Friday, October 30, 2009
Attacks on overweight people are not the problem here, they are the symptom. The problem is a society where fundamental notions of decency have decayed away, leaving only malignant nihilism in their place.
Special laws to protect the overweight are just as useless as special laws to protect any other identity group.
Trying to legislate morality simply doesn't work. Morality is learned at home. Morality is the character of a society, and character is destiny. Morality cannot be legislated into place but must be created, preserved and renewed by the people themselves. Failure to do this results in a society of amoral narcissists.
The solution to the problem of overweight people being abused is cultural renewal, not a flurry of new legislation.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
East St. Louis: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
For those of you who are not aware of East St. Louis, it is the portion of the city that lies in Illinois, on the opposite bank of the Mississippi from St. Louis proper, which is in Missouri.
East St Louis is the worst slum in the US, bar none.
Why is it like this? I really don't know. A place is just a place. It is the people who live in that place who define its character.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Guns are illegal in the UK, and yet gun violence is at an all time high.
Many would see this as a strong argument against what the left euphemistically calls "gun control." The left commonly makes the public argument that gun control equals crime control, relying on fear and ignorance to convince the gullible into adopting their anti-gun stance.
Evidence that gun control does not lead to a reduction in violent crime, but instead creates more of it, falls upon deaf ears when presented to leftists because their anti-gun agenda has nothing to do with crime prevention.
Leftists don't want to disarm criminals, they want to disarm their political opponents. They dream of imposing Marxist tyranny on everyone, and the empowerment of the individual that firearm ownership represents is a direct threat to that goal. They fear an armed society for the same reason that all criminals fear citizens with guns: they don't want to get shot.
Political power comes from the barrel of a gun. This is one of Mao's most famous quotes, but one that is most often misunderstood, or even disregarded because of the identity of its originator. What Mao was trying to say is that those who are most able and willing to use deadly force in the pursuit of an agenda will usually get their way, the very definition of political power.
The virtue of democracy and civil society is that disputes that would otherwise be resolved through the use of raw force are instead sorted out through peaceful means. But this is a very fragile arrangement that only works when all the would-be combatants buy into the idea. It also depends upon a mexican standoff when it comes to the direct use of force. Groups that would otherwise be at each other's throats are restrained from doing so by rational self interest in preserving their own skin. This standoff is only possible when all parties have the power to defend themselves and their interests through deadly force. Take that ability away from some, and those who have retained their raw power soon make a mockery of civil society.
The left is well aware of this, and in fact is counting on it. They hate democracy because it does not create the Marxist dystopia of their dreams. Instead it tends to result in free markets that reward each individual in direct proportion to their value to others. Once upon a time they bought into democracy because they believed that it was a possible path to Marxism. In truth democracy is a defense against Marxism and other forms of tyranny. As such, a healthy democracy will never lead to Marxism, only away from it. This becomes more and more obvious to the left as time goes by, and so their hatred of democracy grows.
Democracy itself depends upon the empowerment of the individual, and few things are more empowering than the ability to use deadly force in defense of one's liberty. A person empowered in this way can never be enslaved. The most you can do is kill them, and that only with great difficulty and at extreme risk. This is why the left is so rabidly in favor of gun control. It isn't about reducing crime, but about reducing the power of the people to resist the tyranny that the left dreams of imposing upon us all.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
"...They managed to achieve what not even John Waters ever accomplished: They were sent to prison for having bad taste"
Monday, October 26, 2009
The title given of the report linked to above is "Conservatives Maintain Edge as Top Ideological Group." You would think from such a title that leftists or moderates had swelled their ranks at the expense of conservatives, leaving the latter as a slim plurality, but you would be wrong. The number of conservatives has actually increased at the expense of leftists and moderates. How is that maintaining their edge? If the temperature climbed from 70 to 74, you wouldn't say "temperatures avoid falling" unless you were trying to deceive someone.
Kinda makes you wonder about the ideological bend (aka honesty) of the Gallup organization. I've heard rumblings about dishonesty from them in the past. This latest skewed title kind of confirms that.
