Nationalizing key industries? Check. Check. And check. Teaching our children that nothing (especially not core knowledge gathered by dead, white males) is important but social justice? Very much check.

We're fucked, people. The common populace has realized that it can vote itself bread and circuses.


  1. Gee Holly, I go away for a bit and you go back to your old ways. This one is going to need a line by line:

    HH: Christianity in specific calls for moral absolutes set by someone other than the government."

    Christians like to talk about moral absolutes but when I ask them to give me one, they can't do it. By "moral" I mean a rule regarding how humans should interact with each other. By "absolute" I mean, no exceptions.

    HH: I understand, on an intellectual level what the ten commandments say."

    Which version do you go by? The protestant, catholic, Jewish, or scholarly? I go with the latter.

    HH: there are moral absolutes also on that continuum. That it is absolutely wrong to commit murder."

    This is a tautology. Murder is, "wrongful killing" by definition. That's what the word means. That's like saying it's wrong to do something wrong. So it says nothing.
    And the Bible isn't remotely clear on this. God and his earthly representatives repeatedly command genocide so they were hardly against killing.

    Barker addresses this:

    Do the Ten Commandments really say, "Thou shalt not murder?" The Hebrew word for "kill" in Exodus 32:13 is ratsach. (The word for "slay" in the contradictory command in Exodus 32:27 is haraq.) Depending on which version you use, there are about ten Hebrew words which are translated "kill." The five most common, in Hebrew order (with translation in order of King James frequency) are:

    muth: (825) die, slay, put to death, kill
    nakah: (502) smite, kill, slay, beat, wound, murder
    haraq: (172) slay, kill, murder, destroy
    zabach: (140) sacrifice, kill
    ratsach: (47) slay [23], murder[17], kill[6], be put to death [1]

    Modern preachers must be smarter than Hebrew translators if they claim that ratsach means "murder" exclusively. Muth, nakah, haraq, zabach, and ratsach appear to be spilled all over the bible in an imprecise and overlapping jumble of contexts, in much the same way modern writers will swap synonyms.
    Referring to the cities of refuge" set up by Moses to shelter killers, Deuteronomy 4:42 says, "that the slayer (ratsach) might flee thither, which should kill (ratsach) his neighbor unawares, and hated him not in times past." This is hardly murder--it is neither premeditated nor malicious. It is an accidental killing, classed at most as manslaughter in our society.
    Again showing that ratsach can be accidental: "But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait, or with any stone...seeing him not...and was not his enemy, neither sought his harm: Then the congregation shall judge between the slayer (ratsach) and the revenger of blood according to these judgments." (35:22-24)


    If this doesn't remove all doubt then consider Provers 22:13: "The slothful man saith There is a lion without, I shall be slain (ratsach) in the streets." Can animals be guilty of murder?


    When the Israelite warriors marched through a village, slaughtering and plundering in the name of the Lord, ripping up animals, children men, and women, saving the virgins alive for themselves (Numbers 31:15-18), did they say to the pregnant woman with a sword in her belly, "By the way, I want you to know that I am not murdering you. I am lawfully killing you in God's name"? Would such a fine semantic distinction make much difference to the victims of righteousness?"
    --Freethought Today, April, 1989



  2. HH: It is absolutely wrong to steal.>>

    This suffers from the same problem. But it isn't right anyway. I can think of lots of scenarios were it would be right to take something in an emergency and so can you. So it's not absolute. There are exceptions.
    If you are trapped in a New Orleans flood situation and have a baby to feed and there is a store. Take some food to feed your baby. If your house is on fire and you don't have hose but your neighbor has a long one hooked up ready to go, steal his hose and his water too.

    In the Bible God told the Israelites to steal from the Egyptians when they left. Etc.

    HH: In any case, there are moral absolutes beyond what the government mandates.>>

    Give me an example of a moral absolute. I would like to see one of these puppies. Been looking for one for years and years.


  3. The Loving and Supportive Spouse.June 3, 2009 at 7:14 PM

    In Soviet America, TOLLS BLOG YOU!