PROMETHEAN ANTAGONIST

Not really. There are things to see here that may please or engrage you. It's "holiday" time so postings here will be very sparse and sporadic (I like alliteration).

I have no idea when I'll get back to this nonsense.

If you're new to this site please see my "Big Rants" for entertainment, thought provocation, or masochistic immersion.

Have a jolly week, month, year,

A dude who blogs.

I realize that many people have already seen this video but if you haven't...I think it speaks for itself.

In a time of crisis, who are you going to vote for? Pleeease...

What They Say:

“Peace”
“Love of Humanity”
“Cooperation”
“Sharing”
“Progress”
“Enlightenment”
“Change”
“Sacrifice”
“Consensus”

What They Mean:

Self-weakening, self-effacement, self-loathing…war (In the end – even if it was not the intention).

Compulsory allegiance and obedience to collectivist authority and feigned concern for people you’ve never met.

Decreed collaboration with people you may not even like let alone wish to support who will support the enhancement of political power of left-wing institutions.

Confiscation of resources and distribution to people within politically favored groups.

Hindering technical, scientific, industrial, and commercial advances for the sake of a host of conjured fears. The maintenance of stasis and even decline in growth and advancement.

Public indoctrination to ensure obedience to tenets of collectivism.

Enhancing power to the state and returning – for all practical purposes – to the status of Monarchy in the atmosphere of government operation.

Compulsion and seizure.

Enforced Obedience.

How often does history provide a society that is extremely powerful and is essentially a force for good? (This will be a worthless question if you're incapable of acknowledging that there is such a thing as good or that "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" is a "self-evident" good thing).

The answer is; not very often. And, although it's an unnoticed fact of our time, such a country exists.

Now imagine a world where there is an extremely powerful country or alliance of countries that are essentially a force for evil...or at least dedicated to the destruction of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The ungrateful and the stupid of our time may soon regret their inability to apply common sense to the issues around them. And for those skewed observations we may all soon suffer beyond what is imaginable.

 

Okay, in less dramatic terms; After the election / before the end of the first term.

All is not lost perhaps. There have been a few commentaries since the election pointing out some relatively good news since America’s selection of a pop-celebrity with a very far left agenda. Prior to some sobering analysis, my greatest apprehensions related to the fact that Obama will have a congress that will facilitate the imposition of some radical legislation.

Dick Morris and others have pointed out some things I hadn’t considered in the big picture.

Socialist or not (he is), Obama and his party are constrained by the one constraint socialists hate most, reality. He won largely because he convinced (conned) a large part of the electorate into thinking he was relatively moderate. That hardly gives him a lot of room to now move left, to his more natural inclinations (thoroughly exposed in any honest appraisal of his personal history, associations, and voting record). Already his possible appointments look like a who’s who from the Clinton years (in spirit if not the actual people being considered). Clinton was also a president who found himself forced toward moderation. Clinton was a typical baby boomer radical who brought his youthful idealism and socialist sympathies to a public position that won’t tolerate nonsense.

A president’s first term is ideally spent establishing a reputation that will aid them in being reelected. President Bush didn’t have that opportunity since 9/11 intruded abruptly. He can be chastised for his decisions regarding Iraq (along with Tony Blair and John Howard et al.) but history’s verdict isn’t in on that yet. Hurricane Katrina and not following the global warming Pied Piper are non-issues (unless you’re a journalist or Democrat partisan seeking to concoct issues).

Bill Clinton’s clown show moderated over time but was certainly no grand accomplishment for the cause of individual rights. Obama won’t likely become dear to the hearts of conservatives either but at least Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright won’t be attending cabinet meetings.

Actually becoming president must have a dramatic psychological effect on those few people who have won the position. The Obama who held the market and “privilege” in disdain must now reconcile himself with the fact that capitalist sons-a-bitches are our (and his) sons-a-bitches.

I’d speculate that a newly elected president experiences a rude awakening when he gets his or her first serious intelligence briefing. In Obama’s first post-election news conference a journalist actually asked him if he had changed any of his views after receiving his first batch of presidential information. His response was concise (basically saying he wouldn’t respond). That said it all. How could anyone get top level intelligence information and not realize that our country is always under serious constant threat from rogue states and terrorist organizations. I’m guessing that “peace brother” doesn’t work in intelligence briefings.

Although Obama was clearly never patriotic prior to running for the presidency, becoming the country’s leader is probably a fast way to induce patriotism in the most die-hard internationalist. I couldn’t help but note his “God bless America” comment in his victory speech to have actually sounded sincere (I sensed he was even surprising himself in saying it). Among Obama cultists it will be interesting to observe so many vocal unpatriotic types sounding cries for patriotic allegiance and respect now that “American” means a state run by and for the Democrat’s game plan.

