Below is my column in The Messenger on the passing of one of the greatest figures in human rights law, my former colleague Tom Buergenthal. Tom will be laid to rest this afternoon in Florida. This life was one of the most inspiring stories of human perseverance; an example of sheer will to overcome unspeakable horrors. His book, A Lucky Child, is a moving account of his struggle to live and overcome in a world torn apart by hate and violence. I wanted to share some of Tom’s story with you in memory of one of the most extraordinary figures in our generation.
Here is the column:
The world lost one of its inspiring figures on Monday. With the passing of Thomas Buergenthal, I lost a mentor, a colleague and a friend, and the world lost a towering figure of international law who helped to create the field of human rights law.
Buergenthal was a force of kindness and forgiveness in an age of rage. His life story is about mankind’s limitless capacity for cruelty and for redemption.
Years ago, my medical colleagues at George Washington University were performing cardiac surgery on an elderly law professor when his arm slipped off the table. As a doctor gently raised the arm back, he saw the tattoo “2930.” The medical team realized they were operating on a survivor of the Nazi concentration camps. I was told later that one doctor was overcome with the emotion of the moment.
The patient was Tom Buergenthal, and — even then — the doctors could not imagine the extraordinary path which brought him into their care. Indeed, he had survived repeated moments where his life was all but lost, only to survive and persevere.
As a child, Tom began a terrifying odyssey that started in the Jewish ghetto at Kielce, Poland. Born in Ľubochňa, Czechoslovakia, he was moved into despicable conditions in Poland as part of the Nazis’ “final solution.” Nearly every inhabitant of his ghetto was killed at Treblinka and other Nazi concentration camps. Some did not make it that far: They were forced on a merciless three-day march to the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. Tom, among them, was just 11 years old.
He survived the march only to find himself in another concentration camp as fellow Jews were sent for extermination.
Tom again survived, only to be sent to the infamous Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp. Upon his arrival, he came face-to-face with one of the most terrifying and hateful figures of history — Dr. Josef Rudolf Mengele, known as the “Angel of Death.” Mengele had a particular interest in using children for his lethal experiments; Tom was one of those chosen.
Mengele eventually amputated two of his toes. Tom once told me how, each night, he would sleep on a concrete floor with other children. Each had a paper attached to them that would designate them for “processing” in the extermination chambers. At night, Mengele would mark those children he wanted to remain. For a reason that Tom never understood, Mengele repeatedly marked him to survive, day by horrible day. In one tragic scene, Tom watched the Germans take a 6-year-old girl for execution as she asked, “Why must I be shot?”
But Tom survived again — one of the few child survivors of the infamous “Gypsy Camp.”
After the camp’s liberation, Tom reportedly was the last survivor to leave Auschwitz, which would prove to be a new threat: Since his family had been liquidated by the Nazis, Tom was sent to a Jewish orphanage for two years in Otwock, Poland. Tom told me that the Jewish underground was secretly taking the children to Palestine. However, as the last to leave Auschwitz and one of its youngest survivors, Tom remained a focus of reporters after the war. The Jewish underground did not want to risk the exposure of their network, so Tom was, again, one of the last to leave.
He found himself at a railroad station where a railway clerk looked at his papers and asked if he had a mother. Tom explained that he had no family left. The clerk, however, was perplexed by a name that seemed familiar; Tom assumed it was because of the news coverage he had received, but the clerk held him for an extra day. It turned out that the clerk had recalled a woman with a similar name who was looking for her boy.
It was Tom’s mother. She also had survived and had walked from town to town, looking for him. She was on the outskirts of the city when something pulled her back and, for the first time, she decided to return. When she walked into the station, she saw a little figure waiting to take the next train. It was her son, and the two embraced on the platform. They had survived.
What followed next was even less plausible. Tom would make it with his mother to the United States and ultimately studied law, with a J.D. at New York University Law School and his LL.M. and S.J.D. degrees in international law from Harvard Law School. In 1973, he co-authored (with the great Louis Sohn) the first casebook on human rights, titled, International Protection of Human Rights.
He would become a law professor and one of the most influential figures on human rights law in history, eventually serving as a member of the International Court of Justice at The Hague. He also would serve as a judge on the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (including as its president), a commissioner on the United Nations Truth Commission for El Salvador, and as a member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee.
As fate would have it, while serving on the World Court, neo-Nazis brought a case challenging punishment for their denial of the Holocaust; they sought to prove it was all a fabrication. In one of the most devastating recusal decisions in history, Tom removed himself from the case, since he felt it would be improper for him to judge the existence of the concentration camps as a survivor of one. The recusal was a riveting moment for the court, and his colleagues quickly dispensed with the frivolous claim.
When I joined the George Washington Law School in 1990, the greatest draw was to serve on the faculty with a man who was a legend in international law. We quickly became friends, and he became part of my personal and professional life. I consider the association to be one of the greatest honors of my life.
What I always found most amazing about Tom was the absence of any hate or anger despite the horrors he had faced. He never lost faith in humanity. His life was one of grace, one of transcendence. There was a calmness, even a tranquility, about Tom that I have never experienced in any other person. He made me want to be a better man. He still does.
After 89 years, Tom has now passed from this world. We desperately need his inspiration as we again turn on each other in violent, hateful acts. Europe again is being ravaged by war, as powerful leaders lay waste to the lives of millions. It is easy to look around today and lose hope. However, when those moments come for me, I think of an 11-year-old boy left alone in the very belly of the beast. I think of an embrace of a mother and her only child on a lonely train platform in Poland. I think of a judge on the World Court defining the human rights once denied to him and everyone he loved. I think of the number 2930.
I think of Tom Buergenthal.
Jonathan Turley, an attorney, constitutional law scholar and legal analyst, is the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School.
Anon says: Witness. The evil that inspired the nazis and the holocaust is alive and well.
Yes, it is, and it showed its ugly face very recently at a CUNY Law graduation speech . . . and in the BDS movement generally. The recent Texas mall shooter was a man of Hispanic ethnicity who had gone through various hate ideologies and ultimately found his home in White Supremacy (of all things), hating Jews more than anything else.
It’s a fair question to ask, why does this happen? Why the Jews? There is no satisfactory answer in the natural world; the explanation is supernatural, that is to say, in the spiritual world. It is a deep subject but it has to do with forces of wickedness in the spiritual world. The Bible says:
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Those “powers” of “spiritual wickedness in high places” are opposed to God and everything God values. That helps to answer the question: why the Jews? It also helps to explain why the evil that inspired the Nazis is alive and well. The Nazis died as human beings, but their motivating spirits live on in the unseen world.
Old Man From Kansas…..terrific comment.
Thanks Cindy, I hope you enjoy your weekend!
“It’s a fair question to ask, why does this happen? Why the Jews?”
Kansas, in his three-volume set on cultures of the world, Sowell provided a partial answer to the question. He dealt with many different peoples and found that financial success among immigrants frequently created prejudice within the native community that was not as financially well off.
He discussed the Chinese communities in Indonesia, the German ones on the Volga River, and many others. I wonder, are Americans more tolerant of success than most countries?
Meyer –
(1) I think Americans are more tolerant of success. In The Flaw, a documentary on the 2006-2008 housing crash, there was an interesting comment about people in other countries resenting the rich who live in big mansions, whereas in America people want to see photos of mansions others live in. So shows like Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous become popular.
(2) It is only a partial answer, as you suggest. Even when Jews have been living in-country for centuries the Jew-hatred almost always arises. Again, because it’s coming in large part from the spiritual world.
I agree with your assessment of Americans, but they are changing. We now have Americans and leftists. When in a pack, leftists dislike success outside of their group. That is why there is such intense hate against any successful minority individual who doesn’t follow their lead.
This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.
Hebrews 8:10-11 NIV
This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
Romans 2:16 NIV
Thank you for sharing that story with us. The fact that this man harbored no hate is in itself a miracle. You were certainly blessed to have him as a firnd.
Thanks for sharing. That’s an amazing story. God bless and Godspeed Tom Buergenthal.
Amazing story. I don’t doubt the experiments, the camps and the ghettos. But even the European governments said the Infamous 6M number was pulled out od nowhere. This young boy went thru Hell but likely misremembers or embellishes as all children will do, esp. If all thru his life Jews pushes the Holocaust narrative exactly as prosxribed by the laegely Jewish media that created it. Even if a certain or even large part is true about the mysterious “Final Solution” we must not let Jewish people who are the largest self professed Atheist ethnicity in the world and holding the reigns of power over us politically and financially escape their judgment for genocide and worse with the blank check charges of Anti Semitism.
Rube
And one must accept the fact that Atheism, which leads to behavior abhorrent to God and his people, including Jews, helped turn a once beautiful Berlin into a modern day Sodom in early 20th century, rightfully causes backlashes from discrimination against Jews that said nothing to fight it in their own communities to War.
Lionel, You are an idiot and a racist.
Brilliant. That means I just won the argumemt.
No Lionel, it means exactly what Weisenthal said, You are an idiot and a racist.
