We’re Not Losing the Culture Wars Anymore

..
..
It is quite obvious to me that if one wants to find out about abuses of power....the first place to look is to those with power; in today's society that would be the internatinal corporations, international banks, international weapons and bio-weapons groups, etc.

The left/right dichotomy.....you tell me where that fits into anything real, anything that affects REAL power.

someone....(i believe it was doc of the bay) wrote:

"....They are TERRIFIED that a Majority of us are now "waking up."

SADLY for the LEFT, America is awaking from it's long, peaceful slumber, & the SHOCK of 9/11 has stirred our collective moral outrage.

The Amoral varmits who have murdered our fellow citizens (& those under our Protection) are, sadly, unable to comprehend how deeply culturally rooted our concepts of "fairness & civilized behavior" are.

If one "tap's into" the smoldering rage of our Nation's Citizens, you see VERY LITTLE mercy for the subhumans who associate themselves with 9/11.

Most Americans would approve that ANY associates of those who perpretrated 9/11 be questioned "down to the Molecular level,"--& Discarded--at the molecular level.

After 9/11, most Americans REQUIRE that "Islam" PROVE it did not--& Would not condone such an atrocity.
~~~~
~~~~
First, he asserts his "civilization".......then goes out of his way to show that he is beyond "civilizing!"
~~~
~~~
It would be my contention that this media-induced posting is so wrought with contradictions........
.....as well as with assumptions as to facts......

that it could best be described as a "programed response"

THE MOST POWERFUL PEOPLE GET TO HAVE A FRIGHTENED, SUBSERVIENT POPULATION BEING "DEFENDED" FROM A WEAK AND TOTALLY HELPLESS GROUP, WHOSE POWER IS TOTALLY IMAGINARY.

We are reduced to "spectators" of the history being unfolded, while being hypnotized into thinking our "opinionating" has any relevance.

Hence, the indulgence into thinking FREE REPUBLIC has any real power.......forgetting that John Ashcroft obviously included FREE REPUBLIC in the "conspiracy web sites" he was complaining about inre McVeigh........

of course, we seem to have "conviently" forgotten all about McVeigh and our support of him.

The "cultural WAR" we find so "entertaining and spectacular"
is a war between Americans......

....we are so simply being DIVIDED.......and CONQUERED.

BY WHOM?.......

By those with the power to do so. There is only ONE MEDIA....it is neither liberal nor conservative by serves the interests of those few who own it.

Thw have their own agenda, which is, as you have guessed, to rule the world and turn it into a colonial plantation.

They are succeding. Why? Because most of us are being distracted and looking for elsewhere for "enemies" than at the most powerful entities.

There is a real Power being abused.

One may, if one wants, call this entity ....the "left".
But one should more carefully define who one is actually talking about.

By how we generalize....it is totally impossibe to tell.

You cannot "win back" the Country by fighting a false enemy presented to you as a "straw Man"....

.....as they simple create this appearance of being divided and ask us to "join in".....not in the New Power, that we shall never see.......but as cheerleaders and songleaders

I ask you to reread the posting i copied at the beginning...

What will we gain be thinking that it is even close to being a description of reality.

Madness,,,,,,pure Madness

If we need an "external" enemy to unite us........we are truly a "false" people......with a false unity

I'm confused. Are you saying we should all go over to Starbucks and break out all the windows? Or are you saying we should we all join together in a rousing chorus of "We are the World?" Are you an anarchist or a peace-nik?

You say that we aren't focused. That we don't know who the enemy is. That we are being divided and conquered. Then you post this rambling nonsense about international corporations, international banks, the mysterious "Those with the power" and the "One Media." Who the hell are you taking about? AOL? Wal-Mart? McDonalds?

You are going to have a hard time convincing me that the anger I felt while watching the WTC collapse was a programmed response, that it was "media induced," and that the terrorists who caused it were "a weak and totally helpless group, whose power is totally imaginary" --- that it was all a plot by the "Most Powerful People" to create a frightened, subservient population so they can "rule the world and turn it into a colonial plantation."

To steal a line from Jack Nicholson... "Go sell crazy somewhere else. We're all full up here."

...
...Steel Eye....

I put in my post something from another poster:

"........They are TERRIFIED that a Majority of us are now "waking up."

