Friday, December 24, 2004
Holiday Hiatus And Festive Times In "The Old Country"
I'm off to Narita airport tomorrow to begin the ordeal of trans-Pacific flight. I'll be frolicking with friends and family in Boulder, Colorado. It's always fun to return to the U.S. and find out that, unlike what I'm led to believe through the year, it's not a, "Police state" where, "No one can speak out." Actually, Boulder, as I recall had always tried to be a police state of sorts and, like all, "People's Republics," the city is well stocked with lots of rich Leftists (though, to be fair, the last ten years or so have brought some philosophical diversity to the town -- the one kind of "diversity" the Left hates).
I'll be putting Promethean Antagonist into hibernation for the duration of my travels and hope to be back to sleepy typing by January 10th.
Have a festive Christmas, or "holiday" and an indulgent year of hedonism and excess -- because you can.
I'll be putting Promethean Antagonist into hibernation for the duration of my travels and hope to be back to sleepy typing by January 10th.
Have a festive Christmas, or "holiday" and an indulgent year of hedonism and excess -- because you can.
Outnumbered By Lies And Ignorance
One could be accused of developing a certain paranoia regarding the current state of political affairs. If one is fairly conservative or Libertarian in their beliefs, the course of events can appear somewhat threatening, indeed. The Left would, of course, say otherwise, but how well is the standard of limited, self-government really faring at present?
Of course we are often reminded that Bush again occupies the White House, the Republican Party dominates congress, and even the Supreme Court will likely be swayed by Bush into the direction of strict constructionist constitutional interpretation. Why then would anyone holding respect for the values of Classical Liberalism and individuality fear a collectivist surge in power?
When discussing political issues, I often find my comments met by rolling eyes or condescending snickers when stating little known facts in my defense of individual liberty. A couple of weeks ago I noted the myth of Bill Clinton having been harassed over Monica Lewinsky (something I addressed in my last post). The media has done well altering realities on this issue. The truth is, Bill Clinton was rightfully investigated for several acts of misconduct that went far beyond a mere sexual tryst, lying to a grand jury not being the least of them. After gaining some distance in time from the events of Clinton’s corrupt actions, “conventional wisdom” now reminds us that this poor man was harassed over Monica Lewinsky. If it were only that simple. When I noted the contradiction between facts and a now widely accepted urban legend, I was met with laughter. After all, there I was again, failing to fall in line to the superior wisdom of mainstream socialist sympathies. How could anyone not be sympathetic to Bill Clinton? Actually, when I think of Bill Clinton I think of that photograph of armed federal agents storming a family’s bedroom so they could send a little Cuban boy back to Castro’s destitute police state. That was what Bill Clinton was really all about.
The UN gives standing ovations to a corrupt and incompetent Kofi Annan. The Bureau-lords of the EU and their captive audience of citizens (born and bred on one worldview) continually deride the values of individual liberty as, “selfish” and “materialistic.” An international squadron of media con artists hides half the news from us. Academia the world over and their underlings in the state’s social fabrication networks (the public schools) raise new generations on the lie that Big Brother is actually loveable.
In the movies, music, and daily conversations we hear around us, we can hardly be called dupes of a conservative paradigm. The lies and deceptions from above are of little concern to me; those forces of collectivists idealism certainly aren’t new. A functionary of state calling for a stronger state is hardly a novel thing.
It’s not the lies from above…it’s the ignorance from below that worries people like me most. Where I feel outnumbered is in the routine levels of daily life, where a pampered middle class has gleaned their worldview from Reuters, the New York Times, and some pony-tailed lit Major who called himself a History teacher (yes, I know, these are caricatures but I dare say, they get to the point).
America did not confront a ruthless Fascist regime solely “because of weapons of mass destruction,” and the blood sacrificed has not been, “for oil.” Bill Clinton wasn’t persecuted by a “vast right wing conspiracy,” over indiscretions with an intern. Most of all, Dictatorships are not just, “different choices in government,” and the growth of centralized bureaucracy is not a, “new, revolutionary,” or even half effective idea (the government has hardly become smaller or the “safety net” weaker).
At times, those of us who admire the values of liberty and independence may feel outnumbered. In particular locales or time frames such fears may seem unwarranted but in the grand scheme of things there is just cause for concern.
In politics, lies plus ignorance equal a perennial love for centralized authority and imposed conformity. In our own time, such values have hardly ceased to be a threat.
Of course we are often reminded that Bush again occupies the White House, the Republican Party dominates congress, and even the Supreme Court will likely be swayed by Bush into the direction of strict constructionist constitutional interpretation. Why then would anyone holding respect for the values of Classical Liberalism and individuality fear a collectivist surge in power?
When discussing political issues, I often find my comments met by rolling eyes or condescending snickers when stating little known facts in my defense of individual liberty. A couple of weeks ago I noted the myth of Bill Clinton having been harassed over Monica Lewinsky (something I addressed in my last post). The media has done well altering realities on this issue. The truth is, Bill Clinton was rightfully investigated for several acts of misconduct that went far beyond a mere sexual tryst, lying to a grand jury not being the least of them. After gaining some distance in time from the events of Clinton’s corrupt actions, “conventional wisdom” now reminds us that this poor man was harassed over Monica Lewinsky. If it were only that simple. When I noted the contradiction between facts and a now widely accepted urban legend, I was met with laughter. After all, there I was again, failing to fall in line to the superior wisdom of mainstream socialist sympathies. How could anyone not be sympathetic to Bill Clinton? Actually, when I think of Bill Clinton I think of that photograph of armed federal agents storming a family’s bedroom so they could send a little Cuban boy back to Castro’s destitute police state. That was what Bill Clinton was really all about.
The UN gives standing ovations to a corrupt and incompetent Kofi Annan. The Bureau-lords of the EU and their captive audience of citizens (born and bred on one worldview) continually deride the values of individual liberty as, “selfish” and “materialistic.” An international squadron of media con artists hides half the news from us. Academia the world over and their underlings in the state’s social fabrication networks (the public schools) raise new generations on the lie that Big Brother is actually loveable.
In the movies, music, and daily conversations we hear around us, we can hardly be called dupes of a conservative paradigm. The lies and deceptions from above are of little concern to me; those forces of collectivists idealism certainly aren’t new. A functionary of state calling for a stronger state is hardly a novel thing.
It’s not the lies from above…it’s the ignorance from below that worries people like me most. Where I feel outnumbered is in the routine levels of daily life, where a pampered middle class has gleaned their worldview from Reuters, the New York Times, and some pony-tailed lit Major who called himself a History teacher (yes, I know, these are caricatures but I dare say, they get to the point).
America did not confront a ruthless Fascist regime solely “because of weapons of mass destruction,” and the blood sacrificed has not been, “for oil.” Bill Clinton wasn’t persecuted by a “vast right wing conspiracy,” over indiscretions with an intern. Most of all, Dictatorships are not just, “different choices in government,” and the growth of centralized bureaucracy is not a, “new, revolutionary,” or even half effective idea (the government has hardly become smaller or the “safety net” weaker).
At times, those of us who admire the values of liberty and independence may feel outnumbered. In particular locales or time frames such fears may seem unwarranted but in the grand scheme of things there is just cause for concern.
In politics, lies plus ignorance equal a perennial love for centralized authority and imposed conformity. In our own time, such values have hardly ceased to be a threat.
Sunday, December 19, 2004
The Den Of Dupes, Weasels, And Scoundrels Looks Out For One Of Their Own
It was a little more than a week ago that an orchestrated showing of confidence was made for U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. The phony hypocrisy of the act annoyed me enough to hold a place in my memory among the years best examples of nonsense in Left-land.
