Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Thug life on the Left

What they are, what they do.

That the Left has become much more intensively coercive in recent years has not gone unnoticed among conservatives. In Liberal Fascism and elsewhere, Jonah Goldberg has popularized a longstanding view of the left-wing philosophy that in the United States calls itself “liberalism” — though we cannot in good faith call it that — that connects it with the nakedly coercive, antidemocratic, and anti-constitutional tendency of Woodrow Wilson and the progressives of his era, and with the various nasty totalitarian movements that inspired them and were inspired by them in turn. It’s not that we expect Robert Reich to come marching up Fifth Avenue wearing jackboots (the Pride March ain’t what it used to be) but that managerial progressivism is fundamentally corporatist in the sense that Mussolini et al. used the term: It conceives of formal political power and economic production as a single unit to be kept working in harmony, like a well-tuned engine, by such experts as the state recognizes as suited to the task. In theory, these men are to be guided by evidence meeting scientific standards — they are to be the sort of disinterested and dispassionate pragmatists that exist mainly within the narrow confines of Ezra Klein’s cranium.

The problem, as various capital-”F” Fascists and National Socialists and Communist politburos and Vox readers all discovered in their turn, is that even if these dispassionate and disinterested managers existed — and they don’t — bureaucracies do not have the collective cognitive firepower to replace markets, or even to intelligently guide them. From the Soviet five-year plans to Obamacare, all central-planning exercises begin in hubris and end in chaos.

And when the chaos comes, the natural thing to do — the imperative thing — is: find someone to blame. The planners and schemers are intellectually incapable of dealing seriously with the fact that the project that they have set for themselves — substituting their own judgment for that of the billions of better-informed parties in the market and coming up with superior outcomes — is an impossible one. But once you’ve accepted real limits on what planning can do — on what government can do — then you have at some level essentially surrendered to conservatism.

And that means that somebody, somewhere, must be a racist.

Y’know, one of the reasons I link and excerpt just about everything Williamson writes is that he always has such great fun with presenting the hideous truths of the political aspects of life. It’s laugh, cry, or go nuts with this stuff, folks, and given a choice, I’ll take laughter just about every time.

Share

WHO’S running the asylum again, now?

Astounding.

Tolkien lore led a Texas boy to suspension after he brought his “one ring” to school.

Kermit Elementary School officials called it a threat when the 9-year-old boy, Aiden Steward, in a playful act of make-believe, told a classmate he could make him disappear with a ring forged in fictional Middle Earth’s Mount Doom.

“It sounded unbelievable,” the boy’s father, Jason Steward, told the Daily News. He insists his son “didn’t mean anything by it.”

The Stewards had just watched “The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies” days earlier, inspiring Aiden’s imagination and leading him to proclaim that he had in his possession the one ring to rule them all.

“Kids act out movies that they see. When I watched Superman as a kid, I went outside and tried to fly,” Steward said.

Aiden claimed Thursday he could put a ring on his friend’s head and make him invisible like Bilbo Baggins, who stole Gollum’s “precious” in J.R.R. Tolkien’s fantasy series “The Lord of the Rings.”

“I assure you my son lacks the magical powers necessary to threaten his friend’s existence,” the boy’s father later wrote in an email. “If he did, I’m sure he’d bring him right back.”

There are only two possible responses to this, one involving an entire thesaurus-load of profanity, the other involving pitchforks, torches, and gibbets.

Share

Opposites, unattractive

Or, the illiberal Left: what happened?

Something rotten, very rotten has happened to the Left just in my lifetime.

They used to be champions of free speech; and now they are its most vehement opponents.

They use to be able to give some sort of argument or logical reason for their position, even if an incorrect argument; now they have no argument, none of them, aside from wild and insincere accusations delivered in a mechanical fashion without any hope of being believed, phony as a three-dollar bill.

They used to be firmly on the side of the workingman; now they hate the workingman as a white racist oppressor.

They used to be in favor of free love and the sexual liberation; now they object to rocket scientists wearing shirts with cartoon women printed on them, they object to science fiction magazines showing a scantily clad warrior princess slaying a monster, and they call all sex rape, and demand strict segregation of women and men. On the same day as these protests, they appear in front of the Pope, writhing on the ground naked with crosses and crucifixes inserted into their vaginas. So the Puritan rules apply arbitrarily, without sense or order, to anyone or no one.

They used to be in favor of Blacks and other minorities; now their disgust for all the impoverished and dispossessed is plain to see. All they want is to keep the Blacks on the plantation, addicted to welfare, addicted to crack, their children aborted, their parents unwed.

They used to be in favor of the Jews, and other minorities; now they kneel to Islamic Jihad at every opportunity, vowing that those who slander the prophet of Islam will no be in the future, and ergo the Left now curse the Jews, and pray daily for the destruction of Israel, and a new Holocaust in the warhead of a Muslim nuke.

What? You say that this the not what the Left says? That they say they are creatures of purity, goodness, and sweetness, who live only to help others out of the depth of their hearts and the depth of your wallet? No, that was the old Left, back when the Left still had some scraps of sanity and intelligence.

They serve Sauron and have forgotten their own names.

Yeah, well, anyone who’s read Tolkien knows the only proper way to deal with orcs of their ilk. But truth to tell, I’m not sure they ever did have even scraps of sanity and intelligence; they’ve been apologists (or cheerleaders) for evil and enemies of free humanity at least since Stalin, if not well before.

Share

Fare thee well, and good riddance Part the Second

Not much reason for any sane person to give much of a damn about Sullivan’s announced retirement from blogging, really. Well, except for the lost amusement at the rhetorical gyrations of a crazed hysteric.

Sullivan, who has worn dozens of hats in his lifetime, is truly unique. He stands astride the worlds of politics, journalism, theology, foreign policy, and applied obstetrics like the Colossus of Rhodes. A former editor for The New Republic — a publication that benefited from his razor-sharp insights on, among other things, the early masterpieces of Stephen Glass — columnist-about-town for Time, the Atlantic, and various Fleet Street rags; a Ph.D in the works of Michael Oakeshott, recognized by true conservatives everywhere as the only conservative thinker of the last four hundred years; and an itinerant blogger whose once-eponymous site has migrated to Time and now the Atlantic, Sullivan is one of those Washington fixtures that fit unusually well on the late-night talk show circuit, as he himself likes to demonstrate. Like a real-life, hyper-garrulous Forrest Gump, Sullivan has been present for, or at least has shared his thoughts — stray, organized, rational, and delusional — on most of the major events of the last twenty five years, at a rate that has only increased since he began blogging (before it was cool) and taking long vacations after pledge drives (which has been cool forever). More impressive than his output is his utter lack of fear of self-contradiction, flights of laughter-inducing hyperbole, public obsessiveness, repeated self-contradiction, betrayals of utter ignorance, and failed attempts to mimic the Bard by coining bizarre neologisms to match his wandering moods.

Few among us have the raw intellectual firepower to go where he has. Fortunately, the internet tubes allow us to track his movements over time – an otherwise dizzying effort made more vertiginous by Sullivan’s kaleidoscopic mind. As with all things Sullivan, the best place to start is with human genitalia.

To say that Sullivan has focused his laser-like mind on human reproductive organs is to engage in an understatement worthy of the master himself. We could simply look at Sullivan’s relentless, years-long focus on circumcision (a relentlessness not well-captured by the internet tubes, as Sullivan’s archives traditionally become difficult to search when he moves from site to site), an unusual genre for a man who will never have children and who is not Jewish or Muslim, though perhaps not so unusual given his general interest in the member in question. One could focus on his decision to start calling a 4,000 year old religious tradition “male genital mutilation,” thus cleverly calling untold generations of Jews child abusers and torturers, a decision that marks the sort of intellectual territory into which only a man bravely unwilling to live in Israel can tread.

But to spend too much time on mere ponderings on the presence or absence of foreskin is to do Sullivan an injustice.

Behold Andrew Sullivan, a man who contains infinite contradictions: A believer in privacy, except a woman’s medical records, who never seemed upset that his preferred horse in the race released nothing besides a one-page “All clear!” note from his doctor; an opponent of the objectification of homosexuals, who objectified at least one, and arguably two, children; a professional journalist with a boundless understanding of not only applied medicine, but also hospital protocol and the art of diagnosis by news clipping and photograph.

Can such a man be constrained by the mere tedium of human physiology? No, such a mind can — must — be drawn to questions of the divine. Such a man, with a mind before whom John Chrysostom, Augustine, Aquinas, Teresa of Avila, Maimonides, Wojtyla, and Ratzinger must bow, has a greater calling before him: Define dogmatically the Catholic Church, as none have before. Do what the Magisterium is unable and unwilling to do, and explain how abortion and homosexuality fit squarely into a faith that has opposed these things for two thousand years.

But we’re not cynics here. Instead, we are devotees trying to track our way through Sullivan’s mental progression, disciples whose only hope lies in understanding how so great a man could so completely whipsaw from a critical view of a man he’d once supported to a sycophantic lay worshiper of another, equally obvious politician.

Some attribute this to President Obama’s pretty face. That’s demeaning. Some attribute it to George W. Bush’s stance on gay marriage – but that would be ridiculous, not merely because it would suggest that Sullivan is a one-dimensional writer obsessed with sex, but also because it would make Sullivan seem like an utter nutter for hating former Vice President Dick Cheney (a proponent of gay marriage and federalism) with the intensity of a thousand suns. (It would also raise questions about the man’s sanity in another way: Candidate Obama was clear that he opposed gay marriage, and occasionally likes to have a good laugh about angry, protesting gays. Yet Sullivan’s admiration continues.)

