Monday, August 10, 2009

When Infants Attack! On Reality and its Adversaries

I only have time for a speed post, if that. But my day doesn't feel complete if I don't write something. For me, it's more than just blah-blah-blogging. It's my primary verticalisthenic exercise.

Oddly, having a readership is important, even though this is primarily between me and O. I haven't formulated the exact dynamics of it, but there must be some sort of trinitarian aspect to it. In the absence of community, the verticalisthenics might devolve into a kind of binary narcissism. The sharing is intrinsic to the experience. It must be given away immediately. Or inflicted, depending upon where you stand.

It is also interesting that I have devoted readers for whom I do not write and who cannot benefit from my writing, since it either doesn't penetrate them or bounces off their opaque psychic substance -- for which they then blame me. You will have noticed that our trolls are always angry and even bitter. It's odd. They habitually seek me out in order to misunderstand my message so they can nurture their misplaced anger toward me. A psychologist would call this "madness."

I am always drawn to light and to depth, irrespective of the source. It's like a cold animal being drawn toward heat. As I've mentioned before, doing so can pretty much constitute the Raccoon path. Just follow the light and the depth and let the rest take care of itself. To a large extent you can't do anything else anyway, any more than you can make your muscles bigger by thinking about them. Rather, in the latter case, all you can do is engage in the conditions that will allow your muscles to grow. In short, you just lift weights and the muscles will automatically grow without you having to think about them.

Truly, spiritual growth is something that happens while you're busy doing other things, mainly just living. But living in a certain way. Once you turn around and orient yourself to O, then everything becomes an occasion for growth. But the growth is "microscopic," so to speak, until a certain threshold is reached, somewhat like filling a cup with water. The cup is either filling up or overflowing, even though you haven't changed your behavior. One day you just notice water all over the floor.

Schuon writes that the Christian way is essentially a "way of Grace," i.e., (↓). However, (↓) has an "outer" aspect and an inner one; the former is much more general, propagating itself "in the largest measure possible" -- even, I might add, to those who are not aware of its operation. If God's grace were to stop for one second, we would be reduced to animals. Atheists should be careful what they wish for, because in the absence of grace, everyone would look like Bill Maher, or Keith Olbermann, or goddinpotty -- and that's on a good day!

In other words, even a disreputable lowlife such as Bill Maher is the unwitting recipient of a kind of "residual grace" that infuses Christendom. In his own perverse way, he does care about truth and decency, except that in his inverted world the good becomes bad and Truth becomes the lie. If your world is fundamentally inverted, extra effort will only result in taking one further from the Source. Is this not obvious?

This is why there is no necessary relationship between intelligence and wisdom, and often an inverse one. If intelligence is not in service to a Truth that is anterior to it, you end up with -- obviously examples abound, but let's say Paul Krugman. One can assume Krugman has a higher than average IQ, but it is in such total service to an a priori Lie, that the result is indistinguishable from severe mental illness.

No, I am not attempting to diagnose an individual from a distance without examining him. But if I were treating such an individual, naturally I would not fail to notice his distortion of reality. Such distortion may superficially appear "passive" -- as if he has simply overlooked something -- when it is usually quite active, the result of an unconscious "attack on linking," as Bion called it. Such attacks are actually quite ferocious, but since they are unconscious, the person doesn't realize the extent of their rage. Picture a dog violently shaking something in its jaws. It's like that.

And why are they so enraged? Again, we can only speak in generalities, but it usually has something to do with the failure of reality to comport with infantile fantasy. Naturally this is something with which we all have to deal, and to which we must all reconcile ourselves. We all harbor "traces of omnipotence" resulting from our primary identification with the Great Mother. No matter who you are, irrespective of time or place, this is the land from which all humans have journeyed -- either successfully or not.

Infantile omnipotence is only given up reluctantly (even while there is a parallel drive toward autonomy and individuation). All perceptive parents are aware of this. I certainly see it in my four year-old, and it's a fascinating thing to behold. One of the important tasks of parenthood is to ease this transition, to not make it too abrupt on the one hand, or to overly indulge the child on the other hand. This is what the great psychoanalytic theorist D.W. Winnicott called "good enough parenting." The child must be "let down easy," so to speak. Err on one side and the child is traumatized by reality; err on the other side and he will be unable to face it.

