Sunday, March 25, 2007

BACK TO BLOGGING SOON

Hi All,

As many of you know I have taken a little time off from blogging to concentrate on writing my book. With the better part of the book ready to go to the publisher I will be returning to blogging soon.

Thanks for all of your support and for the great response to my Heritage Foundation talk (www.heritage.org).

See you very soon. Tomorrow?

Evan
www.evansayet.com

12 comments:

Tru2my2 said...

Yes, please do!

Brett McS said...

Just listened to the podcast of the fantastic talk at Heritage Foundation - I still not sure what Regurgitating Apples means, but it didn't detract from the presentation.

Unfortunately I couldn't be there because I live on (almost exactly) the other side of the world. Also unfortunately, our equivalent of the Republican Party is called the Liberal Party, so I had to translate as well.

I'll be looking out for the book. Good luck!

ss said...

Oh, good God. I'm trying to work and somebody distills the essence of leftist perversion into a captivating 45 minute YouTube clip. And the fact that said clip is 100% self-evidently correct AND 99.9% in line with my own political thinking is setting me back massively in my New Years resolution of greater humility.

Mad Man Moon said...

I enjoyed watching and listening to your presentation to the Heritage Foundation. You provided "food for thought" and a nice platform for debate.

I am a traditional libertarian conservative, with my views formed by the philosophy of Goldwater and by extension, Reagan. Truth be told, the Heritage Foundation and speakers such as yourself have little to do with conservative ideals. To the contrary, the Neo-Conservative movement, and the founders of it, have managed to defile a philosophy that is core to the republic by rejecting fiscal responsibility, making a mockery of individual privacy and liberty, and engaging in a deliberate and expensive policy of nation building.

What's alarming to me, is that according to those of your ilk, my traditional conservative views are now considered liberal. How in the world did we get to the point were up is down and night is day? How is rejecting unnecessary surveillance and honoring a tradition of individual liberty and privacy a liberal position? How is it that expecting limited government, full disclosure by the government and minimal intervention by the same has become a liberal position? Does this mean that we should now be categorizing CATO as a liberal organization? Up is down. Night is day. So odd.

Yet, as I grow older, I am willing to embrace this alliance that once seemed so foreign.

Your comments regarding indiscriminate thinking and liberals were very amusing. It's nearly impossible to argue against because you paint it as circular in nature. At the same time, it's patently illogical. "It is because it is because it is, and well, that can't change". Nice play for psuedo-intellectuals.

The flaw, and it's a major flaw, in your argument is that in order for it to be "proofed" you must carry it out to it's infinite degree. It is all or nothing. Ones and Zeros. The light switch is on or off. Great in theory, hardly pragmatic in real life. Absolutes rarely work.

Yet, you speak in absolutes. You speak of good and evil. Right and wrong. As if there is only one or the other. Wouldn't life be wonderful if it were only that simple? You content that because liberals have a philosophy against discrimination, they must be absolutely indiscriminate to fulfill their philosophy. This is rubbish and you know it. Such an approach would prevent a liberal from arguing a counterpoint with you, simply because they believe that everyone is right and no one is wrong.

What I found most disturbing about your talk, is the repeated references to "The Elite", liberal media and the "indoctrination" found in schools. This philosophy mirrors the approach taken by Marx and Lenin so closely that it has taken on the resemblance.

Repeatedly, the Neo-Conservatives denigrate the "elite" in much the same way Marx sought to establish a message of class struggles ("they think they;re better than you").

The now-tired assault on the so-called-liberal media seeks to quash viewpoints not inline with yours and write them off as pure, uneducated, bias. Essentially, you are telling people not to bother listening to any other message than the one coming from the government. Incredibly chilling.

Finally, the repeated references to "indoctrination" in schools. Of all, this is likely the most absurd and most alarming of the Neo-Con trick bag. First, it goes against logic. If the fear you spread were true, there would be no GOP. There would be no Neo-Con movement. Only a bunch of socialists brainwashed from day one.

Yet, the frightening message is that allowing your child to be educated, allowing your child to think freely, is dangerous. It threatens our nation. It threatens our future. If this is a real concern, then do not look to the government. Look inward, for as a parent you have failed in your responsibility if it is the schools that establish the values of your child. But do not let that get in the way of fostering a "They" hysteria within your ranks.

