Category Archives: Commentary
From: Patrice Lewis
Here’s the article on Market Watch. To quote: “To be sure, as McClellan acknowledged: “Every pattern analog I have ever studied breaks correlation eventually, and often at the point when I am most counting on it to continue working. So there is no guarantee that the market has to continue following through with every step of the 1929 pattern. But between now and May 2014, there is plenty of reason for caution.”
As the adage goes, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
I don’t pretend to understand the stock market, much less economics in general. But I do know there are endless precedents in history which should give us fair warning that things are not as stable and cheery as our government would have us believe. That’s why we prep.
Preppers often are students of history. They’re read about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. They know about the fall of Greece. They’ve studied the Black Plague. They’re aware of the French Revolution. They’ve studied the American Revolution. They know the Great Depression inside and out.
And above all, they know that history has an annoying habit of repeating itself.
The history of humanity is one of struggle, strife, bloodshed, famine, competition for resources, and other discouragements. It’s a cycle. It’s happened again and again. But most people tend to think that anything that hasn’t happened since the time they were born hasn’t happened before, but of course that’s patently untrue.
In the last hundred years, most Americans have not had to deal with these difficulties on our soil. We’ve fought wars, but those have been overseas. We’ve competed for resources, but we’ve always won. Our innovation as a nation has meant we’ve been blessed with untold material comfort and food safety.
But this doesn’t mean we’ll never have to handle challenges. When we refuse to learn from history, or think history cannot repeat itself, or think we are immune to historical precedent, in our arrogance we are therefore doomed to repeat it.
People often deny that history could ever repeat itself. “This time,” they assure us, “it’s different” – without ever being able to specify what “it” is and why it would be different this time.
We like to think we live in unique times. To some extent, we do. At no other time in history has our knowledge of technology and medical skills been higher. But human nature never changes, and it’s our human flaws as well as unforeseen environmental or natural disasters that can bring even a mighty civilization to its knees.
Besides being a fascinating study, history offers a useful guide for how to handle current or future events. Being prepared to handle crises (both personally and as a nation) such as hunger, loss of resources, and other catastrophes is never a bad thing.
But rather astonishingly, some people DO look upon this thoughtful regard for history as just that – a bad thing. History has shown that governments of even the freest nations eventually turn rogue, grow cancerously large, become increasingly paranoid and suspicious, begin to steal liberties from citizens, and eventually become tyrannical, oppressive, and mistrustful of anyone who seeks to recapture individual independence and freedom.
We are currently in that state.
Our nation has come to view those who prefer to NOT depend on the government as everything from lovable crackpots to domestic terrorists. This is shortsighted in the extreme, but that’s the nature of government and its useful idiots.
That is why I urge people to study history in conjunction with preparedness. Take a look at prior civilizations and note the nature of the calamities most likely to affect us, and think what you yourself can do to mitigate the possibilities.
Naturally, preparing in no way guarantees we can avoid calamities; it simply means we try our best to minimize the impact.
“You may still be inclined to dismiss this,” notes the Market Watch article. “But there were many more were laughing last November when this scary chart began circulating. Not as many are laughing now.”
By: Patrice Lewis
Needless to say there are people arguing both sides of the issue, but one comment in particular caught my eye.
This commenter was responding to a mother who pulled her girls from Girl Scouts. He or she didn’t deny any supposed affiliation with Planned Parenthood; rather, he/she seemed to defend Planned Parenthood’s influence on girls. S/he wrote: “So you want to empower your girls by making sure they don’t know anything about sex, birth control or the most important decisions of their lives. Yeah. Ignorance of important topics is _very_ empowering.
You can’t have “respect for self” while your self is locked in a cage with no options. You can’t teach “respect for others” if you don’t respect them enough to give them all the facts and let them make their own decisions. And you’re not teaching “faith in God,” either, since you clearly don’t trust God’s gift of free will to them; you’re trying to take it back in case they actually use it.”
Girl Scouts aside, I found this comment astoundingly ignorant on the mechanics of raising children with faith.
By this person’s logic, we should never teach our children anything. Nothing. Zip, zilch, nada. After all, anything we teach them might interfere with their God-given gift of free will, right? So don’t teach a toddler to control his tantrums. Don’t teach children not to hit. Don’t teach kids to respect their elders. Don’t teach teens to control their hormonal urges. Hey, free will means a free-for-all! Whoo-hoo!
What this person is arguing, of course, is that girls should be encouraged to act out on their sexuality (that’s the eternal interpretation of “letting them make their own decisions”). We’re not talking legal adults here, folks; we’re talking GIRLS who are still MINORS.
Another commenter referred to family values as “medieval morality that revolves around controlling women.” Huh?
Empowering is a buzz word progressives use to encourage girls and women to abandon all moral teachings and rut like animals. But as the mother of teen girls, it makes a lot more sense to empower my daughters to know they must be responsible for their own decisions and that there are consequences to actions.
In another column entitled Shirley Temple’s America is No More, the author wrote: “Today’s sneering secular audiences would reflexively dismiss the film [Bright Eyes] as Norman Rockwell-ish… What such cynics really mean is that the film isn’t sufficiently depraved for modern tastes. Shirley doesn’t pole dance or “twerk.” She doesn’t do a darling little strip tease for the boys while singing “Good Ship, Lollipop.”
That’s the difference, apparently. The Miley Cyruses of the world are “empowered.” The Shirley Temples are not. Abortions are empowering. Restraint is not.
I hate to break it to people, but women hold a unique position in society: they are capable of conceiving life. Therefore it behooves them to refrain from activities that result in being forced to make harsh decisions that will cause heartbreak no matter what.
I know feminists would love for women to be just like men, but we’re not. Therefore I will “empower” my girls to understand that they hold the key to their future happiness in their own hands, and they need to make good choices (the essence of a simple life, if you recall) in order to live with as little heartbreak as possible.
Just some thoughts for Valentine’s Day.
NEW SPORTING EQUIPMENT LAW: ARTICLE 3759.5.(e).1 (Golf Clubs)
The administration has passed a new law titled: “The Affordable Golf Club Act” declaring that every citizen must purchase a new set of golf clubs, before April 2014.
This law has been passed, because until now, typically only the wealthy or financially responsible have been able to purchase new golf clubs without the assistance of their government.
This new law ensures that every American can now have “affordable” golf clubs of their own, because everyone is equally entitled to new golf clubs. And if you want to keep the golf clubs you already have, you can do that, until April 2014.
These affordable golf clubs will cost from $1,000 to $3,000 each depending on your income level. This does not include taxes, pull cart, electric cart fees, green fees, membership fees, balls, tees, gloves, range finders, storage fees, maintenance, or repair costs.
In order to make sure everyone participates and purchases their affordable golf clubs, the costs of owning golf clubs will increase 50% each year up to 400% by year 2018. This way, wealthy people will pay more for something that other people don’t want or can’t afford to maintain. People who can’t afford or refuse to maintain their golf clubs will be fined. However, children under the age of 26 can use their parents’ golf clubs until they turn 27 at which time they must purchase their own golf clubs.
If you don’t want or think you don’t need golf clubs, you are still required to buy them. If you refuse to buy a set or make claims that you can’t afford them, you will be fined $800 until you purchase a set or face imprisonment.
People living in farming areas, ghettos, inner cities, Wyoming, or areas with no access to golf courses are not exempt. Age, health, prior experience or no experience are not acceptable excuses for not buying, maintaining, and using your golf clubs.
A government review board that doesn’t know the difference between a hook and a slice will decide everything. This includes when, where, how often and for what purposes you can use your golf clubs along with how many people can ride in your golf cart. The board will also determine if participants are too old or not healthy enough to be able to use their golf clubs.
They will also decide if your golf clubs have outlived their usefulness or if you must purchase specific accessories, like a range finder with slope adjustment or a newer and more expensive set of golf clubs.
Those that can afford memberships at expensive golf country clubs will be required to buy memberships. If you are already a member and you like your membership you can keep your membership. After April 2014, a different country club will be assigned for you to purchase a membership.
Government officials are exempt from this new law as they and their families and some of their friends and a few of their friends friends can obtain golf clubs at taxpayers’ expense.
Found at Rural Revolution: http://www.rural-revolution.com/
The Nuge on Obama:
Just last month, he called the president a “subhuman mongrel” in an interview with Guns.com.
“I have obviously failed to galvanize and prod, if not shame enough Americans to be ever vigilant not to let a Chicago communist-raised, communist-educated, communist-nurtured subhuman mongrel like the acorn community organizer gangster Barack Hussein Obama to weasel his way into the top office of authority in the United States of America.”
On John Maynard Keynes and the Hollow Man Phenomenon
By: Ann Barnhardt
A few of years ago I stumbled across a movie on Netflix (when I still had it) that I *thought* would be very interesting. It was called “Carrington” and starred Emma Thompson, whom I have liked as an actress ever since she dramatized and starred in what will forever be the definitive film version of Jane Austen’s “Sense & Sensibility”.
The movie “Carrington” was about the so-called “Bloomsbury Group” in England in the early 20th century. This group of people is widely regarded in retrospect as being massively influential, and as one of the purest early sources of Modernism – the heresy which has infected and all-but-destroyed the Church, and Western Civilization as a corollary.
These people were all massively disturbed, with almost all of them being bisexual and embracing sodomy and rejecting monogamy as one of the purest forms of protest and rejection of (locally) Victorian, traditional, bourgeois, Christian society. To put it simply, they were all – male and female – screwing each other, egged on largely by the wicked sodomite ringleader Lytton Strachey.
You can watch “Carrington” if you want, I suppose, but be forewarned: it is pornographic. And no, not titillating or grasping at beauty in any way – it is the kind of thing that once you see you just want to go inflict a severe head trauma upon yourself so that maybe – just maybe – those incredibly sad, ugly and evil images will be purged from your memory. And in the hopes of thoroughly ruining it for you, the way it all ended was that Lytton Strachey died of cancer or some such, whereupon the “heroine”, Dora Carrington, promptly blew her head off with a shotgun.
Oh, wait. Did I also mention that they were all EUGENICISTS? Yeah. Funny how these little “idiosyncrasies” always seem to crop up cheek-by-jowel, no?