Imagine the excitement. Kofi Annan recently received a standing ovation from fellow U.N. “diplomats [socialist bureaucrats].” Several world leaders and Americans of like political views also showed their support ("yay team!").
We're supposed to believe that Annan is now the poor victim of calls to resign by evil American right wing / Bush types (even though the Bush administration itself is giving Annan a pass).
Annan has a clear history of inaction and lack of interest toward acts of tyranny and genocide. He has overseen the corrupt actions of an unelected bureaucracy that has bilked innocents of dignity (and billions of dollars in food) and turned a blind eye to the actions of ruthless dictators. He has also continued attempts to hinder any further investigation into U.N. corruption (of which there is plenty). He’s incompetent to say the least, and likely corrupt to the core.
What should we expect from an institution’s leadership that is technically accountable to no one yet continually demands more authority? Most of the “mainstream” media certainly take little interest in the perennial scandals that take place in this well financed soapbox for socialist polemic (FOX news being a rare exception). Only recently have most major news sources taken note at all. They, after all, don't like being "negative" (unless reporting on Bush, Iraq, the free-market, or America in general).
An Associated Press article I had read last week (sorry, I can’t find a link to it on the web) not only noted Annan’s support from fellow bureaucrats but also pointed out the last time a standing ovation was given to a “leader,” a gesture of defense for Bill Clinton, “when he was a beleaguered president under attack on the Monica Lewinsky case” (emphasis mine).
Another entrenched media constructed myth; poor Bill Clinton was supposedly hounded for a mere tryst with an intern. In fact, aside from the tacky disgrace to a public institution (the Presidency), Clinton was heavily involved in an entire syndrome of corruptions, not least being that of lying before a grand jury. His vices were mere icing on a criminal cake, but now the official line being reported to history is merely that of a persecuted president with an overactive libido.
So now, fast forward to another corrupt hero of the Left's vision, Kofi Annan. An assembly of unelected scoundrels, leaders in Europe, the Cuban government, and Vladimir Putin now circle the wagons to defend the cause of bureau-incompetence and corruption from attack by the evil force of those who dare question questionable behavior – give me a break.
A reposting of a link to a cartoon may be relevant to the current issue.
When President Bush last spoke before the Den of Scoundrels, he was met with a notable lack of support (and, of course, sublte derision). All that talk about freedom doesn't sit well in a chamber of bureau-thugs and statist demogogues.
A good overview of the UN's “shortcomings” can be found in a recent opinion in – surprisingly – The Los Angeles Times.
**************************
I haven’t yet read this book regarding U.N. misdeeds and incompetence but it also appears relevant to the issues at hand.
I’m glad there are a few people awake and honest enough to direct some critical attention to the world assembly of collectivist bureau-slime, in spite of the UN bureaucracy's attempts to silence them.
**************************
Random Observations
1.) It's funny that the left is so enraged that two power centers (the presidency and congress) have fallen into the control of Republicans. The irony is that those who attain power in these two institutions are voted for. The Left fails to note that unelected kindred spirits dominate schools, colleges, most mainstream media, entertainment and even the sciences and humanities. Oh yes, as an aside, until recent history, the Democrats controlled congress for the better part of forty years. Now they're all supposedly concerned about diverse views being able to "share power" -- Classic. They don't like the way many of us vote / they don't like the way many of us think. So, what else is new?
2.) Ever notice how the same people who admire and praise a country or group's special interest and "solidarity" with "their people” paradoxically despise common American citizen's patriotism or support for our own country. What's up with that?
**************************
Neal Boortz pointed out something of interest in TODAY'S NUZE (from Tuesday's post):
"Remember Mark and Denise Rich? Denise was a close pal of Bill Clinton. Mark was her crooked husband. Somehow Denise managed to snuggle up to Clinton and get a pardon for her husband during Clinton's final days in office. Now we're finding out that almost as soon as Bill Clinton pardoned Mark Rich he was off to the Middle East to become one of Saddam's partners in defrauding the American people and starving [Saddam's] people. Do you think that Clinton will ever be brought to task for this particular pardon? Are you kidding?"
***********************
Jimmy -- "malaise" -- Carter of the "non-partisan" Carter Center, has expressed his misgivings about Iraqi elections next month. This is the same guy whose optimistic pro-freedom attitude (I'm joking) left Iran in the hands of the tyrants that rule over it today. Carter truly has never met a dictator he didn't like. The weak-willed social Democrat is typically referred to in news articles as, "Nobel Peace Prize Winner"...and former President Jimmy Carter. You probably remember the Nobel Prize committee awarding him the Peach Prize (deliberate mispelling) as a symbolic insult to the Bush administration -- who we all know is, "worse than Hitler."
It's good to know that Carter is still the anti-U.S. doom and gloom clown that he was during his fifteen minutes of fame and public incompetence. In his eyes, all hopes for progress in Iraq are futile -- no use even having elections.
Some things and some people never change. What an idiot...
Another post in about five days or so...
Imagine the excitement. Kofi Annan recently received a standing ovation from fellow U.N. “diplomats [socialist bureaucrats].” Several world leaders and Americans of like political views also showed their support ("yay team!").
We're supposed to believe that Annan is now the poor victim of calls to resign by evil American right wing / Bush types (even though the Bush administration itself is giving Annan a pass).
Annan has a clear history of inaction and lack of interest toward acts of tyranny and genocide. He has overseen the corrupt actions of an unelected bureaucracy that has bilked innocents of dignity (and billions of dollars in food) and turned a blind eye to the actions of ruthless dictators. He has also continued attempts to hinder any further investigation into U.N. corruption (of which there is plenty). He’s incompetent to say the least, and likely corrupt to the core.
What should we expect from an institution’s leadership that is technically accountable to no one yet continually demands more authority? Most of the “mainstream” media certainly take little interest in the perennial scandals that take place in this well financed soapbox for socialist polemic (FOX news being a rare exception). Only recently have most major news sources taken note at all. They, after all, don't like being "negative" (unless reporting on Bush, Iraq, the free-market, or America in general).
An Associated Press article I had read last week (sorry, I can’t find a link to it on the web) not only noted Annan’s support from fellow bureaucrats but also pointed out the last time a standing ovation was given to a “leader,” a gesture of defense for Bill Clinton, “when he was a beleaguered president under attack on the Monica Lewinsky case” (emphasis mine).
Another entrenched media constructed myth; poor Bill Clinton was supposedly hounded for a mere tryst with an intern. In fact, aside from the tacky disgrace to a public institution (the Presidency), Clinton was heavily involved in an entire syndrome of corruptions, not least being that of lying before a grand jury. His vices were mere icing on a criminal cake, but now the official line being reported to history is merely that of a persecuted president with an overactive libido.
So now, fast forward to another corrupt hero of the Left's vision, Kofi Annan. An assembly of unelected scoundrels, leaders in Europe, the Cuban government, and Vladimir Putin now circle the wagons to defend the cause of bureau-incompetence and corruption from attack by the evil force of those who dare question questionable behavior – give me a break.
A reposting of a link to a cartoon may be relevant to the current issue.
When President Bush last spoke before the Den of Scoundrels, he was met with a notable lack of support (and, of course, sublte derision). All that talk about freedom doesn't sit well in a chamber of bureau-thugs and statist demogogues.
A good overview of the UN's “shortcomings” can be found in a recent opinion in – surprisingly – The Los Angeles Times.
I haven’t yet read this book regarding U.N. misdeeds and incompetence but it also appears relevant to the issues at hand.
