Posts Tagged ‘power’

Trump And Average American People Versus Meryl Streep And Hypocrite Hollywood

January 11, 2017

You look at a county-by-county map of the last election and this is what you see:

All the red counties voted for Donald Trump; all the blue counties voted for Meryl Streep’s choice of candidate.

Just so you know, California ALL BY ITSELF (Hillary won the state with 4,269,778 more votes than Trump) counts for the NEARLY TWICE the ENTIRE popular vote majority that Hillary Clinton voters keep saying matters so damn much (Hillary “won” the popular vote by 2,864,974 more votes than Trump).  You add in New York’s giant Hillary win (by 1,732,872 votes and a 59% to 36.5% margin) and Washington D.C.  (where Hillary won a staggering 90.9% of the vote!) and these three voting regions alone count for WAY OVER TWICE THE POPULAR VOTE DIFFERENCE that favors Hillary.  The founding fathers very deliberately crafted a system by which a president had to win states from across the nation and across the spectrum rather than merely winning a few lopsided ideological contests.

Now let’s turn to the Golden Globes, to Hollywood, to Meryl Streep and the political rants we heard.

This was the place where Jimmy Fallon had already come onto the stage and idiotically said:

“This is the Golden Globes: One of the few places left where America honors the popular vote”

Oh, man, you mean there was there a vote and I didn’t get my ballot?  Why not?  I’m registered to vote, Jimmy Fallon!!!  You know what?  I don’t remember voting or having any chance to vote for the Golden Globes and to give Meryl Streep a Lifetime Achievement Award.  I mean, it really – if you had something called “a functioning brain” – was not a whole lot different from the Electoral College System where Donald Trump sure enough won a very clear majority of the votes.

These damn lectures are idiotic.  The Hollywood hypocrites who give them are idiotic.  Their rhetoric is idiotic.  Their points are idiotic.  These fools literally despise our Constitution and our very democratic republic when they make such profoundly stupid and profoundly dishonest tirades.

I didn’t get to vote at the Golden Globes, Jimmy.  I wasn’t represented.  I was entirely shut out.  In fact, I was attacked for my vote by Meryl Streep and many other Hollywood celebrities.

And the very people who shut people like me out so that I didn’t get to vote, so that people like me didn’t ever have a CHANCE to be represented, are patting themselves on the back as the last honest bastion of democracy in action???  Seriously???

Next consider the economic power of those blue counties relative to that vast ocean of red:

According to the Brookings Institution analysis, the less-than-500 counties Clinton won nationwide combined to generate 64 percent of America’s economic activity in 2015, the Washington Post reported.

The more-than-2,600 counties President-elect Donald Trump won combined to generate 36 percent of the country’s economic activity last year.

It’s the “haves” vs. the “have nots.”  But Democrats lie like roaches under an oven when it comes to who the “have nots” actually are.

When you are in control of the nation’s ports – where everything related to commerce flows to and from – and when you get to control the media culture and the entertainment culture and the academic culture, well, you end up with what Democrats who use this term to apply to white vs. black racism as “an unequal power relation.”  Only the actual “unequal power relation” is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Democrats falsely claim that it is.  We have almost nothing; they have nearly everything.  But because Democrats are bitter, butthurt people, “nearly everything” is not nearly enough.  They have to have it all; and they have to scream down or shut down or slander anyone or anything that gets in their fascist path.

So you take the ports: the Port of San Diego, the Port of Long Beach, the Port of Los Angeles, the Port of San Francisco, the Port of Oakland, and realize that ALL of these cities are today screaming leftist and you ask, “Did progressive liberalism and frankly socialism build these damn ports?”  And the answer is NO.  Not in ANY way, ANY shape or ANY form.  Rather they usurped control by promising wealth transfers to buy votes.  And when you have a massive guaranteed income such as ports or hi-tech centers (which they also control) and greedy Wall Street hedge funds (which they also control lock, stock and barrel contrary to what they always dishonestly claim) provide, literally more guaranteed wealth than a gold mine or diamond mine, it is easy to get corrupted and literally crazy because you can afford to do incredibly stupid things when you inherited filthy richness.

The Democrat Party is like Howard Hughes: absolute, raving nutjobs, but filthy rich enough to get away with sheer insanity that would have had anyone else buckled into a straitjacket and hauled off to a life in a rubber room.

Democrats control vast amounts of wealth for the very simple reason that they have an electoral stranglehold on the wealthiest port cities in America which they obtained through naked political bribery (vote for us and we’ll give you welfare for life and preferential treatment over other citizens and groups who don’t vote the way we want them to).

Our ports.  Our major cities that Democrats have won and turned into hellholes by being able to bus thousands of people whom they bribe to vote.  Our entertainment system.  Our “news.”  Our academic system where a disastrous thing called “tenure” and “unions” turned education into a politicized weapon.

When you look at education, realize that “education” was almost ENTIRELY CHRISTIAN in the United States of America when it was formed because true education depends on the recognition that we are Imago Dei.  Of the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 of them were established as profoundly and fundamentally “Christian Institutions.”  This is simply a documented fact of history.  In fact, the “university system” in GENERAL across planet earth was the result of Christianity and Christian foundations (see here and here and here).  Charlemagne turned to the Church as the ONLY POSSIBLE SOURCE for a higher education system capable of producing a body of educated people.  The very word for “university” was coined by Christian monks.  As an aside, the religion that secular humanist leftists so despise was the singular source of hospitals as well.  But continuing with education, when you read and understand the history of how our “public schools”, only then can you begin to understand the powerfully critical and essential role that Christians and Christianity played in our public education system for children.  And yet today, our learning centers that literally owe their existence to Christianity today try to totally shut out any mention of Jesus Christ or any sign of His values and priorities.  They got their foots in the door, used false promises and assurances to get Christians out, and then dishonestly and even viciously proceeded to slam the door shut in Christians’ faces.

How about the news media?  What do you say when you find out that 96 percent of “journalists'” campaign donations went to Hillary Clinton?  How in the hell can any reasonable person conclude that a media that is so biased can possibly be fair to Hillary Clinton’s opponent, Donald Trump???  What does that say about an institution that exists ENTIRELY to be OBJECTIVE???

Popular opinion confirms a leftist media bias (and see here); scientific studies confirm a rampant media bias; examining the actions of newspapers and television outlets confirms a leftist bias;  even cold-blooded computers detect an overwhelming and pervasive leftist media bias.

What is “racism”???  It is “an unequal power relation,” we are told.  And who in fact HAS the unequal power relations???  Why, the people that scream “racist” the most, of course.

And so we get to Meryl Streep’s “powerful Golden Globes Speech” and start laughing hysterically at the sheer appallingly dishonest butthurt hypocrisy.

She begins:

Thank you, Hollywood foreign press. Just to pick up on what Hugh Laurie said. You and all of us in this room, really, belong to the most vilified segments in American society right now.

Sorry, you dishonest peddler of victimhood, but no.  That’s not true.  It’s the people who voted for Donald Trump who are “the most vilified segment in American society right now,” as your own damn stupid speech confirms.

Remember Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables?”  All Meryl Streep does is steal the label and make it sound like Trump said it rather than the other way around.

She continues:

“Hollywood is crawling with outsiders and foreigners. If you kick ’em all out, you’ll have nothing to watch but football and mixed martial arts, which are not the arts.”

Well, first of all, when you look at football and the mixed martial arts’ ratings, you can see why Meryl Streep is so damn jealous: because they BURY your garbage, Hollywood.  And it’s always beyond unreal how dishonest the left is in its slander: because, yeah, right, Donald Trump said he was going to throw out every single outsider and every single foreigner.  This is called “fake news.”

It’s always funny to hear leftist Hollywood movie stars lecture us about guns and violence.  Just watch their stupid movies and see how many guns and how much violence there is and you’ll get my point.  mixed martial arts are not the arts, Meryl Streep smarmily decrees; but the movies that make all the damn money in Hollywood that glorify the violence that Streep looks down upon ARE “the arts.”

Please pardon me for putting this so crassly, but it’s kind of like saying if a chimpanzee made a great big giant bowel movement all over the zoo exhibit, it wouldn’t be “art”; but if a Hollywood makeup artist took that same great big giant bowel movement and smashed it onto Meryl Streep’s sanctimonious Hollywood face, well then it WOULD be “art,” because Meryl Streep is an “artist,” and she wears such things so very “artistically.”

Gun violence in Hollywood movies has more than TRIPLED since 1985; and even more hilariously hypocritically after one of the mass shootings we’ve had:

Like clockwork, before anyone had time digest the horror of the latest mass shooting, the left started finger-pointing and demanding more gun control – whether it would have prevented the crime or not. From President Obama on down, they immediately began railing against the NRA and gun owners.
Not surprisingly, entertainment industry liberals were among the most vocal. That also made them among the most hypocritical. TV, movies and music videos thrive portraying – and often glamorizing – violence, and gun violence in particular. And while actors were demanding gun control, the top 10 movies in theaters this past weekend were awash in violence – 334 separate violent acts, 121 of them involving guns. The on-screen body count was 39 dead out of 142 victims.