So, you may be sitting there asking yourself why in the WOLRD would I have any interest in a movie about these people in the first place. The answer is because one of the core members of this wicked group of Modernist sodomite eugenicists was none other than…
JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES.
Yes, THAT John Maynard Keynes. The father and “god” of all modern economics – the most influential economist, without question, of the 20th century. Keynes’ economic theories (and it is extremely charitable to even dignify them as “theories”) basically revolved around the premise that aggregate demand was the sole determiner of overall economic activity, and thus if the State (read: “The Central Banks’ respective puppet fronts and operational arms”) intervened in the economy by printing money and providing “stimulus” to aggregate demand, this was the means by which full employment could be achieved and permanently maintained.
DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR????
As people with functioning brains in their heads now know and understand, if even only from a purely experiential, real-life basis, this is all abject, steaming hog diarrhea. Government intervention does NOT stimulate aggregate demand, but in fact hinders it. Printing money and debasing the currency is not only ineffective, but is a capital crime because it is THEFT on a scale so massive that it is literally obscured from the view of the people by virtue of its enormity. The only purpose applied Keynesian theory serves is to rapidly enrich and fraudulently empower a micro-oligarchy dwelling within the Central Bank-cum-Government matrix.
Did I mention Keynes was a super-promiscuous sodomite? And a eugenicist?
Back to the movie. So I sit through this hideous film, and guess what? Guess who has been utterly purged from the script? Guess who is never seen or mentioned?
John. Maynard. Keynes.
Wow. Ya think? Ya think these Modernist wretch tyrants and their media toadies would want to hide the fact that the “father” of this economic paradigm that is taught as unquestionable dogma in every university in Western Civilization today was a nasty pervert and despicable human being?
But wait, it gets better. Last night I stumbled across this video posted over at Ace of Spades of Friedrich Hayek being interviewed in which he speaks about Keynes. And what does Hayek (a genuinely good and contributive economist) say of Keynes? Basically, that Keynes the economist was a total fraud. He praises Keynes intrinsic intelligence, but says that he was lazy and that his economic theories were pure fluff – a paper facade. Keynes gave no deep, serious thought to any of it, and couldn’t defend it when confronted by great minds.
As even armchair economists can now see, such simple questions as:
1. What is money? 2. Where will the so-called intervening government stimulus money come from? 3. Does printing money ad infinitum have any negative moral or economic consequences? 4. If government “stimulus” does not achieve full employment, is more stimulus the answer? Is there any limit to the amount of stimulus that could be required? 5. Could an economy become addicted to this government “stimulus” and thus turn into a massive, sucking maw which then inevitably implodes upon itself killing a non-trivial percentage of the surface population? 6. Are you okay with point 5 as long as the majority of those killed are brown people and/or those who “judge” your enthusiasm for violently abusing your posterior fundament, and the posterior fundaments of others?
Guys, I have said this before, but I’ll say it again. This flagging civilization, which you are right in the heart of, is a giant, hollow scam. There’s no “there” there. The people running the world and being hailed as geniuses are almost all utter frauds. Universities churn out people who are all-but-illiterate. If you define “literacy” as being able to read street signs, then yes, most of them (but not all) are literate. If you define literacy properly, meaning a man who is well-read and truly educated and thus able to THINK, and REASON and CREATE, and thus contribute to and grow the culture, then… no. Sorry. Intellects are hollow. Souls are hollow. Culture is hollow. Government is hollow. Economies are hollow. MEN ARE HOLLOW.
It’s all going to pop. Maybe not tomorrow. Maybe not next week or next month, but it WILL pop because it MUST.
Keynes was a fraud.
The totality of the political class are all slack-jawed frauds. They couldn’t solve ANY of these problems even if they wanted to because they lack the intelligence and the character to actually do it.
The universities are FILLED with frauds, especially in the soft sciences.
The Church is filled with frauds (Marxist-sodomite infiltrators) and with those who are so woefully ignorant that their non-invincible ignorance constitutes a form of fraud.
Everything you see around you is tissue-paper thin, and if you scratch it, you realize that there is no solidity to anything in Western Civilization any longer. Instead of being anchored to Truth in a well-built and competently-helmed barque, the ropes have been cut, the ballast jettisoned, and our papier mache ship of lies is riding the gulf stream of evil straight into Hurricane Reality.
The Good News (TM) is that scripture is filled with the imagery and language of the empty being filled. Over and over again Our Lord makes clear that this condition of “hollowness” is not only fixable in every man, but what Our Lord desires for every man. But only He can fill the hollowness in men. There is no substitute. Everything else is fraud, and not only will the hollowness remain, but will increase with each attempt at filling oneself with these frauds. Dora Carrington tried to fill her hollowness with perverted sex and philosophical lies until finally her facade gave way – to a shell-full of double-aught buck. And her “friend”, John Maynard Keynes, “helped” her the same way he is “helping” the global economies today: straight into hell.
Give glory to the Lord, for He is good: for His mercy endureth for ever. Let them say so that have been redeemed by the Lord, whom He hath redeemed from the hand of the enemy: and gathered out of the countries. From the rising and the setting of the sun, from the north and from the sea. They wandered in a wilderness, in a place without water: they found not the way of a city for their habitation. They were hungry and thirsty: their soul fainted in them.
And they cried to the Lord in their tribulation: and He delivered them out of their distresses. And He led them into the right way: that they might go to a city of habitation. Let the mercies of the Lord give glory to Him: and His wonderful works to the children of men. For He hath satisfied the empty soul, and hath filled the hungry soul with good things. Such as sat in darkness and in the shadow of death: bound in want and in iron.
Because they had exasperated the words of God: and provoked the counsel of the most High: And their heart was humbled with labours: they were weakened, and their was none to help them. Then they cried to the Lord in their affliction: and He delivered them out of their distresses. And He brought them out of darkness, and the shadow of death; and broke their bonds in sunder. Let the mercies of the Lord give glory to Him, and His wonderful works to the children of men.
Because He hath broken gates of brass, and burst the iron bars. He took them out of the way of their iniquity: for they were brought low for their injustices. Their soul abhorred all manner of meat: and they drew nigh even to the gates of death. And they cried to the Lord in their affliction: and He delivered them out of their distresses. He sent His Word, and healed them: and delivered them from their destructions.
Let the mercies of the Lord give glory to Him: and His wonderful works to the children of men. And let them sacrifice the sacrifice of praise: and declare His works with joy. They that go down to the sea in ships, doing business in the great waters: These have seen the works of the Lord, and His wonders in the deep. He said the Word, and there arose a storm of wind: and the waves thereof were lifted up.
They mount up to the heavens, and they go down to the depths: their soul pined away with evils. They were troubled, and reeled like a drunken man; and all their wisdom was swallowed up. And they cried to the Lord in their affliction: and He brought them out of their distresses. And He turned the storm into a breeze: and its waves were still. And they rejoiced because they were still: and He brought them to the haven which they wished for.
Let the mercies of the Lord give glory to Him, and his wonderful works to the children of men. And let them exalt Him in the church of the people: and praise Him in the chair of the ancients. He hath turned rivers into a wilderness: and the sources of water into dry ground: A fruitful land into barrenness, for the wickedness of them that dwell therein. He hath turned a wilderness into pools of water, and a dry land into water springs.
And hath placed there the hungry; and they made a city for their habitation. And they sowed fields, and planted vineyards: and they yielded fruit of birth. And He blessed them, and they were multiplied exceedingly: and their cattle he suffered not to decrease. Then they were brought to be few: and they were afflicted through the trouble of evils and sorrow. Contempt was poured forth upon their princes: and he caused them to wander where there was no passing, and out of the way.
And He helped the poor out of poverty: and made Him families like a flock of sheep. The just shall see, and shall rejoice, and all iniquity shall stop their mouth. Who is wise, and will keep these things: and will understand the mercies of the Lord?
The Unfortunately Innate Nature of Intelligence
By: Fred Reed
(Excerpts from the article)
Human races are subspecies of Homo sapiens (sic), just as basset hounds and Chihuahuas are subspecies of dog. The breeds of neither are precise genetic categories: In the words of the heroic John Derbyshire, genetically “what you see is a continuum with some pretty sharp clines.” Yet the genetic commonalities are sufficient to be obvious: At a glance one can distinguish between a Japanese and a Norwegian, or a Siberian wolf hound and a dachshund…
Here we should note the dual modes of viewing intelligence, specifically Normal Mode and Racial Mode.
In Normal Mode, we all know what we mean by intelligence, and we all recognize that people vary greatly in how much of it they have. If John could read classical Greek at age three and graduated in mathematics from CalTech at fifteen, we would all agree that he was bright. If I said at a cocktail party, “Whoa! That gal Therese is smarter than five whips wired in parallel. Anybody got her phone number?” no one would tell me that I was a bigot or that Therese had exactly the same intelligence as everyone else. Rather they would say that I Just knew a good thing when I saw it.
In Group Mode, everything changes according to the group being discussed. If I said that Jews were smart, and adduced all manner of achievements over the centuries, no one would deny it. Similarly for the Chinese. If I said however that Australian aborigines were inferior in IQ, I would be told as follows: Intelligence does not exist; it is a social construct; it is culturally determined; it can’t be measured; it has no genetic basis; the tests are biased; lack of achievement is caused by discrimination, or institutional racism running through Australian society, or geographic considerations. Whereas if I said that Italians were of low intelligence the response would be to produce counter evidence, in the case of the aborigines it would be to give all manner of reasons why there was no counter evidence…
Read the entire article here: http://fredoneverything.net/Bowser.shtml
(Excerpt of the article: Obama’s terrorists are America’s Freedom Fighters by T.L. Davis)
“Those who believe they have the right to say anything they want; the right to decide what religion they will claim and the right to freely exercise their religious beliefs; the right to bear arms; the right to be free of federal troops occupying their home to spy on other citizens; the right to be free from government searches and seizures without sworn warrant; the right to life, liberty and property unless due process of law has given reason that the person should forfeit those rights; the right to a jury trial of one’s peers; the right to be free of cruel or unusual punishment; the rights to do many other things other than what are specified in the Bill of Rights; the rights of the states to do whatever has not been specifically given to congress under the Constitution are terrorists.”
