[Vision2020] Crazy Train

[Ed]

Wow Ted, I have never exchanged an email with someone so overtly Anti-American. However, in every argument there is a shred of truth...and, surprisingly I agree with some of your tirade. Certainly, we have different definitions of moral, and war brings about a new set of rules. Despite being enamored of homosexual culture, our Nation has also turned into a bunch of spineless sissies. Iraq is one of many cases and points. We should have used our superior military firepower, destroyed the WMD's, and the regime and left the area--pure, plain, and simple. (We should have taken the oil as well.) Bringing a democracy to a people who don't desire (or who are incapable of) peace is impossible. We need to forget about pleasing every other Nation and do what's in our best interests. Forget about tolerance, equidistance, appeasement. Instead of the respected Nation we were after WWII, we're now the doormats of N. America. Our leaders are displaying the guilty white syndrome pervasive in this forum. Liberalism has found it's way into a so-called conservative administration. I even see a connection of homosexuality and rampant feminism to the demasuclinization of America. 

 

Many bad things happened in the past, things perpetrated by our ancestors that we are not responsible. We cannot go on apologizing indefinitely. 

 

As I keep reading Ted's email, I remain in disbelief. I grew up a mere 90 miles from Moscow in a small mountainous town.a place where people like Ted were non-existent. Now, I'm sometimes ashamed to say I'm from Idaho, especially when those to whom I'm speaking are using Moscow as a reference point.

 

Let's continue on this tangent initiated by Ted. 

 

 

I believe that values of other cultures and countries are inferior to the dominant U.S. culture (of what is nearly our past). Above all, I think we need to preserve what we have left of our Nation. Close the borders; deport every illegal alien; stop affirmative racism (action); discontinue anything remotely described as multicultural (we are one culture); name English as the national language and discontinue any preferential treatment of minorities (under the guise of well-meaning social justice programs); allow God back in the schools (not demand), courthouses, and public events. We need to do these things, and others, to survive as a Nation. The U.S. is nearing the end of the average lifespan of a nation; tolerance, diversity, and sensitivity won't help us survive.

 

I realize this exchange is moot, especially given the make-up of the contributors. However, I couldn't sleep at night if I did nothing.homosexuality is only one of the many problems dragging us down.I'll keep up the fight



Ed

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ted Moffett 
  To: Michael ; ecooper at turbonet.com 
  Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 1:51 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Crazy Train


  Michael, Ed et. al.

  Social Science, like Political Science, is an oxymoron... but I think that "morality," and certainly not sexual morality, may have little to do with the survival or demise of a given society.  Some very brutal and dictatorial societies (ancient Egypt) survived for millennia, but not because they were "moral" by the standards of morality you appear to follow.  In fact, I think a good case could be made that some societies fall in part because they are "moral," meaning, from my moral perspective, less violent and brutal.  Other societies survive by doing whatever it takes to survive, "moral" or not. 

  Success in warfare is one of the most critical variables in maintaining the survival of many societies throughout history, and the more ruthless and vicious the warriors and the tactics employed, the more the society has the means to maintain itself against external threats, or to conquer other societies.  Thus the willingness to kill "enemies," to wipe out or assimilate entire other cultures without compunction, may be a very important variable to maintain the success of a society, but I trust this does not fit your definition of how a "moral" society functions.  

  Societies not structured around the willingness and the technology to wage all out brutal take no prisoners warfare may be at a disadvantage in competing with more war oriented societies.  Why did the invading European culture dominate the native cultures in North America, ending in genocide for many of the native cultures?  One dominate variable: superiority in warfare.  This may have had more to do with war technology and the numbers of Europeans invading (small pox blankets were a clever tactic, a form of biological warfare), than a lack of willingness on the part of the native cultures to fight and kill.  

  But I doubt it had anything to do with the European rejection of homosexuality based on Biblical or Judeo-Christian moral superiority, or any other moral or religious principle that rendered the European culture morally superior.  In fact, I think the European culture invading North America, based on this vaunted Judeo-Christian moral tradition, was morally despicable, that their treatment of native cultures in North America ranks among the most horrendous and cruel examples of human inhumanity to other humans in the history of the human race. And that the Judeo-Christian tradition was in fact employed as ideological/religious justification/rationalization for the hideous, cruel, monstrous conduct of the Europeans against the native cultures. 

  QED 

  Ted Moffett

   
  On 4/22/06, Michael <metzler at moscow.com> wrote: 
    Ed Writes:



    >> My example (in 

    >> gestalt form) was specifically meant to illustrate that when we began 

    >> to accept homosexual marriage and relationships as normal, we morphed 

    >> from the idea of being a Christian or Judeo-Christian society based 

    >> on biblical morality. And, of course, this is historically when 

    >> societies get into trouble--the beginning of the end so to speak. My 

    >> previous post laid out all the societal dangers for normalizing 

    >> homosexual activity..... So, some say that there are so few, embrace 

    >> them. The issue is not how any individual poses a threat to anyone, 

    >> but how the normalization of homosexuality endangers the entire 

    >> society.





    I think we have too easily dismissed this argument.  The problem is not the inference; the problem is making the premises probably true. Ed now has to tell us a short world history, focused on the causal relations between acceptance of homosexuality and the general moral break up of society, and the typical cultural result in the West when the classical and/or Judeo-Christian framework is rejected. There is still the possible problem of confusing appropriate law with appropriate morality, but I think we could table that in order to hear Ed out.  So, Ed, are you going to start in the ancient East or the ancient West? If you can historically verify these claims I think you would have one interesting argument.   



    Michael Metzler 



    P.S.  And thanks for treating us like normal human beings; not often you see conservatives do that around here. 


    _____________________________________________________ 
     List services made available by First Step Internet,
     serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
                  http://www.fsr.net
             mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
    ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060422/5e8b0423/attachment.htm