The consequences of failure to properly individuate are increasingly well understood, not just by attachment theorists (who primarily rely upon infant-mother observation), but by developmental neuro-psychoanalysts such as Alan Schore (difficult) or Dan Siegel (easy).

I realize this will sound disingenuous to some, but I'm really not trying to "pathologize" my ideological adversaries. Rather, as I have discussed in the past, I'm simply operating from a developmental model that has a certain idea of what constitutes a healthy human being. Not only will certain systems facilitate or retard human development, but people will generally attempt to construct a system that reflects their level of development. This is why we say that "cultural space" is the instantiation of developmental time.

We just have two irreconcilable visions of the source and destiny of Man, that's all. Bygones!

Oops. Out of time. good DAY!

50 Comments:

Anonymous Northern Bandit said...

Off-topic question:

Which of the following countries has the highest corporate income tax rate (i.e., least-friendly to free-market enterprise):

1. Sweden
2. Slovak Republic
3. United States
4. Mexico
5. United Kingdom

A: US already has the highest taxes of ALL Western nations with the exception of Japan. This is before the current vandals really take an ax to the US economy over the next 4-5 years. Japan is STILL mired in a decade-long slump because of this and numerous other Obamaesque mistakes.

8/10/2009 08:10:00 AM  
Anonymous Northern Bandit said...

Some will maintain that effective tax rates are markedly lower. This is true, however it is part of the problem. Doing battle with the byzantine tax code consumes billions upon billions of non-productive hours.

8/10/2009 08:16:00 AM  
Anonymous Wonka said...

I am always drawn to light and to depth, irrespective of the source. It's like a cold animal being drawn toward heat

So shines a good deed in a weary world...

8/10/2009 08:35:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great Post, Bob. I enjoy reading your verticalesthentics daily. I've been reading since 2007 or perhaps even earlier.

However, it is true I am a troll. And I disagree (surprise, surprise) with your comment:

"You will have noticed that our trolls are always angry and even bitter. It's odd. They habitually seek me out in order to misunderstand my message so they can nurture their misplaced anger toward me."

However, I am not angry or bitter. And I do not misunderstand your message. I absorb influence and ideas from you like a sponge, and then put them into action.

I habitually seek you out because I love you. You are unto me like an illustrious grandson. I believe in your work and feel you are a good influence and bring increased light into the world, and into my consciousness.

However, like some grandparents with their beloved children, I wince at some of your notions, and so I come across as critical. I feel inclined to be a "troll" because of a feeling that you like/thrive on/react to opposition. Others praise you, so I take the opposite tack but it is not becaue I misunderstand your work. It is because as good and as brilliant as you are, you are not yet free. Towards that freedom you are headed, and when i percieve you are turned in a wrong direction, I nudge.

So you might ask, who am I to stand in judgment? I do arrogate unto myself the right to criticize others, but I have good reasons for allowing the mantle of this responsibility to sit upon my shoulders.

I understand narcissism, mind parasites, subconsious emotional forces, ego maneuvers, compulsions, and have examined myself for unsavory motives in every category of human vice, and have concluded my motives are clean. I only want the best outcome for all people. My motive is love.

8/10/2009 09:08:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Not only will certain systems facilitate or retard human development, but people will generally attempt to construct a system that reflects their level of development.

Over the weekend, DH made an observation to some friends that there's a very simple way to get rid of a guilty conscience: go to law school.

I've been pondering it all weekend, because I think there's more than a little truth in that statement. (And please bear in mind that I'm basically just a fly on the wall here, so take these observations for what they're worth.)

Whether the culture of law simply draws people to it who prefer their intelligence separated from a higher truth, or whether the higher truth simply gets suffocated by the culture of the profession is unclear. Maybe it's a combination of the two. Most of the lawyers we know are "good" people by any secular standard (they're in a unique and very specialized field, in which diplomacy skills are vital. Ergo, fewer assholes). They are also mostly intelligent types.

