Thursday, March 20, 2008

The Herd of Independent Minds and Life at the Periphery of Nothing

I was doing the usual "morning rounds," checking in on the blogs I consider indispensable (most of which are in the sidebar), when I happened upon a brief reference at PowerLine to David Mamet's recent confession about his conversion from "brain-dead liberalism" to reality. "Mamet's rejection of 'brain-dead liberalism' is the rebellion of the thinking man against the herd of independent minds."

I guess the coffee hadn't yet flipped the on switch of the frontal lobes, because my first thought was, "hmm, typo. They must mean dependent minds," given the dreary uniformity of liberal thought.

But then the penny dropped and I came to my cents. "Oh, I get it. Duh." What an arresting phrase for an alert copper: The herd of independent minds. Who is responsible for this coining this pneumismatic little gem? After all, conservatism can't usually be reduced in the manner of the simplistic sentiments of Mamet's "brain-dead liberal," e.g. "War is Not the Answer," "One Nation, Under Surveillance," "Save A Planet -- Take A Bus," etc.

So I followed the link to Commentary Magazine, where I learned that Harold Rosenberg had published an article by that name in 1948. The abstract is pretty abstract, but it states that,

"THE basis of mass culture in all its forms is an experience recognized as common to many people. It is because millions are known to react in the same way to scenes of love or battle -- because certain colors or certain kinds of music will call up certain moods -- because assent or antagonism will inevitably be evoked by certain moral or political opinions -- that popular novels, movies, radio programs, magazines, advertisements, ideologies can be contrived. The more exactly he grasps, whether by instinct or through study, the existing element of sameness in people, the more successful is the mass-culture maker. Indeed, so deeply is he committed to the concept that men are alike that he may even fancy that there exists a kind of human dead center in which everyone is identical with everyone else, and that if he can hit that psychic bull's eye he can make all of mankind twitch at once. (The proposition, All men are alike replaces the proposition, All men are equal....)"

So, as early as 1948 -- way before I was born or even unborn -- Rosenberg had uncovered the mechanism of political correctness, the cognitive pressure system that makes leftists such intellectual lemmings and bullies. However, only by leaving the herd and undergoing gender reassignment, as did Mamet, can one clearly see all of the cultural pressures that were operating on one's mind, keeping it in crockstep with the others. Only when you go against the liberal groin are you aware of the constant friction and its attendant conformance anxiety. Being that I work in a very liberal profession and live in a very liberal area, I am never unaware of these annoying pressures in my dealings with the Conspiracy and the collectivist Pinks who would steal our precious Slack. You must indeed internalize their tribal ways, their cues, their sentiments, in order to "pass" as a Normal.

Rosenberg makes another critical point, that the so-called "alienation" of the neurotic artist -- who is generally just a complicated and self-deluded Normie posing as one of us true oddballs -- is one of the critical transmitters of mass-culture thinking. After all, who is shocked when a Sean Penn or Bruce Springsteen or some other entertainment yahoo expresses their hatred of President Bush and their support for Dennis Kucinich? We shouldn't be surprised at the soilidarity of such dirtbags.

But as Rosenberg notes, "the concept that the artist is 'alienated from reality' has little to support it either in the psychology of artists or in any metaphysics of art. As Thomas Mann said, it depends on who gets sick; the sickness of a Nietszche may bring him much closer to the truth of the situation, and in that sense be much more 'normal,' than the health of a thousand editorial writers."

Exactly. If art doesn't bring us closer to reality, what is it good for? Desecrating your prison walls, basically.

Which reminds me. I've been meaning to pimp this new Van Morrison collection, the reason being that it is a limited edition, plus it's the only thing close to a comprehensive, career-spanning collection of his work. The word "artist" has become so debased that it no longer conveys any useful meaning. It's like other words, such as "professor" or "judge" that used to inspire an automatic sense of respect, whereas now your first thought is likely to be that you are dealing with a moral idiot.

