The Pursuit of Knowledge
Totalitarian Sentimentality
The fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives.
Conservatives recognize that social order is hard to achieve and easy to destroy, that it is held in place by discipline and sacrifice, and that the indulgence of criminality and vice is not an act of kindness but an injustice for which all of us will pay. Conservatives therefore maintain severe and — to many people — unattractive attitudes. They favor retributive punishment in the criminal law; they uphold traditional marriage and the sacrifices that it requires; they believe in discipline in schools and the value of hard work and military service. They believe in the family and think that the father is an essential part in it. They see welfare provisions as necessary, but also as a potential threat to genuine charity, and a way both of rewarding antisocial conduct and creating a culture of dependency. They value the hard-won legal and constitutional inheritance of their country and believe that immigrants must also value it if they are to be allowed to settle here. Conservatives do not think that war is caused by military strength, but on the contrary by military weakness, of a kind that tempts adventurers and tyrants. And a properly ordered society must be prepared to fight wars — even wars in foreign parts — if it is to enjoy a lasting peace in its homeland. In short conservatives are a hard and unfriendly bunch who, in the world in which we live, must steel themselves to be reviled and despised by all people who make compassion into the cornerstone of the moral life.
Liberals are of course very different. They see criminals as victims of social hierarchy and unequal power, people who should be cured by kindness and not threatened with punishment. They wish all privileges to be shared by everyone, the privileges of marriage included. And if marriage can be reformed so as to remove the cost of it, so much the better. Children should be allowed to play and express their love of life; the last thing they need is discipline. Learning comes — didn’t Dewey prove as much? — from self-expression; and as for sex education, which gives the heebie-jeebies to social conservatives, no better way has ever been found of liberating children from the grip of the family and teaching them to enjoy their bodily rights. Immigrants are just migrants, victims of economic necessity, and if they are forced to come here illegally that only increases their claim on our compassion. Welfare provisions are not rewards to those who receive them, but costs to those who give — something that we owe to those less fortunate than ourselves. As for the legal and constitutional inheritance of the country, this is certainly to be respected — but it must “adapt” to new situations, so as to extend its protection to the new victim class. Wars are caused by military strength, by “boys with their toys,” who cannot resist the desire to flex their muscles, once they have acquired them. The way to peace is to get rid of the weapons, to reduce the army, and to educate children in the ways of soft power. In the world in which we live liberals are self-evidently lovable — emphasizing in all their words and gestures that, unlike the social conservatives, they are in every issue on the side of those who need protecting, and against the hierarchies that oppress them.
Those two portraits are familiar to everyone, and I have no doubt on which side the readers of this magazine will stand. What all conservatives know, however, is that it is they who are motivated by compassion, and that their cold-heartedness is only apparent. They are the ones who have taken up the cause of society, and who are prepared to pay the cost of upholding the principles on which we all — liberals included — depend. To be known as a social conservative is to lose all hope of an academic career; it is to be denied any chance of those prestigious prizes, from the MacArthur to the Nobel Peace Prize, which liberals confer only on each other. For an intellectual it is to throw away the prospect of a favorable review — or any review at all — in the New York Times or the New York Review of Books. Only someone with a conscience could possibly wish to expose himself to the inevitable vilification that attends such an “enemy of the people.” And this proves that the conservative conscience is governed not by self-interest but by a concern for the public good. Why else would anyone express it?
By contrast, as conservatives also know, the compassion displayed by the liberal is precisely that — compassion displayed, though not necessarily felt. The liberal knows in his heart that his “compassionating zeal,” as Rousseau described it, is a privilege for which he must thank the social order that sustains him. He knows that his emotion toward the victim class is (these days at least) more or less cost-free, that the few sacrifices he might have to make by way of proving his sincerity are nothing compared to the warm glow of approval by which he will be surrounded by declaring his sympathies. His compassion is a profoundly motivated state of mind, not the painful result of a conscience that will not be silenced, but the costless ticket to popular acclaim.
Why am I repeating those elementary truths, you ask? The answer is simple. The USA has descended from its special position as the principled guardian of Western civilization and joined the club of sentimentalists who have until now depended on American power. In the administration of President Obama we see the very same totalitarian sentimentality that has been at work in Europe, and which has replaced civil society with the state, the family with the adoption agency, work with welfare, and patriotic duty with universal “rights.” The lesson of postwar Europe is that it is easy to flaunt compassion, but harder to bear the cost of it. Far preferable to the hard life in which disciplined teaching, costly charity, and responsible attachment are the ruling principles is the life of sentimental display, in which others are encouraged to admire you for virtues you do not possess. This life of phony compassion is a life of transferred costs. Liberals who wax lyrical on the sufferings of the poor do not, on the whole, give their time and money to helping those less fortunate than themselves. On the contrary, they campaign for the state to assume the burden. The inevitable result of their sentimental approach to suffering is the expansion of the state and the increase in its power both to tax us and to control our lives.
As the state takes charge of our needs, and relieves people of the burdens that should rightly be theirs — the burdens that come from charity and neighborliness — serious feeling retreats. In place of it comes an aggressive sentimentality that seeks to dominate the public square. I call this sentimentality “totalitarian” since — like totalitarian government — it seeks out opposition and carefully extinguishes it, in all the places where opposition might form. Its goal is to “solve” our social problems, by imposing burdens on responsible citizens, and lifting burdens from the “victims,” who have a “right” to state support. The result is to replace old social problems, which might have been relieved by private charity, with the new and intransigent problems fostered by the state: for example, mass illegitimacy, the decline of the indigenous birthrate, and the emergence of the gang culture among the fatherless youth. We have seen this everywhere in Europe, whose situation is made worse by the pressure of mass immigration, subsidized by the state. The citizens whose taxes pay for the flood of incoming “victims” cannot protest, since the sentimentalists have succeeded in passing “hate speech” laws and in inventing crimes like “Islamophobia” which place their actions beyond discussion. This is just one example of a legislative tendency that can be observed in every area of social life: family, school, sexual relations, social initiatives, even the military — all are being deprived of their authority and brought under the control of the “soft power” that rules from above.