You are a fool and mind numbed robot. Its an undeniable and very sad fact that Jews are exacting a kind of revenge on Christians and the Nation and the God they hate yet don’t believe in going on that has made them very rich and very powerful. Judgment is on the way. And recall they are only 2% of population yet control almost entire media, financial systems and govts behind the scenes.
How we deal with them as a group and not be Hitlerized or charged with “Discrimination” by fools like you and others here is nearly impossible, and they know it, so they do it all with impunity. And in the words of Vonnegaut, so it goes. But do I love hitting your Saferoom buttons.
PS. Is everyone you disagree with a Racist, Homophobe, Bigot or all 3?
You are a hateful piece of sh!te and an ignorant racist with such a severe intellectual disability that it is hard to get down low enough to your level and deal with you.
Look at the Pulitzers for physics and the sciences. Jews are proportionately greater than their numbers. They value education while you throw pencils and put gum in a girl’s hair. But do Jews have control? An idiot like you thinks so. Is Biden Jewish? Trump? Obama? Did we ever have a Jewish President? No, but you think Jews control everything.
You think you are the center of the universe, but you are little more than dog sh!te on the heel of a shoe. If you educate yourself, maybe you will be able to discover who and what you are. Then you can try to grow into a man.
You are correct sir and I’m happy to see it
Just to add a bit of context here, I would recommend another book: Into That Darkness by Gitta Sereny. This book consists of extensive interviews with Franz Stangl, the commandant of Treblinka.
Witness. The evil that inspired the nazis and the holocaust is alive and well.
Your ignorance is the problem we all have to deal with. Census numbers showed the 6million+ decline in the Jewish population of Europe. Start looking at the numbers that aren’t controversial.
Thanks for admitting I am right.
Where you are concerned, Lionel, the only thing I admit to is that you are stupid.
Thank you for sharing this inspiring story.
The accuracy of the final number is not important. There are people who liberated the camps. They SAW it first-hand. My father was among the soldiers that liberated Dachau. You would have had a very hard time convincing him that the Holocaust was exaggerated.
Amazing story! Thank you for such a moving tribute. His guardian angel was busy 24/7 keeping him from death so he could fulfill what God put him on the earth to do. I don’t usually comment on articles, but this one is really special. Thank you, again.
I agree, what a beautiful and touching memorial for a man who was a pilar of strength. It is a terrible loss. Thank you Jonathan Turley for your kind words. May God bless you and smile on the soul of Tom the miraculous Child 3930.
Hogan’s Heros was a great show.
It came out before they invented the Holocaust as an international extortion racket
You’re a sick pup.
Just to be abundantly clear, your contention is the Holocaust was invented and never happened. Is that correct?
Don’t expect an answer. Dave is a coward. He acts brave by making claims of hate that he cannot defend.
And you people, supporting modern day genocidal madness by the likes of Klaus Schwab and Walensky and never ending attacks on Christians by Merrick Garland can only face these facts with childish charges of “Racism” and, while we are at it, Homophobia, Islamophobia, Homophobia and Transphobia.
That we people have an intense dislike for Schwab, Walensky and Garland is a known fact but that doesn’t change the fact you are an idiot and a racist.
Look what happened to Bob Crane.
My father, a Captain in the US Army was one of the first into Germany and witnessed the concentration camps firsthand. Gen. Eisenhower made them wait for three days before trying to identify the thousand of bodies piled in long rows next to deep trenches ready to be bulldozed into the grave by the Nazis. The General wanted news reporters from all over the world to see with their own eyes the terrible slaughter because he said if not within 50 years people would forget and deny it ever happened. My dad never went anywhere with out his camera and took dozens of photos of the bodies of men, women and children murdered by the Germans. He showed the photos to me and my brothers to ensure we knew what the total depravity of men could do. Men without conscious and God. Believe what you want, but my father never forgot the horror of what he saw.
I thank your father as a representative of all those who served in that war. One of those soldiers, like your father, arrived while my father-in-law was in a coma. Had they delayed he would’ve died, and my wife would never have existed.
Sick people like dave above deny the holocaust, but the numbers killed are real and likely a bit lower than the actual number. People like dave are uneducated and cowards. He can continue to live in the sewer system, which is more than he deserves.
My father, a 2nd Lt., served in WWII. His 42nd “Rainbow” Division arrived at Dachau on April 29th, 1945 where they liberated the thousand or so Jewish survivors that the Nazis had congregated there from several other concentration camps in order to try to incinerate them all before the Americans could arrive. The Nazis were not successful in that effort. He never talked of it. But when we went through his trunk of old Army gear, we found the photos he took of the hundreds and hundreds of stacked bodies of those starved and brutally executed Jews at the hands of the Nazis.
You sir, are entitled to your own opinions. As warped and heinous as they may be and are. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
He and not quite a colleague, separated by a little over 10 years in age, went almost together….:
https://www.hpmcgarry.ca/memorials/moshe-kraus/5201243
Enjoy Hell. It’s forever.
Hey everyone, Remember this story as Herr Comey, or Wray, or Garland tells you there will be hot showers and some soup for you as you arrive at the FEMA camps. It won’t just be the Jews this time around. FJB
“Things that never happened” for $800, Alex.
Thank you, Jonathon, for writing this and sharing your friends story.
Yeah. His fictional story.🤦🏻♂️
Thank you for writing this great article. I just downloaded the book on audible! I can’t wait to listen to it thank you for this great article.
Hi, I’m his granddaughter and a former student of yours. Thank you for the beautiful tribute, I just wanted to make one significant clarification. His number is B2930.
Laura–We’re sorry for your loss.
Cindy, I think the Germans started tattooing on the skin when the number of inmates rapidly grew. They wouldn’t tattoo those they intended to kill in the immediate future. If I remember correctly, they intended the numbering system to start with an A up to 20,000 and then change to B and go to the end of the alphabet. Somewhere, they screwed up the numbering system because my mother-in-law’s number was 40,000+
That would amount to about half-million Jewish souls in one camp, and only those Jews to be kept alive for a while.
Just thinking about it is horrifying, especially knowing it will likely happen again.
My condolences to Laura and the rest of her family.
S. Meyer…..No matter how much I think I know, reading your posts, especially about the history of the Holocaust, I always learn so much from you, and feel enlightened.
Thank you for sharing these stories about your inlaws, even though I know it’s painful. I relayed your comments to our grandsons, last night and today. Even though, at ages 15 and 12 they’ve read about the Holocaust, it means alot to have a name or story to make it real. They are very moved, as we all are, by your comments and Prof. Turley’s post. Thank you, S. Meyer!
Thank you, Cindy. I thought you might be interested in the following. It shows why I am so concerned and pessimistic about the future. Hate is growing, and it is tolerated. The left has even joined in. People like Irving Lazar who is likely Jewish don’t know what is happening. We should never forget that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem had a pact with Hitler supporting Hitler’s desire to kill all the Jews.
“ZOA Demands Action on SJP’s Fatima Mohammed’s Murder-Inciting, Antisemitic, Anti-American CUNY Law Commencement Speech”
—
Fatima Mohammed is a leader of antisemitic hate groups SJP (Students for Justice in Palestine) and WOL (Within Our Lifetime).
***WOL calls for “globalizing the Intifada” – meaning spreading the terror wars to murder Jews throughout the world.
—
https://zoa.org/2023/06/10447775-zoa-demands-action-on-sjps-fatima-mohammeds-murder-inciting-antisemitic-anti-american-cuny-law-commencement-speech/
S.Meyer……Thank you for posting this! This is UNBELIEVABLE! And so, so scary! I am just speechless. THis IS how the Holocaust began. I’m always telling my boys the life lesson about how a civilized nation of people who are educated, hardworking, inventive, church-going, can wind up exterminating an entire group of its citizens! I tell them that evil like that starts unnoticed,…..then “incrementally”, year by year, evil chips away at goodness and right. The ideas and practices that were once condemned, become commonplace and acceptable. And with a press, or media, controlled by propagandists, the evil is soon unstoppable. We are on that trajectory now!!!
S. Meyer—–I meant to add to my last comment..God Bless Morton Klein and his group!
Cindy, that you mention knowledge of Morton Klein demonstrates many good things. Despite his tic, he is a great speaker and accurate on all fronts. Do you get the ZOA emails? If not, you can get emails by subscribing at https://zoa.org. It is one of the few sites that accurately supports Israel.
S. Meyer—Thank you for the link! I just joined the mailing list and made a donation. It feels good to be informed and connected.
Your welcome. I donate as well for it is one of the best groups in the country. He is a great speaker for any intelligent group that is interested in the Middle East and anti-Semitism. Check the website to see if he is speaking anywhere near you.
