tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post1116894586097050674..comments2024-03-29T03:57:26.974-04:00Comments on Grim's Hall: No Love for JacksoniansGrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-62042814684438006112016-02-10T18:39:24.778-05:002016-02-10T18:39:24.778-05:00Grim, you had knives and fists to fight against bu...<i>Grim, you had knives and fists to fight against bullies and mind control specialists. But your time and day is over by now. Has been for some time.</i><br /><br />Well, that may be. I'd say my day and time was around the fourteenth century. Some say earlier. Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-89790477900070503372016-02-10T11:28:27.237-05:002016-02-10T11:28:27.237-05:00By the way, Ymar, do you realize that the Left alr...<b>By the way, Ymar, do you realize that the Left already speaks a different language from the one with which I was raised? They certainly can't speak my language. It's English in both cases, to be sure. But you couldn't find one of the people you worry about engaging in 'mind control' who could come down here and talk in a way that would sound like ordinary speech to ordinary people.</b><br /><br />You're not the target audience. It's the kids, who you often thought were whining about non existent problems. Since after all, in your school days, Grim, you had knives and fists to fight against bullies and mind control specialists. But your time and day is over by now. Has been for some time.<br /><br />The defenses of high school and below, are zip, zero, zilch to Leftist mental domination. That is their speech and language centers, which controls thoughts, that the Left has been targeting. It was the job of the Democrat party to deal with adult whites and their views, which collapsed when Reagan pulled Democrats off the South, for the most part.<br /><br />As for your language, Grim, and specifically the Southern fashion, the Left spoke it back when Margaret Sanger's eugenics was around. The KKK and the Democrats spoke it back when they were funded and levy raised by the likes of Robert KKk Byrd, the highest powers in the land. So yes, you might get some modern defenses against the Left's modern mental techniques, by adopting an old Southern fashion and dialect. But that only makes you more vulnerable to Democrat engineered weapons, even if it makes you resistant to modern Leftist ones.<br /><br />The situation is contaminated. Understanding the Left's weapons and using them against the Left, will provide more offensive options.<br /><br />If the Leftist alliance truly wanted control of Grim's Scots Irish clan regions in Georgia and elsewhere, they wouldn't come down directly. They would subvert a known quality, like Jim Webb, pull his strings, and make him speak to his people and supporters. Just like the "Black Caucus" does on blacks in inner cities.<br /><br />Blacks indoctrinated well in the US, have as much reason to hate outsiders as the Scots Irish do. Yet they are kept under good controls, aren't they. They think they are free, because blacks represents them. But those blacks are just sell outs, collaborators, slave traders and overseers for the white Leftist overlords.<br /><br />I surmise the strategic leaders of the Leftist alliance, no longer wish to deal with the Scots Irish clans or the other difficult white tribes. But it is well within their power to subvert any group of Western origins if they so chose. Blacks and latinos are a sub culture. It does not make them immune.<br /><br />My estimation of the Leftist alliance's capabilities are on my own judgment, nobody else's. When you think the Left is so crude that they have to talk to you in your "dialect" to subvert you, you show how limited your understanding of subversion is, Grim. When you attempted to contrast current day's school kiddies and their problems with your own, unable to connect it with Leftist subversion and indoctrination, that also showed how you look at the problem (occurred pre 2010). Which is very different from what I've done vis a vis the Leftist alliance.<br /><br />To understand an enemy is not about learning to recognize habits or traits such as abstract or book learning. To understand the enemy is to learn how to utilize the same attacks and techniques as the enemy. Just as a person going to Valley Forge or another area where they seem like they speak English but actually it's a different dialect, would have to live amongst them and live their lifestyle, to actually think in that dialect. This isn't an OS installing a new language pack that lets you see another language. This is another OS entirely. To put it in the physical context, archery and horsemanship are not the same thing, but you can stack them together to form a new thing.Ymar Sakarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-11530674727135899602016-02-10T09:59:16.950-05:002016-02-10T09:59:16.950-05:00For me, at Mass (RC), it's "Lord, I am no...<i>For me, at Mass (RC), it's "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.". I mean them more than any other response at mass, that line never passes my lips as a rote incantation.