tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post8551953340797762719..comments2023-12-13T16:57:33.142-06:00Comments on Blogodidact: Disorienting America - the modern thinking behind abandoning True NorthVan Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-51014527522428900572022-07-09T12:29:16.365-05:002022-07-09T12:29:16.365-05:00Not being a fan of waiting in suspense, I'll g...Not being a fan of waiting in suspense, I'll go ahead and delete his other comment for him, and repost it out of his reach. shallowZAstro said: <br /><br />"Every true <b>republican</b> has drunk in love of country, that is to say love of law and <b>liberty</b>, along with his mother's milk"<br /><br /><b>FASCISM!!</b>Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-5716516615884705172022-07-09T12:24:19.401-05:002022-07-09T12:24:19.401-05:00Uh-Oh! Look at that, shallowZasstro, cowardly trol...Uh-Oh! Look at that, shallowZasstro, cowardly troll that he is, deleted the comment of his that I'd already replied to, which... is why I will no longer allow his comments to pass directly through moderation. Here's the stupidity he'd posted:<br /><br /><i>I love that in your penultimate comment, you try to argue that nationalism is the same as authoritarianism.<br /><br />This is especially ironic, because the primary theme of this blog is attacking education that is "un-American." Once again, you practice everything you pretend to hate.</i>Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-50750364687897261982022-07-09T12:15:11.808-05:002022-07-09T12:15:11.808-05:00shallowZasstro said "FASCISM!!" That you...shallowZasstro said "<i>FASCISM!!</i>" That you are diverted by and appreciative of the pretty phrases, and fail to look past them and to their actual meaning, is unsurprising in someone who looks favorably on marxism, and I have little doubt that you would have aligned with and exalted the actions of Robespierre, who DID understand what Rousseau meant and intended, and put those ideas into the practice which they logically lead to, as the <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/html/why-robespierre-chose-terror-12935.html" rel="nofollow">City Journal</a> noted:<br /><br /><i>"...Any divergence between individual and general interest indicates the individual’s immorality and irrationality. If any individual fails to see that his true interests are the same as the general interest, he must be forced to act as if he did see it, for his own good...."</i><br /><br />The ideas of Rousseau's, processed through the misosophies of Kant, Hegel, Peirce/Dewey/James, is what Mussolini and his ghost-author and intellectual guru, Giovanni Gentile <a href="http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm" rel="nofollow">expressed as</a>:<br />"<i>everything in the state, nothing against the State, nothing outside the state</i>"<br /><br />IOW: Fascism. If you can't see that, it's likely because you've willingly indoctrinated yourself to not see wrong-think. <br /><br />I've also got to add, that it is bordering on horrific, that of all that was pointed to in this post, it was these points were the ones you wanted to argue. Sad.<br /><br /><br />BTW, perhaps things operate differently out there in your ivory bunker, but here I recognize the existence of stupid questions, especially when put forward by trolls who think that their own commentary is <i>the</i> measure of other people's opinions... and especially when they fully and (hopefully) deliberately ignore the fact that the answer to them has already been given.<br /><br />When you are able to manage a comment, such as the two above, that are more concerned with disagreement than with being disagreeable, I'll probably reply to it. Otherwise, nope.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-87731823436093652222022-07-09T12:08:55.681-05:002022-07-09T12:08:55.681-05:00shallowZasstro said "...Once again, you pract...shallowZasstro said "...Once again, you practice everything you pretend to hate." I know what I'm about, and pretending to hate something has no part of it. What's tragically ironic about you, is that <i>you are</i> (in everything from the ideology you'd like to see the world enslaved by, to your persistent attempts to annoy and get attention from those who have no interest in, or respect for you, you are the very thing that you <i>should</i> hate. Sad.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-22556417544991167592022-07-09T12:07:54.210-05:002022-07-09T12:07:54.210-05:00shallowZasstro said "... the primary theme of...shallowZasstro said "... the primary theme of this blog is attacking education that is "un-American."..." Wrong. Again. <br /><br />First, in that the primary theme of this blog, is "Seeking after the Education that our schools are unable to provide", and to criticize those forms of 'education' that disrupt a person's ability to become educated. <br /><br />Second, in that I don't attack education that is 'un-American', but that is anti-American, and there is a significant difference. Dr. Rush & Noah Webster were both very concerned about 'un-American' education, Webster chided Washington for even considering having his wards educated by a Scotsman, which is a foolish 'Go Team America!' view of education, and as I've pointed out repeatedly in this series of posts, their approach (in that, and their overall utilitarian approach) is one that warps and corrupts the understanding of and ability to become educated. It's also an approach that either ignores or demotes what should be a more primary concern for education, such as <a href="https://libquotes.com/frederick-douglass/quote/lbo0c5q" rel="nofollow">Frederick Douglass</a>'s comment, which I do endorse, that "<i>The life of the nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful, and virtuous.</i>" - and that is far more important and relevant to a worthwhile education, than what nation a person is a citizen of.<br /><br />A thumbnail view which I typically give, is something along the lines of Education is"<i>... to lead students out of bondage to their passions and false assumptions, by teaching students to become virtuous, informed, self-governing individuals capable of living lives worth living in society with others of differing opinions and abilities.