It occurred to me this morning that, among the professionals we know, shame and guilt seem to come not so much from what they've done as from what other people think about what they've done. More broadly, we see this with politicians and celebrities, too. (Other people's) perception is (their) reality. In such a culture, faith and Truth are often an inconvenience, serving to get in the way of their success and their immediate pleasures. I've seen a lot of hostility towards religion amongst that group, even with those who profess a particular faith.

8/10/2009 09:10:00 AM  
Anonymous Abdul said...

Therefore, if the author has a problem with something, it considers very totally to be with the intelligent period and; but people don't is obvious in the agreement, so that it writes, the objections are disturbed that and bitterly and can't understand, what says. It is not sincere, false and complete. This man explains of another one to the truth of the torsion and with the offer and its students elimination he you another's ego in his one supernatural, of that, not exists, of religion to consider not exactly old, of what inexplicable it would want not to explain and who people determined, religious is in the agreement this like - the defect? At the most, what to lose could have been useless? If I they them capacities, could possibly be we in the love. That leaves the starting in still is behind. Tests to have the beauty not to write for the attack the liberal ones that the hour finds out possibly consider it then in their possibilities with the length after the inoperative, of what it does not exist, of the article better, Abdul

8/10/2009 09:21:00 AM  
Anonymous Gazriel said...

Bob said..."Truly, spiritual growth is something that happens while you're busy doing other things, mainly just living. But living in a certain way. Once you turn around and orient yourself to O, then everything becomes an occasion for growth."

Absolutely my experience, but with the Descent of Energy into my person my idea of what living is has shifted. What I used to see as necessary and important has fallen by the way-side, leading me down a path that all of my primary conditioning labels as "dangerous." Having authentically been infused with faith in and Love for God, however, this alternate route (which is reminiscent of a Sufi of old traveling around with a backpack, saying poems with a big fat calico smile) has accelerated my spiritual growth because my conditioned, pathological, and un-integrated aspects have been drawn into the fore of my awareness, where identification, acceptance, and integration can take place.

Living in a manner which isn't stable in the traditional sense has fostered my ability to experience reality as a bardo realm, a transitory manifestation of forms that are normally clung to in hopes of denying their dissolution. Having dis-identified with the body and mind and adjusted their conditioning to accept the truth of reality, I am constantly in a state of dying, or even death, which paradoxically is Eternal Life.

I knew I was getting somewhere when I was walking down the street and everything became intensified by terror, which led to instantaneous surrender to the Highest, which then led to feelings of absolute Unity, Peace, Understanding, and Freedom. I died on the sidewalk in broad daylight, in plain sight of hundreds of people. Now this is a fairly regular occurrence, but the terror has lessened and the feelings of Unity and Peace have stabilized. Who would have thought that being dead and being alive are almost the same thing? It is all dependent upon recognizing the Truth, the One, the (W)Holy which manifests an infinity of little (w)holies.

Bob also said..."Such distortion may superficially appear "passive" -- as if he has simply overlooked something -- when it us usually quite active, the result of an unconscious "attack on linking," as Bion called it. Such attacks are actually quite ferocious, but since they are unconscious, the person doesn't realize the extent of their rage. Picture a dog violently shaking something in its jaws. It's like that."

Behind the passivity and flaccid weakness of a Krugman is its shadow polarity, a tyrannical grandiosity which is very active in its deconstruction of reality. The Joker as depicted in "The Dark Knight" comes to mind:

(Speaking to Two-Face in the hospital) "Do I really look like a guy with a plan? You know what I am? I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it. You know, I just... do things. The mob has plans, the cops have plans, Gordon's got plans. You know, they're schemers. Schemers trying to control their little worlds. I'm not a schemer. I try to show the schemers how pathetic their attempts to control things really are."

Ultimately, Krugman and the like are schemers, but behind their schemes is an unacknowledged rage about not being in control (infantile omnipotence) and confusion about the nature of existence (which can only be understood in the Foreverness of Light), hence a desire to act in a manner befitting of one the Joker's henchmen.

Behind that calm exterior and Ivy League education is a seething madman. Behind the mind that has a plan to fix everything is total terror and confusion about the nature of being. Behind a leftist's truth is the Lie, which makes their smiles as twisted and deformed as Batman's enemy.

