"Rope", Progressivism and the "We Generation"

Big Fitz

User Quit *****
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
16,917
Reaction score
2,521
Points
48
I am realizing where we have come from to where we are almost at ethically and politically as a nation.

In the flow of the generations through a society, you can see how things change, but also get a feel for the general cycles that exist in the nature of mankind. Civilizations rise and fall in cycles. Fashions and fads fade and return. But now I see one returning that I have a great dread in my heart about because I know it's no accident it has returned, but a coordinated plot by those who have preserved in their hearts a dark time and darker philosophies.

Alfred Hitchcock filmed "Rope" in 1948 as a thriller with a technical twist as it was shot to look like one continuous shot. This is a sidebar to the true value of this classic to modern society as a warning of what is to come if we are not careful about what we say and believe, for ears are always listening, and someday, the casually espoused beliefs we may have the moral control to temper properly, may take root in the minds that have no such moral controls and become guiding principle.

Here's a review, it gives away nothing of the movie for it is very straight forward in many regards with no real twists, but keeps the tension tight all the way through.

Manhattan socialites Brandon Shaw and Phillip Morgan choke the life out of an associate, David, as an intellectual challenge to commit the perfect murder. Not content to escape the penalty of law by simply disposing of the body quietly, they furthermore devise an elaborate and dangerous display of arrogance: The two stuff David's lifeless body into a chest and throw a dinner party serving their guests, literally, from the convenient tabletop of the young man's grave. In attendance are Mr. Henry Kentley and Mrs. Anita Atwater, the victim's father and aunt; Kenneth Turner, the victim's rival for the hand of Janet Walker, David's fiancée, who also attends; Mrs. Wilson, the servant; and Rupert Cadell, the murderers' former teacher whose flippant repartee regarding social caste festered into the pathological short circuit that led to Brandon's and Phillip's crime. Brandon's sense of intellectual superiority swells to reckless levels throughout the evening as he makes a nail-biting game out of cleverly dropping his guests hints at nasty goings on. Meanwhile, Phillip grows increasingly frightful and guilt-ridden as Rupert inches ever closer to discovering why David hasn't yet arrived at the party.

Written by Craig C. Bailey
Stewart is their college professor who steeped the two socialites in the beliefs of Nietzsche and other philosophers who espoused egalitarianism, elitism and superior status and thumbed his nose at the dirty bourgeoisie that he felt superior toward because he was in a university. These beliefs, carelessly thrown about create the two monsters at the middle of the plotline. When Stewart has to come face to face with two boys that have become the living embodiment of the ideals he had espoused for decades, it creates in him a massive moral crisis and awareness that when his preferred ideology is put to practice, it is nothing more than the manifesto of nightmares and monsters.

These philosophies were the ruling thoughts of much of the world beginning in WW1 and progressing to it's final defeat in WW2. The American Eugenics Society, Italian Corporatism, the American Bund, The German Nazi party, Russian Communism, Japanese Militant Nationalism; all these share roots from the same progressive thoughts of elitism and desire to perfect the world in their image or in the name of compassion. It's profits though were over 100 million dead worldwide during and between those two wars and countless attrocities committed all in the name of control... perfection... utopia.

Unfortunately these philosophies did not die. Not all adherents where excoriated from the public record. Too many believers who slipped through the cracks infiltrated societies throughout the world and looked for a way to correct their mistakes. The dream of utopia and perfection is incredibly seductive. It has the best intentions, but can never mesh with our imperfect world.

Now we sit in a new century, almost 100 years separated from where those grave evils of Progressivism have come from. We have believed that those evils have been defeated 60 years before and are forever gone. This is why I bring up the movie "Rope". We are not safe. We have forgotten. We have chosen not to look closely at what we have said in the past. Worst of all, we have forgotten there are those who still believe what evil that had been wrought through Progressivism unleashed through some of the darkest years in existence, were not only necessary, but right! These thoughts have wormed their ways back into the hearts of our youth, who were not innoculated from this philosophical disease. Aided by ignorance and willful denial, those who desire the return of Progressivism have gained a hold in our children's minds. Now a century later, those same children, 2 generations separated from the disease are afflicted with it. Why do I say this?

http://gen-we.com/sites/default/files/We%20Declaration.pdf

These are the words of the new Progressives. This is the same spirit that when unleashed created the evils of WW1, WW2, Cambodian Killing Fields, The Communist Revolutions in Russia and China, The French Revolution and many many more disasters throughout the world that have cost this world millions of innocent lives. Collectivism over the individual is the distilled essence of the debate.

Read over the manifesto/declaration they have on this site and see what is seducing our children. Compare these attitudes towards the evil you see in the movie "Rope". Understand that these children have become perverted and twisted by these dangerous ideas and somehow will have to be exposed to the truth of what their ideals create.

Collective rights, which is the foundation of all this destroy the individual, for the individual is meaningless. You are a replaceable unit and you must do what you are told for the sake of the collective to survive even unto your own destruction. What the cruel trick in this remains is that those who believe in collective rights almost never visualize themselves as PART of the collective. They never conceive of the day they will be required to sacrifice on the part of the whole. Somehow the cruel trick seeps in of elitism that the rules are for others, not themselves, because they "get it" and support it, so they can never be consumed by it.

How could this take root so deeply in the minds of the youth of this nation? Because no one taught them better. Their parents generation often rebelled against the moralistic behavior of the generation that fought against these great evils and turned their back on the bulwarks that brightly illuminated the evil nature of the philosophy of Progressivism, for they had suffered personally because of it. Their children, protected from those ills were removed from the danger, coddled in love and lost understanding of what danger this presented. They in turn coddled their children who became the "We generation" who know nothing of the moral disparity between their grandparents lives (or even great grandparents) and trials and their own. The monsters of 2-3 generations ago never enter their minds, for their parents do not even think of them either.

So now we seemed poised to repeat the same mistakes of a century before. Listen to the video here on the front page of Generation We and ask yourself, do they sound like the values and ideals of the founding fathers? Or the Progressives that nearly destroyed this world?

Generation WE: A Generation 95 Million People Strong

I personally found this video chilling to the core that our children are so far removed from as well as hostile to values that have served our nation well for 200+ years. Just like the progressives in the past turned on their own national roots and ethics. How much longer can we suffer this deadly philosophy to live on?
 

rikules

fighting thugs and cons
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
1,866
Reaction score
310
Points
48
I am realizing where we have come from to where we are almost at ethically and politically as a nation.

In the flow of the generations through a society, you can see how things change, but also get a feel for the general cycles that exist in the nature of mankind. Civilizations rise and fall in cycles. Fashions and fads fade and return. But now I see one returning that I have a great dread in my heart about because I know it's no accident it has returned, but a coordinated plot by those who have preserved in their hearts a dark time and darker philosophies.

Alfred Hitchcock filmed "Rope" in 1948 as a thriller with a technical twist as it was shot to look like one continuous shot. This is a sidebar to the true value of this classic to modern society as a warning of what is to come if we are not careful about what we say and believe, for ears are always listening, and someday, the casually espoused beliefs we may have the moral control to temper properly, may take root in the minds that have no such moral controls and become guiding principle.

Here's a review, it gives away nothing of the movie for it is very straight forward in many regards with no real twists, but keeps the tension tight all the way through.

Manhattan socialites Brandon Shaw and Phillip Morgan choke the life out of an associate, David, as an intellectual challenge to commit the perfect murder. Not content to escape the penalty of law by simply disposing of the body quietly, they furthermore devise an elaborate and dangerous display of arrogance: The two stuff David's lifeless body into a chest and throw a dinner party serving their guests, literally, from the convenient tabletop of the young man's grave. In attendance are Mr. Henry Kentley and Mrs. Anita Atwater, the victim's father and aunt; Kenneth Turner, the victim's rival for the hand of Janet Walker, David's fiancée, who also attends; Mrs. Wilson, the servant; and Rupert Cadell, the murderers' former teacher whose flippant repartee regarding social caste festered into the pathological short circuit that led to Brandon's and Phillip's crime. Brandon's sense of intellectual superiority swells to reckless levels throughout the evening as he makes a nail-biting game out of cleverly dropping his guests hints at nasty goings on. Meanwhile, Phillip grows increasingly frightful and guilt-ridden as Rupert inches ever closer to discovering why David hasn't yet arrived at the party.

