I draw my inspiration for this item mostly from two famous comedic American greats who might be probably are American Communists. Namely, David Letterman of New York Late Show fame, and Jeff Foxworthy of You Might be a Redneck fame. As you’ll undoubtedly recall, Letterman often began his popular late-night t.v. show by pronouncing his “top ten” reasons for … this and that, beginning at no. 10 on his fateful list, and working his way up to no. 1. As you’ll also undoubtedly recall, Foxworthy built his career and fortune, largely upon his popular and famous (and very funny), You Might be a Redneck series of standup acts. The difference here is that I have no talent for, nor any intention of, being funny. Although, I am a redneck.
Without further ado, and in all seriousness, I give you T. Morris’s Top Ten Reasons You Are Probably an American Communist:
10) If you think the entire U.S. and world economies ought to have been shut down for any length of time due to COVID 19, you are probably an American Communist;
9) If you think the United States has *ever* had any business whatsoever involving itself in a foreign matter in an entirely different region of the world, you are probably an American Communist;
8) If you think either of the “presidential” Roosevelts of days gone by was the greatest American president of all time, you are probably an American Communist;
7) If “Battle Hymn of the Republic” is one of your top-5 favorite “patriotic” American songs, you are probably an American Communist;
6) If you think our 16th President’s image has any place whatever on the face of Mt. Rushmore with his vastly superior predecessors, you are probably an American Communist;
5) If you think Woody Guthrie is an American folk hero, and/or that “This Land is Your Land” should replace the current National Anthem, you in fact are an American Communist;
4) If you think Confederates were “traitors” instead of patriots, you are both historically and constitutionally illiterate, and probably an American Communist;
3) If you think “This Land is Your Land” (to say nothing of the aforementioned “Battle Hymn”) has any place whatsoever in a “Christian” church hymnal, you are probably definitely an American Communist;
2) If you believe the U.S. Navy is, ever has been or ever shall be, a “global force for good,” you are probably an American Communist;
And finally (drumroll, please!), No. 1 on T. Morris’s Top Ten list of reasons you are probably an American Communist:
1) If you think American Communist or its inverse is a contradiction in terms, you are most assuredly an American Communist. Albeit, almost certainly oblivious to the fact.
Shall I make it T. Morris’s Top-Twenty or Top-Thirty list? I’m happy to address any objections you might have to any of the above, provided it isn’t something or other stupid-based like the aforementioned “American Communist is a contradiction in terms” moronity. Otherwise, … Do your worst!
Y’all be cool.
Article was too try-hard and edgy
Hello, Benjamin.
Thank you for the negative feedback. Sincerely. As the article’s author, I am always open to legitimate criticism of my scribblings. The problem in this case is that you accuse me of ‘trying too hard’ on the one hand, and of being “too edgy” on the other. Without the slightest hint of elaboration. And there’s the rub. How is a writer supposed to work from those pointed critiques and improve upon them, I ask you, sir? In other words, and if you please, would you mind very much elaborating on your two points of criticism of this article?
Sincerely,
-T. Morris
#9: Isolationism isn’t always a good foreign policy, you didn’t exactly elaborate, and you did qualify it with “entirely different region of the world”. But E.G. preventing Old World powers from establishing a foothold in the New World (think: Monroe Doctrine) isn’t the same thing as nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thomas Jefferson’s war against the Barbary Pirates was in a different region of the world, but are you really going to side *against* sending the Navy over there and just laying waste to the heretic barbarians? Our first war overseas was basically a low-key reiteration of the Crusades, and that’s something Christian Americans should be proud of
#8: Teddy Roosevelt was pretty badass. I can understand (and agree with) not liking FDR, but it seems like you’re painting with a really broad brush, unnecessarily. Yes, he was a “progressive”, but that wasn’t really the same thing back then
#6: blanket hatred of Lincoln. The civil war was a very complex internal issue having to do with a lot of issues that’s never discussed by the mainstream. While in theory I believe the South did have the right to secede, and the attempt at splitting up the country was basically inevitable, in practice, they were being economically unpatriotic by wanting to buy their manufactured goods from Europe rather than the US. I don’t see how this is any different than the “buy local” vs “i shop at Walmart” debate in 2022.