SADLY for the LEFT, America is awaking from it's long, peaceful slumber, & the SHOCK of 9/11 has stirred our collective moral outrage.

The Amoral varmits who have murdered our fellow citizens (& those under our Protection) are, sadly, unable to comprehend how deeply culturally rooted our concepts of "fairness & civilized behavior" are.

If one "tap's into" the smoldering rage of our Nation's Citizens, you see VERY LITTLE mercy for the subhumans who associate themselves with 9/11.

Most Americans would approve that ANY associates of those who perpretrated 9/11 be questioned "down to the Molecular level,"--& Discarded--at the molecular level.

After 9/11, most Americans REQUIRE that "Islam" PROVE it did not--& Would not condone such an atrocity.....
~~~
~~~
This is pure Madness.
I'll get back to this later.
~~~
~~~
you say:

"....That we are being divided and conquered. Then you post this RAMBLING NONSENSE about international corporations, international banks, the mysterious "Those with the power" and the "One Media." Who the hell are you taking about?...."
~~
~~
That there is a small percentage of people who control most of the wealth, and hence the power in the world is quite obvious......it has been acknowledge by all thinking people......that these people control most of the media, and, as the proposed new regulations allowing for more concentration of media ownership show, are on the brink of even more control, has been the subject of so much literature that all I can honestly and sincerely say is....."I can only leave it to you to study this for yourself."
~~~
~~~
Yes, 911 was something , wasn't it.

BUT WHAT WAS IT?

I was highly suspicious of the govt. account from the start.
That the "official response".......one of bringing forth anger devoid of grief...seemed the start of a massive "STORY" that has been rolling on since.

The response during the first few days was entirely inappropriate. None of the questions of concerned citizens was ever OFFICIALLY addressed.

Look back to the post I listed before.

And he MUST tie it back to the Left. WHY?

I am not going to list my concerns inre 911. There are hundreds of web sites that tell the tale, and ask the appropriate and still un-answered questions.

Until ALL the questions are answered, the WHOLE STORY is "imaginary"

But , it is a "nice" illusion if you are so inclined as the poster above to morbid and perverse thinking!

The real import of your post is your claim that you see no
" most Powerful People" ....

THEN WHO IS BEING CALLED..."THE LEFT?"

....capable of controlling the Media.......

THEN WHAT IS THE "LIBERAL MEDIA?"
~~~
~~~
You conclude with......

"....To steal a line from Jack Nicholson... "Go sell crazy somewhere else. We're all full up here."

YES , BUT FULL UP WITH CRAZY!!!

Really, if you call American "a Christian nation"....
then you acknowledge rthat the only real power is Love.

We are being divided into "liberal"/"conservative" as if we were two different species ......TOTAL NONSENSE!!

If you agree with the above post, with its total sexual pervsity and madness......well, keep watching COPS on t.v. and the porno, and the sports, and the info-entertainment, and the sitcoms, and keeep your "place" and know what you are to think......

I am suggesting that you think morefor yourself.....with no "great commmunicators" thinking and talking for you!

Thank you for you input.
I will work on expressing my own feelings more clearly

"They're uncomfortable, expensive to own and operate, and don't necessarily even look good."

That's not the point. They're symbolic of one's willingness to put forth effort. If there was no effort or sacrifice involved, it would be meaningless.

"Count me in as a South Park Republican as well. One can be pro-life in jeans, a sweater, and hiking boots."

In showing up like that, you're saying that your comfort is more important than the human custom of special dress for special occasions, that you're not willing to put forth even that much effort or sacrifice even that much. You're also saying that you don't mind peeing on the parade of those who did put forth the effort to dress up for a special occasion.

Jeans are the flag of the "me generation." Jeans say, "Nothing is important enough that I should have to dress up." I haven't owned a pair in over 20 years, and I hope I am able to avoid them to my dying day.

"In showing up like that, you're saying that your comfort is more important than the human custom of special dress for special occasions, that you're not willing to put forth even that much effort or sacrifice even that much. You're also saying that you don't mind peeing on the parade of those who did put forth the effort to dress up for a special occasion.

Jeans are the flag of the "me generation." Jeans say, "Nothing is important enough that I should have to dress up." I haven't owned a pair in over 20 years, and I hope I am able to avoid them to my dying day."