But in any case this is good news for me since mainstream conservatives and libertarians have a great deal in common, far more so than libertarians and leftists. So much so that many libertarians self identify as conservative when asked simply to avoid confusing people whose understanding of political philosophy is stuck in the left vs right paradigm.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
What's that? Dear leader hasn't designated your source of news and information as legitimate?
Well you'd better change that channel bub!
Only Government Approved sources of information are certified by the Ministry of Truth.
If you start reading and listening to other sources of information, you're likely to fall prey to unorthodoxy and that leads straight to Thoughcrime. You wouldn't want that now, would you?
The Ministry of Love knows how to deal with thought criminals!
Saturday, October 24, 2009
While the art district is perhaps best known as a center of western art, it is increasingly home to other genres as well.
There is so much to see there that I cannot hope to describe it all, so I'm simply going to provide links to work by two artists that caught my attention:
This is a quibble, but one that I believe to be important.
Time and time again I see communism compared not to democracy, but to capitalism. To do this is to fall into a verbal trap set by communists and their sympathizers in which the war between freedom and slavery is cast as a contest between two economic theories.
Many people do not know what the word capitalism means. Many more have been influenced by the whispers of leftists into believing that it is something distasteful or even evil.
Capitalism is the economic consequence of liberal democracy. It is economic liberty, but it is dependent upon and flows from political liberty.
It is political liberty which is the actual counterpoint to communism, not merely the economic consequence of that liberty. Leftists dare not make the direct comparison between liberty and communism because to do so is to concede defeat. Only the profoundly foolish and insane will knowingly and willingly enslave themselves. So instead they compare communism to capitalism and work to undermine the public's understanding of the latter.
By using the terms that the left prefers you hand them a victory.
I'd also like to point out a flaw in your reasoning behind the statement that “the Cold War will never truly be settled by the side that won.” Simply because someone was living in a western democracy does not mean that they were on the side of that democracy. There were and continue to be many communists living among us for whom the fall of the Evil Empire was a personal tragedy.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Fixed fortifications are monuments to man's stupidity.
- George S. Patton
A border fence is not the answer.
The solution to illegal aliens invading our country is to make it impossible for them to function in society once they get here. Illegals will depart when laws are created, and existing laws enforced, to prevent illegal aliens from
- conducting financial transactions at banks or other institutions
- buying a house or renting an apartment
- enrolling their children in public school
- registering a car or obtaining a driver's license
- otherwise functioning in society
The virtue of systematically excluding illegals from American society is that it will not only discourage them from coming here, but will encourage those who are already among us to return from whence they came.
Back when I was in high school in the late 80's and early 90's, I was required to provide official documents to prove I was a U.S. Citizen in order to get a job at the local fast food joints. Today all those jobs are being done by illegal aliens. If even the existing laws were being enforced then this would not be happening. What good is a border fence when the local Wendy's franchise owner is willing to pay Paco under the table? But if Paco can't use that money to put a roof over his head, has to ride the bus to work because he can't drive, and can't send his kids to school, then he simply won't stick around. This is why E-Verify is so very important, far more important than building a fence.
The reason for doing this is not so that the American losing class will still be able to find jobs scrubbing toilets and flipping burgers. The reason to do this is to prevent the Gramscian Marxists on the left from having a new group to play with. For those of you who are not familiar with Gramscian Marxism, a good explanation, with a bit of Catholic bias, can be found here:
Who was Antonio Gramsci? How was he influencial on the ''Frankfurt School''? And what has the ''Frankfurt School'' been doing to our kids for the last 50 years?
I am about to give a synopsis of the most dangerous threat the Western World has ever faced - worse than Osama bin Laden by a longshot. It's a conspiracy to change the hearts and minds of those living in freedom so that they will not just embrace slavery and bondage to the State, but they will riverdance joyfully right into the gulag. Europe has already succumbed to it.
Antonio Gramsci (pronounced ''GRAM-ski''), was one of the founders of the Italian Communist Party, and he died a prisoner of Mussolini's prison system on April 27, 1937. While imprisoned he kept a diary of his political musings and historical studies and insites. These Prison Diaries give a full picture of Gramsci's ideas on Marxism, which were quite different than those of the Soviets, who provided money and logistics to the Italian Party in its early years.
