October 21, 2007

Tolerance (Bumped)

Adding fuel to the firestorm set off by Lance, I give you this delicious vid. It's long, so settle in or view it when you have time ... but I guarantee it'll be worth it:

** Just a reminder ... F-bombs and name calling will be deleted. And, don't HOG the thread, take your essays to email. You know the rules.

Posted by Cjunk at October 21, 2007 1:28 PM

I didn't watch the vid 'cause I'm working this Sunday, "day of rest". I am God-less, I guess from reading the posts so far. I live by the "Golden Rule" - do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Keeps my fences up and my neighbors happy. It works for me. When I'm pushing up daisies, an event that some God-fearers are afraid of happening to them, I won't worry, 'cause I'm dead. Hope you like the daisies.

Posted by: jt at October 21, 2007 2:23 PM

Very interesting and enjoyable speech. The world is somewhat more complicated then he holds, but not much more. I especially appreciate his reference to Allan Bloom.

One thing, though, can anyone tell me who this man is? I don't see his name anywhere, as if he were a famous person.

Posted by: David M. McClory at October 21, 2007 2:40 PM

Thanks, Paul2, you're right. I wasn't expecting the link to be 46 minutes long when I began listening to it after posting my OT. (And thus not commenting On Topic right away as I thought that I would have been able to.)

Now, On Topic, that was a great critique of the modern Liberal outlook coming from a 9/11 conservative convert with praise for Allan Bloom thrown in. An intelligent analysis of "indiscriminate thought".

Everyone reading this Sunday afternoon (and on Monday and later, too, I hope), it is very well worth the time spent listening to it. Now to see about downloading it to keep for a long, long time.

Posted by: andycanuck at October 21, 2007 2:41 PM


Posted by: Paul2 at October 21, 2007 2:43 PM

He makes a lot of excellent points, the only thing I'd disagree with him on is when he starts talking about "the elite" trying to bring about this goal of always beeing wrong. That kind of talk reeks too much like a conspiracy theory, and there's certainly no solid data to support such a conclusion. It's much more likely that the entire process is a simple feedback loop.

We know that the KGB funded "anti-war" groups during the Vietnam era in order to eat away support for the US from within. These groups, once they got started, continued to grow under their own momentum. Their philosophy spread because it appealed to the young and the idealistic. And once it became entrenched within the educational institutions and the entertainment industry, their philosophy had unlimited access to the younger generations at a time in their lives when they are most vulnerable to idealistic propaganda. None of this requires a guiding hand from some all-powerful "elite" group, it just requires that those of us who know better do nothing to oppose it.

Posted by: Alex at October 21, 2007 2:59 PM

"BC is the land of the Froots and Nuts and the people that live there often reflect that."

Hey, easy, easy. Wide brush, lol

Posted by: ron in kelowna at October 21, 2007 3:03 PM

Pauls: I posted above, that "... I was working, this Sunday, day of rest." I don't have 45 minutes to watch the vid. Andrew seems to have a lot of time on his hands to post as much on this thread and I think he has some "issues" that may lead him to temptation, like playing God himself.

Posted by: jt at October 21, 2007 3:09 PM

That was a brilliant video and, indeed, worth the time invested watching it. Understanding liberals has always been challenging because I've often found an ill-defined disconnect between who many of them are as people and the policies they advocate -- just too many groaning internal contradictions. The speaker seems to have distilled modern liberalism down to its essentials, reiterating by the way, many points made by a former BBC producer and recovered liberal who's name escapes me at the moment.

Posted by: DrD at October 21, 2007 3:22 PM

And by the way, who is the speaker?

Posted by: DrD at October 21, 2007 3:23 PM


What the hell is up with the militant bible thumpers recently? Does religious beliefs have to be part of EVERY conversation? I thought only the allahu-ackarians were nutty enough to be that focused on religion. Seems like you guys can't even say "good morning" without making a crack at atheists, or trying to convert someone.

Posted by: Alex at October 21, 2007 3:25 PM

I enjoyed every minute of the speech. He is right on and I don't think I have ever heard anyone express it so well in such a short time.
I was trying to figure out who he was and thought at first it was Robin Williams. Thanks to Paul2 I went to Evan's website and now I know. I'll have to get Bloom's book next. I particularly liked his characterization of the Global Warming hysteria. Again, right on!

Posted by: Herman at October 21, 2007 3:29 PM

"Atheism is a death cult"?

Somehow I don't see atheists parading around with a dead man on a cross. They tend more to the celebration of life.

Posted by: Jim Pettit at October 21, 2007 3:30 PM anyone going to comment about the video? Because that was frickin' BRILLIANT. Rational thought = discrimination? That's got some serious predictive power to it.

Stop feeding the TROLLS, you guys. Like, really. Stop.

Posted by: The Phantom at October 21, 2007 3:46 PM

So liberalism is basically a refusal to discriminate, a refusal to judge...yet liberals always seem to be the first to point fingers and accuse those with whom they disagree of all manner of things.

As an example, they preach "tolerance" and yet won't tolerate any other viewpoint. Of course, their definition of "tolerance" is actually more akin to "celebration"...according to them, we all must "tolerate" homosexuality by affording them exactly the same rights and priviledges of heterosexuals AND we must throw them parades AND we have to be happy about doing so.