This is how we should understand the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama. To his credit he has made clear that he does not deserve it — though I assume he deserves it every bit as much as Al Gore. The prize is an endorsement from the European elite, a sigh of collective relief that America has at last taken the decisive step toward the modern consensus, by exchanging real for fake emotion, hard power for soft power, and truth for lies. What matters in Europe is the great fiction that things will stay in place forever, that peace will be permanent and society stable, just so long as everybody is “nice.” Under President Bush (who was, of course, no exemplary president, and certainly not nice) America maintained its old image, of national self-confidence and belligerent assertion of the right to be successful. Bush was the voice of a property-owning democracy, in which hard work and family values still achieved a public endorsement. As a result he was hated by the European elites, and hated all the more because Europe needs America and knows that, without America, it will die. Obama is welcomed as a savior: the American president for whom the Europeans have been hoping — the one who will rescue them from the truth.
How America itself will respond to this, however, remains doubtful. I suspect, from my neighbors in rural Virginia, that totalitarian sentimentality has no great appeal to them, and that they will be prepared to resist a government that seeks to destroy their savings and their social capital, for the sake of a compassion that it does not really feel.
About the Author
Roger Scruton is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. His latest book, How to Think Seriously About the Planet: The Case for an Environmental Conservatism, has just been published by Oxford University Press.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (267) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Roger Scruton
More Articles From The Pursuit of Knowledge
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/09/totalitarian-sentimentality
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Ret. Marine| 12.9.09 @ 7:38AM
Great read and spot on with the sentiments of the social do-good-ers of today. Compassion, it stops at the door for those who refuse to do for themselves. Call me crazy but, this old Devil Dog has very little patience for the liars calling themselves compasionate these days, they are the modern day slave holders of the "it's your fault I have not gained success" because of my standing, or lack thereof, within my peers, family or social order.
The day is upon us where we the Conservative minded "individuals" are at risk of being branded as the out-casts because of our learned value system. Today, this admin. is falling all over itself in the redistribution scheme to insure those who scam the system for their benefit at the expense of the working class, i.e. individuals.
I see a clash in our near future from this sort of mentality. Everyone of us knows of a person just about stupid enough to fall for this type of hype and I am sure we will not let them have a "pass" when the time is ripe for the objection to their stealing from others to gain "theirs" as they put it.
Sad, indeed, that We as a Nation have been put in a place where "social justice" is compared to a "right." Social justice is just another word the liberals use to gain favor with the "victim class" for their votes. Who would blame them, other than us Conservatives, because afterall, it's just obama's stash. Jeez we are in for a world of hurt.
Rocco| 12.9.09 @ 7:43AM
Semper Fi, from one Devil Dog (retired O-6) to another, and a belated Happy Birthday (one month late)!
Tom| 12.9.09 @ 11:58AM
This article WAS INDEED preaching to the choir.
Semper Fi
Always a Marine E-5
Leonious| 12.9.09 @ 4:06PM
Semper Fi from a Navy "PeckerChecker"
Fleet Marine Corpsman.
Petty Officer Second Class GUADACANAL
Retired by none other than Albert Gore's reorganization of the government
HAZE GREY SALT SPRAY in 2010 we will all be underway!
MERRY XMAS YAWL
Alan Brooks| 12.10.09 @ 9:19PM
"Under President Bush (who was, of course, no exemplary president, and certainly not nice)"
it's not what people say, it is what they don't say:
you neglect to mention how GW signed on to much of Obama's economic policies after Obama won 13 months ago; so if Obama is a 'Marxist' then Bush signed was complicit-- and because Bush has not publicly modified his statements (just one example: "Obama deserves my silence") of December 2008 to January 2009 during the intervening year-- can one assume Bush has been a "fellow traveler" since December of 2008?
Alan Brooks| 12.10.09 @ 9:45PM
No wait, Bush publicly announced "Obama deserves my silence" well after he left office.
So if Bush isn't exemplary or nice, then at least he is cunning. He is leaving open the possibility that more of his kin can run for public office in the future.
As Corporal George W. Agarn: "who SAYS I'm dumb??"
Alan Brooks| 12.9.09 @ 5:50PM
No decency anywhere. My dad was in the Service; they rut likes dogs.
"Where's the local cathouse?", they asked him when they arrived..
martha| 12.9.09 @ 8:16PM
So what?
Ret. Marine| 12.10.09 @ 5:18AM
They rut like dogs? It's obvious son you have no dicipline or respect for your elders at all. You must be one of these types that believed your dad "abused you mentaly" for having the dicipline you obviously lack. Some of us veterans over a period of our lifetime have made many sacrafices to keep you safe and comfy with your ungrateful attitude, shmae on you. Come here and insult the very people who have kept your sorry but out of the people of the religion of pieces, head-choppers grip, no excuss, no excuss at all.
Alan Brooks| 12.10.09 @ 8:56PM
Alright, you have convinced me, and if he were alive you could tell it to my father. I told you what HE told me concerning HIS experiences in WWII 1943-'45.
When your parents tell you something, you tend to believe what they say.
It doesn't bother me what happens behind closed doors: however morality is what people do when no one is looking. That is a conservative view, not a liberal or libertopian view.
Ret. Marine| 12.10.09 @ 5:19AM
They rut like dogs? It's obvious son you have no dicipline or respect for your elders at all. You must be one of these types that believed your dad "abused you mentaly" for having the dicipline you obviously lack. Some of us veterans over a period of our lifetime have made many sacrafices to keep you safe and comfy with your ungrateful attitude, shmae on you. Come here and insult the very people who have kept your sorry but out of the people of the religion of pieces, head-choppers grip, no excuss, no excuss at all.
Alan Brooks| 12.10.09 @ 8:57PM
Alright, you have convinced me, and if he were alive you could tell it to my father. I told you what HE told me concerning HIS experiences in WWII 1943-'45.
When your parents tell you something, you tend to believe what they say.
It doesn't bother me what happens behind closed doors: however morality is what people do when no one is looking. That is a conservative view, not a liberal or libertopian view.
Alan Brooks| 12.10.09 @ 9:23PM
Yet perhaps I have been misinformed; I thought conservatives are supposed to attempt to be 'nobler than Caesar's wife'.
Rocco| 12.9.09 @ 7:41AM
Liberal "compassion" is cheap - it's dependent on their stealing other people's money and distributing it to their clients (in the Roman sense of the word) to make them feel good. In addition, it's condescending - the liberal doesn't give two shits about the recipient of his "compassion," and in fact, generally despises them. Conservatives, on the other hand, for all the hardness and severity attributed to them by Mr. Scruton (I do agree with you!), think that we are engaged in a Marquis of Queensbury competition with the liberals. Conservatives need to jettison that notion and realize that we are engaged in a life and death struggle for our Republic. Our adversaries certainly think so, if you look at the alacrity with which they are bankrupting and weakening our country. Ruthlessness is the order of the day, and I for one am ready for open season to be declared on these treasonous slimeballs.
