Re: holocaust

[Guest guest]

American would be defined differently today than it would have when the

term Un-American was coined. Back then, American meant totally

anti-communist. Anyone showing any sympathy to communists was Un-American.

Not anymore. Nowadays, there is the PC label, and all upstanding (steppers

included) Americans are supposed to have the proper PC beliefs. That's

pretty non-American, suggesting that all Americans should share the same

beliefs, but that's what the PC crowd expects, demands - otherwise you are

politically incorrect... thus anti-American. Fuck them. At least in my

mind, they are anti-everything that is/was America.

Re: holocaust

> --- In 12-step-freeegroups, " Judith Stillwater "

>

> > Anyway, when my ideas are described as " anti-American, " I start to

> > wonder.

>

> Is that what they used to call " un-American? " ?

>

> P.

>

>

[Guest guest]

> The things you are talking about -- emotions, change, actions and so

on --

> ebb and flow over time, and proceed sometimes in cycles. E. g.,

there is a

> cycle of " everyday life " that sometimes gets interrupted by an

awakening to

> a sense of uneasiness (fear, anger, etc.) which increases until one

must

> think, decide, act (or not), and then it subsides into

" everydayness " again,

> with or without a change having been made. Is maybe one of the

problems with

> the Program approach that it trys to " freeze " what ought to be a

normal (but

> complex, only partially controllable) dynamic process?

>

> --wally

yes...I've heard the idea that change is difficult from one person I

can think of in particular, someone I admire in many ways but someone

I don't totally understand (no one here, although there are many

people I admire here). It's so easy to see in someone else, when one

thing about them is seemingly contrary to other things about them.

Know what I mean? This person is someone who I feel has taught me a

lot about how to see shades of gray in the world, but she is so rigid

in some ways. I imagine it troubles me because I see myself in her.

Also, I think this has something to do with recognizing that no one

really deserves an easy life. We all have earth shattering problems,

it's just that some people face the absolute worst that life has to

offer starting in infancy, and never see a let-up. That doesn't make

it any less tragic when a white, middle class, straight A student

commits suicide, or develops an eating disorder, or both. All the

planning and preparing and accepting what you can't control doesn't

make some things better, no program, no parent, no government can take

care of you. Unfortunately. Or fortunately? I don't know, I guess the

answer depends, on any given day, on how the rest of my day went.

I believe in resilience. I think it should be encouraged. I think it

is a good thing to help people, but I think it's a good thing to give

them a realistic idea of the consequences of their choices. Freedom of

speech, the right to bear arms, religious freedom. I believe I've seen

those privileges abused. I've seen people hurt as a result of

exercising their freedom of choice. I commend those who defend my

rights but I also commend those who go a step further, and give

direction about how to exercise the privileges of a wealthy democracy.

ly it doesn't matter so much to me what someone's opinions are,

as long as they are honest about what they think.

Sometimes I feel like it would be better if I lived in a primitive

culture, with no technology. No industry. Maybe even no agriculture.

Where there was no difference between fact and belief. Just tonight,

I'm thinking the worst thing that can happen to a person is that they

see others with the freedom to do what they believe is right, but that

person does not feel that same freedom for him or her self.

This is what happens when people encourage me to ramble

judith

[Guest guest]

> American would be defined differently today than it would have

when the

> term Un-American was coined. Back then, American meant totally

> anti-communist. Anyone showing any sympathy to communists was

Un-American.

> Not anymore. Nowadays, there is the PC label, and all upstanding

(steppers

> included) Americans are supposed to have the proper PC beliefs.

That's

> pretty non-American, suggesting that all Americans should share the

same

> beliefs, but that's what the PC crowd expects, demands - otherwise

you are

> politically incorrect... thus anti-American. Fuck them. At least

in my

> mind, they are anti-everything that is/was America.

But you know, during the Depression Communism was quite acceptable.

People talked openly about believing in Communism, because everyone

was dirt poor and it sounded like a good idea. The democratic party in

Minnesota goes by the acronym DFL, which stands for Democratic Farmer

and Laborer party. When that party was born it was borderline

communist, if it was even far enough right to be called borderline.

