Showing posts with label Thought. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thought. Show all posts

Saturday, November 02, 2013

Fodder for Thought

My friend Paul emailed me this questionnaire that has not simply multiple choice answers, but opportunities to offer deeper thoughts on the questions raised.

I am sharing with readers all the responses submitted which were not one of the muliple choices provided. Five detailed responses in all.

I most certainly invite my readers to agree, disagree, or add and subtract to any of the answers I gave.

Additionally, you may find it useful to your own understanding of various issues to ponder these or other questions asked at the site; that is whether or not you submit your answers.

Think of it as a personal interview. Be careful not to be "push-polled" into giving an answer. An example of that is my answer to the question about Iran. At this point I do not know what should be done. Our national policy towards them was destroyed by Jimmy Carter. Every opening where we might have improved our relations were, in my opinion, bungled opportunities at best. All the worse ways of looking at how those opportunities were handled involve hidden agendas which invite open ended speculations which do little to solve the threats of Iran to the world today.

Do you support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)?



So many times tort reform has been discussed as the ultimate answer, but it falls flat each time. It may be due to Congress being so full of attorneys and influenced by the lawyer lobby. Also the media so in line with them that this discussion is never given a fair airing or a chance. Medical costs have risen directly proportional to out of control court awards (legal liability passed along to every patient as a natural part of the cost of doing business). Tort reform (in conjunction with a more punitive AMA for bad doctors) is the single biggest solution to the escalating health costs.

The nation would be better served with understanding the legal costs being a major portion of this problem if its media were not so filled with stupid or corrupt people.

Should the United States end its trade embargo and travel ban on Cuba?


If we keep it, those caught violating ought to be prosecuted. Not prosecuting undermines respect for the law. It's so bad, it is probably too late for that. As it stands, open contempt for law and selective (political) enforcement has become commonplace, which is unfitting for a republic of laws and more fitting of fascist tyrannies.

 How should the U.S. deal with Iran?


I don't know now. Easier solutions were available in past opportunities. Much of the current problem stems from our political system not wishing to admit they failed to take advantage of those earlier and easier solutions.

Should the U.S. maintain a presence at the United Nations?


 Should the U.S. continue NSA surveillance of its allies? 

 
Wherever did the notion that we don't keep an eye on everybody become a common understanding? When Ronald Reagan said "trust but verify" that seemed to be a general statement of one of the purposes of any nation's overall foreign policy. When did it become considered to be the symptoms of some form of national paranoia to engage in surveillance? This has been around since the beginning of time, only in less technological forms.

Monday, June 18, 2012

Man Thinks

Those who would rule you want you lowered to a howling or frightened lumpen-herd. They want you never to think of bigger things, of complex maneuvers. Most people reflexively shun the very idea of conspiracies because that's part of the conditioning. Occam's razor (keep is it simple stupid -- heh!) and Hanlon's Razor (mistakes are more likely than deliberate destruction -- no matter how often that happens -- heh, heh!). Just because there are stupid conspiracy theories, does not prove there are none who endeavor to conspire to take advantage of the ways the system functions or more precisely, is known to malfunction under certain stresses (Cloward-Piven). Besides, the First Triumvirate proves that powerful interests, even though enemies, can agree to short-circuit a republic just so the three or more involved can battle over control of the powerful nation that was built by the republic they aim to make into an empire.

So, today, thanks to a reminder by a reader form Kualar Lumpur, I am reprising a piece from late 2009, (before the TEA Party arose, or OWS was created to undermine its influence, and before the public employees unions tried to destroy Wisconsin) to remind us that it's our thinking that gives us a right to defend ourselves from tyrants.  Hence the tyrants don't want you thinking.

Defend Your Right to Exist


Nothing is more to be esteemed than aptness in discerning the true from the false. Other qualities of mind are of limited use, but precision of thought is essential to every aspect and walk of life. To distinguish accuracy from error is difficult not only in the sciences but also in the everyday affairs men engage in and discuss. Men are everywhere confronted with alternative routes--some true and others false--and reason must choose between them. Who chooses well has a sound mind, who chooses ill a defective one. Capacity for discerning accuracy is the most important measure of minds. --Antoine Arnauld The Art of Thinking

At the behest of a friend, I took the liberty of updating Arnauld's quote above to reflect our modern and scientific understanding of knowing (in keeping with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle), and have replaced truth with accuracy.


Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed. The entire universe need not arm itself to crush him. A vapor, a drop of water suffices to kill him. But, if the universe were to crush him, man would still be more noble than that which killed him, because he knows that he dies and the advantage which the universe has over him, the universe knows nothing of this.

All our dignity then, consists in thought. By it we must elevate ourselves, and not by space and time which we cannot fill. Let us endeavor then, to think well; this is the principle of morality.
-- Blaise Pascal Pensees 347 

Marie Claude brought the first quote to my attention at Belmont Club. I chose to use the second as it represents how these two allies influenced each other, and because the Philosophy Department at Oregon State University chose to use those quotes (out of many) to introduce these two philosopher/scientists, maybe for the same reason. Most of all, they serve well as a theme for this short discussion. Individual's have the RIGHT to fight gangs of men who act  no differently than all the unknowing brutal forces of the universe.


These two quotes illuminate the capacity of any man to understand what he may in a manner different from other creatures, be he genius or imbecile. What we are witnessing today is that too many of our geniuses are inclined to believe that all below them are imbeciles, and thereby somehow less noble than they.

Maybe -- maybe -- if we lived in a global meritocracy, there might be some grounds for the elite to run things. For then the most trusted executives with the most morally discerning lieutenants, the most competent professionals, the most just legal system, and the most charitable ombudsmen, they all would share the governing of the rest of us. Benign angels sowing peace and prosperity among men.



But what we have now is far worse. Tighten your seat belts, because right now you can meet a slew of people with whom you share sympathetic views most of the time -- and they may instantly fly off the handle were you to dare repeat the following observation. While in the Twentieth Century we survived at least two presidents who embodied the Peter Principle, in this Century we have been inflicted with presidencies that exemplify the Dilbert Principle. Made men are rightfully squeamish about their status, but the men who made them are angered that you dare pull back the curtain so that too many others might comprehend their scheming.

When the left and right sides of the aisles of government get along far better with each other than any of them do with most of their constituents, what would we expect?
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
We would expect that the last and current men at the top got there because moneyed interests had sound expectations that their wishes would be heeded.

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
I long ago discerned that  influential misanthropes must own the ear of many of our leaders simply because there no high profile party actively taking the contrary view (the "other side of the aisle") of the many proponents of negative population growth, while there was no lack of voices that found one thing or another wrong with religious faiths that consider innocent human life holy and deserving of protection and growth.


