 |
| Bill Korach and Fox News’ Catherine Herridge at CFNS Conference |
Mankind emerged from savagery and barbarism under the leadership of selected individuals whose personal prowess, capacity, or wisdom gave them the right to lead and the power to compel obedience. Such leaders have always been a minute fraction of the whole, but as long as the tradition of their predominance persisted they were able to use the brute strength of the unthinking herd as part of their own force, and were able to direct at all the blind dynamic impulse of the slaves, peasants, or lower classes. Such a despot had an enormous power at his disposal which, if he were benevolent or even intelligent, could be used, and most frequently was used, for the general uplift of the race. Even those rulers who most abused this power put down with merciless rigor the antisocial elements, such as pirates, brigands, or anarchists, which impair the progress of a community, as disease or wounds cripple an individual.This is a restatement of the views of Thomas Carlyle, the founding father of fascism, united with pseudoscience of racial uplift, resulting in a worldview that serves as a perfect foil to the liberal tradition of Thomas Jefferson through F.A. Hayek. Is the fabric of history woven by brilliant planners with power, or by the cooperative and decentralized choices of millions of individual actors? There’s no question where people like Carlyle, Grant, and the fascist tradition stand on this question. To their minds, a unplanned social order is chaos and decline in the making, and is saved only by strong men.
But then it came to the hard stuff.
by Tom DeWeese
June 30, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
| Henry and Tommy never gave up. They believed that freedom must be our destiny. Without such souls there would be no freedom. It is they who drag the rest of us toward the light of Freedom’s torch. They’ve done their part. |
| The freedom movement lost two courageous leaders this past month. Our movement is poorer for their passing, but our nation’s richer from their lives. |
by GARET GARRETT on MAY 14, 2012
ed.: An amazingly insightful article reprinted by Conservative Action Alerts. Apparently journalists, at that time, could be patriots as well.
There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom.
There are those who have never ceased to say very earnestly, “Something is going to happen to the American form of government if we don’t watch out.”
These were the innocent disarmers. Their trust was in words. They had forgotten their Aristotle. More than 2,000 years ago he wrote of what can happen within the form, when “one thing takes the place of another, so that the ancient laws will remain, while the power will be in the hands of those who have brought about revolution in the state.”
Worse outwitted were those who kept trying to make sense of the New Deal from the point of view of all that was implicit in the American scheme, charging it therefore with contradiction, fallacy, economic ignorance, and general incompetence to govern.
But it could not be so embarrassed and all that line was wasted, because, in the first place, it never intended to make that kind of sense, and secondly, it took off from nothing that was implicit in the American scheme.
It took off from a revolutionary base. The design was European. Regarded from the point of view of revolutionary technic it made perfect sense. Its meaning was revolutionary and it had no other. For what it meant to do it was from the beginning consistent in principle, resourceful, intelligent, masterly in workmanship, and it made not one mistake.
The test came in the first one hundred days.
May 6, 2012 - 10:18 am - by Victor Davis Hanson
The temple of postmodern liberalism was rocked these last few weeks, as a number of supporting columns and buttresses simply crashed, leaving the entire edifice wobbling.
Fake but Accurate Identities?
The trivial Elizabeth Warren “high cheekbones” fraud nonetheless offered a draw-back-the-curtain look into the gears and levers of our national race industry. The real story is not that the multimillionaire liberal (and one-percenter) Warren fabricated a Cherokee identity for over a decade (to the delight of her quota-thirsty universities), but rather the notion that if a pink blond at Harvard can get away with faking a career-enhancing minority identity, then anyone, anywhere, can—or rather often has.
Give Ward Churchill his due: he worked at it—unlike Warren, who junked her supposed great, great, great grandparent once she got tenure and being “Indian” was a drag at Cambridge cocktail parties. At least, like the proverbial chameleon on the leaf, Churchill tried to alter his appearance with buckskin, beads, and braids to find an edge his otherwise mediocre talents and white male status would not supply. In contrast, Warren simply by fiat claimed high cheekbones—no beads, no trips to the reservation, no buckskin, no Churchillian effort. Note the connivance of Harvard, which hand-in-glove used Warren’s pseudo-identity to pad its “diversity” goals, which enable a mostly white yuppie left-wing faculty to, well, not feel too guilty about remaining a mostly white yuppie left-wing faculty.
Read entire post… [Many thanks to David Levine for pointing us to this article.]
comment 2
October 31, 2011 - 10:48 am - by Zombie
The Occupy Wall Street movement has received so much media coverage in recent weeks that it’s nearly impossible to keep abreast of all the developments. So many endorsements and criticisms coming from all directions enter the news cycle in such rapid succession that even the most dedicated news junkies may have missed out on many of the pronouncements. Supporters and detractors of OWS both might find it useful to have a handy all-inclusive list of who has endorsed or embraced the protest.