No. These are too prosaic, too common, too easy to destroy. What could drive a man from admiration and defense for a governor from Texas who hewed to Sullivan’s then-preferred doctrine of subsidiarity to calling him a war criminal? What could so completely rearrange a man’s entire view of the world – other, of course, than some terrible disease afflicting his mind?

The answer is obvious: The Jews.

Ain’t it always?

Full disclosure: Sullivan, along with Glenn Reynolds, was probably the biggest inspiration for my own foray into blogging lo, these many years ago. We even exchanged a few e-mails here and there over those early years, and he was unfailingly polite, kind, encouraging, and just…well, decent. His writing in the aftermath of 9/11, his defense of Western civilization and his condemnation of the barbarians absolutely determined to destroy it, was extraordinarily passionate and perceptive. Sad indeed that he eventually drifted off into what can only be called a mild form of dementia–his perception warped, his focus degenerated into obsession, his passion lapsed into a stereotypically effeminate hysteria.

I don’t even begin to know what to make of his ongoing, pitifully Quixotic insistence that he remains the Lone True Conservative in a world gone mad–akin, one suspects, to his similar assertions about his pick-and-choose brand of Catholicism, amusingly tossed into the mix by Badeaux as “…the man who once rationalized away his faithful-to-some-future-form-of-Catholicism as a bar to supporting legalized abortion in the name of privacy (explaining) that Sarah Palin’s vagina was an open target.”

Here’s my theory: Sullivan was one of many liberals who were bounced temporarily into a shaky, rootless, and ultimately untenable form of neoconservatism as the result of being absolutely terrified witless by the 9/11 attacks. They realized that the multiculti Progressivist center could not hold against wild-eyed, vicious fanatics–that the Democrat Socialists, having been usurped long ago by the America-hating Left, were absolutely useless when it came to national defense–and they feared the consequences of another such attack, which back then seemed imminent. Living as most of them did in DC, NYC, and other obvious urban targets, there was a pretty damned good chance of those consequences being quite personal for them. As an openly, even militantly gay man at least intelligent enough to recognize that in the Muslim world, the debate isn’t over whether to allow gays to pretend to be married but over the best way to wipe them out completely, the consequences for Sullivan himself would have been even more dire.

As years went by without further dreadful mass-casualty attacks (though not for want of trying, and not overseas) and the threat seemed to recede somewhat, though, most of those libtards sheepishly slinked back to the confines of their own ideological comfort zone; think Charles Johnson of LGF, if you need an example. And think Sullivan, whose “conservatism” would be unrecognizable as such to any of his professed ideological mentors, and was always pretty much restricted to matters of national defense only. The utter, risible absurdity of attempting to argue for Kerry or Obama as the “truly conservative candidate” in the ’04 and ’08 elections pretty much speaks for itself there, I think.

I haven’t bothered reading him for years now; his descent into lunatic irrelevance became complete when he put his site behind a paywall, and his once-strong voice had long been replaced by other stronger, clearer, more lucid ones anyway. I wish I could say he’ll be missed, but the truth is, the Sullivan I got so much inspiration and enjoyment out of was gone a long time ago.

(Via Ace)

Share

A foolish inconsistency: the hobgoblin of little “liberal” minds

The goal of progressivism is not to make the world rational; it’s to make the world Portland.” Would that that were true; their ultimate goal is really to make the world Leningrad.

Progressivism, especially in its well-heeled coastal expressions, is not a philosophy — it’s a lifestyle. Specifically, it is a brand of conspicuous consumption, which in a land of plenty such as ours as often as not takes the form of conspicuous non-consumption: no gluten, no bleached flour, no Budweiser, no Walmart, no SUVs, no Toby Keith, etc. The people who set the cultural tone in places such as Berkeley, Seattle, or Austin would no more be caught vaping than they would slurping down a Shamrock Shake at McDonald’s — and they conclude without thinking that, therefore, neither should anybody else. The wise man understands that there’s a reason that Baskin-Robbins has 31 flavors; the lifestyle progressive in Park Slope shudders in horror at the refined sugar in all of them, and seeks to have them restricted.

They cannot say no to their own children, but they can say no to grown adults they’ve never met. It’s the only rational thing to do: Science says vaping is dangerous, and progressives are all about the science. Until they aren’t.

On the matter of consumers’ contribution to global warming, Arianna Huffington was celebrated for leading a moralistic crusade against SUVs, which are disproportionately favored by the sort of people who might vape, eat at Applebee’s, watch the wrong television shows, and vote the wrong way. In reality, the most carbon-intensive thing the typical well-heeled American does is take an international flight — but you will not see progressives leading campaigns against European vacations or exotic eco-tourism in Southeast Asia or South America. Why? Because they dislike SUVs for other reasons — representing as they do suburbia, affluence, and the implicit rejection of tiny hybrids — and emissions are simply a handy cudgel. International travel, on the other hand, is considered an ipso facto moral good, being an integral part of how one learns to sneer at American culture and American habits. International jet travel is, therefore, necessary, and necessarily good.

Similarly, there is no meaningful evidence that organic foods are more nutritious or safer, but the lifestyle progressives who run the Boulder schools insist on them, along with yoga. What’s banned? Chocolate milk.
And vaping, of course, if the February 3 vote at the city council goes as expected. As with California, chemicals from marijuana smoke will be officially tolerable, while the same chemicals from nicotine vaporizers will be officially outlawed.

There are many conservatives who prefer organic food, who do yoga, who like trains, and who would prefer living in Brooklyn to living in Plano. De gustibus and all that. The difference is that progressives, blazing with self-righteousness, believe themselves entitled to make their preferences a matter of law.

And that’s the Left in short: A lifestyle so good, it’s mandatory.

And what isn’t mandatory is forbidden.

Share

Making sense of the senseless

By Jove, I think he’s got it.

Word fetishes are used instead of reasoning. When a man reasons, he defines his terms. When a Leftist unreasons — or whatever the mental activity is called whereby mental activity is deliberately made unable to act — what he does is undefine his terms. He makes clear terms muddy.

When the word fetish does not work, they, like the zealous medicine man whose rain dance cannot make it rain, merely dances again, this time harder. So the Leftist says his word fetish again louder or more forcefully or more scornfully. When nothing continues to happen, they try again. And so on.

I used economics as my first example because Marx is the defining pioneer of Leftism. But the same neurosis and the same results obtain for any topic discussed by the Left.

In philosophy, the word fetish is to declare that the only truth is that there is no truth. It is, in other words, an insolent abandonment of philosophy, the love of truth.

In ethics, the word fetish is to say that it is evil to distinguish good from evil, and that being judgmental or condemnatory must be brought to judgment and condemned. This is an insolent abandonment of ethics.

In politics, the word fetish is to call a greedy desire to plunder others a right or an entitlement, and to call a man’s right, especially to his own property to which he alone is entitled, greed. This abolition of all rights and boundaries is an insolent abandonment of politics, even of the concept of politics.

The other word fetish is to put the word ‘social’ in front of a second word so as to rob that second word of meaning, or reverse the meaning: ‘social justice’ in other words, means punishing the innocent and rewarding the guilty, as when non slave owners pay black rioters reparations for a non existent crime.

In logic, they use the word binary to indicate that they disapprove of the proposition that ‘A is A’ is true and that ‘A is not-A’ is false. Of course, without the binary distinction between self consistent and self contradictory statements, logic is vain. It is the insolent abandonment of logic.

Some more energetic Leftists make the argument — pardon me, they unlimber the word fetish — that unless you share the sex, tastes, race, social class, faith and nation of origin of the other man in the argument, your logic is disqualified, on the grounds that all races have different logical systems. Jew logic is not the same as Aryan logic. The mere fact that Nazis invented this argument so as to elude the need to answer critics should deter the Leftist, who claims to hate Nazis, but in truth does not.

In art, ugliness is called daring or subversive and beauty is insulted and deconstructed by any number of words mocking the motive of the artist and ignoring the merit of the art.

The mere fact that all these arguments are self defeating, absurdly obvious logical absurdities, does not shame them. Nothing does. The whole reason why the Leftist abandons reason is to quell his shame. Leftism is shamelessness.

If you have ever had the unpleasant experience of attempting a rational debate with a Leftist, you have no doubt come away with the same queasy sensation one might encounter if watching a man try to eat a rubber chicken, or copulate with an inflatable doll, or, to use a less grotesque example, like watching a retarded man in clown make up who does not know how to juggle tossing a single ball up into the air and letting it drop, and then smiling and bowing to the puzzled and bored children in the audience, as if he does not know that dropping the ball is not what juggling is, and does not understand why they are not as thrilled as he could be when he watches a juggler.

Leftists always resort to this shift because it is the only arrow in their quiver. They do not have any reasoning to give. If they could reason, they would not be Leftists.

The Leftist must attack you. Your very existence is an affront to him, proof positive that his worldview is wrong. He has nothing to say to support his position, and he cannot shut up.

If he could shut himself up, he would not be a Leftist.

Read all of this excellent post and you need never be puzzled or even bemused by Leftard idiocy again.

(Via Insty)

Share

“What does baby want? Diaper change! When does baby want it? Now!”

And oil. Let’s start with that (via Maet).

A graduate of Princeton with a degree in English, Bryan Walsh lectured the public on how “virtually the entire field of Republican presidential candidates has decided to abandon science — with the exception of Jon Huntsman, whose negligible support has to be measured with an electron microscope — I could easily spend the next 15 months shooting down every false statement they make about climate change, energy policy or evolution.”

He chose $2 gasoline. He chose poorly.