In all three, you imply that information is bad. Education and free thought is bad. Analytical thinking and shades of gray are bad. You sir and your colleagues are embarking on a philosophy not unlike the one the United States fought against for fifty years.

My only comfort? That millions of independent, libertarian minded conservatives started the process of righting the ship last fall. I can only pray that the process continues and todays non-conservative GOP gets the message.

Brett McS said...

American use of the term "Liberal" is confusing for those areas where Liberal retains its original meaning, so I always substitute "Leftist".

Another motivation for the campaign against discrimination (ie rational thought) is the utter failure of Communism - the flagship leftist experiment. The targeting of the study of history and reasoning (via post-modernism) is one way leftist academia try to cover up this failure.

philmon said...

Wow. I'm a traditional, Libertarian conservative, too, and I found Evan's talk quite compelling.

I would love to see a return to limited government with (reasonable - some things are time sensitive) full disclosure, many of the things Mad Moon brought up.

A couple of points - first, you have it backwards. What used to be called liberal is now what we call conservative. Classical liberalism, though, left unchecked by any sort of reigning logic has morphed into a grotesque parody of itself, though. So much so that Liberals (capital "L") today have even recognized that and started calling themselves "Progressives" instead in an amusing attempt to throw the rest of us off.

It's not conservatives who are calling up "down", night "day" - it's these same "Liberals" (now "Progressives")

I didn't see Evan calling for unecessary surveillance. I didn't see him supporting fiscal irresponsibility.

I support George Bush for one reason. He was the candidate that had the balls to say that evil is evil and enough was enough with our patience with Saddam Hussein since 1991, and stick to it no matter what the polls said in the face of the barrage of attacks he has taken over it. He's clearly not in it for popularity.

I disagree with a lot of what the Republicans have done ... or failed to do, but in every single instance the Democrats would clearly have done as bad or worse, and they have a defeatist attitude toward Islamism. That one issue alone gets him my support. The other was the two constitutionalist supreme court judges he got in, which will hopefully postpone America's long slide into Euro-oblivion, where it is illegal to own firearms -- or pretty much to defend yourself against an assailant with a stick.

There are worse things than a spendy government. I'd rather not have one, but a fat lot of good our ideals are going to do us when we're a pile of wimps who "don't hit", much less have any will at all to fight or anything to fight for ... or with -- against a culture that is the antithesis of both our ideals and those of the Progressive ilk.

I voted Libertarian in 2000. I saw how close the Progressives came to winning that election, and voted for Bush in 2004 and by God I'm glad enough of us did. If you don't like Bush -- President Kerry or Gore would make him pale in comparison.

Free thinking is fine as long as there's a point. When there can be no point because it might offend someone or because there simply can't be any right answers, then free thinking ceases to have a purpose. Thinking for the sake of thinking and carefully avoiding conclusions isn't thinking at all.

Evan's argument is not circular at all. He has hit upon a pattern that explains nihilistic Progressive (but I repeat myself) thinking. I look at the pattern and it fits just all of the Progressive causes I see. I look at your comment and I see so little of what he said actually referred to that I wonder if you watched the thing at all. Your beef seems to be with Neo-Conservatism in general, and that's fine. But argue with the piece itself -- argue with what Evan actually said rather than lumping him in with a bunch of people you disagree with ideologically. I'd be willing to bet if you were in the same room with the guy (and you really ARE a conservative libertarian and not a Progressive troll posing as one) you'd find you agree with each other a lot more than you disagree.

The way you present your argument, whatever it actually was, has a lot more in common with the way Progressives argue. Frankly, I have to wonder about the veracity your opening statement.

Albertadude said...

I just watched your video on youtube about Liberalism and I just want to say thank you from this Canadian Conservative!!

Wow....do you ever hit it on the head again and again....sadly, can we get the left to listen and perhaps open their minds to the truth?? Is it to late for many of them???

Your speech reminded me so strongly of that old Jewish Prophet Isaiah in Ch.5 verse 20 "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil".....Man you kept hitting that point over and over again....Good is evil and evil is good to the modern day liberal and how true that is...

Powerful powerful stuff...