My powder's been dry for damn near 40 years!
Alan Brooks| 12.9.09 @ 5:54PM
But what good was the Roman republic without virtue? You want a republic merely for the sake of having a republic? because ignoring what citizens say to go by their behavior, that is what you are left with.
But I feel like an ingenue bringing it up: like a little Safety Patrol officer.
martin j smith| 12.9.09 @ 7:50AM
In this country I am not looking at Liberals, but hard left Marxists. The Democrat Party has moved from Liberal to Marxist in both form and substance.
They are totalitarian by nature. The fear that I have is related to the power grabs and desire for the Democrats to take total control. By the way I would not want any one party in total control. That is dangerous indeed.
Rocco| 12.9.09 @ 8:04AM
In my view, today Liberals = hard left Marxists. But, I do agree with your post. No one party should be in control of anything.
Son Of Sam | 12.9.09 @ 12:40PM
liberalism is Marxism sold by the drink
progressivism is Marxism sold by the keg
Obamafascism is Marxism sold by the swimming pool
However you look at it, they're all swilling from the same godawful cesspool of bad ideas. It is precisely this evil, hate-filled thinking which has made the modern day ObamaNazi thug: a cold heartless asshole who has no problem murdering children who survive an abortion, but weeps crocodile tears for the stone cold killers guarded by our brave soldiers at Gitmo. The lunatic scumbag who is hellbent on letting millions of illegal aliens stay here forever, while millions of real Americans have to make do with the soup kitchen of the unemployment line. The nutcase who pours billions of dollars into the pockets of fatcat Wall Street bankers, and sorryass losers who can't make cars, then wants to posture and make speeches about their corporate bonuses.
stand strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.samadamssos.bravehost.com/
Melvin| 12.9.09 @ 8:25AM
My goodness we must be having the morning meeting in the CO's office today.
As Ronald Reagan was the culmination and the zenith of Conservationism. Barrack Obama is the culmination of post WWII Marxist ideology that Marxist college professors filled the Liberal young skulls full of mush.
But this ideology isn't necessarily pure Marxism, but a mix of Marx and Timothy Leary.
What is really going to be interesting is what we are going to have after the Obama Presidency.
Conservatives had Reagan, Liberals had Obama will the Country swing right again or will we have some sort of political balance for the next go round.
One thing for sure, it will be one hell of a ride.
Sue| 12.9.09 @ 9:00AM
You're right Melvin. I don't have much faith in the conservative's ability to stop the train wreck. They also sat in the learned chairs and had their brains filled with the left's ideology. That is why they are not likely to "stand up tall" and defeat it. We've had nothing but mush from them since Reagan.
The facts are that what we are going to have after his presidency is a debt that even our great grandchildren can't pay back so it will be monetized; the welfare state will be getting a lot of dollars to spend, but they will be virtually worthless; we will have "free" health care, but brain surgeons will be nowhere in sight along with cardiologists, oncologists, etc. Today's "new" health care technology will become useless to us. We will no longer have research and development done in the private sectors and what comes out of the government sectors will be laughable because it will employ the mediocre and "preferred" and the system of meritocracy will be destroyed. This is already happening in our schools big time and they are on a "downhill" slide to the pit of socialized non-thinkers.
It will be a ride, but I'm afraid we'll all be vomiting at the end as there will be no "standard" in our "standard of living." It will be replaced with "surviving."
Shyster| 12.10.09 @ 2:06AM
Sorry Sue. It wasn't conservatives that sat idly by, it was Republicans. Conservatives have remained true to form, as always.
You need to get your facts straight.
Pingback| 12.9.09 @ 8:39AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Totalitarian Sentimentality [spectat links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Appleby| 12.9.09 @ 8:56AM
We have been discussing this concept of liberalism with regard to the relentless pressure of liberal organizations to collect "New, [expensive], unwrapped toys" for TheMostVulnerableAmongUs so that everyone gets something his parents could not buy...just dump the loot in the bin, for others to distribute.
Do you think the kids who receive this loot cast a moment's thought to where it came from? Or from whom? Do you think they or their parents care two whoops that their kids are loaded up with three times the load of goodies that will be received by the children of those who gave?
Do you think that the five minutes they examine the "new, expensive, unwrapped toy" before throwing it aside for the next one will make a difference in their lives?
Only insofar as it reinforces the idea that everything you want rains down from the sky, as long as you cry loudly enough...and that you are entitled to this anonymously-arriving loot simply because you breathe.
And what does it teach the children of the people who pinch the pennies and go without food and adequate clothing so their kids can have 10% of the loot that is showered on ThePoor?
It teaches them that when they grow up, they ought to want to be Poor.
JohnD| 12.9.09 @ 8:58AM
An interesting thought experiment I would like to see tried:
If we ever elect a conservative President in the future, I'd like to see him cut tax rates, and then, anticipating the stuck-pig squealing of liberals, offer a place where anyone can contribute money voluntarily to the U.S. Treasury. In response to any editorial comment, or Hollywood millionaire liberal's public lamentations of lower tax rates, remind them of where they can contribute their own money to address their concerns. Put up or shut up.
This would expose the liberal mind set and their hypocrisy; when they pine for higher tax rates, they want it to be YOUR money, not theirs. Just look at Michael Eisner, former Disney millionaire CEO who contributed to Clinton in 1992, only to acclerate his deferred compensation to subject it to lower Republican tax rates.
Sue| 12.9.09 @ 9:10AM
A two-party system creates schizophrenia and paranoia. This is why the Country has been on the fast-track to socialism for the last 100 years. The left screams out "help the poor" (with your money), the right screams out "help the poor" (make their own money).
Wealth creation is done by the producers and wealth destruction is done by the looters. The democrat party has been looting the creators of wealth for the last century and the middle class has stood around watching and letting it happen.
M. Eisner was not a "creator of wealth." He destroyed more wealth and looted more wealth from Disney than I ever thought possible. The shareholders let him do it, too. He piggy-backed on someone else's success and intelligence and when it came time to pay up, he ran like a coward into the party that used to be known as the "wealth creators."
JohnD| 12.9.09 @ 9:28AM
Good point. Eisner capitalized on Intellectual Property laws that he used to market and sell the late Walt Disney's genius, that he did not create.
The irony is that Walt Disney was a family oriented person who marketed family entertainment. Disney is now acting as a wrecking-ball on traditional values and a corrupter of children with their spin-off studios hawking trash at the nation's box offices.