But Morrison is a true artist, and in fact, his soph-evidently transnatural music was instrumental... for once, no pun intended... in turning me around and putting me back on the right path when I rediscovered him in the mid-1980s. But that's a story for another post.

A quick google search of Rosenberg led to an editorial by Ruth Wisse, in which she too discusses the abject conformity of the academic left, a grazing multitude of rebellious sheep if ever there was one, all somehow bleating in unison while fleecing the parents who pay through the nose to have their children indoctrinated with wooly leftist ideas:

"The Federal Election Commission could not have foreseen that when it required employment information on political donations of over $200, it would expose scandalous uniformity in a university community that advertises its diversity. The Sacramento Bee reported that the University of California system gave more to the Kerry campaign than any other single employee group, and that Harvard was second, with only 15,000 employees to UC's 160,000. A blogger computed the percentages of Kerry contributions over Bush: Cornell 93%, Dartmouth 97%, Yale 93%, Brown 89%.

"Personally, I greatly enjoy being in the conservative opposition. My colleagues are cordial, and since I'm not looking for promotions I willingly sustain an occasional snub for the greater advantage of being able to speak my mind. Students making the transition from liberal to conservative are often wounded by their first exposure to the contempt that greets their support for the war in Iraq or opposition to abortion or whatever else separates them from the liberal campus. I suggest to them that, as opposed to living in constant terror of offending some received idea, they relish their freedom of expression. The self-acknowledged conservative never experiences intellectual constraint." Exactly. You can think what you want, outside the narrow dictates of PC.

In a piece called Mass Man and Totalitarianism, Roger Kimball touches on today's topic. He makes reference to the "admonitory parallels between the mass men of the past, who proved such pliable fodder for the totalitarian ambitions of the twentieth century, and the mass men of today, that 'susceptible' creature who 'is fundamentally ignorant, though remarkably 'well informed.'” "Mass man’s inertia accepts the dictates of bureaucracy. He has no 'great idea' or 'faith' to guard him against expedient compromise, or participation in genocide.” He quotes J.R. Nyquist, who writes that

“Once upon a time we had a civilization. We had standards. We had notions of objectivity. We had a culture that wasn’t low-minded. We looked back to great men as we looked forward to our posterity. Art was beautiful and meaningful. Politics was evolving away from tyranny. Economics was about liberty and responsibility. What do we have today? .... Subjectivity has cynically declared that objectivity is impossible. Everything high-minded has fallen to neglect.

"But more important, and even more disastrous, the emergence of 'mass man' has something to do with the emergence of totalitarianism (which claimed roughly 100 million lives in the last century). And it is safe to say that totalitarianism is going to claim even more lives in the future. But people don’t want to wake up. They don’t want to acknowledge that totalitarianism is something real and ongoing. It grows in the soil of mass culture. It leads to destruction and mass murder because every totalitarian construct is based on lies, sustained by crime and driven by the politicization of personal disappointment and envy" (Nyquist). Someone ought to write a book on liberal fascism....

Now, how does this all relate to the whole existentialada? What's the cosmic significance of today's post? In this regard, Schuon had a number of typically acute observations. For example he notes that "progressivism is the wish to eliminate effects without wishing to eliminate their causes; it is the wish to eliminate calamities without realizing that they are nothing other than what man himself is."

Furtherless, progressives wish "to achieve a perfect man outside the truths which give the human phenomenon all its meaning." The leftist tries "to reform the world without having either the will or the power to reform man, and this flagrant contradiction, this attempt to make a better world on the basis of a worsened humanity, can only end in the very abolition of what is human, and consequently in the abolition of happiness too."

No, "the collectivity could not be the aim and reason for being of the individual, but on the contrary... it is the individual in his solitary station before the Absolute and thus by the exercise of his highest function, who is the aim and reason for being of the collectivity."