I certainly don’t blame Americans of African decent for taking pride in Obama’s accomplishment. They certainly deserve to have a dramatic and tangible symbol of overcoming a history full of injustices (though I would have hoped this would have occurred under the leadership of a non-socialist African-American, of which there are many – Larry Elder would be my first choice).

It’s quite possible that the Obama so loved by the left will be acting moderate and even conservative on some issues in coming months. It’s stunning to actually hear him talking rather hawkish on issues like Afghanistan, a stance he began to take during the election. It’s almost funny to hear hard leftists agree with him on this point. Bush sending troops anywhere of course prompts media scorn and mass riots.

I’m still not happy this guy won but, again, reality will be directing his policy decisions as much as the dusty ideals he had a few weeks ago (which have probably already undergone significant adjustment).

The Democrats will still be attempting to force feed the citizens of America their bitter stew of bureau-statism. I can’t wait to see the look of shock on the faces of may young people who had no idea that the Democrats and Obama stand for mandatory “community service” as well as a return to the military draft. What could be better than seeing a spoiled “pacifist” youth hearing “yes we can” from the government when he or she says the state can’t make them join the military (‘should have thought of that before the election stupid). Also, I can’t wait till the next two elections when the same young people who voted for Obama decide that “community service” and military duty is something they’d prefer to do voluntarily.

In spite of the recent handing of America over to socialists, there is some hope for America and – unfortunately – the Demo-socialists themselves. Already there is some indication from characters like madame Pelosi, that their party actually got the message the last time they tried to shove leftland's itinerary down America's throat (Bill Clinton's first term). This more stealth awareness would allow the Demo-gogues to sneak in their agenda more incrementally under the radar (the mainstream media is no radar at all so such con-artistry is no dramatic feat really).

An insightful exercise in poetic sarcasm has been made by some conservative pundits; in so many words, “Conservatives should show the respect and support to the new president that the left showed to President Bush.” Of course, I really wouldn’t wish that on anybody, even Obama. The dishonesty and viciousness directed to Bush by the left has been despicable and they should “see what it’s like” but we needn’t stoop that low. By the way, Bush was not “Hitler.”

The truly frightening part of the recent political drama has little to do with Obama or even the Democrat's party. In spite of blogs and conservative radio commentary, the dominant voices in media, entertainment, and "education" (compulsory "community service" to the state will now be called "learning") have succeeded in convincing a large part of the electorate that half of the political spectrum is invalid. Belief in lower taxes, the success of business large and small, and a strong defense are now not just opposing viewpoints to be debated but have been branded as philosophically and morally wrong (politically incorrect). This means that a portion of the beliefs that made America strong, prosperous, and dynamic are being rejected wholesale. Soon, with legislation like "the fairness doctrine" the conservative half of the country's political beliefs will be close to being outlawed at least in spirit.

For all presidents, let the person who gains this serious position of responsibility do their job. If they’re idiots or schemers, make due note of their flaws and hope the voters are wiser the next time around. Grand speeches and catch phrases worked well for Obama’s quick ascent to the presidency. Actions will speak louder than words in the next election.

Checks and balances are embedded in America's fabric beyond the mere apparatus of state. Self-government is the most radical and subversive ideology to have come to fruition. It's not going to be defeated that easily.

The founders’ intentions are continuing to serve us well.

...or several months down the road.

The cultists got to have their big night, 'Lots of tears, hugs, and swaying in unison with loud chants of "yes we can!" (I won't make the obvious analogy because it's so self-evident).

The more times I see Obama speak the more obvious his self-consciousness in speaking becomes apparent. I dare say that the cadence becomes more like Martin Luther King each time as well (not because of "race" but because he clearly knows how to copy the style of a great orator). A person certainly can't be faulted for merely mastering the art of public speaking but in Obama's case it's clearly overkill. If it wasn't for the current economic crisis that struck only recently, his soaring words and style would be downright odd (like Handel's "Messiah" as background music in a hardware store). Even with the current challenges facing Americans, Obama's dramatic "change the world" drama is a bit much. He's never really come across as "arrogant" to me. His style is skillfully more subtle than blatent arrogance but he does seem to convey the idea that he is a great man in great times about to do great things when, in fact, he's just a politician with a thin resume and some dubious friendships who is going to ram through some left-wing legislation – nothing really all that dramatic about that. It's not like it hasn't been done before. Of course, this time he has a congressional majority to help him do some things that saner times would be checked and balanced. On more than a few occasions he has expressed his disappointment with America's constitution and his desire to amend or alter its basic spirit. After all, America's constitution was only the well thought out work of some geniuses inspired by Montesquieu and John Locke. This is Obama we're talking about – The One. He surely has some better ideas for us to follow – "peace be upon his name."