In order to reclaim these rights, they must fight for their freedom. Obama’s terrorists have become America’s Freedom fighters.
Read the entire article at Christian Mercenary: http://christianmerc.blogspot.com/2014/02/obamas-terrorists-are-americas-freedom.html
The left finally has its Un-American tyranny. So why is it so angry?
Watch MSNBC or browse any left-wing site and you see a level of anger that would make you think that Al Gore had just conceded or Nixon had just won reelection. There’s more anger in the privileged circles of the left than in the political rearguard of the Tea Party.
That anger trickles from the top down. Obama’s interview with Bill O’Reilly was yet another opportunity for the most powerful man in the country to blame a vast right wing conspiracy. A day doesn’t pass without another email from Obama, his wife, Sandra Fluke or Joe Biden warning that without another five or ten dollar contribution, the “right” will take over America.
The left has unchallenged control over the government, academia and the entertainment industry and yet it talks as if the country is 5 seconds away from Sarah Palin marching into Washington D.C. at the head of an army of Duck Dynasty fans to outlaw abortion.
The apocalyptic political paranoia and the uncontrolled outbursts of rage haven’t changed much since 2003. Ten years later, the ideologues in power still act as if George W. Bush is serving out his fourth term. Every day on MSNBC, a stew of conspiracy theories about oil companies, Israel, the Koch Brothers, Wal-Mart and Karl Rove leaves a slimy trail across the television screen.
On the internet, manufactured outrage has become the only progressive stock in trade. Did Jerry Seinfeld say that he values humor over racial quotas? He’s a racist. Did an ESPN magazine out a compulsive liar who also happened to be pretending to be a woman? Lock him up. Did Mike Huckabee say something that could be misinterpreted with enough ellipses and out of context “Twitterized” quotes? Before you know it, he’s a sexist pig.
Pageviews are the obvious profit motive behind all this and yet it says something deeply disturbing about a progressive readership that eats up hate and doesn’t react to anything positive. The rash of fake hate crimes feeds into that same perverse need for an enemy to hate and fight. The left used to pretend that it wanted to do something positive. But now that it has the power, it can’t stop searching for someone to hate instead.
The left is more comfortable being angry than being anything else; it finds it easier to rally the troops against something than for something so that even its triumphs only lead to more anger. The MSNBC tweet about an interracial Cheerios commercial was revealing of a deeper problem within the left. It was assumed that the MSNBC audience wouldn’t care about an interracial ad unless it could somehow pretend to “spite” the right by watching it.
Obama’s awkward stumble from cause to cause, letting the old Bush policies run on Autoplay unless a crusade kicks in, as it eventually did on gay marriage and illegal immigration, is indicative of the problem with the left’s governing style. As with an interracial Cheerios commercial, it cares less about gay marriage or legalizing illegal aliens than it does about stirring up conflict.
That is another reason why the left began neglecting some of its bread and butter issues after Obama won. Aside from the need to protect its own man, it wasn’t really all that interested in closing Gitmo, gay marriage or opposing the War in Iraq. The things it wants to do are never as important to it as its obsessive need to feel that it is fighting against the right.
For all the Obama Worship, the left is more united by hatred for Sarah Palin or Ted Cruz or any other conservative villain of the month than by its support for its own leaders. It derives its identity more from the things that it is against, the middle class, the country, the businessman, the white male, than from the things that it is for.
The left’s sense of self is strongest when it is attacking, not when it is inspiring, when it is destroying, not when it is building.
Deprived of an external enemy, its ideologues carve out narrow orthodoxies and denounce each other for violating them. When the right and the center have been purged, the purges of the left begin and don’t end until there is nothing left except one tyrant-guru and his terrified minions. Or until some outside force throws a pot of cold water on the quarreling and shrieking acolytes brawling over minor points of doctrine.
The small scale bloodsport documented in the outward reaches of feminism by The Nation in its article “Feminism’s Toxic Twitter Wars” as transgender rights activists denounce Eve Ensler for excluding them by using the word “Vagina” and black feminists denounce white feminists for ignoring their concerns. This is what the left begins doing when it has free time on its hands. It doesn’t stop fighting. Instead its wars become pettier power struggles over points of doctrine.
When all enemies to the right have been eliminated, the left doesn’t find peace. Its ideology is a weapon, its gurus are egomaniacs and its followers joined to fight. When it wins in an arena, whether it’s academia or entertainment, the winners begins warring against each other proving that even in an ideological vacuum, its ideology remains a destructive force whose followers would rather denounce and destroy, than educate and enlighten.
As a victorious parasite writes its own obituary, a successful left is a threat to its own existence and the only thing saving the left from the violent disintegration into its own insanity is the right.
Hating the right is the only thing that keeps the left together. When it doesn’t have Nixon to kick around anymore, it dissolves into a wet puddle of goo. If it didn’t have Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney and every other figure who took his turn starring in their grim theater of the Two Minutes Hate, it would revert back to the petty infighting of a thousand minor eccentric causes.
The left needs to believe in a vast right-wing conspiracy. It needs the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, Evangelical Christians, AIPAC, oil companies, defense contractors and every other element of its conspiracy theories to keep its gurus and followers focused on the “real” threat instead of purging each other for tone policing, insufficient privilege checking and any other outrage of the week.
Like the Salafists shooting and shelling each other in Syria, the ranks of the left are filled with dogmatic and intolerant fanatics whose only goal in life is the absolute victory of their point of view. Their mutual fanaticism and aggrieved sense of victimhood gives them more in common with each other and that very commonality is the source of their mutual hatred. Only they can understand each other well enough to truly want to kill each other as no outsider possibly can.
Hate is the force that gives the left meaning. It isn’t hope that animates its leaders and thinkers, but the darker side of human nature that calls on them to destroy and to kill. That dark side is why the left’s victories end in tragedies, why the red flags are painted with blood and when its followers have run out of enemies to kill, they turn on each other and destroy their own movements with firing squads, gulags and guillotines.
The left finds its identity not in its utopian visions, but in the things and people it wishes to destroy. Only by knowing what they hate, do its followers know who they are.
Kill off religion and what do you have left? The answer can be seen in China. You’re left with materialism and family interests.. Cast off the shackles of the family for individualistic consumerism and you’re left with nothing except materialism as can be seen in any major Western city.
Modern urban man is much too “smart” for religion. At least his own. He wants to add an ethical dimension to life without having to believe in anything except the sense of fairness that he already has, but which he does not realize is not nearly as valid objectively as it is subjectively in his inner emotional reality.
And that is what the left is. It strips away everything except that egotistical sense that things should be run more fairly with predictably unfair results.
Liberalism, and the milder flavors of the left, provide a permission slip for materialism by elevating it through political activism. This is the philosophical purpose of environmentalism’s green label. It tells you that you are a good person for buying something and soothes the moral anxieties of an urban class with no coherent moral system except the need to impose an ethical order on the consumerism that defined their childhood, their adolescence and their adult life.
Those most in need of the moral system of materialism are the descendants of the displaced, whether by immigration to the United States or migration within the United States from rural to urban areas, who have become detached from a large extended family structure that once sustained them.
Their grandparents had already loosened their grip on religion and as the family disintegrated, materialism took its place. Their grandparents worked hard to provide for their children, but the children no longer saw maintaining the family as a moral activity. Sometimes they didn’t even bother with a family. They became lonely individuals looking for a collective. A virtual political family.
Liberalism fills the missing space once inhabited by religion and the family. It provides a moral and ethical system as religion did and the accompanying sense of purpose and its state institutions replace and supplant the family. It does both of these things destructively and badly as its institutions forever try to patch social problems created by the disintegration of the family and its ideas provide too few people with a sense of purpose of a meaningful life.
And yet it isn’t entirely to blame for this state of affairs. The left has actively tried to destroy the family and religion, but the American liberal was until recently less guilty on both charges. His main crime was collaborating with the left while refusing to acknowledge its destructive aims. The process by which the displacement of liberal ideas and their replacement by the ideas of the far left is nearly complete. The American liberal is now an aging relic. In his place is the resentful radical.
The process that led to this state of affairs isn’t the left’s fault either. Even if it’s not for lack of trying. In some ways the left isn’t the problem, it’s a symptom of the problem. Its ability to fundamentally transform people is limited. The transformation that has occurred is because of the choices that people have been led into making trading religion and family for a dead end materialism. Those choices evolved organically from the natural direction of society and technology.
And into that empty space, the left came. It dominates because there is nothing else to fill that space. It can only be truly resisted by cultural groups that have maintained hold of family and religion. Without that sense of purpose, there is only the endless baffled retreat of the Republican Party.
Liberalism appeals more to the middle class and the upper class because it is a religion of materialism. It makes very little sense to those who don’t have material things. The underclass might embrace the harsher populism of the left, but shows little interest in its larger collectivist philosophy. The underclass is losing family and religion at a faster rate than the upper class, but it clings to what it has and finds meaning in it. It may be nakedly materialistic, but it doesn’t believe that it is too smart for religion or too individualistic for family. It has many flaws, but arrogance isn’t one of them.
Ennobling consumerism is a difficult task. The left doesn’t come anywhere close to succeeding at it. Instead it makes it more expensive and raises the entry barriers for everything by working to eliminate cheap food, cheap household goods and cheap everything. It’s a class issue.
Why does the left really hate Walmart? It doesn’t really have a lot to do with unions and has a lot to do with class. Walmart’s crime is industrial. It’s the crime of the factory and the supermarket and every means of mass production and consumption. It makes cheap products too readily available to the masses. Liberals like to believe that they oppose consumerism, but what they really want to do is raise the entry levels to the lifestyle. Liberal consumerism is all about upselling ethics.
When tangible goods become too easy to produce, you add value through intangibles. The fair trade food tastes the same as non-fair trade food. Organic, a category with a debatable meaning, doesn’t really provide that much more value. And environmental labels are worth very little. And yet the average product at Whole Foods is covered in so many “ethical liberal” labels that it’s hard to figure out what it even is.
Intangible value is all about class. And class is all about creating barriers to entry.