</i><br /><br />Douglas, I looked up the Wiki on the Prayer of Humble Access and found this:<br /><br /><i>In the 1979 Prayer Book of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America the Prayer of Humble Access is an option after the fraction anthem in the Rite I (traditional language) eucharistic rite but not in the (contemporary-language) Rite II service. There is some similarity with the prayer immediately prior to communion in the Roman Rite Mass: Domine, non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum: sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea (translated: "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word, and my soul shall be healed".</i><br /><br />I learn something new every day! I know I've heard those words before (probably at mass), and I agree: they are beautiful.<br /><br />Tex, I had never heard the lines you quoted, but like Douglas, think they'd be a good addition. The Episcopal services both focus pretty heavily on grace. After communion, there is a call to go forth and serve God but it is notably a more passive call (the emphasis seems to be more on needing God's help to find the strength to be better people).<br /><br />Interesting!<br />Cassandrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00083557761155403492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-24238058874191948942016-02-10T08:28:13.886-05:002016-02-10T08:28:13.886-05:00I don't know what I think of all the talk of J...I don't know what I think of all the talk of Jacksonians, or Haidt, etc.<br /><br />But I would like to reply to something Cass said: <i>It's easy to rally people with non-specific, emotional images.</i><br /><br />You are right, but I think this can be interpreted another way. Instead of being used to gin up some kind of group sentiment, it's possible the images are instead genuine expressions of sentiment coming out of an already existing group. In that case, they are not to rally anyone, but to say, "Here I am, this is what I believe."<br /><br />On the image of Washington, while its true many of the Founding Fathers were career politicians, and in many ways represented the colonial establishment of their day, they were <i>also</i> outlaws by being traitors to their king, and they really were angry extremists who refused to submit to the Crown's oppressive rule. None of them were <i>just</i> career politicians.<br /><br />Also, we discussed the article "The One Weird Trait that Predicts Whether You're a Trump Supporter" <a href="http://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/2016/01/jacksonians-or-authoritarians.html" rel="nofollow">here about three weeks ago</a>. It's actually by a poli sci Ph.D. student, but he used a psychological test to determine how authoritarian individuals were. I'm glad to see Haidt had a similar objection to that test: Wanting obedient children isn't the same as being a political authoritarian.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-30718503908745627042016-02-09T22:20:56.398-05:002016-02-09T22:20:56.398-05:00"But those lines - well, I always get a littl...<i>"But those lines - well, I always get a little shiver down my spine when I say them."</i><br /><br />For me, at Mass (RC), it's <i>"Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed."</i>. I mean them more than any other response at mass, that line never passes my lips as a rote incantation.<br /><br />Tex, great point! I wish RC mass had some equivalent.douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03241790925053112959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-51146973924804994022016-02-09T19:17:43.767-05:002016-02-09T19:17:43.767-05:00The part of the liturgy that brings me up short is...The part of the liturgy that brings me up short is "Deliver us from the presumption of coming to this Table for solace only, and not for strength; for pardon only, and not for renewal." Humility is important, but so is a reminder that we are called to be heroic.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-21319744254266386532016-02-09T19:13:59.745-05:002016-02-09T19:13:59.745-05:00By the way, Ymar, do you realize that the Left alr...By the way, Ymar, do you realize that the Left already speaks a different language from the one with which I was raised? They certainly can't speak my language. It's English in both cases, to be sure. But you couldn't find one of the people you worry about engaging in 'mind control' who could come down here and talk in a way that would sound like ordinary speech to ordinary people.<br /><br />To even understand what they're talking about requires years of education. But the sense of it being a foreign tongue never goes away.<br /><br />I can read French and Spanish as well, and increasingly Portuguese thanks to a friend of mine from Brazil. I often read international news to see different perspectives on American actions abroad. Still, I think you overestimate their ability to speak to ordinary American subcultures -- and underestimate the degree to which their intense conceptual framework has divided them linguistically from many ordinary Americans. Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-5490591618912318672016-02-09T17:28:33.524-05:002016-02-09T17:28:33.524-05:00From what I have seen, religiously oriented person...<i>From what I have seen, religiously oriented persons tend to be more humble than secularly oriented persons. Awe before a Supreme Being tends to produce humility. By comparison, many secular persons are in awe of only themselves. That doesn't produce humility.</i><br /><br />I have always seen a sense of humility to be the chief goal of religion.