Tuesday, February 19, 2019
The entries for Random Observations (in the links on the left of this page) have been updated as of February 2019
Monday, January 23, 2006
A thus far incomplete enterprise
This site is primarily for compiling notes and ideals. New entries will be added over time...
(The quotations that follow are personal observations. Because so many of the issues addressed here are basic themes in political philosophy, there are no doubt many quotes among them that come close to simply restating the quotations or general observations of others. It is certainly not my intention to be merely copying the thoughts of others so, 'apologies for those cases where that may appear to be the case)
(The quotations that follow are personal observations. Because so many of the issues addressed here are basic themes in political philosophy, there are no doubt many quotes among them that come close to simply restating the quotations or general observations of others. It is certainly not my intention to be merely copying the thoughts of others so, 'apologies for those cases where that may appear to be the case)
Sunday, January 22, 2006
TOPICS:
Why do Canada and Mexico have such massive, powerful, and expensive militaries? To protect them from the "greatest danger to world peace" that lies at their borders. (Yes, this is a joke).
If anyone hasn't noticed, the "great hegemon" that is accused of being so threatening and aggressive doesn't seem to arouse any genuine fear at all to sane people in neighboring countries.
It's not the job of the American president to help European countries regain their sense of glory. If the French, Germans, etc. truly wish to reestablish a sense of significance, they'll need to start by scraping the stagnant social bureaucratic scheme they've adopted.
It's better to be a rich country with some poor people than a poor country with some powerful politicians.
The reason America has been, and will likely continue to be, a wealthy and powerful country is that those with superior potential, intelligence, and ambition are simply free to do superior things -- which eventually benefit many. This is only a problem to those who resent the very concept of varying ability or degrees of engagement in life. Such resentment is no more than, what Ayn Rand called, "Hatred of the good, for being the good."
Europeans who despise American “hegemony” do so more out of a fear and awareness of their own weakness rather than a perception of America’s strength.
Patriotism is when you wave a flag. Nationalism is when you try to plant it in another country.
When one says that they "despise Americans," which of the almost 300 million people do they hate most? -- The Blacks, Hispanics, Whites, rich, poor, intellectuals, men, women, laborers, scientists, artists, Republicans, Democrats...et al., or is it just anyone in America who doesn't obey that mini-tyrant in the socialist critic's head?
The heroes of America are those who will not be told what to do. They are the free spirits who create artworks, music, literature (and smut), sky scrapers, technology, and medical miracles...and who sometimes just sit down, drink a beer and do nothing -- because that's what they've chosen to do.
The Germans… (obviously not all Germans): They used to favor National Socialism. Now many (if not most) favor International Socialism. Their only difference over time is that now they'd like to see their collectivist authoritarian ideology cover a wider area.
Listen to John Kerry, Al Gore, and Ted Kennedy and you'll hear the common sound of angry and bitter guys who wanted to be President, thought it was their right and destiny...and didn't get their way.
Why is an American’s appreciation of their country, “blind patriotism” and a French citizen’s appreciation for France enlightened superiority.
Contemporary criticism of the U.S. has become kind of like The Boy who Cried Wolf. Since people show outrage* every time the U.S. farts, when it actually does takes a shit it's hard to take the smell that seriously.
*(a seriously overused term – not to be confused with “right-wing hate speech”).
1. All countries, first and foremost, pursue their own interests.
2. Thinking they don't or shouldn't is stupid.
3. (This applies when discussing the United States as much as any other country).
How often does history provide a society that is extremely powerful and is essentially a force for good? (This will be a worthless question if you're incapable of acknowledging that there is such a thing as good or that "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" is a "self-evident" good thing).The answer is; not very often. And, although it's an unnoticed fact of our time, such a country exists. Now imagine a world where there is an extremely powerful country or alliance of countries that are essentially a force for evil...or at least dedicated to the destruction of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Saying that America is an "oppressive" and "racist " country is like complaining that the color sequence in a rainbow is flawed and can be improved – it's pretty much a reflection of your own perceptions and how significant you think it is that the world isn't as perfect as you'd like it to be.
The degree to which one is an "anti-war / pacifist" regarding wars involving the United States is typically proportional to the degree of apathy toward other wars where the U.S. is not involved. In the case of "wars of national liberation" (communist coup d' etats) a "pacifist" often becomes remarkably pro-war.
"Multipolar/Multilateral world" actually means an alliance of emerging dictatorships that determine the destiny of humanity – nice going.
Hitler killed six million Jews and loved his dog. It does not then follow that loving dogs is a bad thing.
In a another analogy, the fact that America's founding father were holders of slaves – the common practice of the time (as it was in many societies throughout history) – does not somehow reflect poorly upon the concepts of freedom of the press and religion or the separation of powers within government.
America's founding fathers "were slave owning white male bourgeoisie land-owners." How then could freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly possibly be a good thing?
Why is it that those who bring up and critique America's involvement in the Vietnam War never manage to even briefly note that France had actually colonized the country and fought to keep it before America's gradual entry into the conflict?
Among the loony left's many bizarre beliefs is that America is, and always has been, essentially a fascist state. If so stupid a belief had even a grain of truth to it one would have to at least wonder why America wasn't allied with Germany, Italy, and Japan during World War II. In fact, the U.S was a bitter enemy of the Nazis (for example) and most people before WWII speculated as to when, not if, we would go to war against a system and philosophy so obviously contrary to our own beliefs in individual freedom and democratic pluralism.
Hardly profound...Most non-Americans (and all leftists) would like to see America's president be someone who does not support the interests of America [!]. The same situation, of course, does not apply when other countries' citizens consider the stance of their own leaders and their countries' interests.
America can be noted to have almost perfected capitalism (of course, those days are long gone)...and Europe has, on several occasions come close to perfecting socialism, communism, fascism, and Nazism...
Nine out of ten dictatorships (or aspiring dictatorships) hate the U.S. What should that tell one...?
In addition to Europeans, Canadians, and Australians etc. not liking America, one must realize that there are many Americans that don't like America. What it ultimately comes down to is a definite favoritism for the left wing romantic world view amongst a generation (actually two generations) of people raised and reared on media, "education," and "entertainment" with a one track style of thought. America is just a good hook for their projection of the evil seen in societies unplanned by intellectuals and stratified by wealth and achievement The twist is that they think they're being unique and rebellious for their conformity to everything they've been told by the mouthpieces of the most pampered generations in history.
POLITICAL FORCES
Civilization hovers somewhere in that Freudian realm between absolute abandon and absolute control. When a fervent outpost is reached on either end one can expect its opposite to eventually manifest. It is the country that wanders on the fine line between chaos and restraint that is most successful in survival and worldly achievement.
It's most unfortunate, but freedom contains its own self-destruction within itself. Ultimately the same freedom that affords diverse creativity, innovation, and economic dynamism also provides a platform for every spoiled, ungrateful, and stupid fool to subvert, attack, and help to destroy this very concept which allows for such prosperity and advance.
To say that all history is a series of class struggles is like saying that history is a pattern of people eating. True as both may be, in and of themselves, such observations aren't particularly insightful or profound.
With all the fancy charts, schemes, and tomes one finds from Marx and his followers, the philosophy ultimately comes down to the simple and undramatic observation that, "It's not fair that life isn't fair."
If there's one thing a Marxist hates more than a Capitalist, it's an intelligent proletarian.
The tragedy and paradox of Marxism's allure lies in its ability to con youthful idealists into believing that Socialist rule is somehow "revolutionary." To the contrary, it’s the most stoic of inflexible and archaic ideals -- that individual expression should be crushed before the "needs" of "society" (the State). Marxist authoritarian rule seeks to indeed "meet the needs" of its slave caste, to merely subsist as drones in a bland ant hill of regressive conformity.
The Communist party doesn't seem to be aware that a party is supposed to be fun.
The communist "revolutions" have not been revolutions at all but mere coup de etats. They did not bring about revolutionary changes in government or society but merely transferred power from one authoritarian clique' to another -- same statist authority, different names.
