A Sour Taste: America, the Story of Us…

[amicus]

In addition to the endless, self deprecating infomercials by a sponsor of the series, Bank of America, those who watched and listened may have noted a contemporary historiography being applied to historical facts and events.

Perhaps reflecting the current Administration and the constant apologies to the world for American Exceptionalism and Manifest Destiny, there was also a wide vein of anti industrialism, anti Americanism and anti traditional values and conventional morality.

An unknowing viewer might conclude that the history of America was largely concerned with African Slaves, betrayed Indian Tribes, Chinese laborers and the oppression of women. Not to mention the Dutch timber workers and the Irish labor force that virtually built the Nation.

I make small reference to the recent Texas school text book controversy which expresses the continuing conflict between human values as they were once perceived, and the current rejection of all things traditional by the current crop of Progressive Liberals.

I reached a conclusion many years ago that an eventual violent conflict between opposing ideologies in this Nation was inevitable and perhaps necessary if the beacon of human freedom is to be preserved.

My convictions have been confirmed as events accumulated over the years, and, as modern scientists relish in saying, “…it is not if, but when…” this event will come to pass.

I am no longer impressed by the emotional commitment expressed by the Progressive Left as they defend the collective concept of human behavior and denigrate the individual as merely an obstacle to overcome. I believe you really mean it, as did other advocates of Dictatorships, when you state you want to completely destroy the efficacy of the individual to determine his future.

My only regret in life is that I may not live long enough to witness a revival of the American spirit that built the shining example of a tribute to all that is honorable in life.

Amicus

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

The Brits went thru this in the 30s with Churchill and The Appeasers running the government. Churchill advocated preparation for dealing with Hitler, while The Appeasers, and much of the nation, opted for some serious ass kissing to convince Der Fuhrer of Britains good intentions.

Obama may be our Neville Chamberlain.

 

[TE999]

AMICUS

The Brits went thru this in the 30s with Churchill and The Appeasers running the government. Churchill advocated preparation for dealing with Hitler, while The Appeasers, and much of the nation, opted for some serious ass kissing to convince Der Fuhrer of Britains good intentions.

Obama may be our Neville Chamberlain.

Or our Vidkun Quisling.

 

[amicus]

JBJ, TE999....I am fortunate enough to have some acquaintance with British history and I will confirm your assessment of Churchill and add, tht he also warned against the Soviet Union and recommended a continuation of the war, even using the atomic bomb if necessary to stop the communists. The world should have heeded his advice.

Quislings....for those not acquainted:

"...Main Entry: quis·ling
Pronunciation: \ˈkwiz-liŋ\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Vidkun Quisling †1945 Norwegian politician who collaborated with the Nazis
Date: 1940..."

As a general query, open to all: one can understand the European drift towards totalitarianism as a revulsiion of the possibility of another war on their soil...what I find difficult to comprehend is the contemporary American attitude, one so despicable as to elect a quasi-socialist as President, as a rejection of the ideals of freedom and democracy as a way of life.

regards...

Amicus

 

[Handley_Page]

We'd better add Marshall Petain and the Vichi government to the list of 'traitors'.

 

[amicus]

]We'd better add Marshall Petain and the Vichi government to the list of 'traitors'[/I].

Top of the morning to you Handley_Page...France surrendered in just six weeks after the Nazi's crossed their borders through the Ardennes, by-passing the Maginot line and driving for the Belgium ports and bottling up British and French troops and all their equipment.

It seems I have read and watched dozens after dozens of historical renderings of that period and one is still left with questions about the French leadership and military commanders. And just why Germany was permitted to re-arm after the Versailles capitulation, I wouldn't call it a Treaty, is beyond me; although I am convinced that no one in Europe wanted to take military action to halt the renewal of Germany.

I cannot imagine how the French people dealt with the four year occupation and all that went with it. There is no end to my admiration for the British who alone stood and fought, as Churchill said, 'on land and sea and in the air, to the very last if necessary...', I paraphrase....and the Royal Air Force, in defense of the Island....'so much owed to so few by so many....'

One really cannot fault the children of that 'greatest generation', for looking inward as very little choice was apparent.

And what if Operation Sea Lion, the invasion of Britain, had taken place? The world would have a different face to say the very least.

Ah, well, as I said...I wish a pleasant day for you...

amicus

 

[Verdad]

The rearmament wasn't allowed by the treaty, Ami; it was in violation of the treaty. As for the politics of appeasement, maybe they were short on balls and other manly qualities, and maybe they thought a bit like you apparently still do: "Whatever else could be said about this Hitler dude, at least he hates the commies."

