Leftists are not inherently feminized. The brutalities of Stalin and Hitler were hardly feminine. And FDR and JFK didn't pull any punches. But in the Western world today, Leftists seem to have retreated into wimpy values and attitudes Perhaps it is the only "alternative" value system they have left after the undisputable triumph of capitalism in economic matters
Someone once said that men marry women hoping they'll never change, while women marry men hoping to change them. Someone wants to change us, big time. But a big part of manhood is preserving and defending the precious things that were created and handed down to us by our forefathers.
We are about to elect a feminized man whose official policy is to surrender to our enemies, so we have moved well beyond the theoretical to the actual. In the triangulated war between liberals, Islamists, and the left, only one side can win. Our side will lose if we run out of real men because we simply do not create enough of them. We will lose if we allow the new cutural ideal of the feminized adultolescent male to become the ideal. We will lose if we forget that an upright and noble man with the capacity for righteous violence is at the very foundation of civilization.
Liberals sneer at such men, which is to say, men. I found a typical example by a college professor at dailykos, called A Pacifist's Agony. S/h/it writes that "I've always hated the term `war crime,' since it's an insidious tautology. It implies that some wars are not crimes, and some of the atrocities committed during war are excusable by virtue of their context. I believe that if there can be any single concept by which a civilization ought to be defined it's this: there is no context that can justify the intentional killing of a sentient being who does not wish it. Period" (somehow, I'm sure there is a loophole for abortion).
The professor's job is not to educate students but to make them "politically aware," which in practice means to arrest their developmental journey toward adulthood. It is a form of spiritual and intellectual body-snatching; for the boys, it means a fantasized acquisition of manhood, for the girls, contempt for it. Before being indoctrinated, students are "not particularly politically aware," but by semester's end, if all goes well, they will be "different people. They now understand the direct relationship between their own deliberately inculcated ignorance and the crimes that are committed in their name." They will have inverted reality, so that they imagine themselves to be Morally Superior to the primitive and murderous men who protect and defend them.
This is why the left must constantly attack and undermine America, for that is what allows the sense of moral superiority to flourish. But the attack brings with it the unconscious fear of father's retaliation, hence the hysterical fears of murderous retribution for "speaking truth" to Father -- fear of spying, of theocratic takeovers, of Al Gore's world melting. When leftists say that George Bush is the world's greatest terrorist, they mean it, although it goes without saying that they have no insight into the unconscious basis of this hysterical projection of their own fear converted to anger and persecution.
Oddly enough, the professor agrees with me that our civilization is threatened: "Chomsky's right. It's over for America. Not just this war, but the American idea. And right now, the peace I'm enjoying in my living room, every selfish mile I drive to and from my home, the electricity that's powering my computer, and the privilege of education that allows me to articulate these thoughts is bought with the blood and dust of all the Hadithas that have made a moment like this and a person like me possible. And it's more than I can bear."
It's a fascinating thing about truth. One of the things that makes a fellow believe in a deity, really. As every psychoanalytically informed psychologist knows, there is the patient, there is the truth, and there is the truth they would like to deny, which is why they are in your office. Truth has a life of its own, and has a way of insisting its way into the patient's discourse, try as they might to prevent it from doing so.
The truth is true, and doesn't actually require anyone to think it. But this is not so of the lie. The lie is entirely parasitic on a thinker. Furthermore, the lie knows the truth, otherwise it could not lie about it. Pacifism is just such a lie, for it contains the truth to which it is a reaction:
Right now, the peace I'm enjoying in my living room, every selfish mile I drive to and from my home, the electricity that's powering my computer, and the privilege of education that allows me to articulate these thoughts is bought with the blood and dust of men who are far better than I, men who stand ready to do violence against the forces of evil that have made a moment like this and a person like me possible. And it's more than I can bear.Yes, that would require growing up and facing the Truth.
Much more here
The destructive stupidity of the Left again
They only care about sounding good; too bad if they actually do harm
Bad news out today on the unemployment front - a big jump from 5.1 to 5.5%. However, within the numbers are some interesting details. First, the number didn't spike due to a big loss of payroll jobs - those declined only by 49,000 in April. That would be only .0004% in an economy of about 138 million workers.
Instead, the number jumped because of a surge of new people who came into the job market looking for, but not finding work. The overall unemployment number is about 8.5 million, and the increase last month represented about 860,000 new job seekers - only 49,000 of whom had lost a job elsewhere. Further, the unemployment rate for the 16-24 age group was up dramatically compared to other groups. Unemployment in that group rose 2.4%, compared to increasing by only .4% in the group of workers 25 and older. Who does this age group represent? How about high school and college students coming into the job market for the summer.
