Sunday, October 30, 2005
Left-Land on Parade
The People's Cube does it again. Their most hilarious and insightful post yet -- brilliant!
Lefto-fascist "Maverick"
A news article I had recently read regarding British leftist George Galloway's antics, referred to him as a "maverick" -- how nice. Anyone as far right as Galloway is far left, is typically referred to as "far right wing" or even "extreme right wing." Is it not a testament to the acrobatic guile of modern journalism to refer to a far left wing nut case in terms that make him sound heroic? Of course, in Galloway's case, I'm not sure far left can accurately describe him either since he's exhibited considerable sympathy for fascist extremists. What's the media going to throw at us next when referring to such types, "defiant free thinker who values the spiritual traditions of the weak and suffering (terrorists)?
If you can't read this, thank college Ed Schools, teacher unions, and government bureaucracy
(Note: One of these days/weeks I'll finish my essay regarding my personal encounters with the American public schools and the college Ed Schools that feed them -- really).
No Surprises here.
Left-land on Parade
(The following essay was originally posted at this site last year)
What exactly is so politically "correct" about the nonsense regularly palmed off on us by the self-absorbed brain-caste and their brethren in mainstream Leftland?
Last week [this essay is a repost from last year], you may recall my comments regarding an article in the Victims of Communism Memorial website. I'm still amazed at the author's observations regarding the definitions given in some dictionaries for political systems and personalities. The issue begs for further consideration.
The American Heritage (ironically) College Dictionary, 2002 offers some odd definition-bias that would put even Dan Rather to shame.
The dictionary (it's not the only dictionary with this bias) accurately notes the authoritarian, totalitarian, and dictatorial nature of Nazism, fascism, and their prime figureheads; Hitler and Mussolini.
When, however, the personalities and concepts associated with Communism are addressed, words denoting belligerence, oppressive control, and dictatorship are strangely absent.
Communism defined by the, no doubt, "progressive" scholars of the aforementioned dictionary is: "A theoretical economic system characterized by collective ownership of property and the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members" [emphasis mine]. Of course, communism has not been just a "theoretical" system any more than Nazi Germany was, and in practice it has been every bit as ruthless and totalitarian.
Stalin is described as a "Soviet politician who was general secretary of the Communist Party...and Premier" [emphasis mine].
Castro is merely a "Cuban revolutionary leader who overthrew Fulgencio Batista in 1959 and established a socialist state" [emphasis mine] (I guess it wasn't a communist state because communism is only a "theoretical" system?)
Here's a great definition of the guy (Pol Pot) who took Cambodia back to the "year zero" and was responsible for killing about a quarter of his country's population: "Cambodian political leader whose Khmer Rouge movement overthrew the Cambodian government in 1975" [emphasis mine] -- ever hear of, "The Killing Field's?"
At least the idiots who came up with these definitions realized that Hitler was chancellor and "absolute dictator" of the Third Reich. Remember when he and the Soviet "premier" invaded Poland together...also, can you say, "Gulag?"
This example of the pathetic whitewashing of Leftist history and values should be expected I guess, in a world where Saddam Hussein's dictatorship has often been referred to as, The Hussein "Administration" and George Bush's tenure in office is occasionally referred to as, the Bush "regime."
The Left's continued attempt to paint itself as docile and mainstream is far off the mark. Hating capitalism is one thing, pretending that the ruthless killers of millions are simple heads of state either shows a serious flaw in scholarship or a definite agenda regarding where some academics would like to see us go on the political spectrum.
How much more can these fools continue to whitewash, and even defend, tyranny? -- pathetic.
The new "leader" on the block
Hugo Chavez, of Venezuela, may someday have his own spot in the average dictionary as a “premier” or "leader." As the "revolution" in Venezuela continues, it's becoming a textbook case of Marxist coercion; lots of land confiscation, "redistribution,” and creeping control over all aspects of government and media. Make no mistake about it, Hugo is consolidating power. Next will come a “vote” to make him “leader for life” (an old totalitarian classic). His pal, Castro, in Cuba is getting old so someone needs to spread some authoritarian tyranny around to keep the autocratic leftist flame burning. In addition to the usual Socialist talking points, Chavez seems to be itching for a military conflict with the rich Capitalist neighbor to the north. As in most communist game plans, aside from tossing some symbolic (stolen) crumbs to the poor, Chavez is clearly amping up the martial rhetoric -- the usual nonsense about "spreading the 'revolution'." In a couple years, when we're bombing terrorist training camps in Venezuela I hope someone remembers that Jimmy Carter helped give this thug a seal of approval. He may be an emerging tyrant but hey, spoiled rich socialist college kids need another hero to worship, Che's become too mainstream.
A Comic Commentary from Promethean Visions:
In honor of Hugo Chavez and the predictable path of socialist "revolution."
Promethean Quote from The Promethean Observer:
"When one hears the argument that views in support of freedom are, 'Simplistic,' one is easily reminded of the complexity of thought that motivated Robespierre, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and other collectivist tyrants -- the "complex" ideals of intellectuals have often resulted in the deaths of millions. 'Simplistic' minds tend to leave people alone."
