I guess my misspelling of his first name feeds right in to your opinion of those at the rally as a bunch of dumb yokels, as evidenced by your sneaky little link of a "superb video", as seen on The Huffington Post, correct?
Take one young wet-behind-the-ears "reporter" with a microphone still with a buzz from the hopeandchange-aid, some selective editing, and voila, there you have it, irrefutable evidence of the racist idiocy of the modern conservative.
The mocking of the good citizens at the rally and of the resurgent conservative movement (tea partiers if you will) by the left is revolting and desperate.
I can only imagine the horrors of an unedited video of a reporter questioning those at Al Sharpton's rally. Would that be an accurate portrayal of your views, Tom? That kid didn't stick his microphone in my face, but I can assure you that if he did that clip would've hit the editing room floor faster than Chris Matthews at a frat party.
Actually, Tom, perhaps you'd like to specifically enlighten us on your views of the wonders of modern liberalism. I won't hold my breath. I've yet to see a reasoned intellectual argument for progressivism/statism from those leading the movement, so why would I expect one from you.
No, wait, as a matter of fact, no such argument exists in America. If liberalism works, Tom and all you other leftists on this board, then why isn't it working? As the journalist David Warren recently stated, "Thanks to democracy, and the power of "the people," under the inspiration of demagogues, to appropriate each other's wealth, there seems no chance of a smooth disposition." Progressivism/statism only leads to misery, as is so apparent today and has been throughout history, to those willing to open their eyes and ears.
Conservatism is the only antidote to this soft tyranny, as coined by Tocqueville, that we are currently experiencing.
I never used to understand all of you liberal drones, until I read a quote from Eric Hoffer, who stated brilliantly that "those who see their lives as spoiled and wasted crave equality and fraternity more than they do freedom. If they clamor for freedom, it is but freedom to establish quality and uniformity. The passion for equality is partly a passion for anonymity: to be one thread of the many which make up a tunic; one thread not distinguishable from the others. No one can then point us out, measure us against others and expose our inferiority."
jasonp1 wrote:
Karl Marx was included because of the Millions of people killed in the name of his ideology. Did he pull the trigger himself? No, I will give you that but in his own words:
"The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions of life must give way… They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust"
- Karl Marx ( Marx People’s Paper, April 16, 1856, Journal of the History of Idea, 1981 )
If onefollows this ideology, then mass murder is justified.
Your 'quotation' of Marx is false, misleading and taken entirely out of context.
To begin with, it's not a single quote at all! The first part of the quote comes from Marx, the second from Engels, so I will deal with them separately.
Marx does indeed say that "The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions of life must give way." But what is he talking about here? Looking at the source, an 1853 letter entitled "Forced Emigration" written in the New York Tribune, it is quite obvious Marx is referring to the CAPITALIST 'revolution' that was taking place in Europe.
"Society is undergoing a silent revolution, which must be submitted to, and which takes no more notice of the human existences it breaks down than an earthquake regards the houses it subverts. The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way. But can there be anything more puerile, more short-sighted, than the views of those Economists who believe in all earnest that this woeful transitory state means nothing but adapting society to the acquisitive propensities of capitalists, both landlords and money-lords? In Great Britain the working of that process is most transparent. The application of modern science to production clears the land of its inhabitants, but it concentrates people in manufacturing towns."...Show more →
The second quote, which you misattribute to Marx, is actually from Engels. In a 1849 article entitled "The Magyar Struggle," published in Marx's Neue Rheinische Zeitung he wrote: All the earlier history of Austria up to the present day is proof of this and 1848 confirmed it. Among all the large and small nations of Austria, only three standard-bearers of progress took an active part in history, and still retain their vitality — the Germans, Poles and Magyars. Hence they are now revolutionary. All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm. For that reason they are now counter-revolutionary.
What should first strike you is that your use of the word "holocaust" in your original quotation is cheap and cynical. It's also false. Secondly, again, the revolution being referred to is the Capitalist revolution taking place during that time. The small nationalities he refers to are those of what would eventually be called the Austro-Hungarian empire, and in the article he analyzes what would become of them as a result of this new Capitalist empire.