I’m glad there are a few people awake and honest enough to direct some critical attention to the world assembly of collectivist bureau-slime, in spite of the UN bureaucracy's attempts to silence them.
1.) It's funny that the left is so enraged that two power centers (the presidency and congress) have fallen into the control of Republicans. The irony is that those who attain power in these two institutions are voted for. The Left fails to note that unelected kindred spirits dominate schools, colleges, most mainstream media, entertainment and even the sciences and humanities. Oh yes, as an aside, until recent history, the Democrats controlled congress for the better part of forty years. Now they're all supposedly concerned about diverse views being able to "share power" -- Classic. They don't like the way many of us vote / they don't like the way many of us think. So, what else is new?
2.) Ever notice how the same people who admire and praise a country or group's special interest and "solidarity" with "their people” paradoxically despise common American citizen's patriotism or support for our own country. What's up with that?
Neal Boortz pointed out something of interest in TODAY'S NUZE (from Tuesday's post):
"Remember Mark and Denise Rich? Denise was a close pal of Bill Clinton. Mark was her crooked husband. Somehow Denise managed to snuggle up to Clinton and get a pardon for her husband during Clinton's final days in office. Now we're finding out that almost as soon as Bill Clinton pardoned Mark Rich he was off to the Middle East to become one of Saddam's partners in defrauding the American people and starving [Saddam's] people. Do you think that Clinton will ever be brought to task for this particular pardon? Are you kidding?"
Jimmy -- "malaise" -- Carter of the "non-partisan" Carter Center, has expressed his misgivings about Iraqi elections next month. This is the same guy whose optimistic pro-freedom attitude (I'm joking) left Iran in the hands of the tyrants that rule over it today. Carter truly has never met a dictator he didn't like. The weak-willed social Democrat is typically referred to in news articles as, "Nobel Peace Prize Winner"...and former President Jimmy Carter. You probably remember the Nobel Prize committee awarding him the Peach Prize (deliberate mispelling) as a symbolic insult to the Bush administration -- who we all know is, "worse than Hitler."
It's good to know that Carter is still the anti-U.S. doom and gloom clown that he was during his fifteen minutes of fame and public incompetence. In his eyes, all hopes for progress in Iraq are futile -- no use even having elections.
Some things and some people never change. What an idiot...
Another post in about five days or so...
Sunday, December 12, 2004
Plan B, WMD, and the Roswell Connection
I recently received one of those e-mails that preach to the Left’s paranoid choir. Apparently a new BBC documentary has proven that Islamic terrorism and Soviet Socialist authoritarianism are actually myths conjured by the evil ideology of profit (capitalism) and its American puppet masters. Like many blogging type folks, I was tempted to address the absurdity of each cliché accusation point by point, but why waste the time? I choose instead to type an abridged proclamation of my take on this stale leftist diatribe:
Amazing! The compulsory funded state media of Britain once again "proves" that threats from Islamo-fascism are conjured by the evil demons of capitalism. As a bonus we find also (hardly a new claim) that the former Soviet Union was really a benign and harmless system that we should have just, "left alone."
Of course the real culprit in all human tyranny is the profit motive -- and perhaps Aliens from sector 12. I knew it had to have something to do with that guy who combs his hair with his own spit [Wolfman-witz] (sure sign of fascism).
Amazingly, a constitutional republic of diverse and contending interests comes up the villain every time when its "imagined enemies" are mere religious extremists or totalitarian, one-party states.
Sounds like the BBC is still going for the "sexed-up" document concept.
I'm still puzzled as to why the "progressives" consistently default to greater sympathy for the totalitarian position (another game in the post-modern hall of mirrors perhaps?).
Elvis Lives!
Amazing! The compulsory funded state media of Britain once again "proves" that threats from Islamo-fascism are conjured by the evil demons of capitalism. As a bonus we find also (hardly a new claim) that the former Soviet Union was really a benign and harmless system that we should have just, "left alone."
Of course the real culprit in all human tyranny is the profit motive -- and perhaps Aliens from sector 12. I knew it had to have something to do with that guy who combs his hair with his own spit [Wolfman-witz] (sure sign of fascism).
Amazingly, a constitutional republic of diverse and contending interests comes up the villain every time when its "imagined enemies" are mere religious extremists or totalitarian, one-party states.
Sounds like the BBC is still going for the "sexed-up" document concept.
I'm still puzzled as to why the "progressives" consistently default to greater sympathy for the totalitarian position (another game in the post-modern hall of mirrors perhaps?).
Elvis Lives!
Saturday, December 11, 2004
Intellectuals And The Coincidence Of Political Affiliation
Contemporary society is comprised of diverse groups; laborers, technocrats, farmers, clerks, intellectuals, etc. They generally have different interests and, accordingly, tend toward certain characteristic perspectives. Among these perspectives is often a certain bias in philosophical affiliations as well. Among intellectuals, there are ones who are right wing, left wing, and even occasionally, “center,” but in our own time, there is a clear tendency for most to be, “left of center,” if not extremely left of center.
It would probably be reasonable to describe intellectuals as people who direct considerable attention to, “things of the mind,” this supposes an interest in philosophy, the arts, and ideas in general. It would be odd indeed to find a person drawn to philosophy (a “love of knowledge”) and they not show interest in issues regarding human society and politics. It’s probably safe to say that most intellectuals take more than a passing interest in political matters.
Throughout history we find intellectuals of both moderate and extreme political belief spanning the political spectrum. There were Nazi intellectuals, Communist intellectuals, and there are free-market intellectuals. So why is it that in our own time, in the west, intellectuals are more often than not, allies of Leftism? What distinguishes a leftist intellectual from a right-wing one? First we must realize that both philosophies, in their extremes, are statist in nature; they wish to establish an order where others are forced to conform to the intellectual’s “plan” – collectivism. Neither Communist nor Nazi will be found to argue the superior value of a free and open society of autonomous citizens. Both sides of the extreme Right/Left false dichotomy feel the need to impose the template of central authority upon all aspects of society.
It is surely more than coincidence that we find “right” and “left” intellectuals in agreement on a variety of matters, particularly in their attitudes toward Capitalism, which they both see as corrupt, decadent, and “unjust.” It is equally no coincidence that most left-wing intellectuals today are found to side with far right Islamo-fascism in its current war on free society.
A most insightful critique of this paradox can be found in a work by Eric Hoffer, (best known for his book, The True Believer). In his book, The Ordeal of Change, Hoffer addresses the unique nature of Leftism’s popularity among intellectuals -- in America in particular.
Hoffer’s book (now out of print) contains some insightful commentary on the nature of the intellectuals in modern western society, the things that motivate them, and the flawed leftist ideals they tend to rally around.
One of the issues that Hoffer addresses skillfully is the nature of management in Capitalist society vs. Socialist society.
”To the eternal workingman management is substantially the same whether it is made up of profit seekers, idealists, technicians, or bureaucrats. The allegiance of the manager is to the task and the results. However noble his motives, he cannot help [but view] the workers as a means to an end. He will always try to get the utmost out of them; and it matters not whether he does it for the sake of profit, for a holy cause, or for the sheer principle of efficiency….
…Any doctrine that preaches the oneness of management and labor – whether it stresses their unity in a party, class, race, nation, or even religion – can be used to turn the worker into a compliant instrument in the hands of management. Both Communism and Fascism postulate the oneness of management and labor, and both are devices for the extraction of maximum performance from an underpaid labor force…
…Seen from this point of view, the nationalization of the means of production is more a threat than a promise. For we shall be bossed and managed by someone, no matter who owns the means of production – and we can have no defenses against those who can tell us in all truth that we, the workers, own everything in sight and they, our taskmasters, are driving us for our own good. The battle between Socialism and Capitalism is to a large extent a battle between bosses, and it is legitimate to size up the dedicated Socialist as a potential boss.