#5: yeah I know who WG is, and that he was a pinko, but most people don’t really listen to the lyrics of songs, but just go with the beat. His stuff’s fairly catchy and I do enjoy many of his songs, even though not on an intellectual level
#2: go back to #9, also reiteration of the same thing to pad the number count. I would say that going to war against Muslims, especially if you’re not staying around to nation-build, is pretty much unequivocally a good thing. Also, the US Navy has made the seas safer to travel for many people in the 20th century. Think: anti-piracy operations. Granted, pirates are pretty cool, I must admit.
The whole thing just came off as unnecessarily edgy, divisive, accusitory (“anyone who disagrees with me is a COMMUNIST REEEE!!!1”) and reminded me of the “hot take” phenomenon from the days of the alt-right when people (myself included) would make edgy posts just for the sake of. Now, some of that is a good, because social gadflys (think: Socrates) can get people thinking and questioning things they otherwise wouldn’t have, but taken too far and it seeps into anti-social territory.
Like, even if you’re super anti-communism (I am), you can’t deny that many of the criticisms of how workers were totally and completely mistreated, wealth inequality, etc brought up by communists were not without merit. That doesn’t mean communism was the answer, but to just go out there and be like “anyone who has some overlap with people who area also communists is ergo a communist” is just very divisive.
I myself was actually a Trotskiist communist when I was much younger. Not because I supported the abolition of Western Civ or anything like that, but because my dad is a blue collar worker, and our society looks down on people like that in lieu of white collar workers and the like. It later became obvious to me that “communism” had nothing to do with helping workers, but there’re a lot of idealistic young people who latch onto certain ideologies, who do not have my sense of awareness of things, and aren’t crititical thinkers, who are hoodwinked into supporting something that’s against their interests, just like I was. Ergo, I try not to be unnecessarily hostile towards those with opposing viewpoints… if I can help it.
Anyhow, those’re my points, and hopefully you didn’t take any of this personally or as an attack or me trying to start something. Feel like I shouldn’t have to add this disclaimer, but this being the Internet, the rule seems to be that anything you post will necessarily be taken in the most hostile way possible
You needn’t add that disclaimer with me, sir. Be assured that I in no way take your criticisms of my scribblings (especially this sort of my scribbling) in the most hostile way possible. Not at all! In point of fact, I’m very appreciative and pleasantly surprised that you actually took the time and put forth the effort to answer my request that you elaborate on your meaning in your intitial comment. I happen to disagree with most of your points, but I respect your opinion and understand where you’re coming from regardless. NB that I did not say that I disagree with *all* of your points. I promise to make time to explain why I disagree with those “disagreeable” points later.
My sincere thanks again,
TM
Someone call up Guinness because this is one for the record books.
What just happened between us might very well be the first recorded instance in the entire history of the Internet where an exchange like this has taken place.
Either that, or I’m having more pleasent interactions with people since making the shift towards Christian-oriented news sources and web forums
Hello again, Benjamin. I’m burning the ol’ “midnight oil” tonight. Seems like I have been doing a lot of that lately.
Sorry I haven’t gotten back to you yet with a proper reply to your concerns, as promised. Well, I’ve actually addressed some of what you wrote, just in a different way than you probably expected. I’ve submitted a couple of essay-length scribblings that I figure will be published here as such within the next few days. Keep an eye out for them.
Believe it or not, I’m actually pretty thick skinned. As such, it doesn’t normally bother me much when people criticize what I write or my style or whatever. Like Mr. Lincoln, I realize that ‘one can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time; but one can never please all of the people all of the time.’ Or however exactly he put it. Besides all of that, I occasionally (although not often) offer “constructive criticism” to other writers and commenters, both here and elsewhere. My experience in so doing is a lot like yours – a lot of them automatically take my criticisms in the worst possible way, when in fact it is never intended that way (I should probably say that it is “almost never” intended that way). I try to be mindful of that when I’m on the receiving end of constructive criticism, since of course it would be hypocritical of me and betray a lack of introspection on my part to notice the defect in others while not recognizing it in myself.