Liberalism has become a revolt against the middle class that its grandparents struggled to reach, a rejection of their “materialism” while substituting the “ethical materialism” of liberalism in its place that envisions a much smaller upper and middle class that derives its wealth and power not from hard work in the private sector, but highly profitable social justice volunteerism in the public sector.
An American Dream of universal prosperity has been pitted against the left’s dream of a benevolent feudal system in which the few will be very well paid to oversee the income equality of the many.
The left’s private argument against the American Dream is that it’s little more than Walmart. And to some degree they’re right. Easy availability of the necessities of life does not lead to a meaningful life. But the easy contempt that the left has for it shows its basic inability to understand how important these things are and how hard they were to come by for most of human history.
Salt was once a precious commodity. Today it sells for pennies a pound. The ability to light the darkness meant the difference between studying at night and living in ignorance. Today a light bulb goes for a quarter. At least it did until the left banned them. And electricity, the left also keeps raising the price of that. Few of the post-apocalyptic fantasies spilling out of Hollywood really describe what would happen if the people manufacturing them were thrown back before the industrial revolution..
Progress has made a good life materially possible, but it has also displaced and damaged the social mechanisms that make a good life socially possible. We have easy access to technology and streets full of vicious illiterate thugs. We can discuss anything with anyone, but we live in a society that values few things worth discussing. We have mass production, but not mass character.
For all its feigned populism, such elitist critiques of society are not foreign to the left. The left’s elitist critiques differ in some regards, but they are on the same basic wavelength as those of the social conservative. And its solution is to promote what it considers social progress by reversing or slowing down industrial, commercial and technological progress. The environmental movement is only the latest ideological incarnation of this philosophy which strives to slow down the rate of progress.
That’s not a solution to the problem. It is the problem.
The left cannot escape its own materialism. Its attempts at adding an ethical dimension to materialism fail because its ethical dimension is still materialistic. Its pathetic efforts at injecting pastiches of Third World and minority spirituality into its politics to provide the illusion of a spiritual dimension are hollow and racist. The left cannot fill its own hole, because it is the hole.
Like Islam, it provides something for people to believe in, but the thing it provides is the compulsion to find meaning by forcibly remaking other people’s lives in a perpetual revolution which becomes its own purpose.
The left can’t replace family or religion. Its social solutions are alien and artificial. They fix nothing and damage everything. Their appeal is to those who are arrogant and starved for meaning, who want religion without religion and family without family only to discover that they are not enough.
The Bright Are Too White
Another jewel of degradation gleaming in the wan light of witlessness:
A school (should I say “school”?) in Brooklyn, more than two-thirds of whose students are black or Hispanic, has abolished its (I mean “it’s”) advanced courses for the intelligent. Why this salubrious excision? Why, because too many of the students therein are white. That is, classes for the intelligent contain the intelligent. My god. This cancer must be corrected lest it spread. Fred Reed — The Soul of a Curmudgeon
The modern tactic, for dealing with sin, is more neurotic than psychotic.
The guilt remains, but the sin is denied. It would be invidious to take any one of the Seven Deadlies for my example: let us just say they take all the time they could spend repenting, instead convincing themselves that it was not a sin. – - Essays in Idleness
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/
Posted on | February 10, 2014
Left to right: Leon Trotsky, Felix Dzerzhinsky, Lavrenti Beria.
“Lenin, at every passing opportunity, emphasized the absolute necessity of the terror. . . . “We heard such tirades from him a dozen times a day and they were always aimed at some one among those present who was suspected of ‘pacifism.’” – Leon Trotsky, Lenin (1925)
“Socialism has never and nowhere been at first a working-class movement. . . . It is a construction of theorists, deriving from certain tendencies of abstract thought with which for a long time only the intellectuals were familiar . . .” – F.A. Hayek, “The Intellectuals and Socialism” (1949)
Marxism envisions the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” so that there can be no Marxism without violent terror, and self-described communist Jesse Myerson must fail in his attempts to evade this truth.
Ever since his Rolling Stone article advocating the abolition of private property provoked a furious reaction last month, Myerson has sought to evade the consequences of his ideas by employing rhetorical tactics familiar to anyone who has long studied the Left. His Salon.com article last Sunday was a particularly tedious exercise in these methods, and inspired me to remind readers of how Ludwig von Mises had described the ultimate futility of socialism:
“Socialist writers may continue to publish books about the decay of Capitalism and the coming of the socialist millennium; they may paint the evils of Capitalism in lurid colours and contrast with them an enticing picture of the blessings of a socialist society; their writings may continue to impress the thoughtless — but all this cannot alter the fate of the socialist idea.”
Myerson’s fanciful blather about a “far more open, humane, democratic, participatory and egalitarian” communism in the future, which would somehow miraculously avoid the monstrous evils of previous communist regimes, signified his own ignorance of history. Myerson’s response, however, is to accuse communism’s opponents of being ignorant: He is knowledgeable and wise; we are McCarthyite fools.
Read the rest of the article at The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Found at The Daley Gator
“Burn The Witch!” Heritage Foundation Scuttles Away From Jason Richwine—And The Cold Hard Facts
The story so far (in the wee hours of Thursday morning). Following the release of a report by the Heritage Foundation arguing that the Rubio-Schumer immigration bill will cost the nation $6.3 trillion, the Slave Power set their dwarf miners to digging.
They soon found gold. One of the co-authors of the study is twentysomething Jason Richwine, a Heritage analyst. Not just an analyst, but a quantitative analyst: “Heritage’s senior policy analyst in empirical studies.”
Uh-oh. This Richwine guy deals with numbers, evidence, and facts—radioactive materials in a nation under strong ideological control.
To sift truth from error at best requires an effort; where there is no great advantage for the former, the latter often prevails, as errors are infinite, simple, and attractive—and many a fancy lends support to established position—while truth is one and often stern. The imperial order, itself irrational and hence distrusting reason, excels in credulity and superstition.
—Robert G. Wesson, The Imperial Order
The Washington Post ran a gleeful story on the find under the headline “Heritage study co-author opposed letting in immigrants with low IQs.” [By Dylan Matthews, May 8, 2013]They note that:
Richwine’s dissertation asserts that there are deep-set differentials in intelligence between races.
Eek! A witch! But how to link this evil person (for such he plainly is) with the Heritage report costing Rubio-Schumer? Easy.
First, the Post notes that Richwine’s thesis argues for selection of immigrants by IQ. (“I believe there is a strong case for IQ selection”—page 133 of the thesis.) However:
He does caution against referring to it as IQ-based selection, saying that using the term “skill-based” would “blunt the negative reaction.”
That rhetorical strategy is reflected in Heritage’s current work on immigration. His and Rector’s report recommends greatly reducing “low-skilled” immigration and increasing “high-skilled” immigration. “The legal immigration system should be altered to greatly reduce the number of low-skill immigrants entering the country and increase the number of new entrants with high levels of education and skills that are in demand by U.S. firms,” they write.
See? That Heritage report on the Rubio-Schumer bill is nothing but a conduit for the twisted white supremacist fantasies of a racist bigot!
(I note in passing that the Heritage position favoring increases in high-skilled immigration is at odds with VDARE.com’s position, and also with the data.)
Post columnist Jennifer Rubin, on secondment from Conservatism, Inc. to offer some pretense of “balance” at the Post, hastened to join the lynch mob. “It undermines the cause of all immigration opponents to have their prized work authored by such a character,” she wrote, reading Richwine out of respectable society.
It’s an unpleasant reminder that sincere opponents of reform should distance themselves from the collection of extremists and bigots who populate certain anti-immigrant groups.[ Heritage stumbles, again and again, May 8, 2013]
She then brings in Jennifer S. Korn for a quote. Ms. Korn was Secretary for Hispandering in the George W. Bush White House. (Note that her bio page on the Hispanic Leadership Network website retails the old lie about Bush getting 44 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004. These people live in lies like maggots in rotten meat.)
What does Ms. Korn have to tell us?
Richwine’s comments are bigoted and ignorant. America is a nation of immigrants; to impugn the intelligence of immigrants is to offend each and every American and the foundation of our country.
So you can get a Ph.D. from Harvard by submitting “comments” to the thesis examiners? Who knew?
In fact Richwine’s thesis is of a properly scholarly standard, with twelve pages of references (pp. 147-158) and a wealth of quantitative data from published academic sources.
As to Richwine having “impugned” the intelligence of immigrants: My dictionary defines “impugn” as “cast doubt upon.” Far from casting doubt, Richwine’s thesis seeks to remove doubt by careful quantitative analysis.
Even if you take Ms. Korn’s usage of “impugn” to mean Richwine has stated that immigrants have lower mean IQ than natives, she is wrong. Table 2.2 in the thesis (p. 30) gives an average estimated mean IQ of 105.5 for immigrants from Northeast Asia. Should Mrs. Derbyshire consider herself impugned? (I asked: she doesn’t.) The estimated mean for European immigrants—that’s me!—in that table is 98.0. Am I thereby impugned? I’m reaching for it, trying to feel it, but . . . no, it’s not there.
The comment thread to Jennifer Rubin’s piece is laden with the usual driveling ignorant obscurantist piffle one gets in these cases. “I’m an immigrant and I’m smart!” (Commenter at 5/8/2013 8:42 PM.) Not smart enough to understand the concept of an average, apparently. “Goddard said Jewish immigrants were dumb!” No he didn’t. Fox News . . . the Koch brothers . . . You know how it goes.
(Not even trying! Ms. Rubin herself, by way of slandering George Borjas, one of Richwine’s thesis advisers, links to an 849-word column by Hispanic race shill Raoul Lowery Contreras that has “Nazi” at word number three—a sensational GQ of 0.35!)
There is, though, in that comment thread, some good push-back against the nitwits. A shout-out here from me to “Bob017,” whoever he is (I have no idea), for stalwart service. Our own Steve Sailer is in there, too. Magna est veritas et prævalebit—“The truth is great and it will prevail a bit.”
And so another “anti-racist” witch hunt commences. I know how Jason Richwine feels right now: about the same way I felt the weekend of April 7th-8th last year.
