Posted by: GeorgiaBoy61
I COULD NOT AGREE MORE with the substance of your column. Over and over again, I have asked myself since the 9-11 attacks, how it could be that virtually everyone in the [civilized] west, including many Americans, feels compelled to use euphemistic language when speaking of Islamic violence. Why is everyone walking on eggshells? The few who dare to voice their honestly-felt opinions about Islam are derided as racists, xenophobes, Islamophobes, etc. The whole phenomenon is still somewhat mystifying to me, but reading Mark Steyn's "America Alone" and other works has helped bring this strange behavior into focus somewhat. First, nearly all of our cultural elites and political/military leaders are either in denial, or have been co-opted in some manner.
Second, the pervasive influence of cultural Marxismotherwise known as political correctnessis everywhere. Americans never used to apologize for voicing unpopular or unpleasant views or opinions; now they dohence the triumph of P.C. Third, many of us have forgotten what the responsibilities of free people entail, c.f. eternal vigilance, protection of the Judeo-Christian heritage, et cetera.
Little-used, and dulled by years of easy affluence, many of us have forgotten how (if we ever knew in the first place) how to exist as free men. Fourth, cowardice. It isn't simply that many in the west are physically afraid of the believers of Islam; they are also intellectually and morally overmatched and intimidated. They lack the skills and fortitude to engage those bullying them.
Fifth, is apathy. Many people are too focused on the trivialities of modern existence to care about the renewed march of Islam. Of one thing I am certainwe cannot effectively oppose a foe we dare not name.
We risk the embarrassment of repeating ourselves among supposedly intelligent men and women, not because we think our readers are stupid, but because we believe our readers think we are stupid. Yet, nothing is so realistic in the realm of mathematical certainty than the political engines of blunt force survival.
The personal acts of disengaging from perishable folly to embrace the realities of this brutal race towards intelligent survival must not be underestimated, or too casually declined. Here are two more stringent points of view, compelling in their own intelligent way:
Ihis country better start circling the wagons of Christianity, and start re-developing a strong UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and holding our elected officials to the constitution or we are done! Rejecting militant Islam has to be a major priority!
If your grandfathers had taken to blathering on about "Naziofascists", "Nazionazis", "Nazists", "radical Nazis" and "Nazi extremists", let alone about "Hijackers of the Great Political Party of Peace", unless they were running a fever something just awful, their own mothers would have blistered their britches before General Patton could even get to them. Bessie
You betcha! And from a board debating the essence of birthday girl Ayn Rand's Objectivist thought:
Following that logic, certain activities that have become profit-making are not necessarily meant to be so. It's funny that the example of saving a life was brought upperhaps, according to Ms. Rand, healthcare should not be a profit-making enterprise, but she would place it more in the realm of social responsibility under direct government supervision"morally" superior to the general welfare than the current Affordable Care Act that has so many Atlas Shrugged thumpers fit to be tied.
I disagree. A lot of these activities were started by churches and philanthropists, ie, hospitals, libraries, et cetera, and did not become money makers until government stepped in to regulate them. Even now, someone trying to feed hungry people cannot do so without permission from the government. Ask the people who were in Katrina who provided more direct help, the government or individuals. Government just does more advertising because they can then charge it to the taxpayers.
Alan Greenspan, an initiated member of the Rand cult, used her totally misguided ideas to run this country into the ground. Besides that, all she did was give false legitimacy to soulless, compassionless, sociopathy. An a-moral crackpot through and though. But all is not lost, Wall Street losers. Your woeful ignorance of both Rand and Greenspan tell us much more about you than them.
To describe her philosophy and ethics as "a-moral" (as many believers in God, gods, unicorns, and gremlins do, claiming that only religionistsyou know, those organizations created by men to control, keep ignorant, deny/suspend reality/reason as it suits, fleece, and murder hundreds of millions of others in God's namepossess a monopoly on morality denied to an a-theist) is a grotesque libel.
Put another way, if Elohim wants to use an Objectivist to do His work, they will do so. Research the Voice of God to the Hebrew Jeremiah when describing the Babylonian King Nebecannezzar as His servant. Just one of many examples of conscription into The Great Plan. Belief in God is not necessary. There is no escape from God in that model.
Objectivism and its Ethics shine as the greatest philosophical development yet of a proper morality for dignified men and the enhancement of life (as opposed to corrupt original-sinners who worship death and some imaginary afterlife). Ayn Rand's morality is of such comprehensive stature and sufficiently rigid in nature, that I have little doubt one of your self-humiliating ignorance would be incapable of fully comprehendinglet alone living up to it.
Oh my, my beloved America has become such an arch-schizophrenic phenomenon!
1. Rand promoted the ideas that government control over the economy and money supply was immoral and would be ruinous to the economy.
2. Greenspan, a who at one time was friends with Rand, later headed the Federal Reserve, and exercised the exact controls that Rand had warned againstwhich resulted in the exact sort of outcomes that she warned against.
So, how do you conclude that Greenspan "used her totally misguided ideas to run this country into the ground"? Alan Greenspan's statist policies would have never been supported by Ayn Rand. Anyone that has actually read Ayn Rand would never suggest that Greenspan held to her ideas. Her positions are the strongest that exist against any type of corruption...maybe too many business people are afraid that if they stand up for the moral virtue of profit, they will have to forgo the moral loopholes that are accepted in our current system.
A society and government that believed in the same principles as Ayn Rand would tolerate none of the corruption we see today in businessand would demand personal responsibility from businessman, without loopholes to fall back on if times got tough or they wanted to be lazy or shortsighted.
Maybe too many of today's businesspeople are too afraid of the personal responsibility they'd have to take if they took Ayn Rand's stance on the morality of profit.