Apologists for terror: liberty vs. social equality
I’ve been reading a collection of essays in the book The Survival of Culture by Hilton Kramer and Roger Kimball. In a piece entitled “Burke and Political Liberty,” by Martin Greenberg, the author is discussing the French Revolution and its excesses, and how it was that so many political figures of the time made excuses for the path the Jacobins took.
For example, the relatively moderate Roland defended them by saying that their “vengeance mingled a sort of justice,” and praised them for showing restraint in not murdering everyone they could.
It turns out that Roland’s own wife ended up being the victim of the revolutionaries’ “sort of justice,” at which point he killed himself. But that was later.
Greenberg’s summary of the position of apologists for the Reign of Terror is well worth reading, and is relevant today when thinking of the many Leftists in the West who have become apologists for a different form of terror—the Islamist totalitarian variety:
How did intelligent, cultivated people, then and later, come to excuse these abominations which ordinary simplicity sees for what they are? One answer, of course partial, seems to be the deep shift, anticipated by Rousseau, of moral feeling away from concern for liberty to concern for social justice.
For “social justice” please substitute any of the following: social equality, racial equality (or “justice”), ethnic equality (or “justice”), cultural equality (or “justice”), and economic equality (or “justice”) and you have the motivation behind much of Leftist thought and action. The fact that such equality is a fake “justice,” the fact that it cannot actually be attained by human society, and the fact that all efforts towards achieving it end up profoundly compromising liberty are ignored by its champions, who have as much difficulty now giving up their Utopian dream as they did then.
Perhaps more.
The liberal/Leftist definition of fairness and justice is the same as my four-year-old’s. When he doesn’t get his way, he complains that “it isn’t fair!”
The liberal definition of “justice” is “getting the outcome they desire.” So “economic justice” means redistributing wealth the way they think it should be distributed. “Social justice” means reorganizing society the way they want it. Et cetera.
In all cases, their idea of “justice” is an end state. An outcome. A particular way of how things should be. How to reach that end state is immaterial to them. Twisting the law, lying, misleading the public, editing history, arbitrary authority, confiscation — all those things are perfectly justified if it leads to the “right” outcome.
Murder, too. Hundreds of deaths are okay. Thousands of deaths are okay. Millions of deaths are perfectly okay with the Left if they’re committed in the name of “justice.” At worst they’re considered a regrettable (but excusable) excess of enthusiasm.
The only kind of justice the Left can’t work up much enthusiasm for is true justice. Impartial application of the laws and respect for individual freedom — nah. Not quite their thing.
Because living in a truly just society means they must live in the real world, with people they may not agree with. People living their own lives on their own terms, seeking their own definitions of happiness.
Liberals can’t abide that. Everything has to be their way — and if not, “it isn’t fair!”
Justice is defined by me as a person getting what he deserves, no more and no less. The last two bits are very important, otherwise “what he deserves” becomes what anyone says he deserves with no relative balancing or it becomes like the Left, in which so long as people don’t get less than they deserve, folks think that is good. However, a person getting more than they deserve is just as much an injustice as someone getting less than they deserve. Duke Lacrose team being given less consideration and law abiding behavior than they deserved is just as much an injustice as Revolutionaries and criminals getting the protection of the US military, which they don’t deserve.
Social justice in my world is also called social re-engineer. We shall engineer this group of our fellows into the supermen that we all know that they will be able to become, with our help of course.
Satan is called the Father of Lies I recall. In our world, there are two tiers of evil. The useful idiots also known as the arm and hand that beats people up, and the master class other wise known as the puppet masters, those that pull the strings from behind the scenes armed with the true knowledge of what they are doing and their true ultimate end results. In real life this is translated as Leftist intellectuals, cynical or otherwise, that believe what their Soviet puppet masters once told them about a paradise where everyman is happy. The Soviets didn’t believe their own propaganda, of course, because they were the master class.
Eventually, the useful idiots aka the Left, will see the fruits of their labours if they become successful.
It turns out that Roland’s own wife ended up being the victim of the revolutionaries’ “sort of justice,” at which point he killed himself. But that was later.
And their response and reaction will be very logical. Very predictable in a sense.
So there’s your two tiers of evil. Evil oftentimes needs some kind of cover or else everyone gangs up on it and kills it. It’s like the local corrupt bureacrat in the UN, accusing some honest employment blowing the whistle because they had integrity, of breaking the rules. Like Reid calling Petraeus incompetent. While deception may be the bread and butter of results of degradation and decay in human affairs, the two tiers still apply. There are those that work for entropy that believe they are working for a better, and then there are those that control the former and know better.
In these categories we have two types of true believers. They don’t actually believe in the same thing though, which is why they are different. The first type of true believer believes fervently in the ideology of evil and its off branches, that’s why they favor totalitarian beliefs, actions, leaders, etc. The other type of true believer is the one that actually went astray and started believing in the propaganda of the originating pit of hell. The propaganda that said we are fighting for the good, that we are good. A person that truly believes that they are fighting for the good, and truly believes in the concept of the Good rather than whatever the propaganda says is good, will begin to be disillusioned by the actions of his people.