Did he ever. To wit:

Now, there are a few things wrong with this. For one, the $1.79-a-gallon figure that Bachmann cites is from December 2008, before Barack Obama actually took office. (When Obama was inaugurated, gas cost $1.81 — not a big difference, I know, but how hard would it have been to get the right figure? The data are right here.) More important, though, is the reason that gas was — comparatively speaking — so cheap a few years ago. It wasn’t because the U.S. was suddenly pumping more oil, or because the Saudis had decided to flood the market, or because the head of ExxonMobil lost his mind and started to give all Americans a 2-for-1 deal on gas. The U.S. — and the world — was in the depths of the worst recession since the 1930s, depressing demand for everything from data centers to electricity to driving. It’s Econ 101: precipitous falls in demand usually trigger precipitous falls in price, which is what happened to gas prices, dropping from a high of $4.05 a gallon in mid-July 2008 to a low of $1.69 a gallon at the end of December that year. If you see sub-$2-a-gallon gas again, I strongly suggest that you stock up on bottled water and canned tuna, because the economic end times may be at hand.

Of course, the other way to cut prices is to increase supply, and Bachmann and other politicians argue that we could do so by opening up more territory for oil exploration in the U.S. — a policy known in 2008 as “Drill, baby, drill.” She’s right — up to a very, very, very small point.

Yeah–that point being the one where gas is back around two per gallon, the near-dead economy–punch drunk from repeated socialist body blows–beings to come around, and people feel the big-government chokehold around their necks begin to loosen exactly as Palin and Bachmann and the rest of us said all along they would. Which would be a direct result of growing American energy independence annoying the hell out of our Mideast “allies,” the Saudi oil ticks, to the point where they’re willing to forego short-term profits to do long-term damage to the fracking industry. Y’know, the point that denotes current reality. That tiny, tiny, very insignificant little point. Surber twists the knife some more:

I am puzzled as to why Time magazine editors called this political diatribe science. It’s a political hodge podge at best.

But Bryan Walsh sneeringly made the case that was liberal dogma at the time. Drilling is useless. You only save 3 cents a gallon — a figure that came from the same liberal number crunching that brought us 1 in 5 college women are raped! The actual figure is 1 in 500.

The fact is, a sudden and global drop in demand in 2008 crushed oil prices.He got that right. Six years later, that is not the case. Demand may be down elsewhere, but demand remains high in the United States, which purchases 25% of the world’s oil. Trimming the U.S.imports to their lowest levels since the 1960s has caused a worldwide panic in the oil industry. That has led to a price war that has already halved the price of oil. We did that not by checking our tire pressure — President Obama’s plan — but the Sarah Palin way: Drill, baby, drill.

So once again, of course and as usual, we get a demonstration of reality thwarting liberal-fascist command-and-control scheming and dreaming, just as it always does. One might be inclined to wonder: is there some larger underlying flaw in “liberal” thinking that always produces this hilarious result? Some gap in their jejune philosophy that can be relied upon to produce these amusing pratfalls every time, sending them pompous-ass-over-teacups to land right on the top of their pin-heads?

Why, yes. Yes, there is.

For the Gnostic-progressive, everything boils down to competing meta-narratives; everything is about “optics.” There is no essential reality, only interpretations according to various narratives. The game is just one big power quest of who will control the narrative? Likewise, there are no flesh-and-blood people filled with good and bad, but only two-dimensional characterizations according to the Gnostic archetypes.

Gnostics believe life is the story of the Self’s liberation from (or reconstituting of) family, church, economic, national, linguistic, and bodily realities in order to pursue the heroic journey of Self-divinization.

Darren Wilson and Michael Brown were not flesh-and-blood people possessed of the capacity for good or evil seen in the light of what actually happened, but symbolic characters in the narrative which preordains the interpretation of their actions: evil cop (archon guarding the gates of the “system”) suppresses innocent black man (an oppressed Self seeking liberation) engaged in lawlessness (Self iconoclastically breaking bonds of the oppressive system of property ownership, racial hierarchy, or whatever).

The same is true for the college rape narrative, the facts be damned. Or the narrative pinned to murder done by an American Muslim screaming allahu akbar! No terrorism to see here; Islam is a peaceful religion; go back to your regularly scheduled programming. Shut up and accept what the pretty people on the news tell you to believe.

Or consider gay marriage and transgenderism according to the Gnostic meta-narrative. The idea that sex can be abstracted from the physical body, based on something science calls the reproductive system, and reconstituted in its current weird ways is nothing short of madness. (Try doing this to the digestive system, say, by institutionalizing public post-meal vomiting at Bob Evans as a form of “alternative eating.” Hey, who are you to say bulimia is a “disorder”? Didn’t psychology call homosexuality a disorder until 1973?) The only way we can arrive at this point is through the Gnostic reading of humanity, which says the Self has nothing to do with the physical body, but rather the body is nothing more than vesture to be tailored any way one wants.

It’s all rooted in the narrative of one’s “Self” being liberated from the stifling oppression of the body and its various determinations (like genital), rooted in the Gnostic notion that life is the story of the Self’s liberation from (or reconstituting of) family, church, economic, national, linguistic, and bodily realities in order to pursue the heroic journey of Self-divinization.

Pop culture elites almost always assume this meta-narrative. It criss-crosses American culture at all points. It explains neo-evangelicalism’s “New Reformation” focused on self-esteem and “changing paradigms” of worship, trading 2,000 years of tradition for the Swedish self-massage otherwise known as “contemporary worship.” It explains the dominance of pop existentialism in Hollywood’s scripts, existentialism being a species of Gnosticism (see Hans Jonas). It explains deconstructionism and the decline of language, to be replaced by the magical use of language, or cynically using it for social manipulation. It explains the decline of logic and linear or propositional thinking, to be replaced by memes, symbols, logos, and other such sigils. It explains the liberating role given over to the erotic, music, and drugs. It explains our addictive society, ever seeking that buzz, that ecstasy, that utopian life which, of course, can’t happen—nature and reality being what they are. That leaves only melancholy and depression, another sign of America’s pathological Gnosticism. Recall the general melancholy, even suicidal ideation, following the movie “Avatar” a few years back. Returning to real life was downright depressing.

So long as our minds marinate in electronic wonderlands and see the regular burdens of reality as a prison cell to escape, the American soul will always be slouching toward political and cultural collectivism.

So long as our minds marinate in electronic wonderlands and see the regular burdens of reality as a prison cell to escape, the American soul will always be slouching toward political and cultural collectivism, because we will ever be susceptible to promises that things can “change for the better” or that the world can become “a better place” provided we support some person or movement promising the fulfillment of that hope. We’ll also be ever seeking that charismatic leader sold as the voice and promise of the collective vision.

t’s ironic, really, that an ideology promoting authoritarian collectivism is actually rooted in basic, primal selfishness. But the problem for the Left is a larger and yet more elementary one, I think: they make a fetish of childishness and juvenilia, and all their political ambition and intention amounts to the petulant child’s cri de coeur against a cruel and indifferent world.

Do note: I freely admit that I say this as just about a near-perfect product of Boomer perpetual adolescence myself. You can take that either as a disclaimer, or as an indicator that I know whereof I speak. I’m a 55 year old guy that makes his (very meager) living from bitching on this website, tinkering with Harleys, and playing rock and roll guitar; I didn’t marry until I was 47, and didn’t have a child until I was 49. No paragon of responsible adulthood, I. Never have been and most likely never will be, although now that I have a young ‘un to care for I do find myself at least trying a little bit harder, after decades of foolishly standing athwart the relentless march of Father Time yelling “Stop! Or at least slow down a little.” For all the good that’s done me.

And in my long-gone youth, I was as good a little Leftist as could be. Around age thirty, though, I began to notice that most of Leftist politics, for all that it masked its truest self by wrapping its real aims in a thin tissue of self-sacrifice and nobility, was about avoiding things Leftists didn’t want to do or acknowledge–things that young Leftards actually feared and resented. They didn’t want a real job; they didn’t want to own a home in the suburbs or undertake the sacrifices necessary to raise a family. They didn’t want to contribute to charity or do volunteer work in a soup kitchen or old folks’ home; those unpleasant necessities were either to be foisted off on Big Mama Government or avoided altogether.

Everything should be “free” and readily available, provided by the Nanny State, which after all is “just another name for the things we decide to do together,” right? Life should and could be like Star Trek: everyone works in a job they love, there is no money or competition and its concomitant risk of failure and disgrace; everyone has plenty of leisure to pursue his or her own idea of what “the good life” might be, nobody is stressed out or deprived. Starships don’t have barnacles that need scraping, nobody has to cook or clean toilets, and those dilithium crystals will mine themselves.

And everybody is a victim, and has a basic, unalienable right not to be offended–ever.

I mention this because I notice the idea has grown up recently — especially among the young — that offending people is wrong per se. This idea — taught at universities and in entertainments and in the media — is wholly false. Rudeness and unkindness are very often unnecessary — much less necessary than many counter-cultural warriors suppose — but offending people is unavoidable. It is a natural outgrowth of telling the truth.

Speaking generally, people don’t like the truth. It tends to be less flattering than pretty-sounding falsehoods and far more challenging than relativistic blather. Simply to declare the good — liberty, personal responsibility, independence — better than the bad — equality, victimhood, slavish safety — makes people more conscious of their shortcomings and moral failures. That thing that happens where you fearlessly tell the truth and people carry you on their shoulders in thanks and congratulations? That’s a movie scene, not real life. In real life, the aftermath of truth-telling looks a whole lot more like the crucifixion than Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

But if we’re going to rebuild American culture…  in the arts, in the history books, in schools, at home…the truth is the only place to start. Dramatic truth, comic truth, historical truth, moral truth. None of it goes down easy. And so you’re going to be hearing “I’m offended,” all day long and into the night. It’s not a sin to offend people. It’s not even a problem really. Getting offended is just one of the ways people react to reality — it’s the way American culture has been teaching them to react for the past forty-five years.