And what do many such job seekers get paid? Minimum wage -which Congress increased last year from $5.15 to $5.85, and which will increase again next month to $6.55, and then again next year to $7.25. Here's a personal case study in how that works to squeeze workers out of the minimum wage job market:
My parents own an ice cream shop, and rely heavily in its operation on eight 16-20 year olds working part-time schedules of 16-24 hours a week, along with one full-time manager who is assisted by my parents in their free time. Over the course of a 7 day work week, they typically employ the part-time workers for a total of about 340 hours a week.
Raising the minimum wage by .70 increased their straight wage expense by $240 a week, or about $1000 a month. But it had collateral consequences as well, as their worker's comp. and unemployment insurance costs rose in relation to their payroll, as did their payroll tax contributions. The combination of wage increase and the various increases that spin off that wage increase was about $1500 a month. This is against a total wage expense for the part-timers of about $8000 a month.
Now, the ice cream parlor business is somewhat inelastic from a price stand point - people won't continue to pay higher and higher prices for an ice cream cone when the alternative is simply to do without. So, that increase in operating expense could not, in total, be passed on to the customers. Instead, my parents worked a few more hours themselves and trimmed back on the hours they had the part-timers working. When one of the part-timers quit, they didn't hire a replacement for her.
Now, the same thing is going to happen next month - another increase of .70 per hour, totaling about $1500 a month in additional operating expenses is going to kick in. This will come on top of significant increases over the past year in product costs - multiply the increased cost of milk you are paying at the supermarket several times over and you get a feel for the increased cost of buying ice cream on a large scale for a business establishment.
They will raise the prices a little, but not enough to cover the total increase. They will cutback on the hours the part-timers work, and work a few more hours themselves. And if they lose another worker, they probably won't hire a replacement.
My parents are both in their late 60s, and they don't want to work 60 hour weeks at an ice cream parlor they bought on a lark after they retired. But they aren't going to operate it as a money loser either.
When Congress increased the minimum wage, for many many small business operators such as my parents, Congress took the profit from the business right out of their pocket. I'd be surprised if my parents' shop made more than $3,000 or $4,000 month in profit - with them taking nothing in terms of a wage for themselves. If they had not cut-back their part-time work force payroll, the minimum wage hike would have taken every bit of that profit away.
Now they are working more than they want, and for a very modest annual return on their labor and investment. And two fewer teenagers will be employed by them this summer than was the case last year. The other six should have their resumes up to date.
Iran and the Problem of Evil
Ever since World War II, we have been driven by a passionate desire to understand how mass genocide, terror states and global war came about - and how we can prevent them in the future.
Above all, we have sought answers to several basic questions: Why did the West fail to see the coming of the catastrophe? Why were there so few efforts to thwart the fascist tide, and why did virtually all Western leaders, and so many Western intellectuals, treat the fascists as if they were normal political leaders, instead of the virulent revolutionaries they really were? Why did the main designated victims - the Jews - similarly fail to recognize the magnitude of their impending doom? Why was resistance so rare?
Most eventually accepted a twofold "explanation": the uniqueness of the evil, and the lack of historical precedent for it. Italy and Germany were two of the most civilized and cultured nations in the world. It was difficult to appreciate that a great evil had become paramount in the countries that had produced Kant, Beethoven, Dante and Rossini.
How could Western leaders, let alone the victims, be blamed for failing to see something that was almost totally new - systematic mass murder on a vast scale, and a threat to civilization itself? Never before had there been such an organized campaign to destroy an entire "race," and it was therefore almost impossible to see it coming, or even to recognize it as it got under way.
The failure to understand what was happening took a well-known form: a systematic refusal to view our enemies plain. Hitler's rants, whether in "Mein Kampf" or at Nazi Party rallies, were often downplayed as "politics," a way of maintaining popular support. They were rarely taken seriously as solemn promises he fully intended to fulfill. Mussolini's call for the creation of a new Italian Empire, and his later alliance with Hitler, were often downplayed as mere bluster, or even excused on the grounds that, since other European countries had overseas territories, why not Italy?
Some scholars broadened the analysis to include other evil regimes, such as Stalin's Russia, which also systematically murdered millions of people and whose ambitions similarly threatened the West. Just as with fascism, most contemporaries found it nearly impossible to believe that the Gulag Archipelago was what it was. And just as with fascism, we studied it so that the next time we would see evil early enough to prevent it from threatening us again.
By now, there is very little we do not know about such regimes, and such movements. Some of our greatest scholars have described them, analyzed the reasons for their success, and chronicled the wars we fought to defeat them. Our understanding is considerable, as is the honesty and intensity of our desire that such things must be prevented.
Yet they are with us again, and we are acting as we did in the last century. The world is simmering in the familiar rhetoric and actions of movements and regimes - from Hezbollah and al Qaeda to the Iranian Khomeinists and the Saudi Wahhabis - who swear to destroy us and others like us. Like their 20th-century predecessors, they openly proclaim their intentions, and carry them out whenever and wherever they can. Like our own 20th-century predecessors, we rarely take them seriously or act accordingly. More often than not, we downplay the consequences of their words, as if they were some Islamic or Arab version of "politics," intended for internal consumption, and designed to accomplish domestic objectives.
