Responding to Diane’s Voice

Hi Scott,

I’m not going to bother engaging with you in a meaningful discussion over morality, or over what it truly means to be born with certain inalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I don’t know why you think we would have enough disagreements about these these things to merit an argument in the first place.

I am not going to bother recounting for you the innumerable ways in which education begets knowledge and independence and freedom and power, or how being unshackled from ignorance is the greatest gift we can bestow upon one another, or how through such amassed knowledge we can create a much more perfect society.

There’s a lot of modernist rhetoric in this statement that needs qualification.  For instance:  as a Christian, I don’t believe “education” is the answer to imperfect societies.  Rather, acceptance of Christ would be a better gauge.  I’m sorry you’re so besotted with utopian thought that you believe we can “educate” ourselves into perfection.

I’m also clueless as to why you feel the need to discuss “ignorance” and “education” with me, so I’m glad you’re foregoing the discussion.

Scott, you are living in a small little piece of civilization that is tenuously holding on to a past that will never return.

Says you … and even if old Europe will never rise again, I’d rather live in a fantasy than in the modernist hell we have at the moment, where infants are slaughtered by the thousands, and homosexuals march openly in the streets.

But sadly for you, the world progresses and changes, advancements in science and technology occur at record-breaking speed, and whether you like it or not, political events occur in far flung corners of the globe that have far-reaching political and economic consequences for all of the citizens of the world, regardless of their nationality or their race or where their forefathers lived a few centuries ago.

Why would I be saddened by technological advances?  I am saddened, and I suspect most all Christians would be saddened, by the abuses of these technologies.

You can either move forward and live life to the fullest with the knowledge that you are creating a next generation even better than your own, or you can instead live in utter ignorance of the present while looking backwards and glorifying a past that will never return.

I will move forward with the knowledge that I’m working hard to ensure a brighter future for the next generation.  Just because I don’t accept your left-wing, radically-egalitarian drivel, doesn’t mean I’m not optimistic about the future.

As a matter of fact, it’s beliefs like the ones you’re expressing in your comment, that are endangering the well-being of future generations.  I aim to oppose you all until I can no longer do so, and by then there will be hundreds more to take up the fight in my place.

I have no doubt you can attract some like-minded followers who somehow feel disenfranchised by a society that has, at least in your view, overly compensated blacks for the indignities practiced upon them by your forefathers.  But I would posit to you that it isn’t compensation at all — because no amount of  compensation to African Americans will ever really do that.

Wow … so, white people are so evil, and blacks – so victimized, that the entire world must spend the rest of all time groveling and making supplication?

Frankly, I couldn’t care less about compensating blacks.  If you want to talk compensation, let the entire black community give itself back into slavery to atone for the heinous torture murder of Shannon Christian and Christopher Newsom!  And let them serve for the rest of all time for it.

What our society is trying to do — and I recognize this is something you and your ilk don’t truly understand — is to elevate standards for all people, level the playing field so that we ALL have a shot at that “American dream” we all so desperately hope to achieve.

Me and my ilk do understand the attitudes of radical egalitarians, perhaps better than radical egalitarians do.   You don’t want an equal “shot” … you want a social order where there is no inequality at all, no differences between anyone, no legitimate distinctions.  This is evil, Diane.

If you just wanted an “equal shot” for all people, you’d join me in being a Kinist!

I imagine it must be hard for you to accept an American society where some African Americans are more educated than you, where some have become doctors and lawyers and bankers and media moguls and therefore more successful than you.

Why the heck would this be “hard” for me to accept?  You’re judging my character based on what?  I’ll tell you what:  based on an arrogant, looking-down-your-nose perception you have of me.

If any of my black friends achieve success, have babies, start families, or any thing like that, the last thing I would do is bemoan their successes or victories. 

You should talk with someone first, and get to know them, before making statements like this.

You think it’s society tipping the scale too far in their favor.  But you’re wrong.  Because sadly, most blacks today still live in poverty in our country, they have  no real shot at the American dream because they can’t even get out of a ghetto and find a job or continue their education.

I’m more concerned about the problems in the white community.  But, I do acknowledge the black community has its share of problems.  That’s why I’m upset when GOP talking-heads try to peddle propaganda to the ghettos.  Black people need real black leaders, with real answers to black problems – not abstract talking-points.

