Monday, November 29, 2004
Hating America; In More Ways Than One
In addition to that essay (on "Hating America"), is a speech given at Georgetown University by David Horowitz providing some excellent insight into, "Why We Are In Iraq." In addition to the title's main content, Horowitz covers the issue of what he calls an, "Unholy Alliance" of Islamic Terrorism with the advocates of Leftist political ideals:
"How is it possible that people who think of themselves as advocates of social justice can lend aid and comfort to Islamic radicals who behead people and blow women's heads off with AK-47s when they are suspected of having sexual relations outside of marriage? How can self-styled progressives embrace these people? They embrace them under the logic that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and their enemy is the United States. They do it under the delusion that is common to all radicals. It's the radical analog to the 72 virgins that await jihadists in heaven. Think of how sick our enemy is. The Muslim martyrs in Palestine kill their own children by strapping bombs to them, to 14-year-olds, and telling them if they blow up Jewish 14-year-olds -- and if they are lucky enough to be male -- they will go straight to heaven and get 72 virgins. They're committing mass murder to get into paradise. That is exactly what the left does. Why does the left want to destroy America? To get into paradise. Call it socialism, call it Communism, call it social justice. It's a dream of paradise that is so enticing it will justify any crime necessary to achieve it."
"The radical left does not understand that the root cause of social problems is humanity. There will never be a socially just world because the world is always going to be run by human beings, and human beings are in their nature corrupt, selfish and fallible. If you don't understand that, you are simply delusional, in denial. Thus radicals have the same goal as jihadists, which is paradise. And the same enemy, which is the Great Satan, i.e., us. You cannot read a page of Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn or Michael Moore and not understand that America is the great Satan, the root of the world's evil, worthy of destruction. It is this faith that forges the unholy alliance."
-- Some excellent arguments.
The other article (which I couldn't help but excerpt extensively) was among the November 19th postings from Front Page.
“Hating America”'s writer, Bruce Bawer, addressed the issue after having experienced Euro-bias and animosity while living in Northern Europe. His observations and insight are first rate. The article is rather long but well worth reading. I’ve excerpted a considerable part of the essay below:
“…the owner of the farm hotel at which I’d stayed, irked that I’d made a point of his want of hospitality, got his revenge by telling reporters that I’d demanded McDonald’s hamburgers for dinner instead of that most Norwegian of delicacies, reindeer steak. Though this was a transparent fabrication (his establishment was located atop a remote mountain, far from the nearest golden arches), the press lapped it up. The story received prominent coverage all over Norway and dragged on for days. My inhospitable host became a folk hero; my irksome weekend trip was transformed into a morality play about the threat posed by vulgar, fast-food-eating American urbanites to cherished native folk traditions. I was flabbergasted. But my erstwhile host obviously wasn’t: he knew his country; he knew its media; and he’d known, accordingly, that all he needed to do to spin events to his advantage was to breathe that talismanic word, McDonald’s…”
“…(One reason why Europeans view Americans as ignorant is that when we don’t know something, we’re more likely to admit it freely and ask questions.) While Americans, I saw, cherished liberty, Europeans tended to take it for granted or dismiss it as a naïve or cynical, and somehow vaguely embarrassing, American fiction. I found myself toting up words that begin with i: individuality, imagination, initiative, inventiveness, independence of mind. Americans, it seemed to me, were more likely to think for themselves and trust their own judgments, and less easily cowed by authorities or bossed around by “experts”; they believed in their own ability to make things better. No wonder so many smart, ambitious young Europeans look for inspiration to the United States, which has dynamism their own countries lack, and which communicates the idea that life can be an adventure and that there’s important, exciting work to be done. Reagan-style “morning in America” clichés may make some of us wince, but they reflect something genuine and valuable in the American air. Europeans may or may not have more of a “sense of history” than Americans do (in fact, in a recent study comparing students’ historical knowledge, the results were pretty much a draw), but America has something else that matters—a belief in the future…”
“…most foreigners never set foot in the United States, and that the things they think they know about it are consequently based not on first-hand experience but on school textbooks, books by people like Michael Moore, movies about spies and gangsters, “Ricki Lake,” “C.S.I.,” and, above all, the daily news reports in their own national media. What, one must therefore ask, are their media telling them? What aren’t they telling them? And what are the agendas of those doing the telling? Such questions, crucial to a study of the kind Hertsgaard pretends to be making, are never asked here. Citing a South African restaurateur’s assertion that non-Americans “have an advantage over [Americans], because we know everything about you and you know nothing about us,” Hertsgaard tells us that this is a good point, but it’s not: non-Americans are always saying this to Americans, but when you poke around a bit, you almost invariably discover that what they “know” about America is very wide of the mark…”
“…to suggest that American journalism, taken as a whole, offers a narrower range of information and debate than its foreign counterparts is absurd. America’s major political magazines range from National Review and The Weekly Standard on the right to The Nation and Mother Jones on the left; its all-news networks, from conservative Fox to liberal CNN; its leading newspapers, from the New York Post and Washington Times to the New York Times and Washington Post. Scores of TV programs and radio call-in shows are devoted to fiery polemic by, or vigorous exchanges between, true believers at both ends of the political spectrum. Nothing remotely approaching this breadth of news and opinion is available in a country like Norway. Purportedly to strengthen journalistic diversity (which, in the ludicrous words of a recent prime minister, “is too important to be left up to the marketplace”), Norway’s social-democratic government actually subsidizes several of the country’s major newspapers (in addition to running two of its three broadcast channels and most of its radio); yet the Norwegian media are (guess what?) almost uniformly social-democratic—a fact reflected not only in their explicit editorial positions but also in the slant and selectivity of their international coverage…”
“…Most Norwegians are so accustomed to being presented with only one position on certain events and issues (such as the Iraq War) that they don’t even realize that there exists an intelligent alternative position.”
“Things are scarcely better in neighboring Sweden. During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the only time I saw pro-war arguments fairly represented in the Scandinavian media was on an episode of “Oprah” that aired on Sweden’s TV4. Not surprisingly, a Swedish government agency later censured TV4 on the grounds that the program had violated media-balance guidelines. In reality, the show, which had featured participants from both sides of the issue, had plainly offended authorities by exposing Swedish viewers to something their nation’s media had otherwise shielded them from—a forceful articulation of the case for going into Iraq.4 In other European countries, to be sure, the media spectrum is broader than this; yet with the exception of Britain, no Western European nation even approaches America’s journalistic diversity…”
“…Hertsgaard further sneers that for many Americans, the fall of the Berlin Wall proved that they lived in “the chosen nation of God.” Now, for my part, I never heard anyone suggest such a connection. What I do remember about the Wall coming down is the lack of shame or contrition on the part of Western leftists who had spent decades appeasing and apologizing for Soviet Communism. In any event, does Hertsgaard really think that in a work purporting to evaluate America in an international context, this smirking comment about the Berlin Wall is all that need be said about the expiration of an empire that murdered tens of millions and from which the U.S., at extraordinary risk and expense, protected its allies for nearly half a century?…”
“…Hertsgaard compares America unfavorably not only with Europe but—incredibly—with Africa. If “many Europeans speak two if not three languages,” he rhapsodizes, “in Africa, multilingualism is even more common.” So, one might add, are poverty, starvation, rape, AIDS infection, state tyranny and corruption, and such human-rights abominations as slavery, female genital mutilation, and the use of children as soldiers and prostitutes…”
“…“We Americans are a clever bunch,” he usually talks about his fellow countrymen as if they’re buffoons who have mysteriously and unjustly lucked into living in the world’s richest country, while most of the rest of the species, though far brighter and more deserving, somehow ended up in grinding poverty. For him, Americans’ intellectual mediocrity would seem to be a self-evident truth, but his own observations hardly exemplify the kind of reflectiveness a reader of such a book has a right to expect. For example, when he notes with satisfaction that the young Sigmund Freud “complained . . . incessantly about [America’s] lack of taste and culture,” Hertsgaard seems not to have realized that Freud was, of course, comparing the U.S. to his native Austria, which would later demonstrate its “taste and culture” by welcoming the Nazi Anschluss. One ventures to suggest that had Freud—who escaped the Gestapo thanks to intervention by Franklin D. Roosevelt—survived to see the liberated death camps in which his four sisters perished, he might well have revised his views about the relative virtues of American and Austrian culture…”