On top of it all, I believe I am not saying something new to you. Each of you has long ago suspected the same but were too trusting or too suppressed to bring it to voice. Heed your own senses! You have the gift of thought, and the natural instincts for self preservation. Stop acting like steers, and start acting like men again.  Know our wannabe masters want you enslaved and your drives perverted. Ignorance can be cured; you can cure it. No matter how much cowardice they have tried to inculcate in you, KNOW it is they who are that way by nature. Yes they may be ruthless, but they are cowards first. Make them fear you and you win.


The individual not only needs to resist the forces of conformity so that he may think more clearly for his own interests. He must encourage his neighbors to do the same. I know from experience, so I tell you that will be no easy task. Those who are looking to husband us like sheep need for us to look upon each other with more malice than we have for them.  S I N I S T E R  media exists for more than one reason! 

Love God with all your might, and love your neighbor as yourself.

That credo is the reason our secular world is working so hard to destroy Judeo-Christianity. (And so, beware the institutions of the faiths, because our masters have them controlled; for where they are not co-opted by the worship of man, then by they are often coerced into silence by means of the threat of taxation -- "the power to destroy.")

Learn to discriminate leaders from managers.  Beware of managers for whom you are are of no consequence other than objects for their own advancement; they believe they are superior to you.

You are men. Don't let the balderdash, thrown up by postmodern science, and spread by the relentless propaganda of the "sky is falling" media, convince you to deny the logic and gut senses God has given you.

You HAVE the ability to think on your own, to learn all that you need, to seek out and secure your own interests. To hell with this paternalistic, all powerful state and its statists and fascists and nutters.

It is in you.

Y O U  A R E  M A N!

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

What Say You?

"We are not voting ourselves out of this" is the line I am repeatedly reading.

So what sort of solution do I think offers us any non-confrontational relief?

We wind up voting The Bummer out. Eschewing any support for a third party will accomplish that.

Then we get very active, and let the TEA Party sentiment be the generally accepted rule and fly in the face of all efforts by the propaganda mills.

This time will be unlike how most of us behaved under GWBush. Much more like how we vocally objected to Harriet Myers and the Dubai ports trial balloons, and very less how we responded to his failure to push tort reform, put teeth into the Beck decision, or use his veto pen even before we remained silent on his growing government.

We daily fight to hold the GOP Prez to what is American and not European/Collectivist/Statist/Globalist.

I am just free wheeling here. Brainstorming. What say you?

Friday, December 02, 2011

Destroying Western Civ from Within

While responding to Seneca III at Crusader Rabbit a couple of day ago, I expressed some relatively mild criticism of John Stuart Mill when pointing Seneca to an informative commentary by Mike Gray over at The American Culture. In retrospect, I imagine even mild criticism of such a "Progressive" icon hits someone who thinks himself progressive with terrible cognitive dissonance.

Well, commenter “Jon”  responded to me with defensive condescension and pointed me to the first in a string of Mr Cropper video lectures about the famous Mill essay "On Liberty".


Because he left a phony email address, I could not inform "Jon" that the video series to which he sent me actually reinforces what real conservatives ought rightly fear about those who have long hidden behind JS Mill's "open mind" apologetic to shield them in their attacks on Western civilization.

Better even is what I discovered in the first four minutes of part 13. (Mr Cropper really gets cranked when discussing consequences between 4 and 7 minutes).


Partial transcript from first 4 minutes in the next 8 paragraphs:
"It is desirable, in short, that in things that do not primarily concern others, individuality should assert itself. If it were felt that free development of individuality is one of the leading essentials of well-being, there would be no danger that liberty would be undervalued." -- J.S. Mill.

If we could get to people that understand that individual freedoms are important for all of us to have the nice things we have -- like enough food to eat, houses to live in, freedom from war and poverty and whatever. If people understood that individuality as such, the freedom of the individual, is essential to bringing us the good life, then everybody would understand why we have to leave the individual free.

That is a lovely thought, and it's tempting, but it's not true. Today you can tell them that. You can say "Now look. We need the individual to act as he pleases as long as he doesn't hurt others." [And gives a list.]

And there is a group that responds: "To Hell with all that. I want trees and..." [gives a list of primitive, pristine land, untouched by humanity "forest primeval" sort of wishes.] "To Hell with mankind's good. To Hell the well-being" as John Stuart Mill says. "I want Nature to be better off."

There are even some crackpot idiots who rather not see us go to the Moon and other planets. Here are these balls of rock and dust floating through space. They hate mankind so much, they don't even want us to go there and disturb the rocks and dust. It is a sick, sick person who prefers mankind just disappear or reduce their numbers, or something, just so rocks and trees and fish can live. To remove this drive to go to Mars and the Moon is just -- is diabolical.

I wish he [Mill] were right about this. If we understood that it's freedom that leads to our well-being, we would all be in favor of freedom. As a matter of fact, if you think that freedom leads to our well-being, there are these people who will say
"OK. Freedom is obviously a bad thing then. We need to have state controls on stuff. We need to stop the building of new power plants; we need to stop new highways; and stop new housing; we need population controls on people; and the number of new babies being born; and reduce the population."
You cannot get passed them. It's called environmentalism. It's a new cult, a new religion. They don't even profess to be scientific; at least the communists were scientific about their nonsense, or claims to be.  These people just claim morality is all they're after. And that humans are immoral; destroying trees is immoral. So you can't convince them Freedom is good -- it leads to SUVs.  That's why they're pissed.
Mr Cropper is demonstrating the kind of thinking that leads to my complete overview of why Western Civ is being destroyed from within. He is one step removed from asking this question,
“If our “leaders” are so humanitarian, how is it that we never hear them direct a harsh word at the Malthusian, Utilitarian and Green nutcases?”
for which the plausible answers are not comforting for individuals and any desire they have for their own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Two Followups

First off, as a followup to Shock: ABC Consistently Inconsistent. Verum Serum posted a video Occupy San Diego Has A Moment of Solidarity for the White House Shooter. This, too, will most certainly be ignored by ABC "News" as well as the rest of the Agency of Lies (puppettedly also known as the MSM). It does not fit the Obama White House narrative, so forget widespread coverage. (I pray each day that the ostriches in my wider family will see some of this and finally work with me).

Secondly, as a followup to Will Mark Levin Ask Newt My Two AGWF Questions?, let me first summarize what transpired beginning at 1:42:40 of Mr. Levin's 11/16/11 podcast.
  1. Right out the gate, Mr. Levin asked Mr. Gingrich "Global Warming: Yes, no, or you don't know?" But IMO it was the wrong question by not being specific. It weakened all followup questions.
  2. As a result Newt skated away evasively by making Cap and Trade the issue he addressed. And he interrupted Mr. Levin's attempt to prod with a sharp-edged follow up!
  3. Mr. Levin ended his Wednesday show with this interview. He profusely apologized for running out of time. But he had also said, early in the show, that he planned it that way. Huh?
  4. I do not wish to impugn Mr. Levin's integrity, but whatever is the truth about this show I continue to feel like it was too staged. And worse: staged for the benefit of darker forces. The interview cast little light but I can assure you that he raised my heat.
The current issue is that EPA declared on its own that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. That decision is of monumental importance due to the mountainous regulations and restrictions imposed by the EPA. Such a decision is arguably constitutionally lawless.

