The Great Relearning by Tom Wolfe.
Printable View
The Great Relearning by Tom Wolfe.
The True and Only Heaven: Progress and its Critics, by Christopher Lasch.
Progressives can go fuck themselves. I will do whatever I can to not contribute to their cause.
You seem to be more of a destroyer than a builder. It takes all kinds, to make a world.Quote:
Originally Posted by SonOfAGun
BTW, where are you keeping FN1, LockBeard and Free_Mason? They never post anymore since you started. :lol
I'm not a great mind who can come up with the Great Twenty-First Century Ideology. I doubt any Westerner really has the werewithal.
Apparently our choices are going to be:
1) Leftism, flavor A: Europe is Awesome, So Let's Repeat Everything the Europeans Tried After World War II, That Ended Up Being Totally Unsustainable.
2) Leftism, flavor B: Everything Everyone Tried Before Us Was Wrong and Oppressive, and Since We Are Smarter and More Enlightened Than Anyone Before Us, Let's Blow It All Up and Finally Experience True Liberation.
3) Leftism, flavor C: We Cannot Subject People to the Tyranny of Their Own Choices; They Need Someone Wise to Watch Over Them and Guide Them.
3) Conservatism, flavor A: Everything New Is Bad and We Are Afraid of It, So Let's Use the Coercive Power of the State to Create a Cocoon of the 1950's Where We Feel Safe and Our Beliefs Aren't Challenged.
4) Conservatism, flavor B: F*** You, I've Got Mine.
5) Conservatism, flavor C: Everything Will Be Fine Once We Make the Rest of the World Just Like Us, By Force if Necessary.
I'm going to leave the numbering wrong up there. It adds a little dystopian flavor.
As I've already stated, I get tired of names easily here. Thanks for caring though brah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
A destroyer? No, I just have no need nor want no purpose to BUILD someone else's life.
I view progressives of American in a far worse light than any other enemy America has in this world.
#4 has been tacit philosophy in America for a long time, but really, 1-5 are all contemporary.
Once upon a time, the communitarian aspect of American society was simply taken for granted. People were involved in the lives of those around them to advance the general welfare. It had nothing to do with the government. Civil involvement was simply part of personal virtue.
Today the radical individualism inherent in the American spirit has overwhelmed and dissolved the spirit of community. We are left with two camps: one that can only see community through the eyes of government, and another that places little to no value on the group whatsoever. The end of this can be only totalitarianism or chaos.
+1 billion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Extra Stout
Community is the only way to survive, and not the government type. Welfare? Fuck that, communities should take care of their own, they at least know who are the lazy asses and who just fell on hard times. Kids acting up, vandalizing? Community should handle that before the law ever even thinks about it. Kid having trouble in school? Friends and family should help out. All these things that there are government programs for now should be done close to home, by those who are around you.
Individualism is great as long as there is still a community, when we lose that, the only choice is for the gov't to step in, and they fucking suck at trying to replicate what communities do. We all can't be the Lone Ranger or there will be no one to grow the grain to feed Silver.
Cultures are impossible to tame, though. People have to learn the hard way, which means either totalitarianism or chaos is coming soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by sam1617
Oh, they will learn. I will punch them in the head until they learn :downspin:Quote:
Originally Posted by Extra Stout
What has caused the (on-going) shift? Or was it ever the (possibly) romanticized "community" you describe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Extra Stout
I tend to agree with your premise (from an admittedly white-middle-class perspective). I'm 41, and growing up, my parent's family felt more a part of a community than mine does now; with the church, with the neighborhood, etc....
The conservative explanation? The government has become everyone's surrogate for doling out "general welfare" - while the liberal would blame, simply, and acceleration and celebration of the accumulation of wealth (greed).
There's probably truth in both (and potentially a chicken and egg conundrum as well).
I would say that the migration happened thanks in part to the continuous hunt for jobs. All life is based off of our relationships with others, and the constant moving has broken down those relationships, creating short term friendships where it doesn't matter if you don't see each other in a year. The mass migrations from agricultural jobs to industrial broke a lot of that community up, as did the instant access to information. Back when, you had to go talk to people to get information, now, its available instantly.
Also, I think the easy access to entertainment has caused further fracturing. Instead of going to a pub, or down to the store and hanging out, people watch TV, play video games, talk politics on sports forums with random strangers. While you get some relationship building like that, face to face contact is still the most effective way to make friends that actually care about you.
Why not both? One underwrites the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Extra Stout
People used to know their neighbors. Civic clubs used to be a regular part of the social fabric. It was that way even just twenty to thirty years ago. That we even have to ask whether it was once so shows just how fleeting our history is.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
Once upon a time, if man chose to be an island, he perished. Life was difficult, and people had to stick together to survive. Now, in modern life, man can create the illusion of self-sufficiency. He can close himself in his abode with his modern gadgets and his packaged food and sundries, and hardly talk to a soul except when he needs to scratch his social itch. And now, we have ways to interact socially without really having to deal with real people: TV and the internet.