“…The essence of Hutton’s argument is that “all Western democracies subscribe to a broad family of ideas that are liberal or leftist” (note the sly conflation here of “liberal” and “leftist,” which in Europe, of course, are opposites), and that first among these ideas is “a belief in the primacy of society” as opposed to the insidious “American belief in the primacy of the individual.” Hutton traces the prioritization of society over the individual back to medieval feudalism, which he holds up—hilariously—as an ideal. The trouble, he explains, started when Puritan individualists “who passionately believed that they could individually establish a direct relationship with God” emigrated to North America and invented “an explosively new and radical ideology” that justified “an individualist rather than a social view of property.” This led to the American Revolution, which Hutton compares unfavorably with its French counterpart of 1789, since the former put the individual first (bad) while the latter introduced a “new social contract” (good). “The European tradition,” he instructs us, “is much more mindful that men and women are social animals and that individual liberty is only one of a spectrum of values that generate a good society.” Well, he’s right: Europe has been more drawn than America to communitarianism than to individual rights—and it’s precisely this tragic susceptibility that made possible the rise of Fascism, Nazism, and Communism and that obliged the U.S. to step in and save the Continent from itself in World War II. Nonetheless, Hutton has the audacity to insist that “it would all be so much better if the United States rejoined the world on new terms”—if, in other words, Americans exchanged Jeffersonian values for the currently popular European “ism,” statism…”
“…If Europe’s intellectual and political elite was briefly pro-America after 9/11, it was because America was suddenly a victim, and European intellectuals are accustomed to sympathizing reflexively with victims (or, more specifically, with perceived or self-proclaimed victims, such as Arafat). That support began to wane the moment it became clear that Americans had no intention of being victims…”
“…Revel’s earliest opinions of America, he tells us, were formed by “the European press, which means that my judgment was unfavorable”; yet those opinions changed when he actually visited America during the Vietnam War. Decades later, he notes wryly, the European media still employ the same misrepresentations as they did back then, depicting an America plagued by severe poverty, extreme inequality, “no unemployment benefits, no retirement, no assistance for the destitute,” and medical care and university education only for the rich. “Europeans firmly believe this caricature,” Revel writes, “because it is repeated every day by the elites.” The centrality of this point to the entire topic of European anti-Americanism cannot, in my view, be overstated…”
“…Media? Revel recalls that when he first visited the U.S., he “was struck by the vast gulf that separated our [French] state-controlled television news services—stilted, long-winded and monotonous, dedicated to presenting the official version of events—from the lively, aggressive evening news shows on NBC or CBS, crammed with eye-opening images and reportage that offered unflinching views of social and political realities at home and American involvement abroad.” (Take that, Mr. Hutton.) He also observed a difference in the populace: “whereas in France people’s opinions were fairly predictable and tended to follow along lines laid down by their social role, what I heard in America was much more varied—and frequently unexpected. I realized that many more Americans than Europeans had formed their own opinions about matters—whether intelligent or idiotic is another question—rather than just parroting the received wisdom of their social milieu.” True: by Western European standards, I’ve come to realize, Americans are very independent thinkers…”
“…To Revel, the tenacity of European anti-Americanism, despite historical developments that should have finished it off once and for all, suggests “that we are in the presence, not of rational analysis, but of obsession”—an obsession driven, he adds, by a desire to maintain public hostility to Jeffersonian democracy. The European establishment, Revel notes, soft-pedals the fact that Europeans “invented the great criminal ideologies of the twentieth century”; it defangs Communism (at “the top French business school,” students think Stalin’s great error was to “prioritize capital goods over . . . consumer goods”); and it identifies the U.S., “contrary to every lesson of real history . . . as the singular threat to democracy.” Revel’s vigorous assault on all this foolishness might easily have been dismissed in France (or denied publication altogether) but for the fact that he’s a member of that revered symbol of French national culture, the Académie Française…”
“…Yet the book Willis has written isn’t a brief for solidarity with America but a brisk, rambling, opinionated, and rather familiar account of the author’s recent travels in the U.S. Its tone—a mixture of chummy irreverence and defensive condescension—is familiar from other European travel books about America, as are its ingredients: Willis eats barbecue, extends unsolicited sympathy to American blacks, enthuses over Elvis, expresses his disapproval of the My Lai massacre; he seeks out the company of rednecks and left-wing intellectuals, which allows him to depict an America torn between racist boneheads and people who think like, well, members of the Scandinavian establishment; and he labors (in precisely the fashion described by Revel in his critique of the French media) to leave the impression that the U.S. has no public schools, pensions, unemployment insurance, or media debate. Willis’ anecdotes range from the funny (he tells us that young Norwegian lawbreakers, who thanks to American TV shows are more familiar with the U.S. justice system than their own, routinely ask their arresting officers: “Aren’t you going to read me my rights?”) to the disturbing (Willis informs us, and doesn’t seem to find it particularly worrisome, that his “Arab friends” in Oslo consider 9/11 a Jewish conspiracy)…”
“…, Western Europeans give a thumbs-up only to American popular culture. Why? Because they’ve experienced American movies and music firsthand and can judge for themselves, whereas their social and political views are based on what they’ve been taught in school and told by their media. This gap between negative views inculcated by educators and journalists and positive views founded on personal experience is perhaps nowhere vaster than in Norway, where school textbooks give bogus “materialistic-capitalistic explanations” for one U.S. action after another—presenting as fact, for instance, that America’s motive for invading Iraq was oil—but where teenagers, according to a BBD&O study, boast Europe’s highest “Americanization index.” (The Norwegian press sneers about Americans’ devotion to McDonald’s and Coca-Cola, but both corporations have bigger market shares in Norway than in the U.S.)…”
And, from the endnotes:
“…3 According to an April 2003 poll, 69% of Norwegian journalists are socialists, compared with 43% of the general population; the Progress Party, the social-democratic establishment’s only serious challenger, is supported by 22.5% of Norwegians, but only 3% of journalists (and most of that 3%, I’d wager, work for local weeklies, not national dailies)…”
“…6 Similarly, Hertsgaard holds up the Muslim world as a model, quoting an Egyptian’s complaint about American individualism: “Parents [in the U.S.] don't know much about their children, and if they tell the kids not to do something, it doesn’t matter; they do it anyway. Here, family is more important.” Yes, Muslim children are indeed expected to obey absolutely. This is especially true of Muslim girls, a high percentage of whom are subjected to forced marriages and who, if they resist, risk an “honor killing” at the hands of their fathers or other male relatives. Is this Hertsgaard’s idea of admirable family values?…”
“…15 Typical of this reflexive attitude was a December 2003 editorial in which the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet—dodging the controversial question of whether public schools should prohibit the wearing of head coverings by Muslim girls—made the ludicrous statement that the only solution to the conflict lay in taking the girls seriously as “partners in dialogue.” ”
The contemporary anti-American obsession, particularly among Europeans, is a comedy of nonsense, not to mention, vapid of facts or objectivity.
Bawer’s essay is one of the best rebuttals I’ve seen. By all means read the complete article.
Saturday, November 27, 2004
Nihilism In Art And Life
I really like classical music from the latter half of the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries. Innovative minds in this period took composition to new levels of beauty and pathos. An equal respect for both harmony and dissonance mimicked such tensions in life itself. An intelligent construction of sound portrayed the Taoist dance of opposites in conflict and reconciliation. Something one might call “bitter sweet” can be heard in the music of Mahler, Shostakovich, and Hindemith et al.
By the 1960’s, other more abrasive musical goals culminated in the utter chaos and cacophony of pure dissonance. One can hear such screeching howls in the works of Karl Heinz Stockhausen as well as other “experimental” writers of music. It’s probably no coincidence that Stockhausen described the 9/11 murder of innocents as “great art.” Such is the mindset that undermines repose and praises chaos and destruction.
There are a lot of intellectual arguments that can be made for why one may consider chaotic music to be great. Such composition is certainly unique, perhaps even witty – but it’s not beautiful. One certainly must be intelligent to even write musical noise, just as many "scholars" devote praise to "revolutionary" violence and destruction.
During the same period of music history that edgy mind-noise came of age, other composers reacted in numerous schools of neo~ (i.e. Classicism, Romanticism).
The symphonies of Howard Hanson clearly respect the value of well-placed disharmony, yet their general mood is one of beauty.
I’m not going to make the pedestrian claim that Hanson’s music is “better” than Stockhausen’s or, in the visual arts, that Rembrandt’s soul-inquiries are better then Andy Warhol’s pop vision (though personally, I believe this to be the case).
In the social sphere of the time span I’ve been addressing, a similar reckless nihilism arose, also culminating in the 1960’s. “Down with 'the system',” became the mere social equivalent of the screeching aleatory whines of atonal music. In music and political philosophy, the intellectuals marveled at such contrived heresies (and, vicariously, marveled at their own self-importance).
The nihilist hates beauty. Harmony, stability, and grandeur are the enemies of any angry pseudo-rebel. “Fighting against oppression” is a mere incidental contrivance to justify the true cause of mock “revolution” -- wanton destruction.