</i>", or with more detail, <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2020/08/being-old-complaint-doesnt-make-it-less.html#more" rel="nofollow">something like</a>:<br /><br /><i>"...what I'm good with, <i>generally speaking</i>, is what was once understood as being the purpose of educating students, that being to help students develop into well informed individuals with an intellectually integrated understanding of the habits, knowledge and aims of Western Civilization (Greco-Roman/Judeo-Christian), with a strong emphasis on striving to live up to its ideals of truth and justice, for the purpose of enabling a student to become a virtuous and independent person capable of living a good life, in a society blessed with liberty. A person so equipped was self-evidently a benefit to themselves & their community, because they tended to be more consciously capable of distinguishing, and choosing to do, what was wise and true. That, and not the schools they attended or degrees accumulated in them, marked them as being Educated..."</i><br /><br />There is nothing exclusively 'American' about that. Nevertheless, a proper attention to that, and to history, will involve gaining a knowledge and understanding of the ideas which America was derived from and founded upon, and why. Of that last, while I do think it is irresponsible for any American citizen to be ignorant of those basics, that is not in and of itself, a requirement of being Educated. BTW, I despise the pro-regressive innovation of 'Civics Class'.<br /><br />The various Pro-Regressive ideologies which you embrace, marxism of course included, are not bad because they aren't American or are un-American, but because they are formed upon the denial of what is real and true and proliferate various lies which are in turn antithetical to what makes America possible, which makes them in the deepest sense possible, anti-American.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-45492835064393776402022-07-09T11:57:56.184-05:002022-07-09T11:57:56.184-05:00shallowZasstro said "...you try to argue that...shallowZasstro said "...you try to argue that nationalism is the same as authoritarianism..." Fascinating. Not only did I not argue that in that comment, but I did not argue that anywhere in the post above, or anywhere else in this blog. Why? Because it is a foolish distinction to attempt to make, as 'Nationalism' is only meaningful in relation to the particular nation it is 'ism'ing', and that may, or may not, involve authoritarian behavior, depending upon the nature of that nation. <br /><br />Nationalism in the hands of a Robespierre, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc., is a tyrannical evil and a threat to liberty everywhere. <br /><br />Nationalism within a people whose government is limited by a constitution such as ours, with a Rule of Law which is dedicated to upholding and defending its people's individual rights, is something that is structured to thwart our tyrannical impulses, and so enables liberty to be preserved - so long as its people understand and respect the nature of their nation. <br /><br />But to the degree that our understanding of that has degraded, we've allowed governmental power to slip the shackles of those constitutional limitations (especially as regards the 'Administrative State' (creating untouchable bureaucrats, and alphabet agencies for them to form and operate bureaucracies in, especially as realized on the parts of <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2011/12/presidents-obama-trs-nationalism-vs.html" rel="nofollow">T.R. (and Obama)</a> & Wilson)), then our tyrannical impulses to '<i>do good!</i>' become extremely difficult to check, and that imperils our liberty (and that of other peoples as well). We're still better off than most other nations, but if the pro-regressive 'living constitution' is allowed to kill our Constitution, I'm very much concerned that America could become the most tyrannical enemy to life & liberty in history.<br /><br />IOW, for me America is more than the geographical location which a nation known by that name can be found, America, and being an American, is tied to the ideas and understanding identified through the Greco-Roman/Judeo-Christian civilization which it was founded upon and derived from. Without that, this nation becomes 'America' in name only.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-63241745672206041112022-07-08T10:18:16.818-05:002022-07-08T10:18:16.818-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Astrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08936978172329779064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-89299889622612814282022-07-08T09:33:05.809-05:002022-07-08T09:33:05.809-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Astrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08936978172329779064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-63840872694779647722022-07-07T16:20:00.960-05:002022-07-07T16:20:00.960-05:00As to shallowZ's objections towards my charact...As to shallowZ's objections towards my characterizing Rousseau as the *philosopher* who laid the groundwork of ideas that Fascism would develop from, here's a nice bit from Rousseau's <a href="https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/125482/5016_Rousseau_Considerations_on_the_Government_of_Poland.pdf" rel="nofollow">"Considerations on the Government of Poland"</a>, with a view towards 'Education' (schooling) being used by the state in order to mold the minds of youth to serve the state:<br /><br /><i>"...Chapter IV - Education<br />THIS is the important question. It is education that must give souls a national formation, and direct their opinions and tastes in such a way that they will be patriotic by inclination, by passion, by necessity. When first he opens his eyes, an infant ought to see the fatherland, and up to the day of his death he ought never to see anything else. Every true republican has drunk in love of country, that is to say love of law and liberty, along with his mother's milk. This love is his whole existence; he sees nothing but the fatherland, he lives for it alone; when he is solitary, he is nothing; when he has ceased to have a fatherland, he no longer exists; and if he is not dead, he is worse than dead. ..."</i><br /><br />, and unlike Webster & Rush who strayed into similar thoughts, that was not a careless one-off of Rousseau's, it is entirely consistent with a careful reading of the whole of his thinking.