A communist "revolution" is when one group (socialists) corners the market on everything. Historically, that group has been comprised of disgruntled intellectuals speaking in the name of various "oppressed" groups they care little for. The socialist method of obtaining universal monopoly has always been through mere coercion and violence. Persuasion alone would never get them the power they demand.
The only way a Marxist economy can develop new technology is by the same method they use to acquire assets in general -- theft.
Any political authority that refers to outlawed opposition as, “enemies of the people” or “counter-revolutionaries,” is probably not going to be very open and tolerant to anyone in general.
A communist ranting about their "right to free speech" is like a wolf proclaiming the virtues of a vegetarian diet.
One of communism's many paradoxes (hypocrisies, actually) is that, while in a free society, its followers will obsessively call for, "change" while supporting a style of government that, once established, will not permit change of any kind.
The best thing a communist government can do is give up their allegiance to that old-time religion imported from Europe (Marxism) and then "wither away" the way the state is supposed to do according to Marx.
Some Marxists and their ideas seem to never die, but I wish they would “fade away.”
In the left's new extrapolation from its original doctrines, a Muslim-Fascist police state is a type of freedom and our constitutional republic and concept of self-government are types of "oppression." – Some things never change.
The classic Marxist story-line; the pampered, lazy, and unproductive lecture and chastise the people who have created and maintained developed and dynamic open society. Why? For daring to lack obedience to the former.
It's an old axiom in psychology that neurotics build castles in the sky and psychotics live in them. To this I would add that leftists demand that other people live in them as well.
Leftists basically believe that the Emperor has clothes...and that we should pay for them.
The basic philosophy of communism (and this would include today's trendy neo-comms) is that the rich have everything and the poor have nothing...and, it would be a better world if the circumstance were the opposite.
A Marxist intellectual will seldom acknowledge that fascism is merely a variant of their own statist/collectivist philosophy (Mussolini was a devout Marxist throughout his career as the first fascist dictator and, like Hitler, despised free-market capitalism).
No matter how socially intrusive a leftist may be, they will always draw a line at the boundaries of their own liberty and independence.
What exactly is the reason communism is imposed on any society? The society will still always possess the societal attributes the communist supposedly hates, add authoritarian domination and economic stagnation, and then say they're on the road to paradise. Ironically, the first steps toward anything even vaguely resembling paradise occurs when the first free transactor in commerce takes place – when the human mind chooses personal improvement over obedience to an abstract overlord.
Though a "liberal" may be motivated by desire to "help people" the practical reality of their philosophy ultimately defaults to a need to control people. A classical liberal / libertarian on the other hand makes no pretense to either seeking to help or hinder others. In motivation, their means and end are the same, they merely wish to be left alone -- and hope that others will be left to their own choices in life as well. Pop mythology aside, the libertarian conservative is by far the less aggressive or demanding of fellow citizens. The left, in all its shades, seeks to impose and control – they are innately authoritarian.
A shirt with a communist autocrat across its front doesn’t count when the person wearing it lives high off the fruits of open society and a free economy.
There's nothing a leftist hates more than someone using the process of intellectual reasoning and arriving at different conclusions from their own.
Hu Jintao, of communist China, is a typical late-model dictator. The kind that trade in drab uniforms for suits and ties so they can feign a degree of legitimacy before their dying socialist prison state succumbs to the reality of human nature and the desire of citizens live freely.
Leftists want to have [your] cake [ -- and everyone elses' -- ] and eat it too.
If capitalism is supposedly so cruel, heartless, and oppressive, why is it that the mood, tone, and manner of its opposite – Marxist style socialism – is consistently so grim, gray, stern, and lifeless?
Most communists fail to note one obvious and fatal flaw in their whole scheme. If a society outlaws almost everything, they will have almost nothing.
We all tend to give "the benefit of a doubt" to some side in the issues of the day, and we all are occasionally wrong in our often misplaced sympathies. Western conservatives tend to reserve their benefit of a doubt to the decisions and action of their own free societies. Leftists more often than not, direct their doubt benefits to dictators and utopian/authoritarian political schemes. They do this knowing that their stance would ultimately deprive the benefit of freedom and individual expression to others. And for this they fancy themselves heroes, "rebels," and scholars of great insight.
Affording the benefit of a doubt is an easy exercise of common sense – that some are incapable of making.
For consistent corruption and cronyism, nothing beats "business" transactions in a communist state.
The left hates the free-market precisely because it its free -- their ultimate gripe is with freedom itself even aside from its expression in economics. Here’s a real “revolutionary” idea the left should follow; mind your own business.
While it is the nature of extreme Leftists -- in their bid for power-- to stand for internationalism and pacifism, after attaining power, with consistent regularity, they become both devote nationalists and militarists.
Communists’ ranting of their right to free speech is like a wolf proclaiming the virtues of a vegetarian diet.
I think it can be said that the left, with regular consistency, takes a stand for cultural radicalism (often in expressions of the course and decadent), before they attain power. After attaining power it is quite another matter as they inevitably become cultural puritans every bit as dogmatic and oppressive as the most fervent religious extremist.
The difference between the right and left is that the right loves hearing people "tell it the way it is" and the left loves hearing people tell it the way they imagine -- and isn't.
Leftists are the kind of people you don't want to be around when they're making "a better world."
Notice to the left. Listen to what you're really saying, then wince with embarrassment.
The following should be a common sense insight but, among some, it is not:
A dictatorship will always, in some way, mistreat a large segment of its population. In dealing with other nations it will always be untrustworthy, and it will always present a potential – and usually manifest – threat.
It should take equal common sense to see that such institutions should be dealt with sooner rather than later, as they will inevitably have to be dealt with at some point, typically on less than favorable terms to civilized and open societies.
The key to successful foreign policy is in recognizing that there are both good and bad governments and that you deal with them differently.
An unelected political “authority” is not legitimate – ever!
Only in the warped minds of Leftland is sympathy for dictatorship seen as a moral virtue.
With the left's new found appreciation for Muslim religious (and political extremism) we find that they finally support the prophet motive.
Regardless of the sibling rivalry and heated animosity between Communists, Fascist, and Nazis, a person would have to be a total fool (or hypocritical partisan) to not recognize them all as virtually identical in character and behavior.
A cult of personality in politics has never been a good thing – ramping such emotions up, on steroids so to speak, can only be worse.
Most societies have the common sense to justly punish those who use force or deception against another. The societies that punish thought and free expression (no matter how foolish or mean-spirited it may be) are called dictatorships.
Think of all the love and peace we could have if we'd just learn to cooperate with dictators more...or so the story goes.
Capitalism uses the carrot. Socialism uses the stick...
It is no coincidence that a country's economic strength tends to parallel the extent to which business-minded people are encouraged to stay (and thrive) vs. being motivated to giving up or simply leaving altogether.
While there is such a thing as "welfare for the rich," a tax cut is not an example of it.
In the eternal debate as to what is to be despised and feared more, business or government, it may be noted that businesses only want your money, and even then one can choose not to give it to them. If only the state and its minions were open to such negotiation.
Criticism of the most productive will always arise from the least productive.
“Some things are just too important to leave to the whims of the market [the ever-changing cumulative effect of millions of individual decisions]”…
Actually, most things are too important to leave to the whims – and compulsory edicts – of politicians, bureaucrats, and philosophers.
Next time let Robin Hood pay with his own money.
A socialist view of economics is where one feels that the cost of an apple should be determined by one's hopes and dreams – this in regard to apples and everything else.
"Helping the poor" always sounds nice 'on paper'," In practice it seldom amounts to little more than punishing the rich or, eventually, punishing anyone who opposes "helping the poor."
They've been "helping the poor" for the last 40 years or more ("they" being the Federal government -- tax money). By now they should be able to claim one of two scenarios; Their "war on poverty" worked and the nearly 7 trillion dollars spent have paid off In virtually eliminating poverty (in which case the programs can be scaled down considerably if not outright eliminated)...or...their project failed and should therefore be discontinued. Instead we get, "we're not doing enough."
