Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Some Hard Questions for the Hard Left
A few hard questions for the pro-socialist 'dupes' out there:
If America were truly as imperialist and colonialist as most socialists claim, then why didn't it use the H-bomb prior to 1949 to conquer foreign nations? Or why hasn't the U.S. taken over Canada? Or why hasn't it taken over Mexico, instead of allowing Mexicans to immigrate unimpeded?
Or why does America liberate every people whose nation it goes to war with? In Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. is fighting brutal, ruthless enemies and trying to liberate and protect people, and the American military, and its leadership, are excoriated by the left for doing it! Does the left enjoy seeing people enslaved and terrorized?
Or why is it that every nation America defeats in war or liberates does better than it did prior to that war? Japan and South Korea are the obvious examples. Japan was demolished by the U.S., with firebombing and nuclear bombs, and then was rebuilt and protected by the U.S. military. Fifty years later, American manufacturers struggle to compete with innovative Japanese firms.
In South Korea, south of 38th parallel, we see from photos taken from outer space at night a brightly-lit peninsula. To the North, we see a dark, desolate gulag-state with a tiny pinpoint in the PyongYang palace of Kim Jong-Il.
We can also add to this short list America's participation in the Normandy invasion, its subsequent protection of West Germany (and France) from the Soviet army, and the obviously positive effects of the Marshall Plan in regenerating Europe after World War II.
Or how can liberals claim to be so smart, while most are unable or pathologically unwilling to see America in an accurate historical context? I will proffer an answer to the last question.
The answer is two-fold. "Progressives" have a deep-seated aversion to history, believing that each 'moment' can be reinvented regardless of prior history. It might even be conceived that they view cause and effect itself as a type of "prison." In addition, their Marxist worldview prevents them from admitting that America could ever do anything good.
To expand on the this, Marxist theory provides the doctrinaire prism through which leftists shoot all their ideas. Marxism, and its offspring, provides a kind of mental security blanket, presumably enhancing "elites'" claims to intellectual superiority. In a way, the sheer bizarreness of their worldview edifies their sense of exclusive insight and separates themselves from the 'unenlightened' masses in their esteem.
Marxism thus leads to the perception on the part its adherent that he is participating in a type of struggle through which he will gain meaning and importance. In this way, it is very much like a cult; a godless, utopian millenarian cult. This is very important in the "post-God" Nietzschean world of the New Left, whose spiritual anomie led disaffected intellectuals to found a new religion, one that they could develop from scratch and mold, one that would be "scientific" in scope and methods of conversion.
Marxian elites distinguish themselves from the masses. That is, they differentiate between those to be mind-manipulated, and themselves, the presumed masterminds (and one has to give the 'dupes' credit for their sheer destructiveness and capability of leading millions to death and enslavement). Thus the "theory" does not hold in all cases, disproving itself. If millionaire Democrats can be socialists, and those in all social "classes" can be pro-capitalist, the theory makes no sense. The material (meaning degree of wealth) explanation for the world's ills is debunked.
In sum, Marxism and its offshoots feed a sense of narcissism and increasing radicalism; as Marxists' demands can never be fulfilled in the real world, they push harder and harder to make reality conform to their ideology; this of course requires that they be given more power and more control.
Thus, in a sick kind of way, America, as the most successful and powerful country of the world becomes inherently the main problem in the mind of the Marxist. All of the backwards and despotic nations, whose failed economic and political models are evident to the student of history, are attributed to the United States by necessity. America must be colonialist, imperialist, and worse, even if its history proves otherwise (thus the neologisms "neo-colonialist" and "neo-imperialist").
Additionally, a capitalist America cannot be admitted by the left as capable of doing good because this would mean by implication that people have free will and agency to choose good over evil. In other words, economics or material reality could not determine behavior in the way that Marx describes. And if it is the case that a capitalist America can do good, then how could the Marxist worldview be true? Who would be to blame systemically for the world's problems, and how could we as a collective change the world?
The emotionally indigestible and even unfathomable answer for the leftist is that we are all individuals, and the battle between good and evil is a personal one. We must all wage that battle alone, with help from others, of course, and with direct accountability to our consciences or God. The full import of this truth fills the leftist with existential anguish; because of his atheist, collectivist worldview, he cannot emotionally accept such a reality.
If America were truly as imperialist and colonialist as most socialists claim, then why didn't it use the H-bomb prior to 1949 to conquer foreign nations? Or why hasn't the U.S. taken over Canada? Or why hasn't it taken over Mexico, instead of allowing Mexicans to immigrate unimpeded?
Or why does America liberate every people whose nation it goes to war with? In Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. is fighting brutal, ruthless enemies and trying to liberate and protect people, and the American military, and its leadership, are excoriated by the left for doing it! Does the left enjoy seeing people enslaved and terrorized?
Or why is it that every nation America defeats in war or liberates does better than it did prior to that war? Japan and South Korea are the obvious examples. Japan was demolished by the U.S., with firebombing and nuclear bombs, and then was rebuilt and protected by the U.S. military. Fifty years later, American manufacturers struggle to compete with innovative Japanese firms.
