CITIZEN GRIPE #783

"Grimy jobs that required little education would be replaced with new high tech service jobs requiring university degrees."

ALL THAT DOES IS ELEVATE to necessity a bunch of phony college professors living lavish lifestyles from counterfeit disciplines. Most of them are communists laughing their asses off at the taxes we pay for their so-called service. Very few actually teach: instead they "do research", into such shockingly needful subjects as Native American studies, Black studies, Women studies, Marxism (of course), writing Bowdlerized, fake histories, and let us not forget the all-important studies of the sexual habits of everything that could possibly have sex—really important stuff, that!

None of it is worth a hoot on the open market, but we're supposed to finance their precious "interests" because they are "intellectuals", and you know they are intellectuals because—well—they say so. They hardly ever cease saying so. Phooey!

Any time now we can stop insisting that every living human being go to college. Most jobs require that you show up, be willing to learn, get along with others, and keep your nose clean; you can learn that in kindergarten. Corporations can teach the rest on the job, and you can spend your spare time looking for an honest history text so that you can discover things for yourself, like "there is no free lunch": Real History proves it.

Trying to replace real, productive work with collectivism is what keeps banana republics poor and in the grip of a few politicians and their buddies. That's where we're headed.

Thanks! I needed that.

BUSH THE MARXIST

The following somewhat apt characterization of our current "decider" is from the keyboard of the inimitable Hugh Fitzgerald, a major contributor to the Jihad Watch website.

George Walker Bush is a hallucinator. He talks, he likes the sound his words make, he thinks they must conform to some higher reality, and he has convinced himself they must be true. He's messianic, and also a Marxist, because he believes that economic well-being, or lack of it, explains the behavior of people, and that by improving the lot of Muslims, or "ordinary moms and dads" in the Middle East [and apparently Mexico, insertion mine], we will do away with the "root causes" of all the distempers, and all the craziness, and all the hatred directed at Infidels.

He's still unclear about Islam, about the simplest things about Islam. He asked the Arab students whom he saw in Israel if they attended dances with Jews. The American ambassador, Jones (himself someone with deplorable views on Israel, and also exhibiting a failure to grasp the Islamic roots of the war against Israel—because if he grasped those roots, he could not possibly be such a promoter of further surrenders of territory or territorial control by Israel), explained to Bush that such mixed dances were not exactly possible, and indeed, the very idea of such dances, among Arab boys and girls, also impossible. That Bush did not know this, that he has no real idea of what Islamic societies are like, shines from his every innocent word.

We don't want innocents running us. We want people who may not be nice, may not have such touching faith in "democracy" or any other ideal, for that matter, except the ideal of keeping us, the Infidels, from succumbing to the many-pronged assault of Islam. We can't afford the naive and sentimental lovers of something they think is swell, something they—a bit too enthusiastically and too unthinkingly and too inaccurately—call "democracy."

As I have pointed out many times before, this whole affair of stealthily moving towards the New World Order, a project thrusting us toward a one world government via North American Free Trade Agreement on this side of the Atlantic and the EU with its Eurabian Pact on the other, is Marxist in tone, although the card-carrying Marxists now hate it because, as one of my disgruntled Marxist acquaintances put it blithely in an email to me just yesterday, "it's all a scam set up to keep white people fully able to exploit brown and black people." Actually she was referring to the US Congress. But I think you know from whence I speak.

I am old enough to remember that the push for world domination was not only okay, but a solemn duty of all citizens of the world to recreate the Duma, when the Soviets were pushing for it, or the Red Chinese. But in American hands, empire is ruthlessly evil, oppressive to its core, exploitative, and murderous, every inch a monster, in the mind and mouths of these same apologists for Old Uncle Joe and crotchety Chairman Mao, all the while complaining that we Americans don't do enough to help the Third World.

Oh yes, I even recall those days of yore when tampering with primitive societies was considered off-limits. But in time, the World Bank intercedes, tries to set up real systems that work only to have them fail mainly because of corrupt local policies. Enormous defaulted loans then are forgiven, time after time in location after location, but once again, the Left is soon crawling the streets screaming bloody murder.

What a difficult inheritance we Americans are preparing for our split personality-riddled children! Blind chaos is now the soup of champions guaranteed to cede submission to the murderous hordes that have already declared their intentions that will make cumulative American policy sins melt away faster than a single snowflake dropped suddenly into the cauldron of hell.

BUT ISN'T THE WEST THE BAD GUY?