How is it that Democrat politicians (i.e. John Edwards) can often ramble on about their rise to positions of power and wealth from "blue collar / working-class" roots and miss the irony of their attacks on America as an unjust society that requires socialist leveling?
Simply saying one is "for the underdog" is meaningless when one is the overdog and merely wants a punitive government to attack people richer than one's self.
The Democrats’ economic policies can best be summed up as “trickle-down” taxation. Their rant always begins with a proclamation that “the rich” will be forced to “pay their fair share” (an amount determined by the demagogue and various bureaucratic parasites). It’s never acknowledged that the “rich” already pay the bulk of America’s tax revenue (40% of Americans pay no federal taxes at all). In the end the call to steal through such punitive tax measures “trickles down” to the middle class and everyone else through eventual higher taxes, higher prices for products and services, reduced employment options, and an overall drag on the economy. For what? So that socialist politics can enact its standard war upon success and achievement. …Pathetic.
In a nutshell, the leftist sales pitch for power: "Give me power and I'll pass laws to steal other people's money and maybe I'll give you some too."
Remember; Capitalists are bad because they've got stuff. And, we're good because we don't have as much stuff. However, we'd continue to be good if we had more stuff because we're better people. So,...give us their stuff.
I've never met an anti-capitalist who wasn't deeply benefiting from capitalism and demanding that those benefits be deprived of others.
"You get what you pay for"...unless you paid for it through taxation, in which case you're likely to get something for someone else that they don't even want or pay for.
After Journalists and teachers, the people who seem to know the least about economics are economists.
Why is it that when wealth is supposedly "redistributed" from "the rich" to "the poor" only power is actually redistributed from citizens to politicians and bureaucrats?
"I'm an independent thinker...I agree with everything my Marxist Professor taught me"
An entire subgroup of frustrated radicals has emerged in our time because they were stupid enough to think that college courses in “woman’s studies,” and “critical theory” et al. would provide them the marketable skills that would maintain the lifestyles of their bourgeois upbringing. Being able to complain about “unfairness” in life is not a marketable skill. The job market has little calling for professional agitators , angry control freaks, or disgruntled spoiled brats.
The old saying is true, “Those who can’t do; teach,” and I would add that, those who can’t teach; teach teachers.
If you can’t read this, thank College Ed Schools, Teacher Unions, and government “education” bureaucrats.
As long as schools of Education and Journalism (not to mention college curriculum in general) continue to turn out students predisposed to the worldview of the left, there will be few who will defend values of substance or decency...and many who will actively advocate horrors unimagined.
"Some people don't want to be free." -- So that means the others should remain enslaved?
In Left-land it's always about "equality" not quality..., and they'll throw in the dictatorship at no extra cost.
All slaves are "equal" before a slave master.
Free people stratify into classes – it's called "diversity" – deal with it.
A mature revelation can occur when one realizes that the thing they are is the thing they've always been.
There is a part of leftist thinking that seems to require that the world be a bad place; that people be evil, "greedy," "selfish," and "unjust." One can think one's self quite noble when most of the world is terrible, and one can see the need for their own acquisition of power if they truly believe that they have within themselves the unique goodness to "make a better world." If the world is not so bad, and perhaps getting better, it becomes all too necessary for leftists to "invent" (in their own minds) a bad world to avoid the cognitive dissonance that arises in a bitter control freak unable to deal with real problems found in a simple mirror.
Calling Islam a “religion of peace” is like calling a wolf a vegetarian.
We can clearly discern that Bush planned a secret "inside job" in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center...
...because his 1993 attack on the same building failed (???).
In Mohammad (a merchant), the left has finally found a businessman they can love.
"Homophobia" means fear of homosexuals. I don't think there are many people who are actually "afraid" of homosexuals. There's certainly no cause to be. "Islamophobia" means fear of Muslims. ...That's a whole other story now, isn't it...
Calling Islam a "religion of peace" is like calling rugby a board game.
The government has the power to do right-wing things you don't like because you gave it the power to do left-wing things you do like.
The fact that many people like dictatorship certainly makes life difficult for those of us who share no such perverse affection for bondage.
A slave owner wants to keep control over other humans. A slave wishes to be free of such control. Can we really say that the two merely represent different and equally valid "viewpoints?" Should one not be "narrow-minded" and "lacking nuance" and stand by what is morally right? The difference between any statist and free spirit is akin to that of a slave and his or her would-be master. To resist the encroachment of the state into the personal lives of citizens is not a "different" or "selfish" "point of view, it's an attribute of moral character and substance.
Freedom for all is preferable to feigned moral glory for some.
People should be left alone and their beliefs, actions,and associations should be voluntary – now, why would anyone have a problem with that?
It is odd that many who praise a mystical worldview are so adamant about having authority and control over the non-mystical / material world.
Government support of any group will always be at the expense of another. Moral judgments regarding government's "role" rest not on some magical insight into what is right, but merely upon which groups one favors.
One of the left's prime motivations is to simply wear the laurels of elitism. They resent capitalism and the capitalist elite that rise to power from the hourly democratic votes of free-market choice. They wish to replace this result of free and individual choice with the drab authoritarian planning of an intellectual elite (themselves), placed in power by "revolution" (force) and maintained by coercion.
As a rule; bitter, depressed, and failing individuals, groups, and nations resent and despise optimistic, happy, and successful individuals, groups, and nations. One's political perspective is largely determined by whether one views the former as victims, or merely bitter, depressed failures.
Some leftists are just going to have to face the fact that many Americans don't see America or its problems through the lens of Ivy league snobbery or authoritarian arrogance.
Some of the most ruthless and cruel extremists of history had gained their power partially through articulated bogus platitudes to moral virtue.
There is no law or indication that a person merely expressing a belief in "sharing," altruism, or moral goodness actually embodies any such principals. In fact, there is good reason to believe that the degree of passion in which one speaks for such values is inversely disproportional to the actual degree of goodness the speaker embodies.
Who doesn't "hate" (passionately dislike) something, and often by default, someone -- often, some group? Those who so often decry "hate speech" can hardly be seen as immune from this common human emotion. If I hear of another example of some elitist entertainer or intellectual suggest that George Bush or Dick Chaney should be killed (possibly due to hatred of them) I'm gonna laugh/cry.
There is no one who magically gains moral superiority through mere adherence to a particular view. Actions do not just "speak louder than words," actions are the only real words with any genuine moral value or authority.
People who are genuinely poor are motivated politically – if at all – by despair, hopelessness, dependence, and envy.
…Middle class "revolutionaries" are just motivated by stupidity (with a bit of arrogance).
If it can be said that “all of Western philosophy is a mere foot note to Plato," it’s equally appropriate to say that all of the West’s “experiments” in totalitarian government are footnotes to Plato’s Republic.
Most "skeptics" are not skeptics. skepticism toward one side of an issue isn't skepticism, it's mere partisan politics and is hardly a sign of objectivity or insight.
Why are Nazis called, "neo-Nazis," and neo-communists called, "activists?"
Basic Rule: Those most critical of a conservative worldview will always be the first to show sympathy or benefit of a doubt to dictators and authoritarian governments.
Why would someone think they are on the right side of history when they've chosen to be on no side of history?
When someone says that you need to be “more open-minded,” what they typically mean is that you should agree with them.
A free person saying, "maybe they don't want to be free" is like a rich person saying, "maybe they don't want to be rich" – it's a stupid statement in both cases. Likewise it demonstrates a complete lack of awareness regarding the circumstance of post-war Germany and Japan where both countries' citizens seem okay with the freedom idea (well, okay, at least this is the case in Japan).
However one may justify the intellectual benefits of "seeing the other side," in confrontations between free and totalitarian philosophies, this is probably not a good time in history to be playing "devils advocate" for authoritarian ideals (especially if one's advocacy for the devil's side is genuine).
Among those who believe there is no right or wrong it is also common to believe that right is wrong.
We've now come to an odd Orwellian quandary in time, where one can be denounced as being a "fascist" ...for opposing fascism.