The Soviet model for the spread of Communism was the export of revolution. Soviet agencies would find and support communists in a country who engaged in protest at government policies and actions. Meanwhile Soviet spies worked at subverting the government's response to political and social need, as well as Party activities, both legitimate and illegitimate. The theory goes that the combination of fomenting popular dissent coupled with subverting the normal function of government would cause the populace to rise in revolt, and in the ensuing chaos the Communists would take power, ruthlessly sweep aside all competitors, and a new ''prolateriat of the people'' would be born.
Gramsci's insite, indeed his genius, came from comparing Italian history to Russian history. He determined that despite the efforts of the Czar to modernize Russia in the pre-revolutionary period, Russia was not a Western nation. Italy was, and Gramsci thought that Western traditions and values were simply too strongly engrained in the Italian people, and the people of other Western nations, to be overcome by armed revolution.
Gramsci advocated a long-term approach instead. He thought the only way to conquer the West was to destroy the West's political and religious values through moral subversion and reinterpret Western history in such a way that makes it look evil and corrupt. Gramsci knew this was a long term goal, since those people of his own generation were exposed to Western values and would be unwilling to give them up. Gramsci knew though that future generations could be influenced IF there was a way of exposing them to the proper propaganda. Gramsci, in a shrewd mix of Machiavelli, Marx and Proverbs 22:6, advocated attacking the children through the schools in order to - Pied Piper-like - lead them into communism.
Gramsci had many followers both in Italy and Germany, although he was generally derided in Soviet influenced circles. Among those followers were a group of German education theorists known as the ''Frankfurt School''.
Headed by Max Horkheimer, the group included Theodor Adorno, Alfred Schmidt, Jurgen Habermas, Erich Fromm, and Wilhelm Reich - all names that should be familiar to any Political Science, Education, Psychology or Philosophy majors and degree holders. The philosophic outlook of the School was Gramscian, although Max Weber, Sigmund Freud, Immanuel Kant, and Friedrich Hegel were also influential. The members of the Frankfurt School saw it as their duty to comment on social conditions which Marx may not have been aware of and attempt to influence public policy along Marxist lines to change those social conditions.
This was due to the belief that even the individual and the family unit were repressive structures imposed by capitalism and Christianity. By liberating the individual from social controling factors of their culture, people would be free to follow the logical and rational choice of communism. Universal values (like equality before the law), and even the concept of ''truth'' itself - which are central to Western civilization and are the contribution of Judaism and Christianity to Western political thought - were deemed to be simply a means of oppressing the individual from accepting communism.
In 1933, the members of the Frankfurt School fled Germany once Hitler took power. The majority of the members of the movement came to the United States where they were allowed to teach in American universities. They were very influential in Political Science and Education departments, where their social criticisms were deemed a new way of looking at social structure, called ''deconstructionism''.
Essentially, they began rewriting history in such a way that makes Western Culture look guilty of crimes against all other cultures it has come into contact with. The reason the West committed these crimes was due to trying to spread the poison of Christianity to other cultures so they could be subdued and exploited.
Christianity was guilty of crimes against humanity - it encouraged slavery, attempted to impose itself on Islam by force through the Crusades, murdered millions in the Spanish Inquisition, tried to silence Galileo from pushing forward the boundaries of rationalism and science, destroyed the cultures of North and Central America in a search for filthy lucre, attempted to do the same to the Far East and Africa through colonialization, and was responsible for the murder of 8 million Jews in the Holocaust. Christianity was genocidal, repressive of sexual expression, the justification for capitalistic exploitation, and placed restraints on the individual, the family and society in order to keep the oppresive class structure going.
Over the years they influenced generations of students, using tenure to launch attacks on both American and European Culture and those in academia who opposed their views. The 1960's counterculture and peace movements, long recognized by both political sides as being a leftist phenominon, was a direct result of this Gramsciist indoctrination - ''You can't trust the social institutions or the government because they are run by the Man and should be torn down.''