The liberal philosophy seems to include support for abortion (which is ending the life of an unborn human child) yet they are anti-death penalty because they believe killing, even justified killing, is wrong.

They are opposed to racism and sexism and prejudism and they will scream that anyone who dares question them are mouth-breathing, knuckle-walking redneck pigs.

As I see it, liberals are the embodiment of pure hypocrisy.

Posted by: Eeyore at October 21, 2007 3:55 PM

"He makes a lot of excellent points, the only thing I'd disagree with him on is when he starts talking about "the elite" trying to bring about this goal of always being wrong. That kind of talk reeks too much like a conspiracy theory, and there's certainly no solid data to support such a conclusion. It's much more likely that the entire process is a simple feedback loop."

Alex how do account for George Soros billionaire elitist funding the horrid democrats and the bunch along with Air America radio all spewers of bile?

How do you account for Maurice Strong elitist multimillionaire currently hiding out in China. He was very influential for many years in UN and their 'one world' goal. He was a product of the Demarais family and Power Corp who is also behind the Bob Rae bit for Leader of the Libs after Dion is flushed. They also put Trudeau, Martin, and Chretien in power. They are also big players in the oil for food scam with Total Elf Fina,
AKA Total.corp. etc

What do you think elitist Al Gore is up to by trying to move wealth from the west to the third world by admonishing the west and giving China and India a free pass on the climate change bullshit?

There are many Elitist control freaks who want one world government in the socialist model with them at the top in the ruling elite. That will be the point at which life on earth will not longer be worth living. Anarchy will prevail and thats will be that.

Posted by: John West at October 21, 2007 4:24 PM

I think this guy went wrong when he mistook what thew new truth movements are saying for "hating America"...the people in the new revolution aligned against neocon washington and Neo-Com washington are bipartisan...they don't hate America...they hate what it's become and the LOVE the republic...which is dissolving before their eyes with each unilateral executive breech of constitutional and congressional propriety. They are also at odds with the way the Dems have sold out to soviet styled martial repression of dissent and support info control from Washington

I'm far from any peacenick or lefty sympathizer...but I think a lot of the ideals the new truth movement is advocating are right in line with constitutional going to independent candidates to get free of the sleaze and control of party systems.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at October 21, 2007 4:35 PM

john west - a socialist ideology always has an elite, aka the Philosopher-Kings, who Know What Is Best for the unwashed peasantry. The general population is kept submissive within emotional propaganda; they are denied the use of reason. They are told not to evaluate, not to critique. If they do that - it's 'racism'.

Postmodern cultural relativism, as a political ideology, reduces a population to isolate 'blocs' or 'subsets' of people, each closed into a cultural set of beliefs and behaviour which are reduced by relativism to rational emptiness. That is, you cannot evaluate them.

The real problem is postmodern relativism, a utopian and nihilistic ideology that rejects the basic property of being human - that capacity to reason (and therefore, to be 'right' rather than 'wrong').

Why have so many people moved themselves into a mode of life that rejects reason? That's the question - and if I can get the video to operate properly without long pauses - I'll see whether he has an answer. Does he?

Posted by: ET at October 21, 2007 4:38 PM

Just parsing some of the comments on this vid, reinforces what I said on another blog this morning: double standard, double cross, double dip, double dare ya is the motto for liberals. They have no policy, because their raison d'etre is POWER, using any method or group to propel themselves into power, over you. It's rather disengenuous that "Power Corp" funds a lot of elitist thinking people in the liberal party, not to mention some of our red Tory bretheren, vendues.

Posted by: jt at October 21, 2007 4:41 PM

Megan, How is it that being a warm loving Atheist is good and being a logical reasoned Atheist is bad?

I am unsure of what I have said on the last couple of strings that has you condemn me or the others on your list.

By the by, I am also somewhere between an Objectivist and a Libertarian. That hardly puts me in the camp of higher tax or any sort of control over you.

Posted by: John West at October 21, 2007 4:51 PM

Megan's another sock puppet, that much is obvious.

Now, to more relevant matters:

Alex how do account for George Soros billionaire elitist funding the horrid democrats and the bunch along with Air America radio all spewers of bile?

The same way I account for the support that Pat Roberts receives from rich far-right lunatics?

Some rich moonbat funding a movement isn't evidence of an "elite" in that movement. It's just human nature to fund and ally yourself with causes which appeal to you.

How do you account for Maurice Strong elitist multimillionaire currently hiding out in China. He was very influential for many years in UN and their 'one world' goal. He was a product of the Demarais family and Power Corp who is also behind the Bob Rae bit for Leader of the Libs after Dion is flushed. They also put Trudeau, Martin, and Chretien in power. They are also big players in the oil for food scam with Total Elf Fina,
AKA Total.corp. etc

I'll be honest: I don't understand your question. But you know what you remind me of? The left-wing whackjobs who insist that Prescot Bush had connections to the Nazis, and that this somehow proves the illuminati has taken over the whitehouse. Let's not get sidetracked into conspiracy theories, please.

What do you think elitist Al Gore is up to by trying to move wealth from the west to the third world by admonishing the west and giving China and India a free pass on the climate change bullshit?