In South Korea, south of 38th parallel, we see from photos taken from outer space at night a brightly-lit peninsula. To the North, we see a dark, desolate gulag-state with a tiny pinpoint in the PyongYang palace of Kim Jong-Il.
We can also add to this short list America's participation in the Normandy invasion, its subsequent protection of West Germany (and France) from the Soviet army, and the obviously positive effects of the Marshall Plan in regenerating Europe after World War II.
Or how can liberals claim to be so smart, while most are unable or pathologically unwilling to see America in an accurate historical context? I will proffer an answer to the last question.
The answer is two-fold. "Progressives" have a deep-seated aversion to history, believing that each 'moment' can be reinvented regardless of prior history. It might even be conceived that they view cause and effect itself as a type of "prison." In addition, their Marxist worldview prevents them from admitting that America could ever do anything good.
To expand on the this, Marxist theory provides the doctrinaire prism through which leftists shoot all their ideas. Marxism, and its offspring, provides a kind of mental security blanket, presumably enhancing "elites'" claims to intellectual superiority. In a way, the sheer bizarreness of their worldview edifies their sense of exclusive insight and separates themselves from the 'unenlightened' masses in their esteem.
Marxism thus leads to the perception on the part its adherent that he is participating in a type of struggle through which he will gain meaning and importance. In this way, it is very much like a cult; a godless, utopian millenarian cult. This is very important in the "post-God" Nietzschean world of the New Left, whose spiritual anomie led disaffected intellectuals to found a new religion, one that they could develop from scratch and mold, one that would be "scientific" in scope and methods of conversion.
Marxian elites distinguish themselves from the masses. That is, they differentiate between those to be mind-manipulated, and themselves, the presumed masterminds (and one has to give the 'dupes' credit for their sheer destructiveness and capability of leading millions to death and enslavement). Thus the "theory" does not hold in all cases, disproving itself. If millionaire Democrats can be socialists, and those in all social "classes" can be pro-capitalist, the theory makes no sense. The material (meaning degree of wealth) explanation for the world's ills is debunked.
In sum, Marxism and its offshoots feed a sense of narcissism and increasing radicalism; as Marxists' demands can never be fulfilled in the real world, they push harder and harder to make reality conform to their ideology; this of course requires that they be given more power and more control.
Thus, in a sick kind of way, America, as the most successful and powerful country of the world becomes inherently the main problem in the mind of the Marxist. All of the backwards and despotic nations, whose failed economic and political models are evident to the student of history, are attributed to the United States by necessity. America must be colonialist, imperialist, and worse, even if its history proves otherwise (thus the neologisms "neo-colonialist" and "neo-imperialist").
Additionally, a capitalist America cannot be admitted by the left as capable of doing good because this would mean by implication that people have free will and agency to choose good over evil. In other words, economics or material reality could not determine behavior in the way that Marx describes. And if it is the case that a capitalist America can do good, then how could the Marxist worldview be true? Who would be to blame systemically for the world's problems, and how could we as a collective change the world?
The emotionally indigestible and even unfathomable answer for the leftist is that we are all individuals, and the battle between good and evil is a personal one. We must all wage that battle alone, with help from others, of course, and with direct accountability to our consciences or God. The full import of this truth fills the leftist with existential anguish; because of his atheist, collectivist worldview, he cannot emotionally accept such a reality.
U.K. Gets the Idea: 'Useless' Teacher Banned from Classroom for Life
From the DailyMail:
A teacher who is judged to be incapable of ever improving his work has become the first to be banned for life from the classroom due to incompetence. [Continued]
Oh God, can we start a movement here? We can start with the lawyers, then move our way through the social workers, therapists, government bureaucrats, teachers, professors, unionized construction workers...can you think of how much dead weight on the shoulders of actual producers can be shrugged off?
A teacher who is judged to be incapable of ever improving his work has become the first to be banned for life from the classroom due to incompetence. [Continued]
Oh God, can we start a movement here? We can start with the lawyers, then move our way through the social workers, therapists, government bureaucrats, teachers, professors, unionized construction workers...can you think of how much dead weight on the shoulders of actual producers can be shrugged off?
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
HALL-EH-LU-JAH: THE UK TO SLASH 500,000 GOVERNMENT JOBS!
From BBC News:
Chancellor George Osborne has unveiled the biggest UK spending cuts since World War II, with welfare, councils and police budgets all hit.
The pension age will rise sooner than expected, some incapacity benefits will be time limited and other money clawed back through changes to tax credits and housing benefit. [...]
Mr Osborne ended his hour-long Commons statement by claiming the 19% average cuts to departmental budgets were less severe than expected. This is thanks to an extra £7bn in savings from the welfare budget and a £3.5bn increase in public sector employee pension contributions. [Continued]
Social democracy coming to a grinding halt across the pond - how will Europe-adoring Democrats cope with their cognitive dissonance?
Oh yes, it is sustainable! No, no, don't take the government jobs away! Not the welfare! Not the welfare!!!
Chancellor George Osborne has unveiled the biggest UK spending cuts since World War II, with welfare, councils and police budgets all hit.
The pension age will rise sooner than expected, some incapacity benefits will be time limited and other money clawed back through changes to tax credits and housing benefit. [...]