I just hope that we can get some of the leftists to listen...but they are so besotten with moral relativism, I doubt that rational well thought out arguements will be able to penetrate their wall of stupidity and ignorance!!

Anyways, keep up the great work!

Mad Man Moon said...

philmon - with all due respect, your concern regarding the veracity of my opening statement seems odd. Although, it is consistent with those who have lost focus on the ideals of our founding fathers and embraced the new conservatism. Clearly you are not as familiar with libertarian conservatism as you claim. If you disagree, please explain where in my comments I conflict with the traditional libertarian conservative.

As I said in my original post, todays conservative confuses the ideals of libertarianism with liberalism. For those of us who remain traditional conservatives, this simply could not be more bizarre. We wonder how the ideals of the Heritage Foundation ever made it into the conservative platform given that the philosophy is in direct conflict with conservatism.

Let me address your comments, as some are exceptionally disturbing.

"I disagree with a lot of what the Republicans have done ... or failed to do, but in every single instance the Democrats would clearly have done as bad or worse, and they have a defeatist attitude toward Islamism. That one issue alone gets him my support."

So, for you, we are at war with Islamism? We are at war with a religion? Is it a Christian vs. Islam war or an America vs. Islam war?

In any case, your approach is in direct conflict with that of traditional libertarian conservatism which is very clear that the country should not be using military force unless attacked. Here you are calling for a war on Islam. Not another country, but a religion. An idea.

Shoot, Ronald Reagan understood real conservatism. He didn't say "enough is enough" and send troops into Moscow. He used isolationism and negotiation. You were growing impatient after 10 years? Try 50 years and numerous administrations. Libertarian conservatism worked.

"There are worse things than a spendy government. I'd rather not have one, but a fat lot of good our ideals are going to do us when we're a pile of wimps who "don't hit", much less have any will at all to fight or anything to fight for ... or with -- against a culture that is the antithesis of both our ideals and those of the Progressive ilk."

Oh boy. There is NOTHING more dear to libertarian conservatives than fiscal responsibility and small government. The reason being that small government generally supports all the peripheral ideals of libertarianism. Small government prevents intrusions on liberty, prevents the welfare state, prevents unnecessary taxes. Yet, you are willing to throw that away so we are not "wimps". Your more concerned about fighting a culture that you do not agree with. Seems to me that you are more concerned about, and I am guessing here, your own Christian ideals and not American ideals.

Take a moment and visit CATO, the standard for libertarian conservatism. Read up. Aside from your firearms concerns, you will find that the philosophies found there conflict with much of what you posted here.

To address Evan's comments takes just a few lines. His entire speech was filled with mistruths, distortions, and his base argument is indeed circular and non-sensical. It is entirely based on the idea of not having the free will to reach conclusions on anything. The very fact that they oppose, therefore discriminate against, the policies of the far right renders his argument moot. He argues that the approach is that of a child, using an approach of a child: black and white, good and evil. The argument, filled with fluffy language, simply boils down to petulance.

One more question for you regarding this comment:

"I look at the pattern and it fits just all of the Progressive causes I see."

Please, more details. Such a generalization should be clarified. What causes are you referring to? Assuming "all", you could be busy.

Lone Wolfy said...

I just saw the YouTube video of your speech at the Heritage Foundation. Is there a transcript of it available for download? There was so much wisdom in what you said that I want to save it in my notebook. (Thanks!)

Z said...

Oh, man, Evan...your Heritage Foundation video made me your biggest fan! "WHAT? a bright, hip, New York Jewish CONSERVATIVE? i didn't think it WORKED with that accent!!" (Smile)

Thank you...I honestly got a little teary eyed listening to you...sent it to everyone I know. Some day I'll have the nerve to send it to Liberal "friends" ....maybe this afternoon, wish me luck.

Nice to have you here in LA....hope to meet you some day. And grovel at your feet. I'm not proud when it comes to people getting the truth out.

zabelle

Jamie said...

Great speech mate.

Ransdell said...

I just watched your video "How Modern Liberals Think" and I loved your approach and while I didn't agree with everything I believe you sumed up the best critique of liberal thought of anyone outthere.

But I'm curious to know what is your opinion of the republicans?

check out my site and tell me what you think
yeahpolitics.blogspot.com