I think he's trying to line his pocket and get some fame and prestige. What's that got to do with anything? If Al Gore is "the elite", he's not doing a very good job of maintaining a low profile.

There are many Elitist control freaks who want one world government in the socialist model with them at the top in the ruling elite.

Ah, so that's what you're driving at. Sure, there's "elitist control freaks" in every movement, but that doesn't make them "the elite", and it doesn't mean that there's any sort of organized conspiracy amongst "the elites" to try and control world events. It's largely just individuals working toward accomplishing their own goals.

Posted by: Alex at October 21, 2007 5:12 PM

I'll chime in as a conservative-leaning atheist. Being called a satan worshipper or pedophile because I am an atheist is bigoted, hateful and stupid. I'm not easily insulted, particularly by infantile jerks in blog comments, but I sure hope SDA doesn't descend into the hateful morass that is typical of leftie sites.

Posted by: randall g at October 21, 2007 5:17 PM


You cannot connect dots. The left is all working to achieve their own goals, but those goals all take us to the same place. A world dominated by Socialist elites. the foot soldiers are stupid Marxist-leaning, Che-loving useful idiots.

Are you part of that group? The Green people play a very useful role in this admonishment of freedom and capitalism as well. They mostly have no idea that they are working unison. Like you, they cannot connect the dots either. They think they are working toward Utopia.

And Pat Robertson is an idiot for sure, but I don't see him as one who wants world domination. It is more likely that he wants to preserve his brand of Christianity in America. He not winning that one. He is getting wealthy though. I see his like simply in the religion industry and that is a profitable venture for sure.

Posted by: John West at October 21, 2007 5:27 PM

My thought is that the modern leftist movement is a result of the convergence of the baby boom and technology.

Most children, generally in their teens, rebel against their parents and their parents values.

So prior to the baby boom, teenagers would rebel and reject, and as they aged and were integrated into society and became adults, they left thier teenage rejectionism behind. The larger society was able to absorb the smaller upcoming demographic

However, the baby boom resulted in great numbers of rebelious rejectionist youth at the same time, who were able to communicate to one another and be communicated to via mass media and modern technology.

They did not have to grow up. They had sufficient numbers when they became of voting age to sway elections.

So then it was just a matter of time until unscrupulous politicians realized that the ticket to power was buying into the message of conservative rejectionist campus radicalism and echoing it back to the boomer generation (Pierre Trudeau anyone?)

The 60's genereation and their political movements(the seed and roots of todays "activism") were never about things, they were simply against the values of their parents. Not simply veering off in a slightly different direction but 180 degrees polar opposite.

That might have been ok were it that conservatism was all or mostly wrong, but that is not and was not the case.

Posted by: ward at October 21, 2007 5:30 PM


Excellent observation. Perhaps that answers why the left has no policies, no vision and no ideas.

They are just a huge pack of spoiled brats who want to be kings of the castle and all others are dirty rascals.

The Children of the Boom. Children for life.

Posted by: John West at October 21, 2007 5:37 PM

I watched it all and "Thank you" whoever you are. +++ You told the story +++ end of comment. I really wonder why others' take as much time to do the same...

Posted by: Orlin at October 21, 2007 6:15 PM

The Democrats in US are further right than the Conservatives in Canada. So how far left does that put our Liberals in Canadas...and God forbid the NDP are off the chart.

Posted by: RL at October 21, 2007 6:17 PM

ON the same point as the video (i saw it months ago) is the observation of Dennis Prager:

Conservatives thinks Liberals are merely WRONG.

Liberals think Conservatives are EVIL.

THAT is the only value judgment (discrimination) liberals are willing to make.

Posted by: Doug at October 21, 2007 6:22 PM

I really enjoyed this speaker. Very down to earth and convincing.

To me, his biggest strength is the way in which he is able to explain his opinion to an average person like myself. Especially his use of examples from stories, TV ,movies and media headlines. His makes good use of repetition of his three main themes that describe the progressives promotion of evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that leave to failure over ones that lead to success. It makes it easy to see that his opinions support my observations, my common sense and my life experience.

It would be nice to have speakers like this presented in high school to give a more balanced approach the public education system.

Posted by: LynnH at October 21, 2007 6:45 PM

Actually, you're right, we don't. We already criminalize "hate speech".

Besides which, the right to free speech isn't the same thing as the right to act like an idiot in the comments section of a privately owned blog. If you think they're the same thing, then you don't really understand what the right to free speech actually means.

Posted by: Alex at October 21, 2007 6:46 PM

All the poo flinging aside , anyone catch the fact Mr Sayet worked for ( wrote ) for Bill Maher ...... ya that Bill Maher .

Posted by: Bill D. Cat at October 21, 2007 7:38 PM

I love it when life-long leftards have an awakening(Dennis Miller comes to mind), usually caused by severe trauma(911, victim of crime). They have all the inside information(Patrick Moore has some good stuff), and have the most credibility when it comes to exposing leftoid idiocy. It just makes the moonbats wobble when the converted ones campaign against them. With AGW being exposed for the fraud it is, expect this to happen frequently in the near future!