Mr Osborne ended his hour-long Commons statement by claiming the 19% average cuts to departmental budgets were less severe than expected. This is thanks to an extra £7bn in savings from the welfare budget and a £3.5bn increase in public sector employee pension contributions. [Continued]
Social democracy coming to a grinding halt across the pond - how will Europe-adoring Democrats cope with their cognitive dissonance?
Oh yes, it is sustainable! No, no, don't take the government jobs away! Not the welfare! Not the welfare!!!
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Anti-State Themes in Heavy Metal
Megadeath's Symphony of Destruction.
Metallica's "And Justice for All."
Friday, October 15, 2010
Friday, October 8, 2010
Great Observation from Dr. Thomas Sowell
"One of the painful aspects of studying great catastrophes of the past is discovering how many times people were preoccupied with trivialities when they were teetering on the edge of doom."
Case Closed: Obama is a Socialist
Check out this Obama quote from a recent Rolling Stone interview:
"We wrestled away billions of dollars of profit that were going to the banks and middlemen through the student-loan program, and now we have tens of billions of dollars that are going directly to students to help them pay for college. We expanded national service more than we ever have before ..."
It doesn't get anymore blatantly socialist, hell, communist than that. So you lefties can shut the hell up about us "right-wingers" not knowing what we are talking about when we call Obama a socialist.
"We wrestled away billions of dollars of profit that were going to the banks and middlemen through the student-loan program, and now we have tens of billions of dollars that are going directly to students to help them pay for college. We expanded national service more than we ever have before ..."
It doesn't get anymore blatantly socialist, hell, communist than that. So you lefties can shut the hell up about us "right-wingers" not knowing what we are talking about when we call Obama a socialist.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Tribute to My Fax/Printer
Tribute to my slow-ass feedbacking fax/printer. Die mo fo, die mo fo, die!
Ἀριστοτέλης
Aristotle is the last Greek philosopher who faces the world cheerfully; after him, all have, in one form or another, a philosophy of retreat. The world is bad; let us learn to be independent of it. External goods are precarious; they are the gift of fortune, not the reward of our own efforts.
Bertrand Russell
Not only is he the last Greek philosopher with such an attitude. He was the last philosopher who faces the world cheerfully (perhaps before Ayn Rand).
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
How the Left Sees Us
When I look into the eyes of a child, I see a unique individual blessed with a special set of gifts. A little person adventuring out into the world, someone who is irreplacable and precious. I want him to do the most with his life that he can, well-provided with opportunities to learn and grow, with the maximum amount of personal challenge and support to develop into an intelligent and capable adult.
The leftists see a child as yet another dependent, someone to be molded and created in their own image, to be brought up to be yet another member of a group: the "community," the "tribe," even "the nation." All children equal, none individual, none struggling to be excellent and therefore none superior or inferior. Faceless, nameless people to be managed from a centralized government far away.
Each individual is his own person. Each is a universe of emotions, thoughts, biology, and experience unto himself. Each is a miracle who will not be replicated in the history of the universe. Joy, love, sadness, and even anger, all are legitimate emotions that each person possesses. Each person has a psyche, which is the Greek term for both a mind and a soul.
The more centralized and bureacratized the government, the more abstract the individual becomes. He becomes an instrument of the elites to perpetuate their own power and advance their political causes. His will, his self-interest, becomes pitted in a zero-sum game with the ruling class, with ever-creeping coercion stealing away more and more of the individual's right to self-rule.
Collectivism and individualism are the most fundamental dueling ideologies of our age. Whether it be nationalism, socialism, or any other form of collectivism on one side, and a Constitutional government sanctifying the individual's right to life, liberty, and property on the other, the dilemma is the same: Who decides the course of the individual's life?
Democracy, the great political watchword of the West, is a form of majority rule that suppresses the minority, especially whom Ayn Rand called the greatest "minority" - the individual. When combined with increasing social engineering in the public forum, through state-run education, proxy "non-profit" agencies, and influence over media dissemination of ideas, "democracy" becomes transformed over time not into an expression of collective will, but a slavish extension of the rulers' will, over individuals.
As the collectivist government seeks to impose its will on a people, it insists that all individuals are rigidly members of "groups," and attempts to isolate and alienate those who do not desire to conform. The individual who expresses himself and endeavors to live his life in pursuit of truth and excellence, regardless of group esteem, eventually becomes ostracized, if not socially, then legally. Those who challenge the group or the government are termed "radicals" or "extremists" for wanting to live their own lives without interference. Autonomy is something the group cannot tolerate. The individual belongs to the group and its enforcement arm - the state.
The country's turn to collectivism has profound consequences, as we see with the socialized healthcare bill recently passed. The individual becomes but a tool of society to advance the goals set by the leaders. Over time, his behavior can "justifiably" be micromanaged in any way the ruling class sees fit; whether or not he smokes, what he eats, what car he drives, and what kinds of lightbulbs he uses. For the individual in a collectivist society, there is no legitimate objection to manipulation by the government. Indeed, in the ultimate, inevitable totalitarian form of collectivism, the government controls whether you are allowed to live or die. Socialized healthcare is a step closer to that dreadful reality.