One needs not call to mind the example of Communist Russia to realize that the idealist has the making of a most formidable taskmaster.” (The Ordeal of Change, Pgs. 64-65)
In addition to Hoffer’s insightful appraisals of "management," his inquiry -- a concise 120 pages -- dissects the reasons why contemporary intellectuals tend to be Leftist in their sympathies and more so, why they so despise the United States in particular. In other countries, such extremist elites are often openly nationalistic, if not adoring of their own state’s authority – why should this be?
Through stealth and guile, the movers and shakers of leftist polemic have sought to transform America slowly and by degree into the socialist model of mega-government. The dilemma for them has been the nation's natural tendency to continually recoil back to its true nature as a haven for individualist thought and free and open commerce – no place for a social planning intellectual to feel at home, to be sure.
In France, a totalitarian adoring Jean Paul Sartre was held in high esteem by both the state and its citizenry. Where are the admired intellectual heroes of America? Noam Chomsky is a fringe political charlatan at best, esteemed by a thin sliver of self-absorbed intellectual wannabes.
America’s genuine hero figures are entrepreneurs, sports figures, and entertainers (with an occasional astronaut thrown in for novelty). Seen as evidence of shallow value standards by the arrogant Euro-chic, Americans have directed their admiration to people like Bill Gates and Steven Spielberg. France has Jean Baudrillard and a dead literary quack named Derrida
The average American “worker” -- proletarian interests aside -- would probably pass on the opportunity for leisure conversation with a French “thinker.” In fact, most would have more in common with a billionaire software mogul or pop film director.
Don’t think that the irony of this circumstance is lost on the celebrity wannabes of the academy. In essence, most Americans see intellectuals for what they are, mere scholastic entertainers – albeit considerably less entertaining than most pop figures.
Intellectual brilliance is, of course, a good thing, but that bitter and transparent undercurrent of wanting to rule and wanting to “plan” (other’s lives) has fortunately been rejected by simple citizens, just as John Kerry and (indirectly) Michael Moore were rejected in the last election.
Most intellectuals today don’t like America because they don’t like bourgeois society in general, or the capitalist system that allows such society to flourish. As long as Americans shower attention, admiration, and power upon entrepreneurs, media personalities, and the like, the intellectuals will resent the system that has placed them (the intellectuals) into such an irrelevant status.
It’s hardly a surprise that most intellectuals today are so allied with the forces of collectivist philosophy and the manifest bureau state. They would hate to have it pointed out to them, but their allegiance is motivated primarily by the attribute they despise most in free capitalist society -- individual self-interest.
It’s not wonder that, recently, we find the Left so defensive, if not outright supportive, of Fascist Muslim terrorists. It’s not so much that they approve of Burka dress codes and fatwas as simply sharing a hatred for America and its values. It turns out that typical American values fail to promote submission to the intellectual’s self-perceived greatness.
It’s no coincidence that most intellectuals today are kindered spirits of the far Left’s cause, just as it is no coincidence that most of the bloodbaths and oppression of the last century occurred under their watch.
“Thinkers” should think, and leave the rest of us alone to live as we choose.
*************************
“Freedom Fighters” keep on doing what they do best…
…Using random violence to prevent freedom from taking root in Iraq.
I still keep seeing implications in the media that the insurgents are somehow simply acting to eject the “American occupiers.” Someone needs to remind the average mainstream media observer that the insurgency consists of former Baath Party allies who wish to re-impose Hussein’s fascist police state and Islamic extremists who wish to impose a Taliban style dictatorship that shrouds women in Burkas and kills homosexuals – needless to say, they don’t want an election to take place. Where do we see the cause of “freedom” among any of these vile henchmen of tyranny?
In their non-stop attempts to soften the image of terrorists, the so-called “progressives” out there have certainly strayed far from their claimed values. Of course, we must remember, they spent the better part of the last century fawning over the former Soviet Union.
***********************
A new post in perhaps five to seven days…
It would probably be reasonable to describe intellectuals as people who direct considerable attention to, “things of the mind,” this supposes an interest in philosophy, the arts, and ideas in general. It would be odd indeed to find a person drawn to philosophy (a “love of knowledge”) and they not show interest in issues regarding human society and politics. It’s probably safe to say that most intellectuals take more than a passing interest in political matters.
Throughout history we find intellectuals of both moderate and extreme political belief spanning the political spectrum. There were Nazi intellectuals, Communist intellectuals, and there are free-market intellectuals. So why is it that in our own time, in the west, intellectuals are more often than not, allies of Leftism? What distinguishes a leftist intellectual from a right-wing one? First we must realize that both philosophies, in their extremes, are statist in nature; they wish to establish an order where others are forced to conform to the intellectual’s “plan” – collectivism. Neither Communist nor Nazi will be found to argue the superior value of a free and open society of autonomous citizens. Both sides of the extreme Right/Left false dichotomy feel the need to impose the template of central authority upon all aspects of society.
It is surely more than coincidence that we find “right” and “left” intellectuals in agreement on a variety of matters, particularly in their attitudes toward Capitalism, which they both see as corrupt, decadent, and “unjust.” It is equally no coincidence that most left-wing intellectuals today are found to side with far right Islamo-fascism in its current war on free society.
A most insightful critique of this paradox can be found in a work by Eric Hoffer, (best known for his book, The True Believer). In his book, The Ordeal of Change, Hoffer addresses the unique nature of Leftism’s popularity among intellectuals -- in America in particular.
Hoffer’s book (now out of print) contains some insightful commentary on the nature of the intellectuals in modern western society, the things that motivate them, and the flawed leftist ideals they tend to rally around.
One of the issues that Hoffer addresses skillfully is the nature of management in Capitalist society vs. Socialist society.
”To the eternal workingman management is substantially the same whether it is made up of profit seekers, idealists, technicians, or bureaucrats. The allegiance of the manager is to the task and the results. However noble his motives, he cannot help [but view] the workers as a means to an end. He will always try to get the utmost out of them; and it matters not whether he does it for the sake of profit, for a holy cause, or for the sheer principle of efficiency….
…Any doctrine that preaches the oneness of management and labor – whether it stresses their unity in a party, class, race, nation, or even religion – can be used to turn the worker into a compliant instrument in the hands of management. Both Communism and Fascism postulate the oneness of management and labor, and both are devices for the extraction of maximum performance from an underpaid labor force…
…Seen from this point of view, the nationalization of the means of production is more a threat than a promise. For we shall be bossed and managed by someone, no matter who owns the means of production – and we can have no defenses against those who can tell us in all truth that we, the workers, own everything in sight and they, our taskmasters, are driving us for our own good. The battle between Socialism and Capitalism is to a large extent a battle between bosses, and it is legitimate to size up the dedicated Socialist as a potential boss.
One needs not call to mind the example of Communist Russia to realize that the idealist has the making of a most formidable taskmaster.” (The Ordeal of Change, Pgs. 64-65)
In addition to Hoffer’s insightful appraisals of "management," his inquiry -- a concise 120 pages -- dissects the reasons why contemporary intellectuals tend to be Leftist in their sympathies and more so, why they so despise the United States in particular. In other countries, such extremist elites are often openly nationalistic, if not adoring of their own state’s authority – why should this be?