Written by Craig C. Bailey
Stewart is their college professor who steeped the two socialites in the beliefs of Nietzsche and other philosophers who espoused egalitarianism, elitism and superior status and thumbed his nose at the dirty bourgeoisie that he felt superior toward because he was in a university. These beliefs, carelessly thrown about create the two monsters at the middle of the plotline. When Stewart has to come face to face with two boys that have become the living embodiment of the ideals he had espoused for decades, it creates in him a massive moral crisis and awareness that when his preferred ideology is put to practice, it is nothing more than the manifesto of nightmares and monsters.

These philosophies were the ruling thoughts of much of the world beginning in WW1 and progressing to it's final defeat in WW2. The American Eugenics Society, Italian Corporatism, the American Bund, The German Nazi party, Russian Communism, Japanese Militant Nationalism; all these share roots from the same progressive thoughts of elitism and desire to perfect the world in their image or in the name of compassion. It's profits though were over 100 million dead worldwide during and between those two wars and countless attrocities committed all in the name of control... perfection... utopia.

Unfortunately these philosophies did not die. Not all adherents where excoriated from the public record. Too many believers who slipped through the cracks infiltrated societies throughout the world and looked for a way to correct their mistakes. The dream of utopia and perfection is incredibly seductive. It has the best intentions, but can never mesh with our imperfect world.

Now we sit in a new century, almost 100 years separated from where those grave evils of Progressivism have come from. We have believed that those evils have been defeated 60 years before and are forever gone. This is why I bring up the movie "Rope". We are not safe. We have forgotten. We have chosen not to look closely at what we have said in the past. Worst of all, we have forgotten there are those who still believe what evil that had been wrought through Progressivism unleashed through some of the darkest years in existence, were not only necessary, but right! These thoughts have wormed their ways back into the hearts of our youth, who were not innoculated from this philosophical disease. Aided by ignorance and willful denial, those who desire the return of Progressivism have gained a hold in our children's minds. Now a century later, those same children, 2 generations separated from the disease are afflicted with it. Why do I say this?

http://gen-we.com/sites/default/files/We%20Declaration.pdf

These are the words of the new Progressives. This is the same spirit that when unleashed created the evils of WW1, WW2, Cambodian Killing Fields, The Communist Revolutions in Russia and China, The French Revolution and many many more disasters throughout the world that have cost this world millions of innocent lives. Collectivism over the individual is the distilled essence of the debate.

Read over the manifesto/declaration they have on this site and see what is seducing our children. Compare these attitudes towards the evil you see in the movie "Rope". Understand that these children have become perverted and twisted by these dangerous ideas and somehow will have to be exposed to the truth of what their ideals create.

Collective rights, which is the foundation of all this destroy the individual, for the individual is meaningless. You are a replaceable unit and you must do what you are told for the sake of the collective to survive even unto your own destruction. What the cruel trick in this remains is that those who believe in collective rights almost never visualize themselves as PART of the collective. They never conceive of the day they will be required to sacrifice on the part of the whole. Somehow the cruel trick seeps in of elitism that the rules are for others, not themselves, because they "get it" and support it, so they can never be consumed by it.

How could this take root so deeply in the minds of the youth of this nation? Because no one taught them better. Their parents generation often rebelled against the moralistic behavior of the generation that fought against these great evils and turned their back on the bulwarks that brightly illuminated the evil nature of the philosophy of Progressivism, for they had suffered personally because of it. Their children, protected from those ills were removed from the danger, coddled in love and lost understanding of what danger this presented. They in turn coddled their children who became the "We generation" who know nothing of the moral disparity between their grandparents lives (or even great grandparents) and trials and their own. The monsters of 2-3 generations ago never enter their minds, for their parents do not even think of them either.

So now we seemed poised to repeat the same mistakes of a century before. Listen to the video here on the front page of Generation We and ask yourself, do they sound like the values and ideals of the founding fathers? Or the Progressives that nearly destroyed this world?

Generation WE: A Generation 95 Million People Strong

I personally found this video chilling to the core that our children are so far removed from as well as hostile to values that have served our nation well for 200+ years. Just like the progressives in the past turned on their own national roots and ethics. How much longer can we suffer this deadly philosophy to live on?


1.
so...
what are you recommending?

death to progressives?

are you saying that only YOU and your fellow conservative tea baggers have a right to decide what directionth enext generation can take?

are you hitler?

are you a dictator?

2.

as I read and listened to your links it clearly dawned in me that a lot of the words sounded VERY MUCH like todays conservatives/tea baggers

now THAT is chilling.
 
OP
Big Fitz

Big Fitz

User Quit *****
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
16,917
Reaction score
2,521
Points
48
No, I'm pointing out that our children have been corrupted by a philosophy of death that needs to be combated.

Yes, I heard a lot of things being said in the video and said in their manifesto but when you dig deeper to their desires on correcting it, they are all progressive/collectivist solutions. They have nothing that matches the desire for a return to fundamental constitutional values and individual rights.

That's what I found worrisome. There is no knowledge or love for our national heritage in them. There is more love and devotion to foreign lands in which their rights to say what they do here would be curtailed or imprisonable.

That's the terror behind it all. Global progressive collectivism.
 

Woyzeck

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
1,501
Reaction score
225
Points
48
Location
A-Io
The OP seems to not get the concept of what Progressivism was and of historical events.

In fact, the remarks over the professor in Rope don't make sense. Egalitarianism and elitism are two conflicting and contradicting terms. You cannot believe in both.

In fact, reading over the 'We Declaration' (of which I wasn't aware spoke for everything with a progressive label), it seems more like the OP is simply panicking that today's youth don't agree with him under the guise of 'traditional American values.' Which is hilarious. Because American values or American traditions tend to mean whatever you want them to mean as they apply to you, so long as you are American.

All in all, it's a rather long and fear-mongering post of why the youth of today should not want change in any of the 'We Declaration.' In my opinion, everything in it is awfully reasonable (if at times a little fear-mongery) concerns about the current climate and what they want done about it.

Somewhat ironically, the declaration mentions the American Dream turning into the American Nightmare. Its as if the OP and the declaration were using a similar reason. Or something.
 
Last edited:
OP
Big Fitz

Big Fitz

User Quit *****
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
16,917
Reaction score
2,521
Points
48
After the American revolution, Thomas Paine went to France to assist Robespierre in the French Revolution thinking that the process of liberating men from the tyranny of feudalism and aristocracy was able to continue.

What he discovered was that the French had not made a critical distinction between human (collective) and individual rights. Anything not helpful to the state or the people was deemed to be worthless and therefore should be disposed of, especially people.

When Paine raised concerns about this to Robespierre, he was quickly imprisoned. Fortunately, instead of execution and a short prison stay, he was released and sent back to America where he then warned the forming constitutional convention of the madness of collective/human rights and pushed very hard for specific rights held by the individual that could not be violated. He saw personally what evil goes forth in the name of collectivism and human rights.

This is the danger we are now facing. Both the Tea Parties, and Generation We are angry about the state of the current status quo in this nation. They both agree that the corruption and decline of this nation brought on by the baby boomers mismanagement of this nation must be reversed or we will decline into a 3rd world nation and live a life of poverty, pain and destitution. This is where the similarities end.

Tea Partiers are all about individual freedom. You listen and read to the Generation We declaration and video, and you don't hear that. You hear and read about the need for human collectivist rights aimed at bringing about globalist progressive collectivism. This philosophy has a track record steeped in blood from hundreds of millions of people since it's inception. They talk about rights to health-care, food, shelter, environmentalism and struggle against 'greed'. The same philosophies that lead to the disaster we are in now. They talk about change, but the solutions they are changing to is like spinning the TV dial all the way around and back to where it was before. They are ignoring history and what the real current nature of the world is... and this can only lead to disaster. They have a foundation of sand.

