Tuesday, February 28, 2012
The Icon Only a Fool Could Love
Hate black people and refer to them as inferior and lazy
Advocate - plausibly - the destruction of a major metropolitan area (New York) with nuclear weapons, killing millions of people
Glorify violence and the "revolutionary" as a "killing machine"
Imprison homosexuals because they are homosexuals
Drive a thriving economy into the ground
Despise rock music as an expression of bourgeois decadence and imprison musicians who perform it
- A cultural thug
Confiscate personal property foreign and domestic
- A thief
...Hate the U.S. and capitalism, have your face plastered on a million T- shirts, and have a few fawning biographical films done by adoring rich Hollywood useful idiots;
All is forgiven
Sunday, February 26, 2012
The Middle Class; Comfortable but Striving (conservatives)…or, Spoiled, Arrogant, and Selfish (leftists)
('one of those posts from awhile back that I think raises some issue regarding the present).
The polarity of right and left political views (in the traditional spectrum scheme) can be seen in some ways as having evolved (or devolved) into a battle in values between two poles within the same class, the middle class -- upper and lower.
The lower ends of the middle class are genuinely bourgeois by most definitions. They have a satisfactory abode – but would like a nicer one. They have satisfactory transport but would like something better. They indulge themselves in hobbies and leisure pursuits but would certainly like to see them enhanced or embellished. They are materialistic and capitalist in sentiment (whether some of them realize it or not). Their life is good but they strive -- or at least wish -- for more and better.
The upper ends of the middle class have typically attained a nice dwelling, pristine transportation, refined leisure, and playful indulgences. They have far passed the realm of mere comfortable subsistence. For many of them “something more” moves into the world of ideals or some other compensation for a self-perceived loss of meaning. So it is that so many professionals; particularly lawyers, journalists, intellectuals, and entertainment personalities shrug off their own good fortune as something un-fulfilling and un-needed (though they’d be hard-pressed to actually relinquish their circumstance).
The lower middle-class in a successful free society has attained considerable power over their own lives and destiny as well as historically unheard of comforts. The upper middle class has reached the pinnacle of this achievement and is often left seeking power over others either directly or through their affiliation with a state enhancing political class. To this end they hope to fulfill their existential cravings. Of course, there are people in the lower middle class on the left, and upper middle class on the right. However, I think it can generally be said that those who have achieved the power over their own lives and leisure excess of the upper middle class begin to look toward other to extend their mastery in life.
The right and left can throw insults from a perceived allegiance to the values of “rich” or “poor” but their real battle in values is with others among their not so distant brethren; within the middle-class as a whole.
Today’s Democrat / Republican divide is example to the unfolding polarity of values between two styles of middle class existence.
Where many lower-middle class Americans had long been a sort of base to the Democrat party and many upper-middle class Americans supported the “pro-business” Republican party, this alignment has been almost entirely reversed in the last few decades.
The lower middle class today may not be specifically pro-business but they don’t share the Democratic Party’s evolving socialist perspective and bitter resentment of capitalist enterprise. The lower middle class today has very little in common with the professional / college “educated” elites that live well yet despise the system that has made it so. It is this clique' of elites that now dominate Democrat party politics. To be a moveon. Democrat today virtually guarantees that one does not drive a second-hand car.
For the Republican Party, a transformation of values has occurred as well. There is still a clearly pro-business perspective within the Republican Party. There is also a (much-exaggerated) presence of fringe evangelicals but most Republicans could be best defined as people who merely seek to restrain the cultural, political, and economic momentum toward the left that has been fostered by Democrats and their support system in pop culture. The new “South Park Republican” is more libertarian in its values and expresses a view of American political life that is much more in line with the values of “simple people” (the lower middle class) than the intellectual elites that now dominate the Democrat party.
Names like Noam Chomsky are well known in Democrat “progressive” circles but one would be hard-pressed to find an average lower middle class person who ever heard of the guy ('not really missing anything there).
It's almost funny to hear the Democrat of today repeat a mantra of concern for “the middle class” when mere decades ago it was “the poor! The poor!” Today's Democrat/ “progressive” is more likely to see the middle class in the old Marxist perspective as bourgeoisie (or “lumpen proletariat). Hearing the left state their concern is something to be skeptical of at best.
It may be idealistic of me to think so, but the lower-middle class has a sort of “yeoman farmer” quality to it that I find appealing – they are Post-modern Jeffersonians. Raising a family and enjoying life by seeking to improve one’s status is not a flaw. And the preoccupation Hollywood seems to have for viewing such people as violent, uneducated “rednecks” is at least greatly exaggerated if not conjured from their own dreams. Decency is a real attribute and I think it is to be found in greater numbers among the “simple folks.” By the same token, pampered spoiled brats who seek to vent their personal loss of meaning by imposing the values of statist socialism appear to me to be running a decency deficit. Simply saying one is “for the underdog” is meaningless when one is the overdog and merely wants a punitive government to attack people richer than ones’ self.
The standard rallying cries between “the rich” and “the poor” are of little value in discerning the real drivers of values and policy in America today. The front lines are occupied not by extremes of wealth difference but by the mere step between lower and upper with in a society that is basically middle class.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Germany, Italy, Japan, and their intellectual sympathizers...vs. free democratic peoples.
China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela (et.al.)...vs. free democratic people's.
Socialism/collectivism in all it's guises is alive and well and has even established firm outposts in the very democratic nations that could, hopefully, defend us from a world that looks like Iran or Russia.
