The Religion the Almighty & Me Works out Betwixt us
multi-undisciplinary circumnavelgazing around the whole existentialada!
with • Neotraditional Retrofuturism • Mental Gymgnostics • Verticalisthenics • Dilettantric Yoga • Leftwing Ridiculism • Freevangelical Pundamentalism • Advanced Leisure Studies • Comparative Nonsense • Flaming Homilies • Jehovial Witticisms
The Cosmos is our school, The Intellect our Faculty, Truth the first Principal
Pages
▼
Friday, July 04, 2014
94 comments:
I cannot talk about anything without talking about everything. --Chesterton
Fundamentally there are only three miracles: existence, life, intelligence; with intelligence, the curve springing from God closes on itself like a ring that in reality has never been parted from the Infinite. --Schuon
The quest, thus, has no external 'object,' but is reality itself becoming luminous for its movement from the ineffable, through the Cosmos, to the ineffable. --Voegelin
A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes. --Wittgenstein
OTOH:
ReplyDelete"What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.
Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival."
-- Frederick Douglas 1852
Progressive thought in a nutshell: the most free and affluent blacks in the world should forever live bitterly in the past, the easier for their white liberal masters to manipulate and rule them.
ReplyDeleteDemocrat racism: same party. Different plantation.
The two biggest threats to the left are blacks and women becoming independent of the state. Hence the entirely predictable and self-serving rhetoric of the statists. Yawn.
ReplyDeleteNice selection, Bob.
ReplyDeleteHappy Independence Day!
For anon it's wailing and gnashing of teeth day. Just like everyday. How bleak and boring.
ReplyDeleteThere is a certain irony that to a leftist, it is always 1852. Apparently they wouldn't have it any other way.
ReplyDeleteConversely, if only this would catch on.
To have been born in America is to have won the cosmic lottery. To be bitter about that takes some real effort.
ReplyDeleteGood vid, Jack.
ReplyDeleteAs one of the men on there said, blacks are suffering from battered wife syndrome.
But now they are realizing the democrats really don't love them based on what democrat policies have done to them.
Anon, may your day be filled with the revelation of Independence.
ReplyDeleteFor myself, I can't find much on the way of sadness or anger that some of my ancestors made their way here against their will. Their offspring, at this time, are numerous, and make up a legacy that would never have been possible had not one young man, a couple of centuries back, found himself forcefully removed from Africa and brought on a ship to the new world.
I am not sorry; in fact, I am quite glad, for I could not exist in any other time or place.
Happy Independence Day, everyone!
In this book on economic development (The Tyranny of Experts), the author writes extensively of a mutually reinforcing vicious cycle between statism and dysfunctional values. Very interesting. Shows how weak and dependent people support the autocracy that nurtures weak and dependent people.
ReplyDeleteWhich is one of the distressing things about the immigration fiasco, since they come from places with autocratic regimes, and will naturally support one here. Which is of course why libs want them here.
ReplyDeleteWhich is one of the distressing things about the immigration fiasco...
ReplyDeleteWhich makes wonder how it is all going to turn out in Murietta, California. I would imagine that the townspeople will be vilified as...wait for it...bigots.
With Obama's poll numbers at an all-time low, I see him even less concerned about the rule of law.
Ben-
ReplyDeleteI stumbled across the video earlier, and I must say it really made my Independence Day.
Sorry, Bob. I'm with Anon on this one.
ReplyDeleteOn this day, July 4th Two-thousand-and-for-teen, I free all my slaves.
But just for today, mind you.
- Emily Littella
I don't wonder about it, anon because I have actually learned some history and the context it was made in.
ReplyDeleteYou oughtta try it sometime, it's very enlightening.
Hint: most of the illegals coming here now ain't interested in liberty for all but rather jobs, free stuff and wonderful prizes, gangs, etc., depending on who they are.
Very few are actually seeking liberty.
Rick, I had to let my slaves go. Couldn't afford obamacare for them. I did give them a glowing recommendation though.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteAnon-
You may be equivocating on the word immigration. Of which there are two kinds:
1) Legal Immigration: follows the process outlined by law; is of benefit to the host nation; if allowed to be a citizen seeks to assimilate to the values of the host nation (while also celebrating their own heritage), speak the language well, and swear to uphold and defend the laws of the land and the constitution.