<br /><br />I believe in God, but am not good at going to church. Part of this I can blame on moving so often. Part of it on my personal issues with authority (God's authority, being told what to do, etc.).<br /><br />But the most moving part of church (the Episcopal eucharist or communion service) for me is well summarized by these lines from one of my favorite prayers - know as the Prayer of Humble Access:<br /><br /><i>We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy...</i><br /><br />I've spent a lifetime fidgeting in church, daydreaming, shooting spit balls at the row in front of me in choir.<br /><br />But those lines - well, I always get a little shiver down my spine when I say them.<br /><br />We once had a mission priest who referred to those lines as "an abomination" because (he thought) they "make people feel bad about themselves". I always thought that was kind of the point: a reminder that there are higher standards than those our peers impose upon us (or we impose upon ourselves). And by those standards, most of us are really not measuring up.Cassandrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00083557761155403492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-53471355770063776622016-02-09T16:11:29.122-05:002016-02-09T16:11:29.122-05:00Thank you, Joel. I'm glad you were able to ma...Thank you, Joel. I'm glad you were able to make it by for this one. Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-82396563930318963292016-02-09T16:07:59.918-05:002016-02-09T16:07:59.918-05:00Grim, Well said. I only post this comment to con...Grim, Well said. I only post this comment to congratulate you on great arguments I could not have made better myself. I particularly liked your point about tastes and being prepared to identify when someone is trying to manipulate you through an appeal to your tastes. You guys always have the best discussions when I am not paying attention. Joel Leggetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16588696436907032078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-85335179282573522022016-02-09T15:59:08.993-05:002016-02-09T15:59:08.993-05:00but there was not unanimity among the Jacksonians ...<b>but there was not unanimity among the Jacksonians as a movement on this point.</b><br /><br />I don't see them as a movement, especially a political one. They are closer to a culture, an ethnicity, or a personality cult.<br /><br />Trying to make them into more than what they are, is what the usual sorts do, like Mead and Hussein. Creating constructed operations, false flags, in order to "gin" something up for their own benefit.<br /><br />It's convenient Andrew Jackson and his family are dead, otherwise it might get in the way of the "narrative". The same way the Left used the "narrative" about Iraqi war casualties and their families in the States, for Leftist engineering purposes. The dead are also useful to Democrats, since they can be used to get more Democrat votes in, especially for Chicago.<br /><br />As for creating a firewall to prevent your cultural upbringing's prejudices from distorting your judgment and allowing you to be manipulated like a puppet by the Left's mind control specialist, first learn a different language from a different culture, and use it to cross reference/check/virus scan/firewall/virtual OS your responses.<br /><br />It cannot be done from inside the cultural imperative of your own upbringing. The neurological connections are too tied to the emotional cores. Learning logic, isn't going to resolve that issue, since emotions are subtle. They can corrupt the thoughts of the logic core without it being noticed.<br /><br />While it isn't impossible to objectively look at your own culture and homeland's actions and consequences, factually it has taken others quite a long time. They run through a number of rationalizations and justifications. It's just energy inefficient, as well as time inefficient. It is far easier to construct an artificial thought process using a different matrix. The way stroke victims sometimes have to rewire past the damage speech centers.<br /><br />All of this is nothing new to people who have studied psychological weapons and the Left's mind control techniques. They would have created counters and defenses, some time ago. This is not something you just "leave alone" for a New Year's resolution kind of deal.Ymar Sakarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-24581928957057570342016-02-09T15:03:16.279-05:002016-02-09T15:03:16.279-05:00Which those on the political Right, be they religi...<br /><b>Which those on the political Right, be they religious or be they secular, consider nonsense.</b><br /><br />Gringo :<br /><br />It's a matter of hierarchy, rightful chain of command. If a person orders you to do A, whether you obey or not might very well depend upon which line of authority that person comes from. A US Marine may fire when ordered to do so, but what if Jane Fonda told him to fire on a friendly or on the US President on some civilian or on some internal dissident accused of being a traitor? Would they Obey? It's the same thing, shooting people, what difference does it make.<br /><br />To some people, where the orders come from, makes a huge difference. That's why the Left and Islam hates and fears Christians. Christians don't take orders from Leftist sex rapists or Mohammedan slave raiders. That's a big problem when your entire "civilization" is built on the back of slaves and serfs. The nail that sticks out, needs to be hammered flat. That's how they gain control.