The anti-communism of the 50s and 60s was a marked cultural change in

the US.

judith

[Guest guest]

Re: holocaust

>

> > American would be defined differently today than it would have

> when the

> > term Un-American was coined. Back then, American meant totally

> > anti-communist. Anyone showing any sympathy to communists was

> Un-American.

> > Not anymore. Nowadays, there is the PC label, and all upstanding

> (steppers

> > included) Americans are supposed to have the proper PC beliefs.

> That's

> > pretty non-American, suggesting that all Americans should share the

> same

> > beliefs, but that's what the PC crowd expects, demands - otherwise

> you are

> > politically incorrect... thus anti-American. Fuck them. At least

> in my

> > mind, they are anti-everything that is/was America.

>

> But you know, during the Depression Communism was quite acceptable.

> People talked openly about believing in Communism, because everyone

> was dirt poor and it sounded like a good idea. The democratic party in

> Minnesota goes by the acronym DFL, which stands for Democratic Farmer

> and Laborer party. When that party was born it was borderline

> communist, if it was even far enough right to be called borderline.

> The anti-communism of the 50s and 60s was a marked cultural change in

> the US.

>

> judith

Yes, I know about popular Minnesotan attitudes. I hope I am not

stereotyping anyone, but I'd call Minnesota the backbone of communism in

America. At least anti-capitalism, but that's far from anti-American,

AFAIAC. (my personal observations are rather limited, so please don't get

too mad at that statement... or take pride in it if you wish!) The PC

" movement " if you will, seems a lot like that post WW2 anti-communist shift

in views that escalated into something obscene. Today, the PC thought

police suggest (in the same way steppers suggest, if you know what I mean)

views quite different than whatever you would call American thinking in the

60s-80s (and certainly anytime prior, as well). The diversity of thought

and views that was apparent in the 60s is all but extant, at least in the

media, the corporate world and many other aspects of general American life.

In the same way that communist sympathizers, that is people who wanted to

make their own decisions and hold whatever view they happened to believe in,

were not tolerated, people today are being told they can not hate or judge

others - that its not their right to do so, that a superior group of people

has already deemed what is acceptable and using one's own judgment is

wrong - by the PC crowd. In America now, I believe the tolerance for

varying views, beliefs and behaviors is decreasing, and will continue to as

long as (a high percentage of voting) Americans believe the PC nonsense and

thereby support it. The PC answers always sound good, and usually do seem

reasonable at first glance, which is why they are popular. We need to, as

individuals, look at the ideals set forth by the PC thought police more

closely to see their true motives and the actual consequences of not

thinking but simply agreeing with popular wisdom that they manipulate to

suit their motives.

[Guest guest]

Hi Judith;

At a very basic level it's those stresses that make us grow. If the

stress from drinking did not outweigh the pleasure, why quit? We

live in buildings due to the stress of living at the whim of the

weather.

Stress forces us to create, invent and adapt. Eliminate stress and

we would not have utopia, because no one would strive to create it!

Being powerless in an effort to reduce stress is a very negative

concept. When it's totally successful the person becomes almost

a non-entity, eat, defecate and take up space. No productivity or

self mastery. Scary ain't it?

To say that I am powerless over places and things seems ludicrous

to me. Everytime I hear that phrase I think of the old joke about

the preacher and the farmer, so here goes.

The new minister went to visit the farmer and found a beautiful farm

with neat fences, painted buildings and neatly cut lawn. When he

met the farmer he said " This is sure a beautiful farm that you and

God have. "

The Farmer replied, " Yes it is, but you should have seen it when

He had it by himself. "

Had the farmer thought he was powerless in the face of the

environment, there would be no farm. Was there stress in creating

it? Wow.

Granted, there are unnecessary stresses we put on ourselves and

those we might well attempt to eliminate. There again we exercise

control and choices.

Stress is also placed on us by our system of government. Along

with any right comes responsibility. Most any right can and will be

abused, yet with all our rights and their abuses we are still a viable

even vital society.

Iowa is a statutory law state. That means there are no unwritten or

common laws. If there's no written law against it, it's legal. Iowa

has no written law against adultery. So the legislature has left that

responsibility to us the citizens.

It's very reasonable that we americans would have more stress

than other countries, because we have more freedom of action than

other countries.

Personal liberty, begets personal responsibility. Personal

responsibility begets stresses and if I don't control my stresses,

they will surely control me.