If we lived in the world of Hollywood liberalism, A HELLUVA LOT MORE PEOPLE WOULD DIE.  And die killed by GUNS, no less.

And that is a true, genuine fact of leftism in general.  Leftists are mass murderers.  Always have been, always will be.

Please don’t let their self-righteous, sanctimonious garbage fool you to the contrary.

Streep pats her industry on the back:

I was born and raised and created in the public schools of New Jersey. Viola [Davis] was born in a sharecropper’s cabin in South Carolina, and grew up in Central Falls, Rhode Island. Sarah Paulson was raised by a single mom in Brooklyn. Sarah Jessica Parker was one of seven or eight kids from Ohio. Amy Adams was born in Italy. Natalie Portman was born in Jerusalem. Where are their birth certificates? And the beautiful Ruth Negga was born in Ethiopia, raised in — no, in Ireland, I do believe. And she’s here nominated for playing a small town girl from Virginia. Ryan Gosling, like all the nicest people, is Canadian. And Dev Patel was born in Kenya, raised in London, is here for playing an Indian raised in Tasmania.

I just want you to realize that her great big giant pack on her sanctimonious back came following the disaster at the last year’s Oscars, which was described as “#OscarsSoWhite.”

I wonder why that is:

oscar-nominees-white

Oh, that was all the nominees for awards?  I mean, they’re all… they’re all… so WHITE.  And to talk about Meryl Streep’s blabbering, they’re from places like Whiteyland, Whiteville, Whitesburgh and Whitetown.

And by the left’s own understanding, Meryl Streep is nothing more than a privileged elitist white racist.

Chris Rock pointed out: “You realize if they nominated hosts, I wouldn’t even get this job!”  He said, “It’s the 88th Academy Awards which means this whole no black nominees thing has happened at least 71 other times.”  He called the Academy Awards “the white people’s choice awards.”

Just ask Meryl Streep how many black people’s Oscars she’s stolen in her white privileged career and that will shut her up real quick.

And so we get to the heart of Meryl Streep’s hypocrite hitjob:

There was one performance this year that stunned me. It sank its hooks in my heart. Not because it was good. There was nothing good about it. But it was effective and it did its job. It made its intended audience laugh and show their teeth. It was that moment when the person asking to sit in the most respected seat in our country imitated a disabled reporter, someone he outranked in privilege, power, and the capacity to fight back. It kind of broke my heart when I saw it. I still can’t get it out of my head because it wasn’t in a movie. It was real life.
And this instinct to humiliate, when it’s modeled by someone in the public platform, by someone powerful, it filters down into everybody’s life, because it kind of gives permission for other people to do the same thing. Disrespect invites disrespect. Violence incites violence. When the powerful use their position to bully others, we all lose.

Meryl Streep, one who personally knows a great damn DEAL about how to outrank most others in privilege, power and the capacity to fight back, is pretending there is no such thing as “the Casting Couch” where women who want a shot to put out a movie have to first put out in far more demeaning ways.

How many times have Hollywood liberals mocked and derided me and my evangelical Christian and conservative values???  Did Donald Trump mock a lousy, biased reporter in a manner that included his disability?  Probably, but for the record quite possibly NOT.  Also for the record, I personally am – due to my military service – significantly and permanently disabled.  And I don’t like being mocked for my disabilities or for anything else, but I’m mature enough to know that when you put yourself in the spotlight in a way hostile to someone else, you make yourself a target and enemy targets receive incoming fire as a matter of course.  Trump did other things (such as attack John McCain not as an unreliable, untrustworthy pseudo-ally – which he is – but as someone who doesn’t deserve “war-hero” status because he was shot out of the sky and terribly wounded and captured such that he rotted in one of the worst hells on earth for six years) that I didn’t like.  But I’ll tell you what: Hypocrite Hollywood has NO RIGHT to lecture ANYBODY for ANYTHING.

Meryl Streep is speaking on behalf of an industry that has ROUTINELY suppressed conservative actors from having any voice at the very risk of their careers.  Because as much as the left loves to demonize Republicans for McCarthyism, IT WAS DEMOCRATS WHO RAN WASHINGTON DURING THE MCCARTHY ERA AND IT IS HOLLYWOOD LIBERALS WHO ARE BLACKLISTING CONSERVATIVE ACTORS TODAY.  Joseph McCarthy himself was a Democrat nearly as long as he was a Republican.

Major celebrity performers are backing out of the Trump inauguration due to backlash and intimidation from leftistsTrump literally cannot book celebrities for his inauguration because Hollywood and the entertainment industry in general are Stalinist bastions.  Can you imagine that happening to Obama???  Can you imagine the unbridled HELL the news media would have showered down on the hateful, treasonous, in-American and anti-American attitude such despicable refusal to honor an American president as they would have surely depicted it and would have surely framed it had the president elect been Hillary Clinton???

It’s the same thing over and over again: how often did CNN – or Fox News for that matter – get into argumentative shouting matches with Barack Obama as president elect???  How often was Obama so profoundly disrespected???  The CNN reporter Jim Acosta later said he was being “politely demanding,” which is an oxymoron.  To wit: “I politely raped her.”  No, I RUDELY raped her and am merely too damn dishonest to state what I did accurately.  But I challenge you to show me footage of the press acting that way toward Obama especially before he took office but even afterward.

But it’s always okay when leftists do what they say is so evil for anyone else to do.  That is how they are because to be a leftist is to be a pathological hypocrite.

Meryl Streep is saying how dare you oppress marginalized people WHILE THERE IS NO INDUSTRY ON EARTH THAT MARGINALIZES MORE PEOPLE MORE OFTEN THAN HOLLYWOOD.

And where’s MY power when these people attack me and attack my values?  Where’s MY power to fight back when they have such a giant microphone?

When Democrats – particularly the minorities that Meryl Streep says are the most underprivileged of all – were routinely hatefully physically attacking Donald Trump supporters for the crime of participating in a rally or their candidate of choice, where was Meryl Streep to denounce the rabid hate that IS the Democratic Party?

When it was proven that in fact the vicious rodent thug that had organized these vicious physical attacks against Trump events was in fact working for the Hillary Clinton campaign and had visited Obama’s White House 342 times and had visited Obama personally, where was Meryl Streep to stand up for the little people who were victims of the terrible acts of Nazi brutality coming from her candidate and her party???

And when these Hollywood liberals attack, they do so with the same smarmy hypocrisy that they do when they screech about “climate change” and then get on carbon-spewing private jets that put out more global warming gasses in a single minute than I’ll put out in a year.

What you’re doing is evil, these Hollywood leftists keep screaming at us: and if we make millions of dollars doing the thing we say is so evil on movie screens and then do the very thing we say is so evil in our personal lives, no big deal.

How many Democrat Hollywood stars suffered for performing or attending Obama’s inauguration?  Zero.  But that aint true when it comes to Meryl Streep’s fellow Hollywood fascists when it comes to celebrities at Trump’s inauguration.

Just imagine if Republicans had planned an alternative event to the Obama inauguration.  But that’s what Hollywood Democrat celebrities are doing as they plan an event to upstage Trump’s.  It is a star-studded “We the Butthurt” concert.  And Meryl and all of her friends are going to be there to refuse to support the President of the United States and actively organize against this country and its system of government and its Constitution.  At no time did Republicans ever even come CLOSE to this kind of rabid hate against Obama.  There was a time when we legitimately called such behavior “treason.

Wages didn’t go up under Obama; they went down.  The gap between rich and poor, black and white under Obama got WORSE and in fact worse than under any under single president compared to his predecessor in history.  Obama loves to tell us drivel about how he’s been so wonderful for the economy and how he saved us from the Great Depression.  Bullcrap: this country is worse off between the richest and the poorest due to Obama’s failed policies since it was BEFORE the Great Depression!  How many people do you know that are at least 89 years old?  Because 89 years is how far back you have to go to find somebody who was even ALIVE during a worse damn presidency.

Democrats – and MOST ESPECIALLY DEMOCRATS LIKE MERYL STREEP – have the giant share of the wealth in this country and have frankly gone insane with it because they simply have no connection or contact whatsoever with the real, actual world that the rest of America lives in.  They have dictatorial, Stalinist, fascist control of the “news” industry – again, with NINETY-SIX PERCENT of journalists’ political contributions being FOR Hillary Clinton and AGAINST Donald Trump.  And this is an industry that has intentionally been fabricated into a rabidly biased and unfair unelected political body that literally betrays and undermines the very Constitution that enshrines it in the first place.  And then an Obama appeals for the public not to reject “facts.”  WHOSE FACTS???  The “facts” of the world’s most biased industry???