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-9187338371909867932016-02-09T15:01:57.882-05:002016-02-09T15:01:57.882-05:00to identify areas where I need to be particularly ...<b> to identify areas where I need to be particularly careful. </b><br /><br />They didn't have the internet back then. When the slave lords told the Irish and Scots tribes that foreigners were invading... who were they going to check with? Some of them don't even speak the same language, same as with the natives. Who were they going to go for help if the feds or states screw their deals. Nobody.<br /><br />Given how much people "think they know now", even with the internet staring them in the face daring them to find out the truth, humans are still weak and pathetic. Just look at them. Look at all the stuff they "know about Oregon" and the "militias". About OIF and Afghanistan under Bush II. Just look at it, it's right online even.<br /><br />People have no clue, and the issue is always the stuff they think they know, that isn't true.<br /><br />Sarah Palin said she can see Russia from her house!<br /><br /><b><br />That statement is true in the North. It is not true in the South. The South's concern about the dangers of a very large minority of its population turning out to murder them in revenge for slavery -- as had recently happened in Haiti -- created a strong sense of "white" in the South in the early 19th century. ...<br /><br />That is the clearest evidence you could ask of their integration, as gentlemen dueled only with equals.</b><br /><br />A fine example of unity through exploiting an external or internal enemy, one often manufactured by the elites to keep people in check. But this goes along the lines of the Draka in Sm Stirling fiction, the master race. That's where that path ends up. If the Palestinians did not have the Jews, they would have to create an enemy equal in stature. But to Muslims, the entire world is their enemy, something to be subjugated. It teaches humans a valuable lesson, of how to subjugate others. It does not teach them how to develop virtue, internal self control, or anything else all that useful.<br /><br />The problem with feudalism was social mobility and the ability for individuals to change and improve themselves. Not everyone was going to end up a duke or king or something else higher up. So where does that leave the rest except with a loyalty to ethnicity or cultural/religious fervor.<br /><br /><b>Citizens and "serfs"[edit]<br />Citizens, who are free and can vote, comprise only a small fraction of the Domination's population. Over 90% of the population are slaves. When the United Kingdom and most of the British Empire abolish slavery during the 1830s, the Draka avoid emancipation by labeling their slaves "serfs". At first, serfs are officially debt laborers who can earn their freedom, but this is a feeble legal fiction. This pretense is dropped when the Draka withdraw from the Empire, but the word "serf" remains the standard term. Serfs have no rights, and are not allowed to handle money. Their testimony is inadmissible in any court. Any child born to a serf mother is a serf. (Sex between a male serf and a female Draka is a capital offense for both parties.)<br /><br />At first serfs are all African blacks, and Draka citizenship is open to all whites although Nordic, Anglo Saxon and Celtic types are especially welcomed. Because Draka expansion is based solely on enslaving conquered peoples, they soon have serfs from other races, including whites.</b> Wiki Domination<br /><br />I read that story years before I ever began reading original sources from pre Civil War I South.<br />Ymar Sakarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-81846522024534937082016-02-09T14:18:56.824-05:002016-02-09T14:18:56.824-05:00Cassandra, yes indeed. While I was raised secular...Cassandra, yes indeed. While I was raised secular, and remain so, I saw early on from exposure to secular versus religious relatives that neither side had a monopoly on either sainthood or sinning. It works both ways.<br /><br />From what I have seen, religiously oriented persons tend to be more humble than secularly oriented persons. Awe before a Supreme Being tends to produce humility. By comparison, many secular persons are in awe of only themselves. That doesn't produce humility. The result: the belief that Heaven on Earth is just around the corner, if only we enact certain laws or have certain people or political groups governing us.If one law doesn't do the trick, Heaven on Earth will be just around the corner when the next law is passed. Which those on the political Right, be they religious or be they secular, consider nonsense.Gringonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-15538927971918165742016-02-09T13:19:24.823-05:002016-02-09T13:19:24.823-05:00By the way, one thing that I think is valuable in ...By the way, one thing that I think is valuable in Haidt's approach is this idea that some important subset of moral feeling is really a kind of taste. Learning to recognize what your tastes are can be a way of alerting yourself to be suspicious of programs that appeal to those tastes. A critical history of the mistakes the Jacksonians may have made doesn't alter my tastes, but it does help me -- recognizing myself as a member of that American culture -- to identify areas where I need to be particularly careful. <br /><br />The trend in American politics is the other way: it is to embrace moral tastes as if they were an adequate replacement for ethical or political thought. As this piece suggests, except for Clinton, every candidate's support seems to come from the fact that they appeal to tastes. Clinton's is in a way the most rational: her supporters expect to receive practical rewards in return for their vote.