Thus this is the primary reason why Revolutionaries tend to purge their fellow compatriots right after the Old Regime is gone and blown into dust. They combat each other for ideological purity and identity.
The Left are obviously incompetent revolutionaries because we have witnessed that they started fighting each other over ideological “purity” a long time ago. They were supposed to wait until the Old Guard had died and been destroyed by their Soviet masters, but I guess that plan went awry when the Wall fell.
Loving the recent posts exploring worldviews re: human nature. When I think of “social justice”, this phrase always leaps to the front of my mind:
“equality of outcome.”
The disillusionment eventually comes because if a person truly believes in social justice, then how long can he withstand seeing the slaughter that will inevitably result as the leaders say that everybody but them needs killing?
Eventually, someone close to them that they feel loyal to or believe was a good man, will be caught up and killed because he was in the way of the True Deception of Evil. The true deception of evil is a simple truism that only weaklings require deception to survive and grow stronger, while those that have true strength do not need to lie to succede in life. Israelis are a good example, so is America. Islamic Jihad, an example of weakness and the telling of lies. The true deception is present in the fact that evil makes itself to be strong, capable of ushering in a new age and creating something everyone will like and be happy with. But only strong people, systems, and civilizations can do that, and evil is many things but strong it ain’t.
Eventually reality will dispel the illusion that the servants of entropy worked very hard to cover up. Eventually the decay, the acid streaks, and the various rusting of metals will become apparent and too real to cover up anymore. That is when people begin to understand; understand that they were nothing but tools, and foolish tools at that.
You can only kill so many people, before others notice a sudden network of disappearances. But of course, by then, it will have been too late. The useful idiots will have outlived their usefullness, because a New Age had dawned, one where Social Justice was simply a tool to acquire the power to smash a powerful nation such as the United States without having to deal with the US’s core strength. Or anyone else’s for that matter. Evill will have arisen, and no need will there ever be for more deception, for it has become strong enough to shatter all attempts to resist it.
The strength of the Good has always relied upon the fact that a team of good men and women working together, for the same goal, and trusting in each other will achieve much more than any selfish bunch of murderers and psychos. Social Utopia and re-engineering is designed to re-engineer society so that nobody trusts anybody, thus breaking the foundation of Goodness and civilization.
Thus subversion and intimidation are often favored techniques of thugs, tyrants, dictators, and social re-engineering thralls. For most of human history, this has been enough to fragment human progress and delay it, via execution if not slavery.
For most of history, humanity has been forced to tolerate or live with evil, for human civilization had not yet progressed to the point where they could forgo slavery and corruption. The technology wasn’t there, the political structure wasn’t there, so more time was needed since after all, humanity was pulling itself up on its bootstraps. There was no other Elder Race to help, as the US is helping Iraqis.
We still do to a certain extent, meaning that for all the reach and breadth that American power spreads across this world, it is still not strong enough and still too short for the great majority of humanity. Billions of people live under conditions little better than that of 400 AD. Technology helps somewhat, but not even technology can produce liberty or ensure it. Venezuella has plenty of technology they could buy with their oil and plenty of economic power from their oil pumping industries, yet what do you see there?
The Light has always fought against the Darkness, for we know the end result should they win. Take a look at North Korea’s satellite imagery at night.
Entropy weakens all things and entities in time, making it very similar to the process evil has on a Good civilization or person. The barbarians are always at your door. To elaborate on a point, evil does not become stronger by doing anything Good or virtuous. No, evil becomes stronger by making everybody else weaker. If the Islamic Jihad feels shame that they can’t produce educated folks, then guess what their solution to this problem is.
Righto, their solution is to kill everybody more educated and successful than they. They’ll even take their doctors on for the Jihad, that is how dedicated they are to their solution. Good solution, no?
Indeed it is, for evil. Thus a function of evil is predicated upon whether it or its tools tries to weaken you. Is a specific trying to weaken your self-esteem, conception of yourself, and then providing you temptations to weaken your will? Is that person trying to make you do things by setting you against your wife, your daughter against you, and you against your daughter? Do you find that your beliefs in liberty directly contradicts your daughter’s belief that she needs to live because the only choice available to you is to either give in and stop believing in liberty or watching your daughter die in the hands of a terrorist?
Is the Left trying to tear people down, or are they trying to raise them up and help them? Is the allies of the Left trying to make the nation stronger by acquiring more allies, or it is trying to make America isolated so that when America is besieged, no one will be available to help for the enemies had all taken them while America sat in its fortress doing nothing to help?
This type of deductive is interesting because it allows the detection of evil via a process that is far more accurate than inductive logic, which requires that evil actions actually be conducted before a determination may be made. In the vein that terrorists must first succede in terrorizing before they are determined as terrorists and thus targeted as terrorists. That’s inductive logic, or what is known as science and law. Proof it is called.
