PROMETHEAN ANTAGONIST

You may be Guilty!

...now, stop it!

There are often tip-offs that one gets regarding where others position themselves on the important events of the day. When people introduce themselves and within minutes recite some cliché diatribe against George Bush or the Iraq war, I can usually predict with a fair degree of accuracy where they stand on school vouchers, limited government, or the decisions of Barack Obama. If a person says they’re a feminist who backpacked in Latin America and “[they] don’t eat meat,” I’m gonna guess they weren’t for the removal of Saddam Hussein by force (as if there could have been another way to have done so). Gauging such associations is of course no magic trick or profound sense of observation on my part, it’s simple common sense. ‘Not always 100% accurate, but reasonably so. Likewise, I may also say things that clearly tip off others as to where I stand and what “kind of person” I am philosophically. If I say I favor limited government and low taxes, most would probably – accurately – guess that I’m not a fan of B. Hussein Obama or the latest "global warming" crusade. Again, hardly a profound calculation.

I’ve discovered one tip-off that isn’t so obvious but seems to inform others regarding political values none the less. More than a few times I’ve expressed frustration with or disdain for the common ordeal of dealing with bureaucrats. One would expect (hope?) that no one would really like bureaucracy. I’d figure it would be like asking anyone if they like high gas prices. Bureaucracy is inconvenient and annoying at best and, all too often, downright oppressive. Yet, to express one’s frustration with or dislike of bureaucracy has often seemed to strike a nerve with some I’ve spoken to. It’s as if they know that hatred for bureaucrats equals the non-“progressive” world view. Indeed, their observation is probably accurate. Conservatives and libertarians are no fans of big government and what could be a better symbol of big government then the unnecessary parasites of state with their paper work, commands, and unelected authority over the minutiae of citizen’s lives. All too often I’ve found a casual statement regarding the annoyance of bureaucracy to be met with passionate defense of the concept and on a few occasions bitter attacks on me for daring to chastise the left’s holy caste of secular priests.

Who hasn't, at one time or another, been confronted with a smug, and unhelpful bureaucrat. Not to say that all are unfriendly or unhelpful, but the system they operate in hardly motivates anything akin to quality "customer service." To the state, you are a number in both theory and practice. The fact that leftist politicians even have the nerve to associate their plans with "compassion" or "caring" is laughable. Individuals in voluntary contexts show compassion. Bureaucrats tell you to take a number and fill out a complex form.

I think it’s more than reasonable to resent the ordeal of dealing with bureaucracy but many on the left, though they themselves probably don’t like the labyrinths of bureauland any more than the next person, become incredibly defensive when one attacks the domain of “public servants” (that would be one of their terms, not mine).

I personally hate bureaucrats. I hate bureaucracy. I hate the bureaucratic state (i.e. socialism in all its guises). Is that now “hate speech” – to despise the authority of mindless unelected fools who hold sway over all aspects of one’s life? If so, I may be guilty of “hate speech” in this regard (or at least hate writing), but who doesn’t hate something (if we assume that hate means passionate dislike)? Those who most make an issue of hate speech are certainly likely to hate George Bush, Republicans, conventional – non-Islamic – religions, and sometimes the entire American enterprise. But...

Back to bureaucracy specifically. Yes, I know, "we need someone to look after the roads.” But let's be realistic. Bureaucrats and bureaucracy suck (regardless of the roads’ condition)! We all know that. Even the left will sometimes reluctantly acknowledge a certain discomfort with the twisted and inefficient labyrinths of government offices (while simultaneously supporting their expansion and authority).

Ultimately, bureaucracy is nurtured by a state of mind, something I simply call bureaumind. Bureaumind is not confined to agencies of government, though that is where it tends to flourish most. Government is a nutrient bath for bureaumind. Government is the venue where attempts to extinguish bureaumind and its follies are minimized if not whole-heartily stifled.

We’ve all met bureaumind at school, at work, and even in leisure pursuits. In essence, it’s the desire to wallow in unnecessary complexity and the inevitable confusion and inefficiency that follow. It usually demands that others be compelled to support its vision both materially and spiritually. Bureaumind's worldly representative – the bureaucrat -- is the true cleric of the left’s secular religion of statism. Only in the vapid brains of bureaumind would an elementary school boy be suspended for "sexual harassment" after kissing a girl on the cheek or a student be expelled for accidentally bringing her mother's lunch bag to school which included a small paring knife (these events actually happened – and the list of such examples is endless).

