Collective Salvation, Collective Guilt

Collective Salvation, Collective Guilt

As we stand one week out from the side-show of collective damnation which the Left engaged in over the Tucson shootings, it shouldn’t surprise all Americans that this is what they have witnessed.  The Progressive Left and, by default, the Progressive Right–the collectivists in both parties–operate off of the assumption that we are all responsible for each other collectively.  You will take notice there was not much condemnation from establishment “machine” Republicans against those falsely accused: Beck, Palin, the Tea Party.  Many in America have been bemoaning the fact that, for a long time, we have had no real choice in our political leaders.  Really…what choice was their between McCain and Obama; tyranny light and tyranny?  Many have speculated, including Glenn Beck, that had John McCain been elected, America would not have had the awakening it did in the form of the Tea Party movement.  Individual Americans, the public, outwardly reject the Left’s collectivism every time it is imposed upon us.  We swing back to the Right expecting that the Right will do something about the bloated government and instead all we receive in return is simple manipulation of the mechanisms the Left has already put in place.  Why?  Because Progressives in both parties operate off the same false premise of collective salvation rather than individual liberty.  Barack Obama was elected on a wave of “collective salvation.”  In fact, I would argue he was also elected on a wave of collective guilt hung around our necks by the accusatory Left, who, for generations have convinced Americans they are racist.  “Oh goody!  I get to alleviate my (supposed) racial guilt for voting for the black guy!  No matter what kinds of realistic evaluations tell me that he’s an Alinskyite Marxist!”  How could we possible expect the Right to shrink government when they hold the same basic premise as the Left–that it is government’s job to take care of people rather than protect rights.  Until the Right learns how to challenge the philosophical premises of the Left–they will continue, by default, to accept them.  The Left counts on this and plays the game by beating the Right over the head and shoulders with such words as:

You don’t want to help the poor, the sick and the infirm.  You’re hateful!

If the Right woke up and learned, philosophically, how to answer those charges on a conceptual basis, they could deflect charges like that as easily as Superman deflects bullets.  But, oftentimes they don’t–either because they are part of the game or simply because they are intellectually incapable of doing so.

I remember learning in high school about the “sphere of liberty” which surrounds each individual person.  Our nation was founded on the sovereignty and freedom of the individual precisely because it was collective ideas down through history which inevitably bring tyranny–aside from the “good intentions” of the collectivists.  All collectivists have good intentions, however, all collectivism is incontrovertibly tyrannical; whether it is a hard tyranny or soft tyranny makes little difference.  Ayn Rand states and Objectivists hold: 

Your intentions don’t count. If you are willing to believe that men should be deprived of all rights for a good cause — you are a Totalitarian…What is destroying all civilization? Just this one idea — that to a good cause everything can be sacrificed; that individual men have no rights which must be respected; that what one person believes to be good can be put over on the others by force.

Altruism is incompatible with individual freedom.  Unfortunately, these ideas of individual freedom were implicit rather than explicit in this nation’s founding documents and were left open to too much interpretation and false compromise.  This is why collectivists of all stripes have been able to corrupt the system.  You can’t continue to compromise with tyranny and expect to remain free.

To the Left, it is completely “rational” to accuse everyone who recognizes individual freedom as the standard for determining collective guilt for the shooting in Tuscon, Arizona.  Anyone who stands in the way of their imagined Utopia is precisely why everyone who values individual freedom is guilty.  Conversely, it is epistemologically sound to recognize that people are individuals, not cattle.  Even aside from being able to defend that view on a philosophical basis–which takes time and study–most people can recognize that it is inherently true simply by observation.  You are not completely free when living under your parents roof–under their rules and their terms.  The same thing happens when everyone is “taken care of” by government–government’s rules, government’s terms to exist.  You are not completely free to do as you please in whatever work environment you inhabit–you are subject to the conditions of your boss–even though contractually, at the time of hire, you may have come to certain mutual understandings, it is still their business.  Ultimately, the success or failure of that business is up to them, therefore, the boss and the boss alone is free to make the decisions he deems are in the best interests of the company.  We all have different talents, drives, desires and goals.  None of this can flourish when put under the yoke of collectivism.  No man of dignity and true self-esteem should be willing to allow himself to be enslaved by his government for supposed “security.”  Benjamin Franklin stated:

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Indeed, it is the ability for individual freedom to flourish which, I would argue, is the true representation of the “Utopia” the Left seeks to impose upon everyone through the force of law.  Imposing Utopia under the force of law is, in and of itself, a contradiction–if something is imposed under the force of law–it cannot, therefore, be considered “Utopia”–at least not to the particular group of people who is being sacrificed to make the other group of people “comfortable.”  Ultimately, someone has to sacrifice so someone else can live–that is the ultimate degradation.  It is the idea of exchanging, voluntarily, value for value, not sacrifice for value, which can uphold the true free-society unburdened by compulsion.  It is for this reason, that pure laissez-faire capitalism is the only political system which upholds individual rights.  Anyone who upholds any other system or “mix” of systems–is not upholding the tenets of individual rights and freedom.  There can be no compromise on basic principles.

This display of desperate malignancy by the Left has certainly given Americans a glimpse of what people turn into when they are consigned to collective societies.  They become animals.  Since everyone is collectively responsible, everyone is collectively guilty.  Therefore, you get growing numbers of pressure groups willing to feed off of and fight each other for the scraps which the benevolent collectivists get to hand out.  Why?  So the collectivists can satiate their need to cry their benevolence to whatever secular or theological powers they feel commands them–whether it is their emotions or their God.  In some cases, it really is simply a lust for political power one man seeks to hold over his brethren.  It breeds a society of contempt, jealousy, and malignancy–exactly the opposite of what the Left and Progressive Right’s stated intentions are.  The principle I am outlining here is the Marxist creed of “from each according to his ability to each according to his need.”  Ayn Rand addressed this hopelessly illogical and contradictory creed in Atlas Shrugged in her “story within a story” about The Twentieth Century Motor company.  You can find an excerpt at my Facebook page here

Love of our brothers? That’s when we learned to hate our brothers for the first time in our lives. We began to hate them for every meal they swallowed, for every small pleasure they enjoyed, for one man’s new shirt, for another’s wife’s hat, for an outing with their family, for a paint job, on their house–it was taken from us, it was paid for by our privations, our denials, our hunger. We began to spy on one another, each hoping to catch the others lying about their needs, so as to cut their ‘allowance’ at the next meeting. We began to have stool pigeons who informed on people, who reported that somebody had bootlegged a turkey to his family on some Sunday–which he’d paid for by gambling, most likely. We began to meddle in one another’s lives. We provoked family quarrels, to get somebody’s relatives thrown out. Any time we saw a man starting to go steady with a girl, we made life miserable for him. We broke up many engagements. We didn’t want anyone to marry, we didn’t want any more dependents to feed.

The collectivist’s damnation of everyone who seeks to uphold individual freedom is also a mockery of justice.  If everyone is collectively responsible–and everyone is collectively guilty–then there are no such things as “criminals.” Why have a legal system?  It’s amazing, isn’t it, how all these things when presented come together to form a coherent whole?  It’s not so mysterious anymore why the Left always seeks to uphold criminality and a depraved society void of all human virtue.  In fact, why even attempt to uphold the ideal of a government subordinated by society to moral, objective law?  Let, anarchy and tyranny (two sides of the same collectivist coin) commence!

You scream loudly to me that you are not collectively guilty of the shooting in Tuscon, America?  Well, then–I think it’s about time we get to kicking some serious collectivist ass, in both parties.  Don’t you?  If not, you better get used to liking and living with your collective guilt–because that is the damnation that awaits all of us if we don’t.