Obama in his Good Riddance Address said of the media:

And increasingly we become so secure in our bubbles that we start accepting only information, whether it’s true or not, that fits our opinions, instead of basing our opinions on the evidence that is out there.
And this trend represents a third threat to our democracy. Look, politics is a battle of ideas. That’s how our democracy was designed. In the course of a healthy debate, we prioritize different goals, and the different means of reaching them. But without some common baseline of facts, without a willingness to admit new information and concede that your opponent might be making a fair point, and that science and reason matter, then we’re going to keep talking past each other.

And who the hell’s FAULT is that???  When an industry can be so overwhelmingly proven to be so rabidly biased and dishonest as a political arm for Obama’s party???

In the same way, our public school and university systems have been hijacked and used and abused in a flagrantly partisan manner where institutionalized rabid political bias become “scientific facts.”  And the same dishonest, rabidly biased media I described above selectively reports these so-called “facts” in a rabidly biased manner.  Take for example the whole “global warming”-“climate change” fiasco is a dishonest case in point: Dr. Judith Curry just resigned as a professor at Georgia Tech citing literal insane bias against ANY legitimate science or questions with the bogus “consensus” model of man-blamed global warming the left is rabidly determined to maintain.  But what the hell: the rabidly dishonestly biased pseudo-scientists as reported in the rabidly dishonestly biased mainstream media have a “consensus” that the leftists who are politically exploiting that pseudo-consensus insist we all bow down to.

I MOCK the media that refused to report the scientific findings of scientists they identified as “climate change deniers” but were all to willing to bathe in the “unsubstantiated reports”unsubstantiated reports that were not only unverified but UNVERIFIABLE – that were generated by hostile and prejudiced opposition research and which are already documented to contain numerous clear factual errors.  Just as I MOCK the pro-climate change “scientists” who literally resort to Stalinist tactics and even freaking DEATH THREATS in “response” to legitimate science.

What I am pointing out – and I think have conclusively demonstrated – is that the left that has in Stalinist manner usurped everything and maintains that usurpation in a profoundly intolerant manner to anyone who has any fact or any question that might undermine them, are amazingly depicting themselves as the oppressed underclass.  It is such an amazing act of chutzpah it is beyond unreal.

 

 

Snow A Real Damper For Global Warming, But True Believers Are Insulated In A Leftwing Cocoon Of Lies

May 27, 2011

I got a response to an article I wrote titled “Global Warming ‘Scientists’ Admit Purging Their Raw Data” from someone referring to himself as “Mechanical Engineer.”  Here’s how he lectured me:

The data that was thrown out was not the only data that was collected around the world.

Take some time and rather than read some idiot’s opinion, do your own research. If you have any intelligence, there is only one conclusion – the atmospher [sic] is geating [sic] warmer. WAKE UP AMERICA. Scientist [sic] are scientist, not lying politicians and not ignorant columnist [sic].

Corporations do not care about you or the environment, so the last thing they would want is for the people to have knowledge.

“The ten warmest years on record have all occured [sic] since 1995″

For starters, you can visit NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmopsheric [sic] Administration). I’m trying to teach you to fish!! let’s see if you starve America ?!!!

And here is my response:

Mechanical Mind,

You might be great at teaching people to fish. If so, please stick with it. You’re sure not good at teaching people to think.  All you can do is recite the pseudo-scientific propaganda that someone poured into your head.

Your “science” is ideology, and whenever the science gets in the way of your ideology, so much the worse for your “science.”

We went from “global warming” to “climate change” because we clearly WEREN’T warming, and “climate change” provided the left with the rhetorical device to entirely deny their previous arguments and to essentially actually argue that it’s so damn cold because it’s so damn hot. And it was “justified” “scientifically” by “researchers” who were saying to one another stuff like:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Then you find out that the “trick” of “hiding the decline” was even more insidious than merely camouflaging the fact that it’s not getting warmer, but rather the very heart of their case in terms of proxy reconstructions of data.

So much for your “Scientist are scientist [sic], not lying politicians and not ignorant columnist [sic]” remark.

And with all due respect for your “science” and your sneering contempt to conceal the fact that you have been disproven time and time again, it is all complete BULLCRAP:

In 2000, global warmers shrilly assured us that “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

The problem with that “scientific” prediction based on the “fact” of global warming is that it turned out to be completely FALSE:

Ski resorts’ woe: Too much snow
Fierce storms that closed roads on key weekends prevented many potential visitors from driving to the slopes this season
May 21, 2011 | Hugo Martin

California ski operators often complain that they don’t have enough snow. This year, they’re complaining that they had too much.

Mountain resorts saw a 12% decline in skiers and snowboarders this season compared with the previous one, with attendance falling to about 7.1 million, according to the California Ski Industry Assn., the nonprofit trade group for the state’s major winter sports areas.

Your mantra that “corporations do not care about you or the environment” reveals your real problem: you are a socialist. You might be some hybrid consisting in part fascist, part Marxist, and pure distilled fool.

Socialists do not care about you, the environment, or anything but their total power and control over the masses. And they use naked indoctrination to GET that control.

As for the mainstream media that have bought the global warming lie hook, line and sinker – because pseudo-scientists like YOU taught them how to “fish” – I pointed out in a comment just yesterday:

A Soviet correspondent once said of the American mainstream media, “I have the greatest admiration for your propaganda. Propaganda in the West is carried out by experts who have had the best training in the world — in the field of advertizing — and have mastered the techniques with exceptional proficiency … Yours are subtle and persuasive; ours are crude and obvious … I think that the fundamental difference between our worlds, with respect to propaganda, is quite simple. You tend to believe yours … and we tend to disbelieve ours.”

And it is a rather easy thing to document that those “experts” are entirely leftwing:

Walter Lippmann – who shaped progressive “journalism,” said, “The common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely and can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal interests reach beyond the locality.” He referred to democracy as “the manufacture of consent” and said citizens “are mentally children.” He said:

“In the absence of institutions and education by which the environment is so successfully reported that the realities of public life stand out very sharply against self-centered opinion, the common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely, and can be managed only by a specialized class…”

Meanwhile his progressive pal Edward Bernays said things like:

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”

It is the LEFT that wants to erect an elite class that rules the lives of the rest of the people. By whatever means necessary, including propaganda and lies. It is the LEFT that wants to erect a giant omnipotent state that replaces God. It is the LEFT that wants to create a world in which everyone has to come to THEM to get the basic essentials for existence and thus control those existences.

It is the left that is telling all the lies.

For the record, mechanically clueless, you just parroted one of those lies that were passed from global warming alarmist “scientists” to their parrots in the mainstream media which has since been entirely refuted. It is a LIE that “the ten warmest years on record have all occured [sic] since 1995.” And thank God for the “idiots” – as you would have called them – who forced the correction after “science” bowed down before leftist ideology.

1934 is now the hottest, and 3 others from the 1930’s are in the top 10. Furthermore, only 3 (not 9) took place since 1995 (1998, 1999, and 2006). The years 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 are now below the year 1900 and no longer even in the top 20.

Sorry, Mr. Sneering Ignorant Liberal, but your “facts” just got flushed down the toilet with the rest of the fecal matter.

I am increasingly alarmed by the stupidity and ignorance that is coming out of our university system.

The power of the university used to be to teach students how to think.  Students learned a diverse range of subjects that not only broadened their academic range, but forced them to apply what they learned and forced them to research and express their ideas about what they had learned.

It was too tempting for liberals – who progressively purged conservatives from academia via tactics that were frankly Stalinist.  So nowadays professors simply tell students what to think, require them to fill their minds with blatant propaganda, and then force them to spit that propaganda back out in order to get the approval of a decent grade.

It’s just no wonder that we end up with minds and thinking like “Mechanical Engineer’s.”

Democrats Abandon All Respect For American Voter And Electoral Integrity

October 11, 2010

The independent-minded American says, “Let the parties and candidates express their platforms in the open marketplace of ideas, and may the best candidate win.”

Unless you’re a Democrat, of course.

“If you’re a Democrat, it’s, “We stand for absolutely nothing but power over the people, we believe that ends justify means, and so go ahead and do whatever you need to do to win.”

Democrats need tyrant-power in order to shove terrible and evil legislation such as the $3.27 TRILLION stimulus which incredibly hasn’t even created any meaningful jobs; and ObamaCare, which is turning out to be so shockingly bad that even LIBERAL UNIONS tat supported this boondoggle are now pleading to be opted out; and Democrat environmental regulations that are destroying upwards of a million jobs and counting (and again, even UNIONS are begging for relief from these incredibly destructive policies).

You can’t destroy a country unless you have the total power to do so.  In America, the Constitution gives the people the right to rise up and throw off their shackles every two years.  At least, as long as we have a Constitution, and as long as judicial activists can’t interpret that Constitution any damn way they want to.

So Democrats have to cheat to get their “fundamental transformation.”  And cheat they do.

We think of Chicago and other Democrat strongholds, where dead people and inmates don’t only get to vote, they get to vote twice.  And apparently, Democrats are even paying dead people and inmates for their votes now.

We think of ACORN and years and years of voter registration shenanigans until they were finally caught on video doing something so vile that even many (but certainly not all) Democrats found them despicable beyond the pale.