2) Illegal Immigration: Does not follow the process outlined by law; can and often is a drain on resources; dilutes the job market with cheap labor and creates a helot class; creates social tension between various groups. etc and so forth. Is in violation of Federal law.
One can be for 1 and firmly against 2.
Ben, no worries. You'll get a bill for their O-care anyways.
ReplyDeleteRemember what Clinton did to Elian Gonzalez? That's how the left treats illegal Republicans.
ReplyDeleteSo some illegal immigration is OK with you? How do you tell the difference?
ReplyDeleteFucking with Castro is one reason I can think of.
ReplyDelete"Remember what Clinton did to Elian Gonzalez? That's how the left treats illegal Republicans."
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, Clinton is viewed as a hero to the left.
Yes, because he sent the kid back to that leftist hellhole, er, paradise.
ReplyDeleteWait a minute! Of course Cuba is a leftist paradise. Michael Moore told me so. What possible motive could he have to lie?
ReplyDeleteJack - it strikes me just now that there's an even more fundamental difference between types of immigrants, which makes one group acceptable (ultimately, I suspect even whether they are here legally or not), and the other problematic: those who come here because they want to be American, and those who come here because they heard they could get free stuff.
ReplyDeleteI mean, when I hear the old stories about people in foreign lands claiming the streets were lined with gold, I don't recall having the impression that those people expected to be handed gold bars and goodies upon reaching Ellis Island.
Once upon a time, we were a melting pot from which the strength of America was forged. Today, instead, we are tossing the salad. No good can come of it, for any involved.
Julie-
ReplyDeleteI agree. Multiculturalism has made the idea of assimilation to be a necessarily authoritarian and oppressive. But:
"Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings." (source: Boston Globe)
Before anyone (anon) gets in an uproar, it isn't ethnic or racial homogeneity so much but shared values, that ultimately matter. I think this is simply a part of our evolved natures--at the very least.
Trusting someone who shouldn't be trusted, particularly in the primal environment, would have had dire consequences. We have learned ways to test for the sincerity of those around us, so that they can be (better) trusted. When one is unable to say, communicate with a common language or with common historical references etc, then social trust tends to be strained--to say the least.
These being the fruits of, "hey hey, ho ho, Western Civ has got to go!" and so forth.
Senator Jeff Sessions on immigrationover at NRO.
ReplyDelete"I quite often feel that my greatest task as a father is to raise children who love what is good, true, and beautiful, and who are therefore aliens in this popular culture.” --Rod Dreher
ReplyDelete--"... I should like to make the young gentlemen of the rising generation as unlike their fathers as possible," the latter of whom are "out of touch with the creative, formative, and progressive forces of society." --Woody Wilson and every other nasty progressive
It gets worse. You see, the constitution was conceived "under the dominion of the Newtonian theory," with all its talk of checks and balances, i.e., of forces frustrating the will of the benevolent and all knowing state.
ReplyDeleteIdea for new book by Deepak: The Quantum Constitution
More (HT anonymous): "Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and practice." The science is settled: "this is not theory but fact." And yet, "some citizens of this country have never got beyond the Declaration of Independence"!
ReplyDeleteSheesh! Wilson put the pimp and smirkumstance in pompous windbag.
ReplyDeleteThat is precisely what Obama and Killery would sound like if they were honest about their ideology.
Actually, even with all the deception they use they still sound the same as Wilson in attitude:
Smug, malignant narcissists, egotistical idiots who are only appreciated by blind fools.
But at least Wilson was honest about his satanic ideology.
Not surprisingly, the NY Times endorsed Wilson, twice.
ReplyDeleteHere's another Wilson Quote:
ReplyDelete"Life does not consist in thinking, it consists in acting."
It was pretty obvious he took the not thinking part to heart.
An insufferably condescending, pompous and self-satisfied pseudo-intellectual who is grandiose enough to believe that he knows better than you do how to run your life. But enough about Obama.