But ah, the human mind is superior than that for we have never needed proof that a particular dancing flame is hot, once we knew from experience that another particular dancing flame was hot because we touched it. Do we need to touch every flame to know that it is hot? Or do we use deductive logic to calculate the best of realities from the flimsiest of data.
Wasn’t “Social Justice” the newspaper of Father Coughlin in the 1930’s and 40’s?
My belief in social justice fuels my support for OIF. I also believe in our military as a progressive force.
Neo: The fact that such equality is a fake “justice,” the fact that it cannot actually be attained by human society, and the fact that all efforts towards it achieving it end up profoundly compromising liberty are ignored by its champions, who have as much difficulty now giving up their Utopian dream as they did then.
The question is why this is considered a “utopian dream” in the first place? After all, it’s not just liberty that’s profoundly compromised by this violent pursuit of equality, it’s justice itself — i.e., “social justice” as its commonly used is an oxymoron. If the equality such a perversion of justice aims at is equality of outcome, it’s easy to see that this rides roughshod over individual desert, character, and effort; but even trying to achieve the seemingly uncontroversial equality of opportunity is fraught with injustice, as Vonnegut’s “Harrison Bergeron” illustrates. It’s time we recognized that the pursuit, through the state, of any sort of substantive equality (i.e., anything other than equality before the law) is more than a threat to liberty, important as that is — it’s a threat to justice itself.
Some are more equal than others…
What I think everyone is missing here is the religious aspect of this argument of Justice. If you research Islam, they are all about justice…a hand for a hand or a head for a head, whatever. And peace comes through rigid adhearance to justice even if it means slauter. Christianity is about grace. People don’t always get what they deserve. Christ did not get what he deserved. There was no justice for him. But there was forgiveness and grace. Anyone who can study both Islam and Christianity and not come to the conclusion we are in a religious, idiologocal war is either very naive or is choosing to “see, hear, speak” no evil.
Either one believes “the end justifies the means” or else “the means justifies the end”.
If it’s a “fair game”, and everybody “plays by the rules”, then the end is justified.
OR … it wasn’t a fair game,
OR, somebody wasn’t playing fair. In either case, the unfair game or unfair playing justifies the “social justice” reaction.
Justice is a grey area — what to do about injustices.
But Leftists not only confuse ends and means, they also confuse “justice” and “fairness”. In fact, being born black in America is NOT “fair”, but there’s not really an injustice that any justice system can rectify. Being born to poor Mexicans is even more unfair.
Because injustice DOES often require force to rectify, the Left mislabels as injustice any situation where they want to use gov’t force to change.
[Neo typo alert: “and the fact that all efforts towards it achieving it end up profoundly compromising liberty ” >> “towards achieving it” dropping the first it]
I am not an apologist for terror. For me, war and peace are the most important issues and not social justice. Therefore, i think that the warcriminals: right-wing America should be punished for the murder on 1 million Iraqis. I am in full support of president Putin of Russia.
America has two major problems: the world outside America hates America’s guts and the American economy is very weak due to the huge trade imbalance and high debt of the government. For me that last sign is the punishment the Americans get. The right desert for hideous actions. The world doesn’t have to do a thing. America will implode out of its own to the great laugh of the rest of the world.
The good thing about the notion of social justice is that it can be good for the economy next to the flexibility of the free market of course. The idea of liberty is of some importance, but i don’t understand the meaning of it in the context of the reactions in this article. You claim to be good and the others are evil. While for me, you are evil and Western Europe is good thanks to its moderacy and decency. Americans are crazy, self-destructive warmongers. Europeans try to do things for our own society. I hope the American economy will go down into the ravine soon.
DDB, what an apologist for evil– probably a support of cummunism?
The same Left is the residue of Socialism supporters, especially Communism but, let’s be honest, ALSO “National Socialism”. For all socialists, the end of “social justice” justifies the means of force against … the rich.
Evil envy and hate filled folk are happy to have such intellectual support for their destruction — isn’t it funny so little is said about how the “hungry Palestinians” weren’t hungry enough to use the abandoned Jewish greenhouses to grow food?
sWow, I disagree with the reactions here.
Just what is it do you folks think we’re doing in Iraq? Certainly, we have hard-boiled strategic reasons to succeed in Iraq. However, our mission there is also very much a progressive liberal endeavor, certainly the greatest progressive liberal endeavor of my lifetime. Social justice is a key part of this mission, indeed our entire stance in the War on Terror.
I think the PR/propaganda/information fight has been aversely affected because the conservatives in power have had difficulty selling and defending a progressive liberal mission with progressive liberal language. Meanwhile, the Bush admin’s erstwhile fellow travelers – right-wing realists – fully recognize OIF as a liberal endeavor. They attack and cause more damage to it than the leftist anti-war radicals, while the conservatives of the Bush admin seem bumbling in response.
I don’t just blame Bush, of course. I have been immensely disappointed that so many supposed liberals on the Dems side have been eager to abandon their progressive principles over Iraq, seemingly for crass domestic political gain.
“Western Europe is good thanks to its moderacy and decency.”