Rob | 12.10.09 @ 9:39AM
John D,
You don't have to wait, point those people here:
http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html
Neo| 12.9.09 @ 9:03AM
I found the basic difference summed up in one comment exchange on a blog ...
Progressive: Don't you agree that it is all about how to divvy up the spoils ?
Conservative: No, it's about keeping most of what is already mine.
Charles O'Leary| 12.9.09 @ 9:04AM
Roger:
An excellent statement. However, we need to acknowledge that the actions by the Obama Administration and Democrat led Congress, and indeed the philosophy behind those actions, is the culmination of negative trends throughout the last century. In many cases citizens and politicians may finally be standing up to say "Stop!" now while they quietly went along with similar but less egregious totalitarian actions in the past. I agree with your closing statement that many people are now "...prepared to resist a government that seeks to destroy their savings and their social capital...", but we need to remember the slow damage to those things under all sorts of governments over the past few decades. Effective action to save our Republic must address more than the most recent outrages perpetrated by the current government. Beyond that, all of us must proclaim and insist on the fundamentals of conservatisim at all times and in all ways, and not go along with a philosophical outrage simply because it's not as bad as it could be or so we can "pick our battles". A philosphical conflict is not a part-time effort.
Becky| 12.9.09 @ 9:04AM
One more point about liberal compassion is that when government screws up, the liberal does not have to take any personal responsibility. They blame government (or conservatives when they don't go along with making government bigger) Liberals are always blemish free, their hands clean. They have immature ideals and can never be happy or satisfied.
It takes time and personal investment to be a person of compassion, not necessarily money. Conservatives are capable of personally seeing a need and doing something about it, liberals' own agenda does not allow them the time to care, that is why they would rather pay taxes. Check out the charitable giving of recent presidential candidates and see where talk meets the walk.
Another difference is that liberals like to brag about helping their identified victims, and conservatives understand that charity is truly a giving, not a taking.
Ret. Marine| 12.9.09 @ 8:06PM
Only in this life do they get away with the other end of responsibility. Accountability. I'm afraid on the other end of this mindset, when death befalls them, is will be most assured they will know the real meaning of what have you done for your fellow man today and be held accountable for their lies.
Nyfarmer| 12.9.09 @ 9:29AM
Much of the indulgence of the welfare/entitlement mentality has come about because of the vast wealth that the western hegemony could play with. Anyone with a wit of common sense should see that the system is breaking down! The debt that is piling up (now a torrent) is a reflection of our society's unwillingness to make sacrifices for our future.
Also, the rest of the world is beginning to compete for hard resources for the rise in their standard of living. Most notably oil and at least 15-20 other metals and minerals, some of which are in short supply, will rise sharply in cost due to competition and scarcity. Ironically this will crimp the movement to 'alternative' energy; for example, uranium is not all that abundant.
The coruptocrats are going to keep busy selling us more goodies (as in practically free healthcare) and the MSM is distracting us with Tiger tales!
Bram| 12.9.09 @ 9:52AM
This article explains why I despised Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" and every national Republican "leader" over the past decade.
It's also why moderate Republicanism loses elections and governs poorly (although not nearly as poorly as liberal Democrats).
Paul| 12.9.09 @ 2:22PM
Back at you Bram with Bush 41's "kindler, gentler America." As Nancy Regan asked, "kinder and gentler than whom?"
Paul| 12.9.09 @ 2:23PM
Apology for the spelling error, "kindler" should be "kinder."
JAH666| 12.9.09 @ 10:28AM
The Statist mindset in Europe and the rest of the world is ultimately suicidal, because it relies on others to support it. Mr Scruton mentions this mind-set in the close of his piece with the mention of the Left's hatred of GW.
"hated all the more because Europe needs America and knows that, without America, it will die. Obama is welcomed as a savior: the American president for whom the Europeans have been hoping -- the one who will rescue them"
In trying to make America 'just another country' like themselves, removing the support mechanism that is our (formerly) robust economy and our feared military strength, they could be said to have entered into a greater slide toward that suicide. One question, though; what is it that the Euros exactly expect Obama to rescue them from? I see this attitude as just another stroke across the wrist of Europe with the knife of Marxism. Call it soft despotism or what you will, the loss of American social, economic and military strength just hastens their over-all demise. All Europe can expect now is a quicker slide into anarchy and the rise of the Islamic Caliphate to replace them.
davelnaf| 12.9.09 @ 10:32AM
Very good article; well done. Democrats need to understand that they do not have the same kind of broad public support for their policies that Euro politicians can take for granted. And they also need to recognize that Obama’s election was largely a fluke and growing public awareness of his many shortcomings is even now hanging a serious liability around their collective political necks.
melvin| 12.9.09 @ 10:34AM
People, please remember laws are only binding if the people willingly follow them.
If We the People revoke our consent to be governed, then would good is the lawmaker? He or she just drafts meaningless edicts.
We still have that choice in this Country to revoke our consent to be governed. Oh sure, the elitist totalitarians can pick us off one by one and torture us, but is it no less torture living under Cap & Trade, rationed health care as a Country?
We do not have to endure this torture of death by a thousand totalitarian laws.
What are we afraid of? Afraid of the government, or afraid of having to endure the sacrifices that we will invariably have to live with if we rise up and become defiant to the totalitarians.
I'm sorry people I didn't spend 20 years defending this Country's freedom, just to come home and be an economic slave to a fascist government. I refuse to live like this and I won't.
Ret. Marine| 12.9.09 @ 7:20PM
So join a militia.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 12.9.09 @ 10:47AM
The delicious irony is that once all obummer mmm mmm mmm’s policy are enacted, there will be no more wealth for him to redistribute. After all he and his remoras need conservative cash to pay for all their acts of charity.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
Celebrate Galt Day.
Don’t Tread on Me!!
Anthony| 12.9.09 @ 11:12AM
The Left has never understood or accepted basic human nature and never will. They pertinaciously cling to their utopian ideas of mankind despite what millenniums of human history have
demonstrated.
I guess it's true; conservatives are from Earth and liberals are from Uranus.
Pete| 12.9.09 @ 11:22AM
Uranus. Literally.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/.....onference/
Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 12.9.09 @ 11:51AM
Pete, which is exactly why I often refer to their fearless leader as 'beavisbud'.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
Celebrate Galt Day.
Don’t Tread on Me!!