Whether the raised fist of Marxist “anarchists” or the raised screech of un-tuned violins, nihilism in art and life offers nothing to souls who seek solace in beauty. They're both just noise in the end.
A problem with musicians, artists, and entertainers is that some are good at what they do and think it somehow qualifies them as experts in completely unrelated fields; like domestic and international political policy.
"Fight the powers that be" -- then collect a check from them for singing about it...
My friend John who blogsThe Tanuki Ramble recently made note of the overwelming trash sitution in the Chuetsu region of Japan after the serious earthquake there (here) last month. I added a brief comment to his blog regarding the unintended bureaucratic fallout from a new set of environmental regulations. As a follow up to that, I found a quote in a local magazine, Metropolis, that captures the issue quite well:
"NOW YOU CAN TAKE A HAMMER TO AN OLD TELEVISION, SAY IT WAS THE EARTHQUAKE AND GET RID OF IT FREE" ("a survivor of the Niigata earthquake on how cheap it is to get household junk hauled away, which before the quake cost money") -- priceless
A well stated case against the media in Fallujah;
"Journalists quick to judge the Marine are more forgiving when it comes to the terrorists. "They're not bad guys, especially, just people who disagree with us," said MSNBC's Chris Matthews."
-- what utter nonsense. Where do these jerks come from?
This guy appraises an issue in more conservative terms than I would, but he addresses something I too have thought about from time to time. When exactly did the socialist clowns of academia decide to change B.C. and A.D. to the new politically correct contrivance?
Thursday, November 25, 2004
Real Revolutions...and cheap imitations
For those who haven’t noticed, -- and it would be difficult not to – there’s a revolution taking place now, but it’s different from what some have defined as, “revolutionary.”
Every few decades or so, self-described “revolutionaries” seek to re-impose the level of government authority that America’s founding fathers shook off over 200 years ago. There are, however, other revolutionaries with more honest semantic appraisal of their goals.
Today’s revolution is different. In the past, self-deluded “rebels” marched, ranted, and whined; opposing, “Wars, racism, and greed (selectively).” Assisting them in their crusade, they had the support of a good portion of academia, the intellectual “community,” entertainers, the media, and even the public schools. Whether one read an 8th grade history book or watched the nightly news, one could often find suggestions and hints that an evil capitalist system had erected an American tyranny of selfish oppression. Whether addressing civil rights, feminism, the environment, or “peace,” the ultimate obstacle to the flourishing of goodness was, in their eyes, …individual freedom!
A left of center worldview still dominates most of the international media, entertainment, public school bureaucracy, et al. The world over, a generation of young people have been raised convinced they are somehow free-thinking “rebels” because they agree with what they’ve been told by their teachers, Michael Moore, and “mainstream” news sources. Many are now convinced that a highly regulated bureau state is the solution to perceived flaws in human nature and that any country or person that thinks otherwise is “fascist” (this, often from the very nations who invented both Fascism and Communism). The cheap imitation rebel sees any open system of products and values as the enemy of utopia.
The real revolution currently taking place can be seen in a renewed appreciation for the values established by America’s founders. Such values acknowledge, first and foremost, the right of the individual to live freely from arbitrary coercion and submission to state authority.
In the past, media had deliberately dramatized the modern failings of free society (i.e exaggerated claims of “poverty”) rather than the realities of successful achievement among new immigrants rising to America’s middle class through their own effort.
Today, true diversity of opinion has emerged; a just countervailing force to the authoritarian’s contrived diversity through compulsion. This is a radical change from former decades when domineering and self-righteous ideologies had gained significant influence over public opinion and policy. In cable news options, books, and Internet sites, the silent majority has again risen to fairly claim their just position in the marketplace of ideas.
When I briefly taught high school social studies, I was amazed (disgusted) that so many school texts and so many teachers preached the idea that the government has “given us rights,” or “allowed us to have rights." The founders would have cringed to hear such nonsense. Their assumption was that humans are literally born with natural rights and that government's prime purpose is to maintain the security of those rights. The citizen allows the state to exist – we give it the right to exist -- not the other way around!
The reasoned establishment of self-government and the existence of free expression and choice is still the only value system that can truly be called “revolutionary.” The “revolution” squealed from the left is no revolution at all – not even close. It is a desire to merely return to the political state of most of human history; subservience to centralized authority. One must remember that revolution ultimately means change, The goals of the left have nothing to do with change.
The founders of America’s constitutional system knew that factions in contending thought would spontaneously emerge when one aggressive ideal sought to impose itself. So it is that today, over 200 years after America’s birth, the real revolution for individual liberty has reasserted itself. The true rebels of today’s revolution are not calling for a more powerful state or “wise” leaders to compel obedience to philosophical fads; they are merely asking to be left alone. The Left hates to leave people alone. Today’s “Progressive” ultimately demands that we embody the same banal trait sought by caricatures of some cheesy corporate enterprise – that we be “a team player.” (The Amway of political philosophy)?
Many countries and cultures maintain a sort of archetypal consistency over time. The America of a couple centuries ago, described so well by de Tocqueville, is essentially the same in “personality” as the America of today. The pioneers, cowboys, and inventors of the last few centuries still represent the basic social design that has always colored America’s character. Waves of immigrants haven’t changed this essential fact in the slightest; in fact they have helped to perpetuate it. There’s a kind of wisdom in-the-rough that the diverse and independent citizens of America have that will always make them far more revolutionary than any European coffee shop "thinker." America, of course, has its share of salon philosophers, and Europe still has a few genuine renegades, but the real revolutionaries of the world are still the simple folks. Pompous mouthpieces of "revolutionary" banter never have been revolutionary in spirit. Anyone can say, “I want a strong central government to tell everyone how to live,” but this is hardly revolutionary or even vaguely novel. Of course, the Left never outright states their case so honestly. They've had to erect a constantly morphing capitalist boogeyman to rally against. To them, all human problems come down to something called "greed" and all solutions come down to "eliminating" it. They start with laws and regulations and they often end with blatant threat and coercion. The Left's pervasive blueprint of revolution has always been the violent and reckless model established by The French Revolution, c. 1789. The guillotine is their symbol of revolution. Robespierre was the hero of their mission. In America's revolution, we had no Robespiere, no changing of the calendar, and no theft of church property -- no turning the world upside down.
Real revolution doesn’t need to steal from anyone or impose new rules. It doesn’t need to march and scream, it merely recognizes that we are born free, and insists that we remain so.
Mona Charen notes the media elite’s continued absurdity in appraising current "misunderstandings" with Fascist Islamic Jihad:
“The response of the editorial board of The New York Times reveals why Western civilization is imperiled. “Urgent efforts are needed to better manage the cultural tensions perilously close to the surface of Dutch public life," intoned the Times. "The problem is not Muslim immigration, but a failure to plan for a smoother transition to a more diverse society. One very real danger is that the public trauma over the van Gogh murder may lead to a clamor for anti-Muslim policies that could victimize thousands of innocent refugees and immigrants."
“Right. The problem is not a murderous, totalitarian religious ideology bent on domination of any society with which it comes into contact (just ask the Sudanese Christians, the Israeli Jews or the Hindu Indians), rather it is the Western world's lack of "diversity."…
The N.Y. times often sounds like a college Ed. School professor – totally clueless.
Che Guevara has continued to hold sway over the ideals of the brat class. The Authoritarian Left has milked that famous photo of the useless demogogue to the point where some people actually think he stood for something beyond his own reckless will to power. Here's some reasons to not like Che.
Top Ten (actually 14) Reasons To Not Like Che:
14. Administered summary trials and executions.
13. Always looked stoned.
12. Didn't hold a steady job.
11. Oliver Stone is a "friend of a friend."
10. Always acted like he was cool or something.
9. Promoted peace by wearing army fatigues.
8. In an ancient forgotten tongue his name means, "That dumb guy in the funny hat."
7. Real men don't write diaries -- on a motorcycle or otherwise.
6. Typical pampered socialist spoiled brat.
5. Colonel Sander's image on a t-shirt makes one more approachable.
4. Hair style looks cool on faded t-shirt but in real life was simply unwashed.
3. Admired by vapid, rich Hollywood Communists.
2. His best pal, Fidel, keeps winning elections by not allowing other candidates, and...
The #1 reason to not like Che is......(lets get to the point):
He was ruthless egomaniac socialist demagogue!
The pre-election arrogance of the left continues.
A guy I was talking to recently shook his head in disbelief while uttering, "I can't believe you voted for Bush! How could you vote for Bush!" (A related string of insults followed). He was clearly enraged, like most leftists when confronted with the reality that there really are views out there that differ from their own. What struck me about the tone and nature of the tirade, was the blatant rudeness of such an outburst. I wasn't even sure how he knew I had voted for Bush -- I hadn't brought the issue up.