Through stealth and guile, the movers and shakers of leftist polemic have sought to transform America slowly and by degree into the socialist model of mega-government. The dilemma for them has been the nation's natural tendency to continually recoil back to its true nature as a haven for individualist thought and free and open commerce – no place for a social planning intellectual to feel at home, to be sure.
In France, a totalitarian adoring Jean Paul Sartre was held in high esteem by both the state and its citizenry. Where are the admired intellectual heroes of America? Noam Chomsky is a fringe political charlatan at best, esteemed by a thin sliver of self-absorbed intellectual wannabes.
America’s genuine hero figures are entrepreneurs, sports figures, and entertainers (with an occasional astronaut thrown in for novelty). Seen as evidence of shallow value standards by the arrogant Euro-chic, Americans have directed their admiration to people like Bill Gates and Steven Spielberg. France has Jean Baudrillard and a dead literary quack named Derrida
The average American “worker” -- proletarian interests aside -- would probably pass on the opportunity for leisure conversation with a French “thinker.” In fact, most would have more in common with a billionaire software mogul or pop film director.
Don’t think that the irony of this circumstance is lost on the celebrity wannabes of the academy. In essence, most Americans see intellectuals for what they are, mere scholastic entertainers – albeit considerably less entertaining than most pop figures.
Intellectual brilliance is, of course, a good thing, but that bitter and transparent undercurrent of wanting to rule and wanting to “plan” (other’s lives) has fortunately been rejected by simple citizens, just as John Kerry and (indirectly) Michael Moore were rejected in the last election.
Most intellectuals today don’t like America because they don’t like bourgeois society in general, or the capitalist system that allows such society to flourish. As long as Americans shower attention, admiration, and power upon entrepreneurs, media personalities, and the like, the intellectuals will resent the system that has placed them (the intellectuals) into such an irrelevant status.
It’s hardly a surprise that most intellectuals today are so allied with the forces of collectivist philosophy and the manifest bureau state. They would hate to have it pointed out to them, but their allegiance is motivated primarily by the attribute they despise most in free capitalist society -- individual self-interest.
It’s not wonder that, recently, we find the Left so defensive, if not outright supportive, of Fascist Muslim terrorists. It’s not so much that they approve of Burka dress codes and fatwas as simply sharing a hatred for America and its values. It turns out that typical American values fail to promote submission to the intellectual’s self-perceived greatness.
It’s no coincidence that most intellectuals today are kindered spirits of the far Left’s cause, just as it is no coincidence that most of the bloodbaths and oppression of the last century occurred under their watch.
“Thinkers” should think, and leave the rest of us alone to live as we choose.
“Freedom Fighters” keep on doing what they do best…
…Using random violence to prevent freedom from taking root in Iraq.
I still keep seeing implications in the media that the insurgents are somehow simply acting to eject the “American occupiers.” Someone needs to remind the average mainstream media observer that the insurgency consists of former Baath Party allies who wish to re-impose Hussein’s fascist police state and Islamic extremists who wish to impose a Taliban style dictatorship that shrouds women in Burkas and kills homosexuals – needless to say, they don’t want an election to take place. Where do we see the cause of “freedom” among any of these vile henchmen of tyranny?
In their non-stop attempts to soften the image of terrorists, the so-called “progressives” out there have certainly strayed far from their claimed values. Of course, we must remember, they spent the better part of the last century fawning over the former Soviet Union.
A new post in perhaps five to seven days…
Monday, December 06, 2004
Big Brother International, Heroes, and Travesties
Holiday Slacking
As the holidays approach -- dare I say, “The Christmas Holiday” -- postings here will become less frequent (perhaps weekly?). I enjoy the opportunity to comment on current issues and to note other articles and sites that raise important questions, and sometimes answers.
Blogging is somewhat of a project, often being rather time intensive. I’ve noticed many books I’ve purchased have recently gone unread as I gathered information on-line and typed my own observations on current events and timeless controversies. Blogging is fun but not always a fair trade-off for other creative pursuits or chores.
So for awhile; some less in-depth appraisals in the Promethean spirit.
************************
Big Brother International
The United Nations is like any political agency. Like any bureaucracy -- and unlike a capitalist enterprise – a political agency doesn't have to give the customer what they want, often quite the opposite, they force you to take what you don’t want (especially if you don’t want the groundwork laid to world government).
To express concern regarding the UN’s ultimate motives used to be the stuff of far right wing “paranoid types” like the John Birch Society. When such fringe group attention was directed toward the UN there was probably little real cause for such concern. Now the UN is a little more influential and certainly has a wide following of support, or at least tolerance, around the world. Phrases like “international law” and “illegal wars” can now be uttered to the point that many really believe there are such things. Of course, they’re all just self-fulfilling (generated) semantic prophecies. They’ve been spoken and echoed enough by the international media that they’re slowly becoming valid verbal catalysts to the new order some would like to create – and impose.
There are those who have seen conspiracy in all of this, but a conspiracy is hardly required to implement an ideology and political program. Like the situation with much of the international media, there are simply a lot of like-minded people (essentially socialist in view) who think that an emerging international “big brother” would be a good thing.
The initial purpose of the UN was certainly noble, practical, and maybe even, “needed.” After two world wars, nations certainly benefited from a forum to discuss disputes and avoid open conflict. The UN as a mere forum for discourse was to be a short lived idea, however. Like all political institutions, the UN has continually sought greater power and authority. Should we really be surprised that this has happened?
Like its baby sister, the EU, the UN is clearly socialist in its sympathies. On its better days merely sounding like any Euro-socialist or left wing Democrat in America. At its worst, it openly sides (always feigning neutrality) with dictators and tyrants. Accordingly, it is distinctly anti-free market and hostile to the values of individualism.
Ironically, after a banner year of exposed corruption, the UN is now promoting, “…the most comprehensive …reform since it’s founding in 1945.”
The UN panel that has come up with this new “blueprint” for the 21st century was hardly circumspect in its thinly veiled attacks on the U.S. By now it should be obvious to any observer that that the UN would like to see America stripped of its success, wealth, and influence. The domestic left in the U.S. – always in traitor mode – will of course be more than happy to assist.
The natural order of political institutions is to aggrandize power. The American government itself does this with considerable detriment to freedom within its own borders.
At this point in the UN’s growth process, the U.S. should do everything in its power to resist and thwart the UN’s socialist power grab. Of course, we would certainly be given all hell for doing so. The international brigade of the idealistic, masochistic, and clueless would be out in force no doubt, but the alternative would come too close to the plot of a distopian sci-fi film.
I can’t press this point enough. I’ve said it before in a thousand different ways: The left likes government authority. The left trusts government authority. The left wants government authority…and they don’t want you or me standing in their way. They want the local school board to have more power. They want Washington to have more power, and they want the UN to have more power. The more centralized and all encompassing, the better (for their twisted vision).
Socialism savors the authority of the state and hardly cares which state as long as all citizens are eventually subjugated to the authority of bureaucrats and “planners.”
There’s no conspiracy. They’re doing it all right before our eyes. They’ve got the backing of the usual crowd of intellectuals, media talking heads, and common citizens who want someone else’s money – and soul.
The UN is double-plus-unfree…*
*A reference to Orwell’s, 1984, (as I’m sure you know)
***********************
Real Heroes
An excellent comparison from The Razor, between Vaclev Havel and Nelson Mandela:
“In contrast to Vaclev Havel, there is Nelson Mandela. Mandela spent 27 years in South African prisons - entering as a firebrand extolling violence, leaving as a healer preaching peace. Since managing the peaceful transition to majority rule in South Africa, Mr. Mandela has made statements that can be best characterized as "bizarre". On January 2, 2002 he said: "The labeling of Osama bin Laden as the terrorist responsible for those acts before he had been tried and convicted could also be seen as undermining some of the basic tenets of the rule of law." This less than a week after Bin Laden had claimed responsibility for the 9-11 attacks in a tape aired by Al-Jazeera. Mandela has never publicly criticized those behind the attacks, nor voiced his support in the worldwide efforts to bring the men behind them to justice.”