An assertion of such consequence and magnitude while also being highly controversial (despite Al Gore's royal sounding infamous assertion that "the discussion is over") is thus political.

Political issues are supposed to be hashed out in Congress, not by the executive branch and its agencies, and not by the judiciary.

The problem with providing an opening for Mr. Gingrich to focus his commentary on Cap and Trade is that Cap and Trade is currently a dead issue. It was killed even by a veto proof Democratically controlled congress in 2010 before the elections that brought us Republican "control" of the House of Representatives.

Tuesday, December 07, 2010

Why Don't You Just Give Up Crusader?

A couple of days ago, after I spotted a six year old boy with what looked like aging real tattoos, could I have been more disapproving of parents who tattoo their babies?
[They should] be horsewhipped, with adequate explanation as to why, and what consequences to expect next were they to do it again.
Were it made clear this was literal lashing and not metaphorical it would have been harsher. Then recall too that I noted that this punishment was preferential to calling in Child "Protective" Services (CPS) for reasons that would soon be demonstrated.

For on the very next day -- yesterday -- I posted on a story that reinforced my misgivings about how dangerous CPS can be. When they thrust into a situation, and decide to give a baby over to the state care, they then provide the state the opportunity to kill a baby "for its own good" (or to save scarce medical resources) whichever reason those who had seized upon such power would dare admit.

So after I posted that second commentary, I was confronted by an email about the first commentary.
Re: your essay on a child's tattoo:

Did you think to check Google for information on the Legal Age for tattoos in CA?
Cal AB 186 requires registration with county health dept and facility inspection.  tattooing of minors is prohibited
Well It's illegal.  Did you report it?  Don't just bellyache.
My response:
Did you not read of the dangers from CPS? Reporting it is what the power-mad Statists WANT. Quoth Shakespeare: "The law is an ass." Besides, the tattoos could have been temporary. Sure, these looked like old inked ones that had faded as the kid grew up. However, the man with the kid wasn't tattooed himself, so I doubt he was responsible. I was not gonna make a federal case out of this and I would never recommend anyone else do it either.

What I want is for people to hear that I disapprove. What I want is for others to begin airing disapproval where and when it is appropriate. Like on a blog.

The airing of disapproval is the kind of thing that has been suppressed by the Left. PC thought permeates the entire society. We have been Politically Cowed into silence about the most basic and commonsensical of observations. Speaking up fights that too.

To hell with the opinion-suppressors already. If you have good reason to disapprove of something, let the world know it. Then maybe parents will think twice before being so STUPID. That's the way to save the child, and your neighbors from their own stupidity. Don't let the state get involved unless it's traditionally appropriate to do so. How do you know?  Here's a fine rule of thumb: If your great grandparents didn't call the police, you shouldn't either.

One more thing: CPS is a terrorist organization as far as I'm concerned. I'm sorry you don't agree.

I don't give up because I understand too well how social mores have been rushed downhill due to the useful idiocy of the Left to the benefit of Statists.

Rather than let such short-sighted messages as prompted this commentary leave me in despair, I intend to use them to demonstrate how short-sighted my neighbors can be. I think they are short-sighted because in the past I lacked the patience to try and convey my deeper thoughts. The need to develop two forms of patience -- one to understand their resistance and the other with the work it takes to arrange my thoughts -- are probably good topics for another time.

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Restoring Rationality To Argument

As I've been rereading CS Lewis' The Abolition of Man, I began to recognize how our Conditioners have removed rational thought from so much in our lives.

I wasn't thinking of that when media, having played down the size of the 8/28 Rally, spurred to build the scaling tool last Saturday afternoon to shine a light on their lies.

But since then I thought about what I had done, and it dawned on me I had something even more important to share. I had worked to introduce rationality to my argument, and its something that is woefully missing from so much we see in media.

Comparing quantitative sizes of objects to aid argument is literally rational. And because what I did can be duplicated, everybody who does knows I'm telling the truth. It's real value to my efforts to increase honest discourse and reduce the dishonest is in its duplicability.

And we know that the media has the tools to do exactly what I did, but they didn't. Why? Because then they couldn't lie about the size of the crowd. Oh they could try; but then others would come along and try to duplicate it, and thus their lie would be exposed. That would make their lie explicit. This way, their lie is only implicit -- but still a lie with which they've been trying to wiggle out of with really stupid density figures.

More than just math.

But rational argument is more than just math. When we compare attitudes or agendas, and gauge where their leaning or heading, we are engaging in rational thought. CS Lewis, in the first of his lectures in The Abolition of Man, the chapter titled Men Without Chests, he told of the new direction in methods that had been taught the next generation of teachers. Most striking was how the next generation of students would deliberately be taught to throw out the hard earned lessons of the past, and to think of each old problem entirely anew. They would be denied learning of the history of the past so that they could no longer compare the results of what worked and what did not work.

In that course of events were buried deliberate efforts to destroy access to knowledge that allows us to be fully rational.

What are you going to do about trying to remedy that horrible scheme?

Well, I'll tell you what I have done. The last three days are the beginning of a series in which I've striven to point out where rational argument can be reintroduced. One of these was in the line wherein I strongly recommend restoring balance to our judgment. We often hear about the loss of our American meritocracy. Well duh! We can bring it back by giving credit where it is due and pointing out where the shortcomings are, and stop worrying about hurt feelings. Better hurt feeling than someone die because no one dared caution them that they were headed off a cliff. It's not a hard concept to grasp.

And by all means, if you see someone misleading another, and it's not to teach the lesson that a mild misdirection will provide, then speak up and warn the misled subject even if you forgo berating the misleader.

"What I'm talking about today is our need to think twice before will succumb to our earnest desire to project our decency on they who are not (do unto others as thou would have done to thee) so as to better balance that with our need to reward and withhold reward based on merit. For where we are too lax in assuring there is balance, we should not be surprised to find ourselves up to our eyeballs in a muck that is the consequences of demerit after demerit overlooked."

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Wisdom and Antiwisdom

The essay by Angelo Codevilla has captured the imagination of a great many. It occurred to me that slightly updating and republishing this old essay may prove useful. It highlighted key areas where our wannabe Ruling Class fostered actions that undermined our good cultural influences and promoted bad ones. The latent excesses in human nature had been greatly suppressed by institutions that our ancestors had built for that purpose. Local community checks on excesses were a Puritanical legacy. That key foundation I think was targeted first. Then anything that could be linked to it became fair game. It took about three generations to near thoroughly inflitrate and rot out most of those institutions.