S. Meyer……….I will! Thank you so much.
Laura, thank you for making your presence known. I have a copy of the ebook, and it confirms what you stated. Darren/Professor Turley, take note:
“Then I saw that each inmate at the table was holding something that looked like a pen with a thin needle at the end, and that they were writing something on the outstretched arms after dunking the pens into an ink pot: we were being tattooed. When my turn came, I was afraid that it would hurt, but it went so fast that I could hardly feel it. Now I had a new name: B-2930, and it was the only “name” that mattered here. The number, now somewhat faded, is still there on my left arm. It remains a part of me and serves as a reminder, not so much of my past, but of the obligation I deem incumbent on me, as a witness and survivor of Auschwitz, to fight the ideologies of hate and of racial and religious superiority that have for centuries caused so much suffering to mankind.”
A Lucky Child: A Memoir of Surviving Auschwitz as a Young Boy, Thomas Buergenthal
Chapter 4, page 66
https://archive.org/details/luckychildmemoir0000buer/page/66/mode/2up?q=2930
Directly related, I hear this week the Nazi Dr Mengele’s Guinea Pig experiments on Humans, the data was given to Pfizer, allowed by the US govt, after WW2 & many other pieces are coming together detailing the works of Satan & his lil helpers.
****
See the Video of Dr. David Martin Exposing COVID as a Biological Warfare Crime
54,472 views
May 29, 2023
31
Share
Download
The Alex Jones Show
The Alex Jones Show
In a groundbreaking speech delivered at the International Covid Summit III held in the European Parliament in Brussels earlier this month, M•CAM asset management company founder and chairman David Martin shed light on the timeline of the origins, and intentions, behind Covid-19 and the mRNA vaccine.
Learn more here:
https://banned.video/watch?id=64752016b46c65e43f841aa2
****
Fake Science | “Humans Are Animals. The Bible Is Not the History of Humanity. It’s Just a Story That Humans Invented 3,000 Years Ago.” + “Humans Are Now Hackable Animals…Free Will, That’s Over.” – Yuval Noah Harari
3,771 views
Jun 2, 2023
( Yuval Noah Harari (Lead Advisor for Klaus Schwab) Who Is Elon Musk? – READ)
( Jew & a Nazi German, just imagine more Judas Goats…)
https://banned.video/watch?id=647a32bda6e3bb0045622ae2
Laura & Estovir,
We made the correction that Laura had originally brought to our attention and that Estovir provided the confirmation by quoting from the book. The title and the content of the article now reflects this correction. It is true the URL for this page here will remain the same, since altering that will break all links to this article. There are of course several workarounds for it (redirection or duplication), but given the limitations of WordPress and such it might not make too much of a difference given the work required. But the title and the content now reflects the corrected number.
Thank you both
Your Grandfather was a hero and inspiration of all mankind❤️
“In one of the most devastating recusal decisions in history, Tom removed himself from the case, since he felt it would be improper for him to judge the existence of the concentration camps as a survivor of one. The recusal was a riveting moment for the court, and his colleagues quickly dispensed with the frivolous claim.”
***************************
I always think the divine among us (and there are a precious few) reflect that divinity outward and absorb the evil inward. Suffering is the prerequsite for that condition and I learned that while reading “Butler’s Lives of the Saints”* many years ago. Regardless of his faith path, Tom seems to have been a beacon for good having been proved by the actions of true demons. God bless Tom in the afterlife as he blessed us in ours. We are poorer for Tom’s passing but inspired by his time with us.
* “The spirit of the gospel is a holy eagerness of suffering, an incessant attention to mortify self-love, to do violence to the will, to restrain the desires, to deprive the senses of useless gratifications; this is the essence of Christianity, the soul of piety.” (“The Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs, and Other Principal Saints.” Butler, Alban Fr., Chapter XI (1895 ed.))
mespo…..Beautiful!
Thank you very much. It is beautiful.
Your tribute is amazingly beautiful. I have no other words. Which is a lot to say. I am a lawyer and female and I have a lot to say about everything. May his god take him and embrace him in the afterlife.
Jonathon, thank you for your illumination of a great human. Not well diffused until you wrote. I think your mentor would be proud of your expression. I am.
Your losses seem to be accumulating. My condolences. There comes a point, as your mentors, role models, and senior partners pass beyond, when you look around and realize that now you are one of “the old guys”. I have no doubt your are mentoring younger folks in the same way you were mentored. Make hay while the sun shines.
Thank you very much for your moving tribute to the memory of Professor Thomas Buergenthal. I met with him several times when he was a Professor at Emory University School of Law, but did not know his background at the time. He must have been a very strong person, both as a child and an adult, to survive unfathomable violence with awful living conditions and still achieve so much later on in life.
Why is the World court even taking the case of a holocaust denier ?
Free speech is a human right – including the right to speak wrongly and stupidly.
You omit the details of the case and maybe they matter, but on the limited evidence that you presented the court decided WRONGLY.
While we have a somewhat unique situation in the US today in that the free speech of those who are RIGHT or mostly right has been repeatedly censored.
The HUMAN RIGHT to free speech is not conditioned on the truth of what is spoken.
As painful as that might be the correct decision – on the case as you presented it was not to recuse, but to affirm the right of neo-nazi’s to stupidly deny the hollocaust. Mr Buergenthal was perfectly positioned to do so.
Mr. Buergenthal was an outstanding man of mercy. Your tribute to him is beautiful. Unfortunately man’s inhumanity to man continues to thrive, especially in this country’s prison system. Mr. Buergenthal’s legacy stands as a beacon of hope for all of us. His light will continue to shine for all who fight for human rights and dignity.
Diane;
I was not challenging Mr. Buergenthal’s decency.
I was noting that in a lawful, moral and ethical world we do not use the law to punish people for unpopular – even FALSE oppinions.
Holocaust denial is vile hate speech.
It is also protected by the first amendment. And more important still – an important human right.
I was thinking along the same lines, that apparently Turley’s “absolutist” stand on free speech has limits after all. Perhaps one of the reasons Buergenthal refused himself was that the correct decision would have been in their favor, but rejecting their claim would have violated his principles; a dilemma in which the only way out was refusal.
No One has a truly absolutist position on free speech.
Where is the person who allows distributing pornography to children ?
Where is the person who prosecutes the person who committed the murder, but not the person who ordered it ?
Where is the person who allows people to walk away for contracts ?
I have spent most of my left atleast nominally on the “left” – “liberal”.
I have spent nearly all of it on the left on issues of free speech.
Now aparently my (and turley’s views on free speech are on the far right.
I have not changed. What is left and what is right has changed.
Regardless, I allow a very few specific restrictions on speech less that Turley, but only a few.
I am probably as absolutist as one can get. But it is not hypocritical to accept a very few limited restrictions.
I think Turley is wrong about some of the restriction she would allow.
But he is not hypocritical.
It is the left that is actually hypocritical.
You are free to identify as you please – but others are not free to identify you as they please ?
You make several good points but when you say your a “liberal” you disclose your lack of morals and character which leads to wrong conclusions.
The constitution was based on people who were Christian people, remove the “humanity” and replace it with anything else you will fail, it will collapse on itself. We are experiencing it now.
Morals and character regard thy “neighbor” before “self” and God always first. It’s not a “religion” it’s a “relationship” with our lord and consequently our only hope and salvation ( you will soon experience this truth).
There is no homosexuality it’s called perversion, there is no gender confusion it is a mental issue most likely due to lack of hormones to control us. Feelings need to be removed from any of this and logic, understanding, truth, common sense applied. Sex, is for procreation, period. Not a recreation unless your married and that is a conjoined male and female an exact vision of us and Christ in salvation, it’s why it must be perverted by the enemy.
The problem with liberalism is it has no foundation except what the person wishes to install. Does gravity have a contingency? No law God created does it all has consequences that are physical and eternal, most immediate.
We have many years of history of success and failure yet we always gravitate to failure, it is a lazy persons way. To gravitate to actual enlightenment you must ask, seek, knock, continually. It is with an open mind and that requires a love of God all else falls in place.
And Christians are not “hypocritical” as a true believer, they are in a constant battle against the flesh. A child could be considered hypocritical except we understand the development is in process, as a Christian is also.
There is no fault for a Christian unless it is without love they act, love for God which is also love for thy neighbor. And that is judged only by the heart. It is exactly why Jesus could not sin, his heart was pure and his intent was to please his father. Jesus is the word of God. Could sin reside there? If it did all creation would immediately dissipate, it rests on the truth of Gods spoken word. “Spoken” is important.
Palerider. I am perfectly clear – I am a libertarian.
Turley is a liberal, Derschowitz is a liberal. I share a many positions – especially on individual liberty with them – in many instance I will go farther.
I only rarely use the term liberal – because its meaning has become so horribly bastardized. Liberal is supposed to mean one who prizes indivisual liberty – I am that. Today people like me use the term Classical Liberal or libertarian.
Regardless – my political and ideological peers include MArio Salvo and the Berkely free speech movement.
But they also include Barry Gold Water, Ronald Reagan, Ron Paul and Rand Paul. They include Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, Ronald Coase.
None of these are people you would call liberal. All of them are people who prized individual liberty.
Don’t attack my character and I probably will chose not to attack yours.
Regardless, my morals and character are perfectly fine.
