-->

Conservative Daily News - The best news, analysis and opinion articles written by a collection of citizen journalists. Covering a range of important topics in blogs, op-ed, and news posts, these upstanding patriots are bringing back American exceptionalism with every entry..

Meet the Left’s Founding Fathers

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Meet the Left’s Founding Fathers”.

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. This is due to our approach that citizens have a voice, not only the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

Tags: ,

Comments (32)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. mountainguy says:

    Not only an stupid list, but also an stupid list that supports the worst and most anti-christian of all human heresies: western christendom

  2. gobnait says:

    ‘As he himself bragged, “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully, the more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists.” ‘

    The most telling line of his memoir: he wishes to ‘avoid’ the appearance of being a sell-out. He never denies being one.

  3. WillofLa says:

    So if these ideas of these men are so bad and have all failed to live up to their supposed rewarding life under one of them, why is it that people flock to these ideas like a moth to a flame? It’s because people have egos and want to prove that they are smarter than those who came before them. It’s like believing the things your grandparents told you and how you were rasied by your parents is thrown away and one of these beliefs is adopted. Later on in life the person usually comes back to understand that what their grandparents and parents told them about life was true, and those things are the best way to live. Even though each of us puts our own spin on how we live, we find out the older we get the more true those things we were told come true.

    Unless a person has old burned out Hippies as grandparents and their children, your parents are brain washed to, would be the only reason why you didn’t turn out good. Instead you turned out to be a product of one of these ideologies and believe our people would be alot more happy if their lives were being run by government under one of these ideologies, instead of living their lives the best way THEY saw fit, and were being allowed to be free the freedom that God gave us and not shackled down by the destructive ideas of one of these men. ‘

    These men are insane. And the proof of it is they keep trying to do the same thing over and over again every year, and try to find new people who will follow them into the gutter following another failed attempt to control people’s lives rather than giving them the freedom God intended us to live in. These men’s ideas in the hands of insane people are the reason why we are suffering now. People like Obama and his mentor’s are all insane, but the problem is THEY are in control of our government.

    They reason why they are in control of our government and not us is, they influence young people, and the poor and tell them that it is us who are the problem with why their lives aren’t better, and they should vote them back into office so that these men’s ideas can destroy us, then life will be much better for all of the young, poor, and needy.
    It’s a lie that is fallen for by every generation, year after year. The problem is after 50 years there are alot of people still left around who fell for these lies when they were young who are still waiting for one of these idea’s to finally take over the country. They want to see if those ideas will work because the actually have faith those failed ideas will finally work this time. And no matter how many times these ideas fail, those people who believe in them still want to try them again, and again, year after year. That’s why the country is in such bad shape economically.

    How do we get rid of these people and their failed ideas. I don’t think we are going to be able to do that without killing off half the people in the country who believe in Socialism and Communism, and that’s not going to happen. All we can do is try to institute more and more conservatism into the government and the economy to try to show these dumb people that our way works and theirs has always failed. Intellectualism is fine for exercising the brain, but you have to always understand that it is just exercise and not for real. Once a person starts believing those failed ideas are real that’s when the person starts to become lost.

    • AMS says:

      “These men are insane. And the proof of it is they keep trying to do the same thing over and over again every year.”

      That’s true of everybody, whatever their philosophy or politics. Sometimes something works, sometimes it doesn’t, but the idea that there’s one answer or idea that will always work under any circumstances or with any problem is naive.

      But a lot of these people weren’t trying to “do” much of anything political. Plato wasn’t trying to force humanity into a utopian pattern. Probably More wasn’t either. Their “utopias” were blueprints for some near future. They were trying to make a point about philosophy or values.

      Kant was primarily concerned with thinking about thinking. Such political ideas as he did have weren’t totalitarian. Schopenhauer really wasn’t much concerned with politics at all. Keynes was consummately political, but hardly totalitarian or truly left-wing.

      Freud saw therapy as an answer, but was certainly very skeptical of political solutions and utopias. That’s the other side of a lot of the thinkers mentioned here. Foucault, Derrida, Habermas, Adorno, (who wasn’t Horkheimer’s lover for heaven’s sake) had their skeptical side — skeptical not just about religion, say, but also about political solutions. That’s something conservatives may not want to recognize, but it’s there. Maybe conservatism would be deeper or richer or at least more gracious if we recognized that.

  4. WillofLa says:

    With many forms of government, it wasn’t until Marx that is was thought that a whole country could be taken over with one of these ideologies. Up until that time one of these early thinkers (sic) it was just their writings and their opinions were read by those who could afford to buy books and manuscripts. They weren’t cheap, back then, and most people were spending their money on food and clothing to try to stay alive than to become “enlightened”.

    At the turn of the last century the “intellectuals” and “artists” which included writers, and others like that would have places where they would meet to discuss these sorts of things. Most of those places were rich people’s homes or places where the rich could congregate these sorts of people. They would sit around all day and talk about how to solve the worlds problems, kinda like the Hippies use to do. And as a above commentor wrote, God was not part of the equation, nor was morality, conservatism, our Constitution or being responsible for oneself. The discussion was about destroying those things. These people seem to be more about evil in explaining away goodness and individual sovereignty than anything else.