While certainly having been a participant in many heated political arguments, I've never began a spontaneous assault on anyone's voting choices. Niether I nor anyone I know on the right would tell someone, "I can't believe you voted for Labor (or a Democrat), what were you thinking, how could you possibly vote for a person who...?"
This self-righteous and condescending manner is one of the Left's most un-endearing traits; arrogance, intolerance, and aggressive insistence that their personal ideals are the standard upon which we must all submit.
"A philosophy of peace and understanding"...my ass!
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
“Hegemony” And Other Fallacies Of The Moment
Obviously, America doesn’t “tell France what to do” and it probably gleans no more successful leverage than other nations in seeking its way in world matters. No one in Europe is compelled to eat at McDonalds or watch American movies yet, the Left still seeks to convince us that some “bully” has been unleashed on the world promoting ideals they don’t like. Ironically, the true circumstance appears to be the opposite. It is the bureau-snobs of Europe who demand that America fall in line to the socialist view that dominates the old world (and don’t they throw a hissy-fit when America fails to kow tow to their own desire for dominance).
Europeans who despise American “hegemony” do so more out of a fear and awareness of their own weakness rather than a perception of America’s strength.
Maybe we should make them eat McDonald’s burgers, watch American movies, and join military coalitions…so they know what real hegemony is!
Kofi Annan and the insanity of international law
Ben Shapiro points out the obvious hypocrisies and dangers of another left-set euphemism; “international law”:
“Mr. Annan and his brethren do not rely on simple statements of moral equivalence. They back them up by citing international law. While Saddam Hussein slew thousands of his own people, supported terrorists throughout the Middle East, and routinely violated the terms of his 1991 cease-fire agreement, the United Nations did nothing except coquettishly lisp at him occasionally. Yet when America invaded Iraq with the help of over 30 countries, Annan denounced the action as “illegal.” His latest charade? He sent an angry letter to President Bush, Tony Blair, and Iyad Allawi complaining that the “threat or actual use of force not only risks deepening the sense of alienation … but would also reinforce perceptions … of a continued military occupation’ ”
The new Condi Rice attack scam is really pissing me off. She’s incredibly intelligent, qualified, and experienced. She’s even a “minority”-- a lefty favorite when a token choice tows the party line.
Neal Boortz expresses my own sympathies on the matter:
“If Dr. Rice had been nominated by a Democrat, we would be right in the middle of a weeks-long media swoon about how she is the smartest woman in the world, about how whatever Democrat that nominated her was a brave, principled leader, and on and on. But because George Bush nominated her, she is being portrayed as a lackey Bush loyalist that can't think for herself. Yet this is only the beginning.”
Are you now or have you ever been a member of an incompetent group of unproductive bureaucrats?
Clifford May makes some practical points regarding the weasel’s nests at the CIA and Department of State:
“Sure, these professionals should be encouraged to advise, question and offer alternative approaches. But when the President says, “Here's what I've decided,” the only responses are “Yes sir,” or “I quit.” ”
The left-media will spin this house-cleaning maneuver by the new appointed department heads, as another right wing extremist plot. Truth be told, both of these government agencies had been thoroughly infected with Chomskyism – highbrow intellectual hatred for U.S. interests.
Jonah Goldberg draws similar conclusions, asking the obvious; why should Bush be expected to appoint people to high post who disagree with him?:
“I guess I need to reread my "Federalist Papers." I thought that the separation of powers referred to the separation of the different branches of government - not separation of the president's political appointees. I didn't know that the president was obliged to appoint cabinet secretaries and agency heads who disagree with him on the very policies they've been asked to implement. The editors of the New York Times are actually aghast that Porter Goss has informed the bureaucracy that they are there to serve the commander-in-chief.
Look, I think it's good for the president to get differing points of view from his subordinates. But that's not what the gripers are really complaining about. If the issue were really the need for more dissenters in the administration, why isn't anyone demanding that Bush appoint people who think he's not hawkish enough? The obvious answer is that the gripers think the president is a fool for not appointing people who agree with them.”
A great cartoon which, indeed, "Sums it up" is posted from A Guy In Pajamas." The Democrats are loosin it.
It’s occasionally useful to be reminded that the Terrorists of Iraq are the bad guys (shhhh! The New York Times doesn’t know this):
“Flyposters still litter the walls [in Fallujah] bearing all manner of decrees from insurgent commanders, to be heeded on pain of death. Amid the rubble of the main shopping street, one decree bearing the insurgents' insignia - two Kalashnikovs propped together - and dated November 1 gives vendors three days to remove nine market stalls from outside the city's library or face execution…The decree warns all women that they must cover up from head to toe outdoors, or face execution by the armed militants who controlled the streets.”
…mere “Insurgents opposed to the American occupation"...whatever...
Sunday, November 21, 2004
Multilateral Sour Grapes
The well-constructed mythology of a villainous America has reached the point where people who neither know of, or care about, political matters now mimic clichés from the socialist mantra; “Bush and America are Fascists …no blood for oil…unilateralism!” – hymns from the Marxist songbook.
Another popular polemic scheme involves what I’d call, “rebellion through feigned disinterest and mock hyper-objectivity.” In America, the pseudo-rebels pose as non-aligned thinkers, imagining themselves to be somehow above the fray. While deriding the American position they claim to be “refusing to take a side.” Ironically, their refusal to take sides always defaults to the anti-U.S. position. While seeking an aura of profundity, in reality their stance is merely an expression of the weasel archetype, the guy who would sell out his family or country to maintain his own air of superiority.
We live in an age where slippery philosophical game players are considered heroic by some. Do we really want such types defending our families and communitites or leading our nations?
I’m reminded of Rhett Butler in “Gone With The Wind.” Through the beginning of the film, we’re impressed with his independence. He’s a smuggler who takes no side but his own. We can’t help but wish to identify with his superior insight and objectivity. He’s not naive like those other foolish souls running off to war for some meaningless cause. Later in the movie he shocks Scarlet O-hare and the audience as well, when he announces that he is going off to join the other soldiers in battle. He actually, quite humbly, acknowledges the weakness of his prior stand. We now can’t help but admire his newfound self-honesty and conviction. An actual intellectual appraisal of war itself becomes meaningless when we see this hero figure act on principal and do what he intuitively knows is right.
So, what is this “unilateralism” now taken as an objective label regarding America’s stance in the war with Fascist Islamic Jihad?
The fact that socialists in one country happen to agree with socialists in another country is hardly a noble expression of “multi-lateralism.” To the contrary, it merely means that some countries’ self-interests generally coincide with others. Contrary to the emerging mythology, France doesn’t base its policies on some self-effacing sacrifice or compromise. It merely acts in its own self-interest, seeking to resurrect a nationalistic ego tarnished by its own historical failures. The fact that it may agree with a few other countries in its desire to rein in the American “global hegemon” isn’t evidence of some noble cooperative greatness on its part.
The imperial rule of -- Western -- Europeans is long past and more than a few of them resent the fact that another country is currently taking its turn as “top dog” on the pages of history – oh well.
“Unilateral…hegemonic…illegal war? – Mere euphemisms directed by the sour grapes of social-bureau-states unable to acknowledge their own obvious self-interest and self-delusion.
If the pampered magicians of sound-bite leftism only had the insight of Rhett Butler and recognized that taking a stand for genuine justice is not an issue of xxx-lateralism, but simply having the courage to do what is right.
You don’t suppose that the media’s excitement regarding video footage of an American soldier shooting an “unarmed and wounded” terrorist will be equaled by video footage of the “slaughter rooms” found, where abducted civilians had their head’s sawed off?
Neal Boortz is blunt and to the point in his own appraisals of recent events in Iraq:
“Nowhere in any of the mainstream press coverage will you see her killers being described as anything less than "insurgents." Some of the coverage makes it sound like she died as the result of an accident or something. If it's not that, then it must be George Bush's fault for invading Iraq, angering the insurgency, and making them kill her. It's simply amazing that the leftist media in this country refuses to properly identify the enemy in the war on terror. They're too busy apologizing for the actions of the insurgents and doing stories about the "root causes" of terrorism.
Now ... think about this. A US Marine puts a bullet in the head of a terrorist, a terrorist he thought was playing dead. Just a day or two earlier this very same Marine lost a good friend to a booby-trapped body of a "dead" insurgent terrorist. Now that we know this, I'm prepared to give this Marine a pass. Good going, Marine. Now we see more outrage over what the Marine did than we see over the murder of this innocent, caring woman. What's wrong with this picture?”