If you insist on attacking them – make clear specific arguments and make damn certain that when you attack my morality that your arguments are correct, that you are not misrepresenting my views, who I am – because the fastest way to prove immorality, is the relatively easy effort to prove a FALSE moral attack.
There is tremendous confusion over terms. Bill Buckley tried to separate the Liberal (leftist progressive) from liberal (classical liberal) by using a capital L. When viewed in the terms of freedom they are virtually the polar opposite. The word libertarian can be considered classical liberal but not always. Libertarian has many terms that can precede its name increasing the confusion.
Even the word conservative is used in many different ways. I think the best definition for a conservative of the Buckley position from the 60’s is as follows. It includes the Constitution in its definition.
—
That foremost among the transcendent values is the individual’s use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force;
That liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom;
That the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice;
That when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty;
That the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power;
That the genius of the Constitution—the division of powers—is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people, in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Federal government;
That the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs;
That when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation; that when it takes from one man to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both;
That we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies;
That the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties;
That the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistence with, this menace; and
That American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?
As always the consfusion was created by the left – in a different age. During the late 19th early 20th centuries Progressives were a significnat political force in this country – and liberals were fundamentally libertarians there is a reason that more than a century of discussion of western liberalism – has nothing to do with the modern left – and frankly little to do with the left in the 20th century. For more than a century liberalism, western liberalism meant libertarainism.
That is why we see “classical liberalism being used today that is 18th 19th and early 20th century liberalism.
Regerdless in the 19th and early 20th centuries there waqs also a progressive movement, that as those on the left are doing today turned progressivism into a dirty word, so they conducted a forced takeover of the word liberalism – until that too became an insule, and the stench associated with progressivism had faded so now they are once again calling themselves progressive.
I would note that this word game nonsense is ancient – centuries long – and nearly exclusively on the left. Since at-least the time of the french revolution the left has been very skilled at making arguments by appeals emotions. While their application of their ideology has nearly always lead to copious bloodshed.
Christ said it pretty well – you can judge a tree by its fruit.
Whatever labels you wish to use – it has always been some form of marxism.
Liberty and equality are practically diametrically opposite. Further, liberty is something that while we can not fully acheive we can aspire to and standard of living rises for all as we get closer to it. Conversely humans are NOT equal in any way except before the law. We are not designed that way.
the success of humans as a species is rooted in the fact that we are not equal. We do not have the same talents. the same abilities. Each of us is unique.
“I would note that this word game nonsense is ancient – centuries long – and nearly exclusively on the left. ”
That made me laugh because in the century before the common era, there was a Jewish sect known as the Sadducees (There are still remnants of them today). They turned words and thoughts, causing me to ask another if they were the original leftists.
For those wondering, the Sadducees were one of four major Jewish groups during the Second Temple era. They controlled the Sanhedrin (Supreme Court) while denying the Oral Torah. They were a wealthy minority whose political influence was far greater than their numbers. They offered new interpretations of the written Torah to destroy its meaning in the same manner the left does to our Constitution.
I wonder if Estovir if he reads this response, came across this group when learning about the Old Testament and the centuries just before the common era. I would like to know his and the Jesuit take on the Sadducees.
As I was writing I was humming
“Alas, alas for you, lawyers and Pharasee’s” from Godspel.
It sounds like Godspel didn’t get its history correct.
John, as soon as I finished responding to you, I continued my morning reading and what do I find?
“Doctored evidence? Democrat-led J6 panel added audio to silent security video for primetime hearings”
The left is nothing but a bunch of liars and thugs trying to steal power and money with their Marxist excuse that Revolution is needed to correct an imbalance that is inherent in any civilization and will forever exist. The left demands secrecy, not for security, but to cover their dirty tracks.The left has no morals or ethics.
—
The Democrat-led House Select Committee to Investigate Jan. 6 doctored a key piece of its evidence, adding audio to silent U.S. Capitol Police security footage used to create a dramatic video montage for the opening of its primetime hearings last summer, according to a Just the News review of the original raw footage and interviews.
In at least two instances identified by Just the News, the panel’s sizzle reel that aired live and on C-SPAN last June failed to identify that it had overdubbed audio from another, unidentified source onto the silent footage. Multiple current and former Capitol Police officials as well as key lawmakers and congressional aides confirmed that the closed-circuit cameras that captured the video do not record sound and that it was added afterwards.
ContL https://justthenews.com/government/congress/jan-6-select-committee-added-audio-silent-capitol-police-security-footage?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
What you can absolutely count on is that the Video produced by the J6 committee is ALL of the very worst of J6 – and that BEFORE its is altered.
I am very disappointed that the Capitol Video release appears to have been forgotten.
Tucker got it all. Did an excellent first pass, but ALL of this needs to be made public. Let the left and the right crowdsource the analysis.
What is most important is that we get an accurate picture of the TOTALITY of J6.
Was it Mostly – as the J6 committee video purports – a half a day long bachanal of carnage and violence.
Or was it as the Tucker release of Chansley reflects – a mostly peaceful protest with a tiny amount of violence.
There are other important questions that remain unanswered.
How did the violence start.
There is significant evidence that things got out of control at the West Tunnel, when the CP forces there accidentally Tear Gassed themselves and then accidentally tear gassed the crowd.
There is also significant evidence that the CP in the West Tunnel Violated the Rules of engagement for the day – using deadly force that had not been authorized.
The only way we find out what is true is to get EVERYTHING.
I know that most republicans want to distance themselves from J6
There is no doubt that SOME protestors behaved badly.
But we ALL – right and left – need to know/see the full truth of J6 – whatever that is.
“The only way we find out what is true is to get EVERYTHING.”
“The full and unadulterated CCTV security footage of the Jan. 6 riots is in the possession of the House Administration Committee. Just the News was authorized by Speaker Kevin McCarthy and the committee to review the footage and make copies of any newsworthy moments. On Thursday, Just the News released footage of former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s evacuation from the Capitol during the riot that showed she let her daughter film the exit Hollywood style, an act the former police chief said was a “distraction” for her security detail.”
From the above JTN site.
I am glad JTN has it. but I really mean PUBLIC
Just like Carlson – JTN has its own agenda and its own people it must please and toes it can not step on.
Giving 41,000 hours of material to an organization is NOT the same as making it public to millions.
I want those on the left to have the same oportunity to go through this.
I noted in a prior post that we can BET that the J6 committee footage is ALL the violence there was.
Obviously I do not know that. I have to presume that because of the people involved.
But give the video to all, and you can BET that every single second of bad footage will be raised by those on the left.
And we WANT that. If they come up with 10’s of thousands of hours of violence – those on the right should hang their heads in shame.
If the left can not come up with more than the J6 committee did – then those shilling that J6 was a violent insurection should be shamed to their dying breath.
“I am glad JTN has it. but I really mean PUBLIC”
I agree, though there may be some security concerns. That would mean the footage was not fully evaluated by the government, and thereby, in my mind, invalidated many of the convictions because the defendants may not have had the opportunity to review potentially exculpatory data.
MAcCarthy asked the CP about making it all public – including security concerns and their response was Pelosi had already made public the only portion that they had security concerns over – which was regarding where congress would be takenin in an emergency and their route their
Nearly all the footage is of public portions of the capitol. There can be no security concerns in public spaces. It si ludicrous to object to security footage from places where eyeballs, cameras and cell phones are allowed.
John, do you think I disagree?
My point is the security concerns issue has already been resolved.
Make the DAm video public – fully public.
More news – the member of the Israeli intelligence community that went to the FBI in 2019 reporting Bribery and Corruption involving the Biden family – that he had first hand insider knowledge of has surfaced in Israel.
As I can tell – he came to the FBI in 2019 – because he was concerned that HE would get prosecuted for his involvement in the Biden’s efforts to bilk foreigners of money.
After being interviewed the FBI contacted interpol and get an international warrant on him.
He was picked up and held in cyprus, but before the FBI could take custody – they probably did not want custody, they just wanted him discredited and locked in a foreign jail, he was released on bail. He fled Cyprus and is now hiding in Israel. But he was just publicly interviewed by Miranda Devine – the journalist who is responsible for the NY Post story on the Hunter Biden laptop.
Also apparently Wray is giving Congress the 1023 he has been stalling on.
Buckley also defined conservatives as standing athwart the world yelling STOP.
That is better.
Conservatism is not an ideology. It is merely the recognition that most new ideas are bad – or atleast work worse than what we already have,
and that we should always proceed very carefully towards new.
It is also why change belongs in the private domain – that of individuals and markets were the damage to failure is contained and where the rewards for success go to those who made the change successful.
“Buckley also defined conservatives as standing athwart the world yelling STOP.
That is better.”
That is also correct in a limited sense, but the words I quoted, were created at his home under his guidance, so I think those words better represent the conservative movement. You might not like being linked with the word conservative, but considering who Buckley is, I think definitions arising under his guidance are superior to anything you want to put in their place.
“Conservatism is not an ideology. It is merely the recognition that most new ideas are bad – or atleast work worse than what we already have,”
No. That is your definition. Are you denying that Buckley led the conservative movement, and instead saying that you did?
