Monday, February 28, 2005
The Failures Of Nuance And "Complex" Thinking
Intellectuals kill. "Simplistic" types tend to leave you alone.
Saturday, February 26, 2005
Friday, February 25, 2005
WHEN CASTRO’S GONE
The world is becoming dangerous for authoritarian philosophy and the “leaders” who enforce it (no thanks to the pampered elite in the intelligentsia, of course). Even natural causes can sometimes help to crack the ugly walls erected by tyrants
It doesn’t take great insight to suggest the possibility that Cuba’s one-man authority show will soon be over. The island nation’s dictator, Fidel Castro, has certainly reached an age where death will soon remove him from the power he has held for a good portion of his life. As one of the few remaining autocrats of Marxist –Leninist rule in the world, he’s become to many, an acceptable, if not admirable, figurehead of the Left’s hopes and dreams for a police state with equally distributed poverty and “free” health care.
The Cuban gulag under Castro’s Communism is a variation on a consistent theme of brutality, oppression, and distributed destitution. What can we expect when this icon of the Socialist vision is gone? First of all, I predict that his death will be looked upon with great sympathy and admiration by a score of world leaders as well as many of the world’s artists, intellectuals, and performers. Oliver Stone, in classic self-righteous self-promotion, will remind us that he had said good things about Cuba’s “leader” all along. The media will be peppered with some trite acknowledgment of some of the less than savory actions of the absolute dictator but, for the most part, we will be lead to believe that this guy was okay and maybe even saintly. A balance sheet will be perversely drawn up admitting “some mistakes” (the complete repression of human liberty) while lauding the “great things” he accomplished and “we fail to do.”
After subsidies from the former Soviet Union dissipated, Cuba could only do what all socialist enterprises do when there is no outside host to feed off of – suck its own blood dry. Socialism makes it a crime to produce new wealth (profit). It can only seize from one group, distribute some to another group, and squander the rest for heroic monuments and bloated payoffs to bureaucrats and toadies.
Cuba under Castro’s Marxist philosophy is a prime example of socialism’s failure yet, after Castro’s death, it will be pointed to as a model for continuing the horrible legacy of famine, torture, conformity, and despair -- all because some intellectuals and idealists don’t like wealth, success, and individuality (their ultimate enemy is human nature itself).
There will likely be a transition after Castro’s death, where some stale bureaucrat true believers will attempt to keep the poison flame burning. They’ll realize their treasury and industry are mere phantoms and the common citizens will realize that they “don’t have to live this way.”
Communism in Cuba will eventually fall, because its economy was a lie. The lie exposed will result in factory shut downs, unemployment, and degrees of chaos – which will all be blamed on the “horrors” of being set free (“Capitalism”). As an honest economy asserts itself and makes for the difficult adjustments to a the real world, the Left and their mouth pieces in the media, academia, and show business will contrast images of happy proletarian slaves vs. homeless beggars -- passing over the fact that it is Communism’s fraudulent nature that ultimately catches up with a society after its socialist stage set has fallen.
When Castro dies the puppet masters of authoritarian sympathy will prod us to morn -- and many will. But some of us will be cheering, as we do whenever there is one less dictator amongst humanity.
We often read that America’s free market “distributes” more money to business people than teachers (I’m a teacher and I think my pay is rather good). What we don’t hear is that, in a socialist economy like Cuba, cab drivers and prostitutes make more money than doctors (another benefit of “free” health care).
When Castro’s gone we won’t be teaching our kids about the horrors of collectivist political ideology or the oppression of one-party rule. We won’t be hearing “never again” or “how could it happen” or “how could we have stood by doing nothing.” No, we’ll hear the same that we hear now about the former Soviet Union and its Eastern European Empire, or about China under Mao, or everywhere else Communism has ruled. We’ll hear that they tried a noble experiment and failed, and if we try again, maybe we can create an egalitarian utopia, with “free” health care -- and prostitutes who are paid more than doctors.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Not Into The Freedom Thing
There are certainly more than a few arguments for or against a revolutionary program of "spreading democracy” throughout the world. The puzzling contradiction from the left, usually in the forefront of calls for "revolutionary change" and "ending oppression," is their clear disdain for the concept af actually advancing human liberty. Lets face it, they never really were very big on the concept to begin with. While having looked sympathetically upon the spread of Marxist "revolution" and totalitarian communism, they just can't bring themselves to endorsing the idea of spreading the concept of multiparty open society -- Too many people selling and buying stuff (capitalism).
They’re into "revolution’s" -- just not into the freedom thing.