We think of the Al Franken Senate election in Minnesota, in which a lead by the Republican candidate was overcome after new, uncounted ballots just kept magically turning up in the back seats of cars.  And then, lo and behold, we find that inmates’ ballots – well over the Franken margin of victory – were illegally counted.

We think of the vile Democrat Rep. Alan Grayson and the shockingly dishonest campaign ad that he ran, in which he deliberately tried to smear his Republican candidate for the exact opposite of what the man clearly actually said.

And now we’ve got Democrats trying to undermine the will of the American people by fraudulently running candidates to leech votes from the Republican and steal an election:

Report: Dems planted NJ tea party House candidate
By GEOFF MULVIHILL
The Associated Press
Saturday, October 9, 2010; 5:36 PM

MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. — A New Jersey Republican congressional candidate criticized his Democratic opponent Friday amid mounting evidence that Democratic officials planted a tea party candidate in the race to siphon off conservative votes.

“My opponent, John Adler, represents everything that is wrong with politics in our country today,” Republican Jon Runyan said. “I would ask for an apology. But frankly, an apology from someone like Congressman Adler would be so meaningless that it’s not worth seeking.”

He spoke at a news conference as Adler, a first-term Democratic lawmaker, and his campaign remained mum about a report in the Courier-Post of Cherry Hill in which Democratic operatives speaking on the condition of anonymity confirmed what Republicans have believed for months: That tea-party candidate Peter DeStefano was put on the ballot by Democrats.

The operatives said a county Democratic employee is running at least the Web elements of DeStefano’s campaign.

Tea party organizations, which have denounced DeStefano since he entered the race in June, called on him Friday to quit. About 50 tea party activists gathered in protest outside a restaurant in Medford where DeStefano had scheduled a fundraiser Friday night.

DeStefano arrived at the fundraiser after the protesters left and told reporters he would remain in the race, but he would not answer specific questions about the newspaper’s report, dismissing the allegations as “hearsay.”

“I’m an average guy who’s running for Congress on the independent ticket,” DeStefano said.

One tea party group, the West Jersey Tea Party, said it plans to file a voter-fraud lawsuit against Adler next week.

Adler has previously denied the accusations. Adler and top officials in Adler’s campaign and did not return calls or e-mails from The Associated Press on Friday.

In an August interview with the AP, DeStefano excoriated both Adler and Runyan.

He fended off questions about Republicans’ accusations and tea party organizations’ claims that he wasn’t even a member, though he was running for Congress with the slogan “New Jersey Tea Party.” While there are several tea party groups in New Jersey, none goes by that name. Some tea party groups are supporting Runyan.

“Any American citizen can run for any office they want,” DeStefano said. “I think it’s time we get past this crap.”

He refused to answer questions about precisely when he decided to run.

In August, Adler told the Courier-Post: “I know we weren’t part of it.”

Runyan said his campaign was looking into whether there’s any legal action that could be taken against Adler.

The operatives told the Courier-Post that the plan was shared with members of the South Jersey Young Democrats, and some in that group gathered signatures for DeStefano – while others didn’t because they thought the plan was unethical.

Republicans started raising suspicions about DeStefano months ago when they found many of the signatures on his nominating petitions were from Democrats, including a former Adler campaign staffer.

I wrote about a related issue a little over a week ago, pointing out the fact that Democrats Don’t Give A DAMN About The Constitution Or Any Limits On Their Power.

In that article, I cited the audio of Democrat Robin Carnahan openly mocking the election process and the will of the voters in an exchange that went as follows:

Carnahan: “We’re going to also have a libertarian and a Constitution Party candidate running.  And I will tell you no one’s going to know who they are, but it’s not going to matter, because Glenn Beck says you’re supposed to be for the Constitution, and there is some percentage of people who will go vote for them.  And in our internal polling about six or seven percent goes like that to the Libertarian and Constitution Party.  So I’m quite sure that whoever wins is going to do it with less than fifty percent of the vote.” […]

Donor: “You just don’t sound like those Constitution Party votes are going to come out of your account.”

Carnahan: “What do you think?” (Audience laughter)

Donor: “I think you’re right.” (Audience laughter)

These Democrats don’t care about fairly and honestly winning elections; they care only about power and totalitarian control over government.  And they will use every UNFAIR and DISHONEST tactic to gain the power over the people that they seek.

And if you care about your country’s Constitution, why, you’re just an idiot schmuck to these contemptible Democrats.

I also wrote about some of the utterly contemptible examples of fraud that are besetting the Democrat Party, including the fact that ALL EIGHT of the vile little cockroaches in Bell, California, who stole millions from a town whose per capita income was only half the national average, were DEMOCRATS.

And it’s not a matter that Democrats did this a long time ago, or that they just did it recently; it’s about the fact that they are doing these things RIGHT THE HELL NOW.

If you think that Democrats have demonstrated that they deserve the right to continue governing, all I can say is that you personally are disgusting.

Obama’s Government As God Believes It Owns Everything The People Earn

September 17, 2010

“The Universal is to be found in the State…The State is the Divine Idea as it exists on earth…We must therefore worship the State as the manifestation of the Divine on earth, and consider that, if it is difficult to comprehend Nature, it is harder to grasp the Essence of the State…the State is the march of God through the world…” — Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, as quoted in Popper, Karl R., The Open Society and its Enemies, 4th ed., 2 vols. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963, vol. 2, p. 31.

“…the State ‘has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State… for the right of the world spirit is above all special privileges.'” Author/historian William Shirer, quoting Georg Hegel in his The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1959, page 144).

Hegel, it probably doesn’t surprise you, was an important precursor to Marxism, in that he held that the State owned everything, and had all the prerogatives of God Almighty.

But that was also the view of the founder of the Progressive movement, Woodrow Wilson.  As Wilson put it, the essence of Progressivism was that the individual “marry his interests to the state.”  Jonah Goldberg noted that:

Wilson’s fascination with power is the leitmotif of his whole career.  It informed his understanding of theology and politics, and their intersection.  Power was God’s instrument on earth and therefore was always to be revered.  In Congressional Government he admitted, “I cannot imagine power as a thing negative and not positive” (Liberal Fascism, p. 84).

We also learn of the founder of the Progressive movement that:

“Wilson would later argue when he was president that he was the right hand of God and that to stand against him was to thwart divine will.” [And that] “He always took the side of power, believing that power accrued to whoever was truly on God’s side” [Liberal Fascism, p. 85]

“‘Government,’ Wilson wrote approvingly in The State, ‘does now whatever experience permits or the times demand'” (found in Liberal Fascism, p. 86, with footnote].

Jonah Golderg cites Woodrow Wilson from his unintentionally chilling essay, Leaders of Men:

“Only a very gross substance of concrete conception can make any impression on the minds of the masses.  They must get their ideas very absolutely put, and are much readier to receive a half truth whcih they can promptly understand than a whole truth which has too many sides to be seen all at once.  The competent leader of men cares little for the internal niceties of other people’s characters: he cares much – everything – for the external uses to which they may be put … He supplies the power; others supply only the materials upon which that power operates … It is the power which dictates, dominates; the materials yield.  Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader” (Liberal Fascism, p. 89; from Woodrow Wilson, Leaders of Men, 1952, pp. 20, 25-26].

And Wilson argued, “we must demand that the individual shall be willing to lose the sense of personal achievement, and shall be intent to realize his activity only in connection to the activity of the many.”

“God” was useful to Wilson and his fellow progressives in order to seize dictatorial powers and advance the cause of a Government as God.  But the atheist communists founded a system in which God was overthrown, and the State could assume His prerogatives unto itself.  Modern progressives have likewise banished God out of government, but they still fiercely stand for “Government as God.”  “God” may largely be gone from their arguments, but, like Woodrow Wilson and like the communists, their worship of power remains.

Right now, today, we are facing an incredibly important issue in this country which boils down to the following question: Do we own the state, or does the State own us?

Now, someone might argue, “No one’s debating that.  Liberals aren’t arguing that ‘the State owns citizens.'”

And I would argue, “Really?”  And then I’d hand off the ball to Brit Hume.

From Fox News Special Report, Tuesday, September 13, 2010:

BAIER: Senior political analyst Brit Hume is here with some thoughts about what the debate over the soon to expire tax cuts really means.

Good evening, Brit.

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Hi, Bret.

The running argument over extending the Bush tax cuts may come to nothing if Congress decides to go home in just three weeks, but it has been a revealing exchange nonetheless. The president’s call for extending the cuts for middle class taxpayers is an acknowledgment that President Bush did not just cut taxes for the rich as Democrats are fond of claiming. He cut them for all taxpayers.

Administration officials keep saying it’s a bad idea to keep the cuts in place for wealthier taxpayers because it would cost $700 billion in lost revenue over 10 years. What they don’t say is that keeping them for the middle class which they now support would cost about three times that much.

Still, the president’s position means he agrees with Republicans that raising people’s taxes in the midst of a flagging economy is a bad idea. But the very language used in discussing these issues tells you something as well. In Washington, letting people keep more of their own money is considered a cost. As if all the money really belongs to the government in the first place in which what you get to keep is an expenditure.