ReplyDeleteWe've only had two presidents intimately associated with the insular world of the tenured: Wilson and Obama. These two assouls bracket the tide of progressive pneumapathology.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI know I am supposed to be horrified by those quotes,..."
No, you do not know, but neither did Wilson.
Wow, I had no idea Dick Cheney was forcing Obama to ignore the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteIf it wasn't for Cheney, Obama would be just like Calvin Coolidge.
Anon has been saving that Salon article since 2006 so he could use it at this precise moment, 8.5 years laterto explain How Obama is undermining the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteThat's scary smart!
Wait -- I think I figured it out! Obama and Cheney, who are relatives, have actually conspired to destroy the constitution!
ReplyDeleteSomebody notify Salon or Slate!
And Cheney is pro-gay marriage!
ReplyDeleteIt's all fitting together.
Lol! Problem is, Neither Salon nor Slate will print it because it has non-anonymous sources.
ReplyDeleteMy God - the Cheney conspiracy goes far deeper than I could have imagined! Mind = blown.
ReplyDeleteYes Democrats often try to undermine checks and balances when they are in power, Republicans don't have a monopoly on that by any means, although Bush/Cheney was particularly egregious about it.
ReplyDeleteHere's another "too weird to be a coincidence" connection between Obama and Cheney:
ReplyDeleteThe same year Cheney had his first heart surgery Obama says he actually thought about joining the military!
Don't you see what's goin' on here? Open your eyes!
Yeah, I remember how Bush rammed Social Security reform down our throats. That was worse than Obamacare.
ReplyDeleteRemember how the Dems in congress used all that false intelligence to get us into Iraq? Maybe Bush was involved too!
ReplyDeleteMIND = BLOWN
IRT Iraq, I heard Congress and Bush actually used the same sources too!
ReplyDeleteCalling the Twilight Zone...
I just thought of something: remember all that moonbat talk about Cheney and Haliburton and war profits? Why would a a guy with one foot in the grave and more money than he can ever spend care about war profits? Makes no sense, right?
ReplyDeleteUnless he needed the money to clone his brain and transplant it into Obama!
Okay, now I'm getting scared.
ʘ.ʘ
ReplyDeleteDude!
A Chill Wind is blowing.
ReplyDeleteRemember what Sinclair Lewis said: "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
ReplyDeleteWell, Obama, ahem, calls himself a CHRISTIAN and he has often spoken of how America is as EXCEPTIONAL as other exceptional countries!
Need I say more?
Bob, didn't Lewis also say that "fascism will throw a baseball like a girl?"
ReplyDeleteAnd wear mom jeans and marry a tranny? Yes, either Lewis or Joan Rivers, can't recall at the moment.
ReplyDeleteWhen fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the MSM and carrying a worn copy of Das Kapital.
ReplyDeleteWhen fascism comes to America Paul Krugman and Thomas Friedman can finally retire.
ReplyDeleteWeird. Most of my anonymous commenters just want me to buy tramadol from them, whereas this one is selling a dangerous and addictive opiate.
ReplyDeleteYa know what the most obvious difference is between dumbasses like our aninnymouse, and Frederick Douglass? Asnide from Douglass being fully and gloriously human being, and aninnymouse being only an infra one, that is? It's that Douglass, who was raised a slave, abused as a slave and stood up and escaped from slavery, he actually had every right to feel as aninny would have us all feel, but it took Douglass only a couple years to realize how wrong headed he'd been in the snippet aninny posted above, and realizing that, he also realized how those of aninny's 'mind', which Douglass knew as 'Garrisonians', were attempting to gain power from him while keeping him down through such distorted views, rather than actually understanding or seeking liberty for all.
ReplyDeleteFrederick Douglass, however, was an example of a true American, someone who realized that this nation was not the result of birth, or geographic origin or skin color, but of the ideals of Truth, Justice and Liberty, and that at no other time in all of history, had a nation been created for the purpose of its people having the opportunity to seek 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness', and that America was not and is not its government, or the people in it, but the ideas which we must each of us and always strive to live up to.