Famous quotes from "The Religion Of Peace":
“Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]…. Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur’anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.” -- Ayatollah Khomeini
More appraisals of the authoritarian café “thinkers” of France in this excellent “letter to France” by Michael Novak in National Review Online.
France today isn’t really that different from the France of violence past:
“France had a long tradition of fascistic thought, going back to the 1890s. It arose principally, though not exclusively, from the socialist part of the political spectrum. Its leaders rebelled against the tyranny of materialism, as they saw it, both in the "bourgeois" state and in the Marxist analysis. Their aim was revolution - by the whole nation, not just by the proletariat. They hated democracy and the freedom of the individual, which they termed "atomization". People would only be happy and find their spiritual destiny in a new, authoritarian order where the power of the state would abolish the grip of international finance and direct the economy...” -- The Fascist Tradition In France And Belgium
Even in the socialist nirvana, Holland, (I’m being sarcastic, there’s definitely no realationship between socialism and nirvana) things aren’t working out as hoped. A little too much Leftism and, as one could expect, everything falls apart – stupid fools.
Friday, November 19, 2004
Michelle Malkin points out the inconsistencies in media regarding their new token darling, Barack Obama, and other not so well touted “minority” figures that happen to not share the “mainstream” media’s left-wing view of things.
“Obama isn't the only example of ‘the American dream that's around in politics,’ however. At least two other noteworthy minority politicians won unprecedented election victories last week. But you won't hear Andrea Mitchell or Howard Fineman swooning over their success stories -- because these invisible American Dream candidates belong to the wrong party and believe all the wrong things…”
Malkin notes something which should be obvious to most who appreciate the views and accomplishments of truly diverse citizens – that big media has a double standard regarding who’s to be respected and who’s to be sneered at.
The Caring Left
The Red and Blue two Americas concept gets an insightful analysis from Don Feder at Front Page Magazine.com:
“Compassionate, caring, blue-through-and-through Massachusetts has the second lowest per capita charitable giving in the nation. According to the Catalogue of Philanthropy, in 2004, the 10 states with the highest per person giving went for Bush, and the 10 stingiest states (per capita) voted for Kerry.”
Up to now, all I’ve heard are observations that the states that voted for Bush were somehow morally repugnant enclaves of bible-thumping fascism. Clearly there is more than one way to generalize on the attributes of “Red and Blue” states.
A “softer” more moderate Hillary
“According to a Quinnipiac poll of New Yorkers, Clinton's approval rating has steadily risen from 38 percent on Feb. 14, 2001 to 61 percent on Sept. 14, 2004. ‘ She's not the caricature that people thought," Carroll said. "She's not a '60s lefty. She's not a loony leftist and she works. She's a reasonably centrist liberal.’ ”
I can’t claim it to have been a particularly profound observation on my part, but in my last post I had described St. Hillary’s emerging skillful transition to moderation. The con is already beginning to work apparently.
From The Country That Surrendered To And Collaborated With The Nazis
As it turns out, some French mouthpieces of the Left are claiming that America is becoming a “Fascist” country. (Haven’t they always believed this?)
I don’t want to get on a French bashing tirade, particularly in view of the fact that not all French citizens are flaming Socialist snobs. But lets face it, the most vocal “spokespersons” of France – actually, all of Europe – are simply garden variety Leftists who have effectively colored the thinking of many of their fellow citizens.
…“There is no recognition here that the unemployment rate in France’s over-administered social-democratic welfare state is more than twice that of the United States, that the crime rate in France is far higher than that of the United States, or that the alienation from society found in France’s ghettoes is at least as great as that found in America’s, and furthermore that the alienated in France are far more heavily armed and dangerous to society as a whole. Self-examination has never been the strong point of French intellectual life.”…
In a short City Journal essay, Theodore Dalrymple reminds us that the French Left thinks Americans in general are Fascists – regardless of Bush. Of course, even the American Left thinks Americans are Fascists so, really, what’s their point?
Ah, the guardians of café life -- if we could only be as kind and loving as them.
In the Leftist’s Worldview; Everyone Is Equally Not-Special
Brent Bozell praises the new Pixar animated movie, “The Incredibles.” What caught my attention is this excellent quote from the movie where a superhero mother touches on issues of individuality and greatness with her son,
"Dad says our powers make us special," he protests.
"Everyone is special, Dash," his mother replies.
"Which is another way of saying no one is," Dash complains.
The dominant philosophy in America’s public school system, in a nutshell…
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
Battles Current, And Battles To Come
Mice Defending The Rat’s Nest
The international Marxist media has gone to work with its daily propaganda screed again. This time, in Fallujah.
There is little counter-argument to the reality that Fallujah is a rat’s nest of Islamic – Fascist terror. A concentrated dose of former Hussein Baath Party thugs and Muslim Jihadists, all dedicated to thwarting the emergence of a new free and successful Iraq.
Of course, much of the media’s focus is, as usual, on civilian casualties, a tragedy to be sure. The media could have, of course made it’s point in World War II and other conflicts by playing up this concept. Common sense would tell one that, surely there are more than a few civilian casualties from the terrorist force's actions, but much of the media, oddly, isn’t interested. Just as Saddam’s torture chambers and mass graves are sidelined to the destruction that may occur from coalition actions, the terrorists are still, by some news sources, often depicted as "freedom fighters, defending their homeland" from, "The American occupation."
Unlike prior conflicts in history, before an attack, the US makes it clear to all, when and where the battle will take place. In spite of urges to leave, hide, and cooperate, many choose to take the enormous risks that will inevitably occur during a full scale military engagement.
When the Fallujah attack began, Kofi Annan, of course, jumped in immediately with his usual phony concern for civilian casualties –an issue he’s always slow to respond to if the U.S. is not an active participant in events (e.g. The Sudan).
To such news sources as Al Zazeera, the conflict is framed as nothing more than a focused attack on hospitals, mosques, and children (…for oil?).
It’s become a common strategy among the terror class to stock ammunition and belligerents in mosques, schools, and hospitals. When the smoke clears, Al Jazeera runs in and interviews some fascist goon wailing, “They hit the Mosque!” “They hit the school.” We’re supposed to be impressed by the cunning editorial choices of pro-terror journalism. Yet, the big complaint is usually that Fox news refered to our guys as, “Our guys.”
After viewing a regular dose of media anti-war footage one can almost believe that the average Iraqi wants random car bombings, no elections, and the rise (revival) of a fascist-Islamic prison state – I’m gonna go with common sense and think not.
Call me a backwoods / red-state fool but, I doubt that the average Marine feels that military objectives are best attained by deliberate strikes on innocents. Of course if one uses the Left / “anti-war” crowd’s standards, then always assume the worst intentions from America and always give the terrorists the benefit of a doubt.
Fallujah had become a microcosm of Iraq itself – a magnet for the scum-class of Fascist Jihad. For those who deride the “injustice” of captivity in Guatanamo Bay, I say we apply a swifter justice on the battlefield itself.
If the coalition side (and this now includes Iraqis) is successful, elections will be held in January and an open society will have a chance to emerge. The rats of Islamo-fascism don’t want that…and either do the mice of the international anti-US media.
The Battle To Install St. Hillary
With the smoke of the last election barely cleared look for some high profile nudges from the media to look favorably upon St. Hillary Clinton – Grand Duchess of self-absorbed socialist banter.
Hillary has always been a big favorite among the stale demagogues of the morning talk show / “news” circuit. If you think about her background credentials, she’s not even qualified to be Senator but New York, as we know, is a “Blue State" so she found her second rung on the political ladder – by apparently not sleeping with a former President (who she happened to be married to).
From now till the 2008 election we will hear nothing but good about this rabid cow of authoritarian coercion (that’s right, I don’t like her).
Another important angle to boost her “attractiveness” (in the double meaning sense, this will be some chore) will be a well orchestrated attempt by her and her media pals to appear very moderate. Like Kerry, she’s nowhere near moderate but, unlike Kerry, she’s smart enough to realize the need, early on, to look like she is (this had already begun over a year ago).
Fans of Hillary always note that she’s a “strong intelligent woman.” I don’t doubt that one bit. I’m not one of those people though, that thinks “strong,” “intelligent,” or “woman,” are automatic reasons to vote Socialist.
This is the lady who wanted to create federal “community centers” to consolidate the school system with all other social control functions under one roof – one big happy commune…for “The People.”
On several occasions, Clinton II has made it clear that she has no problem with a “strong, intelligent…[government] authority.” Unlike Kerry, she realizes the importance of toning the talk down. You won’t see her promoting a guest box at the Democratic convention for Michael Moore – that doesn’t mean she doesn’t see eye to eye with him on most issues.
Hillary is a strong, intelligent, woman, …and Mao Zedong was a strong, intelligent man -- what's your point?