The problem with Leftism, right down the line, is its puerile delusion that reality is not immutable but malleable. It is not eternal, but transient; it can be manufactured, manipulated, and altered, not by hard work and sacrifice undertaken at risk of serious personal cost, but by mere words and passionate belief.

Y’know, sort of like an incantation.

All that, leading to the fierce urgency of waaah!

When Ferguson protesters bucked at being co-opted by the self-serving antics of Al Sharpton Inc., Kirsten West Savali of the Root chalked that up to the “fierce urgency of now” and its uncanny ability to inspire young people to “bum rush the mic,” to use the fierce urgency of slang from 1987. In 2012, Peter Dinklage led a band of po-faced celebrities taking time out from the extraordinarily profitable creation of blood-drenched entertainment to advise the sort of people who take their political cues from Game of Thrones actors to “demand a plan — right now!” on gun control. The accumulation of celebrity brainpower around Dinklage would not provide enough neuro-electric juice to fire up one of Henry Winkler’s free lighted magnifying readers, but never mind — Now is the point, the alpha and the omega. Don’t just stand there thinking carefully about the nature of the problem and considering your options with mature judgment — do something! Peter Dinklage and Will Ferrell — the main artistic forces behind Elf — demand nothing less.

Organizing for Action, the permanent Obama campaign, would very much like to sell you a limited-edition — “while supplies last!” — poster bearing the slogan: “The Time to Act Is Now.” The catalog of asininity goes on forever.

Sure feels like it, at any rate. But all this juvenilia–this childish, mulish determination to trump reality with shallow and simplistic fantasy–leads us to some pretty horrible places; nationally, societally, it can only lead to a fascist police-state with plenty of militarized bad cops to keep the surly dependent class in line and placidly on the tit, and never mind the leash; ultimately, to degeneracy and collapse. On an individual level, it leads us here:

Fakir

Which, I might be a case of arrested adolescence myself, but it sure doesn’t look like any place I wanna be.

Share

Imagine!

Put another way: dream on.

“Reductio ad absurdum” does not begin to characterize the utter silliness of liberals, whose governing dogma holds that everyone has a right to invent their own identity. God is dead and everything is permitted, Zarathustra warned; he should have added that everything is silly. When we abhor tradition, we become ridiculous, because we lack the qualifications to replace what generation upon generation of our ancestors built on a belief in revelation and centuries of trial and error. Conservatives know better. G.K. Chesterton said it well: “Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.”

The antics of the “small and arrogant oligarchy” that controls the temples of liberal orthodoxy have turned into comic material that Monty Python couldn’t have dreamed up a generation ago. There are now dozens of prospective genders, at least according to the gender studies departments at elite universities. What do the feminists of Wellesley College do, for example, when its women become men? The problem is that no-one quite knows what they have become, as a recent New York Times Magazine feature complained:

Some two dozen other matriculating students at Wellesley don’t identify as women. Of those, a half-dozen or so were trans men, people born female who identified as men, some of whom had begun taking testosterone to change their bodies. The rest said they were transgender or genderqueer, rejecting the idea of gender entirely or identifying somewhere between female and male; many, like Timothy, called themselves transmasculine.

Use the wrong terminology and you’re burned for a bigot. There used to be jokes such as: “How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb? Only one, and it’s not funny.” You can’t tell that sort of joke about  Wellesley because the LGBTs never will agree on the lightbulb’s gender. There are rare cases of babies born with ambiguous genitalia, to be sure. There also are a few individuals obsessed from early childhood with the idea that they were born in the wrong body. They have difficult lives and deserve sympathy (but not public mandates for sex-change operations). Gender ambiguity in its morphological infinitude as a field of personal self-development, though, has become the laboratory for cutting-edge liberal thinking, the ultimate expression of self-invention. LGTB Studies (or “Queer Studies”) departments have or soon will be established at most of America’s top universities, classifying, advocating and defending an ever-expanding number of newly-categorized gender identities.

All this explains why the cleverest people in the country (one doesn’t get into UCLA without being clever) act like idiots. But our poor intelligence depends on the contributions of scores of generations past.

Ahh, but what about generations futurereal or imagined?

Once again, Barack Obama’s imaginary son has found himself unfairly in trouble with the law. If you recall, his imaginary son was also shot by an imaginary neighborhood watch guard in the same style as Trayvon Martin. But Obama’s imaginary son is plucky and resilient and has lived a hard life in the hood so he keeps bouncing back.

In his life, Obama’s imaginary son has been shot at, concussed out of football, and racially profiled. Yet he keeps picking himself up and carrying on. Obama’s imaginary son should be an example to us all. No matter what kind of imaginary circumstances we find ourselves in, we can continue on with our imaginary lives.

One day this country can hopefully move on from racism experienced by imaginary people — and, let’s face it, the country doesn’t have the best of history of its treatment of imaginary people. We have, however, made progress in the civil rights of imaginary people and for that we, as a country, should be proud. We shouldn’t ignore, however, the real truth that racism toward imaginary sons is still a real problem, as our President constantly reminds us. We can’t be afraid to have the conversation, no matter how painful it might be, about continuing the racial healing of imaginary people.

President Obama, however, also should look inward and ask why his imaginary son continues to put himself in these situations. Perhaps it is also his own failings as an imaginary parent. Maybe his imaginary son is trying to rebel against the pressures that come with being the first imaginary son of the United States. Perhaps the President can get him some better-fitting clothes and tell him to stay in school instead of having constant run-ins with imaginary police.

Read on–his closing ‘graph is priceless.

Share

Leftism delenda est

And a whole lot more besides.

So: in these cases and countless others, not only is the outrage, which is absolute and infinite, disproportionate to the offense, which is either microscopic or nonexistent, the reverse is also true: namely, when real offenses arise where real people are really hurt, killed, enslaved, maimed or abused, the Left either holds their tongue with a silence that betrays their true intent, or they voice sympathy and solidarity with the perpetrators of the atrocities.

There is a consistent pattern here. It is not random. If the Left were stupid or insane, they would sometimes, by sheer statistical random chance, sometimes voice real outrage over a real injustice, or dismiss as unreal a complaint that actually was, for once, unreal. But they are always silent over real outrages and injustices, except when (“Little Eichmanns”) they applaud them, and always outraged over imaginary outrages.

Even if they had something to do, they could not do it. If they could fight a real injustice, then they would be heroes, and that would put them in the category of the successful. But, then, by their primary and axiomatic assumption, anyone who is successful is a cheat and an exploiter and a villain. So they cannot fight any real injustices.

That leaves only the imaginary injustices, things that cannot be solved because they are not problems to begin with. You cannot change something that does not exist. You cannot abolish the institutional racism in modern America because there is none. You cannot halt the conspiracy of men to keep womenfolk from studying science and math because there is no conspiracy: whether women could perform at the same average level as men or not is not an issue here. The conspiracy is an article of faith the Leftists MUST believe, because the alternative, the fact that women by their nature will not or cannot perform in the field at the same average level, is a possibility that leads to the conclusion that the institutions are not corrupt, but fair.

But if the institutions are not corrupt, and life is fair, then the failure and low station of the Leftist is deserved and merited and earned. He is poorer than his neighbor because his neighbor works harder. He is dumber than his neighbor because he lost out on the Darwinian crapshoot when it came to genes, or perhaps the stars frowned on him in the hour he was born. Who cares what the answer is?

Any answer that does not blame THE ESTABLISHMENT is equally unpalatable and unacceptable to the Leftist, because it directly contradicts the one assumption he must make in order to be a Leftist.

Any man who does not blame his fellow man for the injustices of nature is not a Leftist. He lacks the proper level of resentment to qualify.

Leftism is politicized envy.

You see, the Left are losers. They are stupid people who want to be thought smart; people with no taste who want to be thought cultured and artistic; selfish cowards who want the palm leaf of martyrdom and the gold medal of heroism; but who, in no case, can actually perform.

Not a whole lot to add to that one, folks–except to reiterate this: as losers, the other thing they want is a comforting rationalization and a scapegoat for their own failure, to avoid acknowledging that it may have more to do with them than it does with “society.”

(Via Insty)

Share

PANIC!

It’s justified. And it’s delicious.

Let’s be clear about what the Don’t Panic people are arguing about. They’re not arguing about Ebola. Because the people criticizing the government are not panicking; rather, we are critiquing an insufficient and worrisome government response to ebola.

What the Don’t Panic people are really arguing, once again, as always, is Don’t criticize Obama.

Once again they’ve found a claimed “irrational basis” for criticism of Obama. They find an irrational basis for every criticism of Obama — racism, xenophobia, unhinged partisanship — in order to delegitimize all criticism of the Fuckwit Emperor.

But Obama’s and the CDC’s sad performance thus far is fair grounds for criticism. And without criticism, they never would have implemented all the “new protocols,” previously claimed to have been entirely unnecessary, which they now admit are necessary.

It’s not the American people, it’s Progressivists, and they’re worried about a lot more than just criticism of their Lightworker. They’re panicking over the larger threat to their beloved Leviathan State posed by the truth about its supposed capabilities becoming widely known.

Joker’s wild update! And now, folks, it’s time for “Who do you trust!Hubba, hubba, hubba.

The White House has been wagging a bony finger at restrictive responses to Ebola in general — and now at Cuomo and Christie, too. They’re not above criticism, to be sure, but for the president to be dishing it out is a little rich.