From a speech, "The Constitution of the United States: Is It Pro-Slavery or Anti-Slavery?", which Douglass gave just a few years later, on March 26, 1860, to the people of Scotland, needs to be addressed to our geographically birthed, though thoroughly alien leftists, of today :
"...The real and exact question between myself and the class of persons represented by the speech at the City Hall may be fairly stated thus: — 1st, Does the United States Constitution guarantee to any class or description of people in that country the right to enslave, or hold as property, any other class or description of people in that country? 2nd, Is the dissolution of the union between the slave and free States required by fidelity to the slaves, or by the just demands of conscience? Or, in other words, is the refusal to exercise the elective franchise, and to hold office in America, the surest, wisest, and best way to abolish slavery in America?
To these questions the Garrisonians say Yes. They hold the Constitution to be a slaveholding instrument, and will not cast a vote or hold office, and denounce all who vote or hold office, no matter how faithfully such persons labour to promote the abolition of slavery. I, on the other hand, deny that the Constitution guarantees the right to hold property in man, and believe that the way to abolish slavery in America is to vote such men into power as well use their powers for the abolition of slavery. This is the issue plainly stated, and you shall judge between us. Before we examine into the disposition, tendency, and character of the Constitution, I think we had better ascertain what the Constitution itself is. Before looking for what it means, let us see what it is. Here, too, there is much dust to be cleared away. What, then, is the Constitution? I will tell you. It is not even like the British Constitution, which is made up of enactments of Parliament, decisions of Courts, and the established usages of the Government. The American Constitution is a written instrument full and complete in itself. No Court in America, no Congress, no President, can add a single word thereto, or take a single word threreto. It is a great national enactment done by the people, and can only be altered, amended, or added to by the people. I am careful to make this statement here; in America it would not be necessary. It would not be necessary here if my assailant had shown the same desire to be set before you the simple truth, which he manifested to make out a good case for himself and friends. ..."
(break)
(cont)
ReplyDelete"...... Again, it should be borne in mind that the mere text, and only the text, and not any commentaries or creeds written by those who wished to give the text a meaning apart from its plain reading, was adopted as the Constitution of the United States. It should also be borne in mind that the intentions of those who framed the Constitution, be they good or bad, for slavery or against slavery, are so respected so far, and so far only, as we find those intentions plainly stated in the Constitution. It would be the wildest of absurdities, and lead to endless confusion and mischiefs, if, instead of looking to the written paper itself, for its meaning, it were attempted to make us search it out, in the secret motives, and dishonest intentions, of some of the men who took part in writing it. It was what they said that was adopted by the people, not what they were ashamed or afraid to say, and really omitted to say. Bear in mind, also, and the fact is an important one, that the framers of the Constitution sat with doors closed, and that this was done purposely, that nothing but the result of their labours should be seen, and that that result should be judged of by the people free from any of the bias shown in the debates. It should also be borne in mind, and the fact is still more important, that the debates in the convention that framed the Constitution, and by means of which a pro-slavery interpretation is now attempted to be forced upon that instrument, were not published till more than a quarter of a century after the presentation and the adoption of the Constitution..."
...and from a little further down: ,
ReplyDelete"...... But giving the provisions the very worse construction, what does it amount to? I answer — It is a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding States; one which deprives those States of two-fifths of their natural basis of representation. A black man in a free State is worth just two-fifths more than a black man in a slave State, as a basis of political power under the Constitution. Therefore, instead of encouraging slavery, the Constitution encourages freedom by giving an increase of "two-fifths" of political power to free over slave States. So much for the three-fifths clause; taking it at is worst, it still leans to freedom, not slavery; for, be it remembered that the Constitution nowhere forbids a coloured man to vote. I come to the next, that which it is said guaranteed the continuance of the African slave trade for twenty years. I will also take that for just what my opponent alleges it to have been, although the Constitution does not warrant any such conclusion. But, to be liberal, let us suppose it did, and what follows? Why, this — that this part of the Constitution, so far as the slave trade is concerned, became a dead letter more than 50 years ago, and now binds no man’s conscience for the continuance of any slave trade whatsoever. Mr. Thompson is just 52 years too late in dissolving the Union on account of this clause. He might as well dissolve the British Government, because Queen Elizabeth granted to Sir John Hawkins to import Africans into the West Indies 300 years ago! But there is still more to be said about this abolition of the slave trade. Men, at that time, both in England and in America, looked upon the slave trade as the life of slavery. The abolition of the slave trade was supposed to be the certain death of slavery. Cut off the stream, and the pond will dry up, was the common notion at the time......."
