I am going to celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Tomorrow.
I am going to do it in my own way. My way will probably not be the way that most choose to do so.
I am going to teach my grandsons the two highly "Layered" meanings of what he stood for and what he was able to do in two ways.
First, we are going to visit several war shrines in the valley and learn about "freedom". What it costs. This is "layer number one".
Then we are going to the Civil Rights ralley at the state capital, to learn about Layer two. "Rights".
Layer one is the level of civilization that subbordinates a military force to the will of the people. This military is "able and willing" to fight and die so that we are free from slavery and supression by those who oppose freedom, and at the same time NOT willing to become a force for a dictatorial government that they serve for favor. This is a delicate and maybe even a miraculous balance. So layer one is "Freedom". Freedom is only bought by blood. It is the nature of our beast. We are a violent species. We are quite willing to kill in order to obtain slaves. Only force can prevent this. It is not arguable. It is proven time and again by Fact.
The second layer, "Rights" -- is a new kid on the block. "Rights" are the inherited ability given by "freedom" to assert certain arrogances. These are that "all men are created equal". Why is this an arrogance? Because it is so patently false. Yet made true by Level one.
All men are born. Not equal. That is an arrogance that we dream for. And in time, we may gain it. This is where Dr. King is so important. He showed the way to use level one to it's best benefit. To choose persistence over violence. To use emotion over cowardice. To use argument over sycophancy. To use diplomacy over force. To dictate no terms of surrender, but only plans of victory.
My hope is that those who see not the purchase of freedom by all the brave souls willing to fight and die for freedom, will finally come to see that being "anti-war" is wrong. At least for the seeable future. War can buy us time to grow. To progress. To not be held as slaves.
There will come a time when Level one will no longer be the most important source of our humanity and our progress. When will that be?
In keeping of my advice to young kids, I offer a testable theory. "Rights" will surpass "freedom" when the following occurs:
1 - There is basic equality of wealth amongst all people.
2 - Disease is conquored equally amongst all peoples.
3 - Education is based on Science and fact amongst all peoples, and superstition dies the death it deserves.
4 - Restrictions of growth are removed. As long as our civilization feels threatened by "children", the tendency will always be to "kill the children of the enemy." This is manifest by our current silly squabble over "abortion". It is really about preserving all for "our" kids by killing the enemy. We use grand notions of "personal liberty" to hide this genecidal war, but it is what it is. Here is another observable example that i will list in favor of my assertion. The same people who push for the "womans absolute rights" are quite willing, and are the most adament, when it comes to subborning that same womans rights when it comes to supporting redistribution of wealth. Personal freedoms are not seen nearly as important when the death of an enemy child is not involved.
5 - When there are no rogue nations or religions that refuse to set in conference to discuss and settle arguments.
There are many more qualifications. I'll (hopefully) leave these to the reader to think about and reason out for themselves.
I don't want to argue about this subject. It just seems too obvious to me to want to argue with anyone who can't see it. So if you disagree, just please give examples and testable ideas in opposition.
Thanks,
Mike
Originally posted by StarValleyWyOften you are insightful; but you are not correct in every instance.
The second layer, "Rights" -- is a new kid on the block. "Rights" are the inherited ability given by "freedom" to assert certain arrogances. These are that "all men are created equal". Why is this an arrogance? Because it is so patently false. Yet made true by Level one.
All men are born. Not equal. That is an arrogance that we dream for. And ...[text shortened]... ncy. To use diplomacy over force. To dictate no terms of surrender, but only plans of victory.
Your observations regarding King are quixotic, but interesting.
Your assertion that "rights" is the "new kid" reveals your ignorance of British, American, and French history, and that's just the beginning.
For starters, try looking at the Magna Charta, the Declaration of Independence, "Common Sense" and The Rights of Man by Tom Paine, and the cry of the people who stormed the Bastille in 1789.
You enjoy bringing up the price paid in blood for American "freedom", but you frequently distort the nature of that freedom. Turn off FOX and read some history.
Originally posted by WulebgrYou are short sighted. I am looking at two thousand years as the minimum test.
Often you are insightful; but you are not correct in every instance.
Your observations regarding King are quixotic, but interesting.
Your assertion that "rights" is the "new kid" reveals your ignorance of British, American, and Fr ...[text shortened]... rt the nature of that freedom. Turn off FOX and read some history.
It was then that the first military was subordinated to civilian rule.
Not to belabor the obvious, but you just made a wide assertion of fact without giving a single example or explanation of why I am wrong. You just tell me that I ride a charger and you say that I am interesting.
Again. What did the Magna Carta do? It took advantage of those who fought in battle to obtain it's right of trial. Didn't it? Or could it have been declaired outside of the battles that obtained it?
Turn on your mind. A single idea that is not drivel you learned in school would be good. Good luck.
It's that "values" thing. If lefties ever need to know about why they are through as a political power, let them study Woolburger.
What possible reason can he have for opposing my original post?
I'll tell you. His only purpose is to deny that "freedom" comes from the blood of the brave, and that it must therefore be an inherent right. He is a prince. Who owes nothing to history or reality. A prince born to be free. A prince born with all his rights "guaranteed" by magic.
Values. Failure to acknowledge debts. Trying to steal from others. Values.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWhat about Gandhi ?
Layer one is the level of civilization that subbordinates a military force to the will of the people. This military is "able and willing" to fight and die so that we are free from slavery and supression by those who oppose freedom, and at the same time NOT willing to become a force for a dictatorial government that they serve for favor. This is a ...[text shortened]... slaves. Only force can prevent this. It is not arguable. It is proven time and again by Fact.