Or, put it this way: "One of two things must be true: either it is possible to save others, or it is impossible to do so; if it is possible, this implies that we first seek our personal salvation, otherwise saving others is impossible, precisely." But the typical leftist embarks on a mission of "saving" others before he can even govern, much less save, his own soul. The self-hypnotizing obamantra is "change," but never of the one chanting it. No, they're beautiful just as they are. It's the rest of us who will have to change to suit their need for reality to conform to their infantile wishes.

To paraphrase Schuon, such individuals live on the fringes of their own being, and spend their lives giving blood to phantoms. If it were only their blood, I suppose we could live with the phantoms.

41 Comments:

Anonymous hoarhey said...

." But the typical leftist embarks on a mission of "saving" others before he can even govern, much less save, his own soul."

Thinking that the "transformation" of external circumstances is the key to his own happiness, not realizing (or maybe he does realize but wills his revenge to the destruction of all) that he is ushering in hell on earth.

3/20/2008 09:45:00 AM  
Anonymous will said...

>>"One of two things must be true: either it is possible to save others, or it is impossible to do so; if it is possible, this implies that we first seek our personal salvation, otherwise saving others is impossible, precisely<<

The late, great WF Buckley once said that he regarded his personal relationships, his family and acquaintances, as the arena of his salvation, the quality of which was the arena where he would eventually be judged in life - not, as many might think, in the area of his considerable political influence.

WFB was known for his personal kindnesses, which extended to those who politically disagreed with him.

Contrast this with the often piggish personal behavior of those who favor "phone-in" morality, ie., those who "love *the people* but don't care much for people.

Woody Guthrie comes to mind as an archetypal example. Personally callous, egotistical, overbearing, manipulative uncaring of his family . . . his musical contribution was great, let us admit, and that does count for something, but in the most important area of his life, he failed spectacularly.

3/20/2008 10:27:00 AM  
Anonymous Johan said...

"One of two things must be true: either it is possible to save others, or it is impossible to do so; if it is possible, this implies that we first seek our personal salvation, otherwise saving others is impossible, precisely."

Everybody who has ever been on an aeroplane should understand this. This is what they tell you before take off, in the safety onboard instructions.

"in case of emergency and a pressure fall in the cabin, oxygen masks will emerge"
...
"Before helping children and fellow travelers, put on your own mask, and breath normally."
...
"Thanks for listening and have a nice flight."

I guess, most people don't pay enough attention to those safety demonstrations anymore... They think they know everything, or they are told that there is nothing more know, already and don't have the need to listen to that boring story again.

"Anyway nothing bad will happen, we live in a modern world with science, right? And if it, God forbid (oops did I say G-word? But I don't belive...) does anyway, I'm sure the Government will take care of it somehow."

/Johan, the Swede from Cosmos

3/20/2008 10:46:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Before helping children and fellow travelers, put on your own mask, and breath normally.

I'd make that a permanent rotating title, if I knew how!

3/20/2008 10:49:00 AM  
Anonymous Johan said...

Arrrgh, typos...

"They think they know everything already, or they are told that there is nothing more to know, and don't have the need to listen to that boring story again."

3/20/2008 10:51:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"progressivism is the wish to eliminate effects without wishing to eliminate their causes; it is the wish to eliminate calamities without realizing that they are nothing other than what man himself is."

And the wish to use high sounding words (Freedom, Liberty, Happiness), without any concern for their meaning, to 'love' those words, just as they 'love' humanity, while destroying them with their actions.

"The self-hypnotizing obamantra is "change," but never of the one chanting it. No, they're beautiful just as they are. It's the rest of us who will have to change to suit their need for reality to conform to their infantile wishes. "

The rest of us will have to change, we will have to stop carrying politeness to the point of cultural suicide, and (politely, sure...) firmly call them on their comments and jokes. Ask them to back them up, ask them to clear up the contradictions. They can only try to change us if we let them, and who knows, if that option stops being such an easy one... maybe they'll look to themselves for a change (no, I don't want a snowball autographed by lucifer, thanks anyway).