Hypocrisies of radical relativism: "There are no 'good guys and bad guys,' …but, Bush and America are the bad guys."
"Political Correctness" is nothing more than compulsory obedience to left-wing political philosophy.
If it's for individual freedom it's "hate speech.” If it's for gulag socialism, it's "a voice of dissent.”
People can debate merits or flaws in feminism (usually just Marxism directed toward females) but, in the end, it can definitely be said that the feminist view is decidedly not romantic -- unless icy ideological resentment is seen to embody the attributes of a warm heart.
Savages from any culture aren't noble. That's why they're called savages.
Encroaching attempts to "provide justice" to special interests eventually produces a net effect of injustice for all. Similarly, "redistribution" (confiscation) of wealth ultimately becomes a mere distribution of misery.
Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar,...and have the common sense to realize that nothing "belongs" to "Caesar."
The left keeps telling us that our worst enemies are those who create, market, and sell ideas, products, and services. I personally think the real triad from hell consists of philosophers, politicians, and bureaucrats. Unfortunately, their occasional "downfalls" from power are always temporary and their rise all to recurring.
Political/economic choices are simple. An government can either prevent (outlaw) the production of wealth thus leaving virtually everyone poor (ie. North Korea), or permit the seeds of capitalist economy to produce some wealth, which is then confiscated and punished to a degree where further growth is discouraged or stopped in its tracks (i.e. several socialist/capitalist fence sitting countries dotting the world today), or they can whine and rant about the "injustice" of an unequal outcome of wealth while the slow process of a prosperous middle class society emerges over time elevating the circumstance of many as well as "society" as a whole.
Almost anyone can be accused of not liking members of various groups they are not members of, to some degree. The same self-righteous demagogues who so often find "racism" in others have their own bitter hatreds for various groups. Business persons, "the rich," Americans, and Westerners in general, are often despised by many Leftists who would gladly plunder these group's resources or even kill them in what they'd consider just acts of retribution.
Racism, like socialism is impractical (some would find the dispassionate nature of this observation offensive. We're supposed to get excited about some injustices). The way to relieve the world of any stupid or evil philosophy one only needs to demonstrate, in practical terms, how useless and counter-productive it is to peoples' self interest.
The essence of "multi-multiculturalism" is that the dice roll of birth should become a religious affiliation.
No doubt nicer people are less hateful and hate doesn't really help anyone but the concept of "hate speech" is a stupid concept that I personally...(gasp!) hate.
You too can help to create heaven; you need only accept the politics of hell...
There is considerable difference between one who is anti-authoritarian and one who merely wishes to replace one authority with another.
One could perhaps take the "revolutionary's" banter regarding "oppressed" persons more seriously if they actually were among such people themselves.
There are more than a few people who do not like living under collectivist tyranny (socialist, Islamic, or otherwise). The Left is consistently not sympathetic to their plight. In a pseudo-rebel's eyes, the only valid criterion in judging a country's political system is that it has sought to eliminate free commerce and that it plays lip-service to "equality." A person's desire to act and live by their own conscience doesn't concern the Left in the slightest.
When a political "leader" wears a uniform it's generally a bad sign and often indicates that he's eventually going to kill lots of people as a matter of public policy.
Ask the average “anarchist” (someone supposedly opposed to government) what they think of the UN or Cuba. Most so called anarchists are quite happy with the idea of government, bureaucracy, and restrictions upon other people’s lives, meaning they really aren’t anarchists at all but merely garden variety socialists.
There is no one more opposed to freedom than a free person who has done little or nothing in their life with that freedom.
I’ve often had the vague suspicion that those who hype possible connections between “global warming” and human activity, actually want it to be true. If there is genuine human induced global warming, like “racism,” “inequality,” and “poverty,” etc., they can complain about it. The most fervent Jacobins are ultimately motivated by a need to complain, the “issue” itself is not the real point.
One of the more absurd standards in contemporary politics is the image of a young person with an I-Pod, designer jacket, and cell phone decrying the evils of capitalism. Do they really think a socialist state would be satisfying their indulgent – and spoiled – lifestyle, or that a socialist state would want to cut a CD of their favorite band (among its “priorities”)? Name-calling the foolish is appropriate in this instance – they’re stupid.
Amongst the more bizarre paradoxes of political philosophy is the left’s simultaneous hatred and love of authority.
Societies (like individuals) who have everything tend to get bored. The statist mantra of “change,” regardless of how irrelevant it may be to actual circumstance, is always seductive to those who are simply bored. Be careful of the things you wish for.
The secret (this should be obvious) to genuine revolution is in eliminating employment for bureaucrats and politicians, not simply replacing them or increasing their numbers.
The truth regarding revolutions is that "we" never start "revolutions." Violent spoiled brats occasionally seize power. ...(The American War of independence which allowed for the formation of a limited constitutional republic based on the rational ideals of The Enlightenment was not a "revolution").
Every self-styled "rebel" is a nascent dictator, or at least wants to lick the boots of one.
Some middle class kids want "revolution" because they want to be "revolutionaries."
…Poor people want plasma wide screen TVs.
The more one seeks utopia, the more one's fellow citizens will disappoint, and the more danger one will be to them.
When a nation espouses a policy of "peace at any price," you can be certain that the "price" will be high...and will ultimately include peace itself.
As with National socialism, communism, and a host of other radical isms, the contemporary Islamic Jihad is just another branch of Romantic Idealism. A dreaming child -- with a gun. Their gripe is ultimately not with sin, excess, or imperialism, it is with modernity itself.
Though it may be ridiculously obvious, it bears noting that civilization has a definite civilizing influence on uncivilized people. (It needs noting because there are actually people who believe there is no such thing as civilization or degrees of adherence to standards that make for better living conditions for individuals or a society as a whole).
The ungrateful and the stupid of our time may soon regret their inability to have applied common sense to the issues around them.
The whole idea of establishing an ideal state is ultimately mystical in essence, as is any fascination for collectivist projects. The age of reason and enlightenment -- and the logic underlying them offer the ultimate protective arguments against mysticism and its political branch, tyranny. Mysticism and religion are valid issues of human interest or attention but ultimately have no value in politics (and are, in fact, dangerous).
A Baby Boomer or post-Baby Boomer expressing an conviction for peace, cooperation, and "sharing" is like a one week old baby starting a Co-op for breast milk.
Farmland in Iowa is more climatically "fair" and "natural" than farming in Greenland or Siberia. Cool is better than warm – everywhere. Warm is better than cool – everywhere. The Earth's temperature should always remain the same from now on (even though that has never been the case before). And, as usual, "ignorance is strength."
"Trying to 'make a better world' " often seems to get some a blank check to destroy all that is good in this one.
Anyone who isn't "oppressed" by someone by age twelve isn't living in the real world.
It's important to remember that "utopia" means "nowhere." In this regard, the left always has been, and continues to be going towards utopia fast.
The ultimate symbol of the bureaucratic state should be a mindless weasel with a clipboard in one hand and a whip in the other.
Those who favor the imposed, impersonal, and inefficient attributes of a "public ~~,"
will always demand that you be compelled to share their admiration for such nonsense
There's nothing more pathetic -- or dangerous -- than a stupid dweeb with a title, a set of rules, and the arbitrary power to enforce them.
Regarding the “War on Poverty” and similar “social”[ist] boondoggles:
Supporters should either acknowledge that such programs were successful, have ended poverty, and are therefore no longer needed and should be discontinued or, acknowledge that such programs have failed (over the last forty years) and are therefore useless and should be discontinued.
If there are any words in political discourse more unsuited to be spoken together they are the words "Public" and "Servant." Anyone claiming to be a "servant" of the public will do so only as a pretense to mastery. Whether it be a totalitarian tyrant or the lowliest of bureau functionaries, such characters wish to be servants to no one, the public in particular.
One can be certain that any social “planner’s” attempts to diminish parental authority over children will simultaneously involve the desire to increase the state’s authority over them.
