Tuesday, February 26, 2008
False Dignity, Posing Self-sacrifice, And Mock Humility Among Developed Nations' Pampered Class
New Zealand, Canada, and Germany (for example) are richer, stronger, more advanced, and more influential than Zimbabwe or Italy (or several other countries). Does it then naturally follow that citizens of these advanced countries and/or their governments should voluntarily step down a few notches; to willfully become poorer, weaker, less advanced, less influential, and – supposedly – more noble examples of a "good society?" If not, why then is it regularly suggested that the U.S. would be somehow redeemed if it followed this absurd scenario?
Currently, America happens to be the richest, most powerful, most advanced, and most influential country in the world. Does this earned good fortune really call for self-loathing and voluntary decline? (The leftist notion that America's multi-trillion dollar wealth was somehow "stolen" is blatantly absurd – poor countries never had an industrial/high-tech wealth producing economy or the freedom and rule of law that permits the creation of wealth and human potential to flourish. America's wealth has been produced by the minds and actions of its own citizens).
America stands temporarily perched in history's prime position, due partly to the stupid decisions of the much-praised European counties that previously held that position (perennially dabbling in failed utopian philosophy experiments that tested the more extreme points of the political spectrum and led them down periods of self-destruction and decline as America ascended).
The whining caste of resentful intellectuals and spoiled intellectual wannabes who despise America's current position in the world would demonstrate greater honesty if they were to temper their transparent hearts of envy and vengeance. The current alignment in world affairs is the closest they will likely ever come to seeing the "multi-lateral" world they claim to desire (a dominant China, Russia, or Europe will be considerably less "multi-lateral" than a free-wheeling dynamic America). Sympathy for a fascist regime in Iraq and hatred of middle class expansion, kick-started by American market economics, is hardly cause for rabid diatribes and cliché Marxist fits, yet that is the standard polemic of today's trendy anti-U.S. Rhetoric. Driven by left "leaning" mass-media, entertainment, and "education," the average spoiled-caste member is incapable of making any lucid judgment beyond their college diet of Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, or the monthly caricatures of America found in Le Monde, Spiegel, or Newsweek.
The citizens of advanced countries in the world seem to be doing just fine, but their relative positions of strength seems to cause them no remorse in the face of other less successful societies – certainly not enough to deliberately promote their own decline in influence or achievement.
When a New Zealander or Canadian et al. calls for the willful and voluntary decline of their own relative privileged positions in the world I'll be more impressed with their sincerity when they rant against America's successes. Until then...shut up.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Global Warming and Health Care "Crises," Kindred Spirits In Non-debate
Though certainly a debatable issue, you won't find issues like these in the average school debate, establishment media expose', or Hollywood movie.
Friday, February 22, 2008
The Audacity of Blind Adoration
What exactly is so exciting about the Democrats' "message?" Specifically, how does the latest idol of Democrat idealism differ from any other leftist clown? "Change...change...change..." Wow! There's a program for success. The wealthiest, most diverse, creative, and – relatively, for now – free country "needs a change" ... again. Why exactly? ...Because it sounds so cool!
Ronald Reagan instituted considerable change, but the groupies of Demo-left-land certainly weren't interested in ways to bring down an evil empire (the former Soviet Union) or deregulating a bureau-weighted economy. No, change in itself isn't quite what they're about.
How exactly is the neo-comms' amorphous call for "change" and the related rhetoric they use any different from the following caricature:
(To be spoken with deep conviction and a resonating voice that inspires awe and mystical adoration):
"Rainy days are bad! The time has come for the sun to shine, for sunny days to prevail. Flowers are pretty. I support the beauty of flowers and would thoroughly oppose anyone who would deprive the human spirit of pretty colors!..."
"Oh yeah...did I also mention that we need a change!"
What hollow nonsense...but, they're buying it. Zombies love a "populist" message even if it ultimately says nothing.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
On "Art" Bred of Resentment
I've said it before -- in so many words -- and I'll say it again:
Nothing is really new in art and life. Some modern strains of chaos-worship have been stated, pasted, and spit before in other times when the progress of many threatened to make the angry philosopher and control freak obsolete. It's all just Dada in the end, but the gimmick has outlived its non-usefulness. "Creative" insults against the progress of liberty coughed onto canvass or streets or funneled to ears deaf to beauty. Fortified by mind games and theories of a hundred -- at least – neo-Marxists (mostly French and German for some reason) offering no more than a place to play for pampered brats from the ungrateful caste. A place to play for the middle class rebelling against itself; they fancy the sandbox most filled with litter...and the ugly sounds of their own breath as it barks chastisement to all that is decent.
