PROMETHEAN ANTAGONIST

Impossible!

This guy at the People's Cube is brilliant, and not only for his very funny website.

I've pasted some excerpts below from his recent essay:

"...To summarize, state-enforced redistribution of wealth in the name of economic equality will always split society into two unequal classes: the corrupt autocratic elite and the powerless majority, impoverished by economic stagnation. Its utopian goals notwithstanding, the main characteristic of such a society is forced inequality. In order to function, the state must stifle dissent and subordinate previously independent institutions that helped to erect the collectivist edifice, such as the media, trade unions, trial lawyers, and other special interest groups. All special interests are superseded by the interests of the state, represented by an authoritarian leader.

The only real choice before us, therefore, is not between economic inequality and economic equality, but between two types of economic inequality.

One is the transparent, volunteer economic inequality of laissez-faire capitalism, where people are free to choose opportunities that they like — but that also lead to predictably different compensation. Whether it’s the intense life of a CEO taking risky decisions, or the safe but uneventful existence of a government clerk, or the relaxed bohemian lifestyle of an artist — these are free choices based on what best suits people’s character and makes them happy, taken with full knowledge of the potential risks and rewards. The CEO, the clerk, and the artist receive different compensation for their work, yet they are all equal before the law, which protects their contracts with society and with each other.

These are not rigid classes; people can change their lives if they want to, and their children do not have to follow in their footsteps if a certain lifestyle or profession does not match their idea of happiness. Their material rewards are just because they are determined by the free market, and the differences motivate everyone to be more creative and productive. This system has brought prosperity, opportunity, and happiness to most people, making them equal beneficiaries of liberty and human dignity, as long as they don’t succumb to crime, drugs, or class envy...."

That's how Victor Davis Hanson appaises circumstances in his recent -- excellent -- essay.

Some excerpts:

"Obama’s agenda polls less than 50% on almost every element. What keeps him viable is that the public still likes him and his family personally, and takes him at his unity/no blue state-no red state/can’t we all get along? 2008 rhetoric."

"Don’t they get the obvious: In reaction to that Olympian, above-the-fray brand, what does Obama do? He sends out two of the most unlikable, mean-spirited attack hounds to go after a news organization in Nixonian fashion, which only erodes the precious image of a kinder, gentler Obama—right now the administration’s only asset."

"One almost gets the feeling that Time, Newsweek, the NY Times, the LA Times, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR, MSNBC, CNN, the Huffington Post, etc. are all not quite enough to balance right-wing talk radio and Fox News."

"The problem is that (1) it is always harder to defend a president than criticize him (as the liberals can attest from their 8 years of demonizing Bush); (2) those in the right-wing media are more populist and grass-roots than those in the staid left-wing elite media establishment. So Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck can caricature Obama far more effectively than can a Rachel Madow or Brian Williams bow to him; (3) the traditional left’s homage to dissent, protest, free-wheeling media outbursts, demonstrations, and over-the-top commentary is now, to use a Nixon term, “inoperative.”"

"Somehow we went from revolutionary fervor to the boring Ministry of Truth in nine months."

Personally I found the left far more interesting when they were suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome than Obamophilia."

John Murtha in the age of Obama.

Change you can believe in.

The Chavez of the north rolls on with his socialist revolution.

I have to add that the mainstream media outlets -- whom I generally despise for their blatant bias -- deserve considerable praise for recognizing this serious attempt on the part of a president to declare war on a news organization.

'Like FOX or not, it's a member of the press...and, we still have a free press (lets hope we continue to when this neo-comm president if through "fundamentally transforming America").

The Chavez of the north rolls on with his socialist revolution.

I have to add that the mainstream media outlets -- whom I generally despise for their blatant bias -- deserve considerable praise for recognizing this serious attempt on the part of a presisdent to declare war on a news organization.

'Like FOX or not, it's a member of the press...and, we still have a free press (let hope we continue to when this neo-comm president if through "fundementally transforming America."

Great!

I have to qualify this link a bit. Lord Christopher Monckton (speaking in this video), is quite informed regarding the great global warming scam T.M. and articulates his position well. I'm a bit skeptical regarding most conspiracy theories though. I don't think there's an "international communist conspiracy" to create a world government. Having said that, I must add that I don't think there needs to be one because the very people Lord Monckton speaks of certainly would hope that such a world system emerged and though they probably wouldn't call it "communism," what they're hoping for is just that for all practical purposes. Calling one's self "progressive," "socialist," or "champion of the working class" doesn't change the fact that one wants a powerful bureaucratic and highly regulated system that is collectivist in nature -- call it what you want, it's a dictatorship.

"The environment" has become the latest and obviously most effective issue for the left to impose it's will -- again -- on a gullible audience.

Wow!

...'just don't suggest that any of these clowns are communists or sympathetic to the totalitarian ideology that killed over 100,000,000 people in the last century. Doing so would make you a "McCarthyite."

Judge your president by the friends -- and advisors -- he keeps.

If you can't read this, thank government educated and "certified" public school "teachers," college Ed schools, teacher unions and, of course, politicians and their ruling thought templates in bureau-mind.

Here's a photo of a total complete idiot.

As someone who navigated the bizarre and meaningless terrain of America's public school machine I can testify personally that what you read of in the news article linked above is something one could expect amongst the less than mediocre fools who guide policy and curriculum in today's schools.

I can't say it enough; what a total complete idiot!...fool!...Asshole!

...and wanna be tyrants.

This makes me sick.