In any case, I should let you know that I will occasionally have these sorts of spasms in my writing that result in this sort of post, but they are few and far between. The item under discussion was actually written to my little private family group (abt. 30 people) over a year ago. Something I read here or elsewhere reminded me of it, so I went back and dug it up, dusted it off and sent it to our editor for publication here.
BTW, my main problem with the elder Roosevelt is that he said of Jeff Davis in particular and Confederates in general that they were “traitors.” That doesn’t fly well with me of course, and the items I mentioned above will help to explain why. Also, we’re probably working from a different definition of the term “patriotism” and therefore mostly talking around one another on that head. I’ll sit down and write something up about that in a day or two as well. Stay tuned.
All,
Someone calling himself “CaptainSanity” posted a comment in this thread that seems to have been deleted by our admins. Not to question or undermine the decision of our admins in this regard, but, I’d like the opportunity to respond to “CaptainSanity” in any case, and in order that I might do so, I am going to quote “CaptainSanity’s” comment from the email notification I received of it to my inbox in full, with my response to follow. Our good Captain wrote:
Calling secession and defense of one’s state(s) against armed invasion “treason” is like calling Yankee fanaticism and open violation of laws made pursuant to the Constitution, “patriotism.” As the great American lexicographer, Noah Webster pointed out, patriotism is the “love of one’s country; the passion which aims to serve one’s country, either in defending it from invasion, or protecting its rights and maintaining its laws and institutions in vigor and purity…” (emphasis mine)
Webster also denominated the Constitutional United States a Federal Representative Republic, and he was eminently qualified to do so, as were his contemporaries – Washington, Jefferson, Madison, et al. Those terms mean something, sir; open intentions to unlawfully overthrow the federal principle by force, when it couldn’t be done peacefully by persuasion and the amendment process, is the definition of treason and “giving aid and comfort to its enemies.”
Washington wasn’t just “whistling Dixie” when he said in his Farewell Address that “the Constitution which exists at any time, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory on all.” But of course, Gen. Washington’s wise and learned admonitions didn’t prevent next gen Yankee Fanaticism from declaring the Constitution to be “an agreement with Hell; a Covenant with Death,” or of their representatives declaring, in U.S. legislative chambers, support for a war of aggression on the South to end slavery, even should it cost 500M lives lost. As I’ve said elsewhere, fanatical Yankee bloodlust literally knows no bounds.
You think foreign governments and domestic enemies of the United States hadn’t been colluding to overthrow the government since before the ink was dry on the Constitution? I’d suggest you dig a little deeper into history, if that is what you believe. My purpose in all of this is not to insult you or your intelligence but, at the same time, I cannot help but notice that Yankee school marms in the government schools have heretofore been successful in destroying your ability to think and reason critically on these matters. That isn’t your fault, of course, but there comes a time when a man’s gotta grow up and do his own research and think for himself, if you know what I mean.
“But reason,” said Mr. Webster, “unaided by experience and by revelation, is a miserable guide; it often errs from ignorance, and more often from the impulse of passion.”
If you consent to being played for a fool (by the government, the media, the so called history books and so on), well, that’s your business and all, but don’t expect Southern Nationalists in particular to jump onboard with you anytime soon.
“Fool us once, shame on them; fool us twice, shame on us.”
CaptainInsanity:
I received notification of your reply comment to my inbox before the admins deleted it. I would quote you again, but I’m probably already pushing the ol’ envelope bucking the admins’ decision to delete your first comment. In any case, all I have to say to your last is, thank you for proving my points above about fanatical Yankee bloodlust and unsexed hyper-emotionalism.
Now, begone, child. Shoo.