Author Christopher Hitchens is first slammed by a marginally young peacenik who one presumes doesn't believe that blood should be shed for oil, and then by a well-spoken elderly gentleman who claims to be a Marxist. Hitchens swings back in typical fashion, not missing a beat. Funny stuff in a sad way.



Here, Chris Hitchens mops up spilt milk by telling the elderly gent Marxist where to get off the Hitchens' train.

LA RECONQUISTA ACROSS THE POND

Infidel Marx hardly empathetic to Muslim totalitarianism, nor it with him

The fascination with Islam among Spanish Communists is nothing new. Just a couple of months ago the former Secretary General of the Communist Party of Spain, Santiago Carrillo, stated on a television program that "Islam is a powerful instrument of revolution against Western values as represented by the United States."

Senior Carrillo and all like-minded Marxists are quisling fools (in relation to Marxism and with Islam). Sure, one can dub Islam as anticapitalist, but so what? Most of that oil money is in the hands of a very few, not the many. How would implementing sharia move society forward from capitalism to socialism? It wouldn't. There is nothing about Islam that does away with private property, wage labor or class exploitation. Islam veils class rule with religious illusions that Marx scorned. Mohammedanism is an effort to turn back the historical clock that Marx would have rejected. Islam's ultimate ideal is perfect and total stasis, not progress.

It sounds like the New Left is becoming the Old, Old Right. Get off your duff. Smell the manure. Read the first few pages of the Communist Manifesto and try to picture Marx saying, "and in capitalism's final crisis, the proletarians will rise up and establish Islam."

You'll see how far these Communists have drifted from their roots.

Imagine the great treasures of Europe, two or three generations hence, under the dull blade of a theocratic regime such as the Taliban who routinely blow up ancient statues of the Buddha, one of history's great teachers of peace.

So long Sistine Chapel. Goodbye to The Last Supper. Stonehenge blown to bits. Acropolis razed. Marauders pillaging the Louvre. Keep these images in mind whenever confronting anyone over the ban of Islam in the West.

Not on our watch, say a few. Most of the remaining crowd remain in their fog only vigilent in that ever illusive pursuit of happiness...

A CONFEDERACY FOR CIVILIZATION

"Although there may be substantial, perhaps even profound disagreement, that separates those such as myself who have studied under Mr. Robert Spencer, Mrs. Bat Ye’or, Mr. Steve Emerson, Mr. Daniel Pipes, Mr. Andrew Bostom, etc., from those who have not, such as Mr. John Derbyshire, Mr. Glenn Beck, and Mr. Christopher Hitchens, we must find enough common ground in order to jointly fight this clear and common threat. Does not the Wahabist Sunni find enough common ground with the Shi'ites to join against the common enemy? Did not ultra-capitalist states unite with ultra-Marxist states in order to defeat the common enemy? If such things as this are possible, should we not learn from this ancient military wisdom? Do we not both cherish civilization and freedom? I believe that freedom of conscience alone is enough for us to shoulder arms in the same ranks. We must find a way to overcome our factionalism. This is a battle between barbarism and civilization. If we do ally with one-another, darkness will envelope the earth."

—The Patagonian Plato

Although I have quoted the above paragraph with gusto, I am indeed concerned that this person known as the Patagonian Plato does not realize his name betrays his cause. Philosopher Karl Popper—in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies—makes a formidable case against Plato, tracing the geneaology of totalitarianism back through Lenin, Hegel and Marx straight to Plato and his "Philosopher King" model for the perfect society. Man with absolute power becomes despotic despite best intentions we learn again and again throughout history. Philosophies can condemn or embrace the best or the worst in civilization, and all ports in between. So while we may all pine for the benevolent dictator, Plato was emphatically anti-democratic.

But let's focus closer to home, and the first true American:

"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”

—Thomas Paine, American Crisis

Now read this astonishing analysis on today in America.

THIS INCONVENIENT REALITY

Originally published on June 20, 1999
[by a member of the anachronistic SWORG metabolism]

Well, I've been trying to throw in my lot with some kind of standard group or other for longer than I can remember, for the simple reason that I felt it necessary to organize and coordinate in order to have a benign effect upon a hostile social order. But the trouble with all these groups is simply that they're all fucking wrong. This is not to say that I disagree with situationism (I want to live in situations!), anarchism (I want to be free!) or marxism (we must work together!), but as doctrines they fail to ensure the enlightenment of their own members, let alone society at large, and “therefore” one must induct that as worldviews they are not necessarily wrong, but they are certainly lacking.