***********************
What exactly is it with the French government?
Stuff like this gets me fuming:
“…The conference itself was almost scuttled due to the French demand that the terrorists fighting in Iraq also be allowed to send representatives, as if the international community shouldn't choose sides between the terrorists who until a week ago were running slaughterhouses in mosques and apartment buildings and the soldiers sent in to destroy them. So it is now the Iraqis themselves who are standing up to the so-called international community in demanding to be allowed to become a democracy while fighting terrorism.”
It has become all too clear that the French government – and a good portion of their general population – not only oppose U.S. actions but oppose the very concept of freedom. Not really a surprise. Remember, this is the land of Robespierre, Derrida, Foucault, and Sartre.
***********************
This says it all…
As the holidays approach -- dare I say, “The Christmas Holiday” -- postings here will become less frequent (perhaps weekly?). I enjoy the opportunity to comment on current issues and to note other articles and sites that raise important questions, and sometimes answers.
Blogging is somewhat of a project, often being rather time intensive. I’ve noticed many books I’ve purchased have recently gone unread as I gathered information on-line and typed my own observations on current events and timeless controversies. Blogging is fun but not always a fair trade-off for other creative pursuits or chores.
So for awhile; some less in-depth appraisals in the Promethean spirit.
Big Brother International
The United Nations is like any political agency. Like any bureaucracy -- and unlike a capitalist enterprise – a political agency doesn't have to give the customer what they want, often quite the opposite, they force you to take what you don’t want (especially if you don’t want the groundwork laid to world government).
To express concern regarding the UN’s ultimate motives used to be the stuff of far right wing “paranoid types” like the John Birch Society. When such fringe group attention was directed toward the UN there was probably little real cause for such concern. Now the UN is a little more influential and certainly has a wide following of support, or at least tolerance, around the world. Phrases like “international law” and “illegal wars” can now be uttered to the point that many really believe there are such things. Of course, they’re all just self-fulfilling (generated) semantic prophecies. They’ve been spoken and echoed enough by the international media that they’re slowly becoming valid verbal catalysts to the new order some would like to create – and impose.
There are those who have seen conspiracy in all of this, but a conspiracy is hardly required to implement an ideology and political program. Like the situation with much of the international media, there are simply a lot of like-minded people (essentially socialist in view) who think that an emerging international “big brother” would be a good thing.
The initial purpose of the UN was certainly noble, practical, and maybe even, “needed.” After two world wars, nations certainly benefited from a forum to discuss disputes and avoid open conflict. The UN as a mere forum for discourse was to be a short lived idea, however. Like all political institutions, the UN has continually sought greater power and authority. Should we really be surprised that this has happened?
Like its baby sister, the EU, the UN is clearly socialist in its sympathies. On its better days merely sounding like any Euro-socialist or left wing Democrat in America. At its worst, it openly sides (always feigning neutrality) with dictators and tyrants. Accordingly, it is distinctly anti-free market and hostile to the values of individualism.
Ironically, after a banner year of exposed corruption, the UN is now promoting, “…the most comprehensive …reform since it’s founding in 1945.”
The UN panel that has come up with this new “blueprint” for the 21st century was hardly circumspect in its thinly veiled attacks on the U.S. By now it should be obvious to any observer that that the UN would like to see America stripped of its success, wealth, and influence. The domestic left in the U.S. – always in traitor mode – will of course be more than happy to assist.
The natural order of political institutions is to aggrandize power. The American government itself does this with considerable detriment to freedom within its own borders.
At this point in the UN’s growth process, the U.S. should do everything in its power to resist and thwart the UN’s socialist power grab. Of course, we would certainly be given all hell for doing so. The international brigade of the idealistic, masochistic, and clueless would be out in force no doubt, but the alternative would come too close to the plot of a distopian sci-fi film.
I can’t press this point enough. I’ve said it before in a thousand different ways: The left likes government authority. The left trusts government authority. The left wants government authority…and they don’t want you or me standing in their way. They want the local school board to have more power. They want Washington to have more power, and they want the UN to have more power. The more centralized and all encompassing, the better (for their twisted vision).
Socialism savors the authority of the state and hardly cares which state as long as all citizens are eventually subjugated to the authority of bureaucrats and “planners.”
There’s no conspiracy. They’re doing it all right before our eyes. They’ve got the backing of the usual crowd of intellectuals, media talking heads, and common citizens who want someone else’s money – and soul.
The UN is double-plus-unfree…*
*A reference to Orwell’s, 1984, (as I’m sure you know)
Real Heroes
An excellent comparison from The Razor, between Vaclev Havel and Nelson Mandela:
“In contrast to Vaclev Havel, there is Nelson Mandela. Mandela spent 27 years in South African prisons - entering as a firebrand extolling violence, leaving as a healer preaching peace. Since managing the peaceful transition to majority rule in South Africa, Mr. Mandela has made statements that can be best characterized as "bizarre". On January 2, 2002 he said: "The labeling of Osama bin Laden as the terrorist responsible for those acts before he had been tried and convicted could also be seen as undermining some of the basic tenets of the rule of law." This less than a week after Bin Laden had claimed responsibility for the 9-11 attacks in a tape aired by Al-Jazeera. Mandela has never publicly criticized those behind the attacks, nor voiced his support in the worldwide efforts to bring the men behind them to justice.”
What exactly is it with the French government?
Stuff like this gets me fuming:
“…The conference itself was almost scuttled due to the French demand that the terrorists fighting in Iraq also be allowed to send representatives, as if the international community shouldn't choose sides between the terrorists who until a week ago were running slaughterhouses in mosques and apartment buildings and the soldiers sent in to destroy them. So it is now the Iraqis themselves who are standing up to the so-called international community in demanding to be allowed to become a democracy while fighting terrorism.”
It has become all too clear that the French government – and a good portion of their general population – not only oppose U.S. actions but oppose the very concept of freedom. Not really a surprise. Remember, this is the land of Robespierre, Derrida, Foucault, and Sartre.
This says it all…
Saturday, December 04, 2004
The Box People Of Niigata Station
(The following essay was origionally posted at an earlier date. As of July 2008, the "box people of Niigata station" are no longer there. I dont' know if this is a temporary development or why they're no longer there. None the less, I'll leave this post up as I beleive the issues addressed are still relevant)
****************************************
Here’s a laugh. Another failing of America and the Capitalist system no doubt. A recent report. indicates that some groups of Americans don’t have access to high-speed Internet connections. What an unjust system Americans live under! Have our spoiled and pathetic demands from life come to this? I just got my DSL connection last year (maybe it was my less than Nordic features that left me so far behind the privileged oppressors who beat me to it). Life is so unfair. No doubt the government will soon step in and save us from this “gap” in available Internet speed (probably by slowing it down for everyone).
****************************************
What’s with this Buy Nothing Day nonsense. Another pathetic roundabout way to rally the anti-capitalist cause. If you read enough of the rants out there about this latest project in absurdity you can find the usual socialist idealism. In their view the world is going to hell (the evidence points to quite the opposite) and “We” are “too materialistic.” The reality of the situation is that some people freely make stuff and others freely buy it – nothing pisses the socialist authoritarian off more than that. I wish these clowns would go back to the cave dwelling existence they crave or move to North Korea, and leave us “materialists” to our own free choices.