The Honduras issue more than any recent foreign affairs issue shows where our current president really stands. It was bad enough that he barely showed even fleeting concern for the thousands of protestors in the Iranian dictatorship's recent bogus election ("we are very concerned" is about as much substance that we got from the administration). Snubbing the Dali Lama, well, to be expected (from the recipiant of a "peace prize" determined by fellow socialists).

The media, of course, has been, compliant in depicting events in Honduras as a "Coup." In fact, it could accurately be said that the legal government of Honduras prevented a coup by another Chavista Neo-comm in waiting.

Amazingly, Obama takes a clear side in the issue and sides with a defacto communist insurgent. What a surprise.

'Just trying to manifest another "dream" of his father's no doubt.

Here's an old classic.

Hugo Chavez has noted on more than one occasion that he is a "Maoist." That's just great. If there's a "worst brand" of communism, Maoism would be it.

Can you say "Killing Fields?"

(He just might be Jesus).

...and, if you think he's a hero, maybe you suck.

Hate rock music?
Hate homosexuals?
Hate freedom?

You then have good cause to love Che.

Insightful and intelligent; "A MYSTERY IN WHICH EVERYONE IS GUILTY".

Conservatives definitely need to get more of this stuff out there. The premise of the sarcasm is indisputable and anyone with a bone of honesty in them will acknowledge it.

Hilarious...and tragic.

...'little time but I wanted to put something up. This is an old post from the period of "the Iraq War" (remember that?) but the issue addressed is one that recently came up in conversation; the idea that anyone "willing" (stupid enough) to kill themselves (along with others don't forget!) must be motivated by something we should at least "try to understand." I've got a better idea, lets just call them assholes, condemn them -- completely, not half-heartedly -- and oppose their plans and actions. See, that wasn't so hard now, was it?

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

(from an earlier post)

I recently heard a common sentiment among the traitor crowd, a sympathy I've heard in so many words before; someone’s "cause" must indeed be "just" if they're willing to kill themselves for it. To this ridiculous defense of Islamic homicide/suicide bombings was added the idea that "they've lost everything... we’ve bombed their homes and killed their families...I’d be mad too..." This is of course a variation on the theme that radicals of any stripe are ultimately victims of poverty, oppression, and injustice. Islamo-fascists are poor and mistreated so they kill themselves and take bunch of random innocents with them – it’s really our fault.

Reality check, idiot:

The homicide/suicide bombers of Iraq and elsewhere are fanatic true believer's. If any of them happen to be poor, their economic status is an incidental factor to the fact that they are fanatical followers of a violent and oppressive cause -- their most basic motivation. The Kamikaze bombers of World War II dedicated themselves with equal fervor and it was hardly because of a sense of being poor or victims of imperialism. The Hitler Youth of Germany’s Nazi middle class possessed an allegiance to violence and “sacrifice” in service of their collectivist ideology as well. I think that it can be argued quit accurately that any self-esteem issues entering this picture are ones of too much self-esteem; Islamo-fascists think their philosophy and their role in it is so grand that, to some, their own self-induced death is a sort of dramatic fireworks display in honor of themselves. The fact that they believe they will arrive in heaven to a thankful god’s sex-fest reward system hardly causes them to ponder the absurdity of their actions. The average suicide bomber is not someone "retaliating for our having bombed their houses and killed their families.” In Iraq, it's pretty common knowledge that most attacks and suicide bombings are by foreign forces (i.e. from Syria and Saudi Arabia, etc.). "Jihad" began years before the Iraq war, before the Taliban in Afghanistan was removed from power, and before 9/11. The “brains” behind the Islamo-fascist's tactics, contrary to being poor are, like most radicals, pampered control-freaks from the middle and upper classes.

It is indeed a tragic fact that innocents have been killed in Iraq by carelessness or imprecision during specific strikes by the coalition but, as much as the left tries to paint circumstances otherwise, the coalition’s actions have never been deliberate attacks upon civilians or innocents. To the contrary, never before in the history of warfare has technology been so deliberately used to avoid civilian casualties. Most People's homes in Iraq have not been bombed and most families there have not been killed by coalition forces. One of the more bizarre quirks that regularly occur in this conflict is that, when a crazed homicide bomber kills numerous innocent bystanders; the response by some is to immediately blame George Bush for their deaths -- as if the bombers themselves literally played no part in the violence. Another issue seldom if ever raised by international media and critics is that, in spite of escalating casualties, the current deaths come no where near those from war and oppression in Saddam Hussein's Baathist police state.

At this point in the conflict in Iraq, violence is occurring as a result of Islamic fascist Jihad (as well as some former Baathists), an ideal that has nothing to do with poverty or injustice (the left’s catch-all alibi for any act of violence against free and open society). The homicide/suicide bombers of Islamo-Jihad are fanatics, plain and simple. Their ultimate objective is not to merely repel American troops and destroy the current government so as to "gain their freedom," it’s to establish an oppressive theological tyranny and extinguish all hope of freedom. The fact that this pathetic ideology can convince a few stupid fools to kill themselves in the process doesn't demonstrate justice in their “cause,” it merely shows that any stupid pet can be taught any stupid trick. The fact that some in the west express sympathy and support for them puts them on the same level (stupid left tricks?).

Deliberately blowing oneself up for the purpose of killing others is not an impressive act made out of desperation by “oppressed victims." It's the act of a fool, a fanatical one to be sure, but a fool nonetheless. Those who sympathize with their actions or see them as worthy of “understanding” are certainly no wiser – same stupidity, only without the suicidal drama gesture.

It can be argued by some that there are "things worth dying for," but aiding the imposition of statist or theocratic tyranny is not among them.