The forces of orthodoxy have identified a heretic. They’re marching on his hut with pitchforks and flaming brands. The cry echoes around the internet: “Burn the witch!”
Here’s what you can expect, Jason.
First, you’re not going to come to any physical harm (though your email might get sabotaged). It’s not really personal. The lefties are not after you, though if they mess up your life they will of course feel pleased with themselves. They are after the Heritage Foundation, just as the mob coming after me last year were after National Review.
Old Chinese proverb: sha ji xìa hóu—“kill a chicken to scare the monkeys.” You’re the chicken, pal.
Second, the monkeys will be duly scared. Expect Heritage to disown you.
It’s not that Heritage people in general are jerks, though of course a few individuals may be. It’s part prudential, part ideological.
The prudential aspect is simply the hard logic of fighting a war—the Cold Civil War—with numerically inferior forces. You have to pick your fights with care, like Joe Johnston retreating up the Peninsula before the Seven Days. Joining battle with the massed forces of Cultural Marxism—the media, schools and colleges, corporations, unions, major religious establishments, government bureaucracies—on behalf of a lone staffer could be suicidal.
From where we stand here on the Dissident Right, Conservatism, Inc., of which the Heritage Foundation is one pillar, looks pretty formidable. As much as we have fun scoffing at them, though, we should remember that they see themselves, accurately, as a beleaguered minority.
And they are not a beleaguered minority of quantitative analysts, unfortunately. I doubt there are many Jason Richwines at the Heritage Foundation. Statistical numeracy is a rare talent, rare enough that you can spend many hours among the inmates of conservative think-tanks without encountering the slightest smidgeon, trace, jot, or tittle of it.
Hence the ideological factor. Absent that coldly empirical, quantitative cast of mind that Jason Richwine admirably displays in his Ph.D. thesis, one is open to infection by feelgood ideological fads. This applies to self-identifying conservatives as much as to liberals; and since the overwhelming ideological authority in our country belongs to the Cultural Marxists, not-very-numerate conservatives are generally infected to some degree.
Thus the underbusthrowing of Jason Richwine by Heritage Foundation, which seems to be already under way as I write, is not only prudential. The immigration romantics and world-saving missionaries who control Conservatism, Inc., and who are no doubt plentiful in the decision-makers at Heritage, will be repelled by Richwine’s thesis, or by the accounts of it they are fed by Cultural Marxist outlets (thanks, guys!)
In dumping Richwine they will feel vaguely that they are performing an act of institutional hygiene, cleansing themselves of the dread taint of racism. That everything he says is true, and buttressed by facts, will count for nothing. “Truth is one and often stern”—too stern for the soft minds of careerist hacks.
See you in the camps, Jason!
John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amounton all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. His latest book is From The Dissident Right. His writings are archived at JohnDerbyshire.com.
Readers who wish to donate (tax deductible) funds specifically earmarked for John Derbyshire’s writings at VDARE.com can do so here.
Diversity Is Strength! It’s Also…A Police State Superbowl
Above, Bronco quarterback Peyton Manning (left); Seattle quarterback Russell Wilson (right).
Today, the Denver Broncos and the Seattle Seahawks football franchises will participate in the 48th playing of the National Football League’s Super Bowl.
Would even one of the fans then sitting in the Los Angeles Coliseum have believed that the same venue would see the US national soccer team booed in favor of the Mexican —or that a Los Angeles Times columnist would praise this development? [Again, it's red, white and boo, By Bill Plaschke, June 26, 2011]
Would even one fan believe that an elite academic institution, Stanford University, would not only willingly abandon the teaching of Western Civilization course required of all freshmen (“Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western culture’s got to go…”—Jesse Jackson), but consider Richard Sherman’s worthy of admission despite his low SAT score just because he runs an above-average 40 time?
How could you convince those fans, who had casually strolled into a stadium with almost no security, that to enter Super Bowl 48, they’d be subjected to an invasive search of their person, presumed a potentially terrorist threat until deemed innocent and worthy to enter the stadium?
More than 30 federal agencies, 100 law enforcement agencies, 700 state troopers, 3,000 private security officers, snipers hidden on among the crowd, US Army Black Hawk attack helicopters enforcing a 10-mile “no fly zone” around the stadium, and US Air Force F-16s on emergency stand-by will protect this XLVIII playing of the Super Bowl.
The America of 1967, when the first Super Bowl was played, was 90 percent white, bursting with social capital and upward mobility for its citizens. But, thanks to the 1965 Immigration Act and the simultaneous collapse of immigration enforcement, the America of 2014 is a country where the majority of births are non-white, the middle class is shrinking—and the state of social capital is devastatingly summed up by the Police State measures required to ensure the safety of a football game.
Fans with tickets to the 2014 Super Bowl can’t even tailgate outside MetLife Stadium. [No tailgating at Super Bowl, By Jane McManus, ESPN, December 9, 2013] You can’t even walk to the stadium, with the NFL devising “Fan Express Zones” (at a cost $51 per ride), where you can board a bus and be shuttled to and from the Broncos-Seahawks game. [You Can’t Walk to the Super Bowl Because You Are the NFL’s Personal ATM, By Sean Conboy, Sports Illustrated, January 28, 2014]
What would one of those 1967 fans have thought if they’d be able to see Super Bowl 48? (Mind you, the number of black players on the field in that first game resembles the number of white players on the field in today’s game.)
You don’t have to be InfoWars.com’s Alex Jones to understand something is seriously wrong, as police state measures are implemented not just in the NFL and at the Super Bowl, but across all of America. [NFL wants pat-downs from ankles up at all stadiums, USA Today, September 15 2011]
Jones, whose webzine is one of the fastest growing media organizations precisely because so many Americans are becoming increasingly worried about their freedoms, has called for a boycott of the NFL, arguing that the league’s TSA-style security at stadiums is just another way of conditioning fans to accept the encroaching police state. [NFL Faces National Protest, Infowars.com, December 4, 2013]
Purses and backpacks have been banned from games, with the Department of Homeland Security providing a stamp of approval for the NFL’s safety measures. [NFL Bans Purses and Backpacks, Limits Fans to One Gallon-Sized Baggie, By Zenon Evans, Reason, August 6, 2013]
Jones noted, in announcing his decision to call for a boycott of the NFL, that the league vetoed a Super Bowl commercial by rifle manufacturer Daniel Defense:
The company’s “offensive” ad depicts a former marine arriving home to greet his wife and child, accompanied by a voice over stating, “no one has the right to tell me how to defend them.”
The ad supposedly violates the NFL’s advertising guidelines, which bar ads featuring “firearms, ammunition or other weapons,” even though the ad doesn’t actually show any of the above, aside from an illustration of their popular DDM4 rifle featured below Daniel Defense’s logo.
[National Movement to Boycott NFL Launched: Pro-Obamacare NFL launches war on Second Amendment, InfoWars.com, December 4, 2013]
How could you tell the America of John Wayne that, one day, several U.S. states would be waging war with the 2nd Amendment and that the NFL—with Bob Costas of NBC’s Football Night in America leading the way—would be an active participant?
Some fear the NFL’s Police-State measures amount to something far more pernicious: The NFL’s Role In the Coming Martial Law, By Dave Hodges, Lew Rockwell.com, December 10, 2013]
But 2014 America is radically different from 1967 America precisely because of the racial composition of the country. With such drastic changes, the social capital that once held the country together is in short supply. And with such changes come consequences.
What was it The Economist just published about diversity? Something about the downside of diversity based on research on “ambient cultural disharmony” by Roy Y.J .Chua, of Harvard Business School, I believe:
Tension between people over matters of culture, he says, can pollute the wider environment and reduce “multicultural creativity”, meaning people’s ability to see non-obvious connections between ideas from different cultures. “Ambient cultural disharmony” persuades people to give up on making such connections because they conclude that it is not worth the trouble.
The downside of diversity, January 21, 2014]
The security measures required at Super Bowl 48 are a metaphor for the changes in America. A Police State is required to keep the peace in—to paraphrase Chua—the “polluted wider environment created by tension between people over matters of culture”?
Symmetrically, there apparently will be plenty of seats available (“18,000 Super Bowl Seats Still Available”) for the 48th version of the game as well, now that the US is an increasingly heterogeneous empire, with a Police State required to hold it together.
Paul Kersey[Email him] is the author of the blog SBPDL, and has published the books SBPDL Year One, Hollywood in Blackface and Escape From Detroit, Opiate of America: College Football in Black and White and Second City Confidential: The Black Experience in Chicagoland. His latest book is The Tragic City: Birmingham 1963-2013.
DEATH WISH At Forty: Are We Allowed To “Notice” Race NOW?
In contrast to Obama’s America, where Hollywood, television, and the Main Stream Media are working overtime to promote false consciousness about crime in America (just watch an episode of Law & Order or remember what the producer of COPS said about wanting to show only reversing the ratio of white and minority criminals (“I do that intentionally because I do not want to contribute to negative stereotypes”) this movie packed a powerful reminder: no matter how much incessant propaganda tries to make people believe a lie, one perfectly-packaged dose of truth is enough to make it all go away.
That movie: Death Wish. To celebrate the 40th anniversary of its theatrical release, a special edition Blu Ray version was released today (February 4). [Purchase here and direct a commission to VDARE.com at no cost to you!] Never has the response of the Charles Bronson character (named, by an amazing coincidence, Paul Kersey) to the rape-murder of his wife and rape-mental ruin of his daughter looked better.
Based on a novel by Brian Garfield (interestingly, its protagonist was named Paul Benjamin and was Jewish), Death Wish spawned four sequels. But it was the compelling manner in which the original movie portrayed Bronson’s actions as justified that frightened Ebert. He said:
There’s never any question of injustice, because the crimes are attempted right there before our eyes. And then Bronson becomes judge and jury—and executioner.
No doubt this was exactly why the great Murray Rothbard praised the movie so much:
Death Wish is a superb movie, the best hero-and-vengeance picture since Dirty Harry. Bronson, an architect whose young family has been destroyed by muggers, drops his namby-pamby left-liberalism, and begins to pack a gun, defending himself brilliantly and uncompromisingly against a series of muggers who infest New York City. Yet he never kills the innocent, or commits excesses. Naturally, even though he is only defending himself against assault, the police, who have failed to go after the muggers and who acknowledge the fall in the crime rate due to Bronson’s activities, devote their resources to pursuing him instead of the criminals who terrorize New York. It is a great and heroic picture, a picture demonstrating one man’s successful fight for justice.
