Saturday, April 18, 2009
No "Rush Hour" for freedom
Movie star Jackie Chan expressed qualms today about a free society in China, and stated, "we Chinese need to be controlled."
He continued:
"I'm not sure if it's good to have freedom or not. I'm really confused now. If you're too free, you're like the way Hong Kong is now. It's very chaotic. Taiwan is also chaotic."As that great philosopher Donald Rumsfeld once said regarding Iraq almost exactly six years ago:
"...freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things, and that's what's going to happen here."
There was, of course, a huge amount of scorn heaped upon the Secretary for that statement in the weeks and months that followed. In and of itself, it is a rather benign observation -- that a higher variability of outcomes exists in a less controlled environment.
Jackie Chan's statement, and the scorn heaped upon Donald Rumsfeld for his statement, raises all kinds of interesting cultural, ethnic, historical, psychological and anthropological questions about representative government, civil rights and the long-term viability and applicability of Western-style democracy having its origins in the Enlightenment.
Also, it brings to mind the always scintillating dialogue between Anakin and Padme in Star Wars 2, Attack of the Clones, when we first have an inkling of Skywalker/Vader's totalitarian leanings:
Anyone wise out there?ANAKIN: We need a system where the politicians sit down and discuss the problems, agree what's in the best interests of all the people, and then do it.
PADME: That is exactly what we do. The trouble is that people don't always agree. In fact, they hardly ever do.
ANAKIN: Then they should be made to.
PADME: By whom? Who's going to make them?
ANAKIN: I don't know. Someone.
PADME: You?
ANAKIN: Of course not me.
PADME: But someone.
ANAKIN: Someone wise.
PADME: That sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me.
23 Comments:
By 
, at
Sat Apr 18, 06:11:00 PM:
"One size does not fit all". You need to remember that. Erik von Kuenhelt-Leddihn reports on a Russian proverb, "What is good for a Russian, is deadly for a German". Von Kuenhelt mentions the racial proclivity of Germans for Monarchical leadership in his book Liberty or Equality. The ethnic and environment of the Germans prescribes monarchy or dictatorship---not democracy and Von Kuenhelt-Leddihn points to the disastrous intervention of President Wilson in his agenda of demolishing the monarchies of Europe and insisting on the establishment of democracy, the worst form of government.
Each Race is different. I agree with Chan! He is right. The Chinese people are a people of order and static living. They lived for thousands of years under monarchical rule and that suited them just fine. The Chinese character is unsuited for democracy and moreover the country is too large.
You've got to remember that the vehicle for socialism is democracy. That is why it is pushed by the global elite and by marxists.
Aristotle notes that the Greeks are very high-spirited people. This high-spiritedness led to them to create self-government, the Doric Greeks created classical republicanism and the Ionian Greeks in Attica created democracy. Prof. Mueller notes that the failure of the Doric form of mixed government in Athens was because ".the temperature which he (Solon) chose was too artificial to be lasting;..."
Race matters. Moreover, democracy is always and forever will be the worst form of government. As Socrates and Plato noted: Tyranny always arises out of democracy.
By 
D.E. Cloutier, at
Sat Apr 18, 07:08:00 PM:
For the foreseeable future the Chinese will place the needs of society above the needs of the individual.
Don't be too quick to attribute America's success to "Western-style democracy."
The U.S. was a debtor nation for a large part of its history. European investors put up much of the money to build America's railroads.
America got lucky. World War II destroyed most of the factories in Europe and Japan. American manufacturers had little competition in the global marketplace for roughly 30 years. That gave the U.S. a big head start.
By , at
Sat Apr 18, 07:25:00 PM:
I was watching some of Episode II the other day (they seem to have a marathon going on Spike TV this week), when I realized that not a single person in the entire pre-trilogy concerning themselves with liberty. Even in the democracy of the Republic, in order to act you needed the Senate to confirm it, even in the case of your own self-defense. The Nabo Queen does not profess faith in freedom, but democracy. Obi Wan does not counter Anakin's charges by stating that he stands for liberty. Instead, he boasts that he stands for a particular incarnation of government. Perhaps that is why the Republic fell: they were tied to a form, and not to the values that form was intended to secure. Lucas may have inadvertently hit upon an accurate theme.