This sense of the primacy of government is reflected in the high percentage of stimulus funds used to bail out broke localities and protect the jobs of government workers. Democrats are proving once again that they are indeed the party of government. Americans think government is important, too. They just don’t think financing it takes priority over all else — Bret.

BAIER: Brit, “The Washington Post” is reporting that top Democratic leaders want to rebrand the extension of the Bush tax cuts to call them the Obama tax cuts for the middle class. What about that?

HUME: Well, if we had sat here a year and a half ago and one of us had said to the other that Democrats at this stage would be wanting to rebrand the Bush tax cuts and continue them and call them the Obama tax cuts, we’d have both fallen out of our chairs laughing. These are people who opposed these tax cuts when they were passed. They now not only want to extend them or at least the largest piece of them, but they want to put Barack Obama’s name on it. Bret, it doesn’t get any better than this.

BAIER: All right. Brit, thank you.

I recently wrote an article that refutes the Democrat contention that tax cuts have to be “paid for” or “cost” the government.  And Brit Hume points out – as I do – that the Democrats screaming about the $700 billion that the rich’s tax cut would cost the Treasury, while simultaneously calling for a tax cut for the middle class (which they vigorously opposed during George W. Bush’s presidency) that would cost the Treasury $3 TRILLION according to the same report.  But in the above special commentary, Brit Hume destroys the very premise by which the Democrats argue that the tax cuts should be treated as a “cost” to the government at all.  On what ethical basis should allowing people to keep more of the money that they earned be deemed a “cost” to the government?

Think of it this way.  Suppose I believe that my next door neighbor’s property belongs to me, and allowing my neighbor to keep what I think is really mine is a cost to me.  Our prison system is filled with people who think precisely that way.  But is it true?  Well, only if the entitlement mindset of coveting what others have accumulated is the way the world should work.  In that case, what’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is mine, too.  Otherwise, if my neighbor’s property actually belongs to my neighbor, then no matter how much he works or how much he profits, it doesn’t cost me anything.  And it would frankly be immoral of me to think otherwise.

Here’s another way to think of it, in the words of Chief Justice John Roberts:

“I had someone ask me in this process — I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, ‘Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?’ And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution.  That’s the oath.”

But while it IS the oath, it is no longer the system.  Rather, we have a system that has been perverted by judicial activism and by the politics of class envy and class warfare.

Then there’s the fact that even the wealthiest billionaire becomes “the little guy” when confronted by the power of government.

Watching the September 16th Larry Kudlow program on CNBC, I learned that China has ten times the growth of the United States, and that China has lower taxes than we have.  Meanwhile, Democrats are using Marxist class warfare and redistributionist arguments to try to raise American taxes even higher.  With all due respect, what should you call a party that is even more communist now than communist China?

So let me ask again: Does the government own all of my wealth, and allow me to keep some of it?  Do I belong to my government, or does my government belong to me?

In Washington under the Democrats’ philosophy, letting people keep more of their own money is considered a “cost.” It’s “lost revenue” for the government.  As if all the money we earn really belongs to the government in the first place and that what government allows us to keep amounts to a government expenditure.  In this mindset, we are wading neck deep into the waters of Marxist collectivism, and the view of Government (big ‘G’) as being our God and as Savior.

The story of abusive big government is not a recent one.  The prophet Samuel describes it in the Old Testament:

But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles. — 1 Samuel 8:19-20

Who are we really rejecting?
God said to Samuel:
“…it is not you they have rejected, Samuel, but they have rejected me as their king.”  — 1 Samuel 8:7

Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots.  Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.” — 1 Samuel 8:10-18

The tenth of everything that God warned the people the king would take was on top of the tenth that belonged to God.   Which is to say that the king would double their taxes in addition to treating the people like they belonged to him.  Of course, that tyrant king was only seizing an additional tenth of his people’s wealth; imagine today, where in the highest-taxed states (which are all Democrat states, fwiw), some Americans are forced to pay more than half of their income in taxes.  A mere extra tenth would be like a blessing to them.

From doubling our taxes to quintupling them; a good definition of “progressivism” is a political movement that is devoted to making things ever worse than they were before.

Our founding fathers went to war in their reaction against tyrannies which are nothing as compared to the tyrannies modern Americans now face every day.

Tyranny is the kind of thing that creeps up on a people.  It’s not like we have a “Tyrant Party” that promises more tyranny, and then we vote for them.  Rather, tyranny is “progressive.”  The wrong people, or people with the wrong worldview, gain power, and then they just seize more and more and more of our freedoms.  Until we wake up and wonder what happened.

47% of Americans pay no federal income taxes at all today, while demanding that a smaller and smaller group of people pay an increasing share of taxes.

But mark my words: the same government that believes that it owns the wealth of the wealthiest will all too-soon understand that it owns your wealth, too.  And that it has the right to take from you whatever it demands.

Update, September 27, 2010: here we go again

13 States Have ALREADY Sued Over ObamaCare Obomination

March 23, 2010

13 states have already filed suit to stop the monster of ObamaCare.  A total of 38 states (76%) are now working on their own versions of “the spirit of ’76.”

From the AP:

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -Attorneys general from 13 states sued the federal government Tuesday, claiming the landmark health care overhaul is unconstitutional just seven minutes after President Barack Obama signed it into law.
The lawsuit was filed in Pensacola after the Democratic president signed the bill the House passed Sunday night.
“The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage,” the lawsuit says.
Legal experts say it has little chance of succeeding because, under the Constitution, federal laws trump state laws.

You DO have to kind of laugh at the propaganda that the AP feels they must insert: “Legal experts say it has little chance of succeeding,” as though every single legal expert has ruled, and the AP merely duly reported.

Bullpuckey.  There are plenty of “legal experts” who think the exact opposite.  And it couldn’t be more dishonest of the Associated Press to imply that such isn’t the case.

One of my favorite “legal experts” who disagrees with the AP’s monolithic assertion is Jay Sekulow, who has argued before the Supreme Court on numerous occasions and frequently won.  In another article which has a rather different slant from the AP’s bias, he had the following to say:

The ACLJ says it will file amicus briefs on behalf of thousands of its supporters in the lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the health care law by numerous states.

“Most Americans do not want this plan. That includes millions of pro-life Americans who don’t want to be forced to purchase a health care package that funds abortion,” ACLJ chief counsel Jay Sekulow told LifeNews.com.

“We support the litigation being initiated by a number of states and plan to file amicus briefs in those cases representing thousands of our members. This health care law should not be forced upon the American people. We believe the courts will agree,” he added.

Sekulow added: “These legal challenges will be numerous and occur in many jurisdictions. The constitutional issues at stake are significant and it’s likely this will end up before the Supreme Court of the United States.”

I’m not trying to present Jay Sekulow as the greatest of all “legal experts.”  But there is no question that Sekulow IS a legal expert.  His American Center for Law and Justice has been called a “powerful counterweight to the ACLU” by Time Magazine.

Oh, there are other ones, such as Dr. Randy Barnett, who argues regarding ObamaCare that:

Such a doctrine would abolish any limit on federal power and alter the fundamental relationship of the national government to the states and the people. For this reason it is highly doubtful that the Supreme Court will uphold this assertion of power.

How many legal experts am I supposed to produce to show that the Associated Press is full of crap?

One of the constitutional issues derives from the 10th Amendment, which reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, I know that liberals are often able to find penumbras and emanations that justify them to do pretty much whatever the hell they want to justify, but you show me where the Constitution gives the federal government the right to ram ObamaCare down our throats or to force citizens to purchase insurance just for the privilege of breathing.

The other issue is the commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) of the Constitution:

[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

Now again, you need one hell of a penumbra and emanation to see in this clause the right for the federal government to force private citizens to purchase insurance from private companies.

It’s one thing to say the federal government can regulate, quite another to assert that the federal government has the power under this clause to force whoever they want to buy whatever they want from whoever they want.  Unless “commerce” is to be defined as a transaction that takes place at the point of a gun aimed at the purchaser’s chest, with the government saying, “Buy or die.”

This is what Dr. Randy Barnett was getting to: to grant the constitutionality of ObamaCare amounts to a massive increase in federal power, which would make the states and the people vassals and the federal government a tyrant.  It would no longer make sense to ask what the federal government can do under the commerce clause; it would only make sense to ask, “Is there anything the federal government CAN’T do under the commerce clause?” And the answer would be basically no.

The CBO, in a more honorable day, stated this abuse of federal power quite clearly when it responded to the individual mandate that Bill Clinton sought to impose:

A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

One of the interesting things about ObamaCare is that it never even attempts to state the cost of the individual mandates.  That figure is nowhere found in the CBO score.  It isn’t deemed a “tax” because the federal government doesn’t take the money.  Rather, you are forced to give your money to a private insurance company.