The words you quoted are an ideology.
Conservatism ISN’T.
I am not looking to debate Buckley’s ideology – much of which I agree with.
But there is a radical difference between – what is the definition of conservatism – which is no more that requiring that those seeking to change government prove the success of what they are attempting BEFORE proceeding.,
And a political platform that appeals to the majority of conservatives.
I am not going to allow the left to play word games.
Nor Buckley or you.
The defintions of words are typically one or two sentences at most.
Anything larger does not define the word, it states likely attributes of those described by the word, which is something different.
Iwould also note Buckley likely gave far more thought to the “standing athwart the world shouting stop” remark.
It is usually harder and required more thought to come up with something short accurate and pithy.
I write very long posts here – because no one is paying me to pare them down to a few sentences.
That takes alot of effort.
“The words you quoted are an ideology.
Conservatism ISN’T.”
What is conservatism when used to define a political position? What do you mean when you group the political right as conservatives? What are conservative evangelicals?
Many, including you, will group the political right ideologically as conservatives and the religious right as evangelical conservatives especially when comparing it to other ideologies such as communism. Do you deny that?
You think you are consistent with your use of words, but you are not. Conservatism, as used in this blog, can be an ideology or a disposition. It is not for you to choose how others should use the word, especially if you have not been careful with your use in the past.
I was careful and put a name and an ideology to my use of the word. What you are doing is playing a word game.
Again conservatizm is not an ideology, it is not even a principle – it is a value rooted in experience.
It is the understanding that change is very hard and most changes fails.
Therefore we must take care how we go about change.
We must be especially careful about change within government – as that is even harder and more danagerous a and the consequences of failure greater.
In the past republicans and democrats have BOTH had conservative elements.
And Both have had liberal – even progressive elements.
US politics has ALWAYS been politically shifting. Lincoln was essentially the Progressive of his era. And Republicans were progressive, while democrats were conservative. The relationship between Republicans and progressive was present through the 19th century.
Though the 20th century there were republican and democrat conservatives, and progressives and liberals,
Throughout US history political coalitions have been forming and reforming.
Even what I beleive is the likely near obliteration fo the democratic party if they keep things up, will be temporary.
Democrats will re-invent themselves – as republicans have many many times.
The Fact that TODAY conservatives dominate the republican party and are almost absent among democrats is just the politics of the moment.
With time it will change – predictably ? I do not know.
I would note that Evangelicals tend to call themselves conservative – but they historically have not been especially conservative – atleast not uniformly.
Obama actually did quite well among SOME evangelical religious groups.
Evangelical christianinty is not inherently conservative, or limited government. Though SOME leaders have been both.
Increasingly mormons are considered evangelicals – and moprmons are not especially conservative.
In my experience – they are wannabe Catholics. I have attended Mormon churches and they strongly resemble middle class evangelical catholics.
Evangelical Catholics are NOT conservative – they tend to be liberal. They are just with republicans on abortion.
Anther complexity of american politics – there are a large number of voters for which One issue is determinative.
Trump essentially glommed on to the Tea Party – recognizing a political movement being born – not that the politics of the TP was new, just the popularity of those politics was new in 2008.
Trump seized on that, grew it shaped it a bit and now stands at the head of the MAGA movement – which is pobably the largest single political movement in the US today. But it is not ALONE a majority.
MAGA itself is not inherently conservaitve.
Many of the republican groups and identities you cite are conservativISH.
Regardless, Conservative is NOT AN IDEOLOGY. It is merely today more common in some form on the political right than the left.
“Again conservatim is not an ideology, it is not even a principle – it is a value rooted in experience. “It is the understanding that change is very hard and most changes fail.
John, I am forced to repeat what I said before for you to respond directly to those thoughts. You have your dictionary, and others have theirs. I am using the Merriam-Webster definitions that show more than one meaning. I will number the points I made last time to make it easier for you to respond, point by point, to prevent going off on tangents.
1) What is conservatism when used to define a political position?
2) What do you mean when you group the political right as conservatives?
3)What are conservative evangelicals?
4) Many, including you, will group the political right ideologically as conservatives and the religious right as evangelical conservatives, especially when comparing it to other ideologies such as communism. Do you deny that?
5) You think you are consistent with your use of words, but you are not.
6) Conservatism, as used in this blog, can be an ideology or a disposition. It is not for you to choose how others should use the word, especially if you have not been careful with your use in the past.
We have plowed this gorund before.
There is no need for dictionaries.
I made my arguments, You have not countered them. You can not.
There is no difference between what you are trying to do to the meaning for conservative to what the left is trying to do to the meaning of the word woman.
Can we settle on the meaning of woman by using the prefered dictionaries of those on the left ?
You know better than this.
If you want to claim conservatism is an ideolgoy – you laid out policies that you claim are conservative – but tese are not shared by all conservatives today – or in Buckleys time or in Burkes time.
And what is the word for those who recognize the reality that change fails exponentially more often than it succeeds.
And that change in government is very dangerous and should proceed carefuly ?
That is a value that is as old as history – human history – not merely american history.
If the word for that is not conservtive – what is it. ?
What would people 100 years ago have used ? 200 ? 1000 ?
The concept is older than history and the word we have used for asl long as it has been present in english has been conservative.
Changing the meaning of conservaitve is deceptive and trheatens to alter history and distort though.
Just as changing the meaning of Woman or any other word.
“We have plowed this gorund before. There is no need for dictionaries.”
Of course, there is, and you provided more evidence in Genesis 1-9.
“I made my arguments, You have not countered them. You can not.”
What arguments about the discussion did I leave out? I know I didn’t follow through with George Orwell, but by that time, with so many tangents, who knows what the discussion is about?
Present the points you are interested in, and I will respond whether or not they are on topic.
“There is no difference between what you are trying to do to the meaning for conservative to what the left is trying to do to the meaning of the word woman.”
Of course, there is. I am not changing a word. I am explaining the common use of a word, used by some of the most prominent experts on the subject, including a major dictionary, Merriam-Webster.
“Can we settle on the meaning of woman by using the prefered dictionaries of those on the left ?
You know better than this.”
I will use the scientific definition XX, and the left can use their description, but like you, what they do is change the subject into a word game rather than deal with the definitions.
“If you want to claim conservatism is an ideolgoy – you laid out policies that you claim are conservative – but tese are not shared by all conservatives today – or in Buckleys time or in Burkes time.”
All you are saying is what you said before. Words are understood when said, so no dictionary is needed. Use my (John Say’s) definition of a word which I won’t tell you, otherwise, you are wrong.
You can’t see the ludicrousness of that type of argument.
Learn to deal with words whose meanings change with time. Otherwise, everything in your presence will ‘stink like a rose.’
“What arguments about the discussion did I leave out?”
Really, we debated this both online and off line for months.
“Present the points”
I did long ago. The debate is over.
“Of course, there is. I am not changing a word.”
Of course you are.
” I am explaining the common use of a word,”
The left is trying to change the meaning of one word through coerced and voluntary changed in use and through claims by experts.
“used by some of the most prominent experts on the subject”
Talk about a giant red herring.
Words are symbols. We can use whatever symbols we want to mean whatever we want.
While the relationships are not strictly arbitrary – languages tend to have underlying patterns to make them easier to learn
There is still no requirement for specific mappings of words/symbols to the underlying concepts we seek to communicate.
But we harm our ability to think and communicate when we play games with the relations between the symbols and the underlying meanings.
That is self evident with the games being played with the meaning of woman.
But your and others efforts to redefine conservative are fundimentally the same – though on a smaller and possibly less malignant scale.
Lets say ultimately you prevail – and conservative becomes the symbol for an ideology.
You have not altered the FACT that what conservative USED to mean – continues to be real, and continues to exist and is NOT an ideology.
All you have succeeded in doing is either creating two distinctly different meanings for the same symbol, creating confusion.
It does not matter whether the reality that most change fails is called conservative or gigledyfarb. The underlying concept that the symbol refers to exists – it continues to exist even if there is no symbol for it.
We have words change meaning overtime SOMETIMES because the underlying concepts disapear or actually change.
That is NOT True of either conservative or woman.
Or because some group is trying to deliberately distort our ability to think and communicate – and that is exactly what is occuring with woman, and you are attempting with conservative.
Woman is being redefined with the intent to change the way people think, in the specific case of woman it is an effort to alter more than an idea, but physical reality.
While altering conservative merely tries to piggyback an ideology onto a enduring historical observation of the nature of reality.
You are attempting to do th same thing with conservative – that early 20th century progressives did with liberal. Having converted the term progressive into a term of revulsion they coopted the term liberal and over the next 70 years made it as repulsive as progressive had been – and worse to mean the opposite of what it had meant.
Words change meaning over time naturally – because thought changes or because the old use becomes unneeded, or just because people slowly change how they say things. With very rare exceptions – those changes to NOT alter our ability to think and communicate.
What was done to the word liberal requires us to consciously think about the meaning of liberal in the context it is being used – anytime we read that word, 20, 40, 80, 100 years ago – because the meaning is radically different based on time.