We are the people the globalists have been waiting for: us foolish caretakers of America, descendant guardians of the liberties she was created to safeguard.

Have we so fumbled that we've fatally lost the baton?

I want to thank fellow Belmont Club member Cowboy for commenting on PrezZero's shunning of the Boy Scouts of America's Centenial Year Jamboree.

[The BSA is] the one institution [the Progressives] founded that’s worth a damn. It’s actually the crown jewel of their legacy had they eyes to see it, and boy do they hate it so!

That strongly reminded me of a similar passage in another of my essays that itself was influenced by the following. The Ruling Class' hatred of all our earlier liberty-guarding institutions begs us to reform them all.




April 17, 2005

Wisdom and Anti-Wisdom

By Pascal Fervor

Let me share a 1970s memory of a published interview with the dean of the Harvard Business School. The dean lamented his own participation in the new business ethic.
“We have ruined American business for the foreseeable future. We taught the next generation of executives a new credo:  'One cannot afford to plan for the future of the company; one must get what one can today. Engaging in long-range planning would only carpet the luxurious offices of the executives who will replace you because of your poor performance this year.'”

I asserted one week earlier that morality is only applicable for oneself by oneself. Now I will present the case why it is wise to choose to do so. Self-interest. Long term. Optimism.

In the case of the corporate CEO, a moral corporate outlook, indeed the outlook of any morally restrained leader, requires a level of nobility of purpose that our mea culpable dean and his generation of educators had chosen to cashier. Much of moral outlook frequently takes the form whereby one chooses that self-interest extends beyond the self. Heroes in war and in fiction abound in this. Restraining ones immediate appetites for the purpose of advancing some loftier goal is a choice that is always available. Yet the inclination to same has so fallen out of favor with the self-anoited intellectual crowd, who have given it such pejorative appelations that they can vex a saint, that you sense that the intellectuals have long-lost any sense of nobility themselves. How could this be? 

But what about what you do, Dear Reader? Over what of your many choices of behavior have you thought long and hard about? Who have you approached for advice? Have you even consulted your own experience?

Sunday, July 11, 2010

Ayn Rand Loved Titans, Not Mankind?

Atlas Update: Web-searches suddenly hit here on May 21, 2011 -- Why?

Here’s a challenge for Randians.
What Marx provided the Leftists, Rand provided the Statists: a false flag behind which they hide their true intentions from the gullible.
I say this because members of both camps contain power lusters and misanthropes. Whatever else they have done, and will do yet, to achieve their goals, their results prove to be devastatingly misanthropic. (Can we guess which element is truly in charge?)

Key Observations:
Consider that Rand’s pièce de résistance was titled for a bloodless titan.

Consider that she kills, without any sense of loss, the two most identifiable and likeable humans in her novel. 
  • Taggert’s wife Cheryl1 commits suicide out of frustration and despair.
  • Eddie Willers is torn apart by the mob while doing his job beyond the call of duty (like the men we remember today*). He did it in habitual defense of the property of Rand’s “heroine” who had herself abandoned the field without telling him, her long-time loyal friend. Dagny (Rand?) displayed no gratitude.
Key Cautionary:
What individuals — who are wary of ideologies but are disorganized — need to see is that the Marxists and the Statists are two ends of the same vise, with real humans in the middle. That is the struggle going on in Atlas Shrugged and that we are witnessing today, with we in the middle being set up to cut each other's throats

Initially I very much liked Atlas Shrugged. It seemed a welcome antithesis to the Leftism that was whirling for the 40-50 years on either side of its publication.

Know men by their deeds not their words:
So what first alerted me to the deceitful side of Rand? The actions and words of her most lauded acolyte, Alan Greenspan.

When Greenspan said “who in their right mind would buy a 4.5% fixed mortgage when a 3.75% variable is available?” I knew he either was intentionally deceitful, or someone had something terrible they used — and he succumbed — to get Greenspan to abandon those who trusted him. Like Rand did Willers.

A Unique Observation?
I’d like to know: Am I the first person you have read to make this observation about Rand? I’ve not seen it written elsewhere.

Could it be because those on the Left, who are more inclined to criticize her, would never make such a comparison? And certainly not from the libertarians who shun from their ranks any who did not conform to a certain level of coldbloodedness. Nor from the corporatists (often mistakenly accepted as conservatives) who we know seek legislation that gives advantages to themselves and disadvantages, cripples or demolishes their competitors.

The Challenge:
On this day of remembrance, where acolytes and apologists of Rand are among those who question the wisdom of willing self sacrifice, I’d like to hear a defense of her attitude to the common man.

Not the “man” she paints as a defiant titan like Galt or Reardon or Rourke, and of independent means, but a common man who is a success in his own right, in the decent things he does and the loyalties he demonstrates — like Willers.

Conclude with Safety in Mind:
For the rest of you, this day for remembrance of fallen heroes may be of aid when you decide it is time to jump out from between the jaws of the tyrants’ vise.

Oh, and let me be clear:
And I'm not saying that providing cover for the Statists was Rand's intention starting out. It's simply that her philosophy didn't consider all the ways in which schemers could use her thesis. And surely her advancement, especially in Hollywood, had something to do with her brilliance being seen as useful by the power seekers. As her cult of personality grew, surely she came to love her adulation. She may have chosen to look the other way as the Statists took advantage. She was too bright not to have noticed.

----------------
*Note, the bulk of this was written on Memorial Day and referenced here and published here. But it deserved a place at this site because I'm pretty sure Ayn Rand was no fan of Blaise Pascal. He'd have seen her as just another casuist who lost her moral underpinning.

1It surely seems that in this crowd of Objectivists, none see what I am proposing. I suspect it is because of their reverence for Rand. Are they misled or have they willfully permitted themselves to be misled?

Monday, May 31, 2010

Partials

1. Randians are Statist Dupes:
On the same Belmont Club thread that prompted my post of yesterday, a fan of Ayn Rand opined less than gratefully about those we commemorate on Memorial Day.
"For some, this 'sacrifice' is no sacrifice at all, if it means preserving what they most value in life." 
That struck me as a bit too much like:
"I agree. It's important we fight them. Here: let me hold your coat."

It compelled me to write down this explanation that I've long had stewing about Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism. Even she gave fair warning that it may not be all that pleasing for the common man.

In my comment I support the claim
What Marx provided the Leftists, Rand provided the Statists: a nifty false flag behind which they hide their true intentions from the gullible.
In fact Rand's philosophy aids Statists to both hide their true intentions with talk of freedom's blessings while at the same time legitimizing their gains over our liberties. Here's is what got my Spidey-sense tingling:
So what first alerted me to the deceitful side of Rand? The actions and words of her most lauded acolyte, Alan Greenspan. 