3/20/2008 11:10:00 AM  
Blogger QP said...

The self-hypnotizing obamantra is "change," but never of the one chanting it.

Excellent essay at American Thinker today exposes the mind parasite fueling the Pied Piper and his sheep.

3/20/2008 11:31:00 AM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

That is a great essay. If you think you're owed, you're still owned. By white Democrats.

3/20/2008 11:36:00 AM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

Thanks for the link gp.
I hadn't been to American Thinker in awhile and there are a series of excellent articles on race in America there. Not just spelling out the problems but offering the obvious solutions.

3/20/2008 01:50:00 PM  
Blogger Robin Starfish said...

Another voice of reason from the LA Times as well as NPR (life has its little surprises). Michael Meyers, a classical civil rights voice, calls out Obama for the great disservice he is doing to his constituency. His participation on Talk of the Nation, although short, was outstanding.

3/20/2008 02:25:00 PM  
Blogger walt said...

An ABC News story refers to Obama's "eloquence" in his speech about race in America.

Ron Coleman remarks, "It is rather ironic how the definition of eloquence has devolved. It once meant a talent for powerfully, persuasively and elegantly communicating ideas. Now it is used to describe the use of pretty language to obscure meaning."

3/20/2008 03:38:00 PM  
Anonymous Rickdog said...

WAKE UP AMERICA! Chimpy McSmirkster Wants To Take Your Home!!!

3/20/2008 08:06:00 PM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

Rickdog,
You really ought to do something about those spastic BDS attacts you've been getting lately.

3/20/2008 08:29:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

woof

3/20/2008 08:56:00 PM  
Blogger Jim said...

Coons don't go to RD's site, you'll need decontamination scrub down.

I'm headed for the rain locker, sheesh that was nasty.

3/20/2008 09:00:00 PM  
Blogger rickdog said...

Just as I expected, you delete my critical post and replace it with a fake piece. You won't tolerate critism, a typical authoritarian (read totalitarian) reaction. You and your kind are destined for the dust-heaps of history, the proof is in the pudding - 7 years of Bush and his fellow neo-cons have brought us to where we are now. It's a shame that you've taken us all down with you, but enlightened progressive leadership will surely repair the damage that you've done.
BTW: I grew up with James Lileks in Fargo ND, he's the most intolerable piss-ant that I've ever met.

3/20/2008 11:18:00 PM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

"enlightened progressive leadership"

oxy you moron

3/21/2008 12:13:00 AM  
Anonymous walmart shopper said...

Just as I expected, you delete my critical post and replace it with a fake piece.

Think of it as edited for brevity. He has distilled you.

3/21/2008 03:32:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

dog said ""

Saw your original post. Saw your site (take Jim's advice folks). Your (dumb as a) post, as with your delight in showing pictures of woman who've made a claim to fame through their beauty, next to pictures of those moments they'd consider their worst, that, your thoughts and you, are vile.

"... I grew up..." (please, no more lies) "...he's the most intolerable piss-ant that I've ever met..."

I'll bet you find yourself having that reaction to a lot of people. And I'm sure that most of those people have the same reaction as we do to your missing post - you enhance a place with your absence.

3/21/2008 05:31:00 AM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

Rickdog obviously didn't grow up with Lileks. Or anyone else, for that matter.

3/21/2008 05:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree the dems are leftist. But what about corporate welfare, subsidies, and no child left behind programs? The "right" has an incredibly long history of drinking at the government treasure trove of taxpayer dollars. Many of them, to put it quite bluntly, lie about being conservative and for a free market.
This is not a criticism of the "corporation", but of corporatism, which is a hallmark of fascism, whether from the "left" or the "right", as these are simply words to describe nothing in this country.
Yes, Obama and Clinton are leftists. Bush and McCain are leftist as well.