The time people used to spend talking to their neighbors they spend watching TV or playing on the internet. Those are the two great substitutes for real life. Government did not cause it, nor can it solve it.
It takes a village to raise a village idiot.
Thanks, Im busy at work and now on page 50.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
If you could remind me what Christopher Lasch says, I'd be grateful DR.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkReign
Sometimes I'll read a book and remember, like three things.
I would disagree with the few selections. I agree that conservatism tends to slow the growth of ideas. Not because change is unwelcome, but because we refuse to take the bad with the good. There is no "I've got mine" attitude, but rather it is nobody's business to steal from me to give to others. As for the militarism, I would say most conservative want a strong standing Army. That is for insuring we are never defeated rather than changing others. Changing others isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it should definitely be the last resort.Quote:
Originally Posted by Extra Stout
Remember, Im only on page 50.
Basically, Lasch is a Marxist reformed. The gist of it, so far, states that turn of the 20th century liberalism was forgotten or misapplied in every iteration since. Conservatism relies on the mass consumption of everything cultural. Material, wealth, morality, manufacturing, et al.
The book, so far, tries to tackle this uniquely Western idea of consistent and forever progress. That history is viewed through Western eyes with a wistful reverance for its simplicity and innocence that never really existed (*cough*ES*cough*). Him being a child of the Depression, his aim in life was to be married and have an exorbitant amount of offspring with which to share and create a fmailial life with which was lacking in the times beforehand.
Also, he speaks to a degredation of authority in every facet of society. Authority has no credence in our society, they hold no sway outside the proximity of it to us. Thus Western authority has a vested interest in creeping ever closer so as even though it is an emperor without clothes, it is the emperor nonetheless.
He postulates that the liberal approach to a pseudo Utopian society was admirable and maybe even achievable, but the means used to achieve that end were counter-productive. Examples: Welfare, Abortion, Women's Rights and the Civil Rights Act. It wasnt so much that these ideals were negative or unnecessary, but that their application into our society was done through the court system instead through popular opinion. The Civil Rights Act may or may not have passed the public litmus test but liberals of the time cared not for the test so much as they cared for their legally won result.
And it is this very fabric of mid-century liberalism that gave rise to the schism amongst liberals that lead to conservative prevalence before and after Carter. He cites Ted Kennedy, and in my own words and interpretation, as the prime example of liberalism of the time at its worst. Not that TK was a bad person, but that his answers to the country's moral problems were the addition of more social programs by force, not the guiding hand of logic and compassion. He cites this exact politician as the reason liberals were/are (correctly) viewed as aloof intellectuals who just plain know better than you do. That liberalism is uncontent and cant reconcile the social "drag", as perceived by them, between themselves and voting Americans.
So far, the book deals with the Western/Christian idea of progress that never ends, at least, in our eyes. He tries to deal with what could possibly explain the ascendance of such mindless thinking. What defines progress? What is progress? Progress can be interpreted many ways...its interpretation by Western/Christian/American seems to be the accumulation of luxury to such an extent that even luxury becomes necessity. That realistically, we as a society cannot endlessly progress because our progression depends on the economically weak but resource rich to remain so. Moreover, we cannot extend our luxury to the world because the world's resources cannot sustain it. A liberal estimate would say 1 billion people in the world live as we Americans do. Multiply that by six and hope the oil doesnt run out, right? Not happening.
Thats about all I can say, so far, but I see where he is going with this. BTW, my summaries have always sucked. I read shit like this and constantly get dragged away mentally by my own insights and thoughts on the topic at hand. I use these authors as conduits to my own thinking, not the memorization of theirs. Personally, this guy is extremely intelligent and introspective, but completely blind to a possible world without his ilk and conviction of perspective. But really, arent we all?
Holy grammatical and spelling errors, Mr Dictionary! Thats what happens when you get pulled in and out of a post like that, I guess.
Growing up, I never heard the word "community". You helped when others around you needed help (southern hospitality :hat) but you yourself were suppose to be as self-reliant as you could become.
Thanks for your reply, DR .
I'll take my own reply to you offline. It's deadly dull.
One of his more curious observations had to do with the counter-culture pervasive amongst the youth during the Vietnam war.
Their minimalist approach, the restructuring or relearning of societal tendencies, was amusing if not misguided. Encouraged by their resistance to authority without merit, he was equally mystified by their non-demand or follow through for a great rethinking of society. They instead chose an outsiders path, communes and the like that existed outside the boundaries of normal society.