As might be expected, Death Wish has been subjected to hysterical attacks by the left-liberal critics who acknowledge the power and technical qualities of the picture, which they proceed to denounce for its “fascist ideology” (self-defense by victims against crimes) and its “pornography of violence” (in a just cause).
Don’t miss Death Wish; it says more about the “urban problem” than a dozen “message” documentaries, and it helps bring back heroism to the movies.
August 1974 issue of The Libertarian Forum
One line of dialogue in Death Wish cuts to the heart of America’s crime dilemma. While Bronson’s character is at a dinner party in New York City, he overhears a conversation between two guests about his vigilante actions:
Man: I’ll tell you one thing: the guy’s a racist. You notice he kills more Blacks than Whites.
Woman: Oh, for Pete’s sake, Harry. More Blacks are muggers than Whites. What do you want to do–increase the proportion of White muggers, so we’ll have racial equality among muggers?
Roger Ebert balked at the movie’s depicting New York City
…like one of those bloody future cities in science-fiction novels about anarchy in the twenty-first century. Literally every shadow holds a mugger; every subway train harbors a killer; the park is a breeding ground for crime.
But as the 1970s drew on, New York City did indeed become a place where “anarchy” reigned, along with all the ills Ebert brushed aside.
Fast forward to 2014: Those demographic groups behind Rothbard’s “urban problem” in New York City now have a true friend in Mayor Bill de Blasio.
And, with the repudiation of Rudy Giuliani’s reforms, it will again become a city with the increasingly “bloody future” that Ebert whined about Death Wish’s depicting.
Today, New York City is 33 percent white, 25.5 black, 28.6 Hispanic, and 12.7% Asian.
When Death Wish came out (1974), New York was 62.95 white, 21.13 percent black, and 16. percent Hispanic.
Only 30 years prior to that, the city was 91.97 percent white.
The record shows that 1.3 percent (2008), 1.4 percent (2009), 1.4 (2010), 2.5 (2011), and 2.4 (2012) of the arrested suspects in shootings (defined as any crime where the victim is struck with a bullet) in New York City were white.
During that same time, 78.3 percent (2008), 79.8 percent (2009), 74.2 (2010), 72.5 (2011), and 78.2 (2012), of the arrested suspects in shootings were black.
And during that same time, 18.3 percent (2008), 19.9 percent (2009), 23.3 (2010), 23.9 (2011), and 18.9 (2012) of the arrested suspects in shootings were Hispanic.
In short: forty years after Death Wish, almost all gun crime in New York City is non-white.
How about murder victims/suspects?
- Blacks were 61.72 percent of murder victims and 58.3 percent of murder suspects.
- Hispanics were 26.2 percent of murder victims and 32.78 percent of murder suspects.
- Whites were 7.84 percent of murder victims and 6.08 percent of murder suspects.
In short: between 2008-2012, blacks and Hispanics were 91.08 percent of murder suspects in New York City.
How about rape victims/suspects over the same period?
- Blacks were 39.34 percent of rape victims and 51.42 percent of rape suspects.
- Hispanics were 38.44 percent of rape victims and 35 percent of rape suspects.
- Whites were 16.64 percent of rape victims and 9.28 percent of rape suspects.
In short: Between 2008-2012, blacks and Hispanics were 86.42 percent of rape suspects in New York City.
- Blacks were 31.6 percent of robbery victims and 71.02 percent of rape suspects.
- Hispanics were 37.46 percent of robbery victims and 23.32 percent of rape suspects.
- Whites were 18.04 percent of robbery victims and 4.32 percent of rape suspects.
In short: between 2008-2012, blacks and Hispanics were 94.34 percent of robbery suspects in New York City.
Ebert was right to label Bronson’s Death Wish “scary,” but he was wrong about why. The fact that, despite all the anti-gun propaganda in school, the MSM, and Hollywood/TV, that this film resonated so deeply proves that Andrew Breitbart was right when he said: “Politics is downstream from culture.”
The subversive essence of Death Wish wasn’t that Bronson’s character went out and killed muggers, seeking revenge.
It’s that one scene from the dinner party, when the racial reality of crime in New York City is repudiated—a powerful reminder that “noticing” is the true crime in modern America.
Because when you “notice,” and pattern recognition develops obvious truths—justifying, for example “Stop and Frisk”—it becomes apparent why, as the black and Hispanic population of New York City becomes greater, the white American population becomes less.
But this bit of dialogue between Kersey and the young husband of his destroyed daughter puts that white flight in a grim perspective:
Paul Kersey: Nothing to do but cut and run, huh? What else? What about the old American social custom of self-defense? If the police don’t defend us, maybe we ought to do it ourselves.
Jack Toby: We’re not pioneers anymore, Dad.
Paul Kersey: What are we, Jack?
Jack Toby: What do you mean?
Paul Kersey: I mean, if we’re not pioneers, what have we become? What do you call people who, when they’re faced with a condition or fear, do nothing about it, they just run and hide?
Jack Toby: Civilized?
Paul Kersey: No.
2014 America is a less civilized place—precisely because we have been cutting and running in the forty years since Death Wish came out.
Paul Kersey[Email him] is the author of the blog SBPDL, and has published the books SBPDL Year One, Hollywood in Blackface and Escape From Detroit, Opiate of America: College Football in Black and White and Second City Confidential: The Black Experience in Chicagoland. His latest book is The Tragic City: Birmingham 1963-2013.
Heroin and the Algebra of Need
Junk yields a basic formula of “evil” virus: The Algebra of Need. The face of “evil” is always the face of total need. A dope fiend is a man in total need of dope. Beyond a certain frequency need knows absolutely no limit or control. In the words of total need: “Wouldn’t you?” Yes you would. You would lie, cheat, inform on your friends, steal, do anything to satisfy total need. Because you would be in a state of total sickness, total possession, and not in a position to act in any other way. Dope fiends are sick people who cannot act other than they do. A rabid dog cannot choose but bite. Assuming a self- righteous position is nothing to the purpose unless your purpose be to keep the junk virus in operation. – William S. Burroughs’ Depostion
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
(Emphasis mine. ZTW)
I have to disagree. Chris Christie has been anointed by the oligarchy and is now, in fact, establishing himself as an oligarch. He is their boy. He isn’t going anywhere. EVERYTHING is forgotten within 36 hours. That is the news cycle. Chris Christie could eat a baby on the front steps of the New Jersey governor’s mansion and it would be shrugged off. Think about it. When was the last time any member of the oligarchy suffered ANY adverse consequences for ANY crime? Do you remember that Eric Holder was formally held in Contempt of Congress years ago for non-cooperation in the Fast and Furious inquiries? Do you remember how everyone was saying that Hillary Clinton was “done” in the wake of the Benghazi murders of which she is a direct co-conspirator? Hillary Clinton is now, as I said years ago, the universally-assumed 2016 candidate. Rand Paul has sold out the so-called “conservative right” more times than I can count, and EVERY TIME it is all forgotten within literally a matter of hours BY THE CONSERVATIVE RIGHT. I tweeted yesterday a piece about how Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, who both ascended to power by winning primaries against incumbents, told Hannity that they would NOT support non-incumbent Rethuglican candidates. Yup. You know, like Lindsay Graham or Mitch McConnell, two of the most revolting, amoral fiends in Washington. It’s all a sickening charade, people. This business of not remembering or being able to synthesize a dataset that is more than 36 hours old is why I hold out no hope. As long as psychopath X waves the “team flag” everyone’s still on board.
5. In the same vein, here is a video of a group of employees of a small business being shown how ObamaCare is going to send their insurance premiums and deductibles through the roof. One lady’s goes up to over $1300 per month and her deductible doubles. This is absolutely no surprise, because SIMPLE COMMON SENSE tells us that a system that mandates that people with pre-existing conditions be allowed into a risk pool AFTER the adverse risk event has already occurred, is a system that will see premiums explode parabolically before the entire system implodes upon itself. How is this a surprise? Does no one actually understand on even the most basic level what insurance is? Apparently not. But what I really want to point out is the glassy-eyed reaction of the people. I see not a hint of outrage, refusal to comply, nothing. The people in question you can tell are NOT making six figures, and yet they all seem perfectly resigned to paying the equivalent of an above-median mortgage payment for HEALTH INSURANCE, while having their deductibles double. Shrug. Nothing I can do about it. Oh well.
I look at that and am chilled to the bone, because I realize that it is going to take horrors on a level that many of us can not now imagine possible in the western world to wake people up and get them to the point of actually resisting this crap on any level. The feedback that is being given to the oligarchy is that of total capitulation, and thus the green-light to proceed with and escalate the theft and tyranny – and believe me, the oligarchs are watching the non-reaction reaction of the masses VERY closely, and they are very, very pleased. It isn’t the oligarchs that I fear per se. It is the glassy-eyed apathy and intellectual and moral sloth of the broad citizenry that is the source of night-sweat terror for me.
From Ann Barnhardt: http://www.barnhardt.biz/
Better than a half century into the Great Society, huge numbers of blacks live trapped in urban Bantustans,
Newark, Detroit, Birmingham, Philadelphia, barely literate if at all, unemployed and unemployable, bastardy almost universal, utterly dependent on federal charity, without the slightest hope that any of this will change. If Washington had deliberately tried to make a greater mess, it couldn’t have….. Open borders. Another train wreck started, stage-managed, and supported by Washington. Infinite Arrogance, Infinite Incompetence
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
By T.L. Davis
So, let us look at our history in America for a moment. It began as a capitalist experiment (and I have been chided for that term for its derivation from Marx as derogatory, but set that aside as we have never known a free market and likely never will, and no, I will not engage the debate here). It was a trading outpost for Britain, France and Spain, each exploiting different parts of the new continent.