Yet the FACT is most people do not do that – so the effort was successful. Many of us look at past liberals and with think they had values they did not.
Today we are engaged in the same distortions wholesale – not just in words. In England in 1800 there were less than 5,000 black people.
Yet I watch recently done period movies and TV about the time and there are a mix of blacks and asians and …
I am watching “the great” today – which I like and mostly does not pretend to be historical. And we are shown 19th century Russia with a wide mix of races.
Yet even today there are almost no blacks in russia.
We are actively seeing people trying to alter percetion of history. As well as alter our ability to communicate.
Dictionaries pretty much did not exist prior to the 17th century – regardless they have value. But they work ONE WAY – they exist to document usage, not to alter it.
Regardless absolutely nothing prevents what the left has repeatedly engaged in with words, and which you are seeking to join.
But the consequences are the destruction to the degree implemented of our ability to think and communicate.
Genisis postulates god doing so deliberately to dis-empower us. While Orwell and other dystopias reflect the reality that external control of language allows trhe destruction of communication and of ideas that those with power over language disfavor.
Your efforts to redefine conservative as an ideology may not have the same malice as those of the left.,
But the harm is similar.
Confusion, miscommunication and the destruction or diminishment of an important construct.
Is it your goal by redefining conservative to cause people to lose understanding that change is dangerous and fails far more often than not ?
I hope not, but that is what you are accomplishing.
“I will use the scientific definition”
Words are just semi arbitrary symbols., there is no doubt you CAN rearrage their relationship to the underlying concepts at whim.
You say that the sceintific defintion of Woman is XX, Why ? We have plenty of examples of politicized science with resulting changes in the defintions of scientific terms.
Calling a definition scientific, is nothing more than saying that at this moment in time to consensus of scientists is that this symbol corresponds to this idea.
You do not think the scientific defintion of woman can be changed ?
Reality is not easily changed – but the symbols used to describe it can.
The relationship is very important – but it is NOT immutably linked, And great harm can be accomplished by manipulating it.
The issue is not whether words change over time – for the most part SOME do very slowly. More commonly words are created or fade out of common use.
That is far less dangerous.
The issue is WHY are words being changed.
Why do you need conservative to be assigned a meaning other than what it has for centuries ? Why is the meaning of woman being changed ?
Is this because the underlying concepts have lost importance ?
If you need a name for an ideolgoy – go make a new one up.
“>>>>What arguments about the discussion did I leave out?”
>>>Really, we debated this both online and off line for months.
“>>Present the points”
>I did long ago. The debate is over.”
John, we had this discussion before and before that. You keep repeating yourself and complaining but do nothing about it. It’s OK if you don’t want to return to what you said, but if so, don’t continuously restart the discussion.
My position will remain that in the discussion, each party must understand how the other defines his words and the type of dictionary they use. Sometimes you sound like a Randian that uses a Randian dictionary when their argument fails.
” I am explaining the common use of a word,”
That is fine if you accept the same word can have other common uses. The word conservative has many common usages which depend on person, place, and time. As long as we agree with which definition is under discussion, we should have no problem.
But we have a problem because you can’t accept usages that are not your own even when proper and defined. Then you go off on a long wordy tangent which is fine with me because I like what you have to say.
I agree with you the left changes the meaning of words for the same reason some Randians do. It is a way of turning the subject in a different direction. That is where dictionaries and definitions come in, but you say those things aren’t needed.
“But your and others efforts to redefine conservative are fundimentally the same – though on a smaller and possibly less malignant scale.”
Of course, what you say is ridiculous. I am not redefining anything. I am reiterating common usages of a word. I won’t argue that your definition is incorrect, but rather state where the other meanings come from, so the discussion can move forward. Even mathematics uses this method when we say let X=[insert whatever you wish]. I don’t disagree with your point of view. I accept the changes that I can do nothing about and move on.
“Is it your goal by redefining conservative to cause people to lose understanding that change is dangerous and fails far more often than not ?”
No. My goal is to establish common meanings for the words in a discussion. I might not like how they are defined, but I don’t always have the choice. It is this rigidity of yours that prevents good ideas from being accepted.
Yes, I repeat myself. I do so deliberately.
I do that with you.
I do that with those on the left.
I polish arguments and when they have gottent to the point where they are consistent with the rest of my values and principles.
When neither I nor anyone else has been able to dent them – I dip them in amber and do not mess with them – unless and until someone demonstrates a flaw or contradiction.
You can expect that I will repeat the same arguments with you over and over – often in the same words.
In the event you are confused – that means – I have reviewed your counters. found they had no impact and discarded them without altering my argument.
If I assert
A implies B
A
Therfore B
and you respond – “but C!!!!!”
should I change my argument ?
This is also why I object to your tinkering with my arguments and then presenting them as mine.
If I make errors or poor word choices – that is my problem.
If you change so much as the tense or preposition of my argument – you are making me responsible for an argument I have not made.
It is perfectly acceptable for you or others to restate my arguments – I do so to others all the time.
The ability to state accurately the argument of another is a reflection of actual undrstanding of the views of others.
Accurately restating an argumet before you criticise it makes the criticism more credible and trustworthy.
But if you restate the argument in a fashion that its author if honest and reasonable does not accept – then your counter arguments are meaningless – they are counters to an argument that was not made.
While your ability to restate the argument of others is an order of magnitude better than those on the left who universally and deliberately spin the arguments of others. you still incesantly make changes that do alter the argument and are NOT what I have said.
Often they are 90% correct,
But I am not obligated to defend a potions that is Almost mine.
“This is also why I object to your tinkering with my arguments and then presenting them as mine.
If I make errors or poor word choices – that is my problem.”
You may not know this, but communication deals with arguments between people. Interpretation becomes the problem within the discussion. Errors in interpretation are correctable when repeated, restated, or defined.
When problems arise, don’t expect your repetition of the exact same words to help in mutual understanding.
“If you change so much as the tense or preposition of my argument – you are making me responsible for an argument I have not made.”
If that is a problem for you, it is up to you to solve it. Unless something is in quotes, everyone recognizes the words are another’s interpretation of yours.
Reading the rest of your commentary makes me believe you want to shift your responsibility to another. It is up to you to make yourself clear.
Absolutely people misuse words all the time.
It is entirely possible that over a very long period of time – conservative will mean something different than it has in the past and mostly still does.
When I talk about the misuse of words – I am refering to several critieria.
The first is an effort to deceive. The left commonly misuses words to decieve.
The next is an effort to control thought.
Both of the above are straight out of 1984 and quite common mostly on the left today.
I have said this before – but we communicate with words – most of us think in words.
When the thoughts I am putting into words – and those you have as a result of my words are significantly different – we are in troublem. We can not communicate, and eventually we can not think.
Changes in the meaning of words should be as slow as possible – if at all. More frequently we create new words to reflect new things.
With respect tot he potentialy changing meaning of the word conservative (or any other word). If you change the word over time – especially rapidly and extre especially with an agenda, then how do we express the thing that was once called conservative ?
I am personally happy – because the left is walkign away from the word liberal. A word that came to mean “ill-liberal” and that now I can attempt to reclaim to its correct meaning.
I am an actual liberal. – Libertarian is a bad term created because the left mutilated the term liberal.
We are not yet to the point where I can call myself liberal and have been understand what that means.
But we are getting there.
Conservative has a meaning that is centuries or longer old.
If you want to coopt the term to mean something different – as you are doing – then What word describes what conservative meant for centuries ?
I would greatly prefer that if you wish to label some political movement that if an existing term does not fit – create a new one rather than mangle conservative.
Mangling existing words is confusing and harms our ability to communicate and think.
Trump successfully created the Term MAGA to reflect a political identity and ideology. Biden and the left is working very hard to convert that to a dark term.
I think that is a dangerous play – it may work in left wing bubbles – but it the real world – it is labeling 40% of the country as fascists – both a false calim and one that permanently alienates them.
John, Bill Buckley used the word conservative as an ideology, and what follows is the statement from one group created in his home.
“Even the word conservative is used in many different ways. I think the best definition for a conservative of the Buckley position from the 60s is as follows. It includes the Constitution in its definition.
—
That foremost among the transcendent values is the individual’s use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force;
That liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom;
That the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice;
That when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty;
That the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering the government to fulfill its proper role while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power;
That the genius of the Constitution—the division of powers—is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people, in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Federal government;
That the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs;
That when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation; that when it takes from one man to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both;
That we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies;
That the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties;
That the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistence with, this menace; and
That American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?”
If you define conservative using policies – you mangle the word.
We can survive that, but like those on the left, you mangle peoples thought.
Whether the reference is Genesis 11:1-19 or Animal Farm or 1984 – the problem is the same,
Mangling language harms peoples ability to think and communicate.
“If you define conservative using policies – you mangle the word.”
Maybe, maybe not. Mangled words are commonly used. ie. ‘the stink of a rose.’
“Mangling language harms peoples ability to think and communicate.”
That is why people define what they are saying and use dictionaries.