The Tea Partiers on the other hand have lived through more history, read more history, know their foundations and the bedrock on which it's made. They see how it's been burried in sand, muck and slime and that we need to strip away the debris that has collected on top of the foundations and get back to the bedrock that have safely guarded and guided this nation for centuries. They understand the realities of economics while Generation We don't seem to understand the basics of how money works.

You can call this fearmongering if you want. Your label doesn't make it so. You can call a dog a cat and all that does is make you seem the fool. This is just the reality we are in. Individualism must triumph over collectivism or there will be nothing to stop us from sliding into a new dark age inside a generation or two. Most who can't tell the difference between collective rights and individual rights won't get the wisdom or warning in this thread. I won't be surprised.
 

Woyzeck

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
1,501
Reaction score
225
Points
48
Location
A-Io
After the American revolution, Thomas Paine went to France to assist Robespierre in the French Revolution thinking that the process of liberating men from the tyranny of feudalism and aristocracy was able to continue.

What he discovered was that the French had not made a critical distinction between human (collective) and individual rights. Anything not helpful to the state or the people was deemed to be worthless and therefore should be disposed of, especially people.

When Paine raised concerns about this to Robespierre, he was quickly imprisoned. Fortunately, instead of execution and a short prison stay, he was released and sent back to America where he then warned the forming constitutional convention of the madness of collective/human rights and pushed very hard for specific rights held by the individual that could not be violated. He saw personally what evil goes forth in the name of collectivism and human rights.
How is this relevant at all to this young, progressive Generation We movement you're going off against? I've read the declaration and watched the video. These people aren't revolutionaries, they're simply a political movement attempting to organize and appeal to people, specifically, the young demographic. You see these kind of groups all the time, for liberals, conservatives, libertarians, whatever political orientation, its probably out there. They've got the same type of website and videos. They aren't revolutionaries, they just attempt to appeal to people to agree with their views.

This is the danger we are now facing. Both the Tea Parties, and Generation We are angry about the state of the current status quo in this nation. They both agree that the corruption and decline of this nation brought on by the baby boomers mismanagement of this nation must be reversed or we will decline into a 3rd world nation and live a life of poverty, pain and destitution. This is where the similarities end.
Then tell me, why I shouldn't fear you as well? The Tea Party is a political movement as well, same as Generation We, but from the other side of the aisle, so to speak.

Tea Partiers are all about individual freedom. You listen and read to the Generation We declaration and video, and you don't hear that. You hear and read about the need for human collectivist rights aimed at bringing about globalist progressive collectivism. This philosophy has a track record steeped in blood from hundreds of millions of people since it's inception. They talk about rights to health-care, food, shelter, environmentalism and struggle against 'greed'. The same philosophies that lead to the disaster we are in now. They talk about change, but the solutions they are changing to is like spinning the TV dial all the way around and back to where it was before. They are ignoring history and what the real current nature of the world is... and this can only lead to disaster. They have a foundation of sand.
I don't recall hearing the phrase "human collectivist rights" or "globalist progrssive collectivism." How do you define these? Elaborate a little instead of just attempting to tie it to things with naughty reputations. In fact, that's the only thing you've done here besides mention collectivism.

From what I gathered in the video and declaration, Generation We isn't interested in taking away rights, but taking control of what they see as the problems that the government isn't handling.

The Tea Party itself also talks about change to some degree, am I right? Shouldn't your arguments apply to that as well? Also, if Generation's We changes are going to 'spin the dial to where it was before,' what does it mean for the conservative Tea Partiers? By the very definition of conservatism you want things to stay the same, or go back to previous ways. Aren't you spinning around the dial as well, so to speak, but leaving it further back than it was?

The Tea Partiers on the other hand have lived through more history, read more history, know their foundations and the bedrock on which it's made. They see how it's been buried in sand, muck and slime and that we need to strip away the debris that has collected on top of the foundations and get back to the bedrock that have safely guarded and guided this nation for centuries. They understand the realities of economics while Generation We don't seem to understand the basics of how money works.
You bring up Paine, and the French Revolution, but outside of trying to tie in all leftist movements with violent revolution, you haven't used much of what you've claimed to read. Generation We isn't the Black Panther Party. They haven't advocated bloodshed, or anything radical. They're trying to organize a block of voters in the demographic they're shooting for, unite similar-minded young people to have some power.

Isn't the Tea Party similar to that? Uniting a group of people into some cohesive ideas to have some voting strength to affect state and national policy?

You can call this fearmongering if you want. Your label doesn't make it so. You can call a dog a cat and all that does is make you seem the fool. This is just the reality we are in. Individualism must triumph over collectivism or there will be nothing to stop us from sliding into a new dark age inside a generation or two. Most who can't tell the difference between collective rights and individual rights won't get the wisdom or warning in this thread. I won't be surprised.
It is fear-mongering however. As I said before, I read the declaration and watched the video. Generation We was suggesting nothing radical, not anymore than any other movement on any side of the spectrum out there. They are no more radical than any other organized political movement. You have given no evidence but some key terms that you feel they describe and are well deserving of panic. However there is no concrete evidence to this outside your claims.

And before you go off on another tangent about historical movements, I shall leave you off with this. All political movements can fall to the corruption and the radicalism. ALL movements. That includes the Tea Party. Generation We is just as likely to put on a Reign of Terror, as the Tea Party as likely to start calling someone Il Duce and start puttin' on the Ritz.
 

pans trogladyta

Liberal, Atheist
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
213
Reaction score
28
Points
16
Location
Alabama
I am realizing where we have come from to where we are almost at ethically and politically as a nation.

In the flow of the generations through a society, you can see how things change, but also get a feel for the general cycles that exist in the nature of mankind. Civilizations rise and fall in cycles. Fashions and fads fade and return. But now I see one returning that I have a great dread in my heart about because I know it's no accident it has returned, but a coordinated plot by those who have preserved in their hearts a dark time and darker philosophies.

Alfred Hitchcock filmed "Rope" in 1948 as a thriller with a technical twist as it was shot to look like one continuous shot. This is a sidebar to the true value of this classic to modern society as a warning of what is to come if we are not careful about what we say and believe, for ears are always listening, and someday, the casually espoused beliefs we may have the moral control to temper properly, may take root in the minds that have no such moral controls and become guiding principle.

Here's a review, it gives away nothing of the movie for it is very straight forward in many regards with no real twists, but keeps the tension tight all the way through.

Manhattan socialites Brandon Shaw and Phillip Morgan choke the life out of an associate, David, as an intellectual challenge to commit the perfect murder. Not content to escape the penalty of law by simply disposing of the body quietly, they furthermore devise an elaborate and dangerous display of arrogance: The two stuff David's lifeless body into a chest and throw a dinner party serving their guests, literally, from the convenient tabletop of the young man's grave. In attendance are Mr. Henry Kentley and Mrs. Anita Atwater, the victim's father and aunt; Kenneth Turner, the victim's rival for the hand of Janet Walker, David's fiancée, who also attends; Mrs. Wilson, the servant; and Rupert Cadell, the murderers' former teacher whose flippant repartee regarding social caste festered into the pathological short circuit that led to Brandon's and Phillip's crime. Brandon's sense of intellectual superiority swells to reckless levels throughout the evening as he makes a nail-biting game out of cleverly dropping his guests hints at nasty goings on. Meanwhile, Phillip grows increasingly frightful and guilt-ridden as Rupert inches ever closer to discovering why David hasn't yet arrived at the party.