My opinion is that they all lack much the same thing—a sufficient comprehension of relationship and its role in the creative process (that is, in its creation of the future). Anarchists simply refuse to acknowledge the dynamic expansive essence of human nature—they fall back onto small fragmented self-contained worlds (two hippies in a tent on an allotment); the situationists fell into the pomo Sargasso of 'going with the flow', everything is permissible and utopia will build itself out of nothing at all ; the marxists developed dialectics—but only to the size of a blastocyst, then stopped. All those libraries of paper, all those pyramids of ponderings on what should be done in Somalia, Timbuktu, Peking when the truth is that their members couldn’t collectively make a chicken casserole out of a casserole and a chicken.

Kubhlai

FACING DOWN IRAN EYE TO EYE

Mark Steyn writes convincingly:

If we’d understood Iran back in 1979, we’d understand better the challenges we face today. Come to that, we might not even be facing them. But, with hindsight, what strikes you about the birth of the Islamic Republic is the near total lack of interest by analysts in that adjective: Islamic. Iran was only the second Islamist state, after Saudi Arabia—and, in selecting as their own qualifying adjective the family name, the House of Saud at least indicated a conventional sense of priorities, as the legions of Saudi princes whoring and gambling in the fleshpots of the West have demonstrated exhaustively. Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue—though, as the Royal Family has belatedly discovered vis-à-vis the Islamists, they’re somewhat overdrawn on that front. The difference in Iran is simple: with the mullahs, there are no London escort agencies on retainer to supply blondes only. When they say “Islamic Republic,” they mean it. And refusing to take their words at face value has bedeviled Western strategists for three decades.

Twenty-seven years ago, because Islam didn’t fit into the old cold war template, analysts mostly discounted it. We looked at the map like that Broadway marquee: West and East, the old double act. As with most of the down-page turf, Iran’s significance lay in which half of the act she’d sign on with. To the Left, the shah was a high-profile example of an unsavory U.S. client propped up on traditional he-may-be-a-sonofabitch-but-he’s-our-sonofabitch grounds: in those heady days SAVAK, his secret police, were a household name among Western progressives, and insofar as they took the stern-faced man in the turban seriously, they assured themselves he was a kind of novelty front for the urbane Paris émigré socialists who accompanied him back to Tehran. To the realpolitik Right, the issue was Soviet containment: the shah may be our sonofabitch, but he’d outlived his usefulness, and a weak Iran could prove too tempting an invitation to Moscow to fulfill the oldest of czarist dreams—a warm-water port, not to mention control of the Straits of Hormuz. Very few of us considered the strategic implications of an Islamist victory on its own terms—the notion that Iran was checking the neither-of-the-above box and that that box would prove a far greater threat to the Freeish World than Communism.

But that was always Iran’s plan. In 1989, with the Warsaw Pact disintegrating before his eyes, poor beleaguered Mikhail Gorbachev received a helpful bit of advice from the cocky young upstart on the block: “I strongly urge that in breaking down the walls of Marxist fantasies you do not fall into the prison of the West and the Great Satan,” Ayatollah Khomeini wrote to Moscow. “I openly announce that the Islamic Republic of Iran, as the greatest and most powerful base of the Islamic world, can easily help fill up the ideological vacuum of your system.”

Today many people in the West don’t take that any more seriously than Gorbachev did. But it’s pretty much come to pass. As Communism retreated, radical Islam seeped into Africa and south Asia and the Balkans. Crazy guys holed up in Philippine jungles and the tri-border region of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay who’d have been “Marxist fantasists” a generation or two back are now Islamists: it’s the ideology du jour. At the point of expiry of the Soviet Union in 1991, the peoples of the central Asian republics were for the most part unaware that Iran had even had an “Islamic revolution”; 15 years on, following the proselytizing of thousands of mullahs dispatched to the region by a specially created Iranian government agency, the Stans’ traditionally moderate and in many cases alcoholically lubricated form of Islam is yielding in all but the most remote areas to a fiercer form imported from the south. As the Pentagon has begun to notice, in Iraq Tehran has been quietly duplicating the strategy that delivered southern Lebanon into its control 20 years ago. The degeneration of Baby Assad’s supposedly “secular” Baathist tyranny into full-blown client status and the replacement of Arafat’s depraved “secular” kleptocrat terrorists by Hamas’s even more depraved Islamist terrorists can also be seen as symptoms of Iranification.

Read more...