6 thoughts on “Controversy Surrounding Trump Crowd Size Continues

  1. I took the time to elaborate a bit, knowing well I‘m not a gifted writer as you are.

    You refer to the photo-shopped definition of conservatism, and I could do the same with the terms socialism and liberalism. Definitions that are half-truths are dangerously misleading (more dangerous than a lie).

    In real life (our world) and very briefly, conservatism is to conserve the power and wealth that has been acquired and socialism is to strive to acquire the power and wealth that are owned by the conservatives. Somewhere hidden in his book “The Rise of Meritocracy” Michael Young describes nicely how an intellectual elite within the working class gave rise to socialism.

    Of course I can imagine what your idea of conservatism is and it might glue to a more honorable version, but why would I think broadly and understanding when you take the opposite side in your evaluation of liberalism and socialism as the roots of all evil (it reminds me of a book written by Theodore Dalrymple).

    I like your references to the Bible and since about three months I read the Bible again (a couple of chapters each morning – I blame you … partially 🙂 and I like it), but I particularly dislike it when you connect your beliefs to secular ideologies, it kind off looks like you want to justify or vilify these ideologies based on religious principles.

    The very moment the warmongering elite of kings, noblesse and merchants, hijacked the true Christian religion, Christianity started to serve its sponsor, the clay mingled with the iron (to stay in the spirit). This is the moment when conservatism started to (ab)use Christianity and it is still ongoing as we now can see with the appointment of Betsy Devos (foremost when we realize what her brother Erik Prince represents).
    An article on the hijacking http://www.alternet.org/story/153939/the_tragic_story_of_christianity%3A_how_a_pacifist_religion_was_hijacked_by_rabid_warmongering_elites

    Conservatism and its continuous urge for more wealth financed European colonialism whose atrocities were imported in Europe through the mean of two world wars that equally was a battle of conservatism to do away with its challengers liberalism (source enlightenment) and socialism (source Marxism).

    But the genie had left the bottle and a spiritual war replaced partially the physical war, where all conservative ideas had to be challenged and abolished. They threw the baby out with the bath water. Yes, its opponents have gone way to far and now the masses relinquish themselves unknowingly in spiritual poverty, thoug they believe the opposite is true.

    This morning I read 1 Timothies and a couple of verses intrigued me. For the Conservatives read 1:7-8 and for the socialists read 6:3-8.

    1. Hi GV,

      Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful comment. I wish I had the time to respond fully at the moment, but unfortunately I’m unable just now.

      However, you have prompted me to think about something that I have wanted to do for a while, which is to set out what I think conservatism is (or more precisely Christian conservatism) because I think that a lot of people out there, both those who call themselves conservatives, and those hostile to those who call themselves conservatives, don’t understand it too well. What I mean by it has nothing to do with big business, or wealth accumulation, or colonialism, or being pro-war, which is what seems to characterise many “conservatives”. Rather, what I understand as true conservatism begins with understanding that we are subject to a transcendent law, and includes such tenets as the family being the most basic and fundamental unit of any society; that we all have a duty to build community; that the rich have a duty to share their wealth, but this is to be done voluntarily and not by coercion; that the rule of law, habaeus corpus and right to jury trial are paramount; that national sovereignty is of fundamental importance.

      I will try to get around to fleshing this out a little, when I get time. So once again thanks for pushing me to think things through.

      And I am so glad that you are now reading the Bible once more. That’s great news :). I have prayed for you and will continue to do so. And I will also look up those texts you mentioned.

      With very best wishes,


  2. The pot is calling the kettle black!

    At least some left organizations protest or organize activities from time to time but no attention is given in the media. https://www.vrede.be/en is one organization in Belgium I favour

    But perhaps more telling is that conservatives seem to care about nothing. Where were they when Lybia was destroyed and where were they when Pinnocho Trump imposed a travel ban? Perhaps preparing WW III

    Besides the comparison itself doesn’t match either. Trump continues the drone-killing policy of Obama in Yemen and I saw no protest. Why? Apparently something else makes the difference. I’ve the impression it makes a huge difference whether it happens here or elsewhere.

    For a brief moment, I too hoped for a strong leader, away from that most powerful spectator who’s name was Barack, but instead of Marcus Aurelius, it looks increasingly likely we’ll have to do with Caligula for the next four years.

    1. Hi GV,

      I agree with you. I was appalled that the left were protesting *before* Mr Trump took office, having been silent on Mr Obama for eight years. I was prepared to at least give the man a chance (well I still am, as it’s only been two weeks).

      However, he is showing himself to be the oaf his is. He is far from being a conservative. Conservatives conserve, but what is he conserving. But as for his foreign policy, which I had hoped might be a bit more pragmatic and less ideologically driven than his three predecessors, it now appears to be utterly incomprehensible and downright dangerous. I made the comment on Twitter that his foreign policy appears to be arrived at in the following way:

      He phones up Tulsi Gabbard, Ron Paul and Dana Rohrabacher, then Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio and John McCain, then puts their ideas in a hat and draws them out. Could be “getting along with Russia”, or it could be sending Nikki Haley to the UN to talk about Russian aggression when everyone knows that Kiev started the latest hostilities. Could be “having good relations with other countries” or “not imposing our ‘values’ (whatever they are) on anyone else”, or it could be “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” or “war with China”.

      Interesting times!!!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.