<br /><br />And since shallowZ is rather big on not voicing an opinion without having other people who back it up (collectivist, don'chaknow), here's some corroborating commentary from <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/html/why-robespierre-chose-terror-12935.html" rel="nofollow">City Journal</a> on the man who first put Rousseau's ideas into practice, Maximillian Robespierre:<br /><br /><i>"...Leading the betrayal of the Revolution’s initial ideals and its transformation into a murderous ideological tyranny was Maximilien Robespierre, a monster who set up a system expressly aimed at killing thousands of innocents. He knew exactly what he was doing, meant to do it, and believed he was right to do it. He is the prototype of a particularly odious kind of evildoer: the ideologue who believes that reason and morality are on the side of his butcheries. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot are of the same mold. They are the characteristic scourges of humanity in modern times, but Robespierre has a good claim to being the first. Understanding his motives and rationale deepens our understanding of the worst horrors of the recent past and those that may lurk in the future...."</i><br /><br />, and noting that his motives and rationale came from:<br /><br /><i>"...The source of Robespierre’s deepest convictions and of his certainty about them was his unquestioning commitment to an ideology he had largely derived from Rousseau, whom he regarded as “the tutor of the human race.” This ideology led him to believe that politics was an application of morality and that a good government was based on moral principles that ineluctably cause the interests of individuals to become indistinguishable from the general interest. Put another way, uncorrupted human beings intuitively recognize and act in the general interest. Any divergence between individual and general interest indicates the individual’s immorality and irrationality. If any individual fails to see that his true interests are the same as the general interest, he must be forced to act as if he did see it, for his own good...."</i><br /><br />That <i>IS</i> Rousseau's '<i>forced to be free</i>' in practice, as it must always be.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-37181860893876151682022-07-07T16:12:53.608-05:002022-07-07T16:12:53.608-05:00First a couple small tidbits: shallowZastro said &...First a couple small tidbits: shallowZastro said "...it isn't Rousseau endorsing the guillotine...", as Rousseau was dead a decade before Dr. Guillotin even proposed the Guillotine, allow me to reply appropriately: "Duh". And as you've already established yourself as a troll who has no interest in understanding the truth of anything, I won't attempt to further explain the obvious to you on that count.<br /><br />"It's literally modern democracy." It is literally no shock at all to hear such approval from a marxist professor (actually a 'gradual student', but, I'll humor him) who identifies as a marxist despite the hundred million+ lives slaughtered in the name of that ideology, and were expended on implementing exactly that idea of Rousseau's, which was the logical outcome of his ideas. Despicable. <br /><br />Oh, and thank God America is <i>not</i> a democracy, because the willingness of the majority to force or exterminate dissenting minorities, is exactly why marxists & other pro-regressives are so fanatical about referring to our constitutional representative republic (in which only some of its processes are decided by majority rule), as a 'democracy'. Doubly despicable<br /><br />Our <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2021/09/happy-constitution-day-234th-birthday.html" rel="nofollow">Constitution</a> establishes a <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2016/01/artificial-reason-turns-pen-into-might.html" rel="nofollow">Rule of Law</a> for justly upholding & defending the <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2012/06/rights-from-source-so-to-speak.html" rel="nofollow">Individual Rights</a> and <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2021/08/americans-have-property-in-america-or.html" rel="nofollow">Property</a> ('Administrative State' not withstanding) of all of its people.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-17608798244849633992022-07-07T16:06:58.265-05:002022-07-07T16:06:58.265-05:00From shallowZastro:[line breaks, links, and format...From shallowZastro:[line breaks, links, and formatting, compliments of myself] <br />There it is! Another misrepresentation! <br /><br />"<i>...and to promote a modern sense of Fascism wherein those who thought and spoke in disagreement with the General Will of the state - that they <b>"...will be forced to be free..."</b> (hence The Terror and the Guillotine of Robespierre & Marat in the French Revolution)...</i>" <br /><br />Lol. No. A little more of that quote: <br />[the full passage <a href="https://www.bartleby.com/168/107.html" rel="nofollow">"...will be forced to be free..."</a> was already linked to above - I encourage reading it, but I've no interest in repeating it again here, especially as I've already read through it, <a href="https://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-is-justice-two-mis-states-of.html" rel="nofollow">here:</a>]<br /><br />This quote isn't "modern fascism," and it isn't Rousseau endorsing the guillotine. It's literally modern democracy. In this quote, Rousseau is saying that, if sovereignty is popular (the people have the ultimate say in who's in charge, what happens), in order for things to work effectively, people who have a dissenting opinion against the masses must, inevitably, accept the general direction of things, as it is the will of the people. If each (or some) dissenting individuals were allowed to determine process, you wouldn't have a very effective democracy, now would you? It's literally democracy, Van.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-79421274148929112592022-07-07T16:05:05.073-05:002022-07-07T16:05:05.073-05:00I'm going to reply to a comment from the shall...I'm going to reply to a comment from the shallowZastro troll that is relevant here (see 'Clarification' in the post above), but in addition to the natural ugliness of his thinking, it's also visually ugly - just a mass of text plopped into the comment box - so I'll pretty it up a bit, post it myself, and reply to it below.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.com