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
What’s Their Point?
Those who collect Chomsky tomes, tapes, and videos (a lock of hair perhaps?) will ramble to no end citing facts (true, questionable, and bogus) to prove…what?
If you just believed in Jesus, Mohammad, Amway, or Noam Chomsky, all would be right with the world.
Okay, let's say Chomsky is a "genius" (I’d agree he's smart). Let's go further, and say he's right about America. Lets say America is a rather bad country, that it has done a disproportionate amount of bad things, and is marked historically by racism, classism, and imperialism (there are plenty of non-“geniuses” that have come to the same partisan conclusions).
The Left’s choice in what systems and countries to “critique” and which ones they let slide is cause for speculation. Either way, I can’t help but feel that holding one’s own country in disdain is, in itself, somehow despicable, particularly in view of the other options so often defended by the weasels of Left-land. Of course, healthy criticism is a good thing and is one of the benefits of an open system of government. There is, however, such a thing as the one-sided partisan attack, and this is where Chomsky and his ilk appear to come from on the spectrum of "healthy criticsm." Either one believes that people like Chomsky are somehow oppressed by their country or that they have some magical sympathy for truth and goodness that motivates them, which may, after all, be what they are really getting at; they are superior in insight, knowledge, and affection for people they have nothing in common with, and if we don’t share their dislike for America that makes us…?
So what’s the real point the adoring roadies of Chomsky fanfare are trying to make? If I were to say, "You’re right! I agree with everything you say and I think Chomsky is really cool.” What would we then do, don party hats and throw a Chomsky party?
It’s just assumed that if we read Chomsky’s books (often just transcribed lectures), listened to the tapes, and watched the videos of his lectures, then we would all agree with him and, perhaps, like our country less – boy, are we missing out.
Actually, I think Chomsky-ism is just a boring religion for socialist nerds who hate more common folks. I admittedly have no footnotes to back that up (Chomsky types really like footnotes – preferably to other anti-U.S. icons). When I hear or read of Chomsky’s bland intellectual indictments I come away feeling that his main points are really nothing new, that they’re no different than the thousands of other stale rants heard from neo-Marxist / new and old left "thinkers" – but that’s just me.
How do we exactly meet the persuasive goals of a Chomskyite? Take that flag down on the July 4th? Apologize to Al Qaeda? Reinstall Soviet communism everywhere it's been vanquished? Double the size of the already inefficient bureaucracy to further, "[not] address human needs?" Punish wealth and success (The Left’s favorite)?
While some of Chomsky's followers would no doubt favor such strategies, I sense in the fervor of their "message" that the real point they're making is that they are somehow cooler than those of us who still admire our country’s system, history, and impressive record of good. Okay, maybe we’re wrong. Maybe we just suck and the socialist nerd of MIT is a genuine hero.
And your point is…?
Saturday, February 19, 2005
Another Blogger Bites The Dust...
...Well, not really...but, almost.
Henceforth, posts on this site will be somewhat sporadic. I've realized that by the time I get newsworthy items posted they're already a few days old and can be gleaned over on a million other sites, often from the same perspective I'm coming from. Also, I've found that time not blogging is time doing other stuff.
For now, I'll continue to regularly post to my "Visions" and "Observer" sites. I'll also be re-posting some of my "Big Rants" on this site that were posted earlier at William Grim's "ZC Portal." Some hacker clown, calling him or herself, "Wolf Net Arab tHE aNGry Hacker hacker" (sic), has decided to remove my writings at ZC Portal from the blogosphere; obviously a collectivist who believes in censorship -- big surprise there.
Occasionally, I'll continue to post essays or brief comments here on topical issues, more as an exercise in self-indulgence than a genuine attempt at web-journalism.
Those who have read my regular commentaries have accurately surmised that I do, indeed, despise everything about the Socialist, Communist, Marxist, Fascist, Nazi, Collectivist, Leftist, worldview (and all the tamer wannabes that regularly seep into the "mainstream" with deceptively more approachable labels).
Don't love Big Brother, and have a good life -- determined by your own free will and self-interest.
Friday, February 18, 2005
The Virtues of, “Not Taking A Side”
Parroting a limp hatred for George Bush (and vicariously, America in general) is known by some as, “not taking a side.” Literally, siding with the world of dictators is, “not taking a side.”
In our bizarre period of shallow values and appraisals you will often hear that Bush removed two dictatorships from terror-land, “for oil” or you’ll be reminded that America is evil, wrong, or "stupid.” In virtually the same breath it will often be conveyed by those who regularly make such statements that they, “are not taking a side.” No, they’re above that – too smart, too morally objective, they “see all sides.”