Originally posted by Jay PeateaLevel two.
What about Gandhi ?
He was pushing for "rights" in a world that was struggling to obtain freedoms, so that he, and all of us could be in favor of rights.
There can be no rights without freedom to obtain them. This is the most basic of all knowledge. A slave is not free. Once a slave obtains freedom, he can push for "rights".
No 'freedom' has ever been given. It is earned in struggle and war.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyBut didn't he use a non-violent protest to gain his freedom?
Level two.
He was pushing for "rights" in a world that was struggling to obtain freedoms, so that he, and all of us could be in favor of rights.
There can be no rights without freedom to obtain them. This is the most basic of all knowledge. A slave is not free. Once a slave obtains freedom, he can push for "rights".
No 'freedom' has ever been given. It is earned in struggle and war.
Originally posted by WulebgrNobody -- and I repeat -- nobody has said that we must remain animals. Again, your wild assertions without a statement of proof. You are really a child that way.
There can be no freedom when you insist that we must remain animals.
That freedom has been purchased through the shedding of blood is beyond dispute. Claiming it must always be so denies the example of Martin Luther King, Jr., his models, and his followers.
Who said that it must always be so? Quite the opposite. I stated five conditions that are testable as to when "rights" can be taken as a matter of course.
Did I demean Dr. King? Instead, did I not state my reasons as to why he is so important? Please try to grow up a bit. At least read the posts before jumping into your angry chimp routine.
Originally posted by Jay PeateaThere were several "struggles" in which he participated. Some he lost. Some he abandoned. But in no case could he have even thought of acting had he been a slave.
But didn't he use a non-violent protest to gain his freedom?
It's that simple really.
I repeat. While a man is a slave, he has no hope of obtaining "rights". Only fighting can free the slave. No slave has ever won out through the sole use of reason.
I'm not trying to be offensive here. I just want people to recognize the contribution of all those who have died fighting "slave masters" like Stalin. And Mao. And ghingis khan. And Hitler. And as long as this is about Dr. King, lets not leave Jeff Davis and his buddies off of that list. But if any doubt that they were slave masters, then how can I argue with them? They are obviously not interested in facts.
Unquestionably the language used by one committed to reasoned argument:
Originally posted by StarValleyWy
You are really a child that way.
Please try to grow up a bit. At least read the posts before jumping into your angry chimp routine.
I found your original statement regarding how you plan to celebrate tomorrow interesting and stimulating. I pointed out that I sense you are planning to distort history a bit. Your reply that you are looking back 2000 years was reasoned, and clarified part of that with which I took issue.
Your tirade, on the other hand, demonstrates once again the futility of seeking reasoned argument with you, despite my occasional edification from sparks of your wit and insight.
Originally posted by WulebgrYou are just proving my point. You didn't say "How" I was going to distort history. Hell. You don't even bother to say what the supposed "distortion" is.
Again, you just make a "screaming chimp" accusation without even telling me HOW OR WHAT the subject of your last post, ie, the "DISTORTION" -- IS. Think about that. What is the distortion that I am planning to impose? You have made the accusation. Now back it up with reason. If you can.
SVW stated, "Freedom is only bought by blood. It is the nature of our beast. We are a violent species. We are quite willing to kill in order to obtain slaves. Only force can prevent this. It is not arguable."
Note the words: "only," "nature ... beast," the present tense "are," and the refusal "not arguable" of the chimp's comment:
Originally posted by Wulebgr
There can be no freedom when you insist that we must remain animals.
That freedom has been purchased through the shedding of blood is beyond dispute. Claiming it must always be so denies the example of Martin Luther King, Jr., his models, and his followers.
Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Te Whiti o Rongomai III, Cesar Chavez, and many others have shown another way to "fight" a revolution. Tomorrow we celebrate that legacy in the United States, but at least one American will tell his grandchildren that the words in the Declaration of Independence "[are] so patently false." He may qualify this assertion with an interesting dissertation, but I fear the legacy of King's achievements will be skewed as a result.
Originally posted by Wulebgr[/i]You still missed the entire point of this thread. Think. "Layers".
SVW stated, "Freedom is only bought by blood. It is the nature of our beast. We are a violent species. We are quite willing to kill in order to obtain slaves. Only force can prevent this. It is not arguable."
Note the words: "only," ...[text shortened]... ear the legacy of King's achievements will be skewed as a result.
What layers?
First layer is to win away from slavery.
Second layer is to fight for "rights", now that OTHERS HAVE DIED TO FREE ME.
You are probably not capable of understanding two points at once, but I'll try one more time.
Your example of the Magna Carta proved my point exactly.
Layer #1 --- "How many people died in how many battles?" to enable people to move to
Layer #2 --- "We are free now. Let us fight for our rights. I Know! Let's write the Magna Carta!!!"
Dr. King would have been of no force before 1945. Do you know why?
Because the world, specifically the US had to fight the tyranny of slavery and enough people had to witness Auschwitz.
This killing allowed the world to move another step up the ladder of reason. It allowed people like Dr. King to utilize perfectly the "second layer". Layers. Try to reason it through.
If you pick out one of the ten "Ideas" in my original post here in this thread and rebut it, I will think more of you.
For what it's worth. Layers. One and Two.
These are just my ideas anyway. If they are wrong, there is nothing hurt in the world. I don't have any great investment in having people agree or disagree. I have been wrong as many times in this life as I have been right. So?
Ideas SEEM like a good idea in a "Debates" forum. Argue them. Not against me.