Do you honestly think the dictionaries argument is going to work for you ?
All dictionaries are is an oportunity for top down heirarchical control – and that leads straight to 1984.
I would think that you would already have enough experience with left wing nuts taking over – dictionraies, encyclopedia, etc.
to understand the danger of that.
Those on the left actually beleive they are doing “gods work” when they are silencing those they disagree with or taking controll of peoples lives, their words, their thought.
The only thing historically more dangerous that religious fervor is religious fervor without a god, without the underpinning moral foundations that defing the use of force to constrain the free will of others as morally wrong.
“Do you honestly think the dictionaries argument is going to work for you ?”
John, are you not listening? I am not satisfied with what we see and probably am less so than you. One has to choose their battle and survive.
I did not demand you use the dictionary definition. I gave you a choice of dictionary or for you to present your own. I am happy for you to use the word X defined in your own terms as long as X remains the same.
“All dictionaries are is an oportunity for top down heirarchical control – and that leads straight to 1984.”
What you are saying is that dictionaries are flawed. The dictionary is not at fault. It is the misuse of dictionaries that is wrong.
The Torah, The Five Books of Moses, remains unchanged over the millennia. Producing a Torah is strictly controlled, and no page can have the slightest error or correction.
Despite that and with time, the practicing Jew believing in the Torah will deviate from its words or the words in the Talmud. That tells you that your expectation of humans is not realistic. We have seen the same with our Constitution.
Neither of us can stop the changes, so instead of stubbornly saying things not understood by others, it may be best for you to use a dictionary or provide your definition.
“Absolutely people misuse words all the time.”
John, you must appreciate how words are used in common parlance and on this blog. You cannot hide behind your preferable definitions, even if many agree. That is how tangents occur, preventing the remaining questions from being answered.
Yes, I have an awareness the left misuses words, but that is not an excuse for you to change the subject. I have no problem when you mention it, but using it to hide the discussion is wrong. We do not need to change the subject as you do here “Changes in the meaning of words should be as slow as possible” You can provide that type of explanation separately so the discussion remains intact.
“I am an actual liberal. – Libertarian is a bad term created because the left mutilated the term liberal.”
The word libertarian was first used in 1789, long before Karl Marx or the left of today appeared in our vocabulary.
Not my prefered definition.
The word conservative has been arround since before Burke.
Did Burke share Buckley’s policies ? Trump’s ?
The concept predates english – it is as old as language – older.
You can name your ideology whatever you wish – MAGA is an ideology, Libertarianism is ab ideology.
Both incorporate the value of conservatism. But the ideological overlap is not that large.
If some democrats are conservative – and some libertarians are conservative and most republicans are conservatives
What is the ideology that they share.
I am not republican,
I am not MAGA,
I am not a Trump supporter.
I am libertarain.
I am also conservative.
As well as liberal in the sense of Jhn Stuart Mill, or even MArio Savio, certainly not the sense of AOC
You are seeking to do to consertvative what AOC and those on the left have done to liberal.
And I am “standing athwart the world yelling STOP”.
Buckley might have said what you claim – but I would bet he would be standing athwart the world yelling STOP with me.
“Not my prefered definition.
The word conservative has been arround since before Burke.”
I know it “stinks”, but words change as history moves on, and they differ from one environment to the next.
“Did Burke share Buckley’s policies ? Trump’s ?”
How could he? Britain was a Monarchy and lacks a constitution.
“Libertarianism is ab ideology.”
Yet there are many prefixes attached to the meaning.
“I am libertarain.”
According to some, you are not.
“I am also conservative.
As well as liberal in the sense of Jhn Stuart Mill,”
Yet Mill was an administrator for the East India Company and dealt with mercantilism. So much for words.
“You are seeking to do to consertvative what AOC and those on the left have done to liberal.”
No. I am seeking discussion on common grounds where people spell out what their words mean or define how they are using the word.
“Buckley might have said what you claim – but I would bet he would be standing athwart the world yelling STOP with m”
No! He would say to stop being silly and try to communicate with all rather than only those who think like yourself.
Your rambling all over, ignoring the argument.
Words do change over time. Almost always slowly and usually driven by the the prior meanng becoming inconsequential.
But we add new words at a prodigious rate. Adding new words improves communication, and thought.
Changing older words is more dangerous.
Would anyone care if MTF Trans people called themselves Womex ?
It is the deliberate effort to distort language that is dangerous and wrong.
Can you cite an example of a word that changed over a long period of time that resulted in a decline in our ability to accurately communicate ?
“Your rambling all over, ignoring the argument.”
John, when you can no longer deal with the problem and run out of things to say, you accuse the only other person in the room of rambling. 🙂
This is the first sentence of my entry into the mini-thread.
“There is tremendous confusion over terms. Bill Buckley tried to separate the Liberal (leftist progressive) from liberal (classical liberal) by using a capital L. ”
This was my last entry in that reply before the quote from the YAF.
“Even the word conservative is used in many different ways. I think the best definition for a conservative of the Buckley position from the 60’s is as follows. It includes the Constitution in its definition.”
You are arguing with history, quotes, and Bill Buckley, Mr. Conservative himself. Go ahead. Kock yourself out. 🙂 🙂
“I am not going to allow the left to play word games. Nor Buckley or you.”
Don’t get bent out of shape, masking your creation of a false argument to halt legitimate thought. That is what you are doing. Buckley’s group used the term ideologically and defined it so it would not be confused with other uses of the word, whether ideological or not.
Don’t accuse me of what you are doing.
Buckley offered multiple incompatible definitions of conservative. The policy based on you offered is FALSE.
Many conservatives might ALSO have those ideological values – but the term conservative is not ideological
While Buckley’s “standing athwart the world. yelling Stop” is not a perfect defintion – it is far more accurate than anything based on specific political values or ideology.
Conservaitism is the fundimental understanding that MOST change is BAD, not good. And therefore we must be very careful with change – especially in government. There is nothing ideological about that.
A coinservative would have opposed the creation of Social Security almost a century ago, and oppose ending it today.
If you redefine conservative in terms of ideolgoy – you are going to have to create a new word for conservative – otherwise you are attempting to destroying conservatism as an idea.
One of ORwells major points is that if you can contropl the meaning of words – you can deprive people of access to many ideas.
“Don’t accuse me of what you are doing.
Buckley offered multiple incompatible definitions of conservative. The policy based on you offered is FALSE.”
Wrong! The YAF used that definition to tell people what they stood for. It was how the group defined its ideological conservatism. When Buckley used the term conservatism as an ideology, he defined his brand to distinguish it from others. Though in the past you disdained the use of definitions, this is one of the reasons they are necessary. I have no problem with your provision, but you need to listen and accept how others define their thoughts and ideas.
“otherwise you are attempting to destroying conservatism as an idea. ”
If conservatism is an idea, there will be no one definition though all definitions might have significant similarities. Different people have an “idea” of what something means, but the ideas are not always the same.
“One of ORwells major points is that if you can contropl the meaning of words”
Are we now going to discuss what Orwell thought instead of the present subject that has long been lost by your tangential?
We get back to the comment made by Hayek, which earlier I provided you with the exact page in his book The Road to Serfdom. Based on your lengthy diversions, I guess you can say that Hayek was not a classical liberal or libertarian. That is the type of mess you create.
You can use a collection of policies to tell people what you stand for.
I am fine with that.
But being conservative is NOT a collection of polices.
A collection of policies is an ideology.
I have not followed YAF in detail for some time – but I doubt that YAF in the 80’s and YAF today have the same polices.
That is OK we do not have the same problems today.
Regardless, conservatism can not be defined by policies without corrupting the meaning of conservism.
Actually destroying the meaning.
I doubt you can come up with a policy based defintion that is universally shared by all people who identify as conservative.
“ou can use a collection of policies to tell people what you stand for.
John, I am fine with that.
But being conservative is NOT a collection of polices.”
That is fine when there is a need. I am glad to see your acceptance of definitions to help others understand what is said.
“I doubt you can come up with a policy based defintion that is universally shared by all people who identify as conservative.”
I can’t do the same with libertarian, though its meanings are more exacting.
If you are going to restate what I have said – please get it right.
I am not fine with your entire dictionary thesis – it will end badly. That you can not see that is surprising.
I am Fine with your giving a label to a collection of policy choices – creating an ideology.; and giving it a name.
I may even support some of those policies.
But there is a thing that is the recognition that most change fails, that change though necescary is also very dangerous and should be mode with much forethought, great caution, as well as a review of the consequences of similar change in the past. That change should to the greatest extent possible occur from free markets – not government.
And the name for that has for centuries been “CONSERVATIVE” -I that is NOT an ideology.
One can be conservative – and libertarian. Conservative and democrat, conservative and republican, conservative and MAGA.
As you attempt to redefine conservative as an ideology – a collection of specific policies values – you sew confusion. You delute or destory the very important non-ideological conservatism.
You take a further step towards babel, and you empower those – progresives” that thrive in anarchy, chaos, babel.