****************************************
I’ve probably mentioned before that I’m not religious – probably an agnostic leaning toward atheism. That hasn’t stopped me from noting the absurdity of the Left’s assault upon those who hold traditional religious views (I’m not talking about fundamentalist Muslims – The Left seems to like them). We all know the usual holiday scenarios of someone being “offended” by a publicly displayed manger scene or hearing the horrid politically incorrect lyrics of a traditional Christmas carol. Every year it becomes more ridiculous. Don’t think for a minute that this kind of nonsense wasn’t in the back of the heads of some people who voted in the last election. Guess which way this issue may have swayed their vote?
The funny thing that I see in all of this comes from my unique vantage point in Japan. Japan has taken to the holiday spirit in recent years. In a country that is primarily Buddhist, one can find stores everywhere cluttered with Christmas trees, Angels, and in the background, songs like “Silent Night” and “Little Town of Bethlehem,” complete with English lyrics.
The idiots who have made it their mission to assault anything that remains of tradition or religious sentiment may not be Marxist, or socialist politicos per se, but the Jacobin mentality shines through. The left’s PR skills are reaching an all-time low. They’ve either become completely insane or they’re more determined than ever to push their nonsense to such excess that their vision self-exterminates – and that would be just fine with me.
****************************************
Finally, and I think, most importantly. An old newspaper clipping of an essay by Paul Danish from The Colorado Daily newspaper in Boulder, Colorado.
This is one of the best retorts I’ve seen regarding the accusation of there being, “too much materialism” during the holiday season. It’s also a great general indictment of the entire socialist view of commericialism. (Please excuse the rough quality of the text. I tried to transfer it into OCR format unsuccessfully and ended up with this tacky photocopy).
In the city up the road from where I live there’s a small group of homeless people living in cardboard boxes in a hallway leading into the train station. Adhering to Japanese standards of civility, their dwellings are rather neat and unobtrusive. None of them panhandles, as you would find in places like Boulder Colorado where I lived before coming to Japan (those “homeless people” were both annoying and obtrusive). Although Niigata’s homeless people might be used as poster children for the socialist worldview, their essential nature doesn’t appear very different from the other people who populate the planet. Some are clearly neater than others. Some box-homes have little “garages” with cardboard shelves and collections of shoes and umbrellas – some don’t.
Japan’s economy has been rather stagnant for some time now. For most Japanese, this hasn’t altered their middle class lifestyle in the slightest. I’m not so sure that devoting all of one’s political energy to destroying a relatively free system would much improve the box people’s circumstance, and I’m not sure that dragging others down to their economic level is sound policy either – the North Korean model.
A British expat (a scholarly socialist) once rhetorically asked me why people are homeless… “Is it because they’re lazy!?” Of course, this is the answer he wanted to hear because it would confirm for him that all people who believe in freedom and the free market are cruel, selfish, and uninformed. Realistically, there are a variety of reasons a person may become homeless. … “Should they be shipped off to concentration camps?” Another classic Leftist rhetorical “question.”
Most of us over the age of 30 have probably experienced a period in our lives where we would have been homeless if not for the sympathy or good grace of family and friends. Divorce, drugs, alcoholism, inept economic planning and even – sometimes – “laziness” can all lead to homelessness (that’s the short list of possibilities). In eras past, last recourse could be found in the goodness of private volunteer organizations (i.e. churches). Now, the state “steps in” (on?) and, with stolen funds, accomplishes the same or less for those considered to be down and out.
In a socialist’s eyes, one either supports more confiscation of funds for “social programs” (or outright handouts), or one wants to “ship people to concentration camps” – the “free market is Fascism” argument. Such predictable statements clearly overlook the fact that both Nazi’s and Fascists were (and are) essentially collectivist in their philosophies. There are plenty of quotations by both Hitler, and Mussolini that indicate their hatred of capitalism. (Yes I know, private property was permitted to some degree under their socialist governments).
The left’s take on homelessness is something like, “It’s a crime that ‘the system’ [capitalism] has made these people live this way.” Of course, a free market has caused no such thing, anymore than freedom causes some to be store clerks and others to be doctors.
The left always frames the homeless issue as two simple choices; one must either support the “intervention” of government agencies or acknowledge one’s role as evil incarnate for opposing further expansion of the socialist vision.
It is certainly reasonable to show pity to those less blessed, even more commendable to actually devote one’s own time or money to such people, but simply using homelessness as another excuse for enacting socialist control is pathetic.
Over the last couple of years I’ve watched the few box/homes of Niigata station evolve from simple small boxes, to variations in size, status, and quality. A kind of low-key evolution of a social fractal – a neighborhood of “inequality” even amongst the “homeless.” I suppose one could accuse the guy with the bigger box and larger umbrella collection of being “greedy, selfish,” or “materialistic.” Actually, I think he just prefers, and has been able to obtain, a larger living space and fancier umbrellas.
If we just stole some more money from, “The rich” or passed some more regulations to rein in personal striving, maybe we could end the simple lifestyle of the box people – but, probably not.
Here’s a laugh. Another failing of America and the Capitalist system no doubt. A recent report. indicates that some groups of Americans don’t have access to high-speed Internet connections. What an unjust system Americans live under! Have our spoiled and pathetic demands from life come to this? I just got my DSL connection last year (maybe it was my less than Nordic features that left me so far behind the privileged oppressors who beat me to it). Life is so unfair. No doubt the government will soon step in and save us from this “gap” in available Internet speed (probably by slowing it down for everyone).
What’s with this Buy Nothing Day nonsense. Another pathetic roundabout way to rally the anti-capitalist cause. If you read enough of the rants out there about this latest project in absurdity you can find the usual socialist idealism. In their view the world is going to hell (the evidence points to quite the opposite) and “We” are “too materialistic.” The reality of the situation is that some people freely make stuff and others freely buy it – nothing pisses the socialist authoritarian off more than that. I wish these clowns would go back to the cave dwelling existence they crave or move to North Korea, and leave us “materialists” to our own free choices.
I’ve probably mentioned before that I’m not religious – probably an agnostic leaning toward atheism. That hasn’t stopped me from noting the absurdity of the Left’s assault upon those who hold traditional religious views (I’m not talking about fundamentalist Muslims – The Left seems to like them). We all know the usual holiday scenarios of someone being “offended” by a publicly displayed manger scene or hearing the horrid politically incorrect lyrics of a traditional Christmas carol. Every year it becomes more ridiculous. Don’t think for a minute that this kind of nonsense wasn’t in the back of the heads of some people who voted in the last election. Guess which way this issue may have swayed their vote?
The funny thing that I see in all of this comes from my unique vantage point in Japan. Japan has taken to the holiday spirit in recent years. In a country that is primarily Buddhist, one can find stores everywhere cluttered with Christmas trees, Angels, and in the background, songs like “Silent Night” and “Little Town of Bethlehem,” complete with English lyrics.
The idiots who have made it their mission to assault anything that remains of tradition or religious sentiment may not be Marxist, or socialist politicos per se, but the Jacobin mentality shines through. The left’s PR skills are reaching an all-time low. They’ve either become completely insane or they’re more determined than ever to push their nonsense to such excess that their vision self-exterminates – and that would be just fine with me.
Finally, and I think, most importantly. An old newspaper clipping of an essay by Paul Danish from The Colorado Daily newspaper in Boulder, Colorado.