There was liberty. The respective crowns were distant and those who braved the seas to arrive and occupy the land did so at their peril. It made of us a risk-taking lot; it made of us self-reliant; it made of us actors rather than reactors. Centuries passed, frontiers dissolved and we arrived at modern America: a tangled web of misinformation, disinformation and largely disconnected from our history. We are fed fairy tales from the television, always spouting a liberal, leftist, Marxist, totalitarian meme.
We are lost. Those of us who understand our rights, who understand the Constitution and the way it was weaved through an understanding of God as the supreme power, are few. The rest believe what they hear on the news, or newspapers, or general gossip.
Our success as a nation was directly attributable to those qualities: risk-taking, self-reliance and action, but, beyond a certain point, it enabled us to disconnect from the very same values. Those qualities allowed us the supremacy of power. We assumed it would always be so and we would always be safe. It allowed us to take our eye off the ball and become more engrossed in our own trivial lives, ignoring the great evil prowling the darkness of apathy.
Those of us awake see the future for what it is: a disaster to our way of life, our supremacy and our security. Those who work against those American traits promise security without risk, wealth without labor, survival without work. They couch our recipe for success in racist terms, on the backs of others, to the detriment of the poor; without seeing that it was poverty and oppression that put the fire in the bellies of the settlers, who found it so horrific in their homeland that a dangerous, cold, distant continent appealed to them rather than to remain under those conditions.
We ventured out, with the grace of God and determination to settle a new land, to enter into liberty from those distant lands of oppression and nobility.
Centuries of new immigrants, drawn by the success, power and promise of America arrived without having to develop, risk or work. They entered a promised land already set up, provided with goods, like walking into a Wal-Mart. Those who brought their labor and ingenuity to the table were fed amply of the rewards, those who did not; who came to game the system, steal the fruit of other’s labor have also found fertile fields, but for all the wrong reasons. They have learned the wrong lessons of America and so do not hold in reverence those ideals that made it strong.
We are all immigrants, but the nature of immigration has changed; the purpose of immigration has changed. It doesn’t matter where a particular immigrant comes from, because there is no inherent value to any race. We are all humans with all the same failings and blessings. What has changed about immigration is not whoimmigrates, but why.
Without the supporting values of what made America great, it cannot succeed in the future. It needs humans of all sorts, but with particular ideas of what America is and why it is such. Without that there is no continuity to society, there is no common understanding of values and there is no possibility of survival. It was the ruin of Rome and it will be our ruin as well.
To avert that ruin drastic measures must be taken and the election of 2014 is the time. No, I am not suggesting we “vote our way out” of this, that is an impossibility. 2014 is a time for the first salvo in our rebellion against the revolution that has taken place under the very eyes and ears of our people. It is the first step in the counter-revolution.
The first thing that has to go is the Republican Party. The Republicans have no loyalty to the Constitution, or they would not have allowed Obama to go so far down the dictatorial road he has traveled since his inauguration. They would not tolerate a president threatening them with a pen, or a phone. Somewhere they had to stand up for the Constitution and use its powers to rid this nation of such a tyrant, but they would not take the risk to their political lives and to that end have proved that they do not have the values on which this nation was founded and do not deserve to sit in the halls of power.
Then, let the games begin.
“Big Dick” A Kinder, Gentler Magazine Subscription Incentive
It is rightly said that subscriptions to magazines are falling off to a disastrous extent. Most blame the internet. But isn’t it also possible that magazine publishers simply don’t know how to motivate boys to sell subscriptions any more? I mean with an offer like this what boy could resist?
Every boy has heard of the big rapid fire machine guns. “Big Dick” is modeled as closely as a toy can be after its big brother at the front. It shoots with remarkable accuracy. After a little practice you will be able to hit any object you wish as a considerable distance. It is a powerful yet harmless gun. It shoots thrity-six bullet-shaped wooden slugs as fast as you can turn the crank.
“Big Dick” is 23 inches long, 9 inches high, and made of iron, with a strong wooden barrel. This is the largest, finest made, and strongest toy gun we have ever seen.
“Big Dick” is a gun that will be enjoyed both indoors and out. It will be a great gun to use behind a sand or dirt fort. Extra shots can be purchased at any time.
HOW TO GET “BIG DICK” FREE
“Big Dick” will be given to any boy sending six new yearly subscriptions to LITTLE FOLKS at $1.50 each. Will be sold alone for $3.50. Sent express collect.
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
From It Ain’t Holy Water
There is a lot of chatter amongst conservative “2nd Amendment cops” and military folks about how they will not obey the orders when the grand pronouncement is made to take guns. It will be a cop sit out. What will really happen is quite different. Your Republican cop or military buddy will gladly and patriotically take your guns.
Gun grabs and grabs of anything else — children, money, real estate, raw milk — don’t come down the chain of command as such. There is not an edict that comes out saying:
Obama Executive Order 666:
All federal, state, and local law enforcement officers and all active duty military personnel are hereby ordered and required to seize firearms from all persons whose only crime is non-compliance with the firearms transfer provisions contained in the Children’s and Puppies’ Omnibus Health and Safety Act of 2014. Operation Patriot Crush will commence at midnight on June 1, 2014. All will be required to participate from that date forward and to actively engage in door-to-door gun seizure operations against fellow Americans. Constitutional objections by officers will not be recognized and are hereby deemed meritless.
What really happens is that good ol’ patriotic cops are told by their bosses to show up at the police department at o dark thirty for a briefing about the execution of a search warrant. This happens hundreds of times every day. These law enforcement agencies often have military personnel and resources dedicated to assist in their mission as well. No one ever objects. There is action afoot against n’er do wells. It is based on a hush-hush deep dark sinister undercover deal. It can’t be discussed because cooperators are “in deep” and it’s all “need to know.”
During these escapades, your conservative, “Christian,” Republican, pro-2nd Amendment cop buddy will be raring to go. He will be ready to take someone out. He acts like he believes it all. He likes the power, the force, and the feeling of loyalty to a group identity that is unquestioningly focused on “the mission.” He is ready to kick someone if they resist. And, he sure as shootin’ rounded up the evil scum’s guns when he broke down the door of Bob and his family, even though he had no personal knowledge of them or any illegalities committed by them.
He will use this latest war story in the Sunday school class he teaches to add to the mystique of his personal life and to show how his profession gives him a unique ability and perspective to comment credibly on Bible lessons. And yes, your cop buddy will still insist that he will never follow the gun grab orders when they come down from Obama.
David Hathaway [send him mail] is a former supervisory DEA Agent who homeschools his nine children. He enjoys writing about the injustices of the state.
Found at WRSA: http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/
Read the whole story at: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/04/david-hathaway/your-2nd-amendment-cop-buddy-will-take-your-guns/
I may offend some people by the words in thus post, but, oh well, it is not like I have not stepped on toes before. So, if you are overly sensitive, or expect that certain words can never be uttered or written you can start whining now. I am well past fed up with the Left and the aim to destroy dissent, free speech, and this nation, and I will not surrender the language to them.
After Sen. Tim Scott R-SC was called a “dummy” by the head of the South Carolina NAACP The NAACP, which has devolved from being a needed civil rights group to being a gang of thuggish Left-Wing race baiters has now doubled down of this hateful, racist language
The NAACP isn’t apologizing to Tim Scott for calling him a puppet. In a statement, it argued that the label reflected that Scott, one of the Senate’s two black members, hasn’t honored the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. because he’s been “echoing the position of the far right.”
The organization was defending comments by one of its most prominent officials, North Carolina NAACP president William Barber II, who had called South Carolina’s junior senator a ventriloquist’s “dummy” for the GOP.
“Dr. King emphasized love and justice rather than extremism. Unless we stand for justice we cannot claim allegiance to or pay homage to Dr. King,” the NAACP said in a statement to Fox News. “In a state such as South Carolina, politicians, whether they be black or white, should not be echoing the position of the far right.”
See, they are calling Senator Scott an Uncle Tom because, TOLERANCE! Apparently anyone seeking to honor Dr. King now must get the expressed approval of the ideological slave masters of the NAACP. Which brings me to a new slogan I think fits the NAACP, and most other Left Wing groups to a tee! It might sound offensive, but anyone who thinks will understand that I am condemning the NAACP and their Ideological War on Black Conservatives. So here it is, a slogan that truly fits the NAACP and it’s attitude towards Blacks Americans that think for themselves. Nigger, Know Your Place!
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
Our Israeli correspondent MC takes a look at the battle being waged to control the dictionary, especially where political and social matters are concerned.
Weaponizing Language by MC
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
From Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll
The pen, so we are told, is mightier than the sword, and thus we became victims. Victims of a war waged not in the land masses or the oceans, but in the dictionary.
‘Gay’, ‘pansy’ and ‘fairy’, for example have been hijacked at some time or other to redefine homosexuality, in doing so, the “love that dare not speak its name” has spoken several of its names, and thereby trivialised itself by using language out of the nursery. There is nothing ‘gay’ about same sex-relationships that I am aware of — they seem to have more than their fair share of relationship stresses and strains without the benefits of real parenthood.
But these neologisms seem innocuous when we look at how the word ‘freedom’ has been vandalised. Freedom used to be about taking responsibility for one’s own actions; but not now, we have, for example, freedom of religion — except where Islam is concerned; it is more important not to ‘offend’ Muslims by having a Christmas tree than it is to preserve freedom. We have freedom of speech — except when it is homophobic. We have freedom of information — except where the President’s social security number is concerned.
The word ‘fascist’ has always been difficult to define because it describes the particular aspirations of an Italian neo-communist party to identify with its ancient Roman roots. The fasci, the bundle of sticks wrapped around an axe, were a common link with the past. It is a symbol of absolute power and appears throughout the modern western world. What, however, does ‘fascist’ mean, in modern parlance? It is an epithet used against anybody who does not agree with left liberal/communist doctrines.
‘Religion’ is an interesting for being a word that is in stasis. It should describe any unprovable concept around which humans assemble and promote as truth. Somehow the ‘religions’ based upon ‘science’ have escaped from the bondage of the religious stereotype. The word ‘science’ has also been redefined in recent times. It no longer means ‘knowledge’; its definition has been narrowed to ‘knowledge of the physical world’. Thus socialism, a totally abstract concept, but with its basis on ‘social science’, wriggles free from being described as a religion whilst all the time hiding behind the façade of unproven pseudo-scientific social theory. In economics, Mr. Micawber gave us a very sane definition of the ‘science’ of economics. The rest of it is just religious belief and faith in miracles.