John L | 12.9.09 @ 11:45AM
Why is it that a perfectly good article has to insert the wrong wording, invalidating the article itself?
I realize that I am ranting here, but the simple truth is that "conservative" and "liberal" are again being used incorrectly, by someone who is supposed to be either knowledgeable, honest, or both. The simple truth is that we are ALL conservative, unless we are in the morgue. But even worse is the total misuse of "liberal". And both sides of the isle are guilty of such dishonesty/laziness.
The simple fact is that liberals, true liberals, are people who believe in individual liberty. As a self-confessed Liberal, of the classic 19th century variety, I tend to take offense to others, who are either too ignorant, or too dishonest, to be credible. And that is what I think of the writer here.
And what is so telling is that this site, along with many others, are so willing to criticize FDR for his many mistakes. And they are right to do so. But they are willing to overlook how he hijacked that once honourable name, gathering it for his twisted misuse, and then allowing to pass it on to today's Collectivists, and Statists, most of which are nothing but a bunch of Jackasses.
Colour me unimpressed with the validity of the writer here. And it's a rotten shame too. Because he/she, who controls the language, controls the debate. And misusing the wording negates one's credibility from the outset.
Truth to Power| 12.9.09 @ 12:25PM
"Colour me unimpressed ..."
I color you an arrogant jerk.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 12.9.09 @ 12:47PM
John, calm down and take a deep breath. Words evolve in meaning with the passage of time. And a good writer must consider the audience for whom he writes. It means absolutely nothing in December 2009 how people hundreds of years ago understood the word “liberal”. What matters is how that word is understood in contemporary political discourse. It would be a simple task for me to lift the appropriate volume of my Oxford English Dictionary off the book shelf and look up the history of most any English word. I choose not to do so since using archaic definitions would only more confuse an already muddled debate. For example, I once worked with a woman named “Gay”. Imagine the guffaws she was forced to endure because at the time her parents named their precious daughter that word had a completely different meaning than its common usage today. When my own parents sang “Don we now our gay apparel”, I don’t think they were planning to dress in drag for the office Christmas party at bunny fwank’s. “Liberal” meaning “free in bestowing; bountiful, generous, openhearted” is first cited as being used in 1387. Without question today’s statists are liberal with other people’s money.“ Liberal” as political opinion and meaning “Favourable to constitutional changes and legal or administrative reforms tending in the direction of freedom and democracy” is first cited as used in 1801. And since a big part of the modern conservative ideology is adherence to the rules and ideas first formalized 233 years ago, while it is the other side who wishes to change everything to conform to their warped concept of freedom and democracy, think hoax and chains, it is not inappropriate to call them “Liberal”.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
Celebrate Galt Day.
Don’t Tread on Me!!
Al Adab| 12.9.09 @ 2:38PM
We all know that Classical Liberalism ala John Locke, Adam Smith et al is the position maintained (conserved?) by American Conservatism. Conversely, American Liberalism has long left its roots and become totalitarian and statist. American Language usage differs from English and this (along with Jam and Jelly) is simply one example. Don't split hairs when common usage is known.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.9.09 @ 1:22PM
Folks,
Please forgive John L. He is the moderator of a 'forum' of some twelve people off in a corner who enjoy arguing with each other. Today, as far as I know, he has stepped into an adult conversation for the first time.
He has thrown his vote away, helping the ,(pardon the shorthand), communists taking power.
I was referred to his little corner by a fellow author, and he proceeded to rip me a new one. I just laughed to myself after reading the quality of the posts there.
They have precisely TWO persons there who pay taxes. heh. Remarkably enough, those two people keep trying to talk sense....to no avail.
I introduced TEAM AMERICA there in their corner.
We have generated dozens of thousands of members in three months, yet not ONE of them went to our site to my knowledge to actually see what we are up to. ( http://judgeroy.wordpress.com )
Folks, just get over it. There are lunatic fringe groups all around the 2009 realities we all face.
They are incorrigible. Don't spend an inordinate effort wrestling with lunatics.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.9.09 @ 1:34PM
OH, by the way...get John L to give you his "forum website" address so you can enjoy the fun there.
something like AIJANE. He professes he doesn't know where the name came from. heh.
You will get some chuckles while you are there....a good respite from the harsh realities we face in these days.
Ken
Blackwatch| 12.11.09 @ 3:40PM
You sir are picking at nits. Don't cloud the issue of Liberal vs. Conservative world view with an assinine whine about improper use of the English language. Only a pinhead would attempt it.
spratico| 12.9.09 @ 11:49AM
The analysis in this piece is spot-on. I'm a proud, outspoken conservative in a bastion of liberalism.
As an example, I was talking with a very liberal coworker yesterday and he commented how he loved to go to a certain large store because they had great deals on great things he liked.
His only regret was that he despised having to be around 'those' people when he went there. Those people are the low-income types he's supposed to have so much compassion for.
Hypocrite!
Oldefarte| 12.9.09 @ 12:37PM
The critical part of Roger's editorial was "...... This life of phony compassion is a life of transferred costs. Liberals who wax lyrical on the sufferings of the poor do not, on the whole, give their time and money to helping those less fortunate than themselves. On the contrary, they campaign for the state to assume the burden. The inevitable result of their sentimental approach to suffering is the expansion of the state and the increase in its power both to tax us and to control our lives.....". Liberals simply want to TAX the working population in order to PAY FOR their distorted ideas of saving indigents from themselves [ie, the solutions are not to reduce/eliminate the illegitate birth rate; but to force taxpayers to support same]!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JamesJ| 12.9.09 @ 12:39PM
JohnD, that was tried by some governor of a Southern State, Kentucky, I believe. He vetoed a tax increase and set up a fund for pro tax whiners to contribute. No one contributed.
dcd| 12.9.09 @ 2:00PM
If conservatives are so jealous of the Nobel prizes the obvious solution is to endow a larger set of prizes and sustain them for a couple of centures to build up some prestige. Not that complicated.
Al Adab| 12.9.09 @ 2:34PM
After seeing the prize awarded to Yassir Arafat, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore? and now Al Naqis do you really think anyone gives a care anymore? In, I think, 1974 President Nixon was nominated and the Committee refused to award the prize that year, instead they gave it to Kissinger and Le Duc Tho jointly the following year. Has the Nobel Committee actually had any credibility (Mother Theresa excepted) since? Jealous, I don't think so.
Helen Donnelly| 12.9.09 @ 3:33PM
If I wasn't laughing so hard at your note, I'd try to explain how ludicrous it is, but...