How can one view a violent confrontation between free society and totalitarianism and claim one is not taking a side (while only criticizing the democratic one)?
Why should anyone be concerned about such things? After all, aren’t there "two sides" in the conflict between freedom and oppression?
If you, your family, or your country were under attack, would you want these slick sophisticate weasels on your side anyway?
...just another pathetic charade from the folks who brought you; The French "Revolution," The Soviet Gulag, and the "Post-Modern" neo-Marxist college course.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
On Democracy and Decadence
To certain political persuasions, American society is seen as “unjust” -- wrought with “inequality” and “oppression.” To this most basic Leftist tenet is often added a marked discontent over the individual’s free choices in leisure and personal lifestyle. In the eyes of our intellectual and moral betters, our culture is seen as corrupt, and the choices of its citizens, crude and tasteless.
The perpetually disenchanted, when not telling us that we live in the worst of times (their glass is always more than half empty), will at least remind us that our “materialism,” “greed,” and “selfishness,” have produced a garish aesthetic. We must ask ourselves, are freely chosen and less refined expressions of leisure less valid because a haughty intellectual clique has determined them to be so? Such critics are apparently blind to the fact that, for every kitsch venue of excess, freedom continues to bestow -- tenfold -- products and ideals that exhibit the human spirit at its most innovative and refined. They also overlook the fact that, on any given day, American’s are attending symphony halls, theaters, libraries and museums, as well as the local bowling ally or shopping mall.
America is often caricatured by those on the puritanical Left (much of European public opinion can be included here), as a society filled with shallow entertainment and cheap pastimes. In their eyes, adventure flicks at the Cineplex just can’t match the excitement and substance of an evening read of Marx or Chomsky. To control freaks of the utopian vision, everyone’s tastes and preferences are potentially uncontrolled corners in their rigid universe. They truly believe that the dusty gray constraints of their socialist ideal would be best for all of us. Their self-appraisal stems from a genuine belief that they are better and wiser human beings who have thus earned a right to rule over all aspects of other people’s lives.
For all their feigned bohemian posing, the “Progressive’s” true obsession is with conformity. The euphemism of “equality” aside, their ideal is imposed uniformity. The family with a brighter colored car, interior design, or smile, just wouldn’t be “fair” in the utopian planned society.
The haughty academic intellectual, so distressed by the lifestyles of the “masses” (who they simultaneously tell us they love) would gladly protect us all from our own feeble choices. Such protection has certainly been “offered” (imposed) before. In every instance where collectivist ideology has sought to reign in the excess neon of capitalist vitality, the authoritarian nerd has erected a stark and sterile prison.
It is beyond irony that the same clique that chastises the taste and lifestyles of their perceived inferiors will gladly defend tax-compelled support to “art” like Robert Mapplethorpe’s S&M photos. Pushing this level of irony to extremes, the defenders of such crude expression regularly tell us we are thwarting “freedom of speech” by not wanting our confiscated wealth directed to such purposes.
Odder still, is the Left’s traditional defense -- initially -- for all manner of decadence in the name of “unique” artistic expression, while loathing tamer mass art styles they see as “bourgeois.” Of course, after “the revolution” all experiments in free expression are deemed threatening to the new order, which is why totalitarian, “politically correct” art is universally bland and unoriginal.
Freedom means, by default, that all possibilities will manifest. Rabid criticisms of the common citizen’s simple and diverse indulgences will no doubt continue to be made by those who would impose a more rigid and lifeless standard.
This issue, perhaps more than any other, shows us the true reason for the collectivist’s hatred for the open society. Opposition to capitalism, “injustice,” and “oppression,” are mere mantras, which hide the Left’s more basic disdain for human nature itself.
When choosing between assorted “shallow” pastimes and cruel tyranny, the Socialist will always side with the forces of state control over the free lifestyle choices of their fellow citizens.
What could be more “unjust” or “oppressive” than that?
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Dichotomy Classics -- Addressing Differences In The Worldviews Of The Right And Left.
The socialist worldview has a way of morphing itself to changing times. While it may appear to change, its underlying values and obsessions remain the same - imposing a "planned" society, "redistributing" wealth and power to the state, and honoring some collective abstractions above and beyond the actual individuals who occupy the real world.
Collectivism, and the very stance of viewing humans in context to group affinities, is one of those major concepts that define Leftism. It is equally true that Classical Liberals -- "the right" -- are polarized to this stance. A basic tenet of the Right-Wing worldview is individuality and autonomous freedom.