Clearly, the explanations we gave for our failure to act in the last century were wrong. The rise of messianic mass movements is not new, and there is very little we do not know about them. Nor is there any excuse for us to be surprised at the success of evil leaders, even in countries with long histories and great cultural and political accomplishments. We know all about that. So we need to ask the old questions again. Why are we failing to see the mounting power of evil enemies? Why do we treat them as if they were normal political phenomena, as Western leaders do when they embrace negotiations as the best course of action?
No doubt there are many reasons. One is the deep-seated belief that all people are basically the same, and all are basically good. Most human history, above all the history of the last century, points in the opposite direction. But it is unpleasant to accept the fact that many people are evil, and entire cultures, even the finest, can fall prey to evil leaders and march in lockstep to their commands. Much of contemporary Western culture is deeply committed to a belief in the goodness of all mankind; we are reluctant to abandon that reassuring article of faith. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, we prefer to pursue the path of reasonableness, even with enemies whose thoroughly unreasonable fanaticism is manifest.
This is not merely a philosophical issue, for to accept the threat to us means - short of a policy of national suicide - acting against it. As it did in the 20th century, it means war. It means that, temporarily at least, we have to make sacrifices on many fronts: in the comforts of our lives, indeed in lives lost, in the domestic focus of our passions - careers derailed and personal freedoms subjected to unpleasant and even dangerous restrictions - and the diversion of wealth from self-satisfaction to the instruments of power. All of this is painful; even the contemplation of it hurts.
Then there is anti-Semitism. Old Jew-hating texts like "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," now in Farsi and Arabic, are proliferating throughout the Middle East. Calls for the destruction of the Jews appear regularly on Iranian, Egyptian, Saudi and Syrian television and are heard in European and American mosques. There is little if any condemnation from the West, and virtually no action against it, suggesting, at a minimum, a familiar Western indifference to the fate of the Jews.
Finally, there is the nature of our political system. None of the democracies adequately prepared for war before it was unleashed on them in the 1940s. None was prepared for the terror assault of the 21st century. The nature of Western politics makes it very difficult for national leaders - even those rare men and women who see what is happening and want to act - to take timely, prudent measures before war is upon them. Leaders like Winston Churchill are relegated to the opposition until the battle is unavoidable. Franklin Delano Roosevelt had to fight desperately to win Congressional approval for a national military draft a few months before Pearl Harbor.
Then, as now, the initiative lies with the enemies of the West. Even today, when we are engaged on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, there is little apparent recognition that we are under attack by a familiar sort of enemy, and great reluctance to act accordingly. This time, ignorance cannot be claimed as an excuse. If we are defeated, it will be because of failure of will, not lack of understanding. As, indeed, was almost the case with our near-defeat in the 1940s.
When animal rights go wrong
Comment from Australia
THEY oppose kids keeping goldfish. They oppose people riding horses. They even oppose blind people using guide dogs. But who would have thought that some so-called animal rights groups would end up promoting animal cruelty? That is exactly what has happened with the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animal (PETA) protests calling for an immediate ban to mulesing.
It is not the first time this organisation has been on the absurd side of an argument. The reason for mulesing is simple - it prevents the sheep from being killed by flesh-eating maggots. Our merino sheep were developed through selective breeding, some time around 1870 - about the same time the blowfly made it here from South Africa. The folds in the breach of the merino's skin together with the introduction of the blowfly became a lethal combination, creating a new disease: flystrike, where the folds in the skin become infested with maggots and the sheep dies a slow and painful death.
That's why mulesing was first introduced. Removing some of the wool and skin around the breach prevents the sheep being eaten alive. Farmers don't enjoy doing it, but the alternative is far worse.
The American-based organisation PETA knew that Australian industry had agreed to a 2010 phase-out of the practice to provide time to develop alternatives to mulesing. Some of the alternatives being developed have involved clips, sprays and selective breeding. But then earlier this year PETA decided to embark on a campaign which, if successful, will only cause more sheep to die through flystrike.
They called for mulesing to be banned immediately. Then they went to different retailers around the world and tried to talk them into boycotting Australian wool because we had not met our 2010 deadline. That's right. PETA complained that a 2010 deadline had not been met in 2008. Industry is confident it is on track to have alternatives in place for 2010. That allows us to work towards improving animal welfare while still supplying the best quality wool in the world. In the meantime, extremist organisations should drop their attacks on Aussie farmers.
If PETA had its way and wool growers stopped mulesing today, we'd see an immediate rise in the number of sheep dying through flystrike. It's yet another case of extremists harming the cause they claim to support.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.