 

[WRJames]

Obviously appeasing Hitler didn't work. However, a policy of more or less peaceful containment did manage to deal with Stalin ande his successors. The policy of armed intervention under Bush has led to nothing but disaster.

As for the strong pacifist streak in the UK during the thirties -- it has to be understood in the context of the First World War. WW2 was so overwhelmingly horrible that it sort of wiped away the memories of the horrors of WW1. But those memories were still very vivid in the 20s and 30s. Also, the memory of how completely Churchill had screwed up in that war.

The other thing to remember is that Germany was thriving while the other countries of Europe were still deep in the Great Depression. Hitler was regarded with quite a bit of respect.

 

[amicus]

The rearmament wasn't allowed by the treaty, Ami; it was in violation of the treaty. As for the politics of appeasement, maybe they were short on balls and other manly qualities, and maybe they thought a bit like you apparently still do: "Whatever else could be said about this Hitler dude, at least he hates the commies."

~~~


Hello, Verdad and thank you....There was no United Nations and the League of Nations, Wilson's dream, was not ratified by the US Senate, so one wonders who would enforce the terms of the Treaty if violations did occur?

I can even vaguely comprehend 'appeasement' as a forlorn hope to forestall another war on the Continent with the corresponding huge loss of life and property.

Concerning the Nazis and the Communists, they are but bullies cut from the same cloth. Many people tend to identify National Socialism as so called ;'right wing extremists', while in fact and by definition, they are almost identical dictatorships that sacrifice the individual to the collective.

I am as guilty as any when looking back in hindsight and seeing things that were perhaps not that obvious at the time, however, in attempting to remedy that, I do offer judgments concerning contemporary threats to peace when I rail against the socialism that Europe has degraded to and the rising, world wide threat of Islamic domination.

Amicus

 

[WRJames]

Not exactly. Although Communism is often identified with oppressive dictatorships -- and why not, since there have been so many of them -- this is not totally true. An example of a democratic communist government is Kerala, a state in southeast India. It was run by the communists for many years, and as a result is one of the least impoverished of the Indian states. Everyone there lives decently, which cannot be said of any other area of India.

And, the communists were voted out of power.

Fascism, on the other hand, is an authoritarian political system. It is not at all interested in sacrifcing the individual to the collective. They may be quite willing, however, to sacrifice common folk to state interests. Fascist economics might best be characerized as "state capitalism" -- not too different from what we see in Western economies today.

 

[TE999]

The other thing to remember is that Germany was thriving while the other countries of Europe were still deep in the Great Depression. Hitler was regarded with quite a bit of respect.

Several prominent persons in 1930's America included. Charles Lindbergh spoke highly of Hitler and of the Luftwaffe and Hermann Goering for their advanced aircraft designs and organization. Henry Ford admired Hitlers' achievements and was even awarded a Nazi medal.

Pro-Nazi Bunds had considerable followings in the US and the UK.

 

[amicus]

WRJames...as I recall we have not seen things the same throughout most of our limited exchanges...

You offered an example of a successful communal type political existence; there were several in America that existed for a while also.

Rather than bicker over the definitions of National Socialism, German type Nazis, Soviet Socialist Republic, Communism, or the ChiComs, Chinese Communism or even the Cuban version, I prefer to take a political science and philosophical approach and attempt to comprehend the nature of a political or economic system in terms of human individual freedom and choice.

I recall throughout the 50's and 60's how the various 'five year plans' of the Soviets were claimed to be successful and that people in the Soviet Union were well fed and cared for. This was not the case, of course, it was pure propaganda and as a closed society, it was impossible to determine the true status of the people.

Almost any form of government or economic system will work, to a greater or lesser degree if one ignores those basic and fundamental rights of individuals, for a period of time. But inevitably, as the masses are directed in every aspect of their lives, all of the systems that employ Statist principles of abrogating human rights by sacrificing the wishes of the individual to the collective, will fail.

The free enterprise system is an outgrowth of the basic individual and political rights protected by Constitutional edict in the United States. It was only after the system began to emerge and was found to be successful, that professional economists began to describe the machinations of the system and give it a name.

I never fail to acknowledge that individual human frailties exist in any political or economic system but the free enterprise system dictates that those who cheat and steal and commit fraud or offer an inferior product are eliminated, over time by the consumers who free to choose among many offering similar services.

What most fail to comprehend, is that those self same frail humans, when given the power of the State to enforce their faults, prolong their own faults and failures until the entire system is corrupted and destroys itself.

The free market, Capitalism, is not just the best possible system, it is the only one that acts to purge itself of those who are less than honest in their efforts.

Amicus

 

[WRJames]

WRJames...as I recall we have not seen things the same throughout most of our limited exchanges...

You offered an example of a successful communal type political existence; there were several in America that existed for a while also.

Rather than bicker over the definitions of National Socialism, German type Nazis, Soviet Socialist Republic, Communism, or the ChiComs, Chinese Communism or even the Cuban version, I prefer to take a political science and philosophical approach and attempt to comprehend the nature of a political or economic system in terms of human individual freedom and choice.

I recall throughout the 50's and 60's how the various 'five year plans' of the Soviets were claimed to be successful and that people in the Soviet Union were well fed and cared for. This was not the case, of course, it was pure propaganda and as a closed society, it was impossible to determine the true status of the people.

Almost any form of government or economic system will work, to a greater or lesser degree if one ignores those basic and fundamental rights of individuals, for a period of time. But inevitably, as the masses are directed in every aspect of their lives, all of the systems that employ Statist principles of abrogating human rights by sacrificing the wishes of the individual to the collective, will fail.