The absolutely crucial, indispensable point for the majority to remember is that ascending to majority status in a culture does not grant it the right to utilize accrued power to engage in its own form of social engineering. Freedom is the ideal America was founded on, and that means removing government controls over the individual. This is an extremely difficult sell to those looking for revenge against political opposition, or who desire resources to engage in their own brand of political warfare against the other side, or who simply enjoy power for its own sake. It is very difficult to find self-interested individuals to send to political office who are rational enough to realize that it is in the long-term interest of themselves and the country they live in to uphold individual rights and to defend freedom from the government itself.
As citizens of this nation, the most effective way to deflate the drive toward collectivism in an ongoing way is to remove all bases of its ideological support in the public arena. Altruism, nationalism (which is not the same as American patriotism), any form of racism put forth by any individual, socialism, and any other form of collectivism should be directly opposed and contrasted with individualism. Private property, free speech, freedom of religion, gun rights, and free market capitalism should be directly and forcefully articulated as the rightful antitheses of collectivism. Do not concede to the collectivist on any point, even in the so-called interest of being "reasonable" or "civil." The leftists prey on people's social weaknesses as an inherent means to their destructive ends.
Political war is intrinsically an ideological war. Do not ever waver. Make clear your ideas and ideals, including your political concepts. Persuade people in stark terms what the fundamental choices are for our Constitutional republic. The leftists make their case, in both implicit and explicit ways, by indoctrinating each American for decades. We must dash their ideas on the rocks of history and philosophy at every opportunity, as clearly and as indisuptably as possible.
The leftists see a child as yet another dependent, someone to be molded and created in their own image, to be brought up to be yet another member of a group: the "community," the "tribe," even "the nation." All children equal, none individual, none struggling to be excellent and therefore none superior or inferior. Faceless, nameless people to be managed from a centralized government far away.
Each individual is his own person. Each is a universe of emotions, thoughts, biology, and experience unto himself. Each is a miracle who will not be replicated in the history of the universe. Joy, love, sadness, and even anger, all are legitimate emotions that each person possesses. Each person has a psyche, which is the Greek term for both a mind and a soul.
The more centralized and bureacratized the government, the more abstract the individual becomes. He becomes an instrument of the elites to perpetuate their own power and advance their political causes. His will, his self-interest, becomes pitted in a zero-sum game with the ruling class, with ever-creeping coercion stealing away more and more of the individual's right to self-rule.
Collectivism and individualism are the most fundamental dueling ideologies of our age. Whether it be nationalism, socialism, or any other form of collectivism on one side, and a Constitutional government sanctifying the individual's right to life, liberty, and property on the other, the dilemma is the same: Who decides the course of the individual's life?
Democracy, the great political watchword of the West, is a form of majority rule that suppresses the minority, especially whom Ayn Rand called the greatest "minority" - the individual. When combined with increasing social engineering in the public forum, through state-run education, proxy "non-profit" agencies, and influence over media dissemination of ideas, "democracy" becomes transformed over time not into an expression of collective will, but a slavish extension of the rulers' will, over individuals.
As the collectivist government seeks to impose its will on a people, it insists that all individuals are rigidly members of "groups," and attempts to isolate and alienate those who do not desire to conform. The individual who expresses himself and endeavors to live his life in pursuit of truth and excellence, regardless of group esteem, eventually becomes ostracized, if not socially, then legally. Those who challenge the group or the government are termed "radicals" or "extremists" for wanting to live their own lives without interference. Autonomy is something the group cannot tolerate. The individual belongs to the group and its enforcement arm - the state.
The country's turn to collectivism has profound consequences, as we see with the socialized healthcare bill recently passed. The individual becomes but a tool of society to advance the goals set by the leaders. Over time, his behavior can "justifiably" be micromanaged in any way the ruling class sees fit; whether or not he smokes, what he eats, what car he drives, and what kinds of lightbulbs he uses. For the individual in a collectivist society, there is no legitimate objection to manipulation by the government. Indeed, in the ultimate, inevitable totalitarian form of collectivism, the government controls whether you are allowed to live or die. Socialized healthcare is a step closer to that dreadful reality.
The absolutely crucial, indispensable point for the majority to remember is that ascending to majority status in a culture does not grant it the right to utilize accrued power to engage in its own form of social engineering. Freedom is the ideal America was founded on, and that means removing government controls over the individual. This is an extremely difficult sell to those looking for revenge against political opposition, or who desire resources to engage in their own brand of political warfare against the other side, or who simply enjoy power for its own sake. It is very difficult to find self-interested individuals to send to political office who are rational enough to realize that it is in the long-term interest of themselves and the country they live in to uphold individual rights and to defend freedom from the government itself.
As citizens of this nation, the most effective way to deflate the drive toward collectivism in an ongoing way is to remove all bases of its ideological support in the public arena. Altruism, nationalism (which is not the same as American patriotism), any form of racism put forth by any individual, socialism, and any other form of collectivism should be directly opposed and contrasted with individualism. Private property, free speech, freedom of religion, gun rights, and free market capitalism should be directly and forcefully articulated as the rightful antitheses of collectivism. Do not concede to the collectivist on any point, even in the so-called interest of being "reasonable" or "civil." The leftists prey on people's social weaknesses as an inherent means to their destructive ends.