    Lennin put the ultimate spin on it where intellectual thought was applied to government where the lives and freedoms of the people were actually taken from them in order to test these thoughts as to how people could be directed to do what one of these destructive opinions declared was how they were supposed to be. And as it is said in the text about these men, theirs was the destruction of conservatism, freedom, capitalism, independence, and self reliance, and religion was denied the people in place of the ideology taken over their lives so much so that the people didn’t have time to partake in practicing their faith.

    These guys are all about hate, and evil. They have no time for people being left to their own to either learn from their mistakes and being able to make themselves better from it, their idea was to dominate man’s purpose on Earth and replace that with somekind of denial system. All these men’s ideas are failed ideas, whose time came and went. And yet we see their insane belief that the reason why their ideas failed was something or someone else’s fault, and not the fault of the idea. All these men were and are mad. Godlessness will make a human mad because we are God’s creations that aren’t supposed to exist without God’s mercy. Without it, we’re doomed to live in darkness.

    • Kyle Becker says:

      Very strong essay, Will. I enjoyed your takes a lot.

    • hockeygirl says:

      “Ayn Rand considered Immanuel Kant to be the arch-enemy of reason, mind, truth, and happiness.” “These guys are all about hate, and evil.” And Ayn Rand isn’t about hate? Please! Not exactly the type of person I want to emulate. You have listed several men because of their atheism, so why does Ayn Rand (also an atheist) get a free ride? Is it because she is the champion of unfettered capitalism?

  5. Inez Barringer says:

    I agree that Sir Thomas More does not belong on this list. I give to the Thomas More Law Center which fights leftism in this country.

    The Thomas More Law Center is a not-for-profit public interest law firm dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored …
    They are anti ACLU.

  6. Adam says:

    I agree with mike. You either don’t understand More or have never read More. Most left wing social activist and philosophers despise him. People like more believed Rights were a god given right, not by the state.

    if your a true naturalist; Neither give you law, justice or rights. Hence why Plato and More should not be in this group of thugs.’As right’s don’t exist’ their made up by the state, that is a true naturalist argument.

    • Kyle Becker says:

      More’s character in Utopia describes a land where there is no private property and there is forced labor. I read the book. He inspired generations of utopians, in literature and in practice. He belongs on the list, in my humble opinion.

    • Kyle Becker says:

      Plato was the quintessential proto-communist, deriving from his ideal political community described in The Republic. I am not claiming he was irrational, like most of the thinkers on this list.

  7. Mike says:

    With all do respect, Thomas More does not belong in this category, not even close.

  8. Usually I don’t learn post on blogs, but I wish to say that this write-up very compelled me to take a look at and do it! Your writing taste has been surprised me. Thank you, very great post.

  9. Les says:

    Religion, and a belief in a God has nothing to do with it. The binding tie is that they all seem to think it is government that grants rights. Jefferson said and I paraphrase. “It does me no harm that my neighbor worships 20 gods or no God at all. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my arm.”
    He was a naturalist, as were most of the founding fathers.

    • ben marshall says:

      “…at least 51 of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention were members of Christian churches, and that leading American political figures in the founding era quoted the Bible far more than any other source”. John Eidsmoe

      Here is Thomas Jefferson’s prioritized belief structure as found in the DOI:
      God
      God created
      God created man
      God created man equal
      God through natural law, has granted man inalienable rights
      These are therefore “self evident”
      and “we hold these truths” AKA absolutes.
      Truths which need to be held imply a need to protect them. To protect them against “artificial rules” was his phraseology.

      And he said and our forefathers said many times of His proclamations “In The Year OF Our Lord”
      He was a deist in youth, personally grappling with Jesus authority for his life, but not His divinity and wisdom, but one that was Christianized by default. But as it is with all men, we draw near to our deepest honesty as we near the veil of death:

      “Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to be so pure as that of Jesus.”
      Letter to William Canby, Sept 18,1813 ~Thomas Jefferson 70 years old

      “Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as purely as they came from his lips the whole civilized world would now have been Christian”.
      Jefferson’s letter to Benjamin Waterhouse June 26, 1822 79 years old

  10. Mark says:

    I find it interesting (or probably more likely logical) that this list of men contains not one person who would even remotely be considered religious. They have all replaced God (ANY God – Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.) with their own thought and reason. They have elevated man to a deity and a system of governance with an human or committee of humans as the ultimate authority.
    I think that human beings have a built-in sense of a need for a deity. (I am a Christian, but I am trying to be a “generic” as possible to make a point). I have found that most people whom I meet, if they worship God – any god – tend to be more willing to help others out of a sense of duty to their God and human responsibility. The people whom I’ve met who think that Socialism or Communism should be the way of the world, tend to be more selfish and looking for a way to get without giving.
    A broad generalization, but just something that I’ve observed.
    One of my favorite quotes: Most self-made men are the product of unskilled labor.

    • mikhail says:

      You mean apart from Plato, More, Rousseau and Hegel?

      • mikhail says:

        Also Kant, since you are being so broad in your definition of religion. His project of “limiting reason to make room for faith” was why Rand (quoted in the piece) hated him so much, by the way.