In all things, let real rebellion rein and let the anti-creativity spawned by Marx lie in the dust bin of history that it was justly sent to by souls of more noble purpose.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
NEWS FLASH: Suburban Middle Class Leftist Drones On Cutting Edge Of Rebellion
In an amazing development, it was found recently that many middle class suburbanites hold in scorn the free system they live under, particularly its -- relatively -- free economy. While expressing their hatred toward materialism and personal indulgence, a high percentage of spoiled brats from the middle and upper middle classes (wealthy movie stars, directors, and entertainers were left out of the survey) expressed a nagging need for a new laptop and I-pod and said they deserved another vacation this year to an exotic developing country to show their solidarity with "the poor and oppressed."
While conflict in Iraq figured high on their list of complaints toward the evil American empire (seen by most as the cause of all evil in the world), all other wars were okay with them as long as they helped to "spread the revolution." While "lust for oil" was also high on the list of "bad things" it was given scant attention due to a perceived need for Communist China to economically overtake the U.S. as a superpower -- also, designer clothing is sometimes made from petroleum products.
Some in the survey could not be reached for comment as they were busy helping to build a new world, snowboarding, downloading music, or playing video games.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Pseudo-rebels Who Remain Pseudo-rebels (It's a Kid Thing)
One of Winston Churchill's most insightful political observations was that (I'm paraphrasing), "Anyone who isn't a liberal when young doesn't have a heart...and anyone who isn't a conservative when old doesn't have a brain."
Anyone with intellectual inclinations remembers the times during childhood and adolescence when we made the snappy observation in class or among fellow students or friends (i.e. "communism is good in theory" or "Mao did a lot of good for China." Inevitably it was what we would now call a "liberal" statement; something critical of "the system," corporations, the military, or conventional religion. Intellectuals are no different than "jocks" or the many other personas people seek to embody – we all want to be cool. But, somewhere upon gaining a degree of self-honesty, those of us who had later become conservative realized that simply mimicking the ideas of our teachers, the media, and entertainers was not really the act of a cool rebel with wise insight but merely the stale parroting of resentful snobs who despise decency and reasoned thought.
Anyone can now become a "rebel" and be happy to know that they are among millions of other "rebels." One need only hate America, hate democratic open society (and, of course, the free market) and hate the individual thoughts, actions, and successes of others. By doing so we can remain cool.
But, ...some of us eventually grow up.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
The Intellectuals Know It All -- But They Often Don't Know It Right
There's a very fine line between a refined and curious intellectual and a mere boorish and arrogant snob. Likewise, there's a fine line between an ignorant religious "flag-waving" redneck and a simple person of unpretentious substance who holds genuine values and insight into human character. The left, in general, is usually incapable if seeing the realities between either line of character.
Monday, February 11, 2008
The "Victors [Don't] Write the History [Anymore]"
"History is written by the victors." Like so many things we know, it often isn't true, particularly now.
When the old "insight" regarding victors writing history is uttered now, it's likely to be a negative
reference to America's historical success and a thinly veiled sympathy for past tyranny. Instead of a fairly wise truism – which the saying initially was – it has become just another bloated whine by pompous intellectuals with axes to grind against the success of a free society. Nowhere is this more evident than in America's victory over the Soviet Union after the Cold War (which often wasn't so "cold").
If one watches recent Hollywood movies, attends college classes, reads popular non-fiction, or reads the required texts in a college or public school, it may appear that "the victor" over Soviet expansion is writing more in tune with the sentiments of the defeated than those who won the war against oppressive communist prison states.
Among those in the West who write, read, and discuss history; the commentary, observations, and quotations aren't likely to be those of a proud victor but the stale cliché rants of a disgruntled intellectual class. Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn are best-selling authors and wildly seen as legitimate historians. Part of their status as best-selling writers stems from the fact that they are required reading in many classrooms. In Europe, it's virtually impossible to find popular or scholarly sources that write history from the standpoint of the victors. The cruel, oppressive, and ruthless governments bred in Marx's name are lauded for their attempts to create paradise by eliminating business, property, "greed" and, in essence, human nature. In the end we are left with an odd anomaly of history -- history being written by those sympathetic to the defeated. This historically unique concept is made even more bizarre by the fact that the systems defeated were by any practical observation, terrible systems imposed on humanity. To even suggest that the world would be a better place had America been defeated by the Soviet Union defies all rational thinking, but rational thinking isn't what the argument is about. A resurrected radical relativism now allows the modern scholar to vent their authoritarian socialist sympathies with renewed vigor, going so far as to render wise old sayings (one example being the topic of this commentary) irrelevant.
Of course, even the wise old saying suggests that there really is not a good or bad side to a conflict, only a victor who can later write that they are good (hat tip to Nietzsche and his spawn). If we could only be so fortunate to read history as the Nazis or Soviets would have told it. We could then hear of the their triumph over the dark forces of decadent capitalist bourgeoisie civilization and the glories of an all-consuming state dedicated to "the people." Do we really think that, had Nazi Germany won in WWII, that their philosophy would have become true because they said so in their history (of course, in a dictatorship, no alternative views would even be permitted). Conversely, can a sane or just person really say that a positive appraisal of America and its allies' defeat of Nazism and communism was just a reflection of America's position as victor?