You proud Confederate Southerners just pushed your former slaves onto the next plantation, located primarily in the ghettos of the North and the Midwest.  And most Americans don’t want to take responsibility for the care and nurturing and educating of the most impoverished in our society.  You think we’ve tipped the scales too far?  I’d posit to you that we’ve barely tipped them far enough.

It’ll never be far enough for you until blacks are the plantation masters.  But they’re still stuck on a plantation!  Only now, instead of having private plantations, they’re state-sponsored.  It’s a bad situation I agree. 

Here’s something for you to consider:  rural, blue-collar, southern Whites, aren’t going to provide for blacks (via our tax-money) much longer.  We’re getting sick of it.  You’re tired of blacks being on the American plantation?  Do something about it that doesn’t involve taking money from whites and giving it to blacks.

You really ought to read some of the words of Frederick Douglass, that most famous slave who you scoffed at at CPAC and who you suggested should be grateful for the food and shelter he received while a slave.

I never scoffed at Douglass – where did you get that?  Nor did I suggest he should be grateful for food and shelter.  You radical egalitarians hear what you want to hear.

As a matter of fact, I was more offended at the idea Mr. Smith was presupposing, namely:  we are supposed to automatically presuppose how evil Southern slaveholders were.   Well, sorry, I’m not going to presuppose my ancestors were evil monsters.  

If Mr. Smith wants to reach out to the black community by calling himself a Frederick Douglass Republican, fine.  But if he wants to reach out to young white Southerners like me, he can’t spit in the face of our ancestors like that.  At least be sensitive about your criticism of my people – that’s all I ask for a sensible discussion.

Well that former slave could write more eloquently than most Supreme Court justices.  And he was a great orator and statesman. He was really something. Just maybe after you read about him, you just might ask yourself what our American society might be like if we had more educated, reasonable and morally sound citizens like Frederick Douglass living among us.

More importantly, wouldn’t the black community be far better off?  They obviously would.

Your moral compass really needs to be reset Scott.

You and what egalitarian army of pseudo-intellects are going to try it?  I stand on my convictions, and where one Christian white man stands with his back to God, there’s no army of slobbering neo-babelists that can shake him.

You only have so much time on this planet to set it straight and do some real good.  And who knows, maybe, just maybe, your forefathers would actually be proud of your new course.

Maybe you can stop passing judgement on me before actually getting to know me?  If you ever did, you might find out I’m not the hateful villain portrayed by the media.

This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Responding to Diane’s Voice

  1. lynnesmithneal says:

    Your patience amazes me Scott. Keep up the good work lad.

  2. It’s kind of you to entertain the malarkey of these people, sir. God bless you. I pray that you win converts with your courage.

  3. dianesvoice says:

    Scott,

    I don’t think of you as a hateful villain. And I think the media was more amused over the actual title of the discussion you attended, which, to paraphrase, was basically “Don’t Call me A Racist!”   I watched a short piece of footage that has by now made you infamous, for lack of a better word, and I came right to your blog to read your posts and figure you out.

    ~ No offense, but I don’t really care what you or those bunch of scumbags in the media industry, think of me. Nor am I interested in your commentary on my media coverage, as I think your position is skewed by your radically-egalitarian indoctrination. ~

    On a positive note, you are well spoken and you don’t rage. And I really did take the time to read a number of your ruminations.  You write fairly well, although I must admit that I’ve rarely if ever read such a one-sided view of Christianity, the white race, and your adherence to Kinism and its complete repudiation of democracy.  

    ~ Thanks for trying to be civil, even though I believe you’re blind to your own dogmatism on these matters. Are you less “one-sided” than I am? Doubtful. Remember what the infamous atheist Bertrand Russell once said, (and I paraphrase): don’t be so open-minded your brains fall out. ~

    It’s quite literally impossible for me to formulate any response you would accept as a defense of democracy.  So why even bother traveling down that rabbit hole when I have more pressing points I would like to make here.  

    ~ To the contrary – what you need to do is try to rationally justify your position. I submit you’re unable to do so. I consider myself an “apologist” for the traditionally-Christian (ie: Kinist) worldview, and thus, look forward to deconstructing the meta-narratives of people like yourself.