Posted by: kingstonlad at October 21, 2007 7:57 PM

Took a while to find this , I did link it back in March , twice ( readers tips ) , emotional logic from the right , who knew ?

Posted by: Bill D.Cat at October 21, 2007 8:09 PM

Bill D,

Yes I caught that, but Bill Maher used to be bit of a stand up comic. He is far from funny nowadays, however he is quite a joke.

We all do things we wish we hadn't in life. I'd say this guy is more than making up for anything he's sorry for.

Posted by: John West at October 21, 2007 8:44 PM

John ,

When young adults , think The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are " news " , and they do , well Houston , we have a problem ....

Posted by: Bill D.Cat at October 21, 2007 8:52 PM

Yes, watched it before --- from D.Cat's link last March. Very telling. Should supplant AIT.

I remember lots and lots of hollywood flicks back in 70s being anti-establishment. The hyppies called it anti-estab --- actually they were just against other's successes.

Fanatical hyppies were fanatically against everything. Why ? Because they were lazy ---- wanted utopia handed to them. When it didn't happen they protested and broke windows.

The Battle of Seattle was a recent example. Global Warming is the latest cause du jour.

Trolls and feeders; Time for the riot act Kate.

Posted by: ron in kelowna at October 21, 2007 8:57 PM

Beat them down with facts and reason ron , sometimes it works , other times not so much ...... always a good time tho .

Posted by: Bill D. Cat at October 21, 2007 9:08 PM

Great vid. Tnx.

Posted by: mark peters at October 21, 2007 9:23 PM

The problem with the conspiracy theories such as one world government, bilderbergs etc. is that things always go wrong. Plans last as far as the first opportunity for murphy to interfere.

Posted by: enough at October 21, 2007 9:30 PM

"Atheism is a death cult"?

Atheism isn't a death cult, in fact if you boil it down I've always figured a lot secular/atheist policies are based around the fear of death or life-altering consequences. If you have one life to live and nothing to follow it, facing consequences or responsibility is a drag.

Posted by: EricP at October 21, 2007 9:32 PM

"What's scary, is that when utopia doesn't happen, those promoting it always blame the opposition, and then things get ugly. Violence is usually a breath away", Paul2

Exactly !! Middle aged hippies becoming fanatical when they realise they have been led down the garden path.

Posted by: ron in kelowna at October 21, 2007 9:34 PM

For the record , I'm somewhere right of Cartman regarding hippies .

Posted by: Bill D. Cat at October 21, 2007 9:38 PM

"As I see it, liberals are the embodiment of pure hypocrisy."

Not hypocrisy, projection. All you have to do is listen to what 'L'iberals accuse their opponents of, you then can see what they are trying to get away with.

For most of my life I was very 'L'iberal. I can look back and see how unreal my points of view were. Watching this presentation, he put a finger on some things that I could never quite vocalized.

Posted by: EricP at October 21, 2007 9:52 PM

I watched the whole show: great stuff! Was that Michael Medved? That's just a guess on my part.

(Psst. . . being a discriminating person, I think it's a good thing to know who the speaker is.)

Posted by: lookout at October 21, 2007 9:52 PM

Lookout: It was Evan Sayet.

Posted by: Herman at October 21, 2007 10:03 PM

enough - your 'universal' definition that ALL atheists have shallow empty lives is without evidence.

I'm an atheist; I don't consider my accomplishments shallow (and it's quite an arrogant assumption on your part to declare this), nor my life empty, and I certainly find life meaningful and endlessly fascinating. I don't need to believe in god for any of those feelings.

Surely you wouldn't define the accomplishments of the many atheists in our history, including Nobel Laureates in various disciplines, as 'shallow' and futile.

I don't think your correlations are valid.

Posted by: ET at October 21, 2007 10:34 PM

This is an excellent vid, great message. He admits to being a lefty and then having a moment of truth.
While the Kate's away the mice do play. There is a very strange tone to the commments here tonight. Paul2 ,thanks for you explaination.As a Christian I am very irritated with Andrews rants. We are all agnostic at some point.Just like the lefty in the vid, some of us come to the moment of Truth.

Posted by: bluetech at October 21, 2007 10:43 PM

Was elsewhere today , reading , wondering ,when one of the 'mentators came up with the idea that all this bickering isn't about right and left .....laughed myself silly . Seriously , I did ....

Posted by: Bill D. Cat at October 21, 2007 11:04 PM

I just have to say Sayet said it.

Up until now, I could not understand how lefties could overlook reality staring right at them.

BRAVO. Excellent speech and post.

Posted by: geothermal at October 21, 2007 11:14 PM

LOL!!! Nothing like religion to get everyone riled up.

Anyway, if anyone is still interested in the theme of the post that started this thread, take some time to listen to one of my heroes, Christopher Hitchens on a directly related topic, namely lefties who have seen the light when it comes to the terrorist and Islamist threat.

Posted by: Louise at October 21, 2007 11:19 PM

"Not hypocrisy, projection. All you have to do is listen to what 'L'iberals accuse their opponents of, you then can see what they are trying to get away with."

Bang on Eric P @ 9:52 Bang on.

Posted by: ward at October 22, 2007 12:31 AM


Your attitude that non believers are shallow and their lives are of less value is arrogant and shallow.