Bill Press from The Reading Eagle: When You Put Down Your Vitriol Then We Will Do the Same; Otherwise–Prepare for War

Bill Press

I am getting a little tired of being told by Leftists to “play nice” when the very fabric of our Republic and free-market is at stake.  Progressive Leftists learned long ago that they could not collectivize a society by using guns to intimidate and enslave the populace; so, they replaced their guns with hate-filled rhetoric.  They use this tactic to pit people against each other while Progressives work behind the scenes to steal liberty from the people.  I have news for you, Mr. Press, Americans are onto this tactic.  Many of us have been on to this tactic for a long time while at the same time wondering why our fellow citizens did not appear to see the same thing.  The jig is up Bill.  Even Jeffersonian Democrats have been enlightened as to just how much the hard Left has hijacked this nation.    

Mr. Press, in his latest article, Easy way to end hate-filled talk radio is simply to turn it off, apparently believes certain men and women from conservative talk radio are too “toxic” and too “hate-filled.”  Democrats use words like “toxic” and “hate-filled” when Conservatives tell the truth about the real intentions of Progressive Democrats.  He refers to them as members of the “radical Right.”  What exactly, Mr. Press, is radical about limited government and the preservation of capitalism–which are the only two conditions under which men can retain their God-given rights as free individuals?  The title of his article should be:  “What Democrats Have Wanted for 100 Years:  Total and Complete Economic Control Over the Citizenry Because We Can’t Win Debate Any Other Way.”    

Mr. Press believes these various hosts to be off base when describing the truths about the top-down tyranny this country has been evolving towards in the last 10o years via his beloved Progressive politics and Progressive Presidents such as Woodrow Wilson and FDR.   

Mr. Press may be asking himself, “Why would a gay man defend conservative talk show hosts?”  Well, Mr. Press…I learned something ages ago which you apparently have yet to learn:  conservatism / classical liberalism and the Judeo-Christian foundation upon which this nation was built is precisely why I can be a gay man in this country while not swinging by my homosexual neck.  In case you have not noticed, sir, all of the countries who promote collectivist policies such as you do–eventually massacre not only their own citizens–but, many times various minority groups within those countries who become “problematic” as well.  As a gay man I certainly do not agree with all stands taken by some conservative hosts especially when it comes to civil recognition of gay relationships.  But, I can guarantee you this much–I do agree with them on some basic principles:  limited government, capitalism, common sense national defense, and individual liberty–not to mention promotion of moral and ethical standards to our young people via objective education where they are taught how to think critically as opposed to being taught what to think via Left-Wing collectivists who choose to rewrite our history.  I have listened to all of the talk show hosts that Mr. Press has mentioned in his article quite extensively over the last decade.  And I can tell you this much–the only hateful rhetoric coming from these hosts are toward the hardcore Progressive Left-Wing that has hijacked the once-great Jeffersonian Democrat Party and their tactics of divisiveness which they use to keep people at each others’ throats…why don’t you address that hatred Mr. Press?  

Now…to address some of the article assertions, point-by-point:  

“Both were lamenting the increasingly ugly rhetoric that has replaced legitimate debate about the issues on right-wing talk radio. It’s the very phenomenon I explore in my new book, “Toxic Talk: How the Radical Right Has Poisoned America’s Airwaves.”  

My response:  Let me know when your book reaches the kind of sales numbers Mr. Mark Levin’s “Liberty and Tyranny” or Mr. Glenn Beck’s “Arguing With Idiots” reaches–then we’ll talk.  

“Rush Limbaugh still holds the title of hate-monger No. 1. Without providing any evidence from Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s speeches or writing, Limbaugh daily calls her a socialist and accuses Democrats of rushing into confirmation hearings before her radicalism is understood by the public.”  

My response:  It seems Mr. Limbaugh’s assertion that Elena is a socialist is not quite the lie Mr. Press wishes it was.  Here is her thesis for your enjoyment.  In the last paragraph of her thesis she writes:  

The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America.  Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight one’s fellows than it is to battle and entrenched and powerful foe.  Yet if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies.  In unity lies their only hope.  

Seems pretty sympathetic to socialism to me–not to mention the fact she thanks her radical brother for many of his ideas;  Leftist poison does tend to run in families.  

