[Vision2020] Crazy Train

[Ted Moffett]

Ed et. al.

I am not anti-American in my comments on the genocide
committed against Native Americans anymore than I would be anti-German in
mentioning
the holocaust as a moral failure, or anti-Japanese in mentioning the WWII
Nanking
massacre in China.  I am not anti-German, nor anti-American,
nor anti-Japanese.

I merely made an argument that morality, or sexual morality, may not be the
most
critical variable in determining whether a society survives or remains
viable.
Some cultures with very questionable "morals" have survived rather well.

I don't think the genocide against Native Americans was an expression of the
intentions of Christ (as we have come to understand them from the New
Testament)
regarding the treatment of other human beings, and thus was a serious moral
failure
of the Judeo-Christian ethic at that point in history. The European culture
invading
North America may have been superior to the Native American cultures in many

respects, but this does not render their actions as "moral."

I do think that globalisation and multiculturalism can have negative effects
on
maintaining valuable cultural traditions in nations all over the world (and
here in the USA),
so though I suspect you and I will disagree on many or most issues, please
don't
stereotype my thinking, if possible.

Ted Moffett

On 4/22/06, Ed <ecooper at turbonet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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<http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19672>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 <starbliss at gmail.com>
> *To:* Michael <metzler at moscow.com> ; 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/20060425/07b50808/attachment-0001.htm