So, why do some people actually like bureaumind and encourage its sustenance and growth? The truth is, many people’s thoughts, plans, and actions are insignificant, useless, and even stupid, but few would want to acknowledge that, so they try to institutionalize their ideas, codify them, and make them policy – “I’m the guy that came up with the new counter-hierarchical paradox obedience…project forms. I think it will really help us all do a better job…don’t you?”

There’s a psychological test based on Carl Jung’s personality typology. One axis of the test observes those who prefer open-endedness. On the other side are those who like to tackle a chore in sequence – “crossing each item off a list” when completed. Bureaumind doesn’t like crossing things off lists. They like making lists, adding to them, and rearranging the list for maximum confusion to all parties. This doesn't make them "open-ended," just useless. An agency of state doesn’t like to actually complete a project or solve a problem and then close up shop. That’s why “ending poverty” has become a multi-trillion dollar government project that fosters dependency and literally perpetuates poverty. If they actually ended poverty or even greatly reduced it, bureaumind's insignificant, useless, and stupid ideas would go un-institutionalized and those who support and implement such schemes as “anti-poverty” programs wouldn’t be honored -- and paid -- for their stupid wastes of other people’s money and increasing regulation of other people's lives.

Bureaumind admittedly functions in the private sphere as well (as anyone knows who’s been given a menu of choices to push when calling many large companies (“your call is important to us…”), but bureaumind reaches its greatest levels of incompetence and stupidity when instituted by the drones of state for the unwilling people they “serve.” At least among private entities one can always opt-out or shop for a more convenient venue, but the public guardian -- purveyor of bureaumind -- is a sort of accountant /politician hybrid, a nerd with the power to dispense revenge on all who fail to honor their self-perceived greatness and the "necessity" of their mission. Their "service standard" is to elicit submission and obedience and the more stupid the rule or "guideline" the more rigidly it will be enforced.

When debating politics and the “need” for a new government project, I’ve inevitably come across those who see bureaucracy as not only a “necessary evil” but something they actually crave to see fostered on fellow citizens. They know that leftism is the bureau-state. To not see bureaucracy in an absolutely favorable light would require abandonment of their entire world view. Like a Soviet peasant poster from the 1930’s, some will always see fellow citizens as potential smiley faces marching in unison for the greater glory of a plan, a system, or an idea “that will make the world better for all of us” (as long as it is their plan, system, or idea).

After spending trillions of dollars since the 1960’s to ultimately attempt an improvised repair of human nature, the clowns of leftland continue to beat the drum of a million and one final solutions to all that ails us. Just give them more money, shinier offices, and a stack of triplicate forms to lord over. Give them your home, your children, a percentage of your sweat, and a large portion of your very soul. The foul attributes of the modern bureaustate have become more than typical. The current president and his legislative supporters are redirecting history's most dynamic experiment in personal liberty to the ends of submission to the bureaustate and the demagogues who love it.

Like most thoughts that come from “the right” (conservatives and libertarians), the views I’ve expressed here stem from a sincere self-interest (we don’t pretend to be sacrificial angels or feign moral purity). I don’t like the concept of total strangers having sovereignty over aspects of my personal life and choices and I suppose on some level that’s selfish. But, seeking to force others to join communal schemes is rather selfish too. What could be more selfish than the death or virtual enslavement of millions for communism’s – supposedly noble – goals of a stale world of bureaucratically enforced “equality.”? While socialism-lite and bland bureau schemes are not always communism or fascism, their family likeness is more than apparent. Bureaucracies seldom ask for less power, less funding, and a narrower focus. They seldom ask for anything since it's their nature to command and demand.

“Hate speech” (or just plain, “hate” as many leftists describe it), is an appropriate exercise in political incorrectness when directed at the most timeless of horrid schemes by collectivists – the bureau-state and its minions.

To express one’s disgust – or even hatred – for bureau mind and the bureau-state is most certainly a “tip-off” that one is no fan of the thousand and one permutations of leftism that would have us all answer to a bland caste of parasites…who do more than simply “maintain the roads” and, in a free society, do less than anyone ever really needs or wants.

Few contemporary libertarians have done more to inform the public of just how pathetic and undeserving adoration of the state is than John Stossel.