…and we’re “hideous” for helping to liberate moderate and decent Western Europe–the Europe that wouldn’t exist without America’s intervention and aid during and following WWII.
You’re welcome.
American right-wingers were supporters of Hitler back then. It was the democrat Roosevelt who helped defeating the Nazis, but only because Japan attacked America. Nowadays, with the christian and islamist fundies having too much power, there seems to be a civil war in the world between two camps of apocalyptical godcrazies commanded by the crusader Bush and the jihadi Bin Laden. I am glad with the liberation of Western Europe by an ancient and lost America.
Tom Grey,
I know many conservative writers, who are very much opposed to the present American foreign policy. The British philosopher John Gray, a strong supporter of Margaret Thatcher in the 80s, sees present America as a country of the followers of Marx, who actually took over the worst of Marx. America is a country of economical determinism, basing politics on fear, corrupting accountancy, all similar to the Soviet Union of the 1930s. America is the worst residue of communism in the present world. Listen to Putin and do what he advices you to do. Putin is definitely right-wing, by the way.
DDB, I fear that BDS has clouded your thinking. Putin -former Communist apparatchik of the KGB is right wing? Who would have thought? Hitler, founder of the National Socialists Workers’ Party, also right wing? Hitler supported by American “right wingers”? (actually, he was supported by American communists until he made the mistake of invading Mother Russia). The American economy on the verge of collapse? (DOW hits 14,000 in the longest postwar economic boom). One million Iraqi dead? (says who, exactly…certainly not the Iraqis. Are you counting the Iraqis killed by Al Qaeda and anti-government insurgents?)The world hates America’s guts? (who, exactly – I was in France recently – the reception couldn’t have been better. India? Indonesia? Panama? Africa?…where, exactly to they hate our guts, other than the usual Leftwing sinkholes? Please do tell, DDB…which alternate universe do you inhabit?
“Please do tell, DDB…which alternate universe do you inhabit?”
Danny, I believe the phrase “crusader Bush” should tell you all you need to know….
worldpublicopinion.orgDanny,
Bush senior was with Bin Laden senior, when 9/11 occured, i won’t call him an islamist. Putin isn’t a communist and Bush senior isn’t an islamist.
Hitler styled himself as right-wing. He was supported by the German conservatives and hunted communists and socialists, so that could make him right-wing. But, i think that reality appears in a manyfold ways. Isn’t it supposed to be conservative to consider many values and many truths and don’t go for an easy left-right distinction like the communists used to do?
The grandfather of president Bush supported the Nazis, but perhaps he was a communist in your definition.
You are right that America can linger on for a while economically, perhaps. Still, something most definitely has to be done against the negative trade balance and the huge debt or else America will go down the drain.
I extrapolated the figures of The Lancet about the Iraqi casualties. That is a very sensitive issue for both left- and right-wingers in Western Europe and around the world. Here, the reputation of America in the coming century is at stake. Turkey still goes through a lot of trouble by not acknowledging the genocide on the Armenians. America will have to bite some dust in order to regain respect which has been lost recently. You can’t hide behind the curtain of the Cold War this time.
Here are the some figures about the world public opinion: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/views_on_countriesregions_bt/326.php?nid=&id=&pnt=326&lb=brglm
“I extrapolated the figures of The Lancet about the Iraqi casualties”
Ah, yes, the incontrovertible Lancet casualty figures…about which there is no dispute…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq
Here some highlights from the article i put in my link:
“Views of US influence are consistently negative in Canada, Latin America and the Middle East. They are mostly negative in Europe, with the exception of Poland, which leans positive, and Hungary, which is divided. Africans in this poll and in others have the most consistently positive views of the US. Asian views are more mixed, but lean negative. Filipinos are very positive and Indians are divided, but all others are clearly negative.
It should be noted that this reaction cannot simply be dismissed as something necessarily engendered by a powerful and rich country. The numbers we are seeing today are the lowest numbers that have ever been recorded.
During the 1990s, views of the US were predominantly positive. Comparing 1999 State Department data and recent Pew data, favorable views of the United States have dropped in the UK from 83 percent to 56 percent, in Germany from 78 percent to 37 percent, in Morocco from 77 percent to 49 percent, in Indonesia from 75 to 30 percent, in France from 62 to 39 percent, from Turkey from 62 to 12 percent and in Spain from 50 to 23 percent. Only Russia has held steady.
SK_Hill_poster2.jpgThese numbers are also not simply a reaction to the US decision to go to war in Iraq. Views of the US did go down sharply after the beginning of the Iraq war in 2003. But now, nearly four years later, they continue to move downward.”
My question is, what do you want to do about it? I expect you all to be Americans. Just curious.
Better to be feared. And, inevitably, that will need to happen. All in good time.
Americans, generally, do not give a flying f__k for the opinions of other countries.
But you do kill people outside your country and you trade with people outside your country. Okay, i’m puzzled. Perhaps i should leave this place. Don’t want to be among the deadmen walking.