3/21/2008 08:25:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

There's nothin' quite as pathetic (nor as deserving of a good kick in the ass) as a rot-whiner mutt.

Unfortunately, like his pal, old yella, these particular broods are untrainable.

The crap in the house, and bark at the hands that feed them.
IOW's, they are not only worthless, they make everything around them worthless.

Equal worthlessness for all.
A bone in every pot(head).
These dogs return to their same vomit.

3/21/2008 10:23:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Excellent analogy, Johan! :^)

3/21/2008 10:24:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Will said:
"Contrast this with the often piggish personal behavior of those who favor "phone-in" morality, ie., those who "love *the people* but don't care much for people."

Aye! WFB was noble, decent, courteous...you don't see those qualities among lefties, or if you do, it's shallow and inconsistent, and only for the purpose of getting what they want.

3/21/2008 10:27:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Anonymous said "Bush and McCain are leftist as well."

Leftist thought is nothing but relabeled Progressivism. Progressivism was a popular philosophy long before it became so identified with the Democrat party. Teddy Roosevelt (R), was a Progressive, as was his rival, Woodrow Wilson (D). Teddy floated the trial balloon for nearly every program that FDR later implemented, and Wilson attempted to practice what he preached, so much so, that afterwards the Progressives were running for the hills from their name, and began to take the name they formerly ridiculed, 'Liberal'.

By this time, the Conservatives realized that the Progressives ideas were incompatible with the Classical Liberalism they cherished and sought to conserve. Most left the Republican party for the Democrat party, and vice versa - those Classical Liberal 'Liberals' among the Democrat party, realized that the new dominance of Progressivism, contradicted the Liberalism they cherished.

That was the process whereby the Democrats became Leftists, and the Republicans became conservative Classical Liberals, rather than just traditionalists.

Unfortunately, after 16 years of drubbing by FDR & his policies, the Republicans as a party, decided to sign on to some 'me too'isms, which has been growing over the years. The Conservatives from time to time succeed in reminding them that such leftist policies as corporate welfare are deeply at odds with the philosophy they supposedly represent.

"Bush and McCain are leftist as well."True enough - but to a lessor degree than the alternative.

Still though, the Republicans are far less infected with proregressive leftism, than the Democrats, who are eaten up with it. Also fun to note, that now that the Dem's have again dishonored their label, this time that of 'liberal', most when pressed to identify themselves, like billary, say they are 'progressives'.

The more things change....

3/21/2008 11:13:00 AM  
Blogger rickdog said...

Say Van, can you expouse on the benifits that we, as a country, have gained during the last 7 years of conservative rule? I'm interested in knowing your spin on the shape we're in. As I said the proof is in the pudding and again conservatism has shown itself to be a miserable failure.

And ximize, you show your and your cohorts true colors with your ad hominem attack. Oxy moron, indeed. But this is something that I expected from mouth-breathers.

3/21/2008 11:27:00 AM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

Gotcha

3/21/2008 11:53:00 AM  
Anonymous spell checker said...

Say Van, can you expouse on the benifits that we, as a country, have gained during the last 7 years of conservative rule?

You might want to decide whether the word you want is "expose" or "expound"--"expouse" sounds like what Hillary might like to do to Bill, for example. Also, the word is "benefits." You really should know it by heart if you're an American leftist.

The one benefit that overshadows all others, to my way of thinking: since Bush made the decision to oppose, fight and defeat Islamist terrorists, we haven't had another 9/11. This one super-benefit has allowed other benefits to obtain, too numerous to mention.

I apologize to regular readers, for whom this super-benefit is so blatantly obvious it is equivalent to stating that human beings breathe air (preferably through the nose) to live, but it's clear that most of Bob's essays are far beyond the ken of our canine guests.