Written by Craig C. Bailey
Stewart is their college professor who steeped the two socialites in the beliefs of Nietzsche and other philosophers who espoused egalitarianism, elitism and superior status and thumbed his nose at the dirty bourgeoisie that he felt superior toward because he was in a university. These beliefs, carelessly thrown about create the two monsters at the middle of the plotline. When Stewart has to come face to face with two boys that have become the living embodiment of the ideals he had espoused for decades, it creates in him a massive moral crisis and awareness that when his preferred ideology is put to practice, it is nothing more than the manifesto of nightmares and monsters.

These philosophies were the ruling thoughts of much of the world beginning in WW1 and progressing to it's final defeat in WW2. The American Eugenics Society, Italian Corporatism, the American Bund, The German Nazi party, Russian Communism, Japanese Militant Nationalism; all these share roots from the same progressive thoughts of elitism and desire to perfect the world in their image or in the name of compassion. It's profits though were over 100 million dead worldwide during and between those two wars and countless attrocities committed all in the name of control... perfection... utopia.

Unfortunately these philosophies did not die. Not all adherents where excoriated from the public record. Too many believers who slipped through the cracks infiltrated societies throughout the world and looked for a way to correct their mistakes. The dream of utopia and perfection is incredibly seductive. It has the best intentions, but can never mesh with our imperfect world.

Now we sit in a new century, almost 100 years separated from where those grave evils of Progressivism have come from. We have believed that those evils have been defeated 60 years before and are forever gone. This is why I bring up the movie "Rope". We are not safe. We have forgotten. We have chosen not to look closely at what we have said in the past. Worst of all, we have forgotten there are those who still believe what evil that had been wrought through Progressivism unleashed through some of the darkest years in existence, were not only necessary, but right! These thoughts have wormed their ways back into the hearts of our youth, who were not innoculated from this philosophical disease. Aided by ignorance and willful denial, those who desire the return of Progressivism have gained a hold in our children's minds. Now a century later, those same children, 2 generations separated from the disease are afflicted with it. Why do I say this?

http://gen-we.com/sites/default/files/We%20Declaration.pdf

These are the words of the new Progressives. This is the same spirit that when unleashed created the evils of WW1, WW2, Cambodian Killing Fields, The Communist Revolutions in Russia and China, The French Revolution and many many more disasters throughout the world that have cost this world millions of innocent lives. Collectivism over the individual is the distilled essence of the debate.

Read over the manifesto/declaration they have on this site and see what is seducing our children. Compare these attitudes towards the evil you see in the movie "Rope". Understand that these children have become perverted and twisted by these dangerous ideas and somehow will have to be exposed to the truth of what their ideals create.

Collective rights, which is the foundation of all this destroy the individual, for the individual is meaningless. You are a replaceable unit and you must do what you are told for the sake of the collective to survive even unto your own destruction. What the cruel trick in this remains is that those who believe in collective rights almost never visualize themselves as PART of the collective. They never conceive of the day they will be required to sacrifice on the part of the whole. Somehow the cruel trick seeps in of elitism that the rules are for others, not themselves, because they "get it" and support it, so they can never be consumed by it.

How could this take root so deeply in the minds of the youth of this nation? Because no one taught them better. Their parents generation often rebelled against the moralistic behavior of the generation that fought against these great evils and turned their back on the bulwarks that brightly illuminated the evil nature of the philosophy of Progressivism, for they had suffered personally because of it. Their children, protected from those ills were removed from the danger, coddled in love and lost understanding of what danger this presented. They in turn coddled their children who became the "We generation" who know nothing of the moral disparity between their grandparents lives (or even great grandparents) and trials and their own. The monsters of 2-3 generations ago never enter their minds, for their parents do not even think of them either.

So now we seemed poised to repeat the same mistakes of a century before. Listen to the video here on the front page of Generation We and ask yourself, do they sound like the values and ideals of the founding fathers? Or the Progressives that nearly destroyed this world?

Generation WE: A Generation 95 Million People Strong

I personally found this video chilling to the core that our children are so far removed from as well as hostile to values that have served our nation well for 200+ years. Just like the progressives in the past turned on their own national roots and ethics. How much longer can we suffer this deadly philosophy to live on?

You know they can probably treat whatever it is you have.
 

Mr.Fitnah

Dreamcrusher
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
14,480
Reaction score
3,395
Points
48
Location
Paradise.
I think they are inflating the whole effort
Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #76,042 in Books
I had heard less then 5000 copies had been sold fewer still read the reviews are scathing
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0982093101/younevercal03-20-20]Amazon.com: Generation We: How Millennial Youth are Taking Over America And Changing Our World Forever (9780982093108): Eric Greenberg, Karl Weber, DesignPool: Books[/ame]



The book won the eric hoffer award which is more interesting then the Gen we movement.
Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength.
Eric Hoffer

We lie the loudest when we lie to ourselves.
Eric Hoffer

When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other.
Eric Hoffer


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLtdTJ3gIvw]YouTube - The True Believer (Eric Hoffer)[/ame]

There was a short thread on gen we some time back
It is pure astroturf.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/105850-progressive-propaganda.html
 
OP
Big Fitz

Big Fitz

User Quit *****
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
16,917
Reaction score
2,521
Points
48
How is this relevant at all to this young, progressive Generation We movement you're going off against? I've read the declaration and watched the video. These people aren't revolutionaries, they're simply a political movement attempting to organize and appeal to people, specifically, the young demographic.
Do you even understand who is BEHIND them? When you don't look at who's paying for the party, playing the music and setting up the foundation, you ignore the fundamental power behind the group. Focus on the kids, by all means. They are being used as tools, as all revolutionaries have before them. The young and innocent and idealistic are very easy targets to corrupt and turn into weapons for your cause.

Then tell me, why I shouldn't fear you as well? The Tea Party is a political movement as well, same as Generation We, but from the other side of the aisle, so to speak.
If you are progressive, you should. I wish and work for the end of your political faith.

I don't recall hearing the phrase "human collectivist rights" or "globalist progrssive collectivism." How do you define these?
The phrase "Human Rights" have always meant collective rights, never Individual Rights. That's what makes the US constitution so unique. They don't use human right analogues, but rights you personally as an individual have. A very subtle but critical difference.

From what I gathered in the video and declaration, Generation We isn't interested in taking away rights, but taking control of what they see as the problems that the government isn't handling.
But they are espousing 'problems' that are 'solved' by the creation of collective rights. Universal education, environmental protection and health care are economically nonviable and anti-individualist. They required government interference in people's individual lives for the sake of the group/collective/nation as a whole. This is untenable in our current form of government.

The Tea Party itself also talks about change to some degree, am I right? Shouldn't your arguments apply to that as well?
No. They are declaring a RETURN to the governmental foundation and a purging of government corruption. They are not looking to add or remove rights we are supposed to have, only return rights that have been corrupted and burried under bureaucracy. They are also about ending fiscal irresponsibility and returning the Federal Government to it's very small non-charitable constitutionally correct size, and give most of the powers back to the states where it belongs.

Generation We wants to 'do' things to try and create a utopia that cannot exist by 'adding rights' that aren't constitutional and often contrary to the spirit of the spirit of the documents and desires of our founding father. Remember, we fled a nation of almost complete government control. Someone controlling your life from birth to death and given the power to tell you what God to even worship and how to do it. They came to this land to create a nation for the individual to live free and do for themself to the best of their ability and achieve as best they can. Not a new king, nobility and caste system. "No more kings" ring any bells?

Isn't the Tea Party similar to that? Uniting a group of people into some cohesive ideas to have some voting strength to affect state and national policy?
Generation We is Axelrod Astroturfing, the Tea Partiers are outrage at the erosion of our freedom and profound desire to return to our constitutional roots. If you cannot tell the difference I don't know how to help you.

All political movements can fall to the corruption and the radicalism. ALL movements.
That is true. All it takes is a cult of personality. Currently there is only one operating in the US: Barack Hussein Obama. Unqualified, no track record, out of the blue and trendy. Now a shining example of incompetence and under-qualification to the entire world, but people still like him and people still follow him in what can only be described as a messianic thrall. But of the two groups, the Tea Partiers are the only group that understands the danger of the cult of personality. The last cult of personality this nation went through was probably JFK.