It is the nature of government to not act in accordance with human nature but instead to compel something akin to the opposite of human nature. It is in this obvious folly that government intrusion is almost always a recipe for failure or the exacerbation of worldly problems. It is no wonder that those so enamored with the authority of government hate the free market in economics where human nature is afforded its widest expression.
"Predatory lending" is like "predatory" sales of swampland. If someone buys cheap swampland, they're stupid. If someone sells it to them, they're guilty of seeking out and finding stupid people.
Don't trust anything from a politician that has the words; "project, program," or "initiative."
Anytime someone says they're "going to give you free...[i.e. health care]," it means they're not going to give you free [ie. health care] and they're probably going to take something from you.
Spending more of other people's money isn't "change."
Creating a larger ineffective bureaucracy isn't "change."
Intruding further on the daily lives of citizens and calling for more allegiance to collective ideals certainly isn't "change."
...It's all more of the same.
Someone should clue most of the Democrat party in as to the meaning of the word "change."
If one observes a venue frequented by the public that has an attribute clearly unappealing or without purpose to the public, one can almost be certain the circumstance is the direct or indirect result of a government decree (i.e. In Japan; sinks in the front of every restaurant).
If someone hates corporations, why would they be so fervent to have corporate authority focused and enhanced into the hands of mindless and inefficient drones working for the biggest and most coercive corporation there is?
What's so noble about "sacrificing" someone else's freedom to one's own ideals?
A capitalist feels no need to claim a motive beyond the mere acquisition of wealth (usually hoping to also do something they enjoy in the process). A leftist's claimed motive is always some holier-than-thou posturing of self-sacrifice – to "help the poor and oppressed." A leftist's true motives are, in fact, baser than that of an average capitalist. The bottom line for a capitalist is…the bottom line (material wealth). For a leftist, it is raw power and authority over others' lives and the course of all human events. As is always the case, true motives speak louder than words.
If the left-minded "altruist" thinks "sacrifice" is so grand why does he or she never consider how the sheep being sacrificed feels about it?
The greediest form of greed is envy.
"Greed" is always a trait that someone else has.
"Greed" is supposedly what guys in smoke filled rooms process (never people like you or I). Risking one's fortune to produce a product to sell is seen as "greedy," Buying a lottery ticket and risking ten dollars in the hopes of becoming rich is what exactly? Productive enterprise?
I have yet to meet anyone uttering the word “greed” who lacked noted degrees of avarice themselves.
Everyone is “greedy” ...but the person who decries greed – supposedly
To ask the perpetually moot question; if humans are “basically” good or evil, is like asking if rainbows are basically red or blue.
Greedy Bastards...You can always tell when you're in an “evil, greedy, and selfish capitalist country...you can drink the water.
"Money is the root of all evil...[unless it's mine]."
All businesses care about is profit...and, all seals care about are fish. So?
Socialism is never voluntary. If it were, those so inclined would form their little commune and leave the rest of us alone.
The Socialist's complaint is not so much with "Capitalism" as it is with human nature in general, for human nature is diverse and unpredictable. It will always manifest infinite possibilities, weak, strong, course, and refined.
A socialist is a little more insightful than a communist in that he or she recognizes that one can't continue to take other people's money if they seize it all at once.
A socialist ultimately wants to have someone else's cake and eat it too.
The Socialist only strives for "equality" as an aside to a more general desire for conformity to their own static vision.
Fascism = Socialism + Nationalism
Communism = Socialism + Internationalism
Their common attributes are inflexibility, the need for absolute control …and, of course, socialism.
Socialism is for people who may reluctantly submit to authority, but enthusiastically support the command that others do so.
In the final analysis, the socialist's programs are no more than schemes to placate envy -- the intellectual's envy that his or her theoretical creations will never match the tangible status, power, progress, and achievements of capitalist materialism.
Socialists are little more than thugs with bigger vocabularies.
Under socialism, what one person is willing to support or tolerate becomes another's imposed condition.
A socialist will always come to the defense of a socialist; the degree of a sect’s coercion or totalitarian violence in not an issue, only that they share a common hatred for capitalism.
The difference between a pack animal and a socialist is that a pack animal is less dangerous to those around it.
While there may be a few poor people smitten by the promise of sharing in the spoils of a socialist conquest, by far, socialism in all its stripes is a cult of the middle class and above. It’s no wondering that those who most despise its nature tend to be of more humble background.
At the heart of all socialists' appraisals of life lies a simple but bitter hatred for the free choices and actions of others.
Socialist are the ultimate reactionaries. They merely seek a return to monarchy, where intellectual ideologues are kings, and their court; teams of parasitic bureaucrats whose passion to "cooperate" with the king's schemes earns them the spoils of other's productive actions.
The ultimate gripe held by most socialists is that they don't want to see private people have private lives.
Socialism's solution to societal "weeds" it to simply outlaw flowers.
I have to confess that my fear/hatred of socialist schemes is ultimately selfish...
If they success in enslaving society to their beloved methods of bureau-coercion, like everyone else, I and my loved ones will be forced to go along for the ride.
There are basically two prime constituents to the socialist cause; those seeking handouts, subsidies, and free stuff in general, and those seeking power or self-esteem as players in the state's authority.
It's been said by some that Jesus was the "first socialist" (this is pretty insulting to Jesus), but wishing to "help the unfortunate" is not the same as wanting to punish the successful or erecting a powerful state to control the lives of others. Robin Hood is not the founder of a great religion.
The real "first socialist" had no qualm with the "sin" of envy. The first socialist was the guy who looked at his neighbor's good fortune and wanted to steal part or all of it for himself. The mythology of socialist goodness, then and today, conflicts with the reality of people merely wanting the authority to plan and punish.
It's impossible to restrain or eliminate the free exchange of economic products, services, or labor and retain basic human liberty. To be against economic freedom is to be against freedom itself. In simpler terms (as it has often been stated), one can be a socialist in a capitalist system but being a capitalist in a socialist system either means you are breaking the law or they haven’t got around to implementing "true socialism."
One can’t really fault humans for their weak resistance to the siren song of state sanctioned “free” stuff. One can fault socialists for continually taking advantage of this weakness for the cause of their own mere quest for moral authority and political power.
Envy + Arrogance + Coercion = Socialism
In its most basic essence, socialism is envy and theft -- envy of others' success, achievement, power, and status and the desire to wrest control of that success, achievement, power, and status without having to possess the substance and character required to attain the aforementioned.
All one requires to be an effective socialist is to envy others and use the brute force and violence of "revolution" or the force of guile in legislative decree (or follow and support those that do either).
The motive behind socialist "revolution" isn't just an idealistic notion of "making a better world." It's largely a visceral need to mete out punishment against perceived forces of "oppression" – usually the system that has showered abundance upon the very spoiled brats who seek its' destruction. In the end, motives for the socialist vision are more about punitive authoritarian anger than about any desire to do good.
If a business person honestly proclaims his or her desire to become rich, and a power grasping socialist politician proclaims a desire to "help the less fortunate" (with others' resources, of course), why is the honest business person held in contempt and the lying demagogue seen as honorable by some?
A genuine believer in the values of capitalism wishes to be wealthy and cares not if others share in such good fortune. A genuine believer in the values of socialism merely wishes "equality" even if it means the equal sharing of mass poverty. A capitalist strives for advance. A socialist, motivated by hatred of those who advance, strives for decay or, at minimum, stasis.
Socialist philosophy can be summed up as a belief that there is too much of everything and not enough of nothing.
Among the many absurdities of the socialist state is the one that has citizens actually pay so that someone can force them to do things they don't want to do.
Do you hate corporations?
Imagine a company that produced a product or service that was of a lower quality than previous alternatives. That you had to wait endlessly to receive and were literally forced to buy. Imagine the staff of said company to be often rude, unhelpful, and unmotivated to care at all about satisfying you questions or concerns. Take a step further and imagine that if you chose to buy another company's better and faster product that you'd be fined or imprisoned. Now imagine that the “company” in question is the government and carries this nightmare with the convenience, skill, and charm of everything else they do.