    So, not only am I open-minded enough to entertain your position – I do so on a daily basis, for fun. Deconstructing radically-egalitarian paradigms is what I do in my spare time. ~

    We are never going to see eye to eye on some very fundamental issues which start with the role of religion in our American society and in the way we have chosen to govern ourselves.

    ~ If we disagree on this, it’s because you’re not open to reason. ~

    When I see someone such as yourself, whom I consider to be a “fundamentalist” in terms of their inflexible adherence to religious doctrine, I associate that with parochial / provincial / narrow-minded thinking.  

    ~ Who cares? By the way, if you’re concerned with accuracy, not that I’d accuse a leftist of being concerned with accuracy, but I’m not a “fundamentalist”. I suppose you’ve defined the word broadly enough to include me though, so, fine. ~

    Taken to an extreme — and let me be perfectly clear that I am NOT suggesting that you are in this category (nothing in your writings suggest that to me) — but taken to an extreme, some self-annointed Christian fundamentalists who also happen to have a gripe with the government, end up trying to, or even succeeding in, blowing up abortion clinics or government buildings.  That’s simply not okay and all Christians I know think that kind of extreme fundamentalist Christianity is dangerous and they categorically condemn such behavior. 

    ~ What’s worse, are left-wing, radically-egalitarian dogmatists who slaughter infants in the womb en mass, while actively and self-consciously working to destroy every good and Godly social institution (ie: the family, the church, traditional social mores, marriage, etc.).

    You’re concerned about extremism and violence? Start with them. ~

    For better or worse, you are first and foremost an American citizen.  

    ~ I’m sorry. First and foremost, I’m a citizen of the Kingdom of God. I’m a stranger in this world – an alien, and my allegience is to God and my people. I’m loyal to America to the degree it protects my first interests. ~

    And that is so even though you personally think of yourself as a Christian first, even though you trace your lineage to the European Anglo white race, and even though you adhere to the notion of Kinism as your guiding principle.  Under the laws of the United States and of the State of North Carolina where I think you mentioned you live, your conduct is governed by federal and state law, not by the New Testament or by your local house of worship or by the European Anglo white race you identify with so closely.

    ~ You’re very naive. You think a politican in American governs human action? You think just because a law is written on a piece of paper by a limp-wristed bureaucrat somewhere, that it has magical power? You’re dreaming, and you have far too much faith in this godless state. ~

    Contrary to what you have called me, I’m actually not a great believer in egalitarianism, at least not the way you’ve portrayed it.  

    ~ Yes you are. ~

    As un-PC as this might sound coming from me, I happen to appreciate our differences in a very real and compelling way.  I just don’t necessarily view them from the lens of race or religion.  

    ~ You’re denying very basic and honorable elements of humanity. This is why I believe people like you and your “ilk” are at war with, not just my people, but all humanity. Why not respect and honor our racial and religious differences instead of trying to arrogantly deny their legitimacy? ~

    We are not all created equal in terms of our innate talents and abilities.  Some people are just natural born athletes, others are born with music in their soul, others with such highly complex mnds that they can play 5 opponents at chess at the same time and beat them all.  Some of those brainiacs may go on to create or produce some of the most significant contributions to our society — and yes, I already know that you’re not all that especially impressed by that fact.  But as a progressive, I am.  I am fascinated by advancements in science and technology that will improve our lives.  I don’t see that as mutually exclusive from my faith.

    ~ The difference among people is a vital part of my economic philosophy, so I’m not sure why you would claim I’m not “impressed” by it. I think it’s a vital part of the human experience. We need a diverse workforce in order to bring about the specialization of labor needed to run a free-market economy.

    What I’m not “impressed” with, is your inhuman denial of precious racial distinctions. ~

    I do believe that people living here in the United States of America all deserve every opportunity to apply their innate abilities and talents in order to succeed.  And I get that you and “rural blue collar Southern whites don’t want to pay for that” as you’ve pointed out to me.  But its just not that simple.