That said, don't forget, Tea Parties are not a unified group of people by organization, while Generation We is in the mold of American's Coming Together, NAACP, ACORN and other leftist organizations organized for political action. They have a core of hard believers at the top who are really in control and then the foot-soldiers they organized to create community agitation.

The two groups could not be further apart so your desire to how complete equivalency in moral relativistic terms is a fail.

You know they can probably treat whatever it is you have.
The last time we had to cure the political disease of progressivism, it cost 20 million lives world wide.
 

Woyzeck

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
1,501
Reaction score
225
Points
48
Location
A-Io
Do you even understand who is BEHIND them? When you don't look at who's paying for the party, playing the music and setting up the foundation, you ignore the fundamental power behind the group. Focus on the kids, by all means. They are being used as tools, as all revolutionaries have before them. The young and innocent and idealistic are very easy targets to corrupt and turn into weapons for your cause.
You or the links you provided gave very little information on this. The Gen We site has contributors from various software and tech companies (who probably just help them set up the site or the programs or something), and the two authors who don't have any ties to any major political organization. Are you privy to some other information that you have yet to provide that the rest of us don't know about? I'm not seeing anything concrete here to back up your point.

If you are progressive, you should. I wish and work for the end of your political faith.
Congratulations on accomplishing two things. Not answering my question at all and assuming I'm a progressive or that I would label myself as such.

The phrase "Human Rights" have always meant collective rights, never Individual Rights. That's what makes the US constitution so unique. They don't use human right analogues, but rights you personally as an individual have. A very subtle but critical difference.
No, just no. The fact is, human rights is really far too broad a concept to really nail down with silly semantics like that. Human rights can just as easily include the things found in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution as a whole. Isn't part of human rights things like right to vote, right to a fair trial and stuff like that? It can, and that's generally what a lot of people mean or think of when 'human rights' comes up.

But they are espousing 'problems' that are 'solved' by the creation of collective rights. Universal education, environmental protection and health care are economically nonviable and anti-individualist. They required government interference in people's individual lives for the sake of the group/collective/nation as a whole. This is untenable in our current form of government.
European countries seem to pull it off just fine, and they seem to be just fine. Anti-individualist? Educating everyone is against individuals? Providing healthcare is against individuals? Protecting the environment, you know that whole thing around us, that thing we aren't adapted well to survive if we majorly bung it up, is anti-individualist? Are they advocating everyone must go to a state hospital or state school? Have they put this in their declaration, have you read their concrete policy ideas outside the mission statement of the Declaration?

You may disagree with such tenants on health and education, and that's fine. However, its hardly an excuse to panic and foam at the mouth this much over Generation We, anymore than it is for someone from their organization to do so about the Tea Party.

No. They are declaring a RETURN to the governmental foundation and a purging of government corruption. They are not looking to add or remove rights we are supposed to have, only return rights that have been corrupted and buried under bureaucracy. They are also about ending fiscal irresponsibility and returning the Federal Government to it's very small non-charitable constitutionally correct size, and give most of the powers back to the states where it belongs.
That's all very well and good, however you missed a major point. You're a political organization, why should I fear Generation We and not you? You both have political goals in mind, and you're organizing and trying to sway people to enact those goals into American government.

This is an important bit which you've yet to answer, once again, why should I not fear you just as much as Generation We? You may differ on policy but you are both at the heart of a political movement.

And also, if you're talking about changing the current status quo, congrats buddy, you want some change in government.

Generation We wants to 'do' things to try and create a utopia that cannot exist by 'adding rights' that aren't constitutional and often contrary to the spirit of the spirit of the documents and desires of our founding father. Remember, we fled a nation of almost complete government control. Someone controlling your life from birth to death and given the power to tell you what God to even worship and how to do it. They came to this land to create a nation for the individual to live free and do for themself to the best of their ability and achieve as best they can. Not a new king, nobility and caste system. "No more kings" ring any bells?
I thought you said they were taking away rights. How are they contrary exactly? Times change, the Fathers knew that. They were some pretty bright chaps, but they weren't the almighty gods of America. They knew times were going to change, and in order for the country to stay together and remain as stable as possible, it must be open to avenues of change.

Also. You don't know jack about history. Did you even pay attention in class, or at least crack open any basic American Revolution textbook?

We did not flee a mother country of almost complete government control. Britain was not like that in the 1700s. They were putting more taxes on us sure, to pay for a war whose primary goal was protecting the American colonies! We were also some of the least taxed people within the British Empire, and the new taxes put us on even footing with the taxpayers in England at the time. But this is getting off topic.

How could we have founded this nation about freedom with no castes or kings, when we still had slavery? When they offered Washington the crown to this country?

One more thing. You claim that the nation was for the individual to live free as he or she so desires. So why are you railing on about the evils of progressivism, aren't they simply executing their individual rights as you say so? You asked at the end of your first post how we could allow progressivism to live on? This sounds rather anti-freedom to me.

Generation We is Axelrod Astroturfing, the Tea Partiers are outrage at the erosion of our freedom and profound desire to return to our constitutional roots. If you cannot tell the difference I don't know how to help you.
Yet you don't like progressives and want them done away with. Good job on being tough on the erosion of freedoms.

By the way, any concrete evidence from reputable sources that its Axelrod? Again, are you privy to some secret information you're not sharing? You're making these accusations, the burden of proof is upon you to back them up.

You also missed my original point by focusing on specifics. You're not similar because of views or goals, you're similar because you're both political movements. That's like taking a human being who says one thing, and another who says one thing, and says because the first doesn't say the same things as the second, he's not a human being.

I reiterate for a third time, Generation We and the Tea Party are both political movements, why should I not fear you just as much as I should fear Generation We?

All political movements can fall to the corruption and the radicalism. ALL movements.
That is true. All it takes is a cult of personality. Currently there is only one operating in the US: Barack Hussein Obama. Unqualified, no track record, out of the blue and trendy. Now a shining example of incompetence and under-qualification to the entire world, but people still like him and people still follow him in what can only be described as a messianic thrall. But of the two groups, the Tea Partiers are the only group that understands the danger of the cult of personality. The last cult of personality this nation went through was probably JFK.
I'm sorry, what does Obama have to do with this? We're not talking about the current Democratic administration, we're talking about a political movement, specifically the Tea Party and Generation We.. Not actual parties. Huge difference. You're not giving much of a rebuttal here, outside of raking mud and tossing it at people you clearly disagree with.

That said, don't forget, Tea Parties are not a unified group of people by organization, while Generation We is in the mold of American's Coming Together, NAACP, ACORN and other leftist organizations organized for political action. They have a core of hard believers at the top who are really in control and then the foot-soldiers they organized to create community agitation.

The two groups could not be further apart so your desire to how complete equivalency in moral relativistic terms is a fail.
If the Tea Party is not an organized group of people, how can you say what they stand for? How can you know what the goals of it are? If they weren't an organized group of people, then how could they want a return to governmantal foundation and a purging of corruption? How would you know that they want to return certain rights, become fiscally responsible, and have the government be small if they are not an organized movement? If they weren't organized, you could not safely say what the difference between the Tea Party and Generation We is on policy issues, as you have described.

Your replies however, have been a fail. Because you have been overlooking my main point and question. it is not about "equivalency in moral relativistic terms." It is about how you are both political movements and therefore could just as easily fall to radicalism and extremism as you described. It's not a leftist phenomenon. Why is Generation We to be feared? Why is progessivism to be feared and the Tea Party cherished?

But, I know the answer. It's become quite clear. You don't like the progressives or whoever you keep trying to call such because you don't agree with their views or their policies. This is fine, but you've elected to misrepresent them and try to tie them in with things with a not so great reputation. Does this mean I'm allowed to paint the Tea Party in with the more extreme right-wing fanaticism in history?