Imagine Democrat imposed health care. Imagine socialized medicine. Imagine your life and in the hands of people motivated, not by profit, but...nothing.
Compulsory, state imposed “care.” What could be more stupid.
There were clearly too many cars driving around 50,000 years ago. Environmental justice can now be served by rolling back global warming temperatures to the “natural” levels of the last great ice age. To fully “return to natures plan” we can even clone a few wooly mammoths and send Native Americans back to Asia (across the frozen land bridge they were thought to have migrated to the Americas across before the last great period of "global warming."). The fact that Ohio will be covered in a massive sheet of ice will have to be overlooked for the sake of a higher (and paradoxically unnatural) need -- unchanging nature.
For the first time in history, the biggest health problem faced by poor people is a problem being overweight from eating too much food.
A problem with musicians, artists, and entertainers is that some are good at what they do and think it somehow qualifies them as experts in completely unrelated fields like domestic and international political policy.
"Fight the powers that be." -- then, collect a check from them for singing about it.
On nihilism in art: Rolling around naked in mud and calling it "art" is like screaming, "Destroy the system" and calling it, "Political Philosophy." The point can be argued intellectually, but so can murdering a few million people. It appears that the "less intellectual" are often more suited to judging meaning and value in both art and life.
It's odd that many "artists" don't think that a life saving drug created at great expense, risk, and years of research isn't intellectual property, but a four minute song created under the haze of pot and alcohol is.
The history of collectivist political philosophy has been primarily different arguments on how to enslave one's fellow citizens.
When one hears the argument that views in support of freedom are, "Simplistic," one is easily reminded of the complexity of thought that motivated Robespierre, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and other collectivist tyrants -- the "complex" ideals of intellectuals have often resulted in the deaths of millions. "Simplistic" minds tend to leave people alone.
Values outside of the political dogmatist’s plans and schemes are a threat to all they hold dear (their egos in particular). So it is that "God," and religion in all its guises, are such threats to rule by philosopher kings. A belief in the deity of choice is just another freedom that the planned society and its masters will not tolerate.
Reading the favored tomes of the left (i.e. Marx and Chomsky) doesn’t make one “well-informed,” as so many leftists would insist; it merely makes one well informed of the left’s biased perceptions. What’s so impressive about that?
There are only levels of “disinterest” (objective and non-biased appraisal). No one is truly or completely a “disinterested party.” Everyone’s sympathies lie somewhere; one may have to take some time to consider another group’s or individual’s connection to one’s own life but in the end, who they are and what they stand for will be clear, along with their level of threat or friendship to one’s own standards of existence.
“Progressive” intellectuals really should stick to their semi-plausible praise of Scandinavian welfare-socialism and skip their, all too prevalent, defense of and praise for one-party thug states (China, Cuba, Vietnam, and the former Soviet Union). The truth is that, given a choice, many actually prefer the more hard-line manifestations of socialism.
"Geniuses" are overrated. I prefer the simple wisdom of common folks; for their general decency and common sense, as well as the unlikelihood that they'd kill millions of people in some grandiose utopian social scheme.
Regarding "Political Correctness" and humor: Honesty is funnier than patronizing dogma.
When an intellectual uses the term, "The Masses," he or she basically means "Those who are not me."
The attributes most suited to creating a good painting, piece of music, or film are typically not suited to effectively run a country.
Intellectual scholarship virtually never trumps common sense.
Media Games: If someone joins a trendy alliance of millions opposed to the values and actions of free society, they're called brave free-thinkers. If one questions the motives of totalitarian sympathizers and statists, they're simply called “right wing nutcase extremists.”
Intellectuals, or people who are trying to be intellectuals, usually can argue all sorts of nonsense against -- another person's -- freedom. They love the "nuance" of multiple definitions, but in the end they want to be free and they don't want you to be...for some reason.
The good guys and the bad guys are once more becoming increasingly obvious in their stance but this time The West is full of a bunch of pampered twerps who wouldn't know a poisonous spider if they saw one. Relativism is grand in a coffee shop...on the international game board, not such a good idea.
A basic rule of thumb for leftists is that the more passionately they are regarding global issues; the more careless, irresponsible, selfish, and inconsiderate they will be in their personal dealings.
A reality of contemporary media -driven politics is that someone who is left of center by any objective appraisal is now often refereed to as ""Moderate". It is then no wonder that an obvious (virtually self-proclaimed) communist like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is so often refereed to as simply left of center. The Jacobins in establishment media have altered objective semantics that much.
When a politician or intellectual says that they have a "plan," you should run.
One of the greatest errors in semantics one can make with regard to political philosophy is to equate "intellectuals" with intelligence.
To those who say, "We shouldn't impose freedom on people who may not want it," it never seems to occur that we shouldn't speak for other people and say they "may not want freedom" when they most likely do. ...especially if they're in a prison camp or totalitarian state.
There's a very fine line between a refined and curious intellectual and a mere boorish and arrogant snob. Likewise, there's a fine line between an ignorant religious "flag-waving" redneck and a simple person of unpretentious substance who holds genuine values and insight into human character. The left, in general is usually incapable if seeing the realities between either line of character.
Indeed, there is no “I” in “Team” …and there never will be. The “team” is just going to have to deal with it.
I have ultimate jurisdiction over my own life...
No one can "prove" that I should be a slave to a collectivist ideal, and I can't "prove" that I should be left alone. None the less, I choose to be left alone.
The differences between the Right and Left can be narrowed to very basic passions;
On the Right: A belief in individual freedom.
On the Left: Hatred for a free market in products and ideas (capitalism).
According to the Left: We have a right to everything...but our own values, choices, and lives...
Why should one's willingness to live as a slave to state authority be another's sentence to such bondage?
The socialist state is a place where one person's "compassion" for the "oppressed" leads to another's sentence to oppression.
Contrary to popular criticism, apathy regarding political matters may actually be a healthy sign. In a free society it is striking how many people actually take no interest in politics at all – they actually have lives of their own to run.
A government of minimal significance to one's personal life is far preferable to a society where all matters of one's existence are political issues. There is a long list of governments and ideologies where citizens have been compelled to "care" about politics and share other's obsessions to obey contrived "truths."
An increasing interest in political matters in a society is a sure indication that two types of people have fully emerged; one that seeks to control others and one that needs to defend the right to be left alone.
The nature of big brother is a valid cause for big fratricide.
I think its okay to be completely dogmatic about other people leaving you the fuck alone. If some others are societal masochists, there are plenty of people who will gladly order them around, take their money, and constrain their lives.
When a person is discussing their circumstances or values and uses the word, "We," he or she is most likely talking about themself while assuming they are qualified to speak for everyone else.
If I lived in a country where the state commanded all aspects of my life, where people were regularly arrested and punished for merely holding viewpoints that differed with those of the government, I would really be pissed off to hear of some free and well off people saying "some people don't want to be free" or "we can't make them free."
A person who believe in freedom needn't "justify" it to anyone. Any reasons which may be conjured to deprive one of freedom are as relevant as an argument as to which colors you should like.
I'd say about 70% of American's love freedom. The other 30% or so simply want to control the lives of everyone else.
The state, like any institution , is incapable of "compassion" or "feeling." One can debate the merits of issuing government checks on purely practical grounds, but to claim such actions are somehow expressions of "compassion" is childish fantasy at best and all too often downright dangerous (when used to justify an overbearing tyranny). An office supply will never "love the oppressed." Nor will a stone building. Don't think for a minute that a lawyer or politician is any different merely because they seek to anthropomorphize the apparatus of state.
Overall, its probably preferable to be among "uncaring" or disinterested people who leave you alone than those who use their self-perception as warm and "caring" people to meddle in your every affair and coerce your every action.
It is a frightening thing to consider that so many people are not just willing to live under and support tyranny, but virtually demand that others who may not share their masochistic worldview should be compelled to join them.
It's odd that Americans who so disdain the federal government's intervention overseas are so enamored with the idea of that same government's intervention into the personal lives of fellow citizens.
People who "don't care" leave other people alone.