    ~ Don’t misunderstand me here. I am in favor of certain mitigated forms of welfare. What I’m *not* in favor of, are government policies which promote one group of people over and against another. Let’s have a free-market environement with competition and freedom of association. ~

    Do you want to hear my list of things I don’t want to pay for?  I don’t want to pay for a 10+ year war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I don’t want to pay for the trillions in dollars spent by the Defense Department and divvied out to the thousands of private defense contractors making up the Military Industrial Complex.  I don’t want to pay for farm subsidies which, by the way, is socialism, plain and simple.  I don’t want to see my tax dollars going to any religiously affiliated educational institution.  And I don’t want to see our elected representatives in Congress and the Senate have their palms greased by multi-national corporations who produce the bulk of their goods overseas in order to pay lower wages and pay even less taxes than regular citizens.  (But parenthetically, I would also quickly add one thing I do want my taxes to go to — taking care of our veterans in a very real and sustainable way as they return home. Our government has failed the bravest among us.) I don’t want to pay to bail out banks.  I don’t believe in “too big to fail.” I hate insurance companies that are only interested in profit and not the lives of the people they insure.  And I hate the fact that Senators in some of the most rural and least populated states in this country like Wyoming and North Dakota and Kentucky get the same 2 votes as Senators in far more populated states like New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Florda, Ohio, Illinois, Massachusetts, Texas and California.  And yes, I realize that most of those states are blue states, but hey, these are the states where a significant majority of our population lives.

    I could go on and on here about how pissed I am at where my taxes go and who knows, maybe we even share a few gripes in common.  But sadly, we don’t get to pick and choose line item by line item what we will agree to contribute towards.  

    ~ Thanks for telling me all about your concerns. If we were actually friends, I might take the time to care about your opinions on each of these (and as you’ve guessed, we’d have a lot in common). As this is an internet exchange, however, I’d like to focus on your last line which seems highly ironic in light of the implication that you’re a stalwart adherent of democracy: we can’t pick and choose what we agree to contribute towards?

    Why vote if we can’t determine how our tax money is to be distributted?? Contrary to your chastisement, I think we very well can, and should, decide, line by line, how our hard-earned money is to be allocated. I’m sorry – we southern white boys don’t worship the state, nor do we believe they can run rampant and unsupervised with our pay checks. ~!

    But here is one thing I do know.  Most rural less populated states which for the most part lean heavily Republican get more bang for their buck from the federal government than Democratic leaning more urban states.  I don’t have the citation here, but I will send it to you, which shows that with the exception of one state that went Republican or Democratic in the electoral college this past election, all the Republican states received more federal dollars into their state than they paid back to the federal government in taxes.  I live in a Blue state and I’m now pissed about that too!  I’m paying more federal taxes than I get back in services. That sucks!  I really don’t want to subsidize states like Mississippi and Wyoming when those very states don’t want to be paying into the pie in the first place.

    ~ Even if what you say were true, it doesn’t change the fact that the Government should not be taking from some to give to others, even if it benefits Republican states. I don’t want my paycheck being taken from me and redistributed to republicans, even more than I want it taken and redistributed to democrats. I don’t want it taken from me at all! ~

    I can’t make you support a woman’s right to choose, or support a lesbian couple’s right to adopt a child, or support a program that feeds children in school, or a federal law that requires that insurance companies not discriminate against covering people with pre-existing conditions.  I could find compelling reasons to support each one of these  — even if I personally disagree with any one of them.  

    ~ And I would unceremoniously and thoroughly deconstruct each reason you have to support such godless activities. ~

    But I will take a stab at making one such compellng argument here:  Providing meals to needy children in school is a policy we should embrace, because if a child is hungry, they can’t learn.  And if they don’t learn, they’ll be ignorant and become in one way or another a burden to society.  Providing meals to needy children in school is in our nation’s best interests.

    ~ What god told you the state should be educating children in the first place? Because it wasn’t the Christian one. ~

    On the other hand, no farmer in Wisconsin is ever going to convince me as to why he’s entitled to a subsidy from the federal government.  And double ditto that for oil companies.  Don’t even get me started on oil companies.