In the modern era, people too often wrongfully equate democracy with freedom. The Greeks knew full well that a democratic government could be as tyrannical as any despot. To be free, the government need not be democratic, but limited. Democracy is but one means of limiting government, but in itself it is woefully ill-equipped to restrain government's impulse to insert itself at the head of every sphere of life, and can make the situation orders of magnitude worse.
If one is to have a tyranny, let it be at the hands of a single man. At least then, the tyrant's attentions will be limited.
By , at
Sat Apr 18, 07:37:00 PM:
There is another thing to consider.
Conservativism is not about "democracy". Conservatives throughout history rejected democracy.
Socrates and Plato called themselves "misodemos". That and the word "oligarch" are terms that the Greeks used to define "conservatives". "Misodemos" literally means "hater of democracy". All the intelligentsia of Ancient Greece rejected democracy even Aristotle.
Cicero hated democracy as well. He hated tyranny as well and was a true conservative in trying to uphold the mixed governmental form of the Roman Republic. Throughout the Ancient world, Crete and Sparta were praised for their form of government---not democracy.
The term "conservative" was coined at the time of the French Revolution of those who defended the Old Order, defended Monarchy, and hated democracy.
Let's be clear, at no time did any conservative any time in history defended, upheld, praised or advocated democracy. Democracy is NOT conservative. Never was, never will be.
For a conservative to be for democracy is ludicrous, ahistorical and oxymoronish.
The road to socialism comes thru democracy.
-----
And second, Remember this dictum, Culture defines politics. Race and religion define culture and in turn culture defines politics.
And this is the error of the Iraq policy of Americans. If Americans are ignorant of race and its consequences and don't talk about it, or study race, how can they not do but evil and have disastrous effects. To willy-nilly across the board think that implementing democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq is going to succeed, they are sadly mistaken. The political leadership of America and its State Department are really morons when it comes to reality and race.
Democracy is not the end all or be all. Nature does not run on democracy and neither does the Heavens. As Homer said, "The Rule of One is Best" and the Byzantine Empire lasted 1000 years under Monarchy.
America after 250 years of democracy is a failed state.
Race matters.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Apr 18, 08:16:00 PM:
That must be the most half-baked pseudo-historical definition of
'conservative' ever.
By , at
Sat Apr 18, 08:41:00 PM:
"Half-baked pseudo-historical definition"? Really?
[quote]"Democracy is the road to socialism." Karl Marx
"Democracy is indispensable to socialism." Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
"Modern Socialism is inseperable from political democracy." Elements of Socialism, pg 337.
"The view that democracy and Socialism are inwardly related spread far and wide in the decades which preceded the Bolshevist revolution. Many came to believe that democracy and Socialism meant the same thing, and that democracy without Socialism or Socialism without democracy would not be possible." Socialism, Ludwig von Mises, pg 67.[/quote]
Let's use some logic shall we. Logic being a very masculine, male-originating, thought process.
It is clear by the above quotes, that democracy is indispensable to socialism. Socialism and democracy go hand in hand. Socialism by nature is utopian, progressive and egalitarian. '
Now, for the Logic. If Democracy is indispensable for socialism can a conservative who opposes socialism be for democracy. If progressives are pro-democracy, can conservatives?
Conservatives by the very meaning of the term mean to "Conserve". What do you conserve? The Old Order. One conserves Monarchy or Classical Republicanism.
Conservativism is about hierarchy. Always has been. What conservativism is about is the Natural Law and Wisdom. Wisdom teaches the necessity of hierarchy. Nature teaches hierarchy. Ever hear of "The Pecking Order". Hierarchy infuses all things from the Godhead to the Atom.
If Socialists love democracy, can a conservative? NO.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sat Apr 18, 09:07:00 PM:
Meanwhile, back at the ranch ...