The hard core Obamatons will stand (march?) by him no matter what happens in coming months, but the hard core are not the reason why Obama won the election. A lot of relatively moderate and even borderline conservatives tipped the scales to this unknown and inexperieiced charleton. The virtual media blackout on his flaws and constraints on hardball (and reasonable) questions left the O-Man looking farily moderate. Add to this the deliberate construction of a bear-hunting religious nut caricature of Sarah Palin, and some average folks took their chances with the smooth orator.

One of the few things Joe Biden said during the campaign that will no doubt come to pass is that Obama will be "tested" by our adversaries –duh.

He'll be tested even though he already passed the test. All past statements and sympatheis from the messiah are a virtual go-ahead to Russsia, China, Iran, and North Korea – "be nice or I'll call the U.N."

Domestic issues and the economy are a whole other can of worms. To "progressives," go ahead and try building yourselves another socialist mega-state. To the moderates who voted for "the one..." get read for some major disappointment (you will be taxed more, directly or indirectly through passed on higher prices). To Euro-socialists; Bush is gone, you may have to start actually facing your own serious problems. The country that is supposedly disproportionally "racist, Islamo-phobic and right-wing" has just elected a black guy with a Muslim name and early upbringing, a communist father, and a personal philosophy of government that is at least on par with some of Europe's most leftist political scoundrels.

Obama will get a year or so to blame every flawed decision and action on the legacy of George Bush. After that, that excuse will become a bit old with all those moderates that basically flipped a coin "for change." Then they'll be asking themselves what they should have been asking during the election, "Who is this guy?"

The One, The Messiah has won. Now he can "change America and change the world" in the image that "progressives" have ordained for the rest of us.

Oh well.

On the good side, we won't have to listen to rioting vien-popping leftists whine that they didn't get their way -- consevatives will certainly be more than disappointed if not scared, but it's not their nature to throw the tantrums so common to the left when they're deprived of their "right" to impose their will upon others.

I and others of like mind will have our complaints in coming months though, initially, Obama will continue his posturing as a relatively moderate "liberal" -- economic realities being what they are, he pretty much has to.

What's done is done. The next strategy for conservatives is to sneak about under the radar of the emerging mega-state and it's new laws and compulsions "for change." I'm most concerned about the plan Obama announced near the very end of the election for a "civilian national security" force with more resources than our current national security forces (what the hell does that mean?).

Jefferson and Adams got at least 200 years out of their radical and brilliant ideas and the world was certainly better for it. It's certainly not the end of the U.S. or its ideals yet, but it could be said that the first nail on the coffin has just been pounded in and more will be pounded in over the next four years.

Remember, this isn't just about Obama, this is about a very left-wing congress acting as a kind of democrat rubber stamp to socialist policies and soon a supreme court majority who will look to the UN and not America's constitution for guidence and policy enforcment.

How did it happen?..for the most part, thank the media and public education -- and they're not done yet.

fun, fun, fun...

The "caring and loving" folks of leftland...aren't so much.

Barely a day goes by now where I don't read an e-mail, facebook comment, or direct statement praising the left's new secular messiah -- Obama -- and savagely insulting the values and lifestyle symbolism of Sarah Palin. Palin affords a caricature of everything the left hates. She's liked by the right for her commonness – "Joe Six pack" – and despised by the left for precisely the same reasons.

It would certainly be an accurate appraisal of current political debate to accuse the Democrats and "progressives" of arrogance and elitism. All that defines common citizens is held in contempt by the snooty control freaks of leftland. I don't read many (actually zero) facebook comments prodding people to vote for McCain Palin, not because there are no people of such political persuasion but because conservatives still have some basic manners left when interacting with a mixed-view crowd. The same decorum is why, if Obama wins, conservatives won't be protesting and rioting about a "stole election" (when, indeed there is plenty of evidence of massive voter fraud from the Obama side). If McCain wins, we can of course expect all hell to break lose because leftland didn't get their way.

In addition to the phony superior morality argument uttered so often by the left, we'll continue to hear just how "curious," intellectual, and refined these pompous snobs are.

To them, it's all about "reading the right books," and "speaking French." (I've actually seen those attributes listed as requirements for a "qualified presidential candidate" ).

This clique' of elitists hates Sarah Palin because she's "common folk." The left has always hated common folk – except in their dreams, where they are the champions and chosen leaders of everything common (and everything they perceive as beneath them).

On a personal note, I've actually read plenty of books on a wide range of subjects ('personal preference – so what) and the more I learn from them and common sense observation, the more I trust common people (whether they read plenty of books or not) over the elitist snobs that have captured American society through a thousand channels of communication (public education being the most abused channel).