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-27067200330910989572016-02-09T13:05:46.083-05:002016-02-09T13:05:46.083-05:00As for why the Confederacy lacked industry and sup...<i>As for why the Confederacy lacked industry and supply lines, you don't have supply lines when all your wealth is tied up on slave baron plantations. If the slave baron Jacksonians had followed Jackson's actual virtues, rather than emulate Jackson's vices, the Confederacy would have agrarian farming and industry together.... These were Southern aristocrats. The Slave Barons are the damned Authority.</i><br /><br />Andrew Jackson's actual base of support wasn't among what you call "Slave Barons" for the most part, but among the small men across the South and Appalachia. Most of them were interested economically against slavery, as it depressed their wages and led to the concentration of land in plantations (making it harder to survive as a small farmer). There were major political leaders who were both Jacksonians and pro-slavery -- James Jackson himself, in a severe mar on an otherwise outstanding political life -- but there was not unanimity among the Jacksonians as a movement on this point.<br /><br />What they were unified about was racism, which is why this next statement is not completely accurate:<br /><br /><i>White people didn't exist back then, Anglo Saxon to English was not the same as Welsh/Irish or Scot or French / Franks.</i><br /><br />That statement is true in the North. It is not true in the South. The South's concern about the dangers of a very large minority of its population turning out to murder them in revenge for slavery -- as had recently happened in Haiti -- created a strong sense of "white" in the South in the early 19th century. <br /><br />It was so strong, in fact, that it overrode other forms of racism and prejudice. Irish Americans arriving especially in the mid-1840s faced strong prejudice in Boston, New York, and elsewhere. In Savannah, that was not the case. The Irish assumed a place among "white" people, chiefly as poor day labor -- slaves were not generally used for really dangerous jobs, as they were an investment, but a poor Irish worker who got killed only cost you the day's wages. Jobs like loading the massive cotton bales down slides onto ships were jobs the Irish could fill. <br /><br />But they weren't just economically exploited, they were woven into the culture. In Savannah, they were allowed to lay claim to a famous Revolutionary War hero from the sieges of that city, Sergeant Jasper. His monument in Savannah declares him to be "an Irish American," though in fact he was from central Europe. Everyone accepted their adoption of him because it gave them a way to participate in the city's culture and claim to be a legitimate, fully integrated part of Savannah.<br /><br />Jews, too, were "white" and not subject to the kind of antisemitism that prevailed elsewhere in the 19th century. There are records of Jewish Southern gentlemen fighting duels with non-Jewish gentlemen. That is the clearest evidence you could ask of their integration, as gentlemen dueled only with equals. Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-5589683369209359252016-02-09T12:17:06.376-05:002016-02-09T12:17:06.376-05:00Wethinks they may have the causality backwards.
I...<b>Wethinks they may have the causality backwards.</b><br /><br />It isn't backwards, it is called subversion. The methods are well known by now, even the oblivious.<br /><br />When HIV infects a host, it subverts certain systems to reproduce the virus and also change the hierarchy of the system to obey HIV's instructions, rather than the host's instructions (to defend the host).<br /><br />If the Left has "become" much like the West's authoritarian systems, it is because they have hijacked and taken it over. But the issue was never the issue. They were never in it for equality or fairness or justice. That was merely the lie to aide in the subversion process, much as HIV the virus manages to fool the host's immune system into thinking HIV is not an enemy. Until it is too late.<br /><br />It is no more delusional than the belief that the human body's own immune system, intended to safeguard the body, can also be used to destroy the body. Even immunological reactions (allergies) can do that.<br /><br />Gringo is right of course, and I often mention the Leftist alliance's dogma and evil death cult practices.<br /><br />As for the initial comments here, there were no "careers" back then. People did whatever they wanted to do. Lawyers were also gunslingers. Doc Holiday was also a healer, as well as gunslinger. These were their careers? No, they just did whatever they wanted to do or could, to feed themselves.