Of course, some will immediately drag dishonest, "conventional wisdom" into the argument; "weren't Hitler and Mussolini Right-Wing?" - Actually, no, they weren't (although common semantics has come to define them as such). Although it has been a successful ploy of The Left to paint some factions of collectivism (i.e. Nazism and Fascism) as "Right-Wing," as a means to distance their own philosophy from some of its more heinous expressions, Nazism and Fascism have absolutely nothing in common with free market classical liberal thought. Of course, everything from conventional wisdom to the common dictionary has bought into the lie. For those naïve in their knowledge of totalitarian institutions, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were not decentralized states which honored the rights of the individual in life and commerce. The socialist's supposed hatred for Fascism is little different than their hatred for other factions within the collectivist ideal. The Stalinists hate the Trotskyites, the Maoists hate the "capitalist roaders" (other socialists who will allow some degree of private commerce to later steal from). Because the very essence of socialist thought is imposition of a "plan" or scheme, they will always be violently opposed to anyone who supports an alternate "plan." The Classical Liberal will always be the main target of such vitriol because, by its very nature, it is opposed to externally imposed plans of any kind.
While a thousand initially just causes, from civil rights to environmental issues, can be used to rally the flock to the standard socialist game plan, their ultimate goal has always been collectivism and imposed government authority.
Some members of the intellectual "community" have also become quite skilled in adapting fads and philosophies to these ends. An entire chain of "thinkers" from Plato to Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre, Derrida et.al., have continued the mental gymnastic stunt of twisting radical skepticism and relativism to the usual socialist ends. Their "skepticism" is, however, highly suspect, as they are inevitably choosy regarding what it is they are skeptical about.
The Left's con-game for justifying an "ordered" society reached a high point in America's colleges in the last few decades under the broad headings of "Postmodernism" and "Deconstructionism," their main point being, that our system of existence, commerce, and very individuality, were all mere "constructs" erected by the powers that be (the capitalist bogeyman -- as usual).
The autonomous individual, so praised by Classical Liberals (The Right), was labeled in the postmodern mind labyrinths as, "The Single Agent Fallacy" (another masterstroke of Orwellian word play). In essence, these philosophers were trying to say that individuality is an illusion. We're supposed to see such intellectual guile as another great flourish of insight by the elites of Left-land.
While it is true that, "No man is an island," it's certainly reasonable that some of us may actually desire a high degree of autonomy. In heated discussion, libertarians often encounter people who are shocked that an individualist's perspective does not "view us all as part of a fast web of interconnectedness." The truth is, Classical Liberals, like most individuals, are aware of the claim's validity to a degree (cheesy descriptions aside). "The right" (again, I emphasize, Classical Liberals), knows that people function in any number of complex group affiliations. Where they differ from The Left is, they do not believe such group affinities deny one's essentially individual nature and capacity to choose, apart from group coercion.
"… We are alienated…We are materialistic"…etc. One must remember that when a leftist says "we" he or she means you. The shallow attempt to include themselves in such deprecation is no more than mock humility and hardly represents the epitome of propaganda skill.
The Post-Mod philosopher's slight of hand is to acknowledge some people's love of individual liberty but then write it off as an illusion motivated by "selfishness" or delusion. It's no coincidence that, in the Soviet gulag, a person's belief in liberty and individuality were seen as symptoms of mental illness; "Since you have no genuine free will to begin with, you might as well do what we well-meaning socialist tell you to do[!]...if you don't, you're obviously insane." The conservativism as pathology "argument" continues to be used by leftists today.
Since the Post Modern school of philosophy (Which is ultimately just another neo-Marxism) feels justified in equating our sense of individuality with a mere fantasy, can we not question the Left's preoccupation with its dream world of collective abstractions? When an individual commits a crime against another, the Left (and all its permutations) will tell us that responsibility lies with "society," "the [free-market] system," or "Euro-centric linear patriarchal thinking." It seems to be literally beyond their comprehension that genuine individuals exist at all. (An exception is made, of course, when dealing with such persons as George Bush who is seen as individually evil of course). Perhaps it could be said that the Left generally favors larger social units. They will always support the interests of the "community" over the family, the centralized state over the local region, and finally, "humanity" or "the Earth" over an individual nation. It's no wonder that those on the left hate authority and simultaneously love authority (if it is their philosophically kindred brethren imposing it). A Leftist is often rabidly anti -authoritarian on the surface. Ultimately, it's not so much that they're against individuality per se as they are against other's claims to individual freedom. Is it any wonder that such lines of thinking are opposed to anything incorporating the word, "private;" private enterprise, private ownership, private property, private sector, privatization… The very thought of having private lives is anathema to those who would collectivize every aspect of the human spirit.