I don’t think people fear you worldwide, it simply is dislike, that’s all.
OK, DDB – Just who are these people polled by PEW (a left-leaning organization) in various countries – the average person (who probably has very little opinion one way or another? The intelligentsia? One thing is true, though, far too many people get very negative images from the Left-Wing Media (BBC, CNN, Michael Moore, Al Gore, Hollywood) that remain unchallenged.
Your reliance upon the Lancet study (which, as stumbley points out, was a laughably poor political tract, nothing more) puts you in the category of compliant sheep.
As far as your historical perspective, yes…Hitler did hunt down communists, as they posed a threat to his decidedly Left Wing regime, in that Nazi Germany was a Utopian experiment to remake a new “social”human being and it took control of education and the economy (“means of production”) to create a government-controlled welfare state in the name of the “people”. The battle with communists was over turf, not ideology. Same thugs, different gang colors.
Fundamentally, though, the facts don’t matter – you believe this crap because you want to believe this crap. It fits your world template, wherever that strange little world of yours, wherever you happen to be situated.
Fact is, there is no country in the history of the world – not in Europe, not in Canada…not anywhere…that has done more to help the welfare of countries and individuals.
However, I sense that we are getting pretty tired of it and the U.S. will soon enter a period of isolationism. My wish for you and your bottom feeder friends is that you will soon get exactly what you wish for.
I hope so!
Since when is it left-wing to dislike someone. I bet you hate terrorists. Is everybody opposed to America left-wing? Don’t make me laugh. That is your simple worldview isn’t it? I agree with Gray that you are marxists. The communists in the Soviet Union thought that they were the only ones bringing good to the world and nobody else. I don’t believe in simple absolute left-right thinking.
What i don’t understand is how someone can become like you. So extremely self-centred and self-righteouss that you exclude yourself from all opinions that doesn’t give a total consent and trust in what you are. I must be from another universe indeed.
What is individualist about building up the most expensive army in worldhistory and wreck the economy for it? You owe hundreds of billions of dollars to China alone. The Americans will be the slaves of China, by having to pay back for the bills the government made. Its like living in a banana republic.
Yep.
Right up until the moment the “enlightened” world is being attacked or invaded.
Suddenly everybody loves America. WWI and WWII, what was Europe’s battle cry? “Help us, America! Oh, dear God; PLEASE help us!” Three times in the last century America had to protect and defend Europe from itself. All three times it was Europe who dragged us into their problems. The first time, we said “Lafayette, we are here!” Next time, don’t be surprised if we say “Lafayette, we are here to stay!”
And make no mistake. There will be a “next time”. When “moderate and decent” Europe can’t figure out how to clean up it’s own mess, again. As usual.
And for a “right-winger”, Hitler sure acted like a leftie socialist, didn’t he? His redistribution of wealth from the privileged class(Jews) to the underclass(Aryans). Anti-smoking, vegetarian, anti-church atheist(his ‘diety’ was “nature”). An advocate of State education(madrassa). And “social justice” for Germany(Treaty of Versailles). Yep. A real “conservative” with his “new view of life”(National Socialism). Some “conservative right-winger”.
I’m sure, by your standard, Bella Abzug is “right-wing”, too. Which makes me wonder how “left” you(DDB) have to be to see Hitler to the “right” of you.
So just keep on “disliking America” out there. And when we’re “rightfully, inevitably gone”, I’m sure ol’ “moderate and decent” Europe out there will get along just fine.
So tell me, DDB, what’s the French word for “Dhimmi”?
DDB: I must be from another universe indeed.
Oh no, he’s from this one, more’s the pity. DDB, in fact, is just another dim and comical troll, who can’t tell left from right, and wouldn’t know Marxists from Martians. But, like so many in his belief system, he has a habit of projecting his own fears and anxieties on his enemies — this explains why he’s so obsessed with the notion that America is “disliked”, and thinks it’s some kind of argument against … well, whatever he’s against, if anyone (including himself) can figure that out. Few things, after all, are more disturbing to the collectivized, herd-instincts of the modern day left than the thought that they might not be loved. The poor baby.
the world outside America hates America’s guts
They hate people like you, DDB.
DDB, what an apologist for evil— probably a support of cummunism?
More likely a sleeper agent indoctrinated with self-denial routines, allowing free run of our system yet not of it.
I suppose he supports peace and wants to deal with war, because Putin is peaceful. Interesting claim there.
However, our mission there is also very much a progressive liberal endeavor, certainly the greatest progressive liberal endeavor of my lifetime.-Eric
It is not progressive, it is classical. There’s a difference. Neo’s talking about trans-national progressivism, aka the progression towards maximum entropy where everything ends in red ruin. Stop mixing the subjects here, it makes red herrings.
I don’t just blame Bush, of course. I have been immensely disappointed that so many supposed liberals on the Dems side have been eager to abandon their progressive principles over Iraq,
“abandon” assumes that they had it in the first place. They never did.