More excellent insights regarding the construction of post election mythology:
“Democrats will need to decide what is broken before they can fix it. But many Democrats are in deep denial, telling themselves they lost because their candidates weren't far enough to the left, or that an epidemic of homophobia swept the nation, or that legions of Low-brow Lovers of the Baby Jesus emerged from the misty hills and hollers of Red State America to steal the power that rightfully belongs to those who drive Volvos and watch public television.”
Clifford May tells it like it is.
With similar insight, Charles Kruthammer also reminds us that neither, “Angry White Men” nor, “Bigoted Christian Rednecks” were the deciding factors in the last election – though the media would have us believe otherwise;
“Overnight, the revolution of the Angry White Male became conventional wisdom [after the Republican sweep of 1994]. In the 10 years before the 1994 election, there were 53 Nexis mentions of angry white men in the media. In the next seven months there were more than 1,400.”
Summary; Socialist Poly-Sci 101:
Remember now. If you believe in low taxes and the freedom to think, act, buy, and sell as you choose; you're a mean-spirited, angry, racist, fascist, red-necked religious nut.
If you believe in the powerful rule of bureaucrats and intellectuals, and a centralized government authority to control thought, action, and commerce; then you are a kind, wise, caring, loving -- non-religious -- saint...with flowers sprouting from your hind end.
Monday, November 15, 2004
Long live the Lumpen Proletariat
Sunday, November 14, 2004
THE PROL, THE PRINCE, AND THE PARASITE
Today, one still often hears reference to, “the working class.” This is more so in Europe than America, and certainly more so among pampered intellectual ideologues than those who could actually be considered, “working class.” The phrase, today, actually reflects a rhetorical talking point more than an economic reality.
In the modern capitalist, free-market economy, almost everyone works. I’d seriously question anyone who considered the average factory worker’s effort to be somehow morally superior to the hours put in by the entrepreneurs who energize the economic circumstance of a country.
Ironically, many of those who tend toward Leftist philosophy are typically not “working class” by any definition. They represent, and always have represented, an elite. While a good portion of their type now come from the pampered college-molded middle class, they can hardly be seen as the toiling laborers of past eras, described as “proletarian” in Marxist lingo.
My father, like many in the post WWII era, worked at an automobile factory – for over 30 years. We were hardly “poor” or wanting for basic commodities, but we were probably in a lower tier of the middle class, culturally as well as economically. By the time I reached high school, we had moved to a nicer community but still lived in a simple house and owned a succession of used cars.
The “prols” are supposed to be left wing in their sympathies, or at least, “liberal” Democrats (in their desire to obtain the confiscated wealth of “the rich”). The Left today is still puzzled that such people -- the “working class” -- tend to be conservative or “right-wing” in their outlook. How can this be? The simple, and I think honest, answer is that the Left’s true affinities and sympathies never were for anyone beyond themselves. A conjured class of “oppressed workers” served no greater purpose to them other than being a mere excuse for grasping power. This resentful clique’ of "artists, philosophers, and thinkers,” still demands that society be structured upon their imposed vision. The Left’s entire stance is a coercive and condescending lie fostered upon “the workers” and everyone else. Fortunately, the “prol” knows nonsense when he or she sees it.
In China today, its common for students who are opposed to Communist party rule to refer to the power drunk cadre’s as, “princes,” which is indeed what they are.
The Leftist ideologue, for all their “revolutionary” lip service, desires a return to a type of monarchy – rule by a royal clique' of intellectuals, “artists,” and bureaucrats. The Leftist “thinker” is a prince, believing in his or her deserved role within an Imperial Court.
Socialists, and their mouthpieces in mainstream media and education, would have us believe that conservatism is defined in wealthy oppressive businessmen or simpleton fundamentalist Christians. The same socialist Left tends to see itself as bohemian, independent, revolutionary, and a vanguard of the “poor and oppressed.” Nothing could be further from the truth.
My own initial confrontation with Leftist elitism came while still in school. Schools are always well populated with budding elites, archetypes of nascent Leftist thought. These kids were often from well-off families, they got good grades, were popular, proper, and obedient to authority (while playing lip-service to feigned rebellion). They always had a direct or subtle disdain for the less refined and obedient renegades of the school.
After completing school in the government stockades, people like me got jobs. The refined and cooperative princes went to college to become professional superior humans -- born to rule.
I remember, during high school, walking home one day and daring to discuss the negative attributes of communism in China with one of those young princely scholars. I don’t remember his name, but I remember he was robotic in his icy cold intellectual manner, while he logically described the necessity of killing millions to bring about a better political order. His praises to Mao Zedong were accompanied by the obligatory attack on our own system of government, of course. I mention this encounter because I don’t think it was that unique.
Most of us on the “Right” -- classical liberals -- remember the smug, self-righteous and condescending intellectuals in school. In rough fetal form, they were merely “superior.” Over time, they would develop the academic credentials and group ties, used as adults, to justify their inflated sense of self. I wasn’t impressed with them then, and still recognize them now when I hear or read their thoughts in publications, from their pulpits at universities, or from the power centers of political life.
The Prince is still on an ego trip, and he or she (Princess?) still seeks the grand prize through a phony chant of concern for some conjured victims of our free system.
It’s all a matter of perspective, I suppose. One person’s “victim” is often no more than another’s mere parasite.
I attended college later in life. While doing so, for a time, I lived in a house with four other roommates. I performed the reasonable obligations that are expected of one in a group living situation. I paid my bills in a timely manner, contained the volume of music in the evening, and in general, avoided intrusion into my roommate’s affairs.
It was in this setting that I encountered a sort of microcosm of what one may find in the larger social world. Like myself, most of the roommates exhibited the proper dignities of responsibility and decorum. Individual roommates periodically came and left. Occasionally we would have someone rooming with us who I now see as the Left’s poster child – someone irresponsible, intrusive, manipulative, or downright rude; often they were alcoholics. They showed little or no respect for the other roommates or the common areas of the home. In addition to their crude personal manner and hygiene, they often insisted on spreading their debased aesthetic sense about the common area. Their friends often came to the house late, were loud, and drank heavily. Their overall attitude toward their environment was that everything around them was theirs by default. Any polite request to turn their music down during late hours was met with a childish anger and resentment. Sometimes they were belligerent. Although they were often drunk in such circumstances, I didn’t view their alcohol intake to be the cause of their character flaws. A six-pack of beer merely seemed to magnify an innate temperament that was a combination of the infantile, the spoiled, and the domineering. Gracing this unholy trinity of psychopathology was an exaggerated sense of victim hood. They saw themselves as victims of other’s “mean-spirited” views and “materialistic” (successful) lifestyle. It shouldn’t have been surprising to me that these characters would also regularly help themselves to other’s food as a sort of entitlement. They deserved free access to other’s food merely because they wanted it! Expecting them to “ask to barrow” a refrigerator item would be expecting too much. I was amazed at how often such theft was turned around as a testament to my own “selfishness,” -- for not allowing them to freely steal from me.
In such behavior I saw the essence of the entire Socialist / Leftist worldview. (Robin Hood’s “giving to the poor” doesn’t’ change the fact that he’s a thief). These are the people who we are often asked to support and “understand” in the societal realm. Any lack of sympathy we may show for their chosen path in life is chastised as a lack of “compassion” for “society’s victims.” To be sure, there are fellow citizens whose bad choices or genuine misfortune have placed them in lower social strata, but even when such circumstance is not of his or her own fault, these people are not heroes in my eyes. There’s a big difference between pity and outright respect bordering on worship. While such characters may be worthy of pity, they most certainly are not worthy of worship, yet; these are the hero’s of the left. These are the people we are supposed to be excited about. To not show “compassion” for their circumstance, one risks being labeled, “selfish,” “greedy,” or worst of all, “a Republican.”
Obviously, not everyone who is down on his or her luck is a parasite. Before the advent of the Socialist mega-state, a host of private charities and networks offered productive assistance to those in need. In recent decades, the bureaucracy has sought to replace the true compassion of individuals with confiscated funds directed toward an increasingly dependent public. In essence, the prince has asked the Prol for the power to take wealth from “The Rich” (and other prols) for the Parasite, and for doing so, the Prince gets to become King.
In an open system, sound judgment will carry most honest souls to better times eventually (we’ve all seen good and bad times). Few people in a free society lead consistently tragic lives without some degree of willful collaboration in such a fate.
I don’t think one person’s negative circumstance warrants punishment to the majority of other people who lead relatively stable and comfortable lives.
A leftist resents not only most of our successes, achievements, and progress; they resent the very bourgeois decorum and responsible thought that leads to a successful life. To them it is unfair and unjust that everyone is not equally poor, unsuccessful, or unhappy. They stand bewildered and resentful when others think it as unfair and unjust to have their own lives intruded upon and their wealth confiscated for the poster children of contrived victim hood.