The free enterprise system is an outgrowth of the basic individual and political rights protected by Constitutional edict in the United States. It was only after the system began to emerge and was found to be successful, that professional economists began to describe the machinations of the system and give it a name.

I never fail to acknowledge that individual human frailties exist in any political or economic system but the free enterprise system dictates that those who cheat and steal and commit fraud or offer an inferior product are eliminated, over time by the consumers who free to choose among many offering similar services.

What most fail to comprehend, is that those self same frail humans, when given the power of the State to enforce their faults, prolong their own faults and failures until the entire system is corrupted and destroys itself.

The free market, Capitalism, is not just the best possible system, it is the only one that acts to purge itself of those who are less than honest in their efforts.

Amicus

The Communists in Kerala did not turn it into a pure socialist economy but they did try to ensure decent housing, health care and education for all of their citizens -- by Indian standards, they did a pretty good job. People don't have a lot by our standards, but they all live with a degree of dignity and security. There is not the undercurrent of desperation and rage you find in other parts of India.

As for the free market being self correcting and able to purge itself -- would that it were so. The reality is that the free market does not stay free for very long. As for those who are less than honest -- the business world is filled with them. Most of them are very rich. A few get caught, a few screw up so badly it takes down the entire economy.

I watched as executives plundered my company, and that was typical of most large corporations in the country. Did the free market correct this? Not one bit. One of them got caught in an insider trading scheme and is spending the next twenty years in jail -- but that wasn't the free market. It was the evil state that brought him down (to the cheers of his fellow workers as he was led out in handcuffs).

 

[amicus]

I sometimes wonder if those who are not appreciative of the free market are always wearing blinders, seeing only that which they wish to see.

Rather than provide you with an extensive list, I refer you to such long lived corporate ventures as Safeway, McDonalds, 3M mining, Ford Motors, the fact that you can go anywhere in America and find safe food and comfortable lodgings, all supplied by the free market.

I can only surmise that the detractors of the free market have no knowledge of the mechanics of business and just what it takes, in terms of planning and investment and management and always producing a superior product that attracts the buyer. Make one mistake, produce one bad product and your entire venture can fail and leave you vulnerable to legal procedures.

Walk through any large variety store, Sears, Target or Walmart and marvel at the variety of goods and services offered; it is only your choice to purchase and continue purchasing that enables any enterprise to continue in business.

Perhaps you admire a system, such as the soviets, who offered no choices in products and services and offered no alternative to the State produced, inferior goods...


I really wonder sometimes how ideology can blind otherwise intelligent people?

Amicus

 

[TE999]

Any planned, government controlled economy is doomed to failure...the late and unlamented USSR proved that...even an alliance between industry and government will founder...'Japan, Inc' in the 1990's for instance.

Free enterprise is wild and woolly...there are winners and losers...failure is a learning experience for the ambitious and a disaster never to be overcome for the faint of heart...there are no guarantees in life or in business...and only the strong survive.

Those who think that government will protect them from failure are woefully mistaken...but false hope is what sustains entirely too many of us.

Many people are scared of freedom...others are indifferent to it...the former gladly turn their lives over to whomever will guarantee them comforts without undue toil...the latter take it for granted until it is lost.

"War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength." George Orwell '1984'.

 

[Dragonlipz]

I sometimes wonder if those who are not appreciative of the free market are always wearing blinders, seeing only that which they wish to see.

Rather than provide you with an extensive list, I refer you to such long lived corporate ventures as Safeway, McDonalds, 3M mining, Ford Motors, the fact that you can go anywhere in America and find safe food and comfortable lodgings, all supplied by the free market.

I can only surmise that the detractors of the free market have no knowledge of the mechanics of business and just what it takes, in terms of planning and investment and management and always producing a superior product that attracts the buyer. Make one mistake, produce one bad product and your entire venture can fail and leave you vulnerable to legal procedures.

Walk through any large variety store, Sears, Target or Walmart and marvel at the variety of goods and services offered; it is only your choice to purchase and continue purchasing that enables any enterprise to continue in business.

Perhaps you admire a system, such as the soviets, who offered no choices in products and services and offered no alternative to the State produced, inferior goods...


I really wonder sometimes how ideology can blind otherwise intelligent people?

Amicus

Mon Ami,
Your capacity for bullshit has reached new lows.....now you credit the 'free market' (two words that are not anywhere close to describing the reality) for safe food, clean lodging, and any other positive condition of a consumer product. The only thing further from the truth is your sexual orientation.
The truth is that these conditions exist because progressive forces mandated that hard working people not be bilked when they spent that hard earned money.
If you can read this, have not been poisoned by a water source, or otherwise not had your life threatened by a faulty or defective product: Thank a progressive, the 'conservatives' fought for the 'rights' of business to poison their clients, jeapordize their safety and otherwise imperil them for the sake of a buck....

I really wonder sometimes how ideology can blind otherwise intelligent people?

In your case the delusions are part of the inbreeding.....

Debate me at your peril......

You ain't got the balls.....or the intellectual capacity to engage but that's only stating the obvious.
Quit trying to give the 'free market' credit for progressives achievements......
You're as pathetic as Sister Sara when it comes to history and the facts.......

 

[amicus]

Many people are scared of freedom...others are indifferent to it...the former gladly turn their lives over to whomever will guarantee them comforts without undue toil...the latter take it for granted until it is lost.