What i don’t understand is how someone can become like you.-D
I know exactly how someone can become like you, because I’ve seen the puppet masters that accomplished the deed both through their personal testimony and indirect evidence.
What is individualist about building up the most expensive army in worldhistory and wreck the economy for it?
The inherent stability foundation is this. Even if you gave them the evidence concerning why they are wrong, they wouldn’t know what to do with it. Due to the hidden sleeper cell indoctrination triggers, I believe.
Human beings can be conditioned to respond to certain information or stimuli in varied ways, depending upon the skill of their indoctrinators. In that case, the Soviets had plenty of experience and plenty of conquered populations to practice upon.
Pingback:Blood red meat sizzled on Leftists « Sake White
# Eric Chen Says:
July 19th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
My belief in social justice fuels my support for OIF. I also believe in our military as a progressive force.
In my view, Neo is talking about social justice as an end goal that justifies anything. For American military personnel, social justice is simply the means to an end.
Some short answers.
What is individualist about building up the most expensive army in worldhistory and wreck the economy for it?
Two reasons. The most effective army comes not from expensive technology, but from expensive training and instilling of initiative and good judgment. Secondly, individualism is promoted when the price of the equipment is not limited by expense. Otherwise you run into the Soviet model of valuing the rifle and ammo more than the soldier, having two soldiers run towards fire with only the lead soldier armed. The soldier in the back waits until the first one falls, before picking up the rifle and ammo. That’s a rather inexpensive army don’t you think?
You owe hundreds of billions of dollars to China alone.
It’s called international money trading. Meaning, you make something out of trading 1 dollar for 5 dollars, like Soros did. The US doesn’t owe much of all, China devalues their own currency therefore technically China owes their own people more than we ever did.
The Americans will be the slaves of China, by having to pay back for the bills the government made.
If that happens, then I believe everyone will be happy to know that the US will then call upon the decades long debts, with interest, that Europe owes us. Not including all the military bases and military protection tariffs that have gone unpaid.
It won’t ever be the US paying the bills.
Its like living in a banana republic.
This banana republic can transform into a Death Star. Watch out for that.
Oh ya, I suggest people forget about the Lancet report. That’s an old propaganda project, that should be left buried, even if folks are still suffering from the lingering effects.
Ymarsakar,
My use of “progressive” is accurate, although your amendment of “classical” is accurate as well. It depends on historical context.
I use progressive as it is most strongly associated with the tradition of abolitionists and Reconstruction, Woodrow Wilson, Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, JFK and Lyndon Johnson. In the 1960s, “classic” progressive liberalism (as you indicate) diverged from the liberal movement that has since become known as the “New Left”. Shared, or co-opted, terminology does not discredit original usage.
It’s not a red herring – it’s about knowing one’s liberal roots. America’s liberal roots. OIF is a very progressive liberal mission, arguably the most progressive liberal mission in our history. (Reconstruction? Post-WW2 Japan Occupation?) The Dems’ opposition to OIF amounts to the abandonment of the soul of their party.
I don’t oppose ends justifying the means. It is important to be thoughtful and seek balance, of course, but in any contest where the stakes are as high as war, MacArthur was right – there is no substitute for victory.
Our strategy in the War on Terror, as decided upon by President Bush, is liberal and social justice is a cornerstone of the desired outcome – if it is not the only end, it as an essential end. That end is tasked primarily to the military and there are few professions in this world as ends-oriented as the military. The stakes are too high for soldiers to view their profession any other way. Short of the Powell Doctrine, when faced by a skilled enemy in difficult, protracted conditions, eventually, the argument between means and ends decides victory or defeat, and defeat of our nation at war is deeply personal for soldiers.
“If that happens, then I believe everyone will be happy to know that the US will then call upon the decades long debts, with interest, that Europe owes us. Not including all the military bases and military protection tariffs that have gone unpaid.
It won’t ever be the US paying the bills.”
You bend all arguments to your own will with no attempt to doubt at all in a typical communist fashion. Especially the remark quoted above is of a bizarre lack of a sense of reality.
Europeans dislike America, and i know nobody who thinks that we owe something to America. We will do nothing for you, because we dislike you. The strange thing in my country lately is one right-winger after the other openly expressing their disgust for America in public. The left doesn’t have to do a thing.
Something typically conservative is consequentialism. Everything we do and say has consequences. Meaning, that communists can bully everyone in obeying them, but in the end it is only the result of the actions that count. You can’t change the world to a simple set of dogmas like a real communist. It is important to consider the facts as a good conservative, to consider how people think about you, to consider your options. I pity all Americans who have to suffer for your follies and glad to live here in Europe.
Eric Chen: OIF is a very progressive liberal mission, arguably the most progressive liberal mission in our history.
This is seriously confused, on a whole number of levels.
First, just as “social justice” is in fact usually injustice, so that which is commonly labelled politically “progressive” is in fact as a rule regressive, and even (gasp!) reactionary. Not everything you’ve been taught is true.