At the Web site of Harvard Business Publishing, Tammy Erickson has an interesting piece, "Generations in China":
http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/erickson/2009/03/generations_in_china.html
By , at
Sat Apr 18, 09:42:00 PM:
I happen to be against termites. I hate the little buggers. Don't want them infesting my house, you see. Oxygen is indispensable for termites. So, how can I, as someone who opposes termites, possibly be for oxygen? I even allow the gas into my home, and have a ventilation system that circulates it in every room. Yet, I am soundly anti-termite. It just doesn't make sense.
BTW: In the US, classical liberalism is the old order. If you want anything else, you aren't "conserving" anything.
By , at
Sat Apr 18, 10:04:00 PM:
The US is not Classical liberalism at all.
If you read the back of the US One Dollar Bill, under the Masonic symbol of the all seeing eye and the pyramid, is this statement:
"Novus Ordo Secularum".
America is a Novus Ordo. America is NOT of the Old Order. The FFofA rejected aristocracy and monarchy. The Traditional European social order was always a caste system. All Indo-European races create caste systems. The FFofA renounced their racial proclivity. A majority of the FFofA were Masons. Masonry is about the Novus Ordo. Thomas Paine, who more than anybody else, influenced revolutionary causes, took most of his ideas from Freemasonry. He was an ideologue. Though not a Mason himself, he wrote extensively on Freemasonry.
Furthermore, The American Revolution was first called "The Presbyterian War". It was a continuation of Englands "Great Revolution". It was Scottish Presbyters against English Anglicans.
The American War of Independence was the confluence of two revolutionary movements, Freemasonry and radical levelling, anti-clerical Christian heresy.
There is nothing conservative about America. You can not conserve a Nihilist Novus Ordo. That is why America in 2009 is a failed state. There is nothing in conservative in Christian heresy or in Freemasonry.
Socialism is progressive. If Progressives like democracy, then conservatives can not. Conservatives CONSERVE, they are not progressive. There is no such thing as a "progressive conservative". That is an oxymoron. Yet, Weekly Standard, a Neo-con magazine, touts Benjamin Disraeli for inventing "modern conservativism" that stands for democracy. That is an oxymoron. 20 years past the French Revolution, a Jewish exile from Spain, redefines conservativism and makes it for "modernity" and democracy.
That is the error. There is Only One Way, One Truth, and One Life and a Conservative is about pointing to and living that One Way, One Truth and One Life. There is NO Novus Ordo.
By Escort81, at
Sat Apr 18, 10:08:00 PM:
This comment has been removed by the author.
By Escort81, at
Sat Apr 18, 10:11:00 PM:
Generally speaking, the United States is described as having a Constitutional Republic form of government. I rather lazily used the term "Western-style democracy" in an attempt to include other types of representative governments, such as the U.K., which I believe is technically still Constitutional Monarchy, with the monarch being a figurehead and a tourist attraction (and it is also a parliamentary style of government, with a Prime Minister that has no certain fixed term).
But DEC's point is well taken; I have wondered whether the increasing affluence among a large swath of Chinese would quickly result in an increased demand for political freedoms, or whether cultural factors will outweigh or counterbalance the affluence.
As someone whose mother's family had a comfortable spot among the nobility that occupied places of influence around the Hapsburg monarchy for many centuries during the time of Austro-Hungarian Empire, I suppose I should be more of a monarchist-type conservative as WLindsay Wheeler decribes. However, the more I read about the subject, the more I am always impressed by the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, who were generally not monarchists.
By Escort81, at
Sat Apr 18, 10:19:00 PM:
WLindsayWheeler-
In your view, if one is an admirer of and believes in the U.S. Constitution, it is impossible to be a conservative?
Can one be a good Catholic (as my mother was for some time) and also philosophically a strong believer in the American form of government? Or are the two mutually exclusive?
Just seeking clarification of your viewpoints.
Thanks for your comments.
By , at
Sat Apr 18, 10:42:00 PM:
You can not be a conservative and believe in the U.S. Constitution. You can not be a good Catholic and uphold America. One of the Popes has condemned what they called "Americanism". Americanism is Freemasonry and Freemasonry has been condemned by the Catholic Church.