For the battle against Ebola in America is all about trust.

That is, can New Yorkers worried about dying a loathsome death from a disease now largely confined to three countries 4,500 miles away really trust presidential reassurances?

After President Obama said ISIS is the JV, and then all of a sudden told us it was an existential threat? After “you can keep your doctor” and then, oops, you can’t? After the IRS scandal and Fast & Furious and Benghazi?

With two weeks to go before midterm elections, the president hires a Washington uber-fixer, lobbyist Ron Klain, to manage his Ebola response and people are supposed to assume that health policy is driving the operation?

Alas, neither does Cuomo inspire confidence.

In that context, it’s asking a lot of New Yorkers not to fret about the fellow sitting in the subway with the sweat rolling down his face. Hmmm, where’s he from? Oops, did he just throw up on his shoes?

Never mind. Trust the experts.

Win that wager, and hardly anyone will notice. Lose it, and batten down for chaos.

That’s why common sense now is so important. And, lately, New York hasn’t been getting much of that.

It’s been getting a lot of lectures, to be sure.

Lectures, sanctimony, scolding, and general pecksniffery are all they really have.

Via Glenn, who adds another reason not to trust the bastards: “Nothing says our policy is science-driven like putting a political fixer in charge.

Share

European Jew-hate, explained

Guilt and envy, in a nutshell. Neither of which could be said to be either misplaced or unfair.

Coming soon after Sweden’s recognition of a non-existent state of Palestine, the British Parliament’s 274-to-12 resolution to recognize “Palestine” flags a sea-change in European sentiment towards Israel. France is thinking of following suit. The European Community bureaucracy, meanwhile, has readied sanctions against Israel. One remonstrates in vain. The Gaza War should have taught the world that Israel cannot cede territory to Mahmoud Abbas, now in the 7th year of a 4-year term. Hamas has the support of 55% of West Bank Palestinians vs. just 38% for Abbas, and Hamas openly brags that it could destroy Israel more easily from firing positions in the West Bank. Only the Israeli military keeps Abbas in power; without the Israelis Hamas would displace Abbas in the West Bank as easily as it did in Gaza; and a Hamas government in the West Bank would make war on Israel, with horrifying consequences.

To propose immediate Palestinian statehood under these circumstances is psychotic, to call the matter by its right name. The Europeans, along with the United Nations and the Obama administration on most working days, refuse to take reality into account. When someone tells you that Martians are transmitting radio waves into his brain, or that Elvis Presley really is the pope rather than an Argentine Jesuit, one doesn’t enquire into the merits of the argument. Rather, one considers the cause of the insanity.

The Europeans hate Israel with the passion of derangement. Why? Well, one might argue that the Europeans always have hated Jews; they were sorry they hated Jews for a while after the Holocaust, but they have gotten over that and hate us again. Some analysts used to cite Arab commercial influence in European capitals, but today Egypt and implicitly Saudi Arabia are closer to Jerusalem’s point of view than Ramallah’s. Large Muslim populations in Europe constitute a pressure group for anti-Israel policies, but that does not explain the utter incapacity of the European elite to absorb the most elementary facts of the situation.

Europe’s derangement has deeper roots.

The flowering of Jewish national life in Israel makes the Europeans crazy. It is not simply envy: it is a terrible reminder of the vanity of European national aspirations over the centuries, of the continent’s ultimate failure as a civilization. Just as the Europeans (most emphatically the Scandinavians) would prefer to dissolve into the post-national stew of European identity, they demand that Israel do the same. Never mind that Israel lacks the option to do so, and would be destroyed were it to try, for reasons that should be obvious to any casual consumer of news media.

Europeans cannot live with their past. They cannot live with their present, and do not plan to have a future, for they do not bear enough children to forestall demographic ruin at the hundred-year horizon. With its high fertility, national spirit, religiosity and unabashed national self-assertion, Israel reminds the Europeans of everything that they are not. Much worse: it reminds them of what they once desired to become. The idea of Israel as well as the fact of Israel are equally intolerable to them.

So it naturally follows that the American Left–deranged as they too are, ridden like rented mules by the mad obsession with turning a country whose very existence is owed to its determination to tread a different path into a carbon copy of the nation we violently seceded from, along with its staggering socialist sister states–would share the Jew-hate of the people they wish so strongly to ape.

(Via Insty)

Share

Shut up and make me a sandwich

Hermione was the smart one. Emma Watson, not so much.

Watson now serves as a “United Nations Women Goodwill Ambassador,” and she spoke to launch the “HeforShe campaign,” which, according to its website, is “a solidarity movement for gender equality that brings together one half of humanity in support of the other half of humanity, for the entirety of humanity.” When you think about it, it sounds nice enough.

The “HeforShe Commitment,” which involves pushing a button online, thereby changing your life trajectory until you maybe forget about said commitment approximately ten minutes later, reads as following: “Gender equality is not only a women’s issue, it is a human rights issue that requires my participation. I commit to take action against all forms of violence and discrimination faced by women and girls.” This pledge, aimed to recruit men to feminism, is placed next to rotating headshots of Barack Obama (the president of the United States), Ban Ki-Moon (the UN secretary general), and Matt Damon (the Most Insufferable Actor in the World, If You Don’t Count Leonardo “I Yacht for a Better Climate” DiCaprio).

Again, this is all great, in theory. I mean, who likes violence or discrimination against women? But wait: a bunch of UN members apparently do. Iran seems to like it, as a nation that regularly stones rape victims. Sudan regularly enforces the practices of child marriage and ritual female genital mutilation. China’s official state policies encourage countless sex-selective, anti-female abortions every year. I could go on and on. The plight of many women worldwide is really quite unbelievable and sad, and it makes me feel lucky to be an American.

When I read the glowing reviews of Watson’s address to that sprawling, international body—Vanity Fair called the speech “game-changing,” Peoplemagazine called it “powerful,” and CNN called it “moving”—I was sure she let loose, unflinching, setting these countries straight regarding their supporting role in the real-world, epic oppression of women.

If you’ve been following modern feminism for a while, I don’t even need to tell you I’m joshing. While Watson, to her credit, did give a few shout-outs to actual oppression around the globe—child brides and uneducated girls in Africa, specifically, along with an admission that “not all women have received the same rights I have”—her speech was an unfortunate reflection of the “we’re all victims,” zero-sense-of-proportion mishmash that makes up modern Western feminism.

If you don’t believe me, here is what Emma Watson, Hollywood actress, actually complained about before a body of 192 member states, some which have more terrifying dictatorships than others: 1. She was called “bossy” as a child; 2. She was sexualized by the media as a young movie star; 3. Many of her girlfriends quit their sports teams because they didn’t want to grow muscles; 4. Many of her teenage male friends, being teenage males, were unable to express their feelings.

Remember how Beyonce had that “FEMINIST” sign behind her at the MTV Video Music Awards? At times, I’m sorry to say, Watson kind of needed a giant “FIRST-WORLD PROBLEMS” sign behind her at this UN speech.

As long as you always bear in mind that “feminist” is now merely another way of saying “Leftist,” you won’t ever be surprised by any of the balderdash cawed by spoiled-brat Western fishwives and their no-ball “male” spirit squad.

Update! Blast it, forgot the link. Here ya go.

Share

More SCIENCE!

Or, y’know, not.

According to Cosmos, at the dawn of the age of astronomy there was “only one man on the whole planet who envisioned an infinitely grander cosmos, and how was he spending New Years Eve of the year 1600? Why, in prison, of course.”

Now we are getting away from the cosmic stuff and into the juicy personal side of science, with its anarchy and back-stabbing, and insurrection — a much different reality than the cold, logical, evidence-based perception of scientists. What science giant are they talking about? Galileo? Kepler? Brahe? No, Tyson is instead talking about Giordano Bruno, who, we are told, “couldn’t keep his soaring vision of the cosmos to himself” at a time when “there was no freedom of thought.”

And we are to believe science is the reason why he was in jail, because Copernicus “did not go far enough” and supposedly Bruno did.

The cartoon we get about Bruno shows him getting run out of Oxford also, but the audience must realize he got invited to talk at Oxford even though they knew what he was about, so clearly they were not suppressing freedom of thought. He lived in England for two years. What is left out of this very long cartoon — 10 minutes of a 41-minute program is devoted to this revisionist history of Bruno – is that Bruno only agreed with Copernicus because he worshiped the Egyptian God Thoth and believed in Hermetism and its adoration of the sun as the center of the universe. Both Hermes and Thoth were gods of…magic.

The church and science did not agree with Bruno that pygmies came from a “second Adam” or that native Americans had no souls, but they were also not going to kill him over it. There is no evidence his “science” came up at any time. He was imprisoned for a decade because the church wanted him to just recant his claims that Hermetism was the one true religion and then they could send him on his way. When he spent a decade insisting it was fact, he was convicted of Arianism and occult practices, not advocating science. It was discovered shortly after his execution that the “ancient texts” he believed had predicted, among other things, the birth of Jesus Christ, had only been created a century earlier, not at the time of Moses.

After the cartoon about Bruno, Tyson immediately concedes that Bruno was not a scientist.

This leads to an obvious question: Why would a science program devote 25 percent of its first episode to the persecution of someone who was not a scientist, was not accepted by scientists, and published no science, but was instead a martyr for magic?

That is a mystery only the producers can answer, but science historians can’t be happy that Galileo’s primary credit to the science of astronomy in Cosmos becomes that he “looked through a telescope, realizing that Bruno had been right all along.”