You are not able to measure the value of anyone's life since you cannot know anything about other people's lives or what they mean. You pretend to be a god yourself to make these kinds of judgments.

You may never get to heaven with that attitude. I believe your faults are covered under on of the seven deadly sins is it not?

In any case, if you happen to go to heaven for all eternity ... and remember that is a very very very long time to have to behave. After all you will be in the presence of perfection will you not?

My question is ... how much golf can you actually play.

Eternity is a very very long time.


Posted by: John West at October 22, 2007 12:40 AM

Kate- I love this site. You always have the most interesting links and stories that expose the idiocy of liberalism. However, as I have just wasted my time reading down this list of comments I remind myself once again to just enjoy the posting and RESIST the urge to read further for "intelligent" discussion. It ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: Jack at October 22, 2007 1:12 AM

Wow. This guy lays it all out on the line. Nice.

Posted by: John at October 22, 2007 1:22 AM

I think Mr. Sayet (for those of you who are keeping score at home) overstates his case in a way that may cost him listeners, nevertheless room must be allowed for the rant. So much for the facade. Structurally, I think he has well nailed at least two points.

First, he highlights the absurdity of not discriminating. Looking over a cliff is interesting. Stepping over a cliff tends to be less than optimal. That is to say, discriminating between this side of the cliff and that side of the cliff is a good idea.

It is prejudice -- not judging, but pre-judging -- that is a bad idea. Yes there occur from time to time temporal circumstances where one may be required to judge without sufficient evidence, but in general one is well advised to eschew premature judgement.

Second, he highlights the problem of, if I may put it this way, the "war against reason". If you have some time on your hands, or wish to bookmark these for your later perusal (there's a few hours of reading in the links), below are two novels about the problem of those who would abjure the progress of civilization, via the mechanism of causing the citizenry hurt, to the point that the citizens rebel against their own progress, in the name of installing the agitators into positions of power.

First we have "The Ashiel Mystery", which is set in the context of the anarchists in England about 100 years ago:

Second we have "Gees' First Case", which is set in the context of the communists in the United States of America, about 80 years ago:


Posted by: Vitruvius at October 22, 2007 1:47 AM

An interesting speaker.

Fortunately, the war against traditional values will be lost, since the ‘progressives' will be unable to articulate a workable solution.

I recognize many of the moral equivalence techniques and the mindlessness he describes among the foot soldiers.

Watching this video is much like reading the Culture Warrior by Bill O'Reilly.

Both American men recognize the threat posed by our institutions of indoctrination.

The struggle against the evil one, which I understand as the unseen warfare, has been going on in human nature since the first humans evolved from rocks (hang on, that's a different debate).

Utopians cannot progress human nature by denying it's existence.

People have free will and free choice. To dummy down discrimination, which is the ability to make decisions that work for the individual, seem like a regression. But, as he said, it's a label to create an image, just a marketing ploy.

I, for one, do not intend to stop working toward a positive outcome in everything I do. Yet to do that, I do need to exercise my intellectual capacity.

For more than a decade, I have recognized the ‘progressive' movement for what it really is ... the New Intolerance.

Posted by: set you free at October 22, 2007 2:35 AM

As some of you will have noticed, I've cleansed this thread of nearly half of its comments.

It is bad enough that some endeavor to crap all over my comments section with off topic and trollworks while I'm away - it's quite another when regular, long time commentors who ought to know better, cannot help but hit the "post" button in response and make the cleanup all the more complicated.

This is your final warning - EVERY DAMNED ONE OF YOU. If you find yourself typing the word "troll" or any other variation of the species, restrain yourself, and close the window. If you can't manage that, I'll be closing comments off when I'm not here to personally police them.

Posted by: Kate at October 22, 2007 3:40 AM

Thanks, Vitruvius.

That's what I got out of it.

Posted by: Duncan at October 22, 2007 3:50 AM

Excellent vid, he makes a lot of good points, not the least of them how movies and tv encourage dumb behavior and influence opinion.
Remember Tin Cup? Costner has a chance to win it all if he lays up and makes the smart shot, but no, he has to do the dumb thing and ends up losing the match. But wait, the pretty girl loves him for it and he wins her heart. In the real world, wouldn't she walk away from a dumbass like that?
'Use the Force, Luke', yeah, shut off the computor and close your eyes and hit the death star on the bullseye. Next time you're flying and landing in bad weather make sure you tell the pilot to shut off the instuments and just go ahead and land it. Let me know how that works out.
Star Trek The Next Generation? Who are the bad guys? Why they're those big earred Ferengi who are the embodiment of pure evil and oddly enough, capitailists.

Posted by: Stan at October 22, 2007 4:46 AM

Under the circumstances, Duncan, if one's going to thank me,
I should like to take said baton and pass it on: thank you Kate.

Posted by: Vitruvius at October 22, 2007 5:52 AM

Yes there occur from time to time temporal circumstances where one may be required to judge without sufficient evidence, but in general one is well advised to eschew premature judgement.

One of the reasons societies based on Christian values works so well is that members of that society needn't spend most of their life re-discovering the necessary wisdom to rightly judge. In such a society the basic values are a given to which even most atheists and leftists will subscribe. Publically, at least.