If I must fear Generation We, I must fear the Tea Party as well.
 
OP
Big Fitz

Big Fitz

User Quit *****
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
16,917
Reaction score
2,521
Points
48
You or the links you provided gave very little information on this. The Gen We site has contributors from various software and tech companies (who probably just help them set up the site or the programs or something), and the two authors who don't have any ties to any major political organization. Are you privy to some other information that you have yet to provide that the rest of us don't know about? I'm not seeing anything concrete here to back up your point.
Look at the list of endorsements and who they're from:

- Harry Reid (radical leftist DNC Senate Leader) If you're for universal healthcare you're radical.
- Arriana Huffington (radical leftist propagandist)
- Larry Brilliant (Google Inc. Donator to many radical leftist organizations, assisted china in it's internet censorship efforts through Google)
- Tom Daschle
- Norman Lear (hollywood producer with long history of support for leftist causes and force behind Americans Coming Together)

and my personal favorite:

Van Jones: Former Green Job Czar. Avowed communist revolutionary, former felon, head of "Colors for Change", director of a boycott effort against Glenn Beck.

These are NOT conservative people. These are not even close to CENTRIST political ideology. They give their time and support to the WWF, World Worker's Party, Code Pink, ACORN/COI, SEIU, ANSWER and many other hate groups. They do not throw their support behind causes that are against their alignment. I saw Dick Morris in that group too, and that's why I don't trust him.

These are the people that Generation We admits to being endorsed by. I wonder how many they think are too radical to mention here that they are proud of having support them.

No, just no. The fact is, human rights is really far too broad a concept to really nail down with silly semantics like that. Human rights can just as easily include the things found in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution as a whole.
Yes. Yes it does. Individual rights are to the individual humans, not to the class, or group, or population. Human rights have always been defined towards a collective which someone can be ostracized from. Individual rights are endowed by our creator and are inalienable.

European countries seem to pull it off just fine,
Feel free to move there. America was created on the spirit of something else: personal responsibility, independence and freedom FROM government. There is no reason for you not to emigrate and leave those of us who desire the American form of government in peace. There is less reason to try and convert the United States into a copy of Europe. But as for doing fine... I disagree. It's a punch drunk fighter of a culture waiting for the next shot from Islamofascism to push it into anarchy and bloodshed. If you look at the economics of the EU, it's even worse than the US. But seriously, if you believe it's better, please move there and quit trying to import it here. I've no animosity towards them as long as they and their philosophy don't try to recreate themselves here.

You may disagree with such tenants on health and education, and that's fine. However, its hardly an excuse to panic and foam at the mouth this much over Generation We, anymore than it is for someone from their organization to do so about the Tea Party.
This isn't panic. This is a warning to those who many think that Generation We is the same as the Tea Parties when they are obvious a radical left front group.

You're a political organization, why should I fear Generation We and not you?
If the Tea parties are victorious, you will have a return of your rights that have long since been buried by the Nanny State believing it needed to do things for you. You will have a return to choice for your money and life, real ownership of your property instead of a caveat if the government felt they knew better. The point is you could make your life the way you wanted as long as it did not infringe on the lives of others or grow the federal government. All the socialist safeguards you want can be found at the state level and you can create your laboratory of a eurosocialist state inside the boarders of one state, and the rest of us can leave you to suffer the consequences or reap the benefits of your actions.

If Generation We wins... It's eurosocialism everywhere. The government controls your life from cradle to grave in all aspects of your life including whether you are even born, what kind of life you will have and ultimately when you die. That also includes if you ever become inconvenient for the state to smoothly function. You will become cattle... property of the state.

That is your choice when you reach ultimate ends.

Also. You don't know jack about history. Did you even pay attention in class, or at least crack open any basic American Revolution textbook?
I obviously know more about history than you. I also understand logical progression of actions. Ever study European or English history? Ever study Modern Civilization? Ever study the causes of WW2? The American Eugenics Society? The French Revolution?

We did not flee a mother country of almost complete government control. Britain was not like that in the 1700s.
>Cough<... Anglican Church >cough< Absolute collusion between government and religion to control the populace including how they worshiped God. Look back to the roots of emigration in the 16th century as well as the 17th. The Pilgrims, Quakers, Shakers and other religious fringe groups in England fled because they were being persecuted, prosecuted and imprisoned. The southern colonies were slave labor camps as well as economic ventures with indentured servants. People fled England for many reasons but the biggest of them all was religious persecution.

So why are you railing on about the evils of progressivism, aren't they simply executing their individual rights as you say so?
Because their demand for a progressive government demands the abdication of my rights. This is an exclusionary choice. State Enslavement (Progressivism) or Independence and Freedom (Traditional American Values).

Only one can exist at the federal level. You want Progressivism on the STATE level, you actually have the constitutional right to it. But that's called federalism. You do not have the right to create a federal nanny state. I have the right to leave your state when it becomes a fascist police state.

I'm sorry, what does Obama have to do with this? We're not talking about the current Democratic administration, we're talking about a political movement, specifically the Tea Party and Generation We.. Not actual parties. Huge difference. You're not giving much of a rebuttal here, outside of raking mud and tossing it at people you clearly disagree with.
You made an example that is being currently living itself out in real life. Therefore the current admin is applicable. This is not a strictly theoretical debate.

If the Tea Party is not an organized group of people, how can you say what they stand for? How can you know what the goals of it are?
First off, there is no "IT". The tea party is a misnomer put on it partially by the first participants and then as a container label by the media to handle something it doesn't get. It is a grass roots movement of independents getting together in small groups and then essentially 'flash mobbing' events on the capitals of this nation. How do I know what they think? Simple. I listen to talk radio and read what goes on on the internet at these little sites across the nation. All of them want slightly different things, but they can be boiled down to much smaller government that stays the hell out of their lives, lower taxes, and end the nanny state.

You need to start learning to read between the lines like the old soviets used to need to do when reading the news. What was true often wasn't what was said, but what was omitted. what was the old saw? There is no Pravda in Tass and no Tass in Pravda. Those being the russian words for truth and news.

This is fine, but you've elected to misrepresent them and try to tie them in with things with a not so great reputation.
The last country we had to deal with that implemented progressivism to it's inevitable end was Nazi Germany. I misrepresent nothing.

But you're welcome to fear me and the tea party all the same. It's obvious you don't fear Generation We as you should.
 
Last edited:

Woyzeck

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
1,501
Reaction score
225
Points
48
Location
A-Io
Look at the list of endorsements and who they're from:

- Harry Reid (radical leftist DNC Senate Leader) If you're for universal healthcare you're radical.
- Arriana Huffington (radical leftist propagandist)
- Larry Brilliant (Google Inc. Donator to many radical leftist organizations, assisted china in it's internet censorship efforts through Google)
- Tom Daschle
- Norman Lear (hollywood producer with long history of support for leftist causes and force behind Americans Coming Together)

and my personal favorite:

Van Jones: Former Green Job Czar. Avowed communist revolutionary, former felon, head of "Colors for Change", director of a boycott effort against Glenn Beck.

These are NOT conservative people. These are not even close to CENTRIST political ideology. They give their time and support to the WWF, World Worker's Party, Code Pink, ACORN/COI, SEIU, ANSWER and many other hate groups. They do not throw their support behind causes that are against their alignment. I saw Dick Morris in that group too, and that's why I don't trust him.
Yes, endorsements... how do endorsements prove who's controlling this behind the scenes? All endorsements do, is put on a sticker of approval by the person giving it. Endorsing something does not mean they control it in any way, shape or form, it means that they agree with it. It's not surprising that they agree with it, they seem to at least fall under the usual traditional American labels such as "liberal."

Do any of these people have a history of radicalism? Of doing things that is generally agreed upon falling within the meaning of radical?. Or do they just do things and take part in causes that you strongly disagree with? I want concrete, substantial information on how they are, from reputable sources. Simply labeling them radical is not enough, the burden of proof is on you to back up these assertions. It is simply not good practice to make stuff up, one most have the backing of good solid sources in order to validate their arguments.

