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.
Friday, December 24, 2004
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.
Monday, November 29, 2004
Hating America; In More Ways Than One
This posting is longer than I'd ideally like it to be but I simply had to excerpt a good portion of one essay I found at Frontpagemag.com.
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.
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 dare suggest that a love of artistic beauty coincides with a preference for harmony in civil affairs
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?
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
The Revolution
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!
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
With all the claims of American “hyper-power” dominance, one certainly sees little actual subservience to such perceived power and authority.
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.
********************************
Finally;
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...
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.
Finally;
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
After the Bush administration rallied over two-dozen countries against the fascist dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, the usual clown show of media clones and “thinkers” have erected a mythology around the word, “Unilateral.” I’ve also seen the phrase, “Go it alone” used to describe the collaboration of these several countries that aren’t Russia, Germany, or France. Another counter-U.S. propaganda ploy has been to imply that the U.S. had somehow coerced or slighted France specifically in some way. Initially, of course, Bush hoped to get support from any country willing to stand firm in support of the multiple UN resolutions against Hussein’s police state. France not only chose to not support the effort, but also actively sought to undermine it and lead a coalition of the un-willing. After France displayed its historically characteristic arrogance on the matter, they then – with the help of the international media – chastised the U.S. for, of all things, “its arrogance.” We now know that U.N. staff members, France, and several other countries in the non-coalition we’re skimming considerable oil for food kickbacks from the Hussein regime. Ironically, the Marxist sympathies of Euro-land framed the U.S. effort as war “for oil.”
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.
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
Topical Nonsense
Of course we all know that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are “spokesmen for the Black community.” It’s not so clear, however, why Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, or Larry Elder aren’t (three insightful -- conservative -- black men). In the same scheme, Gloria Steinem is a spokesperson for “woman’s issues” and Phyllis Schlafly isn’t – go figure.
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…
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…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)