It is a fact that ObamaCare represents a massive unprecedented takeover of not only our health care system, but of our way of life, by the federal government.  Nothing like this has EVER been done in our entire history.  And Democrats frankly don’t care about this abuse of our history, our laws, and our way of life because they have always looked to the socialism, Marxism, and fascism of Europe as their model.

The one thing I can take some hope in is that the Supreme Court still has a 5-4 majority of conservative justices.  I expect those justices to recognize that Barack Obama shouldn’t have unlimited power as the head of the federal government to impose his will upon the states and upon the American people.

And Obama certainly didn’t do his standing with Justice Samuel Alito or Chief Justice John Roberts when he contemptuously demonized the Supreme Court at his last State of the Union.

Let me ask one final question: suppose you are a liberal, and you want ObamaCare.  Are you willing to take in trade for that a Republican president and Republican Congress enjoying this unprecedented federal power?  It is increasingly obvious that Republicans are going to take back the House and Senate in the 2010 election.  You’d better realize that your support of ObamaCare now means you will be voting in favor of the “Hunt Every Democrat Down With Dogs And Burn Them Alive Act” after we take back the White House and do unto you twice what you did unto us.

Democrat Rep. Alcee Hastings said,

‘There ain’t no rules around here — we’re trying to accomplish something.’ And therefore, when the deal goes down, all this talk about rules, we make ‘em up as we go along…”

You Democrats might be mocking us now, but just you wait until you see what OUR interpretation of “There ain’t no rules around here” looks like.  You will have opened the door to your own future payback.  You just wait until we have our chance to use the raw, naked power of government to impose our very righteous anger back on you.

I submit that neither side should want the kind of unprecedented federal power that will be necessary to implement ObamaCare.

On Totalitarian Sentimentality: What It Is, And Why We Should Fight It

December 23, 2009

Mark Steyn, who frequently serves as a fill-in for Rush Limbaugh and recently has been filling-in for Sean Hannity on his television program, is a genuine treasure.  He manages to combine a riotous sense of humor with conservative wisdom and his own je ne sais quoi.

Today, on Rush Limbaugh’s radio program, Steyn told a story about a funeral he recently attended in Europe at a church that had been built in the 11th century.

His party was in the vehicle immediately behind the hearse, so he couldn’t help but see a cart that looked to him like a shopping cart being wheeled up to the hearse.

He asked the pallbearers who were in the process of unloading the casket what the shopping cart was for.  And one of them answered and said, “It’s to bear the casket, mate.”

Steyn said, “I thought you were supposed to carry the casket in.”  He pointed to the handles and said, “Here are the handles.  You’re pallbearers.  You’re supposed to bear the pall.”

The pallbearer said, “Health Services regulations, mate.  We’re not allowed to carry the casket due to safety regulations.”

Steyn said, “Safety regulations?”

The pallbearer said, “The path is uneven.”

Mark Steyn then said, “This is a one thousand year-old church.  That same path has been uneven for a thousand years.  And now somebody decides its unsafe to carry a casket?”

The pallbearer repeated, “Safety regulations, mate.”  As though that was all the answer that was needed.

Mark Steyn and his brother decided that this wouldn’t do.  “We’ll carry the casket in ourselves.”

The pallbearers said, “You can’t.  You need to have a license from the state to be pallbearers.”

Steyn’s brother said, “What’s the point in becoming a licensed pallbearer if you’re not allowed to actually bear the pall?”

They argued about it for a little while, and finally decided that Steyn and his brother would assist the pallbearers in carrying the casket.

What’s the moral of this story?  Steyn said that this is just the way big government works in today’s modern Europeanized socialism.  It simply takes over everything with a gradual takeover of regulations.

And he pointed out that you have to fight against it in all the little things, because otherwise it will simply just keep regulating more and more little things and accumulating more and more power over every aspect of our lives.

Then he referenced an article entitled, “Totalitarian Sentimentality,” which I thought worthy of posting.

Totalitarian Sentimentality

By Roger Scruton from the December 2009-January 2010 issue

Conservatives recognize that social order is hard to achieve and easy to destroy, that it is held in place by discipline and sacrifice, and that the indulgence of criminality and vice is not an act of kindness but an injustice for which all of us will pay. Conservatives therefore maintain severe and — to many people — unattractive attitudes. They favor retributive punishment in the criminal law; they uphold traditional marriage and the sacrifices that it requires; they believe in discipline in schools and the value of hard work and military service. They believe in the family and think that the father is an essential part in it. They see welfare provisions as necessary, but also as a potential threat to genuine charity, and a way both of rewarding antisocial conduct and creating a culture of dependency. They value the hard-won legal and constitutional inheritance of their country and believe that immigrants must also value it if they are to be allowed to settle here. Conservatives do not think that war is caused by military strength, but on the contrary by military weakness, of a kind that tempts adventurers and tyrants. And a properly ordered society must be prepared to fight wars — even wars in foreign parts — if it is to enjoy a lasting peace in its homeland. In short conservatives are a hard and unfriendly bunch who, in the world in which we live, must steel themselves to be reviled and despised by all people who make compassion into the cornerstone of the moral life.

Liberals are of course very different. They see criminals as victims of social hierarchy and unequal power, people who should be cured by kindness and not threatened with punishment. They wish all privileges to be shared by everyone, the privileges of marriage included. And if marriage can be reformed so as to remove the cost of it, so much the better. Children should be allowed to play and express their love of life; the last thing they need is discipline. Learning comes — didn’t Dewey prove as much? — from self-expression; and as for sex education, which gives the heebie-jeebies to social conservatives, no better way has ever been found of liberating children from the grip of the family and teaching them to enjoy their bodily rights. Immigrants are just migrants, victims of economic necessity, and if they are forced to come here illegally that only increases their claim on our compassion. Welfare provisions are not rewards to those who receive them, but costs to those who give — something that we owe to those less fortunate than ourselves. As for the legal and constitutional inheritance of the country, this is certainly to be respected — but it must “adapt” to new situations, so as to extend its protection to the new victim class. Wars are caused by military strength, by “boys with their toys,” who cannot resist the desire to flex their muscles, once they have acquired them. The way to peace is to get rid of the weapons, to reduce the army, and to educate children in the ways of soft power. In the world in which we live liberals are self-evidently lovable — emphasizing in all their words and gestures that, unlike the social conservatives, they are in every issue on the side of those who need protecting, and against the hierarchies that oppress them.

Those two portraits are familiar to everyone, and I have no doubt on which side the readers of this magazine will stand. What all conservatives know, however, is that it is they who are motivated by compassion, and that their cold-heartedness is only apparent. They are the ones who have taken up the cause of society, and who are prepared to pay the cost of upholding the principles on which we all — liberals included — depend. To be known as a social conservative is to lose all hope of an academic career; it is to be denied any chance of those prestigious prizes, from the MacArthur to the Nobel Peace Prize, which liberals confer only on each other. For an intellectual it is to throw away the prospect of a favorable review — or any review at all — in the New York Times or the New York Review of Books. Only someone with a conscience could possibly wish to expose himself to the inevitable vilification that attends such an “enemy of the people.” And this proves that the conservative conscience is governed not by self-interest but by a concern for the public good. Why else would anyone express it?

By contrast, as conservatives also know, the compassion displayed by the liberal is precisely that — compassion displayed, though not necessarily felt. The liberal knows in his heart that his “compassionating zeal,” as Rousseau described it, is a privilege for which he must thank the social order that sustains him. He knows that his emotion toward the victim class is (these days at least) more or less cost-free, that the few sacrifices he might have to make by way of proving his sincerity are nothing compared to the warm glow of approval by which he will be surrounded by declaring his sympathies. His compassion is a profoundly motivated state of mind, not the painful result of a conscience that will not be silenced, but the costless ticket to popular acclaim.

Why am I repeating those elementary truths, you ask? The answer is simple. The USA has descended from its special position as the principled guardian of Western civilization and joined the club of sentimentalists who have until now depended on American power. In the administration of President Obama we see the very same totalitarian sentimentality that has been at work in Europe, and which has replaced civil society with the state, the family with the adoption agency, work with welfare, and patriotic duty with universal “rights.” The lesson of postwar Europe is that it is easy to flaunt compassion, but harder to bear the cost of it. Far preferable to the hard life in which disciplined teaching, costly charity, and responsible attachment are the ruling principles is the life of sentimental display, in which others are encouraged to admire you for virtues you do not possess. This life of phony compassion is a life of transferred costs. Liberals who wax lyrical on the sufferings of the poor do not, on the whole, give their time and money to helping those less fortunate than themselves. On the contrary, they campaign for the state to assume the burden. The inevitable result of their sentimental approach to suffering is the expansion of the state and the increase in its power both to tax us and to control our lives.