A free and open society will always be stratified, diverse, and dynamic. The world the Left continually promises is uniform, conformist (“equal”), and full of sham “compassion” to restrain progress and “distribute” failure (with abridgment of general liberties as a side effect).
Where the Left’s directed scorn is to wealthy, successful, bourgeois living, my own disgust is toward intrusive and disruptive parasites that think everyone owes them compensation for their own pathetic manner and choices. To be sure, those who genuinely feel concern or “compassion” for the reckless, foolish, or none-too-bright, can help in a number of ways. The Left’s method will always involve some kind of punishment toward success, for their real gripe is not with poverty or problems, but with achievement and success.
We can likely tell a lot about one’s values and genuine motivations by what images appear on their symbolic posters of conviction. An incompetent, dependant, domineering, or resentful “victim” of injustice is hardly a worthy poster child for any crusade.
The Parasite can, of course, be pitied. Stuck in an infantile stage of dependency, it merely wishes it’s “needs met” on demand (and doesn’t want to have to expend too much energy or responsibility having them met). It means no harm; it merely wishes to sustain itself on another’s dime, so to speak. In the Left’s worldview, a person is “selfish” for wanting to keep their money and a person is to be pitied for wanting to take it.
The Prol – or what remains of that concept in today’s world – wants to see his or her own efforts pay off in comfortable existence and degrees of improvement for self and family.
The Prince wants to simply have his or her ideals enforced – they want to be in charge, directly or indirectly. The Prince is still arrogant as ever. Daring to continue the charade that he or she actually “cares” about others never met. The Prince demands recognition, homage, and authority. The standard-bearers of Leftist philosophy still look down their noses from their lofty throne in the clouds. Allied with the stern hand of state, they’d enslave us all to prove their greatness. While belittling the Prol’s simple values and tossing crumbs of stolen goods to the Parasites among us, they claw their arrogant path from prince to grander prizes. What’s a little more tyranny, bloodshed, or economic decay when a spoiled monarch has a point to make?
Friday, November 12, 2004
“Stupid People Voted For Bush”
Another Irony in this latest bit of partisan nonsense is that the left – particularly in college Education schools – has always insisted on the irrelevance of “IQ” test results as a valid measure of intelligence.
This latest escapade in sour grapes is just a continuation of the left’s, “I’m an Ubermensch” mentality. The crusade of condescending bitterness continues.
If the Bush people are so stupid, why are those on the left the ones paving a road to their own defeat again in 2008?
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
The Love That Dare Not Annoy More Conventional Folks
As a libertarian, by default I believe in everyone’s right to live their life as they choose with the qualification that they not impose their will upon others through force or fraud. Fairness and “justice” should, of course, afford everyone the right to marry who they choose – legally or otherwise. None the less, “gay marriage” is a new concept for most people.
If one believes some talking heads’ analysis of the recent election, then “homophobia” is now progressing to the pogrom stage of hate and tyranny. Contrary to this typical pseudo-rebel overreaction, I’d suggest that the rejection of gay marriage by the voters of the last election was not “turning the clock back.” It was a rejection of adopting a radical new standard whose time may just not have come yet.
I have a few friends passionately devoted to “gay issues,” by and large because it’s just another symbol of political chic for them to espouse. They certainly don’t practice “tolerance” or “acceptance” of several other groups within humanity. Some who preach such tolerance toward politically correct groups are incredibly intolerant, and even hateful, to members of groups they see as too conventional or average. In their predictable rants one finds invective for anyone who is white, male, middle-class, religious, or republican.
I’m going to suggest that a good portion of those who recently voted against gay marriage are not “full of hate.” An easier “sell” of the issue would have probably gone a long way in attaining some incremental success. The left always demands that the world be turned upside down and when some are slow to follow they spew their usual rant about “hate” and “right wing extremists.” No, rejection of radical change in society’s social standards is not akin to a “return to Jim Crow laws.” It’s not a “return” to anything. Advocates are demanding something with rare modern precedents.
I think most people, myself included, really don’t care who gets married to whom. Of course, the issue itself is far more “nuanced,” to use the new popular euphemism of partisan polemics. Legal issues of marriage, divorce, custody, and insurance etc. call for official recognition if “gay unions” are to become fully legitimate. Like other issues in the last election, the Left overstated its case and is currently over reacting to its rejection. Most American’s born and raised on Hollywood proselytizing have certainly come to realize that there are many among us whose lifestyles or social arrangements are not “conventional,” but…
The truth is, -- and gay advocates hate this -- homosexuality is still a marginal value system (or determined tendency). Aside from some much-touted minor and often questionable examples, most cultures throughout human history have, at best, reluctantly accepted it as a deviation from some written or unwritten norm. More typically, homosexuality has been rejected outright, as everything from a bizarre curiosity to perverse “sin” (and no, the Christians aren’t alone on this) -- most places are not Lesbos over two millennia ago. There are always standards of what is “normal, acceptable,” or “socially tolerable.”
Every “nerd” (myself included) has learned to moderate his or her eccentricities somewhat. Deviate too far from the norm and one is bound to experience some negative response, or at least a noticeable lack of favoritism. With the “advocates for social change” though, this issue is always a life or death “struggle.”
Out of a population of 280 million, if a few psychos commit an act of violence against a Muslim or gay, expect to see it touted as an example of a “culture of hatred and violence.”
The advocates of social change would be wise to adopt some of the very “tolerance” they demand of others when perusing radical change. Those who defend the standard of a traditional family unit have their own valid concerns regarding the world they’re raising children in. Such positions on the issue are simply brushed off as “narrow-minded,” “homophobic,” or hateful by many in the social advocacy crowd. Calling more traditionally minded people “fascists” and conjuring fictional nightmare episodes of oppression isn’t going to win adherents to the cause.
If the avant-garde rebels of Hollywood and academia were wiser, they may see some value in tempering their demands on a society that isn’t quite ready for an instant transformation from the social template of millennia.
There are a few countries -- very few – that have adopted liberal laws regarding gay marriage. When America also adopts such laws, as they surely will, it will still be among a minority of nations in the world to do so. It may be surprising to some left wing social advocates, but such an expansion in civil rights is not likely to occur in the Muslim countries that they so vocally side with when deriding our own culture.
America is a radically different country than it was a few decades ago. Its strength has always been an incredible adaptibity to change and ever-greater openness to new ideas and values. The left of course, would deny this and claim that we’re perpetually returning to some 1950’s style “conservatism.” Any honest appraisal, of course, knows this is nonsense.
Contemporary America is one of the most open and diverse societies in human history. The fact that it has failed to fully sanction a contempory fringe interest hardly makes it a gulag, and chastising more conventional values will only slow the progress toward change that some may seek.
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Medley Of Recent Insights
William Grim, like myself, is origionally from Ohio and offers some interesting behind the scenes insight into the events of last week.
Snobs For Socialism
"All sorts of modern extremist movements, such as the Weathermen in the United States or the Bader-Meinhof gang in Germany, have attracted a disproportionate number of the affluent in general and the intellectuals in particular."
As usual, Thomas Sowell points out the obvious regarding the skewed hypocrisies of Left-land, particularly in the recent election.
Killing Terrorists "Makes More Of Them?"
We've been told for quite some time now that Bush's firm stand against the Jihad is merely "creating more terrorists..." but there really is no reason to assume this to be true, and there's certainly no factual information pointing to such a conclusion. Jonathan V. Last raises some important questions in this regard:
"...The other factor is an implicit belief that Islamism is different from other pathologies. I doubt Kaus would have argued in 1944 that killing Nazis was only going to create twice as many of them."
Politically Incorrect Counter-Jihad
Islam has developed a bad image of late -- go figure. Those evil "Fascist Americans" are questioning the Muslim value system. I wonder why? Turns out the "religion of peace" is developing a really bad track record. And we're not supposed to notice.
The election is over, but the forces of blatant nonsense haven't disappeared. There will always be someone who loves the state...and always someone who loves their own ideas so much that they think they should be imposed on everyone else. The real rebellion is for the individual. The real rebel merely wishes to be left alone. Now, why is that a problem?
Sunday, November 07, 2004
a brief addendum to the previous post
David's Medienkritik has some excellent quotations from people, who like myself, took great added pleasure in telling the Euro-Left where to shove it.
Also, see Dr. John Ray's excellent related insights at Dissecting Leftism" (one of my favorite sites).
Last but not least: Something you won't see in the "mainstream" press."
The Left’s Demons From “Jesus Land”
It appears that the favorite excuse is going to be that some horrid conspiratorial mob of religious nuts had usurped power.
