If we fast Forward to the 2016 Presidential Debate and the Al Smith Memorial Dinner. What we see is a GOP candidate who does not represent the GOP Establishment and Democratic Party candidate who does represent both the GOP and Democratic Party Establishment both having become Federalist, in the old sense of the original two party contextualising of what the Republic was to be.
There are two striking factoids about the Al Smith Memorial Dinner and those are that 1948 and 1992 are the only two years in its 67-year history that the respective candidates for president did not address the dinner those years are 1948 and 1992.
In 1948 A Democratic Candidate Truman was on the ticket that had been installed by the establishment against the popular choice Henry A Wallace had lost out to Truman for Vice president in 1944 and in 1948 ran as an independent.
The 1992 Election had the third candidate Ross Perot and also Bill Clinton came from out of the blue to secure the Democratic Nomination and topple the incumbent George Herbert Walker Bush for the presidency.
The other notable year is 1960 when Kennedy beat Nixon. Kennedy’s address to the Dinner in 1960 is instructive in its reference to the 1928 Election when Smith Lost to the Republicans
We need to wake up the young men who are born old, cowering in their ruts, afraid of the unknown worlds that lie beyond the map. We need to cut through the shibboleths of contentment and reassurance, and recognize, in John Boyle O’Reilly’s words, that:
“The world is large when its weary leagues two loving hears divide;
But the world is small when your enemy is loose on the other side.”
Al Smith himself warned: “In the height and glory of every nation, men are prone to forget their responsibilities.
We dare no longer forget our responsibilities – to our nation and its heritage, to all the free word, to all the generations yet unborn. We dare no longer neglect the fact, as Charles Malik has put it, that “Communism cannot be met by a mere nay; it requires a mighty yea.” We dare no longer ignore the fact that the world is changing – our cities, our maps, our frontiers and even our adversaries – all are changing. And in this era of change and challenge, we need the hard, tough leadership and the frank, fresh call of Alfred Emanuel Smith.
For legend has it that after the bloody battle of Thermopylae, the victor Xerxes prepared to spread a purple cloak over the body of his vanquished enemy Leonidas, out of admiration for his valor. But as he was about to lower the cloak, a strange voice out of nowhere called out: “No. Take that cloak from me. I will accept no favor from the Persians.” And Xerxes knew that it was Leonidas, speaking to him from the other world. And he called out into space: “But thou art dead, Leonidas. Why hate the Persians even in death?” And, according to the legend, back came the stirring reply: “The passion for freedom dieth not.”
Al Smith’s passion for freedom did not die with him. It is ours to nurture today. May we all be true to that great legacy.”
And, so, on this particular occasion, when we honor a man who was a great political leader, but a man also who had a great religious faith, America’s lesson from him is this: Keep America strong militarily. Be sure that we are also the strongest nation in the world economically. But also, above everything else, remember that America must present to the whole world the image of a people concerned about the problems of the world because if poverty and misery and disease and tyranny exist we would be concerned even if there were no communism.
This is what we must convey, and this, through our religious faith, we will be able to convey much more effectively than simply through the actions of government or through what a President of the United States may be able to say.
And, so, in conclusion, I would add only this last thought: Many years have passed since the year 1928. Many memories have become less bitter through the years. Three weeks from today either Senator Kennedy or I will be the President-elect of this country, and then we will go our separate courses in the years to come. I’ve been trying to think how I could best close my remarks and refer to him and refer to me, and I go back to the campaign of 1928. Herbert Hoover was elected. Al Smith lost. But both of them lived many, many years longer, and both of them, the longer they lived, gained love and affection from the American people – and I would only hope tonight that, however, this election turns out, Senator Kennedy and I in the years ahead will be able to conduct ourselves with the dignity, the decency which earned the esteem and the love of the American people for the two men who were engaged in that great campaign of 1928
From these two speeches it is apparent that as Nixon himself noted Kennedy had the better Speech Writer, that His Father Joseph would not Pay for a Landslide is commented upon in the great book, Sins of the Father, He obviously did not see any merit in Skimping on the best Speech writers.
Watch Hilary Clintons Speech in Response to trumps, She was a very bad candidate, this exchange shows it and also the Shumer Banter was Telling. Take some time and watch the Dias as the Guests are introduced by the Master of Ceremonies, There you will see how the President of the United States is really Elected and Donald Trump was not that Choice, he had a very tough Room that night as the cat calling during his speech showed.
As Ray McGovern Says in the interview linked above, The choice was Plague or Cholera.
Update 24th August.
The curious sensation of being called a Fascist for pointing out the rhetorical excesses in the MSM against Donald Trump?
Related very closely to the concept of Groupthink is a process called Social Conditioning . However, where Groupthink relates to cognitive issues in a small group, Social Conditioning is concerned more with broad social implications – typically nationwide.
Social conditioning is the sociological process of training individuals in a society to respond in a manner generally approved by the society in general and peer groups within society.
Manifestations of social conditioning are vast, but they are generally categorized as social patterns and social structures including nationalism, education, employment, entertainment, popular culture, religion, spirituality and family life. The social structure in which an individual finds him or herself influences and can determine their social actions and responses.