Mr. Press referring to Glenn Beck:  “This, of course, is the same talk-show host who, in total ignorance of the Gospels, warned Christians to run out of their churches if they ever hear the words social justice or economic justice because, according to Beck, those are just code words for communism and Nazism.”  

My response:  Mr. Press…here is an article that will help clear up your ignorance about whether or not socialism is in the Bible.  And I would also ask you, Mr. Press, if someone hires a hitman to do their killing for them–does it make them any less culpable for the murder?  I think not.  The same goes for socialism.  Just because you elect representatives to our government to do your stealing for you–makes you no less culpable in the theft, sir.  Not to mention–we are discovering that some churches are indeed preaching social justic and economic justice from their pulpits.  These are code-words for socialism and communism.  One only has to recall the revealing aspects of Black Liberation Theology preached by Obama’s own pastor–Reverend Jeremiah Wright.  The Bible never condoned stealing from one person to give to another.  Theft is theft, Mr. Press.  As a Left-Wing Progressive I would also ask where your concern is regarding a link that is being constructed between church and the state?  Hypocrite. 

“Mark Levin attacked Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor as a radical leftist and a bigot.”  

My response:  Attached is a particular cut from one of Mr. Levin’s shows where he breaks down Justice Sotomayor’s attitudes about race.  Whatever she may be–she is certainly not color-blind.   

“Michael Savage, perhaps the most vicious of all, once told a gay caller, ‘You should only get AIDS and die, you pig.'”  

My response:  This particular statement has been run through the liberal meat-grinder.  While I am not a fan of his particular method of enlightening people regarding their own behavior–Mr. Savage worked, in the early 80’s during the onset of the AIDS crisis, as a nutritionist in a San Francisco clinic serving gay men.  When he mentioned to many of them that perhaps going to gay bath houses and sleeping with a few dozen men in one evening was not a good thing and perhaps they should be shut down–the gay community turned on him.  The gay Left strikes again, “We’re all dying from AIDS due to our own irresponsibility and recklessness–how dare you try to care about us!”  I rest my case.   

“Ever since 1987 and the end of the Fairness Doctrine, which freed station owners from having to provide any balance on the air, conservatives have dominated talk radio to the point where, according to a 2007 report of the Center for American Progress, there are at least 10 hours of right-wing talk for every one hour of progressive talk.”  

My response:  That really eats at you Lefties doesn’t it?  The fact that, when the Fairness Doctrine (a restriction on free-speech by manipulating the free-market) was ended, Conservative talk-radio ballooned in the free-market of ideas; meanwhile, liberals stations such as Air America have barely been able to keep their heads above water.  

“What’s the answer? Progressives need to get in the game by buying their own radio stations, for starters. Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine might also be part of the answer, but Obama’s already said he’s against it.”   

My response:  Go ahead!  Buy your own stations!  They’ll go broke…but, hey…have at it!  The less money you have–the more freedom-loving Americans won’t need to be tortured by you!  And bringing back the Fairness Doctrine?  So…you’re in favor of limiting free-speech?  

…but, in Mr. Press’s next paragraph he says:  

“Censorship’s clearly not the answer. The First Amendment protects all speech, even ugly speech. It also guarantees every American the right to make a fool of himself, as long as there are enough other fools willing to listen.”  

My response:  It’s clearly not the answer as long as Mr. Obama, as you previously stated, is against it?  But…if Mr. Obama were for it…you would support it wholeheartedly?   

I’m so confused by the intellectual trapeze flips you are doing, Mr. Press.  It would be so much easier to follow you if you could just learn to put two plus two together to equal four!  No wonder you guys on liberal talk-radio have such a problem with your ratings–nothing you say makes any sense!  

Your dream, Mr. Press, for conservatives to just sit down and shut up will not happen.  It will not happen unless the Far Left fringe is once and for all purged, not only from the Democrat Party but from the governmental bureaucracies as well–thereby returning the party to its classically liberal roots.  Until that time, Mr. Press–I suggest you keep preparing for war.