8/10/2009 09:25:00 AM  
Anonymous goddinpotty said...

The all-knowing one, a while back:
Cosmopathology and the Descent of the Left...As we have discussed before, leftism is by definition a perpetual rebellion against these principles -- against the Real. Thus, it is de facto the maninfestation of a spiritual illness, often rooted in a psychological one.

His orotundness, today:
I realize this will sound disingenuous to some, but I'm really not trying to "pathologize" my ideological adversaries.

It doesn't sound disingenuous. It sounds, you'll excuse the expression, pathological, as if your really have no awareness of what you are doing. You don't need to be a licensed psychologist to detect that such radical splitting within one person are a sign of something deeply wrong. I'm starting to feel slightly guilty about provoking you, it's akin to getting entertainment from the old practice of laughing at the inmates in Bedlam.

8/10/2009 09:36:00 AM  
Anonymous Djadja said...

Bob said: it usually has something to do with the failure of reality to comport with infantile fantasy. Naturally this is something with which we all have to deal, and to which we must all reconcile ourselves. We all harbor "traces of omnipotence" resulting from our primary identification with the Great Mother. No matter who you are, irrespective of time or place, this is the land from which all humans have journeyed -- either successfully or not.

This brings to mind Jesus’ comment to Mary at Cana about the lack of wine for the wedding: “Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come” In other translations, his words seem almost harsh. In this vignette we see he has identified with his Father. His independence from his mother, Mary, parallels the break of his human primary identification with the Great Mother.

8/10/2009 09:46:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"Oddly, having a readership is important, even though this is primarily between me and O. I haven't formulated the exact dynamics of it, but there must be some sort of trinitarian aspect to it. In the absence of community, the verticalisthenics might devolve into a kind of binary narcissism..."

Or... maybe a simpler explanation, you don't want to miss out on something along the lines of,

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.",

Using Occam's razor is not only effective, but using 'their' tools is bound to provide the best insultainment value as well.

8/10/2009 10:18:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Goddinpotty:

Again we agree. Leftism is indeed the "maninfestation of a spiritual illness, often rooted in a psychological one." This is not fundamentally a statement about politics, but about my developmental model. I do not believe that man was made to be dependent upon the state. Rather, he was intended to be free. Liberals value freedom and independence; leftists value egalitarianism and dependency. Different developmental models, different politics.

8/10/2009 10:43:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

For the same reason, in my model, a radical secularist would by definition be "spiritually ill," in that the most important part of his being is not functioning -- and pathology is defined as dysfunction. This is why I have always said that if you do not know what man is for, you cannot know the purpose of politics -- or your politics will in all likelihood be at cross purposes with man's purpose, which is what I believe the left to be.

8/10/2009 11:00:00 AM  
Blogger Joan of Argghh! said...

In short, you just lift weights and the muscles will automatically grow without you having to think about them.

Kinda like a tree that bears its fruit in due season. I can't imagine the tree doing anything other than being what it was created to be. It does not stand in the ground and struggle to produce. It flows naturally from the life-giving source to which is remains attached.

8/10/2009 11:06:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

Pre-cisely. You are what you eat, especially spiritually.

8/10/2009 11:09:00 AM  
OpenID kaffepaus said...

Julie said:

"(Other people's) perception is (their) reality. In such a culture, faith and Truth are often an inconvenience"

And I think you also put the finger on why the political correct people are just so... well, political correct.


/Johan

8/10/2009 11:18:00 AM  
Blogger robinstarfish said...

At play on the Path of the Raccoon...

8/10/2009 11:51:00 AM  
Blogger Magnus Itland said...

Quoth Julie:
(Other people's) perception is (their) reality.

The confusion of real reality with consensus reality is actually the normal human condition.

If I can convince enough people that something is true, then it becomes true, says this mindset.

You can notice this, once you somehow fall out of it yourself, when people get together. There is a frantic activity trying to share one's view on certain events or phenomena, as if the speaker is absolutely convinced that reality is affected by the opinion of those who listen to him.

How is that not insane?

For good measure, you can even see people who are alone, how the small muscles of their mouth and their throat work rapidly, the expression on their face often giving away that they are arguing with reality, trying to make it budge. Actually, I know this from experience as well, but it is kind of disturbing when you see it around you. Welcome to the madhouse!