That tends to put a brake on those who would tear down society through toleration of most any perversion in order to re-build it in their own image.

Posted by: ol hoss at October 22, 2007 7:16 AM

'Excellent point, old hoss. Christianity encorages the HABIT of behaving well. This is quite out of fashion these days and is even ridiculed by the "adult toddlers" who run things--into the ground--these days.

I coined the phrase "adult toddlers" about eight years ago when I noticed, as a teacher, that both parents and administrators often seemed oblivious to any rules of civil behaviour. They just did and thought the way they wanted to with no regard for rubrics of courtesy or, in the case of admin., procedure. 'Guess how the children behaved?

Unfortunately, things are no better now and, in fact, we slide further into barbarism by the year. When the adults behave like kids and the kids are allowed to behave like mini entiltled adults, it's not a pretty picture.

Oh, and teachers get into trouble if they involve themselves in "discriminating" acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. Then, they really get into trouble with the "adult toddlers" if they try to administer consequences for the latter. We're all in big trouble.

Posted by: lookout at October 22, 2007 7:41 AM

lookout, I used to be a teacher, too. And I quit for the same reason. Hopefully the pendulum will soon swing the other way. It always does.

Posted by: Louise at October 22, 2007 8:32 AM

@lookout, Louise:

Here's a point to ponder. Teaching isn't biased in favour of left-libs by design; it's effectively that way because of a prior institutional bias: mollifying the group that complains the most freely. Us righties are deterred by shame-words that are supposed to shut us up, such as 'racist', bigot', 'extremist', 'anti-intellectual', et maximus cetera. The left-libs see the corresponding words that used to be directed at them, such as 'whiner', 'idler', 'lazy', 'mother hen', 'momma's boy', [various other terms that insinuate aloyalty and/or effeminacy], etc., merely as evidence that they've hit the target. This oppositional attitude makes them redouble their efforts when someone tries to shame them into stopping.

Once a faction has cultivated that oppositional attitute, then institutional policy shifts to "just give 'em something to get them to shut up." Hence the constructive bias.

Conservatism still has a respect for the high road. Left-libs are accomplished low-roaders. In a bureaucratized society, they got to Scotland long afore us.

Posted by: Daniel M. Ryan at October 22, 2007 9:13 AM

If you don't mind a bit of postscriptual pontificiation in a Northrop-Frye vein, it is an error to assume that "powerful" is a logical antecedent of "cruel."

Posted by: Daniel M. Ryan at October 22, 2007 9:23 AM

I can see that as expected everyone here gets caught up in the same phony, left-right paradigm that the party spinners throw out to make people believe there is still a functional difference in the way parties will administer critical social issues, the myth of confrontational congress and opposition party system in no longer the policy level both parties do the bidding of the same establishment patrons who fund/own both parties.

The major political events of the past 15 years should have opened the eyes of anyone not plugged into this left-right matrix of political myth.

We now have Gops that spend money and are as unaccountable and irresponsible as stoned Liberals on a pot farm, or FDR groupies on a modern "new deal" corporate wellfair spending spree. We have Liberal house leaders now that vote with the NRA in killing gun control bills...we also have Gop governments who introduce gun bans and UN civil disarmament bills...we have Dems crowing about fiscal waste, and Gops squeeling for more public funding....and the big issues are accepted going to war on false flag innuendo and voting to refund the war industry....Dems bark and rage like 60s people but vote like Goldwater GOPS...OTOH we have a cabinate of 60s Liberal bureaucrats (neocons) who act like a soviet Juta in truncating civil liberties and doing end runs around the constitution building a domestic spy and security network.

Forget left-right political labels...judge regimes and politicians on whether they respect the constitution and the spirit of free society republicanism or they advocate central control and martial law ( fascist/soviet federal systems).

Watching the Bush regime the past 8 years I have been shocked at how fast they disassembled civil legal rights with executive order fiat...faster than Slick Willie and Bloody Janet with some hillbilly bible thumpers to shoot at.

America's federal leadership ( both partisan brands) are moving the US towards "empire" from commonlaw republic...this is a fact...this means either you have marshal statist politicians or grass roots republican constitutionalists...this is the new political paradigm...statist militarists from left or right against free republicans ( damn few left)...not this silly show-biz white hat-black hat, left-right BS that Rush, Colter, Franken et al keep alive on the airways.

Look at the health of the constitutional free much legal/civil/political empowerment has the individual as opposed to a government minion? When a government worker has more power,( authority to demand accountability, claim on property, power to arbitrate your natural rights) over you than you have over him...there is an imbalance in government free constituted open democracies under commonlaw the government and its workers are your servants, accountable to you...when the government and its workers have more authority over you than you over them.....this is tyranny.....Machiavelli knew this, why are modern people in free democracies so dumbed down to the idea and dismiss any grass roots attempt to put unaccountable statism back in a constitutional box as "conspiracy nuts"...obviously these name-callers are either knowingly ignorant or conditioned to ignore the fact that most significant political events in history are the result of conspiracies.... and actually it is this modern theory that everything in power politics is "coincidence" which is blind to the realities of history and statecraft.

Have you more or less individual empowerment under this regime than another?