I just received an e-mail with a "new map of the US." The blue states are combined with Canada to form a, "United States of Canada," and the red states (which had a larger margin of voters for Bush) are labeled, "Jesus Land." Okay, that's reasonably witty -- but, meaningless.
I've never been a fan of religion in general, and I've found fundamentalists in particular to be extremely annoying on many occasions. I haven't seen them to be the great political threat that the Left wants them to be though. Ann Coulter gives an excellent overview of this issue in her book Slander. In the chapter, "Shadow boxing the Religious Right" she accurately asks why the media doesn’t talk about a, "Religious Left" when in fact there are many people who are religious and Left wing in their views (and well organized politically). If you've ever heard the typical rant of today's "progressive" in general, and don't see a dimension of "religious" fervor in their stance, you haven't been listening. (They're, of course not "religious," ...just "spiritual"). In a similar train of thought, why is it that those who are most vocal about the dangers of church-going folks, are equally defensive about fundamentalists Islam -- which is actually a serious threat? (I still keep hearing about that one Sikh guy who was killed by some nut after 9/11). There are even school lessons now that make a point of preaching the virtues of Islam as an exercise in political correctness. Ironically, these same clowns would actually fight to the end to prevent a manger scene from being displayed on public property.
Bush and several other Republicans did not win the recent election because of some red-necked boogieman called, "the Religious Right.” They won because there's a whole swath of land between New York and California that doesn't follow the drummer of elitist / Leftist - "progressive" nonsense.
I'd prefer that Jesus and Mohammad stay out of politics completely, but the fact that some common people don't see eye to eye with a self-righteous brigade of leftist elitists doesn’t bother me in the slightest.
"Jesus Saves,” Mohammad coerces, and the Left just keeps whining. Attempts by any group to make "morality" a part of public policy is pathetic, whether by some church-goin redneck or some holier than thou Hollywood socialist.
Friday, November 05, 2004
They Didn't Get Their Country Back...
A pompous weasel who collaborated with communists and established a record of having done absolutely nothing for the last 30 years, was defeated by the voters of "flyover country" -- those dreaded commoners who don't know names like, Sartre, Foucault, and Derrida have rejected George McGovern Jr.
The Left and the international spoiled brat brigade will wring their hands in horror.
Bush will appoint a few strict constructionists (incorrectly labeled "conservatives") to the Supreme Court, which means the constitution (law) will continue to be the guiding constraint on the "rule of men" (legislators).
As a Libertarian, there is plenty that Bush will do to make me unhappy. The Federal government definitely isn't going to become smaller, though it won't reach the massive dimensions Kerry would have afforded it -- not for awhile anyway.
Bush will still be hated by "the world" (the Carpathians and Great Rift Valley really hate him?), soley because he's not quite socialist enough to the tastes of "allies" and the dependent citizens of the Euro-Bureau-State.
Occasionally, male Arabs with plans to kill Americans will be arrested and some other Americans will complain about the "victim's" civil rights, while implying that America is a police state for arresting terrorists.
With all attempts to avoid such a tragedy, the US will likely be struck again by the Islamo-Fascist Jihad while pundits and Euro-jerks will frame it all as a just response for Bush's actions in Iraq (even though the Islamo-terrorists have been doing this sort of thing long before Iraq). Bin-Laden's network will no doubt keep their word and attempt to punish innocent people in places like Ohio for not voting for the Jihad's chosen candidate --John Kerry.
The greatest irony of Bush's win is that he may not have won if the phony renegades of Leftist elitism hadn't screeched their nonsense for over a year now. To folks like Michael Moore, Moveon.org, Steve Earl, Bruce Springsteen et al. (the list is really long), ya blew it! and you have only yourselves to blame.
If these fools had their way we'd all be converting to Islam -- with a side order of Marxism. They didn't "get their country back" so, us simpler folks get to keep ours for a while longer.
The arrogant imposing elitism on the Left that I've so often noted is addressed by Tom Wolfe in, of all places, The Guardian.
I forgot to note something in a prior post regarding Bin-Laden's recent campaign speech for John Kerry. One would have to be brain dead to have not noticed the tone of desperation and defeat in the tape. Bin-Laden and the Islamic Jihad's ideals and track record are clear. In the tape, however, an attempt is made to appear almost conciliatory ("can't we all just get along?"). Taken as a whole, it's clear that he's hoping to appeal further to the Left-wing idiots already sympathetic to him. The "victim" card is an authoritarian-collectivist classic. It's also clear he's losing some bargaining power. His base in Afghanistan is gone, a like-minded authoritarian dictator is gone, and the world over, counter-Jihad has sealed channels of finance and removed several leaders of the movement. Considerable dangers lie ahead of course, but Bin-Laden knows that Bush -- unlike Carter, Clinton, or Kerry -- isn't going to kiss the Fascist ass of international terrorism. If we could only get the left-leaning, America hating, bourgeoisie bohemian crowd to support us on this, Jihad would be shut down fast and easy. No, we're in a two front battle; Islamo-fascism, and their kindred spirits in the international Socialist clown parade.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
His essay on The Ulgly American Expatriate is an even better inquiry into the flaccid souls of elitism.
I'm presently working on a brief essay, "The Prol, The Prince, and The Parasite" to further note my own disgust for the contrived herd of pseudo-rebel elitists who think they occupy a loftier realm of morality.
The election draws near. If Kerry is elected, I'll be disgusted and mildly concerned for what it means to a country under siege from fundamentalist fanaticism. We still have a congress, remnants of a supreme court, and a portion of public thought that may keep things intact. In short, I can live with a Kerry "win." Life goes on. The Left can't say that. As I've stated before, if Bush wins, they will refuse to accept it. They'll whine, scream, holler, and protest till the end of time. They'll continue to make it difficult for Bush to conduct the necessary defense of the country and they'll continue their typical demand that the rest of us obey their proxies in the bureaucracy.
Leftism is authoritarianism -- always was, always will be.
Monday, November 01, 2004
The New Improved Bin Laden
Some observers will be foolish enough to buy into the nonsense that Bin Laden's caste of Muslims only wish to be "free" from the "oppressive" US and its belligerent response to 9/11. Of course people with half a brain and occasional attention to the history and philosophy in the current conflict, know that Bin Laden and his followers represent the extremist sect of Wahhabi Islam. When he says he and his followers wish to be "free," he means in the style of freedom that his Taliban lap dogs imposed on Afghanistan. The freedom Bin Laden speaks of is the same kind referred to by Marxists and other collectivist authoritarians -- "freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength"
For those who are familiar with Wahhabi Islam, the Madrassas, and the goals of Jihad, its clear that Bush and American "hegemonic arrogance" are not the cause of current, or previous, threats and assaults. We tend to forget that the 1993 world Trade Center bombing was intended to take those buildings down then.
Bin Laden and company want nothing short of a Taliban style world(!) and have said so on numerous occasions. The biggest thing standing in his way is successful secular, multi-cultural, free society, and nothing embodies that more than the US. We tend to forget, when looking back at the evil ideologies of the past, that many people actually supported or sympathized with them then as they do now. There are still many today who -- 100,000,000 deaths later -- think communism is a good idea. So it is with Islamo-Fascism.
Do you think we can maybe confront this new totalitarian enemy with "dialog," multi-lateral "consultation," and self-loathing? If you do, you're a fool. Vote for Kerry, pray for peace, or just shoot yourself in the head.
No Force / No Fraud has a good post regarding the Euro-Socialist "third way" -- the incompetent path to stasis adopted by many European countries (and the approach that John Kerry will seek to implement in the US, if elected).
Some good insight from Jack Kemp regarding the Democratic party's usual campaign tactics and some of their newer tricks. Of course everyone knows that the election of a Republican will entrench the evil forces of free-market cruelty,...and Democrats will cause flowers to sprout from one's hind end.
One of the main reasons I voted for Bush (in my foreign resident absentee ballot) was the blatant excessive bias shown by the "mainstream media." It's an incredible personal insult for these clowns to think they can manipulate information regarding this election and actually get away with it. Diana West has come to the same conclusion.
Another reason that I voted for Bush and not the Libertarian candidate, as I usually do, is the pathetic excess of "The Bush-haters." The Left has been able to spout their usual nonsense from a massive sized soapbox in this election. There is no question in my mind that at least a few percentage points of Bush's tally in this election will come from people who ordinarily would not be very pro-Bush. One can only stand so much of the nonsense heard regularly in this campaign from intellectuals, "entertainers," millionaire funded "527" groups, and other professional spoiled brats, before deciding to take a stand for common sense.
A vote for Bush is a vote against every whining self-righteous middle-class Marxist and their pseudo-anarchist brethren.