On a true polarity to collectivist thought lies Classical Liberal conservatism; a belief in limited decentralized government and the primacy of the individual to act and trade according to his or her self-interests. The prime tenant of Leftism is the insistence that individual free expression be controlled and molded to what the Leftist sees as a higher cause -- "the people, the race, one's 'class,' society, the poor..."
When we deal with these basic philosophical stances we are no longer in the realm of debate backed by "proof." We are all indeed enmeshed in a complex web of chosen and un-chosen group affinities and possess an awareness and ability to think and act as individuals. How much people choose to live in accordance with the dictates of their own conscience vs. how much they feel themselves to be mere cogs in group allegiance is, to a considerable degree, a subjectively chosen stance. While a slave can't "prove" that he or she should be left alone, the state and its supporters can't "prove" that you should sacrifice your own values to a conjured collective abstraction either. (i.e. "The People").
The "single agent" is neither a "fallacy" nor a "construct" fabricated by a "capitalist class of oppressors." It's the basic package that we humans come in. The fact that we may choose to be, or find ourselves, among others as families, communities, clubs, or "classes" hardly justifies that we be compelled to live out an intellectual's favorite plan for marching in their parade, ...to the beat of their discordant and oppressive drums.
Monday, February 14, 2005
A Tenured Radical
A Typical Tenured Radical
The saga continues in the predictable chain of events involving Ward Churchill, the "ethnic studies" professor (1/16th Cherokee!) who told us that 9/11 victims weren't victims at all but compliant henchmen in the imperial capitalist "machine." When threatened with the possibility of losing his cushy job at the University of Colorado he, of course, threatened to sue. He appears to have realized that $90,000 a year plus benefits in a utopian community (Boulder, Colorado) is one of the best job situations one can score. His pampered lifestyle as a university professor probably doesn't sound nearly so "oppressive" now that he risks losing it. I bussed tables at a restaurant in Boulder while in college and I can verify that it's hard to feel "oppressed" there - even if you are 1/16 pseudo-Cherokee.
Of course, Jacobin swine at CU, and around the country, are now defending Churchill's, "right to free speech," and the ACLU (of course) has another worthy extremist to champion. Can one imagine how this would have played out if a professor had made derisive statements about gays, minorities, or women? Churchill had praised the terrorists of 9/11 as "gallant" in their "sacrifice." What would be the response if an American college professor had referred to a "gallant" KKK?
Now Churchill is doing the classic leftist backpedal. He now feels the need to clarify "what he [really] meant," yet he simultaneously insists that he "refuses to apologize" or "back down" (how heroic).
Of course the real issue here is not one Jacobin pseudo-rebel but the fact that universities, like media and entertainment, are full of such "perspectives." They openly wish for nothing short of the complete destruction of America's successful and free constitutional system.
Some will be impressed by Churchill's last-minute attempt to extricate himself from his own Marxist logic. Unfortunately for him, he has a long written record of typical Marxist rant. He stated that he would like to see his country "eliminated" from the planet. All polemic nuance aside, he's a typical communist authoritarian ideologue. Calling him such is not McCarthyism, it's a description of what he is, backed by his own writings. A statement of admiration for the terrorists of 9/11 and disdain for the victims is not a mere "unpopular viewpoint," as some clowns on the left have described Churchill's views. Justly removing such a scoundrel from a privileged position is not crushing "freedom of speech." (He's being paid by extorted funds--taxes). After considering his statements that the victims of 9/11 were little "Eichmans" (a reference to an infamous bureaucrat in the Hitler regime during the holocaust), "working for the engine of capitalism," I wondered if it might be appropriate to consider Churchill himself a little BERIA (Stalin's head of the Soviet secret police) working for the engine of socialism.
Churchill has barely acknowledged that those killed on 9/11 were not just symbols to him of the country he hates, but were actually individuals, diverse and unique. There are no individuals aside from themselves in the Left's worldview. One is either an oppressor or an oppressee and never stands alone as either, which brings us to the following essay regarding the left's inability to see anyone apart from some collective template:
Fox News noted an interesting, and typically bizarre issue in Ed-land, a public school system that feels the need to address "diversity issues" and "racism" in -- Math class!