8/10/2009 12:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

Woo hoo, Dr. Sanity is back to diagnosing the left.

8/10/2009 02:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

... it will save Bob the trouble.

8/10/2009 02:40:00 PM  
Anonymous short, sweet n simple said...

"Behind a leftist's truth is the Lie, which makes their smiles as twisted and deformed as Batman's enemy."

Pelosi, Schumer,Hillary, Bill and Barry have smiles that can't quite conceal their essential Darkness.

and yet so many can't see

8/10/2009 02:55:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Thanks, Cuz - Dr. Sanity made the same point I was getting at earlier:

In this, as in so many ways, the left is like a typical shame culture where the appearance of virtue is far more important than actually being viruous.

I'm sure it's no coincidence that most of the people DH works with are also leftists.

8/10/2009 04:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I'm simply operating from a developmental model that has a certain idea of what constitutes a healthy human being. "

A developmental model that you created and interpret which defines certain people as de facto less than fully human for particular opinions they have which are different from yours. When you create a developmental model that specifically defines some as pathological, and then use the application of that model to refer to them as "animals" or "disreputable lowlife" or "infrahuman", it indeed looks disingenuous to then try to distance yourself from it by claiming you're simply following a model.

8/10/2009 04:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

Sounds like you didn't make the cut.

8/10/2009 05:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

In fact, that's the one of the appeals of liberalism. Since it posits no transcendent standard, all animals are equal and no one is infra- or extrahuman. Except for the elite pigs in charge.

8/10/2009 05:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Petey said...

If one can transcend the human state, surely one can sink beneath it.

8/10/2009 05:17:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Julie said "there's a very simple way to get rid of a guilty conscience: go to law school.
I've been pondering it all weekend, because I think there's more than a little truth in that statement."

I've been hashing over similar ground lately.

I think part of the answer, as I think you were getting at, is that Law is a far more philosophical subject, than say, engineering, and so not only are values imbibed through it, but philosophical methods of thinking are learned, and are much more intertwined with the philosophical roots espoused by their professors than would be the case for an engineer.

Just on a surface level review, you'll get massive doses of the likes of Oliver Wendel Holmes and reams of decisions derived from the likes of John Rawls, which will cram you chock full of pragmatism and utilitarianism - and in the case law method, taking consideration of what may be actually Right(ala Natural Law), will deliver you F's in class faster than you could spit.

In law school, they are directly involved in considering and associating philosophical values, with everyday considerations involving justice in general, as well as in cases of considering and debating conflicts - especially economic ones, and then on top of that, they are indoctrinated to "value egalitarianism and dependency", and yet must admit to themselves that they will not only primarily seek out clients who are non-egalitarianistically wealthy and independent, but will wish to become one of them themselves.

What has that got to do to your psyche?

I'd imagine you'd either have to become, in your own eyes, a sell out, or bargain with yourself that you are only appearing to sell out, in order to get to a position where you can 'fight da man' on equal terms (which means selling out)... or refuse that and become a street issue agitator, spinning issues ala jesse jackson, 'confident' that your 'noble' ends justify your dishonest means (which if you are doing what you're doing to do what is Right - means selling out).

Unless you already have a solid moral and philosophical foundation, and fiercely hold to it, the average law student is going to get wrung through the ringer and come out flat, all depth and verticality squished out.

And as you noted, "shame and guilt seem to come not so much from what they've done as from what other people think about what they've done"... where else could it possibly come from?

8/10/2009 05:37:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

aninnymouse said "...A developmental model that you created and interpret which defines certain people as de facto less than fully human for particular opinions they have which are different from yours...."

Which provides the insultaining opportunity to quote Dr. Sanity quoting Ann Coulter:
"You can always tell what liberals** are up to by what they accuse you of."

8/10/2009 05:50:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Yes, read Goldberg's Liberal Fascism for the sordid history of the left's efforts to eliminate the "less than human." There is no question that Hitler was inspired by the American progressive movement in that regard.

8/10/2009 06:07:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Gagdad said "There is no question that Hitler was inspired by the American progressive movement in that regard."