Provide the same for your assertions in your second paragraph please. How are they radical? How are they hate groups? I'd advise you not to muddle it with groups of great contention like ACORN, it only shows your true colors.

Lastly, of course they only contribute to causes that fall in their alignment. You and nearly everyone does the same bloody thing. If the cause did not fall in their views, what bloody good would they be doing there? I don't see you participating in any leftist causes. Of course you wouldn't, you don't believe in them. This isn't a leftist practice, this is a normal human practice.

Yes. Yes it does. Individual rights are to the individual humans, not to the class, or group, or population. Human rights have always been defined towards a collective which someone can be ostracized from. Individual rights are endowed by our creator and are inalienable.
You're arguing semantics here, over which definition is correct. But humans rights has always traditionally been and thought to be like the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. You're trying to tie it in with such things like universal healthcare, education etc. This is incorrect. When people say "we need to bring human rights to such and such a third world country," they don't mean let's bring in universal healthcare, or education. That would be untenable in any developing nation at first, without extensive outside assistance. They generally mean granting the same rights we have here in the West, speech, press, assembly, self-government, etc.

Individual rights, hell, rights in general in the United States are granted by the Constitution and any precedents or laws set by the government. Keep the 'creator' bit in mind, it suggests the Christian god, as it always as. Look down below further in this post, I'll be getting back to it.

Feel free to move there. America was created on the spirit of something else: personal responsibility, independence and freedom FROM government.
If we were created with freedom and independence in mind, as you have said so in this last post and the one before. Why did we offer George Washington the crown to this nation? To be its king? Why would we flee a country of almost complete government control, and then offer one of our own the option to be the head of a government just like that? A monarchy?

While I think, as I think you do, it was best that Washington didn't accept, it doesn't add up that we were created in the spirits you mentioned.

There is no reason for you not to emigrate and leave those of us who desire the American form of government in peace. There is less reason to try and convert the United States into a copy of Europe.
I could say something similar to you. If you don't agree with leftist causes, perhaps you shouldn't make various unsubstantiated claims about them? If you don't 'em, you don't gotta participate in them.

Of course the supreme irony here, is that you don't want to do things the European way, and you go on about how America was created with freedom in mind. However, the way the Founders set up the government, the branches, the Constitution, the Declartion of Independence, everything, was cribbed and derived for many many EUROPEAN thinkers. Machiavelli, Locke, the English Declaration of Rights, Montesquieu, all European thinkers. Hell, Jefferson cribbed the opening line of the Declaration of Independence directly from John Locke. He just replaced property, with pursuit of happiness.

Clearly, the European way is not for us, the American way is! Nothing good ever happened from the European way of doing things.

That's a load of bollocks, it is.

But as for doing fine... I disagree. It's a punch drunk fighter of a culture waiting for the next shot from Islamofascism to push it into anarchy and bloodshed. If you look at the economics of the EU, it's even worse than the US. But seriously, if you believe it's better, please move there and quit trying to import it here. I've no animosity towards them as long as they and their philosophy don't try to recreate themselves here.
Good god. You've never even opened the BBC News page have you? You have very, very little notion of how things operate in Europe. You certainly know nothing about Muslims or Islam or the immigration situation in Germany and the United Kingdom.

Islamofacism? We're still toting around this bullcrap term? Really? If you want me to believe this, go get me some concrete sources that say Euroe is on the brink of anarchy (which granted, I doubt you understand any of the philosophy behind anarchy) because of the so-called "Islamofacists."

Although may I point out some more irony here, is that you label a group facists, when your demonizing a group you don't like, which you'd like stamped out?

I also point out, that for someone who talks about how they want more rights, more freedoms, you don't follow these notions very well. If someone wants to do things in a way that you disagree with (Progressives, Europeans), you want them stamped out, or you want them to move? Aren't you trampling over their freedoms to do as they wish as individuals? You seem to run contrary to your own views when it comes to someone you disagree with. You can't have a double-standed like this, it undermines your argument greatly.

This isn't panic. This is a warning to those who many think that Generation We is the same as the Tea Parties when they are obvious a radical left front group.
But they are a political group, not as radical as you paint them. The Tea Party is also a political group, aren't they in danger of being corrupted or radical as well? You've already proved in this thread, you're willing to go back on your idea of freedoms and tell people to get out or to eliminate ideas when you disagree with those ideas. In light of this, your argument becomes incredibly weak, why should I believe you when you do such a thing?

If the Tea parties are victorious, you will have a return of your rights that have long since been buried by the Nanny State believing it needed to do things for you. You will have a return to choice for your money and life, real ownership of your property instead of a caveat if the government felt they knew better. The point is you could make your life the way you wanted as long as it did not infringe on the lives of others or grow the federal government. All the socialist safeguards you want can be found at the state level and you can create your laboratory of a eurosocialist state inside the boarders of one state, and the rest of us can leave you to suffer the consequences or reap the benefits of your actions.

If Generation We wins... It's eurosocialism everywhere. The government controls your life from cradle to grave in all aspects of your life including whether you are even born, what kind of life you will have and ultimately when you die. That also includes if you ever become inconvenient for the state to smoothly function. You will become cattle... property of the state.

That is your choice when you reach ultimate ends.
Congratulations on assuming what I want. Congratulations again, for getting my political views entirely wrong. But that's okay, that's not what we're debating here.

We are not, I repeat once more, not debating the specific political policy and viewpoint differences of Generation We and the Tea Party, that was not my point. My point was, and I repeat this for what must be the dozenth time in this thread, that you are both political organizations. Policy differences and a difference on the spectrum do not matter if you get radical or extremist or corrupted. The Tea Party is NOT immune to these dangers, neither is Generation We, which is my main point. If Generation We must be feared for radicalism, than we should fear the Tea Party, the two of them being political organizations.

However it has become abundantly clear, that you rail against them not for radicalism, but for the petty reason that you do not agree with them. Your... let's say "extremist/radical" response to them, shows your true colors. They aren't red, white and blue, they're hypocritical. You aren't convincing anyone here, except someone who already believes the stuff you've written about.


I obviously know more about history than you. I also understand logical progression of actions. Ever study European or English history? Ever study Modern Civilization? Ever study the causes of WW2? The American Eugenics Society? The French Revolution?
No you don't. You don't know why we split from England, you don't know how England was in 1776. The worst part is, your simply using the illusion of history to justify your own extreme views against leftist causes and organizations. You have provided various historical inaccuracies of the Fathers, the Revolution and other topics.

>Cough<... Anglican Church >cough< Absolute collusion between government and religion to control the populace including how they worshiped God. Look back to the roots of emigration in the 16th century as well as the 17th. The Pilgrims, Quakers, Shakers and other religious fringe groups in England fled because they were being persecuted, prosecuted and imprisoned. The southern colonies were slave labor camps as well as economic ventures with indentured servants. People fled England for many reasons but the biggest of them all was religious persecution.
...what? This is a gross misunderstanding of American (and by extension) British colonial history. All the power at the time of the Revolution (actually after William and Mary take over in something called the Glorious Revolution) all the power lies not within the Church, or the monarchy, but Parliament. The king still had a great deal of power, more than the monarch does today, but for the most it lied within the English parliament.

May I remind you the Pilgrims were puritans? They and their City on a Hill were about as freedom and individual loving as rabid wolf. They persecuted and ostracized the non-conformists because they didn't conform to their ideals. Groups like them hardly can hold seeking freedom from persecution as a noble aspect when they went against it themselves.

And this slavery and indentured servitude thing. Yes, it was bad. But, can you really say slavery was bad, when the Founding Fathers still allowed it, and it was still in this nation for almost a whole century after our founding? Britain abolished the slave trade within the Empire by the early nineteenth century. I believe indentured servants were phased out even earlier.