The true conservatives were the Loyalists. Those were the true conservatives.
What happens is that there is disharmony. Jesus said, "Beware that thou be NOT deceived". There is a lot of deception out there. One has to search for the Truth, if you do no investigation and search, one can easily be deceived.
The Melting Pot idea of America is Masonry and it about rebuilding the Tower of Babel. What do "masons" do? They build. They are building a metaphysical building, they are rebuilding the Tower of Babel and America is that Tower of Babel. That is what the idea of "the melting Pot" is all about. With the 1965 Immigration Act and the massive amounts of Immigration from all over, this is becoming real in our day.
Everything today and practically everything you have learned is a lie. I don't want to live a lie; I want the Truth and I want to live the Truth. The Catholic Duty is to uphold Christian Truth and the Natural Order. Both of these are under assault. The Natural Order is just as important as Christian revealed truth for God himself created the Natural Order. The Natural Order being Monarchy, Aristocracy, Priests and Bishops, and race. God created race and race matters.
Americanism is a heresy.
By , at
Sat Apr 18, 10:57:00 PM:
Just to point out the deconstructionism of Western Culture and Civilization:
Thomas Jefferson responding to a letter, wrote, "the introduction of the new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government; and, in a great measure, relieves our regret, if the political writings of Aristotle or of any other ancient, have been lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us."
The whole of the Enlightenment is about dismantling Christendom. Our loyality and fidelity belong to Christendom---not to a Masonic Novus Ordo.
Read this article and see how Machiavelli started all this by giving new definitions to old terms: """And this much should be observed by all who wish to eliminate an ancient way of life (un antico vivere) in a city and reduce it to a new and free way of life (ridurla a uno vivere nuovo e libero)""":it is called Revolution within the form.
All and sundry need to read that quote in the linked article how Machiavelli began the process of transformation. The famous people of the Enlightenment engaged not in an enlightenment but a grand deception.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Apr 18, 11:22:00 PM:
How utterly cool. Redefine everything according to your pet definition, and then declare your new definition to be unblemished truth, including Marx quotations.
"Conservativism is about hierarchy. Always has been. What conservativism is about is the Natural Law and Wisdom. Wisdom teaches the necessity of hierarchy. Nature teaches hierarchy. Ever hear of "The Pecking Order". Hierarchy infuses all things from the Godhead to the Atom."
This does not apply to American conservatism. Like, at all. The very soul and foundation of American conservatism is the desire for a small government to leave them the hell alone, and this desire goes all the way back to the Constitutional convention and Jeffersonian 'yeomanry.'
You seem relatively well read, but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here.
Unless your point is to re-label self-professed American conservatives as liberals, because they aren't actually monarchists. Which is silly.
By Escort81, at
Sat Apr 18, 11:26:00 PM:
WLindsayWheeler -
Can I infer that you would like the Vatican to once again become a dominant political force as well as the center of the Church? Say, status quo roughly 1195 A.D., when Celestine III was the Pope?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sat Apr 18, 11:29:00 PM:
I always thought I could fit no more than five pounds of fertilizer in a five-pound bag. But some people seem to be able to cram a lot of crap in a small amount of space.
Definitions change. Remember when "gay" meant "happily excited"?
Today, the word conservative to most Americans means (to use a Webster definition): "a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically: such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)."
Word games about other definitions are nothing more than masturbatory exercises. I don't know about you, but I started to get bored with bull sessions and juvenile arguments about definitions before my 16th birthday. Chasing girls was more fun.
By , at
Sat Apr 18, 11:47:00 PM:
Yes, Dawn, I do mean that. Self-professed American conservatives are liberals! Duh. That is the point. That is why Dawn, Conservativism is collapsing. Is it any wonder that the Newt Gingrich revolution that took congress has collapsed within 12 years. Furthermore, the Republican party is still in great disarray and there is no leadership. Why?