We can’t know exactly what Galileo thought when he looked through that telescope, but we can be certain that a sun-worshiping philosopher was not on his mind. Instead of being a champion for science and a martyr for freedom of thought, as Cosmos tries to portray him, Bruno undermined science — religious authorities, including the Pope, who had been interested in a good argument for Copernicus, began to wonder if it was all a cult. Yet they didn’t kill to protect religion from science, no matter how the story of Bruno is framed. Both Copernicus and Galileo, actual scientists who shook the pillars of heaven, died peacefully in their sleep.

There is one good thing about believing in the multiverse, though: if there are infinite universes, in one of them the story of Giordano Bruno happened exactly as the Cosmos show says it did.

Unfortunately, in the actual universe, it did not.

Well, they have to dumb things down for their target audience: “liberals,” who need the comfort of their cozy fictions far more than reason-oriented adults do. With Tyson, it would seem they’ve found themselves a perfect Pan to lead them prancing down their primrose path.

Update! Oh, they have a dilemma all right.

In the first go-around, these anti-capitalists tried to capture the science of economics, forming theories about how capitalism is a system of exploitation that will impoverish the common man, while scientific central planning would provide abundance for all.

Let’s just say that this didn’t work out. When it turned out that central planning impoverishes the common man and capitalism provides abundance for all, they had to switch to a fallback position. Which is: to heck with prosperity—too many material goods are the problem. Our greed for more is destroying the planet by causing environmental catastrophes. This shift became official some time in the 1960s with the rise of the New Left.

Some of the catastrophes didn’t pan out (overpopulation, global cooling) and others proved too small to be anything more than a speed bump in the path of capitalism (banning CFCs and DDT). But then along comes global warming—and it’s just too good not to be true. It tells us that capitalism is not just exploiting the workers or causing inequality or deadening our souls with crass materialism. It’s destroying the very planet itself.

The global warming theory tells us that the free market is a doomsday machine bringing about the end of the world. It turns capitalism into a metaphysical evil.

And there is no halfway solution to the problem, no practical fix or technological patch. Carbon dioxide emissions are an unavoidable byproduct of the burning of fossil fuels, and the entire system of industrial capitalism runs on fossil fuels. So the only way to avoid catastrophe is to shut it all down.

You can see how this brings order and balance back to the left’s universe. Their visceral reaction against capitalism is validated on the deepest, most profound level.

You can see how this would be almost like a drug or like an article of religious faith. How can you allow people to question and undermine the very thing that gives meaning to your life? Hence the visceral reaction to global warming skeptics.

Then there is a second dilemma faced by the left. Their own history—and indeed their present—hasn’t always been so liberal and enlightened and progressive. The hard-core advocates of central planning had embraced or excused Soviet totalitarianism, with its party lines and Lysenkoism, and the central planners and “pro-science” types of a previous era had embraced eugenics. Today, there are still those who want to shut down opposing opinions, and every couple of years somebody floats a proposal to imprison global warming skeptics. Or maybe they just try to sue them and shut them down in the courts.

What to do? Construct an alternative narrative in which the political right is the modern-day successor to the Inquisition and the political left is the inheritor of a tradition of bold free-thinking that goes all the way back to Giordano Bruno. Even if you have to fudge a few facts to make it work.

And one in which the Soviet Union, one of the most monstrous regimes in human history, really wasn’t all that bad; fascism was a product of the Right, and the “Socialist” part of Naziism is left out entirely; patently un-Constitutional acts are actually perfectly in line with the intent of the Founders, and those men were actually all for an overlarge and too-powerful central government; and “liberalism” means the exact opposite of what it was understood to mean for centuries previous.

But other than that, they’re perfectly logical, consistent, ethical, and reasonable.

You knew this was coming too update! The blind, worshipful Left strikes back. Feebly, in their usual dishonest fashion.

Celebrity astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson has long been a despised figure among conservatives—and now the right is accusing him of being a “fabulist” and making up quotes.

The conservative website The Federalist ran a story last week saying Tyson had used a nonexistent newspaper headline and a fake quote from a member of Congress in a presentation.

And demonstrated, with factual evidence and direct quotes, that he did exactly that. Not that any of that matters a whit to smug libtard fellow-fabulists.

Tyson hasn’t directly responded to the charges of inaccuracy, and his agent had no comment for this story.

Why should they? They have the unbiased, objective, “science”-loving liberal media for that.

But why do conservatives dislike Tyson so much to begin with?

The answers thus far have been unsatisfying. Amanda Marcotte, a Beast contributor, blamed the right’s “anti-intellectual paranoia” in a story for Alternet, while a piece in the L.A. Times blamed political ignorance. One progressive blog said racism was to blame.

And who would know better why conservatives might dislike someone than a bitter, frothing, hate-addled, hard-Left droolcase; a diehard “mainstream” liberal media outlet; and a race-baiting simpleton?

Perhaps the philosophical difference between left and right on the nature of knowledge is key to understanding the disdain for Tyson.

Now you’re getting somewhere. But you still got a long way to go, because you’re still assuming it’s “knowledge” that conservatives find annoying about Tyson and his bleating, know-nothing acolytes, “knowledge” that conservatives are opposed to. I know, I know, an excursion into the conservative thought process is frightening to liberals–a journey into a dark, alien place where emotion, narcissism, and visceral hatred aren’t necessarily the coins of the realm.

But get this: conservatives are not bothered by knowledge, nor by science, nor even by Tyson personally. They’re bothered by dishonesty and misrepresentation; they’re bothered by using science as an excuse for self-congratulatory ideological preening; they’re bothered by the liberal traits that seem to outweigh and override all others, up to and including their meddlesome lust for absolute power over everybody and everything: arrogance, and condescension.

And if you think any of that is anything remotely to do with science, you got some more to learn about science there, bub.

Actually, I’m probably being a bit harder on the author of the piece than he merits; the story is more even-handed than you might expect from the DB. And if you want to retain that small shred of reasonableness and good will I’m leaving you with there, I strongly recommend that you do NOT wade into the comments section.

(Via Ace)

Share

Inevitable, immutable, unstoppable

None of the above.

The currents of history ebb and flow,” President Obama submitted this morning in Tallinn, Estonia. “But over time, they flow toward freedom.” This, it seems, is a favored formulation of our 44th president. Pontificating on the current state of the world, Obama is fond of chastising those actors who meet with his disapprobation by passively informing them that they are, in a cosmic sense, “wrong,” and that their behavior is incommensurate with the spirit of the era. The Islamic State, Obama has proposed “has no place in the 21st century.” Russia, meanwhile, is operating in both Crimea and Ukraine “on the wrong side of history.” At home and abroad, the president returns to this theme incessantly. “The arc of the moral universe is long,” he likes to intone, “but it bends toward justice.”

This, I’m afraid, is so much wishful thinking — the product of a tragic, if popular, conflation of ideas. There is little wrong with an American president judging harshly the actions of foreign powers. All cultures are not equal, and the superiority of the West — and, within it, the Anglosphere — should be proclaimed as loudly and proudly as is tactful. But to acknowledge that an idea is virtuous is by no means to imply that it is regnant or that it is inevitable. Au contraire. Liberty as we understand it in the United States has been the exception not the rule — and its survival over the past three centuries the consequence not of happy foreordination but of the good guys in the world having enjoyed unmatched military and financial supremacy. Having known little else, the historically myopic will find it tempting to presume that our present global order represents the immutable state of nature. It does not. Just as the primary reason that the forces of liberty have prevailed since 1815 is that they have acquired and maintained unrivaled power, the relative peace and buzzing international trade that we currently enjoy is the product not of the West’s moral dominance, but of the prepotency first of the British Empire and then — after a seamless and invisible handover — of an ascendant United States. “Freedom will win,” the president said this morning in an egregious and curiously self-refuting phrase, “not because it’s inevitable, not because it is ordained, but because these basic human yearnings for dignity and justice and democracy do not go away.” What silliness. If freedom “wins,” it will be, as it has always been, because the free maintained the upper hand over the barbarians. Arcs and flows have bugger all to do with it.

Well, what but utter nonsense can one expect from adherents to a philosophy that insists that the best way to defend liberty is to turn it over to the Superstate to exercise for us as it sees fit?

Share

PC Leftism: Eater of Souls, Devourer of Worlds

Science fiction: yet another thing political correctness has destroyed.

Even a cursory inspection of modern art shows that beauty, which is the particular province and goal of the arts, is not merely avoided by modern artists, but despised. They are not producing poorly executed works of repugnant nonsense and blasphemous lumpish, retarded, asymmetrical obscenity by mistake or through indifference. The diametric opposite of beauty, namely, the revolting, the ugly, the aberrant, whatever is foul and vile, whatever causes a visceral sense of disorientation and disgust, that and precisely that is the goal of the Modern.

As exhibit A, let me introduce This film on the nature of ugliness. It is much like an essay I wrote recently on the EveryJoe website, but, I think, makes the point more clearly than do I.

Understand this point, and you will begin to understand the downfall and collapse of establishment SFF.

Vox Day, in his illimitable fashion, calls Establishment SF ‘Pink SF’ but whether this refers to the girlish, effete nature of establishment thinking, or their infatuation with Communism, or both, I have never been bold to ask.

Establishment SF is Politically Correct SF, in that it pays slavish homage to all the tired tropes and foolish dogmas of Political Correctness. With its emphasis on collective rights, victimology, and radical egalitarianism, there is no place in the PC SF universe for things like heroes, adventures, inventors, exotic locations, space princesses, or technology portrayed as beneficial.

Politically Correct SF is astonishingly parochial, because it is always assumed that the society of the future will be caught in the grip of the selfsame political controversies as the Victorian Age, which is the age when this worldview was first formulated by Marx. Hence, for all other SF stories, the future differs from the present. For PC SF, the future is just like the past, and nothing changes.