This is an important debate, and one you are on the wrong side of
Further it is not about the word conservative or dictionaries. It is about the ability to convey thoughts and ideas and even to think.
The world is not harmed when words that refer to things without consequence or modern relevance fade.
But our thought is distorted when things like conservatism – the non-ideological understanding of how reality actually works is confused with some collection of policies. We weaken – even lose the understanding that change – though necescary is very dangerous and we must proceed carefully.
This is why Change must be driven, must occur inside the domain where people are free, rather than be driven by government.
“The defintions of words are typically one or two sentences at most. Anything larger does not define the word, it states likely attributes of those described by the word, which is something different.”
Do not tell others how to define themselves. Those “words” as you call them, defined a movement.
“It is usually harder and required more thought to come up with something short accurate and pithy.”
You are looking at a slogan. Buckley’s group was looking at a movement. You are thinking small. Buckley was thinking big. After defining oneself, a movement can create a slogan.
You can have whatever movement you want.
But calling it conservative does not make it conservative.
And if you successfully change the menaing of conservative – just as the left does with words all the time.
All you have succeeded in doing is depreving people of the idea of conservatism.
No one is denying that various movements exist – only that coopting a word that does not fit is deceptive and harmful to communications and thought.
Matt Walsh has done an excellent job of pointing out the absurdity of redefining woman – as well as the consequences.
But as you note – without apparently comprehending – whether the word is woman or conservative – we can connect the symbols (words) of our choice twith the meanings of our choice.
There is no requirement that Woman or conservative have the meaning that have for ages.
But there are consequences to playing games with words.
Genesis 11:1-9
“Genesis 11:1-9”
How apt John, the Tower of Babel refutes your very early argument that one should know the definition of a word when one sees it.
In a past discussion on planning military actions, I was line drawing. You provided specific words, and I asked you to define them. You couldn’t do so. Instead, you said the definition is inherent in the word, meaning words didn’t have to be attached to definitions.
I think the Tower of Babel helps explain my reasoning.
“How apt John, the Tower of Babel refutes your very early argument that one should know the definition of a word when one sees it.”
Because you say so ?
The earilest dictionary was written in 1616 – that is something like 3000 years after Genesis.
The point of the story of the towe rof babble is that people LOST the shared understanding necescary to communicate.
We se the left doing that constantly – and you keep join them.
“”I asked you to define them. You couldn’t do so”
No I chose not to go down an unnecescary rathole with you.
If we had to resort to dictionaries – the debate was over.
Either we share an understanding of the meaning of words – as humans have without dictionaries for much of human existence.
Or we can not communicate and we can not think.
You are falling into the same Trap the left is with “what is a woman ?”.
I can define “scientifically” woman. but the FACT is long before there was science – there was man and woman and we knew what they were.
The purpose of dictionaires – even precise scientific defintions of words is to reflect our shared understanding.
Communications – evne though only exist because of shared understanding
baby humans learn to communicate and think – long before they ever open a dictionary.
I am not arguing that dictionaries are useless – only that the authority for the meaning of word comes from decades – centuries of usuage – NOT dictionaries.
A implies B
NOT B implies A.
You can only correct the meaning of a word using a dictionary – when their is broad shared agreement on that meaning.
If I open websters and firn that woman is defined as someone who identifies as a woman – that definition has no authority.
It does not reflect decades – centuries of common use.
But back to conservative – if the word conservative is as you claim defined by policies, then
what is the word for demanding change prove itself before proceeding ?
Which has for centuries milenia been “conservative” ?
And if we chose to transform the meaning of conservative – did that destroy the existence of what conservative previously meant.
If what is conservitive id defined by policy – you will never be able to concoct a set of shared policies that all or even most conservatives agree to.
“The earilest dictionary was written in 1616 – that is something like 3000 years after Genesis.”
But (since you utilize scriptures), the date of Genesis would be when Moses received the written and oral Torah from God. The Talmud (Mishna portion) is the oral Torah written down. It provides lots of definitions. You could call it the dictionary of the Torah. One cannot understand the Torah unless one reads the ‘definitions.’
“The point of the story of the towe rof babble is that people LOST the shared understanding necescary to communicate. ”
The point includes understanding what others say, for what was said in Ur might not be understood in other parts of Mesopotamia.
“We se the left doing that constantly – and you keep join them.”
No. I accept that words have different meanings, so I demand fixed definitions.
“”I asked you to define them. You couldn’t do so”
No I chose not to go down an unnecescary rathole with you.”
That means that you refused to obtain a common meaning for the words because you lacked the ability to provide a common answer to a simple but complex question.
‘If we had to resort to dictionaries – the debate was over. ”
We didn’t have to resort to a dictionary since I said I would abide by your definition as long as it remained fixed.
“Either we share an understanding of the meaning of words – as humans have without dictionaries for much of human existence.
Or we can not communicate and we can not think.”
You did not wish to share your definition for the operative words, but you wanted to use those words to prove me wrong. I don’t know what that is called in logic, but to me that is a failing argument.
“You are falling into the same Trap the left is with “what is a woman ?”.
No. I permitted you to use your definition, while I provided mine. From there the discussion continues. If your definition fails to prove your point, that is your problem.
“If I open websters and firn that woman is defined as someone who identifies as a woman – that definition has no authority.”
However, if that is the definition used in the law, it holds a different type of authority, perhaps far more important, for the time and place used.
“It does not reflect decades – centuries of common use. ”
The stink of a rose. Does the word stink have the same meaning today? No. When was the last time you told a friend that she stinks? One has to adapt to change while holding onto principle, which responds to your use of the word conservative below.
History changes things. Don’t be a leftist by not taking time and place into consideration.
I could call it a dictionary – but I did not, because it is not.
“I could call it a dictionary – but I did not, because it is not.”
It isn’t a dictionary as you know it, but it is the essence of one.
Please do not tell me what I said. I have enough left wing nuts doing that badly.
“That is why it was called Babel—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.”
You do not establish shared meaning with a dictionary. a dictionary HOPEFULLY documents shared meaning.
Regardless, communication – and though are the product of shared meaning. Dictionaries documentent that – hopefully.
But the authority is the shared meaning not the dictionary.
“Please do not tell me what I said.”
Yet you don’t refer me to the sentence you object to. Is it the fact that I explained an earlier dictionary that defined the meaning of the Torah demonstrating words were defined thousands of years earlier than the date you provided?
“That is why it was called Babel—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.”
God weaponized language against people because their pride made them believe they were equal to God. You can read it in the Talmud, which explains and defines the words. Those words have been in existence for almost 4,000 years.
“But the authority is the shared meaning not the dictionary.”
Some believe the authority is the Constitution, others believe it is the present law, while others believe it is in the authority of God.
“Morals and character regard thy “neighbor” before “self” and God always first. It’s not a “religion” it’s a “relationship” with our lord and consequently our only hope and salvation ( you will soon experience this truth).”
That is actually entirely false – and history will easily teach that. As does Religion. Christ said “love thy neighor as they self” – not BEFORE self. The “golden rule is do onto others as you would have done unto you. If you are not worth decent treatment – no one else is either.
AS to God – I likely believe more strongly than you. Start with Genesis – distinct from all other creatures man has free will. The entirety of morality derives from that.
We do not discuss the morality of wolfs or dolphins. They act on instinct. Regardless, they are not subject to the moral constraints of humans.
And they are not capable of the accomplishments of humans for the same reason.
Who has done more for mankind – Elon Muck or Mother Theresa ? It is musk without contest.
Mother Theresa is an incredible selfless person. She is litterally a saint.
But throughout history – especially the past millenia – people persuing their own self interest have done more to improve the lot of the lest of society than charity or selflessness ever has.
Morality itself divides into positive and negative. These are so different they should have two different words.
Positive morality is the domain of religion. NOT govenrment. When we say we can not legislate moratily – we mean positive morality.
We can not compel others to do good. Postive morality, and there is no moral merit at all in what good we compel others to do.
If you order a slave to do something good for your neighbor – does that conduct merit the slave ? They acted under durress. Or to you ? – you did no good yourself and you acted immorally to compel another to do good.
Negative morality is squarely though not exclusively the domain of government.
Thou Shalt not is as old as history, and a requirement for even the government of a family, much less tribe or nation.
In the past through religion, family, or whatever the majority of us got a reasonable foundation in negative morality – basic right and wrong.
Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou not bear false witness. We can not live together without universal agreement and compliance with these.
The overwhelming majority of us in the past would adhere to these naturally – so long as everyone else did. But a few of us either will not or are incapable of conforming our behavior to those moral constraints absent force or the threat of force.
The social contract – the foundation of govenrment is our agreement to give the power to initiate force to government to protect us all from the initiation of force by those few who do not conform to the basics requirements of negative morality.
The modern left – not actual liberalism, significantly undermines morality – both positive and negative. The presumption of the modern left – of marxism, of socialism, of those who elevate quality over liberty is that government is a force for positive good. “to each according to his need from each according to his ability” – which strongly resembles the golden rule. But which for all its emotional appeal is moral cancer. positive morality by force is evil.
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” George Orwell