To satisfy that demand, we hereby present a list of groups, organizations, individuals and entities that have expressed their support for, sponsorship of, or sympathy for the Occupy Wall Street movement.
Note: All entries on this list are real and verified. Below each entry you will find a series of source links documenting the support for OWS. We have striven in almost all cases to reference either first-hand statements by the groups or individuals themselves, hosted on their own Web sites; or videos of the people in question voicing their support for OWS at various Occupations; or news reports from reliable mainstream networks; or articles by publications or organizations sympathetic to the Occupy movement; or indisputable evidence, whatever the source. As a result, it cannot be claimed that these statements of support were made up or distorted by detractors of the Occupy movement.
As each new controversial endorsement has appeared over the last month, OWS supporters have dismissed them one by one as “isolated examples” that don’t reflect any overall trend toward extremism. But when viewed in aggregate like this, it becomes much more difficult to dismiss any individual endorsement as an aberration; instead, an undeniable pattern emerges.
This list is obviously incomplete; we hope to update it over the upcoming days and weeks.
How Hollywood Uses TV To Brainwash Our Children
By Kathleen McKinley | June 02, 2011
That may sound like an overblown title, but if you read Ben Shapiro's new book, Primetime Propaganda, The True Hollywood Story Of How The Left Took Over Your TV, you will see it isn't overblown in the least. Ben doesn't just speculate here. He goes to the source. He interviews the movers and the shakers of Hollywood who admit their own bias and their own agenda. You may have heard Ben's interview with Glenn Beck this morning. Glenn asked him how he got access to these big wigs. Ben said it was because of his last name (Jewish) and the fact that he went to Harvard. They just assumed he was "one of them." The few that did bother to google Ben, declined to be interviewed. So, this fascinating book takes us into the minds of the people who bring television into our home. They clearly state how they want to influence our kids with their political views.
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/kathleen-mckinley/2011/06/02/how-hollywood-uses-tv-brainwash-our-children#ixzz1O944RDdm
America is in a war of world views between the principles of freedom laid down by John Locke (1632-1704) in his Two Treatises on Government(1689) and Jean Jacques Rousseau in his Social Contract (1762) and Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (1754). Government’s purpose, according to Locke, is to join with others to “unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estate, which I call by the general name, property.” According to Locke, the primary reason for government “is the preservation of their property.” (Italics added) This fundamental principle became the cornerstone of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.
By Bobby Eberle March 8, 2011 7:13 am
Today we dive into the mind of a liberal. It's an exercise not for the faint of heart. You may think you are smart or experienced or savvy or (insert other intellectual adjective), but trying to understand how liberals think is a process that should be on a Mensa exam. Harder still is trying to figure out how liberals think their ideas could actually work. But those are just details, right?
If there's a problem, those on the left have a government program to "fix" it. Even if there's not a problem... even if there is a segment of society that's humming right along on its own... liberals want the government to have a piece of that too.
Fundamentally, the flaw in the logic of the left is that they want the "government" to pay for things. Here's where that Mensa certification comes in handy, because apparently they don't realize that when it comes to paying out funds, WE are the government. We are the ones footing the bill. If the government is PAYING someone, then they are TAKING money from someone else in order to do it.
Just listen to this speech from Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.
The attack on America on Sept. 11 set off alarms everywhere. We were shocked to discover that few Foreign Service officers were fluent in Arabic or Farsi, the dominant languages of the Middle East. We didn't know much about Islam. Children grew up on the engrossing and romantic "Tales of the Arabian Nights," but few parents thought much about the implications of women portrayed in veils and harems, as the property of men.
College students grooved on "The Rubaiyat" by Omar Khayyam, the medieval Persian poet and philosopher, whose poetry was tailored to Western sensibility by the 19th century English translator Edward FitzGerald in "A Jug of Wine, a Loaf of Bread -- and Thou." There's a small park on Embassy Row in Washington dedicated to the poem. The popular culture glibly entertained us with tales of flying carpets and genies popping out of magic bottles, and serious study of Islamic history and culture was grossly neglected.
Link to story:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/18/its_multicultural_stupid_98368.html
Glenn Beck is correct – absolutely, positively correct – when he recognizes that our Constitutional government is being attacked from the top and from the bottom. But the problem is, we need to know who controls the top and who controls the bottom. The answer is, and has been, before us for generations, but it is so simple and so huge that most people cannot see it and believe it.Note: Erica Carle and her husband now reside in the Palm City area.