The fact that they went through the same growing pains (disease, hierarchy, etc) that previous culture did (albeit, at a much more rapid pace) only further pushed their organizational thinking toward more extreme spectrums of political structure.
I found that amusing. A bunch of dope-smoking hippies reinventing the political wheel on a micro scale. Throw in long dead diseases popping back up in their communes and I think Hollywood may have found the answer to their sequel-prone, creative writer's block.
So will we have to relearn why it's not a good thing for the state to be the master of individuals?
Apparently. Check out Giambattista Vico's theory of historical phases. It pursues civilization as the history of its own devolution and decline.
In Vico's own time this theory expressed the tragic, conservative sense of things. But something ironic happened in modernity's cradle: tragic necessity was transposed (Marx relied on Vico's theory) into a positive. Scientistic *progress* applied Vico in reverse. Mechanical and necessary progress toward an a priori good. In a way, scientific modernity at first did not so much show us a new face, as the mirror image of one, its predecessor.
Viz., the tragic view of existence, into which it falls itself.
Over and over could be, if we live so long.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
:lmao Unintentional comedy at its finest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Quote:
Originally Posted by SonOfAGun
"brah"?
brah
=
Reading/hearing that word is like fingernails on a chalkboard.
what's so funny? Conservatism has 100 meanings, some contradict the other. Conservatism is many things in many countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Extra Stout
And if you are laughing at WC's "changing others attitudes can be good,..." that was the whole point of the Abolition, Civil Rights, Abortion, any movement left or right.
I know you could do better than talk down on people.
And if somebody wants to say that Conservatism = Defending Traditions, that argument is a fallacy.
IF that's the case, then promoting flat taxes, fair tax, Social Security Reform, Privatization of Social Security, Privatizing Public Education, Vouchers.. are all liberal ideas. But they are not.
And none of those ideas are 1950's chic like Extras Stout would have you believe.
(stifles a cough)
Beg pardon. Carry on, profe.
? elaborate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Oh, you were just clearing your throat, too? I thought you were just starting to say something.
Were you already done? :lol
I'm not sure whether gtownspur likes building strawmen, maybe as a hobby or something, or if he really doesn't understand what I was talking about. I expect Wild Cobra not to understand what I am talking about.
But just in case, gtownspur, you really didn't understand, which again, frankly, I doubt, that wasn't meant to be an exhaustive treatment of all the conservative ideas which have ever been uttered by purveyors of right-wing ideology throughout the chronicles of time, but rather a lament of the sorry state of present political discourse in the United States of America. It would be truly lovely if the average American conservative's persona were as if he were the offspring of writers from First Things and The Economist, however, that is unfortunately not the reality in which I currently find myself. If it is in fact the reality in which you find yourself, and your reality is genuinely extant rather than simply the effect of your choice of mind-altering substances (cue WC here), please clue me in to where exactly it is you live so I can move there.
No i truly understand what you've been lamenting this whole time, That the GOP is made up of Bull Moose Theocrats with their dreams of Dominion doctrine and establishing Christendom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Extra Stout
Your point is overly exaggerated. Social Conservatism holds many idealogies and many of their beliefs are believed by people well outside their political camp. For instance gay marriage, abortion and mandatory sex education. Infact Social Con positions were held up in California not recently.
And while you like to lament the fact that the past 8 years was the dominance of Social Cons on Bush policy, that too is false. While GW bush professed his faith, he was on the fence about pushing the Defense of Marriage act, and was tepid on abortion. Social Issues are not a the forefront of the GOP. Mike Huckabee is the strongest political candidate for social cons, but even he, while being strong on traditional values, is no Falwell.
Social COns have always been an integral part of the Republican insurgence, they constructed the Moral Majority. Plus, you can also see that Evangelical Christianity is slowly changing and is not the same creature it was 30 years ago. To prop up some idea that Social Conservatives are going to build the New Jerusalem here in america is just as pure fearmongering as the So Cons use themselves.
Yeah, that's what I wrote. Nice strawman, liar. Go to hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by gtownspur
(Golf clap.)
heeheehee...
I guess you expected for me to forget your paranoid ramblings about the GOP being a Theocratic Rebel yell party this past election cycle, nice try doof.Quote:
Originally Posted by Extra Stout
You should be clapping for the simple fact that ES was talking about the "flavors" of right wing conservative thought, and when WC eleaborated his own, ES acted like a complete douche for talking about his own brand of conservatism or libertarian conservatism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Not surprising you find this whole thing amusing, you both are probably the same self important bully. Atleast, bully towards other people, i just laugh Winehole off.
A link or two from Spurstalk should suffice to refute ES, if you've really got the goods on him. Put up or shut up, gtown. The search function is your friend.