As the state takes charge of our needs, and relieves people of the burdens that should rightly be theirs — the burdens that come from charity and neighborliness — serious feeling retreats. In place of it comes an aggressive sentimentality that seeks to dominate the public square. I call this sentimentality “totalitarian” since — like totalitarian government — it seeks out opposition and carefully extinguishes it, in all the places where opposition might form. Its goal is to “solve” our social problems, by imposing burdens on responsible citizens, and lifting burdens from the “victims,” who have a “right” to state support. The result is to replace old social problems, which might have been relieved by private charity, with the new and intransigent problems fostered by the state: for example, mass illegitimacy, the decline of the indigenous birthrate, and the emergence of the gang culture among the fatherless youth. We have seen this everywhere in Europe, whose situation is made worse by the pressure of mass immigration, subsidized by the state. The citizens whose taxes pay for the flood of incoming “victims” cannot protest, since the sentimentalists have succeeded in passing “hate speech” laws and in inventing crimes like “Islamophobia” which place their actions beyond discussion. This is just one example of a legislative tendency that can be observed in every area of social life: family, school, sexual relations, social initiatives, even the military — all are being deprived of their authority and brought under the control of the “soft power” that rules from above.

This is how we should understand the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama. To his credit he has made clear that he does not deserve it — though I assume he deserves it every bit as much as Al Gore. The prize is an endorsement from the European elite, a sigh of collective relief that America has at last taken the decisive step toward the modern consensus, by exchanging real for fake emotion, hard power for soft power, and truth for lies. What matters in Europe is the great fiction that things will stay in place forever, that peace will be permanent and society stable, just so long as everybody is “nice.” Under President Bush (who was, of course, no exemplary president, and certainly not nice) America maintained its old image, of national self-confidence and belligerent assertion of the right to be successful. Bush was the voice of a property-owning democracy, in which hard work and family values still achieved a public endorsement. As a result he was hated by the European elites, and hated all the more because Europe needs America and knows that, without America, it will die. Obama is welcomed as a savior: the American president for whom the Europeans have been hoping — the one who will rescue them from the truth.

How America itself will respond to this, however, remains doubtful. I suspect, from my neighbors in rural Virginia, that totalitarian sentimentality has no great appeal to them, and that they will be prepared to resist a government that seeks to destroy their savings and their social capital, for the sake of a compassion that it does not really feel.

This is no newly realized idea.  Alexis de Tocqueville understood this well more than a century ago when he wrote:

“Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood; it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances; what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?”

Whether it is health care “reform” that will create a superstructure that liberals will continue to build more and more socialist big government control forever after; whether it is cap-and-trade, which will send energy prices through the roof and lead to government control over everything that produces or consumes energy, or has anything to do with energy in it’s development; whether it is federal government bailouts of every industry or institution deemed “too big to fail”; whether it is outright government ownership of private industry (such as the car companies); whether it is sweetheart deals offered to one politician, one state, or one industry or institution that correspondingly imposes burdens on others; whether it is the series of sweeping new regulations that strangle businesses and keep banks unable to make loans; we have to fight this agenda with everything we have.

Obama Abusing Stimulus To Intimidate All Opposition

May 14, 2009

If you don’t live under a rock (and frankly a rock wouldn’t be a bad place to live under these days), you’ve no doubt heard that Obama has fired CEOs, picked board members, altered bankruptcy proceedings, and has refused to allow banks to repay their loans without ridiculous conditions being imposed.  He is also moving toward regulating the pay of executives even if their companies didn’t take bailout money.  You might have heard how Obama has bullied and threatened hedge funds that demanded that their legal rights as secured Chrysler debtholders be recognized and respected as their money is given to unions in a clear case of political payback.

And if you have any understanding of American history at all, you should realize what a massive abuse of power all of this is.

Obama can say whatever he wants about not wanting to control the economy.  But actions in this case scream far louder than words.  On front after front (e.g., industry, banking, health care, energy, education) his administration is engaging in a naked grab for unprecedented power and control.

FDR doesn’t even come close: the New Deal in inflation adjusted dollars cost an estimated $500 billion; Obama has spent or committed $12.8 TRILLION so far.

There is so much federal government money going to who-only-knows that it boggles the mind.

And Obama – who has already demonstrated that he is perfectly willing to abuse his power – is at it again.

The People’s Republic of California – like many other failed liberal utopias – is on the fast track to insolvency.  And you can bet that that outcome is going to be significantly expedited if the Obama administration follows through on its threat to cut off stimulus funding unless California does things the way Obama wants.

The state of California enacted measures in order to save $74 million, but state governments have apparently forfeited all sovereignty under Obama rule.

Reporting from Sacramento — The Obama administration is threatening to rescind billions of dollars in federal stimulus money if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers do not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers approved in February as part of the budget.

Schwarzenegger’s office was advised this week by federal health officials that the wage reduction, which will save California $74 million, violates provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Failure to revoke the scheduled wage cut before it takes effect July 1 could cost California $6.8 billion in stimulus money, according to state officials.

The news comes as state lawmakers are already facing a severe cash crisis, with the state at risk of running out of money in July.

The wages at issue involve workers who care for some 440,000 low-income disabled and elderly Californians. The workers, who collectively contribute millions of dollars in dues each month to the influential Service Employees International Union and the United Domestic Workers, will see the state’s contribution to their wages cut from a maximum of $12.10 per hour to a maximum of $10.10.

The SEIU said in a statement that it had asked the Obama administration for the ruling.

Now, the person with brain wave patterns above those of a corpse have to recognize that Obama – who has already literally given the previously privately-owned farm to UAW union members is imposing his will on California in order to reward the big labor movement that so rabidly supported him.

As a Senator Obama got on his moral high horse and preached one sermon after another about how Bush had violated executive power, and how he would be a president who “respected the law.” And he has already revealed that he is cut from the same cloth as Stalin: all he needed to show his true colors was the opportunity to seize control.

I’ve written about this before.  Just over one year ago I wrote on the subject of how postmodernism leads to fascism.  I said in part:

Already some postmodernist sects explicitly advocate and demand such measures; all they lack is the power to impose their will.

And now they are accumulating that power.

Democrats and liberals are postmodernists; and postmodernism contains all the underlying philosophical presuppositions essential for fascism to rear its monstrous head yet again.

Liberals are becoming flat-out fascists now, and that is “change” that you should always have “believed” would come if they accumulated enough power.

Just keep sitting around doing nothing, and keep watching your boob tube while your new Fuhrer takes away one thing after another that this nation always intended for the people to be able to choose for themselves.

How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism (part 1)

May 1, 2008

It is hard to talk to talk to people who believe that truth is relative. And there are more and more such people all the time.

C.S. Lewis described the fallacy of any theory that rejects the connection between thought and truth. In his book Miracles he said “All possible knowledge … depends on the validity of reasoning,” and developed his argument thus:

No account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, itself be demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved that no argument was sound – a proof that there are no such things as proofs – which is nonsense.

To disbelieve in truth is patently self-contradictory. To “believe” means to think that something is true; and to say, “It is true that nothing is true” is fundamentally meaningless nonsense. The very statement, “There is no absolute truth,” is a statement of absolute truth. In the past, this pseudo-intellectual exercise was little more than a parlor game for the vacuous and simply not taken seriously. But it is very serious today, indeed. Today these views are held not only by much of academia, but by the average man on the street.

The rejection of absolutes is not merely a fine point of philosophical debate. Relative values accompany the relativism of truth. Today, we are a morally velocitized culture. What was unthinkable decades ago is openly practiced today; and what is unthinkable today will surely be openly practiced within a few years’ time.

What we have today is not merely immoral behavior by virtually all previous standards of conduct, but an abandonment of moral criteria altogether. More, we have an abandonment of meaning itself; and so today, we look for meaning in ways that would have bewildered, saddened, and shocked our forefathers.

The intellect is being replaced by the will. Reason is being replaced by emotion (which is one reason our kids are falling so far behind in math and science, and why so many are so passionate about a political candidate whose positions they cannot even begin to articulate). Morality is replaced by relativism. Reality itself is becoming viewed as little more than a mere social construct that can be manipulated by language. It all depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.

Today, I frequently encounter people who hold mutually inconsistent ideas. I literally wonder how their heads do not explode from the contradictions they spout. It might simply be ignorance or confusion, but it really doesn’t matter: holding to mutually inconsistent ideas is a sure sign of believing that there is no such thing as absolute truth.

Where did all this come from?

Postmodernism as any form of coherent intellectual discipline largely developed from the field of literary criticism, especially from deconstructionism. So it is no surprise that postmodern scholars stress the importance of “contextualizing,” putting an author or an idea in the context of the times and showing its connections to all of the other “texts” that constituted the culture. But it turns out that one can deconstruct this deconstructionism to see where this thinking has been before, and where it will surely go again unless we turn away from these ideas. It is revealing, for instance, to contextualize Martin Heidegger, who originated the anti-humanism of both the academic theorists and the environmental movement that is so significant in the postmodernist academic circles of today. David Levin has written that Heidegger criticized humanism for tolerating totalitarianism. But Levin was quite disingenuous; the fact is, we now know that Martin Heidegger was a Nazi (see Victor Farias, Heidegger and Nazism, tr. Paul Burrell (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989), p. 253).

