Comments on: Voices Of Collectivism & Exceptionalism

By: Derek

Derek — Mon, 31 May 2010 03:06:15 +0000

Re to your WND January 2003 article; that was really good. I am glad to see you knew in advance that that war was a mistake. I liked the way you used those idiots’ comments to show what their true ideology was.

By: Robert Glisson

Robert Glisson — Sun, 30 May 2010 13:22:14 +0000

Great article, great comments. I used some literary license and used Myron and Jack’s quotes (with a George W or H would agree to Clinton’s remarks) to send a ‘Memorial day e-mail to my mailing list. I doubt if it will change any minds, Republican concrete is solid stuff but maybe someone will start to question.

By: Hugo Schmidt

Hugo Schmidt — Sun, 30 May 2010 10:50:07 +0000

Just want to pick on one thing, the writings of Rob Stove (who seems to be under the impression that history is a morality play, rather than an extended tragedy), what are those scare quotes doing around ‘fascists’? Lindbergh was an open sympathizer with Nazism, received a medal from Goering, and published venomously racist screeds. That’s not neutralism; that’s taking the other side in the nastiest way possible. In the same way, I might add, that our current ‘anti-War’ crop has more than a tinge of sympathy for the fascistic forces we face today.

By: Jack Slater

Jack Slater — Fri, 28 May 2010 22:54:44 +0000

Myron: Clinton, in her speech, exhibited a degree of hubris almost shocking. Here is the Oxford definition, which I believe suits the words of Dame Hillary:

?(h)yo?bris|
noun
excessive pride or self-confidence.
• (in Greek tragedy) excessive pride toward or defiance of the gods, leading to nemesis.

By: R. J. Stove

R. J. Stove — Fri, 28 May 2010 22:54:27 +0000

There's a new book (FDR's Deadly Secret, by Steven Lomazow and Eric Fettmann) which demonstrates that FDR - thanks to the ravages of a melanoma which turned into bowel and brain cancer - was far sicker even during the earlier part of his reign (including his aversion to having the St. Louis' Jewish refugees admitted to America) than any of his media flunkies and tame Soviet spies dared to admit. So he wasn't just the "sick man of Yalta", although he was that too.

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Fri, 28 May 2010 20:45:21 +0000

Jack: If one has swallowed poison and there is no ipecac to induce vomiting, I guess that excerpt from Hillary will do perfectly well. Just comparing Adams with Clinton shows how this nation has bloated into a blundering meddlesome EMPIRE, the enemy of small government and individual freedom. Tragic – because, like Ilana, I like the idea classic liberalism of our founding ideals.

By: Barbara Grant

Barbara Grant — Fri, 28 May 2010 20:01:57 +0000

“American exceptionalism”? I guessed I missed that memo. Is this to say that we must worship our own (British and American) Good Deeds as though we are morally superior? Not sure, but it might be worthwhile to list some examples of “exceptionalism” outside the “Anglosphere;” people neither American nor British who worked hard for causes like…saving Jews during WWII. First, there’s that troubling MS St. Louis incident, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis in which a non-Jewish German sea captain tried to find homes for Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution. Not in my backyard! FDR’s government said. (Why FDR continues to be idolatrously worshiped by American Jews is beyond me.) And then, there are the heroic efforts made by Danish citizens during WWII to save Jews http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/denmark.html by smuggling them by sea to Sweden.

I don’t know where “American exceptionalism” comes from. I rather suspect it might be a code to describe current U. S. efforts in the Middle East, trying to “succeed” where the Brits failed. I won’t hold my breath, awaiting reports of our “success.”

By: Jack Slater

Jack Slater — Fri, 28 May 2010 19:26:21 +0000

In contrast to Myron Pauli’s reference to a J.Q. Adams quote, I offer two small excerpts from a speech by Hillary Clinton on May 27 at the Brookings Institution:

“Our approach is to build the diverse sources of American power at home and to shape the global system so that it is more conducive to meeting our overriding objectives: security, prosperity, the explanation and spread of our values, and a just and sustainable international order.”

“So in a world like this, American leadership isn’t needed less, it’s actually needed more. And the simple fact is that no significant global challenge can be met without us. ”

Full transcript and video:

http://secretaryclinton.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/hillary-clinton-sets-out-national-security-strategy-at-the-brookings-institution/

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Fri, 28 May 2010 16:20:45 +0000

Although the neocon (rightist) and socialistic (leftist) statists claim to revere the founders, they have actually replaced their vision of a small government whose purpose was to SECURE OUR RIGHTS with a one-world government – Right wing version: USA controls World – Left wing version: World controls USA. Both have grandiose delusions of American “grandeur” whereby American-led “coalitions” attack/liberate a bunch of designated bad-guys: Vietcong, Taliban, Al Queda, Iraqis, Burmese, Koreans, Hondurans, Israelis, and South Africans… – most of whom never attacked us and some of whom are not even “bad”.

Those defaming you, me, or Ron Paul of being “anti-American” since we do not revel in the concept of “American greatness” would have to also defame the founders. One of the best summaries of their judgment was from Secretary of State John Quincy Adams:

http://www.fff.org/freedom/1001e.asp

Adams: “(America) She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings… she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy…She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own…She might become the dictatress of the world.”

Nuclear weapons and Reaper drones are not the mark of America’s “greatness” – FREEDOM is.

By: John McNeill

John McNeill — Fri, 28 May 2010 11:49:24 +0000

I am a nationalist, and yet I think American exceptionalism is foolish. National pride is healthy, but one need not cast their country as the most glorious nation that everyone else envies. Such thinking leads to hubris and eventually, downfall. No, I think there’s another way, such as taking pride in your own culture, myths, heroes, and people, not because they are the best, but simply because they are yours and belong to you. There’s no need to belittle other nations or hold them in a comparison with your country being the universal standard.