Happy Independence Day!
ReplyDelete(With every insulting interpretation a leftist can manage to spin into themselves from that)
"Ya know what the most obvious difference is between dumbasses like our aninnymouse, and Frederick Douglass?"
ReplyDeleteOne of them still thinks it's 1852.
Douglass is at the opposite end of the Obama/Sharpton political philosophy, i.e., he is a liberal and not a leftist. In fact, he's of the I don't want nobody to give me nothing / Just open up the door & I'll get it myself James Brownian school.
ReplyDeleteAnything less robs a man of his dignity. Although it does make white liberals feel good about themselves.
And there's the leftist privilege of being able to call your interlocutor a racist whenever you're losing the argument, and that's priceless.
ReplyDeleteThanks Van!
ReplyDeleteIf Frederick Douglass were alive today to make that speech he would be called an "Uncle Tom" by the proregressives of today (who have no idea what the story ofUncle Tom's Cabin is about).
He would also be called a "race traitor" by the same idiots.
Good read, Bob!
ReplyDeleteI haven't read that in years and it's good to reread it to refresh my noggin'.
Mr. Douglass would be hated by the left of today.
Dignity is worth far more than all those Obamaphones and pimp stamps.
ReplyDeleteThe dignity of one person is worth far more than every leftist program that has ever been tried.
@Van -- not sure what you think that second Douglass speech proves. That he revered the ideas of the Constitution? That doesn't contradict the original speech I posted that kicked this off. It is perfectly possible to approve of the ideals of the US and hate its actual actions. The two speeches are perfectly consistent with each other.
ReplyDeleteAsnide from Douglass being fully and gloriously human being, and aninnymouse being only an infra one, that is?
You people sure are quick to label anybody you don't like as less than human, aren't you?
It's that Douglass, who was raised a slave, abused as a slave and stood up and escaped from slavery, he actually had every right to feel as aninny would have us all feel, but it took Douglass only a couple years to realize how wrong headed he'd been in the snippet aninny posted above
Douglass certainly had every right to his feelings and opinions. I wonder why you think I don't have the right to repost them.
As for your assertion that Douglass changed his position, I can't see any textual evidence for it. The speech you cited ends: ...now let the freemen of the North, who have the power in their own hands, and who can make the American Government just what they think fit, resolve to blot out for ever the foul and haggard crime, which is the blight and mildew, the curse and the disgrace of the whole United States.
aninnymouse said "...As for your assertion that Douglass changed his position, I can't see any textual evidence for it..."
ReplyDeleteSorry aninny, ya can lead a ninny to reason, but you can't make him think.
There are many things I cannot do, one of which is I can't fix stupid. Good luck with that.
I do suggest that, among many others, you read all that Douglas had to say... and really think about whether it is compatible with those Pro-Regressive views you still haven't yet to define.
@Van -- if I haven't defined them how do you know they are incompatible with anything? (Short answer: you don't.) And presumably you respond to an a request for evidence with insults because you don't have any. Not sure who you think you are fooling, but it isn't me.
ReplyDeleteIn defense of anonymous, while it is true that he doesn't have consciously articulated principles, he does adequately exemplify them. To expect more than this is frankly uncharitable.
ReplyDeleteOkay, you win. I think you'll agree that my principles are few but powerful:
ReplyDelete1) Life is hard
2) This makes me unhappy
3) More government
Any questions?
or:
ReplyDelete1) More Government
2) Life becomes harder.
3) Most everyone is unhappy.
Correct: heads, the state wins, tails, the citizen loses.
ReplyDeleteSounds like you have a problem with fairness or something.
As I keep telling my four-year-old:
ReplyDeleteLife isn't fair. The sooner you understand that, the happier you'll be.
aninnymouse said "And presumably you respond to an a request for evidence with insults because you don't have any..."