When Greenspan said “who in their right mind would buy a 4.5% fixed mortgage when a 3.75% variable is available?” I knew he either was intentionally deceitful, or someone had something terrible they used — and he succumbed — to get Greenspan to abandon those who trusted him. Like Rand did Willers.
(Comments inspired me to write more on this.)

2. The Problem with Conservatism.
The label Conservative is a conflicted banner under which to fight tyranny. The reason should be obvious. In a word: Inertia. Last week's outrageous collectivist demand has become today's status quo. Conservatives, as a whole, feel comfortable with the status quo. "Wake me when they really do something."

We got to today's status quo because "Progressives" understood that conservatives will not fight a simple request in light of far more unsettling demands.
"What's a penny to you? A nickel? A quarter?
What's incremental? LOL You slippery-slopers make me laugh."
They know that there are plenty in the conservative community who may be relied upon to relinquish a little ground just so long nobody lets the boat be rocked too violently (as the radicals, the Progressives' ally, threaten). And especially if it is only another conservative who has to pay. How much evil advances this way?

Ironic isn't it? The lines attributed to the godfather of conservative philosophy, Edmund Burke, states the paradox we face simply:
"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

A chief problem of conservatives is that we tend not to want to move unless forced to do so. When the Progressives of the nineteenth century started labeling their adversaries as reactionaries, they weren’t far off. It still takes a palpable threat to get us off the dime. Please: find some way to demonstrate how I’m wrong about this.

3. Bookends to the Age of Reason:
I have often thought of Blaise Pascal (d 1662) and Clive Staples Lewis (d 1963) as these bookends.

When Pascal developed the mode of satire with which he undermined the scoundrels who used the Counter Reformation for their own elevation to power, he helped tumble the old order. Reason and rationality were used to great effect in The Provincial Letters and the public grew fond of it. By the time of Thomas Paine. it showed commoners to be the equal of kings in standing before the Lord, and ushered in the era that proved that human advancement would be the better for it.

But by the time of Lewis, the Fabians had brought England to the brink, and the postmodern era was about to embark shortly after the end of WW II. My favorite of his writings, perhaps because they were dry and to the point even as he needed to say what he did discretely, was The Abolition of Man. Simply contemplating that title, I pray you can see why I call him the other bookend to the Age of Reason.

A man's most effective weapon is his brain. "Progressives" have long aimed to gain control, and indeed have gained control of education. How well do you read and figure? How well does the up and coming generation? The trend is telling.

Sunday, December 06, 2009

Defend Your Right to Exist


Nothing is more to be esteemed than aptness in discerning the true from the false. Other qualities of mind are of limited use, but precision of thought is essential to every aspect and walk of life. To distinguish accuracy from error is difficult not only in the sciences but also in the everyday affairs men engage in and discuss. Men are everywhere confronted with alternative routes--some true and others false--and reason must choose between them. Who chooses well has a sound mind, who chooses ill a defective one. Capacity for discerning accuracy is the most important measure of minds. --Antoine Arnauld The Art of Thinking

At the behest of a friend, I took the liberty of updating Arnauld's quote above to reflect our modern and scientific understanding of knowing (in keeping with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle), and have replaced truth with accuracy.


Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed. The entire universe need not arm itself to crush him. A vapor, a drop of water suffices to kill him. But, if the universe were to crush him, man would still be more noble than that which killed him, because he knows that he dies and the advantage which the universe has over him, the universe knows nothing of this.

All our dignity then, consists in thought. By it we must elevate ourselves, and not by space and time which we cannot fill. Let us endeavor then, to think well; this is the principle of morality.
-- Blaise Pascal Pensees 347 

Marie Claude brought the first quote to my attention at Belmont Club. I chose to use the second as it represents how these two allies influenced each other, and because the Philosophy Department at Oregon State University chose to use those quotes (out of many) to introduce these two philosopher/scientists, maybe for the same reason. Most of all, they serve well as a theme for this short discussion. Individual's have the RIGHT to fight gangs of men who act  no differently than all the unknowing brutal forces of the universe.


These two quotes illuminate the capacity of any man to understand what he may in a manner different from other creatures, be he genius or imbecile. What we are witnessing today is that too many of our geniuses are inclined to believe that all below them are imbeciles, and thereby somehow less noble than they.

Maybe -- maybe -- if we lived in a global meritocracy, there might be some grounds for the elite to run things. For then the most trusted executives with the most morally discerning lieutenants, the most competent professionals, the most just legal system, and the most charitable ombudsmen, they all would share the governing of the rest of us. Benign angels sowing peace and prosperity among men.



But what we have now is far worse. Tighten your seat belts, because right now you can meet a slew of people with whom you share sympathetic views most of the time -- and they may instantly fly off the handle were you to dare repeat the following observation. While in the Twentieth Century we survived at least two presidents who embodied the Peter Principle, in this Century we have been inflicted with presidencies that exemplify the Dilbert Principle. Made men are rightfully squeamish about their status, but the men who made them are angered that you dare pull back the curtain so that too many others might comprehend their scheming.

When the left and right sides of the aisles of government get along far better with each other than any of them do with most of their constituents, what would we expect?
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right

We would expect that the last and current men at the top got there because moneyed interests had sound expectations that their wishes would be heeded.

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
I long ago discerned that  influential misanthropes must own the ear of many of our leaders simply because there no high profile party actively taking the contrary view (the "other side of the aisle") of the many proponents of negative population growth, while there was no lack of voices that found one thing or another wrong with religious faiths that consider innocent human life holy and deserving of protection and growth.


On top of it all, I believe I am not saying something new to you. Each of you has long ago suspected the same but were too trusting or too suppressed to bring it to voice. Heed your own senses! You have the gift of thought, and the natural instincts for self preservation. Stop acting like steers, and start acting like men again.  Know our wannabe masters want you enslaved and your drives perverted. Ignorance can be cured; you can cure it. No matter how much cowardice they have tried to inculcate in you, KNOW it is they who are that way by nature. Yes they may be ruthless, but they are cowards first. Make them fear you and you win.


The individual not only needs to resist the forces of conformity so that he may think more clearly for his own interests. He must encourage his neighbors to do the same. I know from experience, so I tell you that will be no easy task. Those who are looking to husband us like sheep need for us to look upon each other with more malice than we have for them.  S I N I S T E R  media exists for more than one reason! 

Love God with all your might, and love your neighbor as yourself.

That credo is the reason our secular world is working so hard to destroy Judeo-Christianity. (And so, beware the institutions of the faiths, because our masters have them controlled; for where they are not co-opted by the worship of man, then by they are often coerced into silence by means of the threat of taxation -- "the power to destroy.")

Learn to discriminate leaders from managers.  Beware of managers for whom you are are of no consequence other than objects for their own advancement; they believe they are superior to you.