In other words, the stories of PC SF promote the opposite of SF.

SF is about a sense of wonder. PC is about a sense of despair. The two are opposite. Hence, PC SF is a contradiction in terms. What it produces is simply not science fiction.

Wright’s proposition covers way more than just science fiction, of course. Follows, the list of Seven Steps to Satan, which includes this bit I especially liked:

The next step is to argue that, since all wars and turmoil and discomfort is caused by Emmanuel Goldstein, then all discontent and war is blamed on him. He is the Jew, the Witch, the scapegoat, the source of all sins and pollutions afflicting the people.

Finding anything where the world is imperfect, such as a difference in the number of female nudes and male nudes in the Roman statue wing of an art museum, or finding difference in the number of Lithuanians than Negroes among professional basketball stars, is proof positive that Goldstein has worked his evil eye here.

I wish I were exaggerating. As a matter of law, in the United States, in every jurisdiction of which I am aware, finding a statistical disparity from the general population in any field of endeavor, lawful or criminal, is held to be caused by racism or some form of discrimination. And this is true in cases where it is clearly not the case, such as the number of non-German beer brewers.

If I open a cabaret, and the only persons who show up for a job as a sous-chef are French, I am held to be discriminating against Aztecs or Etruscans or whoever. If more Greek Orthodox than Roman Catholics commit sabbath breaking in the town of Zwieback, East Virginia, it is assumed as a matter of policy to be proof of discrimination against Greek Orthodox among the police force, even if most policemen are Greek.

This means that anything, anything, from the grand to the comically trivial (the complaint about the number of nudes in art museums was not a parody) can be used to trigger the Two Minute Hate against whatever Goldstein is targeted this news cycle for hysterical hatred.

No matter what happens, no matter what the evidence on the ground might be, it proves that the Reprobate are racist sexist heteronormative xenophobes, and solar panels can provide for all our energy needs even if the laws of nature make that impossible.

Even if the facts were the opposite, that would also be proof. Electing a black man to the highest office in the land proves only that we are nation of cowards unwilling to have a serious dialog about race, which means, to confess they we are all racist dogs unworthy to live.

No matter what happens, no matter what the evidence on the ground might be, it proves the Elect are our superiors in wisdom, in grace, in enlightenment, in charity. Even if conservatives give four times the amount of charity than Leftists, somehow they are the generous ones to the poor and we are Scrooge.

Yep. There’s no winning with these assholes, and no end to them either, as the proctologist once said. I can’t leave off quoting this part, either:

The virus makes no sense and is not meant to make sense. It is meant to attack sense.

The Morlocks think civilization is optional for the same reason they think reality is optional. They think they can saw off the branch on which they sit and that the tree will fall, but they will be safe, sitting on nothing at all.

Says it all, doesn’t it? Plenty more good stuff throughout the article, all of which you should definitely read.

(Via Maet)

Share

Sultans of smug

Schlichter is really on a roll here lately, ain’t he?

It’s astonishing that an ideology which such an unbroken track record of failure has adherents who are so incredibly pleased with themselves. It’s like a soda pop executive whose proudest achievement was thinking up New Coke.

For the liberals who aren’t liberal solely because someone is handing them checks for plopping onto the couch all day instead of working, liberalism has become less an ideology than an attitude. It’s an attitude of serene superiority over everyone else based upon absolutely nothing more than liberals’ utter certainty of the rightness of their collectivist cause. That history shows that collectivism always leads to tyranny never seems to put a damper on their confidence.

Ordinarily, I would send forth a comment here about how that’s more feature than bug with these guys. But the fact is, I have enough “liberal” friends who consider themselves to be the only real bulwark of freedom against conservatives who live only to closely and personally monitor their bedroom activities, deny them access to contraception, and then force them to bear and raise the misbegotten inevitability afterwards to know that the urge to tyranny isn’t really what motivates them. Really, those types–and they are legion, seemingly–aren’t so much willing and eager despots as they are simply deluded and misinformed. Enablers, you might call ’em. Lenin had another term for ’em which is even more apt.

The rest of the piece is good, natch, but the accompanying picture is maybe the best part of all, being the perfect illustration of exactly the type of pinched, whey-faced sanctimony Kurt is talking about. Just makes you want to smack that Church Lady smirk right off his ugly mug, don’t it?

Share

Oh, dry up already

Could there possibly BE anything more tiresome, more joyless, more juiceless, more bereft of life or energy or humanity, than a sanctimonious, politically-correct “liberal” douchebag?

We can but hope not, I guess.

Have you ever called your daughter “princess” or, if you are a daughter, have you been called “princess” by anyone? If so, you are sexist scum.

This important pronouncement comes from Marquette University psychology professors Stephen Franzoi and Debra Oswald.

Franzoi and Oswald reported their findings in an article called “Experiencing Sexism and Young Women’s Body Esteem.” The obscure 2012 article and underlying research are finally seeing the light of day thanks to a website called Medium.

No links to any of this ghastly twaddle, although they’re present in the source material; I figure the workaday stiffs reading this post have enough to endure in their daily round already without my adding to the burden.

Other problems the professors identify include encouraging daughters to wear cosmetics, chivalrously holding doors open or making little girls feel “special” in any way.

The problem with such treatment, they claim, is that it somehow suggests to females that they cannot provide full financial support for themselves. Females also can’t have high esteem in the absence of such treatment.

“This pattern of sexist behavior restricts what the woman can and cannot do by setting up rewards and punishments when they engage in gender non-conforming behaviors,” Oswald said, according to Medium. “Truly loving behavior toward a partner does not have this contingency.”

It’s not clear if Oswald believes that daughters — or sons — are equal partners in the conventional father-child relationship.

What IS clear, or ought to be, is just how much I loathe oxygen thieves like this.

Via Jeff, who says: “A reminder: university “education” costs an absolute boatload, and this is the kind of thing those hired to demagogue at universities routinely teach.” Yep. Which by itself is reason enough to put those universities to the torch toot fucking sweet.

Share

Out of the mouths of (red-diaper) babes: head scratchers, knee slappers, and inconvenient truths

Um. Heh.

“April Sands: ‘I don’t understand how anyone but straight white men can vote Republican’”

That’s okay, April. I can’t understand how a black woman can support the party of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow laws, the blocking of civil rights legislation, the elevation of a Klan Grand Kleagle to Senate Majority Leader, and the eugenics of Margaret Sanger, who founded planned parenthood to rid the country of as many mongrel babies as was possible — a party that oversees the consistent increase in welfare recipients, foodstamp recipients, and high unemployment in the black community.

I guess we all have our head scratchers.

You can say that again.

Update! Another hearty “heh” for this one: “Geraghty: Apparently Lois Lerner Is ‘One-Woman Walking Electromagnetic Pulse.’

Share

Inhuman tragedy!

Given our ever-accelerating national plummet into the depths of the Leftyfascist cesspool, it seemed like a good time to look in on the doin’s at the People’s Cube. In their way, the gang over there is every bit as prescient as Bracken is. Which stands to reason–as Soviet expats, they’ve already trodden the well-worn, dismal path Ogabe and Pals have us on now. Thus:

As the Sharks sang in “West Side Story,” excusing their petty delinquencies to the neighborhood patrolman, back in the 50s, “We is depraved on account a’ being deprived.”

Here, ladies and gents, we have the updated phenomenon: Women in droves dying in the malls, bowling alleys, library stacks and Vegas parking lots because – let us all gasp together – they were unable to continue life as we know it without free concomitant abortifacients of convenience.

They’re depressed. Defeated. And dying on account of being deprived.

Newspapers from the day, back in July through November 2014, report sightings of bereft young women howling in the streets, desperate for some way to ameliorate their Supreme Court-mandated deprivation in that 0.25% of national companies whose provenance is religious Christian, such as that dastardly and uncompromising Hobby Lobby, which began the mysterious pestilence that felled so many millions of entertaining, enterprising, highly educated women of child-bearing and unbearable age.

“Woe is us!” mewled a toned customer coming out of Lululemon with stretchy pale pastel yoga workout clothing. “I am terrified I might suddenly find myself pregnant! Where can I go? My company offered only 16 varieties of birth control, not the four I particularly need for my blood type and afflicted mental status.”

But these appalling anecdotes preceded the mass deaths that followed shortly on the Supreme Court ruling.

Sandra Fluke was the first to expire. Before her death at New York Presbyterian, she hoarsely whispered: “I wanted only to continue having sex the same number of times I did in law school, while studying for the Law Boards – just 25-30 times a month. Was it too much to ask that my $8,000 a summer contraceptive Jones be taken care of by that lousy school I was slaving away at?”

Carefully pulling the covers over Fluke’s flushed and deranged face, her physician confided, “She hardly had a chance, once the Court removed her health choice. There was nothing medical science could do.”

Aww. What a damnable shame. My sympathy is somewhat less than boundless for these poor spoiled-brat “victims” who petulantly insist on conflating contraception and abortion with “health care,” as if pregnancy were some dreaded disease. Although if anything, their own neurotic, juvenile terror of it might well be described as such, along with the dementia associated with a contrived right to have someone else foot the bill for their own self-indulgence.

Share

I question their patriotism!

Well, this is certainly shocking. In an UNEXPECTED! sort of way.

Michelle Obama took some heat in 2008 for saying that, “for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country…”

As it turns out, that sentiment isn’t all that unusual on the far left of American politics. According to a new Pew Research Center study, only 40 percent of consistently liberal Americans say they often feel proud to be Americans.

The other 60 percent say that doesn’t describe them.