Political war is intrinsically an ideological war. Do not ever waver. Make clear your ideas and ideals, including your political concepts. Persuade people in stark terms what the fundamental choices are for our Constitutional republic. The leftists make their case, in both implicit and explicit ways, by indoctrinating each American for decades. We must dash their ideas on the rocks of history and philosophy at every opportunity, as clearly and as indisuptably as possible.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The Tower of Babel
To be honest, I don’t quite share the hysteria over the Ground Zero Mosque. Unless something criminal is uncovered, the project is absolutely consistent with private property rights and why should anyone nose around someone else’s property? It’s none of their business. It is a ban on the project that would be a violation of rights.
To paraphrase Voltaire, I disapprove of Islam and believe it’s a violent religion but I will defend to the death every (non-criminal) Muslim’s right to build a mosque on his property. The fact that Muslims can build a mosque near Ground Zero, while non-Muslims can’t build much in Islamic countries, is exactly why
Freedom is first of all the freedom to offend other people’s feelings. 9/11 victims should not oppose the project. They should rejoice that, (at least to some extent) in America, no one - even a majority of the country - can violate your rights, including your right to build whatever you want on your property. Even if the majority doesn’t want you to build what you want. In
It is that freedom that made the
Monday, October 4, 2010
The Aesthetics of Hate: Design for Ground Zero Mosque Unveiled
Islam and Political Correctness Silence Upstart Dutch Politician
And let's not forget about one of the other most potent totalitarian ideologies of our day, Islam, being aided and abetted by the destructive qua destructive neomarxist creed of political correctness.
Dutch politician on trial on hate speech charges
By TOBY STERLING (AP) – 8 hours ago
AMSTERDAM — Dutch anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders went on trial Monday for alleged hate speech, even as his popularity and influence in the Netherlands are near all time highs.
Prosecutors say Wilders incited hatred against Muslims with remarks comparing Islam to Naziism and by calling for a ban on the Quran. Wilders argues he has a right to freedom of speech and his remarks were within the bounds of the law.
If convicted, he faces up to a year in prison. He could keep his seat in parliament.
On his Twitter account, Wilders said the start of his trial was a "terrible day."
"The freedom of expression of at least 1.5 million people is standing trial together with me," he wrote, referring to the voters that made his Freedom Party the third-largest in national elections in June. [Continued]
Dutch politician on trial on hate speech charges
By TOBY STERLING (AP) – 8 hours ago
AMSTERDAM — Dutch anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders went on trial Monday for alleged hate speech, even as his popularity and influence in the Netherlands are near all time highs.
Prosecutors say Wilders incited hatred against Muslims with remarks comparing Islam to Naziism and by calling for a ban on the Quran. Wilders argues he has a right to freedom of speech and his remarks were within the bounds of the law.
If convicted, he faces up to a year in prison. He could keep his seat in parliament.
On his Twitter account, Wilders said the start of his trial was a "terrible day."
"The freedom of expression of at least 1.5 million people is standing trial together with me," he wrote, referring to the voters that made his Freedom Party the third-largest in national elections in June. [Continued]
Environazism
Just like modern envirowackos, the Nazis were against slaughtering animals. They preferred slaughtering humans. I believe it’s not a mere coincidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany#Environmentalism
The Nazis had elements which were supportive of animal rights, zoos and wildlife,[77] and took several measures to ensure their protection.[78] In 1933 the regime enacted a stringent animal-protection law.[79][80] Many NSDAP leaders including Adolf Hitler and Hermann Göring were supporters of animal protection. Several Nazis were environmentalists (notably Rudolf Hess), and species protection and animal welfare were significant issues in the regime.[81] Heinrich Himmler made efforts to ban the hunting of animals.[82] Göring was an animal lover and conservationist.[83] The current animal welfare laws in Germany are more or less modification of the laws introduced by the National Socialist regime.[84]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany
In 1927, a Nazi representative to the Reichstag called for actions against cruelty to animals and kosher butchering. (…) Nazi Germany was the first nation to ban vivisection. (…)He announced to end the "unbearable torture and suffering in animal experiments" and told that those who "still think they can continue to treat animals as inanimate property" will be sent to concentration camps.(…) Goering also banned commercial animal trapping, imposed severe restrictions on hunting, and regulated the shoeing of horses. He imposed regulations even on the boiling of lobsters and crabs. In one incident, he sent a fisherman to concentration camp[12] for cutting up a bait frog.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany#Environmentalism
The Nazis had elements which were supportive of animal rights, zoos and wildlife,[77] and took several measures to ensure their protection.[78] In 1933 the regime enacted a stringent animal-protection law.[79][80] Many NSDAP leaders including Adolf Hitler and Hermann Göring were supporters of animal protection. Several Nazis were environmentalists (notably Rudolf Hess), and species protection and animal welfare were significant issues in the regime.[81] Heinrich Himmler made efforts to ban the hunting of animals.[82] Göring was an animal lover and conservationist.[83] The current animal welfare laws in Germany are more or less modification of the laws introduced by the National Socialist regime.[84]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany
In 1927, a Nazi representative to the Reichstag called for actions against cruelty to animals and kosher butchering. (…) Nazi Germany was the first nation to ban vivisection. (…)He announced to end the "unbearable torture and suffering in animal experiments" and told that those who "still think they can continue to treat animals as inanimate property" will be sent to concentration camps.(…) Goering also banned commercial animal trapping, imposed severe restrictions on hunting, and regulated the shoeing of horses. He imposed regulations even on the boiling of lobsters and crabs. In one incident, he sent a fisherman to concentration camp[12] for cutting up a bait frog.[
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Envirocreeps' Creepy Video
I don't mean to go off on a rant here...