You are men. Don't let the balderdash, thrown up by postmodern science, and spread by the relentless propaganda of the "sky is falling" media, convince you to deny the logic and gut senses God has given you.

You HAVE the ability to think on your own, to learn all that you need, to seek out and secure your own interests. To hell with this paternalistic, all powerful state and its statists and fascists and nutters.

It is in you.

Y O U  A R E  M A N!

Monday, May 26, 2008

Resolved: Conservatives Are Useless As Defenders of Liberty

The title of this post strikes me as a good premise for a debate. Spinelessness is not a good trait for those claiming to defend what is Right.

Let me lay out some arguments that might be useful in this debate that I feel is long overdue.

First of all. the very word conservative implies someone who is not apt to budge much. The run-of-the-mill liberal, on his more docile days, might limit his definition of a conservative to that.

Of course "stick in the mud" might be the thought they have refrained from expressing on that day of benevolence. But that is the liberals' impression of a conservative on the libs' less outrageous days.

Ultimately the conservative individual has no desire to mess with politics. Politics is for busybodies. This is where the basic meaning of conservative – one who conserves – comes into play. "I've got mine. Gotta protect it. Best not to do anything that may endanger it; that wouldn't be prudent." These are hardly the same type of individuals who wrested colonial America from King George. On what pipe dream do you imagine they'll come through now, in the clinches?

The words "leave things as they are" is a front for another thought that just about every individual has uttered one time or another: "LEAVE ME ALONE." Yes sir. That is truly conservative.
  • I look at John McCain. I hear the Left SCREAMING that he is an extreme right winger. This is the man who fathered a bill that scrapped the first amendment to ultimately aid professional politicians, labels border defenders as racist, and thinks Americans cause global warming.

  • I hear radio host Hugh Hewitt promote his show with a Keith Olbermann spot calling Hugh a "fringe talker." A RINO like Hugh gratefully uses such "gifts" from lunatic-lefties to bolster his flaccid bono fides as a Rightist. [ugh!] It is a fact that Hewitt used his influence in California to aid the phony-right Schwarzenkennedy in the Davis recall election by blocking-out the legitimate-right McClintock with stupid-liberal tricks. His most effective ploy was in softening whatever backbone conservatives might have had with his relentless inflating of a Bustamonte Boogeyman. The latter pol really had not-an-icicle's-chance-in-hell because he was even more inclined to the policies that got Davis in trouble to begin with. The Lefty outrages of Davis gave the Right the first real chance to win on principle in decades, and Hewitt constantly fear-mongered against going that route. From envirofascism to illegals, Arnold is demonstrably more Left than Davis ever was.
Come on liberty loving Americans. With the Left labeling either of these gentleman as extreme Right and MSM echoing the labels, just where does that put the vast majority of Americans?

Do you know what MARGINALIZED means America?

Where are the true leaders of the Right? Real leaders of the Right will ride roughshod over of this "official" political spectrum foisted by establishment media and make a mockery of it. They will break out of the Ideological Corral once and for all.

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Metamorphosis

In Weapons Turned Inward, Wretchard observed how some left-leaning partisans see insanity in the internecine warfare that has erupted in the Democratic Party because of rock star Obama's "new" front moving in from the Left and threatening the Clintonista leadership as nobody has before.

Wretchard opined that it was not truly insanity "but the rational application of the demented rules of left-wing politics."
Well, what are the demented rules to which Wretchard is referring? He mostly alluded to them in much the same manner that the Democratic front-runners avoid admitting what rules they are following.

But in the comments others flushed it out. It is of the politics of division that Democratic Party has nurtured for, it seems, forever. And it has become brittle as its subdivisions jockey for position, in a hierarchy that is now viewed up for grabs. "Me first! No me!"

Wretchard finally gave us an inkling as to how he viewed where the application of those rules were leading with this:
"The problem with the politics of infinite subdivision is that it inevitably fractures the party which manufactures the categories itself. Eventually the Party itself becomes a pile of sticks that can't be shifted without everything falling to the ground."
And that is where he inspired me to comment. I saw that Wretchard's pile of sticks were symbolically what happens when a fasces has lost its binding chord.

I asked Wretchard of what he thought the binding chord was made. He responded: "Hate" and a bit more. Go read it.

Alright, now here's the point of the title of this piece as inspired by Wretchard's invoking the symbol of the fasces.

The fasces was originally a symbol among those with a common interest to provide for their defense. It originated with the Etruscan League.

After the Etruscan King was kicked out of Rome, it was adopted by the Romans to represent their republic: A state formed to provide a common defense among more or less equals; who were bound together in a ways similar to how the sticks bound to the ax handle protects it from attacks to it flank, its weakest point; and who elected its leaders to wield the weapons of the state.

These United States also adopted the fasces. It symbolized the words of Benjamin Franklin:
“We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
However, the fasces had also carried over into the Roman Empire as a symbol. The difference was that the dictator then decided who it was that he represented; who it was that protected his flank; and who was not to be included because they were a threat to his power -- and, of course, by extension, a threat to the state. This was the meaning of the symbol that Mussolini has come to represent. It is the meaning most associated with the fasces today.

Wretchard's post clearly shows that in the Democratic Party at least, the common interests that it represented once, working folk, the less privileged members of society, who banded together to elect its leader, have morphed from a republican form into a fascist form of organization. Wherein its leaders decided WHO best represents the special interests for whom it claims to speak. In other words, the leadership decides who are allowed to be the sticks that protect its flank rather than "the sticks" deciding who its leadership should be.

Wretchard laid the groundwork for today's observation a few years ago with this line:
"One of the sources of the inhuman 'strength' of the Left is its refusal to acknowledge the existence of anything smaller than a mass noun. Rhetorical service to the people, masses, workers, peasants; the poor and the downtrodden are objects worthy of the Left; but love, pity and sorrow for individuals is sentiment beneath contempt."
The reason the Left can ignore individuals is because it is not individual's voices that are heard. Individuals from each of the interests groups the Left claims to represent are MARGINALIZED whenever they disagree with the Left's leadership. How could it be made much more clearer than suffering from or even witnessing such behavior? The Left's leadership clearly cares less for members of any of its groups than it does about being able to claim without contradiction to be doing what it wants "in the interest" of its groups. (And largely succeeds since both it and the MSM it inhabits block or discredit complainants from its groups.)

Examples abound. The left calls women who reject feminist ideology female impersonators. It loves Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, men who make demands that provide government an excuse to grow and to steal via taxation, but it hates brilliant economists like Sowell and Williams because they recommend the opposite. Duh. And homosexuals who merely want to be left alone, and are appalled by the radicals' agenda, are dismissed or threatened. In fact they have nasty names and exclusionary labels for members of every group who dare say "Now wait, not so fast..." even before they can finish stating their complaints.