~~~

You cultivated or renewed an old question of mine...why are some so frightened of freedom and I add, the responsibility that comes with it?

I place part of it on women...those who went from being directed by a father, to marriage and then to a husband to provide for them.

I still maintain that the now independent female still seeks a big daddy to take care ofher and guide her actions.

Then there are the wimpy males, growing under the rule of a dominant mother or an oppressive father that has left them incapable of living in freedom and accepting the responsibilities of independent choices.

On a broader scope, I have to consider that half of the population with under a hundred IQ who may simply not be able to live without a form of Unionization through which they are given direction in life.

The intellectual elite, the corrupted ones, who gain sense of superiority by pretending to offer a system, such as socialism, to act as daddy to those unable to accept the burden of true freedom and individual liberty.

Whoever first wrote that freedom must be continually guarded and even fought for and defended, got it right...it is a lesson we need to learn all over again.

Amicus

 

[Dragonlipz]

~~~

You cultivated or renewed an old question of mine...why are some so frightened of freedom and I add, the responsibility that comes with it?

I place part of it on women...those who went from being directed by a father, to marriage and then to a husband to provide for them.

I still maintain that the now independent female still seeks a big daddy to take care ofher and guide her actions.

Then there are the wimpy males, growing under the rule of a dominant mother or an oppressive father that has left them incapable of living in freedom and accepting the responsibilities of independent choices.

On a broader scope, I have to consider that half of the population with under a hundred IQ who may simply not be able to live without a form of Unionization through which they are given direction in life.

The intellectual elite, the corrupted ones, who gain sense of superiority by pretending to offer a system, such as socialism, to act as daddy to those unable to accept the burden of true freedom and individual liberty.

Whoever first wrote that freedom must be continually guarded and even fought for and defended, got it right...it is a lesson we need to learn all over again.

Amicus

You speak of freedom and it's obligations but your post displays no insight into what that entails. To wit: you romanticize the subjegation of women as the virtual chattel of their husbands, fathers or sugar daddies as you deny that they have worth as individuals and human beings. Quite the enlightened one, aren't we?
But then, you've turned tail and never engaged me (and won't - if you don't want your pseudo-intellectual nonsense handed to you with your head) in a factual discussion - the facts really confuse you.....better to stay with that 50's TV agenda you've adopted as reality......Nick at Nite, right?
Reality might really scare you....best to stay in the bunker....keep loading those rounds and reading the 'Turner Diaries'......

 

[amicus]

I ignore you and will continue to as you are crude, shallow and the perfect example of what a Troll is as you go from thread to thread with your inane offal.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS is morphing into CLOUDY.

Hey Ami? Threaten him with IGNORE.