By starting in the Education, Poli Sci, and Philosophy departments, the Gramsciists gained control over the Teachers, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers (since according to the UNF Philosophy Department's own brosure, Philosophy majors are the most successful majors in Law School, and do the best in courtroom settings according to statistics). The most important of these was the teachers.
Those of you who are old enough to have had your children in the 1960's probably remember the news stories about ''The New Math''. Certainly you remember the first efforts at Sex Education. Probably fewer of you remember the controversy over teaching phonics, or ''values education''. Only those ostriches with their heads in the sand can fail to notice the more modern educational talk about ''tolerance'', ''diversity'', ''multiculturalism'', ''critical thinking'' and ''political correctness''.
All of this - ALL of this - is part of the Gramsciist theory of taking over a culture. Stop teaching the rugrats the skills needed to function successfully in society, such as reading, writing and arithmatics, and start teaching them to not be judgemental and the proper way to put a condom on (since they are going to have sex anyway because they shouldn't follow mom and dad's judgemental attitude towards premarital sex among minors. ''How dare they impose their hypocritical, Christian, outdated morals on me! Oh, my aching self-esteem!'')
Why can't Johnny read? Because we stopped teaching him how to read and started teaching him to be critical of traditional values and uncritical of non-traditional values. But don't worry, some one who can read will read Heather Has Two Mommies to him. Right after the filmstrip of George W. Bush's war crimes. We already see the effect of Gramsciism all around us - the anti-War movement, the Gay marriage movement, the Environmental movement, the phenominon of The DaVinci Code. All began with a change in what was being taught in school.
By understanding Gramsciism's hold on modern society can we hope to understand why groups always on the fringe of society are able to gain consessions under the law. And with control of the schools, the mindset that allows this to happen is engrained at an early age. Train up a child in the way he should go...
This is a leaderless conspiracy. There is no smoke filled room running the ''great conspiracy'' because Gramsci knew all that was needed was a seed being planted. Gramsci spoke of cultural ''hegemony'', which simply means that those in power set the philosophy by which those not in power live by. All that was needed was to control one part of the culture - the one where the young learned how to function within the culture - by which they would be taught the ''truth'' about their culture and the ''common sense'' of Marxism. And when the children reached the age where they took control of society they would act in a way that moved society towards that ''common sense''. ''Thinking globally and acting locally.''
In this way, ''leaders'' and ''organizer'' would arise from within the ranks of bourgeois society; in short a ''new intellectual'' would arise who saw his purpose as organizing the people rather than the ruling class. As Gramsci himself stated, ''The mode of being of the new intellectual can no longer consist in eloquence, but in active participation in practical life, as constructor, organizer, 'permanent persuader' and not just a simple orator.''
Gramscianism is the basis of Political Correctness and the notion that being a racial or ethnic minority entitles someone to special treatment. They are the ones who have convince so many that they are victims of oppression because of their skin color or the fact that their surname ends with a vowel. They are the promoters of hyphenated americanism and the adversarial tribalism that underlies it.
Keeping illegal aliens out helps prevent gramscians from being able to do more damage than they already have. Without illegals, there would be no groups like La Raza.
Monday, October 19, 2009
The term "white flight" is a misnomer. It isn't white people who seek out nice places to live, but the best and brightest of all creeds and colors who make their way to good communities.
The slums and ghettos of the inner cities are comprised of those Darwin Award winners who don't have the good sense to leave. For years and years I've heard all this talk about ghettos and the people who live there and how so many of them dream of getting out. This might be a sad story if these people were being prevented from leaving, but they are not. Buy a bus ticket and leave town. It really is that simple. But then it isn't that simple. These people are stuck because they imagine themselves to be. The ghetto is not a place, but a state of mind. People stay in the ghetto and refuse to leave because they cannot imagine any other kind of existence.
Those on the left would argue that this is all due to racism, and invent exceptionally sophisticated arguments to back this claim up. Failing that, they will get nasty and start calling people names.