I'm not so stupid as to believe that I'll never have to wear a suit; but when I do it's usually to satisfy some old curmudgeon who judges people based on their clothes rather than on their business/fundraising/networking abilities.

Sacrifice is giving up something to help someone else. That's fine when I have to go the extra mile to make sure my guys in my reserve unit are informed, etc; or the deal at work gets closed; or to help people who are less fortunate than I. Sacrifice is not about wearing uncomfortable and useless clothes just because some people thing wearing suits is actually important to their political ideology.

Finally, I'm in my mid-twenties. All of my friends and acquaintances who are my age have expressed their distaste for wearing suits. My company has a business casual policy. ALL of the twenty and thirty something employees take advantage of that policy while many of the 40,50,60 something workers wear suits every day because that it what they're accustomed to (or actually like) wearing.

I really wouldn't want to be in the suit manufacturing business.

"some old curmudgeon who judges people based on their clothes rather than on their business/fundraising/networking abilities."

If a person doesn't care enough to dress well, why should anyone think he cares enough to do a job well?

"Sacrifice is giving up something to help someone else."

You help someone else when you present yourself as someone they can count on. Aside from that, self-discipline is also a form of sacrifice.

"That's fine when I have to go the extra mile to make sure my guys in my reserve unit are informed"

Well, try showing up in BDUs when the uniform is Class A.

"Sacrifice is not about wearing uncomfortable and useless clothes just because some people thing wearing suits is actually important to their political ideology."

As I said, your attitude is that nothing is so important that you should have to dress up for it. Since you're a snipperwhapper, born after 1970, I understand that you have never seen a properly functioning society and were never taught the very real value of appearances.

However, dressing appropriately is an indispensible part of a well-functioning, harmonious, healthy society.

"All of my friends and acquaintances who are my age have expressed their distaste for wearing suits."

Kids today. Phaugh.

"My company has a business casual policy. ALL of the twenty and thirty something employees take advantage of that policy"

Just another sign of a culture on the skids.

Truly was it said that the only thing required to destroy a civilization is to fail to pass it on to one generation.

"while many of the 40,50,60 something workers wear suits every day because that it what they're accustomed to (or actually like) wearing."

Or it could be self respect. It could be that they're just not willing to be dragged down the slippery slope to barbarity.

"some people thing wearing suits is actually important to their political ideology."

You have it backwards. Wearing a suit tells people that principles and values are important to the wearer.

"If a person doesn't care enough to dress well..."

Dressing well and wearing a suit don't necessarily go hand in hand. I never dress like a slob, I just hate wearing suits.

Well, try showing up in BDUs when the uniform is Class A.

LOL! Of course not. And no, I don't wear jeans to fundraisers, et. al. But I did wear cords, a button down shirt and a leather coat to a fundraiser once and no one batted an eye. It's not the end of the world to not be wearing a "uniform" when no uniform is prescribed. (Now if an invitation says black tie, I wear black tie.)

"However, dressing appropriately is an indispensible part of a well-functioning, harmonious, healthy society. "

Why is a jacket and (bah!) a tie necessarily "appropriate".? Who makes it so? I've seen people in suits and ties who look like crap: cheap polyester suits, crappy looking ties, wrong color shirts, unshined shoes. I've seen these people at Republican functions. They look stupid. I actually had a guy accost me for not wearing a suit once. Except he had the ugliest looking suit on and his shoes looked like dog doo. How is wearing an ugly unkempt suit more appropriate than good looking, well cut "casual" clothes?

Kids today. Phaugh.

:D Old people. [/eye rolling]

It could be that they're just not willing to be dragged down the slippery slope to barbarity.

jeans = barbarity.....right. Saddam had nice suits. I believe he bought them on Savile Row. Clothes don't make the man.

"Dressing well and wearing a suit don't necessarily go hand in hand."

True, sometimes dressing well involves white gloves and swords for officers, or Mess Dress, or white tie and tails, or a morning coat and striped trousers; it never involves jeans and hiking boots.

"I just hate wearing suits."

I remember a time before young people were taught to hate wearing suits. Doing that was one of the left's lesser strategems in the culture war, you know. It was quite deliberate.

"But I did wear cords, a button down shirt and a leather coat to a fundraiser once"

Depending on the particular circumstances and garments involved, that might have been dressy enough. Or it could have been that everyone was too kind to want to make you uncomfortable. I have no way of knowing.