That behavior is simply more obvious in the Left, because it has been going on there much longer. But ask most any conservative today if the GOP hears his complaints. You will hear that his words have been shucked to the side with a sneering "what can you do about it other than elect people who are worse than me? Shut up, you bother me."

In short, what we are seeing here has been metamorphosing in these United States in both main parties, and in the central government as well, but quite a bit more obviously in the Democratic party. The fasces today stands less for the republican form and more for the dictatorial form of the state.

Metamorphosis is how the fasces went from representing the defense of common interests who choose their leader, to one where the leader replaces, one by one, those who represent the individual interests with men of his liking.

Can what is left of free men still form a strong defense for the common interest of all and elect real leaders to defend them? Can the republican form symbolized by the fasces be brought back to save the day? That remains to be seen.

**UPDATE**
I received an email from "Carry_okie" in which he stated something with which I agree in large part because I know how violations of the tenth commandment easily lead to personal unhappiness.

In it Carryokie is indirectly referring to Wretchard's comment that what binds the fasces of the Democratic Party is hate. Carryokie qualified that a bit more:
"Not quite.

Its leaders decide WHO gets protected, who takes the whack, and who gets to define the covetousness with which it is bound.

Covetousness is a better binder than hate because it is entirely subjective and need not be sated. Indeed, it is the insatiable nature of covetousness and the fact that any attempt to sate it leaves the "benefactor" less capable of delivering that makes it such a powerful binder. One need only offer the hope that you'll deliver the goodies, because you can always blame the bad guy if you don't.

Certainly one hates those they envy, but it is the unrequited desire to take that drives that hate." [emphasis added]
Thank you Carryokie.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Something Eternally Undeniable

There are many believers in God: the theist.

There are many believers that God does not exist: the atheist.

But one thing this agnostic does know for a certainty:
The Concept of God exists.
And that irritates all the rulers and demigods and their nefarious aides that ever existed.

Whether or not God exists, the Concept of God stands between the individual and those who would treat him as less than human. All the anti-theistic efforts in the world can never put an end to the Concept.

Where there are human beings -- or, indeed, any thinking beings -- there will be the Concept of God.

Thursday, March 06, 2008

Ades to Corruption

aide
–noun
1. nurse's aide.
2. an aide-de-camp.
3. an assistant or helper, esp. a confidential one.
-- from Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
I've long wanted to have a short word that I and others could use that would be an apt label for one who helps forestall or prevent reforms to decadent institutions.

The closest historical word, antidisestablishmentarian, is way too unwieldy to use for reformers to make any headway with.

I initially thought about using the near acronym ADET. This is comprised by taking the first letters of antidisestablishmentarian's two prefixes (Anti and Dis), the the first letter in Establishment and the first letter of the suffix (Tarian). While it has the advantage of a unique appearance, it sounds way too diminutive in speech. Hence I think it sounds far too benign to convey the nastiness to which protectors of bad bureaucracies have been known to resort.

However, the word aide already exists, and the word antidisestablishmentarian is clearly a subset of aide definitions 2 and 3. So, I think I've found my answer.

I propose the semi-acronymic word ade be adopted. It is far less cumbersome a word than antidisestablishmentarian, and so lends itself well to public speaking, and better, to public acceptance. Good public speakers should be able, with proper inflections, to make it clear that they are speaking of ades and not the wider aides. And ade also separates such people from the true aids for our woes, the reformers who we so desperately need to stop the growth of Leviathan.

I intend to speak out in print using the word ade, so I just wanted to prepare the way.

**Update**

A reader has suggested this following line helps drive home the point about how much damage antidisestablishmentarians (ades) make inevitable because ades stymie society's natural defenses. Ades hinder society from reforming needed institutions and thwart her from eliminating unneeded and bad ones.

What AIDS does to the body, ades do to society.
------
Update 2  observation:

The Church of England is still.  Nineteenth Century Antidisestablishmentarianism succeeded. And now, today, given the Archbishop of Canterbury's  willingness to allow shariah law,  what in postmodern politics will keep the C of E from converting to Muslim? Knowing what we know of the cushy relationship between the Left and radical Islam, that is a frighteningly real prospect.

**Update 3**[12/16/10]

TrueblueNZ reader Kris K has suggested that ADE need not be simply a quasi-acronym.  Antidiestablishmentarians may be viewed functionally as "Appeasers, Dunces, and Enablers." ADE can stand as a true acronym.

I think that is a good idea. What remains missing in Kris' suggestion is any reference to the heavy handed thugs who assault reformers. Now since Appeaser and Enabler are much the same thing, I think the following set of three words carry the weight much better:
Appeasers, Dunces and Enforcers (ADEs)

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Help Me Defeat Leftist Social Engineers

People generally do not like being manipulated. I believe that the more people understand how they and their neighbors are manipulated the better are the chances that the majority can mount a defense against the divisive, dissembling demagogues.

A long time ago I explained the mechanics of how social engineering works to various technical engineers I work with. Each and every one understood. More recently I wrote an entry for my Glossary in an attempt to make more concrete what I mean by social engineering.

Social Engineering is used by those in a position to implement their plans or schemes, or defeat the plans of schemes of someone else, but who are afraid of the consequences should they try and fail. The selling of a political idea more than anything involves overcoming resistance to that idea. Pushing too hard or too fast will anger or scare the general public. When that happens, a large enough bloc of the public is more apt to revolt. Thus most politicians and their backers will only feel comfortable in forcing their plans upon the public when the resistance to the plans are suitably fractured so as not to infuriate too large a bloc.

Hold on. I fear I'm getting too deep too fast once again. Look, if you can find the patience, please try reading social engineering and come back.

What I haven't gotten done in all these years is the simplifying of the concept so that more people can understand. I'd like to break the analogy down into small soundbites that may capture the imagination of more people. At least enough people so that the discussion that might emerge would help the larger body of people be able to foil the most rotten plans and schemes proposed by our ever more arrogant (thinking they can't be stopped by puny, unorganized and ignorant rabble) power-seeking class.

Help me make myself more clear.

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

A Progressive Rant

I started to write a screed in July in response to a Belmont Club post, Definitions, entitled Those Hellbent On Leading Us Into A New Dark Ages. But I cooled off after I answered a misunderstanding posted by BC commenter 3Case.

In June I wrote "Progressives" Are Demonstrably Dangerous to Human Life, but I still wasn't satisfied. This was to be followed by a part II that had been provoked by Mark Alger here. Instead, it languished incomplete for a couple months. I was feeling downright low about how hard a nut this was going to be to crack.

Many years ago I wrote this of Progressives. My wry humor sprung from the fact that it didn't take long for the Progressive reform movement that grew out of the late 19th Century American Populist movement to degrade into a comfy home for deceptive power seekers who succeeded in breeching our government's constitutional limits incrementally for "only the best of reasons."