3/21/2008 03:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, but we did have 9/11 on Bush's watch, and, buddy, that was one miserable defense failure from beginning to end. No fighter planes ever made it to the skies in time; the president was incognito; the vice president was incognito; the secdef was incognito; the acting joint chiefs head was in a meeting with a Democrat. Meanwhile, four planes were hijacked, including the Pentagon. None of them ever had to account for their behavior. Free pass.
In any case, stopping terrorism is hardly conservative. Putin stops terroists, too.

3/21/2008 04:18:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

aninnymouse said "...No fighter planes ever made it to the skies in time..."

Wow. That's a lot of stupid crammed into one little comment. Well done. Might want to look into the meaning of 'Surprise' attack. Perhaps Pearl Harbor would be a good place to start your research (you might even find a few fellow nutjobs who think chimpy McFDR was involved - imagine the amazing 'interesting links' you'll be able to find!).

"In any case, stopping terrorism is hardly conservative. Putin stops terroists, too."

What we can perhaps say, is that stopping terrorism is hardly dhimicrat - for reference see actions and statements of Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, Obama - pretty much the only Man in the party, left and became an Independent.

3/21/2008 05:29:00 PM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

"we haven't had another 9/11. This one super-benefit"

Checker, how true. And how quickly we forget what we all feared at the time.

Have to wonder about the ages of these know-it-all aninnies. It's been 6.5 years. Just how old were they when the event happened? They mouth-off & it's clear they lack context & are mimicking things they've heard elsewhere.

How sadly uninformed they tend to be. Scary thing is: they most likely are of age to vote.

3/21/2008 06:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Van,
You should ask The CIA director how many times he told Bush that an attack was imminent. Again, free pass.
Curiously, FDR was a Democrat, and a terrible one at that. Indeed, we've never had a more "leftist" president, except maybe Johnson. Both, however, were very tough against America's enemies, which proves my point.
If Gore had been president when 9/11 happened, the "conservatives" like yourself would have been constantly blaming him--and rightly so. Again, just look into what the leader actually DID that day. I am not suggesting they were behind it, I am simply saying that at the time we were being attacked, they did, by their own admission, quite literally, nothing.
Yes, it was a surprise until about 9:00 AM (actually, more like 8:30, but we'll give them the benefit of the doubt). The Pentagon was hit at around 10:00. Still, no fighters even close. In other words, they were unprepared, unimaginative (as they all say), and immobilized. At least at Pearl Harbor there was a response.
Still, since the attackers were primarily from Saudi Arabia, we did take it to them....oh, wait, we just sold them weapons, didn't we? And we hold their royal hands, don't we. Oh, well, thank God for the "conservatives" who protect us! Makes me wish for FDR and Johnson again!

3/21/2008 09:47:00 PM  
Anonymous marimoishe said...

Yes, it was a surprise until about 9:00 AM (actually, more like 8:30, but we'll give them the benefit of the doubt). The Pentagon was hit at around 10:00. Still, no fighters even close.

Oh.

Ohoh.

Ohohohohohoho!

Oh, that is rich. You "progressives" get a sword that cuts both ways with this one. Since fighters weren't "even close" to handle the problem, you get to whine and bitch about that issue.

But let's imagine that the Bush administration had been as proactive with the Air Force as you obviously wish they were. Let's just imagine what it would have been like on 9/11 if Bush had ordered F-16s into the sky to shoot down multiple commercial flights with American citizens on board, in cold blood. I can hear the progressives baying for Bush's blood over that one, all the way from this timeline.

Don't spew any more crap about how Bush should have used military force to "stop" 9/11 in progress. You would have second-guessed, censured, and hated his administration even more if he'd done what you apparently wanted him to do.