History and historical events are not relative The Nazis were evil, the Nazis were wrong (unless one sees genocide as a mere "point of view") and no matter which side had won the great confrontation with them or wrote about that confrontation, the underlying truth of their evil would remain self-evident to civilized and moral people. This is just as true regarding America's triumph over the horrid philosophy of gulag "equality" – communism. Of course, had the Soviets won the Cold War, there likely wouldn't have been much historical perspective written from the defeated's viewpoint.
Today, the nonsense continues. Even if America and its allies are successful in anchoring open society in Iraq and Afghanistan, we will no doubt not read of people being freed from tyranny (the "victor's version"), we'll hear, read,and continue to see historians' versions where an evil "imperial hegemon" attacked innocent dictators "for oil."
Observers in the Victor's country may "write the history" but there's no guarantee that their view will reflect any degree of loyalty to their winning side.
The victors may have the edge on "writing the history" but in a free society those who ultimately write and discuss it may concoct anything they choose. If they're leftists and free society has been the victor, the victor will be cast as evil and the defeated heroic. In conflicts between America's open society and brutal dictatorships, the left will always side with the latter.
Philosopher kings won't be happy until they get their crown and allegiance to their ideologies, and the writing of history now seems to care little for who has been victorious over genuine evil.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
The Jokes of "Journalism;" Facts and Fancy Among the Fourth Estate
They've got to be kidding. In the midst of "Super Tuesday," both Japan's NHK and Asahi's evening news shows shared a common interest in only one side (the Democrats) of the voting taking place in America.
I can remember when America's media created the Obama craze out of thin air. Time and Newsweek offered cover stories for this random guy before he was big news (thus making him big news). He has virtually no leadership experience (any rich or well-funded person with political goals can become a legislator). Obama has never administered anything, yet several media outlets decided he should have the exposure needed to administer the executive branch of the American government. Why? Well, he'll "talk to Castro and Ahmadinejad et al." Great! An African American Neville Chamberlain. But okay, for whatever initial cause of celebrity status, he's important now so give him the coverage a contender would expect to have during an election. And, Hillary Clinton? Well, she's Hillary Clinton!
In the two Japanese television news stations' broadcasts I previously mentioned, many minutes of broadcast time were devoted to both Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama as they spoke dramatically of the "need for change" (that's original). Accompanying these virtual Democrat campaign ads (I realize an actual "ad" would have no real purpose in Japan) was footage of interviews with star-struck groupies yearning for..."a change" (yawn).
What was so bogus about these "news reports" was that they were followed by mere seconds devoted to distant images of John McCain (with no sound, speech sound-bites, or supporters interviews). Mitt Romney was shown for a few seconds shaking hands.
Apparently, Japan's "news outlets" are, like many of America's, convinced there is only one valid party worthy of positive exposure – nothing new there.
If McCain wins the final election we'll hear cries again everywhere of a "stolen election." After all, how could some virtually unknown (unshown) guy win an election against an ever so popular, well-known, and media pervasive Hillary or Obama?
...'Complete nonsense from left-land once more.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
The Cold War, McCarthyism, And Dancing With The Jihad;
The left has successfully installed into the public psyche the word, "McCarthyism"; narrowly defined as a conservative persecution of communists. School textbooks, movies, and popular imagination all remind us of the great risk of public insult spies and traitors faced during the cold war. Indeed, communists faced the oppressive circumstance of ...being called communists (and perhaps, in a few cases, not getting the security clearance they wanted with the state department)!
So, where in our vocabulary is the word which addresses the harassment, enslavement, and slaughter of millions by communists? Today, daring to question leftist orthodoxy or following contrived codes of conduct on college campuses can find one's grade reduced, or find one admonished, insulted, or even expelled. After all, who wants to be seen as a "radical right wing extreme Christian racist fascist" (a threat we all know looms throughout the U.S. -- if one believes Spiegel, Le Monde, Newsweek, and the BBC)?
A half century ago a few intellectual artist-snobs rallied against their own country for the cause of a Soviet totalitarian empire (during the height of the cold war) and we're supposed to weep over their "persecution?"
Give an authoritarian leftist a nation state and the danger to public health and historical sanity multiplies far and above the revenue lost by an aspiring screenwriter in league with our country's enemies. Yet we have no word tailor suited to the specific crimes of aggression that the radical left has imposed upon the pages of history. For now I'll just call it leftist intimidation, violence, and murder...plus hypocrisy and leave the one-word catch phrase -- "McCarthyism" -- to their arsenal of PR jargon.
If you're a citizen of a society with an unprecedented degree of personal liberty, and an authoritarian clique' or nation seeks the annihilation of that liberty...and you actually side with that enemy and crave its success in enslaving your fellow citizens, you're at minimum, a "useful idiot" ...and asshole or, more likely, a traitor to decency.
"McCarthyism!" ...Yeah, right.