Sometimes the “rugged individualist” (a straw-man subject of contempt by some) is just someone who wants to be left alone.
America never was a "democracy." It was never meant to be a "democracy" (although the word is now often used – incorrectly – to refer to an open and free society). America was designed to be, and always has been, a constitutional republic with a high degree of self-government and the rule of law to restrict the authority of both the government and the mob (the mob being what leftists refer to when they speak of "democracy"). Power to "the people?" -- NO! Power to the person!
The barnyard animal approach to compassionate politics: All humans should be supplied with enough grain to feed on.
Creating the socialist state and a belief in Santa Claus are both idealistic, but with a belief in Santa Claus, nobody gets hurt.
Absolute power does corrupt absolutely.
A dictatorship is always a bad thing.
...the left will not recognize this, 'too lost in dreams of "free health care" and "equality."
It would serve the world a great deal of good if people were to know (or remember) that “utopia” means nowhere.
Following a radical populist is the ultimate act of conformity.
Abject failure can often warrant pity but should hardly be looked upon as heroic or an object of admiration.
The most sincere observer of oppression usually gauges status on a case by case basis (not a pre-conceived group template that all oppressed people will neatly fit into).
When the Whole is Not the Sum of its Parts
When a group is noted as being a victim of oppression, the implication is – regardless of intentions – that those who are not members of the noted group are somehow overly fortunate, well-off, or vicariously oppressors.
It's like saying, “All wealthy white male paraplegic divorced unemployed war veterans dying of cancer...'have all the power' .”
The perpetual overstatement of victim-hood in a free society ultimately invalidates the individual misfortunes that, to some degree or at some time, affect all members of humanity.
As with all things Left-wing, the group standard is the reference template. Whether accurate in specific instances or not, such a template skews reality...and screws the people really living in it.
Saying that "rich people have more influence than poor people" or that poor people have "no power" is like saying "the Sun makes the weather hot." ...It's true. It's always been true, and...so what? Likewise thinking that being poor is somehow, vicariously heroic, commendable, or even worthy of excitement is like saying a turtle deserves our attention because it is slower than a rabbit or that a rabbit is bad because it's faster than a turtle. So, side with the lives of turtles or rabbits, curse the Sun for hot days...and, let others choose their passions and resentments regarding the state of the universe.
A parasite is an oppressor working from the ground up.
A tragic and ironic paradox can be seen in the fact that, if pacifists dominated free societies, we’d forever be at war. (considering the nature of who pacifists always wish to appease).
"The war to end all wars" (if such a thing is actually ever possible) will clearly be one that finally eliminates the perennial rebirth of authoritarian governments and the stupid ideologies that feed such institutions.
There are three paths to peace for a Democracy:
1. Defeat the authoritarian enemy (a democracy’s adversary will never be another democracy).
2. Sit on your ass and let an authoritarian institution defeat you and establish its oppressive system of ideals over you, your family, and neighbors.
3. “Establish dialog” (See number 2).
Behind the feigned humility of every treasonous soul is a massive ego that fancies itself above all allegiances (while allying themselves with an enemy committed to death of such traitor's family, friends, and neighbors).
In a time of war, the tendency of dominant Western journalists to be left of center is the greatest resource available to any authoritarian enemy.
If a free society and dictatorship are at war, the left will always side with the dictatorship. If two dictatorships are at war, the left will always side with the one that permits the least economic freedom.
The difference between patriotism and nationalism is akin to the difference between wanting your high school debate team to do well vs. wanting you school's soccer team to crack the skulls of the other team.
The pen is mightier than the sword,...but the sword really hurts.
One could never accuse Neville Chamberlain or Jimmy Carter of being a "war monger," but one could accuse them both of being just plain stupid.
Mars by nature is reckless. To lament the occurrence of atrocities in war is understandable (and should be expected from any decent person) but to be surprised at such occurrences merely reveals stupidity.
Supporting peaceful resolutions to conflict and being opposed to war are noble ideals, but The West now finds itself in a circumstance where its leaders will have to decide if they are on anyone's side, because there are strong undemocratic forces emerging and coordinating that are clearly not on the side of open, free, and pluralistic society. The relativistic and weak-willed are on the verge of losing everything that decent thinkers have fought for over centuries (as well as potentially losing civilian populations in the millions). The so-called "peace-makers" of our time are not blessed, and if they have their way, they shall inherit no more than scorn from future historians of character and honesty.
When the choice is "support the troops" vs. "consider the [enemy's] perspective," I'm going to go with the troops. The enemy (yes, there is an enemy) wants you, your friends, and family either dead or enslaved to ideologies and dogma. If you're "considering his or her perspective" (the enemy) you're not an "intellectual" or "peace-maker," your a total fool. It may also be added that, if you don't know who the enemies are or if they even exist...you haven't been paying attention.
Although most socialists would fancy themselves skilled in their insights into the economics of war, their view is ultimately incredibly simplistic...basically, "War requires weapons therefore weapons makers benefit from war, therefore weapons makers cause wars. It's like saying farmers cause hunger!
"You can't force someone to be free" is like saying you can't "force" a victim of abuse to be freed of abuse – yes you can(!), in both cases (and it's the right thing to do).
In any war against tyrants their should never be an "exit strategy." There should be success, the triumph of democratic ideals, and eventually leaving the conflict, minus the surrender euphemism, "exit."
"History is written by the victors"...bullshit. History is written by the people who write history, some who often side with the defeated (regardless of how horrible the defeated institution was).
An "illegal war" is certainly terrible. Who wants a war that's not approved by lawyers.
A legal war is obviously the only way to go and would be much nicer. Remember, when having a war, only use the tried and true method of lawyer approved ® war.
"Some people don't want to be free."
...but, shouldn't they at least be free enough to make that decision without some pampered (and free) spoiled brat speaking for them?
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Random Observations:
Whatever one my say of the "Tabula Rasa" view of humans, I believe that environmental conditioning only works on mice, sheep, and a large percent of the human population.
What am I going to did with my life?
Classical:
Something worth preserving.
Contemporary:
Something that no one knows if it's worth preserving yet.
Be consistent..., Subvert everything.
...With a fist raised to heaven and an extended middle finger waved at the ground below...
It's most natural for humans to be unnatural.
Give a million monkeys infinite time and they just might randomly type out a work by Shakespeare – maybe.
Give a trillion-trillion-trillion, etc…subatomic particles enough time to interact randomly and they will most certainly produce a universe – Shakespeare included.
How many Leftists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
None, they're too busy ranting about the "injustice" of having to screw in a light bulb.
Guilty until proven innocent:
Isn't it an odd semantic quirk when people say, "It was a child," or, "it was a dog,"...and "they're so innocent," the implication being that if you're an adult human, you're automatically guilty of something.
I say we hold trials for all kids under the age of 6 and any animal that looks deceptively cute to determine if they are indeed "innocent" as claimed. If not, they get no treats of any kind for a week. As for the "guilty" adult humans -- make them attend sales meetings at large insurance companies – and Barbara Streisand concerts.
"Come on everyone. Lets all join hands with total strangers of diverse backgrounds, class, and lifestyle for a big insincere group hug."
Miracle saints and lunch items :
The famous grilled cheese sandwich auctioned on e-Bay that had a “miracle” image of the Virgin Mary was actually not so impressive because, in the bible itself (many people don't know this), Mary was actually described as looking somewhat like a grilled cheese sandwich – “and she was of note to be one half cubit in length and breadth and had a complexion akin to lightly toasted bread – and orange colored melted cheese.”
God, who doesn't exist, is laughing at us...for believing that he does exist...
“Bleed the productive…win valuable gifts and prizes.”
Age is youth in motion.
Hollywood has become a mere venue for rich individuals and corporations (the entertainment industry) to bitch about other rich individuals and corporations (every other free market expression of products, services, and ideas).
One picture can attempt to sway thoughts like a thousand words but is often "worth" only one word – "deception."
I like art..and my wife has art on her face.
People who say they “are not taking a side” will typically be taking the opposite side from yours.