His first book reveals, among other things, how his fellow friends in the media came to shun him for daring to take an anti-government stand on the affairs of the day. These are the same clowns who regularly fancy themselves cutting edge rebels in the fight against authority. The reality is that, like all leftists (of varying stripes), most journalists love the power of the state -- anything but the free market and free individuals choosing their own course in life.

In John Stossel's latest report, the recent bailouts and pork circus is made all too obvious for it's grasp for power in the guise of a "stimulus."

A link to part one is here. Be sure to see all six short segments.

How dare he critique the lies of statists and the dupes who cheer them on.

I've seen all of John Stossel's special reports and there's something in them for everybody who truly holds arbitrary authority in suspicion. Although those on the left often see themselves as holding such a view, their beliefs are far from it. They think the emperor has clothes and think we should all pay for them.

Those who believe in individual liberty and the right to simply be left alone owe Stossel several rounds of applause.

Steven Crowder continues to expand and perfect his awesome comedy critiques of the left and their blatant stupidity.

His latest is a fun poke at the pathetic concern "liberals" (leftist neo-comms) show towards terrorists' comforts in captivity.

By the way. Russia is talking of putting bomber aircraft in Cuba, Kim Jong Il is going to fly a rocket over Japan, and China is telling the U.S. to stay out of international waters near their musty authoritarian shores.

...Obama. Teleprompter-O. Celebrity God-man. Change we can believe in. When he's finished the U.S. will be a mere phantom of its former self and tyrants will dance with glee. The U.S. electorate really blew it this time.

It's rather typical of the "mainstream" (old) media to cherry pick quotes from prominent conservatives. This occurred recently when Rush Limbaugh made a very clear statement regarding Teleprompter-O's attempts to "remake" America into a socialist state. Limbaugh clearly stated that, if in fact, Obama was seeking to radically transform America into the socialist model that he so often affiliated with, he (Limbaugh) hopes he fails. Pretty clear. Disagree or not, it was a fair expression and not particularly malice driven (as was so common with those tirades made by leftists against Bush).

Ann Coulter gets similar treatment by most in the mainstream media. She's definitely aggressive, sarcastic, and witty but to read the quotes usually given regarding what she says one would think she merely whines and complains with no basis or factual appraisal. This is far from the truth.

Coulter's latest observations are more than appropriate appraisals of the hypocrisy among the neo-comm Democrats and their god-leader. Some interesting facts to ponder -- along withe usual wit and sarcasm.

Well-stated.

The basic philosophy of communism (and this would include today's trendy neo-comms) is that the rich have everything and the poor have nothing...and, it would be a better world if the circumstance were the opposite.

*************************

No matter how socially intrusive a leftist may be, they will always draw a line at the boundaries of their own liberty and independence.

*************************

The most sincere observer of oppression usually gauges status on a case by case basis.

*************************

When an intellectual uses the term, "The Masses," he or she basically means "Those who are not me."

*************************

It is the nature of government to not act in accordance with human nature but instead to compel something akin to the opposite of human nature. It is in this obvious folly that government intrusion is almost always a recipe for failure or the exacerbation of worldly problems. It is no wonder that those so enamored with the authority of government hate the free market in economics where human nature is afforded its widest expression.

*************************

A cult of personality in politics has never been a good thing – ramping such emotions up, on steroids so to speak, can only be worse.

*************************

The difference between patriotism and nationalism is akin to the difference between wanting your high school debate team to do well vs. wanting you school's soccer team to crack the skulls of the other team.

*************************

Socialism's solution to societal "weeds" it to simply outlaw flowers.

A good friend of mine sent me a link to this. Of course it's a mere fragment of in iterview with Milton Friedman and only begins to extrapolate upon a timely topic but his arguments are concise, to the point, and spot-on in their insight.

The "myth" of tax and spend "liberals" ("progressives," leftists, neo-comms) can now be put to rest...(for anyone not keeping up on the latest Obama wealth envy crusade, that's meant to be a joke).

This guy's really growing on me.

You can often effectively judge people by "the friends they keep." In politics, I think it's fair to say you can make some reasonable judgments regarding who they appoint as advisers as well.

This link is scary: Frontpagemag.com

On another not so unrelated topic, a great humorous mocking of Socialized Medicine, Canadian style.