Jack | 12.9.09 @ 3:33PM
Great to read the posts-I missed you all. We have been struggling lately. When the walls started coming down back in Feb/March our people got together and decided we were going to succeed anyway. We became ruthless, single-minded and would not be distracted from all of the negatives our political leaders were banging us over our heads with.
Guess what? We succeeded. We now have more business than ever. Good business that will last (light on defense and automotive of course).
That was all it took. It was ALL attitude.
We now are ready, seriously, to do the same again.
Most commentators in this site seem to be collecting for a reason. We did not become a roaring, new business development success by talking about it!
Please do not take that comment the wrong way. I look up to and honor the authors and commentators on the site. "Actions speak louder than words"!
Thomas| 12.9.09 @ 3:50PM
Mr. Scruton,
I want to thank you for your brilliant summary of the current status quo. I have never read such a clear, concise, biting and dead-on description of the two broad camps that compete for our allegiance.
Mattled| 12.9.09 @ 5:23PM
John D.
Exactly!
My uber liberal in-laws campaigned for a liberal senate candidate. He lost.
THEN, when they got their state income tax bill, they "Hit the roof". Well WTF did you expect? The guy when in state senate raised state income tax and property tax. Then they cry like stuck pigs when they have to pay.
I agree with you-----Democrats should have a Democrat Tax---if you vote Democrat, you have to pay at least 15% more in ALL taxes. If you think these ideas are so great, lead the way.
I said this to my father-in-law years ago. He admitted to liking all the programs to help the "little guy (I guess he meant Soros), but then went on to say under his breath he hates paying the taxes.
I'll never forget Ben Affleck and Bill Clinton at the 04 Dem convention lamenting how much in tax cuts they received that they didn't need or want.
Did they send back? Hell no. Of course not.
Democrats are hypocrites and liars.
I say introduce the Democrat Voter Tax.
Slogan: "If you love the policy, prove it. Pay more taxes now."
Bram| 12.9.09 @ 9:14PM
I remember that nonsense. I really liked Pete DuPont and his brand of actual conservatism.
JeffT| 12.9.09 @ 9:49PM
I will always remember the video of Hillary Clinton being askef for some money by a street person. With a look of revulsion in her eyes, she couldn't bring herself to help this poor man asking for a mere pittance from the Lady Clinton. She sloughed him off as she would a beetle that had landed on her shoulder. This is liberal compassion.
Liberal Reader| 12.9.09 @ 9:57PM
Do you have to work hard at simplifying complicated ideas like this?
I've always wanted to know what such rank, absurd reductionism costs the psyche.
Sweeping generalizations are always easier than THOUGHT.
Truth to Power| 12.10.09 @ 1:07AM
The LR seems a little defensive. I thought he has been writing his posts as a setup for Roger Scruton. It is sad to think that someone could actually be so perfect an example. People are usually more complex. It is tough on his psyche I bet.
"Sweeping generalizations are always easier than THOUGHT."
The LR is being very hard on himself. If he loses his sweeping generalizations there won't be much left, just a little profanity. What a sad excuse for a human being.
Sir| 12.10.09 @ 10:24AM
LR, do you have to work hard at accusing conservatives/libertarians of the very thing modern liberals/leftists are guilty of doing? It's as predictable as the sunrise that you lefties will accuse your "opponents" of precisely what you're already doing.
Sweeping generalizations are SOP for the left. For instance, every policy or law you push carries with it the implication that someone or some group of people are too stupid or some other way incapable of doing ____________ for himself/themselves.
Refute that, pink-o.
Anthony| 12.9.09 @ 10:19PM
This essay reminds me of two writers I've been re-reading of late--Czeslaw Milosz and Flannery O'Connor. The great poet Milosz lived through the horrors of WWII in Eastern Europe, with its real clashes between good and evil. He wrote eloquently of the dangers of statism and the emergence of the nihilism of liberal elites. Many of the ideas in this column are evidenced in Milosz's Nobel prize speech of 1980. And in her wonderful "Mystery and Manners," O'Connor warns of the dangers of the "compassion" which is anything but.
Having lived in the uber liberal west of Boston suburbs and a blue collar Maine town, it has often struck me how liberals love to work in New Orleans for a week, donate to Heifer International, etc., while ordinary working people are far more likely to do the real work of charity--handing out food at the food bank, taking old ladies to doctor's appointments, etc. And it has also struck me that liberals are far, far more likely to care about issues far away than the issues of the rural poor.
RM| 12.9.09 @ 11:31PM
WOW! This article nailed it!
Yosemeti Sam| 12.10.09 @ 1:08AM
A maxim: absolute power corrupts absolutely!
Liberals by the busloads evince this phenomenon in Congress daily.
Samples of corruption:
Rangel - sitting pretty.
Murtha - siting pretty.
Dudd - sitting ugly.
Frankfurter - sitting, however.
Pelosi - how's your vested interest tuna business where a passed minimum wage law was waived for your nepotistic interests?
Reid - retirement to Yucca Flats, for you! Glow there, you Cad!
And the beat goes on.
IOW - FU voters! We Democrats be in power! We have a useful - tool, in the partying White House;
we have more available prostitutes in the LMSM to service us for PR than a tiger in the woods. We be in the drivers' seat. Getting off, round the bend should not be hairy.
Totalitarian sentimentality ? - read incremental tyranny!
How to deal with it?
" Remember the Alamo! " - is a useful
adaptive allegory.
Macabre times call for reaching into the historical past for - victoriously blunt
countermeasures.
Blackwatch| 12.11.09 @ 3:54PM
Go ahead and Google "Los Pepes" for a primer on "modern medieval" style warfare. It's how you eradicate a tyrant if you can't get a clean shot at her--go after her supporters and henchmen where they live. Topple the supporters and the overlord falls.
Nastasya | 12.10.09 @ 3:55AM
cool
Pingback| 12.10.09 @ 5:25AM
The American Spectator : Totalitarian Sentimentality American Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 12.10.09 @ 8:54AM
Never Yet Melted » Conservative Versus Liberal Compassion links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 12.10.09 @ 9:16AM
Liberal displayed compassion. Conservative true compassion. - VolNation links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Daniel Stiles| 12.10.09 @ 10:26AM
Spot on! Liberal compassion is a cover to take other people's money for buying influence and taking a cut.
Eric| 12.10.09 @ 1:42PM
My views:
Liberals: People are too uneducated to take care of or make decisions for themselves. No person should ever fail.