Anyway, this video is Exhibit A of just how creepy the creeps of Envirowackoville have become. Utterly predictable, because those who assume a given ideology (or a hybrid of ideologies) are driven to fulfill the demands of that ideology (or ideologies, leading often to tragi-comic consequences). For environmentalism, that end point is the reverence of "Nature" for its own sake at the expense of humanity.
We are already experiencing hidden genocides as a direct consequence of the mass hypnosis of yuppies under the environmentalist spell; the malaria outbreak in Africa that could have been dampened by the order of millions of lives if Rachel Carson wouldn't have come along with her crank ideology that exalted the thickness of baby bird shells over the question of whether or not little human babies live or die.
Then we have the subsidization of corn ethanol, which has government's typical unintended (or intended?) disastrous consequences, in this case, the starvation and malnourishment of millions of invisible people in faraway lands. And for what? So that we can cut a negligible amount of greenhouse gases from our already negligible contribution to the big blue atmosphere?
This is madness, but it is so regularized and mainstreamed that many don't recognize it as madness. It is like the majority of people live in a house of mirrors their whole lives and when they finally see the truth reflected in a plane mirror, it appears distorted.
The moral truth is that the end of human life is human life; how to best accomplish that end is the question of political economy. And in direct contradition to the beliefs of the many, it is not collectivism and altruism that edifies life for the greatest number of people, but respect for each individual. The individualist creed entails allowing each man to be who he is and to adapt to his environment in accordance with his nature, while civilizing him through education and the development of rationality.
The mental order of the many is the political order of the whole. The respect for political order, guided by the correct morality, is the foundation of civilization. The protection of property is the mental security needed for people to create and produce without fear. Acknowledgment of the sanctity of the family by society is in accordance with man's biological nature and emotional needs. War against these basic tenets as the leftist does, with his destructive anti-civilization mentality, giving rise to various ideological manifestations, and society and order, so necessary for individuals to pursue happiness, is undermined. How ideologies either undermine or edify civilization must be understood if people are to take threats more seriously, and tragedies on a massive scale are to be avoided.
Likewise, the avoidance of ideology, as a belief that it is extreme in and of itself, is disingenuous and naive. Pragmatism and nihilism, the former shrugging at ideology and the latter rejecting it, do not absolve man of moral problems. These ideologies themselves only set man adrift to writhe in existentialist fugue. It takes principled opposition to counter today's next permutation of collectivist "isms" - "radical pragmatism." Remain oblivious to ideology and you are but flotsam and jetsam in the human Ganges. Principled opposition is required to counter collectivism and its precursor nihilism. Embrace collectivism or allow it to arise through stubborn passivity, and bad things are liable to occur. Adopt the individualist and objectivist ethos in words and deeds and live.
Anyway, this video is Exhibit A of just how creepy the creeps of Envirowackoville have become. Utterly predictable, because those who assume a given ideology (or a hybrid of ideologies) are driven to fulfill the demands of that ideology (or ideologies, leading often to tragi-comic consequences). For environmentalism, that end point is the reverence of "Nature" for its own sake at the expense of humanity.
We are already experiencing hidden genocides as a direct consequence of the mass hypnosis of yuppies under the environmentalist spell; the malaria outbreak in Africa that could have been dampened by the order of millions of lives if Rachel Carson wouldn't have come along with her crank ideology that exalted the thickness of baby bird shells over the question of whether or not little human babies live or die.
Then we have the subsidization of corn ethanol, which has government's typical unintended (or intended?) disastrous consequences, in this case, the starvation and malnourishment of millions of invisible people in faraway lands. And for what? So that we can cut a negligible amount of greenhouse gases from our already negligible contribution to the big blue atmosphere?
This is madness, but it is so regularized and mainstreamed that many don't recognize it as madness. It is like the majority of people live in a house of mirrors their whole lives and when they finally see the truth reflected in a plane mirror, it appears distorted.
The moral truth is that the end of human life is human life; how to best accomplish that end is the question of political economy. And in direct contradition to the beliefs of the many, it is not collectivism and altruism that edifies life for the greatest number of people, but respect for each individual. The individualist creed entails allowing each man to be who he is and to adapt to his environment in accordance with his nature, while civilizing him through education and the development of rationality.
The mental order of the many is the political order of the whole. The respect for political order, guided by the correct morality, is the foundation of civilization. The protection of property is the mental security needed for people to create and produce without fear. Acknowledgment of the sanctity of the family by society is in accordance with man's biological nature and emotional needs. War against these basic tenets as the leftist does, with his destructive anti-civilization mentality, giving rise to various ideological manifestations, and society and order, so necessary for individuals to pursue happiness, is undermined. How ideologies either undermine or edify civilization must be understood if people are to take threats more seriously, and tragedies on a massive scale are to be avoided.