Of course, it’s because of their puerile, adolescent conception of themselves as “citizens of the world,” for whom patriotic sentiment is gauche and “unsophisticated,” the ugly habit of unevolved Neanderthals and such. How they square this with their insistence on “tolerance” and “respect” for gay-murdering, woman-subjugating, child-mutilating “religious” fanatics is another question entirely.

On the other hand, thanks to the soft coup their ilk has foisted on us, there really ain’t a whole lot to be proud of about present-day America. So in a way they’re right, even if it amounts to a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

Share

Operative words

I admit I’m not reading Nemo’s site nearly enough. Gotta work on that.

It came to us in a blinding flash that almost every thorny and complex issue batted about by today’s “thought leaders” and “policy experts” can be summarized with almost 100% accuracy by just two words. Fact is, we always knew something of the sort was true, and the concept is as old as humanity, but still, it does seem to do an amazingly efficient job of saving time, slicing through ribbons of argument and rhetoric, and getting directly to the point that lies behind almost all of these issues.

Example: Yesterday, Ta-Nehisi Coates published a 15,000 word essay examining in excruciating detail every possible argument supporting the payment of “reparations” to victims of slavery. To attempt to take this on in a point-by-point rebuttal will be the province of people as obdurate as an Army mule; no one will read a word of it, just as very few will actually read all 15,000 words so carefully wrought and cleverly organized by Mr. Coates.

Example: An armada of analyses have been trotted forth in support of the necessity for wealth redistribution, with calliope peals of fault-finding, rainbows of justifications, symphonies of statistics and tapestries of yarns (“Sophie, a single mother of nine in the Hough district of Cleveland…”).

Example: Sea levels will rise, droughts will ravage, winds will blow, cataracts will pour, conflicts will escalate, civilizations will crumble, and entire cities will sink beneath the waves.

Example: Poverty drives crime, social inequity drives poverty, privilege drives inequity, insensitivity drives privilege, ignorance drives insensitivity, and racism drives ignorance.

Which two words summarize all the arguments put forward above? Which two words will end all discussion and get us right to the point? Easy: “Pay me.”

Reduced to its essentials, almost every headline, opinion piece, policy debate and their kindred lead inexorably to that simple demand.

Well said, and certainly true enough as far as it goes. But he left out the two other most important words in the liberal-fascist catechism: Obey me.

(Via Bill)

Share

Too old!

I’ve been saying this for years, but I never said it as well as Daniel does here.

It’s outrageous to question the medical consequences of Hillary’s “traumatic brain injury” which took her six months to recover from after passing out and falling down while boarding a plane. But ridiculing Bob Dole’s dead arm, an injury he suffered while dragging one of his men into a foxhole out of enemy fire during WW2, or McCain’s inability to lift his arms or perform certain tasks after they were broken by his torturers, was part of the game.

We can question the health of war veterans, but not of a career politician.

There will be no stories about how wrinkled Hillary’s skin is. No one will ask her if she can tie her shoes. Or if she can use Twitter without an assistant. Or whether she forgets things sometimes.

But if a Republican in his late sixties or early seventies becomes a candidate, then the switch will flip and suddenly asking those questions will become fair game.

Again.

The issue isn’t Hillary’s brain. It’s that Democrats don’t consider themselves accountable in the same way that they expect Republicans to be. It’s that they consider attacks on Republicans fair game that they are too thin-skinned to accept when they rebound on them.

The problem isn’t Hillary’s brain damage. It’s the Democratic Party’s brain damage. 

The Democratic Party, which has been around since the early 19th century, is just too old. The parts of its brain that relate to accountability and integrity have been burned out. The political party suffered a traumatic brain episode in the sixties and it hasn’t recovered from it since. The left side of its political brain is dominant while the right side has completely withered away.

The Democrats keep insisting that they’re moving forward, when they’re actually wandering off to the left without even being able to recognize it. They insist that they’re centrist when they’ve completely drifted off the road.

It doesn’t matter how young or old its candidates are as long as they base their worldview around discredited 19th century ideas about economics and equally discredited 20th century ideas about the virtues of central planning. A youthful body with a decayed brain rotting with ideas that were old when Nixon and LBJ were toddlers isn’t progressive.

It’s hopelessly reactionary.

Obama may have been in his late forties when elected, but his ideas were around one hundred and forty years old. No matter what age Hillary is, her ideas are equally old and unworkable. It’s not the state of her brain that’s the problem, it’s the things she’s been putting in there since a very young age.

I found it very difficult to cut off the excerpting there; you really must read it all. Just about every single problem we now confront–from petty PC annoyance to hellishly expensive bureaucratic catastrophe to actual life-threatening foreign-policy fuckup–can be traced directly back to the ignorance and obstinacy of the blockhead Left, and is a testament to just how far they’re willing to go in rewriting history so that the tired, failed ideas they’re so mulishly wedded to can continue to plague humanity.

Share

Patterns

Doomed to repeat it. And we’re way beyond tragedy and well past farce by now.

During my four years in Guatemala, we had countless visits from “human rights activists,” leftist “journalists,” and Congressional staff, usually of the Democrat variety. These, after all, were the days of Democratic rule of the lower house. For some reason, the Ambassador designated me as the primary on receiving  these American and European lefties who came through Guatemala and dropped in on the Embassy to hear our briefing–well, actually, they came in to yell at, spit on, and insult Satan, and I was Satan’s designated flak catcher (to paraphrase Tom Wolfe). As a then relatively young officer, I was taken aback at how Americans, including members of Congressional staff, could be so anti-American and so pro-communist. It was a shock that made me understand that the Democratic Party had gotten on the bus to Loopyville and never gotten off. They wanted the communist guerrillas to win.

I had run into the opposition to America that came from the Democratic party before serving in Guatemala. I took part as a member of the US delegation to the 77th Conference of the Interparliamentary Union held at Managua, Nicaragua, April 27-May 2, 1987–you can click here and read the US delegation’s report if you’re sorely in need of dull reading material (I get mentioned in passing). It was an inconsequential meeting as such meetings go, although it was the first big do put on for the world community by the Sandinistas. The event was held at the newly built Olaf Palme Center, and Mrs. Lisbet Palme came and gave an opening speech in which she blamed her husband’s assassination the previous year on the CIA. It all went downhill from there.

The Sandinistas had opted for what was then a technologically fancy translation system; delegates could walk around the center with wireless headsets over which the numerous speeches were simultaneously translated into the five or six official languages of the conference. Some African delegates thought the gadgets would work on the street; that they could engage Spanish-speaking Nicaraguans, and the headphones would translate–just like on Star Trek. The expensive sets began disappearing, and the Sandinista hosts had to dash about trying to wrestle them away from delegates before they walked out the door. I found quite interesting how racist Sandinista liberators of humanity could be–they, of course, didn’t realize that I could understand their derogotory remarks about the Africans, even if I wasn’t wearing a headset. A memorable personal encounter with the fact that racism and leftism go hand-in-hand.

If one went out into the field, and got away from the Sandinista handlers, there was no doubt that the “Contras” were winning the war. They had the support of ordinary people almost regardless of status. I saw first hand the so-called “sweaty palm” syndrome among Sandinista officials in the countryside; they would quietly sidle up to the gringos, and tell us how they, of course, did not really support the FSLN, and how they loved the USA, and that “everybody here is a Contra, and so are we.” The obvious message being that when these Contras win, please use your influence to save us. Well, the problem was that the battle was being fought in the US Congress, and the Democrats managed to cut off all funding for the Contras soon after our visit to Nicaragua. The Sandinistas were saved by the Democrats, and the opposition lost all faith in the word and promises of the United States.

The pattern repeats and repeats and repeats…

That’s because they haven’t been able to come up with a single new idea since the days of Woodrow Wilson.

Share

Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra

Shaka, when the narrative fell.

Notice how this idea subordinates things like facts, evidence, and reason to pre-set narratives about racial oppression, Marxist economics, and sexism. To say that everything we think is determined not by objective reality but by our pre-existing biases is to say that there are no facts, only narrative. And this is precisely the conclusion embraced by the “deconstructionist” literary theorists. Which is to say that they have provided a philosophical justification for the Tamarian method of “narrative thinking.” The Children of Tama are actually the children of Kant.

This embrace of narrative thinking, and the contemporary obsession with narratives about race, class, and gender, explains many things about the left. Take the latest absurdity of political correctness, the “Ban Bossy” campaign. All of its many absurdities make sense if you stop trying to understand it in literal terms, as an attempt to prevent the use of an ordinary descriptive adjective, but see it instead as imagery and narrative about brave women standing up to the “patriarchy.” Translated into Tamarian, it might be, “I am woman, hear me roar.” Or perhaps, “Well behaved women seldom make history,” a slogan you have undoubtedly seen on a bumper sticker, especially if you live in a university town.

Chances are that you saw that bumper sticker on the back of a Prius pasted with a dozen other such slogans, each expressing some part of the imagery and narrative that drives our contemporary politics. These vehicles should be preserved as Rosetta Stones for some future Tamarian-to-English dictionary of the left.

This is the trend that has made education in the humanities increasingly incompatible with science and rational inquiry—a problem identified some years ago as a clash between two cultures speaking two different languages, each unable to understand the other. Which is exactly the situation projected in that Star Trek episode—except that in real life, those who use the language of the Children of Taa are incapable of building an industrial civilization, much less a starship.

No, but they sure can destroy ’em, and raze the foundations from underneath the feet of those who can.

Share

Categories

Archives

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution



Click HERE for great deals on ammo! Using this link helps support CF by getting me credits for ammo too.

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

All original content © Mike Hendrix