Not only inspired, he actually wrote what can almost be termed a 'fan letter' to American progressives... no time to dig it up now, maybe someone else will beat me to it....

8/10/2009 06:12:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Oh... ok, I'll do the dirty work... but let's make this more fun by trying to use Dem, or Dem friendly sources, shall we?

Here we go; Hitler may have first come upon the anti-semitic "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" thanks to an extended newspaper serialization financed by American Proregressive, Henry Ford,
""I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration," Hitler told a Detroit News reporter two years before becoming the German chancellor in 1933, explaining why he kept a life-size portrait of the American automaker next to his desk.", and Ford "accepted the highest medal that Nazi Germany could bestow on a foreigner, the Grand Cross of the German Eagle. The following month, a senior executive for General Motors, James Mooney, received a similar medal for his "distinguished service to the Reich.""

(At least Ford Motor Co. seems to have learned its lesson, can't say the same for GM)

Or how about eugenics," Ultimately, 60,000 Americans were coercively sterilized — legally and extra-legally. Many never discovered the truth until decades later. Those who actively supported eugenics include America's most progressive figures: Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger and Oliver Wendell Holmes." and also, "...The weaker members had long been eliminated by natural selection. This was set out in texts like The Passing of a Great Race by American eugenicist Madison Grant, which Hitler read while imprisoned in the mid '20s for inciting mob violence. (The German translation was published by Hitler's co-conspirator Julius Lehman; Hitler even wrote Grant a fan letter declaring the book his "Bible.") ..."

And perhaps one last one to neatly tie Chicago's past to it's present, this little gem would not shock Obama in the least,

"At 4am on November 12 1915, a woman named Anna Bollinger gave birth at the German-American Hospital in Chicago. The baby was somewhat deformed and suffered from extreme intestinal and rectal abnormalities, as well as other complications. The delivering physicians awakened Dr Harry Haiselden, the hospital's chief of staff. Haiselden came in at once. He consulted with colleagues. There was great disagreement over whether the child could be saved. But Haiselden decided the baby was too afflicted and fundamentally not worth saving. It would be killed. The method: denial of treatment. Catherine Walsh, probably a friend of Bollinger's, heard the news and sped to the hospital to help. She found the baby, who had been named Allan, alone in a bare room. Walsh pleaded with Haiselden not to kill the baby by withholding treatment. "It was not a monster - that child," Walsh later told an inquest. "It was a beautiful baby. I saw no deformities." Walsh had patted the infant lightly. Allan's eyes were open, and he waved his tiny fists at her. Begging the doctor once more, Walsh tried an appeal to his humanity. "If the poor little darling has one chance in a thousand," she pleaded, "won't you operate to save it?"

Haiselden laughed at Walsh, retorting, "I'm afraid it might get well." He was a skilled and experienced surgeon, trained by the best doctors in Chicago. He was also an ardent eugenicist. Allan Bollinger duly died. An inquest was convened a few days later. Haiselden defiantly declared, "I should have been guilty of a graver crime if I had saved this child's life. My crime would have been keeping in existence one of nature's cruellest blunders." A juror shot back, "What do you mean by that?" Haiselden responded, "Exactly that. I do not think this child would have grown up to be a mental defective. I know it."
"

Ah... the more things change, the more the proregressive stays the same. Nothing new under the Ba'al.

8/10/2009 07:59:00 PM  
Anonymous goddinpotty said...

And then you can read a review by someone who is not a moron. The phrase "excruciatingly dreary nonsense" sort of leaps out.

Here's another, by Dave Neiwart, whose a journalist who knows something about actual fascists.

8/10/2009 11:38:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

goddinpotty; down with the socialist authoritarians.

8/11/2009 12:07:00 AM  
OpenID kaffepaus said...

Nice digging Van. What a horrible story... Sweden started the government funded "Institute of Eugenics" in 1922 by a proposal from the social democrats (non-revolutionary socialists), but got strong support from all parties in the parlament. The institute was held open in it's original form as long as until 1958! Then it was transformed into the still ongoing "Institute of Medicin and Genetics".

Collectivism is collectivism and will always be collectivism...

