Replies

"The real meaning of the leftist refrain about wanting to "change the world" largely consists in doing away with the many individuals actualizing themselves through materialization of their different visions. "

You have given me food for thought. I've been recently re-calibrating my entire approach to our my 'stuff' serves as a faith interface to anyone who walks in my front doot. For example, the wall hangings. Some of them, acquired years ago, are like 'trophies'. But, they're not so useful for my purposes these days.

Our tax system, something that very, very badly used to upset me (now, I'm merely able to calmly grit my teeth), is in essence what these leftists most hope to use to maximize their 'materialization'. No wonder it feels like a spiritual attack.

I am mystified that the implosion of the USSR has not dissuaded their efforts an iota. How is it that data point, along with the collapse of the Eastern bloc is so easily ignored do you think?

Ah, maybe you don't need to answer. I think I know. It's a question of the consequences of losing an identity. Most people, unlike Christ (surprise, I can relate), can't bear a cross, for they are bound to the idea of how much they 'own' themselves.

A leftist can't bear NOT evangelizing via this communal property hijacking, b/c to quit would mean to lose their rewards from their 'god'. Given they can't see a spiritual alternative source of nourishment, they default to theft mode and call it 'charity'. There's a word for that, though inadequate. Pitiful.

I am mystified that the implosion of the USSR has not dissuaded their efforts an iota. How is it that data point, along with the collapse of the Eastern bloc is so easily ignored do you think?

I think that GHWB let them off the hook. With the folly of the tax increase, not least--but with his priority on stability where freedom is the necessity.
It started at the Republican National Convention of 1988 when, after a speaker said that Republicans had won the Cold War, Mark Shields types challenged that claim by pointing out that Truman had started containment and that Democrats as well as Republicans had fought in Vietnam.
And no Republican, not Bill Bennett nor anyone else, had the wit to reply that no credit accrued to anyone who had ever used "Right Wing Cold Warrior" as a one-word term of abuse. And that of course leaves out the entire post-1972 leadership of the Democratic Party. But of course given that "objective" journalism is the pilot fish of liberalism, no other result than a muddying of responsibility was ultimately possible.
It would seem that If Kerry is indeed the Democrat nominee, we will have to refight the battle over the responsibilty for Vietnam--and surely that battle starts with a fight over the credit for Cold War victory. The Cold War victory the invalidates the Democrats' condemnation of "right wing Cold Warriors"--and that condemnation followed directly from John (expletive deleted) Kerry's critique of the Vietnam-era military.