Conservatives: People are capable deciding themselves what they can or cannot do. Wrong decisions are not failures, they are opportunities to learn a lesson.
james| 12.10.09 @ 2:55PM
You give liberals far too much credit. This is a good summary of what the apparent differences are, but real liberals don't believe anything they say they do. They don't give to charity, they don't abide by the golden rule, they lie about absolutely everything, they are foul-mouthed and criminally vicious, and they now actually advocate death for inconvient people, like unborn children and the terminally ill.
They are the wing of humanity that is descended from Margaret Sanger and Mme. Defarge and they need to be politically exterminated, and soon, if this country has any chance to survive. This kind of article that gives their "ideas" even the hint of being sincere but wrong is not helping.
We're at war, folks. Act like it.
Dublinbhoy| 12.18.09 @ 3:34AM
James you do not have a clue what you are talking about, further more, the torys brought this country to its Knees ya fudd and kitty cheat.
crbnftprnt| 12.10.09 @ 8:54PM
Mr. Scruton--
Excellent article. However, I am prompted to write by your name. When my daughter was small, one of her malapropisms was to prounounce "crouton" as "scrouton." We liked it so much that they have been called that in our house for the last 33 years. So today I e-mailed her the following:
Jennifer--Have you ever wondered who invented the little toast cubes that we put on our salad? Well, today I found him: <link to your article.>
She was not amused.
Alan Brooks| 12.10.09 @ 9:03PM
Maybe she is not amused because she is a liberal or a Commie?
Pingback| 12.11.09 @ 9:24AM
“A just war leads to a just peace and freedom. An unjust peace leads to death.” - sc links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 12.11.09 @ 9:24AM
“A just war leads to a just peace and freedom. An unjust peace leads to death.” - sc links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
John | 12.12.09 @ 4:51PM
Whether you're liberal or conservative has a lot to do with how comfortable you are with inequality.
Richard Baker| 12.13.09 @ 9:59AM
It is truly easy to be "compassionate" with other people's money. Wonder how many millions have been institutionalized into poverty by "good" intentions? To listen to these liberals and RINOs, you'd think that the Roman Iron Hand and the Legions were in control of the country. What's the deficit up to now? My not-yet-born grandkids want to know.
bill | 12.13.09 @ 8:38PM
Terrific article which sums it up quite nicely. Statism vs. Freedom. For some, the lust for power via the State is more alluring than anything else in their life. Others ask that the State be limited and responsive to the people. I'm afraid we have let it grow into a monster that threatens to consume us all if not quickly brought back under control.
Richard Baker| 12.13.09 @ 10:20PM
What do you do with a snake? Kill it, if it comes to that. Hope not but keep your powder dry.
Answers1| 12.14.09 @ 12:04AM
Why do liberals prefer statism if it does not work? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Are liberals insane?
Pingback| 12.14.09 @ 8:26PM
What is a Moderate? | ThePolitic.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 12.15.09 @ 5:54PM
Ed Driscoll » Totalitarian Sentimentality: Progressives Versus Democracy links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 12.17.09 @ 7:23AM
nuze.me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 12.17.09 @ 8:18AM
The Two Malcontents » Copenwaitin’ links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 12.17.09 @ 9:25AM
Mark Steyn: Copenwaitin’ | NewsReal Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
AppleCider| 12.17.09 @ 9:45AM
What about conservatives? I am bored by these walls of people posturing for who can write the meanest/scariest diatribes that make them appear tough against liberalism and then don't actually do anything constructive. It's true that we are in increasingly desperate times. So get on your school boards, focus on your local party, run for any local office, turn off the t.v. and invent something (the Wright brothers built the first plane and the American economy will only turn around with innovation), strengthen your local institutions of family and church, accept the hardships that come with those opportunities, and most importantly show others that you have hope in these dark times. Conservatives should give hope and love to others and not crab at them all day. That is what really gets people. And yes, I am putting my money where my mouth is daily.
v-pills | 2.19.12 @ 8:48AM
good job!
Pingback| 12.18.09 @ 2:09PM
The Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives | Culture and Freedom links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Spartan | 12.22.09 @ 1:41AM
I would like to compliment the author of this wonderfully pinned article and to acknowledge, what has been discovered within it, by me, as an astonishing chronicle of the political realities of our nation. It is a commentary of unparalleled insight and truth, unselfishly offered and brilliantly written. I've rarely read passages that have been so comforting and reinforcing pertaining to my conservatism.
It is so good, in fact, that I would submit Mr. Scruton should become an important linchpin in revitalizing the Republican Party to it's prominence under Regan. He is a communicator on his level .... and beyond.
JantzenBeazh| 12.28.09 @ 1:20PM
I think the "bleeding heart liberal" is a myth. There is no real sentimentality in a totalitarian mind. They only wear a sentimental facade.
FurnitureRemovalists Melbourne | 2.28.11 @ 7:38PM
Some really interesting points made by Jantzen thank you.
Victor| 12.29.09 @ 10:52AM
I forwarded Totalitrarian Sensitivity to a liberal socialist acquantance in DC. Here is his retort:
"Complete nonsense. Look at the first sentence. Conservatives recognize that social order is hard to achieve and easy to destroy,
"First of all, Hobbes, a conservative if there ever was one, feels that we have all signed a social contract.
"Second, conservatives in the US spend their entire time trying to destroy the social order. They want to let rapacious “capitalists” rule.
"Third, I would argue that it is liberals who recognize how hard it is to be a functioning social order and that conservatives – give me the guns – do everything possible to upset the apple cart."
Pingback| 12.31.09 @ 6:11PM
Spending trillions and exporting much of our economy wholesale to China and India « T links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Frank.| 1.5.10 @ 4:44PM
Thanks. Great share!
las vegas escorts
Sa| 1.9.10 @ 7:15PM
its a good article really admiring. How To Build A Solar Panel | moscow hotels
FatBurningFurnace | 1.12.10 @ 2:57AM
We have seen this everywhere in Europe, whose situation is made worse by the pressure of mass immigration, subsidized by the state.
james| 1.13.10 @ 2:39PM
Cheap websites Terrific article which sums it up quite nicely. Statism vs. Freedom. For some, the lust for power via the State is more alluring than anything else in their life. Others ask that the State be limited and responsive to the people.
Steven| 1.14.10 @ 5:56PM
Affordable websites are great for totalitarians!
Jenny Syms | 1.18.10 @ 11:12PM
Brilliant article can it be quoted? Campervan Hire Australia
NLP | 7.10.10 @ 6:46PM
I've been thinking about quoting this article too it's a great share.