Nothing changes...but the mental fashion statement appears to have become more than trendy unfortunately.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
An Election that Republicans Simply Don't Have to Lose
There are assuredly a host of fine points related to the economy and everything else that should guarantee a loss for his holiness, sir Barack Obama, in the upcoming election.
Of course the Republican party can easily slip up and run some clown like Rick Santorum to satisfy a few evangelicals and others who think that making a statement about abortion or people's sexual lifestyle is more important than unseating a socialist Manchurian “organizer.”
It occurred to me that the easy route to election success lies in some fortunate circumstances that don't appear fortunate – media bias.
Most of the mainstream media (Fox News, the obvious exception) is tilted left, sometimes absurdly so. The degree of bias has manifested in a string of blatant non-objectivity regarding Obama, his past, the economy, and how the stats play out regarding unemployment and “recovery” etc.
Media dishonesty has been so extreme that the Republicans are in the fortunate position of having to merely state the facts (no need for embellishment or distortion) regarding a host of issues that have been literally hid from the public. If Joe and Jane average citizen were to know what this clown and his cronies have been doing to the United States the last several years they would want anyone in the White house that wasn't Obama and company.
Start with the “stimulus.” There never was a stimulus. The great portion of almost a trillion dollars dedicated to supposedly jump-starting a devastated economy was nothing more than a wish list of corrupt Democrat politicians' vote-buying schemes.
In the last election, although it occasionally came up as an issue, Obama's background and associations were kept at room temperature. In fact, much of his past indicates he is a far left wing radical with little love for the United States as a constitutional republic. He's often criticised for being a “European style socialist.” That's being too kind. I'm thinking Eastern European circa 1960.
The socialists who now wear ties (instead of uniforms) are slick enough to “use the system” as it is to get the international bureau mega-state they've always dreamed of.
Mainstream media outlets aren't about to let the public in on a variety of things that are really no secret (i.e. the top 1% is paying almost 40% of America's taxes).
Time to “share the secret[s].”
This is no longer about minor pendulum swings between elections; four to eight years of increased social programs vs. cutting back – a little – to revive free enterprise. The current president promised before the election that he was on the verge of “fundamentally transforming” America.
He kept his word, and a good portion of the population is clueless as to the extent of the damage.
Again, all the Republicans need to do is tell it like it is, and like it hasn't been reported. The pampered “progressives” will of course vote for their man, and they'll no doubt be kicking and screaming (“marching”) like a Greek public “service” worker when he loses. Too bad.
Friday, February 17, 2012
I know he's occasionally "over the top" and clearly has passionate feelings regarding the scam and dishonesty of rabid "hate-filled" (to use their term) leftism but, I can totally relate.
Breitbart is cool...
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
An Incredibly Eloquent Speech
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
Snippets...(rants on Leftdom)
The difference between socialism and communism is that communism merely makes socialism mandatory.
I'd like to coin a new term: Pruppies (progressive yuppies).
Even in the most socialist of countries, the left can always be found clambering for more state intervention onto personal lives and punitive action against success and achievement. With that in mind, it can be accurately said that a communist is simply a socialist who has finally got everything they wanted - a totalitarian state completely under the control of their ideology.
Among the supreme hypocrisies of leftism is a feigned concern for society while simultaneously holding in contempt those who contribute the most to society through invention, production, and even simple payment of taxes. At the same time, those who produce or contribute nothing are held to be everyone else's sole purpose for existence. Self- important critics, leeches, and failures are the gods of their scheme while the literal creators of our rise from the swamps are seen as demons. This is not an oversight or mere misjudgment, but a deliberate destructive alliance with uselessness at war with purpose.
It's beyond ironic that those who speak so passionately of “the multicultural perspective,” relativism, and “honoring our differences” are so completely unable to tolerate or acknowledge the validity of the subcultures within America that are not distinctly intellectual, irreligious, or “progressive.” The entire multicultural relativistic “progressive” ('should always be in quotes) value system is completely bogus and strives for little more than a garden variety “will to power” and childish degrading of all who dare question their insincere motives.
In the phrase, “I am my brother's keeper,” it's interesting and revealing that those who now say this don't instead say something more sincere like, “I am willing to offer personal assistance to my brother and sisters.” “Progressive” thought is more commonly about keeping people in line, not assisting anyone in need.
When a “progressive” uses old sayings that used to mean something genuinely and personally altruistic it's important to realize what they now mean: “I am [want to be] my brother's [zoo] keeper.”
In regard to the left's attempts to paint caricatures of conservatism that are typically ridiculously excessive: Even a straw man should at least look like a real one.
You can be certain you're dealing with a genuine " progressive." when you mention little kids being fined by heavy handed police for having an unauthorized lemonade stand and the "Progressive's" response is a tepid defense of the " need" to ensure public lemonade safety.
Give a bureaucrat a clipboard and they think they own the world.
As long as human beings are material (made from matter), we will “objectify” each other to varying degrees in some way.
Monday, February 06, 2012
Hammers, Sickles, and Windmills
An excellent summation/overview of the "climate change" con.
Everyone wants a clean pristine and healthy planet. Not everyone wants another limp and contrived excuse to impose bureau schemes on the public and reduced standards of living. The left...they want what they've always wanted; said bureau schemes and reduced standards of living (as long as everyone -- but philosopher kings -- are equally sent back to the cave).