/Johan

8/11/2009 04:21:00 AM  
Blogger Susannah said...

FYI, Goldberg has responded quite coherently & at length to Neiwert's & others' regurgitated arguments in several posts on the Liberal Fascism blog. Be bold, GIP...post the debate. Be even bolder & read it.

8/11/2009 05:36:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Poor gulpingpotty, ya can almost see him trying to run through the playbook,

"Step 1, attack the messenger 'uh-oh wait though, the messenger's the Wash Post, Free Republic... drat! Now what? Oh! I know! Lets grab a passerby, stuff some straw in his shirt, and attack him! "
,
and then he latches onto some reviews... whose main method of course, is ad hominem upon Goldberg and several of their own silly attempts to misunderstand what he says, freeing them from the painful business of noting the facts, which like what I posted above, are facts.

Sad really.

gulppingpotty, as reading comprehension has never yet been one of your strong suits, note - I wasn't talking about fascists, except to note that they were fans of who I was talking about. Who I was talking about, were, and are, the same people who Hillary Clinton was talking about when she decided to identify her beliefs as being one with good old fashioned American Proregressives.

And for once I don't think she was lying when she said that.

8/11/2009 05:50:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

What's really funny, is you can find the same facts being noted by leftists, except that they use them in attempt to attack capitalism.

They, not surprisingly, do exactly what they accuse Goldberg of doing, they try the guilt by association which they (incorrectly) accuse Goldberg of doing, such as "Look! Hitler was a vegetarian! All vegetarians are NAZIS!!! AHHH!!!!!", except they go about it by saying, "Look! Henry Ford was a businessman! GM is an American business corporation! Several RICH german's supported Hitler! All Capitalists are NAZIS!!! AHHH!!!!!".

The fact is, that many, if not most, of the publicly known big businessmen at the turn of the century were big time proregressives, they very much wanted govt regulations, controls, they believed in and sought the same ideals as the proregressives.

Some of the very worst examples of, or defenders of, capitalism, are or were, American big businessmen - they very much agree with the idea of govt being involved in business, as a tool for reducing competition and as a preferred customer.

Ugh.

8/11/2009 06:00:00 AM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

Wow, the liberal fascist editor of the liberal fascist Guardian doesn't like being called a liberal fascist. Who'da thunk?

8/11/2009 06:37:00 AM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

You have to have read the book to appreciate the depth of the reviewer's intellectual dishonesty. It's like George Galloway reviewing a book on his own anti-Semitism.

But leftism and intellectual honesty are antonyms.

8/11/2009 06:40:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You can always tell what liberals** are up to by what they accuse you of."

Simply claiming projection without any substantiation isn't an answer.

"Sounds like you didn't make the cut."

Based on what? Merely because I can point out a reason why some might perceive Gagdad as disingenuous, something he freely notes is a possible perception?

8/11/2009 06:51:00 AM  
Blogger Susannah said...

"You can always tell what liberals** are up to by what they accuse you of."
Flip on the tv for substantiation. You are aware that objecting to the president's radical proposals is now "un-American"?

8/11/2009 07:17:00 AM  
Blogger NoMo said...

gulpingpotty - You don't by any chance live in Portland, OR, do you?

8/11/2009 07:55:00 AM  
Anonymous goddinpotty said...

I don't think even Jonah Goldberg is dumb enough to try to smear the left by linking it to the anti-union, anti-communist, anti-semitic captain of industry Henry Ford. Oh wait, Hitler himself is a "man of the left", so I guess Ford can be too. Cool, next we will get Genghis Khan, Torquemada, and Rasputin on our team. Go Reds!

8/11/2009 08:17:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

gulpingpotty said "I don't think even Jonah Goldberg is dumb enough to try to smear the left by linking it to the anti-union, anti-communist, anti-semitic captain of industry Henry Ford. Oh wait, Hitler himself is a "man of the left", so I guess Ford can be too."


"man of the left"?! You freakin’ moron, do you have any idea who the first Progressive President of the United States was? Republican Teddy Roosevelt!

It has nothing to do with left or right.

Take off your blinders and read Goldbergs book, that’s probably asking way too much, better yet, look up the footnotes and see if you can find your way to reality through that route.