Pingback| 1.19.10 @ 2:29PM
» Why Beauty Matters links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Jefrey| 1.20.10 @ 12:29PM
I did not know this way of seeing.
ideas gifts
Charles Stevens| 1.20.10 @ 6:31PM
Although Mr. Scruton's thoughts are worthwhile, they still don't go deep enough to analyze the most elemental dichotomy between Conservatives and leftists. For a more in-depth view, I recommend a remarkable talk by Evan Sayet at the Heritage Foundation. It is his summation of what he wryly refers to as the Unified Field Theory of Liberalism (title: 'Hating What's Right: How the Modern Liberal Winds Up on the Wrong Side of Every Issue'), and is both humorous and eye-opening. Here is the link...
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev030309a.cfm
It takes about an hour to view, but is well worth it.
jim| 1.22.10 @ 4:31PM
sweet irena
Great share! keep the blogs coming!
Pingback| 1.31.10 @ 9:23AM
Barrel Strength » Blog Archive » Totalitarian Sentimentality links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Jane McCallond| 2.5.10 @ 9:30AM
I think the "bleeding heart liberal" is a myth. There is no real sentimentality in a totalitarian mind. They only wear a sentimental facade.
poker rakeback
Pingback| 2.6.10 @ 9:43PM
Totalitarian Sentimentality « Seeing the Form links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
yeni wahid| 3.20.10 @ 5:06PM
eclipse trailers
antonfkip
cangcuter donk| 3.25.10 @ 8:24AM
blogosphere
automotive
Kim| 3.31.10 @ 8:52AM
SSL
Thawte SSL Webserver - clickssl.com | Online Web Security Provider.
lay123| 4.1.10 @ 9:42PM
then you will want to look to the founder's of this wondrous invention. It is amazing to see
how the watch has evolved and the parts get smaller with each new watch
href="http://www.in-watch.com/"> new watches on the market. There is a watch for
every lifestyle and wardrobe so you can be stylish or simple anytime of the day or night.
c | 4.2.10 @ 3:14AM
ccc
asdfads| 4.7.10 @ 5:43AM
iTunes Converter is a professional and multifunctional software which can convert iTunes support formats, such as MP3, AIFF, WAV, MPEG-4, AAC, Apple Lossless, etc. to any other format and vice versa.
AVI to MP4 Converter is a professional and multifunctional software which can not only convert AVI to MP4, but also support converting between all other video formats, HD video formats included. In addition, AVI to MP4 Converter also functions as excellent AVI codec, audio converter, audio/picture extractor and video editor.
poliker | 4.7.10 @ 7:39PM
Totalitarian Sentimentalityis good article thanks you very much for your information
Poptropica
Poptropica
bobhuj| 4.11.10 @ 8:25PM
i doubt this is real right tattoo machine
Pingback| 4.17.10 @ 6:01PM
Krönika: Sverige sjunker som en sten « Snaphanen links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Bill| 4.24.10 @ 11:51PM
outdoor sauna
Tony Tran | 4.25.10 @ 11:47AM
Thanks for news.
piyter| 4.27.10 @ 6:06AM
ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010
dunia pewayangan
Pingback| 4.30.10 @ 1:20PM
VARIETY | Host Rage links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
asdas| 5.5.10 @ 3:25AM
Flip Converter is a professional Flip Video Converter to help you convert Flip video, you can use it as Flip HD video converter and Flip MP4 converter. Supporting all Flip camcorder models, it can also function as Flip Ultra converter and Flip Mino converter.
dfsdf
Pingback| 5.8.10 @ 1:28PM
The Midnight Fryer: Life is too Short – Stanford Daily | itouch Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
database softwares | 5.10.10 @ 5:06AM
I argue the same in many respects in this article, good work friend
management database software | 5.10.10 @ 5:08AM
i like your post, very good... ^_^
gold wedding rings | 11.13.10 @ 4:11AM
Well how about i fyou make a comparation between the american and other nation to see the differences you will see that in some cases aren't much difference.
dantri| 12.25.10 @ 7:13AM
I forwarded Totalitrarian Sensitivity to a liberal socialist acquantance in DC. Here is his retort:
"Complete nonsense. Look at the first sentence. Conservatives recognize that social order is hard to achieve and easy to destroy,
"First of all, Hobbes, a conservative if there ever was one, feels that we have all signed a social contract.
"Second, conservatives in the US spend their entire time trying to destroy the social order. They want to let rapacious “capitalists” rule.
"Third, I would argue that it is liberals who recognize how hard it is to be a functioning social order and that conservatives – give me the guns – do everything possible to upset the apple cart."
Dantri
Ken Hill | 3.6.11 @ 5:54PM
Manchester Escorts Premuim Exclusive Company Escort Agency, Based In North West England For Out Call Services
Gentech | 6.26.11 @ 11:33PM
Are you tried? Is your work too loaded? Share some with Gentech. We will be your brain and let’s yours relaxed. Just rely on Gentech.
Game | 6.26.11 @ 11:34PM
Want to buy a gift for a special birthday of your kids. We suggest Playstation 3. A game comes with more advance 3D technology and download function. Make your kids excited with joy just by the PS3 game .
Cheap Flight to Bangkok | 6.26.11 @ 11:45PM
The cheap flight to Bangkok is offered here and now. Don’t regret because of not choosing us. Just click the cheap flight to Bangkok and visit Bangkok anytime you want.
Wii | 6.26.11 @ 11:45PM
Your home can become an amazing amusement park any time you want with Wii. Be prepared for this change and be ready to move your old world away. Share Wii with people you love and have a memorable time together.
出会い | 7.20.11 @ 4:45AM
good
IBCBET | 8.1.11 @ 1:06AM
They see criminals as victims of social hierarchy and unequal power, people who should be cured by kindness and not threatened with punishment. ibcbet-th IBCBET ibcbet online
traffic plan | 8.23.11 @ 1:37AM
Liberals attain freedom. the article is a good material for information. Pretty good. nice job. I like when it discusses regarding freedom and respect to different aspects of constitution.
web designer | 9.3.11 @ 5:00AM
Examine the kind of website you would like to have. If you are planning to market place merchandise online then the most beneficial website is one thing that acts as an on-line store for you personally.
steroids | 9.3.11 @ 5:08AM
E-commerce website would make a potent selling platform wherein retaining solutions and providers approximately date is incredibly simply managed.