‘Fundamentalism’ has come to be associated with extremes of violence, yet fundamentalist Christian sects, for example, are not, on the whole, physically violent. Fundamentalist Islam is very violent, so much so that it has given new meaning to the word.
Fundamentalist Christians are those who go back to the Bible. Fundamentalist Muslims go back to the Koran. The Bible is essentially benign; the Koran is essentially violent. Get the picture?
The political redefinition of the word has been designed to ‘mix’ the two, the violent and the non-violent, in order to demonise Christianity and tar it with the violence-tainted Koranic brush. At the same time, it is intended to justify a preference for ‘moderate’ Islam, whatever that is — ‘moderate’, is that something that has been ‘moderated’? By whom, may we ask in the case of Islam?
The word ‘offended’ has not so much changed its meaning as had its meaning amplified. To be ‘offended’ is now comparable with being physically wounded. It is here that we begin to see how words have been weaponized. Whilst sticks and stones may break my bones, calling me names now ‘hurts’ me even more.
Yet there are caveats here: the victim must be a member of a defined ‘victim groups’. So calling Jews ‘apes and pigs’ is acceptable because it is in the Koran, whereas calling Islam a religion of violence is not acceptable, because — although provably true — Islam is a major victim group, so truth must be subordinate to political convenience.
‘Truth’ therefore suffers. It is no longer tied to the eternal truths of creation as we know it. Truth becomes the ‘opinion’ of the great and the good. Telling the truth now becomes fraught with danger; one must tell only the ‘convenient’ truth. Likewise the ‘lie’ is now not a lie until the great and the good deem it to be a lie.
“You can still keep your old plan” (but subject to our new rules). Lie, what lie? So unemployment is going down because we now only count those looking for work as ‘unemployed’ and by changing the meaning of the word we can ‘verify’ the lie.
“Soros praised the “Republican establishment” for “fighting back” against the Tea Party, who he referred to as a ‘coalition of religious and market fundamentalists.’”
Note the interesting use of weaponized words here; religious, fundamentalists, market and fighting back. What has the “Tea Party” done to the GOP that could warrant “fighting back”, I wonder? Why should the GOP be directed by an avowed socialist to ‘fight back’ against non-violent and reasonably like-minded conservatives?
Could it be that Republicans are no longer conservative?
The objective of weaponizing words is to nuke real dialogue. In an ideal world, the Tea Party would state its causes and complaints. Their concerns would be discussed in the media and generally aired to see if they have relevance and add value. The “fight back” is not about coming up with counter-arguments, it is about suppression of the Tea Party, which thus avoids the need for a counter-argument.
The word ‘racist’ became was the Little Boy of weaponized words. The term ‘racist’ actually holds very little realistic meaning, but it was the first word in the language to be equipped with a ‘colour’ bludgeon in order to stun and beat down any discussion of problems with non-white minorities, or to clobber valid criticisms of white-African presidents and their un-American administrations.
A weaponized word is designed to kill a simple honest conversation, and in doing so, to stop the flow of information and understanding. People with evil intentions do not like free dialogue, and they will think long and hard how to stop the free flow of opinion and information which is so dangerous to them. They amass an arsenal of verbal hand grenades with which they can fragment the unwary and so win the moral high ground.
This is especially true when a biased mass media — which is a relatively new phenomenon — is very much the most effective delivery system of the weaponized word. It provides a constant barrage of these weasel words, each one sinking deep into the fabric of our psyche — unless, that is, we are forewarned, and thus clad in the Kevlar of foreknowledge.
From Gates of Vienna: http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/01/weaponizing-language/#more-32327
Regret seems a very secular, and modern, emotion.
Regret is the desire to remake the present. To go back and take a different path.
But to repent is to acknowledge that we were wrong; a decision was wrong, a choice was wrong, a reaction was wrong.
Repentance does not, therefore, entail wanting to re-shape the present: It is possible, quite normal indeed, to repent past actions, yet be grateful for the present. Or vice versa.
What about the “Je ne regrette rien”/ “I did it my way” attitude which so typifies the modern Man?
If it was really about ‘regret’ then that would be fine – but the context tell us it is actually about repentance – the person is saying (in a Nietzschian spirit) I repent nothing.
They are saying: if I had my life over, I would do everything exactly the same all over again. Even knowing the full import and consequences – I would choose to re-live my life precisely, rather than any other possible life.
And that attitude is impossible to a Christian – is profoundly anti-Christian (which is of course why Nietzsche made having that belief the touchstone of existential sincerity).
Washington: The Illusion of Government
The Media: The Illusion of Coverage
January 6, 2014
By Fred Reed
In a paroxysm of patriotic musing, I reflected that Washington is an insular, incestuous, inward-looking city, chiefly interested in itself, so politically inbred as to be in danger of hemophilia, out of touch with reality, having remarkably little understanding of or interest in the rest of the country or the world. Isnl’t this wonderful?
Inbreeding? By comparison with the Yankee Capital, West Virginians are on the outer limits of hybrid vigor. We had Bush I, a mediocrity but no worse, and later Bush II, in whom mediocrity would have been a welcome astonishment. We had Clinton the First, Bill, who was at least intelligent, then almost had Clinton II, who instead became Secretary of State, for which her only qualification was having been First Basilisk. Hillary lost the presidency to Barack Obama, whose only qualification was being black and reading a teleprompter well. Next we are likely to get Hillary anyway, and before that we almost had Kerry, whose only qualification was having married a pickle heiress. He is now Secretary of State, for no discernible reason.
So it goes in the national sandbox. Dynasty, nepotism, simony, a small self-absorbed ruling class of no particular merit awarding itself crucial jobs for reasons of keeping itself in power. How long will that work? I have read that the Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist (sic) Party consists of eight engineers and an economist. We are ruled by a mob of provincial lawyers. Engineers make products. Lawyers make laws. Hmmmm.
The problem, sez me, or at any rate one problem, is that democracy doesn’t scale well. When the proprietor of a hardware store in Falrmville or Barstow or East Bronchitis or wherever gets elected mayor, he may inadvertently do a good job since he actually knows his town and the people in it. But then he runs for national office and gets to be, say, a congressman or, God help us, moves into the Great Double-Wide on Pennsylvania Avenue. (It occasionally happens: We don’t always get rich twerps with private jets and twelve toes from always being in bed with each other.)
We then have a negligible attorney who will stay in Congress forever,, who has never been in the military, presiding over an aggressive, nuclear-armed military that couldn’t win a bar fight against an octogenarian in a wheel chair. He is a mere over-promoted ward heeler, he and hundreds like him in the legislature, but makes industrial policy. He has—they have—perhaps never even been in a foreign country other than Arkansas, speak no language but English, but make foreign policy for…you see.
So how does the rest of the country know what its government is doing? It doesn’t. It can’t. The media constitute an almost impermeable shield between Washington and the outer reality festering beyond the Beltway. You’ve heard of synchronized swimming? Try synchronized thinking. It should be an Olympic sport, as everything else seems to be. America would dominate.
In Washington, journalism is founded on diversity. This is a good thing, the dangers of a homogeneous press corps being obvious. Thus in the newsroom of the Washington Post, for example, you find white reporters who all think the same things, black reporters who all think the same things as the white reporters, Jewish, Asian, gay, lesbian, Hispanic, and undecided reporters, who all think the same things. Diversity is their strength.
In fact all across America you see journalistic diversity. We have a wide diversity of newspapers, television stations, radio outlets, all owned by the same few corporations, which all have the same interests. Diversity is their strength too.
The principle characteristic of the media is that they don’t cover much of anything. They do cover themselves (which doesn’t contradict the foregoing statement). If some bubble-headed babble-blonde—I think there is one called Katie Couric—moves from one indistinguishable network to another, we hear about it for weeks. I once saw on television someone called Peers, or maybe Piers, Morgan, who displayed the incisive intelligence of a platypus. His ratings were said to be falling: maybe there is hope for the US public after all. Anyway, for some reason this was news, that and how Bill O’Reilly and several helmet-haired Republican women at Fox News are doing. The media are the story.
Reporters cover each other like Spandex pants, but—I’m serious, think about this— they barely glance at most of the government. When did you last see coverage of HUD? The Bureau of Indian Affairs? The Department of Transportation? FAA? EPA? We get the occasional press release from these, but little else. No one knows what lurks in the bureaucratic shadows, but I promise it costs a lot.
Actually there is very little coverage of things that get a lot of coverage: the White House, DoD, and State. At the White House everything is tightly stage-managed, and a reporter who asks awkward questions never gets called on again. At the Five-Sided Wind Tunnel, which I knew well in my days as an inmate of the press corps, A Story would occur. Maybe a weapon didn’t work, or was said not to work. So every reporter in Washington would frantically write about whatever it was:
Instead of lots of stories, it was one story lots of times. We see the same pattern with Obamacare (an abortion that contains all other abortions: It sounds like set theory). Hundreds, nay, thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of reporters write that it is hard to sign up. Wouldn’t one have been enough? How about some intelligent analysis from a software weenie who designs large programs?
What pours from Washington through the Electronic Wonderland of DC is a Bizarro World of things that don’t exist and aren’t as they are shown. For example, presidents don’t exist. What you see in Rose-Garden photo ops is a virtual-reality amalgam crafted by five pollsters, three speech-writers, several calculating back-room political strategists, an ad agency, a make-up artist and a gestures coach. The actual president is incidental. In fact, he is actually viewed as an impediment by his handlers, who think that the less known about him, the better. Note that the first thing they do is hide his scholastic record and SATs.
If you want something resembling an accurate picture of the government and its misbehavior, you can piece it together from the Guardian, Rolling Stone, Drudge, the Unz Review, and Antiwar.com. If you want actual government, it’s hopeless. But Washington’s antics are at least interesting. You know, like watching the fingers fall off a leprosy patient.
From Fred Reed: http://fredoneverything.net/Illusions.shtml