3/22/2008 12:01:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

mariwhatever,
I'm neither progessive nor a Bush "hater". I do know how to read, though. Planes were in the area.
I would not have hated Bush at all, in fact. But, according to his own account, he knew nothing of the plane heading towards the Pentagon until it was hit. Oddly enough, neither did Rumsfeld, who was actually there, somewhere, though he can't remember. Somehow, though, Norman Mineta was fully informed of the plane at least 30 miles out.
I recommend you look into it. You will see, in fact, as the world now knows, we are actually defenseless against an air strike.
Pretend conservatives like Bush get a free pass. Always will. Just like the Dems gave Clinton a free pass. Herds.

3/22/2008 06:55:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

aninnymouse said "I'm neither progessive nor a Bush "hater""

Cynic, Skeptic, Progressive, whatever. You obviously possess a far seeing rear view wisdom which humbles and astounds us with your ability to put the pieces together and discover the hidden truth of conspiratorial plots and incompetence. How Bush got away with it all without even an investigating commission on 911 and report about it, probably even could have staffed it with some hyper leftie Bush haters and scored some political points against chimpy... maybe, had they had your suspicions, they could have called it something like the "911 Commission Report"... nyah... too derivative.

"I do know how to read, though"

Truly, your list of accomplishments and talents are stupefying. Intriguing to wonder what you'll be able to tell us about tomorrow, seven years later.

I can wait.

3/22/2008 10:56:00 AM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

Hey Van: Lookit!

Typical Progressive Voter now on Youtube

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?
v=mmVaLp8icoU

3/22/2008 11:40:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Van,
You might consider reading Kean and Hamilton's book on the commssion, and how many aspects of it were a sham. I know you think such things are "cynical", as the truth sometimes appears to be. I am neither cynical nor progressive. Conservatives often do appear to be cynical because they are skeptics about the untried and untrue. The Founders knew all too well about the temptations of power to decieve.
Nonetheless, you seem to protest too much as I never even suggestd that Bush had anything to do with 9-11. I am suggesting he failed to do anything about it either prior, or while it was going on, and this, oddly enough, I got from reading the Commission report, all by his own admission. He hung out in a Florida school and then flew away, without, again, according to his own testimony, a conversation with anyone about what to do. If that is cynical, it isn't my fault, it is his. Again, free pass. I'll bet you would be cynical if Gore were president.
In fact, I'll bet you were one who might have thought that Clinton bombed that pharmaceutical plant during the "Lewinsky" scandel to keep the press occupied on someone else. Was that cynical or just understanding your leftist president? To understand the truth of things, wherever it may lead is not cynical, even if it is unpleasant. To speak it is also not cynical, though you do seem to find it unpleasant.

3/22/2008 01:14:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

You won't find me making any arguments, that any president over the last 50 years, starting with Eisenhower, responded as they should have in what has led up to our current islambie conflict.

I think, and thought at the time, for clearly obvious reasons, that the 911 commission was mostly a joke, that doesn't take cynicism, that just takes seeing the information, how it was spun and demagogued Right and Left - and what was completely ignored; including Saudi's, etc.

They represent the level of thinking in the world we find ourselves in.

I don't necessarily support the strategy and tactics of the current military actions, most of which I find anemic at best, but I grasp that there at least is action occurring, and that at least in spirit it is pro-American and Western, and I hold on to that for dear life.

The politicians in power, left and right, agree that our Rights and Property are their's for the taking, they differ only on to what degree. Neither party believes that those who threaten us should be utterly and completely destroyed. I don't have the options of voting for a party that is in agreement with me, let alone a single candidate. Pure reality and fact. My available option is to support those who at least tilt towards what I see as being the right thing to do - surveying the options - that leaves me with the republicans, currently led by Bush.

I have no need to give him or any of them a 'pass' - in most areas they fail the test to begin with - however, where they do catch on, and to the extent that they do what is necessary, in however much they do do it, while they are the ones who grasp that most, they will get my support. The other option is suicidal - by fast working poison, versus slow working poison. By choosing the slow working poison of the republicans, there is a slim chance of surviving long enough for an actual antidote to surface.