Anyone who says they “don't take sides” is probably taking the side of your enemy.
Guess I'm just not a "rebel" ...like everyone else, who is a rebel?
"True love" is what occurs when you basically find someone who can tolerate your nonsense.
Wanting a sex change is perfectly normal. Almost everyone would like a change ...from some sex to more sex.
No one should be "obedient" to anything beyond common civility or efficient productivity. All else is icing of shit on a cake of ass.
The most difficult thing to save someone from is their own stupidity.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions and blatant stupidity.
Clothing or lack of clothing has its effect no doubt but, the sexiest thing a woman can do is to look and act like she wants sex (yes this is from a guy's perspective).
Seeing the object when there appears to be an object allows there to be an object.
Savor all that pleases the moment, and leave leftovers for unpleasing moments.
Regardless of how much free will one may exercise, all events become fate after they have taken place.
Response to those who believe some random guy is or was “God:”
The creator of the universe probably doesn't have hair.
Ultimately, everyone's academic degree is a “B.S.” degree.
If God “made 'man' in his own image” we are faced with the rather odd concept of the creator of the universe modeling monkeys, gorillas, and chimpanzees similar to his own image.
Don't plug your brain into anything but the thoughts of your choice.
The only true reality occupies the immediate moment,
…and it’s gone already.
Laugh at all nonsense that comes your way...and realize that it occurs everyday.
Steal fun and games and laugh at the fools who left them unnoticed.
Comeback to a faceless bureaucrat: "I'm sorry, what exactly was the role I had asked you to play in my life?"
If you "can't judge a book by its cover" it makes one wonder why books have covers (?)
Comedy, philosophy, and the arts are all channels that allow us to cry, laugh, and stand awestruck at the daily things and events we see around us that we are so accustomed to that we miss them for their impact or beauty.
Ambiguity is everywhere and when things are otherwise even that is transient. Inhale the vapors, refine the vision, and lie still in epiphanies large and small.
See the writing on the wall,…and start editing it.
That's all he terrorists are fighting "for" -- hoping to get the 72 virgins "in heaven" that they can't get here. In more mundane circumstances we usually just call such folks losers. But more fervent. They're just plain, "sore losers."
"Reality is perhaps too obvious. So it is that works of the creative imagination (Art) bring such satisfaction. They are ultimately stealth depictions of reality. The most fanciful or bizarre creative work on some level reminds us of the absolute marvel of the mundane that surrounds us daily. No one marvels at a supermarket, but put that supermarket on another planet and stock it with the same items morphed to another paradigm with shoppers of the same variety as those we see daily -- albeit more wondrous form -- and we are "entertained."
Somewhere there's a drought and somewhere there's a flood and somewhere someone is tucking in a toddler and another is savagely spilling blood. In the end it all means that numbers increase possibilities. Often tragic when it's your number. A mere column in a newspaper when it's someone else's.
Find a person who sees vast intrigues and conspiracies in world events and you'll find someone whose personal life is dramatically uninteresting.
The future may be in the same book, but it's a different chapter now.
I want to start a religion where you get the 72 virgins now (actually they don't have to be virgins – I never did quite understand that aspect of Muslim "paradise").
(In reference to a common astrology saying); "The stars do not compel but impel" -- and meteors just fall on your head.
Frustration…Self-induced failure leads to aggression.
Everything in moderation is for people who can tolerate the deprivation of moderation.
I must confess that the most significant branch of my philosophy is I'm-pissed-o-mology.
Being “wrong” means not being right, according to someone else…
Shyoga-nai…Nai! (You have to live in Japan and disagree with one of its major cultural ideals to understand this).
Reality only occupies the immediate present…and it (the immediate present) is gone already.
Are not all events that touch our lives but mere catalysts to those that follow?
Pretend you're in a movie. Know your pretending, know it's a movie, ...and all will be fine.
'Mind if I smoke...Oh Hell!, 'mind if I burst into flames?
No more bad please.
Aristotle and Plato reconciled:
The whole world is a ghost.
Matter only looks “real” because we're in the same dream with it...On the other hand, it's appropriate to acknowledge the tangibility and significance of something you share a world with. Even a ghost can probably be cut in the world it dwells in.
There's nothing worse than a “no-it-all” that doesn't know anything.
Wouldn't it be funny if god wore a hat.
The word, "dread" probably fails to capture the feeling of...dread. At such times, one may hope to summon such ineffective words to one's side and we can only hope that there may be a part of the universe that secretly knows that nuance of our feelings and later gives us credit to the loses which come our way...
Most people don't even know what's going on after it happened.
It could be that the only reason people exist at all is so that food has a place to travel.
If one's life is relatively happy and significant, there will not likely be a need to meddle in the affairs of others. The left is typically not happy and their lives never quite significant enough for their ego's satisfaction.
We're riding on the crest of a wave of immediate reality, poised on an ocean of mere memory or anticipation.
The past would never happen if the future didn't want it to.
"Matter can neither be created or destroyed."
That concept can probably be taken a step higher. Matter is ultimately a manifestation of an archetypal principal (see the writings of C.G. Jung) – the crystallization of form.
It is a base archetype that can neither be created or destroyed. Being-ness can only Be, fragment, dissipate, diversify, and its pieces interact in either harmony or discord.
Matter is just the most obvious "thing" in this process -- to us at least -- but we're made out of matter so no attempted insight by us can ultimately be all-encompassing.
The most random events can be considered fate...after they occur. Thus, the difference between caprice and destiny in the universe ultimately resides in the mere reference point in time one observes from.
While “early to bed” may offer health, wealth, and wisdom, “early to rise” is to be avoided
at all costs.
“Don't sweat the small stuff...It's all small stuff” is the creed of someone who doesn't know how to measure.
Aging is a steady progression of coming to know and accept how insignificant one is in the grand scheme of things.
He became a weight around the necks of anyone who came within proximity to him. When walking into a room that was completely quiet it somehow became quieter.
If the only thing you symbolize is yourself, then you and what you symbolize isn't very noteworthy.
The point at which a tragedy becomes printed on a T-shirt is the point when it ceases to be a tragedy.
The imagined past and imaginary future are in pervasive tension with a willingness to accept the real present.
God created the universe;... and since then it's all been pretty much just an act.
A fine symphony is as if beauty itself had been cut from the air by a mind lathe.
“How can you say such things?” ...well, easy actually. And the ease of saying them is facilitated by the fact that they are true.
Death is when all of life becomes nothing but memory.
It is a fact of human psychology that we can be "having a bad time" when in fact, nothing bad is happening. And, conversely, we can be having a good time when nothing particularly good is happening.
I don't think that god comes in a book.
Tomorrow has always happened.
There's something sad about the future when it becomes a memory.
Those who fail to see the magic aren't blind...they're stupid.
My shoes even hurt when I'm not wearing them...
Some sheep have no problem with the smell of lamb chops.
I'm not a day person,...why does life so insist that I adopt manners alien to my nature?, so foul to my urgent striving for tranquility?
We're all here today and gone tomorrow and can only hope that after the show we get to watch reruns for eternity...or something like that.
The progressions and developments we perceive in time intuitively seem to occur in orderly succession ("past" to "future"). Such perception leads one to believe that all creative acts and events occur from a sort of symbolic "push" forward -- the events of the past and present produce the future. But, we don't have to perceive it that way. It is every bit as realistic to perceive reality as being "pulled" toward what has already been determined to be.
From the broadest of perspectives -- beyond time so to speak -- everything that can or will occur has, at some future time, already occurred. In that sense, the perceived "push" into the future is actually a natural process of events being drawn forward by what has already "occurred." This would present an amazing but completely plausible scenario in which the universe was existing in a perpetually cycling loop, producing itself from itself - a recurring state of always producing itself yet having always been.
Another analogy would be to look upon existence as being akin to a motion picture film or chapters in a book, where the characters in each frame or chapter are clearly embedded in their moments of time having passed various demarcation points and moving toward a future that is already very much there but is yet unknown to "them."