That's only litmus test question we need apply to politics in the 21st century.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at October 22, 2007 9:39 AM

I've managed to see this thing a while ago. It was probably via a link from here.

What I liked is his global warming take and that it's a veiled hatred of America's success - which is what I think it is in a way.

Another thing that I liked is his comment on sovereignty. For any country to give up it's sovereignty to a one world body is just stupid. The thing that is always funny to me is when people call the Iraq war 'illegal'. Who's the ref here? The US is sovereign and better do it's thing to protect it's people - forget what anyone else thinks - including screwed up Americans.

I watched Louise's thing from Hitchens as well and I didn't appreciate his comments on Mother Teresa. He's going to be a dried up old bag someday to - and if he's lucky he'll be able to get into some nursing home for British pseudo-intellectuals - and if he's really lucky - it'll be run by the Missionaries of Charity.

Posted by: cconn at October 22, 2007 10:20 AM

Not enough time for me to watch that whole thing. The first 5 minutes was all I could do, but I've heard variations on the theme. Been there, done that, agree with the bulk of it.

Posted by: Krydor at October 22, 2007 10:43 AM

It keeps locking up in the middle....

"the only thing I'd disagree with him on is when he starts talking about "the elite" trying to bring about this goal of always beeing wrong. That kind of talk reeks too much like a conspiracy theory, and there's certainly no solid data to support such a conclusion. It's much more likely that the entire process is a simple feedback loop."

Alex I'd disagree with you my kids school gets a new principal and poof there goes Christmas, in comes the native religion see christianity is so bad or they are so intolerant you can't mention a national holiday by name. But even though the parents, teachers and children all want christmas they are more likely to see a film on Kwanzaa for Christmas than a Christmas one.

All because of one elitist forcing their morals on everyone else. Then the coerced teachers show a movie about Kwanzaa.

Hell I think they should work Christmas.

Posted by: DrWright at October 22, 2007 11:26 AM

It is always re-freshing to see a Liberal cross-over to the good side.

I was raised a Catholic, the 10 Commandments are an excellent set of rules. I often wondered if most self-declared atheists would agree; do unto others as you would have them do unto you, or even shorter an eye for an eye.

Now, don't get me wrong. I understand the power of the Church, I don't understand building a $15 Million Dollar Adobe just to get down on your knees and read a phamplet that encourages you to contribute 17 % of your take home.

And, I sure as hell don't have time for some fool selling his Religion door-to-door, especially my door. Back in the Ole Days when Boo was around (my late 137 pound rott-lab mix) he could smell those Jehovah's a mile away,,, '-)

Posted by: Ratt at October 22, 2007 12:15 PM

this video wasn't very useful to me - sayet spent alot of the time describing the symptoms but i didn't get any meaningful understanding from his musings.

why is it that there is a bill maher show and not an eric sayet show?

Posted by: rb at October 22, 2007 12:40 PM

sorry - evan sayet. why is it that there is a bill maher show and not an evan sayet show?

Posted by: rb at October 22, 2007 12:41 PM

Is there a written transcript available of this talk?
Didn't he say something about a book?

Posted by: Jack at October 22, 2007 12:57 PM

rb - I fully agree. The video was long, long on descriptive talk, but no analysis.

And, this outline of 'how the left/democrats think' is really an outline of postmodernism or relativism. It emerged in the 60s, and moved heavily into academia in the 70 and 80s. It's pure bunk - but, absolves you of any action or decision-making because 'everything is equal to everything else' and there are no 'universals', 'no truths'.

This description is old, old...My question is WHY did postmodernism emerge after WWII?

BUT - it's on the wane; more and more people are rejecting its relativism and Cloud Dwelling.

Posted by: ET at October 22, 2007 12:58 PM


The church I go to was built in the 1930's.

When the Jehovah's ring my doorbell, I look at it as an opportunity, not a nuisance.

They always leave perplexed, because the next time they arrive, it is with a more learned member who attempts to answer the truths they had no clue existed.

BTW, the only power my church is interested in is pointing out people have an inherent free will and the core message is self-control (discipline), not control over others.

Christ himself did not force anybody to listen to his truths. I understand the teenage rebellion thing, when parents ‘force' you to do things your group thinks are not cool.

And, I understand the argument that you can be religious without being part of a religion.

Here's a fact. No Christian church anywhere in the world compels anybody to attend.

Posted by: set you free at October 22, 2007 12:59 PM

the talk was brillant. i see alot of you didn't really hear it.

Posted by: old white guy at October 22, 2007 1:31 PM


Quite so. Many thanks for your work, Kate, from a long time lurker.

It happened, by accident, that I read Closing of the American Mind about a year ago. I keep going back to it too, which is odd, since, ahem, 19C German philosophy has never been a strong suit.

Sayet's take away is narrow, there's a lot more to it. But it was a only a 30 minute talk.

It's not that Bloom's students became stupid, but alien.

I can recommend it for anyone out there interested in where the heck the America of Pearl Harbor went.

Posted by: Duncan at October 22, 2007 2:17 PM

I hear ya Set You Free; it was always a shame when the New Order tore down the Ole St. Thomas Church in my town, just to build a modern brick establishment that really didn't hold anymore people or possess that down in the woods across the railroad tracks look. Man, did they throw a money drive for that lil piece of work. You would have thought Lillies in The Field was a cake-walk compared to these cats.