The truth of the matter is that the ghetto is created by the people who live there. If things are bad in a community, then it is the fault of the people who make up that community. You can't blame other people in other places who are not a part of that community and are contributing nothing to that community - either good or bad. You can't blame conditions in China on people in Australia.
The same is true of ghettos. Crime in the ghetto is perpetrated by people who live in the ghetto. It isn't committed by someone somewhere else. High rates of illegitimacy and STD infection are the result of people in the ghetto engaging in irresponsible and self destructive sexual practices. All of these problems are being actively created and perpetuated by the people who live there. There ain't nobody else around to do these things but the people who are there. If and when these people stop doing the wrong things and start going the right things then these problems will disappear. You can't have a high crime rate if people aren't out committing crimes. You can't have bad schools if the students are trying to learn and their parents are supporting them in their educational pursuits. You can't have rampant STD infections and unwed mothers when men and women are being sexually responsible.
In a way I almost envy someone who lives in a ghetto for one simple reason: they have no one to go but up. Not only that, but they have an almost incalculable quantity of the most precious of all resources: opportunity. Someone living in a bad neighborhood and going to a bad school is still master of their own destiny. If they apply themselves, they can make their lives into anything they can imagine. Their road will be harder than that of someone like Ted Kennedy, but not so hard that it cannot be traveled. They will encounter racism and unfair discrimination along the way to be sure, but they will also encounter those who will work to make their path easier. At the end of the day, whether they succeed or fail is entirely up to them, which is precisely the lesson that the left does NOT want them to learn.
The left must maintain the fiction that minority failure is the result of racism in order to convince those minorities that they cannot hope to achieve anything. The game that the left plays is to take someone who is in a bad place, but who has vast opportunities to change their life for the better, and convince that person that their lot in life is the result of external oppression. The leftist then works to discourage that person from taking advantage of the opportunities that are available, telling them that it is useless and pointless to do so because “the man” will never let them be a free and equal member of society. Anyone from this minority group who sees through the con and makes something of themself anyway is labeled a traitor and subjected to the most extreme form of racist attacks. This is why leftists and the useful idiots within the black community who have falled for the con attack people like Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas with such ferocity. The left is terrified that the people who populate these gettoes will realize what most conservatives know instinctively: Character is destiny. Not color, not creed, not social class, but character and the choices that one makes. These are what determine how much success and happiness someone will find in their life.
The left has been perpetrating the con of “Whitey won't let you” on black people for generations now, and that they are working very hard to perpetrate it on hispanics as well. It is no accident that the left is so anxious to bring in as many illegal aliens as possible. They want to create or import as many designated “victims” as possible. The purpose behind this is to create a swelling underclass of the disenfranchised in preparation for Marxist revolution. No matter what they tell you, this is what they are trying to do. Or at least what the ones who are actually aware of the agenda are consciously trying to do. There are also innumerable Useful Idiots who actually fall for the cover stories and sophistry that the leftist apologists invent to hide their agenda and go along with whatever they are told, never realizing the evil nature of what they are promoting.
It really doesn't matter what leftists say from one day to the next or one decade to the next, everything they do and everything they work for is either directly or indirectly for the purpose turning America into a Marxist prison state. Leftists lie, even when they tell the truth.
So don't be surprised that leftists seek to insulate themselves from the groups of the downtrodden and discouraged that they work to create. They're seeking to destroy society, but they want to enjoy the benefits of society in the meantime.
This article is a perfect example of the kind of dishonesty the MSM has become so famous for.
Illegal aliens are not "immigrants." To describe them as such without any reference to the fact that they are here in violation of federal law is a lie of omission. This kind of dishonesty has become so blatant and widespread that most people now know that when the MSM says "immigrant," they really mean illegal alien.
To then cite an illegal alien apologist as a moral authority is just too much. You might as well cite David Duke.
Worst of all is that Target caved to this woman and the people she marshalled to bitch instead of ignoring them. Target had nothing to apologize for. Their explanation for why it was being sold is not an excuse for wrong doing, but a capitulation to a group they never should have acknowledged as legitimate in the first place.
I can only hope that other retailers will have more integrity, but I doubt it.