"...According to benchmarks for middle school education, the top objective for the district's math teachers is to teach "respect for human differences." The objective is for students to "live out the system-wide core value of 'respect for human differences' by demonstrating anti-racist/anti-bias behaviors."...[see a true depiction of the Left's view of "diversity and differces" here].
...The principal's page for Memorial Spaulding Elementary School, for example, reads: "We know that the context for optimal learning is a school which has a passion for children and for democracy, an intolerance for racism and for prejudice, a commitment to the creation of an anti-racist, prejudice-free learning environment, and a genuine desire to turn the concept of 'just society' into reality. We hope to be that school."...
..."I think of [multicultural education] as a set of practices that confront the various forms of racism and institutionalized racisms that do exist in schools, as well as the larger society, and thinking of ways of breaking down and deconstructing forms of racism," Christine Sleeter, professor emeritus at California State University at Monterey Bay and co-editor of "Multicultural Education, Critical Pedagogy, and the Politics of Difference," said. "I think that a whole lot of people are fumbling around with, 'what are the issues?'..."
Fortunately, the ridiculous esoteric lingo that these elitist snobs use will be there downfall. I went through the teacher training program at -- of all places -- The University of Colorado in Boulder and can tell you that this politically correct nonsense is the standard in Ed-School philosophy. The Jacobins rule there, as they do in the Sociology departments, Humanities, and to some degree, all the nooks and crannies of academia. They want the same pathetic mentality to trickle down into the primary and secondary schools -- and, it has!
As stated before, the above example was found on the Fox News website. Fox will no doubt receive numerous complaints for addressing such an issue, yet we've been subjected to decades of mainstream reports on a thousand pet "crises" of the left. Viewing any season of special news reports on ABC, CBS, MSNBC, PBS, and CNN would find one believing that they live in a horrid society filled with poverty, racism, faltering health, and capitalist "injustice." It's about time we have an alternate news source that can give equally wide exposure to issues like the preceding item on "politically correct" math in public schools. America's school system is a bloated bureaucratic web of P.C. nonsense -- I'm glad someone is taking note.
A accurate statement on the Socialist worker's state of Germany from Davids Medienkritik:
America You Just Don't Get It…
(By Ray D.)
Despite Germany's Fascist past, despite the fact that Germany wants to export weapons to Communist China, despite the fact that Germany has turned a blind eye to atrocities in Chechnya, despite the fact that Germany openly allows housing discrimination, despite the fact that German police openly and legally racially profile, despite the fact that Germany has virtually no minority representatives in its national government, despite the fact that Germany has been dependent on the US since World War II for its defense and reunification, despite the fact that Germany has a massive, chronic unemployment problem…over five million out of work and climbing, despite a hopelessly complicated tax system, a declining educational system, despite the fact that Germany has a national ID card and a national registration system far more intrusive on private rights than anything in the Patriot Act, despite the fact that German state television continues to present the situation in Iraq twice as negatively as it was under Saddam Hussein's dictatorship and barely draws a distinction between democracy and dictatorship, despite the fact that Germany continues to trade with the world's most vicious dictators…
Despite those facts…
Now this: Extreme right-wing parties [this would mean Socialist/Collectivist factions with a nationalistic or racist overtone] have won election to two state parliaments and are growing in numbers by the day. Life has become so "wonderful" under the Socialist-Green German government that hundreds of Germans are turning to neo-Fascist, neo-Nazi parties for answers. Neo-Nazi and hard right parties are experiencing a rebirth and all that the "mainstream" parties can do about it is argue and hold symbolic marches. How about they put their brains together and do something real to solve Germany's problems? How about the German media stop bashing America and the liberation of 50 million oppressed Muslims so much and focus a little bit more on Germany's problems? That's right, focus more on your own country, what a novel idea!
Junk Science is a good site to get some information to balance out what you won't see in mainstream news land.
People seem to hate it when anyone dares take on the Global Warming sacred cow. Like many who take interest in the spin being put on this issue, I'm not "anti-environment" or "blind to the looming threat of environmental disaster." This is a complex issue and the usual con-artists are out in force. I want to know the facts and one of the facts is, there is no "consensus" on the causes, extent, and future development of "global warming." The beloved Kyoto Protocal would be virtually worthless in addressing the issue but is championed regardless because of the general philosophy it promotes -- bureauratic control and redistribution of wealth.
Why do you figure a guy like Oliver Stone - someone who hates American's military when it's used to fight autocratic regimes - admires an imperialist military leader like Alexander The Great enough to make a movie about him? Perhaps military assertiveness is okay if it was long ago (and not American).
...more reveries next week...