    But I want to have a government who’s there for its citizens when a storm or twister or earthquake topples an entire region of the country, destroying homes and businesses and lives.  I want that government to help rebuild roads and bridges and distribute emergency supplies and food to those in need. And I want a government that won’t allow its citizens to go bankrupt because their child was born with a heart condition or cancer.  So yes, I do want a government who at the very minimum, provides for the health, welfare and safety of its citizens and takes into account that we have a responsibility in a civilized society to care for the poor, the elderly and the infirm who are unable to care for themselves.   And I’m happy to know that my tax dollars are being spent in that way.  If others don’t like it and would prefer more defense spending, too bad.  We all have to strike balances.  

    ~ I’m wondering if anyone has ever taken the time to show you how destructive and disingenuous your position is. Were I to take the time to criticize your opinions here, I’d begin by highlighting the free-market principles popularized by the Austrian Economic school, and discussing with you Von Mises’ savage criticism of Socialist econonmic schemes. Then, we’d get into Distributist economic policy, and discuss legitimate Government roles, as opposed to heinous overreaches that we experience today.

    Just because you see clouds, rainbows, and unicorns when you think about politics, doesn’t mean your position is sweet like cotton candy. It’s rather destructive in the long run, and people like me are going to make sure your utopian day-dreams never come to pass – our children’s futures depend on it. ~

    If that happens to clash with your Southern heritage and values (which I do genuinely respect), you need to re-adjust those values and live with the rest of us as citizens occupying the same space, i.e., the United States. In life there are compromises, and I contend that you are unneccasrily pitting your Christian and Kinist values against American values.  The two don’t need to be mutually exclusive.  

    ~ You’re going to yeild your position to me, long before I break, woman. You’re not used to seeing men like that in your life, I know, but we do exist and more and more of us are willing to speak out. America is sick and needs to change, not us. ~

    Oh, and on the outside chance that you seriously do advocate seccession, let me remind you that you are accorded that constitutional right as an American citizen, not as an Anglo white Christian citizen. 

    ~ Thank you for recognizing my God-given right to secede from a tyrannical state. Since you apparently find my ilk so disagreeable, you should join a local secession movement, and help us leave. ~

    • lynnesmithneal says:

      All the fiery darts hurled at you have only served to make you stronger Scott. I praise God for what He is doing in your life. Sic ’em cracker!

  4. Your responses are just excellent, Scott! Do keep pressing on and pressing back the enemy!

  5. tnmilfman says:

    Article 1. Section 9.3} No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall
    be passed.

    The 14th Amendment fails these basic tests of Constitutionality. That amendment is a bill of attainder
    and it was passed ex post facto. Article 1. Section 9.3 is probably the reason that the Antebellum South so confidently seceded. Seceded or not, the North was and still is bound by that limitation of power. The history of the 14th amendment has been well documented, and it truly is a testimony to the power of murder by the Government.

    Article 3. Section 3.2} The Congress shall have power to declare the
    punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work
    corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person
    attained.

    Article 1.Section 9.3} declared
    that Congress may not pass Bills of Attainder or ex post facto laws. Now
    we see an exception or a mistake. The Constitution contradicts itself here.
    Attainders of treason are permitted with some very serious restrictions
    on them to protect the descendants of the traitors. That is us. The most dangerous problem is the 14th Amendment.

    The value of the slaves and Southern war bonds concern us here. That value is the forfeiture that is Constitutionally bound to be returned to the Southern people , as we shall not suffer Corruption of Blood or lose our property EXCEPT
    during the lifetimes of the Confederate Politicians and Soldiers. They
    are now all dead. Also, the theory known as the Incorporation Doctrine
    is defunct. The application of the 14th Amendment to the States and the people is illegal. The traitors are dead!

    The application of the Incorporation Doctrine is Corruption
    of Blood and is Unconstitutional. We, the Southerners living now, are
    not and have never been Traitors to the United States. We are thereby
    under the jurisdiction of the original Constitution . Corruption
    of Blood is being allowed to function as the Supreme Law of the Land
    rather than the Constitution of the United States. This cannot continue.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bills_of_attainder

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_of_blood#Corruption_of_Blood

    http://www.pacinlaw.org/pdf/14th_R2.pdf

    http://www.civil-liberties.com/cases/14con.ht

    Further, in black and white, Amendments are NOT Unconditional. They are a delegated power to the Federal Government . It has been abused time and again by the Federal Government . .All of the Amendments are voided when the Senate is wrested from the State governments, which happened with the fraudulent 17th Amendment.

Comments:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s