So . . . . in a similar manner to my experience, we have someone (DjSadhu) discover a fact that:
was never before shared with him in any form (school, documentaries, books, web sites, etc.), and
was a revolutionary idea totally different from what he did learn, so he had to share his “aha” moment with others.
Unlike me (no video animation expertise) DjSadhu produces a slick video to show this newfound perspective, since he can’t find anything like it elsewhere.
What’s the response from the “interwebs”?
Critic/Instructor – Rhys Taylor
Here we have the rare individual who is both a scientist, critic and yet not above being an educator/instructor. Mr. Smith and Mr. Plait could learn much from Mr. Taylor (post-doctorate in astrophysics).
Mr. Taylor wrote a few articles here, here and here. What sets him off from Mr. Plait and Mr. Smith is two-fold:
He understands that DjSadhu’s first couple of videos have scientific errors, yet the basicpremise of the solar system moving through space in a helical motion is for the most part correct.
He takes a constructive win-win approach and works in a positive manner with DjSadhu to fix the errors in an attempt to produce a more accurate video than the original two.
The result? A third video by DjSadhu that according to Mr. Taylor is “a million times better and has correct physics.” Mr. Sadhu’s associated blog post to accompany that video is here. Here’s that video:
Mr. Taylor actually carried on a critical yet positive conversation with Mr. Sadhu – the ultimate intent towards a more accurate model. He even developed his own version of the helical motion to show DjSadhu the correct motion and inclination:
Under PC, whatever you do, whatever willing you show, status is contingent.
There is no safety even for members of the ruling elite in a system of Political Correctness; anyone at all is susceptible to denunciation for any reason or no reason at any time.
Since PC is a wave of moral ‘progress’ which leaves-behind all previous moral standards and behaviours – there can be no accumulation of moral capital.
This applies to the ultra-PC just as much as to the openly reactionary.
(In this respect PC is more like communist than fascist totalitarianism: under fascism membership-of and courageous loyalty to the in-group usually brings safety from denunciation; but under communism anybody was vulnerable to denunciation – friends and enemies of the government alternated with bewildering rapidity: nobody was safe.)
Indeed, the PC elite seem especially vulnerable to denunciation – since they are under continuous scrutiny; it is hard to keep-up with the pace of change, and the change is so arbitrary; it is very difficult to suppress common sense 24/7.
The highest member of the PC elite is only a single gaffe away from disaster.
(Note: A ‘gaffe’ is when an elite PC intellectual momentarily forgets to lie.)
Under political correctness, you are only as good as today’s match between your motivations and the ever-changing societal symbols of virtue.
PC assumes that (as an elite intellectual) your motivations are bad unless proven good – and motivations cannot be proven.
You may advertise your good motivations relentlessly – daily, hourly – but you cannot ever prove conclusively, against hostile skepticism, that you are deep-down and overall a fully PC (hence decent) person.
(Not least because it is very unlikely that you are a decent person – after all, who is?).
All of this means that a politically correct social diktat can (from whatever cause – such as elite competition, the need for a scapegoat, or the whim of the media) arbitrarily decide at any time to stop giving you the benefit of the intrinsic doubt; and then you will be helpless, isolated, stripped of all moral status, a marked-man, a legitimate target of self-righteous aggression.
Because, after all, you are guilty – everybody is.
We must now take precautions to prevent you from being embarrassed by something in which the ignorant majority is at fault for lack of proper consideration, and so from supposing with them, that man has not been created truly good simply because he is able to do evil. … If you reconsider this matter carefully and force your mind to apply a more acute understanding to it, it will be revealed to you that man’s status is better and higher for the very reason for which it is thought to be inferior: it is on this choice between two ways, on this freedom to choose either alternative, that the glory of the rational mind is based, it is in this that the whole honor of our nature consists, it is from this that its dignity is derived.
Pelagius (c. 390-418) was an Irish or British ascetic moralist, who became well known throughout the Roman Empire in Late Antiquity. He was declared a heretic by the Council of Carthage. His doctrine became known as Pelagianism.
My aim is not to provide excuses for black behavior or to absolve blacks of personal responsibility. But when the new black conservatives accent black behavior and responsibility in such a way that the cultural realities of black people are ignored, they are playing a deceptive and dangerous intellectual game with the lives and fortunes of disadvantaged people. We indeed must criticize and condemn immoral acts of black people, but we must do so cognizant of the circumstances into which people are born and under which they live. By overlooking these circumstances, the new black conservatives fall into the trap of blaming black poor people for their predicament. It is imperative to steer a course between the Scylla of environmental determinism and the Charybdis of a blaming-the-victims perspective.
from Race Matters. Cornell West.
And it continues more posts in which your Blogger is reduced to Scum, rascist and more deplorable epithets.?
Write a reply…
And Contact, ( Sort of?)
Skype telephone number +46406931188
Portfolio of on line Profiles( Go on be Nosy ) CLICK HERE PLEASE