There is NO truth at all in the faux conservative thought in America. It is all based on a lie. Lies fail and that is why the Republican party is failed. The Republican party was never, and I repeat never conservative.
The Nascent Republican party in 1850 stood for the abolition of slavery. That is a PROGRESSIVE POSITION and NOT conservative. It passed the graduated income tax in 1913! which is from the Communist Manifesto! That is progressive.
Now the faux conservative intelligentsia are trying mightly to construct another set of principles for the Republican party.
No can do. Be thou not deceived. But the faux conservatives are deceived. They are liberals. Just like Communism was split between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. The fight between Democrats and Republicans is a fight between heavy liberals and light liberals. That is why both parties are very similar. They are both liberals! Rush Limbaugh touts his "Advanced Conservative Studies" and calls himself the "Dr. of Democracy". He is a moron.
That the flagstar of the conservative movement is so confused shows how the movement itself is so confused.
In this thread, I'm giving you advanced conservative studies.
Once one part is plucked, the whole unravels. Because American pseudo conservativism is not based on truth, it is continually unravelling. In the 1980's, the Republican Party platform called for the ending of the Department of Education. Twelve years later, Jorge Busheron, (he of grand hispanic immigration invasion), labelled himself "The Educational President".
There is No truth in the Republican party. It is all ideological.
And then the attempts to create a "conservative ideology". There is no such thing. Conservativism is and always has been constructed upon Wisdom, Sophia. Sophia is behind Conservativism, not ideology.
And then to refute this idea of Jeffersonian yeomanry, of small government and individualism.
How is that mantra working today?
Nonexistent. Life is War. That is why all societies must gather to protect themselves from each other. Societies must work together. Moreover, there is no such thing as "separation of Church and State". Can a human body exist without a soul? How can a state exist without a religion? These two principles, the FFofA rejected. Well, Nature does not follow human ideology. Nature does her own thing and when humans don't obey nature, Nature kills them. And for your religion. America does not have Church and State, but it does have State and Ideology, more specifically, State and Cultural Marxism. Nature abhors a vacuum. No state religion, well, how about a man-made ideology called Marxism. Political Correctness is Marxist Ideology and that is what the State enforces here in America.
And that is exactly what is happening to America---she is dying, she is a failed state. Your freedom has become the vehicle for subversion of the FFofA ideals. Your individualism has let you become prey for others. You don't rule yourselves but others do. and Capitalism has made every American into a materialist. No farmer can disobey the natural law and live. The same goes for any state. Disobey the Natural Law, and Nature kills you.
American so-called conservatives are no more than liberals.
By Escort81, at
Sun Apr 19, 12:10:00 AM:
Chasing girls was more fun.Still is.
By Georg Felis, at
Sun Apr 19, 01:23:00 AM:
Ok, WLW. For the sake of argument, lets remove this “C” word that you are having such vapors over, and replace it with the “R” word. The Republican party needs to return to it’s Reaganist roots, and focus more on fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, and a strong defense. Modern (hm, avoiding the L word, what to use) Control politicians seek a government which exerts an overwhelming control over our lives, from what doctors we see, to how our retirement is spent (and on who), to what we can listen to on the radio, to what companies deserve to be saved by being smothered with taxpayer cash. We Reaganists (Reaganistas? Reaganites?) have a long way to go and a great many things to correct. Our party did not exercise fiscal restraint when it had the controlling hand on the national checkbook, and we have paid the price. Our president was subjected to a daily barrage of infantile attacks, and we did not stand up for him, because we feared we would be targeted in his stead. And we did not stand against the rise of our new president, an idealistic Control politician, because we knew that to oppose him was to be targeted as a racist, or worse.
Now we sit with such a minority in Congress that we cannot even slow legislation that will pass massive debt burdens to our great-grandchildren. We watch as politicians in Washington determine who gets federal money, and who falls. We marvel at the audacity of the Control politicians who accept massive gifts from those that they are supposed to be regulating, from their fancy houses to cars, to relatives collecting huge checks for little or no work, even as these same politicians fume and bluster on camera about the evils of modern capitalism.