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
"...Guevara’s autobiography, The Motorcycle Diaries, has been made into a movie that received a standing ovation at the Sundance Movie Festival in 2004. Steven Soderbergh, the director of “Traffic”, “Oceans Eleven”, “Erin Brockovich”, “Oceans Twelve”, and numerous other television and movie projects announced that he will begin shooting another movie on Che Guevara’s life in early 2005. There are numerous websites dedicated to propagating the myth of Che and selling merchandise with Che’s image on it. Even the major retailer Burlington Coat Factory has featured Che shirts in its advertising. However, what has gotten lost in the cult of Che is the simple fact that he was nothing more than a spoiled rich punk who used murder to gain personal power..."
Milking The Multi-Cultural Facade
Speaking of "intellectuals," academics, and political correctness, what's up with this Ward Churchill guy who compared the victims of 9/11 to Nazis because they "supported the mighty engine of profit..."? Okay, he's obviously a typical academic Leftist, mad that his brilliant observations haven't won him power, wealth, and adulation in the capitalist marketplace. What gets me about the whole deal is the phony response from fellow jerks in the academy. Some students and fellow faculty members are crying the usual, "witch-hunt" and "academic freedom" con-screed. This is coming from the same group of Jacobin clowns who have turned American colleges into ideological indoctrination camps where one's free speech can get one sent to "diversity training" seminars or booted from school completely -- especially if your a heterosexual, non-Leftist, "Euro-American."
The center of the current controversy -- Ward Churchill -- is threatening to sue if he's fired. Imagine that, then he can get some of that capitalist cash -- without even having to create or sell a product!
Churchill has thus far headed The University of Colorado's "Ethnic Studies" department touting added expertise by virtue of his bogus "one-sixteenth Cherokee" family lineage. An interesting article in the Rocky Mountain News tells us how much this Marxist intellectual really cares about free academic expression when a student doesn't tow the party line.
Every Second-Grader Knows Capitalism Is Evil
This article should raise the eyebrows of anyone who is wondering why tax-funded compulsory education is being directed to advance the values and agendas of the Jacobin crowd:
"...just one example of a startling new trend driven by left-leaning social and environmental activists who are now reaching into schools and homes not only to generate kiddie-pressure on targeted businesses, but also to get a hold of children's developing value systems - the younger, the better - and to characterize businesses as the Darth Vaders of the grown-up world."
An insightful inquiry into how newsroom bias works:
"...When looking at media coverage under the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations as compared to the Clinton administration, you’d walk away believing that Clinton cured homelessness. The Media Research Center has documented that in 1990, when Bush Sr. was president, there were seventy-one homeless stories on the CBS, NBC, and ABC nightly newscasts. Yet in 1995, when Clinton was president, the number had been reduced to nine. If you were just thinking, “Well, Clinton did fix homelessness,” then the biased reporting has been effective. If Clinton cured homelessness, then why, only three weeks after Bush Jr. was sworn in as president in 2000, were there reports on ABC World News Tonight that claimed, “In New York City the number of homeless in the shelter system has risen above twenty-five thousand a night for the first time since the late 1980s.'..."
Clifford May ponders the usual UN approach to violence and tyranny:
"Last week, members of a separate U.N. commission appointed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan demurred. They said they were unable to find “sufficient evidence” to conclude that those responsible for the mass murders, rapes, home burnings and ethnic cleansing [in Sudan] acted with “genocidal intent.” Instead, they said that what had taken place were “crimes against humanity with an ethnic dimension." (Well then, no big deal).
Surprisingly, Kofi Annan at least actually expressed some approval that the citizens of Iraq got to vote -- no thanks to him or his organization -- so, we'll let him slide a bit this week.
A good article on, "After Socialism.":
"...The cognitive behavior of Western intellectuals faced with the accomplishments of their own society, on the one hand, and with the socialist ideal and then the socialist reality, on the other, takes one's breath away. In the midst of unparalleled social mobility in the West, they cry "caste." In a society of munificent goods and services, they cry either "poverty" or "consumerism." In a society of ever richer, more varied, more productive, more self-defined, and more satisfying lives, they cry "alienation." In a society that has liberated women, racial minorities, religious minorities, and gays and lesbians to an extent that no one could have dreamed possible just fifty years ago, they cry "oppression." In a society of boundless private charity, they cry "avarice." In a society in which hundreds of millions have been free riders upon the risk, knowledge, and capital of others, they decry the "exploitation" of the free riders. In a society that broke, on behalf of merit, the seemingly eternal chains of station by birth, they cry "injustice." In the names of fantasy worlds and mystical perfections, they have closed themselves to the Western, liberal miracle of individual rights, individual responsibility, merit, and human satisfaction. Like Marx, they put words like "liberty" in quotation marks when these refer to the West..."