ReplyDeletelol. It seems self-knowledge isn't your strong suit, so here's a hint: You are an anonymous troll with nothing to say, which you nonetheless say as inexcusably as possible. Especially self-evident with this day's post, as there was no post or comment for you to reply to, so you sought out one that would be especially inflammatory for Independence Day.
Face it aninny : You are an insult.
aninnymouse said "Not sure who you think you are fooling, but it isn't me."
ReplyDeleteThere's no fooling a fool who's foolish enough to believe he can't be fooled.
But don't let that stop you, go ahead and do what I know you cannot do, answer my unanswerable question from your first visit:
"what do you define the fundamental ideas of 'Progressivism' as? How does it's view of Individual Rights, differ from those of the national socialists? Which tenets of 'Progressivism' would prevent it from taking the steps the nat'l socialists did?"
Your foolishness is self-evident in your inability to reply.
heh - speaking of the Dunning-Kruger Effect...
ReplyDeleteI've been rereading some of my favorite of Douglass's writings (thanks for that prompting aninny!), and I've got to admit to being wrong, at least partially, in the timing I had in mind about Douglass, or what it pertained to. He didn't take that long to understand the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution arightly - he got those right off the bat. It just took him awhile to realize that some of those he aligned with, weren't aligned with him.
ReplyDeleteGood God, that man could write!
But really aninny, if you'd bothered to actually read the speech of Douglass that your snipped quote was taken from, you wouldn't have had to look any further to refute your own claims about it. I'll give you the link below.
I won't bother with the sections where he praises what the Declaration actually means, and America's failure to live up to it, but just the part towards the end where he restates the case that you, aninny, are an idiot:
"...Fellow-citizens! there is no matter in respect to which the people of the North have allowed themselves to be so ruinously imposed upon as that of the pro-slavery character of the Constitution. In that instrument I hold there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of the hateful thing; but interpreted, as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a glorious liberty document. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it at the gate way? or is it in the temple? it is neither. While I do not intend to argue this question on the present occasion, let me ask, if it be not somewhat singular that, if the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slaveholding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can any where be found in it. What would be thought of an instrument, drawn up, legally drawn up, for the purpose of entitling the city of Rochester to a tract of land, in which no mention of land was made? Now, there are certain rules of interpretation for the proper understanding of all legal instruments. These rules are well established. They are plain, commonsense rules, such as you and I, and all of us, can understand and apply, without having passed years in the study of law. I scout the idea that the question of the constitutionality, or unconstitutionality of slavery, is not a question for the people. I hold that every American citizen has a right to form an opinion of the constitution, and to propagate that opinion, and to use all honorable means to make his opinion the prevailing one. Without this right, the liberty of an American citizen would be as insecure as that of a Frenchman. Ex-Vice-President Dallas tells us that the constitution is an object to which no American mind can be too attentive, and no American heart too devoted. He further says, the Constitution, in its words, is plain and intelligible, and is meant for the home-bred, unsophisticated understandings of our fellow-citizens. Senator Berrien tells us that the Constitution is the fundamental law, that which controls all others. The charter of our liberties, which every citizen has a personal interest in understanding thoroughly. The testimony of Senator Breese, Lewis Cass, and many others that might be named, who are everywhere esteemed as sound lawyers, so regard the constitution. I take it, therefore, that it is not presumption in a private citizen to form an opinion of that instrument.
ReplyDeleteNow, take the Constitution according to its plain reading, and I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it. On the other hand, it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery.
I have detained my audience entirely too long already. At some future period I will gladly avail myself of an opportunity to give this subject a full and fair discussion.
(Friggin' blogger size break)
(cont)
ReplyDeleteAllow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented, of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation which must inevitably work the downfall of slavery.