8/11/2009 08:36:00 AM  
Anonymous goddinpotty said...

Dear Van:
I've skimmed enough of Goldberg's stinky loaf of a book to know that he has a chapter entitled "Hitler: Man of the Left". Kind of hard to miss. Of course I may not have read the part where he says "ha ha, just kidding!". That seems to be a favorite rhetorical trick of his.

I'm afraid I have no idea what Teddy freakin' Roosevelt has to do with it. Was he a Nazi too? I suppose so, since he was a big environmentalist and -- so was Hitler!

8/11/2009 09:31:00 AM  
Anonymous History Buff said...

Yes, Hitler was obviously in favor of a small, limited, and unintrusive state!

8/11/2009 10:00:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

gulpingpotty said ""Hitler: Man of the Left". Kind of hard to miss."

Hard to comprehend such purposive stupidity. Your mind is just all aswirl, isn't it.

Lets step through this:

#1, I wasn't referring to Goldberg or his book, I was referring to proregressives, who are not limited to the left, hence the reference to TR, we could also add John McCain, etc.

Fascism IS on the left, just as is socialism, communism, proregressivism, and leftism. They developed from common sources (Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, etc) Unless you are a complete idiot (which I grant, you might be, but...) that is NOT the same thing as saying that Communism and Socialism are the same - they are of the same genus, but are not the same species.


#2 Authoritarianism is a method of implementing policy, it has little or nothing to do with formulating policy, and so cannot properly used to define a political philosophy.

#3 Economic policy is deeply tied into political philosophy and the recognition (or not) of individual rights, property rights, etc, and so IS appropriate for sorting political philosophies (it's not nearly as good as referring directly to how that political philosophy supports or infringes upon individual rights, property rights, but hey, you go to Rating with the rating system you've got) onto the left or the right.

If you bother to study the development of political philosophy, fascism is clearly on the left, it's economic policy is socialism. If you read Hitler, you'd see that he regarded himself as a socialist innovator.

Fascism became placed on the right as a spinmeister tactic by Stalin. Worked remarkably well too.

Because you and the modern left like to feel all touchy feely and frown on authority, you try to shunt fascism to the right because of its authoritarianism (not to mention bad press), but to do that, and be consistent (I know, leftist and consistent are two words that don't go together, but just to make a point), you'd have to also place people like Castro on the right - unless of course you'd like to delight us all with your explanation of how Castro is anti-authoritarian - not to mention, Stalin - and communism as well.

"...Roosevelt has to do with it. Was he a Nazi too? I suppose so, since he was a big environmentalist and -- so was Hitler!"

Came relatively close to making a point there 'potty! You didn't succeed of course, but you at least got on the board!

Baby steps....

8/11/2009 11:01:00 AM  
Blogger tater said...

Beautiful post Bob.

8/11/2009 11:46:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

And why are they so enraged? Again, we can only speak in generalities, but it usually has something to do with the failure of reality to comport with infantile fantasy."

This also explains why leftists choose to back and promote programs and ideas that have failed repeatedly in the past.

They are at war with reality. And yet, they project their rage onto anyone but themselves, because THIS time all those failed marxist ideas would work if not only for... conservatives, republicans, religion, the religious right, the rich, whites, men, the military, the police, etc...(fill in the blank with a scapegoat, slap on some rage and deny reality...leftism at work).

8/12/2009 06:17:00 AM  
Anonymous goddinpotty said...

Van: sorry to be slow replying, I actually have a life.

Anyway: you are basically trying to denigrate today's progressives because: a) Hitler got some inspiration from Ford's anti-semitic activities, and b) Ford was supposedly a progressive.

Unfortunately, as is clear to anyone who actually tries to understand history for what it is rather than use it a prop for idiotic ideology, Henry Ford's ambiguous ties to the Progressive movement of the early 20th century did nothing to keep him from drifting into a form of right-wing nativism. He opposed Roosevelt and the New Deal, which means there is nothing tying him to any form of progressvism since then.

So, nice try. Try reading a real book rather than Jonah Goldberg.

8/12/2009 05:20:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Hopeless. Take two tidybowls and flush in the mornging.

8/13/2009 05:49:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home