In early August, Our Curmudgeon, in the pursuit of another topic, wrote of the treachery of "Progressives" as I've always wished him to do, but it still was not enough. For, on that same day, I had heard parts of a speech by Hilliary Clinton that got me started on another screed that I never finished: The "Progressive" Hatred for People.

And now this last week, Mark Alger needled me with the thought that we who are representative of true progress ought steal the progressive label from the phonies.

ARRRGGGGHHHHHHHH! 8/17/07

Continued on 9/05/07

The people who have been granted (by the PC crowd) the leave to wear the label Progressive are anything but. In addition to having long ago become the home for those whose lust for power may well set a new standard for perversion, they are well on their way to making a pejorative of the word progress just as they have made an unbearable burden for anyone who is truly liberal. Those who would wish we will not progress could not be happier.

More and more I run across both writers on the Internet and casual conversants who see that "Progressive" must be put in scorn quotes whenever we refer to those who claim that label.

This is unacceptable. This is Orwellian Newspeak being thrust upon us because we people who must speak with each other in order to counter this road to serfdom and a new dark age do not control the mainstream news media's effluent. We so badly need a new and widely influential means of communicating our viewpoint so that we can counter the anti-language corps. Where is our John Galt who can pirate, even for a little while, all media outlets away from those who relentlessly destroy our language?

A few days ago I had to contend with the confusion over what is a "Progressive" at The Belmont Club. After my initial comment to Wretchard, I had a short interchange with two of his active readers, Charles and LarryD, over the words Postmodern and Progressive. I think I stumbled on the best way verbally to deal with our tormentors: call them Postmodern Progressives.

In the end I think we were all dancing around the same idea at core. Today's Progressives are not advancers of civilization even if there were once some who could rightly claim to have been. Just as "Liberals" view as progressive the liberal growth of government -- and thereby the growth of restrictions on the liberty of individuals (anti-liberalism) -- so too when something will lead to mankind's diminishment, that is what "Progressives" view as progress (anti-progress).

I think we all understand that "Progressives" are NOT. But what are we who really love to see progress going to do about it?

I am convinced that most "Progressives" fall under the category of the misled. The most troublesome of them are the true-believers who allow themselves to become useful idiots. But the task that we who are optimists must find is how to unmask the mostly quiescent troublemakers who lend their support to the useful idiots, thereby accomplishing what they themselves could never achieve: mankind's self-destruction.

I know from what I've read throughout the web on the Right that most Right thinkers see that the label of Progressive has been stolen every bit as much as classical liberals have had Liberal stolen from them.

We must fight to take back the label Progressive so that those that follow us will be able to progress. So that those that follow do not find themselves under a yoke that so many Americans have fought to keep from being institutionalized on these shores. This is a patriotic battle. This is a battle that the bulk of humanity will always have with the effete elite. Understanding it does not require rocket science. It does not require knowing what Postmodernism is, only that it is something that wants you to return to times of enslavement over men's minds. It wishes for nothing less than a new Dark Age.

My friend Og often suggests that at some point the need to argue must end; that it is time for the cricket bats. He may be close to right.

Saturday, September 01, 2007

She Thinks Her Shit Doesn't Stink

I grew up where the vernacular expression for someone who believes themselves more important than anyone else was "He thinks his shit doesn't stink." It was invariably heard about a man whose attitude fit the expression.

I don't know if there were women then who rated such an observation, but given experience which shows that human foibles cross the sex line, I suspect there must have been a few. Only the niceties of the times prevented most men from using it to describe her haughtiness. "Niceties." Right. Reality was that any man who dared use such language risked running up against other men who'd ride to the damsel's rescue whether or not she deserved such gallantry. And the woman who used it on another woman or man would have caused a scene since women were believed to be above such gutter-level language no matter how accurate. Afterall, such a line appears only to be a derogatory statement of opinion about someone else's attitude. And are you not warned against judging others lest ye too be judged?

Well, to cap it all, the intent of my raising this issue is that civilized behavior often prevents noting that civilization's shit doesn't stink. Somehow we just don't bury what we know to be our toxic waste-products as more primitive cultures have done without giving their crap a second thought. No. We pick it up and carry it around and force our subsequent generations to learn to live with it and even venerate it.

Let's be clear so that our elected officials cannot hide their behavior no matter what banner they serve under. In our time, Leftism is not only practiced by the official Left, but also by members of our Right in high office.

Among the worst shit that Leftism still refuses to admit stinks is Marxism and its fundamental determination to secure "social justice." In their relentless grasping for power, today's "progressives" will harass anything and everything that is or may be successful in its insane attempt to secure Nirvana for everyone equally. But what they ultimately achieve is an awful outcome for everyone as they stifle the creativity (the least negative of its known behaviors I can think of) that is buried within the few who would be our culture's future champions.

The legacy of Marxism is a trail of human tragedy unmatched in the annals of history. Yet our Leftists still think that shit doesn't stink.

And we now have a major candidate for one party who has always been focused on aims that are clearly seen to be Marxist. And that's even before we bother to note her unmistakable bearing which provoked this commentary.

Well, now that the period of nicety is over, let me be the first to put this in print: Hillary thinks her shit doesn't stink. Do you really want that for President?

Monday, August 06, 2007

Dilemmas Facing Advanced Civilization -Pt2

Part one of this series can be found at Open List: Dilemmas of Advanced Civilization

  1. Wanton wastefulness solely to temporarily slake the appetite of a bored audience for exciting entertainment.
  2. A sense of defeat -- "oh, what's the use?" -- that may sideline a cultural defender. This effect may be temporary but can be permanent.
  3. Exhaustion of the virtuous. An otherwise strong defender recognizes a clear adversary; adversary's offense could be anything from an incremental point of contention all the way to a significant assault on an essential institution, but defender still retreats from even a verbal battle for reasons unstated; letting important opportunities slide becomes easier with each passing incident.
For an "entertaining" example of wanton wastefulness, click on this episode of Top Gear. Top Gear is the BBC's most watched program (at over 50% share). BBC programing is paid for with the BBC tax on all UK TV sets. Watch for the intermittent expression on the face of the host (one of the three) affectionately known as the Hamster.

Perhaps I'm overly optimistic, but I think his mugging could indicate that while shame may not be thoroughly dead in the UK, its agonizing death throes are beyond the denial stage.

For an example of ailment number 2, I offer my own intermittent posting of entries here.

For an example of ailment number 3, I offer this episode from Eternity Road.

**UPDATE Aug 7**
Coincidentally, Dennis Prager wrote this for Townhall.com today: Excitement Deprives Children of Happiness, that explores the circumstances that lead to consequences such as ailment number 1. He admits it is not just children, but the adults they grow up to be.