Likewise, the avoidance of ideology, as a belief that it is extreme in and of itself, is disingenuous and naive. Pragmatism and nihilism, the former shrugging at ideology and the latter rejecting it, do not absolve man of moral problems. These ideologies themselves only set man adrift to writhe in existentialist fugue. It takes principled opposition to counter today's next permutation of collectivist "isms" - "radical pragmatism." Remain oblivious to ideology and you are but flotsam and jetsam in the human Ganges. Principled opposition is required to counter collectivism and its precursor nihilism. Embrace collectivism or allow it to arise through stubborn passivity, and bad things are liable to occur. Adopt the individualist and objectivist ethos in words and deeds and live.
An American Version of the Taliban?
This frequently renders it difficult, in studying the earliest historical and legislative records of New England, to detect the link that connected the emigrants with the land of their forefathers. They continually exercised the rights of sovereignty; they named their magistrates, concluded peace or declared war, made police regulations, and enacted laws, as if their allegiance was due only to God. Nothing can be more curious and at the same time more instructive than the legislation of that period; it is there that the solution of the great social problem which the United States now presents to the world is to be found.
Among these documents we shall notice as especially characteristic the code of laws promulgated by the little state of Connecticut in 1650.
The legislators of Connecticut begin with the penal laws, and, strange to say, they borrow their provisions from the text of Holy Writ.
'Whosoever shall worship any other God than the Lord," says the preamble of the Code, "shall surely be put to death." This is followed by ten or twelve enactments of the same kind, copied verbatim from the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy~ Blasphemy, sorcery, adultery, and rape were punished with death; an outrage offered by a son to his parents was to be expiated by the same penalty. The legislation of a rude and half-civilized people was thus applied to an enlightened and moral community. The consequence was, that the punishment of death was never more frequently prescribed by statute, and never more rarely enforced.
The chief care of the legislators in this body of penal laws was the maintenance of orderly conduct and good morals in the community; thus they constantly invaded the domain of conscience, and there was scarcely a sin which was not subject to magisterial censure. The reader is aware of the rigor with which these laws punished rape and adultery; intercourse between unmarried persons was likewise severely repressed. The judge was empowered to inflict either a pecuniary penalty, a whipping, or marriage on the misdemeanants, and if the records of the old courts of New Haven may be believed, prosecutions of this kind were not infrequent. We find a sentence, bearing the date of May 1, 1660, inflicting a fine and reprimand on a young woman who was accused of using improper language and of allowing herself to be kissed. The Code of 1650 abounds in preventive measures. It punishes idleness and drunkenness with severity. Innkeepers were forbidden to furnish more than a certain quantity of liquor to each consumer; and simple lying, whenever it may be injurious, is checked by a fine or a flogging. In other places the legislator, entirely forgetting the great principles of religious toleration that he had himself demanded in Europe, makes attendance on divine service compulsory, and goes so far as to visit with severe punishment, and even with death, Christians who chose to worship . God according to a ritual differing from his own. Sometimes, indeed, the zeal for regulation induces him to descend to the most frivolous particulars: thus a law is to be found in the same code which prohibits the use of tobacco. It must not be forgotten that these fantastic and oppressive laws were not imposed by authority, but that they were freely voted by all the persons interested in them, and that the customs of the community were even more austere and puritanical than the laws. In 1649 a solemn association was formed in Boston to check the worldly luxury of long hair.
These errors are no doubt discreditable to human reason; they attest the inferiority of our nature, which is incapable of laying firm hold upon what is true and just and is often reduced to the alternative of two excesses. In strict connection with this penal legislation, which bears such striking marks of a narrow, sectarian spirit and of those religious passions which had been warmed by persecution and were still fermenting among the people, a body of political laws is to be found which, though written two hundred years ago, is still in advance of the liberties of our age.
-- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
Among these documents we shall notice as especially characteristic the code of laws promulgated by the little state of Connecticut in 1650.
The legislators of Connecticut begin with the penal laws, and, strange to say, they borrow their provisions from the text of Holy Writ.
'Whosoever shall worship any other God than the Lord," says the preamble of the Code, "shall surely be put to death." This is followed by ten or twelve enactments of the same kind, copied verbatim from the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy~ Blasphemy, sorcery, adultery, and rape were punished with death; an outrage offered by a son to his parents was to be expiated by the same penalty. The legislation of a rude and half-civilized people was thus applied to an enlightened and moral community. The consequence was, that the punishment of death was never more frequently prescribed by statute, and never more rarely enforced.