"It's not the end of the world to not be wearing a "uniform" when no uniform is prescribed."

Where two human beings are gathered together, a uniform is prescribed. It might be an unspoken reg with many options, but it's always there.

I was (I'm embarrassed to say) in the "hippie scene" in San Francisco in the sixties, and I can tell you that uniform regs were as strictly observed among the "freaks" as in the military.

"(Now if an invitation says black tie, I wear black tie.)"

Then what's the problem with wearing a suit when that level of formality is desired and expected?

"Why is a jacket and (bah!) a tie necessarily "appropriate".?"

Consensus arising from historical accident. Historical accident that it may be, it is still the reality.

"I've seen people in suits and ties who look like crap: cheap polyester suits, crappy looking ties, wrong color shirts, unshined shoes. I've seen these people at Republican functions. They look stupid."

Their sartorial elegance is not at issue. The salient point is that they showed willing.

Perhaps if they had more examples to look to in the people around them, they'd learn such basic principles as that "shoes must be shined," "a man's shirt can be any color, as long as it's white," and "a suit can be any color, as long as it's dark blue or gray." They might learn that the only acceptable material for a suit is high-quality wool, that a suit should have four actual functioning buttons on the cuff and not just three buttons sewed to the sleeve with no buttonholes. Etc., etc. But where are they supposed to learn that stuff? From people in jeans and hiking boots?

"How is wearing an ugly unkempt suit more appropriate than good looking, well cut "casual" clothes?"

Because even an ugly, unkempt suit is showing willing, while even the best "casual" clothes show that whatever you're doing wasn't important enough to you that you'd go to the trouble of dressing up.

":D Old people. [/eye rolling]"

Know how to tell if you're getting older? It comes to seem obvious that "older" and "wiser" go together.

"jeans = barbarity.....right."

No, abandonment of standards is a step toward barbarity.

There's a theory in criminology called, I think, the "broken window" theory. Heard of it? It holds that a failure to respond to minor breakdowns such as a single broken window leads to a growing disregard for social order and can put an area on the road to slumdom.

The same holds true for other areas of social interaction. Let the media get away with using the word "d*mn," and I can remember when people were arrested for that, and the next thing you know you're hearing "mf" and "cs" on every side.

"Clothes don't make the man."

From time immemorial, for millennia, all humanity knew that clothes do make the man. In fact, that was a universally accepted truism right up until the sixties.

At that time, those who wished to destroy Western Civilization and substitute a "worker's paradise" set out to deceive the young into thinking that this truth was false, because they knew it was one "broken window" that would facilitate greater transgressions against reason and morality.

For instance, it paved the way for the current campaign to legitimize cross-dressing. A small thing in itself, it is nonetheless one cobblestone in the road to barbarity.

"it never involves jeans and hiking boots."

Sometimes it does. One can dress well without dressing up.

I was (I'm embarrassed to say) in the "hippie scene" in San Francisco in the sixties, and I can tell you that uniform regs were as strictly observed among the "freaks" as in the military.

What clothing would the "anything goes" hippies get pissed at? (Besides, obviously, a suit). :)

"They might learn that the only acceptable material for a suit is high-quality wool, that a suit should have four actual functioning buttons on the cuff and not just three buttons sewed to the sleeve with no buttonholes. Etc., etc. But where are they supposed to learn that stuff? From people in jeans and hiking boots? "

If those people happened to have read "dress for success". In more than one business situation when I felt really compelled to wear a suit, I also felt really out of place because my "dress for success" suits (they are really nice), clashed with my partners' sartorial disasters. Suits with fully functional cuffs are quite expensive around me.

Because even an ugly, unkempt suit is showing willing, while even the best "casual" clothes show that whatever you're doing wasn't important enough to you that you'd go to the trouble of dressing up.

I totally disagree with you. I do wear suits from time-to-time. When, I do wear a suit, I wear one right. I just don't like wearing them. Period. It's my personal preference. I'd rather be comfortable then look good.

However, I do agree with you on one point. In my parents' and grandparents' time the middle classes tried to emulate the upper classes in standards of etiquette, dress, manners, etc. Now, it seems, the middle classes emulate the lower classes.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.