It is up to us Reaganists to support new politicians who hold these core beliefs, lower taxes, smaller government, strong defense. To attend tea parties to show the word (including idiot CNN reporters) that we are mad as hell, and are not going to take it any more. To bring voters to the polls in such numbers that even the traditional Control methods of selective absentee vote counting cannot change the result. And to keep that ideal in place so that America can be the shining city on the hill for all countries to see as an example, and for our generations yet unborn.
And we can get back to the business of chasing girls….
By Gary Rosen, at
Sun Apr 19, 04:03:00 AM:
WLW could just be yanking our chain. On the other hand, he may actually *be* an insufferably pompous paleocon ass like George Will. The test is - does he wear blue jeans?
By , at
Sun Apr 19, 09:26:00 AM:
I see that in order to be counted a True Conservative I'm going to have to agree with both WLindsayWheeler and Andrew Sullivan. Any suggestions on how to do it?
By , at
Sun Apr 19, 06:35:00 PM:
George Will is hardly a conservative. Like most so-called conservatives in America, he wets his finger and sees where the wind is blowing. The man panders to political correctness. I stopped reading him 20 years ago. Can't stand his mealy-mouthed platitudes and his Rodney King outlook.
----------------
Georgfelis, I feel your pain. You and the rest of the patriots have lost control of your country. What needs to change is the educational establishment. The Educational establishment filled with feminazis and socialists are turning out little marxists.
Your doomed. The so-called conservative Republican party is failure. It can't stand up to Political Correctness and now major leaders are trying to get the RP to accept gay marriages. The RP is being sidelined.
America is a majority leftist country and will remain so. America is a failed state.
What did this original post start with? Chinese ability to form democracy. Their racial proclivities and the largeness of their society will prevent that. Jackie Chan is right. But will the Republican Party recognize that?
No.
How can you call the Republican Party conservative if it can't and won't discuss race openly? If the Republican Party can not nor has the stomach to reverse the 1965 Immigration Act, it is finished!!! It's all over. Truth requires manliness and that is in terrible short supply in the RP. They're cowards. Race and its impact is verboten.
Earlier, Dawnfire expressed her interest in the limited government, the quintessential American political value. Limited government is the classical republican form of government. This is what a British political scientist had to say:
"""A.H.J. Greenidge, M.A., in A Handbook of Greek Constitutional History, writes that Sparta and Britain had the same form of government: "History has shown that such forms of government (speaking about mixed government) are suited to a commonsense non-idealistic people: the Phoenicians of Carthage, the Dorians of Greece, Romans, and Englishmen have all developed this type of polity""""
Limited government is connected to certain racial types. At the time of the revolution, America was majority Anglo-Saxon. That is why America developed limited government. Without a majority Anglo-Saxon people, that is impossible.
The Immigration Act of 1965 is pulling people all over the world who do not have this history .
Demography is destiny.
The importation of Aztec and Mayan indigenous people, the importation of millions of Slavs, does not make for Limited Government! How can one call oneself "conservative" and not see and deal with a great part of reality called race? And the RP refuses to stand up to PC MC (political correctness multiculturalism). It has no program to do so. No ideas.
Demography is destiny. Anglo-Saxons will become a minority very soon, and you can kiss your American ideals down the drain.
It's Over, Finished, Caput. Asians, Slavs, Hispanics are not racially inclined towards limited government but towards Socialism. The whole American educational establishment is socialist.
Why do you people insist on playing charades? Wake up and smell the coffee. Demography is going to seal the fate of what ever is left of your FFofA founding principles. Race matters. So does control of the educational system. And you have lost both of these fundamentals. You allow, because of the first amendment, socialist and communist organizations, people and societies to run amok spewing their filth. You do nothing to stop it and the First Amendment ties your hands.
Well, you made your bed---now lie in it.
LXX Psalm 33.21 "They who hate righteousness will go wrong", and
Job 4.21 "They have perished for the lack of wisdom".
Those two verses speak about America. "They" are Americans.