Because their demand for a progressive government demands the abdication of my rights. This is an exclusionary choice. State Enslavement (Progressivism) or Independence and Freedom (Traditional American Values).
What rights are you giving up? What are they demanding you give up as a right? Don't give me soundbite language and empty phrases like "state enslavement" or "traditional American values." Explain in full what these are and how Generation We insists on going about these. You make these assertions, back them up, back them up with credible, reputable sources. You have provided no links so far but the Generation We Declaration and video.

Only one can exist at the federal level. You want Progressivism on the STATE level, you actually have the constitutional right to it. But that's called federalism. You do not have the right to create a federal nanny state. I have the right to leave your state when it becomes a fascist police state.
As you so state, I have the right to whatever I damn well please as an individual. If I or anyone else wants to band together to act on those views, it is my right to do so. You seem to like infringing on others rights when it suits your political goals.

Calling progressives fascists does not help your cause when you have an absolute mentality like yours. Anyone who is more liberal (or different) than you must be eradicated for they are dangerous, or they must move out to a place where they can have their own views. Ironically, you say you're against these various fascist radicals, when you seem to espouse the same type of views towards freedoms that you rail against.

To say the least, you are hardly running a strong case against Generation We or progressives.

You made an example that is being currently living itself out in real life. Therefore the current admin is applicable. This is not a strictly theoretical debate.
This is the original post that started us off on this tangent:

myself a few posts ago said:
And before you go off on another tangent about historical movements, I shall leave you off with this. All political movements can fall to the corruption and the radicalism. ALL movements. That includes the Tea Party. Generation We is just as likely to put on a Reign of Terror, as the Tea Party as likely to start calling someone Il Duce and start puttin' on the Ritz.
You quoted the bolded line, and then brought up Obama. I hardly think Mussolini or the French Revolution are currently living themselves out in real time.

A more cynical and snarky poster, might say you just wanted an excuse to demonize someone else you don't agree with and don't like.

If the Tea Party is not an organized group of people, how can you say what they stand for? How can you know what the goals of it are?
First off, there is no "IT". The tea party is a misnomer put on it partially by the first participants and then as a container label by the media to handle something it doesn't get. It is a grass roots movement of independents getting together in small groups and then essentially 'flash mobbing' events on the capitals of this nation. How do I know what they think? Simple. I listen to talk radio and read what goes on on the internet at these little sites across the nation. All of them want slightly different things, but they can be boiled down to much smaller government that stays the hell out of their lives, lower taxes, and end the nanny state.
If they can be boiled down, if they have something greatly in similar to all of them, than they are an organized movement. If they are flash-mobbing on the capitals, than it sounds like they're pretty organized to do something so organized so quickly.

However if they are not organized, than you are not saying the views of the Tea Party, but of yourself and then you are pretending to speak for the movement as a whole. This isn't my opinion here, this is reality. This is how it works. Denying it would be extremely dishonest.

You need to start learning to read between the lines like the old soviets used to need to do when reading the news. What was true often wasn't what was said, but what was omitted. what was the old saw? There is no Pravda in Tass and no Tass in Pravda. Those being the russian words for truth and news.
Reading between the lines of what exactly? The Tea Party? Or is this just another excuse to make a mudslinging shot and tie-in to communists?

If I might make a personal suggestion to you Fitz, you might try reading something for once, something grounded in reality, some non-fiction, perhaps the political philosophies of Plato, Aristotle, John Locke, Machiavelli. Those are probably too European for an American like you, but, they're worth a read to know where America derived its foundations from.

Oh, and Ayn Rand doesn't count, she's fantasy/sci-fiction.

The last country we had to deal with that implemented progressivism to it's inevitable end was Nazi Germany. I misrepresent nothing.

But you're welcome to fear me and the tea party all the same. It's obvious you don't fear Generation We as you should.
Aaaaaand we're done here ladies and gentleman. You sir, have Godwin'd your own thread. You are to be congratulated for doing so. :clap2: Take a bow. You just put icing and nails on the coffin of your argument.

But, let me get to my closing points here. You have offered no concrete evidence to support your arguments, you misuse historical fact to your ends, and you did not respond to the bolded question I asked three times in my last post. You skipped some other good bits as well. You say we were founded upon freedom and the right to do as an individual desires, to get away from a country of almost complete government control and yet we offered Washington the option to be the head of this country with a government like the one we fled. Odd that we'd flee a country to set up another one. Just like the Puritans eh?

Fitz, you say you are all for freedom, but than want people to shut up, or move or not think certain things when you disagree with them. That's not for freedom, that leans towards the fascist, my-way-or-the-highway mentality you've been demonizing this entire time. You say one thing and do another, your argument has a double-standard, you are a hyprocrite, sir, your argument is not valid with your logic.

You have not produced one iota of concrete evidence, to tie Generation We to radicalism. What you have produced is baseless accusations of various organizations, and people and tried to equate and demonize them to some of the Twentieth century's most dangerous regimes. You have, once again, ironically, proved nothing about Generation We, but everything about yourself. You want freedom for some, but not for others, some people are more equal than others, particularly when they agree with your demented world view, eh Fitz? You call them taking away rights, you call them facists, you equate them with the Soviets and with the Nazis. However you have not provided ONE CREDIBLE SOURCE, you have not linked to anything but the Generation We site and pdf file.

You are, my dear Fitz, essentially slinging mud at people you don't disagree with, attempting to equate them with Nazis and Soviets. You attempt to demonize them, as a scapegoat, as the threat to our society today. However, making such a group a scapegoat, that's an awfully a authoritarian tactic? The Nazis did it to the Jews, after all, and the Soviets to whoever disagreed with them.

You obviously do not stand for freedom, you stand for it when it is most convenient for you, when it aligns itself with your particular view. What you have posted there last dozen posts are irrational and baseless arguments. They are accusations with no grounding in fact or reality. You yourself have in the process, become one of these radicals you railed against. You are only for freedom for people who agree with you. You clearly don't know what freedom means. Freedom would means these "progressives" who have done nothing to suggest radicalism have the capacity to espouse their views. You have the same option, as do I. I also have the same right to call you out on your bullshit.

This thread and argument are over. You are finished, you have proven nothing except proved yourself disconnected from fact, reality and proved yourself a hypocrite. Good day, sir, we are done here.



Good day!
 
OP
Big Fitz

Big Fitz

User Quit *****
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
16,917
Reaction score
2,521
Points
48
yep. Just what I thought. Another progressive trying to draw a relativist argument. But denying Islamofascism???? Oh meratroid, you are an acolyte of progcommiefascorporatism, aren't you.:eusa_hand: You claim to be a moderate? Horse hockey. I see evidence more of your comfort with the left and instinctive fear of conservatism and libertarianism.

I give you connections and you disregard them. But denying Islamofascism???? Oh meratroid, you are an acolyte of progcommiefascorporatism, aren't you? I point out the equivalency fail and you get angry. Well whatever. I knew what you were up to with your first post. Probably a member of Generation We now, if you weren't before.

I could say something similar to you. If you don't agree with leftist causes, perhaps you shouldn't make various unsubstantiated claims about them? If you don't 'em, you don't gotta participate in them.
That's absolutely silly to begin with. You'd have to find another nation that had a copy of our version of government. You can't They don't exist. Therefore, here is where I'll stay and protect the best form of government from the garbage the rest of the world uses or abuses.

:::your hackneyed picture and whinging leftist talking points:::
:blahblah:I knew Willy Wonka sir, and you... are no Willy Wonka.

:tomato:
 
Last edited:
OP
Big Fitz

Big Fitz

User Quit *****
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
16,917
Reaction score
2,521
Points
48
LOL... Glenn Beck, hour two June 17th 2010 just pointed out the same thing this thread is about. You can probably get the podcast from his website to confirm. I just heard it live. It's quick but he points out that our economy and world basically started going to hell when the WW2/greatest generation began retiring and the Me Generation took over, believing their own hype because they never experienced economic hardship.

Gotta love it when I'm out in front of international pundits who have been right on so much.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top