Utopian political fantasies and American Exceptionalism put into existential (real) context:

40 share
One of my blog opponents,  asked this question:  What is your major opposition to world peace and unity? Is it that you have a need to feel superior over peoples of different ethnicities, cultures?

I thought it a good idea to give my answer in this particular post:  

From the Editor:  

[evil] World peace in the absence of military might is impossible, and, as such, a feckless imagination. "Unity" as you frame it, is the loss of national sovereignty and self determination.

The doctrine of national or American Exceptionalism is grossly and intentionally misrepresented, in the Progressive, "Its not fair," camp of academics. The fact of the matter is this: no country has ever had the very beginnings its governmental system, evolve from thoughtful debate, careful planning and compromise . . . . . . . . none.

The Doctrine of National Exceptionalism has nothing to do with "we are better than all others." Rather, it is about being the very best we can be, of and within ourselves, as a nation. While there is a competitive aspect to the existential reality, it has never been about putting down others are making the same effort.

It is your side that voted in, gradeless reports at Stanford, an academic effort that failed and miserably so. In reality,  this academic experiment was a put-down of those who were successful,  by comparison.   
It is your side that gives trophies to all, and awards even the most minimal of effort.  Again,  a failed social experiment that punished those who were and are successful in their given endeavor.   

And it is your side of the aisle that is surrendering our place, as THE balance of power in an evil world, all out of an idiotic sense of faux fairness and perennial pandering to those who hate America without good reason.

More than this, your question assumes a white bias on my part despite the fact that it is your side that invented slavery and ethnic bias.  I and millions of folks I represent, do not despise other ethnicities; we oppose the blatant and partisan stupidity of any political move that seeks to divest this nation of its successfully crafted foundations.  It is not blacks or Hispanics we “hate,’  it is collectivists and angry social reformers we cannot bear. 

And more questions?

3 comments:

  1. Yes, we wouldn't want to work toward word peace and unity, that's something Jesus would do.

    "I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."
    - Jesus of Nazareth, John 17:23

    ReplyDelete
  2. Look, you don't believe in Jesus so stop quoting the man. One thing for certain, he was not a politician and his word ministry was not designed to "regulate" government, especially those governments that are godless and reject his own ministry.

    You are such an impostor.

    You talk about world peace and quote Jesus. But Jesus would not support abortion that is "just for the hell of it." He would not have killed bin Laden. He would not have lied on every promise in order to pass ObamaCare. He would have never used cocaine and marijuana. I could go on, but, clearly, Christ has nothing to do with politics and those who insult our moral sensitivities.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Let's start with a clear truth: Jesus was a socialist. He was one the early socialists to have his ideology laid out so clearly and at such length, calling for the wealthy to give away their riches to the poor and expect nothing in return, not their names on monuments or even so much as a thank you.

    "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God," Jesus said in Matthew 19:23

    According to Biblical scholars, Jesus was a philosopher who argued that true happiness could be found by charity and kindness, not by accumulation of wealth. Jesus argued that Roman commercialism had corrupted Jewish society. Jesus was a trouble maker to the Romans and made his feelings known. The only time Jesus was ever documented in the Gospls using physical force was when he expells the money changers from the temple. The small few elite Jews were getting very rich cooperating with the Romans while most were being dispossessed and taxed into oblivion. Under Roman rule, their society was becoming dominated by a wealthy arrogant elite grinding down on an increasingly desperate working class. This disparity was against the principles of Jesus, and the Bible is clear on these values:
    But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just. [Luke 14:13 &14.]

    If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. [Matthew 19:21]

    You cannot serve both God and Money. [Matthew 6:24.]

    For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
    [1 Timothy 6:10,11]

    Labour not to be rich: cease from thine own wisdom. Wilt thou set thine eyes upon that which is not? for riches certainly make themselves wings; they fly away as an eagle toward heaven.
    (Proverbs 23:4,5)

    He that by usury and unjust gain increaseth his substance, he shall gather it for him that will pity the poor.
    (Proverbs 28:8)

    The wicked borroweth, and payeth not again: but the righteous sheweth mercy, and giveth.
    (Psalm 37:21)

    A faithful man shall abound with blessings: but he that maketh haste to be rich shall not be innocent.
    (Proverbs 28:20)

    ReplyDelete