Heidegger’s active involvement in the Nazi party and his shameless promotion of its ideology puts a very different light on his rejection of the individual, his repudiation of traditional human values, and his glorification of nature and culture. We find that EVERY SINGLE ONE of these postmodernist concepts were central tenets of fascism. It should be no surprise that the deconstructionist critic Paul de Man has also been revealed as an apologist of Nazism (for the connection between Heidegger’s Nazi ideology and his philosophy, see Tom Rockmore, On Heidegger’s Nazism and Philosophy (Berkeley: U of California Press, 1992). The fact is, postmodernism as a philosophy shares the same underlying concepts as fascist thought.

Postmodernists of today and the fascist intellectuals of the 1930s BOTH embrace a radicalism based not so much on economics but on culture. They BOTH reject identity in favor of cultural determinism. They BOTH reject moral values in favor of the will to power. They BOTH reject reason in favor of irrational emotional release. They BOTH reject a transcendent God in favor of an impersonal, mystical nature.

In Gene Edward Veith’s book, Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, he discusses in detail fascist ideology, its intrinsic opposition to the biblical worldview, and its survival in contemporary culture and postmodernist thought. He demonstrates that the irrationalism, the cultural reductionism, and the anti-human values of the postmodernists have already been tried once, and the result was catastrophic. Fascism is coming back. Communism has fallen, but throughout the former Soviet empire democracy is opposed by a new alliance of ex-Marxists and nationalists, who are trying to forge a new National Socialism (witness Vladimir Putin’s shutting down a newspaper for publishing his secret divorce and remarriage to a young Russian gymnast). American academics see themselves as pro-Marxists (or neo-Marxist, or post-Marxists, or however they sell this utterly failed system to themselves), but their desire for a government controlled economy, their cultivated irrationalism, and their reduction of social issues to questions of culture and race are actually more similar to Mussolini (i.e. fascism) than to Marx. If Marxism is modern, fascism is postmodern. And, as per the title of another of Veith’s books on the subject, we are living in Postmodern Times.

In addition to Gene Edward Veith’s insightful works, a further excellent reference is the book The Seduction of Unreason: The Intellectual Romance with Fascism from Nietzsche to Postmodernism by Richard Wolin (whose study substantially agrees with this paper). A review of Wolin by George Crowder available online is also very much worth reading. Although Crowder disagrees with the conclusion that fascism is implicit in postmodernism, he nevertheless acknowledges that the philosophical premises between the two ideologies are virtually identical. There is a genuine interrelatedness between fascist and postmodernist thought that simply cannot be denied.

For all their earnest championing of the oppressed, and their politically correct sensitivities, postmodernist intellectuals, no doubt without realizing it, are actually resurrecting the ways of thinking that gave us World War II and the Holocaust. Perhaps the postmodernists think their good intentions will mitigate the implications of what they are saying. But intellectuals thought this once before, with terrifying consequences. David Hirsch has warned, “Purveyors of postmodernist ideologies must consider whether it is possible to diminish human beings in theory, without, at the same time, making individual human lives worthless in the real world.” Ideas have consequences.

The Tenets of Postmodernist Ideology and The Political Implications of Postmodernism (Understand that this is a presentation of what postmodernists believe and the corresponding implications of these beliefs):

  • Existentialism. Existentialism provides the rationale for contemporary postmodernism. Since everyone creates his or her own meaning, every meaning must be equally valid. Religion becomes merely a private affair, which must not be “imposed” on anyone else. The context of one’s meaning makes no difference, only the personal commitment – to give otherwise meaningless life some subjective degree of meaning. Jean Paul Sarte chose communism; Martin Heidegger chose Nazism; Rudolf Bultmann chose Christianity. Everyone inhabits his or her own private reality. Thus, “What’s true for you may not be true for me.” In today’s youth culture (and video/computer games are a classic example), we find a growing dark side to this existential subjectivism; we see a growing cynicism, pessimism, and dislike for reality as more and more people elect to create their own private realities and “tune out” to the world around them.
  • Moral Relativism. Moral values, like all other kinds of meaning, are created by the self. The best example of this existential ethic can be found in those who call themselves “pro-choice” in their advocacy of abortion. To them, it makes no difference what the woman decides, only that she makes an authentic choice (whether or not to have her baby). Whatever she chooses is right – for her. “Pro-choice” advocates are astonishingly disinterested in any objective information that might have a bearing on the morality of abortion or the status of the unborn. Data about fetal development, facts about the despicable ways abortion is performed, philosophical argumentation about the sanctity of life – all such objective evidences from the outside world are meaningless and can have no bearing on the woman’s private choice. As we can see in the “One child per family” policy of forced abortion in China, however, this view of individual choice cannot stand for long in a larger community that accepts the premises of abortion. Ultimately, as we shall see, one’s will must be subsumed into the will of the majority.
  • Social Constructivism. Meaning, morality, and truth do not exist objectively; rather, they are constructed by the society. The belief that reality is socially constructed is nothing less than the formula for totalitarianism [as David Horowitz pointed out in “The Queer Fellows,” American Spectator, January 1993, pp. 42-48. For a similar discussion applied to Hollywood values in K.L. Billingsley, The Seductive Image: A Christian Critique of the World of Film (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1989), pp. 112-113)]. Democracy presumes that individuals are free and self-directed. They are capable of governing themselves. But postmodernism holds that individuals are NOT free and in fact are directed by their societies. If the members of a society are passively and wholly controlled by societal forces, then self-governance would be impossible. Furthermore, if reality in fact is socially constructed, then the power of society and those who lead it becomes unlimited. We see this carried out to its logical extreme in Orwell’s 1984, in which the all-powerful state totally shaped the culture and controlled the very thoughts of the masses.
  • Cultural Determinism. Individuals are wholly shaped by cultural forces. Language in particular determines what we can think, trapping us in a “prison house of language.” Whereas Christian religion teaches that God constructs reality and creates man in His image to comprehend that reality, to see society as the creator (of reality) is to divinize culture. With these postmodern assumptions, every problem must have a societal solution, and nothing would escape the control of those who direct such a society. “Totalitarian” means that the state controls every sphere of life, which is exactly what postmodernism implicitly assumes in its presuppositions!
  • The Rejection of Individual Identity. People exist primarily as members of groups. The phenomenon of American individualism is itself a construction of American culture with its middle-class values of independence and introspection, but it remains an illusion. Identity is primarily collective. Postmodernism minimizes (even subsumes) the individual in favor of the group. This can only result in a collectivist mentality in which the claims of the individual are lost within the demands of the group. An ideology that that believes that personal liberty is an illusion can hardly be expected to uphold, allow, or tolerate human freedom. Subscribing to the former view ultimately must rule out the latter.
  • The Rejection of Humanism. Values that emphasize the creativity, autonomy, and priority of human beings are misplaced. There is no universal humanity since every culture constitutes its own reality. Traditional humanistic values are canons of exclusion, oppression, and crimes against the natural environment. Groups must empower themselves to assert their own values and to take their place with other [human as well as non-human] planetary species.
  • The Denial of the Transcendent. There are no absolutes. Even if there were, we would have no access to them since we are completely bound to our culture and imprisoned in our language. Moreover, excluding transcendent values places societies beyond constraints of moral limits. There is no God outside, above, or transcendent to society that holds a society accountable. Society is not subject to the moral law; it makes its own moral law.
  • Power Reductionism. All institutions, all human relationships, all moral values, and all human creations – from works of art to religious ideologies – are all expressions and masks of the primal will to power. If there are no absolutes, the society can presumably construct any values that it pleases and is itself subject to none. All such issues are only matters of power. Without moral absolutes, power becomes arbitrary.
  • The Rejection of Reason. Reason and the impulse to objectify truth are illusory masks for cultural power. Authenticity and fulfillment come from submerging the self into a larger group, releasing one’s natural impulses such as honest emotions and sexuality, cultivating subjectivity, and developing a radical openness to existence by refusing to impose order on one’s life. Since there is no ultimate basis for moral persuasion or rational argument, the side with the most power will win. Government becomes nothing more than the sheer exercise of unlimited power, restrained neither by law nor by reason. One group achieves its own will to power over the others. On the personal level, the rejection of all external absolutes in favor of subjectivity can mean the triumph of irrationalism, the eruption of raw emotion, and the imposition of terror.
  • A Revolutionary Critique of the Existing Order. Modern society with its rationalism, order, and unitary view of truth needs to be replaced by a new world order. Scientific knowledge reflects an outdated modernism, though the new electronic technology holds great promise. Segmentation of society into its constituent groups will allow for a true cultural pluralism. The old order must be swept away, to be replaced by a new, as yet undefined, mode of communal existence.

(Note: Although I do not provide citations, and my own ideas are interspersed throughout this paper, much of this three part series emerges directly from the influence of two works by Gene Edward Veith, Jr.: Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, and Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture. At some future time I intend to add page references. Veith’s penetrating analysis of culture needs to be considered as we enter into what are incresingly perilous times.)

See How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism (part 2)

How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism (part 3) is available here.