<br /><br />People with education, property, and a certain kind of class or diplomatic skill were chosen to represent their people in another city. The same way self organized groups of humans did with the Tea Party, using the internet and communications. It is completely organic. There was no "license" back then, because there's no way to find out what was fake or not, due to the slow speed of communications and couriers. With no barrier to entry, there can be no career stuck path that people are stuck with. People could and did claim that they had whatever magical exlixers they were selling at the time, that they wanted to. For someone living in or near the bureaucracy of DC's Obey at all costs culture and social "consensus", it is a world beyond the imagination.<br /><br />All you had back then was your reputation, your personal reputation. Just as if you took a new name online and could only use that, nothing from your "credentials" or personal contacts. And the only way people could judge you was what the person under your cognomen did or said.<br /><br />Ymar Sakarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-82293191593311143992016-02-09T12:07:39.553-05:002016-02-09T12:07:39.553-05:00In fairness, they were facing an extraordinarily p...<b><br />In fairness, they were facing an extraordinarily powerful, centralized state bent on their destruction.</b><br /><br />That must be why Jacksonian Democrats were lynching abolitionists in the North or South, in 1830. 30 years before Lincoln ever came close to the Presidency.<br /><br />Democrat propaganda and reconstruction of history is quite thorough, even to this century.<br /><br />As for why the Confederacy lacked industry and supply lines, you don't have supply lines when all your wealth is tied up on slave baron plantations. If the slave baron Jacksonians had followed Jackson's actual virtues, rather than emulate Jackson's vices, the Confederacy would have agrarian farming and industry together. Because industry, paying people a fair wage, was also more efficient, in cities, on docks, and yes even on plantations. An electric generator and motor created by Northern industrialists, GE perhaps, did the work of several million slaves, larger than the entire population of slaves in NA.<br /><br />If the abolitionists had been trying to destroy the South, advocating the removal of slavery and the industrialization of free work would be the last things someone would do, as that would only aide that slave culture's military supplies. But as I said, Democrat propaganda is very thorough.<br /><br /><b>We are none of us all that consistent</b><br /><br />Don't forget to notice that the balance of power between totalitarian serial killers and their victims are also "not all that consistent". This doesn't make Americans equal, certainly not under an oligarchy.<br /><br />Ideology can be hand waved away, since deeds are over words. Power is not so easy to hand wave away and ignore, even though humans like to try for decades on end exactly that.<br /><br /><b>Or are these people loyal to friends and family, but suspicious of distant authority in general?</b><br /><br />These were Southern aristocrats. The Slave Barons are the damned Authority. The lesser nobles and upper nobles "always" hated giving power to the centralized king or emperor. Always. Until their power was broken and shattered, then their route to power was in court to the king, the absolute monarchy. When crown authority wasn't absolute and wasn't even enforceable, the nobles had far greater authority in their own realms.<br /><br /><b>Well, I wouldn't expect a Jacksonian to identify with propertied white men - after all, they wanted to expand the franchise beyond propertied white men.</b><br /><br />White people didn't exist back then, Anglo Saxon to English was not the same as Welsh/Irish or Scot or French / Franks.<br /><br />As for white men without property getting the vote, Jackson had the virtue to extend that, but Jacksonians, his followers or fellows, lacked his virtues but not his vices. And the slave barons ensured that even if men without property had the vote, they did not get to vote their conscience. The land owners were the Boss of those landless whites, and the landless did as they were told, much like serfs.<br /><br />Ymar Sakarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-21723922441453842352016-02-09T08:51:27.687-05:002016-02-09T08:51:27.687-05:00Hey -- wait just a gosh-durned minute, Gringo!
Ar...Hey -- wait just a gosh-durned minute, Gringo!<br /><br />Are you trying to tell us that all those troublesome human behaviors that the Left is always blaming on religion (because people would *never* behave that way, "but for" the malign influence of religion!!!) may actually just be garden-variety human behaviors that occur with some regularity, even in non-religious types?<br /><br />UNEXPECTEDLY!!!! :)<br /><br />Arguably the most delusional belief in lefty circles is that human nature is caused by [insert social institution here], and if we could just abolish [insert social institution here], people would magically stop acting like fallible humans have been acting for centuries.