Given the leftist snobs' excitement for intellectuals its no wonder that they are so equally enamored with Lawyers, journalists, and other assorted con-artists that pretend to be intellectuals.

Do we really need another intellectual who's read lots of books making decisions for individuals in some collectivist scheme they fancy – another Pol Pot, Mao, or Lenin? Even the upper tier of the Nazi party was full of intellectuals. Hitler was the classic "artiste" intellectual with a "new vision." There is nothing and nowhere in history that indicates that intellectuals make better or more democratic leaders and those of simpler lifestyles make worse. To the contrary, the historical record is one of intellectuals who have caused incredible damage to their own societies, and to others when they sought to expand their domination (as they always do). Even those intellectuals of blander passion and less utopian vision have hardly been the epitome of wisdom. The intellectuals that advised President Johnson made Vietnam a quagmire. How many brilliant intellectual economic advisor's has history seen that sparked or lorded over recession, inflation, and unemployment?

Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe has an impressive list of schooling but he's created a famine-ridden waste case out of Africa's former bread-basket. Bill Clinton was a "Rhodes Scholar" and the only positive legislative action his presidency can truly be noted for are programs a Republican congress initiated.

I've met auto mechanics that would be better leaders and decision makers than some of the "intellectual" rabble that 's been pawned off on the public in the name of "superior intellectual leadership." In the end, this whole issue relates to events no more than the age-old jealousy that intellectuals have shown as they have sought power over others, and the ignorance of those who follow and adore superficial traits over substance of character

The issue of intellectuals' role in politics and history is well addressed in Eric Hoffer's "The Ordeal of Change" and Paul Johnson's "Intellectuals," two books I'd highly recommend to fully understand what intellectuals have done or helped to create (in a dystopian sense). Both books offer wise speculation as to what motivates people to not simply learn for their own sake but to impose their will over others on the pretense that their bookish knowledge justifies their authority.

It's odd that just a couple of years ago we constantly heard of a simple mill-workers son qualifications to be president (John Edwards), now a strong intelligent woman with executive experience is considered unqualified because she's basically, "too common" to suit the arrogant snobs of leftland.

Let them eat Brie...and leave others to their "sixpacks, guns, religion"...and common sense.

Since the 1970's many, if not most, school teachers, journalists, and entertainment glitter-oracles have become "rebels" -- or, so they'd have themselves (and sometimes others) believe.

They call for "change" in our lifestyles to "save the Earth", "celebrate diversity" and provide "equality" of outcome in all facets of life – a sterile humanity where everyone is constrained to the level of bland sleep.

Is this call to "change" really change when it is now so blatantly common? Can it be taken seriously when most of its mouthpieces live their own lives in such complete bourgeoisie comfort?

American philosopher/historian Hannah Arendt has often been justly quoted for noting that, "Even the most radical revolutionary becomes conservative the day after the revolution." It may be added that today's "revolutionary" is conservative even before the revolution (in the sense that they are very much in favor or maintaining their current lifestyles but rigidly adhering to the dogma of a faux rebellion). Their revolutionary call to change is no revolution at all and certainly not intended to alter their own lifestyles. Calling for radical change (usually demanding, complete with threats) is now as widespread and mundane as a can of Coke, and ultimately has about as much philosophical value in the grand scheme of things.

The real irony in all of this posturing is that those of us who call for a drastic reduction of state authority over personal lives and for excellence, innovation, and achievement to be honored in a free system of economic exchange (not punished in bureaucratic labyrinths), are derided as conservative. By honest and positive definition this would be true but our posing rebels see the above traits as bad and use the "conservative" label as a statement of derision.

Real rebels are suspicious of authority and recoil from imposed schemes. They have no need to force their freedom on others as they see freedom to be an option chosen by one's own volition. In a free society everyone is free to join a commune or "share [their own] wealth" as they choose. If they're sincere in voicing their values, they don't wish to see dogmatic ideals imposed on others anymore than themselves. These attributes hardly define the self-described rebels of today. A t-shirt with a communist autocrat's face across its front doesn’t count when the person wearing it lives high off the fruits of open society and a free economy.

Today's "revolution," when implied to be so by the esoteric cliques' of Hollywood, news wire services, and public school classrooms, is no revolution at all. It's not even a weak attempt to play a role as an agent of change. Taking Lenin's, Mao Zedong's, or Castro's ideas (or FDR's and LBJ's for that matter) and fostering them once more on easily duped victims is not an exercise in promoting "change," it's just another scheme in seeking to rein in the lives of free individuals.

"Lead, follow, or get out of the way [?]"....

...no, just get out of the way.