Second, there’s a reason the term “neoconservative” has arisen, and has been applied to the invasion and occupation of Iraq — it’s not an extension of good ol’ liberal internationalism, a la Wilson et al. That envisioned a utopian (in the bad sense) project of imposing world order from the top down, through the invention of global structures that quickly turned into feckless international bureaucracies providing cover for the old game of tyrants, dictators, and competing powers. It ended badly the first time it was tried, and has every chance of ending even worse now.
Neoconservatism’s focus on the spread of liberal democracy, on the other hand, is a bottom-up project — and it’s not an end in itself, but rather a means toward the end of a more stable, peaceful and prosperous world through the building of local, national, and regional institutions in which individuals (as opposed to collectives) have both a voice and a stake.
Third, Iraq is not a typical instance even of neoconservative policy in action — it, along with the entire Middle East, is an exceptional case in which violent international extremism was and is being tolerated and fostered by oil-fed tyrannies. Military intervention was intended primarily to put an end to that, and only incidentally to bring democracy of some sort as the best long-term hope for its people.
It is not only the ideals that count, but also the way they are defended.
This opinion of Overgourd: “Americans, generally, do not give a flying f__k for the opinions of other countries.”
It says a lot about the way people in the world percept America. How is it possible to build something up from the bottom worldwide, if you don’t give a flying f_k for the opinions of other countries? It is beter to be isolationist if you have such a low opinion of others.
What is meant by Overgoard, DDB, is that America will look out after its own interests first. This is no different than what Eurabians do, as (for example) when Germans, for examples, sell weapon systems, gas warfare technology and internal espionage technologies to Middle Eastern and African tyrants…even when in violation of UN sanctions (so what’s new?). Never mind what European countries have done and continue to do to Africa, for example. Don’t be so cocksure that you Eurabians are so admired the world over today.
Eurabians like you talk a great game (even if you don’t play a great game)…you talk and talk and talk, but it is Americans that do (think “tsunami”). It is easy for you to despise Americans today because you know that there are no repercussions. However, recognize that Eurabia will soon face one of its most serious existential threats ever. You will need friends. At that point, Putin may be the only “friend” you have left. We Americans will likely be busy with other things. As previously stated, be careful for what you wish for.
I have no idea what you talk about. In the Soviet Union of the 1930s, there were several threats the people had to be afraid of. Fear is a bad adviser, according to a wise traditional expression.
Overgourd was probably just expressing a certain frustration at your juvenile “nobody likes you” sentiments.
You see, DDB, once you get out of school, you’ll find that, while being liked is a nice thing, it’s not the only thing. And while having a decent regard for the opinion of others is a good thing, having a neurotic obsession over their opinions, good or ill, regardless of principle or truth, is a bad thing, and will tend to turn you into the sort of mindless and spineless herd-animal that makes up so much of the contemporary left.
More particularly, once you really begin to think for yourself, you might want to question the “dislike”, not to say hatred, of America that you find in those around you. You might start to see it as saying more about them than it does about this admittedly flawed country — something you’d rather not see, but should. You might even find that it says the same about you, too. And that would be a start.
To build on what Sally said, to love others you must first be able to love yourself. Your disdain for Americans, DDB, says far more about you than it does about America.
Sally, i will not be able to convince billions of people into stopping to dislike America. That is something the Americans will have to do themselves, by proving their worth. I don’t have a clue how the Americans will do that, since the world consists out so many opinions and cultures who in majority seem to dislike America. Probably there are several ways into regaining trust.
My specific disdain has to do with Americans starting a war based on lies, secret CIA-prisons and the overall dislike for what i perceive as American arrogance and overconvidence. It started with the war on Iraq. Just couldn’t believe my eyes that day. It was a watershedmoment for many people around the world, i guess. But, i don’t know. There are so many people, i can’t ask them all.
No DDB, you miss the point (as usual): nobody’s asking you or anyone else to convince even one person to like, or not dislike, America, let alone billions — that’s their problem, not America’s. Just as your “specific disdain”, based as it is on a set of false “perceptions”, and an envious hatred of American achievement, is your problem. Our job is just to do the right thing, and let the chips — lefties, terrorists, sympathizers, sheep, etc. — fall where they may. It’s too bad that, in doing our job, we help save you too, but that’s okay — we don’t expect any thanks.
Don’t worry about us, DDB. We like ourselves just fine. No worries!
I am not envious of the American achievement, i despise it. I am envious for the achievements of other countries. The Scandinavian countries are doing better than my country at the moment, so i hope my country would copy the Scandinavian example. Especially to envy about Scandinavia is the political consensus they have. Right and left doesn’t matter very much over there. Seems perfect to me.
Your attempt to save me is hilarious. Save me from what. Yes i need to be saved. The news need to be saved from bad American policy, which is as awful as the communists back then.
DDB: I am not envious of the American achievement,…
Oh, sure you are. You just affect to “despise” what you can’t have. But you’ve got your herd to keep you warm, DDB — at least until the wolves finally get around to you. As even the Scandinavians are beginning to worry about.
