A Failure Of Vision




What are your first principles?

And what steps must be taken to secure those first principles?


8 responses to “A Failure Of Vision

  1. Alfred E. Neuman

    Reblogged this on ETC., ETC., & ETC..

    • CNS article was pretty good. In all fairness (God forgive me for defending the homo-in-chief), he could have been referencing their rather novel implementation rather than the fairly well documented roots. I doubt it, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. Few bother to mention the level of influence the New England Protestants (particularly the Calvinists) had on the pre-DOI/Constitutional political thought. Their covenant (federal) theology, theory of a civil body politic, and republican view of sovereign congregations rather than corporate bodies laid much of the groundwork for acceptance of similar, though slightly modified ideas of political republics. It’s often forgot that Plato’s work as well as many of the ancient philosophers denied the supremacy of the individual and placed the welfare of the political state above the individual citizen. The Protestants and turned this ideology on its head and combined with Anglo common law traditions dating back before 1066 managed to keep us from turning into yet another failed Greek city-state or Roman-style republic…and now it doesn’t really matter because we totally screwed it up by raising successive generations of retards who are historically, and too often literally, illiterate.

  2. My first principles? My ONLY principle is total devotion to my God and savior from which all else flows.

    If that doesn’t make sense to you, read the Bible.

  3. Jessie,
    The Constitution is a rallying point and marketing tool for the liberty movement —> without that you can only hope that the masses are versed in classical history as well as you(but don’t get your hopes up). Otherwise you can expect them to be hunting you down with the other uneducated collectivist hordes. Yes, “WE” need the Constitution as common interest in order help set the brush fires that our founders so discussed. BTW, King Henry the VIII is history, but the Constitution is LAW, and its on our side. That’s a big difference.

  4. “The circumstances today are drastically different that 240 years ago. The demographics differ, social norms and the technology we and those who mean to rule us posses differ as well. Adapt or die a relic.”

    I am not saying that the observation is wrong, but I will note that THIS is the argument that statists make that the dusty old document is inoperable. Mr. James argument is circumscribed by the statists and he ends up ‘reacting’ without recognizing it.

    • Someone called this post ‘heresy’ within the movement, and I suspect many cannot look past the similarities it shares with the statists. One of the most effective ways of marketing something is to own a word inside your customer’s head. The statists have wholly coopted the idea and even the word, progress. Combine that with the fact that the most clever deceptions are 90% truth and you have today’s statism. I don’t deny that a nearly identical argument is made by the DNC campaign at this very moment, but I know of no other way to make it. Perhaps I should have appealed more to the past and assumed people knew more of pre-1776 political thought and classical philosophy. I feel many missed the distinction between ‘the application of X needs to change, but X is an absolute truth’ and ‘X is obsolete and so we must change to Y.’ I don’t think all reactionary thinking is bad, it is necessary for conforming your philosophy to facts over time, but I will continue to take exception to it being the endgame of almost all of the right. I’m not sure if that’s what you meant or not, but hopefully it helps clear things up.

  5. outlawpatriot

    The moment you start off with anything from Bugs, you just fucked up.

    Always appreciated JJ. Now, not so much. 🙂