<br /><br />Wethinks they may have the causality backwards.Cassandrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00083557761155403492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-38924444646263744062016-02-08T20:53:53.955-05:002016-02-08T20:53:53.955-05:00Joseph Bottum makes a further point about the hidd...Joseph Bottum makes a further point about the hidden religious sentiments of the secular left in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385518811?keywords=joseph%20bottum&qid=1454981470&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1" rel="nofollow">An Anxious Age: The Post-Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of America</a>. While a substantial part of the left- perhaps even a majority- sees itself as secular, as not religious, it exhibits beliefs that hearken back to the religious beliefs of their ancestors. <br /><br />Leftists see themselves as the good people, as anti-racists who love diversity and inclusion [as long as wingnuts are not included]. In the process, they often label their political opponents as evil- in effect, followers of Satan. In a word, leftists see themselves as members of the elect. While their churchgoing ancestors saw church membership and certain religious beliefs as the criteria for belonging to the elect, the secular elect sees membership coming from certain social beliefs and from membership in certain political or social entities.Gringonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-30251783288893840532016-02-08T20:01:32.786-05:002016-02-08T20:01:32.786-05:00I mean sort-of what Haidt means: I have the same ...I mean sort-of what Haidt means: I have the same "moral tastes," in the sense he means it of morality being analogous to flavors in food. The 'flavors' in those memes appeal to me, even the ones (like the 'outlaw Founders' one) that I recognize intellectually to be at best a highly selective reading of the history, and more likely an expression of a kind of ignorance. <br /><br />So I can disagree intellectually, and hold reservations; I can also reject a program that violates moral principles I have adopted for reasons that convinced me, even if they violate my 'tastes.' <br /><br />But I'm descended of "Scotch-Irish" highlanders, that core of support out of which Andrew Jackson himself came. You may not meet them in Maryland much, but you will in north Georgia or western North Carolina or east Tennessee. You'll meet them out west, too, where so much of the population from here went after the Civil War because the economy in the South was destroyed. This culture is the one into which I was born, and which raised and nurtured me, and I have absorbed its tastes in many ways. <br /><br />Education allows you to think about things, and not merely to react to sensations -- even 'moral taste,' insofar as that analogy holds. It can also allow you to develop different tasts. I like barbecue, but I also like many kinds of foods that weren't native to where I grew up. Travel does this also.<br /><br />Still and all, I'm recognizably one of them. I bristle at any claims by anyone to have authority over me. I feel a strong sense that sacred things must be defended and protected -- how often have we had the debate about the importance of shielding some things from the effects of the market or the economy? Loyalty and honor matter to me. <br /><br />Haidt's wrong to run these three things together, but he's not wrong to talk about morality as having a kind of flavor -- and of different cultures having different 'cuisines' which blend the flavors in different ways. That's a useful way to think, although the model isn't as predictive as he thinks it will be.<br /><br />Interestingly, though, he says that his study shows that Hillary Clinton's support is wholly predicted on demographics -- not moral flavors, which seem to be irrelevant. All the other candidates are supported by people who have 'moral feelings' echoed by the campaigns they are running, but moral feeling apparently plays no part in gaining her support. Perhaps it is because no one believes her claims to hold moral positions, so she is unable to leverage a feeling that she shares our moral sense of right and wrong.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-9187275549103191352016-02-08T19:16:17.273-05:002016-02-08T19:16:17.273-05:00In any case, you're arguing as if I were propo...<i>In any case, you're arguing as if I were proposing that we adopt a Jacksonian platform. I've only been arguing that Haidt's conception leaves out a major section of the electorate</i><br /><br />...Well, I'm not convinced that Jacksonians (however defined) are a major section of the electorate! I only hear about them here :) I definitely *have* gotten the feeling you admire/support what you describe as Jacksonians.<br /><br /><i>... and leads him to an erroneous conclusion about the nature of his political opposition. If Mead is right that Jacksonians in general are supporting Trump</i><br /><br /><br />... I don't think he is.<br /><br /><i>..., then I'm against their program of the moment even though I am, in the 'tribal' sense he talks about, definitely one of them.</i><br /><br />What does that mean? You don't agree with them, but you feel some sort of kinship with them? I don't understand, but would like to.<br /><br />You're right that I deeply distrust populism of what I perceive to be the emotional kind. I think demagoguery short-circuits reason and appeals to tribalism (particularly when it involves tribes who don't share ideas so much as some sort of identity based kinship) are harmful to the American experiment in self government. <br /><br />I think one of the hardest things about being a responsible human being is learning to balance strong emotion with reason. So I'm never going to like anything I view as emotionally manipulative rhetoric.<br />Cassandrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00083557761155403492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-69067675223467490152016-02-08T19:09:29.357-05:002016-02-08T19:09:29.357-05:00Gringo:
Haidt is pretty funny on the issue of whe...Gringo:<br /><br />Haidt is pretty funny on the issue of when the Left displays moral sentiments that are considered "right-leaning". On sanctity/impurity, the GMO foods controversy is a great example of this. As are being a vegan, vegetarian, etc.<br /><br />I think Haidt is right when he says progressives elevate the harm/care element above all others, but I agree with you that they display (though not to as great a degree) elements of the other moral dimensions.<br /><br />The loyalty thing is on display when progressives allow favored groups (usually perceived as powerless or victims) to violate their most sacred beliefs with impunity. Thus, Muslims can actively oppress women and stone gays (but in Republicans, far less serious acts garner harsh condemnation and loathing). Open, blatant misogyny in rap music is winked at (as is anti-gay hatred) because the perpetrators are black.<br /><br />We are none of us all that consistent :pCassandrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00083557761155403492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-84679512497464763272016-02-08T18:07:13.413-05:002016-02-08T18:07:13.413-05:00Loyalty/betrayal: We keep track of who is "us...<b>Loyalty/betrayal: We keep track of who is "us" and who is not; we enjoy tribal rituals, and we hate traitors.</b><br />As do those on the other side of the aisle. Black and Hispanic conservatives are considered traitors. Because all the Democrats do is supposed to be for minorities, minorities are expected to side with Democrats. Ditto those who switched political allegiances, such as David Horowitz or Whittaker Chambers. Or myself, for that matter- though I didn't have as far to got as they did.<br /><br /><b>Authority/subversion: We value order and hierarchy; we dislike those who undermine legitimate authority and sow chaos.</b><br />As do those on the other side of the aisle. Scientists say, scientific consensus....<br />Vote for the bill so we can find out what's in it: do what SanFran Nan says.<br /><br /><b>Sanctity/degradation: We have a sense that some things are elevated and pure and must be kept protected from the degradation and profanity of everyday life. (This foundation is best seen among religious conservatives, but you can find it on the left as well, particularly on issues related to environmentalism.)</b><br /><br />Not only environmentalism. Consider anti-racism. I, and probably a lot of those on the right, see racism/ethnocentrism as something that is in all of us, as a manifestation of fear of the other. We can control it, but we cannot eliminate it. Those on the left, consider anti-racism a holy grail to which they not can aspire but also achieve- as opposed to their evil political opponents.<br /><br />While Democrats/liberals/progressives may manifest those three characteristics, they are loathe to admit it. They consider themselves internationalists, so loyalty to the US is verboten to them. They regard themselves as rebels and those who "question authority," so they are loathe to admit that they also are followers. As so many are not churchgoers, they are loathe to admit to sanctity/degradation issues.Gringonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-78694887357082411992016-02-08T18:03:27.268-05:002016-02-08T18:03:27.268-05:00I'm not sure that doesn't apply to Democra...<i>I'm not sure that doesn't apply to Democrats as well...</i><br /><br />James Jackson was the founder of the Democratic Party in Georgia, so that's not very surprising.<br /><br /><i>Even after repeated demonstrations of why a weak central government left the nation unable to defend herself, the Confederacy didn't learn from experience. </i><br /><br />In fairness, they were facing an extraordinarily powerful, centralized state bent on their destruction. That's not the normal condition -- it's not our condition now, for example. We have enemies, and some of them would like our destruction, but they are not dangerous on the same order. It's not clear we couldn't defend ourselves against the threats we face today without a centralized mega-state. <br /><br />In any case, you're arguing as if I were proposing that we adopt a Jacksonian platform. I've only been arguing that Haidt's conception leaves out a major section of the electorate, and leads him to an erroneous conclusion about the nature of his political opposition. If Mead is right that Jacksonians in general are supporting Trump, then I'm against their program of the moment even though I am, in the 'tribal' sense he talks about, definitely one of them.<br /><br />You, by contrast, are definitely not. By Haidt's argument, it should be impossible for us to agree because our moral tastes are different. Yet I think we're aligned on the question that Trump is not the answer to any of the problems facing the country. I love the Jacksonians, although AVI is right to say that they've generally been the enemy of everything the country today likes to identify as "progress." I can still say that they're not right in this case, or in any discrete case where there's a good argument to be made against it. Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.com