Your comments do not seem to reflect any such considerations. The impression given off by your statements and choice of words, and manner in blurting them unsupported and out of context, can be summed up as: "Bush & Co. are lazy incompetent boobs and you all support them because you are brainwashed dupes. Wake up and be smart like me, you stupid lemmings. There are no good guys or bad guys, just foolish conservatives and smart leftists."

I don't believe they are fools, and I don't believe they were willingly negligent, and I don't believe they are knowingly selling us out to protect their interests. I believe they are representative of a degraded philosophy (that of Classical Liberalism whose high point was with the Founders), and that degraded as the conservatives grasp of those philosophical issues and ability to act on them are, I also believe they believe they are doing what they see, still shaded by the old Classical Liberalism, as right. The leftists philosophical grasp is beyond degraded, they are corrupted, and in many cases willingly so and reveling in it - as is the inevitable result of believing in that which has corrupted it - the Rousseauian branch of the Enlightenment thinking.

That makes the Conservatives, infirm as they may be, my allies and feeble friends, and the leftists dissolute and corrupt as they've chosen to become, and continue so - in no way my allies or friends.

I take no pleasure in my evaluation, and I would not choose to enter a leftist arena and espouse or chortle it (or a National Review style site either). I will and do reply and engage leftists thoughts as they are raised or assumed in daily life, but that is merely judicious response to a veiled threat.

Your actions, comments and manner however, intentional or not, in choosing to enter here in this manner, is nothing short of ill-mannered. There are plenty of ways you could have raised your 'issues' in a civil and productive manner - you chose not to.

And that, by implication, puts you in the camp of cretins and fools. If that is wrong, you can change it fairly easily by changing your manner and tactics, you don't need to alter or betray your judgments of the competence or ideals of conservatives at all, a discussion can be had on the issues, but not in your manner, and my guess is that you won't alter it.

Care to prove me wrong?

3/22/2008 03:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Van,
As this is not your blog, I was actually not commenting to you, but to the author of the blog. In any case, you responded to me thusly: "Wow. That's a lot of stupid crammed into one little comment. Well done". My initial comment certainly had nothing ill-mannered about it, and certainly nothing directed toward you. So, I did not come into this discussion in any framework other than you, and this is how you responded to me. And then, someone named mariamoishe said to me: "Oh.

Ohoh.

Ohohohohohoho!

Oh, that is rich. You "progressives" get a sword that cuts both ways with this one. Since fighters weren't "even close" to handle the problem, you get to whine and bitch about that issue."

So, my ideas may be wrong, or ill-considered, but I believe you, at best, are reading me wrong. I never said anyone here was stupid. Nonetheless, it occurs to me that some people, even me, may see certain things that others do not, and that these others, in the interest of the truth, might be interested in that. Indeed that is why I enjoy this blog, even though I don't agree politically with its author very often. Moreover, I am inclined, in this case to comment because I find he uses the term "conservative" far too loosely, and this is the jist of my meanings.
In any case, humility requires regular apology for even unintended offences, for which I readily offer mine to you, with all my best wishes.

3/22/2008 09:07:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Anonymous,

Perhaps in habit I associate Anonymous with aninnymouse too much and expect the same.

By your last comment, I'll assume I misunderstood the intent of your initial one and apologize for assuming insult where there was but disagreement.

(Get a comment nic!)

;-)

3/22/2008 10:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But the typical leftist embarks on a mission of "saving" others before he can even govern, much less save, his own soul.

Something I heard from a radio preacher some 30 years ago:

"All these Activists with their Great Plans to Remake the World, and they can't even control their own masturbating!"

Contrast this with the often piggish personal behavior of those who favor "phone-in" morality, ie., those who "love *the people* but don't care much for people. -- Will

"...where I learned with little labor
The way to Love My Fellow Man
And hate my next-door neighbor."
-- G.K.Chesterton

3/27/2008 10:34:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home