The chief care of the legislators in this body of penal laws was the maintenance of orderly conduct and good morals in the community; thus they constantly invaded the domain of conscience, and there was scarcely a sin which was not subject to magisterial censure. The reader is aware of the rigor with which these laws punished rape and adultery; intercourse between unmarried persons was likewise severely repressed. The judge was empowered to inflict either a pecuniary penalty, a whipping, or marriage on the misdemeanants, and if the records of the old courts of New Haven may be believed, prosecutions of this kind were not infrequent. We find a sentence, bearing the date of May 1, 1660, inflicting a fine and reprimand on a young woman who was accused of using improper language and of allowing herself to be kissed. The Code of 1650 abounds in preventive measures. It punishes idleness and drunkenness with severity. Innkeepers were forbidden to furnish more than a certain quantity of liquor to each consumer; and simple lying, whenever it may be injurious, is checked by a fine or a flogging. In other places the legislator, entirely forgetting the great principles of religious toleration that he had himself demanded in Europe, makes attendance on divine service compulsory, and goes so far as to visit with severe punishment, and even with death, Christians who chose to worship . God according to a ritual differing from his own. Sometimes, indeed, the zeal for regulation induces him to descend to the most frivolous particulars: thus a law is to be found in the same code which prohibits the use of tobacco. It must not be forgotten that these fantastic and oppressive laws were not imposed by authority, but that they were freely voted by all the persons interested in them, and that the customs of the community were even more austere and puritanical than the laws. In 1649 a solemn association was formed in Boston to check the worldly luxury of long hair.
These errors are no doubt discreditable to human reason; they attest the inferiority of our nature, which is incapable of laying firm hold upon what is true and just and is often reduced to the alternative of two excesses. In strict connection with this penal legislation, which bears such striking marks of a narrow, sectarian spirit and of those religious passions which had been warmed by persecution and were still fermenting among the people, a body of political laws is to be found which, though written two hundred years ago, is still in advance of the liberties of our age.
-- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
The Tocquevillian Equivalent of the Owl of Minerva Flies at Dusk
The growth of nations presents something analogous to this; they all bear some marks of their origin. The circumstances that accompanied their birth and contributed to their development affected the whole term of their being.
If we were able to go back to the elements of states and to examine the oldest monuments of their history, I doubt not that we should discover in them the primal cause of the prejudices, the habits, the ruling passions, and, in short, all that constitutes what is called the national character. We should there find the explanation of certain customs which now seem at variance with the prevailing manners; of such laws as conflict with established principles; and of such incoherent opinions as are here and there to be met with in society, like those fragments of broken chains which we sometimes see hanging from the vaults of an old edifice, supporting nothing. This might explain the destinies of certain nations which seem borne on by an unknown force to ends of which they themselves are ignorant. But hitherto facts have been lacking for such a study: the spirit of analysis has come upon nations only as they matured; and when they at last conceived of contemplating their origin, time had already obscured it, or ignorance and pride had surrounded it with fables behind which the truth was hidden.
-- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
If we were able to go back to the elements of states and to examine the oldest monuments of their history, I doubt not that we should discover in them the primal cause of the prejudices, the habits, the ruling passions, and, in short, all that constitutes what is called the national character. We should there find the explanation of certain customs which now seem at variance with the prevailing manners; of such laws as conflict with established principles; and of such incoherent opinions as are here and there to be met with in society, like those fragments of broken chains which we sometimes see hanging from the vaults of an old edifice, supporting nothing. This might explain the destinies of certain nations which seem borne on by an unknown force to ends of which they themselves are ignorant. But hitherto facts have been lacking for such a study: the spirit of analysis has come upon nations only as they matured; and when they at last conceived of contemplating their origin, time had already obscured it, or ignorance and pride had surrounded it with fables behind which the truth was hidden.
-- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
Tocqueville on America's Ruling Class
There are virtuous and peaceful individuals whose pure morality, quiet habits, opulence, and talents fit them to be the leaders of their fellow men. Their love of country is sincere, and they are ready to make the greatest sacrifices for its welfare. But civilization often finds them among its opponents; they confound its abuses with its benefits, and the idea of evil is inseparable in their minds from that of novelty. Near these I find others whose object is to materialize mankind, to hit upon what is expedient without heeding what is just, to acquire knowledge without faith, and prosperity apart from virtue; claiming to be the champions of modern civilization, they place themselves arrogantly at its head, usurping a place which is abandoned to them, and of which they are wholly unworthy.
Where are we, then?
The religionists are the enemies of liberty, and the friends of liberty attack religion; the high-minded and the noble advocate bondage, and the meanest and most servile preach independence; honest and enlightened citizens are opposed to all progress, while men without patriotism and without principle put themselves forward as the apostles of civilization and intelligence.
-- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
I quibble with some of the language, such as all talk of "sacrifice" or "materializing men," not to mention Tocqueville's conceptualization of "democracy" in general, but it is still refreshing to read Democracy in America for its flashes of insight. This Tocqueville wrote in 1831?
Where are we, then?
The religionists are the enemies of liberty, and the friends of liberty attack religion; the high-minded and the noble advocate bondage, and the meanest and most servile preach independence; honest and enlightened citizens are opposed to all progress, while men without patriotism and without principle put themselves forward as the apostles of civilization and intelligence.
-- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
I quibble with some of the language, such as all talk of "sacrifice" or "materializing men," not to mention Tocqueville's conceptualization of "democracy" in general, but it is still refreshing to read Democracy in America for its flashes of insight. This Tocqueville wrote in 1831?
Friday, October 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)