"The arm of the Lord is not shortened," and the doom of slavery is certain. I, therefore, leave off where I began, with hope. While drawing encouragement from "the Declaration of Independence," the great principles it contains, and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age. Nations do not now stand in the same relation to each other that they did ages ago. No nation can now shut itself up from the surrounding world and trot round in the same old path of its fathers without interference. The time was when such could be done. Long established customs of hurtful character could formerly fence themselves in, and do their evil work with social impunity. Knowledge was then confined and enjoyed by the privileged few, and the multitude walked on in mental darkness. But a change has now come over the affairs of mankind. Walled cities and empires have become unfashionable. The arm of commerce has borne away the gates of the strong city. Intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe. It makes its pathway over and under the sea, as well as on the earth. Wind, steam, and lightning are its chartered agents. Oceans no longer divide, but link nations together. From Boston to London is now a holiday excursion. Space is comparatively annihilated.-Thoughts expressed on one side of the Atlantic are distinctly heard on the other.
The far off and almost fabulous Pacific rolls in grandeur at our feet. The Celestial Empire, the mystery of ages, is being solved. The fiat of the Almighty, "Let there be Light," has not yet spent its force. No abuse, no outrage whether in taste, sport or avarice, can now hide itself from the all-pervading light. ..."
The entire speech, "What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?", should be required reading, along with Coolidge's "Inspiration of the Declaration of Independence", as they both bear so fervently upon us today, and the evils that leftists are subjecting us to, in the very same way they did with out and out slavery, in his day.
I am sick and tired of cowering behind my anonymity. Here I stand, and I cannot do otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI knew it. Who could forget that distinct fragrance born of existential sourness, PC humorlessness, spiritual autism, and intellectual conformity?
ReplyDeleteI don't mind being a stand-in for an unresolved sibling rivalry, but not for free.
ReplyDeleteOh good lord, is it really you again mtcraven?
ReplyDeleteDon't you ever get tire of not answering those questions?
Dear craven aninny, I didn't ask you two point me towards someone else who who had mangled the concepts of Rights, but for your own understanding of them. I hope, but doubt, that you can see the difference.
ReplyDeleteI suppose that being a leftist means substituting other people's words for your own thoughts... but you might a least make an effort....
aninnymouse said "... As for your assertion that Douglass changed his position, I can't see any textual evidence for it...."
ReplyDeleteBTW, as I pointed out above, from the same speech your quote was taken from (I seriously doubt you read his speech yourself, more likely you copied it from some leftie site), Douglass himself, refutes the manner you attempted to portray it in. See above.
the same speech your quote was taken from (I seriously doubt you read his speech yourself, more likely you copied it from some leftie site), Douglass himself, refutes the manner you attempted to portray it in.
ReplyDeleteHow the f do you refute a manner? For the love of god, learn to write, it might even lead to an ability to think.
You apparently are trying to say that Douglass was such a poor writer himself that he managed to refute himself in the course of one speech.
Paging Dr. Kruger...
ReplyDeleteMeltdown on the poop deck.
ReplyDeleteGagdad, I'm not so sure this is mtcraven - he was a vile fool, but this fellow is just plain stupid.
ReplyDeleteman·ner
ˈmanər/Submit
noun
noun: manner; plural noun: manners
1.
a way in which a thing is done or happens.
"taking notes in an unobtrusive manner"
The manner in which you presented Douglass's quote, out of context and as if it were his opinion OF the Declaration of Independence, rather than how it must be received by those held as slaves in America, you were either ignorant of his intent, or deliberately deceptive... or, in the manner that few but leftists can achieve, both.
By Douglass's own words, which you probably refuse to read (that many words must be a daunting thing for a bore of so very little brain), concluded thusly:
"...While drawing encouragement from "the Declaration of Independence," the great principles it contains, and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age..."
Now run along and bother us no more with your attempts at arranging words into some manner that resembles thought - you simply aren't up to it.
Thanks for the definition. You still can't refute a manner. I suppose you mean that there is some implied assertion in my comment (which was simply an excerpt of Dougless' speech) that is contradicted by the speech as a whole. What do you think that assertion is? And why do you think Douglass is refuting himself?
ReplyDeleteSorry aninny, you're a twit.
ReplyDeleteRefute that.
Uh oh, anonymous. Robert Putnam has a corker of a finding here:
ReplyDeletehttp://tinyurl.com/yo43y5
More diversity = less social capital.
Highly diverse neighborhoods do not cohere socially and break down civic culture and association.
Incoming.
And that was in 2007. Seven years on, I wonder how much more Putnam feels uneasy.
ReplyDelete