Scandinavians, DDB? Political consensus? You really need to get out more and discover what really is happening in Scandinavia. You might want to begin with a nice holiday in Malmo.
Well, that was an intelligent reply! I recommend a schedule of serious medication and avoiding fictional programs with disturbing agendas. You’ll be much happier. Trust me.
Uh-oh, DDB’s having a temper tantrum! Look out, he’ll break all his toys!
blackfive.netGrim wrote a precision strike piece concerning people like DDB.
This is a special case, as grim almost never eviscerates people, he is always the soul of courtesy and Southern manners.
Get the goods folks
It’s a great time saver when DDB shows up.
Pingback:Vista On Current Events
Good link, YM. However, DDB isn’t American and Grim’s commentary in Blackfive is directed against domestic Copperheads like Yglesias. I place DDB as a very young, wet-behind-the-ears Eurabian for whom “communism” is a very distant memory. However, I am not sure from which specific country/province he/she hails – Germany? Thanks for getting me started as a regular reader of Blackfive.
LMFAO. Good ol’ Sally with her hilarious pseudo-pycho-analysis of the lefties.
Sally – just know – you truly are not intelligent enough, knowledgeable enough to offer any criticisms of left-leaning individuals.
You are the sheep. And it is is consistantly, and easily demonstrated.
You do however, have the advantage of your passionate indocrinationed stupidity along with a remarkable (although fairly typical) gift of deniability
I love right-winger who think they’re smart. The’re the easiest to make fun of…
Iraq is going well, though isn’t it?
It’s the media’s fault that we’re seen to be losing.
” “The truth is if you look concretely on the ground in Iraq, the military situation is better than anyone expected. Better than David Petraeus expected. Better than those of us here at home who supported the surge expected six months ago. … And we’re going to win the war. I think we’re going to win this war if we just don’t lose our nerve here at home.”
He added later to New York-based radio host Brian Lehrer:
I think the media is understating the military progress that has been pretty astounding, I would say as a supporter of the surge. If you look at the documents that were made to argue for it, that say what could be done in six or seven months, Petraeus has done more actually; pretty amazing. I think the most important political progress has been happening on the ground not in the legislature in Baghdad, which is the flipping of the Sunni tribes in Anbar province and the beginning of splitting Shia away from the Iranian- backed extremists. So, I think Petraeus is doing a pretty fantastic job.”
Denial is wonderful isn’t it?
Kristol apparently has been in Iraq the whole time – who’d have thought…
So, Tommy, once we get past your snarky name calling, it is apparent that you possess insider knowledge that even our forces on the ground don’t have. Allow us a moment to remain bedazzled by your brilliance.
# DDB Says:
—————-
What is individualist about building up the most expensive army in worldhistory and wreck the economy for it? You owe hundreds of billions of dollars to China alone.
—————-
I don’t know, the economy seems to be doing quite well. We could cut a lot of local pork and add 20% to the military budget without raising taxes at all.
The real threat to the economy is the specter of double-taxation of dividends to be reinstated by a malicious congress. (When everyone wants growth and nobody wants dividends, the P/E multiple shoots up and you get a bubble–like the Clinton Bubble.)
As far as the foreign debt: it’s been pointed out that all we have to do is keep bringing the deficit down and the interest rates on new debt will drop. And that will increase the present value of existing debt, creating a stronger market for it in case anyone decides to dump their bonds.
Yeah, Sally!
You, like, think you’re so ‘smart’ and stuff, but you’re not.
So, quit trying to cyco-alan-ise me because you’re just, like, stupid and stuff.
Ah, yes, Lee. And when you consider that Tommy-boy and DDB here are pretty representative of what’s left of the left these days, it’s kinda funny and kinda sad, both.
Great guns, Lee…well done! That was great mimicry. You’ve perfectly captured the Liberal/Left angst.
You’re reciting from the Democrat /Kos Kids’ campaign playbook, aren’t you? I’m going to use that line with some of my Left/Lib family members and see how they react at their level.
C’mon…’fess up! What other howlers does it contain, or did DDB already say them?
Eric Chen Says:
[quote]I use progressive as it is most strongly associated with the tradition of abolitionists and Reconstruction, Woodrow Wilson, Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, JFK and Lyndon Johnson. In the 1960s, “classic” progressive liberalism (as you indicate) diverged from the liberal movement that has since become known as the “New Left”. Shared, or co-opted, terminology does not discredit original usage.[/quote]
I can’t say you’re all wrong… but I can that you’re not all right. Early on progressives threw out individualism in favor of collectivism. A little later (FDR’s terms) then they also became associated with Euro leftism and socialism. Around the same period, progressives co-opted the term ‘liberalism’, which before that point had no connection (and I would argue, should have none today as liberal really means libertarian)….
But you are right in that America is a progressive country. Even American conservatives are essentially progressive…. which is why Euro conservatives can’t connect with them and call them things like neocons, Marxists, trots, et cetera… But you go too easy on the actual group that calls themselves progressives.
My uncle just got diagnosed with lung cancer – our health is so important. Thanks for a such an enlightening article.