So, pardon me if I have to dis-agree with the no Church compels you to attend, that is, unless we agree the Jehovah's are not Christians, but a cult, or at the mininum a brain-washed Religion.

Welp, back to the discussion; I watched this video before and Sayet definately has the Dems pegged, also agree there is not a lot of remedies. Not to mention; the Democrats in Louisiana all the way from the Bus Driver to the Senators are well-funded which means they can publish their rhetoric in broad daylight, but alas; that's another topic.

Posted by: Ratt at October 22, 2007 4:33 PM


I guess Sayet is talking more about the radical marxists who have infiltrated the Democratic Party.

He said he grew up a Democrat in New York and I guess the party is Democrat in name only.

It's been hijacked by the Soros/ crowd much in the same way as much of the Anglican Church is being hijacked by gay rights activists.

Has the same name, but is unrecognizable to long-time believers. My late father-in-law (died five years ago last week) was horrified at the change and accepted a deaconate with the mistaken impression he could recapture its traditional values.

Sayet represents more traditional thinking, but even the Republicans are moving away from the rule of law ie the breakdown of orderly immigation policy from Mexico.

I would think that as a former Democrat who espouses traditional values, he would be labelled a neo-con by the lunatic fringe hijackers on the left.

Posted by: set you free at October 22, 2007 4:59 PM

You betcha, I will definately be moving away from the Rule of Law by voting for Giuliani or Thompson for that matter, but move away from the Rule of Law I will, b/c the alternative is Hillary which scares the B-Jesus out of me.

God Bless Your late FIL.

Posted by: Ratt at October 22, 2007 5:05 PM

Thanks for linking my talk to the Heritage Foundation and for the comments.

I don't remember names so forgive me but..

Whoever talked about my use of the world "Elite" is right, it's not the best choice of words. By that term I mean only those who knowingly support the Modern Liberal agenda -- as opposed to the Mindless Foot Soldiers who have been brainwashed by these Elite (in the public schools and universities, news media and entertainment fields).

I go into more detail in my forthcoming book, "Sympathy for the Devil: How Liberals Think" out from Regnery in the spring.

I wrote "Politically Incorrect" near the beginning of its run (on cable) and it was out of New York and Maher wasn't yet fully insane and I wasn't yet fully sane.

Take care folks and, again, thanks.

Posted by: Evan Sayet at October 22, 2007 6:28 PM

cconn, Hitch is an American citizen. His Brit accent only indicates where his origins were. The nursing home will have to be in the US.

Posted by: Louise at October 22, 2007 9:04 PM

Hey, Evan!! I saw that video several months ago and thought it was a winner. Fight the good fight, my friend. There are some Canadians who do understand what it's all about and appreciate what the Americans are doing for the rest of us.

Posted by: Louise at October 22, 2007 9:12 PM

As a homeschooler, I was able to sit my 17 yr. old son down to listen to this lecture by Evan Sayet. He appreciated it for the same reason I do. Sayet put into a package, what we have observed among friends , family and neighbors. Its WHY we homeschool. Thank-you.

Posted by: lwestin at October 22, 2007 9:31 PM

Set you Free:

When the "Witnesses" arrive at my door, I bamboozle them, often by the expedient of talking to the kid they brought along; if not that, then roaring like a lion.

Posted by: Wimpy Canadian at October 22, 2007 9:58 PM

I've been challenged by liberals in the past as to "why do you hate life?" and I am dumbfounded as to why they think this till now. Reality is not how liberals live their lives and I am pissed at stupid liberals voting in the likes of Pierre Trudeau for example. It's not I hate life but I hate the sociallist dogma that permeates from these asshats and as soon as I realize they are sociallists I cut them out of my life. They call me hating and I ignore them. I don't need liberals in my life at all. As the video said, they all think like 5 year olds.

Posted by: Affliction at October 22, 2007 11:12 PM

That's GREAT!
Well said, a very good explanation for the time limit.
Those dissing this speech as limited, are of course correct, but as the question period showed, he was trying to answer the questions posed with thought to the time taken to answer, not due to lack of subject or for lack of further proof or logical explanation.
He was keeping it short and sweet, given the subject matter, you could probably start a blo... er uh.
This guy is an ex-TV show writer, and it shows; personally, about all I can sit through is a 30 minute "made for TV" explanation of anything.
He quite thoughtfully has tried to give a compact, version of the explanation for the predominance of stupid lefty relativism.
This is most important.

I refer to .....uhhh sorry, who ever said they "could only afford to watch 5 minutes" but agreed with Sayet's explanation, in the comments above as my proof.
If he's Blooms bulldog , great!

The right needs more "to the point" heavy hitters like Evan Sayet.
Really; Chris Hitchens is zzzzzzzzzzz,.. come on , this is GREAT!
Send it to your buddies.

Thanks Cjunk!

Posted by: richfisher at October 23, 2007 12:05 AM

Oh, and Thank you Evan Sayet.
Well Said!

Mahr WAS actually, funny!!, it's coming back to me now!

Posted by: richfisher at October 23, 2007 12:20 AM