This is one of the best retorts I’ve seen regarding the accusation of there being, “too much materialism” during the holiday season. It’s also a great general indictment of the entire socialist view of commericialism. (Please excuse the rough quality of the text. I tried to transfer it into OCR format unsuccessfully and ended up with this tacky photocopy).
Thursday, December 02, 2004
The Fox In The Left’s Hen House
“Fair and balanced” isn’t fair?…
So, what’s the problem with FOX News? I remember an Irish expat here in Japan -- a leftist of course -- deriding my intelligence because I “get all [my] information from Fox News.” At the time, I hadn’t even seen Fox News. Since then I’ve taken to looking at their web site and…what’s the problem?
For decades, the big three networks, along with PBS and CNN have shown a one track NY Times style of non-objectivity.
To claim that the “mainstream” television networks are objective is a laughable concept. In addition to plenty of anecdotal analysis, there is now considerable factual appraisal that demonstrates a left-wing tilt to most “news” from this cabal of elites. There have been books (i.e. Bernard Goldberg’s, “Bias,” and “Arrogance”) and private watch-dog organizations (i.e. Accuracy In Media, and, The Media Research Center) that have pointed out what is obvious to many of us, that the pseudo-intellectuals of journalism have an agenda which colors their presentation of events.
CBS, before the election, “objectively” (with forged documents) told us that George Bush was overly favored in the National Guard (wow, big news!). FOX News tells us the details of Iraq’s Oil for Food scandal and the incidental fact that an American soldier shooting a wounded Iraqi, came after several incidents of other “wounded” terrorists shooting American troops. Perhaps some times, “the peoples right to know” is best attained when information is coming from different sources with different sympathies and biases.
Still, the media elites and their sympathizers insist that they are objective centrists. In all honesty, I think FOX is biased to the right and the previously mentioned entrenched media institutions are biased, to the left. So, again, what’s the problem? People can choose which channel to watch…which actually is the problem to some. FOX’s viewing audience continues to rise. The left and their mouthpieces don’t like it when people consult another perspective. When one watches FOX, you get the impression that they actually like America. The entrenched opposition’s “objective” appraisal always seems to default to the anti-U.S. stance. When seeking to understand the war we’re presently fighting – a conflict that goes far beyond Iraq – it probably would be a good idea to get a variety of viewpoints. Does this occur on ABC – CBS – MSNBC – PBS, or the British compulsory funded state media?
I say, let the “objective” Left continue their anti-Bush, anti- U.S., anti-Free Market, “News,” and let FOX tell us the things these other clowns have hidden from us for decades.
“Diversity” implies difference. I’m glad there are now different news source to keep the other one’s on their toes.
************************************
A Guy in Pajamas makes some similar media observations, particularly regarding Dan Rather’s memo-gate election con-scheme:
“Regardless of whether Rather had any control over it, the real question for me is not whether there was an attempt to influence the presidential election with blatant lies, but rather how long have they been getting away with it? A decade? Two? Three? How much of what I think and believe about the world has come from fake documents, from reporters, editors or sources "shaping" news - leaving this out, adding that in, twisting it up a bit... How much of what I "know" about the world has been spin, or error?…”
************************************
A hat tip to The Razor for bringing this to my attention. Scroll down to the “No Blood For Cocoa” video.
Ah, the French government. So sophisticated, so refined, so full of S---. Every site that has noted this issue in The Ivory Coast has also noted the reality that most news venues have kept it pretty much under wraps or very low key. The obvious question emerges. What if the U.S. military opened fire on a crowd of civilians -- front page above the fold maybe? At least the French military didn’t humiliate the victims by forcing them to wear panties. The greatest irony is the signs held by some Ivory Coast citizens pleading for Bush to save them – from the French.
***********************************
Evan Coyne Maloney makes some brilliant analogies in his critique of the IRS and “progressive” taxation at his very cool site; Brain-Terminal.com. Definitely check out his funny (but oh so serious) videos, especially his documentary, Brainwashing 101
***********************************
Finally, an insightful essay which addresses the true meaning of, “Liberal” can be found at Deans World.
So, what’s the problem with FOX News? I remember an Irish expat here in Japan -- a leftist of course -- deriding my intelligence because I “get all [my] information from Fox News.” At the time, I hadn’t even seen Fox News. Since then I’ve taken to looking at their web site and…what’s the problem?
For decades, the big three networks, along with PBS and CNN have shown a one track NY Times style of non-objectivity.
To claim that the “mainstream” television networks are objective is a laughable concept. In addition to plenty of anecdotal analysis, there is now considerable factual appraisal that demonstrates a left-wing tilt to most “news” from this cabal of elites. There have been books (i.e. Bernard Goldberg’s, “Bias,” and “Arrogance”) and private watch-dog organizations (i.e. Accuracy In Media, and, The Media Research Center) that have pointed out what is obvious to many of us, that the pseudo-intellectuals of journalism have an agenda which colors their presentation of events.
CBS, before the election, “objectively” (with forged documents) told us that George Bush was overly favored in the National Guard (wow, big news!). FOX News tells us the details of Iraq’s Oil for Food scandal and the incidental fact that an American soldier shooting a wounded Iraqi, came after several incidents of other “wounded” terrorists shooting American troops. Perhaps some times, “the peoples right to know” is best attained when information is coming from different sources with different sympathies and biases.
Still, the media elites and their sympathizers insist that they are objective centrists. In all honesty, I think FOX is biased to the right and the previously mentioned entrenched media institutions are biased, to the left. So, again, what’s the problem? People can choose which channel to watch…which actually is the problem to some. FOX’s viewing audience continues to rise. The left and their mouthpieces don’t like it when people consult another perspective. When one watches FOX, you get the impression that they actually like America. The entrenched opposition’s “objective” appraisal always seems to default to the anti-U.S. stance. When seeking to understand the war we’re presently fighting – a conflict that goes far beyond Iraq – it probably would be a good idea to get a variety of viewpoints. Does this occur on ABC – CBS – MSNBC – PBS, or the British compulsory funded state media?
I say, let the “objective” Left continue their anti-Bush, anti- U.S., anti-Free Market, “News,” and let FOX tell us the things these other clowns have hidden from us for decades.
“Diversity” implies difference. I’m glad there are now different news source to keep the other one’s on their toes.
A Guy in Pajamas makes some similar media observations, particularly regarding Dan Rather’s memo-gate election con-scheme:
“Regardless of whether Rather had any control over it, the real question for me is not whether there was an attempt to influence the presidential election with blatant lies, but rather how long have they been getting away with it? A decade? Two? Three? How much of what I think and believe about the world has come from fake documents, from reporters, editors or sources "shaping" news - leaving this out, adding that in, twisting it up a bit... How much of what I "know" about the world has been spin, or error?…”
A hat tip to The Razor for bringing this to my attention. Scroll down to the “No Blood For Cocoa” video.
Ah, the French government. So sophisticated, so refined, so full of S---. Every site that has noted this issue in The Ivory Coast has also noted the reality that most news venues have kept it pretty much under wraps or very low key. The obvious question emerges. What if the U.S. military opened fire on a crowd of civilians -- front page above the fold maybe? At least the French military didn’t humiliate the victims by forcing them to wear panties. The greatest irony is the signs held by some Ivory Coast citizens pleading for Bush to save them – from the French.
Evan Coyne Maloney makes some brilliant analogies in his critique of the IRS and “progressive” taxation at his very cool site; Brain-Terminal.com. Definitely check out his funny (but oh so serious) videos, especially his documentary, Brainwashing 101
Finally, an insightful essay which addresses the true meaning of, “Liberal” can be found at Deans World.