A socialist is a little more insightful than a communist in that they recognize they can't continue to take other people's money if they seize it all at once -- kind of like mugging on the installment plan.
more next Monday...or thereabouts
Monday, February 07, 2005
Follies In Political Correctness
What exactly is so "correct" about the nonsense regularly palmed off on us by the self-absorbed brain-caste and their brethren in mainstream Leftland?
Last week you may recall my comments regarding an article in the Victims of Communism Memorial website. I'm still amazed at the author's observations regarding the definitions given in some dictionaries for political systems and personalities. The issue begs for further consideration.
The American Heritage (ironically) College Dictionary, 2002 offers some odd definition-bias that would put even Dan Rather to shame.
The dictionary (it's not the only dictionary with this bias) accurately notes the authoritarian, totalitarian, and dictatorial nature of Nazism, fascism, and their prime figureheads; Hitler and Mussolini.
When, however, the personalities and concepts associated with Communism are addressed, words denoting belligerence, oppressive control, and dictatorship are strangely absent.
Communism defined by the, no doubt, "progressive" scholars of the aforementioned dictionary is: "A theoretical economic system characterized by collective ownership of property and the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members" [emphasis mine]. Of course, communism has not been just a "theoretical" system any more than Nazi Germany was, and in practice it has been every bit as ruthless and totalitarian.
Stalin is described as a "Soviet politician who was general secretary of the Communist Party...and Premier" [emphasis mine].
Castro is merely a "Cuban revolutionary leader who overthrew Fulgencio Batista in 1959 and established a socialist state" [emphasis mine] (I guess it wasn't a communist state because communism is only a "theoretical" system?)
Here's a great definition of the guy (Pol Pot) who took Cambodia back to the "year zero" and was responsible for killing about a quarter of his country's population: "Cambodian political leader whose Khmer Rouge movement overthrew the Cambodian government in 1975" [emphasis mine] Ever hear of, "The Killing Field's?"
At least the idiots who came up with these definitions realized that Hitler was chancellor and "absolute dictator" of the Third Reich. Remember when he and the Soviet "premier" invaded Poland together...also, can you say, "Gulag?"
This example of the pathetic whitewashing of Leftist history and values should be expected I guess, in a world where Saddam Hussein's dictatorship has often been referred to as, The Hussein "Administration" and George Bush's tenure in office is occasionally referred to as, the Bush "regime."
The Left's continued attempt to paint itself as docile and mainstream is far off the mark. Hating capitalism is one thing, pretending that the ruthless killers of millions are simple heads of state either shows a serious flaw in scholarship or a definite agenda regarding where some academics would like to see us go on the political spectrum.
How much more can these fools continue to whitewash, and even defend, tyranny? -- pathetic.
Hugo Chavez, of Venezuela, may someday have his own spot in the average dictionary as a "leader." As the "revolution" in Venezuela continues, it's becoming a textbook case of Marxist coercion. Lots of land confiscation and "redistribution." Make no mistake about it, Hugo is consolidating power. His pal, Castro, in Cuba is getting old so someone needs to spread some authoritarian tyranny around to keep the autocratic leftist flame burning. In addition to the usual Socialist talking points, Chavez seems to be itching for a military conflict with the rich Capitalist neighbor to the north. As in most communist game plans, aside from tossing some symbolic (stolen) crumbs to the poor, Chavez is clearly amping up the martial rhetoric -- the usual nonsense about "spreading the 'revolution'." In a couple years, when we're bombing terrorist training camps in Venezuela I hope someone remembers that Jimmy Carter helped give this thug a seal of approval. He may be an emerging tyrant but hey, spoiled rich socialist college kids need another hero to worship, Che's become too mainstream.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
What's So Bad About Free Elections?
While the road to a sovereign, free, and open society in Iraq is still in its infancy, it is clear that the horrors of an absolute police state have been replaced with something worthy of praise, in spite of attempts to derail it by terrorism and its sympathizers. This has all occurred as the direct result of decisions by the much-maligned G.W. Bush and the losses and sacrifices of American service personnel and their allies from Iraq and other countries around the world.
Listen to the often heard shriek from Left-land, "Some people don't want to be free," and then watch an Iraqi proudly tell you he has just voted for the first time. Ask yourself which side represents dignity and substance in the human spirit.