You wouldn't bs us now, would you? :lmao
What are you Extra Stout's wife? The guy has yet to deny that allegation. Let him speak for himself if he thinks i am lying?Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
ES's response to WC was not mild and accepting, no.Quote:
ES acted like a complete douche for talking about his own brand of conservatism or libertarian conservatism.
As usual, you conflate whatever you cannot distinguish.Quote:
Not surprising you find this whole thing amusing, you both are probably the same self important bully.
BS artists and bullies walk on my fighting side. You're both gtown. So is WC. I don't know what you're getting so chafed about. It's a discussion board.
ummm, yeah, i remember the national security debate we had, you sure were'nt acting chafed there...:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
bullying usually starts out with name calling, things which Winehole Stout lunges into head first.
And true "conservatives" such a gtown/Iginionkkt whatever wonder why the left wing of the DC party is in control of the Executive branch and the Congress, with a 60 seat majority in the Senate.
Yeah, its because we nominated that fascist theocrat Arch Rightwing Evangelist John McCotton Mather McCain. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
You mean McCain, the neoconservative whose idol is the progressive Theodore Roosevelt? Rather fitting that McCain was the one to follow Bush as the GOP presidential nominee.Quote:
Originally Posted by gtownspur
McCain was a teddy fan, you're right, but he defeated two false choices in Romney and Huckabee who split the other vote. McCain's progressive Campaign finance reform was hated by the base. McCain was not the base's wish. McCain was falsely touted as the favorite by the media and won in Liberal states where democrats were allowed to crossover and vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
*The liberals who voted for John McCain ruined it for us all!*:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by gtownspur
Go hump a sand castle, gtown.Quote:
Originally Posted by gtownspur
You can pretend it's an ivory tower.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
i like this professor gag, it would be hilarious if i were the one always trying to correct people here. That would be so Winehole of me, you know....Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Though the reason he was passable to the base instead of rejected outright was his support of warfare state.Quote:
Originally Posted by gtownspur
Ehem.
I am aware of open primaries, despite my residence in Texas. I have heard of it.
That doesn't make your thesis any less ridiculous. Do the numbers really bear you out? You claim there was decisive crossover by Dems for McCain in primary voting?
Was there? Show your work, Boss. Who would've won without those "illegitimate" votes?
Out with it, profe, don't hoard the knowledge...
That also with the fact that Republicans wanted to capitalize on his military service, something inwhich the democrats always pointed the lack of when discussing Bush and Cheney's merit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
also, McCain didn't get the base's support until he picked SP.
If you suffer my take on you as a correction so much the worse for you, amigo. :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by gtownspur
It is just my take, nothing more.
What a convenient chamilleon, he goes from "pound sand, Bitch!" to this passive snarkiness in a fell second. Winehole must be Extra Stouts wife, she seems to go through emotional swings all the time pretty quick.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
That was months ago. But for your recent quotation, it would be all but forgotten.
Are you still holding a grudge over that? Stale, bulletin board smack?
Turn the page, man.
In open primaries, liberals or independent votes are not considered illegitimate.:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
so i guess you don't know about open primaries.
Are you that important? I don't hold a grudge with you for such things, i infact relished in the fact that i had your goat. it was pretty darn hilarious if you might ask.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I don't know. You brought up this thing from ages ago and reposted it here.Quote:
Originally Posted by gtownspur
So talented and so modest, too.Quote:
I don't hold a grudge with you for such things, i infact relished in the fact that i had your goat. it was pretty darn hilarious if you might ask.
You really shouldn't thump such a weak chest, gtown. It might implode.
You're right. My chest is not as brawny as your husband's.... shouldn't you be getting ready to go rest your head on your true love Extra Stout.:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Always the gay card. Why do you keep going there, gtown?
Are you worried we're gonna run short of bigots and salacious innuendo in this forum?
Rly?
i can't be accused of employing the gay card if i think you are Extra Stout's wife.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Now the manhood card.
That's mildly funny, but not very original.
I can't pull any card unless i knew what gender you were. Why the rush to victimization?Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
You deny you knew.
Clever basterd.
And you don't know now?
I really didn't know:lol, the other time Whott thought you were ploto.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
You go by Whottt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
I've only been called gay, like 15-20 times on this board. I can hardly believe this is the very first time you've done it..Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
Quote:
You're not real big on veracity, are you?
So Marcus where were you during the haight ashbuy days did you hang with the hippies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
er, no.
Yeah the reason I ask is I was wondering if your experince of that scene in any way resembles tom wolfe's thoughts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Oh yes. I used to go months without a shower but never a day without a trip.
What does that say about the base, if you what you say is true?Quote:
Originally Posted by gtownspur
Youre not nearly old enough to have any relevant experience in the mid-60s to early-70s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Arent you a member of the mookie crew? Isnt there like an age limit associated there?
Im busting balls :king
I could be wrong on both accounts.
Hmmph! How dare you, sir.
bump